NationStates Jolt Archive

ok. there are 7 genetic groups within homo sapiens sapiens (us, it means essentially very wise man, but dont let that let you believe we were more intelligent than our other members of homo sapiens species, were just more agressive than them. there were three versions of homo sapiens) 6 of these are from africa, and the 7th is everyone else. so, the concept of race as we use it is incorrect, indians are not a different race from a british person. An african is though, and could be from any of 6 groups. this makes africans genetically superior to us europeans, as they have a much bigger gene pool. hence, africans clean up at the olympic games.
Well they may have more body mass on average the a white European however what good is that when they can't even feed many of their own people in their own country?

The book IQ and the Wealth of Nations should get you some information why this occurs. IQ and the Wealth of Nations: Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=iq+and+the+wealth+of+nations&spell=1) should give you a chance to a new perspective and a chance to even see at least part of the book on Google. Enjoy! :D



From http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/027597510X?v=glance

Reviewer: southpaw68 "southpaw68" (florida) - See all my reviews
The authors Lynn and Vanhanen to attempt to answer the question of why countries end up being so rich or so poor in IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Examining IQ scores worldwide, crunching the numbers, and contructing the graphs, they come to the conclusion that IQ does play an important role in how wealthy a nation will be.

The first section covers historical speculations about why nations or poor or rich. Some thought it may be due to climate, economic exploitation, or the protestant work ethic. The protestant work ethic was one of the more plausible reasons for wealth differences since many protestants once believed that work was not just work, but their divine "calling" which they were responsible for. Hence capitalism grew faster in protestant countries rather than catholic ones in Europe.

As far as the rankings go, the highest IQ nations are East Asian, then nations of European descent, then middle eastern, latino, south and west Asian nations, and then sub-Sahahan Africa. The highest IQ average is 107 and the lowest is in the mid-60s. The IQ averages are then combined with their present economic wealth and it is determined whether nations are performing above or below their IQ averages. Nations such as China who are just coming out of their communist centrally controlled economy stand to become more rich given their high IQ averages. It is important that a country adopt a free market economy and representative government, if they want to use the populations' IQ to the fullest. The authors think that a country with an IQ below 90 will have trouble developing a modern economy.

Some suggestions are given on how to improve the IQs of poor nations are given at the end. Some solutions are environmental such as improving nutrition. Others are genetic, such as preventing dysgenic fertility. The authors suggest that the richer nations will have to pay out foreign aid to help the poor nations in these matters, even though from what I've read foreign often isn't effective in solving these problems. Some of these nations are corrupt, hostile, or potentially hostile, and don't deserve foreign aid, in my opinion.

I still had a question of whether it was really desirable for every nation to have a modern economy. Or even whether rich nations should have modern economy. It seems you would use up your resources and pollute more, if we keep going the way of mass consumption. Although some nations are poor, there might be some non-economic advantages to living a more primitive lifestyle. Why try to change people who are used to that lifestyle? It might be better to alleviate poverty by not creating more mass consumption societies. These issues aren't covered by the authors.

Most science, most scientists, are part of the (mostly) liberal left academic community which brings us Politically Correct doublespeak, notions of global unity and cohesiveness, the inheirent superiority of socialist ideologies of government, and more...

By politicizing science and setting political criteria for what findings you will or will not accept you take an ancient philosophical position. It is not unlike the position of the Catholic Church when it condemned Galileo because his finding did not meet agreed upon dogma.

You accuse all scientists of slanting the truth because of supposed liberal politics (no proof is needed when smearing a person’s integrity) and therefore don’t even need to look at their findings. You start with a conclusion that meets the standards of your political dogma and work backwards, setting science and logic on its ear.

Race is a social construct based on certain outer appearances and there has been quite a bit of inequality enforced between them. However, hard as many have tried, no one can find a *biological* basis on which to claim that there are separate races.



Just to add on: Genetically, we all come from the same place and there has never been a time when there were isolated breeding groups for long enough to develop separate races.
Are there not human made breeds of dogs? I would say so, and they were selected because of outward traits due to genetics. Of course were isolated long enough for races but it won't be touched in the scientific community because currently the current religion of state in the West is political correctness because whoever tries to disprove it in the scientific community would be equal to blasphemy.


Today racism is portrayed far worse than murder, pedophilia, rape or any other major offense. Such that any scientific sector that would investigate truthfully in it would cause nothing lesser than their own political and economic destruction.


rac·ism

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability

If we're gonna go with pure science, I'm gonna have to say no. Since in Anthropology race is defined as a subspecies. But amongst homo sapiens there are no subspecies, and hence, there is no race.

By politicizing science and setting political criteria for what findings you will or will not accept you take an ancient philosophical position. It is not unlike the position of the Catholic Church when it condemned Galileo because his finding did not meet agreed upon dogma.

You accuse all scientists of slanting the truth because of supposed liberal politics (no proof is needed when smearing a person’s integrity) and therefore don’t even need to look at their findings. You start with a conclusion that meets the standards of your political dogma and work backwards, setting science and logic on its ear.

You got to love your cultural anthropologists and their wonderful :rolleyes: scientific speech :
"[Race] doesn't exist biologically, but it does exist socially… Culturally I'm white-ified. People see me as white. That has something to do with how I look, but it has nothing to do with biological variation." -LMAO

Visit Vdare (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/dawkins.htm) to be enlightened upon the subject.

You got to love your cultural anthropologists and their wonderful :rolleyes: scientific speech :
'Culturally I'm white-ified,'
'People see me as white. That has something to do with how I look, but it has nothing to do with biological variation.' -LMAO

Visit Vdare (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/dawkins
.htm) for more information on the subject.

You got to love your astronomers and physicists and their wonderful :rolleyes: scientific speech :

'The earth revolves around the sun' -LMAO

What a moron that Galileo is.

Even an idiot can use common sense and look up in the sky and see the sun actually travels around the earth.

Visit the Bible for more information on the subject.

Are there not human made breeds of dogs? I would say so, and they were selected because of outward traits due to genetics. Of course were were isolated long enough for races but it won't be touched in the scientific community because currently the current religion of state in the West is political correctness because whoever it would be blasphemy.

Yes, because genetics lie. The genetic code of human beings has a liberal slant just to thwart you.

http://www.genome.org/cgi/reprint/12/4/602

There is not enough variation between races in STRs, RFLPs, or even (as this study shows) biallelic polymorphisms to reliably determine ancestry.

I'm sorry if you wish so badly for there to be clear differences between what you would like to term races, but the truth of the matter is that it just isn't true. If we took people with certain traits and completely isolated them as breeding groups for many, many generations, it probably would be. However, at this point, there has never been a time when breeding groups were separated long enough (as humans have forced them to be in dogs) to create reliably determined "races".

It has nothing to do with bias one way or another. The original studies were carried out in the '70s in an attempt to prove a genetic basis for race. However, the data clearly showed that it was untrue.

So "ancestry" is different than "race"?
/[quote]
Yes. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]People of African or Mediterranean descent are much more susceptible to sickle-cell anemia.

There are definite differences in the races.
Nothing to do with race. And so far as I know inaccurate. The occurance of sickle - cell annemia is influenced by geographically determined enviromental factors and the occurence rate for populations living away from geographic locations where maleria is endemic are greater than those of populations who do not live in geographic locations where maleria is endemic.

See my post re: The Evolution of Corn.
Would that be the post based on the same body of information and science which you consistently dispute and contradict throughout the rest of this thread? I for one learned nothing I did not already know, accept and understand to be consistent with the fact that 'races' amongst anatomically modern humans are a social construct from your corny facts.

In a nutshell, within just a few generations of selective breeding, a domestic plant looks and acts *nothing* like the plant it was originally bred from.
Plants are entirely different from animals and particulary complex mamals such as humans.

Change can be *quick*.
Amongst human populations only in very limited circumstances. None of which prove race exists.

And you know, just because we know that human population fell to around 10,000 heads at some point in our near distant history doesn't invalidate the concept of race.

At some point, we all share a single genetic heritage with an "Eve"... who was probably more or less a knuckle-dragger...

And that Eve... she didn't just magically appear. You can probably trace HER ancestry through a bunch of monkeys all the way to a single monkey...

And if you KEEP going... you'll find a single celled organism, somewhere WAY back...

So clearly, there is NO such thing as different SPECIES. We're all the same. We all come from the same original single celled organism. You are the same as a slug, or a roach, or a buzzard, or a jackass...

"Oh, now you're just being ridiculious"...

Am I? The logic of the argument is the same in both cases.
It is not the same logic at all. Species categories are based on measurable traits/attributes, that in real application will identify all and only members of a species. I have personally challenged you to provide such categorical measurements for even a single racial group, and yet you have not yet done so, I'm of the opinion that this is because you cant do so...

I think too many biologists have been skipping too many Logic and Reasoning courses...
As tempting as this is..... :D

ok. there are 7 genetic groups within homo sapiens sapiens (us, it means essentially very wise man, but dont let that let you believe we were more intelligent than our other members of homo sapiens species, were just more agressive than them. there were three versions of homo sapiens) 6 of these are from africa, and the 7th is everyone else. so, the concept of race as we use it is incorrect, indians are not a different race from a british person. An african is though, and could be from any of 6 groups. this makes africans genetically superior to us europeans, as they have a much bigger gene pool. hence, africans clean up at the olympic games.
So far as can be determined at this time, anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa before they despersed elsewhere. It is currently believed that it is unlikely anatomically modern humans co-evolved in for instance Asia and Africa, but rather that anatomically modern humans spread to other places after the species had evolved.

I don't think YOU understand. I have made clear, time and time again, that I'm not buying into the "accepted definitions" put forth by the scientific community.
The science community has no defninition of race, the definition of race that we are referring to is the normative definition referred to when applied in the context of humans, since the term was so applied. If you want to redefine race so that it means something that no one else means when they use the word, just to prove that it does exist, I suggest your need to redefine the word to prove what it refers to exists, is indicitive of that non-existence.

I haven't paid much attention to this thread, but this seems to ridiculous. Of course there are races in humans, just as there are cultivates in plants. There are sufficient anatomical and morphological differences between caucasoids, negroids, and mongoloids to satisfy at least three different major races. Some anthropologists can tell where a person came from just form looking at the shape of their skull, with nothing left but the bone. Such ability to discriminate between with mere skull shape certainly defines its own race. Then you could break it down further, such as Scandinavians, Germans, what's left of the Celts in Britain (just a few different types I thought up of off the top of my head) are all Europeans. Yet I could consider them to be separate sub-races at least.

I haven't paid much attention to this thread, but this seems to ridiculous. Of course there are races in humans, just as there are cultivates in plants. There are sufficient anatomical and morphological differences between caucasoids, negroids, and mongoloids to satisfy at least three different major races. Some anthropologists can tell where a person came from just form looking at the shape of their skull, with nothing left but the bone. Such ability to discriminate between with mere skull shape certainly defines its own race. Then you could break it down further, such as Scandinavians, Germans, what's left of the Celts in Britain (just a few different types I thought up of off the top of my head) are all Europeans. Yet I could consider them to be separate sub-races at least.

Breeds or races are generally determined by genetic differences. There are not significant genetic differences to determine a person's ancestry. *Many* studies have been done into this.

Likewise, while the shape of a skull may give an *idea* of where a person comes from, it is not failsafe.

Breeds or races are generally determined by genetic differences. There are not significant genetic differences to determine a person's ancestry.
Drastic differences in the density of skin pigmentation, eye and hair colour, height, and several other factors are not enough to classifly people as different races?

Likewise, while the shape of a skull may give an *idea* of where a person comes from, it is not failsafe.
Yes, that is true. There are always anomalies. But it is very easy to tell a Scandinavian skull from an Inuit skull if you know what to look for.

I haven't paid much attention to this thread, but this seems ridiculous. Of course there are races....

No you haven't, which is why your post is...well, ridiculous. The common sense, obvious answer is that there are races. However, science has demonstrated again and again, from Galileo to Einstein, that the common sense answer is not always correct.

Drastic differences in the density of skin pigmentation, eye and hair colour, height, and several other factors are not enough to classifly people as different races?

From a genetic standpoint, no.
From a social standpoint, obviously.

Of course, the only ones you really have here are skin pigmentation and hair color. Sure, Asians have a tendency to be shorter, but there are many tall Asians. Those of African decent have a tendency to be tall, but there are short black people. And these numbers are not an insignificant percentage of those we classify as "Asian" or "black".

Truth is, people have tried time and time again to find a genetic basis for racial classifications. And they have found time and time again that there is more genetic variation between members of a given "race" than there are between the races.

Biologically, a race would be defined as a breeding group that had been separated from the rest of the species for long enough that it's race could be reliably determined by a genetic screen. There is no such thing in humans.

Yes, that is true. There are always anomalies. But it is very easy to tell a Scandinavian skull from an Inuit skull if you know what to look for.

*shrug* If you say so.

Read this: Biological basis for Race and Racial Differences (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:DjGLCN5OBkEJ:www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/TaxonomicConstruct.pdf+racial+differences&hl=en&client=firefox-a)

From above:
QUOTE:

Sometimes it is claimed by those who argue that race is just a social construct that the human genome project shows that because people share 99% of their “genes” in common, that there are no races. This is silly. Human genes are 98% similar to chimpanzee genes. Yet no one thinks that chimpanzees have the same intelligence, brain size, or social behavior patterns as human beings; they look and behave very differently. In fact humans share 90% of their genes with mice, which is why we can use them to test drug therapies. Similarly, although men and women are genetically 99% the same, it is foolish to believe that sex is just a “social construction.”

END QUOTE:

No you haven't, which is why your post is...well, ridiculous. The common sense, obvious answer is that there are races. However, science has demonstrated again and again, from Galileo to Einstein, that the common sense answer is not always correct.
Did you read the whole thing? Or anything past that first sentence? I do not rely on anything like this from a "common sense" standpoint. I proceeded to explicate on anthropology, a subject I admittedly know little on, and morphology and anatomy, which I know in insects and arachnids, but not humans. Did you notice the part where I talked about the three main divisions of humans, caucasoids, negroids, and mongoloids, if I recall correctly? I gave scientific evidence for my beliefs if you didn't notice.

Did you read the whole thing? Or anything past that first sentence? I do not rely on anything like this from a "common sense" standpoint. I proceeded to explicate on anthropology, a subject I admittedly know little on, and morphology and anatomy, which I know in insects and arachnids, but not humans. Did you notice the part where I talked about the three main divisions of humans, caucasoids, negroids, and mongoloids, if I recall correctly? I gave scientific evidence for my beliefs if you didn't notice.

I could show you brown dogs, white dogs, and brindle dogs - but that wouldn't mean that they had disparate ancestries. Only genetics would clearly demonstrate that.

Did you read the whole thing? Or anything past that first sentence? I do not rely on anything like this from a "common sense" standpoint. I proceeded to explicate on anthropology, a subject I admittedly know little on, and morphology and anatomy, which I know in insects and arachnids, but not humans. Did you notice the part where I talked about the three main divisions of humans, caucasoids, negroids, and mongoloids, if I recall correctly? I gave scientific evidence for my beliefs if you didn't notice.

Yes, I did read your entire post and you have not said anything that has not been brought up - and refuted - many times in this thread.

Read this: Biological basis for Race and Racial Differences (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:DjGLCN5OBkEJ:www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/TaxonomicConstruct.pdf+racial+differences&hl=en&client=firefox-a)

From above:
QUOTE:

Sometimes it is claimed by those who argue that race is just a social construct that the human genome project shows that because people share 99% of their “genes” in common, that there are no races. This is silly. Human genes are 98% similar to chimpanzee genes. Yet no one thinks that chimpanzees have the same intelligence, brain size, or social behavior patterns as human beings; they look and behave very differently. In fact humans share 90% of their genes with mice, which is why we can use them to test drug therapies. Similarly, although men and women are genetically 99% the same, it is foolish to believe that sex is just a “social construction.”

END QUOTE:

Cute, I post validated evidence from a peer-reviewed scientific genetics journal, and you post some psychology buffs essay.

Yeah, these are really on par with one another.

Sharing 99% of the genes has nothing to do with it. The pure and simple truth is that there is more genetic variation between members of the same "race" than between races. As such, there is no biological basis for race.

Those of African decent have a tendency to be tall, but there are short black people.
Actually, I just added that in there with the Pygmies in mind...it really was an afterthought more than anything else.

Biologically, a race would be defined as a breeding group that had been separated from the rest of the species for long enough that it's race could be reliably determined by a genetic screen. There is no such thing in humans.
Ahh, I see your argument. Races are determined by genotype, not phenotype. Can they tell the difference between the cultivates of Cannabis sative though a genetic screen? (That was a sincere question.) If that turns out to be false, then I will concede the point. But if cultivates of a species can not be determined by genetic screening, then I'll need more evidence against it. Though I guess there might be some in this thread, I'm just too lethargic right now to go back through this thread.

Yes, I did read your entire post and you have not said anything that has not been brought up - and refuted - many times in this thread.
Come now, people mentioned morphology? Only entomologists use that term anymore...

Ahh, I see your argument. Races are determined by genotype, not phenotype. Can they tell the difference between the cultivates of Cannabis sative though a genetic screen? (That was a sincere question.)

Not really my area, so I don't know. My guess is yes.

However, there may also be a different classification system involved in plants than there are in animals, etc.

Since I am not really familiar with the term, I cannot really determine if "cultivates" are a logical analogy for races. The only analogies I can really point to are breeds of animals, such as dogs.

I could show you brown dogs, white dogs, and brindle dogs - but that wouldn't mean that they had disparate ancestries. Only genetics would clearly demonstrate that.
Actually, geneology would probably be even more effective. Sometimes dogs are quite similar to each other. Yet we talk about breeds that are most certainly genetically similar enough to be considered the same breed as separate ones.

Come now, people mentioned morphology? Only entomologists use that term anymore...

I use the term daily, and I hate bugs.

Actually, geneology would probably be even more effective. Sometimes dogs are quite similar to each other. Yet we talk about breeds that are most certainly genetically similar enough to be considered the same breed as separate ones.

And breeds (pure bred anyway) can be determined pretty reliably through a genetic screen (although it isn't really used since it is freaking expensive).

Not really my area, so I don't know. My guess is yes.
Aww, I was hoping you did, because I couldn't find that information anywhere. But I'm really bad at that anyways.

I use the term daily, and I hate bugs.
I guess linguists do too, I forgot that, but what do you use it in reference to?

And breeds (pure bred anyway) can be determined pretty reliably through a genetic screen (although it isn't really used since it is freaking expensive).
Can they tell a standard poodle from a miniture poodle, which are certainly two separate breeds with the phenotypic evidence. But can they be genetically discrimanted with our current level of technology? I doubt it, though I guess it's possible.

I haven't paid much attention to this thread, but this seems to ridiculous. Of course there are races in humans, just as there are cultivates in plants. There are sufficient anatomical and morphological differences between caucasoids, negroids, and mongoloids to satisfy at least three different major races. Some anthropologists can tell where a person came from just form looking at the shape of their skull, with nothing left but the bone. Such ability to discriminate between with mere skull shape certainly defines its own race. Then you could break it down further, such as Scandinavians, Germans, what's left of the Celts in Britain (just a few different types I thought up of off the top of my head) are all Europeans. Yet I could consider them to be separate sub-races at least.
There are no morphosism or polymorphisms that can be used to identify all and only members of what people mean by race.
Generally when only skulls are found forensic scientists can give a likely 'race' and even indicate how firm their guesstimate is, but they cant give an absolute conclusion.

Anyone who looked at me would say I was white, yet a hairdresser once accurately inferred my 'black' ancestory from the feel of my hair, she couldnt do the same with my full blooded sister (who's hair felt 'white' to her), so is my sister who shares the exact same ancestory as I do, a different race to me, because we have identifiably different racial features?

