Quote:

There is no biological basis for race

---

xFrockx said:

There is no biological basis for race, and yet, people assert it exists using all sorts of fallacious arguments.

Which unfounded argument based on unexamined evidence will you use to tell me the opposite?

---

dustinthewind13 said:

Race does exist, but there are greater differences within a race than between races.

---

Quote:

white people are genetically closer to all the African groups than those African groups are to each other.

---

Raven Gnosis said:

This article touches base with it a little.

http://phys.org/news/2011-03-genetic-analysis-modern-humans-evolved.html

"To explore the origins of human evolution, the Stanford research team looked inward, at human DNA. Africans are the most genetically diverse people in the world. But over time, as different populations emigrated from their homeland - splintering into smaller populations within Asia, Europe and the Americas - they carried away only small portions of available diversity. As a result, older original populations have greater genetic diversity, while newer populations have far less. This fact forms the basis of elegant computer-based statistical analyses in the burgeoning field of population genetics."

---

Quote:

I was reading about this recently, that white people are genetically closer to all the African groups than those African groups are to each other. It's a trip and a part of the reason I look my white friends deep in the eye and say in a creepy raspy old voice. "You ain nuttin' buduh a paaale skin nigga..."

---

Quote:

"To explore the origins of human evolution, the Stanford research team looked inward, at human DNA. Africans are the most genetically diverse people in the world. But over time, as different populations emigrated from their homeland - splintering into smaller populations within Asia, Europe and the Americas - they carried away only small portions of available diversity. As a result, older original populations have greater genetic diversity, while newer populations have far less. This fact forms the basis of elegant computer-based statistical analyses in the burgeoning field of population genetics."

---

dustinthewind13 said:

Race does exist, but there are greater differences within a race than between races.

---

qman said:

xFrockx said:

There is no biological basis for race, and yet, people assert it exists using all sorts of fallacious arguments.

Which unfounded argument based on unexamined evidence will you use to tell me the opposite?

---

What about when I was filling out my census form?  Is the form wrong, I doubt it?

---

Quote:

There are four facts about human variation upon which there is universal agreement. First, the human species as a whole has immense genetic variation from individual to individual. Any two unrelated human beings differ by about 3 million distinct DNA variants.

Second, by far the largest amount of that variation, about 85%, is among individuals within local national or linguistic populations, within the French, within the Kikuyu, within the Japanese. There is diversity from population to population in how much genetic variation each contains, depending upon how much immigration into the population has occurred from a variety of other groups and also on the size of the population. The United States, with a very large population whose ancestors came from all over the earth including the original inhabitants of the New World, is genetically very variable whereas small populations of local Amazonian tribes are less genetically variable, although they are by no means genetically uniform. Despite the differences in amount of genetic variation within local populations, the finding that on the average 85% of all human genetic variation is within local populations has been a remarkably consistent result of independent studies carried out over twenty-five years using data from both proteins and DNA.

Of the remaining 15% of human variation, between a quarter and a half is between local populations within classically defined human “races,” between the French and the Ukrainians, between the Kikuyu and the Ewe, between the Japanese and the Koreans. The remaining variation, about 6% to 10% of the total human variation is between the classically defined geographical races that we think of in an everyday sense as identified by skin color, hair form, and nose shape. This imprecision in assigning the proportion of variation assigned to differences among population within ”races” as compared to variation among “races,” arises precisely because there is no objective way to assign the various human populations to clear-cut races. Into which “race” do the Hindi and Urdu speakers of the Indian sub-continent fall? Should they be grouped with Europeans or with Asians or should a separate race be assigned to them? Are the Lapps of Finland and the Hazari of Afghanistan really Europeans or Asians? What about Indonesians and Melanesians? Different biologists have made different assignments and the number of “races” assigned by anthropologists and geneticists has varied from 3 to 30.

---

xFrockx said:

There is no biological basis for race, and yet, people assert it exists using all sorts of fallacious arguments.

Which unfounded argument based on unexamined evidence will you use to tell me the opposite?

---

Rail_Gun said:

xFrockx said:

There is no biological basis for race, and yet, people assert it exists using all sorts of fallacious arguments.

Which unfounded argument based on unexamined evidence will you use to tell me the opposite?

---

---