I see lots of questions on here about white people and black people etc etc. so here is a rather long question

(Generally, I try to avoid questions of this length, but I am making an exception.)





I contend that there is no such thing as race in the human species. And by that I mean that there is no *general* set of rules you could apply to distinguish one supposed race from another.





In other words, the only way we even are able to talk about race is by focusing on a few arbitrary characteristics on which there is a noticeable geography-based variation in the human species. But these characteristics are of no more significance than other characteristics for which we are very similar.





I have never anywhere seen a general rule defining race that could be applied to the human species in a meaningful way.





To me, the only meaningful way to define race would be to define it as the occurrence of groups within a species which can't directly interbreed with one another. For instance group A can interbreed with only groups A and B and group C can only interbreed with groups B and C.

I see lots of questions on here about white people and black people etc etc. so here is a rather long question
Let me start by saying Kumbaya.


Now that is out of the way race does matter. Your piece will do well on a political podium or a hands across ____ gathering. If race does not matter


Why are there no marathon record holders from China?


Why are there no basketball players from India?


Why is there more occurance of prostrate disease in US than in Japan?


These are geographic reasons? Give me a break.
Reply:yes its called the human race we all bleed red all desendents of noah.check out gensis 9 and 10 noahs sons shem, ham, and japheth. these three had sons after the flood. the sons of japheth- gomer,magog,tubal.the people who bear there name the desandents of javan spain.cyprus.and rhodes,live along coast and islands. the sons of ham,-cush.egype,libya,and canaan,nimrod includ babylon.assyria, and nineveh,ect.read it
Reply:You basically nailed it on the head. I have been saying the same thing for years now. I am not aware of any such definition.
Reply:damn... you hit the nail right on the head..





Star and a big cheers!








AGREED
Reply:%26lt;applause%26gt;
Reply:I don't know...


I am not understanding the question..But , I do know this..as a Christian I love people of all races and religions..All people..and I mean ALL are creations of God's..He loves each person the same..no one is better than another..We should be as he is..and have no partiality towards anyone.
Reply:hmm i guess i can't. very well put!





i guess anytime you use the word race when speaking about the human population, you're either putting one ethnic group down, or putting one above the rest (which obviously in turn puts the rest down)
Reply:You have just proved yourself to be within the upper 10% of world as far as intelligence is concerend. Thinking for yourself and discerning what is true, and what is a man-made social construct is not something that everyone is capable or even willing to do. Cheers and a star to you for your thoughtful observation.
Reply:That is a good question, but don't throw pearls to swine.








*starred*
Reply:Your information is outdated, and largely incorrect. The idea that there is no such thing as "race" is not genetically supportable, despite the canard that's been going around since the 70's or so, when a NON-biologist, prior to the Human Genome Project, opined that there was "more genetic variation within races than between them."





He was not only wrong, but was being deliberately disingenuous as well.





Race matters . . . not the way racists THINK it does, but medically AND culturally. Your argument conflates "race" with "species" rather than "breeds," which would be a far more accurate designation if it didn't upset so many people.





Whatever the term one chooses to use, genetic mutation and drift within geographically isolated populations during humanity's prehistory created what are now called "races" and are genetically identifiable as such. Dietary requirements, disease susceptibility/resistance, cognition patterns, abstract thinking modalities, physical structure and, occasionally, skin, hair, or eye pigmentation are all things that can be and are affected by the specific gene structures producing what we call race.





We cannot respect each others' differences if we refuse to even acknowledge them.





Added: My positions are based on the latest genetic research, some of it published for the first time just last year:





http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recove...





Read before you judge. I'm not saying any race is inferior OR superior. I'm saying we're all *different* and genetically identifiable by ancestral continent of origin and ethnic subgroup, and that some of those identifying traits are important.
Reply:Race is indeed a social construct.
Reply:this is very interesting material.





i agree that "race" divisions are based on small geography-based variations in the human species. these variations are small in the sense that skin color, hair texture, etc. are very small variations when compared to similar brain function, skeletal structure, and the ability to interbreed.





i think the different races of humans could possibly be defined as homosapien, homo erectus, etc. these different groups of humans have noticably different skeletal structure, and i would imagine their brain functions are different due to the different shape and lack of frontal lobe development in the earlier model. i dont know if they could hypothetically interbreed, do you know? if they can't interbreed then i think we definitely have different races of humans.





if they can interbreed...well...we are back to the "geography-based variations" whether the variations are based on actual physical locale or virtual geographical divides due to different cultures avoiding each others supposed differences.
Reply:that sounds right to me, but if one gets as technical as you have you'd see the term breeds could apply, not that i believe in it, but dog, its genus is Canis, Species canis lupus, subspecies is canis lupus familiaris, which is general for all domestic dog, then they are broken down to different breeds. like, chihuahua, irish wolfhound, pit bull so forth and so on would be breeds of a subspecies. like humans, its genus is homo, species homo sapiens, subspecies homo sapiens sapiens, then broke down to different breeds, like white, black, asian etc... do you understand :)

survey monkey