Which is nonsense.
https://www.facebook.com/BigThinkdotcom/videos/10153193962488527/?pnref=story

I love Bill Nye The Science Guy and think he ought to run for VP w/ NdGT as President, but I keep hearing him repeat this PC nonsense, that "There's no such thing as race", ad nauseam.
He's completely overlooking the fact that the only 'pure' Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Modern Humans) are Africans, since their ancestors never left Africa to 'interact' with other species of humans, like Eurasians, who are 2-4% Neanderthal. https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/
or Melenesians, who are 3-5% Denisovan.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/denisovan/
That's a HUGE genetic difference between races, considering the Human Genome Project concluded we're 96% genetically identical to Chimpanzees.
"The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees shows our closest living relatives share perfect identity with 96 percent of our DNA sequence, an international research consortium reported today." Human Genome Project
https://www.genome.gov/15515096
Somehow the math doesn't add up if there's a 5% difference between Melenesians and Africans, making their DNA only 95% identical.
Does that mean Melanesians are more closely related to Chimps than they are to Africans?

Bill Nye is right: race is a cultural and political classification, not a scientific one. If you think it can be classified scientifically, I invite you to try.

Science is more concerned about things that can be measured consistently and that have predictive power. Genetics can be measured scientifically but you'll find that, while it correlates somewhat with the concept of "race", genetics will classify a lot things very differently than "race" will.

If we're going for a scientific viewpoint, we might want to consider the concept of subspecies and how modern humans are the descendants of several of these. We have ideas about what some of those subspecies might have been (various from African, Neanderthals, Denisovans), but there is still a lot of discovery to be done.

"Bill Nye is right: race is a cultural and political classification, not a scientific one. If you think it can be classified scientifically, I invite you to try."

I'm European. If I sent my saliva into 23andme.com it would say that I'm 2-4% Neanderthal.
If an African sent their saliva to the same company, it would predictably come back with 0% Neanderthal DNA.

https://www.23andme.com/ancestry/

That's a huge genetic difference and a pretty easy way to scientifically classify different races, depending upon the extent of their hybridization. If you're not African, you're a hybrid, not 100% Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

My main point is that this huge genetic difference between races is overlooked, not only by theists, but also by 'scientists' trying to appeal to political correctness, rather than relying upon evidence.

There is no "African" race. Africa is frothing with far more human genetic diversity than anywhere else on the planet. The fact that 23andme results show up as "African" DNA is more about how that DNA was sampled and what they're reporting than anything to do with some nebulous concept of race.

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. This is just science.

"Scientifically," the definition of "race" is:

"An actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species."

Since all existing humans do or can potentially interbreed, there is only one human race. Nye is correct.

Other definitions exist; they're societal constructs, though. Not scientific ones.

Chimps aren't in our "race" because humans can't interbreed with them. It's not just the percentage of "difference" that matters, but what the differences are. The differences with chimps prevent interbreeding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2015 03:17PM by ificouldhietokolob.

That's not true.
Lots of different species can and do interbreed to create genetic hybrids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_hybrids

There are 17 different species of humans (other than us) that we have classified so far
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Species_list

New species are still being discovered and classifed.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/

We have interbred with many of them.

H. erectus
H. neanderthalensis
H. sapiens idaltu
H. sapiens (Cro-Magnon)
Denisova hominin
and now, Homo Naledi

IOW, we're all genetic hybrids.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's not true.
> Lots of different species can and do interbreed to
> create genetic hybrids.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_hybr
> ids

You missed the point. It IS "true" -- that's how race is defined scientifically. Hybrids are another issue -- "race" is defined scientifically WITHIN a species.

> There are 17 different species of humans (other
> than us) that we have classified so far
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Spec
> ies_list

You mean there WERE. Not there ARE. There's only one human species that currently exists.

> We have interbred with many of them.

Yes. So? Hybrids are a different issue.
There's one human species currently, and one race in it.

But based on this zebras and horses are the same. And they aren't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2015 03:38PM by matt.

matt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But based on this zebras and horses are the same.
> And they aren't.

Like Koriwhore, you dont' understand species definition fully.

Among other criteria, Species are about what an animal chooses to breed with in nature without stress, duress, force, within a naturally occurring area. And have viable offspring. If you feel this is a bit fuzzy and imperfect, I don't disagree. But it turns out our evolution has created this set of conditions.

