There is STILL no such thing as "race"! But there IS such thing as racism.

No, your only "point" is woke virtue signaling.

No it isn't. Such claims are false and absurd. 4.3% is the fraction of human genetic difference that is accounted for by geographic ancestry: i.e., race.

No, that's the fraction required to be considered a subspecies. In post #105 in this thread, which you have yet to address, I explained why that definition is not relevant to human beings or human races.

And I proved you wrong in post #105 in this thread.

No, I proved you wrong in post #105 in this thread, which you have yet to address.

 

It WOULD be what accounts for "race" if it were over 25%, which is the generally accepted threshold in any species. 4.3% is so far away from it that it's not even controversial.

Ancestry is not "race". Everybody living in the US today is almost certain to be a descendent of Charlemagne. Everybody in the world alive today is a descendent of Nefertiti. Which is not as remarkable as it sounds, because everybody alive today is a descendent of everybody alive in the 14th Century BC that left a number of offspring who survived in conquest wars or for any reason traveled the ancient world.

Your statement is naïve.

I presented CURRENT scientific studies. You present talking points that are readily available today almost exclusively in white supremacist webpages. Up to you which you prefer to follow.

 

No, that is the threshold for a subspecies. I already explained in post #105 why human races are not subspecies, and the criteria of subspecies are therefore not applicable to human races.

Which only proves that human races are not subspecies on the accepted animal model. Which we already knew anyway, if we read my post #105 in this thread (you didn't).

Yes it is.

How is any of that relevant? One's race is determined not by any given individual ancestor but by how much of one's genetic material derives from which of one's ancestors, and that is a matter of random chance. It is theoretically possible to have four white European great-great grandparents and twelve black African ones, and for all one's genes to be from the European ones. In practice, there is a multinomial distribution (similar to the normal distribution), with the probability of a given racial mix of genes depending on one's racial ancestry.

Yours is a red herring.

Which did not say what you claimed they said, while the one I presented did.

That is just another bald falsehood from you.

You are again forced to disingenuously associate the scientific study of race with unsavory ideas about it.

Disgraceful.

 

I provided my source, you have yet to provide yours.

They're all the same: Nefertiti.

Ancestry is not "race". Ancestry does NOT map to "race". The same black mother and white father can produce a white and a black child with a tiny gene variance between the siblings which could be of as few as two genes in respect to skin color. And you would consider them different "races". Whereas two completely different sets of parents could produce children with the same skin color genes, but many that differentiate eye color. And racists would consider them the same race. Or you would need to start making up all kinds of "races": the "blue-eyed 'race'", the "brown-eyed 'race'".... the sky's the limit if you want to categorize people based on genetic differences.

A white person in Poland would be considered by racists to be in the same "race" as a white person in Florida. The variance of the two could be abysmally more than between that white person in Florida and a Hispanic in Florida.

So the concept of "race", as I explained on the OP, does not stand on ANY sort of scientific theory. Not biology, not genetics, not anthropology.... and most definitely not on logic or common sense.

And this is further proven by the fact that you show NO current autoreactive source that supports the concept.

 

GARBAGE. I gave my source in post #105. YOUR source cited Rosemberg et al. 2002, which agrees with ME.

CLEAR???

Nope. They are only "all the same" in the sense that their a priori probability of contribution to any given descendant's genetic identity is the same. Their actual genetic contribution is only known for the F1. After that, it's a crapshoot.

I already proved it is.

Rosemberg et al. already proved it does.

Nope. In the F1, half the genes come from the mother, half from the father. It is only in later generations that ancestry's mapping to genes is probabilistic. Now, if by "black" and "white" you only mean someone who looks black or white, or is legally considered black or white, then it is true that we can't predict their children's skin color because we do not know their actual ancestry or genetic make-up -- i.e., their actual race. That doesn't mean their ancestors were not of certain races or that their genes were not all contributed by ancestors who belonged to certain races.

Would I? I don't subscribe to the views that race can be determined on the basis of skin color, or that a single black African ancestor several generations back is enough to make one "black."

So what?

Genetic race -- geographic ancestry -- is not the same as the opinions of racists, as already explained.

I am satisfied with the five geographically distinct ancestral populations Rosemberg et al. found in 2002 -- roughly, European, sub-Saharan African, East Asian, South Asian, and indigenous American -- plus aboriginal Australian. There may be other very small genetically distinct populations such as the Andamanese and African pygmies, but their genetic make-up has not been studied much if at all, and they are too few and too isolated to count for much in discussions of race.

So what? "Hispanic" denotes a person of mixed indigenous American and white European ancestry anyway.

Your concept of race is a strawman, as I already explained.

Genetics. Rosemberg et al. 2002.

"Autoreactive"?? What does that have to do with anything? I gave Rosemberg et al. 2002, which has not been refuted or retracted, and therefore stands. You, by contrast, have not provided any source that actually supports your claim. All you have done is substitute a strawman version of race -- subspecies -- that I already explained is not relevant to human races.

 

Huh? What is somebody considered black or white that is NOT how he looks.

Please quote this "law" of "blackness" and "whiteness" that defines as "black" or "white" the white skinned and black skinned offspring of a black female and white male.

I suspect you are changing your tune... But this new one is even more bizarre than that original.

QUOTE it: The word quote meaning: "repeat or copy verbatim a group of words from a text". In this case by "text" we are referring to a law.

False! My wife is considered Hispanic and is probably whiter than you (unless you're albino). The majority of the population of Latin America is white. EVERYBODY alive in the American continent (I doubt very much that exceptions exist even in the European continent, but I haven't checked if there is data) has mixed indigenous American and European ancestry. Even Elizabeth Warren

Look.... let me explain to you what is going on here. I'm very comfortable with my position because today's geneticists, biologists, anthropologist.... any scientist in any relevant field are on my side. The mapping of the human genome was what put this "race theory" to rest once and for all in genetics. It was essentially completed in 2003. Though the complete sequencing wasn't finished until 2021. But getting rid of a long-held misconception takes time. However, you will see less and less "race" in laws, government forms and textbooks. And if you decide to cling to the concept, you'll just be one of those left behind. Going down in history books as a curious statistic of those who refused to accept that the Earth revolved around the Sun, or that HIV causes AIDS, or that Climate Change is caused by human activity.

I did my part by opening this thread. But I can't force you to accept scientific facts. That's up to you....

 

His genes.

Black and white defined how?

Wrong on both counts.

Read and learn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

Nope. If she is whiter than me, she is not considered Hispanic. "Hispanic" does not mean, "Spanish speaking."

White defined how? Based on what statistical evidence?

That is either meaningless -- like saying everyone has African ancestry because our species originated in Africa -- or just false.

<yawn>

That's just self-evidently false.

Already refuted. The human genome project had to be revised and largely redone because originally it was not racially representative -- because fools thought that there was no such thing as race.

Laws, government forms and textbooks cannot change scientific fact.

So climate never changed before there were any humans...?

Sorry, you have merely resorted to a crude attempt at creating guilt by association. There is no evidence for your claim.

 

Right. Which can be as few as 2 genes that control skin color. Way more define eye color, for example.

So division by "race" based on skin color would be waaay more idiotic than claiming there is a "brown eyed" race that is different from a "blue eyed" race.

And the latter is pretty idiotic, just in case you were thinking about doing that....

"How" indeed!

You have made my case!

 

This thread is still going? Lol.

All praise the great golem! He knows more than all of the world's biologist and anthropologist combined!

It must be that Superior "research" ability of his!

But hey I'm sure he can erase 90% of anyone's post that he's replying to so that he thinks he actually has a point...

 

Another strawman from you. I never suggested that biological race was determined by skin color, let alone eye color, and neither did Rosemberg et al. That's just a superficial perception, not genetic identity.

Huh? No, I have merely pointed out that your "case" rests on an equivocation fallacy: pretending that race does not exist because biological race does not match social, cultural or legal race -- and indeed, none of them match any of the others. That's like claiming there is no such thing as a horse because rocking horses, sawhorses, racehorses, etc. are all completely different.

 

No. What you did was even worse. Define "race" based on some invisible and inconsequential characteristic. Genes that might determine influence skin color (not even determine, because in many circumstances the environment plays a bigger role), but not actually on their skin color. Divide people just for the sake of dividing them. It's like racism without even knowing what you're racist ABOUT.

Clearly you came up with this excuse ad-hoc.... in the last day or so, at most. And you haven't even given it the least bit of thought. You should know that is an almost assured way to come up with the most RIDICULOUS arguments ever seen in any discussion board.

Keep that in mind next time.

Pretending race exists despite there not necessarily being differences in cultural, social or physical attributes HAS to be the most absurd nonsense we have EVER read in this forum.... And we had somebody here once who denied that the Earth was round. So that's quite an accomplishment

I will definitely mark your post as a landmark...

Thanks for playing!

 

No, you simply made that up, like everything you say about what I post. Genes are invisible, but they are not inconsequential. Evolution depends on them not being inconsequential.

No, that is merely another fabrication on your part. Being willing to know the fact that people's genetic make-up is affected by their geographic ancestry is not racism.

Again, that is simply something you have made up. My position has been consistent.

Keep that in mind next time.

