[flagged]

▲ graemep 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> And yes, skin color itself is irrelevant, it is simply a convenient identifier for underlying significant biological differences

No, its a terrible identifier.

If you group people by genetic similarity (which is of dubious usefulness) you essentially end up with three different black African races, one Australian, Pacific and Native American, and one everyone else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering

▲ nobody9999 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

>If you group people by genetic similarity (which is of dubious usefulness) you essentially end up with three different black African races, one Australian, Pacific and Native American, and one everyone else.

There's only one sentient primate race: Homo Sapiens.

There absolutely are genetic differences between groups that were geographically isolated from each other (as you note). However, when genetic variation is compared both between and within those groups, we see more variation within those once isolated groups than we do between those groups[0].

What's more, even within such groups genetic variation is only around 0.5-1.5%.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Race_and_hum...

Edit: Cleaned up prose.

▲ graemep 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Firstly, there's only one sentient primate race: Homo Sapiens.

Nope, species, not race - or arguable sub-species.

As your link says race is a social construct, so it is whatever society says it means. It means different things in different societies. This is something I experience personally so I am very aware of it: https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/08/racism-culture-different

> However, when genetic variation is compared both between and within those groups, we see more variation within those once isolated groups than we do between those groups

Which is why genetic similarity does not work well as a way defining race, and why the concept of race has no biological basis. This is covered by the wikipedia link in my previous comment too.

> What's more, even within such groups genetic variation is only around 0.5-1.5%.

Yes, but that is just normal for a species. We share a lot of DNA (98%?) with chimpanzees and something like 70% with fish! its not really meaningful. However, its not the main argument, because the variation within vs (lack of) between groups is really the killer argument.

▲ nobody9999 4 days ago | parent [-]

>Nope, species, not race - or arguable sub-species.

Yes. You are absolutely correct.

That said, I meant it in this sense:

From: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/human-ra...

   the human race

   noun [ S ]

   all the people in the world, considered as a group

But species is more precise and avoids confusion. Thanks for calling me out on that.

>Which is why genetic similarity does not work well as a way defining race, and why the concept of race has no biological basis. This is covered by the wikipedia link in my previous comment too.

Exactly. Which is why I brought up how genetically similar we all are, regardless of, well, anything.

>Yes, but that is just normal for a species. We share a lot of DNA (98%?) with chimpanzees and something like 70% with fish! its not really meaningful. However, its not the main argument, because the variation within vs (lack of) between groups is really the killer argument.

Yes. And we share anywhere up to 60% of DNA with plants too.

I thought that's what I said. My apologies if I wasn't clear.

The upshot is, as we both are trying to elucidate (at least I think you are as well), that from a biological/genetic standpoint humans, regardless of geographic origin, melanin content and/or other physical features, are incredibly similar.

So much so that trying to define groups of humans by such physical features is idiotic in the extreme. Sadly, that doesn't stop some of our fellow humans from trying to do so. And more's the pity.

	▲	graemep 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for clarifying. Absolutely agree with last para so I do not think we disagree significantly. I think it is worth adding that, we also get similar behaviour based on other differences: caste in India does not have such obvious physical markers (not to an outsider anyway) but being low caste in India has a history (longer!) very similar to being black in the US. Ethnic splits in other countries might be based on family name, language, religion,.... any identifier that might be even partially inherited. Edit, to add: This might be a product of living in different countries and cultures, but there are many cases where I cannot tell what "race" people are from their appearance. Light skinned Indians and black Americans, dark skinned Mediterraneans, Central Asians....

▲ hopelite 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is not a place to spread your religious beliefs, let alone try to evangelize them or your various mystical rationalizations akin to proving god through muddling and intentionally misleading sophistry. You are doing nothing more than trying to prove how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; post modern version.

You people swapped one religion's mysticism for another.

	▲	ThrowMeAway1618 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Amen Brother! Praise Jesus and God protect the White Race! We must strike down those inferior darkies with their small brains and huge penises! They exist to pick our cotton!
	▲	3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲ hopelite 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

When you try to identify a type of apple, do you just throw your arms up in total capitulation because you cannot identify the likelihood of an apple being a Granny Smith apple vs a Ruby Red apple because "color is a terrible identifier"?

You people have had your minds so warped and messed up like is common in most cults, that you can't even see what is right before your very eyes and have to rationalize away what you see due to the abusive conditioning. It's very common among all mentally and emotionally abused people. It's why all abused people will defend their abusers beyond all edges of reality.

Now genetics is also "of dubious usefulness" because it is irrefutable proof and must be rationalized away because your abusers have conditioned you to that position?

It's insanity, my friend. Reality is fine, come join us, even if your abusers hate that you may break away from their abuses and the conditioning that serves them and their sadistic ways. You are better than this, you deserve sanity and reality. You deserve to believe the truth.

▲ DiogenesKynikos 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> it is simply a convenient identifier for underlying significant biological differences

It's actually not. Skin color does not correlate well with the genetic diversity among humans at all. It's just one particular trait that is very easy to identify by eye.

> There is absolutely zero reason one would rationally conclude that biological differences would somehow magically stop at the brain.

There is absolutely zero reason to rationally conclude that a random physical trait that happens to be easy to distinguish by eye correlates with brain function at all.

On the other hand, there are massive socioeconomic disparities that arise from the history of slavery, which easily explain both the disparities and the reasons why racists such as yourself want to boil things down to skin color.