derek-thomas/squad-v1.1-t5-question-generation huggingface dataset:
There is a wide consensus that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined. Nonetheless, some scholars argue that racial categories obviously correlate with biological traits (e.g. phenotype) to some degree, and that certain genetic markers have varying frequencies among human populations, some of which correspond more or less to traditional racial groupings. For this reason, there is no current consensus about whether racial categories can be considered to have significance for understanding human genetic variation.

Question: What type of categorization in every day usage is there wide agreement it is only a social construct? Question: What type of group can't be biologically defined? Question: What do some people contend racial categories are obviously correlated with? Question: Some genetic markers have varying frequencies among what populations? Question: What is the majority opinion on whether racial categories can be considered to have impact on human genetic variation?
When people define and talk about a particular conception of race, they create a social reality through which social categorization is achieved. In this sense, races are said to be social constructs. These constructs develop within various legal, economic, and sociopolitical contexts, and may be the effect, rather than the cause, of major social situations. While race is understood to be a social construct by many, most scholars agree that race has real material effects in the lives of people through institutionalized practices of preference and discrimination.

Question: How do people create a social reality in which social categorization is achieved? Question: What can be said to be a social construct? Question: What contexts do racial social constructs develop within? Question: Constructs may be the result rather than the inciter of what? Question: What effect does race have in the lives of people?
Socioeconomic factors, in combination with early but enduring views of race, have led to considerable suffering within disadvantaged racial groups. Racial discrimination often coincides with racist mindsets, whereby the individuals and ideologies of one group come to perceive the members of an outgroup as both racially defined and morally inferior. As a result, racial groups possessing relatively little power often find themselves excluded or oppressed, while hegemonic individuals and institutions are charged with holding racist attitudes. Racism has led to many instances of tragedy, including slavery and genocide.

Question: Socioeconomic factors and enduring views on race has led to what for certain racial groups? Question: What is discrimination often paired with? Question: What do members of one group typically perceive the moral standing of outgroups as? Question: What do groups with less power often find themselves? Question: What has led to many tragic instances of events like slavery and genocide?
In some countries, law enforcement uses race to profile suspects. This use of racial categories is frequently criticized for perpetuating an outmoded understanding of human biological variation, and promoting stereotypes. Because in some societies racial groupings correspond closely with patterns of social stratification, for social scientists studying social inequality, race can be a significant variable. As sociological factors, racial categories may in part reflect subjective attributions, self-identities, and social institutions.

Question: What does law enforcement in some countries use to profile suspects? Question: What promotes stereotypes? Question: Why is using racial categorization for profiling often criticized? Question: Who can race serve as a significant factor when studying social inequality? Question: What may in part reflect subjective attributes, self-identities and social institutions?
Groups of humans have always identified themselves as distinct from neighboring groups, but such differences have not always been understood to be natural, immutable and global. These features are the distinguishing features of how the concept of race is used today. In this way the idea of race as we understand it today came about during the historical process of exploration and conquest which brought Europeans into contact with groups from different continents, and of the ideology of classification and typology found in the natural sciences.

Question: What have human groups always considered themselves as compared to other nearby groups? Question: What have differences among groups not typically been perceived as being? Question: During which process did our current idea of race come about? Question: Where did Europeans come into contact with other groups? Question: What ideaology is found in the natural sciences?
The European concept of "race", along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, arose at the time of the scientific revolution, which introduced and privileged the study of natural kinds, and the age of European imperialism and colonization which established political relations between Europeans and peoples with distinct cultural and political traditions. As Europeans encountered people from different parts of the world, they speculated about the physical, social, and cultural differences among various human groups. The rise of the Atlantic slave trade, which gradually displaced an earlier trade in slaves from throughout the world, created a further incentive to categorize human groups in order to justify the subordination of African slaves. Drawing on Classical sources and upon their own internal interactions — for example, the hostility between the English and Irish powerfully influenced early European thinking about the differences between people — Europeans began to sort themselves and others into groups based on physical appearance, and to attribute to individuals belonging to these groups behaviors and capacities which were claimed to be deeply ingrained. A set of folk beliefs took hold that linked inherited physical differences between groups to inherited intellectual, behavioral, and moral qualities. Similar ideas can be found in other cultures, for example in China, where a concept often translated as "race" was associated with supposed common descent from the Yellow Emperor, and used to stress the unity of ethnic groups in China. Brutal conflicts between ethnic groups have existed throughout history and across the world.

