[Vyth]

We are all homo sapiens. The essential quality that make us that animal are found in all people, regardless of cultural perceptions of race. Therefore we are all homo sapiens.

The above argument condensed into its logical form: "Humans are humans. Humans have the quality of being human. Therefore, humans are humans." It is true that all humans are humans, but this is a vacuous tautology which bears no relevance to the existence of race. If the mere common possession of a quality disproved the existence of race, it would also disprove the existence of individuals within the human species. But why stop there? Humans are mammals; therefore, by the same reasoning, humanity also does not exist. In point of fact, your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would disprove the existence of all life on earth, for all living things share with non-living matter the qualities pertaining to corporeal existence.

The race hypothesis is not supported by science in the least, regardless of that word salad that you presented.

Science actually does support the existence of race, but we are not obliged to confine ourselves to scientific data, which after all, merely cover a fraction of reality.

[kobe]

The differences between homo erectus and homo sapiens are massive, the differences amongst the supposed races are miniscule and oftentimes defined by cultural perceptions rather than tangible features. You're not even willing to name any of the supposed differences between the races. You are the one presenting the hypothesis, why don't you defend it? I cannot prove a negative, I can only show that the hypothesis is not supported by facts. Therefore the race theorists will always be arguing within that sliver of possibility and find people to support them because of their cultural perceptions.

As far as my argument, it's because I do not deal in inanities. Nothing has contradicted the idea that homo sapiens are already very well categorized as homo sapiens because all of our essential qualities are the same. Show me a reason to use the race hypothesis and I will. For now, I accept the clinal hypothesis because it is a much more thorough hypothesis and makes much more sense.

[ThirdTerm]

We also have a small amount of Neandertal ancestry as human-Neanderthal interbreeding occurred in the time range from 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. The team of geneticists led by Svante Pääbo found that about two per cent of a 45,000-year-old Siberian male's DNA came from Neandertals, which is similar to the proportion found in present-day East Asians and Europeans, and the team estimated that Neanderthal gene flow into the ancestors of this individual occurred 7,000–13,000 years before he lived. The Siberian man belonged to a population that was closely related to the ancestors of today’s Europeans and Asians. Homo sapiens first left Africa at around 60,000 years ago and encountered Neanderthals living in Europe and Asia.

Figure 5: Regions of Neanderthal ancestry on chromosome 12 in the Ust’-Ishim individual and fifteen present-day non-Africans.
To test if this is indeed the case, we identified putative Neanderthal DNA segments in the Ust’-Ishim and present- day genomes based on derived alleles shared with the Neanderthal genome at positions where Africans are fixed for ancestral alleles. Figure 5 shows that fragments of putative Neanderthal origin in the Ust’-Ishim individual are substantially longer than those in present-day humans. We use the covariance in such derived alleles of putative Neanderthal origin across the Ust’-Ishim genome to infer that mean fragment sizes in the Ust’-Ishim genome are in the order of 1.8–4.2 times longer than in present-day genomes and that the Neanderthal gene flow occurred 232–430 generations before the Ust’-Ishim individual lived (Supplementary Information section 18; Fig. 6).

Figure 6: Dating the Neandertal admixture in Ust’-Ishim and present-day non-Africans.
Under the simplifying assumption that the gene flow occurred as a single event, and assuming a generation time of 29 years, we estimate that the admixture between the ancestors of the Ust’-Ishim individual and Neanderthals occurred approximately 50,000 to 60,000 years BP, which is close to the time of the major expansion of modern humans out of Africa and the Middle East. However, we also note that the presence of some longer fragments (Fig. 5) may indicate that additional admixture occurred even later. Nevertheless, these results suggest that the bulk of the Neanderthal contribution to present-day people outside Africa does not go back to mixture between Neanderthals and the anatomically modern humans who lived in the Middle East at earlier times; for example, the modern humans whose remains have been found at Skhul and Qafzeh.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... e13810.pdf

Before the arrival of DNA techniques, classifying organisms by dividing them into subspecies based on morphological differences was common especially among the British Victorians. But it has become clear that many subspecies are mere hybrids based on DNA evidence and more recent breeds are not given a taxonomic name.

