"Is Race Real?"

funny

it's funny how wellcooked repeats what i say but in a more confusing manner

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This study is conducted on MIXED-RACE populations. Thus it does not qualify.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: spurious

Meaning, "Race can be construed as nonexistent through this preferred form of measurement, although race does measure evolution which historically does not produce mixed-race populations."

Nice sidestep, but you're caught.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1 - True to some degree, except that these people share common genetic traits thus will have those.

2 - I added a brief edit to make this definition fit mine.

3 - Perceptive. Most people think "white" is the only racial division of Europeans, for example.

 

you mean like this?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I. Europeoid (Eurasian) Great Race:

1. South European (Indo-Mediterranean) Race:

(i) South Indian (Dravidian).
(ii) Anterior Asian
(iii) Mediterranean-Balkan
(iv) Atlanto-Black Sea.
(v) East European

2. North European (Atlanto-Baltic) Race:

(i) Atlanto-Baltic
(ii) White Sea-Baltic

 

christian

i'm not sure what you mean by your post (caught?).

i'm speaking from a biological perspective (primarily population genetics).

race was a biological term in the 18th and 19th centuries and arose because natural historians believed in fixity of the species but needed to explain how obvious conspecifics, but geographically separated populations, could become distinct morphologically.

the term is being (and has been) replaced by more biologically definitive terms like population or sub-species. now, i'm fairly certain but i could possibly be misunderstanding, the more precise biological terms population and/or sub-species are determined by the partition of genetic variation where variation between groups is greater than variation within groups. without this criterium then the groups are not separate populations (or sub-species), i.e. they're not races. this makes human 'races' not biological entities if, as i've heard and am sure is correct, that genetic variation within humans (as a whole) is greater than gentic variation between 'races.' this, however, will not preclude a genetic marker from identifying different groups of humans (i.e. black, japanese, chinese, russian, etc.). This is analogous to having a family genetic marker to identify your family, it wouldn't make you a different biological popualtion, i.e. race.

i hope this is more understandable to you.

 

paulsamuel,

You still have a grudge against me, ok seriously now you need to grow up.

Actually was it in the 1800’s and 1900’s that they wanted to defined Africans as a sub-species to validate slavery?

 

so ahh lets invent some new categories that'll mollify scientists and satisfy the laypeople. lets demolish the "all blood flows red" excuse and classify by abo and ph blood types

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My belly button is an “inny”, therefore all ”outies” are sub-human monsters that must die!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No really we should stop labeling people on their physical traits and start labeling people on there mental ones, it makes genocides a much more accurate and guilt free process!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The problem with this statement is one word: often. You cannot pick a set of traits that will always ascertain a 'race'.

This statement assumes the validity of race.

Too much of the basis of the social 'sciences' is false. It's pathetic how a study involving the 'races' ignores the obvious: 'race' is only a factor when studying racism. Else classification is best done with quantifiable data such as income bracket, locality, education, etc.

 

I reject that statement as valid. The reason is, you are assuming that "race" is an actual, biological classification among homo sapiens.

If that assumption is valid, then why not share with this forum the traits that you can identify as "racially exclusive?"

Something that is of note: You pose a question for discussion, then systematically attempt (yes, attempt) to invalidate the responses based on no actual evidence. Each of us has offered evidence to support our arguments... you simply say "does not qualify."

We can only hypothesize as to your motives:

1) You are sincerely interested in what people think.

2) You have an unyielding opinion, based on facts or evidence that you have as yet to disclose, and wish only to stir up shit.

3) You have an unyielding opinion, based on no facts or evidence at all, and wish only to stir up shit.

4) You are a racist and looking for practice in justifying your racist views.

5) You are not racist and do not believe the things you are posting since you wish only to stir up shit.

6) You are sincere and do not realize that you appear to wish to stir up shit.

Okay... I'm out of hypotheses... there are others, I'm sure. These are somewhat testable hypotheses, based upon the content of your posts and assuming that the content is genuine. 1, 2, 5, and 6 seem to be the most unlikely.

Cheers.

 

CD :
No, it's a racist position; anyone who believes in race is a racist, including scientists.

You can call it a racist position , but then we are left with a semantical issue . I for one would not have any problems considering logics with such a "racist" positions , rather what I would call racist (in relation to problematic) is the when after races are acknowledged , specific values are being given to them . Thats what I call racist , to value based on race .

3 - Perceptive. Most people think "white" is the only racial division of Europeans, for example.

and what would another be ?

paulsamuel
the more precise biological terms population and/or sub-species are determined by the partition of genetic variation where variation between groups is greater than variation within groups. without this criterium then the groups are not separate populations (or sub-species), i.e. they're not races. this makes human 'races' not biological entities if, as i've heard and am sure is correct, that genetic variation within humans (as a whole) is greater than gentic variation between 'races.' this, however, will not preclude a genetic marker from identifying different groups of humans (i.e. black, japanese, chinese, russian, etc.). This is analogous to having a family genetic marker to identify your family, it wouldn't make you a different biological popualtion, i.e. race.

Perhaps its not considered a biological entity based on the overal of genetic difference , but thats the thing really . It is not about the total overal of genetic difference , rather only those appointed to be catagorized within the understanding of "race" .

So the fact that there is more difference within races considering the overal of genetics concludes rather that they all are humans than that there are no races .

Skin-Walker
"race" is an actual, biological classification among homo sapiens.

why not share with this forum the traits that you can identify as "racially exclusive?"

Does there exist such a thing as exclusive ? I dont think so , and thats because of the huge mixing mankind has known over the years . However there does exist something as "probable" .

Certain types of facial elements go with one group rather than the other , certain types of eye-hair color go with one group rather than the other , certain types of skin-color go with one group rather than the other . I dont think this is denyable .

I think the problem with races in this sense would be the fact that peoples have proven uncapable in defining them correctly and logically outside of academic circles . The results would be races like "Jews" , "Blacks" , "Arabs" etc .

I also think that race-denial has more grounds in moral problems considering valueing races and the emotional effect this has on scientific understanding . Toobad really , the 2 have little to do with eachother , originally that is .

 

ghassan

in regards to your reply to me:

no. these are population genetics fundamentals. the partitioning of genetic variation is tantamount. the conclusion is that human 'races' are social and cultural constructs and nothing to do with biology although the term race (originally) was a biological term and it was used incorrectly for humans.

 

no. these are population genetics fundamentals. the partitioning of genetic variation is tantamount. the conclusion is that human 'races' are social and cultural constructs and nothing to do with biology although the term race (originally) was a biological term and it was used incorrectly for humans.

Hey its nice that you disagree , but you reason completely around a genetic variation that is far beyond the term race and what it implies .

I understand that it has always been used incorrectly , but this does not mean there is a correct use for it . You can say that it is cultural and social but a mans hair color , eye color , skincolor , facial structure and body structure are obviously not social nor cultural . They are biological elements defined by genetics , no ?

Lets put it very simple : Lets say man has 1 million genes .
Lets say 1 thousand of those genes are relevant for race . Why then do you compare all the other non-relevant genes with eachother to come to the conclusion that race is socially fabricated ? Nobody says should imply genetical majority , rather genetical equality and a few specific elements . Why deny those equalities , as obviously they have a correct relevance to comparing one human group to another through geographical means .

 

this is a bit tricky because paulsamuel knows what he is talking about and you obviously do not!

humans have about 30.000 genes. None codes for specific racial features in the manner you think.

 

ghassan

no one blames you for misunderstanding pop.gen.

your misconception is that because there are genetic markers that can ID individuals based on skin color etc., you think then that race is a biologically real, however this is not the case.

example, i can ID you and your family members based on genetic markers (these can even be manifested morphologically, i.e., based on bone structure, skin color, etc.) this does not make you and your family members a human 'race.'

hope this clears it up for you.

 

monkey :
this is a bit tricky because paulsamuel knows what he is talking about and you obviously do not!
humans have about 30.000 genes.

Im sure he does however the fact that I have no clue how many genes a human has has little to do with the relation of a few have to the phenomena "race" .

None codes for specific racial features in the manner you think.

according to paulsamue it does :

i can ID you and your family members based on genetic markers (these can even be manifested morphologically, i.e., based on bone structure, skin color, etc.)

paul , I think I understand where our misunderstanding would be , and Im sure this is my biological misconception .

As you say : this does not make you and your family members a human 'race.'

If you define race as you did previously you have defined it as for instance "human race" is defined , no ?

So my question then is really , does there within biology exist a defintion that deals with the equality of what I would call racial characteristics ?

I believe there isnt , so then should there not be one ? Would that be biologically incorrect ?

It is a fact there is biological relevance in the difference between you and the peoples you decend from and me and the peoples I decend from , so why then is there no biological definition ?

 

ghassan

well, you bring up another problem, semantics.

race is defined multitudinously, which is a characteristic of social and cultural constructs, i.e., they mean different things to different people, depending upon how one defines the term. this is much rarer in science where communication is more important for the exchange of ideas and terms must have only a single meaning.

to answer your question (i'm guessing that by 'racial characteristics, you mean things like skin color, epicanthic folds in eyelids, etc.), then, biologically, these traits fall within the whole suite of human genetic and morphological variation.

genealogical data, (family tree examples) are biological data and can be treated as such.

 

Re: ghassan

Race is not these traits but the variant groupings thereof. As you said, you became ensnared in semantics.

 

Re: ghassan

Before you define what's "real" or not, how about sticking to logical conjecture?

Family members can be identified according to repeated patterns; so can race. These groupings aren't near of the same scale so comparing them is argumentative error.