Post edited at 4:06 pm on July 4, 2009 by Takinam

---

This is hilarious. I could just post Templeton again and regurgitate the same hapless argument. Or I could just find the wikipedia article (and cited sources), and post the sources that stated that there is no objective scientific proof for race. We've had this discussion before.

---

Please answer this question:

If there's no scientific proof of race, how is it possible with extreme accuracy to genetically divide people into different clusters which are consistent with racial classifications?

Why didn't ONE the 1348 Caucasians group with the 407 Chinese or 160 Japanese?
Why didn't any of the Chinese or Japanese cluster with the Caucasians?

-------
"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"

---

A statement is useless.

---

---

If there's no scientific proof of race

---

And your claims regarding species is bunk. All humans BELONG to the SAME species.

, how is it possible with extreme accuracy to genetically divide people into different clusters which are consistent with racial classifications?

---

Why didn't any of the Chinese or Japanese cluster with the Caucasians?

---

The fact that some ethnicities group more along certain lines comes from the fact that they are geographical closer. But how does that define race?

You said yourself there are differnt ways to define race anyway.

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

---

Scientific american did NOT say that though.They are just saying that race categorization is not clear cut as you think.
And your claims regarding species is bunk. All humans BELONG to the SAME species.

---

I did not say they weren't the same species, Jake.

---

Clustering means that their genes cluster more around a certain area but that does not mean race is as well defined. You can use various criteria to establish those clusters. Depending how you refine it or how broad you make it you can arive at differnt conclusions.
The fact that some ethnicities group more along certain lines comes from the fact that they are geographical closer. But how does that define race?

You said yourself there are differnt ways to define race anyway.

---

I don't know what you mean by race being "Well defined" Jake. What I assume you mean is that the edges of races are blurred.
And you're damn right they are.

That, in no way, means race doesn't exist, and Takinam is suggesting that race does not exist.

Show me a genetic cluster of numerous populations and divide it into groups more accurate than the 5 main races.
Or a dendrogram.
Or something else.

The Caucasoid-Negroid-Mongoloid-Australoid-Capoid scheme isn't perfect, but it's the best we have.

-------
"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"

---

I was quoting Takinam, who DID say it.

---

---

There is no single objective piece of evidence that can absolutely prove race exists.

---

He is essentially saying the same thing as SA. You can't prove it ABOSULTUTELY because as you say yourself the edges are blurred and the definitions also vary.

So how can you say its ABSOLUE? You can't, Kidd.

---

Geography and genetics aren't the same thing.

---

The fact that India is closer genetically to europeans comes from migration too. Bu if you go to border between india and china you find the differences between the true aren't that clear.

---

Show me a genetic cluster of numerous populations and divide it into groups more accurate than the 5 main races.

---

---

The Caucasoid-Negroid-Mongoloid-Australoid-Capoid scheme isn't perfect, but it's the best we have.

---

Basically the cross over is large enough that using race to justify segragation is silly.

The only real use of that type of classification is for general purposes like social stats

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

---

He is essentially saying the same thing as SA. You can't prove it ABOSULTUTELY because as you say yourself the edges are blurred and the definitions also vary.

So how can you say its ABSOLUE? You can't, Kidd.

---

You can't seem to understand the difference between the concept of race and the races of man.

The classification systems are not, and never will be perfect.
That does not change the fact that race is a very real thing among humans.

---

No one said they were.
The fact that India is closer genetically to europeans comes from migration too. Bu if you go to border between india and china you find the differences between the true aren't that clear.

---

You said "some ethnicities group more along certain lines comes from the fact that they are geographical closer"

But you missed the point. They are genetically closer because they have a common ancestor, or they have mixed.
Not the fact that they are next to each other on the map.

---

You are still confusing accuracy with the issue that things are not always that clear cut. You define races all kinds of differnt ways anyway.

---

---

I wouldn't say "best" or "worst". it is just ONE TYPE of classification and it is not as clear cut as you believe. Not to the point of wanting to segregate ppl ABSOLUTELY anyway.
Basically the cross over is large enough that using race to justify segragation is silly.

The only real use of that type of classification is for general purposes like social stats

---

---

Race absolutely exists, Jake.

---

---

You can't seem to understand the difference between the concept of race and the races of man

---

---

The classification systems are not, and never will be perfect.
That does not change the fact that race is a very real thing among humans.

---

Do you understand what ABSOLUTE means, Kidd?

---

Why even bring it up Jake?

---

---

You said "some ethnicities group more along certain lines comes from the fact that they are geographical closer"

---

---

But you missed the point. They are genetically closer because they have a common ancestor, or they have mixed.

---

We ALL have a COMMON ancestor or common ancestors of the same "race" since the differences we attribute to race only occured only after many many generations of migration.

---

Nobody said some groups can be assigned to a specific race with 100% accuracy.
Nobody.

---

---

It's not as clear cut as I believe?
Tell me, Jake, show me how it's not as clear cut as I supposedly believe.

---

"Race absolutely exists, Jake. "

It is not absolute. You lost. thanks for playing.  

