by Vivian Chou
figures by Daniel Utter

Donald Trump’s election as the 45th President of the United States has been marked by the brewing storms of racial conflicts. A rise in racial incidents ensued in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s victory in November 2016. Since the beginning of 2017, over 100 bomb threats have been made against Jewish community centers and schools. Trump’s travel ban, signed in late January 2017, initially affected about 90,000 people from seven Middle Eastern countries; 87,000 of those banned were Muslims. Minorities such as American Muslims and black Americans have expressed fears over racial relations under Trump. Undeniably, the topic of race—and racism—has gripped America and the world throughout.

Over the last decade, there have been hopes that the US has become a post-racial society, free of racial prejudice and discrimination. However, the most recent months indicate the contrary: race remains an incendiary issue. Race and racism are not new issues, but in today’s 21st century Trump-era, discussions about race are distinct from those of the past in that they possess an entirely new dimension: that of genetics and DNA.

Race in the new era of human genetics research

In 2003, scientists completed the Human Genome Project, making it finally possible to examine human ancestry with genetics. Scientists have since tackled topics such as human migrations out of Africa and around the world. And it’s not just scientists who are excited about human genetics: widely affordable at-home ancestry test kits are now readily available from companies like 23andMe, Family Tree DNA, and Ancestry. For $99—around the price of a romantic dinner or a pair of Nikes—a customer can receive an analysis from 23andMe indicating that they are, for instance, 18.0% Native American, 65.1% European and 6.2% African.

The soaring popularity of ancestry testing bespeaks a widespread perception that we can use these tests to dissect, delineate, and define our ancestral composition. Indeed, social media is teeming with blog posts, and even livestream videos, from excited customers bursting to broadcast their test results and their reactions. Ancestry test kits are the new “it” item—and with their success is the tacit admission of our belief that our DNA can sort us into categories like the “five races:” African, European, Asian, Oceania, and Native American (Figure 1A).

Figure 1. ‘Race’ cannot be biologically defined due to genetic variation among human individuals and populations. (A) The old concept of the “five races:” African, Asian, European, Native American, and Oceanian. According to this view, variation between the races is large, and thus, the each race is a separate category. Additionally, individual races are thought to have a relatively uniform genetic identity. (B) Actual genetic variation in humans. Human populations do roughly cluster into geographical regions. However, variation between different regions is small, thus blurring the lines between populations. Furthermore, variation within a single region is large, and there is no uniform identity.
Figure 1: ‘Race’ cannot be biologically defined due to genetic variation among human individuals and populations. (A) The old concept of the “five races:” African, Asian, European, Native American, and Oceanian. According to this view, variation between the races is large, and thus, the each race is a separate category. Additionally, individual races are thought to have a relatively uniform genetic identity. (B) Actual genetic variation in humans. Human populations do roughly cluster into geographical regions. However, variation between different regions is small, thus blurring the lines between populations. Furthermore, variation within a single region is large, and there is no uniform identity.

New findings in genetics tear down old ideas about race

Estimating our ancestral composition down to 0.1% seem to suggest that there are exact, categorical divisions between human populations. But reality is far less simple. Compared to the general public’s enthusiasm for ancestry testing, the reaction from scientists has been considerably more lukewarm. Research indicates that the concept of “five races” does, to an extent, describe the way human populations are distributed among the continents—but the lines between races are much more blurred than ancestry testing companies would have us believe (Figure 1B).

A landmark 2002 study by Stanford scientists examined the question of human diversity by looking at the distribution across seven major geographical regions of 4,000 alleles. Alleles are the different “flavors” of a gene. For instance, all humans have the same genes that code for hair: the different alleles are why hair comes in all types of colors and textures.

In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies (Figure 1B).

If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B).

Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Case study of genetic variation between three scientists. Left: Schematization of the genetic variation between Drs. James Watson, Craig Venter, and Kim Seong-jin. Colored bars represent genes; different colors represent different alleles, i.e. versions of genes. Some alleles are shared by all three of the men (represented by the dark brown allele that is shared by every person in this image). Besides the universal dark brown allele, Watson and Venter share one other allele (bright blue). However, both share two alleles with Kim (Watson shares red and orange with Kim, Venter shares green and magenta), in addition to the universal allele. Right: There is more similarity between the Kim and Watson and Kim and Venter, than there is between Watson and Venter.
Figure 2: Case study of genetic variation between three scientists. Left: Schematization of the genetic variation between Drs. James Watson, Craig Venter, and Kim Seong-jin. Colored bars represent genes; different colors represent different alleles, i.e. versions of genes. Some alleles are shared by all three of the men (represented by the dark brown allele that is shared by every person in this image). Besides the universal dark brown allele, Watson and Venter share one other allele (bright blue). However, both share two alleles with Kim (Watson shares red and orange with Kim, Venter shares green and magenta), in addition to the universal allele. Right: There is more similarity between the Kim and Watson and Kim and Venter, than there is between Watson and Venter.

Does “race” still mean something?

The divisions between races are doubtlessly blurred, but does this necessarily mean that race is a myth—a mere social construct and biologically meaningless? As with other race-related questions, the answer is multi-dimensional and may well depend on whom you ask.

In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute. Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity (Figure 3). “Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry. However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another. In a clinical setting, for instance, scientists would say that diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are common in those of “sub-Saharan African” or “Northern European” descent, respectively, rather than in those who are “black” or “white”.

Figure 3. Race versus ancestry. (A) The classification of people into different races is typically based on observable physical features, with skin color being the most prominently used characteristic. Racial classifications also draw upon non-biological characteristics such as culture, language, history, religion, and socioeconomic status. Thus, “race” is a term that lacks clear definition. (B) In contrast to race, “ancestry” emphasizes the geographical origins of one’s ancestors (parents, grandparents, and beyond). Unlike “race,” the concept of “ancestry” does not focus on the static categorization of humans into groups, but rather on the process by which a person’s history unfolded.
Figure 3: Race versus ancestry. (A) The classification of people into different races is typically based on observable physical features, with skin color being the most prominently used characteristic. Racial classifications also draw upon non-biological characteristics such as culture, language, history, religion, and socioeconomic status. Thus, “race” is a term that lacks clear definition. (B) In contrast to race, “ancestry” emphasizes the geographical origins of one’s ancestors (parents, grandparents, and beyond). Unlike “race,” the concept of “ancestry” does not focus on the static categorization of humans into groups, but rather on the process by which a person’s history unfolded.

However, even if scientists agree that race is, at most, a social construct, any cursory search of the internet reveals that the broader public is not convinced of this. After all, if an Asian person looks so different from a European, how could they not be from distinct groups? Even if most scientists reject the concept of “race” as a biological concept, race exists, undeniably, as a social and political concept.

The popular classifications of race are based chiefly on skin color, with other relevant features including height, eyes, and hair. Though these physical differences may appear, on a superficial level, to be very dramatic, they are determined by only a minute portion of the genome: we as a species have been estimated to share 99.9% of our DNA with each other. The few differences that do exist reflect differences in environments and external factors, not core biology.

Importantly, the evolution of skin color occurred independently, and did not influence other traits such as mental abilities and behavior. In fact, science has yet to find evidence that there are genetic differences in intelligence  between populations. Ultimately, while there certainly are some biological differences between different populations, these differences are few and superficial. The traits that we do share are far more profound

Science and genetics: Instruments of modern racism

Despite the scientific consensus that humanity is more alike than unlike, the long history of racism is a somber reminder that throughout human history, a mere 0.1% of variation has been sufficient justification for committing all manner of discriminations and atrocities. The advances in human genetics and the evidence of negligible differences between races might be expected to halt racist arguments. But, in fact, genetics has been used to further racist and ethnocentric arguments—as in the case of the alt-right, which promotes far-right ideologies, including white nationalism and anti-Semitism.

Considered a fringe movement for years, the alt-right gained considerable attention and relevance during Trump’s presidential campaign. Indeed, Steve Bannon, the current senior counselor and chief strategist to President Trump and the former chief executive officer of Trump’s campaign, has notable ties to the alt-right. Once relegated to obscure internet forums, the alt-right’s newest pulpit is the White House.

