It's not about biologists not knowing biology, it's about them being fed PC bullshit every step of the way on race since WW2. Race science was legit and explains things accurately. It often gets misrepresented in PC egalitarian tracts.
>>61114681 >there isn't a biological explanation for your skin, hair, and eye color differing from someone else's. >there isn't a biological explanation for peoples living in the same area and descended from the same group of people having the same or similar physical characteristics.
For fuck's sake, Anon, black people don't even have hair that functions like the rest of humanity's. They also susceptible to certain diseases like sickle cell.
If the answers do not lie within the realm of biology when I don't know what would.
Both racists are modern SJW's are retarded. Color of skin doesn't mean shit, culture does. Look at blacks like Obama, Sowell, Carson, DGT. Then look at some ghetto rat. Do you seriously believe they are same?
Protip; when people say race has no biological basis, they are using a very old definition of race in which races were considered akin to seperate species.
I'm that definition, yes, "race" has nonbiological basis, because it has been proven we are all human.
But it's a bullshit response and is used by people today so they can score PC and progressive points. People don't think of "race" as meaning seperate species today, and it is obvious to anyone that something like skin colour is a biological difference.
>>61114508 By race isn't biological, what they (usually) mean is there is no "race" gene. Because there isn't. Believe it or not, Africa is the most genetically diverse continent on the planet. Humans associate skin color with a few facial features as a different "race" when there is a lot more to genetics with that. This is because humans are extremely visual creatures, so they rely on their eyes a lot, often to a fault (like in the case of race). A black person isn't any more genetically different to a white person than a ginger person is, but even moreso than that, there are black people who look similar to each other, but are further apart genetically than they are to white people. Looks don't determine how genetically different two people are.
Don't expect stormfaggots on /pol/ to understand this though.
>>61115876 So how come there are blacks like those I mentioned? Educated, successful people. My point is racism isn't applicable to real life, it's simply a fetish. And this goes to all racism, including black racism (which is even dumber).
>>61115961 I am trying to wrap my simple mind around it, Anon. Thank you, though.
Can I compare humans to dogs though? There are akibas with red hair, and there are akibas with black hair. They are both akibas, but I guess the correct word for this is that there are... different akiba breeds?
Should we be saying that then with respect to people? Are whites and blacks different "breeds"?
English isn't my first language btw, so sorry if I am making stupid mistakes.
>>61116283 >where every human can learn how to behave appropriateing to a certain culture That's my point, excluding extreme examples of course. >who do you think would assimilate best? I don't know. I actually went to school with a black girl (African mother). She didn't act any different from rest of people here. Don't know shit about Abos though.
>>61114960 What are you talking about? What other animals have race? None that I know of. I think you're thinking of sub-species, in which there is actually only one currently living sub species of homo sapien, which is us, homo sapien sapien. All of the other ones died out ages ago.
>>61116222 >My point is racism isn't applicable to real life, it's simply a fetish. And this goes to all racism, including black racism (which is even dumber).
Assuming you are not just shitposting, racism and stereotyping is useful. You need useful euristics to navigate trough life. For example if I see a group of young black males wearing hoodies heading towards, I'm just going to be extra careful. Non judgmentalism will get you killed.
>>61116831 >For example if I see a group of young black males wearing hoodies heading towards, I'm just going to be extra careful. But that's my point, that's not racism, that's common sense. If you saw some fat Sicilian guys in tracksuits, you would be wary too, right?
>>61116195 I never said that, I said there's no race gene, and what we think of as racial differences aren't always the biggest genetic differences between people.
>>61116325 Again, I never said there aren't races by our definition. I said there is no race gene, which is where the "no biological basis" thing comes from. Races are just a collection of traits that we group people in, though, and it's not as concrete as say, families, species, subspecies, in terms of genetic differences.
>>61116496 Dogs were selectively bred by humans, that's why we call them breeds, and not races, and their genetic differences are quite a bit different because of human meddling. But yeah, subspecies originating from different parts of the world, and then as a result having different physical characteristics would be the same thing as different races, more or less.
>>61116831 >But that's my point, that's not racism, that's common sense.
But you see, they are GENETICALLY violent. Do you understand this concept? They are less likely to feel empathy. Low impulse control. They are neurologically different. GENETICS my friend. You can't change that with culture alone.
>If you saw some fat Sicilian guys in tracksuits, you would be wary too, right?
