The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea

So, for instance, when a certain group of people complain that they are the victims of racial profiling by law enforcement, that charge should be ignored because the determination of what constitutes race itself is "ultimately arbitrary and subjective"?

 

Yes. By denying race - political correctness, civil rights and affirmative action can be opposed. Here's an interesting read:

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/20/how...rblindness_and_set_civil_rights_back_decades/

 

Hmm...

Brace was telling the truth about Rushton's hilarious suggestion that if Aliens came to Earth to study human beings they would reach the same conclusions he did.

He is also right that Rushton never mentions the word cline in the book.

Rshton's definition of race does define race by common descent as well as being synonymous with subspecies. He does say that they can be distinguished be physical characteristics and molecular genetic information.

Lieberman pointed out the problems with this assessment.

 

He was lying that that was the definition.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_(race)_in_the_United_States#Support_of_color_blindness

 

You seriously need to get help with that Asperger syndrome. You spam "liar" or "lying" in nearly every post.

 

I think the human race concept is invalid because I believe that the difference between the so-called races is actually enough to qualify the 'races' into separate and distinct species. We are all of the same genus, and all members of the human family, but we are not all the same species according to the classification by not just phonetics (classification by appearances only) but by phylogeny (evolutionary history). (I do not believe in the Eve proposal, and I have read that there are as many as seven Eves.) The very word "race" is not even found in the classification system ; and it did not come into being until Trotsky made it up.

 

What you are saying was discredited a long time ago. You're going back to Karl Vogt.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racial_polyphyletism

 

Leon Trotsky did not make up the word race. You're probably confusing that with the claim he made up the word racism which itself has been discredited. The word race is very old and synonymous with words such as "breed, lineage and family." The claim that human biological variation structures in to biological races has been refuted (Templeton, 2013). The human species descends from one evolutionary lineage with minimal interbreeding between modern humans and archaic humans such as Neanderthal and Denisovans (Currata and Excoffier, 2011). Demographic groups called races do not meet the phylogenetic criteria for classification as subspecies (Keita, 2004). We are all of the same species and there are no subspecies within the human population. There is also no evolutionary basis for assuming genetically determined racial differences in intelligence or health disparities (Graves, 2015).

 

I don't even know who Karl Vogt is. Never heard of him. I was reading about taxonomy and classifications in a book about beetles and about what criteria is used to classify insects, fish and animals into different species. According to the rules the 'races' can be classified into different species according to differences among us.
1. A species is a group of organisms that have a unique evolutionary history.
2. Inhabit a unique geographical area.
3. Occupy a biological niche to the exclusion of their nearest relative
4. Are distinguished by a combination of biochemical, morphological and behavioral features;
5. Procreate to produce sexually viable offspring.

1. The three main species Caucasians, Asians and Africans took unique evolutionary pathways. This can be seen in their genetic makeup. We are told we are all descended from a woman in Africa; but there is a book called the "Seven Sisters of Eve" which argues against a universal mitochondrial DNA (Eve) from Africa, and instead argues in favor of eight mitochondrial DNA pathways, or eight actual Eves. Our genetics are different enough to ascertain which 'race', or IMO, which species and subspecies we are without ever laying eyes on us. This is the result of distinct genetic evolutions. Then there is the fact that our civilizations evolved in very unique ways, and IMO, this can be included in different evolutionary pathways.

2. Before the advent of mass communication like planes, boats, trains, and even horses, the three main groups, Asians, Caucasians and Africans occupied very different geographically locations. Beside the specific geographical locations of the three main species, the advent of communication and its evolution could also be considered as part of the different evolutionary civilizational pathways that we took. Some of us remained at home, and some of us took off to explore.

3. Concerning the distinct biological niches, one instance comes to mind, and that is the fact that Caucasians grew and ate wild deer, rabbit, etc. and grew wheat and ate tubers like potatoes. Asians ate rice (not wheat), wild animals and shell fish. Africans ate wild tubers, fish, and distinct wild animals. They did not eat wheat or rice.

4. The three main species are different biochemically. Their genetics are different. You can tell by a genetic test whether one is white, black or Asian, or, IMO, any of the subspecies like the Native Americans and people from India. Africans are known to have more testosterone than whites, and whites have more than Asians. Africans have a higher incident of heart disease and diabetes. Whites have to have more vitamin D than the other races; and on and on it goes. Some of us have lots of melanin, and some people don't.

The three main races are also different morphologically--from thin lips, to slanted eyes, to broad noses, to black hair and eyes versus light colored hair and eyes.

Behaviorally we are all different. Some us are more curious, and creative than the other two, some more reserved and precise, some more rambunctious and strong. We all enjoyed very different types of music--from flutes, and drums, to lyres. Our musical tastes evolved differently too. Some races stuck with the tried and true, and some ventured out and created more and more complex instruments and musical forms. Asians did not play the violin, or piano, and Caucasians did not play the drums.

5. And finally, we all produce sexually viable offspring.

Some people would call this claim of three different main species as racist, even though the word race is only a hundred years old. I don't think there is anything racist about saying that we are different species. We are obviously all of the same family and genus, but there are enough differences in genetics, biological niches, morphological, behavioral, and biochemical traits between the three main groups of people that it should not be hard, all things considered, to call the Asians, Africans and Caucasians different species.

 

I stand corrected on the word race. Etymologically its origins are unknown but it has been around for awhile. I still believe that Trotsky invented the word racist, and that this claim is not anti-Semitic in nature, it is the truth.
As far as phylogenetics and all of us being from the same lineage, that claim has been refuted by some scientists. Read the Seven Sisters of Eve , a book that looks at the possibility of eight lines of lineage, according to mitochondrial DNA. Your statement about all being from the exact same lineage is the PC theory, and is rarely argued against by anthropologist, or geneticists for fear of losing their jobs. I posted a further post that list all the criteria for listing animals, insects, birds and fish into different species, and the different 'races' fit all the criteria for being distinct species, albeit, from the same genus and family.

 

What about pygmies? They wouldn't be considered a subspecies?

 

No, they would not.

 

Why is that? According to Wikipedia they diverged genetically from the main human population over 60,000 years ago. That's far longer than dogs and wolves.

 

Only somebody who is truly a moron would say that there is no such thing as "race." But when it gets right down to it, there isn't. What is referred to as different "races" of human are in fact different "species" of human. Being able to sucessfully defend this position, I of course wouldn't be allowed to discuss it here. Or at most other forums. At least not for very long. But if you ever get a hold of this jerkoff Robert Sussman, have him take a gander at the threads I will include. Tell him to enter the titles into his browser and find a forum whare the author isn't banned and debate him on the matter.

 

So how do you explain the findings that Europeans have much more neanderthal DNA then other groups? Implication being that in fact we are different on a genetic level with other groups of humans.

 

Modern humans and Neanderthal were able to interbreed according to recent genetic research however this admixture represents about 1-4% of non-African ancestry and isn't of evolutionary significance.

 

Convenient conjecture.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...s-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/

"It seems quite compelling that as modern humans left Africa, met Neanderthals, and exchanged genes, we picked up adaptive variants in some genes that conferred an advantage in local climatic conditions," says Joshua Akey, who led the study in Science.

 

Anatomical modernity didn't have an exclusive origin from Africa. For example, some AMH traits such as dental-size reduction first appear in the European fossil record. Its just that since Africa had the largest population-size during the Pleistocene, most AMH traits first appeared there:

"Many 'modern' traits (such as high, rounded skulls; small brow ridges; a vertical forehead; and a noticeable chin) first appear in Africa about 130,000 years ago, followed by an expansion out-of-Africa more than 90,000 years ago." (Templeton, 2002)

But many, is not all.

 

Yes, but Neanderthal admixture during the Upper Palaeolithic was more than 1-4%. So the OOA theory (which only allows for negligible Neanderthal admixture) has been falsified:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/full/nature14558.html

"In the past Neandertal genes were more common in Europe than they are today. This is in line with various contentions that many if not most Neolithic populations in Europe came from western Asia. European Neolithic populations were largely a consequence of population replacement and subsequent expansion: some 70 percent of the Neolithic settlements are of Levantine origin (Chihki et al. 2002), Neolithic hunter-gatherers of northern Europe have a genetic profile that is not often found in living populations of the region, continued Neolithic gene flow between farmers from western Asia and local and hunter-gatherer populations created the current pattern of genetic variation (Skoglund et al. 2012)." (Wolpoff & Caspari, 2013)

 

ALL your points are total Leftist/Revisionist BS.
There are, of course, Human races/subspecies, and this can be seen both morphologically and genetically.
ie, Your example, Chimps.
There are 2 Chimp Species and 4 chimp subspecies/races. Human subspecies/Races have about the same genetic distance as chimps do, and much greater Morphological difference than they do.

Many subspecies have less Genetic and morphological difference than humans do, yet have agreed on delimited subspecies/Races.

Perhaps the world's foremost Genetic/Species/Evolution expert and author of the standard text 'Speciation.'

Credentials

Article
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/
Jerry Coyne

And he is Understating the case lest his rep/career be damaged by his un-PC opinion (see my next and possibly more)

Evangelical Creationists believe Evo never happened...
Liberal Creationists demand it stopped 200,000 years ago.
Both are blinded by ulterior motives
+

 

Pt 2, from a Forensic anthropologist who uses (non-ex!stent!) Race every day, and in actual Legal cases.
Hrumph!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html
with two Differing opinions. I post the latter from someone who necessarily/Practically/Forensically deals with race.
George Gill, the Hands-on proponent:

EDIT: Who knows what immediately below poster is talking about.
Just vaguely related undocumented .. something.
+

 

Forensic science may be evolving rapidly in recent years and I recently came across an academic paper in forensic science that delved into DNA and haplogroups, which I thought incomprehensive for forensic scientists. Old racial classifications such as the Pontid subrace would become obsolete in anthropology as well.