2

5/1/2010 2:07:44 PM

5/1/2010 3:06:16 PM

Quote :

"OFFICIAL COCK ASIAN"

5/1/2010 3:06:57 PM

Is there not an obligatory "from Caucasia" post ITT?

5/1/2010 3:12:10 PM

don't be putting pics of my future wife naked ITT

5/1/2010 4:12:10 PM

were adam and eve white?

cause i thought the oldest race was from afri ca ca ca

5/1/2010 4:13:55 PM

lol @ Adam and Eve

5/1/2010 4:15:41 PM

Quote :

"From Caucasia Post"

5/1/2010 4:18:53 PM

how has nobody used the greatest word ever in this thread???
HONKIE

5/1/2010 4:29:26 PM

Although this thread has been derailed a bit, I'll go ahead and explain myself.

Quote :

"As for race existing biologically, no, there's no one "black" or "Asian" gene; these are types characterized (I'm pretty sure) by a conglomeration of a bunch of different genes. But the fact that all the black genes seem generally to accompany one another, and all the Asian genes to accompany one another, argues that they fit into a single category, and makes it natural to group them together."

Here's how you can tell if a category scientifically exists. If there is more difference between two members of a "group" than between a member of that group and another group, then the category is not valid. For example, we would consider a black American and a guy from Somalia to both be "black," but their genes might be more different than between the black American and a white American. (especially because of the history of racial mixing in America, blacks and whites often have similar genes, more so than between American whites and say, Russians or American blacks and Africans)

I don't feel like rustling up the research, but years of studies have shown that race is not a category that exists in genetics.

5/1/2010 5:35:48 PM

Quote :

"this thread has been derailed a bit"

No. Not it isn't.

5/1/2010 6:11:26 PM

okay, I see what you're saying, and I buy your criterion for "category"

but let's look at it scientifically

are you really and truly telling me that if we pick 100 American black people (or people that look black), and pair them with 100 American white people, and look at the average genetic difference...

and then take those same 100 black people and pair them with 100 Somalis, and look at THAT average genetic difference...

that the difference won't be noticeably smaller with the Somalis than with the American whites?

I'll believe it when I see it.

5/1/2010 6:18:53 PM

P.S. I am from the Caucasoid race as per the classification below!

Mongoloid, Negroid, Caucasoid, Capoid, and Australoid
http://library.thinkquest.org/20886/media/races.gif


http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8429/racesofman.png


http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/2564/racesr.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Neighbor-joining_Tree.svg




[Edited on May 1, 2010 at 6:21 PM. Reason : ]

5/1/2010 6:19:53 PM

see, OEP's maps are equally ridiculous! Look at how they grouped two entire continents as the same race (Americanoid).

Quote :

"are you really and truly telling me that if we pick 100 American black people (or people that look black), and pair them with 100 American white people, and look at the average genetic difference... and then take those same 100 black people and pair them with 100 Somalis, and look at THAT average genetic difference... that the difference won't be noticeably smaller with the Somalis than with the American whites? I'll believe it when I see it."

no, I'm saying that if you take 100 random people from the world who we would call "black" and compare them to 100 random people who we would call "white" there would be more difference between individuals within each group than between the two groups as a whole. Therefore, our definition of white and black is genetically meaningless.

5/1/2010 8:24:39 PM

well, you haven't really defined "difference between individuals within each group" or "difference between groups as a whole." it seems like maybe you're claiming that

Consider the set of all traits possessed by all the 100 white people, and the set of all traits possessed by all the hundred black people. Then the difference between those two sets of traits will be smaller than the difference in traits between two arbitrary white people.

But that (if that's what you meant) is not a fair comparison...in the first case you're comparing groups, and in the second case you're comparing individuals. It doesn't prove anything if the difference between two individuals is greater than the difference between two groups. I think (not sure, but I think) that the genetic difference between two men could easily be greater than the genetic difference between the set of all men and the set of all women. But really, you gotta define the means by which you compare the groups for this to be meaningful.

I still say that if the average genetic difference between two white people is smaller than the average genetic difference between a white person and a black person (which is basically what you quoted), then we're justified in claiming that race is a genetically meaningful concept.

5/1/2010 8:59:21 PM