Human races are real according to evolution

Google "Mikemikev" (the thread starter). He even has an Encyclopaedia Dramatica entry. Its obviously not a serious thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mikemikev takes this topic very seriously. I'm surprised however that he has not tried to debate this topic with the posters here. And yes he's quite infamous on the internet as a racist troll. But you can get some serious debate out of him from time to time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi, this is the real Mikemikev and some clown is impersonating me, probably the deranged troll who wrote the ED page. I'd be happy to confirm my identity, perhaps via my Stormfront account.

Nevertheless I'd be happy to debate this subject here in more depth than the retarded OP.

I'd recommend posters make sure they are familiar with these points first

https://right.orain.org/wiki/Arguments_regarding_the_existence_of_races

So we can avoid going round in circles or explaining common fallacies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think this is the real Mikemikev. I informed him of this thread elsewhere thinking that he created it but it seems to be an impersonator.

 

Stormfront is a Neo-Nazi/white-supremacist site. You are also linking to another Nazi site (rightpedia) that hosts extreme racist content where I see you are an admin.

Not sure why you expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

Basically from that link no evidence, zilch, is presented for "race". It just repeats itself over and over that academics that deny race are politically correct.

The PC-claim is amusing, since believing in race is actually what is politically correct, not the reverse.

"The “race” that is at the heart of forensic assessment is a politically correct manifestation of the circumstances that governed the peopling of the western hemisphere. That it is regarded as an “important” forensic finding is simply a product of what is politically correct in contemporary North America." (Brace, 1995)

 

Well linking to a Nazi site wasn't a good start. He pretty much confirms that those few people arguing for races, are just white supremacists. Like creationists who start with the bible, they start with some racist political ideology.

 

I agree. There are some anthropologists who believe races exist but on the internet most of the people who argue that races are real and biologically important are White Supremacists. Mikmikev is an admin on that right-wing Encyclopedia which he probably sees as an alternative to Wikipedia where he has been banned from over 200 times. Mikemikev is unquestionably a racist. I would however like to see how he does in a debate here.

 

1 https://right.orain.org/wiki/Argume...ces#.22Out_of_Africa.22_and_related_arguments

2 https://right.orain.org/wiki/Argume...ically_defined_with_biologically_defined_race

3 Not disputed

4 Not disputed

5 Not disputed

6 https://right.orain.org/wiki/Argume...of_races#Semantic_games_with_taxonomic_labels

 

I think this section is the best reason that race is a valid and informative concept:
https://right.orain.org/wiki/Arguments_regarding_the_existence_of_races#Predictive_Value

 

1. I don't see what that section has to do with Keita's first summary point.

2. Keita doesn't use socially or politically defined race to say that races don't exist he's simply saying that U.S. demographic groups are not biological races.

6. The labels mentioned by Keita are recommended to describe human genetic variation as an alternative to race because they are more accurate biologically.

 

1 So why does Keita say variation isn't structured into race.

2 Then this is not disputed.

6 No it's just pointless semantics and an attempt to muddy and subvert the matter.

 

Rushton's research is highly selective and very poor in quality. His work only seems to have predictive value if you accept his model of human biological variation and its relation to the variables he lists. Several scholars have found problems with Rushton's work.

 

1. Because human populations do not meet the criteria for classification as phylogenetic subspecies.

6. It's not a semantic dispute. No one denies that human biological variation exists it's just a matter of how it is structured.

 

Why not?

 

What relevance does this have? None. A Sesardic straw man.

"Sesardic defines social constructionism as the view that 'Classifying people into commonsense races tells us absolutely nothing informative about biological characteristics of these people' (Sesardic 2013, p. 287). But even the staunchest social constructionist knows that socalled 'common sense racial classification' tells us
somewhat informative things about phenotypic traits: skin colour, hair texture, eye shape, etc. For instance, few people racialised as 'Asian' have naturally blonde hair."
(Hochman, 2014)

"It is a misconception that anti-realists about biological race believe that 'race' is totally uncorrelated with any biological difference: we just believe that it does not capture very much biological difference, and that it does not capture that difference very well." (Hochman, 2014)

 

Note that this is the OP.

 

The way I see it, any system of categorization is a social construct. Categories by nature are abstractions we create to make sense of our world, rather than something imposed onto it by a non-human authority (like a god?). And the thing about race as we understand the term is that it's not simply the observation of difference so much as the categorization of difference. We all know that people around the world look different, but the problem sets in when you try to sort them into certain races. How many races should you create, and where do you draw the lines between the different races?

It's not even like the traditional racial definitions are even consistent in usage. There are entire African populations with darker skin and less European ancestry than Barack Obama, yet many of the same racialists who call Obama a "lyin' African" and all those other anti-black slurs wouldn't call those darker Africans "black" if they have, say, lower nasal indices than the "Negroid" archetype (and/or they have a connection to some impressive ancient ruins nearby). If the definition of certain races can change depending on one's agenda, it's easy to see why it's considered a social construct more than anything else.

 

So can you give us a taxonomy that captures more difference Atlantid?

 

So your argument is "some guy" doesn't know how to classify races so it's an invalid taxonomy? Could we not throw out every taxonomy like this, simply by asking some utter retard to classify things?

PS Note how you tacitly admit the validity of an ancestry based race concept to make your argument that "some guy" gets it wrong.

Check this out too
https://right.orain.org/wiki/Arguments_regarding_the_existence_of_races#Diamond.27s_Fallacy