John Creasy wrote:No it's mumbo jumbo.
No, it's not, it's the truth. All humans who are not physically disabled are capable of successfully reproducing with all other human beings of the opposite gender who are sexually mature and who are also not physically disabled. That's one species, that's one race. Looking at the color of someone's skin, and using that as a basis for claiming there is a separate race is the very quintessence of 19th century racism. It does not surprise me in the least to see you touting such nonsense. In fact, the entire panoply of "races"--whites, blacks, or caucasians, negroids--that's the mumbo jumbo. There is not a shred of a scientific basis for such artificial divisions of the human race.
Quote: Political correctness at it's finest.
I am not motivated by political rectitude, rather, i'm motivated by a desire to accurately describe the world in which i live. Which, for example, is why i am motivated to describe your posts as racist. Here's a wonderful example:
Quote:Race, sub-species, whatever you want to call it, it's real.
What's real? Your inability to recognize that all humans are members of one species, one "race," to wit,
homo sapiens sapiens? This is racism at its finest--and your use of a term such as "subspecies" is very revealing about your attitude.
Quote:Of all people, an evolutionist like yourself should know that races have differences.
There is no such thing as an evolutionist. A theory of evolution is not an ideology, it is an expression of the scientific method. It is a description of a mechanism which accounts for the species diversity evident on this planet. As an explanation it is superior to any other explanation which has been advanced. It is certainly preferrable to the racist point of view you have consistently expressed in this thread. What differences do you allege which are anything but superficial? All koi are carp, regardless of what colors appear on their skin, regardless of the patterns which appear on their skin--they can all successfully breed with other koi. That's another racist contention on your part. I defy you to describe a "difference" in the "races" which is anything more than a superficial matter of appearence. There are "white" people who are blond, some who are brunette, some who are red heads. Does that mean they are representative members of a subspecies? You dig your hole deeper every time you open your mouth.
Quote:Why are people so afraid of the notion of race???
Why do narrow minded and condemnatory people always allege fear on the part of those who justifiably criticize their exclusionary views.
Quote:It doesn't mean one race is superior.
Quote:
It certainly doesn't--you have not succeeded in demonstrating that more than one race exists. This is mere tautology.
Quote:Don't dogs have different breeds?
Dogs, of course, are genetically identical from one "breed" to another. Careful selective breeding has been carried out to select for different traits deemed "desirable." Do you propose that this should, or has, been done with humans? As i've noted already, you dig a deeper hole with every post, and brand yourself more surely to be a racist.
Is it difficult to eat and walk around when you always have one or the other of your feet in your mouth?