Morphologically my sister is white, and yet I am at most only partially white, so if morphological/anatomical traits are what race refers to, I despite having the exact same ancestory as my sister, belong to a different race....mmmm...

Drastic differences in the density of skin pigmentation, eye and hair colour, height, and several other factors are not enough to classifly people as different races?


Yes, that is true. There are always anomalies. But it is very easy to tell a Scandinavian skull from an Inuit skull if you know what to look for.

Such drastic differences dont conform to the normative meaning of race, if two people of the exact same ancestory are of different races, doesnt this make race not about what most people think it is about (breeding). If two people of unshared ancestory are the same race (based on skin pigmentation and eye colour) and yet twins are not (based on skin pigmentation and eye colour) then race doesnt mean what race has always meant. The concept of race assumes that having the exact same ancestors (ie being full blooded siblings) means that you are of the same race, and yet if we use morphological features to define races, this will not always be the case... two parents of one race may have offspring of another race, or offspring of 2 or more races, despite the exclusivity of their procreation practises.

If I were to ask you to give firm absolute criterium for membership of any one racial group, your criterium would either include or exclude someone at inconsitently with whatever definition of race you choose give, unless that definition is tautologically self fullfilling in a way that renders the term meaningless. Race doesnt mean variation amongst humanity, it specifically refers to bred traits and their implications as perceived when the terminology was first applied, and was applied as an explanation for phenominom we now know to be better explained by concepts that dont correlate with and at times contradict the concept meant by race. To race culture is caused by breeding (rather than being acquired through learning as we now understand it to be), geographical, and social facts about a person were given no importance as enviromental aspects, and the relationship between culture, diet, behaviour etc and breeding was all assumed to be one directional (going from breeding outwards). Intelligence was assumed to be wholey dictated and set by breeding, as were many other characteristics we now know to be only partially or barely influenced by that particular aspect of an individuals enviroment. Race didnt merely put a name to what were perceived as significant facts about variations and similarities between/amongst groups, the concept also meant certain things about those differences, their causes and implications. The inaccuracy of race, both as an explanation for things that have entirely other causes, and as a concept (ie what was meant about the thing that it labelled) mean that redefining the word to reflect reality renders it a whole other word, it no longer means what it meant. To avoid confusion it seems better to employ words that dont mean a whole lot of untrue things.

The fact is in all these pages of dialogue no one yet has managed to supply any definition of a race, that in application would identify all and only members of that race....if you know of any morphological pattern or feature that can be used to classify with accuracy all and only members of the 'racial groups', then you know something that the world's foremost anthropologists dont, because after a few centuries of studiously attempting to provide and apply some method of seperating and identifying racial groups, they've pretty much conceded that it cant be done...

Not really my area, so I don't know. My guess is yes.

However, there may also be a different classification system involved in plants than there are in animals, etc.

Since I am not really familiar with the term, I cannot really determine if "cultivates" are a logical analogy for races. The only analogies I can really point to are breeds of animals, such as dogs.

God, it is *always* wiggle and waffle with you, isn't it...

I'm done going back and forth. You *did* misquote me, and attributed someone else's comments to me in your last post, for whatever that is worth.

While I clearly understand less about biology than several of the posters on this forum, and I am relying on "common sense" to come to a lot of my conclusions, I am *not* uninformed on the subject, and I still maintain YOUR line of argument is obviously flawed, biased, and circular. It doesn't *matter* what the facts *beneath* that are. You've drawn a conclusion and you're unwilling to concede that you are taking a selective approach to what data you will consider.

So what is the use... You're wrong. Bring me a mountain of text-books that say otherwise... they're wrong too...

Show me a stastically significant number of blue eyed, blonde, 6 foot Asians. Or of 5 foot, black headed Norwegieans with very sparse facial hair...

Show me two black Africans that had a child with purely caucasian features...

Keeping in mind, the words. "statistically significant". Anomolies do not invalidate truths.

Race exists, as a biological and genetic function. This "Gnostik" guy is right about your arguments, and framed it much better than me...

:headbang:

God, it is *always* wiggle and waffle with you, isn't it...

I'm done going back and forth. You *did* misquote me, and attributed someone else's comments to me in your last post, for whatever that is worth.

While I clearly understand less about biology than several of the posters on this forum, and I am relying on "common sense" to come to a lot of my conclusions, I am *not* uninformed on the subject, and I still maintain YOUR line of argument is obviously flawed, biased, and circular. It doesn't *matter* what the facts *beneath* that are. You've drawn a conclusion and you're unwilling to concede that you are taking a selective approach to what data you will consider.

So what is the use... You're wrong. Bring me a mountain of text-books that say otherwise... they're wrong too...

Show me a stastically significant number of blue eyed, blonde, 6 foot Asians. Or of 5 foot, black headed Norwegieans with very sparse facial hair...

Show me two black Africans that had a child with purely caucasian features...

Keeping in mind, the words. "statistically significant". Anomolies do not invalidate truths.

Race exists, as a biological and genetic function. This "Gnostik" guy is right about your arguments, and framed it much better than me...

:headbang:
The wiggling and waffling is surely from those who want to say that distinct identifiable categories exist despite the non-existence of any distinguishable traits that the members of the categories to be identified.
What is a black African?
You claim that no matter how much information you were given, or what the evidence was you would believe your common sense, I suggest good sense is a better alternative.
Race doesnt exist and throughout this thread you have failed to even provide any criteria on which it can be absolutely and reliably defined in the real world. Referring to corn and dogs doesnt prove anything about human beings. Race never meant 'people are not all the same exactly', it meant specific things about the differences that it was premised on, not all of which even existed anyway.
No one I can see here is arguing that human being are homogenous, we are not arguing that people dont inherent genetic material from their parents, nor are we denying that the occurence rate of genes within any identifiable group will not be the same as the occurence rate of the same genes within another identifiable group. What we are saying is that none of the groups referred to when people talk about races can be identified by posessing or lacking any one gene or group of genes, any one morphological feature or group of features, nor are any human groups not able to interbreed with others on a biogical basis. Two full blooded siblings one of whom is dark skinned with coarse 'kinky' hair and brown eyes, and the other of whom is light skinned with straight fine hair and blue eyes, share ancestory, but morphologically it's debatable that they share race, and in most cases as genetically iffy...race has never meant something that would result in two people sharing identical ancestory but not being definately the same race, yet in real world application such a result is possible according to all definitions based on morphology and genetics as the criterium for distinguishing racial groups.

God, it is *always* wiggle and waffle with you, isn't it...

Did I kick your dog in another life or something?

I'm done going back and forth. You *did* misquote me, and attributed someone else's comments to me in your last post, for whatever that is worth.

Funny, I can't find a single post in which I quoted you at all in this thread. *shrug* Must be that martyr complex again.

While I clearly understand less about biology than several of the posters on this forum, and I am relying on "common sense" to come to a lot of my conclusions, I am *not* uninformed on the subject, and I still maintain YOUR line of argument is obviously flawed, biased, and circular.

Yes, because "there is not enough genetic variation between races to reliably determine ancestry" isn't a clear statement at all. Go figure.


It doesn't *matter* what the facts *beneath* that are. You've drawn a conclusion and you're unwilling to concede that you are taking a selective approach to what data you will consider.

I am defining different viewpoints of race. From a sociological viewpoint, there is obviously an existence of race, although it may be more correct to use the term "ethnicity." I have simply pointed out that, from a biological viewpoint, the term would refer to a breeding groups which have been separated long enough to show significant and reliably determined genetic differences.

I know it is hard to understand that there might be different definitions for a word, but do try to read what I have written before you jump all over me for something I haven't even done.

So what is the use... You're wrong. Bring me a mountain of text-books that say otherwise... they're wrong too...

Yes, God. Do explain it to me....

Show me a stastically significant number of blue eyed, blonde, 6 foot Asians.

There is a mountain in Japan where you could find this.

Or of 5 foot, black headed Norwegieans with very sparse facial hair...

There are many of these as well.

Show me two black Africans that had a child with purely caucasian features...

This is unlikely to happen. However, two people with dark skin could have a child with lighter skin rather easily, especially if they were carrying the more recessive alleles of the gene. In fact, it happened in the Southern US quite often and many of these children were able to integrate and act as whites.

Race exists, as a biological and genetic function. This "Gnostik" guy is right about your arguments, and framed it much better than me...

:headbang:

Really? Because Gnostikos pretty much agreed with me on the genetic basis. So I guess that means I'm right. Go figure.

This is unlikely to happen. However, two people with dark skin could have a child with lighter skin rather easily, especially if they were carrying the more recessive alleles of the gene. In fact, it happened in the Southern US quite often and many of these children were able to integrate and act as whites.

I had a long response, but your response speaks best by itself...

I especially like the part "It happened in the Southern US quite often"...


Depends on your definition of "quite often". One out of a 100? One out of a 1000, one out of a million?

In any case... Clearly, you've illustrated that there is no biological or genetic process in "race", that it is simply a social construct... *snort*.

Heh. Oh, I just saw how you carefully crafted your response, "two people with darker skin could have a lighter skinned baby".

We're talking about two pure black Africans popping out a pure caucasian child. Which is about as likely as two purebred Great Danes popping out a Chimpanzee.

It is so nice that biology and genetics co-operates so nicely with our purely social constructs of race, like that... isn't it? Who says science is inflexible.

Oh, and just for good measure... :rolleyes:

From reading the discussions of those who argue that race most obviously does exist I see a great deal of exasperation with those of us who contend that race is not a scientific or biological concept. The general feeling seems to be that we have absolutely no common sense and, indeed, very little sensory ability at all since we cannot see what is so obvious to everyone else.

The general consensus is that we must be motivated by political correctness (whatever that is).

Of course we agree that race and racial classifications and categories exist. However, we are saying that the category should more appropriately be referred to as “social race.” Certainly individuals share biologically transmitted traits, however those traits (skin color, hair texture, etc.), while considered to be significant by society, are not biologically significant.

The best argument for race as a social construct is society itself. Look at how race is defined and treated around the world. You will find no unanimity in definition or in the number of racial categories.

Race in Brazil

A study in Brazil in 1976 asked people to identify their own skin color. They got 134 different terms. At least 500 racial categories have been documented in Brazil. There it is possible for children of the same parents to be classified as different races if they look different (whereas in Japan people that look biologically identical can be considered different races). As I previously mentioned a "white" person in the United States could be labeled several different races in Brazil: branco (white), claro (light), louro (blond), sarara (light skinned red-headed), or mulato claro (light mulatto).

Race in Latin America

When Latin America was under Spanish control they created a 16 point racial classification system:

1. Mestizo (Spanish father and Indian mother)
2. Castizo (Spanish father and Mestizo mother)
3. Espomolo (Spanish mother and Castizo father)
4. Mulatto (Spanish and black African)
5. Moor (Spanish and Mulatto)
6. Albino (Spanish father and Moor mother)
7. Throwback (Spanish father and Albino mother)
8. Wolf (Throwback father and Indian mother)
9. Zambiago (Wolf father and Indian mother)
10. Cambujo (Zambiago father and Indian mother)
11. Alvarazado (Cambujo father and Mulatto mother)
12. Borquino (Alvarazado father and Mulatto mother)
13. Coyote (Borquino father and Mulatto mother)
14. Chamizo (Coyote father and Mulatto mother)
15. Coyote-Mestizo (Cahmizo father and Mestizo mother)
16. Ahi Tan Estas (Coyote-Mestizo father and Mulatto mother)

Even today Latin American society has greater variations of race than found in the United States. Classifications of social race remain a basis for formal and informal social, economic, and even legal discrimination.

Race in Japan

In Japan the concept of race (jinshu) is rarely mentioned. This is because the Japanese conflate categories of humanity. In the United States, for example, “white” and “black” are racial categories; “French” and “German” are national or citizenship categories; and “Italian American” and “Armenian American” are ethnic categories. In contrast, these distinctions often elide Japanese: one can be a white person (hakujin) in the same way that one can be a German person (Doitsujin). In this line of reasoning, everyone belongs to a homologous category of humanity. This does not, however, keep the Japanese from exhibiting racist traits, often against other Asians, particularly Koreans.

Race in the U.S.

In the United States we have basic categories of Black, White, and Asian, but have also added Hispanic, which Brazilians see an entirely American creation. According to the U. S. Census Bureau the concept of race “reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.”

Self-identification is hardly the standard scientific method for creating taxons. The same person classified as a mulatto in Brazil and a mestizo in Mexico would be black (or negroid) in the United States.

Of course race exists - as a social construct. Saying it is a social construct makes it no less real, nor any less influential. However, recognizing that we have decided to place importance on categorizing people based upon genetic traits such as skin color is a step in the direction of de-emphasizing those superficial, and biologically insignificant, genetic traits.

...and that said, there is more genetic variation WITHIN the same "race" than there is BETWEEN different "races."
I was wondering when someone would get around to saying that. Race is an artificial construct which really has no biological basis.

I had a long response, but your response speaks best by itself...

I especially like the part "It happened in the Southern US quite often"...


Depends on your definition of "quite often". One out of a 100? One out of a 1000, one out of a million?

In any case... Clearly, you've illustrated that there is no biological or genetic process in "race", that it is simply a social construct... *snort*.

Heh. Oh, I just saw how you carefully crafted your response, "two people with darker skin could have a lighter skinned baby".

We're talking about two pure black Africans popping out a pure caucasian child. Which is about as likely as two purebred Great Danes popping out a Chimpanzee.

It is so nice that biology and genetics co-operates so nicely with our purely social constructs of race, like that... isn't it? Who says science is inflexible.

Oh, and just for good measure... :rolleyes:Perhaps you are too young or sheltered to know of the case in aparthied South Africa where two black people had a child who had light enough skin to pass as white, she petitioned for and gained classification as white, something significant under that government as it carried with it additional rights and privledges. What made the story noteworthy to international media is she later petitioned for a return to her 'black' status as interracial marriage was prohibited under that government and she had fallen for a man who shared her ethnic heritage and wished to marry.

*snort* indeed.

Race is not a genuine concept. It is important to remember that human beings share more than 99% of the same genetic information. The "appearance" differences among us are attributable to climatological factors and the attendant biological acclimation.

Race is only used as a convenient---and dangerous---means of sociological categorization. Why it is important to ascertain how many pink, brown, red-brown, white, etc humans there are in a given geographic location is still something I can't quite appreciate or understand.

Perhaps a few of the more.....opinionated?.....members of this forum can enlighten us.

It is too a genuine concept, roughly equivalent to referring to arctic wolves and dingos as different races. On the other hand, I wouldn't liken human races to the difference between wolves and coyotes, (although all members of the genus Canis are capable of interbreeding, they have distinctive physiological traits that aren't present in humans.)

But it's a mistake to think that the human race is rushing headlong toward homogeneity -- most likely we're headed toward a mixing then an artificially created set of races (like border collies vs. yippy dogs) and eventually toward genuine speciation of homo sapiens.

Then we get to have grand wars, not these pissant things we have now.

(No this isn't sarcasm, it's a prediction of where we're going.)

From reading the discussions of those who argue that race most obviously does exist I see a great deal of exasperation with those of us who contend that race is not a scientific or biological concept. The general feeling seems to be that we have absolutely no common sense and, indeed, very little sensory ability at all since we cannot see what is so obvious to everyone else.

The general consensus is that we must be motivated by political correctness (whatever that is).

Of course we agree that race and racial classifications and categories exist. However, we are saying that the category should more appropriately be referred to as “social race.” Certainly individuals share biologically transmitted traits, however those traits (skin color, hair texture, etc.), while considered to be significant by society, are not biologically significant.

The best argument for race as a social construct is society itself. Look at how race is defined and treated around the world. You will find no unanimity in definition or in the number of racial categories.

Race in Brazil

A study in Brazil in 1976 asked people to identify their own skin color. They got 134 different terms. At least 500 racial categories have been documented in Brazil. There it is possible for children of the same parents to be classified as different races if they look different (whereas in Japan people that look biologically identical can be considered different races). As I previously mentioned a "white" person in the United States could be labeled several different races in Brazil: branco (white), claro (light), louro (blond), sarara (light skinned red-headed), or mulato claro (light mulatto).

Race in Latin America

When Latin America was under Spanish control they created a 16 point racial classification system:

1. Mestizo (Spanish father and Indian mother)
2. Castizo (Spanish father and Mestizo mother)
3. Espomolo (Spanish mother and Castizo father)
4. Mulatto (Spanish and black African)
5. Moor (Spanish and Mulatto)
6. Albino (Spanish father and Moor mother)
7. Throwback (Spanish father and Albino mother)
8. Wolf (Throwback father and Indian mother)
9. Zambiago (Wolf father and Indian mother)
10. Cambujo (Zambiago father and Indian mother)
11. Alvarazado (Cambujo father and Mulatto mother)
12. Borquino (Alvarazado father and Mulatto mother)
13. Coyote (Borquino father and Mulatto mother)
14. Chamizo (Coyote father and Mulatto mother)
15. Coyote-Mestizo (Cahmizo father and Mestizo mother)
16. Ahi Tan Estas (Coyote-Mestizo father and Mulatto mother)

Even today Latin American society has greater variations of race than found in the United States. Classifications of social race remain a basis for formal and informal social, economic, and even legal discrimination.

Race in Japan

In Japan the concept of race (jinshu) is rarely mentioned. This is because the Japanese conflate categories of humanity. In the United States, for example, “white” and “black” are racial categories; “French” and “German” are national or citizenship categories; and “Italian American” and “Armenian American” are ethnic categories. In contrast, these distinctions often elide Japanese: one can be a white person (hakujin) in the same way that one can be a German person (Doitsujin). In this line of reasoning, everyone belongs to a homologous category of humanity. This does not, however, keep the Japanese from exhibiting racist traits, often against other Asians, particularly Koreans.

Race in the U.S.

In the United States we have basic categories of Black, White, and Asian, but have also added Hispanic, which Brazilians see an entirely American creation. According to the U. S. Census Bureau the concept of race “reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.”

Self-identification is hardly the standard scientific method for creating taxons. The same person classified as a mulatto in Brazil and a mestizo in Mexico would be black (or negroid) in the United States.

Of course race exists - as a social construct. Saying it is a social construct makes it no less real, nor any less influential. However, recognizing that we have decided to place importance on categorizing people based upon genetic traits such as skin color is a step in the direction of de-emphasizing those superficial, and biologically insignificant, genetic traits.

By the way, my uncle was the bureau chief for the Associated Press in South Africa in the 1980s. His then wife is Japanese, but the South African government issued her a pass designating her as "honorary white."

Never heard of a dog getting "honorary wolf" status or wheat being called "honorary corn." We can do that with race because we made it up and can play around with the categories and classification requirements as we see fit.

We're talking about two pure black Africans popping out a pure caucasian child. Which is about as likely as two purebred Great Danes popping out a Chimpanzee.

Of course, you fail to define "pure black" and "pure caucasian." Basically, this is because there really is no such thing.

Have you ever noticed how different mixings look. Suppose we wanted to classify someone based on how they look, as you do. Well, I have friends who look Hispanic. I guess they are Hispanic. Never mind that there isn't a drop of Spanish, Mexican, Central or South American blood running through their veins. They look a certain way, they must be Hispanic. In reality, they had a white-skinned mother and a black-skinned father, resulting in their skin color and hair type.

It is so nice that biology and genetics co-operates so nicely with our purely social constructs of race, like that... isn't it? Who says science is inflexible.

You really choose not to listen, don't you?

The biological concept of race would involve, not just "Hey, look, that person has dark skin!" but a *significant* amount of genetic variance between groups. No one is saying that there is *no* genetic variance between the groups we put people into, simply that there isn't enough to reliably define those groups (which is true). Perhaps if you would actually take the time to actually read something instead of being obtuse, you would realize the difference.

Oh, and just for good measure... :rolleyes:

I do so love debating with mature people.

I think that it is safe to say that race is not a biological or genetic concept, but is certainly a sociological and ethnological concept, and is debatably an anthropological concept. Therefore it does indeed exist, and in science, just not in biology. Until you start connecting biology to anthropology to sociology. It is kind of difficult when everything is interrelated like that.

I think that it is safe to say that race is not a biological or genetic concept, but is certainly a sociological and ethnological concept, and is debatably an anthropological concept. Therefore it does indeed exist, and in science, just not in biology. Until you start connecting biology to anthropology to sociology. It is kind of difficult when everything is interrelated like that.

I think it might be more correct to say that there is a biological and genetic definition of race, but that there are no human groups which meet said definition. Thus, the concept of human "race" is a sociological and ethnological concept only.

But yeah, we basically agree.

Of course, you fail to define "pure black" and "pure caucasian." Basically, this is because there really is no such thing.

Have you ever noticed how different mixings look. Suppose we wanted to classify someone based on how they look, as you do. Well, I have friends who look Hispanic. I guess they are Hispanic. Never mind that there isn't a drop of Spanish, Mexican, Central or South American blood running through their veins. They look a certain way, they must be Hispanic. In reality, they had a white-skinned mother and a black-skinned father, resulting in their skin color and hair type.

Dempublicans Mexican Fiesta Recipe

Ingredients:
1 Negroid female or male
1 Caucasian of opposite gender from ingredient 1, above.

Join Negroid to Caucasian using appropriate reproductive organs. Mix thoroughly. Repeat as often as necessary until stomach of female ingredient begins to swell. Wait 9 months, remove Latino/Hispanic final product, spank...


Is it THAT simple? So, an Asian plus a what gets you an American Native? How about a Jew? Is that when you mix a caucasian with an Arab? Tell me this magic formula. I never realized it was just like mixing paints...

Who is the one who wants to devalue people here? I can tell the difference between a mullato and someone of hispanic/latino descent. Or the difference between an Indian and a Pakistani, or a Mexican and an Arab. 99 times out of 100, anyhow.

You really choose not to listen, don't you?

I've been listening. I just can't believe what I'm hearing...


The biological concept of race would involve, not just "Hey, look, that person has dark skin!" but a *significant* amount of genetic variance between groups. No one is saying that there is *no* genetic variance between the groups we put people into, simply that there isn't enough to reliably define those groups (which is true). Perhaps if you would actually take the time to actually read something instead of being obtuse, you would realize the difference.

I realize the difference full well. Maybe you need your contact perscriptions adjusted. I can tell Japanese from Chinese from most pacific rim asian nations, fairly accurately, just by visual cues. Anyone who has been around significant Asian communities for any length of time can. You are going to maintain, "Nope, they all look like Charlie Chan to me... slant eyes and buck-teeth"...

But I've been maintaining since the beginning of this thread that those who would deny unique racial characteristics are among the most racist. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

But I've been maintaining since the beginning of this thread that those who would deny unique racial characteristics are among the most racist. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

This is not a debate between those who believe there are "unique racial characteristics" and those who do not. This is a debate between those who maintain that those differences rise to the level of significant biological human groupings and those who maintain that those differences, while socially important, are not biologically significant.

Perhaps you can further elaborate why you feel it is necessary to impugn those who disagree with you on this subject by calling us racists?

Is it THAT simple? So, an Asian plus a what gets you an American Native? How about a Jew? Is that when you mix a caucasian with an Arab? Tell me this magic formula. I never realized it was just like mixing paints...

By your definition of "biological race", that is exactly what it would be.

Who is the one who wants to devalue people here? I can tell the difference between a mullato and someone of hispanic/latino descent. Or the difference between an Indian and a Pakistani, or a Mexican and an Arab. 99 times out of 100, anyhow.

Yes, God. I'm so glad you are here. We need someone like you, who can do something that no one else on the planet can do.

How does it devalue people for me to point out that their ethnicity does not equate to the biological definition of race? How does it devalue people for me to point out that parents from two diverse backgrounds can produce children who look like they come from a wholly different background.

I've been listening. I just can't believe what I'm hearing...

That's because you are apparently listening through some sort of distorter.

I realize the difference full well.

If you realize the difference, then what exactly are you arguing about?

I can tell Japanese from Chinese from most pacific rim asian nations, fairly accurately, just by visual cues.

Were you aware that there are natives Japanese in the mountains who appear to be completely and totally Caucasian? I doubt it.

Anyone who has been around significant Asian communities for any length of time can. You are going to maintain, "Nope, they all look like Charlie Chan to me... slant eyes and buck-teeth"...

Darling, you are the one trying to group all members of a specific ethnicity into one lump sum. I am pointing out that they are no such thing and that there is significant genetic diversity between these people that you want to lump together above and beyond any between the arbitrary groups you like to choose.

But I've been maintaining since the beginning of this thread that those who would deny unique racial characteristics are among the most racist. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

You've been making things up. But I suppose that shouldn't surprise me anymore.

I think it might be more correct to say that there is a biological and genetic definition of race, but that there are no human groups which meet said definition. Thus, the concept of human "race" is a sociological and ethnological concept only.
Yes, I should have specified what organism I was referring to, Homo sapiens. Thank you for pointing that out.

This is not a debate between those who believe there are "unique racial characteristics" and those who do not. This is a debate between those who maintain that those differences rise to the level of significant biological human groupings and those who maintain that those differences, while socially important, are not biologically significant.

Perhaps you can further elaborate why you feel it is necessary to impugn those who disagree with you on this subject by calling us racists?

Yeah, I've been thinking about it, and this has become kind of a hair splitting match and I have been being a little unreasonable. The discussion wasn't originally so narrowly defined, when the "no biological race" card first came to the table, it wasn't elaborated on very well. I think we've had enough point counter-point discussion and enough clarification that anyone who has been following the thread can see where the difference in opinion lies.

So, I'm not *agreeing*, but maybe I have been a little too rigid in my position. I shouldn't be surprised that the opposition is so inflexible, rigid, and repetitive.

Read my follow up, and you'll see why I feel entitled to call "y'all" racists.

Yes, God. I'm so glad you are here. We need someone like you, who can do something that no one else on the planet can do.

This kind of subtle, condenscending tone ^^^ which has been present since the arrival of this poster in this thread, with anyone bold enough to disagree, is the reason for my escalation of this kind of rhetoric throughout these posts.


How does it devalue people for me to point out that their ethnicity does not equate to the biological definition of race? How does it devalue people for me to point out that parents from two diverse backgrounds can produce children who look like they come from a wholly different background.

It devalues people and their ethnicity when you don't see anything wrong with suggesting that if you mix a negroid and a caucasian you get a latino, which is EXACTLY what you did. "Take black, add white, you get a brown". You used the term hispanic, instead of latino, as well. Whatever. You are so removed from the emotion of this, so rapt in the "biology" of it, you fail to grasp the sensitivity involved. What are you, a Vulcan?


Were you aware that there are natives Japanese in the mountains who appear to be completely and totally Caucasian? I doubt it.

The Ainu? Of course I wasn't aware. Now that I am, I can just simply concede, or I can ask you what GEOGRAPHIC location has to do with race in relation to a highly nomadic world? I understand that one of the problems with a biological classification of race is that we've been moving around for so long that any pure genetic strains are pretty much lost (as a guy with Hebrew heritage, who looks as "white" as the next guy, I use this all the time to push the hot-button on racists). But there are any number of explainations for this. I'm sure I'm going to hear YOUR perspective, soon, though... so go right ahead...



Darling, you are the one trying to group all members of a specific ethnicity into one lump sum. I am pointing out that they are no such thing and that there is significant genetic diversity between these people that you want to lump together above and beyond any between the arbitrary groups you like to choose.

Sugapie, I been a-tryin' to tell ya, when you strip people of their identity, you don't address the differences, you make things WORSE, not better, Sweetycakes... :rolleyes: Where did you graduate from, KYU? Anyhow... I like the 98% genetic similarity between chimps and humans, 90% between white mice and humans. Obviously, we're using WAY different scales as it suits us, in biology when we talk about "significant genetic diversity between..."

Which is maybe where biologists have blown it on this issue.

Biologist: "Isn't it amazing, that we share 98% of our genetic code with Chimps? Clearly we are evolved from simians".

Average Joe: "That is pretty cool..."

Biologist, later that day: "Humans vary so signficiantly from each genetically within the same "race" that classifications of "race" are clearly invalid..."

Average Joe - Looking puzzled and picking at his arse : "But uh, early you said that we're genetically similar to monkeys with only a 2% difference".

Biologist, adjusting the collar of his lab coat: "Oh, but that 2% of difference is an AMAZING difference in biology. Even a .001 difference is really quite statistically significant, in DNA. Um... you just don't understand the incredible complexity involved in this issue, and I can't really make you understand unless you have the aptitude and are willing to pursue a doctorate in advanced molecular biology. Just take my word for it. Next question please...

Average Joe, sniffing at his finger: "Uh... well... Ok... I guess... you're the expert..."


Science, specifically biology, says that there are NO genetic differences, no biological differences from a *racial* perspective. Experience shows otherwise. You believe it is PURELY a social construct, I believe we simply do not understand all of the complex interactions of society, environment, and biology and how they interact. I believe it is hubris on your part to act as if you DO know with absolute certainty that the biological factor is a *non* factor and that all of the differences *are* therefore cultural, soceital and environmental.


You've been making things up. But I suppose that shouldn't surprise me anymore.

I'm rubber you're glue, yada yada yada...

This kind of subtle, condenscending tone ^^^ which has been present since the arrival of this poster in this thread, with anyone bold enough to disagree, is the reason for my escalation of this kind of rhetoric throughout these posts.

Funny, you have outright insulted me on numerous times. You then claim to have an ability that no one can possibly have, and get upset when I use a slightly condescending tone.

It devalues people and their ethnicity when you don't see anything wrong with suggesting that if you mix a negroid and a caucasian you get a latino, which is EXACTLY what you did. "Take black, add white, you get a brown". You used the term hispanic, instead of latino, as well. Whatever. You are so removed from the emotion of this, so rapt in the "biology" of it, you fail to grasp the sensitivity involved. What are you, a Vulcan?

You reallly do have a knack for completely misreading things, don't you.

What I said was that, if you define race by morphology (as you do), this is exactly what can happen. I know several people who, to any outside observer, appear to be Latino. They are, in fact, not Latino at all. Their father was black and their mother was white. However, to anyone who does not know this, they appear to be Latino. This is exactly the type of problem you would run into trying to classify a concept such as "race" by morphology.

Of course, according to you, you can look at any person and immediately discern their ethnicity, so I guess that you are the one person who could morphologically determine everyone's "race".

The Ainu? Of course I wasn't aware. Now that I am, I can just simply concede, or I can ask you what GEOGRAPHIC location has to do with race in relation to a highly nomadic world? I understand that one of the problems with a biological classification of race is that we've been moving around for so long that any pure genetic strains are pretty much lost (as a guy with Hebrew heritage, who looks as "white" as the next guy, I use this all the time to push the hot-button on racists). But there are any number of explainations for this. I'm sure I'm going to hear YOUR perspective, soon, though... so go right ahead...

You're close here. However, the problem with biological classification of race is not that "we've been moving round for so long that any pure genetic strains are pretty much lost." It is that we have never been separated for long enough that any pure genetic strains which could be reliably classified as races have ever formed. There is not a single trait/gene/allele/STR/polymorphism which can be exclusively traced to a given "race". Human beings have always been moving, there has always been mixing between ethnicities, and there has never been a time period in which breeding groups have been separated for long enough to form a distinct race. This has been my argument all along.

Geographic region, in the biological sense, would have *everything* to do with race. In order for separate races to develop, breeding groups would have to be somehow physically separated (geographically or through selective breeding) long enough for distinct genetic trends to develop.

Sugapie, I been a-tryin' to tell ya, when you strip people of their identity, you don't address the differences, you make things WORSE, not better, Sweetycakes... :rolleyes:

I don't know anyone whose identity depends on whether or not they are classified as some specific "race." What kind of shallow identity do the people you know have, anyways?

Anyhow... I like the 98% genetic similarity between chimps and humans, 90% between white mice and humans. Obviously, we're using WAY different scales as it suits us, in biology when we talk about "significant genetic diversity between..."

Which is maybe where biologists have blown it on this issue.

Biologist: "Isn't it amazing, that we share 98% of our genetic code with Chimps? Clearly we are evolved from simians".

Average Joe: "That is pretty cool..."

Biologist, later that day: "Humans vary so signficiantly from each genetically within the same "race" that classifications of "race" are clearly invalid..."

Average Joe - Looking puzzled and picking at his arse : "But uh, early you said that we're genetically similar to monkeys with only a 2% difference".

Biologist, adjusting the collar of his lab coat: "Oh, but that 2% of difference is an AMAZING difference in biology. Even a .001 difference is really quite statistically significant, in DNA. Um... you just don't understand the incredible complexity involved in this issue, and I can't really make you understand unless you have the aptitude and are willing to pursue a doctorate in advanced molecular biology. Just take my word for it. Next question please...

Average Joe, sniffing at his finger: "Uh... well... Ok... I guess... you're the expert..."

Nothing like missing the point. Of course, you have shown a marked distaste for actually understanding a viewpoint before you attempt to argue against it.

When we talk about interspecies diversity, we are talking about the presence of specific genes. When we talk about intraspecies diversity, we are talking about the presence of specific alleles and polymorphisms. The comparison between the two is not valid, as they do not involve the same issues.

An analogy would go like this:

If we compare all cars to all trucks, there is only something like a 2% difference in the components used. They all have engines, tires, seats, steering wheels, etc. The differences are in the bed of the truck vs. the trunk of a car, etc. etc.

This is much like if we compare chimps to humans. We have all the same major organs, the same major bodily processes and proteins involved. We have much of the same genes and those genes which are conserved are more similar between us and chimps than between us and mice, on an average basis.

Now, we want to compare just across different types of cars. In some cars, the shape is boxy, in others curvy. Some cars are 4-door, some are 2-door. Some cars are blue, some are red, some are green, etc. Some cars have steering wheels with spokes, some with airbags, some with both. And so on...

This brings us to comparing between humans. We are now talking on the scale, not of what genes are present, but of what alleles are found in those slots. Where/what are the STRs? What do restriction nucleases split the DNA into? These are much more specific comparisons.

Do you see the difference?

You are trying to compare apples to oranges here.

Science, specifically biology, says that there are NO genetic differences, no biological differences from a *racial* perspective.

Wrong. Science, specifically biology, says that there are not enough genetic differences from a "racial" perspective in order to define races as such. No one, including myself, has suggested that the differences you wish to use to classify people as races have no biological basis. To say that would be absurd.

Race is not only a social construct; it is an illogical social construct.

I have described how definitions of race vary from culture to culture. They have also varied within American society. There were 8 racial categories in the 1890 U.S. census, 5 in the 1900 census, 8 in the 1910 and 1920 census, 10 in 1930, 9 in 1940, 7 in 1950, 11 in 1960, 9 in 1970. Beginning with the 1980 Census, individuals who wrote in their race as 'Brown' or 'Mexican' were counted as 'Other' race.

The U.S. census bureau recognizes the inherent illogic and states that racial categories are “socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.”

Analmania, you seem to be the standard bearer for the idea that race is indeed a biological, scientifically valid categorization of humanity. I have three very simple questions:

1) What are the races of homo sapiens?

2) What are the scientific differences that demarcate races?

3) Why is there no agreed upon world-wide scientific consensus on race and racial categories?

Race is not only a social construct; it is an illogical social construct.

I have described how definitions of race vary from culture to culture. They have also varied within American society. There were 8 racial categories in the 1890 U.S. census, 5 in the 1900 census, 8 in the 1910 and 1920 census, 10 in 1930, 9 in 1940, 7 in 1950, 11 in 1960, 9 in 1970. Beginning with the 1980 Census, individuals who wrote in their race as 'Brown' or 'Mexican' were counted as 'Other' race.

The U.S. census bureau recognizes the inherent illogic and states that racial categories are “socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.”

Analmania, you seem to be the standard bearer for the idea that race is indeed a biological, scientifically valid categorization of humanity. I have three very simple questions:

Color is not only a social construct; it is an illogical social construct.

I have described how definitions of color vary from culture to culture. They have also varied within American society. There were 8 colorful categories in the 1890 U.S. census, 5 in the 1900 census, 8 in the 1910 and 1920 census, 10 in 1930, 9 in 1940, 7 in 1950, 11 in 1960, 9 in 1970. Beginning with the 1980 Census, individuals who wrote in their color as 'Brown' were counted as 'Other' color.

The U.S. census bureau recognizes the inherent illogic and states that colorful categories are “socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.”
:rolleyes:

Read COLOR PERCEPTION AND COGNITION (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:EepMwxSWwmEJ:psy.ucsd.edu/~jwortman/latitudinal_effects.pdf+colors+vary+from+language+to+language&hl=en&client=firefox-a) for more information on this topic.

Color is not only a social construct; it is an illogical social construct.

I have described how definitions of color vary from culture to culture. They have also varied within American society. There were 8 colorful categories in the 1890 U.S. census, 5 in the 1900 census, 8 in the 1910 and 1920 census, 10 in 1930, 9 in 1940, 7 in 1950, 11 in 1960, 9 in 1970. Beginning with the 1980 Census, individuals who wrote in their color as 'Brown' were counted as 'Other' color.

The U.S. census bureau recognizes the inherent illogic and states that colorful categories are “socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.”
:rolleyes:

Great (you've been waiting a while for that one, weren't you?). Care to take a stab at the questions?

By the way, the reason your copy of my post doesn't rise to the level of satire is that replacing "race" with the word "color" doesn't make the statement any less true. Color is what most people think race is all about, which is what makes it so illogical.

Great (you've been waiting a while for that one, weren't you?). Care to take a stab at the questions?

By the way, the reason your copy of my post doesn't rise to the level of satire is that replacing "race" with the word "color" doesn't make the statement any less true. Color is what most people think race is all about, which is what makes it so illogical.

How many people would actually classify an albino black as a white person? Yes, they may have their white skin but they certainly are NOT white.

How many people would actually classify an albino black as a white person? Yes, they may have their white skin but they certainly are NOT white.

Three very simple little questions:

1) What are the races of homo sapiens?

2) What are the scientific differences that demarcate races?

3) Why is there no agreed upon world-wide scientific consensus on race and racial categories?

You contend there are races and they are based upon skin color.

Great.

Please enlighten me by answering those three basic questions.

Three very simple little questions:

1) What are the races of homo sapiens?

2) What are the scientific differences that demarcate races?

3) Why is there no agreed upon world-wide scientific consensus on race and racial categories?

You contend there are races and they are based upon skin color.

Great.

Please enlighten me by answering those three basic questions.

1) African Caucasian and Oriental

2) Check this website http://www.johmann.net/book/ciy9-2.html

3) Those 3 categories are agreed upon

1) African Caucasian and Oriental

2) Check this website http://www.johmann.net/book/ciy9-2.html

3) Those 3 categories are agreed upon

I don't feel right taking advantage of you this way. Are you sure that is your final answer?

I don't feel right taking advantage of you this way. Are you sure that is your final answer?
Excuse me, could hold your horses?

Do your worst. I like arguing

1) African Caucasian and Oriental

Fine. Now name any gene/allele/trait that occurs in only one of these arbitrary groupings. Find me scientific proof that you can reliably determine which category a given person fits into using any method.

2) Check this website http://www.johmann.net/book/ciy9-2.html

A website with no credibility or real scientific basis whatsoever which depends on equally arbitrary gender roles.

Is this really all you can find?

3) Those 3 categories are agreed upon

Really? Never mind all the evidence in this thread to the contrary. You have decided that these are the three, therefore they are "agreed upon." Good to know.

