Scrap the false construct of "Race"

[CSSMariner]

Thanks to my very dear friend Jack Latona, I have been reading a book entitled “The Seven Daughters of Eve,” by Bryan Sykes, ISBN #0-393-02018-5, and I wholeheartedly recommend it to any and all, especially those on these boards.

I was born in a small North Carolina northern Piedmont textile town in 1944, and was not to leave there for any extended period before military duties took me away in 1965. As were all others in America during the time I was growing up, and basically up to the present, I was inoculated and infused with the idea of “Race.” Race was, and remains, the baseline buzzword for all matters of agreement or disagreement between people of different skin colors.

Probably the single best thing that happened to me from a personal and a sociological point of view was the act of the US Army taking this small town American terminal redneck lad by the scruff of the neck, running him through Army Basic Training, and then plunking him down for thirteen months in South Korea.

Fortunately, during my childhood years my folks had not discouraged me at all from having what were then called “Colored” friends at play. However, all twelve grades of the school system then were strictly segregated, with my high school alma mater not being desegregated until three years after I was gone. In the college I attended after high school graduation in 1962, there were only three or four non-Caucasian students.

Basic training in the Army was the first time since childhood that I came once again in close contact and association with people who, on the surface, looked slightly different from me. I became close friends with several individuals with slightly different skin hues and physical make-up. In Korea, I made it a point to get to know the Korean people. It was then, and remains, an easy task for even an idiot with open eyes to determine as I did, that with the exception of a few minor physical characteristics, there was no difference between me, and any single one of “them.” Furthermore, I discovered that regardless of where I went in the world the people were after the same basic things; a better break for their kids, and the idea that they are improving their lives through their work and endeavors. It may have been on a different economic level than say America, but it was the same basic idea nonetheless.

It was during that period when I was covering much of the northern hemisphere from the Far East, to Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and southern Asia that I started questioning the entire structure and concept of “Race.” I started writing in ‘Human” in the space on forms where I had to indicate my race. I was called on it several times and some official changed it occasionally, but I would not change it myself.

That position has been steadily reinforced over the past 30+ years since I parted ways with the Army Security Agency. That has been especially so since the discovery of DNA and genetics, and the ability to closely analyze the results. The first half of “The Seven Daughters of Eve” is a total destruction of the idea that there is anything more than about 0.1% difference between the DNA of any two members of our Homo sapiens race, and we are all one and the same; evolved from a common ancestor and resulting group of “migrants” who did in fact emerge “Out of Africa” and populate the entire earth.

I would like to see the entire false construct of “Race” discarded along with the idea of “Special Creation.” They both belong in the dustbin of history. Our DNA varies less than 1% from that of the Great Apes; Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans. The PBS series “Tree of Life,” demonstrated that each and every living thing on this planet shares some DNA, from the lowest slime and algae, to trees, crocodiles, buffaloes, elephants and human beings. Personally I think that the fact that I share some DNA with every living organism is a far more elegant idea than some "Creator" popping me into life from a lump of clay, and removing one rib to make me a "Helpmate." I do have a short rib, but it is a birth defect, and that among many other things makes me less than perfect.

However, between members of Homo sapiens there is not enough variance to make any form of argument that there are different races of creatures that walk upright two legs on on the face of the Earth. I would like to see the entire concept scrapped. The only differences are sociological and religious, and don’t get me on a rant about religion. Mankind’s differences in its various and ridiculous religious pursuits, are the only real difference when one eliminates the other false constructs. One day, I hope, humanity will realize that its gods are killing it everywhere, and reinforcing the idea of “Race.” BS x 10n

[sorgoth]

*Applauds*

Very nice speech. That's the kind of talk that I think people might listen to! Go mariner! The only way to stop racism is to talk about it,and I think you've been exposed more than most of us that we really AREN'T different!

[DanishDynamite]

Nice post.

Still, I disagree with your conclusion. Prohibiting/scraping words as a means to an end, smells too much like newspeak in 1984.

Races, afterall, exist. There are hundreds of them within the canine family, for example.

The number of races among humans is slowly deceasing as people are ever more mingled. Perhaps at some point, all humans will be mongrels and the term "race" for humans will no longer be meaningful.

I see no need to deny the existence of races. Only a need to combat unfounded racism.

[subgenius]

Concept of race (except human) is very outmoded when one considers that we ALL descended from Africans.
We are ALL African!!!!!!!

(Great show on PBS recently where the guy took DNA samples from all around the world and confirmed what has long been assumed.)

[Starfall]

Nice post, CSSMariner. I agree completely.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite:

Races, afterall, exist.


Actually, this doesn't seem to be the case scientifically. The frequencies of genetic traits usually associated with "race" actually blend smoothly from one "race" into another in gradients called "genetic clines". So, there are no well defined boundaries between the so-called "races". The arbitrary racial boundaries that have been placed along the genetic continuum are actually social constructs.

A powerful argument against the concept of "race" as being physically real is this: If humanity were to completely forget its current common racial groupings (which are hardly well-defined to begin with), and had to re-invent them, there is nothing to indicate that we would arrive at the same racial taxonomy. We might instead group people according to predisposition to certain diseases, or eye-color, or any number of genetically-defined traits. The ones we use now are arbitrary, and not always agreed upon anyway.

This is unlike knowledge which we consider to be physically real, rather than socially arbitrary. If we were to forget the speed of light in a vacuum, for example, we would arrive at the same value when we eventually rediscovered it. The same goes for all physically real concepts. From this perspective, which underlies all of science, race doesn't seem to be a valid scientific concept.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite:

There are hundreds of them within the canine family, for example.


Aren't dog breeds are far more well-defined because people breed them? Even so, would we arrive at the same breed taxonomy if we forgot what all the dog breeds were?

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Nice post.

Still, I disagree with your conclusion. Prohibiting/scraping words as a means to an end, smells too much like newspeak in 1984.

Races, afterall, exist. There are hundreds of them within the canine family, for example.

The number of races among humans is slowly deceasing as people are ever more mingled. Perhaps at some point, all humans will be mongrels and the term "race" for humans will no longer be meaningful.

I see no need to deny the existence of races. Only a need to combat unfounded racism.

All of the present versions of domesticated canines can be traced back to one, Asian I think it is, gray timber wolf. The wolf's DNA had enough mutation abilities to account for every domesticated pooch in existence.

Again, there are NO different races among Homo sapiens; we are all ONE AND THE SAME!!!

Racism is another false construct of man's. :( :(

[CSSMariner]

Neither ethnic, national, educational, nor even religious differences do a different race make.

[DanishDynamite]

Starfall:Actually, this doesn't seem to be the case scientifically. The frequencies of genetic traits usually associated with "race" actually blend smoothly from one "race" into another in gradients called "genetic clines". So, there are no well defined boundaries between the so-called "races". The arbitrary racial boundaries that have been placed along the genetic continuum are actually social constructs.

A powerful argument against the concept of "race" as being physically real is this: If humanity were to completely forget its current common racial groupings (which are hardly well-defined to begin with), and had to re-invent them, there is nothing to indicate that we would arrive at the same racial taxonomy. We might instead group people according to predisposition to certain diseases, or eye-color, or any number of genetically-defined traits. The ones we use now are arbitrary, and not always agreed upon anyway.

This is unlike knowledge which we consider to be physically real, rather than socially arbitrary. If we were to forget the speed of light in a vacuum, for example, we would arrive at the same value when we eventually rediscovered it. The same goes for all physically real concepts. From this perspective, which underlies all of science, race doesn't seem to be a valid scientific concept.Of course it is a scientific concept. There may certainly be disagreements in regard to where one race stops and another begins, but any child can see that there are races. Skin color, eye color, hair color, hair type, presence of epicanthal folds, average height, presence of facial hair, etc, etc. These are all parameters that vary from one region of Earth to another. Two whites will have a white child, two blacks will have a black child, two woth epicanthal folds will have a child with epicanthal folds. No amount of social re-construction will change that.
Aren't dog breeds are far more well-defined because people breed them? Even so, would we arrive at the same breed taxonomy if we forgot what all the dog breeds were? As I said, people of different races intermingle a lot more now. Before the advent of modern transportation, such intermingling was exceedingly slow. Within the last few hundred years, this rate has increased dramatically. Dog breeds are specifically bred to avoid intermingling. And yes, I don't see why their taxonomy should change if we suddenly forgot what they were.

[DanishDynamite]

CSSMariner:All of the present versions of domesticated canines can be traced back to one, Asian I think it is, gray timber wolf. The wolf's DNA had enough mutation abilities to account for every domesticated pooch in existence.Presumably all humans can be traced back to a few ancestors as well. So what?
Again, there are NO different races among Homo sapiens; we are all ONE AND THE SAME!!!They are all the same species, yes. They can interbreed and have viable offspring. So can a German Shepard and a Poodle. That doesn't mean they aren't different races.

[neutrino_cannon]

The way race is defined, that being on basis of apearance, it has no useful dissaption in society. Genetic proclivity towards, say certain types of disease, all based around traits inherited, we can reasonably assume, independantly, is in the domain of medicine, not society. The concept of race in society can bring, ultimatly no benefit to government policy or interpersonal interaction.

Perhaps a time for nonoverlapping magesteria? Genes may well have minor medical importance (or maybe not-so major), but to draw conclusions about someone, or even more horrendously pass laws about them based on their appearance, is outmoded and rightly belongs in the "dustbin of history".

What we need are more intelligent species with consistent differences in behavior compared to us. The white and black against the green eh?:rolleyes:

[hammegk]

And for you people that think "race" is not a hetitable genotype that carries a vast amount of baggage, good and bad, please take a look at intelligence, strength, etc of various breeds of dogs. And what is the DNA differences involved?

Then go ahead and pretend no such disparities -- racially identified I might add -- are apparent in homo sap.

[Starfall]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Of course it is a scientific concept. There may certainly be disagreements in regard to where one race stops and another begins, but any child can see that there are races. Skin color, eye color, hair color, hair type, presence of epicanthal folds, average height, presence of facial hair, etc, etc. These are all parameters that vary from one region of Earth to another. Two whites will have a white child, two blacks will have a black child, two woth epicanthal folds will have a child with epicanthal folds. No amount of social re-construction will change that.

There are genetic differences between every person on earth except identical twins. Drawing a box around certain genetic differences and calling them "racial" while ignoring other genetic differences is arbitrary and unscientific.

Two people who carry the familial HDL deficiency gene will have children with the familial HDL deficiency gene. Two people who carry the autosomal dominant deafness gene will have children with the autosomal dominant deafness gene. So, why are epicanthal folds considered a "racial" difference but not familial HDL deficiency or autosomal dominant deafness, just to name a few of the thousands of genetic differences that exist among people?

Again, what can you point to that shows that we would arrive at the same racial taxonomy that we use today if we had to "re-discover" it? If you can't point to anything, then on what basis do you call racial classifications "scientific"?


Originally posted by DanishDynamite

As I said, people of different races intermingle a lot more now. Before the advent of modern transportation, such intermingling was exceedingly slow. Within the last few hundred years, this rate has increased dramatically.

It is only recently that people at the extremes of genetic clines have intermingled. However, people have generally intermingled with their direct neighbors all along, which is why there is a gradient of genetic traits, rather than well defined groups, from Europe through the Middle East into Asia and Africa.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by hammegk
And for you people that think "race" is not a hetitable genotype that carries a vast amount of baggage, good and bad, please take a look at intelligence, strength, etc of various breeds of dogs. And what is the DNA differences involved?

Then go ahead and pretend no such disparities -- racially identified I might add -- are apparent in homo sap.

Those traits are inherited independantly of each other, as in dogs. Furthermore, the existance of pleitropy, polygenic inheritance, and epistasis make it futile to try and define the strengths or weaknesses of someone by their descent.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by kittynh
My daughter is dating an Asian, and he took her along to the "Asian or Asian desent only" New YEars party at their college, since she was 65% Asian.

I could understand a New Years party that's primarily Asian (hosted by a Asian students association of some such), but blantently and officially restricting entrance by ethnicity? That's pretty f'ed up...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


Those traits are inherited independantly of each other, as in dogs. Furthermore, the existance of pleitropy, polygenic inheritance, and epistasis make it futile to try and define the strengths or weaknesses of someone by their descent.

Yup, individual by individual it doesn't work. Nor do actuarial stats, but insurance cos. still get rich.

Please cite a study which strongly suggests independent trait inheritance for any given breed, dog or man.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by hammegk
And for you people that think "race" is not a hetitable genotype that carries a vast amount of baggage, good and bad, please take a look at intelligence, strength, etc of various breeds of dogs. And what is the DNA differences involved?

Then go ahead and pretend no such disparities -- racially identified I might add -- are apparent in homo sap.

Yes, well, probably true. I don't see how people can deny that there are definate physical differences between what we call the races. The whole genetic arguement about our similiarities never seemed real valid to me.

We are very similar genetically, but not genetically identical. And the small differences genetically definately matter. They're why one people are a lot darker than another people, or taller, or their hair is different, or they tend towards a bulkier build in certain parts of the world. You can't deny that these traits have a genetic basis.

Now all the intermingling that's going on is blurring the lines quite a bit, but that's another matter entirely really. Doesn't disprove the fact that there is such a thing anymore than the existance of mutts disproves that there are different breeds of animals.

Denying that races exist is really PC nonsense.

[Starfall]

Originally posted by Renfield
You can't deny that these traits have a genetic basis.


I won't speak for CSSMariner, but I am not denying that genetic differences exist between people. Again, there are genetic differences between all people, except identical twins. The artificial construct of race groups certain "special" genetic differences together in groups, while completely ignoring other genetic differences. There is no scientific basis for the designation of "racial" genes and "non-racial" genes.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Starfall:Of course it is a scientific concept.

FWIW, one thing that I remember from my human anthropology class in college was that the concept of race is not meaningful from an anthropological perspective. Variation is clinal, as Starfall has been saying.

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by Starfall


I won't speak for CSSMariner, but I am not denying that genetic differences exist between people. Again, there are genetic differences between all people, except identical twins. The artificial construct of race groups certain "special" genetic differences together in groups, while completely ignoring other genetic differences. There is no scientific basis for the designation of "racial" genes and "non-racial" genes.

Aye mate, but speak for me you did and that is OK. It is clear that there is absolutely no scientific basis for the designation of genes on a racial basis. We are all Homo sapiens, one species, one race, and the only differences are the slight genetic variations that make us the individuals we most certainly are, but they are all within our species-specific boundaries.

Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon had different numbers of chromosomes, and therefore could not possibly have produced a fertile offspring even if there had been some hanky-panky during the time they were cohabitants of the Earth. It is for that same genetic reason that the offspring of a donkey and a horse is a mule incapable of successfully breeding with anything, including other mules. That of course did not stop them from trying, much the same as yours truly after my vasectomy and the missus and I did not have to worry about an unplanned bambino. Fun-fun-fun!!!

I see a lot of agreement here about the idea of "race" being an artificial construct of man. Down at the genetic foundation it is a home run; we are all the same, from the same place, Sub Saharan Africa.

I want to get my DNS mapped to see how much of me is Scots-Irish from my mom's side, and Welsh/Scots-Irish and Cherokee from pop's. Could be interesting.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CSSMariner

I want to get my DNS mapped to see how much of me is Scots-Irish from my mom's side, and Welsh/Scots-Irish and Cherokee from pop's. Could be interesting.

This is absolutely laughable. You deny race exists, then wonder what races you are composed of!

:rolleyes:


And yup, DNA *will* answer those questions -- scientifically.

[Yahzi]

Race is a not a scientific concept. According to the theory of race, Aussie abbos and Africans are both "black." This is clearly stupid, as Africans must be more genetically related to Europeans than Aussies, who have been cut off from contact with the rest of the world for thousands of years.

It might be possible to construct a scientific theory of race, but it would have little in common with our current sociological theory.

Therefore, despite the overwhelming evidence that certain geographical populations share genetic commonalities, we can safely say that "race," as the word is used in ordinary conversation, has no scientific meaning.

Note: as others have said, human beings are the least genetically diverse of all the large mammals, so it's questionable just how useful a theory of race would be anyway.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Race is a not a scientific concept. According to the theory of race, Aussie abbos and Africans are both "black."

Your theory maybe. Do you think others think that? I know I don't.

Various characteristics other than skin color should be useful in defining "race", and from various recent tv shows I've seen DNA works very nicely, and scientifically.

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by hammegk


This is absolutely laughable. You deny race exists, then wonder what races you are composed of!

:rolleyes:


And yup, DNA *will* answer those questions -- scientifically.

Not "Race" dunderhead, "ETHNIC" Grouping, to which ETNIC group I belong. We are all Homo sapiens, is that too hard to understand? We are one and the same. But perhaps I misunderstand you, to which "race" do you belong and why is that so bloody important to you? I am not bothered to assume that although I am a white, mostly, I think, American, that I am also distant cousin to everyone, even you. :D

[subgenius]

Originally posted by CSSMariner


Not "Race" dunderhead, "ETHNIC" Grouping, to which ETNIC group I belong. We are all Homo sapiens, is that too hard to understand? We are one and the same. But perhaps I misunderstand you, to which "race" do you belong and why is that so bloody important to you? I am not bothered to assume that although I am a white, mostly, I think, American, that I am also distant cousin to everyone, even you. :D
We are all African.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CSSMariner


Not "Race" dunderhead, "ETHNIC" Grouping, to which ETNIC group I belong. We are all Homo sapiens, is that too hard to understand? We are one and the same. But perhaps I misunderstand you, to which "race" do you belong and why is that so bloody important to you? I am not bothered to assume that although I am a white, mostly, I think, American, that I am also distant cousin to everyone, even you. :D

ROTFLMGDFAO! Would you then contend "Cherokee" and "Scotch-Irish" are not RACIAL differences? Oh. Cultural, you say. LOL.


"We" are indeed all "African homo sap" just like a Pekinese and a Great Dane are both wolves.

If political correctness matters more to you than scientific reality, have at it. Is the moon made of green-cheese? ;)

[Franko]

Yeah, if I recall correctly only a few hundred years ago there were only 12 breeds of dogs, now there are something like 400.

Look at the difference in Dogs breeds. Are you claiming that there is NO difference? Genetically there is less difference in those breeds than there are differences in the various human "races".

So all of the human "races" are "identical" in the same way that all breeds of dogs are "identical".

[CSSMariner]

[i]
So all of the human "races" are "identical" in the same way that all breeds of dogs are "identical". [/B]

Who said anything about "identical?" I don't see the word anywhere but in your line. Indeed all dogs are related to a gray timber wolf from which they all descended. All breeds of dog are from the same species, so what's the problem? As I read just up the string, we are indeed all African, and I don't have a problem with that, southern bred and reared and all.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by kittynh
.... little Chinese kids named Saun and Fiona, it works.
They are SO Irish American, and aren"t even forced to take those stupid step dancing classes, they want to take them!

And of course it didn't hurt that the adoptees -- on racial average -- would be expected to be more intelligent than Caucasians. :)

[Starfall]

I think that there are some complexities of this discussion that you are not grasping, hammegk.

Given any categorization of genetic differences, it can ultimately be determined which category a person fits into. This does not mean that such a categorization is scientifically "special". Current racial taxonomies are based on ill-defined and rather small collections of genetic differences. There are many other ways of grouping genetic differences. So what makes the current concept of race "scientifically real", and thus better than other ways of categorizing genetic differences?


Originally posted by hammegk
If political correctness matters more to you than scientific reality, have at it.

It is ironic that some people now use the term "political correctness" in exactly the same way that some people use the term "political incorrectness": To attack ideas with which they emotionally disagree without making any arguments based on reason.


Originally posted by Franko
Look at the difference in Dogs breeds. Are you claiming that there is NO difference?

There have been at least half a dozen posts that have clarified this misconception already. Instead of reasserting it, how about trying to explain why the clarifications are lacking?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Starfall
I think that there are some complexities of this discussion that you are not grasping, hammegk.

Given any categorization of genetic differences, it can ultimately be determined which category a person fits into. This does not mean that such a categorization is scientifically "special". Current racial taxonomies are based on ill-defined and rather small collections of genetic differences. There are many other ways of grouping genetic differences. So what makes the current concept of race "scientifically real", and thus better than other ways of categorizing genetic differences?
So what do you suggest? That race doesn't exist because it's currently poorly defined/classified? But go ahead & enlighten me of all the complexities I'm unaware of/too-dumb-to-understand/overlooking. :confused:


It is ironic that some people now use the term "political correctness" in exactly the same way that some people use the term "political incorrectness": To attack ideas with which they emotionally disagree without making any arguments based on reason.

Yeah, poor old emotional me, emotional psychometrics, emotional dna. :rolleyes:


There have been at least half a dozen posts that have clarified this misconception already. Instead of reasserting it, how about trying to explain why the clarifications are lacking?

What part of "DOGS ARE NOT THE SAME -- in intelligence, in stamina, in strength, in a multitude of ways THAT IS BREED DEPENDENT -- don't you understand?

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by CSSMariner

*snip*
As I read just up the string, we are indeed all African, and I don't have a problem with that, southern bred and reared and all.

Well, that's pretty damned white of ya.

[DanishDynamite]

Starfall:There are genetic differences between every person on earth except identical twins. Drawing a box around certain genetic differences and calling them "racial" while ignoring other genetic differences is arbitrary and unscientific. I admit I don't know the exact scientific criteria for defining subspecies/breeds/races, but it is certainly part of taxanomy.
Two people who carry the familial HDL deficiency gene will have children with the familial HDL deficiency gene. Two people who carry the autosomal dominant deafness gene will have children with the autosomal dominant deafness gene. So, why are epicanthal folds considered a "racial" difference but not familial HDL deficiency or autosomal dominant deafness, just to name a few of the thousands of genetic differences that exist among people? I expect the rules for taxonomy were set up before much was known about genes.
Again, what can you point to that shows that we would arrive at the same racial taxonomy that we use today if we had to "re-discover" it? If you can't point to anything, then on what basis do you call racial classifications "scientific"?They are scientific because they are based on observable differences.
It is only recently that people at the extremes of genetic clines have intermingled. However, people have generally intermingled with their direct neighbors all along, which is why there is a gradient of genetic traits, rather than well defined groups, from Europe through the Middle East into Asia and Africa. Certainly there is a gradient. Just as there is a gradient of electromagnetic wavelengths from 400 nm to 700 nm. That doesn't mean that the 7 colors of the rainbow aren't scientific.

[Starfall]

Originally posted by hammegk

So what do you suggest? That race doesn't exist because it's currently poorly defined/classified? But go ahead & enlighten me of all the complexities I'm unaware of/too-dumb-to-understand/overlooking. :confused:

Since you answered my question with a question, I'll answer yours with the same question you neglected to answer: What makes the current concept of race "scientifically real", and thus better than other ways of categorizing genetic differences?


Originally posted by hammegk

What part of "DOGS ARE NOT THE SAME -- in intelligence, in stamina, in strength, in a multitude of ways THAT IS BREED DEPENDENT -- don't you understand?

I never disagreed with the statement "Dogs are not the same". Read more carefully. A few people have asserted that CSSMariner, myself, and others are saying that there are no genetic differences between groups of people. This is an incorrect interpretation of my position, yet it has been reasserted more than once. Once again, people who assert that race is unscientific are NOT saying that there are no genetic differences between people. In order to make it easier for you to zero in on the important point of this thread, I'll present it in bold:

There are genetic differences between all people, except identical twins. The artificial construct of race groups certain "special" genetic differences together, while completely ignoring other genetic differences. There is no scientific basis for the designation of "racial" genes and "non-racial" genes.

Now, if you can demonstrate that you have a good understanding of my position, yet still disagree with it, then at least we have a basis for a meaningful discussion. If you have to misstate my position in order to argue against it, then perhaps your position is weak.

[DanishDynamite]

Yahzi:Race is a not a scientific concept. According to the theory of race, Aussie abbos and Africans are both "black." This is clearly stupid, as Africans must be more genetically related to Europeans than Aussies, who have been cut off from contact with the rest of the world for thousands of years. What is this "theory of race"? If it classifies Aussie abbos and "Africans" as the same race, then any child could tell it was flawed.
It might be possible to construct a scientific theory of race, but it would have little in common with our current sociological theory. What current sociological theory?
Therefore, despite the overwhelming evidence that certain geographical populations share genetic commonalities, we can safely say that "race," as the word is used in ordinary conversation, has no scientific meaning.Depends on what you mean by "in ordinary conversation".
Note: as others have said, human beings are the least genetically diverse of all the large mammals, so it's questionable just how useful a theory of race would be anywayIts useful in the sense that it provides words to identify observably different subspecies of humans.

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by hammegk

So what do you suggest? That race doesn't exist because it's currently poorly defined/classified? But go ahead & enlighten me of all the complexities I'm unaware of/too-dumb-to-understand/overlooking. :confused:



Yeah, poor old emotional me, emotional psychometrics, emotional dna. :rolleyes:



What part of "DOGS ARE NOT THE SAME -- in intelligence, in stamina, in strength, in a multitude of ways THAT IS BREED DEPENDENT -- don't you understand?

It nearly always takes a man to make any dog bad. I have always been able to work my way into the comfort zone of any dog, just as I have always been able to calm a horse by making it want to come to me instead of forcing the issue. Good, bad, or indifferent, dogs are still of the same species and race. It takes man to screw it up by selectively breeding for the bad traits and then reinforcing them with rewards for ill temper and/or behavior, just like kids in much of the Middle East. Those kids are all of the same species and race, and yet at the behest of some religious nucking fut will kill at the drop of a hat. Gods are yet another false construct that I despise.

[stamenflicker]

I'm sure I'm not adding anything here-- just trolling through, but race, like so many other things is a social construct. On a more interesting not, it's a perfect example of psychologically conflicting empirical realities.

Flick

[Starfall]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

They are scientific because they are based on observable differences.

Look up the definition of "Caucasian Race" and see if it is consistent with the "observable differences" rule-of-thumb.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Certainly there is a gradient. Just as there is a gradient of electromagnetic wavelengths from 400 nm to 700 nm. That doesn't mean that the 7 colors of the rainbow aren't scientific.

The 7 colors of the rainbow are completely inclusive of that which they seek to categorize: visible electromagnetic wavelengths. "Racial" groupings seek to categorize genetic differences, yet are based on a small, poorly-defined subset of all genetic variability among humans.

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by gentlehorse


Well, that's pretty damned white of ya.

So I've been told before.

[gentlehorse]

CSSMariner:
So I've been told before.

I was just yankin' your chain a little there, North Carolina. No offense intended--

DanishDynamite:
I see no need to deny the existence of races. Only a need to combat unfounded racism.

My sentiments exactly--

CSSMariner:
The PBS series “Tree of Life,” demonstrated that each and every living thing on this planet shares some DNA, from the lowest slime and algae, to trees, crocodiles, buffaloes, elephants and human beings.

In that case, what say we just go for the whole shootin' match and deny the existence of any distinction between any life forms?

[Starfall]

Originally posted by gentlehorse
...what say we just go for the whole shootin' match and deny the existence of any distinction between any life forms?

Unlike "race", "species" has a scientific definition: A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by hammegk


Yup, individual by individual it doesn't work. Nor do actuarial stats, but insurance cos. still get rich.

Please cite a study which strongly suggests independent trait inheritance for any given breed, dog or man.


Perhaps I misunderstand your question, but I was always under the impression that individual gnetic traits were inherited independantly of each other. This is why my brother has a different mix of appearance traits then I do. not much different, but different because that's the way the dice rolled.

I am not arguing that differences don't exist in humans, or that they are not genetic, or that they arise independantly of genetics.

These traits between humans also correspond (roughly) with the place of that person's ancestory, the lines may be a bit muddled due to historic migrations or mixing with other groups. This is due to (a) heredity and (b) genetic drift that caused the differences in the first place. The differences are minor, but relevant occasionaly in medicine.

What irks people is the way that these rather trivial differences are treated. Take for example the statement "African have, on average, more rythem, more athletic ability and less intelligence than whites." To begin, there is more genetic diversity in sub-saharan Africa than anywhere else in the world, just look at a pygmy and a masai. Also, such effects could be caused by socio-economic factors, so insurance companies would be right to make statistical generalizations at anything in sight, as they might hit it on the head due to some correlation they hadn't counted upon.

The way that race has been conceptualized in law and society is almost certainly useless. Nix that, it's destructive and ultimatly harmful. When we say "scrap race" we mean to end the cyclic pattern of useless and unscientific bigotry that has masqueraded so long as genetics. Legitmiate medical correlations is fine by me, especialy if a;; is well in society.

[Yahzi]

Danish
What is this "theory of race"? If it classifies Aussie abbos and "Africans" as the same race, then any child could tell it was flawed.

What current sociological theory?

Depends on what you mean by "in ordinary conversation".

Why is it that people who don't even know what the conversation is about insist on making comments about it? Why is some people think it is clever to play stupid and fail to understand even the most basic comments? I'm sorry, you haven't defined the words "What," "current," "sociological," or "theory," so I am unable to respond to you.

You are here defending the concept of race - why don't you explain what concept you are talking about, since you clearly have no idea what concept everyone else is talking about.

Its useful in the sense that it provides words to identify observably different subspecies of humans
If you were capable of following the conversation, you would understand that my objection is precisely that it identifies different subspecies incorrectly.

Hal Bidlack, I need more /ignore!!!

[DanishDynamite]

Yahzi:Why is it that people who don't even know what the conversation is about insist on making comments about it? Why is some people think it is clever to play stupid and fail to understand even the most basic comments? I'm sorry, you haven't defined the words "What," "current," "sociological," or "theory," so I am unable to respond to you. We are discussing whether the word "race" should be scrapped. You were the one that brought up this "theory of race" and this "current sociological theory". No one else has mentioned these theories. If they are relevant to this thread, please explain what they are.
You are here defending the concept of race - why don't you explain what concept you are talking about, since you clearly have no idea what concept everyone else is talking about. I am talking about the concept known as subspecies:

A taxonomically and geographically distinct subgroup within one species; a somewhat distinct morphological and reproductively isolated sub-group of a species.

