Re: [ZION] No biological basis for race

[Marc A. Schindler]

After all, it doesn't say the elect (like, say, a tall, young good-looking bishop) 
*will* be deceived, it only says they *could* be.

Mark Gregson wrote:

>
> > Hey, wait, that's my part!   You'se guys can't be stealing my part ...
> >
> >
> > Till  who even got a new costume for the next show
>
> In the spirit of Christmas, Till, I forgive you for tempting me to the utmost with 
>your provocative statements.  That's a most humble forgiveness, too.
>
> =  Mark Gregson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  =
>
>
> --
> ___
> Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com
>
> Powered by Outblaze
>
> //
> ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
> ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
> /
>

--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

“Knowledge may give weight, but accomplishments give lustre, and many more people see 
than weigh.” – Lord Chesterfield

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; 
its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s
employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^^===
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^^===

Re: [ZION] No biological basis for race

[Mark Gregson]

> Hey, wait, that's my part!   You'se guys can't be stealing my part ...
> 
> 
> Till  who even got a new costume for the next show

In the spirit of Christmas, Till, I forgive you for tempting me to the utmost with 
your provocative statements.  That's a most humble forgiveness, too.

=  Mark Gregson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  =

   
-- 
___
Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com

Powered by Outblaze

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

Re: [ZION] No biological basis for race

[Elmer L. Fairbank]

At 14:45 12/17/2002 -0700, M Marc & St Stephan wrote:



to play the fool.
>
> Stephen

"Play the fool" is not a scientific concept either ;-)




Hey, wait, that's my part!   You'se guys can't be stealing my part ...


Till  who even got a new costume for the next show

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: [ZION] No biological basis for race

[John W. Redelfs]

Stephen Beecroft favored us with:

It's one thing to say that current racial classifications are imprecise,
or getting blurred, or not useful for this or that purpose. All such
proclamations may or may not be true. But to say that race doesn't exist
is to be tautologically incorrect -- people whose ancestry originated in
different parts of the world look more like others with similar ancestry
than they do like those with ancestry from other parts of the world. And
children look like their parents, so to say that there is no biological
basis for race is to play the fool.


I agree.  Sometimes my son gives me the hand jive when all I want to do is 
shake hands.  Give me a "whiteman's handshake" I say.  Then, slapping my 
forehead I realize, my son isn't a white man.  --JWR

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

Re: [ZION] No biological basis for race

[Marc A. Schindler]

Stephen Beecroft wrote:

> -Marc-
> > A new study of Brazilians confirms what biologists have always
> > known (but maybe not anthropologists?): namely, that there is
> > no genetic basis for determining race:
> > 
><
>
> The study discussed in the article was performed on Brazilians, a highly
> racially-heterogenous group -- and on a very heterogenous subgroup of
> Brazilians, too. The study is ridiculous; it's like saying, "There is no
> such thing as dog breeds, because we went to the pound and found no
> strong correlation between the mongrels' supposed breed and their actual
> attributes". Totally bogus. I will bet that performing the same study
> between groups of Japanese, Norwegians, and Ethiopians would give the
> lie to the statement that "skin colour is a poor indication of
> ancestry."
>
> Besides, the concept of "race" consists of much more than skin color,
> despite the article's implication otherwise. Body build, height, facial
> features, hair color/texture/distribution, subcutaneous adipose
> preponderance -- all these are considered "racial features". While
> mentioned in the study, these are clearly relegated to the back seat, as
> evidenced by the article's opening line.
>

Actually they weren't. The author of the article doesn't mention them up front, but as 
Thomas Hudson from McGill University is quoted as saying, "'The physical traits of an 
individual -- especially skin pigmentation, hair colour, hair texture, and the shape 
of the lips and nose -- are constantly used for racial
categorization and thus play an extremely influential role in human social 
relationships," the authors write. Yet, they point out, "It is possible for two 
siblings differing in colour to belong to completely diverse racial categories' in 
Brazil."  He clearly equates the other physical features with colour as a
traditional designator of race.

>
> There very clearly is a "biological basis" for the characteristics we
> classify as race. It's called genetics. The statement that there is "no
> biological basis for race" is absurd on its face, and those that hold to
> it are either deeply ignorant or else have an axe to grind.
>

Can you show this from a scientific source? With all due respect, I don't think you 
know what you're talking about. Not meant as an attack -- I just want to see a 
contrary scientific view. This story isn't news -- it just adds to the pile. 
Geneticists have been saying this for a long time. Incidentally, not only do we
have nothing to fear from this, but in light of the Tom Murphy affair, this actually 
gives us ammunition. I'm using it in some apologetics work I'm doing regarding 
Murphy's review of DNA and Lamanites.

>
> It's one thing to say that current racial classifications are imprecise,
> or getting blurred, or not useful for this or that purpose. All such
> proclamations may or may not be true. But to say that race doesn't exist
> is to be tautologically incorrect

That's not what the article is saying, and it's not something I would claim, either, 
fwiw. The point is whether race is a sociological concept or a biological concept. 
Admitting it is social is not to say it doesn't exist -- you've either misinterpreted 
the paper or are making a logical error.

> -- people whose ancestry originated in
> different parts of the world look more like others with similar ancestry
> than they do like those with ancestry from other parts of the world. And
> children look like their parents, so to say that there is no biological
> basis for race is to play the fool.
>
> Stephen

"Play the fool" is not a scientific concept either ;-)

--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

“Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick 
himself up and continue on” – Winston Churchill

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; 
its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer, nor those of 
any organization with which the author may be associated.


--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^^===
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^^

RE: [ZION] No biological basis for race

[Stephen Beecroft]

-Marc-
> A new study of Brazilians confirms what biologists have always
> known (but maybe not anthropologists?): namely, that there is
> no genetic basis for determining race:
> 
><>
> 

The study discussed in the article was performed on Brazilians, a highly 
racially-heterogenous group -- and on a very heterogenous subgroup of 
Brazilians, too. The study is ridiculous; it's like saying, "There is no 
such thing as dog breeds, because we went to the pound and found no 
strong correlation between the mongrels' supposed breed and their actual 
attributes". Totally bogus. I will bet that performing the same study 
between groups of Japanese, Norwegians, and Ethiopians would give the 
lie to the statement that "skin colour is a poor indication of 
ancestry."

Besides, the concept of "race" consists of much more than skin color, 
despite the article's implication otherwise. Body build, height, facial 
features, hair color/texture/distribution, subcutaneous adipose 
preponderance -- all these are considered "racial features". While 
mentioned in the study, these are clearly relegated to the back seat, as 
evidenced by the article's opening line.

There very clearly is a "biological basis" for the characteristics we 
classify as race. It's called genetics. The statement that there is "no 
biological basis for race" is absurd on its face, and those that hold to 
it are either deeply ignorant or else have an axe to grind.

It's one thing to say that current racial classifications are imprecise, 
or getting blurred, or not useful for this or that purpose. All such 
proclamations may or may not be true. But to say that race doesn't exist 
is to be tautologically incorrect -- people whose ancestry originated in 
different parts of the world look more like others with similar ancestry 
than they do like those with ancestry from other parts of the world. And 
children look like their parents, so to say that there is no biological 
basis for race is to play the fool.

Stephen

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^