"Race" as commonly discussed is a social construct.
Obviously, there are physical differences between different populations that have long-been relatively homogeneous. Let's call these groups "races."
I'm putting up a challenge: Define the races.
Define "white," "black," etc.
Name and define every race based on physical differences/genetics between populations.
These must be monophyletic.
Other urls found in this thread:
strawpoll.me
biology-online.org
twitter.com
Haplogroups do a good job defining races themself desu.
Then you don't use words such as "white" and "black?"
Huskies and Chihuahuas are a social construct.
Name and define every dog to prove me wrong.
Those HAVE definitions (assuming you mean Siberian Husky or meany any "husky" breed in general).
Chihuahuas and huskies come in lots of different colors, btw.
...
Races are human population groupings denoting sets of recurring variations that are most typically seen together.
In genetic terms, this can be easily analyzed by correlation between genetic polymorphisms.
Human races obviously exist, just like how animal races do. Geographic separation causes divergent evolution. People who deny this are either retarded or, more likely, caving to immense social pressure.
Uzbek is a multi-race !
Ok, but then words such as "white" and "black" are too broad and the lines between different genetic groups that define them as individual races needs definition--how different must two homogeneous groups be for them to be individual racial groups?
Here's another one.
I honestly do not understand how anyone can look into the scientific topic of race and come away with any other conclusion that, obviously, human races exist. We have been spread over very diverse and widely separate regions of the globe for many millennia. Every other species under the same circumstances has developed into taxonomically-separate races. How can you possibly think we are an exception?
And I asked you to define racial groups.
To some, I am white. To others, I am an Ashkenazi Jew. I can choose which to call myself. That is social.
I am genetically most similar to other Ashkenazi Jews. That is not social.
Why would a native Zulu with dark skin be called black but not an Australian Aboriginal with dark skin?
If you WOULD call an Australian Aboriginal black, then how is it a matter of genetic similarity?
Are ethnic Slavs white? Are ethnic Irish white? Serbs?
Physical looks are now the best way
You wanna know the reason why race was shitcanned as a concept? They couldn't find exactly which genes resulted in physical differences so they ragequit
First let's get settled on a simple methodological point: do you admit that human races exist, as proven by genetic polymorphism studies?
How is it a social construct if Africa and South America have entirely separate genetic data?
Checkmate
See my first reply to you, but, again, you're going beyond "white," "black," etc. That's what is a social construct. It is arbitrary from a genetic perspective--you can have groups more genetically similar to each other yet physically appear more different than groups that are less genetically similar between each other but physically appear more similar.
That's arbitrary. What race is an Australian Aboriginal, in your view?
There's only one true race, the MAGYAR
I wouldn't necessarily say "race," but I did say for the purposes of this challenge to refer to different (relatively) homogeneous human population groups as "races," yes.
...
l2r
...
I said to name and define races, not just dance around with the concept.
...
While this carries ambiguities (Where do we draw the lines of distinction between individual populations? Between the larger groups?), you are the winner unless somebody shows something better (assuming you mean for the populations as your response).
To be fair, i don't think the concept of "race" is that important. What really matters is acknowledging that there are average differences between different ethnic groups (even within the same "race"), like eye color, iq, brain size, height, an so on. And, of course, acknowledging that genetics play a large role in those variations between the groups, and are not 100% environmental.
(of course, there's no "white" or "black" there, but I didn't exactly expect it to be possible to define those in a way that A) follows genetics and B) isn't arbitrarily assigned to a specific group while the term could describe other groups and C) is representative of the diversity within a group).
I want to fuck an italian boipucci
I was more speaking to people who like to throw around terms like "white" and "black" and such.
I don't see what point there is in acknowledging intelligence differences when people are treated as individuals. If certain genetically distinct populations of people have differing average intelligence with every possible variable other than race (or whatever word used for the distinct population) taken into account (as could certainly be possible), I don't care.
Certainly, it is silly to deny that it's possible.
Ok, so you do agree that races exist. At this point your issue seems to be with imprecise terminology such as "white" or "black". I'm honestly not too interested in the debate: you can take a genetic clustering test and find the cluster of people that repeatedly show up as European and call them "white", and it will very clearly overlap with the social definition of "white".
>I don't see what point there is in acknowledging intelligence differences when people are treated as individuals
Except that's not always true. You often see leftists and even government funded organizations using the fact that "group A is underrepresented in something" and then they go ahead and say that it's all environmental, like "instutionalized racism" or "white priviledge", when in fact it's because, on average, there are average differences between the groups in the first place (due to genetics).
That can affect a lot of other things, like the immigration policy of a country, for example. The whole "refugee crisis" in Europe wouldn't even exist if politicians acknowledged that.
Not to everyone, definitions vary, yet people argue with such terms as if they are precise.
In the same vein, if someone identifies as a gender other than male or female, just by being a social construct such identity is arbitrary. If someone identifies as "genderqueer" based on their perception of masculinity and femininity in their life, their identity could change based on who is viewing them or where they are/who's around them. Such an identity is arbitrary.
I am a ginger, I have very pale skin, yet there are many people who would say I am not white.
It ticks me off when people use imprecise terms as if precise biological concepts :P
Of course in the context of people making the social concept of race relevant by discriminating in favor of or against people based on shared physical characteristics, the social concept of race has relevance :P
I don't see how you can assert that the differences are due to genetics. Show me a study where socioeconomic status, culture, etc. are accounted for, please.
The problems in the migrant crisis are due to cultural/ideological differences, not physical differences between migrant groups and the majority racial (genetically distinct) groups of the countries they immigrate to.
>a social construct
Even if it's true what kind of fucking argument is that?
Not raping people is a social construct too.
An argument? An argument for what?
Race as commonly discussed, with terms such as "white" and "black," is arbitrary in the same way that when someone who considers gender to be a social construct calls themselves "demi-male" that such an identity is arbitrary as different people have different views on masculinity/femininity.
I find it amusing that geneticists can pinpoint which small ass ethnicity I most likely am on the fly, and if I'm mixed they can tell me down to the 0.1%, but when it comes to the question what race I am some people hold it still possible that it's all just social.
ffs ltr, jackass
People are treated differently based on their appearance, but that's not what causes their underrepresentation or overrepresentation in certain areas, at least not all of it. You have blacks dominating at certain sports, and Asians dominating at universities. How exactly the "system" benefited them?
As for the genetics parts, there are average differences in skin color, eye color, hair, height, brain size. Why wouldn't that difference manifest in the average outcome of different ethnic groups?
...
...
naa
Of course I do, just like I used words like blonde and brunette. How else do you describe defining characteristics?
The very people who performed that study said that said it was inconclusive in that respect because of confounding variables.
There are various reasons/potential reasons for domination in sports and in academics, but there simply isn't research showing real different intelligence. Certainly, there are average physical differences that may just well account for a lot of or most of the difference in sports. When it comes to intelligence and academics, you ignore culture, socioeconomic status (including nutrition, living conditions, healthcare, opporunity, etc.).
Again, even if there is a difference, I don't see why it should matter to anyone.
Nothing has
>implying race is the only variable there
ok, this shit is getting ridiculous.
Socio-economic factors are NOT the only other variables.
Ok, so I would be correct in saying that you never refer to "white people" or "black people" as groups and assert generalities of them as groups?
"Nothing has" was from something I deleted
Only one way to decide, VOTE!
>japanese are closer related to kyrgys than chinese
Really made me think
Ty, idk if it was your intention but this illustrates how arbitrary the social concept of race is--some people are white to some people but are to others, others aren't but are to some. My skin is paler than that of most in Western Europe, yet a majority of those who have voted so far wouldn't consider me white. 90% of people who meet me think I'm ethnically Irish.
You're so dumb poor retard
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY AKNOWLEDGED that there are 3 to 5 human races namely Caucasians(Europeans and MENA niggers), Congoids (Bantus), Mongoloids(Asians), Australoids(Abos and Dravidians), and Capoids(Khois and Sans)
Define evolution
White people are from Europe.
Niggers are from Africa.
What do I win?
lolwut
[citation needed]
Idk why you are asking that, but here:
biology-online.org
Destroy everybody with A, ExE3b and J and the world will be at peace
races don't exist, only ethnicities.
Well, this is one measure, but it doesn't matter--take a closer look, there are 2 yellows in this lol
>science is there
>so I need to argue about language and definitions instead
>gender is arbitrary
>even though it's been tied to biological sex since its inception as a concept
If you require ultra-precise and rigidly defined terms to discuss these concepts, then you will never actually be discussing anything relevant. You might as well just stop talking about it.
Yellow areas: white
Rest: "white"
outside of Europe: non-white
hey, retard
A) What science can say does not relate to what most people call "race."
B) I DESCRIBED HOW IT'S ARBITRARY IF DEFINED AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT AS SJWS SAY, MONG
t. never opened a biology book
The races are recognized and classified, and the "racial fact" is taken into account when it come to medical treatment or biological studies, anyway , you should read "Principles of Population Genetics" which is the basis in the Genetics.
I'm white!
>mfw Irish are mostly "white" and not white
> medical treatment or biological studies
medical treatment and biological studies*
>which is the basis in the Genetics.
which is the basis in Genetics.
I love how this shit doesn't even match what you said and how it's not modern.
Race was always too politically loaded and not objective. It's good that we have DNA tests, that finally clear things up.
>Show him publications using Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid
>The most recent publication is from 2008
>The last publication is about ethnic (aka racial) difference in the use drugs and xeniobiotics
>Advise him to read Principles of Population Genetics(the fourth edition is from 2007)
>Muh this is too old, thus it doesn't count
Why am i even trying to argue with you?