Forum.RttP{HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..........yes, it's funny and contains Obama content.}

grizloch said

what exactly constitutes "race"? skin color? how black is black? how white is white? ***is it region of origin? how far back do you go when you say origin? what percentage of a persons lineage has to be from a certain place to make them, say, white? what happens to that theory when you factor in that all humans originate in Africa? ***if you want to look at ANY biological marker, keep in mind that biological variation exists in all populations, and defining one as unique to "blacks" or "whites" is highly improbable (I use that term because impossible isn't very scientific

I just want to go on record here and say that if your typical way of reading includes reading the first line of a paragraph and then moving on, well, that's just unfortunate for you, but explains a great deal

but back to that first line, answer the question, what constitutes race? Feel free to use any of the THREE examples I listed, or stump me with one of your own

I have zero concern for corrupt.org, what its about or what you would be interested in asking Relethford, and being as he is a prominent member of his field, I doubt that he has the time or interest to be "challenged" by people who don't know the background of the person that they use as their go to source (who’s qualifications is another question you avoided answering). If you so choose you are welcome to google his name and find his email, I sincerely doubt he is difficult to track down, ask him yourself.

and I'm well aware of biological determinism, I'm aware that it is a functioning science, what I am not aware of is how that relates to a fictional system of categorizing people based on genetic markers that vary throughout all human populations

I have only started to get into my refutation of Goodrum, but I'll give you a quick once over. Goodrum continues to use three basic assumptions to back up his claims. First, humans are an animal, animals have subspecies (races), so should we. Second, humans aren't a genetically homogeneous species, variation exists. Third, races have existed in the past, so should they now.
His first assumption is true, we are an animal, that’s where the similarities stop. We have the wheel, we have boats, and we have the ability to domesticate pack animals. We as a species have been mobile since we were evolutionarily different enough from Homo erectus to be called human (and if you know anything about hominin evolution, since before that time). Where this factors in with Goodrum's thought is that unlike cheetahs and jaguars, lions and tigers, etc. etc. we have been in near constant contact with neighboring human populations since we left Africa. What that means is that while genetic drift definitely took place between human populations, gene flow between those phenotypically varying populations common. And when you breed an oreo with a black, or someone with a different RFLP with peoples within a population with a common RFLP, the phenotype will eventually revert back, but the genotype is more persistent. Compound that by millennia, and you have a pound full of distinctly different looking mutts.
Second, no one says variation doesn't exist, the argument is EXACTLY the opposite. There is such great genetic variation within the human species that, while slightly greater between different "races" than between members of said "races", the very slight genetic differentiation has not been proven to be functionally significant in any way, that is to say that intelligence, or anything else, is not in any way related to whatever genetic variance you should choose (which I think is clear that you are trying to argue, if I am wrong please clarify).
Third, well to be frank, if this logic is to stand, then the world is flat and we should all worship the sun... Claiming that science from 1775 holds greater value than something that directly disproves those findings from the past decade is frightening. Regardless, if we were to assume that races had existed and they should still, what exactly makes up a race? You fail to understand the flaw in taxonomy, from Goodrum's conclusion, "Nevertheless, when the taxonomic term is used consistently across species, it’s difficult to see any justification for the common assertion that human races are merely ‘social constructs.'" Goodrum doesn't realize here that taxonomy itself is a social construct, the desire to split things into groups is something that we contemplated and put into practice, whether or not everybody is doing it holds little consequence. By that very flaw his entire argument falls apart. You will probably read that and try and say something like, the statistics don't lie, we are genetically different, but how different do you have to be to be a different race? Goodrum lists five races, that he pulled from another article, then he drops it to four, including the American Indian in the Asian race. If races are so concrete how is that possible? If we can manipulate races in that fashion than the science falls away and politics take over.

While your conviction is adorable, and typically I ignore people as self righteous as yourself, you continue to push yourself further and further into the classic "I'm such a non-conformist, I'm going to conform just to be different," good luck with that though