Oh my goodness, the scientific definition of race has been developed and refined since its conception! Obviously, then, race is a "social construct," because science does not permit refinement! Great video!
gee, a short german shepherd is more different from a tall one than a husky and a german shepherd of equal size...astonishing! obviously absolutely meaningless in dismissing the blatantly obvious reality of racial differences, but astonishing!
The idea that race is nothing but a social construct is so patently absurd that it's pointless to even to begin to refute it in any context, and certainly one such as YouTube comments. What obviously is a social construct is the concept that race is a social construct. Not only that, the very notion does far more to perpetuate racism than if people would simply acknowledge the obvious and easily proven reality of racial differences.
This is a perfect example of what happens when leftists go into scientific fields. Their political ideology trumps reality. People who deny race as a "valid scientific concept" are liars and politically motivated charlatans. They misuse the data to mislead others. That is the absolute lowest of the low in terms of vile behavior in a scientist. These people are just as evil as the Nazi racial purity scientists of WW2.
I'd like to add another thought, race only exists because it was created by Europeans in the 18th century, mostly to rationalize their idea of being superior to those who appear to be different, on the surface. We are more alike, than different, it's just that the concept of race has historically been accepted for so long, we now perceive it as fact. Remember, for many years, the earth was regarded as flat. Do you still believe what is inherently false?
Sigh..all I can say, is ignorance breeds racism. And if you knew anything about genetics, human beings are the most consistently alike in their biological make-up. The only differences lie in our cultures, our ethnic backgrounds, and the way our parents helped us view the world and the people in it, around us. It's sad to say that centuries have passed, and we have not progressed, even with the so-called advantage of a larger brain. It only works if people actually use it.
haha, I guess the moron who created this video wants race based medicines to no longer be created since "race doesn't exist". He wants it both ways of course. Typical communist filth.
It is foolish to think that populations geographically isolated from one another that live in wildly contrasting climates would not evolve different traits in order to adapt to their different environments. Humans are not exempt from these processes.
If you believe in evolution and adaptation then you believe in race and the significant biological concept it is.
A "race" is a word given meaning by man, generally understood to be equally defined as "sub-species". I don't know which creation-theory you subscribe to, but the most general "anti-racist" mentality consider the Out-of-Africa THEORY to hold true.
Now, let's assume this is correct. You are willing to say:
--All humans evolved from blacks.
--In different areas.
--In different ways.
--In different degrees.
Yet they're the same? So a Chimp is the same as a Gorilla?
@richbullva Well, here's something to mull over. If we go on the assumption that the average chimp and the average human share 98% of their genetic make-up (which many say is false) then whites are still more different than blacks.
A new study found that Eurasians have between 1-4% of their genetic body coming from Neanderthals, which is not Africans as per the Out-of-Africa theory. And that is only partial analysis, it could be anywhere from 5-15% difference.
@SpeckerWrecker91 okay dude even neanderthals would have origins in Africa the entire plethora of the species homo,be they sapeins, erectus or what have you have there origins in Africa,regardless whites descend from a group of blacks i dont think that it makes blacks any better its just a fact and really no big deal
In the future, Eurasians may very well be classified as entirely different species from Africans; as further investigation will simply further the divide between the two lines of humanity. The best thing is, religious nuts will jump on this knowledge. You think the KKK is bad now, wait until science backs their religious belief that humans are split into two groups, Spawn of Adam and Spawn of Cain.
@SpeckerWrecker91 dude for at least for hundred years that type of thinking has been upon us, from Cain to Canaan,to hell with the KKK!! they have more than enough (pseudo)science to support their claims
@richbullva Their is no evidence to suggest that; in fact, if anything the evidence denies that.
A more recent study would suggest that sub-Saharan Africans are distinctly descended from the Homo Erectus-gene and that Europeans/Asians are distinctly descended from Homo Neanderthalis. This study explains why each group has both common genetics and exclusive genetics.
Thus far, all Europeans/Asians show between 1-4% relation to Homo Neanderthals, which Africans do not have.
@SpeckerWrecker91 uh yes there is proof check out the website that dude mentions on this post, whites actually have no dna that is unique to them only blacks have exclusive genes look it up and stop being racist dude seriously i am not trying to imply superiority at all just facts,there is nothing found in socalled white genomes that cannot be found in some african groups
@richbullva "To their surprise they found that the
Neandertal is slightly more closely related to modern humans from outside Africa than to Africans,
suggesting some contribution of Neandertal DNA to the genomes of present-day non-Africans." --Science Magazine, 2010
The second paragraph at the top of the "neanderthal admixture theory" page on wikipedia disproves your suggestion. If you'd like, I'll also post findings that King Tut ("Black African") is 99% WEST EUROPEAN.
One of many fallacies in your argument: You say human beings are "99.9% the same" genetically -- but humans are not unique in this respect. Most large animal species are genetically homogeneous to a similar degree or even more, including animals such as tigers, cheetahs, brown bears and wolves which are widely acknowledged by zoologists to have races (a.k.a. subspecies). The argument from human genetic homogeneity to the conclusion that humans cannot have biological races is therefore unsound.
@73elephants His argument is nothing but fallacy. The genome of mice is over 97% the same as humans. I guess that means we are the same as mice, lol.
There are humans alive today who have features of Neandertalis. Short femurs and such. Also note that the average human today has a brain size of is between 1130cc and 1260cc. Archaic humans had brains sizes up to 1760cc. They were capable of cultural behavior and they were very much human. Homo sapians assimilated in small part but mostly exterminated them.
Almost everything you say in this video is not true. Look up "Haplotypes".
Also see the "mostly out of Africa" theory of human evolution. Not only are we different races we may also have very small admixes of other "archaic" species of humans. You have to remember that there were 4 species humans living on the Earth During the time of homo sapiens. Neanthalis, Heidelbergensis, Erectus, all lived during the same time as the homo sapiens.
Watch the documentary The Family Tree by National Geographic. It proves that human are once race proving by genetics!!!! And that books like that are wrong!
I am pleased to report that since using Levodyn, my blood pressure has lowered to the good range. This is the only thing that I have done differently recently so the credit is due to this natural product. My doctor has noticed the improvement after I told him about taking this supplement, but he didn't seem to want to discuss this.
Many black people are beatiful but sense there white i am not allowed sense my mother thinks they got me stabbed two times it was those white guys she thought were good they seen me hangin wth them and some black boys jumped me I fought back but ended up stabbed twice not too bad im ok now still hurtin wth the stitches sense i dont use pain killers. Yo I also like this one black gurl sense shes real good2 me n looks good better than my girl friend who acts racist even thou she says shes not.
You are just upset because science is taking away the last reason left for you to continue you republican, racist oppression so your all consuming greed comes that much easier to you.
This person actually got there information from unbiased science. I have taken many biology classes from many different professors and every single class every single professor has said the same thing as the gut in this video. The only reason why people have more melatonin in their skin than others is due to environmental adaptation. Everything else we think we know about race was a thought up social construct to have a guilt free attitude about oppressing others.!!!!
What is your "racial" background? There is such a thing as mulattos, and those of mixed ethnic heritage. And no, races are defined as such DUE to their characteristics. Some are more similar than others, because all humans are the same species.
"And no, races are defined as such DUE to their characteristics"
But not every black person shares the same characteristics. Some blacks could pass as hispanic, or native American or even white. Blacks when it comes to nose structure cheek structure, physical build, etc...there's a lot of variation.
There must be a load of white folks here. They are the only ones who believe their own lies. Obviously still have that superiority complex...still... You folks only got ahead because of prejudice. Black and white races were created during the colonization of the U.S. and guess what, blacks were in most times easily identifiable unlike the white indentured servents. Get a grip..the gig is up...
Finally someone with some brains on you tube!! It's amazing. I think all these white folks are just pissed off because a white guy with a shaved head is actually intelligent and not a white supremacist.
Human beings and chimpanzees share 99.4% of their functionally relevant DNA, so lefties who proclaim that all human beings are over 99% genetically similar are being pretty ignorant.
And it is not true. More concretely, it may be true only in very little differentiated, isolated populations (e.g. Native Americans, Caucasian nations), where high within-population Fst values (high within-population diversity) are an artefact of the overally low total population diversity.
In other words, the genetic differences between various American Indian tribes seem to be pretty high (something like 0.09) at first glance, but they are normal at best. They seem to be high only when compared with the little diversity of the whole American Indian population.
assuming evolution, its logical that species not only evolve but diverge as well. ie, humans &chimps evolved &diverged from a common ancestral species. obviously, this occurred gradually rather than instantly. throughout the earliest part of this divergence they were still capable of interbreeding &DNA studies confirm that they did. race is that grey area that exists as one species diverges into 2 separate &distinct species. race may be "grey" but it exists. your opinion is the social construct.
good job on the video you hit all the points that race is socially constructed, biological races does not exist because no social race holds onto particular chromosomes. Also no scientists can disprove this without having to use social concepts thus ruining his own research.
No it's not. You speak of race as if it is a pure and isolative grouping of people. Do you not realize that groups of people have been interbreeding and migrating for thousands of years? Do you think that these races(which you should define and enumerate if you are arguing for a biological foundation) sprang up magically in a well defined region and maintained themselves there with no outside contact?
You know EXACTLY what I mean when I say race! Now you want to shift the goalposts and define it in a way that groups everyone together. By that logic, since everything in the universe is composed of atoms we must ALL be the same.
If race doesn't exist, then FAMILY doesn't exist either, because race is simply a partly inbred extended family when looked at at the biological level.
No anthropologist has ever said that there don't exist intermediate groups. But why to deny the existence of Caucasoids and Mongoloids? Only because Uralic groups started to mix with Eastern Europeans 5000 BC and Turkic tribes started their westward expansion during the 4th century AD?
The races didn't "spring up magically", but came into being due to a sufficiently long geographical isolation during the last ice age.
I'm afraid that they do. Human races differ no less substantially from the majority of subspecies classification found within the animal kingdom both in terms of morphological traits and genetic FST values.
At any rate, this is a non response as you have failed to make the argument that other subspecies can't potentially be divided into "groupings" all the way down to the immediate family if you examine enough genetic data. In effect, you've simply decided to ignore it.
For some reason this kind of discussion is new and even perculiar to many people. To any anthropology student, or bio student for that matter, this is common knowledge.
"No such thing as race therefore no such thing as racism"?
Of course not.
The creater of this video hit the nail on the head quite simply when he wrote "Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social
Problem Is Real."
This discussion is to huge for me to fit all my thoughts into this box.
Highfive. Keep spreading this message. End ignorance. Race is a divide and conquer construct put in place by the elite to keep the masses fighting with each other while they push their agendas (classic divide and conquer). If you believe in race you are a racIST because you practice racISM. I don't care how liberal you think you are, i don't care if you are white with a black hubby...you are a racist. keep learning folks. And again, buddhagem, highfive. You got 5 stars=)
I think that ordinary people can recognize very well that they differ physically from people of other races. They need no scientific advisor, who would tell them that these differences are only "illusion".
No one is denying genetic variances found among humans. That is not the issue. The issue is that biologically, race cannot be determined. It would have hold up temporally as well as genetically. The variances among humans and their behavior(dispersal patterns and breeding) are too complex to be classified in simple race constructs.
No it cannot, you are misinformed. Although regional similarities are found, this is by no means accurate in defining race. Humans interbeed, migrate, and genetically disperse through gene flow (and this has been going on since the beginnins of h.sapiens and maybe Neaderthals).
Think about what you just typed. What are the races that can be determined biologically? What are the parameters? What races do you think scientists can determine through cranial and post-cranial remains?
Nonsense. What do you actually know about anthropology and genetics? Despite historical migrations, the borders between races can be recognized even by a small child. When geographical distance is held constant, the genetic distance on the racial borderline is 3-times higher than within the racial clusters.
This is only a leftist sophistry that is to serve their political utopias. They simply want to get people rid of common sense.
I know a lot about Anth, I have a M.A. in it. But that is besides the point. Most cultural and physical anthro support no race. Anyways, geneticists would know more. Go ahead and define the races, you have not done so. How are you going to define racial borders? A child? yet you have failed to desrcibe what you are arguing for.
Well how about you try to answer the question so we can have a debate instead of dismissing points based on degrees. What are these so called races? Where do they exist? Why do you think they are isolated and have maintained strict biological boundaries? When did race appear? And the way you think of them, they are obvioulsy transitional, so how does such a concept exist in a temporal frame?
Neither 'colors' (as we experience) or 'races' are real. While there are independent (real) processes that allow for spectral hallucination, as there are processes that allow for the illusion of race, the two are synthetic, dependent on our conscious being. Nonetheless, these fabrications have already aided in our understanding of some of what is real (as you've stated).
My point with color, is only that it is a figment of our creative minds, in contrast to all physical mediums that are responsible for our perceiving of color.
Because we have the capacity to see colors, there must exist underlying (real) causes to our perception of it. But the specific categorization of the visible spectrum (ROYGBIV), is purely an artistic production, as is the categorization of anything.
That is precisely my point. We must at some point abstractly apply names. Both "blue" and "caucasoid" are imperfect representations of reality, but the name helps people understand their world. Race is imperfect because what we are really talking about is the interaction of millions of genes, in the same way that color is imperfect because it doesn't full capture the depth of reality. But there is evidence that race and color are decent markers for understanding.
While all human experience is subjective construct, 'objective reality' is the intangible phenomena that act as the cause to our experience. The fact that an electron can emit electro-magnetic energy, does not mean that "blue" exists outside of our own minds.
Similarly, the fact that we have decided on how we want to group micro-organisms, does not mean that these groupings are part of objective reality. And it certainly doesn't mean that some variation in taxonomy could not offer similar, longterm, benefits.
You seem to think names define reality. They do not, they attempt to explain reality. You are correct to say that some variation in taxonomy might not be harmful, as we probably don't have everything right yet. Science is self-correcting. But should we abandone taxonomy altogether? I read recently in Jane's that we have developed race-specific bio-weapons. How could we develope, say, a bomb that will harm specific Mongoloid groups and not Caucasoids (as we have) if race is a social construct?
"Blue" is simply a word, but a physicist could define what we call "blue" with substanivtive mathematics. While biology or anthropology may not be able to live up to the test of physics, they can certainly tell us a bit about objective reality. And they have. Human groups differ substantially enough biologically to warrant some form of group classification. We call this "race" in the same way the physicist calls a "color" "blue." We have to name things arbitrarily, but they can still be real.
Physicists can do more than just name 'colors'. They can extrapolate representations of physical realities. But a model for the physical existence, of something as abstract as a 'racial category', is inconceivable.
Give a sample of blood or semen to a forsenics expert, and they will be able to tell you the giver's race. Take an agrragate g sample from any random country, and a psychometrist will be able to tell you the majority composition of the population. Psychologists can even match scent with race specific immunogenes. Yet the denial continues. The biological differences between races is staggering, and I think that is a beautiful thing, not an ugly fiction. Why are you afraid of diversity?
Putting things into historical perspective does not alleviate us of the responsibility to examine the evidence we have available. By your reasoning, the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory, relativity, heliocentrism, and countless other accepted, scientific facts would be rejected because they were either not intially considered or parsimonious. When people say they want to put things in historical perspective, it usually means they don't have the preoponderance of evidence on their side.
I've never used the argument that inter-population differences are insignificant and, thus, we should abandon 'race'. The problem is that there will never be a unanimous agreement on how to GROUP human populations. Thus, 'Racialization' is clearly a subjective process, which will always produce an arbitrary end-product. This is, essentially, the basis for rejecting the biological concept of race. Time cannot bring forth any solution to the problem (as you've asserted): RACE IS A FALLACY.
All human knowledge is, to some extent, "subjective." The germ theory of disease is subjective, as grouping various micro-organisms is done by people with prejudices and disagreement, yet millions of lives have been saved through immunizations. Grouping, say, different kinds of wheat is "subjective," yet new strains of the crop have fed billions in the past century that could not have been fed in the 19th. We ignore real, scientific evidence at our own peril. You chose ideology over reality.
'Actually', all racial classifications, human or other, are but products of vague, tentative, and subjectively dependent pseudo-science. It is fact, that there has never been any objective and definitive racial model. This is because any protocol for categorization, will involve the element of subjectivity. Thus, your 'races' have always existed just as fancifully as the Tolkien races.
Actually, "RACE" is not a social construct, it is in fact used by most geneticists to refer to different human groups that have evolved on different continents thus giving rise to different races, races that are [for example] susceptible to specific diseases other races are not i.e., Jews and Tay Sachs, and blacks and sickle cell...or is sickle cell a social construct too? You want to have your cake and eat it too.
buddhagem is just subscribing to a self-hating ideology. Maybe he wants to see a slashing in funding for sickle cell anemia? After all, race doesn't exist!
Your critical thinking IS weak. Citing authors ad nauseam will always pale in comparison to elegant reasoning. Regardless of how close the races are in genome, the fact remains, on a whole, those of African descent possess genotypic differences from whites, the most obvious being for the production of melanin. There are other significant differences as well. Race matters. The genomic code is immense, even 0.0001% difference can be of scientific significance.
Your poor critical thinking lost me with the first minute. I checked another of your videos and it's clear that you're not big on logical argument. I'm sure you're sincere, though.
I'll keep searching for a definitive argument on this.
Dude we now KNOW the SPECIFIC GENES that make COLD RACES SMARTER than tropic races
{"Racial Differences in IQ Genes found
The Wall Street Journal
By ANTONIO REGALADO
2006
Bruce Lahn professor of human genetics stood before a packed lecture hall and reported results of a new DNA analysis that found recent evolution (for larger brains/IQs) in some people, but not of others
He flashed maps that showed the genetic changes had taken hold in Europe, Asia but weren't common in Africa
RACE IS AN ILLUSION. YOU CAN PERPETUATE PSEUDO-RACE ALL YOU WANT BUT ITS PROPAGANDA!!!
RACE DOES NOT EXIST IN SCIENCE ANYWHERE. RACE, more specifically, SKIN is a (highly adaptable) organ that responds to the UV (ultraviolet rays) of the Sun.
LOL, so skin colour is the ONLY environmental adaptation between human racial groups and no other physical characteristic evolved. Yeah, that's realistic!
LOL!!!! Yes, I suppose changing the name of "race" to "ethnic group" or "population group" will make things all better! Of course you concede that race exists but are too afraid to use the word.
There are several powerful challenges which have been brought forth by scientists, which suggest the concept of race is merely a social construct. The fact that racialist tend to disagree on how many races exist, is direct proof, that races do not exist.
Racialization has proved futile, as all racial paradigms have encountered objections from either racialists, laymen, or the scientific community. This is, unarguably, the truth. Because I possess the intellectual and emotional capacity to accept that the concept of 'race' is a social construct, there is no reason to seek extraneous data regarding the issue, as you have suggested. Unfortunately, the likes of you have resorted to the art of self-delusion, in pursuit of an endless fantasy.
How could racialization be "futile", when the old anthropological division of humans well agrees with modern genetic clustering, for Goodness's sake?! You have obviously read nothing from the recent advances of population genetics and you only parrot silly ideological crap heard at a multicultural brainwashing class.
The possibilities of old anthropologists were limited, because they couldn't correctly deduce the origin of single racial groups from external traits. Sometimes they were able to infer their relationship, but they didn't know, how this relationship came into being.
Some placed American Indians as a subgroup of Mongoloids, some counted them as a separate race. We now know that the origin of American Indians is very surprising, because they are basically a Proto-Caucasoid/Proto-Mongoloid mixture.
Their isolation was so long that they make up a separate genetic cluster, so they can be taken as a separate racial group. But they really come from an archaic Mongoloid population and old anthropology thus wasn't wrong.
We can find a similar situation in Sub-Saharan Africa, where virtually all anthropologists agreed with the typological division of Khoisan, Pygmies, West Africans/Paleonegrids, Nilotes and Ethiopids, because these anthropological types were very striking.
However, they were not sure, if they can call them separate races, because they didn't have our modern genetic technology and didn't know their origin. Pygmies were considered as a dwarf, archaic form of West Africans/Paleonegrids, and Nilotes were considered as their more advanced form. Ethiopids were taken as a mixture of Subsaharan Africans and Caucasoid Semites. Khoisan were sometimes classified as a separate race, because their appearance was very different from other Africans.
Genetics now revealed that all these types come from single lineages that have very deep roots in Middle Paleolithic. The ancestors of Khoisan diverged from the rest of humankind more than 100 000 years ago, and one of their branches later headed north and gave rise to today's Nilotes. Pygmies also separated a long time ago (at least 70 000 years). Ethiopids are partly mixed with Caucasoids, but their Caucasoid-like morphology had been present in East Africa even before this mixture happened.
What's even more surprising, they are actually descendants of an African branch, from which all non-Africans come from, and hence they are genetically intermediate between other Subsaharan Africans and non-Africans.
West Africans, Paleonegrids and Bantus (i.e. "true African blacks") are mostly a stabilized mixture of archaic Ethiopids and Pygmies. Their anthropological relationship with Pygmies was inferred correctly, but the detection of their origin was simply beyond the possibilities of old anthropologists.
The genetic "uniformity" of Subsaharan Africans is a very recent phenomena, obviously stemming from the influx of Bantu genes into all previously separated groups. However, their huge physiological differences still persist, which - together with the deep roots of their divergence - is more than enough for their classification into 5 separate races. Future research will confirm it.
If you refer to studies that use the highest resolution, and commit to your logic, than it is 'factual' that Western and Eastern Europeans are of a different race. Even further resolution would 'prove' that W-Europe actually consists of multiple 'races'.
Because all populations, even subpopulations, have undergone (even in the slightest) isolate evolution, why isn't it true that their are at least as many 'races' as their are nations in the world?
Go back to your multicultural class. None of such pseudoarguments is used against subspecies classification in animals. In fact, a biologist suggesting subspecies classification for every herd of antelopes would be considered as a clinically insane person.
Following the taxonimist 'logic', there may be nothing wrong with classifing almost every herd of antelope seperately. After all, there is no agreement to HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE is actually necessary for subspecies to exist.
A racialist's failure to apply his own pseudo-logic, to intra-populations is what leaves him illuded.
And I have my Bachelors in Biological Sciences from NIU.
No. The medical community should study "ETHNIC" differences in disease. The fact that some medical literature involves the concept of 'race', doesn't mean that 'races' actually exist. Apparently, (and unfortunately), laypeople come to this conclusion. This is just as was intended by the racial proppers.
I should note, that I myself use the concept of race now and then. It doesn't mean that I actually believe in that race is much more than a social construct. Like to much of the scientific community, 'racialization' has been adopted for descriptive convenience.
All humans descend from amniotes, if you go back far enough. All human beings are not of African descent if you go back within the last 36 generations (you inherit 50% of your genes from each parent, 25% from each grandparent and .000000001% of your genes from each greatX36 grandparent. I agree that race is not a biological concept but not the implication that it "shouldn't" be a social construct because it has no biological meaning. You are also exageratting the 'non-Whiteness' of certain Euros
Race is just another way of saying population; the question of race just becomes overly complicated because it has the potential of being unscientifically politicized.
I don't understand your comment on my page, Mr. Simpleton. Can you support your opinions with some exact data? Or will you contact your African brothers and sisters (gorillas and chimpanzees, 98% identical with humans) with a request for help?
You are so confused that you even list sources illustrating the genetic clustering of humans, and you quote Cavalli-Sforza, who himself genetically divided humans into separate groups correlating with traditional races, yet later he was forced to recant his opinion because of the pressure from leftist circles.
Humans can be genetically separated into 5 main clusters (Negroid-Subsaharan African, Caucasian, Mongoloid, Australoid-Papuomelanesian, American Indian). The genetic distance between some extremely distant groups (Africans vs. American Indians/Australian aborigines) approaches genetic distance documented between chimpanzees and bonobos, i.e. two separate primate species.
Humans could be biologically divided in many, many ways, none of which are objectively significant. Studies have shown that increasing the number of loci increases the resolution of the groupings which result. This means there are a vast number of potential divisions, all of which are (or would be) essentially arbitrary.
And this is an exception in the animal world? Or do you think that all divisions of animals are strictly delineated and made by nature to satisfy lazy scientists?
They can also be genetically separated into 6, 7, 8 and 14 clusters, 14 being the optimum number when Noah Rosenberg's data was re-examined in an attempt to discern the statistically ideal value for K.
There exist five basic clusters that nicely correspond to the old division of traditional anthropology. Every of them contains subclusters. The deeper we go, the more fuzzier and less discrete the clusters are. But the basic division of humans into five racial clusters (Sub-Saharan African, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Native American, Australoid) is the most optimal.
In reality, things are more complicated, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, because here we actually deal with 5 racial groups that differ from each other more than the rest of the world populations together - Khoisan, Nilotes, Pygmies, West Africans/Bantus, Ethiopids (in fact, more correctly "Somalids").
The autosomal position of Australian Aborigines hasn't been researched so far.
Poor brainwashed man! You have no idea, what you are talking about. You quote silly halftruths, obsolete science from obscure sources that is not valid anymore! Why do you compare humans with chimpanzees? Why don't you compare humans with other mammals? Then you would see that human interracial diversity belongs to the highest so far documented in the mammal world, being significantly surpassed only by chimpanzees and gorillas (whose divergence times are at least 5-times higher).
Humans from the same race are always more similar to each other, when a sufficient number of DNA markers is used (at least several hundreds). With the use of 500 000+ markers, we can now distinguish a Frenchman from an Italian genetically, and not only that; even a Tuscanian from a North Italian can be genetically separated with a surprisingly high probability.
"Limitless subdivision" is never used as a counterargument against subspecies classification in animals. It is digged up only as a sophistry trick in humans. Genetics now improves understanding of subspecies classification in animals and corrects old taxonomic subdivision based on external morphology. With the advance of modern clustering studies, we can do the same in humans - although basic racial subdivision needs no dramatic corrections, because it was largely true.
But there is no cause for objection when the concept of 'race' is applied throughout most of the animal kingdom. And even in this case, 'race' remains a construct, but here there is no danger of self-interest doing it's harm. For this reason, it is acceptable to arbitrarily group animals, for the sake of simplification.
And who are you trying to kid. There are few racialist ready to commit to the traditional classifications (mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid).
If you knew anything about taxonomy, you'd know that using phylogenetics ALL subspecies/races become invalid. The only way subspecies remains a valid category is using the OLD methodology of categorising organisms which is based on phenotypical similarity. Furthermore, clustering studies are nothing to do with taxonomy because they do not deal with evolutionary lineage - the type of genetics which informs taxonomics is based on things like haplotypes, NOT quantitative genetics.
Within/between variation does not invalidate a genetic basis for race. That conclusion is based on a statistical fallacy of interpreting data on the assumption that it contains no information beyond that revealed on a locus-by-locus analysis, and then drawing conclusions solely on the results of such an analysis.
Suppose you have a gene at one locus in two haploid populations. In population A, a certain allele has a distribution of .3. In population B, it's .7. If we analyze both distributions by variance, we get a within group variability of 84% of total variability. But now suppose we have 100 loci of other genes with the same distributions. The ratio of within/total variability is still 84% at each locus and also as a mean of all loci.
However, if you plot the distributions of all 100 loci for each population, their is almost no overlap in the distributions because the effect of each is cumulative. The populations are easily separable despite average between variability being only 15% of the whole because the *gene frequencies are correlated* and the chance of misidentifying which population an individual belongs to based on these 100 loci is infinitesimal.
What research finds are sub-populations with a great number of highly correlated genes that allow humans to be easily classified accordingly. And, it just so happens that the largest of these groups correspond to the common delineations of race that we use in everyday life.
This is almost as obvious as the fact that no two individuals carry the exact same genetic signature. But you can't deny that to describe an entire 'racial group' based off of % shared similarities, still involves subjectiveness. Thus, race is not a valid scientific concept.
Where is the difference between bush and tree? And between a hill and a mountain? And a moon and a planet? Isn't it subjective? Shouldn't we abolish all these classifications? What about calling the Alps "an elevated Hungarian plain"? Give us some advice, Mr. Wise.
The point is not that these terms are used, it is that they are used in a scientific context: no scientific analysis could be made of mountains, moons, trees or any similar class of objects without first defining them in some definite way.
Studies such as your example only invalidate racial categorisation because increasing the number of loci used increases the resolution of the resulting groupings. Using this method you can extrapolate groups ranging from "Caucasoid" to "Mediterranean" to "Italian" all the way down to the genetic makeup of an individual person. Race is invalidated by there being no objective line to be drawn anywhere along this continuum - reflecting the clinial nature of human biological variation.
The problem with this idea is that it can be used to invalidate every biological classification in existence, not merely human races. You could potentially expand the number of groupings but this isn't a good argument to make against the validity race. Some groupings are just more natural and sensible than others.
This is a common blind spot for race deniers: the application of ad hoc arguments against human races without regard for their implications for biological classification as a whole.
Well no, because higher biological classifications have specificable characteristics which define them, as well as purposeful conceptual reasons behind these characteristics being used. Human races do not.
Species, phyla, genera etc. are not divided by quantitative genetic difference or arbitrary degrees of shared lineage.
In fact, geographic borders between races are characterized by large "genetic jumps" over a short distance. You can see them quite clearly in genetic studies using thousands of polymorphisms. You rely on obsolete science.
Nope, if you take into account the bigger picture rather than one isolated example of clustering which happens to fit with the traditional races (which of course is going to happen since something has to account for the visible, if generalised differences people have come to expect of racial groups) then there is no such "jumping" which is somehow significant. Traditional races are laughably simplified categories to use. There are no gaps; clusters, but no gaps.
It's simply impossible that, taking into account the complexity of human populations and how they have developed and moved around over time, as well as the very short time in evolutionary terms that hmans have been geographically semi-isolated in different parts of the world, that clearly divisible racial groups have emerged.
Race is an arbitrary division of a family tree which potentially extends to every living thing on the planet. Equating race with extended family is no different than equating all humans with extended family.
LET THESE DUMB FATHERFUCKERS KNOW !!!
th3inquisitiv31 2 months ago
Oh my goodness, the scientific definition of race has been developed and refined since its conception! Obviously, then, race is a "social construct," because science does not permit refinement! Great video!
PumpingSmashkins 4 months ago
gee, a short german shepherd is more different from a tall one than a husky and a german shepherd of equal size...astonishing! obviously absolutely meaningless in dismissing the blatantly obvious reality of racial differences, but astonishing!
PumpingSmashkins 10 months ago
The idea that race is nothing but a social construct is so patently absurd that it's pointless to even to begin to refute it in any context, and certainly one such as YouTube comments. What obviously is a social construct is the concept that race is a social construct. Not only that, the very notion does far more to perpetuate racism than if people would simply acknowledge the obvious and easily proven reality of racial differences.
PumpingSmashkins 10 months ago
@PumpingSmashkins can you provide a sound definition of what a "black person" is ???
th3inquisitiv31 2 months ago
This is a perfect example of what happens when leftists go into scientific fields. Their political ideology trumps reality. People who deny race as a "valid scientific concept" are liars and politically motivated charlatans. They misuse the data to mislead others. That is the absolute lowest of the low in terms of vile behavior in a scientist. These people are just as evil as the Nazi racial purity scientists of WW2.
vbritsi 1 year ago
Who is stotles?
TheEspill 1 year ago
I'd like to add another thought, race only exists because it was created by Europeans in the 18th century, mostly to rationalize their idea of being superior to those who appear to be different, on the surface. We are more alike, than different, it's just that the concept of race has historically been accepted for so long, we now perceive it as fact. Remember, for many years, the earth was regarded as flat. Do you still believe what is inherently false?
tnycatgirl 1 year ago 2
Sigh..all I can say, is ignorance breeds racism. And if you knew anything about genetics, human beings are the most consistently alike in their biological make-up. The only differences lie in our cultures, our ethnic backgrounds, and the way our parents helped us view the world and the people in it, around us. It's sad to say that centuries have passed, and we have not progressed, even with the so-called advantage of a larger brain. It only works if people actually use it.
tnycatgirl 1 year ago
haha, I guess the moron who created this video wants race based medicines to no longer be created since "race doesn't exist". He wants it both ways of course. Typical communist filth.
jeremybody 1 year ago
bullshit. race exists.
and it is a significant biological concept.
It is foolish to think that populations geographically isolated from one another that live in wildly contrasting climates would not evolve different traits in order to adapt to their different environments. Humans are not exempt from these processes.
If you believe in evolution and adaptation then you believe in race and the significant biological concept it is.
Mrquinton7 1 year ago
I stopped after the quote.
A "race" is a word given meaning by man, generally understood to be equally defined as "sub-species". I don't know which creation-theory you subscribe to, but the most general "anti-racist" mentality consider the Out-of-Africa THEORY to hold true.
Now, let's assume this is correct. You are willing to say:
--All humans evolved from blacks.
--In different areas.
--In different ways.
--In different degrees.
Yet they're the same? So a Chimp is the same as a Gorilla?
SpeckerWrecker91 1 year ago
@SpeckerWrecker91 No a chimp actually have more in common with human beings than Gorilla's,,I wonder if you thought your comment was smart
richbullva 1 year ago
@richbullva The simple fact that humans carry 23 chromosome pairs while chimps,gorillas and orangutans carry 24 debunks that very faulty theory.
I didn't think it was especially smart, but I certainly knew it was not blatantly false and idiotic. I'm curious if you could say the same?
SpeckerWrecker91 1 year ago
@SpeckerWrecker91 i thought it was rather silly actually but Chimps have more in common with Humans genetically than they do Gorilla's
richbullva 1 year ago
@richbullva Well, here's something to mull over. If we go on the assumption that the average chimp and the average human share 98% of their genetic make-up (which many say is false) then whites are still more different than blacks.
A new study found that Eurasians have between 1-4% of their genetic body coming from Neanderthals, which is not Africans as per the Out-of-Africa theory. And that is only partial analysis, it could be anywhere from 5-15% difference.
SpeckerWrecker91 1 year ago
@SpeckerWrecker91 okay dude even neanderthals would have origins in Africa the entire plethora of the species homo,be they sapeins, erectus or what have you have there origins in Africa,regardless whites descend from a group of blacks i dont think that it makes blacks any better its just a fact and really no big deal
richbullva 1 year ago
@SpeckerWrecker91 your statements dubunks nothing
richbullva 1 year ago
@richbullva Continued...
In the future, Eurasians may very well be classified as entirely different species from Africans; as further investigation will simply further the divide between the two lines of humanity. The best thing is, religious nuts will jump on this knowledge. You think the KKK is bad now, wait until science backs their religious belief that humans are split into two groups, Spawn of Adam and Spawn of Cain.
It will be anarchy.
SpeckerWrecker91 1 year ago
@SpeckerWrecker91 dude for at least for hundred years that type of thinking has been upon us, from Cain to Canaan,to hell with the KKK!! they have more than enough (pseudo)science to support their claims
richbullva 1 year ago
@richbullva Their is no evidence to suggest that; in fact, if anything the evidence denies that.
A more recent study would suggest that sub-Saharan Africans are distinctly descended from the Homo Erectus-gene and that Europeans/Asians are distinctly descended from Homo Neanderthalis. This study explains why each group has both common genetics and exclusive genetics.
Thus far, all Europeans/Asians show between 1-4% relation to Homo Neanderthals, which Africans do not have.
SpeckerWrecker91 1 year ago
@SpeckerWrecker91 uh yes there is proof check out the website that dude mentions on this post, whites actually have no dna that is unique to them only blacks have exclusive genes look it up and stop being racist dude seriously i am not trying to imply superiority at all just facts,there is nothing found in socalled white genomes that cannot be found in some african groups
richbullva 1 year ago
@richbullva "To their surprise they found that the
Neandertal is slightly more closely related to modern humans from outside Africa than to Africans,
suggesting some contribution of Neandertal DNA to the genomes of present-day non-Africans." --Science Magazine, 2010
The second paragraph at the top of the "neanderthal admixture theory" page on wikipedia disproves your suggestion. If you'd like, I'll also post findings that King Tut ("Black African") is 99% WEST EUROPEAN.
Enjoy. ;)
SpeckerWrecker91 1 year ago
A mouse is 80% genetic similar to a human
A monkey is 99% genetic similar to a human.
Even grass has a certain number of % of similar genetics with mankind.
99,9% between two human group it's an ENORMOUS difference !
: ) Sorry but there is also specific medecine for each human group ( Black, white...) Some medics makes whites die and cure blacks, etc...
If we say that race is fiction then we can say that human groups are reals
But it's the same concept lol
Wuutan 2 years ago
One of many fallacies in your argument: You say human beings are "99.9% the same" genetically -- but humans are not unique in this respect. Most large animal species are genetically homogeneous to a similar degree or even more, including animals such as tigers, cheetahs, brown bears and wolves which are widely acknowledged by zoologists to have races (a.k.a. subspecies). The argument from human genetic homogeneity to the conclusion that humans cannot have biological races is therefore unsound.
73elephants 2 years ago
@73elephants His argument is nothing but fallacy. The genome of mice is over 97% the same as humans. I guess that means we are the same as mice, lol.
jeremybody 1 year ago
There are humans alive today who have features of Neandertalis. Short femurs and such. Also note that the average human today has a brain size of is between 1130cc and 1260cc. Archaic humans had brains sizes up to 1760cc. They were capable of cultural behavior and they were very much human. Homo sapians assimilated in small part but mostly exterminated them.
Fastambermedia 2 years ago
Almost everything you say in this video is not true. Look up "Haplotypes".
Also see the "mostly out of Africa" theory of human evolution. Not only are we different races we may also have very small admixes of other "archaic" species of humans. You have to remember that there were 4 species humans living on the Earth During the time of homo sapiens. Neanthalis, Heidelbergensis, Erectus, all lived during the same time as the homo sapiens.
Fastambermedia 2 years ago
Watch the documentary The Family Tree by National Geographic. It proves that human are once race proving by genetics!!!! And that books like that are wrong!
coollinemms 2 years ago
I am pleased to report that since using Levodyn, my blood pressure has lowered to the good range. This is the only thing that I have done differently recently so the credit is due to this natural product. My doctor has noticed the improvement after I told him about taking this supplement, but he didn't seem to want to discuss this.
litebug12345 2 years ago
Many black people are beatiful but sense there white i am not allowed sense my mother thinks they got me stabbed two times it was those white guys she thought were good they seen me hangin wth them and some black boys jumped me I fought back but ended up stabbed twice not too bad im ok now still hurtin wth the stitches sense i dont use pain killers. Yo I also like this one black gurl sense shes real good2 me n looks good better than my girl friend who acts racist even thou she says shes not.
Billete37 2 years ago
You are just upset because science is taking away the last reason left for you to continue you republican, racist oppression so your all consuming greed comes that much easier to you.
maybaby1980 2 years ago
This person actually got there information from unbiased science. I have taken many biology classes from many different professors and every single class every single professor has said the same thing as the gut in this video. The only reason why people have more melatonin in their skin than others is due to environmental adaptation. Everything else we think we know about race was a thought up social construct to have a guilt free attitude about oppressing others.!!!!
maybaby1980 2 years ago
I always thought that there are 5 "races:"
Caucasoids ("whites"), Negroids ("blacks"), Capoids (Khoisans), Australoids (Aussie Aborigines) and Mongoloids (East Asians)
Symbaoe 2 years ago
o..O Who told you that , every single member of one of your so called "races" can have significant characteristics of another race o..O.
Do you believe that I dontbelong to neither of ur categorizations
Folxumad 2 years ago
What is your "racial" background? There is such a thing as mulattos, and those of mixed ethnic heritage. And no, races are defined as such DUE to their characteristics. Some are more similar than others, because all humans are the same species.
Symbaoe 2 years ago
"And no, races are defined as such DUE to their characteristics"
But not every black person shares the same characteristics. Some blacks could pass as hispanic, or native American or even white. Blacks when it comes to nose structure cheek structure, physical build, etc...there's a lot of variation.
MikoDollie 2 years ago
There must be a load of white folks here. They are the only ones who believe their own lies. Obviously still have that superiority complex...still... You folks only got ahead because of prejudice. Black and white races were created during the colonization of the U.S. and guess what, blacks were in most times easily identifiable unlike the white indentured servents. Get a grip..the gig is up...
johnsde1 2 years ago
Finally someone with some brains on you tube!! It's amazing. I think all these white folks are just pissed off because a white guy with a shaved head is actually intelligent and not a white supremacist.
maybaby1980 2 years ago
Human beings and chimpanzees share 99.4% of their functionally relevant DNA, so lefties who proclaim that all human beings are over 99% genetically similar are being pretty ignorant.
bbpro 3 years ago
5 Races? Haha this is laughable. Go ahead and name them buddy. And explain what there geographical boundaries.
nadagain 3 years ago
"More difference within than between"
This is laughable.
atheistnarnia 3 years ago 2
And it is not true. More concretely, it may be true only in very little differentiated, isolated populations (e.g. Native Americans, Caucasian nations), where high within-population Fst values (high within-population diversity) are an artefact of the overally low total population diversity.
centrum99 3 years ago
In other words, the genetic differences between various American Indian tribes seem to be pretty high (something like 0.09) at first glance, but they are normal at best. They seem to be high only when compared with the little diversity of the whole American Indian population.
centrum99 3 years ago
assuming evolution, its logical that species not only evolve but diverge as well. ie, humans &chimps evolved &diverged from a common ancestral species. obviously, this occurred gradually rather than instantly. throughout the earliest part of this divergence they were still capable of interbreeding &DNA studies confirm that they did. race is that grey area that exists as one species diverges into 2 separate &distinct species. race may be "grey" but it exists. your opinion is the social construct.
aphyd2 3 years ago
good job on the video you hit all the points that race is socially constructed, biological races does not exist because no social race holds onto particular chromosomes. Also no scientists can disprove this without having to use social concepts thus ruining his own research.
Darkwolfy88 3 years ago
If race doesn't exist, it's a little odd that a geneticist can determine your race with 99.84% accuracy using a sample of your DNA.
bbpro 3 years ago
No it's not. You speak of race as if it is a pure and isolative grouping of people. Do you not realize that groups of people have been interbreeding and migrating for thousands of years? Do you think that these races(which you should define and enumerate if you are arguing for a biological foundation) sprang up magically in a well defined region and maintained themselves there with no outside contact?
nadagain 3 years ago
You know EXACTLY what I mean when I say race! Now you want to shift the goalposts and define it in a way that groups everyone together. By that logic, since everything in the universe is composed of atoms we must ALL be the same.
If race doesn't exist, then FAMILY doesn't exist either, because race is simply a partly inbred extended family when looked at at the biological level.
bbpro 3 years ago
No anthropologist has ever said that there don't exist intermediate groups. But why to deny the existence of Caucasoids and Mongoloids? Only because Uralic groups started to mix with Eastern Europeans 5000 BC and Turkic tribes started their westward expansion during the 4th century AD?
The races didn't "spring up magically", but came into being due to a sufficiently long geographical isolation during the last ice age.
centrum99 3 years ago
wait the genetic difference between tall and short people is big, LET THE GLORIOUS RULE OF THE TALL COMMENCE!
incase you don't get it this is sarcasm, based on the ridiculousness of defining hierarchy by genetic traits.
McOath 3 years ago
"Human races do not."
I'm afraid that they do. Human races differ no less substantially from the majority of subspecies classification found within the animal kingdom both in terms of morphological traits and genetic FST values.
At any rate, this is a non response as you have failed to make the argument that other subspecies can't potentially be divided into "groupings" all the way down to the immediate family if you examine enough genetic data. In effect, you've simply decided to ignore it.
TheTypicalGirl 3 years ago
For some reason this kind of discussion is new and even perculiar to many people. To any anthropology student, or bio student for that matter, this is common knowledge.
"No such thing as race therefore no such thing as racism"?
Of course not.
The creater of this video hit the nail on the head quite simply when he wrote "Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social
Problem Is Real."
This discussion is to huge for me to fit all my thoughts into this box.
Neanderthalcousin 3 years ago
Top notch
nilly840 3 years ago
We are all descended from a common ancestor. If you don't trust the science, then so be it. I respect you're opinion either way.
taj74va 3 years ago
Highfive. Keep spreading this message. End ignorance. Race is a divide and conquer construct put in place by the elite to keep the masses fighting with each other while they push their agendas (classic divide and conquer). If you believe in race you are a racIST because you practice racISM. I don't care how liberal you think you are, i don't care if you are white with a black hubby...you are a racist. keep learning folks. And again, buddhagem, highfive. You got 5 stars=)
Crystina85 3 years ago
I think that ordinary people can recognize very well that they differ physically from people of other races. They need no scientific advisor, who would tell them that these differences are only "illusion".
centrum99 3 years ago 2
Thank you.
bbpro 3 years ago
our GENES determine our appearance, how can you deny this fact?
Leonidas1x1 3 years ago
No one is denying genetic variances found among humans. That is not the issue. The issue is that biologically, race cannot be determined. It would have hold up temporally as well as genetically. The variances among humans and their behavior(dispersal patterns and breeding) are too complex to be classified in simple race constructs.
nadagain 3 years ago
Actually race CAN be determined biologically. It can be determined through a sample of DNA or your skeleton.
bbpro 3 years ago
No it cannot, you are misinformed. Although regional similarities are found, this is by no means accurate in defining race. Humans interbeed, migrate, and genetically disperse through gene flow (and this has been going on since the beginnins of h.sapiens and maybe Neaderthals).
Think about what you just typed. What are the races that can be determined biologically? What are the parameters? What races do you think scientists can determine through cranial and post-cranial remains?
nadagain 3 years ago
Nonsense. What do you actually know about anthropology and genetics? Despite historical migrations, the borders between races can be recognized even by a small child. When geographical distance is held constant, the genetic distance on the racial borderline is 3-times higher than within the racial clusters.
This is only a leftist sophistry that is to serve their political utopias. They simply want to get people rid of common sense.
centrum99 3 years ago
I know a lot about Anth, I have a M.A. in it. But that is besides the point. Most cultural and physical anthro support no race. Anyways, geneticists would know more. Go ahead and define the races, you have not done so. How are you going to define racial borders? A child? yet you have failed to desrcibe what you are arguing for.
nadagain 3 years ago
I wonder, why haven't you returned your degree yet? You have no idea about your alleged field.
centrum99 3 years ago
Well how about you try to answer the question so we can have a debate instead of dismissing points based on degrees. What are these so called races? Where do they exist? Why do you think they are isolated and have maintained strict biological boundaries? When did race appear? And the way you think of them, they are obvioulsy transitional, so how does such a concept exist in a temporal frame?
nadagain 3 years ago
if there is no such thing as race then there is no such thing as racism
Leonidas1x1 3 years ago
Neither 'colors' (as we experience) or 'races' are real. While there are independent (real) processes that allow for spectral hallucination, as there are processes that allow for the illusion of race, the two are synthetic, dependent on our conscious being. Nonetheless, these fabrications have already aided in our understanding of some of what is real (as you've stated).
zadeh79 3 years ago
do you actually believe all that nonsense you spew? how pitiful.
HOD0R 3 years ago
A fool brainwashed by leftist propaganda speaks like a man on LSD.
centrum99 3 years ago
My point with color, is only that it is a figment of our creative minds, in contrast to all physical mediums that are responsible for our perceiving of color.
Because we have the capacity to see colors, there must exist underlying (real) causes to our perception of it. But the specific categorization of the visible spectrum (ROYGBIV), is purely an artistic production, as is the categorization of anything.
zadeh79 3 years ago
That is precisely my point. We must at some point abstractly apply names. Both "blue" and "caucasoid" are imperfect representations of reality, but the name helps people understand their world. Race is imperfect because what we are really talking about is the interaction of millions of genes, in the same way that color is imperfect because it doesn't full capture the depth of reality. But there is evidence that race and color are decent markers for understanding.
petrsakharov 3 years ago
While all human experience is subjective construct, 'objective reality' is the intangible phenomena that act as the cause to our experience. The fact that an electron can emit electro-magnetic energy, does not mean that "blue" exists outside of our own minds.
zadeh79 3 years ago
Similarly, the fact that we have decided on how we want to group micro-organisms, does not mean that these groupings are part of objective reality. And it certainly doesn't mean that some variation in taxonomy could not offer similar, longterm, benefits.
zadeh79 3 years ago
You seem to think names define reality. They do not, they attempt to explain reality. You are correct to say that some variation in taxonomy might not be harmful, as we probably don't have everything right yet. Science is self-correcting. But should we abandone taxonomy altogether? I read recently in Jane's that we have developed race-specific bio-weapons. How could we develope, say, a bomb that will harm specific Mongoloid groups and not Caucasoids (as we have) if race is a social construct?
petrsakharov 3 years ago
"Blue" is simply a word, but a physicist could define what we call "blue" with substanivtive mathematics. While biology or anthropology may not be able to live up to the test of physics, they can certainly tell us a bit about objective reality. And they have. Human groups differ substantially enough biologically to warrant some form of group classification. We call this "race" in the same way the physicist calls a "color" "blue." We have to name things arbitrarily, but they can still be real.
petrsakharov 3 years ago
Physicists can do more than just name 'colors'. They can extrapolate representations of physical realities. But a model for the physical existence, of something as abstract as a 'racial category', is inconceivable.
zadeh79 3 years ago 2
Give a sample of blood or semen to a forsenics expert, and they will be able to tell you the giver's race. Take an agrragate g sample from any random country, and a psychometrist will be able to tell you the majority composition of the population. Psychologists can even match scent with race specific immunogenes. Yet the denial continues. The biological differences between races is staggering, and I think that is a beautiful thing, not an ugly fiction. Why are you afraid of diversity?
petrsakharov 3 years ago
Putting things into historical perspective does not alleviate us of the responsibility to examine the evidence we have available. By your reasoning, the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory, relativity, heliocentrism, and countless other accepted, scientific facts would be rejected because they were either not intially considered or parsimonious. When people say they want to put things in historical perspective, it usually means they don't have the preoponderance of evidence on their side.
petrsakharov 3 years ago
I've never used the argument that inter-population differences are insignificant and, thus, we should abandon 'race'. The problem is that there will never be a unanimous agreement on how to GROUP human populations. Thus, 'Racialization' is clearly a subjective process, which will always produce an arbitrary end-product. This is, essentially, the basis for rejecting the biological concept of race. Time cannot bring forth any solution to the problem (as you've asserted): RACE IS A FALLACY.
zadeh79 3 years ago
All human knowledge is, to some extent, "subjective." The germ theory of disease is subjective, as grouping various micro-organisms is done by people with prejudices and disagreement, yet millions of lives have been saved through immunizations. Grouping, say, different kinds of wheat is "subjective," yet new strains of the crop have fed billions in the past century that could not have been fed in the 19th. We ignore real, scientific evidence at our own peril. You chose ideology over reality.
petrsakharov 3 years ago
@petrsakharov Can you give a sound definition of what a “black person” is ???
th3inquisitiv31 2 months ago
*Rubbish*
petrsakharov 3 years ago
'Actually', all racial classifications, human or other, are but products of vague, tentative, and subjectively dependent pseudo-science. It is fact, that there has never been any objective and definitive racial model. This is because any protocol for categorization, will involve the element of subjectivity. Thus, your 'races' have always existed just as fancifully as the Tolkien races.
zadeh79 3 years ago
Rubish.
petrsakharov 3 years ago
"Race is not a meaningful concept in science."
Actually, "RACE" is not a social construct, it is in fact used by most geneticists to refer to different human groups that have evolved on different continents thus giving rise to different races, races that are [for example] susceptible to specific diseases other races are not i.e., Jews and Tay Sachs, and blacks and sickle cell...or is sickle cell a social construct too? You want to have your cake and eat it too.
bbpro 3 years ago
blah blah blah..........
zadeh79 3 years ago
So you have nothing to come back with. No facts, no science, nothing.
Thank you for confirming that I am correct.
bbpro 3 years ago
"All humans on the planet share 99% of their DNA."
LOL! Yes, that sounds like a lot when you COMPLETELY AVOID CONTEXT. Do you have any clue how significant 0.1% is on the biological level?
bbpro 3 years ago
I think this dork just feels shame for being born white.
He should be ashamed for being ignorant.
flockofgoat 3 years ago
buddhagem is just subscribing to a self-hating ideology. Maybe he wants to see a slashing in funding for sickle cell anemia? After all, race doesn't exist!
bbpro 3 years ago
I only listened to about a third.
Your critical thinking IS weak. Citing authors ad nauseam will always pale in comparison to elegant reasoning. Regardless of how close the races are in genome, the fact remains, on a whole, those of African descent possess genotypic differences from whites, the most obvious being for the production of melanin. There are other significant differences as well. Race matters. The genomic code is immense, even 0.0001% difference can be of scientific significance.
eyedoc1956 3 years ago
THE FACT REMAINS, that intra-populational variation does exist, and as an immediate consequence....'RACE' doesn't.
So much for your 'elegant reasoning'
zadeh79 3 years ago
Your poor critical thinking lost me with the first minute. I checked another of your videos and it's clear that you're not big on logical argument. I'm sure you're sincere, though.
I'll keep searching for a definitive argument on this.
terencelaoshi 3 years ago
Dude we now KNOW the SPECIFIC GENES that make COLD RACES SMARTER than tropic races
{"Racial Differences in IQ Genes found
The Wall Street Journal
By ANTONIO REGALADO
2006
Bruce Lahn professor of human genetics stood before a packed lecture hall and reported results of a new DNA analysis that found recent evolution (for larger brains/IQs) in some people, but not of others
He flashed maps that showed the genetic changes had taken hold in Europe, Asia but weren't common in Africa
Ooloosoon 3 years ago
Did I mention you're retarded? Sorry if I forgot.
buddhagem 3 years ago
RACE IS AN ILLUSION. YOU CAN PERPETUATE PSEUDO-RACE ALL YOU WANT BUT ITS PROPAGANDA!!!
RACE DOES NOT EXIST IN SCIENCE ANYWHERE. RACE, more specifically, SKIN is a (highly adaptable) organ that responds to the UV (ultraviolet rays) of the Sun.
dayday74 3 years ago
If race doesn't exist, I want you to answer this question:
Do you want to see funding for studies of race based illnesses to be completely slashed since race doesn't exist?
Answer this question.
bbpro 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@bbpro Can you give a sound definition of what a “black person” is ???
th3inquisitiv31 2 months ago
LOL, so skin colour is the ONLY environmental adaptation between human racial groups and no other physical characteristic evolved. Yeah, that's realistic!
bbpro 3 years ago
99.99% or whatever therefore no difference in race. LOL
Some people need Doctors degrees to be politically correct, I only need to open my eyes to see reality.
cookeladoo 3 years ago
You need glasses!
zadeh79 3 years ago
You would need a new brain. The old one has been already brainwashed so much that it can confuse a red cube with a blue ball.
centrum99 3 years ago
WHOOPS! Disregard that first response! I pressed the wrong button!
brianoscopy 3 years ago
It is by no means 'dangerous' to medicine to remove the concept of race. 'Ethnic history' is, at least, an equally useful replacement.
zadeh79 3 years ago
LOL!!!! Yes, I suppose changing the name of "race" to "ethnic group" or "population group" will make things all better! Of course you concede that race exists but are too afraid to use the word.
bbpro 3 years ago
There are several powerful challenges which have been brought forth by scientists, which suggest the concept of race is merely a social construct. The fact that racialist tend to disagree on how many races exist, is direct proof, that races do not exist.
zadeh79 3 years ago
Please, read something before you post this propaganda crap!
centrum99 3 years ago
Racialization has proved futile, as all racial paradigms have encountered objections from either racialists, laymen, or the scientific community. This is, unarguably, the truth. Because I possess the intellectual and emotional capacity to accept that the concept of 'race' is a social construct, there is no reason to seek extraneous data regarding the issue, as you have suggested. Unfortunately, the likes of you have resorted to the art of self-delusion, in pursuit of an endless fantasy.
zadeh79 3 years ago
How could racialization be "futile", when the old anthropological division of humans well agrees with modern genetic clustering, for Goodness's sake?! You have obviously read nothing from the recent advances of population genetics and you only parrot silly ideological crap heard at a multicultural brainwashing class.
centrum99 3 years ago
The possibilities of old anthropologists were limited, because they couldn't correctly deduce the origin of single racial groups from external traits. Sometimes they were able to infer their relationship, but they didn't know, how this relationship came into being.
Some placed American Indians as a subgroup of Mongoloids, some counted them as a separate race. We now know that the origin of American Indians is very surprising, because they are basically a Proto-Caucasoid/Proto-Mongoloid mixture.
centrum99 3 years ago
Their isolation was so long that they make up a separate genetic cluster, so they can be taken as a separate racial group. But they really come from an archaic Mongoloid population and old anthropology thus wasn't wrong.
We can find a similar situation in Sub-Saharan Africa, where virtually all anthropologists agreed with the typological division of Khoisan, Pygmies, West Africans/Paleonegrids, Nilotes and Ethiopids, because these anthropological types were very striking.
centrum99 3 years ago
However, they were not sure, if they can call them separate races, because they didn't have our modern genetic technology and didn't know their origin. Pygmies were considered as a dwarf, archaic form of West Africans/Paleonegrids, and Nilotes were considered as their more advanced form. Ethiopids were taken as a mixture of Subsaharan Africans and Caucasoid Semites. Khoisan were sometimes classified as a separate race, because their appearance was very different from other Africans.
centrum99 3 years ago
Genetics now revealed that all these types come from single lineages that have very deep roots in Middle Paleolithic. The ancestors of Khoisan diverged from the rest of humankind more than 100 000 years ago, and one of their branches later headed north and gave rise to today's Nilotes. Pygmies also separated a long time ago (at least 70 000 years). Ethiopids are partly mixed with Caucasoids, but their Caucasoid-like morphology had been present in East Africa even before this mixture happened.
centrum99 3 years ago
What's even more surprising, they are actually descendants of an African branch, from which all non-Africans come from, and hence they are genetically intermediate between other Subsaharan Africans and non-Africans.
centrum99 3 years ago
West Africans, Paleonegrids and Bantus (i.e. "true African blacks") are mostly a stabilized mixture of archaic Ethiopids and Pygmies. Their anthropological relationship with Pygmies was inferred correctly, but the detection of their origin was simply beyond the possibilities of old anthropologists.
centrum99 3 years ago
The genetic "uniformity" of Subsaharan Africans is a very recent phenomena, obviously stemming from the influx of Bantu genes into all previously separated groups. However, their huge physiological differences still persist, which - together with the deep roots of their divergence - is more than enough for their classification into 5 separate races. Future research will confirm it.
centrum99 3 years ago
If you refer to studies that use the highest resolution, and commit to your logic, than it is 'factual' that Western and Eastern Europeans are of a different race. Even further resolution would 'prove' that W-Europe actually consists of multiple 'races'.
Because all populations, even subpopulations, have undergone (even in the slightest) isolate evolution, why isn't it true that their are at least as many 'races' as their are nations in the world?
zadeh79 3 years ago
Go back to your multicultural class. None of such pseudoarguments is used against subspecies classification in animals. In fact, a biologist suggesting subspecies classification for every herd of antelopes would be considered as a clinically insane person.
centrum99 3 years ago
Following the taxonimist 'logic', there may be nothing wrong with classifing almost every herd of antelope seperately. After all, there is no agreement to HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE is actually necessary for subspecies to exist.
A racialist's failure to apply his own pseudo-logic, to intra-populations is what leaves him illuded.
And I have my Bachelors in Biological Sciences from NIU.
zadeh79 3 years ago
So you have no facts whatsoever to prove your point of view? Just more piss and wind?
So since race is not a fact, you would want to see funding for medical research which studies different racial responses to drugs to be slashed?
bbpro 3 years ago
No. The medical community should study "ETHNIC" differences in disease. The fact that some medical literature involves the concept of 'race', doesn't mean that 'races' actually exist. Apparently, (and unfortunately), laypeople come to this conclusion. This is just as was intended by the racial proppers.
zadeh79 3 years ago
I should note, that I myself use the concept of race now and then. It doesn't mean that I actually believe in that race is much more than a social construct. Like to much of the scientific community, 'racialization' has been adopted for descriptive convenience.
zadeh79 3 years ago
I speak what happens to be the truth. A healthy person does not require many 'facts' to understand my logic.
zadeh79 3 years ago
Maybe not, but an Intellectually honest person does.
flockofgoat 3 years ago
Thank you!
I am so sick and tired of garbage being parroted as fact on here.
bbpro 3 years ago
@zadeh79 "The fact that racialist tend to disagree on how many races exist, is direct proof, that races do not exist."
Do families exist?
hitssquad 1 year ago
@hitssquad As Constructs, with partial truths. Just as races.
zadeh79 1 year ago
All humans descend from amniotes, if you go back far enough. All human beings are not of African descent if you go back within the last 36 generations (you inherit 50% of your genes from each parent, 25% from each grandparent and .000000001% of your genes from each greatX36 grandparent. I agree that race is not a biological concept but not the implication that it "shouldn't" be a social construct because it has no biological meaning. You are also exageratting the 'non-Whiteness' of certain Euros
AfricanPrince 3 years ago
Race is just another way of saying population; the question of race just becomes overly complicated because it has the potential of being unscientifically politicized.
trueuniverse2100 4 years ago
I don't understand your comment on my page, Mr. Simpleton. Can you support your opinions with some exact data? Or will you contact your African brothers and sisters (gorillas and chimpanzees, 98% identical with humans) with a request for help?
centrum99 4 years ago
You are so confused that you even list sources illustrating the genetic clustering of humans, and you quote Cavalli-Sforza, who himself genetically divided humans into separate groups correlating with traditional races, yet later he was forced to recant his opinion because of the pressure from leftist circles.
centrum99 4 years ago
Humans can be genetically separated into 5 main clusters (Negroid-Subsaharan African, Caucasian, Mongoloid, Australoid-Papuomelanesian, American Indian). The genetic distance between some extremely distant groups (Africans vs. American Indians/Australian aborigines) approaches genetic distance documented between chimpanzees and bonobos, i.e. two separate primate species.
centrum99 4 years ago
Humans could be biologically divided in many, many ways, none of which are objectively significant. Studies have shown that increasing the number of loci increases the resolution of the groupings which result. This means there are a vast number of potential divisions, all of which are (or would be) essentially arbitrary.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
And this is an exception in the animal world? Or do you think that all divisions of animals are strictly delineated and made by nature to satisfy lazy scientists?
centrum99 3 years ago
They can also be genetically separated into 6, 7, 8 and 14 clusters, 14 being the optimum number when Noah Rosenberg's data was re-examined in an attempt to discern the statistically ideal value for K.
iFormulae 3 years ago
There exist five basic clusters that nicely correspond to the old division of traditional anthropology. Every of them contains subclusters. The deeper we go, the more fuzzier and less discrete the clusters are. But the basic division of humans into five racial clusters (Sub-Saharan African, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Native American, Australoid) is the most optimal.
centrum99 3 years ago
In reality, things are more complicated, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, because here we actually deal with 5 racial groups that differ from each other more than the rest of the world populations together - Khoisan, Nilotes, Pygmies, West Africans/Bantus, Ethiopids (in fact, more correctly "Somalids").
The autosomal position of Australian Aborigines hasn't been researched so far.
centrum99 3 years ago
Poor brainwashed man! You have no idea, what you are talking about. You quote silly halftruths, obsolete science from obscure sources that is not valid anymore! Why do you compare humans with chimpanzees? Why don't you compare humans with other mammals? Then you would see that human interracial diversity belongs to the highest so far documented in the mammal world, being significantly surpassed only by chimpanzees and gorillas (whose divergence times are at least 5-times higher).
centrum99 4 years ago
Humans from the same race are always more similar to each other, when a sufficient number of DNA markers is used (at least several hundreds). With the use of 500 000+ markers, we can now distinguish a Frenchman from an Italian genetically, and not only that; even a Tuscanian from a North Italian can be genetically separated with a surprisingly high probability.
centrum99 4 years ago
If you can understand that populations can be limitlessly subdivided, how have you come to subscribe to the concept of race?
zadeh79 3 years ago
"Limitless subdivision" is never used as a counterargument against subspecies classification in animals. It is digged up only as a sophistry trick in humans. Genetics now improves understanding of subspecies classification in animals and corrects old taxonomic subdivision based on external morphology. With the advance of modern clustering studies, we can do the same in humans - although basic racial subdivision needs no dramatic corrections, because it was largely true.
centrum99 3 years ago
But there is no cause for objection when the concept of 'race' is applied throughout most of the animal kingdom. And even in this case, 'race' remains a construct, but here there is no danger of self-interest doing it's harm. For this reason, it is acceptable to arbitrarily group animals, for the sake of simplification.
And who are you trying to kid. There are few racialist ready to commit to the traditional classifications (mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid).
zadeh79 3 years ago
If you knew anything about taxonomy, you'd know that using phylogenetics ALL subspecies/races become invalid. The only way subspecies remains a valid category is using the OLD methodology of categorising organisms which is based on phenotypical similarity. Furthermore, clustering studies are nothing to do with taxonomy because they do not deal with evolutionary lineage - the type of genetics which informs taxonomics is based on things like haplotypes, NOT quantitative genetics.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
Within/between variation does not invalidate a genetic basis for race. That conclusion is based on a statistical fallacy of interpreting data on the assumption that it contains no information beyond that revealed on a locus-by-locus analysis, and then drawing conclusions solely on the results of such an analysis.
TheTypicalGirl 4 years ago 5
Suppose you have a gene at one locus in two haploid populations. In population A, a certain allele has a distribution of .3. In population B, it's .7. If we analyze both distributions by variance, we get a within group variability of 84% of total variability. But now suppose we have 100 loci of other genes with the same distributions. The ratio of within/total variability is still 84% at each locus and also as a mean of all loci.
TheTypicalGirl 4 years ago 5
However, if you plot the distributions of all 100 loci for each population, their is almost no overlap in the distributions because the effect of each is cumulative. The populations are easily separable despite average between variability being only 15% of the whole because the *gene frequencies are correlated* and the chance of misidentifying which population an individual belongs to based on these 100 loci is infinitesimal.
TheTypicalGirl 4 years ago 5
What research finds are sub-populations with a great number of highly correlated genes that allow humans to be easily classified accordingly. And, it just so happens that the largest of these groups correspond to the common delineations of race that we use in everyday life.
TheTypicalGirl 4 years ago 5
This is almost as obvious as the fact that no two individuals carry the exact same genetic signature. But you can't deny that to describe an entire 'racial group' based off of % shared similarities, still involves subjectiveness. Thus, race is not a valid scientific concept.
zadeh79 3 years ago
Where is the difference between bush and tree? And between a hill and a mountain? And a moon and a planet? Isn't it subjective? Shouldn't we abolish all these classifications? What about calling the Alps "an elevated Hungarian plain"? Give us some advice, Mr. Wise.
centrum99 3 years ago
The point is not that these terms are used, it is that they are used in a scientific context: no scientific analysis could be made of mountains, moons, trees or any similar class of objects without first defining them in some definite way.
0forsakenvirgin0 3 years ago
Studies such as your example only invalidate racial categorisation because increasing the number of loci used increases the resolution of the resulting groupings. Using this method you can extrapolate groups ranging from "Caucasoid" to "Mediterranean" to "Italian" all the way down to the genetic makeup of an individual person. Race is invalidated by there being no objective line to be drawn anywhere along this continuum - reflecting the clinial nature of human biological variation.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago 2
The problem with this idea is that it can be used to invalidate every biological classification in existence, not merely human races. You could potentially expand the number of groupings but this isn't a good argument to make against the validity race. Some groupings are just more natural and sensible than others.
This is a common blind spot for race deniers: the application of ad hoc arguments against human races without regard for their implications for biological classification as a whole.
TheTypicalGirl 3 years ago
Well no, because higher biological classifications have specificable characteristics which define them, as well as purposeful conceptual reasons behind these characteristics being used. Human races do not.
Species, phyla, genera etc. are not divided by quantitative genetic difference or arbitrary degrees of shared lineage.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
@TheTypicalGirl Can you give a sound definition of what a “black person” is ???
th3inquisitiv31 2 months ago
In fact, geographic borders between races are characterized by large "genetic jumps" over a short distance. You can see them quite clearly in genetic studies using thousands of polymorphisms. You rely on obsolete science.
centrum99 3 years ago
Nope, if you take into account the bigger picture rather than one isolated example of clustering which happens to fit with the traditional races (which of course is going to happen since something has to account for the visible, if generalised differences people have come to expect of racial groups) then there is no such "jumping" which is somehow significant. Traditional races are laughably simplified categories to use. There are no gaps; clusters, but no gaps.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
It's simply impossible that, taking into account the complexity of human populations and how they have developed and moved around over time, as well as the very short time in evolutionary terms that hmans have been geographically semi-isolated in different parts of the world, that clearly divisible racial groups have emerged.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
Clearly, an Eskimo is unrecognizable from a Nilote purely on the basis of his skeletal structure?
centrum99 3 years ago 2
Race is just an extended family so if race doesn't exist, I suppose you would agree that extended family doesn't exist either?
bbpro 3 years ago
Race is an arbitrary division of a family tree which potentially extends to every living thing on the planet. Equating race with extended family is no different than equating all humans with extended family.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
"Bigger picture"? What is it? Some new lefty code-word?
centrum99 3 years ago 2
No, it's something you fail at seeing.
iFormulae 3 years ago 2
Since I'm strongly opposed to anything even remotely left-wing, no.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
The majority of buddhagem's references predate 1950.
bbpro 3 years ago