I would never as a black woman...

[bambu]

THERE IS more than one definition on the word because it's used differently, biologically speaking there is no human hybrid RACE. THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE homosapien sapien

“Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation”

–Heather J.H. Edgar and Keith L. Hunley, Race Reconciled, 2009:2

There is one human race.....

With several sub-groups that are obviously the same race......

A human is a hybrid if they are....

1. an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species,

2. a person whose background is a blend of two diverse cultures or traditions

3. something heterogeneous in origin or composition: composite

There is a division in the disciple of anthropology.......

Those, like you that say humans are too similar to be different races.....

And those, like me, that use evidence to illustrate the biological cause for human racial classifications......

In other words.....

An anthropologist could determine an individuals race based on their DNA alone.............

Most of the people who says there are not enough biological differences for race are usually soft or either a feminist..............

Intimidated to challenge the status quo...........

THERE ARE NO HUMAN RACES ONLY ONE HUMAN RACE THE SUB GROUPS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT DO NOT FIT THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RACE.

The status quo is academia has a long history of being made up of white supremacist and other racist of many kinds thankfully that is changing.

"Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data" Craniometric Similarities Within and Between Human Populations in Comparison with Neutral Genetic Data

André Strauss, Mark Hubbe

The result is a continuous straight line ranging from the darkest extremes to the lightest extremes in skin color. There are no identifiable clusters. . . . Researchers are of course free to subdivide this continuum into different groups, but such clustering would be arbitrary and subjective in terms of the number of groups and the cutoff points used to distinguish them. The lack of apparent clusters is a reflection of the fact that skin color shows a classic pattern of clinal variation. Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation John H. Relethford*

Here we go.....

"There is only 2% difference in DNA in any two humans"

This is true......

However, 2% of DNA can contain more information that the human mind can fathom.....

The first is talking about cranium similarities............

Again there are two schools of anthropology....

"This formulation is proclaimed on the websites of major social-science organizations. "Race is about culture, not biology," states the American Anthropological Association. Too bad that it's incorrect, but that's not the worst of it. The social-science creed has permeated the thinking of most college campuses so deeply that race, in the genetic sense, has become a taboo word. This has serious consequences for the advance of knowledge."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nicholas-wade-race-has-a-biological-basis-racism-does-not-1403476865

Your political correctness & naivety could have drastic repercussions.....

 

[zzombie]

THERE IS more than one definition on the word because it's used differently, biologically speaking there is no human hybrid RACE. THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE homosapien sapien

“Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation”

–Heather J.H. Edgar and Keith L. Hunley, Race Reconciled, 2009:2

There is one human race.....

With several sub-groups that are obviously the same race......

A human is a hybrid if they are....

1. an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species,

2. a person whose background is a blend of two diverse cultures or traditions

3. something heterogeneous in origin or composition: composite

There is a division in the disciple of anthropology.......

Those, like you that say humans are too similar to be different races.....

And those, like me, that use evidence to illustrate the biological cause for human racial classifications......

In other words.....

An anthropologist could determine an individuals race based on their DNA alone.............

Most of the people who says there are not enough biological differences for race are usually soft or either a feminist..............

Intimidated to challenge the status quo...........

THERE ARE NO HUMAN RACES ONLY ONE HUMAN RACE THE SUB GROUPS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT DO NOT FIT THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RACE.

The status quo is academia has a long history of being made up of white supremacist and other racist of many kinds thankfully that is changing.

"Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data" Craniometric Similarities Within and Between Human Populations in Comparison with Neutral Genetic Data

André Strauss, Mark Hubbe

The result is a continuous straight line ranging from the darkest extremes to the lightest extremes in skin color. There are no identifiable clusters. . . . Researchers are of course free to subdivide this continuum into different groups, but such clustering would be arbitrary and subjective in terms of the number of groups and the cutoff points used to distinguish them. The lack of apparent clusters is a reflection of the fact that skin color shows a classic pattern of clinal variation. Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation John H. Relethford*

Here we go.....



