Your Version Of Race

[flacaltenn]

Taxonomy gets rather vague when you get below species. Species is defined by the ability to freely interbreed. All extant human beings are considered to be the same species, Sapiens, below the genus Homo.

I once heard it claimed that black people were a “subspecies” of humans, the statement being made in an ignorant manner that suggested that “subspecies” meant that they were inferior to the main species. By a correct use of the term subspecies, I thought that it would be correct to say that black people were subspecies, but that white people are another subspecies, Asians yet another, and so on.

Subspecies doesn't mean anything more or less than different classifications within a species, with no implication of any being any superior or inferior to any other.

On some more recent study, I learned that I was actually incorrect with regard to ho we are taxonomically classified. As it turns out, all extant human beings are considered to be not only the same species, but the same subspecies as well. There are several others forms of primitive humans that are the subject of debate as to whether they were subspecies of Homo Sapiens or separate species. I guess that would be very difficult to reliably determine without being able to observe which of them were freely able to interbreed with Homo Sapiens or with each other.

With humans, race is a taxon below subspecies. It's recognized that even within what is recognized as a single subspecies within a species, that there are further distinct divisions within that.

I'm not really sure how that works. It seems to me that once you get below species, that it doesn't make much sense to try to create more than one taxonomic level below that. Clearly, within the species that is Homo Sapiens, there are subsets of us with distinctively different traits, that make sense to distinguish as different taxa below the species. But at this point, all are able to freely interbreed, and the only way we get such divisions is by having had large groups within the species isolated far enough and long enough from other groups to evolve in different directions. I'm not sure how it makes sense to say that all are the same subspecies, and then try to create categories below that to distinguish the different varieties of us.

Variation below species is not hard to deal with when you're dealing with wrens, cows, or lobsters or roses. Because THERE you're dealing with variations of IDENTITIFYING characteristics. And taxonomy is a bit outdated?

Because we're way into the gate of GENETIC identity now. You can be excluded from a medical clinical trial because you lack a single gene sequence. DOES IT MAKE A DIFF? Sure -- for purposes of say "targeting a drug" or predicting life expectancy for an insurance company.

So RACE is out of place. Maybe GETTING arcane as a term. Unless Wrens use the term to identify close relatives also,. LOL..

 

[flacaltenn]

Whites are not being discriminated against. Your post is pure idiocy.

That wasn't the Opost. OP gave 5 DIFFERENT versions of views about race. And which one might be closer to the way you see it.

 

[22lcidw]

Well….here we are, thread #367 once again a’trolling on race.

Since you demand yet carefully avoid actual discussion, I’ll give this another try.

Different “races“ exist, with genetic differences based on their origins. But what makes them a race?

For example, people of African origin (who actually present a wide variety of appearances)…are mostly defined by skin color which is controlled by genes that determine how much melanin you get.

There are indiginous people who live in the Andes and have a unique mutations that allow them to survive at high altitudes. Why aren’t they a “race”?

Likewise, it was a social construct that determined WHO was black and who wasn’t in order to maintain a uniquely American class system.

Where do mixed race people fall?

Are Australian aborigines a race?

Exactly how many “races” are there and what makes them a race?

Today, we judge races on their abuses to other races. And then to get more specific accuse that race of being the only violent one. It is bad when technology gives a race a way to record its misgivings. Other races history are too murky in their utopian ways of living we never knew because they did not record their greatness to the human experience.

 

[EvMetro]

Wrong. But this is the only reason you're starting these threads.

Who is going to celebrate black history month if there are no blacks? Better yet, who's history would we be celebrating if there are no blacks?

 

[ClaireH]

Taxonomy gets rather vague when you get below species. Species is defined by the ability to freely interbreed. All extant human beings are considered to be the same species, Sapiens, below the genus Homo.

I once heard it claimed that black people were a “subspecies” of humans, the statement being made in an ignorant manner that suggested that “subspecies” meant that they were inferior to the main species. By a correct use of the term subspecies, I thought that it would be correct to say that black people were subspecies, but that white people are another subspecies, Asians yet another, and so on.

Subspecies doesn't mean anything more or less than different classifications within a species, with no implication of any being any superior or inferior to any other.

On some more recent study, I learned that I was actually incorrect with regard to ho we are taxonomically classified. As it turns out, all extant human beings are considered to be not only the same species, but the same subspecies as well. There are several others forms of primitive humans that are the subject of debate as to whether they were subspecies of Homo Sapiens or separate species. I guess that would be very difficult to reliably determine without being able to observe which of them were freely able to interbreed with Homo Sapiens or with each other.

With humans, race is a taxon below subspecies. It's recognized that even within what is recognized as a single subspecies within a species, that there are further distinct divisions within that.

I'm not really sure how that works. It seems to me that once you get below species, that it doesn't make much sense to try to create more than one taxonomic level below that. Clearly, within the species that is Homo Sapiens, there are subsets of us with distinctively different traits, that make sense to distinguish as different taxa below the species. But at this point, all are able to freely interbreed, and the only way we get such divisions is by having had large groups within the species isolated far enough and long enough from other groups to evolve in different directions. I'm not sure how it makes sense to say that all are the same subspecies, and then try to create categories below that to distinguish the different varieties of us.

Thank you BB for a most informative post. It led me to find the following interpretation regarding race back to Age of Enlightenment, but I’ll search later for earlier references possibly in ancient history.

“What is unequivocal is that the colloquial and traditional descriptions of race that are commonly used in the West are not accurately reflected by underlying genetics. Much of this disconnect is derived from the historical roots of the pseudoscience of race, founded in the so-called Age of Enlightenment, by writers and thinkers, most of whom did not visit the continents or the people they were attempting to categorize. These clumsy, erroneous and judgmental taxonomies stuck and echo into the present.”

That last statement describes the problems that appear to have stemmed, at least partially, from bulking different groups together under the same sub-caregory. For instance, people born in Sierra Leone given the same race label as those born in Sudan. Labeling /grouping individuals together according to geography is on the right track, but doesn’t go far enough using “white” or “black” without understanding there are additional “sub-differences” as you’ve indicated left to the wayside due to ignorance. It would indeed be hard to specify ethnicities without visiting the African continent, much less not visiting each country for the sake of accuracy.

What Does DNA Tell Us About Race?

66 years after the discovery of the structure of DNA, a position statement by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists clarifies what it tells us about human variation.

www.forbes.com

Maybe it boils down to a general human preference to simplify things but that was a mistake when it comes to defining race. The definition of race can certainly evolve, but the problem again I come back to is using the word race in the first place. Well, it’s just going to be something I need to get over lol

 

[flacaltenn]

Well….here we are, thread #367 once again a’trolling on race.

Since you demand yet carefully avoid actual discussion, I’ll give this another try.

Different “races“ exist, with genetic differences based on their origins. But what makes them a race?

For example, people of African origin (who actually present a wide variety of appearances)…are mostly defined by skin color which is controlled by genes that determine how much melanin you get.

There are indiginous people who live in the Andes and have a unique mutations that allow them to survive at high altitudes. Why aren’t they a “race”?

Likewise, it was a social construct that determined WHO was black and who wasn’t in order to maintain a uniquely American class system.

Where do mixed race people fall?

Are Australian aborigines a race?

Exactly how many “races” are there and what makes them a race?

They are also SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to be Vitamin D deprived and other effects that science CANNOT ignore. LARGELY BECAUSE of melanin differences.

Are we to RENAME that also?

Prevalence of Vitamin D Deficiency and Associated Risk Factors in the US Population (2011-2012)

Introduction1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), the hormonally active form of vitamin D3, is a lipid-soluble compound that plays a significant role in clinical medicine due to its potent effects on calcium homeostasis and bone metabolism. Since ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Tables 2 and 3. It's a SERIOUS difference in the days of Covid where low D vitamin can impair your immune system. It's also not just a diff. It;s a BIG racial diff. See the numbers in the study above.

