Bullshit. Read the paper or even the quotations from the paper above. Maybe if you read the paper instead of stalking as it was aptly described above, we might be able to have a reasonable debate.
Try reading the thread - I answered your question. You refused to answer any of mine, and made false allegations I misrepresented Risch.
I have.
Now, some simple questions:
Did you claim that the paper delinaeated humans based upon continental origin?
Does the paper at any point delineate humans based upon continental origin?
If the answer to one is “yes” (and I can easily quote where you did make that claim) and the answer to two is “No” (and I can just as easily quote where you admitted that too) then you grossly misrepresented the paper to try to make it suport your position.
The only bullshit here is coming from you. Anybody who cares to read the thread can see that you claimed the paper delineated humans based upon continental origin. And they can just easily see where you admitted that it did no such thing.
Hell, if they don’t want to wade through the thread, they can ask and I will provide linked quotes.
I don’t think that anybody is going to be in any doubt as to who is spouting bullshit here. It’s the guy who keeps misrepresenting papers, and who has to be persued over multiple pages to make him admit that he did so.
Kinda hard to deny that when you yourself admit that your claim of “continental ancestry” isn’t in any sense accurate.
But like I say, please keep doing this. It’s the best support that our argument can get.
That ain’t gonna happen.
After 3 years, we finally got him to tell us what these races *are *in this thread: Asian, Black, Caucasian, Amerind and Pacific Islander. Those are the races that he claims are geographically distinct and morphologically distinguishable.
But he has also been forced to admit that “Asian” race, which he told us maps to the continent of Asia, doesn’t include **most **of the people living in Asia. By excluding Sub-Continentals, Levantines, Central Asians and so forth, “Asian” no longer contains most actual, objective Asians.
And he has been forced to concede that the “Black” race that he can distinguish morphologically is not in any sense geographically distinct or even restricted to Africa.
And that is in this thread alone. As we always knew, as soon as he named these races that he asserts exist, it is swiftly revealed that they do not map onto either geography or morphology.
Unless his position is even more ignorant than the evidence suggests, which is hard to credit, then there is no way in hell that he is going to list the actual criteria that he believes he can use to distinguish “Caucasians” from “Blacks” or “Amerinds” from “Asians”.
Hope springs eternal 
You’re not really interested in a debate are you. I mean I have explained what Risch et al said above.
If you had any intention of a proper debate you would address why none of the approaches to race/sub species that I have cited above apply to humans.
You have yet to explain why they should. i.e. what the distinct differences are that allow us to delineate subspecies in humans.
The criteria. List them.
Or maybe, the jargon of race that you use is sloppy, pseudo-scientific and it’s consistency has had holes poked in it time and time again. And as other people have noted, this has been pointed out so often that it seems somewhat naive to suggest it’s merely ignorance on your part.
They are when they exist vicariously through your misrepresentation, as has been pointed out countless times here and in the pit thread. You can keep throwing their names about and then having a little chuckle of superiority to yourself because everyone knows it’s a blatant appeal to authority and that you are not properly representing their work. It might actually be an idea for someone to contact one or more of these academics and see if they agree with the nonsense you’re spouting supposedly based from their papers. I won’t continue any further to engage with this, as I know how futile it is to try to change what is essentially a facet of someone’s politics through science.
Well I learned something new today. I didnt know there were people who actually argued race and gender aren’t “meaningful-enough” descriptions any more.
From a biological standard, race has never been meaningful at all. Gender always has. What are you trying to say?
This^
:mad: Futile?! Ha! Not if you’ve seen A Clockwork Orange!
Chen019, you are really, really hung up on that one paper by Risch et al.
Here’s another for you:
Zakharia, F., Basu, A., Absher, D., Assimes, T. L., Go, A. S., Hlatky, M. A., … Tang, H. (2009). Characterizing the admixed African ancestry of African Americans. Genome Biology, 10(12), R141. doi: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-12-r141
Your pal Risch is an author in that one, and it’s from 2009 (more recent than the one you keep using as your primary hammer). It’s available on PubMed. Go ahead and take a gander and let me know what conclusions you draw from it.
-a-
.
I’ve also provided definitions of race and subspecies that are commonly used in biology (O’Brien & Mayr 1991, Turtle Taxonomy 2007, Coyne etc). Using these, it seems that there are races within the species homo sapiens (humans aren’t special). Jerry Coyne writes:
Going back to the Turtle Taxonomy:
Coyne refers to morphologically distinguishable populations. As Sesardic notes above, forensic anthropologists can distinguish major groups (for example WW. Howell’s 6 geographic regions) on the basis of morphological features. For example, cranio-facial features.
Perhaps to bring this down to earth a little lets look at some sports teams. Consider some of the major populations identified by McEvoy et al 2010 (also see groups on this graphic Steve Hsu mentions):
From the African group the Nigerian soccer team. The Bantu Rovers.
Within the West Eurasian group, let’s look at European teams. Russia soccer team. (for fun the victorious 1966 England team).
Representing South & Central Asia (I note the Hap Map populations put these two groups together. If someone wants to separate out teams for Central feel free) here is the Afghanistan cricket team, Pakistani cricket team, Indian cricket team.
Representing East Asia, the Chinese men’s soccer team for the Beijing Olympics. The Japanese men’s soccer team, and North Koreansoccer team.
Representing the American group, here is the Columbian soccer team, Guatemala and Mexico.
Representing Oceania, we have Papua New Guinea, Fijian sevens team and Samoan rugby team.
Are there any patterns? Any morphological differences? Anyone see what Jerry Coyne is getting at?
(Note - yes these aren’t pure or fixed categories. No one said they were. You also have populations that are of mixed ancestry from different major populations - see Turkey discussed earlier. As with other races/sub-species zones of intergradation with mixed populations don’t invalidate the existence of races, it shows that you aren’t dealing with separate species).
No. We have a very old Mod ruling, (one that I have issued on several occasions in past years), that simply repeating the exact same question in multiple posts, ad nauseam, does nothing to further a discussion and eventually takes on an aura of harrassment. You have clearly made your point and Chen019 is clearly unwilling or unable to answer your question. I did not intervene on the second or third repetition of your post and I do not consider repeating an unanswered question to be badgering, per se, but there comes a point where it is time to move on and we have reached it.
You may simply dismiss him; you may Pit him to your heart’s content; you may ask any other questions that you believe he should answer even if you suspect that he will be unwilling or unable to answer. Since it is clear that he cannot answer your question, (due to lack of knowledge or a personal inhibition), there is no point in continuing to badger him on the issue.
[ /Moderating ]
And this is where you and Coyne fail.
Your definition depends on allopatry to be viable, but humans are clearly clinal. There are no large groups of humans who stand alone, geographically. Every group of humans has neighbors who are “mixed” with them who also have neigbors who are “mixed” with them. In order to pretend that there are morphologically distinct groups, you need to go stand in the center of any artificial group you create and then pretend that they represent some imagined whole. People from London look different from people in Beijing and people in Nairobi, but you cannot find the line where they change from one to the other because every single group merges in with the adjacent groups. One might have tried to make the case that aboriginal Australians were a “race,” (based on your definition), if those folks were not so clearly related to the folks in New Guinea.
^this
Where you fail is that you overlook that human genetic variation consists of clines but also clusters, which is why STRUCTURE produces clusters that are repeatable and robust. Within clusters you might get a linear or clinal increase in genetic distance, but this isn’t the case across the major clusters. For example, genetic distances for population pairs with one population (eg European or South Asia) and the other in East Asia are greater than those for pairs at equivalent geographic distance within Europe/South Asia or within East Asia.
You get the major clusters arose because of geographic separation (oceans, the sahara desert, the himalayas etc). This reduced gene flow sufficiently to allow the morphological group differences (the kinds most people notice in the sports teams photos above), and clusters to arise. As Lahn & Ebenstein put it:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/box/461726a_BX1.html
Really?
Let’s examine this extraordinary claim, shall we?
The Andaman Islands and Tblisi, Geogia are both part of this Europe/South Asia region that you speak of.
Whereas Bishkak, Kyrgistan and Tokyo, Japan are parts of Europe/South Asia and East Asia, respectively.
According to Google Earth, the distance from Tblisi, Georgia to the Andaman islands is 5600km. The distance from Bishkak, Kyrgistan and Tokyo, Japan is also 5600km.
So according to what you just posted above, theinhabitants of the Andaman Islands and the inhabitants of Tblisi Georgia, are very closely related and morphologically identifiable as the same race.
In contrast the people of Bishkak, Kyrgistan and the people of Tokyo, Japan are clearly not in any way related. There are no morphological or genetic similarities at all between the Kyrgistanis and the Japanese.
Is this the funniest thing that anybody has ever seen? According to Chen the short, black skinned, crinkly haired, broad nosed south-Asian Andaman Islander is the same race as the tall, fair haired, blue eyed Georgian and has much, much more genetic similarity than the two nearly identical women, once from South Asia and one from East Asia.
Hell Chen, I"m going to ask for a reference to support your claim that Adamanese are more closely related to Georgians than Kyrgistanis are to Japanese, just for the hell of it.
But realistically, it doesn’t matter, because you claimed that for these races to be valid, they had to be morphologically distinguishable. Now that everyone can see how ludicrous it is to claim that Andamanese and Georgians are morphologically the same, while Kyrgistanis and Japanese are morphologically different, your position is revealed as being utterly ridiculous.
Apologies, my comment above wasn’t clear. I stated within the European or South Asian cluster, then later in the sentence referred to Europe/South Asia. I meant them as separate populations.
Although, I’m glad to see that finally you seem to have realised that maybe there are morphological differences between groups with different geographic ancestry. Maybe you might be able to recognise the blindingly obvious fact that there are human races after all!
You and Jerry Coyne might not be so far apart 
I think you just don’t like the word race.
The example of the inhabitants of the Andaman Islands reminds me of biologist Armand Leroi’s article which mentioned them.
