I have to admit, although I disagree with you (don't ask me to elaborate), that was a nice, well though-out post, Tenchu.

Humans don't exist in breeds like dogs do. No group of humans has been isolated long enough for sub-species to develop.

But I get what you're saying. You'll miss blonde hair if it becomes bred out of the human race in your lifetime. I won't care to be honest. We'll still be humans and hopefully we'll all have gotten over sh*t like that.

Umm... no we haven't. Not genetically.

And I never said it was a mental hiccup. I just gave my opinion.

This is correct, but you`re also contradicting yourself with it.
Dogs are ALL the same sub-species - Canis lupus familiaris. They are not genetically separate, really.
A breed is a line existing within the SAME subspecies, that has certain genetic traits either through isolation or deliberate breeding. In other words, you can say the same for humans, as we are all the same sub-species, but groups in different areas have developed specific traits due to isolation. Dogs are all dogs. Humans are all humans. Just as is the different breeds of dog, different traits are dominant - there are different dominant traits in the different races of human.

Making the dog comparison is actually very accurate. Comparing dogs and wolves is like comparing humans and chimpanzees though...

Perhaps I got the terminology wrong (I thought humans/dogs were the species)

But this I do contend.

My point is that breeds don't exist in humans. They exist in dogs as clear genetic distinctions are present between different breeds.

I hate to disagree, but there IS a genetic difference between races - and it`s in the same vein as that between dogs - appearance. There is no more a clear genetic distinction between one "breed" of dog and another than there is between one "race" and another. The only significant difference is that races developed naturally over time - but most dog breeds were artificially split, created by short term selective breeding... A method which goes against the natural flow of race/breed development. When left to their own devices, all animals have the tendency to move toward bettering the population - stronger, healthier, more intelligent, etc has the advantage in every group. Because of the artificial creation of animal breeds and the natural development of races - there are superior/inferior breeds of animal, but not superior/inferior races of human.

You're wrong... plain and simple.

You're making the mistake of assuming race exists as anything other than a social construct in the first place. Take away the social concept of race and you have genetic code that cannot be sorted intelligibly into any "breed".

With dogs there STILL are clear distinctions and they run more or less along the lines that we've identified thus far.

You`re seriously misinterpreting me. Nowhere did I say what you are thinking I am... :mtongue:

What I am trying to say is this - Dog breeds are ALSO pretty close to meaningless in anything other than appearance.

Breeds of dog are an artificial concept, created by humans, to refer to specific traits among the sub-species that the dog belongs to. It`s not really a reference to genetic differences. It`s a name to call dogs that look a certain way - end of story. Take away the "names" that different looking populations of dogs are called, and they`re all dogs.

How is race any different? In the end, it`s a way to refer to different looking populations of humans - correct? Even taken out of a social construct, unless there is a mixing of genes these differences in appearance are not going to disappear.

ETA; You have to be the first person I`ve spoken to who referred to race in general as a social construct. That`s usually a term used to refer to the treatment of different groups/races in society - ie. assumption that one is higher/lower than another. Not the traits themselves, which are NOT a construct as they are clearly there and visible even without social context.
It`s sort of like saying that gender is a social construct - the assumption that one gender may be more suited to one thing than another, or more likely to do/think such and such may very well be a social construct... But gender itself, referring to the physical difference between males and females is NOT as it will still be there no matter what sort of society you are in.

Because dog breeds fall in line genetically.

Race is based on nothing but superficial human perception.

The traits themselves are simply traits.

The construct of race goes beyond the traits. It is used to establish identity and has political ramifications.

Terrible comparison. Gender has a fundamental, undeniable biological basis.

Race does not.

No, dog breeds have been artificially split into very small groups, which have very well kept records. If humans were split off into, say, extended and isolated family groups with well kept records (like dogs) - it would be very easy to put them into line genetically.

And, as I stated before, breeds of dog were mostly created by humans over a very short span of time by total isolation, something which did not happen to humans. But in the end, dog breeds are determined only by what people think they should look like - not genetics.

So... An infant of one race, removed from that group and raised by another, will somehow lose the traits that we refer to as "race"?

That would make it a social construct.

But I am ONLY talking about the difference in appearance that has been labeled via the word race.

*sigh*

Ronin - you`re wanting to fight about this, and are interpreting my words in a way that fits into what you THINK someone would want to say about race. Which isn`t the case. I`m actually very close to agreeing with you, and only wanted to clear up the LACK OF GENETIC DISTINCTION between dog breeds - which does indeed make it similar to the human race concept. You`re taking offense at the word "race" - would it sound better if I used "groups of humans who share the same traits in appearance"? Because that is what I am trying to say it is - just as dog breeds are no more than human names for sets of traits in appearance.

Race goes beyond the traits. I've explained this.

Fair enough... perhaps I'm misinformed about the dogs... I was certain I read it somewhere.

But when we talk of genetics - the difference or lack thereof - we`re not talking about political ramifications. Your interpretation of the word "race" appears to be significantly different than my own in this discussion.