You have watched too many movies. Mafia guys look working class as fuck.
>>61116529 There are thousands of clusters of genes that correlate with race there is no one "gene" but rather numerous genes that aggregate into an average that results in average differences that can be identified and associated with phenotypes.
You're just playing language games in order to pretend there's no genetic basis for race.
>>61117217 By every definition, the different human races are a lot closer together than different subspecies, i.e. homo sapiens idaltu. Subspecies are a lot more distinct than races, but sure, by our flimsy definition of race (I say this because there's no agreed upon definition), more races will be created all of the time, and it's actually very good for humanity that that happens.
For a century or more there have been dreams of "proving" the superiority of this or that "race," class, sex, or other group by demonstrating a relation between brain size and IQ. Earlier studies used measures of head size and have been strongly discreditied on several grounds. For example, it turns out that there is little relationship between head size and brain size. More recent studies, using magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, which is assumed to be more accurate, have suggested some correlation between brain size and IQ. One recent study by American psychologist Lauren Flashman and colleagues suggested a small correlation of around 0.25. Again, though, we have to remember that there are many possible ways in which such a correlation could be brought about, other than a direct causal relationship. For example, that those individuals who have the culturally specific knowledge and self-confidence required for IQ tests are also better nourished, or are taller and heavier, and in turn because they come from better socioeconomic backgrounds. After all, a correlation between body size and brain size of 0.5 and 0.6 has long been known, and there have also been reports of an association between self-confidence and test performance. In addition, we have to remember that individuals with very small brains (less than half the average size) have been identified, and are otherwise perfectly normal. And female brains are about 15 percent smaller than those of males, with no apparent difference in intelligence.
>>61117554 Sure, but there are genes even within some white people that you won't find within other white people. Clusters of genes, even. The reason why we put so much stock into race is because humans are visual, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned, I'm just pointing out what the biology teacher meant.
>>61117930 Your image was referring to different subspecies, not races. We don't refer to any other animal as different "races", just our own.
>>61117947 One paper isn't really enough compared to all of the scientists who say otherwise. If it turns out I'm wrong, and there is enough biological basis to separate races into different subspecies, and the scientific community accepts it (and don't tell me they won't accept something so controversial, as if they never have before), then I will gladly concede. I'm just speaking based on what most scientists are saying right now. I don't claim to be a scientist or even a biologist, and if I'm proven wrong then even better, I learn something new.
>racial science REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE It's fucking pseudosciences, there is not a lberal conspiracy among geneticists to deceive you, humans actually are very, very similar to each other especially considering how recently most major migrations were (in context of evolution)
>>61114508 lol i study general medicine and every professor i met is racist like me and my friends
they make fun of every nigger at our school who pays for their studies
my faw story is >a group of portugese are coming near us >professor of cardio clinic says >hm toto budu asi arabske opice/hm those are arab monkeys probably >hear portugese language >he corrected himself: oh they are portugese....those monkeys look all same >everybody is laughing at them
>>61118334 >humans actually are very, very similar to each other
Dog breeds are very similar to each other too, but every dog breed has different physical and behavioral characteristics. You don't treat a bulldog as a lapdog, or you get fucked. People have died because of that.
English prof basically told the whole class not to vote for Trump at one point - this wasn't even when he first came out as a candidate but only back in November. He said something about the deportations being amoral. Meanwhile though my British History prof basically favorably compared Trump to Hadrian in a half-joking way
>>61118883 Well we've only gone through 2 classes. It's sort of a very general run down covering a lot of time. Like right now we're on Celtics and the Roman invasions and such but we're expected to get to WWII. But the professor is really engaging with a small class. It's pretty based
Yeah who cares what a professor says? I'm sure the incoherent ramblings of a collective of online nazi weebos and trump supporters on an chinese little girl cartoon imageboard knows what's best for you. I mean, some of these threads even reach 350 posts.
>>61118200 >One paper isn't really enough compared to all of the scientists who say otherwise. If it turns out I'm wrong, and there is enough biological basis to separate races into different subspecies, and the scientific community accepts it (and don't tell me they won't accept something so controversial, as if they never have before), then I will gladly concede. I'm just speaking based on what most scientists are saying right now. I don't claim to be a scientist or even a biologist, and if I'm proven wrong then even better, I learn something new. why haven't you answered the question about Bidil, a heart medicine only approved for use on African Americans?
>he Sub-Saharan African (Bantu) and Australopapuan (Aborigine) genetic difference as measured by SNP’s is greater than the genetic distance between both the two species of gorilla ( Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei ), and greater than the distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo as measured by mtDNA
>>61120101 the one Ernst Mayr came up with, defining a species as the largest group of organisms where two individuals are capable of reproducing fertile offspring. It's not a perfect one, but it works for almost all sexually repoducing organisms. And niggers and whites are capable of reproducing fertile offspring.
>>61114508 http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf I gave my psychology teacher this after a talk about how sterotypes are bad and IQ doesn't mean anything.
She said it's an old study(ill give her that) and that it doesn't mean anything because all the "races" are not a thing then she brought up obama as to show races dont exist. She brought up a heavily mixed man to argue that there is no fault lines between pure ethnicitys. Since I wanted to pass I let it go, but wow
>>61121366 if the definition is that different species can't have fertile offspring then what do you make of the list I just gave you of interspecies crosses, most of whom are capable of producing fertile offsrping?
>>61115961 So, you're saying that some niggers are a a lot different than whites, and some are even more different than whites? Although you aren't intelligent enough to understand it, that is what you said.
Interestingly, it has just come out today that the achievement gap has hardly narrowed whatsoever between white and black students in the last 50 years since desegregation. In fact, at this rate it will 250 years for blacks to catch up to whites.
Wow OP, and you're still going to that school? I'd just drop out at this point if I were you man, you clearly aren't paying attention enough in class to learn anything.
inb4 but muh liberals, muh jewwws
No credible teacher on this planet is saying that race is not biological. What they are saying however is that race is far too broad, too generalizing, to represent reality accurately enough in biology. There are so many different genes and traits within our DNA that we can trace back to multiple different regions, but individually they don't matter. Why you ask? Because we've got over 20,000 different genes to compare between us! Race is only determined by physical appearances, and can include huge margins of error. Meanwhile, the genes that actually cause problems, the ones that make people act like a stereotypical nigger, can be traced down and removed from the gene pool. Race, for all intents and purposes, does not exist, but nigger genes do.
Nobody wants to own up to blacks carrying the majority of the bad genes, especially in 2016, but ignoring these time wasting politics and allowing our scientists to eventually find a way to turn all future niggers into respectable black men instead is what we should strive for. We need to grow beyond our desire to be like our ancestors, not in the globalized world we live in today. Besides, having pride in where you came from has always been a pointless dick waving contest for people who haven't personally accomplished anything. The only country you should be trying to represent is the one you were raised in.
>>61121823 If what he said is true...hoe do whites and asians have neanderthal DNA, while the negroes have none? Neanderthals were a different species. They interbred with non neanderthals. Libs BTFO, and it wasn't even difficult.
Apparently he's a fucking idiot who doesn't recognize ethnic haplogroups and discussed genetic similarities between populations in close proximity to eachother. If I had 2 islands where the lizards could interbreed but one had blue tailed lizards and the other had yellow tailed lizards and green tailed lizards were formed then I would consider the blue and yellow unique groups if they had this unifying unique characteristic that was largely allocated to each island.
>>61115961 So, that there supposedly isn't a "gene for skin color" doesn't have anything to do with biology of race. The fact that this seems to be the thing most people are educated on is pathetic commentary on our educational facilities.
Without racial consciousness you cannot have historical consciousness, only a consciousness of chronology.
The biological facts about race is that the Negroid race is the least developed and articulated race of sapiens, having only been in the sapien state for 40,000 years. Whites have been in the sapien state for 240,00 years. To just go along and ignore this is not honorable, it is ignorance, stupidity, and cowardice in its most unadulterated form. To assume that our highly-complex institutions are suitable for all distinct peoples in all times of history is resulting in our own genocide. No matter how long it takes, this is happening.
Without the preservation and solidarity of the ingenuity and munificence of the white race, the human race is sure to vanish. If we'd had exercised some patience in consolidating the inventive powers of the white race, science and eugenics would have solved the problems of race.
Instead, you get what you have now is a prison planet with nihilistic, multicultural cess occupying once beautiful countries where you cannot even speak openly about the most fundamental component of the the human condition, without being kicked out of school, fired from your job, and being shamed, hated, and ostracized by society.
>>61120644 In this analogy "breed" would be analagous to ethnic groups, not race, because it is based on genetic heritage. Race would be more analagous to labeling breeds as "terriers" and "hounds" and such.
