[R4INBOW]

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Yeh...I know...That is why I wrote that black people according to the study are moderately retarded, which is obviously nonsensical.

I didn't realise I would have to state the latter lol.

Oh sorry. Didn't realise you were being sarcastic


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[hajinator]

(Original post by vedderfan94)
And? What is your point?

Its a relatively high IQ - this thread is about low IQ in black people.

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
"Practical"? I read that as, "whatever conforms to law-enforcement agencies' categorisation systems". I'm not interested in what is desired by the status quo, I'm interested in neutral biological variation.

No it means what is in the forensic database. For example, the Forensic Data Bank of the Forensic Anthropology Center at the University of Tennessee does not have Bushmanoid or Australoid samples. Some subspecies/races are such a small population, we don't have access to them easily. Furthermore some races are extinct, for example the Ainuids, so we have limited data on populations.

Definition of 'forensics': "relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems." Identify any developed state that doesn't use 'race' in legal matters. They could use any system of categorisation and forensic anthropologists will be able to categorise people effectively to that degree of accuracy using specific, selectively correlated variables. Stop relying on forensic anthropology sources that do not investigate biological variation neutrally.

"[...] [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)

Forensic anthropologists arbitrarily correlate various variables to categorise somebody to whatever level of detail the law requests. Biologically, there is no reason to have three and not two, four, five, etc.

The variables prove to be highly accurate in skeletal identification, and they match geographical boundaries. For example Negroids don't fall within the low NI range, because quite obviously their geographic setting (climate and environment) is linked to their evolution of morphological traits, specifically broad nasal aperture. A skull with a wide nasal opening simply is not going to be Caucasoid, and vice-versa a skull with a thin nasal opening is not going to be Negroid. Do you understand? I'm not sure what you are arguing against.

So you're going to ignore all the quotes I have presented? Genetics certainly do not conform to 'racial' delineations unless a priori systems of categorisation are used. People can be categorised into six clusters, but they can also be categorised into two, three, four, five, seven, eight, etc. clusters.

So once again you confirm you believe in race. As i said all ''race denialists'' believe groups can be clustered, all they disagree with is the standard racial classification. This is all you are objecting to, not race itself. And usually there is a socio-political agenda here. Keita who you love to quote, is just a racist who opposes ''Eurocentric'' [sic] racial classifications because he claims were founded by biased 'White' Europeans and he is himself 'Black'.

The notion of there being six clusters has already been refuted:

"So why has so much emphasis been placed on the results of the analysis using K = 6? Despite the fact that Rosenberg et al. (2002) presented no evidence that K = 6 represented the most likely number of genetic clusters in their data set, virtually all references to this study in both the scientific literature and the popular press mention the identification of either 5 or 6 genetic clusters. […] I would suggest that these particular results have been emphasized simply because they fit the general notion in our society that continental groupings are biologically significant. This notion is a legacy of traditional racial thought and seems to persist even when not clearly supported by biological data." (Bolnick, 2008: 77).

It's interesting that you have gone from three to five and now six—what is this telling you?

"Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races”" (Serre & Pääbo, 2004).

I said there are only three in practical forensics. This hasn't changed. The other subspecies/races are not in common forensic databases, it doesn't mean there are only three worldwide races in total. And once again you are not claiming races (''clusters'') don't exist (you admit they do), all you are doing is attacking proposed racial classifications because you think they are arbritary. Are you saying you have a better classification? What we have works well with the genetics and physical anthropology, and has done so for over a century.

Yes, it does:

That is not a supraorpital torus, just prominant brow-ridges. The torus projects on the lateral or side of the face. Note it doesn't in these photos. The supraorbital torus is only found in modern Australids, on the side of their face the torus projects hugely. Prominant brow-ridges are found in Caucasoids, but not the torus. Also you have contradicted yourself. You've posted these two individuals claiming they are not Australids, so quite clearly as i have pointed out - you do believe in race and that different populations that look different can be clustered differently.

If you found a skull that belonged to the 97%, this person would not be connected to Australia. Somebody who is part of a 'race' must have an essential characteristic extant in all members of that 'race', else this 'group' clearly does not exist objectively.

If we're going to start discussing genetics, I'm going to need some evidence for the existence of a gene/allele that is exclusive to indigenous Australians that moderates the prominence of the supraorbital ridge.

What constitutes 'prominence'? Nasal sills are also found in East Asia and the steepness of one's nasal spine varies throughout the world. You're still making arbitrary distinctions between absence and prominence.

You are just making junk up as you go along. Your knowledge on this doesn't go beyond a mere google search. You didn't even know what a supraorbital torus was and nasal sills are not found in Mongoloids (East Asians), they are only found in Caucasoids and are a diagnostic trait.

Are you really that stupid or are you trolling? There is a manifest absence of continental uniformity and exclusivity of the nasal 'types'. Even when using the arbitrary categories, it is patently clear that none of the nasal types are exclusive to or uniform across an entire continent. Notwithstanding the arbitrary division of the nasal index range, you cannot claim 'Caucasoids' exist because they have a 'small' nasal index (even though you are wrong about the apparent uniformity and exclusivity, as demonstrated in that map), then deny an 'Assa race' (Australasia and sub-Saharan Africa) do not collectively exist because they have a 'wide' nasal index. The map demonstrated indigenous Australians' noses are as wide as most (but not all) of the people in sub-Saharan Africa, so I fail to understand how this demonstrates the existence of a 'Negroid race' when there is clear variance within sub-Saharan Africa and a lack of exclusivity.

Furthermore, why do you only acknowledge a single side of the coin in your argument and (il)logic? If I took, for a moment, your claim about the exclusivity of 'Caucasoid' nasal sills to be true, an opposing single 'race' would be formed on the basis of an absence of the nasal sill, yet I don't see you claiming there is a Nasassaoea (North America, South America, sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, East Asia) 'race'. You cannot claim the 'Caucasoid race' exists because they possess one variable, but claim an opposing 'Nasassaoea race' does not exist because they don't possess that variable; (taking your incorrect claim regarding the exclusivity of the supraorbital ridge to be true for a moment) you cannot then claim the 'Australoid race' exists because of the presence of the supraorbital ridge, but not claim the Nasaaea (North America, South America, Africa, Eurasia) 'race' does not exist due to an absence of the supraorbital ridge. They are two completely different variables, and you cannot pretermit the opposing sides of the coin (which in itself is not delineated by the boundaries you claim exist). Your argument is devoid of consistency or logic.

And as i already made clear, no anthropologist identifies a race by a single metric variable. While Negroids and Australoids have wide noses, they are opposite in other craniometric indexes (Simotic, Orbital etc). The depth of the nasal root in Negroids and Australoids is also the most polar extreme. Variables are only useful in racial identification when multiple are used. For example while Negroids and Australoids have wide noses, their Orbital indexes are different. So it is easy to distinguish between them based on multiple criteria, which is how anthropology identifies the geographical boundary of the variables. There is overlap in single metric variables, but not multiple.

Why three? It is just as easy to create four, five, six or two. If the range is clearly continuous then there is no natural point of separation and any attempt to categorise it is arbitrary.

I already a while back gave you a quote from Stanley Garn, he adressed this problem. The major subspecies or ''geographical races'', correspond to major geographical zones. So there won't be people saying there are 100, 50, 20 or 10. The number suggested has always been 5 - 7, which relates to the major different morphological racial types by world territory (Garn, 1969). Three are usually only discussed for practical reasons. Very briefly: (a) Caucasoid - thin nosed, orthognathic (b) Mongoloid - medium nosed, mesognathic, (c) Negroid - wide nosed, prognathic. Hair = (a) wavy (b) straight (c) wooly.

You have not addressed the fact that extremities exist across the world in different locations. Notwithstanding the problem of the arbitrary separation points, why aren't those in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and 3% of indigenous Australia a 'race' because 'broad' noses can only be found in these locations?

Because they are different in other metric variables. I've explained it more than once, the problem is you don't understand the basics, and your knowledge on this stuff is nothing more than what you take off a quick google search. I prsume your copy and paste ''race denialist'' quotes are also just taken from a similar website.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Its true, only 5.5% of African-Americans are pure Negroid. 94.5% have Caucasoid admixture. The mean admixture is around 15%.

Regarding ''White Americans'', 33% have Negroid admixture as the same study shows (Shrivers et al, 2003). The mean admixture though is 2%. However the study has outliers, who are up to 23% Negroid. Shrivers who sampled himself in the study, discovered he was 11% Negroid. So around 70 million ''White Americans'' are part Negroid. America is just a melting pot. Those that are racially homogenous there are in the extreme minority.



Then you obviously aren't Negroid. Given the fact you are typing English, and are online a computer - you clearly aren't an indigenous West African.

Virtually all self-identified ''Blacks'' outside of West Africa are mixed. 94.5% of African Americans are, while the majority of ''Blacks'' in Europe are as well. If you want stats i can given them, they are provided in Lynn (2006).

Still waiting for you to give an explanation to this

Given the fact you are typing English, and are online a computer - you clearly aren't an indigenous West African

[Veni Vidi Fugi]

Anyone who tries to win an argument by citing their race as evidence of why they are right is a verifiable moron.

[FreeHat]

(Original post by Veni Vidi Fugi)
Anyone who tries to win an argument by citing their race as evidence of why they are right is a verifiable moron.

Nobody has done that.

[green.tea]

Iq is an ok measure but the fact that the likes of vos savant havent achieved to the degree of the einstiens shows that its far from perfect. It measures overall intelligence. A better way would be to measure skills separately.

People who's biggest claim to fame is an iq score are kinda sad.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
No it means what is in the forensic database. For example, the Forensic Data Bank of the Forensic Anthropology Center at the University of Tennessee does not have Bushmanoid or Australoid samples. Some subspecies/races are such a small population, we don't have access to them easily. Furthermore some races are extinct, for example the Ainuids, so we have limited data on populations.

I've just defined 'forensic' for you; people use whatever is required to match people to pre-defined categories, which are socially constructed.

The variables prove to be highly accurate in skeletal identification, and they match geographical boundaries. For example Negroids don't fall within the low NI range, because quite obviously their geographic setting (climate and environment) is linked to their evolution of morphological traits, specifically broad nasal aperture. A skull with a wide nasal opening simply is not going to be Caucasoid, and vice-versa a skull with a thin nasal opening is not going to be Negroid. Do you understand? I'm not sure what you are arguing against.

You're still using subjective, arbitrary definitions. The same argument applies to indigenous Australians, which demonstrates the lack of coincidence of the traits with the 'racial' delineations you claim exist.

So once again you confirm you believe in race. As i said all ''race denialists'' believe groups can be clustered, all they disagree with is the standard racial classification. This is all you are objecting to, not race itself. And usually there is a socio-political agenda here. Keita who you love to quote, is just a racist who opposes ''Eurocentric'' [sic] racial classifications because he claims were founded by biased 'White' Europeans and he is himself 'Black'.

No, I don't. Genetically, Witherspoon et al. (2007) demonstrated using an increased number of loci, there is a smooth gradient of population difference until it becomes asymptotic at ω=0. At around 800 loci, individuals from Africa, Europe and Asia are genetically closer to each other than they are to individuals from other continents; however, there is no logical stopping point here: individuals can be sorted into two groups, three groups, four groups ... all the way down to the individual's DNA. No genetic evidence supports the existence of discrete clusters, as all of the quotes I have presented have shown you. The continuity of various biological traits means any attempt to separate them is arbitrary and the notion of there being objective 'races' is incorrect.

"To avoid making "race" the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human "races" are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans. A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DNA haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate." (Templeton, 1998).





It becomes asymptotic even before all 55 variables are even used. Why is it impossible to reach 99.99...% accuracy (as is possible with genetic testing) using cranial data if they didn't overlap (even in 55-way unison)?

"In Japan, DFA using 18 variables classified Howells’ Northern and Southern Japan samples 89% correctly, and K-means cluster analysis allocated 81% of each Japanese group into separate clusters. Therefore, the Northern and Southern Japan samples would also represent different biological races. It would seem that the number of biological races may be limited only by the number of samples, contradicting the classic view that there are only a few discrete biological races. [...] if biological distinctiveness is an accepted criterion for biological races, a very large number of biological races can be discerned using craniometric data alone. [...] There are so many possible distinctive biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless" (Ousley et al., 2009).

I said there are only three in practical forensics. This hasn't changed. The other subspecies/races are not in common forensic databases, it doesn't mean there are only three worldwide races in total. And once again you are not claiming races (''clusters'') don't exist (you admit they do), all you are doing is attacking proposed racial classifications because you think they are arbritary. Are you saying you have a better classification? What we have works well with the genetics and physical anthropology, and has done so for over a century.

The classification is biologically invalid and continues to operate on a priori systems. The traits that do not conform to the traditional delineations are disregarded without valid reason, as I have presented in this thread and the other one.

That is not a supraorpital torus, just prominant brow-ridges. The torus projects on the lateral or side of the face. Note it doesn't in these photos. The supraorbital torus is only found in modern Australids, on the side of their face the torus projects hugely. Prominant brow-ridges are found in Caucasoids, but not the torus.

Erm, no. The supraorbital torus is the bony protrusion above the eye socket, which is more visible in the second person with his slimmer face. I don't know where you read it is exclusive to the side of the face, but it isn't. Can you present a peer-reviewed source that claims the supraorbital torus is exclusive to indigenous Australians? You still haven't resolved the problem of the other 97% and presented evidence of a gene/allele that moderates the prominence of the supraorbital torus that is exclusive to indigenous Australians. Without this, you cannot claim the other 97% are in the same 'group'.

Also you have contradicted yourself. You've posted these two individuals claiming they are not Australids, so quite clearly as i have pointed out - you do believe in race and that different populations that look different can be clustered differently.

No, I believe in the existence of overlapping, non-coterminous human variation. All of their traits will flow in a non-concordant fashion and reach their extremities in different parts of the world.

You are just making junk up as you go along. Your knowledge on this doesn't go beyond a mere google search. You didn't even know what a supraorbital torus was and nasal sills are not found in Mongoloids (East Asians), they are only found in Caucasoids and are a diagnostic trait.

Yes they are. They are less distinct (another subjective measure) than in Europeans, but they are certainly present.

And as i already made clear, no anthropologist identifies a race by a single metric variable. While Negroids and Australoids have wide noses, they are opposite in other craniometric indexes (Simotic, Orbital etc). The depth of the nasal root in Negroids and Australoids is also the most polar extreme. Variables are only useful in racial identification when multiple are used. For example while Negroids and Australoids have wide noses, their Orbital indexes are different. So it is easy to distinguish between them based on multiple criteria, which is how anthropology identifies the geographical boundary of the variables. There is overlap in single metric variables, but not multiple.

So you finally admit it. We're making progress.

The moment you choose certain variables and selectively correlate them to delineate people into three/five/six categories you accept these categories are socially constructed. The nasal index naturally transgresses the boundaries you believe exist so why are you selectively choosing others to make them conform to your socially constructed delineations? Arbitrary.

But even when you use all 55 variables in Howells' data, one can still not say with 100% accuracy that any two individuals in a 'racial group' are closer to each other than they are two another 'racial group', which evinces the fact that the distinctiveness that is necessary for 'races' to exist is simply not present:

"The statement that pairs of individuals from different populations are often more genetically similar than pairs from the same population is a widespread idea inside and outside the scientific community. Witherspoon et al. [“Genetic similarities within and between human populations,” Genetics 176:351–359 (2007)] proposed an index called the dissimilarity fraction (ω) to access in a quantitative way the validity of this statement for genetic systems. Witherspoon demonstrated that, as the number of loci increases, ω decreases to a point where, when enough sampling is available, the statement is false. In this study, we applied the dissimilarity fraction to Howells’s craniometric database to establish whether or not similar results are obtained for cranial morphological traits. Although in genetic studies thousands of loci are available, Howells’s database provides no more than 55 metric traits, making the contribution of each variable important. To cope with this limitation, we developed a routine that takes this effect into consideration when calculating ω. Contrary to what was observed for the genetic data, our results show that cranial morphology asymptotically approaches a mean ω of 0.3 and therefore supports the initial statement—that is, that individuals from the same geographic region do not form clear and discrete clusters—further questioning the idea of the existence of discrete biological clusters in the human species" (Strauss and Hubbe, 2010).

I already a while back gave you a quote from Stanley Garn, he adressed this problem. The major subspecies or ''geographical races'', correspond to major geographical zones. So there won't be people saying there are 100, 50, 20 or 10. The number suggested has always been 5 - 7, which relates to the major different morphological racial types by world territory (Garn, 1969). Three are usually only discussed for practical reasons. Very briefly: (a) Caucasoid - thin nosed, orthognathic (b) Mongoloid - medium nosed, mesognathic, (c) Negroid - wide nosed, prognathic. Hair = (a) wavy (b) straight (c) wooly.

I'm going to say this and repeat it whenever you deviate from objective data: I'm not interested in anything that doesn't follow the scientific method. As I have already said, forensic anthropologists are not generally seeking to discredit the categorisation systems in place, they are simply trying to categorise people into whatever systems the law-enforcement agency wants; anything related to or derived from forensic anthropology (i.e., what is related to common legal processes) has no place in objective science. You seem to acknowledge this, which is why you are now relying on qualitative data, as opposed to the quantitative type that is necessary for any scientific claim to have merit. As all the quotes I have presented have demonstrated, when variables are viewed without these pre-defined categorisation mechanisms the gradient is continuous and is not continentally uniform. These are not natural clusters; the range of nasal indexes are continuous and the split is arbitrary. One group being 40-50 on the nasal index, another group being 70-80 and the final one being 100-110 would be evidence of three clusters for the nasal index, as the ranges are discontinuous. Presenting a scale of 1-6 and declaring the separation points are 12|34|56 is arbitrary, as the range is continuous. Why isn't it 123|456, or 1|2|3|4|5|6, or 1.0|1.1|1.2...5.9|6.0 etc.?

Do not give me names like 'wooly' and 'orthognathic' (the definition of which will vary from person to person), give me objective numerical figures that are reproducible and fulfil the paradigmatic condition of the scientific method. After this, justify why these numerical scales are divided into three section and not two, four, five, etc.

Explain why the Assa and Nasaaea 'races' do not exist.

In addition, as I demonstrated in the other thread, any part of the skull that is heavily influenced by dietary procedures and masticatory stress is heavily modifiable and therefore inaccurate:

"[...] [T]he assumption that cranial form is an immutable “racial” character is very likely to be false, given the diversity of studies of immigrants and the known effects of food preparation and masticatory stress upon cranial form. Cranial form, like other aspects of the body, is a phenotype partly determined by heredity but also strongly influenced by the conditions of life" (Williams et al., 2005).

Because they are different in other metric variables. I've explained it more than once, the problem is you don't understand the basics, and your knowledge on this stuff is nothing more than what you take off a quick google search. I prsume your copy and paste ''race denialist'' quotes are also just taken from a similar website.

Everywhere is different in any given variable, and as these variables are continuous and non-concordant, any attempt to use them in unison is socially-constructed; their natural distribution is not rigid or coincident with the boundaries you claim are 'racial'. The gradient and incidence will not be the same for any given variable.

[vedderfan94]

(Original post by hajinator)
Its a relatively high IQ - this thread is about low IQ in black people.

No, it's about a low average IQ in black people. IQ scores generally follow a normal distribution, of course there are outliers.

[democracyforum]

Ancient Arabs make modern Klansmen look tame



Zanj (Arabic: زنج, "Land of the Blacks" or "Land of the Negroes"[1]) was a name used by medieval Arab geographers to refer to both a certain portion of the coast of East Africa and its inhabitants, Bantu-speaking peoples called the Zanj.


"As for the Zanj, they are people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence."

"We know that the Zanj (blacks) are the least intelligent and the least discerning of mankind, and the least capable of understanding the consequences of actions." Jahiz (d. 868 AD), Kitab al-Bukhala'

"Like the crow among mankind are the Zanj for they are the worst of men and the most vicious of creatures in character and temperament." Jahiz, Kitab al-Hayawan, vol. 2

"[inhabitants of sub-Saharan African countries] are people distant from the standards of humanity" "Their nature is that of wild animals...." Persian geography Hudud al-`alam, 982 AD

"They [the Shu`ubiyya] maintain that eloquence is prized by all people at all times -- even the Zanj, despite their dimness, their boundless stupidity, their obtuseness, their crude perceptions and their evil dispositions, make long speeches." Jahiz, Al-Bayan wa`l-tabyin, vol. 3

"Galen says that merriment dominates the black man because of his defective brain, whence also the weakness of his intelligence." Mas`udi (d. 956 AD), Muruj al-dhahab

"As regards southern countries, all their inhabitants are black on account of the heat of their climate... Most of them go naked... In all their lands and provinces, gold is found.... They are people distant from the standards of humanity." Hudud al-`Alam, Persian geography, 982 AD

