If you could be any other race ?

[Aractus]

The prevalence of said gene expression is correlated within groups, that we call races.

No, actually we use the term ethnicity to somewhat describe that, although it is also based on other things including language culture and history, and it itself is imprecise. There are no meaningful solid distinctions. The term "race" is thousands of years old and predates science. We didn't even know what genes were when it was being used. It goes to a time when people thought that those different to them were fundamentally different - ie of a different race - when this is not the case. This isn't a left-wing political argument, it's a fact.

---

If you disagree then tell me this: how many different distinct ethnic or racial groups do you think there are, and then list them please?

Might be easier if I give some examples. Which of the following terms describes a distinct race in your view:

1. People who live in Germany, which is the correct distinct "race"?

A. Aryan?
B. Caucasian?
C. European?
D. German?
E. Catholic?
F. Something Else?

2. People who live in India, which is the correct distinct "race"?

A. Mongoloid?
B. Asian?
C. South Asian?
D. Indian?
E. Hindi or Buddhist?
F. Something Else?

Are some people biracial, if so what race do they belong to or is each biracial race a new distinct race?

[ForumMember77]

The prevalence of said gene expression is correlated within groups, that we call races.

No, actually we use the term ethnicity to somewhat describe that, although it is also based on other things including language culture and history, and it itself is imprecise. There are no meaningful solid distinctions. The term "race" is thousands of years old and predates science. We didn't even know what genes were when it was being used. It goes to a time when people thought that those different to them were fundamentally different - ie of a different race - when this is not the case. This isn't a left-wing political argument, it's a fact.

"We"

Last time I looked up this argument there was anything but consensus, it was being debated on the comments section of Dawkins website. As someone had tried to debunk the term race. It was called "race re-debunked" if memory serves

There were many anthropologists and other scientifically minded folk who seemed to disagree with this concept.

This was a few years ago but I can provide a link if you like.

The simple idea is that based on photographs it wold be possible to racially group people from different areas, they openly disagreed with your assertion that race has no taxonomic meaning in science.

It really does feel like a left wing bias to me.

To each their own I suppose.

Your also conflating issues, you are arguing racial borders now and mixing in religion. If I provided with 10 photographs, 5 from Indian decent and 5 from German decent you would have no problem categorising them into their respective groups based on racial imagery.

[Alex K]

1. People who live in Germany, which is the correct distinct "race"?

A. Aryan?
B. Caucasian?
C. European?
D. German?
E. Catholic?
F. Something Else?

Ve prefer bedess Kraut masserfakkers.

[Aractus]

---

No, actually we use the term ethnicity to somewhat describe that, although it is also based on other things including language culture and history, and it itself is imprecise. There are no meaningful solid distinctions. The term "race" is thousands of years old and predates science. We didn't even know what genes were when it was being used. It goes to a time when people thought that those different to them were fundamentally different - ie of a different race - when this is not the case. This isn't a left-wing political argument, it's a fact.

"We"

Last time I looked up this argument there was anything but consensus, it was being debated on the comments section of Dawkins website. As someone had tried to debunk the term race. It was called "race re-debunked" if memory serves

There were many anthropologists and other scientifically minded folk who seemed to disagree with this concept.

This was a few years ago but I can provide a link if you like.

The simple idea is that based on photographs it wold be possible to racially group people from different areas, they openly disagreed with your assertion that race has no taxonomic meaning in science.

It really does feel like a left wing bias to me.

To each their own I suppose.

Your also conflating issues, you are arguing racial borders now and mixing in religion. If I provided with 10 photographs, 5 from Indian decent and 5 from German decent you would have no problem categorising them into their respective groups based on racial imagery.

---

You didn't answer my question.

I'm not really interested in what Dawkins has to say, he has some extreme views. If he's providing a debate where no valid scientific debate on the issue exists then that's good for him, but utterly useless in the broader context. You said it is based on genetics - we all have the same genes. Every individual human genome is distinct, but we all have exactly the same genes*. The 0.01% difference in the DNA itself is still 0.01% different within ethnicities, that difference is not unique to what you call "races" it's shared among everyone.

If there are distinct races as you argue there are, then please tell me how many they are and list them? This should be no problem for you if there are distinct races. Otherwise you're arguing from ignorance and have no way to back up your assertions.

* (edit) - Sorry, just let me clarify that point before you pull me up on it. Yes, men and women do have slightly different genes to each other, in that men have a y-chromosome in place of one of the x-chromosomes. All men have the same genes, all women have the same genes and some people with a chromosome anomaly have genes slightly different to either category. But as I understand it you argument isn't that men, women, and people with chromosome disorders are of different races to each other, but that other far less meaningful distinctions in the genome (not even in the genes themselves) qualify to separate people into races. Is this correct?

---

Your also conflating issues, you are arguing racial borders now and mixing in religion. If I provided with 10 photographs, 5 from Indian decent and 5 from German decent you would have no problem categorising them into their respective groups based on racial imagery.

Right, that's your argument? You claimed that race is determined genetically. So then, where's your evidence that a geneticist could distinguish a person's distinct race by examining their genome?

Or is your argument now that race is determined by a person's physical appearance?

