Biological anthropology

is race more than a social construct I know there's Health disparities between ethnic groups and genetic averages, and outliers but outside of this what evidence do we have that suggest that Evolution made a difference between what we call races.

Firstly its obvious, if we can observe evolution changes in fish and birds over a period of less than 100 years or between 20-100 generations then it follows there would be some change in humans over the same number of generations (infact many many more generations since Europeans split form Africans, since Africans split from native Americans etc

And if you want hard evidence you can predict race with absolute certainty from genetics alone, so it is obviously not purely social

Finally if you want to delve deeper there is work showing the more genes you look at when analysing different races the more distinct the races appear, even if you select genes at random- this also suggests real biological differences between each race

>Firstly its obvious, if we can observe evolution changes in fish and birds over a period of less than 100 years or between 20-100 generations then it follows there would be some change in humans over the same number of generations (infact many many more generations since Europeans split form Africans, since Africans split from native Americans etc
Yes, but no one is sorting birds and fish into races. Fish are sorted into class, order, family, genus, species, and demes. Birds are sorted into order, family, genus, species, and demes. What level of genetic variation is required for a race in order to not make it synonymous with these classifications?

>And if you want hard evidence you can predict race with absolute certainty from genetics alone, so it is obviously not purely social
LOL no you cannot. Humans form a continuous gradient of genetic variation (a cline). There is no genetic definition of race, and if you made one up it would be arbitrary. Don't post on the science board if you are just going to make shit up.

>Finally if you want to delve deeper there is work showing the more genes you look at when analysing different races the more distinct the races appear, even if you select genes at random- this also suggests real biological differences between each race
That is merely a consequence of the genetic difference between demes. If groups within the "race" are spread apart, then of course the arbitrary boundary you draw between some demes will spread apart. But this is a double edged sword since it also makes the members within the "race" as distant from each other as from members of other "races."

>Yes, but no one is sorting birds and fish into races. Fish are sorted into class, order, family, genus, species, and demes. Birds are sorted into order, family, genus, species, and demes. What level of genetic variation is required for a race in order to not make it synonymous with these classifications?

That isnt relevant, they will still change due to evolution regardless of what name you use to classify them

>LOL no you cannot. Humans form a continuous gradient of genetic variation (a cline). There is no genetic definition of race, and if you made one up it would be arbitrary. Don't post on the science board if you are just going to make shit up.

Are you seriously suggesting there is no way to tell race based on genetics?

>That is merely a consequence of the genetic difference between demes. If groups within the "race" are spread apart, then of course the arbitrary boundary you draw between some demes will spread apart. But this is a double edged sword since it also makes the members within the "race" as distant from each other as from members of other "races."

Are you suggesting that they dont form clusters which correlate exactly with the region of the world in which they developed?

Because they do

and of course there is variation within races but not as much as within the whole sample including multiple races

>That isnt relevant, they will still change due to evolution regardless of what name you use to classify them
Of course it's relevant, since we are talking about "races" specifically. Why are you attempting to move the goalposts?

>Are you seriously suggesting there is no way to tell race based on genetics?
Excuse me, but you just said that you can predict race with absolute certainty from genetics alone. In reality, scientists only guess at race by finding the ancestral population of a person, and using a statistical correlation between that population and the race a person is going to be classified as in a given society. But there is no formula for objectively determining someone's race from genetics alone because race is not determined or defined genetically, and genetic variation is much more complex than the concept of races. Once again, why are you attempting to move the goalposts?

>Are you suggesting that they dont form clusters which correlate exactly with the region of the world in which they developed?
Are you telling me that you can't read simple sentences about the scientific topic you are claiming to have knowledge about and understand them?

And I noticed you didn't answer my question: What level of genetic variation is required for a race in order to not make it synonymous with these classifications?

are you literally just trying to argue semantics

Call races sub species if it makes it easier for you to understand you autist

>Yes, but no one is sorting birds and fish into races. Fish are sorted into class, order, family, genus, species, and demes. Birds are sorted into order, family, genus, species, and demes. What level of genetic variation is required for a race in order to not make it synonymous with these classifications?

Why wouldnt it be synonymous you mron lmao? you are the one who moved the goalposts

to get back to the point of this thread:

>what evidence do we have that suggest that Evolution made a difference between what we call races.

The first guy made three decent points and you only really answered one of them- the semantics shit is just stupid and the margin of error for predicting race is literally less than 1% so although he was technically wrong he was basically right as far as anthropology is concerned

nothing pisses me off more than people who get anal about "technical definitions"

Fgt

I'll put it as my professor put it. It's a paradox. It is both a biological and a social construct.

It is a biological construct because many ethnicities have distinct genetic markers we can identify. It is social because each culture determines what ethnicites to lump into what race based on phenotypic criteria. There were actually attempts to unify criteria but what would happen is somehow Scandinavians would end up in the same "race" as East Africans because aside from skin color they'd meet mos the criteria.

As I like to put it "race" is social while regional ethnicity is biological.

>It is a biological construct because many ethnicities have distinct genetic markers we can identify

What do you mean by genetic markers? Again are you classifying these markers by race? what do you mean by race?

Im glad you admit race is social, you obviously have some kind of intelligence hidden away somewhere but if you are going to try to pretend "ethnicity" isnt just a "sciency" way of saying race then im afraid you'll have be roped in with the poltards you obviously share so much with