Downvoted!

Downvoting your post!

vetoed

Downvetoed

Vetoing downveto! (HAHAHA)

Race is a social construct created to unite and divide people, and it has NO scientific background at all. In fact, racism( which is rebranded as racialism or scientific racism) is widely regarded as pseudoscience. There is currently no study that points to any significant difference of genetics between "Europeans" and Turkish people.

Your supposed "European culture" would be considered as apostatic and "un-European" by good Christians in the old days. Why? Because the new ideas are modern ones. Turkey tried to modernize itself with modern ideas, full stop.

The only reason behind your pride in the "superiority" of Europeans is that the Renaissance and Enlightment happended in Europe. Well, it has nothing to do with ethnicity. Need i remind you where 0-9 came from? or where typographic printing came from? or where your God came from? or the gunpowder used by imperialist powers to massacre third-world people? none of them are European by origin, but you seem to neglect that outright. In the middle ages, the Arabs thrived, so did the Turks, Indians, Chinese, Mayan, Incan and others, who created prosperous societies. Your glorious ancestors didn't fare so well at that time, did they? go wiki that yourself.

One interesting thing about nationalism is that double standards and hypocrisy seems to be encouraged instead of frowned upon. For some unknown reason, "we" are always better than "them", even when evidence suggest in equality.

Edited 7/24/2020 10:29:47

this will not die yet

There is genetic evidence that pre-indo-europeans were closest to neolithic anatolians. I mean, that's beside the point.

We can determine the race and age of a person purely by their bones. Race is not skin deep. Classification of races is an artifical human invention, but there is undeniable differences in people that could possibly define a certain group. Do you really think that millenia of selective breeding within cultures and tribes and regions result in no genetic changes?

I don't believe it; it's like saying that "If I choose these and grow these, there is no effect" when you want a quality.

According to the "three race" idea, Annatolians should be more "European" than Finnish people (if one believes Europeans must be Caucasoids) . However, European culture is about societal traits rather than biological ones.

Well, there certainly are genetic differences between populations in different georaphical areas. These differences caused by geographical factors are named by anthropologists as "clines". Their distribution are inconsistent with those of races.

Race isn't skin deep. However, as a rather old (pseudo)scientific classification, its basis lies on visible physical traits such as skin color, shape of cranium, etc... Other traits such as blood type( with type B blood as example), lactase persistence( one would expect people with nomandic ancestry to have this trait. West Africans and North Europeans should be able to digest lactose, while Han Chinese in Canton probably can't), and frequency of specific genes are rarely consistent with racial classification. Theoretically, the latter traits could be used to reclassify races.

Yes, genetic selection does change gene frequency. In Neolithic times a gene that causes blindness would get weeded out. However the emergence of human society changed the rules. Basically, social status outweighed genetics. For example, royalty in the old days chose the worst breeding pattern-- inbreeding. The unfortunate children sometimes had impaired abilities to live, but their odds of survival were vastly greater than, lets say, the children of serfs. In a modern society, basically everyone would fare well with a good education. It is social class that causes much of the disparities.