1) African Caucasian and Oriental

Incorrect. Fails the most basic biological nomenclature.

2) Check this website http://www.johmann.net/book/ciy9-2.html

Even assuming that site is valid (arguable, at best) the claim, as I understand it, is that race is equiviant to sex. Bizzar at best.

3) Those 3 categories are agreed upon

Not in any biology I have read. Not even among the race proponents in this thread, who have agued as few as 3 and as many as 500.

Race is not only a social construct; it is an illogical social construct.

I have described how definitions of race vary from culture to culture. They have also varied within American society. There were 8 racial categories in the 1890 U.S. census, 5 in the 1900 census, 8 in the 1910 and 1920 census, 10 in 1930, 9 in 1940, 7 in 1950, 11 in 1960, 9 in 1970. Beginning with the 1980 Census, individuals who wrote in their race as 'Brown' or 'Mexican' were counted as 'Other' race.

The U.S. census bureau recognizes the inherent illogic and states that racial categories are “socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.”

Analmania, you seem to be the standard bearer for the idea that race is indeed a biological, scientifically valid categorization of humanity. I have three very simple questions:

1) What are the races of homo sapiens?

2) What are the scientific differences that demarcate races?

3) Why is there no agreed upon world-wide scientific consensus on race and racial categories?

You know... while I like the "colorful" response to this question, this is CLEARLY a loaded question, that you intend to interpret through YOUR definitions, which I've already said, in my opinion take into consideration political and other considerations that have nothing to do with SCIENCE but everything to do with wanting more grant money.

So, your 3 questions certainly aren't going to "resolve" this issue, any more than it is already resolved in YOUR mind or my mind.

I also think I pretty much agree with the statements already made. At least 3... Asian, Caucasian and African (or whatever terms you want to use). The rest are all kind of "muddy", for lack of a better word. And not that muddy is a "bad" thing. Hell, "muddy" is the crux of your argument. You've got your indigenous peoples of WHEREVER... which often show a lot of African/Negroid tedencies, but also often have a lot of Asian tedencies... You've got your mediteranian and middle eastern peoples... Then you've got relative newcomers, like South American miztek euro-indigenous mixes.

I understand that certain cultures want to differentiate themselves... "I'm not mediteranian, I am Spanish. I'm not Italian or greek or..." and I'm fine with them making a cultural distinction to further define race. This answers question 3.

If I had the answer to question #2 (or if you had a satisfying answer to #2, yourself), this debate would be a moot subject now, wouldn't it. Just because we don't HAVE the answer does not mean it doesn't exist. Wash, rinse, repeat until this idea sets in. You are presenting a scientific theory among biologists that race has no biological basis, as FACT, when in reality, is is a theory. For a civilization that just RECENTLY in it's history really made any progress on DNA and Genetic Code, I think this staand is a little bold and premature. I think biologists haven't figured OUT the biological basis for race, and more directly, they're not really INTERESTED for the most part, in looking.

1) African Caucasian and Oriental

2) Check this website http://www.johmann.net/book/ciy9-2.html

3) Those 3 categories are agreed upon
Oh, now come-fecking-on. Those are so wrong it's not funny. Ethnology and anthropology have divided humans into caucasoids, negroids, and mongoloids. And, as has been stated, it is completely a phenotypic classification, not genotypic, which would be the requirement.

1) What are the races of homo sapiens?
Just so you know, in Linnaean taxonomy, the genus is majuscule and the species miniscule, and the binomial nomenclature usually has the name italicised or underlined. Therefore it should've been either Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens, preferably the former when it is possible to tell the difference between italic and Roman script (hard to do when writing by hand). Just a little side note.

I've been following the latest part of the discussion between Dempublicans and Analmania with a bit of frustration. I agree completely with Dem, who is doing a great job in explaining and clarifying the valid points (which happen to be my own, as a biologist), but it seems that An is really having a hard time "getting it". An displayed a very sarcastic tone, and when receiving a little of the same, accused the other of being condescending. An needs to read and consider Dems points carefully, while setting aside "his" own biases and adherence to "his" side (which "he" stated, but didn't quite do.)

My (old) dictionary give a couple of relevant definitions of race: 1.) a local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by transmitted physical characteristics. 2.) mankind. 3.) Any group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographical distribution.

While most of us agree that "race exists" in the third and second sense (I'm a member of "the Scandinavian race", it is the first, the "transmitted physical characteristics" that prompts discussion. In the dictionary, "race" exists. Those of us with a stronger background in science and anthropology would argue that the use of a simplistic phenotypic (dictionary 1) term to indicate real biological differences is pandering to ignorance, because we recognize that it is used by those who would separate and stratify us. Because we know that their definition says one thing, and then implies and argues another, we would deny that it even exists, since the definition is then so inherently unknowable.

[BTW, thank you Ogiek(?) for your tongue-in-cheek reply to one of my earlier posts. (chuckle.) I lost the page and only just now found my way back.]

I've been following the latest part of the discussion between Dempublicans and Analmania with a bit of frustration. I agree completely with Dem, who is doing a great job in explaining and clarifying the valid points (which happen to be my own, as a biologist), but it seems that An is really having a hard time "getting it". An displayed a very sarcastic tone, and when receiving a little of the same, accused the other of being condescending. An needs to read and consider Dems points carefully, while setting aside "his" own biases and adherence to "his" side (which "he" stated, but didn't quite do.)

My (old) dictionary give a couple of relevant definitions of race: 1.) a local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by transmitted physical characteristics. 2.) mankind. 3.) Any group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographical distribution.

While most of us agree that "race exists" in the third and second sense (I'm a member of "the Scandinavian race", it is the first, the "transmitted physical characteristics" that prompts discussion. In the dictionary, "race" exists. Those of us with a stronger background in science and anthropology would argue that the use of a simplistic phenotypic (dictionary 1) term to indicate real biological differences is pandering to ignorance, because we recognize that it is used by those who would separate and stratify us. Because we know that their definition says one thing, and then implies and argues another, we would deny that it even exists, since the definition is then so inherently unknowable.

[BTW, thank you Ogiek(?) for your tongue-in-cheek reply to one of my earlier posts. (chuckle.) I lost the page and only just now found my way back.]

You know... linguistically speaking, I think I have a fair command of the use of English, and that I'm pretty good at tricking it into saying what I *want* it to mean, for good or ill. I suppose part of the problem is that we are getting into *such* a technically specific field that terms and phrases that just aren't in the general lexicon are being thrown around. I might argue that, as an IT person, I know as well as the next IT guy that we tend to throw around profession specific jargon as smoke and mirrors to confuse the layman when we *really* don't want to (or know how to) address an issue, and that this *might* be the case here... but... what would be the point. This is basically the argument that the more psudeo-intellectual a conversation becomes, the more likely it is that the conversation is utter and complete bullshit. (Ok... so I'm paraphrasing from a gray-collar layman's perspective on logic and reason... I'm sure you all understand my point).

But the real issue is, I'm no slouch on vocabulary and linguistic skill, and I am having trouble really keeping up with you guys and even just generally understanding WTF you're trying to say.

Now this puts me in quite a pickle. It is absolutely reasonable that highly refined studies should have customized lexicon and vocabulary. But if that prevents you from communicating your knowledge, understanding, and intention to the bulk of society, what good is it, and are you?

So without sarcasm, without condencension, let me simply say, that if I understood THIS message correctly, my *problem* is, that I remain unconvinced and unsympathetic to the arguments I have heard. Maybe I'm ignorant, maybe they have just not been explained to me clearly enough and free from technical terms, or maybe they are just utter bullshit. But in the form that they have been presented, I remain unconvinced, and unwilling to concede what I see as very compelling counter-arguments that show critical analysis, rational and logic thinking, and thoughtful introspection of the issue at hand. In either case, "your side" has failed to present its argument in a compelling manner if you cannot convince me. I am the "above average" layperson. And if you can't win my sympathies, then certainly you're never going to gain the attention or understanding of the masses.

And if *that* is the case, then what good are you to anyone except yourselves? You're certainly never going to be effective at creating any change in the prevailing attitudes and concepts of society at large. Sure sounds like it meets the criteria for a "huge waste of grant monies" to me.

So... if you *believe* all this, my suggestion is... Try harder. I'm almost positive that among the "unenlightened" my arguments are more convincing than yours. And face it, the "unenlightened" *are* the masses. You *better* figure out some way to bridge your jargon and reach the common man, if what you say is right. Whatever your arguments have in "scientific fact" are more than outmatched by the "popular appeal and accessibility" of my counter points.

And I'm not being sarcastic. I'm throwing you a bone. I'm giving you a chance to redeem yourselves. I honestly don't think you'll be able to do so. I don't think you can get over yourselves, at the very least, and that I'm right and *you* really don't *know*, yourselves, at the worst. But I am presenting this post with an open and optimistic mind, and being honest about my perspective on the whole thing. So, fire away... I await your responses.

You know... while I like the "colorful" response to this question, this is CLEARLY a loaded question, that you intend to interpret through YOUR definitions, which I've already said, in my opinion take into consideration political and other considerations that have nothing to do with SCIENCE but everything to do with wanting more grant money.

So, your 3 questions certainly aren't going to "resolve" this issue, any more than it is already resolved in YOUR mind or my mind.

I also think I pretty much agree with the statements already made. At least 3... Asian, Caucasian and African (or whatever terms you want to use). The rest are all kind of "muddy", for lack of a better word. And not that muddy is a "bad" thing. Hell, "muddy" is the crux of your argument. You've got your indigenous peoples of WHEREVER... which often show a lot of African/Negroid tedencies, but also often have a lot of Asian tedencies... You've got your mediteranian and middle eastern peoples... Then you've got relative newcomers, like South American miztek euro-indigenous mixes.

I understand that certain cultures want to differentiate themselves... "I'm not mediteranian, I am Spanish. I'm not Italian or greek or..." and I'm fine with them making a cultural distinction to further define race. This answers question 3.

If I had the answer to question #2 (or if you had a satisfying answer to #2, yourself), this debate would be a moot subject now, wouldn't it. Just because we don't HAVE the answer does not mean it doesn't exist. Wash, rinse, repeat until this idea sets in. You are presenting a scientific theory among biologists that race has no biological basis, as FACT, when in reality, is is a theory. For a civilization that just RECENTLY in it's history really made any progress on DNA and Genetic Code, I think this staand is a little bold and premature. I think biologists haven't figured OUT the biological basis for race, and more directly, they're not really INTERESTED for the most part, in looking.

No, my friend, you are the one saying that race is a scientific reality and therefore you should be able to tell me what the races are and how we distinguish one race from another.

The three questions resolve this issue only if you can answer them. Obviously you cannot. You are saying race exists, but we don't know what it is and can't really tell one race from another.

You say there is race, but can't identify the races.

You say there is a criteria for determining race, but we don't know what it is.

What is race then? Magic? Voodoo? Religion? Does it take faith to believe in race?

Since we are now in the realm of mystism we no longer have a basis for a conversation.

But the real issue is, I'm no slouch on vocabulary and linguistic skill, and I am having trouble really keeping up with you guys and even just generally understanding WTF you're trying to say.

Now this puts me in quite a pickle. It is absolutely reasonable that highly refined studies should have customized lexicon and vocabulary. But if that prevents you from communicating your knowledge, understanding, and intention to the bulk of society, what good is it, and are you?

So... if you *believe* all this, my suggestion is... Try harder. I'm almost positive that among the "unenlightened" my arguments are more convincing than yours. And face it, the "unenlightened" *are* the masses. You *better* figure out some way to bridge your jargon and reach the common man, if what you say is right. Whatever your arguments have in "scientific fact" are more than outmatched by the "popular appeal and accessibility" of my counter points.

Good points, and I appreciate your desire to fully follow the discussion. I'll have to chew on thoughts a bit.

Remember, tho, that "jargon" and "specialized lexicon" (as you say) are not the same thing.

From your way with words here, I supect that you indeed are able to fully appreciate what is being said. Sometimes we (myself included) have internalized definitions of words which are actually bigger than the words themselves, hindering our ability to listen carefully.

'Course, all said, I blame everything on the lack of teaching of critical thinking at both the secondary and college level. Back in the day when I was a T.A., so many of my students wished they had a class in it. I do what I can, and, I will say, my son's 4th grade class comprehended pretty well the concept of "garbage in -- garbage out" when I gave them a section on the bell curve!

But the real issue is, I'm no slouch on vocabulary and linguistic skill, and I am having trouble really keeping up with you guys and even just generally understanding WTF you're trying to say.

I have suspected that this was part of the problem. However, instead of saying "I don't know these terms, could you please explain what they mean?" You went off on a "How dare you use your crazy biological knowledge against me!!" tirade. I could explain the basic concepts in a way that a young child (and thus, pretty much any general layman) could understand. However, I don't see much point in it when the discussion has immediately jumped to personal attacks and bitching about the very basis of the discussion.

Now this puts me in quite a pickle. It is absolutely reasonable that highly refined studies should have customized lexicon and vocabulary. But if that prevents you from communicating your knowledge, understanding, and intention to the bulk of society, what good is it, and are you?

The last time I participated in an discussion of this topic, I was yelled at for dumbing down the science too much. Apparently, this time, I didn't do so enough. I apologize. What terms do you not understand?

So without sarcasm, without condencension, let me simply say, that if I understood THIS message correctly, my *problem* is, that I remain unconvinced and unsympathetic to the arguments I have heard. Maybe I'm ignorant, maybe they have just not been explained to me clearly enough and free from technical terms, or maybe they are just utter bullshit. But in the form that they have been presented, I remain unconvinced, and unwilling to concede what I see as very compelling counter-arguments that show critical analysis, rational and logic thinking, and thoughtful introspection of the issue at hand. In either case, "your side" has failed to present its argument in a compelling manner if you cannot convince me. I am the "above average" layperson. And if you can't win my sympathies, then certainly you're never going to gain the attention or understanding of the masses.

This is rather arrogant.

So... if you *believe* all this, my suggestion is... Try harder. I'm almost positive that among the "unenlightened" my arguments are more convincing than yours. And face it, the "unenlightened" *are* the masses. You *better* figure out some way to bridge your jargon and reach the common man, if what you say is right. Whatever your arguments have in "scientific fact" are more than outmatched by the "popular appeal and accessibility" of my counter points.

Your arguments might be convincing the layperson, if they weren't laced with insults and whining instead of actual points.

And I'm not being sarcastic. I'm throwing you a bone. I'm giving you a chance to redeem yourselves. I honestly don't think you'll be able to do so. I don't think you can get over yourselves, at the very least, and that I'm right and *you* really don't *know*, yourselves, at the worst. But I am presenting this post with an open and optimistic mind, and being honest about my perspective on the whole thing. So, fire away... I await your responses.

Out of curiosity, did you read my last post, in which I compared the biology of the discussion to a discussion of different modes of transportation? That might be a good starting point, if you really want to understand the biology.

You know... linguistically speaking, I think I have a fair command of the use of English, and that I'm pretty good at tricking it into saying what I *want* it to mean, for good or ill. I suppose part of the problem is that we are getting into *such* a technically specific field that terms and phrases that just aren't in the general lexicon are being thrown around. I might argue that, as an IT person, I know as well as the next IT guy that we tend to throw around profession specific jargon as smoke and mirrors to confuse the layman when we *really* don't want to (or know how to) address an issue, and that this *might* be the case here... but... what would be the point. This is basically the argument that the more psudeo-intellectual a conversation becomes, the more likely it is that the conversation is utter and complete bullshit. (Ok... so I'm paraphrasing from a gray-collar layman's perspective on logic and reason... I'm sure you all understand my point).

But the real issue is, I'm no slouch on vocabulary and linguistic skill, and I am having trouble really keeping up with you guys and even just generally understanding WTF you're trying to say.

Now this puts me in quite a pickle. It is absolutely reasonable that highly refined studies should have customized lexicon and vocabulary. But if that prevents you from communicating your knowledge, understanding, and intention to the bulk of society, what good is it, and are you?

So without sarcasm, without condencension, let me simply say, that if I understood THIS message correctly, my *problem* is, that I remain unconvinced and unsympathetic to the arguments I have heard. Maybe I'm ignorant, maybe they have just not been explained to me clearly enough and free from technical terms, or maybe they are just utter bullshit. But in the form that they have been presented, I remain unconvinced, and unwilling to concede what I see as very compelling counter-arguments that show critical analysis, rational and logic thinking, and thoughtful introspection of the issue at hand. In either case, "your side" has failed to present its argument in a compelling manner if you cannot convince me. I am the "above average" layperson. And if you can't win my sympathies, then certainly you're never going to gain the attention or understanding of the masses.

And if *that* is the case, then what good are you to anyone except yourselves? You're certainly never going to be effective at creating any change in the prevailing attitudes and concepts of society at large. Sure sounds like it meets the criteria for a "huge waste of grant monies" to me.

So... if you *believe* all this, my suggestion is... Try harder. I'm almost positive that among the "unenlightened" my arguments are more convincing than yours. And face it, the "unenlightened" *are* the masses. You *better* figure out some way to bridge your jargon and reach the common man, if what you say is right. Whatever your arguments have in "scientific fact" are more than outmatched by the "popular appeal and accessibility" of my counter points.

And I'm not being sarcastic. I'm throwing you a bone. I'm giving you a chance to redeem yourselves. I honestly don't think you'll be able to do so. I don't think you can get over yourselves, at the very least, and that I'm right and *you* really don't *know*, yourselves, at the worst. But I am presenting this post with an open and optimistic mind, and being honest about my perspective on the whole thing. So, fire away... I await your responses.


Ah ha! As I was beginning to suspect. :)

Please read up on scientific method (http://va.essortment.com/scientificresea_rqce.htm). That should help clear up some of your missunderstanding of how science works.

No, my friend, you are the one saying that race is a scientific reality and therefore you should be able to tell me what the races are and how we distinguish one race from another.

The three questions resolve this issue only if you can answer them. Obviously you cannot. You are saying race exists, but we don't know what it is and can't really tell one race from another.

You say there is race, but can't identify the races.

You say there is a criteria for determining race, but we don't know what it is.

What is race then? Magic? Voodoo? Religion? Does it take faith to believe in race?

Since we are now in the realm of mystism we no longer have a basis for a conversation.

So... uh... if SCIENCE cannot answer a question right now, that means that the question cannot be scientific reality, *is not* scientific reality?

Wow... that seems pretty philosophical. So , wait... let me get this right...

The sun ONLY became a burning ball of hydrogen gas suspended in the heavans that our planet orbits once every 365 days or so *once* we were able to answer that question? Before that, it *was* a chariot of the gods? Is THAT what you are proposing.

Go ahead and start wiggling your way out of THAT one... I can't wait to see...

That is EXACTLY what you are proposing. Who took this into the realm of mystism? Not I. Again, I'm challenging your shakey FAITH and you are responding EXACTLY how I predicted you would (there is a portion of that scientific method that the poster below, who I haven't dealt with, thinks I don't understand. Predictive modeling).

You're right... this conversation is over, and has been over for awhile. You're doing a piss poor job at representing your side of the argument, and you're getting MORE desperate as time goes on... for obvious reason.

Yes race exists, but I think people tend to make a much bigger deal about it than we should. Race is just a colorof sking thing. It's not a who's superior thing, nor is it a personality thing, nor is it a socio economic thing. it's just skin.

Good points, and I appreciate your desire to fully follow the discussion. I'll have to chew on thoughts a bit.

Remember, tho, that "jargon" and "specialized lexicon" (as you say) are not the same thing.

From your way with words here, I supect that you indeed are able to fully appreciate what is being said. Sometimes we (myself included) have internalized definitions of words which are actually bigger than the words themselves, hindering our ability to listen carefully.

'Course, all said, I blame everything on the lack of teaching of critical thinking at both the secondary and college level. Back in the day when I was a T.A., so many of my students wished they had a class in it. I do what I can, and, I will say, my son's 4th grade class comprehended pretty well the concept of "garbage in -- garbage out" when I gave them a section on the bell curve!

Understand, too, that in being so honest to you in my response, I knew I was by the very virtue of this conversation opening myself to new lines of "attack" by those I have been arguing with, revealing vunerabilities in my defense that I knew they would absolutely try to exploit in their further counter-points, even allowing them to smuggly dismiss my opinions altogether, if only in their own minds, and to their own satisfaction.

So I appreciate that you read my response, and considered it thoughtfully, and seem to understand the point *I* am trying to make, at least in regards to this tangent of the conversation. Thank you.

Oh, additionally, I missed this. If I will grant any quarter to those I have been sparring with here, it is this. Your point about "giving bigger meaning to words internally" is a good one, and has gotten me fouled up a couple of times throughout this thread. On going back and re-reading, I've seen a couple examples where Dem is absolutely right, I have extrapolated her meaning based on my biases to a word or phrase. She has done this also, it is simply part of the imperfect communication patterns of humans. I haven't really wanted to go back and "fess up" to these where I've caught myself, for a number of reasons. My "opponents" are likely to latch onto this and come back at me with yet another logical inconsistency... "He was wrong about this, and admits it, therefore his entire argument is invalid". There is already evidence in their most recent posts that this would be the case. Secondly, I don't want to get off into any more tangents than necessary.

And to that end, I would still argue that it isn't I who refuses to understand their position. I think they are having trouble accepting to subtle nuance of MY position.

Sarcasm isn't a personal attack, Dem. It is merely a clever use of linguistic play to illustrate the lack of reason and critical thinking in an opposing perspective... in this case.


When I start making *personal* attacks against you, you'll know the difference, instantly.

But the real issue is, I'm no slouch on vocabulary and linguistic skill, and I am having trouble really keeping up with you guys and even just generally understanding WTF you're trying to say.
You are apparently missing more than just the lexical side of the conversation. A person may be able to define many words used in biology, but that does not mean that he or she understands the concepts being presented. You are biologically ignorant, and it takes more than an internet forum for anyone to learn sufficient biological concpets. That is the difficult I have in convincing anyone that other organisms are necessary for human life, and that no, humans are not above nature. But I can not just easily sum up biodiversity and a multitude of other ecological concepts succinctly and clearly, and teach others what I've spent years attaining. It just isn't that easy, and laymen who try to argue with people who actually have spent significant amounts of time learning material can be quite frustrating.

Sarcasm isn't a personal attack, Dem. It is merely a clever use of linguistic play to illustrate the lack of reason and critical thinking in an opposing perspective... in this case.


When I start making *personal* attacks against you, you'll know the difference, instantly.

You are right, so "Hey Dem, let me explain your entire set of personality flaws to you, even though I don't know a thing about your personality!" is not an attack. Neither is "Hey! You're a liar, just because I said so!" or "You're a racist!"

Please point out the sarcasm in any of these posts.

Sarcasm isn't a personal attack, Dem.
Are you aware that sarcasm is derived from the Greek word sarkazein, which means "to tear flesh"? :D

You are apparently missing more than just the lexical side of the conversation. A person may be able to define many words used in biology, but that does not mean that he or she understands the concepts being presented. You are biologically ignorant, and it takes more than an internet forum for anyone to learn sufficient biological concpets. That is the difficult I have in convincing anyone that other organisms are necessary for human life, and that no, humans are not above nature. But I can not just easily sum up biodiversity and a multitude of other ecological concepts succinctly and clearly, and teach others what I've spent years attaining. It just isn't that easy, and laymen who try to argue with people who actually have spent significant amounts of time learning material can be quite frustrating.


More or less... "Uh, you're just going to have to take my word for it".

Not good enough. That is what the Priests/Clergy tell us, too... at which point, scentific method or not, your SCIENCE has become a religion.

Which has been *my* point for a long time running. Although, you have no problem convincing me that other organisms are necessary for human life, and that humans are NOT above nature. So why is it SO damned difficult for you to explain your biological perspective on *race* in a convincing way? Because race is "such" a cherised notion? Yeah, far more cherished by humanity than the "sacred and unique" nature of humanity.

Maybe you've just done a better job explaining the one, and not the other, you know, as a community. Give me a compelling argument that I can understand. The most that I have been able to pick up is that this is a complex answer and biologists no more have the answers than anyone ELSE on the planet, but that doesn't mean that you are RIGHT about race.

Biologists and anthropologists have convinced a GREAT deal of the world, evidently even including the Pope, that evolution takes place and is a valid theory. I see a convincing body of evidence for this theory.

I'm still not seeing a convincing body of evidence for the presumption that "race is a social and cultural construct because <insert voice of the Teacher from The Peanuts talking here>..."

More or less... "Uh, you're just going to have to take my word for it".

Not good enough. That is what the Priests/Clergy tell us, too... at which point, scentific method or not, your SCIENCE has become a religion.
Unfortunately, it seems to be going that way. The populace of the world is either not intelligent enough or unwilling, or just not motivated to learn science. There are chances for people to learn it, but they choose other paths. But science really has to be that way once you get past the elemetary aspects. Biologists take what physicists on faith, because no-one can know all of scientists. They should have some knowledge on why it is the thing is true, but science is really designed to have specialists collaborating. It is more like a priest putting out the Bible and saying "Here, I'll teach you to be priest too, if you want", and turning him down. It's just that these clerics are dealing with the physical, not metaphysical, world. If doctors say that ingesting substances will kill you, then you just have to take their word for it because they've taken the time to learn it. If nuclear phsyicists say that splitting an atom will produce insane amounts of energy, you just have to take on faith that that is really what they're doing. If ecologists say that spewing chlorinated hydrocarbons into the environment is detrimental to everything, then it really fecking is, and no matter how much people say that Rachel Carson was a wacko who knew nothing, she was one hundred fecking percent right.

Which has been *my* point for a long time running. Although, you have no problem convincing me that other organisms are necessary for human life, and that humans are NOT above nature. So why is it SO damned difficult for you to explain your biological perspective on *race* in a convincing way? Because race is "such" a cherised notion? Yeah, far more cherished by humanity than the "sacred and unique" nature of humanity.

Maybe you've just done a better job explaining the one, and not the other, you know, as a community. Give me a compelling argument that I can understand. The most that I have been able to pick up is that this is a complex answer and biologists no more have the answers than anyone ELSE on the planet, but that doesn't mean that you are RIGHT about race.
Well, to be fair, I don't really give a damn about what people believe about the biological verity of race if compared to how much I want them to realise that killing the environment is killing themselves. And apparently you are not one of the people who think that we will eventually be able to rise above nature, but there are plenty of people who do actually believe that. And guess what? They aren't the scientists. They are the ignorant masses, who should be taking the word of those more learned for granted, because they've spent years to understand complex theories and concepts, and other people took a fecking biology class in high school and promply forgot everything they learned. It's ridiculous. I definitely see the threat of oligarchy, but there are specialists in all areas, who just have to take what other specialists say on faith. Do biologists challenge engineers? No. So why do the engineers challenge the biologists?

I'm still not seeing a convincing body of evidence for the presumption that "race is a social and cultural construct because <insert voice of the Teacher from The Peanuts talking here>..."
Race can not be determined by a genetic scan. There are no genetic characteristics that define any race. You can not find out that a caucasoid is what he or she is by a genetic scan. Same for negroids and mongoloids. You just have to believe that geneticists have done the experiments for this.

More or less... "Uh, you're just going to have to take my word for it".

Not good enough. That is what the Priests/Clergy tell us, too... at which point, scentific method or not, your SCIENCE has become a religion.

Which has been *my* point for a long time running. Although, you have no problem convincing me that other organisms are necessary for human life, and that humans are NOT above nature. So why is it SO damned difficult for you to explain your biological perspective on *race* in a convincing way? Because race is "such" a cherised notion? Yeah, far more cherished by humanity than the "sacred and unique" nature of humanity.

Maybe you've just done a better job explaining the one, and not the other, you know, as a community. Give me a compelling argument that I can understand. The most that I have been able to pick up is that this is a complex answer and biologists no more have the answers than anyone ELSE on the planet, but that doesn't mean that you are RIGHT about race.

Biologists and anthropologists have convinced a GREAT deal of the world, evidently even including the Pope, that evolution takes place and is a valid theory. I see a convincing body of evidence for this theory.

I'm still not seeing a convincing body of evidence for the presumption that "race is a social and cultural construct because <insert voice of the Teacher from The Peanuts talking here>..."I've dropped in on this thread from time to time and you've been beating a dead horse for way too long. Despite intelligent arguement, you are do a nice little dance and maintain your position.

So I'd like to turn the tables, and ask what evidence you have that race exists. Nothing presented by you or others convinces me adequately of your position. The physical, observable features and attached inherited traits you use to justify your subclassification cross regularly over the artificial boundries that are supposedly to represent the different 'races'. If these classifications are filled with regular exceptions, how can they be supported. Even evidence about genetic predisposition to infirmities and diseases are not without exception. No evidence of any states truthfully that it is exclusive to a single 'race', at best they might be predominant to ethnic heritages but none can be demonstrated to be exclusive. Finally I ask which definition of 'race' is to be accepted as truthful? If you support that race is a real scientific truth, despite evidence that there is genetic diversity as great among ethnic groups as between them, please advise us as to what that division is. Pure physical appearance? Some other defining characteristics? What is your standard for subdividing humanity?

I've dropped in on this thread from time to time and you've been beating a dead horse for way too long. Despite intelligent arguement, you are do a nice little dance and maintain your position.

So I'd like to turn the tables, and ask what evidence you have that race exists. Nothing presented by you or others convinces me adequately of your position. The physical, observable features and attached inherited traits you use to justify your subclassification cross regularly over the artificial boundries that are supposedly to represent the different 'races'. If these classifications are filled with regular exceptions, how can they be supported. Even evidence about genetic predisposition to infirmities and diseases are not without exception. No evidence of any states truthfully that it is exclusive to a single 'race', at best they might be predominant to ethnic heritages but none can be demonstrated to be exclusive. Finally I ask which definition of 'race' is to be accepted as truthful? If you support that race is a real scientific truth, despite evidence that there is genetic diversity as great among ethnic groups as between them, please advise us as to what that division is. Pure physical appearance? Some other defining characteristics? What is your standard for subdividing humanity?


Don't bother. He has yet to do anything of the sort, despite repeated requests. The only answer he'll give is "biology is a bunch of PC BS".

Race can not be determined by a genetic scan. There are no genetic characteristics that define any race. You can not find out that a caucasoid is what he or she is by a genetic scan. Same for negroids and mongoloids. You just have to believe that geneticists have done the experiments for this.

I agree with you pretty much down the line on the rest... even that at a certain point, you have to take it on faith. I've never actually *seen* the atom being split that creates a chain-reaction leading to a nuclear explosion. I take it on faith that "They" are telling me the truth about that.

I'm on the fence about if humanity can rise above nature. To a certain extent, we've been doing that ever since the industrial revolution. How sustainable that is, is another question. Can we keep doing it in TIME to avoid an ecosystem CRASH is another question (a pretty important one, at that). Can it be done? Sure, probably. Is the earth warming... yeah. Is it OUR fault? Maybe... although there still seem to be some mysteries. The environmental issues, that is a good example for my problem with this. I *do* see your point, but, I think the issue is more complex than the data you have on the issue. Hell, keeping an aquarium balanced is a daunting, complex task with all kinds of subtle interactions taking place. Multiply that by the EARTH... which is basically a big-ass aquarium... :)

I think scientists *think* that they see some problems that could be significant, perhaps catastrophic, and it is in their nature to err on the side of caution. I think they tend to be idealistic...

"This is bad... who cares how bad... it is potentially HUGELY bad, so stop
it... just stop it... "

"Hey now... didn't you hear me... I said STOP it!"

"God-damnit to hell, STOP IT!!! NOW!!! ARE YOU ALL MORONS!!!"

"*whimper*... why won't they stop it..."

When there are other realities out there, (like, the globe is DEPENDENT on fossil fuels to support itself at this point and alternatives ARE not practical, at this point, from a financial perspective for MOST of the world). And really, there is no guarantee how things are going to go. Maybe we will cause HUGE biological and ecological shift on the planet. Maybe it'll end up like Mars. Maybe we'll get through. Maybe we'll have a mass die off and everything will start again...

I believe you've done the experiments. I believe your facts are (generally)right. I believe you *believe* in the facts and the conclusions you have drawn from those facts. I just don't think you always have all the facts when you claim to... or that the conclusions you have drawn are necessarily the correct conclusions. Again, speaking of "you" as the scientific community.

I think that is something we might be getting hung up on to, here. The difference between FACTS and the conclusions that are drawn based on those facts. Dem has stated a lot of FACTS and concluded that RACE doesn't exist as a biological, genetic issue based on those facts.

I'm not disputing her facts. I'm disputing her conclusion. Granted, I don't understand her facts very well, and she probably does...

That really doesn't mean that her conclusion is sound.

More or less... "Uh, you're just going to have to take my word for it".

Not good enough. That is what the Priests/Clergy tell us, too... at which point, scentific method or not, your SCIENCE has become a religion.

Which has been *my* point for a long time running. Although, you have no problem convincing me that other organisms are necessary for human life, and that humans are NOT above nature. So why is it SO damned difficult for you to explain your biological perspective on *race* in a convincing way? Because race is "such" a cherised notion? Yeah, far more cherished by humanity than the "sacred and unique" nature of humanity.

Maybe you've just done a better job explaining the one, and not the other, you know, as a community. Give me a compelling argument that I can understand. The most that I have been able to pick up is that this is a complex answer and biologists no more have the answers than anyone ELSE on the planet, but that doesn't mean that you are RIGHT about race.

Biologists and anthropologists have convinced a GREAT deal of the world, evidently even including the Pope, that evolution takes place and is a valid theory. I see a convincing body of evidence for this theory.

I'm still not seeing a convincing body of evidence for the presumption that "race is a social and cultural construct because <insert voice of the Teacher from The Peanuts talking here>..."

You aren't understanding the argument basically because you do not want to.

In order for biology to determine the existence of a race, there must be a test which will reliably determine someone's lineage. Morphological (visible physical) characteristics, as we have pointed out, may give you an idea, but are not reliable, especially when you consider the fact that many morphologies could be due to multiple genetic combinations. This is especially true of the favorite characteristic - skin color. There are no less than five genes (locations in the DNA which code for a given protein) which control skin color, each of which has its own set of alleles (possible codes).

Then we add the fact that the level of exposure to sunlight can alter the pigment content in any human's skin but an albino. Morphological characteristics can always be altered by environmental processes, thus they really are not sufficient to determine lineage reliably.

We know that the best way to determine lineage is through genetics, as your DNA is the base code for every process in your body. Thus, we look to DNA. There are several different screens we can do.

The most common (especially in forensics and determining the cause/presence of certain diseases) is a scan for RNLPs (Restriction Nuclease Length Polymorphisms). Essentially, restriction nucleases are compounds that cut the DNA at very specific sequences. We then run the DNA on a gel (which will separate all the different segments) and look at the number and lengths of all of the segments we get. If a true race has been formed, the race should share roughly the same RNLPs. However, there is no set of these which can be mapped to any specific ethnicity, as most of the variation occurs within the ethncicity.

Another would be STRs (short tandem repeats). With in your DNA, there are repeated sections which do not code for any given protein. Over many generations, these are miscopied, duplicated, etc. If a true race has been formed, we should see certain STRs much more frequently among the members of a race, than across races. However, these tests have also been run, and the majority of the variation comes from individual variation - leaving no distinct racial variation.

Finally, the paper I posted a few pages ago looked at biallelic polymorphisms. These are genes for which there are two possible alleles. Again, had true races been formed, we would expect a distinction between "races" in this area. There was more here, however, the individual variation was still too great to determine a person's lineage with any reliablility.

Why have these characteristics not formed? You said it yourself a few posts ago when you mentioned the nomadic nature of human beings. There has never been a breeding group isolated for a sufficient amount of time to develop distinct genetic sequences. There was always someone from another area coming in to add their traits and keep the gene pool circulating.

In order for biology to determine the existence of a race, there must be a test which will reliably determine someone's lineage. Morphological (visible physical) characteristics, as we have pointed out, may give you an idea, but are not reliable, especially when you consider the fact that many morphologies could be due to multiple genetic combinations. This is especially true of the favorite characteristic - skin color. There are no less than five genes (locations in the DNA which code for a given protein) which control skin color, each of which has its own set of alleles (possible codes).

"There are no less than five". Can I read that as "there are possibly more than five, some of which we have yet to determine"? Because that is what that kind of language sounds like to me. It is language with "wiggle room". Just from a linguistic perspective, your choice of words here sends up red flags for me. I'm not disputing the facts you are presenting. I am not convinced of your conclusion, and the language you use here is one of the reasons.

Then we add the fact that the level of exposure to sunlight can alter the pigment content in any human's skin but an albino. Morphological characteristics can always be altered by environmental processes, thus they really are not sufficient to determine lineage reliably.

Does exposure to sunlight create a permenent genetic change in the pigment content of human skin, or is it a transient effect? Well, unless we're talking about multi-generational, and even then, do we really know that the pigment is changing, or that in a very sunny climate, offspring with darker pigment are more likely to survive and procreate? I suppose it could be a combonation of both, which is probably most likely.

*some snips*


The most common (especially in forensics and determining the cause/presence of certain diseases) is a scan for RNLPs (Restriction Nuclease Length Polymorphisms). Essentially, restriction nucleases are compounds that cut the DNA at very specific sequences. We then run the DNA on a gel (which will separate all the different segments) and look at the number and lengths of all of the segments we get. If a true race has been formed, the race should share roughly the same RNLPs. However, there is no set of these which can be mapped to any specific ethnicity, as most of the variation occurs within the ethncicity.

Again, the language is uncertain. You start using "should". Should according to what, theory and what you currently understand, correct? Wait and read on before you go nuts on me...


Another would be STRs ... we should see certain STRs much more frequently among the members of a race, than across races. However, these tests have also been run, and the majority of the variation comes from individual variation - leaving no distinct racial variation.



Finally, the paper I posted a few pages ago looked at biallelic polymorphisms. These are genes for which there are two possible alleles. Again, had true races been formed, we would expect a distinction between "races" in this area. There was more here, however, the individual variation was still too great to determine a person's lineage with any reliablility.



Why have these characteristics not formed? You said it yourself a few posts ago when you mentioned the nomadic nature of human beings. There has never been a breeding group isolated for a sufficient amount of time to develop distinct genetic sequences. There was always someone from another area coming in to add their traits and keep the gene pool circulating.

Again... I understand (from a very high level, which is to say, in general) what you are saying, and I agree that I've even gone so far as to give you a reason *why* these characterstics are not *detectable* (notice, I don't say, not formed).

Our disagreement lies not in the details, but in the conclusion. I think there is enough circumstantial incidental evidence that race does have a genetic, biological and hereditary component, regardless of what you're finding at the level of "raw genetic code" to dispute your conclusions. At least, the implications of your conclusion. Your conclusion, within the parameters of your definition, may be 100% spot-on. It probably is. I imagine, with some highly sophisticated, highly granular fictitious test of the far future, and a much more complete understanding of genetics, we will be able to trace, with high accuracy, to the smallest contribution of genetic material, which racial/ethnic groups are represented in an individual, potentially going as far as to draw a map of the migration patterns that one's ancenstors were likely to have followed as the individual's gene pool moved around the world, from culture to culture, and from race to race.

Let me use an IT analogy. If you take a hard drive, that has been written over enough times, the bits and pieces left and buried really retrace the entire history of that hard drive, from first use to last. Which OS, what hardware, what applications, what data. Every *bit* of code that was written to that drive, is still *there*. The odds of the data being over-written in such a way that make it absolutely and completely irrecoverable are pretty astronomical. I won't say it can't happen, but it is unlikely. It may be impossible with our current technology to recover every bit of it, and with our current technology, what we ARE able to recover might give us an incomplete picture, and lead us to incomplete conclusions. That doesn't mean that this information isn't *really* there. It is, assuredly, which is why corporations PHSYCIALLY destory magnetic media that might have sensitive information on it. Short of that, as long as the drive exists, you cannot be certain that at some point in the future the most *seemingly* obliterated piece of data on it might not be recovered. I'm looking at genetic code on racial history in much the same light. I'm willing to agree to disagree on this. I'm willing to let you walk away thinking I am just stubborn and ignorant and unwilling to listen to reason. I don't *think* that is the case, myself. But if that makes you feel better about this conversation, what power do I have to make you think any other way?

So... uh... if SCIENCE cannot answer a question right now, that means that the question cannot be scientific reality, *is not* scientific reality?

This is really so much simpler than you are making it. This thread has boiled down to two positions:

1) Race exists as a biological category of Homo sapiens (objective).
2) Race exists as a social construct without any real basis in biology (subjective).

If you believe that race exists objectively - that is, separate from human perceptions and social conventions - then it is incumbent upon you to provide a definition of race and an explanation of traits that separate one race from another (whether or not it can be adequately measured at this time).

To claim that a thing exists, but then to state there is no definition for that thing, nor an explanation for what makes that thing distinct from other things, puts one in the realm of mysticism.

You have said race exists objectively. You can talk all day about burning balls of gas and IT analogies, but sooner or later, in this discussion of race, you will have to get around to talking about race and what it is. There is a Chinese proverb, "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names." Please do everyone a favor and tell us what it is you are talking about when you use the word "race."

Race as a division of Terrestrial humans does not exist.
Race as a division between two sentient species does exist.
Race as a word for any other definition does exist.

I'm on the fence about if humanity can rise above nature. To a certain extent, we've been doing that ever since the industrial revolution. How sustainable that is, is another question. Can we keep doing it in TIME to avoid an ecosystem CRASH is another question (a pretty important one, at that). Can it be done? Sure, probably. Is the earth warming... yeah. Is it OUR fault? Maybe... although there still seem to be some mysteries. The environmental issues, that is a good example for my problem with this. I *do* see your point, but, I think the issue is more complex than the data you have on the issue. Hell, keeping an aquarium balanced is a daunting, complex task with all kinds of subtle interactions taking place. Multiply that by the EARTH... which is basically a big-ass aquarium... :)

I think scientists *think* that they see some problems that could be significant, perhaps catastrophic, and it is in their nature to err on the side of caution. I think they tend to be idealistic...

"This is bad... who cares how bad... it is potentially HUGELY bad, so stop
it... just stop it... "

"Hey now... didn't you hear me... I said STOP it!"

"God-damnit to hell, STOP IT!!! NOW!!! ARE YOU ALL MORONS!!!"

"*whimper*... why won't they stop it..."
Now you're making yourself hard to argue against. You are being so, so reasonable and logical right here... I do fully agree, respeonsible scientists always take the worst-case scenerio and tell people to prepare for that. There is little likelihood that everything that is predicted to happen will happen. But there is a significant chance that much of it will, and true scientists want to be prepared for anything--overcompensating. Though there are people like Bush's scientists who say global warming isn't happening at all. (mythical; it is happening, we just aren't sure of the full causes)

However, I disagree that we will be able to completely rise above nature. We have tipped the scales very heavily in the carrying capacity of the world. Eventually, and probably not too far in the future, we're going to face a global cataclysmic crisis that will hurt us more than we can fathom. I have no idea what that will be, but unless something cuts us down first, such as a human-to-human transmissible strain of avian flu, we're going to be raped right through the pants. And it's going to fecking hurt like hell.

I believe you've done the experiments. I believe your facts are (generally)right. I believe you *believe* in the facts and the conclusions you have drawn from those facts. I just don't think you always have all the facts when you claim to... or that the conclusions you have drawn are necessarily the correct conclusions. Again, speaking of "you" as the scientific community.

I think that is something we might be getting hung up on to, here. The difference between FACTS and the conclusions that are drawn based on those facts. Dem has stated a lot of FACTS and concluded that RACE doesn't exist as a biological, genetic issue based on those facts.
Again, you ahve proven to be incredibly perceptive. There is always the possibility that wrong conclusions have been drawn. I personally am pretty sure my conclusion is the right one, but to call myself infallible is one of the worst types of arrogance. I tip my hat to you, Analmania. You have proven yourself to be a very intelligent, discerning, and, most important of all, thinking individual.

Race as a division of Terrestrial humans does not exist.
Race as a division between two sentient species does exist.
Race as a word for any other definition does exist.
Well, I guess ethnologists are jhust useless... Race is certainly a sociological and anthropological concept, and to think otherwise is to be completely ignorant of the world. Granted, it would be nice if we were "colourblind" to skin pigment density (we really are all the same colour, literally, it is just the desnity of that colour), but we aren't, and there are obvious phenotypic differences between categories of people. It is just that those are not exclusive characteristics.

I've dropped in on this thread from time to time and you've been beating a dead horse for way too long. Despite intelligent arguement, you are do a nice little dance and maintain your position.

So I'd like to turn the tables, and ask what evidence you have that race exists. Nothing presented by you or others convinces me adequately of your position. The physical, observable features and attached inherited traits you use to justify your subclassification cross regularly over the artificial boundries that are supposedly to represent the different 'races'. If these classifications are filled with regular exceptions, how can they be supported. Even evidence about genetic predisposition to infirmities and diseases are not without exception. No evidence of any states truthfully that it is exclusive to a single 'race', at best they might be predominant to ethnic heritages but none can be demonstrated to be exclusive. Finally I ask which definition of 'race' is to be accepted as truthful? If you support that race is a real scientific truth, despite evidence that there is genetic diversity as great among ethnic groups as between them, please advise us as to what that division is. Pure physical appearance? Some other defining characteristics? What is your standard for subdividing humanity?

I missed this, among all the rest. I was not ignoring you or your question. Which is a fair enough question.

I am hedging on revealing my definition of race, simply because I know full well that to provide that information would absolutely become fodder for more scientific "proof" that race doesn't exist as we've been discussing it. But, in all honesty, those of us who have been saying that race does exist, have pretty much come forward, several times, to make pretty clear where we are defining race. But I'll do it once again (although someone claims I have *never* done it at all)...

I'd say that in general, I'd say "negroid/black Africans" are a distinct genetic, biological base *race*. Clearly. While the physical characteristics are the most obvious reason, I think there are a number of other unique reasons why this should be considered one of the basic "races". Caucasians, would obviously be another, and Asians. I agree with the other posters who have divided race in this basic manner. Then you have the indigenous peoples, the mediteranian peoples... remember, last time I called them the "muddier" races? Deja Vu... But, I've *never* come forward and talked about this... right???

I disagree that the physical, observable features cross over on a regular basis. A person looks at an Olmec head for the first time, and they see a Negroid. Inevitably. On closer inspection, with the realization that the stones do not convey the actual color of the skin, a person is certainly willing to concede that they've seen other "races" where examples of individuals exist that could pass as an "Olmec head". But the overall, almost universal first response to an Olmec head is, "What is an African chieftan doing in the jungles of Central America". I think you are being disingenious when you try to claim that this isn't a strong indication of race. Curly, unusually corse hair, very dark skin, broad nose, thick lips...

And you know, you can find, say, a Hawiian islander that meets MOST of these general criteria. Curly, fairly corse hair, fairly dark skin, broad nose, thick lips, large, stocky build... but you put it all together, and it is CLEARLY a different thing. You simply wouldn't confuse one for the other. There may be *rare* anomolies... but in general, it isn't going to happen. There are some Japanese that also have what I consider "Olmec" type features... but you put the whole package together, and it is still clear that you're looking at an ASIAN, not an African.

I think just as there are species or sub-species of animals that are genetically inclined toward different behaviors, this could certainly have an impact on humans due to their racial heritage. Oh! Isn't THAT a taboo to bring up?!? Aren't they going to try and crucify me for THAT statement. But, certainly, if other animals are genetically inclined to certain behaviors... mating for life, flashy displays to attract mates, strong social organizations, wandering solitary lifestyles, then why shouldn't humans be subject to these same kinds of genetic predispositions? In the animal kingdom, those qualities exist because they gave a species some sort of advantage in their environment. The same would hold true with humans. Now find the WORST extrapolations of how this might apply to human races, and pose those back to me as questions,

"So you think <insert race> acts <insert behavior> because <insert reason>?"

Let me save you the time... yeah, it might be possible. And I don't see *anything* inherently racist in entertaining that idea. Is it possible that *culture* is influenced by genetic predisposition? Use your "science" and *prove* to me that it is not.

This is *still* beating the same dead horse, by the way. We HAVE discussed all of this, at length. :headbang:

"There are no less than five". Can I read that as "there are possibly more than five, some of which we have yet to determine"?

We do not know the purpose of every given gene, although we do know its location within the human genome. So it is very possible that some of these other genes contribute to skin color.

However, since the genetic variation does not show any significant differences in these *other* genes either, it really isn't relevant.

I am not convinced of your conclusion, and the language you use here is one of the reasons.

You are not convinced of my conclusion because you are arguing from a viewpoint that "There is race from a biological standpoint and I am absolutely certain that there is a way to prove it. We just don't yet have the technology"

Your logic is exactly like me saying "There are invisible pink elephants and I am absolutely certain that there is a way to prove it. We just don't yet have the technology."

Does exposure to sunlight create a permenent genetic change in the pigment content of human skin, or is it a transient effect?

Morphological characteristics are those which can be examined upon observation. Your skin color is observed to change with exposure to sunlight. This pigment change is due to environmental changes, not due to genetic changes. However, *you* are the one defining race based on morphological characteristics alone. *You* are the one stating that races are defined by the way a person looks to the outside observer. I was pointing out that this reasoning does not work, as many of the traits you use are affected by much more than lineage.

Again, the language is uncertain. You start using "should". Should according to what, theory and what you currently understand, correct? Wait and read on before you go nuts on me...

Wrong. From a biological standpoint, these requirements should be met *if* we are to classify these groups as race. It is the same as saying an organism should meet certain qualifications in order to be classified as a protist.

By the biological definition of race, there are no human groups which can be classified as race.

Again... I understand (from a very high level, which is to say, in general) what you are saying, and I agree that I've even gone so far as to give you a reason *why* these characterstics are not *detectable* (notice, I don't say, not formed).

No, I am saying that they are not there. We have looked, and they are not there. We can sequence the genome, and they are not there. Plain and simple.

Your argument is like saying, "Yes, I know we looked for Zeus creating the lightning. We found that other things caused the lightning and didn't find Zeus. But he is still there and one day we will find him!"

Our disagreement lies not in the details, but in the conclusion. I think there is enough circumstantial incidental evidence that race does have a genetic, biological and hereditary component, regardless of what you're finding at the level of "raw genetic code" to dispute your conclusions.

Science does not lie in circumstantial or incidental evidence. In order to classify a subset of humanity as a race, the conditions I described above must be met. They are not, so there is no classification.

I think there is enough circumstantial and incidental evidence to define a poodle as a different species than a pit bull. However, these two do not meet the biological requirements to be defined as such. Thus, while I may use the term as a layperson and may treat the two as if they are different species, under scientific definitions, they are not.

At least, the implications of your conclusion. Your conclusion, within the parameters of your definition, may be 100% spot-on.

I have only argued that it is true within the parameters of the biological definition.

As I have pointed out numerous times, from a sociological standpoint, the idea of race - and the groupings in which we place people as races - is clearly evident.

By your definition of race - from a morphological standpoint - we can certainly classify people into races, although our classification will not necessarily have anything to do with lineage.

However, from the biological definition, there is no reason to call the people whom society groups together races.

Let me use an IT analogy. If you take a hard drive, that has been written over enough times, the bits and pieces left and buried really retrace the entire history of that hard drive, from first use to last. Which OS, what hardware, what applications, what data. Every *bit* of code that was written to that drive, is still *there*. The odds of the data being over-written in such a way that make it absolutely and completely irrecoverable are pretty astronomical. I won't say it can't happen, but it is unlikely. It may be impossible with our current technology to recover every bit of it, and with our current technology, what we ARE able to recover might give us an incomplete picture, and lead us to incomplete conclusions. That doesn't mean that this information isn't *really* there. It is, assuredly, which is why corporations PHSYCIALLY destory magnetic media that might have sensitive information on it. Short of that, as long as the drive exists, you cannot be certain that at some point in the future the most *seemingly* obliterated piece of data on it might not be recovered. I'm looking at genetic code on racial history in much the same light.

It is an interesting analogy, but not really valid. With genetic code, we are not talking about code that has been "overwritten." In every individual, we have the entire code. We can already sequence that entire code - although it is a very painstaking procedure. We can look for differences between two of these codes, with the processes I described above.

Unless our future understanding of genetics does away with everything we currently believe, the only way that we will find the variation you are looking for is if we find that all of the data already collected was a fraud.

I'm willing to agree to disagree on this.

I have already agreed to disagree - to a point.

I have just pointed out the biological standpoint. Things are not classified in light of "what we believe we will find in the future." Scientifically, you can't make up a classification for people and then say, "We have no idea how to define these classifications, but people fit into them and we'll decide how to show that one of these days." The classification comes *after* determining the criteria.

I'm willing to let you walk away thinking I am just stubborn and ignorant and unwilling to listen to reason. I don't *think* that is the case, myself. But if that makes you feel better about this conversation, what power do I have to make you think any other way?

Well, not saying things like "Science is just PC nonsense that doesn't mean anything anyway," when you are arguing whether or not a scientific basis for something exists might be a good start.

I find it funny, however, that you think science hasn't defined the groups you believe to be races as such out of a desire to be PC. The majority of the original studies into a genetic basis for race were carried out in a political climate that *wanted* there to be a difference, so that the poor treatment of certain individuals could be validated. The scientists demonstrated that their results pointed towards the opposite conclusion. What makes you think that science (as a whole, not just the scientists that Bush controls) has become so much more biased in the past 30 years?

Now you're making yourself hard to argue against. You are being so, so reasonable and logical right here... I do fully agree, respeonsible scientists always take the worst-case scenerio and tell people to prepare for that. There is little likelihood that everything that is predicted to happen will happen. But there is a significant chance that much of it will, and true scientists want to be prepared for anything--overcompensating. Though there are people like Bush's scientists who say global warming isn't happening at all. (mythical; it is happening, we just aren't sure of the full causes)

However, I disagree that we will be able to completely rise above nature. We have tipped the scales very heavily in the carrying capacity of the world. Eventually, and probably not too far in the future, we're going to face a global cataclysmic crisis that will hurt us more than we can fathom. I have no idea what that will be, but unless something cuts us down first, such as a human-to-human transmissible strain of avian flu, we're going to be raped right through the pants. And it's going to fecking hurt like hell.


Again, you ahve proven to be incredibly perceptive. There is always the possibility that wrong conclusions have been drawn. I personally am pretty sure my conclusion is the right one, but to call myself infallible is one of the worst types of arrogance. I tip my hat to you, Analmania. You have proven yourself to be a very intelligent, discerning, and, most important of all, thinking individual.


Well, I guess ethnologists are jhust useless... Race is certainly a sociological and anthropological concept, and to think otherwise is to be completely ignorant of the world. Granted, it would be nice if we were "colourblind" to skin pigment density (we really are all the same colour, literally, it is just the desnity of that colour), but we aren't, and there are obvious phenotypic differences between categories of people. It is just that those are not exclusive characteristics.

Wait until you read my latest... you may want to retract your comments in this message. :)

Maybe not, though. I was painted into a corner, and I don't have a great answer, and I *would* have rather dodged the answer indefinetly. But, shooting from the hip, I felt like I had to give them *something*. Besides, it wasn't like it wasn't the same stuff I've already said before... so at the very least, it shouldn't be a surprise...

But on the rest of this... Listen... I recently had an argument with my wife. On the highway, in a 5 mile trip, the outside temp plummeted about 12 degrees in less than 10 minutes. She commented on how strange that was. (REAL unusual in this city, in the part of the country I live in... I'd have to say, unheard of). I mentioned global warming, at which point she basically tore into me about how I sounded like a liberal. :)

10 minutes later still, we had taken refuge under a light-rail overpass as HUGE hail came down for at least half an hour. The gutters on each side of us literally looked like swollen, raging rivers. Down the street, flooding was horrible, the worst I have ever seen in the downtown area in my 30+ years here.

We were in England this summer, and suffered the WORST torrential rains in England since England has been keeping records. I never found out what exactly that meant, but I assume that England has been keeping rainfall records for a HELLUVA long time, especially from the perspective of an American. We left right before the FLOODING began... This after I told my wife,

"In October or Sept., if it rains, it is more like a constant, and I mean constant, drizzle, it very rarely rains like RAINING, in my experience."

We've got icesheets breaking up earlier, breaking up where they never have before...

My wife is caught up on the "but you're saying it is COLDER than ever". And she won't buy into the "changing weather patterns... global warming may mean it gets COLDER in certain places" line of reasoning, although that makes perfect sense to me.

I hear you on this. I agree. But a die-off *may* just be the only solution. Things like the h-2-h avian flu, a highly contagious, airborne transmitted super-AIDS, or a global extinction impact are still nature's way of dealing with the cycle... even one that we have artificially extended. I think it is hubris to think we may *ever* rise above nature. Nature seems to have a way of always showing you, ulimately, who is boss. More than that, I don't see that we have the capacity to bring population into check, and the population is dependent on the infrastructure, hell, the population itself may be causing a significant portion of the rise in greenhouse gasses, through natural processes alone. So what are you going to do? Cull the heard? Thin the masses, on PURPOSE? Maybe if we don't figure out a technology to address the issue and RAISE the carrying capacity, it is too late, we're ultimately doomed, anyhow... or at least a whole helluva lot of us are. Ultimately, I think *everyone* who has really thought about this agrees what we need to do is get off-world and start colonizing. But how soon is that going to be a reality, if we can achieve that goal at all?

And it may not happen at all. This isn't the FIRST time in the history of humanity that science has warned we are on the road toward terrible calamity. Pretty much since the beginning, responsible, well thought out scientists have been saying, "This is a road to disaster" at certain times. And their numbers didn't lie. But technology came up with new solutions and dodged those dire numbers. Could it happen again? Certainly. Is it guaranteed? Not at all. What is...

And of course, this isn't an *excuse* for ignoring the threats or denying the threats we currently face. To do that is inexcusable. At some point, even if we fix the other problems, we *are* going to run out of oil... and how does our global infrastructure work when that DOES happen? 50 years from now or 5000... And if the infrastructure crumbles, for any reason, so does the rest of this artificially large population that the Earth is supporting. How about that... running out of OIL as a doomsday scenario. You don't hear that one thrown around ever... but it is a possibility... a *certainity*, if we overcome the other current problems but stick with fossil fuels....

As far as it hurting. It will hurt *US*... but we put way too much importance on our role here. How badly will it hurt the EARTH? Will the earth go on, and life go on, without us... or do we REALLY have the capacity to make this ecosystem crash so badly that the Earth ends up resembling Mars? I often think the Earth regards humanity like a particularly bad case of acne. Annoying, rather embarassing, but likely to clear up with no long term scars...

I for one, do not see what a huge loss to the universe the demise of the human race would be... universally speaking... :)

Science does not lie in circumstantial or incidental evidence. In order to classify a subset of humanity as a race, the conditions I described above must be met. They are not, so there is no classification.

I think there is enough circumstantial and incidental evidence to define a poodle as a different species than a pit bull. However, these two do not meet the biological requirements to be defined as such. Thus, while I may use the term as a layperson and may treat the two as if they are different species, under scientific definitions, they are not.

You know, I'm going to drop all of what I said, and all of what you said, and focus on THIS....

I think this is a great point. To you, looking at the genetic sequence under a microscope, a pit bull and a poodle are both simply a DOG? The same dog, for all you can tell... There is NO difference, one from the other, as far as you are concerned, as a biologist, biologically speaking...


Fine... I'll let you have that.
THAT is my point. Biology is convinced that biologically speaking, a pit bull and poodle are the same thing.

Obviously there is something going on there, something that common sense and reason would suggest is BIOLOGICAL (in a broad, and real general sense)... something *genetic*. But BIOLOGY doesn't see that, doesn't recognize that. Won't acknowledge that?



Ah... but see how you hedge your bet above? You suggest in your analogy that a pit-bull and a poodle are a different *species*. No one here has suggested that different RACES are different species. Different BREEDS.

In my opinion, you're being kind of sneaky, kind of disingenious, in dropping the pit-bull/poodle thing in but mixing it up with species, as opposed to BREED, and I don't think it was uninentional or accidental that you did it that way.

Let me be more forthright. Race is to humans what Breeds are to Animals.

Is BREED a biological process that can be identified and catagorized, or is a DOG a Dog a Dog?

Wait until you read my latest... you may want to retract your comments in this message. :)
Nope. Though I disagree with you, your points are certainly valid and I respect them.

My wife is caught up on the "but you're saying it is COLDER than ever". And she won't buy into the "changing weather patterns... global warming may mean it gets COLDER in certain places" line of reasoning, although that makes perfect sense to me.
Yes, global warming actually means extremes of temperature, not just an increase. This is shown in The Day After Tommorow, just a little dramatised.

I hear you on this. I agree. But a die-off *may* just be the only solution. Things like the h-2-h avian flu, a highly contagious, airborne transmitted super-AIDS, or a global extinction impact are still nature's way of dealing with the cycle... even one that we have artificially extended. I think it is hubris to think we may *ever* rise above nature. Nature seems to have a way of always showing you, ulimately, who is boss. More than that, I don't see that we have the capacity to bring population into check, and the population is dependent on the infrastructure, hell, the population itself may be causing a significant portion of the rise in greenhouse gasses, through natural processes alone. So what are you going to do? Cull the heard? Thin the masses, on PURPOSE? Maybe if we don't figure out a technology to address the issue and RAISE the carrying capacity, it is too late, we're ultimately doomed, anyhow... or at least a whole helluva lot of us are. Ultimately, I think *everyone* who has really thought about this agrees what we need to do is get off-world and start colonizing. But how soon is that going to be a reality, if we can achieve that goal at all?
Thank you! If...if there were just more people like you...pardon me my wet dream...

As far as it hurting. It will hurt *US*... but we put way too much importance on our role here. How badly will it hurt the EARTH? Will the earth go on, and life go on, without us... or do we REALLY have the capacity to make this ecosystem crash so badly that the Earth ends up resembling Mars? I often think the Earth regards humanity like a particularly bad case of acne. Annoying, rather embarassing, but likely to clear up with no long term scars...

I for one, do not see what a huge loss to the universe the demise of the human race would be... universally speaking... :)
Yes, that is what I meant. Humans are the ones being destroyed by nature--nature will benefit from the destruction of all humans unless we clean up our act. I believe this (http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-05-11&res=l) illustrates my meaning to an extent. The knife being human overpopulation and greenhouse gas emissions.

What are your opinions on this?
Race is an artificial construct based on physical characteristics supposedly common to certain groups of people. Despite repeated attempts by many throughout history to explain the characteristics certain "races" are suppose to possess, there have always been too many exceptions to "the rules" for any degree of certainty.

Since, as far as we know, any male and female human couple can produce viable offspring, homo sapiens sapiens is one race, i.e. one species.

You know, I'm going to drop all of what I said, and all of what you said, and focus on THIS....

I think this is a great point. To you, looking at the genetic sequence under a microscope, a pit bull and a poodle are both simply a DOG? The same dog, for all you can tell... There is NO difference, one from the other, as far as you are concerned, as a biologist, biologically speaking...

And again, you jump to conclusions that I did not make. No, I didn't say that they cannot be told apart, as a poodle and a pit bull *do* have enough discernable genetic differences to make them separate breeds (or races) of dog. However, there is *not* enough genetic difference to classify them as separate *species*.

Fine... I'll let you have that.
THAT is my point. Biology is convinced that biologically speaking, a pit bull and poodle are the same thing.

Wrong. Biologically speaking, a pit bull and poodle are the same *species*, just as (if races were determined in humans), a member of race X and race Y would both still be classified as humans.

Ah... but see how you hedge your bet above? You suggest in your analogy that a pit-bull and a poodle are a different *species*. No one here has suggested that different RACES are different species. Different BREEDS.

And as I have pointed out numerous times, there is enough genetic difference with which to determine different dog *breeds*. However, there is not enough genetic difference to determine human breeds or races.

In my opinion, you're being kind of sneaky, kind of disingenious, in dropping the pit-bull/poodle thing in but mixing it up with species, as opposed to BREED, and I don't think it was uninentional or accidental that you did it that way.

You say that you are very good linguistically. I would assume that this means you are aware of the term analogy. However, you have proven that to be very wrong. It is not disingenious for me to use another classification analogy when I am talking about the topic of classification.

Let me be more forthright. Race is to humans what Breeds are to Animals.

And let me be more forthright (even though I have said this more than once. There have been breeding groups isolated for long enough to create breeds/races in dogs. There have not in humans. I am using the exact same definition for both here.

And again, you jump to conclusions that I did not make. No, I didn't say that they cannot be told apart, as a poodle and a pit bull *do* have enough discernable genetic differences to make them separate breeds (or races) of dog. However, there is *not* enough genetic difference to classify them as separate *species*.



Wrong. Biologically speaking, a pit bull and poodle are the same *species*, just as (if races were determined in humans), a member of race X and race Y would both still be classified as humans.



And as I have pointed out numerous times, there is enough genetic difference with which to determine different dog *breeds*. However, there is not enough genetic difference to determine human breeds or races.



You say that you are very good linguistically. I would assume that this means you are aware of the term analogy. However, you have proven that to be very wrong. It is not disingenious for me to use another classification analogy when I am talking about the topic of classification.



And let me be more forthright (even though I have said this more than once. There have been breeding groups isolated for long enough to create breeds/races in dogs. There have not in humans. I am using the exact same definition for both here.

And you STILL don't understand why I'm having trouble buying into your "science" and that I think it has more to do with politics than with the actual science, huh?

"Oh, no, we absolutely CAN detect BREED in Dogs, biologically".

"But we cannot detect RACE in humans, biologically".

Let me ask you this:

Can you detect, biologically, what BREEDS a MUTT has in it's heritage?

So, you take a burebreed, a mongrel gets to it, it pops out a littler. Just looking at the genetic profile of the pups, can you tell "Pure bred Pit Bull, some border collie, beagle, poodle and jack terrier"?

I'm just curious. When you start mixing the pure-breeds, how quickly does your ability to tell the heritage, the "pure" lineage, break down?

And you STILL don't understand why I'm having trouble buying into your "science" and that I think it has more to do with politics than with the actual science, huh?

No, and nothing in the rest of your post enlightens me either.

"Oh, no, we absolutely CAN detect BREED in Dogs, biologically".

"But we cannot detect RACE in humans, biologically".

Having to do with the fact that there is significant variation in breeds of dog to classify them as such. There is not significant variation to classify similar races of human beings.

Can you detect, biologically, what BREEDS a MUTT has in it's heritage?

For a simple mix (ie. poodle and pit bull), possibly. For a general mongrel, no. It therefore is not classified as any of the breeds.

And this is *exactly* the reason that biology cannot classify human "races." There are no purebred races. And all evidence indicates that there never were.

No, and nothing in the rest of your post enlightens me either.

Ok... well... maybe it is just me... You're almost as slippery as Slick Willie, IMHO...

*snippage*


For a simple mix (ie. poodle and pit bull), possibly. For a general mongrel, no. It therefore is not classified as any of the breeds.

And this is *exactly* the reason that biology cannot classify human "races." There are no purebred races. And all evidence indicates that there never were.

Ok. I asked you this for a specific purpose, and your answer is fine. I can see that if this is the case, it makes sense that biology cannot tell races in humans, either.

*Yet* that still doesn't mean that the mongrel does NOT have a heritage of specific breeds in it's genetic makeup, nor that those breeds do not influence, biologically, genetically, a variety of characteristics in that mongrel's apperance, behaviorisms, personallity, tendencies, and other factors. The breeds that a mongrel is descendent from will absolutely influence in some degree, all of these factors. Environment and other non-genetic factors will also obviously likely have an impact as well.

No... all this means is that speaking as a biologist, you cannot determine that genetic and biological history... in a dog, when the genetic heritage gets just a LITTLE muddy.

So is it more likely that all evidence indicates "as far as you can tell, there has NEVER been RACE in human biological history", or that "you just can't tell that much, biologically, unless the lines are VERY pure, clear and evident". I'm going to apply Occam's Razor, and some critical thinking, and I come up with the conclusion that Door B looks like the winner to me.

I've got an Akita-Shep mix. You can clearly see the genetic heritage of both purebred lines in this dog, not just in physical characteristics, but in genetic liabilities and advantages as well. I've also got some sort of Heinz 57 MIX... and I'd be hard pressed to tell you for certain WHAT that dog comes from. I think hound-dog of some sort, maybe some Rot or Chow... maybe... and some other stuff... maybe some chuppacabbra... whatever kind of dog has hair like brillo-wire and will disembowl anything it can rip apart... I see other dogs that look like her quite a bit... some more than others... and there may be some relation, it may be distant, or it might be NO relaton, just a similar morphological apperance. Yes, this ALL goes along with what you are saying, to a certain extent...

So, you know, your concept that humans are genetic "mongrels", non-breeds... I guess you're right... again, under your very specific definitions and parameters. I think you CAN see morphology in the mongrel that does indicate the purebred lines she comes from. And I don't think that this is a purely social and cultural construction. I think you can see attitudes and behaviors that are likely to indicate that heritage as well. And I imagine, with refined enough techniques and technology beyond those that are clearly available to us today, you would be able to look at her genetic heritage and say with absolute certain results what line of purebred canines she is descendent from. I also think if you mixed her with another dog of similar mixed breed(s), you would get pups that were also very similar in genetics, right down to hip problems and an annoying tendency to be real needy and affection seeking.

And if this applies to domestic canines, I think it applies to modern humans, as well.

I mean, what you are trying to say is clear to me. I understand *exactly* at this point. Maybe not all the the technical details and Four Letter Acronyms (or even when you spell out what the 4LAs stand for)... but I understand the general thing you are trying to say.

I *still* think that my view, my vision of race, is possible within the limitations of what you describe. Is more than possible, is more than likely... I think it is almost a certain thing. Almost a given. The better I understand you, the more convinced I become...

Now go ahead and tell me how I completely misunderstood you. I disagree. I think I understood you BEST of all this time... and it just convinced me of what I've been saying all along.

I'll work on a definition of race too. I was chewing on that on my last smoke. I'm onto something pretty clear and well laid out that way, too... but it might take me awhile...

Race: A set of dominant genetic traits passed on through biological heritage and means, manifesting itself in predictable physical and other characteristics, often best suited to and giving beneficial advantages in a specific environment. Undesirable traits may also be passed on through this process, which may be exaggerated in an environment not specifically suited to the racial heritage of that organism. Examples might include a susceptibility to diabetes, trouble metabolizing alcohol and a propensity toward alcoholism (or other substance abuse), or efficient metabolizing of alcohol and a resistance toward alcoholism (or abuse of another substance), a tendency to be able to tolerate unusual and highly customized diets, or to operate at higher than normal or expected efficency in extreme environments, such as very high altitudes or in extreme heat or cold. Additionally, fairly broad ranges of abilities within different races may confuse these issues. The most accomplished Caucasian mountain-climber may be more tolerant of extreme high altitude conditions than the LEAST accomplished Sherpa or Andean high-country native. The Caucasian may meet or exceed the abilities and endurance of even the most accomplished of the other two examples. General human adaptability through conditioning may also have a significant impact in causing confusion on if qualities are genetic racial heritage OR a learned, trained or conditioned response. Broad, general samples of a set of genetically similar people are more relevent in this assessment than rare anomolies. This list is by no means complete, and is intended just as an example.

As applied to humanity, skin-tone, features, and other characteristics that may include but are not limited to intellectual capacity, problem solving skills, athletic prowess and skills, durability, longevity, endurance, susceptibility to disease or environmental dangers, and other characteristics. Further confusing this issue, outside influences including diet, natural resources, and other factors not directly related to genetic heritage may cause significant variation within a group of individuals identified as racially related or similar.

Intentional genetic manipulation by selective breeding of a captive and controlled population is likely to have significant, dramatic and rapid genetic and biological impact on a race. This type of genetic social engineering should be regarded as abhorent by all civilized peoples and races.

Social and cultural factors that are most likely NOT influenced by genetic or biological processes are also prone to become part of the definition of race. This does not rule out that social and cultural factors may be influenced in some cases by genetic heritage, though. A common example of this is the commonly held belief that people of African "racial" heritage have a natural gift for rythmn that is evident throughout African cultures and the global cultures that have spawned from those regions. This may simply be a myth, a false stereotype, or may be a cultural and social phenomenon, but could possibly have a genetic or biological basis that is so far not understood.

Finally, massively nomadic and mobile human cultures, populations and interbreeding, combined with the other modifying factors mentioned above, creates a biological pool where current methods of genetic screening are not able to accurately determine any scientific basis for race, leading to confusion, disagreement, and lack of popular consensus on what precisely constitutes race, and where one race ends and another one begins. Combined with emerging social and political sensitivity toward issues of race and of racial discrimination that often arises, this makes definition or discussion of race a heated, emotional, and often irrational topic in modern human culture, making it further nearly impossible to agree on a specific, scientifically valid definition of race as a biological/genetic function.

Admittedly, not very well in keeping with the principles of K.I.S.S. and unlikely to be something the scientific method can work well within the parameters of. But that does not make it unreasonable, irrational, or *wrong*.

i am sorry but i must disagree with those of you that think race exists
it doesn't

the idea of race came from the human desire to catagorize everything
after we were done with plants and animals we thought it would only be fitting that we catagorize ouselves

it hasn't done us much good

It is worth noting that catagorizations of RACE have clearly historically existed as long, if not longer, than other catagorizations.... Neither argument really makes or defeats the other. At any rate, it isn't something that arose only after we got done naming the plants and animals.

And, to the individual who mentioned his frustration at the round-and -round between Dem and I...

My struggle with a definition of race is another example of the kind of linguistic blockage that you mentioned earlier.

It is one of those things I know so strongly about how I feel intuitively, in my gut, that it was extremely hard for me to develop a coherent, eloquent written example of the basis for that opinion. Although I know my opponents here will tear into it with the SAME line of reasoning that they have been using all along, I am still fairly content with the results I achieved once I finally put myself into developing something thought out, which dug in to and elaborated on my surface thoughts: surface thoughts which threatened to block out the more detailed explaination of my logic and reason that lay just beneath.

And one last pre-emptive strike, and then I'm off to bed... really...

(this will have to stop once school starts up again... soon)...

I was sitting on the can, reading an old NatGeo, about sunspots...

And I noticed some interesting information that is related somehow to this thread, and to some of the tangents...

According to NASA, high sunspot activity over this century is likely related to the increase in Earth's temperature. It *is* part of a natural cycle. It seems to account for up to about HALF of the total global temperature increase up until 1940, and possibly less since then as "greenhouse gasses" have continued to rise. This sunspot activity and subsequent temperature increase have unfortunately coincided with the greatest and most rapid population growth that the Earth has ever known in mankind's history, *and* the rapid increase of technology. This makes a couple of points... Nature ALWAYS finds a way to keep itself in balance, and keeping itself in balance means periodic die-offs. The problems MAY be outside our hands, outside of our influence, in whole or in part. We *do* have the capacity to find the root causes, even the more obscure ones, and potentially develop solutions.

Now, to take this AWAY from this tangent, tie it IN to the actual topic, AND deliver my pre-emptive strike...

The SAME article quotes an astronomer, Joseph Gurman of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center....

"After decades (emphasis is mine) of not being able to come up with enough energy for a coronal-heating model," says Gurman, "we now have a thousand times more energy than needed."

Let me, by way of analogy, reword that

"After decades, of not being able to come up with enough genetic diveristy for an accurate racial model, we now have a thousand times more genetic data than needed to do so".

How often does science have reversals, new discoveries, like this? Pretty often. Do you think that we have a more complete understanding of genetics than our understanding of our nearest stellar body? I mean, it is reasonable to assume we do... the genetic material is RIGHT here, we have direct access to it, and, it generally doesn't try to burn you into atoms and crush you into a super-dense form as it rips you apart if you get too close to it. So, I'm willing to give you a *little* benefit of the doubt. I think logic and reason says that it is most likely that the same kind of increase in knowledge that is being applied in stellar astronomy is likely to have a significant impact on genetic biology, redefining our understanding and opening up new information where our models have been woefully wanting in the past. I also tend to think of astronomy as a kind of cornerstone, keystone, foundation science. Medical science, technology, all the other sciences tend to benefit directly and indirectly from advances in astronomy and space exploration. It seems the better we understand the rest of the universe, the better we understand home. Haven't a lot of the advances in biology and genetics in the past couple of decades been in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, strongly assisted by advances in space exploration and technologies developed in that pursuit? Is that an unreasonable claim to make?

And I'm NOT proposing that the analogy is *accurate*, or even well suited. It is more of an illustration of exactly *why* I have my doubts that the claims you make are as solid as a foundation as you seem to think.

And well... the energy was *there*, the astronomers KNEW it, they just couldn't find a model that explained it.

I would argue the biological, genetic racial markers are there, or sure appear to be. We "know" there is some kind of context wherein genetic lineage affects factors that are commonly refered to as *race*. Biologists just can't find the model that explains it. All of these studies that looked for it and came up empty handed wouldn't have taken place if scientists, using the scientific method, didn't see the same things I see, things that made them think, "There is *something* going on here..." I mean, I guess this depends on the bias of the people performing the studies. Did they set out hoping to CONFIRM theories of race, or disconfirm theories of race? Were the inclined to want results that said that race DID exist, or were they inclined to want results that said that race did NOT exist? Were they truly impartial? I doubt it.

And as this quote, and this article illustrates, just because you've been looking for something for a long time, and haven't come up with anything, doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Source: National Geographic, July 2004, The Sun, Living With a Stormy Star, Pg 28, 1st Column, 4th paragraph, Pg. 29, 2nd Column, 3rd Paragraph.

Since, as far as we know, any male and female human couple can produce viable offspring

Even Michael Moore and Ann Coulter?

Analmania, your sunspot analogy was a stretch at best and you really have no supporting data. I can't help but notice you failed to address mine or anyone else's request to define race in any scientific terms or even give your determination as to which 'races' are the standard.

Yes, we acknowledge your assertion that race exists, but it is not a scientific or biological truth. It is an extension of the concept of 'tribe', a sociological construct used to identify those that are within the same social collective.

You are avoiding one truth, none here will respect your arguements until you address it.

The sociological concept of race or tribe is a devisive one.

While it is used to identify those who look and speak like you and have the same social moors, it is also used to dehumanize those who don't. Tribal languages don't diferentiate between 'human' and 'tribemember'. Those outside the group can be treated as less than human.

While this may have once been a valid concept for survival, it is no longer. The social construct of race does exist, but it no longer has a valid place in our world. It has outlived it's usefullness and now only serves as an excuse for the deaths and persecution of millions of our fellows. To seek a non-existant biological bases for this concept is immoral. You argue to justify that which has no positive uses in our world today.

We must question your motives.

Analmania, your sunspot analogy was a stretch at best and you really-

*yawn*....

NEEEEEXT....

*yawn*....

NEEEEEXT....Well we see where the Anal in Analmania comes in.

I've wasted all I'm gonna on this troll, I'm out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid
http://www.theoryofuniverse.com/man/races/races-skulls.htm



http://rutgersscholar.rutgers.edu/volume03/gaglwale/gaglwale.htm

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/87/7/3047

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

Can one of those who say that race doesn't excist, explain something to me:
If different animal races excist (i.e. Dogs: Border Collies, Bulldogs, etc), why shouldn't in theory different human races excist?
I thought that that was just one human race: homo sapiens sapiens since the others had become extinct. (like the Neanderthal man)

Well we see where the Anal in Analmania comes in.

I've wasted all I'm gonna on this troll, I'm out.

Hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out...

If your response had put anything new on the table, I might have paid a little more attention to it. It was all the same stuff Dem has been saying, only, not as thought provoking or well executed.

Do you want to *detail* what the reason is that you feel that the analogy between discovery of coronal-mass energy is irrelevent to the idea that we may eventually understand more about genetics than we do today, possibly even answering problems and issues that have dogged us for DECADES? Or do you just think that simply saying, wrongly,

"Your sunspot [sic] analogy is flawed". and leaving it at that is the last word on the subject?

(I was talking about Coronal-Mass Temperatures and the energy neccessary to create those temperatures, and how none of the models could account for the energy until quite recently... NOT sunspots, in relation to THIS topic).

So again, I don't think I'll be missing much without your contributions. Have a good trip...

Admittedly, not very well in keeping with the principles of K.I.S.S. and unlikely to be something the scientific method can work well within the parameters of. But that does not make it unreasonable, irrational, or *wrong*.

I never suggested that it makes it "wrong." Under your personal definition of race, race exists. Under the definition of race as determined by biology, it does not. The only thing you have said that was "wrong" was that increased technology will eventually define biological races. The only way that could happen is if the definition were changed to suit you. Your statement is akin to me saying "I am positive that humans are in a separate kingdom from animals. One day science will prove it by changing the classification system to put them in their own kingdom."

The point being: there is already a biological classification system in place to describe breeds/races. The definition is clear and no human groups meet it. Sure, if we changed the definition around to meet your definition, it might happen - but that really isn't what we are discussion when we talk about the biological definition of race.

"After decades, of not being able to come up with enough genetic diveristy for an accurate racial model, we now have a thousand times more genetic data than needed to do so".

...which would still require a complete redefine of the biolgoical term. You want us to find some genetic data that conforms to your specific definition of race. Sure, that is most likely possible. However, your specific definition of race is not the same as the scientific model of race, which already exists.

I would argue the biological, genetic racial markers are there, or sure appear to be. We "know" there is some kind of context wherein genetic lineage affects factors that are commonly refered to as *race*. Biologists just can't find the model that explains it. All of these studies that looked for it and came up empty handed wouldn't have taken place if scientists, using the scientific method, didn't see the same things I see, things that made them think, "There is *something* going on here..."

You are working backwards here. As I pointed out, biologists have a definition of race. Human beings just don't meet it.

You seem to think that we can't explain the fact that people who breed with other people like them tend to have children with the same traits. This is very well explained. The point is that people have not stuck within defined groups enough to meet the definition which has been laid out (which we do have defined tests for).

I mean, I guess this depends on the bias of the people performing the studies. Did they set out hoping to CONFIRM theories of race, or disconfirm theories of race? Were the inclined to want results that said that race DID exist, or were they inclined to want results that said that race did NOT exist? Were they truly impartial? I doubt it.

In truth, most early studies set out to CONFIRM the idea of race, and found that they were unable to. Most current studies begin with the hypothesis that they will find enough variation for racial categories, and find that they are unable to. You think that anything dealing with race is inherently un-PC. In fact, medical science *wants* to be able to define race. If human beings actually had clearer classifications, we could more easily determine someone's risk for a particular disease, different treatments would be likely to work better in different races, etc. Medical science would be much more defined if there *were* races, in the biological sense.

And as this quote, and this article illustrates, just because you've been looking for something for a long time, and haven't come up with anything, doesn't mean that it isn't there.

If you know exactly how to find it, and it isn't there, it does mean exactly that. If I know that my keys are either in my pocket or on the table, and they are not on the table, I know they are in my pocket. We aren't theorizing here - we already have a definition, we know how to test for that definition, and we have done so.

More current studies are getting more and more speicifc, looking for *any* correlation (and statistics will tell you that if you sift through enough things looking for a correlation, you will eventually find something - however, the longer you look, the more likely it is that the information is coincidental). However, the correlations that are left would not meet the classification system.

Can one of those who say that race doesn't excist, explain something to me:
If different animal races excist (i.e. Dogs: Border Collies, Bulldogs, etc), why shouldn't in theory different human races excist?
I thought that that was just one human race: homo sapiens sapiens since the others had become extinct. (like the Neanderthal man)

This is easily answered. Dog breeds have been separated into exclusive breeding groups for long enough to develop sufficient genetic diversity between groups (with very little between individuals). Humans have not.

http://rutgersscholar.rutgers.edu/volume03/gaglwale/gaglwale.htm

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/87/7/3047

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

I found the pbs article most interesting and informative, considering that I have drawn *my* conclusions simply from observation, having -never- performed any in-depth research into studies or opinions on the subject or within the scientific community. It isn't like I've been searching white pride sites trying to find justification for the belief in race. Or searching scholarly medical and science journals either, for that matter. That *has* been my disadvantage here, and I have been well aware of that throughout these conversations. I think in light of that, and in light of this article, I have done a more than excellent job of defending my position against people with far more formal training pertaining to these subjects than I. Talk about throwing a starving man a bone. Thanks to the poster of this link!

And yet here we have a scientist, saying almost ALL of the same things I, a simple, but well-informed and critical-thinking layperson, have been putting forward here.

For example, I found THIS very enlightening...

"Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence."

Wow. THAT sounds familiar. I guess you don't need to be a molecular biologist to figure THAT much out...

Then it goes on...

"Although recognizing that embracing the race concept can have risks attached, we were (and are) more fearful of the form of racism likely to emerge if race is denied and dialogue about it lessened. We fear that the social taboo about the subject of race has served to suppress open discussion about a very important subject in need of dispassionate debate. One of my teammates, an affirmative-action lawyer, is afraid that a denial that races exist also serves to encourage a denial that racism exists. He asks, "How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?"

Well... a lot less abrasive than my technique of calling those in racial denial on this forum "racists", but, to sum it up, still making the same basic point... To deny race is to perpetuate racism.

And Dem, you *have* influenced me to understand WHY your position is different than mine. You seem to want to think that I still don't understand, or I would accept your view as correct. I understand, but I do not accept. I've even said, several times, that within the parameters of the definition you propose, you are probably 100% correct. I do not accept the parameters of the definition you propose.

I do wonder if you believe what you believe *because* you are educated, you have learned these things, and you are convinced...

Or...

If you believe what you believe because you are educated, you have never critically questioned what you have been taught, and having the cornerstones of your education challenged threatens you.

I've never had a formal debate class, I've never had a formal biology class, even in High School. I've never done any in-depth research on this subject. Respond, predictably,
"Obviously, we were pretty clear on that", Dem.

My opinion is drawn from reasonable thought, and observation across a wide range of experience and knowledge from a critical perspective. I have had logic and reason classes, and I do feel that I've applied the fundamentals from those courses in this discussion, for the most part.

And while it is clear that among certain disciplines of biological science race is seen as a "social-construct", this is not the absolute position of biological scientists across the spectrum of studies within this field.

So, until you can put forth evidence far more convincing that what has presented here, I will err on the side of assuming that race DOES exist. Thanks for the thought provoking discussion, everyone.

I never suggested that it makes it "wrong." Under your personal definition of race, race exists. Under the definition of race as determined by biology, it does not. The only thing you have said that was "wrong" was that increased technology will eventually define biological races. The only way that could happen is if the definition were changed to suit you. Your statement is akin to me saying "I am positive that humans are in a separate kingdom from animals. One day science will prove it by changing the classification system to put them in their own kingdom."

The point being: there is already a biological classification system in place to describe breeds/races. The definition is clear and no human groups meet it. Sure, if we changed the definition around to meet your definition, it might happen - but that really isn't what we are discussion when we talk about the biological definition of race.

Well, now. I think we need to be clear. My personal definition of race includes biological causes. According to you, there is NO biological cause or indication of race. According to you, if I've understood you correctly throughout this thread, RACE is *simply* and *absolutely* a social construct. Saying, "under your definition of race, race exists" -but- "your definition of race is incorrect, because race is a social construct, without biological cause"... I dunno... that sounds pretty much like saying I am wrong, which implies YOU are right... Maybe it is just me... Sure feels like you've been telling me I am wrong, though.

Technology could absolutely provide us with a better understanding, leading to a redefinition of RACE as it exists in your field. However unlikely, is this NOT aa *possibility*? Is your definition of race cast in stone, unchanging, there is no room for additions, corrections or applying new information that may become available?

If you believe what you believe because you are educated, you have never critically questioned what you have been taught, and having the cornerstones of your education challenged threatens you.

Considering that the entire purpose of scientific study is to be willing to question the status quo, suggesting this is like suggesting that I murdered my mother - absolutely ludicrous.

Well, now. I think we need to be clear. My personal definition of race includes biological causes. According to you, there is NO biological cause or indication of race.

Actually, I never said that. What I said was that the variation that *you* perceive as race is not present to the point that biology would classify them as races. As I pointed out, the morphological characteristics that you use to define race certainly do come from a matter of lineage (ie. they are passed down through breeding groups). My standpoint has been that these groups have not been isolated to the point that genetic variation which can be defined as race has developed.

Technology could absolutely provide us with a better understanding, leading to a redefinition of RACE as it exists in your field. However unlikely, is this NOT aa *possibility*? Is your definition of race cast in stone, unchanging, there is no room for additions, corrections or applying new information that may become available?

I never stated that the definition of race will never change. I simply stated that, under the current definition which is akin to dog breeds, etc., there is not sufficient racial variation to define the groups as such. If we define a completely new set of criterion, we may very well be able to place people into said categories. I just don't really see what the point would be, other than to make more categorizations.

If you know exactly how to find it, and it isn't there, it does mean exactly that. If I know that my keys are either in my pocket or on the table, and they are not on the table, I know they are in my pocket. We aren't theorizing here - we already have a definition, we know how to test for that definition, and we have done so.


You kind of lost me on this one. They knew it was there, they just couldn't find it. IF I know my keyes are either in my pocket, or on the table, yet I look in both places, and they are in neither place, am I wrong? I mean, I can HEAR them jingling around, in the pocket... yet every time I look, they are not there. THAT is what was happening to the stellar astronomers in this case. They KNEW the energy was there, because the HEAT was there. Why is the corona so damn hot? There must be energy there. WHERE is it coming from? We don't know. We can't come up with a model that explains it. It isn't THEORY that the corona is HOT and that it must be getting energy from SOMEWHERE to create that heat. But the models say, "Nope, no energy".

I'm saying maybe your biological studies of race are running into the same problem. Lots of factors indicate race, yet your studies aren't showing any conclusive confirmational evidence. Does that mean the confirmational evidence is not there, or that you are not looking the right way, or in the right places? And yes, looking in "the right way" might require a re-evalation of your current definition of what exactly it is you are looking for. Granted.

You kind of lost me on this one. They knew it was there, they just couldn't find it. IF I know my keyes are either in my pocket, or on the table, yet I look in both places, and they are in neither place, am I wrong? I mean, I can HEAR them jingling around, in the pocket... yet every time I look, they are not there. THAT is what was happening to the stellar astronomers in this case. They KNEW the energy was there, because the HEAT was there. Why is the corona so damn hot? There must be energy there. WHERE is it coming from? We don't know. We can't come up with a model that explains it. It isn't THEORY that the corona is HOT and that it must be getting energy from SOMEWHERE to create that heat. But the models say, "Nope, no energy".

But in their case, they didn't know *how* to look for it. We know exactly how to look for genetic variation. We know the amount of variation that is necessary to define something as a race. It is not there.

I'm saying maybe your biological studies of race are running into the same problem. Lots of factors indicate race, yet your studies aren't showing any conclusive confirmational evidence. Does that mean the confirmational evidence is not there, or that you are not looking the right way, or in the right places? And yes, looking in "the right way" might require a re-evalation of your current definition of what exactly it is you are looking for. Granted.

A redefinition would define them as something else - basically as a group that shared some characteristics, but not enough to call them a breed/race. We could keep shrinking the requirements until we finally determined something that would group a few people into what you might call "races", but really, what would be the point?

Race only exists in as much as the colour "blue" exists - there are bound to be colours that some people will say are blue and others say are purple. It's a continuous progression.

Considering that the entire purpose of scientific study is to be willing to question the status quo, suggesting this is like suggesting that I murdered my mother - absolutely ludicrous.

Well, that is *supposed* to be the goal. But, as I understand it, fear of exposing oneself to the entire body of the scientific community often acts as a great deterent among scientists who might otherwise question the status quo. Scientists tend to go to pains to make sure they have covered *every* possible base before they vocally oppose accepted scientific "common-knowledge". I mean, if my career were riding on it, and I knew anything I suggested might expose me to examination by the most brilliant minds in my field... yeah, that might stifle my opinions, especially those opinions on the fringe or that went against the conventional wisdom on a topic.

Not that I am disputing you... that is just the thought pattern I went through that led to this question...

Race only exists in as much as the colour "blue" exists - there are bound to be colours that some people will say are blue and others say are purple. It's a continuous progression.

But you're *never* going to get purple by mixing yellow and green. Within millions of possible hues, there are clearly absolutes. It may not always be clear where pure yellow becomes yellow-green and then pure green... or if the color is yellow-green or greenish-yellow. But unless you are color blind, you're going to be able to tell pretty much what pigments went into the mix.

Actually, I never said that. What I said was that the variation that *you* perceive as race is not present to the point that biology would classify them as races. As I pointed out, the morphological characteristics that you use to define race certainly do come from a matter of lineage (ie. they are passed down through breeding groups). My standpoint has been that these groups have not been isolated to the point that genetic variation which can be defined as race has developed.



I never stated that the definition of race will never change. I simply stated that, under the current definition which is akin to dog breeds, etc., there is not sufficient racial variation to define the groups as such. If we define a completely new set of criterion, we may very well be able to place people into said categories. I just don't really see what the point would be, other than to make more categorizations.

Ok, then. As it relates to this discussion, I do not believe that there is enough clarity to state that race is purely an absolute social construct. It is your educated, informed opinion that race is a purely social construct, though, and this is supported by the currently accepted body of scientific evidence within your field of biology.

Do we agree on this?

Well, that is *supposed* to be the goal. But, as I understand it, fear of exposing oneself to the entire body of the scientific community often acts as a great deterent among scientists who might otherwise question the status quo. Scientists tend to go to pains to make sure they have covered *every* possible base before they vocally oppose accepted scientific "common-knowledge". I mean, if my career were riding on it, and I knew anything I suggested might expose me to examination by the most brilliant minds in my field... yeah, that might stifle my opinions, especially those opinions on the fringe or that went against the conventional wisdom on a topic.

Not that I am disputing you... that is just the thought pattern I went through that led to this question...

Actually, based on the papers I read every day, there really isn't that much pressure. You simply have to address the status quo and state exactly why you think your results disagree with it. If you aren't sure why your results disagree, or why their results are wrong, you simply say so and try to devise experiments to figure it out. For instance, you might not have proved anything previous wrong so much as found a new area in which your conclusions apply.

Besides, in this area, pretty much all of the research has basically come from the standpoint that races obviously do exist, and we need to find the genetic variation needed to classify them as such. As far as classification goes, it's bass-ackwards, but that's exactly how it has been done. Strangely enough, all of the studies have revealed that the variation just isn't there. Thus, like you said, we would have to redefine the categorization system - make it less stringent, basically - in order to be able to define human races.

But you're *never* going to get purple by mixing yellow and green. Within millions of possible hues, there are clearly absolutes. It may not always be clear where pure yellow becomes yellow-green and then pure green... or if the color is yellow-green or greenish-yellow. But unless you are color blind, you're going to be able to tell pretty much what pigments went into the mix.

You are coming from the standpoint that there once were absolute categories when, as you yourself have stated, human beings have always been nomadic creatures.

Ok, then. As it relates to this discussion, I do not believe that there is enough clarity to state that race is purely an absolute social construct. It is your educated, informed opinion that race is a purely social construct, though.

Do we agree on this?

My opinion is that there are definite social categorizations of race. These groups have developed because of selective breeding, thus, there are tendencies towards biological races - they just haven't gotten there - and with the fact that ethnic mixing is higher than its ever been, probably won't.

You are coming from the standpoint that there once were absolute categories when, as you yourself have stated, human beings have always been nomadic creatures.

Well, actually, I thought I was actually more along the lines of illustrating how quickly this analogy breaks down. The truth of the matter is, we have instruments that are absolutely capable of determining what hue, shade, luminosity and saturation *any* given color is and the ability to match that color with almost uncanny perfection. If only it *were* this easy in matters of race.

My opinion is that there are definite social categorizations of race. These groups have developed because of selective breeding, thus, there are tendencies towards biological races - they just haven't gotten there - and with the fact that ethnic mixing is higher than its ever been, probably won't.

Heh...

I think we have come to an understanding... :eek:

I actually really enjoyed our dialog. It has been quite challenging for me. Thanks. :)

Let me rephrase that last post, because I know you'll accuse me of trying to be "slippery."

The current definition of race as you perceive it is a purely social construct. It came from different breeding groups (tribes, if you will) of people looking at other groups and saying (exactly what you are saying) "Your group looks different from my group, therefore there must be something fundamentally different about us." This is very logical, but is not really scientific. As such, these groups often (although not always) continued to breed within those that they perceived as part of the group based on physical features (which do not always speak directly to lineage, as different combinations can produce similar enough features). *Obviously* the lineage has biological factors.

When we began to understand more about where these physical traits come from, biology said "We've been classifying people into these races for years, obviously they are just like dog breeds, and we can classify them as such. ((bass-ackwards classifcation scheme)). In other species, we define breed/race has a group having a specific amount of genetic homogeneity that is different from the other groups. We are going to look for that same amount in humans. Oh well, the degree of variation in these groups of people is too great to define them as races. Go figure."

In other words, the sociological definition of race obviously involves biology. However, the biological definition of race is not met.

Let me rephrase that last post, because I know you'll accuse me of trying to be "slippery."

The current definition of race as you perceive it is a purely social construct. It came from different breeding groups (tribes, if you will) of people looking at other groups and saying (exactly what you are saying) "Your group looks different from my group, therefore there must be something fundamentally different about us." This is very logical, but is not really scientific. As such, these groups often (although not always) continued to breed within those that they perceived as part of the group based on physical features (which do not always speak directly to lineage, as different combinations can produce similar enough features). *Obviously* the lineage has biological factors.

When we began to understand more about where these physical traits come from, biology said "We've been classifying people into these races for years, obviously they are just like dog breeds, and we can classify them as such. ((bass-ackwards classifcation scheme)). In other species, we define breed/race has a group having a specific amount of genetic homogeneity that is different from the other groups. We are going to look for that same amount in humans. Oh well, the degree of variation in these groups of people is too great to define them as races. Go figure."

In other words, the sociological definition of race obviously involves biology. However, the biological definition of race is not met.

I understood, not slippery at all.

I understood, not slippery at all.

Good, I must be getting better. =)

2) Check this website http://www.johmann.net/book/ciy9-2.html

My honest and earnestly given advice to this fellow would be 'stick to computers', he surely must be more erudite about that than he is about humans...