This is worth re-posting. ” I am not trying to bully anyone with terminology. If you don't understand something, you should ask. However, I'm gratified that you are finally willing to admit that you don't know something. Now that's progress!! I'm not sure I understand your objections. The genetic differences within human populations are real. I have never denied this. What I'm saying is that these genetic differences don't group together with regards to the hypothetical races. What I'm saying is that to break up, disjoin, fracture real biological and evolutionary groupings based on relatedness merely to force individuals into arbitrary groups based on skin color (or whatever 'racial' characteristics you choose) is not scientifically based, but based on social or cultural reasons. Which means that human races are not biological groupings, unlike races in other biological organisms, but are social and cultural groupings. The reason some biologists get so adamant about this, is that it's dishonest. Humans are the only organism in which race is mis-used like this, and it's mis-used to give itself biological credence.
paulsamuel - Thanks. I must say the biological definition of race seems about as arbitrary as any other. However I see what you're saying, and will avoid the word in future when talking to biologists.
Believe it or not I get what you're saying as well paulsamuel. I understood from the beginning, got confused for a while, and then realised I was correct in the first place other than the fact science no longer classifies the different regional populations of homo-sapiens as different 'races' and that they then decided they'd have a laugh and not replace that word with another just to see what would happen. Its all clear now.
this is worth re-posting: repetition of your argument does not lend it validity. we know your argument; "racial differences are obvious to all, therefore racial differences exist." this argument lacks depth, lacks substance and lacks thought. "black" is a skin color, not a race of humans, and is no more a race than "blonde." it does change a thing. the groups based on mtDNA, MHC genes, Intron sequences, microsatellites, are real, actual, bonafide biological groupings, unlike those of skin color. They group humans and human populations based on genealogy, i.e. relatedness. When we do this, when we group humans on how they are related (just like siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles, etc.) we see that these hypothetical racial characteristics, onto which you so tightly hold, are broken up. They no longer form groups. We see that they are biologically meaningless and arbitrary. i have no intention of trying to convince you. you will never be strong enough to admit that you are wrong. my hope is to convince other, third party, readers.
Speaking of dishonesty why do you keep quoting my posts without even addressing the arguments contained in them? If the best you can do is attempt to drown out and hide my posts and attempt to decieve readers into believing you have succeeded in discrediting arguments superior to yours when you have not even addressed them then it is obvious you have already lost the argument. So your biased opinion is the site is fair, and I have simply pointed out that the lighting in the pictures is bad and makes coloration ambiguous, the pictures are rediculously small for the chosen task and many people may not bother or realize they can be enlarged, and there is a number of multi racial (the races people use not biologists attempting to disprove race) people uncharacteristic of the population. Perhaps the people who continue to assert ideas against race choose groups like germans and italians (that may at one time have been considered seperate races by the avg person) who may frequently interbreed with each other and then say there is a large number of people mixed between these two original groups. Then they generalize to all races and take mixed caucasians-african americans and place them on the site to confuse people. Lets take a look at just how devoid of reasoning your post is... Inabillity to interbreed is a categorization. Its the criteria used for species. Frequency of interbreeding is a category. Its the subconsious criteria used for race as people use it in society. Both of these criteria exist in reality. Your comment makes no sense. The information you provide here actually confirms what I am saying and have said. Did you not realize this when you were posting it, or have you not even taken the time to really read my posts before responding? White and other, and White and Asian are the two largest multiracial groups in that state as you have pointed out. Whites and asians may not even be signifigantly different in appearance to prevent people from breeding between them, it could be the only reason they are considered seperate races is because the majority of the two groups are generally isolated from each other. I assume that White and Middle eastern/indian isn't on there because of the drastic religous differences between these two groups prevents them from interbreeding often and lack of members of said race in the state. That means the "other race" in white and other race is probably groups that whites would interbreed with if given large scale access to them the same as it probably is with Asians. Both of these two groups are not the people that I am talking about being unrepresentitive of the population. That leaves less than one third of the original multiracial group. Thats like what .7% of that states population. I am saying that the people on that site does not merit having as many ambiguous people ie 7/1000's Extrapolating from this data there is what like what 2 million african american- caucasian multiracial people in the US, while there is like 37 million african americans. Something like 2.5% of blacks who have complete and easy access to whites breed with whites. (Actually thats a GROSS overstatement since the interbreeding could have occured at any generation prior to the census) Considering there are many more white people around than other blacks, if race was insignifigant then this number should be above 50%. THAT IS WHAT RACE MEANS. Genghas Kahn- Bringing this man up shows that you STILL do not even comprehend the argument you are so desperately trying to dispute. Genghas Kahn was a warlord. He invaded other peoples territory and stole their women... This overrides the psychological tendencies to mate with similar people. DUH!!!! Of course Im choosing the populations of signifigantly different races to make my argument. That is what the argument is ABOUT. If groups choose to interbreed on a large scale, and aren't stopped from doing so then they aren't different races and if they were before then naming them as such will eventually cease. The error in methodology is YOURS in choosing groups that have DO interbreed with each other and then generalizing the results to groups that DO NOT. I don't need a biologist to tell me that white people breed with each other any more than I am going to believe one trying to tell me that someone having completely different skin color as I do is signifigant. Geez do you have any reading comprehension skills what so ever? First I say the majority of traits, and you brilliantly state "Oh but there are thousands of traits and only a small percent vary" Then I pointed out what to anyone else was obvious ie that I was talking about variable HUMAN traits, and you say all traits are variable. What does that have to do with HUMAN traits?? READ BEFORE YOU POST. Ive already pointed out 6000 times why the traits by which races are grouped together are signifigant. They represent groups which don't interbreed with each other. IE they don't get mixed between actual valid racial groups. So skin color is caused by the enviornment. So what? Yes the social race categorization has scientific signifigance it signifies frequency of interbreeding and one day a biologist with more brains than the numskulls who came up with these theories will probably redefine race as this in biology when dealing with humans. Perhaps this criteria would better describe races among other species as well than whatever biology related criteria is being used now -although I know little of this. And other people are trying to imply that we should stop recognizing race, indeed that is the goal of the people who created that site with the game on it. No, no, no, get it right. Proximity is the limiting factor between some groups and for others it is not. If All asians and caucASIANS (hint hint) were dumped into the same place they would probably all interbreed and any differentiation between them would dissapear. However as it is there is a large number of asians seperated from other whites by geographical and political boundaries and can't interbreed for this reason. So by criteria of frequency of interbreeding these groups are still seperate races. If on the other hand you were to dump all blacks and whites into the same place only a MINISCULE percent of the two groups would interbreed as shown by the data YOU provided. No large percentages of all the populations in ancient times did not all get up and travel to and interbreed with their neighbors. A few traders here and there is not signifigant. Means of transportation have become better and better. With this, previously seperate races who had as the only reason for their lack frequency of interbreeding lack of access began to interbreed and these distinctions as far as race was concerned began to dissapear. I can differentiate people by the things that CAUSED them to have different lineages and YES that is signifigant. Yes in some cases a metaphorical gun was put to the heads of a people and they were forced to interbreed with people they did not want to ie when a people was conquered. Other times men were seperated from their usual choice of women and interbreeded with women of a different race more frequently than they would have otherwise. No you see I don't waste my time reading your links because you have thoroughly demontstrated that you lack the logical reasoning ability to even apply evidence to an argument. I am not going to waste my time reading them only to point out to you how they actually reinforce MY argument and what people already know to be true. Anotherwords all your links fall into one of two categories, Like this: "Dr. Dum B. Fuck, Phd in abstract bullshitting has recently discovered that 1+1 actually equals 3 people are just too stupid to realize it." OR like this: "Raithere: look this website says when multiplying 1+1 times 1.5, the sum is 3 and this PROVES that 1+1=3!!!111one+one=three cause I says so" What the heck did you think I mean the first time, that if one of the original groups were to go move to where another group was and breed with them it would destroy the seperation of people into these groups despite 99.99...% of them still not having the same traits between them? The point was socially designated races are caused by the same thing as what causes a single life form to evolve into different species. Two groups could interbreed but they can't get to each other for a while. During this while they develop different traits. In the case of different species when the two groups are reunited they find they can nolonger interbreed. In the case of human races as they are socially designated they no longer WANT to interbreed (because of the genetic differences) even though it is still possible. Dodge and retreat my ass. Global areas of interaction TO WHAT DEGREE genius? What percentage of japanese people for instance have european heritage? Dropping one european trader into japan for every 100,000 japanese (or whatever the realistic ration is) isn't going to signifigantly affect the japanese genetic pool, no matter how horny the european man is. As long as the vast majority of two groups are removed from each other they may retain different race categorizations and this is partially based on genetic traits. And even if you were right about this one point it would only serve to prove my argument because then there would be NO OTHER excuse for skin color not being eradicated and distributed between all the groups. My dad chose the people who belonged to categories most difficult to determine. Obviously, or it would not be a signifigant reason to approach the person. You think he is going to walk up to an african american and say "hey your african american aren't you?" You didn't even comprehend any of my points, much less adress them. Your statistics make my case for me. And paul samuel, someone who claims himself to be intelligent, has resorted to trying to back up someone else's poor argument rather than his own to take advantage of the subconsious evaluation that number of people who agree with something has meaning despite that this is a complex argument were there is plenty of room for error. (as opposed to the subject of the argument were you 2 and others are combating common knowledge where there is little to no room for error in human reasoning ... how ironic) There is actually 2 seperate issues here btw. Issue 1 is race categorizations designate to some degree frequency of interbreeding which is biologically signifigant regardless of the cause. Issue 2 is that in the case of some of these groups, the lack of frequency of interbreeding IS BECAUSE OF THE GENETIC TRAITS that group has already developed differently from the other groups in question. IE different color skin, behavior to the degree it has roots in genetic traits, differences in appearance uncommon between the group. You can't even get more biologically signifigant than this.
paula: So a Korean couple, of pure Korean descent, may just up and have a Negro child one day? We all know racial differences. We see them on the streets, in every person that passes by. How could they fail to be obvious? That, paula, was my fucking point. How do I hold tightly onto them? I don't CARE whether they have biological meaning. Get that through your dense head - they have social and historical meaning, they often have "spiritual" meaning - that is more than enough. Race may not exist under the terms by which you define it. I've admitted that. But it is obviously a valid construct under other terms. Thank you. Further: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994928
Thanks for the link xev. I must say though, its funny to see psychologists scramble to try and figure out almost purely through experimentation what can be figured out with a minimal amount of life experience and some time thinking. All we need is a way to value ideas between people without experimentation and we won't need to depend on people like this and risk them going amok and trying to decieve people into believing crap like this no race thing. People are set up their whole lives for who they are going to be attracted to. They relate feelings of love and respect to different occurences from the original one of being smiled at, and their parents have the most control over them for the beginning of their lives so any way the parent's showed them affection is probably going to be a trigger for feeling loved for them as adults. The whole time however they see that their moms recieve a certain kind of affection that their dad can't and wont share with them. Then when they meet grown up men they realize they CAN recieve this kind of attention and the only reason they couldn't before was because they were too young still. This strong feeling of realization that all this time they really were able to get that kind of attention and feeling loved at the same time is what happens to people that makes them want to mate. This is why members of the opposite sex appear so attractive while dancing to music- It is realization that there is patterns in the music and the way the person is moving combined with natural attraction provides the same effect - only the emotions matter not the source. The chain of things that have been related to feelings of love and respect contains memory from all types of sensory input. It can be smells, appearances, sounds, complex combinations like mannerisms, even pain etc. The farther away another person is from all these learned relations the less loved the person is going to feel around them no matter how that person may actually treat the person judging.
AHAHAHHAHAHA Notice that it says, usually caused by geographical isolation within a species. It says usually, well what causes it the rest of the time? All this definition points out is that race is outside the comprehension of the biologists who picked the term to describe it... If biologists don't even comprehend what race is how the hell can they "disprove" its existence among humans.. Trick question: they can't (figured you might need a little help there buddy)
kriminal99: Yes, it is unfortunate. We've elevated "science" to where religion once was - a scientist is seen as the ultimate authority figure, and if he tells us "there is no such thing is race" we believe without even considering the meaning of that statement. Of course, this applies mostly to those who have been raised to believe in racial egalitarianism. They'll seize any argument to further their cause. "Then when they meet grown up men they realize they CAN recieve this kind of attention and the only reason they couldn't before was because they were too young still. " Hmm. I kinda do take issue with that. I think we're attracted to the qualities our parents have, in general because they remind us of our own. It would make sense to choose people who are closer to us genetically, to breed with. Not too close of course, but close enough so that our children look like us. So, I don't necessarily see it as wanting the love our parents reserved for each other, I see it as choosing mates who are like us.
I believe I have but if you have points that you feel that I have not addressed then please reiterate them. I'd ask you to prove that they are indeed 'uncharacteristic' but forget that. Again I ask, "What do you do with all of those people who are 'uncharacteristic of the population"? There's no need for generalizations there is plenty of direct evidence. Which comment are you referring to? People don't typically know their heritage past a few generations. Many people will not admit to or do not identify themselves as having a mixed heritage. This is only people who know and are willing to tell. My bet is that it is significantly understated. The point is that even in the U.S. where race is discrete, socially polarized and charged issue there is a statistically significant percentage that identifies itself as multiracial. In multicultural areas where race is less socially polarized and people intermix more freely there is an even larger factor of multiracial people. You still don't get it so I'll spell it out for you. South Africans mix with Central Africans who mix with Northern Africans who mix with Southern Europeans who mix with Central Europeans who mix with Northern Europeans. Northern Africans also breed with Middle Easterners who mix with Indians who mix with South Western Chinese who mix with Central Chinese who mix with Northern Chinese who mix with Russians. Each group is more like the one next to it than the one after but the genes keep traveling through the population. There is no natural division. The only way to make it appear so is if you specifically select disparate populations and ignore the rest. Don't attribute your problems with comprehension to me. I shall say it succinctly since you're having trouble following the conversation, "All human traits are variable." Exaggeration does not behoove your argument. Yeah, right. You "know little of this" but science should use your criteria to determine race. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Recognizing differences is not a problem, attributing more to these differences than actually exist is a problem. The only way to meet this criteria is by selective sampling. This is not a true representation of the human species. You pick one population here and one way over there and then announce, "They don't match". No shit Sherlock. But what about all the people in between? Try going over the evidence once again. All populations breed with their neighbors to a significant degree. It's not enough to separate them taxonomically into different races. Apparently you don't do a very good job reading what I write because if you did you would have realized that I'm not giving links in lieu of argument but as independent support for my arguments. Read again and then skim a few of the links. ~Raithere
Raithere: "It's not enough to separate them taxonomically into different races." Using what criteria, rooster? You bicker and brag about how "race does not scientifically exist", and you think you win this because you've shifted the parameters by which you define it. Of course they were fluid to begin with. And then when someone questions you at the roots of your arguments, you throw out more of the meaningless "race does not scientifically exist" Four legs good! Two legs bad! Obviously, race exists on some level as we are having this conversation. But does it occur to you to define on what level you rebut it? No. Four legs good! Two legs bad!
Interesting, this would mean that your entire philosohical social racial construction has no meaning either. Or did these fields lose their scientific status? No wait, you didn't have any arguments based on these sciences. Your argument is that it is obvious. I had forgotten.
spuriousmonkey: I don't have a "philosophical social racial construction". The sentance is gibberish. Oh well, what can I expect from a pussy whose best line of argument is pointing out one's spelling errors?
How does my spelling, assuming it is passable, reflect upon my arguments? I can see how it would make a difference if I was arguing "I can spell perfectly! Therefore, whites are superiour to all you mud-peoples!" but I'm not. I am sure I could pick apart your grammer, nondescript style, limited vocabulary and lack of poetic sensibility - but I haven't seen it relevent. How now, pray tell, is it relevent?
I'll restate this very simply so that you can understand (hopefully!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) How is my occasional misspelling relevent? - For the other thing, I don't post here to "debate". I post to entertain myself, or to explore concepts more in complexity.
That's very nice, but it doesn't answer the question. I'll restate: How is my spelling relevent? It raises an additional question: Why do you, then, respond to me? It would be best if you went back to rubbing your tiny cock between your greasy palms while grunting over the underwear models in department store circulators, no?
I don't post here to "debate". I post to entertain myself, or to explore concepts more in complexity.
