"Race is a social construct" - what that statement really means

[Petalpusher]

south europeans have natufian, iran_N, iberomaurusian and in some cases even ssa admixture if that's not mixed i don't know what it is ...


also what about ANE ancestry among europeans ? WHG, ENF and Steppe people were very different from each other btw.

Not only S.Europeans, N.Euro have a lot of basal too. Even then that's not mix of different "races", otherwise we wouldn't be that tiny green cluster. Everything you refer to were close, to extremely close at the scale of the world ans steaming from the same ENA split (Eastern Non African) and basal Eurasian, which both have the same source anyway. ANE is a more ancient intermediate in Eurasian but it's very old and still contributed more to West Eurasians than East Eurasians (and even more to Amerindians). SSA admixture is inexistant in Europe, besides a few part of some countries we all know. 0,x something is not an admixture, even Japanese can score that amount of European components.

Or maybe you can see it another way, Africans and East Asians are so immensely far from us and all our ancestral components, that it dwarfs our differences. But then that makes them even more of a distinct race compared to us? You can't have both.

[Leto]

A Scot is still twice as close to a Yemeni Jew than to a Korean, let alone a Yoruba. To me that's enough of a validation for the theory of four or five major races of mankind. I don't care what so called liberal "scientists" say. The same people would say a child can choose their gender.

EDIT:
Actually more than twice

G25 scaled from the spreadsheet, you all can fact-check if you want to

Distance to: Scottish
0.25514966 Yemenite_Jew
0.57636734 Cambodian
0.61691507 Korean
0.74017833 Luhya_Kenya
0.77409777 Yoruba

[Petalpusher]

A Scot is still twice as close to a Yemeni Jew than to a Korean, let alone a Yoruba. To me that's enough of a validation for the theory of four or five major races of mankind. I don't care what so called liberal "scientists" say. The same people would say a child can choose their gender.

The current doxa is "All human variation is 0.5% genetically. We just ""forgot"" to tell you it's 1.5% with Chimps, 3% with a mice and 30% with a Banana"

[Petalpusher]

x2

[Universe]

The current doxa is "All human variation is 0.5% genetically. We just ""forgot"" to tell you it's 1.5% with Chimps, 3% with a mice and 30% with a Banana"

I believe you, but can you post a link about 3% difference to mice and 30% to a banana? I'd like to have it as a source.

[Petalpusher]

I believe you, but can you post a link about 3% difference to mice and 30% to a banana? I'd like to have it as a source.

That was a caricature of a statement but some part of mice genomes are actually 99% similar to us, some other less similar, but considering their size and other characteristics, they are really close to us. That's why we test a lot of things on mices for human applications.

Chimps :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129726/

Used to be 98.5, now other estimates put it at 95%, that's still only 4.5% more, best case scenario, than within all humans.

30% is with slugs, less than 40% difference with a banana

Banana: more than 60 percent identical. Many of the “housekeeping” genes that are necessary for basic cellular function, such as for replicating DNA, controlling the cell cycle, and helping cells divide are shared between many plants (including bananas) and animals.”

The bottom line is even plants are like "half humans", some freaking stuff you might walk on. So trying to pass 0.5% as a minuscule difference is misleading to say the least, when you have only a couple percent of difference with chimps.

[Roy]

A Scot is still twice as close to a Yemeni Jew than to a Korean, let alone a Yoruba. To me that's enough of a validation for the theory of four or five major races of mankind. I don't care what so called liberal "scientists" say. The same people would say a child can choose their gender.

EDIT:
Actually more than twice

G25 scaled from the spreadsheet, you all can fact-check if you want to

Distance to: Scottish
0.25514966 Yemenite_Jew
0.57636734 Cambodian
0.61691507 Korean
0.74017833 Luhya_Kenya
0.77409777 Yoruba

Yup it is political correctness at its worst.

[Roy]

south europeans have natufian, iran_N, iberomaurusian and in some cases even ssa admixture if that's not mixed i don't know what it is ...


also what about ANE ancestry among europeans ? WHG, ENF and Steppe people were very different from each other btw.

WHG, ENF & Steppe people were white though.

[Universe]

WHG, ENF & Steppe people were white though.

Descendants of WHG are white today and they contributed to the modern white/european race, but if you lived in 6000 BC Europe when there were pure whg specimens around, you probably wouldn't recognize them as white (white in the modern european way) because they looked different and darker.

[Petalpusher]

The problem is interepreting this through our present day prism. European HG had "brown" skin overall but they had skulls (and everything else) comparable to modern Europeans, at least in the realm of West Eurasians. It's like white guys doing blackface on social medias, they still don't look Africans or Oceanians, they just look like they have some paint over their faces. Reverse is true as well, Albinos look like something we have never seen before. "White" or else, goes way beyond a few snps controlling melanin release. It just happens that Eurasians in general have all selected positively ligther skins, to mainly absorb more vitamins from a lower sunlight environement. Some earlier than others, light eyes as well that is a bit better for low light. HG had them early but it's much less crucial to survival as it would have been to get a properly adapted skin.

The second fallacy is that everything revolve around social prejudices based on the color of a skin

https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content...size=770%2C513
(And they are Belgians so if it doesn't work with Belgians..)

Mainstream medias and minorities go nuts when they see a blackface. It reminds them that Africans still wouldn't be white with a white skin and it's indeed not a matter of skin shade.