I am thinking of the genotype/phenotype - not how those are interpreted by society.

Phew. Please don`t go on the defensive so quickly.

I'm unaware of your interpretation of the term to be honest. But you've explained yourself I guess and splitting hairs beyond this is pointless. :)

I don't know about that second set... Alba looks kind of Asian, in my opinion.

That is a bit different from what I am saying. In a population of the same species (like humans, dogs, cats are regardless of "breed" or "race") I find it hard to imagine some group favoring a sickly, unintelligent population. That is the difference between breeding for specific traits and natural favoring of traits. The traits that are desired by the breeders more than often are not improving the health of the population. (Which is why certain dog breeds are very prone to disability and illness).

What do you mean by blood line? A? B? O? AB? The humans could be any of the blood lines. Or are two of them related... then it's a no brainer. Going by the traits and ignoring the fact that I know who Jessica Alba is, I can deduce the Asian girls are more likely to be related.

(Though as Jaydalert has alluded to, Alba could be related to one of them going by physical traits alone)

What?

If they aren't related then there are three distinct "bloodlines" in those photographs if you're referring to geneology.

We don't call the traits races. We call traits "traits". The social construct of race encompasses a lot more based on those traits. Traits that in the bigger picture are only a small part of the overall genetic code which make up humans.

The rest is pseudo-science I'm afraid. Very simplistic.

You're either assuming that humans managed to coincidentally split themselves up into genetic code and go their seperate ways.

Or you're assuming that apart from the environmental conditions which forced change in human skin colour and a few other traits around the world to a certain degree... changed more than simply the traits which we base race off of. It's simply not true.

Or perhaps you're assuming both.

Not only that you assume that these racial lines have stood the test of time.

BTW- Your Ghengis Khan example is a good point. Ancient Empires would have diluted a lot of these so called "bloodlines" you speak of. Not that I believe any of the sh*t you spout.

That's your opinion

There is more difference between dog breed than than there is amongst the human race. (Though according to Nyororin, the basis of our perception of breed is the same as our perception of race)

You're implying that the races we've identified are distinguished by things other than the specific traits which we base them on.

We'll you're right in one sense. As a social construction... race is politically defined based on such traits.

Scientifically though... these traits in humans which we base race on are quite superficial and do not represent any difference at an overall genetic level (apart from the ones which determine the traits that are the basis of race that is)

Things evolve only if there a change is necessary and forced. They don't evolve for the sake of it. Why people in the North evolved white skin etc can be put down to change in environment as human migration progressed for example.

I've had this discussion with you before. You are the one who has said in another thread that Australian Aborigines are of sub-human intelligence, and likening them to primates. I am particularly pedantic with you because of it.

Geez you talk alot of irrelevant sh*t.

Oh really? colors correlates to human concepts of race... as do facial features, perhaps a few other regional differences as the field of medicine has proven. I can agree with that.

But size? capability?

That's complete bullsh*t.

Let's leave all the dog analogies out from here on in. Dogs have a completely different history to humans. Using breeds as an analogy to race is only making things messier in an already messy thread. I mean as long as you understand that humans are a species/sub-species then I don't think continuing with the dog analogies helps.

Race is the social construct built upon certain, regional genetic traits. But overall... there is as much genetic variance between and within these so called races.

Nice spiel... unfortunately you haven't addressed what I said.

Evolution does not happen for the sake of it. Environmental factors are the ultimate cause for evolution.

Geez! Where do I start...

First off you did say that and if I can find that thread I will prove it.

Anyway.... you're making a lot of assumptions here.

You're assuming that the plight of the aboriginals is everything to do with biology. That's complete bullsh*t. Marginalisation of the aboriginal people by the British and Australian people's to this day has a lot to do with their current situation.

The rest is some crazy, unfounded theory to fit your perception of what you think explains the plight of such people.

I'm not denying anything of the sort... All I'm doing is saying that race is not based on such differences (inter-special variety) while you are saying race is a valid measure of it. The only thing race is based on are a few regional, largely superficial traits. Therefore the only thing race is a measure of at a scientific level are those traits.

It's a scientific fact. Google it if you like. Better yet learn about it at school.

Anyway... if you wish to back down that's fine... I don't think we will ever get through to each other nor is it my expectation or even goal. I post for the sake of those that may read your pseudo-science and half truths and think they are valid.
(Notice how instead of answering the questions I put up in reply to your post you'd rather back down citing a breakdown in civility as the reason why)

I'm not gonna get in the middle of this fight, but Ronin, you should realise that social scientists and scientists have different definitions of Race.

A social scientists has the difinition you've been saying... We're all equal, and basically the only reason we even speak about races is to help us understand slight differences in traits.

A scientist will tell you that when there general general biological difference from region to region, this defines a race... For example, West African have different twitch muscles, or that there are certain blood diseases that only tend to affect Black people, and some that only tend to affect white people. Sometimes, for the same illness, they have different medicines. One is for Black and other is for White (in laymans terms).

