/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12498223
>

>>12378523..

>>12128068

>>12134032
seems pretty real to me

>>11849173
No it isn't just "some", there is lots of data indicating humans of all races group people into the classical 5 races regardless of political views, intelligence, gender. It is a response to the biological reality, that humans are different depending on the place of their ethnogenesis.

No one says its clean, no one says its about purity, but there are biological reasons that there are differences between populations of humans that transcend time and space. It is a useful catagory, lower resolution than country/ethnic, but higher resolution than the whole of humanity that can be used to make predictions about the world (India will not massively surpass the living standards of Brazil, Sub-saharan africa cannot and will not maintain the standard of living in the modern west on its own, pmuch all major invention has and is occurring by ethnics of Caucasian descent)

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2008/02/21/319.5866.1100.DC1/Li_SOM.pdf

>>11801162
There are 2 species. Subsaharan africans and the rest. Both are subspeciated.

Races are not species, but are genetically dissimilar enough for the 5 classical races to make sense.

But if scientists can uncover 4 species of giraffe using a genetic based approach, the races are definitely a physical reality. You dont have to call them species. But the same genetic variation that is used to establish species in giraffe exists in humans.

https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2816%2930787-4

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2008/02/21/319.5866.1100.DC1/Li_SOM.pdf

>>11695027
They havent. Lets compare the scientific communities response to two genetic analyses. One on giraffes (Which all look very similar) - the genetic analysis found four SPECIES based on principle component analysis.
https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2816%2930787-4
https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.cub.2016.07.036/attachment/6fb151eb-1b03-4b6c-a97e-d68d10731352/mmc1.pdf

Exactly the same method applied to humans gives approx six "variations" - because we cant say humans subspeciate that would scare people.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18292342/
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2008/02/21/319.5866.1100.DC1/Li_SOM.pdf

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18292342/

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2008/02/21/319.5866.1100.DC1/Li_SOM.pdf

We are different. Important differences occur at the level of race (Blacks are obviously different to whites, you don't need the genes, you can infer this phenomenologically)
There is variation at lower level (ethnic variety)
There is variation at the individual level.
The existence of the second two does not discount the existence of the first.

>>11669114
I mean theres genetic diversity between whites and asians too. Salvs are more authoritarian than NW europeans, throughout history. Chinese vs indians obviously.

Race is the first, crudest category, but that doesn't mean its wrong. Its just not the end of human biodiversity.
>See africa
>See all the people in this one continent with brown skin, tribal lifestyles, more religious...
>It might be helpful if we could refer to that as an entity

Sure, you can divide it up, or we could just say theres two or three races (pic related).

But its certainly less diverse if you only consider sub-saharan africa (which makes sense bc theres a big fucking desert running through it).