/sci/ - Science & Math

Why do the phenotypes of Asians not vary as much as white's?

>>10633146
Why do people use useless terms like “White” and “Asian” still? Neither are biologically real.

>>10633142
Cats haven’t been domesticated as long and never bred for specialization.

making weird looking breeds of dogs was a very popular hobby with rich people for a long time. On the other hand, barely anybody did controlled breeding with cats

>>10633142
Spend a few centuries selectively breeding cats if it bothers you that much.

>>10633148
>Neither are biologically real.
What isreal than?

>>10633157
Israel is a partially recognized racist state in the Middle East constructed by illegal wars of aggression and ethnic cleansing. What about it?

>>10633157
You can broadly categorize humans into two groups, those that left Africa, and those that didn't (this is still inaccurate). There's more genetic human diversity in Africa than outside it.

>>10633161
Oh, I mean, what is real?

>>10633165
Millions of human demes and ecotypes.

>>10633162
>This is still inaccurate

Yep
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/7/2632

>>10633170
How do we measure demes and ecotypes' "realness"?

>>10633189
Demes are simply related groups that mostly breed within the group. This could be an isolated tribe on an island, a small town, a population of bats in one cave, etc. Ecotypes are populations genetically adapted to a particular environ. An example would be the populations that develop sickle cell disease which exist in India, Africa, and Arabia. The mutation that causes sickle cell disease also confers malaria immunity/resistance, so natural selection allowed this to spread in some areas where malaria was/is prevelant.

>>10633162
>more genetic human diversity in Africa than outside
What does this even think it means?

>>10633364
Are you dumb?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947357/

>>10633385
This relates to realness how?

>>10633411
What realness? That’s not even a topic now.

>>10633428
It was when >>10633162 happened.

>>10633148
Nothing in biology is real. You reveal your politics by proclaiming that "racial terms" are useless, when they are objectively no more useless then any other biological term.

Go ahead, define "species", there is none that is objectively real.

>>10633364
There is more genetic differences within Africa then there is outside Africa, the same way there is more genetic diversity among wild wolves populations then among domesticated dog.

If you understand genetics, you would realize just how uninteresting and irrelevant that fact is for this type of discussion, and that its more a function of how all non-Africans descend from smaller populations making them more homogenous. Because despite being more genetically domesticated, domesticated dogs show radically more physical and behavioral variation then wild wolves do. Funnily enough, the same is true for non-Africans. I mean, non-Africans can look wildly different, while with Africans, you'll have a hard time telling a Igbo and a Hadza apart despite the fact that both are genetically different strains of humanity.

Why? I dunno, might have to do with the fact that dogs and humans were both artificially selected for traits.

>>10633183
>we wuz white

>>10633674
>Nothing in biology is real.

Wrong.

>You reveal your politics by proclaiming that "racial terms" are useless, when they are objectively no more useless then any other biological term.

Wrong.

>Go ahead, define "species", there is none that is objectively real.

Wrong. All species are real.

>>10633743
Fuck off with your /pol/ memes. No such thing as “white”.

>>10633746
>Wrong.
Wrong.

>Wrong.
Wrong.

>Wrong.
Wrong.

>>10633763
>Wrong

Wronger

>>10633689
Question
>>10633364
what is the x axis on this?

>>10633746
>>>10633674
>>Nothing in biology is real.
>Wrong.
eh, the living things are real, and a lot of the processes, but a lot of it is artificial constructions and models of processes
>>You reveal your politics by proclaiming that "racial terms" are useless, when they are objectively no more useless then any other biological term.
>Wrong.

>>Go ahead, define "species", there is none that is objectively real.
Define anything and there's at best 1 thing that fits that criteria
>Wrong. All species are real.
eh. While he's argument is real, species is a construct too

>>10633674
Anything they personally believe in is real and anything you believe in is fake. Such is the way of these people. It's double-think straight of the book, everything is only as true or as fake as it needs to be in the single instant it takes them to utter their very next sentence, and then it all goes back into Schrodinger's box again until they need to reach in.

