Are there really races? I have the relevant information...

Are there really races? I have the relevant information, but I argued with a biologist and he told me that those deviations do not constitute a race. Is it just linguistics?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ve6uK00AvNo
pastebin.com/PpY46T8t
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>a bergologist

yes

Your biologist would not even be allowed to obtain his credentials if he openly stated otherwise.

We know the difference between the many breeds of dogs but not the breeds of humans? What a load of shit.

Race is a social construct. Social constructs are real. Therefore races are real.

Race is not a scientific category. Haplogroups are. Race is just an ad-hoc grouping based on superficial shared appearance and historically generally separate breeding populations.

There's races, but scientists can't officially say it. It's already hell trying to get funding without a bad reputation.

Being known as the guy who says "Black people exist" is going to fuck your career completely.

All biological taxonomy is social construction. There is such wide spectra of characteristics among different groups of humans descending from different geographical areas that the lines drawn between races are very much arbitrary and not very meaningful. What is inarguable is that all Homo sapiens comprise the same species (i.e. all humans can sexually reproduce). Noticing correlations among characteristics of different types of people is not wrong in any way shape or form but in most cases broad generalizations concerning something so arbitrary as race is very much unscientific.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ve6uK00AvNo
This should clear it up.

The way I see it, humanity is a single species in a sense that there are no biological restrictions for two humans to have a child, no matter what race parents are. So biologically there are no races, but there is fucking obvious differences in features. And this here is the reason why statement about social construct is utter bullshit.

Why user, you seem so well spoken and in formed. Perhaps you could red pill me on why Africans can only receive bone marrow transfers from other Africans?

My nigga

There is no such thing as a fish biologically.

That's a cute hair do

Scientists are being cucked by sjws

Because no sane white person would share with a nigger

We can have non-sterile children between everyone in those branch.

does that mean we should?

A race is not a scientific term. The term used to mean lineage family creed and has been later bolestered by pseudo scientific racial ideas.
Its simply a categorization of people according to whatever trait one desires but because of said racial theory its mostly used for skin colour and facial traits.

...

No, it means we're closely related enough that we can have viable offspring. Ultimately that's all that matters to humanity regardless of the genus/species.

based gopnik

that sure is some unsubstantiated claim right there, yessir it is

im pretty sure the guy in the twitter was using hyperbole

Because people with similar genetic makeup will have the same leukocyte antigens in their bone marrow. If someone with a different genetic makeup due to their different ethnicity donates their marrow, antibodies in the recipient will reject the donor's antigens that the body doesn't recognize, causing big problems for the transplant recipient.

Being able to reproduce doesn't automatically make you the same species. It's more complex than that. There are cases where this isn't true.
>biologically there are no races
Races are not the same as species. We're not arguing whether native Africans and Native Europeans are the same species or not. We're arguing whether or not you can easily separate them into different categories, which you can. Most native Africans are black. Most native Europeans are white. We excel in different environments. I don't understand the whole argument about whether or not races exist. Someone please help me out here. I'm too far removed from leftist retardation to even understand this. I've lost touch. It took me way too long to write this post. I made so many typos. My brain hurts even trying to understand this.

The issue is that european people are a very recent development. There can be more difference between different african people than between african people and european people.
Also, skin color and eye color are controlled by very few alleles.

They are just playing retarded.
Ultimately, we get to decide what a race is. We also get to decide what a breed is. If we were all politically correct nonces regarding dog breeds, we'd all be saying "hurrr there's no such thing as a breed."

Races exist because of genetic differences, and we know that those genetic differences are important enough to warrant, for example, different optimal diets for the different races; different medicinal treatments for certain diseases; different susceptibility to different diseases; different brain sizes; different IQs; etc.

>Israel
>Always Israel
Complete and utter bullshit. Africans have a huge degree of seperation towards non Africans. Europeans exist for quite some time. Fairly sure you guys are actually closer related to them than us. The claim that there's more diversity between Africans than between Europeans and Africans is ridiculous and untrue to the extreme.

You're also ignoring any and all other groups here, pretending they don't exist for the sake for your non argument.

Well that is the point. There is more variation within the African genome than there is in non-African genomes, but most of that variation is in regions of the DNA which do nothing, whilst the variation in, say, European DNA, is in those important small regions where changes in the genotype actually result in changes in the phenotype.
Similarly, there is more genetic variation within the wolf species compared to within dogs who have descended from wolves. But clearly, dogs have far more phenotypic variation.

wtf i'll racemix now
thanks shlomo

And thus the amount of alleles controlling such superficial features i not important when you consider the other differences between different people.
its simply a very small part of our genetic make up and thus fro ma genetic stand point skin colour or eye color is just a tiny variation much like many others between one white person with blue eyes and another.

Skin color is important to us because it is very noticeable and stands out but genetically it is a completely unimportant genetic variance.

Again, go read scientific data. In different cases different african groups have less in common genetically then certain african groups and europeans.
And this is because african humans were there for a much longer period than europeans in europe.

>And this is because african humans were there for a much longer period than europeans in europe.

which means they had more time to form genetically varied groups.

you mean like how capoids are quite different than negroids?

Actually even this isn't true.

The word "race" must of course be defined.

However, in Philosophy 101 you learn that common usage of a word trumps whatever special meaning someone wants to attribute to it in a semantic battle.

The rule of thumb is: if you ask Jack in the street what "race" means, he will give you a general answer that is accepted because everyone tacitly has attributed this meaning to the word.

Only a small fraction of pariahs and/or poorly educated relativists will contest this.

So once you have the semantic question of defining the word race out of the way you can ask the question: is our common definition of the word race a social construct?

The answer is clearly NO.

It is the observable differences in human beings that constitute clearly delineated ethnic groups that generally are geographically located or whose ancestry can be traced back to a given geographic location.
These traits include physical visible features: colour, body shape, skull size, etc; motor differences: strength as measured for instance in grip strength or speed of reflexes; mental differences: IQ test scores.

In addition to all this we can fit most different groups of human beings onto a continuum due to the way in which a large subset of traits correlate proportionally to each other (skulls size negatively correlates with penis size and positively with IQ, thus a race with small skulls has larger penises but lower IQ than a race with larger skulls).

>Skin color is important to us because it is very noticeable and stands out but genetically it is a completely unimportant genetic variance.

That is bullshit.
Unimportant genetic variance does not spread so quickly i.e. have such large selection pressure on it.

Yeah, Bantus are closer to Koreans than to the Sans, but that doesn't mean shit.
Red is closer to yellow than to blue, doesn't mean that red and yellow aren't significantly different.

>Are there really races?
Yes. I'm majoring in Biochemistry and racial differences are an important consideration in clinical outcomes for drugs, and certainly are very important in disease susceptibility.

Anybody who says race isn't real either has an agenda, has no education in the biological sciences, or is aware of the political sensitivity of the topic and wishes to preserve their livelihood.

Race is a biological reality. Period.

LOL

pastebin.com/PpY46T8t

Jesus Christ, what the fuck are you talking about?

There is one human race, and several human species, each with distinct features, Whites being the jack-of-all-trades.

Go fuck yourself.

t. IQ 148 law doc

What i meant is not that it wasnt important for better survival but that the genetic code changes to regulate skin color are completely negligible and can be considered tiny variations.
They are overestimated because of the fact they create very noticeable external visual changes.

Literally everything is a social construct by the way SJWs define it, including shit like quarks and the term social construct. It is so mindnumbingly dumb. They don't even apply their own terms correctly. Also, their models are shit.

>Whites being the jack-of-all-trades

actually being serious when saying stuff like this.
genetically the white "race" where race stands for people of roughly the same skin colour, is inferior because its genetic heritage is dying out.
It doesnt matter how scientifically successful a "race" is, in terms of genetic success and genetic transmision of genetic data the white race has failed.
It is a small minority among the other skin races and is becoming less and less numerical.
In short white race is geneticallyt inferior if what matters to us is the genetic part controlling skin colour.
By your apparent racial classification whites are shit tier.

Well, you may have an IQ of 148. Frankly it's irrelevant to your command of the English language, which is clearly quite lacking.

Learn English before trying to convince people that your erroneous use of words is the correct use.

There is one species: homo sapiens sapiens.
There are a number of races.

>There is one human race, and several human species
Uh, no. There is one extant human species, and several races within that species. Race=sub-species.

>t. IQ 148 law doc
>citing liberal arts as if it means anything
lol, you might as well gloat about having a PhD in Gender Studies.