>>61115961 This guy is actually right, this is what they showed in the human genome project. You could still define races based on traits though, I mean it's obvious that even though 2 people could be genetically closer than 2 other people it doesn't mean they're meaningfully (non-genetically) similar.
Human genome project has been widely discredited Senpai. I know race isn't a legitimate scientific method of human classification but of course, generally, people of similar geographic locales have similar phenotypes. They have the same genotype, but its phentype that matters and things like epigenetics, which are more similar for two Sub-Saharans than for a Sub-Saharan and a non-African. The Genome project knew none of this, it was like babies first genetic experiment.
>>61124131 >Isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine is a fixed dose combination drug treatment specifically indicated for African Americans with congestive heart failure. It is a combination of hydralazine (an antihypertensive) and isosorbide dinitrate (a vasodilator). It is the first race-based prescription drug in the United States.:7
>The combination preparation is marketed in the United States under the trade name BiDil by Arbor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. which purchased the rights to market the drug in December 2011 from NitroMed.
>>61115961 >there are black people who look similar to each other, but are further apart genetically than they are to white people Are you kidding? Even 1600s anthrobiology was clearly defining distinct racial groups among the regions of Africa. The only kind of person who cannot visually differentiate between Saharan groups, Bushpeople, coastal West Africans, Congolese, and Ethiopians, are people who have never even seen the groups.
Of course, being an American, you must imagine that all the people's of Africa are just like our niggers, interbred between the various Western African groups and Europeans in equal parts, mutts containing any random number of features of dozens of groups, and recessive genetics for hundreds more that may be passed to their children.
Hell, the first recorded form of racial discrimination was Egyptians saying they were different from Nubians. The idea that Africa is diverse is exactly as old as the idea that humans are diverse.
>>61124083 >repeat the race IQ tests and social experiments >blacks are genetically retarded spreads as a common idea >dindus start getting acquitted an masse and going to rehab to fuck around >chimpouts skyrocket to an all time high >"DEM SCIENCE WHITEYS SAID WE DONT KNOW NO BETTA SEE?!" >liberal extremists maintain firm grasp and use this as their tagline >half of the US and EU turns into south Africa since nigs are now exempt from morals and common sense
>>61124389 not even that. The fact is that many individuals (not most though) don't fit into racial categorization because they result from mixtures. This can royally fuck up forensic work btw. It's like dog, you know, many of them don't belong to a specific breed. But the breeds do exist.
As much as /pol/ cares about race, they don't understand it very well. Race IS perception, but again, /pol/ doesn't know what that means.
It not a denial of the obvious fact that people will be more genetically similar to those more closely related to them, and thus tend to share more traits. It's just a realization that people are bad at matching genotypes based on phenotypes.
Genetic similarity is real, but race doesn't correlate well to it. Appearance and culture plays a huge part in how people identify race. A Native American and Indian may be fairly different in comparison to the range of variation of human genetics, but if you were to swap their dress, behavior, and language, most people would misidentify the "race".
This is as stupid as saying because the wind is blowing east, the sailboat must be travelling east. Yeah wind factors into how and which direction sailboats move, but the two are not the same.
>>61125405 Uhm I don't think so. Look at the clinal zones in africa. You have a lot of different races and you get individuals where the distinction between, say, caucasoid and negroid os blurred. Or even the USA: most of the minorities are very impure racially. There's black guys with blue eyes ffs. With some people you just can't tell if they're mexican or black or white. Generally wherever big groups of races touch each other, admixtures will arise. Another example is syberia. East Russians are partly asian.
>>61125431 Yeah most people are fucking retarded. We are not most people. There are objective criteria for race determination without going so far as to examine the DNA. All you need to do is measure some bones.
Secondly, traits among humans are purely superficial. All dogs no matter what breed are the same species. The same is for humans no matter what size, shape, or skin tone: We are all the same species.
Superficial traits can be overridden: A "Pit Bull" Terrier, for example, can be made to be more docile and friendly, for example, given its environment despite its tendencies.
There is literally NO scientific evidence of racial superiority among humans. Every time I ask someone here to cite direct, scientific evidence, Pro Tip: You can't. Go ahead and try, though, and good luck!
Meanwhile, Intelligence Quotients aren't a SCIENTIFIC or even ACCURATE measure of human aptitude. You can measure precisely the speed of light in a vacuum or the amount of energy it takes to heat one cubic centimeter of water by 1 degree at sea level. You cannot precisely measure human aptitude.
>>61126237 >Intelligence Quotients aren't a SCIENTIFIC or even ACCURATE measure of human aptitude. this. IQ scores are bullshit. Ever notice that every time someone brags about their IQ score they are a fucking boring loser?
>>61114508 My friend explained it to me like this: There is no biological basis for race. The distinctions between races are arbitrary...not based on genetics. Obviously, people of different races are genetically different, but where do you draw the line? How different do two groups of people need to be in order to be separate races? There's no answer.
And I can accept that. But if that's the case, then I want to know why people are so fixating on race now a days. Why do SJWs push diversity as such a great thing that we need to study and celebrate? Shouldn't we instead study the ways that all people are the same? I'm getting mixed signals.
>>61125938 >There are objective criteria for race determination without going so far as to examine the DNA. All you need to do is measure some bones. That's my point. Race is perception. Someone can be a part of one race because they look/behave the part, but their biological factors (genes or bone size) tell you they are related to another set of humans.
>>61129390 The problem with this notion is that it doesn't even attempt to view the matter according to Occam's razor.
We may as well be "covering-up" contact with alien life, visitors from the bowels of the hollow Earth, and flying spaghetti monster gods.
The problem is that anons like this... >>61129990 ...take superficial FEATURES as dogmatic denominators of race. As if an African mating with a Swede could produce anything BUT a human...?
But unfortunately we cling to misguided, romantic notions that have nothing to do with scientific writ. Biology seeks to prove that which can be duplicated under laboratory conditions within a degree of sigma or certainty.
I live in perpetual fear that America is going to shit because Americans simply REFUSE to accept actual science. They are more inspired by mindless, childish memes and will take some misquoted image macro as the gospel. It is no wonder America's lacking education system is the joke of the free world.
>>61130516 Why not scroll up to see the genetic evidence posted proving that people from certain areas are more closely related than they are to people from other areas? You fucking moron. This is the basis of ethnicity, and ethnicities have physical traits in common. Call them 'superficial' all you want, they indicate it.
>Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. The term was often used in a general biological taxonomic sense, starting from the 19th century, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.
>>61114508 >"race isn't biological" >implying you can have children that are a different race than you or your partner >"don't worry goy, your shitskin child has nothing to do with biology :^)" Wow, fuck that kike.
>>61130731 I have no idea what you are saying but I'm sure you think you're brilliant for saying it.
>>61130923 I have to explain this to new students all the time. And so did my professors when I was in college.
>>61130996 It says right there in the very first paragraph: >race...is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies; the term is recognized by some, but is no longer governed by any of the formal codes of biological nomenclature.
>>61131277 Your supposed refutation of race as a concept is that 'raced can interbreed and are closely related'. That doesn't make races non-existent. It just means that all races qualify as human. Nobody with an ounce of knowledge is going to claim they're not all human, but again, just because they are human, doesn't mean they can't be divided into ethnicities and races.
>>61131622 I'm starting to doubt you teach anyone (except perhaps as an elementary school teacher) if you don't think scientists study ethnicities and their genetics, as much as they tip-toe to avoid using 'racist' language.
>>61132249 >It doesn't exist BIOLOGICALLY-speaking Ethnicities exist. This is commonly accepted. You may try to say 'white as a race doesn't exist!', but there are various ethnicity groups for the people of Europe, and they are recognized as people closely related. These closely related groups are more distantly related to other collections of closely related groups. This is all known and accepted. People fear to call these collections of ethnicities 'races' so they don't seem 'racist', but these collections exist regardless, and it is accepted they exist.
>>61133106 Next you'll claim genetics aren't studied in biology. I'm laughing, really.
Are you using some kind of VPN? Are you a Canadian on a day trip? Your mentality isn't unknown in America, sure, but whining this much about Americans as a people indicate you see them as an 'other', and thus are some dirty foreigner.
>>61133902 To say there is no biological basis to ethnicities is to say genetic studies are not under the purview of biology and do not indicate a genetic (ie biological) difference between populations.
>Race is associated with biology, whereas ethnicity is associated with culture.
>In biology, races are genetically distinct populations within the same species; they typically have ****relatively minor**** morphological and genetic differences. Though all humans belong to the same species (Homo sapiens), and even to the same sub-species (Homo sapiens sapiens), there are ****small genetic variations across the globe**** that engender diverse physical appearances, such as variations in skin color.
This took me literally 5 seconds to find on Google. You have a fucking supercomputer in your pocket and can't in2science.
I've never met a more depressing bunch of nitwits in my entire life! Consider me on suicide watch. I'm going to go dump out all the liquor I have before I drink myself into a coma.
>>61114508 ITT: People who flunked out of high school biology.
Race is a pseudo science that was useful as a concept that arose from hundreds of years ago before we knew what genes were. You might be thinking "There's so many different BIOLOGICAL differences between race, why isn't it scientific?" Because those differences are all borrowed from other branches of science, sociology or biology.
IQ? Sociology. Haplogroups? Genetics. Phenotypic differences? Taxonomy. Race added these concepts to itself to try and justify it's existence. Race has zero predictive use.
Race is a also a pseudo science because it has no strict, empirically testable definition.
>>61126237 >Molecular biologist reporting. >First of all... >>*sigh*
>Secondly, traits among humans are purely superficial. All dogs no matter what breed are the same species. The same is for humans no matter what size, shape, or skin tone: We are all the same species.
Nobody says niggers are a different species unironically. But we are probably different subspecies.
>Superficial traits can be overridden: A "Pit Bull" Terrier, for example, can be made to be more docile and friendly, for example, given its environment despite its tendencies.
What do you mean "superficial traits"? Some traits are innate. Border collies are more intelligent than pit bulls, and pit bulls are more aggressive than border collies. You can maybe train a pit bull to be less aggressive, but don't come to me to cry when it starts chewing your infant son.
>There is literally NO scientific evidence of racial superiority among humans. Every time I ask someone here to cite direct, scientific evidence, Pro Tip: You can't. Go ahead and try, though, and good luck!
Racial superiority is a vague word. You have to define a metric, like IQ.
>Meanwhile, Intelligence Quotients aren't a SCIENTIFIC or even ACCURATE measure of human aptitude.
Now you are just shitposting
>You can measure precisely the speed of light in a vacuum or the amount of energy it takes to heat one cubic centimeter of water by 1 degree at sea level. You cannot precisely measure human aptitude.
High IQ is very prevalent among successful people. Coincidence?
>>61136212 Where's the cutoff for the difference between race and sub-species? Why can't different races be described as different sub-species of Homo sapiens sapiens?
There are primates that are classified as different sub-species that are only genetically half as different from each other as Negroids are from Caucasoids. So why can those primates be described as two sub-species yet humanity can't?
>>61131334 Yes, through loose correlation and an inability to identify what a breed specifically is. Sure you can identify a Shetland sheepdog from a doberman but what about one that looks a bit like both and not like any other dog? Then the concept of race cannot be applied to this dog. Then there's the loose correlation. When people say this breed of dog is smarter, it's chit chat. They're smarter on average. That is to say, the concept of breed is an inaccurate one.
>>61137323 Take a stats class. Correlations that race has, 0.6, 0.5, 0.2, would get laughed out of any hard science. If someone told a chemist that he made a theory that could predict the chemical produced from a chemical reaction half of the time and demanded it be recognised, he would get acid thrown in his face.
Neither do statistics establish causality, which is what science is mostly concerned with. See correlation doesn't imply causation. You have to do controlled experiments to even properly establish correlation.
>>61138479 How long is a rope? Insufficient information. But I understand you're trying to make the point Olympian sprinters are almost always black. Which is my point. Race is useful in very small situations, even then it's no 100% accurate. It meets the standards of layman's accuracy but not science.
>>61137337 And how far shall we go back? We're all from Africa. Are we all the same race? Go back even further, to mammals that survived the meteor that struck the earth. Are all mammals a race? Or to the first organisms, are all living things a race?
You'd have to specify, like common ancestor 10,000 years ago or 1,000 years ago. Then, you'd just have your definition. Race would still be shit at predicting things.
I went to a small, now growing, research/business/law school and none of my natural science profs were in any way left-leaning. And if they were they never let on and spoke mostly the truth of the science.
>>61139294 I wouldn't hire Somalians because they're halfway across the world.
>90% is better than 0% Which is another reason why race is a bad concept. It just borrows from other fields. Why 90% when you can administer an IQ test and get a 100%? Why not hire niggers when you can just look at their criminal history? It's an outdated concept like being cold makes you cold or sickness is caused by bad air.
>>61139375 A light amount of biology is sufficient to construct philosophical arguments in regards to epistemology and metaphysics, specifically ontology. That shit is a red pill. The biology itself is meh. I don't care to memorize 1000 latin names.
There is no formal instrument or classification for "race" in pure biology. The term is colloquial at best. I can see where a geneticist might concern his or her self with arbitrary features. Shit, I'm on the molecular/chemical side of the discipline and we are equally concerned with characteristic features. But I see a tree as a tree; because an atom is an atom and a chemical bond is a chemical bond and so on until you get a tree. A tree is plant. I'm not going to argue fern over birch.
But seriously, anyone here who claims to practice biology and by their own volition swears by some equally superfluous political alignment, i.e.; "left" vs "right", please tell me why there are no formally-recognized papers harkening significant findings in race research? And before you start crying "conspiracy", you know good and damn well any Republican OR Democrat would throw money at you if you could conclusively prove race as anything more than just an arbitrary swath of traits.
So let me ask you this: A mixed-race black child is born to a sub-Saharan African and a Swede. The child then lives in Sweden with his biological father. Will that child be more likely to show characteristics of robust resistance to cold? And what if it were the other way around? If the child had stayed in Africa, would it be less inclined to adapt to the colder climates? YOU CANNOT SAY THIS CONCLUSIVELY!!!! It lends no merit to the art.
>>61114681 >>61125677 Race science was completely legitimate until after WW2. The one and only reason it got shunned was because of how the Nazis used it. Do you think that it miraculously became illegitimate over night and for no reason? No. It got immediately lumped into the category of Nazi Science by the Frankfurt School proponents and thus became a pariah.
Also, Richard Lewontin completely discredited the entire "race is a social construct" by making an ass of himself in the 70's. He's a tenured professor from Harvard. Still didn't change the fact the he was completely wrong and tried to politicize science because he was an outspoken and self-described Marxist.
>>61139590 >prove race as anything more than just an arbitrary swath of traits. This is what race realists argue for. Whether you call it a race or a population or a subspecies is irrelevant to the implications of this fact. Thank heavens you are just retarded.
>>61140225 >This is what race realists argue for What can you tell me conclusively about a person with black skin vs a person with "white" skin.
Oh wait...let you look at the bones. Maybe the bones hold more evidence...
See this skull feature here? Yeah...that's a black dude, all right!
NO KIDDING? Did you see his skin before you started cutting him open?
Now, without a microscope, tell me what part of the world this dissected negroid comes from, and why his traits are important to his survival. And while you're doing that, please explain why the whites living in that same region didn't start spuriously having black children...i.e.; darker and darker skin, since resistance to the sun was so important to the negroid fellow. Surely locked-away in their genes is the ability to jump-start melanin production...?
>>61140798 There is absolutely no way you have any biology background when you're here trying to disprove race with Lamarckian evolution. I mean, holy fucking shit, do you have any idea how long ago that was discredited? Is that shit still taught in Singapore?
>>61141629 >Superficial Nobody arguing with you is trying to claim one race is better than another. Whether or not you regard differences in physical appearance as superficial, they fucking exist, and they differ between races.
I'm not even fucking white, my dad was a goddamn taco, so stop being so insecure like you think the big bad white man is saying he's better than you.
Also you know sickle cell is an African adaptation to combat malaria, right?
>>61141109 >>61141629 >I want you to tell me conclusively AT THE GENETIC LEVEL what traits determine an "ideal" human >Resistance to disease >Fertility These are only necessary conditions for an ideal organism. With the capabilities that humans have, their are other desirable traits especially when their is competition between these population groups that threatens their survival and reproduction. Also, resistance to disease is only an instance of survival which is the more fundamental necessity of an organism. Just as fertility is an instance of reproduction, it is not sufficient for reproduction, as that requires sex drive, and survival, etc...
Race is a human construct and you're daft to believe otherwise. It's a word made by humans because they saw there are vast differences between people of different ethnicity. So yeah, it is a social construct. But it's based on real observations, so there is some (if not a lot) of truth in some racial (cultural) stereotypes. But instead of taking this into account, the establishment chooses to basically lie to people that every culture follows the same ethics, morals, basic human rights as the "west" does. This is why we have allowed people to freely pass our """"""borders""""""" under the guise of altruism. We simply do not understand that other cultures don't follow the same principles as we do
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.