I don’t see how a definition can be falsifiable or not. Can you give me an example of a definition that is falsifiable and an example of a definition that is not falsifiable?
No I’m not. I’m saying that I don’t know what “biological basis” means. Please explain to me how I can know whether something has a “biological basis” or not.
morgantire: I did supply a number of logical arguments and also what I read was current scientific consensus but I wanted cites to back it all up, as he did not believe me. Also, there are always things that you have not considered and so I appealed for other arguments. I support intellectual freedom and I did not censor my friend. However using stereotypes and simplistic generalizations about the genetic predispositions of races when race, as he was using the term, is far from a valid biological reality (based on the evidence) seems racist to me.
Quit making up stuff! I did not say that a definition is falsifiable. I said that the experiment had to be falsifiable.
Based on Biology. The study of Biology is a science. If that particular science indicates that the biology of a particular living thing differs from another particular thing, those differences then are based on their biologies; in short, those differences have a biological basis.
Well, I should’ve said “falsifiable hypothesis.” I obviously misspoke, and it’s obvious if you read item #2.
So, please disregard the “making stuff up” comment, if you don’t mind.
Anyway: what biological evidence would sway me to believe there’s a biological basis for race? Why, any and all evidence which, when taken together, will support the hypothesis that there is such a basis. So far, all evidence is pointing the other direction.
Ignoring for a moment the term ‘race’ would you agree that there are definable populations of humans?
Would you agree that these populations are definable by broad phenotypic characteristics, a tendency to create an identifiable culture, and a tendency to marry and reproduce within that population?
Would you agree that those populations, within broad averages, behave differently and are disparately over- or under-represented in various endeavors?
Would you agree that there is debate about the reason for that over/under-representation: Is it nurture or is it nature? Is it genes or is it opportunity?
I have noticed a tendency to say “Prove it” when someone raises the issue of race being a scientific definition, and then consider the matter resolved if no scientific definition can be advanced. For me it’s a way of skirting the question that is really being asked: Are we so genetically homogenous that any population could be swapped out for any other population? Would the Bantus have produced the atomic bomb? Would the Inuit have produced the NBA?
I think the Chinese friend referenced in the OP is saying that at a population level we are differently-enabled, and for him the evidence for that is as plain as the nose on your face. We are different peoples, we have different gene pools and we have different cultures, skillsets and predilections that reflect those gene pools.
To the question of the OP-- “Can someone here give me a line of reasoning and some scientific cites about lack of biological races that refute this?” the current answer may well be that “races” have not been defined scientifically. While 'races may not have been defined, we may not be far off from being able to identify gene pools and the populations that represent them. I would be careful being dismissive of ‘race’ without recognizing that some genetic patterns may soon be definable scientifically. As a simple example, hypertension rates are much higher among West Africans, as is the incidence of stroke. However coronary deaths are much lower. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York Now genetics may turn out to have nothing to do with this. On the other hand it’s a very reasonable postulate that there is a fundamental genetic difference.
My own position is that it is a mistake to posit that all populations have identical potential for anything. Science is going to figure out what it takes genetically to be an NBA athlete. When it does, we’ll start testing for it across all populations. If it turns out that x population has an over-representation of that genetic trait set, a whole set of non-genetic explanations is going to fall by the wayside.
I’d prefer to focus on getting past caring about it.
Right, just like it’s perfectly obvious that life was created by an intelligent designer. Considering how complex many organisms such as humans are, with all of their delicate organs working together to make a perfectly functioning whole, it’s absurd to think that this could have all happened by accident. That is, depending on who narrowly you set your POV.
Oh dear, does it just too inflammatory for you? Yeah, that happens when you try to argue that certain people are naturally stupid, which is what these discussions always boil down to.
Further troublesome is your delusion that you’re coming from some rational, disinterested position with “facts” on your side when you admittedly can’t even define intelligence. Try this - prove that you aren’t stupid. I don’t mean convince people, I mean prove, so that there can’t possibly be any dispute, just like there can’t be any dispute that George W. Bush is taller than Tom Cruise, or that a cheetah is faster than a tortoise. Now how do you expect anyone arguing with you about this to do the same about themselves are a bunch of strangers who look like them?
Would you accept genetic evidence? If so, consider Dawkins’ discussion, noted above.
Most Chinese are inherently racist…
:dubious:
I made nothing up, which I see you now acknowlege.
Thank you. And how does your definition work if you are comparing two groups of things?
You look at their DNA. Are there attributes that only one of the two groups has, and is inheritable? Are there other, unrelated groups that also have that attribute? Does the distribution of those underlying attributes map with the surface characteristics that you are using to define “race”?
And what answers to your questions give the result that there IS a biological basis?
