Is bone structure race specific?

[brooklyn44]

reliability of source

Read this on Race differences.
If it`s true blacks are genetically less inteligent this may spell trouble in the future,as blacks naturally want the good jobs as well.

http://www.amren.com/9412issue/9412issue.html#cover

I'm skeptical of much that emanates from American Renaissance magazine. It is not a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal. And without any attempt to categorize its agenda, I ask that you take its "research" with a grain of salt.
b44

eta: skeptigirl got to this already.

 

[brooklyn44]

say what?

lets put ten philipino males picked at random vs ten samoan males picked at random in a tug of war contest against each other

I will give you ten to 1 odds in favor of the philipinos...wanna take it?

I got 1000 dollars on the samoans, and you only have to risk 100 on the philipinos for it...come on

PC religion is stupid and without basis in fact, standing in the way of true knowledge

huh?
b44

 

[blutoski]

I am currently taking a class on forensic anthropology, and we are indeed learning to distinguish 'race' from bones. While there are no genetic races, different ethnicities do tend show a cluster of characteristics. Environment seems to play a strong role: 'blacks' and 'whites' in the US are much more similar to each other now than they were a century ago, and not from breeding.

The major thing we had to learn was variation. Variation is the rule rather than the exception with humans. It's fairly common to have additional bones, 106 is merely an average. Check the 'parts' thread in Forum Community for an example.

Exactly. I've also taken physical anthropology courses, which include gender and race identification of skeletal specimens. Given the right bones, I was 100% on gender and about 80% on race identification during the exams. As you say: forensics uses this information to attempt to identify remains, even from fragments too small to do a full-tissue reconstruction.

A specific example is the unique shape of incisors for Asiatics. Another example is the longer nasal bone of Caucasians.

"Blacks have an extra bone in their foot," is untrue, and somewhere between an urban legend and racism. (Depends on the motivation for circulating the claim.)

 

[stamenflicker]

No Yahzi, it wasn't about terminology. It's about the bulk of genetic research until now which showed there were no specific genes that all people considered to be of a particular race had in common. While certain genetic traits are more common in particular groups such as sickle cell trait, sickle cell trait is not a marker for that group. In addition, prior to this research, all humans on the planet had most of our DNA in common and the variation which results in our outward appearance is such a small % of the total as to be meaningless in defining groups.

Why I don't buy the reported conclusion immediately that one can define race with these new findings is easily demonstrated by the following example:

It is arbitrary to use visible characteristics to define race. Why not use blood types to define race instead?

Even if it is determined one can describe the outward appearance of a person by certain genetic markers, you still have the problem with the claim that outward appearance alone distinguishes one group of humans from another. Our appearance may indicate something about our ancestry, but it is as arbitrary as blood type in dividing humans into groups.

I think it is partly about terminology. For starters, there are no clear biological markers for "race." Race is a social construction based, usually on skin color. Unfortunately, culture has chosen to blend the word "ethnicity" with the word "race." However, ethnicity contains real biological markers because by definition it is about common ancestery.

If there were no biological markers for ethnicity (and yes, there are markers in bone structure-- example forensic science can determine the race of victims by bone structure), then anthropology would be more woo than science.

 

[Yahzi]

It is arbitrary to use visible characteristics to define race. Why not use blood types to define race instead?

Er... I thought that was what I said. At least, it's what I was trying to say.

Our appearance may indicate something about our ancestry, but it is as arbitrary as blood type in dividing humans into groups.

In another thread, I phrased it this way:

Racism is the theory that skin color is genetic identity, as opposed to the idea that genetic identity defines skin color.

 

[Yahzi]

If there were no biological markers for ethnicity

Of course there are biological markers for ethnicity.

The point is that the ethnicity you derive by grouping people according to biological markers bears - at best - only a passing resemblance to the groupings predicted by the social theory of race.

The method of racism - identifying by skin color - is an invalid method. Ergo, the theory it generates is invalid. "Race", like the ether, is a simplification that simply doesn't fit.

We can, and probably should, divide people into groups based on their genetic/geographic/cultural history. Heart disease, anemia, etc. are just the beginning; there are a multitude of medical problems that can be meaningfully addressed by this approach.

The point, however, is two-fold: the social theory of race is wrong and useless; and "intelligence" - whatever we mean by that term - has not been demonstrated to be one of the issues addressable by this approach. Neither has "love of one's children," "courage," "fidelity," "creativity," or "compassion."

 

[pipelineaudio]

Racism is the theory that skin color is genetic identity, as opposed to the idea that genetic identity defines skin color.

Deep! Thats like nobel prize material there

You guys must have a lot more time to think up in the highlands compared to us busy valley folk. Any snow yet?