This would just mean that we need to split black people into multiple subspecies. It does not contradict saying black people and every other race of people are distinct. You just end up with blackA and blackB are distinct from every other race. Who cares? Anti-racists always through out these bad arguments, where even if said arguments were true they do not show what anti-racists want them to show. Quite often the arguments aren't even true.

Nail on the head. And that's coming from a poorly-educated pariah :)

Do blacks struggle to produce vitamin D?

These deviations are called haplogroups iirc

This graph only shows that Africans were the first race from which the rest originate.

Why does everyone think we are black? Have you even been in Greece? We are white af just like every other Balkan country.

Again, how does this argue against anything in this thread? You are literally arguing that "no, Africans aren't a separate subspecies, they are multiple separate and distinct subspecies". That does not contradict the fact that Africans are clearly different than all the other races on a genetic level. You are arguing against yourself.

In northern countries, yes.
However, the people who on average have the worst deficits of vitamin D are mediterranean people.

>Are there really races? I have the relevant information, but I argued with a biologist and he told me that those deviations do not constitute a race. Is it just linguistics?
He's bullshitting you m8. There's no scientific definition of a race.

>Social constructs are real
Ask for a definition of race.

But subspecies are usually delineated by groups which do not interbreed. In the case of humans, this may have been the case hundreds of years ago but it's sort of becoming less true every decade. Just look at the rapefugee migration for a recent example.


IMO when people say "race" they're really talking about a mixture of culture and phenotype groupings. This is why we have things like wiggers - if race were purely biomechanical then a white person couldn't act black if their life depended on it because they wouldn't be physically equipped to. I think that's a pretty clear signal that race is at least partially behavioral and not entirely genetic + phenotypes. A better question is weather or not race is a useful classification when discussing differences in groups of humans. Personally I think it's still pretty relevant, but with anything that's unclearly defined it's sometimes difficult to discuss as individuals' understanding of the terminology drifts.

But i'm just A Fucking Leaf so IDFK.

Fuck off, leaf.

o-ok...

To be honest, I have to side with the libtards on this one: race is a social construct.

Reasons:
Race is not one characteristic in a human being and usually implies skin tone, facial structure, body size predisposition, etc
A good example is the Far East and China in particular. Some Chinese people have the same skin tone as Europeans while others have the same skin tone as Arabs. That means there is variation in skin tone amomgst one race. Then we look at facial structure, typically an Asian has slanted eyes and more fat under the chin than a European. Of course there are Asian families with round eyes. We could go on forever but the main point is that race is simply a way to describe a rough collection of characteristics that have formed over the years in people from various origins. So yeah, from a biological perspective, race does not exist, only characteristics that tend to be more popular depending on place of origin.

It doesn't mean we should, but due to healthier offspring being born when genetic makeup of parents is different, yes we should be race-mixing.

>healthier offspring being born when genetic makeup of parents is different
interesting, proofs please?

RARE
A
R
E

What even are you? I'm a phonefag for the time being

What about when high IQ like white race mixes with low IQ like black?

What the hell even is the kid? It's not white it's not black

Go read yourself jew. Homo sapiens and neanderthals are genetically closer than europeans and africans.

Ever wonder why inbreeding doesn't work? That's why. Another example is dogs - "purebred" dogs are slowly becoming fucked up mutants with all kinds of genetic issues that worsen with each generation. On the other hand, mutts are much more likely to be free of genetic defects (although it's never a guarantee). It may not necessarily be true for a single individual, but over time genetic diversity tends to be healthy for a species because it reduces the likelihood that bad genes are expressed.

inbreeding is something very different

How so? The principle behind why inbreeding is bad is the same reason why race mixing is (genetically) good. No one's genetic code is perfect; you probably have dozens of fucked up recessive traits but because you also have a copy of a good dominant trait from the other parent, those fucked up traits are never expressed. But spend enough time fucking your cousins (or second cousins or only people in the same small town for 500 years) and eventually some asshole is going to wind up with two copies of the exact same fucked up gene and bam, you've got a genetic defect. On the other hand breeding with people who extremely distant genetic relatives means the chances of your offspring winding up with the same two shit copies of the same gene are phenomenally low because you probably don't have any shit-genes in common. Again, it's never a guarantee for an individual but over time the probabilities work out such that race-mixing produces a more diverse (and therefore healthier) genetic pool.