Science Refutes Notions of Race

[Frodo]

Genes for Skin Color Rebut Dated Notions of Race, Researchers Say

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NYTimes

[BudgieForce]

I'm not sure this refutes anything.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Scientists long debunked race as a biological concept.  I don't see why this is news.

[dead0man]

indeed, can we start using haplogroups so we can move past this "race doesn't exist" thing.

[Yank2133]

Scientists long debunked race as a biological concept.  I don't see why this is news.

[Famous Mortimer]

1. Study literally found the genes that cause different skin colors, so it proves (not that it needed to be proved) that skin color is genetic.

2. Didn't prove race isn't a thing. More just being pedantic about the names of races. "How can you call white people white when some Bushmen in Botswana are lighter?" (Incidentally, you didn't need a genetic study to find that info) Anyway, so what? They are paler than white people. Don't call white people white then, call them European or Caucasian. The fact that some Bushmen or some Japanese are lighter than some White people doesn't prove commonly used racial categories are arbitrary. No one is seriously going to confuse a Tswana Bushman, no matter how pale, for a Slav.

[Kamala]

1. Study literally found the genes that cause different skin colors, so it proves (not that it needed to be proved) that skin color is genetic.

2. Didn't prove race isn't a thing. More just being pedantic about the names of races. "How can you call white people white when some Bushmen in Botswana are lighter?" (Incidentally, you didn't need a genetic study to find that info) Anyway, so what? They are paler than white people. Don't call white people white then, call them European or Caucasian. The fact that some Bushmen or some Japanese are lighter than some White people doesn't prove commonly used racial categories are arbitrary. No one is seriously going to confuse a Tswana Bushman, no matter how pale, for a Slav.

Perhaps if you were less dense, you could read that the article says that it's the same genes that make people's skin lighter or darker.

It's not that a pale white Scotsman has gene X that makes his skin light and a black Masai has gene Y that makes his skin dark and that there are no white people at all with gene Y and no black people at all with gene X.

From what I read in the article, the situation is more akin to the following scenario.

Both the pale Tswana and the pale Scotsman have the gene X that makes their skin lighter - this gene is the exact same, regardless of "race". A darker-skinned Masai and a darker-skinned Italian both have gene Y - regardless of "race." Biologically, there's no different "race"-linked gene that says "All black people have dark skin" or "all dark-skinned people are black," or the light-skinned/white equivalent of that.

The gene responsible for skin color is not "race"-linked, which reaffirms that "race" has no biological proof.

[pbrower2a]

... and there is much ambiguity from some admixtures and passing. Did you know that Carly Simon is black? One eighth, which would have been enough to require her to yield a seat on a Birmingham bus at one time.

[pbrower2a]

If it is skin color... if you didn't see the epicanthic fold and the straight black hair, you would think that many Koreans are white.

[Devout Centrist]

Morty, you're not a geneticist nor an evolutionary biologist. Leave the big boy work to them.

[Cashew]

The gene responsible for skin color is not "race"-linked, which reaffirms that "race" has no biological proof.

It disproves the Anglo Saxon notion of race based on skin color sure, but most serious people don't try to artificially separate the people of India and Scandinavia based on skin color.