No evidence of nephites was found.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk5-ynRPfss

Silly Dave, that’s because they never went to Britain. You should know that!

Thanks, Anybody. This should be be printed on signs which should then be set up all over Britain: the first modern Britons were BLACK!

It's amazing that the same people who claim that race doesn't exist are so keen to promote it!

So does this mean Britain (which did not exist as a political entity until thousands of years later), should have open borders, then? Well, no. This guy probably hated the tribe fifty miles down the road, and would have never been to Africa or Asia. The guy also had BLUE eyes. Rarely mention that bit, do they?

https://www.livescience.com/20078-gene-mutation-blond-hair.html

https://owlcation.com/stem/Black-People-with-Blue-Eyes



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2019 06:58AM by anybody.

Jordan, who spoke of race? Being black, white, yellow or (in my case) red is just a matter of skin colour.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's amazing that the same people who claim that
> race doesn't exist are so keen to promote it!

I don't understand your intense preoccupation with race; I suspect you might read it into a Charley Brown cartoon.

One of the key points in that article is that skin color changes really fast. It was historically people's inability to understand that fact that made them confuse skin color, which is a function of a tiny number of changes, with overall genetics. On the basis of that mutability, the paper explicitly says that the new findings show again that race is a scientifically meaningless concept. So you are reading the article, and the information in it, pretty much diametrically wrong.


------------
> So does this mean Britain (which did not exist as
> a political entity until thousands of years
> later), should have open borders, then?

One of the uses of "Britain" is as the name of a territory, and it is employed as such in this article. There is nothing at all about "open borders," so this too is an example of your idees fixes distorting your ability to evaluate information accurately.


-------------------
> Well, no.
> This guy probably hated the tribe fifty miles down
> the road, and would have never been to Africa or
> Asia.

That would be a projection of your values and insecurities onto someone else. Like most ancient peoples, he probably didn't care at all about eye color and skin tone.


--------------
> The guy also had BLUE eyes. Rarely mention
> that bit, do they?

And yet the "blue eyes" was mentioned multiple times in the article. So no, it is not "rare" that "they" mention it. "They" simply recognize that race is an ideological whimsy and nothing more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2019 11:21AM by Lot's Wife.

The material is clearly presented in the press release in such a way so as to pander to modern sentiment. It's how they grab attention, which ensures their operations are funded.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jordan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> ----
> > Well, no.
> > This guy probably hated the tribe fifty miles
> down
> > the road, and would have never been to Africa
> or
> > Asia.
>
> That would be a projection of your values and
> insecurities onto someone else.
Nope, that's a projection of your sentiments and sentimentality upon him.

We are talking about a man who lived long before pack animals and fast ships, with next to no infrastructure. These are all indisputable facts. No one gets anywhere fast in such a world, despite your wishful thinking.

Like most ancient
> peoples, he probably didn't care at all about eye
> color and skin tone.

Now that is your own supposition. Ancient writers talk frequently about the appearance of people from other places and not always flatteringly. The Ethiopians for example derive their name from the ancient Greek for "burnt face" - but heigh ho, they didn't care about such things then, did they?

Cannibalism is a fact among primitive peoples. There is evidence of it from that part of the world. It wasn't some egalitarian paradise.

Man, you are long and theory and short on evidence.


> Ancient writers
> talk frequently about the appearance of people
> from other places and not always flatteringly. The
> Ethiopians for example derive their name from the
> ancient Greek for "burnt face" - but heigh ho,
> they didn't care about such things then, did
> they?

Writers describe the people they write about? Perish the thought!

But writing about someone's appearance isn't really about race, is it. I mean, Egypt had both black and Arab Pharoahs and never thought the difference significant enough to describe in any remaining records. Likewise, Rome employed black Africans in very high positions and allowed prominent ones to become citizens just like Europeans. That indicates the accuracy of what historians say: that race didn't matter to them.


-------------
> Cannibalism is a fact among primitive peoples.
> There is evidence of it from that part of the
> world. It wasn't some egalitarian paradise.

I'm going to put this carefully. NO ONE EVER SAID PRIMITIVE PEOPLES LIVED IN "EGALITARIAN PARADISE." You are again mischaracterizing arguments so you can reply to straw men.

Short on evidence? Where is the evidence Cheddar Man ever visited another continent? In the same place as Laman's sword?

He has been turned into a poster boy for modern political issues, but the Devil is in the detail. If he were here today he would be completely bewildered and bemused by them.

You know, I could quote a few classical writers' negative views on other peoples - but I'm sure doing so would result in yet another post being deleted. The ancient Chinese writers weren't very nice about people of different appearance either.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where is the evidence Cheddar
> Man ever visited another continent?

Why would Cheddar man's travel habits be relevant to our discussion?


--------------
> I could quote a few classical writers'
> negative views on other peoples.

Do "negative views on other peoples" imply the existence of distinct races? Because the Hutus and Tutsis hated each other and the French and Germans hated each other, as did the Serbs and their neighbors; and the Chinese and the Japanese; and the Japanese and the Koreans. Is it your contention that disliking a different people suffices to establish the existence of distinct races?


-----------------
> The ancient Chinese writers weren't very
> nice about people of different appearance either.

So what? Does disliking someone else's appearance make him a different race?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jordan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Where is the evidence Cheddar
> > Man ever visited another continent?
>
> Why would Cheddar man's travel habits be relevant
> to our discussion?

Because he is being used as a stalking horse for modern issues in press coverage, including mass migration. In fact, he's irrelevant to the choices modern people may make.


> --------------

> Do "negative views on other peoples" imply the
> existence of distinct races?

A few minutes ago, Mrs Lot was telling us that Cheddar Man would have had no issues with people from different backgrounds.

We cannot speak for him personally, but we can extrapolate from a) ancient records and b) modern primitive peoples, the attitudes of ancient primitive peoples.

Because the Hutus
> and Tutsis hated each other and the French and
> Germans hated each other, as did the Serbs and
> their neighbors; and the Chinese and the Japanese;
> and the Japanese and the Koreans.

Congratulations, you've just realized human history isn't all peace and love. In fact, you've uncovered a truly universal human condition.

> So what? Does disliking someone else's appearance
> make him a different race?

It means someone has a different appearance, or at least one different enough for the writer to notice.

I think we have finally made some progress.

You define race as "someone has a different appearance, or at least one different enough for the writer to notice."

That may be the most capricious definition of a word I have ever seen. You cannot adduce a single example of a scientist using the word that way.

At least we can put this canard to rest now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2019 07:32PM by Lot's Wife.

You are all over the map on this.

You claim the proposition that race is a meaningless concept is "modern sentiment" yet it is in reality scientific consensus. Sometimes science gets things wrong, but no one can take you seriously until you produce evidence to support your point.

And you don't have evidence. You first asserted that Europeans stem from the combination of HSS and Neanderthals and that Asians stem from HSS plus Denisovans. But when I produced evidence that some Asians and almost all Native Americans have more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans, you had no response.

So what is your definition of "race?" What sources can you offer to substantiate your definition? Because if you can't substantiate your views, you are just another believer who thinks that a testimony is to be found in the bearing of it.

A race is a subdivision of a species. That simple. There is overlap between them, of course. Just as languages share vocabulary and cross-fertilize, so do they.

There is some subjectivity about where these divisions lie, but before we get all het up about that, you might as well realize that the same can be said about species, which are also subjective subdivisions. There is a type of Arctic bird, for example, which are considered to be two distinct species at either end of its range (Iceland/Greenland vs Western Europe) but not across Siberia where it phases from one into the other.

Species are thus subjective to some extent too.

I don't understand why the people who claim to support so called diversity are so keen to deny that there are different varieties of human. I actually like the fact people look different, but I'm supposed to pretend that isn't the case.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A race is a subdivision of a species. That simple.
> There is overlap between them, of course.

What are those races and what are your criteria for defining them? What sources do you use to confirm your criteria?


------------------
> [Species] are also subjective
> subdivisions.

> Species are thus subjective to some extent too.

Can you show me anywhere on this website where anyone has ever denied that?


------------------
> I don't understand why the people who claim to
> support so called diversity are so keen to deny
> that there are different varieties of human.

You are confusing race and diversity which, believe it or not, distinct terms. One can cherish the latter while rejecting the former, which is a failed pseudo-scientific idea that led to some horrific results.


---------------
> I
> actually like the fact people look different, but
> I'm supposed to pretend that isn't the case.

No one cares either way.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jordan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A race is a subdivision of a species. That
> simple.
> > There is overlap between them, of course.
>
> What are those races and what are your criteria
> fo
> ------------------
> > I don't understand why the people who claim to
> > support so called diversity are so keen to deny
> > that there are different varieties of human.
>
> You are confusing race and diversity which,
> believe it or not, distinct terms. One can
> cherish the latter while rejecting the former,
> which is a failed pseudo-scientific idea that led
> to some horrific results.

"Diversity" is a buzzword of the moment, usually used with the intent of pushing whichever hidden agenda the promoter has. Under this newspeak, no group can ever be diverse enough, since there will always be some category to fulfil. It is a perfect prelude to social collapse.

In proper English, diversity is variety. Once one starts saying "we're all the same" or "be the same", that variety is being negated. Well guess what? Everywhere in the world is becoming the same. Most towns in the USA are largely interchangeable, except perhaps their climate and geology. Your thinking actually undermines and negates diversity in the tangible sense.

As for the horrific results, you know what? That was a misinterpretation of evolution coupled with ideas of euthanasia (so called mercy killing for the disabled etc). But you're not pretending evolution didn't happen because of some atrocity. So why pretend we're all the same race for similar reasons.

Did you ever realize it is a good thing there are different races on this planet? It allows a diversity of thought, action and progress, instead of a world stagnating in uniformity and social collapse.

> ---------------
> > I
> > actually like the fact people look different,
> but
> > I'm supposed to pretend that isn't the case.
>
> No one cares either way.

You clearly do. You don't wish people to be different. You clearly wish us to be all the same and to handwave/whitewash our differences away.

Good try.

Above you define race as "someone has a different appearance, or at least one different enough for the writer to notice." You added in your examples the notion that dislike of the other person's (offensive) physical characteristics are usually important in defining that "different appearance."

You don't like the appearance of people from a different country? They comprise an independent race. You think the kids in Shelbyville are homely? They are a different race.

With thinking like that, it's difficult to have a rational discussion. No matter, though, since you've "had" people from many races (people whose looks you disliked), so everything is good.

> With thinking like that, it's difficult to have a
> rational discussion.

As opposed to telling us Cheddar Man held modern-style views similar to your own, in spite of zero evidence to suggest that? That's not rational at all.

> No matter, though, since
> you've "had" people from many races (people whose
> looks you disliked), so everything is good.

Erm, no, that's not what I meant. I'm happy to have relationships with people from other races and have done so in the past. So I wouldn't say I disliked their looks at all.

You see I like variety in humans. I'm not one of these people who pretends not to see it to repress my latent unconscious views on the matter. I celebrate it. When human beings lose races, they shall stagnate.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> As opposed to telling us Cheddar Man held
> modern-style views similar to your own, in spite
> of zero evidence to suggest that? That's not
> rational at all.

I have no idea what Cheddar Man felt or believed. I don't even know if he was made of Cheddar. But I do know that ancient peoples in Egypt, Greece, Rome (including Britain), northern Africa, and China did not have a concept analogous to "race." And I know that archaeological excavations of British sites indicates that societies did not organize along racial lines and that intermixing between unrelated groups (race is not the right word) occurred constantly. So the inference is a good working assumption--one incidentally supported by the article whose nuances you pretty clearly misconstrued, nuances like the lack of racial significance in the man's appearance and the interbreeding of peoples whom you erroneously describe as representing different races.


-------------------
> Erm, no, that's not what I meant. I'm happy to
> have relationships with people from other races
> and have done so in the past. So I wouldn't say I
> disliked their looks at all.

Okay, your definition culled from this thread:

Race
1. People whom the observer sees as physically different from himself,
2. People whom observers like the ancient Greeks and ancient Chinese disparage.

Perhaps you view yourself as a racist in the former sense and not the latter. But you started the debate with examples from the second definition.


---------------
> When human beings lose races, they
> shall stagnate.

How unfortunate, then, that races never existed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2019 12:43PM by Lot's Wife.

I'm in agreement with Lot's Wife on this subject. Well not entirely...

>>You are all over the map on this.

I lean toward an "outer space" explanation myself. Speaking metaphorically, of course...

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I lean toward an "outer space" explanation myself.
> Speaking metaphorically, of course...


LOL!

Nailed it !!!

I see "race" as being about the exterior. Go ahead and have all the races you want. As long as I can breed true in my current interracial situation, I don't mind that you believe us to be of different 'races'

But it makes more sense to have left-handed people be their own race, or that distinct race of people born with no emergent wisdom teeth...

Oh don't worry I have "had" a few races, in a manner of speaking. ;)

I even - shock horror - have close biracial relatives. I respect their difference instead of whitewashing them all away, and we get along fine.

Having traces of DNA doesn't make you a different species.

Of this nonsense:

https://violentmetaphors.com/2014/05/21/nicholas-wade-and-race-building-a-scientific-facade/

>>Do “races” exist as meaningful biological categories? Physical anthropologists and human biologists have been studying race (i.e., blacks vs. whites, or Europeans vs. Asians) for centuries. For most of that time, they subscribed to the perspective that race was a taxonomic category, and they sought to identify the biological characteristics (such as cranial shape or skin color) that characterized and defined these different groups. This perspective assumed that each individual was a member of a single racial category, that the differences between racial categories were biological, and that these categories were predictive of other traits (such as ancestry, temperament, intelligence, or health).

>>But it gradually became clear that this understanding was not scientifically sound. Groupings of people by skin color did not produce the same result as groupings of people by skull shape, nor of blood type. Furthermore, as scientists began to study human variation with the tools of genetics (in the process creating my fields, anthropological genetics and human population genetics), it became apparent that human genetic variation does not divide humans into a few discrete groups. There are virtually no sharp boundaries, either with physical features or with patterns of genetic diversity, that show where one population “ends” and the next “begins”.

>>These observations have led the majority of physical anthropologists, human biologists, and human geneticists in recent decades to conclude that the racial groups we recognize are social categories constructed in a specific cultural and historical setting, even if we consider physical features when categorizing people.

Your vocabulary term is "consensus."

The only way I can rectify it in my mind is that those early humans hitched a ride on any of those spare parts from other planets that God used to piece together our planet. The explanation works for dinosaur fossils, so why not for extra-biblical humans?

/Insert Another Big Cabbie Speech About British Tabloids.

https://www.humanjourney.us/discovering-our-distant-ancestors-section/out-of-africa/

>>In 2016 studies were published by three separate teams of geneticists who collected and examined DNA from 787 people from hundreds of indigenous populations around the globe. They revealed that all non-Africans today trace their ancestry to a single population.

>>Our species tried multiple times to leave Africa as climatic changes made it necessary and possible. A jaw bone recently found in a cave in Israel dates from between 177,000 and 194,000 years ago. People in Papua New Guinea carry a trace of DNA from an earlier wave of Africans who left the continent as long as 140,000 years ago, and then disappeared. One group of H. sapiens, discovered in Israel, left Africa across the area we now know as the Sahara desert at a time when it was fertile. They died out when drought returned to the region, leaving skeletal remains that are between 120,000 and 90,000 years old.

https://leakeyfoundation.org/fossil-jawbone-from-israel-is-the-oldest-modern-human-found-outside-africa/

>>The fossil, an upper left jawbone with most of the teeth attached, comes from Misliya Cave in Israel and dates to 177,000-194,000 years ago. This is considerably older than any other remains from our own species, Homo sapiens, ever discovered outside of Africa, and it coincides with several other recent studies that are changing the view on our evolutionary origins and migration throughout the Old World.

This is incorrect. Humans have ancestry from at least three species other than Homo Sapiens. This has been discussed elsewhere on this forum.

We may all share *a* common ancestry but we also have a few different lines in there. Odd that one minute some people are so keen to celebrate supposed difference and "diversity" one minute and then in the next breath deny it exists!

Wake me when you've got some peer-reviewed material for your specious claims rather than tabloid fare.

I was careful to provide linked references to the claims I forwarded. You've offered nothing comparable. And please don't try to insist the matter was "settled" here. I've been a regular contributor here far longer than you, and "because I said so" might've worked in F&T meetings, but we adhere to higher standards.

I presume the two "species" you're referring to are Neanderthals and Denisovans. The former made a contribution to our genome, but they were not "ancestral" to Homo sapiens because they aren't found in African populations. The latter are probably descended from a Neanderthal population.

There's plenty of peer reviewed material on this matter. There are enough papers on the matter to make up a few symposia.

Also I said, at least THREE species. There appears to be a third one, but it has not been identified from remains but modern geneticn analysis.

We can't just pretend this is not the case. It reminds me of the vegans who say we aren't designed to eat meat, when in fact our ancestors did so for tens of thousands of years. It would be more honest for them to argue the ethics of doing so in the present, than deny the evidence.

That traces of third unknown species, by the way, can be found in the DNA people of recent African origins. That interbreeding did not take place in Eurasia, but in Africa, after some humans had already left.

https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

>>All people today are classified as Homo sapiens. Our species of humans first began to evolve nearly 200,000 years ago in association with technologies not unlike those of the early Neandertals. It is now clear that early Homo sapiens, or modern humans, did not come after the Neandertals but were their contemporaries. However, it is likely that both modern humans and Neandertals descended from Homo heidelbergensis.

>>Compared to the Neandertals and other late archaic humans, modern humans generally have more delicate skeletons. Their skulls are more rounded and their brow ridges generally protrude much less. They rarely have the occipital buns found on the back of Neandertal skulls. They also have relatively high foreheads, smaller faces, and pointed chins.

>>Current data suggest that modern humans evolved from archaic humans primarily in East Africa. A 195,000 year old fossil from the Omo 1 site in Ethiopia shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people, including a rounded skull case and possibly a projecting chin. A 160,000 year old skull from the Herto site in the Middle Awash area of Ethiopia also seems to be at the early stages of this transition. It had the rounded skull case but retained the large brow ridges of archaic humans. Somewhat more advanced transitional forms have been found at Laetoli in Tanzania dating to about 120,000 years ago. By 115,000 years ago, early modern humans had expanded their range to South Africa and into Southwest Asia (Israel) shortly after 100,000 years ago. There is no reliable evidence of modern humans elsewhere in the Old World until 60,000-40,000 years ago, during a short temperate period in the midst of the last ice age.

This information was the reason for my loud horn honking.

And a note to my friend "Soft Machine": The first Britons were "not black," although they were doubtless "darker" than most English people alive today. See "Guns, Germs, and Steel" for a more in-depth exploration of this subject.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2019 07:12PM by SL Cabbie.

You're right, Cabbie. I was just using it as shorthand.

And after you learn what the term "consensus" means, I'll school you on "false analogy."

/remedial schoolteacher voice off

Well aware of what "consensus" means. Science advances when consensus is challenged and changes, not when it stays static. If we had just stuck to consensus, and mot modified it, we'd still be talking in terms of a Flat Earth and Four Elements.

>>Sciences advances when consensus is challenged...

Only if the consensus was wrong in the first place or a higher order of synthesis supercedes it.

(Dofting hat and trotting around the bases)

The phenomenon of "entropy" will hinder the advancement of science...

As you've aptly demonstrated.

Still waiting for those links and citations I keep criticizing you for ignoring.

SLC
Channeling flattopsf's ghost and noting your "Because I said so" flatulence is pretty silly

My advice to you is go back to the LDS Church. You'll find more people agreeing with you there than here, honest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2019 01:37AM by SL Cabbie.

and had African traits -- and then adapted to changing climatic conditions as they migrated to other parts of the world?

https://www.pbs.org/first-peoples/episodes/africa/


BTW, *traits* are not *species.*

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/new-gene-variants-reveal-evolution-human-skin-color

All dogs are wolves. A different type of wolf, but they can still breed with wolves.

And all dogs -- no matter what traits they have -- can all breed with each other.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2019 08:52PM by anybody.

I've dealt with this canard elsewhere. Humans have African roots, but there have been multiple migrations in and out of Africa, and some interbreeding and evolutionary adaptations did not take place in Africa at all. In some cases that ancestry left Africa a long long time ago.

The idea we are all "African" is in fact slightly insulting to actual Africans who live there. It is also insulting to the likes of the people who have lived in Australia for fifty thousand years and to turn around and tell them "You're African, I'm African", because it sounds like you're sayjng they don't belong there, or that they have no more rights than whites or Asians to be there.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The idea we are all "African" is in fact slightly
> insulting to actual Africans who live there.

She never said that.

This is like the Scopes Monkey Trial all over again.

You can't stand the *fact* that your distant ancestors were black Africans and hominids before that and long ago in the distant past they were apes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2019 09:36PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is like the Scopes Monkey Trial all over
> again.
>
> You can't stand the *fact* that your distant
> ancestors were black Africans
> and hominids before
> that and long ago in the distant past they were
> apes.

Yes, I keep saying all the time we're not descended from primitive hominids. (This being the internet, I should flag up the last sentence as being sarcasm.)

We've already been over the African thing many times. Maybe there is something else going on here. We all know white people did some horrific things to Africans in the past few centuries, and so some feel the need to overcompensate for these past atrocities, by claiming we're all the same. The trouble with this is we're not. We should be proud of the fact that humans look different, and have different cultures, instead of a world where everyone looks, acts, and thinks the same (which sadly is beginning to happen).

If you want to help Africans, try trade not aid.

Is there a hierarchy of Races?

I'd like to know where I stand in the rankings. And would I be out of line supposing that your particular race is the best?

There's only one race -- the human race.

There is also no basis at all for racial superiority.

You're telegraphing your biases with your statements.

Not only do I telegraph all my biases, but I drool, too.

Oh, wait, I made no statements! I just asked questions! <Phew>

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's only one race -- the human race.

Thus saith the Book of Clichés, Chapter II, Verse 1.

> There is also no basis at all for racial
> superiority.

Who said there was? You're the guy who wishes to whitewash everyone and say we're all the same. This is actually disrespectful to the differences we do have.

A few questions for you:

When a well preserved skeleton's facial features are reconstructed, does the artist
a) say it is impossible to make it distinctive, because there is only one race - the human race? and that anything else is a social construct as a result of Euro-Colonialism?
b) get on with the job in hand, and provide the face with recognizable features based on what we know about different subgroups of humankind? i.e. by providing an appropriate nose, eyes, lips etc for such a subgroup?

When they come to reconstruct the body do they -
a) say it is a mistake to assume the skeleton's gender, and anything else is patriarchal oppression?
b) use DNA, pelvic structure and the rib cage to determine whether said reconstruction has breasts or not, and male/female attributes?

And BTW, I'm not a guy.

There does come a moment when you wake up way down in that rabbit hole and wonder, "my God, what have I done?"

This discussion is like arguing what physical characteristics Adam and Eve had and where they were gardening...

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This discussion is like arguing what physical
> characteristics Adam and Eve had

Arms, legs, heads and (according to some people) navels.

Oh and one less rib for Adam.

and where they
> were gardening...

Eden apparently.

... Next!

You didn't yet respond to my posted questions, kind sir:

>
> Is there a hierarchy of Races?
>
> I'd like to know where I stand in
> the rankings. And would I be out
> of line supposing that your
> particular race is the best?
>

Thanking you in advance for your kind considerations, I remain you humble serpent, Etward Cetera, but you can call me Et.