Races and Genes
Phipps
Note: you have trolled China-related newsgroups with your infantile
screeds in often mendacious support of the concept of 'race'. Since this
is an issue concerning anthropologists, this is now crossposted to
sci.anthropology.
>
> HGDP never claimed there are no races.
The Human Genome Diversity Project's web page of the Alghero Summary
Report [http://www.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/hgdp/summary93.html]
stated, quote:
"in biological terms, there is no such thing as a clearly defined race.
Biologically, there is a continual graduation from one population to
another"
...which statement agrees with the concept of clines - which concept
refutes that of clearly defined 'races'.
> In fact, HGDP has avoided the
> term "race" so that you people will not harrass their research to
> understand what genes have caused different hair color, skin colors,
> etc.
That's hardly likely. The head of the HGD Project is... Dr.
Cavalli-Sforza, whose 1994 paper: "The History and Geography of Human
Genes" (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), definitively
concluded that there is no biological validity to the concept of 'race'.
Phenotypic and biochemical variations do not correlate simply with
genotypic differences, i.e., 'race' as a concept has no biological
validity as concerns humans. To get an idea of how shifting, and
downright loopy, the concept of 'race' has been: browse to
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant101/syllabus/race/race1.htm
Professor Hank Greely, chair of the North American section of HGDP's
ethics subcommittee, confirmed that HGDP has no intention of doing
"research to understand what genes have caused different hair color,
skin colors, etc."
[I had reposted (with full permission) the entirety of his answer to my
query on the matter. Full text thereof, including headers (for eventual
verification purposes), is reproduced below.]
Furthermore, he stated that HGDP trying to do so would be shoddy
science, since the recording of phenotype data on the sample donors is
not part of the HGD Project. Put in terms even a dolt like you should be
able to understand: if you don't know what a sample donor looks like, it
is impossible to use his sample to determine why he looks that way.
In so many words, you have called Professor Greely a liar. Traditionally
- at least in... "the West": the burden of proof rests with the accuser.
Where is the "proof" behind your statement?
*********** Prof. Greely's email reply**********************
Received:
from mta2.snfc21.pbi.net ([206.13.28.123]) by
ferret.slip.net with esmtp (Exim
3.12 #1) id 13DDwP-0007TC-00 for mrph...@slip.net; Fri,
14 Jul 2000
15:28:17 -0700
Received:
from [63.204.18.210] by mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun
Internet Mail Server
sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id
<0FXP00L...@mta2.snfc21.pbi.net> for
mrph...@slip.net; Fri, 14
Jul 2000 15:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Date:
Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:27:39 -0700
From:
hank greely <hgr...@stanford.edu>
Subject:
Re: Fwd: Cosmetic traits expressed by genes - redirected
In-reply-to:
<v04210102b58928d28fbb@[171.64.63.171]>
X-Sender:
hgr...@hgreely.pobox.Stanford.EDU
To:
mrph...@slip.net
Cc:
je...@charles.stanford.edu
Message-id:
<v0421010fb595411654d3@[63.204.18.210]>
MIME-version:
1.0
Content-type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References:
<v04210102b58928d28fbb@[171.64.63.171]>
X-UIDL:
a9415893588d252bb3f6d50c4762ed2b
X-Mozilla-Status:
0011
Content-Length:
5038
Dear Mr or Mr Phipps,
Jean Doble of the Morrison Institute referred your e mail about the
Human Genome Diversity Project to me for a response. I'm a member of
the North American Committee of that Project and chair of its ethics
subcommittee.
The HGDP has NOT "already confirmed some genes (unidentified yet)
have caused different hair colors or facial structures among
different human groups, eg, those genes have made ethnic Han Chinese
look different from ethnic Irish." And "the HGD is [NOT[ making
efforts to identify those genes."
The HGDP is an international cooperative effort that seeks to
collect, preserve, and analyze samples of DNA from throughout our
species, not just from the handful of people whose DNA was used to
sequence "the" human genome. The Project has almost no funding at
this point and so, outside of its Chinese and SW Asian regions, it is
confined largely to planning. What it is planning is the creation of
a resource - a reference library - of human genetic variation that
researchers could use for a variety of purposes. The purposes that
interest most of those involved so far with the HGDP are historical
or anthropological, with some additional interest in the mechanisms
and theory of population genetics. The HGDP resource may ultimately
have some medical value, but that will not be its primary goal or use
- for real medical value, the DNA samples would have to be collected
with extensive information about an individual's health status and
physical traits (phenotype) which is not part of the plan.
I've heard many researchers talk about what they would do with the
HGDP resource and I've never heard one talk about identifying genes
for physical traits that are commonly used to define "race" or
"ethnicity". It's just not very interesting - and, for that matter,
without phenotypic information on the individuals, could not be done
very well (we won't know the particular "facial structure" or "hair
color" of the individuals whose DNA was donated to the Project - to
assume that all the Han who donated were identifical in those
attributes would be shoddy science.)
Some researchers involved in the HGDP are interested in finding
genetic markers (usually those that do not code for protein and that
have no known effects on phenotype) that are associated,
probabilistically, with current cultural groups because those could
help reveal something about the migrations, history, and evolution of
our species. Even then, the data is likely to be things such as 60%
of, say, the samples from an Irish population having a "G" at a
particular point in the genome and only 20% of samples from, say, the
Han having that base. With lots of samples and lots of markers, that
can provide some useful information about the relationship between
the Irish and the Han; it doesn't say anything at all about what they
look like (or even whether the categories "Irish" and "Han" make
sense genetically).
I believe your poster was misinformed (perhaps by a very poorly
written article that recently appeared in Newsday). You have my full
permission to post this reply.
Hank Greely
Professor of Law
Professor, by courtesy, of Genetics
Stanford University
***************************************
>
> In article <39D971...@slip.net>,
> mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> > abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at Stanford has confirmed
> that
> > > genes varied among different human groups and some genes have caused
> > > different skin color, hair color, and facial structures, etc.
> > >
> > > 2. We all know that skin color, hair color, and facial structures
> are
> > > one of factors made up of today's racial groups.
> > >
> > > 3. No genetic scientists have denied HGDP's claim.
> >
> > 4. HGDP never claimed that there are races.
> >
> > On the contrary, HGDP's web page of the Alghero Summary Report
> > [http://www.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/hgdp/summary93.html]
> > stated, quote:
> >
> > "in biological terms, there is no such thing as a clearly defined
> race.
> > Biologically, there is a continual graduation from one population to
> > another"
abia...@my-deja.com
varied among different human groups and also confirmed genes have
caused different skin colors, hair colors, and facial structures, etc.
And HGDP never claimed there are no races.
Since you crossposted to sci.anthropology, then the following text is
how Anthropologists defined races, hope this help you understand!!!
Race
Anthropologists have been able to classify nine historical geographic
races, which coincide with the major landmasses and large island
chains. These geographic divisions are: American Indian, Polynesian,
Micronesian, Melanesian, Australian (aborigines), Asiatic, Indian
(South Asian), European, and African. Each of these represents a
general population that has lived and developed in relative isolation
from the others.
Anthropologists believe that during the late Pleistocene epoch (from
about 40,000 to 11,000 years ago), the first human races evolved on the
Eurasian and African landmasses. At that time most of Eurasia was too
cold for human habitation, but in the habitable areas, five different
racial groups developed: Congoid, Capoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and
Australoid.
The Congoid racial group occupied areas in Africa south of the
Sahara. The Capoids lived in southern Africa. Caucasoids flourished
from the Atlantic coast of Europe to North Africa and eastward through
the Indian subcontinent. People of the Mongoloid race occupied most of
what is now China and Southeast Asia, and Australoids lived to the
south of them on the large offshore islands.
During the Wisconsin glaciation, about 30,000 to 10,000 years ago,
ice caps absorbed enough of the Earth's water to lower the oceans 300
feet (90 meters) below their present levels. Land bridges emerged and
allowed people to move from Asia into North America and into present
Australia and other islands. In time these five racial groups became
subdivided into smaller groups called microraces. The division into
nine major races came about as a result of these population movements.
