Are races biologically different?

>We are all equaly intelligent
Thats a load of nonsense and you know that user.

Races are defined as minor differences within one species. So... Yes, of course there are races in the human race.

Dinka is a type of black person, while Bushmen are another race entirely.

Generally speaking we are all more intelligent then a worm.

>Races are defined as minor differences within one species
o rly

[math]\color{red} {\textbf{PLEASE REPORT AND HIDE INSTEAD OF ENGAGING THE POLTARDS}}[/math]

This is biology. This applys here

In no way did I imply what you are arguing against.

Yes but all human races dont have the same average level of intelligence. If you spent time in Africa you would notice how unbelievably stupid most of them are.

o rly?

Here are the racial classifications that were given in the 2010 US Census:
>White
>Black, African Am., or Negro
>American Indian or Alaska Native
>Asian Indian
>Chinese
>Filipino
>Japanese
>Korean
>Vietnamese
>Native Hawaiian
>Guamanian or Chamorro
>Samoan
>Other Asian
>Other Pacific Islander
>Some other race
census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf - page 140

In any case you know what I mean by race don't you? You could divide them whatever way you want. Race obviously still exists. Otherwise it would be completely meaningless when we refer to each other as "black" and "white". What would we be referring to? They are obviously not cultural identifiers - if they were, then somebody of pale white skin, and fully European ancestry, who dressed like a stereotypical black American, would be called black.

>We are all equaly intelligent, athletic and robust.
Do you have evidence of this?

Almost all the top 100m sprinters are black. The NFL has more black players than white players. The NBA is of course dominated by blacks.

Sure you can say this evidence is anecdotal, but it is evidence (while not conclusive evidence) nonetheless. Where is the evidence to suggest that we are all equally "intelligent", and equally "athletic"?

In any way.

This is false. Because if somebody with white skin and purely European ancestry adopted "black" culture, we wouldn't call them black, would we?

That's why it is false to say that race is cultural - it does not cohere with the way that we use the word "race" in real life.

Race is clearly a biological concept. You might say the racial sets are fuzzy sets - yes they are. Should North Africans be included in the "black" group? This question does not mean race is not biological though.

Non white are more ugly even to non whites themselves

you didn't understand what I posted.
bushmen are africans with a couple of genes having to do with height knocked out

there are actually 2 types of bushmen with 2 different mechanisms for achieving short height - which strongly suggests it's a minimal change

if bushmen are another race, then there's far too many races, and that's just false

OP here, which rule am I breaking?

I am guessing you would argue global rule 3 which says "no racism outside of /b/" but I am not engaging in racism.

I am posing a scientific question. This is a question about human biology. I am not making racist prejudices about the different races. I want only a scientifically rigorous examination of the evidence in regards to this question.

>you didn't understand what I posted.
possible.

>This is false.
Except it isn't. Ask any geneticist. You haven't actually countered the argument that I made, you've simply stated in a manner of factual way that I am wrong, and then proceded with giving anecdotal 'evidence'.

Anyway, I'm not interested in this discussion anymore. Hidden and reported. Enjoy the 404.

>Here are the racial classifications that were given in the 2010 US Census:
yes, korean and japanese are different racial classifications

Obviously the US census isn't authority here

that's due to their culture that doesn't promote education, what's the difference between a dumb fat uneducated yank than an uneducated black person in Africa?

You haven't provided any argument whatsoever to say that what I have asserted is wrong.

If race is purely a social construct as you claim, then a person with white skin, of purely European ancestry, who adopts the signifiers of "black culture", would be called black, wouldn't they?

This is your understanding of race, if you claim that race is purely a "social construct".

But it is clearly false. Such a person would not be called black. When we call somebody white or black, we do so on the basis of their phenotypical features. Their skin colour, their facial structure - their biological features.

Do you disagree with this? On what scientific basis do you do so?

how many races are there

>that's due to their culture that doesn't promote education
I don't believe you have the evidence to back up your confidence in that statement. I know you want to reject racism, but let's not treat truth so lightly.

Bushmen genes are much older than black genes making them more ancient than blacks thus another race.

It doesn't matter how many racial groups you create. The question of whether these racial groups are biologically different still remains, doesn't it?

>When we call somebody white or black, we do so on the basis of their phenotypical features. Their skin colour, their facial structure - their biological features.

that doesn't mean there is a biological basis
this is how the social construct works

>that's due to their culture
African cultures are primitive jungle stuff how does that promote stupidity?
>that doesn't promote education
No Africans do go to school its just they are well stupid and thus cant do well in their own schools.
>what's the difference between a dumb fat uneducated yank than an uneducated black person in Africa?
The yank is still smarter than the african.

>It doesn't matter how many racial groups you create.
but it does

this isn't a trick question even, i don't see why you don't want to answer
>words mean whatever i like them to mean

Its explicitly obvious there are differences. If you say otherwise you are just bluepilled

Jesus you're dense.

I claimed it is a social construct. That implies it is social in origin (note, not cultural, but social).

Importantly, I also explicitly stated that there are genetic correlates of putative 'races'. No go back and rethink your argument, because you are attacking a position that I never adopted.

That's what I hate about talking with you /pol/tards, you cannot understand even the simplest of things and then completely lose your shit over your own misunderstanding.

>The yank is still smarter than the african.

not when it comes to making fire with their bare hands

>that doesn't mean there is a biological basis
Yes it does. If there was no biological basis, then we would not racially categorise people based on observable features.

If race was purely a social construct, then people would be racially categorised based on non-biological features: e.g., hair style, clothing, presence of tattoos, presence of jewellery, etc.

But this isn't the case. We call somebody "black" or "white" on the basis of their biological features don't we? Their genetics, which they have inherited from their parents, which cause them to have a particular skin colour, and particular facial features.

independent.co.uk/news/science/worlds-most-ancient-race-traced-in-dna-study-1677113.html
If race is not real explain why europeans have a specific kind of facial structure not seen in Middle Easterners, Indians or other Caucasoids? You can also tell if a human is mixed with blacks by looking at their facial structure as well.
Thats knowledge not raw intelligence.

>race is a social construct
>"i'm not interested in this lowly discussion lmao"
>keeps responding

fuck off back to tumblr and then kill yourself morbid SJW whale

>If race is not real explain why europeans have a specific kind of facial structure not seen in Middle Easterners, Indians or other Caucasoids?

>Yes it does. If there was no biological basis, then we would not racially categorise people based on observable features.

again, yes we would, and (some of us still) do

unfortunately as we have since discovered, observable features don't tell you a great deal

>If race is not real
I never said that it isn't real. I said it is a social construct.

0/10

>Thats knowledge not raw intelligence.
please define 'raw intelligence'

>If race is not real explain why europeans have a specific kind of facial structure not seen in Middle Easterners, Indians or other Caucasoids?
russians and poles often look different on average than germans, doesn't mean they aren't the same race

or?

But social constructs are abstract terms thus not real.
Nice find but the average indian's face can easily be distinguished from a white person.
How fast their brain processes and uses new information.

>African man spend whole life make fire, get very good
>Burger man spend whole life everything done for him, no know make fire good

>If race is not real explain why europeans have a specific kind of facial structure not seen in Middle Easterners, Indians or other Caucasoids?
i'm sorry to tell you, but white is a social construct
as i said, the average russian face can too, the average southern euro face etc.

that doesn't mean they aren't the same race my friend

They still have the same basic facial structure user.

>But social constructs are abstract terms thus not real.
Non sequitur.

>but it does
No it doesn't. The question of whether racial groups have biological differences still remains. In my opinion, they must do, because people are identified as belonging to a race based on presence of biologically-rooted features like skin colour and facial features.

>i don't see why you don't want to answer
People disagree over how finely they divide the races. But the most generally accepted racial categories in the United States would probably be "white", "black", "asian", "native american".

Of course you can divide "asian" into many different sub-groups. But that is an entirely separate question from whether different races are biologically different. The question of whether an Asian person is biologically different from a white person would still remain, whether you refer to the Asian person by the name of their specific ancestral location (e.g. Chinese, Japanese) or not.

White is just another word for European human breed.
Russians are white though.

>How fast their brain processes and uses new information.

one of the great features of the brain is neuroplasticity

so, if you grow up in an environment where you need to identify predators, your brain will adapt

some brains are more adaptable than others of course

yours for example appears to not be so adaptable

everything is a social construct you imbecile

So what? Has nothing to do with intelligence.

>But the most generally accepted racial categories in the United States would probably be "white", "black", "asian", "native american".
that's basically true globally as well

Height is a social construct, and there is no absolute genetic border between 'short' and 'tall.' There are certain genetic correlates of what we putative consider to be height, however.

>I claimed it is a social construct. That implies it is social in origin (note, not cultural, but social).
What do you even mean by this? It is a concept created by society? Like every concept that has ever been created? So what distinction are you claiming in this case? Since all concepts have been created by society?

Please don't attack your interlocutor with ad hominem remarks, because such a thing is not scientifically rigorous. I expect people of intelligence to be able to approach this topic in a non-emotional, non-prejudiced, non-biased, scientifically rigorous manner.

Do you not agree with me that the concept of "race" is tracking biological differences? If it is not tracking biological differences, then what is it tracking?

Incorrect.

>neuroplasticity has nothing to do with intelligence.

AHAHAHAHA wrong

There is a biological difference between races, but this difference isn't as severe as even the genetic difference between two related breeds of dogs. What do you do with this conclusion?

That's fully correct.

Native Americans and Asians are the same race.
I dont see neuroplasticity helping american blacks become more adept at not getting arrested.

Color is a social construct, and there is no absolute genetic border between 'red' and 'blue'. There are certain genetic correlates of what we putative consider to be color, however.

>I dont see neuroplasticity helping american blacks become more adept at not getting arrested.

really? have you seen stats for unsolved gang-related incidents?

>Native Americans and Asians are the same race.
No they are not. Native Americans evolved from asians

American police are not allowed to take black criminals seriously because its racist.
No they are asians you fucking retard, their closest relatives are the Yakutst of Siberia. Native Americans are also the most recent kind of human in history so they cannot be a new race.

>American police are not allowed to take black criminals seriously because its racist.

it's almost like black people have used the system you created against you

that must sting a bit

>yes we would
How? What would we use to determine whether somebody belonged to a particular race?

Let me quote to you what Wikipedia says about race:
>Race is the classification of humans into groups based on physical traits, ancestry, genetics, or social relations, or the relations between them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

"Physical traits, ancestry, genetics" - would you agree with me that this is what race refers to?

>observable features don't tell you a great deal
They tell you quite a lot. Every single day people make judgements about race based on appearance; indeed it is the primary method of determining whether somebody belongs to a particular race or not.

People of ALL races engage in this identification based on appearance - for better or for worse.

Yes they are. They usually have bigger eyes and higher cheeks

he's right

native americans have their own cluster
they are closer to japanese than to africans, but still

>How? What would we use to determine whether somebody belonged to a particular race?

what do you actually mean by race?

break it down in scientific terms

>What do you even mean by this?
It is a concept that are based on the sociodynamics of groups and the phenotypical features that go with it. This is distinct from a construct based on genotypical features, such as 'MET homozygous' individuals, etc.
>Please don't attack your interlocutor with ad hominem remarks, because such a thing is not scientifically rigorous. I expect people of intelligence to be able to approach this topic in a non-emotional, non-prejudiced, non-biased, scientifically rigorous manner.
Get your head out of your ass you pompous faggot. Note: this is an insult, not an ad hominem.

>Do you not agree with me that the concept of "race" is tracking biological differences?
Like I already said, there are genetic correlates of putative races. But race tracks phylogenetic and geographical ancestry, which is subtly but importantly distinct from pure genetics. Morover, it imperfectly tracks these features, because it's rooted in phenotype rather than genotype.

Slavs are, arguably, a different racial group.

Blacks dont have even the intelligence to figure out they are the real reason their communities are shit.
They are a different type of mongoloid indeed but they are not a new race.

From Wikipedia:

>Race is the classification of humans into groups based on physical traits, ancestry, genetics, or social relations, or the relations between them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Would you agree with this definition?

not really

>Blacks dont have even the intelligence to figure out they are the real reason their communities are shit.

only some of them, and almost all of them are in one country

does that not tell you something?

(even if you are unaware of their uniquely recent history of slavery)

no, i agree with this though

>Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[16] While some researchers use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[11] or simplistic way,[17] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[18][19]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

>Are races biologically different?
whats the limit on being different? everyone (but meme twins) has identiacal dna

>recent
you mean CURRENT history of slavery you dumbfuck
africa is a shithole full of slavery

>It is a concept that are based on the sociodynamics of groups and the phenotypical features that go with it. This is distinct from a construct based on genotypical features, such as 'MET homozygous' individuals, etc.
I agree - but phenotypical features are rooted in genetics aren't they? They are passed down through ancestry. Which is why I say that race is still biological. Would you not agree?

>this is an insult, not an ad hominem
It's an ad hominem attack, it just isn't an ad hominem fallacy - although arguably you are poisoning the well (a form of ad hominem fallacy), trying to cast my character into doubt in an attempt to make my arguments appear wrong or implausible.

Could you please refrain from such ad hominem attacks, since I don't think it is necessary for examining the question rigorously and unemotionally.

>Like I already said, there are genetic correlates of putative races. But race tracks phylogenetic and geographical ancestry, which is subtly but importantly distinct from pure genetics. Morover, it imperfectly tracks these features, because it's rooted in phenotype rather than genotype.
Would those "genetic correlates" be ethnic groups? Since I have seen geneticists talk about ethnic groups, because they do not like to use the word "race", which is considered to be emotionally charged.

yeah it's almost like slavery fucks people up

who knew

>only some of them
>some
>some
>some
Wrong you clearly have never once lived in a black american community, you would notice the majority of blacks are violent lazy maniacs who commit rampant violent crime for little rational reason even if they are given welfare. Blacks cause so much crime that just putting in 100 in even a small town skyrockets the crime rate. Here is the weird thing, hispanics are the second highest in America yet blacks commit 50% of the violent crime in America despite only being 13% of the population. This violent crime plague has also been a feature of blacks since presegregation times where they would attack and terrorize humans for no reason and whites had to lynch them constantly to make them stop.

>Wrong you clearly have never once lived in a black american community

>anecdotal evidence used to defend a general statement

carry on you dumb cunt

They are genetically different. They are just less genetically different from Western Europeans than, say, Africans are.

>Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.
Surely that is a contradiction. If there are some scientists whose conceptualisations of race have essentialist implications, then clearly it isn't the case that there is a "broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualisations of race are untenable", is there?

At least, it can't be that broad.

newspaperarchive.com/tags/?pep=negro-attacks/

>phenotypical features are rooted in genetics aren't they?
Not purely. That's the whole point.
>Would you not agree?
No, I would not, as I've already explained.

>Could you please refrain from such ad hominem attacks
No, go fuck yourself. I'm saying you're wrong, and you're a faggot. I'm not saying you're wrong because you are a faggot.

>Would those "genetic correlates" be ethnic groups?
No, those would be clusters of genes that are *on average* more prevalent among putative races.

You have to google words you don't understand. I'm not going to keep chewing everything out for you.

a scandinavian can look like an alpine and still be completely scandinavian if you sequenced his genome - looks(muh phenotype lul big word xddd) is a very small part of the genome
not to mention blond greeks etc. - same logic

go back to /pol/ k
before you start talking about race and genetics you need to actually know what's what

Do different racial groups have biological differences from each other? That's the question I'm posing here.

Race in the terms that we define it is not real. The traits we use to classify people are arbitrary for the most part (typically phenotypic traits). We could also use non phenotypic traits but even then there's an incredible amount of overlap between 'races'.

Most genetic variation is not separated by races.

Here is evidence of black on white rape before segregation

newspaperarchive.com/tags/?pep=negro-rapes/

>They are genetically different. They are just less genetically different from Western Europeans than, say, Africans are.
that doesn't mean russians and french are a different race - which is kind of the point

there are enough vested interests promoting certain worldviews and systems of opinion that it would appear to a casual observer that evidence is well-distributed

(Black person here)

Have you ever lived in a black American community?

While crime rates certainly are higher, my father (ironically) is literally the only criminal in my family. The rest of my family (all from the same area) is composed of (a) people who work with their hands, (b) active professional athletes, (d) retired professional athletes who are now university sports coaches, (e) a few "starving artist" types, and (f) old ladies who sing and like to go to church. Aside from my father, none of the above describe "maniacs who commit violent crime for no reason," and, even in his case, his crime was mostly related to his drug addiction (and it ceased once he was able to get through it).

More old black on white murder

newspaperarchive.com/tags/?pep=negro-kills/

Why are you ignoring proof of black on white crimes in the past?

Anyway I have made my point the blacks have always been a criminal race in America only rising due to jews forcing them into music, and sports. Even when they are placed in sports or music the blacks cannot put a stop to their natural behavior.

nbacrimelibrary.com/

yes. the most obvious is the melanin distribution and facial features

you were talking about communities, try to stay on topic