Do Different Human Races Exist?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by goofyfish, Apr 18, 2002.

  1. peta9 Registered Senior Member

    I respect a true racist or white nationalist more than a racist supremacist. The latter have no respect for others culture, values or race. At least with a true racist, they just want to keep their own culture and race intact, not outbreed others or use thier race to oppress or subjugate other races or people.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. DeepThought Banned Banned


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    There are whites, Asians and blacks.

    The above two people are black.

    White liberals - especially the kind that say there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of race - are frightened and confused by the presence of black people.

    Their strategy is to then deny them their physical existence.

    This is a psychological continuation of slavery.
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2007
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    This is an interesting new tactic of racists.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DeepThought Banned Banned


    Please elaborate.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Now that your assumption is clear, all you need is some data on all these correlations.

    Controlled for geography, diet, etc, of course - which means genetic basis.

    Good luck.
  9. Fedric Levenson Registered Member


    Yes you are right. Thanks for the excellent topic.
  10. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    I'm White, I don't believe in race and I dated a extremely hot African girl. Her mom and dad were both MDs while mine were white trash. Funnily enough, I wasn't scared in the least of them? huh.... weird,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.
  11. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    What if the word "Race" is replaced by "Populations?"

    Geneticists and biologists are quite familiar with the variations in behavior and genetic makeup among disparate populations of the same species. Some populations are capable of interbreeding, but for whatever reason, choose not to. The line between what to call a population and a species becomes quite blurred in these scenarios.

    We do know that drug efficacy can vary among human populations. Ignoring this fact for the sake of political correctness seems like harming a thing in the attempt to honor it.

    I see the debate as an extension of the naturalistic fallacy. The people who deny race are terrified that its presence would justify racism, but it wouldn't. There is no ethical correlation between what occurs in nature and what is "right" or "good." If race exists, that says nothing about the evil of racism, which seems to me an objective moral truth. By avoiding this discussion on ethics, and waging a war on the muddy and fuzzy ground of genetics and race (a difficult task even for those who study beetles and butterflies), we seem to allow racists to get away with pretending their moral failure is up for debate.

    I'd prefer to say: "Race exists and racism is reprehensible."
  12. Oldboy Registered Member

    I don't believe in skin color races SO MUCH. To a huge degree, nahmean?

    But the two most ELEVANT races that I do believe in are MALE and FEMALE
  13. soullust Registered Senior Member

    no and yes, there are black, yellows, reds,whites etc.

    in anyother species cats, dogs, fish, they would be considered a same but different species, when they are the same species, but there not the breed.
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    That post was made in 2007. Congratulations on your successful thread necromancy.
    A population is merely the total members of a species who live in one place. They do not necessarily differ genetically from other populations. A supspecies is a population that differs genetically from other populations. 25,000 years ago the original four races of Homo sapiens--negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid and native Australian--were geographically separated and therefore were populations. But they had been separated so long that mutations and genetic drift caused them to differ genetically from one another, so they qualified as subspecies.

    Today, their descendants have intermarried for so many hundreds of generations that there are no longer definitive genetic identifiers to separate them into subspecies, only the echoes of long-lost distinctions that can be identified statistically but not individually. So they are no longer subspecies.

    Furthermore, due to transportation technology, economics and politics, vast numbers of individuals have migrated among the ancestral homelands, so they can no longer be said to each live in one place. Therefore they are not even populations.

    There is no valid scientific reason to use the term "race" when describing humans. It is strictly a cultural term and its meaning is vague.
    Depends on the species, and even the breed. My wife and I breed Lhasa Apsos, and color is irrelevant to the breed standard, although white is rare and more expensive.

    Remember that humans are remarkable for having predominantly bare skin, allowing us to see each other's skin color. Most mammals are almost completely covered with hair, so when you talk about their "color," you're only talking about hair color.
  15. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    I disagree with you there. Sure, some individual members have moved and interbred, but a handful of individuals leaving one population and interbreeding with another population does not mean the two populations have become one.

    Also, the likelihood that a population does not differ genetically from another population it has been separated from for hundreds of years (much less tens of thousands), is statistically impossible. It would require the same mutations and environmental selection to occur in tandem between two gene pools. Again, not likely.

    Different groups of humans have (on average) different metabolisms. Whether or not members of each group are likely to be able to metabolize lactose, for instance, will depend on whether or not that group spent considerable time herding diary animals. Susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia can depend on whether or not they live in malaria-plagued tropics. Some Native American tribes could not metabolize alcohol the same way Europeans could. Survivors of the black plague may have an increased hardiness to the AIDS virus. There are real differences between any two groups that have not been interbreeding, which is still the case for much of humanity, even when those races live next door to one another. That isn't startling, when you think about it. Mating preferences are built-in over thousands of generations of sexual selection. That we don't interbreed more often is not surprising.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Those are not equivalent divisions.

    It's as if one were to classify dogs into four races: labs, huskies, terriers, and "other".

Share This Page