"There is only 2% difference in DNA in any two humans"

This is true......

However, 2% of DNA can contain more information that the human mind can fathom.....

The first is talking about cranium similarities............

Again there are two schools of anthropology....

"This formulation is proclaimed on the websites of major social-science organizations. "Race is about culture, not biology," states the American Anthropological Association. Too bad that it's incorrect, but that's not the worst of it. The social-science creed has permeated the thinking of most college campuses so deeply that race, in the genetic sense, has become a taboo word. This has serious consequences for the advance of knowledge."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nicholas-wade-race-has-a-biological-basis-racism-does-not-1403476865

You politically correctness & naivety could have drastic repercussions.....

It can contain a lot of information but that does not mean that the information is enough to say that their are different races of humans. because what's going to happen when we look at individuals within the same "race" and there is also this same HIGH percent DIFFERENCE in there dna.

what we going to do create a new race for just this person.

 

[DarcSkies]

I'll say this. If the IC black men HAD to swear off white women to solve our problems... We would be raising the Confederate flag back in SC lol.

Lmao...

 

[zzombie]

@bambu you quoted some shit from a guy named nicholas wade nicholas wade is not a scientist he is a writer and has never worked as an actual scientist

 

[Purr]

@zzombie is zaddy.

 

[bambu]

THERE IS more than one definition on the word because it's used differently, biologically speaking there is no human hybrid RACE. THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE homosapien sapien

“Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation”

–Heather J.H. Edgar and Keith L. Hunley, Race Reconciled, 2009:2

There is one human race.....

With several sub-groups that are obviously the same race......

A human is a hybrid if they are....

1. an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species,

2. a person whose background is a blend of two diverse cultures or traditions

3. something heterogeneous in origin or composition: composite

There is a division in the disciple of anthropology.......

Those, like you that say humans are too similar to be different races.....

And those, like me, that use evidence to illustrate the biological cause for human racial classifications......

In other words.....

An anthropologist could determine an individuals race based on their DNA alone.............

Most of the people who says there are not enough biological differences for race are usually soft or either a feminist..............

Intimidated to challenge the status quo...........

THERE ARE NO HUMAN RACES ONLY ONE HUMAN RACE THE SUB GROUPS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT DO NOT FIT THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RACE.

The status quo is academia has a long history of being made up of white supremacist and other racist of many kinds thankfully that is changing.

"Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data" Craniometric Similarities Within and Between Human Populations in Comparison with Neutral Genetic Data

André Strauss, Mark Hubbe

The result is a continuous straight line ranging from the darkest extremes to the lightest extremes in skin color. There are no identifiable clusters. . . . Researchers are of course free to subdivide this continuum into different groups, but such clustering would be arbitrary and subjective in terms of the number of groups and the cutoff points used to distinguish them. The lack of apparent clusters is a reflection of the fact that skin color shows a classic pattern of clinal variation. Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation John H. Relethford*

Here we go.....



"There is only 2% difference in DNA in any two humans"

This is true......

However, 2% of DNA can contain more information that the human mind can fathom.....

The first is talking about cranium similarities............

Again there are two schools of anthropology....

"This formulation is proclaimed on the websites of major social-science organizations. "Race is about culture, not biology," states the American Anthropological Association. Too bad that it's incorrect, but that's not the worst of it. The social-science creed has permeated the thinking of most college campuses so deeply that race, in the genetic sense, has become a taboo word. This has serious consequences for the advance of knowledge."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nicholas-wade-race-has-a-biological-basis-racism-does-not-1403476865

You politically correctness & naivety could have drastic repercussions.....

It can contain a lot of information but that does not mean that the information is enough to say that their are different races of humans. because what's going to happen when we look at individuals within the same "race" and there is also this same HIGH percent DIFFERENCE in there dna.

what we going to do create a new race for just this person.

I know what you are saying.....

Like how a "black" person can have Y-DNA from Europe and vice versa......

However, the biological classifications are valid.....

The small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans.....

Is more than enough to biologically classify it a race.....

@bambu you quoted some shit from a guy named nicholas wade nicholas wade is not a scientist he is a writer and has never worked as an actual scientist

I know who he is....

"Nicholas Wade (born May 17, 1942)[1] was formerly a staff writer for the Science Times section of The New York Times.[2][3] He is also an author, who most recently has written the controversial book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History that has been both criticized and praised by scientists and reviewers."

The official stance of the American Anthropological Association is that race is non-biological......

So, it should be understood that research that opposes that stance does not get published nor supported.........

 

[fuc_i_look_like]

man, i really hate u niggaz who turn threads into scientific debates and history lessons. gtfoh talking bout DNA and "cranium similarities"

 

[zzombie]

THERE IS more than one definition on the word because it's used differently, biologically speaking there is no human hybrid RACE. THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE homosapien sapien

“Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation”

–Heather J.H. Edgar and Keith L. Hunley, Race Reconciled, 2009:2

There is one human race.....

With several sub-groups that are obviously the same race......

A human is a hybrid if they are....

1. an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species,

2. a person whose background is a blend of two diverse cultures or traditions

3. something heterogeneous in origin or composition: composite

There is a division in the disciple of anthropology.......

Those, like you that say humans are too similar to be different races.....

And those, like me, that use evidence to illustrate the biological cause for human racial classifications......

In other words.....

An anthropologist could determine an individuals race based on their DNA alone.............

Most of the people who says there are not enough biological differences for race are usually soft or either a feminist..............

Intimidated to challenge the status quo...........

THERE ARE NO HUMAN RACES ONLY ONE HUMAN RACE THE SUB GROUPS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT DO NOT FIT THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RACE.

The status quo is academia has a long history of being made up of white supremacist and other racist of many kinds thankfully that is changing.

"Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data" Craniometric Similarities Within and Between Human Populations in Comparison with Neutral Genetic Data

André Strauss, Mark Hubbe

The result is a continuous straight line ranging from the darkest extremes to the lightest extremes in skin color. There are no identifiable clusters. . . . Researchers are of course free to subdivide this continuum into different groups, but such clustering would be arbitrary and subjective in terms of the number of groups and the cutoff points used to distinguish them. The lack of apparent clusters is a reflection of the fact that skin color shows a classic pattern of clinal variation. Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation John H. Relethford*

Here we go.....



"There is only 2% difference in DNA in any two humans"

This is true......

However, 2% of DNA can contain more information that the human mind can fathom.....

The first is talking about cranium similarities............

Again there are two schools of anthropology....

"This formulation is proclaimed on the websites of major social-science organizations. "Race is about culture, not biology," states the American Anthropological Association. Too bad that it's incorrect, but that's not the worst of it. The social-science creed has permeated the thinking of most college campuses so deeply that race, in the genetic sense, has become a taboo word. This has serious consequences for the advance of knowledge."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nicholas-wade-race-has-a-biological-basis-racism-does-not-1403476865

You politically correctness & naivety could have drastic repercussions.....

It can contain a lot of information but that does not mean that the information is enough to say that their are different races of humans. because what's going to happen when we look at individuals within the same "race" and there is also this same HIGH percent DIFFERENCE in there dna.

what we going to do create a new race for just this person.

I know what you are saying.....

Like how a "black" person can have Y-DNA from Europe and vice versa......

However, the biological classifications are valid.....

The small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans.....

Is more than enough to biologically classify it a race.....

@bambu you quoted some shit from a guy named nicholas wade nicholas wade is not a scientist he is a writer and has never worked as an actual scientist

I know who he is....

"Nicholas Wade (born May 17, 1942)[1] was formerly a staff writer for the Science Times section of The New York Times.[2][3] He is also an author, who most recently has written the controversial book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History that has been both criticized and praised by scientists and reviewers."

The official stance of the American Anthropological Association is that race is non-biological......

