Sorry If I am being a little disorganized but i will reorganize the argument when i get back. I was up all night and was in the process of studying while typing that out. Also you have not proved a thing. You just said you did. I will set you straight when I get back.
I'm looking forward to it. Also, have you read the part I wrote about Tacitus' Germania? You seem to have missed that.
I have read the last two links you posted now. The Wiki link is plainly wrong in stating that the concept of race as defined by Ore only came into being as a consequence of the Atlantic slave trade. I have already explained why, so I won't repeat myself now. Instead, I'll refer back to post #45. The second article I don't understand. The author states that race is purely a social construct (as you say) without any scientific basis. But in the same article I read this:
Scientists due agree with the idea that people look different, mainly because of the varied environments in which they and their ancestors live. They have physically changed as environmental conditions warranted. Take skin color, as an example. It is essentially an adaptation to the amount of sun received. People from regions with lots of direct overhead sunlight (the tropics) tend to have darker skin than people from cloudy or oblique sunlight regions (northern temperate zones). Since melanin protects the skin from harmful ultraviolet radiation, people with more melanin in tropical areas tended to live longer, and produce more children, than people who were melanin deficient. Sunlight also stimulates vitamin D production. People from northern Europe and Asia who had little or no melanin were able to absorb more of the little sunlight there was, which enabled them to produce more vitamin D.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the exact definition an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28biology%29?
Good luck on your exam.
If you looked at random codons in their DNA they would look the same. If you looked for codons that express skin color, etc., you could tell them apart. Much like Arathorn mentioned, chimps are 98.6% human. That little difference makes a big difference.
That's what I'm saying. Next thing you know some geneticist comes along and tells me that I am of the same race as a chimpanzee, because our DNA is practically the same.
» Mon May 14, 2012 12:59 am 
