Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    18 May '08 06:28 / 1 edit
    I'm having a real hard time understanding where this word can be applied
    to differing human physiological characteristics.
  2. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    18 May '08 06:43
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    I'm having a real hard time understanding where this word can be applied
    to differing human physiological characteristics.
    Almost everyone has a hard time doing that.

    Most prefer to pretend there is no such thing ... I think it makes life easier that way ...
  3. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    18 May '08 06:54
    Originally posted by flexmore
    Almost everyone has a hard time doing that.

    Most prefer to pretend there is no such thing ... I think it makes life easier that way ...
    hmm yes....I guess the very word implies that there should be some kind of winner.
  4. 18 May '08 09:26
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    I'm having a real hard time understanding where this word can be applied
    to differing human physiological characteristics.
    Speaking as a biologist, race is not a scientific term.

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php

    Species, now... that we can work with...
  5. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    18 May '08 10:44
    Originally posted by Retrovirus
    Speaking as a biologist, race is not a scientific term.

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php

    Species, now... that we can work with...
    Ohhhh you see now that makes sense to me. Maybe you can help
    me clear one more thing up and then I'll be on my way.

    You see I work with computers and I'm still having trouble with this
    analogy.

    example 1

    If I was to write a computer program I might set a variable to do x, y or z.
    The outcome of the variable may tell the program to say turn sound on
    or off, change the interface or even behave in an entirely different way.

    example 2
    I may require the program to act in a very similar way but have to
    rewrite an entire block of code for a very modest change.

    Now if I was to analyse the code between the two examples, I would
    find that in the first example the percentage of similarity between the
    codes would be 99% yet the external change could be upto 100%
    The second example may have code similarity of 85% but the external
    change would be 1%

    Now to my understanding, we have only recently discovered that humans
    are made of a code, very rececntly been able to read that code and
    are still decades away from deciphering that code.

    So my question is this.

    How has this mr Alan R. Templeton been able to understand the
    consequences of a 15% difference in code between groups of people?
  6. 18 May '08 11:25
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck


    How has this mr Alan R. Templeton been able to understand the
    consequences of a 15% difference in code between groups of people?
    The difference between two humans are in no way even close to 15% !
    I mean, the difference between a human and a chimpanzee is less then 1.5% .

    What he wrote that from the already small differences between humans, only 15% can be related to "racial differences".
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    18 May '08 12:23
    Originally posted by Retrovirus
    The difference between two humans are in no way even close to 15% !
    I mean, the difference between a human and a chimpanzee is less then 1.5% .

    What he wrote that from the already small differences between humans, only 15% can be related to "racial differences".
    And that 15% would be a temporary thing considering all the cross-breeding of 'races'. If a blue black african marries a blue eyed blonde, the resultant skin color is something between the two so these characteristics are ephermial in the big picture. Race is in the mind of the beholder.
  8. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    18 May '08 13:00 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Retrovirus
    The difference between two humans are in no way even close to 15% !
    I mean, the difference between a human and a chimpanzee is less then 1.5% .

    What he wrote that from the already small differences between humans, only 15% can be related to "racial differences".
    Is that all? Wow, so only tiny changes in genetic makeup are
    required to produce considerable results?
    Some might argue that dolphins are more akin to humans with their
    cognitive abilities.
    Do you have any statistics on the difference in DNA between humans
    and dolphins?
  9. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    18 May '08 13:05 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    And that 15% would be a temporary thing considering all the cross-breeding of 'races'. If a blue black african marries a blue eyed blonde, the resultant skin color is something between the two so these characteristics are ephermial in the big picture. Race is in the mind of the beholder.
    Interesting, so what word would you recommend using in place
    of 'race' to describe differing characteristics amongst geographically isolated groups?
  10. 18 May '08 17:55
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    Is that all? Wow, so only tiny changes in genetic makeup are
    required to produce considerable results?
    Some might argue that dolphins are more akin to humans with their
    cognitive abilities.
    Do you have any statistics on the difference in DNA between humans
    and dolphins?
    We haven't truly assessed the dolphin's cognitive capabilities.

    Anyway, I don't now what's the genetic difference between us a dolphins, but if it's lower than the one between us and chimps, I'll dig up my old beret and eat it.
  11. 18 May '08 18:01
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    Interesting, so what word would you recommend using in place
    of 'race' to describe differing characteristics amongst geographically isolated groups?
    Out of the top of my head:

    Geography based allelic differences.



    God, I suck at naming stuff.
  12. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    18 May '08 19:18
    Originally posted by Retrovirus
    We haven't truly assessed the dolphin's cognitive capabilities.

    Anyway, I don't now what's the genetic difference between us a dolphins, but if it's lower than the one between us and chimps, I'll dig up my old beret and eat it.
    In terms of language receptive competencies, Herman and his associates have shown dolphins capable of:

    * 1. successfully processing the semantic and syntactic features of a command system,
    * 2. learning different syntactic rules,
    * 3. understanding novel sentences,
    * 4. object labeling,
    * 5. reporting,
    * 6. independence of sensory modalities in learning elaborate commands demonstrating linguistic comprehension.

    http://www.whales.org.au/published/levasseur/levass2b.html
  13. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    18 May '08 19:22
    Originally posted by Retrovirus
    Out of the top of my head:

    Geography based allelic differences.



    God, I suck at naming stuff.
    Geography based allelic differences....catchy.
  14. 18 May '08 20:14
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    Geography based allelic differences....catchy.
    We can call it GBAD ! (Pronounced "gee bad" of course)
  15. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    18 May '08 20:23
    Originally posted by Retrovirus
    We can call it GBAD ! (Pronounced "gee bad" of course)
    Brilliant, I'll write the OED and get them to change it immediately!