party leaders

Trump isn't the Party Leader. He's not the head of the RNC and neither does he hold a political office for the Republican Party. In fact almost anybody could say they belong to any party regardless of their ideology or policy positions. Calling Trump the party leader of the republicans is like calling Bernie Sanders a party leader of the Democrats.

^ Trump is also disliked by the Republican establishment and the actual party leaders. You could at most say he represents a wing of the Republican party (the segment that supports him, largely blue-collar Republicans as per Karl Rove's analysis) but he certainly doesn't lead the party simply by running as a popular candidate within its primary.

@Jai

When i talked about trump previously, you immediatly went on a rant about the rebublican party when i didn't even talk about the republican party. Anyway, we are playing with words here, it doesn't matter who currently leads the party, Trumps is still "a" leader representing the republican party, and i was specifically talking about him.

The Agrabah thing is a bit of a mute point, since there's probably non-republicans who said they wouldn't bomb it while thinking that it existed

Of course, my point is that 40% of Trumps voters wants to bomb Agrabah on the basis that it "sounds" muslim. 40%. Not 100%, but still a very big number for such an idiotic proposition. Actually if you read all the results of the polls, 9% of Trumps' voters said they were opposed to bomb Agrabah, wich leaves about 50% who didn't answer, i assume because they didn't know what Agrabah was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izGwDsrQ1eQ

just thought i would point out that 44% of Democrats Want To Accept Refugees From the Fictional Country, Agrabah

Strangely Hitchslap didn't mention that.

Depends on you definition of "resemble". I doubt the first homo sapiens *looked like* any of the modern humans.

The small 'tribe' of H. sapiens, from which we are all descended, and which was native to Africa, was literally the exact same species we are, modern H. sapiens. If you want to get super specific, they and we are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human

The small 'tribe' of H. sapiens, from which we are all descended, and which was native to Africa, was literally the exact same species we are, modern H. sapiens. If you want to get super specific, they and we are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. [ukkBLt3dAj6X9X9En=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human

]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human[/quote][/ukkBLt3dAj6X9X9En]

You're full of sh*t.

After Jai's done with the book on trolling, you might want to borrow it from him, Darth Darth.

indibob, yeah people are equally ignorant in both parties. but it appears that one side wants to kill people they have no information on, and the other side wants to help them if they are in danger. so those dems might be naive and willing to take too much risk, but those republicans are murderous. i know which side of that sentiment im on, and im damn proud of it.

The small 'tribe' of H. sapiens, from which we are all descended, and which was native to Africa, was literally the exact same species we are, modern H. sapiens. If you want to get super specific, they and we are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. [uuVp7Zw3ZsPyeRYk=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human

]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human[/quote][/uuVp7Zw3ZsPyeRYk]

You probably misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that they are not the same specie, since by definition they are. I'm just saying that they would have traits and features different from any of the modern humans. That's what i meant by *it depends on you definition of resemble". If by your definition, say chineses people resemble swedish people, then yes we would all resemble the first homo sapiens. (btw, homo sapiens sapiens isn't a classification anymore, since the cro-magnon has been reclassified as homo sapiens).

just thought i would point out that 44% of Democrats Want To Accept Refugees From the Fictional Country, Agrabah

Strangely Hitchslap didn't mention that.

I wasn't aware of it, since it was a different poll. Frankly i'd be more embarassed to know that 19% of the democrats wants to bomb Agrabah. Its a lower number than Trump's supporters, but it is still an enormous number.

Being in favour of accepting refugees (see definition below) from anywhere, even if you don't know about the place, is entirely different than being in favour of bombing people from place you don't even know about.

"A refugee, according to the Geneva Convention on Refugees[1][2] is a person who is outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country" wikipedia

You probably misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that they are not the same specie, since by definition they are. I'm just saying that they would have traits and features different from any of the modern humans.

No. Really. They had traits that resemble *all* modern humans.

This documentary, if you haven't seen it before, is an eye-opener: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dDXIX-y6aY

If you wish to skip the introduction, here are some links to specific sections of it.

• Timeline of origins of modern humans: https://youtu.be/-dDXIX-y6aY?t=7m07s
  
• Intro to the San people: https://youtu.be/-dDXIX-y6aY?t=9m45s
  
• Skin colour as an adaptation to UV, and European adaptation to cold and dark climate, as well as the origins of Europeans via Central Asia: https://youtu.be/-dDXIX-y6aY?t=1h2m0s
  
• Meet a man whose ancestor is the ancestor of most Europeans, Native Americans, and many Indians; a kind of 'missing-link' between Africa/Middle-East and Europe: https://youtu.be/-dDXIX-y6aY?t=1h13m33s
  
• A final take-home message from Spencer Wells: https://youtu.be/-dDXIX-y6aY?t=1h52m13s
  

---

That's what i meant by *it depends on you definition of resemble". If by your definition, say chineses people resemble swedish people, then yes we would all resemble the first homo sapiens.