So, it should be understood that research that opposes that stance does not get published nor supported.........

first of all it was written by someone who Is not a scientist so why should the American anthropological association support it. You can't just write a book and then say that it is has credibility and speaks the truth it does not work like that nor should it. SCIENCE WORKS on peer review.

if color skin is enough to qualify as being biologically a member of another race than there are over 100 different races on earth, hell not even all so called white people have the same skin color black people come in countless shades of black, brown, dark red

 

[Ghostdenithegawd]

I dont even know what light skin pussy looks like wassup

 

[_God_]

Charlie why aren't you f

Thread starter is Mufasa

Renounce your cracca side or gtfo my thread!

You don't even have real black lineage you cant even fried bananas gtfoh

 

[bambu]

THERE IS more than one definition on the word because it's used differently, biologically speaking there is no human hybrid RACE. THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE homosapien sapien

“Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation”

–Heather J.H. Edgar and Keith L. Hunley, Race Reconciled, 2009:2

There is one human race.....

With several sub-groups that are obviously the same race......

A human is a hybrid if they are....

1. an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species,

2. a person whose background is a blend of two diverse cultures or traditions

3. something heterogeneous in origin or composition: composite

There is a division in the disciple of anthropology.......

Those, like you that say humans are too similar to be different races.....

And those, like me, that use evidence to illustrate the biological cause for human racial classifications......

In other words.....

An anthropologist could determine an individuals race based on their DNA alone.............

Most of the people who says there are not enough biological differences for race are usually soft or either a feminist..............

Intimidated to challenge the status quo...........

THERE ARE NO HUMAN RACES ONLY ONE HUMAN RACE THE SUB GROUPS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT DO NOT FIT THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RACE.

The status quo is academia has a long history of being made up of white supremacist and other racist of many kinds thankfully that is changing.

"Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data" Craniometric Similarities Within and Between Human Populations in Comparison with Neutral Genetic Data

André Strauss, Mark Hubbe

The result is a continuous straight line ranging from the darkest extremes to the lightest extremes in skin color. There are no identifiable clusters. . . . Researchers are of course free to subdivide this continuum into different groups, but such clustering would be arbitrary and subjective in terms of the number of groups and the cutoff points used to distinguish them. The lack of apparent clusters is a reflection of the fact that skin color shows a classic pattern of clinal variation. Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation John H. Relethford*

Here we go.....



"There is only 2% difference in DNA in any two humans"

This is true......

However, 2% of DNA can contain more information that the human mind can fathom.....

The first is talking about cranium similarities............

Again there are two schools of anthropology....

"This formulation is proclaimed on the websites of major social-science organizations. "Race is about culture, not biology," states the American Anthropological Association. Too bad that it's incorrect, but that's not the worst of it. The social-science creed has permeated the thinking of most college campuses so deeply that race, in the genetic sense, has become a taboo word. This has serious consequences for the advance of knowledge."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nicholas-wade-race-has-a-biological-basis-racism-does-not-1403476865

You politically correctness & naivety could have drastic repercussions.....

It can contain a lot of information but that does not mean that the information is enough to say that their are different races of humans. because what's going to happen when we look at individuals within the same "race" and there is also this same HIGH percent DIFFERENCE in there dna.

what we going to do create a new race for just this person.

I know what you are saying.....

Like how a "black" person can have Y-DNA from Europe and vice versa......

However, the biological classifications are valid.....

The small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans.....

Is more than enough to biologically classify it a race.....

@bambu you quoted some shit from a guy named nicholas wade nicholas wade is not a scientist he is a writer and has never worked as an actual scientist

I know who he is....

"Nicholas Wade (born May 17, 1942)[1] was formerly a staff writer for the Science Times section of The New York Times.[2][3] He is also an author, who most recently has written the controversial book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History that has been both criticized and praised by scientists and reviewers."

The official stance of the American Anthropological Association is that race is non-biological......

So, it should be understood that research that opposes that stance does not get published nor supported.........

first of all it was written by someone who Is not a scientist so why should the American anthropological association support it. You can't just write a book and then say that it is has credibility and speaks the truth it does not work like that nor should it. SCIENCE WORKS on peer review.

if color skin is enough to qualify as being biologically a member of another race than there are over 100 different races on earth, hell not even all so called white people have the same skin color black people come in countless shades of black, brown, dark red

There are two divisions in anthropology, cultural & biological.......

Cultural anthropologists do not study genetics.......

They should & Wade publicly called the sub-discipline and the American Anthropological Association out on it......

The cultural side says its not biological and like you, call anyone who says different a nazi or eugenicist......

Nonetheless,

The evidence illustrates DNA changes that cause "pale" skin......

Not your rainbow "we are the world" rendition of skin color variation........

 

[zzombie]

THERE IS more than one definition on the word because it's used differently, biologically speaking there is no human hybrid RACE. THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE homosapien sapien

“Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation”

–Heather J.H. Edgar and Keith L. Hunley, Race Reconciled, 2009:2

There is one human race.....

With several sub-groups that are obviously the same race......

A human is a hybrid if they are....

1. an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species,

2. a person whose background is a blend of two diverse cultures or traditions

3. something heterogeneous in origin or composition: composite

There is a division in the disciple of anthropology.......

Those, like you that say humans are too similar to be different races.....

And those, like me, that use evidence to illustrate the biological cause for human racial classifications......

In other words.....

An anthropologist could determine an individuals race based on their DNA alone.............

Most of the people who says there are not enough biological differences for race are usually soft or either a feminist..............

Intimidated to challenge the status quo...........

THERE ARE NO HUMAN RACES ONLY ONE HUMAN RACE THE SUB GROUPS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT DO NOT FIT THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RACE.

The status quo is academia has a long history of being made up of white supremacist and other racist of many kinds thankfully that is changing.

"Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data" Craniometric Similarities Within and Between Human Populations in Comparison with Neutral Genetic Data

André Strauss, Mark Hubbe

The result is a continuous straight line ranging from the darkest extremes to the lightest extremes in skin color. There are no identifiable clusters. . . . Researchers are of course free to subdivide this continuum into different groups, but such clustering would be arbitrary and subjective in terms of the number of groups and the cutoff points used to distinguish them. The lack of apparent clusters is a reflection of the fact that skin color shows a classic pattern of clinal variation. Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation John H. Relethford*

Here we go.....



"There is only 2% difference in DNA in any two humans"

This is true......

However, 2% of DNA can contain more information that the human mind can fathom.....

The first is talking about cranium similarities............

Again there are two schools of anthropology....

"This formulation is proclaimed on the websites of major social-science organizations. "Race is about culture, not biology," states the American Anthropological Association. Too bad that it's incorrect, but that's not the worst of it. The social-science creed has permeated the thinking of most college campuses so deeply that race, in the genetic sense, has become a taboo word. This has serious consequences for the advance of knowledge."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nicholas-wade-race-has-a-biological-basis-racism-does-not-1403476865

You politically correctness & naivety could have drastic repercussions.....

It can contain a lot of information but that does not mean that the information is enough to say that their are different races of humans. because what's going to happen when we look at individuals within the same "race" and there is also this same HIGH percent DIFFERENCE in there dna.

what we going to do create a new race for just this person.

I know what you are saying.....

Like how a "black" person can have Y-DNA from Europe and vice versa......

However, the biological classifications are valid.....

The small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans.....

Is more than enough to biologically classify it a race.....

@bambu you quoted some shit from a guy named nicholas wade nicholas wade is not a scientist he is a writer and has never worked as an actual scientist

I know who he is....

"Nicholas Wade (born May 17, 1942)[1] was formerly a staff writer for the Science Times section of The New York Times.[2][3] He is also an author, who most recently has written the controversial book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History that has been both criticized and praised by scientists and reviewers."

The official stance of the American Anthropological Association is that race is non-biological......

So, it should be understood that research that opposes that stance does not get published nor supported.........

first of all it was written by someone who Is not a scientist so why should the American anthropological association support it. You can't just write a book and then say that it is has credibility and speaks the truth it does not work like that nor should it. SCIENCE WORKS on peer review.

if color skin is enough to qualify as being biologically a member of another race than there are over 100 different races on earth, hell not even all so called white people have the same skin color black people come in countless shades of black, brown, dark red

There are two divisions in anthropology, cultural & biological.......

Cultural anthropologists do not study genetics.......

They should & Wade publicly called the sub-discipline and the American Anthropological Association out on it......

The cultural side says its not biological and like you, call anyone who says different a nazi or eugenicist......

Nonetheless,

The evidence illustrates DNA changes that cause "pale" skin......

Not your rainbow "we are the world" rendition of skin color variation........

If you actually are a professor and if there are more of you then the educational future of America is bleak.

A change in DNA a simple advantageous mutation doesn't mean a new race has been created it takes more than that

 

[D. Morgan]

@Westie So I just read this article and want to know your take on it. A gay white man going in on a black girl on his tv show with 2 gay black men one of who was a tranny and neither spoke up for the young black girl against the white guy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/demetria-lucas-doyley-/cultural-appropriation-is_b_7805192.html

 

[Hevalisk]

@Westie So I just read this article and want to know your take on it. A gay white man going in on a black biracial girl on his tv show with 2 gay black men one of who was a tranny and neither spoke up for the young black biracial girl against the white guy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/demetria-lucas-doyley-/cultural-appropriation-is_b_7805192.html

Fixed.

 

[bambu]

THERE IS more than one definition on the word because it's used differently, biologically speaking there is no human hybrid RACE. THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE homosapien sapien

“Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation”

–Heather J.H. Edgar and Keith L. Hunley, Race Reconciled, 2009:2

There is one human race.....

With several sub-groups that are obviously the same race......

A human is a hybrid if they are....

1. an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species,

2. a person whose background is a blend of two diverse cultures or traditions

3. something heterogeneous in origin or composition: composite

There is a division in the disciple of anthropology.......

Those, like you that say humans are too similar to be different races.....

And those, like me, that use evidence to illustrate the biological cause for human racial classifications......

In other words.....

An anthropologist could determine an individuals race based on their DNA alone.............

Most of the people who says there are not enough biological differences for race are usually soft or either a feminist..............

Intimidated to challenge the status quo...........

THERE ARE NO HUMAN RACES ONLY ONE HUMAN RACE THE SUB GROUPS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT DO NOT FIT THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RACE.

The status quo is academia has a long history of being made up of white supremacist and other racist of many kinds thankfully that is changing.

"Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data" Craniometric Similarities Within and Between Human Populations in Comparison with Neutral Genetic Data

André Strauss, Mark Hubbe

The result is a continuous straight line ranging from the darkest extremes to the lightest extremes in skin color. There are no identifiable clusters. . . . Researchers are of course free to subdivide this continuum into different groups, but such clustering would be arbitrary and subjective in terms of the number of groups and the cutoff points used to distinguish them. The lack of apparent clusters is a reflection of the fact that skin color shows a classic pattern of clinal variation. Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation John H. Relethford*

Here we go.....



"There is only 2% difference in DNA in any two humans"

This is true......

However, 2% of DNA can contain more information that the human mind can fathom.....

The first is talking about cranium similarities............

Again there are two schools of anthropology....

"This formulation is proclaimed on the websites of major social-science organizations. "Race is about culture, not biology," states the American Anthropological Association. Too bad that it's incorrect, but that's not the worst of it. The social-science creed has permeated the thinking of most college campuses so deeply that race, in the genetic sense, has become a taboo word. This has serious consequences for the advance of knowledge."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nicholas-wade-race-has-a-biological-basis-racism-does-not-1403476865

You politically correctness & naivety could have drastic repercussions.....

It can contain a lot of information but that does not mean that the information is enough to say that their are different races of humans. because what's going to happen when we look at individuals within the same "race" and there is also this same HIGH percent DIFFERENCE in there dna.

what we going to do create a new race for just this person.

I know what you are saying.....

Like how a "black" person can have Y-DNA from Europe and vice versa......

However, the biological classifications are valid.....

The small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans.....

Is more than enough to biologically classify it a race.....

@bambu you quoted some shit from a guy named nicholas wade nicholas wade is not a scientist he is a writer and has never worked as an actual scientist

I know who he is....

"Nicholas Wade (born May 17, 1942)[1] was formerly a staff writer for the Science Times section of The New York Times.[2][3] He is also an author, who most recently has written the controversial book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History that has been both criticized and praised by scientists and reviewers."

The official stance of the American Anthropological Association is that race is non-biological......

So, it should be understood that research that opposes that stance does not get published nor supported.........

first of all it was written by someone who Is not a scientist so why should the American anthropological association support it. You can't just write a book and then say that it is has credibility and speaks the truth it does not work like that nor should it. SCIENCE WORKS on peer review.

if color skin is enough to qualify as being biologically a member of another race than there are over 100 different races on earth, hell not even all so called white people have the same skin color black people come in countless shades of black, brown, dark red

There are two divisions in anthropology, cultural & biological.......

Cultural anthropologists do not study genetics.......

They should & Wade publicly called the sub-discipline and the American Anthropological Association out on it......

The cultural side says its not biological and like you, call anyone who says different a nazi or eugenicist......

Nonetheless,

The evidence illustrates DNA changes that cause "pale" skin......

Not your rainbow "we are the world" rendition of skin color variation........

If you actually are a professor and if there are more of you then the educational future of America is bleak.

A change in DNA a simple advantageous mutation doesn't mean a new race has been created it takes more than that

Nigga, dont try to blame me for America's educational woes............

No one mentioned anything about a "new race" being created, stupid ass...........

"There are variations between human populations, so a SNP allele that is common in one geographical or ethnic group may be much rarer in another."

Like the one that causes pale skin in Europeans and is not associated with any other group......

These genetic variations between individuals (particularly in non-coding parts of the genome) are sometimes exploited in DNA fingerprinting, which is used in forensic science......

Also, these genetic variations underlie differences in our susceptibility to disease. The severity of illness and the way our body responds to treatments are also manifestations of genetic variations."

And unless you come with a better argument I'm done....

I have some free time, but dont plan on using anymore of it to entertain ignorance.......

 

[S2J]

Yo these nggas have really been talkin to each other 2 days straight

 

[Chi Snow]

Yo these nggas have really been talkin to each other 2 days straight

They took they beef from SL to here

 

[zzombie]

@bambu

when you say hybrid humans exist based on skin color and slight DNA variations then what you are affectively saying is that multiple human races exist, you are a fucking idiot. You can pull this bullshit on the posters here because they are uneducated on what we are talking about but i won't fall for your bullshit

You are the ignorant one your entire analysis is a throw back to the belief system of the imperial dragon of the kkk from the 1920's. your whole position is ignorance, The existence of "race" has be debunked thousands of times by the most reputable scientist, you quote people who are not scientist and who have been denounced by scientist let me quote a real scientist

"Races may exist in humans in a cultural sense, but biological concepts of race are needed to access their reality in a non-species-specific manner and to see if cultural categories correspond to biological categories within humans. Modern biological concepts of race can be implemented objectively with molecular genetic data through hypothesis-testing. Genetic data sets are used to see if biological races exist in humans and in our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not. Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race. As a consequence, adaptive traits do not define races in humans. Much of the recent scientific literature on human evolution portrays human populations as separate branches on an evolutionary tree. A tree-like structure among humans has been falsified whenever tested, so this practice is scientifically indefensible. It is also socially irresponsible as these pictorial representations of human evolution have more impact on the general public than nuanced phrases in the text of a scientific paper. Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness and not race"

Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2013 Sep;44(3):262-71. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.04.010. Epub 2013 May 16.

Biological races in humans.

Templeton AR1.

 

[bambu]

Yo these nggas have really been talkin to each other 2 days straight

They took they beef from SL to here

Actually....

This one goes back to the R&R.....

 

[zzombie]

And by the way in science saying there are two views on the issue is saying nothing there are always at least 2 views on the issue. The question is which one has the most veracity and preponderance of evidence.