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

[Ecthy]

White parent + black parent = Jewish child

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


For humans, a useless concept. Considering the sheer variety that can be created, having "races" is ludicrous. There are, in fact, millions of different "races," in this regard. Most of what defines race is arbitrary, just as it would be arbitrary to say the above child is either white or black.

No one is arguing there aren't differences in appearance, but the question is why does skin color determine what "race" one is? Why not hair color, eye color, or blood type? All are also genetically inherited characteristics. Blood type would actually be far more significant a measure.

No just for dogs. Is the concept of breed useless?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
GP, what is the primary use of delineating dog breeds, and how is that use relevant to human beings?

Just within dogs, is there any use in the concept of breed?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GP


No just for dogs. Is the concept of breed useless?

For more than a cosmetic purpose? Pretty much. What difference does it really make what breed a dog is?

Likewise, does being a different "race" have any real bearing on what a human is, disregarding societal factors (racism, etc.)?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GP


Just within dogs, is there any use in the concept of breed?

I asked you first. Weasel.

[Japher]

White parent + black parent = Jewish child

ROTFLMAO, you didn't That is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time

I was going to say Grey Kid or Milato...

[Ecthy]

White parent + dog parent = American child

[Japher]

Ain't that a truth... wait, are you calling my mom a beitch?

Breeds are useful to tag because you can plan for behavioral characteristics, social traits, and medical inferiorities/superiorities.

[Ecthy]

Getting out of hand? Nooo...

Black parent + dog parent = black child?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher
Breeds are useful to tag because you can plan for behavioral characteristics, social traits, and medical inferiorities/superiorities.

For the purposes of...dog owners.

Dogs don't delineate their own breeds, nor do they adhere to them in mating, socializing, etc. To a dog, the concept of breed is meaningless.

Likewise, to humans, so should the concept of "race" be meaningless, because it is, at its root, an artificial delineation based on superficial variations of the human species (keep in mind that humans are far, far less varied in "breed" than dogs are in terms of variety of observable characteristics). "Breed" is an artificial categorization made by humans to help them manage animals for their utilization. "Race" is an artificial categorization made by humans for pretty much the same purpose. On a fundamental level, it is a useless delineation. One's quality or way of life is not going to be dictated by one's "race," but rather by ones socio-economic environment.

[Japher]

Before I go to get another beer (a trait I inherited from father):

Way to dodge the bullet Boris

Something being meaningless to a horny dog should not hold the same to us. I do agree that breeding based on race is a "delineation based on superficial variations of the human species" yet we are wise and knowledgeable enough to be able to question the consiquence of such... Yes, it breaches social norms, and makes me a racist by saying so, yet if it is possibly for a dog breed to breed itself out of existence, could it not very well occur to us? Would it not be something that should be looked into?

Let me just say this: It may be an artificial designation on a social strata, but that does not make it so a scientific strata... It is science we arguing (though rather poorly, at least on my part ), I just think that in understanding and/or identifying the differences between human beings we would be better off in securing the procreation and evolution of the human species...

(man, I really had a hard time avoiding the word "race" there...)

One's quality or way of life is not going to be dictated by one's "race," but rather by ones socio-economic environment.

That is true, to a point... A point which I say we still do not understand enough to properly say that with all honesty... Yet, it will matter to our decendants...

Boris: you should be behind me. Why? What if the whole world was gay and/or sterile, unable to procreate because of "ones socio-economic environment"?

This ain't just about tagging someone or labeling for some racist or bigot to pick on them. This about ensuring a healthier more secure future for all those who will come after us...

---

OK, I need that beer, "rip" away

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


For more than a cosmetic purpose? Pretty much. What difference does it really make what breed a dog is?

Likewise, does being a different "race" have any real bearing on what a human is, disregarding societal factors (racism, etc.)?

1. The usefulness of the concept of race is what is an open question. I would not be sublime about saying that "race"* is an irrelevant concpet given the preponderance of disaeases and the like.

*I agree that the concept is imperfect and loose and all the like. Maybe "ethnic grouping is more precise and maybe we should use some larger number of groups.

2. Dog breeds vary in much more than appearance. usefullness as sled dogs. Hot/cold weather endurance. Even temperment.*

*I would be the first to agree that the differences between breeds are probably lareger than the differences between races. But my point is more to say, "hey, look at the huge differences in German Shepards" and dachsunds" and that the DNA between these groups is VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL and that there is no (at least not yet) conveneint DNA marker for "breed". (But obviously the breeds differ in some consistent way in their DNA or they would not have different heritable traits).

[GePap]

Actually, breed differences in dogs are very important. Terriers and hounds do not act similarly. Different breeds oif dgs can have widely differing levels of intelliegence and very different behaviors. Some breeds are even generally far more aggresive with other dogs than other breeds. A Greyhound and a Scottish Terrier may be able to create viable offspring together, but they are very different, and not only cosmetically.

Also, Dog breeds are not a good example since a very strict amount of breeding control has been done to "keep breeds pure". No humans have undergone the amount of forced breeding man has enflicted upon his domesticate animals.

Short threadjack: yesterday they gave a show about cross breeding species: they showed a liger, which was huge, since it has no genese to regulate its growth (the body has no rpeset shutoff point). They also showed a "chimp" that some though was a humanzee (human-chimp), Very weird, though they never do state whether it was a humanzee, or just a mutant chimp.

[Odin]

The first modern humans resembled the modern Bushmen people of SW Africa. The stereotypical "Black" features are a result of the Bantu people spreading from thier homeland in West Africa 2,500 years ago. Most people in the rest Africa before then were part of the very dark skinned Ethiopian-type people or the lighter-skinned Bushmen people, who untill the Bantu expansion, lived mostly in forested areas. There is 10 times more genetic variety in Africa than in all the other continents combined, so we shouldn't be putting all africans under the stereotypical Bantu label that the current "race" catagories put them in.

BTW: African-Americans are of Bantu decent.

[ranskaldan]

I think everyone's arguing around a different definition of "race"! What is race? Is it:

1) Assigned, exclusive, in-or-out categories within the human species,

or

2) Clusters within the genetic spectrums that extend across the human species?