o_O.Q said:
1) " I am clearly speaking about genetic variation, not variation in physical characteristics" physical characteristics are directly tied to genetics... where did you think physical characteristics came from?
2) " And the confusion between the two is one of the inherent weaknesses of racial classification based on skin color." ... wtf i was joking, are you trying to tell me that you can't tell the difference between someone who is tanned and someone that actually has dark skin? you're being serious right?
3) ", when I have repeatedly stated that genetics are key to the biological reality of race, not skin color." are you really trying to separate skin colour from genetics? lol
4) " The fact that people use flawed methods for determining biological race is sort of the crux of the problem here. Physical variation is not the determinant of race. To use it as such is to perform a flawed categorization." well the whole world has that understanding, you are one of the very few who does not
5) " in regards to sunburns due to skin pigmentation, not due to the "race"" so... i'm confused here, are you denying that people from africa have more melanin than people from europe? i mean you're posting this like if you're on the vanguard of some new science that's just figured melanin out, the point is that the amount melanin present varies between black people and white people due to genetic differences
6) "because you refuse to understand that the biological concept of race is not determined by physical characteristics." so the groupings caucasian, negroid and mongoloid are not biological concepts this is what i got from google negroid : Negroid (also known as Congoid) is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon caucasian The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, or Europid) is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon, which, depending on which of the historical race classifications used, have usually included some or all of the ancient and modern populations of Europe so again... wtf are you talking about? these are biological terms that were derived from studying the physical differences in the races
7) "You are applying characteristics to the social divisions of race" um... you see that black woman up there? can you logically describe for me what social factors led to her having different characteristic to the white woman
"First, the biological basis of race must be proven. Second, the broad relevance of this distinction must be proven. You seem to have skipped the first two steps in this debate and replaced them with your own personal worldview. " well jesus christ dude, if you can't open your eyes and observe the obvious wtf am i supposed to do? |
1) But all genetics aren't directly tied to physical characterisitics, so I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. They are not the same thing. Again, I'll use your "Penguin wing" as an example. Physically, it may be considered to have more in common with the flipper of an animal such as a sea turtle, but genetically, it is more similar to a wing.
2) Depends. Not all "black" people have the same skin tone.
3) See #1
4) Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy
5) I am saying the application of skin color to sunburns is self-evident and doesn't require any knowledge of genetics or ancestry. Similarly, there are plenty of people who would be considered "white" who don't burn easily, while others do burn easily. Answering the question "what race are you" provides less information than simply looking at the person's skin color.
6) See my earlier post which demonstrates how the idea of race is not substantially supported by biology. Race is largely an outdated classification system which does not largely take in the biological reality of race into picture. As for your definitions, they do not serve as proof of the existence of biological race without the actual evidence to back it up. And again, biological race doesn't simply mean "different skin color".
7) This discussion would flow a lot more smoothly if you actually read what I wrote. The strange part is, in trying to argue against my point, you make the same error that I was calling you out for making. You are utilizing the existence of race as a starting point, where it first must be proven. You cannot prove the existence of biological race by simply utilizing the phenotypic characteristics humans decided to lump together and call a "race". Humanity has numerous characteristics which they could be grouped by, however, the presence of those groupings is not evidence that those groupings are biologically meaningful. That must be proven by a study of genetic diversity, using more genes than just the ones for a handful of physical characteristics that you find convenient.
8) In order to demonstrate the existence of races, distinct genetic populations must be observed. This is not the case in humanity. Instead, genetic variation exists as a cline, which means instead of distinct populations, humans exist as a continuum with little in the way of breaks in that continuum. Further, genetic variation is also found within continents at a level matching or exceeding genetic variation between continents, indicating that there is not sufficient diversity between continental populations to satisfying the biological criteria of race. If you think that you can simply use your eyes to observe whether or not genetic variation exists at a level significant enough to differentiate humanity into "races", you clearly don't understand what you are talking about
All that said, I think I'm done with you. I can only tolerate someone blatantly misrepresenting or misunderstanding my words for so long before any hope of a real conversation is lost. I can only suggest that you read the articles about genetics and race I posted earlier to maybe gain some minor understanding of the of the science behind the determination of "biological race".
