NationStates Jolt Archive

Since this seems to be getting lost in the noise over on the inter-racial marriage thread, I'll post it as a separate topic.

I challenge anyone to show that a biological division of modern humans into races actually exists.

I do not especially mean to be flippant, but the physical differences between various races have got to come from some genetic difference, eh? Am I the only one who thinks that that is common sense?

Now, whether those differences are at the level of, different alleles are activated or entire vast sections of code are different, I do not know.

From dictionary.com
Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populationsCaucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoidare now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean “white” or “European” rather than “belonging to the Caucasian race,” a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in anothermany cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

There is no such thing as race, only humanity.

I do not especially mean to be flippant, but the physical differences between various races have got to come from some genetic difference, eh? Am I the only one who thinks that that is common sense?

Now, whether those differences are at the level of, different alleles are activated or entire vast sections of code are different, I do not know.

The physical differences you refer to are what is known as phenotype variation.
The biological definition for the taxanomic catagory of race, or subspecies, is a population of a species that does not interbreed due to geographic isolation. A species is defined as a population that does not (normally) interbreed at all.*

Humans are classified as Homo sapien sapien or Homo sapien neandethal.

* Note that some species may be artificially induced to interbreed, but as this lies outside their normal behavior patterns, it does not disqualify them from being separate species.

You should try reading the original thread again, and some of the other recent threads in the last few days dealing with race. I posted some things there that might answer your question. Actually, you know that already. If you're too lazy to bother going back there again and reading through it then too bad, I'm too lazy to copy and paste it here.

You never offered real evidence. Just the Bell Curve and some quotes, both of which others disproved.

A definition of "race", also from dictionary.com

A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics

There are obivously some genetic differences between races, but the race doesn't matter. People shouldn't be wieved as under-humans or super-humans just because their race. Wisdom,willpower,skills,beliefs and so on actually matters, not the race.

There are obivously some genetic differences between races, but the race doesn't matter. People shouldn't be wieved as under-humans or super-humans just because their race. Wisdom,willpower,skills,beliefs and so on actually matters, not the race.

I agree with you. However, the OP is asking people to prove races exist.

Just look at the asians,"blacks" and "whites". Clearly there are physical differences between these people. All of them are human specimen, but clearly different races. I might have sleeped on the biology classes, but if i remember correcty race means differences between same species.

Just look at the asians,"blacks" and "whites". Clearly there are physical differences between these people. All of them are human specimen, but clearly different races. I might have sleeped on the biology classes, but if i remember correcty race means differences between same species.

Not exactly. I gave the definition biologists use to classify race above. Here it is again: a population able to interbreed, but which does not do so due to geographic isolation.

You should try reading the original thread again, and some of the other recent threads in the last few days dealing with race. I posted some things there that might answer your question. Actually, you know that already. If you're too lazy to bother going back there again and reading through it then too bad, I'm too lazy to copy and paste it here.

Nothing anyone, including you, has posted there or here addresses the pointthat t the only existing race of humans is Homo sapien sapiens. I have repeatedly asked in that thread for an alternate taxonomy to Homo sapien sapien and Homo sapien neanderthal. No one has offered one.

Its obvious that race exists, but we should be questioning whether or not it is actually important. Common sense says that there are genetic differences between races. If there wasn't, then they wouldn't look different raised identically. I remember watching a TV program which stated that races do exist, but there is often more genetic differences in two people from the same race than two people from different races.

As for proof, I don't have any. This is just my opinion. Race isn't important, it is culture and beliefs that matter.

From the New Zygus Dictionary
Racists: Proponent of classify people into races.
Breeder: Somebody who doesn’t give a fuck about human morphological colorations

So what are you a racist, or are you a breeder?
Me, I'm a breeder. ;)

Its obvious that race exists, but we should be questioning whether or not it is actually important. Common sense says that there are genetic differences between races. If there wasn't, then they wouldn't look different raised identically. I remember watching a TV program which stated that races do exist, but there is often more genetic differences in two people from the same race than two people from different races.

As for proof, I don't have any. This is just my opinion. Race isn't important, it is culture and beliefs that matter.

Well yes, races exist - Homo sapien sapien and Homo sapien neanderthal. Differences of apperance such as hair and skin pigmentation are one aspect of phenotype variation. Note that blood type is also a phenotype variation. Also note that most phenotypes gradually change from one geographic region to another, making them basically meaningless as a basis of clasification.

Humans all belong to one race, which has different ethnic heritages, religions and beliefs.

Yup, all human, some look a bit different from others, there's a few other differences as well. Heck, some might even be better swimmers or can climb trees faster, who knows! Isn't that fun?
No, not to some people. Some people cry and grovel in the dirt because of the mere excistence of other humans with a different skin colour.

This argument is silly - the two sides are talking about two completely different things. To the person who started this thread, you need to learn something that any scientist has to learn eventually - scientific definitions and laymen's definitions are completely different.

If you want someone to prove to you, under the biological definition you pulled out, that races exist, it won't happen.

However, it is easy to prove under the layman's definition that races exist.

If you are not both arguing under the same definition, the argument is futile.

Humans all belong to one race, which has different ethnic heritages, religions and beliefs.

Depends on exactly how you define humans - as all members of the genus Homo, all members of the species sapiens, or as only Homo sapien sapiens.
Also, note the classification of subspecies (aka race) of Homo sapien into neanderthal and sapien is debated among biologist.

This argument is silly - the two sides are talking about two completely different things. To the person who started this thread, you need to learn something that any scientist has to learn eventually - scientific definitions and laymen's definitions are completely different.

If you want someone to prove to you, under the biological definition you pulled out, that races exist, it won't happen.

However, it is easy to prove under the layman's definition that races exist.

If you are not both arguing under the same definition, the argument is futile.

Yep, but if you look in over at the thread that started this, people are claiming a biological basis for the layman's definition of race. Those are the people I am addressing.
Am I engaging in an exercise in futility? Probably so. After all if one is arguing with a fool...

Well yes races do make people different. On average black people are better athletes than white people and white people on average are smarter than black people.

...and white people on average are smarter than black people.
Care to back that up with evidence and provide a direct cause-and-effect relationship?

Care to back that up with evidence and provide a direct cause-and-effect relationship?

Tell me how many blacks get scholarships to college, not to many, and they even have lower standards for getting in. And also look how bad they have screwed up Africa.

Well yes races do make people different. On average black people are better athletes than white people and white people on average are smarter than black people.

I wasn't asking if race makes people different. To prove your claims of a biological difference, you'll have to prove that black and white are biological races.

(Oh, and thank you for providing yourself as an example of what I was telling Dempublicents about.)

Also, for the record, and not that it particularly matters, I am a layman - a scientifically literate layman, but a layman none the less (political science degree, ESL teacher by proffession).

Tell me how many blacks get scholarships to college, not to many, and they even have lower standards for getting in. And also look how bad they have screwed up Africa.
You have yet to bring up anything more than heresay. Come back with some form of factual evidence, then prove a cause-and-effect relationship, and then we will talk.

I wasn't asking if race makes people different. To prove your claims of a biological difference, you'll have to prove that black and white are biological races.

(Oh, and thank you for providing yourself as an example of what I was telling Dempublicents about.)

Also, for the record, and not that it particularly matters, I am a layman - a scientifically literate layman, but a layman none the less (political science degree, ESL teacher by proffession).

If it wasn't biological why would they be a different color and be better athletes(and usually taller).

Tell me how many blacks get scholarships to college, not to many, and they even have lower standards for getting in. And also look how bad they have screwed up Africa.

That is accusation based on conjecture, not evidence. Further more, it lacks causality.

If it wasn't biological why would they be a different color and be better athletes(and usually taller).

First of all, phenotype is not race. Second of all, the suggestion that "they" are better athletes is again conjecture and lacking in a causal relationship.

First of all, phenotype is not race. Second of all, the suggestion that "they" are better athletes is again conjecture and lacking in a causal relationship.

They are better athletes thats why most professional basketball players are black and why most runners are black(but not always just most of the time).

They are better athletes thats why most professional basketball players are black and why most runners are black(but not always just most of the time).
Again, prove it. Stop providing conjecture and turn out some real evidence and links. Then prove causality. So far your statements are lacking in both.

Again, prove it. Stop providing conjecture and turn out some real evidence and links. Then prove causality. So far your statements are lacking in both.

Want proof look at the USA olympic basketball team.

http://www.brazoria-county.com/sheriff/id/skeletal/criteria_for_racial_determinatio.htm

Want proof look at the USA olympic basketball team.
Are you not getting this? That does not prove anything except the US olympic basketball team has daker pigmentation than not. You have not shown any evidence of causality, have not shown any medical or biological proof. All you have pointed out is that the US team has many black players.

They are better athletes thats why most professional basketball players are black and why most runners are black(but not always just most of the time).

Can you provide any evidence at all that:
1) "Black" is a race.
2) Said race, if it does exist, is demonstrably athletically superior.

Can you provide any evidence at all that:
1) "Black" is a race.

. . .



http://www.brazoria-county.com/sheriff/id/skeletal/criteria_for_racial_determinatio.htm

http://www.brazoria-county.com/sheriff/id/skeletal/criteria_for_racial_determinatio.htm

Nope. That web site merely mistakes phenotype for race.

(Although I have to say it was a bit weird seeing a mystery link to my old home... I grew up in Brazoria county. :D)

Nope. That web site merely mistakes phenotype for race.

(Although I have to say it was a bit weird seeing a mystery link to my old home... I grew up in Brazoria county. :D)

race n.
1) A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2) A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3) A genealogical line; a lineage.
4) Humans considered as a group.
5) Biology.
... a) An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
... b) A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6) A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.


phe·no·type n.
1)
... a ) The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences.
... b) The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences.
2) An individual or group of organisms exhibiting a particular phenotype.

race n.
1) A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2) A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3) A genealogical line; a lineage.
4) Humans considered as a group.
5) Biology.
... a) An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
... b) A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6) A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.


phe·no·type n.
1)
... a ) The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences.
... b) The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences.
2) An individual or group of organisms exhibiting a particular phenotype.


Yes. Exactly. That is why the information at the link you posted above is in error.
(Note also that a component of the biological definition of race is that races do not interbreed, although capable, due to geographic isolation.
Do you contend that the suggested races do not interbreed with each other?)

Note that blood type is also a phenotype variation.
So if different phenotype equals different race, I'm different race from my mom, whose blood type is A and mine is O? (j/k)

Since this seems to be getting lost in the noise over on the inter-racial marriage thread, I'll post it as a separate topic.

I challenge anyone to show that a biological division of modern humans into races actually exists.

Races is an incorrect term to use for humans.
It stems from a certain unwillingness to be associated with the animal kingdom.
What we have are different breeds.

Interestingly there's a school of thought that suggests in time humans will evolve into different species due to the defragmentation of the Y chromosome over time.
This has already happened in the mole vole.

Yes. Exactly. That is why the information at the link you posted above is in error.
(Note also that a component of the biological definition of race is that races do not interbreed, although capable, due to geographic isolation.
Do you contend that the suggested races do not interbreed with each other?)


Actually I posted that comparison of definitions to show that the destinction that you make is semantically miniscule. Both words define groups that share traits through common heredity.

How would you say that they differ?

So if different phenotype equals different race, I'm different race from my mom, whose blood type is A and mine is O? (j/k)

Bingo. :D Now try telling the racists that.

Tell me how many blacks get scholarships to college, not to many, and they even have lower standards for getting in. And also look how bad they have screwed up Africa.
Africa was just fine until European colonies came along.

Africa was just fine until European colonies came along.

I'm sure tribal wars and palaces decorated with skulls and constant raids by the Babylonians were just all part of the fun.

I'm sure tribal wars and palaces decorated with skulls and constant raids by the Babylonians were just all part of the fun.

Europe wasn't exactly a paradise, either. Haven't you heard of the Inquisition?

In people's rush to define "race", etc, they've missed out one vital thing.

What about "mixed-race" people? My father is African-Indian and my mother is Eurasian... what the hell does that make me? Some kind of "new" race?

Therefore, all this kerfuffle about "races" doesn't really make sense. If black people are supposedly better athletes, then is a half-black person a semi-good athlete?!

Actually I posted that comparison of definitions to show that the destinction that you make is semantically miniscule. Both words define groups that share traits through common heredity.

How would you say that they differ?

As I have said repeatedly throught this and the other thread, one of the key elements is interbreeding. Does the population naturally interbreed? If not, why? Differing species do not naturally interbreed. Different races do not interbreed due to geographic isolation. If a population interbreeds, all morpological differences are due to phenotype variation.
Additionally, phenotypes generally gradiate or blend together. For example, pigmentation. No where will you find a distinct dividing line between "black" and "white". Racial morphology is generally more distinctive.


http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/subspecies

Criteria
Subspecies are defined in relation to species. It is not possible to understand the concept of a subspecies without first grasping what a species is. In the context of large living organisims like trees, flowers, birds, fish and humans, a species can be defined as a distinct and recognisable group that satisfies two conditions:

* Members of the group are reliably distinguishable from members of other groups. The distinction can be made in any of a wide number of ways, such as: differently shaped leaves, a different number of primary wing feathers, a particular ritual breeding behaviour, relative size of certain bones, different DNA sequences, and so on. There is no set minimum 'amount of difference': the only criterion is that the difference be reliably discernable. In practice, however, very small differences tend to be ignored.
* The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent.

Note the key qualifier above: to be regarded as different groups rather than as a single varied group, the difference must be distinct, not simply a matter of continuously varying degree. If, for example, the population in question is a type of frog and the distinction between two groups is that individuals living upstream are generally white, while those found in the lowlands are black, then they are classified as different groups if the frogs in the intermediate area tend to be either black or white, but a single, varied group if the intermediate population becomes gradually darker as one moves downstream.

This is not an arbitrary condition. A gradual change—called a cline—is clear evidence of substantial gene flow between the upstream and downstream populations. A sharp boundary between black and white, or a relatively small and stable hybrid zone, on the other hand, shows that the two populations do not interbreed to any great extent and are indeed separate forms. Their classification as separate species or as subspecies, however, depends on why they do not interbreed.

If the two groups do not interbreed because of something intrinsic to their genetic make-up (perhaps black frogs do not find white frogs sexually attractive, or they breed at different times of year) then they are different species.

If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier was removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies.

Note that the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends only on the likelihood that (absent external barriers) the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. It has nothing to do with 'how different' the two groups appear to be to the human observer.

As knowledge of a particular group increases, its categorisation may need to be re-assessed. The Water Pipit was formerly classed as a subspecies of Rock Pipit, but is now recognised to be a full species. For an example of a subspecies, see Pied Wagtail.

It should be noted that if a subspecies is indicated by the repetition of the specific name, it is known as the nominate subspecies. Thus Motacilla alba alba is the nominate subspecies of White Wagtail, Motacilla alba.

In people's rush to define "race", etc, they've missed out one vital thing.

What about "mixed-race" people? My father is African-Indian and my mother is Eurasian... what the hell does that make me? Some kind of "new" race?

Therefore, all this kerfuffle about "races" doesn't really make sense. If black people are supposedly better athletes, then is a half-black person a semi-good athlete?!

Thank you for helping to illustrate my point. :D

As I have said repeatedly throught this and the other thread, one of the key elements is interbreeding. Does the population naturally interbreed? If not, why? Differing species do not naturally interbreed. Different races do not interbreed due to geographic isolation. If a population interbreeds, all morpological differences are due to phenotype variation.
Additionally, phenotypes generally gradiate or blend together. For example, pigmentation. No where will you find a distinct dividing line between "black" and "white". Racial morphology is generally more distinctive.


http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/subspecies

You use the word "generally" a couple of times there, and in addition you didn't really answer the question. How is race a distinct phenomenon from what you've described, other than being "generally more destinctive"?

It also seems that you may be confusing "phenotype" with "species". Looking at the dictionary definitions that I provided, please tell me how they are two destinct things, rather than two words to describe the same thing?

Both words can be used to describe groups whose members share common physical characteristics based on their shared heredity. Neither word implies that members of such groups cannot interbreed with members of others.

In people's rush to define "race", etc, they've missed out one vital thing.

What about "mixed-race" people? My father is African-Indian and my mother is Eurasian... what the hell does that make me? Some kind of "new" race?

Therefore, all this kerfuffle about "races" doesn't really make sense. If black people are supposedly better athletes, then is a half-black person a semi-good athlete?!

Mixed-race people are mixed-race people. If it weren't for so many haters in the world there would be no stigma at all in being what you are. And you are good at what you are good at, whatever that is, so more power to you. :)

You use the word "generally" a couple of times there, and in addition you didn't really answer the question. How is race a distinct phenomenon from what you've described, other than being "generally more destinctive"?

It also seems that you may be confusing "phenotype" with "species". Looking at the dictionary definitions that I provided, please tell me how they are two destinct things, rather than two words to describe the same thing?

Both words can be used to describe groups whose members share common physical characteristics based on their shared heredity. Neither word implies that members of such groups cannot interbreed with members of others.


No, species, race, and phenotype are not the same thing.

Again, the key point that distinguishes species, race, and phenotype is interbreeding.
1) Species do not naturally interbreed.
2) Subspecies/Races can interbreed, but do not do so due to geographical isolation.
3) Phenotype varients freely interbreed.

How much more of a definitive answer do you want?

Wow. This is all very well and good, but you all seem to be missing one important point here. When we concede that racial groups are tradionally defined according to superficial differences in phenotype, this means that race is a socio-political construct. As such, it is most helpful to define the term from a social science viewpoint. Racial classification does not, I repeat DOES NOT take a lack of interbreeding as a prerequisite. Race is a politcal categorization based on phenotype (this IS a biological basis; genetic differences between groups exist, they are just inconsequential). Furthermore, observing differences between racial groups (whether they be biological or socio-political in nature) does not make one a racist. It is the translation of group differences into privelidge for one group and disadvantage for others that is the very heart of racism.

Wow. This is all very well and good, but you all seem to be missing one important point here. When we concede that racial groups are tradionally defined according to superficial differences in phenotype, this means that race is a socio-political construct. As such, it is most helpful to define the term from a social science viewpoint. Racial classification does not, I repeat DOES NOT take a lack of interbreeding as a prerequisite. Race is a politcal categorization based on phenotype (this IS a biological basis; genetic differences between groups exist, they are just inconsequential). Furthermore, observing differences between racial groups (whether they be biological or socio-political in nature) does not make one a racist. It is the translation of group differences into privelidge for one group and disadvantage for others that is the very heart of racism.I think you missed what prompted this topic. Many of the racists here claim a biological basis for race. By abmitting that it was a social construct they would relinquish it to redefinition by society as it progresses. They are unwilling to do so.

No, species, race, and phenotype are not the same thing.

Again, the key point that distinguishes species, race, and phenotype is interbreeding.
1) Species do not naturally interbreed.
2) Subspecies/Races can interbreed, but do not do so due to geographical isolation.
3) Phenotype varients freely interbreed.

How much more of a definitive answer do you want?

You're the one who brought species into this. I did not introduce that destinction or associate it with either race or phenotype, since both refer to subgroups of species. So let's just shorten this down into two options:

1) Subspecies/Races can interbreed, but do not do so when in conditions of geographical isolation.
2) Phenotype groups (my definition 2, below) freely interbreed except when in conditions of geographical isolation.

So actually any definitive answer would be more than I've gotten so far.

You're the one who brought species into this. I did not introduce that destinction or associate it with either race or phenotype, since both refer to subgroups of species. So let's just shorten this down into two options:

1) Subspecies/Races can interbreed, but do not do so when in conditions of geographical isolation.
2) Phenotype groups (my definition 2, below) freely interbreed except when in conditions of geographical isolation.

So actually any definitive answer would be more than I've gotten so far.You do realize you just, by your definitions, made geographical isolation the difference between Phenotype and Race? Was that your intent?

Well anyway working from what you have given me, are you saying:

1) Races/supspecies are geographically isolated and therefor do not interbreed nor have the opportunity to.

2) Phenotypes are not geographically isolated and therefor have the opportunity to interbreed, and therefor sometimes do.

