Is there really no such thing as race?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

No, there are no races. Human beings are not animals.

Race is literally a relative term.

Race is like astronomy: it's clearly real, but it's not science. It's arbitrary.

Tell me about the turks(and arabs, indians, iraq, paks, mudslimes)

What kind of unholy mix breed are they? They seem like some sort of weird shit between african and asian.

Or are they a unique primitive race by themselves like the other 2?

Pajeets on Veeky Forums? Might be more real than you think.

We are animals.

This is about race, not hotness.
You're not wrong, however.

We're just animals with self-awareness.

NOBODY that has a background in science and is not politically motivated dismisses the idea of race.

There is more genetic distance between a European person and an African person than between an Asiatic Lion and an African Lion, which are considered not only different breeds but different SPECIES altogether.

Nobody can deny Human genetic diversity in terms of looks, height, strenght, endurance, speed, and even intelligence. Skull shapes are different. Cranial capacity is different. Even differences in cortical neuron counts are statistically significant.

We live in a very politically correct world that does not want to hear these facts of life. But shutting your eyes will never make them go away.

>Genetic Differentation Among African and Asiatic Lions Is Less Than Found Among Different Human Groups:

>The mtDNA distance between Sub-Saharan Africans and White Europeans is around 2.0

>The mtDNA distance between African and Asiatic Lions is around 0.92:

>In spite of the ability of lions to disperse long distances, patterns of lion genetic diversity suggest substantial population subdivision (mtDNA ΦST = 0.92; nDNA FST = 0.18), and reduced gene flow, which, along with large differences in sero-prevalence of six distinct FIVPle subtypes among lion populations, refute the hypothesis that African lions consist of a single panmictic population.

>plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000251

>“There is only one spcies of lion: Panthera leo. The Asiatic lion is just one of many subspecies, all of which have been geographically isolated from one another for thousands of years. Though they all possess slightly different physical and behavioral traits, they are still capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring.”

>animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/wild-kingdom/about-animals/asiatic-vs-african.htm

...

jenjdanna.com/blog/2012/7/10/forensics-101-race-determination-based-on-the-skull.html

Forensics 101: Race Determination Based on the Skull

>>In spite of the ability of lions to disperse long distances, patterns of lion genetic diversity suggest substantial population subdivision (mtDNA ΦST = 0.92; nDNA FST = 0.18), and reduced gene flow, which, along with large differences in sero-prevalence of six distinct FIVPle subtypes among lion populations, refute the hypothesis that African lions consist of a single panmictic population.

Let me translate this for you, because it seems you think it supports subspecies of humans.

AFRICAN LIONS have more genetic diversity(FST of about 0.18) than humans living on different continents.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084288

Lions all living in Nigeria have more genetic diversity than humans on different continents
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index
See, Fst between sub saharan africans and europeans is 0.15
(btw this has been established in chimps as well, chimps in africa are more diverse than humans separated by continents
io9.gizmodo.com/5890349/genetic-diversity-in-chimpanzees-reveal-just-how-closely-related-humans-really-are
)

AT LEAST read your own sources AND think about them, jesus

Also mtDNA is about 0.2% of your DNA and it really doesn't matter, in terms of numbers or otherwise - it's mostly used as a marker to trace human migrations

>As long as you can breed them
Neanderthal are not the same species as us.

I'm looking forward to a world where everyone is mixed so we can get over this fucking race bullshit

Yeah because mixed-race people in Latin America totally get along and don't obsess over who is more "pure."

Face it. Race is here to stay.

Once again, that is not what species is.

What species is - if two things cannot produce fertile offspring, those two things are not the same species. That does not mean if two things can produce fertile offspring, those two things are the same species. There is nothing to determine whether or not two things are the same species other than arbitrarily saying they are.

There's more variation within groups than between them, exception maybe being certain isolated tribes.

Fact is, there aren't human races (as in biological race). Makes more sense to speak of different human strains.

Americans are the only people obsessed with race actually.

Europeans and Latin Americans usually care more about nationality than race. And Asians have this weird 19th century style ultra-nationalism.

You have never left America.

>what is the 100 metre dash

>implying I'm American
Try again

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

first post best post

>where everyone is mixed
1.7 billion chinks
1.3 billion indians
1.1 billion niggers
760 million middle easterners
540 million non chink asians
510 million whites
= the entire world gets racemixed?

Are you fucking stupid? Race will never go away because new races will always develop as long as you have DNA that mutates dumbass.

>Americans are the only people obsessed with race actually.
COUGH ISRAEL COUGH

>There is more genetic distance between a European person and an African person than between an Asiatic Lion and an African Lion, which are considered not only different breeds but different SPECIES altogether.

>>“There is only one spcies of lion: Panthera leo. The Asiatic lion is just one of many subspecies, all of which have been geographically isolated from one another for thousands of years. Though they all possess slightly different physical and behavioral traits, they are still capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring.”
Your reading comprehension is really bad, /pol/

well with environmental pressures removed through technology and most anyone being able to reproduce, evolution probably isn't moving in any particular direction

grils only shag Chads so we're getting taller

races developed because of our physical separation in different environments but nowadays we can travel the world in hours so it's not unreasonable to think we'll all look more similar eventually

I don't know of its fair to claim genetic distanced between different groups of animals and then use that to claim a greater genetic distance between humans implies that they must be different species. Given our mobility as a species, and the amount of bunk in our DNA that doesn't even get coded into anything useful, it's highly likely that most of our differences are the result of things like different viral DNA insertions and other genetic diseases that have persisted in our genome over time as both humans and any precursor species to our being humans. Such markers don't encode for structures in or bodies which make us actually differ from one another to the extent of branding different individuals as a seperate species.

In all, it's misleading to use clustering and dendrograms in this fashion unless we only consider the junk in our DNA that actually makes us human. Including the DNA from 70 different new viruses a lineagr got inserted into their genome from traveling the world does not make a new species until it's actually being encoded into physical differences.

It's also misleading to compare fixation indeces across species since the indeces actually take into account the amount of diversity WITHIN each group.
The same number for 2 different species can mean 2 different things.

>Wright's definition illustrates that FST measures the amount of genetic variance that can be explained by population structure. This can also be thought of as the fraction of total diversity that is not a consequence of the average diversity within subpopulations, where diversity is measured by the probability that two randomly selected alleles are different

basically if diversity WITHIN two different groups is low and you compare them their Fst will likely be higher than if diversity within the two groups was lower

>if diversity within the two groups was lower
higher i mean

last word in my post should be higher

i don't know, experts should be looking at this

Yes user an Australian is exactly the same as a Modern British man OH WAIT THEY ARENT BECAUSE THEY ARE EVOLVING INTO A NEW ETHNIC GROUP DUMBASS.

We will never look similar at all.

>We will never look similar at all.
>at all
false

But you are also partly correct, for the wrong reasons.

If all the races magically mixed, people will still be born very different, different from anything we see today too.
A lot of people like to imagine everybody will be brown or something.

Why should races mix to begin with? The unique characteristics of each race is due to millenia of mutations from isolation. Racemixing destroys genetic diversity not increase it.

ah but you seem to have overlooked one key word in my post good sir/madam:
>eventually

consider the following:
>British man gets tired of drinking tea and eating crumpets
>wants to "colonize" some abbo vagoo
>instead of attempting the perilous journey on foot he buys a plane ticket
>jacks off in the airplane bathroom at the thought of his future australoid gf (>tfw when no)
>lands then integrates and impregnates
such scenario used to be but a fanciful daydream

>Why should races mix to begin with?
They shouldn't.
Just because there's nothing wrong with racemixing doesn't mean it shoud happen. I was just talking in theory. I even said "magically".
>The unique characteristics of each race is due to millenia of mutations from isolation. Racemixing destroys genetic diversity not increase it.
mostly false
Different races don't actually have different genes with very few exceptions.
Even if they did that diversity would not be "destroyed" by racemixing.

You are such an obvious /pol/fag reciting what you've been taught there.

Race exists, but when most people talk about race they're talking about phenotypes that really don't matter.

It's a lot more complicated than just your shade of skin and skull shape, but that's the only thing people wanna talk about

>says race exists
>doesn't define how many there are who is what race
(You) and every other race poster

you dont seem to belong to one of /them/, what's your races

>They shouldn't.
>Just because there's nothing wrong with racemixing doesn't mean it shoud happen. I was just talking in theory. I even said "magically".
Geneticist disagree. The more variance in the genes, the better. Less genetic disorders, more resistances to different factors.

About 7.5 Billion [math]:^)[/math]

>Geneticist disagree. The more variance in the genes, the better. Less genetic disorders, more resistances to different factors.
That's a stretch.

There's no such thing as mutt vigor in humans, like there's no such thing as outbreeding depression in humans. Which makes sense since we are different, but not that different.

But yes, if you have a racemixed population of whites and blacks both cystic fibrosis (more common in whites) and sickle cell (more common in afircans) will be less common - which can be seen as a positive, but it really isn't that big of a deal and I wouldn't say it's mutt vigor.

just like autism,really makes you think

I cringed

I'm really curious as to what study shows that cortical neuron counts are different? Never heard about it before... (source pls)

P.S. I cannot think of any way that you could get an accurate neuron count other than comparing brain size, which would likely be misleading.
>>neuroscientist

"The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability" -- A. Jensen (1998)

"Race, Evolution, and Behavior - Third Edition" -- J.P. Rushton (2000)

> cultural acheivements
lol how'd they measure that you soft-headed soft science major?

I don't know that's not what we were arguing about and besides the point. Nice try though.

Evolutionary biology is not a soft science btw

>Race exists, there's not much debate about that.
r u srs

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism

>I WANT TO BELIEVE that race doesn't really exist.

We can easily observe that most people use "skin color" as one of the determining factors of what constitutes "race". They might be correct, or they might be incorrect, but that doesn't affect the observation. So if you are looking for a good working definition of "race", you needn't look further than what most people actually consider "race" to be.

If you assume this definition of "race", and you want to show that "race" doesn't really exist, then you'll be forced to argue that variations in skin color don't exist. Scientifically, that's a very tough position to maintain.

In short, you can try to deny the existence of "race", but that will tend to put you into a position that's tough to defend: You'll either be denying what most people consider "race" to be, or you'll be denying that variations in skin color exist.

I think that's a lot of work and a lot of denial to go through to deny the existence of "race" -- and I'm not really sure what the goal is of all that work and all that denial.

I suggest becoming comfortable with the idea that people have many different, and sometimes conflicting, definitions about what "race" is -- and that a failure to agree on basic definitions of "race" is causing a certain amount of confusion and inefficiency in the public discussion of race.

> I see conflicting posts about it all the time on Veeky Forums.

What you're seeing on Veeky Forums is not necessarily the result of informed scientific analysis. The general public's failure to reach a consensus on what "race" is has spilled onto Veeky Forums, and is the source of the conflict you see.

LMAO RACIST thinks the opposite of what's actually written HAHAHAH

so race is a social construct?

If race doesn't exist, why are blacks so good at aeronautics?

Who gives a shit? It probably does exist but who cares at the end of the day?
Humans unlike animals have a larger set of variables that determine race anyway (because we span the globe and fuck like rabbits) and it effects humans way less than animals.

>all these useless posters saying race exists but not even attempting to name the races
there are 5 continental races.
caucasian
african
east asian
american indian
australian

either that or there are 50 + races (which is the same as there are no races)

To me it is fairly obvious that humans were developing in four different areas and hence came to have quite distinctive features from each other. This should be enough to qualify as race desu

Reminder: racial differences don't imply that Nazism is morally good.

Humans are degenerate though and fuck around across those areas.

But it means liberal ideas like affirmative action are morally evil.