Not sure what neutral means in this context. As far as instructive value, I mean useful and very accurate for any real world purpose- whether it be identifying diseases, solving crimes with DNA, tracking human anthropology and evolution, or whatever.
Mark Cohen is a moron. Regardless of what people commonly say, the correlation between IQ and brain size within modern populations was established by the time he wrote that piece. (Linked: McDaniels, 2003. Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence.) The findings have since been replicated. And replicated. Not only that, but the findings that the within population correlation is genetic in nature has been replicated.
Regardless, this is irrelevant to what was being said. As is the whole issue of national IQs. (BTW, GNP explanations have since been shown to be wanting. Refer here.)
As for “scientific groups that agree to use the old fashion definitions,” we already cited Risch et al.'s “Categorization of humans in biomedical research.” See figure 1. Quote: "Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of race based on continental ancestry – namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American.” The genetic populations are the geographic populations. Surprise!
What do you want me to show you? Be specific.
Oh God. It’s like a tag team. I finally manage to demolish Chen’s nonsense and another one takes his place spouting the same nonsense.
Oh well, time to start pushing that rock back up the hill.
Whether that is true or not (and it isn’t). Chen was specifically referring to a** geographically distinct group**, not a population.
As such his use of continental ancestry was incorrect, as he himself has admitted. Why you believe he was correct when he has himself admitted he
misrepresented the reference. But if the position that I supported was being utterly discredited by such blatant misrepresentations and ludicrous, I might be tempted to try to defend them as well.
Yeah, you got me. :rolleyes:
Really?
Because I can’t even remember ever seeing your posts before. I actually had to check your posting history to make sure that you weren’t a sock puppet for Chen.
And while I am sure that you are being perfectly honest about “roasting” me, I can’t remember any race discussions on this board where the position of the race realists wasn’t laughed off the court, as is happening here.
But I am sure that is how you remember it.
We have done so at length. But what the hell. Let’s do it again.
Which your races do not.
People classified as “classical Austrlaiods”, are found in an area that extends from Australia, throughoutMalesia, across the Pacific Islandsinto South America, throughout Indonchina, Sri Lanka and into Northern India. But that geographical range is in no sense uniquely occupied by Australoids. It is also home to Austronesians, Mongoloids, Caucasians, Amerinds and Negroids.
Caucasiods are found from North-western Europe, through western Europe, Central Asia, Southern Asia and Northern And Central Africa. But that geographical range is in no sense uniquely occupied by Caucasiods . It is also home to Mongoloids, Australoids and Negroids.
Mongoloids are found in South Asia, Central Asia, Southern Europe, East Asia and North America. But that geographical range is in no sense uniquely occupied by Australoids. It is also home to Amerinds, Australoids and Caucasiods.
Negroids are found in South-East Asia, South Asia, North Africa, Central Africa and Southern Africa. But that geographical range is in no sense uniquely occupied by Negroids . It is also home to Australoids. Mongoloid and Caucasiods.
So your classification scheme falls at the very first hurdle.
But while we are pointing out how ludicrous it is, let’s keep going.
This is provably not true of the races you describe.
While all “mongoloids” may share a common phenotype if you assign membership according to phenotypic characters, there is then nothing remotely phylogenetic about those features. Many East Asians will phenotypically group with Amerinds under such aa scheme, despite being phylogenetically closer to a majority of Australoids. Many Indians will phenotypically group with Caucasoids under such a scheme, despite being phylogenetically closer to a majority of Australoids. Many Inuit will phenotypically group with Amerinds under such a scheme, despite being phylogenetically closer to Mongoloids. Andamanese and Phillipino Negritos will group phenotypically with Negroids, despite being phylogenetically closer to Australoids.
So quite clearly human races don’t meet this criterion.
That quite obviously isn’t true of humans. Human natural history is a tautology.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, this is not true. Not a single scientist assigns any single living human person to any taxonomic category aside from H. sapiens sapiens. So that is settled.
I just did.
Human races fail to meet a single one of the criteria that you laid out. Not a single one.
Mark Cohen is a fairly distinguished Professor of Anthropology at SUNY.
What are your credentials that would lead you to make a statement with such conviction?
Thanks
Neutral. I can’t imagine that the continental populations that I’m talking about have much ‘instructive value.’ Other 'racial delineations might. This isn’t to say that I don’t think that there are significant mean differences between my races. Just that for those ‘instructive traits’ differences are clinal or sporadic (i.e., “East Asians” might be more genetically pacified, on average, owing to Han Chinese being more so and to the fact that Han chinese make up a large % of East Asians, not that all East Asian populations were so selected.)
Maybe you didn’t read what I said.
Is your response to play stupid? Or, are you just unaware of how the concept is used?
Maybe you didn’t read what I said.
Is your response to play stupid? Or, are you just unaware of how the concept is used?
Your statements are unbelievable.
I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.
The main point is that Chuck asked us to demonstrate why the races that he claims to exist do not meet the necessary criteria for being biological races. I demonstrated , at length, with examples, that those races do not meet even one of the criteria. Not a single one.
Rather than addressing that thorough debunking, what we get in response is some vague claim that he never thought that those races met the criteria in the first place. Or something. I think. :dubious:
re: Blake:
Chen, what was your original reference to?
For those who are interested, this is apparently the debate in which I was “roasted”.
Yep, Chuck sure roasted me in that thread. I went running out of there with my tail between my legs. 
The answer is no then, you are not really good at finding serious scientific organizations that support your say so, Risch is not a current group, you are not very good at following the point that we are talking about the current state of affairs not the historical race artifacts that belong to a museum but do not belong to the current genetics; and no, calling a professor a moron does show how low you are willing to go, not convincing anyone with that tactic but betraying the true levels of support that you have where it counts.
Something tells me that Chen won’t be coming back to this thread.
But as you have found out in the past, the great thing about message boards is that it’s really simple to establish what people have said.
See, really simple.
The populations which I referred to meet the criteria, given the standards used. For example ‘a unique geographic range,’ does not mean ‘no overlap’ and does no mean that ‘no individuals members are found in other regions.’ It means that the populations have a geographic association. For example, members of many subspecies can be found distributed around globe in zoos, do they loose their status? No. Natural history refers to historic population migration patters. Are you honestly arguing that all geographic human populations have had the same natural history? Phylogenic concordant characters refers to patterns of genetically mediated traits. It means that the morphological similarity is due natural history and not convergent evolution. I already pointed to these patterns of traits…
Your a Joke Blake.
Cheers. I was just about to post my previouscommentsregarding the approaches/definitions adopted by Risch, Mayr & Coyne. But you’ve beaten me to it.
Christ do we have to have debates with people who think science is determined by what an organization says on a topic? Can we just ignore this individual?
If you haven’t worked out by now that the issue is open to debate depending on the definition you use then you have no business discussing this in the Great Debates.
In fact, I recall the last time the subject of a “meaningful biological definition of race” was discussed you admitted that you had avoided that topic because you aren’t familiar with it. You hadn’t read the arguments, and that is still apparently the case.
Not by current geneticists, only a minority and once gain: looking at history and the current progress a shrinking one.
Unless you can point at organizations agreeing to the past standards applied to humans the joke is on you.
Hey, Chen, how about providing the evidence I asked for. This is the third time I have asked.
You have claimed that Andaman Islanders are the same race as Pakistanis, 4000 kilometres away. And because they are both South Asians, Admananese and Pakistanis are much more closely related genetically than Lensk regionSiberians, who are part of the European/South Asian group, are to Han Chinese.
You are also claiming that the European Kyrgistanis are more closely related genetically to the European inhabitants of Moscow, 3000km away, than they are to the inhabitants of East Asian Sichuan province, the same distance away. And of course that Kyrgistanis are morphologically the same as Muscovites, and morphologically distinguishable from Chinese.
And I am calling you out.
Please provide evidence for your claim that the genetic distances between the European and East Asian population pair “Lensk Siberian” and “Han Chinese” is greater than those the South Asian population pair “Andamanese” and “Pakistani”. Both population pairs are at equivalent geographic distance.
Please provide evidence for your claim that the genetic distances between the European and East Asian population pair “Kyrgistani” and “Han Chinese” is greater than those the European population pair “Kyrgistani” and “Muscovite”. Both population pairs are at equivalent geographic distance.
You made the claim that genetic distances for population pairs with one European population and one East Asian are greater than those for pairs at equivalent geographic distance within South Asia.
I am calling bullshit on that claim.
Let’s see how Chen tries to weasel out of this one.
I don’t think it is has escaped anyone’s notice that you are avoiding answering this question. But please, keep it up. this sport of behaviour, repeated as it has been in this thread, just destroys any shred of credibility that your position might have left.
Translation: you do not have a good reply to this.
Logic tells me that if this was the biggest thing since sliced bread that then all geneticists would approve, that is not the case.
Nope, the reason why I insist on this is because then it demonstrates that it is not a great debate but a moot debate, if the influence of the ones you are pushing forward regarding the peculiar race “standards” (because when one checks history even those race standards were not really clear) are not being respected you might as well watch pain dry, it will be just as useful until we see standards supported by all, as it turns out there is indeed the pragmatic approach that it does not matter much as long as one does not pop a vein for not following a peculiar definition when there are others available that fit the science better.
Nope, in this case I’m using logic, please point at others that support your say so or just admit that the support pool for your peculiar definitions is very shallow.
Again, your ignorance of the field is showing. The point that the term racial groups can be synonymous with population groups, has been lost on you.
So what is your definition? How does it apply to other species?
You are not really good at checking evidence.
Those “typical attempts” are clear when I check history, they refer indeed to the growing consensus on dropping the old definitions, sucks to be the ones defending mostly useless standards.
But thank you for showing once again to all how shallow your pool of support is getting. And everyone can notice how pathetic that was, it did not show at all what is a current important organization that is using and recommending their members to use the old standards.