You are the one who doesn’t understand.
Perhaps. The concept of equating race, as that term is applied to humans, and “subspecies,” as used earlier in this thread, strikes me as dubious. But I would need to think about it.
It depends how you define “races.”
Where did I claim that any two groups that have genetic differences must represent different races?
Which I guess brings us back to an earlier question - how are you defining race?
If it’s just “I know it when I see it”, then there’s a problem with defining it genetically.
See my earlier posts.
No comment is really necessary on this one.
Take your time. We’ll wait.
You have no evidence for the existence of races based on morphology or genetics on a global scale.
You keep citing the article linked to in post #66 as if it demonstrated the existence of races. It does not. All it does is indicate there may be some identifiable statistical genetic differences between populations, like Chinese and Japanese.
Your earlier posts are unclear on the question, at least to me. If you could do me the favor of giving a concise summation of the definition(s) you prefer I’d appreciate it.
You said you were using the definitions of social race in the US that I mentioned in post #2. Such a definition cannot be used for race on a global scale.
How do you define non-social race on a global scale?
In what way is my post unclear?
Anyway, it’s not necessary for me to supply a definition in order for you to see that Colibri was wrong when he said the following:
In fact, if I never offered a clear definition of race, then what Colibri said is even more wrong. How could he know whether I would consider Chinese and Japanese different races if I never gave a clear definition?
You’re the one who seems to think it’s my burden to come up with an experiment that might falsify your claim.
Again, it depends how you define “races.”
[quote]
You said you were using the definitions of social race in the US that I mentioned in post #2. Such a definition cannot be used for race on a global scale.
[quote]
Here is Post #2 in its entirety:
Please show me where in the post where the ‘common “racial” categories’ you refer to are limited to the United States.
But you and I don’t get to define how the term is used in biology. That has already been done.
The problem arises when one tries to use the colloquial definition in a scientific sense. This is not unusual, though, as scientists often take colloquial terms and then restrict their definition to something very narrow and precisely defined. Or, a scientific term enters the vernacular, and changes to mean something not so precisely defined.
Colloquially, we use the term “race” to mean: a group of people who we think look like each other, who don’t look like other people, and who have some kind of common ancestry. (Or something like that). But scientifically (ie, in biology), it means a taxon just below the species level. IOW, “subspecies”. That’s really all there is to it.
If you would like to use the term “race” scientifically, but in a different way, then you’d have to invent a new branch of science and define it as a part of that discipline.
I said “by your reasoning,” not by your definition.
Do you or do you not believe that the article linked to in post #66 provides evidence that races exist? If the answer is yes, then please explain why, exactly, in your own words.
What exactly are you claiming? Spell it out please.
I said I mentioned them in post #2. I defined them later in the thread. Go back and read the thread if you have forgotten them. Which seems odd, since you claim that that’s the definition you are using.
brazil84, quit being evasive and avoiding defining your terms. Define what exactly you mean by race in your own words.
So what? You still haven’t shown me where I said anything that could be interpreted to argue that if two populations are different genetically, they must be different races.
“races exist” can be interpreted in different ways. By “races exist,” do you mean that by looking at aspects of a person’s genes, you can usually make a good guess as to which of the traditional races the person will fall into?
As stated earlier, the original poster asked a legitimate question and some people responded with claims that appear to be unfalsifiable pseudoscience and/or irrelevant to the original question.
I referred just to post 2. Post #2 says nothing about limiting itself to the USA.
Which claims are those, exactly? You’ve said that about some of my posts, and you were wrong.
As the OP pointed out, he or she hadn’t realized that the answer to the question depended on the assumptions one was making about the population in question. Those are not “irrelevant”, and even if they are, so what? GQ threads often take off on tangents related to the original question. As long as people are sticking to factual answers, the mods don’t usually care. It’s only when the threads launch into a debate or if posters start getting nasty that they shut the threads down. Something this thread is dangerously close to doing, btw.
See Post #59 for example.
[Moderating]
Quite right. At this point, I’m going to declare this OP asked and answered as far as GQ standards go. Since from his last few posts and previous ones brazil84 has shown that he has no interest in actually defining his terms, presenting evidence, or having a substantive discussion, I don’t see any point in continuing it. The alternative is to send it to GD, which I don’t think would serve much purpose either.
It’s not like we haven’t had this discussion ad infinitum before in GQ and GD. I would recommend anyone who has a serious interest in the topic to do a search for the many earlier threads we have had on race and genetics.
If someone has some substantive information that they would like to add to the discussion, e-mail me and I will consider re-opening the thread.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator