Why do you believe that race is biological when pretty much every scientist[1][2] disagrees with you? Why are right-wingers so anti-science in general?
[1]: nytimes.com
Why do you believe that race is biological when pretty much every scientist[1][2] disagrees with you...
Henry Walker
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
thealternativehypothesis.org
thealternativehypothesis.org
thealternativehypothesis.org
en.wikipedia.org
thealternativehypothesis.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
bethematch.org
jhered.oxfordjournals.org
tau.ac.il
nature.com
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
digitalcommons.unl.edu
journals.plos.org
jstor.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
sociology.as.nyu.edu
collegium.hrvatsko-antropolosko-drustvo.hr
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
bio.miami.edu
pnas.org
science.sciencemag.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
thealternativehypothesis.org
thealternativehypothesis.org
mbe.oxfordjournals.org
researchgate.net
uff.br
eebweb.arizona.edu
jstor.org
bearproject.info
eebweb.arizona.edu
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
twitter.com
Jacob Harris
>haha these two finches on the same island have beaks of a slightly different length so they're two species
>haha all humans are the same species
biologists
not even once
Samuel Adams
will btfo you as soon as i can get to my computer
Landon Harris
>i have literally no knowledge of the complex and nuanced science behind genetics
>i'm a white dude so my disagreements should automatically be taken as fact
Nicholas Jenkins
>two animals can evolve differently only miles apart
>humans are all the same even thousands of miles apart
Fuck off kike
Liam Carter
oh that was close i thought you were serious.
John Morgan
Don't bother with me. Individually respond to the 150 scientists who signed off on the Stanford letter.
There is no biological or genetic basis to race. There is more variation within races than between them. Just because your sexually inadequate doesn't mean you're mentally *more* adequate.
Nolan Reyes
This.
Bentley Bell
Explain negroid vs caucasoid then, cunt.
Cooper Young
Happily.
Those are discredited terms invented by non-scientists 100 years ago.
Easton Rodriguez
Prove it.
Benjamin Cox
>i have literally no knowledge of the complex and nuanced science behind genetics
I do. Please explain.
Adam Thomas
The first time I saw a nigger I just knew.
Alexander Jenkins
>species is just to do with how they look
american """"""education"""""
Jackson Brown
Darwin and his compatriots actually did dissections on various races, categorizing their taxonomy the same way you'd do with finches, or butterflies or any other animal species.
One of their key discoveries is that the negro has a smaller brain, about 9/10ths the size. That's right, we've known this shit for 200 years
Adrian Bennett
FUCK ANGULAR
>loser
Nolan Perry
>how they look is purely cosmetic
Nathaniel Russell
The letter just objects to using the data in that one guy's conclusion, doesn't prove your point at all
>there is no biological or genetic base to race
why is it that I can tell what someone's race is from a blood sample or a biopsy then? Why is it that I can tell you their race from the embryo?
Kayden Ortiz
My point is that despite what you think the scientific consensus is, there is far more objective, reputable, replicable, and wholly academic data to disprove that. I swear to Christ I'll show you that they're wrong. There's plenty of good research being done that simply doesn't get the publicity it needs because it raises uncomfortable truths.
Caleb Russell
Happily.
> Many social scientists have argued that such analyses are rooted in sociopolitical and historical processes rather than in empirical observation.
> In a medical context, some scholars have recommended that the term Negroid be avoided in scientific writings because of its association with scientific racism.
Luis Thompson
You idiot, if lewontin's fallacy was correct, then genetic sites like 23+me would be out of businesses
Xavier James
>social scientists
Kevin Reed
The way something looks is determined by its genes so it's a good bloody indicator.
Austin Lewis
Jackson Evans
>some scholars
>recommmended
Keyword buddy. They haven't proven they aren't real, they just don't like it.
Nolan Rogers
react > ember > angular
Isaiah Bennett
>prove it
>wikipedia
lmao
Still waiting for you to explain the genetics issue, since you say you're well-versed on the subject.
Cooper Allen
Totally meaningless though. Just cosmetic
Anthony Reed
>social scientists
Adrian Peterson
Chimps and bonobos have 99.6% of their DNA in common. Different species.
Whites and blacks have 85% of their DNA in common. Not even different sub-species?
Tell me, is that science, or is that "politics from ideologues who happen to have degrees"?
Tyler Ward
en.wikipedia.org
daily reminder for everyone who hasn't heard of lewontin and his bullshit before.
probably one of most cited faulty studies by leftists to prove that we're all """"One race""""
Oliver Ortiz
> Just cosmetic
> what is microcephalin
Nicholas Bailey
>can tell the race of a body by their bones
>race isn't biological
>skull shape literally varies between races
>race still isn't biological
Owen Morgan
thealternativehypothesis.org
lol GTFOH with this retard meme "more variation within than between races" bullshit, Lewontin's Fallacy in action
Logan Bailey
>Why do you believe that race is biological
I don't.
>Why are right-wingers so anti-science in general?
That's a broad generalization that you've asserted with no proof. As a scientific and skeptical 'right-winger' I am sad that so many of us do seem to have trouble with science, but it's a falsehood that left wingers are any different in that regard. Both herds tend to uncritically accept as 'scientific' whatever they are told is 'scientific' (even when it's not, at all) and then decide on a case by case basis whether they like the conclusions or not - *without actually having any understanding of what science is or what it means to be scientific.*
If the left manages to look a little less backwards on this, it's only because the higher education system has been so left dominated for so long, particularly in the fields where they concentrate you get unadulterated left wing propaganda without a hint of an actual scientific basis given a patina of respectability it doesn't deserve, and of course 'right-wingers' are going to tend to disagree with the conclusions of those not-actually-scientific communities.
Eli Scott
>Whites and blacks have 85% of their DNA in common. Not even different sub-species?
???
Tyler White
If that's the case, it's likely because of superficial differences between blood samples—diseases that tend to infect people of certain cultures, for example. Or other environmental differences that cause chemical differences in the body that can be detected by the same scientists who literally agree that race is NOT biological and that IQ is NOT determined by the lat/long in which you were born.
Luis Morris
Except they do admit it, but they are careful with how they admit it
Like recently they did a study saying Black people learn "differently" & how they should change education in USA to appeal to them
Easton Taylor
So why did evolution simply stop taking effect on humans then? Oh wait it didn't, simply look at the Irish to disprove that.
Kevin Kelly
>(((wikipedia)))
>scientific racism
Jonathan Jenkins
> Hurr, I can obviously ignore something because it came from Wikipedia
You know you can look at the citations on the Wiki page, retard
Charles Edwards
Race isn't real in the same sense that all taxonomy isn't real. That is to say, while we are all different, where you draw the line is largely arbitrary.
So denying human races is the same as denying dog breeds. No professional dog trainer or veterinarian would think you were serious if you said, "Breeds are a social construct." Races are the same fucking thing.
Cameron Mitchell
>Or other environmental differences that cause chemical differences in the body that can be detected by the same scientists who literally agree that race is NOT biological and that IQ is NOT determined by the lat/long in which you were born.
source? I work and do research in molecular genetics so I would love to see source.
Cameron Cox
Prove it.
Kayden Baker
Thank you for the intelligent response.
>>Why do you believe that race is biological
>I don't.
What are you doing to combat the widespread & pernicious racism on Sup Forums?
Nicholas Brown
Better, they use how cited it is as proof of how it is right. Because only social acceptance matters, or something
Ryder Clark
two animals are of the same species if they can have children together that are fertile
there's no definition for race
Dominic Davis
what the fuck are you talking about? I can literally just measure various LTRs and shit and give you a good estimate of race. I'm not talking about malaria.
Samuel Mitchell
There is no such thing as race according to science
There is however something that is pretty much identical to race according to science
Oliver Hall
>social sciences
I'm sorry, I ignore any scientific discipline softer than Eschatology.
That shit's liberal arts in a borrowed lab coat. It makes Astrology look legitimate in comparison. And I don't even mean Sidereal Astrology. Fucking Tropical Astrology is more valid.
Parker Morgan
The consensus is that we are all one race
Jackson Cruz
The burden of proof is not with me. The null hypothesis is what every scientist agrees upon—race is a social construct, and human brains are incredibly plastic and shaped by environment.
Sebastian Ortiz
>i'm a white dude so my disagreements should automatically be taken as fact
>white people are authoritarian and ignorant
>we're all the same though
Liam Thompson
I don't think OP knows anything about molecular genetics tbqh family. He ignores all of my requests to actually explain anything or to cite sources that aren't social """"""""""scientists""""""""""
Hudson Nguyen
>two animals are of the same species if they can have children together that are fertile
lol no
> what are coyotes?
Jonathan Jackson
Top kek that first review.
What a load of bullshit. They didn't even read the fucking book.
Easton Kelly
>The null hypothesis is what every scientist agrees upon—race is a social construct
again, source?
Ryder Thomas
>scientific racism
that fact that this is a real concept makes me want to kill myself
Levi Nelson
You're proving my point.
Plus, did you know that white racists (recently) used to consider the Irish to be non-white? Why should we trust public policy to people who can't even figure out what "white" means?
Jeremiah Hughes
>what every scientist agrees upon
I'm a scientist. I don't agree with that. Ergo, fuck off.
Sometimes I wonder why reddit comes here to get BTFO and then I remember it's because they like being cucked
Angel Davis
Because Bill Nye the fucking Science Guy isn't a valid source of information.
Connor Thomas
White people are ignorant due to the systemic and structural advantages granted to them by a system they didn't create. I have white skin—I didn't earn white privilege (by definition).
Alexander Sullivan
LOL, there's no fucking reason for this to be the null hypothesis, we don't just assume that all animals that are geographically are the same and don't evolve divergently from one another. Such utter willful ignorance of uncomfortable truths.
Julian Wood
You know what happens if you claim race is biological? You get kicked out, science is just as affected by the politics of its day as anything else is.
William Murphy
are you going to respond to my requests for actual explanation and sources or are you just going to spout reddit talking points with no evidence?
Charles Long
>> what are coyotes?
animals. what are you trying to say?
Robert Thompson
>human brains are incredibly plastic and shaped by environment.
LOL NO
> en.wikipedia.org
> The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults.
Oliver Gomez
That is not at all the hard and fast definition of "species". We can name many different animals capable of producing fertile offspring--no, not mules or neuters, fertile offspring--that we currently recognize as different species.
Jeremiah Roberts
> "White Racists" used to consider the Irish non-white
This is such a meme, no actual physical anthropologists from Britain or anywhere else even in the 1800s or anything seriously thought this, you're just taking the unscientific views of a small few
Aiden Sanders
>Humans are 100% the same
Biologists do not believe this, you can clearly identify race through genes. However if there were separate human species these genetic differences would be far larger.
Kevin Hughes
I don't even know what the fuck people in here are on about, I literally had a conversation about different reactions to vit D deficiency in AA population with my prof like a week ago, this isn't controversial
Dominic Lopez
he meant coywolves but he is a spic
Ryder Morales
show how much of an idiot you are
Coyotes can make with other species of Canis and produce fertility offspring
Dylan Edwards
More variations between individual dogs than between breeds. All breeds are identically capable.
Gabriel Green
Race is and isn't a social construct.
Race is a social construct because the boundaries tend to be arbitrary and socially defined. For instance, mulattos in the US are considered black, but mulattos in Brazil are considered pardo.
Race isn't a social construct because you can literally take a DNA test which can accurately determine not only which race you identify as, but also your racial admixture. Moreover, your race has medical implications.
>en.wikipedia.org
>bethematch.org
Blake Gutierrez
If race is a social construct, why are niggers black?
Liam Wright
There must be a reason, because scientists agree
It was explained to me on refit that social reasons explain the difference
They were provably kicked out for denying basic science
Jacob White
>There must be a reason, because scientists agree
source?
Noah Evans
>There must be a reason, because scientists agree
That reason doesn't have to be scientific, you know.
Xavier Thompson
> denying basic science
do you even understand what taxonomy means?
Carson Stewart
>150 scientists
Oh so it's fucking nothing
Call me when you have 10x that many, and at least make them be from relevant backgrounds
I honestly don't give a shit what a doctorate in woman's studies thinks about biological truths
Nicholas Harris
>Why do you believe that race is biological when pretty much every scientist[1][2] disagrees with you?
Easton Wilson
Your graph shows that different areas on the planet all have the same alleles, but some areas have certain alleles slightly more expressed than others.
In short: There is tons of variation. We honestly aren't entirely sure how a SINGLE neuron works. So it's immensely silly to claim that we understand the nuanced & complex interaction between various alleles well enough to divide humans in three distinct races.
Populations are mixed, and we haven't been separated enough for there to be any real genetic differences, anyway.
Grayson Thompson
If the book is bullshit, why don't those 150 scientist point out where it's wrong, instead of signing that retarded non-argument of a letter?
Not very scientific if you ask me!
The state of modern science is fucking laughable.
Jason Myers
No, your privilege is in your DNA you fuckwit. Maybe if things are so bad here for all those poor POC's they wouldn't be flooding our countries....
Oh thats right, they are too fucking stupid to do what we do.
Owen Fisher
Doesn't apply to people becuae we are all one.
Liam Anderson
The definition of White is too broad. It would be better to say the European race. While Arabs and other Middle Easterners are subgroups of the White race, they are not European.
Asher Hill
>Falling for the neuroplasticity meme
Neurons can grow new connections =/= the brain can change its entire structure. Also there's mountains of evidence for multiple genes being responsible intelligence.
Josiah Baker
again, no source. just bullshit talking points
Blake Diaz
Anyways, here you go OP, you have no idea what you're talking about
(1997) Barbujani et. al., find a human genetic distance of ,155. There are no recognized subspecies.
jhered.oxfordjournals.org
(2001) Kim et. al., find an Asian dog genetic distance of ,154. There are eleven recognized subspecies.
tau.ac.il
(1994) Roy et. al., find a North American coyote genetic distance of ,107. There are nineteen recognized subspecies.
nature.com
(2002) Schwartz et. al., find a Canadian lynx genetic distance of ,033. There are three recognized subspecies.
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org
(2014) Jackson et. al., find a humpback whale genetic distance of ,12. There are three recognized subspecies.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
(2008) Lorenzen, Arctander & Siegismund find a plains zebra genetic distance of ,11. There are five recognized subspecies.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
(2003) Pierpaoli et. al., find a European wildcat genetic distance of ,11. There are three recognized subspecies and five biogeographic groups according to (Mattucci et. al., 2016).
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
(2007) Lorenzen et. al., find a Kob antelope genetic distance of ,11. There are two to three recognized subspecies.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
(2003) Jordana et. al., find a south European beef cattle genetic distance of ,068. There are eighteen recognized subspecies.
digitalcommons.unl.edu
(2004) Williams et. al., find a red winged blackbird genetic distance of ,01. There are twenty-two recognized subspecies.
Camden Brown
I guess you won't mind marrying a petrol sniffing abo then?
Daniel Gray
Scientists are cucks
Alexander Cruz
journals.plos.org
jstor.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
sociology.as.nyu.edu
collegium.hrvatsko-antropolosko-drustvo.hr
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
bio.miami.edu
pnas.org
science.sciencemag.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
digitalcommons.unl.edu
Parker Cooper
Yeah they can never really explain the IQ bell curve, they just cry racism
It's feelings, not science
Ethan Watson
> we haven't been separated enough for there to be any real genetic differences
Are you blind? or do you willingly cover your eyes?
Only a dogmatic lunatic would look at an european and an australian aboriginal and say "I can't tell them apart"
never mind that euroasians and africans literally mixed with different homo species!
Thomas Myers
>we honestly aren't sure how a single neuron works
Take a biology course jesus. Just because we don't have 100% of the knowledge doesn't mean we can't make conclusions
Listen here you faded italian faggot, stop baiting or I'm gonna be mad for real
Josiah Flores
> Doesn't apply to people becuae we are all one.
stop trolling
Austin Myers
LOL not all scientists agree dude, and do you even know how fucking science works? Consensus doesn't determine empirical reality, you're like the epitome of the millennial person that claims to love science without having a basic understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of what science even is. Also, scientists from different areas accept the reality of race at different rates. The fact that 100% of interviewed Chinese anthropologists and biologists accept it as a valid biological category as opposed to the same not being true in Western countries says more about us being brainwashed to believe in the egalitarian myth than anything else.
thealternativehypothesis.org
thealternativehypothesis.org
thealternativehypothesis.org
James Peterson
>What are you doing to combat the widespread & pernicious racism on Sup Forums?
Well firstly you may be taking it too seriously. If you can't tell that the more over the top posters are usually trolling...
But what can anyone do about racism? Say things that make sense, call bullshit on things that don't, explain to people that will listen, work around people that won't.
Just being the animals we are, pre-programmed by biology to focus on each others visual features with such incredible resolution, the responses that form the gut-level basis for racism are just as much biological reality as the notion of race itself is a scientific chimera. It's clear and obvious to the eye that some people look very different to others, that's not something that needs to be taught or thought about. Understanding that this is more the result of our own hypersensitivity to human appearance than any real biological division is something that isn't so obvious or easy for people to grasp.
What about you?
Matthew Mitchell
(1997) Wise et. al., show that the genetic variability within humans is 0,776. There are zero recognized human subspecies.
mbe.oxfordjournals.org
(1997) Wise et. al., find a chimpanzee genetic variability of ,63. There are four recognized subspecies.
researchgate.net
(2001) Uphyrkina et. al., find a leopard genetic variability of ,58. There are thirteen recognized subspecies.
uff.br
(2001) Eizirik et. al., find a jaguar genetic variability of ,739. There are nine recognized subspecies.
eebweb.arizona.edu
(2000) Culver et. al., find a puma genetic variability of ,52. There are six recognized subspecies.
nature.com
(2002) Schwartz et. al., find a Canadian lynx genetic variability of ,66. There are three recognized subspecies.
jstor.org
(1998) Paetkau et. al., find a North American brown bear genetic variability of ,5275. There are nineteen recognized subspecies.
bearproject.info
(2000) Waits et. al., find a Scandinavian brown bear genetic variability of ,687. There are nineteen recognized subspecies.
eebweb.arizona.edu
(1996) Garcia-Moreno et. al., find a coyote genetic variability of ,629. There are nineteen recognized subspecies. They further find a Gray wolf genetic variability of ,574. There are thirty-seven recognized subspecies.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov