Can Sup Forums prove to me, with valid evidence, that race is NOT a social construct?

Can Sup Forums prove to me, with valid evidence, that race is NOT a social construct?

My professor's explanation was quite logical:
>Man's skin is decided by his location relative to the equator
>people's idea of African is dark, curly hair but indigenous people in other places such as Australia look just like that
>it's because of the Sun
>the default man looked like that until moving to colder climates where light skin was preferred for vitamin d absorbing

inb4 >professor
Actual arguments please, I want to know what is the truth, no matter how ugly.

Other urls found in this thread:

sq.4mg.com/LynnIQdiff.htm
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8433/5e553e88cfcc13fc9366715dbc21b27f26f5.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741
youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>implying macroevolution is real

What your professor is saying is a complete admission that race is not a social construct. People carrying genes for black skin are carrying more ancient, ancestral human genes as a result of their exposure to the environment. This only shows that the things we ascribe to being racial characteristic are in fact expressions of population genetics.

Sure, the scope at which we recognize ethnicity may be pretty crude. A person with dark skin is 'black', but they may very well be an aboriginal. That doesn't mean race is a social construct, it means any particular person's understanding of race is contextual.

Like, in mainland China, they have levels of racism you wouldn't believe. There's 50+ recognized ethnicities, and to you, they're all just chinks. But they have a different context of race, so they have "lousy Tibetans", "ugly Manchu". That's not a social construct, that's an intuitive, learned haplotyping of real genetic differences.

> implying its not

I teach molecular genetics at a tier-1 research university. Fight me.

Sub-Saharan Africans all look different. There are far too many ethnicities that act differently to label them as one race.

IQ, genes, skull structure, and occam's razor.

No he said the biological factor only plays a role in things like height and blood type.

Calling the black skin ancient is not the right word, the Sun still exists. They haven't became white because it would be a detriment to their survival.

I'm just baiting, but could you give me some of your reasons why it's real? Include counter arguments to popular anti-macroevolution "evidence" such as lack of transition fossils, and even such stark DNA similarities between species that should have split off from their common ancestor millions of years ago(cow dna being closely related to dolphin, elephant shrew related to elephant, etc.)
I have an open mind.

Race would be classified by taxonomists as a subspecies or breed if it was taken seriously. Some people scream yes or no about whether or not race exists. Both sides are wrong in a way.

There is this thing biologists have had an issue with for a long time called the "species problem". Basically the classification of life is us trying to put it in cute little boxes and on lists because we like it. Problem is life doesn't fit in a box it just does its own thing.

Saying that a nig nog and a chinaman are the same species is silly since since we can't define species. Saying they aren't the same species/race/subspecies/breed/whateverthefuck is silly too for the same reason.

Race isn't just a social construct, the entire field of taxonomy is. Life is chaos it just does shit.

I'm not sure what that means, he spelled out very clearly how high melanin is a well-conserved feature in some populations for evolutionary reasons. Why not other features? Running speed? Metabolism? "litter size"? Symbolic/verbal intelligence?

Ancient is the right word, not because it is no longer used, but because it is very old. When humanity was a smaller population, we all had black skin because we all lived in Africa. Some people still carry these genes, and they are certainly still useful today when near the equator, but the genes themselves are very old.

So, we make these groupings based the prevalence of real genetic traits. Of course, we can only see some of them, and based on our exposure we only recognize a few from those that are visible. But in no way does that suggest race isn't real, I think quite the opposite.

But is the nig nog and chink inherently different? Are differences created by culture or is there real biological contrast?

This article isn't perfect but it's something to consider

sq.4mg.com/LynnIQdiff.htm

At the very least, think about this: it isn't just your skin that is being affected by the climate. In warmer regions, coming across food is easier year round and shelter/clothing/tools are less important. "Adversity" doesn't just build character, it can affect a population with time and selection for certain traits.

Now there wasn't quite a time gap between human divergence -- not enough to turn us into different species at least, but enough to register a cognitive difference across the board? Maybe. I personally would say absolutely, although the degree is contentious.

Also this can affect cultural development as well so I'm not saying it's purely biological

Most def.

> 1. popular anti-macroevolution "evidence" such as lack of transition fossils

There is a staggeringly immense fossil record, especially considering that fossilization is a very rare event. For organic material to become fossilized instead of just turn into nothing, a whole slew of conditions must be right, and out of millions of complete animals we might get a few pieces of one individual's carcass. Given how many hominid fossils exist, and other fossils for other species, it's incredible that even what we have exists and was found.

> and even such stark DNA similarities between species that should have split off from their common ancestor millions of years ago(cow dna being closely related to dolphin, elephant shrew related to elephant, etc.)

Of course, the answer to this is that there is no real "split". We are all still intricately related to our first DNA-powered cellular common ancestor. When a particular gene is very successful (adaptive), it becomes "well-conserved". So in ("macro-")evolution we would expect the most important and fundamental cellular traits to be the most conserved, and the more exotic species-specific traits to be less conserved. Knowing that, you won't be at all suprised to hear that the histone (a spool which dna is wrapped around to organize and occupy less space) in all of your animal cells is 100% identical, base for base, in a cow, or in a banana. That sequence, that feature has proved important to every cellular organism (strong positive pressure), and very negative when disrupted (can't use DNA or replicate cells, never born).

And here's a good one for human evolution anyway. We can see that human chromosome II is a direct result of NHEJ (non-homologous end joining) of two Old World Primate chromosomes. See those bands? That shows they are the same genes, in the same order. Those two chromosomes still exist today in the largely unchanged primate genome, like in chimps.

What if races are actually just alien experiments?

Aren't there differences in skeleton (skull shape), disease-risk (sickle-cell anemia, malaria), musculature, skin colour, and size (pygmies)?
Leaving aside intellect stuff, wouldn't the above be enough?

>skin changes based on climate
This is already proof that race is not a social construct. You don't change colors based on your social life.

>skull shape
>DNA
>climate impact
If I put a bird in an environment that experiences winter 8 months out of the year, and a bird that experiences winter 0 months out of the year, are you telling me that the only change will be their coloration?

They won't adapt different habits?
They won't evolve to suit a different anatomical niche?


Remember, Evolution tells us that we all developed from single-celled organisms, why is it that we developed into such drastically different beings? Dare I say, environment?

Why does a guard dog have different natural habits and instincts from a herding dog or a hunting dog or a specifically bred trophy dog?

Why is it that all of these dogs, when placed in the wild, will eventually sire feral dogs with characteristics best suited to survival away from humans, and all of these dogs have the same appearance?

Outliers exist but they rarely succeed in procreation and are eventually bred out of the gene pool.


Seriously if you have such a hard on for your professor ask them what they think of Darwin.

We are not exempt.

There is even an inactive centromere (centromere is the center of a chromosome which provides the 'handle' to move it around), an unused vestigial remnant EXACTLY where the 2nd Old Primate centromere is if we were to line them up end to end. They have been clearly concatenated, and this is a pretty good smoking gun that shows humans are/were branch-swinging, fruit-picking hairy jungle niggers.

Thank a chimp, orangutan, or bonobo the next time you see one. They're still fighting the good fight out there. Good luck Dad.

After skimming it, I find it very plausible that intelligence can be heritable and even be "chosen" by natural selection given the proper "rigorous" environment by looking at the various isolated communities all over the world. One community that comes to mind are the Sentinels, who are a group of nignogs that have not even discovered fire. Given the environment and simple living conditions of the island(look it up, it's just called Sentinel Island), high intelligence and complex cognitive ideas were not needed in the easy-to-survive conditions in the sense that high iq was not a necessity to survive harsh conditions.
>so you be sayin we wuz in easy livin' conditions and shit
I can't prove it, but if we could get more in depth research of the expression of genes where intelligence is required in an environment, it could certainly help. Honestly would help explain why I felt like nignogs around me were so dumb in high school, but that's just confirmation bias. But if a lurkernig is wondering if he has any chance in society, I think by "pure will" alone a person is able to increase iq or understanding to potentially "unlock" those hidden genes. I'm no advocate of usage creates new traits a la lamarck or whatever his name was, but I believe if you genuinely have the right hidden genes, you can unlock it by usage, a minor difference with major effects.

other things were selected for other than just skin color.

...

I'm setting up an email right now for him, giving your guys points and asking if he can explain.

You should ask your professor about why Europeans can't give bone marrow to Africans. It'll fucking rock his world.

>people's idea of African is dark, curly hair but indigenous people in other places such as Australia look just like that
Two common traits do not define a species.
Emus and penguins both have wings, does that make them the same?
There are a vast number of known traits that are not shared between blacks and whites. In fact, a good amount of white DNA is neanderthal, whereas a "pure" black person has 0% neanderthal dna.

>Man's skin is decided by his location relative to the equator
Sydney, Australia and Tokyo, Japan are almost equidistant from the equator (60 mile difference). Why aren't the Japanese black then?

Some Chinks did a fantastic SNP study that shows there is a huge number of differences between races.

Remember, interbreeding ≠ same race, merely same species (and even then it isn't a clear cut line. Ancient humans were capable of some interbreeding with neanderthals)

Interesting. I am very convinced. The only thing I am wondering is how do Non-homologous chromosomes conjoin together and conveniently be so succesful? I understand that it would be by chance, but chance usually comes from the environment and/or faulty DNA replication. What would cause these homologous chromosomes to come together as proposed in the image?

The environment had a much greater effect on the natural selection of humans in different parts of the globe than merely the melanin content of skin. You cannot separate a species into different environments and then keep them isolated for ten thousand years without observing major divergence.

That there are many significant differences between the races is unequivocal, diseases of every sort have major racial risk factors even within a given region, and both physiology and behavior are incredibly different between the races. We can tell what race you were from the structure of your bones.

Link to study?

I can't remember the name of it and couldn't find it with a quick search, but it gets posted here in an infographic often. It's from Science Journal if that helps

Someone else will have it.

ofc there is real biological contrast to say otherwise would be silly. what I am saying is that the argument for where to draw the line can't be settled. Do you draw it between anglos and saxons? pomeranians and great danes? shits weird man.

also there are always outliers that will be exceptions to grouping, and the groups are constantly evolving. to try and say yes or no to the question is done by people that have just enough knowledge about the subject to form an opinion and be dangerous either way.

This is what I wrote to the professor. Anything else I should add? I don't want to write too much, it's just an email.

///

If diet and climate plays a huge role in genetic variation wouldn’t something like living in Africa effect more than just skin color? Thousands years ago over there you had to be fast to catch food and not be eaten, If not you’d die. Couldn’t those variations survive today?

You cannot separate a species into different environments and then keep them isolated for ten thousand years without observing major divergence. There’s been several studies on how colder climates served as a section pressure for intelligence. There’s simply easier-to-live locations where you don’t need to be thinking much to live.

And there’s the other stuff like how you are unable to have bone marrow transplants with other races. There’s a lot to the subject, I’ve added only a few concerns. I want to believe what you’re saying is the case, I just can’t help but be skeptical when humans have lived everywhere and all those places demanded specific traits to survive.

There’s definitely a lot of studies of what I’m arguing for but they don’t seem to reach college lectures. I can only think this is because the implications are harsh and go against political agendas. We are taught at a young age nature isn’t nice so why would humans be the exception?

you have it on your OP pic

what you are saying is what postmodernists always say

"its stupid to argue about it, so lets not talk about that and instead talk about politics inherent in gay sex"

I... I was just talking about it.

Your grammar is terrible.
It isn't a major divergence, that usually implies macroevolution, just a divergence
The bone marrow trait isn't for survival, it's just population genetics (no interbreeding leads to variance). It's unlikely (although possible) that these differences have major effects.

I think it would be better on focusing on it from a biomedical perspective - it is important to understand and accept these differences because they'll help the course of personalised medicine etc.

Then end with something like "we are all human, but it doesn't mean we are all the same. We should be celebrating and trying to understand our differences rather than pretending everyone is identical" to make him feel good about being a libtard

fuck just sent it

Be prepared to defend your case.

Is this a real science class or some shit like sociology?

Anthropology. I was surprised when I learned he was going to teach race being fake and gender unicorn stuff. I thought he was going to rekt those people.

It's a fake science m8. Don't know what your degree is but take an intro to genetics class if you can find one. Intro to Evolution is also acceptable for basic genetics understanding (despite the anti evolution memesters on here).

Don't the same teachers teach those classes? It's all part of the Anthropology subject. I don't think any class is safe from cultural marxism anymore (I'm in California)

They fucking shouldn't. Genetics teachers should be working in the field of genetics, or cell biology or related.

You need to find a different university if this is true

Race and IQ

>university

Community college :^)

oh
never mind then. Get out of there as soon as possible.

>we all had black skin because we all lived in Africa
You calling me a nigger? Wanna fight about it?

Any uni's still with integrity and non-liberal bias? It seems all of them are like this now.

The hard sciences are generally pretty free from that bullshit.

damn I'm not smart enough for those

You don't have to be smart if you can study hard.

Alternatively go into finance or economics, people are more busy wanting money than caring about nignogs

Well the problem is I have a lot of potential but at the same time a terrible work ethic. I always do the least amount required. I'm not sure if I can ever change this.

People kind of misinterpret what it means to say "race X is dumber than race Y" as well. It's just a collective measurement of their average abilities, not an individual assessment. So of course you're going to find exceptions and smart Africans, but they're just that, exceptions.

If you have two bell curves of IQ and one is skewed more to the right than the other, even by a fine margin, it's going to influence your society greatly. It's estimated that the large majority of a society's development and growth is due to the tail enders, the right-tail 10% of society who have exceptional ability. If the average IQ of one population is 10 points higher than the other, then their population of right tail enders is significantly larger. Which is why exceptional black academics/thinkers/scientists are so exceedingly rare, you are looking at the top 1% of whites which translates to the top 0.01% of blacks.

Does anyone have a decent argument against when someone says the IQ differences are because of the environment (no school's/U.S. and other world powers fucked them up), or are they correct?

>>Man's skin is decided by his location relative to the equator
So is his behaviour.

People in colder climates cooperate and plan, it's a requirement of surviving Winter. That's what makes them significantly better are forming structured societies.

Skin colour is not the only aspect of humanity impacted by environment.

It seems like the idea of race being nothing but a social construct should be the preposterous concept forced to defend itself with the scientific method, and not the other way around.

Two white people don't go to Africa and magically have a black baby. Just as two black people don't have a white baby merely by traveling to Europe.

>the default man looked like that until moving to colder climates
also known as "evolving"

That's most people. Age helps a lot.

>asks for proofs
>posts proofs
>tries to refute it because pseudo science

wtf op do you understand the concept of race it doesnt seem so

It's not white skin>black skin in that evolution sense, it's getting what benefits you the most (white is better for colder climates, black for hotter)

Some race is socially construct, some not.

The burden of evidence for genetically distinct groups being virtually identical is on you. Grizzly bears and Polar bears can breed, so are they just races, with no behavioral variation?

Also, the overwhelming academic consensus supports intelligence difference in races, and higher testosterone in blacks in particular.

Intelligence: pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8433/5e553e88cfcc13fc9366715dbc21b27f26f5.pdf

Black testosterone:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741

If you don't think lower intelligence and higher test would cause behavioral changes, you're in plain denial.

Yeah, you have a good intent, but you are attacking the nature of knowledge rather than the argument in hand

These things always come in distribution graphs, we talk about the mean values, not every single indivdiaul point in the graphic.

We can also talk about every single individual point though, but we do that in other questions such as:

"Even if there is a biological difference between man/woman or races, should we have policies and legislations reflecting this, should we enforce normalization of these outlying points, or should we grant all of them an equal base of power as normal agents in society and let their individuality enlarge or decrease this power by their own merits?"

>World map based on genetic principal component analysis of human populations

Genetics are a social-construct.

One of the most entertaining debates ever is about this subject : youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY

If Prof. Rushton could beat the greatest leaf geneticist of the time, surely your teacher will be stumped.

I think you guys are right but actually academia is looking the other way. The majority of professors are teaching 'race is a social construct' as fact. Sociology is what's respected in colleges now. Like I said, even Anthropology, the study of man, is following suit.

I believe this is a bigger issue that has to do with muh globali$t jewz. The scientific community is overrun with liberals. It's a shame the right hasn't embraced science as much (because of religion) but because of this, politics have dictated what is true. Cultural Marxism is praised over there now.

>Man's skin is decided by his location relative to the equator

So if a black person is born in Norway, he will have white skin without any cosmetic surgery?

It would take a very long time

Is the Bell Curve by Hernstein and Murray correct? Today my teacher said that it's wrong.

4u

That argument flat out tells you it's biological and not social. Your genes and their history (geographically) determine your race.

If race were a social construct you could claim a man with dark brown skin was white or a blonde haired blue eyed Norwegian was a fucking Paki. That isn't how it works.

What IS a social construct is how races are treated. There is no biological reason to treat blacks as lesser people. It's a social construct. I've met as many white people not worth a fuck as black. I've met a lot of great black people. The skin didn't do either and our treatment of others should be based on their individual merits and flaws.

His point is biological differences besides phenotype, blood-type, and height don't exist between different "races". i.e. whites can be just as fast as blacks

>confusing Zulu with Bantu
They live literally thousands of miles apart. The Bantu have pioneered ironworking and made several empires (and feature the wealthiest man ever to live); the Zulu have done fuckall but annoy the British.

Fair; academia and truth do have a slippery relationship. On another note, I have to give you serious props for being willing to consider all of this and having come with a genuinely open mind

Of course he's going to say it's wrong, we're being taught that all of this society and achievement materialized out of thin air and guys like Isaac Newton sat in a dark room and conceptualized the framework for modern Physics because of their privilege and having 3 square meals a day

Of you can accept that skin color is determined by location, then why not intellect? For instance consider what it would take to survive in the African Savannah vs what it would take to survive in the cold north of Norway. In Africa food is as abundant as the flora, sure there are predators and challenges specific to the environment, but on the whole it requires does not require an extreme amount of intelligence just to survive. The climate is hot, but as long as you have water you will survive. Now consider what it would take for an indigenous population in Norway to survive. They face many of the challenges that are in Africa, such as the predators, as well as disease. But in addition to this they face scarcity of resources, lethal winters, and harsh weather. Europeans had to develop fire for warmth, shelters, and warm clothing simply to survive. To thrive they had to develop agriculture, architecture, and a form of written language to pass all of these techniques down through the generations. All of what I described requires intelligence and abstract thought in order to develop. If skin can darken over the years to protect from the sun, then why not the mind widen to fight off the cold?

So if i am blind and i dont see color i am fucked?

how do you think a blind man get the world around him?

he hears the same words as you, you want evidence?

Use your own logic, be Sceptical, be critical, but fair.

Be a human being. We are all naked monkeys.

Dont let your monkey fear of those who are diferent from you.

You want to find reason thats why you want evidence?

You are not looking for reason. Yo are looking to incite hate and fear.

We are all the same in the eyes of god, dont be a fool and think high on yoursle.f

>People adapt to their environments
Wow - what a great theory! Let's call it evolution!

Would it matter if you can't prove it without meeting ayys??

You make the claim, the burden of proof falls on you

Also, how fucking stupid and feeble minded are you to not look at and find the info yourself, but ask a bunch of social rejects autists for their opinion, instead of taking the time and effort to learn and make your own?

Why did some societies develop techonology, writing and higher standards of living, and others did not? Darwin said it best when for the past 4000 years of recorded history, niggers in Africa have always been niggers, and the failure of states like Haiti and South Africa are evidence that the societies are just reflecting the ability of the people in that society to maintain it.

Take out the smart, creative, and hard working people, and voila; societal collapse

Well lucky for you nogs smell terrible so you know its them
But you live in mexico so everything smells like shit

Fake and gay

How can something which affects what kind of heart medication you're prescribed so you won't die be considered a social invention? Is the word biology a social construct? Do species even exist?

do you know anything about taxonomy... sub species would be the first thing that defines different creatures within a species

Thanks for posting this, just finished. Suzuki was just terrible. "y-you're so wrong I won't even give you the satisfaction of a r-response!"