Let's talk about Race

takes more than just high school level biology to understand this.

when I was in college in 1995 and learned about human biology, humans were divided into different races.

we didn't have enough evidence to understand that unlike dogs & cats, human genetic differences are much less, and too small to divide us into races.

now we know.

 

and to point out the obvious there is no taxonomic category for race, all the forum racists claim their idiocy is scientific based but ask them to point out where the classifications for race in taxonomy are, they remain silent...then they expose their idiocy with "dogs have breeds"!...they're not astute enough to realize there is no classification for breeds either, race and breeds are social inventions... a man no matter what the colour of his skin is still Homo sapiens sapiens and a dog regardless what it looks like is still Canis lupus familiaris

 

must be an inconsistency in quality of education...my kids have all learned differently...

 

well, we do have sub-species of plants, such as for broccoli.

however, if we are going to have a scientific category known as "sub-species" or "race", we need to define what is the minimal genetic difference between all sub-species and races.

and all members of these races & sub-species must have a maximum level of different members of the same sub-species, otherwise its all just pseudo-science crap.

 

Why is there no "taxonomic category" for race? Race is a taxonomy, divided into taxa, which are the categories. Explain why we can't do this? Fst between races is 12%. Between humans and chimps 18%. Subspecies are validated to 1% or under, there is no lower limit. Variation is clinal and clustered, mostly clustered. Explain why we can't name clusters? Locally adapted skin color is not an indication of ancestral relationship.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you specify this number and apply it to various species? Of course not. MOD EDIT - Rule 2

 

Forum "anti racists" sound like they came out of a Communist brain washing program. "We are all humans". We are all animals. Cheese and rice is "all food". How does one suspend logic and reality like that? And so self righteously.

 

sub-species, cultivars, breeds, races,are all just human concepts.

science doesn't really validate them.

but, nature itself has given us a clear indicator of the division between animals.

if they cannot breed and do not breed, they are NOT the same species.

everything beyond that is just human imagination and a need to differentiate animals and humans into convenient little groups of identity, for purposes of convenience.

 

Look up continuum fallacy. Do mountains exist?

- - - Updated - - -

Baloney.

 

cat breeds and dog breeds are 100% man-made.

but even if we ignore this, they are still much more different than human so-called "races".

 

Note how you just repeat yourself and fail to address counter arguments.

 

"do mountains exist?" and "baloney" are not counter arguments.

 

One reason why human races don't exist, is that the proponents of the idea can never agree on a definition or a minimum genetic difference between "races".

 

If we apply the same standard of minimal genetic difference to humans as we do for animal sub-species or races, there is only one single human race.

 

It's defined by genomic similarity. There is no minimum difference. One base pair difference validates a taxonomy.

- - - Updated - - -

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

no minimum difference? genomic similarity?

then why not categorize blacks and whites as the same race?

 

This makes zero sense.

If there is no minimum difference any difference validates taxonomy.

 

It does, actually. There is more genetic difference between a white kid with Down's Syndrome and a white kid without it than there is a black kid and a white kid.

 

ANY genetic difference validates taxinomical categories?

not according to modern science.

by your logic, a boy is a different species than his sister.

 

If it makes sense you should address the point rather than changing the subject to a new slogan.

I agree race does not tell you everything. Is this your new point?

 

I am addressing the point. The issue being that you have failed to comprehend what his point was, and are therefore confused.

 

Obviously you think "taxonomy" means only ancestral. Logic fail.

- - - Updated - - -

no u r

 

are you denying evolution?

- - - Updated - - -

if there is no minimum genomic difference to identify specific races, or sub-species, than science has no rules and one man's idea is no better than another's.

if there is no minimum genetic difference to identify a specific race or sub-species, than every single human is his own race, and every single deer is his own sub-species.

 

Explain how you can derive that from anything I've said.

 

human phenotypes are inherited, are they not?

you suggested taxonomy has nothing to do with inheritance.

 

No minimum difference but a difference. "Science has no rules" if I don't agree with your babble? Rigggghhht.....

Indeed, there are 7 billion human races. More actually, when you make wider groups.