/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9460795
>without realizing that taxonomy is an arbitrary science
If taxonomy is just an arbitrary labeling why does it make any difference to you if you're the same species as a Superior African Male or not

>>9460800

It doesn't really matter to me. I just think race deniers are intellectually dishonest.

The thing is that race is not scientifically rigorous.

>>9460802
>It doesn't really matter to me.
then why are you watching race realism videos on youtube and making threads about them

>>9460806

Because I am interested in current debates.

Dogs are basically the best example for racists who reject race science.

>>9460795
>>9460802
You have been BTFO three times in a row. You even contradicted yourself. heh
>>9460806
>>9460800
>>9460803

>>9460803

Is taxonomy on a whole rigorous? There are marked genetic differences between human populations that affects behavioral and phenotypical aspects. If Gibbons can be divided scientifically into different taxon, why not modern humans.

>>9460818
When did I contradict myself?

>>9460819
>is taxonomy
The inherited characteristics from the XIX century of taxonomy are immediately non-rigorous. That's a fact.

>rest of the text
What are you talking about? I've already told you the XIX century inherited characteristics aren't rigorous.

>>9460803
>The thing is that race is not scientifically rigorous.
What do you mean?

>>9460826
Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.

This is from the other thread btw

>>9460802
>I don't care about that, tell me something that confirms my opinion so that I feel better

>>9460827
>Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype.
Why does it imply that?

>>9460828
>>I don't care about that, tell me something that confirms my opinion so that I feel better
Who are you quoting?

>>9460830
Due to its inherited XIX century classifications. As the current race jedgements are influenced by appearance, it contradicts science. I think this is easy to understand.

Race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

>>9460838
>Due to its inherited XIX century classifications. As the current race jedgements are influenced by appearance, it contradicts science. I think this is easy to understand.
>Race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.
Did you misread my post? I asked about the implication you claimed.

>>9460842
>implication you claimed
The simple fact of considering individuals' appearance in the classification instead of pure genetic background isn't "scientifically" rigorous, as it nullifies the purpose of such ancestor-relation classifications.

Thus, race isn't science. race is pseudoscience.

>>9460861
>The simple fact of considering individuals' appearance in the classification instead of pure genetic background isn't "scientifically" rigorous
What do you mean?

>>9460867
About what?

That race isn't science?

>>9460869
>About what?
About "The simple fact of considering individuals' appearance in the classification instead of pure genetic background isn't "scientifically" rigorous"

>>9460871
Well, I think this is pretty much intuitive.

The conclusion would be that race isn't science.

>>9460876
>Well, I think this is pretty much intuitive.
It's not, in fact it's a meaningless notion without anything further.

>>9460879
Denying a scientific fact such as genotype definning phenotype isn't meaningless.

Race isn't science. Sorry, not sorry.

>>9460882
>Denying a scientific fact such as genotype definning phenotype isn't meaningless.
Did you misread my post?

>>9460884
You wanted to prove something?

>>9460892
>You wanted to prove something?
No I was wondering what you meant by "The simple fact of considering individuals' appearance in the classification instead of pure genetic background isn't "scientifically" rigorous", which is a meaningless notion.

>>9460882

You are a scientific moron. A phenotype is the outward expression of an organisms genotype. They are inherently related. But aside from that point, races are in fact different genotypically from each other. A Northern European has a far different genotype than a Sub-Saharan African or an East Asian. Just look at Haplogroups. Regardless, I am not using the XIX century taxonomy of races you idiot. I am using the modern day taxonomy of similar species and apllying those standards to humans.

>>9460894
It describes race classifications. As race classifications contradict scientific facts. They are not science.
>>9460896
>not using xix
Race classifications have inherited the appearance judgement component. And this implies what >>9460861 post says.

>just look at haplogroups
>R race
>Q race
>A,B race
Are you making a new definition of race? You want to change the current racial classifications?lol

>>9460905
>As race classifications contradict scientific facts.
Can you give an example of such a contradiction?

>>9460908
See>>9460871

>>9460914
>See>>9460871 (You)
What exactly is the "contradiction" there? That's just me quoting your meaningless notion.

it's called "the species problem", not the "race problem"
besides, any race can impregnate any other race and have viable offspring
phenotype is highly variable, even more so in humans due to the low selection pressure we've been experiencing
race is even more arbitrary than species

>>9460916
It shows how race contradicts a scientific fact.

Therefore race isn't science.

>>9460905

I used haplogroups as evidence to show that genotypes differ on racial lines. I never stated that haplogroups are races themselves, just genetic markers. Races would be constituted from several haplogroups.

Also, yes I do want to change modern racial classifications. I want them to be as scientific as possible. What you are saying is that races do not exists, which is blatantly false. We observe racial differences on the phenotypic and genotypic level. That is undeniable.

>>9460920

I do not care about people producing fertile offspring. That is an archaic classification os species that has not been taken serious since the birth of the fertile Bottlenose Dolphin and False Killer Whale hybrid. Almost all species that share a genus can produce fertile hybrid offspring.

>>9460924
>you are saying x
I'm mentioning that race isn't science. Why? Because it contradicts basic genetics.

The rest of your post is full of brainlet accusations and off topic brainletry.

If you want "race" to be redefinned, good for you.

>>9460922

How dense are you? Race doesn't contradict any scientific facts You still have not addressed the fact that we find strong genetic differences between races and that racial lines aren't merely based on appearance.

>>9460935

Who is the brainlet here? You still have not stated why the concept of race contradicts genetics. Races differ on a genetic level. This is how you can get a DNA test to see where you ancestors came from. RACE IS GENETIC.

>>9460936
>race doesn't contradict
Yes. Race classifications are influenced by appearance judgements. This implies that phenotype defines genotype, which is false.

race isn't science. Race is pseudoscience.

>>9460946
>Race classifications are influenced by appearance judgements. This implies that phenotype defines genotype, which is false.
Why does it imply that?

>>9460942
See>>9460905
Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.
From the other thread btw

>>9460948
>why
Ask the XIX century guys who started the classification trend.

>>9460946

I never said or implied I based racial categories off of appearance alone. I specifically said racial categories differ on a genetic level and that is how I would divide them. You are purposefully misrepresenting my point.

>>9460955

I can't tell if you are just trolling us or not.

>>9460955
>Ask the XIX century guys who started the classification trend.
I'm asking you because you made the claim.

>>9460965
>you made the claim
I didn't though. I just observed how "racial" classifications have an appearance component. If I can get the last "race" debate of researchers I'll post it in this thread. They pretty much mention how such appearance components are present in those classifications.

>>9460964
Waste of space.
>>9460958
You don't have to say anything. You just have to mention racial the classifications. The classifications are based on appearance components.

>>9460986
>I didn't though.
You did right here: >>9460955
Why does "Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features" imply that "phenotype defines genotype"?

>>9460992
>you did
Repeating claims from other people can be said as "i didn't", brainlet.

>>9461002
>Repeating claims from other people
Who?

>>9460986

Fuck off brainlet. You have repeatedly misrepresented my views for some kinda "gotcha'" moment that's not going to come. You lost. Now lick your wounds and get over it.

>>9460955
>Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype.

no, seeing a bullet hole in a wall implies that there was a gun present, in the exact same way that physical differences imply that there is a genetic component that caused the physical difference. Biology works in one direction, get that through your thicc skull

>>9460818
Has he? I think you want him to be.

What about the Neanderthal interbreeding between most homo sapiens other than sub Saharan Africans? Even if you want to contend that the majority of the races are only phenotypically distinct, you must admit that a purebred African stands out genetically compared to the rest of the world.

