What is race?

Originally posted by Palynka
😕

What mechanism are you talking about? I'm arguing against the taxonomy of "races" so why should I argue that it makes sense to have it?

The argument against race in humans is that the degree of similarity of genetic
code between geographically isolated poplulations is not as substantial as the
difference between the populations themselves.

This argument teaches us to believe that the amount of genetic change is
proportional to the resulting phenotype or that the phenotype itself is irrelevent.

I say this is simply not true. That the mechanisms from genotype to phenotype
are not fully understood and until they are, the traditional standing of race
based on geographically observed phenotypes still stands.

Originally posted by thyme
Why would people have pride in their own race (let's for the argument suppose such a phenomenon exists)? It's just something you're born with, no great achievement. Also why would you hide from the differences? They make me curious if anything.

You say that Obama does not represent "black" blood. It is significant that people of mixed race usually seem to i ...[text shortened]... , and he is very white. But I kow that he may think of himself as blacker than we see him.

Bingo!! You hit the hammer on the nail!

Dealing with the issues of racial pride is precisely what we need to be paying
attention to. The belief that any one race is better than another is at the heart
of racism.
Pretending that races don't exist does nothing to address the causes of racism
in fact it detracts from it.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
The argument against race in humans is that the degree of similarity of genetic
code between geographically isolated poplulations is not as substantial as the
difference between the populations themselves.

This argument teaches us to believe that the amount of genetic change is
proportional to the resulting phenotype or that the phenotype itself is i ...[text shortened]... are, the traditional standing of race
based on geographically observed phenotypes still stands.

But you're basically ignoring my last argument and addressing the one you feel comfortable attacking.

Originally posted by Palynka
But you're basically ignoring my last argument and addressing the one you feel comfortable attacking.

I don't understand what your argument is, can you please clarify?

You just seemed to shrug and say that we're all shades of grey.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I don't understand what your argument is, can you please clarify?

You just seemed to shrug and say that we're all shades of grey.

Hilarious. Carry on then. If you want a meaningful discussion, my post is still there.

Originally posted by Palynka
Hilarious. Carry on then. If you want a meaningful discussion, my post is still there.

Palynka - In order for it to make taxonomic sense, you'd need to analyze a human being and irrevocably be able to identify him as belonging within that sub-category or race. The thing is that you can't because what you call "mixed" is not a category that makes sense as it is defined as opposed to "pure". But what is pure race?

Now forgive me for being a bit blinkered here, I'm a little baked as it happens
but are you saying that if we had say an average Kenyan and an average
American in the same room, it would be impossible to say which is which??

Or are you saying that if we analyze them down mathematical microscopes
we couldn't tell them apart? Because I thought that was what you were saying.

Where does the notion of 'pure' fit into anything? Nature is messy, it's
slippery and I would find it very difficult to call anything in nature 'pure'
(a little ironic maybe).
But we can make categorisations based on averages and that makes
sense to me.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Bingo!! You hit the hammer on the nail!

Dealing with the issues of racial pride is precisely what we need to be paying
attention to. The belief that any one race is better than another is at the heart
of racism.
Pretending that races don't exist does nothing to address the causes of racism
in fact it detracts from it.

Thanks.


I guess the word "race" is not wrong in itself - you can have different "races" i.e. varieties - of tomatoes but they are still all tomatoes, unlike capsicums, which are capsicums, which is a different species. And there are many varieties of dogs but they are all dogs, unlike cats... etc.

Racial consciousness is tricky though. Dogs don't have any racial consciousness at all. They only discriminate between members of the pack and non-members of the pack, and it doesn't matter what genotype or even phenotype these individuals have at all. Some dogs can even be friends with cats, imagine that. I kinda like dogs. I don't really like racial consciousness very much. I just feel that differences in general are interesting, but it can be stifling for the people subject to put all the focus on them.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Palynka - In order for it to make taxonomic sense, you'd need to analyze a human being and irrevocably be able to identify him as belonging within that sub-category or race. The thing is that you can't because what you call "mixed" is not a category that makes sense as it is defined as opposed to "pure". But what is pure race?

Now forgive me for being a ...[text shortened]... e).
But we can make categorisations based on averages and that makes
sense to me.

But to calculate a group average you need to first categorize people into separate groups. But since we would need the average to create categories, you're basically in trouble.

What I'm also saying is that the "average" says little about the individual. The variance within a population group is too large to make sense to try to distinguish them. You can take two white Americans and a Black Kenyan and it's possible for one of the Americans to be genetically closer to the Kenyan. This problem gets even worse when we know that 'white' and 'black' are not clearly defined.

This is why the white/black distinction is not very relevant taxonomically as it would mean classifying the more different individuals in the same category. This is the point. It's not saying that there are no differences, just that the supposed group-specific differences are not relevant compared with the more important individual-specific ones. So averaging-out would lead to wrongly categorizing many individuals.

Note that this is not defending that there are no differences between individuals. I'm not saying that at all.

Originally posted by thyme
Racial consciousness is tricky though. Dogs don't have any racial consciousness at all. They only discriminate between members of the pack and non-members of the pack, and it doesn't matter what genotype or even phenotype these individuals have at all. Some dogs can even be friends with cats, imagine that. I kinda like dogs. I don't really like racial consciou ...[text shortened]... are interesting, but it can be stifling for the people subject to put all the focus on them.

Dogs most definitely do have racial consciousness. They even recognize human race. A dog is far more likely to bark at someone who is of a different race than its owner.

Originally posted by Palynka
What I'm also saying is that the "average" says little about the individual. The variance within a population group is too large to make sense to try to distinguish them. You can take two white Americans and a Black Kenyan and it's possible for one of the Americans to be genetically closer to the Kenyan.

But on average that would not be the case.
I am curious, has anyone done a similar study for humans and chimpanzees, or dogs and wolves? Can you find a human who shares more genes with a chimpanzee than a specific other human? I don't see why it would not be possible.

This problem gets even worse when we know that 'white' and 'black' are not clearly defined.
You are ignoring the fact that we do exactly the same thing in science with the term 'species'. Every argument you have used could be applied equally well to species. But I am sure you accept the use of 'species' scientifically.

This is why the white/black distinction is not very relevant taxonomically as it would mean classifying the more different individuals in the same category.
Well 'white/black' is rarely ever actually used when talking about race (except in racist scenarios where it is really me and 'the other guy'😉.

This is the point. It's not saying that there are no differences, just that the supposed group-specific differences are not relevant compared with the more important individual-specific ones.
Both are important. As I pointed out racial differences are important medically as well as in other areas. But of course one does not rule out other differences even medically. Your claim that because one difference is greater then everything else is irrelevant doesn't work.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But on average that would not be the case.
I am curious, has anyone done a similar study for humans and chimpanzees, or dogs and wolves? Can you find a human who shares more genes with a chimpanzee than a specific other human? I don't see why it would not be possible.

[b]This problem gets even worse when we know that 'white' and 'black' are not clearl ecause one difference is greater then everything else is irrelevant doesn't work.

[/b]I already explained why "average" requires a pre-definition of groups.

Can you find a human who shares more genes with a chimpanzee than a specific other human? I don't see why it would not be possible.

Even if that is possible, I don't see how that would be statistically significant. Besides, the inability to procreate provides a clear-cut argument beyond statistical analysis of DNA.

Every argument you have used could be applied equally well to species. But I am sure you accept the use of 'species' scientifically.
It's all about scale, obviously. But that EVEN in the taxonomy of species there is controversy is another reason to be wary of adding more divisions where such problems are obviously greatly exacerbated.

Well 'white/black' is rarely ever actually used when talking about race (except in racist scenarios where it is really me and 'the other guy'😉.
Change it to whatever nomenclature you prefer. I was referring to my example, hence these two categories. Did you have a point here?

Your claim that because one difference is greater then everything else is irrelevant doesn't work.
Learn how to read. I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that such categorization leads to a significant grouping of individuals that are more similar with the other group's average. NOT that 'everything else is irrelevant'.

As I pointed out racial differences are important medically as well as in other areas.
There are many genetic differences that are medically important. This does not justify the creation of a taxonomic group for them.

Originally posted by Palynka
Besides, the inability to procreate provides a clear-cut argument beyond statistical analysis of DNA.

Yet wolves and dogs procreate quite happily as do dogs and about 4 other species.
We quite happily talk about 'breed' when it comes to dogs.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet wolves and dogs procreate quite happily as do dogs and about 4 other species.
We quite happily talk about 'breed' when it comes to dogs.

I didn't say it was a necessary condition, I said it was sufficient. What about the rest of my post?

Originally posted by Palynka
This does not justify the creation of a taxonomic group for them.

I looked at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy
and cant find any scientific reason why we shouldn't try to classify humans (other than avoiding issues such as discrimination).
we could equally classify people according to hair color, eye color or some other characteristic which is even less significant than the usual characteristics meant by 'race'.
Its all about what the purpose is for creating the taxonomic group.
But to claim that a taxonomic group cannot be created is simply wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I looked at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy
and cant find any scientific reason why we shouldn't try to classify humans (other than avoiding issues such as discrimination).
we could equally classify people according to hair color, eye color or some other characteristic which is even less significant than the usual characteristics meant by 'race'. ...[text shortened]... the taxonomic group.
But to claim that a taxonomic group cannot be created is simply wrong.

You're equivocating. If anything, you should have looked here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_taxonomy

Because there would be a significant amount of people that would be genetically closer to the other group. This is what matters the most for a biologist, not necessarily hair colour or eye colour or other morphologic characteristics. For example, with the discovery of DNA, there was a lot of reclassifications because morphological similarity didn't equate with genetic similarity for those species.