Stumping a "Racial Realist"

Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by DarkSkies, Oct 24, 2018.

  1. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe I may have found a way to stump a racial realist. If ever a racial realist talks about "racial differences" and all that jazz, simply ask them to define what the races are and the traits that define those races. For some strange reason they aren't able to do this.

    We know that there are biological differences between people. However, those differences do not occur along the racial lines the way race is currently defined. They can talk about sports, for example, but those who specialize in certain sports are found in very specific areas and not across the so called race. They can talk about certain diseases and certain disorders, but there are better explanations than race that can explain why these incidents occur in certain populations across the planet.

    When scientist say race cannot be defined, they mean races are not genetically homogeneous and so people can't be placed in distinct groups. So what happens is racialist end up using probability, stereotypes, philosophy, etc to define a race instead of something definite/distinct for that group. Scientist can use a biological basis to define sex (male or female) or biologically define animals, their classes and sub classes, but the racial realist cannot biologically define race. They are stuck having to live with it being a social construct.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  2. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already Elaborated on this and you had NO Answer.
    You were "Stumped".
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/science-killed-racism.544257/page-8#post-1069787420

    You Lost there, and are now looking for help.

    You can argue/DENY all you like, but Race does exist, and people like Forensic Anthropologists use it every day.
    So it's Moot.
    You can claim the sun doesn't come up, but this guy has a tan!

    NOVA | Does Race Exist?
    Two different opinions. I post the one from George Gill who actually, even necessarily, deals with race.
    Ergo, the other is moot.

    Slightly Over Half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the Traditional view that human Races are biologically valid and Real.
    Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The Other Half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."
    [......]
    Bones don't lie
    First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80% accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations..... My students ask, "How can this be? They can Identify skeletons as to Racial origins but do not believe in Race!"
    .....
    "The idea that Race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true."
    Deeper than the skin
    [.......]The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans.
    The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual Legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing Race from skeletal remains than from Looking at living people standing before me.
    ....
    On political correctness
    Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the Clinical perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and Not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the Politically Correct Agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the Evidence.

    How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?"
    Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. But, you may ask, are the politically correct actually correct? Is there a relationship between thinking about race and racism?
    [.......]​
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
    roorooroo likes this.
  3. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cont'd
    What the hell are you talking about "as Used today."
    I am tallking scientifically, as are scientists....
    Had you posted in the [this] Race section (been at all interested or capable) in our scholarly debates of the last few YEARS you would have known this.

    I post on Evolution in the Sci section when not posting here.
    So I have a background, and more than a Political interest in the Sub-topic of Race/subspecies.
    I also posted in our Scholarly debates in [this] Race section where/when there was meat on both sides.
    That debate is now OVER [here] with the most educated Race denier having committed mb suicide after losing a multi-Year debate.


    DarkSkies posts No 'science'/No scientists.
    NADA.

    Race "as used today," and ALWAYS, and in my own words...
    (Watch Closely Jokers as I am the ONLY one here who knows what Race is)

    Is Morphological (physical) difference caused by Genetic difference, born of thousands of years of separate Geographic Evolution.
    such that...
    The groups can be separated and reassembled with very high accuracy.​

    and

    Race (human classification) - Wikipedia
    Morphologically differentiated populations

    Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations. That is, "the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence" One objection to this idea is that it does not specify what degree of differentiation is required. Therefore, any population that is somewhat biologically different could be considered a subspecies, even to the level of a local population. As a result, Templeton has argued that it is necessary to impose a threshold on the level of difference that is required for a population to be designated a subspecies.

    This effectively means that populations of organisms must have reached a certain measurable level of difference to be recognised as subspecies. Dean Amadon proposed in 1949 that subspecies would be defined according to the 75% rule which means that 75% of a population must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining morphological character or a set of characters. The 75% rule still has defenders but other scholars argue that it should be replaced with 90 or 95% rule.


    In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered different subspecies by the USUAL criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection.

    Wright argued that it does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within Each of these groups that every individual can Easily be Distinguished from every other.

    However, it is Customary to use the term Race Rather than Subspecies for the major subdivisions of the Human species as well as for minor ones.""

    Most scientists now deny race for Political reasons ("Scientific Race Denial"), an over-reaction to what some did a Century ago ("Scientific Racism").. Also for political reasons.

    But there are human Races on ALL qualifications used on all other living things.
    It's just not PC, and in fact dangerous, to say so.
    `
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
  4. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps the World's Foremost expert on Evolution, Genetics,
    and author of the Standard Text "Speciation".
    He too, (along with other eminent experts such as Sewall Wright in my last) says there ARE human Races

    credentials
    Article

    Are there human races? « Why Evolution Is True
    Are there human Races?
    Jerry Coyne

    One of the touchiest subjects in human evolutionary biology —or human biology in general — is the question of whether there are human races. Back in the bad old days, it was taken for granted that the answer was not only “yes,” but that there was a ranking of races (invariably done by white biologists), with Caucasians on top, Asians a bit lower, and blacks invariably on the bottom. The sad history of biologically based racism has been documented in many places, including Steve Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man (yes, I know it’s flawed).

    But from that sordid scientific past has come a backlash: the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups — differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies (the terms are pretty Interchangeable in biology). Racial delimitation could, critics say, lead to a resurgence of racism, racial profiling, or even eugenics.
    [.........]
    What are Races?
    In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated).
    There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described Solely on the basis of difference in Coat Color, which could involve only one or two genes.

    Under that criterion, are there human Races?
    Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.

    How many human races are there?

    That’s pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit “Caucasians” as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over 30.

    How different are the races genetically?
    Not very different. ... But since the delimitation of races has historically depended Not on the degree of underlying genetic differences but Only on the existence of Some genetic difference that causes morphological difference, the genetic similarity of races Does Not mean that they Don’t exist...."
    `
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
  5. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A Real "Stumper" for Race denialists.

    Do you agree with Chimpanzees having been divided different subspecies/Races?
    Because BOTH Chimps and Gorillas not only have many subspecies/Races, they both have the larger different Species too.
    You didn't know did you?
    You didn't even know race = subspecies

    So on what basis are you going to decide whether humans should have them?
    `
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
  6. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the simplest form that some here will need...
    do you believe these people are the Same race?



    [​IMG]


    `
     
  7. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's the difference between orange and yellow? Where exactly does one start and the other end? Just because it's a spectrum doesn't mean the two colors don't exist.

    The same thing could be said about all sorts of nebulous concepts. Can you define, exactly, where "the South" in the U.S. ends? Does the fact it doesn't have clearly precise defined boundaries mean that it doesn't exist? Of course not.

    The latest one, the socially-progressive Left has been trying to extend this argument to gender, trying to argue that male and female doesn't really exist.
    (they point to a few rare examples of in-between grey zones to try to prove the argument)
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
    Splash Master and Taxonomy26 like this.
  8. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @Taxonomy26,

    With all the information you provided, here is how we can determine race:

    White - skeletal remains different from the other races**

    Black - skeletal remains different from the other races**

    American Indian - skeletal remains different from the other races**

    Other - skeletal remains different from the other races**

    Englishman - easily distinguished from West Africans and Chinese (per wikipedia link)

    West Africans -easily distinguished from Chinese and Englishman (per wikipedia link)

    Chinese - easily distinguished from West Africans and Englishman (per wikipedia link)

    East Asians - light skinned (per wikipedia link)

    Brazilian White - anyone who is perceived to be and identify as white (per wikipedia link)

    Brazilian Black - average 50% Sub Saharan African, 37% European, and 13% AmeriIndian (per wikipedia link)

    Brazilian Indian - Indigenous Brazilian natives can be of a racial mix from non-Brazilian Indians (per wikipedia link)

    US Black - Political assumption that regardless of appearance, one has a drop of "Black blood" or known ancestry (per wikipedia link)

    US White - Americans who are descendants from any of the white racial groups of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa (per wikipedia link)

    US Mixed - Belonging to more than one race (per wikipedia link)

    US Indian - Indigenous people associated with certain tribes and not "too white" unless formally adopted by male member (per wikipedia link)




    **Anthropologist George W. Gill is able to accurately determine the race of the skeleton with +80% accuracy. In combination of other means, he can get the percentage higher.
     
  9. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This won't work the way you think it does.

    The difference between yellow and orange is that one is a primary color and the other is a secondary color. The rule that allows me to define them this way applies all the time every time.

    The gender example you gave doesn't matter because I already addressed this in the opening. I can definitely determine male and female and the rule that allows me to define who is male and female will apply all the time every time.

    See, I am able to give you a definition that you can use and be correct every single time.
     
  10. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It depends. Does the light skinned man have any African ancestry for example? The race rules in America would class him the same as the others in the image if he does.
     
  11. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @DarkSkies

    The usual inane Disingenuity.
    We got NOTHING from you in response to my Many high quality sources and points. Including perhaps the country's foremost Evo/Species expert.

    The usual utter mismatch of knowledge, and worse, sincerity.
    No help for you showed up either. On the contrary.
    Keep hoping.
    Even I keep hoping they do for the sake of better debate/sincere response.
    `
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
    roorooroo likes this.
  12. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We should narrow down the scope of race. Instead of the broad categories, they should be at least be reduced to ethnic groups.
     
  13. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your high quality sources? You dismissed the antagonist in your own NOVA article and ignored the concessions made by George Gill. He said some things you agreed with, but made certain acknowledgements you chose to ignore. How can I take you seriously when you do this with your own sources?
     
  14. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Humans come in many flavors......tall, short, thick, thin, blond, redhead, white skin, black skin, flat nose, sharp nose......etc....they are all human and everything beyond that is made up reasons to say us and them. As with all species, if they can breed they are the same.
     
    Derideo_Te and DarkSkies like this.
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not what those protecting endangered giant tortoise populations in the Galapagos islands believe.

    Did you hear that? Despite the possibility that these species can interbreed with each other, conservationists are still working to preserve each species and prevent any one of them from going extinct.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
  16. Splash Master

    Splash Master Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    It's defined by ancestral similarity or genomic similarity. The same way any other taxon in biology is defined.
     
  17. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When we say "black" we usually ignore any "white" genes in a person. This rule simply doesn't always align with biology because biology, for example, would have most of the "black" population in the U.S. under more than one race and not just "black."
     
  18. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've already defined Race for you several Times (busting your OP), and I have specifically Dissed Colloquial usage.

    American slang "Black" is not a Race but a nickname, generally for the Recent admixture/hybrid that was the result of sub-Saharans from West Africa mixing with White/Euro/Cauc due to Slavery.
    On average, that mixture is 75% sub-Saharan/25% 'white.'

    Your posts show not even beginner level debate.
    `
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
  19. Splash Master

    Splash Master Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    So you're confusing a political and a biological definition. Words can have several meanings. You didn't know that?
     
  20. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you know that race realists go by the "colloquial usage" for race? They don't care that "black" is a nickname. They have no problem grouping the admixed population with those who don't have any "white" genes in them for they see them as biologically the same. The definitions you provided did exactly the same thing. They defined all the races among sociopolitical lines. Did you even read/scan through all your links?

    Anyway, the best one of your sources did was show that one anthropologist could accurately determine the race at like 8 out of 10 times. Could you imagine if we had 10 bodies and could only determine the sex like 8 out of 10 times though? Whatever we are using to determine sex wouldn't be good enough than using a concrete definition that would get it correct 10 out of 10 times.
     
  21. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the thing. There is no biological definition that fits into the race realist idea of race. The way race is used is from sociopolitical designations.

    Now can scientist define race biologically. Yes they can, but it would not fit into the social construct of race. For example, doctors could define race by blood type. We would just have four types of races and definitions that would fit distinctively for each blood type. Race realists simply can't say the same and that is the point.
     
  22. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're utterly fudging and worse on many/all counts... as always.

    1. Even the "80% is a MIScharacterization/Underestimate.
    In fact it/he have been used in Court.
    he said
    "....Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are Over 80% accurate Alone, and in Combination produce very high levels of Accuracy.
    No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just One of these methods, but in Combination they can make very reliable assessments,
    just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations..... My students ask, "How can this be? They CAN Identify skeletons as to Racial origins but do not believe in Race!"
    .....
    "The idea that Race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true."
    Deeper than the skin
    [.......]If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans.
    The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity.
    I have been able to Prove to myself over the years, in actual Legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing Race from skeletal remains than from Looking at living people standing before me."..."


    2. Then you left out Sewall Wright/Wiki who pointed out we could tell an Englismen (NATIVE), form a Chinese (East Asian Native) from a sub-Saharan with 100% Accuracy.

    And indeed anyone/even you can.
    It was Not "sociopolitical"... the countries just shorthand for Continental RACE.

    3. Then you left our perhaps the planet's foremost expert on Evolution/Genetics (Coyne), author of the standard Text "Speciation" who also says there Are human races.
    Unbelievably dishonest.


    4. Alas, I even posted the Picture for the Weak-minded in order to drive this point home.
    Didn't work in one case it seems.

    Gross and despicable omissions/perversions were/are ALWAYS your only hope.
    Didn't work.
    You lost.
    A total Blitzkreig.
    #692, #693, #694, #695.

    `
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
  23. Splash Master

    Splash Master Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    No. Can you show that with quotes?
     
  24. Splash Master

    Splash Master Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Here are a few race realists I found
    • Darwin (1857): "Grant all races of man descended from one race; grant that all structure of each race of man were perfectly known—grant that a perfect table of descent of each race was perfectly known.— grant all this, & then do you not think that most would prefer as the best classification, a genealogical one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to another, as it would have stood, if allocated by structure alone. Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races & their pedigrees would go together."
    • Dobzhansky (1970): “A race is a Mendelian population, not a single genotype; it consists of individuals who differ genetically among themselves … This is not to deny that a racial classification should ideally take cognizance of all genetically variable traits, oligogenic as well as polygenic."
    • Hartl and Clark (1997): "In population genetics, a race is a group of organisms in a species that are genetically more similar to each other than they are to the members of other such groups. Populations that have undergone some degree of genetic differentiation as measured by, for example, Fst, therefore qualify as races."
    • Leroi (2005): "Populations that share by descent a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else."
    • Coyne (2014). “To a biologist, races are simply genetically differentiated populations, and human populations are genetically differentiated. Although it’s a subjective exercise to say how many races there are, human genetic differentiation seems to cluster largely by continent, as you’d expect if that differentiation evolved in allopatry (geographic isolation)
    • Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele in their book Race: The Reality of Human Differences (2004: 207): "Races are populations, or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
    • Neven Sesardic stated in the paper Race: a social destruction of a biological concept (2010): "First, the basic meaning of "race" seems to imply that, due to a common ancestry, members of a given race A will display increased genetic similarity, which will make them in some way genetically different from individuals belonging to another race, B. Second, it is frequently assumed that A-individuals will also differ systematically from B-individuals with respect to some genetically determined morphological characteristics (skin color, hair texture,facial features,etc.), with these morphological differences being the basis for the common-sense racial recognition and classification. And third, A-individuals could differ from B-individuals with respect to some genetically determined psychological characteristics as well."
    • Richard Lynn in his book Race Differences in Intelligence (2006: 7): "A simple and straightforward definition of race is that it consists of a group that is recognizably different from other groups. A fuller definition is that a race is a breeding population that is to some degree genetically different from neighboring populations as a result of geographical isolation, cultural factors, and endogamy, and which shows observable patterns of genotypic frequency differences for a number of intercorrelated, genetically determined characteristics, compared with other breeding populations. Geographical contact zones between races generally contain racial hybrids, who show intermediate values of gene frequencies from the more central distributions of the breeding groups."
    None of them appear to use your strawman "one drop" US political definition.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2018
  25. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,522
    Likes Received:
    583
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. The inaccuracy is important even if you try to minimize it in order to try to minimize the implications. I'll continue with my use of male and female to demonstrate why. If you had 1000 bodies and got the wrong sex for at least 150 of them**, then the method you are using while helpful in determining the sex of the person, it certainly can't be used to define sex. Same with race. Getting over 15% of the races incorrect means many of those skeletons had their race misidentified. And what of admixed skeletons? Tens of millions of Americans are admixed, yet no where do we read where Gill had any difficulty placing any skeleton of an admixed person in one group or another (i.e. he's working by social definitions of identification or ignoring certain ancestry in certain cases). Meanwhile, feel free to look up some of the processes of determining skeletal race or sex. You'd be surprised at how they can get these things wrong even for skeletons with known sex and race.

    2. Who cares what Sewall said. It only matters what he can prove.

    3. What about Coyne? The only thing he mentions relevant to this topic is that there are anywhere from 3 to 30 races.

    4. I've addressed the picture and you know what? We can make different assumptions about it all day like:
    • The two dark-skinned short people are pygmies, a distinct population, even from the stereotypical "black" race
    • The tall man is multi-ethnic
    • The tall man is pure-race
    • The three of them are all the same race, one just happens to be taller and lighter
    • The tall man is Asian and the two short people are from a certain area in Africa
    • The tall man is Asian and the two short people are Indigenous Asians (certain Asian pygmies clans)
    • The tall man is European and the two short people are Sub Saharan Africans
    • The tall man is a light-skinned African American and the two short people are Sub Saharan Africans
    • The short man is married to a short woman from another tribe of another ethnicity
    • etc.
    Why did you believe a photo would help? People around the world, especially in Asia and Africa come in all shades of colors and all sorts of heights.

    All in all, your posts have been deflections from the claim made in the OP. At best you provided pretty vague definitions of race and those definitions are based off sociopolitical designations. It even says so in your wiki link.







    **85% was the best any skeletal anthropologist can determine so I used a 15% fail rate in the example being generous. Most times the fail rate was far worse and results couldn't be replicated.
     

Share This Page