Let’s keep in mind that “race” is just another term for “subspecies”, so whether or not there are races of humans depends on what your definition of those terms are.
I refer everyone to this post by Colibri in which he very succinctly spells out the modern definition of subspecies and explains why the various human populations don’t qualify:
For those who don’t know what a cline is:
So, if we were to use a cline as a marker for a subspecies, then we could recognize different races of humans.
And it makes sense that humans don’t fit the modern definition since the various populations did not exist in isolation for some time, then expanded to meet in some hybrid zone at a later date. If Neanderthals and Modern humans were able to interbreed when they first made contact, this would be a good example of two races. The populations had existed in isolation for about 500k years, and were morphologically distinct. Further, there was not some gradual geographical variation seen between the populations, but rather a relatively uniform morphology that would have had an abrupt change at the place where they eventually met up again.
Modern humans don’t show this type of variation, though, as every population gradually blends into it’s neighboring population. The typical examples of race that are used, whether 4 or 5, did not breed in isolation on the various continents and then meet up at some later date. There has always been gene flow between African, Asia, Europe and even the Americas.
This puzzles me a bit. What was the mechanism of gene flow between Africa and the Americas during the period, say, 5000 years ago to 1000 years ago?
Sorry, that was a bit sloppy on my part. There wasn’t direct gene flow from Africa to the Americas, but there was gene flow between Africa and Asia and Asia and the Americas.
But even if some populations were isolated for a period of time, that has always been relatively brief. For example, it’s thought that Tasmanians were an isolated population for about 10k years. Still, that’s a very short time frame, in evolutionary terms.
It might be helpful to look at our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, which appears to have 4 subspecies. Figure 3 in this article shows the genetic variation seen within and between the various subspecies and compares it to modern humans (with a Neanderthal branch thrown in for good measure). As a reference, recent DNA analysis puts the split between the Central and the West African chimp populations at about 400k years ago-- slightly less than the current estimates of when our lineage split off from that of the Neanderthals’.
If we were living about 50k years ago, it might make sense to talk about races of humans, as there were 4 distinct populations, all relatively isolated geographicaly. If those populations could interbreed* in some intermediate zone, we might call those races: Moderns (mostly Africa), Neanderthals (mostly Europe), Erectus (mostly Asia), and Flores (only on the island of Flores). As it is, though, most anthropologists label those populations as different species.
*something we really don’t know, although it doesn’t appear that they did.
And what evidence would support the hypothesis that there is such a basis?
I do not see the evidence for Intelligent Design so I am not sure where that is relevant. I do think intelligence is reasonably definable and measurable, as are other skillsets and traits.
Is it your position, then, that it is not possible to prove one population is more intelligent than the next because there is no adequate way to quantify intelligence to the point where there “can’t possibly be any dispute…” ?
Suppose, as an example, I am an alien looking at two populations about to go to war. The first goes to war with jet fighters and nuclear bombs. The second goes to war with sharpened sticks. I am going to include among my possible hypotheses that the first population is more intelligent than the second. I may entertain other possibilities also: culture; history; external geographic circumstance–whatever–but a difference in intelligence is in my pool of explanations assuming both groups have been around the same amount of time to develop cultures and advances commensurate with their ability to do so.
Suppose, further, that I want to test for this possible intelligence difference. I devise, and revise, a series of intelligence tests and ascertain broad averages among populations. These test may be in error. They may be inadequate. Nevertheless among the possibilities I entertain is that there may be actual differences among the populations I am observing because that is what my tests are demonstrating. There isn’t any a priori natural law of fairness that says my population group has the same average skillset as another, and so I am not going to discard those results outright simply because they have not passed some sort of “every population must be equal” litmus test.
Your use of the term, “naturally stupid” is the sort of inflammatory rhetoric I wish to avoid, but I ask your forgiveness if I inadvertently invoked your anger. I am interested in the way the world is even if it is not the way we wish it were, and I have tried to approach this particular topic with an open mind. I have seen no evidence to rule out inherited differences among populations as a reasonable explanation for those differences. The OP is asking for that evidence, and although he was provided with alternate possible explanations to pass along to his friend, no data has been forthcoming to show that there is no “natural” difference among population groups.
I must also apologize for not understanding your last sentence.
Then what’s that definition?
Suppose, for example, I am an alien looking at the human population on a monocultural Earth at two different time periods 2000 years apart. The first goes to war with jet fighters and nuclear bombs. The second goes to war with sharpened sticks. How much weight should I give to the possible hypotheses that this population has suddenly become, in terms of inheritable, fixed mental capacity, more intelligent?
That’s because there’s a typo. “Are” should be “or”, and it should read: “Now how do you expect anyone arguing with you about this to do the same about themselves or a bunch of strangers who look like them?”
Give me your definition of Race. That definition is what my answer must hing on.