The difference is that we have two things which are BOTH caused by the same thing... genes. Somebodes visual features and chance for disease/ancesteral location are both determined by genes.
Well, as far as I know there were no initial meaningful relationships. I've mentally split them up into groups that DO have a high probability of meaningful relationships. Yeah, I know your position is tough. I also understand that from a genetic point of view race is under dispute.... but the word 'race' is not used for humans the same it is for birds. Moreover, humans have had "geographical, genealogical, familial (and therefore genetic) distinctions" which still persist to this day... even if they are more 'mixed'. If you were to move your two groups of orioles to the same location, they wouldn't very quickly become 1 race. Humans are more and mix breeding which will EVENTUALLY make the notion of race worthless. As it is, the worth is still there for the majority of people. Would an oriole who's great great great grandmother was of a different race not have a race at all? Would orioles suddenly not have race anymore?
what makes you think there will be a high probability. where's your data? your references? what do you consider meaningful? i don't think you would find anything except a bunch of blondes and a bunch of brunettes. yes it is the same, unless they changed the meaning of race and didn't tell the biologists. alternatively, like many other words, it has been misused so much that the misuse is now an accepted definition. I've seen this happen before. If that's the case, then it supports my point that race in humans has no basis in science and is merely a cultural and social construct. That's correct, but THEY DO NOT CORRELATE WITH ANY PHENOTYPICAL TRAIT LIKE SKIN COLOR!!!!!!!!!!!! Which is my point! It has been shown that they would never mix, except in a narrow geographical margin. This distinctiveness in mating can lead to speciation. In contrast, humans readily mix across their diverse spectrum, another indication of the lack of races in humans. There are 2 races of orioles. re: grandmother; depends on how distinct the population remained. if the 2 races of orioles became homogenized through migration and mixing, then no, race could not be distinguished and there would no longer be races of orioles.
Actually no. Blondes have a higher chance of being blue eyed. Likewise, different races have demonstrated different chances of developing certain diseases under similar conditions. The most obvious example is that facial features and skin colors 'travel together' down family trees. I'd imagine that the term was originally based only on observation, and science later found that it most cases the observed differences are do to genetic isolation... and this lead to a revised definition. Not the other way around. Either way the end result is that the scientific definition is not the popular definition. It's like if we expected everybody to use the word "not" like it is used in logic. I agree completely that it is a cultural/social construct. I disagree that it has no basis in science. Are you trying to tell me that geographic location and family trees have no bearing on skin color? Please explain why these are less related then the differences visible in orioles. Well that's the point isn't it? The majority of humans are NOT homogenized. This is ONLY common in SOME first world countries.
true, but you could not make races on that, if everybody that had the alleles for sickle-cell or delta 32, were a race, then were do you draw the line? I must be of the hazel-green eyed, susceptible to allergies, cold & heat tolerant, lactose-intolerant race, only prob; most of my near relatives would be of the brown-eyed, not susceptible to allergies, cold tolerant, heat intolerant, lactose tolerant race
The biological factors underlying race differences in sports have consequences for educational achievement, crime and sexual behavior. In educational achievement and occupational success, Orientals average slightly ahead of Whites, who average substantially ahead of Blacks. On standardized IQ tests, hundreds of studies show this three-way pattern. Most IQ tests have an average score of 100, with a "normal" range from 85 to 115. Whites average from 100 to 103. Orientals in Asia and the U.S. tend to have higher scores, about 106, even though IQ tests were made for the Euro-American culture. Blacks in the U.S., the Caribbean, Britain and Africa average lower IQs-about 85. The lowest average IQs are found for sub-Saharan Africans-from 70 to 75. The relation between brain size and intelligence has been shown by dozens of studies, including state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging. Orientals average 1 cubic inch more brain matter than Whites, and Whites average a very large 5 cubic inches more than Blacks. Since one cubic inch of brain matter contains millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of nerve connections, brain size differences help to explain why the races differ in IQ. Racial differences in brain size show up early in life as well. The U.S. Collaborative Perinatal Project followed more than 50,000 children from birth to seven years. In the 1997 issue of the journal Intelligence, showed that these Orientals had larger brains than Whites at birth, four months, one year, and seven years; the Whites had larger brains than Blacks at all ages. In the United States, Orientals are seen as a "model minority." They have fewer divorces, out-of-wedlock births, and fewer reports of child abuse than Whites. More Orientals graduate from college and fewer go to prison. Blacks, on the other hand, are 12% of the American population but make up 50% of the prison population.
Races were originally defined based on mostly consistent visual differences between animals of the same species. Humans fit this. It was then expanded to include mostly seperate breeding pools. Humans still fit this. It was then expanded to include genetic differences. Humans fit this, if only based on the above referenced visual differences. Races have historically been based on visual differences. Only latter did it expand, but humans still seem to fit the scientific definition. But regardless, when average people talk about race, it is in reference to two things: 1) what they look like 2) who their ancestors were Humans still fit this. You happen to be one of those orioles who is the result of two (or more) different races. The fact is that ALL races of ALL species have some mixing of genes. The question at what level does it no longer count as a race. I'm saying that it is when you can no longer seperate identify what group most of the population belongs to. We are not at that point, as the vast majority of humankind is still not mobile and is still mostly geographically/genetically isolated. Edit: I'm guessing that I'm missing some central part of the anti-race argument, because I can't really see the difference between the animal races and the human races.