Want to declare that no one takes RACE into account when finding shit like this out in professional studies?

Race has been ABUSED as weapon. That's why the left is so EAGER to "cancel it". Because that's what leftists do.. SUV decides to mow down Christmas parade??

It's the weapons' fault.

Gun kills 23 people on weekend in Chicago?

It's the gun's fault.. See the connection here yet?

So if 2.1% of white folks are PEDIGREED RACISTS and you want to thwart them -- take away race AS A WEAPON. Great idea in a cloud of Ghanga smoke, but really isn't well thought out.

The "taint" on race as sometimes useful tool for figuring out HOW TO HELP PEOPLE -- is largely historical. Because damn, race and ethnicity accounts for the vast majority of historical hate and discrimination going back to caveman days.. But even the OLD GOAL of getting to a "color-blind" society which some guy with a Federal Holiday named after him PUSHED for and sacrificed his life for --- NEVER MEANT that race does not exist.

Because you ARE stripping key identity from the minority races (and in some cases the majority races) by saying it DOES NOT EXIST.

When people say they are Asian, that's both a race tag and geographical tag. You could outlaw that race tag -- but the geographical tag WOULD STILL EXIST.. And in our NEW world of understanding the genome and USING IT -- the effect of using race or geographic family trees is IDENTICAL in most cases.

It's NOT racist to merely RECOGNIZE race. But it IS if you USE IT as a weapon against Asian, Amer.Indian, Hispanics, Whites or Blacks.

 

[EvMetro]

They are also SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to be Vitamin D deprived and other effects that science CANNOT ignore. LARGELY BECAUSE of melanin differences.

Are we to RENAME that also?

Prevalence of Vitamin D Deficiency and Associated Risk Factors in the US Population (2011-2012)

Introduction1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), the hormonally active form of vitamin D3, is a lipid-soluble compound that plays a significant role in clinical medicine due to its potent effects on calcium homeostasis and bone metabolism. Since ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Tables 2 and 3. It's a SERIOUS difference in the days of Covid where low D vitamin can impair your immune system. It's also not just a diff. It;s a BIG racial diff. See the numbers in the study above.

Want to declare that no one takes RACE into account when finding shit like this out in professional studies?

Race has been ABUSED as weapon. That's why the left is so EAGER to "cancel it". Because that's what leftists do.. SUV decides to mow down Christmas parade??

It's the weapons' fault.

Gun kills 23 people on weekend in Chicago?

It's the gun's fault.. See the connection here yet?

So if 2.1% of white folks are PEDIGREED RACISTS and you want to thwart them -- take away race AS A WEAPON. Great idea in a cloud of Ghanga smoke, but really isn't well thought out.

The "taint" on race as sometimes useful tool for figuring out HOW TO HELP PEOPLE -- is largely historical. Because damn, race and ethnicity accounts for the vast majority of historical hate and discrimination going back to caveman days.. But even the OLD GOAL of getting to a "color-blind" society which some guy with a Federal Holiday named after him PUSHED for and sacrificed his life for --- NEVER MEANT that race does not exist.

Because you ARE stripping key identity from the minority races (and in some cases the majority races) by saying it DOES NOT EXIST.

When people say they are Asian, that's both a race tag and geographical tag. You could outlaw that race tag -- but the geographical tag WOULD STILL EXIST.. And in our NEW world of understanding the genome and USING IT -- the effect of using race or geographic family trees is IDENTICAL in most cases.

It's NOT racist to merely RECOGNIZE race. But it IS if you USE IT as a weapon against Asian, Amer.Indian, Hispanics, Whites or Blacks.

Spot on

 

[flacaltenn]

Thank you BB for a most informative post. It led me to find the following interpretation regarding race back to Age of Enlightenment, but I’ll search later for earlier references possibly in ancient history.

