NationStates Jolt Archive

Race is a biological fact, as much of one as the difference in bone structure, disposition towards intelligence or atheletisicm, and predispositions to heart disease or diabetes. Race is a biological fact. But that doesn't mean it fucking matters any more than the fact that diabetes and low blood pressure run in my family.

So whats your point?

Race is a biological fact, as much of one as the difference in bone structure, disposition towards intelligence or atheletisicm, and predispositions to heart disease or diabetes. Race is a biological fact. But that doesn't mean it fucking matters any more than the fact that diabetes and low blood pressure run in my family.

interesting position...

*puts on flame retardent suit*

OP we know this

Race is a biological fact, as much of one as the difference in bone structure, disposition towards intelligence or atheletisicm, and predispositions to heart disease or diabetes. Race is a biological fact. But that doesn't mean it fucking matters any more than the fact that diabetes and low blood pressure run in my family.Depends on what part of biology you're talking about.

Depends what the degree of genetic variation that defines 'race' is determined to be. There are definately syndromes of genetic traits that have higher frequency in some populations than others. Other traits have no difference in frequency over any range of populations.

You could define populations in different ways depending on the the gene or genes you're looking at. Really, creating the relevant or useful groupings you want for a particular issue is justified by the data. The traditional groupings based on skin colour etc. are only of moderate relevance, since they are indicators of other genetic traits that might be important for diagnosis and treatment of disease, though they themselves are not biologically important.

So whats your point?
That contrary to what some people think, people are biologically divided along the lines of race when it comes to matters of physical condition and abilities.

Race is a biological fact, as much of one as the difference in bone structure, disposition towards intelligence or atheletisicm, and predispositions to heart disease or diabetes. Race is a biological fact. But that doesn't mean it fucking matters any more than the fact that diabetes and low blood pressure run in my family.

So what? Anyone didn't know it yet?

Race is a biological fact

based on what?

So what? Anyone didn't know it yet?Orchids don't ;)

Isn't the athropoloical term phynotype or something to that effect.

That contrary to what some people think, people are biologically divided along the lines of race when it comes to matters of physical condition and abilities.

I'd rather speak about correlation. Nothing more. But correlation is not a reason for discrimination, and it is not very strong.
"****** districts" have a social source, not biological. Muslim fanaticism has religious and political sources, not biological. White arrogance has social sources again, not biological.

The actual racial differences play only a very minor role.

Isn't the athropoloical term phynotype or something to that effect.In biology, a genotype denotes the genetic make up of an organism, phenotype denotes the physical appearance.

Here, let me help advance this thread:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AwJeeznotthisshitagain.jpg

In biology, a genotype denotes the genetic make up of an organism, phenotype denotes the physical appearance.
not necessarily appearence - but physiological manifestation. Genetic dissorders are also phenotypes, though you can't always tell if someone has one just by looking at them.

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m123/gatelover12/3d58edf57kw.gif

In biology, a genotype denotes the genetic make up of an organism, phenotype denotes the physical appearance.

So thats a yes?

That contrary to what some people think, people are biologically divided along the lines of race when it comes to matters of physical condition and abilities.

Well, 'race' still doesn't really exist because groups that are traditionally considered different 'races' are frequently one 'race' if you're going to measure everything by genetic percentages. So even if this is true the races will not be distributed along traditional lines at all.

Basically, the point was that I don't buy the whole "Race is nothing but a cultural construction" bit, but to me, race is MOSTLY a cultural construction. Race exists, biologically, but it's not important.

Basically, the point was that I don't buy the whole "Race is nothing but a cultural construction" bit, but to me, race is MOSTLY a cultural construction. Race exists, biologically, but it's not important.

I would say that the races you are refering to do not have a strong basis in genetics. We're all so similar genetically that in perspective of other forms of life races in human beings are more genetically similar than any subspecies described by systematic biologists.

