I don't think I am. Kevin points out some reasons why in another post, and
there's not much I can add to his analysis. Except to say that I doubt
race would mean particularly consistent genetic differences even between
populations which have not intermingled. We all came originally from a
single "race"; and the only differences which would have been manifested
since would be those which were especially adaptive for a given
environment. And these vary even within a given population. For example,
not all those of Northern European stock have equally pale skin; and not
all those of African stock have equally dark skin. All humans inhabit some
point in a continuum with regard to each of the genetic qualities we might
consider "racial" (e.g., skin colour) and the degree varies even within
races; so race is not a consistent genetic attribute. (I *think* that made
sense...)
Basically, I think if we want to understand "race", we are stuck with
sociology and other social sciences, rather than genetics.
>> Hey, doesn't anyone want to talk about the mind/body problem or
>> Plantinga's reformed foundationalism for a while? ;)
>
>If you want to, go ahead and summarize what you think is interesting
>there for evolutionary theory.
I was joking. (Hence the little wanking emoticon.) Those topics have no
direct relevance to evolution whatsoever.
Regards,
Mike Hardie
<hardie@globalserve.net>
http://www.globalserve.net/~hardie/dv/