Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I believe when people say race they are referring to a distinct evolutionary and cultural difference that extends past skin color. This is similar to the canine term breed ex: Doberman and Poodle.
@comrade1027 Yes that is true, but because we compare whites and blacks like labradors and chihuahuas we treat them exponentially differently, if we just treated it like chocolate lab vs white lab then we would have much more of an honest equality.
@comrade1027 if u want to be technical humans are all the same “breed” it’s more like black lab vs yellow lab like the other guy said. An example of a different “breed” of humans would be Neanderthals but those have gone extinct. Currently, Homo sapiens are the only breed of humans that have survived to modern day so technically/scientifically we’re all the same breed/race just we have differing colors and characteristics like how labradors have different characteristics, some are light some are brown, etc.
Just because something results in more equality does not mean it's scientifically and historically accurate. Homo sapien would be a specie and we do not exist as a single breed or race. Another way of phrasing the term race would be variety or subspecies. Let's say we go with your assumption that say Caucasoids and Africans have equal genetic differences between each other as the different types of Labs. I feel it's important to point out that even these animals differ in more than fur color. "Coloured Labrador retrievers have, on average, 10% shorter lives than black or yellow Labradors, according to a study we co-published today in Canine Genetics and Epidemiology. Ear infections and skin diseases are also more common in chocolate Labradors than non-chocolate Labradors.Color might not seem linked to health at first glace, but some connections between coat color and disease in dogs are well established. The Piebald or "S" gene variants can increase the amount of white in a dog's coat and lighten its eyes to blue, but also cause high rates of deafness in one or both ears."
Homo Sapiens are not just a "breed" of hominid but are in fact a separate specie than say Homo Habilis, etc. Interestingly, modern hominids have been shown to have different levels of intermarriage with these primitive hominids. Europeans having higher Neanderthal variants for example which are essentially non existent in sub Saharan Africans. I'm not sure if you've heard of the taxonomic ranking system for zoological nomenclature so i'll reproduce it here. superfamily, family, subfamily, tribe, subtribe, genus, subgenus, species, subspecies. Our genus is Homo and our species is Sapien. Sapien would not be our race or breed. It is our species which even today continues to evolve.
@comrade1027 yes we are of the same species. But there isn’t an equivalent of “breeds” in humans a because dog breeds are more genetically different from one another than humans are. I was just saying if we were to go alone with the dog example it would be more accurate to say we all belong to same “breed” because unlike dog breeds all humans pretty much share the same basic characteristics and in fact all humans share 99.9% of the same DNA which is too similar for us to be considered different sub species. Our genetic differences are superficial like skin color, hair texture, nose size/shape, etc and therefore aren’t enough for us to have distinct sub species. Like you said with Labrador’s, even beyond color there are differences in life expectancy/disease etc which can be seen with humans as well, but just like as with labradors, this isn’t enough difference for us to be considered distinct sub-species/breeds. This article explains it better than I can :genetics.thetech.org/.../are-all-humans-same-subspeciesBut basically my point is, scientifically humans all belong to same species and sub species. There are no such things as different human “breeds” and it would be scientifically inaccurate to say that humans of differing ethnic backgrounds are distinct sub species or breeds the way that dogs are. Ultimately race is a social concept rather than a genetic truth. humans have many differences across the table that can be owed to culture, ethnic background, environmental facts etc but this doesn’t change the fact that, scientifically speaking, there is only 1 human race that exists on earth today.
@comrade1027 this is also a good article which explains the point I am trying to make. evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/.../s12052-019-0109-y
It seems they have made perhaps a deliberate error in using the U. S. census definitions of various races. Their classifications are a bit different than that of historical migrations and genetics. For example, some Latin Americans, Jews, southern Italians, etc may have significant nonCaucasoid admixture. In this way you can quickly mix up/blend the racial groups which distorts any comparison.
@comrade1027 that’s the point. The definition of “race” changes based on what time period/context you are talking to because race is a social concept which you just proved in your comment. It is not a scientific fact which stays constant across all cultures/contexts. So it’s appropriate to talk about race in a social/cultural context but scientifically speaking there’s only one human race and we are of the same species and sub species.
I agree that skin color and geographical locations alone are not currently very useful in studying human genetic diversity. However, just because historical populations made some errors in their classifications of what race is doesn't negate the scientific fact that heredity and ethnic differences are almost 100% determined by genetics. Carolus Linnaeus developed an early system of dividing humans into sub-species based on geographical location. At the time this was a very reliable marker of race for his country Sweden. Genetic based race is simply keeping up with the times as it allows us to be more accurate. I also agree that for scientific purposes, geneticists should not limit themselves to skin color as a marker of genetics and race. I know of multi-racial individuals who display prominent recessive racial traits despite having a grandfather for example who was clearly of a separate racial group. In modern population genetics and evolutionary biology, racial groups are no longer fixed between continents, but the race concept is a way to understand the frequency of genes in differing human populations.
@comrade1027 that’s the thing though humans are genetically 99.5% the same so there are NO genetic differences that are significant enough for us to scientifically say that there a sub species of humans. When you refer to ethnic differences, ethnicity has to do with ones cultural background. And culture is by definition “ the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.” it has nothing to do with genetics or DNA or any of that you keep conflating societal constructs like ethnicity and culture with biological concepts like DNA and genetics when they’re two separate things. Race, like ethnicity, is a social construct. Which is why it’s definition is constantly evolving and changing. Scientifically though there is one human race. And Carolus Linneas made lasting contributions to taxonomy, etc but we’re in the 21st century now and it’s apparent that not all his theories/classifications are scientifically correct. Modern day scientists agree there’s only 1 human race so if you’re interested in this subject you should read up on more recent studies bc they’d be more accurate. Bc tbh citing linneas on this subject is kind of like citing Aristotle when talking about astronomy bc his ideas have been proven wrong by now.
"Genetically 99.5% similar." Half a percent is VAST when it comes to DNA. According to your number, which I take you got from Ventner, some humans have.2% MORE similarities to Neanderthals at 99.7% similarity. In comparing the genome of Craig Venter to that of the consensus human genome reference sequence, there is about 1.2% difference when indels and CNVs are considered, 0.1% when SNPs are considered: ≈0.3% when inversions are considered — a grand total of 1.6% but let's look at comparisons to other species. We are roughly 98.8% similar to chimps. 98% similar to pigs. 90% similar to cats. 60% similar to bananas. Each human cell contains roughly three billion base pairs, or bits of information. Just 1.2 percent of that equals about 35 million differences. Some of these have a big impact, others don't.
@comrade1027 yes but 98% is different enough to be considered a separate species 99.5% is not. Like you said the smallest amount makes a difference so even though humans are only 1.5% more similar to each other than we are compared to chimps that is enough to constitute us as too similar to be belonging to sub species. But this isn’t my opinion anyways I’m not trying to convince you to believe my opinion. This is a simple biological fact.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/This is another scientific journal which explains it well. All the articles I’ve linked so far explain in more eloquent terms than I can how race is a social construct rather than a biological one. I think you’ll find these articles interesting if you’re into anthropology/biology/taxonomy, etc. cause maybe you don’t realize it, but the notion that human races are genetically dissimilar enough to be seen as subspecies is actually a racist, and untrue, fallacy that historically has been used to justify the mistreatment of certain races and to argue against interracial relationships. It’s scientifically untrue and has been proven as such. I don’t think you’re being purposefully racist which is why I’m trying to explain to you why you are misinformed on the subject. You seem really smart but I think you have some outdated information on the topic since you are citing people like Linnaeus.
I mentioned Linnaeus merely to explain taxonomy to you and how we cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. I take it you would characterize modern humans as a separate species from Denisovans and Neanderthals? It may be surprising for you to learn modern humans are closer to those species than polar bears are to brown bears. Than coyotes are to wolves. And several other separate species. "Our desire to categorize the world into discrete boxes has led us to think of species as completely separate units," Social science fears of racism have blacklisted this possibility for modern humans. Scientific opinion is not a monolith. We are continually producing studies seemingly at odds with each other. You've admitted that there is a genetic biological difference between populations. Whether you call this race or not, it still exists.
@comrade1027 yes I do think we are separate species from Neanderthals and Denisovans and while some humans have small traces of Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA, these sub species of humans are more extinct and that’s why there’s only one sub species of humans on earth and although within our sub species there is a lot of genetic variation, we are still the same sub species. You can’t really compare humans to bears and chimpanzees because even among chimpanzees, because humans are a much more mobile species than other animals and therefore have no been isolated from each other for long enough in order to form sub species. We are constantly migrating and mixing populations among it evolutionarily impossible for us to diverge into separate sub species. Again this isn’t opinion, this is something that has been proven by geneticists and scientists and I showed you those links earlier if you’re interested in learning about it.
