/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15817271
They didn't really "disprove" the biological theory of race in the same way they didn't "disprove" the concepts of subspecies or breed or cline.

What has been shown is that strict biological racial categories are far less precise than previously believed (though far more precise than a blank slate). So just like everything else, it's complicated and in the middle.

>>15817275
They're not fat less precise, what the fuck are you talking about

>>15817283
Considering the category of "negroid" included aboriginals which are literally 40,000 years separated from sub-saharab Africans, yes the categories of the 1920s-1950's are not that precise.

Genome wide association studies have made the clustering of population groups more precise in a certain sense but it has shown that we can get arbitrarily specific about ethnic/population separation. There are very few cases where there is not a gradiation rather than distinct separation.

Generally for those distinct separations to occur, you need something geographical without easy avenues for overcoming it to occur. These geographical separation based clusters can in a certain sense be mapped onto older racial categories, but present new considerations, e.g. the fairly large genetic distinction between eastern Sahel Africans near the Arabian peninsula and western SSA populations from the Nigeria/Ghana etc.

Well let's see the sources.
>Templeton, A. (2016). "Evolution and Notions of Human Race". pp. 346–361. "... the answer to the question whether races exist in humans is clear and unambiguous: no."
No proof accessible for free, disregarded.
>Wagner, Jennifer K... (February 2017). "Anthropologists' views on race, ancestry, and genetics". American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
Just a survey of the opinions of anthropologists, no proof.
>American Association of Physical Anthropologists (March 27, 2019). "AAPA Statement on Race and Racism". American Association of Physical Anthropologists.
Here they give arguments
>Racial categories do not provide an accurate picture of human biological variation. Variation exists within and among populations across the planet, and groups of individuals can be differentiated by patterns of similarity and difference, but these patterns do not align with socially-defined racial groups (such as whites and blacks) or continentally-defined geographic clusters (such as Africans, Asians, and Europeans).
But they only oppose a "continental" definition of races that no one ever used (as everyone acknowledges that north africans are not the same as subsaharans), and a "social" definition, which I suppose is the traditional american one with its one-drop rule that indeed make people like meghan markle "black" despite being genetically closer to europeans.
It doesn't consider biological races.
It does argue repeatedly in the following paragraphs that human biodiversity is clinal, and that a non-specified amount of gene flow occured between populations. But clinal diversity was never an obstacle to biological classification, and limited gene flow neither.

>>15817306
>the category of "negroid" included aboriginals
This poster from 1911 separates them

>>15817326
I don't give a shit about that particular article's argument. There's tons of really low quality arguments that people make in the "is race a real biological category" question.

I don't think anyone genuinely claiming the answer is "no" can do so in reference to meaningful scientific evidence. With that being said, a really large amount of the arguments brought forward by "race realists," also amount to unscientific bullshit that is mostly formed by political ideology.

There's very obviously a large amount of human biodiversity and the implications of this are still not that well understood. What we do understand seems to imply that these differences are far less predictable in many of the meaningful ways.

Race isn't just aesthetic differences in physical presentation, but it is also not this super strong highly correlated signal to most areas of interest for scientific inquiry.

>>15817345
You are clueless

>>15817351
Okay, if you say so.

What would you recommend me look at in terms of scientific literature (either genuine peer reviewed or popular science books/articles if they are well done) that would argue your case well?

Generally, my impression after some engagement with the HBD crowd is that they have certain points but are easily led astray by their political leanings. As an example, I was fairly impressed by the 10,000 year explosion and A Troublesome Inheritance, but there's a large difference between "we are far more influenced by the rapid selection pressured of agricultural/industrial development than previously understood" and "humans can be precisely grouped by race on a purely biological level with clear dividing taxonomy."

>>15817306
>>15817333
Even going back to Darwin and his contemporaries they knew enough about phylogeny and physiognomy to know that abbos weren't related to Africans.

>>15817356
>"humans can be precisely grouped by race on a purely biological level with clear dividing taxonomy."
Why can't you guys ever stop moving the goalposts?
>precisely grouped with clear divisions
That was never claimed nor is it necessary. Humans diversity is clinal.

>>15817271
>theory of race
Is this the kind of horseshit they allow on Wikipedia now? Any kind of taxonomy is based on more or less arbitrary criteria, not "theories". "Is race real" is a dumb question. "Is it useful" is the question to ask. If you're e. g., wanting to screen out possible transplant or bone marrow donors as cheap as possible or walking in a rough neighbourhood at midnight, hear footsteps behind you and look to see it's a Japanese guy, it's damned useful. It's also useful you you're concerned about your grandchildren

>biology stops being real when it comes to considering human
is that because humans were made in god's image like it says in the Bible?