waynewex Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 It has no biological significance whatsoever. Agree or disagree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xylex Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I'd disagree. Black people seem to always have darker skin than me, a pretty big biological difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynewex Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 Yea but does darker skin point towards the biological significance of race? Phenotypes can change regardless of racial heritage, so how can we use phenotypes to define race? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Biologically a race is a subset of a species. Organisms in the same species, but in distinct races have certain differences in their biological traits but their chromosomes are still sufficiently similar that reproduction across these races is indeed possible. Really it's a kind of inbreeding over a long period of time within that particular group of species. Typically you say that organisms of same species is capable of having offspring. Of course you can go bang a donkey, but it's biologically impossible to result in any offspring and that makes donkeys and humans different species. If too races would get completely isolated for a long time (or just for whatever reason not cross-breed at all) this would eventually result in the development of two distinct species and the two groups would no longer be able to cross-breed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynewex Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 An interesting link worth reading: NowPublic.com quoting the Human Genome Project Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynewex Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 Also, yes, I am aware that the source is obviously biased ("Although many people, particularly the white-news media, act as though they are unaware of it"). Try to focus on the sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 What do you mean by biological significance of race? And yes, phenotypes can change regardless of racial heritage, but they're linked to genetic inheritance and some races carry different genes than others. And what do you mean phenotypes to define race? Being black/white/whatever is a phenotype technically. Oh, and race can usually be determined by phenotypes excluding skin color. I'm still confused by: "It has no biological significance whatsoever. Agree or disagree?" Biological means pertaining to biology, and if I remember correctly from 2 years ago, biology is simply the study of anything alive. So.... "Biological significance" would mean the significance to the study of live things? Or perhaps the significance in regards to life? Are you basically asking if race makes no difference to physique, intelligence, so on? Edit: Just read that article you linked to.... No such thing as race? Well, I guess that depends on one's definition of race. Most people define race as skin color, so yes, there are different skin colors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I suppose what the article fails to consider is that two fields can use the same term in different ways. The way anthropology uses the term "race" needn't necessarily be the way biology uses it. Case in point, compare the way mainstream media uses the term "hacker" with the way a person like Eric S. Raymond would use it. In reality, it doesn't matter what we call it. "Racism" as FUD regarding people who "look differently" will not go away just because we pick another term for it and say "biologically you cannot really call it 'races'". This FUD is a manifestation of the fear of that which is different. A black person still looks different than a white person. The article says: Of course, if you remove the phrase "my race" and insert the phrase "my skin color group", then the laudable statement of solidarity makes perfect political sense. That's just switching one term with another. If you don't like black people (as a white person) you just don't like black people. Saying "I don't like them because they have a different skin color" is just as irrational as saying "I don't like them because they're a different race". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynewex Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 Most people define race as skin color, so yes, there are different skin colors. Oh I'm not denying that race is a social construct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 So.... Your question is basically whether there is a scientific difference between races? What kind of difference? Physical? Mental? Behavioral? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Honestly I do not know a whole lot of people these days who hate other people solely because their skin color is different. People these days may do a lot of stereotyping but it's based on behavior, culture, habit, belief, philosophy, etc... which makes this whole "racism" business a big gray area. Yes, it exists in the capacity that one assumes someone will act/do something/"be" a certain way because they are xyz color, but the beef is with the person is really the action/thought/whatever, not the skin color. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynewex Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 Genetic? And to Crayon, I agree: I don't think racism has anything to do with genetic makeup. The problem is that people perceive differences in behaviour (often bad) as an attribute of that "race". It's more of a cultural/social problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 In Denmark there is this really obnoxious person called Jonni Hansen who has an equally obnoxious political party called Danmarks Nationalsocialistiske Bevægelse (National Socialist Movement of Denmark). Essentially a neo-Nazi party. To them, that someone's skin color is different is sufficient enough reason to "dislike" them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Genetic? Hrmm, at first thought, yes, I do believe there is a genetic difference in races. For example, heart disease and diabetes are more prevalent in black people and Hispanics than in non-Hispanic Caucasians. But, I'm not sure if that's attributable to life style or genetics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynewex Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 National Socialist parties are deluded. You'll often find that the members are completely out-of-touch with reality and prone to believing in far-fetched conspiracy theories that you and I wouldn't be able to present to others without a knowing smirk. It's fear. That's all. Nationalism in Ireland is pretty much leftist, but that doesn't make it any better. When I was growing up, I thought that it was cool to support the local nationalist party in Ireland (Northern Ireland issues etc), but now, I'm almost anti-Irish Nationalism, much to the dislike of my friends, who I don't have political debates with for the obvious reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynewex Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 Genetic? Hrmm, at first thought, yes, I do believe there is a genetic difference in races. For example, heart disease and diabetes are more prevalent in black people and Hispanics than in non-Hispanic Caucasians. But, I'm not sure if that's attributable to life style or genetics. You have to remember that evolution takes an awful long time and that certain populations from certain parts of the world have evolved differently; but that's more of a question relating to geographical location and evolution itself than racial heritage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynewex Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 A very authorative source that should be read: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I thought political debates in Ireland only extended as far as who can drink who under the table? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynewex Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 I thought political debates in Ireland only extended as far as who can drink who under the table? I wish. It would be much easier. I've been drunk 5 times in the last 7 days. So yea, I win. That's why alcoholics should come to live in Ireland (although this hasn't been a normal week for me). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I want to visit Ireland some day. I'm like 50% Irish. The other 50% is asshole. I guess that really makes me like 75% asshole... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynewex Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 No, only 100% Irish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 A very authorative source that should be read: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm Disclaimer: I did not read that. I plan to later, but it's hella long. Genetic? Hrmm, at first thought, yes, I do believe there is a genetic difference in races. For example, heart disease and diabetes are more prevalent in black people and Hispanics than in non-Hispanic Caucasians. But, I'm not sure if that's attributable to life style or genetics. You have to remember that evolution takes an awful long time and that certain populations from certain parts of the world have evolved differently; but that's more of a question relating to geographical location and evolution itself than racial heritage. Ok..... I'm confused by your question now.... You ask if there are scientific differences between races, I answer that yes, I believe there are (although still not sure if they're genetic or behavioral.... I think genetic) and give scientific evidence of my answer. But that's a question of evolution, not racial heritage. So, just to clarify, in the plainest terms possible since I'm apparently full of slow moments today, what in the world are you asking? Edit: Oh, and if you're just asking if there's a such thing as a 'race', then yes, of course there is. I'm not saying people are racially classified correctly or even saying that the concept of a race should exist, but yes, society has created races and by society's definition, race definitely exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Oh race does exist, but what the Human Genome Project shows is that there are no human races in the biological sense. An anthropologist might still say that human races exist because they have different metrics for determining race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 So if we are not human, then what are we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynewex Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 Dancers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.