Can race be inferred by the statistics of cousinship?

Question

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_chart

If you were to take 1000 White Americans and determine (assuming you had the necessary genealogical data) the exact degree of cousinship between each of them and all 999 of the others, you'd have a list of cousinship with N=499500 data.

You could find the average degree of cousinship by dividing adding up the degrees and dividing by N. You could find the average generational removal in a similar way.

You could repeat the process for 1000 Black US residents.

You could repeat the process for a racially mixed group of 500 Whites & 500 Blacks. (Again, assume that God will make the Heavenly Genealogical Records available to the statistician, so he can acquire the necessary data.)

I predict that prima facie evidence of race would become apparent based on the difference between the same-race and mixed-race averages of cousinship degree and of generational removal.

Any educated guesses? Any related scientific studies?

"...but here we are only speaking of predominance, not purity."

That's all the racists are speaking of, too. Let the racists speak for themselves as to the content of their beliefs, and stop accepting self-serving summaries of racists' views from liberals.

You're no doubt right that there's no such thing as a pure race. All races have common ancestors who lived in Africa and whose skins...were covered in fur.

But predominance, carried to a sufficient extreme, is as good as purity, insofar as racism is concerned. Predominance is enough to create brain volume differentials of 10%, cerebrum sulsification differentials of 14%, and IQ test score differentials of 15%. Absolute purity isn't required.

In fact, the question that I posed implies that all humans are related. Only the degree of the relationship is challenged. And the idea is that race is proved a valid concept if there is a significant difference in the average degree of cousinship within vs between racial groups.

Answer 1

All the distasteful racial claptrap aside, I like the wikipedia link. I have always been confused by the difference between second cousins and first cousins once removed. Now I can say for sure that my cousins' children are my first cousins once removed and not my second cousins!

Answer 2

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to prove here. The problem with your question is that you are starting with a false assumption. You assume there are pure race whites and pure race blacks. Not so. Published DNA studies have shown that there are no known pure race people presently on earth. We are all interrelated. Regardless of the protestations of various race haters there are NO PURE RACES. All people we call whites have other blood lines in their past at some juncture. All tested whites have some vestiges of black, Arab and Asian DNA in their makeup. The darkest Indian is Caucasian and American Indians are predominately Asian but here we are only speaking of predominance, not purity.

Your prima facia evidence is inconsequential to reality. Remember that the first man or woman came out of Africa so in that sense we are all African. The DNA studies only say that there are specific strings of DNA that are common to given geographical groups. They do not specifically state that the subject is of a race as we think of it today. We are all mixed race.

This is not to say that cousinship cannot be factually found though science as DNA studies are a perfect tool for such findings. It is just that math averages are not an acceptable tool for such a study in my opinion.

Answer 3

Dude, race doesn't exsist. Human is human.