Members of the alt-right are enthusiastic proponents of ancestry testing as a way to prove their “pure” white heritage (with Scandinavian and Germanic ancestry being among the most desirable) and to rule out undesired descent from any other groups (including, unsurprisingly, Africans and the Ashkenazi Jews, but even certain European groups, such as Italians and Armenians). The belief in white superiority, and the need to preserve it, drives the alt-right movement—and genetics is both the weapon and battle standard of this new, supposedly “scientific” racism.

Those who disagree with alt-right ideologies may assume that the alt-right is merely spewing ignorant nonsense. This is certainly true for some of the alt-right. What is perhaps a more difficult truth is that many of the alt-right do, in fact, understand biology and genetics to an impressive extent, even if this understanding is flawed.

For instance, alt-right proponents have stated, correctly, that many people with European and Asian descent have inherited 1-4% of their DNA from Neanderthals ancestors, and those of African descent do not have Neanderthal heritage. They are similarly correct that Neanderthals had larger skulls than humans. Based on these facts, some within the alt-right have claimed that Europeans and Asians have superior intelligence because they have inherited larger brains from their Neanderthal ancestors.

However, this claim ignores that while there is evidence for the effect of Neanderthal DNA on certain traits, there has been no evidence for its effect on intelligence. Furthermore, scientific research indicates that the Neanderthals were not necessarily more intelligent simply because they had larger skulls. Unsurprisingly, the alt-right tends cherry-pick the ideas that align with their preconceived notions of racial hierarchies, ignoring the broader context of the field of human genetics.

Fighting racism with understanding

Just as the alt-right is no longer an easily dismissed fringe group, their arguments have some factual basis, and cannot be swept aside as the babbling of the scientific illiterate. The alt-right is not clumsy in their use of science and genetics in their battle for their “ideals.” Those who oppose the alt-right, and other racist entities, must arm themselves with the same weapons: education, namely scientific and genetic literacy.

Mounting scientific evidence has shown that humans are fundamentally more similar than different from each other. Nonetheless, racism has persisted. Scientific findings are often ignored, or otherwise actively misinterpreted and misused to further racist agendas of extreme political groups. Opponents of these forces must, through their own education and awareness, combat these misleading interpretations and representations of scientific findings.

Today, the question of “race” is no longer merely a political and social issue: as science has rapidly advanced, it has become irrevocably intertwined. The genome contains powerful insights about our biology that could unite us as a species, but which could also be dangerous and divisive if used without understanding. As we look forward to 2017 and onwards, it becomes ever more important to understand what our DNA says about what it means to be human.

Vivian Chou is a Ph.D. candidate in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences program at Harvard Medical School.

For more information:

The Atlantic “Will the alt-right promote a new kind of racist genetics?” (December 2016)

Harvard Magazine “Race in a genetic world” (2008)

Livescience “Genetic ancestry tests mostly hype, scientists say” (2007)

Science “The science and business of genetic ancestry testing” (2007; original paper cited in the Livescience article above)

Nature Genetics “Implications of biogeography of human populations for ‘race’ and medicine” (November 2004)

140 thoughts on “How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century

  1. I totally agree with your premise about race. Scientist using the term ancestry instead of race; kudos to them, if only the general public would pick up on that. If the “out of Africa theory” which the evidence and research seems to support with a high level of confidence was communicated so the public better understood our ancestry and the road our species has traveled to get were we are today then maybe our view of race and the prejudices that ensue from the term “race” would be lessened considerably. Unfortunately to many of us have beliefs that are inconsistent with scientific theory and that only clouds our true understanding of ancestry and the journey our species took to populate the world.

    1. ” the “out of Africa theory” which the evidence and research seems to support with a high level of confidence was communicated so the public better understood our ancestry ” That silly OUT OF AFRICA theory is probably dead now, with new discoveries of more Ancient skulls from Asia

      1. No, it’ll take more than one discovery of a pre-human species to change the “silly” Out of Africa theory, for which all evidence points to.

      2. Exactly so what makes this true they said we all have a black gene now that dna is there and many European have tests that show not one bit not even 000.1 percent of the so called “eve gene” its all deception to take white peoples identity away /and act like all these countries,their accents,way of life didn’t take thousands of years to create as though everyone is the same its not unique an its only the people who feel worthless who want to mix or feel guilt that they shouldn’t who believe this bs

        1. The mere reference to “ black” gene highlights the hold the social construct of races of men has on so many. No such thing as “ black” genes. Just as there is no such things as “ middle class”, “ lower class” , and “ upper class” genes. ( note: members of societies with rigid class structures would probably disagree with me.
          The expression of alleles- such as brown eyes, brown skin, does not a separate race make.

        2. You’re exactly right. Remember: It’s ok to be white. Also: It’s ok to be in a white nation. Lastly: It’s ok to want to stay a white nation

        3. First of all, if you know how dna works… the dna Im one human body could stretch back from here to the sun back and forth many times over. Humans who left Africa bred with others outside of Africa such as the Neanderthals. So of course genetics from Africa would be hard to detect from over thousands of years of evolution but it doesn’t mean it’s not there it’s just not expressed as much as more recent admixtures. Also mixing is more genetically sound and proper biologically speaking, it can breed out defects and diseases and also improves genetic fitness with more mutations to draw from. Without mixing … if you’re not from Prehistoric Africa, you wouldn’t exist…. Europe Asia the Pacific the Americas wouldn’t exist as they do now or even at all

        4. The number of zeros before the decimal point don’t matter.
          Also no such thing as the “black” gene.
          Arm yourself with intelligence. No one cares that much about the “white identity” or taking it away. If at all, in this world, it’s the other eay around.

      3. Evidence points to the fact that our nomenclature needs another level. Is a blackbird and a redwing blackbird the same species? Hell no… Their DNA may be as close as homo sapien DNA but the slight difference is the game changer. Skin color is. An evolutionary trait, brought on by environmental stimuli… Goddammit, that’s a different species in my mind.

        1. The classical definition of a species is a group of organisms whose members are able to breed with one another and produce viable offspring, which clearly applies to all humans regardless of skin color. Additionally, I feel that you have latched on to one trait, skin color, to lend support to your point of view, but why that particular trait? Why not eye color? or height? or hair color? If you take two caucasian people, one blonde, green-eyed and 5’4″ and the other brunette, blue-eyed, and 6’2″, are they different species? Humans have many different traits that have evolved over time to create disparities and visible difference between various groups, but we are all different flavors of the same design, none better than another.

    2. No other races behaves in the same way as carcasuons mixed with Neanderthals. Most other races are not fearful and hateful of other people, almost seemingly on a genetic level.

      Most races are curious or interested in different people yet white people seem to be scared or threatened by what is different.

      The only explanation of this unique behavior in white people, is that they are mixed with a primitive type of hominid that makes them way more susceptible to hate and fear. Kind of like what predatory animals do with other predatory species for competitive reasons.

      White people didn’t create anyting, they got all their ideas from non-white ancient civilizations, they’re so prone to fighting and destroying other cultures, they built technology that helps attack or defend themselves from people that are trying to exploit.

      Early humans in Europe probably befriended and exploited other types of hominid and then killed off the Neanderthals only keeping the more cooperative Neanderthals, which they bred out of existence. The remaining neanderthals were probably slaves until bread out of assistance.

      Donald Trump takes advantage of this psychological/emotional/cognitive weakness, people mixed with the Neanderthal genes that, the genes that are hateful and destructive. Early humans were probably smart enough to befriend others at first and then play the victim card to justify destroying obstacles/other cultures/peoples.

      It’s the only race that has this hateful nature in them that allows them to destroy other cultures and people, play the victim as justification to destroy them.

      It’s all because early humans in Europe probably came across different types of humans that made them genetically hateful and fearful.

      It’s not other groups that are primitive, humans mixed with Neanderthals teach them self superior out of their own insecurities. They take what other people have and build upon it, much like their ancestors probably did to other types of humans, this behavior has never left them.

