Does biological race exist or is it a social construct?

[RCN]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

People of African ancestry have a high occurence of sickle cell, a high occurence of dark skin, a high occurrence of greater bone density in the females when compared to other "races" along with a different hip geometry, and a high occurrence of unique bone structure relative to other "races".

All of those traits are not unique to people of african ancestry (everyone on earth). People in India also have dark skin, etc...

I'm curious. Can you tell me why I am white?

Ummm...yes. Your ancestor's skin lightened to allow for better UV absorbtion.

but I would develop no other traits in the same manner?

 

[Ronstang]

PC has risen to a whole new level of utter uselessness when someone tries to convince others that race is "all in the mind". Science disagrees with you and if you happen to find science that backs up your claim I guarantee it is nothing more than agenda based science which has become so prevelant since people became bored and distasteful of the truth when it doesn't fit into their beliefs.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: RCN
Cool....now tell me why it would develop in certain regions

Sickle cell makes a person more resistant to malaria. It's predominant in a lot of malarial regions, although is still occurs at a lower percentage in the rest of the general population.

 

[SampSon]

Or a whole list of related articles.

Race is biological, arguing otherwise is kind of foolish unless you're an expert in the field, which I'm guessing none of you are even close to being.

 

[dighn]

Ugh... how can some people convince themselves that there are no races? It's like burying your head in sand. There are very distinct differences between different races of people. It's not racist to admit this! Most of these differences are superficial and are of no significance. We are still mostly the same, after all we are the same species.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: RCN
Cool....now tell me why it would develop in certain regions

Sickle cell makes a person more resistant to malaria. It's predominant in a lot of malarial regions, although is still occurs at a lower percentage in the rest of the general population.

So it would be like an evolutionary trait?

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

People of African ancestry have a high occurence of sickle cell, a high occurence of dark skin, a high occurrence of greater bone density in the females when compared to other "races" along with a different hip geometry, and a high occurrence of unique bone structure relative to other "races".

All of those traits are not unique to people of african ancestry (everyone on earth). People in India also have dark skin, etc...

But the vast majority of people who carry sickle cell are of african ancestry, this is basically fact.

What about the studies that show asians lack a gene that helps in breaking down alcohol?
That is confined basically to the asian race.

Well we are all of african ancestry but if you meant that "the vast majority of people who carry sickle cell are" black, then you are also incorrect.

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

What about sickle cell?

Sickle cell is present in a number of ethnic groups.

Not really. It is mostly confined to African ancestry and some mediterranean peoples. I think we can figure out why the latter would occur. Nobody is saying that races cannot pass genes / traits to other races.

Africans did not pass the sickle cell gene to other races. The gene evolved separately in both races due to obvious reasons.

Cool....now tell me why it would develop in certain regions

malaria. couldn't you have just used google.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

People of African ancestry have a high occurence of sickle cell, a high occurence of dark skin, a high occurrence of greater bone density in the females when compared to other "races" along with a different hip geometry, and a high occurrence of unique bone structure relative to other "races".

All of those traits are not unique to people of african ancestry (everyone on earth). People in India also have dark skin, etc...

But the vast majority of people who carry sickle cell are of african ancestry, this is basically fact.

What about the studies that show asians lack a gene that helps in breaking down alcohol?
That is confined basically to the asian race.

Well we are all of african ancestry but if you meant that "the vast majority of people who carry sickle cell are" black, then you are also incorrect.

Just hit the links I posted. They have to do with "ethnic variation as a key to the biology of human disease".
If that article isn't nail on the head for this thread, than nothing is.

Here I'll post it again.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

What about sickle cell?

Sickle cell is present in a number of ethnic groups.

Not really. It is mostly confined to African ancestry and some mediterranean peoples. I think we can figure out why the latter would occur. Nobody is saying that races cannot pass genes / traits to other races.

Africans did not pass the sickle cell gene to other races. The gene evolved separately in both races due to obvious reasons.

Cool....now tell me why it would develop in certain regions

malaria. couldn't you have just used google.

:roll:
There was no need to.

So people develop certain traits depending on region/ external factors. Is it so hard to take the next step and say that peoples who developed in relative isolation would have developed a subset of traits with a relative high occurrence?

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

What about sickle cell?

Sickle cell is present in a number of ethnic groups.

Not really. It is mostly confined to African ancestry and some mediterranean peoples. I think we can figure out why the latter would occur. Nobody is saying that races cannot pass genes / traits to other races.

Africans did not pass the sickle cell gene to other races. The gene evolved separately in both races due to obvious reasons.

Cool....now tell me why it would develop in certain regions

malaria. couldn't you have just used google.

:roll:
There was no need to.

So people develop certain traits depending on region/ external factors. Is it so hard to take the next step and say that peoples who developed in relative isolation would have developed a subset of traits with a relative high occurrence?

Don't ask a question if you don't need an answer. Platonic inquisition is condescending.

I am not saying that ethnic traits do not exist. I am simply stating that a species sub-classification is not warranted by those differences (e.g. race).

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: RCN
Cool....now tell me why it would develop in certain regions

Sickle cell makes a person more resistant to malaria. It's predominant in a lot of malarial regions, although is still occurs at a lower percentage in the rest of the general population.

So it would be like an evolutionary trait?

Sickle cell is a genetic defect that has the upside of making a person more resistant to malaria. From a modern perspective it is a defect only because we now have better ways of defeating malaria but modern medicine hasn't been around that long remember.

People didn't evolve the gene in response to malaria. That isn't how it works. The percentage of people carying the sickle cell gene is pretty much at a balance between the benefits it gives vs. the detriments of having it. The gene was there through some mutation and it happened to have some benifit so it propogated. It also had some drawback so it didn't propogate especially well. It does better in malarial regions because it gives people more benefit there.

Natural selection at work.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

What about sickle cell?

Sickle cell is present in a number of ethnic groups.

Not really. It is mostly confined to African ancestry and some mediterranean peoples. I think we can figure out why the latter would occur. Nobody is saying that races cannot pass genes / traits to other races.

Africans did not pass the sickle cell gene to other races. The gene evolved separately in both races due to obvious reasons.

Cool....now tell me why it would develop in certain regions

malaria. couldn't you have just used google.

:roll:
There was no need to.

So people develop certain traits depending on region/ external factors. Is it so hard to take the next step and say that peoples who developed in relative isolation would have developed a subset of traits with a relative high occurrence?

Don't ask a question if you don't need an answer. Platonic inquisition is condescending.

I am not saying that ethnic traits do not exist. I am simply stating that a species sub-classification is not warranted by those differences (e.g. race).

I guess that depends on the context of sub-classification. I can see a medical purpose.

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: RCN
Cool....now tell me why it would develop in certain regions

Sickle cell makes a person more resistant to malaria. It's predominant in a lot of malarial regions, although is still occurs at a lower percentage in the rest of the general population.

So it would be like an evolutionary trait?

Sickle cell is a genetic defect that has the upside of making a person more resistant to malaria. From a modern perspective it is a defect only because we now have better ways of defeating malaria but modern medicine hasn't been around that long remember.

People didn't evolve the gene in response to malaria. That isn't how it works. The percentage of people carying the sickle cell gene is pretty much at a balance between the benefits it gives vs. the detriments of having it. The gene was there through some mutation and it happened to have some benifit so it propogated. It also had some drawback so it didn't propogate especially well. It does better in malarial regions because it gives people more benefit there.

Natural selection at work.

I don't thing the poster was looking for an answer.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: RCN
Cool....now tell me why it would develop in certain regions

Sickle cell makes a person more resistant to malaria. It's predominant in a lot of malarial regions, although is still occurs at a lower percentage in the rest of the general population.

So it would be like an evolutionary trait?

Sickle cell is a genetic defect that has the upside of making a person more resistant to malaria. From a modern perspective it is a defect only because we now have better ways of defeating malaria but modern medicine hasn't been around that long remember.


Natural selection at work.

I know how it works. The point was why it exist.

 

[swimscubasteve]

malaria. couldn't you have just used google.[/quote]

:roll:
There was no need to.

So people develop certain traits depending on region/ external factors. Is it so hard to take the next step and say that peoples who developed in relative isolation would have developed a subset of traits with a relative high occurrence?

[/quote]

Don't ask a question if you don't need an answer. Platonic inquisition is condescending.

I am not saying that ethnic traits do not exist. I am simply stating that a species sub-classification is not warranted by those differences (e.g. race).[/quote]

I guess that depends on the context of sub-classification. I can see a medical purpose.

[/quote]

Then there should be a race of fat people, tall people, or any other group that has a genetic cause of a higher susceptibility for a specific disease.

My point being that just because a group of people share a few traits does not mean that that the group of people composes a race.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve
I don't thing the poster was looking for an answer.

If he didn't want an answer then perhaps he should refrain from asking questions.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: RCN
I know how it works. The point was why it exist.

I love how you snipped out the part saying that isn't how it works and followed it up with I know how it works. :roll:

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve
I don't thing the poster was looking for an answer.

If he didn't want an answer then perhaps he should refrain from asking questions.

Yeah well....

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve


malaria. couldn't you have just used google.

:roll:
There was no need to.

So people develop certain traits depending on region/ external factors. Is it so hard to take the next step and say that peoples who developed in relative isolation would have developed a subset of traits with a relative high occurrence?

[/quote]

Don't ask a question if you don't need an answer. Platonic inquisition is condescending.

I am not saying that ethnic traits do not exist. I am simply stating that a species sub-classification is not warranted by those differences (e.g. race).[/quote]

I guess that depends on the context of sub-classification. I can see a medical purpose.

[/quote]

Then there should be a race of fat people, tall people, or any other group that has a genetic cause of a higher susceptibility for a specific disease.

My point being that just because a group of people share a few traits does not mean that that the group of people composes a race.[/quote]

Look, I understand what you are saying but I don't agree. Did you read the stuff Sampson posted? I believe a sub-classification no matter what you would like to call it has its use. Targeted medicines for example.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: RCN
I know how it works. The point was why it exist.

I love how you snipped out the part saying that isn't how it works and followed it up with I know how it works. :roll:

Yeah cause everybody reads the quoted text. :roll: Put your tin foil hat back on.

You can find previous post of mine saying that evolution has no agenda and the traits we possess are a result of propogation through natural selection.


Anyway the point wasn't to start an arguement over natural selection but that a trait has the potential to propogate in a region in which there are other shared traits gradually adding to the list.

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve


malaria. couldn't you have just used google.

:roll:
There was no need to.

So people develop certain traits depending on region/ external factors. Is it so hard to take the next step and say that peoples who developed in relative isolation would have developed a subset of traits with a relative high occurrence?

Don't ask a question if you don't need an answer. Platonic inquisition is condescending.

I am not saying that ethnic traits do not exist. I am simply stating that a species sub-classification is not warranted by those differences (e.g. race).[/quote]

I guess that depends on the context of sub-classification. I can see a medical purpose.

[/quote]

Then there should be a race of fat people, tall people, or any other group that has a genetic cause of a higher susceptibility for a specific disease.

My point being that just because a group of people share a few traits does not mean that that the group of people composes a race.[/quote]

Look, I understand what you are saying but I don't agree. Did you read the stuff Sampson posted? I believe a sub-classification no matter what you would like to call it has its use. Targeted medicines for example.



[/quote]

Sure, of course that is correct but labeling those different groups as races is dangerous and divisive. Just call them what they are - ethnic variations. Like the article states "It is now clear that the classic concept of race established by the founders of physical anthropology is invalid."

 

[necine]

Anthropology Society

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: necine
Anthropology Society

Very well written. I found this particularly interesting:

"Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. "

 

[necine]

PLEASE OP, DEFINE RACE before you ask if it exists. If you mean are there groups of people with different skin color, and hair texture; Yes, race does exist. The current scientific consensus is that RACE does not exist, however schemas do exist: of variation based on sunlight, climate, exposure to disease and pests.