/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4847049
Probably not. Genes are very mobile in the human population, and humans are genetically very homogenous. A recent study indicated that neanderthals and modern humans interbred; that makes neanderthals a human subspecies.

>Since it has been proven that human beings have a common ancestor, racial typologies are not only irrelevant, but fundamentally incorrect.

Whether or not humans have a common ancestor is not even remotely the point. Steve Sailer once used an operational definition of race as a partially inbred extended family. I prefer the definition as a group of phenotypic or genotypic traits that tend to occur together and correlate with biogeographic ancestry. From this you can say the common concept of race does have meaning, depending on how you define it. More to the point, your statement that it has no evolutionary significance is utterly beside the point; evolution has nothing to do with. Populations do change genetically without selective pressure you know.

>>4846967
Are you a biologist? Did you spend 7 years at a university studying biology, 4 of which engaged in active research? If the answer is no, kindly have a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up.

>>4846942
>What this all means is that just because certain people are poor does not mean they are on a different "evolutionary path"

Who here is saying anything about people being on a different evolutionary path?!?!? What has that got to do with anything?? Intelligence is a trait we can define how we like given the context of the argument, it is measurable, by IQ tests, and can differ within a population, as well as between populations.

inb4 hurr durr IQ varies more within populations than between them. Yeah, I know. No shit sherlock.