Posted: Jul 24, 2011 10:18 pm
You question that there might be confusion between the common and scientific use of the term, while illustrating that very confusion with your response.
Visual inspection is an unreliable way of determining 'race' as defined taxonomically.
I made no such confusion. Visual traits are, by and large, defined by biology. Aren't they?
...Do you guys realise that all these definitions you're giving for species are your own? Not that of biologists, who like I have said do not souly define separate species as groups who cannot interbreed with another group. The logic that "if they can breed to produce fertile young then they are the same species" isn't set in stone, there are exceptions, because the very nature of the thing you're trying to draw a line on is a gradual change known as evolution.
There is no line to be drawn.This definition, if applied to homo sapiens, would qualify the Old Order Amish of North America as a separate race since they form a closed breeding population who have presumably diverged genetically from the surrounding population. However, in downtown New Holland, Pennsylvania it's difficult to tell them apart from non-Amish locals other than by their clothing or choice of transport. And... well... I don't think wardrobe preferences are biologically valid race defining characteristics.
It's not just about being separated off and having a close breeding population, it's about all the factors which would selectively breed. If a group of any species separates off, but lives in almost exactly the same conditions and there is little development socially (as with the Aimish), then of course there will not be any great differences...? That's just common sense.
Likewise, bearing in mind your statement that - "People group other people by their obvious visual differences, differences caused by biology, before considering other social and cultural traits to group by.".
How would a visual inspection of these four children, scanning for 'obvious visual differences caused by biology', assist in classifying them according to a biologically valid taxonomy?
Firstly, why are you assuming I want or need to classify them? Just because I think it's irrelevant what race someone is doesn't change whether or not there are such things as races.
Examples of exceptions change the fact that the majority can be grouped visually? I don't know enough about genetics, but I know from my experience existing in society that that family is unusual. The very existence of those photographs reporting them demonstrate that fact.
There is more genetic diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. Scientifically, Africans - despite appearances, resist classification as 'the black race'.
But... what? African's look more varied than any other Geographical group. Race is about more than skin tone, but even on that alone the variation of native Africans is VAST. I think it's fairly easy to see where abouts in Africa someone is from, in general. Maybe I'm just more observant.
Asians are not a 'race' either since many asian cultures separated long ago, so genetically speaking they're no more a unified 'race' group in the biological sense than Africans are.
Who said they were?
The thing about this is that, of course there are spills and overlaps, so what? In everything we classify, there are overlapping.
Perhaps people with Downs Syndrome qualify as a 'race', since they can be spotted visually and differ genetically from regular homo sapiens?
Now you're just being silly.
Do you have a citation to support this assertion?
No, and I wouldn't know where to look unfortunately. I know Dawkins talks about it in The Greatest Show on Earth. The great dane/chihuahua dilemma is common knowledge, though. I THINK some birds of paradise can breed with other "species", but won't due to complex mating procedures, but I'm not sure. I know some are known for hybridising, which would by your definition make them the same species - but they are classified as separate species by biologists and I just think there's something really odd in arguing with biologists over the matter that species is not a set in stone definition.
I'll get back to this later my brain hurts. lol.