Larijani: Israel based on supremacy of Jewish race
Dudi Cohen
Published: 04.07.08, 12:35
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
67 Talkbacks for this article
61. #60 - yet more genetics
P ,   Philadelphia   (07.05.08)
What does the term subspecies mean to you? Classically, the term indicates two relations hold between populations that are subspecies of the same species - first, groups are readily distinguishable (partly true for human races), and second, interbreeding is possible but naturally very rare given physical proximity. The second is not true for humans - historically whenever populations have been near each other, high levels of breeding between the populations were established (example: northern Egyptians, who had a mix of classical African features and Semitic ones). Looking at populations throughout history, one finds a smooth blend occurs most of the time different ethnic groups are proximate, which is why races are not considered subspecies. In taxonomy, we are all "Homo sapiens sapiens", the last occupying the taxonomic slot of subspecies (occasionally there has been speculation that neanderthals were another subspecies of Homo sapiens). As an aside, you are right that occasionally the traditional definition of speciation encounters complex situations (like Ligers), but this is not considered problematic - Lions and Tigers are still separate races as their offspring are separated by even more of a barrier than subspecies - like with most genus-level hybrids, male Ligers are sterile and the genetic differences between the species are thus too great to produce a viable population. The fact remains that taxonomically, races are fluid and are not considered to be subspecies of humans.
62. Race
Roger ,   brisbane australia   (07.06.08)
Everytime I read news articles on this site, supreme race issues are always included, what is that, what is being superior based on? intellegence? evolution? money or power? or the worst excuse of all, religion?, we all breath the same air don't we? When are humans going to quit playing god themselves? If you go to heaven, are you going to be judged or are you demanding your throne back?
63. #61 Yet more genetics
Uzzi ,   Traveler   (07.06.08)
#61 Yet more genetics It is true that there is an ongoing debate about race and sub-species. But let us then approach this issue from a different angle. Firstly, you did not provide any answers to why members of a specific race (say African) can not (by themselves) produce offspring of another race (say European). Why do you think this is so? Yes, hybridization vis-à-vis underlines intra-specific pro-creation ability, but it does not prove equality. Furthermore : It is common practice, for example, to refer to the various types of dogs or horses as “races” of dogs and horses, although they (these races/types) belong to the same species. The same goes for humans. Race = Identity. Yes, they can interbreed. But they (by themselves – as a pure race/identity) cannot “mutate” to change their offspring into another race (identity).
64. #63
P ,   Philadelphia   (07.06.08)
Definitions of race are more like lines in the sand than anything else - they're a set of arbitrary definitions we wrap around a cloud of characteristics rather than concrete groupings based on easily discernable biological traits. If you have two people breeding, each with a certain set of traits, the expressed traits of the children are mostly limited to some permutation of the dominant and recessive traits of the parents - in aggregate, the apple does not fall far from the tree. Extending that upwards to population genetics, when a group of people happens to either self-select together for a time or become isolated, eventually their traits converge together enough that they come to be called a race - this definition is not useful for all time, as new groupings that have been called races (depending on how fine-grained ones ideas on this are) have come into being and disappeared over the ages. Given enough time, humanity may see new races if certain permutations of characteristics become common enough to suggest such a definition.
65. #64 Continued
Uzzi ,   Traveler   (07.06.08)
#64 Continued I disagree. I don’t fall for Evolution-talk. Macro-evolution is no “fact”. Macro-evolution is still a mere theory. Nothing more. We (humans) did not “evolve” from something else (another primate). Species don’t change. If they do, the term species becomes obsolete. Races don’t change either. Yes, they can at most hybridize. But races did not “change by themselves” (“mutate”) to become different races. No. All species and races were created separate and individually. Some remained pure (original) and some hybridized. The mere fact that a specific race multiplies identically proves that race represents a fixed (created) identity. Theoretically, when two European parents produce offspring (and their offspring only married/kept with their own race) then even after 100 000 years, their offspring (generation) would still be European. A specific race multiplies identically.
66. #65
P ,   Philadelphia   (07.07.08)
You're conflating race and species again - what is called by some macro-evolution refers to the idea of speciation, not human "races". If you want to step outside the bounds of modern science, and it sounds like you have, you may reach whatever conclusions suit your fancy. I guess this ends the discussion though - if you're just talking about what you'd like to be true, what more can be said? If you're ever interested in what modern science has to say on the topic, any good textbook on genetics and taxonomy will expand on what I've said.
67. totally right
someone   (04.03.09)
your totally right. I couldn't have said it any better.
Previous talkbacks
Back to article