Why do dogs and cats have breeds and species but humans have 'races?' There are many biological differences between many human races, why does science enforce the false notion that 'hurr durr every human is identical?'
Sounds anti-science and political to me. My post sounds Nazi-ish, but it's a genuine question.
Other urls found in this thread:
content.time.com
rossidata.com
twitter.com
>There are many biological differences between many human races
This is false. Genetically, we are all just humans. It's very likely you have more in common genetically with someone living in the Congo than your next door neighbor.
Stop listening to pseudo-scientists. The science is already clear on this: there is no such thing as race.
Those lies preserve society's unity.
But what do we earn to be associated with niggers anyway ? Their brains are unable to produce anything valuable, their life is fund by taxes and we are victims of their numerous crimes.
>The science is already clear on this: there is no such thing as race.
content.time.com
Well, that's ofc untrue.
How can you be on Veeky Forums and claim a such retarded thing ?
Genetically is the way we're all LEAST alike my dude.
If you wanted to intentionally breed humans in a way that selects for specific traits, then over hundreds or thousands of years, you could have "breeds" that are super tall or have big heads or whatever. But the selection process is imposed by whoever's doing the breeding, with the goal of obtaining a specific result or selecting a specific spontaneous mutation.
Human "races" result from the genetic drift between relatively isolated populations and the combinations of different waves of migrations from different areas over time. There isn't anyone intentionally controlling the process, so they don't really diverge that much.
Basically, the concepts aren't comparable at all. Purebred animals have very small gene pools. They're essentially highly inbred. Human "races" aren't like that at all.
>It's very likely you have more in common genetically with someone living in the Congo than your next door neighbor.
Patently false.
>The science is already clear on this: there is no such thing as race.
The opposite is true.
In conclusion kys lying nigger
k, you're illiterate though
>Human "races" result from the genetic drift between relatively isolated populations and the combinations of different waves of migrations from different areas over time. There isn't anyone intentionally controlling the process, so they don't really diverge that much.
there is strong selection in a few limited areas, based on things like climate and what diseases are common. (it's no accident that people from the tropics have dark skin, to better tolerate intense sunlight, and people from the subarctic have big noses, to warm and moisten cold air before it hits the lungs.) no evidence to suggest any of that is connected to intelligence or whatever, and it certainly doesn't seem to drive reproductive isolation.
Actually I think light skin is the adaptation, in order to get adequate vitamin D from less sunlight.
Because humans don't have breeds or species.
Also science does not enforce the notion that every human is identical.
Dogs and cats don't have species.
They are both a single species.
>sure they do, cats and dogs are different species.
>There is only one dog breed. All dogs are dogs. Genetically, they all are just dogs. All dogs are the same. Stop this doghating, because there are no biological differences between dog breeds. It's just social construct to inflate price of some dogs and to devalue market price of other breeds. When will people understand this: there is no such thing as dog breeds, or dogs, because dogs are actually genetically provable cats.
All domesticated dogs are the same species as each other and as the grey wolf, Canis lupis. The only possible exception is the Dingo. Collectively, domesticated dogs are recognized as a subspecies of Canis lupus known as Canis lupis familiaris. Breed is a variable term that is used to define differences across domesticated animals. With that being said, historically, Man has not been subjected to the same standards of phylogeny as all other animals. I personally believe that the term "race" should be substituted with subspecies. As evidence suggests that Man originated from Africa, Africans should be considered the nominate subspecies Homo sapiens and different populations across the planet should be given their own classification.
Both terms are not really scientific. A race is just an arbitrary social or cultural category and has no basis in genetics, except maybe skin color, but even then you have lots of problems since people with similar skin color can have drastically different genetic ancestry. For example, most people on /pol/ would consider Australian aboriginal to be black, but genetically they are Asian. Similarly, most people in South America are more European than native now.
Breed is just an artificially selected phenotype.
Also note, that even though dogs were only a small subset of wolves that were recently breed by humans, dogs have far more overall genetic diversity than humans.
The human population went from maybe a few tens of thousands of mating pairs a few thousand years ago to over seven billion with no increase in genetic diversity in that time.
Humans are less genetically diverse than inbred domestic wheat varieties
This proves that race is not real.
>subspecies
You clearly have no idea how genetics works.
Fst values between humans are only around 0.1 while the cutoff area for is around 0.3. Your high school level understand of what defines a species is not how it works in real life. In real life it's based purely on genetics.
>the science is already clear on this
any claim that science is clear on something is pseudo-scientific you fucking donut.
They have Breeds because they are Bred. No-one breeds humans for desirable characteristics (apart from the mice)
Race is more of a social term, yeah there are genetic differences but there's nothing really stopping interbreeding other than convenience.
Humans are less genetically diverse than any two different troops of chimpanzees are from one another. We have about 1/10th the genetic diversity of any other apes.
>he still believes out of Africa
That shit was debunked ages ago, was debunked further recently
Africans are distant enough genetically to be a separate species outright
Go back to /pol/ with your science denial and conspiracy bullshit
But why are you only focusing on the genes, and not how the genes are expressed? It is very possible you could have more in common, genetically, with a chimp than another human, and yet you would never say you are more like the chimp than the human.
>It is very possible you could have more in common, genetically, with a chimp than another human
This is impossible. We have different numbers of chromosomes, different numbers of genes, and different alleles and allele frequencies for the genes that we do share.
There is a lot of nuance to the phrases "we are __% similar to another animal." The real message of that phrase is that all life on earth uses the same DNA mechanisms (except a few bacteria). It's not saying we are genetically similar.
What part of "which english words are synonyms" sounds like science or math to you, stupid /pol/tard.
There is no defined cutoff for Fst values. The common zebra, for example, has an Fst value of .11 yet is classified into 5 different subspecies.
Dogs and cats don't have different species. Every dog is a canis lupus familiaris, every cat is a felis catus.
This is false, there are 6 different species of cat. The domesticated cat is classified as its own species.
> 'hurr durr every human is identical
Strawman fallacy.
We do not hold that all men are created identical. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.
If you are too stupid to understand the difference, ask at /pol/.
There is. It depends on statistical assessments for things like overall and relative population sizes.
Do you really think they would use scientifically defined categories with no real assessment on how to categorize them? You're not thinking.
Races are Subspecies, and I'm guessing there might be problems if two too distant kinds have kids.
And yes, there is an agenda that messes with science for political correctness.
Like people are too dumb to acknowledge to be different kinds, but still respect each other.
>And yes, there is an agenda that messes with science for political correctness.
It would be more useful if you told why I'm wrong.
There is no point. You are retarded and/or brainwashed and if I try to educate or explain things to you, you will not listen. You just want to fight. You are beyond help.
>why does science enforce the false notion that 'hurr durr every human is identical
Nobody claims this. Humans are all retards, and you are just a special kind of retard
I'm not a 'this person/organisation is right in everything' type of a person.
Just type it.
True and false. Yes, we are all just humans, but racial distinctions have utility in medicine, and many other fields. We are not all the same, and certain racial traits (including diseases) are distinct, even unique, within certain races. The "more in common genetically" argument relies on accentuating similarities and denying difference. I can only imagine that it's political in origin.