Do xenoestrogens affect all races in the same way and to the same extent

>gen of street shitting
Where is the research?

Are you another pseudoscience lover?

>it's a soy thread *combined* with a racebait thread
Always the innovator, /pol/

>I don't like it so it's not science
Humans clearly developed in many distinct populations that share common ancestry and distinct traits. Many of these populations cluster together in larger groups that are broadly similar and overall very distant from other main clusterings. Just because you can't make a mathematically sound definition of "the white race" does not mean you can't analyze racial traits.

You've fallen for a bunch of pilpul. Races are not hard categories the way chemical isotopes are, but they are still useful categories with immense predictive value like religion, nationality or sex.

>religion, nationality or sex
So what you are saying is that race is a social construct.

im from Veeky Forums and am genuinely curious—seems like the cliff jump of american testoisterone has not affected blacks, and i imagine asians are more used to the stuff

If an African man has a child with a European woman, what race is the child? If that child then marries someone who is 50% Asian and 50% middle eastern, what is the race of the second generation child?

Yeah. The same way words, numbers, colors and even macroscopic physical objects themselves are. That immense, ever-shifting collection of fundamental particles serving you at McDonalds is only a distinct "human" because it is a useful way to perceive it and model its behaviour.

if a piece of furniture is half bench, half chair, what is it? see, chairs doesn't real!!!

Mixed. It belongs to none of the broadly categorized races. But you can take its DNA and tell that its ancestors come from the populations that evolved seperately for tens of thousands of years in Africa, Europe, Asia and the middle east.

>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Wrong again. It seems that you haven't got the idea of my last post so I'll have to spoonfeed you.

Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.

Let's be honest with ourselves, you just want to keep forcing your pseudoscience for your political preferences, amirite?

The funny thing is that you have only used strawmen and your brainlet is unable to address the topic in any other way lol

Oops.
It's for you

>i'm from Veeky Forums
>I don't have to produce evidence of a claim I just have to say it.

It seems like you should back up your wild assertions with facts before you ask us to explain a mechanism. Classic Veeky Forums the most interesting stories are fiction pretending to be fact.

Troll harder.

tha absolute state of your brain

>Race is not scientifically based.
Race, ethnicity affect likelihood of finding a suitable unrelated stem cell donor for cancer patients
sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120911091515.htm

Bone Marrow Transplants: When Race Is an Issue
content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html

washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/race-matters-when-a-patient-needs-a-stem-cell-or-marrow-transplant/2013/08/05/51abdf04-f2d9-11e2-ae43-b31dc363c3bf_story.html?utm_term=.59c9662e06f5

Effects of race on survival after stem cell transplantation
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1083879104009802

>likelihood
Key word there. It's a statistical estimation of ancestry, but would never be used on its own.

>more correlations
>race=ethnicity
SeeRace classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science. AKA race is pseudoscience.
Wew lad, how many times have you been BTFO in every thread?

>categorizing things is not scientific
Fuck the entire field of taxonomy, then, because that's what we're doing, retard. We take a collection of assorted individuals and empirically sort them into useful categories to more easily study them.

Species, geni, clada - all are defined by convention. There is no cosmic, fundamental difference at play here like there is with the different flavours of quark or whatever. No two animals are identical, even the same animal at two different points in time is not identical.

You could try to map the human genome and account for each and every single allele of each and every single gene, and how it interacts with each and every single other gene and epigenetic factor - and use that to make predictions about the individual. Or you could observe the fact that since humans evolved in largely seperated populations, many of these traits tend to cluster together due to developing in a single isolated group.

Nobody is saying race is some magical, absolute categorization. It's a useful empirical tool with high predictive value. A social construct? Well yes, but so are most concepts you hold in that thick skull of yours. The United States of America is a social construct, but if you go bomb some federal building you will learn its value as a heuristic very quickly.

>claims to be from Veeky Forums
>can't use proper punctuation or grammar
Fuck off /pol/

>>race=ethnicity
Who are you quoting?

what is the fundamental, physical distinction between the atoms and space contained in your desk, and the ones not in your desk?

