Is the evolution theory racist?

[2Fast]

Height would be a more meaningful characteristic in defending the idea that one race is biologically different than another race if for instance every member of race A was say 5 to 6 feet tall and every member of race B was 6'1 to 7 feet tall. That's what I mean when I say consistently differentiable. There are no genetic markers that are consistently differentiable between any races as we have defined them.

There is a difference between races if they have a different average. There are always going to be outliers. Learn something about statistics before arguing about it.

Who told me there wasn't? Modern scientists. Take this article written by a biology professor:



http://www.tolerance.org/sites/defau...20-%20TT50.pdf

But if you want a more neutral source the article I linked before touches on the same ideas.

Tolerance.org?

that sounds like a neutral source

[BrometheusBob.]

There is a difference between races if they have a different average. There are always going to be outliers. Learn something about statistics before arguing about it.



Tolerance.org?

that sounds like a neutral source

Tolerance.org may have an interest in the article as written, but the article is neither scientifically inaccurate nor inconsistent with the general consensus of evolutionary biologists. You haven't disproven any of it's claims yet.

And again, I've given you another link on the matter. Another article whose claims you haven't disproven in any capacity. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...entists-argue/

I understand plenty about statistics (was one of my college majors), and the fact that the average height is different between different groups isn't proof that they are biologically separate groups. Again there are literally zero genetic markers that that can consistently identify what race someone belongs to. That wouldn't be the case if the ideas you hold about race were true.

But on the other hand, it is totally plausible that the average heights of different socially defined races are different from one another.

[2Fast]

Tolerance.org may have an interest in the article as written, but the article is neither scientifically inaccurate nor inconsistent with the general consensus of evolutionary biologists. You haven't disproven any of it's claims yet.

And again, I've given you another link on the matter. Another article whose claims you haven't disproven in any capacity. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...entists-argue/

I understand plenty about statistics (was one of my college majors), and the fact that the average height is different between different groups isn't proof that they are biologically separate groups. Again there are literally zero genetic markers that that can consistently identify what race someone belongs to. That wouldn't be the case if the ideas you hold about race were true.

But on the other hand, it is totally plausible that the average heights of different socially defined races are different from one another.

http://time.com/91081/what-science-s...-and-genetics/

A longstanding orthodoxy among social scientists holds that human races are a social construct and have no biological basis. A related assumption is that human evolution halted in the distant past, so long ago that evolutionary explanations need never be considered by historians or economists.
In the decade since the decoding of the human genome, a growing wealth of data has made clear that these two positions, never at all likely to begin with, are simply incorrect. There is indeed a biological basis for race. And it is now beyond doubt that human evolution is a continuous process that has proceeded vigorously within the last 30,000 years and almost certainly — though very recent evolution is hard to measure — throughout the historical period and up until the present day.

[Lomasexual]

Take a piece of paper.

With a red texta, draw a dot in the top left corner. Then draw a red dot in the bottom right corner.

Turn the paper over. You will probably be able to see where the ink came through the paper. Find where the first red dot has soaked through, and with a green texta, place a green dot where the first red one soaked through.

Now, the two red dots are around 12 inches away from each other. The red and the green dot are a tiny fraction of an inch apart from each other.

According to modern biologists, this means that paper only has one side.

[BrometheusBob.]

http://time.com/91081/what-science-s...-and-genetics/

The article you gave me, as noted at the bottom, is adapted from the book 'A Troublesome Inheritance'.

The link I gave you from Scientific American responds specifically to that book. Feel free to CTRL+F the name in the article.

Five scientists whose work that book is based on literally said this:

Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade’s implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork. They do not.

We are in full agreement that there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade’s conjectures.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/b...heritance.html

[2Fast]

The article you gave me, as noted at the bottom, is adapted from the book 'A Troublesome Inheritance'.

The link I gave you from Scientific American responds specifically to that book. Feel free to CTRL+F the name in the article.

Five scientists whose work that book is based on literally said this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/b...heritance.html

Okay how about this one

Another proof that we have differences in our DNA's

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 2 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have none, or very little Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia.

[BrometheusBob.]

Okay how about this one

Another proof that we have differences in our DNA's

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

So how exactly does this prove your point? According to your own quote there are some sub-Saharan African people who have some of this Neanderthal DNA and some who don't have any. Both of those groups of people are considered the same race, even though they are genetically different from another. And both of those groups are considered different from other races, even though one of those groups has some genetic overlap with the other races.

People who believe race to be a social construct don't believe we are all 100% identical individuals with exactly replicated DNA. Instead what we believe is that the concept of race does not describe distinct biological groups.

Let me give you an example. If I said 'Race A' is all people who live in Indiana and 'Race B' is all other people, you would see some statistical differences in these groups. There would be a difference in average height, average IQ, percent of people with blue eyes, % of Neanderthal DNA etc. But does that mean that those two groups are distinct biological groups? Not exactly.

[Mukuro]

I'm no biologist, but you guys are talking about microevolution (small scale evolution within a species) as opposed to macroevolution.

[The Hammer]

**** erectus

[Citizen Koba]

If the evolution theory is real then that would mean that race isnt a social construct.

It would mean that humans in different parts of the world evolved differently. That some ethnic groups have for example a higher IQ than others.

So why do so many atheist lefties who believe in evolution also believe that race is just a social construct?

The term 'race' itself is a word ergo it is a social contruct. And racism - the belief that certain populations have traits which make them intrinsically superior to others is unambiguously and undeniably so - after all, who gets to decide which traits are 'superior'? Quite clearly only people and societies can make such claims - ergo, once again - a human (ie social) construct. And evolution? Nah. It doesn't give a fuck... if you produce viable offspring then you are, in the short term at least successful, if you don't? Well... off to the trashbin with your particular individual genetic legacy. Evolution ain't putting a value judgement on it. That's an entirely human affair.

Human populations - indeed just about anything can be divided just about any way you like - if you're going to say people with different skin pigmentation are a different 'race' why not say that those with different sized noses or bigger feet are a different race? Such phenoytypic differences are in fact insignificant weighed against the ability of all members of the species to procreate together and produce viable offspring. As elucidated rather well by Bro-Bob above there is in effect zero scientific evidence to suggest that there is any major differences at a genetic level to distinguish people of one colour from those of another.