Racism

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby Lausten » Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:13 pm

xouper wrote:
Lausten wrote:
Misdiagnosis by physicians is common. What conclusion from that are you suggesting we make?

The conclusion I want is that the misdiagnosis was a result of allowing race to be a primary factor when considering what tests to run.

OK. I'll accept that. What conclusion would you have us make from that?


Lausten wrote:. . . the race issue clouded the judgment of the new doctors.

On what basis do you judge their judgment to be "clouded"?

The "clouded" statement is a restatement of the earlier one that you accepted. There is a rule in business, the first one to lose their cool, loses the entire argument, regardless of data, science or logic. You might want to consider that your choice of words in the last few posts fits that rule. Well, that and your evidence is weak.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:33 pm

Nor, Xouper, have you responded to my challenge. Find me a clear cut, science and genetics based, recent classification of human races, in which they are clearly identified as races. You cannot, because no such classification scheme is possible.

The human species is one race. While small genetic differences between geographically separated populations do exist, they are too small to be valid as "race". For example, the genetic differences between myself and a Bantu, that are related to geographic origin, come to about 0.01% of the total. Yet our individual genetic differences overall are ten times that at 0.1%. Your "racial" differences are simply too insignificant.

I know that you will claim that the amount of genetic difference does not matter. But it does. If not, then each British village would be a different 'race' and they are not. The only way to distinguish between two 'races' and two populations of the same 'race' but have slight genetic differences, is by quantity. To be called two 'races', there must be sufficient genetic difference, and there is not.

In addition, there is a vast number of other people who are intermediate and share those genetic differences between the two populations. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the graph you posted, if used to justify racial classification (which I am sure it is not), would be totally dishonest. It would be cherry picking, because it would ignore the millions of people who share the genes from Chinese and Korean, or Chinese and Japanese etc. There is no distinct "Chinese" group, or "Korean" group, or "Japanese" group in the genetic sense. There is a continuum of all three, and "pure" genetic stock can only be described by deliberately ignoring all those who share genetic make up. That is : by cherry picking data.

And again, let me emphasize, your views are in a minority group. Certainly there are a few scientists who still believe in 'race', but the majority have moved on, and discarded that obsolete idea.

Quoting Dr. Linda Beckerman.
http://www.calresco.org/beckermn/black.htm

"The jig is up. Thanks to the genetics revolution we now know that there is no such thing as race. The Human Genome Project (HGP) has determined unequivocally that there is the same amount of genetic variation among individuals within a so called racial group as there is between individuals in different racial groups. What that means is that there is no real genetic difference between blacks and whites or between whites and Asians or between any of the so called races."

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:42 pm

Lausten wrote:
xouper wrote:
Lausten wrote:
Misdiagnosis by physicians is common. What conclusion from that are you suggesting we make?

The conclusion I want is that the misdiagnosis was a result of allowing race to be a primary factor when considering what tests to run.

OK. I'll accept that. What conclusion would you have us make from that?

Lausten wrote:. . . the race issue clouded the judgment of the new doctors.

On what basis do you judge their judgment to be "clouded"?

The "clouded" statement is a restatement of the earlier one that you accepted.

What is clouded about the judgment to run diagnostic tests in according to statistical usefulness? Why should doctors entertain the hypothesis that a Jewish person has sickle cell anemia when that is very very rare in Jewish people? A doctor cannot run all available tests and thus must choose which tests to run first. It is easy to second guess a diagnosis -- as was done here -- but how can you criticize the judgment of the doctors for not considering sickle cell anemia when the odds are so very low?

Lausten wrote:There is a rule in business, the first one to lose their cool, loses the entire argument, regardless of data, science or logic. You might want to consider that your choice of words in the last few posts fits that rule.

Yeah, yeah, I have said that to others in the past. It's a specious argument. Losing one's cool is merely evidence of losing one's cool. It says nothing about the veracity of one's argument.

Lausten wrote:Well, that and your evidence is weak.

If my evidence is weak then Lance's so-called "evidence" is far weaker.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:46 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Nor, Xouper, have you responded to my challenge.

I already did. Stop making false accusations about me.


Lance Kennedy wrote:The human species is one race. While small genetic differences between geographically separated populations do exist, they are too small to be valid as "race". For example, the genetic differences between myself and a Bantu, that are related to geographic origin, come to about 0.01% of the total. Yet our individual genetic differences overall are ten times that at 0.1%. Your "racial" differences are simply too insignificant.

I know that you will claim that the amount of genetic difference does not matter. But it does. If not, then each British village would be a different 'race' and they are not. The only way to distinguish between two 'races' and two populations of the same 'race' but have slight genetic differences, is by quantity. To be called two 'races', there must be sufficient genetic difference, and there is not.

In addition, there is a vast number of other people who are intermediate and share those genetic differences between the two populations. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the graph you posted, if used to justify racial classification (which I am sure it is not), would be totally dishonest. It would be cherry picking, because it would ignore the millions of people who share the genes from Chinese and Korean, or Chinese and Japanese etc. There is no distinct "Chinese" group, or "Korean" group, or "Japanese" group in the genetic sense. There is a continuum of all three, and "pure" genetic stock can only be described by deliberately ignoring all those who share genetic make up. That is : by cherry picking data.

And again, let me emphasize, your views are in a minority group. Certainly there are a few scientists who still believe in 'race', but the majority have moved on, and discarded that obsolete idea.

Quoting Dr. Linda Beckerman.
http://www.calresco.org/beckermn/black.htm

"The jig is up. Thanks to the genetics revolution we now know that there is no such thing as race. The Human Genome Project (HGP) has determined unequivocally that there is the same amount of genetic variation among individuals within a so called racial group as there is between individuals in different racial groups. What that means is that there is no real genetic difference between blacks and whites or between whites and Asians or between any of the so called races."

You are merely repeating the same old falsehoods and flawed arguments. I have already explained -- repeatedly -- why your argument is wrong.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:01 pm

Xouper

You have not given me a classification of 'races' that meets my requirements. The requirements are needed to weed out bullsh!t.

Requirements are :

1. It must specifically claim these are races. Not simply geographic genetic variations.
2. It must be modern, not a rehash of past superstitions.
3. It must be based on genetics - hard data.
4. It must be acceptable to scientists and prepared by scientists. Something in a reputable, peer reviewed scientific journal.
5. It must be comprehensive, covering the entire human species - not simply a reference to a couple of geographic bits and pieces.

To date, you have not done this. I claim you cannot, because no such classification exists or can exist. It cannot exist because the whole concept of human races is obsolete.

My arguments are not flawed. To the contrary, they are accepted by the majority of scientists in this field.

You have totally and utterly failed to explain why a minor genetic difference permits you to claim that some populations are different races (like Chinese and Japanese) and other genetically different populations are not (like different English villages).

Minor genetic variations between populations by themselves are simply inadequate to support a claim of different human 'races'.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:47 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:You have not given me a classification of 'races' that meets my requirements. The requirements are needed to weed out bullsh!t.

Requirements are :

1. It must specifically claim these are races. Not simply geographic genetic variations.
2. It must be modern, not a rehash of past superstitions.
3. It must be based on genetics - hard data.
4. It must be acceptable to scientists and prepared by scientists. Something in a reputable, peer reviewed scientific journal.
5. It must be comprehensive, covering the entire human species - not simply a reference to a couple of geographic bits and pieces.

To date, you have not done this. I claim you cannot, because no such classification exists or can exist. It cannot exist because the whole concept of human races is obsolete.

I have already met all those requirements. Your denial merely shows you have not been paying attention.

Lance Kennedy wrote:My arguments are not flawed.

Yes they are. And I have explained in great detail why. Lewontin's Fallacy, for example. You have not shown why Lewontin's Fallacy is not a fallacy, whereas I cited a reputable geneticist from University of Cambridge who explains in great detail why it is a fallacy. So, yes, I have shown your arguments are flawed.

Lance Kennedy wrote:To the contrary, they are accepted by the majority of scientists in this field.

No they are not. Besides which, you are here invoking the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Shame on you. Scientific truth is not decided by vote, else the Earth would still be at the center of the solar system.

Lance Kennedy wrote:You have totally and utterly failed to explain why a minor genetic difference permits you to claim that some populations are different races (like Chinese and Japanese) and other genetically different populations are not (like different English villages).

Minor genetic variations between populations by themselves are simply inadequate to support a claim of different human 'races'.

There's that same fallacy again. I have already explained why your argument is BS, but you keep repeating the same flawed argument like a {!#%@} broken record.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:41 pm

Xouper

I am sorry, but you have not done any of the things you claim. Your continued statements to the contrary do not make that true. You have not given me a race classification that meets requirements. You have not given me any rational reason why a small genetic difference like different English villages is not race, while another small genetic difference like Chinese/Japanese is.

Your arguments consist of repeatedly asserting something that is now obsolete.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:01 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I am sorry, but you have not done any of the things you claim.

Yes I have.

Lance Kennedy wrote: Your continued statements to the contrary do not make that true.

Same to you. Your continuing insistence that I have not, does not make it true.

Lance Kennedy wrote:You have not given me a race classification that meets requirements.

Yes I have.

Lance Kennedy wrote:You have not given me any rational reason why a small genetic difference like different English villages is not race, while another small genetic difference like Chinese/Japanese is.

Irrelevant.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Your arguments consist of repeatedly asserting something that is now obsolete.

Hey look, the pot is calling the kettle black.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:18 am

Yet more indicators that the professionals declare you wrong.

http://www.livinganthropologically.com/ ... unks-race/


"with all the disagreements, number-crunching, and consideration of how much humans vary, they agree

Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:48 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Yet more indicators that the professionals declare you wrong.

http://www.livinganthropologically.com/ ... unks-race/


"with all the disagreements, number-crunching, and consideration of how much humans vary, they agree

Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation

I have already cited scientists who disagree with that. I have also cited actual scientific evidence that contradicts that.

I also notice in that blog, one of the author's arguments is based on the continuum fallacy. He argues that because there is a smooth gradient of wavelengths between the colors red and yellow, that means the colors red and yellow do not exist as identifiable colors. He argues that because the demarcation between red and yellow is subjective, therefore red and yellow become meaningless concepts. What a silly argument.

The predominant tone of that opinion piece is not against the existence of quantifiable population groups, but that they do not like the word "race" to be used as a label for those classifications. Yeah, well, that's what political correctness is all about, changing the name of a thing to make it less offensive to some.

You have already admitted that it is OK to use genetics to classify Japanese, Chinese, and Korean versus Caucasian. You are fine with the labels Japanese and Chinese as distinct and separate biological groups. But you don't like the word "race" being used to describe that classification. It's not the concept you object to, it's the label. I assume you don't like the word "breed" either? Congratulations on being a card-carrying member of the Politically Correct™.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:12 am

Actually, the words 'Japanese" and 'Chinese' are fine to describe people who come from Japan and China. Just as 'New Zealander' describes me since I come from NZ. Some, but not all, Japanese and Chinese will possess a small number of specific marker genes.

The continuum argument is one of those used to explain why 'race' is not an appropriate term. The other main argument is simply the lack of sufficient genetic difference to justify a new taxonomic division. Neither of these are fallacies. They are facts.

There are a few scientists who still will not dump the obsolete term 'race', but they are a minority. Most scientists in appropriate disciplines recognise the minor genetic differences that exist between people of different geographic origin, but that majority of scientists do not believe the differences are sufficient to warrant the term 'race'.

When the genetic similarity between two people is 99.9%, while the genes that are different come at a level of 0.01% from geographic origin and 0.1% from individual variation, then calling them two different races is absurd. This fact is recognised by almost all anthropologists and human scientists.

Scientific American asks : "Does race exist."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... race-exist

Their short reply is:

"If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no. But researchers can use some genetic information to group individuals into clusters with medical relevance"

Which is fair enough. I have agreed from the beginning that there are a few genetic differences between populations based on geographic origin and a small number are medically relevant. But they cannot credibly be called different races.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:34 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Actually, the words 'Japanese" and 'Chinese' are fine to describe people who come from Japan and China. Just as 'New Zealander' describes me since I come from NZ.

No, I have used the terms Japanese and Chinese to refer to biological groups, not nationalities. And you agreed that they are indeed biologically defined groups. I showed you the genetic clustering for identification of those biological groups and you agreed it was real.

Lance Kennedy wrote:The continuum argument is one of those used to explain why 'race' is not an appropriate term.

Are you not paying any attention at all? Did I not just tell you that the continuum argument is a fallacy? And yet here you are, using it again even though I just told you it is a faulty argument. Sheesh, what a dumphuq. Maybe if I make the link bigger you will see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

Again, your argument is shown to be faulty.

Lance Kennedy wrote:The other main argument is simply the lack of sufficient genetic difference to justify a new taxonomic division. Neither of these are fallacies. They are facts.

That is not a fact. Sorry, but they are both fallacies. Are you really that stoopid?

Lance Kennedy wrote:There are a few scientists who still will not dump the obsolete term 'race', but they are a minority. Most scientists in appropriate disciplines recognise the minor genetic differences that exist between people of different geographic origin, but that majority do not believe the differences are sufficient to warrant the term 'race'.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Lance Kennedy wrote:When the genetic similarity between two people is 99.9%, while the genes that are different come at a level of 0.1% from geographic origin and 0.01% from individual variation, then calling them two different races is absurd. This fact is recognised by almost all anthropologists and human scientists.

There you go again, invoking Lewontin's Fallacy. I am simply amazed that anyone who claims to have a brain would keep using the same fallacy over and over and over. The obvious conclusion is you don't really have a brain, you are just a set of fingers typing on a computer.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Scientific American asks : "Does race exist."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... race-exist

Their short reply is:

"If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no. But researchers can use some genetic information to group individuals into clusters with medical relevance"

Which is fair enough. I have agreed from the beginning that there are a few genetic differences between populations based on geographic origin and a small number are medically relevant. But they cannot credibly be called different races.

See, I was right, you do not object to the existence of genetic population groups, you just object to calling them races. Sorry, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:40 am

Xouper

In this case, I am supporting the scientific consensus.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-ge ... -not-exist

I quote :


"According to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program,


DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."


There are no genetically discrete human populations. There are no human populations with a great enough genetic difference. There is but one race within Homo sapiens. The human race.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:12 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:In this case, I am supporting the scientific consensus.

You are entitled to do that, but if you use that as an argument in an attempt to persuade others of the correctness of your position, that's the fallacy called argumentum ad populum.

When scientists disagree, I prefer to look at the evidence rather than count votes. I also look at what scientists do and and not just what they say to the general public. And if what they do contradicts what they say, then I consider that actions usually speak louder than words.

Lance Kennedy wrote:I quote :

"According to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program,

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."


There are no genetically discrete human populations. There are no human populations with a great enough genetic difference. There is but one race within Homo sapiens. The human race.

I have already explained -- repeatedly -- why your argument is wrong. I have repeatedly cited scientific evidence that contradicts your argument.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:31 am

xouper wrote:I have already explained -- repeatedly -- why your argument is wrong. I have repeatedly cited scientific evidence that contradicts your argument.


No.
You have repeatedly cited evidence that geographically separated populations may have different genetic markers. I have agreed with that point but not your interpretation.

For a minor difference in genetics to be evidence of more than one race, the differences must be substantial. And they are not.

Did you know, for example, that the genetic differences between tribes of Australian aboriginals is greater than the difference between nations across most of Asia, from Myanmar to Japan?

Yet, no one is suggesting more than one 'race' of Australian aboriginal. Even with the greater genetic diversity there, it is still too small to be sufficient to justify dividing the peoples into 'races'.

On using scientific authority and consensus as an argument. Certainly some people describe this tactic as a fallacy. But it is a tactic that increases the probability of being correct.

If two total ignoramuses, like you and I, are arguing something we are not expert in, the one most likely to be correct is the one who argues the scientific consensus. And that is me.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:42 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote:I have already explained -- repeatedly -- why your argument is wrong. I have repeatedly cited scientific evidence that contradicts your argument.

No.
You have repeatedly cited evidence that geographically separated populations may have different genetic markers. I have agreed with that point but not your interpretation.

See, I was right, you agree with the concept of genetic population groups, but you just don't like them to be called races.

Lance Kennedy wrote:For a minor difference in genetics to be evidence of more than one race, the differences must be substantial.

What is your scientific justification for defining race that way? I know of no one who defines it that way except you. And what does that even mean anyway, that a minor difference must be substantial.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Did you know, for example, that the genetic differences between tribes of Australian aboriginals is greater than the difference between nations across most of Asia, from Myanmar to Japan?

Oh my, Again you commit Lewontin's Fallacy. Have you learned nothing at all from this thread?

Lance Kennedy wrote:On using scientific authority and consensus as an argument. Certainly some people describe this tactic as a fallacy. But it is a tactic that increases the probability of being correct.

That's comical. You are using the fallacy of argumentum ad populum to argue that an argumentum ad populum is not a fallacy. That's {!#%@} priceless. Where do you get this kind of BS logic? Do you just pull it out of your ass?

Lance Kennedy wrote:If two total ignoramuses, like you and I, are arguing something we are not expert in, the one most likely to be correct is the one who argues the scientific consensus. And that is me.

No, the one who is likely to be correct is the one whose argument is supported by the scientific evidence, which I have done.

I will give you credit for not saying ignorami. :P

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:51 am

xouper wrote:See, I was right, you agree with the concept of genetic population groups, but you just don't like them to be called races.


Perhaps. But I am in good company. Like most anthropologists and biologists dealing with the human animal.

The turning point in attitudes came with the completion of the human genome project. Before that, it was possible for a scientist to believe in race, on the basis that peoples from different places might have a lot of genetic difference. If you check references of this topic from the 1990's, you will find a lot of agreement with your personal view on race. However, following the publication of the genome and its variants, that changed, with fewer and fewer scientists believing in human races.

This comes from an appreciation of just how limited human genetic variation is. With so little variation, it is no longer justifiable to refer to humans as belonging to different races. Instead, most scientists now think we are all one single race.

A mark of a good scientist and a good rational thinker is the ability to change one's views when the data changes. The data changed a little over ten years ago. Will you catch up and change your views?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:51 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:This comes from an appreciation of just how limited human genetic variation is. With so little variation, it is no longer justifiable to refer to humans as belonging to different races.

Lewontin's Fallacy again. I have explained this repeatedly. Why do you keep repeating the same falsehood over and over and over??

Lance Kennedy wrote:A mark of a good scientist and a good rational thinker is the ability to change one's views when the data changes. The data changed a little over ten years ago.

Some scientists look at the genetic data and fail to see the genetic markers that cluster along racial boundaries. Others have found such markers. Obviously those who failed to see them were simply not looking in the right places.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Will you catch up and change your views?

Right back at ya, sport. As long as you keep looking in all the wrong places, you will never find the modern genetic evidence that disproves your arguments.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:55 am

Xouper

You and I are both in possession of the same data. I find the consensus conclusion convincing. You prefer the "way out" conclusion. I do not think I am going to convince you.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby Lausten » Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:13 pm

xouper wrote: Lance Kennedy wrote:In this case, I am supporting the scientific consensus.


You are entitled to do that, but if you use that as an argument in an attempt to persuade others of the correctness of your position, that's the fallacy called argumentum ad populum.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!

Scientific consensus is a fallacy? I think you are having trouble applying the concept of "fallacy" xouper.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4806
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby Austin Harper » Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:37 pm

xouper, I agree with your position, but perhaps to try to put an end to this debate it would be useful for you to reply in a single, enumerated post to each of Lance's requirements
Lance Kennedy wrote:1. It must specifically claim these are races. Not simply geographic genetic variations.
2. It must be modern, not a rehash of past superstitions.
3. It must be based on genetics - hard data.
4. It must be acceptable to scientists and prepared by scientists. Something in a reputable, peer reviewed scientific journal.
5. It must be comprehensive, covering the entire human species - not simply a reference to a couple of geographic bits and pieces.


Lance, if xouper replies to each of these requirements would you agree with him?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:51 pm

Lausten wrote:
xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:In this case, I am supporting the scientific consensus.

You are entitled to do that, but if you use that as an argument in an attempt to persuade others of the correctness of your position, that's the fallacy called argumentum ad populum.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!
Scientific consensus is a fallacy?

If used as an argument, yes. If you argue that something is true by mere fact that many scientists believe it, then you commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

If the consensus includes those who are not actual experts in the field -- such as sociologists expressing opinions about genetics -- then the fallacy also includes appeal to authority.

There are many examples of the scientific consensus being wrong -- plate tectonics, stomach ulcers, geocentric theory, etc etc. At the time, that was the best they could do with the knowledge they had, and so I do not fault the scientific consensus in that sense.

The fallacy arises when we try to argue, "They are right because the majority said so." That's the fallacy I am referring to above.

For most of us, there is nothing wrong with choosing to follow the scientific consensus. I do it with evolution, for example. But I do not argue that evolutionists are right merely because they are the majority view.

See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

wikipedia wrote:Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument,


And that is what I was trying to say above. When used as an argument, it is a fallacy. Consensus is no guarantee of correctness. As a practical matter, however -- as Lance observed -- few people ever get fired for siding with the consensus.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:58 pm

Austin Harper wrote:. . . perhaps to try to put an end to this debate . . .
.
Lance seems willing to let it go that we disagree. Let's do that and spend our energies elsewhere.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:04 pm

Let me say something about what Xouper calls Lewontin's Fallacy.

Xouper does not realise this, but he is engaged in a fallacy himself. It is the fallacy of arguing by slogan.

Lewontin came up with, after much research, the finding that individual genetic variation is about ten times as great as the variation that comes from "racial" origin. This is not a fallacy. It is a research finding.

The argument that comes from this, is that 'racial' genetic differences are too small to justify the division of the human species in 'races'. Again, this is not a fallacy. It is an argument.

When Xouper keeps talking of "Lewontin's fallacy", he is simply repeating a slogan.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby Lausten » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:44 pm

xouper wrote:If used as an argument, yes. If you argue that something is true by mere fact that many scientists believe it, then you commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
No. It's not. This is extremely dangerous if you think about it. It is very close to saying that science is just opinion.

xouper wrote:If the consensus includes those who are not actual experts in the field -- such as sociologists expressing opinions about genetics -- then the fallacy also includes appeal to authority.

Okay that's right. And I think you are stretching this correct analysis to include the consensus of actual experts. That's where you go wrong.

xouper wrote:There are many examples of the scientific consensus being wrong -- plate tectonics, stomach ulcers, geocentric theory, etc etc. At the time, that was the best they could do with the knowledge they had, and so I do not fault the scientific consensus in that sense.

I don't have all the fallacy type names memorized but your first sentence is the one where because there are other examples in a group where something was wrong, this example is wrong (or could be wrong). That does not logically follow. It is always possible in all cases of scientific proof, that the proof is wrong. So you say nothing here.

If you want to refute the scientific consensus, then go ahead and do that. Write it up. Get it peer reviewed. We'll say "we knew him when". But you're not doing that. You're citing some papers that use the race/ethnicity term and claiming that somehow demonstrates that there isn't a consensus or something. Actually I'm not sure what you're doing there, so sorry if I twisted that.

Unfortunately, I haven't found the website of scientific consensuses. It doesn't really work that way does it? It's more like legal precedents, where the results of court cases express what the current interpretation is and if people want to refute the law on the books, they break it and attempt to argue it in a new case. You and Lance both have some valid points, but I think Lance comes much closer to expressing the current consensus than you do.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:43 am

You just couldn't let it go, eh, Lance?

Lance Kennedy wrote:Let me say something about what Xouper calls Lewontin's Fallacy.

Xouper does not realise this, but he is engaged in a fallacy himself. It is the fallacy of arguing by slogan.

Lewontin came up with, after much research, the finding that individual genetic variation is about ten times as great as the variation that comes from "racial" origin. This is not a fallacy. It is a research finding.

The argument that comes from this, is that 'racial' genetic differences are too small to justify the division of the human species in 'races'. Again, this is not a fallacy. It is an argument.

When Xouper keeps talking of "Lewontin's fallacy", he is simply repeating a slogan.

Lance, your ignorance is showing. That is not even close to being a valid criticism.


Lance Kennedy wrote:Lewontin came up with, after much research, the finding that individual genetic variation is about ten times as great as the variation that comes from "racial" origin. This is not a fallacy. It is a research finding.

Agreed, that is a research finding. I have never disagreed with that. But that part is not where the fallacy lies. Nor have I ever claimed that is where the fallacy is.

Lance Kennedy wrote:The argument that comes from this, is that 'racial' genetic differences are too small to justify the division of the human species in 'races'. Again, this is not a fallacy. It is an argument.

As an argument, it is faulty. That is where the fallacy lies. Lewontin's argument is not supported by the evidence. In fact the evidence contradicts his conclusion.

I have explained this repeatedly -- the smallness of the differences does not matter. What matters is that the genetic markers cluster along racial boundaries. I have shown you what that clustering looks like in the case of Japanese versus Chinese. You even agreed that it was legitimate to classify Japanese versus Chinese based on that genetic clustering, even though the genetic differences are very small.

Your agreement on that point contradicts your other claim that small differences cannot be used to classify people into population groups.

Lance Kennedy wrote:When Xouper keeps talking of "Lewontin's fallacy", he is simply repeating a slogan.

Where do you get this BS logic, out of your ass? If you tried pulling that {!#%@} in a college course on critical thinking, the professor would give you a failing mark.

For example, when someone says, "That's a straw man fallacy", they are simply naming the fallacy, they are not committing an argument by slogan. Likewise when I say, "That's the continuum fallacy", I am not making an argument by slogan, I am naming the fallacy. Likewise when I name your fallacy by calling it Lewontin's Fallacy, I am merely naming the fallacy, it is not an argument by slogan.

Furthermore, it is also not an argument by slogan because I have explained in detail exactly what the fallacy is. By comparison, an argument by slogan is when someone uses the slogan in lieu of an actual argument. But I am not doing that here. Once the fallacy is described (or explained), it is acceptable to use a name to refer to that explanation so that I don't have to re-post a whole paragraph every time you commit that particular fallacy.

I can't believe I'm actually spending time explaining what should be obvious to everyone here.

Lance, perhaps you might benefit from refreshing your memory of what a actual argument by slogan is. It has a very specific meaning, which does not apply to what I do when I simply name your fallacy.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:14 am

Xouper

The key part of your argument is the idea that any genetic difference is enough, no matter how small.

That is not correct, as I keep pointing out, since genetic differences exist between numerous population groups, including parts of England, where there is no suggestion whatever of more than one "race".

The amount of genetic difference is utterly crucial to determining if a division between two populations is two races or not. Your refusal to admit this is the core reason we cannot agree.

Yet you would not accept two villages in England, of white anglo saxons, as being two races, despite a small genetic difference. So it is equally wrong to accept two other groups, like Chinese and Japanese as being two races, when the genetic difference is still small.

Do you not see that you are being inconsistent in arguing one case is racial, while accepting the other is not?

The reason most modern scientists do not believe the human species is more than one race is due to the fact that we now know, after the human genome work, that there is simply too little genetic difference. Like the English villages, we cannot divide the human species into races, based on a miniscule genetic variation.

Lewontin simply pointed out this fact - that genetic differences caused by different geographic origin, are very small. And this smallness is the reason modern scientists reject the idea of human races.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:57 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The key part of your argument is the idea that any genetic difference is enough, no matter how small.

Lance, please pay attention.

That is NOT my argument.

How many times do I need to tell you that before you get it into your stupid {!#%@} head???

Lance Kennedy wrote:The amount of genetic difference is utterly crucial to determining if a division between two populations is two races or not.

That is factually incorrect. Where do you get that BS definition from? Got a peer-reviewed source for that?

I have already shown you evidence that clustering is all that is needed even when the differences are small. And you agreed with that evidence. And yet out of the other side of your mouth you say the opposite. You are contradicted by your own words.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:59 am

Austin Harper wrote:xouper, I agree with your position, but perhaps to try to put an end to this debate it would be useful for you to reply in a single, enumerated post to each of Lance's requirements
Lance Kennedy wrote:1. It must specifically claim these are races. Not simply geographic genetic variations.
2. It must be modern, not a rehash of past superstitions.
3. It must be based on genetics - hard data.
4. It must be acceptable to scientists and prepared by scientists. Something in a reputable, peer reviewed scientific journal.
5. It must be comprehensive, covering the entire human species - not simply a reference to a couple of geographic bits and pieces.


Lance, if xouper replies to each of these requirements would you agree with him?

Well, since Lance seems to want to keep this going, then here is a single paper that meets all of the above requirements and contradicts Lance's entire argument.

http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

There are others. Although I have free academic access to journal papers that are normally behind paywalls, I chose this one primarily because the full text is available free online so everyone can read it.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:01 am

Lausten wrote:
xouper wrote:If used as an argument, yes. If you argue that something is true by mere fact that many scientists believe it, then you commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

No. It's not. This is extremely dangerous if you think about it. It is very close to saying that science is just opinion.

Not at all. That is not what I am saying.

Lausten wrote:
xouper wrote:There are many examples of the scientific consensus being wrong -- plate tectonics, stomach ulcers, geocentric theory, etc etc. At the time, that was the best they could do with the knowledge they had, and so I do not fault the scientific consensus in that sense.

I don't have all the fallacy type names memorized but your first sentence is the one where because there are other examples in a group where something was wrong, this example is wrong (or could be wrong). That does not logically follow.

When someone makes a claim of fact (especially if it is a generalization such as all X have characteristic W), it is legitimate to disprove that claim by citing a single counterexample. Contrary to your complaint, that is indeed a valid tactic.

See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample

Example, if someone claims all crows are black, I can disprove that claim by showing a single white crow as a counterexample.

Example, if someone says all blonde women are dumb, disproving that claim only requires a single counterexample.

Another example, when someone says the consensus is always right, then I can disprove that claim by showing a single example of the consensus being wrong.

Lausten wrote:If you want to refute the scientific consensus, then go ahead and do that.

Let's be careful about what we are referring to here.

When you say "refuting the scientific consensus" that could mean either of the following:

1) Showing that there is no consensus.

2) Agreeing there is a consensus but showing that their opinion is wrong.

Which are you talking about?

I cannot personally show that the consensus opinion is wrong. I can only cite scientists who disagree with it.

If you ask me to show there is no consensus, then I will cite this recent paper that casts huge doubt on Lance's claim about the consensus.

http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journal ... -race-race

Lausten wrote:You and Lance both have some valid points, but I think Lance comes much closer to expressing the current consensus than you do.

That's entirely possible. I don't know what the actual consensus is. And apparently, neither does anyone else, including the scientists themselves. Lance hasn't provided any surveys that show what percentage of biologists agree or disagree with the concept of race. I haven't challenged him on the existence of a consensus, because it doesn't really matter.

Suppose I show a survey that says most biologists agree that race is a legitimate biological classification. Would you accept that as proof they are right? I hope not, because it is a logical fallacy to argue that truth is determined by the number of people who believe it.

Does that help explain what I mean when I say that consensus is not a valid scientific argument?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:15 am

xouper wrote: here is a single paper that meets all of the above requirements and contradicts Lance's entire argument.

http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007


Congratulations, Xouper

You finally found a scientist who agrees with you. It was inevitable, because there is a minority among scientist in human biology who still argue for "race".

I trust you noted that this paper admitted early on that it was supporting a minority position.

Nor have they brought any new data to the argument - just their own eccentric interpretation. They admit that human genetic variation is minimal. Like you, they think that a few genes is enough to support the idea of 'race'. In that, they, like you, are opposing the majority.

There is still no sign of any logic in the idea that genetic differences between some population groups mean nothing while genetic difference between other population groups mean 'race'. Especially when you consider that all these differences are minimal.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:14 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote: here is a single paper that meets all of the above requirements and contradicts Lance's entire argument.

http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007


Congratulations, Xouper

You finally found a scientist who agrees with you.

What do you mean "finally"? I have been citing them all along. And I can cite many many more.

Here's another paper that meets all of your stated requirements:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

Here's a flyer for a course taught recently at MIT that discusses the new biology of races.
http://web.mit.edu/philos/www/race&biology.pdf

Here's another paper that meets all your requirements, this from 2011:
http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

Shiao wrote:Recent research on the human genome challenges the basic assumption that human races have no biological basis. In this article, we provide a theoretical synthesis that accepts the existence of genetic clusters consistent with certain racial classifications

They clearly talk about a biological basis for human races.

Biologist Jerry Coyne -- an expert in population genetics -- argues for a biological basis for race:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/

How many more do you need before you concede that I have indeed cited the evidence you demanded?

Lance Kennedy wrote: It was inevitable, because there is a minority among scientist in human biology who still argue for "race".

No, you said I could not do it at all. You said it was not possible, because you claimed no such racial classification exists. And now you say it was inevitable. What a {!#%@} hypocrite. Jeebus, Lance every time you open your mouth (or post something), you look stoopider and stoopider.

Lance Kennedy wrote:I trust you noted that this paper admitted early on that it was supporting a minority position.

Sure, I noticed that. So what. I never claimed the authors represented the majority viewpoint. All I had to do was cite one counterexample to disprove your assertion that it could not be done. I have now cited several.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Nor have they brought any new data to the argument - just their own eccentric interpretation.

That is factually incorrect.

Lance Kennedy wrote:They admit that human genetic variation is minimal.

Yes they do. I have never claimed otherwise. I agree that the genetic differences between races is small.

Lance Kennedy wrote: Like you, they think that a few genes is enough to support the idea of 'race'.

Now you are being dishonest. That is not an accurate characterization of my argument. How many times do I need to tell you that? Are you {!#%@} brain dead??

Lance Kennedy wrote:. . . There is still no sign of any logic in the idea that genetic differences between some population groups mean nothing while genetic difference between other population groups mean 'race'. Especially when you consider that all these differences are minimal.

You keep repeating this same flawed argument despite that I have repeatedly shown it to be wrong.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:19 am

Austin Harper wrote:xouper, I agree with your position, but perhaps to try to put an end to this debate it would be useful for you to reply in a single, enumerated post to each of Lance's requirements

Lance Kennedy wrote:1. It must specifically claim these are races. Not simply geographic genetic variations.
2. It must be modern, not a rehash of past superstitions.
3. It must be based on genetics - hard data.
4. It must be acceptable to scientists and prepared by scientists. Something in a reputable, peer reviewed scientific journal.
5. It must be comprehensive, covering the entire human species - not simply a reference to a couple of geographic bits and pieces.

Lance, if xouper replies to each of these requirements would you agree with him?

Apparently not, even though I have now cited several sources that meet all his requirements. I think it is now safe to say Lance is impervious to evidence that disagrees with his position. It will be interesting (not!) to see how he weasels out of it, perhaps by moving the goalposts again.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9865
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:21 am

Xouper

I have not claimed that there are no scientists believing in race - just that they are a minority, which is true.

Your last classification scheme for race is inaccurate. This is because it claims that Pacific Islanders are a race. Not true, since they are three groups, each genetically distinct, albeit with the same minimal genetic variations of any such grouping. So much for that scheme, which would not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Your NIH reference uses self identification as the race classification rather than anything more scientific, making it useless as an argument for race.

Your MIT course does not state one way or the other, and we are left guessing, so that reference is worthless. The sagepub reference is just an abstract, and says too little for me to even comment on, much less draw conclusions. So it also, is worthless.

Coyne admits other biologists disagree with him and he admits it is impossible to come up with a clear classifcation of human 'races'.

Basically, Xouper, all you have shown is what I already admitted - that a minority of biologists still believed in races. You have not yet come up with a classification that meets my requirements, and as Coyne said, it is impossible to do so.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:32 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I have not claimed that there are no scientists believing in race

I never said you did. Nice straw man.

You claimed I could not cite any journal paper that met your silly list of five requirements. I have cited several that met all five of them.

Lance Kennedy wrote:- just that they are a minority, which is true.

Where is your evidence for that? Show me a survey that shows a clear majority of biologists say there are no human races.

Perhaps there is such a survey, in which case I will concede your point. However, if you then proceed to argue that this means they are correct because they are the majority viewpoint, then as I have already observed, that is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

So it really doesn't matter that the scientists I cite are in the minority. Truth is not decided by how many people believe it.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Your last classification scheme for race is inaccurate. This is because it claims that Pacific Islanders are a race. Not true, since they are three groups, each genetically distinct, albeit with the same minimal genetic variations of any such grouping. So much for that scheme, which would not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Where is your evidence for that? What three groups are you talking about? I thought you didn't believe in races and yet here you are arguing they are three races? What a hypocrite.

The genetic evidence clearly shows Pacific Islanders are identifiable as a separate race from the other main groups. What is your evidence that refutes that?

Lance Kennedy wrote:Your NIH reference uses self identification as the race classification rather than anything more scientific, making it useless as an argument for race.

Wow, the fail is epic in this one. Are you really that stoopid?

Lance Kennedy wrote:Your MIT course does not state one way or the other, and we are left guessing, so that reference is worthless.

It clearly says there are biological races. Also, if you go look at some of Spencer's publications, he argues in favor of "biological racial realism", which is simply the claim that human races have a basis in biology. I will concede that Spencer is a philosopher of science rather than an actual scientist, so if you wish to dismiss this source, fine. There are plenty more.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Coyne admits other biologists disagree with him and he admits it is impossible to come up with a clear classifcation of human 'races'. Basically, Xouper, all you have shown is what I already admitted - that a minority of biologists still believed in races. You have not yet come up with a classification that meets my requirements, and as Coyne said, it is impossible to do so.

Coyne did not say that.

Well, as I predicted, we can now see how you try to weasel out of accepting the evidence. You simply deny it or make up {!#%@}. Sorry, but that tactic does not work for holocaust deniers and it won't work here.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8098
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Racism

Postby Poodle » Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:15 pm

A question ...

Are there any equivalents in any other species for "race"?

I'm not taking part in the discussion - it's a genuine question.

EDIT: OK - I found one. The western honey bee.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:34 pm

Poodle wrote:Are there any equivalents in any other species for "race"?

More examples:

Although most scientists today only recognize one species of bottlenose dolphin (T. truncatus) they usually describe at least three subspecies or races. These include the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (T. truncatus), the Pacific bottlenose dolphin (T. truncatus gilli), and the Southern Hemisphere bottlenose dolphin (T. truncatus aduncus).

http://www.dolphintrainer.com/dolphins_profile.htm

Within the genus Elaphe, which includes rat snakes, corn snakes, and fox snakes, the gray rat snake is one of five subspecies, or races, of the black rat snake (E. obsoleta).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Rat_Snake

Fox squirrels and cottontail rabbits are widely distributed in North America with many locally adapted races or subspecies.

http://www.landhelp.info/documents/3-105CSmallGameMammalsIntroduction.pdf

Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8098
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Racism

Postby Poodle » Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:37 pm

Thank you, Xouper.

Next question, then. Is the term "sub-species" really equivalent to the term "race"?

Again, I'm not expressing an opinion. But it seems to me that IF the terms are interchangeable, you have a point. If they're not, Lance has a point.

The honey bee example I mentioned uses geographic, rather than genetic, distribution as a yardstick. Is this justifiable?

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4806
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby Austin Harper » Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:52 pm

Poodle wrote:Next question, then. Is the term "sub-species" really equivalent to the term "race"?

Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the difference:
Wikipedia wrote:Supspecies
Organisms that belong to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they often do not interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species, but more distinct than the differences between breeds or races (races can be assigned to different subspecies if taxonomically different). The characteristics attributed to subspecies generally have evolved as a result of geographical distribution or isolation.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Racism

Postby Tom Palven » Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:37 pm

I remember from biology classes that taxonomists were sometimes labeled as "lumpers" or a "splitters." A story went that American black bears were once classifed as a bunch of different subspecies (apparently by splitters) based on the tooth patterns of bear skulls until it was realized that even bear cub twins could have different tooth patterns, after which the subspecies category was reduced or eliminated.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests