Why Your Race Isn’t Genetic

[Blackking]

Then this claim is refuted

Speak for yourself friend:youthink:........

Lol, so I can tell by your graphics that u watched that one movie documentary or whatever it was... you believe all that about ancient people and they way they thought?

I don't think that we can get back there.

 

[tmonster]

No it isn't

indigenous Africans, Asians and Europeans clearly cluster away from each other

and within those clusters you will find internecine strifes and flat out war

 

[tmonster]

Lol, so I can tell by your graphics that u watched that one movie documentary or whatever it was... you believe all that about ancient people and they way they thought?

I don't think that we can get back there.

musta been a helluva documentary:notbadsas:

 

[Poitier]

and within those clusters you will find internecine strifes and flat out war

That is a product of economics, colonialism and exploitation i.e. the false multiculturalism you laud

 

[godkiller]

This shyt is too stupid to take seriously.

I can make a factual line of argument based in ambiguity on why your species isn't genetic:

"All animals are related and the separation between species is subjectively determined by scientists, therefore the term "species" is actually a cultural meme and doesn't really exist."

 

[D1renegade]

I've heard this argument before..

I'm not wholly convinced though. When two Black people have a baby, the baby's Black. I don't think there has ever been an instance of Black parents producing a white baby with blonde hair.. If the genes of the parents aren't dictating the child's phenotype, then what is?

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I don't get it.

 

[tmonster]

That is a product of economics, colonialism and exploitation

:yasure:riiiiiiiiiiiiight.........wait for it......wait for it.....

 

[OneManGang]

This shyt is too stupid to take seriously.

I can make a factual line of argument based in ambiguity on why your species isn't genetic:

"All animals are related and the separation between species is subjectively determined by scientists, therefore the term "species" is actually a cultural meme and doesn't really exist."

You would have a point if different species could produce progeny. They can't. And the animals of different species that CAN have babies because their genome is very similar, have sterile offspring.

I've heard this argument before..

I'm not wholly convinced though. When two Black people have a baby, the baby's Black. I don't think there has ever been an instance of Black parents producing a white baby with blonde hair.. If the genes of the parents aren't dictating the child's phenotype, then what is?

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I don't get it.

All this is saying is this: Any two people from anywhere on this Earth have over genomes that are almost entirely similar. The differences that produce what we perceive as race is minute. Race is real, it's a social construct made up as a result of different adaptations, social settings, geography, etc...but where people are wrong is trying to use DNA as a basis for race because our genomes are practically identical. I hope that makes sense.

 

[tmonster]

You would have a point if different species could produce progeny. They can't. And the animals of different species that CAN have babies because their genome is very similar, have sterile offspring.

smh @ cats trying to rewrite basic and vetted biological classification

 

[tmonster]

That is a product of economics, colonialism and exploitation i.e. the false multiculturalism you laud

so there was multiculturalism in those "homogeneic clusters" of yours :youthink:

 

[Poitier]

so there was multiculturalism in those homogeneity clusters:youthink:

The African continent was significantly more stable before Cacs and (to a lesser extent) Arabs came.

 

[Digga38]

One natural definition of race is a group whose members are genetically much more similar to each other than they are to other groups. Putting a number on what counts as “much more” is a somewhat arbitrary exercise, but Templeton found that the genetic differentiation between populations of chimpanzees is over seven times greater than the genetic differentiation between broad geographical populations of humans. Furthermore, the level of genetic differentiation between human populations falls well below the threshold that biologists typically use to define races in non-human species.

 

[godkiller]

You would have a point if different species could produce progeny. They can't. And the animals of different species that CAN have babies because their genome is very similar, have sterile offspring.

My point was not that there is no separation one can make; only that the justification between calling any separation--like the ability to have fertile children--significant or not is culturally driven. There is no necessary reason any biological separation between groups must be driven down to the term "species" as opposed to some other label or no label at all. And by the way, there are species whom can have fertile children with other species. All members of the Canus "genus" can breed fertile offspring regardless of so-called "species". Human populations are not different species relative to each other, instead they are ethnicities and groups within the same species which one can further subpopulate. At base whether we CHOOSE to group humans is social--like the reasons we separate everything is social--but that does not make such groups invalid.

All this is saying is this: Any two people from anywhere on this Earth have over genomes that are almost entirely similar. The differences that produce what we perceive as race is minute. Race is real, it's a social construct made up as a result of different adaptations, social settings, geography, etc...but where people are wrong is trying to use DNA as a basis for race because our genomes are practically identical. I hope that makes sense.

@D1renegade's question is not whether the differences are minute, but whether they exist and are predictive of different races and appearance. Obviously the latter is true as he puts it. And the fact people physically adapt to geography is like the fact animals adapt to geography, it's a biological thing. But obviously our ultimate decision to "group" people into us vs. them is cultural and social. The Greeks in Southern Europe are different to the Finnish in Scandianavia in appearance, average skin tone, height, average and absolute hair and eye color, etc. This difference is biological as well (same as the difference between a European, African or Asian), but some will call the difference between a Greek and Finish person insignificant while calling the difference between those other groups significant. I just say "different ethnic groups".

 

[Digga38]

Take this bullshyt to free speech

 

[tru_m.a.c]

The same people claiming humans don't have distinct populations can't name one instance in modern history where multiculturalism exist

nikka what