Marked for genocide
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (68)
sorted by:
Whoa, that started off with a doozy!
And, depending on type of measurement, don't humans and chimps share roughly that same amount?!
Tiny, tiny differences make up huge differences. It's always tiny percentiles.
You could take that same argument, and say that a pygmy woman from the Congo is, assuming the differences broke in the same directions, as close to a chimp as she is to a big bad White Male Human. She is become monke.
But even if the differences don't line up exactly, saying there's almost as much difference (even if they aren't so close to chimps, which is the most hilarious outcome) between two human groups and humans and monkeys...kind of blows the whole sham argument out of the water, doesn't it?
Again, before anyone calls me out, it all depends on how you measure DNA; the 98%/99% similarity between chimps and humans isn't set in stone and, if you measure differently, can get much - much - less similar. The point remains though, that a tiny difference in, you know, genetics, you know, the building blocks of life, do make huge, huge differences.
It would be more shocking if a pygmy Congolese woman and Hwite Man had more genetic difference, honestly. Because at some point you would just be talking completely different species. So if you believe in a human race (which I assume this "race debunker" still does), of course they will be similar, genetically.
The human genome contains about 3 billion base pairs, which means that the entirety of human diversity (genetically) comes down to about a million base pairs. I'd say that's probably more than enough to allow for separate 'races' or 'species', but I'm not a geneticist.
You would be correct. There's a lot of shared data, but that's your source code for everything - you've got to know how to make proteins, blood cells, bones, etc.
If tall Dutchmen and Pygmies were judged by another species using the EXACT SAME FUZZY RULES humans use when classifying other animals, they would totally be two different subspecies (races) AT BEST. If they were only known from fossils, they would TOTALLY be two different species, maybe even different genera.
The problem is thinking "race" is on the same level as "species", when it's more like "sub-species".
There are technically only one species of rabbit, and one species of hare. All rabbits can breed with any other rabbit (including domesticates), and all hares can breed with any hare. But hares and rabbits can't crossbreed.
Honest question from someone who only had Biology 101: What's the difference between a subspecies and a variety?
See, that's where it's fuzzy.
I've heard it used the same way as subspecies, but also as simply to refer to variants within a population, that haven't split off into their own populations, like, say, black wolves amongst grey/timber wolf populations, or redheads within northern teutonic/saxon/celtic populations.
Two races can hybridize into their own populations as well, such as Metis or Mexicans, amongst humans, or like I remember seeing Red Wolves might be (a self-sustaining group of coyoteXwolf descendants), or the European Wisent (genetically discovered to be a cross between an extinct relative of the North American bison and the Aurochs.)
Real speciation can only really happen if there's a long enough break in geneflow for genetic drift/adaptations to take enough effect to hinder the two populations from producing offspring that are both viable and fully fertile. (viable meaning they don't tend to die before being able to breed, fully fertile means they can breed with either parent species, or each other. Horses and donkeys are two different species because while mules and hinnies are viable, they're not fertile. There's a species of European crayfish that split off from another species about 25-30 years ago, but the new species is completely parthenogenic; they produce clones of themselves and do not/cannot mate with the males of the parent species.)
Strain or variety could also refer to what humans think of as bloodlines, or breeding lines.
Medicine uses race as part of its diagnostic process, nevermind that pesky complication with organ transplants when a donor isn't the same race as the recipient.
But because wokies have hijacked med schools, they're also pushing this insanity in medicine, and lots of people are gonna die, including the people they claim to care about.
This truly is our Lysenkoism.
I think Strawberries and Marijuana are only 5% different in DNA so it's a stupid argument.
Biological stratifications exist, but "race" ends up being a cultural construct. This is someone asserting that there isn't biological stratifications.
Race refers to the biological strata you mention and those that point to some nebulous social theory are doing so out of ideological reasons.
If you were referring exclusively to biological strata, then there's no cultural, political, or social concerns that are part of race.
That is indeed food for thought.