>>Race (for those who skipped genetics
>>class) implies sub-species.
>
>No, it doesn't imply that unless
>you believe in outdated disproven
>theories...no modern geneticist would argue
>that the difference races are
>"subspecies" of the human race.
>You must be reading genetics
>books from the 1850s.

Spirit the problem is race has no accurate demonstration if you abandon those premises. Race doesnt exist under any other evidence, under any other property of science. As it comments on the variance of human kind it just holds no weight.

Those genetic books of the 1850's fostered terminology and ideology that is still used today even though we can all admit that science doesnt support the claims we still accept the idea.

Thats what colorblind theory hopes to change.

>> Sub-species cannot
>>interbreed or produce offspring. Of
>>the few known exceptions to
>>this rule, the offspring produced
>>is sterile.
>>What you are arguing is that
>>phenotypes equal racial identifiers,
>
>That's not what I'm arguing at
>all. I didn't even use
>the word phenotypes.

Well- spirit the topic is about the validity of racial classification and in all your arguments against colorblind theory and what havoc it would bring to the judicial system you presumed that there was some practictally valid sense of race that the people in discussion here are willing to serve- I dont think thats case.

without understanding and realizing the simpl premise that is the topic of this discussion you will be at a loss trying to determine its effects on a system that is pervasively corrupted by that ideology.

You still believe it spirit- we cant change that- and you seem think we need to in order to provide these as valid and profound ideas. Sorry dude these truths extend far beyond me and anybody else who speaks in this fashion- this is the truth as demonstrated by nature, history, science, and critical thinking. Common sense may foster something contrary but other than COMMON I dont think common sense has much place around here. These cats is about critical and analitical and activist sense okayplayer?

>> and
>>that is simply not the
>>case. Homo sapiens (which is
>>what we are biologically and
>>scientifically speaking) are for the
>>most part genotypically homogeneous. There
>>is very little real variation.
>
>But there is some variation. And
>that variation correlates with racial
>categorization. Two "black" parents are
>more likely to produce a
>brown-skinned baby than two "white"
>parents. That variation is the
>basis for racial classification.

First your begging the question again. The whole discussion is as to whether or not race is valid or accurate and you presume that it is in order to proceed with your argument. As a correction that variation IS NOT the basis for racial classification, the basis for racial classification is to justify dominance of supposedly less evolved human beings. It wasnt about skin color that was the least of demarcations of race- its was presumed that the features of Negroids and Mongloids were ape-like- moreso than Caucasians. There were light skinned Black people back then (Cleopatra was high yellow) and there were certainly light skinned "mongloids"- the basis of racial classification was to establish a social order by which those people could be dominated and enslaved.

The variation that race classification comments on has been appropriated from other properties as the man says "Our phenotypical variation depends largely on climate and selective breeding, which again does not equate to race." The correlation that race classification brings is only for its own behalf not that it bears out any truth. Much like race culture all evidence of race is by and large stolen from other properties of similar themes. And even in its actuality only serves to deomstrate the initial premise which is that "whites" are more evolved than other "races."

White people can be olive skinned, pale skinned, they can have curly or straight hair of all sorts of colors, noses of all shapes and sizes, national origins that vary and span the globe while no other race has such characteristic inconstistency explain this through race classification. You still have yet to answer the question..

If a white person and a jew have a baby- what race is the baby?

race just doesnt add up

>You are mixing up the concept
>of species and race. I'd
>like to see what genetics
>book you're reading from, I'm
>sure it's outdated.

No you're mixed up in that you think those theories are mutually exclusive- they arent, maybe colloquially we are under the impression that they are but thats just not what the theory has to offer in the case of its doctrine or subsequent considerations.

There isnt a book on racial genetics that isnt "outdated" there have been no further developments on race science- its a lie, why would they continue investigating it?

>> Our phenotypical variation depends
>>largely on climate and selective
>>breeding, which again does not
>>equate to race.
>
>Not in your species/race paradigm, but
>for folks who use race
>to categorize folks with minor
>variations like skin tone and
>hair texture, those phenological variations,
>to use your terminology, are
>how are people are categorized.

those who use race to categorize people- can only be as incorrect as the thoery that they are acting upon. How many times do we have to say it spirit- look it up. THERE IS NO SCIENCTIFIC VALIDITY TO RACIAL CLASSIFICATION AMONG HUMANS.

its just not there you can suppose it exists as a matter of social order and public presumption but you cant grain any other ground as much as you try.

>> You can
>>argue all you want that
>>there are black and white
>>races, but there isn't any
>>real science that will back
>>you up.
>
>"real science"? pray tell, what is
>that?

demonstrative biology, genetics, evidence through science, objective emprical data- none of that can quantify race, none of them can demonstrate it in actuality. And if you havent heard REAl scientists will tell you quite clearly that racial variance in humans is a malicious myth.

>> Thus we only
>>have ethnicities and cultures,
>
>I disagree. How does "ethnicity and
>culture" explain the likelihood that
>two "black" parents are more
>likely to create a child
>of a certain skin tone/hair
>texture than two "white" parents?
>It doesn't.

You're not listening are you... rememeber when he said "Our phenotypical variation depends largely on climate and selective breeding, which again does not equate to race"... this is what culminates in properties of culture and ethnicity- selective breeding, climate, etc those thing very much preside on the basis and correlation of a people's customs and native origin. race classification presides on the basis that one race group is further evolved than others and al subsequent evidences only go back to substantiate the initial claim.

You cant subtract the thesis of the theory and then allow it to exist on the substantiation of its claims- especially when those claims are just as much evidence of other things.

> and
>>those are closer identifiers of
>>who we really are socially
>>because scientifically we are all
>>pretty much the same.
>>While this is mainly between you
>>and Koala, I felt the
>>need to explain this from
>>a scientific/common sense perspective. I
>>hope this helps.
>
>Science and common sense are two
>seperate concepts. Science often refutes
>"common sense".

Well this post is about the science- you can try to post up another one about common sense but i doubt youd find anybody whod be encouraged to go along with popular opinion especially in terms of self determination.

Race is not real- scientifically or biologically- it alarms me that we are obligated to actually argue over the matter.

You people really should know better.

K