Is there really any geneticist that think in 2018 that races exist?

yeah he's kind of smart

>Gene differences exist, but race is a superficial an arbitrary construct.
You are splitting hairs. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying “there are only differently aged adults, babies do not exist”. Discrimination is wrong and everyone deserves equal rights, but saying race doesnt exist just outs you as a retard. Nobody will listen to anything you say after “Race doesnt exist” because it clearly does and you are a crazy person.

There could be lots of them, but you'd never hear about it because most geneticists are probably aware that would be career suicide.

Negroid: Black
Caucasoid: Nordic White, Mediterranean "White", Semitic, Indic (Pajeet)
Mongoloids: East Asian, Southeast Asians (as Thais), Polinesian, Amerindian.
Australoid: Abos

& Mutts

Can someone here give me at least 3 names of geneticists that believe in races among humans?

No one?

>There could be lots of them, but you'd never hear about it because most geneticists are probably aware that would be career suicide.

That's just speculation.

But the cold fact is that there are not geneticists that believe in race for what I can see.

Not even a single one among millions of professionals in that area.

>two populations have the same skin tone so that means that they're genetically indistinguishable

This is how retarded race antirealists are.

the fact that you have to resort to an appeal to authority to try and prove your point rather than the facts about human biodiversity and genetic clustering by geographical location shows how weak and indefensible your position is.

Races exist because you can look at a person's DNA and tell what race or mix of races they are.

>Why don't these well compensated professionals publicly espouse a view that will ruin their career and make everyone hate them?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm............. Really.................... Makes.................. Me............................ Think?

Why the fuck is this thread nothing but /pol/ charts, racism and antisemitism? Who let all of you alt-right scumbags in to roleplay as intellectuals and scientists? It's time for you to go home now:

>races that have been genetically isolated from eachother and evolved in radically different environments for more than 70'000 years are mentally identical from a biological perspective

Look, I'm a geneticist myself. So I'm curious about race realism. I really want to know if there is another scientist like me, that believe in races. Because I can't really name a single one.

>races that have been genetically isolated from eachother and evolved in radically different environments for more than 70'000 years are ocularly identical from a biological perspective
They are. So why shouldn't that apply to neurology?

I'm fine with having the discussion, but I'm not fine with a science board being clogged up with /pol/ sources and literal bigotry. Be objective, or fuck off.

>ocularly identical
you on the left

>Thinking I'm talking about osteotopology and not the physiology of the ocular organ itself.
Our eyesight is identical.

all the ones in /pol/

obviously you aren't a geneticist because if you were then you'd have looked at the geneticists whose research you are regurgitating in the form of images.

if you're a geneticist then open up pubmed or googlescholar , if not then fuck off.

Why /pol/? I can't control who can post here.

The discussion is clear, safe and clean.

not true
incidence of red/green and other forms of color blindness are much higher in caucasians than negroids
there's also the fact that light ires are almost exclusively found in caucasians

Our cardiovascular system. That's the same.

Clearly there must be a scientist somewhere that uses the terminology of low-self-esteem males that identify with right-wing -rhetoric!

Quit moving the goal posts. You race deniers get proven wrong at every turn and just shrug it off. Then when you grab on to something that supports your retarded views, you never let it go despite overwhelming evidence telling you that you are wrong. Race exists and niggers are stupid, anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.

>Not understanding what I'm doing.
Have you not heard of falsifiability? I'm providing strength to YOUR argument. Please learn to science.

there are definitely people in 2018 that still try to debate race without an accompanying disambiguation of the 900 things people think "race" can mean

>I'm a geneticist, but uses haplogroups to argue about modern racial genetics.
Watch this, you moron:
>youtube.com/watch?v=AabWNnVbXUU
TL;DR:
>Haplogroups are great for genetic chronology, but not for exploring what genetic makeup you have.

>says something retarded
>gets proven wrong
>I'm helping your argument. please learn to science

fuck off retard

This. I think the whole question is semantic, there are genetic differences between isolated populations, that's fact. Whether that is race or not depends entirely upon the definition(s) you're using.

Yes, races exists, but modern systematic biology is about evident and distinct biological units. Races are not evident (are slavs white?), but a bit arbitrary drawn boxes on a more complicated genetic background.
No scientist is forcing this classification upon him because it makes things insanely complicated and false due to arbitrary drawn lines.
Describing human variation without putting your findings into set boxes describes the reality more accurate. Race is just a box to put things into that more or less fit in. It is not a necessary thing to do for science and not for white survival because human variation can be acknowledged in form of races, subpopulations or however you name it.

You really don't know anything about science, do you? You don't try and prove your point, you try and disprove your point, thereby proving it if no errors are found. Actually return to /pol/, you are not welcome here.

That's why I don't use the term race anymore. I use cline or deme.

I don't believe in the dishonest and hippie argument that "there's only one race, the human race" (this even goes before the discovery of DNA).

But race is a course concept.

>we never read

explains it

all I know is that I'm 96,4% ashkenazi, so you gentiles go ahead and fight amongst yourselves like you always do.

maybe once genetic engineering of IQ is achieved you can realise some things.

>96,4%
You're probably not, there aren't many Ashkenazi left in Europe and that's a Continental European notation.

This is the only reason these threads exist, because of murky linguistics, no one is seriously denying that there are genetic differences between isolated populations.

le 96,4% faec
What is the rest?

Whoa, this literally just became a /pol/ thread.

Yes but they suck

Sorry bro, I am from /int/.

Save that shit for your boards, this isn't welcome on Veeky Forums.

How do we define race?

If one or many definitions of race are wrong, or if one or several classifications or race are incorrect, then race cannot be attibuted with scientific confidence, hence in sociological, economic, and politcal aspects of law and judiciary that recognize or define the individual, decree the individual as such, and mandate laws pertaining to the individual should the term race not be applied nor considered.

How do we define race?

If one or many definitions of race are wrong, or if one or several classifications of race are incorrect, then race cannot be attibuted with scientific confidence, hence in sociological, economic, and politcal aspects of law and judiciary that recognize or define the individual, decree the individual as such, and mandate laws pertaining to the individual should the term race not be applied nor considered.

Meme aside, I was asking out of legit curiosity what the rest is because 96,4% sounds like the result of a commerical genetic test.

>but saying race doesnt exist just outs you as a retard.
It does exist, just as a arbitrary and superficial construct. It's a sociological concept, not a scientific one.

The "Hispanic" race is made up of people with genetic ties to europe, america, and africa. They have very little in common genetically, but because of geographic, cultural, and legal reasons they are a single race. Serbs and Slovenians are two different races, but come from an almost identical genetic group.

Race =! genes.

I doubt the purity of anyone claiming to be that Ashkenazi. I too have Ashkenazi heritage via matrilineal descent, which would mean that I would classify as ethnically Ashkenazi, because they classify by mitochondrial DNA.

Why the fuck do people keep misusing “appeal to authority” every single fucking time? It is not an appeal to authority fallacy if the authority agrees with the initial claim, “you should smoke because most doctors smoke” is an appeal to authority, “all physicist believe the Earth is not flat” is not fucktard

How do they resolution it though? Mitochondrial dna goes all the way back to before humans were humans

Because they failed critical thinking.

We can't even define gene, species, life or even fields like biology.

It's all about semantics. So it's arbitrary.

resolve***

No idea, I've never taken the care to research any further than that. The fact I'm Ashkenazi changes nothing, certainly when my genetic makeup and cultural makeup is mostly non-Jewish.

Tay-Sachs disease only happens in ashkenazi Jews ircc so maybe they are a race
but maybe that's not enough to define a "race"

After about twenty years on the internet I can now proudly claim that someone has gone on record agreeing with me on five different occasions

My mtdna is W5a1, so I don't classify, but Y is J-M92, maybe jewish more than 600 years ago.

100% Ashkenazi is probably just a thing in commercial testing because the young age and mixing with local peoples should prevent at least some of their DNA from being correctly assigned.

Tay sachs is a handfull of mutations out of three billion basepairs, way too few for a meaningful difference. It also occurs in flemish people I think.

Well fuck, my grandmother was of Flemish extraction.

Post-structuralism will do that.

Then you would agree that there is no confidence in the classification or the mandating of laws on racial terms, correct?

How individual norms and stereotypes persist among society is not my concern, but rather whether laws that are backed by the confidence of a governing body should be allowed that have racial distinctions.

You would already know if you were an affected carrier because it is a severe disease. Even the chances you're heterozygous are close to zero anyways, no concern.

Yes, but law doesn't try to be scientific, it tries to be philosophically pragmatic.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

yeah and ribosomes are the same as plants'
does that mean there's no difference between the Animal and Plant kingdoms?
faggot

whoops, not flemish

Ashkenazi Jews have a high incidence of Tay–Sachs and other lipid storage diseases. In the United States, about 1 in 27 to 1 in 30 Ashkenazi Jews is a recessive carrier. The disease incidence is about 1 in every 3,500 newborn among Ashkenazi Jews.[34] French Canadians and the Cajun community of Louisiana have an occurrence similar to the Ashkenazi Jews. Irish Americans have a 1 in 50 chance of being a carrier.[citation needed] In the general population, the incidence of carriers as heterozygotes is about 1 in 300.[7] The incidence is approximately 1 in 320,000 newborns in the general population in United States.[35]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay–Sachs_disease

see:
And learn to read the whole thread before replying.

thanks user

Ben Carson (MD, neurosurgeon), Neil DeGrasse Tyson (PhD astrophysics)

Would you not argue that scientific understanding has lent itself to philosophical pragmatisms, especially in the realms of the judiciary in how to enact or rule in favor or against a standing practicing of said laws?

Did philosophical pragmatism of certain governing bodies originate as a correction of dogmatism when enacting rules of land and people?

Arbitrary definitions could men validate any definition of race.

There are functional definitions. It's like species. Rigth now there are more than 60 definitions.

So yes, you can say that races exists.

Thank you for the heads-up.

Systematic biology is all about philosophical issues.

>Would you not argue that scientific understanding has lent itself to philosophical pragmatisms, especially in the realms of the judiciary in how to enact or rule in favor or against a standing practicing of said laws?
Of course, science is a tool for understanding the world around us and sometimes applying those principles to tools (medicine is a tool, for instance).
>Did philosophical pragmatism of certain governing bodies originate as a correction of dogmatism when enacting rules of land and people?
Yes, many states had ecclesiastical laws and these were often reformed due to secularism.
However, that's neither here nor there, pragmatism doesn't search for truth, therefore the truth or race doesn't matter, it searches for utility, and having some form of classification is useful.

>*or race = of race

If race is a functional definition of qualifying skin color, or only the number of external characteristics that can be pragmatically distinguished within a body, then does it not become superseded in any case where formal definitions are required, such as qualifying for a voter ID, holding land, and participation in governance?

Functional definitions of race in the judiciary have historically been overruled when the functional characteristics of race have been called into question.
For example, If race can determine the skin color, the eye color, and the hair type of an individual, but cannot determine the intelligence quotient or the aptitude in terms of mental complicity, then such a definition would fail fundamentally in any governing body
in upholding classification with regards to individual mandates in racial terms.

I' talking from an exclusive systematic and cladistc perspective.

I don't care about humanities fields at this point.

>when the functional characteristics of race have been called into question

should be formal characteristics of race called into question, as formal characteristics of race often fail both functionally and scientifically

see >However, that's neither here nor there, pragmatism doesn't search for truth, therefore the truth or race doesn't matter, it searches for utility, and having some form of classification is useful.

Humanities take into account noncompliance with the governance, or should.

Representative government attempts to reflect pragmatisms found in society, of which scientific literacy is a fundamental part as it seeks trusts and permissions to pursue a mandate, backed with confidence of the governance, as in scientific literature is a product of private and public enterprise and not a rogue state.

From a cladistic point of view. Biological race exists at a genetic level. What we nedd in this centurt is a formal phenotipical definition. At least for Europe. But those kind of definitions are from the 40s or before that decade.

Now it's a just a taboo.

see

Holly cow, this is full of spelling mistakes. Pardon for my cellphone.

But I think the question (or what I'm interested in at least) is whether or not the races people would self identify as (Caucasian, Romani or whatever) are actually good indicators of genetic makeup. That is whether the genetic diversity within races is small enough to make them an important method of identification.;

I believe lactose intolerance for example can be quite confidently predicted from race, but is it easy with many genetic traits?

It still doesn't matter, because it isn't a search for truth, it is a search for usefulness. So that brings the "truth" of race back to:
So, for governance is exists out of usefulness.
So, for objectivity it is semantic.
So, what definition are you using?

>Biological race exists at a genetic level.
False, as functional definitions denote the external phenotypical classifications appilied to the field of governance, or whose formal definitions fail tests of confidence to ground it in genetics.
Thus, race reform is inherently not biological, but social both characteristically and pragmatically.

But certainly theres a scientist someplace using terminology of lower class males that identify with rhetoric that would elevate them to any status (other than "unemployed").

Is there really any geneticist that think in 2018 that niggers are humans?

Do you read papers of human genetics on a daily basis?

Because I do since 2005. Yes, they exists at a genetic level. That have been the most notable transformation of this decade. The validation of race/deme/cline at a genetic level.

Yes, all of them.
They are humans.

For governance, race is not reflective of scientific literature, which has been mandated to exist in terms of utility and the ability to govern, and backed by taxation and aliquoted funding. Objective scientific principles are duly applied to systems of government, backed by confidence dollars.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

>Do you read papers of human genetics on a daily basis?
Where were you educated if you don't mind saying, and in genetics specifically or some broader field?