Replies

In the OJ trial, was it not DNA that determined the 'race' of the attacker? Doesn't the bone structure of the skeletal remains get used to identify the race of the individual.

I don't disagree, but this is still reflecting the social construct of race as a category. The social construct is convenient because of our long history of incorrect categorization of people by skin color, bone structure, etc...

Oprah claiming that 'brown' eye people were the most likely people to be discriminated against...One of my liberal relatives bought it hook line and sinker and thought they could explain to me about institutional racism

Irrational categorization. It's the same twisted logic that flows from the concept of race determination through biological determinism.

This isn't some feel good, "We're all the same!" crap that Ham, Lee N., or I are talking about. Race is a social category, not a genetic category. Injecting race into genetics is not scientific, but an example of the social situation influencing science. The Mismeasure of Man really is a good book, and Gould does a much better job of putting genetics, determinism, the history of race, and the misclassification of the human species into layman's terms than I ever could.

And, to top it all off, it isn't Biblical.

Most especially when the Bible has two different days of man/woman in the flesh being created/formed.

On a completely seperate subject, the Documetary Hypothesis is bunk. I'd be happy to discuss that with you if that's where you want to go with this conversation.

The Mismeasure of Man really is a good book, and Gould does a much better job of putting genetics, determinism, the history of race, and the misclassification of the human species into layman's terms than I ever could.

Before there was Gould was the Heavenly Father, He is the WORD and He had Moses pen the Genesis of what HE did. That is my foundation and when anybody preaches another 'gospel' according to Paul they are teaching against the WORD.

This isn't some feel good, "We're all the same!" crap that Ham, Lee N., or I are talking about. Race is a social category, not a genetic category. Injecting race into genetics is not scientific, but an example of the social situation influencing science. The Mismeasure of Man really is a good book, and Gould does a much better job of putting genetics, determinism, the history of race, and the misclassification of the human species into layman's terms than I ever could.

One of my majors in college was anthropology, which involved physical anthropology courses. My recollection (been quite a while, and anthropology is not something you use everyday, you understand) is that other inheritable traits vary quite independently from what most people think of as "race" which is based on appearance.