"Is Race Real?"

did you already explain the faults in your argument?

and don't be so pumpous pretending you know better than the people in the field. Maybe that makes an impression in a religion forum, but not here. We don't score points here on how strong is your faith in your own opinion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

did you already explain the faults in your argument?

Thats not my argument

And please stop giving me this peoples-on-the field crap and dont be such an elitist with your biology-section , its pathetic really if u wanna be so stuck-up at least go to a university and whine there not on some forum on the internet a 6 year old can acces and barf his material about , and quite frankly you sound like one of those .

Please respond rather to the points instead of falling back onto this logical fallacy you make up for yourself .

Nobody is saying that genetic markers have to lead to races , however in this respect they do .

You tell me , there is no reason whatsoever to assume a group like Somali can be consider as one outside of their language/culture/nationality ?

Tell me

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ghassan Kanafani,

Skin color is determines by many gene of which a mix of them will determine a skin color. Lets say that 6 genes with 12 possible alleles (on/off) all though in reality it there are more genes and the alleles are not digital in function (the number of genes and alleles that determine skin color is still not known but it is beyond a dozen and counting) with are 6 gene system of 2 possible alleles each there are 64 possible combinations, lets say that all six “off” is albino like and all 6 “on” is coal black, that would mean there is a maximum of 60 hues in between, of which many different combinations would be associated with black, white, asian, latino, ect, no one gene or allele would be associated with just one race.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

we have been trying to tell you that in the field of population genetics we don't see anything that qualifies as human races. But you feel that there are. Where exactly is your argument then? You feel there is so there is?

 

Fetus :

Thanks for the info on skincolor genes .

no one gene or allele would be associated with just one race.


Nobody said that , but a distinct combination would be associated rather with one race than another .

And not to forget , race is based on more than 1 trait .

 

we have been trying to tell you that in the field of population genetics we don't see anything that qualifies as human races. But you feel that there are. Where exactly is your argument then? You feel there is so there is?

And your argument for this was the overal genetical variation between races is smaller than within , and the refutation is that for the phenomena race not all genes are relevant so those differences between non-relevant genes has no meaning whatsoever for race .

My argument that there are is quite simple , there are groups of peoples with distinct traits and these traits are biologically based & passed on through genes , therefor we need a biological existence of this group of trait-sharers .

Again I ask you , do you acknowledge the existence of such groups ? If not , then why do we see such groups there ? Why do we not see all kinds of Somali ?

 

I shall tell you once more then, because you are one of those people that don't listen.

You assume races exist

you then try to fit the evidence to your assumption

you ignore what the current field thinks about this topic.

you do this mainly because it doesn't fit your (unfounded) assumption

you pretend you are right because you shout the loudest.

-----


and you may pretend we are not biologists, but basically you can go and fuck yourself if you have this attitude. There is nothing scientific in your position, and what's worse, you don't care and just abuse information for your own purposes.

 

many combinations could be associated with a race not just a distinct one, and many races would share some common combinations. If you want to classify people by traits you will end up with thousand of different classification criteria and nothing will fit in the common defined races.

 

and your whole argument is based on this particular fallacy. We can see that there are races, therefore there are races.

and who gives a fuck what modern biology thinks about this particular topic in your opinion. You see it, so you must be right.

the earth is also probably the center in your tiny universe.


Edit: I can't believe I wasted my last post for a long time on this shit.

 

Spurious :
You assume races exist

No I assume distinct physical traits exist in groups , and I know that their basis is genetical .

you ignore what the current field thinks about this topic.

I dont ignore anything I refure their argument , how many times do I have to repeat it :

not all genes are relevant so those differences between non-relevant genes has no meaning whatsoever for race .

you do this mainly because it doesn't fit your (unfounded) assumption

That refutation has only to do with its logical error of implying ALL genes while only few are relevant .

you pretend you are right because you shout the loudest.

How the hell does one shout the loudest on a forum ?

Stop being so childish will ya ?

Fetus :
many combinations could be associated with a race not just a distinct one, and many races would share some common combinations. If you want to classify people by traits you will end up with thousand of different classification criteria and nothing will fit in the common defined races.

I understand that many combinations could be associated with a race , and I understand that many races would share combinations , however somewhere there would be difference as difference clearly shows amongst the peoples . Its not coincidence , and I understand its quite complex , but that doesnt mean that its not possible or that it is not there .

As for the common races , nobody is arguing about todays defintions they're a joke .

But there are groups that fit into groups that fit into another group eventually ending up with a couple of groups that make 1 specie , humans .

The practical advantage for racial identification lies in sub-sub-sub etc groups , but the anthropological relevance deals with history thus with the groups put together and making a new group and so on . Our linguistic sciences help us out alot doing this , however they are not accurate since they are cultural , and that is what racial science can help us with .

 

Edit: I can't believe I wasted my last post for a long time on this shit.

I cant believe u can find logic in what u said right there

 

I will give you my last post then:

fuck off arrogant little twat.

 

I will give you my last post then:

fuck off arrogant little twat.

What a level for such an elitist "we-speaking" biology-scientist

Calling me names doesnt prove you're right . Rather proves your emotional instability leading to the mess in your head involving race I mentioned previously .

Seek help , its for your own good

 

ghassan

this is where you're confused. the genetic markers that can ID someone according to skin color cannot subsequently say anything about their movements (presumably you mean historical migratory patterns) nor can they be used for historical or anthropological purposes. the reason is, as i have stated twice before, is because there are many more genetic differences between individuals within a population than between individuals among populations. don't take our word for it. there are many sources in the literature. see:
Williams SM, Templeton AR. Race and genomics.
N Engl J Med. 2003 Jun 19;348(25):2581-2. or
Evolutionary Biology by Futyma, use the index to look up human race and genetics (he actually has a quite good description of what we've been trying to explain to you).

i have not seen the data for the Somali tribe(s?), but our contention is that there is no genetic data that would group all somali's exclusive of everyone else. i could be wrong about this, but this is the way its explained by pop.gen.

 

My last post is that if you want to define people into hundreds or thousand of subsets (races) that’s your problem. I will never look at such a practice as useful or relevant, the measurement of the individual is far more useful and practical (most of all fair) over some bureaucratic complex grouping system based of probability of genetic combinations.

 

Fetus your point has been made very clear and your position is appreciated . The emphasis then simply lies on what you consider relevant or not with such practices , not weither there is logical validity for them .

My last point to you would be that it is not individual relevancy that comes out of such practices , but it lies fields dealing with collectives .

paulsamuel :

i have not seen the data for the Somali tribe(s?), but our contention is that there is no genetic data that would group all somali's exclusive of everyone else. i could be wrong about this, but this is the way its explained by pop.gen.

Im not gonna give you data obviously there has been no such research , if you would be familliar with these peoples you would see the physical differences between them as a peoples and other surrounding ethnic groups .

My question to you is what relevance would it have for you if I give you their traits ? How would this have meaning in our conversation , other than simply the premis that they are there ?

If you wish to research these peoples anthropologically be my guest and I will assist , we have all facilities . However for this discussion me doing all that efford isnt really of any use , or value . You then would have to accept as a premis that they have distinct & specific traits that makes them as a group different from the other groups .

This is simply anthropological data , however the biological link is there when these traits we anthropologically describe have genetic resemblence , as is necesarry for them to have since the traits have been passed on from parents to children .

the genetic markers that can ID someone according to skin color cannot subsequently say anything about their movements (presumably you mean historical migratory patterns) nor can they be used for historical or anthropological purposes

They dont need to say anything of their movement , the identifaid thrait shows their movement within anthropological research . And that is exactly where the value is .

For instance . Lets take that infamouse "Jew-nose" our noble friend monkey came up with .

Be it that it has little to do with Judaism , it is a specific formation of a nose , and there are many peoples who share such . However you can see that it shows a certain movement of peoples as you find where such types of noses can be found moset , which is within the Slavic-Turkic ethnic groups . Obviously after somany years of mixing it spread since it can easily be taken along when the selection for genes takes place and can go everywhere , however it has somwhere its origin and that origin can be traced back and relevant data for their migration/mixing can be unfolded .

Now the point then would be , do we have such genetic information , or rather is it possible to obtain such genetical information ? Obviously it is , since it is a trait passed on within a peoples from parents to children .

So if we can ID it , this would be a way you can use it in anthropologically and historically .

the reason is, as i have stated twice before, is because there are many more genetic differences between individuals within a population than between individuals among populations. don't take our word for it. there are many sources in the literature. see:


Its not that i dont believe your reason , I understand your reason . However your reason is simply not valid . Why ? Because race does not deal with all genes , just those relevant for the definition we are giving race .

Your argument goes like . Racial resemblance isnt real , because 25.000 genes who have nothing to do with anything race stands for , can differ more than it does with other who do not have our racial commonness .

If you believe I simply misunderstand your argument and should read that person you mentioned could you then show me a link , I have looked around but all I could find dealt with very primitive & laughable understandings of race (white/yellow/red/black) &
some research on Ashkenazim Jewry (who are not a distinct race) .

So......

 

and what "collectives" are we talking about here?

 

The following is meant in a humorous way only

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers.

 

Fetus :

U said : the measurement of the individual is far more useful and practical (most of all fair)

Not in historical or anthropological sense , there are no individuals to be measured but groups of peoples .

The fact you bring in fair shows the moral implication this issue has with you , exactly as I expect it has with all others here who either deny it or believe it to have any individual value (racists) .

You should leave morality out of science in this sense , fair has no relevance whatsoever .

 

we're saying they don't exist and there's lots of population genetics evidence on which we've based this conclusion.

the reason one cannot just pick the genes that one considers 'relevant' is that it introduces subjectivity to the analyses, in other words, it biases the conclusions based on such an experiment

we're saying no, there isn't.

yes, but these groups are merely genealogical and physical traits that one would consider 'race' are mixed up and into even family trees.

the problem is that these 'racial' traits DO NOT correspond to population history or biology. the conclusion is if one groups people based on some trait like skin color, that's the only thing you get, a group of people with same or similar skin color. it DOES NOT reflect anything else about that group including anthropology, history or evolution.