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

---

You don't even define it ABSOLUTELY Kidd

---

The categories, though, are debatable, but we do know some groups are obviously in different categories than others.

Any categorization of living things is debatable.

---

You can't seem to make up your mind on which definition of race you really want to use. Sometimes you use te 5 main races sometimes you use it for the subraces wiithin a race. If you are not even consistent on how you use the definition and use them according to your whim then I don't have to even care.  

---

Can you not understand?

The categories of race are debatable, again. That does not mean race is invalid or we don't know what race is.

The best classification method we have so far, until someone presents, and supports another, is the 5 race scheme.

Yet, you can take each one and further divide that into more races.

And you can take these and divide them again.

It's entirely possible, and it doesn't mean race isn't well-defined.

A race is a unique group of individuals that can be separated by genetic and/or morphological differences.

Caucasoid is a race, as are the many divisions of it (Such as Faelid or Phalian).

You can call them "Sub-races" too if you please, it just signifies you're basing it off of another race.
It doesn't matter.

Also, inconsistencies with racial classifications do not suggest it is not a very real thing, or that race is not valid.

Regardless, there is some sort of uniformity.
Not once has anyone successfully put Swedes, Chinese, and Nigerians into one racial group, and group other humans into a different one.

---

Real yes. ABSOLUTE no.
Do you understand what ABSOLUTE means, Kidd?

---

---

I didn't bring up India. You did.

---

---

You are the one missing the point.
We ALL have a COMMON ancestor or common ancestors of the same "race" since the differences we attribute to race only occured only after many many generations of migration.

---

You did not understand what I meant. The more recent the common ancestors, the more related the groups will be.

---

So you agree it is NOT ABSOLUTE?

---

But, I haven't seen any better classification than the 5 race scheme, and since it's the most supported and no better alternative exists, I have every reason to use it.

If I wanted to, I could reclassify the whole animal kingdom, but what good would that do?

---

You believe it is ABSOLUTE.
"Race absolutely exists, Jake. "

It is not absolute. You lost. thanks for playing.

---

Race is 100% absolutely in existence.

The classification systems aren't 100% accurate or "Absolute" if you want to call it that, but we do have a very supported system, the 5-race scheme.

-------
"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"

---

Race is well defined.

---

---

The categories, though, are debatable, but we do know some groups are obviously in different categories than others.

---

---

You're confusing the definition of race with the categorization of race, Jake.

---

Again this is what he said

---

There is no single objective piece of evidence that can absolutely prove race exists.

---

Race cannot be proven ABSOLUTELY.

---

That does not mean race is invalid or we don't know what race is.

---

---

It's entirely possible, and it doesn't mean race isn't well-defined.

---

How can you say it is "well-defined"?

The concept of race itself is abstract.  

---

A race is a unique group of individuals that can be separated by genetic and/or morphological differences.

---

If people have not agreed on HOW that spearation is made and why then BOTH the concept and the categorization are not well defnined.

---

You can call them "Sub-races" too if you please, it just signifies you're basing it off of another race.
It doesn't matter.

---

---

Also, inconsistencies with racial classifications do not suggest it is not a very real thing, or that race is not valid.

---

Its a very simple concept Kidd. Why don't you you understand?


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

---

Is that why you keep using different meanings every time we speak?

---

---

SOME groups yeah OTHER groups no.

---

---

Which did YOU use regarding Takinam
Again this is what he said
...
Race cannot be proven ABSOLUTELY.

---

Race is very real, has been proven, and it absolutely exists.
This is a common fact, and nothing at all hints otherwise.

What you can't seem to understand is that I never said the classification systems are absolutely, 100% perfect.
Nobody did.

You're confusing them, Jake.

---

He did not say it was "invalid" he said it cannot be proven ABSOLUTELY.

---

Tell me what you think he meant, in your own words.
(try not to use the word "Race" either)

---

It means that the definition changes according to who uses them. Many people considered white in the US are not considered white by you. many considered black in South America are not considered black in England, indians used to be called "nigger" by British colonists. Every culture has is a different definition notion of who belongs in what race.
How can you say it is "well-defined"?

The concept of race itself is abstract.  

---

Race certainly exists.

The classifications aren't perfect either.
NOBODY SAID THEY WERE.

Inconsistent classifications hardly register as proof that race isn't an absolutely real phenomenon.

---

So the concept of race is connected to that SEPERATION.
If people have not agreed on HOW that spearation is made and why then BOTH the concept and the categorization are not well defnined.

---

The classification of races is not agreed on, nobody has said otherwise.
Why do you point out the obvious like it means something that it doesn't?

The fact is, there's no possible way certain groups can be genetically classified together if dividing humans. For example, Norwegians and Australian aboriginals.
There's no possible way you can divide the human species into genetic clusters and expect to find them together with other groups separate.

This is how race exists.

They are obviously different groups, but where do we draw the line? That's not perfect, nor does it have to be for race to be an absolutely true, real, and good concept.

---

It matters if you want to say it is ABSOLUTE. If its NOT absolute then yes it does not matter.

