NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired from this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497745). However this thread isnt for discussion of superiority/inferiority. The poll asks you if you think there is a meaningful scientific difference between different "populations". Of course, as many of you well know, I'm biased and I'll tell you my side in the OP.



Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless."



Genetic variation, race and medicine
Race and ethnicity have long been incorporated into medical decision-making processes. For example, physicians are typically aware that sickle-cell disease is much more common in African and Mediterranean populations than in northern European populations, whereas the reverse is true for cystic fibrosis and hemochromatosis. Although such distinctions are often clearest for single-gene diseases, perceived population differences influence the diagnosis and treatment of common diseases as well. There is evidence, for example, for population differences in response rates to drugs used in treating hypertension46 and depression47, 48.


The Source (http://shrn.stanford.edu/workshops/revisitingrace/Jorde-Wooding2004.pdf#search=%22Genetic%20variation%2C%20classification%20and%20'race'%22)


Until Armand Marie Leroi’s New York Times Op-Ed of March 14, 2005, it is unlikely that many Americans, even among the daily readers of the paper, knew that we are living in the midst of a raging debate over the existence of human races. This debate is occurring among and between a variety of researchers in genetics and social scientists from a range of disciplines. A number of evolutionary biologists, geneticists, biological anthropologists and medical researchers have recently challenged the view put forth by other scientists and social scientists that “Race is only social concept, not a scientific one.” They claim rather that current genetic research shows that “races are real” and that using race in genetic research has clear benefits especially for researchers who are trying to uncover the genetic basis of diseases that have a greater prevalence in certain groups. The broader claim however, as articulated by Leroi, is that those who have argued against race as a biologically meaningful concept have based their arguments not on current genetic data but rather on political grounds. He erroneously claims that the originator of this so-called political view is the eminent Harvard geneticist, Richard Lewontin, who in 1972 first argued that since there was greater genetic variation within any given race than between races the very concept of race was not a useful way to understand genetic variation in humans. Those scientists who continued to use race, Lewontin argued, did so less for scientific reasons than for ideological ones.

For Leroi and those unnamed scientists who support his view, Lewontin’s 1972 work opened the door to the politicization of race in science. They have characterized those ascribing to the view that race is socially constructed as “race deniers”—people who refuse to acknowledge what any child can see—that human beings can be lumped together in groups by skin color, hair type, eye shape and color, head shape and body type. Indeed, Leroi and others argue, these clear visible markers signal deeper differences within our bodies which are expressed in the differences in our genes. More importantly Leroi notes that, using sophisticated new technologies, “if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia—more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.” Therefore we can look at genes and get right back to the races we started with. Eureka! Race is real!


http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Hammonds/

Aaaaw man! You broke the page :( How are we gonna debate this now?

*Saunters off, mumbling*

It exists in the sense that colour exists - as in, there are differences, but there are no clear barriers separating people into race categories. That is because DNA can vary in so many ways that no two people are identical. Basically, the separations are arbitrary.

Race is simply a label. A unit of measurement to help people categorize things. If we want to group people based on 'Race', well that's what we do. But things don't always fit into neat little categorical boxes, and other than for the purpose of segregation, or for the purpose of propping up your particular 'tribe', I don't see any practical benefit for dwelling on it.

The world is mongrelizing. And I'm all for it.

does trolling exist?

It depends how you use the word 'race'. It's easy to get bogged down in language cul-de-sacs with this issue.

But does genetic variation exist between populations? Obviously yes. However, genetic variation also exists between individuals, and smaller family groups. It's a continuum of what you define as a 'race' (or population) that ranges from the entire world, to individuals. It doesn't really matter in fact, except for practical matters such as managing diseases and medicines for certain people - in those cases, it makes sense to create groupings of a certain size, even tailored to the specific gene or genes being discussed.

For most genes there will be no particular difference in the frequency of alleles across the world - only some genes will have higher concentrations in some places on average. Also the traditional ways to define 'race' (hair and skin colour, etc) are extremely minor compared to other things that are internal. A particular black african for example can have a genetic profile far more similar to a white european than to a black african from somewhere else.

