The Pseudo-Science of Racism

mbig said:

No that's Not true.
Even a child can tell race in humans or animals.
You have not addressed Any of My posts in this string despite me posting alot of Meat and debunking two of yours. Ergo, one Has to wonder if you Are interested in the TRUTH of the matter or just semantically critiquing Goshin.

ie, One doesn't have to be a geneticist to know Lions and Tigers are Cats but NOT the same/that there is some inherent (genetic) distinguishment.

Nor does one have to be an evolutionary Biologist to know a Pygmy/Bushmen/San couple can't be give birth to a Christie Brinkley or Ban Ki Moon.
(and it AIN'T just "melanin")
It's only a question of whether we're talking race/subspecie or species in the above cases.

Again Coyne:

"..The subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups — differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies..." (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology).​

Click to expand...

The problem is that your view is reactionary. You've decided that 'race does not exist' is a 'PC mindset' so you've concluded that RACE MUST BE A REAL, TOTALLY SCIENTIFIC IDEA WHICH IS SETTLED BUT HELD BACK BY THE PC BRIGADE.

Which is nonsense. Yes, pick someone from Sweden, another person from Sweden, and someone from Korea and there will be less genotypical variations (which translate into phenotypical differences) between the two Swedes than between them and the Korean. This is understandable and expected - pick two brothers and then a stranger who lives down the road, and you'll see exactly the same thing.

But there are two problems with this, if you take the purely scientific approach.

1) Where to draw the line is far from well-defined. I share more DNA with (in order) my brother, my immediate family, people ancestral to the local area, people ancestral to my country, people everywhere, apes. What gets called 'family', 'locals', 'race', 'species' is not well defined. The reason that 'race' exists is not because some scientists have looked at DNA - it is because of sociological reasons. You are trying to use DNA to validate your views, but that's putting the cart before the horse. You are trying to make scientific decisions based on pre-existing social constructs; your confirmation bias is present.

This was mentioned in the very text you keep quoting:

2) The idea of subspecies is based on geographical (or social) isolation. While that has happened to a certain extent (hence the phenotypical differences) there has been a vast amount of crossbreeding, population movement and mixture - especially for the last 300 years or so. For want of a better word, we are all mongrels; those who share all the characteristics of a type of a particular race are increasingly few and far between. Once you decide to delineate by geography, your version of 'race' is a gross oversimplification.

I did a quick google and discovered this interesting paper which argues for it's own regional version of races - termed 'tribes' by the paper. If nothing else, I recommend reading pages 19 and 20.

tl;dr: Yes, regional differences do occur - but 'race' is a vastly oversimplified generalisation rooted in sociology far more than in science.

rathi said:

Goshin, Science is about making accurate observations not sloppy generalizations. Trying to ignore the millions of people who prove your claims wrong by whining about the "average" would get your laughed out of the room. If you want to make claims about genetics, you need to actually publish results of DNA tests, allele frequencies, heritability models and the actual science of biology. You obviously have zero training in genetics, which is fine its not like most people do, but you shouldn't make stupid claims about a subject you haven't bothered to study.

Click to expand...

No sir, I am not a geneticist. I have studied the basics some time back, but I am not remotely expert in the subject and don't claim to be.

But I have two eyes and I can see when people inherit certain obvious traits, like the same nose their father and grandfather and uncles and aunts possessed. I can see when persons of X regional origin share various traits in common which almost all people use as a general identifier of their region-of-origin... and most people use these identifying traits because the vast majority of the time it works.

rathi said:

That is quite funny. You are doing nothing but parroting the political correctness of the society in which you grew up. Making stupid claims about race and genetics is the history of the south. If you don't want to judged by that history, don't keep spouting the same ignorant prejudiced nonsense.

Click to expand...

Ah lovely, you're playing the "all you Southerners are born bigots" card.

This conversation was tiresome a couple pages ago... now it is gone way off in left field. I've quite had my fill of being derided for perceiving that something that is obvious and 99% consistent is probably a real thing and not entirely a figment of our collective imagination.


Get back to me when Al and Jessie and every other talking head stop talking about race as a real thing. :roll:

Otherwise I'm done with this idiotic thread.

iangb said:

The problem is that your view is reactionary. You've decided that 'race does not exist' is a 'PC mindset' so you've concluded that RACE MUST BE A REAL, TOTALLY SCIENTIFIC IDEA WHICH IS SETTLED BUT HELD BACK BY THE PC BRIGADE.
Which is nonsense. Yes, pick someone from Sweden, another person from Sweden, and someone from Korea and there will be less genotypical variations (which translate into phenotypical differences) between the two Swedes than between them and the Korean. This is understandable and expected - pick two brothers and then a stranger who lives down the road, and you'll see exactly the same thing.
But there are two problems with this, if you take the purely scientific approach.

1) Where to draw the line is far from well-defined. I share more DNA with (in order) my brother, my immediate family, people ancestral to the local area, people ancestral to my country, people everywhere, apes. What gets called 'family', 'locals', 'race', 'species' is not well defined. The reason that 'race' exists is not because some scientists have looked at DNA - it is because of sociological reasons. You are trying to use DNA to validate your views, but that's putting the cart before the horse. You are trying to make scientific decisions based on pre-existing social constructs; your confirmation bias is present.
This was mentioned in the very text you keep quoting:

"How many human races are there?
That’s pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit “Caucasians” as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from 3 to over 30"​

Click to expand...

So for the first time you're admitting there are GENOtypical differences and not Dishonestly trying phenotypical Hair/Eye color etc within a race that you Blighted page One with.
You know better, yet have consistently tried to minimalize this Big fact due your Politics.
You've tried to pass off this Disingenuous Deception on the board Many times.
This is despicable.

It's Genotype, that determines Race/Subspecies and Genotype that enables Racial identification by Bones.
It's Genotype, of course, that is the reason you can, with 100% Accuracy, determine a Pygmy, from a Norwegian, from a Japanese. These are Not random/non-group expressions like hair color in some races.
Wiki:

An additional source on Geno v Pheno, Chart:
Genotype vs Phenotype - Difference and Comparison | Diffen



Hair color for instance, (AND it's Texture that is very Different than that of a Dark-haired Northern Euro or Japanese) is not mere random/phenotypical trait in Pygmy's, It's Genotype 100% Determined. As are things like a Group's Facial Bone Structure, which are Genotypical/RACIAL.

You cherry-picked Coyne who also points out that race is merely Morphological difference cause be genetic diffrence.

That's well over the line for race/subspecie as scientist have traditionally delimited races.
In the past there was a "75%-tell-them-apart-was good-enough-for-race" rule, but in fact, among some human groups we are at 100%.

Because there is Constant debate on subspecies in some animals doesn't mean it doesn't Exist!
And humans are, again, well Over the debate line that is used.

I have read papers (and I may excerpts pieces of one) that even argue that if we are to be taxonomically consistent, not only do humans constitute many Races/subspecies, we may even constitute two separate species, IF taxonomy is applied as it is to the two Gorilla Species. Tho I'm not arguing that more agressive point.

cont'd

iangb said:

2) The idea of subspecies is based on geographical (or social) isolation. While that has happened to a certain extent (hence the phenotypical differences) there has been a vast amount of crossbreeding, population movement and mixture - especially for the last 300 years or so. For want of a better word, we are all mongrels; those who share all the characteristics of a type of a particular race are increasingly few and far between. Once you decide to delineate by geography, your version of 'race' is a gross oversimplification. I did a quick google and discovered this interesting paper which argues for it's own regional version of races - termed 'tribes' by the paper. If nothing else, I recommend reading pages 19 and 20.
tl;dr: Yes, regional differences do occur - but 'race' is a vastly oversimplified generalisation rooted in sociology far more than in science

Click to expand...

I am talking about applying Taxonomy consistently among the world's species.
And if one does Humans have at least 3 and perhaps 30 races. Perhaps more.
That fact doesn't disqualify race. Ironically, DNAtribes (used previously here) is just another way OF using 'race' without saying it.
WTF is a DNAtribe?
Talk about "social constructs" to avoid using the 'R' word!

I suggest:
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/#racesocialconstruct

and
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/#clines



and the Rest of his website/page
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/

So maybe we should stop using "social constructs" 'Red' and 'Yellow.'
"We are all/There is only One Color."
Oh those bigots throwing around arbitrary names!

In the name of PC/Disingenuity you, along with others, have gone absurd in an effort, ONLY in humans, Not to use Meaningful, descriptive, or consistent taxonomic terminology.

mbig said:

So for the first time you're admitting there are GENOtypical differences and not Dishonestly trying phenotypical Hair/Eye color etc within a race that you Blighted page One with.
You know better, yet have consistently tried to minimalize this Big fact due your Politics.
You've tried to pass off this Disingenuous Deception on the board Many times.
This is despicable.

Click to expand...

A total lie on your part - I have never denied that there are both genotypical and phenotypical differences between 'races'.

It's Genotype, that determines Race/Subspecies and Genotype that enables Racial identification by Bones.

It's Genotype, of course, that is the reason you can, with 100% Accuracy, determine a Pygmy, from a Norwegian, from a Japanese. These are Not random/non-group expressions like hair color in some races.

Click to expand...

No, it's phenotype. Yes, I agree that genotype is the driving influence behind phenotype, but when you are identifying the race of an individual it is their phenotype you are directly measuring, not their genotype (unless you are doing a DNA test).

I've cut out the middle section of this post because it's just you posting info on the link between geno- and pheno-, which I have never contested. Though from reading your own postings on the topic (for example, your first quote in this post), I'm not sure that you fully understand it. To simplify; genotype is your DNA, phenotype is how that DNA is expressed. As such, blue eyes are a phenotypical feature which is caused by an individual having a certain genotype. It's not (as you imply above) that 'phenotype = little difference, genotype = racial difference'.

Because there is Constant debate on subspecies in some animals doesn't mean it doesn't Exist!
And humans are, again, well Over the debate line that is used.

Click to expand...

It demonstrates that race is a social construct, rather than one with scientific roots. It's like the whole 'is pluto a planet' debate - all that it shows is that we have created an system to tell two groups apart based on arbitrary factors.

I have read papers (and I may excerpts pieces of one) that even argue that if we are to be taxonomically consistent, not only do humans constitute many Races/subspecies, we may even constitute two separate species, IF taxonomy is applied as it is to the two Gorilla Species. Tho I'm not arguing that more agressive point.

Click to expand...

To be honest, the whole 'species' classification system is, though necessary, pretty flawed given the reality of evolution - for example, ring species break that conventional mould. But we digress.

mbig said:

I am talking about applying Taxonomy consistently among the world's species.
And if one does Humans have at least 3 and perhaps 30 races. Perhaps more.
That fact doesn't disqualify race.

Click to expand...

You ask for taxonomic consistency, but then declare that 'consistently' using that single taxonomic system gives a result of anywhere between 3 and 30 groups?

That's not consistency.

..2. Race is a social construct and doesn’t exist.

Well, yes, race IS a social construct. But race does exist. Saying something is a “social construct” can be true and still yet not be really meaningful.

Think of it, the periodic table of chemical elements is a social construct. Do chemical elements then not exist? Or, much more relevant – in fact, exactly like race – Linnaean taxonomy is a social construct. Do kingdoms, classes, species not exist?
Race is merely an extension of this.
In reality, genetic analysis can separate human populations into distinct groups..​

Click to expand...

Not what is meant by 'race is a social construct'. 'Race is a social construct' means that, even today, most people use the term 'race' based on sociological influences, not scientific ones. The periodic table is based on elements being different based on the number of protons they have. Different races talks about geography and sociology, not (for the large part) DNA.

3. Human genetic variation is clinial (i.e., smooth), hence you can’t separate humanity into distinct races.

Answer: how "Blanking" dumb is that? Firstly to say that a “smooth” clinial progression of human differences renders the individual groups non-existent is equivalent to looking at this:

…and concluding that each individual color does not exist because they smoothly blend into one another. That’s clearly patently ridiculous. Even if the distribution of human groups is continuous (and it often is), that wouldn’t render each group along the distribution non-existent – nor would it render the differences between each group insignificant. That would be tantamount to saying yellow is equivalent to orange.​

So maybe we should stop using "social constructs" 'Red' and 'Yellow.'

Click to expand...

