Racism

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:56 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:On superficial external appearance.

Many of the characteristics used to classify races are indeed superficial. Just as the differences between dog breeds is also mostly superficial. If the differences were not superficial, then it's more likely they cannot interbreed and thus would be considered different species. Thus dogs are the same species with superficial differences. Same for human breeds, er, I mean races.

Lance Kennedy wrote:This is the classical rationale for that fallacy known as 'race'.

It is not a fallacy to group breeds (populations) into groups according to genetic markers that cluster into identifiable groups. Racial differences are indeed largely superficial. If they weren't, then they would be different species, not different breeds.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Modern genetics shows it for the idiocy it is. The primary superficial appearance variation is skin colour. Yet skin varies in colour dramatically among a number of geographic areas where people are relatively close genetically.

You are correct that the old way of classification based on skin color has needed to be revised. Now, genetics are used to classify the races.

Lance Kennedy wrote:The only valid guide to "race" is genetic make up.

I can agree with that. However, anthropologists still use other methods with good accuracy, and I have already cited an example of that.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Yet those who study genetic make up in human populations have found the variation is minimal.

And there it is, the same fallacy you have been making all along. Just because the genetic differences are minimal does not mean those differences do not form clusters and can thus be used to classify races. That was the error Lewontin made.

Lance Kennedy wrote: A few marker genes vary from population to population. But overall, different populations are very, very similar genetically.

True and true.

Lance Kennedy wrote:It is widely recognised that the average genetic variation between two individuals from the same geographic location are more different than the averages from two widely separated geographic locations.

Also correct.

Lance Kennedy wrote:As I have said so many times, a few genes being different is not sufficient to call two populations separate "races".

That is a statement of opinion, not a scientific fact. Furthermore, it is an opinion that is contradicted by scientific fact, as I have already shown.

Recall the illustration I posted previously showing the genetic cluster groupings of Chinese versus Japanese versus Korean. Those genetic differences are very small, but you agreed that the way the genetic markers form clusters, it is possible to classify Japanese from Chinese. Likewise for other racial classifications, the genetic clustering enables classification.

Lance Kennedy wrote:You blithely talk of much of this as the Lewontin Fallacy. Bear in mind that Lewontin is Professor Emeritus of zoology at Harvard university. He is hardly an idiot or misinformed. When he talks of individual variation being massively greater than the variation between 'races', he is stating a fact - not a fallacy. The exact difference as a percentage, may be debated, but not the overall message.

From your remarks, it is possible to infer you don't fully comprehend what Lewontin's Fallacy is.

Please note that I am not the one who named it Lewontin's Fallacy. That was done by a genetics professor emeritus from University of Cambridge, Anthony Edwards. (See, I too can cite academic credentials as if that automatically confers correctness.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_diversity:_Lewontin's_fallacy

I probably should have cited that article earlier in this thread, since it is a more direct rebuttal to your argument that small differences.in genetics implies that races cannot be classified by DNA.

Here is Lewontin's Fallacy in syllogism form (using your words):

Premise: The individual variation is greater than the variation between races.
Conclusion: It is not possible to use genetics to classify races.

Although the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow from the premise and that is why it's called Lewontin's Fallacy. There is an implied premise in that syllogism that is false.

Premise: The individual variation is greater than the variation between races.
Implied premise: Those variations do not form clusters along racial boundaries.
Conclusion: It is not possible to use genetics to classify races.

If we include that implied premise, then the conclusion does indeed follow from the premises. However, the implied premise is factually incorrect, thus rendering the conclusion incorrect. And that is the error Lewontin made. Apparently being a Harvard professor does not make one immune from such errors.

And again, let me point out that this is not just my personal opinion. I am citing the expert opinion of a geneticist from Cambridge.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:43 pm

Xouper

My argument does not derive from the fact that individual variation is greater than variation between groups, though this helps to illustrate the main point. My argument derives from the fact that human genetic variation is too small to justify classification into "races".

This is demonstrated by the fact that you have not been able to quote a modern scientific, genetics based, classification of "human races". The old one of negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid that you did mention is over 200 years old, and is based on superficial physical appearance, not genetics.

If mere genetic variation, no matter how small, was sufficient, then every family would be a separate 'race'. But that is not so. "Race" is a taxonomic division, and requires a significant and strong genetic difference to justify the division into 'races'. This is not correct, since all genetic differences based on geographic origin are, in fact, very small.

There is, in fact, less genetic distinction between Europeans and Bantus, than between Bantus and the San. Yet Bantus and San have overlapping geographic distribution. I have never seen a 'race' classification which suggested the San were a separate race, which shows the silliness of divisions into 'races'. In fact, the San are the most genetically diverse group in the world. If genetic variation were the basis of human 'races', the San would be five separate 'races'. This is not the case, which again shows that this kind of classification is just bulldust.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:55 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

My argument does not derive from the fact that individual variation is greater than variation between groups, though this helps to illustrate the main point. My argument derives from the fact that human genetic variation is too small to justify classification into "races".

This is demonstrated by the fact that you have not been able to quote a modern scientific, genetics based, classification of "human races". The old one of negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid that you did mention is over 200 years old, and is based on superficial physical appearance, not genetics.

