Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Are there intellectual differences among different races? Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    So what I said all those months ago was right - simply having a majority of mixed breeds does not mean that breeds do not exist. just that many are mixed and the pool is now very murky to look at.
    Have you understood the articles and points to which I referred you? A mix of what? What are the parental populations? What defines them? Are we using craniometric 'race'? Skin tone? Geography? Phylogeny? Something else?

    Can you tell the difference between a Poodle and a German Shepherd? Same race, but not breed...
    I distinguish between any two organisms on the basis of any arbitrarily selected criterion/criteria.
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by sugar-n-spice)
      Not if you check through the sources.
      No dude, sending people a link to wikipedia is lame in a serious debate, you should either provide scholarly articles in recognisably authoritative peer-reviewed journals or make an argument yourself in your own words.

      It has easily been argued here that the biological race concept is a highly arbitrary construction to the extent that you or I could invent a race system with any number of races in it, picking and choosing any number of criteria with which to make distinctions between them and choosing anywhere within each individual criterion where one of those constructed 'races' stops and another begins. The only argument presented here against this critique appears to be a simple erroneous conflation of clinal variation with discreet grouping.

      If you happen to have a theory as to how many races there, what they are and how you have determined the criteria for establishing where one becomes another by all means set out your thesis and data right here. Or are you only going to make repeated references to wikipedia?
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whyumadtho)
      Have you understood the articles and points to which I referred you? A mix of what? What are the parental populations? What defines them? Are we using craniometric 'race'? Skin tone? Geography? Phylogeny? Something else?

      I distinguish between any two organisms on the basis of any arbitrarily selected criterion/criteria.
      Why not go with skin tone (as we known this is down to evolution), average build, height, and geography combined with historical movement of people?

      Why is it arbitrary? What is the difference between arbitrary and genetic variation?
      • Offline

        13
        (Original post by Jimbo1234)
        Why not go with skin tone (as we known this is down to evolution), average build, height, and geography combined with historical movement of people?

        Why is it arbitrary? What is the difference between arbitrary and genetic variation?
        Depending on what you choose to include among your criteria and how specific you get in choosing your points of imaginary discontinuation, you can have as many 'races' as you like, so how many races would you like there to be? Do you even know what the word 'arbitrary' means?
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Oswy)
        Depending on what you choose to include among your criteria and how specific you get in choosing your points of imaginary discontinuation, you can have as many 'races' as you like, so how many races would you like there to be? Do you even know what the word 'arbitrary' means?
        So now evolution and adaptation does not exist, but is imaginary?
        How many would I like? What do you even mean by that? :rofl: You imply that I need and want races, rather than there being clear variations in people. Why such the petty outlook?

        :dunce: Of course I know what arbitrary means, though what would you say is arbitrary, and what is a clear unique adaptation in the human genome?
        • Offline

          13
          (Original post by Jimbo1234)
          So now evolution and adaptation does not exist, but is imaginary?
          How many would I like? What do you even mean by that? :rofl: You imply that I need and want races, rather than there being clear variations in people. Why such the petty outlook?

          :dunce: Of course I know what arbitrary means, though what would you say is arbitrary, and what is a clear unique adaptation in the human genome?
          So you can't make your mind up how many races you'd like to have. Ok, seeing as you're so determined to defend the idea, how many races do you believe there are and what are they called (assuming they have names)? Let's hear this in your own words.
          Offline

          17
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Oswy)
          Depending on what you choose to include among your criteria and how specific you get in choosing your points of imaginary discontinuation, you can have as many 'races' as you like, so how many races would you like there to be? Do you even know what the word 'arbitrary' means?
          You can certainly create a huge number of groups, but would be able to distinguish between these groups? If you created two groups from the people of two different villages 5 miles apart in say Yorkshire,then you would not be able to say anything about their relative heights, IQs, etc as there would be practically no real difference(any small difference would almost certainly be caused by a small sample size). But take a village in Iceland and one in Madagascar and you will be able to say a great deal about the differing biology of the inhabitants.

