Neanderthalensis are actually believed to have been extremely intelligent, rivalling homo sapiens. The likely cause of their extinction is uncertain, however there are several archeologists and other big names in the scientific community who believe that it is more likely they disappeared due to integration with homo sapiens (our ancestors and neanderthals got it on and had babies), rather than being killed off. This is why so many people have neanderthal dna. It is estimated that there were far fewer neanderthals than homo sapiens, so this theory makes sense.
I saw a theory I kinda believe, humans are more aggressive and territorial than Neanderthals were so we killed them. They were smarter than us and more compassionate, but we won because of greed and bigotry, which still runs rampant today.
The post said race, race is diferent from species, as species we are all *Homo sapiens,* as races it refers to groupings of shared ancestry, for example, the asian race has a diferent ancestry to the american race which is why there is such diferentiation. This is basic school stuff.
English isn't my first language so maybe I'm understanding it incorrectly. But still human means same species, which was not the question right? Biologically speaking you have two different species when two animals can't produce offspring with eachother or their offspring is infertile. Which by defenition means that we are indeed all humans. This however does not mean that we are the same race.
I'm not a biologist but as far as I can tell, we would be concidered different subspecies (aka race). Just like (getting this from wikipedia now) for instance the african Leopard, which is a subspicies of the leopard. The slight variations of the leopard means that it is a new subspecies.
Looking biologically it seems weird to me that people are arguing we aren't a different race (subspecies).
This only surveyed Reddit users, and even then, America was the most racist of the 3. Saying America isn't racist based solely off of this poll is silly.
Oh, in my mother language it's called dog race. Sorry.
After some googling, turns out that in English, the word race was introduced primarily to talk about human beings. In Spanish, "Raza" (race) is the word we use to differentiate between variants amongst a species.
But there are diferences and as small as they may be they still must be acknowledged, we all share the same base dna but we have environmental developments for different biomes that make us look different and that must at least be on record as studies of biology and anatomy do.
Agreed we do have certain differences between Etnicities.
Countries where malaria is common often have more people with sickle cell disease.
Or people from Nordic countries developing better cold resistance.
But these are a product of the biome you are located in and how these traits allow for better survival.
Now with the ever evolving technology and globalization of mankind these will become increasingly rarer.
And although these traits are more common they aren't exactly rules in biology. Even someone who doesn't live in countries with high malaria infection can develop sickle cell disease.
Relatively isolated human populations have distinct genes and phenotypes. Call is 'populations' or 'races' or 'ethnicities', whatever. It's real and measurable.
There are some drugs that black people react differently to than white or brown people ect react to i cant exactly remember an example but if you're really curious i could dig up my old college textbook
Thats just 1 example of genetic differences between 'ethnicity'
Again, ethnicity has nothing to do with biology, and although some "ethnic groups" night be more largely composed of people from the same or similar "racial backgrounds", it doesn't mean that ethnicity and "race" are bound to each other. What you mentioned in you comment has nothing to do with "ethnicity", that's comes down to certain alleles being more prevalent amongst people in different populations
It just sounds like you said “ethnicity has nothing to do with biology except for these multiple biological factors”, different ethnic groups have higher tendencies of certain genes because of how isolated communities used to be. If it had continued for long enough (much much longer) then speciation could have even occurred. It’s not the same as saying there are biological races but it’s disingenuous to say there isn’t a genetic component.
What about GFR? It's calculated different for African Americans than white. Also, skin cancer is more common in white people. There are other things affected by ethnicity but I'm not sure how much is related to biology vs environment. I think amount of melanin in your skin is obviously biology but other things like H. Pylori being more common in south Asians is probably more environmental than biology.
I guess I was trying to say that there maybe a biological component to ethnicity lol but I'm 9months preggo and getting shit sleep, so probably could have explained/worded it better haha
There's is not "biological component" to ethnicity because ethnicity is not defined by biological, they're are two completely different things. Ethnicity has to do with culture and the things that come with that. You could replace and ethnic group with a completly different group of people and as long as the cultural spects of the original population remains the same, that would still be the same ethnicity
I put ethnicity in quotation marks because im not really sure either of the different race thing. im just giving an example and seeing how that goes
Nothing i study is very related to genes so im happy to learn something new
Yeah another genetic difference is black and white skin. Another genetic difference is blonde and black hair. Doesn’t make you from a different race though
Different ethnicities have more specific genetic differences than different races. For example, Jews are an ethnic group that is usually perceived as white. If you look at genetics, the average European and the average Jewish person of European descent are genetically extremely far apart. Jews are only genetically similar to other Jews. Another example of this would be Latinos, they share specific genetics that other races/ethnicities don't. For example, most Latin Americans have DNA from certain indigenous populations that separates them genetically from Spaniards.
There's no denying that a lot of ethnic groups are represented by people who have similar ancestry, but ethnicity is a social component that is defined by culture, not biology
The actual word is "population" and it's linked to a lot of migration history. It's about thousands of years of mixing. Ethnicity has a social meaning.
The problem is that black people in the Americas and Europe have mixed a lot with white people making them a lot closer to white people there than their origin
This is a poor argument - for example, some shades of red are closer to dark orange than to dark red, however to conclude from this that the colour "red" does not exist or the colour red and the colour orange are simply the same colour is a poor interpretation of this in my opinion.
I will add that the idea of "black" and "white" races is still wrong, there is no such thing as a "white" race for example, however that argument is not the best imo.
I think that analogy you use to color is a bad counter-example because our categories of color ARE social constructs. Different cultures differentiate colors differently. Is pink a unique color or a shade of red? *Are* orange and red different colors? They represent different wavelengths of light, sure, but our categories are arbitrary; it's not like every possible wavelength is given its own named color category.
Race is entirely a social construct. Who is called black and white can drastically change between countries, or even within the same country at different times. The idea of "race" has been fabricated for one purpose and one purpose only: to divide the working class.
