In what sense are you using the term family? I certainly hope you're not referring to taxonomy. Or are you suggesting that race can be broken into familial groupings... in which case, I agree, your family and your cousin's family are separate races. In fact, why stop there? There is enough genetic variance to differentiate you from the other members of your family; therefore you must be a different race than your father or your brother. Okay, how about next time you attempt to actually respond to my points rather than wandering off into fantasy land? Yes, in science we call it empirical evidence. The difference is that in science we don't just stop with superficial observations but attempt to understand the details and the mechanisms involved... and that makes all the difference. I don't know what you're talking about. Deny what? That people have different colored skin? I don't. What I deny is that it has any particular significance. And until someone can show me some evidence that it does I'll continue to stand by my opinion that race is an arbitrary and all but meaningless distinction that does not withstand scientific scrutiny. How is this relevant to me, what I've been saying, or the argument in general? How does it behoove you to become emotional and insulting in reply? ~Raithere
Raithere, In your opinion do the races (as commonly defined) of humans not clarify as races (as used for animals in science) because they are not different enough? Deny what? That people have different colored skin? I don't. What I deny is that it has any particular significance. Please correct me if I'm wrong in any of this. What we define culturally as race is the result of a persons genes. It is not a single gene, although still a small sample. This seems to suggest that groups of humans were largely isolated from one another, and this resulted in the differences developed. Now, in my mind these differences would not be limited to visible features. Fast forward to today, and the people that came from these groups are still largely identifiable and still somewhat isolated. Wouldn't it then make sense to assume that biological/medical differences/probabilities between the groups could be the result of which group they originated from? I find it difficult to believe that genes for skin color and facial features have persisted, but non-visible ones have not. Granted, they may be small differences (which I think is your reason for not wanting to call it race) but they are differences. How is this relevant to me, what I've been saying, or the argument in general? How does it behoove you to become emotional and insulting in reply? I doubt he was talking about you...
I can't beleive what I am reading. Are there actually people here that are arguing that different races of humans aren't signifigantly different enough for making differentiation... For crying out loud the simple fact that there are different skin color humans means some are more susceptible to skin cancer from UV radiation. Every slight difference could have who knows how many implications in the overall susceptibillity to different diseases and god knows how many other things. Lower average height while living among people taller could lead to more average stress due to intimidation factors relating to other people. Higher average height could magnify any cardiovascular problems because of the greater amount of work needed to be done. And paul all your posts are 90% insults and propaganda. Stop whining for crying out loud, if you had good points I don't think you would feel the need to do that... Who gives a crap what exact terminology is used... different races are signifigantly different, and since we are the species in question its not the same as when we are carachterizing other animals.
your statement makes no sense, there are no 'different races of humans,' therefore one cannot speak of their differentiation. All it takes is a modicum of critical thought and maybe some simple reading to help. Try this: suppose we start collecting black rocks from around the world. We put them all in one pile and call them a 'race.' Is this valid? Upon closer examination, we find that we have lumped coal, pumice, obsidian, lava, a'a', puhoe'hoe. Coal from West virginia, England and Asia are more closely related than coal, obsidian and pumice from Asia. Add in white rocks. Are all the above black rocks more like each other than white rocks. Isn't black granite and white granite and pink granite more close to each other than black granite and coal. Yes, they are. you either have not read my posts, or you read them and did not understand them. Perhaps you should focus on the references I provided. It has nothing to do with terminology, it has to do with biology.
"your statement makes no sense, there are no 'different races of humans,' therefore one cannot speak of their differentiation." Begs the question. "Try this: suppose we start collecting black rocks from around the world. We put them all in one pile and call them a 'race.' Is this valid? Upon closer examination, we find that we have lumped coal, pumice, obsidian, lava, a'a', puhoe'hoe. Coal from West virginia, England and Asia are more closely related than coal, obsidian and pumice from Asia. Add in white rocks. Are all the above black rocks more like each other than white rocks. Isn't black granite and white granite and pink granite more close to each other than black granite and coal. Yes, they are." An argument by comparison is only as strong as the comparison. Race is not solely determined by skin color. Ironically, your comparison supports dividing humans into racial groupings - just as we recognize the morphological differences of obsidian and basalt, we recognize the differences between North Asiatics and Alpine Whites.