Meant to say “now extinct” not “more extinct” lol typo
I showed before how different populations have differing amounts of these prehistoric populations. Sub saharan Africans having no Neanderthal admixture, but Europeans and Asians do, etc. I also think many scientists would agree with you in ruling out future divergence within our species. Natural disasters such as solar flares or other events that cause a bottleneck effect, are one possibility.
@comrade1027 yeah some humans do have small trace amounts of Neanderthal DNA but that’s evidence of us mixing with Neanderthals back in the day. It doesn’t change the fact that Neanderthals are still extinct. But yeah I think you’re right too maybe a freak event like a solar flare could cause population divergence but other than that it’s not likely
Some other considerations are designer humans through embryo manipulation, gene splicing, radiation, or even a virus that changes DNA differently for different people. We live in an amazing world full of possibilities.
Actually being white is not truly a race when it comes to look. I know plenty of arabe and Latinas that literally have a pale skin and blonde hair, but their race is not considered white.
Fair enough, i agree with you.
That is very racist for you to assume that. That would require you to believe racism came from only one group of people. South Americans can be quite racist towards Europeans and Africans. the Same With Asians and other parts of the world. Racism is an ideology not a skin color. It is found in every group of people. There are no races, but treating people based on appearance endemic of human sin nature. Even if all shared skin color then people would be ostracized for hair or eye color. Look how individual countries treat each other. People would have to look exactly the same or not care about differences. Graciously there are those now who do not care, but enough do that there is racism.
@Gravit1 ok I'm American and quite intelligent and educated mmm... so I don't know much about it I just thought black and white.
All I'm saying the idea racism is external is false, it's a product of the mind not the body. As long as there is a difference people will naturally treat others differently. Jesus says to love your neighbor as yourself. That defies the natural. We don't all have to be the same, just respect our differences. Different people marry each other all the time, ethnicity truly is an arbitrary difference. The only thing that truly separates people are choices. Who you choose to serve. Most serve evil through their own will. Jesus is the only Good choice. However the biggest lie of this world is that there are more than two ultimate choices.
@Gravit1 ok like I said I don't know much about it but if everyone kept marrying interracial within some generations it would be gone I think... ... uhm the god and jesus stuff I'll just leave up to you... like I said I'm educated and fairly intelligent... peace...
If people actually treated people as themselves there would be no thefts, racism, murders, or any other evil, because after all who would treat themselves that way? Diversity is a beautiful thing. If people all share the same skin color then people would separate off eye or hair color. If those matched then it would be facial features. The ideology of racism would still be with us. It sounds nice, but people do not need to look the same to end racism, they need an internal change of beliefs. It is the ideology that needs to change. Racism is a state of mind not skin color.
@Gravit1 ok if I ever meet a racist I'll look into it. Until then I'll just live in this world
It ain't weird. Even I prefer only white girls. You should try talking to a few Indians who've been taught the British accent. I speak with no rhoticity.
I think this is far more common than people realize.
Texture? What? What's the difference between a black guys skin from a white guys? That doesn't even make sense.
If you are an intelligent black woman who envisions herself being successful financially, stick with a brother
It seems those principles are more reminiscent of Caucasian men but many people also look for things like cultural values, favorite foods, speech mannerisms, etc which typically are in their own race. Anyways, it's good to see people working on and looking for such values like integrity, family, and financial security.
Wishing you luck in finding him soon.
@comrade1027 Thank you, I have prepared myself from him, this summer I will be spending more time outside just in case he is passing by.
Lol at 33 years old? Good luck future cat lady
That's past the sell by date
@TerminallyChill Thanks for that very valuable piece of information.
How could you forget three tits like Jelva, the alien queen of varvak.
I think that absent racial differences there will still be tribal groups determined by other criteria. Historically this has been so. In Europe, Catholics and Protestants even in the same countries have fought centuries of bloody wars. Wealth, intelligence, political beliefs, country of origin. We see from history that conflict emerges continually along all such lines. This is because there are finite resources including sexual/mating/marriages. Anytime there is a competition for these resources, the power struggle continues. Look at the pecking order among women and calling each other fat or anorexic, whores and prudes etc. Evolutionary psychology is quite interesting.
I hope you’re joking
@Catphish of course
I actually got two thumbs down for stating "wouldn't care" which is absolutely 100% true. Fuck people, they are such assholes. I don't know what to think anymore, I hope 'humanity' is wiped out, people don't deserve to live... shallow stupid creatures.
@Inquisitive3 Well, I will give you an upvote!
Thank you friend. <3 :)