that's wrong. not all groupings based on geography are races. there are numerous examples (literally thousands). however, true races (now called sub species (race is becoming an antiquated biological term). Please, if you're jumping into the middle of a discussion, review all the posts, as I don't want to be answering the same questions over and over again.) are distinguishable geographically based on genetics. Good example, the two oriole races, east and west, previously called two species the bullocks and baltimore orioles. these races don't exist in humans for the reasons previously stated and the references given therein. Please read them for further information.
Simply cannot resist: Paulsammuel: One: And Two: of course there are groups of humans that share characteristics that can be grouped together based on those characteristics of course there are groups of humans that share characteristics that can be grouped together based on those characteristics of course there are groups of humans that share characteristics that can be grouped together based on those characteristics ......."but these are familial and genealogical and have nothing to do with race, nothing to do with skin color, nothing to do with personal observation nor personal "knowledge." " THEN WHAT THE FUCK ARE THOSE GENOLOCIAL DIFFERECES DOING THERE THEN???!! They just sit there and have tea with each other? You just agreed they were there, you just agreed to groupings in humans, and we group them according to what? Fingernails? How high they jump? Their grammar? Your problem: our labeling those differences with a word that makes your skin crawl- Race. Do you not even realize how self-defeatingly odious you sound to everything you've said thus far in this thread with your mention of a 'white' couple actually being able to sire black babies if only they had the genes for them? I have an idea. Attention scifers ! Gendanken invites you all on a misadventure. On your next post write out race about ten or twenty times and embolden it like so : RACE, RACE, RACE, RACE, RACE. Xev: MUhahahahahahah-ha *snap snap* 'Member last night at the slumber party where were were all, like, sittin' around with our copies of the Gay Science? I was like sooooooooooo serious where Netty is all talking about Chamfort 'cuase he reminds me of me when i'm you know, all rebellious and evolushionary and stuff-and that BITCH Marsha totally interrupted me and was all like "LOL , LMAO did she just say the Gay science? The gay science? LOL, hahahha .........she said gay, she said GAY!!....hahah, LOL, hahahahahahahah" *queef* And she fuckin' queefed you know? Can you belive it? Fuck that stoopid Marsha. Its always Marsha. Marsha, Marsha Marsha!!!
Andy: You've forgotten to write out RACE tenfold in bold. Gendanken invites you all on a misadventure. On your next post write out race about ten or twenty times and embolden it like so : RACE, RACE, RACE, RACE, RACE. Come on, girlfriend. Indulge.
Because you can only make such determinations very generally and broadly but when you get into the details the classical distinction of race disappears. The question is why should we give any particular attention to phonotypical traits such as skin color and facial features while ignoring all the rest of the heritable genetic traits that people carry? There is simply no good reason to assign these particular traits any special status. The variation between individuals is greater than the variation between the 'races'. If we don't select only certain traits, if we look at all of the different heritable traits and keep identifying different genetic groupings we get a complete mess. It's not merely that the boundaries are fuzzy but that there are overlapping sets. There are so many varied inclusions and exclusions that you cannot define a point of distinction. The groupings cross over one another. Geographically, a population will tend to have more in common with nearby populations than with geographically remote ones (by distance or barrier to movement). This is a no-brainer but people tend to miss the significance. The only way to force racial distinctions is to deliberately pick populations that are remote from one another. But there are no completely isolated groups, certainly none amongst the broad traditional races. Thus, though we define Italians as Europeans and thus Caucasian they share as many, if not more, traits with Africans as they do Swedes. Russians in the Southeast of Russia have more traits in common with the Chinese than they do the Germans even though the Russians on the West share more with the Germans. And native Australians have more in common with the Chinese than they do with Africans, despite the fact that according to traditional definitions of race they would be classified with Africans. Where then do we draw the lines of distinction with any legitimate scientific grounding? ~Raithere
as i've said before, anyone can make any groupings they want. in humans, these groupings will be arbitrary.
Because we can't see 'the rest'. "Who's Bob?" "He's the asian guy in the office" I personally find this much more useful then: "Oh, Bob? He's the guy who's has the gene for balding, although he's not balding yet." We give particular attention to it, because it is obvious and visible.
basically, the term "race" is only skin-deep Asia is a big continent; India, Iran, Pakistan, Siberia, China, Turkey, the Central Asian republics, etc... a lot of things are "obvious", but not always right
If animal husbandry is any sort of guide to the endgame of selective breeding then I pray that humans never engage in such practices on any large scale. To do so would most surely spell our doom. Purebreds are the weakest of the species. Ask any vet. Myself, I like a good old mutt. They look cool and they never get sick. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
basically, the term "race" is only skin-deep Exactly, but that doesn't make the term any less descriptive. Asia is a big continent; India, Iran, Pakistan, Siberia, China, Turkey, the Central Asian republics, etc... Correct, asia is a big continent. ASIANS though only come from a few of those countries, while the rest would be described as middle eastern. Don't ask me why the term asians only refers to a subset... I didn't create the use. a lot of things are "obvious", but not always right But unless you can show why it is wrong, I'm just going to stick by the assumption that it is right.
Exactly, but that doesn't make the term any less descriptive. The whole argument of this thread is whether or not 'race' is more descriptive than skin colour or the superficial. It is not (or at least we're agreeing on that.) So if we're agreeing that race is a superficial thing, that cannot be used to categorize people into meaningful sub-groups, whats the point of this argument now?
I'm very happy you agree with me. I'm extremely philosophical and will be happy to continue to provide the scientific and philosophical reasons why race doesn't exist in humans. I'm not sure what you mean by 'old-world' definition. Certainly, no one here is arguing about the question of variation in species and creationism. Ever since biology has developed population genetics, human racial distinctions have been examined. It has been found that they don't exist. I have given the references, and there are many more. Also, even with the modern definition of race (which includes population genetics), as you can read in many posts on this thread, people are attempting to group humans arbitrarily, i.e. based on skin color. Well, I have not seen one instance where they have tried to do that. Can you provide examples? If they are doing that, they are doing it surreptitiously. If they are doing this, how are they doing it? What are their methods? I think that's bull, they're not doing that at all. Xev (supposedly philosophical, according to you) has stated her argument (if you can call it that) very clearly, "It's obvious to anyone that there exist between humans certain physical differences, and that these differences can be used to loosely categorize humans into subgroups." "Therefore these subgroups (races) exist." If you did change the definition of race, what would you change it to, and how would any groupings be less arbitrary than the current groupings we have seen proposed on this thread? we are not doing that. because art is completely unaddressable by science. you appear to think that philosophy is closer to art than it is to science, and let me assure you that nothing could be further from the truth
as long as you refuse to do the literature research and read, of course you will only have your own "assumptions" to rely on, which is very poor footing from which to develop an argument.
Does this mean that almost any individual can pick almost any race and I can prove that they are genetically of another race with very few exceptions? The question is directed to the biologists.
Haven't we gone over this? Beaten it to death? Statistically, a person will be more genetically similar to a person living in the same region than a distant one. The minor similarities are no basis for establishing a 'race' because there is already so much variation. If you did genetic testing without knowing the test subjects, it would be about as possible as finding a needle in a haystack the size of new york city. There are a couple genes, and if you know what part of town to look in, you can find them, but on the whole its pretty meaningless.
Well that's nice... but very poor reasoning. You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it unless I understand the logic behind your opinion. And yes, I do refuse to do any indepth research on the subject because of all the things I can spend my time on, this one isn't very rewarding. Do you agree that race is currently defined by most people using features externally visibile, and that this classification fairly well determines the recent origin of a person's ancestors? Furthermore, if you agree with the above, why is it wrong to then assume that diseases are also passed down with the genes for certain external features?
That's not correct. I am not an advocate for separation of races, but it is possible to determine ehtnicity based on genetic testing. It is the genetic similarities that exist in an area that determine this.
