Justification of racism

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Islamsmylife, Nov 29, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Because their strengths will ultimately overcome their weaknesses.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    Most of the time, over time. But mutations do occur and are more likely to occur in the process with extreme chromosomal differences as well as in extremely identical chromosomal sets. For evolution to happen carefully and naturally, you cannnot force two extreme opposites to combine and expect a perfect outcome. It takes generations upon generations for healthy and beneficial adaptation to evolve. And yes, with each generation (most of the time), it results in one step closer to a more dominant and healthy being, but again, adaptation in order to be significantly beneficial takes many generations of interbreeding. And even then, we will still carry recessive gene's that are not compatibile with active genes which will nevertheless, as it has throughout history, result in abnormal mutation.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    This is pure rubbish. Its going to be very hard to have a discussion when you have no understanding of the basic concepts. If you are interested, I recommend you read some books on the topic and at least start by understanding what you are referring to.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    There is no genetic racial profile that matches a sociological race.

    It is used to establish probabilities of geographical genetic ancestry, which often can be used to deduce sociological race in a given society - a fairly large probability of significant African ancestry would point to a similar probabiltiy of being classified as "black" by ordinary US society, for example. The correlative classification probability in Brazil would be smaller.
    It's the other way around. Their "race" is a characteristic of their society, a social classification of those features - skin melanism being the overwhelming one.
    No, we don't. Not genetically.

    As your very own links repeat several times, btw - did you read them?
    The closest you can get to "extreme opposites" in human beings, genetically, would be two different kinds of black people. And even they wouldn't be that different.

    You appear to be assuming that some occasional differentiating features of human beings that you find significant are always products of the same genetic makeup - that all curly haired black people share a given set of alleles governing curly hair and melanistic skin, that all blondes and blue-eyed people share the same alleles for blonde hair and blue eyes. Consider the red haired Polynesian and the red haired Scot - would you expect the same alleles for "red hair"?
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2009
  8. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    LOL! I think it is you who needs to read a book or two. I'm well aware of exactly what it is I am referring to. I think it is you that is not.
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Yeah my years of post graduate training in molecular biology have been an utter waste.
     
  10. flameofanor5 Not a cosmic killjoy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    351
    Exactly, I am a Christian, and I am not here to convert anyone here. Not to say that I wouldn't like to see some people change. My presence most likely hasn't made anyone more likely to become a Christian.
     
  11. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    Wow. I feel like I'm having a discussion with high school students again. Yes, I've read the resources I've posted as well as many books regarding the subject. Furthermore, I've taken many courses on anthropology and human evolution. How can you say that two opposites would be two people of the same race???? There is more physical and genetic differences between a white male and black male. The problem is that people don't want to admit it in fear of offending someone. Scientists have come out time and time again saying that the early 90's claims of all races having the same genetic code is invalid.
     
  12. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    I somehow doubt that. Nothing personal.
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I'm not afraid of offending anyone. But I think you are looking for validation of what you already believe in rather than looking at the evidence presented.
     
  14. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    I'm not looking for any validation. I already have that in science.
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I don't. I don't think they are* - but if you want to create some, putting genetically distant people in different races and genetically similar in the same races would be the first, basic step. You're the expert who thinks black people are all in one genetic group, whites in another- as people have been trying to get you to recognize, it ain't so. You are mistaking a bigoted sociological classification scheme, peculiar to your culture, based on naive and conditioned assumptions guiding perceptions, for an underlying genetic reality.

    Read your own links, for starters. Or reread them, allegedly.

    *That was vague, sorry. Expanding: I don't think there are any "opposites" in the human race, and I don't think the "races" as socially defined in the US have any useful (for racial classification) genetic basis,

    but if you want to define some genetic "opposites" and some genetic "races" both, I think you should have them match up. That is, I think genetically more similar people should be together in one of your "races", and genetically more dissimilar people should be in different "races". Probably, this will mean putting some people you currently classify into different races into one race. Certainly, it will mean putting people you currently classify into one race into different races - these people you call "black" are wildly varied, genetically, compared with a couple of your other "races".
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2009
  17. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    Eh, I've worn myself out over this discussion at least for now. Maybe I'll be back tomorrow in this thread.
     
  18. Dirty Dan And knowing is half the battle Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    172
    I didn't need to read the OP..there is NO justification for racism. Racism is a plague that haunts society.
     
  19. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    LOL Then you did need to read the OP.
     
  20. Alexander8 Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    Conversely, there is no sociological definition of race that matches a physical racial profile. :shrug:

    The more genetic loci that are used to determine race the less the chance of error until it approaches zero.
     
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Correlates best with twins and highest with incest. e.g. a community with the same man as father, grandfather and greatgrandfather, will have the highest correlation in genetic loci/
     
  22. Alexander8 Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    Sure, and if you can tell the difference between families of the same race or individuals within a family, imagine how many more loci you have between families of different races.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You mean determine geographic origins and percentage distributions of genetic material?

    You still have to specify the sociological classification scheme you intend to employ - since there is no genetic definition of any human race. If you are using Brazil's, for example, quite often your genetic analysis will produce a different race label than it would if you were using Canada's. If you are using England's from the early 1700s (say you are doing forensics in a Virginia graveyard) you might get a different label than if you are using England's from the late 1900s, when the Irish and Jews had become white.

    That imaginative speculation is in error, according to the researchers who have investigated.

    The typical genetic difference between families of the same "race" (using the Canadian social classification scheme) is greater than the typical genetic difference between the families of different "races". Apparently this is a difficult concept for those raised within a culture built on social classification by race.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page