Socially, human value etc, I agree we are all the same, we are equal etc, but to argue against the scientific definitions of race so blindly because you probably believe that it's racist is kind of silly. It is impossible to give clear cut and dry definitions of race because even within races, there are differences, but it's not a bad or stupid thing to define races according to traits. When you notice that the majority of West Africans have fast twitch muscles, it helps to define them as a race!

I mentioned that earlier... there are regional differences, but my point is that they are a small part of a bigger picture when it comes to the biological makeup of humans.

Furthermore many of these regional tendencies aren't always absolute. (For example, I read many Asians have a gene which makes their earwax dry... but not all of them do). So when scientists or doctors speak of race... they speak in relation to it and sometimes use it out of convenience (medicine especially). But they don't have a definition of it... largely because racial theory was debunked last century.

Scientists tend to use terms which relate to humans on a genetic level rather than race.

I don't think these differences are that small... When studying ancient buried bodies, how can they identify someones race if our DNA differences were really that insignificant?

Many Egyptian Pharoes were found to be Berber (first recorded people to inhabit North Africa, previously known as Libyans by Greeks and Romans) from the study of their DNA. Skin Colour, hair colour, facial features might seem insignificant, but on a biological, gene level, when there are staggering differences or similarities from people of different regions, it does count for something.

The race theory hasn't really got anything to do with this... The race theory is about a superior race in the sense of them being better and more important than other races... But for one to deny that Black people of western African descent, are not superior at running is a bit of a joke. I believe we are all equal, but I also believe black people are better at running... Heck, in athletics, black people hold more than 90% of the best speed records!

-I'm assuming that they identify race by looking for specific traits.

-Racial theory was the idea hypothesized by scientists up untill the mid 20th century when it was debunked. The idea that humans fall into one of many racial groups and that these groups are significantly distinguishable biologically.

-Black people are better at running? For that to be true then ALL black people would have to be better than ALL white/Asian people. That the very best are always black MAY (or may not, I'm really no biologist... though my study requires me to know about the scientific consensus on such things.) mean that a certain genetic predisposition occurs in West Africa that gives them that advantage... but it's hardly a fact that Black people are better at running.

You're just being pedantic on my wording now... Just add "tend to be" to my black people are better at running. The reason not ALL black people are better is because not all train for it. This doesn't stop the fact that west Africans have muscles in their legs better suited for running.!

How do you define a human, Ronin? Is there something every single human has that actually makes us human?

:cool:

Um... Who says West African's have muscles in their legs better suited to running?

It seems you're not paying attention to anything I've said...

As for what makes us human? I'm sure it's our DNA sequence... am a bit fuzzy on that though. Why?

... didn't you read anything I said? I gave an example earlier... West Africans have fast twitch muscle fibres. These are better for running. It's a pretty known fact.

I was just asking about humans to see where you draw the line for catogorizing.

Um... fast twitch muscle fibres occur in all races.

Well I draw the line according to biology when it comes to being human. Does that satisfy you?

Yes, they do occur in all races, but from studies done, they've said that ALL West Africans and their decendents have fast twitch muscle fibres unless they don't train in which case, they become slow twitch muscle fibres. The oposite is impossible btw (as far as they know).

:rolleyes: :cool: Sure, whatever!

ALL West Africans? I dispute that off the bat. I can accept that a much higher concentration of people predisposed to the gene are of West African descent but you'll have to give me a link or something for me to believe that ALL of them and their descendants have it (100% not 90% or 80%.. but 100%). I mean I tried to find a link myself... but I couldn't (admittedly I just used google)

But even if it's true, how could you define West Africans as a race biologically when people of other races contain these genes... Your posts are all beside the point I'm making. I've already accepted that regional tendencies exist. Not to mention that I've never heard of "West African" as a racial group.

Probably has something to do with you not being in the field of science :rolleyes: (hence the differences in definition) As far as I can tell, the only opinions you ever have on this forum are the ones of an average modern Social science student.

Weak... If you define West Africans along the lines that they have a higher concentration of fast twitch muscles... then are the presence of fast twitch muscles the definition of race?

The only reasonable definition of race I can see in science would be the observation of such regional differences. But then again I don't understand why they would use the term at all? I mean they have their own terms when dealing with genes and traits and referring to populations.

Where the heck did I say that the presence of twitch muscles is the definition of race? Do you really think that I would say that there are ONLY two races in the world? After all, there are only two types of twitch muscle. :rolleyes:

Uhh, same reason they use the word "breed" for dogs... They also have scientific terms for different breeds, but the overall study of these different traits is the study of breeds...:cool:

What makes West Africans a race then? Biologically speaking. Because as I've said... I've never even heard of West Africans as a race even politically speaking.

What reason is that?

What are the scientific human categorizations? (And if you say Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid then you deserve to be beaten about with the 19th century textbook you took that out of)