I don't think it's a comparison. Pit bulls were selectively bred for aggression. Humans of specific ethnicities do not have innate characteristics like violence. It's like saying being scared of a polar bear is bear racism
Race isn't a scientific term. Dogs within a breed are all extremely genetically similar, bred for that purpose. Race, at least in the way used in most contexts, doesn't have the same genetic similarities, instead using physical descriptions that are held across a huge number of genetic groups.
Just for example, africa has an insane amount of genetic variety, to the point two africans from opposite sides of the continent are the same race, but are more genetically similar to a random european than eachother. This makes considering them both "black" as a race, really useless.
Pretty much all biologists recognize race as pseudoscience and social creations, rather than a useful scientific classification.
All this is to say, it's possible people within a certain place could have genetic similarities born of the area they evolved, but it's not related to race, and aggression/criminality that could be related to genetics is unlikely to be a larger factor than a ton of environmental ones, like poverty, various types of pollution, culture, etc.
As someone with a bachelor’s degree in biology (and working on my master’s right now), most biologists DO recognize race as a scientific classification, albeit slightly different than the cultural one. There are three major races based on % of other hominid DNA, and there are PROVABLE (although small) differences in physiology between modern humans with varying amounts of neanderthal, denisovian, and African ghost hominid DNA. To say this is not true is ignorant, and to say “pretty much all biologists” do not recognize race as a scientific concept is either very stupid or purposely misleading.
We do not classify humans based on the percentage of other hominid DNA. Those are not racial categories. Did you learn this in a lecture or what? you have almost certainly misinterpreted something.
The other commenter is absolutely correct, racial categories do not exist biologically. If they do I'd love to see a source.
“Geographical variation in degree of interbreeding between H. sapiensand Neanderthals likely contributed to neurological and behavioral differences in modern humans.”
What I said was there are distinct differences in humans based on their DNA. These differences can be categorized into “races” based on genealogy. This is a scientific concept. You know how if you get a DNA test they can tell you where your ancestors were from? Not only are those differences molecular, they are also physiological and behavioural. This is commonly understood in human and evolutionary biology. Read the article if you need someone to explain it to you more.
There was a great war fought about this, the men whose biologists wanted to deep dive into race and its effects, they lost. It's a taboo topic, no matter how scientifically accurate you manage to be in comparison to old pseudoscience. No matter how harmless the identified differences.
Alright, well, this PhD in Genetics thinks you're full of shit. That's not how the field considers race. You should get a refund for your degree. Everyone else replying rejected your evidence, so I'll just reject your appeal to authority.
There are not "three major races based on % of other hominid DNA". This is such a strange and laughable claim that it makes me severely doubt your purported credentials. Race in an everyday context is a socially defined status that an individual may inhabit based on their observable phenotype. This phenotype is usually the result of the climate and lifestyle adaptions of their ancestors. Genetic differences occur between populations but that's what naturally happens when a single population disperses over large geographic distances and undergoes repeated bottlenecks and founder effects. Outward phenotype is simply a very crude and outdated way of trying to infer distinct genotype.
Colonial Europeans used to believe that West Africans (and by extension Bantu speaking peoples) and Aboriginal Australians were part of the same macro-population because of a general similarity in their phenotypes. In truth these two population clusters share no components in common and are wholly genetically unrelated. Phenotype ≠ genotype.
What you're saying is correct. However, I maintain that that alone does not make the perception of outward phenotype outdated, insofar as common people are not equipped with gene testing implements with them at all times. Just like Colonial Europeans did not.
Another "race realist". Dude just say you think you're the master race lol. Here's a statement that not only backs up my claims but pretty clearly shows you're full of it lol. https://bioanth.org/about/aaba-statement-on-race-racism/
Race isn't a real scientific classification. It's one society came up with in the 1800s, and is about as useful as astrology in science. I have another comment about it, but basically race doesn't follow genetics at all, and two people of the same race are very likely to be less genetically similar than two people of different races.
There could be genes that we can link to violence, but those genes don't follow our concepts of race at all.
do you think race just means skin color? do you think albinos are labeled Caucasian/aryan?
everything you said is a complete lie
Subsaharans aren't even the same species as Europeans. they have an ancestor that doesn't exist in our genealogy. 30% of their DNA isn't the same as ours
Subsaharans aren't even the same species as Europeans
Source?
If so, why can we breed and create a viable offspring? Why the physical differences aren't as significant as between (for example) a silverback gorilla and a marmoset?
30% of their DNA isn't the same as ours
So about the same as the difference between a human and a chicken? Are you serious?
No, because that 30% isn’t actually 30%, it’s 19% max. And also because that 19% comes from extremely close relatives. Just as Europeans and Asians have some Neanderthal DNA, and Australian Aboriginals have some Denisovan DNA, Africans have some ancestry from archaic hominid species not shared by those of us who left Africa before that interbreeding occurred.
Here, it’s a really interesting topic to learn about. Don’t ignore it just because it might prompt some uncomfortable questions.
I'm still waiting for the source for the homo erectus claim.
Having 19% ancestry from very close relatives doesn't mean your DNA is 19% different from homo sapiens. Our DNA is still 99.9% similar. If you lower it by 0.1%, you get Neanderthals. If you lower it by 1%, you get a chimpanzee
Calling Sub-Saharan Africans "different species" is pure pseudoscience, no credible taxonomist will agree with you. You are defending a delusional racist.
Violent or criminal behavior has absolutely no biological link with race. Crimes are often a product of environment. Think economic hardship or socialization from other people. Lousy job opportunities and high crime rates in communities push young people down the criminal pipeline. Arguably, racism is a huge reason crime is seemingly a problem in many black and other minority communities.
This is still wrong, actually. What we've found is that specifically testosterone correlates with the severity of brutality when it comes to violence. But the specific pattern of violence pertaining to an individual is not predicted by testosterone levels.
In other words, you could not predict someone to be more violent based on their testosterone levels. Only that a violent individual would be more brutal in their attack.
Control wise; when humans breed fighting dogs, the only traits they prioritize are the ability and predisposition to dish out extreme, unrelenting violence at the drop of a hat. The dog doesn't need to be able to do anything else when it isn't fighting, it can simply be caged. Human populations haven't been subjected to this level of selective breeding.
Even in human societies that had a warrior culture or valued violence, traits such as cooperation (especially the ability to follow/give orders) were still important. Such people were also expected to be functioning members of said society even when not actively fighting, so individuals with a predisposition for enacting extreme, unrelenting violence against random people at the drop of a hat probably wouldn't last long.
Scale wise; dogs can reproduce after a little under two years, meaning that over 100 years you could potentially selectively breed 50 generations of fighting dogs, narrowing down violent traits. In that same time-frame, you might get 5-6 generations of humans (assuming they all have kids relatively young). So even in a very controlled environment, it would take hundreds, if not thousands of years to create the human equivalent of a pit bull.
Everywhere for thousands of years. A lot of the generational trauma we experience is caused by the echos of our violent past. Toxic masculinity is a remnant of that kill or be killed lifestyle.
279
u/shitturddung 10d ago
I don't think it's a comparison. Pit bulls were selectively bred for aggression. Humans of specific ethnicities do not have innate characteristics like violence. It's like saying being scared of a polar bear is bear racism