One of my professors just loves this kind of question. He claims there is no such thing as race. Just civilised and uncivilised people!


As I wasn't cultured enough (please bare in mind I mix with more cultures than he does in his little cubby hole for an office)! Sniff.

Considering that genes for what are considered racial features make up < .0001% of our DNA, I'd say it doesn't exist, or that if it does its existance is negligible

I hear tell the reason sickle cell anaemia is more prevalent in 'africa and meditteranean countries' is because it provides some protection against malaria.

It does. Much like there are different breeds of dogs who have diverged genetically from a common ancestor(ever so slightly), humans have diverged slightly, mostly in superficial ways.


Any please NN, edit your post and fix the page.

No. Race does not exist. The genetic differences between the supposed "races", usually based on skin colour or simply nationality are far too little to be defined as such.

It does. Much like there are different breeds of dogs who have diverged genetically from a common ancestor(ever so slightly), humans have diverged slightly, mostly in superficial ways.


Any please NN, edit your post and fix the page.

Allright you lazy people...You could have used the right and left arrows at the bottom of your browser....

Allright you lazy people...You could have used the right and left arrows at the bottom of your browser....

Yay!
:fluffle:

Considering that genes for what are considered racial features make up < .0001% of our DNA, I'd say it doesn't exist, or that if it does its existance is negligible

Where did you come up with that number?
And 1-3% of our DNA makes us human. When it comes to genetics, small differences matter...

Where did you come up with that number?
And 1-3% of our DNA makes us human. When it comes to genetics, small differences matter...

Why? Finish the thought, Ny. Explain to us why such minute variations matter? Explain to me the important difference between a dark-skinned person and a light-skinned person. Then explain the difference between a red horse and a brown horse. Then explain the difference between a blue fish and a yellow fish. Then explain how one is better than another or, if not better, then what the frigging hell it matters.

And don't pull your usual trick of throwing out a bunch of disjointed, out-of-context statistics and then locking us into a repetitive loop of argument that goes nowhere.

Tell us what you think already.

Mr. Nordland, haven't you done this thread before...?

Does 'race' exist? Yes, as a human construct. But the simple scientific fact that there is more genetic variation within these 'racial' groups than between the groups themselves means that the idea is a shitty one.

But let's say for a second you're right, and race is real and tangible. Hell, lets even say that some races are better in some areas than others. This would still in no way justify the crap that racists want to do. Just because one group is smarter or slower doesn't give us the right to treat them differently - they still have their rights after all.

Why? Finish the thought, Ny. Explain to us why such minute variations matter? Explain to me the important difference between a dark-skinned person and a light-skinned person. Then explain the difference between a red horse and a brown horse. Then explain the difference between a blue fish and a yellow fish. Then explain how one is better than another or, if not better, then what the frigging hell it matters.

And don't pull your usual trick of throwing out a bunch of disjointed, out-of-context statistics and then locking us into a repetitive loop of argument that goes nowhere.

Tell us what you think already.

The purpose of this thread is explained at the OP. Refer to it...

Mr. Nordland, haven't you done this thread before...?

Does 'race' exist? Yes, as a human construct. But the simple scientific fact that there is more genetic variation within these 'racial' groups than between the groups themselves means that the idea is a shitty one.

But let's say for a second you're right, and race is real and tangible. Hell, lets even say that some races are better in some areas than others. This would still in no way justify the crap that racists want to do. Just because one group is smarter or slower doesn't give us the right to treat them differently - they still have their rights after all.
He does this thread every few months. Maybe he thinks that if he just keeps trying the same argument with the same people over and over, someday he'll get a different response.

The purpose of this thread is explained at the OP. Refer to it...

I read it. As with most of your arguments it lacks any meaningful relevance to any debatable point.

And it does not answer my questions.

He does this thread every few months. Maybe he thinks that if he just keeps trying the same argument with the same people over and over, someday he'll get a different response.

I knew I'd seen it before.

Maybe we should keep My Nordland as our official NS General Pet Racist? He seems to want to stick around...

Mr. Nordland, haven't you done this thread before...?

Does 'race' exist? Yes, as a human construct. But the simple scientific fact that there is more genetic variation within these 'racial' groups than between the groups themselves means that the idea is a shitty one.

But let's say for a second you're right, and race is real and tangible. Hell, lets even say that some races are better in some areas than others. This would still in no way justify the crap that racists want to do. Just because one group is smarter or slower doesn't give us the right to treat them differently - they still have their rights after all.

Noone is suggesting crappy treatment of anyone. Dont jump to conclusions, please...

The poll asks you if you think there is a meaningful scientific difference between different "populations".

Between populations ? Of course there is.
But since populations can and do interbreed it is silly to think one could divide the world simply into black and white.

From a genetic standpoint, no, "race" does not exist.

From a superficial and cultural standpoint, yes, "race" does exist, but the distinction between people in today's world is becoming smaller and smaller.

From a genetic standpoint, no, "race" does not exist.

From a superficial and cultural standpoint, yes, "race" does exist, but the distinction between people in today's world is becoming smaller and smaller.

So a better topic question would be, "Should Race Exist?". Right?

From a genetic standpoint, no, "race" does not exist.

<snip>


People, please back your claims with links or quotes from professionals. If you want to give one word answers, voting in the poll would suffice...

My girlfriend and I are different "races" yet we could produce a healthy, happy child if we decided to. We could not do this if we were seperate races, so no race does not exist. I actually don't even have to use a personal example, just take a anthropology course and figure it out.

It clearly exists, both biologically and socially. However, I think this means we should acknowledge differences and use the knowledge positively, not fuel racist sentiments of violence and hatred.

Noone is suggesting crappy treatment of anyone. Dont jump to conclusions, please...

... then why make the points you make? What good does it do for you to 'prove' that 1) there are races, and 2) some are 'better' than others, if you're fine and dandy with the way things are now?

It clearly exists, both biologically and socially. However, I think this means we should acknowledge differences and use the knowledge positively, not fuel racist sentiments of violence and hatred.

Why arent you on at msn?

And 1-3% of our DNA makes us human. When it comes to genetics, small differences matter...
:confused:
Not true. All our DNA makes us human...

My girlfriend and I are different "races" yet we could produce a healthy, happy child if we decided to. We could not do this if we were seperate races, so no race does not exist. I actually don't even have to use a personal example, just take a anthropology course and figure it out.
Anthropology courses are not necessarily the final word on a matter. They are usually what the lecturer believes to be the case, as science is as well not a matter of black and white anymore. Alternative interpretations, often valid ones, are neglected or only briefly mentioned. So, unless you can support your statement and defend it against experts who with good reason hold differing opinions to the mainstream, do not expect it to be the whole truth.

Why arent you on at msn?

MSN? anyone who has it please TG your sn. I just got it a few days ago and I want to try it out.

... then why make the points you make? What good does it do for you to 'prove' that 1) there are races, and 2) some are 'better' than others, if you're fine and dandy with the way things are now?

I've never made a thread just like this. There was one about "is race just skin colour?" and it didnt contain the quotes from Stanford University because at the time I wasnt aware of this.

My girlfriend and I are different "races" yet we could produce a healthy, happy child if we decided to. We could not do this if we were seperate races, so no race does not exist. I actually don't even have to use a personal example, just take a anthropology course and figure it out.

You are confusing the concept of race with the concept of species...:rolleyes:

I've never made a thread just like this. There was one about "is race just skin colour?" and it didnt contain the quotes from Stanford University because at the time I wasnt aware of this.

But you've made threads in the general veins I described. What is your motive to be so racially charged all the time, if it isn't to change the status quo? And if the status quo is equality, what do you want, good sir?

:confused:
Not true. All our DNA makes us human...

Chimps are 97% genetically identical with us...

I knew I'd seen it before.

Maybe we should keep My Nordland as our official NS General Pet Racist? He seems to want to stick around...

I'm not sure feeding this stray is a good idea. I know, I get hooked into doing it, too, but he's so insistent and seems so needy. Still...

You are confusing the concept of race with the concept of species...:rolleyes:
Hah, I should've seen that before. Hmmm, correct though. It's sort of like two cats of different race (or breed). A siamese and a persian say. They can both breed together. Yet, they are of differing pedigrees themselves.

People, please back your claims with links or quotes from professionals. If you want to give one word answers, voting in the poll would suffice...

Laying the groundwork for another round of claiming we're not qualified to hold our own opinions?

Anthropology courses are not necessarily the final word on a matter. They are usually what the lecturer believes to be the case, as science is as well not a matter of black and white anymore. Alternative interpretations, often valid ones, are neglected or only briefly mentioned. So, unless you can support your statement and defend it against experts who with good reason hold differing opinions to the mainstream, do not expect it to be the whole truth.

There's "experts" that believe 9/11 was caused by the government and being gay is choice. Do you still listen to those experts too? Because I only listen to experts who are credible and in the mainstream.

I've never made a thread just like this. There was one about "is race just skin colour?" and it didnt contain the quotes from Stanford University because at the time I wasnt aware of this.


There was also the one about how blacks have low IQ, asians have high IQ and whites are ... just right!

And the one about how white people are victims of genocide and how Jews control the world.

Or the other ones just about how various White People and the aryan ideal are going extinct.

And of course the racial elements in all your anti-immigration posting.

For someone who isn't racist, you sure do focus a whole lot on the concept of race, genetic differences, superiority vs inferiority, White People, and the blonde haired blue eyed ideal.

Race is a label and a concept, nothing more. People are people, and all people are different and diverse.

There's "experts" that believe 9/11 was caused by the government and being gay is choice. Do you still to those experts too? Because I only listen to experts who are credible and in the mainstream.
Would you say that people like Arthur Jensen are merely "experts" then simply because they do not agree with you?

If all mainstream experts said the sky is purple, would you then believe them simply because they are mainstream? Or that Hayek is any less right than Keynes simply because many have a fetish for the latter?

I am sorry, but not everyone who is credible belongs to the mainstream, despite the fantasies of many. If those who challenge the mainstream thought can make a good case for their findings, then I see no reason to belittle them simply due to disagreement.

:confused:
Not true. All our DNA makes us human...

Actually the majority of our genes are 'junk genes', which are only useful for DNA profiling, since their make-up varies so much the chances of two people(other than identical twins) having the same make-up is tiny.

I've never made a thread just like this. There was one about "is race just skin colour?" and it didnt contain the quotes from Stanford University because at the time I wasnt aware of this.

Another minute difference that matters a whole lot? Sorry, Ny, but the adults aren't interested in this make-believe either. All your threads are about the same thing. They all involve you claiming that race exists and matters and then refusing to say why it matters; and you trying to back up your claims with statistical sources that posters who understand statistics come in and debunk; and then a never-ending circular argument of you saying that they didn't debunk it and them re-proving that they did, over and over; and finally you claiming that none of them is qualified to debunk your sources and the rest of us devolving into making fun of you for that.

I don't give a damn about race. All I care about is your motives for focusing on it and the fact that you consistently refuse to define those motives. I mention that so you won't waste your time throwing your statistics at me because I won't respond to them. I have no interest in race, only in you.

So a better topic question would be, "Should Race Exist?". Right?

Possibly...

Laying the groundwork for another round of claiming we're not qualified to hold our own opinions?

Thank you.

There's "experts" that believe 9/11 was caused by the government and being gay is choice. Do you still to those experts too? Because I only listen to experts who are credible and in the mainstream.

Hypocrisy, you cited Rev. Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family a few threads ago(that Utah porn thing), who is most definately not mainstream.

