Hippiekinkster
Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
quote:
ORIGINAL: hlen5
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
There are three, negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid.
You are as wrong about this as you are GCC.
And you're as wrong on that as you are on GCC.
They were still teaching these three "races" when I took Sociology years and years ago.
I would argue there is just one race. If we were truly different "races", one wouldn't be able to reproduce with either of the other two, would they?
That's exactly right. Pops is regurgitating that 19th century bullshit that the Eugenecists promulgated. I really don't even think he's capable of understanding genetics. I know he's incapable of understanding climate science.
And you're making things up. Just like in "GCC" or whatever they're calling it this week. We were taught that in 7th grade science class in 1964. In Massachusetts.
Unless God snuck in another race or two since then and didn't tell anyone there are still three.
How many do you think there are, "85?"
Note to Mod: I am excerpting, and not citing the entire article.
This is definitive. Lewontin is from Harvard, in MA, old man.
"Over the last thirty five years a major change has taken place in our biological understanding of the concept of human “race,” largely as a consequence of an immense increase in our knowledge of human genetics. As a biological rather than a social construct, “race” has ceased to be seen as a fundamental reality characterizing the human species. Nevertheless, there appear from time to time claims that racial categories represent not arbitrary socially and historically defined groups but objective biological divisions based on genetic differences. The most recent widely noticed rebirth of such claims is an essay by Armand Marie Leroi on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times (March 14, 2005), an essay that illustrates both the classical confusions about the reality of racial categories and the more recent erroneous conclusions about the relevance of such racial identifications for medical practice.
There are four facts about human variation upon which there is universal agreement. First, the human species as a whole has immense genetic variation from individual to individual. Any two unrelated human beings differ by about 3 million distinct DNA variants.
Second, by far the largest amount of that variation, about 85%, is among individuals within local national or linguistic populations, within the French, within the Kikuyu, within the Japanese. There is diversity from population to population in how much genetic variation each contains, depending upon how much immigration into the population has occurred from a variety of other groups and also on the size of the population. The United States, with a very large population whose ancestors came from all over the earth including the original inhabitants of the New World, is genetically very variable whereas small populations of local Amazonian tribes are less genetically variable, although they are by no means genetically uniform. Despite the differences in amount of genetic variation within local populations, the finding that on the average 85% of all human genetic variation is within local populations has been a remarkably consistent result of independent studies carried out over twenty-five years using data from both proteins and DNA.
Of the remaining 15% of human variation, between a quarter and a half is between local populations within classically defined human “races,” between the French and the Ukrainians, between the Kikuyu and the Ewe, between the Japanese and the Koreans. The remaining variation, about 6% to 10% of the total human variation is between the classically defined geographical races that we think of in an everyday sense as identified by skin color, hair form, and nose shape. This imprecision in assigning the proportion of variation assigned to differences among population within ”races” as compared to variation among “races,” arises precisely because there is no objective way to assign the various human populations to clear-cut races. Into which “race” do the Hindi and Urdu speakers of the Indian sub-continent fall? Should they be grouped with Europeans or with Asians or should a separate race be assigned to them? Are the Lapps of Finland and the Hazari of Afghanistan really Europeans or Asians? What about Indonesians and Melanesians? Different biologists have made different assignments and the number of “races” assigned by anthropologists and geneticists has varied from 3 to 30.
Third, a small number of genetic traits, such as skin color, hair form, nose shape (traits for which the genes have not actually been identified) and a relatively few proteins like the Rh blood type, vary together so that many populations with very dark skin color will also have dark tightly curled hair, broad noses and a high frequency of the Rh blood type R0. Those who, like Leroi, argue for the objective reality of racial divisions claim that when such covariation is taken into account, clear-cut racial divisions will appear and that these divisions will correspond largely to the classical division of the world into Whites, Blacks, Yellows, Reds and Browns. It is indeed possible to combine the information from covarying traits into weighted averages that take account of the traits' covariation (technically known as "principal components" of variation). When this has been done, however, the results have not borne out the claims for racial divisions. The geographical maps of principal component values constructed by Cavalli, Menozzi and Piazza in their famous The History and Geography of Human Genes show continuous variation over the whole world with no sharp boundaries and with no greater similarity occurring between Western and Eastern Europeans than between Europeans and Africans! Thus, the classically defined races do not appear from an unprejudiced description of human variation. Only the Australian Aborigines appear as a unique group." http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/
Further"The growing realization in the middle of the twentieth century that most species had some genetic differentiation from local population to local population led finally to the abandonment in biology of any hope that a uniform criterion of race could be constructed."
Are you able to understand this, Pops?
< Message edited by Hippiekinkster -- 3/27/2011 7:41:38 PM >
_____________________________
"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin
“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne
|
RE: Your Race; My Race; The Human Race - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread