Nope, a race is a subspecies (although there are other categorisations as well, IIRC, eg. where race would be a sub-category of subspecies, but that may be a German particularity).sabro said:So race is a concept that is like subspecies,
Yep, perhaps due to the interference of the PC faction.except that it is unusually confined in the English language to discussions of homo-sapiens.
Luckily, current dictionaries usually have a descriptive & not a prescriptive approach. Since usage is not marked as obsolete, it's pretty safe to say that what M-W wrote is still somewhat modern usage. Maybe just not in the circles you associate with.Again I have never heard it used in biology to discuss any other species (Like Chimp-race) in spite of m-w.
Then again, Sabro seems to be the expert on English language. I quoted what I found to be qualified experts [IE Merriam-Webster], and I can't really speak for them and answer back in any kind of adequate manner when the information I have borrowed is directly questioned.
Which is entirely scientific, although I personally haven't seen much yet that would totally discard the old classification. Modifications are always possible.Others such as Evolutionary Biologist Luigi Cavalli Sforza favor a change in terminology to better and more accurately fit what he believes is a new paradigm to match the empirical data coming out of the study of genomics.
Yep, you are confused. Where did I say something like "You are supposed to...!"?I am supposed to question them because Bossel says race is a scientific certainty. Is this correct? or am I confused.
Those are definitions for what race can be generally defined as, which I quoted because you asked for a definition. These definitions haven't changed very much since then (or could you please quote some?).There is actually nothing wrong with using 35 year old sources (Taxonomic Mayr (1969) and Population Dobzhansky (1970)) except that we are discussing what may represent a shift in the field of biology.
You didn't give much context. Could you please give some evidence that he "might be a white supremacist."There is also nothing wrong with Steven Sailer. Others have charged him with the racism agenda, and I probably erred in repeating it, but I thought I gave it sufficent context.
Perhaps you're confusing things again? This may be their genesis myth, but that's not the same as what they (modern Persians that is) consider themselves biologically. Those few Persians I have met here at the university actually do consider themselves caucasoid.Hey, if anyone has better information, please correct me: Persians, at least my Farsi friends that I have spoken to long ago, believe that their people founded the original civilization and have continually inhabited the area from prehistory. They believe that they are a unique and pure race separate and unrelated to the later Bakhtiyari, Qashqaie, Arabs, Turks, Lurs, and Kurds. I'm not sure how the term Caucasian would even fit into this ethnogenesis.
Ah, now I get your point. & it is wrong. As has been shown, race can be verified scientifically, while genesis myths generally cannot. On the other hand, if you really have some small population which was isolated for long enough, your point could be right. They might show enough differences from surrounding populations to consider themselves separate.the point was something to the fact that the Three Race theory was a European construct and is no more scientific than some aboriginal people believing themselves unique and declaring themselves a race and giving a two race construct.
You do remember Cavalli-Sforza? His data is quite current.I am unable to differentiate because the subdivision of the species does not fit current data
Quote please?Bossel, you however have pronounced yourself a scientist and an expert
Defender of the truth? How lofty.a defender of the truth against the rising tide of political correctness
Advocate of science vs. ideology would fit better.
Er..., liar?! Insignificant turns up in this whole thread the 1st time in your above post.You criticised me for using the terms "insignificant differnces" which was lifted from one of your quotes.
If I criticised a quote of yours it was most probably your interpretation thereof, not the quoting itself.
Did I say so? Where?If I can't use your quotes to prove my points
& as usual you ignore the stuff you don't like. No. 3 covers the biological scientific definitions of race (esp. 3 a & c).I think the whole Merriam Webster definition fits the race is a social/historical construct argument perfectly. Especially def 2.
You notice this only now?this has become circular.