Social Construct of Race: The Reality: physical characteristics - skin colour and hair texture are not reflected as discrete groups in our genomes

Dante

I have always been here
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
80,989
Reaction score
39,184
Points
2,300
Location
Rebellion Central
Long ago is was argued and I'd say proven that race is really a Social Construct. The Reality that physical characteristics such as skin color and hair texture are not reflected as discrete groups in our genomes, should be evidence enough to convince any interested person of what I am saying here. Yet, we all know that there are still groups of people that would separate themselves and others by a racial thing? A things that does not really exist on a scientific level.

:cool::cool-45:😎

A snippet of long conversation back and forth:

So very briefly with this complex picture, you alluded to it there,even other species that may have fed into the human story. How important is it that we create a sense of our shared humanity? Does this science have a potential to do that?

- I think the answer to that is a very clear yes. (all laughing) I mean, the thing is that more than anything that genetics has shown in the second half of the 20th century and now into the 21st century is quite how closely related humans are. We've talked at the very beginning about the shared genealogy,that the entire population of Europe is the entire set of the ancestors of us all today. We have shown conclusively that the artificial divisions that we created in the17th and 18th century based on physical characteristics such as skin colour and hair texture are not reflected as discrete groups in our genomes, which is the true metric of human similarity and difference. And so that's why we refer to race as a 'socially constructed' idea. It is not biologically meaningful.

All of these things point in one direction, which is to our shared humanity. - Yeah, and on that,it's not just genetics. We are very, very well connected. I mean, just even looking at this late Neolithic plague that stretched all the way from Britain to Russia, it's not just genetics,it's also human connections. We see with the late Neolithic, early Bronze Age, how that lineage, that pandemic could spread all the way from Britain to Russia. This is before planes, trains and cars. So we're always mixing what is very complex trade routes and sharing of information and culture and languages. And it doesn't just have to be this idea of we share genetics to feel this like human unity. - I mean, yeah, it augments what we see at archaeological sites as well in some ways. We have this site in Poulton in Cheshire, which was a medieval cemetery, where we have phases of plague.

There was a Black Death plague epidemic that went through this community more than once.
And at one point, there was a burial of two children. We found out that those children probably died of plague and that they were brothers as well. So when you see those specific contexts and are able to use DNA to add to those specific stories of those individuals within these communities, that gives you sort of a very acute sense of these were human people in the past
having the same reaction and having to respond in particular ways. And that's what the DNA can sometimes help with.


- Yeah, I mean, at least to me, I really get this sense of wonder and thinking about this different ancestry that ultimately connects us all and sort of a sense of vertigo, looking back these hundreds and thousands of generations into the past. I mean, very much shared humanity. But I would also say that, you know, if anyone is sitting and sort of don't believe what is said, Tom mentioned that all the data from ancient DNA in general is publicly available. And if you have a bit of coding experience,you can download it and ask those questions yourself, and that would be doing science.

- Well, thank you very much. Thank you to our panel, Dr. Pooja Swali, Professor Pontus Skoglund, Dr. Adam Rutherford and Dr. Tom Booth. (audience applauding)



note: This is Not a thread about race, as much as it is a thread about science. I would say "the science of race" but there is no science behind the idea of "race."
 
Yep...

Oops! We ran into some problems.
You must wait at least 2 seconds before performing this action.
 
Bullshit science.

Define "discrete groups".
 
Racial differences can usually be determined by appearance, and always by DNA analysis. Once we determine racial difference it becomes relevant to determine how the races differ by average intelligence and by rates of crime and illegitimacy.
 
Bullshit science.

Define "discrete groups".
try and keep up.

read and/or listen to what the expert, the scientist had said

Racial differences can usually be determined by appearance, and always by DNA analysis. Once we determine racial difference it becomes relevant to determine how the races differ by average intelligence and by rates of crime and illegitimacy.
Even an AI Bot , so not sure what you are going on about
AI Overview


DNA: Can siblings have different ethnicity estimates ...


Scientific evidence demonstrates that racial categories cannot be determined by appearance, nor are they defined by DNA, as race is considered a social, not biological, construct. While DNA can map ancestry or geographical origin, it does not confirm the socially assigned, arbitrary categories of "race".
  • Appearance is Misleading: Physical traits like skin color, hair texture, and facial features are superficial, evolving based on environmental factors (like solar radiation) rather than deep genetic divides. These traits do not reflect true genetic variation, which is 99.9% identical among all humans.

  • DNA Shows Ancestry, Not Race: DNA tests analyze genetic markers for ancestry, offering percentages of regional heritage, not a specific "race". A person may have varied, diverse ancestry that does not match their socially assigned race.

  • Arbitrary Groupings: Genetic variation is continuous, meaning there are no distinct, genetically separated, or "pure" biological groups. Genetic studies show that individuals often share as much, or more, genetic information with people outside their socially defined race as with those inside.

  • Social Construction: Race is a, historical, and, legal, concept, rather than a genetic reality.
In short, human diversity exists, but it does not map onto the traditional, rigid, and, socially constructed, definitions of race.
 
try and keep up.

read and/or listen to what the expert, the scientist had said


Even an AI Bot , so not sure what you are going on about
AI Overview


View attachment 1222728

Scientific evidence demonstrates that racial categories cannot be determined by appearance, nor are they defined by DNA, as race is considered a social, not biological, construct. While DNA can map ancestry or geographical origin, it does not confirm the socially assigned, arbitrary categories of "race".
  • Appearance is Misleading: Physical traits like skin color, hair texture, and facial features are superficial, evolving based on environmental factors (like solar radiation) rather than deep genetic divides. These traits do not reflect true genetic variation, which is 99.9% identical among all humans.

