Evidence for Race NOT being a social construct?

Continuing from yesterday's thread, my professor has finally responded and it appears I've been BTFO.

(paraphrased)

>africans selected as fast runners isn't right because humans aren't very fast to begin with, speed was never the way to win.
>humans haven't been isolated in a particular location for long enough (they'd need more than a hundred thousand years or so). The longest isolated people were Native Americans and even they had too large of groups.
>there has not been valid enough evidence of colder climates affecting intelligence.

He then said to read "Gun Germs and Steel" by Diamond to learn the reason for european success.

Is Sup Forums actually wrong? He asked for me to send him sources for my claims (help me out!). He says my argument is not the genial consensus and it is not taught in schools because there has not been strong enough proof.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=36BQW1SuHQ8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Sorry I can't help out much, but I just want to say that arguing something is more likely true because of "consensus" is a very stupid way of thinking. Makes me think the professor doesn't really know HOW to think, or what makes for a logical argument, if he takes consensus seriously. Science is not about consensus at all.

Fuck off already. There is no debate.
We are all #HumanBeings except the ones with White privilege.

>>there has not been valid enough evidence of colder climates affecting intelligence.

He just side-stepped the truth bomb with a string of words. That's it.

Exact words:

The most intelligent living non-human apes are the chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas - all of which evolved in tropical Africa. The brain size and intelligence increases we see in our hominin lineage were: Homo habilis (tropical Africa), Homo erectus (tropical Africa), Homo heidelbergensis (Africa & Europe), and Homo sapiens (tropical Africa).

The only example of a species with advanced cognitive abilities evolving in a colder climate was Neandertals. And it is debatable if they were even as intelligent as the Homo sapiens that evolved in a warmer environment. And cold weather adapted Neandertals went extinct, while the intelligent brains that evolved in warm tropic Africa went on to spread around the world.

Post your arguments and his responses to each.

1. "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?"

Yes, climate and location effect more than just skin color. For example, the frequency of sickle cell anemia it closely correlated with people living in areas where malaria is common. Thus there are higher instances of sickle cell in tropical regions like sub-Saharan Africa than in Europe.

Your specific example about "being fast" to catch food has two components. Hunting by running didn't select for speed (because even fast humans are very slow), but persistence hunting did select for the body proportions of Homo erectus in Africa about 2 million years ago, and that is the body type (tall and thin) that both you and I have inherited. I have attached the article here, titled "Can White Men Jump", because I think it is will help answer this question, and I have been using it in classes for the past few years. The short version is that running (or other athletic abilities) don't vary by race, but do vary geographically due more to cultural effects than biological effects. You should read it when you have a chance.

2. "You cannot separate a species into different environments and then keep them isolated for ten thousand years without observing major divergence."

That is somewhat true. You probably would begin to see some divergence if you isolated groups for tens of thousands (not just ten thousand) of years. If you get closer to 100 thousand years, then yes, divergence should occur. Though whether it would qualify as "major" is debatable, since it would probably take significantly longer to get full speciation. But you would probably expect some divergence.

However, this doesn't often apply to Homo sapiens, because no group has been isolated for tens of thousands of years. The closest example might be people living in the Americas. They crossed over the arctic land bridge around 15,000 years ago, and then were relatively cut off for probably close to ten thousand years. But they were not a small isolated population, we are talking about a huge population living from the article circle in North America all the way down to the southern tip of South America - thus covering every imaginable "diet and climate". And there may have been small bit of contact from outside people coming to the Americas even before Columbus. But other than the American continents, it does not seem that there have been any human populations that have been "isolated" from mating and genetic contact with neighbors for any evolutionary significant amount of time.

3. "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. "

I am not sure what studies you are referring to. But in the context of this class, no that does not seem to be the case for our lineage. The most intelligent living non-human apes are the chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas - all of which evolved in tropical Africa. The brain size and intelligence increases we see in our hominin lineage were: Homo habilis (tropical Africa), Homo erectus (tropical Africa), Homo heidelbergensis (Africa & Europe), and Homo sapiens (tropical Africa).

The only example of a species with advanced cognitive abilities evolving in a colder climate was Neandertals. And it is debatable if they were even as intelligent as the Homo sapiens that evolved in a warmer environment. And cold weather adapted Neandertals went extinct, while the intelligent brains that evolved in warm tropic Africa went on to spread around the world.

