"Is Race Real?"

Historically, it has been proven as such. I dropped the bulk of your message as it was you losing control of yourself, and thus wasn't relevant to the debate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sodomy

actually, quite the opposite based on population genetics theory.

wrong. what 'repeated patterns?' race cannot be ID'ed genetically, because it doesn't exist. differences in degree have no bearing in how data are analyzed. are you being obtuse on purpose?

which is my point, they CANNOT be grouped by race.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: sodomy

Careful semantic evasion, but I think you're missing my point: race doesn't have a single marker. You're assuming that in order for it to exist one must. Wrong thinking, according to those who do believe in race.

Also regarding history, can you point out where that happened in the works of Tacitus? I'd love to read it!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Re: sodomy

no evasion, science.

race exists as a social and cultural construct. you don't need biology (human races don't exist biologically, as I've stated) you only need, as you've stated, belief. of course, beliefs are completely independent of reality. i believe giant pink invisible elephants orbit the earth.

never heard of Tacitus, but if you're trying to invoke scientific learning over 2000 years old, then you need to go to the philosophy threads. it's not relevant to this thread.

i think you are being obtuse on purpose. please reread my earlier posts.
i.e.,

 

Re: Re: Re: sodomy

1 - You've posted no proof or convincing argumentation here. In fact, your best argument was misreading race by looking for a single marker - not correct.

2 - Knowledge is cumulative.

 

paulsamuel
race is defined multitudinously, which is a characteristic of social and cultural constructs, i.e., they mean different things to different people, depending upon how one defines the term. this is much rarer in science where communication is more important for the exchange of ideas and terms must have only a single meaning.

We are both aware of how the term is used and how it varies and how in science it does not . This however does not disprove the fact that there should be a scientifical term for the obvious characterstics .

to answer your question (i'm guessing that by 'racial characteristics, you mean things like skin color, epicanthic folds in eyelids, etc.), then, biologically, these traits fall within the whole suite of human genetic and morphological variation.

However they are a distinct group as they are showing and are passed genetically whereas over the years this has created similar physical groups . So there should be a more specific place for these characteristics rather than within the totality of human genetics .

genealogical data, (family tree examples) are biological data and can be treated as such.

But you are not willing to consider these specific biological data into a race , why ? Obviously because you dont feel they can be grouped based on the differences within race than between races . However you then judge this by genetic characteristics that have nothing to do with the physical presentation of man , why ? This reasoning is simply not logical , you can group them it shows Slavic peoples are different from Amharic peoples , if you deny race you deny that there are non-individual physical differences between these groups , and that simply is not reality .

So weither we call it race or not , these specific characteristics are biological and based on their physical commoneness they should be grouped

CS
Family members can be identified according to repeated patterns; so can race. These groupings aren't near of the same scale so comparing them is argumentative error.

Differning in quantity does not mean differing in quality . It is you without logical conjecture , a race is nothing but a huge family of peoples .

 

ghassan and sodomy

i'll try once more and then that's it (i thought originally that you came here to learn but i see that this is not the case)

this will be in the form of an example

take a group of mixed people (africans, caucasians, asians, etc.). compare their genotypes. there is no racial groupng. they're all mixed together. the reason? there is no biological racial separation between them. any superficial differences are merely among overall human variation.

you'll find no biological support for your racism.

 

Re: ghassan and sodomy

In mixed populations, of course this would be true - they're mixed.

You still haven't understood what we're saying, either. Dogma?

 

First of all Paul I am not CS and do not wish to be spoken to as if I am .

Secondly I have no racist views .

I have one point to make : Then why does a group of historical peoples of one region over the years gained/kept a distinct physical possibility for classification as a group ?

Do you denie for instance the physical relevance Somali have ? Do they not have the essential genetical differences with other peoples on those physical subjects that have been appointed to describe as race .

Sure we should perfect thise method of describng , but you cannot deny the relevance or existence of it . Like I said you then deny any relevance between charateristics of a peoples and those same peoples as a group .

Do you do such ?

CS :
In mixed populations, of course this would be true - they're mixed.

every race is a mix between other races itself . This because man mixes with woman to start of with , over time if you dont want extreme inbreeding you expand and things change .

For instance in latin America a mestizo race is being developped , something you didnt have prior to 1500 . Many examples for racial mixture into new races can be given that prove you mixing is what creates races in the first place .

His point is not valid for different reasons than that they're mixed , they're always mixed somehow .

 

Ghassan Kanafani,

Sure people of a "race" usually have common physical traits but this is not universal: there are many Somali for example with exceptional differences and ancestry, thus biologically the conventional concepts of race are meaningless.

 

Many races are mixes, but not all.

They have become discernible populations however.

 

apparently the 'racists' are not willing to discuss this on a 'scientific' level, and I would like to ask a moderator to move this thread to a more suitable forum, such as politics, ethics, religion or whatever.

 

Actually, I was quite in control. And, as I've noticed your posts in other threads and later posts here, hypothesis #4 appears to be the more valid one. Any one of these quotes holds no weight on their own, but when looked at as a whole, there does seem to be a pattern.

The ‘Heil Satan’ post, while interesting, was an obvious attempt at humor, but Freud would certainly find it more than a cigar.


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=393960#post393960

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=393880#post393880

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=393467#post393467

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=393360#post393360

Very telling, in my opinion, is the repeated mention of the "mixing of races," which you note as problematic. Mitachondrial DNA studies have suggested that Man is largely the product of common ancestry in Africa. So it would, therefore, be logical to assume that the differences arised based upon environmental adaptations and need not be exclusive to any group of people. The "mixing" has been occuring for over probably more than 50,000 years among homo sapiens sapiens.

I must agree with spuriousmonkey, there doesn't seem to be a willingness to discuss on a scientific level as "beliefs" are the tenents of your arguments.

 

It has been discussed on a scientific level, but the "scientists" seem unwilling to accept that their position is logically and argumentatively unsound.

Your tactics suggest defeat.

 

Another illogical statement from you! We were once, perhaps, the same race in Africa, but then 200,000+ years of evolution intervened. Now we're different races.

See why this kind of "science" isn't seen as credible?

 

Don't kid yourself. I don't care about your attempts to draw me in this pitfall of poo. It is nice that you can better assess what scientific is than scientists. Let me assess then that we don't care that you think you won. Science is not about winning. But go ahead and think you won something if that pleases you and your 'logic'.

 

I think CS is right in sofar that scientists are letting their own emotional moral get in the way of establishing racial phenomena .

Yes his intentions may be racist mine are not as I hold no value in race . Does this change the fact that there are groups of peoples that share this similarities that we can experience ?

So please spurious , if you say "racists" are not willing to discuss this on a scientific level be aware that I am not a racist and I am willing to do as you suppose . However there is not one argument given why we should not group these characteristics , while it is obvious they have historical & anthropological relevance of mankinds evolution .

The only argument I have heard a million times is the difference within races between all genes , wich obviously are irellevant genes to race . It is like stating that 1 & 1 is not 2 because of A & B isnt 2 either .

Fetus
Sure people of a "race" usually have common physical traits but this is not universal: there are many Somali for example with exceptional differences and ancestry, thus biologically the conventional concepts of race are meaningless.

Those traits show the core , as you will find the "other" traits show rather little varyiation (in compare to other races) and they show how there has been mixed , which has anthropological value to show how a peoples have been developping in a given region .

The fact that there are differences only shows us that we should explore how these difference relate to the given race and the races surrounding it . The race should not be seen as an absolute given but a developped and still developping phenomena of we can see only directly the core , and that core would be what we call race .

 

the existence of differences doesn't mean automatically different races. It is your wishful thinking that does that.

 

the existence of differences doesn't mean automatically different races. It is your wishful thinking that does that.

Wishfull thinking ? As if I would wish races would exist ? Get yourself together will ya !!

The matter of fact is that there exist groups of peoples with physical common within anthropological and historical context .

I dont care how u gonna call them and i dont care how much you want them to be there or not , you simply cannot deny the existence of such groups .

Obviously their charateristics are biological , so really ....

 

I asked a simple question: List a set of traits that will always specify a race and then classify those races. If you cannot list those traits, if there is no genetic code for race, if there is no SCIENTIFIC way to quantify the term race, then it is at best sociological and at worst nonsense.

The matter of fact is that there exist groups of peoples with physical common within anthropological and historical context .
I dont care how u gonna call them and i dont care how much you want them to be there or not , you simply cannot deny the existence of such groups . Obviously their charateristics are biological , so really ....

The above statement is illogical. Race holds no anthropological value. Cultures do. It serves no anthropological purpose to group all Europeans as caucasian. The only reason why this is done is simply because the discipline is still based on ancient and false thinking. Sociologically--as I previously stated, groups are best quantified sociologically using such data as income range, locality, etc. The only time race serves any purpose sociologically is when it is linked with racial discrimmination or prejudice. Thus you can correlate race and arrests as the motives are supposedly racial; it is however better to correlate education level with income and not race.