You don't get to just dismiss shit you're too dumb to address. "Social construct" is such an overused catchphrase that you brainlets never even stop to think about what it really means.

>Fuck the entire field of taxonomy
Precisely. It's outdated and being replaced.

>It's a statistical estimation of ancestry, but would never be used on its own.
What do you mean?

No doctor would base any decision on race alone without running tests.

Honestly why does this issue even matter so much to you? Is it because you want social affirmation for your white supremacist tendencies? Just go to a Klan meeting and keep it off Veeky Forums.

wrong

>why does the truth even matter
last gasps

If my desk only existed only for me because of how I was raised and my thoughts and others who were raised differently or thought differently could pass straight through it then it would be a social construct.

...

>No doctor would base any decision on race alone without running tests.

1. National Statistics (2001). statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=273.
2. Ageymang C & Bhopal R. Is the blood pressure of people from African origin adults in the UK higher or lower than that in European origin white people? A review of cross-sectional data. Journal of Human Hypertension. 2003; 17(8). 523-534
3. Cappuccio FP et al. Hypertension and ethnicity: prevalence and level of detection and management in the community in England. American Journal of Hypertension. 1997; 10, 22A.
4. Cappuccio FP. Ethnicity and cardiovascular risk: variation in people of African ancestry and South Asian origin. Journal of Human Hypertension. 1997; 11, 571-576.
5. Primatesta P et al. Blood pressure levels and hypertension status among ethnic groups in England. Journal of Human Hypertension. 2000; 14, 143-148.
6. Lip GYH et al. Ethnicity and cardiovascular disease prevention in the United Kingdom: a practical approach to management. Journal of Human Hypertension. 2007; 21, 183-211.
7. He FJ et al. Importance of the renin system in determining blood pressure fall with salt restriction in black and white hypertensives. Hypertension. 2001; 32, 820-824
8. He FJ et al. Effect of Modest Salt reduction on Blood Pressure, Urinary Albumin and pulse Wave velocity in which black and Asian mild hypertensives. Hypertension. 2009; 54, 482-488.
9. Vollmer WM et al. Effects of diet and sodium intake on blood pressure; subgroup analysis of the DASH sodium trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2001; 135, 1019-1028
10. Swift et al. Modest salt reduction lowers blood pressure and urine protein excretion in black hypertensives. Hypertension. 2005;46:1-5
11. These calculations of reduction in risk for black people of African descent are based on two papers: Prospective Studies Collaboration. Lancet. 2002; 2 The 360,1903-1913 and Vollmer et al. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001; 135 (12), 1019-1028.

So unless we all don our pointy white hats and start lynching people society is doomed? Go get your head checked.

(yes, you're from /pol/)

>the ammount of strawmen in the first two paragraphs
I really hope you are from pol. Nobody is that stupid.
>race is not magical
Race is not science. You trying to deny this fact even though I proved why it's not science over here , only shows how much delusional you can get the more goalshifting attempts you have made and will do.
>useful
It's premises literally contradicts scientific truths, no matter hoe many correlations you throw in every post.

I wasn't willing to move an inch for your brainlet and I still won't, but this user here: shows the scientific process how taxonomy classifications are changing over time.
The truth has already be spoken. Race is not science.

Um.... dude... You didn't address my statement at all...

>Um.... dude... You didn't address my statement at all...
I'm not a "dude".

>I proved why it's not science
No you did not.

I didn't prove anything user. The truth has proved it.

Now, if you pseudoscience supporters want to prove race is science. Go on. ;^)

>In biology, phylogenetics /ˌfaJloʊdʒəˈnɛtJks, -lə-/[1][2] (Greek: φυλή, φῦλον - phylé, phylon = tribe, clan, race + γενετιkός - genetikós = origin, source, birth)[3] is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among individuals or groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations). These relationships are discovered through phylogenetic inference methods that evaluate observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences or morphology under a model of evolution of these traits. The result of these analyses is a phylogeny (also known as a phylogenetic tree) – a diagrammatic hypothesis about the history of the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms.[4] The tips of a phylogenetic tree can be living organisms or fossils, and represent the "end", or the present, in an evolutionary lineage. Phylogenetic analyses have become central to understanding biodiversity, evolution, ecology, and genomes.
I don't see taxonomy being replaced by only studying individual specimens, I see it being replaced by another, more accurate system of classification into broad groups. This is literally what classifying humans into ancestral groups with certain traits is, my friend. You keep trying to drag the argument into the purely semantical realm, ignoring the substance.

Taxonomy and phylogenetics do the same practical thing - classify living things for study. Race is a useful concept in both.

Do you deny the existence of dog breeds? I mean, there is no hard definition to those either.
>strawmen
I don't think you understand what a strawman is. I would be strawmanning if I were trying to define your position as something it isn't. But what I am actually doing is defining MY position. You seem to perceive my rejection of your strawmen as a strawman in itself. Quite ironic.
>I proved why it's not science over here
You didn't prove anything, you made a strawman and an assertion.

>x is science
>y isn't science
what are you basing those on, anyway? Science is the empirical study of the universe by applying the scientific method. That's it. Facts:
>humans evolved for tens of thousands of years in several almost completely isolated populations
>these populations developed different traits and there is significant genetic distance between them
>descendants of these ancestral populations are phenotipically distinct and in the vast majority of cases easily identifiable externally
I don't care what your sociology professor defined race as, what I speak of when I use the term are these ancestral populations and their current who have not hybridized beyond recognition.

Race is a heuristic, as I have told you fucking dozen times over. Heuristics are used in science all the time to analyze impractically complex systems. Everyone knows it is a heuristic, but if it has predictive value you cannot deny it either.

>you x
SeeRace classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science. AKA race is pseudoscience.
>what are you
I'm not basing anything. I'm pointing out how the very concept of race itself denies a scientific truth.
>the differences between individuals demonstrate races
Yeah the nepal thai race, the long nose race...?
>race is
Not science. Therefore, race is pseudoscience.

>Taxonomy and phylogenetics do the same practical thing - classify living things for study. Race is a useful concept in both.
It's only useful when studying modern western social phenomena, because that's how it is socially constructed at this point in history.

In the 100 years war, I'm sure the Brits and Franks saw each other as inferior, and were able to distinguish each other from their looks. They would also have separate ancestries tied with genetic differences.

The point is you can get all sorts of traits tied to any group you want, as long as you define the group. Sickle cell is associated with "black" people, but it is actually only a sub-population in Africa. Applying it to "black people" is statistically valid, but kind of misleading.

To conclude:

You can bitch about whether heuristics and conventions should be classified as scientific or not all day, it does not remove the usefulness and predictive value of the concept of race. When making political and economic decisions, it is the predictive value that matters not its scientific integrity - engineers calculate stresses in solids based on inaccurate continuum mechanics, and ballistic trajectories based on inaccurate newtonian mechanics. So long as the errors are statistically insignificant, you use the simplest model that will give you the result you want.

People who phenotypically express the traits associated with the west african and east african ancestral populations are statistically far more predisposed to sickle cell anemia, violent crime and lower test scores. These are real world results used to make real world decisions. If their ancestry is known, even more so. Your disagreement with this is based on entirely semantical and aethereal grounds and is frankly irrelevant.

Also for (you)

>you can do x
I'm sorry but you still forcing your claim that race is science, won't become true the more you repeat it.

I've already explained why race is not scientifically based.

You csn do all you want and research all you want about not-scientific fields like "politics", as you have demonstrated in your post, that's your intention; however, race is still not science and has no scientific rigor. Race is pseudoscience, sorry.

>Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science. AKA race is pseudoscience.
No. It's a heuristic. Fuck your semantics. Pattern matching and bayesian prediction are entirely valid. If one phenotypical trait is strongly correlated and has an indirect causal link to another, it is perfectly reasonable to make predictions. Science is not pure math, it's an excercise in discovering and documenting patterns for practical usage.
Just because you can make different categorizations does not mean you can't make this specific one. "Race" is a term used for ancestrally linked populations in all kinds of scales historically, but for the past 200 odd years it has had a common meaning in denoting the 4-6 major human ancestral groups. Not to mention the fact that the line between an Englishman and a Frenchman is much more blurred than the one between a German and a Khoisan, due to much more recent seperation and constant genetic drift.

Again, this is devolving into semantics. Call it whatever you want, but I wall keep calling it race - and it is a useful heuristic. Invoking it is no more fallacious than using Newtonian mechanics in cases where the effects of GR or quantum phenomena are completely insignificant.

>semantics
Denying genetic fenomena like genotype definning phenotype, is not a semantic problem, user. You keep trying to discard that huge problem with your "semantic" boogeyman, but it doesn't work.

Race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

You seem to be completely unable to understand the fact that what is "scientifically based" is just as much a social construct as that of "race".

A matter of convention. It is not fallacious to use race or any other simplified model/heuristic when you are aware of its limitations, and the errors are within acceptable margins for the work you're doing.

Since you don't seem to understand this, let me show you two examples:
Exhibit A (race not a valid model):
>person 1 is a negro, person 2 is an asian
>therefore 1 must have a lower IQ than 2
This is not a valid use of the model because you will not produce any result with a high degree of confidence, and will often be wrong.
Exhibit B (race is perfectly valid):
>nation 1 is populated mostly by negroes, nation 2 is populated mostly by north-east asians
>therefore nation 2 will have a higher mean IQ score
The second result is likely to produce a high degree of confidence, and will often be correct.

You will never have certainties, but nothing in science operates on certainties. Just high degrees of confidence.

>You will never have certainties
You still are trying to ignore the point as I explained hereRace classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.

And I, again, pointed out how race contradicts genetics in this post How many times are you going to get Blown The Fuck Out in this thread? lol

No, it is not pseudoscience. It is a heuristic - simplified - model of the world, based on reasonably reliable patterns. But ultimately so are all macroscopic models that study emergent patterns. The only truly hard model would be predicting everything from the most fundamental principles up. Damn near everything you do is basedo on these simplifications. I have been trying to explain this to you a million times but you don't seem to get it. Science and pure math/logic are not the same thing and do not operate the same way.

holy fuck you are retarded, downvote

>Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype
Again, for your slow head:
science
is
not
math

You can operate with correlation, too. Apparent phenotype is CORRELATED with genotype, and it is CAUSALLY LINKED with genotype, though inversely. You can not PROVE but you can INFER. This is how probabilistic analysis works. You cannot prove that this specific person that looks like a negro will carry some common negro genetic markers, but when you have a thousand persons that look like negroes you can make statistical predictions and expect them to hold up.

>it's not pseudoscience
As it literally contradicts the basis of genetics, yes it is.
>correlations
Is that everything you got?

The rejection of genetics is not a simple "semantic" problem, you can use it all you want in your non-scientific fields, specially in your favourite topic: politics as you mentioned here, however it's not science.

I wonder which kind of wordplay approach you are going to use now...

You don't need to imply that phenotype defines genotype, you literal autist. If race as a heuristic model proves to work as a feasible way for predicting behavioural patterns, it may be preserved as a valid scientific concept. Just like economis sciences.

>you don't need to imply
Except that categorization methods are influenced by appearance judgements. You "literal", "autist".

>Just like economis sciences.
So by adding science after a word you can make it seem more legitimate while really just hiding the fact that you have no real Idea how anything works and controlled experiments can't be set up.

Do economic sciences provide working, reliable predictive models under certain societal conditions?

If a black man has a baby with a black women, it's equally likely to be white as it is to be black eh? And no, this is not a bullshit and petty argument, it means there is some kind of genetic cluster we can point to, the size at which it is considered a "race" is completely arbitrary semantics and is neither scientific nor unscientific.

SeeRace classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.

That's such a shitty shoop it's incredible.

New user here, just skimmed the chain of posts you're involved in. Is it another "user is a retard and doesn't understand that visible macrostructural phenotype doesn't correlate strongly to overall genetic diversity by nature of the vast majority of genes acting on either internal structure, biochemical pathway, or otherwise aren't visible to the naked eye" episode?

