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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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?

breeds of dogs have been created by conscious breeding. didnt happen with humans.

could a race be a subspecies - yes. but it didnt happen for humans. just as your model of albino migration didnt happen. Its not that race is by definition impossible - its just that by any meaningful definition, (ie one that excluded defining london cabbies as a race just cause you can make some statement about the distribution of genes for them) race is not empirically a fact.

[TCO]

Originally posted by elijah
Caligastia: You talk about race, whereas you should be talking about genetic traits. It is the human mind, society and the individual that decides to call and perceive it as race, but scientifically, the traits are merely superficial, like I said, like blondes and brunettes, brown eyes and green.

Why are some traits superficial? You make a value judgement here. A trait is a trait. It takes further analysis and consideration of the specific isssue to decide wether it is superficial or not. Just as you do when you get all knickered up with the term, race, and thus try to change the word from its commonly used meaning. But use "ethinc grouping" if it makes you feel better.

And race is not just skin deep. There are implications in terms of disease resitance as well. That may not seem so superficial if a tsetse fly bites you. Are there other traits than skin color and physical appearance and disease which may vary amongst "race" groups? Who knows? But why assume that the only traits that vary are the ones that are easy to see? If I had several samples of iron bar that varied in corrosion resistance, I would not assume that they would all have the same conductivity. Heck, it would sur[prise me in the least if there were some correlation between the two prperties in the total grouping. Perhaps with a lot of noise thrown in, but maybe still in a manner which gave significant results when examined with statistics.

[Japher]

LotM you almost make me laugh...almost. In the same sense as you trying to defraud my arguments I could easily say the same thing:

So you believe that everytime a couple has a kid they swap this kid for another kid on the other side of the world to encourage cultural diversity? That's absurd. Cultures produce races, and even today a majority of people are hard pressed to remove themselves from their indigiouness surroundings, much more so in days when communication and travel were much more difficult, and racism and unforgiving social structures were rampant...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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?

in which case the albinos have never interbred with the dark ones, since the emergence of the trait. so there was a beginning time, when pure races emerged, survived until some point when mixing starts again - and by determining how much each individual gets from each group at that magic point before the mixing started, we can say what percentage they are of each race.

But there was no such magic point.

and, BTW, i dont think thats quite how dog breeding works, either.

[Boris Godunov]

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

Hehehe, it's not even about logistics, but actual ability to breed.

About 150 years ago, a breed of canine was brought from SE Asia to North America. It has since adapted and evolved to a point where it can no longer breed with its parent back in Asia.

Speciesation and race are different things.

[Japher]

breeds of dogs have been created by conscious breeding. didnt happen with humans.

All because you say it does not make it true. I am still holding to my derived opinion that we (as humans) just do not have enough evidence either way to prove or disprove this argument. And, I am not going to dimiss my ideas only because you say they are wrong, as I don't expect you to change because I think you are wrong.

[Japher]

, i dont think thats quite how dog breeding works, either

I don't either. I was just wondering how much of a genetic difference it would take for sceptics to even consider different races.

[Boris Godunov]

GP/Japher:

White parent + Black Parent = ?? Child.

Provide answer. Explain why it isn't arbitrary. Consider ramifications.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Zero
Rcae exists because we need it. Humans have this need to categorize things when the universe doesnt really have a neatly organized categories, so there's always gonna be arguments for what goes into which category and why such categorization exists etc....

Anyways IMO Race is primarily determined by ancestry than genetic pool. It may sound the same, but genetics would mean each race has unique genetic pool while ancestry would not consider that.

Race being defined by certain genetic pool doesnt really hold for me because socially certain white ppl are "blacker" and certain "whiter" black ppl.

If its ancestry though, black population that eventually develops "white" characteristics will still be considered black because of ancestry. Or maybe we would give them a different category.

Ancestry and "genetics" are two sides of the same coin. You are just talking about different extents of genetic influence. The important idea to differentiate is genetic influence versus environmental effect. Nature versus nurture. If I take different strains of corn and plant them in the same row, the difference I see come from genetics (ancestry). If I put seeds from the same strain in different states, the differences are from nature. Obviously in real life, we have some mixture of the two effects ocuring. And obviously there are seed to seed differences and some variability among seeds of grain even within a "strain".

[Japher]

It has since adapted and evolved to a point where it can no longer breed with its parent back in Asia.

That's odd. Yet I think that doesn;t prove this:

Speciesation and race are different things

I think they just created a mule...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Japher
LotM you almost make me laugh...almost. In the same sense as you trying to defraud my arguments I could easily say the same thing:

So you believe that everytime a couple has a kid they swap this kid for another kid on the other side of the world to encourage cultural diversity? That's absurd. Cultures produce races, and even today a majority of people are hard pressed to remove themselves from their indigiouness surroundings, much more so in days when communication and travel were much more difficult, and racism and unforgiving social structures were rampant...

tehy dont swap the kid - the kid grows up and looks for opportunities, and moves. and breeds with whoever he finds there.

You think travel was so difficult - i suggest you learn more about how the polynesians settled the pacific. Or the speed with which the clovis hunters spread through the americas. and you dont have to move a thousand miles in a generation to create diversity - remember it takes lots of generations to create isolated distinctive populations - moving 100 miles over in one generation will result in a move of 2000 mile in only 20 generations, which isnt all that much genetically. and a lifetime shift of 100 miles doesnt seem that radical for nomads.

as for racism and social structures - anthropoligists studying real live "primitive peoples" find that their villages are usually diverse in language, and origin (see clifford geertz) the rigid social structures are a product of state societies, which are relatively recent in human history (hey this is a civ site - does 4000 BC ring a bell???)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher
I think they just created a mule...

Huh? The new species is capable of breeding with itself. Mules aren't capable of breeding at all. Not the same thing.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
I'm dating a "half black" chick who acts "white" and hangs out with "yellows"...

yeah...

who gives a rat's ass about "race"?

Agreed. There are many important things about people that are much more important at the individual level than the population level.

But that is no reason to say that "races" are not groups with statistically different DNA.

Just because you value the individual for what he or she is, is no reason to pervert the science. (Not saying you...but some.)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Japher


All because you say it does not make it true. I am still holding to my derived opinion that we (as humans) just do not have enough evidence either way to prove or disprove this argument. And, I am not going to dimiss my ideas only because you say they are wrong, as I don't expect you to change because I think you are wrong.

humans were consciously bred???? never happend in recorded history, even under slavery. not damned likely in more primitive conditions

[Boris Godunov]

And I really wish GP would address the most relevant current points rather than mindlessly slogging through the thread and responding to every damn post.