Why Biological Race Isn't Real 

Someone answers this: how can any human be mixed race when race doesn't exist? Society proliferates nonsense; people can have parents with diverse phenotypes or cultural backgrounds. But not diverse racial history. Because race doesn't exist as a biological category!!! So when people say mixed race, they are often more healthy because they are hybrids. That's also a lie; distantly related people of any sort, whether they look similar or not, will, in fact, have a healthier genetic pool. You can have two cousins that look vastly different to human eyes "racially", but that doesn't mean if they have kids, they won't code for recessive genetic traits. So yeah.. someone please dismantle the idea of race and the divisions it creates already. im bored and tired. especially in the US

is the same framework used to classify animals races and species used for humans? if so does this yield the result that there are is one human race?

Dr Zach, Some people said that there are differences in physical structure in the skulls of Europeans and africans and asians and that is why they were categorized on different races as they don't have the same physical structure of the skull, how to respond to this argument

Dr Zach, Why many people associate wide(flat) nose with africans(as an African feautures) while east africans(Ethiopian, Somalis, Eritreans) have very narrow nose with very high nasal bridge??! and Did the Ethiopians get their narrow noses from Europeans or Europeans get their noses from Ethiopians ?

So you took one of the most genetically diverse places in the world (New York) and compared it to the genetic differences between the continents to say humans are the same race??

Yes Africa is a huge continent, with huge genetic diversity. But I find this talking point in particular disingenuous. North Africans cluster with Europeans (West Eurasians) as you later mention. The Horn of Africa is a heavily mixed region. Khoisan people are some of the oldest living populations. And pygmy people still exist in Central Africa. How much of the genetic diversity is contributed to by these distinct groups?? The some "Europeans" are more similar to "Asians" some "Africans" are more similar to "Europeans" sounds like lazy wordgames because parts of what we call "Africa" and "Asia" have populations that are far closer connected to "Europe proper" than other populations or races.

I have a question for you?

1:45 Race is not necessarily related to ancestry? So are you saying I could identify as black if I wanted to??

13:10 This entire argument supports racial divisions in human. According to you, geographical environment led to a genetic difference that is not superficial and which can be observed with the naked eye, that is textbook speciation. Were humans animals or not treated with kiddy gloves this would be used to argue for species/subspecies divisions.

Followed link from Gutsick Gibbon to see your analysis. Glad I did; thanks!

Good video, but I have some objections: @3:12 "Race is not a concept used in Biology anymore". - Obviously true when referring to the antiquated, cartoonish concepts of legacy human races. However, plenty of examples of scientists in modern times utilizing nuanced contexts of subspecies. At the very least, there have been recent pushes advocating for its place in the overall taxonomy (which I don't necessarily agree with). As for the 2nd definition presented ... @ 3:42 "Under this definition, pi between must always be greater than pi within" - I'm not familiar with this definitional criteria. The one I'm familiar with using pairwise fst AMOVA seems to just stipulate that two populations with sharp genetic boundaries are considered to be different races simply if 25% or more (arbitrary threshold) of the genetic variability that they collectively share is found as between population differences (NCBI). Overall, I think a much better (and needed) approach to this video would start by addressing the underlying question: "Is biological subspecies even possible, for any organism?" Do you acknowledge that its even possible? I'm assuming so based off the definitions you provided (or else you wouldn't have used them). Some experts argue that subspecies is not even logically possible as an ontological entity. But then again, they also admit that some of the other Taxonomy levels (family, order, genus,, etc ..) are not distinct ontological entities either, yet the scientific community still uses them as a matter of practicality and usefulness. This is probably the biggest flaw with the whole "social construct" argument typically thrown around.

