I know we were taught in ninth grade that our DNA is like 99.9% similar but now I understand. We operate the same functionality, the same things bring us joy, the same things bring us sadness. Even where we are different we are very alike
2 Likes
Yeah, I agree.
Certain things like religion, ethnicity, culture etc. can vary to each individual.
But at the end of the day I like to think we all want the same things. Food, shelter, love.
3 Likes
Yes that .1 is a big difference but still we are alike in ways I don’t usually think about
In the future, humans may not rely on DNA or genetics but rather some other future biological definition to distinguish the human races.
1 Like
It has already defined them away because the differences are so small. You should really stop talking about this. You sound completely racist.
“Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, that is, a symbolic identity created to establish some cultural meaning. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality.[1][2]”
“Human genetic variation is predominantly within races, continuous, and complex in structure, which is inconsistent with the concept of genetic human races.”
Yes, because that is pure speculation and completely irrelevant to the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, the biological differences between races are mostly insignificant. It’s also completely irrelevant to the fact that you’ve repeatedly posted racist opinions. You should do something about that. It’s not right.
I’m going to hazard a guess you’re into human biodiversity, no?
I’m just making observations of as you say, “human biodiversity” or variety. 
So your argument is that because different races look somewhat different, geneticists and biologists must be wrong about the real differences between races?
Hey, I’m not the one who’s been speaking out against “interracial marriage”. I’ll just go back to watching TV with my Indian/Arab boyfriend and pretend neither of us would be offended by your opinions at all.
2 Likes
I was asking since that’s typically what people refer to. You do know a lot of science disagrees with you, right? The scientists who are pro-HBD (I was briefly into it myself before I looked deeper into the science) are primarily shunned for being racist because of a few studies that seemed to find differences versus the overwhelming evidence in the other direction of little to no differences. That’s like someone being a Freudian psychologist today or believing vaccines cause autism.
1 Like
@ZombiePupper What we know as science of human diversity today can change tomorrow. I don’t know what pro-HBD is. I would like to see identical studies done in different languages by different racial groups who come to the same conclusion.
Ugh. I have so much to say about this but I’m not going to bother. Rest assured we’re not in conflict because of our different heritage.
Pro-human biodiversity (or scientific racism). You won’t accept studies because they’re done in a specific country or something? I think you’re just reaching so that you can be correct. Much like flatearthers who say they won’t believe the earth isn’t flat until they see it themselves personally (i.e., not in photos or videos).
2 Likes
I accept studies or facts if others can reproduce the results. For example, locating a black hole phenomena or the location of a certain binary star system. One country alone cannot verify this but with the support of other countries in different languages and locations around the world. This finding can be solidified as fact.
Well, to really convince someone is to have that person be there, have factual evidence or touch tactile artifacts to prove otherwise.
Research has been repeated several times over. Just because it has been repeated in one country does not make it invalid or irrelevant. Science is science, whether it is done in the US, France, Brazil, Japan, etc. The country of origin doesn’t matter so long as the valid replication is there.
As for your statement regarding flat earthers, we have tons of evidence and literal livestreams of the earth. It’s just not evidence they agree with. It doesn’t make them right just because they disagree with the overwhelming evidence that is against them.
2 Likes
The observation or experiment must be repeated by different researchers or scientists to reinforce the findings.
Yes, the valid replication is what matters but done by others in different countries.
I lost you here. What is “it” & “that” and who are “they” & “them”?
Okay, but why does the replication being done in other countries make it MORE valid? I don’t understand that because that’s what you seem to be saying here.
I was referring to flat earthers. I was using that to essentially say you’re doing the same thing by dismissing the evidence just because it’s evidence you don’t agree with.
2 Likes
Sharing the findings of an experiment or observation so that other countries can duplicate it would support the originator’s conclusion. It’s like the black hole phenomena or binary star system example. There are scientists from different countries who would prefer to validate the findings of an observation or experiment themselves. A group of scientists cannot make a claim and expect other scientists from other countries to believe them just because they say so.
Please give me an example where I am dismissing the evidence just because it’s evidence I don’t a agree with.
So because it’s by other countries, it’s innately more valid? Again, I don’t understand this. Replication itself is what matters, not the origins of the replication. It doesn’t matter if it’s a bunch of US scientists finding the same things or if it’s scientists from other countries finding the same things. HBD isn’t necessarily like other psychological phenomena where culture can change it. It’s been shown time and time again that there’s little difference between the “races,” which, as has been stated before, are essentially a social construct much like gender.
What you are doing is saying “the evidence isn’t good enough because I say so” with no real valid reasoning as to why the evidence is not good enough.
However, this is becoming circular already, so I’m respectfully bowing out of this disagreement before I end up just repeating myself ten times.
1 Like
4 Likes