      They keep other societies primitive on purpose, it’s probably part modern human and Neanderthal ancestors survived against other humans 40000 years ago.

      Donald Trump knows how to whip up those primitive attributes of early man and neanderthal in white people. Human intelligence has more to do with environment, resources and access to good education.

      1. It’s probably not differences in intelligence between races but rather genetic differences that give rise to the capacity for social integration and cohesion that sets apart Neanderthal/ Late Homo Erectus descendants in Europe and Asia from their sub-Saharan counterparts and thus explains the large disparities between the social, economic, and political development of Civilized Europe and Asia compared to the tribal societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the sub-Saharan Diaspora.

      2. This post is…. crazy.

        Western Europeans are unique amongst other societies in their level of interest in outside cultures. They are the only group of humans that have taken the culture artifacts of other human societies, studied them, and put them in museums (given them value!). Most of other human societies destroy the artifacts of their rivals. Your arguments about hate and fear in white European societies is completely baseless. Fear of outsiders is a fundamental human trait, and Europeans have done more to override this in their development of modern, open, and inclusive society than other group of humans in the history of the planet.

        1. Are you looking at the entire span of human history? Europe has had its dark ages. Civilizations rise and fall. It is so sad to hear anti European and anti African comments. You have missed the point of the article. I am sad.

      3. Wow! You’ve just done the same thing as the alt-right – pointing out that a people with a certain skin color are genetically inferior. Hopefully your post was sarcasm.

        You also apparently are extremely ignorant if you think racism is confined to white people. Go live with the million Uyghurs held in encampments by the Han Chinese. Go talk to the Rohinga. Go learn about the other slave trade along the Mediterranean. Etc. Humans are racists and use power to entrench it when they can, not just one particular color of them.

        1. Saying: “But that’s racism” only works on people like us. Anti-whites don’t have negative consequences for their “hate speech” nor are they taught that they can’t organize on their group’s behalf. A virulent anti-white just gave a commencement speech at Harvard (Tim Wise).

          They will never return your post-racial attitudes.

      4. You’re a lunatic. Let’s look at how the Mongolians burnt other civilizations to a crisp, the Aztecs sacrificed neighboring tribes, the African Bantus wiped the Pygmies to extinction, and Almoravids try to eradicate the Southern Europeans. Just because the Europeans and Asians did it the best doesn’t mean we’re the only ones that conquered.

      5. Chuck, you’re broad brush approach “white people” doesn’t seem logical. I dont know whether there are behavioural & cognitive differences based on possible closer lineage to other humanoids (i’m not even sure that sentence makes sense, I’m certainly open to ideas , research etc)… The ‘white people’ you are referring to ; lets say between 1680’s to 1920’s were some of those in power at the time (a fraction of a percent). Case in point, during the slavery episode; the vast majorty of ‘white people’ in the UK, for example, were not even aware it was happening (not internet, TV radio etc)…. most barely had t two farthings to rub together. A particular abolitionist, travelled the country and described what was happening in towns & villages. I cant remember the name , but there is an interesting documented example of a group of townsfolk in the north of the country were so appalled by what they had learned, they couldnt bloody believe it ; downed tools (that meant no pay for people who are already poor) and walked all the way to London (many, many miles away) no doubt getting support along the way; to protest. I’m just trying to point out that you can’t homogenize hundreds of millions of people based on a particular hue. Our species has been violent and continues to be violent… i thnk the question should be , what can we do as a species to acknowledge our properderence to violence and ensure effective controls are in place to minimise it. Enhancing our cultures, exchanging the best bits, supporting each other etc its a huge subject area (but must be solved if we wish to avoid extinction .

      6. tbf if you’re gonna go down that rode… sapiens were much more agressive than neanderthals, and white people are a mixed of that (contrary to us, that only got sapiens). So, you know…

        If you gonna act like a racist fool, don’t… be better than this shit mate, it ain’t worth it.

    3. The article by Vivian Chau was a lesson on political bias masquerading as science. First of all White Nationalists shouldn’t be considered the Alt-Right. Why? They’re pro authoritarian and socialists hence Alt-Leftwing. The jabs at President Trump and the White House totally reduces your attempt at an interesting article to no more than propaganda and trash. Vivian is the epitome of what’s wrong with our “institutions of higher learning”.

      1. I agree totally. This was a political article,not a scientific one. And can I just point out a truth? Our president and the people who support his efforts to protect our country are NOT racists. That includes me. I judge people on their belief systems and what they DO…not on their color, or their race. That means nothing. But those who hate us and want to harm us are not welcome here…those laws have been on the books for decades,they are not the invention of Trump. The liberal media twists every truth into a lie they can use to get Power. It makes me sick. I refuse to accept the politically motivated labels they put on me. I know the truth.

        1. Trump Administration Accomplishments

          Almost 4 million jobs created since election.
          More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in our history.
          We have created more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since my election.
          Manufacturing jobs growing at the fastest rate in more than THREE DECADES.
          Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.
          New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.
          Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
          African-American unemployment has recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
          Hispanic-American unemployment is at the lowest rate ever recorded.
          Asian-American unemployment recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
          Women’s unemployment recently reached the lowest rate in 65 years.
          Youth unemployment has recently hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century.
          Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma.
          Under my Administration, veterans’ unemployment recently reached its lowest rate in nearly 20 years.
          Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.
          The Pledge to America’s Workers has resulted in employers committing to train more than 4 million Americans. We are committed to VOCATIONAL education.
          95 percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future—the highest ever.
          Retail sales surged last month, up another 6 percent over last year.
          Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. After tax cuts, over $300 billion poured back in to the U.S. in the first quarter alone.
          As a result of our tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.
          Helped win U.S. bid for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.
          Helped win U.S.-Mexico-Canada’s united bid for 2026 World Cup.
          Opened ANWR and approved Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines.
          Record number of regulations eliminated.
          Enacted regulatory relief for community banks and credit unions.
          Obamacare individual mandate penalty GONE.
          My Administration is providing more affordable healthcare options for Americans through association health plans and short-term duration plans.
          Last month, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history. And thanks to our efforts, many drug companies are freezing or reversing planned price increases.
          We reformed the Medicare program to stop hospitals from overcharging low-income seniors on their drugs—saving seniors hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone.
          Signed Right-To-Try legislation.
          Secured $6 billion in NEW funding to fight the opioid epidemic.
          We have reduced high-dose opioid prescriptions by 16 percent during my first year in office.
          Signed VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act, expanded VA telehealth services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care.
          Increased our coal exports by 60 percent; U.S. oil production recently reached all-time high.
          United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.
          Withdrew the United States from the job-killing Paris Climate Accord.
          Cancelled the illegal, anti-coal, so-called Clean Power Plan.
          Secured record $700 billion in military funding; $716 billion next year.
          NATO allies are spending $69 billion more on defense since 2016.
          Process has begun to make the Space Force the 6th branch of the Armed Forces.
          Confirmed more circuit court judges than any other new administration.
          Confirmed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
          Withdrew from the horrible, one-sided Iran Deal.
          Moved U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
          Protecting Americans from terrorists with the Travel Ban, upheld by Supreme Court.
          Issued Executive Order to keep open Guantanamo Bay.

          1. I won’t waste my time debunking every single piece of “achievements” by #45 – like Gorscuch and “rape kid” Kavanaugh promotion to the supreme court.
            Just one.
            Jobs.
            4 million jobs created.
            What merit is it?
            That number just keeps with the growth of the US population (from 323M to 327M people)
            And better not to talk about the rapidly government deficit and debt on the context of an expanding economy (deficit that was shrinking BEFORE #45 took office)
            https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=country:US&hl=en&dl=en

      2. Ride On , How faux moral supremacist do not see their own racism! Please read, “Liberal Fascism”! Remember it was the founder of Planned (genicide) Parenthood Margert Sanger that addressed a massive KKK gathering after preaching Hitlers’ favorite theory “Eugenics “!

      3. Nationalsocialism (nazi party) is as alt-leftwing as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic.
        How come Nazi Germany did not abolish private property and private corporations if they were socialists? (which was what the Soviet Union did)
        By the same logic, DPKR is a democratic country and not the USA

    4. As a Graduate chemist at Emory studying genetics, I assure this article has narrative, and is lying to you. Racial differences are largely caused by genetics- not environment. Considerable differences in traits exist between races and ethnicities within those races.

      1. Some have blue eyes, some exclusively brown; some are shorter, some are taller; some are more intelligent, some are less- these are all in relative comparison to the averages. People don’t get blue eyes from their environment- it’s 100% genetic and we can map the genetic markers that cause blue eyes amongst Europeans. Height is heavily influenced by genetics. The dutch are the tallest groups of people, and we can map the genetic markers that cause this. However, if we’ve starved 100 dutchmen from birth, when they turn 18 they might be shorter than Koreans. However, if we give proper nutrition to a 100 random dutch and 100 random Koreans from birth, the dutch will be much taller on average. Now environment has no effect on intelligence. The average Ashkenazi Jewish Baby is smarter than the average Polish Baby. This is true in their adulthood as well. These were all true in 1942 as well. However, if you prevent the Jew from getting an education in plumbing and allow the Pole to (as happened during Nazis rule of western Poland), the Jew wouldn’t know how to be plumber, though he could learn, and therefore be unable to use skills in a society and earn money as he might like.

        1. The environment has no effect on intelligence???
          I’m sorry but, I have to disagree with you. Just as you stated that if you starve 100 Dutchmen…they might be shorter than Koreans, the same could be said about intelligence. Genetics do have a role in intelligence, but the environment a child grows up in is a major factor, too. No matter how intelligent a child is, if that child is raised in a neglectful environment that does not provide a way to enrich a child’s ability, then they will not thrive.

    5. The “Out of Africa” theory pretty mych says that whites and asians are a more evolved version of blacks. I don’t see how it would “lessen racism”.

  2. I think your article is intentionally misrepresenting information in an attempt to present a version of this argument that suits your ideological predispositions. You have skirted over well measured and extensively conducted experiments showing average differences among races or “ancestral clusterings”. You link to an Atlantic article (which further attempts to obscure these findings) claiming it as evidence that science has not found differences in intelligence when the Atlantic article itself concedes that there are in fact measurable differences in IQ between populations of people. It is a sad day when our finest academic institutions are intentionally misrepresenting information to suit their ideological purposes. These findings are incendiary and can create issues including racist behavior; however, the idea that somehow you will be able to brush the findings under the rug will do nothing other than discredit you and your institutions opinion and reduce your ability to add important moral interpretations to the findings to avoid discriminatory behavior.

    1. Arthur Jenson,

      That’s a really impressive lecture. Where were you when I was completing my history degrees? Perhaps you should be a lecturer, except five very important things:

      1) You do not support any of your claims with academic research of your own. Your argument is you mounting a mighty fine, high horse with clearly nothing in the stable.
      2) Great academics go where the research takes them, avoiding any moral implications whatsoever. The fact that you are so morally obligated without offering any scientific research, contributing to a critically-constructive dialogue, indicates you are a self-righteous moron. I care not if you are degreed.
      3) Institutions is possessive and should have an apostrophe: institution’s opinion.
      4) Well measured should have a hyphen, as it is an adjective to experiments: well-measured.
      5) In the first sentence, you accuse the author of presenting a version of the argument that “suits your ideological predispositions.” Then in your very long, last sentence, you state: “…reduce your ability to add important moral interpretations to the findings….”
      A) What a skewed way to approach “findings”–one that is not academic.
      B) You don’t want him to make an argument that suits his ideological predispositions, but you do want him to possess the ability to add important moral interpretations to the findings? Hmmm (scratching my head)…I love circular logic.
      6) You’ve stolen the name of a renowned IQ and race psychologist, who died in 2012. Either you are his son, or a wanna-be thief.

      The only thing you’ve contributed here is:
      1) People like myself can deduce that you are an older, white male.
      2) You’re clearly familiar with another white male’s work from the 60’s that supported IQ and race.
      3) You’re a threatened older, white male. Thank goodness your 1960’s view of IQ and race is a dying one.

      Sincerely Yours,

      A Young and Genetically-Diverse, White-Looking Female (under the guise of Economist Thomas Sowell–Arthur’s critic)

      1. Race is not a real thing yet you bring up what you perceive to be the person’s ‘race’ based on thoughts expressed via his comment, ie he thinks this way so his skin must be this colour.
        Either you agree with the findings, thus would not atribute a behaviour of an individual to the colour of their skin( which you have done) or you do think that a person’s thoughts and actions ARE contolled by their ‘race’( which you expressed), thus disagree with the findings that what we call race is nothing more then the same as the difference in hair or eye colour.

      2. Uhhhh, I like your findings. Well it’s more like I appreciate them for what they are. While I don’t so much disagree with your research (I mean the scientific method is the scientific method) I do have some gripes with the questionable jumps in logic. I mean for one thing you just made the jump that white nationalism and ethno purism are synonymous with the alt right. I mean that’s a bit absurd in itself. While this is not a correction necessarily I just don’t think it’s healthy to use such identity politics with someone you disagree with. It just kinda perpetuates the very same issues people are having today. Especially since your paper’s aim was to breakdown these barriers by showing the difference between us was non-existent to marginal at best. Still fantastic work though.

      3. Your article would be more interesting and useful without the political bias and editorializing.

        1. David Minger, Ph.D.

          i’m sorry but i’m going to pick on you because i couldn’t segue this into my previous comment.

          if i worked at Ancestry.com i would def be saying that the client has at least 10 – 20% Black ancestry if the test came from certain southern states.

          (now is the part where your comment comes into play)

          i have a VBD which as you may or may not know trumps a Ph.D. and speaking of trump, my grandfather had a saying that had he not died 40 years earlier he would have certainly used about trump…THAT MAN IS SO FULL OF B.S. THAT IF YOU GAVE HIM AN EMEMA YOU COULD BURY HIM IN A MATCHBOX. (pause for applause) thank you very much, i’ll be here all week.

          1. vbd? never heard of one. Is that a certification, degree? or made up acronym?
            Google also doesn’t seem to know what this is as n indicator of knowledge.

        2. Totally agreed: her basis of 0.1% genetic differentiation could also be applied to the 1.2% differentiation between humans and chimpanzees.
          Maybe that could be considered a more appropriate comparison given this history of human behavior, outside of historical “high culture”, and the behavioral patterns of the majority of earth’s humans. It’s unfortunate that true science can not be divorced from politics. Politics serve the ape’s true nature, and not the science of higher being, in which the tamed beast strives.

      4. Thomas Sowell,
        You kinda had me at the beginning of your comment. Then you sorta lost me. Then you really got me PO’d at the end. And this is why:
        in your point 2) you say “I care not if you are degreed.” i think you actually do care for some reason or other because by that point in your comment you are mentioning degrees every other sentence.

        then your next several points are about his misuse of punctuation and grammar. reminds me of a high school creative writing teacher that cares more about those things than the creative part. easier to grade that way. btw, as a recovering grammar nazi i feel compelled to comment on “4) Well measured should have a hyphen, as it is an adjective to experiments: well-measured.” i think it needs it cuz it’s a compound adj.

        also, you left out the possibility he is my high school shop teacher when you wrote “6) You’ve stolen the name of a renowned IQ and race psychologist, who died in 2012. Either you are his son, or a wanna-be thief.” you are most likely correct but it is a pretty common name.

        but it was “1) People like myself can deduce that you are an older, white male.” thinking that ALL members of certain groups think (or look or act) the same due to being a member of said group is the very definition of racism (and ageism to boot).
        and
        “3) You’re a threatened older, white male. Thank goodness your 1960’s view of IQ and race is a dying one.” hey! I’M a threatened older, white male. well, not that threatened and not sure how white i am (orphan) but most people would say that the 1960’s were the beginnings of liberal thinking about race. (forget about IQ. the test is only as good as its questions).

        whew! all that being said, i think we are on the same side on this issue at least and i hope you take my comments in the spirit they were given.

      5. “People like myself…” should be “People like ME”. Since you preach about poor grammar to bolster your premise and to agrandize your superior education, you should accept the idea that your inflated ego and lack of introspection is probably not due to a genetic flaw, but one due to a habit of being a pretentious windbag…hypenated as wind-bag.

      6. If race is a “social construct” then the adaptive processes of evolution with isolated human populations over long periods of time In differing geological locations must also be a “social construct.” It is objective biological processes which create genetic variation—regardless of superfluous variation, not social construct.

      7. Do you know your white to, why are you complaining against white makes if your the same ethnicity as them. I’m a Somalian male and when I immigrated to the U. S I was hardly discriminated. And If I was discriminated it wasn’t just male it was female. So stop acting like white females don’t discriminate, they do. When a child is born they did not choose to be white, black, Hispanic or arab. God(Allah)chose it for them and they should be grateful that their ethnicity (race dosent exist) was chosen by god. When your in judgement day god doesn’t look at your ethnicity, your hair what job you had, he’s just gonna think what good things you did. Just because some of your ethnicity did something it dosent the whole ethnicity is punished. We Somalians were already enslaving each other before the white peoples came to west Africa. East and west Africans and Arabs where working together to enslave whites (Mostly Balkan and French, Spanish) and other blacks and Arabs. It was called the Barbary slave trade when Arabs and East Africans worked together to enslave whites and capture them

    2. Spot on. This article is completely unconvincing. So what if most of our genome is the same and only a small percentage differs. That in no way negates what are readily obvious biological differences. If differences in intelligence are due to natural selection due to relatively more harsh environments, then no one should expect a big difference – only those genes affecting things like skin color (due to intense sun) and intelligence and impulse control/delayed gratification (to overproduce and store food to survive long, harsh winters). I find highly dubious the claim that there is no connection between the processes of natural selection that produce different skin color and intelligence. This is propaganda, not science.

      1. your comment reminds me of a movie quote, “theres only X% difference between you and a jelly fish, but that X% is what gives us michellangelo, mozart etc…”
        that small percentage it seems is more or less important depending on which political ideals a person belongs to.
        As someone who i s non-political, i find it intriguing to find nearly everyone has some form of bias. even if unbeknownst to themselves.

        our brains work by making connections to things, and making things easier to remember. it is INHERENT in mankind to have some “prejudices that will infact be proven wrong”, as part of our brains evolution and the way we have and will continue to survive. it’s is a pre-requisite to success to make shortcuts, even if they are sometimes wrong.
        all we can do is chip away at them slowly until, as a collective, we agree to some things as truths.
        with a world that shrinks in size, figuratively, with every new technology we create, eventually even the “skin colour” will dilute to the point where all mankind will have a tan coloured skin (unless a drastic technology – say a UV block from the sun over entire planet, changes our skin to all white, [think or morlocs from the novel A Time Machine]).
        – we are all different and all the same, nobody is equal but we should all have equal rights as human beings.

      2. 100% in agreement…but facts need to be ignored by the “enlightened” ones so we, the uneducated, can follow the PC dogma.

      3. Indeed, this article is rubbish.
        It’s funny how far the author attempts to undermine how race evolved, relative to region.
        I sometimes wonder if the trait of overdeveloped skin melamine was of natural consequence, due to some haplotypes inability to conceive external inventive protection from equatorial sunshine, beyond a crude mud wallow: afterwards such consideration, I decide to abandon the question- Such questions are considered “immoral”, and I have no paperwork that allows me to claim credence in asking such a question…
        Just look at the occurring practical cultural evidence of our globe, in the present: humanity is on a death march. This is so because our science has allowed inferior breeding strategies to flourish in the “developing” world. This is because our science has been sterwarded by greed and industry- not truth and honest philanthropy.
        What type of human being defends cultures which fail to recognize the simple reality of land carrying-capacity? A flawed being, that is who. Humanity’s only hope is for the survival of true intelligence to be transferred into a non-biological being, which could survive our own extinction event.

      4. ” I find highly dubious the claim that there is no connection between the processes of natural selection that produce different skin color and intelligence. This is propaganda, not science.”
        And you offered zero evidence.
        If you think your superior “white intelligence” will prevail every single time, try surviving in the African savanna armed in the same way and with the same equipment that african people inhabiting those places use
        I pity the lions!

    3. Thank you Arthur, I feel exactly the same way. The UN has conducted world wide iq testing 3 times in the past 50 years showing without deviation a gap of 30 points between Caucasians and subsaharan blacks, 35 points for north Asians and black Africans. These are hardly minor finding and the genetics represent the entire difference . This author is a flake with an agenda.

      1. To get conclusive results for a test such as this they should have done one IQ test every year, NOT 3 in a span of 50. How do you even see this as anything major with such little data? Also, were the individuals who were given this test raised with access to identical schooling, material, mentorship? Did these Individuals have similar life styles and hobbies? Did they all have to work in some way or another, besides school, in their free time? How many were testing in each region? what age were they? For small scale surveys a group should be at lest 372 people I believe, so considering this was world wild there should probably be a 100+ from each regions sampled from to come up with valid data that could be built on later on.

        From what I am getting out of what little you gave on these 3 tests is that you needed something to validate your opinion, leaving out other crucial information so others wouldn’t disagree. I could be completely wrong about you purposely delegating what will be seen and what will not. However, even I, a young college student still in the early stages of her schooling, can see your statement is lacking. It makes me wary to even consider anything you have to say or relay to be anything but fake.

      2. Another ignorant conflating environment with genetics and completely ignorant of statistical analysis
        Even comparing “whites” and “blacks” in the US would be misleading given the different lives both groups lived (free vs. slaves, segregated schools)
        Still, despite all their “shortcomings”, blacks managed to climb onto WWII figthers (Tuskegee airmen) and wiped the asses of the “superior aryan race” even when “whites” had decreed that “blacks” could not learn how to fly
        I saw a group of those veterans at a Walmart supermarket some years ago, and felt sorry for their fallen comrades fighting to defend miserable white supremacists

        https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-people-keep-misunderstanding-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/

    4. pretty biased.
      “However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another. In a clinical setting, for instance, scientists would say that diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are common in those of “sub-Saharan African” or “Northern European” descent, respectively, rather than in those who are “black” or “white”.”

      this is not proof that “race is a social construct”. you’re really saying that science has proved race has a basis in genetics and is much more than a social construct but scientists have switched to more PC language like ‘ancestry’, ‘african’ and ‘european’.

      also most old theories on race didn’t divide the population into 5 categories, they were more nuanced and recognized differences between people of different regions within each continent.

    5. I agree . Intelligent truth that unmasks the propaganda presented in this article! It is unfortunate the the author is probably unaware of their deeply rooted racism and political adversity to conservative realism.

  3. “However, even if scientists agree that race is, at most, a social construct ”
    define what social construct, its a vague term

    “we as a species have been estimated to share 99.9% of our DNA with each other. ”
    false, this comes from old study, its actually 99.5%

    “In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct”
    actual study showing scientists opinion on that?
    my sources say its not true

      1. ‘consensus’ is meaningless in a culture where people who believe in race are scared to express their opinion.

        the fact that people adapted to different environments causing genetic variation means race is real and not a social construct. it’s a strawman argument. no racist ever claimed there was no variation within races or that there was no nuance to it. this is why racists would call italians black because they recognized that the differences are based on geography not political borders.

        “race isn’t real because race is nuanced and everything that is real about race we’re just renaming ancestry”

  4. Here’s a fun fact: Chimpanzees share 99% of human DNA!
    So according this article’s logic: “The few differences that do exist [between chimpanzees and humans] reflect differences in environments and external factors, not core biology.”

    Wrong.

    1. 1.2%… As we both expose our chimpy teeth in a fine example of ape facial expression. It feels good to smile, especially while reading bad articles.
      Let’s hope for that non-biological intelligence “singularity”: the sooner, the better.

  5. This is good. Things i assumed since a child, with no real understanding of genetics mind you. Yes i always wondered if skin colour was actual genes or not, but having known many ppl of differing ‘race’ that shared simular culture, i instictivly knew that it was not colour that made a person, any more the hair colour. In fact it is stated by this piece that it is the same difference, ie none on a purely genetic level.
    But my only complaint isbthe highly political leaning of this article. The mention of Trump so often in amazing. The mention of the Alt-Right is understandable, though scientificly irrelivent, as there is disccusion of their beliefs in regard to race, but the shoe-horning in of the name ‘Trump’ makes it look like a propagana piece made purely to make ppl think Trump = Racist. Whether true or not that this is his personal belief, political bias and science should not mix. PS i am not a supporter ot Trump but AM a supporter of logic and reason.
    And on the subjuct of the Alt-Right and their views on race and what makes a person a certain race, all true from what i have heard them say, but it is amazing that no mention of the Alt-Left was made, as they hold many of the same views, ie that your skin colour is the only thing that determines your identity. That their views on what of genetics makes a human the type of person they are is based on erronous ideas. To the Alt-Left, race is not a social construct, and like the Alt-Right, the Alt-Left insists that skin colour determins the behaviour, thoughts and actions of a person, while claiming, i must add, that things that ARE based in scientific evidence of genetics, ie the XX and XY are a social construct, and that they have no basis in genes or science.( This is NOT a commentary on Transpeople, one’s choice, or should i say the lack there of because for them it is a need, to be the gender opposite of that they are born is one i respect and defend).
    Again, politics and the views of those reporting nor the scientists should not be mixed into science, but since the article it’s self brought up the political views of one side, fairness and balance demands that the views of the other side be presented.

    1. NB. When saying “…the subjuct of the Alt-Right and their views on race and what makes a person a certain race, all true from what i have heard them say.” I mean that the fact that it is true that this is their views, not that I agree that their views are true.

  6. This is an absurd article. Half of all alleles are not shared across humanity. That’s an incredibly large amount. Moreover any astute observer will notice that no additional species is used as a comparison device. How many alleles are shared between, say a Polar Bear and a Grizzly Bear (two separate species of bears that can interbreed)? Why, I have a paper on HAND!
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23125409
    Quote from the abstract:
    “the proportion of private alleles (52% of alleles are not shared by the species), and Bayesian cluster analysis are consistent with morphological and life-history characteristics that distinguish polar bears and brown bears as different species with little or no gene flow among extant populations.”

    From the above article by the super-genius Vivian Chou:
    “and *almost half of the alleles* studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies (Figure 1B).”

    Let’s say, “almost half” is 52%. So, the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE used on a different species is PROOF THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT SPECIES. But, with humans, it’s PROOF OF THE OPPOSITE.

    Academia is now eating itself. I’m ashamed that I once attended a “vaunted” institution like Harvard. Your shameful cowardice will ruin the world.

  7. As an adept scholar, I see this article for what it is worth; NILL.

    You may argue your viewpoint as if it’s true- I can deal with that- but once you mix in any political suggestion, I call you a fraud academic. Stick to the facts. They can hold their own weight.

    By the way- I completely disagree with your arguments in this article and am in agreement with your political view on Trump.

    1. This article is labeled as an opinion article. She uses facts to support her opinion, but is not claiming that statements such as “Those who oppose the alt-right, and other racist entities, must arm themselves with the same weapons: education, namely scientific and genetic literacy.” are statements of fact. There is definitely interpretation and opinion here that no one is denying.

    2. Touché! Amen
      Dr. Mondo I agree with your assessment. However I choose Trump over the left leaning who would and are bankrupting our society! It is unfortunate that we find it extremely difficult and maybe impossible to put forth a true moderate human to solve the problems. I expect the ultra extremism as presented in this article is the basic reason for this.

  8. I cant fully view 1st link because i need to pay for membership, i need survey of scientist that show consesus that humans dont have races, i havent found such survey yet in fact chinese are the only ones who have consesus that race exist. Look up paper by googling:

    ” On the Concept of Race in Chinese Biological Anthropology: Alive and well”

    Also by definition entire taxonomy is a social construct.

    1. As this is just an opinion piece, probably of someone with more of a ‘social’ science bent then actual science, i think that you have to take what they say with a bit more then a grain of salt.
      The way i see it is, yes there is this thing we recognise as race, in that there is high physical characteristics shared by groups of ppl due to many thousands of years of close group breeding, but the actual differences amount, in ppl of differing races, to about the same as hair or eye colour. Basically, seeing a black or asian or white as being different, seperate or not the same is like saying a blonde, brunette or redhead are totally different. Which makes sense really since that was one of the ideas of the Third Riech.
      But at the end of the day, the only real differences between the races, a part from the few physicalogical medical things, is the culture you are brought up in. Being of asian decent does not make you practice asian traditions if you are not raised in a traditional asian culture, being born and raised in a one country by parents from a a diffrent country means you are of the country you are raised in not of a country you have never seen( or more impprtantly, never grew up in). The colour of your skin, or the country of your ancestory, does not, can not, have any bering on you as a person. Nor, ultimately, is any culture you were not raised in your birth right. Your ‘soul’ does not ‘call out’ to your roots, for your roots are where you grew up, not something based on skin colour ir race. Your race does not make you more similar to another of the same race on the basis of race. Nor does your race make you different from another of a different race.
      Well, that’s how i see it

  9. You are wrong. We are not more similar than different.We are completely similar. We are essentially genetically alike and there are no separate races. Skin color means nothing.Its just more visible than other minimal differences

    1. Stanley, if you have eyes, and you use genetic data, you will see group differences, at the morphological-biological and genetic levels.

  10. This whole line of thought that distinct human populations are a myth is nothing more than the false musings of a leftist perspective originating from a conscious calculation to push a social justice narrative. DNA analysis says we are all monkeys (96-98.5% similarity), yet, obviously, we are not.

    Different Human populations have evolved in geographical isolation for the last 12K yrs. NO modern day population existed before then, and that includes modern day sub-Saharan Africans. The isolated splits happened, and are documented. L3 migrated to the supra-Saharan region, constituting the first split. The Sahara desert was formidable barrier. The L3 group went on to populate Asia, Europe, Oceana, and the Americas. In the absence of high speed rail and airplanes at the time, there was little opportunity for massive mixing, and as such the groups evolved in geographical isolation. Modern day Sub-Saharan Africans arose about 12k urs ago. Modern day NE Asians and Europeans as identifiable groups are dated to between 8-10k yrs ago. American Indians crossed to America about 13K ago. The Aboriges date back to around the time when the oceans rose from the last ice age, stranding them on Australia and Mew Guinea and various islands.

    From this point, ALL peoples evolved in their respective environments, Each population is a product of those environments and developed skills most useful to survival in those environments. These differences are present both culturally and genetically. When one excludes the genes present in all primates (98.6% of the human genome) you find the percent differences between the populations is much greater …. throw in differences in gene expression and switches and the genetic differences between the different populations is significant …… as it should be according to the principles of volition. Due to greater opportunity of trade in the Supra-Saharan populations of Asia, Mid East and Europe with regards to ideas and technology, these populations advanced to a greater extent than the other more isolated populations such as the peeps of Oceana, America’s, and Sub-Saharan African. But this is not to say the potential did not and does not exist in those populations, they were just late the party.

    We are very different populations …. none superior to the other, but very different. And no amount of leftist, social justice, wishful thinking, and creative statistics will change that. Frankly, I cherish my individualism and don’t want to be watered down into some stupid collectivist vision of a utopian oneness. I’m unique, and so are you!

    1. That’s all much longer ago, than 13 minus thousand years ago,… more on the lines of 40 thousand years ago, much plus and some minus. Come on now,… that’s well documented. Look it up.

  11. Had to laugh at the implication in the first paragraph that the election of Donald Trump is in and of itself that somehow is an indication that race issues are getting worse. That was as far as I got so can’t speak to the rest of the piece.

