Does Race Exist?

My humanities professor started the semester by talking about how race doesn't exist from a biological/scientific standpoint because all humans can reproduce with one another. Can Sup Forums prove this wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woodley-2009-is-homo-sapiens-polytypic-human-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf
en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race
youtube.com/watch?v=jeb09GS7ids
telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html
nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305
jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741
udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf
wsj.com/articles/SB115040765329081636
articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/news/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001221
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675054/
genetics.org/content/105/3/767.abstract
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018442X04700335
mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/8/1359.full
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730349/
frissekijk.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/100-Facts1.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24326626
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1746642
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9024231
youtube.com/watch?v=U2RVIi6M7oM
youtube.com/watch?v=MxXPA9ZnDCc
washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/early-africans-mated-with-mystery-species-of-humans/2012/07/26/gJQAxFzZBX_story.html?hpid=z4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

curious bump

Bump.

yeah, that's species not race. Your professor is a Marxist. Drop the class

certain types of birds can mate with each other.
Fuck even Zebra and a Horse can fuck.

even species isnt defined like that anymore

Subspecies can inter-reproduce with viable offspring, but it's weird because we only use the word "race" for humanity.

Race basically means subspecies, separated at various levels of isolation ranging from borderlands gene pool parties to "No one has fucked an outsider for many centuries"

Racially, humans exhibit huge differences biologically. Compare subsaharan Africans to Inuits to Southeast Asian pygmy people and tell me there aren't races and we're all the same.

Whether or not that matters is the big question. Should we all just try to become a big brown homogenous Zerg mass or should we try to keep like with like and preserve our genetic diversity?

From a biological standpoint it's safer to have genetic diversity within a species.

If race doesn't exist then how can all white males be racist?

Horses can breed with donkeys

Lions can breed with tigers

But those mixtures are almost always infertile

Well tell him that means racism is no real (from a biological/scientific standpoint) and that saying shit like "fuck niggers" or "gas the kikes race war now" aren't pejorative since race isn't real (from a biological/scientific standpoint) and that you want to cleanse all the Fellow humans with more pigmentation in their skin and it couldn't be classified as a genocide because race isn't real (from a biological/scientific standpoint)

He claimed that white people are responsible for the social construction of race and all the negative baggage surrounding it.

Somebody was gonna do it, better us than the Arabs or the Chinese

Then that would be genocide for arbitrary reasons then. If I'm gonna genocide someone, I should at least be justified scientifically.

does the exact definition of "race" even matter? the main point is that your professor is seriously implying that someone native to sub-Saharan africa, someone native to japan, and someone native to northern europe are exactly the same and have no differences

is this really something you can believe?

>Subspecies can inter-reproduce with viable offspring, but it's weird because we only use the word "race" for humanity.ยจ
Isn't this because race used to be another word for nationality? The French race, the British race, the Swedish race etc. All white races, but separated.

>Race basically means subspecies, separated at various levels of isolation ranging from borderlands gene pool parties to "No one has fucked an outsider for many centuries"
Not that weird since states are a new thing. Clans used to be the state and so you didn't procreate very often outside your ethnicity (neighboring clans). Not to mention traveling was an ordeal.

>Racially, humans exhibit huge differences biologically. Compare [sic] sub-Saharan Africans to Inuits to Southeast Asian pygmy people and tell me there aren't races and we're all the same.
This is phenotype, not genotype, though. You can't just lump it all together as biology. Since our biology isn't that different from all humans on the planet, we can procreate with each other.

>Whether or not that matters is the big question. Should we all just try to become a big brown homogenous Zerg mass or should we try to keep like with like and preserve our genetic diversity?
It does matter to everyone, of all creeds because we want to be separate, be it class, race, sex, gender etc.
Proof of this even among liberals can be found in that they have "preferred pronouns", i.e. wish to be separated from the mass humanity-zerg.

>From a biological standpoint it's safer to have genetic diversity within a species.
Only so far as not to mix siblings and cousins preferably. We're not a species that is entirely reliant on our biology. We wear clothes (to keep warm), we cook food (to kill harmful bacteria) etc etc. You get the idea.

TL;DR OP's professor isn't cohesive.

The only differences he conceded were purely cosmetic. Other than that, yes, he claims everyone is the same. And no, that doesn't seem believable.

German Shepherd's have been bred for dozens of generations to be ideal sheep-herding dogs.

Labradors were bred to retrieve dead birds during hunts.

If you cross a German Shepherd and a Labrador you will get a dog that can neither guard sheep well nor retrieve well.

The resulting hybrid will not be a "bad dog" in the modern sense. It will probably be good with kids, play fetch, and bark at intruders. What is lost, however, is the ability to do anything that rises above merely being a "good dog" such as retrieving or shepherding.

Likewise if you cross, for example, a negro and a European, you will lose the unique advantages of each race and have a hybrid which tends toward being an "average person". They are certainly human, however that is ALL they will be.

The problem is that this hybrid cannot survive in the wilds of Africa like his negro forebears. Likewise, he cannot deeply comprehend the world, invent things, or form a high-trust society like his European forebears.

Just like turning purebreds into mutts, transforming humanity into a mass of hybrids will largely destroy the exceptional qualities both at the national and individual level.

Liberals secretly yearn for this outcome because they despise the strong and hierarchical, and love the meek and common.

Polar bears and grizzly bears can have fully fertile off-spring.
Anyway, race /= species.

race doesnt exist in its technical definition, we just use it as shorthand for ethnicity which absolutely does exist

My tl;dr for questions like this is that human races are directly analagous to dog breeds. They can ALL breed with each other, sometimes the mutt combos are sickly and sometimes they make really nice dogs, but the real question is whether or not distinct breeds should exist

...

>but the real question is whether or not distinct breeds should exist

This isn't the real question because everytime this has been tried in the past it's ended up bad.
Humans are not cattle to be controlled.
We're apes, we like to fuck and baby apes are born that way.
However, as apes. I'd not recommend getting race mixed kids since it will only confuse them.

Pit bulls can interbreed with poodles.

...

Lions and Tigers can crossbreed too

Yes he's wrong. Subspecies/ distinctive populations mothafucka

lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woodley-2009-is-homo-sapiens-polytypic-human-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf

Do you know where the "geno" in genocide comes from?

Well said. I always go to dogs to explain human sub-species, for some reason people will engage in badthink when you frame it with puppers.

He's effectively right, different cultures exaggerates race in most cases. Exogamy was actually pretty common back than and the idea of interbreeding in 'your own kind' is more due to caste specialization systems civilizations liked using earlier on. Less raically pure societies tend to not do as good as the more racially mixed ones, though diversity of belief matters more than diversity of genetics. The notion only Europe is pro-immigrant in the Old World also is misguided, China even these days sometimes imports Africans for labor not even the chinese will do. Empires that conquer, assimilate and integrate get a lot more prosperous than the insular ones. Japan even, a poster child for the ethno-nationalists has been suffering economically for their lack of immigration these days and it was only when the Chinese gave them civilization that they did anything interesting. East Asia from what I recall had a lot of interfamily relations dating to prehistory so even they have exogamy to a degree.

Also ask about evolution. If they understand evolution there's basically no way for all of us to be the "exact same".

>Less raically pure societies tend to not do as good as the more racially mixed ones

that's a bunch of horseshit and you know it

Funny you say this, because he opened the class with a brief history of evolution.

...

If he mentioned it then he's simply not thinking it through. I don't know how to best word it to point it out in front of tons of people but you would need to ask specific questions. Stuff like "how long were the "x people" cut off from the rest of the world? Then maybe ask how long it was estimated the Galapagos animals were there for, and how they developed differently and are now considered different species from their closest relatives etc.

I don't understand how this is an argument at all when literally everyone owns, or at least knows someone who owns a dog.

An animal that is know for coming in all shapes and sizes, and having different temperaments and abilities based on their breeds. Different breeds forming from a wolf like ancestor, that was changed radically between selective breeding and differences on location where they are at over a good chunk of the time man has been around.

Like, I get making the argument that everyone should be treated the same, sure, great.
But completely denying even the possibility that some races might be at least slightly different in more ways then just skin color and a few facial features is retarded.

Bone marrow transplants.
Blood transfusions
Organ transplants
Those are just some of the areas that have massive issues with compatibility between the different races. If we were to apply taxonomy to various races, the actual results would blow the current "consensus" out of the water. TLDR if evolution is real, race is very real. The human animal is not exempt from the laws of nature.
Pretty good page here with lots of sources, government and otherwise.
en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race

Lions and tigers are the same species? Great lets start shipping tigers to africa and lions to india so they can make more ligers!

They're the same species after all! Just like africanised killer bees and north american killer bees! That turned out great didn't it?

desu, not really, bruh.

we are all way too close now to point out definitive differences that will always hold true.

Lol wut? I look at a white guy and I see white skin, I look at a black guy and I see black skin, I look at an insectoid and I see yellow skin. Skin colour is caused by your DNA. Therefore race does exist from a biological standpoint. What the fuck is wrong with your professor?

I've always thought about this, imagine if there have been an actual subspecies of humans that if you fucked it created a mule like subhuman incapable of reproduction.

Did you just assume my species?

Alex, what are retards?

There is nothing natural about breeding a creature for specific purpose, as that creature will be easily destroyed intentionally or naturally. Useful slaves do not a master make.

We know races exist, it is just not acceptable to say it any more.

We still do things like treat each race different medically though.

>My humanities professor started the semester by talking about how race doesn't exist from a biological/scientific standpoint because all humans can reproduce with one another. Can Sup Forums prove this wrong?

It is species that can reproduce together. The idea of race is not claiming that the races are different species.

No, itz only the melaninz

>race doesn't exist because all humans can reproduce with each other
>different dog breeds can reproduce with each other
>different dog breeds don't exist
>logic

Pfffft Humanities Prof, says it all really.
Yes of course sub species can mate and produce fertile offspring. The fact that this is possible IS NOT proof that sib species don't exist. It's proof that your fucking humanities professor should stick to non STEM pretend subjects

It's goalpost-moving. When they argue against "racism", then "racism" is the belief that different races are literally different species. But when they complain about "racism", then "racism" is some sort of undetectable structural feature of societies.

If race doesn't exist, then breeds do. Just like dogs. There are no races in dogs, only breeds. Race just sounds much better on ye olde ears than breed.
"Oi bruv, what breed are ye?"
"Hello, ally. Which race do you attribute your heritage to?

Race has 2 definitions. 1 is scientific, the other is a social construct.

Guess how I know which kind of racist you are

How does that sound worse? It sounds a helluva lot better to me, because it's not actual social bullshit. It's just honest

...

It sounds worse due to "breed" being heavily associated with dogs. I agree, if the zeitgeist switched from race to breed, within a few generations "breed" would make more sense and no longer be associated with dogs exclusively. My favourite though, is by tribe and tribalism. Tribalism is natural for all humans, and is healthy. I consider myself part of the Anglo-Celtic tribe. Everyone else's tribe is junk compared to mine. This is healthy tribalism.

>skull shapes
>body shapes
>different resistances to disease
>different ability to acquire vitamin D
They're subspecies. Wolves and dogs have recently been considered the same species because they can breed and produce fertile offspring. They're still vastly genetically different, with noticeable psychological and physiological differences.

That's not even considering different breeds of dogs (all of which can breed with each other). There's a reason why you let golden retrievers and poodles around kids, but not pitbulls.

Really? I'm using my own logic here, but the majority of big dogs here seem gentle, and little dogs seem neurotic. I've met plenty of nice pit bulls, but some mean little dogs. Clearly, we need to ban little dogs.

look up a book called race evolution. Pretty bad stuff (Comparing skull size stuff) but interesting

Say "if race is a social construct, then racism doesn't exist"

Race is not the same as species for fucks sake.

We are indeed the same species as we can produce viable offspring but so dose african and indian elephants.

We call that sub-species for other animals and race for humans.

The differences are real and can be shown by bone structure, metabolism, epidermal changes, hereditary disease, pigmentation and a score of other factors.

The reason why science will not touch the subject is because any scientist who dare to push the subject will be eaten alive by the humanites and the liberals they produce.


also niggers

Racially mixed societies haven't even existed before modern time, not as equals anyway, having slaves does not equal racially mixed my friend.

Even the Roman Empire wasn't racially mixed even though it spanned great distances, different people were still largely contained to their own type, with one ruling race, one center for advancement. Same goes for the Mongolian Empire, the British, the Spanish, the Chinese, the Ottoman, you name it, neither was racially mixed. Only a modern liberal world with the ability of free movement has been able to create racially mixed states, and then it has been mostly a burden on economy and social stability, especially in socialistic countries, depending on which races are mixed. Africans doesn't seem to do well anywhere, whereas eastern asian and white people tend to work well together, however the most successful states in modern time are still largely non-mixed, see Norway, Schweiz, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, all very ethnically pure.

No one truly buys the bullshit that diversity equals a better state, racially pure Sweden was a utopia, the destruction from diversity is now clear for anyone to see.

You could argue that it is different cultures that doesn't mix well, rather than making it about race, but then you reach the dilemma of culture being a part of your race or not, no race has similar cultures, while living in similar climate and landscape, how come?

>blacks get sickle cell
>blacks get filiculitis
>blacks naturally have higher blood pressure

Can't we all just tolerate each other for the next hundred years or so? Atleast until designer babies are common place? At that point everyone will likely be white, tall blue-eyes etc. so let's just hold off on the genociding and potential nuclear wars.

>humans exhibit huge differences biologically

>Racially

primus: race is indeed a social construct. Genetic differences are larges between members of the same geographic population than between genetic populations themselves.

secundus: visible and metabolic differences you call "biological" are phenotypic not genotypic in nature. Thus, they can not be used to create clear cut biological distinctions between geographic populations.

tertius: pick up a fucking book, you daft cunt.

Subspecies can interbreed to create fertile offspring on most occasions. Race = subspecies.

we use race for dogs, cats, horses, cattle and pretty much all other domesticated animals. And humans don't exhibit "huge" differences compared to many other animals.

For op, saying europeans and africans are the same because of interbreeding is saying that a chihuahua and a pitbull is the same. Your teacher is an idiot.

>millions of iterations of hybrid species can be created and yet they are still separate species
>"humans can breed with eachother therefore same species!"

This is going to sound a bit KANGZ, but there was racism, slavery and race-based segregation, back when north-europeans were literally living in caves.

Came here to post this.

Also, these tigers are all considered distinct subspecies with identifiable genetic differences, coloration, size and other physical characteristics. They can all successfully interbreed. Yet humans are considered a single species with no living sub species despite identifiable genetic differences, coloration, size and other physical characteristics. Why?

>Why?

feels

How does the degree of difference between individuals within each race disprove the theory of race?

African women are significantly less likely to naturally give birth to European and Asian offspring (without cesarean sections) due to evolutionarily distinct differences in cranial capacity.

im disappointed in this thread Sup Forums


will dump race red pills

your humanities professor is a slimey lying marxist

watch this lecture by an evolutionary biologist

youtube.com/watch?v=jeb09GS7ids

two separate species of chimpanzee for example are more closer genetically than africans are to europeans.

also to answer your question directly OP there are many different ways of classifying a species and it is a largely arbitrary task. If your proff thinks that if two individuals can have a viable offspring then they are by definition part of the same species then polar bears and grizzly bears are the same thing. Your proff knows nothing of what he is talking about (check the Darwin quote on pic related)

...

...

...

...

africans are not the same species as europeans.

so this whole race argument is bullshit. you'd have to belong to the same species become a race of it.

your humanities professor isn't a fucking geneticist, is she?

Human intelligence up to 75% inheritible
telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html

Human intelligence is highly heritable.
nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html

Scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305

Very poor Whites are comparably intelligent to very wealthy blacks.
jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households.
psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001

The average African IQ is estimated at 79.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741

The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average White IQ of 100.
udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

The white-black gap in SAT scores, a proxy for IQ, is increasing.
jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.
wsj.com/articles/SB115040765329081636

Intelligence has at least a 40-50% genetic basis.
articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/news/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809

IQ scores are the best predictor of success in Western society.
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

why had nobody do this yet?
>Make a presentation infront of class
>says how race don't exists because it can reproduce with each others
>says how race is a social construct
>come into conclusion that race doesn't exists among dogs
>And if you don't call all dogs a dog, then you're a racist.

IQ is 75% heritable among Whites.
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

France's IQ drops 4 points per decade because of African immigration
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001221


ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675054/
genetics.org/content/105/3/767.abstract
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018442X04700335
mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/8/1359.full
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730349/
frissekijk.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/100-Facts1.pdf

Health and Behavior Risks of Adolescents with Mixed-Race Identity

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

The 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene confers an increased risk for shooting and stabbing behaviors.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24326626

Increased vital and total lung capacities in Tibetan compared to Han residents of Lhasa (3,658 m).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1746642

Racial Differences in Bone Strength

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/

Racial differences in bone density between young adult black and white subjects persist after adjustment for anthropometric, lifestyle, and biochemical differences.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9024231

An Honest Conversation About Race | Jared Taylor and Stefan Molyneux
youtube.com/watch?v=U2RVIi6M7oM
Race, Genetics and Intelligence | Richard Lynn and Stefan Molyneux
youtube.com/watch?v=MxXPA9ZnDCc

Source?

as you can see race is real and those who tell you otherwise are doing so to serve a political agenda but that is a red-pill for another thread

>breeds of dog/cat/horse/cow/chicken/etc don't exist because they can have offspring that can also reproduce
>this means all breeds of all animals are equal in every measure

Your biology teacher is not concerned with facts and knowledge so much as concerned with his own deluded sense of morality.
Such people have no business being science teachers.

if europeans and asians are the result of homo sapiens breeding with neanderthal's. would that make us a different species to africans?

Always here libcucks spout off how there's only one race, but in the same breath call me a 'racist' if i proclaim that i dislike those with an abundance of melanin...

When will they make up their mind?

top fucking kek

*hear

It's not genocide if that group is the same as the one killing it.

You should call him an indoctrinated liberal nu-anthropologist in front of the class. Call him out and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about and believes an egalitarian fantasy / myth. Then say you're dropping his propaganda class.

If you don't do this you're a cuck.

Mules are the offspring between a horse and a donkey

So can a Llama and a camel.

So does coyotes and beagles.

there are african ethnicities that are more biologically different from each other than asians and white people are.

washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/early-africans-mated-with-mystery-species-of-humans/2012/07/26/gJQAxFzZBX_story.html?hpid=z4

for one, said difference being larger than the difference between "races" is a pretty big shot to the theory of race's nuts. If you would have actually read my post you would have picked up on that.