[Zack]

Like Louis CK, I would have to re up on the white thing:

---

---

[ForumMember77]

---

"We"

Last time I looked up this argument there was anything but consensus, it was being debated on the comments section of Dawkins website. As someone had tried to debunk the term race. It was called "race re-debunked" if memory serves

There were many anthropologists and other scientifically minded folk who seemed to disagree with this concept.

This was a few years ago but I can provide a link if you like.

The simple idea is that based on photographs it wold be possible to racially group people from different areas, they openly disagreed with your assertion that race has no taxonomic meaning in science.

It really does feel like a left wing bias to me.

To each their own I suppose.

Your also conflating issues, you are arguing racial borders now and mixing in religion. If I provided with 10 photographs, 5 from Indian decent and 5 from German decent you would have no problem categorising them into their respective groups based on racial imagery.

---

You didn't answer my question.

I'm not really interested in what Dawkins has to say, he has some extreme views. If he's providing a debate where no valid scientific debate on the issue exists then that's good for him, but utterly useless in the broader context. You said it is based on genetics - we all have the same genes. Every individual human genome is distinct, but we all have exactly the same genes*. The 0.01% difference in the DNA itself is still 0.01% different within ethnicities, that difference is not unique to what you call "races" it's shared among everyone.

If there are distinct races as you argue there are, then please tell me how many they are and list them? This should be no problem for you if there are distinct races. Otherwise you're arguing from ignorance and have no way to back up your assertions.

* (edit) - Sorry, just let me clarify that point before you pull me up on it. Yes, men and women do have slightly different genes to each other, in that men have a y-chromosome in place of one of the x-chromosomes. All men have the same genes, all women have the same genes and some people with a chromosome anomaly have genes slightly different to either category. But as I understand it you argument isn't that men, women, and people with chromosome disorders are of different races to each other, but that other far less meaningful distinctions in the genome (not even in the genes themselves) qualify to separate people into races. Is this correct?

---

Your also conflating issues, you are arguing racial borders now and mixing in religion. If I provided with 10 photographs, 5 from Indian decent and 5 from German decent you would have no problem categorising them into their respective groups based on racial imagery.

Right, that's your argument? You claimed that race is determined genetically. So then, where's your evidence that a geneticist could distinguish a person's distinct race by examining their genome?

Or is your argument now that race is determined by a person's physical appearance?

LOL, thanks for the laugh.

You've went from shouting fact and claiming you have a consensus among scientists, to, insulting the integrity of anyone I mention that disagrees.

I said there were many a scientifically minded folk, evolutionary biologists and anthropologists alike, who openly dispute what you say on Dawkins' site.

They are all crackpots I guess ?

I said I was curious and you quelled my curiosity, thanks. Please, continue to tell people that race is just a figment of our collective xenophobia.......... wait, if race doesn't exist then people can't call me racist anymore.

[Elskidor]

Orc or elf preferred, but I'd try out Chinese too.

[Sejanus]

The problem with this question is context. If you mean in the United States as currently exists, I don't want to be any other race because discrimination still exists and why suffer it if I don't have to? If all races were treated equally, I'd like to be one of those beautiful elegant black women with the knife-like proud faces I see in National Geographic from time to time. White woman is as bad as it gets for showing age early. I have a smiley round white woman face.

But that's just physical context. If you include culture context, I like to be the African woman provided I was an educated class British adoptee with U.S./UK citizenship.

I don't think any race will give me intelligence or physical advantages beyond not sunburning so easily.

How very PC

[The Valkyrie]

The Human race suits me.

[Aractus]

LOL, thanks for the laugh.

You've went from shouting fact and claiming you have a consensus among scientists, to, insulting the integrity of anyone I mention that disagrees.

I said there were many a scientifically minded folk, evolutionary biologists and anthropologists alike, who openly dispute what you say on Dawkins' site.

They are all crackpots I guess ?

I said I was curious and you quelled my curiosity, thanks. Please, continue to tell people that race is just a figment of our collective xenophobia.......... wait, if race doesn't exist then people can't call me racist anymore.

Human racial classifications have vexed anthropologists and geneticists for the last half-century, since biologists began to question the validity of taxonomy be- low the species level (Wilson and Brown 1953). The following flaws were repeat- edly pointed out (Lieberman and Jackson 1995; Keita and Kittles 1997; Templeton 1998). (1) There are no agreed-upon criteria for when to assign formal names to groups that might more appropriately be considered aggregates of local populations. (2) Race classifications fail for phenotypically intermediate populations. (3) They fail for individuals who trace their ancestry to two or more named races. (4) They are defied by sets of characters that show independent geographic trends. (5) It has been difficult to relate many human populations as distinct evolutionary lineages.

Another objection to racial classifications has been advanced for the past 30 years. This view holds that race classifications are unjustifiable when the variation within groups exceeds the variation between groups. Lewontin (1972) showed that 85.4% of the human species diversity could be attributed to allelic variation within populations, 8.3% to variation between populations within races, and only 6.3% to interracial variation. Many other studies have reiterated this finding (Barbujani et al. 1997).

Long, J. C. & Kittles, R. A. (2003). Human genetic diversity and the non-existence of biological races. Human Biology, 75 (4), pp. 449-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hub.2003.0058