Question: When did many of the ideas associated with the term "race" arise? Question: What created relations between Europeans and people with different cultures? Question: Who speculated about the observable difference among different groups of humans? Question: Justifying the subordination of what group was one of the incentives to categorize human groups? Question: What groups has there always been brutal conflict between?
The first post-Classical published classification of humans into distinct races seems to be François Bernier's Nouvelle division de la terre par les différents espèces ou races qui l'habitent ("New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it"), published in 1684. In the 18th century the differences among human groups became a focus of scientific investigation. But the scientific classification of phenotypic variation was frequently coupled with racist ideas about innate predispositions of different groups, always attributing the most desirable features to the White, European race and arranging the other races along a continuum of progressively undesirable attributes. The 1735 classification of Carl Linnaeus, inventor of zoological taxonomy, divided the human race Homo sapiens into continental varieties of europaeus, asiaticus, americanus, and afer, each associated with a different humour: sanguine, melancholic, choleric, and phlegmatic, respectively. Homo sapiens europaeus was described as active, acute, and adventurous, whereas Homo sapiens afer was said to be crafty, lazy, and careless.

Question: Who was the author of the first published book classifying humans into distinct races? Question: In what century did differences among human groups become a focus of science? Question: What race was typically ascribed the most desirable features? Question: How was Homo sapiens europaeus described as? Question: What attributes were bestowed on homo spaiens afer?
The 1775 treatise "The Natural Varieties of Mankind", by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach proposed five major divisions: the Caucasoid race, Mongoloid race, Ethiopian race (later termed Negroid, and not to be confused with the narrower Ethiopid race), American Indian race, and Malayan race, but he did not propose any hierarchy among the races. Blumenbach also noted the graded transition in appearances from one group to adjacent groups and suggested that "one variety of mankind does so sensibly pass into the other, that you cannot mark out the limits between them".

Question: What year was Blumenbach's treatise published? Question: How many divisions did Blumenbach's treatise specify? Question: What race was later renamed to Negroid? Question: What type of transition was noted from one group to the next? Question: What can one not mark between the variety of mankind?
From the 17th through 19th centuries, the merging of folk beliefs about group differences with scientific explanations of those differences produced what one scholar has called an "ideology of race". According to this ideology, races are primordial, natural, enduring and distinct. It was further argued that some groups may be the result of mixture between formerly distinct populations, but that careful study could distinguish the ancestral races that had combined to produce admixed groups. Subsequent influential classifications by Georges Buffon, Petrus Camper and Christoph Meiners all classified "Negros" as inferior to Europeans. In the United States the racial theories of Thomas Jefferson were influential. He saw Africans as inferior to Whites especially in regards to their intellect, and imbued with unnatural sexual appetites, but described Native Americans as equals to whites.

Question: What did the merging of superstitious beliefs and scientific ones regarding group differences produce? Question: What were races considered to be, according to the ideology of race? Question: How might some groups have resulted, according to the ideology? Question: What group was identified as being inferior to Europeans? Question: Who particularly noted the unnatural sexual appetites of Africans?
In the last two decades of the 18th century, the theory of polygenism, the belief that different races had evolved separately in each continent and shared no common ancestor, was advocated in England by historian Edward Long and anatomist Charles White, in Germany by ethnographers Christoph Meiners and Georg Forster, and in France by Julien-Joseph Virey. In the US, Samuel George Morton, Josiah Nott and Louis Agassiz promoted this theory in the mid-nineteenth century. Polygenism was popular and most widespread in the 19th century, culminating in the founding of the Anthropological Society of London (1863) during the period of the American Civil War, in opposition to the Ethnological Society, which had abolitionist sympathies.