“What is unequivocal is that the colloquial and traditional descriptions of race that are commonly used in the West are not accurately reflected by underlying genetics. Much of this disconnect is derived from the historical roots of the pseudoscience of race, founded in the so-called Age of Enlightenment, by writers and thinkers, most of whom did not visit the continents or the people they were attempting to categorize. These clumsy, erroneous and judgmental taxonomies stuck and echo into the present.”

That last statement describes the problems that appear to have stemmed, at least partially, from bulking different groups together under the same sub-caregory. For instance, people born in Sierra Leone given the same race label as those born in Sudan. Labeling /grouping individuals together according to geography is on the right track, but doesn’t go far enough using “white” or “black” without understanding there are additional “sub-differences” as you’ve indicated left to the wayside due to ignorance. It would indeed be hard to specify ethnicities without visiting the African continent, much less not visiting each country for the sake of accuracy.

What Does DNA Tell Us About Race?

66 years after the discovery of the structure of DNA, a position statement by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists clarifies what it tells us about human variation.

www.forbes.com

Maybe it boils down to a general human preference to simplify things but that was a mistake when it comes to defining race. The definition of race can certainly evolve, but the problem again I come back to is using the word race in the first place. Well, it’s just going to be something I need to get over lol

Not taking a swipe at you at all. You're just a victim of OVER-STATED science.

Your DNA is 4O to 60% THE SAME --- as a Seriously -- it is. We share 98.8% with Chimpanzees and about 90% with mice and 84% with dogs.. I'll bet cats are LOT less than that.

Animals That Share Human DNA Sequences

Animals That Share Human DNA Sequences. With the discovery of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, and the technology to sequence the genomes of both humans and animals, it is no surprise to find that we have a lot in common with our animal friends. How much humans have in common with animals...

education.seattlepi.com

Apes, Monkeys, And Humans​

Humans are most closely related to the great apes of the family Hominidae. This family includes orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos. Of the great apes, humans share 98.8 percent of their DNA with bonobos and chimpanzees. Humans and gorillas share 98.4 percent of their DNA. Once the apes are not native to Africa however, the differences in DNA increase. Humans and orangutans share 96.9 percent of their DNA. Humans and monkeys share approximately 93 percent.

Mice​

Humans and mice share nearly 90 percent of human DNA. This is important because mice have been used in laboratories as experimental animals for research into human disease processes for years. Mice are currently used in genetic research to test gene replacement, and gene therapy because they have similar gene types to those of humans and will have similar reactions to diseases and disease processes.

IN FACT -- It's ridiculously easy now for us to "humanize" a mouse to have the same lung tissue or any other parts of a mouse by TWEAKING A COUPLE HUNDRED LETTERS in it's DNA genome.

AND there's a big biz and special science of producing "humanized mice" for research.

So when you run across these "amazingly culturally correct" statistics of the TINY Infinitesimal differences in DNA between human races -- take a big dose of anti-wokeness med. Because a DEFECT in ONE gene could end your life as you know.

And remember you're about 50% --- banana -- anyways.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's just shades of brown.

It's just shades of brown.

Yep. There is very little difference physiologically or genetically.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yep. There is very little difference physiologically or genetically.

Did you read my post above about the differences in %DNA between you and a dancing banana? True story..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Did you read my post above about the differences in %DNA between you and a dancing banana? True story..

What about it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fun fact:

"A wide-ranging study published in 2004 found that 87.6% percent of the total modern human genetic diversity is accounted for by the differences between individuals, and only 9.2% between continents. " - Smithsonian

 

[Coyote]

They are also SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to be Vitamin D deprived and other effects that science CANNOT ignore. LARGELY BECAUSE of melanin differences.

Are we to RENAME that also?

Prevalence of Vitamin D Deficiency and Associated Risk Factors in the US Population (2011-2012)

Introduction1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), the hormonally active form of vitamin D3, is a lipid-soluble compound that plays a significant role in clinical medicine due to its potent effects on calcium homeostasis and bone metabolism. Since ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Tables 2 and 3. It's a SERIOUS difference in the days of Covid where low D vitamin can impair your immune system. It's also not just a diff. It;s a BIG racial diff. See the numbers in the study above.

Want to declare that no one takes RACE into account when finding shit like this out in professional studies?

Already said I agree with you on that earlier, did you miss it? But here’s the issue, how do you define race? I pointed out distinct biological differences among other groups such as in the Andes. Add to that the differences in metabolism among groups that evolved to adapt to a sparse, low carb diet and now have serious health issues with obesity and diabetes. Yet aren’t considered “races” but ethnic groups.

Race has been ABUSED as weapon. That's why the left is so EAGER to "cancel it". Because that's what leftists do.. SUV decides to mow down Christmas parade??

You are ignoring the rights insistence that we must be a “race blind society” while simultaneously throwing up black crime statistics. Or, the very real attempts of the right to “cancel” through legislative fiat.

It's the weapons' fault.

Gun kills 23 people on weekend in Chicago?

It's the gun's fault.. See the connection here yet?

No.

So if 2.1% of white folks are PEDIGREED RACISTS and you want to thwart them -- take away race AS A WEAPON. Great idea in a cloud of Ghanga smoke, but really isn't well thought out.

The "taint" on race as sometimes useful tool for figuring out HOW TO HELP PEOPLE -- is largely historical. Because damn, race and ethnicity accounts for the vast majority of historical hate and discrimination going back to caveman days.. But even the OLD GOAL of getting to a "color-blind" society which some guy with a Federal Holiday named after him PUSHED for and sacrificed his life for --- NEVER MEANT that race does not exist.

I agree actually. I don’t agree that race doesn’t exist but it exists in two forms. One, the real biological differences and two, the artificial social constructs.

Because you ARE stripping key identity from the minority races (and in some cases the majority races) by saying it DOES NOT EXIST.

When people say they are Asian, that's both a race tag and geographical tag. You could outlaw that race tag -- but the geographical tag WOULD STILL EXIST.. And in our NEW world of understanding the genome and USING IT -- the effect of using race or geographic family trees is IDENTICAL in most cases.

It's NOT racist to merely RECOGNIZE race. But it IS if you USE IT as a weapon against Asian, Amer.Indian, Hispanics, Whites or Blacks.

 

[ClaireH]

Not taking a swipe at you at all. You're just a victim of OVER-STATED science.

Your DNA is 4O to 60% THE SAME --- as a Seriously -- it is. We share 98.8% with Chimpanzees and about 90% with mice and 84% with dogs.. I'll bet cats are LOT less than that.

Animals That Share Human DNA Sequences

Animals That Share Human DNA Sequences. With the discovery of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, and the technology to sequence the genomes of both humans and animals, it is no surprise to find that we have a lot in common with our animal friends. How much humans have in common with animals...

education.seattlepi.com

Apes, Monkeys, And Humans​

Humans are most closely related to the great apes of the family Hominidae. This family includes orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos. Of the great apes, humans share 98.8 percent of their DNA with bonobos and chimpanzees. Humans and gorillas share 98.4 percent of their DNA. Once the apes are not native to Africa however, the differences in DNA increase. Humans and orangutans share 96.9 percent of their DNA. Humans and monkeys share approximately 93 percent.

Mice​

Humans and mice share nearly 90 percent of human DNA. This is important because mice have been used in laboratories as experimental animals for research into human disease processes for years. Mice are currently used in genetic research to test gene replacement, and gene therapy because they have similar gene types to those of humans and will have similar reactions to diseases and disease processes.

IN FACT -- It's ridiculously easy now for us to "humanize" a mouse to have the same lung tissue or anyF other parts of a mouse by TWEAKING A COUPLE HUNDRED LETTERS in it's DNA genome.

AND there's a big biz and special science of producing "humanized mice" for research.

So when you run across these "amazingly culturally correct" statistics of the TINY Infinitesimal differences in DNA between human races -- take a big dose of anti-wokeness med. Because a DEFECT in ONE gene could end your life as you know.

And remember you're about 50% --- banana -- anyways.

Yes, all true and important to this discussion! I considered jumping in about DNA similarities among human primates and primates (chimps mostly) but had a brain freeze before I could type it!

We have reached the crossroads once again with evaluating "right versus wrong" decisions. The quest for knowledge is a strong pull for many people in all walks of life, and certainly within the scientific and medical community at large. Humanized mice, humanized frogs, soon other mammals (revealed to public), humanized robots as well. AI will really play into this current rave for creating something first and something unique. Creating a new life form, most risky, yes? Yikes, and I'm all about knowledge and education, but there are ethical and safety limits that will be tested by over-achieving types who get caught up in their work and place it above all else.

Transparency is more crucial than ever. $$$$$$ funding is sought after by many teams of researchers, in stiff competition, and funding is not awarded to any researcher considered to be "too novel"(I find that most interesting) with funding biases resulting. I was glad to read about an outfit going to track all medical data and papers, US/India/England I believe, based in India. I like the idea of a few separate databases external to government oversite and control. We'll see what transpires, but it sounds promising.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fun fact:

"A wide-ranging study published in 2004 found that 87.6% percent of the total modern human genetic diversity is accounted for by the differences between individuals, and only 9.2% between continents. " - Smithsonian

You wont read or comment on my post above then I take it.

You match 90% with a mouse. Even closer to "humanize mouse" used widely for research that had a couple hundred DNA building blocks tweaked,

98.8% with a chimpanzee. So explain WHY you let some wokester in lab coat IMPRESS you with junk you posted.

Here's the part I left out and what makes these woke claims of no genealogical basis for race even STUPIDER. The vast majority of our human genome is JUNK. Stuff like "tail and gill and wing" genes, remnants of ancient viruses, even traces of evolutionary close ancestors. But the junk is not expressed (activated). It can temporarily activated in a human embryo as you see "gill slits" at early stages of development.

But 80% to 90% of it is junk that does not matter. Subtract out "the junk" and lets look at the percentage of the REMAINING DNA that separates us from mice and chimpanzees that has IMPORTANT and significant differences by race -- or equivalently geographical ancestral origin. And remember one gene genetically passed out of 30,000 medically important ones can predict your HEALTH, LONGEVITY, or Severity of Disease.

So to REACH for those high numbers that you just snacked on WITHOUT any background is scientific malpractice on the wokesters pushing to cancel race.

 

[flacaltenn]

I pointed out distinct biological differences among other groups such as in the Andes. Add to that the differences in metabolism among groups that evolved to adapt to a sparse, low carb diet and now have serious health issues with obesity and diabetes. Yet aren’t considered “races” but ethnic groups.

Adaptation is not genealogy. UNTIL it becomes an ACTUAL change in gene(s). Now if they had a high DEATH rate or sickness rate TODAY when you're observing this -- MAYBE there's some genetic variations that WILL dominate in the future

No.

Nice deflection. I'm SURE you've seen the whacky fake news do the murderous SUV in the Waukesha story. And I'm SURE you KNOW whenever a hi profile shooting happens -- THE GUN is to blame. See Alec Baldwin, etc.. So what I said is that since RACE has been used as a weapon for time immemorial -- leftist attack the WEAPON -- which is their normal operational assumption and concept. REMOVE the weapon, and you've solved the problem,

You say No.. I say damn for sure YES,.. They really think if they float this meme about race does even exist genetically or otherwise -- that the WEAPON will be neutralized and REAL ACTUAL racists (of all colors BTW) that USE IT --- will be neutralized.

They are so effective aren't they? Rename something and you've accomplished your job to make the world safe from dreaded words.

I agree actually. I don’t agree that race doesn’t exist but it exists in two forms. One, the real biological differences and two, the artificial social constructs.

Almost agree here. The social constructs have 2 different expressions here. The GOOD social constructs that allow groups to SHARE their gene history and experiences as CULTURAL PLUSES -- And the BAD social constructs where race is used as that POWERFUL WEAPON to club folks or intimidate folks into compliance by racists (of all colors).

I think EvMetro is pounding on his/her right to RETAIN his/her "Good social constructs" derived from race. EVERYONE WANTS THAT. Whites and native Americans also...

 

[EvMetro]

The GOOD social constructs that allow groups to SHARE their gene history and experiences as CULTURAL PLUSES -- And the BAD social constructs where race is used as that POWERFUL WEAPON

Well said.
Denying that race exists, combining all races into one convenient race, or otherwise obscuring our races strips us of our "GOOD social constructs" When somebody marginalizes our individual racial identities with their efforts to perpetuate the notion race doesn't exist or that we are all one race, they are actually perpetuating racism. Trying to keep both parts of the conundrum is racist.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well said.
Denying that race exists, combining all races into one convenient race, or otherwise obscuring our races strips us of our "GOOD social constructs" When somebody marginalizes our individual racial identities with their efforts to perpetuate the notion race doesn't exist or that we are all one race, they are actually perpetuating racism. Trying to keep both parts of the conundrum is racist.

Can't have CRT if race doesn't exist. Simple concept for MOST people. But there's a case where race is used as a weapon. And BY design is intended to SEGREGATE the races on the basis of "original sin" or original virtue at birth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You wont read or comment on my post above then I take it.

You match 90% with a mouse. Even closer to "humanize mouse" used widely for research that had a couple hundred DNA building blocks tweaked,

98.8% with a chimpanzee. So explain WHY you let some wokester in lab coat IMPRESS you with junk you posted.

Here's the part I left out and what makes these woke claims of no genealogical basis for race even STUPIDER. The vast majority of our human genome is JUNK. Stuff like "tail and gill and wing" genes, remnants of ancient viruses, even traces of evolutionary close ancestors. But the junk is not expressed (activated). It can temporarily activated in a human embryo as you see "gill slits" at early stages of development.

But 80% to 90% of it is junk that does not matter. Subtract out "the junk" and lets look at the percentage of the REMAINING DNA that separates us from mice and chimpanzees that has IMPORTANT and significant differences by race -- or equivalently geographical ancestral origin. And remember one gene genetically passed out of 30,000 medically important ones can predict your HEALTH, LONGEVITY, or Severity of Disease.

So to REACH for those high numbers that you just snacked on WITHOUT any background is scientific malpractice on the wokesters pushing to cancel race.

You forgot to make a point

Humans have little genetic or physiological variability. Which is to be expected from a relatively recently developed species. Take any two himans and they will be physiologically and genetically very similar. Like Two Sparrows.

 

[flacaltenn]

Humans have little genetic or physiological variability. Which is to be expected from a relatively recently developed species. Take any two himans and they will be physiologically and genetically very similar. Like Two Sparrows.

That's tortured science. Since you start with the ENTIRE genome. I've mentioned that twice now. It's the RECENT excuse used now by the Woke to CANCEL race as a concept. So that that they THINK they're making science more INCLUSIVE and correct and feel virtuous,

I'm not gonna do the math for ya here -- I'll leave that up to you since you're not following along, but if you REMOVE the 90% of what we share with a LAB MOUSE and all of the ancient junk that is 85% of OUR genome and look at differences between members of JUST Homo Sapiens, that 1.5% or whatever the fools in labcoats are propagandizing about that is the DIFFERENCE in human origins or RACE is 8 to 10 times HIGHER than how they're trying to bamboozle with with tortured statistics.

Dont ACT like you share 50% with a banana -- which you DO.. Invest some time EXPLORING it and learning the science.