• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Race

They did not 'know' the man's skin tone from the skeleton alone. Even with a complete DNA profile they could not be absolutely certain as coding for colour is complex, involving many genes.

Every person - apart from monozygotic siblings - has a different DNA profile so there are billions of 'races'. Which, I firmly believe, makes the term race quite useless.
1. You completely Whiffed on my last two posts #17/18. You had too.
Archaeologists can easily tell a Scandinavian skeleton from a sub-Saharan or a NE Asian one. That's because there are Races. You lost.

2. To further show you are in denial, or have No clue, you have now mistaken/conflated "skin tone" alone with Race!
Australian Aboriginals and sub-Saharans are both people of color, but are very different Races.
You use 'race' colloquially: The crude nightly news "black/white/cop."

Race is about Sets of features born of Tens of thousands of years of separate geographical evolution.
Stature; skeletal, including facial/cranial features; hair color/Texture, etc. So that even if a Pygmy was an albino, he would still be easily distinguishable from a Scandinavian/NE Asian, both in person, and from skeletal remains.

And of course, the coding for these different groups of features can be seen in your DNA/blood, and the reason Genetic testing companies can tell you your race, or percent thereof. Generally using 8-11 base populations/races.
 
Last edited:
No I'm not. Why do you even think there's a question here? "What race is the resulting person?" Damn. Sounds like something some KKK or Nazi apologist would come up with. Eugenics taken to it's nasty natural conclusion.
What about a blood transfusion. Would getting a transfusion from a black woman make you partly black? Or partly a woman?
Dumb question. At best.[/QUOTE


you are off in the bushes with an over active imagination

You're chickening out here, in two ways.
1- You replied to me with a copy-and-paste subterfuge so your reply would show up here but I wouldn't be notified. I had to stumble across it.
2- You want someone to bring any kind of luke-warm agreement to this thread to affirm your blatantly racist supposition but you can;t bring yourself to say what you actually think.
C'mon, man up here. Tell us what yo think organ donation has to do with race.
 
You're chickening out here, in two ways.
1- You replied to me with a copy-and-paste subterfuge so your reply would show up here but I wouldn't be notified. I had to stumble across it.
2- You want someone to bring any kind of luke-warm agreement to this thread to affirm your blatantly racist supposition but you can;t bring yourself to say what you actually think.
C'mon, man up here. Tell us what yo think organ donation has to do with race.


What I actually think is that people like you have a difficult time understanding with the word levity means
 
If a person of One race gets a transplanted organ from another race what race is the resulting person
It is difficult to tell if your question is meant as some type of humor, but since the person is most likely going to need
anti rejection drugs, the organ recipient will remain what ever race that were born as.
 
1. You completely Whiffed on my last two posts #17/18. You had too.
Archaeologists can easily tell a Scandinavian skeleton from a sub-Saharan or a NE Asian one. That's because there are Races. You lost.

2. To further show you are in denial, or have No clue, you have now mistaken/conflated "skin tone" alone with Race!
Australian Aboriginals and sub-Saharans are both people of color, but are very different Races.
You use 'race' colloquially: The crude nightly news "black/white/cop."

Race is about Sets of features born of Tens of thousands of years of separate geographical evolution.
Stature; skeletal, including facial/cranial features; hair color/Texture, etc. So that even if a Pygmy was an albino, he would still be easily distinguishable from a Scandinavian/NE Asian, both in person, and from skeletal remains.

And of course, the coding for these different groups of features can be seen in your DNA/blood, and the reason Genetic testing companies can tell you your race, or percent thereof. Generally using 8-11 base populations/races.

There are very few populations which have been isolated for 'tens of thousands of years'. And remember every one of us shares a common ancestor who lived only 100,000 back. A very short period in evolutionary terms.

All the genetic companies do is charge a fee to tell us what we knew all ready: everyone, repeat everyone is 'mixed race' thus rendering the concept of race useless.

No races, just gene pools. Millions of them, all overlapping with others and blurred at their edges.
 
There are very few populations which have been isolated for 'tens of thousands of years'. And remember every one of us shares a common ancestor who lived only 100,000 back. A very short period in evolutionary terms.
All the genetic companies do is charge a fee to tell us what we knew all ready: everyone, repeat everyone is 'mixed race' thus rendering the concept of race useless. No races, just gene pools. Millions of them, all overlapping with others and blurred at their edges.
There are plenty enough groups/Races Isolated for that amount of time.
In fact, you ARE now copping "very few", and not "none".

You thought race was merely "skin tone"!
Ouch.

And ALL subspecies/Races share a "common ancestor"/stock population before geographic split-off.. 'definitionally.'
Because Humans are/were more mobile that virtually all other creatures, they spread into many Exceedingly different environments, from Jungle, to, Desert, to the Himalayas, they were subject to huge genetic pressure to adapt.. and did.

100K years under that pressure is plenty of time to have separated.
ie, the Pygmy Mammoth, a separate Specie, evolved from Mammoths in just 30,000 years from Island Isolation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_mammoth#Evolution
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.
The last Gorilla sub-species/Race is probably younger than that.

Chimps have Two Species each with 2 subspecies/Races.
Gorillas have Two Species and 6 or 7 subspecies/Races.
and neither of the above never left Central West Africa.

The Reality of Human Differences by Sarich and Miele
[....]They looked at differences between human races, between males and females, and differences between primates—particularly chimpanzees and gorillas. What is astounding is that there is greater morphological distance between human races than there are between the two chimpanzee species or between gorilla species/subspecies.

That is, the differences between human Races are Real, they are Substantial, and they did not take millions of years to diverge. Humans, rapidly occupying every available niche after leaving Africa 50,000 years ago, has been under enormous pressure to adapt. To do this meant selection for morphological, pharmacogenetic, behavioral, and cognitive traits. Not only are there many human races, but there are at least as many races as there are ecological niches, and only humans can create their own niches with forethought. What this means is not only Are there human Races, but humans have evolved uniquely to alter there own cultures or ecologies, further increasing unique selection pressures....

"Molecular data suggest that the two chimpanzee lineages separated around 1.5 million years ago; the comparable human figure is on the order of 15,000 years. In other words, the two chimp lineages are 100-fold older, yet show the Same amount of variation. That is a remarkable result.. The implications follow this logic: Human races are very strongly marked morphologically; human races are very young; so much variation developing in so short a period of time implies, indeed almost certainly requires, functionality; there is no good reason to think that behavior should somehow be exempt from this pattern of functional variability. [...]
 
Last edited:
Would "race" or "ethnicity" be closer to how we use the word "breed" in dogs. Or is there nothing that comes close?
 
Would "race" or "ethnicity" be closer to how we use the word "breed" in dogs. Or is there nothing that comes close?
"Breed" is a human manipulation, but does show in how short a time significant genetic changes are possible.
Race/subspecies is separate geographic evolution taking thousands/tens of thousands of years, or more in larger animals. Can be much shorter in the shorter the lifespan of fauna. As little a one or two generations in cases of ie, a 'Gene Sweep.'

Dogs (all breeds) are just One of the 37 subspecies/Races of Gray Wolves. There are probably 15+ subspecies/Races in North America alone. Vancouver wolves, Manitoba Wolves, etc, etc, etc. Many with less genetic distance/difference than between humans.

Most people think 'Chimpanzee' is just that alone, period. One Specie and One subspecies/Race. Same with Gorillas and... Gray Wolves.
So they have no frame of reference to use when evaluating whether human variation is great enough for delimitation. They just have PC politics.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom