Justification of racism

[shichimenshyo]

In most cases, yes. But again, if there is a healthy white or asian man who is not prone to the same diseases and conditions that black women are prone to, and thus would have healthier offspring with a white or asian women than with the black women, why would you want to put your offspring at risk by mating with a black person that is more prone to diseases or disorders?

The same can apply in reverse. White people are more prone to skin cancer, so why would a black person want to mate with a white person and have offspring that are more likely to develop skin cancer?

Because their strengths will ultimately overcome their weaknesses.

 

[Thoreau]

Most of the time, over time. But mutations do occur and are more likely to occur in the process with extreme chromosomal differences as well as in extremely identical chromosomal sets. For evolution to happen carefully and naturally, you cannnot force two extreme opposites to combine and expect a perfect outcome. It takes generations upon generations for healthy and beneficial adaptation to evolve. And yes, with each generation (most of the time), it results in one step closer to a more dominant and healthy being, but again, adaptation in order to be significantly beneficial takes many generations of interbreeding. And even then, we will still carry recessive gene's that are not compatibile with active genes which will nevertheless, as it has throughout history, result in abnormal mutation.

 

[S.A.M.]

why would you want to put your offspring at risk by mating with a black person that is more prone to diseases or disorders...For evolution to happen carefully and naturally...for healthy and beneficial adaptation to evolve

This is pure rubbish. Its going to be very hard to have a discussion when you have no understanding of the basic concepts. If you are interested, I recommend you read some books on the topic and at least start by understanding what you are referring to.

 

[iceaura]

Of course there is. All the physical qualities that one observes in humans have corollaries on the genome. It's simply a matter of recording those corollaries for each specific quality that one associates with a race and then creating a genetic racial profile.

There is no genetic racial profile that matches a sociological race.

It's been done by molecular biologists and is used in forensics to catch criminals.

It is used to establish probabilities of geographical genetic ancestry, which often can be used to deduce sociological race in a given society - a fairly large probability of significant African ancestry would point to a similar probabiltiy of being classified as "black" by ordinary US society, for example. The correlative classification probability in Brazil would be smaller.

. Because someone has a characterist, it is not BECAUSE of their race. But rather a CHARACTERIST of their race.

It's the other way around. Their "race" is a characteristic of their society, a social classification of those features - skin melanism being the overwhelming one.

The characterists ARE affected by many things, and mainly geography. And because of these factors we have different races.

No, we don't. Not genetically.

As your very own links repeat several times, btw - did you read them?

For evolution to happen carefully and naturally, you cannnot force two extreme opposites to combine and expect a perfect outcome.

The closest you can get to "extreme opposites" in human beings, genetically, would be two different kinds of black people. And even they wouldn't be that different.

You appear to be assuming that some occasional differentiating features of human beings that you find significant are always products of the same genetic makeup - that all curly haired black people share a given set of alleles governing curly hair and melanistic skin, that all blondes and blue-eyed people share the same alleles for blonde hair and blue eyes. Consider the red haired Polynesian and the red haired Scot - would you expect the same alleles for "red hair"?

 

[Thoreau]

This is pure rubbish. Its going to be very hard to have a discussion when you have no understanding of the basic concepts. If you are interested, I recommend you read some books on the topic and at least start by understanding what you are referring to.

LOL! I think it is you who needs to read a book or two. I'm well aware of exactly what it is I am referring to. I think it is you that is not.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah my years of post graduate training in molecular biology have been an utter waste.

 

[flameofanor5]

I ignored that part because that's not the issue that I want to address here. Everytime I post something up, my religious beliefs alway dilute my orginal message. I dont come on sciforums to debate my religious beliefs I come on here to debate non-religious topics. I'm comfortable with my beliefs and I am not trying to convert anyone so I just skipped over that part and agreed with everything else.

Exactly, I am a Christian, and I am not here to convert anyone here. Not to say that I wouldn't like to see some people change. My presence most likely hasn't made anyone more likely to become a Christian.

 

[Thoreau]

There is no genetic racial profile that matches a sociological race.

It is used to establish probabilities of geographical genetic ancestry, which often can be used to deduce sociological race in a given society - a fairly large probability of significant African ancestry would point to a similar probabiltiy of being classified as "black" by ordinary US society, for example. The correlative classification probability in Brazil would be smaller.
It's the other way around. Their "race" is a characteristic of their society, a social classification of those features - skin melanism being the overwhelming one. No, we don't. Not genetically.