A number of inherited traits have been used to classify groups by
race. These include such things as the size and shape of teeth, blood
type, bone density, the size and shape of the skull and face, the
distribution and type of body hair, the tendency toward male pattern
baldness, differences in sweat glands, skin pigmentation, eyelid shape,
fingerprint and palm print differences, and the susceptibility to
certain diseases. The fact that such differences are never absolute
from group to group renders each classification difficult. Much valid
information on inherited traits has also come from the study of blood-
group characteristics and biochemical analysis of urine. The science of
genetics is valuable in determining the relationships between various
groups (see Genetics).
A geographic breakdown of races focuses on seven groups: the
Caucasoids of Europe, North Africa, and West Asia; the African Congoids
and Capoids; the Australoids; the Oceanian races (Melanesians,
Micronesians, and Polynesians); the East Asian Mongoloids; populations
of the Indian subcontinent; and the Indians of the Western Hemisphere.
This breakdown omits reference to the great human migrations since
1500, including the colonization of the Americas.
In article <39E577...@slip.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ltl...@mindspring.com
mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Note: you have trolled China-related newsgroups with your infantile
> screeds in often mendacious support of the concept of 'race'. Since
this
> is an issue concerning anthropologists, this is now crossposted to
> sci.anthropology.
>
> >
> > HGDP never claimed there are no races.
>
> The Human Genome Diversity Project's web page of the Alghero Summary
> Report [http://www.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/hgdp/summary93.html]
> stated, quote:
>
> "in biological terms, there is no such thing as a clearly defined
race.
> Biologically, there is a continual graduation from one population to
> another"
Physically, visible colors are only a small slice of the electro-
maganetic spectrum. The different colors are electromagnetic waves of
slightly different frequencies. Does it mean that there are no color?
Physically, human speech are continuous sound waves of different
frequencies. There are no breaks between the words. Does it mean that
there are no words?
> ...which statement agrees with the concept of clines - which concept
> refutes that of clearly defined 'races'.
No clearly defined 'races' is not same as no races. Colors have no
clearly defined boundaries. Words of a of spoken sentence have no
clearly defined boundaries.
Yet we can see different colors and hear different words.
> > In fact, HGDP has avoided the
> > term "race" so that you people will not harrass their research to
> > understand what genes have caused different hair color, skin colors,
> > etc.
>
> That's hardly likely. The head of the HGD Project is... Dr.
> Cavalli-Sforza, whose 1994 paper: "The History and Geography of Human
> Genes" (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), definitively
> concluded that there is no biological validity to the concept
of 'race'.
No biological validity means no valid biological evidences currently to
support the concept of 'race.' He is not making a definitive statement
of no race.
> Phenotypic and biochemical variations do not correlate simply with
> genotypic differences, i.e., 'race' as a concept has no biological
> validity as concerns humans. To get an idea of how shifting, and
> downright loopy, the concept of 'race' has been: browse to
> http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant101/syllabus/race/race1.htm
Phenotypic and biochemical variations is actually what got selected.
They are as relevant as and probably more relevant than genotypic
variations. Genotypic variances are a big thing in microbes partly
because we cannot tell the phenotypic variations.
Xiehwa
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Physically, visible colors are only a small slice of the electro-
> maganetic spectrum. The different colors are electromagnetic waves of
> slightly different frequencies. Does it mean that there are no color?
>
There are visible colors but they are all called LIGHT. They look
different
in color but they all share same physical characteristics as light.
> Physically, human speech are continuous sound waves of different
> frequencies. There are no breaks between the words. Does it mean that
> there are no words?
You can have break between words. It depends on how you talk. There may
not
be words if you are a little baby of a few months old.
> No clearly defined 'races' is not same as no races. Colors have no
> clearly defined boundaries. Words of a of spoken sentence have no
> clearly defined boundaries.
> Yet we can see different colors and hear different words.
Are you trying to argue about races based on these observation about
light and speech? I have to doubt your ability of common sense.
Have you already determined that there are no sexes either based
on the same observation of yours?
> No biological validity means no valid biological evidences currently to
> support the concept of 'race.' He is not making a definitive statement
> of no race.
There is no evidence to prove that you have any money. This means upon
credit check you have none. Try to walk into a car dealership and buy
a car. Do you really think any car salesman will let you drive away
a new car or any car?
Yes, we only say there is no prove that you have any money. And you are
going to argue that doesn't mean you don't have money. Fine. But you
won't get the new car, OK?
>
> > Phenotypic and biochemical variations do not correlate simply with
> > genotypic differences, i.e., 'race' as a concept has no biological
> > validity as concerns humans. To get an idea of how shifting, and
> > downright loopy, the concept of 'race' has been: browse to
> > http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant101/syllabus/race/race1.htm
>
> Phenotypic and biochemical variations is actually what got selected.
> They are as relevant as and probably more relevant than genotypic
> variations. Genotypic variances are a big thing in microbes partly
> because we cannot tell the phenotypic variations.
You are arguing without any base. Ignoring the words "race as a concept
has no biological validity" without base simply shows you are ignorant.
In a debate class you lose.
Try harder next time.
Xiehwa
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at Stanford has confirmed genes
> varied among different human groups and also confirmed genes have
> caused different skin colors, hair colors, and facial structures, etc.
> And HGDP never claimed there are no races.
You can tell human genes varied between you and your family members.
Some of your family members have grey hairs but some don't. HGDP will
not claim there are races among your family members.
ltl...@mindspring.com
Xiehwa <xie...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > Physically, visible colors are only a small slice of the electro-
> > maganetic spectrum. The different colors are electromagnetic waves
of
> > slightly different frequencies. Does it mean that there are no
color?
> >
>
> different
> in color but they all share same physical characteristics as light.
The electro-magnetic wave froms a continous spectrum encompasses low
frequency radio signals and high frequency cosmic rays. Our seeing part
of the spectrum as light reflects our differential sensitivity, not
difference in the physical world.
>
> > Physically, human speech are continuous sound waves of different
> > frequencies. There are no breaks between the words. Does it mean
that
> > there are no words?
>
> You can have break between words. It depends on how you talk. There
may
> not
> be words if you are a little baby of a few months old.
Of course you can. But when people talk to each other in a normal
fashion, words are still heard as distinct words although physically
the sound is continuous.
>
> > No clearly defined 'races' is not same as no races. Colors have no
> > clearly defined boundaries. Words of a of spoken sentence have no
> > clearly defined boundaries.
> > Yet we can see different colors and hear different words.
>
> Are you trying to argue about races based on these observation about
> light and speech? I have to doubt your ability of common sense.
> Have you already determined that there are no sexes either based
> on the same observation of yours?
There are two realities. One the physical reality. One the human
reality.
The physical reality that different colors of the rainbow are nothing
but electromagnetic waves occupying slightly different position on the
spectrum does not make color less real or less beautiful to us.
Similarly the sound waves correspond to distinct words of a sentence
are not continuous. But their continuity do not prevent us from hearing
and understanding words as if they are distinct.
>
> > No biological validity means no valid biological evidences
currently to
> > support the concept of 'race.' He is not making a definitive
statement
> > of no race.
>
> There is no evidence to prove that you have any money. This means upon
> credit check you have none. Try to walk into a car dealership and buy
> a car. Do you really think any car salesman will let you drive away
> a new car or any car?
> Yes, we only say there is no prove that you have any money. And you
are
> going to argue that doesn't mean you don't have money. Fine. But you
> won't get the new car, OK?
Your anaolgy is totally irrelevant. Whether I get a car depends on how
much the car salesman trust my ability to pay the loan back. Not
necessarily whether I have money at the moment.
How much do you trust a statement like something is not biological
valid? A bumble bee is not supposed to fly, but it does. How invalid is
invalid? In addition, If biological and all other sciences are all cut
and dry, why bother to study any of them anymore.
> >
> > > Phenotypic and biochemical variations do not correlate simply with
> > > genotypic differences, i.e., 'race' as a concept has no biological
> > > validity as concerns humans. To get an idea of how shifting, and
> > > downright loopy, the concept of 'race' has been: browse to
> > > http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant101/syllabus/race/race1.htm
> >
> > Phenotypic and biochemical variations is actually what got selected.
> > They are as relevant as and probably more relevant than genotypic
> > variations. Genotypic variances are a big thing in microbes partly
> > because we cannot tell the phenotypic variations.
>
> You are arguing without any base. Ignoring the words "race as a
concept
> has no biological validity" without base simply shows you are
ignorant.
> In a debate class you lose.