All the way through this thread, I have never argued (indeed, I have said the opposite) that we should not use the term 'race'. Instead, I have argued that there isn't a scientific basis for using the term, because it is rooted in sociology, and that a lot of times the term 'race' is used it has no scientific background whatsoever. The 'colours' analogy is actually pretty good for this; perception experiments aside, the scientist would only be interested in the wavelength of the photons (and other empirical factors), not whether their laser is a pretty green colour. That doesn't preclude scientists from talking about the 'red end of the spectrum' (or indeed, 'red shift'!).

Go back and read my tl;dr again. "Yes, regional differences do occur - but 'race' is a vastly oversimplified generalisation rooted in sociology far more than in science" That doesn't mean we shouldn't use the terms 'race'. There's nothing wrong with using sociological terms - what I take issue with is when you try and claim that there is 'settled science' which established races, as opposed to the reality that science is being applied to pre-existing sociological groupings.

iangb said:

A total lie on your part - I have never denied that there are both genotypical and phenotypical differences between 'races'.

Click to expand...

No, the Lie is all yours. WithOUT Exception you have sought to confuse phenotype and Genotype and and sought to make/Mock ie, "Blond hair" or "Blue Eyes" is a race. Including on page One here.
(and many other examples in previous strings)

So that according to your dissociating/disingenuous mockery, even brother and sister could be different 'races', RATHER than the SETS of Inherited Traits that make Race.
That's why NO response from you on what I have have posted Twice here.

mbig said:

...2. But In a room with 300 Naked People: 100 Pygmies, 100 Scandinavians, and 100 Northeast Asians (Japanese etc)..
[n]what do you suppose your rate of error would be in telling them apart?
Why?[/b]

3. Race is not just about Hair or eye Color!..
Race is a whole SET of features including stature, Skeletal and muscular structure/facial features, Hair coverage and Texture of it..., Blood components, disease susceptibility, etc.

So that Forensic anthropologists are More accurate telling apart Races from Skeletal Remains than from seeing any 'Color'!
Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums (How many human races exist?)
and they do it every day.

In fact, the two genetically Furthest apart Races are people of 'color', subsaharan africans and Australian aboriginals, due to geographical separation and Isolation of the latter.

So that in my above-mentioned room with those 3 Races, if a pygmy (or NE Asian) was an Albino, he would Still be Easily distinguished from the other two by the SETS of features that make up race.

Race is some morphological difference, caused by genetic difference/adaptation, in turn caused by geographic/evolutionary separation.
It/they can be divided into as little as 3, or as many as 30, or perhaps a multiple of that. (Coyne, Cavalli-Sforza, etc)
The point being though, they are Distinguishable by SETS of features which are determined by SETS of GENETIC Loci.

4. And btw, if you send your Blood and a few bucks into ("Racist") National Geographic's Genographic Project, they'll tell you what Percent of each indigenous people/RACE (11) you are.

5. Many animals have LESS morphological and genetic separation than humans, but Do have Race, aka subspecies, Including Chimps and Gorillas. The latter even has 2 separate species.
The Only reasons H sapien doesn't have further designation is 100% Political, NOT Scientific/Taxonomic.

6. Aside from one or two people here, virtually NO one has any understanding of Genetics/Speciation/evolution.
Even the considerably more who have Some understanding of/or say they believe in, Evolution, are Blinded by PC political views.

"Liberal Creationism" (Slate mag, another story)
That is, Like YECers who deny ANY evolution, Liberal Creationists demand it stopped 100,000-200,000 YEARS ago with the appearance of H Sapiens!'
Yes..
Scores of other geographically separated species kept evolving into many other subspecies, but Humans? DON'T YOU DARE say it!
"Racists"!
That constitutes about Half the mindless people who populate this board, especially PoS, who even calls people who criticize Islam - a Religion - "Racists"/Stormfront and knows NOTHING about any science.

7. Pygmy Mammoths, a separate Specie, evolved from Mammoths in just 30,000 years from Island Isolation.
Pygmy mammoth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BUT, Whoa to he who points out Australian Aboriginals did also into the even smaller/more easy Subspecie, and had much More time! Similarly other groups evolved.

8. I also suggest https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...losion&es_th=1
ie, The 10,000 Year Explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which explains how Evolution of Humans was greatly Accelerated in the last 10,000 years [alone] due to agriculture/cities etc, and some groups got 'left behind'/isolated by this.
Due to the above, humans have Evolved and Separated even faster than other species.

