Race a social construct ? - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14626176
There is no genetic basis for race. Modern humans started migrating from Africa about 100 thousand years ago, but as humans spread, they also came back into Africa. The between-population variation is very, very minor.

A.R. Templeton Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective. American Anthropological Association, September 1998


Last edited by ingliz on 30 Nov 2015 11:56, edited 1 time in total.
#14626178
ingliz wrote:There is no genetic basis for race. Modern humans started in Africa about 100 million years ago, but as humans spread, they also came back into Africa. The between-population variation is very, very minor.

A.R. Templeton Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective. American Anthropological Association, September 1998




Let me guess this straight, there's no genetic basis for race yet clearly different pigmentations at the very least physically exist visually showing some sort of genetic hereditary basis.....


I like how Liberals, Marxists, Communists, and the politically correct discuss these things.

"You see man, race does exist but at the same time it doesn't really, do you understand?"
#14626182
Another one of these guys huh?

Human beings evolved in our current anatomical state in africa about 200,000 years ago. We underwent a population bottleneck and nearly went extinct. Our population fell to about 10,000.

This left us with a very narrow gene pool from the outset.

When we discuss race there are several problems. One is that we simply dont have very clear definitions for the different races to begin with. Different people will often identify different people as different races. Some break humanity down into 3-4 others quite a few more than that.

Another is that we are talking about a very small handful of genes whose adaptive purpose are well understood. We know why skin color changed. None of those gene variations have effected psychology, intellect, or anything else as far as we can tell.

The fact is that because of that population bottleneck mentioned above human beings have extremely low genetic variation when compared to other species on earth.

Any two humans randomly selected within their own race will be just as genetically different from one another as two humans selected from different races.

When biologists look at a concept like race they do not look for one or two genes, they look at the whole genetic code. There is nothing interesting or deep about different skin colors anymore than there is anything interesting or deep about two differently colored rabbits, dogs, wolves, snakes, etc etc.
#14626211
First off, I am not going into any contingent on intelligence, mental attributes, or psychology of races. I view that to be a useless endeavor and in these conversations it is distracting.

I am saying,

1. There are some diseases that are racial specific which at the very least shows differing genetic immunities.

2. Racial pigmentation or physical racial attributes are credited to natural environment more specifically to the geographical areas various people for thousands of years evolved into by residing in them. This evolution of genetic racial heredity is not a social construct. It is an extension of nature itself.


These are two things that are factual and not up for debate. In fact only a fool or complete idiot would try to debate them.
#14626217
Those arent actually arguments for a biological catagory of race. That a certain group of animals in one area have an adaptation doesnt put them in any special catagory. A species of moth that displays multiple colorations depending on geography doesnt recieve any special sub catagorations just because of that. Why should humans be different?

@eu rope, that is a retarded argument.
#14626223
No, we cannot interbreed with chimps.

Thats what makes things different species.

What biological classification would you say race corelated to?
#14626236
mikema63 wrote:Thats what makes things different species.

There are species and there are races.
Why are you lefties so afraid to admit races, is it because you fear being called "racists"? But that's a social construct too.
Race only acknowledges there are different kind of people, nothing more. A classification if you will. What's wrong with that? Like there is a classification in dog breeds. You wouldn't call a German shepherd a fox-terrier, would you?
#14626239
He is not saying there are no inherited group traits.

The problem with the term "race" is that it is old fashioned basiclally. It was made at a time when we didnt understand genetics and so they used head measurements and other sudo science methods.

What we have now you can call races but its very hard to see where one starts and the other ends. For example, chinese people have more in common genetically to europeans than tibetians. This is because people from tibet developed relatively major changes to adapt to living high up ... Our 19th century race scientists would have put chinese and tibetians in the same category despite this.

regarding the dog "breed" comparison. I think the evidence suggests the differences in ethnic/races are far less influential. Dog breeds were selective and not environmental. Therefore they happened much quicker and with more purpose. It is true both represent group variation within the same species but thats it. In fact other "humans" like neandethals could breed with us and so were same species too.

So what actually defines a single race then? What are they called and how many are there?
#14626241
SE23 wrote:Is this truly a respected opinion, if race was purely a social construct, then why would the national health service be asking for members of the black and asian community to give blood and organ donors ? Biologically there must be a difference between races.

At the individual level, racial identification is a poor predictor of actual traits.
* Between a Chinese and my white neighbor, there are only 40% of chances that my neighbor is genetically closer from me than the Asian. In other words, inter-individual variations are predominant.

* We are all of recently mixed ancestry, some of us are simply more the product of homobreeding than others ("purer white" because of higher reproduction rate between white people). And historically we were all Africans.


At the population level, racial identification is well correlated with some genetic variations.
* Some variations are more often associated with others. Which means that a black skin is more often associated with some variations. But not all black people have it, and not only black people have it. Ex: a drug "for black people", targeting a specific gene, may be a benefit to 70% of black people and 20% of white people.

* Statistical biases are rarely caused by new variations introduced during the isolation of some human groups. They mostly result from the fact that the initial migrants only carried a small part of the genetic pool. This is why the black population has a far higher genetic diversity than other population.

* You can accurately categorize people from their genes for the same reason that skin color can be read from genes.

* Many variations are poorly correlated with racial identification.
#14626453
Race is generally used as a synonym for subspecies, which traditionally is a geographically circumscribed, genetically differentiated population. A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DNA haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate.


It's rather surprising that the author of this article (Templeton ‎1998) reached this sound conclusion in 1998, when human genetics was not fully developed yet. Human races are not entirely separate from each other as anthropologists who defined races presumed until the early 20th century.

Image
A young Yazidi girl rests at an Iraqi-Syrian border crossing, after fleeing from ISIS.

For example, the Arabs harbour Indo-European heritage which comes with the Indo-European haplogroups R1a and R1b. The frequencies of R1b are the highest in Western Europe (80-90%) but the Arab peoples as well as the Jews also have this genetic heritage (10-30%) as Europeans and Middle-easterners share common Indo-European ancestry. Moreover, the Neanderthals could be called a human subspecies genetically distinct from Homo sapiens and about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome survives in modern humans of non-African ancestry because our ancestors interbred with the Neanderthals, which explains lighter skin tones of non-Africans who were directly descended from Homo sapiens.

Anatomically modern humans overlapped and mated with Neandertals such that non-African humans inherit ~1 to 3% of their genomes from Neandertal ancestors. We identified Neandertal lineages that persist in the DNA of modern humans, in whole-genome sequences from 379 European and 286 East Asian individuals, recovering more than 15 gigabases of introgressed sequence that spans ~20% of the Neandertal genome (false discovery rate = 5%). Analyses of surviving archaic lineages suggest that there were fitness costs to hybridization, admixture occurred both before and after divergence of non-African modern humans, and Neandertals were a source of adaptive variation for loci involved in skin phenotypes. Our results provide a new avenue for paleogenomics studies, allowing substantial amounts of population-level DNA sequence information to be obtained from extinct groups, even in the absence of fossilized remains.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6 ... 7.abstract


Image

Another example is the native Siberian haplogroup N1, which reaches a maximum frequency of approximately 95% in the Nenets (above). Haplogroup N1, a descendant of East Asian macro-haplogroup NO, can also be found in Sweden (7.5%) and Norway (2.5%), where the Saami people historically interbred with Scandinavians. It's worth pointing out that Adolf Hitler belonged to the African haplogroup E1b1b and up to 8% of the Germans belong to this haplogroup as a result of ancient African migrations to Europe.


Image
Previous genetic studies have suggested a history of sub-Saharan African gene flow into some West Eurasian populations after the initial dispersal out of Africa that occurred at least 45,000 years ago. However, there has been no accurate characterization of the proportion of mixture, or of its date. We analyze genome-wide polymorphism data from about 40 West Eurasian groups to show that almost all Southern Europeans have inherited 1%–3% African ancestry with an average mixture date of around 55 generations ago, consistent with North African gene flow at the end of the Roman Empire and subsequent Arab migrations. Levantine groups harbor 4%–15% African ancestry with an average mixture date of about 32 generations ago, consistent with close political, economic, and cultural links with Egypt in the late middle ages. We also detect 3%–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in all eight of the diverse Jewish populations that we analyzed. For the Jewish admixture, we obtain an average estimated date of about 72 generations. This may reflect descent of these groups from a common ancestral population that already had some African ancestry prior to the Jewish Diasporas.
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/a ... en.1001373
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 01 Dec 2015 07:32, edited 1 time in total.
#14626573
I think ye are forgetting the most hillarious aspect of racists: there is a 100% fail rate at racial categorization, even according to your most enthusiastic racist.

A hundred years ago, the Irish were deemed to be, "Negroid," by the Royal Anthropological Society. That was just science, of course. And communists and lefties of course made a big stink about how that didn't make sense.

In the good old USA they did things right - Latinos were white. Sometimes. You also had hillarious fails like the German communities in Texas territory being designated as non-white, because "science."

Then you had the really fucked up thing of trying to prove people like Sarah Butler, who spoke three languages, was not even a human being at all, because she was an ape from some place in Africa.

Oh, we certainly improve! Nazis measuring people's skulls to prove racial type, Americans decided that if you got into a pool someone of even partial African descent was in...you could turn black or something?

No, but this time, despite almost all science being against the theory, and 100% of history proving the theory wrong, we've finally found someone that did what the Romans couldn't do in admitting the Etruscans were Italian. Please, tell us where everyone else in human society has failed and you've succeeded, your Whiteness!
User avatar
By kobe
#14626600
Red Barn wrote:Let me guess this straight, there's no genetic basis for race yet clearly different pigmentations at the very least physically exist visually showing some sort of genetic hereditary basis.....

So does that mean that Australian aboriginals and Africans are the same race? Does that mean that African descendants with white admixture are a distinct race? Does that mean that white Latinos are a distinct race to white people proper? Does that mean that darker Asians and the Inca are the same race?

Skin color =/= race

Ok, what's next in terms of race?

EU Rope wrote:Only an imbecile would claim that Nicole Kidman and this man belong to one race.


Yeah guys, get it right. She belongs to the proud white race.

Image

#14626603
layman wrote:regarding the dog "breed" comparison. I think the evidence suggests the differences in ethnic/races are far less influential. Dog breeds were selective and not environmental. Therefore they happened much quicker and with more purpose. It is true both represent group variation within the same species but thats it.

There you have it, race theory in one sentence.

Dagoth Ur wrote:lol EU rope uses dog breeds to justify races. Tell me EUR, which humans differ as much between one another as a German Shepard and a Fox-terrier?


Image

Image
#14626607
Dagoth Ur wrote:lol you just compared a completely caucasian girl with another and said they're the evidence of racial difference.

Don't be a racist! Skin colour is just one of the criteria of race differences. There are others too.
For example, both the German shepherd and the fox-terrier could be black, but this doesn't mean they are the same breed at all. Got it now?
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
Election 2020

If nothing else, fanatics from both sides keep di[…]

synagogue discipline? One can see you are not a […]

So how deadly is it?

An Open Letter from Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Profess[…]

You and I don't agree here. Putin is making the […]