To long sum it up in a few sentences
To long sum it up in a few sentences
Can't really. It's just a young black guy who also hates his race, explaining why he does and his experiences growing up etc.
keep in mind you are using a "science" that existed before genetics was taken in to consideration.
you do realize that the same or similar phenotypes can arise independent in groups. showing that an adaption is a correlated greater with the environment than the set of genes a person has. case in point different lactose tolerance genes exist yet the effect is the same.You could possibly use this to argue that the "black" racial category is ill-defined, but I fail to see how this debunks race as a whole.
All forms of taxonomy are inherently subjective, and yes, that includes the likes of species, subspecies, and breed, not just race.
I don't understand what you're trying to get across here. Phenotypes are formed as a result of genetic adaptations to one's environment, it's a process that happens over milennia. If you raise a white kid in the tropics he's not going to grow up looking like an Oceanian or black, literally what on God's green earth is this delusional take
different sets of genes can give rise to the same phenotype. was it the austrolenesians that have blond hair independently from euroes. does the presence of blond hair mean that they are related to euros.my point is that phenotypes is shitty way to cluster people, the best way is directly via genetics. you can have people who are closely related to each other yet resemble nothing alike.
in modern taxinomy we understand that nearest relatives of a species might not be other species that share an ecological niche rather a species that shares a different ecological niche.
case in point the nearest relatives to whales are hippos. the same could be humans. the nearest relatives of a members in one race might another race.
there is a reason why we dont use race anymore and its not because of politics, its because it doesnt make sense. are horn africans black?
despite them having betwee 45% to 55% eurasian dna or madgascar people being a mixed population of chinese and bantu. race is a poor way to categorize humanity.
look at the overlap of skin colour and the caucasian race, you will find dark skin caucasians meaning skin colour isnt tied to race.
Yall niggas going to war in this comment section
Genetics was taken into consideration, hence the separation of Congoids, Capoids, and Australoids. If the basis was purely skin color and phenotype, all three of those groups would just be "Negroid", like in the 3 race model.
Yes, I never equated phenotype to race. You claimed that physical differences between more groups have "more to do with environment than genetics", not realizing that phenotypes are literally formed via genetic adaptations to one's environment over the course of many generations. My response was pertaining to your attempt at drawing up a nonexistent genetic vs. environmental influence dichotomy regarding the formation of phenotype, I was not trying to assert that similar phenotypes alone are a good indicator of genetic proximity.
Yes, because you adapt to a setting, not to your own body. Who are you arguing with that believes otherwise?
And again, your genetic vs environmental factors dichotomy for evolutionary adaptation is beyond nonsensical. Genes and environmental factors constantly shape one another. Biological adaptation happens when our genes change to fit our environment. In the same way, our genes allow us to shape our environment and control what factors we are affected by. For instance, white intelligence brought about many amenities of the modern world such as air conditioning, sunscreen, and more, which is why Anglo-Australians are never going to evolve into Abo-like creatures out of a need to adapt to the tropical Australian climate.
I agree with that. You're erroneously conflating race with phenotype and thinking race realists do the same. Race realists' understanding of race today is entirely based on admixture and descent. For example, all white Europeans can be modeled as primarily a mix of the same three ancestor populations: Anatolian Neolithic Farmers, Western Hunter Gatherers, and Western Steppe Herders. It's why two Europeans can have such distinct phenotypes as the ones below yet still be considered part of the white race:
Are you attempting to make the "races have more variation within them than between them" argument? That statement only applies when you compare allele frequency between individuals at an individual locus. When genetic distance between geographically distinct populations is measured over many thousands of loci, a much different picture is painted: individuals from one population are never more similar to individuals from another population than to individuals from their own.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
Horn Africans are mutts, it's not that hard to understand. I'm confused here, are you trying to say the existence of mixed populations debunks biological race?
You were arguing earlier that race doesn't exist because race is just phenotype, now you're trying to claim skin color isn't tied to race (which according to you is just physical appearance)?look at the overlap of skin colour and the caucasian race, you will find dark skin caucasians meaning skin colour isnt tied to race.
I think your confusion comes in not understanding what modern race realists actually think. Save for some especially delusional people, no one believes skin color is race. There is no race realist who'd tell you a pale Scandinavian is more closely related to a pale Korean than to a light-brown Greek.
Regarding that map:
1. It's as of 2017, so it's relevant to the post-colonial world. That's the reason for Caucasian presence in The Americas, Australasia, East Asia, and parts of the African deep South
2. Many of those "dark Caucasian" groups such as Horn Africans, South Asians, and Central Asians would only be Caucasian under models considered outdated by today's racialists. Genetic and historical evidence shows that those groups are mixed with, but not completely Caucasoid; understanding of race, like many other things, changes over time. There are also subpopulations within races considered distinct from one another, e.g., white European and Caucasian are not one and the same.
Last edited:
1. simply measure race?
2. is objective or subjective?
as you know calling horn africans mutts while saying euros arent mutts is funny when you consider that both population were born as a result from hunter gather migrations around the same time.
eventually you'll realize we are all mutts and have been mixing heavily until agriculture forced us to stay sedentary.
Last edited:
hmm
Similar threads
underballer
Users who are viewing this thread
