Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
Correct, so they're not different species. There're still great enough differences between various races that they need to be addressed though. That's not really the question though, is it?
|
well it seemed earlier that there was the mistaken idea that the races are derived from genetics. if you want to say you can categorize humans by skull size into different distinct groups then i wouldn't argue with you, as i don't know all that much about human skulls. but that criteria is not necessarily biologically significant enough to justify the classical notions of race.
i mean even if you go below the level of species, as i said earlier, into sub-species, there aren't distinct human genetic groups that we can classify in this way.
so i don't disagree that you can roughly group people into races based on physical characteristics. but those groups are only significant to us because our tribal instincts latch on to these physical discrepancies as an easy way to categorize other humans.
Quote:
|
Well not really, we all have an extremely similar genome, but across races the way that it's expressed is quite different. So this is quite similar to having a similar source such as a word processor to result in two entirely different outcomes, like a scifi or a biographical novel. It doesn't apply to your point because I had misinterpreted it, but if you were saying that there's little to no basis for basing race off of due to lack of genetic disimilarity like I thought you were, the way that it's expressed (or used, in the word processor analogy) is enough to dictate a different race.
|
i guess it seems dumb to me because a book is all about its content where as a human being is not necessarily all about its skin tone etc.