Bone marrow transplants disagree
https://bethematch.org/transplant-basics/matching-patients-w...
You can't look at the clusters of IQ around the world and ignore a genetic component to intelligence either:
There is no scientific basis for race
11–17 of 17 posts
Re: There is no scientific basis for race
#12I think a better title would have been “there’s no scientific basis for skin-color-based racial categories”. The article cites all kinds of people grouped by distinct genetic profiles.
Agreed, based on this skin color seems to be a red herring in talking about race in that it takes just one difference and magnifies when it's just one other difference of which there are many. Interesting to read about the degree of genetic diversity within Africans and the lack of it (relatively) among non Africans.
Re: There is no scientific basis for race
#13I think a better title would have been “there’s no scientific basis for skin-color-based racial categories”. The article cites all kinds of people grouped by distinct genetic profiles.
Agreed, based on this skin color seems to be a red herring in talking about race in that it takes just one difference and magnifies when it's just one other difference of which there are many. Interesting to read about the degree of genetic diversity within Africans and the lack of it (relatively) among non Africans.
Indeed, I'd be interested to know the groups with least diversity also.
Re: There is no scientific basis for race
#14Race is obviously a thing. You can look at somebody and usually have a pretty good idea of whether their ancestors are from Africa, Europe, the Middle East, the Americas, Asia, etc. Heck, with some practice, you can often figure out which part of Europe, Africa, Asia, etc they are from (Koreans look different than Filipinos, Eastern Europeans look different than Scandinavians, etc). And such an identification will co…
You’re right up to the point where you say that what most people mean by race is a decent guess about people’s ancestry.
What do most people mean by race, then?
Re: There is no scientific basis for race
#15And this is how a once venerable publication besmirches itself.
Re: There is no scientific basis for race
#16By analogy, the specific wavelength at which "orange" begins and ends is a ahem "social construct", ipso facto color has no scientific basis.
Interesting that author of that piece fixates on Morton and his skulls. But I see no mention of Stephen J Gould. I guess because his much more recent fraud makes Morton (and hereditarians) look good by comparison. Well, at least the Left has proven itself capable of memory holing not just their enemies but their inconvenient allies.
Re: There is no scientific basis for race
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if their definition of race is different to most people's definition, but in medicine we often want to know someone's race since it has real implications for the types of diseases they're likely to have. Often culture and country play a big role, but the genetics also do.
Agree that there are very important genetic components to disease (it's what I study), but the article points out that the "races" we use now are pretty arbitrary and do a bad job categorizing people's generic makeup. For example, there is more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world combined, yet we in the United States basically just would think of their race as "African," and this is not a very help…
Even worse, I've noticed in USA you seem to classify "white" as a race, which is absurd.