Man those Bird vs Johnson matchups were great werent they?
Compliance to "diversity" and "affirmative action" cost 4% of GDP each year.
- Thread starter phenomena
- Start date
Man those Bird vs Johnson matchups were great werent they?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutmeg, one is aquired (HIV), one is inherited (sickle cell)
With HIV in (all the world), 85% is the heterosexual people.
I didn't say blacks dopey, I asked/suggested maybe different human races are sub species of the human/homo sapien species
Does every mention of race automatically have to mean dark skin/blacks to you moron? I'm talking about all different races/ethnicity not just blacks.
Still don't see any differences? I do
Actually I said some are better than others in certain respects. Not that they're "better"/worth more or less than other humans. Maybe Bird is on the right hand side of the bell curve?
Thank you for so quickly demonstrating my point.
Q: Aren't the different races of people subspecies of Homo sapien? Just like, for example, the Gray wolf (lupis) and Red wolf (rufus) are subspecies of Canis (canine). And to the people this offends, it shouldn't. Humans are animals after all. All the races.
A: Absolutely not. There are no sub-sepcies of Homo sapiens. All 6 billion of us are a single interbreeding population. Racial differences are notable only for certain phenotypic characteristics (skin color, facial features, etc.) that give the illusion of separate populations. DNA sequencing tells a different story.
In reality, there is just as much genetic variability between any two blacks, any two Caucasians, etc., than there is between two members of different races. For humans, "race" is not a genetically meaningful concept.
BTW, the red wolf and the grey wolf are different species (not sub-species), both belong to the genus Canis.
Comments
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/518781
I guess pilots down saaaaoowwwth don't take biology...
A: Absolutely not. There are no sub-sepcies of Homo sapiens. All 6 billion of us are a single interbreeding population. Racial differences are notable only for certain phenotypic characteristics (skin color, facial features, etc.) that give the illusion of separate populations. DNA sequencing tells a different story.
In reality, there is just as much genetic variability between any two blacks, any two Caucasians, etc., than there is between two members of different races. For humans, "race" is not a genetically meaningful concept.
BTW, the red wolf and the grey wolf are different species (not sub-species), both belong to the genus Canis.
Comments
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/518781
I guess pilots down saaaaoowwwth don't take biology...
Quote from Lucrum:
I didn't say blacks dopey, I asked/suggested maybe different human races are sub species of the human/homo sapien species
Does every mention of race automatically have to mean dark skin/blacks to you moron? I'm talking about all different races/ethnicity not just blacks.
Still don't see any differences? I do
Actually I said some are better than others in certain respects. Not that they're "better"/worth more or less than other humans. Maybe Bird is on the right hand side of the bell curve?
Academia? That's means elitist liberal, right?
U assume trait over state, that is a common error. Exposure is who makes me what I am.
That is where people who assume races have inherently different attributes go wrong.
Care to explain/expound on that a bit more, for us poor dumb southern boys?
Admittedly I do think races have some different attributes. Some of which are superficial and or unimportant others more shall we say consequential. Of course I've been wrong before and am trying to keep an open mind here. Contrary to popular belief.