Starfall,
Let me answer your post in reverse order.
I assumed that you didn't answer me because you were either busy or just not interested in the topic anymore, so I let it go. Does your reply here mean that your have both the time and the desire to engage the topic again, either here or in the other thread?
I admit it, I was getting bored. There were several reasons for this. Firstly, the thread was mostly reduced to you and me, and since we were rarely on-line simultanously, most of a day would pass between point and counterpoint. The thread would often disappear off page 1. Secondly, I felt we had reached an impasse.
In regard to my willingness to continue, well....why not. For a while at least. And lets continue here, since we seem to have at least one other participant, GoodPropaganda.
Anyway, nice to see you're still around.
Your "dogs example" presupposes that there are analogous human subspecies, or "races". Even geneticists and anthropologists can't agree on this, so on what basis do you assert that there are human "races"?
On the same basis that other subspecies are catagorized. I've already given reasons why the categorization within humans is not consensual. I'll repost them from the other thread:
1. First and foremost is the pollution of Political Correctness. Race, among humans, is a very touchy subject, for historical reasons.
2. The term "subspecies/race" is not the best defined taxonomic term.
3. The fact that the human species has spread to all corners of the world and that some interbreeding takes place along the boundaries.
GoodPropaganda:
One of us is misunderstanding the other.
To say that "you don't know what you mean by race" is not the same as saying that "race/dog breeds etc do no exist" I'm quite happy to agree that divisions can be made. I'm just wondering about the usefulness and the consistency of these divisions.
Fair enough.
Let's say that there are two races: African/Caucasian.
You cannot define the conditions under which this classification becomes meaningless. I say that is because you do not know what it is that seperates the two groups at the moment.
I certainly don't know what seperates them because you haven't defined them.
Is the seperation:
Africans have genes XxYyZz but not AaBbCc
and Caucasians have genes AaBbCc but not XxYyZz
Which may well beome meaningless, because through interbreeding some unclassifyable people may arise.
Or is it that
Africans have more genes from XxYyZz than from AaBbCc eg:XxYbZc
and Caucasians have more genes from AaBbCc than from XxYyZz eg:XABBCz
Starting with XxYxZz and AaBbCc, eventually the population may include many different variations, including XxYbCC - which doesn't fit into the classification.
Or is it that races don't become fewer, they become more numerous (Possibly meaninglessly numerous)
Or does mixed race become a race in itself and all others become extinct?
Or do you base race on mitochondrial DNA [which you only inherit from your mother] or on the Y-chromosome [which you only inherit from you father (if you're a son)] These races won't mix. Everyone is the "mitochondrial-race" of their mother, except for those where a mutation occurs. (Somebody traced back this DNA to seven different "Eves", but I'm not sure why they chose seven instead of any other number).
I would base race on the scientific definition of the term. I'll grant you that this definition leaves some wiggle room. That doesn't mean it isn't useful.
If the different breeds of dog inter-breed (I don't know why you seperated them geographically),...
I seperated them geographically for two reasons. Firstly because that makes them (to a large extent) reproductively isolated, which is part of the definition of races. And secondly, because it would mirror the geographically varying characteristics of the human species.
...then the current classifications would become meaningless and new classifications would have to be invented. This will always be possible. But it implies that the classifications are fluid, they are not set in stone. Descendants of collies and hounds (currently different breeds) may find themselves in the same future classification. Whereas, other descendants of two collies (currently the same breed) may find themselves in different future classifications.
Perhaps.I suspect that after sufficient interbreeding, the term "race" would loose all meaning.
Look up above at the second definition of African/Caucasian.
Two Africans (XxYbZc and XAYYZc) can give birth to a Caucasian (XAbYcc)
Which underscores why this particular classification scheme of yours isn't very usefull.
That could be further indication that the system is flawed. I, however, am willing to accept that a child may not be the same race as its biological parents. After all, we are only classifying people in one of many possible ways.
Let's try to stick to the scientific definition. If subspecies A would have a good chance of being born to two subspecies B parents, the classification scheme wouldn't be very useful.
So, do you know which of the possible classification systems you are supporting?
I support a classification scheme which is in line with the scientific definition and is usefull.
I'll repeat (hoping that you'll now understand):
If you do not know when your classification breaks down (becomes meaningless), then you do not know what you mean by "race".
And I'll repeat that this is a meaningles contention. In the other thread, referenced by Starfall, I mentioned the two subspecies of the White Rhino: the northern and the southern. I also mentioned that apart from their geographic seperation, the only distinction was some light behavioural differences. If you now remove the geographic seperation and thus let the two subspecies interbreed, at what point will the two subspecies no longer exist? I don't know. Do you? Does this fact mean that the seperation into subspecies was meaningless?