Often there are animals that could interbreed in the same area. And since they choose not to, they meet one of the criteria for species. So there are cases where speciation occurs where a population is split and then later remerges. There has been sufficient minor differentiation that the animals choose not to interbreed. Their selection criteria have diverged. However, they're fully capable of producing viable offspring. Still, science considers this two separate species.

In the case of hybrids: Mules, jennies, Zonkeys and so on, these animals do not interbreed in their naturally occurring areas of their own volition. Further, these are usually sterile. I seem to recall that Mules run about 10% fertile which is surprisingly high, but insufficient to maintain itself as a species.

Now there are times when naturally occurring species do overlap and interbreed. Currently of note are Pizzlies, Polar/Grizzlie crosses. Their habitat is changing drastically enough that there are some naturally occurring hybrids now. And I think these are fertile? Not absolutely sure on that. Within relatively recent history, these species did not willfully interbreed. Environmental changes and stress conditionss are now showing us evolutionary methods at work with the Pizzlies.

If you believe there are different races, then what is your classification of someone who has an african grandparent, two caucasian grandparents, and an asian one?

Where is the cutoff for someone being one race to another?

If a male Chihuahua (with my ego) can create fertile issue with a lady Great Dane, it proves they are the same race. The contents of their respective DNAs may have a lot of different markers, but the "race" is a constant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2015 03:37PM by elderolddog.

It also proves that the chihuahua has access to a ladder.

Where there's a will, there's a way...

why is there a need to document that we might not be the same 'race'?

The natural consequence of establishing 'races' is that we will soon be involved in the playoffs and then eventually the SuperBowl of Races, brought to you by your favorite munitions manufacturers, who are smart enough to only see green.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Views_across_disciplines_over_time


Views are shifting among scientists who study the concept of "race."

Contrary to Bill Nye's assertion, forensic anthropologists are able to pinpoint the origin of skeletal remains with remarkable accuracy. They do this based upon specific, physical differences that tend to be present in different population groups.

Anthropologist C. Loring Brace said:

"Skeletal analysis provides no direct assessment of skin color, but it does allow an accurate estimate of original geographical origins. African, eastern Asian, and European ancestry can be specified with a high degree of accuracy. Africa of course entails 'black', but 'black' does not entail African."

Bill Nye did not make a contrary assertion. Ancestry is not the same as race. There is one human race.

The statement, "Scientifically speaking, [there is] no such thing as race," suggests that within a broad conception of what counts as science, i.e. what scientists study, what they do, and what they are interested in, the concept of race is non-existent. In other words, it suggests that there is no scientific discipline where the concept of race is significant and useful. Such a suggestion is blatantly false. Anthropology, Population Genetics, Sociology, and a number of disciplines in the social sciences are interested in race. In these scientific disciplines a "race" might be defined in many different ways depending upon the study in question; and studies, experiments and theories are developed based upon such definitions. Moreover, such studies can be very meaningful, and perhaps socially helpful. They can suggest physical and perhaps psychological distinctions that are statistically valid across broad populations, even if not between individuals.

If Bill Nye wants to suggest that there is no such thing as "race" in physics and chemistry that is one thing. But if we know anything from modern science, it is that scientific reductionism to physics, a 19th Century assumption, is false: There are scientific distinctions that can be drawn, and that can have statistical relevance, even if it is difficult to draw clear lines at the boundaries. Consider that space and time are continuous. As such, there is no such "thing" in nature as a moment in time, or location in space. Yet, we can arbitrarily invent units of space and time that serve our scientific purposes. Such conceptual licenses are essential in all of science, including physics and chemistry.

In a nutshell, I, as a social science major (back in the day) with a degree in Psychology, Sociology, and a minor in Anthropology, was taught (in 2 major universities in two different states within the U.S.)that: There is ONE human race.

There is so much more variation within each "race" than between them, that there is no clearly defined race other than Human.

The studies between various groups of people were referred to more often as regarding "ethnicity" or "culture".

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Such a
> suggestion is blatantly false. Anthropology,
> Population Genetics, Sociology, and a number of
> disciplines in the social sciences are interested
> in race.

They're "interested" in heredity, geographic origin, and lots of other things. None of those things are "race."

> In these scientific disciplines a "race"
> might be defined in many different ways depending
> upon the study in question;

Then they're making up definitions of "race," and that's not good science. There is, scientifically, only one human "race." There is considerable genetic variation within that race, there are different ancestries, etc. but only one human race. If these unnamed scientists do their studies by "race," they're doing them poorly.

> If Bill Nye wants to suggest that there is no such
> thing as "race" in physics and chemistry that is
> one thing.

How absurd. Physics and chemistry don't have "race." Human biology does, and related fields. And as defined by science, there's only one human "race." Studying variations in the human race, and calling some of those variations different "races," is not scientifically correct or supportable.

When Bill Nye states that there is no such thing as race in science, he is not talking about linguistics, i.e. about the use of a word. He is making the broader, ontological point that there is no such "thing" as race, meaning (presumably) there are no biological, genetic, distinctions among human ethnic groups, which is, of course, utter nonsense.

Since the late 20th Century the word "race" has rightfully become politically incorrect due to the eugenics of Nazi Germany. This explains why university departments do not use the word anymore. But to suggest that because the word is politically incorrect, that all such bioethnic distinctions vanish is itself anti-scientific. Last time I looked, African people had darker skin that European people, which is a genetic, racial trait. But, let's not call it race, let's just say they are all humans and pretend such distinctions don't exist.

For those interested, here is a basic consideration of this issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

"How do race and ethnicity differ?

A race is a category of people who have been singled out as inferior or superior, often on the basis of physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, or eye shape. An ethnic group is a collection of people distinguished primarily by cultural or national characteristics, including unique cultural traits, a sense of community, a feeling of ethnocentrism, ascribed membership and territoriality."

There is a history of white ethnocentrism and supremacy in social sciences and social sciences are starting to discard these ideas. There's plenty of academic and APA papers on the subject for those interested in googling.

I think eventually ethnicity will be the standard identification question instead of race on various forms and I'm seeing it already, especially here in the Corners.

Some of you can go on and on as much as you like about how people can invent arbitrary definitions and divide humans up into races based on whatever they like.

None of that invalidates what Bill Nye was talking about. If you actually listened to what he said, all of it, it is clear that he was talking about the human race. One race, with different tribes, as he said. Or ancestry from different regions, or whatever quirky definition that you choose for dividing people up.

For modern human beings, the biological concept of race generally coincides with subspecies. And we are all, regardless of different ancestral strains, Homo sapiens sapiens. The same subspecies. When any two members of Homo sapiens sapiens mate, the offspring is always and only Homo sapiens sapiens. That is what Bill Nye was talking about.

People can and do invent all sorts of other schemes for dividing each other up into smaller categories. None of that changes the fact that biological races for modern human beings total exactly one.

But a subspecies is a group of organisms that could interbreed with other subspecies of the species and produce fertile offspring, but chooses not to, or cannot because of geographic separation. This is not what we see in humans. Humans marry humans of other races all the time and have lots of children. It has been this way all throughout history. So human races are not equivalent to subspecies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2015 08:04PM by Heretic 2.

First, if you want to take a look at what I said, for modern humans, there is only one subspecies. Ditto only one race. Modern humans don't have different subspecies to interbreed or not interbreed. Ditto not different races to interbreed or not interbreed. That sort of is why many folks, when they are talking about humans, lump the categories together. The categorization ends at subspecies. The only possible other subspecies are all extinct. Which, yes, does, actually make interbreeding with another subspecies, nowadays, pretty difficult.

For some others kinds of living things, the categories are more realistically differentiated. At least some people say so.

In the second place, no, it has not been the case that people "married humans of other races all the time" all throughout history. That's how we got groups of people who, in broad characteristics, look different from other groups of people. American Indians were separated from Northern Europeans and Southern Africans were separated from the first Australians. All of them were separated from Hawaiians. If everyone had been interbreeding freely with everyone else, all along, we'd probably all be far less diverse in broad characteristics of appearance. People adapted to different conditions, and, because they were separated from other groups, the visible adaptations, like skin color, came to represent general populations in particular areas.

The differentiations never became great enough to sensibly define the populations as different subspecies. Or different races.

Tribes strongly discouraged mating with other tribes. Some members of some tribes still do strongly discourage that. It's considered to be terribly wrong to interbreed freely with other tribes. Just take a look at white supremacists today. And that used to be much more prevalent than it is now. Just take a look at the anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, for example.

I have a hard time taking Bill Nye seriously. He has a degree in mechanical engineering. Outside of building stuff I don't feel he has too much credibility.

Next time around, I'm getting a degree in ghawdology.

Whenever I fill out a form that asks me to write my race down on the form, I always write "Human."

Am I wrong according to Nye?

"If a male Chihuahua (with my ego) can create fertile issue with a lady Great Dane, it proves they are the same race. The contents of their respective DNAs may have a lot of different markers, but the "race" is a constant."

I would love to see the puppies! WHOA BOY!

The Great Dane would probably feel like JS should have felt when he molested those much smaller than himself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2015 08:56PM by verilyverily.

Um, no. Sorry. You are incredibly wrong. Also, just labeling something "pc" doesn't make it scientifically inaccurate. That's just your arbitrary political interpretation. I prefer to rely on data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/22/science/do-races-differ-not-really-genes-show.html?pagewanted=all

So all the genetic testing labs like 23andme.com are just pulling random stats out of their asses to tell you EXACTLY how much European, Asian, Melenesian, African, neanderthal you are?
Thanks anyways, but i trust genetic evidence, not pc bullshit, posing as science.

Lol. Literally every study done by every geneticist in the last several decades has confirmed that racial differences are barely detectable among humans.

As a side note, 23andme is a massive corrupt scam and its accuracy is widely questioned by geneticists and the FDA (see the article in Scientific American). You are trusting a random website run by Fox Business for purposes of information gathering rather than every reputable peer reviewed university study ever done on the subject (I guess to you those are all "masquerades" and apparently you know more about science than, oh, every actual scientist), but hey, that's your political prerogative.

You are also confusing race with ancestry and ethnicity. All three are highly different categories. The categories you mention are not races at all.

You seem to be fixated on ancestry having something to do with race, as if you think coming from a different place somehow creates different races (it doesn't). So I went to the dictionary to find the exact definition of "race" and found this interesting usage note:

"Genetic evidence has undermined the idea of racial divisions of the human species and rendered race obsolete as a biological system of classification. Race therefore should no longer be considered as an objective category, as the term formerly was in expressions like the Caucasian race, the Asian race, the Hispanic race.Instead, if the reference is to a particular inherited physical trait, as skin color or eye shape, that salient feature should be mentioned specifically: discrimination based on color.Rather than using race to generalize about national or geographic origin, or even religious affiliation, it is better to be specific: South Korean, of Polish descent.References to cultural affiliation may refer to ethnicity or ethnic group: Kurdish ethnicity, Hispanic ethnicity.Though race is no longer considered a viable scientific categorization of humans, it continues to be used by the U.S. Census to refer to current prevalent categories of self-identification that include some physical traits, some historical affiliations, and some national origins: black, white, American Indian, Chinese, Samoan,etc. The current version of the census also asks whether or not Americans are of Hispanic origin, which is not considered a race. There are times when it is still accurate to talk about race in society. Though race has lost its biological basis, the sociological consequences of historical racial categories persist. For example, it may be appropriate to invoke race to discuss social or historical events shaped by racial categorizations, as slavery, segregation, integration, discrimination, equal employment policy. Often in these cases, the adjective “racial” is more appropriate than the noun “race.” While the scientific foundation for race is now disputed, racial factors in sociological and historical contexts continue to be relevant."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race?s=t

Yep.

Ancestry is real.

Race is a sociological category.

African=ancestry, black=meaningless, unquantifiable "race"

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So all the genetic testing labs like 23andme.com
> are just pulling random stats out of their asses
> to tell you EXACTLY how much European, Asian,
> Melenesian, African, neanderthal you are?

Genetic testing labs don't tell you your "race." They give historical/geographical information about your ancestry. That your genes originated in Ireland or Africa or China hundreds to thousands of years ago is ancestry, not race.

> Thanks anyways, but i trust genetic evidence, not
> pc bullshit, posing as science.

And the genetic evidence shows there's only one human race. The "bullshit" is denying the science that shows there's only one human race.

He is simply sharing a fact that has been quantified and validated by study after peer reviewed study. Scientists have to follow strict guidelines and protocol and adhere to high standards of accuracy over time. "Pc" is just a word for "a fact a conservative does not like."

We are all hybrids.
Mixes of other species.
How is this lost on so many when its a fact that Eurasians are 2-4% Neanderthal and Africans are 0%?
Thats a huge genetic difference, considering we are theoretically 96% genetically identical to chimps/bonobos.

The articles you're referring to categorize modern non-African DNA as sometimes containing up to 1-4% Neanderthal DNA, and African as containing less. These kinds of studies are also quite recent and many things are not known.

This is not true for everyone (i.e., it is not universally applicable on an individual level) and it cannot determine race. Migrational history and ancestry are not races. Race is a social fiction and a visual interpretation. Ancestry is very factual. Most scientists agree that racial categories are not useful, while the migrational patterns of ancestors are.