  12. Actually, races are quite different, and regretebly, unequal in many areas. To say we have 90-something percent the same of anything is simply a bad argument, we’re 98% water but nobody says we’re water. We’re 97% genetically the same as chimps, yet nobody says we’re chimps. Races differ in iQ, average physical strength, even life expectancy. iQ has proven an effective predictor of financial success in America, which is the basis of MODERN racial tensions (lack of consistent oppurtunity among all races.) The problem isnt people’s iQ though, it’s the college system. But that’s another discussion.
    My sources are highlighted in this article http://aristocratsofthesoul.com/average-iq-by-race-and-ethnicity/

  13. Races is general term. Races are historically regionally distinctive historically indigenous lineages which are simultaneously and nearly exclusively within distinctively recognizable morphological parameters per ‘group’, i.e. per distinctive more and less ‘broad’ lineage group.

  14. I don’t like the argumentation in this article.
    Firstly, we have the use of the term “social construct”. Generally this is used as an undefined and pejorative code word in an ideological context within the social sciences intended to indicate something is undesirable. So it’s a vague, loaded and often mis-used term we should just keep out of science. Where I live we don’t use the word “race”, but we still have the ability to convey meaningful descriptions for groups of people based on their ethnicity. Maybe we aren’t as afraid of difference as this author is.
    Secondly, the illustration with the 6 genes is absurdly simplistic and seems to be telling us, through its small sample, that genetic drift doesn’t occur. Genetic drift is a real thing, you can’t just wave your hands to make it go away.
    And this leads into the third problem – desperate to insist on “similarity”, the author writes off the visible differences as “superficial”, and then constructs a devious bit of argumentation: “the evolution of skin color occurred independently, and did not influence other traits ” and leave it at that – as if it has thus been proven that the only differences are the “superficial” visible differences.
    Why not put this “similarity” you are asserting into context? I note above somebody has done that with Polar Bears. How about Tigers and Lions? How “similar” are they, despite looking so different, using the same metric you’ve used for saying how “similar” your three humans are?

    I’m also very interested in “there has been no evidence for its[Neanderthal DNA] effect on intelligence”.
    Let the reader ask herself: how do you think *your* research school would react to a grant application that proposed to search for such evidence?

    1. Whereas I am not well versed in the inner mechanism’s of obtaining grant applications I have been exposed to some of the efforts to obtain same. My son is finishing up his phd work and we both got a kick out of your last sentence. That, in todays environment, would be quite the challenge.

  15. This is complete post-truth world babble.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687076/ <— Real science

    Some of these leftist "researchers" have already come out and said that science itself is a white racist colonial social construct — so science has gone from being under attack by nonsense conclusions to LITERALLY being under attack. And yet it's the pragmatic that have been labeled and slandered as anti-science, straight out of Lenin's playbook.

  16. We modern humans come from different tribes that commingled. The one thing you all should’ve learned in school is to search and verify. From my research I’ve found that the tribes of so called “ “Europe” became civilized in building,reading,writing, chemistry,astronomy an so on thousands of years later than other tribes. That doesn’t make one tribe better than the next but it does stop the ( TRUE LIES) of race that was constructed by a people who were late to what we call civilizations. Why is most of the so called scientists from France /Germany and Russia what about the rest of so called EUROPE ? We must face reality we bleed the same blood and if you need a transfusion or a transplant the last thing you’re going to ask “is that from my race”- Be Blessed (WE R ONE) wish you all HEALTH AND WEALTH ☝🏾

    1. It’s actually quite difficult (almost impossible) for mixed-race people to get certain types of transplants due to their genetic uniqueness.

      1. It’s not about race
        Some of your own family can’t give you an organ donation. Plus a mixed race doesn’t exist

  17. Human group categories should acknowledge Man’s unique differences while underscoring our connection as one species. This is best accomplished with utilizing The Human Family Tree analogy, as provided by the Human Migration Science research from the past three decades. Would it not be a step in the right direction to keep the same group names to which we are accustomed, but rather than calling them “Race” categories, refer to them as “Ethnic Branch” categories (or something along that line)? In this way, we can envision our individual branches as part of the same Human Family Tree which has its’ deepest roots in Africa. Conceptually, this is a reasonable way to recognize our separate heritage and common bond without compromise.

  18. This article started as utter idiocy. It doesn’t take much intelligence to figure out that the oldest race in the world is the negro race. Any well-read person knows that. While all of you would love to stir up racial issues, the fact remains, we are all related. Those of us who embraced God at an early age know that already. Those of you who embrace atheism don’t understand the idea of all of us coming from the first homo sapiens. And, guess what? They were negroes. So what? This idea of any race being superior or inferior is ridiculous! The atheist professors, the socialist ideology want to divide us with non-issues or what should be non-issues. Accept the fact that we are all one big family and move on to something else. Many of us are sick and tired of the old BS rhetoric.

    1. There is no way scientific or otherwise that you can catigorize the “first humans” as any specific color. Therefore I must conclude that your racist tendency forces you to attribute blackness to the true first family!

  19. “Muh racism!”

    It might be a fraction of a percent genetic difference, but there are real and measurable differences between races.

    Specific diseases in abnormally large numbers, physical and mental abilities, appearance differences. These are not imaginary, and it doesn’t matter how many alleles are in common or not… it’s what that means as an objective (and sometimes subjective) measure that is important.

    Humans are all tribalists. There’s a reason that China Towns pop up all over the world. We also like people who look similar to us. That’s why most of our friends look like us. (You rarely see a hug-a-rainbow mixture of colours and creeds with social groups.)

    You can wish away race and racism all you like, but if we really had so much in common, we wouldn’t have such a huge difference in culture between different races, often even within the same country.

    1. The fundamental aspects of human culture are all the same just expressed differently and that isn’t genetic but cultural…. isolation caused some genetic variance but human cultures are very very similar regardless of politics. Dance Music Art Cuisine all exist among cultures because we are individuals with differences but essentially humans are a monolith in the grander scale of things

  20. I wanted information about the genetics of races not a political diatribe about people who don’t back the left-wing terrorist movement.

  21. I find anyone, group, organization etc using the term “race” rather than ETHNICITY looses alot of credibility.

  22. I was googling scientific data, “surprisingly ” this was the top of the list on genetics and race. Reading a few paragraphs, I see why… The left wing brain wash is clear. For the love of every scientific thing you believe in, why the heck start out with a politicized thesis/starting paragraph. Let me guess, pet project, extra creds…. Keep politics to yourself and the voting booth… FFS, far left wing brain washing…

  23. How can anyone call it social construct when the difference is there and even the writer who is strongly persuaded that race is a social construct admits it is there by his awesome genetics researches, because normal people with brain and functioning eyes can obviously determine person race even without those researches. There, the author of this article may argue with me that color, shape of eyes, noses and differences like that are also social construct . Then, I don’t know what reality he is living, and if instead of genetics shouldn’t be studying philosophy. Also he considers approximately 0.1% “mere”, but does he realize that average genetic difference between two humans, that could be selected of all socially constructed races is approximately 0.2% and that a mean differences of two species in class of mammals approximately 0.4%? Also I would like to know if the 0.1% is average difference between the races, because according to textbooks I was learning science in high school in my home country, there were just three races, Indians were in same group like Asians, because, according to the book Indians are almost the same like them and they came from them because they got to America obviously through Kamchatka. Unluckily, I don’t remember a mention of Oceanian race, though if the probable small difference between those two races was used to make the mean diference between the races, it really had to lower it down and skew the difference between of example Blacks and Asians.

    Sorry for my English, it isn’t my native language, though I am doing my best to be better at it.

  24. “Mounting scientific evidence has shown that humans are fundamentally more similar than different from each other. ..”
    I’m not sure if scientific evidence is necessary to verify that members of a given species are fundamentally more similar than different, and I there is no relationship between any set of reproducible data and “someone’s somewhere’s” thoughts.
    By way of example, consider the following statement is: “Mounting scientific evidence has shown that modern day horses are fundamentally more similar than different from each other. Nonetheless, some horses are mean.” Seriously??

  25. Reading this, all I can see is the Terror Management Theory at work. I am no learned fellow but I will give you one undeniable fact:
    Whether a Caucasian, Mongoloid, Capoid, Negroid or Australoid, you will be dead in the next 100 years. Better concetrate on the things that will bring about positive change in your life and those around you. So what if we Whites are more intelligent than other humans, should we start living on Mars alone? So what if Blacks are inferior, should we put them all in cages to prove a point? I mean, the race debate is endless-just evaluate each person individually and you will find there is more to life than stupid debates on who has blue eyes and who doesn’t. Thank you!

      1. Were those examples actual views or are they sarcastic point stating? Because they are the legit examples of racism 😂

  26. Some of the comparisons of alleles of individuals of different ethnicity are obviously based solaly on exons being counted as genes. Genes in introns are known to be able to contain regulatory functions that have to be counted as well. It is likely that differences in introns as well as exons are thus larger (percentage-wise) than those solely based on exons. Furthermore, even a seemingly small difference of as little as 0.2% of genes yields a significant absolute number of genetic differences assuming a total number of genes – not only those of the exons type – of significantly above 10’000. Significant differences between ethnicities are no basis for racism, eg. for white superiority ideas. Furthermore, it is surprising, that nobody seems to emphasize that president Obama – while visually African American – genetically has to be considered as much white as black having had parents of both ethnicities. Am I wrong to suspect that he is not a lone example of such a situation?

  27. The person who claimed that his “VBD” trumps a “PhD” is merely calling himself a “Very Big Deal” and judging from his asinine comments he opviously believes his own hype!

  28. I came here to read a scientific article but only read till the end of the first section. Disgusting (but not surprising nowadays) that a supposedly credible university allowed such a politically motivated and biased piece of writing to be published. A ridiculously twisted slant on the current president of the United States. I will leave it to more academic and more intelligent people than myself to articulate the full wrongness of this article (in everything but the science) but suffice to say, ordinary people are waking up to race baiting trouble makers like Vivian Chou . From what I’ve seen / read, Donald Trump has done tremendous things for the Jewish and black communities since his coming to power.

  29. Basis of our society should be equal access to opportunity but not outcomes. This shows research demonstrates why. When we find disparities between races at a societal level that could be a reflection of genetic differences. But on an individual level, people with the same abilities should be given the same opportunities, regardless of race or gender. Because the next Einstein could be a woman of African descent, though it’s more likely he’ll be an East Asian man.

  30. Bastardisation of science to support an ideological position.

    Telling people that we’re all the same despite the obvious and unavoidable differences staring us all in the face is pushing shit uphill. 0.01% genetic difference is obviously very significant if that 0.01% can make someone look entirely different to another.

    A better argument for your cause would probably have been, yes races are different but so what?

    The differences between cultures and how they interact with each other in a global society is a much more relevant and practical issue.

    1. The differences is visual
      Not genetic, is all this article is explaining.
      So humans being grouped into race because of how they look 👀
      Is social construct. Your genes didn’t determine what group your in, society did that.

      1. The morphological differences are due to genetic-biological differences. Races are historically regionally distinctive historically indigenous lineages, and which were largely separate from other historically regionally disinctive historically indigenous populations,… and which the morphologies and genetic qualities show to be collectively obviously different,….. although we’re all in the same species. Btw, grapes of most species can interbreed with grapes of different species, from different continents,…. for one example among many others on the matter of genetics and interbreedability, with distinctive collective differences of the different distinguishable groups.

  31. It appears that the white race is the last edition of man kind, and their features are the dominant features of future generations. Descendants of white and black people starts to produce generations with less features of the black people and after few generations all of them will have the white features, as designed by a Creator. Observed during my life.

    1. Luis,
      The only way future generations would get more and more white would be if there were only white spouses for all subsequent generations.
      If there were only more heavily pigmented skined spouses for each generation then the generations would get progressively darker skinned and ultimately be black.
      This how it works in nature, or if you prefer, designed by a creator.

  32. Actually from what ive seen in Through the wormhole the difference is 99.50 not 99.99 as they claimHalf a point is a lot if you bear in mind who differ from monkeys only 3%

  33. The standard argument, you see over and over, basically boils down to “Environmental causes for observed differences exist, therefore is no possibility whatsoever that there are any genetic causes for these differences.”

    It’s such a stupid and intellectually dishonest argument it beggars belief.

    Reminder that, in 2019, even institutions like Harvard are little more than glorified degree mills. Except degree mills are neutral in that they don’t really impact your quality of thought one way or the other. The intensive ideological indoctrination you receive at places like Harvard will basically obliterate your capacity for honest, well balanced, thorough thought, and leave those who graduate less well mentally equipped than they were when they enrolled. The only real skill gained is how to be a highly polished professional liar.

    Human skulls from different races look notably different, for crying out loud. You can identify race from skeletal structure. But if you have graduated from Harvard, you will gain the ability to state with great confidence that all of this is the result only of environmental and cultural factors.

  34. Why is there such a pathetic obsession with politicizing everything? I was hoping to read an intelligent, objective article about an area I’ve had a long interest in. Not an article infected with tired political talking points. Are you really so blind and insulated in your elitist group-think echo chamber that you don’t understand that bigotry and racism occur on both the left and the right? These days, in fact, vicious bigotry and racism has become a hateful and accepted obsession by those on the left, with predictable and appalling consistency. What happened to objective, reasonable, and intelligent thought and discussion of substantive issues important to us all? Harvard has certainly lost its shine, and is truly nothing special anymore. It has become just another political propaganda mill for the left, with diminishing credibility, and a very predictable, and very tiresome, group-think perspective. Great topic, but sadly ruined by infection with unnecessary and senseless political agenda.

  35. Core statements of this article like “The few differences that do exist reflect differences in environments and external factors, not core biology.” and “race is a social construct, not a biological attribute” are scientific inaccurate. You don’t need a Ph.D to know that many racial attributes, e.g. skin, eye, hair colors, are dominantly determined by gene. Also, it’s alarming that most cited sources are not academic papers (surprisingly high number are just news reports), despite the author puts “science” in headline and adopts academic writing style.

  36. Looking through the comments
    I see people who can’t face the reality of biology. There’s plenty of scientist that give you proof . And there is a paper on the human genome. This is old news.. people can’t accept facts because the race titles brainwashing is to deep and they re comfortable with their fake identity society gave em.

    1. Wake up and smell the flowers! Roses do not only look different from Daisy’s but smell and taste different! You are totally misled and confused “ brainwashed” it is a crying shame!

  37. Most of this article is the same propaganda about the so-called “alt-right”, as evidenced in the repeated use of that now ludicrously overused term. Political bias and demonizing the alleged alt-right (never properly defined) is what characterizes the whole article. The author seems to be preaching her own political bias and practicing political evangelism disguised as reasoning on a common issue and using science as a catalyst for pushing her own political agenda.
    FACT: Racism came back in style big time with Obama, not Trump, and was ridiculously augmented by the liberal left lunatics in the lamestream media pushing the race card everywhere all the time. Trump inherited the Obama revival of racism legacy.

  38. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. It is a noble lie, but a lie nonetheless.

    Geneticists can now accurately determine the race of an individual. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/#bib1

    This is not to say that race is not a social construct… but that is a very vague explanation. That we put a shade of one color in blue and not purple is also a social construct in the same sense.

  39. This article had me believing its precept, then it got political and lost me completely and made me doubt the author is unbiased and not promulgating real science. I like Trump’s policies. I love the US and our constitution. I respect all those who respect others.

  40. Why is there such a pathetic obsession with politicizing everything? I was hoping to read an intelligent, objective article about an area I’ve had a long interest in. Not an article infected with tired political talking points. Are you really so blind and insulated in your elitist group-think echo chamber that you don’t understand that bigotry and racism occur on both the left and the right? These days, in fact, vicious bigotry and racism has become a hateful and accepted obsession by those on the left, with predictable and appalling consistency

Leave a Reply to Stanley Gelman Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *