26yo

So, are you saying the environment in which these dogs were put into had an effect on the arrangement of genes and characteristics of these dogs?

Hm, could this apply to humans and explain the differences in biology among human population groups?

What we’ve learned today’s is that blacks are the inferior *breed*, not the inferior race.

The idea that race doesn't exist is so stupid that only an intellectual could believe it.

>Dog
>Horse
>Car
>Roller skate
>Ice scat
>Marathon
>Bob sled
>Yacht
>100 meter
>Bike

I assure you races exist and they are quite popular.

dog breeds are basically social contructs, it's, for the most part, human selected, not environmental

Humans substitute "the environment", doing the selection that otherwise would be done by nature. For the dog the conditions the human puts it in is the environment.

Also, they're hardly a social construct as they are based on biological differences. Calling something a social construct is a cop out as literally everything can be called a social construct, from biology to math to language, it doesn't invalidate anything really.

>Ice scat
Guten tag, Hans

give a not meme genetic definition of race that doesnt have a bunch of exceptions and ill believe you (note: phds even have trouble with this)

I don't have one, nor do I pretend I do, but likewise I don't pretend that all human population groups are somehow the same when there are clear biological differences between geographically separate human populations living in different environments. Its like claiming there are no sexes and calling it a social construct despite the fact of sexual dimorphism in humans.

Secondly, this is a political topic at this point, and invokes calls of racism and discrimination so not like its a subject I'd touch upon in a public setting and most sane biologists won't either unless their conclusions are politically acceptable.

Niggers r black
Chinks have slanty eyes and side ways cunts
Jews have big noses
Bearers are brown
Whites are white

>all human population groups are somehow the same when there are clear biological differences between geographically separate human populations living in different environments
But they somewhat are. People took those geographic niches just too fast to leave enough time for significant differences to emerge between them. Not to mention this natural tendency of humans to travel and having some cultural awareness of effects of inbreeding (complicated marital arrangements favoring marriage between distant groups) has proven to exchange genetic information on really long distances.

Yeah populations are different, but it would be retarded to group them all based on 18th century notion of 'races' where they didnt even know about genetics.

Are populations different, yes. is a race a good way to group them? Almost certainly no, debatable at best.

too give you an idea of what i mean, african americans have a significant amount of white admixture, but are labled 'black,' the same as someone who's ancestors have literally never stepped a foot out of africa.

This is meme tier. The african american populations are distinctly different than pure africans, but we refer to them the same. why would anyone who is scientifically minded do this?

>it's another pseudo science semantics bait thread
We have this thread almost every day.

>People took those geographic niches just too fast to leave enough time for significant differences to emerge between them.
Skeletal structure, skull structure, muscle structure, skin structure, digestion system, etc. Not to mention the admixture of Denisovans and Neanderthals. I won't bring cognitive ability into this because it's a divisive topic but I won't assume it had no impact on the brain either.

What would constitute a "significant difference"?

>(complicated marital arrangements favoring marriage between distant groups)
That's false, in-group marriages are the most common and have always been which is why you can find genetic differences even between groups living close to each other. Not to misunderstand tme, they overlap, but they can still be grouped separate.

Entirely depends on how you define 'race'

Because Americans and skin color.

>are distinctly different than pure africans
You mean, like visually?
That doesn't mean shit. For us those differences seem overly significant because our brains are specialized in face recognition and are sensitive enough to pick up slightest differences that genetically don't really matter.

>Entirely depends on how you define 'race'
exactly. the current social notion of race is really, really bad if you want to talk about "human populations with distinct genetic differences" it paints way to broad a brush to be a useful category

a better way of grouping humans needs to be devised that goes on more than race

i no they dont mean shit l0l thats what i was pointing out (i think race is a bad way to group things)

and i meant genetically different, if that isnt clear

>jews claim they are not white and theyre jewish.
how do you reach these people?

Because people keep replying to it.

All categorizations have tons of exceptions.
>Mammals don't lay eggs
>Fish do lay eggs

We use them because they have good explanatory power, not because they're perfect.

To put things into perspective, it took 20k years in favorable conditions to develop something as simple as lactose tolerance, and people left africa just 80k years ago.

Cattle was only domesticated some 10 thousand years ago, similar with goats and sheep. Do you just make up shit or what?

>Analysis of the DNA of 94 ancient skeletons in Europe and Russia concluded that the lactose tolerant mutation appeared about 4,300 years ago and spread throughout the European population

See? Now you're saying something reasonable, an actual argument with some genuine merit. "The definition of race is imprecise" is a much more compelling statement. "Race doesn't exist" is bait.

>uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/Download/Leonardi et al. 2012.pdf
The mutation could've started 20k years ago though.

Its very hard. They dont believe in genetics, they believe that all differences between races are the result of social injustice.

I bet that your friend also has very high self-esteem?

>could've vs genetic evidence of the first farmers from the ME and native European hunter gatherers being unable to digest milk 8000 years ago and the mutation appearing around 4000 years ago.
I know which side I'm taking, friend.

Also, your study doesn't even corroborate your claim

>Using this approach, the exploitation of milk in the early Neolithic has been demonstrated to have occurred around 8000 years ago in Northwestern Anatolia and Thrace (Evershed et al., 2008), around 7000 years ago in the Carpathian Basin (Craig et al., 2005) and few hundred years later in Britain (Copley et al., 2003).
And we're not even talking about lactose tolerance, but exploitation of milk products with reduced lactose(!). The study continues;

>These data from Anatolian sites s also provide us with complementary information[...](3) reducing or eliminating lactose, thereby rendering milk products digestible by lactase non-persistent individuals.
>The last advantage is likely to have been of particular importance since genetic data are making it increasingly clear that these early dairying populations were mostly, if not entirely lactose intolerant

im a different user than who you were talking too before, everything before the "a not meme definition of race" post is some other dude

I've tried for years, I gave up started doing other shit.

I've tried explaining it in every possible way I can, they ignore everything you say and say you're thinking with your emotions when they're the ones doing this. Its a terrible shame. Also the idea that race exists may be valid, what doesn't exist are the stereotypes affiliated with race, so for example black people don't love rap music, sports and other shit when they are born, Asians don't love math when they're born, society gradually forces it onto them. Saying race exists isn't that crazy though just the way people see the races isn't based in reality.

If what I was saying wasn't true there would be no black physicists, mathematicians, etc on the planet. Look up Jim Gates, etc.

are reductionists autistic?

>Asians are as athletic as blacks, no genetic difference, it's just society that makes stereotypes seem true, man
>if what I'm saying wasn't true then there would be no Asian baseball, basketball, players,etc.

There are asian athletes though, just not good ones.
Just like black physicists and mathematicians, they are not very skilled and get jobs through affirmative action.

even if race doesn't exist, it de facto does, concerning crime statistics, IQ, wealth, culture, political beliefs, etc. A perfect example is the libertarian movement. Libertarianism is de facto white identity group considering its 98%+ white. Probably more than that to be honest. Socialism is also de facto a shitskin group. On a average basis, the only form that matters in politics, only whites are against hate speech laws, big government, higher taxes, and revoking gun rights.

I've literally never witnessed a Jew refute the open borders for Israel argument.

This is just nature vs. nurture

Men and women look different.
But we are also different on the inside.
The feeling of being male or female, is programed into our genetic code.
That nurture plays its small part, but nurture is limited by nature.

Then you look at race. Asians, Europeans, Africans. People from these three continents all look different,
just like males and females. Is it then, really that crazy to think that there might be genotypic differences?
(We have clear phenotypic differences, so we can really just put humans in different races based on that. But, to be the most accurate we should analyse and compare DNA)

Race exists because here in America when you see a black they are statistically more likely to behave like retards because of their culture. That's about how real and useful something needs to be for me to qualify it as existing. And they behave like that BECAUSE they are black, their race.

>are you saying the environment in which these dogs were put into had an effect on the arrangement of genes and characteristics of these dogs?
No..? The opposite, actually. Environment had nothing to do with it. Humans selectively bred dogs that fit the phenotypes of interest.

I can tell you the reason OP.

They were taught from an early age the lie of evolution.
People told them that under different circumstances living beings develop differently.
For example they were told that, """""""""""""black people"""""""""""""""" have darker skin because they live in an area with more sun.
This lie leads them to falsely assume that there are genetic differences between humans, that is obviously false there is only one race, them human race.

You need to start with these people by explaining that evolution does not exist and all humans are EXACTLY EQUAL, except for their immediate environment.
One they have accepted that if you bring a """"""""""""""""""""""""""black person""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" to Europe he will immediately become identical to Europeans, except for their skin color.

I hop this helps you destroy these, anti-science, pro evolution retards.
There is only one race, the human race.

>Is it then, really that crazy to think that there might be genotypic differences?
Yes. Evolution does not exist.

>If what I was saying wasn't true there would be no black physicists, mathematicians, etc on the planet.
Or you could open a text book about statistics and realize that, "on average black people have a lower IQ then whites then asian" does NOT mean "all blacks are dumber then all whites and asians".

You haven't even heard the argument of the other side.
SPOILER: "All black are dumb and there can never be a black person with a high IQ who becomes a scientist" is NOT something a "race realist" has ever said.

what is your definition of race btw?
Afaik what you described is the current definition of race by biologic standards

The existence of race comes down to definitions: what is race? If races are nothing more than human populations that are distinguishable from each other (by outward characteristics or by genetic clusters) , then obviously race exists, even if the boundaries of those races are subject to debate. If "race" refers to some biological category with a solid and universally accepted definition, then it doesn't exist. In any case, what does it matter? The word "race" is toxic, and one can always refer to different groups as populations or something

Dog breeds are literally the best comparison to race, because just like human races they show the same tendency. Less genetic diversity but extremely high phenotypical and behavioral differences. Also, like dogs, humans were selectively bred, something idiots keep forgetting. Its like they forgot how human constructs like wealth, class, language, religion, civilization, and sexual selection could have had an impact on human genetics.

In fact, in spanish, they're called dog races.

Explain why you feel that way about race but not every single human-constructed category ever made.

Spoiler, its because your a race denying gene denying leftist jackass who says race isn't real, then uses race to attack whites. Race has every right to exist, because as a category, its informative.

>it would be retarded to group them all based on 18th century notion of 'races' where they didnt even know about genetics.

So we use a 21st century definition of race based on genetic clusters you race denying fucktard. Thats what we did with evolution and taxonomy, both are concept created before people knew about genetics, guess what, all we did was adapt them to genetics. Same can be done with race.

>the current definition of race by biologic standards
pseudoscientific nonsense?

Let's see:

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematopoietic_stem_cell_transplantation
>Race and ethnicity are known to play a major role in donor recruitment drives, as members of the same ethnic group are more likely to have matching genes, including the genes for HLA.

Also :
>23andme.com/
>Ancestry Composition
>See how your DNA breaks out across our 31 populations worldwide.

Also sickle-cell disease, wich is a genetic disease.
>nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/sca/atrisk
Who Is at Risk for Sickle Cell Disease?

>In the United States, most people with sickle cell disease (SCD) are of African ancestry or identify themselves as black.

Please procide explanation for those 3 things if race doesn't exist.

> Also :
>23andme.com/
>Ancestry Composition
>See how your DNA breaks out across our 31 populations worldwide.

Still the same race.

> Also sickle-cell disease, wich is a genetic disease.
>nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/sca/atrisk
Who Is at Risk for Sickle Cell Disease?

Nothing to do with race. That has all to do with different genetics within the same species (homo sapiens).

None of this stuff is proof for race.

The truth is that it was only very very recently in the lifespan of homosapiens that different genetic features developed, as homosapiens spread out from Africa and moves to Europe, Americas etc... Those genetic features include skin colour, nose shapes etc....

All of us are homo sapiens and homo sapiens came from homo erectus (top kek at the name). All homo sapiens were dark skinned. It was not that long ago that the human race was entirely black. Black people need melanin for protection against UV light whilst the homo sapiens who went to Northern Europe (and then subsequently colonized the world) didn't need so much melanin, so developed fairer skin. That's why Italians are brown, almost arab looking and why Swedish women are stereotypically blonde with blue eyes. Italy gets a ton of sunlight whilst Sweden doesn't.

I'm not saying that you can't argue for races, just that these aren't arguments for them.

How would you define race then? What are races if not human populations that are distinguishable from each other, whether that be by outward characteristics or by genetic clusters?

t. brainlet

you have to go back

His argument is that it's useful categorization.
Functionally speaking, organism families, kingdoms, etc etc don't ----exist----, but they're useful categorizations. They're not perfect categories, but they're functional and useful.

Race is just a shitty categorization method just like taxonomy and species. What really needs to happen is to categorize people on invidual level and trace every change in genes through family tree to get the accurate sense of evolution of humans.

This thread is the reason I don't try to reach race "Realists". They cannot be reasoned with. They don't go for the most likely explanation with the most reasonable evidence, they go for the one which makes them feel superior/the one they like the most.

>i-if i say they're wrong it m-makes it so!

Goodbye, I cannot dedicate my life to you retards.

You won't be missed in the slightest.

>Same can be done with race.

Are you fucking retarded? I said to give me a genetic definition and I would believe in the concept. Learn to read all the replies you cherry picking /pol/ asswipe. Things won't be handed to you in a shit tier one sided infographic here

Here's my 2 cents.

In one way yeah races don't exist, we all just have genetics playing out through sexual reproduction and growth. That we can all reproduce together means that we're all one.

In another way that doesn't mean that we are all one because race does not revolve around the ability to reproduce. That would be species. Race is grouping of characteristics, obvious things like chemical composition and visual traits.
A black person and a white person can mate yes, and so they are the same SPECIES but that does not mean that they are the same RACE.

All races are one, but all races are not.
it's kinda zen yeah?

Except because you're a hack that will believe whatever's convenient to you, you will always use your own damn definiton. Or otherwise play a semantics game with us just to deny the fact that what we call races are real biological clusters within humanity.

Are you retarded? I have literally, not once, denied that there are real biological clusters in humanity. I actually affirmed that human populations are in fact different.

The fact of the matter is, race is a bad categorization of genes. I asked you to give me a good definition. It's obvious you can't, so you're just gunna call me a hack instead of doing the simple thing that I asked for in the beginning. Read the god damn thread before you run your stupid mouth

Can someone define what race actually is and how it fits into Linnaean Taxonomy?

>what doesn't exist are the stereotypes affiliated with race, so for example black people don't love rap music, sports and other shit when they are born, Asians don't love math when they're born, society gradually forces it onto them. Saying race exists isn't that crazy though just the way people see the races isn't based in reality.
well duh do people actually argue this or am I falling for bait?

>How do you reach these people?
Let's try reaching you and see your own denial in action, since race is quite objectively real and we can measure it with near perfect reliability. First, explain to us how you explain away PCA racial groupings SORTED SOLELY BY COMPUTERS USING STATISTICS.
Which approach do you take?
1. "I refuse to admit that picture exists."
2. "I refuse to admit math works."
3. "I refuse to admit clusters of data have any significant meaning even though they correlate perfectly with evolutionary processes of geographically separated populations."
or
4. "You're racist for confronting me with data that I don't want to accept."

Humans selectively bred humans too you know.

...

Have a link to the article this refers to ?

Great answer, are you going to give us the definition and appraise it or just assume that it is bullshit without even knowing what it is?

>thinks that genetic variation of different populations means that niggers are inferior

the type of people on the internet

>extrapolates wildly from what is written and avoids answering in any way

As soon as you people admit scientific facts and stop trying to pretend that different populations of humans aren't measurably , significantly different on average in a variety of physical and mental aspects, we won't need to point it out to you.

just stop being so unscientific.

No, he provided evidence and reasoning for this statement
>genetic variation of different populations
he made no mention of this statement
>niggers are inferior
however if he wanted to provide evidence for this statement he could do so with this.
pic related and source.
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a2d7/85edd7aa61b7ba51355053cc61d8b924fe35.pdf

#3 and #4

When will race denialists realize that they're the unscientific ones?

liberals:
>my god how is that climate change denying retard denying science?
also liberals:
>there is an infinite number of genders and race doesn't exist

>the entire world is red team vs blue team

What's the point of making this political? Make a thread on climate change if you want to discuss about science of climate change.

>point out the faults of a particular group

>YOU PLAY ON THE OTHER TEAM!
>b-b-but l-let's not get pol-political when it obviou-sly already is

Somehow this thread is still up.

[math] \huge{(You)}[/math]

>generalizations are forbidden
I'm simply pointing out the fact that somehow it's really progressive and generally accepted to ignore the science behind gender and race. but ignoring the science of climate change makes you worse than hitler

I'm from Veeky Forums and just stumbled on here since I was searching for things related about EE. Race isn't real? I pretty much thought that body and skull shape, other features and IQ showed that?

2 western excavators swap semen and spit

Your graph doesn't account for multiple ethnic groups within a culture, nor the transitional areas between data points.

Races are more like subspecies imho

You're worse than a religious person.

>Ice scat

And you think that taxonomy does? ROFL.

Reminder that his is a bait thread. Please remember to sage.

I do not. Taxonomy doesn't even try to classify things seriously below the species level.

I would say that the majority of "race realists" are white, but still acknowledge "asians" as having the highest average IQ.

>genetic clusters are real
>race isnt a good measure

So you just think we should replace the idea of 'race' with more legitimate notation of what cluster/s you come from?

I think that makes sense.

I think the best definition of race would probably be something like that.

Race: The identifyable traits resulting from speciation before universal reproduction is lost.

Not a great answer but just because something is hard to explain doesn't mean it has no value as a concept.

Categorization has a lot of value as a concept, see medicine when it comes to treating patients.

However, the fact we categorize african americans (people with 20% european genes) and sub-suharan africans (people with purely african genes) both as "Black" is pants on head retarded. It is obvious these populations have significant genetic differences, so why do we refer to them as the same category?

Basically, I'm not against categorization on principle. Just the shitty version we have now.