Firstly I am NOT a racist. On the contrary I strongly oppose racism in all its forms. That is I oppose the idea that one so-called race is inherently superior to any other. However in recent decades, geneticists, (and I was a geneticist in a former career, I am now retired), are so terrified of the public view that genetics as a discipline is at root racist, that they go too far in trying to deny the realities of genetic diversity, and in particular the clustering of humans genetically, which is a self-evident reality which people can see with their own eyes. By doing this they actually discredit themselves and those people who they should be trying to persuade are instantly caused to reject as dishonest such scientists' contributions. This attitude of misrepresenting science for political reasons, or fearing the backlash from the public who will misconstrue the existence of so-called 'race' with racism is basically lying to the public for political reasons. It is two different things to say humans have genetic diversity and that degrees of clustering exist, and to say that some of these clusters are inherently superior to others. Some key points: 1) To start with the premise that sociologically constructed 'race' has no biological basis is what we call an 'Aunt Sally', an obviously unsound idea deliberately set up so it can be demolished. No one knows what a sociologically constructed race is, as it has no definition. If a white person living in London sees black people they might simply define by a very few differences. In other words anyone 'black' belongs to the alleged 'black race', but in that category could be first generation Nigerians, third generation Caribbean immigrants with mixed European/African/Asian inheritance, southern Africans, Somalis etc. etc. So obviously there is massive genetic diversity. This approach is only a comment on how a white person in London constructs their definition of race, not on the existence of clusters of genetic similarity in populations across the world. 2) Another Aunt Sally - race is NOT species. No one ever said there is an iron barrier of reproductive isolation between races. Even the most rabid racist is aware people from different 'races' can interbreed, and is much troubled by this. So, no one expects a complete genetic distinction between 'races', just clustering within a spectrum of genetic variation. 3) The real issue is a biologically well defined one, much studied in population genetics - it is called RELATEDNESS. A large part of the study of population genetics concerns dealing with relatedness. It is obvious that people coming from isolated rural populations with a lot of inbreeding (e.g. cousin marriages, or just a lack of choice) are going to be more closely related and so have a degree of genetic clustering, than two people taken at random from the giant cosmopolitan cities of the world. In public geneticists categorically deny this, and that is dishonest. 4) The theory pf population genetics shows that if positive selection bias exists in breeding, i.e. like prefers to mate with like, then genetic clusters can be dynamically maintained within a population. There are a whole range of human cultural practices around the world which suggest that there is social pressure for like to mate with like. This might contribute to the dynamic maintenance of clusters of genetic similarity within the human population across the world. Recently I have observed a curious thing. All the mass of data from human genome sequencing has provided a mass of detailed data about human genomes, but I have been unable to find one very simple statistic which I have long wondered about. Apparently no one is interested in this statistic, but it is quite revealing and potentially useful. What I would like to know, and it should be easily available from the wealth of human genome sequences, is what is the average percentage HOMOZYGOSITY in humans? Also how does this figure vary in different human populations? This figure could give some insight into the importance of point (4), but no one seems to be interested in the matter. Perhaps you can elucidate? If you are really interested in fighting racism then you should be aware that there is a new theory of "(pseudo)scientific racism" which is thriving, because no scientists are addressing it. This is particularly aimed at Africans, and it is the theory of the superiority of "Human-Neanderthal hybrids" and their descendants. I have approached scientists working in this field to address and combat this, but have found no response. Perhaps you would like to do a piece on this?

wait...Mongolia is poor but Mongolians have a high IQ

Thanks for making this. I knew race was a social and legal construct, not a scientific one, and this helped me understand why. I think it's nice to know we're so closely connected to one another, like a big family. We should care for each other more, like family.

Somali and Ethiopian people use to be considered a subset group under the White or Caucasoid race because of their skull shape, phenotype and facial features. Somali and Ethiopian people don't look like your stereotypical African because of their facial features. Somali and Ethiopian people were viewed as superior to Black people at one point. Race was not determined by skin complexion and during that time it was your culture, ethnicity and ethnic background that was used to determine your race.

You have to admit that map 6:50 is a mess. It's trying to too much and it's really busy. I don't even know what happened to the projection.

Thank you for making this video. I think I am a little less ignorant now.

At 9:28, I would not doubt that the true variation is contiguous, but the prescence of those three colors is still undeniable. Yes, there are no set start or endpoints, but the fact that the red is seperable from the blue and green and purple and yellow is once again, undeniable. In other words, groupings may be arbritarily seperated, but the seperations themselves are still very real. If you seperated short people, average people, and tall people, you would get the same thing. What is a "short person"? 4'5"? 5'0"? 5'9"? 5'11? It's hard to exactly pinpoint, but it's certainly real.