          So being able to group people together arbitrarily is necessary to highlight differences between groups of humans, but being able to distinguish between the created groups is the sufficient condition.

          I don't really know why you guys seem to believe that using arbitrary creations somehow invalidate comparisons between the created groups. Using that logic a linguist would not be able to say that Dutch and German are related as its an arbitrary comparison with no rigorous and precise definition as to what makes a language similar.
          Offline

          3
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Oswy)
          So you can't make your mind up how many races you'd like to have. Ok, seeing as you're so determined to defend the idea, how many races do you believe there are and what are they called (assuming they have names)? Let's hear this in your own words.
          :facepalm2: It isn't up to me, it is up to nature and evolution derp. You would have to research what parts of the genome cause large variations in physical appearance, performance, etc. Seeing at how varied people are, there would be a lot.
          Why are you determined to ignore all genetic factors and try to make this out as some pretty personal campaign?
          • Offline

            13
            (Original post by Zürich)
            You can certainly create a huge number of groups, but would be able to distinguish between these groups?...
            Not groups but 'races', let's be clear - you're defending the viability of biological race aren't you? So, let's talk about races if that's what we mean. So, as I suggest, depending on which criteria you choose to be your 'race determiners' and where you draw your distinctions which you decide will be the point at which one race ends and another begins, you can have many, many races, or just two or three. Applying all kinds of genetic criteria - which is what 'race realists' like to do most, you could easily reduce races to immediate family membership, i.e. have as many 'races' as there are families. This is why the race idea is arbitrary, choosing what counts in determining race and choosing where one race ends and another begins is an entirely arbitrary exercise. How many races would you like there to be? Too hard to answer? How about how many races you believe exist? If you can't be specific then you're already recognising your problem.
            • Offline

              13
              (Original post by Jimbo1234)
              :facepalm2: It isn't up to me, it is up to nature and evolution derp. You would have to research what parts of the genome cause large variations in physical appearance, performance, etc. Seeing at how varied people are, there would be a lot.
              Why are you determined to ignore all genetic factors and try to make this out as some pretty personal campaign?
              Are you saying that you believe humans are divided into biological races but you don't know how many there are or what they are or how they are identified?
              Offline

              13
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Jimbo1234)
              Why not go with skin tone (as we known this is down to evolution)
              What about albinos? Since they do not fully meet the criteria for 'black people' (I assume their skin tone is outside the boundaries of what you consider to be 'black'), is that proof that they are admixed with lighter populations?

              Tell me how many skin tone categories there are, given no two individuals have identical skin tones (since no two individuals are phenotypically identical).

              average build, height
              Saying the average of a race defines a race is an example of begging the question. As an essentialist concept, there must be essential and necessary criteria that include somebody into a 'racial' group. For example, your skin tone must be this light, you must be under this height, you must have this build, be from this location and have this ancestry or you are not this 'race' (or you are mixed with another 'race').

              I need you to provide definite figures. I also need you to account for the various genetic conditions that have an impact on somebody's height/build and the established fact that one's height and especially their build can be influenced by their environment.

              geography
              What about it?

              combined with historical movement of people?
              Reread the Weiss and Long (2009) quote and elaborate on how refined the criterion of 'historical movement' actually is. Let's test phylogeny:

              Spoiler:
              Show
              "The first issue to keep in mind is that the Fst computations for the distribution of autosomal, X-linked, mtDNA, or Y-chromosomal markers across geographic regions do not match (Tishkoff and Kidd 2004). Oftentimes, each of these markers tells us a different but complementary story about human evolutionary history and migration patterns" (Maglo, 2011).

              "Unlike the mtDNA nomenclature, there are many competing Y-chromosomal cladistic nomenclatures. In the 1990s, the nomenclature of male lineages derived from the P49a,f/TaqI haplotypes seemed to dominate in the literature. But at the turn of the 21st century, the study of the non-recombining Y-chromosome (NRY) showed a greater resolution and supplied the currently dominant cladistic system of male lines of descent (Underhill et al. 2001; Underhill and Kivisild 2007; Karafet et al. 2008). The tree under construction by the Y-Chromosome Consortium is a nested cladistic system of lineages partitioned into clades ranging from A to T (Y-chromosome Consortium 2002). The phylogeography of the NRY, just like the mtDNA, sheds a new light on Eurasian populations. Consider Europe for example, one of the sub-continental groups that has the smallest human genetic variation. It may be tempting to speculatively suggest that Europeans form a monophyletic group. However, on empirical grounds, European male lineages do not form a clade. The major European Y-chromosal clade, based on the currently available evidence, is the haplogroup R. But this clade is ubiquitous and is found not only across Eurasia but also across Africa. For example, the sub-clades R1a1* and R1b1* respectively reach as high a frequency as ~72% in some Indian castes and ~90% in some Northern Cameroonian ethnic groups (Sharma et al. 2009; Cruciani et al. 2002; Scozzari et al. 1999). That is, the majority of European males share paternal lineages with non-Europeans. While the second important European male clade, haplogroup I, seems so far to be confined to Europe, a significant proportion of males in southern and Eastern Europe and the Caucasus share the E clade lineages with African males. For instance, the E3b1-M78 sub-clade (nested in the African specific E clade) was reported in some studies with moderate frequencies (sometimes as high as ~20 or ~27%) in Southern and Eastern Europe and the Balkans (Semino et al. 2004; Cruciani et al. 2004). In a word, Europe forms a polyphyletic rather than a monophyletic taxon because European males do not share a common ancestor.

              To be sure, the frequencies of E clade lineages in North Africa—often simplistically and misleadingly construed in genetic studies as Eurasia or Non-Africa—is very high contrary to received racial views. For example, ~76% of Moroccan, ~80% of Saharawi, ~65% of Algerian, and ~55% of Tunisian males, whether or not they self-identify as Arabs, do not share the Middle Eastern male lines of descent (12f2a), but instead share the E lineages with sub-Saharan Africans. The E clade unites ~70% of all African males from Algiers in North Africa to the Zulu land in South Africa, Northern Africans being predominantly on the nested E3b2-M81 and E3b1-M78 sub-lineages (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004; Karafet et al. 2008). To wit, there seem to be higher frequencies of Eurasian paternal lines of descent in northern Cameroon (~40%) than in Morocco and the Saharawish Republic, but the same as in Tunisia and Algeria (Scozzari et al. 1999; Cruciani et al. 2002). Thus, North African males can be said to be Africans based on the binary polymorphisms of the Y-chromosome. But they can also be said to be Eurasians based on the study of autosome genetic markers. That is, two different cladistic taxonomies derived from two different mode of inheritance radically cross-classify the same population. The obvious lessons are that: (1) a clade is a clade, not a race" (Maglo, 2011).

              "[...] [W]e 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).

              "A classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population" (Long et al., 2009).

              "The apparently easy way out of the difficulties of the racial cladistic approach may consist of simply equating race with clade by claiming that any individual sub-continental clade represents race. So if scientific investigations reveal, for example, hundreds of human genetic clades in Sub-Saharan Africa alone, we should conclude that there are hundreds of Sub-Saharan African human races. Yet not only does this fallback fail to provide a solution to the problem of the scientific proliferation of human races but it also simply begs the question of the scientific necessity of race" (Maglo, 2011).

              "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" (Long et al., 2009).
              Ancient migration is a lot more complex than you think.

              Why is it arbitrary? What is the difference between arbitrary and genetic variation?
              Of all the numerous dimensions of genetic variation, you have only chosen particular ones for no reason other than a personal decision. Tell me what makes skin tone, build, height, geography and historical movement more important than anything else.






