A lot of truth is offensive and inflammatory The MSM won’t publish comments like mine because they know race matters and will cause social upheaval.
However, want to find out who rules over you, find out who you can’t criticize.
So is a lot of racist rhetoric, such as yours.
1 Like
That doesn’t mean that whatever offensive and inflammatory material you can pull out of 19th century science is “true.” In a similar vein as YEC – you’re not being “persecuted” because you choose to rely on pseudoscience-driven racism.
1 Like
This is why I’m dialoguing with you and purposefully not asking the moderators to shut you down.
Speaking of which, did you have any thoughtful responses of substance interacting with the many other heartfelt comments you provoked on this thread? Or did you plan to just come here and whine about your persecution complex?
If it’s persecution complex-mongering you’re after, perhaps you’d better go to the comment section of MSNBC, or go attack the Resistance on Twitter. That’s not what the Forum is here for, my friend.
4 Likes
It appears that I need to further clarify our discussion policy for this thread. As many of you have repeated, this is an important topic that merits open discussion. However, posts that are intentionally inflammatory, which use the Forum as a billboard rather than a place for discussion, are unhelpful and unproductive.
The topic of race is complex, and often difficult to discuss. If BioLogos didn’t believe it was important to discuss this topic, we wouldn’t be spending a whole month publishing content on the subject.
3 Likes
I don’t remember the Latin terms . . . All dogs a of the canine species but each breed is a different sub-species because they breed true. “Race” is the equivalent of “breed.” It doesn’t bother people that some breeds have a reputation of being smart or good trackers or friendly or dangerous breeds. Does anyone deny these characteristics in dogs are genetic realities?
I’m confused. I thought the topic of conversation was humans. (Or was it “one dog family??”)
Perhaps you have some peer-reviewed research on humans to share that would somehow make your comments relevant to the conversation?
I am pretty sure not every breed is a subspecies. “Canine” is a family-level classification including foxes, wolves, etc, and dogs are a subspecies of gray wolf, as are dingoes. Most breeds are only a hundred or two hundred years old at most. It’s possible Darwin would have called them races but we don’t still use the word that way.
And actually you’ll find plenty of people denying that some breeds are inherently dangerous; it’s all the fault of people raising them wrong because they want the ‘reputation’.
Basically, it’s way easier for temperament to be transmitted by culture than by population genetics.
1 Like
Some people on this list apparently don’t realize that “race” is a genetic characteristic.
I don’t understand your point.
There are lots of genetic characteristics. Not everything that happens in genetics is relevant to every species. If you want to show that “human races are like dog breeds,” you have to demonstrate that, not just state it outright. That’s how science works.
Did you read the article this thread is discussing? No, race is not a genetic characteristic. It is a cultural construct.
2 Likes
Everyone who pays a thousand bucks for a purebred puppy believes that purebred dogs and all living critters breed true.
Because genes can be dominant or recessive, “throw backs” are possible. The general rule that the statistically dominant characteristics breed true.
In humans, “black” is dominant and “white” is very recessive. Isn’t that why black+white=black+white= black? Isn’t that why the Bible teaches “. . . to the third and fourth generation . . . ?”
There are no purebred humans.
5 Likes
I dunno, the Malfoys are pretty close.
4 Likes
If you can’t understand analogies and dominant genes there nothing more to be said.
Nope, that was just so slaveowners could father children with their slaves without having to deal with the embarrassment of actually acknowledging them or supporting them as anything other than slaves. The idea that any child of a slave was born a slave, even if his/her father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were all “white” was a political and social construct, pure and simple, nothing to do with genetics. Even though we got rid of slavery, the idea still persists in our definitions of who is “black.”
4 Likes
This!
With apologies to those who have followed this thread from the beginning, I repeat my earlier comments, which @bill_wald seems to have missed.
2 Likes
If you think human race works like cocker spaniels and German sheherds, there’s nothing more to be said. Human races are social constructs. They don’t represent genetic realities. People from Africa are not more similar to each other than to people from Asia or Europe. There is a huge amount of genetic diversity within populations of the same “race” and a huge amount of similarity between people of different “races.” See this undergrad biology lab for example: Are Africans, Europeans, and Asians Different “Races”? A Guided-Inquiry Lab for Introducing Undergraduate Students to Genetic Diversity and Preparing Them to Study Natural Selection - PMC
6 Likes
I’m glad you repeated it, I thought about looking it back up myself to quote!
Apparently, there was more to be said… but not within Brad’s initial parameters for the discussion. 
I hope BW will try again with a different sort of approach. It’s a worthwhile discussion… if we can get the tone right.
3 Likes