---

If we use the SAME criteria (lack of homogeneity in haplotype) as for Lapp then no they are not.

---

Swedes and Norwegians do not.

---

The lapp are indigenous to the region. They did not come later.

---

---

Lappish people have non-Caucasoid haplotypes.

---

---

If so, indigenous to the very north of the region.

---

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Discuss - but I don't really give two shits about replying.

---

In fact if the OP truly did not care he would not have bothered labelling a simple picture as "dishonest". How can a picture obviously designed for shock and publicity to attract readership be termed "pseudoscientific" or "dishonest". Such pictures in any cover of a popular magazine, even a scientific one, are never intended to be accurate or representative.

Of much greater interest is the content of the articles.  

---

Look around on the streets of any major city, and you will see a sampling of the outward variety of humanity: skin tones ranging from milk-white to dark brown; hair textures running the gamut from fine and stick-straight to thick and wiry. People often use physical characteristics such as these--along with area of geographic origin and shared culture--to group themselves and others into "races." But how valid is the concept of race from a biological standpoint? Do physical features reliably say anything informative about a person's genetic makeup beyond indicating that the individual has genes for blue eyes or curly hair?

The problem is hard in part because the implicit definition of what makes a person a member of a particular race differs from region to region across the globe. Someone classified as "black" in the U.S., for instance, might be considered "white" in Brazil and "colored" (a category distinguished from both "black" and "white") in South Africa.

As scientists have sequenced the human genome (the full set of nuclear DNA), they have also identified millions of polymorphisms. The distribution of these polymorphisms across populations reflects the history of those populations and the effects of natural selection. To distinguish among groups, the ideal genetic polymorphism would be one that is present in all the members of one group and absent in the members of all other groups. But the major human groups have separated from one another too recently and have mixed too much for such differences to exist.

---

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-race-exist

Post edited at 11:48 pm on July 10, 2009 by Laurence

-------
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.   - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Support your peers!

---

---

Discuss - but I don't really give two shits about replying.

---

Judging from the length of the thread (7 pages) so far I would say the OP does seem to give much more than "two shits".  

---

---

I thought haplotypes do not connect to race. How can you say a haplotype is caucasoid or not???

---

You get it through your mother or father. They got it from their mother or father.

It tells you who your paternal or maternal ancestor from 1000's of years ago was.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

---

Discuss - but I don't really give two shits about replying.

---

Judging from the length of the thread (7 pages) so far I would say the OP does seem to give much more than "two shits".    

In fact if the OP truly did not care he would not have bothered labelling a simple picture as "dishonest". How can a picture obviously designed for shock and publicity to attract readership be termed "pseudoscientific" or "dishonest". Such pictures in any cover of a popular magazine, even a scientific one, are never intended to be accurate or representative.

Of much greater interest is the content of the articles.  

---

Look around on the streets of any major city, and you will see a sampling of the outward variety of humanity: skin tones ranging from milk-white to dark brown; hair textures running the gamut from fine and stick-straight to thick and wiry. People often use physical characteristics such as these--along with area of geographic origin and shared culture--to group themselves and others into "races." But how valid is the concept of race from a biological standpoint? Do physical features reliably say anything informative about a person's genetic makeup beyond indicating that the individual has genes for blue eyes or curly hair?

The problem is hard in part because the implicit definition of what makes a person a member of a particular race differs from region to region across the globe. Someone classified as "black" in the U.S., for instance, might be considered "white" in Brazil and "colored" (a category distinguished from both "black" and "white") in South Africa.

As scientists have sequenced the human genome (the full set of nuclear DNA), they have also identified millions of polymorphisms. The distribution of these polymorphisms across populations reflects the history of those populations and the effects of natural selection. To distinguish among groups, the ideal genetic polymorphism would be one that is present in all the members of one group and absent in the members of all other groups. But the major human groups have separated from one another too recently and have mixed too much for such differences to exist.

---

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-race-exist

---

It identifies race from a faulty viewpoint, defining race their own way, and showing how this is wrong.
Strawman.

They take racial classifications from countries to define race, quite a faulty comparison.

The last two sentences are quite wrong.

One specific polymorphism isn't needed for race. Many are. Many traits help classify races, and one isn't needed to be different for each race.

Being "Mixed too much" doesn't mean race isn't a valid biological concept. And who gets to decide how recent is too recent? Really?

The article is psuedoscientific, misleading, and flued by ideological reasons.

The picture is a representation - they are trying to make each of the people look similar.

The only real person is the blond one, the rest are different races based off of that - incorrectly changed by color only, and perhaps a few small traits.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

What's so interesting about it?

---

---

It identifies race from a faulty viewpoint, defining race their own way, and showing how this is wrong.
Strawman.

---

However this not make it  "pseudo-science". Let me remind you of the definition

---

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status

---

Unless of course you have another definition for pseudoscience you have not shared yet.

Instead of dissecting each sentence to try to find fault you could have read the entire article in context. I gave the link. Not much effort on your part was needed.

This article is meany to raise questions and elicit thought. It was not meant as a "proof" that race does not exist or some hardline extreme view at one end or the other in a debate.

Please do not make it into more or less than it is.

---

The picture is a representation - they are trying to make each of the people look similar.

---

Please do not try to read more than that. This would certainly constitute a strawman.


-------
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.   - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Support your peers!

---

Are you only interested in the Science which matches your onw belief system? Why would you not find this article interesting?

---

---

One could say the same of your own definition and conclusions.
However this not make it  "pseudo-science". Let me remind you of the definition

---

seudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status

---

Please show how the article itself is "pseudoscience" based on this defintion.
Unless of course you have another definition for pseudoscience you have not shared yet.

Instead of dissecting each sentence to try to find fault you could have read the entire article in context. I gave the link. Not much effort on your part was needed.

This article is meany to raise questions and elicit thought. It was not meant as a "proof" that race does not exist or some hardline extreme view at one end or the other in a debate.

Please do not make it into more or less than it is.

---

Again, it does not define race how normally defined, so it's beating a strawman.

It doesn't speak of race anyway, just something they felt like defining their own way.

The entire article was read, and it wasn't the least bit question raising - besides of course why they would write such a load of shit.

It ignores what race truly is and defines it how it wants, I will repeat. This is a strawman, and that lacks any scientific value.

---

No. The picture is a simple artistic rendition cover to attract readership.
Please do not try to read more than that. This would certainly constitute a strawman.

---

Come on Laurence, use your brain.

Why didn't they use actual pictures of people, or made them more realistic and accurate?

If you want a good reason why the article is pseudoscience, check out your own source, wiki.
"Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline."

This is what they did with the term "Race." Perfect example.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

It giving dishonest claims

---

Do you object to questions? How can a question be "dishonest"?

---

Again, it does not define race how normally defined, so it's beating a strawman.

---

---

The entire article was read, and it wasn't the least bit question raising - besides of course why they would write such a load of shit.

---

This my frined would not longer be science but blind faith.

---

I will repeat.

---

---

6 pictures of women "Artistically" made to look more similar, with the question "Does race exist?" on the front does not try to show small differences between races?

---

It is a poor mind who cannot accept questions and challenges to accepted ideas.

---

Why didn't they use actual pictures of people, or made them more realistic and accurate?

---

Do you truly believe any reader of scientific amerrican is so uninformed and naive to believe that this picture was real?

Only an ignorant fool would think that such a picture was meant to be actual and "scientific".

---

"Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline."

---

Nonetheless this article was not taking sides as you seem to believe but raising pointed questions.

Without the possiblity for raising questions no true scientific progress can be made/

Getting yourself in an emotional upheaval over the issue does not help anyone find answeres but muddles the problem with inordinate passion.

-------
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.   - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Support your peers!

---

What "clim". Remember the title of the article was a question
Do you object to questions? How can a question be "dishonest"?

---

---

What is the "normal" definition of race? As it is there does seem to be many different ways in which races are delimited.

---

---

Clearly you seem quite upset by the questions raised by this article. Aren't scientists suppose to raise questions? To test the accpeted? To defy the conventions? Must scientists treat their subject like an immutable faith?
This my frined would not longer be science but blind faith.

---

Not only that, they could have put 6 pictures of people of different populations on the front page at least. Instead, they added one person and 5 based off of that one.

---

Repeating yourself alone does not prove your point unfortunately.

---

---

Yes. Oftentimes artisitc renditions are not meant to be exact but to strike he imagination and raise questions.
It is a poor mind who cannot accept questions and challenges to accepted ideas.

---

---

Kidd, have you ever heard of using pictures to make a point?
Do you truly believe any reader of scientific amerrican is so uninformed and naive to believe that this picture was real?

Only an ignorant fool would think that such a picture was meant to be actual and "scientific".

---

---

At this point in time there is actually no truly "mainstream work" regarding the scientific basis for race. The scientific community is heavily divided on this issue and each side is calling the other's work and methods "pseudoscientific".
Nonetheless this article was not taking sides as you seem to believe but raising pointed questions.

Without the possiblity for raising questions no true scientific progress can be made/

Getting yourself in an emotional upheaval over the issue does not help anyone find answeres but muddles the problem with inordinate passion.

---

What I don't agree with is the faulty claims made.
Their opinionated work, deliberate "Artistic influence" to images, giving only one side of the debate, defining race their own way, and numerous other claims.
The fact that they used government definitions of race to define it takes away the scientific aspect of it.

Really, in the USA, you could say you were any race you want. I've said I was Black on the PSAT just to get free scholarships. They don't care what you do.

In the USA, a race is a label you choose to put on yourself that nobody will do anything about no matter what you put.

In the USA, race is not race.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

Thus the fact that it uses the US definition of race is not a strawman. It is uses the definition of race familiar to Americans and questions it in fact.

I can see however, that contrary to your original claim, you do give "two shits" about replying.

If you wish to read some grand conspiracy or nefarious intention based on a simple artistic rendition on the cover of a magazine it is your prerogative.

Do not pretend however that you do not care. You seem to care very deeply on the matter.

Much more than the picture or even the article itself actually warrants in fact.

-------
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.   - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Support your peers!

Now, how is the general idea of the often ignorant US population, as well as the Brazillian(Not American) and South African(No American) populations relevant to science?

It isn't. Just as the general American idea of the world isn't relevant to geography. I'm sure the American Geographical Society doesn't go by what is generally known by the US population to fill their website.

It's not like most Americans know much about geography. How many can name each state? I can. How many each country? Not I, but does that invalidate the concept of different countries, or the names and locations of the countries today?

Hell no.

What they did was add "Scientific" to their title, and jumped from science to average. Sadly, average is not informed.
Which is probably why some fell for this crap. Not only is it misinforming, it is entirely biased. "Too recently" and "too much" is not an opinion, hell no.
They could say "Some scientists claim.... While others disagree"

They don't.

It's not science, it's bullshit. Nothing in this article is of any value, nor does it lead me to question anything, as I have an answer to anything remotely relevant and it does not denote the concept of race.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

You ignore the other word in the article, Scientific.

---

---

I'm sure the American Geographical Society doesn't go by what is generally known by the US population to fill their website.

---

This does not mean NG is inaccurate. Simply that these journals are willing to ask questions and opne them up to the public.

Apparently you are unaware  that Scientific American is designed more as a magazine to teach and educate than a collection of scholarly ground breaking papers. Your description and comments regarding this magazine shows you have never read anything alse from that magazine except this article.

Even the more scientific journals such as Science do cover controversial topics and ask questions. The bulk of research is simply an answer to questions which are sometimes only discussed in the abstract or the introduction of the paper.

The question of race is one that is continuing to be pondered by scientists. Scientific American is opening up some of the questions researchers are studying to the American public in terms they understand.

-------
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.   - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Support your peers!

---

I certainly did not. It is the prerogative of scientists, almost their duty to ask pointed questions and revise given assumptions, especially popular ones.

---

---

I do not about the AGS but National Geographic certainly does.
This does not mean NG is inaccurate. Simply that these journals are willing to ask questions and opne them up to the public.

Apparently you are unaware  that Scientific American is designed more as a magazine to teach and educate than a collection of scholarly ground breaking papers. Your description and comments regarding this magazine shows you have never read anything alse from that magazine except this article.

Even the more scientific journals such as Science do cover controversial topics and ask questions. The bulk of research is simply an answer to questions which are sometimes only discussed in the abstract or the introduction of the paper.

The question of race is one that is continuing to be pondered by scientists. Scientific American is opening up some of the questions researchers are studying to the American public in terms they understand.

---

Though you should agree National Geographic is based off of real geography - not what people generally think our world is about.

Sure, it's directed towards that audience, but they will not make up requirements.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"