03-16-2018, 12:50 PM
(03-16-2018, 11:26 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yes, they're divided into groups based on specific genetic traits that have been bred into them to serve a function. You kept repeating the word "genetically" and that is critical here because that same link is missing within race. Like I said, we do not divide them into groups based on the color of their fur.
I think this is what racial classification has traditionally done with humans, with the addition that we assign a wholly non-biological valuation to the color--white is "good" and non-white less so. And political/legal/social classifications have followed. Still do.
Though I think Fred might argue he is getting around the superficies of color by looking at "internal" features like a gene for sickle cell or fast twitch muscle fibers.
If I understand him, I think he is correct that, when enough data is compiled, we might find some "pure" populations of humans which have a trait that others do not. That could be a valid biological grouping for, say, medical reasons.
But it would not likely correspond to current racial classifications in any useful way. I don't know why we would want to call such a population a "race." There could be a premise for a science fiction novel in this this though, about a society in which it has become possible to identify fast twitchers and sickle cells by sight, or perhaps electronic identification.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)