Israeli missile has struck Iran, US officials say - BBC News

breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca to World News@lemmy.world – 484 points – Israeli missile has struck Iran, US officials say - BBC News
bbc.com

An Israeli missile has hit Iran, two US officials have told the BBC's US partner CBS News.

Iranian state media is reporting that flights have been suspended over several cities, according to Associated Press.

Iran has been on high alert after Israel said it would respond to an Iranian attack against it on Saturday night

360

You are viewing a single comment
View all commentsShow the parent comment

Race is a well documented biological fact actually. It's not subject to political interpretation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

By Alan Templeton.

According to Templeton's research, perceived differences in races are more related to cultural perceptions and biases than any underlying genetic reality.[5] For example, Templeton's statistical analysis of the human genome shows that much greater genetic diversity exists between populations of chimpanzees than humans from different parts of the world.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Templeton

Do you think maybe you're misunderstanding him?

It think it's debatable about how you define Races, but it's also quite obvious that biological races exist. There are specific differences in the physical biology that separate the races, and common traits among them that identify them as part of the group. Skin color, hair type, bone structure, genetic predisposition to certain diseases, etc. Physical traits are passed from the parents to the children, and when the parents are of different races we get blending of the characteristics and so on. Some Native Americans even have different kinds of teeth than European-Caucasian descended folks do.

Basically it's not something you can choose or change, it's an immutable biological set of characteristics. I don't know what "race" the Jews in Israel are exactly but I suspect it depends a lot on the region their ancestors are from. Many of them might even be the same "race" as Palestinians.

What's the race here, African or Melanesian? And if it's the same race, why are they so separated geographically?

I don't know, just some mixture of African and Mongolian would be my guess. It would be more appropriate to ask the people in that picture IMO.

You'd be 100% wrong there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesians

Maybe you're wrong on race as well.

So what? I said I don't know already. Do you want to keep on all day about this?

Go ahead and just believe whatever you want about all this, you will do that regardless of what I say.

Likewise there's nothing you can say that would change the facts of reality that I've already stated.

You said physical traits determined race. You couldn't determine race from physical traits.

You want to reduce everything into simple concepts just to argue about them. Reality is not that simple, and that's clearly not all that I said about the subject. There's no need to make up your own version of "what I said" when what I actually said is still there in plain text to read in the past comments.

I'm not making anything up:

It think it’s debatable about how you define Races, but it’s also quite obvious that biological races exist. There are specific differences in the physical biology that separate the races, and common traits among them that identify them as part of the group. Skin color, hair type, bone structure, genetic predisposition to certain diseases, etc. Physical traits are passed from the parents to the children, and when the parents are of different races we get blending of the characteristics and so on. Some Native Americans even have different kinds of teeth than European-Caucasian descended folks do.

So do physical traits determine race or not?

He would absolutely love to keep on all day about it, or anything really. That's very important to understand.

the facts of reality that I've already stated

But you never stated facts or reality.

You're trying to argue that races exist as something other than social constructs.

Different Races for humans have no genetic or biological basis. Period.

Blonde is not a race. Brown eyed is not a race. Brown skin is not a race. And on and on

No, and you fundamentally misunderstand biology, genetics, and race.

In essence, per Robert Saplosky, race is a cultural construct, not a genetic or biological one. He has his entire Stanford lecture on human behavior including human genetics on YouTube. He also has several books explaining this. Here's a link to a summary video: https://youtu.be/YVT5iIXdjek?si=jXKvfd3fUEdQcjMx

Just because you can reactively type people into races, doesn't make race a real biological phenomenon. There are plenty of races that look like others, plenty of admixture that ruins your theories. Sickle cell anemia can exist in white people (people who appear to look white) who have black ancestry, but you wouldn't know they have either sickle cell or black ancestry from looking at them. Because race ISNT genetics. There are people within the same family who are different races, one who is lighter and one who is darker, etc. And melanin production is only one small component of the cultural cues we see as someone's race.

Again, it's not biological and no real scientist would think that.

From your source:

Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness and not race.

And

The question of the existence of human “races” now becomes the question of the existence of human subspecies.

... One definition regards races as geographically circumscribed populations within a species that have sharp boundaries that separate them from the remainder of the species (Smith, Chiszar, & Montanucci, 1997).

... A second definition defines races as distinct evolutionary lineages within a species. An evolutionary lineage is a population of organisms characterized by a continuous line of descent such that the individuals in the population at any given time are connected by ancestor/descendent relationships.

And

It is critical to note that genetic differentiation alone is insufficient to define a subspecies or race under either of these definitions of race.

You seem to have linked something that argues and shows the opposite of what you intended there, bud.

Did you miss the whole section with the tree of races, showing the genetic differences in them? Maybe you didn't make it all the way through?

I think you might have just skimmed it. Throughout the paper the authors include examples of "race trees" which they argue have no places in scientific literature because they do not apply to humans.

I have an idea. Why don't you quote the section that proves your point. If I can't rebut you by copying and pasting context from the same paper, you win. Deal?

I have another idea, which is that I've said all that I care to say about it already and reject your attempts to continue arguing.

You can just carry on believing whatever it is that you want to believe, as that's what you'd do regardless of whatever I said anyway.

Lmfao, you mean you lost this argument thoroughly and you're too much of a baby to admit you were wrong.

Edit: oops, I blocked that guy so this comment looked like it was in reply to me, sorry! 😅

Whatever, you can believe that if it makes you feel good. I'm good either way.

It's ideology for these people. Lysenkoism all over again. Meanwhile the existence of genetic subgroups, however hazy and overlapping they might be, remains extremely relevant in medicine - which they'd also be quick to point out in different circumstances.

I get their motivation - the idea of there being 3-5 rigid classes of human that should be treated differently is ridiculous and sinister. But are there distinct genetic lineages? Absolutely, you can track human migration that way, it's very interesting.

A lot of the disagreement seems to come from conflation of the word "race", which doesn't really have a firm definition anyway. To some people in the USA it refers to this strict division of humans into absolute categories, but if you're not predisposed to think that way it's just shorthand for ethnic or geographical heritage.

Globally, this heritage is something people still consider very important; whether rightly or wrongly is not for me to say. But that definitely lends an irony to the whole discussion. Being simultaneously obsessed with identity categories while claiming they don't exist is par for the course nowadays, I think, at least in parts of the USA.