In the thread To Those That Think I'm A Racist I posted the results of scientific research showing that races have different bone densities, and that these differences persist after adjustment for environmental variables. This was in response to quadraphonic's repeated claims that race is just a sociological construct, ie, it has no basis in objective, scientific fact. I repost that research here, along with journals that have cited the research (the full pdf is available at the source site for those who are interested): Cited by: The American Journal of Epidemiology The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery The scientific evidence supports the assertion that races have a measurable, physical reality.
To me there will be only one race, the human race, then there's the ethnicity of everyone like Asian as an example.
No no, how did they estimate "race"? I mean if I take all orange cats in one group, all black cats in one group and all calico cats in another group and the calico cats are always females, while the orange and black cats are mixed, is that race?
There is simply no dispute that certain human groups that have in the past been called races have some characteristics that are genetic. What is now appreciated is that there are many other variations in genetic character that cut across these conventional racial lines. Because of this the distinction afforded by race is of very limited value and will often be quite misleading.
There aren't any races within humanity. Any 'estimation of race' is completely arbitrary and scientifically unfounded.
Are you totally certain of that? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! While it's rapidly (and increasingly so) becoming true, there are other genetic markers beside just skin tone. Several, in fact. As an example, without the introduction of genes externally, a couple of true African descent cannot give birth to a child with blue eyes and blond, straight hair. And neither could they produce offspring with nothing but Asian characteristics. I used to feel exactly like you but genetics are hard to refute.
I'm not aware of any living human subspecies other than Homo sapiens sapiens. Which would mean that there aren't any human races, or at least none that are formally recognized.
If these were representative samples I doubt the calico cats would be around for very long, so I think the example is a little absurd.
So the fact that they are around, what does that tell you? In California, what is the likelihood of any "black" person having ONLY "black" genes [is there such a thing as black genes]? What does it say if the "blacks" are actually not really "black" Cats and coat colour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_coat_genetics
Well, I guess it tells me that the sample is not representative and that there are male calico cats which have been excluded? If you are suggesting that blacks in California are mixed, then that might potentially lend more weight to the experiments conclusion, since the presence of white genetic material may be causing a lower bone density measurement amongst the blacks than would otherwise be the case. (It would be very interesting to see this research repeated with a pure black African sample against a pure white European/American in that case). As for whether there is such a thing as 'black genes', I can only say that we find humanity sorted, like pebble's on a beach that have been arranged by the tide, and it is our duty as scientists and curious minds to investigate. Then what are they? What are you trying to say here?
What I am trying to say is that some groups of genes travel together. Virtually all calicos are female, a male calico is a genetic anomaly. Are female calicos a race?
If the pattern of past investigations continues, they would find that a representative sample of "Africans" - taken continent wide - will be found to be less, not more, coherently distinctive, genetically. From a representative sample of whatever you are calling the "white" people, taken continent wide in Europe. And even before including the Andaman Islanders, Micronesians, Australians, and others normally included as members of the "black" race in those sociological regions in which a "black race" similar to the US version has been called into existence by custom and social history. Because most of the blacks in the US are a doubly selected subgroup from the people in Africa. They are not representative. Neither - less dramatically - are the US whites of some region of California representative of the geographical genetics of Europe. By starting - a priori - with the racial category as established sociologically in the US, you screw up your statistics and biff your research. You are far more likely to "discover" spurious correlations and meaningless patterns that appear to support your thesis, than corroborative evidence. In science, as in other reality based endeavors, it ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble - it's what you know for sure that ain't so.
I don't think a useful analogy can be made between cat coats and human races. Maybe if there was more notable differences in fundamental physiology, then perhaps.
In these two quotes you appear to be contradicting yourself. You are telling us that (A) an African sample would conform less to the experimental data of black Americans being denser boned, then you are telling us that (B) all such patterns are spurious and meaningless anyway, in which case how did you come by (A)?
? I'm not following that. I don't think all such patterns are spurious and meaningless. I just doubt they will match up with your a priori "racial" assumptions. They never have before, and not for lack of effort. I also think that if by some statistically improbable but possible (one in twenty odds pay off one in twenty times, and this racial crap is damn persistent) chance the genetic pattern you seem to expect is found, it won't mean a blessed thing to any "race" hypothesis. I can pretty much guarantee you - the odds are greatly in my favor - that with enough effort and money I could find a genetic distinction that would classify the Chinese and the Nigerians and Russians and Finns together in one race, and the Italians, Bengalis, and Irish in another. Why would I want to do that?
How do they know their race? If these volunteers were American and they self reported their own race they might be wrong. Many if not most Americans are pretty mixed up. And a person who is only 1/4 black most likely considers themselves black. But what does this study prove anyway? Everyone knows certain traits run in people of the same race because they probably share quite a bit of their genes. It even happens within races. Africans and black Americans don't really look that much a like, you can see the physical differences. Same goes for whites and Europeans. People from Eastern Europe have different features than their western pals. Not to mention the fact that Chinese, Japanese, Korean...etc people have distinct characteristics from one another as well even though they are technically the same race. It's just location and who you mate with. 50-100 years from now these bone density results will probably diminish as well.
You might very well be able to, but I'd be willing to bet that any physical or mental characteristics that you choose to compare will be overshadowed by those differences exhibited by the main races, which have already been studied for several centuries and which are neither arbitrary or without historical precedent. Do you think it's just coincidence that we find races naturally grouped geographically around the world? I made an analogy earlier with pebbles on a beach, the intention was to show not only an observable order, but that no conscious intention exists behind such sequencing. Consider, for example, you have choosen Chinese and Nigerians. During the recent Olympics in Beijing, despite China being the host nation with a population of over one billion and a country which has always taken its reputation in sports very seriously, they were not able to win one track and field medal, whilst Western trained blacks dominated the events. The difference in physical stature alone will negate your attempt to unite these disparate people into one race. So of course, the only way you could do this would be to appeal to genetics - the invisible, since you would be very hard pushed to find any visible physical characteristics similar enough. The exercise itself may even be construed as an act of racial flippancy on your part, the thinking of a priviledged Western mind. The Chinese do not accept the out of Africa hypothesis for their own people, the Han. Certainly, races are clear evidence of humanity breaking apart and diverging, the inevitable destiny of all living organisms in the world. Without such a process homonids would not even exist. I put it to you that it is multiracial Western society which is an economic and social construct. Postmodern philosophers such as Baudrillard and Derrida have written extensively about the artificial nature of industrial society and its intellectual ephemera - not always in critical terms, but their lack of scientific training has meant they have failed to see the depths of their own programming or how far it reaches into our own self-image, individually and collectively. The map cannot replace the territory, yet. I think what your really saying here is that you wish they'd just go away, because there is no scientific basis for such a statement. Consider saying fifty to hundred years from now birds wings will be smaller, what could possibly support such a hypothesis?
Why the hell would I care if my bone density is different from other people's? It will probably diminish because of the races constant intermixing their genes. It has already altered the skin tone of people, are you saying this specific gene can't be affected. If you have a drop of black blood do you automatically have much denser bones? Please explain why interracial breeding changing the phenotypes of their resulting offspring has no scientific basis?