Click to expand...

Deafening Silence. You Conspicuously did NOT answer those postings.
Indeed, according your Own Mockery, I HAVE ALREADY Posted the Criteria for Race/subspecie above:

cont'd

Deafening Silence to the above twice posted in this string.
Why?
Because according your Own Criteria, I HAVE ALREADY Posted the factors needed for Race/subspecie above:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...uered-and-whatever-next-2.html#post1063370525

IanGB said:

....To summarise: "Race" is a sociological term which refers to groups of people being differentiated between (mostly) by skin colour. "Subspecies" is a scientific term which refers to groups of organisms being differentiated by a great many factors, of which Skin colour is just One.

If you want to say people are objectively of a different 'race', that's OK - as long as you also say that green-eyed and blue-eyed people are of a different 'race', since that's what the science says. If, however, you simply want to focus on skin colour (or the other couple of features) then you are not being scientific, but are being sociological.

To then take it to the next level, as the OP here is doing, is even more absurd. To insist that somehow white people and black people are in an evolutionary competition with each other, but that brown-haired people and blonde-haired people are not, is not an objectively correct POV.

Click to expand...

So aside from YOU abusing 'race' by using it Colloquially, instead of scientifically, there ARE races/human subspecies, and I have described the SETS of features that make it so.

So let's stop the "Ginger-haired"-"Blond haired"-"Blue-Eyed"-"Race" Dishonesty.

Also in the above post (Many/ALL posts) I have made a point that Race is NOT just skin color by pointing out the two Genetically furthest apart races, subsharans and Australian Aboriginals, Both are people of color.
I did NOT use Mere 'skin color' as race, contrary to your attempt to trivialize/colloquilaize the scientific basis for Race.
Race is subspecie. (Coyne and All my other posts AND sig)

Race=subspecies=SETS of features that are not mere phenotype.
Race is Inherited not merely expressed traits.
So that again, while a 'white' couple can have children with ANY eye or hair color, they Cannot have offspring with the SETS of traits that constitute/describe a pygmy or an NE Asian offspring.
Similarly, mere phenotype, would not allow a Pygmy couple to have a Christy Brinkly nor a Ban Ki Moon.

Goshin said:

But I have two eyes and I can see when people inherit certain obvious traits, like the same nose their father and grandfather and uncles and aunts possessed. I can see when persons of X regional origin share various traits in common which almost all people use as a general identifier of their region-of-origin... and most people use these identifying traits because the vast majority of the time it works.

Click to expand...

You might as well claim that you understand aerodynamics because you flew on a couple of Americans Flights. "Obviously the tray tables in the cabin shift the center of gravity of the airplane, that is why they always make you put them up before landing. Seen it with my own eyes".

The most elementary concept in biology is that you can't see genetics with your eyes. That is why there are separate terms for the genotype and the phenotype.

rathi said:

You might as well claim that you understand aerodynamics because you flew on a couple of Americans Flights. "Obviously the tray tables in the cabin shift the center of gravity of the airplane, that is why they always make you put them up before landing. Seen it with my own eyes".

The most elementary concept in biology is that you can't see genetics with your eyes. That is why there are separate terms for the genotype and the phenotype.

Click to expand...

LOL
Link for that being "the most elemental concept of biology"?

Race IS morphological/Appearance difference caused by Genetic difference.
(see Coyne Definition previous)
Anyone can tell an Eagle from a Blue Jay/Lion from a Tiger, and it's obviously genetic.

I've busted every one of your posts in this string.
No comebacks/Zero.

mbig said:

LOL
Link for that being "the most elemental concept of biology"?

Race IS morphological/Appearance difference caused by Genetic difference.
(see Coyne Definition previous)
Anyone can tell an Eagle from a Blue Jay/Lion from a Tiger, and it's obviously genetic.

I've busted every one of your posts in this string.
No comebacks/Zero.

Click to expand...

You should get your revolutionary finding published in Nature. "I can totally see genetics with the naked eye, look at this blue jay and lion". Apparently we have been wasting our time actually sequencing genomes, we should have simply been asking you to look at stuff.

I haven't bothered with "comebacks" to your posts because the ignorance of your own writing embarrasses you more than I ever could. You haven't even bothered to spend 15 minutes reading the wikipedia article on genetics and it shows.

mbig said:

No, the Lie is all yours. WithOUT Exception you have sought to confuse phenotype and Genotype and and sought to make/Mock ie, "Blond hair" or "Blue Eyes" is a race. Including on page One here.
(and many other examples in previous strings)

Click to expand...

As mentioned in my last post, I'm not sure you understand what genotype vs phenotype actually is.

Race as you term it is a collection of phenotypical variations caused by genotypical differences. Blon hair and blue eyes are also phenotypical variations caused by genotypical differences.

You preach a lot about people not understanding the science, but you don't seem to have a huge understanding yourself.

So that according to your dissociating/disingenuous mockery, even brother and sister could be different 'races', RATHER than the SETS of Inherited Traits that make Race.
That's why NO response from you on what I have have posted Twice here.

Deafening Silence. You Conspicuously did NOT answer those postings.
Indeed, according your Own Mockery, I HAVE ALREADY Posted the Criteria for Race/subspecie above:

cont'd

Click to expand...

Huh? I've answered every post directed at me. This is the first time you've associated this copypasta with me.

In response to the self-quoted text:
2) Is irrelevant - see my post above, it applies equally to any sets of phenotypical differences.
3) Would be relevant if you could actually be specific about what exact set of phenotypical differences you are focussing on. However, you can't - hence the reason you can't tell me if there are 3 human races, or 30.
4) As I have previously mentioned, I have never contested that there is scientific evidence which can be applied to the sociological construct of race. That's not my issue with your use of the term.
5) Most animals are geographically isolated to a much higher extent than humans are. You don't get African Elephants catching the plane to India. See also my response to #8.
6) Is totally irrelevant and mostly ad hom
7) As previously mentioned, I'm not denying that geographically isolated groups of humans have adapted to their local environment, causing changes to their genotype. I'm contesting that the results of this are as simplistic as you have made out, and I'm contending that the idea of 'race' was created with scientific origins rather than sociological ones.
8) Your google link is broken. But it depends upon what you term by 'evolution'. Humanity has had a very low selection pressure for significant amounts of time now - and since selection is half of the evolutionary process, I would argue that genetic evolution is significantly different in humans. Social evolution is another thing, but that's not really for this thread.

mbig said:

Deafening Silence to the above twice posted in this string.
Why?
Because according your Own Criteria, I HAVE ALREADY Posted the factors needed for Race/subspecie above:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...uered-and-whatever-next-2.html#post1063370525

So aside from YOU abusing 'race' by using it Colloquially, instead of scientifically, there ARE races/human subspecies, and I have described the SETS of features that make it so.

So let's stop the "Ginger-haired"-"Blond haired"-"Blue-Eyed"-"Race" Dishonesty.

Also in the above post (Many/ALL posts) I have made a point that Race is NOT just skin color by pointing out the two Genetically furthest apart races, subsharans and Australian Aboriginals, Both are people of color.
I did NOT use Mere 'skin color' as race, contrary to your attempt to trivialize/colloquilaize the scientific basis for Race.
Race is subspecie. (Coyne and All my other posts AND sig)

Click to expand...

Give me a list of what makes one person a different 'race' than another person. You've just said "there are lots of differences!" - lets hear them? How many differences would you need before you consider a difference to be present - what scientific evidence do you have that this number of difference should be what constitutes 'race'?

Race=subspecies=SETS of features that are not mere phenotype.
Race is Inherited not merely expressed traits.
So that again, while a 'white' couple can have children with ANY eye or hair color, they Cannot have offspring with the SETS of traits that constitute/describe a pygmy or an NE Asian offspring.
Similarly, mere phenotype, would not allow a Pygmy couple to have a Christy Brinkly nor a Ban Ki Moon.

Click to expand...

This is more proof that you don't understand the difference between geno- and pheno-.

I am using the SAME definition for Race as you are using for 'Subspecie'. Just that Race has been traditionally used in Humans rather than the latter.


You clearly either don't understand the terminology or seek to separate it for political/empty argumentative purpose.

No why don't YOU tell us EXACTLY all the features it takes for delimitation of subspecies in other Animals?

