paulsamuel
Registered Senior Member
funny
it's funny how wellcooked repeats what i say but in a more confusing manner
it's funny how wellcooked repeats what i say but in a more confusing manner
Originally posted by SkinWalker
1 - It is true that there are some differences notable between the "so-called" races, but here's a quote from the American Anthropology Association (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm):
Originally posted by paulsamuel
lol, i guess you remember the other thread.
human races are not really biologial entities
this is because of the distribution of genetic variation where variation within a race is greater than between races
that being said, there are genetic markers by which an individual's race can be determined.
problem with a discussion like this is that people confuse political, social or cultural distinction with biology
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
1 - From a purely racist stand point of using a persons race to label stereotypes and traits on them then race does not exist, You can not label a person with a trait common to there “race” since each person on a individual level has differences from s/he race.
2 - Race is the classification of people into different groups based off physical traits (which are a record of evolutionary process).
3 - From a genetic stand-point race exist, but is not the same interpretation as the common social races.
The problem with this statement is one word: often. You cannot pick a set of traits that will always ascertain a 'race'.I seem to remember my university physical anthropology textbooks explaining why it is often possible to determine the race of an individual simply by looking at certain parts of said individual's bone structure.
This statement assumes the validity of race.This study is conducted on MIXED-RACE populations. Thus it does not qualify.
Originally posted by Christian Sodomy
This study is conducted on MIXED-RACE populations. Thus it does not qualify.
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Lets put it very simple : Lets say man has 1 million genes .
Lets say 1 thousand of those genes are relevant for race . Why then do you compare all the other non-relevant genes with eachother to come to the conclusion that race is socially fabricated ? Nobody says should imply genetical majority , rather genetical equality and a few specific elements . Why deny those equalities , as obviously they have a correct relevance to comparing one human group to another through geographical means .
Originally posted by paulsamuel
to answer your question (i'm guessing that by 'racial characteristics, you mean things like skin color, epicanthic folds in eyelids, etc.), then, biologically, these traits fall within the whole suite of human genetic and morphological variation.
Originally posted by paulsamuel
your misconception is that because there are genetic markers that can ID individuals based on skin color etc., you think then that race is a biologically real, however this is not the case.
example, i can ID you and your family members based on genetic markers (these can even be manifested morphologically, i.e., based on bone structure, skin color, etc.) this does not make you and your family members a human 'race.'