If mere genetic variation, no matter how small, was sufficient, then every family would be a separate 'race'. But that is not so. "Race" is a taxonomic division, and requires a significant and strong genetic difference to justify the division into 'races'. This is not correct, since all genetic differences based on geographic origin are, in fact, very small.

There is, in fact, less genetic distinction between Europeans and Bantus, than between Bantus and the San. Yet Bantus and San have overlapping geographic distribution. I have never seen a 'race' classification which suggested the San were a separate race, which shows the silliness of divisions into 'races'. In fact, the San are the most genetically diverse group in the world. If genetic variation were the basis of human 'races', the San would be five separate 'races'. This is not the case, which again shows that this kind of classification is just bulldust.


Lance, I have already explained in great detail why your entire argument is wrong. You have merely repeated the same flawed argument you have posted previously. Unlike good wine, it doesn't get better with age.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Let's go back to what seems to be a point of agreement:

Lance Kennedy wrote:I have not tried to refute your statement of genetic markers for Japanese and Chinese because they are real.

OK, good, you agree there is a system accepted by science for classifying Japanese and Chinese.

On what basis can you then deny the existence of a scientific system for classifying Chinese and Caucasians?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:59 pm

xouper wrote:OK, good, you agree there is a system accepted by science for classifying Japanese and Chinese.

On what basis can you then deny the existence of a scientific system for classifying Chinese and Caucasians?


This is just as real, no more and no less, than classifying people into two families, the Smiths and the Jones, based on genetics. Genetic markers will distinguish between the two, and the divisions are real. But Smiths and Jones are not two human races, since the genetic differences are too small.

In exactly the same way, Chinese and Caucasians are not two human races, and for exactly the same reason. Insufficient genetic distinctiveness.

As I said, one group of the San are more different genetically from any other of the five identified groups of the San than any two population groups outside Africa. Yet no one is calling them five 'races'. Why not? Because, there are no bloody races!

Again, I challenge you. Give me a modern, genetics based, division of humanity into 'races' that is widely accepted by human biologists. If you cannot do this, then accept that the idea of 'race' is bulldust.

And I will not accept a grouping based on minor genetic markers. The groupings must be clearly identified as 'races', and must be based on modern genetics, and the classification must come from reputable modern scientists.

Edit.

We do get ourselves tangled up in semantics. The term 'race' is not appropriate here, since it is a biological term that implies significant genetic difference. It is also a word that carries far too much emotional baggage. Maybe we should agree on using a different word that does not carry that implication. In biology, we can use the term 'ecotype'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotype

If you want to talk of different human populations with minor genetic differences in different geographic locations, the term 'human ecotype' may be more appropriate.

This word does not

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:07 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote:OK, good, you agree there is a system accepted by science for classifying Japanese and Chinese.

On what basis can you then deny the existence of a scientific system for classifying Chinese and Caucasians?


This is just as real, no more and no less, than classifying people into two families, the Smiths and the Jones, based on genetics. Genetic markers will distinguish between the two, and the divisions are real. But Smiths and Jones are not two human races, since the genetic differences are too small.

In exactly the same way, Chinese and Caucasians are not two human races, and for exactly the same reason. Insufficient genetic distinctiveness.

As I said, one group of the San are more different genetically from any other of the five identified groups of the San than any two population groups outside Africa. Yet no one is calling them five 'races'. Why not? Because, there are no bloody races!

Again, I challenge you. Give me a modern, genetics based, division of humanity into 'races' that is widely accepted by human biologists. If you cannot do this, then accept that the idea of 'race' is bulldust.

And I will not accept a grouping based on minor genetic markers. The groupings must be clearly identified as 'races', and must be based on modern genetics, and the classification must come from reputable modern scientists.

Edit.

We do get ourselves tangled up in semantics. The term 'race' is not appropriate here, since it is a biological term that implies significant genetic difference. It is also a word that carries far too much emotional baggage. Maybe we should agree on using a different word that does not carry that implication. In biology, we can use the term 'ecotype'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotype

If you want to talk of different human populations with minor genetic differences in different geographic locations, the term 'human ecotype' may be more appropriate.

This word does not

Lance, I have already explained why your argument is wrong. Again you are just repeating the same falsehoods and logical fallacies I have already addressed. Try getting some new material.

And I have already shown more than one scientific system accepted by scientists for classifying races. Your mere denial does not change that fact.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:51 pm

Xouper

You have not yet shown a modern genetics based system of classifying humans into races that is accepted by biologists. Aint bin done. Caint be done.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:09 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:You have not yet shown a modern genetics based system of classifying humans into races that is accepted by biologists.

Yes I did.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:14 pm

No Xouper

You have shown one scheme for human ecotypes. Not the same thing.

Race is not the same as ecotype. Ecotype is, as the word suggests, related to ecological position and environmental adaptation. 'Race' is a term used in biological taxonomy. 'Race' is the next subdivision below sub species. The word implies significant and substantial genetic difference between populations. That is what you have not shown.

Ecotype can refer to two populations with minimal genetic differences, and still be regarded as two separate populations. It is not the same as 'race'.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:20 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:. . . 'Race' is a term used in biological taxonomy. 'Race' is the next subdivision below sub species.

Agreed.

Lance Kennedy wrote:The word implies significant and substantial genetic difference between populations.

That is factually incorrect. Where did you get that definition??

