Race Realism and Gibbons

>is taxonomy
The inherited characteristics from the XIX century of taxonomy are immediately non-rigorous. That's a fact.

>rest of the text
What are you talking about? I've already told you the XIX century inherited characteristics aren't rigorous.

>The thing is that race is not scientifically rigorous.
What do you mean?

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.

This is from the other thread btw

>I don't care about that, tell me something that confirms my opinion so that I feel better

>Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype.
Why does it imply that?

>>I don't care about that, tell me something that confirms my opinion so that I feel better
Who are you quoting?

Due to its inherited XIX century classifications. As the current race jedgements are influenced by appearance, it contradicts science. I think this is easy to understand.

Race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

>Due to its inherited XIX century classifications. As the current race jedgements are influenced by appearance, it contradicts science. I think this is easy to understand.
>Race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.
Did you misread my post? I asked about the implication you claimed.

>implication you claimed
The simple fact of considering individuals' appearance in the classification instead of pure genetic background isn't "scientifically" rigorous, as it nullifies the purpose of such ancestor-relation classifications.

Thus, race isn't science. race is pseudoscience.

>The simple fact of considering individuals' appearance in the classification instead of pure genetic background isn't "scientifically" rigorous
What do you mean?

About what?

That race isn't science?

>About what?
About "The simple fact of considering individuals' appearance in the classification instead of pure genetic background isn't "scientifically" rigorous"

Well, I think this is pretty much intuitive.

The conclusion would be that race isn't science.

>Well, I think this is pretty much intuitive.
It's not, in fact it's a meaningless notion without anything further.

Denying a scientific fact such as genotype definning phenotype isn't meaningless.

Race isn't science. Sorry, not sorry.

>Denying a scientific fact such as genotype definning phenotype isn't meaningless.
Did you misread my post?

You wanted to prove something?

>You wanted to prove something?
No I was wondering what you meant by "The simple fact of considering individuals' appearance in the classification instead of pure genetic background isn't "scientifically" rigorous", which is a meaningless notion.

You are a scientific moron. A phenotype is the outward expression of an organisms genotype. They are inherently related. But aside from that point, races are in fact different genotypically from each other. A Northern European has a far different genotype than a Sub-Saharan African or an East Asian. Just look at Haplogroups. Regardless, I am not using the XIX century taxonomy of races you idiot. I am using the modern day taxonomy of similar species and apllying those standards to humans.

It describes race classifications. As race classifications contradict scientific facts. They are not science.
>not using xix
Race classifications have inherited the appearance judgement component. And this implies what post says.

>just look at haplogroups
>R race
>Q race
>A,B race
Are you making a new definition of race? You want to change the current racial classifications?lol

>As race classifications contradict scientific facts.
Can you give an example of such a contradiction?

See

>See (You)
What exactly is the "contradiction" there? That's just me quoting your meaningless notion.

it's called "the species problem", not the "race problem"
besides, any race can impregnate any other race and have viable offspring
phenotype is highly variable, even more so in humans due to the low selection pressure we've been experiencing
race is even more arbitrary than species

It shows how race contradicts a scientific fact.

Therefore race isn't science.

I used haplogroups as evidence to show that genotypes differ on racial lines. I never stated that haplogroups are races themselves, just genetic markers. Races would be constituted from several haplogroups.

Also, yes I do want to change modern racial classifications. I want them to be as scientific as possible. What you are saying is that races do not exists, which is blatantly false. We observe racial differences on the phenotypic and genotypic level. That is undeniable.

I do not care about people producing fertile offspring. That is an archaic classification os species that has not been taken serious since the birth of the fertile Bottlenose Dolphin and False Killer Whale hybrid. Almost all species that share a genus can produce fertile hybrid offspring.

>you are saying x
I'm mentioning that race isn't science. Why? Because it contradicts basic genetics.

The rest of your post is full of brainlet accusations and off topic brainletry.

If you want "race" to be redefinned, good for you.

How dense are you? Race doesn't contradict any scientific facts You still have not addressed the fact that we find strong genetic differences between races and that racial lines aren't merely based on appearance.

