- Joined
- May 14, 2009
- Messages
- 10,350
- Reaction score
- 4,989
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
1. You completely Whiffed on my last two posts #17/18. You had too.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.
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: