113
Thoughts? (media.piefed.social)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/controversial@sh.itjust.works
146 comments fedilink hide all child comments
πŸ‘ 1
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (8 children)

Genuine question, isn't there enough genetic differentiation between certain populations that they would be considered a distinct grouping, is there a name for this ?

Like how medically there is enough (genetic) differentiation in certain circumstances to affect diagnosis and/or treatment.

I agree race is a social construct, especially given how it's used, I’m just wondering if there is a name for the groupings (or if they exist at all , i suppose)

edit: Added clarification to the differentiation to make it specifically genetic, because that could also be affected by environmental things.

further edit: now i think about it , genetics can just be a long term accumulation of environmental pressures so it's kinda murky anyway

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, lots, but it doesn't correspond with the social construct of race, ie. A given "black" person could be substantially more genetically similar to a given "white" person than they are to another person who would be considered a "black person." The genotypal groupings of human populations does not comfortably correspond to phenotypal/cultural groupings of human populations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    ooh, i think genotypal might be what i was thinking of.

    Where phenotypal is a mixture of environmental and genetic expression , genotypal would be exclusively the part derived from genetics.

    Would genotypal typically include epigenetics as well or only the fixed DNA based parts?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    I think there would be, but it would be very messy and you'd have to focus on specific things.

    Eg. Certain populations can't really drink milk or there's a tribe that has enlarged kidneys and a strong dive reflex because they swim under water a lot to hunt fish

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    yeah, I think there's also a people who have an adapted eye lens shape to help with underwater acuity, Sherpa’s with oxygen efficiency at high altitude etc.

    I wonder if there is a name for the taxonomic distinction here.

    Purely scientifically the Wikipedia page suggests a whole bunch of different types of biological taxonomic distinctions that could be applied, but acknowledges that definitions are all over the place and not necessarily agreed upon.

    In that sense you'd need to adjust yourself biologically, at the genetic level, to satisfy some of the definitions.

    All of that disregards the non-biological connotations of the discussion though, so not super helpful here, just interesting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    There's literally no need to create a whole taxonomy for the small physical differences in human ethnicities. May as well classify these bunnies into different [whatever] due to fur color.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •