Apech

I don't have a point except to question the idea of race as an accurate descriptor of people or groups of people.

Yes they are but because they are our putative common ancestors based on the 'out of Africa' model as they have the most diverse genes known. At least the Sana do.

I think the definitions are problematic for a number of reasons.

Well its the bastardisation of the English language I object to - 'people of colour' is a strange construction and could include purple or green people presumably. I didn't say it was evil but it does lump together everyone non-white as if they form some kind of homogenous group. Which they don't.

As long as we don't use that awful 'people of colour' expression

Oh dear I've come back What I am saying MooNiNite is that once someone can identify a race which has some validity to it - then I will look for defining characteristics - its not ambiguity exactly but more vagueness and lack of clearly defined scientific basis. I am not saying all humans and groups of humans are identical - that would be ridiculous - for instance one tends to resemble one's own family and this is for the clear reasons of sharing genes and so on. If your children bear a close resemblance to the Pizza delivery man this could be cause for concern. But first someone name a race and explain what it is and then we can discuss defining characteristics.

It is the imprecision of the term 'race' in English which is the problem. It is a vague term which indeed has been abused. It is not necessarily political correctness to avoid its use but perhaps caution against broad misapplied generalisations. I was seeking some scientific basis for its use which does not appear to exist although I suppose the term phenotype is closest i.e. a combination of genetics and environment. Anyway I feel this subject is exhausted for now and am departing this thread.

Just some science rather than opinion: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/human-skin-color-variation/modern-human-diversity-genetics

Ok.

I wasn't trumpeting.

Forgive me for posting oh mighty Stosh!

I don't remember saying that. So ... tell me what the races of man are. How many are there and how do you define them?

Essentially meaning basically they are all horses - or all dogs??? You don't agree??? Perhaps it would help if you say what you think the races of man are. Then I can get some idea of your point of view.

When did I say that?

Oh come on. Try this then (from Wiki):

I read somewhere but cannot remember where, that dogs have a genetic makeup which makes them especially able to produce morphological variety beyond other mammals. The different breeds of dogs are all essentially dogs and can interbreed hence the existence of mongrels - so yes they are essentially the same. Oh and I don't speak butterfly so I can't ask them if they agree or not.

Bushmen I think.

Me and other intelligent people

There is more variation between individuals within what might be considered racial groups than there is between one group and another. Also looking at the history of humanity firstly we are one species and there has been so much mixing between putative racial groups that to talk of anything even remotely approaching a pure race is impossible (unless you are referring to some Polynesian islanders or whatever). Your butterfly example is equivalent to hair or eye colour - i.e. meaningless.

Karen he means erections as in buildings of course - what were you thinking?????

Something rotten in the state of Daobums?

Nungali ... what on earth do you know about morons??? just give me space, I need lebensraum, ja???

yes Brian clearly you are damaged

This is the Off Grid sections of DBs and free speech is maximised - just because this here doesn't mean we like it or support it. Although I regard threads like this more as a trolling (in the original sense) exercise than anything.

... and we look good in uniforms.