Israel/Gaza

You are clearly a troll derailing a political thread with irrelevant and highly suspect scientific studies on genetics.

Originally posted by Mr Al Saif
This has nothing to do with Israel/Gaza and is disgusting.

You hate the fact that Palestinians, Jews, and Arabs are essentially the same people and Jews/Arabs hate that fact. We got it that you're racist and don't like those comparisons. Cool. Other people prefer a more scientific approach to these discussions.

Originally posted by Mr Al Saif
You are clearly a troll derailing a political thread with irrelevant and highly suspect scientific studies on genetics.

"Member since August 2014."

Oh, hey, Whirly. 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
You hate the fact that Palestinians, Jews, and Arabs are essentially the same people and Jews/Arabs hate that fact. We got it that you're racist and don't like those comparisons. Cool. Other people prefer a more scientific approach to these discussions.

"Member sinec August 2014."

Oh, hey, Whirly. 🙂

I have just had this Whirls thing explained to me by Shakyamuni, I have no idea who this Whirls or as you say Whirly is. I am Al Saif, which means The Sword in Arabic!

I do have a question...

Isn't one of the sources of conflict between Jews and Palestinians that fact that many Palestinians say they are related to the Jews and have a right to the lands just the same as the Jews? I may be culturally devoid of Israel's problem with this, but why is that an issue for Jews to believe such a thing? Why does it have to conflict with their idea of being a "chosen people"? It doesn't seem like it should.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sorry, we, too, are animals.

Deal with it.

No. In fact, I've directly commented on this, priorly, which indicated something significantly different than your question implies of your understanding of my position, so why would you make this incorrect assumption?

I was making a commentary about how biased our labels are when we study humans vs. other animals. We seem to put humans on a pedestal that we really shouldn't. I comment further on this by indicating we should probably be under the Pan genus but we are not. It was a 2-part post.

Yeah, that's definitely not it. You're way off, here.

Go back and read my two part post to Epicurus (I had to take a break and come back and continue posting).

I assume that because a lot of the arguments and sources you mention seem to point to that view. Of human groups being so different as to be separate types all together.

The one you pmed me to show me the study even stated in it how people should be treated differently and we should watch out because with more brown people our nation will become filled with crime. You are a lot smarter and more respectful than them but a lot of the things aid and way of thinking associated with it. Points to less simple thoughts and more "they aren't us and shouldn't be considered it" This isn't simple racial pc bs talking this is how alot of the statements legit look and are almost always followed with

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do have a question...

Isn't one of the sources of conflict between Jews and Palestinians that fact that many Palestinians say they are related to the Jews and have a right to the lands just the same as the Jews? I may be culturally devoid of Israel's problem with this, but why is that an issue for Jews to believe such a thing? Why does it have to conflict with their idea of being a "chosen people"? It doesn't seem like it should.

I have no problem with Jews and Palestinians coming from the same source - Ibrahim

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
I assume that because a lot of the arguments and sources you mention seem to point to that view.

No they do not especially when my very words contradict that conclusion of yours.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
Of human groups being so different as to be separate types all together.

Well, this is so vague that it most certainly is true: anyone who denied that would be a fool. Be more specific in what you mean here so I can properly disagree with it. 🙂

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
The one you pmed me to show me the study even stated in it how people should be treated differently and we should watch out because with more brown people our nation will become filled with crime. You are a lot smarter and more respectful than them but a lot of the things aid and way of thinking associated with it. Points to less simple thoughts and more "they aren't us and shouldn't be considered it" This isn't simple racial pc bs talking this is how alot of the statements legit look and are almost always followed with

Keep in mind that that study I linked you to was not the other study we were discussing in this thread. I take issue, strongly, with that study and I am actually irritated that I cannot find that other study I referenced, in this thread.

But you can definitely Google search for more things like that: it is not a unique study and the conclusions are not unique. You will clearly take issue with any of them. Take those issues up with the authors and researchers, though: not me. I did not conduct the research nor do I agree with some of their conclusions.

Edit - If you would like me to directly quote myself to show you how your conclusions are contradictory to my actual positions, I can do so.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really?

I don't think so. I don't think we are even talking about the same things, at this point.

Let me give you an example:

The T'rung people vs. Northern European people. These are not races (as XYZ tried to boil my point down to...I did not nor do I want to entertain the discussion of race). This is just simply a collection of people that have evolved in specific geography/clime for a period of time and it has resulted in significant physical and behavioral differences (we like to call these behaviors "culture" but just call them "behaviors" in animals...but biologists are starting to drop the "human-elitist" approach and I am seeing animals sometimes referred to with the label of "culture"😉.

To give an example:

Western European vs. The Tibetan-Burman people (T'rung's):

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

Their skulls can generally be identified, anthropologically, and assigned a specific geographic and location. This is the same for Chimps and Bonobos. So if you had a decent anthropologist come across a Western European Skull from the 1500s and a T'rung skull from the 1500s, he or she would far more likely place them into the correct geography and identify the "ethnicity" of the people. This is also true of Bonobos vs. Chimps for particular biologists. In fact, when the arguments over separating out Bonobos and Chimps occurred, they were still some confusion because they looked so similar.

Because the crux of your original claim(that Arabs could possibly be inherently violent due to genetics; and the comparison between different human ethnicities being similar to the comparison between different chimp species) more or less boils down to exactly that.

Originally posted by dadudemon

But it wasn't just the skulls that helped them separate out Bonobos and Chimps. It was also the size of the Chimps vs. the Bonobos. The Bonobos are smaller in height and relative volume (Chimps are thicker). Physiologically, they have less testosterone than the Chimps, too. Besides actually giving birth, there are no breeding limitations between the two groups (if a very large Chimp male impregnates a very small Bonobo female, the female may have difficulty birthing the slightly larger (than other Bonobo babies) hybrid.

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo

How does this compare to our Western European and T'rung peoples? Extremely similar. The T'rung have less testosterone (on average), are shorter in height - much more so than their Western counterparts (and in an even greater contrast than Chimps and Bonobos), have much less mass (both relative mass and absolute mass), and have differentiated skulls shapes. These are all very similar things that separate Chimps from Bonobos but there is a larger size contrast among the humans that I'm comparing.

This all very thoroughly proves the point I was making: they are very good parallels.

Originally posted by dadudemon

The reason Chimps and Bonobos seem to vary less than humans is humans expanded much farther, around the entire freakin' globe, than the two Pan species. So we would expect to see, in a much shorter time (evolution) frame, greater differences within the human species compared to the Pan species.

Not to mention that majority of the differences between geographically different human populations could be attributed in large part to the different social/cultural norms(which too are fast thinning out due to globalization), rather than purely hereditary or physiological differences(a Swedish dude can function perfectly well on a kidney transplanted from some poor rickshaw-driver from East India).

Originally posted by dadudemon

The word lifespan, in that context, does not refer to an individual speciman's lifespan but rather, the chronology that you can find the species in strata. If you need to replace the word "lifespan" with another word for it to be comfortable to read, please do so. But I think you are understood exactly what I meant. If not, let me know, and I can try to better explain that.

Originally posted by dadudemon

This is not true: both Tigons and Ligers have fertility issues. That's what I said the following:

"Notice I said, "fertile offspring." That's because they [Bonobos and Chimps] are so genetically similar that they can easily produce fertile offspring."

Emphasis mine. This was an indirect reference to the fact that both Tigons and Ligers have issues producing fertile offspring.

"Ligers and tigons are hybrids, and as such most of them are sterile, because the parent species (lions and tigers) have different numbers of chromosomes (this means that the hybrid cannot produce functional sex cells). Occasionally, there will be a fertile female liger or tigon, which can be bred back to a male lion or tiger, but there are no fertile male ligers or tigons. Certainly a liger and a tigon could mate, but since the male, at least, would be sterile, there would be no cubs."

http://www.liger.org/could-a-tigon-and-a-liger-mate-and-have-fertile-offspring/

Again, emphasis mine.

Also, that statement about tigers and lions having different chromosome counts is also incorrect, because both cats have a diploid number of 38, and so do ligers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count

Originally posted by dadudemon

I labeled your points to make it easier to discuss them.

1. The genetic differences are very significant. The reason why Bonobos and Chimps easily produce fertile offspring is due to them being extremely similar, genetically. Compare and contrast this with Tigers and Lions. Tigers and Lions diverged from each other quite a long time ago (millions of years). Lions, Leopards, and Jaguar's are more genetically similar to each other than the lion and tiger are.

Yeah, I agree that jaguars and leopards are more similar to lions than tigers are. The fact that lions cubs have rosette markings on their fur similar to what panthers/leopards and jaguars do supports this. Tigers are more closely related to snow leopards, as opposed to the lions, jaguars and leopards.

Originally posted by dadudemon

2. No they are not almost identical. Almost identical would be, say, fraternal twins.

Here is a list of differences between lions and tigers (use the chart to show the similarities vs. the differences):

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Lion_vs_Tiger

At best, we could say that the lion and tiger are similar. They are definitely not "almost identical."

And those are again mostly socialistic/phenotypical differences(which too aren't many). Based on that I could say that jaguars are more closely related to tigers than lions, considering the similar stocky builds, affinity for water, hunting and fighting styles etc.

*continues in next post*

Originally posted by dadudemon

3. Behaviorally, they are very different. These difference are due to the different habitats that they evolved in. Tigers are much less social animals than lions. There is no such thing as a "Tiger Pride." In fact, tigers and lions are perhaps the greatest contrast, out of the big cats, behaviorally.

Similarly there are lions who lead solitary lives called "nomads". They can be either males or females.

The hunting style is clearly similar as both cats rely on the bite-strangulation method, which sometimes can result in the breaking of the neck of their prey. Both have similar bite-forces, and paw strikes. The largest non-obese specimens of both these cats usually range between 550-600 lbs(though Kaziranga tigers and South African lions are estimated to be exceptionally huge).

Heck, there's even an entire youtube series devoted to how a tigress raised a female lion cub as her own, and how said cub(after physically maturing) was able to "communicate" with her surrogate mother when the new litter of cubs were in danger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8leQSCrTHo

Originally posted by dadudemon

This is not the case. While the Chimpanzees are more aggressive and violent, they are very similar, socially, to Bonobos. The differences between the two are what I am focusing on, here. But they still behave very similar to each other:

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo/behav

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee/behav

In fact, some biologists are getting irritated with people focusing on how much they differ when they do not differ in behavior all that much (such as incorrectly assuming bonobos are peaceful when they are, in fact, not so peaceful : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3353342/Bonobos-not-all-peace-and-free-love.html ).

Originally posted by dadudemon

That was me conceding a potential point of contention: the debate around separating out Bonobos and Chimps. The biologists in the 1930s made the correct call by separating them out because we found out (very recently, in fact) that the two groups diverged 1.5-2 mya which is generally a very good rule to follow when separating out groups of closely related animals into "species."

Anyways, while we're at it, I doubt that any study would yield meaningful insight into whether or not Arabs are inherently more violent than Europeans and other ethnicities. In fact, given the violent past of some European peoples(the Spanish Inquisitions, the World Wars, the mass eradication of Natives from Australia and N. America etc), I doubt that Arabs are any more violet than them historically speaking(note: before lil B comes in here, I'd like to point that I am not ignoring the historical plunders and conquests performed by Muslim Arabs either).

Originally posted by Mr Al Saif
Stop comparing people to animals, anyone can see how racist you are being. This is sickening!

Calling our species what we are isn't being racist, it's just being scientifically honest.

Originally posted by queeq
You were saying the Palestinians only CLAIM for land and that Israel is taking it by force.

Besides the Palestinians don't recognise Israel either, recognising the 1948 UN resolution. Both sides do what they blame the other side for doing. The only difference is that Israel has a much bigger and stronger army. But even that doesn't bring a resolution closer. Only further away.

And that is what I am saying: the situation there is completely screwed and both sides are to blame.

Originally posted by Epicurus
But humans are animals. 😬

Calling our species what we are isn't being racist, it's just being scientifically honest.

Originally posted by SamZED
Ugh.. I remember having that discussion with my teacher back in like third grade. She asked everyone whether the humans are animals or not and I said "yes, they are". She then told me that i'm wrong and started coming from religious angle. And because I was little and didn't know any better I didn't call her on her BS. Makes me angry to this day.

That's some pretty good awareness for a third grader.

DDM won this

I'm fairly satisfied with how I've fleshed out my positions so I am not interested in discussing this particular topic, in depth. I could point to the link I gave you that shows Tigers are solitary animals to dispute one of the points you are making about tigers vs. lions.

2) The T'Rung aren't a geographically different human population like Europeans, Arabs or Africans, but rather a tribe of pygmies, so that too is a flawed comparison.

No, the comparison was very apt and they are literally in a different geographic than the other group I compared them to.

But the overall differences between the most major human populations isn't really that great. Or at least if you're referring to purely phenotypical differences as opposed to the genotype.

I agree with both of these sentences.

Also, that statement about tigers and lions having different chromosome counts is also incorrect, because both cats have a diploid number of 38, and so do ligers.

I thought I removed that from my post. I actually did remove it from my post content but I did not remove the quote and reference. My bad.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Ok.

Anyways, while we're at it, I doubt that any study would yield meaningful insight into whether or not Arabs are inherently more violent than Europeans and other ethnicities. In fact, given the violent past of some European peoples(the Spanish Inquisitions, the World Wars, the mass eradication of Natives from Australia and N. America etc), I doubt that Arabs are any more violet than them historically speaking(note: before lil B comes in here, I'd like to point that I am not ignoring the historical plunders and conquests performed by Muslim Arabs either).

The point was not to show a huge difference. Just a significant (statistical use) difference. Arbitrarily, if we say "5% more violent behaviors are observed...", that would be a significant difference. But defining "more violent" would be subjective and seemingly arbitrary AND get you a "racist scientist" label.

Actually they are. A british zoology class did an anatomy test, and upon skinning both cats found few, if any anatomical differences between them. Also to be almost identical you don't need to be fraternal twins.

And those are again mostly socialistic/phenotypical differences(which too aren't many). Based on that I could say that jaguars are more closely related to tigers than lions, considering the similar stocky builds, affinity for water, hunting and fighting styles etc.

The only thing I see in your response is you moving the discussion away from the differences facts I linked to one about your opinion on how identical they are. Since it is obvious we will not agree, I choose to say they are similar and you chose to say they are identical. It is an argument of semantics since your premise is one of comparing Lions and Tigers to Chimpanzees and Bonobos when Chimps and Bons. are more closely related than Lions and Tigers and, therefore, was not as good of a comparison. You originally introduced Lion and Tiger hybrids as a potential topical discussion to my Chimp x Bons. hybrid point. To put it more simply, I feel, based on the facts I've presented, that the Chimp x Bons. comparison I made is much more apt than the Tiger and Lion point you made. I think this is obvious due to the fertliity issues seen with Lion x Tiger hybrids that are not seen with Chimp x Bons. hybrids and this is obvious as to why: tigers and lions have evolved anywhere from 2-3 times longer from each other, compared to Chimps and Bons.

Again, that is strictly speaking not true. Have you ever gone to the Bandhavgarh reserve? I have. I have seen at 6 different instances of a female and her cubs forming undergoing a social lifestyle not dissimilar to lions. There is certainly a name for groups of tiger, not "Pride", but Streak or Ambush. Or as the local wardens of those parks refer to such groups; "extravaganzas".

Similarly there are lions who lead solitary lives called "nomads". They can be either males or females.

The hunting style is clearly similar as both cats rely on the bite-strangulation method, which sometimes can result in the breaking of the neck of their prey. Both have similar bite-forces, and paw strikes. The largest non-obese specimens of both these cats usually range between 550-600 lbs(though Kaziranga tigers and South African lions are estimated to be exceptionally huge).

Heck, there's even an entire youtube series devoted to how a tigress raised a female lion cub as her own, and how said cub(after physically maturing) was able to "communicate" with her surrogate mother when the new litter of cubs were in danger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8leQSCrTHo

Nothing in these words contradict what I said especially if you consider that I wasn't speaking in exactitudes. Pointing to unnatural and rare exceptions does not change my point about tigers being solitary and lions being social animals. I think you know this, already, so I may be wasting your time with this point: you did say "is not strictly true" which I would agree with.

Then why did you bring up the original point of the difference between these 2 species being similar to the differences between Arabs and Europeans? In fact, what exactly are you trying to prove here? I need to get a better grasp of what you're talking about before we continue this discussion.

I think I did a good job of explaining my angle, here, in a previous post. Just showing a significant (statistical sense) difference in behavior is enough. I would posit that the difference in violent behaviors from bonobos to chimps is more varied than various human peoples because they have had a longer time to evolve away from each other (pronouncing the small genetic differences that arose when their species split into two species).

Originally posted by Raisen
DDM won this

Epicurus and I largely agree on almost all points. The differences in our positions is one of degrees.

While he may sit at a neutral 5 on my point, I would sit at a 6 or a 7 (on a 10 point scale).

Basically, I think that there is probably something there, in the genes, that give rise to subtle differences in behavior, on average. Epircurus is not so sure. I don't think the differences are very large. In fact, I think the differences are more subtle than the differences between Bonobos and Chimps, for reasons stated previously.

No one strictly won this discussion as all positions on my point are virtually baseless: there is indirect evidence on both sides of my point and it has not been directly studied with a healthy and virtually unbiased eye.

None of this has anything to do with Gaza. To blow a hole in this "Science" Like everywhere invaded by the mongul hordes the Arabs share the genes of Genghis Khan. A fact to dwell on people with differing racial phenotypes often have more in common at the germ line than members of the same racial phenotype just ask David Suzuki and yes the way you are comparing Arabs to animals is racist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY#t=5613

Why it's bad Science from Dadudeman and why it's racist.