Also, I have never met one man that defines someone's whole race solely by their nose.

Scientific American had to lie and create fake images of people on their image.
They have an obvious agenda.

-------
"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"

Ambiguity about race is a fair enough point to make in a magazine, it's not like it's trying to say "no" resolutely.

-------
i spy on you too

---

The Nordish race is more of a collection of races - and I have explained how I don't believe Nordish to be a race anymore.

---

---

Also, I have never met one man that defines someone's whole race solely by their nose.

---

---

Scientific American had to lie and create fake images of people on their image.
They have an obvious agenda.

---

It was a QUESTION to show that things aren't as clear cut as you believe.

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

---

So Paul Newman is 100% white.

---

---

lol@silly racialist who cant stand to be proven wrong by scientists.
It was a QUESTION to show that things aren't as clear cut as you believe.

---

The edges of each race are quite fuzzy - but there are obvious facts, such as native Irishmen being a different race as native Brazilians, which are a different race as native Kenyans.

-------
"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"

---

No, his nose is not a White trait

---

---

The edges of each race are quite fuzzy - .

---

---

Can his nose be native american or asian or black? How do you know its Jewish?

---

---

If the edges are fuzzy then how are you supposed to seperate races into different countries? How and why should you make the cutoff between them? Any division would be arbirtrary and DECIDED based more on social and visual conventions than on something real.

---

Europeans, Sub-Saharan Africans, and Amerinds are clearly quite different, correct?
They evolved in different places, have unique histories, they can be easily distinguished from each other, each has many unique traits, and so on.

They are obviously different races.

But when you argue whether some groups, such as Ethiopians, are Caucasian or Negroid - then it becomes less clear.

That does not, in any way, make race an invalid concept, nor does it suggest that race doesn't exist.

It's more of a scientific approach and anthropologists tested as many traits as they could before applying Ethiopians to whichever race they felt - almost always Caucasoid or a mix.

-------
"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"

---

By the shape. It's a textbook Semitic nose.

---

---

The cutoff is somewhat arbitrary, but there are obvious facts.

---

---

But when you argue whether some groups, such as Ethiopians, are Caucasian or Negroid - then it becomes less clear.

---

---

That does not, in any way, make race an invalid concept, nor does it suggest that race doesn't exist.

---

---

It's more of a scientific approach and anthropologists tested as many traits as they could before applying Ethiopians to whichever race they felt - almost always Caucasoid or a mix.

---

I thought we had this discussion before, rune. It does not contradict science not to believe in race at all. There is no single objective piece of evidence that can absolutely prove race exists.

And this thread isn't about scientific dishonesty. The pictures aren't meant to be an exact replica of what the mixed future may look like - they are meant just to be what we MAY look like. There is no scientific dishonesty, or even a real attempt at trying to mislead anyone. It is meant to catch the eye; the first page, and that is what it does. You don't like it because you disapprove of mixing peoples in the first place, and this doesn't bode well with that principle. In fact, it contradicts it.

You twisting and turning a well-meaning magazine to your own nefariously biased ends is lowly and it doesn't fit you. Scientific American has no provable history "lying", your definition of lies and forgery consist of what you believe, and much of time, what you believe isn't even scientific fact, but instead scientific theory.

Post edited at 7:33 am on June 30, 2009 by Takinam

---

Then you are using the nose to define the semitic race?

---

---

Those "facts" use extreme example. So you admit that segragating ppl by race is arbitrary? Good so long as we're clear on that.

---

You can't confuse them at all - the natural populations anyway.

---

But you wouldn't accept them in your white nation anyway.

---

---

maybe not but its shows that those who DECIDE to segregate ppl based on race are doing because of SOCIAL reason and using SOCIAL methods.

---

---

How would you SCIENTIFICALLY segregate races if so many people fall between or across categories?

---

How is that so?

Why aren't people running around protesting the labels we put on birds?

The same is also true with rocks.
There is no defining line between what you label a rock - but there are obvious differences between many rocks that make it so you can easily categorize them into different groups.

-------
"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"

---

How do you contradict science when you don't believe in race?

I thought we had this discussion before, rune. It does not contradict science not to believe in race at all. There is no single objective piece of evidence that can absolutely prove race exists.

And this thread isn't about scientific dishonesty. The pictures aren't meant to be an exact replica of what the mixed future may look like - they are meant just to be what we MAY look like. There is no scientific dishonesty, or even a real attempt at trying to mislead anyone. It is meant to catch the eye; the first page, and that is what it does. You don't like it because you disapprove of mixing peoples in the first place, and this doesn't bode well with that principle. In fact, it contradicts it.

You twisting and turning a well-meaning magazine to your own nefariously biased ends is lowly and it doesn't fit you. Scientific American has no provable history "lying", your definition of lies and forgery consist of what you believe, and much of time, what you believe isn't even scientific fact, but instead scientific theory.

---

But you could sit on your chair and when one presents it, say "THAT'S NOT RACE! THEY'RE ALL HUMAN! WAAAAAAH!"

Really, you could.

Classification of different subspecies of humans is quite possible.
Various races have unique geographic location, unique history, unique sets of traits, recognizable genetic division, and numerous traits that are common in one population - and impossible or rare in another.

You don't think race exists, because you don't know what race is - and you go by a definition that doesn't apply.

The genetic variation between humans is enough, Templeton used fraudulent methods to claim otherwise (See Amadon D, The seventy-five percent rule for subspecies and Hennessy RJ, Stringer CB, Geometric morphometric study of the regional variation of modern human craniofacial form)

Really, Takinam, can you give me a reason why they'd make each person in this pic look more like the top right woman than anyone with ancestry of a different race would look (Assuming they're not mixed)

-------
"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"

---

No, there are many traits Semites have, but the nose is one of the most noticeable. He has it.

---

---

racial cutoff is debatable, but groups are obviously different races than others - such as Irish, Zimbabweans, and Koreans.

---

Would you accept this caucasian guy in a "white" nation? If no why not?

---

Caucasian isn't White.

---

Otherwise the cutoff between "white" caucasian and "nonwhite" caucasian is not really based on anything scientific.

The decisian of the supreme court to declare asian indians as caucasian but not white and therefore to deny them citizenship was PURELY SOCIAL and twistedaround the meaning of caucasian JUST to exclude asian indians. SCIENTIFICALLY asian indians are caucasian.

---

Explain.

---

So the segregation is based on a DECISION made on a social basis or a personal preference basis.

---

Well we have done so to bird species, yet the same thing happens.

---

---

Why aren't people running around protesting the labels we put on birds?

---

---

there are obvious differences between many rocks that make it so you can easily categorize them into different groups.

---

People have migrated, intermixed, and migrated.

The ONLY real reasons there are ANY of the differneces you mention is because people have been seperated by oceans and mountains after the movement of continents and plates.

But OTHERWIE they are the SAME SPECIES.

There is nothing scientific or genetic which PREVENTS them from making human babies, from regrouping together and living together.

The ONLY reason anyone can give to segregate humans are SOCIAL NOT SCIENTIFIC

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

---

How can you tell its semitic and not native american?

---

---

Again thats using extreme examples. How can you tel that someone from the caucasus is really white or asian?

---

---

Would you accept this caucasian guy in a "white" nation? If no why not?

---

---

So "white" is just a social definition based on skin color and some external features.
Otherwise the cutoff between "white" caucasian and "nonwhite" caucasian is not really based on anything scientific.

The decisian of the supreme court to declare asian indians as caucasian but not white and therefore to deny them citizenship was PURELY SOCIAL and twistedaround the meaning of caucasian JUST to exclude asian indians. SCIENTIFICALLY asian indians are caucasian.

---

People from India are not solely Indo-European Caucasoid groups - thus India is not White.

The US and their classification systems are horrible measures of race.

---

The segregation is arbitrary. You admitted that.
So the segregation is based on a DECISION made on a social basis or a personal preference basis.

---

If we truly wanted, we could consider chimps humans.

The fact is - SOME GROUPS are CLEARLY different, racially, from others.

Those are the "Extreme examples" you speak of, and they lay the basis for racial classification.
The fact that it's not perfect, the labels are human inventions, and the edges are fuzzy does not denote or disprove the existence of human races.

---

species =/= race

---

What I'm saying is the titles and classification cutoffs are arbitrary - but the fact that different races exist and people of various ancestries can be grouped, easily, into races is FACT.

---

scientists DO debate the cutoff for some birds.

---

It's not perfect and no classification of living organisms ever will be. There will always be some people to claim otherwise.

It does not mean that race doesn't exist and is not a valid concept.

---

rocks =/= people.
People have migrated, intermixed, and migrated.

The ONLY real reasons there are ANY of the differneces you mention is because people have been seperated by oceans and mountains after the movement of continents and plates.

But OTHERWIE they are the SAME SPECIES.

There is nothing scientific or genetic which PREVENTS them from making human babies, from regrouping together and living together.

The ONLY reason anyone can give to segregate humans are SOCIAL NOT SCIENTIFIC

---

There's nothing scientific or genetic that PREVENTS different species of bird from mating and having fertile young, is there?

Why should we outright lie and say race is nothing?

-------
"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"

---

Actually, Takinam, there is quite a bit of scientific evidence that proves race exists.

But you could sit on your chair and when one presents it, say "THAT'S NOT RACE! THEY'RE ALL HUMAN! WAAAAAAH!"

Really, you could.

Classification of different subspecies of humans is quite possible.
Various races have unique geographic location, unique history, unique sets of traits, recognizable genetic division, and numerous traits that are common in one population - and impossible or rare in another.

You don't think race exists, because you don't know what race is - and you go by a definition that doesn't apply.

The genetic variation between humans is enough, Templeton used fraudulent methods to claim otherwise (See Amadon D, The seventy-five percent rule for subspecies and Hennessy RJ, Stringer CB, Geometric morphometric study of the regional variation of modern human craniofacial form)

 
Really, Takinam, can you give me a reason why they'd make each person in this pic look more like the top right woman than anyone with ancestry of a different race would look (Assuming they're not mixed)

---

Lol. Link me to the objective scientific assertion that stipulates that human genetics completely justify seperation into seperate races.

---

Lol. Link me to the objective scientific assertion that stipulates that human genetics completely justify seperation into seperate races.

---

Some pics:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1424693&rendertype=figure&id=FG3
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1424693&rendertype=figure&id=FG2

You can clearly East Asia, Mongoloids, clustering well together.

Then you see Oceania. One point clusters with Mongoloids (They have Mongoloid and Australoid admixture) and one lower, probably more dominantly Caucasoid.

Central/South Asia, Middle East, Europe, and North Africa cluster together as Caucasoids. Tow intermediate C/S Asia points in between Cacuasoids and Mongoloids, probably admixture.

Africa has it's own cluster.

Americas has it's own cluster. Amerinds are often classified with Mongoloids, or sometimes their own branch, Americanoid.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1424693&rendertype=figure&id=FG4

That pic shows the specific groups.

Check this study out:
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Racial_Identification/SNP_classifier.pdf

"A linear classification method was developed for incorporating these SNPs into a classifier model that was 99, 98, and 100% accurate for identifying individuals of European, African, and Asian descent, respectively"

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372

I think it's quite clear how accurate it is.

There are numerous other studies, but each of these has successfully separated human populations into races successfully.

-------
"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"