Re: When did human races split from one another?

DK wrote:
In article <1164699393.971008.177770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "chazwin"
<chazwyman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

DK wrote:

LOL. So you advocate abandoning the concept of "color" and deny
its practical usefulness based on the fact that the boundaries
between colors are blurred? Moreover, you insist that "colors"
don't exist because their classification is arbitrary. Great!
(And please don't resort to "I did not say so" - because that
is *exactly* what logically follows from your original thesis
on why human races are not real and your follow up argument
on the reality of colors).


Well I will first have to remind you that using "colour" as an anology
for race was not my idea. Analogies are never perfect.

It wasn't an analogy. It was an example (intended as part of the
reductio ad absurdum proof) to show that merely having an arbitrary
defined concept does not mean a lack of objective reality behind
that concept.

You should learn not to TROLL. You need to read the thread which is
concerned with race. The imprefect analogy of colour was first used by
another to re-inforce the concept of race which I undermined.
If you want to make a useful contribution you will need to follow the
thread.



Bu twhilst we
are on the subject perhaps you would like to define "green" and define
"colour" before you set up your list of Strawmen for you to knock down.

Many attempts were already made. Take your pick:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=green
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=color

The nearest to a scientific definition was arbitrary = a color
intermediate in the spectrum between yellow and blue, an effect of
light with a wavelength between 500 and 570 nm.
Green is culturally defined as is "Negroid", there are no valid
objective boundaries.


OK, following your logic:
- Planets don't exist (the line between planet and asteroid
is arbitrary; ergo, Earth is not a planet).

You analogy is weak. Planets and asteroids cannot breed and mate.

Whether or not they can breed is completely irrelevant.

It is utterly relevant becasue all humans CAN breed whereas apes and
humans cannot. This makes then the same species.



Planets and asteroids are more like different animals but even you
would have to admit that there is argument about what the definition of
"planet" is. Perhaps you would like to tell me how many plantets ther
are in the Solar system and I will find you somene who disagrees with
you.

I asked you to say how many planets were in the solar system. What is
the matter ? Has the cat got your tongue? Or is this a real analogical
problem for you?


Just like with the number of human races or a number of subspecies
in any species, it is totally a matter of convention. The conventions
of biologists applied to all other species are such that population
structure of H. sapiens can be properly described as having
races/subspecies.

Rubbish. Is it you or Hitler who decides which is a sub-species?
"Convention" is a culturally defined and arbitary category which can,
just as arbitarily, be re-located between the previous divisions.
Anyone not conforming to your conventions because of mixed parentage
will be seen as not belonging, or because they come from a community
which does not fit. Who is to say whether or not your categories are
more relevant than another set of categories? Can you tell me why white
skin is seen as a more racially defining category than say : the size
of the nose?
Racial categories have been set down by white people to measure the
degree of difference between themselves and other groups of people.
Why?



- Grasses, bushes and trees do not exist (boundaries are
blurred!).

Are they - all depends on whether or not one grass can breed with
another - You will have to do better than that, my friend.

Once again, breeding is irrelevant. What's relevant here is that the
there is no defined boundary where "tree" ends and "bush" starts.

An oak is an oak and its pollen will only make seeds with another oak.
A mulberry bush will only produce mulberry bushes.


- Cars don't exist (car vs bus vs track vs cart and so on;
same thing).

Duh!!! This is getting really silly now - If you had read my whole
thread you would have seen that I assert the existence of cars,

It only means that you contradict yourself. If you insist that colors
don't exist, logically you must conclude that cars don't exist either.

You are a bloody fool who has no concept of logic. As you might be
aware I suggested that an arbitary trait such as colour was no
indicator of the type of car or of its performance.

suggested that their colour was arbitary and gave you no clue as the
their performance.

No one is talking about "performance" in any way.

Not true. Racial divisions are used for many prejudices. Where have you
been living ? In a box?


- Imbeciles don't exist, nor do geniuses.

Am I reading the words of an imbecile? It is interesting to note that
two people from the same parentage can be imbecilic or genius.

Instead of engaging into ad hominem attack, you'd be served better
if you had thought for a minute or two and realized that the statement
is true - there indeed no strict boundary between normality and
abnormality (and, based on your logic that you affirmed, it means
that neither is real).

I have thought about this very much. I know the diffence between
categories which are clearly defined and other which are defined for
sinister reasons. Some catogories are valid and others are invalid.
Your trouble is that you are a black and white thinker. The irony is
obviously escaping you. Let me try to put it to you.....

You suggest that I a person rejects one type of category then he must
logically reject all type of category. So that trees, cars, bushes,
birds, planets, races, colours, and presumably any other category you
seem to want to set up - all cease to exist.
I say to you DUH!!! Life is not like that. There are grey areas. You
are an example of a black and white thinker. Things have to be black or
white. It is iditic thinking like that that has given rise to the
racism of the early 20th century and the extermination of the Jews; it
has provided the grounds upon which the slave trade was justified.



- Species don't exist (again, no firm boundaries, it's
all idealization of the continuum).

Duh Duh DUh! The firm and definitive boundary between one species and
another is the fact that they cannot breed with one another.

Sorry to disappoint you but cross-species hybrids are very common.

By definition all creatures of one species are able to mate with
another. If they cannot then they are not the same species.

Many of them are fertile too. What's more - there are fertile hybrids
between species belonging to different genera. As an accessible
example for you, recall a case of "wholphin":
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7508288/
Logically you now must agree with a ridiculous proposition that
bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale is the same species.

Indeed vary interesting: they are both Cetaceans. Well if the wholpin
is fertile then it is the same species as each of its progenitors and
the previous categories were wrong. Just like the previous categories
which suggested that black/white marriage was misegenation!! You make
my point so well!!
Whether or not that wholpin can become a viable species we will only
know in time.


Also consider the never-ending (and quite pointless, IMHO) debate
of whether dog is Canis lupus familiaris or Canis canis.

Yes indeed

Why is that almost invariably proponents of "races don't exist" display
such a lack of knowledge of biology and genetics (on Usenet, at least)?
I don't think it is a coincidence...

Have have a very keen knowledge of biology and genetics. Why don't you
try me out buddy.?


- Easily half of all abstract concepts don't exist (they only
exist in our arbitrary categorizations).

Many caterogies are culturally defined and arbitary as they are not
based on firm evidential ground. Race is one such category.

Simply reiterating your claim does not do anything to show its
validity.

You have failed to challenge my claim.


Well, well, I am afraid the majority of H. sapiens would strongly
disagree -

Half of all H.S.S are below average intelligence. And most of the
others have not studied archaeology, science and race issues. Many
people are racist becasue they are brought up to beleive in their
superiority.

Calm down. No one is talking about racism or superiority.

The grounds of racism were founded especially in the Victorian period
on an assumption of racial superiorty.

We are
only discussing whether human populations are stratiated in a
fashion compatible with the common notion of biological race.

Is this the "royal we" that you are refering to?

NOTHING else. One of your arguments was that race can't be real
because it is arbitrary in a sense that there are no firm
boundaries. I showed you on numerous examples that many things
that unquestionably do exist are likewise arbitrary and lacking
defined boundaries. Therefore, your argument fails.

Why don't you grasp the nettle and talk about the ACTUAL "boundaries"
between races, and we can see if they are indeed arbitary, or if they
have any genetic validity.
You might reflect that in the case of dolphins and whales the
assumptions upon which they were previously thought to be separate
species were based on morphological grounds rather than any genetic
evidence. Such also are the assumptions upon which all racial division
were (are are currently) formulated. Afterall the human genome has only
very recently been codified and is still in its infancy and the entire
edifice of genetics was completely unknown to the Victorians including
Darwin himself.



all of these concepts are definitely very useful
in our lives, no one sane would be willing to abandon these
concepts (or even capable abandoning them),

Some are useful, I agree. Racism is only useful to folk like Hitler who
want to dominate and exterminate "otherness".

Once again, where the hell did you get racism and Hitler from?
I am a biologist and I am only interested in the matter of biological
race because lies about biology in the name of political correctness
piss me off.

Lies in the name of science piss me off.

Now consider this ("prd" mentioned it already in one way):
"Race" is a very strong proxy to genetic make up. Knowing genetic
make up is crucial for treatment of many disorders.

We all know that people whose genetic make-up originaltes from Africa
can have a higher suseptibility to sickle celled aenemia, and
population from areas in which malaria is prevalent can display a
greater resitance to the paracite. SO what? None of this justifies the
concept of race. It certainly does not improve the validity of the
question which started this thread.

Therefore,
the concept of race has immediate practical usefulness in medicine.
There are many example of that. Here is one very recent paper:
http://xrl.us/th6m
"Global transcriptional response to interferon is a determinant
of HCV treatment outcome and is modified by race."

and - most
definitely - they all "exist" in our minds because that's how
we have adapted to reduce the infinite complexity of the world
around us to a set of abstract idealized concepts. That makes
our learning of the outside world more efficient by making
analytical operations easier and increasing predictive power
of our knowledge. In brief, conceptualizing is part of human
intelligence. In that regard, your "why not?" is totally absurd.

One strawman after another!!

LOL. Is that your best response? I just explained to you the value
of abstract concepts. Where is the strawman? *Of course* your
"why not abandon the concept of "color" is total absurd!

Have you heard of a strawman argument? This is a perfect example right
here.
The entire discussion on "green" was an analogy. And one that I did not
choose. However when you look at it you have to agree that the entire
concept is arbitary.
Why choose a wavelength between 500 and 570 nm. What colour can you see
at 499nm, and what colour can you see at 571, Why not draw the line at
505 and 565nm??
Human populations in any event are far more complex. Cambodians have
their own categorical system. There are Barangs and Cambodians, Barangs
can be any colour but have big-noses and are often just called French
despite being from any Eurpoean country.
This IS an archaeology thread. Archaeology is concerned with culture,
not genetics, and is sensitive to issues of identity which science is
not.
Why don't you troll on medical web sites where you wont bo so
offensive?


Chazwin

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are we close to genetically engineered humans?
    ... like intelligence or athletic ability. ... At least the genetics is likely passed down from some grandparents ... I don't think that it will be a race, ... Maybe more like a species, ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Old news, new show: Billy Graham on Jews
    ... "race," but that they mean something different by that than lay people do. ... that some biologists use the word "race" to describe some of these groups. ... Genetics_, which is one of the standard texts in population ... individuals in a species who are genetically more similar to each other than ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Old news, new show: Billy Graham on Jews
    ... "race" in humans by biologists. ... Reputable biologists, that is. ... Genetics_, which is one of the standard texts in population ... individuals in a species who are genetically more similar to each other than ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • RACE and Medicine
    ... differ in genes that impact health, they of course will be expected to ... As Jon Entine wrote in "Why Race Matters in Sports" on his website: ... unfairly stigmatize some patients and lead to inferior health care. ... Stephens, vice president for genetics. ...
    (sci.med)
  • (Article) Race is back. Why Thais dont smell.
    ... such thing as race, only insignificant skin colour variation, the ... that Africans had lower IQ than Europeans. ... In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice ... director of the Program in Medical and Population Genetics at the ...
    (soc.culture.thai)