"The Zanj are so uncivilized that they have no notion of a natural death. If a man dies a natural death, they think he was poisoned. Every death is suspicious with them, if a man has not been killed by a weapon." Abu Rayhan al-Biruni, India, 1030 AD

About the Zanj: "Their nature is that of wild animals. They are extremely black." About the Sudan: "Among themselves there are people who steal each other's children and sell them to the merchants when the latter arrive." Hudud al-`Alam, 982 AD

"If (all types of men) are taken, from the first, and one placed after another, like the Negro from Zanzibar, in the Southern-most countries, the Negro does not differ from an animal in anything except the fact that his hands have been lifted from the earth,--in no other peculiarity or property,--except for what God wished. Many have seen that the ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro, and more intelligent." Philosopher-theologian Nasir al-Din Tusi (1201-74), Tasawwurat

"Therefore, the Negro nation are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated." Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah, 14th century AD

"A man of discernment said: The people of Iraq ... do not come out with something between blonde, buff and blanched coloring, such as the infants dropped from the wombs of the women of the Slavs and others of similar light complexion; nor are they overdone in the womb until they are burned, so that the child comes out something between black, murky, malodorous, stinking, and crinkly-haired, with uneven limbs, deficient minds, and depraved passions, such as the Zanj, the Somali, and other blacks who resemble them. The Iraqis are neither half-baked dough nor burned crust but between the two." ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadani, Mukhtasar Kitab al-Buldan, 903 AD

"beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings." Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah

"[Blacks] are ugly and misshapen, because they live in a hot country." Ibn Qutayba (828-89 A.D.)

"The Zanj are slight-witted (kam 'aql), and God, most high, has created them stupid, ignorant, and foul (palid)." anonymous, Iskandarnamah, 1343 AD

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I've just defined 'forensic' for you; people use whatever is required to match people to pre-defined categories, which are socially constructed.You're still using subjective, arbitrary definitions. The same argument applies to indigenous Australians, which demonstrates the lack of coincidence of the traits with the 'racial' delineations you claim exist.

As i have pointed out, races are not pre-defined as they correspond to known geographical populations. The ''Racial Denialist'' fallacy you continue to repeat is the argument by false method, which never takes the reality of geography into account. As McCulloch (2002) remarks:

Argument by false methods of racial identification and classification [...] This argument claims that the traditional typological methods of racial identification and classification based on morphological traits or phenotype is arbitrary. It contends that other methods would yield very different results, classifying different types * as measured by these different methods * into groupings that differ from the traditional racial groupings, making them meaningless and arbitrary. [...] But the traditional methods of racial classification by racial typology or physical appearance are not arbitrary for the simple reason that they are based on, reflect and are consistent with the real geographic populations of humanity, as they really exist, and therefore with objectively observable and verifiable reality. They are the traits that differ between these real populations, the differences in physical appearance by which these populations can be accurately distinguished and identified, and by which they are and have been accurately distinguished and identified for millennia. Those traits that are not distributed in a manner that coincides with real populations are not valid methods of racial identification in the real world.

The standard racial classification is clearly not arbritary, as it is verified by real geographical populations which we can see with our own eyes. The classification would only be arbritary, if traits are ''not distributed in a manner that coincides with real populations'' as McCulloch notes.

No, I don't. Genetically, Witherspoon et al. (2007) demonstrated using an increased number of loci, there is a smooth gradient of population difference until it becomes asymptotic at ω=0. At around 800 loci, individuals from Africa, Europe and Asia are genetically closer to each other than they are to individuals from other continents; however, there is no logical stopping point here: individuals can be sorted into two groups, three groups, four groups ... all the way down to the individual's DNA. No genetic evidence supports the existence of discrete clusters, as all of the quotes I have presented have shown you. The continuity of various biological traits means any attempt to separate them is arbitrary and the notion of there being objective 'races' is incorrect.

As you have pointed out individuals within major continental zones are closer genetically to each other than outsiders. This confirms racial reality, but again you are opposing the attempts at classification. What you don't seem to understand is that these larger clusters (subspecies), can be further divided. Race on the intra level, is a continuum, as McCulloch (2002) explains: ''...marked by many subdivisions with subtle gradations of racial change that correlate with spatial and temporal distance''. There is no agreed amount of these sub or microraces, they are an endless continuum. This is exactly what is expected if major geographical races (subspecies) are real, it is why there has been no agreed amount of races on the intra level (Garn, 1969).

Genetics has confirmed racial reality. Sarich and Miele (2004) conclude:

...if we employ a straightforward definition of race -- for example, a population within a species that can be readily distinguished from other such populations on genetic grounds alone (that is, using only heritable features) -- then there can be no doubt of the existence of a substantial number of human races.

Here we can identify many micro and sub-races. Hundreds if not more, based on not only genetic differences but phenotypic or morphological traits.

Take a look at the following genetic distances (Nei and Roychoudhury, 1993):



As you can see continental or major geographical races (subspecies) can easily be identified based on the fact regional groups cluster, for example English and Germans, Italians, North Indians, Iranians and Lapps all neatly form a genetic cluster = Caucasoid. Basically you have misunderstood racial classification, and overlooked the fact it proposes an intra racial variation continuum, hence there are no concrete known micro-races, but certain intra groups easily cluster into patterns as just shown.

"To avoid making "race" the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human "races" are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans.

A subspecies is the ''75% rule'', and through this, different Homo Sapien populations can be identified as subspecies. There are profound differences among the different continental geographical races.

A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DNA haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate." (Templeton, 1998).

Clearly ''locally differentated populations'' = micro-races. So Templeton does believe in race. Why though stop at the local level? Local variations are apart of a larger racial taxa. As you already showed, major geographical populations differ genetically, as they do in morphology.

"In Japan, DFA using 18 variables classified Howells’ Northern and Southern Japan samples 89% correctly, and K-means cluster analysis allocated 81% of each Japanese group into separate clusters. Therefore, the Northern and Southern Japan samples would also represent different biological races. It would seem that the number of biological races may be limited only by the number of samples, contradicting the classic view that there are only a few discrete biological races. [...] if biological distinctiveness is an accepted criterion for biological races, a very large number of biological races can be discerned using craniometric data alone. [...] There are so many possible distinctive biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless" (Ousley et al., 2009).

We already covered this before. N + S Japanese cluster together when they are compared to other populations, but show intra variation. Therefore by seperate race, Ousley means micro-race. Howells data groups all Mongoloids under the same subspecies, but in different races/intra variation.

Erm, no. The supraorbital torus is the bony protrusion above the eye socket, which is more visible in the second person with his slimmer face. I don't know where you read it is exclusive to the side of the face, but it isn't. Can you present a peer-reviewed source that claims the supraorbital torus is exclusive to indigenous Australians? You still haven't resolved the problem of the other 97% and presented evidence of a gene/allele that moderates the prominence of the supraorbital torus that is exclusive to indigenous Australians. Without this, you cannot claim the other 97% are in the same 'group'.