Another minute difference that matters a whole lot? Sorry, Ny, but the adults aren't interested in this make-believe either. All your threads are about the same thing. They all involve you claiming that race exists and matters and then refusing to say why it matters; and you trying to back up your claims with statistical sources that posters who understand statistics come in and debunk; and then a never-ending circular argument of you saying that they didn't debunk it and them re-proving that they did, over and over; and finally you claiming that none of them is qualified to debunk your sources and the rest of us devolving into making fun of you for that.

I don't give a damn about race. All I care about is your motives for focusing on it and the fact that you consistently refuse to define those motives. I mention that so you won't waste your time throwing your statistics at me because I won't respond to them. I have no interest in race, only in you.


You have interest only in me? I might take that as flirting :D

Hypocrisy, you cited Rev. Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family a few threads ago(that Utah porn thing), who is most definately not mainstream.

Sometimes I will take a side of a debate on here I don't personally agree with just to see what arguments I come up with. The better you understand the others position the better you understand your own.

Getting back to the matter at hand. Even if "race" does have a genetic standpoint (which may be probable due to certain genetic ailments striking specific ethnic groups at the smallest .01% percent of their DNA), in all the ways that matter, "race" really boils down to ones culture and upbringing.

People who come from different parts of the world are obviously going to have a different point of view than the other guy. And yes, cultures can be mixed and can be interchanged, creating new, unique perspectives that, aye, MAY just be different from what was there before. Whether or not it was for the better or the worse comes down to the attitudes of the people, and who writes the history books.

And as for certain "races" being "wiped out" (or "genocide", as I have heard one man describe it) due to "interbreeding"...give me a break. Races and genetic history doesn't just dissapear, they is combined whenever there is a birth, it happens every time a mother has a child, you get a bit from your father, and a bit from your mother. With today's globalization, "mixed marriages" are becoming far more common, and the result are children who have traits from both sides, what some might say "the best of both worlds". And culture doesn't just dissapear with a changing of skin color, it sticks with people as long as people can remember it.

Oh...and could it be possible that people are just gaining darker skin due to environmental factors?

Race does exist in the strict definition of the word. However the differences are so superficial (colors and occasionally a minor augmentation against diseases) that they effectually do nothing. As someone said earlier, your personal genetic makeup is more important than your race in determining ability. So as a summary:Race exists but it isn't important.

Getting back to the matter at hand. Even if "race" does have a genetic standpoint (which may be probable due to certain genetic ailments striking specific ethnic groups at the smallest .01% percent of their DNA), in all the ways that matter, "race" really boils down to ones culture and upbringing.

People who come from different parts of the world are obviously going to have a different point of view than the other guy. And yes, cultures can be mixed and can be interchanged, creating new, unique perspectives that, aye, MAY just be different from what was there before. Whether or not it was for the better or the worse comes down to the attitudes of the people, and who writes the history books.

And as for certain "races" being "wiped out" (or "genocide", as I have heard one man describe it) due to "interbreeding"...give me a break. Races and genetic history doesn't just dissapear, they is combined whenever there is a birth, it happens every time a mother has a child, you get a bit from your father, and a bit from your mother. With today's globalization, "mixed marriages" are becoming far more common, and the result are children who have traits from both sides, what some might say "the best of both worlds". And culture doesn't just dissapear with a changing of skin color, it sticks with people as long as people can remember it.

Oh...and could it be possible that people are just gaining darker skin due to environmental factors?


You mean we are going to get whiter if the global warming stops warm currents in North Atlantic?

You mean we are going to get whiter if the global warming stops warm currents in North Atlantic?

It wouldn't be a factor of temperature, but of UV levels, surely?

Race does exist in the strict definition of the word. However the differences are so superficial (colors and occasionally a minor augmentation against diseases) that they effectually do nothing. As someone said earlier, your personal genetic makeup is more important than your race in determining ability. So as a summary:Race exists but it isn't important.
This I can agree with. As long as one doesn't deny its existence so long as it does exist and base policy programmes on false presumptions, I will not complain.

It wouldn't be a factor of temperature, but of UV levels, surely?
If anyone has forgotten, clothing and sunscreen would mitigate such adaptations anyway...perhaps Africans who make ample use of them will eventually become lighter.

If anyone has forgotten, clothing and sunscreen would mitigate such adaptations anyway...perhaps Africans who make ample use of them will eventually become lighter.

Tis true. Hmm, unless there's an evolutionary advantage in having paler skin, would they lose it? Can't see how, as it's in the DNA.

You mean we are going to get whiter if the global warming stops warm currents in North Atlantic?

Skin color is a result of melanin (More melanin = darker skin). Melanin protects individuals who live in environments with greater UV levels. Our bodies manufacture melanin naturally due to our exposure to the sun, it's why we get a tan, and it's why over several generations children can be born with the hightened melanin levels already in their bodies.

And I suppose, theoretically, over time if the environment allows it, people will become "whiter", but it won't make them "whiter" in terms of culture.

Tis true. Hmm, unless there's an evolutionary advantage in having paler skin, would they lose it? Can't see how, as it's in the DNA.
They might. Sunscreen and clothing would have the effect that their bodies receive less sunlight than before. I am no expert on evolutionary genetics, but logically this should mean that they become paler so as to absorb more vitamin D, due to the artificial waning of the effects of the Sun.

Skin color is a result of melanin (More melanin = darker skin). Melanin protects individuals who live in environments with greater UV levels. Our bodies manufacture melanin naturally due to our exposure to the sun, it's why we get a tan, and it's why over several generations children can be born with the hightened melanin levels already in their bodies.
Won't sunscreen and clothing offset this though?

And I suppose, theoretically, over time if the environment allows it, people will become "whiter", but it won't make them "whiter" in terms of culture.
Globalisation will though. Culture is gradually becoming more and more uniform over time, especially with the US' influence.

Chimps are 97% genetically identical with us...
The premise 'chimps have 97% of their genetic material in common with human beings' does not necessitate that only 1-3% of human DNA makes humans human.

You have interest only in me? I might take that as flirting :D
As anyone who has ever tried to reason with you will know, there is no accounting for what you think. If you think the insults and ridicule I normally throw at you are flirtatious, that would explain why you keep provoking me so much.

Tis true. Hmm, unless there's an evolutionary advantage in having paler skin, would they lose it? Can't see how, as it's in the DNA.

If I recall correctly a scientific study has in fact already shown that white skin is a mutation. The knowledge that black is the original of course has nice implications for the people who believe man was created in Gods image ;)

The only differences are cultural.

The only differences are cultural.
And you don't think gradually cultural and environmental differences could lead, over the aeons, to some more tangible genetic differences?

For instance, the way East Asians process mathematical functions differs in which part of their brain when compared to Westerners. This is a result of centuries of a different culture. Now it manifests itself in a real biological difference. Perhaps it originates from a cultural difference, yet that doesn't invalidate its present nature.

And you don't think gradually cultural and environmental differences could lead, over the aeons, to some more tangible genetic differences?

For instance, the way East Asians process mathematical functions differs in which part of their brain when compared to Westerners. This is a result of centuries of a different culture. Now it manifests itself in a real biological difference. Perhaps it originates from a cultural difference, yet that doesn't invalidate its present nature.

Not for a much longer time frame than we're currently contemplating. And only then would it come to be if there was a selective breeding program driving it.

The East-Asian affinity for mathematics is due to little more than cultural differences, and different cultural focuses.

You are confusing the concept of race with the concept of species...:rolleyes:
No, you failed to define which concept of race you were going with. Given that the definition the poster was employing is consistant with the originary use of race as applied to humans (by Buffon) how is the poster confusing the race concept?
If you mean some other concept of race other than the one the poster raised, then might it not be a good idea to define the concept you refer to?


Actually the majority of our genes are 'junk genes', which are only useful for DNA profiling, since their make-up varies so much the chances of two people(other than identical twins) having the same make-up is tiny.

Even so, junk DNA is part of what makes us human. The terminology is misleading since much of what is called junk DNA isnt 'non-functional' or unnecessary, but rather simply 'not genes'.

I haven't read all the post's so I may be repeating what someone else posted-skin colour does not determine race-skin colour is likely the result of combination of sexual selection and evolutionary adaptation.


"And you don't think gradually cultural and environmental differences could lead, over the aeons, to some more tangible genetic differences?" there are some tangible differences they just aren't obvious.....here is an example (It 's a long time since I learned this so I may not have completely right) The Sherpas of Tibet and the Indians of Boliva both live at extreme altitudes but they have adapted differently to their oxygen deprived enviroments. the Sherpa's produce more hemoglobin to carry more oxygen, the Bolivians have a larger lung capacity to accomplish the same thing

Race exists only as a social construct. There are only individuals, and any grouping of them is arbitrary. The closest thing to actual existance of race is genetic tendencies in certain geographical areas, but these are only tendencies. People should be treated as individuals and not as members of groups, especially when those groups are defined by such insignificant differences as skin color or eye shape. Race will vanish over the next millenia and there will be only individual differences.

One of the things keeping race alive in society today is government. If cetain factions in govenrment would stop pandering to racial minority groups race would be forgotten more quickly by everyone but a small lunatic fringe. Factors like skin color and hair color will probably always be selected for or against in breeding, but that will be greatly reduced once the social baggage that comes along with those characteristics is removed. I hope that someday asking black or white will be like asking blonde or brunettes?

IF race exist how do you explain and classify me. I have known ancestors from at least 3 different "races". A Great Great Grandfather is of African decent and in another line a Great grandmother that was American Indian, most of the rest were European (northern and southern). I generaly refer to myself as a Heinz 57 (mongrel to any here that don't know the term):headbang:

The Sherpas of Tibet and the Indians of Boliva both live at extreme altitudes but they have adapted differently to their oxygen deprived enviroments. the Sherpa's produce more hemoglobin to carry more oxygen, the Bolivians have a larger lung capacity to accomplish the same thing

I'm not starting a fight, I'm genuinely curious. Are these 'adaptations' genetic or experiential?

Athletes training at high altitudes produce (if I'm remembering right) more red blood cells to carry more oxygen, don't they? And I remember at school in a biology class everyone testing their lung capacity for a 'how to write up a scientific report' thing - those in the rugby teams and choir did better than those not, and those (like me!) in a rugby team _and_ the choir had the greatest lung capacity of all.

Those are experiential-based changes - are the sherpas/bolivians the same, or do they have these differences hardwired into their genes? And how can you tell if it's a genetic/experience basis for these changes?

It wouldn't be a factor of temperature, but of UV levels, surely?

Civilization gives is enough vitamin D that white skin benefit is no longer neccessary. If Global Warming destroys that, maybe...

The premise 'chimps have 97% of their genetic material in common with human beings' does not necessitate that only 1-3% of human DNA makes humans human.


Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes_2.html

As anyone who has ever tried to reason with you will know, there is no accounting for what you think. If you think the insults and ridicule I normally throw at you are flirtatious, that would explain why you keep provoking me so much.

Not really. If you look at our post history, I either dont respond to you or dismiss your posts. It is partially because you've got no sense of humour, obviously...

No, you failed to define which concept of race you were going with. Given that the definition the poster was employing is consistant with the originary use of race as applied to humans (by Buffon) how is the poster confusing the race concept?
If you mean some other concept of race other than the one the poster raised, then might it not be a good idea to define the concept you refer to?



Even so, junk DNA is part of what makes us human. The terminology is misleading since much of what is called junk DNA isnt 'non-functional' or unnecessary, but rather simply 'not genes'.

From Wiki:


The biological definition of race is an categorization of organisms with differing characteristics while maintaining enough similiarities to be a part of a common genus and species. The word race in this context can be considered synomynious with sub-species.



