"Is Race Real?"

why would you assume this? it could very well be out there. the problem spuriousmonkey has with you could be that you refuse to learn from us, you refuse to teach yourself by doing the literature research, and you rely on unsubstantiated personal opinion when we could probably help you understand it if you would only ask.

the problem with this is that it's subjective. it is not logically or scientifically valid to say, "all these people look alike based on these characteristics, therefore they are a race (or group or whatever). it is, however a valid question becasue it can be tested genetically, and can be refuted.

i will not argue anthropologic data as it's not my field, but certainly there is cultural heredity with NO biological heredity. isn't that why we have schools? as i said before, people have problems separating biology from sociology when discussing human 'race.'

What???!!!?? that's exactly one of the reasons why you said it was important???

this is what we are telling you! this has been tried and tested with a number of different 'racial' traits and it has been refuted.

it is valid! your way of picking genes subjectively is invalid. genes are inherited not singly, but as a group, i.e. the haploid genome. all the genes have to be considered. this is impossible realistically so one takes an unbiased sample of the genes and compares them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ghassan Kanafani,

What historical or anthropological sense is there a use for races? Genology is better historically then "race", mapping ancestry by mitochondrial and Y chromosome polymorphism would be far more accurate.

And yes fair as in accurate is better: lets say it was discovered scientifically that black people on average are less intelligent then white people, would such a general dogma be fair to smart black people? Would it not be better to test each person individuals rather then make assumptions base off their physical appearance?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

* do you all talk plural here ?
* so you say that groups like Somali have no distinct combination of characteristics other than groups surrounding them ? So then should I simply see my ability to distinguish not scientifical bu divine ?
* Id like to see that evidence . Evidence of genetic variation based on racially relevant genes (and combinations of them) . I do hope you guys dont go with Ashkenazi Jewry as well , many do and its really embarissing science .

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

Objectivity doesnt exist , it is always bias and subjectivity , however the deal is to find a conclusion that we can all agree with .

we're saying no, there isn't.

So you're saying its a coincidence ? I resemble peoples of my family/tribe/nation just because I was lucky ? I might have well looked like a Chinese ? no ?

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

Ah so you do acknoweldge it , at least thats progress . Anyhow , who is saying that race isnt mixed up , and ofcourse its genealogical isnt that what we are talking about in here ? Race is geneology simply much more watered than tribe or family .

the problem is that these 'racial' traits DO NOT correspond to population history or biology

Well they do , distinctive groups with todays Iritreans for instance correspond racially with ancient Egyptians , so there you go historical correspondence with aa population .

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.

No , not just skincolor who is toelkinga bout just that ? Why do I dont find ancien-Egyptian similars in Wyoming then ? Why do I find them nearby and can explain their moving about logically within that region ?

Peoples grow as groups , they mix as groups they develop as groups and they show this through their physical makeover , which can be traced down genetically as its a gentical passing from one generation to another , how hard is this to understand ?

why would you assume this? it could very well be out there. the problem spuriousmonkey has with you could be that you refuse to learn from us, you refuse to teach yourself by doing the literature research, and you rely on unsubstantiated personal opinion when we could probably help you understand it if you would only ask.

I have changed my opinion on these boards quite some times , I have acknowledged I was wrong when it was correct to do so , but you do not offer me any refutation other than thye more genetic variation within races-story which I have refuted 100 times already .

So please , provide other arguments or at least material that you believe explains things if Im simply misunderstanding . But it doesnt seem I misunderstand , it seems that you simply do not have a point . I have done some research and this argument pops up everywhere , its not a valid argument .

Fetus for instance has provided some very nice arguments I would agree with , complexity and unclearness , however both do not exclude the phenomena race and I dont believe they are intended to do so . They simply show the problems that come along with my view .

As for Spurious , he simply cant deal with the fact I dont give a crap for his elitist bullshit and he cant coprehend how I acknowledge race without being a racist .

the problem with this is that it's subjective. it is not logically or scientifically valid to say, "all these people look alike based on these characteristics, therefore they are a race (or group or whatever). it is, however a valid question becasue it can be tested genetically, and can be refuted.

Everything is subjective it simply needs agreement upon , however what you ask is to simply ignore this physical resemblence and act like it doesnt exist because they're kidny genes might differ , THATS what doesnt make any sense at all .

i will not argue anthropologic data as it's not my field, but certainly there is cultural heredity with NO biological heredity. isn't that why we have schools? as i said before, people have problems separating biology from sociology when discussing human 'race.'

Who the hell is discussing sociology ? Tell me please how the facial structure of a Somali has anything to do with sociology ? Tell me how the structure of such Iritrean I spoke of or some related Ethiopians (see we can establish relation between some Iritreans and ethiopians at some sense historically as their racial makeover resembles , if we would deny race we couldnt do this , and miss out on a shared history to be unfolded)

You say anthropological data is not your field , however anthropological data is the issue here why knowledge of distinct races is relevant , we can see them develop along with their peoples over time .

What???!!!?? that's exactly one of the reasons why you said it was important???

No , you should read what I am saying :
The genes themselves does not show the movement , however the genes are used to identify traits , and these traits within the context of the peoples surrounding them (mix) and their region (movement) can be seen as valuable anthropological data . Gene 23X or whatever its called cannot , it can only help to identify , and that is my point . Identifying is unfolding the racial groups . And when those arent acknowledge we have 0 .

this is what we are telling you! this has been tried and tested with a number of different 'racial' traits and it has been refuted.


Have you even read what Ive been saying there ? JEWS are not a race so you cannot test racial traits on them better try religious traits rather . Slavic and Turkic groups (eventually Caucasoid) DO have racial relevance therefor you can test such things with them and when you do you will find that with them that typical nose is found a million times more often than on for instance and Iritrean or Aztek , therefor there is a relevance between those groups of peoples and that specific trait , a trait that obviously has genetic relevance .

it is valid! your way of picking genes subjectively is invalid. genes are inherited not singly, but as a group, i.e. the haploid genome. all the genes have to be considered. this is impossible realistically so one takes an unbiased sample of the genes and compares them.

Dont you understand that all genes only establish human specy ? Still then we are stuck with a physical rersemblence you cannot explain because you consider not-visible resemblence just as relevant . Im not an expert on genetics so I would not know the following , but during the selection a child has from his parents , how different are the procedures between the various genes ?

For instance , is there for eye color simply only 2 possibilities (color mom or color dad) , and for instance with some other strange gene that doesnt show as such to us physically (outer) it might go not as choosing between 2 options , but perhaps 100 options ?

What I am aiming at is a mathematical construction that shows importence to have genetic preference when comparing a peoples , as resemblence would rather show to certain genes rather than others .

In any ways , you say all are relevant I say they are not . The question still remains , why the hell do they then resemble in this way to us , as a peoples , with traits ? Or are you still stuck not acknowledging their resemblence ?

If not , you must admit that your popular theory doesnt provide an anser to this , and that at least the direction mine is going does .

You can say its not logical or too subjective , yours is a dead end . Mine at least goes with an obviousness we cant miss , IMO all that is necesarry is agreement on what matters and what not .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also Paul , I was hoping for a link to that guy you mention , as I said I couldnt find anything usefull other than laughable material about Ashkenazim Jewry and color-races .

Fetus :

Genology is better historically then "race", mapping ancestry by mitochondrial and Y chromosome polymorphism would be far more accurate.

Im not familliar with this at all , could you elaborate why it is as you say ? You see Im quite prejudiced when it comes to what i think is what you're talking about , as Im a bit familliar with similar attempts that has shown racial resemblence between all Jews worldwide in order to prove a "Jewish gen" and create logics behind a Jewish race , something completely fallascious .

And yes fair as in accurate is better: lets say it was discovered scientifically that black people on average are less intelligent then white people, would such a general dogma be fair to smart black people? Would it not be better to test each person individuals rather then make assumptions base of their physical appearance?

First of all that is not how races are relevant , as a premis . Secondly I have to yet see some non-laughable attempts at measuring intelligence .

Like I said , you are mixing up moral issues because of certain consequences racial acknowledgement may have beyond anthropological use of it . IMO there are no such consequences nor will there ever be , also to bring back the issue , Blacks as you say are more racially distinct from one-another (some groups) than a Baltic & a Chinese .

And really I believe that it is moral-emotional dependance , racial values & simply mis-defining matters that has made racial science to be in the position where its not even acknoweldges by todays biology .

 

Forgive my misspelling its "genealogy" you know what that is right... ya its about tracking Jews through history and all there evil misdeeds

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How are "races" relevant?

How is anthropological relevant to anything beside its self?

It does not matter scientifically how you classify things, it only at scheme of organization for your part.

 

Forgive my misspelling its "genealogy" you know what that is right... ya its about tracking Jews through history and all there evil misdeeds

* I really dont core for your spellings
* I really dont care for supposed evil misdeeds

I do know what genealogy is , however I dont know about those methods you spoke of , I do know however that they have been misused for the very least in order to prove a jewish race , therefor I question them at the very least .

Again , can you show me how this would be more accurate than race , we have no genealogical data for entire populations over history do we ? We just know who's your daddy and there it ends , no ? Im not trying to argue on this one , I just wanna know because I dont .

How are "races" relevant?

They are relevant as they are calssifications that can help us study mixing and migration .

How is anthropological relevant to anything beside its self?


How is biological ? Whats your point ?

It does not matter scientifically how you classify things, it only at scheme of organization for your part.

And this means ......... ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

yes! we're saying Somali's have no distinct combination of characteristics that group them exclusive of all other humans.

no, your ability to distinguish is not scientific period, or not scientific but subjective.

i sent you some ref's that should be a start.

no, that's not the goal. perhaps objectivity doesn't exist, but the goal is to describe the natural world as objectively as we can, i.e. we don't introduce subjectivity when we know it's subjective.

no, we're only saying what we're saying. 'distribution of human racial traits are independent of genealogy, i.e. they're all mixed up.

no! we're saying, in humans, there is no race in a biological sense (i won't speak to sociological or cultural definitions). if there were it would be genetically measurable. this is where race is refuted in humans.

i don't know these data but if you pass a ref. along, i'd be happy to look at it and eat crow if it shows i'm wrong.

genetic markers ID'ing individuals from regions is different than 'race' designations, as I've mentioned before. These are pop.gen. distinctions that i wouldn't expect a lay person to understand, but I have been trying.

it's the mixing that disallows 'race' distinction(in a biological sense).

you haven't refuted it, even once. you think you have because you don't understand pop.gen. fundamentals (which I'm not blaming you for). it's just that when we are trying to tell you how it works, you keep arguing with us and saying that it's not true. but, believe me, it is. if i knew where you were going wrong (misunderstanding) i could help you but whatever i say you argue, so i can't get a handle on it.

perhaps this demonstration might work. do you know what a phylogenetic tree is? picture one; there are branching patterns based on familial relatedness. these branch up and out with time (measured in generations) until the present. the tips of the branches represent current individuals (i.e. there will be about 10 billion branch tips). there is no 'racial' characteristic or set of characteristics that can group those individuals on a single branch except way back in the tree, which will include about everyody.

as i said, the question is valid, been tested, and refuted.

you are, becasue anthropology is a sociological science.

irrelevant. i said nothing about jews.

these are not 'racial' groups. you refuse to understand what a biological race is.

i understand, you don't understand. using these same principles, one can identify subspecies (races) in other organisms, in fact, this is precisely how one identifies subspecies. when there is genetic mixing (migration between populations) differentiation cannot happen (as in humans). however this does not eliminate variation in the species. variation exists but there are no subspecies. this applies to humans as well as other organisms.
do you think that because there is variation in a species means that therefore there are races? this is simply not the case and is basic biology.

you simply cannot pick genes in genetic experiments and analyses of this type because of subjective biases, it's not acceptable scientifically or logically, it's not valid, it would be rejected by every scientific journal for every science in every country, its meaningless (how many other ways can i say it?).

it does! you won't listen and you refuse to understand.

there's no dead end. genetics and population genetics are fruitful and productive sciences. whole journals are dedicated to genetics, population genetics and evolution and their results. you need also a basic education in philosophy and logic. 'agreement' has no relevance to reality and is completely independent of reality.

i'm done with you.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Genealogy is the study of family history like who was your great, great, great, great gandfather. how is Genealogy better then some inaccurate classification as race: it has many fold the level of detail and would imply a complete understanding of how one group of people breeds with another or migrates. Also the Jewish thing I was joking about… how is did that get into this issue?

Biology allows us to undertand how life works, how Medical science works and how to better are lives and the world. Anthropologogy is the study of human beings in relation to distribution, origin, classification, and relationship of races, physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture... most of this is useless. Diffining and studying the interaction, culture and social relations of people with "inny" and "outty" bellybuttons is also anthropology, it provides little if anything in useful knowledge.

this means that race has no relevance in science. How taxonomist classify all life is beyond me, they could do it all with a number catalog, the results being nothing at all, Its just a system of organization. The same thing with Anthropology and its “races” it’s just a classification system and in this case an archaic, inaccurate, useless one thats been surpassed by genetics.

Mitochondrial Polymorphism
Y chromosome polymorphism
(Ya I know its out of data and it babies you, but its a start)

 

yes! we're saying Somali's have no distinct combination of characteristics that group them exclusive of all other humans.


Does it have to be exclusive to have relevance ? The point is that the core creates an identity that is relevenat to be able to point at within anthropological and historical studies .

Obviously the "Somali-combination" can be seen elsewhere only because either Somali-combinatins remained when mixed with others or others developped equally as Somali in the first place (unlikely) .

No race is fully intact and no race is pure , does this mean it doesnt exist ?

no, your ability to distinguish is not scientific period, or not scientific but subjective.

Obviously I can distinguish because 9 out of 10 Somali's you will bring me and call them whatever I will point you out they are Somali . So how do I do that if they have noc common combination ? But obviously they have , you just stand on its exclusiveness , something irellevant to the point (or study for that matter) .

i sent you some ref's that should be a start.

* You didnt send me anything
* If you are talking about those links I still didnt get from you , I have mentioned what I found and how it lacked credibility .
* I ask for genetic research , if what you mean actually deals with Ashkenazim and black/white/yellow/red as I came across then this is lacking any worth to be take serious .

Again I ask you , can you give me any link ?

no, that's not the goal. perhaps objectivity doesn't exist, but the goal is to describe the natural world as objectively as we can, i.e. we don't introduce subjectivity when we know it's subjective.


Describing the natural world as objective as we can means to find a conclusion we can all agree with exactly as I say . Do you merely wish to disagree for disagreements sake ? All we can is use logics on what we perceive and agree with oneanother upon it , since your argument lacks logical relation with this world (that is filled with distinct groups of peoples) I cannot agree on it .

The physical traits we can describe and trace genetically surely are subjective but can be described as objectively as possible and eventually we can agree on them . However your argument simply doesnt even acknowledge the existence of these groups , so how's that for even a shot at an objective description ?

Because your genetical rule doesnt allow it (or you havent yet found ways for it to be allowed) you deny reality ?

no, we're only saying what we're saying. 'distribution of human racial traits are independent of genealogy, i.e. they're all mixed up.

Then why are the people not "all mixed up" ? Ofcourse the racial traits depend on genealogy , where else do they come from ? I get my mothers eyes etc etc , how the hell are they independent ?

no! we're saying, in humans, there is no race in a biological sense (i won't speak to sociological or cultural definitions). if there were it would be genetically measurable. this is where race is refuted in humans.

* nobody is speaking sociological or cultural but GENETICAL ok ?
* it is genetically measurable you simply dont know how to measure so you randomly pick sopmething ? Something that is totally irellevant of what race stands for ? And why ? Because you dont know the difference in either picking one or the other ?

don't know these data but if you pass a ref. along, i'd be happy to look at it and eat crow if it shows i'm wrong.

I have no ref you would have to do research for yourself if you care to know weither there is racial equality or not between the 3 peoples mentioned .

genetic markers ID'ing individuals from regions is different than 'race' designations, as I've mentioned before. These are pop.gen. distinctions that i wouldn't expect a lay person to understand, but I have been trying.

I am not speaking about ID-ing from regions which I indeed am not aware of , I am speaking about racial ID-ing as you were saying before . You now mention region for the first time .

But feel free to inform me the difference and why its relevant for race , as long as you stop this patronizing it is childish .

it's the mixing that disallows 'race' distinction(in a biological sense).

However through mixing they create new races , and since we werent always this mobile there is quite some geographical relevance .

I understand how the mixing disallows the race distinction based on what it has been as a race , but you seem to forget that such mixing is creator of a new sub-race .

you haven't refuted it, even once. you think you have because you don't understand pop.gen. fundamentals (which I'm not blaming you for). it's just that when we are trying to tell you how it works, you keep arguing with us and saying that it's not true. but, believe me, it is. if i knew where you were going wrong (misunderstanding) i could help you but whatever i say you argue, so i can't get a handle on it.

Let me put it very simple for the 100th time :

You say : no race because genetic variations independant of racial equality .
I say :all genes are not relevant , this variations between them isnt relevant either . However I dont know why specific genes are relevant other than they are obvious visible physically and create a group identiy not dealing with language , culture or any sociologic unifiers . Its biological that they resemble , and its through genealogy that they have come to resemble .

Your argument doesnt allow existence of these OBVIOUS existing groups , my argument doesnt explain WHY these obvious existing groups exist .

Wich one has more potential ud say ?

perhaps this demonstration might work. do you know what a phylogenetic tree is? picture one; there are branching patterns based on familial relatedness. these branch up and out with time (measured in generations) until the present. the tips of the branches represent current individuals (i.e. there will be about 10 billion branch tips). there is no 'racial' characteristic or set of characteristics that can group those individuals on a single branch except way back in the tree, which will include about everyody.

Thank you for simply acknoweldging my point , you already make an exception which shows exactly what I was talking about all along , anthropologic and historical value .

And no that will [still] not include everybody , but the core becomes stronger untill it eventually develops in another core , that is the essence of race it never stops , it goes as far as the point when we dont speak about race , but specie .

Anyways you are not correct one thing , today we still get quite some reasonable cores , including everybody can happen only once , before that its another stage and after it its mixed .

In any ways thank you for acknowledging race , although I am sure you will still find a way ......

as i said, the question is valid, been tested, and refuted.


And now everybody's mixed ? No Blacks in Sudan ? No blonds in Finland ? All you can test and refute is a theory , but a theory to describe something failing , doesnt mean the thing being described doesnt exist , it only means its described incorrectly .

you are, becasue anthropology is a sociological science.


Rather sociology would be an anthropological science since sociology is part of man rather than other way around . In anyways they are considered 2 sciences with overlapping factors and easy borders . However for the points I am making about bone structure skincolor eyecolor and all that racial crap there is not one sociologic element involved .

irrelevant. i said nothing about jews.

It is very relevant as I showed the error of such researches on what you base your : this is what we are telling you! this has been tried and tested with a number of different 'racial' traits and it has been refuted.

So then tell me other ways of how its been refuted exactly how I said for you to say : "that was what ive been telling you" .

It then obviously was everything but that , since my conclusion lead to groups we can call races .

these are not 'racial' groups. you refuse to understand what a biological race is.

Then tell me what they are called . They are not cultural they are not sociological they deal with genes passed on generation after generation how do I call them ?

They dont exist ? I make them up ?

variation exists but there are no subspecies.

So then how do you call distinct groups that contribute to the variation ?

do you think that because there is variation in a species means that therefore there are races?

No , I think that because this variation can be grouped and traced back genealogically within other groups and so on there are races .

you simply cannot pick genes in genetic experiments and analyses of this type because of subjective biases, it's not acceptable scientifically or logically, it's not valid, it would be rejected by every scientific journal for every science in every country, its meaningless (how many other ways can i say it?).

Look you dont seem to understand that those physical traits are there , and that perhaps indeed I may not have a reason that is logic or valid to pick them other than visibility , but they are there and gotten there through others and so on . So then you explain me how that is possible that they are there ? Why do those peoples resemble eachother ?

it does! you won't listen and you refuse to understand.

How ? How does it answer that ?

there's no dead end. genetics and population genetics are fruitful and productive sciences. whole journals are dedicated to genetics, population genetics and evolution and their results

This particluar part is not as you simply refuse to acknoweldge peoples belonging to a group based on physical traits over the years .

You simpy deny the nature you want to describe so objectively ......

you need also a basic education in philosophy and logic.

Get out of here man with your patronizing crap , you have no awareness whatsoever on my education in philosophy , its quite ironic of all you chose these . BTW on accademic level logics is part of philosophy , what is not logical is you putting them side to side as you do .

It would be like me saying you need basic education in psycho-analysis & psychology .

spare me your crap .

i'm done with you.

you or you ?

 

ghassan

you are on ignore.

talking to you is like that monty python skit

'i came here for an argument!'

'no you didn't'

'yes i did'

'no you didn't'

'i did'

etc..

i leave you in your ignorance.

good luck in prison.

 

"Oh I'm sorry this is abuse, argument is down the hall and to the left"

 

The most dramatic impact of DNA research on a people's history and identity came in the mid-1990s from British historian Tudor Parfitt. His research on the traditions and oral history of a small Bantu-speaking population in southern Africa has raised perplexing questions about their ethnic origins.

Though the Lemba look distinctly African, they practise many Jewish customs, such as circumcision and strict dietary laws. Their oral history proposes that some of the Lemba's ancestors came from "huge towns across the sea," possibly Yemen. These proposed Jewish ancestors are thought to have established ports on the African coast where they interacted heavily with the local population.

In 1996, South African geneticists showed that the Lemba gene pool was 53 per cent Caucasoid (predominantly Middle Eastern) and 36 per cent Negroid in the Y chromosome. This genetic evidence lent strong support for a Middle Eastern genetic contribution to this South African population, but could not distinguish Jewish from other Semitic ancestry. Subsequent research confirmed that the Lemba, in fact, have genetic ties to the kohanim, a lineage of Jewish priests thought to be descendants of the biblical Aaron.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Paul

Let me thank you for reflecting your reality-repressive scientific "pop.gen" theory with your reality-repressive psychology of "making things go away" when you simply dont like the outcome .

You leave me in ignorance and go on a quest of discovering the relation between ignorance and ignoring .

Bye Bye

Fetus

how is Genealogy better then some inaccurate classification as race: it has many fold the level of detail and would imply a complete understanding of how one group of people breeds with another or migrates

I understand , but for genealogic research do we not need to know who these ancestors were ? I wonder what the relation is between genealogic research and this Y-chromosome polymorphism (btw first link didnt work) .

Anthropologogy is the study of human beings in relation to distribution, origin, classification, and relationship of races, physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture... most of this is useless. Diffining and studying the interaction, culture and social relations of people with "inny" and "outty" bellybuttons is also anthropology, it provides little if anything in useful knowledge.

Every science has elements that are less or not usefull , I think you are underrating anthropology here in compare to the other sciences . IMO it would rather be the other way around , but lets leave it having different scientific preferences .

this means that race has no relevance in science. How taxonomist classify all life is beyond me, they could do it all with a number catalog, the results being nothing at all, Its just a system of organization. The same thing with Anthropology and its “races” it’s just a classification system and in this case an archaic, inaccurate, useless one thats been surpassed by genetics.

And this is the thing really , does it not matter scientifically simply because its not perfect ? Science however hasnt been able to show the relevance of these specific genes either , do we simply consider it non-existent because we are not advanced enough to prove the relevance ?

I sort of mentioned this previously , but consider that somehow within the genetical selection there is a huge difference about either one or the other racial relevant genetic combination , compared to the selection in genetic combinations that are not relevant .

Spooks

How about the Falasmura ?

Though the Lemba look distinctly African, they practise many Jewish customs

And this is such errorous thinking , and I believe anthropology has discovered this far before biology , the racial identity of the Jewish peoples as has been presented to Europe over the years has been a complete fraud . Not only do they (Ashkenazim) together not form a distinct race , they also do not present a Hebrew-semitic racial identity .

In 1996, South African geneticists showed that the Lemba gene pool was 53 per cent Caucasoid (predominantly Middle Eastern) and 36 per cent Negroid in the Y chromosome

This is what Im not getting :
* if race doesnt exist why do they then speak Caucasoid/Negroid
Or is this an example of how its not supposed to go
* such distribution of race is very simplistic and it can lead to inaccuracies .

In any ways Im seeing the tendency , Jewish=Caucasoid MidEast , and thats so simply not true .

Im also really curious how the hell these peoples think they have determinded "53% Caucasoid" or even better ...... "36% negroid" .

 

ghassan

Dear Mrs. Ghassan Kanafani,

you will find no scientific backing here for your racism. Try KKK.com or skinhead.com.

 

Stop hating yourself because you are a white man Paul Samuel , I am no racist KKK wouldnt like me and skinheads ....... oh you dont even have any idea what skinheads are .

Im no Mrs either

Is this the level you have reached after 46 years ?

Lying about putting me on ignore doesnt show the best part of your intellect either Paul

I suggest you go to www.reality-repression.com and fill out your application one more time to make me go away .

Schmuk

 

paulsamuel,

you are on his ignore listed now because you were being rude and using Ad Hominems. Even though he does refuse to learn you need to just keep repeating your self with diffrent examples and more evidence.

Ghassan Kanafani,

Mitochondrial and Y chromosome tracking allows use to see how people have moved and breed through history with a much higher degree of accuracy then Anthropologogy.

I never said anything about perfection; there is no proof of race there for it is not at this time legitimate, sure maybe some day it will be validated but at this time it has not relevance, like UFOs, ghost ect.

aaah, what are you saying I don't seem to understand.

 

Fetus :
you are on his ignore listed now

Dont worry Im not like him I accept reality as it is and deal with it .
He's not on my list nobody is .

Mitochondrial and Y chromosome tracking allows use to see how people have moved and breed through history with a much higher degree of accuracy then Anthropologogy.

Ok but from that site Spooks quotes from they mention a certain percentage negroid or caucasoid , is that not extremely simplistic , far to simplistic to say anything about their movement around history , only perhaps the general lines .

Are there researches for these breeding and moving for peoples determined by this technique ? Can you help0 me with any links ?

I have seen a site dealing with something similar to it but the results were not even close to credible , let it be superior to anthroplogy .

Im gonna look for it maybe I can find it and show you what im talking about .

I never said anything about perfection; there is no proof of race there for it is not at this time legitimate, sure maybe some day it will be validated but at this time it has not relevance, like UFOs, ghost ect.

See this is not the situation , something whatever we call it does exist , we can see it . Its like seeing a UFO but cant explain its reality objectively .

The thing is we have not found genetical relevance other than subjective choosing of genes based on physical appearance . I know these genes are to be chosen however I dont know why other than their physical appearance . Peoples are groups , eventually its as a larger family , there is some relevance between them however we cant point it out without being subjective , I understand this .

So the solution IMO is not rather that races do not exist , but that we need to find objective methods to describe as we are seeing , as science demands .

And that was what the following was about :

consider that somehow within the genetical selection there is a huge difference about either one or the other racial relevant genetic combination , compared to the selection in genetic combinations that are not relevant .

So what Im saying is .... say there is this genetical selection that decides weither eyes are green like moms or blue like dads (just an example Im aware the way this works has specific rules) .

So then there is choice between what a mom is using (the eyecolor) in her genes and what the father is using .

But what if this with other non-racial genetic combinations , information is taken from the mother or the father that isnt being used , however is to be inheritet .

That way it can explain why specific visible racial traits show relevance with others who are sharing it .

Im not sure weither you're understanding me , this idea is in development in my mind as we speak ...... Im just attempting to explain it .

 

Ghassan Kanafani,

That Lamarckian evolution (or some variant of it) and is not the way natural evolution works. Alleles of a gene go on to the next generation at random, natural selection will determine if a that allele or gene provides a advantage, disadvantage or neutral, and then do with it accordingly. For example people living in tropical regions need lots of melanin (dark pigment) to maintain Folic acid levels and to reproduce, genes and allele for that were favored, in northern regions people need very little melanin to produce more Vitamin D so gene and alleles for that were favored. The thing is in humans these traits do not go along with a whole genome of differences and we cannot classify each other a subspecies, there traits are only a handful of differences that vary even within there characteristic populations, therefore the term race is inaccurate as well, we can not define people as such, the criteria is to varying and to would not fit into any organized set of groups.

 

I was hoping for some links , in any ways :

Check out this site :

http://www.racearchives.com/calc/

 

And what is this suppose to be? Is it proven accurate and are there exceptions?