              Which images, if any, depict 'black people'?
              Offline

              13
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Zürich)
              You can certainly create a huge number of groups, but would be able to distinguish between these groups? If you created two groups from the people of two different villages 5 miles apart in say Yorkshire,then you would not be able to say anything about their relative heights, IQs, etc as there would be practically no real difference(any small difference would almost certainly be caused by a small sample size). But take a village in Iceland and one in Madagascar and you will be able to say a great deal about the differing biology of the inhabitants.

              So being able to group people together arbitrarily is necessary to highlight differences between groups of humans, but being able to distinguish between the created groups is the sufficient condition.

              I don't really know why you guys seem to believe that using arbitrary creations somehow invalidate comparisons between the created groups. Using that logic a linguist would not be able to say that Dutch and German are related as its an arbitrary comparison with no rigorous and precise definition as to what makes a language similar.
              Hmm... :nah:

              "[A]llele-frequency differences exist between all populations, including communities separated by short geographic distances, or by cultural barriers at geographical distance zero. With large sample sizes, these differences reach statistical significance" (Barbujani, 2005).

              Genetic difference exists everywhere. If genetic difference = new 'race', then everyone belongs to a 'race' of their own.
              Offline

              1
              ReputationRep:
              It's really about lack of opportunities in those countries and so intellectual talent cannot progress further because the resources are not available. Give the children in LEDC's the same upbringing as those in MEDC's and they would do just as well or even better because they would not take things like free education and a computer for granted.
              Offline

              17
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Oswy)
              Not groups but 'races', let's be clear - you're defending the viability of biological race aren't you? So, let's talk about races if that's what we mean. So, as I suggest, depending on which criteria you choose to be your 'race determiners' and where you draw your distinctions which you decide will be the point at which one race ends and another begins, you can have many, many races, or just two or three. Applying all kinds of genetic criteria - which is what 'race realists' like to do most, you could easily reduce races to immediate family membership, i.e. have as many 'races' as there are families. This is why the race idea is arbitrary, choosing what counts in determining race and choosing where one race ends and another begins is an entirely arbitrary exercise. How many races would you like there to be? Too hard to answer? How about how many races you believe exist? If you can't be specific then you're already recognising your problem.
              I haven't defined a race. I am talking about inherent biological differences between groups. How about I arbitrarily create a 'race' of [me, you]. What can we say about us compared with others. Nothing meaningful. If I arbitrarily create a race of [every Dutch citizen who has lived in the area now called the Netherlands for over 1000 years] then I can saw a great deal about this 'race' relative to other arbitrary groupings. The fact that its arbitrary is absolutely meaningless since the grouping is informative about its members. You can indeed define as many of these groups as you wish, but perhaps one could define a race as any grouping which is biologically different from any other. Such groupings are obviously possible. Speaking of how many races one wants there to be is ridiculous. I have no idea how many of such groups exist, but I find it baffling that anyone could deny the existence of biological differences between groups.
              Offline

              0
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Jimbo1234)
              Why not go with skin tone (as we known this is down to evolution)

              I'm sorry I just love the idea of being able to change race by sunbathing
              Offline

              17
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by whyumadtho)
              Hmm... :nah:

              "[A]llele-frequency differences exist between all populations, including communities separated by short geographic distances, or by cultural barriers at geographical distance zero. With large sample sizes, these differences reach statistical significance" (Barbujani, 2005).

              Genetic difference exists everywhere. If genetic difference = new 'race', then everyone belongs to a 'race' of their own.
              You acknowledge genetic difference, but does genetic similarity also exist?

              Are you telling me that the difference between 2 Yorkshire villages is indistinguishable from the difference between any one of these and a village in Japan?

