Inter-species conflict

[Lestat]

I think every animal's first and foremost goal is to advance it's own genes. It makes sense that the order of favortism is first their own offspring, then extended family, and finally the rest of the species. However...

The more different a tribe's lineage is from one's own, the more humans will favor their own race/tribe before another's. It might not be political correct to say so, but it's most definitely true. Of course, religion is a way of grouping people together so it follows that many wars are started over it.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
but I would assume that in general there isn't much war and conflict within most other species

[/ QUOTE ]

Where true I believe this is due to lack of organisation ability, not lack of motivation.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Biology is not a social science. We're talking about the composition of DNA molecules in human beings. And all the studies are consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that as soon as you introduce a poorly defined, loaded word like 'race', it starts to become a social science. The statement 'race is a social construct, and not real' is not exactly a statement about biology. I have no doubt that politics (or at least dogma) plays a major role, regardless of which side is right. I'm surprised you think it's been eliminated from biology so readily, when the history, even recent, of the field (race, that is) is so replete with scientific abuse.

the wiki community certainly doesn't seem to feel it's a settled issue

[/ QUOTE ]

From the article - "most of the controversy surrounds the question of how to interpret these new data, and whether conclusions based on existing data are sound." The data themselves aren't really in question. And I think a more important statement - "In the end, the terms 'race,' 'ethnicity,' and 'ancestry' all describe just a small part of the complex web of biological and social connections that link individuals and groups to each other."

Race may be a useful concept in some cases, although I don't like the word "race." Perhaps a certain drug will tend to have a different effect on Africans than on Europeans, for instance. That drug may be ineffective for Europeans, but highly effective for Africans, due to the coincidence of certain alleles. But the biological data can't directly be translated into anything socially significant, and the fact it only describes trends rather than absolute sweeping differences is a big deal.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Well done. The liberal trump card of 'racist' has been played. You win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well done. The trump card of 'you're attacking me because of my politics and not really attacking my argument' has been played. You win.

[keith123]

Chimps hunt and kill members of other chimp groups. Many many animals fight over territory.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Biology is not a social science. We're talking about the composition of DNA molecules in human beings. And all the studies are consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that as soon as you introduce a poorly defined, loaded word like 'race', it starts to become a social science. The statement 'race is a social construct, and not real' is not exactly a statement about biology. I have no doubt that politics (or at least dogma) plays a major role, regardless of which side is right. I'm surprised you think it's been eliminated from biology so readily, when the history, even recent, of the field (race, that is) is so replete with scientific abuse.

the wiki community certainly doesn't seem to feel it's a settled issue

[/ QUOTE ]

From the article - "most of the controversy surrounds the question of how to interpret these new data, and whether conclusions based on existing data are sound." The data themselves aren't really in question. And I think a more important statement - "In the end, the terms 'race,' 'ethnicity,' and 'ancestry' all describe just a small part of the complex web of biological and social connections that link individuals and groups to each other."

Race may be a useful concept in some cases, although I don't like the word "race." Perhaps a certain drug will tend to have a different effect on Africans than on Europeans, for instance. That drug may be ineffective for Europeans, but highly effective for Africans, due to the coincidence of certain alleles. But the biological data can't directly be translated into anything socially significant, and the fact it only describes trends rather than absolute sweeping differences is a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm pretty sure that if we have any disagreement left, it's purely semantic.

Back to why we haven't seen any aardvark armies on the news...