Is there biological differences between blacks, white and etc
>>74964012
of course no everyone is equal besides jews science proves it goym
go racemix now
>>74964012
No, if you cut them, they bleed.
niggers are a different species.
It's a social construct, but that doesn't mean it's not real it's just not valid as a taxonomic category.
People who hear "race is a social construct" and take that to mean "race isn't real" don't understand what the words "social construct" means.
Of course it's biological. Blacks are black and whites are white. That is biology
>>74964012
>>74964723
>just not valid as a taxonomic category
Bullshit. Without the obvious political fuckery going on in the science, humanity would have within it several subspecies (races).
>>74965561
>>74965683
what the fuck
>>74964012
"race" is a retarded concept. It's correct to talk about ethnicities. For example there is no such thing as a "white race", but various ethnics groups indigenous of Europe
>>74964295
>>74965666
So blacks aren't human on the same scale as whites? My project manager is black and makes a shit ton of money.
Does this mean there are animals (or lesser humans) out there that are wildly more successful than you are?
>>74966126
There are several zebra subspecies. They are all zebra, just different kinds of zebra.
There are a few blacks out there more successful than I am and well done for them. Genetics are not (entirely) destiny. The vast majority that live are not however.
>>74966126
cotton picking
>>74966501
>>74966675
So what does modern anthropology claim about subspecies and what makes /pol/ more credible than professors who spent their lives dedicated to the research of the subject?
>>74966977
>modern anthropology
Anthropologists say it's a social construct. Biologists on the other hand...
>>74965666
That's not how genetics work. It's not political, it's just not how genetics work. They have software that automates this stuff, you can try it out yourself. Humanity is more like a gradient with a bunch of overlapping shit.
>>74965561
Why is Australia the only one that's completely unaltered? Are they producing the exact amount of proportional research papers to land mass or population or whatever they compare in this chart? Did they have to research to be able to get such a perfect equilibrium?
>>74967138
Source?
>>74964012
>Is there biological differences between blacks, white and etc
ofc you can tell if a person is a nigger by its dna
>>74966977
"what does modern anthropology claim about subspecies"
they approach humans just like any other animal, we are distinctly different species.
>>74967138
Biologists also say it's a social construct. If you were to divide into "races" there is no clear way to do so that accurately reflects human diversity. Possibly the most straightforward division would be all non-Khoisan people and the Khoisan people as two subspecies, but even then the distinction is rather arbitrary. It's like making "subspecies" for the sake of it.
>>74967479
Actually it's only the most prominent biologists, especially population geneticists who say that.
Look up their last names. Go head, I'll wait.
>>74967261
>Humanity is more like a gradient with a bunch of overlapping shit.
That's lewontin's fallacy. What he did was similar to pic related but only with 1 axis, thus he found it all jumbled up along that one axis. Add more axes and we find that doing that obscures a lot of information.
Now we can tell genetically someone's race with over 99% accuracy.
>>74967415
So what if you do a DNA test of a Sudanese person. Are they black or are they Arab? It's not that simple mate. Ethnicity/geographic origin =/= race.
>>74967633
Depending on how good your marker data is, and your reference population... they're Sudanese.
You can even narrow it down to the region in Sudan if you have enough individuals sampled.
>>74967556
OK I'll start with one paper published in a prominent journal recently.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564
Yudell
Roberts
DeSalle
Tishkoff
Not seeing a pattern.
>>74967356
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
>>74967625
Again race =/= ethnicity/geographic origin. This has nothing to do with Lewontin's fallacy lmao
>>74967936
Sudanese isn't a race though. It's a nationality. And sampling of Sudanese genes is no doubt awful considering the sampling for even India currently is shit.
>>74968075
>Again race =/= ethnicity/geographic origin
Actually race does very much does denote geographic origin. They came from specific places on the planet. To try and obscure the obvious link between race and ethnicity is asinine. Just as subspecies is subordinate to species, ethnicity is subordinate to that.
That it can get a little but blurry around the edges doesn't mean these classifications are not valid, just as you can't tell where red becomes yellow on a colour spectrum doesn't negate the existence of red and yellow.
>>74968178
I'm a population geneticist and I answered your question. Not sure what else to tell you other than borders on a map generally restrict movement of humans, and that allele frequency patterns are almost always correlated with geography.
The more data you have (ie millions of markers, and thousands of reference individuals) , the finer the scale at which you can detect it. Yes, there are admixed individuals too, but that can be quantified.
>>74968178
Although maybe the question is... is there a such thing as race? Well historically the oceans did a damn good job of restricting gene flow, so yeah, those are going to pull out as massive groups that are more closely related to each other than everything else.
>>74968469
Dude I didn't say that race wasn't real. Just not valid taxonomy.
>That it can get a little but blurry around the edges doesn't mean these classifications are not valid, just as you can't tell where red becomes yellow on a colour spectrum doesn't negate the existence of red and yellow.
But we don't look at biological classification like that do we?
>>74968769
That was worded poorly, I mean groups like Asians, Africans, Caucasians, etc will pull out.
http://www.1000genomes.org/category/population/
Here are the broad groups that have somewhat become the standard in human classification.
>>74968941
>But we don't look at biological classification like that do we?
We do. Humans are not special snowflakes that run on different rules of evolution.
Here's an interesting case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
A chain of groups, distinct taxonomically but still able to interbreed with neighbouring populations, making a ring around the planet until they meet the original group again and can no longer interbreed.
>>74968622
Yeah I know all that but being vague isn't helpful. If you want to have a biological classification, you need to clearly point out where the boundaries are, why they are more important than any other boundaries, and how to tell if someone falls into one of those boundaries. There isn't a consensus on that. You could say there's 2 races or 6 races or 20 races, the data is flexible enough for that. That's what I'm saying, just because you can tell what ethnicity someone is or where their ancestors might be from that doesn't make it obvious what the categories should be
>>74969192
>We do. Humans are not special snowflakes that run on different rules of evolution.
I find it funny that you don't see the irony here.
>>74969299
Explain it to me.
>>74969378
If we treated humans like we treat other species we wouldn't consider dividing them at all. Humans are incredibly un-genetically diverse as a species (Fst = 0.12) and it's incredibly rare to have taxonomic subdivisions for species with similarly low genetic diversity. The desire to have human subspecies comes from giving extra scrutiny to humans that we don't give to other organisms.
>Hurr durr there are lots of obvious physical differences between races
>it's not biological
How can you be this dumb
race denying always ends in this tactical nihilism bs lol
>>74969543
>If we treated humans like we treat other species we wouldn't consider dividing them at all.
Quite the opposite. Humans "officially" do not have any subspecies, yet other species have many but you could only tell them apart with years of training to do so.
>fst 0.12
0.2 actually, pic related - which is more than that between us and our next nearest evolutionary ancestor.
>>74970070
Let me give you an analogy.
Let's say we live in a society where everyone over 6 feet is considered a "Biggie". And everyone under 6 feet is considered a "Smalls". Now obviously biology determines your height, but whether or not you are a Biggie or a Smalls is a social construct. Because the rule could be anyone over 5'8" is a Biggie, but it's not. The rule dividing Biggies and Smallses is arbitrary even though your genes say how tall you are
>>74970381
>Quite the opposite. Humans "officially" do not have any subspecies, yet other species have many but you could only tell them apart with years of training to do so.
We're talking about genes here, not what's visible by the eye lmao. Nice try though.
If we treated humans like other animals, we could even consider bonobos and humans the same species. We're more genetically similar than many species and reproduction is theoretically possible but difficult to test for ethical reasons
>>74970620
>We're talking about genes here, not what's visible by the eye lmao. Nice try though.
Taxonomy is a much older science than genetics is m8. It's based largely on looks.
Also I see you failed to address the second part entirely.
Africans and Eurasians - fst 0.23
Homo sapiens and homo erectus - fst 0.17
>>74970842
Aren'the species divided based on if they can have fertile offspring?
>>74971094
Yes, but subspecies are not. Indeed they CAN interbreed.
>>74970842
>Taxonomy is a much older science than genetics is m8. It's based largely on looks.
It was, but it has changed a lot since that Darwin guy.
>Africans and Eurasians - fst 0.23
>Homo sapiens and homo erectus - fst 0.17
Sauce? I call bs. The amount of erectus DNA we have is no doubt extremely limited.
>>74971094
>>74971239
What I mean by taxonomy is based on looks is that a tiger and a lion are different species (they can;t interbreed), but what makes a lion a lion and a tiger a tiger rather than, say, a horse is what they look like.
>>74971347
http://evunix.uevora.pt/~fcs/bioh10.pdf
>>74971522
"Homo sapiens and so-called H. erectus living about 0.3 Ma, about the time H.
erectus is alleged to have disappeared, may have shared an ancestor around 1.5
Ma (a total divergence time of 2.4 million years). The distance between them as
determined from the mean of 16 distances may have been around 0.19%. This is
about equivalent to the estimated genetic difference between living sub-Saharan
Africans and Eurasians of 0.2% (Starr & McMillan 2001). The mean of 8 other
genetic distances between H. sapiens and H. erectus is 0.065–0.068. This overlaps
the range of distances for living humans, with the lower estimate identical to the
distance between «Bantu» and «Eskimo» (Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994)."
Hmmm. Seems like a good case for H. erectus to be considered H. sapiens to me no? I mean do we have evidence they couldn't reproduce?
>>74970425
You are using the terms here wrong.
A social construct is something that by definition creates something from society.
In your case, by dividing people we are not creating classification but merely ordering observations.
Money is social constructed because it gains a unique value from human use. The unique value is trade ofcourse.
However, by observing the differences in human height you are not creating anything unique. Everything about the classification is inherit within the person.
If a biggie is someone who can reach the top shelf in a grocery store, that is an inherited trait not affected by classification.
Sure, if biggies were given special rights, those rights would be social constructs. Creating black only bathrooms is a social construct because there is nothing inherently different about the bathrooms that only blacks can access outside of our society's rules.
However if someone created a shelf that only tall people can reach and called it a "biggies only" shelf, they would not be socially constructions but instead observations.
The difference between observation and social construction is what you are missing. Sure there are aspects of human race that are social constructs but biologically they are observations and valid classifications (well depending on the procedure).
>>74971990
>I mean do we have evidence they couldn't reproduce?
Well we have none that they did, but that's not to say it doesn't exist.
We HAVE however found that Europeans and Asians interbred with Neanderthals, while Africans did not.
What about breeds of dogs?
>>74967625
posting relevant supporting data
t. population genomics
>>74972138
>We HAVE however found that Europeans and Asians interbred with Neanderthals, while Africans did not.
Sure, but the second part is still open since finding Neanderthal admixture is still a work in progress. There are potentially certain specific African groups that could have Neanderthal ancestry.
As far as I know there are quite a few biologists who do consider Neanderthals to be a subset of homo sapiens but also that a classification distinguishing the two is still valid, because people with trace amounts of Neanderthal ancestry have issues with their DNA/genetic problems that would never occur in breeding within humans.
>>74964012
Obviously if you sort people by skin color, the darker ones have genes for more melanin and the lighter ones for less (in most cases, and correcting for tan levels, at least) but no, there's no real qualitative difference otherwise. We're all the same race.
>>74972501
>There are potentially certain specific African groups that could have Neanderthal ancestry.
That is thought to be a modern introduction from, well... us.
You are right though, it's a new finding and a lot of things are still in the air.