---

Comparing, let's say, Danubians and Pontids, we would call them "Subraces" since you would probably be emphasizing the Small-Mediterranean race.

But if you're comparing Nordics and Irano-Afgans, you would could call them "Races" unless emphasizing the Mediterranean race - which they are both part of.

Now, if you're comparing Alpines and Sudanids, then you'd refer to them as "Races" since they aren't classified together under any race, but closest being the species Human.
EVEN THOUGH Alpinid is a subrace of the Caucasoid race, and Sudanid is a subrace of the Negroid race.

That's why I say you have to put it in perspective.

---

Again no one says it is "not valid" WE say it is NOT ABSOLUTE.
Its a very simple concept Kidd. Why don't you you understand?

---

Charolastra said "Race doesn't exist. It's a social construct..."

And your silly PBS site you linked to before claims it doesn't either.

-------
"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"

---

Race certainly exists.

---

---

The fact is, there's no possible way certain groups can be genetically classified together if dividing humans. For example, Norwegians and Australian aboriginals.

---

Again you failed.

---

There's no possible way you can divide the human species into genetic clusters and expect to find them together with other groups separate.

---

It is a RELATIVE seperation NOT an ABSOLUTE one

Do you even understand the meaning of abolute vs relative? Apparently not.  

---

This is how race exists.

---

Thats about it.

Post edited at 5:43 pm on July 5, 2009 by jakelong

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

---

And your silly PBS site you linked to before claims it doesn't either.

---

Again that website simply ASKS a question and casts some doubt.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/race.html

---

Does Race Exist?

The concept of race is one of the most intellectually and emotionally charged subjects, not only in society but in science as well. NOVA Online asked two leading anthropologists, Dr. Loring Brace of the University of Michigan and Dr. George Gill of the University of Wyoming, who fall on either side of the debate about whether race exists, to state their points of view. Interestingly, while these two researchers differ radically in how they define race, they readily joined together—along with six other top anthropologists—to file suit against the federal government for the right to study Kennewick Man

---

Are you saying doubt = denial?

The website provides BOTH views. Unlike VDARE and YOUR other websites which only presents the racialist views.

balance, Kidd. its all about balance.

Post edited at 5:53 pm on July 5, 2009 by jakelong

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

---

No one says it doesn't. But its is not something ABSOLUTE

---

Also, "Race doesn't exist. It's a social construct..."
People DO say race doesn't exist.

---

That would be ETHNICITY NOT RACE.
Again you failed.

---

---

The genetic clusters just shows how CLOSE some groups are to each other  
It is a RELATIVE seperation NOT an ABSOLUTE one

Do you even understand the meaning of abolute vs relative? Apparently not.

---

---

The genetic clusters just shows how CLOSE some groups are to each other  
It is a RELATIVE seperation NOT an ABSOLUTE one

Do you even understand the meaning of abolute vs relative? Apparently not.  

---

There's no possible way you can expect these groups to cluster together genetically.

Please explain how some racial classification scheme can put these two groups into the same race.

If you agree that it's not logically possible, then you have agreed there is some uniformity to racial classification systems. They aren't 100% absolutely perfect, but they don't have to be.

---

Nope. This is just ONE of MANY WAYS to group ppl according to RELATIVE closeness,
Thats about it.

---

Race is not "Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongloid/ect" it is populations of humans separated from others by genetics and/or morphological features.

Since you can separate some groups this way, race itself exists. Race is a perfectly valid concept. Race absolutely exists. That's a fact. I dare you to try to prove otherwise.

The classificaiton system is imperfect, but it is the best we have.


-------
"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"

---

Quote: from kidd rune at 5:36 pm on July 5, 2009

---

And your silly PBS site you linked to before claims it doesn't either.

---

lol it is not "mine" unless you want to say that YOUR silly VDARE websites are "yours"

Again that website simply ASKS a question and casts some doubt.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/race.html

---

Does Race Exist?

The concept of race is one of the most intellectually and emotionally charged subjects, not only in society but in science as well. NOVA Online asked two leading anthropologists, Dr. Loring Brace of the University of Michigan and Dr. George Gill of the University of Wyoming, who fall on either side of the debate about whether race exists, to state their points of view. Interestingly, while these two researchers differ radically in how they define race, they readily joined together—along with six other top anthropologists—to file suit against the federal government for the right to study Kennewick Man

---

Are you saying doubt = denial?  

The website provides BOTH views. Unlike VDARE and YOUR other websites which only presents the racialist views.

balance, Kidd. its all about balance.

---

(Note: Congoid and Negroid are the same thing, Coon just didn't like the term "Negroid" because it hinted at black, and it was confusing to people since various non-Negroids are black-skinned)

Also, the PBS site did make such claims as:
"Race isn't biological"
and
"Human subspecies don't exist"
and
"Race has no genetic basis."
and
"Race is a powerful social idea"

Subspecies (Same thing as races) don't exist? It has no genetic basis? It's not biological?
Bullshit.

-------
"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"

---

God damnit Jakelong you construe everything you can.

---