Does race exist as a biological concept...

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.

Other urls found in this thread:

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/ethnic-diversity-and-social-cohesion/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supraorbital_foramen
science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381
nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095
science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564.full
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032721
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871
nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7561/abs/nature14618.html?foxtrotcallback=true
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514343/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403703/
genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full
23andme.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotype
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Does race exist as a biological concept?
It does but you're gonna fail your class and be ostracized if you say so.

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.

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.

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.

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

>We have to do a assignment in Physical Anthropology explaining why race doesn't exist biologically

No, you don't.

He specifically said he didn't want to go into Paul territory

>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.

>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.

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.)

(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.

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.

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.

Race doesn't exist.

Race doesn't exist unless its white male privilege, which exists objectively.

>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?

>All other animal species have it
but they don't all

>long in dry climates (like Scandinavia) and short in humid climates (like Japan).

Are you retarded? Scandinavia is far from dry

>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.

>disproportionately predisposed to certain afflictions
Could that not just as well be because of general lifestyle differences?

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.

The unique fact about race is that Amerindians are superior to europeans. Their development rate is superior to europeans'.

Brown is an extremely wide category and sickle cell anemia is largely absent from everyone outside of Africa

Read OP dumbass.

Define 'race'
Do you consider someone with a 7 inch dick a different race?

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.

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.

It doesnt matter.

The humans from Africa with the simian features seem to be prone to criminality.

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.

wouldn't be the correct term be ethnicity?

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

>Caucasoid not Caucasian
Do you know what the -oid suffix means?

And how does this even remotely explain the Semitic part?

>is race real
>pls be /pol/ free

Every fucking time lol, inb4 300 replies.

>Implying the motivation and focus don´t change

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

>Also keep this thread /pol/ free, the image was the only picture I had related to race.

>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

>Hispanic: different from Caucasian? How? Last I heard they came from Europe.

You obviously know nothing of the history of the Hispanic people.

Neither of them are violent "for no fucking reason" you retard

I doubt it.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/ethnic-diversity-and-social-cohesion/

>thealternativehypothesis

It's a bit different than the other braindead articles.
Just give it a chance and read it.

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.

I know but this time they are willing to show exceptions and counter arguements

They always do that. All part of the narrative.

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?

Cite your sources.
Also varg is not a source.

Who made this fucking picture? Jews are caucasians, also Indo-Aryans (Indians, pakis, Iranians...)

/pol/

>non-whites are white
>>>/bol/

it isn't you moron

read the news, semen slurping sperg

there were no neanderthals in africa you dumbfuckingass

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.

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".

I just made an observation how Amerindians are superior to europeans, how is this hard to get?

>amerindians are superior to europeans
but who conquered who?

>tfw too superior to fend off enemies

if that is your definition of superior, then all of africa is superior

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?

yes its a true inca very good very stronk

Race is a cultural construct. Ethnicity is a biological concept. It's like gender and sex.

So you agree with Amerindian superiority? Great for you.

> 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.

>Also keep this thread /pol/ free
Bad Goy

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.

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/
"

...

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

Y'all some racist mother fuckers. Pay up whitie

>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?

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?

>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.

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.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supraorbital_foramen
Thanks! Interesting what people here know.

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?

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.

To add on to this post:

For your education, at your leisure;
science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095

science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564.full

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032721

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871

nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7561/abs/nature14618.html?foxtrotcallback=true

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514343/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403703/

genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full

/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.

Ask them how 23andme.com/ can know everything about your ancestry from your spit if race isn't a biological concept.

>just throw in some pictures of skulls
>And faces
whoops, how did we miss that?

>he genetic variation between populations of humans is LESS than within
Interesting. And how is this possible?

Is population genetics a fun thing to study?

Not by a long shot. I literally only went into it to prove /pol/ wrong.

>I went into a field of study because idiots on the internet are wrong

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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotype

PS I'd really like to know what you get on this paper and what path u decide to go down lol

Short bus tier.

You mean, superior beings tier.

Whitey pls.

>.gif

Why did you migrate to Veeky Forums? Are you banned from Veeky Forums

I just made an observation about Inca superiority. How is this hard to get?

no one takes him seriously enough there.

just because stormucks insult him with buzzwords it doesn't make it invalid what he says

>thoughtful, well formulated, evidence-backed scientific discourse

>sub-Saharan blacks are exclusively affected by falciforme anemia
That isn't true.

How would they ban him though? He just speaks the truth.

lel he practically is a buzzword.

>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.

Is it even mathematically possible for two sets to have more pairwise variance within them than between?

Here's the article on the matter:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

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.