Race is not a cultural or social attribute. It is genetic, so it is definitely a physical attribute. That attribute is just not skin color.

<yawn>

 

There is more genetic variation within human "races" than between them.

"Race" is used outside of humans to refer to subspecies. There are no surviving human subspecies. The "races" we refer to today among humans are cultural and social attributes. Which is why none of the scientifically illiterate "race realists" can even agree on how many "races" there are.

 

Very good you ve got everything just like always. First we share at least 80 to 85% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Which would mean chimpanzees souls still fall under the human genome if we use your absurd 25% measuring stick. 2nd based on the best archeological evidence Nefititis line died out with Tutankamen or ver shortly there after. Now had you had said Genghis Khan you'd have had a point

 

The truth is that race definitely exists. But it is not a biological thing. There are no sub species of Homo Sapiens. Some people have evolved to more melanin in the skin to protect the skin from the negative affects of exposure to the sun. That people make an issue of that darker skin is a purely social construct. It is not based in science.

The fact that chimpanzees and humans are both members of the taxonomic order primata, doesn't mean that they are the same. Obviously they are not the same. It is species that are the same. Every human being on the planet regardless of skin color or personal appearance is the same biologically. All are members of the Sapiens species. Everyone looks different from everybody else. That only matters to people, not to nature. It is what it is. Many of the arguments I see in the OP and the responses are really silly.

 

"Evolution"? Priceless! Just when we thought this couldn't get worse....

 

25% of genetic VARIANCE. Read the link in the OP!

 

And on Planet Zondo, that might be relevant.

I have never once seen or heard it used that way. Biologists speak of subspecies, and people who deal with domestic animals speak of breeds. People sometimes use "race" for the entire modern human species, to distinguish us from other hominids.

When they are defined as being like animal subspecies: sharply divided geographically, and differing genetically by at least 25% of the genetic difference between individuals within subspecies. That just doesn't describe human races.

No, that is just false and absurd garbage with no basis in fact. Biological race is genetic and based on geographic ancestry. Cultural race is physical and based on perceived phenotype. They don't always map perfectly, but usually they are close.

It depends how you define them. Rosemberg et al. 2002 found five, but they didn't investigate Australian aboriginals or some small African and isolated island populations. Indigenous Americans diverged from East Asians only ~20Kya, while the Aborigines split from South Asians ~60Kya, shortly after Europeans and East Asians diverged from ancestral black Africans.

 

What are you, a creationist? You are either willing to know the fact that human beings evolved or you aren't. It sounds like you aren't.

 

That is a non sequitur fallacy. The fact that human races do not meet the definition of subspecies used with animals does not mean they are not biological. See Rosemberg et al. 2002.

It's true that skin pigmentation is a much less significant phenotypic variable than many people think. But science is not responsible for how people misinterpret it.

That's clearly false. Evolution depends on it being false.

Wrong. Evolution runs on the fact that differences in genetic identity within species drive differential reproductive success.

That is certainly true.

 

It's in the high 90s.

No, the 25% is the threshold for the fraction of inter-individual variation that is accounted for by subspecies.

 

Thanks for the confirmation.

 

Would that be the percentage of common locuses?

 

The differences in appearance between different groups were generated by evolution. No question about that. But the differences are superficial. They don't affect anything else. A subspecies is nothing more than an evolutionary state that will likely lead to speciation. There is none of that in humans.

As I said it is a social construct not a scientific one.

No evolution does not depend on superficial characteristics. It depends on mutations.

Evolution runs on natural selection based on the success or failure of mutations.

 

No, that's an absurd claim. There is every reason to believe that superficial differences arise because they are irrelevant side effects of something else that is not superficial.

It may or may not lead to speciation, depending on factors like isolation and stability of environments.

Wrong again. We modern humans have just been much more mobile than other terrestrial mammals, and much less dependent on evolutionary adaptation to local conditions. Perhaps more importantly, we are a very young species, and have not had time to speciate. Older hominids did speciate over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. The presence of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in modern humans indicates that modern humans were still able to interbreed with them after hundreds of thousands of years of genetic separation.

It's a cultural/social interpretation of a more complex biological phenomenon.

Strawman fallacy. It depends on genetic differences among the individuals of a species, superficial or otherwise. Consider the peacock's tail: it is the ultimate superficial characteristic, but it evolved because it gave the males a mating advantage.

Nope. Wrong again. Mutations add genetic diversity, and are key in the evolution of asexual species, but reassortment of genes through sexual reproduction would enable evolution even in the absence of mutation.

Nope. Wrong again. Mutations add variability, but the genetic diversity already present in a sexually reproducing species would drive evolution even in the absence of mutations.