              I am not trying to define a race, or anything like it. I am trying to say that if I walk down the street in Amsterdam I will see plenty of people of similar height, appearance etc. I would have to be nuts to think that this has no biological explanation or that we are completely unrelated. This does not mean that I think we are twins, but for you to believe that this is all just a fantasy in my head is ludicrous.
              Offline

              13
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Zürich)
              Does genetic similarity exist?
              It depends on the criterion/criteria, which is explained by Zagefka (2009).
              Offline

              13
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Jimbo1234)
              :facepalm2:It isn't up to me, it is up to nature and evolution derp. You would have to research what parts of the genome cause large variations in physical appearance, performance, etc. Seeing at how varied people are, there would be a lot.
              Why are you determined to ignore all genetic factors and try to make this out as some pretty personal campaign?
              So where there are differences in
              • skin tone,
              • height,
              • build,
              • geography, and
              • historical movement

              there are new 'races'?
              Offline

              3
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by whyumadtho)
              What about albinos? Since they do not fully meet the criteria for 'black people' (I assume their skin tone is outside the boundaries of what you consider to be 'black'), is that proof that they are admixed with lighter populations?

              Tell me how many skin tone categories there are, given no two individuals have identical skin tones (since no two individuals are phenotypically identical).

              Saying the average of a race defines a race is an example of begging the question. As an essentialist concept, there must be essential and necessary criteria that include somebody into a 'racial' group. For example, your skin tone must be this light, you must be under this height, you must have this build, be from this location and have this ancestry or you are not this 'race' (or you are mixed with another 'race').

              I need you to provide definite figures. I also need you to account for the various genetic conditions that have an impact on somebody's height/build and the established fact that one's height and especially their build can be influenced by their environment.

              What about it?

              Reread the Weiss and Long (2009) quote and elaborate on how refined the criterion of 'historical movement' actually is. Let's test phylogeny:

              Spoiler:
              Show
              "The first issue to keep in mind is that the Fst computations for the distribution of autosomal, X-linked, mtDNA, or Y-chromosomal markers across geographic regions do not match (Tishkoff and Kidd 2004). Oftentimes, each of these markers tells us a different but complementary story about human evolutionary history and migration patterns" (Maglo, 2011).

              "Unlike the mtDNA nomenclature, there are many competing Y-chromosomal cladistic nomenclatures. In the 1990s, the nomenclature of male lineages derived from the P49a,f/TaqI haplotypes seemed to dominate in the literature. But at the turn of the 21st century, the study of the non-recombining Y-chromosome (NRY) showed a greater resolution and supplied the currently dominant cladistic system of male lines of descent (Underhill et al. 2001; Underhill and Kivisild 2007; Karafet et al. 2008). The tree under construction by the Y-Chromosome Consortium is a nested cladistic system of lineages partitioned into clades ranging from A to T (Y-chromosome Consortium 2002). The phylogeography of the NRY, just like the mtDNA, sheds a new light on Eurasian populations. Consider Europe for example, one of the sub-continental groups that has the smallest human genetic variation. It may be tempting to speculatively suggest that Europeans form a monophyletic group. However, on empirical grounds, European male lineages do not form a clade. The major European Y-chromosal clade, based on the currently available evidence, is the haplogroup R. But this clade is ubiquitous and is found not only across Eurasia but also across Africa. For example, the sub-clades R1a1* and R1b1* respectively reach as high a frequency as ~72% in some Indian castes and ~90% in some Northern Cameroonian ethnic groups (Sharma et al. 2009; Cruciani et al. 2002; Scozzari et al. 1999). That is, the majority of European males share paternal lineages with non-Europeans. While the second important European male clade, haplogroup I, seems so far to be confined to Europe, a significant proportion of males in southern and Eastern Europe and the Caucasus share the E clade lineages with African males. For instance, the E3b1-M78 sub-clade (nested in the African specific E clade) was reported in some studies with moderate frequencies (sometimes as high as ~20 or ~27%) in Southern and Eastern Europe and the Balkans (Semino et al. 2004; Cruciani et al. 2004). In a word, Europe forms a polyphyletic rather than a monophyletic taxon because European males do not share a common ancestor.

              To be sure, the frequencies of E clade lineages in North Africa—often simplistically and misleadingly construed in genetic studies as Eurasia or Non-Africa—is very high contrary to received racial views. For example, ~76% of Moroccan, ~80% of Saharawi, ~65% of Algerian, and ~55% of Tunisian males, whether or not they self-identify as Arabs, do not share the Middle Eastern male lines of descent (12f2a), but instead share the E lineages with sub-Saharan Africans. The E clade unites ~70% of all African males from Algiers in North Africa to the Zulu land in South Africa, Northern Africans being predominantly on the nested E3b2-M81 and E3b1-M78 sub-lineages (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004; Karafet et al. 2008). To wit, there seem to be higher frequencies of Eurasian paternal lines of descent in northern Cameroon (~40%) than in Morocco and the Saharawish Republic, but the same as in Tunisia and Algeria (Scozzari et al. 1999; Cruciani et al. 2002). Thus, North African males can be said to be Africans based on the binary polymorphisms of the Y-chromosome. But they can also be said to be Eurasians based on the study of autosome genetic markers. That is, two different cladistic taxonomies derived from two different mode of inheritance radically cross-classify the same population. The obvious lessons are that: (1) a clade is a clade, not a race" (Maglo, 2011).

              "[...] [W]e 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).

              "A classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population" (Long et al., 2009).

              "The apparently easy way out of the difficulties of the racial cladistic approach may consist of simply equating race with clade by claiming that any individual sub-continental clade represents race. So if scientific investigations reveal, for example, hundreds of human genetic clades in Sub-Saharan Africa alone, we should conclude that there are hundreds of Sub-Saharan African human races. Yet not only does this fallback fail to provide a solution to the problem of the scientific proliferation of human races but it also simply begs the question of the scientific necessity of race" (Maglo, 2011).

              "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" (Long et al., 2009).
              Ancient migration is a lot more complex than you think.

              Of all the numerous dimensions of genetic variation, you have only chosen particular ones for no reason other than a personal decision. Tell me what makes skin tone, build, height, geography and historical movement more important than anything else.
              Spoiler:
              Show






              Which images, if any, depict 'black people'?
              - You know albino is a disorder. Why bring it up? It is a disorder....

              - Ask a dermatologist. I'm sure they will tell you how many there are. Also are you saying different groups of people do not naturally have darker or lighter skin tones?

              - I'm not a geneticist so how would I know the figures? Just go with the figures which have clear different genetic markers.

              - Derp, what about geography? You always play stupid with this part. Take a guess, and yes, to stop you playing the fool, I'll put all your credibility on your answer :giggle:

              - I know it is complex, hence why it has to be included.

              - Oh look, the only African you show is one who has a disorder. Now can you tell me what the geography and climate of all those people from there nations are?


              (Original post by Oswy)
              Are you saying that you believe humans are divided into biological races but you don't know how many there are or what they are or how they are identified?
              To do that would take a lot of time and research. Why the hell would I do that in my free time? :curious: Would you?


              (Original post by whyumadtho)
              So where there are differences in
              • skin tone,
              • height,
              • build,
              • geography, and
              • historical movement

              there are new 'races'?
              Not race, breed, and a large variation in the genome.
              Offline

              13
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by Zürich)
              Are you telling me that the difference between 2 Yorkshire villages is indistinguishable from the difference between any one of these and a village in Japan?
              Difference exists everywhere. Depending on the variable under consideration, different clusters can be made with various combinations of the three villages.

              I am not trying to define a race, or anything like it. I am trying to say that if I walk down the street in Amsterdam I will see plenty of people of similar height, appearance etc. I would have to be nuts to think that I am somehow unrelated. This does not mean that I think we are twins, but for you to believe that this is all just a fantasy in my head is ludicrous.
              You will be similar in a number of dimensions and dissimilar in others.
             
             
             
          • See more of what you like on The Student Room

            You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

          • Poll
            Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
          • See more of what you like on The Student Room

            You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

          • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

            Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

            Quick reply
            Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.