It is my understanding that "race" is another word for subspecies.
If you were capable of following the conversation, you would understand that my objection is precisely that it identifies different subspecies incorrectly.If you were capable of coherent thought you would know that your objection means little to me unless backed up by facts.
Hal Bidlack, I need more /ignore!!!:rolleyes:

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Race is a not a scientific concept. According to the theory of race, Aussie abbos and Africans are both "black." This is clearly stupid, as Africans must be more genetically related to Europeans than Aussies, who have been cut off from contact with the rest of the world for thousands of years.

It might be possible to construct a scientific theory of race, but it would have little in common with our current sociological theory.

Therefore, despite the overwhelming evidence that certain geographical populations share genetic commonalities, we can safely say that "race," as the word is used in ordinary conversation, has no scientific meaning.

Note: as others have said, human beings are the least genetically diverse of all the large mammals, so it's questionable just how useful a theory of race would be anyway.

This is certainly the case. It would be fair to say that race is a concept which many have attempted to "scientificalise" but with minimal success, and says more about attempts to order the world according to specific ideologies than to actually understand it.

One of the problems with the term "race", though, is that in certain instances it has become synonymous with ethnicity, particularly WRT the cultural products of racial categorisations on certain groups.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by CSSMariner


Not "Race" dunderhead, "ETHNIC" Grouping, to which ETNIC group I belong.

This is just symantics. You are making a dystinction regarding ethnic groups that is not much different than the notion of races. I hate these kinds of arguements.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Renfield


This is just symantics. You are making a dystinction regarding ethnic groups that is not much different than the notion of races. I hate these kinds of arguements.
Not me. I am wrong, and You are all Africans. Happy now?

[subgenius]

A blurb from the show "Journey of Man" on PBS recently:
Journey of Man
Today, some six billion people are spread across the planet. But there was a time when the human species numbered only a few thousand and the world was a single continent: Africa. Then a small group left their African homeland on a journey into an unknown, hostile world. Against impossible odds, these extraordinary explorers survived and went on to conquer the earth. Their story can finally be told through the science of genetics. Dr. Spencer Wells, a 33-year-old geneticist, has been disentangling this epic story from evidence all people carry with them — in their DNA — inherited from those ancient travelers. Wells travels to every continent in search of the people whose DNA holds humanity's secret history, including Namibian Bushmen, Chukchi reindeer herders of the Russian Arctic, Native Americans and Australian aborigines.
Dr. Spencer Wells, a 33-year-old geneticist, has closed the door on his laboratory and is embarking on the biggest adventure of his life. His mission: to retrace the most extraordinary journey of all time, a journey that involves every man, woman and child alive today.

Join Wells in JOURNEY OF MAN as he travels to every continent on earth, endures every terrain, from the deserts of Namibia to the frozen extremes of the Russian Arctic, and meets the key human groups that hold the genetic history of mankind in their blood — including the African Bushmen, Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, Chukchi reindeer herders and Kyrgyz nomads. The two-hour program airs on PBS Tuesday, January 21, 2003 (check local listings).

This is a true story. Once upon a time the human family numbered only a few and inhabited one continent, Africa. Then, forced by drought and famine, this small group left their homeland and embarked on the most hazardous journey of all time. They didn't stop until they had reached the very ends of the earth. We are all their children.

Wells has been part of a worldwide team of scientists deciphering these details for the past 15 years. How? The team has been reading clues left behind by these ancient travellers, in the blood of everyone alive today. Humans carry tiny changes in their DNA sequence — passed on by their ancestors, from grandparents to ancestral grandparents of 2,000 generations. They are all present in the genes of the humans of today and will be passed on to the children of tomorrow. Wells tracks these DNA changes — the map of human history. Now at last the greatest history story ever is ready to be told for the first time.
------------------------------------

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by Renfield


This is just symantics. You are making a dystinction regarding ethnic groups that is not much different than the notion of races. I hate these kinds of arguements.

The ethnic differences among groups of people are vastly greater than the genetic variance among all human beings alive today.

I simply suggested scrapping the idea of different "races" when we are all of the human race, no more, no less.

[Yahzi]

Danish
We are discussing whether the word "race" should be scrapped. You were the one that brought up this "theory of race" and this "current sociological theory". No one else has mentioned these theories. If they are relevant to this thread, please explain what they are.
Try answering the question, "What does the word race mean?" If you do, and you are in fact competent to do so, you will see that the word race refers to a method, or hypothesis, or theory, of how to go about dividing people into groups. This theoretical method is not a product of science, but of social practices; hence, sociological.

I'll assume that your problem is that English is a second language, and that's why you don't understand these simple concepts, but in fact we all know it's because you just enjoy being difficult.

I am talking about the concept known as subspecies:

A taxonomically and geographically distinct subgroup within one species; a somewhat distinct morphological and reproductively isolated sub-group of a species.

It is my understanding that "race" is another word for subspecies.

That's because you don't understand what the word race means. Ask any racist if Aussie Abbos and African Negros are in the same "sub-species," and he will say yes. They both have black skin, hence they are both "black." Now you will tell me that's a stupid concept. I know it's a stupid concept. That's what I keep saying: RACE IS A STUPID CONCEPT THAT IS WRONG. Since you agree with me, why are you arguing?

Oh right, you are defending the concept of race as a scientific division, applied by professional taxonomists. No such thing exists; and no one else on the entire planet means such a thing when they use the word race, but that doesn't bother you much, does it?

Do you know what a strawman argument is? Do you intentionally apply them because you like being difficult, or are you just that confused that you don't understand what people are talking about?

[DanishDynamite]

Yahzi:Try answering the question, "What does the word race mean?" If you do, and you are in fact competent to do so, you will see that the word race refers to a method, or hypothesis, or theory, of how to go about dividing people into groups. This theoretical method is not a product of science, but of social practices; hence, sociological."Race" according to Merriam-Webster:

a :An actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group
b : BREED
c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type

I'll assume that your problem is that English is a second language, and that's why you don't understand these simple concepts, but in fact we all know it's because you just enjoy being difficult.Assume whatever you like. You still need to present your "theory of race" and the "current sociological theory".
That's because you don't understand what the word race means. Ask any racist if Aussie Abbos and African Negros are in the same "sub-species," and he will say yes. They both have black skin, hence they are both "black." Now you will tell me that's a stupid concept. I know it's a stupid concept. That's what I keep saying: RACE IS A STUPID CONCEPT THAT IS WRONG. Since you agree with me, why are you arguing?I disagree because the definition of "race" is not determined by racists.
Oh right, you are defending the concept of race as a scientific division, applied by professional taxonomists. No such thing exists; and no one else on the entire planet means such a thing when they use the word race, but that doesn't bother you much, does it?Again, please provide some facts. According to this website (http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/courses/hde19/lecture6.html) there are at least 30 races.
Do you know what a strawman argument is? Do you intentionally apply them because you like being difficult, or are you just that confused that you don't understand what people are talking about.Do you know how to read? Your wish to outlaw a word as a means of combating racism is perhaps understandable, but hardly potent.

Races exist. They are getting ever more diluted, and the term will probably lose all meaning a few hundred years down the line, but it is still a relevant term today.

[CSSMariner]

There are no, nada, zip, nil, none and no such thing as a "Sub species" within the human race. We are all of the exact same species, Homo sapiens. Evolution has shaped features a little differently here and there over time. Darker skin where the sun is more intense, and progressively lighter as the sun is lower on the horizon most of the time and the skin must be lighter for the maximum formation of vitamin D.

Just as with dogs, every human being on the face of the earth is capable of mating and producing offspring, provided there are no physiological reasons that preclude it.

“Race” is a construct of man to separate people, just as I see hyphenated Americans or any other hyphenated name adopted to separate people. In America we have Asian-American, Irish-American, African-American ad infinitum, and the only function the hyphen serves is to separate people. If one is born in America, the American comes first no matter what political correctness maintains or demands to the otherwise.

Of course in Europe there has long been a problem with little bitty nations trying to hack some living space and set themselves apart. That will change over time with the European Union.

[DanishDynamite]

CSSMariner: There are no, nada, zip, nil, none and no such thing as a "Sub species" within the human race. Wrong.
We are all of the exact same species, Homo sapiens. Correct.
Evolution has shaped features a little differently here and there over time. Correct.
Darker skin where the sun is more intense, and progressively lighter as the sun is lower on the horizon most of the time and the skin must be lighter for the maximum formation of vitamin D. Perhaps. There is still some uncertainty regarding the evolutionary process which resulted in the various subspecies.
Just as with dogs, every human being on the face of the earth is capable of mating and producing offspring, provided there are no physiological reasons that preclude it. Never said otherwise, and it has nothing to do with race.
“Race” is a construct of man to separate people, just as I see hyphenated Americans or any other hyphenated name adopted to separate people. I don't know the origin of the word race. Can you provide evidence to show your theory is correct?
In America we have Asian-American, Irish-American, African-American ad infinitum, and the only function the hyphen serves is to separate people. If one is born in America, the American comes first no matter what political correctness maintains or demands to the otherwise. There is no doubt that America has problems with racial issues and political correctness. This has no influence on the existence of races.
Of course in Europe there has long been a problem with little bitty nations trying to hack some living space and set themselves apart. That will change over time with the European Union. :confused: Relevance?

[Starfall]

DanishDynamite, the link that you site directly admits that "races" are arbitrary, which is exactly what has been said in this thread. From the website you linked to:

Classification. The divisions between blacks, whites, and the other major groups are arbitrary because each group shades into the others. All the human groups on Earth have mated with humans of every other groups they've encountered. Nevertheless, recognizing these major groups and calling them by these inexact names is a shorthand that makes it easier to understand history. By analogy, it is also useful to divide classical music into periods like "baroque," classical," and "romantic," even though each period is diverse and shades into other periods. (J. Diamond "How Africa Became Black" Discover Magazine, February, 1994)

[whitefork]

What's a subspecies? Is that just another term for race?

[DanishDynamite]

Starfall:DanishDynamite, the link that you site directly admits that "races" are arbitrary, which is exactly what has been said in this thread. From the website you linked to:

Classification. The divisions between blacks, whites, and the other major groups are arbitrary because each group shades into the others. All the human groups on Earth have mated with humans of every other groups they've encountered. Nevertheless, recognizing these major groups and calling them by these inexact names is a shorthand that makes it easier to understand history. By analogy, it is also useful to divide classical music into periods like "baroque," classical," and "romantic," even though each period is diverse and shades into other periods. (J. Diamond "How Africa Became Black" Discover Magazine, February, 1994)You are correct. To my knowledge, I never said otherwise. I objected to the claim that the allocation of races wasn't scientific.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by CSSMariner
There are no, nada, zip, nil, none and no such thing as a "Sub species" within the human race. We are all of the exact same species, Homo sapiens. Evolution has shaped features a little differently here and .

Actually, we are all the same _subspecies_: homo sapiens sapiens

[Yahzi]

DumbasDynamite
I objected to the claim that the allocation of races wasn't scientific.
It isn't scientific.

What the hell is your problem? You don't even know what the word means, but you insist on defending some scientific version of it. A version, mind you, that NO ONE ELSE has ever heard of.

Show us a link to a scientific definition of race. Go on, provide a link to this mythical scientific, taxonomic definition of race.

You can't, because race is not a term used by scientists. That is because it is not a scientific term. Do you get it now?

The fact that you can invent a definition of the word race that is scientific means nothing at all. If I choose to redefince race as flavors of cheese, then presto! It's scientific! But if I choose to redefine the word "DanishDynamite" to mean "f**king retarded moron," then... oh wait... no redefinition necessary.

And there are no sub-species of the human race. You don't know what sub-species means, either.

I don't know what your agenda is, but I can tell you what you are accomplishing: you are convincing people that you are an apologist for the Nazis. Just exactly what did your father do in Denmark during the war, eh?

[Starfall]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Starfall:You are correct. To my knowledge, I never said otherwise. I objected to the claim that the allocation of races wasn't scientific.

"Races" are not scientific. In order for a taxonomy to be scientific, it must be repeatable. That is, it must be able to be independently arrived at. The taxonomy of species, for example, is repeatable. Aliens could come down and notice that certain collections of organisms cannot interbreed with other organisms outside that collection. If these aliens were to classify all of these interbreeding observations into a taxonomy, that taxonomy would be isomorphic to our own taxonomy of species. In other words, while the language and the representation of the alien's taxonomy would be different, the underlying "shape" of their species observations would be the same as ours.

The same is not true of what we call "race". Aliens might identify 2, or 17, or just 1 category of humans. Similarly, they might categorize classical music into "loud", "medium", and "soft" instead of Baroque or Romantic, etc. That's because our racial and classical music taxonomies are both social constructions. These constructions may make it easier to talk about history and culture, but they are not respresentative of real physical boundaries that exist in nature.

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Actually, we are all the same _subspecies_: homo sapiens sapiens

You are absolutely correct, eveoved from homo erectus and all that went before. I have to admit to my own nearsightedness in that matter.

[DanishDynamite]

Yahzi:DumbasDynamite Cute. Have you been hitting the sauce again?
It isn't scientific.

What the hell is your problem? You don't even know what the word means, but you insist on defending some scientific version of it. A version, mind you, that NO ONE ELSE has ever heard of.I asked you before if you could read. Sadly, it seems you lack this survival trait. Try to find someone who can and have them read Merriam-Websters definition of "race" as given in my previous post.
Show us a link to a scientific definition of race. Go on, provide a link to this mythical scientific, taxonomic definition of race.I already did. See above.
You can't, because race is not a term used by scientists. That is because it is not a scientific term. Do you get it now?I must admit that your constant ranting on this topic almost sways me. Perhaps if you keep repeating it for a few days, I'll agree.
The fact that you can invent a definition of the word race that is scientific means nothing at all. If I choose to redefince race as flavors of cheese, then presto! It's scientific! But if I choose to redefine the word "DanishDynamite" to mean "f**king retarded moron," then... oh wait... no redefinition necessary.Redefining words seems to be your specialty.
And there are no sub-species of the human race. You don't know what sub-species means, either.Yawn....
I don't know what your agenda is, but I can tell you what you are accomplishing: you are convincing people that you are an apologist for the Nazis. Just exactly what did your father do in Denmark during the war, eh?Uh-oh. You mentioned Nazis. Does that mean the thread is over?.

Please put me on Ignore, Yahzi. Your incoherent babble is tiresome.

[DanishDynamite]

Starfall:"Races" are not scientific. In order for a taxonomy to be scientific, it must be repeatable. That is, it must be able to be independently arrived at. The taxonomy of species, for example, is repeatable. Aliens could come down and notice that certain collections of organisms cannot interbreed with other organisms outside that collection. If these aliens were to classify all of these interbreeding observations into a taxonomy, that taxonomy would be isomorphic to our own taxonomy of species. In other words, while the language and the representation of the alien's taxonomy would be different, the underlying "shape" of their species observations would be the same as ours."Races" are scientific. That is, unless you wish to declare that the concept of subspecies is not scientific.
The same is not true of what we call "race". Aliens might identify 2, or 17, or just 1 category of humans. Similarly, they might categorize classical music into "loud", "medium", and "soft" instead of Baroque or Romantic, etc. That's because our racial and classical music taxonomies are both social constructions. These constructions may make it easier to talk about history and culture, but they are not respresentative of real physical boundaries that exist in nature.If aliens came down and declared that a German Shepard was no different from a Dachshound, would that make this distinction unscientific?

[Starfall]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite:

"Races" are scientific. That is, unless you wish to declare that the concept of subspecies is not scientific.

Are you asserting that our racial taxonomy is scientifically repeatable, as I described above?


Originally posted by DanishDynamite:

If aliens came down and declared that a German Shepard was no different from a Dachshound, would that make this distinction unscientific?

The aliens idea was used to introduce the concept of independent repeatability. Scientifically honest and observant aliens, which are obviously what I assumed in order to make a point, would not make the observation that a German Shepard was no different from a Dachshund. My aliens argument was NOT a "he said this, she said that, so who knows what's true" argument at all...

By the way, why don't you make your arguments using people directly, rather than dogs, since dogs have had external breeding contraints imposed upon them by people, and human "races" are the thread topic?

[BillyTK]

Race-as in the attempt to categorise people in terms of physiological characteristics such as skin colour and facial features-is unscientific. It pretty much pre-dates what we would recognise as the advent of science (as opposed to what is apparently referred to as stamp-collecting), and the first references to race appear in the 17th century.

[CSSMariner]

My, my, my. Lookee what I've started here. S**t, this is fun, and it is true that it rolls down hill and picks up speed.

[DanishDynamite]

Starfall:Are you asserting that our racial taxonomy is scientifically repeatable, as I described above? Hard to say, isn't it?

However, if I were to play this game, I would say that it seems to depend on the exact scientific definition of subspecies and the exact process involved. Categorization often involves a bit of arbitrarity. At what point is a large planet actually a proto-star or brown dwarf?

The bottom line is that given a lineup of a typical Masai, Pygmy, Aboriginal, Inuit and North-European, it would only take one glance for me to determine who is who. Just as it would with any lineup of dog breeds.
The aliens idea was used to introduce the concept of independent repeatability. Scientifically honest and observant aliens, which are obviously what I assumed in order to make a point, would not make the observation that a German Shepard was no different from a Dachshund. My aliens argument was NOT a "he said this, she said that, so who knows what's true" argument at all...So what was the point exactly?
By the way, why don't you make your arguments using people directly, rather than dogs, since dogs have had external breeding contraints imposed upon them by people, and human "races" are the thread topic?The topic of this discussion is "race". This is another term for "subspecies". In order to determine the usefullness of this term it is neccessary to establish its general validity. One can then examine whether it is also valid within the species of homo sapiens sapiens.

BillyTK:Race-as in the attempt to categorise people in terms of physiological characteristics such as skin colour and facial features-is unscientific. It pretty much pre-dates what we would recognise as the advent of science (as opposed to what is apparently referred to as stamp-collecting), and the first references to race appear in the 17th century. People keep saying it is unscientific. Please explain why this is the case.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Starfall

By the way, why don't you make your arguments using people directly, rather than dogs, since dogs have had external breeding contraints imposed upon them by people, and human "races" are the thread topic?

Because people of your stripe get their panties in a wad when confronted with unpalatable facts. It's more fun to use analogy to see if any of you can actually think for yourself rather than babbling pc'lib feel-good nonsense.


Or, conversely, "can't all you Africans just get along?". ;)

[Starfall]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Hard to say, isn't it?

However, if I were to play this game, I would say that it seems to depend on the exact scientific definition of subspecies and the exact process involved. Categorization often involves a bit of arbitrarity. At what point is a large planet actually a proto-star or brown dwarf?

No, it's not hard to say. The very link that you sited earlier acknowledges that racial classifications are arbitrary, and you admitted that you did not disagree with this characterization. If a taxonomy is arbitrary, it cannot be consistently and independently arrived at. Thus, it fails the repeatability test of scientific knowledge. Do you disagree with this?


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The bottom line is that given a lineup of a typical Masai, Pygmy, Aboriginal, Inuit and North-European, it would only take one glance for me to determine who is who. Just as it would with any lineup of dog breeds.

I can tell the difference between individual people as well, because, again, all people differ genetically except for identical twins. The reasoning by which only certain genetic differences have been grouped into "races" is, by your own admission and that of your sources, arbitrary. Something cannot be simultaneously arbitrary and also be consistently and independently repeatable. Therefore, "race" is not a scientific taxonomy, it is a social construct.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
So what was the point exactly?

Again, the aliens idea was used to introduce the concept of independent repeatability.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The topic of this discussion is "race". This is another term for "subspecies". In order to determine the usefullness of this term it is neccessary to establish its general validity. One can then examine whether it is also valid within the species of homo sapiens sapiens.

You're not establishing its general validity by applying it to dogs. You are addressing it's specific validity as applied to dogs. We can show that it is invalid when applied to humans by directly applying it to humans.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
BillyTK: People keep saying it is unscientific. Please explain why this is the case.

Something is unscientific until it is shown to be scientific, not the other way around.

[stamenflicker]

I found hammegk's response quite interesting and I agree. It is funny to see you guys get so worked up over what constitutes as "scientific."

I will continue to contend, perhaps as a purist, that race is unscientific. Genetically speaking, a white male in Knoxville Tennessee [me] is likely to have enough DNA in common with a black male in Knoxville Tennessee as he is with his white next door neighbor. The genetic fallout is tremendous, ambiguous, and hardly race delineated.

Furthermore, there is no genetic line of demarcation to determine where "white" begins and "black" begins. The genes just don't fallout that way people.

So, the idea of race is completely unscientific-- unless you open the science window to social construction and pseudo-psychology [all psychology is a psuedo-science] and let them breeze in under the mask of scientific epistemology.

So while you all sit and debate what constitutes science, this theist gets a good kick out of it.

Flick

[Yahzi]

Danish
I expect the rules for taxonomy were set up before much was known about genes.
The rules for taxonomy as applied to humans were set up back when it was taken for granted that white skin meant you had a soul, and any other color meant you were an animal.

Why are you so unable to grasp the notion that race, as it is used and defined today, is a pre-scientific concept? Why are you so certain that whatever crazy-assed scheme a bunch of thugs dreamed up to justify enslaving entire populations would have any scientific value?

Do you believe every stupid idea that comes down to us from history? Does it never occur to you that people sometimes made explanations up because they were convienent - and then dressed them up in scientific clothing to gain legitimacy?

Why aren't you defending animal magnetism, or phrenology, or astrology, as scientific? They all are based on "observable differences." They have all sorts of rules and terms and theories, and some people still use them today.

You do not understand that the sociological theory of race makes its distinctions on skin color. According to this theory, all people with black skin are black, whether they are from Africa or Australia. You have explicitly rejected this conclusion, yet you continue to defend the theory that produced it.

Here is a simple test: name the races. You are so confident that race is a scientifically justified taxonomy that it should be simple for you to either list or provide a link that lists them. Just name them. You don't even have to name all of them; just, say, a dozen or so. Can you do this? Do you know even that much about the concept that you can tell us what taxonomic groups exist?

I could provide a link to 200 or so dog breeds, if anyone thought it was relevant. Can you provide a link to this glorious science of race? Or even just identify the names?

[CSSMariner]

HEAR - HEAR YAHZI!!! On the nose mate.

[subgenius]

We are all African.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
BillyTK: People keep saying it is unscientific. Please explain why this is the case.

Hi DanishDynamite, whilst I'm willing to accept there may be a genetic distinctiveness that may support the idea of different "races", I'd hazard that it won't map directly on to skin colour, and at best will simply refer to, for instance, migratory patterns of our distant ancestors.

As Stamenflicker said, there's no genetic distinctiveness that differentiates a black person from a white person from an asian person &c &c (depending on how many categories of "race" you wish to use--some scholars defined as many as 300; late 19th century/early 20th century "researchers" such as de Gobineau and Chamberlain settled on between three and five).

So race is a myth, it’s a social construct. Sociology provides a number of explanations on why the race myth had, and still has to a certain extent, such a hold on the collective imagination, depending on your choice of perspective in sociology. The main thing that these different perspectives agree on is, as Yahzi points out, the race myth is normative; it defines who is good and who isn’t, and in the original taxonomies white was always top of the list. As such it’s all about legitimising a particular state of affairs and nothing to do with contributing any kind of understanding of the human condition whether on a social or psychological level.

But the problem is, along with many other divisive constructs such as men and women (gendered division of labour anyone?), IQ, class, sexuality &c &c, something that has no reality in and of itself becomes real in its effects, inasmuch as it is realised in the treatment of particular groups and shapes a cultural identity in response to that treatment.

stamenflicker—all psychology is pseudoscience? How dare you sully the name of such a fine discipline by even mentioning it in proximity to the word science? :p :D Although I agree that experimental psychology is a bit icky, science-wise… ;)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Starfall:"Races" are scientific. That is, unless you wish to declare that the concept of subspecies is not scientific.


Exposing your ignorance here. "Races" are not subspecies. We are all the same subspecies, homo sapien sapien.

[DanishDynamite]

Starfall:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Hard to say, isn't it?

However, if I were to play this game, I would say that it seems to depend on the exact scientific definition of subspecies and the exact process involved. Categorization often involves a bit of arbitrarity. At what point is a large planet actually a proto-star or brown dwarf?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it's not hard to say. The very link that you sited earlier acknowledges that racial classifications are arbitrary, and you admitted that you did not disagree with this characterization. If a taxonomy is arbitrary, it cannot be consistently and independently arrived at. Thus, it fails the repeatability test of scientific knowledge. Do you disagree with this?Yes, I disagree. There are lots of scales or classification schemes within the scientific world which are arbitrary (in fact most of them are), but which are nevertheless useful as long as each class is well-defined. The Harvard Spectral Classification Scheme, for example, is arbitrary but is nevertheless useful because each class is well defined. It gives meaning to say that a B2 star is different from a G5 star, and anyone who wishes to know the difference can look up the definitions.

Another example is the Celsius scale which is also arbitrary but is nevetheless useful because each degree is well defined. But wait! Doesn't the existence of a competing Fahrenheit scale mean that all talk of temperature is meaningless and unscientific? Clearly not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The bottom line is that given a lineup of a typical Masai, Pygmy, Aboriginal, Inuit and North-European, it would only take one glance for me to determine who is who. Just as it would with any lineup of dog breeds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can tell the difference between individual people as well, because, again, all people differ genetically except for identical twins. The reasoning by which only certain genetic differences have been grouped into "races" is, by your own admission and that of your sources, arbitrary. Something cannot be simultaneously arbitrary and also be consistently and independently repeatable. Therefore, "race" is not a scientific taxonomy, it is a social construct.Scientists have decided that subspecies is a useful concept. As I explained above, it is perfectly possible for a classification scheme to be arbitrary and yet scientific.

For the rest of your post, see above.

[DanishDynamite]

Yahzi:The rules for taxonomy as applied to humans were set up back when it was taken for granted that white skin meant you had a soul, and any other color meant you were an animal.If you say so. I'm curious though. Are you saying that there is a specific set of taxonomic rules which only applies to the human animal and not other animals? Could you post them?
Why are you so unable to grasp the notion that race, as it is used and defined today, is a pre-scientific concept? Why are you so certain that whatever crazy-assed scheme a bunch of thugs dreamed up to justify enslaving entire populations would have any scientific value?If there really are specific taxanomic rules for defining subspecies for humans as oppossed to all other animals, I would indeed find that very unscientific.
Do you believe every stupid idea that comes down to us from history? No. Do you?
Does it never occur to you that people sometimes made explanations up because they were convienent - and then dressed them up in scientific clothing to gain legitimacy?I detest creationists, so yes. What does this have to do with the obvious existence of races?
Why aren't you defending animal magnetism, or phrenology, or astrology, as scientific? They all are based on "observable differences." They have all sorts of rules and terms and theories, and some people still use them today. Try to calm down.
You do not understand that the sociological theory of race makes its distinctions on skin color. According to this theory, all people with black skin are black, whether they are from Africa or Australia. You have explicitly rejected this conclusion, yet you continue to defend the theory that produced it.As I have rejected this classification, I could hardly be defending the theory, could I?
Here is a simple test: name the races. You are so confident that race is a scientifically justified taxonomy that it should be simple for you to either list or provide a link that lists them. Just name them. You don't even have to name all of them; just, say, a dozen or so. Can you do this? Do you know even that much about the concept that you can tell us what taxonomic groups exist?Your constant sneering is tiresome. For a list of races, see the link I gave several posts upstream.
I could provide a link to 200 or so dog breeds, if anyone thought it was relevant. Can you provide a link to this glorious science of race? Or even just identify the names?See above.

[DanishDynamite]

BillyTK:Hi DanishDynamite, whilst I'm willing to accept there may be a genetic distinctiveness that may support the idea of different "races", I'd hazard that it won't map directly on to skin colour, and at best will simply refer to, for instance, migratory patterns of our distant ancestors.Using skin color alone is one way to categorize races, but hardly very useful.
As Stamenflicker said, there's no genetic distinctiveness that differentiates a black person from a white person from an asian person &c &c (depending on how many categories of "race" you wish to use--some scholars defined as many as 300; late 19th century/early 20th century "researchers" such as de Gobineau and Chamberlain settled on between three and five). Are you saying that the color of the skin isn’t genetically determined? I beg to differ.
So race is a myth, it’s a social construct. It is no more a social construct than the invention of of the taxonomic term ”subspecies”. Have a look at the definition I gave somewhere upstream.
Sociology provides a number of explanations on why the race myth had, and still has to a certain extent, such a hold on the collective imagination, depending on your choice of perspective in sociology. The main thing that these different perspectives agree on is, as Yahzi points out, the race myth is normative; it defines who is good and who isn’t, and in the original taxonomies white was always top of the list. As such it’s all about legitimising a particular state of affairs and nothing to do with contributing any kind of understanding of the human condition whether on a social or psychological level.I realize that ”race” is a touchy subject because of its historical pedigree (pun intended), but that has no influence on the fact that races clearly exist.
But the problem is, along with many other divisive constructs such as men and women (gendered division of labour anyone?), IQ, class, sexuality &c &c, something that has no reality in and of itself becomes real in its effects, inasmuch as it is realised in the treatment of particular groups and shapes a cultural identity in response to that treatment. See above.

[DanishDynamite]

pgwenthold:Exposing your ignorance here. "Races" are not subspecies. We are all the same subspecies, homo sapien sapien. Races are subspecies, at least according to Merriam-Webster.

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
pgwenthold: Races are subspecies, at least according to Merriam-Webster.

Exactly, and as there are no subspecies in Homo sapiens, we are all of the same race, so why have the bloody word in the first place if not to allow one ethnic group to elevate itself above another ethnic group purely on the basis of external appearance?

Now this argument has come full circle back to where I started it, "Scrap the false construct of race!" Thank you DD!

[DanishDynamite]

CSSMariner:Exactly, and as there are no subspecies in Homo sapiens, we are all of the same race, so why have the bloody word in the first place if not to allow one ethnic group to elevate itself above another ethnic group purely on the basis of external appearance?

