Re: Linguistic Challenge for John the "geneticist"

At 15:04 2000-02-03 PST, you wrote:

>
>We certainly could divide humans into "subclasses" based on an arbitrary set
>of genes but then we could equally divide humans again with another
>arbitrary set of genes. Races however cannot be defined with solid immovable
>definitions due to their arbitrary nature. We could divide people who have a
>certain gene for juvenile diabetes from those who don't and call it the
>Diabetes Race and the Healthy Race. In the end its absurd for the purposes
>of linguistics.

In biological classification (which this is) one doesn't "define" taxa.
When we describe taxa on the basis of external characteristics we simply
use the subset of genes that happen to express visibly. This has no deep
theoretical basis, it is simply due practical fact that it can be used in
the field, without dissecting or analyzing the individuals You are
classifying. When You are dealing with sight-oriented animals like birds
and man it has the further advantage that it uses the same set of cues that
the animals use themselves.

>>Nobody accuses me of racism if I claim that the Yellow Wagtails with
>> >yellow heads that have started to breed in southwestern Norway in >the
>>last few decades originally immigrated from Great Britain since >they
>>clearly belong to the (british) flavissima subspecies, indeed >everybody
>>regards this as self-evident.
>
>This is a different matter and doesn't constitute racism.
>
>- gLeN

In what way is it different?

Tommy

>