Lance Kennedy wrote:That is what you have not shown.

Yes I have.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:35 pm

xouper wrote:That is factually incorrect. Where did you get that definition??



By elimination.

No one is going to call two families different human races, yet they are genetically different. The point is that a few genetic markers do not make a race.

The examples are numerous, and I have given you many. Two populations that have a few different genetic markers are not two races. So what makes a race? It is the degree of difference. If Icelanders are genetically different from other Nordic peoples, by virtue of a few genetic markers, that does not make them a separate race, any more than the Smiths are a separate race to the Joneses by virtue of a few genetic markers.

For something to be a separate race requires significant genetic difference - not just a few markers - or else every other family would have to be called a separate race.

And the entire whole human species is genetically very, very similar. There simply are not enough genetic differences between populations to call different populations different races.

Now, the whole thing is complicated by the fact that there is no universally agreed upon definition of what constitutes a separate race. That is why there is controversy, and some scientists arguing against others, as I argue against you. However, until such a definition becomes accepted, we need to work on the basis that human populations may be different ecotypes (the definition for ecotype accepts very small genetic differences as being sufficient), but not different human races.

Sadly, the insistence on there being different 'races' is fuel for racism. As long as you say that Joe is one race and Bill another, there will be people who claim one is superior to the other. Since there is insufficient genetic data to support such a claim, let us agree on ecotype.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:44 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote:That is factually incorrect. Where did you get that definition??

By elimination.

That is not a valid source.

Lance Kennedy wrote:No one is going to call two families different human races, yet they are genetically different. The point is that a few genetic markers do not make a race.

I never claimed otherwise. Why do you keep bringing up this red herring?

Lance Kennedy wrote:The examples are numerous, and I have given you many. Two populations that have a few different genetic markers are not two races. So what makes a race? It is the degree of difference. If Icelanders are genetically different from other Nordic peoples, by virtue of a few genetic markers, that does not make them a separate race, any more than the Smiths are a separate race to the Joneses by virtue of a few genetic markers.

For something to be a separate race requires significant genetic difference - not just a few markers - or else every other family would have to be called a separate race.

And the entire whole human species is genetically very, very similar. There simply are not enough genetic differences between populations to call different populations different races.

Now, the whole thing is complicated by the fact that there is no universally agreed upon definition of what constitutes a separate race. That is why there is controversy, and some scientists arguing against others, as I argue against you. However, until such a definition becomes accepted, we need to work on the basis that human populations may be different ecotypes (the definition for ecotype accepts very small genetic differences as being sufficient), but not different human races.

I have already explained -- repeatedly -- why your argument is wrong. Races can -- and are -- classified by small genetic differences. Contrary to your opinion, large differences are not required for this classification. The only requirement is that the differences form clusters along racial boundaries, and I have cited evidence for that.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Sadly, the insistence on there being different 'races' is fuel for racism.

Not my problem. Science should not be held hostage to the fears of irrational people.

For the record, I do not not endorse racism, and nothing I have said should be taken as an endorsement of racism.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:50 pm

Xouper

The degree of genetic difference is crucial. No two populations of humans have sufficient genetic difference.

If you think otherwise, then why do we not classify every population group that has a few genetic differences as a separate race?

Simply, there are no human races. I have quoted good scientific opinion to this effect. I know you are fixed to your opinion and I will not convince you, so why not let us simply agree to disagree?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:30 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:The degree of genetic difference is crucial. No two populations of humans have sufficient genetic difference.

The scientific evidence contradicts you. Given DNA from a Chinese person and a Caucasian, it is possible to tell which is which. That is a scientific fact.

Lance Kennedy wrote:If you think otherwise, then why do we not classify every population group that has a few genetic differences as a separate race?

I have already explained -- repeatedly -- that is not a valid argument against races. Why do you keep repeating that same red herring??

Lance Kennedy wrote:Simply, there are no human races. I have quoted good scientific opinion to this effect.

And I have quoted scientists who disagree with you. And I have cited genetic evidence for the classification of races.

Lance Kennedy wrote: I know you are fixed to your opinion and I will not convince you, so why not let us simply agree to disagree?

I asked you that same thing a week ago and you were not interested.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:34 am

xouper wrote: Given DNA from a Chinese person and a Caucasian, it is possible to tell which is which. That is a scientific fact.


It is also a scientific fact that, given DNA from a Hatfield and a McCoy, you could tell which is which.

This is the fallacy you are working under, Xouper. You assume that, if two populations are slightly different genetically, they are two races. That is not so. Minor genetic differences are everywhere, and are not there due to race. A minor genetic difference between two populations is not enough to call them two races. If so, humanity would have literally tens of thousands of races.

There is, sadly, no clear cut definition of the degree of genetic difference required to call two populations two races. If so, we would not be arguing. However, the majority of geneticists and anthropologists do not believe there is enough to justify dividing Homo sapiens into races.

http://aabss.org/Perspectives2001/wienker2001.jmm.html

I quote :

"by the mid 1990s most anthropologists and some professionals in other social and behavioral sciences had concluded that the biological concept of race had no scientific validity when applied to living Homo sapiens. Rather, human races are now understood to be social constructs."

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:08 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:This is the fallacy you are working under, Xouper. You assume that, if two populations are slightly different genetically, they are two races.