In the 19th century, there was great interest in classifying organisms scientifically. This classification is called taxonomy. Many "species" or "subspecies" were identified and named on the basis of a single variant individual brought back or described by travellers. There was great kudos in having a species or subspecies named after you! The British Victorians seemed intent on classifying everything into ordered groups. During the 20th century, many supposed specimens have lost their species/subspecies status; for example the "Servaline" is now known to be a Serval with a variant pattern. Many others turned out to be synonyms for the same variety. Many others are being redefined based on DNA evidence. Today, species and subspecies may be defined based on how genetically different they are and not merely on visual and behavioural differences. Before DNA techniques, the ability of species to form hybrids, and the viability and fertility of the hybrids, gave a rough indication of how closely or distantly related they were. The lion and tiger can be made to produce hybrid offspring, of which the females are fertile, but the males are not. The Bengal Tiger and Amur Tiger readiliy interbreed and their male and female offspring are fertile. The tigers are therefore more closely related to each other than they are related to the lion. More recent breeds have never had a taxonomic name suggested. For example, the ticked ivory Singapura cat, suggested as a subspecies,was actually derived from Burmese/Abyssinian type cats taken to Singapore by an American couple. The cat type indigenous to Singapore and the Malay Peninsula is bobtailed and occurs in all colours and patterns including tortoiseshell-and-white and mackerel tabby. Other regional varieties such as the Maine Coon and Norwegian Forest Cats are naturally occurring and are now bred by cat fanciers, but these existed alongside other varieties with which they interbred. Longhair gene alone is not sufficient for these to be considered separate subspecies.
http://messybeast.com/breed-subspecies.htm

[kobe]

The admixture of Neanderthal DNA does not support the race hypothesis, because in fact it was still the case that the DNA became selected against due to sterility. So only a very limited amount of it is left and only in the paternal lineage. It is indeed very interesting, but it doesn't at all contradict the cline hypothesis so I don't see why people think it is proof of race. If you want to get into the nitty gritty of allele distribution I don't blame you, because we are on the cusp of something great when it comes to using DNA in conjunction with fossil records in order to make a timeline of human movement. What does it have to do with the here and now in terms of the race theory?

[Vyth]

The differences between homo erectus and homo sapiens are massive, the differences amongst the supposed races are miniscule and oftentimes defined by cultural perceptions rather than tangible features.

The human essence is the common possession of all races. It is not that the races have different human essences; the same human essence fractionates into multiplicity, as light through a prism. And as each distinct colour can be converted back into the same light, to deny the full splendour of its colours is to deny the light within us all. To say there is no colour implies that there is no light; to say race does not exist, is to say there is no humanity; for humanity is not merely a vacuous generality, but is truly present in mankind, and therefore must assume particular forms, both individually and collectively.

That which is a praise to one race, is a credit to our common humanity. Our own virtues may be rediscovered by seeing them embodied in different racial forms. People of different races reflect our own humanity, which may be rendered all the more clear by its exotic nature; just as, in a different way, when we see the virtues of the animals — the courage of the lion, the loyalty of the dog — we can better understand our own virtues.

You're not even willing to name any of the supposed differences between the races.

You never asked. This is a very complex topic, as should be expected, since the human essence is infinite. At the risk of employing too broad a brush, it is possible to delineate a general outline of the races. Consider the quality of intelligence. All races have the same intelligence. But in each of the races, this same intelligence is expressed in a unique form. In the black man this wisdom is vital, dynamic, earthy, and existential. In the Asian it is delicate, visual, intuitive, aerial, sober. In both races, the intelligence is existential. The white man, in contrast, is less existential and more cerebral (in white culture this cerebralism is narrowly equated with 'intelligence', but it is in reality but one form of intelligence). Like the Asian, his focus is aerial, but in a more cerebral than visual manner. Like the black, the white man is animated, dynamic, vitalistic; but if in the black this tends to be expressed in dance and music, in the white it is best represented in his drama, and his animated thinking in general, the Asian being in this respect more sober than both the white and the black. The Asian thinks more in pictures, the white in concepts, the black in forces; each mode of thinking is equally valuable, and manifests an identical intelligence, though expressing itself in different forms.