Now this argument has come full circle back to where I started it, "Scrap the false construct of race!" Thank you DD!Yes, we are all the same species. However, there are many races or subspecies.

[Yahzi]

DanishDynamite
I have just read your idiot web site.


Hindus
Hindus are a people first and a religion second
the word Hindu is primarily a social term; best described by a process of elimination--inhabitant of India, practices Hinduism as religion, must be born a Hindu cannot achieve it (no converts).

These are your taxonomic rules, then: ad hoc crap made up after the fact.

When you say race to English speaking people, you mean the theory that humans are divided into genetic groups by skin color: white, yellow, red, brown, black. That is what people understand when you use the word race. If you want to mean something else, like this idiot crap you linked too, you have to specifiy that you mean something else. You cannot defend the concept of race when you do not understand the concept that everyone else is referring to. And you cannot arbitrarily assign another meaning to the word.

It would be like me castigating your for not believing in God, and then explaining that when I say God I mean cheddar cheese.

Race, as the word is understood by English speaking people, is a non-scientific theory based solely on skin color. If your English is not up to making this distinction, then you should ask for clarification.

The idiot web site you linked to is a variant on the theme of race, and, in its entirely own way, idiotic crap. Picking out populations based on geography and then classifying them as races, based on things like skin color and religion practiced, is typical of the stupidity that passes under the umbrella of racism.

I'm pretty sure you are one of the dipwits that I had on /ignore. I find it hard to believe I would have tolerated such childish semantics for very long. Luckily, I have found a few open spots on my ignore list, and your perverse density need bother me no longer.



Are you saying that there is a specific set of taxonomic rules which only applies to the human animal and not other animals? Could you post them?
In particular, no scientific taxonomy of animals would include religion.

[stamenflicker]

Races are subspecies, at least according to Merriam-Webster.

Though I find myself agreeing with Yahzi on this race issue, it is precisely the Merriam-Webster fallacies that drove him to put me on ignore... at least you are arguing in his language.

Flick

[Starfall]

Starfall: If a taxonomy is arbitrary, it cannot be consistently and independently arrived at. Thus, it fails the repeatability test of scientific knowledge. Do you disagree with this?

DanishDynamite: Yes, I disagree.



So, the current racial taxonomy would pass the repeatability test of scientific knowledge? How can something that is arbitrary be consistently and independently arrived at? That's the question that I asked, and it doesn't look like you answered it.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
There are lots of scales or classification schemes within the scientific world which are arbitrary (in fact most of them are), but which are nevertheless useful as long as each class is well-defined. The Harvard Spectral Classification Scheme, for example, is arbitrary but is nevertheless useful because each class is well defined. It gives meaning to say that a B2 star is different from a G5 star, and anyone who wishes to know the difference can look up the definitions.

Another example is the Celsius scale which is also arbitrary but is nevetheless useful because each degree is well defined.

Where to begin?

Temperature scales are completely inclusive of that which they seek to characterize: average molecular kinetic energy. There aren't certain "special" kinds of molecular kinetic energy that are excluded, while others are arbitrarily included. ( I made essentially the same observation about your "Colors of the Rainbow" analogy, but you either didn't read it or you chose not to respond to it.)

In contrast, "races" seek to establish a taxonomy of genetic differences, yet clearly focus on only a small subset of genetic differences. The racial taxonomy ignores most of what it is attempting to characterize in the first place: genetic variability. This is why two people of different "races" can have more genetic traits in common than two people of the same "race". This is both arbitrary, and not useful.

By the way, no scientific principle actually uses temperature in discrete "bins" (e.g., "72.4" and "71.765645" grouped as the same "race" of temperature, "72") except where there are real, independently verifiable, physical boundaries (like the freezing or boiling points of water).


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
But wait! Doesn't the existence of a competing Fahrenheit scale mean that all talk of temperature is meaningless and unscientific? Clearly not.

You're actually making my point for me, here. In all competing scales, temperature is still expressed as a real number, not an integer. The analogy to genetic variability would be to place each person along a continuum, NOT to group them into discrete races.

[Yahzi]

Another fine quote from Danish's website:

Ethnic Trump. That my son, Luke, goes to Chinese-culture school seems inevitable to most people, even though his father is of Irish descent. For certain ethnicities trump others; Chinese, for example, trumps Irish. This has to do with the relative distance of certain cultures from mainstream American culture, but it also has to do with race. For as we all know, it is not only certain ethnicities that trump others but certain colors: black trumps white, for example, always and forever; a mulatto is not a kind of white person, but a kind of black person (from Gish Jen, New York Times Magazine, July 7, 1996).

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by Yahzi
DanishDynamite
I have just read your idiot web site.


These are your taxonomic rules, then: ad hoc crap made up after the fact.

When you say race to English speaking people, you mean the theory that humans are divided into genetic groups by skin color: white, yellow, red, brown, black. That is what people understand when you use the word race. If you want to mean something else, like this idiot crap you linked too, you have to specifiy that you mean something else. You cannot defend the concept of race when you do not understand the concept that everyone else is referring to. And you cannot arbitrarily assign another meaning to the word.

It would be like me castigating your for not believing in God, and then explaining that when I say God I mean cheddar cheese.

Race, as the word is understood by English speaking people, is a non-scientific theory based solely on skin color. If your English is not up to making this distinction, then you should ask for clarification.

The idiot web site you linked to is a variant on the theme of race, and, in its entirely own way, idiotic crap. Picking out populations based on geography and then classifying them as races, based on things like skin color and religion practiced, is typical of the stupidity that passes under the umbrella of racism.

I'm pretty sure you are one of the dipwits that I had on /ignore. I find it hard to believe I would have tolerated such childish semantics for very long. Luckily, I have found a few open spots on my ignore list, and your perverse density need bother me no longer.




In particular, no scientific taxonomy of animals would include religion.



Couldn't have said it any better myself, and I too have some room on the ignore list.

Cheers!

[stamenflicker]

You're actually making my point for me, here. In all competing scales, temperature is still expressed as a real number, not an integer. The analogy to genetic variability would be to place each person along a continuum, NOT to group them into discrete races.

Look, if you want to argue this way, then every single degree has to connote a new "kind." Just like every subtle genetic difference must constitute a genetic kind.

I can say its either HOT or COLD outside, but line of demarcation on that very temperature scale will be a psychological one, except maybe when we are at either extreme.

BLACK and WHITE are artbitrary genetic lines drawn along a continuum of genetic information. When we speak of race, we enter into the realm of nominalism and all conclusions are suspect because there is no single point at which a person "becomes" black, or "becomes" asian. Just like there is no particular degree in the spectral shift that it "becomes" hot or cold.

Flick

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
BillyTK:Using skin color alone is one way to categorize races, but hardly very useful.
Agreed. Or very scientific, either.
Are you saying that the color of the skin isn’t genetically determined? I beg to differ.
Not at all. I'm saying that skin colour is an arbitary and unuseful basis for racial distinctiveness (which we seem to agree on), and the genetics which affect skin colour are no basis for genetic distinctiveness of race.
It is no more a social construct than the invention of of the taxonomic term ”subspecies”.
True--to the extent that everything we know is a social construct.
Have a look at the definition I gave somewhere upstream.
A taxonomically and geographically distinct subgroup within one species; a somewhat distinct morphological and reproductively isolated sub-group of a species.
Nice definition! So according to this native Americans and aboriginal Australians could be said to be distinctive races (well, at least prior to prior to European colonial expansion) but the rest of us are mongrels! Which I'm happy with, but I can see one or two people at this forum being not very happy about that! ;)
I realize that ”race” is a touchy subject because of its historical pedigree (pun intended), but that has no influence on the fact that races clearly exist.
Well, the historical pedigree of race pretty much defines its continuing existence and significance. But even by the definition you're provided it's problematic to identify human subspecies--according to that, European royalty is a sub-species!--and leads me to wonder that, other than as a political tool, what's the point?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Scientists have decided that subspecies is a useful concept.

But this has nothing to do with races. Races are not subspecies.

We are all the same subspecies: homo sapien sapien

[DanishDynamite]

Starfall, pgwenthold, BillyTK, stamenflicker: I'm very tied up in real life at the moment and will try to get back to you tomorrow.

Yahzi, CSSMariner: Thank you for your contribution. I hope the Ignore function is working to your satisfaction, keeping you well insulated from reality.

[CSSMariner]

It was a joke son, a joke.

I enjoy watching some people make a fool of themselves, especially over something that exposes prejudices and erroneous preconceptions created by snooty a**holes who persist in the pursuit of elevating themselves above others.

For whatever the reason, some people seem to feel such elevation is necessary so they can look in the mirror and see themselves as somehow superior by evolution and right of place, and for their own arrogance and peace of mind, must see certain others as members of a different race or subspecies.

I actually had a fundamentalist Christian tell me that he believed all blacks were from a subspecies and thereby not related to his lily white butt, that by the way was no whiter than mine. Of course Denmark is next door to that other place just to the south where the “Ubermensch” were supposed to rule for a millennium that the free world shortened by 982 years, much to the benefit of all humanity. Of course some Danes may still desire that it was otherwise.

Those of us who walk upright on two legs on this particular planet are of the same race and species, there are only superficial differences at the surface that were created by adaptations to different geographical locations and environmental conditions and demands.

At the risk of repetition; all members of Homo sapiens differ by only 0.1% at the DNA level where it all works. End of story, that is, until the next group comes along to replace those of us who at the present time are so fortunate as to occupy the top of the food chain. We all cry, laugh, bleed, breathe and die in the same way, and those facts, when added to the DNA evidence are enough for me. That is the way it is. I don’t care how much some arrogant supremacist would like to have it any other way; we are the same.

No I don’t ignore you, you are good entertainment for those long, dark, freezing, winter nights down here in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Were it otherwise, we might have no choice but to go for a midnight swim in the 74-degree, crystal clear waters just ten miles from my doorstep where one can stand in water up to one’s neck and still count toes.

[DanishDynamite]

Starfall:So, the current racial taxonomy would pass the repeatability test of scientific knowledge? How can something that is arbitrary be consistently and independently arrived at? That's the question that I asked, and it doesn't look like you answered it. I understand your question to be: "Given the scientific definition of subspecies, would all competent taxonomists arrive at the same set of human subspecies?". Is that correctly understood? In that case, my answer would be a resounding NO. Just as there are several systems of taxonomy within the scientific world, there are various opinions on how stringent one should apply the subspecies definition. In fact, some scientists make use of up to three different subcategories of subspecies.

So, while I would be surprised to see everyone agree on the number and type of subspecies, I would expect a fairly large degree of overlapping.
Temperature scales are completely inclusive of that which they seek to characterize: average molecular kinetic energy. There aren't certain "special" kinds of molecular kinetic energy that are excluded, while others are arbitrarily included. ( I made essentially the same observation about your "Colors of the Rainbow" analogy, but you either didn't read it or you chose not to respond to it.)I'd tend to agree. On the other hand, what is the temperature of a single molecule?
In contrast, "races" seek to establish a taxonomy of genetic differences, yet clearly focus on only a small subset of genetic differences. The racial taxonomy ignores most of what it is attempting to characterize in the first place: genetic variability. This is why two people of different "races" can have more genetic traits in common than two people of the same "race". This is both arbitrary, and not useful.It may be arbitrary, just as the delineation of vertebrates and invertebrates, but it is still useful.
By the way, no scientific principle actually uses temperature in discrete "bins" (e.g., "72.4" and "71.765645" grouped as the same "race" of temperature, "72") except where there are real, independently verifiable, physical boundaries (like the freezing or boiling points of water).And?
You're actually making my point for me, here. In all competing scales, temperature is still expressed as a real number, not an integer. The analogy to genetic variability would be to place each person along a continuum, NOT to group them into discrete races.All taxonomic terms are arbitrary groupings of lifeforms with something in common.

[DanishDynamite]

stamenflicker:Look, if you want to argue this way, then every single degree has to connote a new "kind." Just like every subtle genetic difference must constitute a genetic kind.

I can say its either HOT or COLD outside, but line of demarcation on that very temperature scale will be a psychological one, except maybe when we are at either extreme.

BLACK and WHITE are artbitrary genetic lines drawn along a continuum of genetic information. When we speak of race, we enter into the realm of nominalism and all conclusions are suspect because there is no single point at which a person "becomes" black, or "becomes" asian. Just like there is no particular degree in the spectral shift that it "becomes" hot or cold.I was trying to point out that "arbitrary" and "scientific" are by no means contradictory terms. Arbitrary classification schemes are common within the scientific world. I think I made my point.

[DanishDynamite]

BillyTK:Not at all. I'm saying that skin colour is an arbitary and unuseful basis for racial distinctiveness (which we seem to agree on), and the genetics which affect skin colour are no basis for genetic distinctiveness of race. As you said, using skin color as the only parameter by which to delineate subspecies, is not very useful.
Nice definition! So according to this native Americans and aboriginal Australians could be said to be distinctive races (well, at least prior to prior to European colonial expansion) but the rest of us are mongrels! Which I'm happy with, but I can see one or two people at this forum being not very happy about that! ;) I'm glad you agree that the definition of subspecies means that there clearly are subspecies within the human species. Personally, I feel your categorization of just three subspecies is much too narrow, but then I'm not a taxonomist.Well, the historical pedigree of race pretty much defines its continuing existence and significance. I completely disagree. The existence of human subspecies is obvious and usefull.
But even by the definition you're provided it's problematic to identify human subspecies--according to that, European royalty is a sub-species!--and leads me to wonder that, other than as a political tool, what's the point? The point is that science should not be muffled by the PC mania. Races exist, as anyone with eyesight will find obvious, and it is useful to categorize these races. Why is it useful? Its useful because it allows one to ask questions such as "Why did the X race (say, Pygmy, if that was a race) arise?" "Why was it a survival trait to be small, tall, black, etc, in that environment". "Why didn't the Y race (say, Masai, if that was a race) invade their territory?". Etc, etc.

[hammegk]

What do all you Africans think about this article?

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/race_AttemptsatClassification.asp

[DanishDynamite]

pgwenthold:But this has nothing to do with races. Races are not subspecies. The word "race" is interchangeable withe the word "subspecies". Merriam-Webster says so, and you can also try to type the two words into Google and see what you get. For some odd reason, many of the first page sites are birdwatcher sites. :)
We are all the same subspecies: homo sapien sapien The term "homo sapiens sapiens" is still under considerable despute. Many scientists and scientific institutions disagree that the term is accurate. The Smithsonian Institute is one. (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/nead_sap_comp.html)

CSSMariner:It was a joke son, a joke. Got it, dad.
I enjoy watching some people make a fool of themselves, especially over something that exposes prejudices and erroneous preconceptions created by snooty a**holes who persist in the pursuit of elevating themselves above others. So do I.
For whatever the reason, some people seem to feel such elevation is necessary so they can look in the mirror and see themselves as somehow superior by evolution and right of place, and for their own arrogance and peace of mind, must see certain others as members of a different race or subspecies. Unscientific a**holes of this type piss me off.
I actually had a fundamentalist Christian tell me that he believed all blacks were from a subspecies and thereby not related to his lily white butt, that by the way was no whiter than mine. Of course Denmark is next door to that other place just to the south where the “Ubermensch” were supposed to rule for a millennium that the free world shortened by 982 years, much to the benefit of all humanity. Of course some Danes may still desire that it was otherwise.Some may. We all have our share of kooks.
Those of us who walk upright on two legs on this particular planet are of the same race and species, there are only superficial differences at the surface that were created by adaptations to different geographical locations and environmental conditions and demands. We are all of the same species, but the genetic adaptations of geographically isolated groups, means that there are subspecies.
At the risk of repetition; all members of Homo sapiens differ by only 0.1% at the DNA level where it all works. The genetic difference between you (or me) and a cabbage is less than 40%. Whats's your point?
End of story, that is, until the next group comes along to replace those of us who at the present time are so fortunate as to occupy the top of the food chain. We all cry, laugh, bleed, breathe and die in the same way, and those facts, when added to the DNA evidence are enough for me. That is the way it is. I don’t care how much some arrogant supremacist would like to have it any other way; we are the same. And I don't care how much arrogant PC advocates want to introduce newspeak, I prefer to see the world as it is.
No I don’t ignore you, you are good entertainment for those long, dark, freezing, winter nights down here in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Were it otherwise, we might have no choice but to go for a midnight swim in the 74-degree, crystal clear waters just ten miles from my doorstep where one can stand in water up to one’s neck and still count toes.I'm glad you find me entertaining. I just wish you could see past your prejudice and stop implying that I'm a racist when I have explicitly said otherwise.

[Starfall]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Starfall: I understand your question to be: "Given the scientific definition of subspecies, would all competent taxonomists arrive at the same set of human subspecies?". Is that correctly understood?

Yes, that is a good understanding of my question.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
In that case, my answer would be a resounding NO. Just as there are several systems of taxonomy within the scientific world, there are various opinions on how stringent one should apply the subspecies definition. In fact, some scientists make use of up to three different subcategories of subspecies.

So, while I would be surprised to see everyone agree on the number and type of subspecies, I would expect a fairly large degree of overlapping.

One would expect significant agreement among anthropologists if there really were well-defined groups to classify. As it stands, there are a wide range of "racial" taxonomies, including ones with three (Caucasian, Asian, and African) and even 30 or so "races", like the site you linked to. And there are anthropologists who have come to the conclusion that there aren't actual subspecies of humans to identify. I don't see a common agreement.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
On the other hand, what is the temperature of a single molecule?

I'm not a physicist, but I would guess that, in theory, the temperature of a single molecule would be its average kinetic energy over the time period that it was being measured. Was there a point, here?


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
It may be arbitrary, just as the delineation of vertebrates and invertebrates, but it is still useful.

The delineation between vertebrates and invertebrates is not arbitrary. Vertebrates have spinal columns, and invertebrates don't. The taxonomy of Vertbrates/Invertebrates is completely inclusive of that which it classifies (the presence of a spinal column), and is independently verifiable. "Race", on the other hand, is arbitrary for reasons I've already stated.

While it is possible to operate consistently within arbitrary classification schemes, this in no way means that the classification scheme maps to natural boundaries. For example, with a bathroom scale, I can easily and consistently identify groups of people that I call ">142Pounds" and "<=142Pounds". However, this in no way implies that there is a scientifically meaningful reason to do so. It is just a social construct.


Starfall: By the way, no scientific principle actually uses temperature in discrete "bins" (e.g., "72.4" and "71.765645" grouped as the same "race" of temperature, "72") except where there are real, independently verifiable, physical boundaries (like the freezing or boiling points of water).

DanishDynamite: And?

You drew an analogy between "race" and temperature, and pointed out that while the use of Fahrenheit, Celsius, or Kelvin scales in measuring temperature is arbitrary, temperature is still a scientific measurement. I meant to point out that temperature is not analogous to "race" in this way, since scientists never use temperatures in arbitrary subgroups, but "race" does group human genetic variability into arbitrary subgroups. I apologize if I didn't express this point more clearly.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
All taxonomic terms are arbitrary groupings of lifeforms with something in common.

Actually, this is not true. The species and vertebrate/invertebrate taxonomies are not arbitrary at all. They map directly to independently verifiable and well-defined physical subgroups. So, there are scientific taxonomies, and arbitrary ones.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite, to BillyTK
The existence of human subspecies is obvious and usefull.

You've already admitted that "racial" groups are arbitrary, yet here you claim these groups are "obvious". Don't you mean that genetic variance among humans is obvious, but that subcategories of that variance are arbitrary?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by hammegk
What do all you Africans think about this article?

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/race_AttemptsatClassification.asp

I'm sorry, the link doesn't seem to work. What was the premise?


aha! now it works!

hmmm... Seems to divide people up by physical appearance characteristics, mostly facial. I'm not sure what worth it serves, but it does succinctly sum up some sort of description of each group.

But it doesn't mean that each group is equal in scientific heirachical status than the others (i.e. subspecies, phylum order, not genetic perfection). As I recall, the man who coined the term "caucasian" to refer to whites (name will come to me) based his divisions on appearance.

But it may be coincidental. Suppose were were to divide up birds in the same way we divide up race. cranes, egrets, rheas, and loons look more alike to each other than say, rheas and tinimus, or cranes and mudhens, or loons and grebes, egrets and night herons. But the second set of relations represents how the divisions actualy lie, rather than superficial affinities.

I don't think anyone can argue that there are not differences between human appearances. It would be folly to argue that they are anything but genetic. But look at things like blood type, which spans far and wide across races (although as I understand there is some statistical correlation), the differences are likely little more than superficial, grabbed upon as significant by a visual species.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


....the differences are likely little more than superficial, grabbed upon as significant by a visual species.

Each person is entitled to his own opinion. Do some research on your own. Maybe you will change your mind. If not, that's ok too.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need; sounds good doesn't it? ;)

[DanishDynamite]

Starfall:One would expect significant agreement among anthropologists if there really were well-defined groups to classify. As it stands, there are a wide range of "racial" taxonomies, including ones with three (Caucasian, Asian, and African) and even 30 or so "races", like the site you linked to. And there are anthropologists who have come to the conclusion that there aren't actual subspecies of humans to identify. I don't see a common agreement.I haven't got an inventory of taxonomists/anthropologists attempts at classification handy, but I suspect there are at least three problems which would affect such an inventory:

1. First and foremost is the pollution of Political Correctness. Race, among humans, is a very touchy subject, for historical reasons.
2. The term "subspecies/race" is not the best defined taxonomic term.
3. The fact that the human species has spread to all corners of the world and that some interbreeding takes place along the boundaries.
I'm not a physicist, but I would guess that, in theory, the temperature of a single molecule would be its average kinetic energy over the time period that it was being measured. Was there a point, here?Admittedly, it was a little tongue in cheek. From this site: (http://isaac.exploratorium.edu/~pauld/physics/thermodynamics/whatistemperature1.html)
Only the random motion of the molecules counts so that to define temperature requires at least two molecules. The combined motion of the molecules (the motion of their center of mass) is ignored in defining temperature. So, the temperature of one molecule is undefined. ;)
The delineation between vertebrates and invertebrates is not arbitrary. Yes it is. It is arbitrary to pick the presence or not of a spinal column as a means of classification. Just as it is arbitrary to pick the presence or not of epicanthal folds. The determining factor is the usefullness of the classification scheme.
Vertebrates have spinal columns, and invertebrates don't. The taxonomy of Vertbrates/Invertebrates is completely inclusive of that which it classifies (the presence of a spinal column), and is independently verifiable. "Race", on the other hand, is arbitrary for reasons I've already stated.Can we agree to drop further discussion on whether a classification scheme is arbitrary or not? Most, if not all, scientific classification schemes are arbitrary.

What makes one classification scheme better than another is determined by its usefullness and whether or not it is well defined. And I will agree that the definition of subspecies has more wiggle room than say the definition of species.
While it is possible to operate consistently within arbitrary classification schemes, this in no way means that the classification scheme maps to natural boundaries. For example, with a bathroom scale, I can easily and consistently identify groups of people that I call ">142Pounds" and "<=142Pounds". However, this in no way implies that there is a scientifically meaningful reason to do so. It is just a social construct.See above.
You drew an analogy between "race" and temperature, and pointed out that while the use of Fahrenheit, Celsius, or Kelvin scales in measuring temperature is arbitrary, temperature is still a scientific measurement. I meant to point out that temperature is not analogous to "race" in this way, since scientists never use temperatures in arbitrary subgroups, but "race" does group human genetic variability into arbitrary subgroups. I apologize if I didn't express this point more clearly.OK, perhaps the various temperature scales wasn't the best analogy. However, I notice you didn't adress my other example, the Harvard Spectral Classification Scheme.
Actually, this is not true. The species and vertebrate/invertebrate taxonomies are not arbitrary at all. They map directly to independently verifiable and well-defined physical subgroups. So, there are scientific taxonomies, and arbitrary ones. As I've said before, all taxonomic terms are arbitrary. However, I've also admitted that the taxonomic term "subspecies/race" is not as well defined as others. That doesn't mean it isn't useful.
You've already admitted that "racial" groups are arbitrary, yet here you claim these groups are "obvious". Don't you mean that genetic variance among humans is obvious, but that subcategories of that variance are arbitrary?I mean that genetic adaptations by geographically seperated groups of humans, are obvious.

[Starfall]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I haven't got an inventory of taxonomists/anthropologists attempts at classification handy, but I suspect there are at least three problems which would affect such an inventory:

1. First and foremost is the pollution of Political Correctness. Race, among humans, is a very touchy subject, for historical reasons.
2. The term "subspecies/race" is not the best defined taxonomic term.
3. The fact that the human species has spread to all corners of the world and that some interbreeding takes place along the boundaries.


It is true that some people object to "race" for reasons related to "political correctness". I agree that these people are misguided, and are trying to dispel the notion of "race" for the wrong reasons. I am not one of them, and I don't think I've raised a single argument that indicates that PC is my motivation. If you read back through all of my posts (nevermind...even I don't want to do that! ;) ), you will see that I don't object to the word "race". I object to the idea that "race" is scientifically meaningful (like species or gender, etc), as opposed to sociologically meaningful. If you don't like the words "social construct" to describe this situation, I'm certainly willing to hear others.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
It is arbitrary to pick the presence or not of a spinal column as a means of classification. Just as it is arbitrary to pick the presence or not of epicanthal folds. The determining factor is the usefullness of the classification scheme.
Can we agree to drop further discussion on whether a classification scheme is arbitrary or not? Most, if not all, scientific classification schemes are arbitrary.

I think that the distinction between what is an arbitrary classification scheme and what isn't lies at the heart of our disagreement. We have gone back and forth several times on this issue which leads me to think that we each might misunderstand what the other is saying. So, in the interests of understanding, I think the topic merits further discussion and clarification. If you have more pressing needs or are simply tired of this discussion, then I understand, and I won't take your decision to discontinue as an admission of being wrong.

If you wish to continue this discussion, then let me say that I see a very strong difference among classification schemes that you seem to think are all arbitrary. Here's the difference that I see: Some classification schemes are independently repeatable, and some aren't. For example, after mass amnesia the periodic table of the elements would eventually be "rediscovered", and its structure would be the same as it is now. Likewise, independent observations about which groups of organisms can interbreed would match those that we have now. I think the same is true of spinal columns, and epicanthal folds, and sexual reproduction roles.

However, there are other classification schemes that are not really "repeatable". For example, some consider "native Laplanders" and "native Greeks" to both be the same kind of people (Caucasian), while native Africans are "different". Given this arbitrary classification, we can operate consistently, and even make all sorts of "useful" observations, like "Caucasians have straighter hair". But, we could just have easily grouped people along different "boundaries" and made different consistent and "useful" observations. It is a matter of convention, rather than physical boundaries, that some have agreed to use this taxonomy over many other potential ones.

In other words, some taxonomies group things in very obvious, meaningful, and sometimes even indivisible ways, and others are simply settled upon for the sake of convention. But when someone asserts that a taxonomy is "real" (i.e., "races exist"), they imply that it follows natural and undeniable boundaries, rather than arbitrary boundaries of convention.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
OK, perhaps the various temperature scales wasn't the best analogy. However, I notice you didn't adress my other example, the Harvard Spectral Classification Scheme.

True. You brought it up in parallel with (rather than in contrast to) temperature, so I assumed that arguments against the temperature analogy would be sufficient. If there is something special about the Harvard scheme that is particularly illuminating, I'm willing to have a discussion...


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
As I've said before, all taxonomic terms are arbitrary. However, I've also admitted that the taxonomic term "subspecies/race" is not as well defined as others. That doesn't mean it isn't useful.

If you don't perceive the difference among taxonomies that I described above (repeatable vs. convention), and you think that species and genders and atomic elements are arbitrary in the same way that "race" is, then I think there is probably no basis for us having a meaningful discussion. On the other hand, if you do recognize a difference, and are willing to continue our discussion, I'm game...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Starfall


If you don't like the words "social construct" to describe this situation, I'm certainly willing to hear others.



I haven't seen much in the way of published results (since the topic offends all pc'libs) but from what I have read it seems obvious that Mongoloid - Caucasoid - Negroid is completely obvious at DNA level.

Until this point is refuted, "social construct" is just silliness.

[Yahzi]

It is true that some people object to "race" for reasons related to "political correctness".
You are wasting your time, Starfall.

We already made it clear that we are not objecting to the notion that one could find valid taxonomic distinctions amongst mankind. We are simply objecting to the notion that anyone has.

Danish is not merely arguring for the possible separation of people into valid sub-categories. No one here disputes that is possible. They are objecting to the notion that there is any scientific value in such a separation. For example, chou-chou dogs come in three different colors (red, black, and white), but only one breed (chou-chou). You can imagine Danish arguing over whether there should be one or three breeds of chou-chous, and you can imagine how much anyone cares.

Danish seems to go further than mere arbitrary distinction, and imply that he does think that there are valid, usefull reasons to create these distinctions. Yet he has no proof or evidence to offer, only a web site that repeats the normative message that whiter is better. It is this faith in the differences of man that makes us think of him as a racist, particularly because these alleged valuable differences have never been shown to exist, although many have claimed they existed and acted as if they did. Danish supports their claim that significant differences exist, while trying not to embrace the actual differences they postulated, yet not offering any other set of differences to justify an actually usefull classification.

In short words, so Danish can understand: if you think black people are on average stupider, you are a racist, because this has not been proved. If you don't think they are, then you have no reason to even bother separating them out into a "race." Nobody wants or needs a theory of race that identifies merely people by their skin color. Melanonin is an adequate explanatory tool for that. In the abscence of your providing a reason to create racial categories, the reasons of racists will be assumed.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahzi



....these alleged valuable differences have never been shown to exist, although many have claimed they existed and acted as if they did.

Please advise why Ravens Progressive Matrices are biased against Caucasoids (except a very select group of Russian Jewry), and even more biased against Negroids? Do you argue g does not exist, or cannot be measured, or that it provides no predictive reliability?

[DanishDynamite]

Starfall:It is true that some people object to "race" for reasons related to "political correctness". I agree that these people are misguided, and are trying to dispel the notion of "race" for the wrong reasons. I am not one of them, and I don't think I've raised a single argument that indicates that PC is my motivation. If you read back through all of my posts (nevermind...even I don't want to do that! ;) ), you will see that I don't object to the word "race". I object to the idea that "race" is scientifically meaningful (like species or gender, etc), as opposed to sociologically meaningful. If you don't like the words "social construct" to describe this situation, I'm certainly willing to hear others. I wasn't accusing you of having ulterior motives (i.e political correctness) for your viewpoint. However, your viewpoint is still misguided. ;)
I think that the distinction between what is an arbitrary classification scheme and what isn't lies at the heart of our disagreement. We have gone back and forth several times on this issue which leads me to think that we each might misunderstand what the other is saying. So, in the interests of understanding, I think the topic merits further discussion and clarification. OK.
If you have more pressing needs or are simply tired of this discussion, then I understand, and I won't take your decision to discontinue as an admission of being wrong. I'm willing to give you the same "conditions".
If you wish to continue this discussion, then let me say that I see a very strong difference among classification schemes that you seem to think are all arbitrary. Here's the difference that I see: Some classification schemes are independently repeatable, and some aren't. For example, after mass amnesia the periodic table of the elements would eventually be "rediscovered", and its structure would be the same as it is now. I could be nasty and ask you for evidence of this contention, but I won't. The classification scheme is obviously very useful and very well defined.
Likewise, independent observations about which groups of organisms can interbreed would match those that we have now. They certainly would. Whether these independents would use such a classification scheme is less certain, but probable. It is afterall useful and fairly well defined. Of course, it looses all meaning when lifeforms such as bacteria and vira (which BTW are barely lifeforms) enter the picture.
I think the same is true of spinal columns, and epicanthal folds, and sexual reproduction roles.Yes, independents would presumably be able to put the same species (if they used this taxonomic category) into the vertebrates or invertebrates group, as we do, but would they? Would they see the presence or not of a spinal column as a useful classification? What about sharks? Their spinal column isn't bone, but cartilage. Would they make this distinction?

If they divided the human species into groups based on who had epicanthal folds and who didn't, they would be using a classification scheme which isn't used by us.

I don't know what you mean by "sexual reproduction roles".
However, there are other classification schemes that are not really "repeatable". For example, some consider "native Laplanders" and "native Greeks" to both be the same kind of people (Caucasian), while native Africans are "different". Given this arbitrary classification, we can operate consistently, and even make all sorts of "useful" observations, like "Caucasians have straighter hair". But, we could just have easily grouped people along different "boundaries" and made different consistent and "useful" observations. It is a matter of convention, rather than physical boundaries, that some have agreed to use this taxonomy over many other potential ones.

In other words, some taxonomies group things in very obvious, meaningful, and sometimes even indivisible ways, and others are simply settled upon for the sake of convention. But when someone asserts that a taxonomy is "real" (i.e., "races exist"), they imply that it follows natural and undeniable boundaries, rather than arbitrary boundaries of convention. As I said before, I think our main disagreement is not whether a classification is arbitrary, but whether it is well defined. This is the crux. You feel that the definition of "race" leaves so much wiggle room when applied to the human species that it is basically useless, or in your words "not repeatable". I feel otherwise.
True. You brought it up in parallel with (rather than in contrast to) temperature, so I assumed that arguments against the temperature analogy would be sufficient. If there is something special about the Harvard scheme that is particularly illuminating, I'm willing to have a discussion... The Harvard Spectral Classification Scheme divides stars into arbitrary groups based on the surface temperature of the stars. It is used by all proffesional astronomers. Your "arbitrary subgroups" argument in regard to temperature scales thus falls flat.
If you don't perceive the difference among taxonomies that I described above (repeatable vs. convention), and you think that species and genders and atomic elements are arbitrary in the same way that "race" is, then I think there is probably no basis for us having a meaningful discussion. On the other hand, if you do recognize a difference, and are willing to continue our discussion, I'm game... As I hope we now agree, our difference of opinion is whether the term subspecies is well defined enough to be applicable to the human species or not. You feel the definition is too vague to be useful, and I feel it isn't.

[DanishDynamite]

Yahzi, I'll respond to your post because you seem to have calmed down some, and because it could be of some minor interest to those who don't have me on Ignore.
We already made it clear that we are not objecting to the notion that one could find valid taxonomic distinctions amongst mankind. We are simply objecting to the notion that anyone has.OK, but this is not in line with your earlier argument that the very thought of dividing the human species into races was unscientific.
Danish is not merely arguring for the possible separation of people into valid sub-categories. No one here disputes that is possible. They are objecting to the notion that there is any scientific value in such a separation. For example, chou-chou dogs come in three different colors (red, black, and white), but only one breed (chou-chou). You can imagine Danish arguing over whether there should be one or three breeds of chou-chous, and you can imagine how much anyone cares.It would appear that you have the opinion that the scientific definition of the taxonomic term "race" is too vague. Take up your gripe with the scientists.
Danish seems to go further than mere arbitrary distinction, and imply that he does think that there are valid, usefull reasons to create these distinctions. Yet he has no proof or evidence to offer, only a web site that repeats the normative message that whiter is better. Please point out where the website I posted condones that "white is better".
It is this faith in the differences of man that makes us think of him as a racist, particularly because these alleged valuable differences have never been shown to exist, although many have claimed they existed and acted as if they did. Danish supports their claim that significant differences exist, while trying not to embrace the actual differences they postulated, yet not offering any other set of differences to justify an actually usefull classification.Your prejudice is unbecoming.
In short words, so Danish can understand Your childish insults make me laugh.
: if you think black people are on average stupider, you are a racist, because this has not been proved. If you don't think they are, then you have no reason to even bother separating them out into a "race." Your worship of what is politically correct has been noted. Perhaps someday you can become a skeptic.
Nobody wants or needs a theory of race that identifies merely people by their skin color. I agree, such a classification scheme is not very usefull.
Melanonin is an adequate explanatory tool for that. In the abscence of your providing a reason to create racial categories, the reasons of racists will be assumed. The reason, which you apparently haven't grasped, is that the scientific definition of races makes such groupings within the human species unavoidable and useful.

[Starfall]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Yes, independents would presumably be able to put the same species (if they used this taxonomic category) into the vertebrates or invertebrates group, as we do, but would they? Would they see the presence or not of a spinal column as a useful classification? What about sharks? Their spinal column isn't bone, but cartilage. Would they make this distinction?

If they divided the human species into groups based on who had epicanthal folds and who didn't, they would be using a classification scheme which isn't used by us.

Independents would observe that there are different kinds of spinal columns, and often none at all. I do think you are correct in pointing out that vertebrate/invertebrate is not as obvious as species, though.

Independents would also eventually make the observation that some humans have epicanthal folds and some don't. Whether or not these observations are used in common classification schemes is independent of whether or not the physical distinctions exist in nature.

These independents would also make the observation that there are different skin colors, nose shapes, and hair types, etc. These physical distinctions also exist independently of their use in classification schemes. What is arbitrary is the grouping of certain physical attributes together, while excluding many others, into "races". Such "races" are only one taxonomy among a large number of other potential, equally ill-defined groupings of physical attributes.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I don't know what you mean by "sexual reproduction roles".

Sorry - Mother/Father.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
As I said before, I think our main disagreement is not whether a classification is arbitrary, but whether it is well defined. This is the crux. You feel that the definition of "race" leaves so much wiggle room when applied to the human species that it is basically useless, or in your words "not repeatable". I feel otherwise.

Useless isn't the same as "not repeatable". The epicanthal folds observation is repeatable, yet useless. The periodic table of the elements is extremely useful, extremely well defined, and I think most physicists and chemists would agree that it is isomorphic to nature = "repeatable".

"Race" is poorly-defined, sociologically useful (hence "social construct"), and not demonstrably repeatable.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The Harvard Spectral Classification Scheme divides stars into arbitrary groups based on the surface temperature of the stars. It is used by all proffesional astronomers.

In contrast, "race" is not agreed upon by professional anthropologists and geneticists. There is significant disagreement about whether or not it should be used at all, or if so, what scheme should be used. If anthropologists and geneticists agreed that "race" is scientifically obvious and decided to use a common taxonomy, then I would be in no position to disagree with them. As it stands, there is no consensus. Given that scientists strongly disagree with each other about "race", on what basis can it be considered scientific?


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
As I hope we now agree, our difference of opinion is whether the term subspecies is well defined enough to be applicable to the human species or not. You feel the definition is too vague to be useful, and I feel it isn't.

I can't agree with your characterization. "Race" seems to be an arbitrary, poorly defined and rather small collection of certain physical traits. These individual traits often map to natural boundaries, but the collection hasn't been shown to "define the shape of nature" in any undeniable way. If "race" is ever refined to the point that it is undeniable, and a consensus can be reached among scientists, it will be considered scientific. Until then...

[muscleman]

Originally posted by CSSMariner
Thanks to my very dear friend Jack Latona, I have been reading a book entitled “The Seven Daughters of Eve,” by Bryan Sykes, ISBN #0-393-02018-5, and I wholeheartedly recommend it to any and all, especially those on these boards.

I was born in a small North Carolina northern Piedmont textile town in 1944, and was not to leave there for any extended period before military duties took me away in 1965. As were all others in America during the time I was growing up, and basically up to the present, I was inoculated and infused with the idea of “Race.” Race was, and remains, the baseline buzzword for all matters of agreement or disagreement between people of different skin colors.

Probably the single best thing that happened to me from a personal and a sociological point of view was the act of the US Army taking this small town American terminal redneck lad by the scruff of the neck, running him through Army Basic Training, and then plunking him down for thirteen months in South Korea.

Fortunately, during my childhood years my folks had not discouraged me at all from having what were then called “Colored” friends at play. However, all twelve grades of the school system then were strictly segregated, with my high school alma mater not being desegregated until three years after I was gone. In the college I attended after high school graduation in 1962, there were only three or four non-Caucasian students.

Basic training in the Army was the first time since childhood that I came once again in close contact and association with people who, on the surface, looked slightly different from me. I became close friends with several individuals with slightly different skin hues and physical make-up. In Korea, I made it a point to get to know the Korean people. It was then, and remains, an easy task for even an idiot with open eyes to determine as I did, that with the exception of a few minor physical characteristics, there was no difference between me, and any single one of “them.” Furthermore, I discovered that regardless of where I went in the world the people were after the same basic things; a better break for their kids, and the idea that they are improving their lives through their work and endeavors. It may have been on a different economic level than say America, but it was the same basic idea nonetheless.

It was during that period when I was covering much of the northern hemisphere from the Far East, to Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and southern Asia that I started questioning the entire structure and concept of “Race.” I started writing in ‘Human” in the space on forms where I had to indicate my race. I was called on it several times and some official changed it occasionally, but I would not change it myself.

That position has been steadily reinforced over the past 30+ years since I parted ways with the Army Security Agency. That has been especially so since the discovery of DNA and genetics, and the ability to closely analyze the results. The first half of “The Seven Daughters of Eve” is a total destruction of the idea that there is anything more than about 0.1% difference between the DNA of any two members of our Homo sapiens race, and we are all one and the same; evolved from a common ancestor and resulting group of “migrants” who did in fact emerge “Out of Africa” and populate the entire earth.

I would like to see the entire false construct of “Race” discarded along with the idea of “Special Creation.” They both belong in the dustbin of history. Our DNA varies less than 1% from that of the Great Apes; Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans. The PBS series “Tree of Life,” demonstrated that each and every living thing on this planet shares some DNA, from the lowest slime and algae, to trees, crocodiles, buffaloes, elephants and human beings. Personally I think that the fact that I share some DNA with every living organism is a far more elegant idea than some "Creator" popping me into life from a lump of clay, and removing one rib to make me a "Helpmate." I do have a short rib, but it is a birth defect, and that among many other things makes me less than perfect.

However, between members of Homo sapiens there is not enough variance to make any form of argument that there are different races of creatures that walk upright two legs on on the face of the Earth. I would like to see the entire concept scrapped. The only differences are sociological and religious, and don’t get me on a rant about religion. Mankind’s differences in its various and ridiculous religious pursuits, are the only real difference when one eliminates the other false constructs. One day, I hope, humanity will realize that its gods are killing it everywhere, and reinforcing the idea of “Race.” BS x 10n

Awww how sweet, thats a nice speech! But is that supposed to prove God dont exist? LOL...

First of all child. You got the bible taken too literally..

There are 12 ribs (foundation), one is removed and became another entity (woman) the church...The church is the bride of Christ.

Later on there were 12 tribes of Israel, then 12 apostles, then today 12 functions in church (pope,cardinals,archbishops, bishops, priests, etc.).

Your simply too ignorant, thats why your an atheist...

Do u expect a 5,000 yrs old book to say "In the beggining Got formed dna in culeus, cytoplasm, endoplasmic reticulum, etc. etc." and be in a scroll? MOSES LIFETIME WOULDNT BE ENOUGH TO WRITE ALL THOSE INFORMATION DOWN...

This is enough--> "In the beggining was the WORD. The WORD was with God, and the WORD was God.. All things came to be through the WORD. And without the WORD nothing came to be."- John...

The Word is intelligence...Life existed through intelligence, DNA in nucleus is a program, the brain of the cell..

So many things u need education about Child, so many...so many indeed.......

[The Fool]

Originally posted by muscleman


Awww how sweet, thats a nice speech! But is that supposed to prove God dont exist? LOL...

First of all child. You got the bible taken too literally..

There are 12 ribs (foundation), one is removed and became another entity (woman) the church...The church is the bride of Christ.

Later on there were 12 tribes of Israel, then 12 apostles, then today 12 functions in church (pope,cardinals,archbishops, bishops, priests, etc.).

Your simply too ignorant, thats why your an atheist...

Do u expect a 5,000 yrs old book to say "In the beggining Got formed dna in culeus, cytoplasm, endoplasmic reticulum, etc. etc." and be in a scroll? MOSES LIFETIME WOULDNT BE ENOUGH TO WRITE ALL THOSE INFORMATION DOWN...

This is enough--> "In the beggining was the WORD. The WORD was with God, and the WORD was God.. All things came to be through the WORD. And without the WORD nothing came to be."- John...

The Word is intelligence...Life existed through intelligence, DNA in nucleus is a program, the brain of the cell..

So many things u need education about Child, so many...so many indeed.......
Muscleman...
Do you know the origin of all the twelves? I'll give you a clue, Your religion is developed from Sun Worship. Still no Idea?

[Franko]

Da Fool: (A-Theist imbecile)

Do you know the origin of all the twelves? I'll give you a clue, Your religion is developed from Sun Worship. Still no Idea?

Do you know the origin of "free will"? I'll give you a clue, Your religion is developed from the Worship of no responsiblity for actions. Still no Idea?

Why don't you just explain what makes the atoms in your brain (the atoms that make "choices") so special and magical?

I thought that ALL atoms obeyed the same rules of physics? How do you end up with any more "free will" than a rock does religious fanatic?

