MDMAlliance said:
fatslob-:O said:
Accept those articles are nothing more than bullshit spout of ideologies. The field of medical science has shown time and time again that there is existence of race on a physiological basis ...
Social scientists can't comprehend race on a biological basis compared to biologists or physicians since that is not their field of expertise no matter how they don't want it ... (social scientists with their liberal crap aren't qualified to say anything about whether races exist or not)
|
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23684745
This isn't a social science article, but a biomedical one. If you did any real research, you'd see that the vast majority of anything you'd find would support the statement that race is not a biological reality.
Here's an important question to ask yourself: How do you define race? What are the criteria for what is "black" or "white" or any other "race" you can think of? Do all members of said "race" express the traits you defined? Do other "races" NOT share these traits? If you really understood what science is, you'd quickly come to an answer on that with all the data available.
|
That wasn't about if race within humans exists. It was on whether humans races fit the definition of biological race or not. Science doesn't have one or two definitions of race.
Humans have different geographical races. Even so there's biological differences between races in humans beyond skin color. They have different health issues/benefits. Asians tend to have a problem with dairy products. They get cancer less. What the word "race" is used to describe is not a social construct.
edit. Fixed a word.
Last edited by Aeolus451 - on 19 February 2018