Another issue with IQ testing is cultural bias. How was the test given written? By whom?

Honest question. If genetic race isn't real, then why do i understand the genetic race of the suspect and victims when you say white and black? Aron ra covered this subject several years ago. He used the word cline. Perhaps race isn't the correct word, but in modern language the word race is used in place of the less known word cline to denote very real differences. Further could two Scottish people produce a black baby or two Koreans produce a white baby?

Dr Zach, Is it true that physical anthropologists still using today the concept of race to distinguish between the skulls to determine the "race" of the skull ? and if this happens today, how accurate those methods ? if someone is of mixed ancestry (European father and African mother) how can physical anthropologists determine his race if they still use the concept of race ??!!

Peoples incorrect notions of race drive me up the fucking wall. These myths are so persistent and so influential that it’s just a travesty.

It's been 15 years since my populationgenetics studies, but, aren't you missing the point with all your talk about variation? Yes all variation might be in africa (like it is in the wolf), but the real indicator is the allel freqency of a certain group (like dog breeds). You can look at a specific loci and clearly say, based on allel frequencies at that loci, if your samples are from the same group or multiple different groups. Repeat this for 10000 loci and you KNOW, FOR SURE, they are indeed real groups that differ from eachother in the composition. I mean, we were 100 people in class and nobody even thought this was strange... I mean, we had exam questions about proving the number sepperate "quarg" groups on isolated islands. Are you saying we were all wrong and it is impossible to identify groups?

What about smaller more closely related populations, like people from different islands or different insular religious communities? Could they be considered to be genetically distinct enough to count as a race?

Dr Zach, All people share 99.9 percent of genetic material but there are genetic testing companies that tell people that they have (for example 80% European, 10% native american and 10% african) what does it mean, because many people think that this genetic testing prove the idea of distinctive races between humans

Great video. Could you do a follow-up explaining what haplo groups are, what they can tell us about human migration waves in prehistory, and why they, of course, aren't biological races, too? - But please only after you've finished another episode of your brilliant Evolution of Invertebrate series. I'm as hyped for this series as people were for new iphones ten years ago.

Not that i disagree with any of your arguments, or that I believe in race realism, but some time ago I saw some graphic that showed there was more genetic diversity between groups humans compared to subspecies of wolves. Is that actually true? Or is it misleading? Like, can you make all the same arguments for why subspecies of wolves aren't races the same way people from different continents aren't different races?

Then how do neighborhoods get destroyed?

The methodology of the studies you cite are inferior to twin studies which, a simple google search can tell you, prove that IQ is highly heritable. "Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%, with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%. IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults."

You can tell what race someone is just by looking at their bones, its genetic.

This is quite alright if you delete my comments. That shows you have no respect for free discussion and open discourse. I've got Zach B. Hancock written down.

NanakiRowan: "Instead of seething and presenting zero arguments against the facts presented here, why not make an argument instead of an ad hominem attack against Dr. Hancock?" Didn't care to look at the links I posted before further attempts at insults. Go to the links provided in the other comments if they haven't been deleted already. "Again, no one said all individuals are the same. Reading comprehension is paramount to understanding the topics of discussion here." Proceeds to be a hypocrite. When did I once mention *individuals*?

Ah yes, an actual expert. Refreshing.

Thanks Zach, a video to treasure. I learned something new in the way to present my arguments to others here in racist Australia by your explanation about the cultural idea. My tendency has been to make strong sweeping remarks about humanity sharing its genome. Hooray, it's been proven! There are no races! Now I see I might be able to win them round with acknowledging the cultural concept, lessening the discomfort and often guilty feelings that hamper people from making the efforts to undue conditioning. I will try. Nevertheless, expect my feisty response when someone says they saw "the chinese doctor" with "Oh, I thought they saw more than Chinese patients!!". Old lady perniketty!! Once upon a time we did not need science to acknowledge our common humanity, just respect! What great souls were they!! Best wishes Julia

The things that make us different are what we focus on not those that which makes us similar.

As a person who has had the chance to travel and discover different cultures, I often find this obsession here in the US with race to be so outdated, backwater.

Im not very knowledgeable with this stuff, and maybe im missing the point, but it doesn't seem to address actual physical differences, like how theres a tribe in Africa (sudan, i think) , that are tall, and yet pygmys are short. Its a virtual certainty that the next winner of the 100metres sprinting gold medal in the olympics will be black and of west African heritage. Even the hair of a black person is different to other races. So many different physical characteristics, and theyre not about environmental factors, surely? Such an interesting topic

If this is the case, 'ethnicity' also becomes a flawed term because, if we remove socio-cultural factors and the like from consideration, we are left with 'biological race'; and if this doesn't exist, neither does ethnicity (in the biological sense). I am not being facetious.

What was first: differences in iq or differences in wealth.

Thanks for your effort and research here. The problem I see is that you've straw-manned the race realist position. Typically we view humanity as a muddy mix and we grant that it's all shades of gray, however we also assert that self-identified "race" aligns with ancestral population group for ~98% of people (this has been shown empirically), and thus despite this muddiness, we are able to usefully delineate population groups using self-identified race, the same way we can usefully delineate colours that exist on a spectrum. Further, your sampling of data on race and IQ is selective, to put it mildly. The heritability of IQ is 80% by adulthood, and the vast majority of intelligence researchers when surveyed believe that at least some of the racial IQ gap is genetic in origin. You would have produced a much stronger polemic here if you had addressed the very strong data that opposes your opinion.

Awesome Video!! There are so many Robert Sepher sycophants challenging arguments that were disputed with proof in the video.

take a look at a PCA chart lol

Erika mentioned this video to a caller on SkepTalk yesterday so I paused the show to come see it.

Regarding IQ scores, I wonder what is the effect of epigenetics.

Thank you for another excellent presentation, the passion with which you present it, and the contempt with which you treat the mouth-breathing racists trolls in the comments.

A lot of people who are gonna be sent to Nuremberg 2 in these comments... 💀💀

Very good Zack! I am so glad to watch your videos! I look forward to them!

Could you do this for dogs, wolves, and coyotes because I have a feeling a bunch of animals are about to be a single species with no way to sub divide

I don't have any questions. This is perfectly clear and the ultimate truth. Thank you for taking your time to share this with the world!

The reason this has 4,400 views instead of 4.5 Million is because people share an A-hole quality across populations, some more than others lol. Thank you for this exceptional presentation.

Seems to be all about culture

great video

So many racists coping in the comments. How does it feel to be the last vanguard of a dying, wrong, and old idea?

Hancock has convinced me that there aren't any actual biological races. Runners of East African ancestry don't dominate long distance running and sprinters of West African ancestry don't dominate short distance races, etc. I'm just imaginating this when I watch sports. I'm glad he cleared that up for me.

Cro magnon man. Currently known as homo sapien sapien. Has the same DNA as all modern day Europeans. Note. Cro magnon dna is 45,000 years old lol.

So dishonestly framed. The fact that Africa is so diverse is irrelevant when it is so far removed genetically from other population groups. It's funny that you didn't actually refute the supposedly amateurish pca charts you showed initially. You can't. Those genetic clusters are real, and you can spew Lewontin's fallacy until you are blue in the face, but it won't change this reality.

How can the african/european iq gap be all environmental when we have african Americans as an example. Their IQ is 10 to 15 points higher than africans as they have a much higher standard of living. Now if there is a 15 point gap between whites and blacks in the US, are you contending the differences in standards of living between white americans and blacks is close to the difference between black Americans and africans?

An excellent video and an important one as it provides a vigorous and cogent attack on "race reality" which is used to support the notions of bio-determinism and the like. These insidious ideas are easy to latch on to for some, and so find quick ways to get embedded in society. This video should be shared as widely as possible it is that important.

This video seems to focus on debunking discrete races. But can it not be true that there is genetic clustering tied to geogrpahic location whilst also showing large ovelap between members of groups Ie .more variation within groups than between them but never the less some grouping which we may refer to as race?

He's trying hard, bless him!

The "National Geographic" has put out a very interesting and info-packed issue about this same topic. It's called 'The Race Issue' and can be found on their website. One of the things they mention is the blunt statement that Africa is the most diverse continent on the planet.

I can only thank you for this, with this video I can totally throw away all the race realist bullshit propaganda crap that has accumulated in my brain.

European/neanderthal= Modern Europeans. Asian/neanderthal/denisovan= modern Asians. Sub saharan Africans/ghost DNA= modern sub saharan Africans

Thank you p.s thanks for including sources

Subscribed. Always a fan of evolutionary biologists demolishing racists and their fallacious arguments.

Thank you so much for making this video. You're doing so much good for humanity with this.

Thanks to this video, I also found something interesting many people that have asian and european background (half european-half asian) many people could identify them as whites or asians or (hapa) and if this proves anything it proves that the race is a subjective point of view, Any person you can consider him as white but another person can consider him another thing

Thank you

Wait until they find out phenotype can change. By their metrics I’d have changed race several times in my life because “you can just see it with your eyes” 😅

skipping to the end, yeah I can take your dna and tell what race you are. You don't have to lie to fight racism. In fact, lying only hurts your cause.

Damn, this goes hard.

I fr*ggin luv soyence!!

Good video

Ok maybe we should rephrase the title: race isn’t that deep.

The exchange I had here is just frustrating. I raised two different objections, proving them both, against Lewotin's argument against the existance of human races and got no actual refutation of them. Just repeating a point doesn't make you right. Neither does simply ignoring what others write.

Laughable drivel XD

This is an outstanding video at so many levels and I love the way you provide factual backup to every question posed. I can't think of a single category of people who would not benefit from delving into what you have presented here. Of course the no-facts, no-truth crowd will pretend your fully supported conclusions simply don't exist.