Just make a copypasta or something that explains how we determine classifications of life by the ratio of diversity within vs. between populations (measured by the absolute genetic differentiation), and that we can't group 'race' together because at any level of arbitration you set the scale of how different populations have to be, you'll end up with weird groupings that have no correlation to what we call races.

Most people then just argue that there's no way that things can be genetically different without looking different skin-deep, and that things can't be genetically similar even if they have macrostructural traits that are rather different. If you show any specific data or show examples of this very principle, then it almost on cue devolves into a shit gargling mess of conspiracy claims and bringing politics into the mix even though there had been none to that point. So, I mean, even a copypasta I guess wouldn't be able to fix the endemic problem with how /pol/tards should just stay in their containment board if they aren't willing to actually learn science.

No they don't.

Why would being from Veeky Forums give him any credentials that you are trying to dismiss here? Being from Veeky Forums doesn't mean you are smart either.

>the borders between things will necessarily be fuzzy so we throw the baby out with the bathwater
This autism is unbelievable.

I'm not trying to involve anything though. I'm just pointing out that race isn't science. For the average joe this would be easy to understand, yet the fact that they are throwing wordplay to reject this fact, and even involved politics in this matter, it's kinda obvious why do they keep denying that race isn't science.

Race denialists are the new creationists.

No, it's a matter of classification in science. It's not that the borders are fuzzy, it's that there's little actual definitive correlation between macroscopic visible traits and non-visible traits.

Race is ultimately a social construct in that we draw the lines around people of different traits. It's not scientific- it's not about being precise, it's about following genetic dogma, and adhering to the principles that make it a valid dogma; that traits are often clumped haplotypically in any kind of heritage, that evolution occurs and changes the alleles within a population, and the analysis of these various levels on a quantitative level will be able to determine what heritable phenotypes exist in given populations.

The analysis, however, lends itself to there not being races in the same groupings we know- Africans and Europeans would end up being grouped in some areas, and there would be many different African 'races', as a simple example of what happens with a quantitative model. This then lends itself towards race not being something that genetics defines, but something defined by societal arbitration; i.e. a social construct.

I meant involved in as in the person you were responding to. It's a whole new level of retardation to say "quantitatively/scientifically, it turns out that this is not the case.", then they argue "But what if you set criteria like genes that affect X Y or Z and then group based on genes that are 'more important'?", and when you mention that arbitrating which loci you're looking at beyond perhaps gene encoding regions, and that this arbitration is societally determined, therefore the concept itself becomes a social construct that employs data in order to define classifications- they act like bumbling retards or they just leave.

>who are Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman etc

Economists.

S O Y
O O _
Y _ Y

Whites have the lowest sex hormones out of the Caucasoid race so their men tend to be soyboys if exposed to xenoestrogens where as middle eastern men or north africans will take centuries before any soy behavior blooms in their populations.

>race is not real
You have to be mentally retarded to not think there is a serious genetic gap between africans and Eurasians.

There's "serious" genetic gaps between populations of the same "race" too. Race can be defined multiple ways.

Can someone explain this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy

There is a genetic gap between humans. Yet race categorizations isn't science.

Lewontin Fallacy.

>same race
No no on all africans with high melanin make a single racial group. Just as all pale skinned Caucasoids that lived in North West Eurasia make a single "white" race.

Nice, exactly.

See

If race isnt real, genocide isnt real. Read some aristotle you cunt

Race isn't science. Write something more convincing, brainlet.

>Flatearthers
>Creationists
>Muslims
>Tinfoil hats from /x/
>Unironical Nazi larpers
>Centrists

>Race isn't science.
How so?

Then i should surely be allowed to immigrate to Israel, since race isnt scientific.
>Implying i would waste time trying to convert the enemy

How is "race", science?

>then i should
Race isn't science. Try again with a non-brainlet text.

>How is "race", science?
Here, have a read:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

Its a concept from biology. Dogs have races (or subspecies), so do humans to. If you dissagree, you are just as superstitious as creationists

Stop projecting nigger

>Stop projecting nigger
Why the racism?

Race isnt science

see