@pitttdog white people are not all racist and for one to say that all whites are racist makes that person a racist. someone that stereotypes a certain race is racist. someone who hates other races are racist. you dumb fuck.
Damn you did not do this concept justice with this video. It's a nice introduction to the concept but it's not fully explored to a full understanding of it. I think a major point that should've be stressed is scientist believe "race" biologically is a misconception, as human variation is a little as 6-7% per region, 93-4% shared. Race itself is a cultural invention, something that is made up to define certain groups. A geographic variation called clines is uses to define the differences.
anti racist just means antiwhite.cut the shit already. It seems ok to mention in a good light or bad anything about white people but God forbid you mention anything about anyone else -no matter what. Racist is such a bullshit word.You can mention race, you CAN attribute good and bad shit towards races, nationalities & cultures are not all equal-what a fucked up world we live in where u r stopped from speaking ur mind and taught how to think.Fuck u all.Ill say what i want
They taught us about physiological differences amongst races in med school. Africans are the most susceptible to heart problems. They also have greater bone density and fewer incidence of osteoporosis. Some genetic diseases are also specific to race, such as sickle cell. I think you should watch a program called "The Human Family Tree" in which DNA testing was done on thousands and placed into a phylogenetic tree. One small group that left Africa 75k years ago gave birth to all other races.
I thought science had completely eradicated this pseudo-scientific BS in regards to race denial. It seems the rhetoric of the anti-racists knows no bounds, even science.
the techno jew beat fits perfect to this filthy jewish bullshit, jews promote race mixing among non jews ONLY, while they consider race mixing a CRIME in israel!! the jews are the cancer of humanity
@ticotico9000 Way to characterize every individual within the arbitrarily-defined borders of Israel as "the cancer of humanity." As if every one of them has the same personality, intellect, and goals. How very Hitler-esque of you.
@Beeza2996 intellect and goal? yes, all jews have an average high intellect and their mayor goals as a race are written in the Talmud, and that defines the personality of most of them. So yes, as history has proven agan and again, the jews are the cancer of humanity
Saying Races do not exist among the Human species,is saying our eyes are lying to us..
Medical science is lying to us..
and Sports is lying to us,.
Also saying that the Different Mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA found among different ethnic groups with different Racial physical characters do not mean nothing...
Also the theory that races change due to climate and surrounding is idiotic,and a proof to that is simmilliar climatic places with different races from very old times.
all the cats in the feline-cat family-group-species can breed with eachother.. lion with tiger , lion with leopard, tiger with leopard, jaguar with tiger and so on .. in the dog-K-9 family group-species the same .they can all breed with eachother....fish the same wale withh dolvin and so on .....and in the people species -group we can breed with eachother (the black-species with the white and so on ) .... you got to have a IQ to understand this stuff.............
you who made this video,(we al the same )... insulting me with this lie and garbage......all my ancestors will come out of the grave and rip youy heard out ....thats like saying ALL the felines-cats are the same ,or all the dogsK-9 are the same or all thge butterflies are the same or all the fisch are the same.....and so on .....you are retARDED....
who ever made this video is a retard..there are 3 genetic different people species .all others are mixed 2 or all 3 people species over time. I have euro-genotype in me (I,J,K,),the african -blackpeople species has L1,L2,L3genotype, Orientals have genotype M,G,.... you loony ,how there you say we all the same ...you crazy and retarded... I can give my genes now and see ,I have NO afro genes in me ,because I am from europe.... the white people species has euro genes and the black people sp..
Morocco? Really? I find that interesting becasue that country is in africa. They should be african. But they are not Black, which is what US racial tjeory is based on - skin color and other features. Then, the term middle easter is problamtic too. Lets put all the Muslim countries together & generalize.
"Are you still disagreeing with findings of the Human genome project that there are no biological or genetic "races" in modern human?"
No, I can't disagree, of course. I must accept the last scientific discoveries. We were created on Saturday during the creation week, and then dispersed from the Tower of Babel. This is why races in humans can't exist.
@MrHerrIQ This isn't a very good argument against race. The good argument is that there are only superficial differences caused by climate as modern homo sapiens spread out, in a very short time. You can tell because the factors we use to distinguish race aren't segmented into separate areas. Aboriginal Australians and Africans share features, only because they had a similar environment.
We have very low genetic diversity compared to other species- we're like 15% of the diversity of chimps.
About as correct as saying, there's no "breed-specific" diseases (more common within certain breeds) within the specie of dogs. Likewise there's population specific diseases, problem with organ-transplantability and brainsize differences. "a very short time." The 10 000 year old Explosion by Henry Harpending takes care of that one. "low genetic diversity compared to other species" Not all species. And gene-frequency matter more.
@MrHerrIQ ""low genetic diversity compared to other species"
The argument with chimpanzees is actually true - albeit it concerns only central chimpanzees. The problem is that the level of divergence in chimps is so high that it approaches the level of speciation. Human genetic diversity is otherwise moderately high/high when compared with other mammals.
That's always the same problem with anti-racial mythmakers: They select only information that fits their agenda.
@MrHerrIQ So my previous argument is what I learned from my 1001 Anth class- obviously you have a bit more background here than I can argue against.
But I am a psych major, so let's talk brain size differences. You wouldn't have ever brought them up, if you knew anything about them. The correlation of brain size and IQ in humans is r=0.3~0.4. And don't even get me started on encephalization quotients, they have a worse correlation than raw brain size. There are so many other factors in play.
When I brought up brainsize, I literally meant, brainsize, I didn't mention IQ.
Brainsize is not a superficial difference, thus I used it as an example of a non-superficial trait.
If by superficial, you mean "useless", & you thought I shared your underlying assumptionthen, then sure, Im not necessarily disagreeing with Brainsize & the IQ correlation, only I would put it at .45, not down at .3. .0 is all environment, so .45 is almost 50% genes & thus an example of non-superfi trait
@MrHerrIQ IQ is only 0.85 genes. But either you are using confusing terminology, or we're on opposite pages.When I say 'superficial trait', I don't mean it's ENVIROMENTAL (not genetic). I mean that it's a visible genetic trait we see as marking a significant difference in overall racial genetics, when in fact, races are very genetically similar. Obviously certain alleles for melanin, etc been selected for, due to climate, as well as Allen's and Bergman's rule-> And body and brain size correlate.
Yes, it's "only" .85% genetic in the Occident, which is overwhelmingly more than environment, I agree.
However, I dont know how we got into IQ, if your definition of "superficial trait" was "that which is visible", because then, indeed, brainsize is a non-visible and thus non-superficial trait and an example of this.
My intent was not to bring up IQ, but merely the different sizes of the brain, which is a non-visible, non-superficial biological trait.
@MrHerrIQ No, brain size could be linked to a superficial trait, due to what I said about Allen's and Bergman's rule. Body size and brain size are linked. Men have, on average, larger brains than women, because of their, on average, larger size. This is the way it works in the rest of species, as well, though it's a complicated and not linear relationship. The sperm whale has the largest brain, because it is very large.
lol, only in the Occident? I have not heard that one before, please expand.
Well, height is also fairly genetic (.47), especially in the Occident, and the brainsize differences are consistent among populations, so I would still argue that brainsize is a non-visible example.
EastAsians have a larger brainsize than Europeans on average, yet the height aggregate for Europeans is higher than EastAsians. EastAsian women have a larger Brainsize than Scandinavian men, so the men-women gap only holds within populations.
@MrHerrIQ I was just using men-women as an example. Why does it matter that height is genetic? I think you've still got my argument wrong, here. The superficial traits I'm talking about SHOULD be genetic, and a result of selection by climate.
That's interesting about EastAsians. But these are minor mean differences in curves that are almost all overlap. If that's all you're arguing is the difference between races, then this is a waste of time. Differences within-race are massive in comparison.
Yes but if we assume height is based on environment, and there's a correlation between height and brainsize, then brainsize would not work as an example. This is why I assume you wrote "No, brain size could be linked to a superficial trait". If the men-women example doesn't work when we compare outgroups then the brainsize-hereditary correlation superscedes body-brainsize correlation. "Why does it matter that height is genetic?" Because the argument interloops.
It shows that if brainsize is 45% genetic, then using the argument that there's a brainsize-bodysize correlation, (to show how brainsize is not genetic, [[IF, this is what you were doing]]), then if body height, also is genetic, then the argument interloops and we're back at discussing brainsize as an example of a non-superficial trait.
"That's interesting about EastAsians. But these are minor mean differences in curves that are almost all overlap." I dont think they are minor. 1) The distribution curves are not equally high. Whites are more concentrated at 105 and the black curve is more flat. Europeans are 81 times more likelly to have geniuses (IQ145) within their population. Only 17% of the black IQ distribution exceeds the white median IQ and only 0.0032% of blacks have an IQ at the genius level.
Total black population with IQs over 115, is 800,000. Comparable figure for whites is about 30 million. If blacks had the same IQ distribution as whites, the black total would be over 5 million.
If we look at the other side of the spectrum, more than one in five -- of American blacks have IQs below 75. Around one in twenty whites are below 75.
"Differences within-race are massive in comparison."
IQ also regress toward the mean of the parents to the childs, gene-pools.
Races are clustering-gene-frequencies. Biological traits, such as Brainsize or IQ, regress towards the mean of the aggregate of the populations, gene-pool. Therefore if a European man with IQ 100 mix with an SSAfrican women with an IQ of 105, his offspring would get lower IQ than if he would have procreated with a NEAsian with an IQ of 95.
Thus any claim of there being more difference within, than between, misses the point as much as when a person is saying; "there's more variation within the field and the marsh than between the field and the marsh so therefore there's no field nor marsh."
@MrHerrIQ That makes absolutely no sense. Who taught you that? Jesus fucking christ. How bout you cite me a source, on this one. How would the genes in a SSAfrican woman know what the IQ genes in all other SSAfrican people are, in order to pull this off? That's such bullshit.
Basic genetic theory predicts that the IQ of offspring will regress towards the mean IQ of the population group from which the parents come. This has been amply documented for a number of physical traits in humans and in other species. Regression to the mean is seen, typically, when individuals with high IQ scores mate. Their children tend to show lower scores than their parents. The converse happens for low IQ parents; they have children with somewhat higher IQs.
Black children with parents of IQ 115 regress to the Black IQ average of 85, while White children with parents of IQ 115 regress to the White IQ average of 100. Regression to a lower average IQ helps to explain the fact that Black children born to high IQ, wealthy, Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents. (J.Philippe Rushton)
There's more sources at Wikipedia. The example I gave was a legitimate example I made based on the data
@MrHerrIQ Okay, first, there are a lot of different sources for these kinds of statistics, and unless you're citing me a recent meta-analysis, I'm not going to take them at face value.
Second, none of the data you're citing me is genetic. IQ heritability is high, but you can certainly slide a curve on down the line with 0.15 environment.
Third, each person is unique, no matter what race they belong to. The educated racist sees statistics with no shades of grey, even though that's all they are.
"Third, each person is unique, no matter what race they belong to. sees statistics with no shades of grey, even though that's all they are."
Of course each individual is unique.
I haven't stated anything to the contrary.
I dont consider it to be shades of grey and I've given my reasons why.
The same reasons, you didn't care to look up & just wrote of. If it's a lazy issue (not being rude) & you rather wan't me to source it than to google it, using my stats, I can source it myself if you'd like.
@MrHerrIQ Oh here we go, you don't have the brain size statistics, you have the IQ statistics. Sigh.
Okay, first, look into what the explosion of high intelligence is born of: a loop between advantages of increasing teamwork and massive surplus of calories from cooking (go look up Richard Wrangham). And my previous comment about migratory behavior.
Second, SES affects IQ. Teratogens and poor prenatal/childhood nutrition are both highly related to poverty, and the absolute biggest killer of IQ.
I'll respond to the only comment worthy to respond to in this comment.
"Teratogens and poor prenatal/childhood nutrition are both highly related to poverty,"
Yes and malnutrition is not a problem in the Occident. Poor NEAsians and Europeans regress back to the IQ aggregate of their race, which explains why malnutrition is not a problem in the Occident, especially not in America. This is leaving the discussion of a non-visible trait and entering IQ.
@MrHerrIQ A 'superficial' trait IS genetic. It's change caused by brief evolution in a new climate. They changed alleles with no incentive to stick around- hair and skin to deal with heat/cold. Everything more basic to humanity is useful in any environment. Humans were migratory and rarely FORCED to deal with any climate too strenuous. Which is where our advances while in Africa came from, being FORCED into changing climate, because we didn't have that adaptability yet.
Most of this comment seem to be a strawman or a non deliberate missunderstanding, which might be my fault, due to my poor choice of words or lack of explainatory power, because english is my fourth language.
"A 'superficial' trait IS genetic."
I know, I haven't argued that it wasn't.
Your argument was that there's no non-visible trait that differs between the races.
And I argued that there were non-visible traits, that were genetic. So far we've argued about the genetic part of it
@MrHerrIQ 'brainsize would not work as an example' Of what? Finish your sentence. I can't read your mind. Pretty sure you're still using the word 'environment' incorrectly, or have a complete misunderstanding of GxE. Migrating into a new climate CHANGES genetics. That should happen as racial groups migrate, but my argument is that climate effects on genetics are 'superficial'. Use the word 'climate' if you're going to talk about that, for clarity. 'Environment' is within-one-generation effects.
The sentence was finished and is perfectly logical in the context of the subject which we are speaking about.
You seemed to imply or argue that brainsize is not an example of a non-visible trait. "I can't read your mind." Which is why, my comment, which you have questions about, was me explaining how I think you reasoned to see whether or not I was right or not, regarding your reasoning.
@MrHerrIQ Okay, I'm pretty sure this whole argument is a misunderstanding, because of your apparent assumption that I was trying to say brainsize was environmental? Which I was not. I never introduced the idea of environment, and that's why it seemed awfully odd that you'd suddenly brought it into the argument. Let's just leave it there.
@MrHerrIQ Superficial traits aren't 'non-visible' they're just not important. We're assuming that brain size has any useful effect on anything else, when it doesn't in the man-woman example, and when we can see in many animals that it doesn't always. PFC, sulcis, and number of cortical neurons are far more important and better ways to measure anything about intelligence.
Also you didn't explain what you meant, when I asked you to. Why not? It would've been a one word clarification.
"Superficial traits aren't 'non-visible' they're just not important."
I know superficial traits aren't non-visible and that the superficial, visible traits, are "unimportant". That is exactly why we are discussing brainsize as a non-visible example.
@MrHerrIQ lol. That second statement there? Took me like a minute to work out what you actually meant- for your future success at communicating quickly and easily, the statement would be clear if you said 'If by superficial, you mean "useless", then I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that race differences are useless differences.' Instead you made me guess what you were referring back to- 'your underlying assumption' Which one? and 'I'm not necessarily disagreeing' Disagreeing with what?
Well, the heredity of brainsize and IQ, etc differs from continent and continent, because outside of the Occident, there's other environmental factors to consider, which affect brainsize, height, IQ or whatever, which impact the environment/heriditary levels. So brainsize might be less hereditary outside the Occident, because one has to consider malnutrition as a general rule. If you have any other questions, just ask away.
There is GREATER variation within a continent (or a so called "race") than between continents.Read these scientific peer reviewed papers to clarify: Serre and Paabo (2004) and Ramachandran et al (2005), Barbujani and Belle (2006). they all disprove "race" as a biological or genetic reality.Watch a scientific test of race.
As if the fact that they're would be no more distinct races would stop wars and evil.Nothing will change human kinds mammal nature,we are animals,we have a need to view each other as different and claim our domain like a lion pride claiming their ground and saying,''this land is mine and these lioness are mine too''.
"Now you've gone from saying "race" is "proved" to its "a hunch". "
You're pretty stupid, aren't you! You love to twist words around, just like a person with a political agenda. Sorry bubba, you're not going to weasel your way around this argument.
"Only religion claims proof, not science. Maybe thats why you said Jesus Christ afterwards, are you religious?"
You're pretty ignorant about science, huh! And I love that jab about me being religious. It was a nice touch.
"Now you've gone from saying "race" is "proved" to its "a hunch". "
You're pretty stupid, aren't you! You love to twist words around, just like a person with a political agenda. Sorry bubba, you're not going to weasel your way around this argument.
"Only religion claims proof, not science. Maybe thats why you said Jesus Christ afterwards, are you religious?"
You're pretty ignorant about science, huh! And I love that jab about me being religious. It was a nice touch.
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 You obviously don't have any sources that disprove the HGP, so fall back on lies. Please quote a source where Dawkins, Edwards and Leroi state the opposite of the HGP conclusion that there are no "races" in modern humans?
Please state where I denied the existence of the Afrotropic ecozone? !
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. Try typing in Sergio Pena into google scholar et voila! The HGP findings were based on evidence, not authority.
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 Please provide a scientific peer reviewed paper published since the HGP findings last summer that disprove the HGP?
Humans show continuous genetic variation, putting them into categories is subjective and artificial and it allows bigots like you to use it to discriminate.
@vbritsi My attack is purely scientific. Humans show continuous genetic variation, putting them into categories is subjective and artificial. If you disagree try answering the following 1) How many "races" are there? 2) Describe the genetic boundary of your own so called "race"?
@vbritsi Define the genetic boundary of any of your so called "races". i.e. where does mongoloid start and caucasian end? You won't find it because humans show continuous genetic variation as shown by the human genmoe project. gene flow has never ceased so its impossible that "races" exist in modern humans.
@vbritsi No objective genetic test can tell you someones "race" 100% because race itself is subjective. I don't deny evolution, I deny "race/subspecies" as a biological or genetic reality in modern humans. Don't make another non sequitur. Care to name a scientific peer reviewed paper that backs your argument?
@vbritsi Fallacy 1) you started with the preconception that there are "identifiable", " races".
2) Science is about disproof, never proof. 3) I could say that humans used to think the moon was made of cheese, it was disproved. 4) Race as a biological and genetic reality has been disproved.
@vbritsi Now you've gone from saying "race" is "proved" to its "a hunch". If a theory is said to be proved then that suggests that no amount of new and contradictory evidence can change it. Only religion claims proof, not science. Maybe thats why you said Jesus Christ afterwards, are you religious?
Actually i am talking about falsification. Race as a biological and genetic reality has been falsified by the human genome project.
"Now you've gone from saying "race" is "proved" to its "a hunch". "
You're pretty stupid, aren't you! You love to twist words around, just like a person with a political agenda. Sorry bubba, you're not going to weasel your way around this argument.
"Only religion claims proof, not science. Maybe thats why you said Jesus Christ afterwards, are you religious?"
You're pretty ignorant about science, huh! And I love that jab about me being religious. It was a nice touch.
