Do human races exists?
1- your opinion
Don't be racist, is a serious thread... don't make a Sup Forums shit tier.
===
Yes, that's won't make us better or worst, just differents and 'specials'.
-->Human Specie
----->X race
----->Y race
--------->Y.g race
----->Z race
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtu.be
youtube.com
youtu.be
youtu.be
abc.net.au
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
scientiasalon.wordpress.com
twitter.com
No
Non meme no, clinal variation of significant traits in humans has not been scientifically proven to correlate with visible phenotype.
Race actually is a social construct.
Yes
Hi
And you people are still too stupid to understand pic related. The genetic distance between abos and bantus is greater than the generic distance between two subspecies of chimp.
Yes.
And I do not care about racial superiority but the individual. Consequently, I think ethic groups here are culturally deprived for they commit more crime and act like niggers.
>generic
generic*
Also in one study self identification matched >90% of the time with belonging to a genetic cluster.
There are biological differences. However this is true for any population that interbreeds.
The lines that are drawn like Black Asian and European are artificial. Why? Because there is more genetic diversity between Africans than there are between afro Americans and white Americans. So there should be dozens of races in Africa alone. Not just one BLACK race.
Yes and no, they're different to the popular belief. There's not "black", "white", "yellow", etc, such primitive terms. Races are something more complex, too complex that even a small region could differ to others in the same geographical position. For example, people from the south of your country is a different race to people from the south-east and south-west, etc.
ffs
genetic
nonsense
You're parroting gibberish you do not understand. There are several african races.
No.
See
You have a handful of major clusters.
Yes
...
Scientific consensus is variations in between human populations do not warrant subspecies clasification, go get a doctorate and argue your case in academia.
Even granting there was such a thing you're cherrypicking, genetic variation inside of Africa, as it corresponds with the habitat our sopecies evolved in, is far greater than outside of it, even if I was to grant for argument's sake Austronesians might be considered exceptional genetic variation amongst all Eurasians, including native Americans, would be relatively minimal, they're all ultimately descended from the same out of Africa founding population and hold similar degrees of non Sapiens (Neanderthal) admixture.
Would you consider different dog breeds different races?
I'd compare humans to that. Some breeds are more related than others but are all ultimately mutts.
Random trait: Asians have larger pancreases.
When somebody doesn't have mixed ancestry, anyone can distinguish where that person is from. For example I can see that pic related is from east Asia. So unless you harbour a really vague definiton of significant traits, your claim is false.
Geographic origin is hardly a significant trait in terms of capabilities, disease resistance, reproductive fitness, etc. You can often find in most cosmopolitan or widely distributed species some small amount of variation, oftentimes even different color morphs.
Also you're implying there's no significant overlap in between regions, all traits move in clines, not at specific cut off points, meaning there would be intermediate forms in between boundaries. you can't really tell some East asians apart from some South East Asians or some Northern Europeans apart from some Southern Europeans, even at apparent exteremes you'll still find some traits present in some individuals.
t. too stupid to understand the map so responds with a verbal salad
verbal salads do not constitute an argument
There are, but the american black/white/asian classification is just retarded.
>Geographic origin is hardly a significant trait in terms of capabilities, disease resistance, reproductive fitness, etc.
Geographic origin isn't a trait at all. I said that you can see by traits that are expressed somebody's phenotype, such as skin colour, that you can see from which part of the world they are from. Therefore you can clearly see clinal variation in phenotypes and the traits that produce such phenotypes. So that means that the veracity of your statement depends on what you define as a significant trait. Judging by the examples you give, you demand a certain practical use from a trait in order for the trait to be considered significant. But why should a trait need a practical use in order to legitimize a classification as race or subspecies?
>Also you're implying there's no significant overlap in between regions, all traits move in clines, not at specific cut off points, meaning there would be intermediate forms in between boundaries. you can't really tell some East asians apart from some South East Asians or some Northern Europeans apart from some Southern Europeans, even at apparent exteremes you'll still find some traits present in some individuals.
I'm not. You don't need clear-cut borders between different phenotypes in order to notice clinal variation in phenotypes. However, the concept of race does need clear-cut borders to some exetend. But pointing out that it does isn't enough to delegitimize it entirely. Loki's fallacy applies here.
To be considered subspecies, the gene flow between 2 groups must be stopped.
Needless to say, with our current transportation technologies, the entire earth may as well be a village.
>that are expressed somebody's phenotype
Expressed in somebody's phenotype*
>exetend
Extent*
It's late and I'm phonefagging from my bed, so please excuse the awful spelling and grammar.
THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE : THE HUMANE RACE
>But why should a trait need a practical use in order to legitimize a classification as race or subspecies?
Because otherwise what's the point? Some black bear populations in North America are more brown than black, that doesn't hold water to clasify them as subspecies and it isn't related to variation in other traits such as size or behaviour which follow different clinal patterns. Going on just skin color or traits as functionally insignificant as epicanthic folds wouldn't make sense in a lot of zoological taxonomies.
Don't mind that, it's cool
whenever you have a species as widespread as homo sapiens there will be some small differences between population groups
whether you wanna call that "race" or not I don't know
You said that race is a social construct. If race is based on biological difference that have no practical applications. Race isn't a social construct, only the value of race is a social construct.
As an example, blue tits have at least 9 subspecies.
No.
Nah, we didn't stop interbreeding each other since the beginning
My family was mixed race -Caucasian, Jewish, Amerindian, Hispanic
I was never taught race was a thing and didn’t realize it was in modern society until I was much older. I don’t know how many native Americans teach this, but in general the beliefs I was taught was that race wasn’t a thing. Maybe there are physical/genetic differences but the whole system built around it is entirely manmade.
Your map just proved that Africa is too genetically diverse to be one big race
What nation? Cherokee ? Navajo?
That's what I said here
Nigger detected
>lol op is a black niggering niggery nigger
>OP's black so your thread is boring and full of pointless shit
>OP is black so his thread or words dont have any value
Arguably so, I don't have a reason to dispute that, however this is giving some relevance to some traits which are only significant in that they're visible.
There's arguably some minor advantage in blonde hair for populations living in environments of high exposure to solar radiation, as it is for some Melanesians, this is not the case for Europeans.
Light colored eyes are subject to a higher rate of macular degeneration, they provide absolutely no functional advantage only a slightly higher chance of disease down the line.
Pale skin is only useful for pre-industrial farmers, hunters (such as the inuit) can get more than enough vitamin D from diet sources.
These three traits do however seem to play a role in sexual selection, which makes them the equivalent of a peacock's feathers. Does a behavioural trait resulting in different coloration for a population warrant subspecies status? Because if so we would be overly complicating taxonomies for tropical fish and parrots.
Apache by blood but I was raised around a pacific people desu
>Light colored eyes
>absolutely no functional advantage
>sexual selection
Dumb fucking shitty abhorrent meme.
abc.net.au
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
If the thread is still alive tomorrow morning I will give a proper reply, I need to get some sleep now.
Your first link claims this is tied to vitamin D production, this is absurd not only in the sense that vitamin D is specifically synthetized in the skin
en.wikipedia.org
but in that brown eyed populations are present in arctic climates, and even amongst majority blue eyed peoples, without ill effects.
The other two links don't even address eye color but are pseudo-hippy works on the benefitial effects of blue light, implying the iris works as a polarized filter which is in fact wrong.
cool, night man
Both of you have terrible reading comprehension. The first link critisises the vitamin d theory.
I wis you get bed bugs.
Ethnics groups should rather be call sub-species than race.
Are black people inherently different biologically and reproduce inherently different offspring?
Yes.
Inb4 muh hair color, eye color or fur color strawman.
When people say human "races" they actually mean "breeds", like dog breeds and cat breeds. The differences between human "races" is just like the differences between Chihuahuas and German Shepherds. They have very obvious differences and temperaments, but everyone refuses to acknowledge it when it comes to humans.
Yes, whoever says no is pretty much ignorant.
The idea of "race" as Americans mean it is mostly retarded too. But it's closer to the truth than the "we're all the same, we all bleed red" hippy garbage.
Eye color, fur color, and height vary between family members.
No
Can you point to a single scientific study demonstrating differences in temperament?
Are Jamaicans a race? :^)
Blacks are 5.5x more likely to have extreme violence gene, 0.9% of whites have it probably due to negro blood and 5.5% of blacks gave it.
Jamaican is a nationality with members who are Africans
>violence gene
into the trash it goes
Man, wtf, I clearly have the NEET gene, are you telling me that one isn't real either?
Are you telling me propensity to violence doesnt differ between dog breeds?
Yes. I mean just look at animals, Border Collies and Pit Bulls are the same species, Carnis Vulgaris. Yet they still look completely different and most of them follow a certain behavior respective to their sub-species. Why would humans be any different? I'm not saying that there are any lesser races, I'm just saying that we're not all the same.
Whites clearly lack the dna to do extreme violence
Any scientific study that doesn't fit the PC narrative is summarily discarded and discredited.
See:
cant tell if this is bait
>literally a screenshot by a phoneposting faggot
>muh scientific """""evidence"""""
We are incapable of doing extreme violence, goes against our dna.
Post your face, whites biologically CANT do extreme violence.
>Any scientific study that doesn't fit the PC narrative is summarily discarded and discredited.
That is not how science works, friend.
pic rel is me
Not white, Jewish mossad.
Any extreme violent case framed on a white is impossible and so is product of government or other organizations subterfuge.
got me to reply/10
I'd go as far as to say that not only there isn't a single "human race", but not even a single "human species".
Sun-Saharans (not all of them) are pure H. sapiens, while Euros and Asians have significant Neanderthal admixture (whose pure form separated from sapiens over a million years ago). Australoids additionally have Denisovan admixture, which might have separated away from the rest of our genus even earlier.
Even if we ignore that and assume only the H. sapiens admixture, it has gone separate for at least 60000 years too, in which case the formation of at least different subspecies can be assumed
Yes, because they tend to have different physical appearance and I'm not talking about skin colour. Weight, tall, physical strength, etc., it's all binded with the ancestry and ethnic background.
Yes, very good analogy. The only difference is that race can't inlfuence human behaviour that much because our thinking is on higher level.
Yea, the whole text to that offers significantly more nuance and makes it very clear there's specific environmental factors that may be linked to gene actuation, nevermind plasticity and epigenetics which are also discussed.
scientiasalon.wordpress.com
Regardless genetic differences could be hardly argued to imply superiority or any advantage to hegemonic societies. Going from your own breed analogy different dogs get used for different jobs.
This is just self reinforcing delussion, you're arguing narrative, not science.
This is speculation, not scientific analysis. There's no such thing as a set time for species differentiation, some species have remained virtually unchanged for million of years.
>environment
>genes
Tell me how I can get gene for blonde hair.
Are you retarded?
Genes influence humans 100% dictatorship, if you have gene for blindness you cant think your way out of it, if you have gene for extreme violence you have that gene.
Yeah but only very simple ones like bacteria fro what I know. Evolution rate in mammals, reptiles etc seems to be significantly higher
yes
now I don't know if there are serious differences, but seeing all negroid athletes in sports like fast running or jumping and seeing all caucasoid or mongoloid in high scientific positions really makes me think.
but maybe it's just a cultural thing, who knows
We are talking behaviour, the studies on MAOA looked at abuse and harsh discipline for children as factors in gene actuation. This isn't the same as hair color but more like how bears will look for different types of food under different conditions, that's genetic expression as well but mediated through the environment.
No, sharks and alligators are the textbook examples but there are other examples like beavers with a divergence of around 8 million years for Eurasian and North American species resulting in virtually no changes. Now, 60k years may be very significant in some exceptional periods of rapid eviolution but on the whole they tend to be too short a time for significant diferentiation unless extraordinary pressures (as in domestication) are present. The key adaptation that allowed humans to become a cosmopolitan species is intelligence, Nordics did not grow fur as a response to their environment and Pacific Islanders have no webbed hands and feet. Technologies such as clothing and canoes were manifestations of human intelligence, what changes did occur are overall cosmetic.
The arguably greatest examples of environmental adaptation amongst humans would be the inuit and the sherpa, neither of these survive in environments in which relatively modest technologies would allow all other humans to survive and they themselves are far more dependant on cultural tradition than any physiological adaptations.