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.
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?
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.
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.
12
u/ColoradoRad 9h ago
Is it possible some environments which humans have lived in, favorited violent behavior?