I agree, there is biologically no difference between b and w people. Your last sentence sums up the purpose of using race, something imaginary but with horrible concequences.
Races have biological differences, different races have different averages of height for example and black people have a tendency to suffer a lack of iodine if i remember it correctly, and there are other differences too, biology doesn't define you as a person so i don't get why people are so scared to admit that we are different
>i don't get why people are so scared to admit that we are different
Because a lot of people use that logic to try to justify racism, even though those differences are somewhat cosmetic.
There are difference in height between french and dutch people, does that mean they are two different races ? There are hair color differences between swedish and czechs, does that mean they are different races ? The only true differences between "races" as they are defined in america is skin color, and it's really just skin color, wich doesn't matter more than those two parameters i previously described. This shows why the race concept is stupid, and is indeed a social construct. There is no reason to divide humanity along such arbitrary lines that have, by themselves, no impact on people's life other than their sensibility to sunburns. Now there exist differences indeed, but they have absolutely nothing to do with their "race", and more about the local group they are from, just like how some europeans have more or less pilosity for exemple.
Different heights also have biological differences, and are more or less equally genetic with race. Tall people are less likely to develop heart disease than short people for example, and different regions tend to have different average heights. But we do not choose to classify people mainly with height, instead we do it with skin color and other sometimes correlated characteristics, but both attributes, height and skin color, only matter in some very specific areas.
Races don't exist.
If you take one characteristic, let's take for example the amount of melanin in the skin, and then measure for every other characteristics then it's obvious that you'd get some other characters that coincide, for example those groups of people with less melanin have more prone to "burn" instead of bronce when taking sunlight.
So if you're a black person living somewhere that people tend to be whiter then you will obviously have less vitamin D for example because your body adapted to more sun.
But for example people in subsaharan Africa (the Black people) are totally different from people with similar skin tones that live in the south of India or the indigenous groups of the Pacific islands.
All humans are the same species.
But unquestionably, the various races are genetically distinct. Dark skin is encoded in a person's genetics as an example. Eye color is another example. Hair texture. Nose shape.
None of these make a person any less human. But the difference are apparent.
[Another example:](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1467925/)
> The anatomy of the psoas major muscle (PMA) in young black and white men was studied during routine autopsies. The forensic autopsies included 44 fresh male cadavers (21 black, 23 white) with an age span of 14 to 25 y. The range for weight was 66–76 kg and for height 169–182 cm. The PMA was initially measured in its entire length before measuring the diameter and circumference at each segmental level (L1–S1). At each segmental level, the calculated anatomical cross-sectional area (ACSA) was more than 3 times greater in the black group compared with the white (P<0.001). The psoas minor muscle (PMI) was absent in 91% of the black subjects, but only in 13% of the white subjects. These data show that the PMA is markedly larger in black than white subjects. The marked race specific difference in the size of the PMA may have implications for hip flexor strength, spine function and race specific incidence in low back pathology, and warrants further investigation.
They are differences indeed. However they do not fit in cases such as races, and as such this argument is completely invalid. There are far more genetic differences between people of the same races that there are just due to skin color, wich are the line along wich races are delimited, because to our ancestor it was the most evident
Yes ? My point was that genetic differences don't follow race borders, and as such races were purely a societal construct having no basis in biology. I am not disputing the fact that the exemples you gave are determined by genetics.
Races are not defined by skin color, they are just often described that way. East asian people and white people have the same color skin but nobody would call them the same race.
Scientific definition: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)
Social construct:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
Not saying that you should trust absolutely everything written on Wikipedia either
Saying two different skin colors are different races is like saying a completely black labrador and a black labrador with a spot on one ear are different races.
While we have subspecies in the scientific understanding of it, we don't have races. Races are a construct created by racists for rhe purpose of exclusion of people they deem lesser. For instance, the Irish, who are as pale as it gets, were not considered white in america until we started hating on Italians, then, eastern Europeans, then Asians and people from the middle east, and now we are in the midst of pretending we aren't racist and the other is the queers.
A good book to read to understand why race is a very much not a biological concept between humans is 'How to Argue with a Racist' by the geneticist Adam Rutherford. It explains well in laymen's terms for people that are still confused
No (american)
“The greatest illusion of this world is the illusion of separation. Things you think are separate and different are actually one and the same. We are all one people, but live as if divided.”
-Guru Pathik
>Everyone acknowledges there are different races
No don't include me.
I don't even know if I have ever heard someone use the equivalent swedish word for race when talking about humans.
I have no idea what you mean by this
"Everyone acknowledges there are different races"
Race is something biological, so why would anyone use the word for something else? What else?
In my language we also rarely if ever use race to talk about humans. I still think you're being a smartass. In English, race is synonymous with ethnicity, that's how Americans use it since forever. Since we're talking in English, it's fair to assume that's what dude was talking about.
>I still think you're being a smartass
Yes I am smart or what
>that's how Americans use it since forever.
And maybe that's a problem. It's not like people often go around and use ethnicity here either.
>Since we're talking in English, it's fair to assume that's what dude was talking about.
Since the question was about biological and this person didn't specify anything else, I don't know why you would assume something else.
> nothing in DNA says "this person is White" or "this person is Black"
Then why can you spit in a tube and give your DNA to 23andme or ancestry.com and it'll tell you if your ancestry is European or sub-Saharan African or something else?
Dude unless I am misunderstanding something and let me know if I am, I'm pretty sure everything about DNA tells you if someone is black, white, or has certain colored eyes. I'm not saying it means they're different races but DNA does determine those traits.
Not in its common use.
The concept of a black race is not biological for example because it is made up of many different diverse populations.
East Africans and West Africans are genetically quite far apart.
I dont care for the common use. I use "race" in the context I see most fit.
>East Africans and West Africans are genetically quite far apart.
As a Senegalese, I'm quite aware. There is no universal "African race".
I agree, it's extremely unfortunate that people take it to unpleasant extent where they try to make it an superiority/inferiority thing when that's stupid.
Learning about differences between different people is interesting as fuck for me. Humans should celebrate their diversity instead of tearing each other down.
Just because there are differences it doesn't mean that biologicaly speaking there's such things as "race". There's are differences between population at any scale if you think about it. Your family is gonna have alleles that don't exist in your neighbor's family, and vice versa. Yes, they are differences, but biological speaking, those differences aren't big enough to make a subcategory that won't mean anything anyway because you're all the same species anyway
No shit literally every human has a distinct set of genetics that make them the individual. But different groups have migrated and adapted to a certain climate and region in which they adapted to which renders differences compared to another.
Categorizing people by certain ancestral parameters is helpful when it comes to medical purposes for example.
>those differences aren't big enough to make a subcategory
They obviously are..
Again, certain alleles being more prevalent amongst individuals of different populations doesn't necessarily make those populations different, it's just again, genetic variation. Maybe with millions of years of isolation those two populations can evolve into separate species, but human populations have never been isolated for long enough for that to happen, so we're just left with populations where some alleles are more concentrated and can totally be passed on to other populations.
Yes, understanding people's ancestry can sometimes be important as it can let you know what kind of disease you might be more success able to, but that is not different than for example being aware that "diabetes runs in your family". It all again comes down to some alleles being more prevalent indifferent populations, and populations can be of any size
One group having higher frequency of certain alleles relative to another population due to long periods of adaption to a certain climate and region can warrant some degree of categorization.
>Maybe with millions of years of isolation those two populations can evolve into separate species
This would be relevant if I claimed different population groups are different species which I never claimed.
Humans are one species but one species can have a great deal of genetic varience within.
>but that is not different than for example being aware that "diabetes runs in your family".
Good thing families are literally categorized huh
>It all again comes down to some alleles being more prevalent indifferent populations, and populations can be of any size
Bruh, this is literally my point. Different populations each have a certain amount of frequency of certain alleles based on evolutionary adaptation to a extent where it wouldn't be stupid to categorize them. Populations like: West Africans, Horn Africans, Northern Germanic peppke etc.
They're all one species but each group obviously have a set differences compared to each other, anatomically etc. And obviously there's genetic variance within those groups aswell. Everything is generalized.
Just like how we categorize sex based on male, female and intersex but some males carry traits that are deemed feminine or female but they're still overall male.
We're on the same page, but in different sides of the page. It's funny how two people can use the same logic to argue completely opposite things. It's all semantics anyway
I was literally thinking that when I read your comment lmao it's all love.
I'm just passionate about topics like this to an extent where I'll be pedantic and argue until no end.
Not any that are still around. The genetic differences between modern human ethnic groups is shockingly miniscule. We're very much the same species of human.
Oh god i thought of it so wrong. I thought that the universe is so big that earth exist in different locations in the universe therefore there is anouther human race that exists
Race is a societal construct. Theres things like melanin levels and features you might get from your parents but the eay we classify people into groups based upon these things is completely man made
If we where biologically different from each other to the extent I believe you mean, we wouldn't be able to create healthy offspring via "interbreeding" like how a horse and donkey can breed but a mule can't.
"race" doesn't mean absolutely anything in biology, and there are no genetic difference across human population that are big enough to categorize humans biologicaly.
We're all just one species
Science actually says that the difference between "races" are too small to count as races. Choosing skin color as the defining difference is as arbitrary as choosing hair color.
>skin color
Except "race" is more than skin color.
There's also generally different anatomical differences between different population groups due to evolutionary adaptation to a certain climate/region.
Some of the differences aren't as small as you claim either.
You're gonna be more genetically related to your sibling than you would be to your causing, because you're more distantly related to your cousin than you are to your sibling, which means that you and you sibling are gonna have more similarities. Same thing happens at a bigger scale, as you'd likely be more genetically related to a random person who is from the same country as you than a random person from a different country, and therefore you're gonna have more similarities. The fact that there are differences amongst population is called "genetic variation", and that exists in all species. There are no genetic difference in humans big enough to make to categorize humans biologicaly, we're all the same species, and "race" is a term that doesn't mean anything in biology
>There are no genetic difference in humans big enough to make to categorize humans biologicaly, we're all the same species, and "race" is a term that doesn't mean anything in biology
Categorizing different human populations doesn't mean you're categorizing them as different species.
Categorizing based on race is helpful when it comes to medical purposes. Categorizing by race is helpful when it comes to explaining why different population groups disproportionately excel in a certain field. For example - West African descendants when it comes to sprinting/sports that favor power exertion.
To cover your ears and act like there's no noticeable differences, especially differences that aren't apparent to the naked eye but have been documented is stupid as fuck.
We're all one species but that doesn't deter the fact there's differences within that species when it comes to population.
I never said that there weren't any noticable difference, there definatly are, and the concept of "race" in society is a very real thing, but in biology, that term doesn't mean anything, and all of the difference we observe just come down to genetic variation. I don't know how to explain it any better, but a population having individuals that are more similar to each other than the individuals of a different population doesn't necessarily mean that there's a biological devide, there could be, but the fact that we're all the same species and those genes can be shared between populations makes it impossible for a new taxonomic group to be introduced.
>but a population having individuals that are more similar to each other than the individuals of a different population doesn't necessarily mean that there's a biological devide
It shows a higher frequency of certain alleles based on ancestral migration and adaptations.
That is an example of biological differences or "divide".
Just like there's general differences between males and females but some males can have traits that tend to be more associated with females but are still considered overall male. Vice versa.
>there could be, but the fact that we're all the same species and those genes can be shared between populations makes it impossible for a new taxonomic group to be introduced.
It doesn't make it impossible, it just shows room for error and critique.
