I've been thinking about it, and races are a big meme. They don't apply to most people...

I've been thinking about it, and races are a big meme. They don't apply to most people. There's no end to how many races you can define based on every little difference. You could grossly speak of very diverse "African" and "Eurasian" etc. populations, based simply on their geography. But what's the point? I can't even get into the various autistic subdivisions that lack any historical background. What do races quantify that is so useful and other indicators do not account for in better ways? Why do we need them?

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2594139/
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057639
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Families arent real, everyone is related

I see you trying to make excuses for why you're a sandnigger. Just let it be....

What is the sandnigger race? Can you show it on a map? Do you have its genetic markings? Can you prove its existence historically, genetically or even geographically?

Meaning? Do you define your family as a race?

>What do races quantify that is so useful and other indicators do not account for in better ways?

Until we have quicker, cheaper genomic testing, the gross racial categories can be useful in medical treatment, as an example.

They're not though, modern medicine doesn't use "White" or "Black", they're more specific.

>This article reviews the genetic factors that underlie varying responses to medicines observed among different ethnic and racial groups. Pharmacogenetic research in the past few decades has uncovered significant differences among racial and ethnic groups in the metabolism, clinical effectiveness, and side-effect profiles of many clinically important drugs.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2594139/

Literally the first result from Google.

If you go on to read it, the categories are generally "African," "Asian," "European" and "Hispanic."

And within these grouos there are differences between tribe and ethnicity. Scientists advice against this generic race profiling, it might be misleading. The specific genes involved in the drug are different in an entire continent.

>Tishkoff: But I as a human geneticist wouldn't want to imply that there are no differences — but among different ethnic groups, not racial classifications. For example, I'm Ashkenazi Jewish. I have a much higher risk of getting certain genetic diseases that are common in certain Ashkenazi Jewish populations. That was an important question when I was having children.

>There was a drug, called BiDil, that somebody claimed is more effective with African-Americans than other races — which was not true. But there are genes that play a role in drug metabolism. So if a doctor was prescribing drug treatment based on her identification of race she'd say, "You should use drug A because that's better for people of European descent." But the patient might not carry the right gene. That might have negative consequences. That might be the wrong treatment for her.

>Differences in drug response between racial groups is increasingly recognized as an important aspect of pharmacometabolomics and, more generally, personalized health care. Atenolol monotherapy is significantly less effective for blood pressure lowering in patients of African origin than for Caucasian patients.

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057639

You can say this isn't a thing all you want, but it is.

Your quote from the Jew just reinforces my earlier statement regarding quicker, cheaper genomic testing.

Sorites paradox.

Hello Shekelstein

Again, this is bad practice, as geneticists say. Metabolicism isn't uniform amongst continents. And anyway, African American is used in a geographical sense here - it doesn't prove race. It proves a genetic mutation, like blonde hair or blue eyes.

...

So every mutation on the Y chromosome is a race? Special snowflake.

>African American
>nothing to do with race
>purely geographical

I don't even.

Yes because races are mutations through evolution. We acknowledge scientifically different breeds of animals, yet we do not acknowledge different breeds/races when it comes to humans. If you deny this then you are completely incompetent. It is not to say one race is superior to another, but they are different. We can see how obvious it is from skin types, bone & skull structure, DNA, etc.

Enlighten me then. What do those scientists mean by African American, two geographical indicators? People that came from Africa and live in America. How are they a race?

Do you know how many mutations will haopen between you and your son? Thousands. All the things you describe as differences are genetic variations. Dogs are selectively bread, unlike humans, and still breeds are a weak classification.

They're of a different racial origin than European (or Asian, etc.) Americans.

Do you really think white South Africans are considered to be black African Americans here just because they lived in Africa?

This is getting silly.

>They're of a different racial origin than European (or Asian, etc.) Americans.

And what is that racial origin? In fact we're all of the same racial origin and race is constructed along the way. But by that definition, East Africans, North Africans and SW Africans are different races, with many subraces.

there's greater genetic distance between human races than subspecies of lions

>there is only one color
>spectrums are a meme

Like I said, getting silly.

they are a mix of 2 races not a unique race, they are 70-80% subsaharan african and 20-30% european on average

So color is race? .

>East Africans, North Africans and SW Africans are different races
yea, some see it that way

congoid being for west africans, capoid for east and north africans not being middle eastern not sub saharan

Subsaharan African is a geographic indicator of many different peoples.

Actually yes, you can do all of those things.

>You could grossly speak of very diverse "African" and "Eurasian" etc. populations, based simply on their geography

you can do so based on genetic similarity, with europeans clustering closely together and east asians clustering closely together, with a big gap in genetic similarity between the two

Wait, so we have 2 black races and a third that is neither black nor middle-eastern? And what is middle-eastern? More geography.

Those clusters are arbitrary. You can make other, equally good clusters endlessly.

orcadian abbreviated as ORC in a race graphic, very nice

many different peoples that are closely related genetically. Geography & Genetic Similarity have a strong correlation

Colors are colors. The fact that they blend into each other along a wide enough spectrum doesn't mean they're all the same. You have to be blind or willfully obtuse to think so.

sorry, that was a typo, I meant to say north africans are middle eastern

>Wait, so we have 2 black races

I believe that is a more recent stance since east and west africans are quite different genetically, with north africans not being part of the sub saharan african group at all

You can make a similar map in any part of the world. Indians and Germans also have close genetic similarity.

>Those clusters are arbitrary. You can make other, equally good clusters endlessly.

these arbitrary clusters happen to fit perfectly with concepts of race that already exist, and match what every person can visibly see.

That a subsaharan african is very distinct from an east asian

What do colors have to do with race, I don't understand. Is race a wavelength classification?

>This shit again

I/VIII

That's the definition of confirmation bias.

II/VIII

>You can make a similar map in any part of the world.
Yes, because genetic similarity and geography have a strong correlation.

>Indians and Germans also have close genetic similarity.
right, just not nearly as close as any germans and other europeans.

germans and other europeans are genetically more similar than germans and indians

so when you map out genetic similarity between these groups you see europeans close together, a big gap and sub saharans close together for example

fugg, forgot the pic

II/VIII*

Pic related.

I'd like to see OP's rebuttal.

III/VIII

[citation needed]

IV/VIII

Going for obtuse. Ok.

Not at all, how people look visibly is a result of genetics. Subsaharans have a distinct look to europeans and so we can separate them by eyesight alone. Genetic similarity just adds on to that by separating what we can't see normally

V/VIII

>sandnigger race
The race that inhabits the middle east,enslaved us for 400 years and is fucking up the world currently.

Yes,Yes and Yes.

Stop being a fucking cuck bending backwards for arab cock you fucking lefty tsipras-fag.

VI/VIII

VII/VIII

VIII/VIII

No, it's just an example.

Look at this way. It's hard to define a specific line between red and purple. Whatever we come up with will just be an arbitrary construct. But that doesn't mean it's all one color, or that color doesn't exist. Race works the same way.

Yeah, and I could also paint a star of david somewhere in the desert and call the people who live there a race. Why do you extend the similarity to Europeans and not to Kazakhstan? Because it's a cultural disignation, not a biological one.

turks are just turkified greeks-armenians who were in turn mostly hellenized anatolians, what you said is oxymoronic unless you call yourself sandnigger also.

>Not understanding Israelis are genetically different from other groups in the area.
>Not understanding that nearly all ethnicity have a biological basis
>Not understanding basic biology taught in 7th grade

>Yeah, and I could also paint a star of david somewhere in the desert and call the people who live there a race.

Yet you wouldn't see a difference in genetic similarity like you do between europeans and subsaharan africans

>Why do you extend the similarity to Europeans and not to Kazakhstan? Because it's a cultural disignation, not a biological one.
What is your basis for arguing that? How genetically similar are europeans and people from kazakhstan?

Well he does deny what can visibly be seen. Maybe he thinks an elephant is the same as a dog?

The citation ironically is from the peoope who make these graphs.

So show us one of those plots that demonstrate your point.

YES

YES YOU FUCKING IGNORANT FUCK

there are no black people with blonde hair or blue or grey eyes (unless there was some race mixing involved in their conception).

The skull form, the muscle strength, genetic predisposition to certain diseases...I am bored to go on.

Stop reading Η Αυγή you fucking cuck.

The word "europeans" doesn't mean anything in biology, only in geography. If the geography of the region was different, you'd group those peoples differently. All of Eurasia is related, as much as Europeans amongst them.

What do eyes and hair have to do with race? Is there a race with blue-eyed blonde people?

Incorrect, as demonstrated by basically every genetic similarity test

maybe you should post some studies/graphs that show all of eurasia is just as genetically similar as those who reside in europe.

as I said earlier Geography & Genetic Similarity have a strong correlation

It's not even that.

He doesn't want to understand it. Nor could he.

Because evolution in Humans was actually decently fast up until two centuries ago. Before that time period two parrents would have upwards of 10 children. The weak ones which could vary from half to 80% would die before ever reproducing.

Factor in cultural, class based and faith based segregation as well as war.

Add in the fact that most people would have kids and be married at 20.

And you basically have the same situation( at a slower pace) that dogs faced to turn into different breeds.

>turkified greeks-armenians
no. the only thing you did with those people historically was genocide them.

It would be oxymoronic if there were no factual data pointing to the fact that Turks are more arab than mediterranean. Just go for a walk in your roach country and tell me how many blondes,redheads and generally white people you see.

>Cavalli-Sforza asserts that classifying clusters as races would be a “futile exercise” because “every level of clustering would determine a different population and there is no biological reason to prefer a particular one.”

That's one of the people who made the above images of European clusters

>every level of clustering is a particular population
>the German-French population is a race
>The German-French-Italian population is a different population
etc.
Where you stop, is cultural.

You seem to be under the impression that just because race is an arbitrary classification, that means it doesn't exist at all. We could define everyone with blue eyes as one race, or we could say that everyone with white skin is one race, and all of this would be socially constructed. But even so, that doesn't change the fact that differences in eye and skin color exist, and these differences have a genetic, biological basis.

yes? the subset of caucasians of scandinavian origin,MAYBE?

to say they belong in that race doesn't mean ALL scandinavians have blue eyes and blond hair. it means such a pairing is noticed in a large percentage of the population.

I don't understand that pic,can someone explain

When it has no physical effects dumb ass.

When does a dog breed become a dog breed?

>. But even so, that doesn't change the fact that differences in eye and skin color exist, and these differences have a genetic, biological basis.

Yes, they exist, just like you and your brother are different.

so you no longer believe that eurasians are just as genetically similar as just europeans, right? that's a good first step

I presume you also accept there is in fact a biological basis to what people call race right now then since these people can be clustered to smaller levels in terms of genetic similarity.

>every level of clustering would determine a different population
I agree, you can sort out northern and southern europeans, and even between them which is why sites like 23andme can do a great job at determining heritage/ancestry


>and there is no biological reason to prefer a particular one.”

Yet there are clear uses for being able to classify these groups.

Tell me. Where does it stop?

Can you fucken read?

>When it has no physical effects dumb ass.

>Yet there are clear uses for being able to classify these groups.

Such as? And no Kazakhstani-Eueopean is as valid as French-German grouping.

Slavs have blue eyes too. You should call it blue eye race, not Scandinavian.

he and his brother are less different than you and a black person from sub-saharan africa

(assuming you are white yourself)

When does it stop? What are the different physical effects of a Romanian and a Turk?

And less different than his white neighbors too. If you go for the absolute least you should stick with your family.

Right, and we would call that a family. On a larger scale, I'm more closely related to white people than blacks. That's race.

reading comprehension of a 10 year old.

blue eyes paired with blond hair is an overwhelmingly common phenotype in indigenous scandinavians. that is not to say that there can't be ANY other people around the world that share the same phenotype, let alone people who live in the same general geographical region.

Height, IQ, Pigmentation.

There are probably more, but I don't have statistics and polls about that specific thing.

again, you are less different compared to a person that lives in athens (assuming that your bloodlines can be traced back to people living in the same region and not mixing with other populations) than with a black person living in sub-saharan africa.

No, you're less closely related to white people than your third cousins. Why don't you stop there? Or if you're feeling social, why don't you include Arabs and Eurasians?

This is great progress, i am assuming by your lack of response to every other part of the post you acknowledge the following

>you no longer believe that eurasians are just as genetically similar as just europeans
>there is in fact a biological basis to what people call race right now

I'll address your questions/post now

>And no Kazakhstani-Eueopean is as valid as French-German grouping.

Yes you can cluster them together, but it also makes it less meaningful just like clustering an elephant and a dog together would be. I'm not saying clustering elephants and dogs together is wrong but is limiting.

>Such as?
Ancestry and Health come to mind, I'm sure there are many other uses that I can't think of or have yet to be found.

People from Athens aren't a race, by your definitions.

>No, you're less closely related to white people than your third cousins
not necessarily

He never said they were

>Ancestry
?
>Health
A German and a Turk or a Greek and a Japanese have different health requirements? Health is affected by genes, not eye colour.

I'm not "stopping" anywhere. I'm just acknowledging the fact that I share more in common genetically with whites than with Asians or Arabs. Anything beyond that is a moral judgement, not a biological one.

If you're going for the medical thing, then races should be people with high propensity for developing cancer or something, regardless of colour. Medical races.

But you don't. You decided to use the word Europeans and select some other people to fit with, not biology. You fit just as well with Turks, Arabs and Cacuasians, if not many others.

And certain genes usually exist in different percentages among geographically isolated groups. Going so far not to exist in some.

>?
noun
noun: ancestry; plural noun: ancestries

1.
one's family or ethnic descent.
"his Viking ancestry"

>A German and a Turk or a Greek and a Japanese have different health requirements?
Different health risks, different reactions to treatment/medicine in some cases. At least for subsaharans, east asians and caucasians

>Health is affected by genes
Correct, which is why can race matters when it comes to health care

Considering the rate of organ rejection gows up with different races and mixed race people, yes it affects health.

Let's not even mention alcohol tolerance, milk tolerance, sickle cell...