All the humans in the world have a more narrow gene pool than all the chimpanzees in Gombe. We went through several vary intense bottlenecks. Biologists agree that not enough variation exists for subspecies designation
-
-
Replying to @Bananaaquamelon @Race__Realist and
On this matter I'm going to trust my own eyes over any counter intuitive "rigorous science" you have to offer me. Call me a naïve realist, but this all that needs to be said, as far as I'm concerned. https://www.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/741500407016071173 …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @arnoldtohtfan @Race__Realist and
Lol. Dogs are a subspecies of wolves. AND dogs are more phenotypically variable than humans but get “breed” not “subspecies” designation. Either you want to talk biology or you want to make stuff up on your own. If the latter then stop trying to use biology to support your views
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Bananaaquamelon @Race__Realist and
Subspecies, breed, race, whatever sounds least offensive to you. Semantic diversions aside, anyone with the temerity to trust their lyin' eyes knows the truth. No amount of jargon or obscurantism can suppress our visceral disgust when confronted with that which is alien to us.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @arnoldtohtfan @Race__Realist and
Science is expressly formulated with systems of measurements so that people to do rely on only “trusting” their senses. Sounds like you are arguing against science and the systemic study of the material world
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bananaaquamelon @Race__Realist and
I take issue with "rigorous science" turning up results that fly in the face of all rational intuition. There's more variation between animals that all look identical, but humans that couldn't look more different are homogenous under a microscope? Sorry, I don't buy it. It reeks.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arnoldtohtfan @Bananaaquamelon and
You seem emotional, i.e., not rational, every time you talk about pomo this, pomo that, and don't use rational logic, everything always goes back to pomos.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Race__Realist @arnoldtohtfan and
I'm pretty sure everything does actually go back to pomos though
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HbdNrx @arnoldtohtfan and
Well he uses it to attack science he doesn't like that comes to conclusions he disagrees with that he 'sees with his own eyes'.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Race__Realist @HbdNrx and
When science comes to irrational conclusions that are incongruent with the realities we experience first hand every day, then I don't trust it, and there is often good reason to suspect the results have been corrupted by relativism, obscurantism, social constructionism, etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Definitely
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.