• 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!

Does race actually exist?[W:115]

Does race actually exist?

  • Yes, humans are divided into different races (white, black, mixed, etc.)

    Votes: 21 46.7%
  • No, we are all the same race

    Votes: 20 44.4%
  • I don't know/other

    Votes: 4 8.9%

  • Total voters
    45
And Gorillas "originated in Africa" too and even though they Never left/didn't get help from the environment in forced adaptation as Homo sapien did, [even] they DO have Different Species, Subspecies/Race.
There are Mountain Gorillas, Eastern and/or Western Lowland Gorillas, etc, etc, you could Not tell apart. Same for other Flora/Fauna.
"Originating in Africa" or anywhere else doesn't preclude further adaptation/Evolution; and Didn't.
Humans have avoided these taxonomic classifications for Political reasons.
Eastern/Mountain gorillas and Lowland gorillas are two different species.
 
but if DNA tests were done, they'd show neanderthal DNA whereas a sub-saharan african's would not...

that was my question. is the presence or absence of neanderthal DNA enough of a difference to consider those with it a separate "race" than those without?

I'm not, in any way, suggesting that one is superior to the other. merely that they are different. are they different enough to be considered distinct races?

So you are seeking an answer to

Species ( is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often described as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.)
not
Race (is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation.) ?
 
Eastern/Mountain gorillas and Lowland gorillas are two different species.
Except you're Not understanding what I said And certainly NOT tackling the Race issue.
Eastern Lowland and Mountain are species beringei, Western Lowland, gorilla, both species have subspecies/'race'.
Pix and taxonmic names here of some Gorilla species and subspecies.
Images: Gorilla Species & Subspecies | LiveScience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla said:
"...The Mountain gorilla inhabits the Albertine Rift montane cloud forests of the Virunga Volcanoes, ranging in altitude from 2,200–4,300 metres (7,200–14,100 ft).
Lowland gorillas live in dense forests and lowland swamps and marshes as low as sea level, with Western lowland gorillas living in Central West African countries and Eastern lowland gorillas living in the Democratic Republic of the Congo near its border with Rwanda.[2]
Bodhisatva had bizarrely claimed some sort of single race for humans just because they originated in Africa!
Using Gorillas, I pointed out that despite not [even] leaving Africa, Gorillas had developed other subspecies/Race, even species, without the help of huge gigantic geographic distance and forced adaptation that human intercontinental mobility engendered.

IOW, you leave my point and several posts on race untouched, except for unwittingly acknowledging it/them save for disagreeing 'which' gorillas are what specie/subspecie, Not the main issue they have them at all.

Wiki entry continues said:
"..Until recently, gorillas were considered to be a single species, with three subspecies: the western lowland gorilla, the eastern lowland gorilla and the mountain gorilla.[8][9] There is now agreement that there are two species with two subspecies each.
More recently, a third subspecies has been claimed to exist in one of the species.
The separate species and subspecies developed from a single type of gorilla during the Ice Age,
when their forest habitats shrank and became isolated from each other
.[2]..
Human Races/subspecies had 50,000 years to similarly evolve, and did.
 
Last edited:
The only way to prove that, however, would be to throw a bunch of random persons into a closed environment for a few hundred years and see what happens.

Or something like that.

You say this as if it hasn't already happened. That's what human evolution has been for the last hundred thousand years. Various groups of people found themselves in a new area, and adapted to it. That's where every deviation from the people who lived in the Congo Basin came from.

Ultimately, those variations just don't matter for much. No one is kinder, more clever, more loving, more creative, more compassionate, or more just based on those variations. So who gives a crap about them?

So race doesn't have to be Wildly discreet, just a small bit for which human Races easily qualify using Any/All other animals/species as comparison. Especially our near relative primates I elucidated on already.

Then why aren't blonds and redheads different races? If skin color makes us something fundamentally different, why doesn't hair color? As above, the differences between various humans around the world simply aren't substantial enough to warrant any kind of classification like race. Who cares about the color of someone's skin? It has never made someone a better person to have one one set of features or another. It's just not important.
 
