By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
o_O.Q on 22 February 2018
Edit Thread
sundin13 said:
o_O.Q said: 

" You cannot prove the existence of biological race by simply utilizing the phenotypic characteristics humans decided to lump together and call a "race". "

well its actually biologists that made that distinction who you are dismissing btw

and yup physical characteristics are indeed what we use to define race

 

from google: Race is a concept used in the categorization of humans into groups, called races or racial groups, based on combinations of shared physical traits, ancestry, genetics, and social or cultural traits.

 

i'm curious though, on what authority are you basing this new definition of race since you are denying biological classifications?

Wikipedia is not a stand in for actual scientific articles. I could also go further and say, the unsupported opinion of some within the scientific community does not overwrite the supported claims of others, just because they more conveniently fit into your worldview. 

"There are two evolutionary theoretical criteria for naturally objective groupings of biological organisms. These are common ancestry and degree of similarity (Mayr and Bock, 2002; Schuh and Brower, 2009; Wiley and Lieberman, 2011; Templeton, 2013). Phylogenetic systematics and Darwinian/evolutionary taxonomy use “common descent” as a criterion for biological classification but the similarity criterion is used only in the latter. Systematics and evolutionary classification are concerned with organic diversity and evolutionary relationships. The assumptions underlying the primary use of neutral markers in human genetic diversity studies suggest that their objective biological meaning needs to be evaluated based on the above two criteria. Yet as researchers increasingly point out, the debate is “free floating” to the extent that what counts as “biological reality” of human races is elusive, ranging from “trivial” to “obscure,” and often construed in a non-Darwinian biological framework (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cooper et al., 2003; Graves, 2011; Maglo, 2011)."

"Accordingly, a taxon of organisms may be said to have an objective independent biological existence in Darwinian classification if either of the following two conditions obtains: (1) It constitutes a phylognetic clade by comprising all, but only all, the descendants of its originating biological common ancestor (Templeton, 1998, 2013; Schuh and Brower, 2009; Claridge, 2010; Mishler, 2010; Maglo, 2011; Wiley and Lieberman, 2011); and/or (2) It has reached a degree of genetic differentiation deemed taxonomically meaningful in system biology (Mayr and Bock, 2002; Keita et al., 2004; Graves, 2011). Thus, it follows from these evolutionary theoretical constraints that races must be evolutionary distinct human subpopulations by virtue of (1) or (2) or some combination of both in order to be a valid biological category."

"In Darwinian classification (but also in phylogenetic systematics), a biological grouping of organisms that does not meet the above criteria is referred to as a wastebasket taxon. It is so called because it is evolutionary unordered and functions in science merely as a “warehouse kind” that taxonomically lumped together disparate organisms having no objectively definable evolutionary relationship. Wastebasket taxa lack natural reality (Parfrey et al., 2006; Schuh and Brower, 2009; Claridge, 2010; Mishler, 2010; Wiley and Lieberman, 2011) and granting them objective biological existence constitutes an erroneous attribution of ontological status called the fallacy of reification (Gannett, 2004, 2014; Duster, 2005; Glasgow, 2009; Maglo and Martin, 2012; Hochman, 2013)."


To assert the biological relevance of the classification of "human race", you must satisfy certain criteria relating to the genetics and ancestry of subpopulations. Without satisfying those criteria, you are simply bundling traits by convenience and committing the fallacy of reification by attempting to pass this off as a meaningfull biological division.

 

we share 96% of our genes with chimpanzees, how does that factor into your argument? i'd seriously like an answer on that

 

"the unsupported opinion of some within the scientific community does not overwrite the supported claims of others"

lol um are you really trying to push the argument that the consensus within the scientific community is not that race is about physical characteristics?

again i'll reiterate the terms causcasoid, negroid and mongoloid came from the scientific community and are accepted and taught as biological terms worldwide... what does that do for your argument?

you have to address that

 

"To assert the biological relevance of the classification of "human race", you must satisfy certain criteria relating to the genetics and ancestry of subpopulations."

and again this is not the definition of race

here is a biology encyclopedia

http://www.biologyreference.com/Ar-Bi/Biology-of-Race.html

 

edit: tbh i didn't read through this entirely before i posted it and it does corroborate your argument

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 22 February 2018