---

Which races? All it showed is between black and white.

---

---

So what about other races?

---

The reason they had problems with Hispanics is because there is no specific genetic imprint in them.

-------
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children"
-David Lane

---

They can determine it easily.

---

---

Quote: from kidd rune at 7:15 pm on Oct. 4, 2008

---

They can determine it easily.

---

Then you can find proofs easily?

---

---

You can, but the definitions of race are often quite archaic.

---

That depends on what definitions of race are used, and how they are used. Quite often I can guess an individual's biogeographical descent by merely looking at them.

---

The obvious, superficial phenotypes are not very scientific ways of classifying races since we have the full genetic makeup of pretty much anyone we want.

---

How is it not very scientific? Groups with a distinct biogeographical descent exhibit particular genotypes (and hence phenotypes) that are often more prevalent in that group than others. Analysis of the genome may refine classifications, if anything.

Racial classifications may become impractical hundreds of years from now, when borders are open and humans interbreed freely.

---

Racial classifications may become impractical hundreds of years from now

---

Post edited at 9:04 pm on Oct. 4, 2008 by jakelong

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

I'm actually about to write a paper on how race is an issue, and ultimately exists because we make it exist, and in turn, make it an issue. I don't believe there is any one gene that defines what "race" each one of us is.

Of course there is not one gene that defines race, nor is there an ideal person of a race.

Look at it this way:
When you see a spectrum, you see an array of colors. Can you pinpoint EXACT colors? No. Do they exist? Yes.
Pure red, pure blue, ect. exist. The fact that many shades of purple exists DOES NOT change the fact that red and blue exists though.

The fact that the different races have most genes in common is also irrelevant, since tiny differences in gene sequence can have an enormous impact on phenotype. A single gene can have a cascading effect on the expression of other genes; for examples, it is believed that a small variation of a single gene (FOXP2) may account for humans' ability to speak, and several major diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis are caused by a single genetic variant. It is nearly impossible to tell apart the DNA of Great Danes and Pekinese, yet the miniscule differences produce their huge differences in physique and temperament.

Anyway, just because there is no definite definition of race, that does NOT mean it doesn't exist. There is no percentage difference between races that makes you one or the other.
Outside of mathematics, and of human inventions like the law, categories almost always fall across continuous dimensions. Where does "young" end and "old" begin? It all depends on the situation. For example, among female gymnasts, 18 is "old." Among architects, 45 is "young." Yet that does not mean that "age" is meaningless. Further, categories are typically fuzzy. Few people are 100% "sick" or 100% "well." But "health" is still a useful concept.

---

Steve Sailer:
The best example of the fuzziness of natural categories is the concept of "extended family." All the criticisms made about the fuzziness of racial groups apply in spades to extended families. How many extended families do you belong to? Well, at least two: your mom's and your dad's. But they each belonged to their parents' two extended families, so maybe you belong to four. And your grandparents each belonged to two ...

And what are the boundaries of your various extended families? If the question at hand is who you'd give a spare kidney to, you'd probably draw the limits rather narrowly. But, when making up your Christmas card list, you probably toss in the occasional third cousin, twice removed. And exactly what's the appropriate name for all these extended families anyway?

In fact, extended families are even less clear-cut than racial groups. Yet, nobody goes around smugly claiming that extended families don't exist.

But why is extended family such a perfect analogy for race? Because it's not an analogy. They are the same thing: kin, individuals united by common descent. There's no natural law defining where extended families end. A racial group is merely an extended family (often an extremely extended family) that inbreeds to some extent. It's this tendency to marry within the group that makes racial groups somewhat more coherent, cohesive, and longer lasting than smaller-scale extended families.

---

I will, also, refer you to this:
http://raceandreason.110mb.com/files/~Race%20and%20its%20Existence/Races_of_Humanity.html

-------
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children"
-David Lane

consider also that even if race was a biological concept, that's no excuse not to eliminate it as a subject of prejudice. Humans ignore so many biological compulsions [consider monogamy, for example] that one can't argue that side.

-------
wouldn't you rather be crazy than normal?
[and lookit here, i have a chance]

It is biological in that one can easily see someone else's geographical origin / heritage based solely on the way they look (unless they are mixed, where it's more ambiguous obviously). This kind of thing has been noted throughout history and emphasizes only the physical characteristics, which is what race inherently is.

It is social in that somewhere during more recent history, these physical characteristics of race began being associated with non-physical characteristics, such as IQ. As a result, being of a certain race became more than just having those physical characteristics, but it also said something about you as a person. It became something to surround your identity with.

Today we think of race as both biological and social, and racial nationalists of any kind will do what they can to tie both together as if they are inseparable. Fact is, I personally believe the social component of race to be fallacious for it's based purely on association and correlations. There's certainly some truth to race in the biological (and by that, I mean only physical) sense, hence it's not completely arbitrary (although the borderlines of where a race begins and ends often is), but as soon as you start associating it with non-physical things is when it becomes more or less arbitrary and socially constructed.

Post edited at 11:30 pm on Oct. 6, 2008 by Bud2400

---

social. That's not really a debate so much as a fact. Just read a little history.

---

---

comparing cross sections of people versus comparing within racial groups has proved that there is more genetic variation between individuals within a single group than between aggregates of separate groups

---

You often hear that between-group racial differences only account for 15% of genetic variation. This number comes from a 1972 study by Richard Lewontin of 17 blood types, comparing variation between continental-scale races and between national-scale racial groups (e.g., Swedes vs. Italians). Now, blood types are, I suppose, important, but they hardly represent all we want to know about human genetic diversity. Certain other traits are known to be more racially determined -- the figure for skin color, not surprisingly, is 60%. What the overall number is for all the important genes remains unknown.

Still, let's assume that Lewontin's 15% solution is widely applicable. That's like going to a casino that has American Indian and African American croupiers, and 85% of the time the roulette spins are random, but 15% of the time the ball always comes up red for Indian croupiers and black for the black croupiers -- pretty useful information, huh?

---

and by that, I mean only physical

---