By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 19 February 2018
Edit Thread
Aeolus451 said:
MDMAlliance said:

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 geological 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.

So what definition of race are you using? Because it seems to be getting so vague and nebulous at this point that it is meaningless as a descriptor.