Race is a social construct. Does it mean genetically close groups of populations cannot form ethnicities? Does it mean that environments in which ethnicities evolve don't affect their genetic make up in a significant way? Be it social or natural.
Every single serious scientist will tell you the word race is an outdated term except in the US where race serves as a unifying factor for the melting pot. > inb4 immigration act Even before that slave and Euro populations were mixing up between themselves.
>Prove me wrong. You made the claim so post your proofs first since the burden is on you. Either way I don't care, if race exists then we should get rid of subhumans, if not then I can't be racist and all those SJW's can suck my dick.
Race is outdated. Population genetics is not. Roughly, our 'recent' evolution has split humanity into two clades ... communally-adapted ancestors of the first agriculturalists as well as competitive-adapted ancestors of hunter-gatherer and steppe pastoralists (themselves prevalently an HG mixture). Wildly divergent selective pressures. Yes, nowadays everyone is mostly a mutt between those two types although the ratios do vary quite a bit and at least in the behavioural department this already explains a lot. I am kind of drunk already but if there is interest I can elaborate in more detail.
Do as you please, your opinion and knowledge are always appreciated. Thanks for coming.
Xavier Lewis
Yeah speculation of some roastie is really an evidence. Try transplant bone marrow from nigger into a white person to see your social construct in action.
Jeremiah Sanders
Also your fucking link starts with 'BLOG, OPINION' not 'PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH'.
Colton Diaz
This opinion piece is full of serious references. I dislike opinion pieces and understand your reaction, yet, it's not a reason to dismiss it because much roastie.
Just because bone marrow transplants only work with people with little genetic distance doesn't mean race exists. It means bone marrow transplants only work with people with little genetic distance.
Carson Reyes
Glad to be of service.
First point would be that the 'modern' H. sapiens started out quite differently already. Pic related, only part of those initial African H. sapiens which crossed over to Eurasia did actually intermix with Neanderthals, a species highly adapted to a big game hunter lifestyle. Basal Eurasians, the ancestors of Near Eastern farmers, show no Neander ancestry at all. Reasons are still unknown and they later did receive a tiny amount of that ancestry by mixing with hunter-gatherer hybrid progenitors. But the true game changer was agriculture. It did force several adaptions, the increased ability to digest starch was only one of them (and this has become widespread nowadays as we all at least in part live off cereals). But farming also allowed for a shift in reproductive strategy: compared to a nomadic HG the farmers could sustain more children at the same time, naturally giving those with higher fertility an edge. At the same time, selective pressures became 'easier' or shifted more towards immune system as higher population density meant more diseases ... this led to a shift in 'investment' from high quality progeny towards lower quality/high number progeny. A variation on the old r/K theory. I'd also say that the shift at first happened in females, pushing towards more estrogen and higher fecundity ... and this negatively affected intelligence as many brain genes are actually controlled by testosterone pathways (idea is that intellect is a 'weapon' in the male-male competition, making a coupling of this phenotype to male androgens evolutionarily logical). Also, farming relied on a more communal lifestyle ... individual skill became less important for reproductive success as you simply had to follow orders by the kings/priest caste on when to sow, how to dig irrigation ditches etc. I also see the origin of post-shamanistic religion here as a form of 'self-policing' mechanism evolved by an ever growing population.
Race exist, evidence is everywhere including my bone marrow case, your counterevidence are just political speculations and subjective opinions. Case closed.