I have never made that claim, and I have told you that repeatedly, and yet here you are making the same false accusation. What the {!#%@} is the matter with you, Lance??

I have said that races can be classified by certain genetic differences. I did not ever say that every genetic difference means a different race. Do you have some kind of brain malfunction that prevents you from seeing the difference?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:12 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is, sadly, no clear cut definition of the degree of genetic difference required to call two populations two races. If so, we would not be arguing. However, the majority of geneticists and anthropologists do not believe there is enough to justify dividing Homo sapiens into races.

http://aabss.org/Perspectives2001/wienker2001.jmm.html

I quote :

"by the mid 1990s most anthropologists and some professionals in other social and behavioral sciences had concluded that the biological concept of race had no scientific validity when applied to living Homo sapiens. Rather, human races are now understood to be social constructs."

I have already cited scientists who disagree with that.

And I have cited genetic evidence that contradicts your position. You have not ever provided any scientific evidence to refute the evidence I cited. All you have done is offer opinions. Sorry, but evidence trumps opinions. You lose.

Not to mention that many anthropologists continue to classify people into races. That too is another inconvenient fact that contradicts your position.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:19 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote: Given DNA from a Chinese person and a Caucasian, it is possible to tell which is which. That is a scientific fact.

It is also a scientific fact that, given DNA from a Hatfield and a McCoy, you could tell which is which.

It is also a fact that DNA can be used to identify a person's sex.

Your argument does not refute the fact that DNA can be used to identify a person's race.

Just because DNA can be used to identify many things about a person does not refute that it can also be used to identify race.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:31 am

Here is a statement from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.
http://www.physanth.org/association/pos ... s-of-race/

And I quote :

"Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past."

And also :

"The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications."

Or, in other words, it is impossible to subdivide the human species into races.
Which is what I have been saying all along, and is supported by the majority of scientists in relevant disciplines.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:58 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Or, in other words, it is impossible to subdivide the human species into races.

That is factually incorrect. I have already cited -- repeatedly -- scientific evidence that contradicts your argument. Evidence will always trump opinions. Deal with it.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:02 am

Xouper

The only evidence you have posted is that there are minor genetic variations among human populations. Nothing more.

I have just shown you that anthropologists believe there is no way to divide the human species into races. Deal with that!

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:07 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The only evidence you have posted is that there are minor genetic variations among human populations. Nothing more.

Not true. I have cited evidence that races can be identified genetically. You have not countered that with any evidence, only opinion.

Lance Kennedy wrote:I have just shown you that anthropologists believe . . .

Evidence trumps belief every time. It doesn't matter what they believe, it matters what the evidence says.

You have not refuted the scientific fact that given the DNA of a Chinese persona and a Caucasian, you can tell which is which.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:13 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Here is a statement from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.
http://www.physanth.org/association/pos ... s-of-race/

And I quote :

"Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past."

And also :

"The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications."

None of that disproves the genetic evidence for identifying human races. Look at all those weasel words (in red). Take those out and the statements become blatantly false. It might be "difficult", but it is not impossible.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:52 am

xouper wrote:You have not refuted the scientific fact that given the DNA of a Chinese persona and a Caucasian, you can tell which is which.


Of course not. I have said all along that there are minor genetic differences between different human populations, just as there are minor genetic differences from one family to another. So what?

But it is not possible to divide the human species into races. Anthropologists have said clearly that this is true. Unless you can do that, you do not have a scientifically demonstrated 'race'. Not any race.

The only such divisions are based on prejudice and bullsh!t. The fact that different populations have minor differences in genetics is irrelevant. They are not races.

Craig Venter, the leader of the first team to analyse the human genome, stated most clearly that the concept of 'race' did not stand up to good science.
http://www.augsburg.edu/home/education/ ... -myth.html

I quote :

"Race is a social concept, not a scientific one," said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corp. in Rockville, Md.

Venter and scientists at the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers unanimously declared that there is only one race -- the human race."


Here is an item from Prof. Joseph Graves, evolutionary biologist.
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_0 ... -01-06.htm

I quote

"race is simply not a level of biological division that we find in anatomically modern humans."

Xouper

I can keep this up all year. Most scientists in relevant disciplines believe as Prof. Graves does, that race is not an appropriate division for the human species. If I keep looking, I will post dozens more similar references.

The human species is simply too homogeneous for race to be a valid way of subdividing our populations, regardless of minor genetic variations.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:11 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote:You have not refuted the scientific fact that given the DNA of a Chinese persona and a Caucasian, you can tell which is which.

Of course not. I have said all along that there are minor genetic differences between different human populations, just as there are minor genetic differences from one family to another. So what?

But it is not possible to divide the human species into races.

That is a statement of opinion, not a scientific fact. And it is an opinion contradicted by the scientific evidence.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Anthropologists have said clearly that this is true. Unless you can do that, you do not have a scientifically demonstrated 'race'. Not any race.

I just cited two races, Asians and Caucasians. You lose. You have not refuted the fact that Asians and Caucasians can be identified by DNA. All you are doing is denying they are races.

Lance Kennedy wrote:The only such divisions are based on prejudice and bullsh!t.

That too is a statement of opinion, not a scientific fact. The classification of Asian versus Caucasian, for example, is based on scientifically and objectively quantifiable differences. That is a scientific fact, not BS.