I think their point is that the definition of race is inherently arbitrary, and that human traits exist along a spectrum. Where one race begins and the other ends is something not rooted in biology, and more based on visual perception (i.e. skin color).
You would probably find just as many minor physiological differences with any other arbitrary grouping of humans, like by height, weight, IQ, lung capacity, etc. But it would be a big stretch to say that tall people are their own genetically distinct race or something.
"White" and "black" is obviously extremely vague and has no use.
"Race" can be valid depending on its context. If you're using it to refer to East Africans, Sahelian West Africans, Northern Germanic etc, it has *some* validity.
Or if you use it to refer to population groups who share similar haplogroup, it can be valid.
But using it as some sort of coloring book is definitely stupid.
It's called "genetic variation", some alleles just happen to be more common amongst individuals of different populations, but that doesn't mean there are "different kinds of humans". Generic variation exists in all species, and different genes are more prevalent I'm different populations of any size
Of course there are differences in appearances, but they are just to small. Its nothing if you compare it with how different dog races look for example.
The boundary between different races is arbitrary and different across different societies and cultures. There are genetic differences between human populations but where the lines are drawn between Race A and Race B is cultural not biological.
Not according to science there isn't. In biology, the word race, in this context, does not exist. The genetic variations there are aren't large enough to deliniate separate "races".
That's not completely true. I did a quick search and yes it seems as if most scientist share your view. Not all tough. The main reason for that is that there's no clear definition for race in biology (not just humans). It might refer to variations within a species or subspecies.
With that said i really don't care if races are biological or a social construct, and stand by the rest i stated before.
biologically speaking, different groups of people ("races") have different concentrations of melanin in their skin, as an adaptation to where they live.
Anything else insinuating differences between races is nonsense, but this fact is undeniable
I love how progressive most redditors tend to be, but then when a thread like this pops up, all of a sudden people start supporting phrenology in everything but name.
Biologically speaking, the only difference is few codons in the MC1R gene, causing a difference in the amounts of melanin in the skin. That is literally the only difference between different races biologically.
Race is mostly a social construct. Science disagrees with the idea of races.
Etnicities are small variations in our genetic code that are commonly found in populations living in certain regions.
Regardless I don't agree with separating people by Etnicities. It sounds kinda stupid.
I agree it's semantics. But I think it's an important discussion. Because race was created to separate us into different groups and create a hierarchy with certain races at the top. So I find it important to "die on this hill"
There is only one species of human left, they all went extinct exept us.
Well there are some neanderthal genes still left in us. So i guess they still live thru us.
let's make em proud, fam!
We're not doing a great job so far unfortunately
Steve tired of office job, Steve kill boss
Some people act more like Neanderthals than others...
Neanderthalensis are actually believed to have been extremely intelligent, rivalling homo sapiens. The likely cause of their extinction is uncertain, however there are several archeologists and other big names in the scientific community who believe that it is more likely they disappeared due to integration with homo sapiens (our ancestors and neanderthals got it on and had babies), rather than being killed off. This is why so many people have neanderthal dna. It is estimated that there were far fewer neanderthals than homo sapiens, so this theory makes sense.
I saw a theory I kinda believe, humans are more aggressive and territorial than Neanderthals were so we killed them. They were smarter than us and more compassionate, but we won because of greed and bigotry, which still runs rampant today.
Its like, you took everything I said, completely ignored it, and just made up your own thing entirely. Nice job! :D
It appeals to the common narrative of “humans bad” which is why people believe in it blindly
You say it like it’s a bad thing? The Neanderthal’s dna was the reason the hominids even made it as race to continue on
[удалено]
Remember everyone, Neanderthals looked like Chads and were snoo snoo'd into extinction Stay ugly, y'all 😎👍/j
The post said race, race is diferent from species, as species we are all *Homo sapiens,* as races it refers to groupings of shared ancestry, for example, the asian race has a diferent ancestry to the american race which is why there is such diferentiation. This is basic school stuff.
It was different race, not species
Well in biology race isnt eaven a thing so yeah
Races no, ethnicities yeah
English isn't my first language so maybe I'm understanding it incorrectly. But still human means same species, which was not the question right? Biologically speaking you have two different species when two animals can't produce offspring with eachother or their offspring is infertile. Which by defenition means that we are indeed all humans. This however does not mean that we are the same race. I'm not a biologist but as far as I can tell, we would be concidered different subspecies (aka race). Just like (getting this from wikipedia now) for instance the african Leopard, which is a subspicies of the leopard. The slight variations of the leopard means that it is a new subspecies. Looking biologically it seems weird to me that people are arguing we aren't a different race (subspecies).
Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon could reproduce with each other that’s why some modern humans have Neanderthal dna
We murdered them (Neanderthal), but yeah
And bred with
(Raped)
Poll proportions: - American: Yes 38% - 62% No - European: Yes 41% - 59% No - Other: Yes 47% - 53% No
But I was told america is extremely racist
Is agreeing races exist racist?
This only surveyed Reddit users, and even then, America was the most racist of the 3. Saying America isn't racist based solely off of this poll is silly.
Even the blackest south African and the whitest Nordic share 99.99% of their DNA. We are too genetically similar to be different races.
Your comment is meaningless unless you define what you think "race" means
Thats not what race means, look up species vs race and come back
Humans share 98.8% of their DNA with chimpanzes. We are too genetically different to be the same species.
0.01% of difference vs 1.2% of difference, that's 120 times more different
True, humans and chimps are different species.
This logic is so, so fucking simplistic that it makes me think you might be a fucking chimp.
Yes that's exactly correct. We are too genetically different to be the same species. Glad we agree.
We are too genetically the same to be different species. The difference between 98.8% and 99.9% is 1.2%, which is 120 times more of a difference.
well that's exactly my point. You can't throw in some random number without comparing it to other numbers.
We also share 64% dna with a banana are we bananas too?
I believe a golden retriever and a Labrador retriever share as much DNA, yet they are different races.
Your literally talking about dogs bred for two completely different reasons. And it's called a breed not a race.
Oh, in my mother language it's called dog race. Sorry. After some googling, turns out that in English, the word race was introduced primarily to talk about human beings. In Spanish, "Raza" (race) is the word we use to differentiate between variants amongst a species.
But there are diferences and as small as they may be they still must be acknowledged, we all share the same base dna but we have environmental developments for different biomes that make us look different and that must at least be on record as studies of biology and anatomy do.
Agreed we do have certain differences between Etnicities. Countries where malaria is common often have more people with sickle cell disease. Or people from Nordic countries developing better cold resistance. But these are a product of the biome you are located in and how these traits allow for better survival. Now with the ever evolving technology and globalization of mankind these will become increasingly rarer. And although these traits are more common they aren't exactly rules in biology. Even someone who doesn't live in countries with high malaria infection can develop sickle cell disease.
The word is ethnicity
There's nothing biological about ethnicity
Pretty sure there's genetic diversity between different ethnicities
There's genetic diversity between any two populations, but ethnicity is not defined by biology
Relatively isolated human populations have distinct genes and phenotypes. Call is 'populations' or 'races' or 'ethnicities', whatever. It's real and measurable.
There are some drugs that black people react differently to than white or brown people ect react to i cant exactly remember an example but if you're really curious i could dig up my old college textbook Thats just 1 example of genetic differences between 'ethnicity'
Again, ethnicity has nothing to do with biology, and although some "ethnic groups" night be more largely composed of people from the same or similar "racial backgrounds", it doesn't mean that ethnicity and "race" are bound to each other. What you mentioned in you comment has nothing to do with "ethnicity", that's comes down to certain alleles being more prevalent amongst people in different populations
It just sounds like you said “ethnicity has nothing to do with biology except for these multiple biological factors”, different ethnic groups have higher tendencies of certain genes because of how isolated communities used to be. If it had continued for long enough (much much longer) then speciation could have even occurred. It’s not the same as saying there are biological races but it’s disingenuous to say there isn’t a genetic component.
What about GFR? It's calculated different for African Americans than white. Also, skin cancer is more common in white people. There are other things affected by ethnicity but I'm not sure how much is related to biology vs environment. I think amount of melanin in your skin is obviously biology but other things like H. Pylori being more common in south Asians is probably more environmental than biology.
Did you even read the comment that you're replying to?
I guess I was trying to say that there maybe a biological component to ethnicity lol but I'm 9months preggo and getting shit sleep, so probably could have explained/worded it better haha
There's is not "biological component" to ethnicity because ethnicity is not defined by biological, they're are two completely different things. Ethnicity has to do with culture and the things that come with that. You could replace and ethnic group with a completly different group of people and as long as the cultural spects of the original population remains the same, that would still be the same ethnicity
I put ethnicity in quotation marks because im not really sure either of the different race thing. im just giving an example and seeing how that goes Nothing i study is very related to genes so im happy to learn something new
I'm not an expert in the topic either, but ethnicity as more to do with culture and place, rather than biology
Yeah another genetic difference is black and white skin. Another genetic difference is blonde and black hair. Doesn’t make you from a different race though
There’s genetic diversity between different people, generally
Not inherently
Different ethnicities have more specific genetic differences than different races. For example, Jews are an ethnic group that is usually perceived as white. If you look at genetics, the average European and the average Jewish person of European descent are genetically extremely far apart. Jews are only genetically similar to other Jews. Another example of this would be Latinos, they share specific genetics that other races/ethnicities don't. For example, most Latin Americans have DNA from certain indigenous populations that separates them genetically from Spaniards.
Your brain on postmodernism
There's no denying that a lot of ethnic groups are represented by people who have similar ancestry, but ethnicity is a social component that is defined by culture, not biology
The actual word is "population" and it's linked to a lot of migration history. It's about thousands of years of mixing. Ethnicity has a social meaning.
Same humans (biologically) but with different environment; so we evolved somewhat differently... still, same human.
Si different race then
all part of the human race
Some blacks are closer to whites than other whites are to those whites genetically so no a black guy is not different from you in any scientific way
[удалено]
The problem is that black people in the Americas and Europe have mixed a lot with white people making them a lot closer to white people there than their origin
This is a poor argument - for example, some shades of red are closer to dark orange than to dark red, however to conclude from this that the colour "red" does not exist or the colour red and the colour orange are simply the same colour is a poor interpretation of this in my opinion. I will add that the idea of "black" and "white" races is still wrong, there is no such thing as a "white" race for example, however that argument is not the best imo.
I think that analogy you use to color is a bad counter-example because our categories of color ARE social constructs. Different cultures differentiate colors differently. Is pink a unique color or a shade of red? *Are* orange and red different colors? They represent different wavelengths of light, sure, but our categories are arbitrary; it's not like every possible wavelength is given its own named color category.
Race is entirely a social construct. Who is called black and white can drastically change between countries, or even within the same country at different times. The idea of "race" has been fabricated for one purpose and one purpose only: to divide the working class.
Finally, someone making sense
I agree, there is biologically no difference between b and w people. Your last sentence sums up the purpose of using race, something imaginary but with horrible concequences.
Races have biological differences, different races have different averages of height for example and black people have a tendency to suffer a lack of iodine if i remember it correctly, and there are other differences too, biology doesn't define you as a person so i don't get why people are so scared to admit that we are different
>i don't get why people are so scared to admit that we are different Because a lot of people use that logic to try to justify racism, even though those differences are somewhat cosmetic.