The torus is not the supraorbital ridge. In many skulls what appears to be a torus is actually just a prominant brow ridge. A supraorbital torus runs across the lateral side of the orbits, the brow ridge, and across the entire front of the skull uninterrupted. That is the shape of a torus. It is a characteristic trait of Australopithecus, but is only found today in Australids, who are the most primitive in craniofacial features through Pleistocene retention.

The 3% figure comes from Larnach (1978).

No, I believe in the existence of overlapping, non-coterminous human variation. All of their traits will flow in a non-concordant fashion and reach their extremities in different parts of the world.

Since you believe different populations can cluster in ''extremities'', then this is more than enough to accept them as distinct races.

So you finally admit it. We're making progress.

The moment you choose certain variables and selectively correlate them to delineate people into three/five/six categories you accept these categories are socially constructed. The nasal index naturally transgresses the boundaries you believe exist so why are you selectively choosing others to make them conform to your socially constructed delineations? Arbitrary.

Wrong as already shown because you aren't taking geographical factors into account. Read the quote from McCulloch (2002) above provided. The variables are not arbitrary. Claiming they are is simpley ignorant of the facts.

But even when you use all 55 variables in Howells' data, one can still not say with 100% accuracy that any two individuals in a 'racial group' are closer to each other than they are two another 'racial group', which evinces the fact that the distinctiveness that is necessary for 'races' to exist is simply not present:

You have distorted the data, and are now posting complete nonsense. Two individuals from any major race (subspecies) of course will closely match each other before another race. This is because multiple variables do not overlap. Negroids don't have thin noses or wavy hair, Caucasoids however do. You can go through hundreds of more differences in the variables.

For your theory to work, you would need to find all phenotypic variation within each geographical population. However this is impossible, as no such mass overlap exists. There is only an overlap in singular traits, hence you have admitted there are polar extreme clusters of phenotypic variation.

One group being 40-50 on the nasal index, another group being 70-80 and the final one being 100-110 would be evidence of three clusters for the nasal index, as the ranges are discontinuous. Presenting a scale of 1-6 and declaring the separation points are 12|34|56 is arbitrary, as the range is continuous. Why isn't it 123|456, or 1|2|3|4|5|6, or 1.0|1.1|1.2...5.9|6.0 etc.?

Do not give me names like 'wooly' and 'orthognathic' (the definition of which will vary from person to person), give me objective numerical figures that are reproducible and fulfil the paradigmatic condition of the scientific method. After this, justify why these numerical scales are divided into three section and not two, four, five, etc.

Explain why the Assa and Nasaaea 'races' do not exist.

In addition, as I demonstrated in the other thread, any part of the skull that is heavily influenced by dietary procedures and masticatory stress is heavily modifiable and therefore inaccurate:

"[...] [T]he assumption that cranial form is an immutable “racial” character is very likely to be false, given the diversity of studies of immigrants and the known effects of food preparation and masticatory stress upon cranial form. Cranial form, like other aspects of the body, is a phenotype partly determined by heredity but also strongly influenced by the conditions of life" (Williams et al., 2005).

Everywhere is different in any given variable, and as these variables are continuous and non-concordant, any attempt to use them in unison is socially-constructed; their natural distribution is not rigid or coincident with the boundaries you claim are 'racial'. The gradient and incidence will not be the same for any given variable.

Once again neglecting what we know about geography and using the fallacious argument by false method which has been debunked.

The racial boundaries were founded in the first place based on what we know about different geographical populations. People didn't pull this stuff out their asses. These boundaries were already in place over 2000 years ago, when the Romans and Greeks offered an ethnographical classification of races. Little has changed since then. For example if you read Galen's Mixtures (2nd century AD) a racial classification by hair texture is found, which closely matches the standard Caucasoid (wavy), Negroid (wooly) and Mongoloid (straight) classification today. So to repeat McCulloch (2002) one final time:

...are not arbitrary for the simple reason that they are based on, reflect and are consistent with the real geographic populations of humanity, as they really exist, and therefore with objectively observable and verifiable reality

You won't however accept this fact, as it debunks your ''racial denialism''...

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
As i have pointed out, races are not pre-defined as they correspond to known geographical populations. The ''Racial Denialist'' fallacy you continue to repeat is the argument by false method, which never takes the reality of geography into account. As McCulloch (2002) remarks:

The standard racial classification is clearly not arbritary, as it is verified by real geographical populations which we can see with our own eyes. The classification would only be arbritary, if traits are ''not distributed in a manner that coincides with real populations'' as McCulloch notes.

Really, Richard McCulloch?

"A noted white nationalist, McCulloch coined the phrase "declaration of racial independence" in his 1994 book The Racial Compact. In this book he stated that every race had a requirement for "its own exclusive racial territory or homeland, its own independent and sovereign government". McCulloch has given his views in the monthly American Renaissance, published by the New Century Foundation. In a 1995 article on "Separation for Preservation", he said there was evidence "that a multiracial society is detrimental to the interests of European-Americans", going on to say that "Separation ... is necessary for [White] racial preservation". He is the author of "The Racial Compact", a website that advocates racial pride and maintenance of "racial purity"."

I think it speaks volumes about the strength of your claims when that is your source. Present peer-reviewed articles in future, if you can.

It is another circular argument. If you're going to relapse into this illogic because you can no longer substantiate your point, this discussion has ended. I can see a continuum of various phenotypic traits, not an abrupt transition.

If you command the software to sort the groups into three categories, it will sort the group into three categories. All of the evidence demonstrates a continuous, non-concordant and overlapping distribution of various genetic traits. It does not start or stop at three groups.

As you have pointed out individuals within major continental zones are closer genetically to each other than outsiders. This confirms racial reality, but again you are opposing the attempts at classification.

I can only assume you're being obtuse intentionally. You have observed a smooth gradient that seeks to answer a specific question that presupposes these populations exist. A smooth gradient would exist if we compared samples of Europe and East Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia, or a particular section of these continents to a particular section of another continent. The smooth gradient clearly invalidates the notion that there are distinct differences between 'races', which is why so many correlated loci (i.e., no single locus conforms to the 'racial' boundaries you claim exist, which explains Lewontin's (1973) original conclusion) are needed to reach an almost 100% accuracy rate. Due to the lack of distinct differences and the fact so many loci must be correlated to fit people into these categories, suggesting that we should stop at three degrees of separation (despite the article not demonstrating this), and not two, four, five, etc. is arbitrary. Everything overlaps, which means an a priori system of categorisation must be used to delineate the natural continuous genetic variance. It is a matter of correlating variables to the pre-defined categories of Europe, Africa and Asia, but with no evidence of there being a naturally discrete intersection between these locations; the continuous nature of the graph invalidates any assertion that there is an abrupt difference between these areas.

What you don't seem to understand is that these larger clusters (subspecies), can be further divided. Race on the intra level, is a continuum, as McCulloch (2002) explains: ''...marked by many subdivisions with subtle gradations of racial change that correlate with spatial and temporal distance''. There is no agreed amount of these sub or microraces, they are an endless continuum. This is exactly what is expected if major geographical races (subspecies) are real, it is why there has been no agreed amount of races on the intra level (Garn, 1969).

You haven't even demonstrated the existence of distinct 'races' and you're already trying to divide 'them'? There is no evidence of three distinct groups, which is partly evidenced by your sources positing there are anything from 3-7 'races' and my more recent sources finding biological variation is continuous. Why is there so much disagreement about an apparently 'real' and empirical phenomenon? This is answered in the red text. 'Race' is a social construct that arbitrarily selects variables whilst pretermitting the equally significant ones that do not conform to these socially-constructed delineations.

Genetics has confirmed racial reality. Sarich and Miele (2004) conclude:

What is a 'substantial number'? Why would they have said a 'substantial number' if there were only three? Going by that definition, as I said in my previous post, anybody can be a new 'race'. On 'genetic grounds alone', I can be distinguished from anybody else. Your attempt to further divide something that has not yet been established as a category in itself is farcical.

Here we can identify many micro and sub-races. Hundreds if not more, based on not only genetic differences but phenotypic or morphological traits.

Take a look at the following genetic distances (Nei and Roychoudhury, 1993):



As you can see continental or major geographical races (subspecies) can easily be identified based on the fact regional groups cluster, for example English and Germans, Italians, North Indians, Iranians and Lapps all neatly form a genetic cluster = Caucasoid. Basically you have misunderstood racial classification, and overlooked the fact it proposes an intra racial variation continuum, hence there are no concrete known micro-races, but certain intra groups easily cluster into patterns as just shown.

They have chosen English, Japanese and Nigerian people to conform to pre-defined notions of 'race', and it is clear their sampling methods are not globally representative or equivalent in weight. You're noticing a 'cluster' because considerably more samples have been taken from Europe and Eastern Asia than they have from anywhere else and the sampling method is heterogeneous. Contemporary, more comprehensive evidence has demonstrated homogeneous sampling from around the world confers no distinct clusters:

"One issue of central importance is how samples are collected. For historical and practical reasons, the approach most commonly used is to collect individuals from “populations” (such as “Norwegians,” “Yorubas,” “Ashkenazi Jews”) defined by cultural traits such as a shared language, shared religion, or shared myths of origins. Under such sampling schemes, populations considered to be “admixed,” as well as individuals of “mixed ancestry,” are often excluded from sampling. One problem with this approach may be that the cultural traits used to define “populations” are at the most a few thousand years old and often substantially younger.

We find that if sampling is based on individuals and geography rather than on “populations,” gradual variation and isolation by distance on a worldwide scale are better representations of global genetic diversity than are discontinuities among continents or “races.”

Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”" (Serre & Pääbo, 2004).

However, I am conscious of Rosenberg et al.'s (2005) attempt to invalidate this, which in itself has since been invalidated:

Spoiler:

Show

"The pattern of DNA diversity is one of nested subsets, such that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations. The actual pattern of DNA diversity creates some unsettling problems for using race as meaningful genetic categories. For example, the pattern of DNA diversity implies that some populations belong to more than one race (e.g., Europeans), whereas other populations do not belong to any race at all (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africans). As Frank Livingstone noted long ago, the Linnean classification system cannot accommodate this pattern because within the system a population cannot belong to more than one named group within a taxonomic level.

Fischer and colleagues (Fischer et al., 2006) analyzed DNA sequences comprising 22,401 nucleotides collected by Voight and colleagues (Voight et al., 2005) for each member in a sample of 45 individuals. These 22,401 nucleotides represent 26 autosomal loci each composed of $860 contiguous base pairs. This sample includes 15 individuals from each of three human populations: Hausa, Italian, and Han Chinese. This sampling scheme provides a valid estimate of nucleotide diversity within populations, but it confounds the diversity for populations within geographic regions with the diversity between geographic regions. These researchers found that the diversity between populations (including both components) ranged from 9 to 15%, depending on the pair of populations being compared. The interesting feature of this study is that Fischer and colleagues went on to sequence the homologous loci in multiple samples from two species of great apes. They found that the diversity between human populations exceeds that estimated between Eastern (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) and Central (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) subspecies of Chimpanzee. In this light, we must either reassess the evidence for subspecies of Chimpanzee, or else judge taxonomic significance on a different basis than the component of diversity between populations.

Long and colleagues showed that partitioning diversity into within and between groups components is sensitive to a host of a priori assumptions (Urbanek et al., 1996; Long and Kittles, 2003). First, the expected diversity is the same within all populations sampled. Second, the expected diversity between any pair of populations within a region is the same, regardless of the region. Third, the expected diversity between any pair of populations in different regions is the same, regardless of the pair of regions. When these assumptions are violated, the total diversity is underestimated, the component of diversity within groups is over-estimated, and the component of diversity between groups is underestimated. Long and Kittles found that some human groups are far more diverged than would be implied by standard components of genetic diversity, whereas other groups are much less diverged (Long and Kittles, 2003).

Comparisons between raw and model-generated diversity and genetic distance estimates reveal that the TLIM indeed misrepresents both the pattern and amount of diversity within and between populations. A strong message from our findings is that the model used in an analysis biases the outcome measurements. We agree entirely with Lewontin that classical race taxonomy is a poor reflection of human diversity.

In summary, we find for our own data and for a large published data set, that human populations have much diversity when DNA sequences are considered. We show that simple partitions of diversity are biased and that they hide the true extent of diversity. The pattern of diversity that we reveal is richer and worthy of study as it sheds light on the peopling of the world, ancestry and natural selection, and disease patterns (Ramachandran et al., 2005; Rosenberg et al., 2005; Lohmueller et al., 2008)" (Long et al., 2009)

In addition, "[...] we demonstrate that the observed pattern of global gene identity variation is consistent with a history of serial population fissions, bottlenecks and long-range migrations associated with the peopling of major geographic regions, and gene flow between local populations. This history has produced a nested pattern of genetic structure that is inconsistent with the existence of independently evolving biological races." (Hunley et al., 2009)

Referring to the Rosenburg et al. study:

"Structure estimates the likely genetic contributions of k parental populations to the current populations, but does not take geography into consideration, provides no information about the existence of boundaries of increased genetic change between populations, nor does it test for their statistical significance."

Consequently, "[i]n this study, we re analysed the same dataset using a specific method that infers boundaries from genome diversity data. We located the zones of highest genomic change on the world map and tested by two randomization schemes whether these zones do represent areas of significantly increased genetic change with respect to random locations on the world map, and with respect to the loci studied."

Results: "This analysis of autosomal diversity shows that different clusters of populations can be identified in the same dataset, depending on the assumptions of the model. Under a model of divergence driven by genetic drift (and opposed by gene flow), which is implicit in the usage of Wright’s FST statistics, we found nine groups, four of them in the Americas. Sharp differences among New World samples, even at close spatial distances, have been described by several authors, and are interpreted as a consequence of founder effects and strong genetic drift in populations occupying a highly-fragmented habitat. A similar result was obtained using a completely different method by Corander et al. In addition, Africa seems subdivided in three clusters (which was not apparent in Rosenberg et al.), in agreement with several studies showing higher diversity in Africa than in other continents. FST shows no barrier between Western and Eastern Eurasia, so that a single, large cluster seems to encompass all populations from East Africa Bantus to the Pima of Mexico.

Sample sizes are small in several regions of the world, and notably in Africa and East Asia. As a consequence, it may be that we did not have enough statistical power to identify additional boundaries between those populations, and hence that the genetic landscape of Africa and East Asia is more fragmented than it appears in this study.

Under a model in which divergence is also due to the accumulation of STR mutations, implemented by estimating RST, eight clusters are apparent. However, the main difference with respect to the previous model is not the number of clusters, but their scope. All populations from Subsaharan Africa form a single group, when analysed by RST. Western Eurasia is separated from East-Central Asia and Papua New Guinea by boundary 7 that closes on itself around the Kalash from Pakistan, thus defining a one-population cluster. This result is closer to the one obtained by Rosenberg et al., although a greater level of subdivision is still evident in the Americas. FST and RST have different properties, and depending on the evolutionary scale of the study either one can be considered better. FST is known to reflect mostly events in the recent evolutionary history of populations, whereas the values of RST also depend on phenomena affecting the deepest branches of the evolutionary tree.

But which is the real structure of human populations then? Even if we consider only the analyses of the CEPH diversity dataset, there is no single answer. Rosenberg et al. concluded there are five major clusters, plus the Kalash as a genetic isolate, and confirmed their finding in a similar analysis of 993 loci in the same populations . Corander et al. analysed by a Bayesian Monte-Carlo Markov Chain approach the CEPH dataset. Besides showing that Structure may converge to different solutions when different values of k are predetermined, they found that more than six groups are needed to represent global human genomic diversity, with evidence for genetic isolates in South America, in addition to, once again, the Kalash. Serre and Pääbo argued that these results could be largely accounted for by the discontinuous sampling design; they resampled individuals so as to approximate a random distribution of genotypes in the geographical space, and observed an increase of population differences with geographical distances, a pattern compatible with isolation by distance over much of the planet, without apparent biological barriers. Finally, Ramachandran et al. also found a steady increase in genetic differentiation with geographic distances, suggesting genetic continuity between human groups. The present study, the only one looking explicitly for boundaries and testing for their statistical significance, showed two clusterings that do not correspond to any of the previously inferred ones."

"Studies of different markers yield an even more complicated picture, where the only common element we can recognise is that each one is inconsistent with all the others. The only way we see to interpret this contradictory set of results is to admit that its incongruences are not due to errors in the choice of the markers or of the methods, but rather represent a basic feature of human diversity. In other words, different genetic polymorphisms are differently distributed over the planet, and their distributions are not generally correlated. Clusterings are always possible, but the fact that two populations fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) when described at loci A, B, C does not imply that they will fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) based on loci X, Y, Z. In addition, differences between populations are often so subtle that the location of boundaries may change substantially even when the same data are analysed under different assumptions on the mutational model" (Barbujani and Belle, 2006).

A subspecies is the ''75% rule'', and through this, different Homo Sapien populations can be identified as subspecies. There are profound differences among the different continental geographical races.

Anybody can be allocated to a specific geographic origin with >75% accuracy depending on what selective variables are chosen to align them with specific categories. This doesn't demonstrate the categories chosen are valid, as there is still no reason that these categories were chosen in the first place.

"Some biologists define races based purely on correct assignment of individuals to groups. The best known version of this approach is the seventy-five percent correct classification rule (Amadon, 1949; Mayr, 1969). Edwards has explained how accurate classification will be achieved when multiple polymorphic loci are considered (Edwards, 2003), and we see empirically that there are applications to human data that satisfy the seventy-five percent criterion (Rosenberg et al., 2002; Bamshad et al., 2003). However, the clustering methods in popular use produce human population groups that have a simpler structure than even the TLIM (Pritchard et al., 2000; Falush et al., 2003). This structure is clearly a weak description of the true human population structure, because it does not capture the complete nested arrangement of populations. We do not expect that such a classification will serve any application better than the full nested structure of populations" (Lee et al.. 2009).

Clearly ''locally differentated populations'' = micro-races. So Templeton does believe in race. Why though stop at the local level? Local variations are apart of a larger racial taxa. As you already showed, major geographical populations differ genetically, as they do in morphology.

You have not demonstrated the existence of 'race', and "locally-differentiated populations" refers to continuous biological variation across the world.

We already covered this before. N + S Japanese cluster together when they are compared to other populations, but show intra variation. Therefore by seperate race, Ousley means micro-race. Howells data groups all Mongoloids under the same subspecies, but in different races/intra variation.

You haven't established the existence of three discrete 'races'. They cluster as two before three, so why have you chosen three? If a 'race' is defined by the ability to distinguish people, everybody is a 'race'. It is arbitrary, which validates Ousley et al.'s (2009) assertion that there can be as many 'races' as one desires.

The torus is not the supraorbital ridge. In many skulls what appears to be a torus is actually just a prominant brow ridge. A supraorbital torus runs across the lateral side of the orbits, the brow ridge, and across the entire front of the skull uninterrupted. That is the shape of a torus. It is a characteristic trait of Australopithecus, but is only found today in Australids, who are the most primitive in craniofacial features through Pleistocene retention.

The 3% figure comes from Larnach (1978).

The supraorbital torus is another name for the supraorbital ridge; I can't find a single source that distinguishes the two in the manner you suggest. Supraorbital toruses have been found in indigenous Australians, some Northern Europeans and Bushmen (O'Higgins and Cohn, 2000). They cite De Villiers (1968), Howells (1973, 1876), Tillier (1977), Larnach (1978), Russell (1985), Enlow (1990), Lahr (1994) and Lieberman (1995).

You're wrong.

Since you believe different populations can cluster in ''extremities'', then this is more than enough to accept them as distinct races.

Then there are different 'races' around the world in an overlapping, indistinguishable fashion; i.e., the human race. You cannot say something is a 'race' by selectively choosing a variable and pretermitting the numerous others that do not conform to that delineation. I demonstrated in that other thread the existence of extremities in areas that quite clearly do not conform to your 'racial' delineations.

"The question is whether the differences between populations and continents, albeit representing a small fraction of the total, are large enough, and consistent enough across loci, to allow identification of clusters of biologically-differentiated individuals. If so, by analysing different sets of genetic data, or the same dataset with different methods, one should consistently find the same clusters, separated by boundaries of increased genomic change. If, on the contrary, no consistent clustering emerges, one should regard human genetic variation as essentially continuous in space. If variation is discontinuous, by attributing an individual to one genetic cluster, one would also obtain information on the individual’s genome in general, whereas, if variation is continuous, the labels placed on such groups would be biologically arbitrary. Rather, these labels could reflect cultural or social differences, but would have little to do with clear-cut genetic differences, including differences at the genes involved in complex pathological traits."

"Different authors disagree on whether human genome variation should be described as continuous or discontinuous; in the latter case, by attributing an individual's genotype to one genetic cluster, one would also obtain information on the individual's genome in general. An analysis of 377 microsatellites of the CEPH human diversity panel was interpreted as evidence that most genotypes cluster into one of five distinct groups, approximately corresponding to continents, which were proposed by some authors as the major biological subdivisions of humankind. Here we analyse the same dataset by a specific numerical method, designed to detect genomic boundaries, i.e. zones of increased change in maps of genomic variation. We show that statistically significant boundaries can be described between groups of populations, but different clusters are identified, depending on the assumptions of the model. In addition, these clusters do not correspond to the clusters inferred from previous analyses of the same or of other polymorphisms. We conclude that it is indeed possible to cluster genotypes according to geography, but no study so far identified unambiguously anything that can be regarded as a major genetic subdivision of humankind, and hence discontinuous models of human diversity are unsupported by data." (Barbujani and Belle, 2006)

Wrong as already shown because you aren't taking geographical factors into account. Read the quote from McCulloch (2002) above provided. The variables are not arbitrary. Claiming they are is simpley ignorant of the facts.

Already invalidated.

You have distorted the data, and are now posting complete nonsense. Two individuals from any major race (subspecies) of course will closely match each other before another race. This is because multiple variables do not overlap. Negroids don't have thin noses or wavy hair, Caucasoids however do. You can go through hundreds of more differences in the variables.

For your theory to work, you would need to find all phenotypic variation within each geographical population. However this is impossible, as no such mass overlap exists. There is only an overlap in singular traits, hence you have admitted there are polar extreme clusters of phenotypic variation.

Are you mentally deficient? How many times must I say there is biological variation? I never said you can find the same traits worldwide, as that would suggest everyone is identical, when that is clearly not the case. There is not a uniform covering of any single variable, as it is gradational, but when every variable is superimposed it is clear there are no discrete lines of separation, as every variable is different in its gradient and distribution. They certainly do not conform to your delineations that are formed on the basis of single variables or multiple ones that are correlated to fit your pre-defined delineations.

Once again neglecting what we know about geography and using the fallacious argument by false method which has been debunked.

The racial boundaries were founded in the first place based on what we know about different geographical populations. People didn't pull this stuff out their asses. These boundaries were already in place over 2000 years ago, when the Romans and Greeks offered an ethnographical classification of races. Little has changed since then. For example if you read Galen's Mixtures (2nd century AD) a racial classification by hair texture is found, which closely matches the standard Caucasoid (wavy), Negroid (wooly) and Mongoloid (straight) classification today. So to repeat McCulloch (2002) one final time:

You won't however accept this fact, as it debunks your ''racial denialism''...

I'm not interested in anything that doesn't follow the scientific method.

The circular argument has already been refuted. Is there a reason you're avoiding my questions?

Explain why the Assa and Nasaaea 'races' do not exist.

[Pyramidologist]

I'm not interested in anything that doesn't follow the scientific method.

You're not interested in the evidence contrary to your own views, which is why continuing here is pointless, and you have pretty much just proven yourself to be a troll. Your argument by false method has been debunked. The quote from McCulloch, appears in the peer-reviewed Mankind Quarterly. Any source which debunks your own views you will either ignore or try to discredit. So anyone here who types out long replies to you is wasting their time, i regret replying to you in detail before.

Metric variables are not arbitrary because they are based on geographical populations. Yet your cranky racial denial is based on the lie that someone just made up pre-defined populations and boundaries.

[419]

Wow.

Easy with the thesis people

[HermesTrismegistus]

(Original post by 4RealBlud)
It has been proven by solid scientific research that aboriginals have better visual memory since the part of their brain that involves sight is something like 20% larger than other sub-species. There is no solid evidence that suggests that anyone else is more or less intelligent than anyone else other than aboriginals. The point of this thread is to point out that the study done that shows that blacks have lower IQs on average doesnt necessarily mean that blacks are less intelligent than whites for the reasons stated. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Fair enough. No need to fire patronising rhetorical questions. If the majoritarian view in Academia is that there is no strong evidence for a genetic explanation of I.Q. differences among races then that's it. Some will argue this is due to political interests meddling with scientific practise. I don't know. It is neither the area I study nor that interests me. However, it is true that certain racial groups (whether race is a social construct or not) do score lower on I.Q. tests on average. And such scores are correlated with other variables.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
You're not interested in the evidence contrary to your own views, which is why continuing here is pointless, and you have pretty much just proven yourself to be a troll.

I've directly refuted the evidence you have presented. Unlike you, I do not selectively quote things or present evidence that does not conform to the scientific method.

Your argument by false method has been debunked. The quote from McCulloch, appears in the peer-reviewed Mankind Quarterly. Any source which debunks your own views you will either ignore or try to discredit. So anyone here who types out long replies to you is wasting their time, i regret replying to you in detail before.

Give me the full citation because I can't find it. I can see an article written by him in 2002 in The Occidental Quarterly, a non peer-reviewed and heavily biassed source, but nothing under his name in Mankind Quarterly. I directly challenged that source by highlighting the fact the argument is circular. Everything I have said has been corroborated with recent evidence, which McCulloch fails to do.

Metric variables are not arbitrary because they are based on geographical populations. Yet your cranky racial denial is based on the lie that someone just made up pre-defined populations and boundaries.

Why are you repeating what I have already completely undermined? Reread my previous post, which is replete with quotes demonstrating the arbitrary nature of separating the numerous non-concordant, overlapping and continuous traits within humanity.

I have demonstrated the concept of human 'races' is biologically invalid.

[Pyramidologist]

I have demonstrated the concept of human 'races' is biologically invalid.

No you haven't. All you've done is repeat the same fallacious argument by false method or simply reworded it. What you have continued to ignore is the fact that races are a natural geographical phenomena, and have boundaries:

''[...] morphological features tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races'' (Gill, 2000)

These boundaries are simply not arbritary, since the standard racial classification has its origin in ethnographical literature spanning five millenia (Brues, 1990). The distinct external appearances of races or major geographic populations have been known since very early times. The standard racial classification today is based on all the knowledge we have accumulated on these different populations and modern racial typology closely matches the historical record. So someone didn't just randomly say ''oh well these guys are Mongoloids'', while ''these over here Caucasoid''.

It does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese into races. These are examples of major geographical races (subspecies), with profound morphological differences (Caucasoids, Negroids and Mongoloids). The main factor you continue to ignore is that they correspond to known geographical boundaries or divisions, which are not invented.

''[...]individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisons of the globe''(Rosenberg et al, 2005).

These ''major geographic subdivisions'' are not arbritary. They are rooted in what we know about ethnography since at least classical antiquity.

Your ''racial denial'' is ignorant of these facts. The argument by false method as i have shown is ignorant of geography, ethnography and the historical record. This is why it was quickly debunked when it first circulated.

[Pyramidologist]

My last message was for the sake of thread viewers. whyumadtho likes to present what he is posting as factual, however he is posting complete misinformation. He himself knows this, but some poor fool might actually read what he's posted here and take him serious.

[Arekkusu]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
My last message was for the sake of thread viewers. whyumadtho likes to present what he is posting as factual, however he is posting complete misinformation. He himself knows this, but some poor fool might actually read what he's posted here and take him serious.

Much obliged but trying to follow your debate I think most of us are all out of our depth here!

[R4INBOW]

This thread is getting a bit too heavy. Tone down the debate so that most of us can understand


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Edit: Did I seriously just get negged for this?