I think the real argument is whether or not race goes deeper than the obvious physical traits. IE is there a major and superior group of humans? I think there are superior families, but that can be said about all species (especially horses.) As a whole, there are only one group of humans, but you can split it up as much as you like. All the way down to single people. Most westerners can't tell the difference between a manchurian, and a regular chinaman, but to them, there are huge differences. Believe what you like.
difference between manchurian, and a regular chinaman Exactly, but for those who CAN tell they are different races. I've actually found that not knowing the difference between asian races is mainly due to a lack of exposure. After hanging out with a bunch of chinese in college I can actually tell the difference now. Likewise, can asians tell the difference between jews and irish? (Ok, maybe that is a little too obvious).
to you, the argument is semantic, cause you have just shared with us how you define race. the real argument is; I have stated that biologists have shown (many times in published scientific journals over the years) that races don't exist. 'Race' in human biology doesn't exist, it is merely a social and cultural construct with no greater basis in reality. I have many posts that state the same thing in different argument constructs. Xev, and her ilk, have stated that, "It's obvious to anyone that there exist between humans certain physical differences, and that these differences can be used to loosely categorize humans into subgroups." "Therefore these subgroups (races) exist." Which is not even a valid argument.
I have to ask then, can you identify people of african decent? If this is not largerly based on biological differences, what is it based on? Same questions for europeans/asians. Edit: No, this isn't a good basis for making decisions about people, but it does seem a good method of identification... even genetically. (IE: you are in a room full of black people and their kids, and one white women and one white kid. Place a bet on who the kid belongs too.)
"It's obvious to anyone that there exist between humans certain physical differences, and that these differences can be used to loosely categorize humans into subgroups." Dr lou, you can continue to split the pea down to the atom. What kind of a 'scientist' stops at skin colour and outward appearance? Real science isn't so shallow. Real science isn't 'loose'. Its completely watertight. Example: If you were blind, would these subgroups make so much sense to you? Over the phone, I sound like a 7 foot, black, serial killer (deep voice), but in real life, I'm just a 5'6" guy with a heavy build. Your arguing about meaningless phenotypes, and like paulsamuel said, those things aren't as important as you think.
I'm not a scientist and I wasn't stopping at outward appearance. I'm talking about geographical origins of phenotypes. I'm talking about natural history not genetics. If genetics can't distinguish geographical origins than that is a shortcoming of genetics and none of my business.
I would really like to see BigD (is that short for Big Dickhead by the way?) post anything else other than the differences between blacks and whites. Anything. Aaaannnyyyytttthhhhhiiiiiiiiiinnngggg from a different site. Really! You have trolled several sites quoting the same crap over and over again. Don't you ever get tired of it? You should print off those so called facts and post them up on your toilet door for you to read. Crap in the crap house if you may. We are all aware that differences exist between blacks and whites. However, most of the intelligent population around the world do not see it as being a bad thing. Nor do they see it as being a system of one-up-man-ship. Someone should really do a study on the difference between you and the average negro. I have a feeling that you'd probably come last.
you can't extract 'natural history' out of genetics. the two are intertwined. biogeographical analyses are genetic analyses (ultimately). genetics can determine geographic origins
of course it's not valid. " it's obvious to everyone that the earth is flat. therefore the earth is flat." it's as valid as that
Seems to me you missed Dr. Lou's point, which was that there is more to differences between human groups than their biology.
"genetics can determine geographic origins" And when these genetic attributes show themselves visibly, that is race. Now where do you disagree?
Speaking as an American of Indian decent I can sympathies with the pals. If they were targeting military police and government employees I would not have a problem with them fighting for their goals. When they deliberately go after the soft targets children and students they are no longer freedom fighters they become criminals of the worse sort. I believe that the Israelis should have one nation and that the Palestinians should be allowed to participate. I also feel that no one in the world should go to bed hungry. I think that the first is only slightly more realistic. If the Canadians were making a continuous attack on the US I know that we would not wait 30 days much less thirty years before we built a wall. Someone said that the wall was useless because one attack got through. If the wall saved only one person think of all the sorrow that was prevented. This does not mean that the wall is the best solution. We had our own separate but equal experiment in the U.S. We are still paying the price and will probably continue in lost productivity and the horrible tragic loss of lives and opportunities of our native peoples and Americans of African decent
Races are just natural selection in progress. Whatever is the best trait becomes more prominent. The best biologically speaking are hybrids because when you mix widely separated genetic lines you end up with a much better chance of no harmful recessives as well as the general hybrid vigor. Ask any animal breeder.
one can group anything any way they want. i don't care about that. it's completely arbitrary. Dr. Lou's point is that it's not arbitrary. I have yet to extract why he thinks that. He insists that human groupings based on arbirtrary 'racial' characteristics, are not arbitrary groupings. But, of course, they are.
