PBS lies in an attempt to prove that race does not exist

[TCO]

Originally posted by Tuberski
I guess somebody should go and start the "abortion" and "Death penalty" threads.

Might as well have all the useless argument threads going at the same time.



ACK!

And gun control.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


God, what an annoyingly stupid argument!

Human populations slowly adapt to the environment. If a population stays in the same place for millenia, it will adapt to that area. But most changes are only skin deep.

If the change occurs over generations, than the new population is GENETICALLY different from the original one. Hence skin color is GENETIC.

Deeper changes are answer to different microscopic environments, which in general are very closely tied to the general environment. [/QUOTE]

What is "deeper". Mental functions? Prove it. Other pysical traits? Look at the variability of dog breeds.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Look, race exists. On some level, there is some gene acting differently in black people than in white people. Get over it. Nobody cares except the extreme left and the extreme right.

A voice of reason. Funny watching the nitwit left deny this. Or claim proof for their views of racial distributions of traits base on no evidence. Except for things like "deep" changes take long. Whatever the **** deep means...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen


Guess it depends largely on how deeply you define race. I've never defined it in a way that goes beyond skin color, so I guess I've never quite understood why this debate is necessary.

You can call it "ethnic groupings iff you want". And just because there are shades of color between yellow and red doesn't mean that there is no difference or that the concept is useless...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Japher
No, I don't buy any of that.

,Yeah, we could define these races by hair color only, but in general we tend to define them as some one who has their origins in a certain area with certain physical characteristics. Also, a dominant majority of people from those areas (meaning having ancestral origions from that area) tend to be similar in looks, traits, and other characteristics... That is a race.

which is a race? the majority of people?? the region?

lets say we identify that people from nigeria are have tend to have dark skin, and kinky hair, and are more likely to carry the gene for sickle cell anemia.

Does that mean there is a Nigerian race? Is everyone from Nigeria a member of that race, even if they have lighter skin, straight hair? Are only people with sickle cell gene in the race, or only the majority who dont have it. And if we forget sickle cell, and say that members of the race are all those in nigeria who are dark and kinky haired, how dark? and how kinky haired?? and are people who live next door in cameroun part of the same race, if they have the same color and kinky hair? and if so then shouldnt people in say Sri Lanka who have the same color and hair be the same race? No, cause theyre of different origin - but how do we know the ones in nigeria and cameroun are the same origin - or even the ones in nigeria? and are you even sure that darkness and degree of hair kinks are correlated in nigeria??


and what do you mean by place of ancestry - my ancestry is from philadelphia, is that what you mean - no, of course not - you mean as far back as one can trace - since there was of course no migration before that - wrong - there was. There was for example migration all over africa.

see when you get specific, it falls apart.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually Cali, what MtG is saying is that if race where a salient human characteristic then mitochondiral DNA would give us racial differences The fact that mitochondrial DNA can not be used to "prove an individuals race" shows that race is not a significant genetic difference.

Oh, and can you list for us the races?

mitochondrial DNA can be used in a significant statistical way to compare different ethnic groups and is done so all the time. It is not a perfect indicator for an individual since it varies in a population (it is not a simple on-off signal) and "race" is not a simple 1,2,3,4 concept. But it is used all the time to identify people to ethnic groups. And there is a definite difference in the mito DNA of people from sub-saharan Africa (natives, not Boers) and Europeans. They can even use it to look at migrations of ehtnic groups across land masses.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually Cali, what MtG is saying is that if race where a salient human characteristic then mitochondiral DNA would give us racial differences The fact that mitochondrial DNA can not be used to "prove an individuals race" shows that race is not a significant genetic difference.

And most of the things that people mean when they use "race" (a loose concept) that includes skin color, facial features, hair texture, etc. associated with certain ethnic groups (i.e. populations from different geographic areas) are EXPRESSED by normal DNA. The mitochondria is like a tag for different family groupings. But it is not the same as the genes that directly cause expresssion of the characteristics.

[Japher]

Does that mean there is a Nigerian race?

That would be a nationality. Yet, many moons ago a certain people settled there, and the became the Nigerians... Those people would be a race... Not philidelphians, not really american (apart from Native Americans).

you mean as far back as one can trace - since there was of course no migration before that - wrong - there was.

Well, you kind of get what I mean.

[lord of the mark]

while gepap is not being terribly clear this is what i think he means to say.

skin color is heritable.

Skin color, more than most human physical traits, tends to evolve in response to local geography. Which is why geographic areas are more homogeneous for skin color, then say for blood type.

Therefor skin color is not a marker of ultimate origin. the fact that most subsaharan africans are dark is not proof that they share a common ultimate ancestry, which would cause them to share lots of traits.

To which someone might (and in fact did) suggest that skin color DOES NOT evolve in response to local conditions, and so IS a marker of ultimate origin.

To which gepap responded that the 300 years that teh afrikaners have spent in south africa is far too short for the kinds of genetic changes we are talking about.

Am i correct, gepap?

I dont think anyone is denying that skin color is a heritable trait. Or that there are other heritable traits. Or that one may sample different populations and find different distributions of any given trait for that population. What is being asserted is that none of those facts constitutes "race" that when one actually attempts to define races, and to define the traits that constitute them, the definitions inevitably collapse in the face of reality.

[TCO]

Originally posted by elijah
Like I said earlier, scientifically, a race is a species that can mate with members of that species to produce fertile offspring. That is why humanity is one race.

Most people use the word, race, with a different definition than yours, but if you want to get all semantic call it ethnic group, than. What's the big deal? It just means an extended family grouping of the species with some significant amount of interbreeding within the group. Like breeds of dogs. (I will readily agree that breeds of dogs have more differences than "races" of humans...the point is analogy though. All breeds of dogs can mate with each other. It is still useful to differentiate the different groups.)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GP
All breeds of dogs can mate with each other.

BUZZ No they can't.

[Japher]

GP, I used the same analogy for races (the dogs that is), yet no one is willing to except that a race could be some sort of "sub-species"...

What if we all began as a dark skinned race, then all of a sudden ppl start having albino children (some sort of mutation), these ppl exile all these albinos out of fear that it is their gods punishing them. These albinos head north were they mate in make the anglos... Would it not be consituted then that there was a significant genetical difference to distinguish a race or even a breed?

[Japher]

It would be funny to see a Bull Masive try to mate with a some sort of minature dog!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Japher


That would be a nationality. Yet, many moons ago a certain people settled there, and the became the Nigerians... Those people would be a race...

100 nomads wander over from say east africa, and settle nigeria. And their descendants are the nigerians and are a race.

well first of all, what if they had substantial genetic diversity when they came - they might not look particuarly much alike, or have many traits in common.
Thats simply an extended family - or lineage - race implies a degree of similarity that may well not exist.

but for now lets assume that the 100 nomads were all identical twins - clones - whatever

you assume that there was one migration at one point in time. In all likelihood there were numerous migrations, from different places, bringing in diverse people. The "race" of the original hundred is long since lost in the mixture of later nigeria. so who in nigeria belongs to which "race" impossible to say.

You assume that there are places on earth that have lived in isolation for thousands of years. which is not accurate.

or you could just say that theyre all black (natural since all the migrants from wherever would evolve in that direction) ergo theyre all of common origin, and ignore diversity of say blood type, and other traits that dont evolve the same way as pigmentation - and then just assume that traits like "energy" correlate with skin color - since thats what everyone "knows" - and its been a very convenient assumption for many years.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


There are only "deliberate deceptions" because mitochondrial DNA (or any other kind) won't show what you want to believe exists.

If you want to find a biological justification for the notion of race, mitochondrial DNA is essential for proving connection to a specific population group.

A classic example was the ~10,000 year old skeleton found in Columbia river sediments, that was ordered turned over to local natives for reburial, although it had unusual skeletal features (primarily the extra occipital suture associated generally, with so-called caucasians) that made it distinct from native skeletons from the area.

Mitochondrial DNA studies would be the only way to determine if that individual was more closely related to one population group or another.

Disagree.

1. Cal's objection is relevant. In an area with a great deal of mixing going on, the mitochondrial DNA ios less useful. It tends to be more useful for poulations that are isolated for longer periods of time. eVen today, it would be useful if used on a statistical basis with groups of individuals. (Just because a measurement doesn't owrk on every sample) doesn't mean the measurement is useless. And of course, with people 10,000 years ago, it may be more useful given less population density less transportation, etc.

2. And with increased computeing power and gene sequencing and understanding of the genome, we will get more and more useful information of the normal DNA. There is useful info in there as well...