Conquer Club

Juan_Bottom wrote:

mpjh wrote:OK, there are several significantly different haplogroups in Asia, Europe and Africa; all of which descended directly from an African origin. What haplogroup are you calling "black?"

Direct decendants of African origin. Location non-relevant.

Ok, we are all direct decendants of African origin if you go back far enough. How far back do you want to go?

???
Now you're being difficult. This is uncharictoristic of you MPJH...

Untill there is a seperation of the races. As simple as you take it...
Now, you can even seperate further in the way that gypsies are not considered Indian... or... Kykashians are Indian, yet are immune to veniomous Cobras.

Juan_Bottom wrote:???
Now you're being difficult. This is uncharictoristic of you MPJH...

Untill there is a seperation of the races. As simple as you take it...
Now, you can even seperate further in the way that gypsies are not considered Indian... or... Kykashians are Indian, yet are immune to veniomous Cobras.

Honestly, I am not trying to be difficult. If you are talking about genetic differences, which I understand that is the topic to which you want to limit this discussion, then defining distinct races and characteristics based on genetic differences becomes very difficult. There may be more genetic differentiation within a so-called "race" than between such races. Most of what is being discussed above has to do with ethnic and cultural differences which are not genetically based. I know I am demanding a bit more rigor than usual, but race is a sensitive topic and we should be careful.

I saw a genetic map on the web a few months back... wish I still had it.

Just discuss as specifically as you can. Or we can abandon the threade.
I wouldn't worry about racism, anyone trying will be banned.

OK, I will just watch for a while and see where it goes and whether I can make a positive contribution later.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:look, i can't help my self.

Nor can you handle compliments appearantly.

a compliment from you is something that i can do without, you are so confused about everything else that you think and say, you likely meant it as an insult, which, coming from you, was how i took it.

Juan, how do you insert pictures into posts? I have a haplogroup migration map.

mpjh wrote:Juan, how do you insert pictures into posts? I have a haplogroup migration map.

Just put the url of the img between [img]and[/img]

For an example, look at the quote of this.

Beat me to it... = )

Well, Native Americans can't grow facial hair, only people of Irish/Scottish (Celtic?) blood (not all though) have natural red-hair, and a few other things as well.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/science/genetic_ancestry_all_in_one.pdf Here is a haplogroup map showing the migration of all humans from Africa based on DNA evidence.

Ok, bringing this topic back on course: Are there tangable physical differences between the differant "racial" stocks of man? I remember hearing that people of african and mediterranean descent are allergic to a certain medicine. There are indeed visible differences, but what is the signifigance of those differences? What was the stimuli? Are there differences beneath the skin?

But remember, the differences are only within the species. A good example is that of canines; wolves are physically and even genetically different than domesticated dogs, yet they are still, as far as reproduction is conserned, the same. And yet, they are so different from one another. Now, the differences in racial stock for man is not that extreme, but we should be able to measure it.

muy_thaiguy wrote:only people of Irish/Scottish (Celtic?) blood have natural red-hair

...and that's where I started finding this thread interesting.

Woof woof.

Jenos Ridan wrote:Ok, bringing this topic back on course: Are there tangable physical differences between the differant "racial" stocks of man? I remember hearing that people of african and mediterranean descent are allergic to a certain medicine. There are indeed visible differences, but what is the signifigance of those differences? What was the stimuli? Are there differences beneath the skin?

Well lactose-intolerance and alcohol-intolerance are good examples. Nearly 30% or so of Asian people can't handle alcohol at all, they get drunk from one beer. And lactose-tolerance is also mainly seen in western society since we were the only ones to try cows-milk from early on.

There are numerous small differences within every population, it's only logical.

Jenos Ridan wrote:Ok, bringing this topic back on course: Are there tangable physical differences between the differant "racial" stocks of man? I remember hearing that people of african and mediterranean descent are allergic to a certain medicine. There are indeed visible differences, but what is the signifigance of those differences? What was the stimuli? Are there differences beneath the skin?

But remember, the differences are only within the species. A good example is that of canines; wolves are physically and even genetically different than domesticated dogs, yet they are still, as far as reproduction is conserned, the same. And yet, they are so different from one another. Now, the differences in racial stock for man is not that extreme, but we should be able to measure it.

We can measure it. It is called DNA. We can tell the genetic differences between groups of human beings because we all came from one source in Africa and we can evaluate the mutations that have occurred since that origin. Different grouping of mutations from the original define different groups, called haplogroups. We can measure this for the maternal as well as the paternal lines of a person. Some of these genetic differences have been traced to a tendency to get certain diseases, such as Tay Sachs disease.

Jenos Ridan wrote:Ok, bringing this topic back on course: Are there tangable physical differences between the differant "racial" stocks of man? I remember hearing that people of african and mediterranean descent are allergic to a certain medicine. There are indeed visible differences, but what is the signifigance of those differences? What was the stimuli? Are there differences beneath the skin?

But remember, the differences are only within the species. A good example is that of canines; wolves are physically and even genetically different than domesticated dogs, yet they are still, as far as reproduction is conserned, the same. And yet, they are so different from one another. Now, the differences in racial stock for man is not that extreme, but we should be able to measure it.

Of course we can measure it you ninny!

I mean, just look at the cultural and scienific accomplishments of Causasians and Orientals compared to Africans and Redskinned Indians: when left to there own devices, they haven't progressed much beyond throwing spears at wild game.

Yes, the environment and biology worked to bring this into being, but only intellectual laziness keeps them there. Or made them so damn easy for Europeans to conquer.

Ah, no........ I'm pretty sure that you are flaming racism, but I can't let this go unanswered.
It has to do with the culture, and amount of food availible. While Europeans settled in one spot, and started farms... Native Americans kept their families very small, and followed their food sources. Same with Africans. Seems to me that all cultures with one person at the head advanced far more quickly than those around them.
And don't call us Redskins.

What you are talking about now is not race and evolution but ethnic cultural development. There is still much unknown about the development of cultures.

For example, it is known that the cities of central and south America were larger and more advanced than the cities of Europe at one point before the Europeans ventured out to the so-called New World. However, it appears that environmental conditions limited and then caused the essential collapse of the south American cities thus stunting the growth of the associated culture.

Another example is that some hapologroups ventured out of Africa into Europe 20 thousand years before Native American ventured into the North American continent across from Asia. Thus, there was much more time to develop the critical mass of people necessary for the development of large cities and organized agriculture.

mpjh wrote:What you are talking about now is not race and evolution but ethnic cultural development.

Yeah, that's what I ment to say... I beat around the bush to much, aye?

Thor Son of Olaf wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:Ok, bringing this topic back on course: Are there tangable physical differences between the differant "racial" stocks of man? I remember hearing that people of african and mediterranean descent are allergic to a certain medicine. There are indeed visible differences, but what is the signifigance of those differences? What was the stimuli? Are there differences beneath the skin?

But remember, the differences are only within the species. A good example is that of canines; wolves are physically and even genetically different than domesticated dogs, yet they are still, as far as reproduction is conserned, the same. And yet, they are so different from one another. Now, the differences in racial stock for man is not that extreme, but we should be able to measure it.

Of course we can measure it you ninny!

I mean, just look at the cultural and scienific accomplishments of Causasians and Orientals compared to Africans and Redskinned Indians: when left to there own devices, they haven't progressed much beyond throwing spears at wild game.

Yes, the environment and biology worked to bring this into being, but only intellectual laziness keeps them there. Or made them so damn easy for Europeans to conquer.

I was afraid you would follow me here one day. I wish you'd 86 that nazi crap.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:only people of Irish/Scottish (Celtic?) blood have natural red-hair

...and that's where I started finding this thread interesting.

Woof woof.

Then how do you explain Judas Iscariot?

Thor Son of Olaf wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:Ok, bringing this topic back on course: Are there tangable physical differences between the differant "racial" stocks of man? I remember hearing that people of african and mediterranean descent are allergic to a certain medicine. There are indeed visible differences, but what is the signifigance of those differences? What was the stimuli? Are there differences beneath the skin?

But remember, the differences are only within the species. A good example is that of canines; wolves are physically and even genetically different than domesticated dogs, yet they are still, as far as reproduction is conserned, the same. And yet, they are so different from one another. Now, the differences in racial stock for man is not that extreme, but we should be able to measure it.

Of course we can measure it you ninny!

I mean, just look at the cultural and scienific accomplishments of Causasians and Orientals compared to Africans and Redskinned Indians: when left to there own devices, they haven't progressed much beyond throwing spears at wild game.

Yes, the environment and biology worked to bring this into being, but only intellectual laziness keeps them there. Or made them so damn easy for Europeans to conquer.

Lazy armchair racism.

pimpdave wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:only people of Irish/Scottish (Celtic?) blood have natural red-hair

...and that's where I started finding this thread interesting.

Woof woof.

Then how do you explain Judas Iscariot?

What about him?

MeDeFe wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:only people of Irish/Scottish (Celtic?) blood have natural red-hair

...and that's where I started finding this thread interesting.

Woof woof.

Then how do you explain Judas Iscariot?

What about him?

Famous redhead.

not Irish/Scottish

He was only redhead in the movie.