Well, you've specifically said YOU can tell the difference between populations. I'm asking you how.
It's a combination of things really and I can't describe it.
oh I agree, totally in fact. But to me anyhow, it sounds more like a limitation of language and process (*a process to identify quantify differences*) than *one of* nonexistence.
Ok, well in that case, I'm going to challenge your assertion. Again, not being rude but I don't think you can accurately differentiate between the groups you mentioned.
Names are definitely real. You should see the reaction when I call students by their parents name. Can't engineer that.
Names are definitely real. You should see the reaction when I call students by their parents name. Can't engineer that.
Don't sweat gingerbread, I got a doobie and fixing to kick a dog.
You've hit the nail on the head. When we use terms like "physical basis" or "scientific," precision is absolutely required. One can generalize ethnicity or race based on physical features as a useful tool, just as one can explain the relationship between a nucleus and electrons using the orbital model, but that's a representational model, not a scientifically accurate one.
You've kinda just proved his point here. If there ever were exclusive differences between different racial groups they've long since been so mingled that you can no longer truly explain their differences. Not with any difinitiveness. Therefore making the race of today more of a social structure then a biological one.
But if we can isolate and identify said changes by genetic testing, wouldn't that prove to be more than just a social science?
I'm not sure of what you mean by the term "value" tbh. :/
Can you think of a probable reason I would write that unless it were generally true in my experience?
bro the problem was never that there wasnt genes the problem is with the very concept of race itself.
But we can't. We can only reasonably approximate trends. We can say "gene X likely caused a flaring of the nostrils in population group C." Meanwhile, a continent away, gene Y could have caused a similar effect in population group F. So are they now the same race? If so, what is the genetic marker of said race, gene X or Y?
Because you erroneously believe it to be true
As you erroneously believe it to be false.
Well we can do a test and see who is correct. My guess is that you will realise the language you are using is not adequately explaining your point.
Is that due to the lack of refinement in genetic science? Or because the identifiable links don't exist?
Are you asking that if we were to use his example but geneticists identify gene F makes group one's nostrils flare and gene G makes group two's nostrils flare, would race exist?