A race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in some way from other humans. The most widely observed races are those based on skin color, facial features, ancestry, and genetics. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, are often controversial due to their impact on social identity hence identity politics.

Well, most biologists say that some differences exist. So I'm in no position to disagree.

But I most definitely don't think that these are of any real importance.

It's just a tiny, tiny part of what makes an individual. The parents, the environment, diet, education, past experiences...all these things make a person much more than some race-specific set of genes. It's not important in the sense that you can make any inferences from it.

It's not important in the sense that you can make any inferences from it.

Except of course for the obvious "Black people are black".

Except of course for the obvious "Black people are black".
Unless they're Albinos. Or Michael Jackson.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes_2.html
People might consider taking you seriously if you appeared to have a clue. Nothing in the link is relevent to the fact that even though humans and chimps share approx 97-99% of their genetic material, this doesnt necessitate that only 1-3% of of human DNA makes humans human.



A race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in some way from other humans.
That being the case, no, humans do not fall into distinct discreet categories in accord with the social conception of race.

Unless they're Albinos. Or Michael Jackson.

Or me. Or my mother. Or my brother. Or my uncle. Or my grandmother. Or my grandfather.

In regard to my brother and I, it is perhaps disputable that we are classifiable as "black," but all the others certainly fall into that category.

There have in fact been African Americans who looked so white that they faked it to escape the racist oppression they would have otherwise suffered.

I hear tell the reason sickle cell anaemia is more prevalent in 'africa and meditteranean countries' is because it provides some protection against malaria.

I know this was posted a while ago, but I just began to read this thread. Sickle cell anaemia itself doesn't confer affected individuals protection against malaria. The condition is recessive and thus, to be affected, one must posses two of the recessive alleles. The reason that sub-Saharan Africans have a greater prevalence of the condition is that individuals who are heterozygous for the sickle cell allele (i.e they have one copy of the Sickle allele and one of the 'normal' allele) are more likely to survive malaria if infected. or the sickle cell allele (i.e they have one copy of the Sickle allele and one of the 'normal' allele) are more likely to survive malaria if infected.

My girlfriend and I are different "races" yet we could produce a healthy, happy child if we decided to. We could not do this if we were seperate races, so no race does not exist. I actually don't even have to use a personal example, just take a anthropology course and figure it out.

Eh, I think someone else already replied to this, but the point of races is that they can interbreed. Inability to do so is associated with different species.

Getting back to the matter at hand. Even if "race" does have a genetic standpoint (which may be probable due to certain genetic ailments striking specific ethnic groups at the smallest .01% percent of their DNA), in all the ways that matter, "race" really boils down to ones culture and upbringing.

Thousands of years of evolution comes down to "culture and upbringing"?:rolleyes:

There has been a lot of debate on whether or not "Race" exists, or in fact if the secretive "Operation Quest" even existed.

But there have been sightings, people who have told stories of being saved by the extrodinary science of Quest, the pluckiness of the kids that are inexplicably always around, and their fearless protector, "Race" Bannon.

Some think that his relationship with Dr. Quest broke the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy and he was 'disappeared.'

I, for one, believe that "Race" existed. You're out there Bannon, and we're looking for you-you shouldn't have to hide your love-
http://huskycomics.com/images/race.jpg

People might consider taking you seriously if you appeared to have a clue. Nothing in the link is relevent to the fact that even though humans and chimps share approx 97-99% of their genetic material, this doesnt necessitate that only 1-3% of of human DNA makes humans human.


I know, the different combination stuff...However, you have to consider what I say with regards to what I was answering. .01% difference between races doesnt necessitate that .01% of genes makes races races. There can be different combination of genes, similar to your own original argument, even though humans all have same number of chromosomes.
That 97-99% was to compare 99.9%...



That being the case, no, humans do not fall into distinct discreet categories in accord with the social conception of race.

Then how can they know what fraction of your genes are African, European or East Asian by DNA test? How can:


Indeed, a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia—more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.


The source is in the OP. I just edited it...

No