13:23 - That's a bit dishonest. Skin color *does* = relatedness, insofar as you're likely to have a similar skin color to your closest relatives. Especially if the population you are draw from is geographically isolated fro other populations, and this there is little to no chance of out-breeding. It would be more correct to say that "Skin color *does* serve as a decent proxy for genetic similarities, but does not *preclude* the idea of other populations having evolved similar skin color in isolation from your own." 13:34 - Yes it can, this is not only dishonest, but incorrect. If you use skin color *in isolation*, then no, you cannot (perfectly) accurately group human beings together. However if you include all the various incremental changes in appearance that come along with common shared ancestry, then it is one of the strongest proxies for ancestral/"racial" origin. E.g. If you meet someone with blue eyes, blonde hair and fair skin, you can all but guarantee that they will have 50%+ northern European ancestry (usually more like 90-100%). 14:14 - Again, this a is a dis-ingenuous representation of the knowledge. The traits are not as 'mixed up' as you have presented them here. The ACTN3 gene that s responsible for twitch muscle growth aka. the "sprint gene" that is responsible for west African spiriting performance *is* found in all human populations (albeit incredibly infrequently in east-Asian populations) but to have *two copies* of the normal allele (CC) is not found anywhere outside of a minority of West Africans (and naturally, all elite sprinters drawn from that population). You could go down the list of various genetic traits and find dozens of examples of particular genetic markers that are specific, or localized to a particular populations, e.g. HEXA and Ashkenazim Jews (Trey Sachs), or BRCA1/2 and Africans (Prostate Cancer). W/e or not humans can be considered to have 'subspecies' or not is purely a matter of semantics. The reality remains that we differ significantly in our genetic variations in ways that are real and meaningful. You can choose, if you wish, to replace the taxonomic structure of "race" with a more -technically- accurate terminology ("ancestries"? "populations"? honestly these seem to just be pseudonyms for race, but w/e), but the idea that 'culture' can serve as a replacement for race/ancestry/population is just insipid, and not supported by the science you claim to be representing here.
No matter what you call it, people are different around the world. So giving "race" a new name doesn't change anything. We are just as different on the inside as on the outside. And don't misunderstand me, it is a good thing! That is what gives us strength. Imagine that we all were hairdressers!!! No good, right. We have to stop being so afraid of racism, that we can't talk about our obvious differences without being called racists.
EXCELLENT explanation of the whole concept of race as it is applied to humans. THANKS!!! I have bookmarked your lecture to show some of my more race-centered colleagues.
Replacing "Race" with "ancestral group" makes any difference? Race means an ancestral group anyway. It is "ethnicity" that is cultural not "race". If race leads to Racism then HELLO Ancestry will lead to Ancestryism. Will Ancestryism look any different to racism? Racism is ancestryism. We need to fight against racism, which is class system based on ancestry (race).
so you're saying every species in the animal kingdom that has been separated for many thousands of years develop subspeices except the homo sapiens??? you failed to explain and prove why homo sapiens didn't have enough time to develop into subspecies.
you said verbatim "however if 8:03 that genetic isolation isn't complete or 8:05 if there hasn't been a super long period 8:07 of separation we might only see the 8:09 build-up of differences in appearance 8:11 without a huge genetic difference and so 8:14 these groups are what we might call 8:15 subspecies or breeds" humans do have subspecies because as you said, they have enough genetic differences to LOOK different but not enough genetic variation to not be able to interbreed. the burden of proof is on you to prove why not when toddlers can tell people of different races apart since there are obvious differences to their appearances.
you kind of did a straw man. The basis for the belief in the existence of racial differences can be demonstrated by the presence or absence of neanderthal DNA. The migrations out of Africa around 40,000 years ago set it in motion.
All your demonstration relies on the assumption that normal people would not be able to distinguish Peruvian from Congolese because they have the same skin darkness … But most auto-categorization works in more than 99% of the cases (dna providers). So I don’t see you have proven you can’t group people meaningfully based on appearance only in a ways that’s significant. Also your argument that most variation occurs between groups and not among groups could be used to refuse to distinguish monkeys from humans. I don’t see why this quantity of variation has the power to fix a criterium. And you also have a big statement that groups weren’t separated enough time for them to be really meaningfully different,. But all animal breeders know that in 7 generations you get huge differences and in 80 generations (2k years), you can get immense variation. So as Reich has shown that their have been a lot of endogamy even for people living side by side (take India were 2500 jatis are more endogamous that ashkenazim and Finnish people), so the differences in genes, and thus in traits can be huge. Your video is great. It starts in a very logical way. But then I guess you switch to propaganda mode . I understand this subject is very touchy …
This isnt that complicated. Humans are different from one another. Race is real get over it. I hate seeing smart people lie and dishonestly misrepresent the facts. I get the idea of equality is nice but doesnt hold water. People are different and that ok.
Zoologists regard the lowest taxonomic level as the subspecies. Humans, like the majority of animal species, are appropriately subdivided into subspecies. Read, for example, Mayr, Ernst, "The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality." Daedalus, Winter 2002. Mayr was perhaps the most influential population ecologist of the 20th century. He formulated the Biological Species Concept in use today.
another example - white skin in India is now traced to the Brahmin invasion - so is based on caste in India. Again it's DNA science despite Indians being in denial about it.
third example - white skin in West Asia is from wheat monocultural farming. That's how white skin spread into Europe and India - from wheat monocultural farmers.
A classification of racial differences (populations of similar people, not skin color!) can be determined with a high degree of accuracy from skeletal anatomy and morphology. Genetics are far more precise in the delineation of genetic markers for populations. Because skin color is the first characteristic that most people notice, it is thus a political problem in the recent history of mankind. The biology does not lie, but the cultural and political implications drive science of modern anthropology these days. In a nutshell, liberalism has broken science from the pursuit of knowledge into a pursuit of political constructs.
You use your own political objectives and motivations to justify your conclusions. Hilarity ensues when hypocrites have no idea they are hypocrites. Politics needs to stay out of science. All politics. Period.
The Linnean Definition directly stems from the Bible. There are in fact different species that can breed fertile offspring (have a look at Latin American Camels like Alpaca and Llama). There are other animals that can ring breed. The Linnean definition is too simplistic.