BigD, we all agree that differences are possible. You listing the same stuff over and over again isn't really helping the discussion any.
reference please. THERE ARE NO RACES!!!!!!!!!!!!! linkage is completely independent of race. if you're going to invoke some genetic concepts, at least do some rudimentary research on what you are invoking. popularity is independent of definition. race is what it is, which is independent of humans altogether, let alone their beliefs. what you believe is independent of reality. SHOW ME that it has a basis in science. I have shown you numerous scientific references which you have refused to read. Read them or shut up. you're just spouting your beliefs which have NOTHING to do with reality. don't waste my fucking time. learn or fuck off. No, I'm saying these have nothing to do with race! Because differentiation and isolation had more time to manifest itself in phenotypic, genetic, and behavioral traits in orioles than in humans. humans are homogenized genetically. READ THE REFERENCES! Do some fucking thing.
You are falsely assuming that becasue there are groups of humans that are genetically distinct (i.e. families, tribes, etc.), that this means that there are races. This is not the case. Any group of humans, to be distinguished a race, will need to be genetically distinct from any other group of humans. This excludes probability. Any probability that the group shares genetic diversity, excludes them from being a race. Race is one step before species. They are virtually different species. A human example is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. This is the only possible other race of humans. What I'm saying to you is that you need to read. Obviously, you won't listen to me. So READ!!!!!! I tried to give you a start, but you won't read. Well, try to stay away from the nut jobs (i.e. KKK and Aryan Brotherhood). Good luck in your future. I'm done with you.
"The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis" - Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project No, that's just the point. The genes that code for disease are in no way bound to the genes that code for skin color*. Sometimes they travel together within a population but sometimes they do not. Therefore, unless you begin with the presumed definition of population, they have no relevance to each other. *To be precise, not even all the same alleles that code for skin color travel together. There are believed to be 6 genes that code for skin color, how many additive alleles you have determines that darkness of your skin color. If your mother has 2 and your father has 4 you can have anything from 1-5 getting 3 from each parent (with the average being in the middle, of course). How do you determine race in such a setting? "The question, though, is really about race as a scientific or analytical category. It doesn't work as such, for a number of reasons. For one, definitions of race are always based on social definitions. They are socially defined, and thus entirely fluid and unstable, and they vary from time to time and place to place. Secondly, on the biological side, we've all come to realize the incredible amount of variation within any so-called race. So the greater the amount of variation within, the greater the number of variables that you're going to need to define a race. But why even begin to go down that road when there really is no underlying analytical or biological reality in the idea of race in the first place. On a grand scale, I really can't find a reason to think that races would have any sort of reality to them, in terms of selection and evolution." http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-01.htm (The second Q) Actually, no. Race was originally defined based upon visual differences between humans, not animals. Race wasn't animal science turned towards humans; race has never been about science. It is about justifying warfare, slavery, and segregation. Mankind had no concept of race until the Imperial Age when they started sailing around to different parts of the world and concurring other peoples. http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-02.htm Humans don't have separate breeding pools. The modern concept of race is built upon distance, not division. That's why the concept of race is defined by the ends of the continents. Didn't you ever notice how no one tries to define race in those middle regions? No, we don't. There is more variation between individuals than between races. Therefore two people of different races may be more closely related than two people of the same race. Get it? ~Raithere
The ironic thing is that our dear racist make a huge fuzz about the (technically non-existing) genetic 'differences' between 'races', but fail to apply racism to the genetically most distant 'races' of humans existing today. Yes, that is right. There are really some major genetic differences between humans that you should really get excited about. That is of course the enormous genetic difference between the male and female subset of the human population. The genetic differences between the female and male sex is on a totally different (higher) order than any of the differences that might occur between other subsets of the population. Why don't you racists turn back the clock 100 years and start bitching on how inferior women are? (or men if you are a feminist) After all, that is where some REAL genetic difference lies.
Maybe genetics aren't the point then? I mean I know I'm closer related to my sister than I am some dude in papua new guinea.
Your sister yes, you neighbour, maybe. The genetic similarties seem to decrease quite rapidly within the family structure. our childern - 50% genes in common our siblings - 50% half brothers/sisters/first cousins - 25% after that...who knows...I don't like math (probably made a mistake here too)
So basically it seems like biologically races do not exist as defined for other species. My issue is, if the genes that define external features have split into various branches (what is refered to as most people by race) then why have other non-visual genes not done the same?
You are now making assumptions. Let's ask some questions first. Are there genes that define external features as such? And how do they do this?
They are genders not races. I know u have races in inverted commas but I think the racists feel they don't have to pick on women or men because genders are 'allowed' to be different Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! as opposed to the sexist groups and feminists thinking!!!
There's more genetic variety among racists than there is between racists and non-racists so racists don't really exist anyway.
Almost, except that there is probably some evolutionary advantage to the concept behind racism (kin first, rest later). Hence it is not quite surprising that there are racists, but they are just tricked by a deeper evolutionary treachery. (and the fact that racism might have a biological basis does not make it morally ok)
