[yiwahikanak]

I'm sorry, but I do not accept race as a genetic concept, and phenotype-based descriptions of race are inadequate at best:

One crucial innovation in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations or clines (Brace 1964). In part this is due to isolation by distance. This point called attention to a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and differences (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race.

How are you trying to define race? By outward appearance? Variation in phenotypes within a so-called group can be QUITE extreme. The categories you have used as examples are obsolete terms and have been solidly rejected.

[Agent Steel]

Is it not genetics that contain the information for various phenotypes?

[yiwahikanak]

Is it not genetics that contain the information for various phenotypes?

Indeed, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, variations in phenotypes within a so called 'group' tend to be wider than between 'groups'. Thus, creating 'groups' (or races, as is the actual intent in this context) based on phenotypes is not particularly workable.

[Agent Steel]

What groups of people were being exhibited to prove this point and what specific people within that group were applied in the experiments? Where is the data for that claim?

It would be extraordinarily easy to find a single white person that has a more similar phenotype to a single black person. If you want to compare races, you have to compare pure bred races. Are there any pure bred Iclanders who have a more similar phenotype to a pure bred Jamaican person?

[yiwahikanak]

Look, I've repeatedly provided you with sources, and evidence. But because I am just so fucking nice, I'm going to post some more for you. I'll even provide you with summaries.

Position Paper of the NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME CENTER (doc):


Findings

1. The biological variation of the human species exhibits gradients of differentiation, not subdivisions into homogeneous, discontinuous units.

2. The within-versus the between-group variation is greater in the so-called “races” of traditional anthropology (e.g., Mongoloid, Australoid, Caucasoid, Negroid). Therefore the majority of variation within the human species is found between individuals and not groups.

3. The ancestry of maternal (mtDNA) and paternal (Y chromosome DNA) lineages crosscut the group (“racial”) boundaries suggested by anatomical traits like skin color and hair form.


5. The demographic units of human societies (and of the U.S. census) are the products of social, cultural, or political rules, not the forces of biological evolution.

*************************************************************************************


An open letter published in Genome Biology 2008:

Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population. Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries [3,5,13,14]. Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. We recognize that human population history, including major migrations from one continent to another as well as more short-range movements, has led to correlation between genetic variation and geographic distribution [14-17]. This finding is particularly true of indigenous peoples; populations characterized by a high degree of interaction with neighboring groups adhere less to these patterns.

***************************************************************************************

American Association of Physical Anthropologists Statement on Biological Aspects of Race:

2. Biological differences between human beings reflect both hereditary factors and the influence of natural and social environments. In most cases, these differences are due to the interaction of both. The degree to which environment or heredity affects any particular trait varies greatly.

3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.

4. There are obvious physical differences between populations living in different geographic areas of the world. Some of these differences are strongly inherited and others, such as body size and shape, are strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life, and other aspects of the environment. Genetic differences between populations commonly consist of differences in the frequencies of all inherited traits, including those that are environmentally malleable.

5. For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things. The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications.

Generally, the traits used to characterize a population are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within each population. Therefore, the combination of these traits in an individual very commonly deviates from the average combination in the population. This fact renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives.

***********************************************************************************

Now for some peer-reviewed journals!

"An apportionment of human DNA diversity," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 29, 1997 vol. 94 no. 9 4516-4519:

It is often taken for granted that the human species is divided in rather homogeneous groups or races, among which biological differences are large. Studies of allele frequencies do not support this view, but they have not been sufficient to rule it out either. We analyzed human molecular diversity at 109 DNA markers, namely 30 microsatellite loci and 79 polymorphic restriction sites (restriction fragment length polymorphism loci) in 16 populations of the world. By partitioning genetic variances at three hierarchical levels of population subdivision, we found that differences between members of the same population account for 84.4% of the total, which is in excellent agreement with estimates based on allele frequencies of classic, protein polymorphisms. Genetic variation remains high even within small population groups. On the average, microsatellite and restriction fragment length polymorphism loci yield identical estimates. Differences among continents represent roughly 1/10 of human molecular diversity, which does not suggest that the racial subdivision of our species reflects any major discontinuity in our genome.

********************************************************************************

"Apportionment of global human genetic diversity based on craniometrics and skin color," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 118 Issue 4, Pages 393 - 398, Published Online: 11 Jul 2002:

number of analyses of classical genetic markers and DNA polymorphisms have shown that the majority of human genetic diversity exists within local populations (85%), with much less among local populations (5%) or between major geographic regions or races (10%). Previous analysis of craniometric variation (Relethford [1994] Am J Phys Anthropol 95:53-62) found that between 11-14% of global diversity exists among geographic regions, with the remaining diversity existing within regions. The methods used in this earlier paper are extended to a hierarchical partitioning of genetic diversity in quantitative traits, allowing for assessment of diversity among regions, among local populations within regions, and within local populations. These methods are applied to global data on craniometric variation (57 traits) and skin color. Multivariate analysis of craniometric variation shows results similar to those obtained from genetic markers and DNA polymorphisms: roughly 13% of the total diversity is among regions, 6% among local populations within regions, and 81% within local populations. This distribution is concordant with neutral genetic markers. Skin color shows the opposite pattern, with 88% of total variation among regions, 3% among local populations within regions, and 9% within local populations, a pattern shaped by natural selection. The apportionment of genetic diversity in skin color is atypical, and cannot be used for purposes of classification. If racial groups are based on skin color, it appears unlikely that other genetic and quantitative traits will show the same patterns of variation.

************************************************************************************



Would you like more information on how racial categories fail in basically ever single way? Because I can literally give you hundreds of studies and articles on the issue.

[Figlio di Moros]

It would be extraordinarily easy to find a single white person that has a more similar phenotype to a single black person. If you want to compare races, you have to compare pure bred races. Are there any pure bred Iclanders who have a more similar phenotype to a pure bred Jamaican person?

The issue, Agent Steel, is that there's no such thing as a "pure breed". Different ethnic groups are comprised of statistical variations in haplogroups. However, the idea the "phenotypical variation" within a race is greater than between races is absurd. If that were the case, then how'd we take a look at two groups of people and say "hey, we're two races" to begin with?

The fact of gradient differences doesn't disprove the existance of race anymore than the discussion of whether habilis was Australopiticus or Homo discourages evolution. Considering the tamazgha or turkmen to show gradient differences w/in the caucasion race is dishonest.

[Zyx]

It would depend on how you defined race.

I thought the easier claim would be to say that there's more genotype variations inside a race than outside, as oppose to phenotype variations (the phrase that I remembered); however, the claim on more phenotype variations isn't so difficult either.

For it'd depend on how you define the phenotype. If you define the Caucasian as pale skin, narrow nose, thin lips and on and on, you'll have many traditional Caucasians who do not fit this ideal. Namely most of them: especially not pink David Duke. Meanwhile, if you define the Caucasian as simply pale skin, then you'll fine tremendous phenotype variations, from slitted eyes to broad noses to curly hair to thick lips. In this respect, it'd depend on what you meant. If you simply stated that the Caucasian were a certain phenotypical arrangement then there's no variety and there's no experiment. However, if one made the claim that the genotype variety of Black and White skin were smaller than the genotype variety within people with White skin and within people in Black skin, that's a claim one would be hard to oppose.

So the question becomes, what are you saying?

Do you think that the body and facial features of Whites compose less DNA space than the DNA space for skin color.

[Agent Steel]

@yiwahikanak

What I'm asking for are the data used in the experiments. What were the names of the people, what were their supposed race, and do you have photos of these people? You can't believe everything you read without asking quesitons.

Did they do a specific experiment regarding the people of Iceland and the people of Indonesia? You see, these places are not only isolated, but they're at opposite corners of the globe. I predict that if you take two random Icelanders and compare them to two random Indonesians that the differences of genes BETWEEN the two groups will be greater (much greater) than the differences of the genes within those two randomly chosen people.

@Figlio di Moros

Then what about pure bred dogs? Ok, by your logic, if there are no pure bred humans, there cannot be any pure breed of any form of life, seeing as though life didn't actually begin until a billion years ago (if you go by the theory of evolution), and it didn't start out as a dog. Biologists pick and choose the criteria they feel is the most sensible when dividing up breeds of dogs. You can feel free to disagree if you like. It's sort of the same when deciding what type of genre a form of music falls under. People are free to discuss and debate what genre band X falls under and ultimately it comes down to an opinion, not facts.

[Figlio di Moros]

Pure breed dogs are specifically breed in isolation of eachother. If my pitt mated with a chihuahua, the offspring would neither be pitt nor chihuahua nor could any of it's descendants. If a german and a slav breed, the child would be either a german or a slav, and those genes would circulate in that community. That's the difference.

[yiwahikanak]

@yiwahikanak

What I'm asking for are the data used in the experiments. What were the names of the people, what were their supposed race, and do you have photos of these people? You can't believe everything you read without asking quesitons.

Did they do a specific experiment regarding the people of Iceland and the people of Indonesia? You see, these places are not only isolated, but they're at opposite corners of the globe. I predict that if you take two random Icelanders and compare them to two random Indonesians that the differences of genes BETWEEN the two groups will be greater (much greater) than the differences of the genes within those two randomly chosen people.

I suspect you did not actually look at the links I provided, which clearly discuss variations between geographically distant groups.

As has been pointed out, much depends on how you are trying to define race. The studies provided deal with a number of different definitions, finding them all lacking.

The peer reviewed journals I provided links to also published their data. You may be able to access the full text of these journals through a local library that has a subscription. If you are actually interested in the topic, I can provide you with the names of a number of further articles which you can track down in order to examine their data.

[QatzelOk]

In the absence of social equality, and in a competitive culture like Western liberal democracy, racism and chauvinism are two highly successful tools for constructing privilege.

In the absence of skin color differentiation, language, religion and/or social class can be used to create artificial categories of human experience.

David Duke is (unintentionally) interesting when he addresses Ashkenazi chauvinism and backroom dealings, but he is really boring when defending the European pigmentation of Turtle Island.

Then again, what do I know. David Duke is a doctor, while I don't even have my masters yet.

[Myriam LePont]

(...)The news just came out in Paris, that in this jewel of western civilization and culture, non-Europeans are now the majority of newborns(...)

As far as I know, it's illegal to ask about religion, ethnicity or race in France.*

David Duke is a friend of Don Black (the founder of Stormfront). Anyway, I find it ridiculous to take pride on other people's achievements just because they belong to the same race (as he implies in the video).

*I looked it up, there is a source of it here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1236362

[yiwahikanak]

David Duke is a friend of Don Black (the founder of Stormfront).

Not just a friend...David Duke's ex-wife married Don Black.

[Zyx]

Doesn't sound like much of a friend.

[yiwahikanak]

Pffft, at least she didn't go to some Knee-Grow!

[Jackal]

White nationalists and black supremacists are both intensely boring, annoying, and corny. It is the 21st Century so they just end up making themselves look like fools with all of their "activities". Hispanic nationalists are quite annoying as well but don't seem to be as vocal.

I accept race as a genetic concept but that doesn't mean I feel one is better than the other. Different but equal.

[Figlio di Moros]

Of course not, Raptor; you're basque-cuban. Why should you care for non-hispanics or race?