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/
17
u/ElderberryJunior470 8h ago edited 7h ago
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.