Does race exist as a biological concept? We have to do a assignment in Physical Anthropology explaining why race doesn't exist biologically but it seems pretty debatable to me and based on what I've read.
Also keep this thread /pol/ free, the image was the only picture I had related to race.
>Does race exist as a biological concept? It does but you're gonna fail your class and be ostracized if you say so.
Connor Kelly
Race does exist but not in the broad sense of "white", "black", "asian", etc. Different types of humans are as specific as different types of other animals. Just as there are dozens to hundreds of specific dog subspecies, there are also dozens to hundreds of specific human subspecies. Like for example, not all black people are highly susceptible to sickle cell, the susceptibility varies widely depending on whether the black person's ancestry is mainly from North Africa, Central Africa, the Caribbean, etc.
I think it's undeniable that humans have their own subsets of race, breeds, species, whatever. All other animal species have it, and we aren't special or above other animals. The real question should be whether or not it actually matters, since unlike dogs, humans are self conscious advanced creatures that are capable of being more than their instincts and genetics. But that would be getting into /pol/ discussion.
Lucas Evans
Lots of different sub-species who all evolved to suit their environment. None is superior to the other as the only pressure is survival, which all existing ones have succeeded in. They do have different traits though and you could argue that combining them or placing different groups in the other's environment is deleterious.
Nathaniel Lee
Sickle-cell anemia exists and it disproportionately affects the "brown people".
I think that "brown people" also experience higher rates of vitamin D deficiency when living far from the equator.
White people get sunburn.
If you just look at the medical literature, I think you will find that certain races are disproportionately predisposed to certain afflictions.
In the medical field, race certainly does exist if you want to call it race.
Lucas Miller
Hispanics are caucasoid! Anyway it exists biologically and other posts have said this, but honestly just do the prompt and tell them what they want to hear
Charles Stewart
>We have to do a assignment in Physical Anthropology explaining why race doesn't exist biologically
No, you don't.
Kevin James
He specifically said he didn't want to go into Paul territory
Camden Bell
>We have to do a assignment in Physical Anthropology explaining why race doesn't exist biologically That is weird.
In science you set out to explore a topic and then draw a conclusion as far as you can do that which never is given. You do not go in to a field to prove something. You can however falsify a theory or hypothesis but that is, strictly speaking, not quite the same thing. It might sound like splitting hairs but if you want to follow the scientific method you have to frame the question very carefully.
>It does but you're gonna fail your class and be ostracized if you say so. True.
You can get around that by saying you instead have ethnicities which somehow is accepted.
>evolved to suit their environment One example is the shape of the nose: long in dry climates (like Scandinavia) and short in humid climates (like Japan).
Ability to metabolise milk proteins differs greatly between ethnic groups, same with alcohol. Forensic science has a lot of means to determine ethnicity. Look up ear wax colour as one example.
Kayden Collins
>Physical Anthropology
>Learning a meme (humanities) science
Kek, I believe that it is unanimously accepted as a concept in medicine (if it wasn't such would result in the illness or death of the patient).
I suppose you could try cherrypicking data and use strict definitions of subspecies and so on to make the case against 'races'.
This would allow you to both present the case that significant and meaningful genetic variance exists, while also not appearing like a '/pol/tard' or Nazi, etc.
Luis Davis
No, they don't.
>Genetic differences between humans do exist. >There are many different techniques for attempting to measure "genetic distance" between humans. >Given different groups of humans there are techniques for measuring genetic distance both within the groups and between the groups. This all falls under the theory of population genetics.
Unfortunately: >There is no one-to-one mapping between a gene/mutation and a physical characteristic. >Genes produce proteins, so mutations in genes can lead to widespread effects throughout the body, though most are usually imperceptible (eg. mutation in gene that produces cell walls can lead to deafness and other shit). >Given a physical characteristic there are tons of ways to achieve it via genetics and due to convergent evolution it isn't uncommon for this to happen. See pic, left/right groups are genetically similar but physically similar fish are genetically distant.
Moreover: >Epigenetic data and environment both control when/if genes activate. So, physical characteristics are dependent on environment. >Differences themselves may be geared toward certain environments. Corn that does well in sunny dry regions vs corn that does well in cloudy rainy regions. Put them both in a sunny environment and one will seem "better" than the other, but really it's just the environment. >Deriving social characteristics from genetics is incredibly hard. The best modern techniques attempt to use genome wide polygenic scores to guess stuff like edu-years but even then they're still in infancy.
Race is a pre-genetics approach to biology. They basically would take physical, cultural, linguistic, etc.. characteristics and try to create broad classifications to capture them (primarily physical). Unfortunately it's a shit tier classification and the approach has been entirely rendered obsolete through population genetics.
(cont.)
Andrew Ross
(cont.)
All of that said, race is so ingrained in society that the social sciences REFUSE to let it go claiming it's useful to their research. As such race has been abandoned by the hard sciences but the social sciences have salvaged it as a "social construct". In that context race is typically studied by giving people a questionnaire that asks them "what race they wish to identify as" (they do not ask them about ancestry or perform any sort of biological test because such approaches have been proven garbage by the hard sciences). If you read a news article about race then you should check the paper's it cites because more than likely it's either a paper on population genetics that the journalist added a bunch of their own assertions to or a social science paper (or just some oldschool pre-genetics paper based on assertions that are now known to be wrong).
If you want to make robust assertions on a personal level then you should focus on the individual. >Is this person prone to violence >Does this person carry the gene in question >etc...
Regarding genetic testing: Privacy laws in most countries aren't caught up to this. It could be possible for an employer/landlord/government/etc.. to ask you to provide such records if they exist (and if one does then you should immediately contact your country's privacy commissioner if you have one or something like the EFF or ACLU). For now it's maybe best to avoid such tests until appropriate privacy laws are established.
Jose Gray
But these afflictions are genetically mediated... far more complex than the racial labels used. Thats the point race labels we use are unscientific evenhough genetics obviously varies continuosly across the world in a sense that reflects ancestry. Examples of this complexity are how for instance certain european populations have higher instances of sickle cell anemia than certain african ones. Theres always exceptions and its mottled.
Liam Fisher
Race is one of the most garbage, pseudoscientific concepts I have ever seen. The US keeps pushing it for some reason, and it's really pissing me off at this point. I live in a country were most black people are at least 20% genetically white, yet they are put in the same classification as any African that doesn't have a single drop of European blood. If we're going to vainly classify human beings by their ancestry, let us at least use a more accurate and complex system that is actually worthy to be used in science.
Luke Ward
Race doesn't exist.
Julian Thomas
Race doesn't exist unless its white male privilege, which exists objectively.
Leo Adams
>The US keeps pushing it for some reason As race theories go the US one is really weird.
Hispanic: different from Caucasian? How? Last I heard they came from Europe.
Jews: apparently Caucasian. Yet Arabs are Asian. While both belong to the Semitic group of peoples and both consider Abraham as their common patriarch.
What is the thinking behind this mess?
Lincoln Murphy
>All other animal species have it but they don't all
Lucas Miller
>long in dry climates (like Scandinavia) and short in humid climates (like Japan).
Are you retarded? Scandinavia is far from dry
Easton Ross
>Scandinavia is far from dry West coast with cities like Bergen basically lives in rain. Other than that it is pretty dry. Winters with -30 C also tend to be pretty dry. Sure, we are not talking Sahara here but it is still dry.
Gabriel Moore
>disproportionately predisposed to certain afflictions Could that not just as well be because of general lifestyle differences?
Isaac Lopez
Some yes, but some are genetic diseases. To have a disease be more prevalent in one race than another is meaningless though. All sorts of subpopulations are plagued by various genetic diseases.
Joseph Martinez
The unique fact about race is that Amerindians are superior to europeans. Their development rate is superior to europeans'.
