Scientists Say Race is Not A Scientific Concept

It's been a few years but I once saw an educational/documentary type show about frogs. The video was about two separate species of frogs that lived in the same habitat. The frogs looked alike so for years they all were considered the same species; however the two species had different mating calls so that they did not interbred with each other... so they were then labeled separate species of frogs. Other than the distinct mating call of each "species" the frogs looked like they could be the same species.

I would think that one kind not choosing to mate with the other kind, due to differences such as a mating call, would not be proof that they are not the same species.

What it would take to prove whether these frogs are the same species or different species would be to either somehow get one kind to mate with the other, or perhaps use some for of artificial fertilization to fertilize one frog's eggs with sperm from the other kind, and see if you can get viable offspring. You'd then need to similarly try to breed those offspring, and see if they have any limitations as for their interbreedability. A quick bit of Googling tells me that like mammals, frogs use the XY/XX method of sex determination, so per Haldane's rule, female frog hybrids might be fertile, but males would be sterile.

In many cases, similar but different species can be mated, and produce hybrid offspring. But hybrids have limited fertility, if any at all. I used to be under the misconception that all hybrids are sterile, but it turns out that in some cases, they are not. Among felines, for example, female hybrids can successfully mate with either parent species, and produce even further hybridized offspring, but male feline hybrids are sterile. There's a zoo somewhere in Russia that has some liligers. They have a female liger (a hybrid produced by a male lion mating with a female tiger), who has, herself, successfully mated with a lion and produced liligers as offspring.
 
Not really. Race=subspecies in many/most cases but is also used for the even more minor variants.

Excerpt from now edited/obliterated by PC Wiki. In fact, Wiki used to have a 'Race and Intelligence' page chock full of charts and graphs 10/15 years ago. Now it's called 'The History of Race and intelligence' (sure to include true racism) with virtually no data, just apologetics.

Race (human classification) - Wikipedia
Morphologically differentiated populations.

""...Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations. That is, "the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence" One objection to this idea is that it does not specify what degree of differentiation is required. Therefore, any population that is somewhat biologically different could be considered a subspecies, even to the level of a local population. As a result, Templeton has argued that it is necessary to impose a threshold on the level of difference that is required for a population to be designated a subspecies.

This effectively means that populations of organisms must have reached a certain measurable level of difference to be recognised as subspecies. Dean Amadon proposed in 1949 that subspecies would be defined according to the 75% rule which means that 75% of a population must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining morphological character or a set of characters. The 75% rule still has defenders but other scholars argue that it should be replaced with 90 or 95% rule.

In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered different subspecies by the USUAL criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection.

Wright argued that it does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within Each of these groups that every individual can Easily be Distinguished from every other.

However, it is Customary to use the term Race Rather than Subspecies for the major subdivisions of the Human species as well as for minor ones.""
`

I've found over the vast range of "all life" ... these terms are somewhat nebulous ... typically used in the way that is MOST USEFUL to the group of organisms ... for example, coyotes and wolves produce fertile offspring in captivity ... thus we could say they are the same species ... however, these hybreds hybrids are extremely rare in nature, and have never been documented to breed themselves ... thus it is USEFUL to designated these two populations as different species ...

Cladistics avoids this problem by using taxons ... which is defined as reproductively isolated populations ... so my claim: "all humans are the same taxon, there are no sub-species or races or varieties or cultivars" ... especially since jet travel became affordable ... in our example above, a beneficial genetic mutation that occurs in the wolf population never makes it into the coyotes ... whereas in humans, this benefit will predominate the entire gene pool after so many generations ... if you believe in evolution ...

...except Shohei Ohtani ... we'll know after the autopsy ...
 
I've found over the vast range of "all life" ... these terms are somewhat nebulous ... typically used in the way that is MOST USEFUL to the group of organisms ... for example, coyotes and wolves produce fertile offspring in captivity ... thus we could say they are the same species ... however, these hybreds hybrids are extremely rare in nature, and have never been documented to breed themselves ... thus it is USEFUL to designated these two populations as different species ...

Cladistics avoids this problem by using taxons ... which is defined as reproductively isolated populations ... so my claim: "all humans are the same taxon, there are no sub-species or races or varieties or cultivars" ... especially since jet travel became affordable ... in our example above, a beneficial genetic mutation that occurs in the wolf population never makes it into the coyotes ... whereas in humans, this benefit will predominate the entire gene pool after so many generations ... if you believe in evolution ...

...except Shohei Ohtani ... we'll know after the autopsy ...
You are describing what might happen. We Know that in the past, races did exist.
 
Yeah, in the old days we were taught that "species" meant whatever can produce fertile offspring --- and if they couldn't, then it wasn't the same species, like asses and horses, they readily produce mules, which can't reproduce themselves.

But by now the word has changed meaning, to locally distinct varieties. With humans, the word race applies to these locally distinct varieties, and the differences are pretty dramatic often, but doesn't in any modern case interfere with reproduction.
 
You are describing what might happen. We Know that in the past, races did exist.

Is it useful to divide up human population by race? ... it's only the DNA that says we're all closely related, far closer than any other primate on the planet ... by millions of years ... it's only DNA that says we were once numbered in the thousands, perhaps hundreds of individuals ... in Africa ... just 50,000 years ago ...

It's only the DNA that says skin-color has nothing to do with humanity ... at best color it's an orthographic variation, depends on latitude, not evolution ...

More useful is economic class as a proxy for intelligence ... stupid people breed to produce more stupid people, it's how the poor think ... it's not hard to model the poor's reproductive behavior as an isolated population producing more poor ... then the race of middle class and the race of overlords ... the smart know to limit their numbers and thus remain within the rich race ...

Spay and neuter ... it's the right thing to do ... the poor will live better ...
 
Is it useful to divide up human population by race? ... it's only the DNA that says we're all closely related, far closer than any other primate on the planet ... by millions of years ... it's only DNA that says we were once numbered in the thousands, perhaps hundreds of individuals ... in Africa ... just 50,000 years ago ...

It's only the DNA that says skin-color has nothing to do with humanity ... at best color it's an orthographic variation, depends on latitude, not evolution ...

More useful is economic class as a proxy for intelligence ... stupid people breed to produce more stupid people, it's how the poor think ... it's not hard to model the poor's reproductive behavior as an isolated population producing more poor ... then the race of middle class and the race of overlords ... the smart know to limit their numbers and thus remain within the rich race ...

Spay and neuter ... it's the right thing to do ... the poor will live better ...
Many differences between the races. So yes, it is useful to know. I am a realist and reality does not scare me.
 
Is it useful to divide up human population by race? ... it's only the DNA that says we're all closely related, far closer than any other primate on the planet ... by millions of years ... it's only DNA that says we were once numbered in the thousands, perhaps hundreds of individuals ... in Africa ... just 50,000 years ago ...
False.
Many other species have subspecies that are closer genetically than humans.
Politics is the main reason for no separate terminology/taxonomy.

ie, The Pygmy Mammoth, a separate SPECIES evolved from Mammoths and the went extinct in 30,000 years.
Not difficult to imagine humans coming with mere subspecies/race considering the huge range of different conditions/evolutionary pressures of geographies/climates they lived in.


It's only the DNA that says skin-color has nothing to do with humanity ... at best color it's an orthographic variation, depends on latitude, not evolution ...
Humans only got to higher latitudes WHILE evolving to their pressures. Like Winters, Shelter, Food storage, while those who stayed in Africa continued the hunter gatherer lifestyle untouched.
Agriculture, a mere 10K years ago vastly changed everything.
Producing up to 100x the calories and making Towns, Cities, Trade, Weights and Measures, etc.


More useful is economic class as a proxy for intelligence ... stupid people breed to produce more stupid people, it's how the poor think ... it's not hard to model the poor's reproductive behavior as an isolated population producing more poor ... then the race of middle class and the race of overlords ... the smart know to limit their numbers and thus remain within the rich race ...

Spay and neuter ... it's the right thing to do ... the poor will live better ...
No, Races are the most useful/best way to figure out what IQ's are.
Look at resource rich sub-Sahara which can't govern itself due to IQ, compared to highly organized Resourceless NE Asia: Japan, Korea, China.

When Marco Polo came upon China in 1300 he found Silk, Ceramics, Gunpowder, Astronomical records, and a Civil Service system.
When Stanley found Livingstone in Africa in 1871 it might as well have been 20,000 years ago.
`
`
 
Last edited:
False.
Many other species have subspecies that are closer genetically than humans.

Citation? ... I specified primates ... of course there's virus sub-species closer ... very common among prokaryotes, just look at the gene map of the SARS virus that causes Covid ... how about multi-celled organisms? ... Class Mammalia ? ... Order Rodentia ? ...

Not going to argue the intelligence of Homo sapiens arabica ... over H.s. dutchium ... who invented capitalism? ... sure as hell weren't Bedouins ...
 
We share 60% of our DNA with fruit flies. More than half. Using the "logic" some are using here, we are actually fruit flies.

Lol
 
We share 60% of our DNA with fruit flies. More than half. Using the "logic" some are using here, we are actually fruit flies.

Lol

Yes ... we catagorize all life into either "single cell organisms" or "multi-cell organisms" ... just to be cute ...

We're also just like plants ... we store our DNA into a thing we like to call a "cell nucleus" ... kittens like that ...

Only cyanobacteria survived the Great Oxygen Catastrophe 2.2 billion years ago ... we're all filth ...
 
Citation? ... I specified primates ... of course there's virus sub-species closer ... very common among prokaryotes, just look at the gene map of the SARS virus that causes Covid ... how about multi-celled organisms? ... Class Mammalia ? ... Order Rodentia ? ...

Not going to argue the intelligence of Homo sapiens arabica ... over H.s. dutchium ... who invented capitalism? ... sure as hell weren't Bedouins ...
I'd be incorrect on Primates, if not mammals.
But you narrowing the field to just primates doesn't then support your point that it shouldn't be used for humans.
Little known as well:
Gorillas have two separate SPECIES and 7 or 8 subspecies/races. (they're still debating one which may change distance)
Chimps have two separate SPECIES each with two subspecies/races.

Not to mention the CONSPICUOUS Non answer to EVERY Other point I made/The BULK of my post.

`
 
Last edited:
Yes ... we catagorize all life into either "single cell organisms" or "multi-cell organisms" ... just to be cute ...

We're also just like plants ... we store our DNA into a thing we like to call a "cell nucleus" ... kittens like that ...

Only cyanobacteria survived the Great Oxygen Catastrophe 2.2 billion years ago ... we're all filth ...
Deflection. And not even a very good deflection.
 
That's a racist remark, but still needs to be acknowledged with a comment as to why it could 'sometimes be true.
White America created it's race problems by not coming to accept all people of different skin colours, as equals.

And so there is 'no' truth to the statement in most other countries.
There is truth to it in almost every Country/Continent.
The Murder rate IS pretty consistent by race no matter their current location.
`
5369.jpeg



`
 
I'd be incorrect on Primates, if not mammals.
But you narrowing the field to just primates doesn't then support your point that it shouldn't be used for humans.
Little known as well:
Gorillas have two separate SPECIES and 7 or 8 subspecies/races. (they're still debating one which may change distance)
Chimps have two separate SPECIES each with two subspecies/races.

Not to mention the CONSPICUOUS Non answer to EVERY Other point I made/The BULK of my post.

`

My question was "what is the usefulness of defining race across the human population" ? ... I'm an American, so I believe in "equal protection under the law" as a critical component of "domestic tranquility" ... as demanded by the Constitution ...

I've answered your claim that H.s. arabica are genetically stubborn and evasive ... your right ... what's left to discuss? ... we can\beat their heads in with the Messiah and they still acty[////////////////''''''''''''













'
'
]]\]\]]\]]]]\\];ll,,

[Cats attack] ...
 
My question was "what is the usefulness of defining race across the human population" ? ... I'm an American, so I believe in "equal protection under the law" as a critical component of "domestic tranquility" ... as demanded by the Constitution ...

I've answered your claim that H.s. arabica are genetically stubborn and evasive ... your right ... what's left to discuss? ... we can\beat their heads in with the Messiah and they still acty[////////////////'''''''
'
'
]]\]\]]\]]]]\\];ll,,

[Cats attack] ...
What is the Purpose of any and all Taxonomy?
And if there is any - and there is - Human Taxonomy would be our #1 Concern/Interest. Heath, Physical Ability, Cognitive ability, understanding our own Evolution, etc. The Planet and it's peoples only make sense when one knows about genetics/genetic difference.
It comes up in crime, paleontology, Forensics, Evolution etc.
(ie, see my Homicide stats above)

Without your (always irrelevant) physics formula dropping you are one Empty POS.
You got Crushed.
`
`
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top