Quote:
Originally Posted by Daldolma
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
HBB, you're incorrect about whether there is a genetic basis for race. The idea that there is no genetic basis for race is an outdated concept with roots in fear of racism. There clearly is genetic basis for race. That's not to say that there's a "Black gene" or a "White gene" or an "Asian gene", but there are sets of genetic expressions that lend themselves to peoples of a certain ancestry -- read: race -- more than others.
The most significant genetic differences are between Eurasian, African, and East Asian peoples. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009062200350
Yet it's still possible to find genetic nuance within those populations. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/sc...in&oref=slogin |
You're confusing ethnicity with race. "Race" is based on external physical characteristics, primarily skin tone (ex. "whites," "blacks."). It is common knowledge that there is more genetic variation within these arbitrarily assigned groups than when you compare any ethnic group with another.
For an example, I will use arbitrary numbers to illustrate:
When you compare 100 people of Irish Gaelic ethnicity to 100 people of Japanese ethnicity, you find 1,000 genetic markers (usually viral) difference.
When you compare 100 people who are "black" to another 100 people who are "black," you find 2,000 genetic markers (usually viral) difference.
This is because people who are "black" can be from many ethnic groups: various african ethnicities, various central and south american ethnicities, various asian and pacific islander ethnicities may also have the characteristics of "black." Similarly, people who are "white" may be from spain, norway, belarus, etc., all with a high amount of variation between groups.
Ergo, classifying people on the basis of skin color or other external traits is purely subjective, and without any scientific basis.
12-08-2011, 05:17 PM
Linear Mode