Daniel Torres
Brown is an extremely wide category and sickle cell anemia is largely absent from everyone outside of Africa
Jace Kelly
Read OP dumbass.
Bentley Ward
Define 'race' Do you consider someone with a 7 inch dick a different race?
Sebastian Young
IQ is also an invalid measure of intelligence and all human groups would have the same IQ with the same opportunities, but Ashekanzi Jews also have the highest IQs and it explains their success.
Michael Smith
Define "exists" It exists as a pattern in genetic distributions in the population, and as the physical traits derived from those genetics
It does not "exist" in the sense that it's a hard-coded, inherent part of humanity. Humanity could easily exist without any clear racial distinction, but evolutionary mechanisms have created some.
Cameron Lopez
It doesnt matter.
The humans from Africa with the simian features seem to be prone to criminality.
Blake Garcia
Caucasoid not Caucasian retard.
Caucasoids are the West Eurasian human or the whitey looking face group. All humans who have faces close to whites are Caucasoids originating from a common ancestor.
Samuel Kelly
wouldn't be the correct term be ethnicity?
Jason Thomas
It depends on what level of detail you're looking at and what you mean by race. It's a useful classification in medicine because a Swedish dude probably doesn't have sickle cell anemia, but it's artificial in the same way species is, it's a dumb assignment because you can't argue if a definition is real or not, as they're always somewhat abstract
Gavin White
>Caucasoid not Caucasian Do you know what the -oid suffix means?
And how does this even remotely explain the Semitic part?
Kevin Howard
>is race real >pls be /pol/ free
Every fucking time lol, inb4 300 replies.
Carter Hall
>Implying the motivation and focus don´t change
Logan Wood
Yes it does, bones structures are different between European and African, some studies say that some teeth diseases happens exactly because of that, two different bones structure joining in.
sub-Saharan blacks are exclusively affected by falciforme anemia(don´t know and do not want to search the name in english).
It is like comparing two dogs, one is a German Sheppard the other is a pitbul, of course a pitbul could protect your child if trained properly, but you will be better with a German Sheppard as they will be less likely to be violent for no fucking reason
Hudson Young
>Also keep this thread /pol/ free, the image was the only picture I had related to race.
Jose Campbell
>you will be better with a German Sheppard as they will be less likely to be violent for no fucking reason That's complete bs
Hunter White
>Hispanic: different from Caucasian? How? Last I heard they came from Europe.
You obviously know nothing of the history of the Hispanic people.
Luke Kelly
Neither of them are violent "for no fucking reason" you retard
It's a bit different than the other braindead articles. Just give it a chance and read it.
Carter Ortiz
They are experts in cherrypicking the tiny out-of-context bits from all these different (often outdated) studies, to form their own narrative. It should be obvious to anyone that can analyze information.
Oliver Thomas
I know but this time they are willing to show exceptions and counter arguements
Evan Sanchez
They always do that. All part of the narrative.
Isaiah Kelly
sub-saharan africans have zero neanderthal DNA unlike the rest of the world. is this not clear evidence that there are significant differences among human populations?
Oliver Lewis
Cite your sources. Also varg is not a source.
Thomas Walker
Who made this fucking picture? Jews are caucasians, also Indo-Aryans (Indians, pakis, Iranians...)
Anthony Clark
/pol/
Hunter Hughes
>non-whites are white >>>/bol/
Caleb Roberts
it isn't you moron
Ryder Brooks
read the news, semen slurping sperg
Parker Ross
there were no neanderthals in africa you dumbfuckingass
Hunter Russell
race does exist as a biological concept or maybe not a biological concept maybe one step lower on the "career distribution" chain. Like the only people that are interested in concept of "Race" and "sub species" or whatever, would be people that are invovled in animal husbandry.
My conjecture is that race does exist as a biological concept, or maybe as a physical concept. Its just that humans have used technology to gain evolutionary advantage to where race isn't really a trait selected for adaptability. We don't need darker melanin receptors in our skin cells becuase we have been using sun block for the past 100 years. We don't need white skin and straight hair because we have warm clothing and hair straighteners.
Jonathan Bell
so maybe not as a biolgical concept, or a genetic one, but an evolutionary concept, which is what most of biology actually deals with when doing it's job.
I mean the traits that people group together to signify race, is often selected for when it comes to inheretence.so it does play an significant role in mate selection, and "genetic drift".
Elijah Bailey
I just made an observation how Amerindians are superior to europeans, how is this hard to get?
Nicholas Hall
>amerindians are superior to europeans but who conquered who?
Christian Nelson
>tfw too superior to fend off enemies
Hunter Reyes
if that is your definition of superior, then all of africa is superior
Asher Gray
Natives beat the Incas. eurangutans just kept backstabbing everyone even their own kind.
Inca superiority is demonstrated by their higher development rate. It's pretty simple. Who is superior? A genius or a monkey with a gun? The answer resembles the same comparison I made about Amerindians. They developed faster. How is this hard to get?
Zachary Evans
yes its a true inca very good very stronk
Dominic Hughes
Race is a cultural construct. Ethnicity is a biological concept. It's like gender and sex.
Sebastian Reyes
So you agree with Amerindian superiority? Great for you.
Cameron Martinez
> We have to do a assignment in Physical Anthropology explaining why race doesn't exist
I didn't know you went to Good Goy State, user.
Lucas Harris
>Also keep this thread /pol/ free Bad Goy
Alexander Green
Of course it does. You can send a dna sample and they will tell you what races there are in you. Unlike lets say the faggotry, which is a choice and a social construct, or other made up genders besides male, female and anomaly. What you can find out with a dna test is definitely biological.
Justin Ross
Someone brought this up from a genetic point of view in an archived thread.
"I think the AMOVA used in this study is incorrect. Everyone here knows there are only 3 races aka subspecies (Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid). I have underlined where they input 5. The effect of this is that races (subspecies) in humans do not exist bc the fst % according to their calculation does not surpass the 25% threshold hold applied to chimpanzees to prove subspecies exist in them. In addition im not sure how they got 52 for population. It would be great if someone could answer that. My question is can weaponized autism answer that races in humans do exist according to their standard if we change that number to 3 and possibly a more appropriate “number of populations” # in order to reach the magic 25% fst Threshold? Link provided below to study ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/ "
Wyatt Jackson
...
Evan Stewart
Yes, medics have to take it into account when administrating some medicines. There is also the morphology of different people's. Manny times race can act more like a trend than a Law, but it is not to be ignored
I know that a pink world where everyone is the same is a pretty idea, but groups of people who developed in different environments and different neighbours will be different
>t. Medfag
Joseph Brooks
Y'all some racist mother fuckers. Pay up whitie
Leo Jenkins
>Two holes above and to the side of the nose of Wast Asian Mongoloid male. What are those? Typical features or just a random deviation?
Jace Murphy
they all have them, the 2 hole just above the eyes however only appear in caucasians and east asians, incidentally the races with the highest IQs
coincidence?
Dominic Clark
>they all have them, the 2 hole just above the eyes however only appear in caucasians and east asians Do these have a name and a function? >coincidence? You tell me.
Oliver Cooper
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supraorbital_foramen The other ones probably have it as a notch instead where the nerve passes. Might have something to do with skull shape, definitely.
The article was a bit confused and mixes foramen with notch without making things clear. The Talk page is also confusing. Variations are mentioned but they sure skirted that issue.
Any skull samples from our Semitic friends for comparison?
Zachary Rivera
New user here, but it depends on the frame of reference for deciding what you might call genetic differentiation. In the case most commonly looked at, it's the ratio of the genetic variation within a population to the genetic variation between populations that determines subspecies. The reason this is the most common measure is because it's the only measure that accurately controls for the specific breeding patterns/generation time of a species, and merely looks at how deviated a population may have become holistically via selection.
Think of it like this. You have a species with an incredibly long generation time, like elephants, and you try to compare that with, say, ants. Among the ants, due to the fact that there are many generations, and large numbers within populations, there is going to be an incredible diversity of genes, as there's a possibility for any one of the offspring (with many offspring occurring in a short period of time) to be born with a mutation. Thus, there's a greater genetic diversity within the population, compared to elephants which will be relatively homogeneous, with a lot more evolutionary dependence on physical events that split populations, bring them together, and the sort for there to be any kind of genetic diversity/new alleles in the gene pool.
It'd be pretty retarded to then say that because ant #132529 and ant #134000, which have a greater total # of genetic differences from each other, yet live in the same anthill as a part of the same population are separate subspecies, on the basis that Asian and African elephants are considered separate subspecies though they have less total variation.
Science is so beautiful, yet so tricky at the same time. On one hand, it is a truly amazing tool for analysis of the world. On the other, if you look at it on a surface level, without understanding, you can misinterpret so much, and come out of it more retarded than if you'd never encountered. Poor thing.
/pol/tards and non-sciencefags might not get this, but there's no quantifiable genetic way that isn't arbitrary as fuck to split humans into racial groupings. The genetic variation between populations of humans is LESS than within, meaning that two European white people on average would be more genetically dissimilar than a white person and an African.
And if the argument becomes "b-but we can have a counsel cherrypick phenotypes and assign weights to them based on some arbitrary perception of societal benefit", fuck outta here bud, you're becoming the pseudoscientific sjw that believes in more than 2 genders based purely on perception of the world and one's own desires clouding their judgment.
Jacob Perez
Ask them how 23andme.com/ can know everything about your ancestry from your spit if race isn't a biological concept.
Joshua Rogers
>just throw in some pictures of skulls >And faces whoops, how did we miss that?
Lincoln Jackson
>he genetic variation between populations of humans is LESS than within Interesting. And how is this possible?
Alexander Garcia
Is population genetics a fun thing to study?
Jack Rodriguez
Not by a long shot. I literally only went into it to prove /pol/ wrong.
Nolan Gutierrez
>I went into a field of study because idiots on the internet are wrong
Andrew Watson
I think the word you are looking for is ECOTYPE. Shorthand for strain. There are different strains of human races since race as a subspecies is proven wrong by AMOVA See link below.
PS I'd really like to know what you get on this paper and what path u decide to go down lol
Parker Brown
Short bus tier.
Owen Morales
You mean, superior beings tier.
Justin Johnson
Whitey pls.
Colton Gray
>.gif
Xavier Martin
Why did you migrate to Veeky Forums? Are you banned from Veeky Forums
Luis Price
I just made an observation about Inca superiority. How is this hard to get?
Michael Wright
no one takes him seriously enough there.
Jacob Rivera
just because stormucks insult him with buzzwords it doesn't make it invalid what he says
Matthew Turner
>thoughtful, well formulated, evidence-backed scientific discourse
Leo Barnes
>sub-Saharan blacks are exclusively affected by falciforme anemia That isn't true.
Adam Baker
How would they ban him though? He just speaks the truth.
Logan Howard
lel he practically is a buzzword.
James Adams
>The genetic variation between populations of humans is LESS than within, meaning that two European white people on average would be more genetically dissimilar than a white person and an African.
This legitimately smells of pure bullshit. Im not a geneticist nor do I have a bio background but how can this be? They must be excluding parts of the chromosome that arent compatible or performing the study in such a way as to further their agenda.
Juan Cox
Is it even mathematically possible for two sets to have more pairwise variance within them than between?
Abstract: >The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations. Both findings can be obtained from the same data set, using the same number of polymorphic loci. This article explains why. Our analysis focuses on the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population. We compare ω to the error rates of several classification methods, using data sets that vary in number of loci, average allele frequency, populations sampled, and polymorphism ascertainment strategy. We demonstrate that classification methods achieve higher discriminatory power than ω because of their use of aggregate properties of populations. The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with 100 polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but ω remains sizable, even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race.