The FYM Racist Card Thread

[Irvine511]

I agree that the two of you are pretty much talking past each other at this point--A_W is more interested in the (indisputably I'd say) useful medical and other applications of identifying biogeographic polymorphism clusters, Irvine is more concerned about the problematic influence the layman's version of these concepts can still have on everything from social policy to how certain history is taught.

but i'm also arguing that the layman's understanding influences the scientific creation of race. i agree with the (sometimes, but not always ... again, i point to the Tay-Sachs example) applications of genetic trains amongst human populations, however shared traits does not a race make.

 

[Irvine511]

P.S. Irvine, did you notice that deep bumped your old "Ask the..." thread over the weekend? If you noticed and simply don't want to venture back into that discussion, that's cool, but I just wanted to make sure you noticed.

no, i didn't. but i'll check it out.

 

[A_Wanderer]

but i'm also arguing that the layman's understanding influences the scientific creation of race. i agree with the (sometimes, but not always ... again, i point to the Tay-Sachs example) applications of genetic trains amongst human populations, however shared traits does not a race make.

Individual traits no, but a combination of traits at frequency in populations can distinguish between basal human groups, which is race. I fall more strongly on the side of Dawkins (since The Ancestors Tale) than Gould in this topic.