Debunk this?

Debunk this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Y1lEPQYQk8s?t=54m4s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics
biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14414/do-humans-have-enough-biological-differences-to-be-grouped-into-races-or-subspec
youtube.com/watch?v=b_-Zss2dYuM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Better word to use would be breed desu

Debunk what?

Well, the ones on the left are all black while the ones on the right are different colors.

pwned, n00b

DON'T FEED THE TROLL

you're the troll

The Criteria for race in humans are often arbitrary and based on looks, making it more a social-political term than a biological one.


If you wanna talk biology talk about genetic populations.

>genetic populations
aka race

Not really. Race is arbitrary, genetic populations is based on genes.

>drumpfy fascists can't into biology
ugh! try again hunny

Oh, silly me. I thought race had something to do with genetics. So when your wife gives birth to a black child even though you're both white, then that... that's just normal. Yeah.

ok what genetically makes a black person black? did a half black person impregnate your wife? if so is that person black?

When I go out and get a tan did I change my race?

Confusing race with culture there. People from different cultures can be of the same race. Still haven't seen an alt-right explanation for that. It seems important, since the whole basis for keeping races separate is the belief that the culture is tied to the race.

Yeah sure, race has its roots in genetics but they are so not well defined it's laughable.

You gonna start measuring someones "jewness" with a pair of calipers on people's noses?

This, and it also works in reverse. Multiple genetic populations within a culture.

you're wrong and ignorant
youtu.be/Y1lEPQYQk8s?t=54m4s

Are whites with a below the average IQ non-whites?

I'm not sure how the bell curve discredits anything I said.

are you retarded?
watch the video

watch that part of the video before replying

he LITERALLY says it's a blurry one.

I never said it had absolutely no basis in biology, looks are based on biology. Just that it's on arbitrary expressions of genes rather than the genes themselves.
Also, "Race" has a cultural/national component to it.

Race is a pretty worthless overly politicized term.

Come back to us when you've categorized which genes you must have to be white (or must not) and which to be black, asian, ect...

keep watching moron

So there's 4 races?

this guy is right
Veeky Forums is retarded morons

I listened to this before and been listening for 10 minutes now. Not sure what you want me to hear.
Caus I'm not hearing anything that disproves me, just a difference of opinions on the value of the term "race".
Even when doing demographic studies (so when you want broad generalizations) you probably want to define your groups a little better than just "Caucasian", "black", "Asian" because a lot of people are gonna have a different idea of who is in those groups.
It might not even be clear for researchers themselves.

>I thought race had something to do with genetics.
Well you thought wrong.

He says in that very podcast that race isn't a good word because it's so ill defined/fuzzy and anthropologists are using the term populations now.

aka race is pleb for genetic populations

They look so different to my eyes!

no en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics

Do you consider eastern Europeans, Northern Europeans and Mediterranean Europeans to be different races? After all, they have different genetics and they look different. Are they different races to you?

>People from different cultures can be of the same race. Still haven't seen an alt-right explanation for that.

Brainlet detected.

Explanation is simple, it is supposed to hold only statistically, on average.

Race being real does not mean every black person has to act like a nigger.

yes
find one pleb or brainlet who uses the word genetic population

I'm pretty sure that what the Layman defines as different races is completely different to what anthropologists would consider distinct population groups.

i'm pretty sure no anthropologist considers europeans, africans and asians the same population group

i have no idea which subreddit is raiding Veeky Forums but nobody was this retarded two years ago

to be clear races are real, this thread is unneeded and the replies are autism

You'd be wrong.

An anthropologist probably wouldn't consider Nigerians, Ethiopians and Congolese to be in the same population group. Same with Scandinavians, Mediterraneans and slavs for that matter. Why aren't they considered different races? The Romans thought they were.

>to be clear races are real
Of course they do. They have no biological meaning or scientific use, but no one disputes that they exist as a concept.

Can you not be a tripfag
Its just easier being anonymous y'know

Define "race" within human population.

prove it redditor
and? they certainly wouldn't lump together ethiopians and scandinavians.

Christ you're obtuse. My point is that your classification of race is way to broad. You lump all Africans together on the "Black" label, yet there's a massive difference between west Africans and East Africans and even within those sub groups there are massive different population.

Your classification is arbitrary and, much more importantly, useless to biologists and anthropologists.

You're missing what I said.

