"Increased gene pool mixing may make that trait less of an isolated population divergence and simply an occasionally appearing characteristic of the larger population."

That indeed seems to be the way we are headed, and I don't like it one bit. It is the exact opposite of diversity, which liberals claim they want to protect. We should be preserving the specialties of each race rather than blending them together into a mush. Just see how ugly the so-called "race of the future" would look (https://s3.amazonaws.com/policymic-images/23dd861a2d411b4f8eb5c94a95673a6dda1f689d48a085223f9bc31276b1445d.jpg). Here's a good graphic explaining the development of races (http://www.cubicao.com/nature/imgs/implicitvillage_06.jpg)

"The thread seeks to identify whether or not there are significant differences between races beyond social constructs"

Sorry, leon, you don't get to set the terms of the discussion for everyone. And if you'd been reading my previous comments, you'd know that this supposed thread purpose was not the frame in which fulhamish and I were talking, because neither of us claims race has *no* component beyond the social.

Jesus christ leon do you ever stop with this republican crap? Next your gonna be telling us about black people having different shaped skulls like some candyland bs.

"Just see how ugly the so-called "race of the future" would look"

Oh, fuck off. You don't understand hybrid vigor and you wouldn't know a sound argument from a cheap bullshit emotional appeal if it was rammed up your pathetic excuse for an excretory system.

"neither of us claims race has *no* component beyond the social."

Sure, but you seem to think that that differences are limited to skin color and disease, which is untrue.

"Jesus christ leon do you ever stop with this republican crap? Next your gonna be telling us about black people having different shaped skulls like some candyland bs."

I'll stop when liberals stop with their democratic crap. Also, races do have different-shaped skulls.

"Oh, fuck off. You don't understand hybrid vigor and you wouldn't know a sound argument from a cheap bullshit emotional appeal if it was rammed up your pathetic excuse for an excretory system."

Sure, just ignore all the other evidence I gave.

yea you are a troll. no human being who survived beyond 1890 would say something so moronic. You and Al Swearengen should go on a carribbean cruise and wave to the brown ppl.

Also, hybrid vigor only applies if the offspring is better than the parents. Outbreeding depression also exists.

yawn. can we community mute this fuckstain already?

"yea you are a troll. no human being who survived beyond 1890 would say something so moronic. You and Al Swearengen should go on a carribbean cruise and wave to the brown ppl."

You are right in that there are fewer and fewer people willing to speak the truth in the face of liberal indoctrination and suppression. Your emotional appeals are always appreciated.

muted

"yawn. can we community mute this fuckstain already?"

Nice to see you resort to ad hominem attacks. You're free to be the first to mute me.

"Sure, but you seem to think that that differences are limited to skin color and disease, which is untrue."

Oh, right, why do I assume leon reads what I write before accusing me of whatever the voices told him I said? Back to ignoring him it is, then.

"You're free to be the first to mute me."

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be the first, and probably not the last either.

All in favour of muting leon pls +1 this

I had to mute. Gotta go with dlrd on this one

@" The thread seeks to identify whether or not there are significant differences between races beyond social constructs, and there most definitely are."

It sounds like you're got it all wrong.

Race is a social construct. There are genetic and therefore biological differences between people. All people. The question you should be asking is, why are certain biological traits chosen to be used as racial signifier.

You might also ask what cultural markers (expression, behaviour, etc) are used to distinguish race. IE what behavioural differences do people exhibit based on the category of race which has been applied to them.

If you want to explore the differences between biology among humans, then definitely there is ample opportunity, you can look at how environment affects genetics (so how lots of malaria affects genes relating to malarial resistance) Or how culture affects genetics (so how grain based diets in northern europe - which lacked vitamin D - resulted in a rapid loss of melanin production, and increased absorption of sunlight; or reduction in lactose intolerance)

If you are interested in tribal differences and that cultural construct (as opposed to race) or how ethnic differences and language differences have similar impacts to race. That is another avenue you could take.

But focusing on the biological differences between races is racist. It presumes that race is a valid category (which it is not) and ignores the biological evidence that there is more genetic diversity within a 'race' category than between different 'race' categories.

The display of ignorance in some comments here is almost painful. Worst thing is that many ideas are somewhat mainstream through some regions of the web. I'm really not interested in discussing this subject. But there was one idea that surprised me.

@steephie where did you get your notion of "moctezuma revenge"? It has nothing to do with what you describe, which never happened. There were massive cassualties (and you probably have no idea of the massiveness) of NATIVES, due to viruela

@principians: That doesn't sound right..
Why would they call it Montezuma's Revenge if you were right?

I'd swear it worked both ways: natives got diseases to which colonists were immune, but colonists got diseases to which natives were immune as well.

Facepalm

No idea what you're talking about, is it this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Montezuma%27s%20revenge

Well, i have to admit you provide an excelent example of aristotelean thinking

I believe that Steephie is referring to diseases such as syphilis which was widely believed to have been delivered to Europe via interactions with native Americans.

@ orathiac you make some excellent points in your last post (9.11 am in my time zone). However, in my view you do not see the wood for trees and it is the trees which you itemise here.

The wood I refer to is here:

So it is simple really under this paradigm of Natural Selection races are no more or less than proto-species – species in waiting if you like to be favoured or disfavoured by environmental change. What makes us so different from the animals after all? Anthropocentric or what?

All of this talk about races being just 'social constructs' is just a way to salve our liberal consciences.

with respect Lethologica, I feel that your answer here fails to address any of the points (well it is really only one point, see above post to Ora) which I make.

If you get the reference, fulhamish, I'm not surprised you know how a trait might propagate in a population, since that's simply what has happened with that example in one region of the world. And it doesn't affect anything I said.

Increased gene pool mixing may make that trait less of an isolated population divergence and simply an occasionally appearing characteristic of the larger population. Our language of race doesn't revolve around the appearance of sickle-cell anemia in a certain reproductively isolated population--it treats that population the same as other similar-looking populations with similar cultures and other social traits, who nonetheless weren't affected by that selective pressure. And if we, say, genetically engineer for the malaria resistance without the sickle-cell anemia in the future, the spread of *that* change may have nothing to do with which human subspecies the pre-engineered genotype arose in. So this example neatly demonstrates each of the three points I made.

Well, that's nice, fulhamish, but as you haven't demonstrated that your paradigm corresponds with race language as it's actually used, or that it supports your claim about human evolutionary divergence, I don't actually care about your paradigm.

On the other hand, "there's more variation within races than between races" is an insufficient (albeit necessary) argument against the validity of race as a partially biological construct. So I don't necessarily buy orathaic's position as stated, either.

This is straight off a poster at my school:

Race: A group of people sharing the same culture, language, history, exc.

@"if we, say, genetically engineer for..." I believe this is called eugenics, and is frowned upon.

I mean, i think even now genetic engineering is seen as equivalent to a hreeding program to select traits, and there are a lot of questions over the ethics...