Okay, yes, I agree it does depend on your definition of 'resemble'. However, if you look at the San people, you will see that this *one* small population of people contains so much diversity that you will see features in them that resemble people from all over the world. It's uncanny. Features of Chinese people. Features of Swedish people. All part of a continuous fabric of variation.

It's only when you take the extremes, the 'offshoots', which are much less genetically diverse, and compare just those extremes, e.g. Chinese people with Swedish people, that the *illusion* of distinctness becomes apparent and they no longer 'resemble' each other so much.

(btw, homo sapiens sapiens isn't a classification anymore, since the cro-magnon has been reclassified as homo sapiens).

Got a citation on that? Homo sapiens sapiens was used in all the Wikipedia articles I checked, as being the sub-species-level classification. In fact, one article indicated that Homo sapiens sapiens was brought into use around the same time that Cro Magnon became more specialized (to refer only to finds similar to the original Cro Magnon discovery).

After Jai's done with the book on trolling, you might want to borrow it from him, Darth Darth.

Full of sh*t.

Edited 1/3/2016 17:06:11

Got a citation on that? Homo sapiens sapiens was used in all the Wikipedia articles I checked, as being the sub-species-level classification. In fact, one article indicated that Homo sapiens sapiens was brought into use around the same time that Cro Magnon became more specialized (to refer only to finds similar to the original Cro Magnon discovery).

Weirdly enough there isn't an english wikipedia page on "Homo sapiens sapiens", but there is a french one, where it says that the denomination of homo sapiens sapiens was dropped in 2003. Before 2003, the genre "homo sapiens" was subdivized into 2 sub species: homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) and homo sapiens neanderthalensis. But the recent genetic studies showed that neanderthalensis and modern humans were too far apartgenetically to be considered subspecies of homo sapiens, and instead were to be considered two different species. Therefore homo sapiens neanderthalensis was renanamed homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens sapiens was renamed homo sapiens.(wich is weird since a 2010 study revealed that neanderthalensis and homo sapiens seemed to have been able to reproduce)
So the cro-magnon thing wasn't really the reason for the split, it was neanderthalensis. My mistake.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human#Terms_and_classification

There are recognized subspecies, for example H. s. sapiens[51] and H.s. idaltu.[52]

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_categorization%29

... all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.
...
Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens and sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens.

Citations for these include:

• Keita, S. O. Y.; Kittles, R. A.; Royal, C. D. M.; Bonney, G. M.; Furbert-Harris, P.; Dunston, G. M.; Rotimi, C. M. (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics 36 (S17–S20): S17–20. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998.
  
• The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey. by Spencer Wells. 256 pages
  
• Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton. Edited by M. Anne Katzenberg, Shelley R. Saunders. 680 pages
  
• The Origins of Modern Humans: Biology Reconsidered. By Fred H. Smith, James C. Ahern. 480 pages
  
• Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness. By Ian Tattersall.
  
• The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. By Richard Dawkins. 673 pages.

If you look at the table from the first link, you'll see both H. sapiens and H. sapiens sapiens being used, in one column for "Subspecies" and in the other for "Populations". Not sure the significance of that. But at least in English, they still use H. s. s.

Yeah its weird, on the H.s. idaltu french wikipedia page, it specifically says that the "idaltu" is misleading and refers to morphological specificities, but doesn't constitute a subspecie. Maybe that's why wikipedia redirects "homo sapiens sapiens" to "anatomically modern humans"
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu

It is weird though that we can't find an english wikipedia page on homo sapiens sapiens, and it doesn't exist either on the Oxford nor Cambridge dictionnary. Even if the denomination was dropped, there should be something about it.

"Are you an f***ing asshole, or what?

Get some fucking repect man! She's your dying Grandmother, not a fucking anthropological experiment... What the hell is wrong with you?

What kind of asshole...

First of all, older people aren't any more likely to be racist than younger people, and political parties have sh*t to do with it, you douche.

Talk about intolerance..... Your an intolerant dick."

First example of intolerance in the thread is that displayed by you.

I am an atheist. I consider those who believe in god to be privileged. Privileged in the sense that they have something bigger than themselves to believe in which will give hem comfort. I envy them for having something bigger than themselves that they can use to guide them. Alas, faith cannot be faked. I do not believe because I do not believe, believing is not a conscious decision.

As for racism vs. age correlation. Yes, old people are more racist on average. That is not up for debate. It's not that you become more racist as time goes by, it's that society has become less racist over time, and the younger generations were not alive during the times when racism was more widely accepted thus they are on average less racist than the people from prior generations.

Your arguments are asinine and unbacked by anything other than your own ignorant ramblings.

Edited 1/4/2016 00:01:58

It is weird though that we can't find an english wikipedia page on homo sapiens sapiens

Actually it exists, but it is just a redirect page that sends you to 'Anatomically modern human'.

My guess is that it's a weird difference between French and English speaking scientists or something; just preferred lingo.

How did we get here? I just jumped to the last page from the first, and we go from Atheiest at Mass to...whatever this is.