One more time: Racism exists. But there is no such thing as "Race"

Look... we're not getting anywhere unless you LEARN what ethnicity means.

Of course I brought up ethnicity. Because you brought up affirmative action. Ethnicity is what affirmative action is based on.

As for your article: NO! There is no mention of "race". The authors decided to use the term "race-ethnicity" instead of ethnicity. As I SAID, it doesn't matter what they place in the middle of the two terms ("and", "-" or "/), they are inseparable in this paper. If they separated them, the paper would be worthless. So they don't. The data they give relates to ethnic groups. But you won't understand that until you look up (again: NOT a dictionary) and understand what "ethnicity means"

 

Species breed and breed true with the same species, that is how they are defined. I know of NO human races that can NOT produce viable offspring with other humans. If you have any evidence conclusively proving that there is one please let someone know and apply for your Nobel Prize

 

Wolves and dogs and breed.
Coyotes and dogs can breed.
Chimps and Bonobos can breed.

And so on and so forth...

 

A dictionary does not elucidate the meaning of a term. Not in a debate about concepts. Only in debates about semantics. It is not the purpose of a dictionary to explain concepts. And if you assume that they do, you are incurring in two logical fallacies. A strawman fallacy. And Argument from Dictionary fallacy. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium

There is a difference between semantics and concepts. The former are either immediately settled, or their worthless. The latter is where the real debate has a meaning.

 

And I've won this argument. I've given you plenty of opportunity to explain how ethnicity is socially constructed by definition as opposed to race and how that would make a difference in affirmative not being moot if it was based on it, and you still have not answered the question. You don't have the makings of a varsity debater.

 

OK fine, do you have any proof that any of them at all can NOT interbreed with other races of humans? If you ever find such, let us know. If not, they are of the SAME species.

Species can vary quite a bit. Darwin noticed this with dogs who are all of the SAME species

 

Good for you! How you could have "won" a debate about ethnicity without understanding what the word means will be a mystery that Erich VonDanichen will have to figure out.

Ohhh... so NOW you want me to explain to you what Ethnicity means.

It's easy. "Race" is conceived as a biological category that identifies a taxonomic subdivision in human beings. In biology, the term most used to refer to "race" was "sub-species". "Ethnicity" is not a biological category. It's cultural. It refers to certain physical characteristics in the context of the culture.

For example, under the concept or "Race", a black person from Africa, Brasil or the U.S belong to the same category. Under the concept of ethnicity, they are completely different ethnic groups. They have a different history, live in a different environment, and different backgrounds.

Genetics, as shown on the OP, completely blew the concept of "race". The biological category "black person" doesn't exist. But the cultural categories "black American", "black Hispanic" (or Brazilian), "black African" (which, in and of itself, is actually thousands of ethnic groups) are completely different.

So if you are going to determine who to give a College scholarship, the fact that their skin is black is meaningless. The fact that their skin is black AND they grew up in a poor neighborhood in South Carolina, is what earns him the incentive.

If you are black, but grew up in a wealthy neighborhood in Beverly Hills, you DON'T get a scholarship no matter how dark your skin is.

Ethnicity is a social construct by design. Race is a social construct by mistake. So the latter is useless. While the former is very important.

Got it?

 

Then they are all of the same species.

Mind they must breed TRUE, Many species of the same genus can form hybrids of one sort or another.

And Blacks are the same species as are whites and they are all of the same species as are Chinese, Indigenous Australians, First Races, and all the rest. If they can have VIABLE offspring they are all Homo Sapiens.

 

You can't effectively discuss a concept with someone who is presuming a meaning of words that's different than how you are applying them. That's why I presume the meaning of words is as they are defined in the dictionary. If you would like to make your own dictionary and link to it for reference, I would be willing to try to debate with you using your preferred meanings. However, what I can't do is adopt your personal understanding of their meanings without being told what those meanings are. Im not a mind reader.

 

Neanderthal, Denisovans, Homo Erectus and Homo Sapient must be the same species then as they all interbred. This also indicates that we are species of hybrids.

Your problem is that you are using outdated definition of species. If you define species as a group of animals that cannot produce viable hybrids with other groups then fine - we are all 1 species. Dogs, wolves and coyotes are 1 species too.
But if chimps and bonobos are scientifically defined as separate species, as well as wolves, dogs, coyotes, and countless other interbreeding animals then your argument falls apart and human ethnicities could be defined as separate species.

 

AFAIK Chimps and Bonobos cannot produce viable offspring, they mate very rarely in the wild and produce hybrids when they do, as they do in captivity.

The various other varieties of humans existed in the past and are irrelevant now. I'm pretty sure they are regarded as different varieties or races of human

There is no question that all the various races and ethnicities now existing can and do produce viable offspring if they breed with each other, therefore they are all one species

Humanity is very unusual in that they have not followed the normal path of very successful animals and differentiated into several different species. Most say this is because of humanity's use of rational thought to survive rather than bodily changes and increasing specialization like all other animals have done until now.
Teilhard de Chardin the Catholic theologian in his book The Phenomenon of Man, argues that this shows how the evolution of humanity follows God's plan and his thesis here is most interesting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

 

If race does not exist, neither can racism.

 

Regulate, of course means to make regular. In the world of politics (courts included) the definition of regular is what fits my vision.

 

No, they are regarded as different species of human. They have different taxonomical names than "homo sapiens" which is our taxonomical name. Homo habilis, erectus, rudolfensis are examples of those names.

I don't think homo sapiens has been around long enough to speciate. It could happen again in the distant future.
[/QUOTE]

 

The experiments with flies I quoted earlier shows that speciation starts at about 35 generations of isolation. Each ethnicity today has been relatively isolated for thousands of years as these groups tended to stick together.
As experiment with flies shows, after 35 generations the flies were introduced into common space again, and even though they could reproduce and produce viable offsprings, these flies preferred to mate with flies from their own group. Look at human ethnicities - even immigrants tend to seek out and have long term relationships with people of their own ethnicity. Blacks weren’t slaves for 150 years and they didn’t completely assimilate, even though as a minority they had a lot of time to completely mix with the rest. There are things in the works, biological mechanisms, that make this mixing difficult. Maybe ethnicities aren’t separate species, but they’d definitely be subspecies for sure, if you look into how scientists treat speciation in non-human animas.

 

there is no current scientific evidence for the existence of 3, let alone 5 human "races".

its nothing but very old ignorant pseudo-science

 

ah, the good old ignorant Conservative lie.

just because human races dont exist, doesn't mean the perception of races doesn't exist.

learn the difference, bro.

 

They used fruit flies for these experiments because their generations are about a week. Human generations are about 30 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#:~:text=A generation is "all of,and begin to have children.

35 human generations ago is 1050 years. Can you think of any human groups that have been COMPLETELY isolated for that long?

People may generally prefer their own ethnicity, but I know lots of Irish who really like Italians, including me. Before we have separate species it has to be IMPOSSIBLE to reproduce. You are the same species as a pygmy from the Ituri rain forest. (They are also at least your cousin 35 times removed as that is the least degree of consanguinity possible in humanity, or at least so I once heard but can't prove)

And I think Darwin said that he estimated speciation to occur after several THOUSAND generations though I have no idea what he based that on.

 

Slavs have been around for longer than that and serfdom was a major limitation on movement. That’s why as a whole, the group was isolated.
The same could be said about almost any ethnicity in the world. We had railroads for just 200 years, air travel for about 60. Most of population was static. So, 35 generations in isolation is very feasible.

 

Im not insisting that we are separate species. I’m just voicing my theory because I’m looking at how scientists determine speciation of non-human animals and pointedly avoid this subject with humans.
This thread claims races don’t exist from biological perspective. My counter claim is that human groups do have pretty major differences and that if human speciation was treated the same way like animal speciation then we’d be separate species, and possibly not even on racial lines but on ethnic lines as Somalians, Pygmies and West Africans are very different, which shows not just skin color but the bone and muscle structures. Chimps and bonobos are separate and can produce viable hybrids. Gorillas have several scientifically recognized species and as far as I know they can interbreed. Scientists suspect different groups of orcas are separate species and they draw that suspicion mainly from groups persistently sticking together, not by their ability to produce viable hybrids. Hell, we know humans interbred with other species of Homo in not so distant past! Judging from what I read, one of the main reasons why some species cannot interbreed is due to different chromosome counts, like with donkeys and horses, their hybrids have an even number of chromosomes, rendering them neutered at birth. So, if two closely related species have the same chromosome count then they should be able to produce hybrids that are viable.

The main point I’m making is that races do exist, as well as ethnicities. I’m not saying any one of those are superior to others, I’m just stating the obvious fact that they exist and any anthropologist can recognize race and gender just from the bones. With ethnicities this tends to get trickier, but differences are still there. There is not standard definition of species. Old school definition says species are limited in breeding pool, newer definition ignores ability to produce viable offsprings, which removes the breeding “firewall”.
Race, ethnicity, species, subspecies or breeds are pretty much up for grabs when it comes to definition. But it doesn’t mean that we are all the same. The differences exist, we just can’t agree how we label them and how we define these groups.

 

You don't have a theory. There is no factual basis for classifying human beings into different sub-species, let alone different species. Bonobos and chimps are different species because they have fundamental differences beyond outward appearance. The differences between Africans and Europeans are barely more than skin-deep, on the other hand; Africans and Europeans (and actually, there is just as much variety, and just as little fundamental difference, within each continental group in question) are genetically the same. We are not separated by enough time to have diverged into different species or sub-species.

Meanwhile:

Chimpanzees, (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) are the only two species in the genus Pan, and it’s believed they diverged from each other around two million years ago. Their genome is about 99.6 percent identical...
https://knowledgenuts.com/2013/08/18/the-difference-between-chimps-and-bonobos/​

Africans and Europeans, meanwhile, are basically 100% identical.

 

The diversions between human ethnicities started with homo Erectus 2M years ago. These groups carried the split and then were mixing in with new waves coming out of Africa or elsewhere.
Homo Erectus are our ancestor species and they established themselves pretty well in the old world. If you think homo sapient came out of nowhere in Africa 300,000 years ago then you need to learn quite a bit more. Each wave coming out of Africa or elsewhere was mixing with local homo species. Neanderthals, Denisovans and modern humans came from homo Erectus. Since they were established for so long in these regions, one can make a logical conclusion that differences between “races” started a very long time ago.
I’ve even seen arguments that homo Erectus never went extinct, just like dinosaurs never really went extinct.

 

So you can't answer the question, and in your refusal to do so don't even know what I was stating. Of course, I suspect you never even read that study until after you posted it.

 

its pretty ignorant to think there is one single European race and one single African race.

just travel throughout both continents and you seem variety as you go north to south and east to west.

same thing with asia.

if anything, there are at least three "races" in each Old World continent, plus more in the Americas.

 

There are some tribes in the Amazon that are way way more than 35 generations old and they haven't speciated. No evidence of a march toward speciation yet but one never knows.