|
|
Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?
Bob Whitaker (bwhit@conterra.com)
Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:59:03 -0500
Paul Gallagher wrote:
>
> In <54rrj0$ho@clarknet.clark.net> frank@clark.net () writes:
>
> > We are all the same, one species Homo sapiens: thinking man
> >>(although it is evident that some do less than others).
>
> >But again: the issue is subspecies, not species. Is Gerald really the only
> >person around here who will attempt to answer the actual question I asked?
>
> Subspecies, or races, in biology are defined as natural populations within
> a species that differ genetically and that are partially isolated from
> each other reproductively because of their different geographic ranges.
>
> The tendency in modern systematics is to reject the recognition of
> subspecies altogether for all species, because the definition of
> subspecies is arbitrary and "subspecies," however they are defined,
> have only a transitory existence as separate entities.
You know damned well that anybody who disagrees with that loses his
job. This is not a modern "tendency", unless you call everybody under
Stalin being a Stalinist to have been a "tendency".
Do you deny that anyone who disagrees with you on this would lose his
job in any university?
As far back as 1962, Carleton Coon was forced to resign as president
of anthropologists' society for disagreeing with you. It's gotten worse
since.
How can anybody with a shred of decency back this tyranny, and then
quote it as scientific fact?
>
> If you want to find out more about the subspecies problem, try posting
> a question in sci.bio.evolution.
>
> If you're particularty interested in human variation, try a book like
> R.C. Lewontin's Human Variation, which shows that the variation within
> human subgroups is much greater than that among the subgroups. That is,
> the average genetic difference between any two human subpopulations is
> less than the average difference between two members of the same
> subpopulation.
>
> Linnaeus thought that various human subpopulations, including some
> that are now known to be mythical, were different species.
>
> Nowadays, most people accept the biological species concept, in which
> species are defined by their ability to interbreed. In this respect,
> humans are clearly one species, since there is gene flow throughout the
> whole human population.
>
> I imagine that even if you were trying to prove that certain human
> subgroups differed from each other in significant ways, you'd have to
> concede that they can still breed with each other. In fact, "race
> biologists" worry about that: superior types of humans will breed with
> inferior types, or with types that they consider non-human. When
> race scientists worry that whites will breed with other races, they
> are implicitly affirming that these groups are not biological races,
> since they are able to breed freely with each other and produce viable
> offspring.
>
> Paul
|