|
Post by Circe on Apr 2, 2005 17:38:38 GMT -5
"With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. ... These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective." from American Anthropological Association's Statement on "Race"(http://150.174.33.57/isrr/aa_assoc.htm) I know this question may seem silly on a board like this, but I'm curious as to what fellow Dodonists think about it
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 3, 2005 4:22:56 GMT -5
I chose "a biological concept."
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Apr 3, 2005 10:17:47 GMT -5
Race is the evidense of geographic specificity in regards to the biology of the human race.
The significance of these differences is overrated, in terms of actual biology, but it continues to be a juicy taboo topic because many of these differences include methods by which the species induces sexual attraction. In modern society sexual selection is what propells and preserves race, and not any environmental selection. ...Different races/ethnicities are shown to have widely different methods, by which they they induce attraction. (Larged lipped Africans, White hairless Nordics, Big Butted Hottentots) And this drives endless fascination about the topic.
Because sex is very primal, peoples feelings regarding race can be very strong.. ...And we, as members of the 21'st century rest on recent history knowing how barbaric people can be without proper understanding of such a primal force.
Dodonna is where people postulate about these differences, in a general friendly and pseudo academic manner, and play an identification/classification game about those differences when different racial traits mix.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 3, 2005 12:13:35 GMT -5
Someone has asked the question in another thread. Race is not really a taxonomic term. It is the everyday term for the taxonomic subspecies. If humans were metaphytes then it would be variety. There are numerous examples of subspecies in other species. Lions are thought of as being of one species with no subspecies, that is the common African Lion. However there were four subspecies, two are extinct, the Barbary Lion and the Cape Lion, and two existing, the common in Africa and the Asiatic Lion in India, Panthera leo persica. I do not consider race to be any sort of made up cerebral concept but a biological reality. It is said that mice share 80% of their genome with humans. Do mice and humans not exist as species?
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Apr 3, 2005 12:40:45 GMT -5
It's sexual.
We have 80% similar DNA with mice. ...Can you go f*ck a mouse? ...Have little mice babies?
Race is something else. Not genetic divergence of species. But subconscious sexual identification.
Tribal identification is based on sex.
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Apr 3, 2005 15:45:34 GMT -5
Race is the expression of biodiversity of the varying human tribes. I view it as biological. The 'concept of race' is so highly fraught with emotion that our views on it stem largely from our respective cultural milieus.
|
|
|
Post by Kabbealompost on Apr 3, 2005 16:18:50 GMT -5
Race = ideology.
You don't believe this? Read history books.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Apr 3, 2005 16:45:55 GMT -5
-A very low % of our Phenotype is visible (Face, body shape and skin color) to others, all other phenotypes need modern technology to be seen (Blood-type, HLA...etc.)
-If you concentrate on the visible phenotype (and therefore genotype) then physical variation lies between Races and not within, But if you take into consideration the whole genotype then the variation is greater within Races than between them.
-My opinion: it is biological.
|
|
Bryce
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bryce on Apr 9, 2005 10:38:53 GMT -5
Definitely biological. I have no problem identifying myself racially. My self-perception includes race. This being said, I'd feel almost insulted if I were asked by the government to register officially as this or that. I dont want to feel like a laboratory mouse or to be a statistic. My vote is a statistic, not I.
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Apr 9, 2005 11:08:12 GMT -5
Biological.
|
|
Berter
New Member
Et si on fait un tour ensemble, Nouna!?
Posts: 6
|
Post by Berter on Apr 9, 2005 11:22:44 GMT -5
I vote with my lovely ones...
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Apr 9, 2005 11:24:35 GMT -5
With your nuts?
|
|
Berter
New Member
Et si on fait un tour ensemble, Nouna!?
Posts: 6
|
Post by Berter on Apr 9, 2005 11:45:16 GMT -5
With your nuts? With you, You, yOu, ...and YOU. They are different persons! ;D
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Apr 10, 2005 12:35:45 GMT -5
It's a biological fact which importance is amplified by the fact that people of the same "race" live in organised groups (states). The variation problem is a fake problem. You can have a group of eleven persons of which six tend to go left when walking, and five tend to go right. And another group five of which five tend to go right when walking and six left. Let's say the members of each of the two groups are bound to each other, and the two groups start walking. After a while the groups will be very distant as one goes left and the other right; after another while they will elaborate philosophies about the superiority of walking right (or left). And there is more variance within the groups than between the groups.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 10, 2005 14:24:28 GMT -5
"With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. ... These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective." from American Anthropological Association's Statement on "Race"(http://150.174.33.57/isrr/aa_assoc.htm) I know this question may seem silly on a board like this, but I'm curious as to what fellow Dodonists think about it It might be that most genetic variation lies within so-called racial groups (94%) and that conventional racial groupings differ from on another only in about 6% of their genes, yet who says that all genes in the human genome are equally important? It’s like the elements of the periodic table; you can have two elements that share a similar electronic arrangement and orbital shells, etc., but differ only by plus or minus 1 electron and get a completely different set of physical properties and characteristics that determine, for example, that one is a metal and the other not, that one is dielectric or not, etc. My point here is that small differences sometimes are the big difference. And I could cite many other example, but I think you get the point. So, the lines of division among biological populations may seem to be tenuous but still can be visibly traced. p.s. Please note that admitting the reality of biological diversity among the human species is not necessarily an endorsement of any social ideology.
|
|