Yet all of these studies so far have used a bad definition of race; they're looking for a "race gene," not grouped characteristics. See the source I posted.
I think we need "one thread to rule them all, and one thread to bind them" on the biological viability of race. I believe argumentation should be constrained to these fields: (1) Genetics. (2) Anthropology/general Biology (3) History (4) Logical argument (obviously, all debate must include this) Then I think the incidental topics in which this argument has sprung up, such as the insane topic about black people mutating into butterflies, should be closed or deprecated. Opening arguments for racial classification are here. I would like separate threads for: (1) The philosophical sensibility of drawing of racial distinctions. (2) The political viability of racism; separately, the political viability of nationalism. (3) The ethics, morality, religion, and aesthetics of racism, nationalism or any other form of ethnic division of ethnocultural uniqueness argument. Who's with me? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Jews (e.g. Dr Harold Freeman) seem to have an agenda of racial purity for themselves (i.e. not "marrying out") whilst propagandising for the mongrelisation of the rest of humanity. Treat his words with suspicion.
Indeed. If someone wants to stifle discussions on human race for whatever dubious motivation they have, what better way than to make ridiculous biased remarks about a particular race. Better yet, coordinate with a buddy who agrees to join the thread and scream about how the discussion has gotten out of hand by becoming hateful toward that particular race.
So, did anyone already realize that nobody uses 'race' anymore in the field of biology? That only 'subspecies' is a valid classification nowadays. Did that escape our attention?
Here's your logical fallacy for today: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#authority Try to avoid it in the future.
There is no such uniformity of agreement. Why are you illogically trying to insist it is so? Logic is the parent discipline of all science. Why do you deny it? Are you against science?
In this case there is a general idea on the notion what is an acceptable subdivision of a species. And race isn't one of them.
Not all - or even most - biologists agree with you. See Gill's comments on the vocal few and the taboo they engender for more information.
Saying so doesn't make it so. Most biologists use the term subspecies and do not continue to use the confusing term race.
Same to you - your term "most" is undefined, unproven and totally conjectural. Way to lose a debate - by your own qualifier?
Is there a debate? I just see you spew hot air. Every time someone mentions the fact that you are being silly by clinging to a currently non-existing concept you grab to accusations of 'strawman' and 'logical fallacy'. I didn't realize that this was the definition of debate. I thought it was just play with words. No, not even that. More like a starwars fan acting out a lightsaber fight by himself. Just silly.
I guess logical argument is over your head, then, as the reasons are far clearer than that, and you've resorted to ad hominem, which is not a good sign. "Science" does not universally agree with your bigoted little political crusade. Your reasons are not scientific. And not surprisingly, the data haven't backed up your conclusions...
There are laws on the books where race is a factor. Since there are no human races or subspecies, logically then, such laws are unnecessary, if not frivolous and divisive.
Race-Specific Research and Development Medicine Medical science is certainly scientific. Why then, since there are no noteworthy biological distinctions in socially-constructed human races or subspecies, has medical science engaged in pursuing race-specific or subspecies-specific research? Example: http://www.bio.com/newsfeatures/newsfeatures_research.jhtml?cid=16700001
So now we have to ask if the same people who wish for scientific discussions on race to cease will also ask medical science to desist in taboo research, even if it means the most holy of our society's ideals, "Saving Lives" must discontinue. If so, why would these people wish to hinder progress in Saving Lives? If not, why the illogical inconsistency?
For centuries people did scientific research to prove the existence of God. Why would God not exist if these scientists engaged in this kind of research?
In your view, how many centuries have now passed during which mankind has conducted scientific studies? Help us establish the amount of time that science has been around please. Regardless, there have not been any genetic studies on God's DNA that have paved the way for race-specific medicines for correcting race-specific malfunctions. There have been genetic studies on diverse varieties of people, because they are composed of matter from which observations are recorded, samples can be taken and studies can be conducted. That was a logical fallacy on the part of spuriousmonkey, a red herring type of argument.