Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kostya
I must emphatically disagree with these assessments...
As the late and great anthropologist Frank B. Livingston once wrote: "There are no races, there are only clines."
The point is twofold. First of all, there is no genetic difference between the races, it has been found in fact that a 'caucasian' can have more genetic commonality with a person with black skin than another person of their so called race.
|
Note that in my post I never said genetic. I said biological. There is a difference.
And I really don't place much stock in genetics as a means to determine whether races are different or not. After all, there's only about a 4% or so difference between human DNA and chimpanzee DNA. It's only logical that there would be an insignificant difference even if there were one between races.
However, if there were no biological difference between races, then there would be no biological mechanism to continue the recognizeable features of the different races. This means that a caucasian couple would have just as good of a chance of giving birth to an asian baby as they would a caucasian baby. Since this clearly doesn't happen, there must be a biological component to the races.
However, as I pointed out, this doesn't matter at all. There is also a biological difference between green eyed and blue eyed people. But in the grand scheme of things it simply doesn't matter.
The only place race should be a factor is in medical treatment, since it's been shown that some races respond differently to certain treatments than others - this also, btw, points to the biological component of race.
You said you took exception with my post, but you failed entirely to address any of the points of my post. What exactly did you not like about it?