According to science, race is a social construct.

[casshern222]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

The first sentence is: Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics

 

 

Sources below:

The Main Reason Races Don’t Exist.
Genetic and archaeological reasons races don't exist


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/looking-in-the-cultural-mirror/201109/th...on-t-exist

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981008051724.htm

http://europe.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123

http://www.livescience.com/47627-race-is-not-a-science-concept.html

 

There isn't a single scientific organisation currently that considers race a formal classification of humans. It's an informal taxonomic classification.

 

Human appearance difference are explained by phenotypes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype

 

There is no proof that blue eyes people are smarter than brown eyes people, or that black moths are more intelligent than white moths. There is proof that nurture, culture, education explains intelligence difference in less developed countries, even in East Europe IQ's are lower than Western Europeans on average, but they are all white. (Huge differences, http://i.imgur.com/OFJSgR1.jpg )

 

Why does Stefan insist that races exist? It's unsupported by science.

[rosencrantz]

Race is well supported by science. 
 

...no matter what genetic markers you choose: SNPs, STRs, no matter how you choose them: randomly or based on their "informativeness", it is relatively easy to classify DNA into the correct continental origin. Depending on the marker types (e.g., indel vs. microsatellite), and their informativeness (roughly the distribution differences between populations), one may require more or less markers to achieve a high degree of accuracy. But, the conclusion is the same: after a certain number of markers, you always succeed in classifying individuals according to continental origin.

 

 

Via http://infoproc.blogspot.de/2008/01/no-scientific-basis-for-race.html

[casshern222]

Race is well supported by science. 

 

 

Via http://infoproc.blogspot.de/2008/01/no-scientific-basis-for-race.html

 

no, it's not supported by mainstream science, that's why the wiki page even says it's an informal classification with 6 sources to scientific articles

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

If race doesn't exist, why are scientists so good at identifying it from small fragments of thousand years old skeletons? 

[Will Torbald]

There are animal species, fully considered species, with fewer differences between them than between the so called no existent human races. Why is that? I think antropocentric bias is part of it. It is harder to judge ourselves while being ourselves. I also think the marxist agenda pushes bland human taxonomy because it destroys their egalitarian ideology. Scientists are the new priests, and if you can bankroll them into your politics, you can convince a large group of people who would otherwise think different.

[casshern222]

As I said, human differences are explained by phenotypes, races or breeds of animals require higher differences between species to be considered a separate breed.

[Will Torbald]

As I said, human differences are explained by phenotypes, races or breeds of animals require higher differences between species to be considered a separate breed.

 

Phenotypes are the expression of genotypes, therefore there is no difference in saying "genetics" is the key to race. And no, biology is very fluid and lose with its taxonomic classifications.

[WorBlux]

Among Templeton's conclusions: there is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. Yet, sub-Saharan Africans and Melanesians share dark skin, hair texture and cranial-facial features, traits commonly used to classify people into races. According to Templeton, this example shows that "racial traits" are grossly incompatible with overall genetic differences between human populations.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981008051724.htm

 

The main point of this paper is that you can't sort by appearance reliably.

 

There aren't neat lines and clear gaps , especially with traits like skin color which are genetically simple and are constantly being selected upon.

 

There are however definite genetic clusters, that show up when you look closely. Populations also vary in the prevalence and composition of specific genes that is often due to local selection or common ancestry.

 

[rosencrantz]

I wonder why scientists are hesitant to talk about their findings. Could it be that are repercussions to explain what they they think? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal

[labmath2]

The problem i have with race is the isn't enough research and we dont know to what extent people are being grouped together. A Japanese person will probably notice differences between a Japanese person and a Chinese person, but to what extent is an the average researcher going to care about those differences? This is particularly true of Africa where there are many group who live in different environments who are all categorized into one group when it comes to things like IQ. During one of the interviews Stefan did on differences between race, the guest pointed out that top sprint runners are usually west african descent and top marathon runners are from a particular place in kenya. It seems there are significant differences between Africans to warant extensive studies which to my knowledge has never been done.

[yagami]

Are you making the argument that your IQ comes from your culture or social surrounding? Where is the double blind study for that? If IQ is just a matter of culture then how come no one has been able to point to the what a particular culture is doing to raise IQ scientifically. If it's just a matter of identifying the right environment how come no one has proved this using the scientific method of trial and error? It would be easy to take a bunch of children from different parts of the world and have them all raise the kids in very similar way. If you find wild variations in the IQ then the theory that race is a social construct goes out the window.

