One more time: Racism exists. But there is no such thing as "Race"

No... Just make your argument. I can almost recite the paper by heart.

I shall skip the nonsense, hoping to find some statement and an argument to support it.

So what is your argument? Are ecotypes "like race" in human beings, or are they not?

You went from "ecotypes are like the concept of race in human beings" to "I didn't say ecotypes are like the concept of race" to "ecotypes are like the concept of race in human beings, but they're not like the concept of race in human beings"

So which is it?

Don't bother. I'll answer for you: They're not!!! Not in what pertains to human beings.

They might be equivalent to "subspecies" in some species. Not in any way shape or form in the human species. Which is what this thread is about. It's obvious you know this now. But since you got into this mess, now you want to try to make up some "equivalence" in some way. There is none.

But in your haste to find this equivalence. You make an even bigger blunder

This ...

What???? "mutation"? Adaptations of a population to the environment is not a mutation. Adaptations occur in the individuals. Mutations occur in the genes. Huge huge huge difference. Ecotypes are purely phenotypic. Not genetic.

Lucky you this has nothing to do with this topic.

But there is still one more blunder. North Asians are absolutely NOT the same ecotype as North Europeans. Ecotype is much more than just one adaptation. This nonsense that people can be "the same ecotype" in ONE aspect (for God's sake, not mutation!) is absurd.

So, to summarize. You finally realized that there is no equivalence, parallel, similarity, sameness, ...(whatever you want to call it)... between race and ecotype in human beings. You realized that, by not reading the paper attentively, you messed up thinking that the authors were talking about human beings, when they were talking about other species. You won't admit this because... hell... I don't know why. But looking for an excuse not to admit this you made an even bigger blunder that is beyond the scope of this paper. And, fortunately for you, of this whole thread.

The one lesson you should get from this is that starting with the conclusion, and then cherry-picking for something... anything... to justify the conclusion ... is not a good idea. The proper way of doing this is simply... look at all the facts (no cherry-picking) and just go with wherever those facts lead you. Learning this always spares people much embarrassment.

 

I understand what you're saying, Golem. But we use the word "race" to indicate people of different color and physical genetics. Obviously skin color is an issue in the prejudice and discrimination against African Americans, and the simple way of indicating or referencing that issue is by referring to "race".

So while there really is no such term as "race" in biology or anthropology, it is useful and proper in non-scientific language because it is useful.

 

You are wrong in every aspect of your argument, particularly in characterizing my arguments. It shows the difficulty of of discussing scientific concepts with people who are not prepared to do that. That was obvious with your subject line of course.

And again, you didn't even understand my argument, as you make clear here: "North Asians are absolutely NOT the same ecotype as North Europeans. Ecotype is much more than just one adaptation. This nonsense that people can be "the same ecotype" in ONE aspect (for God's sake, not mutation!) is absurd."

What I actually said was, "North Asians are light skinned as are North Europeans, so by the paper's standards, they are (for this one mutation) the same ecotype, Even though the mutation for lighter skin are different mutations and are not related to each other."

Humans are animals. I don't know if you are some sort of creationist or not, but the same laws that govern animals in natural selection govern humans. Saying the paper covers animals not people is a non sequitur.

Every once in a while I think that you guys want to have a serious discussion about [fill in the blank] and like Lucy and the football, discover not only was that never your intention, you don't even understand the topic. You LARP at being an evolutionary biologist (or epidemiologist, statistician, ect...), but as this thread shows, you LARP poorly.

 

If is used colloquially, as you say. It's unavoidable. It's unlikely that people would suddenly change that to "ethnicity" (which would be more accurate) It's even used in official documents. But there's a difference between using a word and a discussion about the concept that the word expresses.

 

And you keep throwing in expressions that you don't know how to use. If I had said that the paper covers animals and not people (which I didn't.. you just made up that as a red herring), it wouldn't be a "non sequitur". It would just be wrong.

Anyway, every time I correct one of your conceptual errors, you make two more trying to justify it. So this would be a neverending task....

 

Actually you've failed at every attempt, and your desperation shows in your editing my replies. At this point, I doubt you even know what your original argument was.

 

Including religion, or country of origin.... Things that have nothing to do with biology.

There is no such thing as race. What exists are clines. More so than in gender. But the concept of "race" includes "jewish" , "hispanic", "muslim"... as if they were races. So if a jew converts to Christianism, do they change race? If you ever lived in a latin american or european country, you would see that the perception of a "black" person is very different. Even in the U.S., many people (more than gender) who identify as "black" have skin whiter than many who don't. It's a matter of choice which ethnicity you identify with.