Some people say race isn't real

[MayorQuimby]

They say things like, there is more genetic variation within a single race than between two races.

This has always confused me. I understand that there can be genetic differences between the individuals of a race. Individuals are different, I get that. But, the individuals of another race will not only also possess these individual differences, they are of a different race and so should have even more differences on top of that,

For example, you look at white people. There are a lot of genetic differences between any two white persons. But, if you look at two Chinese persons, they will have genetic differences between them and the white persons. These are due to the individual differences. But, they are of a different race on top of that, so there should be racial differences in addition to the individual differences. The end result should still be that the Chinese persons are more different from the white persons than the white persons are different from each other, right?

Help me understand.

 

[1srelluc]

There is only one race....The human race.... "Racism" is a canard.

The difference is in ethnicities.

 

[Woodznutz]

There is only one race....The human race.... "Racism" is a canard.

The difference is in ethnicities.

Plus nationality and culture.

 

[1srelluc]

Plus nationality and culture.

All that stems from the various ethnicities.

Blacks in my AO are not the blacks of DC....Only 60-odd miles away.

 

[Muhammed]

They say things like, there is more genetic variation within a single race than between two races.

This has always confused me. I understand that there can be genetic differences between the individuals of a race. Individuals are different, I get that. But, the individuals of another race will not only also possess these individual differences, they are of a different race and so should have even more differences on top of that,

For example, you look at white people. There are a lot of genetic differences between any two white persons. But, if you look at two Chinese persons, they will have genetic differences between them and the white persons. These are due to the individual differences. But, they are of a different race on top of that, so there should be racial differences in addition to the individual differences. The end result should still be that the Chinese persons are more different from the white persons than the white persons are different from each other, right?

Help me understand.

Race is defined arbitrarily.

 

[jwoodie]

Racial characteristics are generally well defined and used in forensic science.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Race is defined arbitrarily.

Thread win.

 

[MayorQuimby]

So....if I see someone like Janet Jackson, I will not be able to tell she's black? And if I see Taylor Swift, I will not be able to tell she's white?

I am amazed by some people's ability to deceive themselves. Reality contradicts your delusions, sorry. Races exist. People can clearly be put in categories based on physical characteristics. Does this make you cry? I bet it does.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Race is defined arbitrarily.

No one has tried to define what a zipper is, yet most of us can tell a zipper when we see one.

 

[scruffy]

Race is defined arbitrarily.

No it isn't.

Race is defined medically.

Black people for instance, get sickle cell anemia. No one else does.

 

[Muhammed]

No it isn't.

Race is defined medically.

Black people for instance, get sickle cell anemia. No one else does.

You are incorrect.

 

[Vastator]

They say things like, there is more genetic variation within a single race than between two races.

This has always confused me. I understand that there can be genetic differences between the individuals of a race. Individuals are different, I get that. But, the individuals of another race will not only also possess these individual differences, they are of a different race and so should have even more differences on top of that,

For example, you look at white people. There are a lot of genetic differences between any two white persons. But, if you look at two Chinese persons, they will have genetic differences between them and the white persons. These are due to the individual differences. But, they are of a different race on top of that, so there should be racial differences in addition to the individual differences. The end result should still be that the Chinese persons are more different from the white persons than the white persons are different from each other, right?

Help me understand.

There is greater genetic variation amongst "white people" than that of other races. If a woman has a child outside her own race, she's actually going to have less genetic similarity with her own child, than she will with many members of her own race. Then there is the ancestral contributions to the various races as a whole. SubSaharan Africans. Pre global dispersion had no Neanderthal component to their genetic make-up. Whites had as much as 3%. Fractions of a percent in difference in genes can lead to extraordinary differences in genetic expression. Asians, depending on the part of Asia have contributors from both Neanderthals, and Denisovans. Which makes for no surprise when one sees their strikingly different morphology.
All this race quibbling, "we're all the same" is quite childish considering that amongst every other groups of living things on this planet; we're comfortable in breaking them down into groups based on morphology, habitat, appearance, intelligence, and behavior. But do that with bi pedal Homonids..? RAAAAYCISSS!!!

 

[ReinyDays]

Zoologically ... humans are all one taxon ... meaning we inter-breed freely across all the lines we draw ... there are no sub-species, races, or forms ... we are all too closely related to have enough genetic diversity ... DNA evidence points to a genetic bottle-neck ≈ 50,000 years ago ... if you believe in that evolution stuff ...

We draw a whole mess of lines ... they aren't biological lines, they're strictly social divisions ... racism is a choice ...

 

[Vastator]

Zoologically ... humans are all one taxon ... meaning we inter-breed freely across all the lines we draw ... there are no sub-species, races, or forms ... we are all too closely related to have enough genetic diversity ... DNA evidence points to a genetic bottle-neck ≈ 50,000 years ago ... if you believe in that evolution stuff ...

We draw a whole mess of lines ... they aren't biological lines, they're strictly social divisions ... racism is a choice ...

Yet we have polar bears. We have grizzly bears. We have black bears. Who also can, and do interbreed freely when "the right circumstances" arise. Yet taxonomically they are classified as separate. And the same goes for a whole host of other creatures. But bipedal hominids are exempt from this classification..?

 

[ReinyDays]

Yet we have polar bears. We have grizzly bears. We have black bears. Who also can, and do interbreed freely when "the right circumstances" arise. Yet taxonomically they are classified as separate. And the same goes for a whole host of other creatures. But bipedal hominids are exempt from this classification..?

Do polar bears and grizzly bears regularly inter-breed? ... my understanding is they don't ... thus they are separate taxons ...

A better example is the Canines ... in captivity, we can get them to all produce hybrids, and these hybrids themselves are fertile ... although extremely rare, these hybrids have been found in the wild ... what's unknown to science is these wild hybrids themselves producing young ... even though we can do that in captivity ...

We don't know why ... but the fact remains wolves and coyotes never* interbreed in the wild ... they are different taxons ... they are reproductively isolated from each other ... we have none of this reproductive isolation in humans ... Chinese folk marry Scots ... Whities marry Blackies ... Germans and Australians ... blending us every which way into one giant melting pot ...

Notice I use the word "taxon" rather than "species" ... species can mean different things in different families ... it's generally left to the experts in that field to make that division based on what is useful ... it's useful to keep wolves and coyotes in different species ... same with humans and Neanderthals ... it's just easier to type in Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis, rather than some lengthly awkward Latinized gibberish ...

Skin color is a function of geographic latitude ... take a population of Laplanders and move them to The Congo ... keep them in reproductive isolation and their skin color will turn black ... all the genetics are there, the DNA we all have covers all the skin colors ... what zoologists call an "orthographic variation" based on Vitamin D production ... further the equator, the whiter the skin ... and again, if you believe in that evolution stuff ...

* = or extremely rare ...

 

[Vastator]

Do polar bears and grizzly bears regularly inter-breed? ... my understanding is they don't ... thus they are separate taxons ...

A better example is the Canines ... in captivity, we can get them to all produce hybrids, and these hybrids themselves are fertile ... although extremely rare, these hybrids have been found in the wild ... what's unknown to science is these wild hybrids themselves producing young ... even though we can do that in captivity ...

We don't know why ... but the fact remains wolves and coyotes never* interbreed in the wild ... they are different taxons ... they are reproductively isolated from each other ... we have none of this reproductive isolation in humans ... Chinese folk marry Scots ... Whities marry Blackies ... Germans and Australians ... blending us every which way into one giant melting pot ...

Notice I use the word "taxon" rather than "species" ... species can mean different things in different families ... it's generally left to the experts in that field to make that division based on what is useful ... it's useful to keep wolves and coyotes in different species ... same with humans and Neanderthals ... it's just easier to type in Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis, rather than some lengthly awkward Latinized gibberish ...

Skin color is a function of geographic latitude ... take a population of Laplanders and move them to The Congo ... keep them in reproductive isolation and their skin color will turn black ... all the genetics are there, the DNA we all have covers all the skin colors ... what zoologists call an "orthographic variation" based on Vitamin D production ... further the equator, the whiter the skin ... and again, if you believe in that evolution stuff ...

* = or extremely rare ...

Not so with the bears, and many other species. When contact and pressures are sufficient they breed. And the offspring are not infertile. Take your racist apologetics down the road. We're trying to keep it "real" here.

 

[ReinyDays]

Not so with the bears, and many other species. When contact and pressures are sufficient they breed. And the offspring are not infertile. Take your racist apologetics down the road. We're trying to keep it "real" here.

Ah ... the ad hominem attack ... thank you for admitting my statements are unassailable ...

 

[Vastator]

Ah ... the ad hominem attack ... thank you for admitting my statements are unassailable ...

You misspelled unintelligible...

 

[scruffy]

You are incorrect.

Actually I'm spot on

 

[konradv]

They say things like, there is more genetic variation within a single race than between two races.

This has always confused me. I understand that there can be genetic differences between the individuals of a race. Individuals are different, I get that. But, the individuals of another race will not only also possess these individual differences, they are of a different race and so should have even more differences on top of that,

For example, you look at white people. There are a lot of genetic differences between any two white persons. But, if you look at two Chinese persons, they will have genetic differences between them and the white persons. These are due to the individual differences. But, they are of a different race on top of that, so there should be racial differences in addition to the individual differences. The end result should still be that the Chinese persons are more different from the white persons than the white persons are different from each other, right?

Help me understand.

Basing anything on skin color is superficial.