/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16137285
that image doesn't contain americoid for native ameircans
also, what race are indians?

Scientifically speaking, how many human "races" of humanity are there, and what are they?
Here a "race" is defined as a group of humans that form a distinct, discontinuous genetic cluster when compared to all other humans, ignoring mixed race people.
For example. Australians Aboriginals are clearly a separate race as they have evolved separately for tens of thousands of years and there's a break in genetic continuity between them and the rest of humanity.
On the other hand, I don't think "white" is a race, because however you define it, there's continuity between them and other Eureasians. Perhaps "Eurasian" could be considered a race, but maybe they are not sufficiently homogeneous for that to be a sensible category.

When are we gonna admit there are different subspecies of homo sapien?

>>12743987

A good hypothesis is falsifiable. That is to say there must be some kind of anticipated observation that would disprove it.
Our current hypothesis regarding ethnicity and intelligence is that all ethnicities are functionally identical.
What observation would disprove this hypothesis?

Can the human species be divided into separate subspecies or subgroups?

How do we know that all ethnicities have the same capacity for intelligence?

Is there an objective, scientific basis for racial egalitarianism? I have yet to encounter any kind of justification for this assumption. As far as I can tell, it just seems to be something that is taken on faith. But why would we expect various groups of humans who evolved in relative isolation from each other for tens of thousands years in completely different environments to all magically come out with identical cognitive ability? Especially when it is universally accepted that these same groups exhibit significant, measurable genetic differences at a group level in many other physical characteristics, including skin tone, eye and hair color, height, body build, lung capacity, and athletic ability, just to name some of the more obvious ones. But of course, there are countless other differences that lie below the surface as well that are especially relevant in the medical field. It's also an indisputable fact that different groups have different brain shapes and sizes.

Then you bring up the evidence of IQ research, the historical achievements of various groups of people, with some groups showing no evidence of having invented even a wheel after thousands of years, and also the modern day status of different groups, both in first-world and third-world countries. All of this points to the same conclusion, and yet it's a conclusion that runs counter to the mainstream scientific consensus, and one that, if voiced publicly, is very likely to get you fired, denounced, and ostracized.

So again, what is the scientific basis for racial egalitarianism. In light of all of the evidence that go against it, it seems that it would need even stronger evidence to support it. What is the argument?

Is there a guide to what all the major and minor races of the world are? Preferably post colonialism, because I’m trying to see natural evolution

What is the scientific basis for racial egalitarianism? It seems like it is more or less taken as axiomatic. But why should we expect two or more groups of humans that evolved in relative isolation for thousands of years in completely different environments to come out with identical or very similar cognitive abilities and psychology? Especially when it is universally accepted that those same groups exhibit significant, measurable genetic differences in countless other physical traits, just not those relating to brain function. Does evolution stop at the neck?

Scientifically, how many races are there?

Is it?