....


Then why aren't blonds and redheads different races? If skin color makes us something fundamentally different, why doesn't hair color? As above, the differences between various humans around the world simply aren't substantial enough to warrant any kind of classification like race. Who cares about the color of someone's skin? It has never made someone a better person to have one one set of features or another. It's just not important.
That's intentionally obtuse and/or dishonest
I posted and REposted the qualification of race for you.
Instead of answering you put up a 'short-quote' and False premise in service of your busted position
.
Race is NOT just about skin color.
It's a whole set of genetic physical characteristics (Skeletal, muscular, pharmacological) that do Not vary as easily as hair color.
A more honest and indicative illustration than your blond/redhead that NO one is claim are races:

*In a room with 300 Naked people: 100 Scandinavians, 100 East Asians, and 100 African Bushmen.. what do you suppose your rate of error would be in telling these RACES apart despite any natural/frivolous variation within?*

You also necessarily and DISHONESTLY 'short-quoted' me because you could not address what I took the trouble to post/REpost

Here was that post Paschenadale Whiffed on to be able to continue his lie.
me on last page Paschendale intentionally short-quoted/Left off said:
Yes there is.
Because Race is NOT as discreet, as say, Specie, it merely is some geographical morphological distinguishability caused by genetic difference.
Race can be a very small difference.
Indeed, I have elaborated other species that have less morphological distance and do have race/subspecies.
You have willfully ignored all those posts to stay in Denial.
It's Dishonest/Sociopathic.


Identical to Bodhisatva, you Disingenuously Ignore/can't deal with what was posted by others and just repeat your 2+2=5 feel good without addressing anything.
Specifically the top of page 6
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/187676-does-race-actually-exist-6.html
and again on the last page.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/187676-does-race-actually-exist-9.html#post1063009091

Coyne from post #52 (and common sense among ALL other animals)
What are races?
In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated).
There is No firm criterion on how Much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race.
Races of mice, for example, are described Solely on the basis of Difference in coat Color, which could involve only One or two genes.

Under that criterion, are there human Races?
Yes.".."

[.......]
How different are the races genetically?
Not very different. [......] BUT since the Delimitation of Races has historically depended NOT on the Degree of underlying genetic differences but ONLY on the existence of SOME genetic difference that Causes morphological difference, the genetic similarity of races Does NOT mean that they Don’t exist...."

So race doesn't have to be Wildly discreet, just a small bit for which human Races easily qualify using Any/All other animals/species as comparison. Especially our near relative primates I elucidated on already.

Anything Pasch, or will it be the Usual ignore the truth again and repost your Lie on page 14 and another string in two months, and in 2 years?

It's amazing how many posters feel free to skip over meaty rebuttal and just deny/re-declare to preserve their Volvo-identity politics.

Your Raging PC overrides your common and science sense on this and ALL other topics as well. You have the same problem with whitewashing Islam/Islamism I Bust a few times Every year - as now - to Silence and then empty/denialist repetition.
So of course you Again DISHONESTLY left off Most of my rebuttal of your now Busted premise.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if race exists. But if/when it does, that's still no justification for treating different human individuals differently because of their race.
 
I don't know if race exists. But if/when it does, that's still no justification for treating different human individuals differently because of their race.
Agreed and have done so many times.
As I always say, you Never know who you're shaking hands with.
 
edit: FWIW, humans and chimps have ~98% of the same DNA. That 2% difference is enough to make one a human and one a chimp. is it so unreasonable to think that a 2-4% difference in DNA among humans would not result in different "races"?

The "Chimps share 98% of our DNA" thing is grossly misleading. Chimps have 48 chromosomes, while we have 46. That alone contributes to much greater variance than people realize because when we take the analysis to the gene/chromosome level, we can see that the differences between a chimp and a human are a LOT more than just 2% of their genetic material. In fact, about 40% of the individual genes are very different. They are similar, thus creating the 98% illusion when looked at from a wide-angle perspective, but at the individual level, a2% change on an individual gene is enormous, and if we have that in 40% of the genes present, we have massive variation.

Whereas with human variance, more than 98% of the individual genes we have are identical or very close to being identical to each other. The actual variance in genes from person to person is very small, much much smaller than the variance that is seen between human and chimp genes.

To explain, the genes that cause blue eyes and brown eyes are about 99.9% similar to each other. But when that 0.1% difference is present, we say that Gene is 100% different from the other. If that was the only difference in 100 genes analyzed, we'd say that the two shared 99% of the same genes. While they would share about 99.999% of the same genetic material overall.

Neandertal genes are much the same. They are 99.9% like those of human genes, as they are simply a sub-species of human genes. The variance is small. About 2-4% of the total genes of a non-sub-Saharan-African reflect these differences, but the total variance comprised by this difference is more likely to be about 0.1%. of the total genome rather than 2-4% the genome as it would first appear based on the appearance of the numbers.

When getting into a DNA debate, it's really really important to make a distinction on where these percentage differences lay, otherwise one could fall into the trap of assuming a 2-4% difference in genes = a 2-4% difference in genetic material. There are some very very different analyses going on with those numbers.
 
That's intentionally obtuse and/or dishonest
I posted and REposted the qualification of race for you.
Instead of answering you put up a 'short-quote' and False premise in service of your busted position
.
Race is NOT just about skin color.
It's a whole set of genetic physical characteristics (Skeletal, muscular, pharmacological) that do Not vary as easily as hair color.
A more honest and indicative illustration than your blond/redhead that NO one is claim are races:

*In a room with 300 Naked people: 100 Scandinavians, 100 East Asians, and 100 African Bushmen.. what do you suppose your rate of error would be in telling these RACES apart despite any natural/frivolous variation within?*

You also necessarily and DISHONESTLY 'short-quoted' me because you could not address what I took the trouble to post/REpost

Here was that post Paschenadale Whiffed on to be able to continue his lie.

So of course you Again DISHONESTLY left off Most of my rebuttal of your now Busted premise.

All of your freaky and kinda racist ranting aside... why bother splitting people into such classifications? Why is this important? Why do you want so badly for there to be races and some people not be the same race as you?

My premise, that you don't seem to get, is that whatever differences exist among humans aren't worth dividing people up over. They simply don't matter that much. Except apparently they matter to you. Which is creepy.

Oh, and here's your full post quoted, because not doing so hurts your feelings apparently.
 
You say this as if it hasn't already happened. That's what human evolution has been for the last hundred thousand years. Various groups of people found themselves in a new area, and adapted to it. That's where every deviation from the people who lived in the Congo Basin came from.

Ultimately, those variations just don't matter for much. No one is kinder, more clever, more loving, more creative, more compassionate, or more just based on those variations. So who gives a crap about them?
Hmm, hadn't thought of it that way.
 
All of your freaky and kinda racist ranting aside... why bother splitting people into such classifications? Why is this important? Why do you want so badly for there to be races and some people not be the same race as you?

My premise, that you don't seem to get, is that whatever differences exist among humans aren't worth dividing people up over. They simply don't matter that much. Except apparently they matter to you. Which is creepy.

Oh, and here's your full post quoted, because not doing so hurts your feelings apparently.
LYING again I see.

Despite thee fact you Almost fully quoted me, You haven't addressed my posts as far as my extensive quotation (and unfortunately even still necessary REposts) of the Definition of Race by perhaps the countries foremost expert on Evolution AND Speciation; Coyne.
Nada
Dishonest reply Again.

Nor have you addressed MY content either; such as my busting of your Nonsensical premise of Red-hair/Blond-hair being just as valid as race.
It is NOT.
I gave the example of 300 people in room (100 Scandis, East Asians, Bushmen) to show how ridiculous your post was.
Unaddressed as well.
More Disingenuity/dishonest posting.

And Taxonomy isn't "creepy" and doesn't just matter to me.
You whiffed on ALL the comparative examples I posted re other species as well.
And Of Course...The subject OF the string is whether of not Race exists. If you think it's "Creepy", Don't post in it.
Utterly Inadequate.

ALL your posts are Dishonest and juvenile Deflections NOT addressing what was said, merely reiterating your Goofy/Empty opinion that "Nah, doesn't matter/not enough"
Despite SUBSTANTIAL opinion and Logic otherwise. All Unaddressed/Untouched.
 
Last edited:
Why do you want so badly for there to be races and some people not be the same race as you?

My theory is that it allows him to feel that Jewish people are inherently superior to Arab people based on race/IQ studies. Look at his posting history and which issues give him a giant throbbing erection. Basically topics that relate to Israel or race are his giant boner topics. It's merely my hypothesis, though. He might also hate black people :shrug:
 
My theory is that it allows him to feel that Jewish people are inherently superior to Arab people based on race/IQ studies. Look at his posting history and which issues give him a giant throbbing erection. Basically topics that relate to Israel or race are his giant boner topics. It's merely my hypothesis, though. He might also hate black people :shrug:
Your right, he would fit in perfectly on stormfront if it wasn't for a single factor.
 
*In a room with 300 Naked people: 100 Scandinavians, 100 East Asians, and 100 African Bushmen.. what do you suppose your rate of error would be in telling these RACES apart despite any natural/frivolous variation within?*

I have a better test.

"We're testing 300 persons. Each individual is required to perform a set of physical and mental tasks to measure their physical and mental capabilities. What do you suppose your rate of error would be in determining how many people fit into one of the 3 groups you mention above."
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cool it off, and address the OP, not other posters.
 
I have a better test.

"We're testing 300 persons. Each individual is required to perform a set of physical and mental tasks to measure their physical and mental capabilities. What do you suppose your rate of error would be in determining how many people fit into one of the 3 groups you mention above."
Be glad to IF:
1. You answer me.
(That's only fair doncha think?)
And that answer, because Race Does exist, would be near -0-.
Correct?
2. You specify Precisely what tests you want to give them.
The results probably already exist and are searchable... though '3' Races are Too Few for good results on tests. I used it/3 to make a point about human classification being far more than skin or hair color and not mere chance. Untouched/unanswered including by You.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does race actually exist?

Except you're Not understanding what I said And certainly NOT tackling the Race issue.
Eastern Lowland and Mountain are species beringei, Western Lowland, gorilla, both species have subspecies/'race'.
Pix and taxonmic names here of some Gorilla species and subspecies.
Images: Gorilla Species & Subspecies | LiveScience

Bodhisatva had bizarrely claimed some sort of single race for humans just because they originated in Africa!
Using Gorillas, I pointed out that despite not [even] leaving Africa, Gorillas had developed other subspecies/Race, even species, without the help of huge gigantic geographic distance and forced adaptation that human intercontinental mobility engendered.

IOW, you leave my point and several posts on race untouched, except for unwittingly acknowledging it/them save for disagreeing 'which' gorillas are what specie/subspecie, Not the main issue they have them at all.
In NO other words - I simply pointed out an error, something for all the above rhetoric you still failed to acknowledge.


I understand very well what your argument is, I just don't agree with it.


And speaking of errors ...
Human Races/subspecies had 50,000 years to similarly evolve, and did.
Once again your trying to base your argument on inaccurate information.

With a couple of exceptions (Australian aborigine @25k?? and North American natives@15k? come to mind) there are no human populations that have been isolated for 50,000 years or even 10,000 years. Humans not only move freely across the land, they interbreed when they do. Hell, evidence has shown we (Homo sapiens sapiens) even bred with Neanderthals, something that has prompted consideration in the biological community for changing Neanderthals from a species of Homo to a sub-species of Homo sapiens - and if they do I assume they'll follow suit by finally deciding to make Denisovans a sub-species, too.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does race actually exist?

In NO other words - I simply pointed out an error, something for all the above rhetoric you still failed to acknowledge.
I understand very well what your argument is, I just don't agree with it.
Too bad you haven't been able to debate it at all, save trying to argue with Gorilla classification.. which again was irrelevant save the fact there ARE species/subspecies of them.. which serves MY point.

Mo said:
And speaking of errors ...
Once again your trying to base your argument on inaccurate information.
With a couple of exceptions (Australian aborigine and North American natives come to mind) there are no human populations that have been isolated for 50,000 years [B or even 10,000 years[/B]. Humans not only move freely across the land, they interbreed when they do. Hell, evidence has shown we (Homo sapiens sapiens) even bred with Neanderthals, something that has prompted consideration in the biological community for changing Neanderthals from a species of Homo to a sub-species of Homo sapiens - and if they do I assume they'll follow suit by finally deciding to make Denisovans a sub-species, too.
"With a COUPLE of Except!ons" is Self-impeaching.
Thanks!
And it enables several lesser intermediate time periods between 10k and 50K to get there and/or spread from those distant points/times.

And Still No one touching so much of what I posted. Coyne et al. Nada.

As a matter of fact, I see several Personal/Ethnic group/'JOOOOO' attacks above on a matter that is Not in evidence instead, because my opponents cannot deal with the Meat.
Shocking/reprehensible really.
 
Last edited:
Be glad to IF:
1. You answer me.
(That's only fair doncha think?)
And that answer, because Race Does exist, would be near -0-.
Correct?
Given your specific parameters, very likely near 0
Of course, the three groups you chose are very likely to be easy to tell apart via external characteristics, so I'm not too sure why we're testing that.

2. You specify Precisely what tests you want to give them.
The results probably already exist and are searchable... though '3' Races is too few for good results on tests. I used it/3 to make a point about human classification being far more than skin or hair color and not mere chance. Untouched/unanswered.
I'm no expert on forming tests, so I can't really do that. However whoever I somehow convinced to design the tests would have to ensure they were completely fair. The mental tests would be especially difficult to design, perhaps even impossible, due to significant differences in developmental backgrounds, depending on location.
Although I suppose you could just run the tests and note where the subjects lived? Frankly I fall on the "nurture" side of the whole "nature vs. nurture" thing, so....
I'm rambling.

This would of course apply to a lesser degree in the physical tests area as well.


Edit: A question occurs.
How are you going to determine who fits those three groups so you can put them in your test? Wouldn't that require you to eliminate outliers from the beginning, to avoid ambiguity? Test seems biased.
 
Re: Does race actually exist?

Too bad you haven't been able to debate it at all, save trying to argue with Gorilla classification.. which again was irrelevant save the fact there ARE species/subspecies of them.. which serves MY point.
There's nothing to debate - I'm just pointing out errors.
With this post you've made three, now.


And Still No one touching so much of what I posted. Coyne et al. Nada.

As a matter of fact, I see several Personal/Ethnic group/'JOOOOO' attacks above on a matter that is Not in evidence instead, because my opponents cannot deal with the Meat.
Shocking/reprehensible really.
I haven't been addressing those issues, so your whining about it in response to my post is uncalled for.


"With a COUPLE of Except!ons" is Self-impeaching.
Thanks!
And it enables several lesser intermediate time periods between 10k and 50K to get there and/or spread from those distant points/times.
I have not stated any position except to say I disagree with your position, which doesn't mean I'm diametrically opposed to it.

Since you haven't been using Australian or North American natives as two distinct races in your arguments, your claim (my supposed "self-impeachment" :roll: ) is shown to be false once again.



That's three strikes - you're out ...
 
Last edited:
Re: Does race actually exist?

There's nothing to debate - I'm just pointing out errors.
With this post you've made three, now.
Wrong/Lie
I made NO error. I did not say which Gorillas were which species/subspecies.
I Merely elucidated a List of them to show they existed Despite never having left Africa.
My POINT/The Context you don't get and dishonestly Mischaracterized, being a refutation of Bod's claim. His stating that because humans evolved in Africa as a single subspecies/race, that they couldn't later have subspecies!
A Ridiculous premise easily Busted by me BY Showing that even if they never left Africa they could easily evolve into different subspecies, even species, as Gorillas did. Humans geographical divergence only making easier/More likely.
THAT was the context and 100% coherent and correct point.
You have shown ZERO Error as all I did was list some of those species/subspecies, NOT claim which any of them were.

Mo said:
I haven't been addressing those issues, so your whining about it in response to my post is uncalled for.
I have not stated any position except to say I disagree with your position, which doesn't mean I'm diametrically opposed to it.
IOW you have ZERO Rebuttal and Cannot address THE issue at hand, just don't like it/Disagree withOUT cause/Cannot debate merely are desperate to find something/anything to nitpick cause you want a piece of me.
What transparent and admitted Ignorance!
You admittedly just want to find something/anything to pick at because you "disagree" (it offends your Unthoughtout position) but you CANNOT elucidate it! so try tangential means.
Sad.
Let us know when you DO have something to say on the String Topic eh?

Mo said:
Since you haven't been using Australian or North American natives as two distinct races in your arguments, your claim (my supposed "self-impeachment" :roll: ) is shown to be false once again.
That's three strikes - you're out ...
So you have No answer to your Self-Impeaching "COUPLE of Exceptions".
OUCHER.
A "Couple" is plenty to make the point.

Let me add to my point/Your be Porked with this, for just one, on Human's journey to geographical dispersion and physical divergence/adaption/evolution into Races.

http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/objects-through-time/essays/50000-years-before-present/ FOR JUST ONE CITATION said:
Our species evolved in Africa over 200,000 years ago. The Genographic Project has found that people spread out of Africa in at least two migratory waves. The first wave travelled from eastern Africa into the area of the east coast of the Mediterranean known as the Levant about 100,000 years ago.

The later second wave moved from Africa into the Arabian Peninsula and continued eastward following the coast of South Asia about 70,000 years ago.

This southern wave kept rolling along reaching Southeast Asia, where one branch of people migrated to Australia and New Guinea, while other branches moved along the coast of east Asia. A branch of this second wave migration moved north into the central Asia and spread west into Europe and east into Siberia about 40,000 years ago. Eventually humans made their way to the American continent about 15,000 – 20,000 years ago.

The actual timing of the southern wave of humans is hard to ascertain because it appears to have moved along the coast, where after the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago the melting glaciers drowned large stretches of coastline so the evidence is now under the ocean. The fossils we have of these migrants offer few clues as to what sparked their spread.
Damn good!
So again, my divergence starting 50,000 years ago is quite a decent estimate, even conservative.
And not that 10,000-15,000 years wouldn't be enough to develop subspecies.
THAT time period Previously Elucidated by me/my links as well.

Again, do chirp in when you have something on the string topic you admittedly/pathetically do NOT have now.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does race actually exist?

Races are a human construct based on evolved environmental adaptation differences, as well as unique societal conditions resulting from geographic separations. There are obviously racial differences within the species, in much the same ways there are different adaptations throughout the animal kingdom. In zebras, for example, the striped pattern is determined by a series of genes that "turn on" the production of a dark pigment (melanin) on only certain parts of the body. This can happen at any point in development, and differs between species. This is why different species of zebras have different types of striping. We could just as easily call them different "Races" of Zebra.
 
Re: Does race actually exist?

I see so many people here that don't recognize races just because they fear of being labelled "a racist"! :boohoo:
 
There is only one race...the human race.

Calling someone a different 'race' because one person has more or less melanin in their skin is about as ignorant as it gets, imo.

Pleeeeease tell this to the South African government!
 
Re: Does race actually exist?

I see so many people here that don't recognize races just because they fear of being labelled "a racist"! :boohoo:

What a staggeringly ignorant thing to say.

Since you probably know no one that you speak of, then you cannot possibly know what they 'feel' about this subject. So, to say in a matter-of-fact manner what people you have never met 'fear' is ignorant in the extremis.

And your 'credibility' is affected accordingly...along with the chances of me wasting my time further with you on this subject.


Good day.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom