Honestly, krellin, I'm not sure why you're here. If you honestly believe that everyone who doesn't fall in lock-step with you is a complete moron that will "never address actual points of discussion... [but] only attack and insult," isn't it kind of a colossal waste of time to be here arguing anything with us ignorant charlatans? What do you get out of it? Seems like it would just be an exercise in frustration.

krellin, if "it is common knowledge that via DNA evidence you can identify the race of a person," then please (I quote you) "Prove your assertion, asshole."

I don't believe in PC, krellin. I have met people. People are people. There's nothing PC about that. There are shitty black people and shitty white people and shitty everything in between. There are also awesome black people and awesome white people and awesome everything in between. There're also everything-in-between-shitty-and-awesome black people and everything-in-between-shitty-and-awesome white people and everything-in-between-shitty-and-awesome everything in between. If you haven't met the full spectrum of individuals, then I pity your narrow existence.

Enough games. If you want to push this discussion forward, provide a source that shows race is in the genes. ck gave you a link and I gave you ten saying that race isn't in genes. Your turn to put up or shut up. Or, you could just level another personal attack since, (again, your words) "When people don't have original thoughts, or know they have been beaten, they *only* attack. If you want to attack, at least attack within an argument. lol That you have no argument, ONLY attack, means...well...you have *no point* to make, thus admitting my intellectual superiority on the topic at hand. :) "

With PE and dub. Also, can you be a bit more specific, krellin? Do you think the Human Genome Project is wrong?

>discussing anything with krellin
http://a1engongst3r.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/deaddovedonoteat.png

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-16-dna_x.htm

http://www.familytreemagazine.com/article/DNATests-for-Ethnic-Origins

http://www.dnatribes.com/faq.html

RaNDOM SAMPLING OF DNA USED TO DETERMINE RACIAL ORIGIN.

idiots...

COMMON Sense...your DNA comes from.....a mix of your ancestors chromosomes. You can NOT inherit something that did not exist (unless there is a gene mutation...). Thus....if hsitorically you say that different "races" (" " for you beneift) come from different places....Black, Native Americans, Causcasians, etc...then you can ALSO assume that there will be genetic markers/pre-dispostions that can be identified and place you within "racial" lines.

Again...it's fucking HILARIOUS that you idiotic liberals don't want to admit to genetic identification of race....but if some "evolutionary" scientist says he can trace some fossil back to some sub-human whatever and prove evolution, you morons will jump with joy and shout the joys of genetic inheritience, etc.

Pathetic.

Look, this is real, real simple. The genetic markers that indicate appearance (skin color, hair type, etc) don't have much to do with anything else about a person. This includes athletic ability. Is that really complicated? I am genuinely a little confused.

Oooooh, I see. Semantics.

Also a misunderstanding of the science. And a lack of reading through your links.

Seriously, you give two links that are trying to sell a product (hardly reputable) and one from a newspaper (again trying to sell a product, but reputable enough). Let's look through the USA Today article (mostly, I don't have the time this morning to deal with the other two completely biased links).

"Some, such as Terry Melton, president of Mitotyping Technologies of State College, Pa., say the reliability of ancestry testing remains unproved."

"William Shields, a biology professor and genetics specialist at State University of New York's College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, says that even if the tests are correct, a person's ancestry often is a poor predictor of what he will look like. Human beings, Shields adds, are too scientifically similar to one another to be distinguished by a "layman's term" such as race."

"Rhoden points out that suspects with similar genetic ancestry can look significantly different from one another. A person whose profile is 75% Sub-Saharan African, for example, may have skin color that is nearly identical to someone whose profile is 35% Sub-Saharan African."

"Melton, the private lab president from State College, Pa., says inferring a suspect's appearance by examining only 176 ancestry markers is "more than (labs) ought to be doing.""

""What does a Northern European, Native American and Southeast Asian mixture look like? That's a fair question," Thomas says. "We're told the photographs are extremely helpful.""

Even if I was to pull out all the pro-race-in-genes quotes to compare side by side, this is hardly a black and white issue (see what I did there?). Considering there are this many quotes from four individuals and all the pro-stance quotes come from one source (the DNA company seeking to make a profit), I don't see how you can stick to your guns so strongly. Moreover, the last three quotes I pulled out specifically say that race and ancestry are two different things (since race is based entirely on skin color).


+1 PE for using an Arrested Development reference.

@ dubmdell. Have you consider race in the context of speciation? Presumably, according to the Natural selection Theory, as every species has arisen from a pre-existing one, given the right conditions (i.e., suitable environmental stress coupled with random genetic mutation) the same will happen to us (Homo sapiens). Now I fully anticipate that you will quote our particular circumstances as mediating against speciation through genetic mixing. Given the time scales involved, I would counter by saying that your view is extremely anthropocentric (i.e., regarding humans as the central element of the universe). In my view if one accepts the Natural Selection hypothesis to the exclusion of anything else (e.g., Man created in the image of God), then one must in turn regard the racial division and likely ensuing inter-racial conflict among Homo sapiens as an inevitable step towards speciation. This would be fully in tune with the natural order of things. All reasonable reductive science, I think.

fulhamish, I'm a little unclear what you mean by "race in the context of speciation." Do you mean "a group of individuals with similar genetics moving towards a distinct species?" Would an example of this would be breeds of dog? Great Dane and chihuahua in particular? Since the size difference is too great, the only reason the two can "breed" is because of the intermediate breeds between them (and because of artificial insemination, but that is hardly worth mentioning in a discussion on speciation). With this post, I am just trying to understand what you mean.

ckroberts....OK...you and your buddies have convinced me...there is not such thing as Race....so....therefore...you FULLY ENDORSE the cancellation of any Affirmitive Action policies that use race.

<not really....not convinced at all...but AA should still be cancelled as absurd and misguided...>

I'm against government-required affirmative action policies, correct, although I think most colleges and businesses (and other institutions) are wise to make efforts toward a diverse campus/community/company. Race as a scientific concept is meaningless; as a social one, there are obvious impacts on America even as it becomes less important.

@dubmdell, I sense a blind alley coming on entitled: ''The definition of race''. In order to avoid this I will give you three alternatives -
1) Define 'race' any reasonable way you like, and I will go along with it.
or
2) Let's work with an analogy comparing Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, both of which I believe are said to have speciated from Homo erectus. At some point Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were capable of interbreeding and then they evolved into distinct species. Presumably, prior to this, the genetic differences between the two proto-species were sufficiently genetically different so as to be defined as ''races''. I know that this is biologically controversial, but let's go with it for the purposes of this argument (?)
or
3) This from the internet: '' An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.''

Your choice.

@ ckroberts. '' Race as a scientific concept is meaningless''

In the context of speciation why do you say this? Do you deny the process?

# is probably the closest I would consider. I think of race as being like breed, not like species. Dachshund and Doberman are breeds of canines and, as such, are cross breedable. Races are much the same. But in today's blender global community, there is becoming less and less a distinction between the races. Is Obama black or white? He has both parent's. Is Halley Berry a hot black chick or a hot white chick? She has both as well. My nephew married a Vietnamese lady. Will their kids be Jewish (recially Jewish I mean) or Vietnamese? My old boss is Irish/Spanish mixed and he married a Vietnamese lady. What is he and what are his kids?

This idea that there are even races any more is becoming more and more preposterous by the decade as interbreeding occurs and we all become one big homogenized world - and that is a good thing (I felt compelled to point that out lest someone say I was denegrating anyone else by pointing out the blending that is happening every day).

Sorry, #3 is...

Fulham, I guess to be more accurate I should clarify "the classification of human beings into the generally recognized racial categories is scientifically meaningless." If your question still stands, because of several reasons. 1. Physical racial characteristics do not correspond to genetic similarity. There is as much genetic variety among Africans as there are among different racial groups. 2. The most recent common human ancestor is probably less than 3,000 years ago; for people in the Old World, it could be much much more recent. That's simply not enough time for anything like speciation to happen.

There are genetic clusters of human beings, but those groupings do not correspond terribly well with racial characteristics. To give you an example (and I might be wrong about this, since I can't remember where I read it, but I'm going with it anyway), there is the most genetic variation among sub-Saharan Africans and Asian Pacific aborigines, even though both have dark skin and fuzzy hair.

@ ckroberts
Maybe I might accept that with one caveat -
"the classification of human beings into the generally recognized racial categories is CURRENTLY, BUT ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT PERMANENTLY, scientifically meaningless."
I also find it interesting that you state : '' there is the most genetic variation among sub-Saharan Africans and Asian Pacific aborigines''
Presumably this is a function of comparative geographical isolation?

I don't like any of your definitions.

Species aren’t defined under the biological species concept by ability to interbreed successfully. They are defined by the presence of inherent reproductive isolating mechanisms that prevent significant gene flow across the species boundary. Gene flow means that genes and alleles from outside the boundary get inside it. So you could even have significant interbreeding between two species, so long as the resulting hybrids didn’t breed back into either of the parent species. (http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248%28199606%2963%3A2%3C262%3AWIASAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H&)

To continue with my previous example of dog breeds, dogs are essentially a ring species, such as Larus gulls or ensatina salamanders (for specific information about this, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species, the article is reliable enough).

So, again continuing with the earlier example, as with any ring species, if you want to establish two separate species of dogs, with inherent mechanisms against gene flow, all you have to do is "cut" the ring. Great Danes and chihuahuas are currently the same species because all the intermediates are still around. In nature, many such intermediates would likely have died out because the ecosystem generally only has niches for certain sizes of canine. But because dogs are maintained by humans we still have all those intermediates. Kill them all off - leave nothing but great Danes and chihuahuas – and suddenly we’d have two separate species. And these two species would be at least as different from each other as natural canine species. And they would only be likely to grow more different over time, since any new genes showing up among one of them would not be passed to the other.

What this shows is that species identity isn’t determined solely by the nature of the proposed species you’re talking about. It’s also determined by the genetic bridges between them. Such bridges are always there at some point in time, but with full species the bridges have all or almost all died off. The gaps that we see between species are only “real” when looked at at a certain time. Go back several generations and those same gaps might not be there. Go back far enough and they definitely won’t be. Richard Dawkins has a great essay on this called Gaps of the Mind. (http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/dawkins01.htm) It’s worth reading if you haven’t seen it yet.

So, the thing about homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis is that they /did/ interbreed. The genes flowed into h. sapiens gene pool. Neanderthals weren't merely hunted/ fought to extinction. Their fate was much more complicated. And that's part of my point. You cannot take any two human "races" or "breeds" and say "well, if it weren't for the intermediates that are still alive today, these two could never interbreed. They'd be distinct species!" Human evolution is not even close to that point.

ck, the accepted number of years ago for homo sapiens is 50,000 years ago.

@ dubmdell: even this one -
1) Define 'race' any reasonable way you like, and I will go along with it.
:-)

Fulham, why not permanently? Do you think we will discover something significant about race, or do you think the races are going to change?

Dub, I'm referring to the most recent person that is the common ancestor of all living humans, not the first common ancestor (called mitochondrial Eve? something like that). There was probably somebody alive around the era of David and Solomon, maybe as recently as after the birth of Jesus, who is the ancestor of all, or practically all, living humans. For many groups it is much closer -- almost everyone whose family has lived in Europe or the Americas for more than a few generations is the direct descendent of both Charlemagne and Muhammad, and probably somebody more recent than that.

@ ck please see my opening remark about anthropocentrism. Would you plead guilty?

And could you expand on this in that context:
I also find it interesting that you state : '' there is the most genetic variation among sub-Saharan Africans and Asian Pacific aborigines''
Presumably this is a function of comparative geographical isolation?

"In my view if one accepts the Natural Selection hypothesis to the exclusion of anything else (e.g., Man created in the image of God), then one must in turn regard the racial division and likely ensuing inter-racial conflict among Homo sapiens as an inevitable step towards speciation."

I don't even know where to start with this. Racial division isn't speciation, because it doesn't represent anything meaningful; it's like saying that having red hair is evidence that the Irish are becoming a new species. We should note that the concept of species is a messy and uncertain human creation, an imperfect effort to understand a complicated world. There are lots of different kinds of creatures, and some of them are related some how, and they change; it's difficult. As to what I take to be your underlying point: you can believe in God creating humans and in evolution; I believe the Catholic Church holds this position.

As to the variation of Africans and Pacific Islanders, I don't know, but I doubt that geographic isolation is solely the cause, because there's lots of variation among Africans who are not particularly geographically isolated.

@ CK no this is where I mentioned anthropocentrism:
Now I fully anticipate that you will quote our particular circumstances as mediating against speciation through genetic mixing. Given the time scales involved, I would counter by saying that your view is extremely anthropocentric (i.e., regarding humans as the central element of the universe).

Thank you for acknowledging and understanding my point when I said this:In my view if one accepts the Natural Selection hypothesis to the exclusion of anything else........The key word being ''exclusion'''

#RaceIsNotReal

@Thucy, that is an intersting comment. You guys understandably seem to balk at the word ''race''. So let's leave it out and replace it with the term ''proto-species''. Therefore, in order to progress the debate, I will rephrase a sentence of mine as follows:
In my view if one accepts the Natural Selection hypothesis to the exclusion of anything else (e.g., Man created in the image of God), then one must in turn regard the formation of proto-species among Homo sapiens and the resulting divisional conflict as an inevitable step towards speciation.

I do not believe humans will ever speciate along current racial lines.

If we do speciate, it will be along global class lines, but even that seems unlikely at this stage, though at least more likely than race-based speciation.

There are a large enough people in this world who don't give a shit about bi-racial couples that in a few generations there will be huge numbers of people who don't really fit into any racial category. You will continue to have racial purists for some time, but they will just get weeded out by sheer numbers in the long term.

Actually, perhaps a more likely route to speciation is one created by distance between space colonies. Duh. Forgot about space.