Is There A Sound Basis For Racial Profiling?

[charlou]

Our races are not unimportant

Can you elaborate on this please, Jim?

[pinkharrier]

Some one said " That's what applies to humans. There is constant gene flow. There are no seperate groups. They "fade into each other".

If it was that simple, then it should apply to dog breeds as well. But I can tell a dachsund from a boston terrier as easily as I can tell an east asian from an african. And so can everyone reading this.

[Jason]

Yes. That's it exactly. The same goes for many domesticated species and a whole lot more undomesticated ones.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Our races are not unimportant

Can you elaborate on this please, Jim?

Yeah, you don't have NASCAR!

[Jason]

There is no genetic reproductive barrier. If there was we'd have separate species instead of subspecies. Why do I have to keep saying this?

@Nineberry That's nice, but hardly qualifies as significant on the scale of the populations.

Please post a comprehensive list of current human subspecies. TIA.

There isn't a list to post because the issue of whether we can conduct that line of study is still under debate. It's a social debate between egalitarians and racists, but it's effectively barring that line of research for the time being, although if you care to spend some time with google scholar you can find many medical science articles about population level susceptibility to certain diseases and particular treatments for other populations.

[charlou]

Some one said " That's what applies to humans. There is constant gene flow. There are no seperate groups. They "fade into each other".

If it was that simple, then it should apply to dog breeds as well. But I can tell a dachsund from a boston terrier as easily as I can tell an east asian from an african. And so can everyone reading this.

You're talking about controlled (by humans) breeding of dog types. What happens when dogs are allowed to interbreed?

Oh, that's right, they're known as the subspecies mongrels and bitzas.

[charlou]

There is no genetic reproductive barrier. If there was we'd have separate species instead of subspecies. Why do I have to keep saying this?

@Nineberry That's nice, but hardly qualifies as significant on the scale of the populations.

Please post a comprehensive list of current human subspecies. TIA.

There isn't a list to post because the issue of whether we can conduct that line of study is still under debate. It's a social debate between egalitarians and racists, but it's effectively barring that line of research for the time being, although if you care to spend some time with google scholar you can find many medical science articles about population level susceptibility to certain diseases and particular treatments for other populations.

The genetic susceptibility to certain disease you mention can also be applied to having brown hair or pale skin or heterochromia iridis, and all sorts of other variations.

How does broader genetic dilution affect these things?

[charlou]

Our races are not unimportant

Can you elaborate on this please, Jim?

Yeah, you don't have NASCAR!

We had the Olympics in 2000!

[Jason]

Some one said " That's what applies to humans. There is constant gene flow. There are no seperate groups. They "fade into each other".

If it was that simple, then it should apply to dog breeds as well. But I can tell a dachsund from a boston terrier as easily as I can tell an east asian from an african. And so can everyone reading this.

You're talking about controlled (by humans) breeding of dog types. What happens when dogs are allowed to interbreed?

Oh, that's right, they're known as the subspecies mongrels and bitzas.

Some one said " That's what applies to humans. There is constant gene flow. There are no seperate groups. They "fade into each other".

If it was that simple, then it should apply to dog breeds as well. But I can tell a dachsund from a boston terrier as easily as I can tell an east asian from an african. And so can everyone reading this.

The same goes for many domesticated species and a whole lot more undomesticated ones.

[Jason]

There is no genetic reproductive barrier. If there was we'd have separate species instead of subspecies. Why do I have to keep saying this?

@Nineberry That's nice, but hardly qualifies as significant on the scale of the populations.

Please post a comprehensive list of current human subspecies. TIA.

There isn't a list to post because the issue of whether we can conduct that line of study is still under debate. It's a social debate between egalitarians and racists, but it's effectively barring that line of research for the time being, although if you care to spend some time with google scholar you can find many medical science articles about population level susceptibility to certain diseases and particular treatments for other populations.

The genetic susceptibility to certain disease you mention can also be applied to having brown hair or pale skin or heterochromia iridis, and all sorts of other variations.

How does broader genetic dilution affect these things?

You're looking at the question in black and white. It's much more complicated than that and we would have a lot more answers if this whole racist debate would just fuck off.

[charlou]

So where do subspecies fit in?

It's easy to point at a group of people who have evolved in isolation for some time and thus share common traits and call them a subspecies .. and perhaps understandable when people in their ignorance used to do so .. but to continue to think that way when migration and varietal mix is widely apparent is .. I dunno, naive .. to put it kindly.

What's also intriguing to think about is the possibility that, given enough time and social freedom, this intermixing of genetic variety if might bring about an almost homogenous human species ..

[charlou]

crosspost

Quite the contrary, far from looking at this in black and white, I'm acknowledging the many indistinct shades of grey.

While the debate exists I'll contribute my two cents.

[Jason]

I don't feel like going over the 'genetic transfer' argument again just now. I did respond to two other variations on it already though.

While the debate exists I'll contribute my two cents.

I don't blame you. Everyone is doing it.

[Tyrannical]

So where do subspecies fit in?

It's easy to point at a group of people who have evolved in isolation for some time and thus share common traits and call them a subspecies .. and perhaps understandable when people in their ignorance used to do so .. but to continue to think that way when migration and varietal mix is widely apparent is .. I dunno, naive .. to put it kindly.

What's also intriguing to think about is the possibility that, given enough time and social freedom, this intermixing of genetic variety if might bring about an almost homogenous human species ..

Race originally was a taxonomic synonym for subspecies. The fact that subspecies can intermix does not deny the existence of subspecies. Homogeneity of human groupings through natural selection would require both time and a homogenous environment.

[rainbow]

Some one said " That's what applies to humans. There is constant gene flow. There are no seperate groups. They "fade into each other".

If it was that simple, then it should apply to dog breeds as well. But I can tell a dachsund from a boston terrier as easily as I can tell an east asian from an african. And so can everyone reading this.

You're talking about controlled (by humans) breeding of dog types. What happens when dogs are allowed to interbreed?

Oh, that's right, they're known as the subspecies mongrels and bitzas.

I can for instance, tell just by looking at my neighbour's children that they are not my children.

So are they a different subspecies?