>>10633806
Species are as real as mineral classifications or atom species. That we defined them doesn’t change the fact that genetic and behavioral differences exist between a salamander and a squirrel.

>>10633799
Genetic distance, probably as fixation index.

>>10633813
not really, because biological entities show variants that molecules don't.
You can mix atoms together at a particular temperature and always get a 70% percent yield of a molecule. I think the safest way to say it is there's more ways a living thing could respond in identical situation. And that's at a molecular level, you can vary expression of genetically identical entities so much that they aren't really equatable.
Species then, is an inefficient categorize of some unquantified genetic differentiation, that frequent inconsequential at the levels where evolution takes place.

>>10633844
>not really, because biological entities show variants that molecules don't.

Wrong. Atoms exhibit multiple allotropes and the ability to form thousands of compounds, with atoms themselves exhibiting organization into multiple groups with shared characteristics.

>You can mix atoms together at a particular temperature and always get a 70% percent yield of a molecule.

Irrelevant.

>. I think the safest way to say it is there's more ways a living thing could respond in identical situation.

Irrelevant.

>Species then, is an inefficient categorize of some unquantified genetic differentiation, that frequent inconsequential at the levels where evolution takes place.

Sorry you’re a retard. Can’t talk to you anymore.

>>10633689
So whites were domesticated by who?

>>10633674
>Nothing in biology is real
false, you are trying to mix evolutive taxonomy with the other branches, stop Jaden
>>10633806
the artificial vs natural organization is easier when the species are non extinct

>>10633869
>Atoms exhibit multiple allotropes and the ability to form thousands of compounds, with atoms themselves exhibiting organization into multiple groups with shared characteristics.
okay let me, word what was intended a bit more clearly
The differences in the dead bodies of clones are less than the differences in the bodies of living clones
>Species then, is an inefficient categorize of some unquantified genetic differentiation, that frequent inconsequential at the levels where evolution takes place.
that was bad on my bad, what I should have said was
Species is an inefficient categorization of an specified, and probably indeterminable, amount of genetic differs, which may not be of consequence to how evolution occurs

>>10633904
> the artificial vs natural organization is easier when the species are non extinct
how so

>>10633918
>Species is an inefficient categorization of an specified, and probably indeterminable, amount of genetic differs, which may not be of consequence to how evolution occurs
fuck, that was still bad, what I SHOULD have said was
Species is an conceptually inefficient, but functionally effective, categorization of an unspecified, and probably indeterminable, amount of genetic differences, which may not be of consequence to the distinction being made

>>10633142
People played a much greater role in the development of dogs than cats.

People made dogs our friends, and shaped them intofucked up and whatever retarded configuration (bulldogs) we wanted.

Cats are just scavengers who hung around our trash heaps.

>>10633142
Slippery genes

>>10633954

This, in a nutshell.

We domesticated dogs earlier than cats so there was more time.

Also dogs are easier to train and manage so it is easier to selectively breed them.

Cats just do whatever the fuck they want. They’re still not really domesticated, they just live alongside us.

>>10633948
This definition also applies to race

>>10633146
Because the Han slaughtered half of them.

>>10633142
What would be the point? What would having variation of (domestic) housecat types do? Dogs it is obvious. There is a natural will for there to be many shapes of hound.

>>10633146
Same for Euros

>>10633364
>no Khoi-san
Poor graph

>>10633689
Those examples apply to fish and mammals too. The massive genetic diversity of fish. I always chuckle at how this diversity has meant that some species of fish e.g. coelocanths are actually more closely related to mammals than they are to other fish!

>>10635066
Well, some breeds of cat handle cold or hot weather conditions better than others, depending on their fur amount and size. And breeders have started making silly looking decorative breeds, like those Munchkin cats, similar to what breeders in the past did to create toy dogs like pugs and such.

>>10635020
sure, and like species, races can be defined and differs between them quantified. The meaning behind those quantifications depends on how you define them. Saying they aren't real is true, but that doesn't mean they are meaningless

>>10635150
Siamese cats I think is a product of aesthetics. No idea why people would want a cat to look like them.

>>10633142
Chromosome count

>>10633161
Back to /pol/ with you.