Do human races exist ?

>t. 1930s science

Pretty much. Race just isn't a very discrete way to define people. When you say someone is part of the "black" race, they can be anyone from Igbo Nigerian to Ethiopian. Of course they'll have similar complexion adaptations but there will be major differences within that "racial group". "Asian" can mean anything from ching chong chinese to Turko-mongolic to jungle gook.

Race is very hard to quantify and is getting less useful for Biology now that genome sequencing is becoming so much cheaper and faster. It was perhaps valid in the early 20th century, but with modern tools it is just too clumsy to be scientific.

Proof ?

He doesn't have any. Any studies he can find past 1950 will (in his mind) be a symptom of marxism in our universities.

>modern biology
>current research
>cites paper from 2004, when animal genome sequencing was in its infancy and human population genetics essentially was only g

Top kek.

I mostly work with plant genomes so I couldn't make an expert comment, but it seems to me like the word "race" is mostly avoided for political rather than scientific reasons, though even with just the latter it would likely still be avoided due to the definition not being rigorous enough. The anthrophology/human genomics panelists at PAG this year certainly talked about very distinct and well-defined ethnic groups as if they were a real thing.

In fact I remember one panelist rather triumphantly mocking the concept of prehistoric population mixing pushed by "the wishful thinking of social scientists and historians" (his words) to the general cheer of the audience as he talked about his group's research revealing how populations were quite happy to entirely displace or wipe each other out with no detectable mixing.

in IIRC prehistoric migrations

t. bioinformatician working in genomics

You didn't actually contradict his post.

>Do human races exist ?
Yes
>Is there any scientific basis to it or not ?
Yes but the scientific community is well, a community. They have internal politics which can slience different point of views, the scientific community is full of those obnoxious self-described "skeptic" SJW's that write articles on rationalwiki.
I took a DNA test two times and it accurately guessed my racial admixture, DNA test are not "genetic lottery" tests that they like to say they are.

I have a question. I have noticed in America, they usually divide people into the races: Hispanic, Black, White, Asian.

What's the definition of these divisions? How do you americans determine if someone is "White"? I understand that "Black" means African, and Asian is quite clear as well, what about a person from Afghanistan though, is he asian or white? And also let's say there is a child from a marriage between a mexican man and a european woman, is that child "White" or "Hispanic"?

>I took a DNA test two times and it accurately guessed my racial admixture, DNA test are not "genetic lottery" tests that they like to say they are.

You're an idiot for ever expecting a different result.

Wow rude
I forgot to clarify that they were two different companies

I love how /pol/-tards always attempt to discredit any objections by saying "Anyone who doesn't follow my opinion is an idiot'. Textbook black-white thinking stupidity.

Hispanics are a mix between spanish and indians. Whites are Europeans and Blacks are slaves from Africa. But there's so many nuances between those definitions you may as well throw the whole idea out the window.

I didn't. Mocking him for citing a 2004 publication as a review of current research was concluded by the "Top kek"

The rest of my post addressed the thread subject in general.

>Hispanics are a mix between spanish and indians.
Wrong, that's a Mestizo. Spanish and Amerindian isn't synonymous with Hispanic.

Whats PAG in this context?

Ironic.
Marxists are the ones that want us all to be at the same level.

>Hispanic
Hispanic is language category, not a racial one.

Mestizo just generally means mixed race in Spanish from what I understand. Mixed people in the Philippines whether it be Spanish or Chinese were referred to as Mestizo de Espanol or Mestizo de Sanglay accordingly.

Race generally refers to distinctions among human phenotype. The fact we can easily tell where a persons ancestors originate by their appearance alone is proof enough that the concept of race exist. Now whether race factors in athletics, IQ, and stuff like that is another argument entirely.

Being able to tell someone's origines only goes as far as Northern/southern European, African, Asian or middle eastern though. Not very useful.

Technically no, but there are differences between us.

Is there such thing as a sub-subspecies?

>So what he basically says is that isolated géographic and genetic pools do exist but are in fact too merged through population overlapping for a real race to appear ?
>Pretty much.
That's absolutely not what he says, learn some basic reading comprehension.

He says populations or races are not discrete, i.e. they exist but their exact boundaries are not clear.

The very same article (though like I said, its data and methods are ancient) shows that cluster analysis of genetic polymorphisms correctly clusters Europeans, East Asians and Africans into said three groups.

How useful the classification is another matter entirely, but the alternative is more sophisticated and granular grouping system rather than concluding we are all the same and race is a social construct.

It's a big Plant & Animal Genome conference.

>Now whether race factors in athletics, IQ, and stuff like that is another argument entirely.

And it's quite an interesting argument because social science insists the IQ differences don't exist while biological sciences are clearly demonstrating that they do.

The tension is palpable.

Differences in IQ exist but not because of inherent qualities of races but socioeconomic issues. Of course a black guy in Africa with no income and no education is going to score poorly on an IQ test (which was invented in the western world and adapted to western people). Very hyperbolic example but you get the gist.

But studies controlling for income and see continue to demonstrate a gap in scores. Furthermore if there is a white bias to iq tests why do asians continue to outperform whites

>Being able to tell someone's origines only goes as far as Northern/southern European, African, Asian or middle eastern though. Not very useful.
There are more regions than that, that most people can identify easily. Like East, West, North, and South Africans (refering to khosians for south). Siberians, South Asians, South East Asians, East Asians, and Central Asians. Plus people can generally tell ethnicities apart when they are exposed to them long enough. Such as a Chinese person generally being able to tell a Japanese, from Chinese, from Korean, and so on.

I think the argument more lies in whether being a certain race innately dooms you to mediocrity or if it's common socio-economic factors that put them in that place.

Also think about it, what if all blacks with above 100 iq were isolated in one region? Would they start to trend down to the general mass black average due to race or would they effectively be the black version of Ashkenazi Jews.

Income isn't the only factor. I'm not an expert but it seems to me education is probably the most important one.

Watch this excellent talk which explains why are you wrong, highly related:

youtube.com/watch?v=nTdMY9RI-7E

You do the classic mistake of assuming that IQ is a byproduct of the social environment. But you disregard that it could be the other way around, that the social environment might be a byproduct of the IQ.

No, that is just anti-scientific dogma you have been taught.

Here's just one a recent publication:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691630174X

And here is an overview of the opinions of experts in the field:
journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399/full

>Seventy-one experts rated possible causes of cross-national differences in cognitive ability based on psychometric IQs and student assessment studies (e.g., PISA, PIRLS, TIMSS). Genes were rated as the most important cause

This. People like to make pretend that culture forms in a vacuum. It's not surprise that a culture hostile to intellectual pursuits will form from a group of people inherently incapable of intellectual pursuits.

>people inherently incapable of intellectual pursuits.

These responses always annoy me. Calling somebody out on ethics for seeking information is anti-intellectual rubbish of the same type that people call out Christianity for.

Some people are interested in the world around them okay? It doesn't matter if the information can be applied to anything, for either practical or ethical reasons, it's still interesting to learn things.