This should be interesting. I’m not Blake, but please, go ahead.
crickets
Not appropriate. You may be sitting at the computer 24/7, just waiting for the chance to reply to every challenge, but most of us have other lives. Eight hours, (particularly eight hours at the beginning and middle of the North American work day), is not enough time to expect a reply.
A question that has been answered.
As I have said at least 9 times in this thread, the definitions must be objective and non self referential.
Nobody denies that you can define “Caucasian” as “A person with skin reflectance >X who was born with the borders of these nations”. That’s a precise, objective definition of “Caucasian”.
The problem comes when you then try to tell me a single damn thing about Caucasians *beyond *the fact that they have a skin reflectance >X and were born within the borders of these nations. You just ain’t gonna be be able to make any other statement that is true of >95% of Caucasians that isn’t equally true of >5% of other populations. It’s not as though <5% “North Africans” are not going to have exactly the same facial features, genetics, bone structure and so forth as members of your putative Caucasian race.
I’m seriously surprised that you bothered to ask this question, since the answer has been laid out and elaborated ad nauseum in this thread. But if you believe that you can provide such an objective and non self-referential definition, I would be interested in seeing it.
Read the comment above. Gill points that that there are morphologically distinct groups within the homo sapiens species, and that craniofacial features can be useful to identify which group people are from (a point reiterated in the Sesardic paper & by Releford above).
Again, this is consistent with the sub-species concept discussed above. Now again, it seems to me that you simply have a problem with that concept full stop - applied to humans or other species. So again I’ll ask: Do you accept the Mayr & O’Brien approach set out above?
Are you able to answer our questions or not?
What are the morphological features that you can use to distinguish sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Pacific Islanders, Amerindians, and East Asians?
Where does Gill refer to sub-Saharan Africans? I’m not asking about whether he refers to US Blacks, defined as such by the perceptions of US law enforcement. Nobody disputes that. But " Blacks as defined as such by the perceptions of US law enforcement" is not in any sense synonymous with “sub-Saharan African”.
Where does Gill say that there is a combination of morphological traits that are diagnostic of a sub-Saharan African race?
All you do by repeatedly misquoting Gill and Irish is to destroy what tiny shred of credibility you may have. There are accusations I am forbidden to make in this forum, but I am sure you know very well what people are thinking of you when you repeatedly and knowingly misrepresent the references.
As such there is little that I need to do to utterly discredit you. You have already done that to yourself. All I need to do is keep highlighting the way that you knowingly and repeatedly misrepresent the references.
So please, keep doing so. While you do there is no chance at all that anybody is going to accept the ignorance that you spout, and that is good.
I must have missed your answer. Was it “yes” or “no”?
Well, let’s test this standard against the other categories I have mentioned.
Let’s define “overweight people” as {people with BMI in the top 20% of the population}.
What can you say which is (1) true about >95% of overweight people; (2) not true about >5% of other people; and (3) is beyond the simple fact that they have high BMI?
Or perhaps you would like to suggest a different definition of “overweight people”?
Similarly, let’s define “heavy smokers” as people who have consumed an average of more than 25 cigarettes per day over the last 5 years.
What can you say which is (1) true about >95% of heavy smokers; (2) not true about >5% of other people; and (3) is beyond the simple fact that they smoke beyond a certain level?
Or perhaps you think I chose a bad definition of “heavy smokers”?
I’ve provided you with references Sesardic, Gill & Releford that individuals can assigned to those main continental racial groups well above the 75% level which is often used for sub-species (“The standard level for defining a subspecies is based on the ‘‘75% rule’’ (Amadon 1949, Mayr 1969).
My question to you is whether you disagree with the subspecies concept?
There are some things I want to say publicly.
Rand Rover I’m still disappointed. I came in expecting a discussion of sexes ( a topic I find fascinating) and instead that’s just a setup and this thread is really about advancing a pre-existing agenda.
BlakeTwo things
#1 Keep up the good work. I understand you feel (as you should) that ignorance must be fought even if it’s just for the benefit of the lurkers. So far, you are kicking ass
#2 AFAIK Gracer came into the thread for the same reasons I did. You responded to him/her as though he/she was on the same side as Rand Rover and Chen. It was kind of rude.
@ DocCathode
Oh well, if I’m ignorant then I’m in pretty good company
Also, you have it [backwards.](Department of Philosophy staff/sesardic/Race.pdf)
I concede that he won the award. That’s not in question. What is in question is if he actually makes the claims you attribute to him.
I get a page not found.
Neil Risch et al here.
Here is the paper by Sesardic that didn’t open, quoting Mayr.
Mayr, 2002. The biology of race and the concept of equality
No, once again you are blatantly misrepresenting Gill, who states explicitly that he us using “Racial taxa such as ‘Black’” that have “clear meaning to.. law enforcement personnel” within the US because as long as society perceives race as discrete forensic anthropologists are forced to communicate in those terms.
At no stage does Gill suggest, state, imply or even insinuate that “Black” refers to sub-Saharan Africans. Or that there are morphological traits that are diagnostic of a Black race. Those are claims that you simply made you out of whole cloth.
Anybody who wants to read the article can see where Gioll states that his usage of “Black” is a social convention that has been forced on scientists because it has use to law enforcement. Everyone can red where he disavows the existence of a discrete Black race. Everyone can see that he never implies that Black equates to “Sub Saharan African”.
You are misrepresenting the reference in the most egregious fashion. If you were not doing so you would be able to better than simply assert that Gill equates “Black” with “sub-Saharan African” when Gill himself states quite clearly that he is using “Racial taxa such as “Black”” that have “clear meaning to.. law enforcement personnel” duie to societal constraints.
All you do by repeatedly misquoting Gill and Irish is to destroy what tiny shred of credibility you may have. There are accusations I am forbidden to make in this forum, but I am sure you know very well what people are thinking of you when you repeatedly and knowingly misrepresent the references.
As such there is little that I need to do to utterly discredit you. You have already done that to yourself. All I need to do is keep highlighting the way that you knowingly and repeatedly misrepresent the references.
So please, keep doing so. While you do there is no chance at all that anybody is going to accept the ignorance that you spout, and that is good.
I find the counter arguments that Risch cites in his opening more convincing than his objections or counter arguments.
I find Sesardic’s most convincing argument to be a cite from Risch.
I think Sesardic’s paper is basically a good summary of a lot of the debate around the subject. It’s also good for explaining that races aren’t these fixed, unchangeable, entities with perfect dividing lines. The quote from Dobzhansky makes this point well:
So you can’s answer the basic questions being put to you:
What are the morphological features that you can use to distinguish sub-Saharn Africans?
Where does Gill refer to sub-Saharan Africans?
Where does Gill say that there is a combination of morphological traits that are diagnostic of a sub-Saharan African race?
You’ve made all these claims. Now I want to see your evidence that backs it up.
You can try to introduce red herring all you like, and try to spam your posts with meaningless “references”, But it’s not escaping anyone’s notice that you are not answering these questions in any way at all.
@ Blake
You’re right, he doesn’t refer to sub saharan africans. He refers to blacks. But as I said above, how does that invalidate the application of the race or sub species concept to homo sapiens?
Also, since you’re so hot on people answering questions - perhaps you could answer mine about the definition used by O’Brien & Mayr? Or Sesardic discussing the high confidence with which people can be assigned to races based on looking at their bones?
And meaningless references? Which ones? Some of the major figures in evolutionary biology and population genetics explaining that there are human races would seem relevant to this discussion.
He saw fit to start a new thread and make several replies to the Global Warming/Insurance thread in that same time.
Which is completely refuted by the 2005 L’Engle paper I linked as well as the other recent work I’ve cited.
Risch says this:
and yet doesn’t see his own cognitive dissonance at work. Hell, yes, it “overshadows” it. It completely refutes it.