[Wuzzums]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981008051724.htm

 

The main point of this paper is that you can't sort by appearance reliably.

 

There aren't neat lines and clear gaps , especially with traits like skin color which are genetically simple and are constantly being selected upon.

 

There are however definite genetic clusters, that show up when you look closely. Populations also vary in the prevalence and composition of specific genes that is often due to local selection or common ancestry.

 

 

We need to make the distinction between phenotype and genotype.

Genotype dictates phenotype but the habitat has a considerable say in what the genotype can express. 

So were I to put 2 different species, miles apart in genotype, into the same habitat (not together, of course) you will get an almost exactly identical phenotype. 2 different species, 2 different genomes, almost identical in appearance. We know this for a fact, several species of mice or other animals have been identified that did not belong to the rodent family in isolated habitats. These species just filled the mice gap in the environment.

 

Thus genotype doesn't really matter because the phenotype is what makes an animal more or less apt to survive.

 

Another example I can give is within the human species. There is a condition called Morris Syndrome in which the body is insensitive to testosterone, the end result being that genetic males (XY) have an 100% female phenotype. So these individuals will fall within the female spectrum on any type of population study (like IQ), however were we to look at the genetics alone we would categorize them as males which is inaccurate.

 

You must understand that the gene code is a smorgasbord of traits which are only expressed in strict relation with the environment. Once expressed, there is no turning back, the genes that might be beneficial in one environment won't be dominant in another environment. Let's assume we have the Blue-race and the Green-race. The blue-race is strong and tall, the green-race is short and weak. Their genetic code is 99.99999999999% similar. Looking at genes we would see virtually no difference in these species and you can argue that we can take the green-race and put them aside the blue-race and they will do just as fine. That is not the case. A lot of generations must pass in order for the green-race to adapt to the new environment, and the harsher the environment the faster it will adapt. This is why things like affirmative actions are highly detrimental, it's selective for stupid. This is why jews are so smart, persecution selects for intelligence.

 

 

The problem i have with race is the isn't enough research and we dont know to what extent people are being grouped together. A Japanese person will probably notice differences between a Japanese person and a Chinese person, but to what extent is an the average researcher going to care about those differences? This is particularly true of Africa where there are many group who live in different environments who are all categorized into one group when it comes to things like IQ. During one of the interviews Stefan did on differences between race, the guest pointed out that top sprint runners are usually west african descent and top marathon runners are from a particular place in kenya. It seems there are significant differences between Africans to warant extensive studies which to my knowledge has never been done.

 

You're complaining that blacks are categorized as a whole, which is a fair criticism because Africa is the most genetically diverse continent. However, whites (for example) get the same treatment.

So what is the point you're trying to make?

 

We could easily replace the term whites with westerners or blacks with africans. Now suddenly it's not a biological issue but a geographical issue. But we know from every paragraph of every biology book ever written ever that you cannot treat the two apart. Genes don't select themselves randomly, the environment has the say.

[AncapFTW]

Are you making the argument that your IQ comes from your culture or social surrounding? Where is the double blind study for that? If IQ is just a matter of culture then how come no one has been able to point to the what a particular culture is doing to raise IQ scientifically. If it's just a matter of identifying the right environment how come no one has proved this using the scientific method of trial and error? It would be easy to take a bunch of children from different parts of the world and have them all raise the kids in very similar way. If you find wild variations in the IQ then the theory that race is a social construct goes out the window.

You don't really need to do that.  Just look at a country where there are a variety of races, but everyone has adopted a very similar culture.  IQ differences are extremely small in that case.

[thecurrentyear]

You don't really need to do that.  Just look at a country where there are a variety of races, but everyone has adopted a very similar culture.  IQ differences are extremely small in that case.

 

What country would be a good example of that?

[AncapFTW]

What country would be a good example of that?

Many European countries, like the UK.  Certain parts of the US (though many areas have sectors where race-based subcultures exist in a bit of a bubble).  Australia/New Zealand I think.

 

Just look for one that has relatively large populations of people from many different ethnic backgrounds.

[labmath2]

You're complaining that blacks are categorized as a whole, which is a fair criticism because Africa is the most genetically diverse continent. However, whites (for example) get the same treatment.

So what is the point you're trying to make?

 

We could easily replace the term whites with westerners or blacks with africans. Now suddenly it's not a biological issue but a geographical issue. But we know from every paragraph of every biology book ever written ever that you cannot treat the two apart. Genes don't select themselves randomly, the environment has the say.

I think its also problematic when whites are grouped together. I am just less familiar with that side of the grouping. There are obviously differences between Askenazi Jews, Nordic descent, and A Russian decent. Any study that puts them all into one group should equally be scrutinized.

[Guest Gee]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

 

The first sentence is: Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics

 

 

Hi OP. This video help me understand why race and be a social construct and exist. It's a response video, so the creators are going to be taking the mick out of the idea that race doesn't exist. That being said the analogy is top notch.

 

[Guest Gee]

Ok. If my attempt at embedding the video didn't work then hear is a link.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

no, it's not supported by mainstream science, that's why the wiki page even says it's an informal classification with 6 sources to scientific articles

 

We've seen how mainstream science treats people who argue that race is a valid biological classification. The subject is virtually taboo. Unless the scientist is arguing that there are no biological races then they face ruin.

 

http://therightstuff.biz/2015/09/30/human-races-exist-refuting-eleven-common-arguments-against-the-existence-of-race/

[thecurrentyear]

Many European countries, like the UK.  Certain parts of the US (though many areas have sectors where race-based subcultures exist in a bit of a bubble).  Australia/New Zealand I think.

 

Just look for one that has relatively large populations of people from many different ethnic backgrounds.

 

No, you look for it. And post the evidence for this theory of yours. Where is the evidence that different races in a particular culture have similar IQs?

[ValueOfBrevity]

Humans evolve, too.

Why is race so controversial among people who accept the theory of evolution?

Humans live across the globe and have different environmental pressures. They adapt just as other species do.

 

[yagami]

You don't really need to do that.  Just look at a country where there are a variety of races, but everyone has adopted a very similar culture.  IQ differences are extremely small in that case.

You absolutely need to do that because this will take the matter out of the realm of theory and into the realm of fact. It's easy for you to make assumptions from the outside and say oh well that's what it looks like but then be completely proven wrong by a double blind study. This is how misinformation get spread. There is a reason why the double blind study is called the gold standard. Find the double blind study that proves your case and then we can talk. But you are making a truth claim which means we need more than your conjecture to for proof.

[WorBlux]

The problem i have with race is the isn't enough research and we dont know to what extent people are being grouped together. A Japanese person will probably notice differences between a Japanese person and a Chinese person, but to what extent is an the average researcher going to care about those differences? This is particularly true of Africa where there are many group who live in different environments who are all categorized into one group when it comes to things like IQ. During one of the interviews Stefan did on differences between race, the guest pointed out that top sprint runners are usually west african descent and top marathon runners are from a particular place in kenya. It seems there are significant differences between Africans to warant extensive studies which to my knowledge has never been done.

 

Right, Africans at least in theory have a greater potential variation than other continental groups, having been settled in Africa longer than any other human group has been settled anywhere on earth. 

Are you making the argument that your IQ comes from your culture or social surrounding? Where is the double blind study for that? If IQ is just a matter of culture then how come no one has been able to point to the what a particular culture is doing to raise IQ scientifically. If it's just a matter of identifying the right environment how come no one has proved this using the scientific method of trial and error? It would be easy to take a bunch of children from different parts of the world and have them all raise the kids in very similar way. If you find wild variations in the IQ then the theory that race is a social construct goes out the window.

 

The Flynn effect is just that, a culture raising it's IQ without a lot on genetic drift.  An interesting study that would be possible it to track kids adopted in the U.S from impoverished nation, and compare them to their adoptive parents biological children. .

 

Epigenetic also throws a question into the mix,  how much might be set by the environment in the first trimester, or even in your mother's early development?

[Livemike]

If race was a social construct then it should be impossible to tell whether a given skeleton is an Australian Aboriginal by it's bone structure or it's DNA.  It is possible to do both.  

 

Nobody is denying that there are thousands of years of population separation between different ethnic groups, with little or no interbreeding during that time.  Basic genetics would say that in that time different genes would be promoted in the different environments and even without that effect some genes would be more common in some populations by sheer chance.  The fact that different genes have become more common in some populations than in others is literally as plain as the nose on your face.  Of course it is possible that only genes that make surface cosmetic changes or no changes at all are the only ones being promoted.  Except that right off the top of my head I can name at least 2 types of genes (lactose tolerance and sickle-cell anemia) that were promoted in some races but not in others.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

Note that people have the same race according to genetic clusters as they do according to self-indentified race/ethnicity.

[Mrdthree]

According to science, a chair is a social construct,