>>9461004
Well, a researcher in 2016:
>"In the wake of the sequencing of the human genome in the early 2000s, genome pioneers and social scientists alike called for an end to the use of race as a variable in genetic research (1, 2). Unfortunately, by some measures, the use of race as a biological category has increased in the postgenomic age (3). Although inconsistent definition and use has been a chief problem with the race concept, it has historically been used as a taxonomic categorization based on common hereditary traits (such as skin color) to elucidate the relationship between our ancestry and our genes. "
Wikipedia:
"Race is a concept used in the categorization of humans into groups, called races or racial groups, based on combinations of shared physical traits, ancestry, genetics, and social or cultural traits."
>>9461009
Huh?
>>9461010
Wrong. Seing a "bullet hole" implies research being made to identify the causes of the hole. Meanwhile apparent phenotype can't be studied the same way as a bullet hole, and the unique way to prove such claims would be studying the genetics of such individual.

Race isn't science. Race is pseudoscience.

>>9461070
>"Race is a concept used in the categorization of humans into groups, called races or racial groups, based on combinations of shared physical traits, ancestry, genetics, and social or cultural traits."
This doesn't say that "Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features" implies "phenotype defines genotype".

Next?

>>9461070
>>"In the wake of the sequencing of the human genome in the early 2000s, genome pioneers and social scientists alike called for an end to the use of race as a variable in genetic research (1, 2). Unfortunately, by some measures, the use of race as a biological category has increased in the postgenomic age (3). Although inconsistent definition and use has been a chief problem with the race concept, it has historically been used as a taxonomic categorization based on common hereditary traits (such as skin color) to elucidate the relationship between our ancestry and our genes. "
Where does this imply that "phenotype defines genotype"?

So far all you've done is strawman an argument that no one here or anyone you've quoted has made.

>>9461078
>race classification is influenced
Of course it says it. It's based on apparent traits, which implies that phenotype defines genotype, and that's incorrect. Thus race isn't science. Race is pseudoscience.
>>9461080
See ^the first part of my post.

>strawman
I only remembered you that race isn't science. Nothing else. More wordplay?

>>9461092
>Of course it says it.
Why does "race classification is influenced" imply that "phenotype defines genotype"?

>>9461100
See >>9461113

>>9461092
>>9461078
>>9461070
>>9460946

How ass-blasted do you have to be to behave like this? Lmao. OP's picture is correct in pointing out that the different races of the world are at least distinct subspecies of homo sapiens. People just get uppity about it becuase it is pertaining to humans and "muh ethics," as if the person stating facts is responsible for any moral consequences of said information.

>He isn't aware of Guo (2015) in which participants were able to self-identify their own genetic cluster (race) ~99.8% of the time

Did you watch the entire stream? JF ran circles around the "archeologist" and "museum keeper," or whatever he was. It was just some boomer who was offended by the idea and wanted evolution to only apply to animals.

I'm pretty sure Australian Abbos made it as far away as possible

>>9461129
>See >>9461113 →
Why does "race classification is influenced" imply that "phenotype defines genotype"?

>>9461135
Except that race isn't science.

>>9460795
As an herpetologist I must say: I fucking hate taxonomy.

>>9461141
I don't think anybody said that "race was science," whatever such a statement might mean, just that races are genetically distinct. You can refer to the study I mentioned, if you take issue with that fact.

Nobody is claiming that taxonomy doesn't have its flaws, but the whole point the image is to state that we scrutinize the polytypic nature of other species more than we do to ourselves because "muh feels."

>>9461155
Buddy, why don't you check the first post of the chain? You might be surprised.

>>9460795
To be fair you can identify a race by the skull. Sad thing is, this science is really marginalized because it's somehow "racist". In any case, forsenics can know your race based on your skull.

>>9461168
Except race isn't science.

>>9461204
>Except race isn't science.
How so?

>>9461210
It's up to race supporters to demonstrate race is science.

>>9461210
He's gonna state how he thinks that "phenotype implies genotype," and go on a brainless tangent. Ignore him like he ignores evidence.

>>9461222
>he thinks
I don't think so.
Race definition states such claims. Why are you so upset against me?

>>9461216
No, it's not, brainlet. Do you accept the theory of evolution? Do you accept that mammals and, consequently humans, are a product of evolution? If yes, why would you then assume that observed phenotypic differences have no relationship with genetics?

I see you shitting up every thread like this. You either have self-esteem issues, or you're feeling some sort of political or psychological frustration. Let the adults discuss reality.

>>9461229
>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Yeah, the big nose race, the lactose intolerant race, the squatting race...etc. lol

>>9461216
>It's up to race supporters to demonstrate race is science.
Race can be studied using the scientific method, hence race is science.

>>9461222
>He's gonna state how he thinks that "phenotype implies genotype," and go on a brainless tangent.
I'm not a "he".

>>9461238
>Guo (2015) as mentioned previously
Your move. Try not to strawman, brainlet.

>>9461251
Except that race contradicts science. Thus, race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.
>>9461259
See the first part of this post.

>>9461276
>mfw this has been an 8/10 troll

>>9461290
>everything i don't like is a troll
You pseudoscience lovers are really entertaining.

>>9461276
>Except that race contradicts science
If a scientific theory is contradicted by new science then the old must be thrown out.

>>9461296
>>everything i don't like is a troll
Who are you quoting?

Neanderthal mixes > desnovian and others

OP here

still no valid argument about race realism, I'll try again tomorrow

>>9461316
Only south-asians have denisovan admixture you dumbass.

Also native americans are the ones with the highest neanderthal admixture.

>>9461318
>race realism
You should ask moral questions in pol.

>>9461331
>You should ask moral questions in pol.
RR is scientific, not moral.

>>9461318

Your not OP, I am. Don't lie on the internet,

>>9461346
Your not OP, I am. Don't lie on the internet,

>>9461342
>belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify an ideology
Yes it's moral.

>>9461353
>Yes it's moral.
In that case is all science moral? I believe that empirical evidence exists to support and justify the theory of gravity as well, does that make gravity moral?

Australian Aboriginals

70,000 year old genetic throwbacks. Inferior to even Paupan Melanisians.

>>9461359
>science is moral
Nope. Science states facts. The stuff you want to make with such facts belongs to the moral fields.

>>9460795
>YouTube scientists
>b-but they're similar in appearance!
Kindly kill yourself

>>9461364
>The stuff
What do you mean?

>>9461370
Read the post again.

>>9461396
>Read the post again.
"The stuff" is a meaningless notion. Race realism is a scientific theory irregardless of whatever you imagine someone might be using it for.

>>9461401
Rule of thumb: if it ends in -ism, it's probably an ideology and not a scientific theory.

>>9461401
Wrong. See>>9461364

>>9461410
>Rule of thumb: if it ends in -ism, it's probably an ideology and not a scientific theory.
Magnetism is a scientific theory irregardless of whatever you imagine someone might be using it for.

>>9461411
>Wrong. See>>9461364
RR is scientific, not moral.

>>9461415
Wrong.
Read the post again.

>>9461420
>Wrong.
>Read the post again.
"The stuff" is a meaningless notion. Race realism is a scientific theory irregardless of whatever you imagine someone might be using it for.

>>9461141
You are retarded, a troll or both. Please drink my semen you lil bitch

>>9461428
>Please drink my semen you lil bitch
Do you need to swear?

>>9461428
>You are retarded, a troll or both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.[1]

A false dilemma can arise intentionally, when a fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome. The opposite of this fallacy is false compromise.

The false dilemma fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception. For example "Stacey spoke out against capitalism, therefore she must be a communist" (she may be neither). "Roger opposed an atheist argument against Christianity, so he must be a Christian" (When it's assumed the opposition by itself means he's a Christian). Roger might be an atheist who disagrees with the logic of some particular argument against Christianity. Additionally, it can be the result of habitual tendency, whatever the cause, to view the world with limited sets of options.

Some philosophers and scholars believe that "unless a distinction can be made rigorous and precise it isn't really a distinction".[2] An exception is analytic philosopher John Searle, who called it an incorrect assumption that produces false dichotomies.[3] Searle insists that "it is a condition of the adequacy of a precise theory of an indeterminate phenomenon that it should precisely characterize that phenomenon as indeterminate; and a distinction is no less a distinction for allowing for a family of related, marginal, diverging cases."[3] Similarly, when two options are presented, they often are, although not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities; this may lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive of each other, even though they need not be.[4] Furthermore, the options in false dichotomies typically are presented as being collectively exhaustive, in...

>>9461412
>probably
Also, whether or not race is considered as a useful concept in science, there would not be a theory named "race realism". That's not how it works.

What would the postulates of that theory be?

>>9461423
Wrong. Read the post again.
>>9461428
Jesus, pseudoscience lovers are the ones who have to prove that race is science. Why are you upset against me?

On one hand, yes, there are in fact consistently observable similarities and distinctions in the genotypes of different populations throughout the world, which, paired with another anon's point about the shape of the orbital bones being a decent predictor of where one originates, does suggest that one's "race" could be defined in the sense of the general regional populace one traces one's origins to.

That said, /pol/'s hunger for validation is derailed by the fact that skin color is a shitty, excessively broad criterion for distinguishing between races as compared to geographical origin. Africa is so large that claiming the entirety or even majority of the populace constitutes a single race on the basis of skin color is absurdly overbroad, and similar arguments can be applied to Asia, and (to a lesser extent) to Europe.

Instead of a few major races, there would probably be something like dozens and dozens of minor races on every continent existing in a genetic continuity with each other since our ancestral populations didn't necessarily stay in one place or refuse to interact with each other.

>>9461440
>Jesus, pseudoscience lovers are the ones who have to prove that race is science.
Race is studied using the scientific method, hence race is science.

>>9461441
>race
No such thing.

>>9461440
>Wrong. Read the post again.
"The stuff" is a meaningless notion. Race realism is a scientific theory irregardless of whatever you imagine someone might be using it for.

>>9461410
Race theory. Congrats, now it sounds sciency. Where would you rather live, in Africa or Israel, ya slimy cunt

>>9461446
>No such thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

>>9461444
See>>9460955

>>9461438
>Also, whether or not race is considered as a useful concept in science, there would not be a theory named "race realism". That's not how it works.
Why not?

>>9461447
Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

>>9461459
>Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.
"The stuff" is a meaningless notion. Race realism is a scientific theory irregardless of whatever you imagine someone might be using it for.

>>9461450
Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.

This is from the other thread btw

>>9461452
>See>>9460955
Race is studied using the scientific method, hence race is science.

I'm starting to think the "race is not science, end of story" guy is someone trying to make that side look bad.

>>9461465
>Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype.
Why does it imply that?

>>9461464
Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

>>9461469
>why
Ask the XIX century guys who started the classification trend.

>>9461471
>Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.
"The stuff" is a meaningless notion. Race realism is a scientific theory irregardless of whatever you imagine someone might be using it for.

>>9461475
>Ask the XIX century guys who started the classification trend.
Can you provide a source of someone claiming that "phenotype defines genotype"? I found no sources in the literature.

>>9461449
So let me get this straight. You're mocking me for using the proper terminology while trying to prove that your political ideas are rooted in science.

Just be honest, you don't care about science. You just want your ideology to be validated.

>>9461453
You're just saying "this thing exists because it looks like it does". That's, at best, a hypothesis.

>>9461488
>You're just saying "this thing exists because it looks like it does".
Can you point to a post where I said that? I made no such claim.

>>9460931
fertile with which species? Both or just one?

>>9461478
Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

>>9461486
See>>9461070

>>9461502
>See>>9461070
Can you provide a source of someone claiming that "phenotype defines genotype"?

>>9461493
In accordance with Haldane's rule, male tigons and ligers are sterile, but female hybrids can produce cubs with either species.

>>9461508
>>9461502

>>9461495
>Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.
"The stuff" is a meaningless notion. Race realism is a scientific theory irregardless of whatever you imagine someone might be using it for.

>>9461513
Can you provide a source of someone claiming that "phenotype defines genotype"?

>>9461514
Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

>>9461522
>Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.
"The stuff" is a meaningless notion. Race realism is a scientific theory irregardless of whatever you imagine someone might be using it for.

>>9461491
I was talking about race realism in general. The whole thing is something like "look, these people look more or less the same, let's group them together". That's not to say there's not different populations that mostly breed within themselves (and thus, some alleles are present in a higher percentage than in other groups), of course there are. But you have to dig way deeper than the traditional concept of race.

All in all, using race in a scientific context is more or less like talking about "reptiles" as a taxa. It's useful for explaining it to people, sure, but now we're well aware that putting lizards and crocodiles in the same group because they look the same doesn't make sense because crocodiles are evolutionary closer to birds than to lizards.

>>9461516
>>9461513

>>9461535
Can you provide a source of someone claiming that "phenotype defines genotype"?

>>9461528
>race realism
You should ask moral questions in pol.

>>9460795

This biggest problem is not dividing the groups into subspecies in the least and not using race.

Negroids
Mongoloids
Caucasoids
Australoids

All would be seperate species in the animal kingdom.

2 birds, that can produce offspring (viable), which are separated solely by color, are classified as separate species.

>>9461538
>>9461535

>>9461544
Except that race is not science.

>>9461539
I was not talking about the morality of the issue. I'm just discussing the usefulness of the concept of race in science.

Also, /pol/ is a cesspool of ideologues and conspiracy theorists. Not really my thing.

>>9461551
Then that's not race realism.

That's just claiming that race is useful.

>>9461549

When we treat "race" like subspecies or species, than it is.

A Negroid, will ALWAYS have a different skull shape to a Caucasoid, and many other differences that only affect one or the other.

If we treated humans as animals, there wouldn't be a single human species.

>>9461557
Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.

This is from the other thread btw

>>9461557
Have you read anything in this thread at all?

>>9460795
You've got to admire the tenacity of the race denier ITT. I wonder if it's autism or just low iq.

>>9461523
Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

>>9461558
>implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype
It doesn't imply that.

>>9461561
>race denier
It's up to race supporters to demonstrate race is science. Sorry, not sorry.

>>9461558

We treat ANIMALS as different species based solely on appearances.

As I said, 2 birds that are exactly the same except for the color of their head, are DIFFERENT species.

Negroids and Mongoloids have far more differences.

>>9461563
Well, a researcher in 2016:
>"In the wake of the sequencing of the human genome in the early 2000s, genome pioneers and social scientists alike called for an end to the use of race as a variable in genetic research (1, 2). Unfortunately, by some measures, the use of race as a biological category has increased in the postgenomic age (3). Although inconsistent definition and use has been a chief problem with the race concept, it has historically been used as a taxonomic categorization based on common hereditary traits (such as skin color) to elucidate the relationship between our ancestry and our genes. "
Wikipedia:
"Race is a concept used in the categorization of humans into groups, called races or racial groups, based on combinations of shared physical traits, ancestry, genetics, and social or cultural traits."
Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.

>>9461544
Yeah, no. If two birds breed and produce viable offspring, they're the same species. At most, you can say they're different subspecies or populations.

Speciation is a long process and species mean different things under different circumstances. But variation in color, everything else being the same, is certainly not enough.

>>9461564
No its not, brainlet :)

---> >>9461229

>>9461564
>race supporters
What does that even mean? Anyways, race is a social construct. Do you deny all forms of taxonomy? Are you against separating living beings into categories such as bacteria, plants, mammals, etc.? For that matter, do you deny the construct known as the "atom" seeing only a disorganized flux of elementary particles?

Kys.

>>9461570

>>9461565
>taxonomy
Except that race is not science.

>>9461572
>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Yeah, the big nose race, the lactose intolerant race, the squatting race...etc. lol

>>9461569
>quoting social scientists
Ironic.

Anyways, the fact that race is making a comeback in actual scientific fields despite the kvetching of certain social scientists should attest of its validity as a scientific concept.

>implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype.
No, it doesn't imply that.

You're strawmanning.

>>9461573
See>>9461558
Race is not science.

>>9461576

That's just semantics you're using. You can use the same taxonomy on humans as animals if you want to be consistent.

Remove "race", and then classify how you do animals.

>>9461570

Wrong.

That's exactly how it is, and the 2 birds live where I am. They can produce viable offspring, but they're classed as different species. There's several different species that can produce viable offspring.

>>9461565

>>9461586
You're just repeating the same fallacious argument over and over again. You've been btfo, gracefully accept it and leave /sci/ forever

>>9461585
>it doesn't imply that
Except the same definition conffirms it.>>9461569
>>9461588
>semantics
See the first part of this post. ^

>>9461592
>fallacious
Race contradicting a scientific fact is not a fallacy. Try again with another kind of wordplay.

>>9461593
No, the definition doesn't say anything about the "phenotype defining the genotype". That's just a hallucination you're suffering.

>>9461582
Notice how this low-IQ poster can't ever refute the point at hand -- just shift the topic. The truth about race and the polytypic nature of homo sapiens must really upset him.

Really makes you wonder why :)

>>9461561
Frankly, I think he's a /pol/lack trying to stir up antipathy for that side of the argument. He literally hasn't made any argument that isn't merely a bald assertion about what his opponent's reasoning must entail, and everybody knows he's full of shit.

>>9461596
What scientific fact?

>>9461601
Nah, he's too obstinate for a polack. I think he must be one of those shitskin basement dwellers like the "wh*te eurangutan incas are superior" guy

>>9461597
>the definition doesn't say
> taxonomic categorization based on common hereditary traits (such as skin color
>based on combinations of shared physical traits
Denying reality is not good for your health.

>>9461603
>"Amerindians have a higher rate of development, therefore Amerindians are superior, despite not accomplishing anything noteworthy in their entire existence"

>>9461599
>iq
Not science.

>>9461611
>iq
>not science

>>9461603
Already posted it in this thread. See>>9461558

Reading this thread makes me think there's really only 2 people in it.

1 is a person who knows biology very well and is trying to explain that to the other
2 is a person doggedly trying not to accept the fact that their pet theory isn't a theory at all and refuses to accept the reality of it

It's a lesson in frustration and confirmation bias. It is painful to watch this Mr 'race is real' refuse to accept it. You've been proven wrong so badly it's literally watching someone beating a dead horse.

>>9461607
But it never says that the phenotype defines the genotype. The correct way to interpret that sentence is "categorization based on a collection of hereditary phenotypical traits", which is a perfectly logical way to categorize things, considering that hereditary phenotypical traits have a genetic basis.

Or are you claiming that two ethnically swedish parents could give birth to a baby which is phenotypically australian aboriginal? That would indeed disprove race (but I don't think it happens very often!)

>178 posts
>24 IPs
>100+ of the posts are the same guy quoting himself ad nauseum and repeating the exact same phrases
Why are you retards even bothering replying to the schizo who does the same thing in literally every single thread?

>>9461613
The implication you make is a fallacy.

>>9461614
Lmao

brassica

>>9461614
>lolwut

Are you reading the same thread? Prove that races are not genetically distinct then.

>>9461616
>categorization base on apparent phenotypical traits
>yet taxonomy tries to categorize people by ancestry relations (genotype)
Still can't get it like this guy?>>9461620

Not everything means something

>>9461588
Are you talking about viable as in "they are alive" or viable as in "they can function in the same environment as their parents and reproduce"?

As I said, speciation is a long process. It implies that different populations from the same species have to be separated for a long time, be it spatially, temporally or otherwise.

Sometimes, what defines two species is the fact that they don't have the same courtship rituals or that they mate in a different season. They could produce viable offspring given the right circumstances, but they don't.

That's where the "function in the same environment as their parents" part becomes relevant. Sometimes, rare circumstances arise and two subjects from different species that are not evolutionary far can breed. However, having acquired different adaptations, the offspring is either outclassed by the pure breeds or it can't find a mate because its courtship rituals include stuff from both species.

