We’re being explained about chromosomes and gametes and shit, and the recent video we watched mention Chromosomes cross-exchange in the gametes in the first or second cycle. The idea I understood was “genes are swapped between them, so they won’t end up really anything like the parents” which confused me more because that is pretty much how genetics work. I am like my mother physically, and my dad in the metabolistic and internal systems. So I asked my science teacher if the cross-exchange was why eugenics is seen as illegitimate, and she said something along the lines of “no, eugenics is about making a pure race, but often there is more genetic variation intra-race than inter-race.”
​
I don’t understand this? Does she think race is a continental thing? Because a northern euro is far different than a south Euro in genetics, to the point I would call different races entirely. And there is far more difference between race in the phenotype viewpoint.
​
tl;dr learning about chromosomes, mitosis and meiosis, and sexual reproduction, and I am confused about the cross-exchange and what my science teacher is saying. What is the scientific flaw about eugenics? Not its practical flaw in which I could name many, what is it’s scientific flaw?
In: 1
>often there is more genetic variation intra-race than inter-race
This means that actual genetic differences between ‘races’ are little or even insignificant compared to the genetic differences that there are among the same race.
So:
>Because a northern euro is far different than a south Euro in genetics, to the point I would call different races entirely.
No, you’re calling them different races based solely on appearance, which is a very small portion of genetics.
In the rest of genes (which are the ones that matter), we’re alike. A person with a different external aspect doesn’t equal more e.g. health or intelligence, yet eugenics has always been about external aspects, which have virtually nothing to do with what otherwise eugenicists claim.
Latest Answers