As your very own links repeat several times, btw - did you read them?
The closest you can get to "extreme opposites" in human beings, genetically, would be two different kinds of black people. And they wouldn't be that different.

Wow. I feel like I'm having a discussion with high school students again. Yes, I've read the resources I've posted as well as many books regarding the subject. Furthermore, I've taken many courses on anthropology and human evolution. How can you say that two opposites would be two people of the same race???? There is more physical and genetic differences between a white male and black male. The problem is that people don't want to admit it in fear of offending someone. Scientists have come out time and time again saying that the early 90's claims of all races having the same genetic code is invalid.

 

[Thoreau]

Yeah my years of post graduate training in molecular biology have been an utter waste.

I somehow doubt that. Nothing personal.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not afraid of offending anyone. But I think you are looking for validation of what you already believe in rather than looking at the evidence presented.

 

[Thoreau]

I'm not looking for any validation. I already have that in science.

 

[S.A.M.]

Bad science. When I was moderating Biology, I made an encyclopedia page on the Bell Curve

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Bell_Curve

 

[iceaura]

How can you say that two opposites would be two people of the same race???

I don't. I don't think they are* - but if you want to create some, putting genetically distant people in different races and genetically similar in the same races would be the first, basic step. You're the expert who thinks black people are all in one genetic group, whites in another- as people have been trying to get you to recognize, it ain't so. You are mistaking a bigoted sociological classification scheme, peculiar to your culture, based on naive and conditioned assumptions guiding perceptions, for an underlying genetic reality.

Read your own links, for starters. Or reread them, allegedly.

*That was vague, sorry. Expanding: I don't think there are any "opposites" in the human race, and I don't think the "races" as socially defined in the US have any useful (for racial classification) genetic basis,

but if you want to define some genetic "opposites" and some genetic "races" both, I think you should have them match up. That is, I think genetically more similar people should be together in one of your "races", and genetically more dissimilar people should be in different "races". Probably, this will mean putting some people you currently classify into different races into one race. Certainly, it will mean putting people you currently classify into one race into different races - these people you call "black" are wildly varied, genetically, compared with a couple of your other "races".

 

[Thoreau]

Eh, I've worn myself out over this discussion at least for now. Maybe I'll be back tomorrow in this thread.

 

[Dirty Dan]

I didn't need to read the OP..there is NO justification for racism. Racism is a plague that haunts society.

 

[Thoreau]

I didn't need to read the OP..there is NO justification for racism. Racism is a plague that haunts society.

LOL Then you did need to read the OP.

 

[Alexander8]

There is no genetic racial profile that matches a sociological race.

Conversely, there is no sociological definition of race that matches a physical racial profile. :shrug:

It is used to establish probabilities of geographical genetic ancestry, which often can be used to deduce sociological race in a given society - a fairly large probability of significant African ancestry would point to a similar probabiltiy of being classified as "black" by ordinary US society, for example. The correlative classification probability in Brazil would be smaller.

The more genetic loci that are used to determine race the less the chance of error until it approaches zero.

 

[S.A.M.]

The more genetic loci that are used to determine race the less the chance of error until it approaches zero.

Correlates best with twins and highest with incest. e.g. a community with the same man as father, grandfather and greatgrandfather, will have the highest correlation in genetic loci/

 

[Alexander8]

Correlates best with twins and highest with incest. e.g. a community with the same man as father, grandfather and greatgrandfather, will have the highest correlation in genetic loci/

Sure, and if you can tell the difference between families of the same race or individuals within a family, imagine how many more loci you have between families of different races.

 

[iceaura]

The more genetic loci that are used to determine race the less the chance of error until it approaches zero.

You mean determine geographic origins and percentage distributions of genetic material?

You still have to specify the sociological classification scheme you intend to employ - since there is no genetic definition of any human race. If you are using Brazil's, for example, quite often your genetic analysis will produce a different race label than it would if you were using Canada's. If you are using England's from the early 1700s (say you are doing forensics in a Virginia graveyard) you might get a different label than if you are using England's from the late 1900s, when the Irish and Jews had become white.

Sure, and if you can tell the difference between families of the same race or individuals within a family, imagine how many more loci you have between families of different races.

That imaginative speculation is in error, according to the researchers who have investigated.

The typical genetic difference between families of the same "race" (using the Canadian social classification scheme) is greater than the typical genetic difference between the families of different "races". Apparently this is a difficult concept for those raised within a culture built on social classification by race.