to start this off I will simply state the facts about race then go on deconstructing the main arguments made in this video 1. Human can be grouped and differentiated from based on having ancestry from distinct ancient ancestral groups, and it is about as easy if not easier to model someone's ancestry with the proper knowledge and skill, using programs like ADMIXTURE, Admixtools and etc 2. while popular concepts of races might be inaccurate at times, the point still stands, and with the nuance and knowledge it's very easy to categorize populations into ancestral groups 3. unmixed modern humans are very different to individuals from other races (assuming proper definition of race given), the biggest average genetic difference between populations is between Karitiana native Americans and Khoisan pygmies, sitting at around 35.5% FST distance, to put that into perspective that's bigger than the difference between any recognized canine species, and between recognized chimpanzee species (ranging from 4% to 29% for both), the Khoisan FST distance to Norwegians and Han Chinese sits at 23.6% and 26% respectively (however Khoisan are a very distinct African population and they're very distant to everyone including other Africans, at around 11.3% and 12% FST distance to Mbuti pygmies and Yoruba specifically), east Asians are also distant to Europeans at 11.2% fst distance between Japanese Norwegians (note: data is from the David Reich lab, and fst was calculated using Admixtools which is a commonly used academic program) and as for the arguments made in this video 1.the figure shown doesn't show the most recent common ancestor, that's literally impossible to find,what you actually showed shared mtdna haplogroup lineagew, which is just an unbroken sexed lineage, having for example the maternal haplogroup U5 just means that a woman who which was labeled as U5, had female descendants who also had female descendants that delivered to to you, it does NOT necessarily prove that you're more related to other people carrying U5, you could be 99% Khoisan and have haplogroup I1 if your great great- grandmother married a Boer man carrying I1, that doesn't make you more related to Europeans than other Khoisan phylogeny on itself isn't very or at all useful in determining how similar organisms are genetically in the large scale, and no serious or informed person would claim otherwise the fact that a geneticist gets something so basic as lineages not proving overall genetic similarity wrong (likely intentionally) shows how dishonest and biased this whole video is also, grouping people according to regions instead of ethnicity is a terrible idea, as I've shown even the purest Africans (note: as in, belonging to in Africa populations and not just being geographically situated in Africa) are very distant to each other because a lot of them are bottlenecked and insulated, continents contain very different ethnicities and grouping genetic populations according regions makes no sense, both Arabs and Han Chinese live in Asia, and both Berbers (Berbers are around 40% neolithic and bronze age European, and the rest being iberomaurasian which is 60% west Eurasian and 40% ancestral north Africa which is a seperate human lineage altogether, with minor input from levantines through Carthage and sub Saharans like Yoruba) and Mbuti live in Africa 3. (1) both 2 points are correct, as proven with FST (2) that graph makes 0 sense, for starters, there are more than 3 main human populations, in archaeogenetics ancient have been braodly grouped into in-African populations, Eurasians, which includes west Eurasians (like Loschbour and Dzudzuana), East Eurasians (like Tianyuan and Onge) Basal Eurasians (ghost early eurasian population, unadmixed with neanderthals) and ancestral north african (distinct population group whos trace was found in Iberomaurasians) while east asians, generally seem to be mostly pure east eurasian (like Han Chinese, and Onge) there are traces of west eurasian admixture, which was delivered through ancient north eurasian cultures, and europeans/eurasians seem to be much more mixed (relatively) with, and having a little bit of all the 3 main eurasian population, and limited and variable admixture with ANA and sub Saharans, no modern sub Saharan seems to lack traces of Eurasian/ANA admixture, but it is a trace amount, in most populations (this information will be useful later) (3) the bigger problem is however is putting the Europeans and asians entirely inside the african circle, and at the same time inflating the african circle? eurasians sharing ancestry with africans that goes back to 100-40K years ago does NOT mean eurasians are the same as africans at all, they've been separated long enough for considerable drift to happen, and it did happen but the illustration only seems to account for african drift for some reason? out if africa posits all human populations originated in africa, for drift to happen in Africa while they were mostly seperated from eurasian populations, drift must also happen in eurasian groups while they are seperated, saying that humans all humans are africans because everyone shares ancient ancestry with them is equivalent to saying humans evolved from monkeys becauee we had a shared ancestor modern africans and eurasians are not only extremly drifted from the shared ancestral group we had, most populations went through bottlenecks that caused even more genetic difference, up to maybe the chalcolithic age (4) there is still considerable difference between human populations, and the majority of alleles being shared does not disprove because there is structure + epigenetics which give rise to both practical and genetic difference between populations, generally most animals have very similar genomes *overall* because we share so many basic genes for our shared molecular and physiologcial needs (5) for the billionth time, you cant divide human populations using geography whether its continents or distance, 2 populations which have never touched each other for thousands of years could live a few hundrend kilometers from each other and be seperated only through geography, there are distinct population groups and you can use that instead of dabbling with geographic distance or whatever to illustrate my point, the FST distance between Yoruba and Tunisian berbers (limited SSA profile) is 20%*, when it should be less than 10% according to your data * note: i didnt directly calculate distance using admix tools, i compared the distance on G25 between Berbers and Yoruba (result was 63%), then found a equivalent distance in 2 populations which i do have the FST distance for (Onge and Dinka) their FST distance is 23%, and G25 distance was 66% (7) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City The city's population in 2020 was 30.9% White (non-Hispanic), 28.7% Hispanic or Latino, 20.2% Black or African American (non-Hispanic), 15.6% Asian, and 0.2% Native American (non-Hispanic). A total of 3.4% of the non-Hispanic population identified with more than one race.[48] so basically, you took a sample of 33k individuals from a a super diverse and mixed part of the word, didnt label any of them according to heritage or genetic profile, and you wonder why there is no genetic clustering? hispanics alone are a mix of like 5 different ethnicities this just doesnt make sense there is no gradient between human populations that are not recently admixed, geneflow between sub saharans in africa is already very limited and it's insignificant to 0% outside of africa (8) so you spent like 3 minutes denying the significance of population groups and posted an admixture analysis figure that relies on that? youve only proved the existence of genetic diversity between humans that is enough to make accurate prediction about heritage, to prove a point that nobody argued against, that africa is diverse 5. Okay? even with a limited amount of time important evolutionary adapations can happen to populations because of evolutionary pressure? also anyone who think aboriginals and sub saharans are the same race because theyre both dark would be quite the scholar on that topic i think im done with this, ill avoid the rest of the video because im less informed on the topic but i dont imagine youd be any less biased talking about it, i really would like to see you answer any if my points, and not just delete my comment

Too intense 🥵

debate me.

15:35 the fact that a GWAS can't explain all variance has no bearing on the impact of genes, it merely means that they can guarantee that amount. An example is how height was once poorly explained through GWAS but that percentage of confidence increased with time. It does not mean that 85% of variance has to be environmental. Let's have a reality check here: if such findings were accurate and true, it means that we know how to increase IQ through environmental means and we could apply that in every country on earth with a low IQ; we don't. Education, sanitation and health spans have vastly improved and yet IQ gaps between races remained consistent.

Are you saying if I offered you a million dollars to identify which of two people was referred to as "asian" and which "white" that you would not be able to do so, that it would be 50/50? Genuine question.

Muh soyence

Race is literally a biological construct. We can determine the race of an individual hy their genetics. Phenotypes alone infants the stark differences. We can *measure* the difference between races, and do so regularly. Culture is a sub component of race.

Its so stupid that people still deny racial differences amoung different races . I am an Indian , and I hereby say , no matter how much an average India lifts in the gym , eats 500gm of protein per day .....that person would still be not even close to their European and African counterparts. Our Indian genetics makes an average Indian skinny fat , South asians generally dont have good muscle building genetics whereas Whites and Blacks have excellent muscle building genetics.

Culture is a racial expression. Tendencies are very common within very specific human groups. Even a Russian born and raised in Japan can never act like a Japanese person born in Japan. He will always have psychological tendencies towards his own biological makeup, genetic structure, haplogroup, and DNA sequence which will lead him to Eastern European tendencies, and because he was born Russia, he has Eastern European tendencies of bodily structure. An Australian Aborigine is incredibly different from an European Scandinavian and in turn is very different from an Asian Korean. The great number of life forms shows groups which more or less resemble one another and show common physical characteristics. They have the same nature. We call such groups of life forms "species." The mankind living today forms a "species," for humans are fertile among each other. By the observation and comparison of a White, African or Mongolian it becomes immediately clear to us that it is not enough to only speak of the "human" species; rather, that for a more precise analysis a further subdivision must be made. This leads to the concept of human races. What you're saying in this video is a complete bias on the understanding of race. Biological elements which you speak of are related to the biology of humans as a whole. The same way I could say that all corvines are the same because they have the same biological structure apparently. The individual races can be distinguished by differences which they have in respect to the uniqueness of their hereditary, intellectual-psychological and physical features, tendencies and characteristics. Each race has certain characteristics and features which are unique to it. These RACIAL FEATURES are passed on to the offspring. Race is hence a group of life forms which distinguishes itself by the common possession of certain hereditary features. It always produces only its own kind. Or shorter: race is a characterized community of hereditary factors. As long as a race remains pure its hereditary essence is passed on unadulterated from one generation to the next. It is hence necessary for the racial consciousness of humans of the same race to be raised and the dangers correctly recognized which lead to a mixing, alteration, degeneration and hence annihilation of the races affected. The predominant race determines the folkish character and continues its influence in it as a hereditary factor. As in the Germanic peoples, the predominant Nordic race gives the German folk, too, the predisposition of its kind. The common heredity determines the physical and intellectual-psychological abilities of a race. "Race" as a practical concept relates not only to the specially formed and working life force within us, but beyond that also to the highest value, to the concept of value, to the world view. There are races which can create high cultures and those which can never elevate themselves on their own strength. There are races with heroic bearing and those without the courage to fight. Cultural accomplishments are exclusively the creation of higher races. The elevation of mankind continues or ceases with the preservation of the purity and of the strength of the culture-bearing races. The racial composition of a folk is unique. Its alteration always has a transformation of its nature and culture as a consequence. Each racial mixing always means a lowering of the worth of the higher race. Mankind displays strictly separated racial groups. Very roughly expressed, we distinguish between: White, Black and Yellow. Each of these groups in turn contains a number of subraces with certain common features. In this case one speaks of related races. Opposed to these stand the foreign races. Folks which in regard to their racial composition show the same elements as the German folk are of "related race" ("artverwandt"). To these belong the majority of European folks. Since the racial core of our racially related folks is often very diverse, one must look quantitatively at the racial elements for the foundation of a distinction. In the Germanic folks Nordic blood predominates in their racial composition. Their relationship to the German folk is hence referred to as being of the "same breed" ("stammesgleich"). Other folks which also show a small amount of Nordic blood, but which in their substance are not Nordic, are referred to as being of "foreign breed" ("stammesfremd"). The existing positive racial composition of the German folk rests on the fusion of related races and the large predominant portion of Nordic blood. Also skin color from environment and skin color from common ancestry are two different things lmao. Have you ever seen an african with a skin as pale as a korean? No. Also show me creative cultural creations of african tribes like castles, paintings, music like the European ones. I'm waiting ^^ Also at 20:27 this quote mixes things up and loses the understanding on what a race means lmao. I just refuted that in my comment.

When I look up uv maps as you have. There's quite a lot of them who have three different uv levels in west africa. Two of them closer together. Which could explain those different dots. Also. It seems clear that there's still biological differences. That is not just a social construct. I think it's understandable and fair that people try not repeat mistakes of the past. But I do think denying reality is not how to do it. I wouldn't entirely dismiss there being a social construct either. Just not in the same way. I'd argue reasonably that there are physical facts that we can observe if we are honest. And then in a sociology class they could fully acknowledge those facts while also bringing up different groups' ideas of for example one race. So we can see that perceptions of these physical undeniable facts can be greatly faulty or exaggerated. (For example is differences are probably because of education differences etc I'd definitely believe that) To me it's the most realistic and reasonable approach. It's also an approach to get a lot less backfire. Because denying reality might just increase the likelihood hood of normal people starting to listen to crazy extreme lunatics.

Who are you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?

Look, a SINO. Scientist in name only.

NPC channel

Great job. RU-vid, and social media in general, is a great place for good information; and unfortunately, also a cesspool of misinformation, dumb conspiracy theories, and reactionary propaganda.

I am white and can't drink milk, nor can my sister, but my two brother are ok with milk.

Here are some counterpoints to your argument. You use the textbook argument of "more variation within than between" to imply that races are muddled. This isn't true. The variation argument is based on SNP variation. To understand the fallacy; look up studies where SELF REPORTED race is correlated with GENETIC CLUSTER. Self reported race matches genetic cluster at a 90%+ rate. People accurately identify what cluster they are all the time. Although 1 SNP might have more variation between than within, when we test for 100 SNPs, the likelyhood we can guess this person's race is nearly 100%, and consider that 100 SNPs is actually a small amount of genetic code. Something else to consider is the multiple sub-species of animals that differ genetically between them as much as human races do; human variation isn't irrelevant.

The fact that personality and iq are pretty much genetic, and that we see plenty of difference in those areas between races, shows pretty clearly that race exists. However you wish to define it there are measurable differences between groups both physical and mental. For example, all doctors ask you your race because it has direct consequences on organ transplat. And there are many other medical examples. Edwards Dutton (an evolutionary psychologist) book "Making Sense of Race" does a nice job of explaining said differences.

History won't forget.

European species is real though.

So, you conclude that Melanin varies in humans thanks to speciation. Meaning, humans have different hormonal balances depending on where they evolved, as melanin is accumulated through different hormonal balances. Look up on google scholar on studies done on the effects of melanin hormone on animal behavior; pigmentation isn't novelty. You present a strong case for speciation in humans but with the opposite intent by merely using the tone of your voice like an evangelist.

And yet it changes nothing of your own perception in the streets

While "privileged" myself, I've seen culture being the biggest draw and effect, but physical differences being the false equivalence people try to judge it by.

Race is still real