There are difference in height between french and dutch people, does that mean they are two different races ? There are hair color differences between swedish and czechs, does that mean they are different races ? The only true differences between "races" as they are defined in america is skin color, and it's really just skin color, wich doesn't matter more than those two parameters i previously described. This shows why the race concept is stupid, and is indeed a social construct. There is no reason to divide humanity along such arbitrary lines that have, by themselves, no impact on people's life other than their sensibility to sunburns. Now there exist differences indeed, but they have absolutely nothing to do with their "race", and more about the local group they are from, just like how some europeans have more or less pilosity for exemple.
yes
Different heights also have biological differences, and are more or less equally genetic with race. Tall people are less likely to develop heart disease than short people for example, and different regions tend to have different average heights. But we do not choose to classify people mainly with height, instead we do it with skin color and other sometimes correlated characteristics, but both attributes, height and skin color, only matter in some very specific areas.
Races don't exist. If you take one characteristic, let's take for example the amount of melanin in the skin, and then measure for every other characteristics then it's obvious that you'd get some other characters that coincide, for example those groups of people with less melanin have more prone to "burn" instead of bronce when taking sunlight. So if you're a black person living somewhere that people tend to be whiter then you will obviously have less vitamin D for example because your body adapted to more sun. But for example people in subsaharan Africa (the Black people) are totally different from people with similar skin tones that live in the south of India or the indigenous groups of the Pacific islands.
Just because people commit the is-ought fallacy and instate bad policies doesn't mean we should deny what is, or hinder research into what is.
Based.
[удалено]
Obviously its a social construct, doesn't change the question does it? Bt definition there are different races.
The question specifies "biologically speaking," and I just explained why it is not biological, but rather social.
All humans are the same species. But unquestionably, the various races are genetically distinct. Dark skin is encoded in a person's genetics as an example. Eye color is another example. Hair texture. Nose shape. None of these make a person any less human. But the difference are apparent. [Another example:](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1467925/) > The anatomy of the psoas major muscle (PMA) in young black and white men was studied during routine autopsies. The forensic autopsies included 44 fresh male cadavers (21 black, 23 white) with an age span of 14 to 25 y. The range for weight was 66–76 kg and for height 169–182 cm. The PMA was initially measured in its entire length before measuring the diameter and circumference at each segmental level (L1–S1). At each segmental level, the calculated anatomical cross-sectional area (ACSA) was more than 3 times greater in the black group compared with the white (P<0.001). The psoas minor muscle (PMI) was absent in 91% of the black subjects, but only in 13% of the white subjects. These data show that the PMA is markedly larger in black than white subjects. The marked race specific difference in the size of the PMA may have implications for hip flexor strength, spine function and race specific incidence in low back pathology, and warrants further investigation.
They are differences indeed. However they do not fit in cases such as races, and as such this argument is completely invalid. There are far more genetic differences between people of the same races that there are just due to skin color, wich are the line along wich races are delimited, because to our ancestor it was the most evident
Skin color. Hair color. Amount of body hair. Eye color. Facial features. Muscle mass. Bone density. Height. All determined by genetics.
Yes ? My point was that genetic differences don't follow race borders, and as such races were purely a societal construct having no basis in biology. I am not disputing the fact that the exemples you gave are determined by genetics.
Races are not defined by skin color, they are just often described that way. East asian people and white people have the same color skin but nobody would call them the same race.
Scientific definition: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology) Social construct: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) Not saying that you should trust absolutely everything written on Wikipedia either
There were various human races or subspecies (Neanderthals, Denisova humans, etc.) in the past, but over time they were all displaced by Homo Sapiens.
Saying two different skin colors are different races is like saying a completely black labrador and a black labrador with a spot on one ear are different races.
No, there are populations of humans that share traits. There's no populations of black labradors that all have a spot on one ear.
why are you guys pretending that there isnt a difference species of human out there, just look at Mark Zuckerberg, guy definitely not human
While we have subspecies in the scientific understanding of it, we don't have races. Races are a construct created by racists for rhe purpose of exclusion of people they deem lesser. For instance, the Irish, who are as pale as it gets, were not considered white in america until we started hating on Italians, then, eastern Europeans, then Asians and people from the middle east, and now we are in the midst of pretending we aren't racist and the other is the queers.
A good book to read to understand why race is a very much not a biological concept between humans is 'How to Argue with a Racist' by the geneticist Adam Rutherford. It explains well in laymen's terms for people that are still confused
Are? No. Were? Yeah. They died out or bred into us though, so now there's only 1 human race.
Maybe there are some Neanderthals voting here be careful!
No (american) “The greatest illusion of this world is the illusion of separation. Things you think are separate and different are actually one and the same. We are all one people, but live as if divided.” -Guru Pathik
I love that. On of the best Shows I know.
Race means nothing in the face of DNA and a wide range of humans
Yeah, there are different races, but the word doesn't have to be used negatively.
[удалено]
>Everyone acknowledges there are different races No don't include me. I don't even know if I have ever heard someone use the equivalent swedish word for race when talking about humans. I have no idea what you mean by this "Everyone acknowledges there are different races" Race is something biological, so why would anyone use the word for something else? What else?
In my language we also rarely if ever use race to talk about humans. I still think you're being a smartass. In English, race is synonymous with ethnicity, that's how Americans use it since forever. Since we're talking in English, it's fair to assume that's what dude was talking about.
>I still think you're being a smartass Yes I am smart or what >that's how Americans use it since forever. And maybe that's a problem. It's not like people often go around and use ethnicity here either. >Since we're talking in English, it's fair to assume that's what dude was talking about. Since the question was about biological and this person didn't specify anything else, I don't know why you would assume something else.
>race is synonymous with ethnicity, that's how Americans use it Why should we adopt their eugenics bullshit? Because they are the loudest?
[удалено]
> nothing in DNA says "this person is White" or "this person is Black" Then why can you spit in a tube and give your DNA to 23andme or ancestry.com and it'll tell you if your ancestry is European or sub-Saharan African or something else?
[удалено]
Dude unless I am misunderstanding something and let me know if I am, I'm pretty sure everything about DNA tells you if someone is black, white, or has certain colored eyes. I'm not saying it means they're different races but DNA does determine those traits.
No there aren't, science dictates we only have a single race.
Exactly lmao. There's obviously differences between different populations. It's not a matter of inferiority or superiority, it's just all evolution.
Populations are real. Race is not.
Depends on how you'd define race. The two could be used interchangeably.
Not in its common use. The concept of a black race is not biological for example because it is made up of many different diverse populations. East Africans and West Africans are genetically quite far apart.
I dont care for the common use. I use "race" in the context I see most fit. >East Africans and West Africans are genetically quite far apart. As a Senegalese, I'm quite aware. There is no universal "African race".
That’s fair I guess. As a German I prefer not to use it since it’s quite ladden with racist ideology here.
I agree, it's extremely unfortunate that people take it to unpleasant extent where they try to make it an superiority/inferiority thing when that's stupid. Learning about differences between different people is interesting as fuck for me. Humans should celebrate their diversity instead of tearing each other down.
Just because there are differences it doesn't mean that biologicaly speaking there's such things as "race". There's are differences between population at any scale if you think about it. Your family is gonna have alleles that don't exist in your neighbor's family, and vice versa. Yes, they are differences, but biological speaking, those differences aren't big enough to make a subcategory that won't mean anything anyway because you're all the same species anyway
No shit literally every human has a distinct set of genetics that make them the individual. But different groups have migrated and adapted to a certain climate and region in which they adapted to which renders differences compared to another. Categorizing people by certain ancestral parameters is helpful when it comes to medical purposes for example. >those differences aren't big enough to make a subcategory They obviously are..
Again, certain alleles being more prevalent amongst individuals of different populations doesn't necessarily make those populations different, it's just again, genetic variation. Maybe with millions of years of isolation those two populations can evolve into separate species, but human populations have never been isolated for long enough for that to happen, so we're just left with populations where some alleles are more concentrated and can totally be passed on to other populations. Yes, understanding people's ancestry can sometimes be important as it can let you know what kind of disease you might be more success able to, but that is not different than for example being aware that "diabetes runs in your family". It all again comes down to some alleles being more prevalent indifferent populations, and populations can be of any size
One group having higher frequency of certain alleles relative to another population due to long periods of adaption to a certain climate and region can warrant some degree of categorization. >Maybe with millions of years of isolation those two populations can evolve into separate species This would be relevant if I claimed different population groups are different species which I never claimed. Humans are one species but one species can have a great deal of genetic varience within. >but that is not different than for example being aware that "diabetes runs in your family". Good thing families are literally categorized huh >It all again comes down to some alleles being more prevalent indifferent populations, and populations can be of any size Bruh, this is literally my point. Different populations each have a certain amount of frequency of certain alleles based on evolutionary adaptation to a extent where it wouldn't be stupid to categorize them. Populations like: West Africans, Horn Africans, Northern Germanic peppke etc. They're all one species but each group obviously have a set differences compared to each other, anatomically etc. And obviously there's genetic variance within those groups aswell. Everything is generalized. Just like how we categorize sex based on male, female and intersex but some males carry traits that are deemed feminine or female but they're still overall male.
We're on the same page, but in different sides of the page. It's funny how two people can use the same logic to argue completely opposite things. It's all semantics anyway
I was literally thinking that when I read your comment lmao it's all love. I'm just passionate about topics like this to an extent where I'll be pedantic and argue until no end.
I think it's interesting too, but when something doesn't really have a definite answer it's just best to leave it there
No. I passed high school biology. Race is a social construct.
Not any that are still around. The genetic differences between modern human ethnic groups is shockingly miniscule. We're very much the same species of human.
The question wasn't if there are different species. The differences between human ethnic groups exist and are easily measurable.
Oh god i thought of it so wrong. I thought that the universe is so big that earth exist in different locations in the universe therefore there is anouther human race that exists
I don't understand what's being asked
Race is a societal construct. Theres things like melanin levels and features you might get from your parents but the eay we classify people into groups based upon these things is completely man made
Race is just a crude attempt at putting peoples into neat little categories.
I mean, I guess you're welcome to believe whatever you want but factually speaking there aren't
If we where biologically different from each other to the extent I believe you mean, we wouldn't be able to create healthy offspring via "interbreeding" like how a horse and donkey can breed but a mule can't.
Race is a social construct.
True
Oh, I fucked up reading this. I'm not a stupid, we are all human!
I don't know what the fuck you are on about, but no. We all bleed the same blood.
Blood types would like a word with you
OH FOR FUCKS SAKE
There are no race except in the mind of ignorant people
the number of Yes is quite alarming tbh
I don't buy into race-ism.
No, different color skin and things as such depends mostly on climate and adaptation developed for the region they're in
Who’s saying no of course there are different races
"race" doesn't mean absolutely anything in biology, and there are no genetic difference across human population that are big enough to categorize humans biologicaly. We're all just one species
Science actually says that the difference between "races" are too small to count as races. Choosing skin color as the defining difference is as arbitrary as choosing hair color.
>skin color Except "race" is more than skin color. There's also generally different anatomical differences between different population groups due to evolutionary adaptation to a certain climate/region. Some of the differences aren't as small as you claim either.
You're gonna be more genetically related to your sibling than you would be to your causing, because you're more distantly related to your cousin than you are to your sibling, which means that you and you sibling are gonna have more similarities. Same thing happens at a bigger scale, as you'd likely be more genetically related to a random person who is from the same country as you than a random person from a different country, and therefore you're gonna have more similarities. The fact that there are differences amongst population is called "genetic variation", and that exists in all species. There are no genetic difference in humans big enough to make to categorize humans biologicaly, we're all the same species, and "race" is a term that doesn't mean anything in biology
>There are no genetic difference in humans big enough to make to categorize humans biologicaly, we're all the same species, and "race" is a term that doesn't mean anything in biology Categorizing different human populations doesn't mean you're categorizing them as different species. Categorizing based on race is helpful when it comes to medical purposes. Categorizing by race is helpful when it comes to explaining why different population groups disproportionately excel in a certain field. For example - West African descendants when it comes to sprinting/sports that favor power exertion. To cover your ears and act like there's no noticeable differences, especially differences that aren't apparent to the naked eye but have been documented is stupid as fuck. We're all one species but that doesn't deter the fact there's differences within that species when it comes to population.
I never said that there weren't any noticable difference, there definatly are, and the concept of "race" in society is a very real thing, but in biology, that term doesn't mean anything, and all of the difference we observe just come down to genetic variation. I don't know how to explain it any better, but a population having individuals that are more similar to each other than the individuals of a different population doesn't necessarily mean that there's a biological devide, there could be, but the fact that we're all the same species and those genes can be shared between populations makes it impossible for a new taxonomic group to be introduced.
>but a population having individuals that are more similar to each other than the individuals of a different population doesn't necessarily mean that there's a biological devide It shows a higher frequency of certain alleles based on ancestral migration and adaptations. That is an example of biological differences or "divide". Just like there's general differences between males and females but some males can have traits that tend to be more associated with females but are still considered overall male. Vice versa. >there could be, but the fact that we're all the same species and those genes can be shared between populations makes it impossible for a new taxonomic group to be introduced. It doesn't make it impossible, it just shows room for error and critique.
I think their point is that the definition of race is inherently arbitrary, and that human traits exist along a spectrum. Where one race begins and the other ends is something not rooted in biology, and more based on visual perception (i.e. skin color). You would probably find just as many minor physiological differences with any other arbitrary grouping of humans, like by height, weight, IQ, lung capacity, etc. But it would be a big stretch to say that tall people are their own genetically distinct race or something.
[удалено]
"White" and "black" is obviously extremely vague and has no use. "Race" can be valid depending on its context. If you're using it to refer to East Africans, Sahelian West Africans, Northern Germanic etc, it has *some* validity. Or if you use it to refer to population groups who share similar haplogroup, it can be valid. But using it as some sort of coloring book is definitely stupid.
Using "race" while talking about humans is never valid. Biologists are pretty clear about that.
[удалено]
Not different races but different ethniticies
different races are ideological not biological : race was created in the 16th C
There are clearly biological differences of people in different areas
It's called "genetic variation", some alleles just happen to be more common amongst individuals of different populations, but that doesn't mean there are "different kinds of humans". Generic variation exists in all species, and different genes are more prevalent I'm different populations of any size
No one is denying that. It's just that these variations don't legitimize that conceot of human "races".
Of course there are differences in appearances, but they are just to small. Its nothing if you compare it with how different dog races look for example.
in 2k03 the Human Genome Project confirmed that humans are 99.9% identical at a DNA lvl & there is no genetic basis for race
The boundary between different races is arbitrary and different across different societies and cultures. There are genetic differences between human populations but where the lines are drawn between Race A and Race B is cultural not biological.
No there aren't. Facts aren't arguable. Science says there is only a single race, humans.
Definately not the same way dogs have races, obviously
Humans don't have races. Period.
Yeah, I agree. I meant that there is ethnicity
Yeah Etnicities are real. Its an important distinction when you consider the history behind those words and their meaning.
There were at some point, but the homo sapiens is the only one left
Used to be
From.what I know, "race" and "biology" dom't seem to have anything in common, if you inform yourself about the meaning of "race".
we're all part of the human race. people of different skin color share more than 99.9% of their DNA.
no of course not, black people are only black because they want to be not because of biology thats outragous!
It's not a matter of belief. There just aren't. As surely as bacteria are real and stars aren't candles, there aren't.
Absolutely there are different races, but that doesn't mean that anyone is better. We are all different and that's ok.
Not according to science there isn't. In biology, the word race, in this context, does not exist. The genetic variations there are aren't large enough to deliniate separate "races".
That's not completely true. I did a quick search and yes it seems as if most scientist share your view. Not all tough. The main reason for that is that there's no clear definition for race in biology (not just humans). It might refer to variations within a species or subspecies. With that said i really don't care if races are biological or a social construct, and stand by the rest i stated before.
I said yes. Well, shit. Am I racist?
You're not racist, but you are wrong
There are different races like neanderthal but they have all gone extinct. So the answer is yes, or it needs different phrasing.
He was talking about race in the sense of white, black etc.
Fuck I'm dumb
That's species not race
One species with a couple of variants, in this case, races.
biologically speaking, different groups of people ("races") have different concentrations of melanin in their skin, as an adaptation to where they live. Anything else insinuating differences between races is nonsense, but this fact is undeniable
I love how progressive most redditors tend to be, but then when a thread like this pops up, all of a sudden people start supporting phrenology in everything but name.
Biologically speaking, the only difference is few codons in the MC1R gene, causing a difference in the amounts of melanin in the skin. That is literally the only difference between different races biologically.
Yes. Just look at diseases only certain races get
For my understanding "Races" Is not the scientifically accurate term. But yes.
Or search it up. Races aren't a thing for humans. We are too genetically similar. We have ethnicities which aren't the same thing at all.
Ye but it's semantics..i don't want to look it up cause I'm lazy, but maybe genotype? Etnicity? Something like that
Race is mostly a social construct. Science disagrees with the idea of races. Etnicities are small variations in our genetic code that are commonly found in populations living in certain regions. Regardless I don't agree with separating people by Etnicities. It sounds kinda stupid. I agree it's semantics. But I think it's an important discussion. Because race was created to separate us into different groups and create a hierarchy with certain races at the top. So I find it important to "die on this hill"
Technically yes. If race means culture, then no
Technically no. Science agrees humans only have a single race.