/sci/ - Science & Math

>"races" of the human race

Nazi bait.

got lost on your way to /pol/, OP?

This is really confusing for me. So are there "races", or species? Or are these just different phenotypes which have developed over the millenia in different conditions?

>>11235157
i think yes

>>11235136
>>11235139
Trolling is not allowed outside of /b/

>>11235056
>Let's
I say let's not!

>>11235056
Whites are the only diverse race everything outside that is various shades of pooskin negroids and mongoloids.

I want to learn more about the Ancient North Eurasians what do you know /sci/?

>>11235136
>>11235139
>>>/lgbt/

Now fuck off

>>11235056
See what is the problem with /sci/?
I would prefer to see a thread named "eukaryotic biodiversity thread", but I only get "human biodiversity thread" which is sadly a good enough thread for /sci/.

>>11235834
How many generations? Also, a wolf breeding with a dog is insanely rare.

>>11235056
>all these caveats to shoehorn in "race"
And I see /pol/ has reached 1000 hours in MS Paint. Impressive.

>>11235136

go back to /kosher/

>>11235056
Picture shows the result of running a PCA on human genomes. These are our tiny branches on the Tree of Life.

>>11235056
>Another racism thread

Hidden

>>11235886
PC1 is dick size and PC3 is dick girth

>>11235886
PC1 is dick length and PC3 is dick girth

>>11235848
Stick to the subject or

>fuck off

>OP desperately screeching jew and lgbt boogeyman
cringe desu. this is why nobody takes the alt right seriously.

>>11235848
Stick to the subject instead of subverging, but my main suggestion is for you to fuck off.

Why do you all get so butthurt when facts are set on the table?
>you awe a raycis! Ha! Got you!
You think that word still has any meaning? It doesn't, as of late

>>11236004
>tbhliterally nazi
>18 replies 15 posters

I'm not OP and I will tell you to take your gay shit elsewhere, Steinberg

>>11236013
you sure convinced me that niggers are inferior, anon.

>>11236004

OP doesnt even say anything about jew so why do you bring jews up?

>>11236038
>>11235863

>>11235056
wow humans really did just dominate the planet
I was watching this monkey show on netflix, and there is this one species that eats its weight in GRASS just all day eating grass

How did that monkey get to be so inefficient in getting calories? There's nothing in grass. And since we're pretty sufficient in caloric needs (I think we can go further in powder/lipid formulations but that's another thread) where do we go from here? 40 thousand years later and we're still here, just eating cheetos and fapping because what the fuck else can we get from our bodies and the forces of nature

>>11236030
If life hasn't convinced you, you are really bad at pattern recognition and most likely have the tism. A black guy will tell you the same.

As for the thread, nice job.

>>11236093
from here we use eugenics to create a super human species that will dominate the rest of the galaxy

>>11235834
Imagine actually making this argument on a science board. Where are your citations, friend? No, Dr. /pol/ doesn't count.

>>11235834

>dog
>adapting
>the literal manchild of the canine species that got fucking removed from the natural selection and breed for the sheer entertainment of humans

>>11236210
>where are your citations

IT'S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES. THE LIGHT FROM THE IMAGE ENTERING YOUR EYES GIVES YOU THE INFORMATION YOU NEED. THE OTHER CITATION IS FUCKING NATURE, AND IF YOU NEVER GO OUT, THEN THERE'S NOT MUCH I CAN TELL YOU

You are so goddamn pozzed and brainwashed, omg.
>please give a citation by Schlomo so I can believe you
No.

>>11236093
>There's nothing in grass.
Fresh grass = 12MJ/KgDM1

>>11236093

apparently grass is rich in omega 3 fatty acid

>>11236286
>YOU MUST BELIEVE WHATEVER MY INFOGRAPHIC SAYS
>ITS TRUE BECAUSE ITS IN INFOGRAPHIC FORM
lmao

>>11235834
So there are 3 human races?
I fucking knew turks were white

>>11236286
The difference is, you haven't actually provided any decent explanation, or data, just a picture.
You can take pictures of various rocks, and often they'll look almost identical, what matters is the scientific analysis.
The thing is, subspecies are often more genetically distinct from one another than humans are.

For instance, notice that the generation variation between dogs and grey wolves (their progenitor) is greater than the genetic difference between different human populations.
So no, your image is bullshit, and doesn't take into account actual scientific factors.

>>11236712
>*genetic variation

>>11236286
>>11236712
And just you don't fuck up, look at the massive difference between the numbers used to measure variation between grey wolves and dogs, and between different human populations
0.2 for c.l/f measurements along the x-axis, 0.002/0.0025 for h.s measurements along the x-axis. That's a difference of 0.198/0.1975.
Showing that genetic variation between grey wolves, dogs and other dogs, is greater than between different human populations, by a considerable factor.

>>11236286
>>11236712
In fact, take a look at Australian Shepherds and Australian Cattle Dogs, the total y-axis variation between that entire breed is 0.1. But in humans, the total y-axis variation between European populations and African populations is around 0.005.
So, between dogs of the same breed, Australian Shepherd dogs, in this case, there is more y-axis variation than between European and African populations, by an entire factor of 0.095, more than the entire variation between ANY human population.

>>11236739
that's a little disngenuous data manipulation, ACD's have dingo admixture

>>11236743
Does that include Australian Shepherds?

>>11236746
aussie shephards are an american breed, the kelpie is the australian sheep dog
though my memory might be a little sketchy I last read this about fivee years ago

>>11236749
And if I remeber right there has been more than a few admixture events from various wolf races into various dog genomes especially in asia

>>11235157
phenotypes

>>11236749
Either way, my point still stands, the variation within breeds is either around, or greater than, the variation between different human populations, and certainly between the broad category of dog and grey wolves.
So, OPs infographic is still a bunch of "feels right" bullshit.

>>11236758
His what?
I tend to forget OP posts

>>11236759: >>11235056, >>11235834

>>11236758
That's because eye, hair and skin color are all more or less 3 genes. Out of 25000 in a human. But this is of course unknown information to /pol/fags.

Of course 3 genes won't show in any real genetic clustering of humans.

>>11236764
Exactly, it's also why their whole "race purity" thing is bullshit. Humans are far more similar than even the same breed of dog, and yet we refer to all dogs as Canis lupus familiaris. As per OPs criteria, Homo sapiens is a perfectly valid classification for all humans.

>>11236761
Ah right, I just saw you mention ACDs and reacted.

>>11235480
Neanderthals mourned their dead, hunted mammoths and made flutes from bones.
Today's eurasians are as much Neanderthal as other Homo sapiens are NOT chimpanzee (2-4%).

>>11236773
For some reason /pol/ seems to think that dog breeds prove race. Despite strong genetic evidence to the contrary.

>>11235056
As someone who used to frequent "human biodiversity" boards, racial realism is legit, but discerning subraces based on phenotype alone (in person or from photographs) is autistic and unreliable.
Autosomal DNA plots can identify the major racial clusters accurately enough, what you do with that information is up to you.

>>11236767
>As per OPs criteria, Homo sapiens is a perfectly valid classification for all humans.
OK

However, I don't, in principle, see a reason we shouldn't be more granular as far as humans go than we would be with dogs.
I don't mind dong racial clusters etc. it's just the /pol/monkeys do it in a dumb way that makes no sense.
Just look at >>11235834. Clearly the guy didn't intend for the viewer to think turks are white, yet that is what the meme literally implies. The cognitive dissonance is far too easier to spot.
I never see polfags say
>hey there are N races and they are such and such
No, it's always
>race is real just look at that abo, aint she ugly

>>11236787
My problem is they argue from a purity-based model, rather than a continuum-based model.

>>11236778
dogs have something like an 1/8th of our breeding interval

>>11236797
And? We literally force them to breed within-group, we don't do the same thing for humans, and yet, they still have a greater variation within group than we do between groups.

>>11236800
the strict within group breeding is relatively recent

>>11236780
I posted that same plot in a different thread
You are essentially right, there are wrinkles here and there, but it is the closest you'll get to sub-species or races.
Something like
Caucasian, Asian, African, Australian, American

Also the lab can prove not just your race but if given good data to compare, it can probably prove which country or region you come from, which doesn't invalidate the concept of doing larger clusters.

>>11236805
You do realize that doesn't help your argument? Right? As that would mean there should be less variation, not more.

>>11236807
>>11236800
umm I don't actually care about whatever arguments are being debated I'm just pointing out details of dog ancestory.

>>11236811
Oh, I thought we were still arguing in reference to the "topic".

>>11236780
One more thing
Guesstimating race based on phenotype isn't completely insane as long as the phenotype you are looking at is a human head with all the flesh removed - ie a skull.
A skull forming involves many genes so it's a good proxy.
However a skull's shape is a bit easy to manipulate based on how the baby lied down, how its crib was and all that, but it's still good overall.

Skullfags from the 19th century literally guessed the clusters the computer spits out today quite well.