6 ms·

That's a progressive thing. > it's consistent with scientific study Source?

redcobra762 2y ago
Various studies, thinking, arguments etc. That race isn't biological isn't really up for debate, scientifically. You can believe that scientific consensus is too "woke" or has a systemic bias against the idea or whatever, but the consensus is soundly at "race is not biological". I'm personally conservative in my political views, but I don't think that means I must reject scientific consensus. https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/ https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7682789/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7682789/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X23002493 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X2... https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113/EP091491 https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113/EP09... https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/does-race-exist/ https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/does-race-exist/ https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:LabXchange:6fb7b7fd:html:1 https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:LabXchange:6fb7b... https://www.kff.org/quick-take/race-is-a-social-category-not-a-biological-one/ https://www.kff.org/quick-take/race-is-a-social-category-not... https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/new-ama-policies-recognize-race-social-not-biological-construct https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/new-ama...
- marcusverus 2y ago
  These are awful sources, and they clearly aren't scientific, but are expressions of opinion. Wish casting, even. They're playing the old cynical same word games that are required to hold this position: "Modern genetics has established that the biological basis of most phenotypic traits typically associated with race, such as skin color and hair texture, has demonstrated that they transcend ancestry across vast geographic distances spanning continents." The fact that the above is also true of genes that cross species lines is, presumably, not an argument that 'species' is a purely social construct with no foundation in biology. Another asserts that humans can't be divided into subspecies, ergo race doesn't exist. That is not science, it's wordplay. Populations of humans were separated for millennia with very little intermixing. These populations diverged genetically, to the degree that the descendants of one population can easily be visually distinguished from one another. These groups have fuzzy edges, but they are obviously, undeniably rooted in biological reality.
  - redcobra762 2y ago
    The NIH is not a scientific source? The Human Genome Project isn't a scientific source? The journal literally called Science? Duke University? Science Direct? The American Medical Association? The Experimental Physiology Journal? That's a tough thing to read on HN, I have to be honest.
    - marcusverus 2y ago
      The NIH site is hosting an editorial. An editorial from what appears to be the journal of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. No, it is not a valid source in support of your claim. The fact that you not only shared it but defended it, purely based on the hosting URL, is... revealing. How can you cite the human genome project as evidence of the supposed a-biological nature of race? How is it possible that you can believe this, while also understanding that 23andMe can not only tell your ancestors continent of origin (a rough analog for race), but their specific region? If you bothered to read these articles critically (instead of turning off your brain in response to a specious appeal to authority) you would see that they don't even deny that racial populations are genetically distinct. They are discernible in purely biological terms, which by definition makes them biological. The desire to present race as non-biological is purely political/ethical and not scientific, is why their arguments stoop to semantic games and emotional appeals. You won't actually respond to the substance of my comment, because you don't want to think about this topic. I get it. It's deeply taboo, and we are hardwired not to question taboos. Think about it anyway!
      - redcobra762 2y ago
        They absolutely deny race exists, you just seem to want to equate genetic heritability with race. Which genetic markers constitute a black person? Which constitute a white person? You clearly think such is the case, so I’m curious to understand how your definition of race functions. The NIH article you seem to dislike has this as its opening paragraph: > In 2019, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists issued a statement on biological aspects of race, concluding that “pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.” The statement continues: “... The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries... Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence.” How you could deny this as not the scientific consensus, or not a full rejection of race as a biological concept fascinates me.

Various studies, thinking, arguments etc. That race isn't biological isn't really up for debate, scientifically. You can believe that scientific consensus is too "woke" or has a systemic bias against the idea or whatever, but the consensus is soundly at "race is not biological". I'm personally conservative in my political views, but I don't think that means I must reject scientific consensus. https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/ https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7682789/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7682789/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X23002493 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X2... https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113/EP091491 https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113/EP09... https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/does-race-exist/ https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/does-race-exist/ https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:LabXchange:6fb7b7fd:html:1 https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:LabXchange:6fb7b... https://www.kff.org/quick-take/race-is-a-social-category-not-a-biological-one/ https://www.kff.org/quick-take/race-is-a-social-category-not... https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/new-ama-policies-recognize-race-social-not-biological-construct https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/new-ama...

marcusverus 2y ago
These are awful sources, and they clearly aren't scientific, but are expressions of opinion. Wish casting, even. They're playing the old cynical same word games that are required to hold this position: "Modern genetics has established that the biological basis of most phenotypic traits typically associated with race, such as skin color and hair texture, has demonstrated that they transcend ancestry across vast geographic distances spanning continents." The fact that the above is also true of genes that cross species lines is, presumably, not an argument that 'species' is a purely social construct with no foundation in biology. Another asserts that humans can't be divided into subspecies, ergo race doesn't exist. That is not science, it's wordplay. Populations of humans were separated for millennia with very little intermixing. These populations diverged genetically, to the degree that the descendants of one population can easily be visually distinguished from one another. These groups have fuzzy edges, but they are obviously, undeniably rooted in biological reality.
- redcobra762 2y ago
  The NIH is not a scientific source? The Human Genome Project isn't a scientific source? The journal literally called Science? Duke University? Science Direct? The American Medical Association? The Experimental Physiology Journal? That's a tough thing to read on HN, I have to be honest.
  - marcusverus 2y ago
    The NIH site is hosting an editorial. An editorial from what appears to be the journal of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. No, it is not a valid source in support of your claim. The fact that you not only shared it but defended it, purely based on the hosting URL, is... revealing. How can you cite the human genome project as evidence of the supposed a-biological nature of race? How is it possible that you can believe this, while also understanding that 23andMe can not only tell your ancestors continent of origin (a rough analog for race), but their specific region? If you bothered to read these articles critically (instead of turning off your brain in response to a specious appeal to authority) you would see that they don't even deny that racial populations are genetically distinct. They are discernible in purely biological terms, which by definition makes them biological. The desire to present race as non-biological is purely political/ethical and not scientific, is why their arguments stoop to semantic games and emotional appeals. You won't actually respond to the substance of my comment, because you don't want to think about this topic. I get it. It's deeply taboo, and we are hardwired not to question taboos. Think about it anyway!
    - redcobra762 2y ago
      They absolutely deny race exists, you just seem to want to equate genetic heritability with race. Which genetic markers constitute a black person? Which constitute a white person? You clearly think such is the case, so I’m curious to understand how your definition of race functions. The NIH article you seem to dislike has this as its opening paragraph: > In 2019, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists issued a statement on biological aspects of race, concluding that “pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.” The statement continues: “... The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries... Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence.” How you could deny this as not the scientific consensus, or not a full rejection of race as a biological concept fascinates me.