OK, Coll, i can see your legitimate problem with using the word “race’- as most folks think it referes to the old, classic “5 races” theory. which Anthropologists dumped even before my time- as it was clear some 'sub-groups” did not fit. The only reason for the “big 5” is for a convient grouping for social reasons- they had lost scientific credance quite some time ago. BUT- in the '70s, when I was taught Physical Anthropology- they had “split” the races down to some number closer to a hundred. And, it appears likely, than some/many of these smaller groupings, which were called races- are what you call “populations”. So- as long as we are talking the smaller, non-classic races- it APPEARS that you agree that those deliniations could have genetic meaning. Thus- if we want to get very strict on meanings here- you AGREE that “races” exist geneticly (to some extent, at least)- as long as we are talking about the smaller “population” sized races. But- you do not agree that the “big 5” or any similar system has any genetic validity, and you would PREFER not to use the term “race” to refer to the “population” sized groupings, at it leads to confusion with the older, now discredited system. Is this correct?
Hey Collunsbury (or anyone else who is interested)
I hope this isn’t torture to you, but I saw another discussion like this on another forum.
In case you wanted to just read another group struggling with the same issue, and have the luxury of not being involved, here is the link:
Perhaps you could direct them to the old SDMB threads so the ignorant ones who think this is politics can lose some ignorance. Some of the comments in there are depressing. No, make that a majority.
Otherwise, in other matters, Daniel your last summary more or less captures my position.
For those of you wondering if I was cooking the books with my citations, you will find that reports quoting the Human Genome Project folks are precisely in line with what I have been providing you.
Except of course, I’ve been giving a direct line to the original literature rather than rehashed journalistic nonesense. I hope that Izzy et al feel reassured I (and Edwino and Gaspode and Tom, and others) haven’t been pulling fast ones. As for that other board’s thread, I’ll only add there is so much ignorance, so little science.
Actually then, you agree that “races DO exist”- but only as long as we are talking about the smaller “tribe-sized” “races” that the 'splitters" amoung Physical Anthropologists divided the humans up some time ago. Ie there is no genetic validity to the term “Negroid” race, but there well could be for “Pygmies”, “Bantus” “Watusi” and othersuch, with the more separated “races” such as the Ainu, Innuit and Bushmen having a much greater chance of genetic validity.
Then, it does seem it would be correct to speak of the “Watusi” as being likely genetically taller than the “Pygmy”. Or is this going too far?
sigh, well, not really insofar as the common (as opposed to outdated scientific usage of the word) usage of race implies genetic cohesion which does not exist on a group level.
I’ve said all along that we may be able to use markers to define smaller populations in an objective way, but that still doesn’t trump the underlying fact, the majority of variation is individual.
ergo, using the common meaning of race, no they do not exist.
pygmies maybe (or not, for all I know they arose more than once…)
linguistic group, no way in hell. too large anyway.
possibly.
more or less, what I said all along.
well, of course. Obviously insofar as the pygmies are a coherent group; of course i don’t know to what extent their diet impacts their height either but the generalization is likely to hold.
**
Then let us go back to my original statement, oh so long ago. (a) is a “given”. (b) is a unlikely and © is OK, as long as we are only talking about the smaller, “tribe” sized populations (your word)/ races (my word, and used by some Anthropologists.)
Thus- given small, “population” sized races- it IS NOT impossible, that intelligence could be slighty linked to race. Not so much that individual differnces would not overcome it- but enough to be noticeable in a statisical way. And, i will grant- that is it more likely than any such differences would be due to cultural, dietary, income etc than genetics. But- there could, just maybe- be a genetic difference intelligence between, say- the Ainu & the Bushmen.
Now- i will cetrainly agree here, that after reviewing my posts- I never said I was talking about the smaller “population” sized races. I hinted- but never said as much- and i also said things that would indicate that I was talking about the “classic races”. I was really talking about both- unfortunately for my point. I was taught the “many many races” theory (which could well stand up in the face of genetic eveidence, at least to some extent)- but then the races were lumped together again as the ‘classic five". Thus- I was not taught there was A “Negroid” race, but there were MANY “Negroid raceS” (note plural). Desperately trying, in the face of every bit of new eveidence to keep the “classic races” as a meaningful concept- they were using the "classic races’ to organize the many, many races. But, if I remember right, they were already saying that the grouping was primarily for conveniece as a social construct. (ie, it was clear, that even tho the Bushmen, eg. resembled the African peoples superficially, they were not related).
No- I am NOT saying I am “vindicated”- I was partly wrong, due to outdated theories (“But they were the VERY latest theories”- some 25 years ago). But not entirely wrong either- which is what I think Izzy was trying to say.
FWIW…
That other thread was only 7 or 8 posts long when I saw it. I just went through it, and I saw no joy in it.
Sorry.
There seems to be a knee jerk reaction from some folks calling themselves conservative… I am half tempted to try to teach, but I just know it will be unrewarding.
Don’t do it Collunsbury. My intention was to merely offer you a place to WATCH the same debate. Sometimes I enjoy just reading a good 2nd Amendment debate somewhere else. I like seeing the arguements put into different words, and I like to see how others handle the same situations differently than I would have.
BUT…(yes, that is a big butt)
If I don’t feel like joining in a gun debate around here, I don’t even open the thread up. If I am registered and can post, it just SUCKS me right in. That forum is big and active enough that we might not see you again for a month if you start argueing that topic over there.
Precisely, and I have major real work to do. (Although regional developments may send me home earlier than planned.
However, I was just reading this article and thought I would share:
Damian Labudaa,b, Ewa Zietkiewiczb, and Vania Yotovab
“Archaic Lineages in the History of Modern Humans”
Genetics, Vol. 156, 799-808, October 2000
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/2/799?
It discusses the next frontier, which is nailing down how ancient lineages developed and mixed.
I have some more to share, but my server is acting up so…
Damn, I hope oldscratch doesn’t wander onto that link :)(or in here)
I just finished reading every post on the link (to post#119). I think there are some definite bright spots in there. After thinking about it, I figured I would invite Snuffington to take a look over here. He seems to be fighting the good fight against the odds. At the very least, I think he could use some of the references you have provided.
Snuffinton, if you read this, good job over there.
Yes, he could. I just reread the thread. I have to admit I ammore than slightly peeved with the tone in their, esp. all this talk of the research being political, from folks who clearly haven’t understood anything.
Indeed, but please do mine my references.