I’ve seen The Gods Must Be Crazy, 1 and 2, and the Bushmen don’t look much like the Africans we would classify as “negroes” – nor like any other ethnic group on Earth, though I understand the Pygmies are related to them.
Well done! Although many people in this thread tried to explain why there is no biological definition of race that resembles our ‘races’, the above quote nicely spells it out in the most simple terms possible. There really should be no confusion after reading this.
OK, so we live in that universe. We view “peas-and-gekkos” as one group, and “bananas-and-canaries” as another. Now, I’m a racist kinda guy who likes to judge groups based on individuals in that group, and I’ve noticed that everyone who I’ve ever seen who is good at climbing a wall is a peas-and-gekkos. So I proclaim that. I say “peas-and-gekkos are the best and climbing walls, and it’s for biological reasons”. I’m clearly being imprecise, in that gekkos are good at climbing walls and peas aren’t. So if I just pick a peas-and-gekkos and say “hey, you’re my wall climber” with no further testing or anything I’m likely to be disappointed. At the same time, though, if I take a large population and look for the best climbers in it, over and over again a peas-and-gekkos will come out on top… and for reasons that are purely biological.
Yes, there is. Races aren’t simply divisions based on color. If that was the case forensic anthropologists wouldn’t be able to identify races from looking at bones. Also, you wouldn’t get these clusters which correspond to traditional racial groupings.
[QUOTE=Chen019]
If that was the case forensic anthropologists wouldn’t be able to identify races from looking at bones.
[/quote]
Forensic anthropologists are not able to identify races from looking at bones. I explained this to you at great length, with references, in a previous thread.
So why do you trot out the same misrepresentation again now?
Maybe you could read the link I provided, or George Gill’s comments here.
And no, if the differences were simply based on different pigmentation, you wouldn’t get the clusters using other genetic markers. Neil Risch explains here:
Not really. Not in the sense you mean. In fact, Khoisan populations are closer to Ethiopians and Nilotics like the Dinka, based on frequency occurrence of Haplogroup A.
Perhaps Risch (or you) can “explain” this bullshit cladogram in that paper. It bears no relation to reality when “African” is not differentiated way more than the non-African branch. All we have here is highly biased selection of branches from an in-reality much bushier tree. Any geneticist who says ‘Oh, yes, “Africans” are a major grouping on par with “Pacific Islanders”’ should be kicked out of the profession for incompetence, if nothing else.
And this bullshit: “For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians” is just provably wrong. Ethiopians as a population aren’t intermediate between anything. There’s some Bantu and Arabian back-mixing in the population, but the stem population diverged way, way before the “Out of Africa” population split off from the rest of Africans.Haplogroup A doesn’t lie.
Well, strictly speaking, many scientific organizations havce proclaimed that “race” does not exist in humans, yet medical organizations use race to diagnose diseases. So if you insist on going on what organizations say (except some medical organizations), then the discussion is over, well, pretty much over. However if you go outside the realm of scientific organizations, then the question becomes oh so difficult and complicated.
One simple reality is, if you take a group of folks who have had their past 50 generations of ancestors from Sweden (for example) and compare that group with folks who have had their last 50 generations of ancestors from Ethiopia (for example), anyone with two eyes will be able to tell which person belongs in which group with probably 100% accuracy. So though that may not be “race”, technically speaking, it is a existing phenomenon, and for the sake of clarity , ought to be given a name. If not “race” then something.
Again, in the sciences where you’d have to be precise, peas-and-gekkos is meaningless. For example, if you wanted to find out what makes something good climber, you’d be wasting time studying peas instead of studying only gekkos. Particularly if you’re trying to find a genetic link between green and climbing. You’d go nowhere. However, if you’re a proper biologist, you’d be studying lizards of all colors and their ability to climb.
You’re avoiding answering my question. In that universe (and remember, this is not a hypothetical I created), I (a non-biologist) say “peas-and-gekkos are the best and climbing walls, for biological reasons”. Am I right or am I wrong? (I agree that what I’m saying is imprecise and is not particularly useful and is not something a biologist would ever come up with, but none of those necessarily mean that the statement is actually wrong.)
Why do people feel it’s legitimate to argue from a scientific viewpoint that goes against scientific consensus? It says right in one of the articles that Risch and the other guy are dissenters. When making an argument, one needs to emphasize that the person they’re citing is a dissenting viewpoint so as not to mislead people reading the thread.
I’m not avoiding answering your question, I honestly don’t understand it. There is a biological explanation for wall climbing as there would be for every aspect of living organisms. However, since peas are extremely horrible at climbing walls, wouldn’t the average data show that peas-and-gekkos are not good at climbing walls? So even if a non-biologist actually observed peas-and-gekkos, they would come up with the idea that peas-and-gekkos don’t climb walls well or only sporatically climb walls. On the other hand, if they were observing only gekkos and thought they were observing peas-and-gekkos, they would still be wrong if they stated that peas-and-gekkos climbed walls. Maybe someone else can explain to me because I’m still not getting it.
So, what are the races then? Is there a Swedish race and an Ethiopian race?
What happens if you do your little experiment with Sweden and Germany, then Germany and Austria, then Austria and Northern Italy, then Northern Italy and Central Italy, then Central Italy with Southern Italy, the Southern Italy and Greece, then Greece and Bulgaria, then Bulgaria and Turkey, then Turkey and Syria, then Syria and Palestine, then Palestine and Egypt, then Egypt and Sudan…
What are the races, and where do you draws the lines?
I can line up 100 people by height, pick the 5 shortest and the 10 tallest and then ask you which group those 10 people belong in. You will get it right 100% of the time. But that doesn’t mean there is an objective way to divide the group up in subgroups by height.
Well, of course you didn’t address what I said. And what I said is the people who have their lineage in Sweden (or Germany, if you prefer) have an unmistakable difference in appearance when compared to those whose lineage is from Ethiopia. That’s just a reality. If you don’t want to call it race, then don’t. See, the question can be a technical question which, if you like, can be simply about word definitions, specifically the word “race”. Or you can go beyond the technical, and reply to the thread’s question in terms of how it applies to today’s world. You are viewing the question in scientific terms. My observation has to do with a simple reality, which is a social factor in many places around the world.
I’m going to guess that you are of the mind that something can be solved by simply saying that race does not exist. Unfortunately, the people sub-Sahara Africa do indeed look different when compared to the people of Northern Europe, whether or not that is “race”.
In scientific terms there is no such thing as race. However there does exist a phenomenon which has people native to diffferent lands having different appearances. Often considered “race”, but by strict scientific terms, not “race”.
The phenomenon, whatever term you may put upon it, is often used by medical community, as well as many societies, resulting in the creation of such things as Affirmative Action and other social programs.