Saturday, April 7, 2012 9:57:29 AM
"And the distinctions between individuals within "races" are greater than those between "races". So why do you consider the latter cause for classification and not the former? Because you've been taught to. It`s normal."
Look up Lewontin`s fallacy and Edwards` critique of it. General homogeneity does not preclude the existence of group-specific gene combinations.
Regarding CCR5- No one group has interbred enough to make this mutation significant enough that you can identify somebody`s heritage with it, unlike Ashkenazi Jews and their susceptibility to Tay-Sachs. If you took a couple hundred people with a high prevalence of CCR5 mutation and put them on an island for 2000 years, it would be a different story.
Also, your suntan line is flawed, as skin tone is determined genetically and research has been done to discover the prevalence of certain alleles in certain populations.
Saturday, April 7, 2012 6:44:18 AM
On top of that, in practice "race" is defined by wildly inaccurate descriptions of how much suntan people have or by whatever criteria any given speaker wants to use (e.g. nationality). It's not defined by the relative prevalence of a few diseases or a small variation in a few genes.
Here`s an example and a question:
The delta 32 mutation of the CCR5 gene has a significant effect on susceptibility to some diseases, as I`m sure you know.
So, if you`re telling the truth about how you define race (at least partly) in terms of susceptibility to disease, you should classify people with the CCR5 delta 32 variant as being a seperate race to people without it. Do you? Does anyone?
Saturday, April 7, 2012 6:22:35 AM
Just because a distinction can be made doesn't mean it`s a reason to pass judgement.
And the distinctions between individuals within "races" are greater than those between "races". So why do you consider the latter cause for classification and not the former? Because you`ve been taught to. It`s normal.
You`ve argued that the existence of breeds of dogs proves the validity of classifying humans by "race" and your initial argument was merely silly name-calling. You`re in no position to be claiming the intellectual high ground here.