Race

[Fadix]

Dan, are you suggesting that the fact that almost all geneticist, anthropologists, biologists that claims that race does not exist are trying to be politically correct? Read one of the abstracts I posted regarding why the term "mongoloid" "negroid" and "Caucasoid" are still used... it is just a common word that has no scientifical bases.

Here another study on behavour. It is a meta-analysis, if you don't know what a meta-analysis is, it is the newest form of study to have the highest accuracy. What they do is they tak all the studies take off the two extrems, compute them again and recalculate the margin of error with the new mega sample. It was with this method that they were able to conclude that Aspririn was good for the blood circulation.

Lack of racial differences in behavior: A quantitative replication of Rushton's (1988) review and an independent meta-analysis

Kevin M. Goreya, and Arthur G. Crynsb

a School of Social Work, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4
b School of Social Work, State University of New York at Buffalo, 359 Baldy Hall P.O. Box 601050, Buffalo, NY 14260-1050, U.S.A.

Received 27 October 1994. Available online 13 January 2000.


Abstract

Rushton (Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 1009–1024, 1988) hypothesized that racial group differences exist across a range of behaviors from intelligence to social organization. Such differences were then discussed within the context of an evolutionary continuum (Negroid < Caucasoid < Mongoloid). For example, his observations that blacks compared to whites are less intelligent, physically mature more rapidly, and are more aggressive and impulsive (less law abiding) were said to support the evolutionary hypothesis. Quantitative replication of the 100 studies included in Rushton's original `review and evolutionary analysis' and a meta-analysis of 100 randomly selected studies infer that any behavioral differences which do exist between blacks, whites and Asian Americans for example, can be explained in toto by environmental differences which exist between them.

[Fadix]

Here another one... Here from this gene Saudi Arabian Caucasoids would have to be classed as Negroids... this is an example why you can not classify races, because you will find similairities between people living in the same regions and differences with others, independent with any link with ones body colour.




A new HLA Bw16 subtype defined in both negroid and Saudi Arabian populations

Eka Williams*, Antonio Alonso, Patricia Doyle, Ralph Okoye, William Ollier and Hilliard Festenstein

From the Department of Immunology, The London Hospital Medical College, London E1, England

Accepted 25 May 1984. ; Available online 20 December 2002.


Abstract

Serological identification of a new HLA-Bw16 subtype, B39B, was made by tha analysis of reaction patterns of many alloantisera and one monoclonal antibody. The B39B pattern of reactivity was shown to be distinct from HLA-Bw38, Bw39, and 8w57. Cytotoxicity testing before and after absorption suggests that the B39B specificity belongs to the HLA-B7 cross-reactive group. The B39B was clearly demonstrated in two families. This antigen was detected in Negroids and Saudi Arabian Caucasoids but not in a large panel of British Caucasoids.

Abbreviations: PBS, phosphate buffered saline; BSA, bovine serum albumin NaN3 sodium azide; RAM-FITC, rabbit anti-mouse Ig labeled with fluorescein isothiocianate; SAH-FITC, sheep anti-human Ig labeled with fluorescein isothiocianate; MoAb, monoclonal antibody; FCS, fetal calf serum


* Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria

[Fadix]

Here the most extensive study on Rushton r/K selection theory reject Rushton theory applicability.

I appologize to the moderators that this study is long, but since it is not accessible from the web unless you have access rights, I have to post it to make it accessible, and might post others as well.


---------

Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior

Peter N. Peregrinea, , , Carol R. Emberb and Melvin Emberb

a Department of Anthropology, Lawrence University, 515 E. College Avenue, Appleton, WI 54911, USA
b Human Relations Area Files, New Haven, CT, USA

Received 13 February 2003; accepted 19 June 2003. ; Available online 27 August 2003.




Abstract

Rushton argues that much variation in human behavior is explained by membership in one of only three genetic groups or "races" ("Negroids," "Caucasoids," and "Mongoloids"). Using previously coded data on the 186 society Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, we find no statistical support for the predicted associations between "race" and behavior.

Author Keywords: Evolutionary psychology; Sociobiology; Cross-cultural research; Behavior


Article Outline
References


Rushton argues that human behavior correlates so strongly with genetic ancestry in one of three "racial" groups ("Negroids," "Caucasoids," and "Mongoloids") that environment has little effect [Rushton, 1988, Rushton, 1992 and Rushton & Bogaert, 1987]. 1 Rushton's ideas have generated intensely negative reactions and critiques (e.g., [Gorey & Cryns, 1995, Leiberman, 2001, Lynn, 1989 and Zuckerman & Brody, 1988]), but it would be a remarkable achievement if Rushton has found a way to reduce human behavior to such a simple causal model. His ideas should not be dismissed because we dislike their implications or because they do not reflect "politically correct" thinking; rather, they should be rigorously evaluated to determine if they have explanatory power. We undertake such an evaluation here.

Rushton's ideas are rooted in r/K selection theory [MacArthur & Wilson, 1967], which posits that there are two distinct poles to reproductive strategy: to have many offspring and put little energy into raising them (r-selected), or to have few offspring and put considerable energy into raising them (K-selected) [Pianka, 1970]. All species fall somewhere on the continuum between an r-selected strategy and a K-selected strategy, and their location on this continuum predicts a great deal of their behavior [Barash, 1982]. Sociobiologists have tended to see humans as among the most K-selected species on earth, but in applying r/K selection theory to humans, Rushton argues that different geographic populations of humans developed different strategies along the r/K continuum. He argues that humans initially evolved an r-selected strategy, and it was only after humans left Africa and began to face the challenges of new environments that more K-selected strategies evolved.

According to Rushton, three distinct populations of humans evolved. Africans retained a more r-selected strategy, humans who moved into the "colder" conditions of East Asia evolved a more K-selected strategy, while humans in between (i.e., in Europe) evolved a strategy between the African and East Asian ones. [Rushton, 1995] argues that these strategies are genetic in their basis and that they affect a wide range of human behavior, including social organization, family structure, sexuality, and even technological sophistication.

Table 1 presents testable relationships between "race" and behavior predicted by Rushton. These constitute the dependent variables in our evaluation, which we operationalized using extant data from cross-cultural studies that have explored these or very similar variables. All were coded for either the whole or a subset of the 186 society Standard Cross-Cultural Sample [Murdock & White, 1969], which mostly includes cultures described by ethnographers. The independent variable in our evaluation is "race" as Rushton defines it. Because [Rushton, 1995] argues that three distinct human "races" evolved as adaptations to environmental conditions and were established no later than 40,000 years ago, all the indigenous cultures of Africa should be parts of his "Negroid race," the indigenous cultures of Europe and western Asia should be parts of his "Caucasoid race," and the indigenous cultures of East Asia should be parts of his "Mongoloid race." In addition, it would also seem that the indigenous cultures of Oceania and the Americas must be "Mongoloid" because those regions were populated from East Asia within the last 40,000 years. , 2

However, Rushton does not consistently use geographic location to define "race." For example, in Race, Evolution and Behavior, he says that Filipinos and Malays are "Mongoloid" and includes Malaysia along with the Philippines and Indonesia in comparing crime statistics but excludes all three from his analysis of cranial capacity; that the Indian subcontinent is "Caucasoid" but excludes 26 Indian samples from his analysis of cranial capacity; that Amerindians are "Mongoloid" but excludes 20 Latin American populations (especially Bolivian and Peruvian) on measures of cranial capacity; and includes the Caribbean in crime statistics but excludes Caribbean island states as "European/Negroid" mixtures for the purpose of comparing cranial capacity [Rushton, 1995].

Although we do not support Rushton's division of the world's human populations into three "races," or indeed into any racial classification, it is necessary for our cross-cultural tests to follow Rushton's classification as closely as possible, which is difficult because his procedures are so inconsistent. Accordingly, we have developed three versions of the "race" variable, each representing one of the apparent definitions Rushton used., 3 In our first version of the "race" variable, we use geographic location., 4 We believe this operationalization holds most closely to Rushton's conceptualization of "race." In our second version of the "race" variable, we make subdivisions based on a more refined geography., 5 In our third version, we classify borderline populations based on language., 6

Table 2 summarizes our results. A glance at Table 2 makes it clear that Rushton's predictions do not find much support, regardless of how "race" is operationalized. Indeed, of the 78 correlations in Table 2, only 2 are statistically significant (at less than or equal to the .05 level) in the predicted direction. This is no more confirming a set of results than one would expect by chance. Even if we look at the direction of the correlations, Rushton's predictions are not supported. More of the correlations are in the opposite direction (45 of 78) than in the predicted direction. Rushton's predictions clearly fail our cross-cultural evaluation.

There are at least four possible explanations for why the predicted relationships between "race" and behavior failed. First, the failure could be the result of a biased sample. We would argue, however, that the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample has been proven unbiased in formal statistical evaluations [Gray, 1996], and any sample bias is therefore unlikely to explain the failure to support Rushton's predictions. Second, our use of coded data from other studies may introduce validity problems with some of the variables; that is, we may not be testing the precise relationships Rushton predicts. We would argue, however, that such validity problems would affect only some of the variables being tested, not all 26, as is the case here. Also, the rather obvious face and content validity of some of the variables, which failed (for example, frequency of extramarital sex), decry such an argument. Third, we may have misunderstood Rushton's definition of "race" and hence created an invalid independent variable. However, we would argue that our three versions of the "race" variable capture Rushton's inconsistent definitions. If his predictions were accurate, our results would have supported them.

Our final explanation for why our evaluation failed to support Rushton's predictions is simply that "race" does not predict societal or cultural variation in human behavior. This seems both an obvious and logical conclusion from our cross-cultural tests. There is clearly more variation in cultural behavior than can be explained by a trichotomy of "racial" groups. There is a vast array of research demonstrating clear effects of the environment on human behavior––indeed, entire traditions and subfields within anthropology, biology, ecology, psychology, and sociology focus on the effect of environment on human behavior. In contrast, "race" seems to be irrelevant to the task of explaining cross-cultural differences in behavior.

Indeed, we suggest that Rushton's findings, when viewed from the position of our results, actually support the idea that behavior is strongly influenced by environment. Rushton does marshal some support for a number of his predicted relationships for which we found no support in the cross-cultural data. We suggest the discrepancy has to do with the samples Rushton used. Many of his data come from industrial societies where "race" is a widely employed social category and where there is a history of social discrimination (for example, the United States, Japan, and South Africa). In such societies, as opposed to the broadly representative sample of societies we use, socially defined "race" differences might appear to predict some differences in behavior [Rushton, 1995]. But they do not predict behavior in the world of the ethnographic record in which, for the most part, "racial" discrimination has not affected daily life within the communities studied by anthropologists.

[Fadix]

References

Barash, 1982. D.P. Barash. Sociobiology and behavior, Elsevier, New York (1982).

Barry et al., 1976. H. Barry, L. Josephson, E. Lauer and C. Marshall, Traits inculcated in childhood: cross-cultural codes 5. Ethnology 15 (1976), pp. 83–114.

Barry & Paxton, 1971. H. Barry and L.M. Paxton, Infancy and early childhood: cross-cultural codes 2. Ethnology 10 (1971), pp. 466–508.

Barry & Schlegel, 1984. H. Barry and A. Schlegel, Measurements of adolescent sexual behavior in the standard sample of societies. Ethnology 23 (1984), pp. 315–329.

Broude & Greene, 1976. G Broude and S.J. Greene, Cross-cultural codes on twenty sexual attitudes and practices. Ethnology 15 (1976), pp. 409–429.

Broude & Greene, 1983. G. Broude and S.J. Greene, Cross-cultural codes on husband–wife relationships. Ethnology 22 (1983), pp. 263–280.

Cavalli-Sforza & Feldman, 2003. LL Cavalli-Sforza and M. Feldman, The application of molecular genetic approaches to the study of human evolution. Nature Genetics 33 (2003), pp. 266–275 (Supplement) . Abstract-Elsevier BIOBASE | Abstract-EMBASE | Abstract-MEDLINE | Full Text via CrossRef

Ember & Ember, 1992. C.R. Ember and M. Ember, Warfare, aggression, and resource problems: cross-cultural codes. Behavior Science Research 26 (1992), pp. 169–226.

Gorey & Cryns, 1995. K.M. Gorey and A.G. Cryns, Lack of racial differences in behavior: a quantitative replication of Rushton's (1988) review and an independent meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 19 (1995), pp. 345–353. Abstract

Gray, 1996. J.P. Gray, Is the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample biased? A simulation study. Cross-Cultural Research 30 (1996), pp. 301–315.

Grimes, 1996. B.F. Grimes. Ethnologue: languages of the world (13th ed.),, Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas (1996).

Hammer & Zegura, 2002. M.F. Hammer and S.L. Zegura, The human Y chromosome haplogroup tree: nomenclature and phylogeography of its major divisions. Annual Review of Anthropology 31 (2002), pp. 303–321. Full Text via CrossRef

Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000. N. Jablonski and G. Chaplin, The evolution of human skin color. Journal of Human Evolution 39 (2000), pp. 57–106. Abstract | Abstract + References | PDF (3094 K)

Leiberman, 2001. L. Leiberman, How "Caucasoids" got such big crania and why they shrank: from Morton to Rushton. Current Anthropology 42 (2001), pp. 69–95.

Lynn, 1989. M. Lynn, Race differences in sexual behavior: a critique of Rushton and Bogaert's evolutionary hypothesis. Journal of Research in Personality 23 (1989), pp. 1–6. Abstract-PsycINFO | Abstract-EMBASE

MacArthur & Wilson, 1967. R.H. MacArthur and E.O. Wilson. Theory of island biogeography, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1967).

Murdock, 1967. G.P. Murdock. Ethnographic atlas: a summary, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh (1967).

Murdock & Provost, 1973. G.P. Murdock and C. Provost, Measurement of cultural complexity. Ethnology 12 (1973), pp. 379–392.

Murdock & White, 1969. G.P. Murdock and D.R. White, Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Ethnology 8 (1969), pp. 329–369.

Pianka, 1970. E.R. Pianka, On r- and K- selection. American Naturalist 104 (1970), pp. 592–597. Full Text via CrossRef

Rohner & Rohner, 1982. R.P. Rohner and E.C. Rohner, Parental acceptance–rejection and parental control: cross-cultural codes. Ethnology 20 (1982), pp. 245–260.

Rushton, 1988. J.P. Rushton, Race differences in behaviour: a review and evolutionary analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 9 (1988), pp. 1009–1024. Abstract

Rushton, 1992. J.P. Rushton, Evolutionary biology and heritable traits (with reference to Oriental–White–Black differences): the 1989 AAAS paper. Psychological Reports 71 (1992), pp. 811–821. Abstract-MEDLINE | Abstract-PsycINFO

Rushton, 1995. J.P. Rushton. Race, evolution & behavior, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ (1995).

Rushton & Bogaert, 1987. J.P. Rushton and A.F. Bogaert, Race differences in sexual behavior: testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Journal of Research in Personality 21 (1987), pp. 529–551. Abstract-PsycINFO

Zuckerman & Brody, 1988. M. Zuckerman and N. Brody, Oysters, rabbits and people: a critique of "race differences and behaviour" by J.P. Rushton. Personality and Individual Differences 9 (1988), pp. 1025–1033. Abstract


Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-920-832-7684; fax: +1-920-832-6962


1 We put the terms "racial" and "race" in quotes throughout the paper because we agree with the common belief in physical anthropology that "race" is not a scientifically useful concept when applied to humans.

2 It is important to note that the actual diversity in human genes does not break down by geography in the manner Rushton suggests. Human populations have extensively moved and intermarried, and while single traits (e.g., skin color) may have geographic correlations (although even these may be related to environmentally specific adaptations such as exposure to UV radiation––see [Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000]), the overall pattern of human genetic diversity is not correlated with large geographic regions [Cavalli-Sforza & Feldman, 2003 and Hammer & Zegura, 2002].

3 Raw data for the three "race" variables are available from the first author in either paper or electronic format.

4 Societies in sub-Saharan Africa ([Murdock, 1967] region A=Africa) were coded as "Negroid"; those in North Africa and Europe ( [Murdock, 1967] region C=Circum-Mediterranean) were coded as "Caucasoid"; all others were coded as "Mongoloid." [Murdock, 1967] coding of world region for the standard cross-cultural sample is available as Variable 200 in the World Cultures data files.

5 "Mongoloid" includes the Asian mainland east of the Urals, excluding South Asia (which we have taken to mean India, omitting Assam and the islands in the Bay of Bengal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) and the Amerindian populations of the Americas. Rushton also includes "the Northern and Eastern Pacific," which we have taken to include the islands of southeastern Asia, Micronesia and Polynesia, and aboriginal New Zealand, omitting New Guinea, Melanesia, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, and aboriginal Australia. "Caucasoid" includes Europe, the Middle East (the Arabian peninsula, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, as well as the North African countries of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt), the Indian subcontinent (which we have taken to mean India, omitting Assam and the islands in the Bay of Bengal), Pakistan, and Bangladesh. "Negroid" includes sub-Saharan Africa (since the borderline is unclear, we have omitted the southern part of the Sahara in Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, and the northern part of the Sudan), but excluding Madagascar and populations in Ethiopia and Somalia; we have omitted the islands of the Caribbean.

6 This third version of the "race" variable makes minor changes to the second version based on language data from [Grimes, 1996]. For Northern Pakistan, Kashmir, Assam, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal, and the islands belonging to India, we placed those populations speaking either an Austro-Asiatic (Nicobarese) or Sino-Tibetan (Lepcha, Garo, and Lakher) language into the "Mongoloid" category and populations speaking languages in the Indo-European and Dravidian families into the "Caucasoid" category (we omitted Burusho and Andamanese because their languages appear unrelated to others). In areas that were part of the southern Sahara (in Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, and the northern part of the Sudan) and opposite the Arabian peninsula (Ethiopia and Somalia), we grouped those populations that spoke languages in the Afro-Asiatic family (also spoken in North Africa and the Middle East) with "Caucasoid" and those that spoke Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo languages with "Negroid." In the Americas, we excluded from "Mongoloid" all populations that did not speak an Amerindian language.

[Darorinag]

Fadix, you still haven't proven anything.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix "Human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that there is greater variation within racial groups than between them. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective."

American Anthropological Association, 1998

This is misleading. The fact that there is "greater variation" within racial groups is because whoever measured gene frequences and allele patterns measured the similarities within racial groups, and not the different gene frequences or allele patterns. This is hardly objective. If one measured the many gene frequences which differ between racial groups one can get different results.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag Fadix, you still haven't proven anything.

Dan, this is an erronous logic, what you are asking me is like telling someone to prove the existance of a non-existance.

You guys have claimed that blacks had smaller brains, you guys posted Rushters table with cranial capacity etc... which I have demonstrated to be erronious, now the rest regarding breeding and the r/K selection theory that was the rest of the table, this study show is innacurate.

In fact from Rushton own most accurate simples from US army personals we see that the Cranial capacity of the three groups was about equal, the technique used by Rushton to measure brain size is rejected by neurologists or specialists of the brain physiology. Two recent studies(I may post them in future) reject entirly Rushton claim.

The IQ differences between blacks and whites therefore has nothing to do with brain size.

You pointed out that blacks attend less university and have lower IQ. Dan, in Japan Koreans are considered as inferiors, they are of the same "race" as you call it, and in their IQ tests they score less than Japenese. In the past Polish Jews in the US were considered as dumb, and faced a lot of discrimination, they scored in IQ tests under the general population, while now Jews score higher.

We can reffer to Northern Irland, where Catholics are discriminated and considered as inferiors, they score 15 points lower in IQ tests than the Protestants. Both are "Caucasoid" like you claim.

Blacks are not well addapted in our society, they do not have models to follow in science like whites, they have models in sport and other disciplines that do not require much education, there is many factors, while biologically speaking there is nothing "found" wich will permit us to conclude they are inferior.

Now you must "prove" that there is races in humans, it is not for me to disprove, since you claim something. Explain me if there is such a thing as race, how come we can find more similarities between a black and a white than two whites or two blacks... give me any other example in the animal kingdom where you can find more similarities between two different races than to of the same races. There is NONE!!!

So, you claim there is races, it is to you to prove so.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Anonymouse This is misleading. The fact that there is "greater variation" within racial groups is because whoever measured gene frequences and allele patterns measured the similarities within racial groups, and not the different gene frequences or allele patterns. This is hardly objective. If one measured the many gene frequences which differ between racial groups one can get different results.

Not right, there is no gene that you can not find in one group and find in another... this is the whole point.

This means that if you find out that 70% of blacks have the marker for one gene, and that only 12% of whites have it, from this standard, those 12% whites would be considered more "negroid" than the 30% of blacks that do not have the marker. This is one of the main raisons that searchers reject the claim of the existance of races. There is nothing genetically that would permit to classify blacks, whites etc... if we were to use genetic to do so, many whites will be classified as blacks, blacks as whites, yellos as whites or blacks etc...

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Race: Anthropologists say divisions were made by man

http://www.gazette.net/200018/frederickcty/state/10106-1.html

by Walter Lee Dozier
Staff Writer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 4, 2000


Evelyn Arias did not want to appear naïve when she asked her colleagues about a question on her census form.

But the 36-year-old Virginia resident was struggling with the section that asked her to identify herself in a racial category.

Both of her parents and grandparents were born in Costa Rica. Her mother has dark skin. Her father has light skin. She has Jamaican and Spanish ancestry. In Costa Rica, where she lived until she was 16, no one ever asked her about her "race."

"I said, 'Wow, this is hard,' " Arias said. "It asks me for my race, but I don't know what race I am. Is somebody supposed to tell me?"

Arias is not alone.

For more than 300 years, obsession with racial identity has permeated the social, political and economic structures of American society. At the beginning of the 21st century, it is a chief concern for politicians, activists, educators and religious leaders, who are scrambling to right the wrongs of the past and anticipate the challenges of the future.

But there is a growing core of social scientists who say there can be no social solution to race-related problems until Americans confront and understand the biological myths related to race.

They say it is essential to question the biological legitimacy and acceptance of the popular racial categories: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid (white, Asian and black).

Anthropologists, who have been noticeably absent from much of the current discourse on race, are at the forefront of this new challenge. They are among scholars in disciplines such as biology, genetics and sociology who argue that nature did not make "race."

Society did.

Race and biology

"The notion of race has become a central theme for anthropologists because anthropologists were so critical in the development of the notion of race," said Leith Mullings, an anthropologist at the City University of New York Graduate Center. "Physical anthropology came into its own because of the concept of race."

The word "race" generally has been used and accepted as a synonym for "subspecies," which is defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. "Race" is mistakenly used to describe what anthropologists call human variation or diversity.

Human variation is the way anthropologists describe and explain diverse populations throughout the world. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south. But skin tone is not related to nose shape or hair texture.

Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or with curly or wavy or straight hair -- all of which can be found among indigenous peoples in tropical regions. Anthropologists say these variations render any attempt to establish lines of divisions among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

DNA evidence indicates that most physical variation -- almost 94 percent -- takes place within so-called racial groups.

This is misrespresented twisting of facts to push for the case that "there are no races" by not giving readers information that the so called similarities within racial groups is because scientists measured only those markers which are similar in between populations and not those that are different. Any one familiar with the basics of genetics who has read up on it can see the obvious manipulation here, even Cforza and Gould admit to this.

Originally posted by Fadix Americans are socially conditioned to view race as biologically natural and based on visible physical differences, such as skin color, hair texture, eye color, appearance and nose shape.

But scientific evidence shows that these physical traits have more to do with environmental factors than biogenetics. Thus, from a scientific perspective, race has no intrinsic relationship to human variation. It simply reflects the social meaning that has been imposed upon the variation.

And let's not forget the evidence that indicates differences is totally neglected here. What scientists accused Rushton of doing, of not telling readers of the evidence contrary, is done by this article. Moreover, races differ culturally, as culture is a product of a given people.

Originally posted by Fadix Anthropologists argue that the consequence of continued use of outdated and confusing classifying terms is not a trivial issue.

"Over the years, and certainly today, the concept of race has contributed far more to misunderstanding and conflict among humans than it has to understanding and cooperation," said Alvin Wolfe, an anthropologist at the University of South Florida in Tampa. "For the past century, scientists have tended to confirm a European cultural belief that humans could be usefully categorized into three basic types -- Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid."

As science improved, Wolfe said, it became clear that human variation was much more complicated than racial classifications allow.

This is an indirect way of saying "there are differences" but we shouldn't categorize them as they are "too complicated". Instead they will use the classification that "there are no races", which in itself is another form of classification.

Originally posted by Fadix Scientific evidence also shows that the amount of variation among humans is less than in other species.

Most data about human variation come from genetic studies. These studies are quantifiable and replicable.

They show that regardless of how racial groups are defined, two people from the same racial group are about as different from each other as are two people from any two different racial groups.

It's amazing how many times this article has obfuscated the truth in order to push for ideological bias. The fact that two people within a race are more different than someone outside of a race, is a clear example of not telling readers the objective view, that genetic similarities are a result of measuring those similarities within groups, and not the differences, thus any scientist can come up with these results. Moreover, the genetic frequences and the "similarities" that are touted as "proof" we are similar can be genetic codes for simple things such as lungs, or esophagus, which all humans have, but genetic codes which show different diseases, or susceptibility to disease such as why blacks or Negroids are more likely to get prostate cancer and why their chances of survival are lesser than that of whites, is never discussed.

Originally posted by Fadix "Skin color is not an accurate reflection of genetic makeup," said Fatimah Jackson, a biological anthropologist at the University of Maryland, College Park. "Scientific evidence does not support 19th century notions of human variation. We are one race from a biological point of view."

Jackson directs the Genomics Models Research Group, which uses anthropology, history and ecology to develop models for the study of human genetic diversity.

She said U.S. society has placed far too much importance on the way people look and has misunderstood that visual traits are a tiny, often insignificant component of overall human diversity or human variation.

"The physical traits have been overemphasized and uncritically linked to nonphysical assessments such as intelligence, morality and creativity," she said. "Especially in the United States where racial classifications are more rigid than in many other places in the world."

Sadly what Jackson claims is simply her personal opinion that the U.S. has placed far too much importance on the way "people look", is untrue, as evidence is overwhelming that race is more than just skin deep, and in fact reflects our temperament and culture. No two races have produced the same culture, that is the way it goes.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Not right, there is no gene that you can not find in one group and find in another... this is the whole point.

This means that if you find out that 70% of blacks have the marker for one gene, and that only 12% of whites have it, from this standard, those 12% whites would be considered more "negroid" than the 30% of blacks that do not have the marker. This is one of the main raisons that searchers reject the claim of the existance of races. There is nothing genetically that would permit to classify blacks, whites etc... if we were to use genetic to do so, many whites will be classified as blacks, blacks as whites, yellos as whites or blacks etc...

First of all, let's avoid trying to make up things as we go along. The point is that there are genes that one can find in one group, that one cannot find in another group. The same geneticist Cavalli Sforza who wrote the book, "Genes, Peoples, and Languages" who contends "there is no race", is the same person to engage in this type of mismeasure. As Daniel L. Hartl, author of "A Primer of Population Genetics" highlights this is entirely probable that one can measure genetic frequencies which are similar in all populations and not measure those that vary among populations. To state that "No this is wrong" is simply ideological bias. Those that contend races are different never deny the genetic frequencies measured that are similar while ignoring those that show variation, but those with the agenda of "doing away with race" are the ones who will not acknowledge human errors in population genetics.