I often hear racialists use archiac admixture in populations as "proof" of races being heavily different (like Asians and Europeans having 1-4% Neanderthal DNA but Africans having none). The recent discovery of a "ghost" population contributing DNA (about 8%) into the African gene pool has caused some debate as well. Anyone care to elaborate on that? — Unsigned, by: 188.8.131.52 / talk / contribs
Usefullness of this text sadly not given
Intention should be to point out weak points of racialists.
As such, it would be more useful to bare out common ground, i.e. 1. behavior or skills are genetical inherited by parental lineage (but it is disputed on how much) 2. environment shapes our skills (and it is disputed on how much).
In biology races are animal types that can mate with another.
-> Racialists extend this definition of possible matable subtypes by either 1. bla, 2. bla, 3. bla
It might be more useful to sum up that racialism as weak concept gives less accureate assumptions and may only be useful for simplistic overviews when the measured differences are big enough (taking other causalities into effect). — Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk 10:13, 15 January 2019
"Racialism is the idea that humanity can be easily divided into well-defined biological categories ("races")"
What is the definition that this article argues against? Without a clear statement of the view you purport to refute, this article is nothing but one long strawman. Albert Green (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
"Adaptation doesn't work like that" section - racialist talking points?
So I've removed the following excerpt from the "Adaptation doesn't work like that" section in the "Race and intelligence" section:
One such explanation could be that within a certain population the random mutations needed for certain intelligence boosts never occurred. The genetics related to brain development are not uniform among the genetically diverse and geographically distant populations (the microcephalin alleles being an example of brain-related gene complexes that are not geographically uniform). Wade 2005 writes:
They report that with microcephalin, a new allele arose about 37,000 years ago, although it could have appeared as early as 60,000 or as late as 14,000 years ago. Some 70 percent or more of people in most European and East Asian populations carry this allele of the gene, as do 100 percent of those in three South American Indian populations, but the allele is much rarer in most sub-Saharan Africans. With the other gene, ASPM, a new allele emerged some time between 14,100 and 500 years ago, the researchers favoring a mid-way date of 5,800 years. The allele has attained a frequency of about 50 percent in populations of the Middle East and Europe, is less common in East Asia, and found at low frequency in some sub-Saharan Africa peoples.
To argue otherwise is to argue that all required mutations magically appear in all social living beings as soon as they develop social intelligence.
I removed this section as it seems to be arguing in favor of the hereditarian position that there are genetically-caused differences in intelligence between the "races", thus it seemed to be supportive of racialism. Furthermore, Wade has been denounced by the scientific community for spreading racialist propaganda, including by scientists whose work he cited in an attempt to support his claims (see the Wikipedia article on Nicholas Wade, especially the section on his book A Troublesome Inheritance which spread racialist propaganda and was denounced by 143 population geneticists and evolutionary biologists). I don't understand why pro-racialist rhetoric is in an article meant to refute racialism.
If you're in favor of keeping the above section (and are not yourself a racialist), could you explain to me why you believe the section should be kept? I don't seem to understand its purpose in an article meant to refute racialism.
"In short, racialism holds that ethnicity has a biological component in addition to the sociocultural one."
- Researchers Say Human Brain Is Still Evolving by Nicholas Wade (September 8, 2005) The New York Times.