Thank you. List amended. Spoiler: the list European: top of pelvis is more oval in shape (per nytimes link-image caption) and pelvises fell middle of the range (body text) North Africans: top of pelvis is more oval in shape (per nytimes link-image caption) and pelvises fell middle of the range (body text) Native Americans: top of pelvis is more oval in shape (per nytimes link-image caption) generally has widest pelvises side-to-side (body text) Sub-Saharan Africans: bottom of pelvis is more circular (per nytimes link-image caption) and generally has deepest pelvises back-to-front (body text) Asians: bottom of pelvis is more circular (per nytimes link-image caption) and pelvises fell middle of the range (body text) White - skeletal remains different from the other races (per NOVA link) Black - skeletal remains different from the other races (per NOVA link) American Indian - skeletal remains different from the other races (per NOVA link) Other - skeletal remains different from the other races (per NOVA link) 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) Caucasoid clusters: Ancestral or genomic similarity (not a single trait) (per user Splash Master) Negroid clusters: Ancestral or genomic similarity (not a single trait) (per user Splash Master) clusters within clusters: Ancestral or genomic similarity (not a single trait) (per user Splash Master) hybrids scattering between: Ancestral or genomic similarity (not a single trait) (per user Splash Master)
Why the "Thank you"? His article/study Underlines DIFFERENCES between the Pelvic canals of European and sub-Saharans... RACES! and says [Euro] doctors should not deliver babies thinking they Are Euro/the Same.. when they aren't. [Nonconversant] Lil Mike's UNWITTING Link: "...But such characterizations have long been based on anatomical studies of people of European descent. In reality, the structure of the pelvic canal, the bony structure through which most of us enter the world, varies tremendously between populations, according to a new study in Proceedings of the Royal Society B. [......] Mostly, they found, pelvic shape varied along lines of geographic ancestry. People of sub-Saharan origin generally had the deepest pelvises back-to-front, while Native Americans had the widest side-to-side. Europeans, North Africans and Asians fell in the middle of the range. [......] These findings challenge the idea “that there is one ‘right’ way to birth a baby,” Dr. Kurki said, and suggest that a more individualized approach to childbirth might be better. [......] IOW/Summarizing... don't deliver babies the same way as mostly (among races) they are different. ie, Don't use Forceps or perform Caesarean sections assuming all groups Pelvises and their Canal Twists are Euro. Lil Mike (and DarkSkies) have to Read with at least a Tiny bit of comprehension. Claiming a contrary opinion backs you is either obtuse or disingenuous. And Thx again for the LINK Mike! `
That isn't a definition of race, it's just a trait associated with a race. You don't seem to have the first clue how biological taxonomy works. Polar bears tend to bigger. Definition of polar bears: bigger. Facepalm.
I gave thanks because what he shared contained exactly what I was looking for. Regarding the rest of your post, it is just noise. Read the OP carefully so that your responses are more appropriate for the challenge.
And yet, race WAS defined long before we even knew that genes existed. The classification system used by scientists need not be the same classification system that is commonly used. Deciding how to divide things up into classes is largely arbitrary.
I am not at all interested in what you and Tax (assuming you're not his sock) rather talk about. What you are focused on is irrelevant to what I’m looking for.
"Race" as defined long ago has changed ever since and varies from place to place. How we commonly use “race” isn’t scientifically based hence why it is being called a social construct.
I did read the article but didn't feel I had the scientific background to judge it properly, so I threw it in an active thread with people more informed about the issue to have it out. It wasn't "unwitting" at all.
You gave DarkSkies a 'like' for his "interpretation" (EMPTY claim/addition to his list). My response/excerpt as always, was far more incisive and explanatory. If you just want to ask..."who the hell knows what this Link means"?... Start a thread and ask the question instead of posting it/them willy-nilly, mid-debate, AS IF, with their BOLD headlines, they mean something to THIS thread. `
The article seemed pertinent to the thread, so I included it. I you disagree, don't read or comment on it.
I did comment on one and Explained what it means/Excerpted the gist. UNLIKE anyone else. Again: Your Bias showed in your 'like' for DarkSkies empty answer/claim it agreed with him... when it did not. You tried to Take sides with stuff you didn't understand. So You Lost. `
Again: If you don't know what the hell your posting (TWICE!).. don't post it here/mid-debate. Ask what it means in a new thread. Again II: You gave a 'like' to DarkSkies empty post which showed your side. And your reason for dumping it here was to help Him. Again III So you lost. `
OP needs to do a little homework before stumping race realists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)#History
The difference is any social construct can be made up with arbitrary definitions. To have a scientific basis those social definitions have to be supported by scientific principles. Say I want to believe that there are just two distinct races, those who are albino and the rest of the world. A geneticist, for example, could take my made up definition and apply the scientific method to determine whether I was correct or not. If my definition is not supported, I can't claim to have a scientific basis for my belief. If he found that albinos and the rest of the world are two distinct races, then I have scientific basis for my belief.
Actually a geneticist would just dismiss your idiosyncratic use of terminology out of hand. What are you even babbling about here? "Say I want to believe there are just two particles, basketballs and ocelots. A particle physicist could apply the scientific method to determine whether I was correct or not." No he'd just laugh in your face. The word race, for the 6 millionth time, has a meaning already. That meaning is not "albino".
^^^^Too vague to be useful in this thread. The "ancestral or genomic similarity" definition you provided for the races you listed is also too vague to be useful. You are stumped because you know what it means if you tried to be more specific.
It's the basis of phylogenetics and cladistics. Are they also too vague to be useful? What could possibly be more specific than reading genomes and ordering them by similarity? "Vague" to you is just an entirely meaningless name you call things you don't like.
Poor comparison. Race is something made up by human societies and particles aren't. Particles would be discovered not made up.
Irrelevant. The point is that the word race has a meaning, and that meaning isn't whatever random attribute you come up with. This isn't how language works. Race doesn't mean "albino". Albino means albino. You give a precise figure for the similarity then say it's vague? You appear completely detached from any kind of logic or sense. Perhaps your technique of stumping race realists is to waste their time by babbling endless reams of nonsense.
While some descriptions of taxonomic history attempt to date taxonomy to ancient civilizations, a truly scientific attempt to classify organisms did not occur until the 18th century. Earlier works were primarily descriptive and focused on plants that were useful in agriculture or medicine. There are a number of stages in this scientific thinking. Early taxonomy was based on arbitrary criteria, the so-called "artificial systems", including Linnaeus's system of sexual classification. Later came systems based on a more complete consideration of the characteristics of taxa, referred to as "natural systems", such as those of de Jussieu (1789), de Candolle (1813) and Bentham and Hooker (1862–1863). These were pre-evolutionaryin thinking. The publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) led to new ways of thinking about classification based on evolutionary relationships. This was the concept of phyletic systems, from 1883 onwards. This approach was typified by those of Eichler (1883) and Engler (1886–1892). The advent of molecular genetics and statistical methodology allowed the creation of the modern era of "phylogenetic systems" based on cladistics, rather than morphology alone. And then DarkSkies from Political Forum (2018 ) said what if you used albinos or eyebrow shape and that would just be random and stupid and that was the end of biological taxonomy.
