Posted on 12/21/2002 3:54:34 AM PST by Pharmboy
Which of those are biologists?
Answer: none.
Race is subjective. None of the blowhards arguing can be wrong or right fully. They are simply arguing semantics and personal opinion, not science or facts.
There are genetic facts which are that race cannot be determined or defined genetically. There are markers that can be clustered and compared to pre-defined populations that roughly correlate with geographic regions.
Unfortunately I realize you do not understand any of this.
How come you guys who hate and are obsessed with creationists never know anything about biology? It's a weird dynamic.
You are referring to the mitochondrial DNA, not RNA (and it should be capitalized).
That was the case. That was one of the overwhelming findings -- that the markers are not static.
If, on the other hand, racial differences do exist, some differences would be good for society and some differences would be bad for society. Some races would be taller. Some races would be more artistic. Some races would be more intellegent. Some races would be more civilized.
The first is true and a great point. The second is based on pure assumption, probably wrong.
No. The PC crowd want race defined. So they can advocate affirmitive action and "diversity" and all that.
It is the opposite of how you state it.
Science 2002 Dec 20;298(5602):2381-2385Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%.Genetic Structure of Human Populations.
Rosenberg NA, Pritchard JK, Weber JL, Cann HM, Kidd KK, Zhivotovsky LA, Feldman MW.
Molecular and Computational Biology, 1042 West 36th Place DRB 289, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA., Department of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA., Center for Medical Genetics, Marshfield Medical Research Foundation, Marshfield, WI 54449, USA., Foundation Jean Dausset-Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Humain (CEPH), 27 rue Juliette Dodu, 75010 Paris, France., Department of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06520, USA., Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 3 Gubkin Street, Moscow 117809, Russia., Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
We studied human population structure using genotypes at 377 autosomal microsatellite loci in 1056 individuals from 52 populations. Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subclusters that often correspond to individual populations. General agreement of genetic and predefined populations suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate assessments of epidemiological risks but does not obviate the need to use genetic information in genetic association studies.
Clearly this again confirms race is not genetically based or definable.
So you think you can tell them apart? Take the test.
Look--races are geographic variants that are called sub-species when occuring in non-human animals. No big deal--that's just the way it is.
Genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
Like for instance, skin color.
Tha's right, dogs are one species, with many breed (races).
BTW, black people are human, as are Asian, as are caucasians.
One species, three races.
Actually, Tallhappy's reasoning said no such thing. He made no comments about the percentage of genes shared among "races." You may wish to take an elementary statistics course to understand his point.
No. That was not my logic and also indicates you do not understand what it means to share 96% of genes with another species. Nor, apparently, do you understand the difference between marker and gene.
As far as race being an artificial construct based roughly on traits that can be be roughly correlated with geography, yes. That is my point and I am glad you do understand that, but I still think you grapple with it.
Clearly this again confirms race is not genetically based or definable.
This is what he said; he did not quote the study's conclusion which said the OPPOSITE, i.e. that genes follow geography and that race is indeed definable biologically.
Perhaps you need a biology course, a reading comprehension course and throw in one that deals with manners and civility.
Nevertheless, without using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subclusters that often correspond to individual populations.
That is, what reasonable, sentient humans think of as races. This was something Gould and his ilk argued against for years. You must understand in your biased little brain that the left does not ever try to be consistent--it is perfectly logical (for them, and you, I suppose) to argue against the existence of race, but believe in the legitimacy of affirmative action for "groups" or whatever.
You must be a follower of the great biologist Lysenko.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.