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)

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

  1. Just what we need more pseudoscience babble for the (m)asses we all no that Men Are from Mars and Women Are from Venus. The sooner the flat earth society gets a grip on these so called real scientist the better and as for global warming it’s bloody freezing in my freeze and that’s on the globe so go figure.

  2. What would you say is Liam Neeson’s race?

    I ask this question because in this era of the gene, of people swabbing their cheeks to know where their ancestors came from, and of racism glazed over with the shiny patina of science, many people feel confused about race. They have heard that it’s a social construct, but that can be hard to square with rumours that only Black people have sickle cell anemia. And if 23andMe can report on your ancestry, isn’t that proof that race exists at the biological level?

    The concept of dividing humans into categories has been with us for a very long time. Greek philosopher Aristotle attempted to classify living things in a hierarchy. According to his thinking, some humans were born to be kings, whereas others were determined to be slaves. In the 1700s, Man was divided into a handful of races: Africans, Asians, Native Americans, and Caucasians (Pacific Islanders were thought of as a fifth race by some). It wasn’t just a horizontal classification, but a vertical one too. Thinking of Africans as biologically inferior to Caucasians certainly facilitated their treatment during the slave trade.

    When participants to a focus group in 2004 were asked what exactly is a race, they ended up mirroring a debate that had been happening among scholars, because it’s not an easy concept to define. Physical appearance, especially skin colour, was often mentioned by the participants, but it wasn’t seen as sufficient. If we stop at skin colour, however—a common enough shortcut for anyone trying to categorize an individual by race—we quickly run into a problem:

    Women of different races

    Figure 1. Four women illustrating physical variation

    (from Hubbard, 2017)

    To what races do these women belong? It turns out they are all from the African continent. From left to right, we have a Namibian, an Egyptian, a Malian, and a Kenyan. If “African” is one race, why do all these women look so different?

    A useful definition of a race is a group of people who are perceived as sharing biological features. Importantly, this perception varies by culture, because this is not, please excuse the pun, a black-and-white ruling. If skin colour is used to distinguish race, where is the cut-off? It’s not obvious, because skin colour is on a gradient.

    But skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, and other physical traits are all under the control of genes, so doesn’t our DNA have something to do with race?

    Our eyes tell us lies that DNA can pulverize

    The DNA in our cells is littered with variants, little changes from one individual to the next that are responsible for many of our physical attributes and our predispositions to disease. It’s like we all have the same book, except that my edition has a few typos and local spelling differences that yours doesn’t and vice versa (e.g. “color” versus “colour”). When we add up all of these variants, that is what we mean by “genetic variability”, the number of DNA differences from one person to another.

    So do you think there is more genetic variability between these two penguins… or between Taylor Swift and Kanye West?

    A photo of a penguin, Taylor Swift and Kanye West
    Figure 2. Genetic variation in humans versus penguins

    (from Hubbard, 2017)

    The answer is surprising. Even though our eyes tell us one thing, DNA analysis reveals the opposite. These penguins are more different at the DNA level than our two human superstars. It turns out that humans are less genetically diverse than many animals, including chimps.

    In fact any two unrelated human beings on the planet are 99.9% identical in their DNA sequence. Only 0.1% varies, and here’s the most important takeaway message from all this. It also happens to be the most replicated finding in the scientific literature on human variation.

    Of this 0.1% that varies, almost all of it (95.7% to be exact) is found between individuals within the same race. Despite what our eyes perceive, there is more genetic diversity within a race than between races

    If you didn’t know that, don’t worry: you’re in good company. Three out of four college students taking an introductory course in biology and genetics also do not know this.

    And since skull sizes are being discussed again in certain corners of the Internet, 90% of the variability in their volume also occurs within (and not between) human groups.

    This is a big snag in the argument that race is a biological reality. This finding—that there’s more diversity within than between groups—is true for most physical traits, with one prominent exception: skin colour. Why? Because skin colour is under tremendous selective pressure. It varies depending on how far from the equator we are, because a darker skin offers better protection against sunburn, skin cancer and related damages. People with naturally darker skin were better adapted to their environment and were more likely to reproduce. The fact that a Maasai and an Aboriginal Australian both have very dark skin is not because they are part of the same biological race, but rather because both have lived under a very harsh sun for generations. So skin colour is not evidence of race being a biological reality.

    But what about sickle cell anemia, I hear you ask. Isn’t that a disease that only affects Black people?

    Race and medicine

    The truth about sickle cell anemia is more complicated than that. The sickle cell trait is a variant in our DNA that offers protection against malaria. Over many generations, people who were exposed to malaria were more likely to reproduce if they had this trait, so this trait was selected for. When you have two copies of it, however, you can develop sickle cell anemia. So do only Black people carry the trait? No. While it is commonly seen in people of sub-Saharan African ancestry, it can also be found in Mediterraneans, Middle Easterners, and Indians. It is not restricted to one race but rather to many populations that were all exposed to malaria.

    But there is another example where race seems to play a role in medicine: the drug BiDil, the first race-based prescription drug in the US which aims to treat heart failure. It was said to be a breakthrough for African Americans, but here’s the twist: the clinical trial that led to its approval only tested African Americans. How can you pretend your drug can only treat one race when you haven’t tested it in another?

    One final argument for the existence of biological races is that African Americans have more health problems than White Americans: more likely to have high blood pressure, disproportionately affected by obesity, and at an increased risk for diabetes. But given that there is much more genetic diversity within African Americans than between them and White Americans, it’s unlikely that the answer simply lies in their DNA. As a parallel, single men are more likely to die of heart disease than their married counterparts, but genes don’t make us married or single. If Black was a biological race and if hypertension was only genetic, we would expect Black people all over the world to have the same risk for it, but they don’t. While hypertension is more prevalent among African Americans than in White Americans, the rate in sub-Saharan Africans is lower than either!

    Racial health disparities within countries are often due to the physical tax of discrimination, poverty, an increased risk of living near hazardous waste facilities, lack of access to healthcare, and differences in behaviour. And this is important: race is not imaginary simply because it’s not biological. Our perception of it has real consequences on the health of others because of how differently we treat them. As a study from the early 1990s demonstrates, infant mortality is twice as high in African Americans than in their white counterparts… unless you look at members of these groups who are enrolled in the military and receive care at the same army medical centre. For them, infant mortality rates are more or less the same.

    Some doctors still use race as a useful proxy, but this assumption carries with it the risk of withholding effective treatment for some and of using ineffective treatment in others. Socioeconomic factors, culture, behaviour, and where a patient’s ancestors came from are more informative. As Francis Collins, the director of the consortium behind the Human Genome Project, once said, “race is a flawed surrogate.”

    Race is relative

    So what would you say is Liam Neeson’s race? You probably said “white”, but a hundred years ago, the answer would have been “Irish”. In the eyes of North Americans back then, the Irish were a separate race. Racial categories change over time.

    Pakistanis and Indians are thought of as belonging to the Asian race (an idea perhaps more common in Britain than in North America), but at the level of their DNA, they are more similar to Europeans than they are to East Asians. Racial categories are not reflective of the underlying biological reality.

    Race is a real concept that we use as social beings. As for whether race can be found in our genes, the answer is no. Biological ancestry, however (which is distinct from race), is real. Where our forebears came from can be seen in our DNA (to a certain degree), but ancestry does not map onto race, not even close. We may intuitively think of Europeans, Africans, and East Asians as three circles that barely overlap, like the Olympic rings. Time and time again, however, genetic studies reveal the opposite. They are rings all right, but they almost completely overlap.

    We are a lot more similar than we think, and the ways in which we differ have little to do with our ideas of race.

    Take-home message:
    – There is more variation within a race than between races at the level of our DNA.
    – How we define races has varied throughout history and differs from one culture to another
    – Studying our DNA reveals that races are not real in a biological sense, but how we treat other races does have an impact on their health because of poverty, stress, and lack of access to healthcare.

  3. Why doesn’t this article as well as those it referenced correct their facts to tell the truth about the Israeli boy named Michael Kadar and his dark-web profitable business of calling in nearly 1,000 bomb threats to jewish centers throughout the usa during 2017?
    Kadar did Bomb threats to order via the dark-web.

  4. The author is a shallow, woke propagandist not a scientist. She fails to discuss rampant Asian, black, and Middle Eastern racism. Like most racist simpletons, she downplays racism and bigotry by Asian, blacks, and people of color in general, while shrieking about white people.

    1. Wow, your rant had nothing to do with what she presented. She was showing there basically no such thing as “race”. She wasn’t saying people weren’t racist. Maybe read a little more carefully.

    2. You are dismissing the author’s perspective as shallow and woke propaganda, accusing her of downplaying racism and bigotry from non-white groups while focusing solely on white people. This attitude reflects a common misunderstanding of the nuanced discussion around race and genetics.

      Firstly, it’s important to address the accusation of downplaying racism from non-white groups. Racism and bigotry can manifest in any group, regardless of race. However, the systemic and historical power dynamics often mean that racism from white individuals or institutions has had more profound and wide-reaching effects. This does not negate or excuse racism from other groups, but it does contextualize the discussion.

      Moreover, acknowledging the impact of racism and discrimination from various groups does not diminish the importance of addressing racism perpetrated by white individuals or institutions. It’s not a competition of who suffers more but rather a recognition of the complex interplay of power, privilege, and prejudice in society.

      Furthermore, the dismissal of the author’s perspective as shallow or woke propaganda reveals a reluctance to engage with uncomfortable truths about race and genetics. It’s easier to dismiss challenging ideas than to confront them and reassess one’s own beliefs and biases. Science consistently shows that race is not a biological reality, yet the social construct of race continues to shape our perceptions and experiences.

      In confronting uncomfortable truths about race, we must recognize our own complicity in perpetuating harmful narratives and systems of oppression. This requires humility, self-reflection, and a willingness to listen to perspectives that may challenge our preconceived notions. Only through honest dialogue and critical examination can we work towards a more just and equitable society for all.

  5. I cannot believe Harvard of all places has allowed an article like this to exist. By reading the first sentence and looking at the opening images it is obviously biased. This is another example of race privilege and using that to spread a biased opinion is dangerous, how do you think stereotypes began in the first place? Data without the bias is fine it can be reviewed and scrutinized scientifically but once you add the bias all credibility is lost, then it just becomes another piece of rhetoric by an activist. For an institution like harvard to support this kind of article shows harvard cares more about being politically correct, no not even pc but politically pandering, then scientifically correct. In the end it appears as an attack.

  6. I recently told a mixed race friend that I see no reason why different groups of humans living in different environments could not have evolved differently over tens of thousands of year. Polar bears, as a species, are thought to only be about 12,000 years old, for example. That is WAY shorter than the last time a tribe of humans migrated out of Africa. James Watson was a victim of “Cancel Culture” when he (correctly) stated that there might be differences between blacks and whites. Of course, the problem is that anywhere but Sub-Saharan Africa, most “blacks” are a mixture of races. But seriously, if you believe in evolution, I don’t see how you can say that Sub-Saharan Africans MUST be on par with all the other races. That’s just NOT how it works! They have evolved, yes, but maybe in different ways. I read recently that black people were better at certain things when it came to the military, and I even saw a PBS documentary a few years ago claiming that chipmanzees were better at short term memory than the average human! I wish I had somebody to talk to about this in a rational manner instead of just shrieking “RACIST!!!!!” (Also? Read the news, duh!!!)

    1. We’re all “different” from each other. What are you even on about? “White” people have been used to so many hundreds of years of relying on a method of categorizing people on the most meaningless feature-skin color- duh!- that they go nuts when anyone, with the obvious evidence, dares to say, “Hey, race is really a stupid way to classify people-number one, it doesn’t exist in our genes, and number two, people who live together for long periods of time learn certain skills based on environmental needs, period. Change the location or needs, different skill sets develop over time. Albino people are used to making others work for them, so they aren’t as strong as the people they’ve oppressed for hundreds of years, know what I mean? They can’t even work outdoors without getting skin cancer. Frail, weak, they have a genetic defect that doesn’t let their skin make melanin, which protects from sun damage. Very sad, and its certainly not a “superior” trait, its a genetic defect. Look it up, if you aren’t too afraid. Certain people who aren’t albinos dominate a sport once they participate in it, know what I mean?

  7. It’s clear you want to arm readers with knowledge to fight ignorance judging the composite of this article. My type of people are O Positive. We are peaceful and friendly. We O positive people need you all to not hurt us. You are dumb for hurting each other. Lesson finished.

    1. I am O negative

      BURN THE HERETIC

      this is a good comparison of if we judged it by blood type and it carries over, thank you

  8. That you start the study with prejudice against the President reveals the results of this study as political hyperbole. That there are no I Q differences between the races defies scientific measurements and biases the study.

    That mankind originated in Africa is nothing more than a guess. The discovery of Lucy as the mother of all is sheer crazinesses. An ape skull was found wherein human DNA was added to her missing DNA to make her more human.

    Any fool can see significant differences between the races and every social organization on Earth celebrates those diverse characteristics.

    That whiteness comes from darkness is nothing more than hypothesis, which the writer lacks to mention.

    DNA defines our complete identity, not just color but features that can be measured precisely.

    That Down’s Syndrome people have a common appearance and are a specific genetic mutation, not environmental, is evidence that gene mutation occurs to change the appearance of people with common DNA.

    The study should not dismiss genetic mutation as a cause of racial differences but study the causes of genetic mutation.

    Were the biblical curses some mutation? The peoples of the curses indicate that mutations did occur and that those cursed dispersed as like peoples prefer to experience life together whereas it is natural for unlike people to migrate from those with whom they differ.

    Why do they not call hypotheses what they are – guesses based on bias, poor methodology, and data manipulation.

    Science automatically dismisses Providence because by definition science does that. Because divine intervention is neglected does not make it non-existent.

    1. The idea of Africa being the origin of humanity did not stem only from Lucy the ape-man. It also stemmed from the oldest known modern human remains being found on that continent (Irhoud 1 being 300,000 years old and the Omo-Kibish and Florisbad humans being over 200,000 years old).

      There was also a controversial genetic study that placed modern day Ghana as the birthplace of modern man, but that one is now heavily disputed and largely viewed with skepticism.

    2. “The study should not dismiss genetic mutation as a cause of racial differences but study the causes of genetic mutation. ” I’m glad you brought that up! Because of a genetic defect, there are people who can’t produce melanin. Melanin protects our skin and eyes. Without it, you have pale, white skin. You get skin cancer easily. Your pineal gland in your brain doesn’t function well, so brain disorders are more common. You’re right, these kind of people should be classified as a defective race. Good looking out!

  9. White People didn’t come on the earth until 1 million years later after creation ( Adam and Eve ) they were born from a black man as Esau .

Leave a Reply

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