Race is a biological fact, as much of one as the difference in bone structure, disposition towards intelligence or atheletisicm, and predispositions to heart disease or diabetes. Race is a biological fact. But that doesn't mean it fucking matters any more than the fact that diabetes and low blood pressure run in my family.

This is pretty well-known, but if you're going to declare something a "fact", you should actually have something more to back it up then the declaration itself.

Quick question: Why is it when Nordland makes a thead about this, he gets bashed and flamed into oblivion, but when some random guy says this hes collectively agreed with?

Just wondering.

Race is a biological fact, as much of one as the difference in bone structure, disposition towards intelligence or atheletisicm, and predispositions to heart disease or diabetes. Race is a biological fact. But that doesn't mean it fucking matters any more than the fact that diabetes and low blood pressure run in my family.

Race is an obsolete side-effect of regional isolation. Obsolete because as the globe grows smaller and more accessible, the genetic variations that alowed humans to adapt to their environments and cultures are meaningless in a changed community.

Perhaps some day when man spreads to the stars, new races will appear.

Race exists, biologically

how many races are there? how do you determine one from another?

Quick question: Why is it when Nordland makes a thead about this, he gets bashed and flamed into oblivion, but when some random guy says this hes collectively agreed with?

Just wondering.
Probably because when Ny Nordland says it, he finishes off with "And this is why Whites are so much better and every other race should stay out of Europe" or something to that effect.

Of course I disagree with the OP anyway, race as a biological fact is untrue from a genetic point of view. Even things such as bone structure, skin coloration, and problems (such as CCA) range all over the human race and are traced more to inbreeding between certian populations than a particular racial function.

Perhaps some day when man spreads to the stars, new races will appear.

a space race!

how many races are there? how do you determine one from another?

I don't know. I'm not a geneticist.
Nor am I a scientist of any kind. Nor am I making a conclusion based on research.

Basically, I'm looking at the conclusion of one group, (That race is nothing but a cultural construct) and the conclusion of the other group (That race exists biologically, and is important, and that races should be genetically preserved, especially, apparently, white skinned races.) and saying that both are bullshit.

Yeah, a black man is more likely to be atheletic than me, and more likely to have heart disease, but, you know, that shouldn't matter to anyone but him and his doctor.

Race is a biological fact, as much of one as the difference in bone structure, disposition towards intelligence or atheletisicm, and predispositions to heart disease or diabetes. Race is a biological fact. But that doesn't mean it fucking matters any more than the fact that diabetes and low blood pressure run in my family.

Bad science. The genetic differences between the races are virtually non-existent. The so-called differences are cosmetic: skin color, eye shape, etc. The only real differences are cultural.

Race is an obsolete side-effect of regional isolation. Obsolete because as the globe grows smaller and more accessible, the genetic variations that alowed humans to adapt to their environments and cultures are meaningless in a changed community.

Perhaps some day when man spreads to the stars, new races will appear.
How is it obsolete when people depend on blood donations and genetic treatments that are specific to their ancestry? We are a long way from variation among populations being obsolete, and in fact, scientists are increasingly using that type of information to taylor treatments to those people it will work for. It will be a long time till the world's total population will be homogeneous, which is the point that 'race' will be obsolete.
how many races are there? how do you determine one from another?Like I said before, you can define them however you want based on different amounts of genetic variation, or genetic variation in different traits. There's nothing absolute about 'race' - it's just a spectrum of likeness and difference - which is the big mistake racists and bigots make.

Bad science. The genetic differences between the races are virtually non-existent. The so-called differences are cosmetic: skin color, eye shape, etc. The only real differences are cultural.

Well, technically comsmetic diferences are still diferences albet ones that it would be stupid to base anything on, besides possibly personal asthetic(sp) opinions.

The human species is blessed with great variety and diversity. Its rich diversity resulted from its global distribution, which caused the different populations of humanity to be geographically separated and thus reproductively isolated. Reproductive isolation enabled divergence -- the process of divergent evolution -- to occur, causing the isolated populations to evolve in different directions, developing their own distinct ensembles of genetic traits and characteristics.

Divergent evolution is the process by which new life forms are created by the division and separation of life into different branches. Human evolution has seen its share of divergent branching. The generic name commonly used to refer to the genetically different populations, branches or divisions of humanity -- that share both a common biological ancestry and an ensemble of unique, genetically transmitted traits and characteristics which distinguish them from other populations -- is "race." But in the human species, as in any species enjoying a great degree of variety, the constant branching and dividing that characterizes the process of divergent evolution has created many different levels of branches and divisions, each of which possesses genetic traits which distinguish it from other branches or divisions at the same level. For purposes of taxonomic accuracy each of these levels should have its own specific name and definition. The first or highest level is called the species, and it is simply and objectively defined as including all those populations which are capable of interbreeding with each other and producing fully fertile offspring, and which do in fact interbreed under conditions of close and extensive contact. The term race is commonly used to refer to a branch or division of the species possessing genetic traits which distinguish it from other branches or divisions of the same level. Adding to this definition, it will here also be defined as including only those persons who are capable of reproduction with each other without the loss or significant diminishment or alteration of the racially-distinctive genetic traits of either parent stock. The genetically transmitted traits which distinguish a race from other divisions at the same level (i.e., other races) should not be diminished or lost by reproduction within the race. If racially-distinctive traits are lost or diminished by within-group reproduction then the population group is at a level of division too broad and inclusive to be accurately defined as a race. If it is too narrow to be defined as a species, as it does not include all those populations capable of interbreeding, then it is at a level between race and species, which will here be referred to as a subspecies.

The great diversity existing in the human species today is the product of over 100,000 years of divergent evolution. Many of the specific details of that evolution are still not perfectly known or understood, but the fossil record indicates that the genus Homo developed in Africa, and by 1.8 million years ago (the age of fossil remains found on the island of Java in Indonesia) had spread across much of Eurasia where it developed into a variety of regional archaic populations. The genetic evidence from mitochondrial DNA indicates that the modern human species also originated in sub-Saharan Africa, where it began diverging into different populations by 180,000 years ago. By 100,000 years ago some of these populations had migrated out of sub-Saharan Africa and dispersed across Eurasia and North Africa, replacing the regional archaic populations. (The manner of that replacement, and whether or not -- and to what extent -- the modern humans may have interbred with the archaic populations, are subjects of debate.) By 40,000 years ago the divergent evolutionary branching or dividing of the human species had produced five main lines or subspecies which are still extant -- the Congoid and Capoid of sub-Saharan Africa, the Australoid of India, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, New Guinea and Australia, the Mongoloid of Northeast Asia (expanding after 20,000 B.C. into the Americas and replacing the Australoids in Southeast Asia and Indonesia after 4,000 B.C.) and the Caucasoid of Europe, North Africa and West Asia (partly replacing the Australoids in India after 8,000 B.C., the Mongoloids in the Americas after A.D. 1492, and the Australoids in Australia after A.D. 1788). These subspecies branched or divided in turn into separate races, and these races branched in their turn into subraces, as part of the continuing process of divergent evolution.

The different races are often popularly defined and named (often very inaccurately) by skin color, but as this system is based on only one genetic difference, when thousands are involved, it tends to distort the reality of race and racial differences. In the system of racial classification outlined below the names assigned to the various subspecies and races are, with a few exceptions, based on geographical regions that are, or presumably were, at or near the center of their area of evolutionary development and origin.


Outline of Human Racial Classification:

I. Capoid or Khoisanid Subspecies of southern Africa

A. Khoid (Hottentot) race
B. Sanid (Bushmen) race

II. Congoid Subspecies of sub-Saharan Africa

A. Central Congoid race (Geographic center and origin in the Congo river basin)

1. Palaecongoid subrace (the Congo river basin: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo, Angola)
2. Sudanid subrace (western Africa: Niger, Mali, Senegal, Guinea)
3. Nilotid subrace (southern Sudan; the ancient Nubians were of this subrace)
4. Kafrid or Bantid subrace (east and south Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Natal)

B. Bambutid race (African Pygmies)
C. Aethiopid race (Ethiopia, Somalia; hybridized with Caucasoids)

III. Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies (Geographic distribution centered in the Caucasus mountains)

A. Mediterranid race

1. West Mediterranean or Iberid subrace (Spain, Portugal, Corsica, Sardinia, and coastal areas of Morocco and Tunisia; the Atlanto-Mediterranean peoples who expanded over much of the Atlantic coastal regions of Europe during the Mesolithic period were a branch of this subrace)
2. East Mediterranean or Pontid subrace (Black Sea coast of Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria; Aegean coasts of Greece and Turkey)
3. Dinaricized Mediterraneans (Residual mixed types resulting from the blending of Mediterranids with Dinarics, Alpines or Armenids; not a unified type, has much regional variation; predominant element [over 60%] in Sicily and southern Italy, principal element in Turkey [35%], important element in western Syria, Lebanon and central Italy, common in northern Italy. The ancient Cappadocian Mediterranean subrace of Anatolia was dinaricized during the Bronze Age [second millennium B.C.] and is a major contributor to this type in modern Turkey.)
4. South Mediterranean or Saharid subrace (predominant in Algeria and Libya, important in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt)
5. Orientalid or Arabid subrace (predominant in Arabia, major element from Egypt to Syria, primary in northern Sudan, important in Iraq, predominant element among the Oriental Jews)

B. Dinaric race (predominant in western Balkans [Dinaric Mountains] and northern Italy, important in the Czech Republic, eastern and southern Switzerland, western Austria and eastern Ukraine)
C. Alpine race (predominant element in Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria and Bohemia, important in France, Hungary, eastern and southern Switzerland)
D. Ladogan race (named after Lake Ladoga; indigenous to Russia; includes Lappish subrace of arctic Europe)
E. Nordish or Northern European race (various subraces in the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Belgium; predominant element in Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States; majority in Austria and Russia; minority in France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary; outlined in detail in The Nordish Race)
F. Armenid race (predominant element in Armenia, common in Syria, Lebanon and northern Iraq, primary element among the Ashkenazic Jews)
G. Turanid race (partially hybridized with Mongoloids; predominant element in Kazakhstan.; common in Hungary and Turkey)
H. Irano-Afghan race (predominant in Iran and Afghanistan, primary element in Iraq, common [25%] in Turkey)
I. Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and northern India)
J. Dravidic race (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka [Ceylon]; ancient stabilized Indic-Veddoid [Australoid] blend)

IV. Australoid Subspecies

A. Veddoid race (remnant Australoid population in central and southern India)
B. Negritos (remnants in Malaysia and the Philippines)
C. Melanesian race (New Guinea, Papua, Solomon Islands)
D. Australian-Tasmanian race (Australian Aborigines)

V. Mongoloid Subspecies

A. Northeast Asian race (various subraces in China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan)
B. Southeast Asian race (various subraces in Indochina, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, some partly hybridized with Australoids)
C. Micronesian-Polynesian race (hybridized with Australoids)
D. Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan)
E. Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos)
F. Amerindian race (American Indians; various subraces)


Dominant or predominant = over 60% majority
Majority or major = 50-60% majority
Principal or primary = 25-49% plurality; less than a majority, but most numerous racial type
Important = 25-49% minority; not most numerous racial type
Common = 5-25% minority
Minor = less than 5% minority

The diverse races of the human species outlined above all have their own geographical territory that has historically been exclusively their own, which may be referred to as their racial homeland, and is closely identified with the race that inhabits it. Between most of these exclusive homelands are clinal zones -- areas of contact between different racial territories. These racial borderlands are frequently areas of interracial contact and intermixture where adjacent races merge into one another, creating racially mixed or hybridized populations of intermediate type called racial clines. The Dravidic race of India and Sri Lanka, created by the intermixture of the local Caucasoid (Indic or Nordindid) and Australoid (Veddoid) populations, and the Aethiopid race of Ethiopia and Somalia, created by the intermixture of the local Caucasoid (Mediterranid) and Congoid races, are two very ancient racial clines -- perhaps 10,000 years old -- which have stabilized into distinct races of intermediate type. Racial clines of more recent formation, where the racial blends are not yet stabilized, include the populations of many Latin American and Caribbean countries, which were created over the last 500 years by the intermixture of various Caucasoid (mostly Mediterranid), Congoid and Amerindian elements. The population of Mexico, for example, is about 5% Caucasoid, 30% Amerindian and 65% Mestizo, the Spanish term for persons of mixed Amerindian-Caucasoid ancestry. (The same term is used in the Philippines for persons of mixed Filipino-Caucasoid ancestry.) The multiracialization of the populations of North America and, more recently, Europe, has begun to transform them into racial clines. As discussed in other essays on this site, this process of racial transformation will eventually cause the effective extinction or nonexistence of the European racial types in the affected areas unless adequate preservationist measures are taken to prevent it.

EDIT:Reference site
@ www.racialcompact.com

So what? Anyone didn't know it yet?

Pay more attention to the forum.

I don't know. I'm not a geneticist.
Nor am I a scientist of any kind. Nor am I making a conclusion based on research.

Basically, I'm looking at the conclusion of one group, (That race is nothing but a cultural construct) and the conclusion of the other group (That race exists biologically, and is important, and that races should be genetically preserved, especially, apparently, white skinned races.) and saying that both are bullshit.

but what leads you to that conclusion?

Yeah, a black man is more likely to be atheletic than me

and more likely to be obese. wait a minute...

How is it obsolete when people depend on blood donations and genetic treatments that are specific to their ancestry?

Simple: Because more and more, people are breeding freely and such factors become more and more blurred.

Depends what the degree of genetic variation that defines 'race' is determined to be. There are definately syndromes of genetic traits that have higher frequency in some populations than others. Other traits have no difference in frequency over any range of populations.

You could define populations in different ways depending on the the gene or genes you're looking at. Really, creating the relevant or useful groupings you want for a particular issue is justified by the data. The traditional groupings based on skin colour etc. are only of moderate relevance, since they are indicators of other genetic traits that might be important for diagnosis and treatment of disease, though they themselves are not biologically important.

Generally, in biology, we denote races (or subspecies or breeds) as populations that have been genetically isolated long enough (in other words, little to no outbreeding) for long enough to develop distinct and measureable genetic traits.

The problem with all of the various anthropological groupings in humans is that this simply hasn't happened in the human species. There has always been outbreeding between somewhat isolated groups. It seems that no group of humans has been genetically isolated for long enough to be classified in this way. There are certainly trends among certain societies, certain skin colors, etc. because these groupings are somewhat selective in preventing outbreeding, but none of them have done this to the point to actually become truly genetically distinct.

I don't know. I'm not a geneticist.
Nor am I a scientist of any kind. Nor am I making a conclusion based on research.

So you are, by your own admission, completely igorant of the subject. Why should we bother with your opinon?

Basically, I'm looking at the conclusion of one group, (That race is nothing but a cultural construct) and the conclusion of the other group (That race exists biologically, and is important, and that races should be genetically preserved, especially, apparently, white skinned races.) and saying that both are bullshit.

So you're saying "race" both exists and doesn't exist, again based on nothing but your unsubstantiated and admitedly ignorant personal opinion.

Yeah, a black man is more likely to be atheletic than me, and more likely to have heart disease, but, you know, that shouldn't matter to anyone but him and his doctor.

Again, considering you have just admited your ignorance, why should we consider your personal unsubstantiated opinion.

-snip-

EDIT:Reference site
@ www.racialcompact.com

A load of unsubstantiated and unscientific bunk, presented by a white nationalist with an agenda of introducing apartid style Homelands to the US (http://www.racialcompact.com/partitionmap.html).

Quick question: Why is it when Nordland makes a thead about this, he gets bashed and flamed into oblivion, but when some random guy says this hes collectively agreed with?

Just wondering.

Give it time - storms a' coming!

A load of unsubstantiated and unscientific bunk, presented by a white nationalist with an agenda of introducing apartid style Homelands to the US (http://www.racialcompact.com/partitionmap.html).

All of the work he sites is scientific.

Race exists about as much as 2 exists. You can insist all you want that 1+1=2 and someone else will turn around and say 1+1 is a pair of 1's.

It's merely a logical construct that people may or may not choose to accept.

Quick question: Why is it when Nordland makes a thead about this, he gets bashed and flamed into oblivion, but when some random guy says this hes collectively agreed with?

Just wondering.

Well the OP hasn't really defined what he is after. It's more of a "duh" statement the his use of "race" is wrong.

Nordland is all about the master race crap.

All of the work he sites is scientific.

assume that is true. so fucking what?

All of the work he sites is scientific.

Science can be good or in the case mentioned, crap.

You can publish anything. The true test is it surviving peer review.....

Science can be good or in the case mentioned, crap.

You can publish anything. The true test is it surviving peer review.....

and even then, it can be abused and misused

Simple: Because more and more, people are breeding freely and such factors become more and more blurred.We'll catch up in a 20 000 years and see. Despite a heck of alot of mixing, and not much reproductive isolation, trends will persist for a long time, and understanding them will still be usefull.


Generally, in biology, we denote races (or subspecies or breeds) as populations that have been genetically isolated long enough (in other words, little to no outbreeding) for long enough to develop distinct and measureable genetic traits.

The problem with all of the various anthropological groupings in humans is that this simply hasn't happened in the human species. There has always been outbreeding between somewhat isolated groups. It seems that no group of humans has been genetically isolated for long enough to be classified in this way. There are certainly trends among certain societies, certain skin colors, etc. because these groupings are somewhat selective in preventing outbreeding, but none of them have done this to the point to actually become truly genetically distinct.Again, it is simply a matter of spectrum and degrees. There are basically no human populations that have been isolated for long enough to be hugely divergent from others, but there certainly are "distinct and measurable genetic traits" in some populations that have been documented - higher/lower frequencies of alleles, and different alleles (see the Haplotype project, for example).
What you define a "truly genetically distinct" is just a matter of semantics - some may define this as a speciation event, others may define it as an external difference in appearence - but as long as the distinction is enough to be mediacally and even socially significant, I think we have reason to acknowledge such, and investigate it. We do as much and much more in model organisms. Now admittedly, many living things have a greater degree of variation in their gene pools than do humans, but not all - thus I always stick with the "if it's useful to make a certain grouping for a certain problem, do it" approach.
Science can be good or in the case mentioned, crap.

You can publish anything. The true test is it surviving peer review..... You have to pass peer review before a journal will publish your work. Not to say that bad science is never published - but there is an evaluation process in all reputable journals. And thank goodness, science as a body is evolving and self-
correcting, so usually fallacies don't last too too long. In this case, there is a sizable amount of science describing the usefullness of investigating differences in human populations - from a medical, as well as general biological knowledge perspective. There's no reason to be afraid of this research if you understand it properly.

but what leads you to that conclusion?


It sure as hell isn't biology, unless he wants to claim that black people are a different subspecies than white people.

All of the work he sites is scientific.
Most of his assertions are without any cited reference whatsoever...:rolleyes:

There is for example not a single citation or reference given in the entire cut and paste job Nova Vinlandia 'contributed' to the thread...

Wow, a state the obvious thread. We need more of these.

Generally, in biology, we denote races (or subspecies or breeds) as populations that have been genetically isolated long enough (in other words, little to no outbreeding) for long enough to develop distinct and measureable genetic traits.

The problem with all of the various anthropological groupings in humans is that this simply hasn't happened in the human species. There has always been outbreeding between somewhat isolated groups. It seems that no group of humans has been genetically isolated for long enough to be classified in this way. There are certainly trends among certain societies, certain skin colors, etc. because these groupings are somewhat selective in preventing outbreeding, but none of them have done this to the point to actually become truly genetically distinct.

I think it should be made clear that the term 'race' is rarely (if ever!) used in contemporary biology. 'Sub-species' or 'variety' is what is used.
I agree though, humans are not nearly as different genetically from each other as most people think.

I'm not a native english speaker (italian), so I guess I'm missing the finer details of race-variety-species difference in english.
From what I've been taught:
"specie" (species) is a group of individuals capable of interbreeding, and their offspring is not sterile (example: all humans can interbreed, so "Homo sapiens" is a species, not a race; all cats can be interbred)
"razza" (race) is a subset of a single species, sharing some major physical traits (example Europoid h.sapiens as opposed to let's say American Indian h.sapiens. btw the -oid ending means "looking" (from the greek "oida", perfect of "orao", "I see"; a european wild cat is not the same race as a siamese cat)
"varietà" (variety) is a subset of a single race (example blonde-haired Europoids vs dark-haired Europoids, or grey tabby european cats vs red tabby european cats)

By interbreeding different races inside the same species you can create new races of the species.

So I guess that the important thing is species, expecially when talking of humans, and that also because of the social problems the "race" question has always created.

All of the work he sites is scientific.

The claim made is that, to be a race, members of that race must have some genetic factors that are unique to their particular grouping.

And yet, interestingly enough, your source lists a bunch of "races" and doesn't give a single such trait. Do they not think that such information is important to the grouping, or do they simply not have it.

Now, Bushmen may actually qualify as a biological race. I can't say for certain, because I have never seen genetic testing on them. They aren't exactly easy to find, and they probably would be unlikely to sumbit to testing in the first place.


Again, it is simply a matter of spectrum and degrees.

And you must reach a certain degree before the term "race" is biologically appropriate. That doesn't mean that you cannot find ethnic groupings, it just means that they have not reached the designation of "race."

There are basically no human populations that have been isolated for long enough to be hugely divergent from others, but there certainly are "distinct and measurable genetic traits" in some populations that have been documented - higher/lower frequencies of alleles, and different alleles (see the Haplotype project, for example).

There is a higher/lower frequency of certain alleles and different alleles in my family as opposed to the general population. Does that make us a race? Of course not.

What you define a "truly genetically distinct" is just a matter of semantics

Not really. When I say "truly genetically distinct," I am referring to a population in which we can do genetic testing, without seeing the actual subject, and place them in the proper grouping. Every study I have seen that has attempted this has had a low success rate at categorizing even the continent of that person's origin/ancestors. As such, there is not yet any biological reason to classify people as different races. We have no data that would actually point to that particular classification.

- some may define this as a speciation event,

No, they wouldn't. A speciation event would create a new species, not a new race or subspecies.

others may define it as an external difference in appearence

You might define genotype by phenotype? That's a dangerous proposition, and not something that we would accept in biology.

I think it should be made clear that the term 'race' is rarely (if ever!) used in contemporary biology. 'Sub-species' or 'variety' is what is used.
I agree though, humans are not nearly as different genetically from each other as most people think.

Indeed. Of course, there's always been a push not to call something the same thing in humans as in "lower" animals.

All of the work he sites

He certainly has sited a lot of material. However he has not cited anything. At least not on the page you cut and pasted.

is scientific.

Dealt with above. That source gives no citations or evidence whatsoever, differs from standard accepted taxonomy in both classification and taxons (race = subspecies in taxonomy, that page has them as separate taxons), etc., etc, etc.