So I can't think of any solid evidence to support this idea of cold climates selecting for higher intelligence. If you are thinking of the success of modern European cultures during the colonial period, then I would suggest that you read "Gun Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. That success seems to be attributed to factors others than biology. If you don't have time to read the whole book, you can watch the video version on YouTube. There are 3 episodes, and here is the link to the first one:
youtube.com/watch?v=36BQW1SuHQ8

If you have specific studies that you referencing, you can send them to me, but I don't know of any that show a good causal connection between cold climate and higher intelligence.

4. "And there’s the other points like how you are unable to have bone marrow transplants with other races. "

My understanding of this is that actually you can theoretically get bone marrow transplants with other races. But due to the fact that marrow produces you immune system, the genetic similarity needs to very close to prevent rejection, that the odds of finding a genetic match are higher if the donor and recipient are of the same race than if they are different. This makes sense given what I said before about the clustering of things like sickle cell and geographic location. People from a similar geographic location are more likely to have a similar immune system. But a complicating factor in the bone marrow research is the issue of who donates bone marrow, and it seems like some minority groups are underrepresented in donor pools, which can skew the results of probabilities of finding matches for recipients because the donor pools are not statistically equal. But yes, there will be some geographic (which is more specific than broad racial categories) clusters of some genetic traits.

Show the faggot this picture.

Last one:
"There’s definitely a lot of studies about what I’m arguing for but they don’t seem to reach college lectures. I can only gauge this is because the implications are harsh and go against political agendas. "

Generally I think you have this backwards. If these studies are not appearing in college courses, then they are likely to not be of high enough quality to reach the college level of teaching and learning.

As for “political agendas” influencing what you are exposed to in any given college class, sure, this is bound to happen. Any one class could be influenced to some degree by the political agenda of a given professor, just as any one scientific study could be influenced by the political agenda of that specific researcher. I could get away with manipulating the topics covered in my class, but this personal agenda would be different for each professor and researcher. That is why higher education and scientific research are not based on just one class or just one study. If these missing ideas you are referencing don’t appear in one class, then it could be for “political” reasons. But I would be extremely skeptical of any ideas that are not found correctly represented in the majority of college courses, or the majority of scientific studies – that suggest an intentional conspiracy on a level that I don’t think fully understands how academia and science works.

You should be very wary of conspiracy theories that try to convince you there is a coherent and cohesive “political agenda” that can be found across something as diverse as college course or scientific research. Individuals can be biased, but it would be extremely difficult to get an individual bias to followed by the whole of academia.

need real sources m8

Does anyone have the study mentioned right here?

To get at the truth you have to go to the old, preserved knowledge that hasn't yet been relegated to the memory hole.

>The most intelligent living non-human apes are the chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas - all of which evolved in tropical Africa

How many non-humanoid apes live in cold climates?

>it is not taught in schools because there has not been strong enough proof.

Nope.

It is not taught in schools because our schools have been perverted by cultural Marxism, and turned into indoctrination centers.

picrelated from the original, non-redacted version.

Biologists use genetic distance to classify subspecies. You can do so easily with humans. The genetic distance between abos and bantus is greater than between to subspecies of chimp.

-Africans' speed is in short bursts, and its fucking real, name Usain Boot ring a bell? The fucking NFL ring a bell? It was necessary in that environment for capturing food and avoiding predators
-abos are the longest isolated and surprise they're the most different. Native Americans are very similar to Asian steppe people and we're cut off about 15000 YBP
-colder climates require intelligence to survive, planning and storing for the winter and dying if you don't, that's evolution 101 your teacher is a hack libshit.

Wouldn't that add to his point? Great genetic difference yet they look the same.
Also, there's studies how people of different races have closer genetic makeups than those of their same race.

...

Bump

This is weak reasoning. Humans are the only ape that evolved to be smart enough to survive in cold climates, and surviving there required planning and technology. It's a fairly simple and logical way to look at it. Neanderthals were just tough enough to survive in colder climates but that's not the same thing

10,000 years ago, this was a wolf

Aren't Fennec foxes also transforming drastically with just a few generations of breeding for domestication?

We are all one race, the human race black people are better though we need more of them in our universities

Source - Haeckel. Anthropogenie 1874

>humans haven't been isolated in a particular location for long enough (they'd need more than a hundred thousand years or so). The longest isolated people were Native Americans and even they had too large of groups.
completely wrong
Abbos have been isolated for much longer than native americans who have reached the Americas in relatively recent times

moreover, native south Africans and any Europid most likely have been separated for more than 100k years, there are signs of human presence in the levant 100k years ago and that's just when AMH reached the near east, the group who left can very well have been isolated from those Africans for longer time

I wouldn't lose my time if he makes such stupid claims.

Yes, some russian bloke was breeding them by only selection the docile ones.
The more docile they were, the floppier their ears got, suggesting that the docility of an animal is closely related to adrenal gland development, as adrenaline was critical in the development of more rigid cartilage.

I thought they developed some form of neotony and their fur colouring changed

Source - Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia and Fact Index 1954

I'll dump the info.

...

...

...

...

PRAISE KEK!

...

...

...

...

...

graphics are nice but I need reputable papers

Race is a heuristic. A useful one at times, but incomplete.

Many of Sup Forums's arguments can be made by circumventing "race" entirely in such a way:

Physiological traits are heritable to a high degree.

Cognitive traits are heritable to a high degree.

Behavioral traits are heritable to a high degree.

It wouldn't be a stretch to find where physiological traits
>high melanin content
cognitive traits
>low mathematical reasoning
behavioral traits
>aggression, high time preference
coincide

...

...

If "race" is a social construct, then "subspecies" is a social construct, since these two terms (along with "breed") mean exactly the same thing on a biological level. And yet, each year there are thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers which have as their topic some aspect of this or that subspecies which is under consideration. Note that no one ever asks these many thousands of biological scientists why they're writing research papers about "social constructs". The truth is that, while our *definition* of "race" is to some degree a social construct, the concept which the definition is attempting to describe is not. Race is a vital biological category.

>they werent isolated long enough
how is he concluding this? humans would need to work together more to survive in colder climates and that would affect who survives and passes on genes. this natural selection would immediately begin once those humans reached the colder climates.

Australian aborigines were separated for about 65,000 years

Speed wasn't used to catch food. Humans were endurance hunters, we chased our prey until it literally died of exhaustion. We'd track it down, run at it, then after it sprinted away we'd track it down again.

I can't tell you if speed would be positively selected for other reasons, but it's not the way we hunted in the ancient past, and if you tell a professor it's proof of a biological basis for race, they'll stop listening to you.

I don't know why you ever thought this would be a good idea, OP.

Fighting cultural marxism! Everyone try this with your professors!

I'm not a full bottle on the subject, so I'm not sure.
That might have been another trait that emerges from selectively breeding docility.

Society is a racial construct

proof on thousands of peer reviewed papers questioning subspecies? My professor says the opposite, that there isn't much arguing against race as a social construct

You seem to have purposely misunderstood two of my main points, and then constructed two strawmen. I can tell that you are literally a Jew.

you suck at this. you need to get super baked, and try to radically re-interpret everything from an even more radical position. guaranteed a 4.0.

I'd just like a couple. Didn't mean to come off as a Jew

tell him that the african had access to iron, resources, warfare, and smallpox just like the whiteman, why haven't they been successful?

In fact, africans were working iron long before white people. why no guns africans?

tell him if asians are so smart, and we just stole guns from them, why did the white man independently invent corning and rifling?

tell him technological prowess itself is evidence for superiority

I understand, but the opposition can play games all day on the classification
>race =/=ethnicity =/=haplotype =/=subspecies
when the classification itself is a middleman to the root argument:

cognitive and behavioral traits are heritable to a high degree and have in-group expressions.

Now, you're forcing them to tackle the central argument no bullshit.

>questioning subspecies

I never said any such thing.

.
>My professor says [...] there isn't much arguing against race as a social construct

I never said there was. My post () merely says that there are many peer-reviewed scientific papers which discuss this subspecies of animal, or that subspecies of animal. My points: 1. Why would biological scientists be writing thousands of papers about social constucts? 2. Why don't the people who push the "race is a social construct" attack this "other concept" -- Which is actually the SAME EXACT CONCEPT, BIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING -- called "subspecies"?