It is purely biological phenomenon, because it is defined by a set of biological adaptations. These adaptations can't be deemed superficial, because they are the result of brutal natural selection process. That's what should be clear. The confusion with classification is because first there are no clear cut definition for the term (like there are no clear cut definitions for the term "species" or "language") and that gives a lot of optionality in how you draw lines. Another very important factor is that the same biological adaptations can have different genetic pathways. That's how we get people on Adaman islands looking like Africans despite of being genetically close to Asians. So if you draw the lines on purely genetic level it doesn't work. There's a lot of convergent evolution involved.
You're confusing an organisms genetics with its phylogeny, its outward appearance. Certain different animals within a same species can have essentially the same DNA, but totally different outward appearances. Humans, dogs, etc. This is what the speaker is referring to by saying that the evidence doesn't prove that 'race' is a biological phenomenon as respective of his theory of genuine kinds. He's not a biological antirealist nor a realist though. It seems he's a middle of the roader.
@@XOPOIIIO As far as I can read you are stating that 'different genetic pathways' lead to distinct phenotypes, as in the example of the Asian genomes being part of African-looking people on the Adaman islands. That's exactly what the evidence does not actually prove. Genotype and phenotype are not 'pathways' to anything. Sure, they coexist, but not in anyway that's significant for us to make predictions, nor for us to observe any discrete evolutionary principle that we can analyze and generalize from.
@@dsa513 The clustering of human (and dog) populations into "races/breeds" is found in the patterns of DNA differences (patterns of allele frequencies), not the raw amount of DNA differences.
@@dsa513 I said different genetic pathways lead to the same phenotypes, not distinct phenotypes. That's just how evolution works, DNA find it's specific pathways to the optimal adaptation, and this pathway is not unique, that's why hyrax looks and behaves like a rodent, despite of being genetically close to elephant. So you can't equate genetic closeness to the biological similarity. Adaman islands inhabitants are Asians genetically, it's just a fact. What evidence you're talking about?
Thank you for posting this interview - it is a very important topic, even if some people don't want to hear about it. A question we should be asking is, was the move to view race (and now gender) as social constructs driven more by scientific evidence or moral concerns? If you read the history, it seems that the ideas were pushed more by activists than honest scientists.
Notice the philosophy of science course brought the bell curve into question. Do you think any of them question global warming, evolution, vaccine science….???
Categories in science are socially constructed, but they become relevant in how predictive, descriptive and explanatory such grouping offers. Race is one such grouping based upon biological observations, which allows us to predict, describe and explain much better than all alternatives provided. Such races are also particularly grouped by the human brain on its own, leading to various useful biases leading to social cohesion, social trust, etc. Lastly, subspecies (i.e. races) in animals are typically made after 5% of genetic divergence (FST). Between human populations, FST ranges from 0-30% - such that a Greek is 0.71% different to a Norwegian, and 10% to a Han Chinese.
It is estimated that 0.4% of the genomes of unrelated humans differ with respect to copy number. When copy number variation is included, human-to-human genetic variation is estimated to be at least 0.5% (99.5% similarity).
Science has only one rule...prove it. It isn't a tool for building social cohesion or trust. That's the job of politics and religion. And obviously they are not very good at it. 0-30 ? I would really like a link to validate your opinion on our genetic diversity. Our cultural differences are way more diverse than our biological ones.
"Philosophy of Race and Ethnicity" The true being of every human is NOT a physical body but a free aware immortal soul that has neither race, nor color, nor ethnicity... The above light is the reason why we are all equal because we are all equal immortal souls with EQUAL CHANCE to return Home/Heaven through FAITH because we are all able to freely choose to believe, or choose not to believe, in the existence of a loving God without knowing Him.... Color of the skin, race, ethnicity, uniqueness, etc., are NOT attributes to the soul but attributes to physical bodies that is not your true self... ...so, if you have been brain-washed by "Darwin's Schools of IGUANAS" that defines your being as just evolving animal physical body, you will likely think that you are all these devisive toxic physical attributes that can either drive you to feel superior or inferior depending on the quality of the physical attributes that you have... unless you believe that you are NOT the body but a soul, so to be humble and kind, equal to all...
The soul, being the most ancient of all, makes all beings aboriginal. But this statement will stir up some people. MLK, a great man, and hero, stated to judge aman not by his color but by his character.
Ah yes, faith. What you need in place of any real evidence. 🙄🙄 Just have faith has been the defense for every spiritual answer we have ever come up with. Which is about 300,000 so far and still growing. Thanks mainly to the lack of a unified theology in Christianity. That continues to divide over their theological differences. Every religion can be traced back to the mind of one person. That was then codified by committee over time. And of course every answer somehow validates their own sense of cultural superiority. Where my god is always the right god. And is used as justification to label other cultures, races and religions as inferior. So you have no issue with being an atheist on every single answer... but yours ? And of course you don't see the obvious problem with that all too convenient position ? The only thing that makes us special is that we are the last of the bipedal apes. Not a special creation of some devine authority that only exists in your cultural egomania. I really love how the religious can be atheists in reference to every spiritual belief... but theirs. It's just that last step that seems to be really difficult.
@@thomasridley8675 our souls fell from Heaven because we lost faith in God's love, so, only by regaining this faith that we can return back Home/Heaven... and solid evidence is not required to have faith, this makes us all equal to have equal chance to return Home/Heaven through faith... ... different religions arose due to different interpretations of the same light that the faithfuls received but all have common faith in the existence of the Almighty Creator unlike atheists who have no faith in God at all....... By the way, all your conscious choices in life are all based on a BELIEF or FAITH that those choices were the right or best choices for you,.. so pls, stop insinuating that you can not have faith without real evidence.. ..my faith that my supernatural Awareness could only possibly originated from an Aware SOURCE or GOD is a sensible belief, while believing that an Unconscious NOTHINGNESS exploded into unconscious pieces ( Bigbang) that later on turned Alive and Conscious does not make any iota of sense, funny at best... this is the huge difference between sanity and insanity.. ..
@@evaadam3635 So over 100 billion "souls" just happen to lose trust in their all powerful diety for no reason what so ever ? Of course, that makes perfect sense. Did you ever think to ask why or even how ? What could have caused such a dangerous loss of faith ? But let's not get all into the pesky details. We would be here all night. Well obviously you are a christian. Not sure which one, but i am leaning to Mormon. With all that fallen souls bit. So let's try this... Do you believe in Norse mythology ? Obviously the answer is no. Would you want to be ruled over by a religion you don't believe in ? Again the obvious answer is no. Hmmm ! You can accept every other religion as just mythology. But you can't accept it for your own. Your god only exposed the truth in that tiny area of the planet and no where else. Why ? Why does it follow the same pattern as every religion ? They all start from the mind of one person. But can only grow in a specific culture. Even mixing beliefs, traditions and rituals to be more acceptable to the local populations. 😁
The color of man of the first homosapiens on earth, or that we know of at least, was possibly of a dark skin tone. As man migrated to different parts of the planet, bodies adapted to such environments. Personally, i don't care that much about the existential things or those who argue for existential and transient things,.. people aruguing that jesus was a black man - stuff like this is most reprehensible. The aboriginal is the Soul, and it is most ancient of all, but this acknowledgment will stir some people up.
The intellectuals/scholars deny it but every person in the world knows there are differences, traits, habits, talents, etc. that differening races/ethnicities have. In some ways, perhaps it would be better if vastly different cultures were segregated from one another. It might make for more harmony, less constant strife between disparate peoples. Just a thought.
This guys shows pseud philosophy . Is he serious when talk about philosophy? No of course . What is saying It is wortheless philosophy? Rubbish blah blah.
The main problem that arises from trying to define "race" in biological terms is the lack (or ignorance) of an ontological basis. There is a spiritual dimension to the human being that must first be taken into account, and an ontological basis for humanity is necessary to address this dimension. Once this ontological basis is established, one can then recognize the _physics_ of race in the form of statistics. "Race" in the biological sense now becomes the social manifestation of these physical statistics. In this sense, biological race is undeniable.
It is possible that like the modern diversity of dog breeds, populations of modern humans are the products of a "selective breeding process" that renders them as "different breeds designed for different needs of different ancient tyrants in history"...
Completely untrue. The vast majority of all human genetic diversity exists within the same local populations. The difference between you and your neighbor is the largest part of genetic diversity compared to only an extra ~10% from you to someone from another continent. It's just that extra 10% includes skin color, which is what stupid humans like to focus on.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Mamushi (Remix) [feat. TWICE] [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5c0_u9PsrsQ/mqdefault.jpg)
It is purely biological phenomenon, because it is defined by a set of biological adaptations. These adaptations can't be deemed superficial, because they are the result of brutal natural selection process. That's what should be clear. The confusion with classification is because first there are no clear cut definition for the term (like there are no clear cut definitions for the term "species" or "language") and that gives a lot of optionality in how you draw lines. Another very important factor is that the same biological adaptations can have different genetic pathways. That's how we get people on Adaman islands looking like Africans despite of being genetically close to Asians. So if you draw the lines on purely genetic level it doesn't work. There's a lot of convergent evolution involved.
You're confusing an organisms genetics with its phylogeny, its outward appearance. Certain different animals within a same species can have essentially the same DNA, but totally different outward appearances. Humans, dogs, etc. This is what the speaker is referring to by saying that the evidence doesn't prove that 'race' is a biological phenomenon as respective of his theory of genuine kinds. He's not a biological antirealist nor a realist though. It seems he's a middle of the roader.
@@dsa513 If you read my comment I said clearly that race is not about closeness in DNA.
@@XOPOIIIO As far as I can read you are stating that 'different genetic pathways' lead to distinct phenotypes, as in the example of the Asian genomes being part of African-looking people on the Adaman islands. That's exactly what the evidence does not actually prove. Genotype and phenotype are not 'pathways' to anything. Sure, they coexist, but not in anyway that's significant for us to make predictions, nor for us to observe any discrete evolutionary principle that we can analyze and generalize from.
@@dsa513 The clustering of human (and dog) populations into "races/breeds" is found in the patterns of DNA differences (patterns of allele frequencies), not the raw amount of DNA differences.
@@dsa513 I said different genetic pathways lead to the same phenotypes, not distinct phenotypes. That's just how evolution works, DNA find it's specific pathways to the optimal adaptation, and this pathway is not unique, that's why hyrax looks and behaves like a rodent, despite of being genetically close to elephant. So you can't equate genetic closeness to the biological similarity. Adaman islands inhabitants are Asians genetically, it's just a fact. What evidence you're talking about?
Thank you for posting this interview - it is a very important topic, even if some people don't want to hear about it. A question we should be asking is, was the move to view race (and now gender) as social constructs driven more by scientific evidence or moral concerns? If you read the history, it seems that the ideas were pushed more by activists than honest scientists.
Not my favorite episode. Interesting topic but could not get into it…just seemed too “rambly”
Notice the philosophy of science course brought the bell curve into question. Do you think any of them question global warming, evolution, vaccine science….???
Categories in science are socially constructed, but they become relevant in how predictive, descriptive and explanatory such grouping offers. Race is one such grouping based upon biological observations, which allows us to predict, describe and explain much better than all alternatives provided. Such races are also particularly grouped by the human brain on its own, leading to various useful biases leading to social cohesion, social trust, etc.
Lastly, subspecies (i.e. races) in animals are typically made after 5% of genetic divergence (FST). Between human populations, FST ranges from 0-30% - such that a Greek is 0.71% different to a Norwegian, and 10% to a Han Chinese.
It is estimated that 0.4% of the genomes of unrelated humans differ with respect to copy number. When copy number variation is included, human-to-human genetic variation is estimated to be at least 0.5% (99.5% similarity).
Science has only one rule...prove it. It isn't a tool for building social cohesion or trust. That's the job of politics and religion. And obviously they are not very good at it.
0-30 ? I would really like a link to validate your opinion on our genetic diversity.
Our cultural differences are way more diverse than our biological ones.
"Philosophy of Race and Ethnicity"
The true being of every human is NOT a physical body but a free aware immortal soul that has neither race, nor color, nor ethnicity...
The above light is the reason why we are all equal because we are all equal immortal souls with EQUAL CHANCE to return Home/Heaven through FAITH because we are all able to freely choose to believe, or choose not to believe, in the existence of a loving God without knowing Him....
Color of the skin, race, ethnicity, uniqueness, etc., are NOT attributes to the soul but attributes to physical bodies that is not your true self...
...so, if you have been brain-washed by "Darwin's Schools of IGUANAS" that defines your being as just evolving animal physical body, you will likely think that you are all these devisive toxic physical attributes that can either drive you to feel superior or inferior depending on the quality of the physical attributes that you have... unless you believe that you are NOT the body but a soul, so to be humble and kind, equal to all...
The soul, being the most ancient of all, makes all beings aboriginal. But this statement will stir up some people.
MLK, a great man, and hero, stated to judge aman not by his color but by his character.
Ah yes, faith. What you need in place of any real evidence. 🙄🙄
Just have faith has been the defense for every spiritual answer we have ever come up with. Which is about 300,000 so far and still growing.
Thanks mainly to the lack of a unified theology in Christianity. That continues to divide over their theological differences.
Every religion can be traced back to the mind of one person. That was then codified by committee over time. And of course every answer somehow validates their own sense of cultural superiority. Where my god is always the right god. And is used as justification to label other cultures, races and religions as inferior.
So you have no issue with being an atheist on every single answer... but yours ? And of course you don't see the obvious problem with that all too convenient position ?
The only thing that makes us special is that we are the last of the bipedal apes. Not a special creation of some devine authority that only exists in your cultural egomania.
I really love how the religious can be atheists in reference to every spiritual belief... but theirs. It's just that last step that seems to be really difficult.
@@thomasridley8675 our souls fell from Heaven because we lost faith in God's love, so, only by regaining this faith that we can return back Home/Heaven... and solid evidence is not required to have faith, this makes us all equal to have equal chance to return Home/Heaven through faith...
... different religions arose due to different interpretations of the same light that the faithfuls received but all have common faith in the existence of the Almighty Creator unlike atheists who have no faith in God at all.......
By the way, all your conscious choices in life are all based on a BELIEF or FAITH that those choices were the right or best choices for you,.. so pls, stop insinuating that you can not have faith without real evidence..
..my faith that my supernatural Awareness could only possibly originated from an Aware SOURCE or GOD is a sensible belief, while believing that an Unconscious NOTHINGNESS exploded into unconscious pieces ( Bigbang) that later on turned Alive and Conscious does not make any iota of sense, funny at best... this is the huge difference between sanity and insanity..
..
@@evaadam3635
So over 100 billion "souls" just happen to lose trust in their all powerful diety for no reason what so ever ?
Of course, that makes perfect sense.
Did you ever think to ask why or even how ? What could have caused such a dangerous loss of faith ? But let's not get all into the pesky details. We would be here all night.
Well obviously you are a christian. Not sure which one, but i am leaning to Mormon. With all that fallen souls bit.
So let's try this...
Do you believe in Norse mythology ?
Obviously the answer is no.
Would you want to be ruled over by a religion you don't believe in ? Again the obvious answer is no.
Hmmm !
You can accept every other religion as just mythology. But you can't accept it for your own.
Your god only exposed the truth in that tiny area of the planet and no where else. Why ?
Why does it follow the same pattern as every religion ? They all start from the mind of one person.
But can only grow in a specific culture. Even mixing beliefs, traditions and rituals to be more acceptable to the local populations.
😁
The color of man of the first homosapiens on earth, or that we know of at least, was possibly of a dark skin tone. As man migrated to different parts of the planet, bodies adapted to such environments.
Personally, i don't care that much about the existential things or those who argue for existential and transient things,.. people aruguing that jesus was a black man - stuff like this is most reprehensible. The aboriginal is the Soul, and it is most ancient of all, but this acknowledgment will stir some people up.
The intellectuals/scholars deny it but every person in the world knows there are differences, traits, habits, talents, etc. that differening races/ethnicities have. In some ways, perhaps it would be better if vastly different cultures were segregated from one another. It might make for more harmony, less constant strife between disparate peoples. Just a thought.
Race , Religion are hypothesis. No society can prosper on the basis of hypothesis.
The "mixing of cultures and strife" is required for "GDP growth"...
@@MasoudJohnAzizi A load of wank. GDP is not that important.
Everyone with a minimum of education knows interbreeding is a serious problem, so bad idea.
race handled by divine sovereignty rather than human sovereignty?
This guys shows pseud philosophy . Is he serious when talk about philosophy? No of course . What is saying It is wortheless philosophy? Rubbish blah blah.
Agree with you absolutely.
Not a good episode.
further from truth
This is going to get a lot of hate
PhD in yap-ology
Closer to truth no :(
each person make free will choices for God sovereignty
Oof. The woke mind virus has now claimed CTT.
The amount of views on this compared to
The other vids is hilarious 😂😂😂
Boring as f.
The main problem that arises from trying to define "race" in biological terms is the lack (or ignorance) of an ontological basis. There is a spiritual dimension to the human being that must first be taken into account, and an ontological basis for humanity is necessary to address this dimension. Once this ontological basis is established, one can then recognize the _physics_ of race in the form of statistics. "Race" in the biological sense now becomes the social manifestation of these physical statistics. In this sense, biological race is undeniable.
It is possible that like the modern diversity of dog breeds, populations of modern humans are the products of a "selective breeding process" that renders them as "different breeds designed for different needs of different ancient tyrants in history"...
Seems unlikely
Completely untrue. The vast majority of all human genetic diversity exists within the same local populations. The difference between you and your neighbor is the largest part of genetic diversity compared to only an extra ~10% from you to someone from another continent. It's just that extra 10% includes skin color, which is what stupid humans like to focus on.
Is this a joke?
There are 8.2 billion people on earth. There are 8.2 billion races on earth.
Such a platitude
@@nobodynobody4389 I am waiting for different answers to know how different people understand differently. Thanku
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 this doesn't mean that they are so unique as to escape biological determinism of commonly associated genes
@@nobodynobody4389 yes..may be commonly associated but they are different.
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 not enough though to not be able to make generalized statement's about groups