By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MDMAlliance 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.

The point of linking that article was, in fact, to prove that humans do not have a "biological race."  

You are also making arguments without any sources here.  Also your generalizations are not at all universal.  A lot of what you described can be explained by a lot of different things.  Asians having a "problem with dairy products" (otherwise known as being lactose intolerant) has a lot more to do with the Asian population not drinking milk historically.  It's an adaptive trait that has nothing to do with being Asian itself, and makes no sense to call it "race" when it isn't even universal.  Humans as a whole were generally lactose intolerant until a bunch of them started drinking milk.   Your argument is weak at best.

 

edit:  I'd like to point out that with certain studies, it is useful to use "race" as a label since it is a well-recognized one and IS useful for studies in psychology and sociology.  Which are "soft sciences" and not "hard."  

Also "geological races" doesn't make sense since there are no hard boundaries in geology.