Lance Kennedy wrote:I can keep this up all year.

So can I. But why do you bother? You can keep it up but you cannot win the argument. Also, it doesn't matter how many people you cite because truth is not decided by majority vote, otherwise the Earth would still be at the center of the universe.

For every scientist you cite, I can cite one who contradicts you. Whereas you cite only the opinions of scientists, I also cite actual scientific evidence. And evidence trumps opinion every time.

I have cited actual data that shows genetic clustering along racial boundaries and all you got is an objection to the use of the word 'race' to describe that fact. You want to call it something else. Except it doesn't matter what you call it, the concept of genetic population groups is scientifically valid.

Lance Kennedy wrote:The human species is simply too homogeneous for race to be a valid way of subdividing our populations, regardless of minor genetic variations.

Then why do anthropologists continue to classify people into races? You have never addressed that point, despite that I have posted it numerous times.

I have posted this before, but following your habit of reposting old stuff, I can post it again

wikipedia wrote:The physical traits of Caucasoid crania are still recognised as distinct (in contrast to Mongoloid and Negroid races) within modern forensic anthropology. A Caucasoid skull is identified, with an accuracy of up to 95%, by the following features:[23][24][25][26][27]

____________________________________
23. ^ Bass, William M. 1995. Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society, Inc.
24. ^ Eckert, William G. 1997. Introduction to Forensic Science. United States of America: CRC Press, Inc.
25. ^ Gill, George W. 1998. "Craniofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Attribution of Race. " In Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains. (2nd edition) Reichs, Kathleen l(ed.), pp.293-315.
26. ^ Krogman, Wilton Marion and Mehmet Yascar Iscan 1986. The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Springfield: Charles C.Thomas.
27. ^ Racial Identification in the Skull and Teeth, Totem: The University of Western, Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Volume 8, Issue 1 2000 Article 4.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:03 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I can keep this up all year.

So can I. Here is an example of modern scientists using race in their research:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1991.tb05586.x/abstract

A comparison of the pharmacokinetics of codeine and its metabolites in healthy Chinese and Caucasian extensive hydroxylators of debrisoquine.

QY Yue, JO Svensson, F. Sjoqvist, J. Sawe

Article first published online: 26 JUL 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1991.tb05586.x
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Volume 31, Issue 6, pages 643–647, June 1991

Abstract

1. The kinetics of codeine and metabolites were studied in eight unrelated healthy Chinese subjects following a single oral dose of 50 mg codeine phosphate. The data were compared with those from eight Caucasian subjects who were matched with the Chinese group according to their metabolic ratio (MR) of debrisoquine. 2. Mean values of Cmax (445 nmol l-1) and AUC (1660 nmol l-1 h) of codeine in the Chinese were significantly higher than those in the Caucasians (292 nmol l-1 and 1010 nmol l-1 h). Thus plasma clearance was significantly lower (P less than 0.02) and the plasma half-life was longer (P less than 0.05) in the Chinese.

. . . 7. Large interethnic differences in the kinetics of codeine have been shown. The Chinese are less able to metabolise codeine mainly because of a lower efficiency in glucuronidation.

Apparently there are non-superficial differences between Chinese and Caucasians in how they respond to codein. This might have important implications for medical treatments. A valid objection might be that the sample size was small and thus the conclusions are preliminary subject to followup replications. But the obvious point here is that if races do not exist, then how can such studies be done?

Here's another example:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... ated=false

A clinical and serologic comparison of African American and Caucasian patients with systemic sclerosis

Virginia Steen1,*, Robyn T. Domsic2, Mary Lucas2, Noreen Fertig2, Thomas A. Medsger Jr.2

Article first published online: 27 AUG 2012
DOI: 10.1002/art.34482
Arthritis & Rheumatism
Volume 64, Issue 9, pages 2986–2994, September 2012

Epidemiology studies suggest that systemic sclerosis (SSc) is more common, occurs at a younger age, and is more severe in African Americans than Caucasians. However, the scleroderma autoantibody profile is very different between these 2 ethnic groups. This study was undertaken to examine the demographic and disease features, frequency and severity of internal organ system involvement, and survival in African American patients compared to Caucasian patients with SSc, giving particular attention to their serum autoantibody profiles.

. . . African Americans with SSc have more severe disease complications compared to Caucasians with SSc, and this is associated with both the type of autoantibody present and the severity of interstitial lung disease. Thus, it is hoped that early aggressive intervention in African Americans with interstitial lung disease will improve outcomes.


There are many many studies similar to the above that clearly demonstrate modern scientists using race in their research. This totally contradicts the mere opinion of some anthropologists that races do not exist.

So, if you insist, we can keep doing this as long as you want. But whereas I cite actual scientific evidence, you have cited mere opinion. And evidence trumps opinion every time.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby Lausten » Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:26 pm

That modern scientists use race in their research doesn't say much about what race is, or whether or not the use is correct in all or even most cases.

A local exhibit on race recently told the story of a "Jewish" child who had sickle cell anemia. It took years to get the diagnosis right and when they moved they had to convince a set of new doctors that it was the correct diagnosis. That happened because the common wisdom is, only black people get that.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:18 pm

Lausten wrote:That modern scientists use race in their research doesn't say much about what race is, or whether or not the use is correct in all or even most cases.