The only destinction here seems to be in labelling the same one phenomenon with two different words when it happens in two different circumstances. They have the same biological causes and they have one result that is the same, which is destinct populations with shared hereditary characteristics. The only difference is that in the latter they have another result which is the generation of mixed-group populations.

Also if that is the destinction then it must be concluded that a long-isolated human population would be called a race, but once it met other humans it would stop being a race and become a phenotype. Clearly this is a semantics issue, and all of this is word-dancing. The link I provided answers the original poster's question, and putting a different word on it does not change that.

You do realize you just, by your definitions, made geographical isolation the difference between Phenotype and Race? Was that your intent?

Yes I believe it was, and since geographical isolation is not an inate physical characteristic of any of the members of any group that can be rightfully called by either name, I believe it has proven my point.

Yes I believe it was, and since geographical isolation is not an inate physical characteristic of any of the members of any group that can be rightfully called by either name, I believe it has proven my point.Since there really is no part of the world that is geographically isolated to humans today then 'race' is an outdated and nonapplicable term when speaking about modern man. :cool:

Since there really is no part of the world that is geographically isolated to humans today then 'race' is an outdated and nonapplicable term when speaking about modern man. :cool:

Using Daistallia's apparent definition, perhaps. :cool:

There is only one race-the human race

Allow me to make one point regarding the definitions given. These are not my definitions. I did not make them up. They are, as witnessed by multiple linkings, standard biological and taxonomic definitions.

To address a few other points:

...geographical isolation is not an inate physical characteristic of any of the members of any group that can be rightfully called by either (race or phenotype)

Contradicts the defintion you posted above:
5) Biology.
... a) An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.

Since there really is no part of the world that is geographically isolated to humans today then 'race' is an outdated and nonapplicable term when speaking about modern man.

Precicely the whole point of this.

2) Phenotypes are not geographically isolated and therefor have the opportunity to interbreed, and therefor sometimes do.

Close. Phenotype esentially is a description of physical characteristics.

phenotype:
The observable traits or characteristics of an organism, for example hair color, weight, or the presence or absence of a disease. Phenotypic traits are not necessarily genetic.

[url=http://genetics.gsk.com/glossary.htm]Phenotype/Trait
The observable or measurable characteristics (physical, biochemical, physiological) of an individual which results from an interaction of their genes with their environment. (http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=phenotype)

phenotype
the observable or detectable characteristics of an individual organism; the detectable expression of a genotype. (http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/glossary.htm)

continuous variation - phenotype variation shown in quantitative traits which are distributed from one extreme to another in an overlapping, continuous spectrum; examples of traits that show continuous variation are height, weight, and intelligence. (http://naturalsciences.sdsu.edu/classes/lab2.4/glossary.html)

To summarize, phenotype is the physical expression of an organism's unique combionation of genotype (genetic make up) and environment. Phenotype varies on a spectrum - heavier/lighter, darker/lighter, taller/shorter.

Using phenotype groups to define "race", is, at best problematic:
It is undeniable that humans exhibit morphological variation, however these variations are not useful in classifying "race" in any scientific fasion.

1) Phenotype variances often overlap. For example pigmentation is not a reliable indicator of blood type. Dark pigmentation may be associated with

2) Phenotype variances exhibit gradual changes, not abrupt changes. For example there is no clear dividing line, for example, between "negroid" pigmentation and "caucasoid" pigmentation.

3) The classifications of race are based on arbitrary phenotype differences - skin pigmentation and cranial profile, while ignoring other differences such as blood type. As another poster jokingly suggested, why does blood type not equal race?

For more: American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm)



Wow. This is all very well and good, but you all seem to be missing one important point here. When we concede that racial groups are tradionally defined according to superficial differences in phenotype, this means that race is a socio-political construct. As such, it is most helpful to define the term from a social science viewpoint. Racial classification does not, I repeat DOES NOT take a lack of interbreeding as a prerequisite. Race is a politcal categorization based on phenotype (this IS a biological basis; genetic differences between groups exist, they are just inconsequential). Furthermore, observing differences between racial groups (whether they be biological or socio-political in nature) does not make one a racist. It is the translation of group differences into privelidge for one group and disadvantage for others that is the very heart of racism.

That is actually why I addressed this to the racists and the anti-racists. Ethnicity is a much more useful system of classification for social science, being based on culture as opposed to biology. It would be helpful if the anti-racists gave up the idea of biological race, especially seeing as it's original intent was to prove one population superior. (See the above American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" - and note that anthropology is a social science ;))

Wheww! That took a long time to write up. I hope it all makes sense and adequately addresses the questions so far.

There is only one race-the human race

"There is no Dana, only Zool."

Will get back to you after work.

"There is no Dana, only Zool."

Will get back to you after work.We await your return on the edge of our seats :rolleyes: .


I can't wait to see what an obscure line from 'Ghostbusters' has to do with this topic.

Personally I think every generalization here is based on someone watching WAY too much television. :headbang: I've seen black people blow my mind in intelegence and genius. I've also seen white track stars overwhelm their black counterpart competition.

Before this gets too far, I also want to mention that I'm in no way racist or anything of the sort (and sod-off to anyone who follows up with a *in a mockinly nasal tone* "well since you mentioned it you have to be a racist..." STFU)

I'm not going to provide links either. I'm thinking this through from a scientific standpoint as an engineer (wait for it...)...anyways...

Now, all people come from the same Genus and Species: Homo Sapian. Logic would dictate that, mankind evolving in the harsh and arid climes of Africa, they would have a more distinct form, becoming a species suited for running, hunting, etc. Dark skin from exposure to the sun, different hair suited for warmer weather. Scientifically, its been proven that certain diseases only affect those of strictly African and Middle Eastern decents, or to the average KKK loser dweeb, Blacks and Jews. Up north, White man has evolved with lighter skin, and thick hair to keep warm in winter. Native Americans get a mix of the two, dark red skin from sunlight, thick hair for winter months.

One thing I want to add is that, as a global species, we're only a few hundred years old, having moved out of areas that we've evolved from. To me, we're still homo sapians. We're people and thats our comon union. Besides, scientists have already proven that in the next thousand years or so we'll all be something akin to mulato.

...

...

...I've lost my train of thought, so I'll just shut up now.

I think the solution to all these threads is simple. People complain because race is being used 'incorrectly'. They complain that what is being referred to is a phenotype. It makes no difference whatsoever - you could call races/phenotypes a kumquat, it's just a fecking word, the meaning you are inferring with it doesn't change even if the literal definition does.

So to satiate everyone, we'll just stop using race to describe people of different geographical segments/skin colours. We make a new word (since phenotype is incredibly lame) and use that. They can no longer complain that race is being used improperly, and people have a word to refer to what race used to mean (that doesn't suck).

Ta-da~.

[insert "The More You Know" logo here]

Scientifically, its been proven that certain diseases only affect those of strictly African and Middle Eastern decents, or to the average KKK loser dweeb, Blacks and Jews.

Yes, certain populations do have a higher incidence of certain genetic diseases, but no genetic disease affects any "race" exclusively, unless you use the prevalance of said disease as the sole indicator of race.

For example: Tay-Sachs carriers are found most frequently among families of eastern European Jewish descent (Ashkenazi Jews). In the United States today, approximately one in every 27 Jews is a Tay-Sachs carrier.

Among Jews of Sephardic origin and in the general, non-Jewish population, the carrier rate is about one in 250. There are certain exceptions. French-Canadian and the Cajun community of Louisiana have the same carrier rate as Ashkenazi Jews, one in 27. Also, individuals with ancestry from Ireland are at increased risk for the Tay-Sachs gene. Current research indicates that among Irish Americans, the carrier rate is about one in 50. (http://www.tay-sachs.org/taysachs.php)

The sickle ß globin gene is widely spread through Africa, the Middle East, the Mediterranean countries and India; and, due to slave trade, it has also been carried to North America, the Caribbean, Central America and a few countries of South America. (http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/cuba_scd.html)


So, if genetic diseases affect strictly one "race", the general population is one race.
If the incidence of said diseases indicates "race", then Ashkenazi Jews, French-Canadians, and Cajuns (and possibly the Irish, depending on what level of incidence you use to measure "race") are one "race".

I think the solution to all these threads is simple. People complain because race is being used 'incorrectly'. They complain that what is being referred to is a phenotype. It makes no difference whatsoever - you could call races/phenotypes a kumquat, it's just a fecking word, the meaning you are inferring with it doesn't change even if the literal definition does.

So to satiate everyone, we'll just stop using race to describe people of different geographical segments/skin colours. We make a new word (since phenotype is incredibly lame) and use that. They can no longer complain that race is being used improperly, and people have a word to refer to what race used to mean (that doesn't suck).

Ta-da~.

[insert "The More You Know" logo here]You're missing the whole point, Why do you feel the need to divide humans into sub-catagories?

I think the solution to all these threads is simple. People complain because race is being used 'incorrectly'. They complain that what is being referred to is a phenotype. It makes no difference whatsoever - you could call races/phenotypes a kumquat, it's just a fecking word, the meaning you are inferring with it doesn't change even if the literal definition does.

So to satiate everyone, we'll just stop using race to describe people of different geographical segments/skin colours. We make a new word (since phenotype is incredibly lame) and use that. They can no longer complain that race is being used improperly, and people have a word to refer to what race used to mean (that doesn't suck).

Ta-da~.

[insert "The More You Know" logo here]

Race, as you mean it, does not exist. If you used phenotype as race, there would be some 6 billion races, as each individual has a unique phenotype.
Ethnicity (a word in current usage, and based primarily on culture), is a much better to describe different geographic segments of H. sapiens. Skin pigmentation just doesn't work, due to gradation.

You're missing the whole point, Why do you feel the need to divide humans into sub-catagories?

Well some catagorizations are meaningful and useful, ethnicity for example.

The American Anthropological Association recommends the elimination of the term "race" from OMB Directive 15 during the planning for the 2010 Census. During the past 50 years, "race" has been scientifically proven to not be a real, natural phenomenon. More specific, social categories such as "ethnicity" or "ethnic group" are more salient for scientific purposes and have fewer of the negative, racist connotations for which the concept of race was developed. (http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm)

Note that ethnicity is specifically a social definition, as opposed to race which is supposedly biological.

Well some catagorizations are meaningful and useful, ethnicity for example.



Note that ethnicity is specifically a social definition, as opposed to race which is supposedly biological.Quite acceptable, The term ethnicity does not have the negative conotation that 'race' has. It does not have the baggage attached to it by those who claim superiority over fellow humans. It is still possible in most peoples eyes to be ethnicly diverse and not be discrimitory. 'Race' has a negative conotation imposed by it's implication of a biological difference that has been used as an excuse to subjugate and sanction our fellow humans.

Since this seems to be getting lost in the noise over on the inter-racial marriage thread, I'll post it as a separate topic.

I challenge anyone to show that a biological division of modern humans into races actually exists.
Two black parents will have a black child.
Two white parents will have a white child.


I am not racist.. i just think race exists.

Race, as you mean it, does not exist. If you used phenotype as race, there would be some 6 billion races, as each individual has a unique phenotype.
Ethnicity (a word in current usage, and based primarily on culture), is a much better to describe different geographic segments of H. sapiens. Skin pigmentation just doesn't work, due to gradation.

No, I'm not referring to either exclusively. I am referring to a subgrouping which can be based on the colour of your skin and/or the geographical location of your home/birth. For example, African can be used to refer to anyone who lives in Africa or who was born there, but it can also infer a skin colour (despite that fact that there is no reason why a caucasian person could not live in Africa, nor that someone from Africa couldn't move to... say, the USA).

I merely quoted phenotype as that was the term being thrown around. As I said, it could be called kumquat for all I care. I'm not referring to something exclusively based on skin colour, nor something based exclusively on geographical location of your birth/home, but something that is a balance between them.

To make it simpler: the would primarily be based on where you were born, unless you only lived there for a short time and then moved to where you currently lived. Secondarily, based on where you were born, one may also be able to extrapolate some of your physical traits (as I could likely guess someone from Africa would have darker skin, even though it wouldn't always be true).

And yes, skin pigmentation can work just fine. :rolleyes: There are what... at least thousands of shades of orange, green and purple? And yet we don't need to memorize special names for every possible colour. We simply refer to something that is purple in colour as purple, or if needed dark purple/light purple.

The same can be applied to skin tone. Minor skin tone differences are irrelevant, moderate ones can be distinguished with light or dark (or other words if absolutely needed), and massive differences are a completely different colour altogether.

--Edit--

Just to clear the above up, I realize it is very similar to ethnicity. However ethnicity (as I understand it) is based on culture. The key difference is that I base the label on geographic location. If you are born in Europe, live in Europe, have children in Europe, and die in Europe - then in my mind, you're European. So are your children.

It doesn't matter to me if, from a beliefs or social standards perspective, you align better with North America. It doesn't matter to me if you share any principles whatsoever in common with your fellow *ns. I base it solely on where you were born, raised, and where you spent the majority of your life.

That's far removed from culture.

You're missing the whole point, Why do you feel the need to divide humans into sub-catagories?

Why [i]not? Moreover, if I choose to, why is it any business of yours? I don't recall forcing you to adopt my proposed stance. If you want to refer to everyone as simply 'human', regardless of any differences, go for it.