@vbritsi "Our DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity" Human genome project 2007
@vbritsi Science isn't about "proof", it's about disproof. "race" was disproved by the human genome project that found every allele in every population. p.s. A definition to be useful can't refer to itself, that's just circular reasoning. You must stop making all these logical fallacies.
@vbritsi Garbage in garbage out applies to a test to determine a subjective "classification" such as "race". nope, science is never ever about "proof". To quote einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". Please name a gene that is unique to "white" people?
your argument is so full of holes it laughable and still no peer reviewed sources to back your argument?!
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 Mayr died before the findings of the human genome project. All people belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Keita et al. 2004
Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past (AAPA 1996).
You seem to be suggesting that continental populations do not interbreed very often? That simply isn't true.
@icfireplace Nope, I actually said there are 7 billion unique human individuals showing continuous genetic variation, grouping them artificially into discontinuous subjective "races" is ridiculous and susceptible to discrimination by bigots. A tabby and a lion are not the same species. Dogs were bred artificially and are irrelevant to human variation discussion.
@TheDisproof are you fucking kidding me? the genetic variation between human individuals is equidistant from one another, therefore having no influence on the .2% disparity between the races.
everything shows that races do exist, everything from history, to biology to any detail regarding race. you're just too ignorant to see that.
@SSbombardmentXll What is this? A joke. You have a Nazi flag as your icon?
Humans show continuous genetic variation, putting them into categories is subjective and artificial. That is exactly the reason why the Nazi's top cretin on so called "racial groups" could not provide a type specimen skull of an Aryan when asked for one despite having access to thousands of skulls.
@TheDisproof see, that's the thing, there are races within one general race, such as the caucasoid race. but these races within a race are hell of a lot more alike compared to races within lets say the negroid race.
hitler regarded many people and cultures to be of aryan blood, from the british to the spanish to the russians all the way down to croatia and serbia.
@SSbombardmentXll By your logic every family on the planet is a "race" so thats a billion races!An average of 85% of genetic variation exists within local populations, ~7% is between local populations within the same continent, and ~8% of variation occurs between large groups living on different continents. (Lewontin 1972,Jorde et al. 2000,Hinds et al. 2005). This means you could have two people from different so called races who are more similar to each other than people from their own "race".
@TheDisproof 8% of variation? aren't you only proving my point? 1% genetic variation believe it or not is a significant amount. if we truely were equal then we would be equidistantly varied between one another.
@SSbombardmentXll Fra from it 85% of genetic variation exists within local populations. i.e. there is more variation wihin a so called "race" than between them. i.e. Two Africans can vary more than an African and European. I didn't say "races" were equal, i said they don't exist biologically or genetically. In fact there are almost 7 billion genetically different human individuals showing continuous genetic variation, not artificial discontinuous group as you pretend.
@TheDisproof "don't exist biologically" -then why did you say there is an 8% variation BETWEEN LARGE GROUPS WITHIN A CONTINENT? these large groups as are known today are the caucasoid race, the negroid race, asianic race, etc.
of coarse, the term "continent" is itself a fallacy because it too is a social construct. for example, why is all of asia labeled only one continent when it spans half the world? all i know is that you admitted that differences in environment cause genetic variation.
@SSbombardmentXll I can explain it to you but i can't understand it for you. here goes: I stated that there is more differences within a so called "racial" group that between groups. This means that you could be more closely related to someone from a different "racial group" than to your own "racial group". 85% of human variation is within "racial groups" so putting them into "races" is a logical fallacy in the first place. Do you understand what continuous variation means?
@TheDisproof i can't help you understand this either, its a very complex notion as it is. this 85% variation, doesn't this apply to distant races as well? of coarse it does, and moreover, there's even more variation of people of different racial groups.
sure, there exists the possibility of being closer to another racial group, but again, it is rare.
@SSbombardmentXll 85% is not "rare' as you put it, thats the vast majority of variation. What it confirms is that humans exist along a continuous range of human genetic varaition, not artificial subjective and discontinuous groups as you suggest. This was also confirmed by the human genome project (last summer) who stated that they found no evidence of biological or genetic 'races' in modern humans. In addition gene flow has never ceased.
@TheDisproof i'm not saying its rare. you speak as if 85% variation does not apply to other races as well. as i've said before, you clearly admitted your own fallacy. remember when you used (7%) and (8%) figures? yea, well there is a 1% distinction between people OF LARGE POPULATIONS WHO LIVE ON SEPERATE CONTINENTS. those aren't my words but yours.
@SSbombardmentXll Nope you still misunderstood me, there is GREATER variation within a continent (or a so called "race") than between continents.Read these scientific peer reviewed papers to clarify: Serre and Paabo (2004) and Ramachandran et al (2005), Barbujani and Belle (2006). they all disprove "race" as a biological or genetic reality.
@TheDisproof how is that possible? so there is greater variation between a race, but that same variation once compared to a different race doesn't exist? how in the hell does that make sense?
@SSbombardmentXll What I said was that there is greater variation between individuals within a "race" than variation between so called "races". Its perfectly possible, you just have to think about it a bit harder. Also read Serre and Paabo (2004) and Ramachandran et al (2005).
@TheDisproof "What I said was that there is greater variation between individuals within a "race" than variation between so called "races"."
But that can't change the fact that even the relatively "small" interracial variation is entirely sufficient for distinguishing racial groups. In fact, this "small" human interracial variation is moderately high to high in comparison with other mamals. There is no reason, why humans should be extempt from the rules of evolution.
@centrum99 A moot comparison: dogs were artificially selected in a variety of locations with separate wolf populations speeding up evolution by 100 fold, dogs did not all start from the same founder wolf population. Dog "breeds" are subjective, kennel clubs cannot even agree on what makes up each so called "breed".
Are you still disagreeing with findings of the Human genome project that there are no biological or genetic "races" in modern human?
@Heligoland43 I wonder, if people like you have ever attended school... Judging from your exceptional ability to accept every piece of nonsense from some ideologically motivated nuts.
"although a native Norwegian may look very different from a native South African, if you walk between Norway and South Africa, there is no point along this journey at which people suddenly go from being white to black. Skin colour gradually darkens as you near the equator"
I suppose that temperature doesn't exist either, because there is a gradual transition between warmth and cold? And what about night and day? These are only illusions, because days gradually change into nights!
They are really poor argument and examples of really bad logic.
Likewise there are no colors, because the frequencies of rays are gradually changing from one color to another. And since all is made up of the comsmic foam inside atoms... nothing but the cosmic foam inside atoms really exist.
@centrum99 read Serre and Paabo (2004) and Ramachandran et al (2005) and look up what the human genome project had to say about the non-existence of biological or genetic "races" in modern humans before you continue to comment. Did you mean Alfred Rosenberg who was an early and influential member of the Nazi Party? Next you will be saying Rushton is a good scientist!
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 The Sahara desert is not a barrier,if it were humans would never have left Africa in the first place, you can go round it using the Nile or through it just as the Tuareg do every day. "There are no arces, only clines" (Livingstone 1962). Not only would the existence of races require total lack of gene flow, it would also require a very very long amount of time for "races" to form. There were and still are multiple migrations of people continuing gene flow that never ceased.
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 You have simply described conflict over resources, this can happen even within a very closely related family of 5 or between two villages with exactly the same culture so your point is moot. Sergio Pena is an expert, try looking on wiki, the scientific commons or use google scholar to find his papers. The HGP stated that there are no "races" in modern humans just last July, it hasn't been retracted however hard you might want it to be.
@icfireplace Nope, there are no geographic boundaries to gene flow so "races" do not and have never existed. What you are describing are artificial groups subjectively placed onto continuous genetic human variation.
@icfireplace If you werea slave trader a few centuries ago you would need to justify it by pretending that "races' existed based on subjective opinions. "race" came from ignorance of science and continuous spectrums of genetic diversity. Many words exist for things that do not in fact exist.
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 I suggest you try disagreeing with the human genome project which found no evidence whatsover for distinct biological "races" in modern humans.
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 I know that the Human genome project says there is no evidence of "races" in modern humans, feel free to try and disprove the most comprehensive study findings of human genetics ever undertaken. Read: The Evolution and Structure of Human Genetic Diversity -Sergio D.J. Pena
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 I know that the Human genome project says there is no evidence of "races" in modern humans, feel free to try and disprove the most comprehensive study findings of human genetics ever undertaken.
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 "DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans." -Type this into your search engine. Along with Human genome project. Mayr made his statement at 98 years old and obviously ignorant of the HGP findings several years after his death.
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 You do know that the human genome project disagrees with you?
p.s. Sesardic 2010 was a philisophical paper, not a scientific one. I suggest you read some papers by Joseph L. Graves Jr. - professor of evolutionary biology at Arizona State University. p.s. "There are no "races", only clines"- Livingstone 1962
@TheDisproof your argument isn't valid. It's "7 BILLION different individuals" of different races : ). Even if races would exist (which they do), it's not about an idea, it's just genetical...so it doesn't mean that one is better than the other.
@Ilir7777 I know that the Human genome project says there is no evidence of "races" in modern humans, feel free to try and disprove the most comprehensive study findings of human genetics ever undertaken. Read: The Evolution and Structure of Human Genetic Diversity -Sergio D.J. Pena 2007
@TheDisproof tell me then why is it taboo to talk about races? Why do studies show that some "colors" have higher IQ than others? Litsen, In my opinion "races does not exist" is an ideology that has born after WWII. In USA, the Government needs immigrants because they offer good labor for cheap so corporations have to invent a new Thinking, which is based on morality to explain why their population is changing. So they kick out anyproof which goes against globalisation :)
@Ilir7777 Please indicate a scientific paper that states that "race" or level of melanin is a causation factor in intelligence.. By your "logic" every time I got a tan, my intelligence would drop. In fact there are 7 billion different skin tones. Biological and genetic "races" do not exist in modern humans. We exist along a continuous range of genetic variation.
Well, this certainly gives me a new perspective on things. After some speculation, the anti-racist = anti-race thing makes sense, but is ultimately impossible.I could go on about something like this, but I think you all understand what I mean.
@legion1a You are describing continuous variation, but you just picked out the two extremes, doesn't mean you have to artificially cut up the entire human population. Continuous variation cannot be grouped unless it is done so artificially, "race" is undefinable objectively genetically and biologically.
Observation and categorization itself is not the problem. The problem is when you use such general observation to unfairly discriminate or in unfair and needless prejudices. I believe even stereotyping is ok because it's just honest GENERAL observation of the world. It's not wrong until you use that information to develope an unfair idea about someone before you know, in situations where they might feel mistreated or become deprived.
"race" is subjective because racists claim that race is biologically and objectively definable when it isn't and then use it for discrimination. "race" categroisation has always been used for discrimination and if you honestly think "race" exists then try to define the genetic and biological boundary of your own "race", its not possible. It's time we did away with this non scientific, subjective, discriminatory, generalising categoristaion that is used for harm and hate.
You are wrong it is scientifically documented that there are difeerent groups of people or so called "races"
You are just afriad of the concept of races because you dont like the thought it doesnt make your claims true.
It is scientifically documented that europeans left Ethiopia 40 000 years ago wheres middle-eastern people left the Ethiopia 80 000 years ago and eastasian people left Ethiopia 50 000 years ago and Afrcians as we know them today left ethiopia 150 000 years ago.
@unfad1ng Are you denying the findings of the human genome project that there are no biological or genetic races? It's findings were released less than 6 months ago. When people "left" is irrelevant and you seem to be denying that different groups interbreed?
@unfad1ng When you look at diversity you should see 7 billion individuals, not artificial groups. Suggesting that "races" exist is to ignore countries like Uzbekistan, Egypt, Morocco, Siberian parts of Russia, and areas occupied by the inuit, the lapps, the roma, and regions where it is impossible to neatly fit everyone into "races". Happy New Year to you!
well i see similarities too, children looking like their parents for example. and i think the more two people are related the more they resemble each other and that means we can put people in groups.
And i see individuals but those individuals share traits with other individuals
@unfad1ng The problem with using how closely people resemble each other is that it is usually subjective and don't forget that continuous variation is shown in humans so there is only ever artificial grouping. We might as well start calling each family a "race" if we are going down the artifical grouping line which is what "race" is. Two people from different so called "races" are very often more closely related that two from the same "race".
well thaths the thing i have a very hard time belivieng that...
to me it seems obvious that if people libe closely togheter for a few generations they will have more genetic traits incomon than an individual who comes from a country on the other side of the planet with a family thast has live there for many generations.
to me it seems obvious, just as obvious as dog races, they look difeerent and ahve difeereent genetic traits.
@unfad1ng By your judgement how many "races" are there? Is every family a "race"? People that have been placed in the same "race" can be more unrelated than two from different so called "races". There have never been long term boundaries between human populations so subspecies have never formed, just continuous variation instead.
But people have not traveled the way they do today for very long.
There have been long term boundaries because in them middle ages for example people lived and died in the same country and married people from the same village, this has gotta have some impact on the genes of populations in countries.
People did not travel much in the middle ages.
Most people never left their town and very few left the country.
People didnt travel by aeroplanes back and forth back then.....
@unfad1ng It doesn't need more than 1% of a population to migrate each year for the entire population to remain as one species with no subspecies. In the middle ages you had huge migrations due to the plague and crusades, not to mention Ghengis Khan and African and Middle Eastern migrattion and trade. International merchants and traders are not new.
@unfad1ng If you go to brazil or you won't find your observation fits very well. People from melanesia look african despite being nearer to Asia than Africa. In every country there are those that look very different and no one who is genetically identical. Out of interest how many "races" do you think there are?
The US census has only had the same categories twice in its history. The very fact that no-one can agree on how many "Races" there are and what those "races" are defined as shows how flawed it is.
@unfad1ng We have never been separated because migrations are not once in 10,000 year events. Don't forget that hunter gathering and nomad lifestyles means migration. Africa and Europe are joined through the middle east.
@TheDisproof This is not only probably false, but it's definitely unproven. 150000 years is NOT enough time to evolve into the several distinct subspecies that exist today, not counting the hybridization that's been occuring along overlapping territiories for a long while. And, contrary to popular opinion, there are racial DNA markers....do your homework, a blood sample can actually define your race and the part of the world your ancestry came from.
@gvman3670 Nope, blood groups show continuous variation and DNA studies show no distinct biological or genetic races according to the human genome project. "race" was invented prior to genetics by those who wished to justify slavery and it is still defended by those who benefit from it. There are no human subspecies or "races". Every allele is found on every continent. Read (Zack 1993)
@pitttdog white people are not all racist and for one to say that all whites are racist makes that person a racist. someone that stereotypes a certain race is racist. someone who hates other races are racist. you dumb fuck.
pjelvis22 1 month ago
@Pitttdog you must be white. so am i but you are one stupid motherfucker.:)
pjelvis22 1 month ago
Damn you did not do this concept justice with this video. It's a nice introduction to the concept but it's not fully explored to a full understanding of it. I think a major point that should've be stressed is scientist believe "race" biologically is a misconception, as human variation is a little as 6-7% per region, 93-4% shared. Race itself is a cultural invention, something that is made up to define certain groups. A geographic variation called clines is uses to define the differences.
ROUGEBLOCK 2 months ago
This is kind of like saying there are no tall people and there are no short people because everyone is on the continuum somewhere.
Ponerology 2 months ago
The title of the vid is accurate - there are two species. Humans and niggers.
shaquitafatpants 2 months ago
I'm not sure what this is. But its pissed of lots of racists, so...good job.
nomzod 5 months ago 2
Jewish cheap propaganda for retards
WaffenSSMg42 7 months ago 8
@WaffenSSMg42 : wow.. just wow. so not only are you a racist. you're also an antisemite - and willfully ignorant?
good luck with your life.
selvmordspilot 2 months ago
anti racist just means antiwhite.cut the shit already. It seems ok to mention in a good light or bad anything about white people but God forbid you mention anything about anyone else -no matter what. Racist is such a bullshit word.You can mention race, you CAN attribute good and bad shit towards races, nationalities & cultures are not all equal-what a fucked up world we live in where u r stopped from speaking ur mind and taught how to think.Fuck u all.Ill say what i want
Pitttdog 7 months ago 2
They taught us about physiological differences amongst races in med school. Africans are the most susceptible to heart problems. They also have greater bone density and fewer incidence of osteoporosis. Some genetic diseases are also specific to race, such as sickle cell. I think you should watch a program called "The Human Family Tree" in which DNA testing was done on thousands and placed into a phylogenetic tree. One small group that left Africa 75k years ago gave birth to all other races.
ripticdu 7 months ago 3
I thought science had completely eradicated this pseudo-scientific BS in regards to race denial. It seems the rhetoric of the anti-racists knows no bounds, even science.
Abreodan 8 months ago 6
faulty logic. very faulty logic
Nrisagieri 8 months ago 2
this video is racist
Nrisagieri 8 months ago 2
the techno jew beat fits perfect to this filthy jewish bullshit, jews promote race mixing among non jews ONLY, while they consider race mixing a CRIME in israel!! the jews are the cancer of humanity
ticotico9000 8 months ago 3
@ticotico9000 Way to characterize every individual within the arbitrarily-defined borders of Israel as "the cancer of humanity." As if every one of them has the same personality, intellect, and goals. How very Hitler-esque of you.
Beeza2996 4 months ago
@Beeza2996 intellect and goal? yes, all jews have an average high intellect and their mayor goals as a race are written in the Talmud, and that defines the personality of most of them. So yes, as history has proven agan and again, the jews are the cancer of humanity
ticotico9000 4 months ago
Saying Races do not exist among the Human species,is saying our eyes are lying to us..
Medical science is lying to us..
and Sports is lying to us,.
Also saying that the Different Mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA found among different ethnic groups with different Racial physical characters do not mean nothing...
Also the theory that races change due to climate and surrounding is idiotic,and a proof to that is simmilliar climatic places with different races from very old times.
HebrewFatherland 8 months ago
all the cats in the feline-cat family-group-species can breed with eachother.. lion with tiger , lion with leopard, tiger with leopard, jaguar with tiger and so on .. in the dog-K-9 family group-species the same .they can all breed with eachother....fish the same wale withh dolvin and so on .....and in the people species -group we can breed with eachother (the black-species with the white and so on ) .... you got to have a IQ to understand this stuff.............
cnauzlr 8 months ago
you who made this video,(we al the same )... insulting me with this lie and garbage......all my ancestors will come out of the grave and rip youy heard out ....thats like saying ALL the felines-cats are the same ,or all the dogsK-9 are the same or all thge butterflies are the same or all the fisch are the same.....and so on .....you are retARDED....
cnauzlr 8 months ago
who ever made this video is retarded..... you insult me we know Hitler hade african genes in him ,because his grandmother was raped by a jew ....
cnauzlr 8 months ago
who ever made this video is a retard..there are 3 genetic different people species .all others are mixed 2 or all 3 people species over time. I have euro-genotype in me (I,J,K,),the african -blackpeople species has L1,L2,L3genotype, Orientals have genotype M,G,.... you loony ,how there you say we all the same ...you crazy and retarded... I can give my genes now and see ,I have NO afro genes in me ,because I am from europe.... the white people species has euro genes and the black people sp..
cnauzlr 8 months ago
Morocco? Really? I find that interesting becasue that country is in africa. They should be african. But they are not Black, which is what US racial tjeory is based on - skin color and other features. Then, the term middle easter is problamtic too. Lets put all the Muslim countries together & generalize.
ZooYorkMs 9 months ago
"Are you still disagreeing with findings of the Human genome project that there are no biological or genetic "races" in modern human?"
No, I can't disagree, of course. I must accept the last scientific discoveries. We were created on Saturday during the creation week, and then dispersed from the Tower of Babel. This is why races in humans can't exist.
centrum99 10 months ago
There's not a distinct athmosphere so therefore there's no athmosphere?
Logical error
MrHerrIQ 10 months ago
@MrHerrIQ This isn't a very good argument against race. The good argument is that there are only superficial differences caused by climate as modern homo sapiens spread out, in a very short time. You can tell because the factors we use to distinguish race aren't segmented into separate areas. Aboriginal Australians and Africans share features, only because they had a similar environment.
We have very low genetic diversity compared to other species- we're like 15% of the diversity of chimps.
Heligoland43 8 months ago
@Heligoland43
"only superficial differences caused by climate"
About as correct as saying, there's no "breed-specific" diseases (more common within certain breeds) within the specie of dogs. Likewise there's population specific diseases, problem with organ-transplantability and brainsize differences. "a very short time." The 10 000 year old Explosion by Henry Harpending takes care of that one. "low genetic diversity compared to other species" Not all species. And gene-frequency matter more.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
@MrHerrIQ ""low genetic diversity compared to other species"
The argument with chimpanzees is actually true - albeit it concerns only central chimpanzees. The problem is that the level of divergence in chimps is so high that it approaches the level of speciation. Human genetic diversity is otherwise moderately high/high when compared with other mammals.
That's always the same problem with anti-racial mythmakers: They select only information that fits their agenda.
centrum99 8 months ago
@MrHerrIQ So my previous argument is what I learned from my 1001 Anth class- obviously you have a bit more background here than I can argue against.
But I am a psych major, so let's talk brain size differences. You wouldn't have ever brought them up, if you knew anything about them. The correlation of brain size and IQ in humans is r=0.3~0.4. And don't even get me started on encephalization quotients, they have a worse correlation than raw brain size. There are so many other factors in play.
Heligoland43 8 months ago
@Heligoland43
When I brought up brainsize, I literally meant, brainsize, I didn't mention IQ.
Brainsize is not a superficial difference, thus I used it as an example of a non-superficial trait.
If by superficial, you mean "useless", & you thought I shared your underlying assumptionthen, then sure, Im not necessarily disagreeing with Brainsize & the IQ correlation, only I would put it at .45, not down at .3. .0 is all environment, so .45 is almost 50% genes & thus an example of non-superfi trait
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
@MrHerrIQ IQ is only 0.85 genes. But either you are using confusing terminology, or we're on opposite pages.When I say 'superficial trait', I don't mean it's ENVIROMENTAL (not genetic). I mean that it's a visible genetic trait we see as marking a significant difference in overall racial genetics, when in fact, races are very genetically similar. Obviously certain alleles for melanin, etc been selected for, due to climate, as well as Allen's and Bergman's rule-> And body and brain size correlate.
Heligoland43 8 months ago
@Heligoland43
Yes, it's "only" .85% genetic in the Occident, which is overwhelmingly more than environment, I agree.
However, I dont know how we got into IQ, if your definition of "superficial trait" was "that which is visible", because then, indeed, brainsize is a non-visible and thus non-superficial trait and an example of this.
My intent was not to bring up IQ, but merely the different sizes of the brain, which is a non-visible, non-superficial biological trait.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
@MrHerrIQ No, brain size could be linked to a superficial trait, due to what I said about Allen's and Bergman's rule. Body size and brain size are linked. Men have, on average, larger brains than women, because of their, on average, larger size. This is the way it works in the rest of species, as well, though it's a complicated and not linear relationship. The sperm whale has the largest brain, because it is very large.
lol, only in the Occident? I have not heard that one before, please expand.
Heligoland43 8 months ago
@Heligoland43
Well, height is also fairly genetic (.47), especially in the Occident, and the brainsize differences are consistent among populations, so I would still argue that brainsize is a non-visible example.
EastAsians have a larger brainsize than Europeans on average, yet the height aggregate for Europeans is higher than EastAsians. EastAsian women have a larger Brainsize than Scandinavian men, so the men-women gap only holds within populations.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
@MrHerrIQ I was just using men-women as an example. Why does it matter that height is genetic? I think you've still got my argument wrong, here. The superficial traits I'm talking about SHOULD be genetic, and a result of selection by climate.
That's interesting about EastAsians. But these are minor mean differences in curves that are almost all overlap. If that's all you're arguing is the difference between races, then this is a waste of time. Differences within-race are massive in comparison.
Heligoland43 8 months ago
@Heligoland43
"Men-women example"
Yes but if we assume height is based on environment, and there's a correlation between height and brainsize, then brainsize would not work as an example. This is why I assume you wrote "No, brain size could be linked to a superficial trait". If the men-women example doesn't work when we compare outgroups then the brainsize-hereditary correlation superscedes body-brainsize correlation. "Why does it matter that height is genetic?" Because the argument interloops.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
Comment 2 (b)
It shows that if brainsize is 45% genetic, then using the argument that there's a brainsize-bodysize correlation, (to show how brainsize is not genetic, [[IF, this is what you were doing]]), then if body height, also is genetic, then the argument interloops and we're back at discussing brainsize as an example of a non-superficial trait.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
Comment 3 (b)
"That's interesting about EastAsians. But these are minor mean differences in curves that are almost all overlap." I dont think they are minor. 1) The distribution curves are not equally high. Whites are more concentrated at 105 and the black curve is more flat. Europeans are 81 times more likelly to have geniuses (IQ145) within their population. Only 17% of the black IQ distribution exceeds the white median IQ and only 0.0032% of blacks have an IQ at the genius level.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
Comment 4 (b)
Total black population with IQs over 115, is 800,000. Comparable figure for whites is about 30 million. If blacks had the same IQ distribution as whites, the black total would be over 5 million.
If we look at the other side of the spectrum, more than one in five -- of American blacks have IQs below 75. Around one in twenty whites are below 75.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
Comment 5 (b)
"Differences within-race are massive in comparison."
IQ also regress toward the mean of the parents to the childs, gene-pools.
Races are clustering-gene-frequencies. Biological traits, such as Brainsize or IQ, regress towards the mean of the aggregate of the populations, gene-pool. Therefore if a European man with IQ 100 mix with an SSAfrican women with an IQ of 105, his offspring would get lower IQ than if he would have procreated with a NEAsian with an IQ of 95.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
Thus any claim of there being more difference within, than between, misses the point as much as when a person is saying; "there's more variation within the field and the marsh than between the field and the marsh so therefore there's no field nor marsh."
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
@MrHerrIQ That makes absolutely no sense. Who taught you that? Jesus fucking christ. How bout you cite me a source, on this one. How would the genes in a SSAfrican woman know what the IQ genes in all other SSAfrican people are, in order to pull this off? That's such bullshit.
Heligoland43 8 months ago
@Heligoland43
Basic genetic theory predicts that the IQ of offspring will regress towards the mean IQ of the population group from which the parents come. This has been amply documented for a number of physical traits in humans and in other species. Regression to the mean is seen, typically, when individuals with high IQ scores mate. Their children tend to show lower scores than their parents. The converse happens for low IQ parents; they have children with somewhat higher IQs.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
Black children with parents of IQ 115 regress to the Black IQ average of 85, while White children with parents of IQ 115 regress to the White IQ average of 100. Regression to a lower average IQ helps to explain the fact that Black children born to high IQ, wealthy, Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents. (J.Philippe Rushton)
There's more sources at Wikipedia. The example I gave was a legitimate example I made based on the data
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
@MrHerrIQ Okay, first, there are a lot of different sources for these kinds of statistics, and unless you're citing me a recent meta-analysis, I'm not going to take them at face value.
Second, none of the data you're citing me is genetic. IQ heritability is high, but you can certainly slide a curve on down the line with 0.15 environment.
Third, each person is unique, no matter what race they belong to. The educated racist sees statistics with no shades of grey, even though that's all they are.
Heligoland43 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Heligoland43
"I'm not going to take them at face value."
I dont care. If you have the incentive to look it up, look it up or if you dont care, then dont. It doesn't matter to me.
"Second, none of the data you're citing me is genetic. IQ heritability is high. slide a curve on down the line with 0.15 environment."
Yes it is mostly genetic, until you have provided legitimate reason why we ought to assume that this .15 impact some groups but not all groups.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
"Third, each person is unique, no matter what race they belong to. sees statistics with no shades of grey, even though that's all they are."
Of course each individual is unique.
I haven't stated anything to the contrary.
I dont consider it to be shades of grey and I've given my reasons why.
The same reasons, you didn't care to look up & just wrote of. If it's a lazy issue (not being rude) & you rather wan't me to source it than to google it, using my stats, I can source it myself if you'd like.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
@MrHerrIQ Oh here we go, you don't have the brain size statistics, you have the IQ statistics. Sigh.
Okay, first, look into what the explosion of high intelligence is born of: a loop between advantages of increasing teamwork and massive surplus of calories from cooking (go look up Richard Wrangham). And my previous comment about migratory behavior.
Second, SES affects IQ. Teratogens and poor prenatal/childhood nutrition are both highly related to poverty, and the absolute biggest killer of IQ.
Heligoland43 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Heligoland43
I'll respond to the only comment worthy to respond to in this comment.
"Teratogens and poor prenatal/childhood nutrition are both highly related to poverty,"
Yes and malnutrition is not a problem in the Occident. Poor NEAsians and Europeans regress back to the IQ aggregate of their race, which explains why malnutrition is not a problem in the Occident, especially not in America. This is leaving the discussion of a non-visible trait and entering IQ.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
@MrHerrIQ A 'superficial' trait IS genetic. It's change caused by brief evolution in a new climate. They changed alleles with no incentive to stick around- hair and skin to deal with heat/cold. Everything more basic to humanity is useful in any environment. Humans were migratory and rarely FORCED to deal with any climate too strenuous. Which is where our advances while in Africa came from, being FORCED into changing climate, because we didn't have that adaptability yet.
Heligoland43 8 months ago
@Heligoland43
Most of this comment seem to be a strawman or a non deliberate missunderstanding, which might be my fault, due to my poor choice of words or lack of explainatory power, because english is my fourth language.
"A 'superficial' trait IS genetic."
I know, I haven't argued that it wasn't.
Your argument was that there's no non-visible trait that differs between the races.
And I argued that there were non-visible traits, that were genetic. So far we've argued about the genetic part of it
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
@MrHerrIQ 'brainsize would not work as an example' Of what? Finish your sentence. I can't read your mind. Pretty sure you're still using the word 'environment' incorrectly, or have a complete misunderstanding of GxE. Migrating into a new climate CHANGES genetics. That should happen as racial groups migrate, but my argument is that climate effects on genetics are 'superficial'. Use the word 'climate' if you're going to talk about that, for clarity. 'Environment' is within-one-generation effects.
Heligoland43 8 months ago
@Heligoland43
"Of what? Finish your sentence."
The sentence was finished and is perfectly logical in the context of the subject which we are speaking about.
You seemed to imply or argue that brainsize is not an example of a non-visible trait. "I can't read your mind." Which is why, my comment, which you have questions about, was me explaining how I think you reasoned to see whether or not I was right or not, regarding your reasoning.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
"Pretty sure you're still using the word 'environment' incorrectly, or have a complete misunderstanding of GxE."
No.
"Migrating into a new climate CHANGES genetics."
Environment, when talking about IQ or brainsize referrs to - nutrition, things we can impact ourselves during our life.
Hereditary referrs to genes creating a certain level of cognitive functioning or how genes are responding to nutrition.
"'Environment' is within-one-generation effects."
Exactly! I've never said anything else.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
@MrHerrIQ Okay, I'm pretty sure this whole argument is a misunderstanding, because of your apparent assumption that I was trying to say brainsize was environmental? Which I was not. I never introduced the idea of environment, and that's why it seemed awfully odd that you'd suddenly brought it into the argument. Let's just leave it there.
Heligoland43 8 months ago
@MrHerrIQ Superficial traits aren't 'non-visible' they're just not important. We're assuming that brain size has any useful effect on anything else, when it doesn't in the man-woman example, and when we can see in many animals that it doesn't always. PFC, sulcis, and number of cortical neurons are far more important and better ways to measure anything about intelligence.
Also you didn't explain what you meant, when I asked you to. Why not? It would've been a one word clarification.
Heligoland43 8 months ago
@Heligoland43
"Superficial traits aren't 'non-visible' they're just not important."
I know superficial traits aren't non-visible and that the superficial, visible traits, are "unimportant". That is exactly why we are discussing brainsize as a non-visible example.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
You-"there are only superficial differences caused by climate"
Me-"If by superficial, you mean "useless", & you thought I shared your underlying assumption, then sure, Im not necessarily disagreeing"
You-"Superficial traits aren't 'non-visible' they're just not important.
I've already acknowledged that we're on the same page, once.
Now it's the second time, Im acknowledging it.
As if the discussion of brainsize and IQ wasn't enough of a give away already.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
@MrHerrIQ lol. That second statement there? Took me like a minute to work out what you actually meant- for your future success at communicating quickly and easily, the statement would be clear if you said 'If by superficial, you mean "useless", then I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that race differences are useless differences.' Instead you made me guess what you were referring back to- 'your underlying assumption' Which one? and 'I'm not necessarily disagreeing' Disagreeing with what?
Heligoland43 8 months ago
@Heligoland43
Comment 2
"only in the Occident? please expand."
Well, the heredity of brainsize and IQ, etc differs from continent and continent, because outside of the Occident, there's other environmental factors to consider, which affect brainsize, height, IQ or whatever, which impact the environment/heriditary levels. So brainsize might be less hereditary outside the Occident, because one has to consider malnutrition as a general rule. If you have any other questions, just ask away.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is GREATER variation within a continent (or a so called "race") than between continents.Read these scientific peer reviewed papers to clarify: Serre and Paabo (2004) and Ramachandran et al (2005), Barbujani and Belle (2006). they all disprove "race" as a biological or genetic reality.Watch a scientific test of race.
TheDisproof 10 months ago
As if the fact that they're would be no more distinct races would stop wars and evil.Nothing will change human kinds mammal nature,we are animals,we have a need to view each other as different and claim our domain like a lion pride claiming their ground and saying,''this land is mine and these lioness are mine too''.
allrightbrain 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDisproof
"Now you've gone from saying "race" is "proved" to its "a hunch". "
You're pretty stupid, aren't you! You love to twist words around, just like a person with a political agenda. Sorry bubba, you're not going to weasel your way around this argument.
"Only religion claims proof, not science. Maybe thats why you said Jesus Christ afterwards, are you religious?"
You're pretty ignorant about science, huh! And I love that jab about me being religious. It was a nice touch.
vbritsi 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDisproof
"Now you've gone from saying "race" is "proved" to its "a hunch". "
You're pretty stupid, aren't you! You love to twist words around, just like a person with a political agenda. Sorry bubba, you're not going to weasel your way around this argument.
"Only religion claims proof, not science. Maybe thats why you said Jesus Christ afterwards, are you religious?"
You're pretty ignorant about science, huh! And I love that jab about me being religious. It was a nice touch.
vbritsi 11 months ago
All the thumbs down seem to come from people who make racist comments.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
Comment removed
vbritsi 11 months ago
@vbritsi Are you saying you do not make racist comments?
Hitler believed "races" existed he also knew that it was a flawed concept that could be used subjectively to get rid of anyone he pleased.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 You obviously don't have any sources that disprove the HGP, so fall back on lies. Please quote a source where Dawkins, Edwards and Leroi state the opposite of the HGP conclusion that there are no "races" in modern humans?
Please state where I denied the existence of the Afrotropic ecozone? !
Are you saying that Ecozones stop gene flow?
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. Try typing in Sergio Pena into google scholar et voila! The HGP findings were based on evidence, not authority.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. The HGP findings were based on evidence, not authority.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 Please provide a scientific peer reviewed paper published since the HGP findings last summer that disprove the HGP?
Humans show continuous genetic variation, putting them into categories is subjective and artificial and it allows bigots like you to use it to discriminate.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
Comment removed
vbritsi 11 months ago
@vbritsi My attack is purely scientific. Humans show continuous genetic variation, putting them into categories is subjective and artificial. If you disagree try answering the following 1) How many "races" are there? 2) Describe the genetic boundary of your own so called "race"?
TheDisproof 11 months ago
Comment removed
vbritsi 11 months ago
@vbritsi Define the genetic boundary of any of your so called "races". i.e. where does mongoloid start and caucasian end? You won't find it because humans show continuous genetic variation as shown by the human genmoe project. gene flow has never ceased so its impossible that "races" exist in modern humans.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
Comment removed
vbritsi 11 months ago
@vbritsi Gender is defined by X and Y chromosome, its objective and scientific, "race" is neither.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
Comment removed
vbritsi 11 months ago
@vbritsi No objective genetic test can tell you someones "race" 100% because race itself is subjective. I don't deny evolution, I deny "race/subspecies" as a biological or genetic reality in modern humans. Don't make another non sequitur. Care to name a scientific peer reviewed paper that backs your argument?
TheDisproof 11 months ago
Comment removed
vbritsi 11 months ago
@vbritsi Fallacy 1) you started with the preconception that there are "identifiable", " races".
2) Science is about disproof, never proof. 3) I could say that humans used to think the moon was made of cheese, it was disproved. 4) Race as a biological and genetic reality has been disproved.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
Comment removed
vbritsi 11 months ago
@vbritsi Now you've gone from saying "race" is "proved" to its "a hunch". If a theory is said to be proved then that suggests that no amount of new and contradictory evidence can change it. Only religion claims proof, not science. Maybe thats why you said Jesus Christ afterwards, are you religious?
Actually i am talking about falsification. Race as a biological and genetic reality has been falsified by the human genome project.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDisproof
"Now you've gone from saying "race" is "proved" to its "a hunch". "
You're pretty stupid, aren't you! You love to twist words around, just like a person with a political agenda. Sorry bubba, you're not going to weasel your way around this argument.
"Only religion claims proof, not science. Maybe thats why you said Jesus Christ afterwards, are you religious?"
You're pretty ignorant about science, huh! And I love that jab about me being religious. It was a nice touch.
vbritsi 11 months ago
Comment removed
vbritsi 11 months ago
@vbritsi "Our DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity" Human genome project 2007
TheDisproof 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDisproof
"There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity" Human genome project 2007"
Gee, that's funny. Then why do forensic scientists use DNA left at crime scenes to accurately determine the race of suspects?
vbritsi 11 months ago
Comment removed
vbritsi 11 months ago
@vbritsi Science isn't about "proof", it's about disproof. "race" was disproved by the human genome project that found every allele in every population. p.s. A definition to be useful can't refer to itself, that's just circular reasoning. You must stop making all these logical fallacies.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
Comment removed
vbritsi 11 months ago
Comment removed
vbritsi 11 months ago
@vbritsi Garbage in garbage out applies to a test to determine a subjective "classification" such as "race". nope, science is never ever about "proof". To quote einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". Please name a gene that is unique to "white" people?
your argument is so full of holes it laughable and still no peer reviewed sources to back your argument?!
TheDisproof 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDisproof
"nope, science is never ever about "proof". "
You're talking out your ass now. It's obvious you don't have a clue what you're saying.
"Please name a gene that is unique to "white" people?"
This is a phony and disingenuous question. It is a group of genes AND their expression.
"your argument is so full of holes it laughable and still no peer reviewed sources to back your argument?!"
Your arrogance is ridiculous. Where's YOUR "peer -reviewed source"?
vbritsi 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 Mayr died before the findings of the human genome project. All people belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Keita et al. 2004
Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past (AAPA 1996).
You seem to be suggesting that continental populations do not interbreed very often? That simply isn't true.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@icfireplace Nope, I actually said there are 7 billion unique human individuals showing continuous genetic variation, grouping them artificially into discontinuous subjective "races" is ridiculous and susceptible to discrimination by bigots. A tabby and a lion are not the same species. Dogs were bred artificially and are irrelevant to human variation discussion.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@TheDisproof are you fucking kidding me? the genetic variation between human individuals is equidistant from one another, therefore having no influence on the .2% disparity between the races.
everything shows that races do exist, everything from history, to biology to any detail regarding race. you're just too ignorant to see that.
SSbombardmentXll 11 months ago
@SSbombardmentXll What is this? A joke. You have a Nazi flag as your icon?
Humans show continuous genetic variation, putting them into categories is subjective and artificial. That is exactly the reason why the Nazi's top cretin on so called "racial groups" could not provide a type specimen skull of an Aryan when asked for one despite having access to thousands of skulls.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@TheDisproof see, that's the thing, there are races within one general race, such as the caucasoid race. but these races within a race are hell of a lot more alike compared to races within lets say the negroid race.
hitler regarded many people and cultures to be of aryan blood, from the british to the spanish to the russians all the way down to croatia and serbia.
SSbombardmentXll 11 months ago
@SSbombardmentXll By your logic every family on the planet is a "race" so thats a billion races!An average of 85% of genetic variation exists within local populations, ~7% is between local populations within the same continent, and ~8% of variation occurs between large groups living on different continents. (Lewontin 1972,Jorde et al. 2000,Hinds et al. 2005). This means you could have two people from different so called races who are more similar to each other than people from their own "race".
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@TheDisproof 8% of variation? aren't you only proving my point? 1% genetic variation believe it or not is a significant amount. if we truely were equal then we would be equidistantly varied between one another.
SSbombardmentXll 10 months ago
@SSbombardmentXll Fra from it 85% of genetic variation exists within local populations. i.e. there is more variation wihin a so called "race" than between them. i.e. Two Africans can vary more than an African and European. I didn't say "races" were equal, i said they don't exist biologically or genetically. In fact there are almost 7 billion genetically different human individuals showing continuous genetic variation, not artificial discontinuous group as you pretend.
TheDisproof 10 months ago
@TheDisproof "don't exist biologically" -then why did you say there is an 8% variation BETWEEN LARGE GROUPS WITHIN A CONTINENT? these large groups as are known today are the caucasoid race, the negroid race, asianic race, etc.
of coarse, the term "continent" is itself a fallacy because it too is a social construct. for example, why is all of asia labeled only one continent when it spans half the world? all i know is that you admitted that differences in environment cause genetic variation.
SSbombardmentXll 10 months ago
@SSbombardmentXll I can explain it to you but i can't understand it for you. here goes: I stated that there is more differences within a so called "racial" group that between groups. This means that you could be more closely related to someone from a different "racial group" than to your own "racial group". 85% of human variation is within "racial groups" so putting them into "races" is a logical fallacy in the first place. Do you understand what continuous variation means?
TheDisproof 10 months ago
@TheDisproof i can't help you understand this either, its a very complex notion as it is. this 85% variation, doesn't this apply to distant races as well? of coarse it does, and moreover, there's even more variation of people of different racial groups.
sure, there exists the possibility of being closer to another racial group, but again, it is rare.
SSbombardmentXll 10 months ago
@SSbombardmentXll 85% is not "rare' as you put it, thats the vast majority of variation. What it confirms is that humans exist along a continuous range of human genetic varaition, not artificial subjective and discontinuous groups as you suggest. This was also confirmed by the human genome project (last summer) who stated that they found no evidence of biological or genetic 'races' in modern humans. In addition gene flow has never ceased.
TheDisproof 10 months ago
@TheDisproof i'm not saying its rare. you speak as if 85% variation does not apply to other races as well. as i've said before, you clearly admitted your own fallacy. remember when you used (7%) and (8%) figures? yea, well there is a 1% distinction between people OF LARGE POPULATIONS WHO LIVE ON SEPERATE CONTINENTS. those aren't my words but yours.
SSbombardmentXll 10 months ago
@SSbombardmentXll Nope you still misunderstood me, there is GREATER variation within a continent (or a so called "race") than between continents.Read these scientific peer reviewed papers to clarify: Serre and Paabo (2004) and Ramachandran et al (2005), Barbujani and Belle (2006). they all disprove "race" as a biological or genetic reality.
TheDisproof 10 months ago
@TheDisproof how is that possible? so there is greater variation between a race, but that same variation once compared to a different race doesn't exist? how in the hell does that make sense?
SSbombardmentXll 10 months ago
@SSbombardmentXll What I said was that there is greater variation between individuals within a "race" than variation between so called "races". Its perfectly possible, you just have to think about it a bit harder. Also read Serre and Paabo (2004) and Ramachandran et al (2005).
TheDisproof 10 months ago
@TheDisproof "What I said was that there is greater variation between individuals within a "race" than variation between so called "races"."
But that can't change the fact that even the relatively "small" interracial variation is entirely sufficient for distinguishing racial groups. In fact, this "small" human interracial variation is moderately high to high in comparison with other mamals. There is no reason, why humans should be extempt from the rules of evolution.
centrum99 10 months ago
@centrum99 Evolution of a subspecies takes 300,000 years or more and human gene flow has not ceased. There are no human subspecies.
TheDisproof 10 months ago
@TheDisproof "Evolution of a subspecies takes 300,000 years"
Now I understand, why it took so much time for different breeds of dog to develop.
centrum99 10 months ago
@centrum99 A moot comparison: dogs were artificially selected in a variety of locations with separate wolf populations speeding up evolution by 100 fold, dogs did not all start from the same founder wolf population. Dog "breeds" are subjective, kennel clubs cannot even agree on what makes up each so called "breed".
Are you still disagreeing with findings of the Human genome project that there are no biological or genetic "races" in modern human?
TheDisproof 10 months ago
@centrum99 That's from artificial selection. You understand why natural selection would take way way longer, right?
Heligoland43 8 months ago
@Heligoland43 I wonder, if people like you have ever attended school... Judging from your exceptional ability to accept every piece of nonsense from some ideologically motivated nuts.
centrum99 8 months ago
"although a native Norwegian may look very different from a native South African, if you walk between Norway and South Africa, there is no point along this journey at which people suddenly go from being white to black. Skin colour gradually darkens as you near the equator"
I suppose that temperature doesn't exist either, because there is a gradual transition between warmth and cold? And what about night and day? These are only illusions, because days gradually change into nights!
centrum99 8 months ago
@centrum99
They are really poor argument and examples of really bad logic.
Likewise there are no colors, because the frequencies of rays are gradually changing from one color to another. And since all is made up of the comsmic foam inside atoms... nothing but the cosmic foam inside atoms really exist.
MrHerrIQ 8 months ago
@TheDisproof Your old outdated rhymes come from Lewontin and were already debunked by Edwards, Rosenberg and other geneticists.
centrum99 10 months ago
@centrum99 read Serre and Paabo (2004) and Ramachandran et al (2005) and look up what the human genome project had to say about the non-existence of biological or genetic "races" in modern humans before you continue to comment. Did you mean Alfred Rosenberg who was an early and influential member of the Nazi Party? Next you will be saying Rushton is a good scientist!
TheDisproof 10 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 Based on your "expert" knowledge?! Please show us your own empirical results that show the opposite of the HGP?
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 The Sahara desert is not a barrier,if it were humans would never have left Africa in the first place, you can go round it using the Nile or through it just as the Tuareg do every day. "There are no arces, only clines" (Livingstone 1962). Not only would the existence of races require total lack of gene flow, it would also require a very very long amount of time for "races" to form. There were and still are multiple migrations of people continuing gene flow that never ceased.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 You have simply described conflict over resources, this can happen even within a very closely related family of 5 or between two villages with exactly the same culture so your point is moot. Sergio Pena is an expert, try looking on wiki, the scientific commons or use google scholar to find his papers. The HGP stated that there are no "races" in modern humans just last July, it hasn't been retracted however hard you might want it to be.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@icfireplace Nope, there are no geographic boundaries to gene flow so "races" do not and have never existed. What you are describing are artificial groups subjectively placed onto continuous genetic human variation.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 Ad hominem, ad hominem.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@icfireplace If you werea slave trader a few centuries ago you would need to justify it by pretending that "races' existed based on subjective opinions. "race" came from ignorance of science and continuous spectrums of genetic diversity. Many words exist for things that do not in fact exist.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 I suggest you try disagreeing with the human genome project which found no evidence whatsover for distinct biological "races" in modern humans.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 Your maturity is astounding.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 I know that the Human genome project says there is no evidence of "races" in modern humans, feel free to try and disprove the most comprehensive study findings of human genetics ever undertaken. Read: The Evolution and Structure of Human Genetic Diversity -Sergio D.J. Pena
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 I know that the Human genome project says there is no evidence of "races" in modern humans, feel free to try and disprove the most comprehensive study findings of human genetics ever undertaken.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 "DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans." -Type this into your search engine. Along with Human genome project. Mayr made his statement at 98 years old and obviously ignorant of the HGP findings several years after his death.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 You do know that the human genome project disagrees with you?
p.s. Sesardic 2010 was a philisophical paper, not a scientific one. I suggest you read some papers by Joseph L. Graves Jr. - professor of evolutionary biology at Arizona State University. p.s. "There are no "races", only clines"- Livingstone 1962
TheDisproof 11 months ago
the world would be better if there were no races, but unfortunately there are races with different behaviours
Ilir7777 11 months ago
@Ilir7777 No there aren't. In fact there are 7 BILLION different individuals, not "races".
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@TheDisproof your argument isn't valid. It's "7 BILLION different individuals" of different races : ). Even if races would exist (which they do), it's not about an idea, it's just genetical...so it doesn't mean that one is better than the other.
Ilir7777 11 months ago
@Ilir7777 I know that the Human genome project says there is no evidence of "races" in modern humans, feel free to try and disprove the most comprehensive study findings of human genetics ever undertaken. Read: The Evolution and Structure of Human Genetic Diversity -Sergio D.J. Pena 2007
TheDisproof 11 months ago
@TheDisproof tell me then why is it taboo to talk about races? Why do studies show that some "colors" have higher IQ than others? Litsen, In my opinion "races does not exist" is an ideology that has born after WWII. In USA, the Government needs immigrants because they offer good labor for cheap so corporations have to invent a new Thinking, which is based on morality to explain why their population is changing. So they kick out anyproof which goes against globalisation :)
Ilir7777 11 months ago
@Ilir7777 Please indicate a scientific paper that states that "race" or level of melanin is a causation factor in intelligence.. By your "logic" every time I got a tan, my intelligence would drop. In fact there are 7 billion different skin tones. Biological and genetic "races" do not exist in modern humans. We exist along a continuous range of genetic variation.
TheDisproof 11 months ago
Answer to question on the census: Race? HUMAN
beyo5 11 months ago
Well, this certainly gives me a new perspective on things. After some speculation, the anti-racist = anti-race thing makes sense, but is ultimately impossible.I could go on about something like this, but I think you all understand what I mean.
666BLeue 1 year ago
we are all from ethiopia originaly but we left the place at difeerent times.
unfad1ng 1 year ago
Right! There aren't any different races.
And there aren't any different breeds of dogs either.
A Chihuahua is exactly the same as a Great Dane, they are all just dogs.
The same as the Japanese act and look just like Italians.
No difference what so ever.
legion1a 1 year ago
@legion1a You are describing continuous variation, but you just picked out the two extremes, doesn't mean you have to artificially cut up the entire human population. Continuous variation cannot be grouped unless it is done so artificially, "race" is undefinable objectively genetically and biologically.
TheDisproof 1 year ago
Observation and categorization itself is not the problem. The problem is when you use such general observation to unfairly discriminate or in unfair and needless prejudices. I believe even stereotyping is ok because it's just honest GENERAL observation of the world. It's not wrong until you use that information to develope an unfair idea about someone before you know, in situations where they might feel mistreated or become deprived.
troydeancarpenter 1 year ago
"race" is subjective because racists claim that race is biologically and objectively definable when it isn't and then use it for discrimination. "race" categroisation has always been used for discrimination and if you honestly think "race" exists then try to define the genetic and biological boundary of your own "race", its not possible. It's time we did away with this non scientific, subjective, discriminatory, generalising categoristaion that is used for harm and hate.
TheDisproof 1 year ago
@TheDisproof
You are wrong it is scientifically documented that there are difeerent groups of people or so called "races"
You are just afriad of the concept of races because you dont like the thought it doesnt make your claims true.
It is scientifically documented that europeans left Ethiopia 40 000 years ago wheres middle-eastern people left the Ethiopia 80 000 years ago and eastasian people left Ethiopia 50 000 years ago and Afrcians as we know them today left ethiopia 150 000 years ago.
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng Are you denying the findings of the human genome project that there are no biological or genetic races? It's findings were released less than 6 months ago. When people "left" is irrelevant and you seem to be denying that different groups interbreed?
TheDisproof 1 year ago
@TheDisproof
Well to me it seems impossible that no races exist
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng Read up on the human genome project findings, don't take my word for it. They found no evidence for biological or genetic "races".
TheDisproof 1 year ago
@TheDisproof
Alright maybe youre right it just seems unlikely to me when i see the diversity of humanity
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng When you look at diversity you should see 7 billion individuals, not artificial groups. Suggesting that "races" exist is to ignore countries like Uzbekistan, Egypt, Morocco, Siberian parts of Russia, and areas occupied by the inuit, the lapps, the roma, and regions where it is impossible to neatly fit everyone into "races". Happy New Year to you!
TheDisproof 1 year ago
@TheDisproof
well i see similarities too, children looking like their parents for example. and i think the more two people are related the more they resemble each other and that means we can put people in groups.
And i see individuals but those individuals share traits with other individuals
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng The problem with using how closely people resemble each other is that it is usually subjective and don't forget that continuous variation is shown in humans so there is only ever artificial grouping. We might as well start calling each family a "race" if we are going down the artifical grouping line which is what "race" is. Two people from different so called "races" are very often more closely related that two from the same "race".
TheDisproof 1 year ago
@TheDisproof
well thaths the thing i have a very hard time belivieng that...
to me it seems obvious that if people libe closely togheter for a few generations they will have more genetic traits incomon than an individual who comes from a country on the other side of the planet with a family thast has live there for many generations.
to me it seems obvious, just as obvious as dog races, they look difeerent and ahve difeereent genetic traits.
And they even livei n the same countries.
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng By your judgement how many "races" are there? Is every family a "race"? People that have been placed in the same "race" can be more unrelated than two from different so called "races". There have never been long term boundaries between human populations so subspecies have never formed, just continuous variation instead.
TheDisproof 1 year ago
@TheDisproof
But people have not traveled the way they do today for very long.
There have been long term boundaries because in them middle ages for example people lived and died in the same country and married people from the same village, this has gotta have some impact on the genes of populations in countries.
People did not travel much in the middle ages.
Most people never left their town and very few left the country.
People didnt travel by aeroplanes back and forth back then.....
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng It doesn't need more than 1% of a population to migrate each year for the entire population to remain as one species with no subspecies. In the middle ages you had huge migrations due to the plague and crusades, not to mention Ghengis Khan and African and Middle Eastern migrattion and trade. International merchants and traders are not new.
TheDisproof 1 year ago
@TheDisproof
but why do people from the same country look so simmilar? thaths gotta be genes right? or is it just an illusion?
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng If you go to brazil or you won't find your observation fits very well. People from melanesia look african despite being nearer to Asia than Africa. In every country there are those that look very different and no one who is genetically identical. Out of interest how many "races" do you think there are?
TheDisproof 1 year ago
@TheDisproof
I think there are about 4 races and a couple of mixrace ethnicities
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng What are those "races"?
The US census has only had the same categories twice in its history. The very fact that no-one can agree on how many "Races" there are and what those "races" are defined as shows how flawed it is.
TheDisproof 1 year ago
@TheDisproof
people in south america has slave ancestors and spanish ancestors combined.
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng And everyone originated in Africa, so we all had the same start point and never truly separated for any length of time.
TheDisproof 1 year ago
@TheDisproof
we did separate, some stayed in africa longer than others, europeans have been separated from africans for 150 000 years
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng We have never been separated because migrations are not once in 10,000 year events. Don't forget that hunter gathering and nomad lifestyles means migration. Africa and Europe are joined through the middle east.
TheDisproof 1 year ago
@TheDisproof This is not only probably false, but it's definitely unproven. 150000 years is NOT enough time to evolve into the several distinct subspecies that exist today, not counting the hybridization that's been occuring along overlapping territiories for a long while. And, contrary to popular opinion, there are racial DNA markers....do your homework, a blood sample can actually define your race and the part of the world your ancestry came from.
gvman3670 1 year ago
@gvman3670 Nope, blood groups show continuous variation and DNA studies show no distinct biological or genetic races according to the human genome project. "race" was invented prior to genetics by those who wished to justify slavery and it is still defended by those who benefit from it. There are no human subspecies or "races". Every allele is found on every continent. Read (Zack 1993)
TheDisproof 1 year ago
The only way to be anti racist is to be pro racist.
attorneyskillforjew 1 year ago
Then explain haplogroups, etc.
ZotDudot7 1 year ago