How many races are there?
- Thread starter Granule
- Start date
Another excuse from you is what it is. It's easy to correct those mistakes. People able to do so correct them regularly. What's your excuse this time, boy?
Like I said, I'll get out when you can get me out. I'm yet to see you try and we both know why you won't.
My answer is 2. A human race and a sub human race that you're a part of. Got it?
Nazi
Dumber76 sure has anger issues. Maybe because he was reprimanded or fired from his last job.
Yurt
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?29236-Stop-the-obsessive-stalking-legion-troll
No, you don't have the knowledge to know that they are spelled incorrectly.
Dumber76 sure has anger issues. Maybe because he was reprimanded or fired from his last job.
That assumes he actually worked.
Well, at least you're coming around to the truth about a new poster. That's progress.
So you think new poster means anything but new name? How idiotic can you be.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human
At no point, from the first rudimentary attempts at classifying human populations in the 17th and 18th centuries to the present day, have scientists agreed on the number of races of humankind, the features to be used in the identification of races, or the meaning of race itself. Experts have suggested a range of different races varying from 3 to more than 60, based on what they have considered distinctive differences in physical characteristics alone (these include hair type, head shape, skin colour, height, and so on). The lack of concurrence on the meaning and identification of races continued into the 21st century, and contemporary scientists are no closer to agreement than their forebears. Thus, race has never in the history of its use had a precise meaning.
Although most people continue to think of races as physically distinct populations, scientific advances in the 20th century demonstrated that human physical variations do not fit a “racial” model. Instead, human physical variations tend to overlap. There are no genes that can identify distinct groups that accord with the conventional race categories. In fact, DNA analyses have proved that all humans have much more in common, genetically, than they have differences. The genetic difference between any two humans is less than 1 percent. Moreover, geographically widely separated populations vary from one another in only about 6 to 8 percent of their genes. Because of the overlapping of traits that bear no relationship to one another (such as skin colour and hair texture) and the inability of scientists to cluster peoples into discrete racial packages, modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological validity.
At no point, from the first rudimentary attempts at classifying human populations in the 17th and 18th centuries to the present day, have scientists agreed on the number of races of humankind, the features to be used in the identification of races, or the meaning of race itself. Experts have suggested a range of different races varying from 3 to more than 60, based on what they have considered distinctive differences in physical characteristics alone (these include hair type, head shape, skin colour, height, and so on). The lack of concurrence on the meaning and identification of races continued into the 21st century, and contemporary scientists are no closer to agreement than their forebears. Thus, race has never in the history of its use had a precise meaning.
Although most people continue to think of races as physically distinct populations, scientific advances in the 20th century demonstrated that human physical variations do not fit a “racial” model. Instead, human physical variations tend to overlap. There are no genes that can identify distinct groups that accord with the conventional race categories. In fact, DNA analyses have proved that all humans have much more in common, genetically, than they have differences. The genetic difference between any two humans is less than 1 percent. Moreover, geographically widely separated populations vary from one another in only about 6 to 8 percent of their genes. Because of the overlapping of traits that bear no relationship to one another (such as skin colour and hair texture) and the inability of scientists to cluster peoples into discrete racial packages, modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological validity.
If anybody figures how to explain this to a conservative then they deserve a prize.
http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association on May 17, 1998...
In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association on May 17, 1998...
In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
Last edited:
What was it now? "One Big Mistake" or something like that. An idiot claims Arabs are a race and provides a simplistic dictionary definition that says "families", "tribes" and so on. I pointed out there are 80 million+ families and 360+ tribes in the US, so by his definition, there are that many races.
He just kept digging himself in deeper and deeper. So now they go to a forum poll for validation. Pathetic.
With increasing diversity, there is much truth to that. Historically, the predominant opinion was four
Caucasian
Negroid
Mongol (Asian)
Australoid
Last edited:
Yes, those four are typically the ones listed by those anthropologists that still see race as biologically relevant.
Granny seems to be dividing on linguistics to get to Arab as a separate race, which is not that uncommon. But that just reinforces the argument that race, especially as applied to people, is ambiguous and has no real meaning.
There is one race, the human race
Cop out