Why Race Is Not a Thing, According to Genetics

>Today, scientists routinely map the genomes of the long dead, from Neanderthals to medieval kings. What they’re finding out, says British geneticist Adam Rutherford in A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived, rewrites the story of human life on Earth—with some unexpected twists.

>Speaking from the BBC studio in London where he hosts the weekly radio program Inside Science, Rutherford explains how the development of farming changed human biology; why the most important story our genes tell is that we are all family, despite race or tribe; and why it's not genes that turn people into mass shooters.

>If you think of DNA simply as a data storage device, the data it stores is biological information. In us, it’s three billion letters of individual code, or 20,000 genes. Paleogenetics is the study of our DNA from things that have been dead for a long time—paleo simply means old. It’s new because we’ve only invented the technology to do it in the last 10 years and, in a serious way, in the last five years.

>What’s interesting is that DNA is far more stable than a digital disk or tape. Under the right conditions, DNA will last for thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years trapped inside the bones of a person or organism. With the advent of our ability to get it out, we can do genome studies on creatures that have been dead for thousands of centuries.

>The first big landmark came in 2009, when DNA was extracted from the bone of a Neanderthal. From that we have the whole genome sequence of a human species different from us, which answered one of the big questions that had dogged paleontologists: How did we interact with Neanderthals? And, more specifically, did we have sex with them?

Link to the full article:
news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/genetics-history-race-neanderthal-rutherford/

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9NGav1HV9KQ
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9284919
journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000112
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

(((NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC)))

puh-lease...

"Race", "breed", and "subspecies" all mean exactly the same thing, biologically. If race "is not a thing," then neither is "subspecies" or "breed". And yet, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers published every year concerning one subspecies or another of animal. In fact, the concept of subspecies is so important in evolutionary biology that many in that field believe that subspecies are the precursors to new species. The races of humankind are clearly the various subspecies of the human animal, regardless of what cowardly "experts" are willing (allowed) to say.

So white privilege isn't real? Neat.

>why the most important story our genes tell is that we are all family, despite race or tribe;
>despite race
>race isn't real

Fuck off shill

>enough difference to have different skin colour
>blacks have higher rates of sickle cell anemia
>whites are more lactose tolerant
>crows and ravens are different subspecies but races are not

Then explain O- blood type. BBC = lying communist soros suckers

Fine, we shall call it sub-species. Because that is all we are, just a sub-species.

youtube.com/watch?v=9NGav1HV9KQ

You made this exact thread a few hours ago.
Once again, let me ask.
Is this photo some sort of optical illusion?

>Why Race Is Not a Thing, According to Genetics

Wonderful.

Now abolish all race quotas and affirmative action laws.

genes are a social construction, goyim

post her webm

your know the one

If race is not real, then racism is not real. So niggers should shut the fuck up about racism, since race is not real.

>Race doesn't exists because Africans are further from each other than whites are from asians
>There is only one group of dots in this image

> 1 post by this ID
anons, please. let it go

...

>So white privilege isn't real? Neat

Delet

>Why Race Is Not a Thing

How does pic related work then?

>let me tell you how populations have different DNA, how different DNA influences different behaviours and how said different behaviours shape even further the DNA to differentiate

>but we are all the same!
>different behaviours (((of certain kinds))) are purely the result of different upbringings!
>let me tell you how, as a science scientist expert in science, we totally should even think about researching genetic differences of criminals
>it's silly SCIENCE! already has the answer! ban guns!

>you will never smoke world war 1 cigarettes with him

why live?

Marxists infiltrated the humanities and ruined them, then made a mockery of the social "sciences," and now they want to destroy STEM. This is why you see them openly pushing this agenda to deny the science of human biology.

1. Any thread that debases Whites or White women, or promotes race mixing is Jew sponsored propaganda, you would be better off not clicking on those threads.

2. There is no hard evidence for the holocaust, and it is more likely mostly a lie made up by the Jew so that people wont read Mein Kampf - by Adolf Hitler, which is easily the best book ever written in the context of what is happening today. This is a must read, it is the biggest Red Pill and gives clarity to all others.

3. There are no threads that are speaking the truth about GeoEngineering, which is functionally a longer term extermination system.

Therefore the question of weather Sup Forums is actually all that Red Pilled is up for debate.

>image.jpg
Short, pear-shaped, brown eyes, labia is black-tinged and taint/sphincter is dark. Hair is dyed-blonde, not natural. Pubic hair is black

No real genetic qualities to offer except skin is pale and free of most other blemishes.

The book "The Bell Curve" proved that niggers and beaners have a borderline retard IQ.

>Speaking from the BBC studio
orly now

best part is how OP's title is completely misleading and unsubstantiated by his paragraph

Marxists' 'blank slate' dogma lost the argument to geneticists, but it's not going to stop the left from claiming that acknowledging objective reality is hate speech.

>>If you think of DNA simply as a data storage device, the data it stores is biological information. In us, it’s three billion letters of individual cod
Bet this guy is an atheist faggot who thinks computer code can arise out of blind natural processes. Fuck this nigga and atheist cucks in general.

If God created the earth where did neanderthals spring from?

Marxist copypasta won't fly here.

>"Human species different from us"
That's not even fucking biologically true.
Neanderthals are classified as a "Subspecies" ONLY because they can produce viable offspring with anatomically modern humans; geographical separation being the only real determinant property of what a "subspecies" actually is.

Furthermore, genes technically don't matter.

Consider this little tidbit of information:
>13 million years ago, humans and chimps share an ape ancestor.
>25 million years ago, monkey and apes share a primate ancestor.
>85 million years ago (rough estimate), primate and rodent share a Euarchontoglires ancestor.
>100 million years ago (rough estimate), Euarchontoglires and Laurasiatheria (ancestor of cats, dogs, bats, giraffes, etc) share a Boreoeutheria (common mammal) ancestor
Given all this information, it would sound logical to conclude that animals like mice (being rodents) are more related to us than dogs or cats, because of where they are on the family tree, but that's not the case.
Cats and humans literally share 90% homologous DNA -ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9284919

Mice and humans share 75% homologous DNA journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000112

Humans and cats are genetically more conservative, because we have longer breeding time, longer life span, etc.
Mice breed fast, which could account for the amount of difference.

Biologically, genes aren't as important as the actual physical difference of particular animals.

Anything relating to "Oh, we're all genetically the same" or "There's more genetic diversity in Africa" can be dismissed easily, because it's not relevant to actual taxonomy. Species, subspecies, race, etc, is all determined solely by taxonomy; taxonomy itself does somewhat have bias, because the authority comes from a group of peers defining themselves as the authority on zoological nomenclature.