If "there's no such thing as race," is there such a thing as gender?

[Blake]

@Chuck11

The populations which I referred to meet the criteria, given the standards used.

No, they do not, as I just domenstrated.

For example ‘a unique geographic range,’ … means that the populations have a geographic association.

And as I just showed, your races do not have any geographic association at all.

For example, members of many subspecies can be found distributed around globe in zoos, do they loose their status?

:rolleyes:

There really is no other response to this.

Natural history refers to historic population migration patters.

No, it doesn’t. You just made that up.

We know from your history in that last thread that linked to that you are fond of making up definitions on the spot. And this is yet another example. Nobody else in the entire world thinks that natural history refers to historic population migration patterns.

Are you honestly arguing that all geographic human populations have had the same natural history?

Since “natural history” is the observation of an organism in its natural environments, and since humans have no natural environment, then of course all humans have the same natural history: none at all.

Phylogenic concordant characters refers to patterns of genetically mediated traits. It means that the morphological similarity is due natural history and not convergent evolution.

No, it does not.

Once again you are making up definitions not used by anybody else in the entire world.

Phylogenetic concordance means that the trait is concordant with ancestry. That is it. Pure and simple. If a trait in a population is concordant with the ancestry of the population, it is phylogenetically concordant. If two groups with the same ancestry do not possess the trait, the trait is not phylogenetically concordant. If two groups with different ancestries do possess the trait, it is not phyllogenetically concordant.

In practice, we do this by selecting our putative phyllogenetic group, in this case Mongoloids, and then doing a statistical comparison between all the traits of that group and all the traits of one or more other groups, in this case Amerinds and Australoids. We use feed the information on those traits into a set of equations to generate a tree. When I first started working in this field, we used to construct the trees using pen, paper and calculator. Thank God these days software does it all. If the phenotype tree does not match the phylogeny tree, then the traits are not phylogenetically concordant.

And nobody has ever produced a phylogenetically concordant phenotype for the human races you described. Not one. That is why, despite us asking multiple times, you are utterly unable to list the phenotypic traits that correspond to these races and that also maps onto phylogeny.

If you believe otherwise, then tell us what the phylogenetically concordant phenotypes are, so we can check for ourselves.

The races that you claim exist do not have phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters. There is no phenotype found in Mongoloids that is not also found in large numbers of Australoids, Negroids, Caucasoids and Amerinds.
[/QUOTE]

[Blake]

Hey, Chen, how about providing the evidence I asked for. This is the fourth time I have asked.

Please either provide the evidence or acknowledge that you cannot do so.

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.

I am calling bullshit on that claim.

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.

[Marley23]

@Chuck11

Your a Joke Blake.

Personal comments are not allowed in this forum. Knock it off.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

Y
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.

1. So what is your definition of race? I’m curious whether you disagree with the concept as used in biology generally (as Coyne defined it for instance).

2. Also, something that seems to be missing in your comments is context. Particularly, political context. Can you think of reasons why it might be easier to refer to ancestral or continental populations, or major geographic group identity, rather than racial groups? You’re still dealing with racial groups according to the definitions provided above. In terms of context political correctness & fear of generating racism is obviously a massive factor.

Dr. Stephen O’Brien, a geneticist at the National Cancer Institute, said that the conclusion that race was not a valid concept ‘‘comes from honest and brilliant people who are not population geneticists.’’

‘‘That doesn’t mean they are insincere,’’ Dr. O’Brien said. ‘‘It’s just that they haven’t really looked at it. What is happening here is that Neil and his colleagues have decided the pendulum of political correctness has taken the field in a direction that will hurt epidemiological assessment of disease in the very minorities the defenders of political correctness wish to protect.’’

3. This is apparent when you look at the use of race by anthropologists and geneticists around the world. As a hint - there is a massive difference between the US compared to China and Russia, countries which aren’t so hung up on political correctness (see Lieberman “The race concept in six regions: variation without consensus” 2004).

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Chuck11

Mark Cohen is a moron.

This is the second time I’ve asked, so please have the courtesy to answer. You’re calling a distinguished Anthropology professor “a moron.”

Please give us your credentials and explain why you can make such a strong claim.

Thanks

[Blake]

Earlier in this thread, Chen made the ludicrous claim 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.

This claim is so ridiculous on its face that I naturally asked Chen to provide evidence.

I have now asked five times for that evidence, and Chen has steadfastly refused to even acknowledge the question. This is despite the fact that he did respond to an earlier almost identical question.

So quite clearly Chen was talking shit when he made that claim. He has once again demonstrated that he has no knowledge of this topic whatsoever. As somoene said over int he pit thread, it is like he is doing a parody of someone with no knowledge of human diversity.

This behaviour is really all that is necessary for me to conclude that Chen has lost this debate. He has made a claim upon which his entire argument hinges, and claim that [Andaman Islanders are the same race as Pakistanis. Yet he is utterly and totally unable to support that ridiculous claim with any sort of evidence, to the point where he won’t even acknowledge that the request has been made. He has simply ceased arguing in god faith.

I think that probably says all that needs to be said about Chen’s position. If anyone still believes he has any credibility left after this little display, they are so gullible that they are not going to be convinced by anything we can say.

Thus the matter is resolved. Race has no biological validity.

[tomndebb]

@Marley23

@Chuck11

Your a Joke Blake.

Personal comments are not allowed in this forum. Knock it off.

Chuck11, I also note that in addition to being grammatically challenged, you are dancing on the wrong side of the rules in other posts, such as:

@Chuck11

Is your response to play stupid?

If you continue this practice, you will jeopardize your posting privileges.

[ /Moderating ]

[tomndebb]

@Blake

No, it doesn’t. You just made that up.

Way too close to accusing another poster of lying.

It is quite possible to indicate that a statement is not factual without stating or implying that the author is being dishonest. I don’t care how frustrated you are, you will refrain from that sot of accusation.

[ /Moderating ]

[CannyDan]

Score:

Blake, GIGObuster, Kimstu, Ibn Warraq and some others – many, many points.

[CannyDan]

Drat, hit send too soon. Further score:

Chuck & Chen and the racialist agenda – zero.

[CannyDan]

Well, I actually was composing my post(s) after reading post 406. I didn’t see the moderating until afterward. It (the moderating) was neither the instigation for nor the subject of my comments. I’ve just got to stop posting from my phone!! Sorry if there’s any confusion.

[Chen019]

@Blake

Earlier in this thread, Chen made the ludicrous claim that [Andaman Islanders are the same race as Pakistanis, 4000 kilometres away.

1. I addressed the Andaman Islanders in another post which you ignored.

2. Is your position now that race has no biological validity period, or just in respect of humans?

3. Your own excellent detailed description of morphological differences in geographically separate populations (the Georgians & the Andamanese) was a nice illustration of the racial differences Jerry Coyne said obviously exist within the human species.

[Chen019]

@CannyDan

Chuck & Chen and the racialist agenda – zero.

Racialist agenda? I take it you’re not a fan of affirmative action? After all how can you support racial preferences if there are no races?

Also, reading an article like this about bone marrow donors must be confusing for you, no?

To find a marrow match for anyone is hard. Even within one’s own family, the chances of finding one are only about 30%. According to the World Donor Marrow Association, while two out of three Caucasians find a match, the chances of a patient from another ethnic background can be as low as one in four. Despite rapid improvements in marrow registries around the world, the global registry is still disproportionately represented by the U.S., U.K. and Germany — all predominantly Caucasian countries. For a multiracial person, the chances are usually even worse. Athena Mari Asklipiadis, the founder of the California-based Mixed Marrow, one of the only outreach groups devoted to recruiting mixed race donors, says “the numbers are quite staggering … People compare it to winning the lottery.”

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

1. So what is your definition of race? I’m curious whether you disagree with the concept as used in biology generally (as Coyne defined it for instance).

2. Also, something that seems to be missing in your comments is context. Particularly, political context. Can you think of reasons why it might be easier to refer to ancestral or continental populations, or major geographic group identity, rather than racial groups? You’re still dealing with racial groups according to the definitions provided above. In terms of context political correctness & fear of generating racism is obviously a massive factor.

3. This is apparent when you look at the use of race by anthropologists and geneticists around the world. As a hint - there is a massive difference between the US compared to China and Russia, countries which aren’t so hung up on political correctness (see Lieberman “The race concept in six regions: variation without consensus” 2004).

Just repeating the same old and expecting to get a different answer, pathetic.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Chen019

Racialist agenda? I take it you’re not a fan of affirmative action? After all how can you support racial preferences if there are no races?

Nobody has suggested that “race” doesn’t exist as a social construct.

BTW, would you mind defining just who is a “Caucasian” and who isn’t.

Are Italians, Lebanese, Moroccans, Persians, Pakistanis and Mexicans “Caucasian” or not?

Which groups are caucasian, which aren’t and why?
Thanks

[Chen019]

@Ibn_Warraq

Nobody has suggested that “race” doesn’t exist as a social construct.

Adolescence is also a social construct. However, the label includes a biological component. Same with gender. You could go on and say hills & mountains are social constructs - of course they also reflect actual topography and physical variation.

Similar with race - it refers to major patterns of genetic variation within the species. As Leroi puts it, it’s a useful shorthand. There really is a correlation between genetic structure and geography, so between people from different places you find statistical differences both in genes, and in things like physical attributes. This reflects evolutionary history.

In terms of who is a caucasion, in terms of your social construct definition presumably you mean people who self identify on that basis. And as I said, those categories also have a biological component:

Numerous recent studies using a variety of genetic markers have shown that, for example, individuals sampled worldwide fall into clusters that roughly correspond to continental lines, as well as to the commonly used self-identifying racial groups: Africans, European/West Asians, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans (Bowcock et al. 1994; Calafell et al. 1998; Rosenberg et al. 2002).

Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

Just repeating the same old and expecting to get a different answer, pathetic.

You’d know about that no? I mean your sole means of argument is whether an approach is favored by an organization or not. I wonder why you even bother debating - I mean unless a committee somewhere tells you what to think, you’re not going to change your view

However, I must warn you - based on Lieberman’s survey you should avoid China like the plague. Apparently the biological anthropologists there (lacking the political correctness of their US colleagues) are quite happy to use the race concept explicitly. You should probably avoid Russia too.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

You’d know about that no? I mean your sole means of argument is whether an approach is favored by an organization or not. I wonder why you even bother debating - I mean unless a committee somewhere tells you what to think, you’re not going to change your view

Because someone has to point the obvious, you are not getting any traction, not your sources and not you, otherwise plenty of examples (not just the same ones) would be produced.

@Chen019

However, I must warn you - based on Lieberman’s survey you should avoid China like the plague. Apparently the biological anthropologists there (lacking the political correctness of their US colleagues) are quite happy to use the race concept explicitly. You should probably avoid Russia too.

And so the conspiracy card is played, thank you once again for showing all the silliness you embrace.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

Because someone has to point the obvious, you are not getting any traction, not your sources and not you, otherwise plenty of examples (not just the same ones) would be produced.

It’s not a conspiracy - Lieberman himself in his survey article explains that places like the US have an aversion to using the term race because of past abuses. **Of course if you were arguing in good faith you would acknowledge this. **

Again - avoid China or Russia. You’ll look for the local consensus and end up a racialist!

btw. You do support affirmative action right?

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

It’s not a conspiracy - Lieberman himself in his survey article explains that places like the US have an aversion to using the term race because of past abuses. Of course if you were arguing in good faith you would acknowledge this.

Again - avoid China or Russia. You’ll look for the local consensus and end up a racialist!

Like if China or Russia are paragons of justice, once again, I already posted examples from experts that report that it is not because of PC or pressure that geneticists are dropping the old definitions. Your canard here of saying that I’m not arguing in good faith is silly.

@Chen019

btw. You do support affirmative action right?

Until the ones that claim to be superior to others drop the issue.