I got into this argument with a Jew and he asked me to scientifically

>>9005033
Reported for being underage

>>9005037
I'm serious. We were talking about an African and a Caucasian having a baby and what "race" that baby would be. He stumped with "is it a whole new race?"

>>9005033
Race can't be simply quantified as the percentage difference in genetic material. There are plenty of people of different races who have a higher genetic similarity with each other than with some other members of their own race.

>>9005033
The evolutionary branches of mankind throughout the thousands of years. Ofcourse evolution deniers will deny race straight up.

Humans don't have races, they have ecotypes. But so what? An ecotype of 85 IQ is going to produce a very different civilization than one with 100 IQ, because a civilization is such a big extended phenotype dependent on trillions of genetic contributions from millions of people.

>>9005047
Can you define what race is from a scientific standpoint? I couldn't cause I don't know anything about genetics.

>>9005033
Well race is completely gradual

>>9005047
>Race can't be simply quantified as the percentage difference in genetic material. There are plenty of people of different races who have a higher genetic similarity with each other than with some other members of their own race.
really? source? I thought similarity of genetic material is the best indication of ancestry

File: global-genetic-distances-map.jpg (856KB, 3741x3887px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 3741x3887px

>>9005033
there's two issues here.

one is that your friend is saying "where do you draw the line or what strict criteria do you use to decide whether someone is one race or another? It is arbitrary"

but this is a bit like saying "who decides when a number is "big" ? is 10 big? what about 50? or 100? or 200 ? it's arbitrary"

So yes, it is arbitrary what THRESHOLD humans might decide to call a number a big.
And similarly it is arbitrary which SET OF PEOPLE we designate as say "white". e.g. some might consider kurds as white, some might say that some kurds are white and others are not white, etc.)

HOWEVER just because the label "big" or "white" is arbitrary as to where you decide to draw the line DOES NOT MEAN that size itself is arbitrary.

So maybe one person might say 100 is big, but another person might say , no only numbers greater than 1000 are big numbers

BUT IT IS A FACT that 1000 is bigger than 100. so the threshold is arbitrary and decided by humans, but size itself is not arbitrary.

And similarly, the colloquial term "white" is arbitrary , but the degree of relatedness of different populations is not arbitrary.
So one person might say "algerians are white" or "algerians are not white" , but you can definitely take a the DNA from a bunch of algerians and conclude that as a population they are much more closely related to europeans than they are to subsaharan africans

this image shows these genetic distance calculations.

>>9005092
now ok , we've demonstrated that, but does that really mean that races EXIST?

well that's easy, does any clustering exist?

what's a clustering? let's say you have a totally bounded high dimensional space and you randomly (uniform distribution) place say 2 billion dots in that high dimensional space.
are there any clusters there?
Well by the law of large numbers, almost certainly not. it would look just like noise.

Now imagine that you placed another 2 billion dots such that they distributed with a very low-variance normal distribution centered around some point of the space.

And you place another 2 billion dots in a similar fashion centered around a far away point of the space.

are there clusters now? Yes, because clearly you'll be able to see the lots of the dots clumped up around the two points.

even though there are lots of dots in the middle in between the two clusters, the clusters tehmselves still exist. they still describe some important feature of the data distribution.

We have the exact same thing here >>9005092
we can see clusters of different populations formed.
unsupervised clustering algorithms like Expectation maximisation or density based clustering would definitely be able to pick up clusters for the east asian or what used to be called "mongoloid" populations and the cluster for people that used to be called "caucasoid".

pretty amazing that people 150 years ago, before any genetics, were able to so accurately guess that indians were much more related to europeans than east asians just from looking at their facial features

So actually people's old fashioned idea of there being a mongoloid race and a caucasoid race maps pretty damn well to clusters supported by genetics.

as for the "negroid race" however, there is a lot more distance between different subsaharan african populations because people have been living in S.S. africa for so much longer than other continents of the world, so you would notget clustering.

>>9005051
>>The evolutionary branches of mankind throughout the thousands of years. Ofcourse evolution deniers will deny race straight up.

you're going to have as many races as you do many ethnicities and tribes if you want to account for the wide spectrum of phenotypes

but lets keep going with race in which we arbitrarily select only some, put arbitrary dividing lines on the spectrum, and then tie it down to geography, but at the end still fundamentally ignoring certain things and elevating other features we place more value in our taxonomy and thus being anti-scientific

>>9005041
as much as two different breeds of dogs having a litter. would that new litter be a new breed? idk sure