Do you believe in a superior race?

All Caucasoids have thin noses, and orthognathic jaws. There is no overlap. Negroids in contrast have wide noses, and extreme alveolar and facial prognathism. Just by quickly glancing at a skull, a forensic scientist can tell its racial affinity based on its nasal index and cephalometric angle(s) of the jaw.

Eurasians have Neanderthal DNA, while non-Eurasian races don't. For example, we can find Neanderthal traits in modern Caucasoids, but not in Negroids. This is just another reality that confirms race.

It is true that skin colour does not define a person. It is instead, the shape of their skull and their actual genetic make up. The reason for people getting taller is because there is more food available whilst the human is growing today than there use to be.

These days, due to migration, 'race' does not have a place in this world anymore. It is more about your appearance. So say there were 5 dark skinned-brown men aged 20, but all from different parts of the world, e.g. Sweden, South Africa, New York, London, Australia, they are all described as 'Negroid'. The same is with 5 white men aged 20, in Sweden, South Africa, New York, London, Australia - 'Caucasian'.
However, the 'Negroid' and 'Caucasian' terms are related to skull shape rather than outside appearance of skin colour. I know that there are all kinds of shapes of skulls within 'Negroids' and within 'Caucasians' but there are significant differences between the 2.

- the best comparison I could find.

Also, albino Asians look European.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4221017/The-worlds-biggest-albino-clan-are-living-in-Coventry.html

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Dobruja_Thrace_1.htm#albino
SCROLL DOWN

They look European - http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Images_Thrace/Albinos.jpg

There isn't a precipitous shift once a geographical area is crossed. Your own evidence doesn't even support the existence of three or five distinct clusters, it states in no unclear terms that there are a minimum of 14, after which the data become redundant.

Every argument you have presented can apply to any other genetic variable that has a marked geographic stratification; the difference is that you are socially constructing the notion/arbitrarily declaring that your genetic variable is more significant than another. I can equally argue the absence of the HLA-C*16:02 allele outside the 'Mesenea boundary' means there are distinct 'races' that conform to this 'delineation' and that mine is more significant than yours. However, biology has no intrinsically significant variables, as everything together creates an individual; any declaration that one is necessarily and unilaterally more significant than another is socially constructed.

Admixture is everywhere and is gradational. There is not a precipitous shift once a geographical area is crossed.

It is already known that masticatory stress and environment have a major influence on cranial structure, which fundamentally undermines its reliability. This is why forensic scientists cannot and do not rely on a single variable to determine likely geographic origin with any degree of accuracy; doing so would also validate Ousley et al.'s (2009) assertion that it is akin to using blood group as a measurement.

No single craniometric variable has an identical geographic distribution to another craniometric variable (like every other biological variable), which is why using more increases the accuracy (if they were coterminous, using any single one would result in 100% regional accuracy). Ipso facto, every craniometric variable overlaps the boundaries you claim exist, but to varying extents (like every other biological variable). Consequently,multiple ones are selectively used together to allocate people to predetermined boundaries.

"[...] [W]hen an index not designed to accentuate differences between groups is used, the contrast in skull shape between three major regions of the globe (Europe, Asia, and Africa) becomes ephemeral" (Strauss and Hubbe, 2010). Natural admixture means multiple traits are used. You are begging the question by suggesting something is not in situ, when what constitutes 'in situ' is contingent on the same variable under scrutiny.

They arbitrarily select variables and cross-reference them to conform to a priori delineations. Your evidence demonstrated a minimum of 14 clusters can be identified before the data become redundant and Ousley et al.'s evidence demonstrated any number of clusters can be identified, including between north and south Japanese people and 'white' men of different generations.

You said in post #61 and thereafter ("I already gave you the geographical boundaries, with sources." (#249)) that Rosenberg et al.'s (2002) findings correspond to the boundaries used in mainstream forensic anthropology, but now you're suggesting there is such thing as a pure 'race' with no genetic overlap, traits aren't 'in situ' according to the boundaries presented in #61 and east Africans are a product of admixture (despite originally suggesting they were "negroids", as per the "classic tripartite [...] racial divisions[noparse]").[/noparse] Severe backtracking here, especially considering Rosenberg et al.'s results did not indicate a maximum of five or six clusters (I don't even know where you got three from, as there are clearly more than three at k = 6 and that image also incorrectly claims there are four) and none of the populations sampled were without admixture (other studies of genetic distribution reveal a continuum of genetic change, as opposed to discrete clusters), which means any skull you identify as a 'pure' archetype is quite simply not. Everywhere has admixture, which is what I've been saying from the start. Quantitative genetics are a far more reliable and accurate basis of assessment for biological variance than qualitative craniology. "Very close"... very scientific and replicable.

Only Eurasians have Neanderthal DNA, Negroids for example don't have Neanderthal genes.

blah blah blah. You have nothing to refute the reality of race in regards to craniometric distinction. You can continue to repeat the same old fantasy of ''overlaps'' but when i ask for you to prove overlaps exist, you fail. If overlaps exist - where are the orthognathic or straight haired Negroids?

And btw, you still haven't told us what metric measurements were used in Ousley et al (2009) etc. The reason you won't, is because you know when compared to other geographical populations (races), those in-group differences become insignificant. Two Nigerians look similar and cluster compared to two japanese (n + s) despite in-group variation. Yet you are trying to claim minor variation makes racial taxonomy invalid. Epic fail, its just a really stupid argument.

?

you just repeated what i said at the start, but then you start rambling on about albino asians? what are you talking about?

Only 'Meseneans' have the HLA-C*16:02 allele; people outside of the 'Mesenea boundary' don't have this allele.

Apply this reasoning to every other allele in the human genome. Your measure is no more important than my measure and the thousands of other measurements that can be made.

'Black', 'white', 'Caucasoid', 'Mongoloid', 'Mesenean'; none of them are naturally more significant than another because they all require the socially constructed selective choosing and pretermission of overlapping and non-coterminous biological traits.

The same variables that mean north and south Japanese people aren't identical. People will cluster into two groups at k=2, so why not stop there? People will cluster into three groups at k=3, so why not stop there? The in-group differences at K=3 become 'insignificant' when compared to k=2. People will cluster into four groups at k=4, so why not stop there? The in-group differences at K=4 become 'insignificant' when compared to k=3. And so on. There is no logical stopping point and your argument can apply to anything. The scale you have chosen is arbitrary and is with the sole intention of conforming to socially constructed delineations.

Your own evidence demonstrates at least 14 clusters can be identified with a high accuracy rate of separation at k=14, after which Howells data become inadequate. Ousley et al. (2009) demonstrated with a discriminant function analysis that north and south Japanese people and 'white' men from different generations can be separated with a high accuracy rate. If you are arbitrarily positing k=3/k=5 are significant as 'races', Ousley et al.'s position that south and north Japanese people are significant as 'races' is equally valid. K=2 would be the highest order of separation, but that violates your a priori, socially constructed beliefs of how humanity 'should be divided' (into three 'groups'). You are conscious that greater divisions can be made, so you arbitrarily decided to stop at k=3/k=5, despite both your and my evidence demonstrating more clusters can be identified with a high degree of accuracy at k=14 and using discriminant function analyses up to whatever degree of separation one desires. But a minimum of 14 clusters or 'races' (Ousley et al. demonstrated the number of 'races' is only limited to the sample size and the measures used) as per your source doesn't correspond with your socially constructed beliefs so you stick to k=3/k=5, despite there being no logical reason to do so. You're all washed up and you're fully aware of it.

And that is just in respect to craniology; you still have to account for the innumerable other geographically stratified, overlapping and non-coterminous biological traits that would serve as 'races' by your logic, but do not conform in any way to the 'races' you claim 'exist' in craniology.

'Meseneans' cluster together despite in-group variation. What is your point?

.

If you're going to completely ignore the counterarguments I have made in response to your circular reasoning and present grossly outdated sources for your thoroughly refuted nonsense that arbitrarily divides people despite no logical reason to do so, this debate has ended.

You're washed up and haven't been presenting any new arguments or addressed your fundamentally fallacious circular reasoning.

.