Alan Stallion
Civil Rights Advocate
Yes, all two of them.
Scientists Say Race is Not A Scientific Concept
- Thread starter Viktor
- Start date
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Yes, all two of them.
Three genders ... "he", "she", and "it" ... strictly a linguistic quality ... there's two biological sexes ... male and female ... for rodents like us, this is determined with the Y-Chromosomes ...
"Race is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue" links to the following article in Scientific American:
Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue
Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out, by Megan Gannon, February 5, 2016Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning. And yet, you might still open a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like "white" and "black" being used as biological variables.
In an article published today (Feb. 4) in the journal Science, four scholars say racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out.
Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue
Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out
------------
The same people who argue that "Race is only a social construct," are in favor of racial preferences in university admissions and hiring decisions. How can we have racial preferences if racial differences do not exist?
While waiting for the woke US Message Board posters to answer that question, I will go onto my chief objection to the politically correct dogma that "Race is only a social construct."
Scientific truth is not determined by decree, but by repeatable experiments.
------------
"The Inequality Taboo," by Charles Murray, Commentary, September 2005
The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into hlacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."
Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.
Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five ofthe 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their selfidentified ethnic group. When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genedc information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.
------------
I wish Murray had published the article where he learned of this experiment, but I trust his integrity, and it is an excellent experiment, because it can be repeated again and again.
A person's race or racial mixture can usually be determined by appearance, and always by DNA analysis.
Once we determine that race is a legitimate biological category, it becomes legitimate to inquire how the races differ durably in average intelligence as well as in criminal and sexual behavior.
Last edited:
Awhile ago Scientific American ran an article arguing that those who claim that racial differences are biological, and that members of some races tend to be more intelligent than members of other races should be imprisoned.
Scientific American has a history of giving a scientific patina to the misconceptions of political correctness.
Scientific American has a history of giving a scientific patina to the misconceptions of political correctness.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Sub-species
Race
House cats are a "race" of the Lybian sub-species of wildcat ... Felis sylvestris lybica catus ... this is warranted because house cats only breeds with other house cats ... there's no more genetic mingling between our pets and the original sub-species of wildcat ... in cladistics, they are separate taxons ...
All humans readily and quite frequently interbreed ... genes are freely dispersed around the entire human population ... we are all one taxon ... Homo sapiens ... no biological race, we are all too closely related ...
So much for science ... you may return to your hatred now ...
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Sub-species
Race
House cats are a "race" of the Lybian sub-species of wildcat ... Felis sylvestris lybica catus ... this is warranted because house cats only breeds with other house cats ... there's no more genetic mingling between our pets and the original sub-species of wildcat ... in cladistics, they are separate taxons ...
All humans readily and quite frequently interbreed ... genes are freely dispersed around the entire human population ... we are all one taxon ... Homo sapiens ... no biological race, we are all too closely related ...
So much for science ... you may return to your hatred now ...
So then, all breeds of dogs are the same?
Burgermeister
Diamond Member
- Jan 23, 2021
- 6,777
- 7,769
- 1,938
For a while now, "science" has been infected with agendas. Claiming that there is no "scientific" basis for race further delegitimizes the state of "science" today.
Alan Stallion
Civil Rights Advocate
Not me.
I even successfully campaigned in 1996 for California's Proposition 209 (The California Civil Rights Initiative) which forbade the government from discriminating on sex, race, and ethnicity in areas of public employment, contracting and education.
And in 2020 when the racist left trotted out the racist Proposition 16 that sought to overturn Prop 209, we soundly defeated it.
Please. There are different breeds within the Phylum.
To say there are no differences in the breeds is...stupid.
There has to be a difference. At least through equity. In today's price in 2031 we are going to crash the International Space station at a cost of over One billion dollars. There is nothing International about it when it comes to pay for near everything. One billion Dollars! And it will be purposely lowered in orbit before we start spending that money. The weight of the word on our corrupted political class.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Are you saying some breeds of dog are plants (Kingdom Plantea) and others are animal (Kingdom Animalia) ? ... or are you not familiar with Carl Linnaeus' methods of categorization? ...
Zoologists have formally defined "race" ... I'm sorry, this scientific choice means humans have no biological race, our DNA is too close ... plus there's nothing that divides us up into reproductive pools ... Australians marry Irish all the time and have kids ... another reason to ground commercial jet airline travel ...
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Same species ... different breeds ... breeds are not taxons, on the streets, the dogs don't check each others AKC papers ... stupid ...
In the United States, it's not a breed unless the American Kennel Association says it is ... it's a financial distinction, not biological ... I take it you never finished middle school ...
Not biological? So one breed is exactly the same as the other. Lol. The brainwashing is strong in you.
saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,760
- 10,853
- 2,030
Weird, why do they call it social science when? Those scientists study race frequently.
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,966
- 2,768
- 315
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.""
`
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #59
I have come to understand that race is now considered to be a taxon below subspecies. All extant human beings are all the same subspecies, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, but below that, we have different races. The only other widely-recognized subspecies is Homo Sapiens Idaltu, now long extinct.
Among other primitive, extinct, human-like creatures, much debate and uncertainly remains as to which may have been subspecies of Homo Sapiens, and which may have been separate species. It's difficult to make such determinations without the ability to observe which groups were able to freely interbreed with which other groups, the ability to freely interbreed being the defining trait of a species.
JoeMoma
Platinum Member
- Nov 22, 2014
- 23,770
- 11,598
- 950
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
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Who’s investing in America? 23 big companies that just promised billions under Trump- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 1
-
CBS News: “MS-13” was digitally added to photo of Kilmar Abrego Garcia- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 5
-
Another dem destined for sainthood caught by ice....
- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 0
-
Asimov on anti-intellectualism- (full quote in body of post) "Democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 2
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
CBS News: “MS-13” was digitally added to photo of Kilmar Abrego Garcia- Latest: Toddsterpatriot
-