So yeah. Complex topic. You can't just go and say "these humans have different colors, so they're different species". Interbreeding has happened over and over, and the offspring is no less functional than the pure breeds.

>>9461619
Proof?

>>9461570
>If two birds breed and produce viable offspring, they're the same species. At most, you can say they're different subspecies or populations.
That's not the way it works. For the higher animals, they're considered separate species if they do or would interbreed little enough to maintain distinct populations while living without geographic barriers between them, regardless of whether it's because of absolute biological incompatibility or behavioral differences which limit mating between the populations. They're considered separate subspecies if geography alone prevents the populations from fully merging.

By normal zoological standards, the races of humanity are separate species, because they maintain distinct populations while living without geographic barriers between them.

When two reproductively-compatible populations meet, their interbreeding can result in three species instead of one, as some members of the original two populations have a behavioral tendency to interbreed and others don't, with the difference swiftly concentrated into distinct populations. This is suspected to have happened with the "red wolf", which may have originated as a hybrid of the coyote and grey wolf.

>>9461630
I don't think most "race realists" would argue that the races are different species, but rather distinct homo sapiens subspecies.

>>9461635 Here

I agree with >>9461633 to some extent. OP's pic, and pygmy chimpanzees come to mind. I think it really depends on the amount of admixture floating around, and if they are basically "pure" european, asian, Australian, african, ect, then I could see the case for different species, so long as they stayed separated.

>>9461633
>because they maintain distinct populations while living without geographic barriers between them
Quite the opposite. Geographic barriers are one of the main reasons that isolated different populations, fixating certain alleles in some groups. Now that geographic barriers are losing their meaning for humans, interbreeding is becoming more frequent.

Also, yeah, I'm well acquainted with the coyote and wolf situation. I didn't bring it up because I'm not sure what taxonomists think about that. Maybe they'll end up categorizing everything as the same species if this keeps on.

The way I see it, in order to be accurate, race needs to be applied on a finer scale than /pol/ really wants to bother with. To be specific, skin color only really describes adaptation to a particular set of latitudes. All the other stereotypes are not necessarily common to all, or even most black populations, however there may be a set of warlike tribes or idiotic rockbangers whose ancestry skews the results accordingly. Or perhaps not, and they are in fact generally representative if the data indicates otherwise. If we are to consider ourselves scientifically rigorous however, we must accept that analyzing according to skin color alone fails to account for that possibility, and investigate it accordingly.

In other words, applying race according to skin color alone is roughly analogous to taking the information from the longitudes that include Europe and Africa and concluding that Europeans and Africans are altogether generally more violent or idiotic than the norm. The unspoken error in the previous description is that it ignores the existence of appreciable differences between Africans and Europeans.

(cont.)

This can be taken a step further when you consider that the same error might be unknowingly applied when analyzing on the basis of skin color. Perhaps Western Africans are different than Eastern Africans who are different than Cape Africans who are different than Jamaicans who are different than Aborigines... etc.etc. And perhaps Western Africans actually have a number of populations that exhibit sufficiently distinct sets of traits from the rest to merit identification as a race in their own right, while others within that region might constitute yet another race, and so on.

Without a population-level analysis, it's just bad logic to assume that information gathered according to a single phenotype is representative of any given person with that phenotype. However, those circumstances in which multiple significant and distinct genetically-originated phenotypes can be considered representative of one or more populations would then merit classification of said population(s) as a separate race.

Race: relatively isolated population groups that developed a set of shared characteristics through repeated inbreeding and and natural selection.

Genotype is implied by phenotype though you get some genetic oddities which just reflect that the classification scheme isn't perfect.

>>9461633
>because they maintain distinct populations while living without geographic barriers between them.
This is all wrong though. You need only look at different populations to see that.

>>9461545
Can you provide a source of someone claiming that "phenotype defines genotype"?

>>9461562
>Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.
"The stuff" is a meaningless notion. Race realism is a scientific theory irregardless of whatever you imagine someone might be using it for.