I didn't put it as well but I said that earlier. I don't think it completely negates the idea of race.
Originally posted by: 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. "
Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: aidanjm
does biological sexual orientation exist?
In some ways "race" does exist, depending on how you define it.1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.
Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populationsCaucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoidare now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean ?white? or ?European? rather than ?belonging to the Caucasian race,? a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another, many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.
Originally posted by: Kenazo
Is there a biological difference between a St. Bernard and a poodle?
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Originally posted by: aidanjm
does biological sexual orientation exist?
Yes, you are gay.
Yes, we get this already.
No, this thread is not about being gay, so your post has no reason to be here.
Originally posted by: Turnpike
I don't know why you guys are so adamant about proving that race is biological based. Fact is all our DNA codes for the same things (ie for 5 fingers on each hand) and of course there are variations (melanin production, bone density, hair texture, certain genetic predespositions) but that's only because through certain environments certain populations have survived by expressing certain traits more or less so than others. Yes certain African populations have sickle cell anemia, some Mediterraneans have thalassemia, and some Asians have alcohol dehydrogenase deficiency, but you know what? Not all of the people from those populations have those conditions, and there are plenty of people from other populations that have those conditions, so what explains that? "Race?" No. It's just genetic variation and without different people expressing different genes the human race would not have evolved and survived as it has. People are so quick to judge the differences and overlook the INCREDIBLE amount of resemblances. We all have this physiology and embryonic development that is so extremely complex that it's still mostly a medical mystery/marvel of how get to be how we are.... yet OH NO OUR SKIN COLOR IS DIFFERENT. Look past the .1% of our biological difference and look at the 99.9% similarities we have. Are you going to classify a leukemia patient as a new race because his genes are different in his blood cells? I know it's human nature to group people into categories but that's how discrimination gets it's roots, and so ya I find race to be a completely socially constructed concept. I acknowledge some minute biological/genetic differences in population groups but not the idea that humans can be easily subclassified.
Originally posted by: ManSnake
Originally posted by: bradruth
Caucosoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.
Wrong! There are more than 3. White, Black, Brown, Yellow, Red. 5 total.
Originally posted by: Keyvan
according to my Sociology professor (intro course), there is no biological basis for the concept of "race". the variations that we observe make up a tiny superficial portion of who we are. Although we call ourselves black or white, we are neither black or white.
The idea of racism was made up by those who stood to gain from it.
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: Kenazo
Is there a biological difference between a St. Bernard and a poodle?
Yes
Originally posted by: Kenazo
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: Kenazo
Is there a biological difference between a St. Bernard and a poodle?
Yes
Yet they're the same species, so I'm not sure what the big deal is with people being different races.
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
how come white people cant dunk?
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
how come white people cant dunk?
I've never seen a brown person dunk either.
Originally posted by: Turnpike
I don't know why you guys are so adamant about proving that race is biological based. Fact is all our DNA codes for the same things (ie for 5 fingers on each hand) and of course there are variations (melanin production, bone density, hair texture, certain genetic predespositions) but that's only because through certain environments certain populations have survived by expressing certain traits more or less so than others. Yes certain African populations have sickle cell anemia, some Mediterraneans have thalassemia, and some Asians have alcohol dehydrogenase deficiency, but you know what? Not all of the people from those populations have those conditions, and there are plenty of people from other populations that have those conditions, so what explains that? "Race?" No. It's just genetic variation and without different people expressing different genes the human race would not have evolved and survived as it has. People are so quick to judge the differences and overlook the INCREDIBLE amount of resemblances. We all have this physiology and embryonic development that is so extremely complex that it's still mostly a medical mystery/marvel of how get to be how we are.... yet OH NO OUR SKIN COLOR IS DIFFERENT. Look past the .1% of our biological difference and look at the 99.9% similarities we have. Are you going to classify a leukemia patient as a new race because his genes are different in his blood cells? I know it's human nature to group people into categories but that's how discrimination gets it's roots, and so ya I find race to be a completely socially constructed concept. I acknowledge some minute biological/genetic differences in population groups but not the idea that humans can be easily subclassified.
Originally posted by: DaShen
Originally posted by: Keyvan
according to my Sociology professor (intro course), there is no biological basis for the concept of "race". the variations that we observe make up a tiny superficial portion of who we are. Although we call ourselves black or white, we are neither black or white.
The idea of racism was made up by those who stood to gain from it.
That is the most illogical crap I have ever heard.
Originally posted by: Turnpike
I don't know why you guys are so adamant about proving that race is biological based. Fact is all our DNA codes for the same things (ie for 5 fingers on each hand) and of course there are variations (melanin production, bone density, hair texture, certain genetic predespositions) but that's only because through certain environments certain populations have survived by expressing certain traits more or less so than others. Yes certain African populations have sickle cell anemia, some Mediterraneans have thalassemia, and some Asians have alcohol dehydrogenase deficiency, but you know what? Not all of the people from those populations have those conditions, and there are plenty of people from other populations that have those conditions, so what explains that? "Race?" No. It's just genetic variation and without different people expressing different genes the human race would not have evolved and survived as it has. People are so quick to judge the differences and overlook the INCREDIBLE amount of resemblances. We all have this physiology and embryonic development that is so extremely complex that it's still mostly a medical mystery/marvel of how get to be how we are.... yet OH NO OUR SKIN COLOR IS DIFFERENT. Look past the .1% of our biological difference and look at the 99.9% similarities we have. Are you going to classify a leukemia patient as a new race because his genes are different in his blood cells? I know it's human nature to group people into categories but that's how discrimination gets it's roots, and so ya I find race to be a completely socially constructed concept. I acknowledge some minute biological/genetic differences in population groups but not the idea that humans can be easily subclassified.
Originally posted by: DaShen
Originally posted by: Keyvan
according to my Sociology professor (intro course), there is no biological basis for the concept of "race". the variations that we observe make up a tiny superficial portion of who we are. Although we call ourselves black or white, we are neither black or white.
The idea of racism was made up by those who stood to gain from it.
That is the most illogical crap I have ever heard.