Xev, a Rocks a Rock. Alright you might see more but the basis is a Rock is a rock, it's inanimate and the only thing that you could really point major difference to is a lifeform of some description. With Race or Ethnicity, then the reality is that we all share common bonds and therefore don't have such a distinguishing difference. To call someone different because they have differences in how they are and where they come from, is very trivial. If they had six legs and eels for hair I could understand where you could potentially bring your aspects of racism into effect, however the likelihood of that happening is remote and it would only be because hairdressers would complain about styling.
If you are arguing that there is no differentiation in humans then you truely are an ignorant man. This is probably one of the best circular responses I've seen lately. Everything on this planet has a common bond. You can't really say that differences don't exist, because some of them are obviously visible. It is a huge stretch to assume that only visible featuresare different between the groups. The only discussion is if these differences qualify under the scientific definition of race.
Xev may not be the best moderator (I'm not saying that she is not the best moderator, though), but you guys really need to stop picking on her. It's getting old............ Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't think that a conversation on what to call "Race" would really be much of a topic, the underlining aspects of why the thread exists for other reasons. I would guess you could be so bold to look at why "Race" exists, the simple answer is "Survival". Different conditions, foodsources, temperatures and diseases is where races roots were founded, with the aspects of the slight alterations that cause diversity humanity has a chance to survive the greatest of threats as a whole. If the Nazi's had been able to carry out their entire aspect of Eugenic selection, removing what they thought was fault or weakness from the overall planet, the human race as a whole would have been doomed. Simplest reason would be that one instance of extreme alteration, a bug or virus, and everyone would have a common denominator making it spread like wildfire killing everyone. At least with diversity we have the chance of people naturally being resistant and holding the key to beating these superviruses and extreme events. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" - anon "... Just in case you trip and fall along the way."
Jesus, Xev! The analogy is NOT the argument. It's merely a clarification tool. You've justified nothing of your argument, which boils down to, there are obvious 'racial' characteristics among humans, therefore there are obviously human races. Talk about an invalid argument! You're lucky a philosopher doesn't smack you on the head with a logic textbook. Again, try reading the references, or something!!!! I've spelled out clearly in a number of posts why exactly there are no human races, I've provided scientific references. You refuse to learn, you refuse to read. You will, therefore, remain ignorant.
I'm not picking on her, I'm attacking her in direct response to her attacking me. I usually don't do it, but I can't put her on ignore, hence, I'll respond to each of her illogical, unscientific, misleading and deceptive posts.