I cannot prove a negative, . . .

If it is a true negative, you should be able to prove it. For instance, it is possible to prove that the earth is not flat, or that the President of the United States is not an elephant, or that square circles do not exist. Likewise, you should be able to prove that race does not exist.

[abu afak]

Race is a social construct because what distinguishes homo sapiens from other animals is present in every so called race. Furthermore, the separation of various peoples into various so-called races has always been based on cultural conceptions of groupings and who is the other. There was a time when the various peoples of Europe were all considered their own race.

I've already Refuted EVERY single claim you've made on the last few pages.
Please try to respond to my posts on page 8, which, among several others, includes the explanation of perhaps the world's Foremost Evolution/Speciation expert.
short excerpt.

"..the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable Morphological Differences between human groups — differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and WOULD, if seen in OTHER species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology)."

Got it?
Again we have the phenomenon of "My 2 cents"/"Pronouncement" withOUT addressing specific points of others.

And we have another person, breathtakingly, who says because we/Homo is a Species, it can't have subspecies:
kobe: "Race is a social construct because what distinguishes homo sapiens from other animals is present in every so called race. "

Of course, Chimpanzees and Gorillas not only have separate Subspecies/RACE within, but have separate Species as well.
These are all from living in only Slightly different environments within a very small Area of Africa, many tangential.
Only For Political reasons, Humans, who have greater Morphological difference than these other animals subspecies/even species, don't get the taxonomic delimitations they deserve.
again:

[........]
Sarich and Miele then address Gould's race-does-not-exist mantra: "The basic reason Gould gives for his no-race position is this: 'Homo sapiens is a young species, its division into races even more recent. This historical context has not supplied enough time for the evolution of substantial differences.' (This from the man famous for his theory [with Niles Eldridge] of punctuated equilibria.)" They then go on to explain why Gould is wrong.

They looked at differences between human races, between males and females, and differences between primates—particularly chimpanzees and gorillas. What is astounding is that there is Greater morphological distance between Human Races than there are between the Two Chimpanzee Species or between Gorilla Species/Subspecies.

That is, the differences between human Races are Real, they are Substantial, and they did not take millions of years to diverge. Humans, rapidly occupying every available niche after leaving Africa 50,000 years ago, has been under enormous pressure to adapt. To do this meant selection for morphological, pharmacogenetic, behavioral, and cognitive traits. Not only are there many human races, but there are at least as many races as there are ecological niches, and only humans can create their own niches with forethought. What this means is not only Are there human Races, but humans have evolved uniquely to alter there own cultures or ecologies, further increasing unique selection pressures....
[...….]

Taxonomically significant groups require sexual isolation, something which we have done away with. (!) The further ludicrousness of this proposition is that it is better explained by the clinal variation hypothesis, which means the concept is not only useless but even if it were not, it is redundant.
The only place where it is still somewhat valid is in the medical field where they often use heuristics in order to process information more efficiently to come up with solutions at a faster rate. But there are very likely creationist doctors and a good number of them out there in the world- they are not experts on human evolution at all.

This is also ridiculous.
Forensic anthropologists use Race every day for ID in actual Legal cases, and from skeletal remains alone.

Overall, you show ZERO knowledge of race/subspecies or Taxonomy.
The problem as simple, but mindblowing, as You not knowing the difference between specie and subspecie/Race.. or intentionally conflating them
Race/subspecie is merely Morphological difference caused by Geographic and Genetic difference.
Beyond our closest Primates relatives subspecie/species I explained above...
I collect seashells, and in that field they drop subspecies like hot cakes: add one more dot and move over 10 miles/one island, and voila, another subspecies/race.
`

[kobe]

Forensic anthropologists are trying to solve crimes. Thus they use heuristics in order to be able to ascertain physical features that might lead to the identification of a victim. Their options are limited to whatever is on the form they are filling out.

http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp202-us13 ... cept-1.pdf.

Most anthropologists have abandoned the concept of race as a research tool and as a valid representation of human biological diversity. Yet, race identification continues to be one of the central foci of forensic anthropological casework and research. It is maintained in this paper that the successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed ‘racial’ category. A specimen may display features that point to African ancestry. In this country that person is likely to have been labeled Black regardless of whether or not such a race actually exists in nature.

If you think about it, just being able to find out the general background of the body is going to be extremely crucial for matching up the other physical features to the missing persons report, because for the most part you get age, weight, height, and ascribed race. Remember that the race concept still has not died out in our society, so it can still be used in the identification process. Thus, as I pointed out, you cannot point to the heuristics pointed to in the medical community as evidence of race, because they are not making taxonomical claims but trying to solve a problem using whatever tools they have at their disposal.

Got it?

No. Because it has not become taboo. That's a complete fabrication. It has fallen out of acceptance as the hypothesis behind human evolution and population groups. People all over the world still use the concept of race in order to refer to vast swaths of people and make generalizations. The fact is that studying such a wide swath of people is extremely uninteresting to everyone except physical anthropologists, and they tend to have a much better idea of more exact movements and admixtures of population groups, and have reference points for them and use them all the time to study the groups of interest. Race has ceased to be a useful anthropological concept even as it persists in the cultural sphere.

The racial consciousness question has become taboo in white society because we have figured out a way to be racist by pretending we don't think about race. That non-discussion is not something that anthropologists favor, because it leads to ignorance like this, and it also ignores the history of what the racial consciousness of white people has been used for, that is to denigrate, attack, dehumanize, genocide, subjugate, and enact imperial and colonial action. So we say that race exists in the cultural consciousness of people. After all, no one can deny the racial divide of the south, and how both sides identified not with humans in general but with their own race. Thus we can see this concept was social control and had wide ranging consequences. Then to go back and say it doesn't exist as a concept is useless.

But it does have no taxonomical significance and has nothing to do with human evolution.

Subspecies are animal groups that are related, can interbreed, and yet have characteristics that make them distinct from one another. Two basic ingredients are critical to the development of separate subspecies: isolation and time. Unlike most animals, humans are a relatively young species and we are extremely mobile, so we simply haven't evolved into different subspecies.

The earliest hominids evolved from apes about 5 million years ago, but modern humans (Homo sapien sapiens) didn't emerge until 150,000-200,000 years ago in eastern Africa, where we spent most of our evolution together as a species. Our species first left Africa only about 50,000-100,000 years ago and quickly spread across the entire world. All of us are descended from these recent African ancestors.

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_0 ... -01-11.htm

Overall, you show ZERO knowledge of race/subspecies or Taxonomy.
The problem as simple, but mindblowing, as You not knowing the difference between specie and subspecie/Race.. or intentionally conflating them
Race/subspecie is merely Morphological difference caused by Geographic and Genetic difference.
Beyond our closest Primates relatives subspecie/species I explained above...
I collect seashells, and in that field they drop subspecies like hot cakes: add one more dot and move over 10 miles/one island, and voila, another subspecies/race.

Incoherent. Your seashell expertise is not valid here.

As far as Sarrich and Miele, I have not read the book and very likely don't intend to. They are pushing the race and IQ hypothesis. I find it so hilariously disingenuous to act high and mighty about wanting real science while pushing such a limited view on intelligence. Furthermore, I find their claim that humans may have become intellectually and anatomically modern as early as 15k years ago extremely laughable.

[abu afak]

Another Dodge and short-quoting of my post.

1. You did NOT address Coyne at all.
That's Right, Perhaps the worlds foremost expert on Evolution and Speciation explaining how we easily (and 'definitionally') qualify for 'Race delimitation.
See page 8.

2. You didn't address alot else including genetic distances of our close Primate relatives that do have subpecie/Race, even different species.
One Cannot even say "they are all just Gorillas" for the purpose of Taxonomic subspecie/Race nor even the larger Species.

3. "Heuristics" (LOL) is only possible Because there are Physical Genetic Group differences to 'Heur'/Discern!

4. Sauer is just being PC. We see this alot. This is a POLITICAL position, not a physical/taxonomic one.
He contradicts himself after his first sentence
AGAIN

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... exist.html
NOVA | Does Race Exist?
with two Differing opinions. I post the latter from someone who necessarily/Practically/Forensically deals with race.
George Gill, the Hands-on proponent:

Slightly Over Half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the Traditional view that human Races are biologically valid and Real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The Other Half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."
[......]
Bones don't lie
"..My students ask, "How can this be? They can identify skeletons as to racial origins but do not believe in race!" My answer is that we can often function within systems that we do not believe in.
[......]
"The idea that race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true."
Deeper than the skin
[.......]The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity.
I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual Legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing Race from skeletal remains than from Looking at living people standing before me.
[.......]
On political correctness
Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the Clinical perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and Not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the Politically Correct Agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the Evidence.

How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?"
Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. But, you may ask, are the politically correct actually correct? Is there a relationship between thinking about race and racism?
[.......]

5. Race/Subspecie doesn't necessarily take Millions of Years. The Sarrich excerpt makes this clear.
Untouched by you and it doesn't really need alot of study.
ie
The Pygmy Mammoth, a separate SPECIE (not just subspecie) evolved from the Mammoth in just 30,000 Years from mere Island Isolation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_mammoth#Evolution.

Yet, Australian Aboriginals, who were Isolated for longer, and who ARE GENETICALLY further distant from Subsaharans than Chimp/Gorilla subspecies, don't have any taxonomic designation.

There are SCORES of animals with lesser Genetic distance than the ostensible single-race Human that get Taxonomic delimitation.
ie
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.word ... ations.pdf

"...Based on Table 2, it is evident that the ‘H. sapiens as monotypic species’ theory is Inconsistent with the way in which taxonomic classification has been employed for Other species exhibiting Similar degrees of heterozygosity. Chimpanzees for example exhibit very similar degrees of observed heterozygosity to humans (0.63–0.73 vs. 0.588–0.807) yet have been divided into Four subspecies.

Some species such as the grey wolf actually exhibit Lower levels of observed heterozygosity than humans (0.528 vs. 0.588– 0.807) yet have been divided into as many as 37 subspecies.

When measures of Genetic distance are used such as Wright’s FST, which describes the fraction of the variation attributable to population subdivision, values indicative of great levels of genetic differentiation have been obtained for humans (0.156) based on the analysis of autosomal loci [39] (great levels of genetic differentiation correspond to values of between 0.15 and 0.25 [40]). - This contrasts with scores indicative of Little to moderate levels of genetic differentiation in other animals (again obtained by looking at autosomal loci), such as the Canadian lynx (0.033) [28], which is recognized as having Three subspecies, and the African buffalo (0.059) [24], which is recognized as having Five subspecies.

A relevant question to ask at this stage is how many subspecies comprise H. sapiens? Traditionally, anthropologists have recognized Four great races on morphological grounds (Congoid or ‘Negroid’, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Australoid) with Capoid (SE Africans) sometimes described as a fifth [41]. Molecular data have resulted in this structure being modified slightly with the analysis of classical and other genetic markers consistently revealing the presence of around five continental populations (major clades or races) in the form of SubSaharan Africans, Caucasians (European and Non-European), NE (Greater) Asians, SE Asians and Pacific Islanders (includes Australopapuans) and Amerindians [42–45]. Subspecies identified cladistically not only compliment the definition of race as correlation structure, but also present an adequate solution to the problem of arbitrariness in traditional taxonomic approaches to the classifi- cation of human racial diversity [45,46]."
[........]
Table 4 would seem to suggest that the Sub-Saharan African (Bantu) and Australopapuan (Aborigine) genetic difference as measured by SNP’s is greater than the genetic distance between both the two species of gorilla (Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei), and greater than the distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo as measured by mtDNA."
On the basis of this Fuerle suggests that there are only two consistent courses of action to take regarding re-classification – splitting or lumping.
Either H. sapiens could be split into two species – Homo africanus which would encompass modern African populations and Homo eurasianensis which would encompass Eurasian populations; making the genus Homo consistent in his view, species-wise with respect to other genera in which the differences between species are expressed in terms of much smaller genetic distances;
or alternatively the genetic variability within the human species could be used to typologically define the absolute limits of what constitutes a vertebrate species, which could then be employed as a taxonomic baseline in the classification of other species. This would mean lumping the two gorilla species and the chimpanzee and the bonobo as single species...

The above excerpt easily makes clear we qualify for subspecie/Race, and even makes a case for different Human Species (if compared to Gorillas), but most would disagree, including me. But it's close.

5. This remains numbingly bad.
kobe: "Race is a social construct because what distinguishes homo sapiens from other animals is present in every so called race."
and a Botched attempt to disqualify subspecie/Race by saying we are the Same Specie.#&^%$
Really showing a complete Lack of understanding of the issue involved and would preclude all other animals (like our fellow primates, Gorillas/Chimps) from having THEIR own species, subspecies/Race.
`
`

EDIT:
The usual Incoherent Graphic Dump by ThirdTerm below.
It's another: "Hey, I can do something vaguely Related to that!", Even though not really Responsive to Anything. You never feel she is conversing with you, EVER, cause she ain't.

[ThirdTerm]

Yet, Australian Aboriginals, who were Isolated for longer, and who ARE GENETICALLY further distant from Subsaharan than the To Gorilla SPECIES are, don't even have subspecie status.

Australian Aboriginals have lived in Australia for at least 50,000 years and what separates us from Australians/New Guineans is another factor called "Denisova admixture". Australian Aboriginals belong to Haplogroup C common in East Asia, a clear indication that they had separated from Eurasians with Neanderthal admixture, but Australians/New Guineans further interbred with Denisovans. Denisovans are genetically distinct from the Neanderthals as well as modern humans and they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, interbreeding with the ancestors of Australian Aboriginals and Melanesians (3-5%). 7% Denisova introgression into the ancestors of Australians/New Guineans was diluted by roughly 50-50 admixture with Denisova-deficient modern humans, leading to the ~4% figure of Denisova admixture in present-day Australians/New Guineans. Inter-population differentiation within H. sapiens was partly driven by admixture with archaic humans such as the Neanderthals and Denisovans.

It has recently been shown that ancestors of New Guineans and Bougainville Islanders have inherited a proportion of their ancestry from Denisovans, an archaic hominin group from Siberia. However, only a sparse sampling of populations from Southeast Asia and Oceania were analyzed. Here, we quantify Denisova admixture in 33 additional populations from Asia and Oceania. Aboriginal Australians, Near Oceanians, Polynesians, Fijians, east Indonesians, and Mamanwa (a “Negrito” group from the Philippines) have all inherited genetic material from Denisovans, but mainland East Asians, western Indonesians, Jehai (a Negrito group from Malaysia), and Onge (a Negrito group from the Andaman Islands) have not. These results indicate that Denisova gene flow occurred into the common ancestors of New Guineans, Australians, and Mamanwa but not into the ancestors of the Jehai and Onge and suggest that relatives of present-day East Asians were not in Southeast Asia when the Denisova gene flow occurred. Our finding that descendants of the earliest inhabitants of Southeast Asia do not all harbor Denisova admixture is inconsistent with a history in which the Denisova interbreeding occurred in mainland Asia and then spread over Southeast Asia, leading to all its earliest modern human inhabitants. Instead, the data can be most parsimoniously explained if the Denisova gene flow occurred in Southeast Asia itself. Thus, archaic Denisovans must have lived over an extraordinarily broad geographic and ecological range, from Siberia to tropical Asia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188841/

[annatar1914]

I'm not a 'Racist', every man is my cousin in some degree, and same with every woman, we all came from literally one Family.... One Man and One Woman. Evolution is in fact a prime motivator logically of Racism.

If you accept this, there can be no real 'Racism'. If you do not, it is always near the door waiting to enter, shuffling hunchbacked and drooling.

[Dagoth Ur]

That only would stand to reason if all humans were not part of the same mitochondria tree.

[annatar1914]

That only would stand to reason if all humans were not part of the same mitochondria tree.

No, I think other factors are involved there which are too involved to go into this thread-and no, that's not a cop-out-but I'm certain that real science will catch back up with Monogyny and not polygeny when it comes to the origins of the human race. That is not to say that there isn't genetic experimentation, 'junk DNA' which is anything but, and other factors going on, but most of us are quite related... Well, maybe a few are related to 'Jinn'/Nephilim to some degree..... I'm sure there are Islamic legends that deal with that on your end, so to speak.

[mikema63]

I'm not a 'Racist', every man is my cousin in some degree, and same with every woman, we all came from literally one Family.... One Man and One Woman.

No, and if there were only one man and one woman they would die out by the third or fourth generation from inbreeding.

Evolution is in fact a prime motivator logically of Racism.

Racism precedes evolution.

[One Degree]

Racism is simply an excuse to justify our belief in the good of people. It is only racism that prevents everyone from living in peace and harmony. Idealistic nonsense to avoid facing the real issues. People are cruel, ignorant savages and must be controlled by societal norms. It does not matter if these norms are racist or not as long as we allow individuals to freely leave a government they disagree with. The real issue is how people should be governed and on what level.

[The Clockwork Rat]

None of that crap please, thank you.

[annatar1914]

No, and if there were only one man and one woman they would die out by the third or fourth generation from inbreeding.

Today, not in that previous World's conditions. You assume similar conditions more or less, extended into the past and the future, I assume radical catastrophism.

I presuppose a more likely state of human perfection with our original parents, certainly in a way a separate species, but from a position of an Olympian intellect and physical might and beauty, after the Fall sliding into de-evolutionary degeneracy. Our parents did not have the random copy errors and epigenetic environmental mutations we have today; even in more modern times, we find ourselves at a loss to equal ancient Greek Olympian athletic feats or even that of re-creating an ancient ship's trade route with a modern team of rowers in what we think is peak physical conditioning....

Racism precedes evolution.

No, Evolution is Racism's 19th century justification, as it was planned to be by our Capitalist masters.

[One Degree]

None of that crap please, thank you.

I am sorry if I have crossed a boundary I am not aware of. Would you please elaborate? The thread is about race being a social construct.

[The Clockwork Rat]

I was referring to a non-existent post.

[One Degree]

Oops, thank you.

[Red Skull]

Race exists otherwise, why are some races proned to specific hereditary diseases while others are not?

Race is not a social construct in that it is a development of thousands of years of evolutionary geographical environment that has shaped all the various pigmentations that exist. Race is tied to natural environment. People didn't create race, nature did.

Any social constructs being made are ones directly tied to environment. Natural environment created race and people thereafter formed cultural inclinations asserting all sorts of different things upon it thereafter.

Hypothetically even if we were to merely say race is a social construct purely which I disagree with entirely but for the sake of hypotheticals, so what? Are we to give up on all social constructs then? Are some social constructs more equal than others?

Race as defined by culture of course is an aesthetical appeal to be sure but it is one based upon natural environment nonetheless.