Your basic Fallacious tactic being demanding description of ALL/EXACT traits between race/supspecies in all/any animals, especially humans.
A Variant of the Burden Shifting Fallacy, demanding every EXACT detail when that is NOT the case with other animal species.
And, again, because there Are debates on Other species, doesn't mean they don't exist either.
AND those debates are on smaller morphological and genetic points than would be necessary to say there are human subspecies/races.

Your WHOLE fallacious/Disingenuous tactic is to demand EXACTLY the detail and EXACTLY the number of races when that is NOT necessary to establish the Basic fact there are AT LEAST several, if not 30 or more.

I cited [perhaps foremost expert] Coyne previously, and you tried the same Disingenuous tactic when it is NOT a prerequisite for saying there is enough difference for at least 3 races if not 30.
This is true of Other animals as well. Because there is disagreement over how many doesn't mean there are none. Were there less politics involved, perhaps we could establish what the best number is.

You didn't/It does NOT Discredit him Either because he didn't say how many EXACTLY.

Race (human classification) - Wikipedia

My previous examples approach 100%, and remain UNANSWERED by you.

Cont'd

Which covers your Fallacious Burden-shifting objections: Race vs/actually IS subspecies in humans, how much [strawman] EXACTLY constitutes another subspecie is in fact a general rule of thumb in ALL species Not an EXACTITUDE.
And of course, I would again point out those differences are WELL over the line:

Me: "So that again, while a 'white' couple can have children with ANY eye or hair color, they Cannot have offspring with the SETS of traits that constitute/describe a pygmy or an NE Asian offspring.
Similarly... a Pygmy couple [Cannot] have a Christy Brinkly nor a Ban Ki Moon"

You will of course NOT be able to answer the above because it's a simple truth due to well ENOUGH, if not elucidating each "Exact" difference for 'Race/subspecies' as used in Other already delimited animal species.

Your posts are Repugnant attempts at semantic disinfo.

mbig said:

I am using the SAME definition for Race as you are using for 'Subspecie'. Just that Race has been traditionally used in Humans rather than the latter.

iangb: To summarise: "Race" is a sociological term which refers to groups of people being differentiated between (mostly) by skin colour. "Subspecies" is a scientific term which refers to groups of organisms being differentiated by a great many factors, of which Skin colour is just One.​

You clearly either don't understand the terminology or seek to separate it for political/empty argumentative purpose.

No why don't YOU tell us EXACTLY all the features it takes for delimitation of subspecies in other Animals?

Click to expand...

As I have previously mentioned in this thread, that line is equally as fuzzy and ill-defined. It arbitrarily varies from species to species (which are also not well defined!).

You are the one who is insisting that race is a well-defined concept. But in all the posts so far in this thread, you have dodged precisely defining it.

Your basic Fallacious tactic being demanding description of ALL/EXACT traits between race/supspecies in all/any animals, especially humans.
A Variant of the Burden Shifting Fallacy, demanding every EXACT detail when that is NOT the case with other animal species.

...

It does NOT Discredit him Either because he didn't say how many EXACTLY.

Click to expand...

It means that your approach to what defines 'race' is overly simplistic and poorly understood.

Race (human classification) - Wikipedia

Morphologically differentiated populations​

Click to expand...

So you are citing the wiki page as authoritative?

Other quotes from the exact same page:

Your cherry-picked excerpt concerns 'traditional views' of race from 1978. My excerpt gives the up-to-date picture.

Me: "So that again, while a 'white' couple can have children with ANY eye or hair color, they Cannot have offspring with the SETS of traits that constitute/describe a pygmy or an NE Asian offspring.
Similarly... a Pygmy couple [Cannot] have a Christy Brinkly nor a Ban Ki Moon"

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you are understanding genetics again (what race is 'white'?). A single couple are unlikely to have the genetics capable of creating children with 'ANY hair or eye colour'.

There are bigger differences between 'races' than between families. I've already stated that; to repeat my own words back at me does not improve your position.

You will of course NOT be able to answer the above because it's a simple truth due to well ENOUGH, if not elucidating each "Exact" difference for 'Race/subspecies' as used in Other already delimited animal species.

Your posts are Repugnant attempts at semantic disinfo.

Click to expand...

See my answers, above.