hotshoe wrote:Well, all that would prove is that they are as undiscriminating as most humans

The pack of mutant black squirrels that are giving Britain's grey population a taste of their own medicine

cursuswalker wrote:

hotshoe wrote:Well, all that would prove is that they are as undiscriminating as most humans

And now female Grey squirrels are proving that once you've had black you don't go back:

The pack of mutant black squirrels that are giving Britain's grey population a taste of their own medicine

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... icine.html

cursuswalker wrote:

hotshoe wrote:Well, all that would prove is that they are as undiscriminating as most humans

And now female Grey squirrels are proving that once you've had black you don't go back:

The pack of mutant black squirrels that are giving Britain's grey population a taste of their own medicine

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... icine.html

The Article wrote:Scientists say the testosterone-charged black is fitter, faster and more fiercely competitive than both reds or greys.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0o0bqlGJF

cursuswalker wrote:

pinkharrier wrote:Circles again. You have a problem with race in squirrels?

Do grey and red squirrels fuck?

Witticism wrote:

cursuswalker wrote:

pinkharrier wrote:Circles again. You have a problem with race in squirrels?

Do grey and red squirrels fuck?

This is a trick question ... right

Witticism wrote:

pinkharrier wrote:To expect one side to provide evidence that goes, perhaps, beyond current knowledge and wisdom is unreasonable

Yes, yes , I know ... it was silly of Newton to hide his alchemy result from the Royal Society. He should of just said to them, "I'm Sir Isaac Newton and my opinion on the potential for Lead to be turned into Gold is correct and beyond current knowledge and wisdom ... even though I have no evidence to back that arse-ertion up, I am correct!"

pinkharrier wrote:and reminds of the world's attitude to Kepler when he suggested that two bodies in space would be attracted to one another by virtue of their mass. This was long before Newton, let alone Einstein.

The problem with your analogy here, is that gravity exists, race doesn't.

Is there any onus on the "no race" side to provide the same quality of evidence to back up their POV?

No.

Delvo wrote:

Is there any onus on the "no race" side to provide the same quality of evidence to back up their POV?

No.

Can you even see your words? Have you truly no clue what that declaration looks like?

And yes, please go ahead and "answer" with another round of mindless childish insult-images. That'll work really well at distracting everybody from your complete lack of a rational, honest, or factually supported response or point of any kind.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Scientific evidence - so no, the Guinness BoR won't do. If you think that sprinters of W African heritage are biologically more likely to be superior athletes compared to those elsewhere, then cite the studies that provide evidence of some biological mechanism that makes them better sprinters. If you have no evidence, then either don't make the claim (as this is the science forum, not the opinion forum), or make a more reasonable claim such as "Based on uncontrolled data, like historical records from Olympic events, I believe that there is a biological difference in abilities of different populations". Remember that evidence =/= proof, so you don't need to "prove" that there is a difference, you just have to present empirical evidence that there is reason to think there is one.

This is the same standard that all claims in this subforum are held to.

hotshoe wrote:That race is not real is the null hypothesis, as the null hypothesis always is: "we have observed what we think are an interesting group of data. Our hypothesis is that these are caused by xyz (which we define as such and such). The null hypothesis is that the data are not caused by xyz."

Failure to support the positive hypothesis with statistically-significant evidence is sufficient reason to reject it.

hotshoe wrote:Can't prove a negative.

hotshoe wrote:the null hypothesis always is: "we have observed what we think are an interesting group of data. Our hypothesis is that these are caused by xyz (which we define as such and such). The null hypothesis is that the data are not caused by xyz."

hotshoe wrote:Can't prove a negative.

So, no.

That race is not real is the null hypothesis, as the null hypothesis always is: "we have observed what we think are an interesting group of data. Our hypothesis is that these are caused by xyz (which we define as such and such). The null hypothesis is that the data are not caused by xyz."

Failure to support the positive hypothesis with statistically-significant evidence is sufficient reason to reject it.

Delvo wrote:

hotshoe wrote:Can't prove a negative.

False. There are some types of negatives that technically can't be proven, but you know perfectly well that this isn't that type.

hotshoe wrote:the null hypothesis always is: "we have observed what we think are an interesting group of data. Our hypothesis is that these are caused by xyz (which we define as such and such). The null hypothesis is that the data are not caused by xyz."

...which would be relevant, if we were talking about hypotheses and causes at all in the first place...

pinkharrier wrote:Well lots do care for any number or reasons, some good, some bad. I don't think anyone on this forum likes or dislikes any particular race so I don't know why you even mention it.

hotshoe wrote:And those traits don't correlate with the typical skin color racism, and indeed, are not visible to the casual eye at all, but perhaps can be tested for.

Asian immigration and births in the U.S., particularly California, have been dramatic during the past 10 years and have led to detection of previously rare diseases like Hb E/β-thalassemia.

shh wrote:Who cares if race is real or not?

Which races you do or don't like is just a matter of how you look at things