Question: What theory is the belief that differences races had evolved independently on each continent? Question: What country did Edward Long and Charles White advocated the belief of polygenism in? Question: What was the profession of Christoph Meiners and Georg Forster? Question: In what century was polygenism most widespread? Question: The Ethnological Society was sympathetic towards what cause?
Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens and sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens. However, this is not the first species of homininae: the first species of genus Homo, Homo habilis, are theorized to have evolved in East Africa at least 2 million years ago, and members of this species populated different parts of Africa in a relatively short time. Homo erectus is theorized to have evolved more than 1.8 million years ago, and by 1.5 million years ago had spread throughout Europe and Asia. Virtually all physical anthropologists agree that Archaic Homo sapiens (A group including the possible species H. heidelbergensis, H. rhodesiensis and H. neanderthalensis) evolved out of African Homo erectus ((sensu lato) or Homo ergaster).

Question: What species do all living humans today belong to? Question: Members of what species populated parts of Africa in a relatively short time? Question: When is it theorized that Homo habilis evolved in East Africa? Question: How many millions of years ago had Homo erectus spread throughout Europa and Asia? Question: What group might have Archaic Homo sapiens evolve out of?
In the early 20th century, many anthropologists accepted and taught the belief that biologically distinct races were isomorphic with distinct linguistic, cultural, and social groups, while popularly applying that belief to the field of eugenics, in conjunction with a practice that is now called scientific racism. After the Nazi eugenics program, racial essentialism lost widespread popularity. Race anthropologists were pressured to acknowledge findings coming from studies of culture and population genetics, and to revise their conclusions about the sources of phenotypic variation. A significant number of modern anthropologists and biologists in the West came to view race as an invalid genetic or biological designation.

Question: Who taught and accepted the belief that biologically distinct races were isomorphic? Question: What practice was combined with the field of eugenics regarding the distinctness of social groups? Question: What effect did the Nazi eugenics program have on racial essentialism? Question: What conclusions were race anthropologists pressured to revise? Question: What did a lot of modern anthropologists in the West come to view racial designation as?
Population geneticists have debated whether the concept of population can provide a basis for a new conception of race. In order to do this, a working definition of population must be found. Surprisingly, there is no generally accepted concept of population that biologists use. Although the concept of population is central to ecology, evolutionary biology and conservation biology, most definitions of population rely on qualitative descriptions such as "a group of organisms of the same species occupying a particular space at a particular time" Waples and Gaggiotti identify two broad types of definitions for populations; those that fall into an ecological paradigm, and those that fall into an evolutionary paradigm. Examples of such definitions are:

Question: What type of geneticists have debates about what can provide a basis for a new conception of race? Question: What class of researchers surprisingly have no generally accepted concept of population? Question: What do most definitions of population rely on? Question: What do Waples and Gaggiotti identify two broad types of? Question: What are both ecological and evolutionary definition modifiers of?
Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations. That is, "the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence" One objection to this idea is that it does not specify what degree of differentiation is required. Therefore, any population that is somewhat biologically different could be considered a subspecies, even to the level of a local population. As a result, Templeton has argued that it is necessary to impose a threshold on the level of difference that is required for a population to be designated a subspecies.

Question: What are traditionally geographically isolated? Question: What is "subspecies" used to indicate an objective degree of? Question: What is an objection to the idea of subspecies because it doesn't specify this? Question: What would a population have to somewhat be to be considered a subspecies? Question: What did Templeton argue is necessary to impose a threshold on for a population to be a subspecies?
This effectively means that populations of organisms must have reached a certain measurable level of difference to be recognised as subspecies. Dean Amadon proposed in 1949 that subspecies would be defined according to the seventy-five percent rule which means that 75% of a population must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining morphological character or a set of characters. The seventy-five percent rule still has defenders but other scholars argue that it should be replaced with ninety or ninety-five percent rule.

Question: What must organisms have a measurable level of to be seen as a subspecies? Question: Who proposed subspecies be defined by the seventy-five percent rule? Question: What year did Dean Amadon make his proposal? Question: The 75% rule states how much of a population must lie outside the range of other populations for a defining set of characters? Question: Many scholars argue what should be replaced with a ninety or ninety-five percent rule?
In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered different subspecies by the usual criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. Wright argued that it does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within each of these groups that every individual can easily be distinguished from every other. However, it is customary to use the term race rather than subspecies for the major subdivisions of the human species as well as for minor ones.