>People from different cultures can be of the same race
Rednecks from the American south are very different from Scotsmen over in the UK. The communism in Venezuela is very different from the liberal democracy of Puerto Rico. If the culture is intrinsically tied to the race, how can different cultures be of predominantly the same race?

:^)

Why do you fags bring your interracial cuckold fantasy into everything?

i'm afraid you are retarded son. how does that prove there's only one race the human race? if anything it shows there are even more subgroups than non-qualified people usually think? how would that invalidate the findings regarding iq differences between races, considering these broader groups don't overlap and are only further broken down into smaller subgroups?
i strongly urge you to consider kys before replying again retard

Read this before posting:
biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14414/do-humans-have-enough-biological-differences-to-be-grouped-into-races-or-subspec

?

There's no point in discussing race because it turns into a flame war, but let's just say all us rational humans know there are distinct divisions

>race has nothing to do with genetics
how do people who unironically hold this position defend it?
denying the existence of race is one thing, but how do you say both that race exists and that it has nothing to do with genetics?

If you'd moved to Africa at a young age you'd be black now.
FACT!

You (a non-scientist) would obviously classify everyone in this picture as being in the 'black' race.

But to an actual geneticist each ethnicity has distinct differences.

I mean, you would actually be quite tanned so that's something

>They have no biological meaning
Thats why the shape of your skull varies by race right?

Race is based primarily on superficial features. If you actually want to classify people based on genetics, race would be a poor way to do so.

Black is a collective grouping not an ethnicity retard.

Black means Sub Saharan African human descent

White means European human descent.

>You lump all Africans together on the "Black" label, yet there's a massive difference between west Africans and East Africans and even within those sub groups there are massive different population.
this argument always baffles me, how is it not obviously fallacious?
all those groups, however different, can still all have something in common that another group does not have

imagine you have a set of things, some of which have property F and some of which do not, so there are subsets {F} and {~F}
then imagine those that have property F are otherwise different, so {F} subdivides into {Fa}, {Fb}, {Fc}, {Fd}, etc.
the argument says that because {F} has many different subdivisions there is no such thing as {F} and no distinction between {F} and {~F}

So you admit that race is a social construct with no scientific grounding

Glad we agree

>"Race" has a cultural/national component to it.
how so?

So thats why the race of a human has to be known before a blood transplant right?

what? that comment bears no relation to what i said here

I think we need more attention brought to this.

The man who discovered the double strand helix of DNA has to sell his Nobel Prize because he was called a racist for agreeing that different sub-species of human have different IQ levels.

You can't even acknowledge race anymore without being called a racist.

Yet you can be racist if you're not white.
You can be sexist if you're not a man.

I couldn't even hold a conversation with a 10 year experienced archaeologist/paleontologist. Over the differences in the shape of the Human skull between sub-species of Human.

I'm getting sick of this world.

that doesn't defend the position that it has nothing to do with genetics
it seems pretty clear that the whole idea of race is about something heritable

why can't they all be black even though they are otherwise different?

It's 2017 and we still think those black low IQ subhumans are our equals

Because it wouldn't be a useful classification.

It does have something to do with genetics, but the genetic variations are so insignificant that they only lead to superficial differences, and it's pointless to get so worked up about them.

> whole idea of race is about something heritable

Not really. If race was about something heritable then brunettes and blondes would be different races.

>the genetic variations are so insignificant that they only lead to superficial differences
>brunettes and blondes would be different races.
completely incoherent rambling you should have kys when i told you to

Why is Veeky Forums scared to talk racial differences and racial IQ?

>how does that prove there's only one race the human race?
I literally never said this. I'm not arguing that different population groups aren't different, I'm arguing your classification system is wrong.

> how would that invalidate the findings regarding iq differences between races¨
This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and is a completely different brand of pseudoscience. Let's stay on topic shall we?Unless of course this whole thing is a ploy to confirm your beliefs, but that's not relevant here either.

how does that imply it isn't real?

If race is not heritable do explain why

Black + Black= Black

>then brunettes and blondes would be different races.
Oh its an idiot that thinks skin color is the only anatomical difference between us and niggers..

Not that guy but if race is based solely on genetics and heritability, why shouldn't I be able to classify people based on hair colour?

God this board is board is full of degenerate libcucks.

>your classification system is wrong.
you've failed to show how it's wrong
>pseudoscience.
wrong. read up on it

>Not really. If race was about something heritable then brunettes and blondes would be different races.
that's so fallacious i think reading it made me dumber
"if race was something heritable then everything heritable would be race"
jesus christ wtf

Its based on like traits seen on a very large level.

>Jew is caucasian
Fuck that list

Caucasoid not Caucasian.

So is it based on skull shapes?
Are Indians/Arabs White?
All I'm asking for is the genetic criteria that defines a "race"

Whether or not it's "real" is completely irrelevant. Money isn't "real" but I can still by a bag of apples on the market. Human tail bones are "real" but they probably wont have a massive effect on my life.

Matter of fact is, "race" isn't a useful classification system for biologists and anthropologists. 'Ethnicity' maybe is better but that's based more on culture.

White is a type of Caucasoid so no Indians are not white.

Strictly, the original and actual meaning of 'racist' (often in the original usage 'racialist') is someone that believes in the existence of race. Ergo, acknowledging race is the literal definition of 'being a racist'.

However, due to racial theory hypothesising that different races, as defined by skin colour or geographic origin (racial theories originating at a time when genetics was unknown, let alone the human genome sequenced), have different inherent behavioural or personality traits and that these traits may be negative, it's easy to see how the usage as 'someone who believes in race' quickly turns into 'someone who believes his race is superior'. I suppose the more precise term for the latter would be 'racial chauvinist', but the nuance has long been lost to time and common usage.

Furthermore, it is fallacious to assume that the person who first discovered a given thing or founded a field is necessarily the foremost expert on that field or in any way infallible. Sigmund Freud founded the concept of psychotherapy, but most of his actual theories have long since been debunked. Christopher Colombus was the first European to discover America, yet he was not the definitive source of knowledge of its geography. Crick and Watson determined that the structure of DNA is a double helix, but that doesn't mean they know all there is to know about genetics, especially with the incredibly rapid rate of discovery in the last few decades.

Explain how whites got white in the first place and when did they start being white.

And what genetic, anatomical, etc. traits makes white people different from other caucasoids?

'Red objects' is a class of definition, but doesn't give any information about the objects within that classification beyond the predominant range of the spectrum of light emission from their surfaces. A fire engine is not like a post box is not like a red supergiant. Similarly the term 'black' doesn't carry any actual specific genetic connotations beyond the level of melatonin present in a person's dermis.

Are you retarded?

You cant facially see the difference between a european or an arab?

Black and White are not equal genetic groupings, all Caucasoids and Mongoloids are still not an equal genetic grouping to blacks because of how ancient blacks are, by all means blacks should be called another species not even a subspecies.

How is it trolling?

I'd be willing to bet there's similar genetic variance between corvids as there are among races.

dense as fuck.
now imagine all red objects could be traced back to missouri and all blue objects to california

5 major groups of race as follows:

Caucasoid
Negroid
Mongoloid
Australoid
Capoid
Congoid

These studies were labeled racist by liberal pussies who want to mix all races and fuck the human race.

Yes, in exactly the same way I can 'see the difference' between these dogs and yet not only are they the same species, but the same breed. Without actual genetic definition your categorisation is meaningless.

youtube.com/watch?v=b_-Zss2dYuM

I don't care about what you can see. I want a tangible, robust definition of race. All you've done so far is illustrate that people are different. Give me the definition of what constitutes a race according to you.

Dog breeds dont count as they were selectively designed to look different from eachother.

Once again you display how dumb you are by making this silly comparison. You can easily tell a euro from an arab or an indian showing there is a genetic distance between them but they are in the same main race the Caucasoid race.

There are (or at least were) drugs which work much more effectively in black people (see BiDil) . So there are some physiological therefore genetic differences which make blacks more prone to the drug. We are not the same. We are different. And it is not only blacks. E.g. more than 90% of the Asians do not tolerate lactose. We are all humans but there are different races having different "features". The black subspecies - aka race - is the most primitive one and the whites are the most advanced. Whites are superior.

A cluster of like genes over a vast swath of the earth's landmass.

Caucasoids live in West Eurasia while Mongoloids like in East Eurasia along with the Americas.

>Africans are more genetically diverse than the inhabitants of the rest of the world combined
Are all of them black?

Yes, but WHAT ARE THOSE GENES

So you are arguing that race is indeed real, just more complicated than we thought?

Here is what I don't understand. You people say "It's way more complicated than "black", there's a lot of different groups". But then you say "therefore, race is a social construct and everyone is the same".

It makes no sense.