The myth of race: Why are we divided by race when there is no such thing?

a reply to: ChaosComplex

None of this changes the science behind it. Assuming that there is no inter-racial breeding (which obviously is an impossibility at this point in time) and ignoring the genetic rarities like albinism, white people will have white babies, black people will have black babies, Asians will have babies who appear Asian, etc.

But here is where the science said your position is flawed in the matter,because it would only make sense if there were so-called primary races which would suggest a return to the multi genesis theory, a theory that has now been abandoned by science through the use of genetics. and so-called intermixing have never stopped it goes back thousands of years our ancestors would brake off from each other recombined mixed break off again some would become isolates but extreme isolates is rare and even they have muliple genetic strands.

originally posted by: butcherguy
We are all human.
There are differences in specific humans. If you find a skull, science can tell you just by different measurements whether it came from a person whose roots trace back to Asia, Africa, Europe or Australia. This is where the idea of race comes from. DNA testing tells us even more.
I am a mix of three different groups.
Races of man exist, IMO.
Racism sucks.

Actually, it all goes back to Africa. It is the cradle of human life.

a reply to: MOMof3

It takes a strong woman to come out unscathed from your upbringing.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: butcherguy

I don't care if someone says I'm a racist. People here should know better. But the statement that the concept of human races is not a biological reality is confusing to me.

Sure, some people have dark skin because of their area of origin, but if they move to Sweden and reproduce, the child's physical traits are going to be the same as the parents. That's biology, as far as I know.

Can anyone help me out?

.

How about an analogy: Picture people as light sent through a prism. Sure, reds have some differences from green, yellow, or blue ones. Two oranges having a child are going to have a relatively orange one. But there is nowhere within the continuum that there is a clear enough separation to say "These are the Blues, Those are the Greens, Those are the Reds." There are too many shades that fall in between to suggest that you can classify everyone into 3 (or any number of) distinct groups.

Let's continue to argue semantics all day... maybe you can convince me that the sex doesn't exist and I've been imagining my sexual organs. Let's ask the question, from a common sense standpont, does race exist? I laugh at anyone who says no. Now, from a biological standpoint? We see this is the bulk of their non existent arguement. First, they inform us that we're all the same species.....

Thanks, I hate to tell you but the idea of species is also a cultural construct (using their meaningless distinction). A species is a way for us to grouo together animals. It tells us nothing about the actual nature of these animals.. and the funny thing is, there is also no end all be diagnostic criteria for determining species. Sometimes we group on common characteristics, sometimes on reproductive isolation, sometimes on evolutionary relationships. So to say we are all the same species, and then turn around and say race doesn't exist as a biological reality, is laughable.
The best part is the whole "no correlations amongst the members of the same racem" Bull#. They're are so many I can't count, how can anyone make this claim and still be taken seriously? Here's the real kicker, **in biology, inter-species variation (often physical traits, like color) is dealt with by further grouping the species into sub-species. This is exactly what race is when we refer to our human population, but we can't exactly go around referring blacks as a seperate sub species, so we use the word race. When it's grouping bats by color we have sound science, but do it with humans and the "same brigade" comes along to twist science, words, and logic until people truly beleive a concept they've known their whole isn't true. "Well we do it for all the other animals, but it offends people, so let's pretend we're all the same and hope people are #ing dumb enough to believe it. Maybe some will even be pretentious us to mock others who point out it's clear as day blacks are better basketball players.

originally posted by: butcherguy
We are all human.
There are differences in specific humans. If you find a skull, science can tell you just by different measurements whether it came from a person whose roots trace back to Asia, Africa, Europe or Australia. This is where the idea of race comes from. DNA testing tells us even more.
I am a mix of three different groups.
Races of man exist, IMO.
Racism sucks.

You can have your opinion, but you are not correct with your supposition. As humans, we are 99.9% identical in DNA. What you speak of is that 1% difference which enables slight to moderate physical variations or anomalies. To state then, that this 1% enables "races" of humans is actually just displaced materialism. You are dealing with the physical, thus material variations of the human body. Skull shape and size along with skin pigmentation does not suggest a totally different RACE of human. That is a logical fallacy. As there is only ONE race of humans.

Again, feel free to keep your opinion. Just thought I'd try and clear things up. Don't mean to degrade or low brow what you think or feel.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: butcherguy
We are all human.
There are differences in specific humans. If you find a skull, science can tell you just by different measurements whether it came from a person whose roots trace back to Asia, Africa, Europe or Australia. This is where the idea of race comes from. DNA testing tells us even more.
I am a mix of three different groups.
Races of man exist, IMO.
Racism sucks.

You can have your opinion, but you are not correct with your supposition. As humans, we are 99.9% identical in DNA. What you speak of is that 1% difference which enables slight to moderate physical variations or anomalies. To state then, that this 1% enables "races" of humans is actually just displaced materialism. You are dealing with the physical, thus material variations of the human body. Skull shape and size along with skin pigmentation does not suggest a totally different RACE of human. That is a logical fallacy. As there is only ONE race of humans.

Again, feel free to keep your opinion. Just thought I'd try and clear things up. Don't mean to degrade or low brow what you think or feel.

Maybe not to you, bit that's because they use race in place of subspecies. same concept though, and we're still using it with different colored animals. You can't tell someone those differences don't make them another race, subspecies, or even species but these aren't genuine distinctions of nature, they're a grouping system to help classify and name animals. Learn some before you trash others.

originally posted by: lumpster13

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: butcherguy

I don't care if someone says I'm a racist. People here should know better. But the statement that the concept of human races is not a biological reality is confusing to me.

Sure, some people have dark skin because of their area of origin, but if they move to Sweden and reproduce, the child's physical traits are going to be the same as the parents. That's biology, as far as I know.

Can anyone help me out?

.

How about an analogy: Picture people as light sent through a prism. Sure, reds have some differences from green, yellow, or blue ones. Two oranges having a child are going to have a relatively orange one. But there is nowhere within the continuum that there is a clear enough separation to say "These are the Blues, Those are the Greens, Those are the Reds." There are too many shades that fall in between to suggest that you can classify everyone into 3 (or any number of) distinct groups.

Welcome to arbitrary grouping and nomenclature. That's a good analogy for every single sub kingdom division in the the biological sciences, and yet we don't say they're meaningless or pretend they aren't real. We just accept that it's never going to be perfect and the groups are balanced so it isn't too specific that it becomes useless and too inclusive that it becomes meaningless. That statement means absolutely nothing, it is a semantic logic pit meant to give the illusion of a profound truth while actually saying nothing at all

The whole issue of race is less important to what we think than how we feel.
Unfortunately, many still feel they are separated by race and because they feel that way it will continue.
The UN isn't exactly the source I go to when looking for the unvarnished truth though as they nearly always have an agenda.
While the main point might be correct it's still part of the UN plan to erase National borders and impose globalism on everyone because "we're all the same".
We might be one race but we are far from being all the same.
Preserving your identity is now taboo unless you happen to belong to some remote tribe in the Amazon, then it's ok.
Everyone else is labeled a racist for wanting to retain their own traditional culture and values.
That is the part that troubles me because we will lose all the diversity that the long march of human history has produced.
When we can celebrate and learn from our differences instead of seeking to erase them we might be ready for the next step of evolution.

Skin color is not the problem with humans. It is lack of education, manners, sharing, kindness, displays of aggression, hatreds, greed, lack of caring about the environment, short term thinking, and lack of taking on responsibility and working hard together as a team. People can be any of these undesirable traits.

How about breeds of man like breeds of dog? Different dogs have different behavior traits and physical appearances. We all have to work at getting along and being nice to each other. That is it.

originally posted by: dr1234

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: butcherguy
We are all human.
There are differences in specific humans. If you find a skull, science can tell you just by different measurements whether it came from a person whose roots trace back to Asia, Africa, Europe or Australia. This is where the idea of race comes from. DNA testing tells us even more.
I am a mix of three different groups.
Races of man exist, IMO.
Racism sucks.

You can have your opinion, but you are not correct with your supposition. As humans, we are 99.9% identical in DNA. What you speak of is that 1% difference which enables slight to moderate physical variations or anomalies. To state then, that this 1% enables "races" of humans is actually just displaced materialism. You are dealing with the physical, thus material variations of the human body. Skull shape and size along with skin pigmentation does not suggest a totally different RACE of human. That is a logical fallacy. As there is only ONE race of humans.

Again, feel free to keep your opinion. Just thought I'd try and clear things up. Don't mean to degrade or low brow what you think or feel.

Maybe not to you, bit that's because they use race in place of subspecies. same concept though, and we're still using it with different colored animals. You can't tell someone those differences don't make them another race, subspecies, or even species but these aren't genuine distinctions of nature, they're a grouping system to help classify and name animals. Learn some before you trash others.

"Learn some before you trash others"?

What are you talking about? My statement is that 99.9% identical DNA is shared by all humans?

I'm not even sure if that isn't what you don't understand. You're not clear with what you're getting at. Who is "They" (they use race in place of subspecies)?

Plus, I tried my best to be polite in my reply to butcherguy. Apologies if it didn't come across as such.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

this is true. we need to divorce race and culture.

this gringo is as latinized at he can be. I firmly identify with the latin culture.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
A good start would be to remove all mentions of race from our laws. No special recognition or treatment because of race. That should level the playing field and make everyone treat each other equally. .....
Wow
Could not type that with a straight face...lol

This. Our laws should be colorblind and we as a society never will has long as the activists and politicians keep things antagonistic.

People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton truly do not want racism to end because that would hurt them in the pocketbook. Racial discontent and division is how they make their money. If we all got along, they'd be out of a job and without a shtick.

Politicians and TPTB want racial tensions because they want us to keep fighting amongst ourselves so that we are too distracted to see what they are really doing.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

As a son of Texas I have tex-mex in my bones.
If it doesn't have peppers in it -it isn't food!

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: butcherguy
We are all human.
There are differences in specific humans. If you find a skull, science can tell you just by different measurements whether it came from a person whose roots trace back to Asia, Africa, Europe or Australia. This is where the idea of race comes from. DNA testing tells us even more.
I am a mix of three different groups.
Races of man exist, IMO.
Racism sucks.

You can have your opinion, but you are not correct with your supposition. As humans, we are 99.9% identical in DNA. What you speak of is that 1% difference which enables slight to moderate physical variations or anomalies. To state then, that this 1% enables "races" of humans is actually just displaced materialism. You are dealing with the physical, thus material variations of the human body. Skull shape and size along with skin pigmentation does not suggest a totally different RACE of human. That is a logical fallacy. As there is only ONE race of humans.

Again, feel free to keep your opinion. Just thought I'd try and clear things up. Don't mean to degrade or low brow what you think or feel.

Yes, all we have to do is drop the use of the term race and use the term preferred by anthropologists, 'ancestry'.

Anthropologists also attempt to identify ancestry as part of a biological profile. In our society, the term "race" is often used to refer to population differences. However, races do not exist in the biological sense and anthropologists prefer the term ancestry. To assess ancestry, anthropologists look for skeletal features that tend to be more common in some populations than others. They cannot determine skin or eye colour, but they may be able to place an individual into one of three broad geographic categories: European, African, or Asian. Importantly, while people with similar ancestry tend to share certain characteristics, humans vary more within populations than between them and there is a high degree of overlap. It is also important to remember that in forensic investigations, recognition and identification are the ultimate goals and ancestry often has more to do with a person's physical appearance than their biological heritage. Ancestry is estimated by measuring, observing and analyzing the bones of an individual's face and skull.

SFU Museum
So there are groups of people that have common skeletal traits due to their common ancestry.
Society uses the term 'races'.
I don't have a problem using the word 'ancestry' in place the word 'races'.
But the 1% of DNA that is different between people does make a difference, that is what makes us different.
We share 98% of DNA with chimpanzees... does this mean that we are chimpanzees?
We share 85% common DNA with the Zebrafish... we are not fish. genes in common
You get my point, it takes very little difference in DNA to make a very big difference in the individual.

Why there are some people here again talking about race of the homo sapiens?! You label groups of people with different color and bones as races? Then tell me, what are the correct word for ancient human tribes like neanderthal man and other forgotten human RACES? Humans nowadays are all from one race, homo sapiens, bone and skin color are variations. Different races from our species are died and forgotten, mainstream science do only know little about them. Too hard to understand?

The concept about your idea of "race" is a culture and politician thing, it is NOT scientific correct. For me its stupid to categorize nowadays humans into races, because there was other different human tribes lived long ago. (And these forgotten tribes could be categorize into different races with again different variations, common thing in biology when it comes to animals for example) Our own race today comes in different variations.

a reply to: butcherguy

i think its far less than 1%. More like 0.0001%, if even that.

The variance between you and the darkest skinned black person alive is likely to be less than the variance between you and I. Genetically speaking.

I think the real "differences" between various ethnicities is likely to be expressed via epigenetics.

a reply to: Gogvonmagog

Then tell me, what are the correct word for ancient human tribes like neanderthal man and other forgotten human RACES?

Plenty of people walk the Earth carrying Neanderthal DNA, just minor differences from modern man and Neanderthal man anyway, so we should actually stop using the term Neanderthal, as they are like us.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: butcherguy

i think its far less than 1%. More like 0.0001%, if even that.

The variance between you and the darkest skinned black person alive is likely to be less than the variance between you and I. Genetically speaking.

I think the real "differences" between various ethnicities is likely to be expressed via epigenetics.

I have no argument with that. We wouldn't know for sure about the differnces in you and I vs anyone else unless DNA testing were to be done on all three of us though.
I was using the figure provided by the poster I was responding to.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gogvonmagog

Then tell me, what are the correct word for ancient human tribes like neanderthal man and other forgotten human RACES?

Plenty of people walk the Earth carrying Neanderthal DNA, just minor differences from modern man and Neanderthal man anyway, so we should actually stop using the term Neanderthal, as they are like us.

OF COURSE, the neanderthal are like us, because they was human too, but a different RACE. And of course there was interracial breeding between different human races like neanderthal and homo sapiens. I guess, most can't imagine how big the human family was back in time -.- complaining about bull# differencies like bone and color today, when the human family once was bigger.