  • DNA Shows Ancestry, Not Race: DNA tests analyze genetic markers for ancestry, offering percentages of regional heritage, not a specific "race". A person may have varied, diverse ancestry that does not match their socially assigned race.

  • Arbitrary Groupings: Genetic variation is continuous, meaning there are no distinct, genetically separated, or "pure" biological groups. Genetic studies show that individuals often share as much, or more, genetic information with people outside their socially defined race as with those inside.

  • Social Construction: Race is a, historical, and, legal, concept, rather than a genetic reality.
In short, human diversity exists, but it does not map onto the traditional, rigid, and, socially constructed, definitions of race.
  • DNA Shows Ancestry, Not Race: DNA tests analyze genetic markers for ancestry, offering percentages of regional heritage, not a specific "race". A person may have varied, diverse ancestry that does not match their socially assigned race.
Ancestry and race are equivalent. The three major races are Orientals, whites, and Negroes. These can usually be distinguished by appearance and always by DNA analysis. The three major races differ in average intelligence, and in rates of crime and illegitimacy.
 
Ancestry and race are equivalent.

Homeboy is clueless. Doggone leftards are as bad as the creationists, everyone wants to use their bullshit science to claim some legitimacy. It never works. It might work on a few dimtards for a little while, but eventually someone's going to come along who actually knows something. Discrete groups, indeed. Tell me something Mr. OP WiseGuy, does the same gene code for black hair and black skin or is that two different genes?
 
try and keep up.

read and/or listen to what the expert, the scientist had said


Even an AI Bot , so not sure what you are going on about
AI Overview


View attachment 1222728

Scientific evidence demonstrates that racial categories cannot be determined by appearance, nor are they defined by DNA, as race is considered a social, not biological, construct. While DNA can map ancestry or geographical origin, it does not confirm the socially assigned, arbitrary categories of "race".
  • Appearance is Misleading: Physical traits like skin color, hair texture, and facial features are superficial, evolving based on environmental factors (like solar radiation) rather than deep genetic divides. These traits do not reflect true genetic variation, which is 99.9% identical among all humans.

  • DNA Shows Ancestry, Not Race: DNA tests analyze genetic markers for ancestry, offering percentages of regional heritage, not a specific "race". A person may have varied, diverse ancestry that does not match their socially assigned race.

  • Arbitrary Groupings: Genetic variation is continuous, meaning there are no distinct, genetically separated, or "pure" biological groups. Genetic studies show that individuals often share as much, or more, genetic information with people outside their socially defined race as with those inside.

  • Social Construction: Race is a, historical, and, legal, concept, rather than a genetic reality.
In short, human diversity exists, but it does not map onto the traditional, rigid, and, socially constructed, definitions of race.
Humans and chimps share 98.8% of DNA.
 
Chimpanzees are just a social construct.
Humans and chimps share 98.8% of DNA.
Humans and other species share much because all life has an ancestor, but where you two losers are exposed as being such a stupid fus is here:

"Humans share a significant amount of DNA with other species, ranging from ~98-99% with chimpanzees to roughly 60% with bananas, reflecting a shared evolutionary history and common ancestors. This genetic similarity is highest among mammals (~90% with mice and dogs) and decreases with more distant species, confirming that all life on Earth is related through a universal genetic code."

You see, your attempt to score a point with such pathetic misunderstanding of things is...

patehtic
 
The author is an idiot.

And so are you.


I know you weirdos hte science, but attacking scientists like this is just so like Trump.

You must be a Stable Genius with the best Words?

I bet you could you call me and make a "perfect" phone call?
 
I know you weirdos hte science, but attacking scientists like this is just so like Trump.

The author doesn't know what the **** he's talking about, and neither do you.

You must be a Stable Genius with the best Words?

I know the vocabulary in this field, yes. Been in it for 40 years. Used to work right downstairs from Francis Crick. You can't fool me with any bullshit about "direct groups". That stuff is for ignorant leftards.

I bet you could you call me and make a "perfect" phone call?

No, thanks. I suggest you Google "eumelanin" before opening your mouth again.
 
The author doesn't know what the **** he's talking about, and neither do you.



I know the vocabulary in this field, yes. Been in it for 40 years. Used to work right downstairs from Francis Crick. You can't fool me with any bullshit about "direct groups". That stuff is for ignorant leftards.



No, thanks. I suggest you Google "eumelanin" before opening your mouth again.
Sure, you know more than people who are scientists and experts in their fields

:auiqs.jpg:

You must be a Stable Genius with the best Words. Come on. Admit that is how you view yourself

:laughing0301:
 
15th post
Sure, you know more than people who are scientists and experts in their fields

I am an expert in the field, shit for brains.

:auiqs.jpg:

You must be a Stable Genius with the best Words. Come on. Admit that is how you view yourself

:laughing0301:

Compared to you, I'm God Himself.

You didn't really think you'd get away with floating bullshit science, did you?

Look up MC1R gene, it's on chromosome 16.
 
Back
Top Bottom