[BillyTK]

Hi DanishDynamite,
Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I'm glad you agree that the definition of subspecies means that there clearly are subspecies within the human species. Personally, I feel your categorization of just three subspecies is much too narrow, but then I'm not a taxonomist.
I agree that that the definition of subspecies means that there clearly are subspecies in terms of that definition, but that is tautological. I pulled a couple of categorisations in terms of the definition of the top of my head to illustrate how arbitary that definition.
The point is that science should not be muffled by the PC mania. Races exist, as anyone with eyesight will find obvious, and it is useful to categorize these races. Why is it useful? Its useful because it allows one to ask questions such as "Why did the X race (say, Pygmy, if that was a race) arise?" "Why was it a survival trait to be small, tall, black, etc, in that environment". "Why didn't the Y race (say, Masai, if that was a race) invade their territory?". Etc, etc.
I agree with your last point that genetic origins are both fascinating and useful to trace. However I refute the idea that "anyone with eyesight will find obvious" that race exists, because people can't see genes, but what people can see is skin colour and physiognomy, which we agree are arbitary distinctions.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk


I haven't seen much in the way of published results (since the topic offends all pc'libs) but from what I have read it seems obvious that Mongoloid - Caucasoid - Negroid is completely obvious at DNA level.

Until this point is refuted, "social construct" is just silliness.

I haven't seen much in the way of published results which attempts to support the de Gobineau classification (Mongoloid - Caucasoid - Negroid) that doesn't hold that classification as axiomatic.

"[it is] not that it is politically incorrect and hence should be ignored but that it is factually incorrect and should be challenged..."

why black will beat white at the olympics (http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/olympics.html)

Franko...what have I done to be treated so badly? You ignore me and run and hide. Don't you want me as a convert? Are you so afraid of me that you dash from thread to thread, hoping that I might forget about you?

Do you have any answers for any questions or do you just blather about the laws of physics ad nauseum? Do you even bother to type your crap or do you just hit a repeat button and resend the same message again and again?

You have no depth, no argument, no style, no creedence, no credibility or anything worth saying. Why?

Give me something to hang my coat on. I cannot believe (despite the evidence to the contrary) that anyone can be so shallow and stupid as you pretend to be.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyTK


why black will beat white at the olympics (http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/olympics.html)

Truly laughable. The evidence for genetic inheritance of "fast twitch" is presented, the link to sports excellence is mentioned, and then the facts are ignored.

Conclusion: Yup, weun's all just the same. No genetic differences here! ROTFLMGDFAO!

[Franko]

jimmyneutron: (A-Theist nitwit)

Don't you want me as a convert?

God No!

I am perfectly content allowing you to remain a devout A-Theist lacky.

[Liamo]

Originally posted by hammegk

Truly laughable. The evidence for genetic inheritance of "fast twitch" is presented, the link to sports excellence is mentioned, and then the facts are ignored.

Conclusion: Yup, weun's all just the same. No genetic differences here! ROTFLMGDFAO!
The facts are not ignored, they are put into perspective:Entine rejects such criticisms as mere 'semantics'. But his own argument shows why it is not so. According to Entine, East Africans are naturally superior at endurance sports, West Africans at sprinting and jumping, and 'whites fall somewhere in the middle'. But if East and West Africans are at either end of a genetic spectrum of athletic abilities why consider them to be part of a single race, and one that is distinct from whites? Only because conventionally we use skin colour as the criterion of racial difference.
So there.

Liam

[LucienVanImpe]

The objections by Kenan Malik are certainly valid, but he doesn't seem to reflect the actual viewpoints of Jon Entine. I came across this article which turned out to be an interesting introduction to his side of the issue.

The Straw Man of 'Race' (http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/straw_man_of_race.htm)

Summary: Genetic scientists who know better continue to utter such falsehoods as "there are no scientific differences between humans," or "race has no biological reality." The unrelenting attack on the straw man of race is an attempt to subordinate science to politics.

Quite long, but well worth it.

[hammegk]

A request for data.

Aborigines continue to be a puzzle, and from what I see now they represent the most diverged-from-Africa genepool on the planet. Are Maoris closely related to them?

For all I know, they may be the "master race" replacing the mongoloids. Does anyone have valid data -- IQ, fast-musculature, etcetc that represents them?

IMNSHO, skin color is very minor attribute deciding the question of race; if you don't look at the dna you have nothing.

[Yahzi]

DanishDumbass
Races exist, as anyone with eyesight will find obvious,
Do you recall, several pages ago, when I asked you if Aussie abbos and Africans were the same "race," because they both had black skin.

You said then that it was absurd.

But your above comment seems pretty close to "conventionally we use skin colour as the criterion of racial difference."

I'm retroactively revoking any credit I ever gave you, Danish. You are just a two-bit racist dimwit. Unusually literate for a troll, but these things happen. Sometimes people learn to read and write without ever learning to think.

Franko...do you have any answers to any of my other questions?

[DanishDynamite]

Nahzi:Do you recall, several pages ago, when I asked you if Aussie abbos and Africans were the same "race," because they both had black skin.

You said then that it was absurd.I think I said such a categorization was flawed.
But your above comment seems pretty close to "conventionally we use skin colour as the criterion of racial difference."Your wish to see me as a racist obviously colors your interpretation of everything I write.

BTW, are the various subspecies of dogs not obvious to you?
I'm retroactively revoking any credit I ever gave you, Danish. You are just a two-bit racist dimwit. Unusually literate for a troll, but these things happen. Sometimes people learn to read and write without ever learning to think. Based on your inability to debate rationally and your constant need to insult me, the feeling is mutual.

[DanishDynamite]

Starfall:Independents would observe that there are different kinds of spinal columns, and often none at all. I do think you are correct in pointing out that vertebrate/invertebrate is not as obvious as species, though. :)
Independents would also eventually make the observation that some humans have epicanthal folds and some don't. Whether or not these observations are used in common classification schemes is independent of whether or not the physical distinctions exist in nature. I would certainly hope this wasn't true. Using classifications not based on distinctions in nature would be unscientific.
These independents would also make the observation that there are different skin colors, nose shapes, and hair types, etc. These physical distinctions also exist independently of their use in classification schemes. What is arbitrary is the grouping of certain physical attributes together, while excluding many others, into "races". Such "races" are only one taxonomy among a large number of other potential, equally ill-defined groupings of physical attributes. I almost hate to mention the various subspecies of dogs again, but please tell me how their classification isn't based on "arbitrary groupings of physical attributes". And if you don't feel the use of subspecies among dogs is relevant, consider the subspecies of the Northern White Rhino and the Southern White Rhino. The only difference between these two subspecies (aside from their geographical seperation) is a slight behavioural difference.
Useless isn't the same as "not repeatable". The epicanthal folds observation is repeatable, yet useless. The periodic table of the elements is extremely useful, extremely well defined, and I think most physicists and chemists would agree that it is isomorphic to nature = "repeatable".

"Race" is poorly-defined, sociologically useful (hence "social construct"), and not demonstrably repeatable.
No system of classification is demonstrably "repeatable" by complete independents. At least until we are contacted by intelligent aliens.
In contrast, "race" is not agreed upon by professional anthropologists and geneticists. There is significant disagreement about whether or not it should be used at all, or if so, what scheme should be used. If anthropologists and geneticists agreed that "race" is scientifically obvious and decided to use a common taxonomy, then I would be in no position to disagree with them. As it stands, there is no consensus. Given that scientists strongly disagree with each other about "race", on what basis can it be considered scientific?The taxonomic term "subspecies/race" is, to my knowledge, widely accepted within the scientific world. Ask any rhino expert whether they feel the classification of White Rhinos into a northern and southern type is generally accepted.

I've already given reasons why a consensual classification by humans of humans is problematic.
I can't agree with your characterization. "Race" seems to be an arbitrary, poorly defined and rather small collection of certain physical traits. These individual traits often map to natural boundaries, but the collection hasn't been shown to "define the shape of nature" in any undeniable way. If "race" is ever refined to the point that it is undeniable, and a consensus can be reached among scientists, it will be considered scientific. Until then...I've given reasons why it is difficult to reach a consensus within the human species. Perhaps we just have to agree to disagree.

[DanishDynamite]

BillyTK:I agree that that the definition of subspecies means that there clearly are subspecies in terms of that definition, but that is tautological. Why? If the definition of subspecies was "lifeforms whose natural habitat is the Moon", would that mean it was a tautology that there are subspecies?
I pulled a couple of categorisations in terms of the definition of the top of my head to illustrate how arbitary that definition.Again, arbitrary classification schemes within science, are common.
I agree with your last point that genetic origins are both fascinating and useful to trace. However I refute the idea that "anyone with eyesight will find obvious" that race exists, because people can't see genes, but what people can see is skin colour and physiognomy, which we agree are arbitary distinctions.They may be arbitrary, but differing physiognomy is part of the definition of subspecies/race.

[Starfall]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I almost hate to mention the various subspecies of dogs again, but please tell me how their classification isn't based on "arbitrary groupings of physical attributes". And if you don't feel the use of subspecies among dogs is relevant, consider the subspecies of the Northern White Rhino and the Southern White Rhino. The only difference between these two subspecies (aside from their geographical seperation) is a slight behavioural difference.

...

The taxonomic term "subspecies/race" is, to my knowledge, widely accepted within the scientific world. Ask any rhino expert whether they feel the classification of White Rhinos into a northern and southern type is generally accepted.

Yes, there is widespread agreement among scientists about dog breeds, the Harvard Spectral Classification Scheme, Rhino subspecies, etc. But these particular arbitrary taxonomies are considered scientific only because scientists overwhelmingly agree to use them.

Unlike dogs and rhinos, etc., there is no consensus about subspecies as applied to humans. Some scientists think that the concept doesn't apply to humans. Others think that it applies but can't agree on how, which is why you see different racial taxonomies being proposed. Clearly, scientists do not overwhelmingly agree on "race", so "race" cannot be considered scientific by consensus.

Now, you can advocate that human "racial" groups should be adopted by everyone, but on what basis, given that the scientists themselves cannot agree on this? You can explain away the lack of consensus by blaming "Political Correctness", but this presupposes that there is some compelling reason for scientists to all agree on "race" in the first place. What is that reason?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Starfall

.... What is that reason?

The ability to accept and publish scientific findings, no matter how un-pc they might be, maybe?

[Unas]

Originally posted by hammegk


The ability to accept and publish scientific findings, no matter how un-pc they might be, maybe?

The actual question asked [slightly paraphrased] was: What compelling reason exists for scientists to all agree on "race" in the first place?

Is it your claim that specific "scientific findings" cannot be published today because scientists do not agree on "race"? If so, kindly back up that claim with verifiable instances in which findings could not be published because this agreement did not exist.

[Unas]

Originally posted by hammegk
Various characteristics other than skin color should be useful in defining "race", and from various recent tv shows I've seen DNA works very nicely, and scientifically.

Do you get all your scientific knowledge from TV shows? That's not much of an endorsement for your scientific acumen, I'm afraid...

Cite any recent studies in which it has been demonstrated that DNA analysis can be used to define race. (Note that this is not the same as using DNA analysis to deduce the ethnic origins of an individual.)

[Unas]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

It is my understanding that "race" is another word for subspecies.

Your understanding means little to me unless backed up by facts. (Gee, where have we heard that sort of remark before?)

What facts led to your understanding that "race" is another word for subspecies?

[Unas]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
There are lots of scales or classification schemes within the scientific world which are arbitrary (in fact most of them are), but which are nevertheless useful as long as each class is well-defined. The Harvard Spectral Classification Scheme, for example, is arbitrary but is nevertheless useful because each class is well defined. It gives meaning to say that a B2 star is different from a G5 star, and anyone who wishes to know the difference can look up the definitions.

Kindly tell us where we may find the definitions of the thirty races you cited earlier.

[Unas]

Originally posted by hammegk


I haven't seen much in the way of published results (since the topic offends all pc'libs) but from what I have read it seems obvious that Mongoloid - Caucasoid - Negroid is completely obvious at DNA level.

Until this point is refuted, "social construct" is just silliness.

There's nothing to refute, since you haven't bothered to back up your claim with evidence. Care to do so now?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Unas


There's nothing to refute, since you haven't bothered to back up your claim with evidence. Care to do so now?

Greetings. You are an African, and apparently an ******* as well. OK?

I noted I did not have data to cite. Do you know of some, or do you just throw crap?

A define/deduce dichotomy; also ********. How would you "deduce" if a reasonably clear definition wasn't available. Say, mongoloid-caucasoid-negroid?

[Unas]

Originally posted by hammegk
Greetings. You are an African, and apparently an ******* as well. OK?
On what factual evidence do you base the claim that I am an African?
Originally posted by hammegk
I noted I did not have data to cite.
Incorrect. You claim that, based on what you have read, "it seems obvious that Mongoloid - Caucasoid - Negroid is completely obvious at DNA level". I am asking you to cite the material you have read that lead you to this conclusion.
Originally posted by hammegk
Do you know of some, or do you just throw crap?
No, I don't know of any data that would support your claim... but then, supporting your claims is your responsibility, not mine.

As for "throwing crap", you yourself have chosen to do so with your ad hominem attack. I am merely challenging you to back up your claims with source material. If you define such challenges as "throwing crap", that tells us a great deal about your tolerance for honest debate.
Originally posted by hammegk
How would you "deduce" if a reasonably clear definition wasn't available. Say, mongoloid-caucasoid-negroid?
I believe that you have claimed that the definition is available, at the DNA level. I am merely asking you to cite that definition.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Unas

On what factual evidence do you base the claim that I am an African?
On the fact that all of us are of African heritage. Do you dispute that?

Incorrect. You claim that, based on what you have read, "it seems obvious that Mongoloid - Caucasoid - Negroid is completely obvious at DNA level". I am asking you to cite the material you have read that lead you to this conclusion.
Various miscellaneous stuff; had I a citation I would have mentioned it. You actually know something about the subject or do you prefer to just be a pain?

No, I don't know of any data that would support your claim... but then, supporting your claims is your responsibility, not mine.
And for all I know you may disagree. Do so.

As for "throwing crap", you yourself have chosen to do so with your ad hominem attack. I am merely challenging you to back up your claims with source material. If you define such challenges as "throwing crap", that tells us a great deal about your tolerance for honest debate.

I believe that you have claimed that the definition is available, at the DNA level. I am merely asking you to cite that definition.
Again, you disagree. Go attend a circle-jerk, or sing Kumbaya, or STFU, or bring something of your own.

Going once going twice three is a plonk. Happy now?

[Unas]

Originally posted by hammegk
On the fact that all of us are of African heritage.
You did not claim that I was "of African heritage". You claimed that I was "African". Are you now abandoning that claim?
Originally posted by hammegk
Various miscellaneous stuff; had I a citation I would have mentioned it. You actually know something about the subject or do you prefer to just be a pain?
I prefer discussions based upon factual evidence. It appears that you are unable to supply any such evidence for your claim.
Originally posted by hammegk
Going once going twice three is a plonk. Happy now?
Do you always choose to ignore those who challenge you to support your claims?

[hammegk]

..plonk.. go screw with someone else.

[Unas]

Originally posted by hammegk
..plonk.. go screw with someone else.
The fear of honest discussion is a terrible affliction. I do hope hammegk can overcome that fear someday.