04 Jun 08
Originally posted by PalynkaBuy that makes it quite clear that it only covers 7 levels of classification - ending at species. So by that type of taxonomy I fully agree that human races are not species.
You're equivocating. If anything, you should have looked here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_taxonomy
04 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's not right, it states that it has 7 major levels of classification, but also states: [...]As such, alpha taxonomy deals mostly with real organisms: species and lower ranking taxa. Higher ranking taxa (including clades and grades) mostly are the province of systematics.
Buy that makes it quite clear that it only covers 7 levels of classification - ending at species. So by that type of taxonomy I fully agree that human races are not species.
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasViolins lead to violins.
Why is it so important, this race stuff?
Is it only the colour of the skin, or has it a deeper significance?
Hitler thought it was important to classify races. Do we still think this classification is important?
If you're not interested, then please don't troll the tread for those of us who are having a civil argument.
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't understand your notion of violins...
Violins lead to violins.
If you're not interested, then please don't troll the tread for those of us who are having a civil argument.
I'm not trolling.
Perhaps this is a cultural thing. We don't have this kind of discussion in Sweden. We have other discussions of the same nature though. But never (very seldom) we talk about race.
That's why I was asking.
04 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasEver heard of these:
I don't understand your notion of violins...
I'm not trolling.
Perhaps this is a cultural thing. We don't have this kind of discussion in Sweden. We have other discussions of the same nature though. But never (very seldom) we talk about race.
That's why I was asking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Aryan_Resistance_(Sweden)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Front_(Sweden)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democrats_(Sweden)
Edit - To be fair, there are many anti-racist and anti-nazi associations. These people also talk about race, but in a positive way. I don't want to give the impression that Swedish people are racist, as I do not believe this is true in general, but it's false that they don't talk or act as if it doesn't exist.
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, but are they really talking about race? Rather immigrants. Sprung from Sweden's very high immigrant rate compared with other countries. They want a "Sweden for Swedes" kind of thing. They don't even like people from Poland to come into our country and they belong to the same race as we do.
Ever heard of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Aryan_Resistance_(Sweden)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Front_(Sweden)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democrats_(Sweden)
These groups are not very educated. They are marginal groups. They shout a lot, but seldom have any constructive ideas.
04 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasAn organization named White Aryan Resistance doesn't talk about race? 😵
Yes, but are they really talking about race? Rather immigrants. Sprung from Sweden's very high immigrant rate compared with other countries. They want a "Sweden for Swedes" kind of thing. They don't even like people from Poland to come into our country and they belong to the same race as we do.
These groups are not very educated. They are marginal groups. They shout a lot, but seldom have any constructive ideas.
Now try saying that with a straight face.
And the people who oppose them because of their racism and xenophobia? They're not silent about race. Do you want videos of manifestations against racism in Sweden? There are plenty on youtube if you want. They don't talk about race either?
And get down from your high horse.
05 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamOf course by "Norwegian" you dismiss the young lady who I went to college with, of mostly Ethiopian descent, who fell in love with a Norwegian and moved there and accepted Norwegian citizenship. You also dismiss her native born Norwegian children. Am I right?
The word is "race". If you're confused, look at some pictures of Norwegians, then look at some Nigerians. See the difference? That's race.
05 Jun 08
3 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaFrom your link :
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, wi ...[text shortened]... ions because morphological similarity didn't equate with genetic similarity for those species.
Systematics (as a science) deals with the relationships between taxa, especially at the higher levels. These days systematics is greatly influenced by data derived from DNA from nuclei, mitochondria and chloroplasts. This is sometimes known as molecular systematics which is becoming increasingly more common, perhaps at the expense of traditional taxonomy (Wheeler, 2004).
Systematics or as I call it, Mathematically Microscopy, deals with high level
taxa.
At best it shows the "probable evolution of various organisms" in
the "very limited field of human genetics".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_systematics
When we discover that single nucleotide changes are responsible for
a third of the variation between 'black' and 'white' pigmentation,
shouldn't we really be asking ourselves whether a quantative approach
to DNA classification is really a little too simple?
Edit. Just to put this in perspective a single nucleotide change accounts
for approximately 0.0000003% of the human genome.
The difference between races is 0.008%
Meaning there are some 25000 base changes between races, each one
capable of generating the type of phenotype change that we see with
skin colour.
The variation within a population is some 10 times this but strangely,
it is not ten times more difficult to recognise people from different
continents.
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasAnd right there you highlight two issues.
They don't even like people from Poland to come into our country and they belong to the same race as we do.
1. People associate race with nationality. Xenophobia and racism often work together.
2. You for one, do recognize race (I am not saying you are a racist)
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungLewontin's Fallacy
Of course by "Norwegian" you dismiss the young lady who I went to college with, of mostly Ethiopian descent, who fell in love with a Norwegian and moved there and accepted Norwegian citizenship. You also dismiss her native born Norwegian children. Am I right?
"Lewontin's Fallacy is a 2003 paper by A.W.F. Edwards that criticizes Richard Lewontin's 1972 conclusion[1] that race is an invalid taxonomic construct because the probability of racial misclassification of an individual based on variation in a single genetic locus is approximately 30%.
Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of specific loci between individuals, the probability of racial misclassification rapidly approaches 0% when one takes into account more loci. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
Apologies for the cut and paste.
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadScientifically speaking, I don't see that the word 'race' is valid.
And right there you highlight two issues.
1. People associate race with nationality. Xenophobia and racism often work together.
2. You for one, do recognize race (I am not saying you are a racist)
So wen people in general use the word 'race', they usually mean white, black, yellow, and red. Perhaps also the 'jewish race', and some kind of 'arab race'.
It's easy to differ a black from a white, but anything in between? Obama is darker than Michael Jackson, but lighter than bin Ladin. Even when I have a tan after a trip to warmer beaches I tend to have a darker skin (or perhaps redder). But does that makes me coloured? No, of course not. So the colour of the skin has no importance, the race shouldn't either.
The Swedish racists are more xenophobic than anything else. They don't care about race even if they say so. They are against everything that is not 'Swedish like', including people with Downs syndrome, muslims, gay people, jews, and imigrants to Sweden. One of the most famous rascists in Sweden, Jackie Arklöv, is black himslf. A gang of racists in Göteborg (where I live) had one jew in their crew. They don't care about race. Most of the organized members is not enough intelectual to have a ideology at all (except of a very minimal group of leaders.)
The White Arish Resistance (Vitt Ariskt Motstånd, VAM), are they still active? I don't think so. National Socialist Front, same question. Nationaldemocraterna, ditto?
But what we have is Sverigedemokraterna, SD. They are beginning to take ground in the political world in Sweden. But they are not doing anything. They are "racists de salon". They just want to change the immigration policy in Sween, that's the only thing they talk about.
Well, we can debate this, but it is far off topic in this thread "What is race?".
My questions was: "Why is it so important, this race stuff?
Is it only the colour of the skin, or has it a deeper significance?
Hitler thought it was important to classify races. Do we still think this classification is important?" That's on topic.
(What about high horses, Palyanka, I don't understand this notion. Perhaps we should drop it anyway, it seems too hot, perhaps personal...)
07 Jun 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI can't tell what your point is.
Lewontin's Fallacy
"Lewontin's Fallacy is a 2003 paper by A.W.F. Edwards that criticizes Richard Lewontin's 1972 conclusion[1] that race is an invalid taxonomic construct because the probability of racial misclassification of an individual based on variation in a single genetic locus is approximately 30%.
Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements ...[text shortened]... . "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
Apologies for the cut and paste.
07 Jun 08
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMost recently, Wilson et al. studied 354 individuals from
I can't tell what your point is.
8 populatioons deriving from Africa (Bantus, Afro-Caribbeans
and Ethiopians), Europe/Mideast (Norwegians, Ashkenazi
Jews and Armenians), Asia (Chinese) and Pacific Islands
(Papua New Guineans). Their study was based on cluster
analysis using 39 microsatellite loci. Consistent with
previous studies, they obtained evidence of four clusters
representing the major continental (racial) divisions
described as African, Caucasisan, Asian and Pacific Islander.
"Genetic data....show that any two individuals within a
particular population are as different genetically as any
two people selected from any two population in the world"
This assertions is both conter-intuitive and factually incorrect.
If it were true, it would be impossible to create discrete
clusters of humans, for example as was done by Wilson et al,
with even as few as 20 randomly chosen genetic markers. Two
Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than
a Caucasian and and Asian.
Identical treatment is not equal treatment
Both for genetic and non-genetic reasones, we believe that racial
and ethnic groups should not be assumed to be equivalent,
either in terms of disease risk or drug response. A 'race-
neurtral' or 'color-blind' approach to biomedical research is
neither equitable nor advantageous and would not lead to a
reduction of disparities in disease risk or treatment efficacy
between groups.
http://nursing.uthscsa.edu/research/MESA/Neil_Risch_Genom_%20Biology.pdf
Had to type this one out so not quite a cut and paste. But summarises
it better than I could.