Who is the brainlet here? You still have not stated why the concept of race contradicts genetics. Races differ on a genetic level. This is how you can get a DNA test to see where you ancestors came from. RACE IS GENETIC.

>race doesn't contradict
Yes. Race classifications are influenced by appearance judgements. This implies that phenotype defines genotype, which is false.

race isn't science. Race is pseudoscience.

>Race classifications are influenced by appearance judgements. This implies that phenotype defines genotype, which is false.
Why does it imply that?

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.
From the other thread btw

>why
Ask the XIX century guys who started the classification trend.

I never said or implied I based racial categories off of appearance alone. I specifically said racial categories differ on a genetic level and that is how I would divide them. You are purposefully misrepresenting my point.

I can't tell if you are just trolling us or not.

>Ask the XIX century guys who started the classification trend.
I'm asking you because you made the claim.

>you made the claim
I didn't though. I just observed how "racial" classifications have an appearance component. If I can get the last "race" debate of researchers I'll post it in this thread. They pretty much mention how such appearance components are present in those classifications.

Waste of space.
You don't have to say anything. You just have to mention racial the classifications. The classifications are based on appearance components.

>I didn't though.
You did right here: Why does "Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features" imply that "phenotype defines genotype"?

>you did
Repeating claims from other people can be said as "i didn't", brainlet.

>Repeating claims from other people
Who?

Fuck off brainlet. You have repeatedly misrepresented my views for some kinda "gotcha'" moment that's not going to come. You lost. Now lick your wounds and get over it.

>Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype.

no, seeing a bullet hole in a wall implies that there was a gun present, in the exact same way that physical differences imply that there is a genetic component that caused the physical difference. Biology works in one direction, get that through your thicc skull

Has he? I think you want him to be.

What about the Neanderthal interbreeding between most homo sapiens other than sub Saharan Africans? Even if you want to contend that the majority of the races are only phenotypically distinct, you must admit that a purebred African stands out genetically compared to the rest of the world.

Well, a researcher in 2016:
>"In the wake of the sequencing of the human genome in the early 2000s, genome pioneers and social scientists alike called for an end to the use of race as a variable in genetic research (1, 2). Unfortunately, by some measures, the use of race as a biological category has increased in the postgenomic age (3). Although inconsistent definition and use has been a chief problem with the race concept, it has historically been used as a taxonomic categorization based on common hereditary traits (such as skin color) to elucidate the relationship between our ancestry and our genes. "
Wikipedia:
"Race is a concept used in the categorization of humans into groups, called races or racial groups, based on combinations of shared physical traits, ancestry, genetics, and social or cultural traits."
Huh?
Wrong. Seing a "bullet hole" implies research being made to identify the causes of the hole. Meanwhile apparent phenotype can't be studied the same way as a bullet hole, and the unique way to prove such claims would be studying the genetics of such individual.

Race isn't science. Race is pseudoscience.

>"Race is a concept used in the categorization of humans into groups, called races or racial groups, based on combinations of shared physical traits, ancestry, genetics, and social or cultural traits."
This doesn't say that "Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features" implies "phenotype defines genotype".

Next?

>>"In the wake of the sequencing of the human genome in the early 2000s, genome pioneers and social scientists alike called for an end to the use of race as a variable in genetic research (1, 2). Unfortunately, by some measures, the use of race as a biological category has increased in the postgenomic age (3). Although inconsistent definition and use has been a chief problem with the race concept, it has historically been used as a taxonomic categorization based on common hereditary traits (such as skin color) to elucidate the relationship between our ancestry and our genes. "
Where does this imply that "phenotype defines genotype"?

So far all you've done is strawman an argument that no one here or anyone you've quoted has made.

>race classification is influenced
Of course it says it. It's based on apparent traits, which implies that phenotype defines genotype, and that's incorrect. Thus race isn't science. Race is pseudoscience.
See ^the first part of my post.

>strawman
I only remembered you that race isn't science. Nothing else. More wordplay?

>Of course it says it.
Why does "race classification is influenced" imply that "phenotype defines genotype"?

See

How ass-blasted do you have to be to behave like this? Lmao. OP's picture is correct in pointing out that the different races of the world are at least distinct subspecies of homo sapiens. People just get uppity about it becuase it is pertaining to humans and "muh ethics," as if the person stating facts is responsible for any moral consequences of said information.

>He isn't aware of Guo (2015) in which participants were able to self-identify their own genetic cluster (race) ~99.8% of the time

Did you watch the entire stream? JF ran circles around the "archeologist" and "museum keeper," or whatever he was. It was just some boomer who was offended by the idea and wanted evolution to only apply to animals.

I'm pretty sure Australian Abbos made it as far away as possible

>See →
Why does "race classification is influenced" imply that "phenotype defines genotype"?

Except that race isn't science.

As an herpetologist I must say: I fucking hate taxonomy.

I don't think anybody said that "race was science," whatever such a statement might mean, just that races are genetically distinct. You can refer to the study I mentioned, if you take issue with that fact.

Nobody is claiming that taxonomy doesn't have its flaws, but the whole point the image is to state that we scrutinize the polytypic nature of other species more than we do to ourselves because "muh feels."

Buddy, why don't you check the first post of the chain? You might be surprised.

To be fair you can identify a race by the skull. Sad thing is, this science is really marginalized because it's somehow "racist". In any case, forsenics can know your race based on your skull.

Except race isn't science.

>Except race isn't science.
How so?

It's up to race supporters to demonstrate race is science.

He's gonna state how he thinks that "phenotype implies genotype," and go on a brainless tangent. Ignore him like he ignores evidence.

>he thinks
I don't think so.
Race definition states such claims. Why are you so upset against me?

No, it's not, brainlet. Do you accept the theory of evolution? Do you accept that mammals and, consequently humans, are a product of evolution? If yes, why would you then assume that observed phenotypic differences have no relationship with genetics?

I see you shitting up every thread like this. You either have self-esteem issues, or you're feeling some sort of political or psychological frustration. Let the adults discuss reality.

>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Yeah, the big nose race, the lactose intolerant race, the squatting race...etc. lol

>It's up to race supporters to demonstrate race is science.
Race can be studied using the scientific method, hence race is science.

>He's gonna state how he thinks that "phenotype implies genotype," and go on a brainless tangent.
I'm not a "he".

>Guo (2015) as mentioned previously
Your move. Try not to strawman, brainlet.

Except that race contradicts science. Thus, race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.
See the first part of this post.

>mfw this has been an 8/10 troll

>everything i don't like is a troll
You pseudoscience lovers are really entertaining.

>Except that race contradicts science
If a scientific theory is contradicted by new science then the old must be thrown out.

>>everything i don't like is a troll
Who are you quoting?

Neanderthal mixes > desnovian and others

OP here

still no valid argument about race realism, I'll try again tomorrow

Only south-asians have denisovan admixture you dumbass.

Also native americans are the ones with the highest neanderthal admixture.

>race realism
You should ask moral questions in pol.

>You should ask moral questions in pol.
RR is scientific, not moral.

Your not OP, I am. Don't lie on the internet,

Your not OP, I am. Don't lie on the internet,

>belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify an ideology
Yes it's moral.

>Yes it's moral.
In that case is all science moral? I believe that empirical evidence exists to support and justify the theory of gravity as well, does that make gravity moral?

Australian Aboriginals

70,000 year old genetic throwbacks. Inferior to even Paupan Melanisians.

>science is moral
Nope. Science states facts. The stuff you want to make with such facts belongs to the moral fields.

>YouTube scientists
>b-but they're similar in appearance!
Kindly kill yourself

>The stuff
What do you mean?

Read the post again.

>Read the post again.
"The stuff" is a meaningless notion. Race realism is a scientific theory irregardless of whatever you imagine someone might be using it for.

Rule of thumb: if it ends in -ism, it's probably an ideology and not a scientific theory.

Wrong. See