Do you date out of your race?

[NumberSix]

Its very difficult to concretely group organisms across the board at any classification level. But as a practical definition, everyone understands what "race" means on a human sociological level. It doesnt mean it has to matter for anything. But its silly to pretend its some made up concoction.

Herds the confusion. Scientific race isn't the same as sociological race. When people say "there is no race" that is referring to the sociological perception of race. The problem though is people who just repeat what they hear don't understand the difference.

[boozehound]

You're very ignorant of science. Humans are animals like anything else. There is no reason to not classify us the same as any other animal.

The "there's more variation within than between" is true, but you're misinterpreting what that means.

First, variation within what? If there are no races, what's the "within"?

Second, when you say there is more variation within a race, think of that like variation between vehicles. Think cares and motorcycles. They are different things, but there is more variation within. There are millions of variations within cars. There is only a finite difference between a car and a motorcycle. Example, cars have a steering wheel and motorcycles don't. That's 1 variation, but within cars there's are thousands of different steering wheels. Obviously a steering wheel is more like another steering wheel than a non-steering wheel but within steering wheels there are thousands of more variations. There is more cation in numbers but not in degree of variation.

why are you comparing vehicles to reproductive species. sub-species is a defined term and human races (also defined) dont make it. Go look it up, races are not scientifically valid (now, yes, we can use them as a cultural grouping or classification)

yes, I am ignorant of human genetics and science in general. please educate me.

[boozehound]

Herds the confusion. Scientific race isn't the same as sociological race. When people say "there is no race" that is referring to the sociological perception of race. The problem though is people who just repeat what they hear don't understand the difference.

no, its not. sociological race is real. scientific race (among existing anatomically modern humans) is not biologically valid.

[NumberSix]

why are you comparing vehicles to reproductive species. sub-species is a defined term and human races (also defined) dont make it. Go look it up, races are not scientifically valid (now, yes, we can use them as a cultural grouping or classification)

yes, I am ignorant of human genetics and science in general. please educate me.

I don't know why you insist on posing as if you know what you're talking about when you know that you don't.

Subspecies actually is not a "defined term". There is no concrete criteria. Only loose criteria. The main one being visibly distinguishable, which human races are and the other being unique DNA characteristics, which human races also qualify.

Why you're getting confused is you believe in the old "white is a race" and "black is a race". Those are not races. THAT is what it means when it is said that there is no biological foundation for THOSE to be subspecies.

[ILLsmak]

Curiosity. The only girl I dated was my religion and race.

yes. But I don't deny my own kind either.

-Smak

[NumberSix]

yes. But I don't deny my own kind either.

-Smak

Would you date a girl that writes "-smak" after EVERY post?

[Inactive]

Herds the confusion. Scientific race isn't the same as sociological race. When people say "there is no race" that is referring to the sociological perception of race. The problem though is people who just repeat what they hear don't understand the difference.

You have it backwards. When people say there is no race, they're referring to biological classifications of race, within the human species. Not sociological, or anthropological.

You're repeating junk from late 19th/early 20th century anthropology. "Scientists" also claimed they could predict personality traits based on phrenology, and physiognomy back then.

If you divide people into races based on genetics, then most of the races would have to be African. There is more genetic diversity on the African continent than there is in the rest of the world combined.

Almost every relatively large human population (e.g a nation-state, or ethnic group) has virtually every allele that any other population has. So your distinctions would have to be based on the allele frequencies, not isolated traits. Then you're stuck arbitrarily deciding which alleles, at which frequency, define which race. Unfortunately, your races wouldn't correlate very well with popular notions of race, and ethnicity. For example, Icelanders might not fit into the same race as Scandinavians, and French Canadians might not fit into the same race as the French, due to the combination of geographical separation, and environmental variation. The variation within a single country might even result in this problem. For example, maybe the alleles frequencies in England overall put them into race x, but the allele frequencies in Kent would put their population in race y, and the allele frequencies in Yorkshire would put their population in race z. When you get down to classifying individuals, it gets even worse.

[Myth]

Hmmm... I'd consider it.

[NumberSix]

You have it backwards. When people say there is no race, they're referring to biological classifications of race, within the human species. Not sociological, or anthropological.

You're again misunderstanding.

When I say sociological race is not real, I mean that THAT is a social construct. THAT has no biological legitimacy.

There are biological race classifications that most people aren't aware of even existing. THOSE are real.

You seem to be stuck on phenotypes. That is not what we're talking about.

[Inactive]

You're again misunderstanding.

When I say sociological race is not real, I mean that THAT is a social construct. THAT has no biological legitimacy.

There are biological race classifications that most people aren't aware of even existing. THOSE are real.

What are they? Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid aren't biological race classifications.

[NumberSix]

What are they? Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid aren't biological race classifications.

And why is that?

[Inactive]

And why is that?

You could just as easily classify people according to how their toes are shaped, how big their ***** are, or any other arbitrary physical characteristic. And they did. Anthropologists came up with different racial categorizations all the time.

Anthropologists used arbitrary physical features to distinguish between people, because that was all they had to go by. Now that we can sequence genomes, and actually see how people are related, their old ideas have been convincingly discredited.

[NumberSix]

You could just as easily classify people according to how their toes are shaped, how big their ***** are, or any other arbitrary physical characteristic. And they did. Anthropologists came up with different racial categorizations all the time.

Anthropologists used arbitrary physical features to distinguish between people, because that was all they had to go by. Now that we can sequence genomes, and actually see how people are related, their old ideas have been convincingly discredited.

You seem to have this idea that in order for things to be classified as "subspecies", they have to be drastically different. For people familiar with the field, this is known to obviously not be the case. All it means is an observable difference. If you can tell one from the other. That's all. People from geographic region A are observably recognizable from people from geographic region B. It's not difficult to understand.




If these are classified as separate subspecies, I don't see how doing the same for humans is any different.

[Solidape]

Curiosity. The only girl I dated was my religion and race.

You'd have to be a real dummy to deny all of gods hot chicks in all colors and creeds. I feel sorry for people that limit their choices.

[LJJ]

I've only twice dated a girl of my own ethnicity, I don't know why.