Racial differences do exist, although not nearly to the extent Hitler or other racists like the KKK claim.
Some genetic diseases are more prevalent in some races than others. Blacks have a higher rate of diabetes. There's some disease (I can't remember it's name) that's extremely high in eastern European Jews.
Also, Arabs and Jews have big noses and are quite hairy. I'm not being racist when I say this, as I am part Arab myself. Italians are also quite hairy. Black hair is prevalent in Asians and Arabs. Blond is said to be more common in Swedes than other ethnicities. These small, irrelevant differences prove, to me at least, that race exists.
However, none of what I said proves one race to be superior to another. I'm just pointing out small differences.

Why not? Moreover, if I choose to, why is it any business of yours? I don't recall forcing you to adopt my proposed stance. If you want to refer to everyone as simply 'human', regardless of any differences, go for it.Throughout history whenever someone chooses to divide humans into seperate groups it is usually with the intent of placing one group in a superior position over the other. Can you give me a reason to subdivide humanity that doesn't have this as a motivation?

Throughout history whenever someone chooses to divide humans into seperate groups it is usually with the intent of placing one group in a superior position over the other. Can you give me a reason to subdivide humanity that doesn't have this as a motivation?

Because we're different.

Allow me to make one point regarding the definitions given. These are not my definitions. I did not make them up. They are, as witnessed by multiple linkings, standard biological and taxonomic definitions.

To address a few other points:


Quote:
...geographical isolation is not an inate physical characteristic of any of the members of any group that can be rightfully called by either (race or phenotype)



Contradicts the defintion you posted above:

Quote:
5) Biology.
... a) An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.

Does NOT!!! :p

Let's try these with different emphasis:

Quote:
...geographical isolation is not an inate physical characteristic of any of the members of any group that can be rightfully called by either (race or phenotype)

Geographical isolation is not a physical characteristic at all.

Quote:
5) Biology.
... a) An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.

Geographical isolation is not a required aspect of race.

Quote:
Since there really is no part of the world that is geographically isolated to humans today then 'race' is an outdated and nonapplicable term when speaking about modern man.



Precicely the whole point of this.

It may be your point but it was not my post. And since geographical isolation is not a requisite fore definition of race, it is not true either.


Quote:
2) Phenotypes are not geographically isolated and therefor have the opportunity to interbreed, and therefor sometimes do.



Close. Phenotype esentially is a description of physical characteristics.

Close. Phenotype under the second of the dictionary definitions I have provided is a group that shares the same physical characteristics ... such as a race.


Quote:
phenotype:
The observable traits or characteristics of an organism, for example hair color, weight, or the presence or absence of a disease. Phenotypic traits are not necessarily genetic.



[url=http://genetics.gsk.com/glossary.htm]

Essentially definition 1 of the definition I have provided.

Quote:
Phenotype/Trait
The observable or measurable characteristics (physical, biochemical, physiological) of an individual which results from an interaction of their genes with their environment.




Quote:
phenotype
the observable or detectable characteristics of an individual organism; the detectable expression of a genotype.

Both point to a genetic definition of phenotype




Quote:
continuous variation - phenotype variation shown in quantitative traits which are distributed from one extreme to another in an overlapping, continuous spectrum; examples of traits that show continuous variation are height, weight, and intelligence.



To summarize, phenotype is the physical expression of an organism's unique combionation of genotype (genetic make up) and environment. Phenotype varies on a spectrum - heavier/lighter, darker/lighter, taller/shorter.

Yes there are variations within a phenotype group and within a race. No difference there between the two definitions. Environmentally caused phenotypical differences do not give rise to "sub-races", but considering that this branch of the thread started with an assertion that skeletal differences between global human groups of different hereditary backgrounds are destinctly phenotypic differences and not racial. In order for this to be true, such skeletal differences would have to be based on entirely environmental non-hereditary causes, and they simply are not. Need an example extreme enough to defy debate? Pygmies and Samoans.



Using phenotype groups to define "race", is, at best problematic:
It is undeniable that humans exhibit morphological variation, however these variations are not useful in classifying "race" in any scientific fasion.

1) Phenotype variances often overlap. For example pigmentation is not a reliable indicator of blood type. Dark pigmentation may be associated with

Truncated quote.

2) Phenotype variances exhibit gradual changes, not abrupt changes. For example there is no clear dividing line, for example, between "negroid" pigmentation and "caucasoid" pigmentation.

A false statement if we are talking about base phenotype groups. Mixed-race groups are per se mixed phenotype groups, populations resulting from the interbreeding of phenotype groups, and consequently there will be a mixture of phenotypical traits. Between base phenotype groups such as purely negroid and purely caucusoid populations there is not just a clear dividing line between pigmentations, it is a broad line that includes a wide range of pigmentations that are not manifested in either group.

3) The classifications of race are based on arbitrary phenotype differences - skin pigmentation and cranial profile, while ignoring other differences such as blood type. As another poster jokingly suggested, why does blood type not equal race?

For more: American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"

If there are blood types found in no other base groups other than one then they are indeed racial characteristics, but how are the other differences between base phenotype groups arbitrary?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Nothern Homerica
Wow. This is all very well and good, but you all seem to be missing one important point here. When we concede that racial groups are tradionally defined according to superficial differences in phenotype, this means that race is a socio-political construct. As such, it is most helpful to define the term from a social science viewpoint. Racial classification does not, I repeat DOES NOT take a lack of interbreeding as a prerequisite. Race is a politcal categorization based on phenotype (this IS a biological basis; genetic differences between groups exist, they are just inconsequential). Furthermore, observing differences between racial groups (whether they be biological or socio-political in nature) does not make one a racist. It is the translation of group differences into privelidge for one group and disadvantage for others that is the very heart of racism.



That is actually why I addressed this to the racists and the anti-racists. Ethnicity is a much more useful system of classification for social science, being based on culture as opposed to biology. It would be helpful if the anti-racists gave up the idea of biological race, especially seeing as it's original intent was to prove one population superior. (See the above American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" - and note that anthropology is a social science )

Wheww! That took a long time to write up. I hope it all makes sense and adequately addresses the questions so far.

It seems to address the question I had: the only destinction between race and phenotype group is that phenotype grouping may include differences based on environment and not entirely on genetics. But let us return to the initial issue: http://www.brazoria-county.com/sheriff/id/skeletal/criteria_for_racial_determinatio.htm . You (I believe it was) have said that the author mistakes race for phenotype.

My father once identified a skull found in a bus station locker as belonging to the precolumbian maize culture rather than someone living more recently. This was partially based on cranial physiognamy, but a rough age could be determined without isotopic methods due to the grinding down of the back teeth from the chewing of dried corn kernals. The latter is an environmentally based phenotype trait, while the former is a genetic one. While the latter does not qualify as a racial difference, differences such as the former, when found in one and not all base phenotype groups, can fall under the classification of both racially destinct characteristics and phenotypic group destinct characteristics.

You have pointed out the semantic destinction between race and phenotype group, but you have yet to justify your statement that the author of the above link has mistaken phenotype for race. Skeletal structure differences simply are not environmentally determined, and so groups that manifest them can fall under either definition. In fact, from the definitions we have determined so far, it seems that phenotype groups are at times subsets of races.

Anyway, it seems to me (I could be wrong :eep: ) that this whole issue comes from the rather naive idea that we can defeat racism by redefining race out of the language. Not only is this a meaningless word-dancing sophistry, but it will do nothing to inform the views of racists.

The world would be a boring place if everyone was the same. There is no ideal or perfect. If we all respected human life, there would be a lot less problems. If we realized that there was a lot more to a person than the color of their skin, we would be a lot better off.

Two black parents will have a black child.
Two white parents will have a white child.


I am not racist.. i just think race exists.

You'll have to clearly define "white" and "black" for that to have any meaning.

Racial differences do exist, although not nearly to the extent Hitler or other racists like the KKK claim.
Some genetic diseases are more prevalent in some races than others. Blacks have a higher rate of diabetes. There's some disease (I can't remember it's name) that's extremely high in eastern European Jews.
Also, Arabs and Jews have big noses and are quite hairy. I'm not being racist when I say this, as I am part Arab myself. Italians are also quite hairy. Black hair is prevalent in Asians and Arabs. Blond is said to be more common in Swedes than other ethnicities. These small, irrelevant differences prove, to me at least, that race exists.
However, none of what I said proves one race to be superior to another. I'm just pointing out small differences.

Tay-Sachs is the disease you are thinking of when you mention Jews. Note the information I gave above - Tay-Sachs occurs with nearly identical incidence among French-Canadians and Cajuns as it does among East-European Jews. Yes it occurs with increasesd incedence in certain populations, but those do not necessarily reflect the traditional definitions of race.

Also not:
Various cranial and facial features appear in many populations.
Hairyness also occurs in many populations.
Black hair pigmentation occurs pretty much globally.

Anyway, it seems to me (I could be wrong :eep: ) that this whole issue comes from the rather naive idea that we can defeat racism by redefining race out of the language. Not only is this a meaningless word-dancing sophistry, but it will do nothing to inform the views of racists.

I'll try and get to all of your posts tomorrow (local time). I will say the aim is multi-fold. It is more than just an attempt to beat racism out of the racists using science. Although I must admit to enjoying that part of it. :D

And a hearty congratulations for being the only real worthy opponent I've found for this topic. :D

Different races can have sex with eachother and produce fertile offspring. That's the scientific definition for same species.

Since this seems to be getting lost in the noise over on the inter-racial marriage thread, I'll post it as a separate topic.

I challenge anyone to show that a biological division of modern humans into races actually exists.

That still won't change the fact that I hate black people.

That still won't change the fact that I hate black people.

So how exactly do you define the black people you "hate"? How do you personally define "black"? I really am honestly curious to try and understand this?
Do you go by color? Facial shape? Culture? Geography? The "one drop" rule? Something else? Help.

So how exactly do you define the black people you "hate"? How do you personally define "black"? I really am honestly curious to try and understand this?
Do you go by color? Facial shape? Culture? Geography? The "one drop" rule? Something else? Help.


Lol, that was actually awful sarcasm. I don't hate anyone based upon their physical features persay.

I have trouble wanting to get to know ignorant people (many of which just so happen to be black), ugly people and people with annoying voices or habits.

Just call me shallow.

Because we're different.Now that was a well thought out and intelligent answer........ :headbang:

Lol, that was actually awful sarcasm. I don't hate anyone based upon their physical features persay.

I have trouble wanting to get to know ignorant people (many of which just so happen to be black), ugly people and people with annoying voices or habits.

Just call me shallow.

Even though it was sarcasm, I note you still classify people as "black". What is it that makes them "black" in your eyes? Serious question.

That still won't change the fact that I hate black people.

...and the White Shame Party once again rears its empty head.

Lol, that was actually awful sarcasm. I don't hate anyone based upon their physical features persay.

I have trouble wanting to get to know ignorant people (many of which just so happen to be black), ugly people and people with annoying voices or habits.

Just call me shallow.

Many more ignorant people just happen to be white. And ugkly and annoying are in the eyes and ears of the beholder.

Dictionary:


Race- A population of organisms differing from others of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits; a subspecies.

To bring this a bit back on target:
Druthulhu, so we can compare alternate definitions, can you please define the following, as you understand them:
1) Race
2) White and Black, as used in the sense of race

Dictionary:


Race- A population of organisms differing from others of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits; a subspecies.

Well, that's a start. At least we have you looking into the definition. So can you give us an accepted taxonomic trinomial nomenclature for the races of H. sapien?
Or for that matter can anyone else here do that?
I would, of course, like to see a link to something.

race
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
. . .
5. Biology.
... a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.



black

3. often Black
... a. Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin:



white

3. One that is white or nearly white, as:
... f. also White A member of a racial group of people having light skin coloration, especially one of European origin.



http://dictionary.reference.com



These latter two definitions are admittedly relying on two rather cursory aspects of these racial groups: skin pigmentation and continent of origin. However it should be noted that all persons with these aspects are not being defined as members of these groups, only in the first case that members of these groups have the associated skin pigmentations, and in the second case that members of these groups have a strong tendancy to come from the associated continents. Of course members of mixtures of these racial groups can have one or the other skin pigmentation, or something in between, as can members of other racial groups; for example, some subgroups of the Indian Subcontinent display very dark skin pigmentations, and a member of such a group who spends his life outdoors in the sunlight in a sparsely clad state might very well look as black as members of some of the lighter skinned subgroups of purely african heritage. And of course there are groups in Africa and in Europe who have been there for centuries (at least a couple by now) who are not black or white, respectively, including of course Meditarranean and Eastern European groups who have lived there for ages. In short, all individuals of purely (unmixed) White heritage have light coloured skin and can ultimately (within a few millenia) trace their heredity back to Europe, but not all of those with light coloured skin &/or european heredity are racially white.

And these definitions, although I find them sufficient, leave out a lot of other defining phenotypical group traits such as the destinct skeletal characteristics of each "root race" as described in the link that I posted previously, as well as hair textures and pigmentations and other such things. I think however it is your turn: rather than asking me to find a definition that includes such things, can you find a citation that refutes the idea that virtually all individuals of purely Black heritage do not have tightly curled hair? Or that virtually all individuals of purely East Asian heritage do not have pronounced epithelial folds?

But clearly the debate here is one of semantics. The definition of "race" is certainly sufficient to be applied to the various global human phenotype groups that can be observed, in their non-interbred specimens, as sharing certain hereditary phenotypical traits with all other non-interbred specimens of their own groups, traits that are not found in non-interbred specimens of other such groups. Races exist, but if you prefer to use terms such as "phenotype (group)s" you are certainly free to do so. There is no currently accepted taxonomic trinomial nomenclature for the races of homo sapiens. Why? Political correctness. Human beings, particularly members of groups who have been historically dehumanized, do not like their groups to be classified in the same way that non-human life forms are. However there are clearly phenotype groups that share in their base populations certain genetically determined characteristics not found in the base populations of other such groups, and this fits perfectly well into the definitions provided for "race".

Druthulhu, you and so many others here keep coming back to an essentially undefinable definition of race.
Since both you and Communist Mississippi have acceded to the taxonomic defination of race, seeing as the definitions both of you posted are the taxonomic definitions of race (again note this is not my definition, but a standard biological definition, and note the relatively minor differences) I will eat my hat if you either of you can provide a link to a reputable taxonomy site offering a trinomial nomenclature dividing human races according to your definitions.

Otherwise, I can only insist on what I have said before. I have given a multitude of links to accepted anthropology and biology sites backing up my position. Not one poster, including you, has given any reliable biological or anthropological sources for your assertions (a sherrif's office and anecdotal stories are not reliable biology or anthropology sources).

Not one poster has suggested a proper taxonomical nomenclature for race.

I contend that I have clearly defined what race is, and that your definition is unclear.

race
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
. . .
5. Biology.
... a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.

. . .

There is no currently accepted taxonomic trinomial nomenclature for the races of homo sapiens. Why? Political correctness. Human beings, particularly members of groups who have been historically dehumanized, do not like their groups to be classified in the same way that non-human life forms are.

. . .



If you require any of the races within the species of homo sapiens to have been given former taxonomic recognition as subspecies in order to accept any proof that race itself is a real phenomenon then I am afraid that you are destined for disappointment. On the other hand I have provided evidence that at least three distinct human racial hereditary subgroups do exist. The assertion that such destinctions are examples of phenotypical traits and not of destinct races has not been entirely supported, to wit, while the first, affirmative, part is supported the latter, negative part is not. The described differences cause those groups to fit into both the definition of phenotype groupings and into the definition of races.

The definition of subspecies...

A taxonomic subdivision of a species consisting of an interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms.

...looks an awful lot like definition 5-a of race, shown above, and as can be seen from that earlier definition the only difference is that a subspecies has been given former taxonomic recognition. So if you were looking for someone to provide proof that human subspecies exist, there would be no proof - since having been formally recognized with taxonomic trinomial nomenclature is a prerequisite, such groupings, defined by such words, do not exist. But since you asked for proof that seperate races of the species homo sapiens exist, whether or not taxonomic trinomial nomenclature exists for them is an entirely moot point.

As for relevent points: how does the data in the link I provided fail to demonstrate the existance of distinct population groups that fall under the definition of races?

1) You say that you have clearly defined race. I must have missed that, sorry... how?

2) If you are refuting my link because it is on a Sheriff's Department's website, I would suggest to you that it was not written up by some snuff-chawing country law-man whose only qualification was getting enough votes, but rather it was received by the local law-man as being the agreed-upon standard (at some point, anyway) of the forensic pathology community and of the law-enforcement and criminal investigation community.

Looking for links more pleasing to you, perhaps even as you read this. ;)

This is the resource that Brazoria's sheriff used in the making of that web page: Found, Human Remains: A Field Manual for the Recovery of the Recent Human Skeleton, Skinner, M. and Lazenby, R.A., 1983 Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. It is a recommended text by the Iternational Forensics Program of Physicians for Human Rights.

Also as the son of a world-renowned forensic pathologist I am highly inclined to believe in the science of skeletal race determination. Perhaps I am biased ... being informed will do that to a person.

As for relevent points: how does the data in the link I provided fail to demonstrate the existance of distinct population groups that fall under the definition of races?

Because you have yet to give a clear definition of race.
Maybe I have been unclear. Every definition of "race" I have seen , as you seem to mean the term, is self-contradictory and arbitrary.

Your definition is, as I understand it, observable difference in gross morphology. However, neither you nor anyone else has provided a clear dividing line.

Pigmentation, cranial profile, previlance of blood type and genetic disorder are all scalar factors. I ask you to give a precise, specific dividing line between the races, and a rational for it, or admit that your definition of race is arbitrary and meaningless.

I've given link after link to proper source material demonstrating this.
Yet I have seen no source material that clearly and precisely deliniates "race" along the lines you insist upon. Not one source.
Where exactly and preciescly are the dividing lines? What exact specteral wavelength, or combination thereof, is the dividing line between "black" and "white"? Where exactly is the dividing line for cranial configuration?

If you cannot give precise answers, then you are not depending on science.

The standard biological definition of race I have repeated ad infinitem is precise. A race is a population of a species that does not interbreed with other members of a given species due to geographic isolation.

I do not know how to make it clearer or more precise.

You, and others have objected to the wording of this, definition, but have yet to provide any disproof.

There has been no demonstraition of the validity of your definition has been given. No one has yet to provide an example of a taxonomical defined race that interbreeds.

Here are examples of non-human races that do not interbreed:
http://www.geocities.com/eclectusgroup/pages/art.ID.html
http://www.southeastbirdnews.co.uk/RockAndWaterPipits.htm
http://livinglandscapes.bc.ca/cbasin/mammals/mammals1.html


I challenge you to provide examples of taxonomically classified races that interbreed.

(And note that I rejected your link because it was not a biology site. The Brazoria county sheriff's office is most certainly not a definitive source of biological information. You put down or raise up the good name of the sheriff, but it does nothing to make him a biologist. And, again, for what it's worth, that's my home county, and I've probably shared a dip with a fair number of deputies, so I know what being a "snuff-chawing" redneck is all about, and it isn't about being a biologist or anthropologist. Neither is does it disqualify you from being a biologist or anthropolpgist. ;))

Are we going to see any proponents of race offer any substantiative biological evidence for any of their proposed definitions? Or have you all conceeded that race does not exist? Or will you just go about hipocritically arguing that race exists without any evidence what so ever?

Are we going to see any proponents of race offer any substantiative biological evidence for any of their proposed definitions? Or have you all conceeded that race does not exist? Or will you just go about hipocritically arguing that race exists without any evidence what so ever?

I started working on it, but then you pretty much said that anything short of numerically precise graphs that show such things as melanin level and hair curliture (I made a word! :D ) with precise numerically delineated cline-breaks between the levels manifested in the root and originally geographically isolated racial phenotype groups, certified by doctors with multiple PhDs in biology or in physical athropology, would not satisfy you.

But as per the definition that we have already discussed: a race can be a race without recognized trinomial nomenclature, only not a subspecies. You know that no such graphs probably exist, and you SHOULD know that in order to satisfy the definitions THAT WE HAVE AGREED (mostly) UPON (except for whether isolation is required or merely typical), such graphs and numbers are not needed.

You believe what you want to believe, and when proof is offered, you raise the bar. So it's pointless to try to convince you because you do not honestly allow yourself to objectively appraise the evidence.

But if you really like... give me a day or so and I will try to get back to what I was working on. Of course it will not convince you... you've already decided that.