Question: When did Sewall Wright make his suggestion about human populations? Question: How should populations long inhabiting separate parts of the world be considered? Question: What is required to allocate individuals in subspecies populations correctly? Question: What did Wright feel it wouldn't take an anthropologist to easily distinguish between of in groups? Question: What term is it customary to use instead of subspecies?
Cladistics is another method of classification. A clade is a taxonomic group of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor. Every creature produced by sexual reproduction has two immediate lineages, one maternal and one paternal. Whereas Carl Linnaeus established a taxonomy of living organisms based on anatomical similarities and differences, cladistics seeks to establish a taxonomy—the phylogenetic tree—based on genetic similarities and differences and tracing the process of acquisition of multiple characteristics by single organisms. Some researchers have tried to clarify the idea of race by equating it to the biological idea of the clade. Often mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome sequences are used to study ancient human migration paths. These single-locus sources of DNA do not recombine and are inherited from a single parent. Individuals from the various continental groups tend to be more similar to one another than to people from other continents, and tracing either mitochondrial DNA or non-recombinant Y-chromosome DNA explains how people in one place may be largely derived from people in some remote location.

Question: What is cladistics a method of? Question: What is a clade a taxonomic group of? Question: How many common ancestors does a clade have? Question: What is another term for a phylogenetic tree? Question: Which chromosome sequences are used to study ancient human migration paths?
Often taxonomists prefer to use phylogenetic analysis to determine whether a population can be considered a subspecies. Phylogenetic analysis relies on the concept of derived characteristics that are not shared between groups, usually applying to populations that are allopatric (geographically separated) and therefore discretely bounded. This would make a subspecies, evolutionarily speaking, a clade – a group with a common evolutionary ancestor population. The smooth gradation of human genetic variation in general tends to rule out any idea that human population groups can be considered monophyletic (cleanly divided), as there appears to always have been considerable gene flow between human populations. Rachel Caspari (2003) have argued that clades are by definition monophyletic groups (a taxon that includes all descendants of a given ancestor) and since no groups currently regarded as races are monophyletic, none of those groups can be clades.

Question: What analysis method are taxonomists fond of using in considering a population? Question: How are allopatric populations separated? Question: What is a group with a common evolutionary ancestor population called? Question: What is a tongue twister of a word that merely means "cleanly divided"? Question: Who argued in 2003 that all clades are by definition monophyletic groups?
For the anthropologists Lieberman and Jackson (1995), however, there are more profound methodological and conceptual problems with using cladistics to support concepts of race. They claim that "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model explicitly use racial categories in their initial grouping of samples". For example, the large and highly diverse macroethnic groups of East Indians, North Africans, and Europeans are presumptively grouped as Caucasians prior to the analysis of their DNA variation. This is claimed to limit and skew interpretations, obscure other lineage relationships, deemphasize the impact of more immediate clinal environmental factors on genomic diversity, and can cloud our understanding of the true patterns of affinity. They argue that however significant the empirical research, these studies use the term race in conceptually imprecise and careless ways. They suggest that the authors of these studies find support for racial distinctions only because they began by assuming the validity of race. "For empirical reasons we prefer to place emphasis on clinal variation, which recognizes the existence of adaptive human hereditary variation and simultaneously stresses that such variation is not found in packages that can be labeled races."

Question: What did Lieberman and Jackon find profound problems using cladistics to support concepts of? Question: What would the diverse group of East Indians, North Africans and Europeans be grouped as prior to DNA analysis? Question: Cladistics can limit and skew what? Question: Lieberman and Jackson suggest authors of some studies use the term race in what ways? Question: What is variation found in that can be labeled as races?
One crucial innovation in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was the anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, slow migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations or clines. In part this is due to isolation by distance. This point called attention to a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and differences (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion, that since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines".

Question: What did C. Loring Brace observe about about variations? Question: Why are variations distributed along clines? Question: What is a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races? Question: What is Frank Livingstone's profession? Question: What is the conclusion from the evidence that clines cross racial boundaries?