Hacker News Reader

Comment by klodolph | Hacker News Reader

That’s factually incorrect—there’s not actually a significant amount of genetic divergence between racial groups.

There’s a saying—if you pick two chimpanzees in the same forest, you are likely to find more genetic differences than if you pick two humans on opposite sides of the world. Genetic diversity within a given racial group is much larger than the genetic differences between different racial groups, which makes it very difficult (at best) to come up with some kind of genetic criteria for defining race.

View on HN

> there’s not actually a significant amount of genetic divergence between racial groups.

Does skin color not diverge between racial groups, or is it not a significant genetic divergence?

If skin color seems too trivial to be genetically "significant", then what about racial differences that confer an advantage or disadvantage to malarial resistance?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3704235/

It’s not a significant part of genetic divergence. Humans also have a striking lack of genetic diversity in the first place, due to factors like a severe population bottleneck 2 Mya.

One of the races is “black”, but since most Africans are black, and all humans have African ancestry, the idea of coming up with a genetic basis for “blackness” is completely useless. It would be difficult to come up with some kind of genetic basis for that category that is somehow useful to science, somehow includes most black people, and somehow excludes most non-black people.

It is more useful to talk about genetics in terms of (recent) ancestry. Ancestry is reasonably useful for things like screening for genetic conditions. You want to screen for sickle-cell anemia? Recent African ancestry is a reasonable thing to look for; blackness is a poor proxy. Recall that skin pigmentation is more about what latitude your ancestors are from, and not about what specific part of the world they are from.

(I’ve used the term “African ancestry” to refer both to long-term ancestry and more recent ancestry here, I hope that the usage is clear from context.)

> One of the races is “black”, but since most Africans are black, and all humans have African ancestry, the idea of coming up with a genetic basis for “blackness” is completely useless.

Proves too much: the idea of coming up with a genetic basis for "fishness" is also now completely useless.

> Proves too much: the idea of coming up with a genetic basis for "fishness" is also now completely useless.

I mean, that’s a good analogy, the term “fish” is even worse than “race”. Fish is paraphyletic, just like “tree”. There’s also the colloquial sense of “fish”, which is even less clear.

"Fish" are one of the classic examples of a commonly-understood descriptor that has little to no scientific rigor. Another good one is "tree".

In casual speech, you can certainly look at an animal and say "this is a fish", or look at a plant and say "that is a tree", but if you actually start to look closer, you find that there's no clear way to define either of those terms that includes everything we think should belong in them, and also excludes everything we think shouldn't.

"Races" among humans are similarly hard to pin down by any kind of genetic taxonomy.

fish exist. trees exist. races exist. we have laws about overfishing, laws about cutting trees down, and laws protecting against racial discrimination and these laws largely work. the legal system has developed techniques for dealing with gray areas too.

science is for describing what is, and in detail, but science's failure to do that just means we need more science, not that we should quit and claim the above words have no meaning.

That sounds like contrived rubbish me. Yes we can pluck a dozen Germans off the street and you might find 5 different eye colours, 6 hair colours, a range of 30 IQ points, a priest and a thug, and over a foot between the tallest and shortest.

Yet show me a picture of any of them and I am confident I could roughly point to the region in Europe where their ancestors have toiled for the last thousand generations. Put them and a dozen Congolese in a group and a 5 year old could easily separate them into their two respective racial groups.

There is clearly a common genetic 'core' among people of the same racial group. There may be much diversity within it, too, but to use that to deny the existence of this shared heritage is downright subversive and disingenuous.

Rather than shouting loudly on the internet, I recommend going and reading a bit more about genetic history. There are much more accurate scientific terms for eveyrthing you're talking about.

I dunno, go look at Barack Obama, then look at pictures of his parents, and tell me which group he belongs to.

The common answer is Obama is African American (or black or negro). The reason is the implicit "one drop rule", if a white is contaminated with a little amount of black blood from their ancestors, they are not white anymore but black.

The race classification of humans is racist. As the term implies.

Many people arriving to the US are shocked to be asked their 'race', as if we were dogs. I never know what to answer, are arabs white? Are spaniards latin? Are ouzbeks from Caucase asian? Etc... This is non sense racist shit.

I feel like I’m being gas lighted by these explanations that race doesn’t exist. A five year old can plainly see race but grownups must pretend it doesn’t exist? It’s a bit Orwellian (a bit like 2+2=5)

You're not being gaslighted, rather you're being made aware that a five year old's naive and immature view of reality is insufficiently grounded in knowledge or nuance to be useful as a basis for adult discussions, much less science.

I'm guessing you're older than five, so you probably should adjust to the shock and make an attempt to advance your understanding of the world beyond the level of a child who can't even tie their shoes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com