Those are valid questions to ask.

Lausten wrote:A local exhibit on race recently told the story of a "Jewish" child who had sickle cell anemia. It took years to get the diagnosis right and when they moved they had to convince a set of new doctors that it was the correct diagnosis. That happened because the common wisdom is, only black people get that.

Misdiagnosis by physicians is common. What conclusion from that are you suggesting we make?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby Lausten » Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:16 pm

Misdiagnosis by physicians is common. What conclusion from that are you suggesting we make?

There is not much data on this, it is an anecdote, I admit that. I don't even have a source for it.

The conclusion I want is that the misdiagnosis was a result of allowing race to be a primary factor when considering what tests to run. The kid wasn't black, so sickle cell tests weren't done for a long time. Even when they went to a new hospital and said, "please look at what these other doctors found", the race issue clouded the judgment of the new doctors.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:33 pm

Lausten wrote:
Misdiagnosis by physicians is common. What conclusion from that are you suggesting we make?

The conclusion I want is that the misdiagnosis was a result of allowing race to be a primary factor when considering what tests to run.

OK. I'll accept that. What conclusion would you have us make from that?


Lausten wrote:. . . the race issue clouded the judgment of the new doctors.

On what basis do you judge their judgment to be "clouded"?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:35 pm

Xouper


You keep claiming you post evidence. The only evidence you have posted is to show that populations of different geographic origins have a few genetic differences. For Finagle's sake! I agreed with you on that way back when we first started discussing this topic.

Repeating your so-called evidence again and again makes no difference to your argument. Please note : I agree that populations from different geographic origins have minor differences in genetics!!!!!!!

Now can you stop that ridiculous line of argument? It shows only what we both agree on. It does NOT, NOT, NOT show that those groups are different races.

As I keep pointing out, geneticists can and do carry out exactly the same thing with different families. The fact that the Hatfields and the McCoys can be distinguished genetically does not show they are different races. And for exactly the same reason, a genetic difference does not show that Chinese and Europeans are different races.

Here is another view from another university.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b1 ... amon2.html

I quote :

"Attributing race to an individual or a population amounts to applying a social and cultural label that lacks scientific consensus and supporting data. While anthropologists continue to study how and why humans vary biologically, it is apparent that human populations differ from one another much less than do populations in other species because we use our cultural, rather than our physical differences to aid us in adapting to various environments. "


This is a view agreed upon by the majority of biologists studying humans. Race is a social construct without meaning in science.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:11 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:You keep claiming you post evidence. The only evidence you have posted is to show that populations of different geographic origins have a few genetic differences. For Finagle's sake! I agreed with you on that way back when we first started discussing this topic.

Repeating your so-called evidence again and again makes no difference to your argument. Please note : I agree that populations from different geographic origins have minor differences in genetics!!!!!!!

Now can you stop that ridiculous line of argument? It shows only what we both agree on.

OK, point taken. I wasn't clear that you agreed with that.

Lance Kennedy wrote: It does NOT, NOT, NOT show that those groups are different races.

Yes it does. They are two names for the same concept.

Lance Kennedy wrote:As I keep pointing out, geneticists can and do carry out exactly the same thing with different families. The fact that the Hatfields and the McCoys can be distinguished genetically does not show they are different races.

I never claimed that the Hatfields were a separate race. I never claimed that each genetic difference identifies a different race. I have explained this to you over and over and over.

Lance Kennedy wrote:And for exactly the same reason, a genetic difference does not show that Chinese and Europeans are different races.

I have already explained -- repeatedly -- why that argument is wrong. I have cited peer-reviewed science journal articles in which scientists say Chinese and Caucasians are separate races. That is a fact.

Different races, by necessity, have genetic differences. it cannot be otherwise. But that does not mean that all genetic differences mean different races. Why do you keep bringing up this same straw man over and over and over??

Lance Kennedy wrote:Here is another view from another university.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b1 ... amon2.html

I quote :

"Attributing race to an individual or a population amounts to applying a social and cultural label that lacks scientific consensus and supporting data. While anthropologists continue to study how and why humans vary biologically, it is apparent that human populations differ from one another much less than do populations in other species because we use our cultural, rather than our physical differences to aid us in adapting to various environments. "

That is Lewontin's Fallacy. Again. The smallness of the genetic differences is irrelevant to the fact that certain genetic diffrences cluster along racial boundaries. That is a scientific fact.

Lance Kennedy wrote:This is a view agreed upon by the majority of biologists studying humans. Race is a social construct without meaning in science.

And I have cited evidence that contradicts that. You have not refuted the medical examples I cited previously that clearly shows race does indeed have a biological meaning.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:01 am

xouper wrote:Different races, by necessity, have genetic differences. it cannot be otherwise. But that does not mean that all genetic differences mean different races. Why do you keep bringing up this same straw man over and over and over??


The point I have made, many times, is that it is the amount of genetic difference that permits a population to be described as a separate race. Not simply the fact that there is a genetic difference. If the genetic difference is small, it does not denote a separate race.

For example : there was a somewhat limited genetic study a few years back, which was referred to on Discovery Channel, about villages in England. The researcher focused on old people who had spent all their lives in the same villages. He found genetic differences from one part of England to another. But no one is going to call those different populations in England different races.

Chinese and Europeans, in exactly the same way, have some genetic differences. This does not prove they are different races, any more than the researcher proved that people in different parts of England are different races. Minor genetic differences do not make different races.

And the entire human species has minimal genetic variation. There is one single human race. We all belong to it. It cannot be subdivided into smaller races because we are all too similar. This is something I have referenced scientists telling you.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Racism

Postby Tom Palven » Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:47 am

Some say that affirmative acrtion is "race-based." What is that supposed to mean?

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/10/01 ... ve-action/
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8097
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Racism

Postby Poodle » Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:27 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:For example : there was a somewhat limited genetic study a few years back, which was referred to on Discovery Channel, about villages in England. The researcher focused on old people who had spent all their lives in the same villages. He found genetic differences from one part of England to another. But no one is going to call those different populations in England different races.


I live in English village land. Sometimes I come across villages where I'd describe the inhabitants as belonging to a different species, let alone race.

Just an aside. Please carry on.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:34 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote:Different races, by necessity, have genetic differences. it cannot be otherwise. But that does not mean that all genetic differences mean different races. Why do you keep bringing up this same straw man over and over and over??

The point I have made, many times, is that it is the amount of genetic difference that permits a population to be described as a separate race.

And I have explained many times why that argument is wrong. The size of the difference is not relevant. What matters is that the differences form quantitatively identifiable clusters, as you can see in this illustration (which I posted previously):

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kcnR4O5BR0s/T ... 00/1_2.png

Lance Kennedy wrote:Not simply the fact that there is a genetic difference.

I have never made that claim. Ever. And I have told you that many many times. So why do you keep bringing up this straw man fallacy (or red herring, take your pick)? Seriously, do you have some kind of brain malfunction that prevents you from understanding that this is not my argument? You keep thinking it is my argument despite that I have told you repeatedly it is not. Seriously, what the {!#%@} is the matter with you??

Lance Kennedy wrote: If the genetic difference is small, it does not denote a separate race.

. . . Chinese and Europeans, in exactly the same way, have some genetic differences. This does not prove they are different races, any more than the researcher proved that people in different parts of England are different races. Minor genetic differences do not make different races.

The scientific evidence contradicts your claim, as I have shown over and over and over. So why do you keep repeating this same falsehood? Seriously, what the {!#%@} is the matter with you?? Your claim is refuted by actual scientific evidence. This is not just my opinion, it is a fact. Again, I refer you to the image I linked above.

Lance Kennedy wrote:And the entire human species has minimal genetic variation. There is one single human race. We all belong to it. It cannot be subdivided into smaller races because we are all too similar. This is something I have referenced scientists telling you.

You have said all this before, Lance. Repeating it does not make it any less false.

So here we go again . . . I have cited scientists who disagree with you. When scientists disagree, we then look to the scientific evidence itself. Scientists can say anything, especially if they are making politically motivated statements to avoid accusations of racism, but what does the evidence show? The scientific evidence disagrees with you. Races can be identified despite that the genetic differences are small. I have cited scientific evidence and all you have cited is opinion. Evidence trumps opinion every time.

Consider also this embarrassing fact which I have stated before. Many anthropologists say there are no races, and yet when you look at their actual published research, they do indeed continue to classify people into races. What they do contradicts what they say.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:54 pm

Xouper

You keep claiming to 'prove' something with scientific evidence, but all you do its keep posting the same old stuff, that just shows human populations vary in a small number of genes.

Take the "blogspot" graph you posted comparing Asian groups.
That graph carefully selected a tiny fraction of the genes that make up the genomes. It selected just those genes that were characteristic of the populations by geographic location (cherry picking data) and ignored the other 22,000 genes.

If all 22,000 genes were on that graph, you would see all human populations were very, very close to exactly the same. The graph is designed to prove a point through a careful and biased selection of the traits that showed differences, while ignoring the vast majority of traits showing sameness.

As I keep telling you, I could do the same with any and every sub population of the human race. Human genetic variation between difference geographic locations is minimal. Far too small to justify division of the human races.

As I challenged you before, I repeat the challenge. Show me a reference to a proper scientific division of the human species into races. Something modern and based on genetics, rather than superficial physical differences. And something where the scientists say "races".

Races do exist, of course. Just not for Homo sapiens. For example : the honeybee has a number of races.
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesraces.htm
These are subdivisions that show clear cut and substantial genetic differences, discrete populations, and no continuum of hybrids. Genetic variation between these races is much greater than genetic variation within one race. All the things that those groupings you fallaceously call human races are not.

Just for a change, let me reference the sociologist view of race.
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/ ... 26884.html

I quote :

"An example of a racial category is Asian (or Mongoloid), with its associated facial, hair color, and body type features. Yet too many exceptions to this sort of racial grouping have been found to make any racial categorizations truly viable. This fact has led many sociologists to indicate that no clear-cut races exist—only assorted physical and genetic variations across human individuals and groups."

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:24 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:You keep claiming to 'prove' something with scientific evidence, but all you do its keep posting the same old stuff, that just shows human populations vary in a small number of genes.

Take the "blogspot" graph you posted comparing Asian groups.
That graph carefully selected a tiny fraction of the genes that make up the genomes. It selected just those genes that were characteristic of the populations by geographic location (cherry picking data) and ignored the other 22,000 genes.

Yes, that's exactly the point. In classifying races or subspecies (or even species) you don't go looking for the sex genes or blood-type genes, for example. You only need to find the markers that show clustering along racial boundaries or species boundaries. It is not necessary to look at other genetic markers. Your complaint is invalid.

Lance Kennedy wrote:If all 22,000 genes were on that graph, you would see all human populations were very, very close to exactly the same. The graph is designed to prove a point through a careful and biased selection of the traits that showed differences, while ignoring the vast majority of traits showing sameness.

Yeah, so what. That does not refute that there are genetic markers that can be used to classify races. Your complaint is irrelevant.

Example -- if we want to tell the difference between two species, such as humans and chimpanzees, we don't go looking at ALL the genes and say, "Hey there is so much in common -- 98 percent -- they must be the same race." No, if we want to determine if a DNA sample is chimp or human, we only need to look at the genetic markers that identify the species. It is entirely valid to "cherry-pick" which genetic markers we look at to make this identification. There is no point in looking at genetic markers that will not help us distinguish between the two species.

Same goes for races, and that is why your argument is flawed.

Another example -- when we want to tell the difference between two models of automobile -- say between a 1999 Ford Escort and a 1999 Mercury Tracer -- we don't bother looking at all the things they have in common that are useless in identifying the model. No, we try to find the markers that make them different. That is not cherry-picking, it is absolutely necessary.

Seriously, Lance, where do you come up with this BS logic of yours??

Lance Kennedy wrote:As I keep telling you, I could do the same with any and every sub population of the human race. Human genetic variation between difference geographic locations is minimal. Far too small to justify division of the human races.

There's that same fallacy again. How many times are you going to post that same ignorant argument??? What the {!#%@} is the matter with you? You sound like a {!#%@} broken record.

Lance Kennedy wrote:As I challenged you before, I repeat the challenge. Show me a reference to a proper scientific division of the human species into races. Something modern and based on genetics, rather than superficial physical differences. And something where the scientists say "races".

Races do exist, of course. Just not for Homo sapiens. For example : the honeybee has a number of races.
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesraces.htm
These are subdivisions that show clear cut and substantial genetic differences, discrete populations, and no continuum of hybrids. Genetic variation between these races is much greater than genetic variation within one race. All the things that those groupings you fallaceously call human races are not.

Just for a change, let me reference the sociologist view of race.
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/ ... 26884.html

I quote :

"An example of a racial category is Asian (or Mongoloid), with its associated facial, hair color, and body type features. Yet too many exceptions to this sort of racial grouping have been found to make any racial categorizations truly viable. This fact has led many sociologists to indicate that no clear-cut races exist—only assorted physical and genetic variations across human individuals and groups."

Lance I have already explained why your arguments are wrong. You keep posting the same flawed arguments over and over and over like a {!#%@} broken record.

I have already provided the scientific evidence you keep asking for.

  • I have quoted scientists using the word race in peer-reviewed publications.

  • I have cited genetic evidence for the identification of races.

  • I have cited anthropologists classifying people into races.

  • I have cited medical journal papers that use race as a meaningful classification.

I have provided an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence from real scientists published in real scientific journals and you have the balls to make the false accusation that I haven't done that. Well, {!#%@} you Lance, I am getting tired of your false accusations. I am getting tired of your BS arguments based on logical fallacies.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:49 pm

Xouper

The majority of scientists working in relevant human biology disciplines do not believe there are distinct human races. So what I say is not crap. It is science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

I quote :

"Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."

I can keep this up all year. Most scientists do not believe that the human species can be subdivided into races. The number of quotes from scientific sources to this effect is legion.

Here is another university reference.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/race.htm

I quote :

"There are no genetic characteristics possessed by all Blacks but not by non- Blacks; similarly, there is no gene or cluster of genes common to all Whites but not to non-Whites. One's race is not determined by a single gene or gene cluster, as is, for example, sickle cell anemia. Nor are races marked by important differences in gene frequencies, the rates of appearance of certain gene types. The data compiled by various scientists demonstrates, contrary to popular opinion, that intra-group differences exceed inter-group differences. That is, greater genetic variation exists within the populations typically labeled Black and White than between these populations. This finding refutes the supposition that racial divisions reflect fundamental genetic differences."

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:56 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

The majority of scientists working in relevant human biology disciplines do not believe there are distinct human races. So what I say is not crap. It is science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

I quote :

"Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."

I can keep this up all year. Most scientists do not believe that the human species can be subdivided into races. The number of quotes from scientific sources to this effect is legion.

Here is another university reference.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/race.htm

I quote :

"There are no genetic characteristics possessed by all Blacks but not by non- Blacks; similarly, there is no gene or cluster of genes common to all Whites but not to non-Whites. One's race is not determined by a single gene or gene cluster, as is, for example, sickle cell anemia. Nor are races marked by important differences in gene frequencies, the rates of appearance of certain gene types. The data compiled by various scientists demonstrates, contrary to popular opinion, that intra-group differences exceed inter-group differences. That is, greater genetic variation exists within the populations typically labeled Black and White than between these populations. This finding refutes the supposition that racial divisions reflect fundamental genetic differences."

We have already been over this. You are merely repeating old material. I have already explained -- repeatedly -- why your argument is crap. You haven't said anything new and thus your argument is still crap.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest