So the simple answer remains, no, you can not find a scientific group with all members agreeing to use that peculiar terminology with humans.
You’re a very simple minded character aren’t you GIGObuster. You need some special higher authority to give you a gospel black and white answer. If you haven’t grasped that there is room for debate about terminology not only with human races, but races in other species or even whether certain groups are separate species then I’d recommend you stick to less abstract discussions.
I’ve put forward why I think Coyne & Risch are right above. If you disagree that’s fine, but I suspect our differences are more to do with the fact the word “race” has baggage. That’s understandable - what I’m saying though is that the concept as applied in other species can also be applied in the species homo sapiens. If you don’t want to use the word itself that is fine.
Meh, you are deluded, it is not my problem that you are an incompetent on finding other support rather than your same old same old. What you are showing there is the same pathological moves of creationists that have to rely now on misrepresentations and odd scientists that have very little support where it counts.
To put it in other words, wake me up when most experts are convinced and agree with your proposed nomenclature.
No, you are simply too thick to follow any argument that requires a level of complexity beyond yes/no answers.
Whether you agree with the idea of races or not, as Coyne notes - the morphological features of groups with different geographic ancestry are palpable. If they were another species which didn’t have the whole taboo around the idea of race there would be no issue in labeling them as different races.
Again, a point that you are too thick to comprehend. Nonetheless, whether you call them races, ancestral groups, continental populations or otherwise, the reality is that those groups and their diversity is real. Just as mountains would still be real even if you decided to call them hills or molehills.
I know you don’t read, but the 2004 Curt Stern Award winner (Risch) and the Chief of the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity at the National Cancer Institute (NCI),(Dr Stephen O’Brien) and Jerry Coyne (to name some of the figures I’ve cited above) are hardly fringe figures. Also, your comment about creationists is particularly ironic given Coyne’s debates.
Hey, Chen, we are still waiting for your evidence over in the GD thread.
I asked for your evidence for your claim that Andamanese are closely related to Pakistanis and share the same morphological features. I riased four hours ago, and in that time you have made two posts in this thread and a post in the GD thread, two hours apart.
And yet you somehow have failed to provide evidence that the Andamaneseare closely related to Pakistanis and “patently obviously” share the same distinguishing features.
You weren’t talking shit when you made that claim, were you?
Of course not.
It’s patently obvious to everyone that Pakistanis and Andamanese are similar and share the same distinguishing features, and hence are part of the same “Caucasian Race” that you have told us inhabits South Asia.
We just need you to explain to us what those similarities are.
Yes, Gigo. You know taxonomists have been classifying Bulldogs and Afghan hounds as separate subspecies for years now…
…oh, wait, that’s - that’s not enough morphological difference? You say they’re both Canis lupus familiaris? You shitting me? But here I thought a different skin colour, different hair and a wider nose were enough…
wait, don’t tell me - I bet the difference is in the fact that dogs have been purposefully bred - as if that matters to the genetics
(On a side note, doesn’t that Afghan just look so fucking Caucasian!)
…and Crick is a eugenicist who also thinks our DNA was seeded by aliens, and Watson thinks blacks are stupid and more melanin makes you sluttier. What’s your point? That it’s impossible to be a geneticist and a racist? As if! The fucking founders of the branch of study are a hard act to follow. …
…and you realise odd =/= not respected, right? It means “scattered, few, not a quorum”
Yep, the fact is that if Chen09 was correct it would be a slam dunk to convince all experts to follow the wishful tinkling of a few researchers, the only difference I have with you is that modern proponents of continuing to use old definitions do not need to be racists, they are first and foremost crackpots when they concentrate on pushing for definitions that many scientists dropped before and not just because of any PC or moral considerations, but because geneticists found out that our differences do not justify the continued use of definitions that were and are not well supported.
Looking at the history of this I already know that in the past many supported the race separations, genetics did show later that it is silly to talk about human races when their DNA differs very little and that humans can have healthy offspring regardless of where they are from.
When I have no trouble finding current researchers that drop groupings by race and tell you that the reasons have more to do with science than PC, then our old pall Occam’s razor does enter the picture, it is more simpler to see that extraordinary evidence is needed to return to the old use of race definitions in science, the say so of some researchers is not good enough.
And as I responded, that rationalization doesn’t actually hold water. The fact that you can’t respond to a point doesn’t mean the point doesn’t exist.
.
Look, ogdammit, there’s only one question I have fucking got to have answered:
Who won the 2004 Curt Stern Award???
.
Did he actually say that?! Lol, maybe he’s just doing a parody of someone who’s totally uninformed about population genetics.
I spit my tea. Damn you.
It doesn’t help your argument to criticize one guy because he’s a philosopher and then quote another who’s a PsyD quoting a ‘science writer’. The PsyD program does not emphasize research, and a science writer can almost be from anywhere.
Behavior genetics is filled with replicable findings and any good behavior geneticist is absolutely paranoid of environmental influences on behavior. The writer is almost entirely criticizing association studies and those criticisms may be legit due to issues with repeatability.
On the other hand, behavior geneticists are aware of such problems and attempt to make databases such as these to get a better understanding on what research is replicated across populations and labs: http://www.szgene.org/.
Environmental influences will always be a problem with gene association studies. That’s why we have laboratories, experiments and attempts at replication.
He is referring to real research and he cites it.
The philosopher did not publish on a genetics journal, as my experience with scientific sources showed me, this is very important on weighting the evidence and the reliability of sources.
Oh yeah. He said it.
As he initially wrote it, he was claiming that blonde haired, blue eyed Georgians are closely related to the Andamanese. When I called him on that he “clarified” and said that he only meant that *all *groups within South Asia were the same race and share patently obvious morphologies. And since Andamanese and Pakistanis are both indisputably South Asian…
And at the moment over in GD he is steadfastly ignoring my multiple requests for evidence.
IOW he was lying when he made the claim, and he knows he has been caught lying… again. But rather than be a man and simply admit it, he is going to be a weasel, and ignore my repeated requests for evidence for such a ridiculous claim.
What amuses me is that he is doing his position far more harm by ignoring my requests. Every time he refuses to answer, a few more lurkers get the chance to see that he made the claim, and that he refuses to address it.
Which is why I am encouraging him to do it. What little credibility he may have had when he entered that thread is now in shreds
Ohhh I don’t think it’s a parody. A farce, certainly, but not a parody.
Wild. (For the benefit of the studio audience: the Andamanese inhabit some small islands in the Indian Ocean and genetic analysis has generally suggested that they are not very closely related to any nearby populations, and it’s generally thought that they may be one of the groups that has been largely genetically isolated from the rest of humanity for the longest period of time; they are not genetically or phenotypically similar to Pakistanis.)
The “statistical geneticist of our time” Professor Neil Risch. Who has co-authored a couple of papers pointing out what the validity of race in the human species and usefulness for medical research.
(see also The Importance of Race and Ethnic Background
in Biomedical Research and Clinical Practice
@ Mister Nyx,
As usual Blake, has ignored what was actually said. I specifically addressed the Andamanese in the other
thread. It was amusing though to see that even Blake could describe morphologically different and geographically separated populations. The guy is clearly a closet racist.
Nowhere does that provide evidence for your claim that Andamanese are closely related to Pakistanis and share the same morphological features. Nowhere at all.
So no, you didn’t address the issue.
But it’s wonderful to see that you admit that you made the claim. That ought to get a few chuckles. After all the Adnamaese and Pakistanis just look so much alike. They clearly share the same morphology. It is, as you said, patently obvious.
You are simply proving what a lying weasel you are. And that is a good thing, because nobody is going to believe a damn word you say after your behaviour in that thread.
And rest assured, it will be brought up in any future threads on this subject. We will be able to pre-emptively discredit anything you say simply by linking to that thread and highlighting your behavior there. And by association we cna discredit any of this race-realist nonsense right out of the starting gate.
So, thank you for your dishonest, hurtful, weaseling, incompetent behavior. You have done the world a favour.
Please keep it up.