Is there anything in our genes that makes us any different, or is it just the history of where our ancestors were born on this planet? Is there anything more to it than that?

Is there any scientific things that separate us, or just totally random statistics, and the occasional act that stems from racial tension?

I also have a penis.

-------
If dogs could talk, this is what he'd say.

---

stariotypes still hold truth in many cases

---

Well yeah, statistically speaking, but are stereotypes in our genes?

-------
If dogs could talk, this is what he'd say.

---

well our genes make us black or white, so yes that makes us different. Youre trying to make sense out of a senseless thing.

---

that's actually not true. Race is NOT genetic.

WASHINGTON December 16, 2002 (Reuters) - The idea of race is not reflected in a person's genes, Brazilian researchers said on Monday, confirming what scientists have long said -- that race has no meaning genetically.

The Brazilian researchers looked at one of the most racially mixed populations in the world for their study, which found there is no way to look at someone's genes and determine his or her race. Brazilians include people of European, African and Indian, or Amerindian, descent.

"There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races do not exist," Sergio Pena and colleagues at the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerias in Brazil and the University of Porto in Portugal wrote in their report, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Yet races do exist as social constructs," they said.

They found 10 gene variations that could reliably tell apart, genetically, 20 men from northern Portugal and 20 men from Sao Tome island on the west coast of Africa.

But the genetic differences did not have anything to do with physical characteristics such as skin or hair color, the researchers found.

They next tested two groups -- 173 Brazilians classified as white, black, or intermediate based on arm skin color, hair color, and nose and lip shape, and 200 men living in major metropolitan areas who classified themselves as white.

They used the 10 genetic markers that differed between people from Portugal and Africa, but found little difference among anyone in their study.

To their surprise, they found maternal DNA suggested that even the "white" people had, on average, 33 percent of genes that were of Amerindian ancestry and 28 percent African.

This suggested European men often fathered children with black and Indian women.

"It is interesting to note that the group of individuals classified as blacks had a very high proportion of non-African ancestry (48 percent)," they wrote.

"In essence our data indicate that, in Brazil as a whole, color is a weak predictor of African ancestry," they concluded.

"Our study makes clear the hazards of equating color or race with geographical ancestry and using interchangeably terms such as white, Caucasian and European on one hand, and black, Negro or African on the other, as is often done in scientific and medical literature."


-------
wouldn't you rather be crazy than normal?
[and lookit here, i have a chance]

This is a question asked by many people, including myself. What science, history, and common sense has led me to believe is what I take as fact. That fact is that race, inside of the human species, exists.

Now, what is race? Some people claim that some "human race" exists, but this is false. Some people claim that color of your skin or other appearances is race, but this, also, is false. Race is a mix of history, genetics(phenotypically and genotypically), and location.

When one tells me race is a social construct, it defies all common sense taught to me, that I've observed, and learned on my own.

So, how should race be defined? As with other things that exist, an accurate definition of race is one that describes it as it is, as it really is, as it really exists. The definitions of race in the encyclopedias and dictionaries that I grew up with described something real, race as it really is, and by those definitions race exists and is real. Race and the reality of race have not changed. It is the definitions of race that have changed, as the race deniers attempt to change the definition of race to redefine it out of existence.

You race deniers don't think races exist because you were brought up not wanting it. I, on the other hand, asked myself what race really was. I saw past the color of skin at a young age and saw facial differences. Facial differences between races, subraces, and subracial divisions (such as phalian, borreby, Keltic, and maybe Tydal under ONLY the Nordish SUBRACE under the Caucasoid RACE).

Have you ever looked at your friends and see that one of you is the tallest and that one of you is shortest. I know many of you believe god made us how we are (I don't), but we usually look more like our parents, correct? I've never seen two Caucasian parents popping out a Mongoloid kid, correct me if this has ever happened.

You see, evolution has been proven. This is a fact. Now, the whole "everyone comes from Eukaryotes" is a theory, and one that I believe. Hell, even if it was proven true, it would be considered a theory nevertheless. That's how science works. Let go of an apple and it falls to the ground. What's that called, Gravity? Well, that's just a theory. Yes, it's widely accepted, but it will always be a theory, nothing but, nothing less(unless it gets proven wrong). Enough of this though.

It's estimated that Caucasoids have evolved from the first humans in present day Ethiopia about 200,000 years ago. You see, when your genes copy to create new cells (which is constantly happening) it can make a mistake. Those mistakes are called "mutations." According to the theory of evolution, we are all mutations. Everything about us is one of those "mistakes," so you can't call anyone mistakes (yes, people have tried).

So, when these mutations occur, they can be harmful, usually causing death or sickness, harmless, or helpful. One example of a helpful mutation (or series of mutations) is the ones Caucasians have that makes them, normally, better swimmers. On the contrary, the harmful mutations that made them less prone to sprinting compared to Congoids is also put into play.

Now, seeing that all humans are different, you can clearly see that evolution has happened. You may say "my kids aren't all random looking," which proves that you know nothing of evolution. The difference between negro jim and caucasian larry is a result of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS. And no, those aren't 20year generations either. As you may have noticed, negroes go through puberty quicker than Caucasians and Mongoloids. The negroid brain also grows faster and is usually finished after puberty. The same cannot be said for others.

Now, I could go on and lecture you further on our differences but I can go ahead and give you percentages and more proof.

Many race deniers claim that races aren't different enough to be considered race. This is an outright lie. What are the percentages of genetic differences between the human races you may ask? Perhaps the best study to date on this subject is that of Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury in 1993:

The chimpanzee is added to show how different GENUS is. The Chimpanzee is, currently, the closest relative we have, but is in a whole other genus. The other hominids that ever existed are all extinct. So, really, other species' have been closer to humans than the Chimpanzee.

I added this picture to show how much people have to change facial structures to make us look similar. Of the six female faces supposedly representing individuals from different races only one face is real, a real person, the one of the Nordish blue-eyed blonde in the upper right corner. The other five faces are computer-generated modifications of the real face and not real examples of any race, although they are represented as such. The deceptive effect is to minimize the real differences of race by "nordicizing" all the races, making them appear to be much more similar to the Nordish race than they actually are.

Here are some pictures from each other race in existence:

A young male capoid. You can see their Epicanthic folds. (South Africa)

Australoid (Australia) Sadly, these have white genes intertwined. The Australoid is the darkest skinned race in existence. Their nose is bigger than the African negroids, and many other differences exist.

Mongoloid from Taiwan. (East Asia)

As you can see, these REAL images, not computer generated nordish-like images are what we see on Earth.

Race exists, and just because you don't want it to doesn't mean it doesn't.

You have to stop looking at 17th century thoughts on race before we could test genes. You need to stop picking out certain professors like a needle in a haystack. The majority of these educated people believe race exists, and always have. It was first seen by location and looks. Now it is seen through genetics.

Anyone that denies race is common sense lacking idiot.

Also, I know how you all like to call everything racist, but look in this post and find 1 pro-caucasian, pro-mongoloid, or pro-any race comment. There is NONE. My work is unbiased and full of factual arguments.

To all of you deniers, I hope we can have a nice discussion in this thread about race. Debating is a learning experience for the victor and the defeated.

Sources (most of them):
* Gause's Law of Exclusion
* Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal , (HarperCollins, 1992), p. 34.
* http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm
* http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html - Dr. George W. Gill
* http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007/
* Robert Boyd, "Scientists: Idea of Race is Only Skin Deep," The Miami Herald (Oct. 13, 1996) p. 14A
* Most genetic studies are based on nuclear DNA, the genes that are actually responsible for racial variation. Other studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), such as that of Jody Hey and Eugene Harris (1999) show a difference between the human races that is about 4% of the difference between humans and chimpanzees. The more recent, improved, and accepted views are, however, of 1.6%.

More so used as older definitions and numbers as comparison:
* Simpson, William Gayley. Which Way Western Man? 1978, National Alliance Press, Box 3535, Washington, D. C. 20007
* Putnam, Carleton. Race and Reason, 1961, Howard Allen Press, Cape Canaveral, FL
* Putnam, Carleton. Race and Reality, a Search for Solutions, 1967, Howard Allen, Box 76, Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
* Putnam, Carleton. A Study in Racial Realities, an address at the University of California at Davis, Dec. 17, 1964

So, do you all want to debate this or what, I'm prepared. This will not be the first time, nor will it be the last time I debate this subject. The vast majority of people that don't believe in race don't want it to exist, the rest are just plain ignorant.

-------
"If you worship your enemy, you are defeated.
If you adopt your enemy's religion you are enslaved.
If you breed with your enemy you are destroyed."
-Polydoros

---

Holla at kid rune. dude'll swear on his motha that all black people are retarded

---

---

When one tells me race is a social construct, it defies all common sense taught to me, that I've observed, and learned on my own.

---

Can't say you had a lot to begin with given the posts I've read from you.

There are obviously differences in the skin color, facial features, heights, shapes, etc. of different races. Beyond this, there are honestly no real differences. The actual genetic differences, however, are so small that they're hardly even worth considering. Humans are extremely peculiar in that as a species, they are far more related to each other than most other species. Every human alive today can trace a common ancestor to about 70,000 years ago - to the Toba eruption that put every hominid extinct except for homo sapiens and neanderthals. Evolutionarily speaking, 70,000 years ago is not long at all. Certainly not long enough ago to create real differences between humans that would actually matter.

Races are, in general, social constructs because races are usually defined by a linguistic group and nationality. The idea of a German race, a French race, an English race, a Russian race, a Serbian race, an Italian race, etc. are all social constructs. The differences between those of Germanic, Slavic, and Celtic descents are more real, however, as the populations of Europe have bred with each other so much, you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who's a pure Germanic, pure Celt, or pure Slav.

The physical differences between a white person and black person are more obvious, but the schema of a white person and black person is a social construct. Prior to when races became a popular concept, people generally didn't say you were white, or black, or whatever. They'll remark that you have light skin or dark skin, but there's no label attached. You're simply a person with light skin, not a white person. Same way as we'd say a man who likes other men isn't just that, but a homosexual. Attaching a label to something means you create a concept of what that person is and all the stereotypes with it. Moreover, it also creates an identification with that label (hence the social construct). An as mentioned, with that label comes stereotypes about those who are associated with that label and those who are not - stereotypes that those who are not a part of that label are different from you and stereotypes that those a part of your label as the same as you. This is why the way we define races are social constructs.

Post edited at 3:16 am on Aug. 21, 2008 by Bud2400

Until relatively recently, the great majority of people did not have direct contact with other races, but lived their lives in racially homogeneous populations where race was simply not an issue. For the great majority of humanity outside of the Western world this is still true. Until the last 550 years there was not even much knowledge about the existence of other races. It has been the activities of the Western world over the last 550 years in exploration, colonization and the building of new countries outside of Europe that has brought different races in direct contact with each other on a large scale. Along with that direct contact has come knowledge, and the study, of race and racial differences.

Among ancient societies, the Egyptians had contact with Black Africans in Nubia to their south, and they certainly made a racial distinction between themselves and Nubians, as is obvious in their art. They also took measures to prevent the movement of Nubians into Egypt. The Greek exposure to different races was essentially limited to the different Caucasian peoples of the Mediterranean world. The Romans also had very little direct contact with non-Caucasian races, but they did have contact with Caucasians beyond the Mediterranean region and were very aware of racial differences between themselves and the Semitic peoples of the Levant and the Keltic and Germanic peoples of Northern Europe. Black Africans were brought into the Greco-Roman world in small numbers as isolated individuals but never constituted a population or community in any sense. As individuals, they usually did not have access to a mate of their own race and either died without issue or were assimilated in small numbers, never forming a continuing racial presence.

Before the word race, an Old French term for "line," was applied to the different geographic populations of the human species it was traditionally used to refer to nations as well as almost any line of ancestral (biological or genetic) descent, even as narrowly as a specific family line. With the discovery of the different geographic populations of humanity the usage of the term race gradually changed to refer to these populations as the identifiable biological divisions, branches or lines of humanity.

This is the "Lewontin fallacy". As Sarich and Miele (Race: The Reality of Human Differences, p. 169) explain, the actual amount of total human genetic variation that exists within any local population is 67.5%, not the FST measure of 85%, yet even by the standards of the FST measure of 85% the amount of variation between human subspecies or races is comparable to the variation between the subspecies of other species. But the races of humanity do share 99.9% of their genes in common. What does this mean? The proportion of genes we share is consistent with the fact that all the races of humanity share hundreds of millions of years of common evolution and ancestry going back to the first mammals and before. Their divergent evolution and ancestry began only with their geographic dispersal and separation into isolated populations spread around the world. The proportion of genes the human races share in common roughly corresponds with the temporal length of their common evolution and ancestry. The genes and genetic traits that the human races share in common are those that evolved during their common evolution up to their separation and geographic dispersal. The genes and genetic traits that vary between the races, that are unique to the different races, are the newer genes and genetic traits that evolved after the ancestral racial populations separated from each other. Their proportion of the total of genetic traits roughly corresponds with the temporal length of that separation compared to the entire length of human and mammalian evolution.

The proportion (67.5%) of human genetic variation that is possessed in common by all human races already existed in the common ancestral population from which all human lines or races are descended, and continues to exist in all the descendant human populations. The proportion (32.5%) of human genetic variation that is unique to the different races is the newer part that has developed since the different lines that evolved into the different races separated and began their genetic division.

Are you claiming, or implying, that the newer genes and genetic traits that evolved since the geographic separation and isolation of the different branches of humanity, that are unique to the different branches and not shared by all, are of no value or importance? That only the older genes and genetic traits that evolved before the separation of humanity into different isolated branches, that all humanity shares in common, have value or importance? That nothing of value or importance has evolved or developed since that time? If so, what is the standard that determines which genes and genetic traits have value and importance? Is commonality, sameness or equality the standard, that only those older genes and genetic traits which evolved before the separation of humanity into different branches, and which all branches share equally and in common, have value or importance? This would be the egalitarian ideal, and hence presumably the Marxist ideal, but it is arbitrary. People do and always have attributed great value and importance to the newer genes and genetic traits that have evolved since the separation of humanity into different branches and that are unique to those different branches, lines or races.

-------
"If you worship your enemy, you are defeated.
If you adopt your enemy's religion you are enslaved.
If you breed with your enemy you are destroyed."
-Polydoros