>>I think this sums it up: We would both like to see a genetic based
descriptor
system that is empiricle in nature and objective in definition. The
difference is
that I am willing to accept the current system as a good start, wheras you
think
it is trash. Correct?
Sodom<<
This is approximately correct. However, the older distinctions are not
"trash", they are just culturally based racial distinctions based on cultural
perceptions. They might be useful for cultural studies but they could only
distract from a genetic study. The only thing that could be valid to me from
a genetic standpoint is starting over with DNA alone and forgetting about the
cultural stuff or at least keeping it out of genetic considerations.
After we get a clearer picture from DNA it might be interesting to see how the
real genetics matches up to the cultural perceptions. Until then, however,
the old racial dogma could only serve as a distracting sideshow.
But since the sideshow is not going away soon, I will offer my opinion on it.
I expect that our concepts of "race" will conform to some real diversity in
the human gene pool and perhaps reflect some historic regional themes in
physical appearance. It is important to note however, that there is as yet no
reason to believe that these obvious physical themes should conform in any
appreciable manner to any further underlying genetic themes beyond the obvious
physical features. Unless there are reproductively discreet genetic races
there is no reason to believe that these would be anything more than physical
themes with no further underlying genetic basis.
One of the important things to remember about genetics in sexually reproducing
populations, is that other underlying genes can and will attatch and detatch
themselves from the more obvious genetic manifestations with a complete ease
that can only be detected through DNA testing.
A short way of explaining this: Sexual reproduction means that the genetic
deck gets shuffled every generation. Cultural selection (without the aid of
DNA testing) may be able to keep part of that deck from shuffling as much
(those genes that determine obvious appearances), but none of these cards are
necessarily glued together, and the rest of the deck has surely been shuffled
beyond any recognizable culturally based racial distinctions.
Once again, we can't really begin to understand this until we start over
ignoring these cultural distinctions. Once we have a better answer based
solely on DNA, it might be interesting to revisit these cultural distinctions
to better understand how genes and memes interact, but until then, they will
only distract us. "Race" is still culturally generated and not a real genetic
concept. As long as people keep obsessing about it and bringing it up in what
should be a genetic study, our progress will be hampered.
-Jake