Please tell how much do you know what the researcher has in mind by 'no
biological validity.' Some researcher demonstrates certain gene will
increase the risk of getting a form of cancer by 20%. Does that form
cancer has a gentic base? Where do you draw the line?
>
> Try harder next time.
ltl...@mindspring.com
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <39E5D3A0...@juno.com>,
> Xiehwa <xie...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > >
> > > maganetic spectrum. The different colors are electromagnetic waves
> of
> > > slightly different frequencies. Does it mean that there are no
> color?
> > >
> >
> > different
> > in color but they all share same physical characteristics as light.
>
> The electro-magnetic wave froms a continous spectrum encompasses low
> frequency radio signals and high frequency cosmic rays. Our seeing
part
> of the spectrum as light reflects our differential sensitivity, not
> difference in the physical world.
>
> >
> > > frequencies. There are no breaks between the words. Does it mean
> that
> > > there are no words?
> >
> may
> > not
> > be words if you are a little baby of a few months old.
>
> Of course you can. But when people talk to each other in a normal
> fashion, words are still heard as distinct words although physically
> the sound is continuous.
>
> >
> > > clearly defined boundaries. Words of a of spoken sentence have no
> > > clearly defined boundaries.
> > > Yet we can see different colors and hear different words.
> >
> > light and speech? I have to doubt your ability of common sense.
> > Have you already determined that there are no sexes either based
> > on the same observation of yours?
>
> There are two realities. One the physical reality. One the human
> reality.
>
> The physical reality that different colors of the rainbow are nothing
> but electromagnetic waves occupying slightly different position on the
> spectrum does not make color less real or less beautiful to us.
> Similarly the sound waves correspond to distinct words of a sentence
> are not continuous. But their continuity do not prevent us from
hearing
> and understanding words as if they are distinct.
Similarly, the genetic base of life is one reality. The differential
treatment of different peoples as different races is another reality.
The lack of distinct genetic boundaries does not invalidate our seeing
race as real.
>
> >
> > > No biological validity means no valid biological evidences
> currently to
> > > support the concept of 'race.' He is not making a definitive
> statement
> > > of no race.
> >
> > There is no evidence to prove that you have any money. This means
upon
> > credit check you have none. Try to walk into a car dealership and
buy
> > a car. Do you really think any car salesman will let you drive away
> > a new car or any car?
> > Yes, we only say there is no prove that you have any money. And you
> are
> > going to argue that doesn't mean you don't have money. Fine. But you
> > won't get the new car, OK?
>
> Your anaolgy is totally irrelevant. Whether I get a car depends on how
> much the car salesman trust my ability to pay the loan back. Not
> necessarily whether I have money at the moment.
>
> How much do you trust a statement like something is not biological
> valid? A bumble bee is not supposed to fly, but it does. How invalid
is
> invalid? In addition, If biological and all other sciences are all cut
> and dry, why bother to study any of them anymore.
>
> > >
> > > > Phenotypic and biochemical variations do not correlate simply
with
> > > > genotypic differences, i.e., 'race' as a concept has no
biological
> > > > validity as concerns humans. To get an idea of how shifting, and
> > > > downright loopy, the concept of 'race' has been: browse to
> > > > http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant101/syllabus/race/race1.htm
> > >
> > > Phenotypic and biochemical variations is actually what got
selected.
> > > They are as relevant as and probably more relevant than genotypic
> > > variations. Genotypic variances are a big thing in microbes partly
> > > because we cannot tell the phenotypic variations.
> >
> > You are arguing without any base. Ignoring the words "race as a
> concept
> > has no biological validity" without base simply shows you are
> ignorant.
> > In a debate class you lose.
>
> Please tell how much do you know what the researcher has in mind
by 'no
> biological validity.' Some researcher demonstrates certain gene will
> increase the risk of getting a form of cancer by 20%. Does that form
> cancer has a gentic base? Where do you draw the line?
> >
> > Try harder next time.
> >
>
haozertree
Phipps wrote:
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Note: you have trolled China-related newsgroups with your infantile
> screeds in often mendacious support of the concept of 'race'. Since this
> is an issue concerning anthropologists, this is now crossposted to
> sci.anthropology.
And you have helped him to troll by following up his crap with your
own crap. Stop crossposting it to China-related newsgroups please if
you want to complain about trolling.
<follow-ups adjusted>
abia...@my-deja.com
mrphipps twisted it to "no races" to fit his need.
In article <8s4f8a$cp7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
abia...@my-deja.com
groups. Gene varied among different people made of individuals. You
are not going to tell us there are no individuals, ie, you and your
father are identical. :^)) So dont talk like a "wang8egg". :^))
In article <39E5D478...@juno.com>,
Xiehwa <xie...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at Stanford has confirmed
genes
> > varied among different human groups and also confirmed genes have
> > caused different skin colors, hair colors, and facial structures,
etc.
> > And HGDP never claimed there are no races.
>
> You can tell human genes varied between you and your family members.
> Some of your family members have grey hairs but some don't. HGDP will
> not claim there are races among your family members.
>
ltl...@mindspring.com
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Exactly. No clearly defined "races" is not same as no races. But
> mrphipps twisted it to "no races" to fit his need.
Genetics may have little to do with human affairs in some areas.
It is well known the identical twins have exactly the same genetic
makeup. But no two persons have the same finger prints. Wonder any
genetist is going to argue that the twins are actually the same person.
Skipper
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Genes varied among different human groups that are made of racial
> groups. Gene varied among different people made of individuals. You
> are not going to tell us there are no individuals, ie, you and your
> father are identical. :^)) So dont talk like a "wang8egg". :^))
> >
> > Some of your family members have grey hairs but some don't. HGDP
will
> > not claim there are races among your family members.
I have never seen anyone this stupid. You even argue about this?
Well, that's fine. I have no complaint if you calim yourself as a mule
and your brother as a chicken.
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
Skipper
> mrphipps twisted it to "no races" to fit his need.
Your doctor tells you that there is no clearly defined mule's
genes in your body. And you think it is a twisted view of him
and you believe that you are really a mule?
Very funny. You are really the #1 idiot of the SCT.
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
Skipper
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Genetics may have little to do with human affairs in some areas.
> It is well known the identical twins have exactly the same genetic
> makeup. But no two persons have the same finger prints. Wonder any
> genetist is going to argue that the twins are actually the same
person.
Whether they are same person or not, it is unrelated to the subject
about race. If you argue that the identical twins belong to the same
race because their geres are the same, then how about brothers and
sisters who are not twins? Their genes are different. Do they belong
to different races?
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
abia...@my-deja.com
Brothers and sisters came from same parents belong to same race. I
dont know why it is so hard for you to learn, maybe you think you are
different species from your parents???
No wonder Huang said HP hired low IQ people like you.
In article <8same1$933$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8s9vkl$oai$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Genetics may have little to do with human affairs in some areas.
> > It is well known the identical twins have exactly the same genetic
> > makeup. But no two persons have the same finger prints. Wonder any
> > genetist is going to argue that the twins are actually the same
> person.
>
> Whether they are same person or not, it is unrelated to the subject
> about race. If you argue that the identical twins belong to the same
> race because their geres are the same, then how about brothers and
> sisters who are not twins? Their genes are different. Do they belong
> to different races?
>
> --
> Skipper
>
> Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
>
ltl...@mindspring.com
Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8s5i28$cp1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Exactly. No clearly defined "races" is not same as no races. But
> > mrphipps twisted it to "no races" to fit his need.
>
> genes in your body. And you think it is a twisted view of him
> and you believe that you are really a mule?
>
> Very funny. You are really the #1 idiot of the SCT.
Scientists said there is not clearly defined gene for intelligence.
Does it mean that all people are equally intelligence or equally dumb?
> --
> Skipper
>
> Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
>
ltl...@mindspring.com
Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8s9vkl$oai$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Genetics may have little to do with human affairs in some areas.
> > It is well known the identical twins have exactly the same genetic
> > makeup. But no two persons have the same finger prints. Wonder any
> > genetist is going to argue that the twins are actually the same
> person.
>
> about race. If you argue that the identical twins belong to the same
> race because their geres are the same, then how about brothers and
> sisters who are not twins? Their genes are different. Do they belong
> to different races?
My point. People can see two persons of identical genes as different
persons. Sure they can, will and do see two group of people with
different genes as different peoples.
>
> --
> Skipper
>
> Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
>