Partially, yes, seeing as the variation from individual from individual is greater than the variation between races. But my primary argument is that our commonly defined classification of race is dependent on selecting only a certain group of traits and ignoring all the others. When we categorize populations based upon different traits we get different sets. The common definition of race is therefore just an arbitrary categorization. Finally, there are no empirical measurements for race; it relies purely upon subjective perception. For the most part (or perhaps entirely) the traits we use to define race are dependent on multiple alleles. But we don't use an empirical measure of these alleles to determine race, instead we use subjective perception. For instance there are believed to be 6 alleles that code for darkness of skin. If we were determining race empirically and only by skin color there should then be 7 races depending upon how many of these alleles were 'switched on' (0 through 6). Multiply this by the number of alleles that determine all the other traits and it becomes clearly obvious that no empirical measurement is being used. No, not really. It's a demonstration of natural selection not isolation. It shows that a population has been exposed to a particular selective pressure for a length of time. Isolation is not needed for the range of variation nor is it supported by the data. Instead the data evinces that no human population has been isolated for significant amount of time. Here's the crux of the issue. It is possible to do this but first you have to select the groups based upon criteria that are altogether irrelevant to the traits you're measuring. The methodology is backwards and invalid. For example let's look at sickle trait again. In no way is it linked to the traits by which we define race, in fact it's largely absent from most African populations. Instead the prevalence of the trait in any given population is related to the presence or absence of malaria. Thus we find sickle trait amongst certain African, Middle Eastern, and Indian populations. Other traits that provide a benefit against malaria are also present in certain populations in Africa, Middle Eastern, Indian, and Asian geographies. The question that pops up then is, "What does sickle cell have to do with race?" The answer to which is, "Nothing". If you go to highland or desert populations in Africa with the assumption that a certain percentage of the population will have sickle trait because of what race they are you'll find that you are in serious error. You'll find yourself in similar error if you go to lowland areas of India where malaria is prevalent with the presumption of not finding sickle trait. Another illuminating example is the production of lactase in adults. If we use this trait to categorize humans by we find one category that includes certain Northern European and African populations centered on certain loci. Meanwhile populations in other parts of these same continents and on other continents lack this trait. Again, race is irrelevant. Instead we find that the trait is linked to the historic consumption of milk in these populations, a cultural factor. There's a similar factor relating to the metabolism of alcohol and so on. The more we do this type of analysis the more apparent it becomes that the traits by which we determine race are only indicative of the traits by which we choose measure race and only relate to the pressures which affect the selection of those traits. Other traits lead to entirely different sets that are unrelated to the racial sets. Ultimately, the only factor really being measured by race is appearance. ~Raithere
Not when they're neighbors. A person who has an Egyptian heritage is likely to share more genes with an Italian than a Zulu. A Russian is likely to share more genes with a Chinese person than a Swede. Just how is it that you propose we differentiate the human race based upon a There's no problem with this but you need to be aware of the extent of such differences, what those differences mean and, more importantly, what they do not mean. Most popular treatments of race are significantly misleading or simply invalid. Certainly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ~Raithere
I have no definition of race. Basing race on genetic makeup would produce too many subdivisions that would eventually become meaningless. I like the idea of gathering data based on socioeconomic niches, that provides more useful social information than race alone. But that's not going to happen in the US. In Mexico, where I used to live, all social research was based on socioeconomic deciles.
Back in reality truth is not determined by what some idiot phd devoid of all common sense would like to be so. People aren't going to stop using the term race instantaneously, and even if they do eventually they will simply use a new term instead. Its a moot point, the word race is related to all the differences there are between different groups of people that people notice. Like big fat noses and coarse hair, or average height, whatever The point is different groups of our species split off from each other really far back in time and had time to progress on their own and develop different traits. First of all you attempt to use a metaphor to make a point in a serious discussion. This alone shows a tendency to use poor logic in arguments. While a metaphor might be justified if the two things are connected in every relevant way (rare), the only reason to use one rather than just explain your argument directly is to decieve people into believing inferior ideas. Lets talk about "critical thought" for a second. People's feelings that tell them weather something is true or false are based on deductive reasoning and past experience. There is room for error when peoples past experience isn't enough to judge properly or they have improperly associated it with something it is not relevant too. Where is the room for error in peoples assement of differences between each other? Your trying to argue against everyones everyday experiences and all common sense. That alone should send up a red flag for you. I don't need to study biology to see how absolutely rediculous this argument is. Anyways based on what little time I would allow such a rediculous argument, it seems obvious that it revolves around a complete manipulation of statistics. Everyone knows people pass traits on through reproduction and there is little change from generation to generation. So what, just because people have moved all over and interbreeded in the last few hundred years we are supposed to throw out the idea of race? As long as SOME people remain from the original groups that evolved for so long on different paths then it is prudent to retain differeniation between them. Interbreeding takes combinations of the traits from the different groups and produces people with traits from both groups. The original groups is what we have to work with in terms of traits though. People are not (not more than 1 in a million) going to be born with tails from the union of two african americans, they are not going to be born with white skin, they are going to be born looking similar to both their parents. Your argument would necessitate that they could be born completely different...
And you're just a plain old uneducated idiot with lots of bullshit opinions that mean shit! So you got 12 posts: I already put you on ignore once, I can do it again, but for curiosity sake, who are you? Who gives a shit??!!?? I don't fucking care what people do, but don't fucking tell me the earth is fucking flat and call it science, cause I'll tell you right where to fucking go! my point exactly. it's all arbitrary, has no basis in science, therefore a cultural and social construct. Bull-fucking-shit. What the fuck do you know about it. Can't you fucking read??!! That's exactly what science has disproved. Bull shit, there is no such tendancy! Just because you make something up, doesn't give it an independent reality. It's all in your little pea brain. Again, can't you fucking read??? Did you read those scientific references? Inferior ideas indeed. You're not fit to shine their shoes (the authors of those references I gave). Again, bull-fucking-shit! You're a god damn armchair pseudo-intellectual (emphasis on the pseudo). Science is background reading and RESEARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You attack my logic??!! My critical thought??? How does the number of people believing something have anything to do with its truth??? Watch out, some philosopher make smack you on the head with a logic textbook! Bull crap! you have NO idea what I'm talking about. You refuse to read! So you will remain in ignorance. Thank you for revealing how stupid you are. It's bound to come out sooner or later when you let a fool talk long enough. Lack of human races, and the fact of heredity are not mutually exclusive. You're advocating blending inheritance? It does not, and it shows that you have NO idea about what I'm talking about. You should be embarassed. I'm embarassed for you.
Paul, could you perhaps stop arguing this point? All you've been saying is 'you are wrong', while Raith has kindly been explaining. Insulting and cursing at people who disagree with your view isn't exactly convincing and definitely "[reveals] how stupid you are. It's bound to come out sooner or later when you let a fool talk long enough."
Most of these differences are due to local environmental conditions. Nor were the races were ever 'split off from each other' they continually interacted. Your assertion is contradicted by both the genetic and anthropological evidence. Actually his analogy was quite apt. If you attempt to categorize something based solely upon appearance you will likely miss many far more complex and involved relationships that exist underneath the surface appearance. Based upon superficial appearance one would categorize a porpoise with fish, yet a more thorough examination reveals that they are more closely related to horses. Err, no. The very essence of critical thought is to not rely solely upon superficial resemblances or differences but to look beyond what is apparent, to investigate the details of the situation. Your argument that it's apparent to everyone so it must be true is the very antithesis of critical thought. If this were the case we'd all still think the Earth was flat. That's the obvious conclusion based upon past experience and deductive reasoning, no? "For myself, I found that I was fitted for nothing so well as for the study of Truth; as having a mind nimble and versatile enough to catch the resemblances of things … and at the same time steady enough to fix and distinguish their subtler differences; as being gifted by nature with desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and as being a man that neither affects what is new nor admires what is old, and that hates every kind of imposture. " - Francis Bacon http://www.austhink.org/critical/ An excellent reference, you should check it out. Which is why we're forced to use analogies. You admittedly don't understand the complexities of genetics and biology well enough to make an informed opinion. Instead, you use 'feelings' based upon 'past experience'. That alone should send up a red flag for you. I see that you don't understand statistics either. Understand this, we can select any arbitrary population on this Earth and devise a genetic template that will differentiate that population from any other. We can do it with your family, the city you live in, the state you live in, or your favorite football team. Therefore, if we are going to base race upon the ability to differentiate one population from another we can create an almost infinite number of races. Where then is the validity is selecting any particular sets as special? Actually, the concept of race is only a few hundred years old. It was largely defined to justify the occupation of foreign lands and slavery. There are no originating groups, what you are observing is the effect of environmental selection not isolated heredity. ~Raithere
