/sci/ - Science & Math

so what does /sci/ say to racism?

some time ago i talked to a evolutionary biologist, and he said that white people are generally smarter than blacks.

however, he said, blacks should still be full-value humans, and have all human rights, because the difference is not big enough to define blacks as something else than humans.

what does /sci/ think of that?

alright /sci/entists, quiz time...

Let's say I have a population of rats. it's a very large population with very large litters that are as genetically similar as popular. if you know anything about laboratory rats/mice/etc then you know what i'm talking about.

now lets pretend i want to do an experiment to prove that organisms can adapt over time. let's take my population of rats, and cut it in half. both halves are exactly the same, and have the exact same treatment/environment with one exception: one of the populations has a tweaked environment.

they are subjected to no light, ever (let's assume their caretakers use nightvision or something retarded). Just for kicks, let's assume they also receive a different type of food that is smaller in size. Both populations receive their food dispersed among the bedding the live on, so they will be actively looking/foraging for food.

Also, if you know anything about rats you know that they are active users of their whiskers and noses in finding food.

let's also assume i could run this experiment as long as required.

so. what would happen /sci/? would one population of rats develop differently and "adapt" to their new environment?

The unique certain thing on extraterrestrial beings is that we only can trust the hypotheses emitted by scientists, for example, biologists, exobiologists, astrophysicists, etc. Science cannot appeal to stories of witnesses of a phenomenon if this is not sustained by factual evidence on which it is related. When I say factual I talk about authentic data, not about videos or photographs displayed through the TV and UFO-related magazines. Many people think that hundreds of videos or thousands of photographs are evidence enough to demonstrate scientifically a fact; it is not. In fact, the probability that there Is life in our universe Is absolutely -0-. The reasons for my some may say, "broad" speculation?;
1. The universe consists of roughly 2,000 stars, with up to 4 -possible- planets orbiting them. God did not establish a probable amount of nourishment elsewhere than the solar system, than earth. And he didn't make fishes, or chickens on other planets.
2. The bible states that Aliens don't exist.
3. There are no Aliens.

Greetings /sci/. I've been pondering this for a while, but I'm not really a /sci/entist, just a really curious individual, especially when It comes to things like genetics.
But, In the future, will black persons retain their darker skin tone, or will they adopt a lighter one due to the process of evolution, as It has happened before?
-No trolls in this thread please.-

Someone on facebook is trying to discuss evolution with me

"Life has clearly demonstrated that different species have different needs. But the bones like Homo erectus and the Neanderthals...as well as others such as Lucy and Eve...what can we as humans conclude from them? Indeed, the bones were found, so they obviously belonged to some type of creatures. However, it would be naive to accept the skeletons as our ancestors without questioning the concept first. National Geographic explained that the Australopithecus sediba was able to “walk—perhaps even run—in an energy-efficient manner.” But what evidence stands for this idea? If observers gaze head on, they will notice that humans have a knee angle of about 9 degrees, and chimpanzee/gorilla legs have an angle of about 0 degrees, if the angle is any greater in human knees, a condition arises where the knees knock together, making it excruciating to walk – surgery is often needed to correct the bone disease. Yet Lucy and her friends have a knee angle of about 15 degrees. It’s hard to believe that Lucy and others were able to run. Stand, perhaps. But run? That is dubious. In addition, the same National Geographic article contained word from anthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University: "I don't think there's a lot of compelling evidence to suggest that [A. sediba] lies between Australopithecus and Homo." Wood explains that there is yet to be found more proof for this particular find to be made authentic. "

I don't know everything about evolution and need help countering her second paragraph (the one in this post). I know some counters but I still need help.

thanks /sci/

>>1311571
already done