/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11252318
call them a racist sexist homophobic xenophobic islamophobic antisemitic straight white Christian male, that usually gets the point across

>>11252318
you can stop looking at research rationally because muh world view and shout angry NPC slogans. lobotomise yourself for maximum effect

>>11252318
You can't. It is a valid criticism of woke egalitarianism.
Expect this line of thought to increase as Neo-Reactionism becomes more mainstream.

>>11252331
>as Neo-Reactionism becomes more mainstream
yes, any day now the sheep will wake up

>>11252318
None of those bird subspecies appear to have any biological advantages over each other

>>11252340
I should have said race-realism anyhow. Not all race realists are neoreactionary. China, for one, is race-realist.
>>11252344
They have different behaviors which are catered for their specific subgroup and environment. "Advantages" are relative.

>>11252318
Humans don't display different kinds of behaviour based on race

>>11252318
It is not just /pol/tard bullshit, modern large scale population genetics studies show that as with any other species, humanity is also diversified into multiple genetic clusters. The only question remaining is how strongly do these divisions affect polygenic traits such as intelligence.

>>11252373
But they do. Hard to say whether it is environmental or genetic, tough.

>>11252318
Back in school I learned that a species can be arbitrarily divided into different races. There is no objective way to divide them that all scientists use, they just use whatever suits them for the research they're doing.
You could of course divide humans into different races but I assume there has never been any scientific basis for the American system of races.

>>11252335
When it comes to dogs there has been selective breeding, which people usually don't do with humans.

>>11252418
>people usually don't select who they have children with
Really now ?

>>11252326
fukken lol

>>11252474
That's not the same as the dog thing

>>11252374
You don't understand PCA.

>>11252480
What's the difference ?

>>11252484
Breeders deliberately select for traits that they want to see in their offspring, whereas a woman might want a partner that is wealthy enough to support a family. The breeder will deliberately try and ensure the puppies do not have unpleasing heads, while the woman will probably have smarter children because well paying jobs correlate with higher intelligence.

>>11252318
so is statement that humans are one race "poltard bullshit"?

>>11252318
The image is attempting to juxtapose but there is no contradiction. The ravens are one species of raven.

The picture is right.

>>11252318
OP is a /pol/tard who just played /sci/ into bait, nice

>the problem trying to use fact based science to justify racism or attack demographic groups
>is it's not based on fact, but muh feels, so anybody can make anything up
>but the far right seems to be most prone to this logic error so they fall for it the most often (most likely the part of their brain responsible for xenophobia has been trained over years to be overstimulated by TV news and online propaganda)
>race baiting can very easily go both ways, but fact based liberals see through it for what it is and don't use it, but they can
>e.g.

are republicans a different race? They're the only group of humans on the planet who would thank and support a man for giving them a tax raise.
They work against their own self interests and self preservation. I don't know how they can even be human?
how can pic related be human? I mean WTF even are they?

>>11252563
This. OP this isn't my first rodeo.

ONE RACE

Everyone I disagree with is a /pol/tard, or a Republican, even if they're not American.
t. /sci/

>>11252570
Are you literally retarded?
Republicans lower taxes (trump for example has lowered the shit out of taxes), democrats raise them (obama).
You also lack the ability to put out comprehensible text, further supporting the idea that youre retarded.

>another race thread

>>11252595
>Republicans lower taxes
lmao is that why trump is putting tariffs on fucking everything?

>>11252595
He lowered taxes for rich folks like himself, while raising it for the poor and middle class, like all his voters. I would say this misunderstanding is a result of Trump sponsored Fox propaganda, but then you'd just turn around and say "NO U" so I'll just say do your own fucking research.

>>11252586
No, it's
>everyone who makes disingenuous racebait threads (on fucking Christmas, no less) is a /pol/tard

>>11252318
>muh eyes
Is not a valid scientific measurement

>>11252606
I love how salty OP has made you, on Christmas, no less. :^)

>>11252318
You see, it has been shown that people from one of your human "subspecies" can be more genetically similar to people from another "subspecies" than to people from their same one. Conversely, two people from the same "subspecies" can be more genetically different between them than from one in other "subspecies".
Same with behavior. Same with intelligence (although not denying possible average differences in these regards). Want references? If you really care, search for yourself

>>11252318
Humans have traveled the continents for thousands of years.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen any polar bears traveling to the forests of brown bears. That's why they can be a different subspecies.

>>11252620
>cry about being called /pol/
>explain why people are calling you /pol/
>n-no YOU'RE mad

if we say /pol/ is a cult, could we report this as Science VS Religion?

remember when theist fags would troll /sci/ relentlessly? why can't we have a rule like that for /pol/ VS /sci/

>>11252482
What are you talking about? PCA can be used to find clusters. We lack some information from that image though, like how much variance do each PC englobe.
Not him btw.

>>11252373
This is almost funny. I hope you're right.

>>11252511
So the ability to become wealthy and successful in different environments make no difference?

>>11252373
wew

>>11252602
it's a trade war with a hostile foreign totalitarian power?

>>11252570
Get out.

Would someone from /sci/ like to make one on the brown bears?
Kodiak, coastal brown, Grizzly and Polar can all interbreed to some extent.
not for /pol/ faggotry but because bears are cool

>>11252318
dividing subspecies is arbitrary, same as races

>>11252668
LOL i'm glad you said that, I like to keep my secret club very insular.

>>11252605
Are you fucking retarded? The Trump tax cut lowered the rate at every single tax bracket, and doubled the standard deduction. Almost everyone either got a cut or an increase in the earned income tax credit gibs they got. The only people who pay more are some wealthy people in high tax states, since the bill put a cap on the amount of state & local taxes you can deduct.

>>11252676
absolutely correct /thread

>>11252639
pack it up boys, he's breaking out the smug image macros

It is refreshing that the black one is the best to look upon. What kind is that? I'd rather check out birds though.

>>11252511
So the woman and the breeder both select for specific traits. No practical difference there as far as biology is concerned.

>>11252694
>image macro

>>11252700
That's the eight subspecies of raven.

>>11252630
Coyotes and grey wolves share the same habitat and interbreed. They're also less genetically distant than Africans and Australians. Are they one canid race ?

>>11252318
Caucasoid and Mongoloid only look different facially, cranially they are basically the same, however congoids and australoids look like another species from their craniums.

>>11252418
>When it comes to dogs there has been selective breeding, which people usually don't do with humans
Entirely false, racial segregation aside almost all cultures practiced eugenicis until WW2 when the Nazis made it go out of fashion

>>11252373
>t. Only experience of black people is TV and media

>>11252708
Coyotes aren't found outside North America. There's justification for the subspecies label, arbitrary as it may be.

>>11252708
I was referring to the woman. I should have started a new paragraph. Are you being subtilely funny?

>>11252318
hate to break it to you, but soviet science is real. we are living in some dark times. even nasa is controlled by women, they renamed the magnetosphere to the magnetopause.

>>11252373
Europeans are hyper moral
North Asiatics are robotic and collectivist
South Asiatics are happier but still collectivist
Blacks are feral psychopaths
Papuans are feral psychopaths
Aboriginals are feral psychopaths
Middle Easterners are jerks
Nafris are jerks
Hispanics are jerks
Native Americans are jerks

Sad that the first post is not
For shame /sci/
> bird can not breed
> human of different color can breed

No need to get fancy or explain stuff to poltard

>>11252772
>Native Americans
Have you met any?

>>11252782
They are pretty mean on those reserves.

>>11252759
Coyote and wolves are different species, not subspecies.
But that justification is absurd. What difference does it make that they're not outside north America? The rest of the north American canids are not found elsewhere either. On that standard you could say the american grey wolf is a different species too.

>>11252318
Haircuts and old age aren't genetic traits.

>>11252774
What if bird can breed ?

>A 2011 study suggested that there are no restrictions on gene flow between the Californian and Holarctic common raven groups, and that the lineages can remerge, effectively reversing a potential speciation.[26]

>>11252772
>Europeans are hyper moral
>what were both world wars
>what was the spanish civil war
>what were the inquisitions
>what were the napoleonic wars
>what was the holocaust
>what was the 30 years war
>what was the colonization of africa
>what were the crusades
>what was the native american genocide
>what was slavery
>what were the boer concentration camps
>what was the potato famine
>what was the bengal famine
>what were the Atrocities in the Congo Free State
>what was the Herero and Namaqua genocide
>what were the french war crimes in Algeria
>what were the italian atrocities in Africa

>>11252791
Euros are the cause of liberalism so they are hyper moral. Euros are the only people to end slavery too.

>>11252480
Humans are literally highly neotenous apes which is a key sign of many domesticated animals.

>>11252791
very selective list. bravo. tally ho!

>>11252785
I think you would be too. They should, at least, be a different subspecies of jerks. They are dissimilar.

>>11252806
It hard to tell who are the meaner out of the jer races since they all have the same trends

Much higher violent crime than whites or asiatics
Lower human development than whites or asiatics
Lower intelligence that whites or Asiatics

But still higher intelligence than african blacks.

>>11252789
Well fuck you right
White are superior
And blacks are subhuman!

>>11252810
But the Amerindians were selected for badassity. All the pussies and suckers were killed or died from sickness or exposure. Only the indestructible jerks survived to perpetuate the species. You gotta give 'em that.

>>11252318
Interesting how the white face is shown from the side to mask it's the whites who are the odd one out.

>>11252826
It is interesting that you think that is interesting.

>>11252791
>inquisitions
what's wrong with chasing down the jewish slave traders that shipped your people off to become sex slaves and eunuchs for the caliphate?

>>11252772
>Native Americans are jerks
not all of thjem are the same they vary across their two continents.

>>11252836
It's hard to read faces (either for emotion, or identity) across those races. Even AI tuned for one struggles with the other.

https://www.wired.com/story/best-algorithms-struggle-recognize-black-faces-equally/

>>11252791
>what was the bengal famine
nothing really to do with Euros mostly it was caused by natives speculating on grain so you can discount this one

>>11252318
the truth about race. we are different species, indeed.

>>11252855
This is interesting. Checking it out.

>>11252774
dogs and wolves are different species, yet they can breed

>>11252791
The first line answers the rest. Go back woman!

>>11252318
You should euthanize yourself. Bebunk the correctness of my prior statement.

>>11252758
Even if that were true thered be glaring differences as they artificially emasculate other races except nigs.
The t.v. percerption is arguably a better argument for differences

>>11252791
>what were the crusades
retalliatory action to repel bloodthirsty islamic invasions
>what was the native american genocide
the what? you mean a naive population being exposed to extremely virulent novel diseases?
>what was slavery
a common preactice throughout the world globally outside of a few cultures that viewed it as degrading, remember who ended it?
unless you mean the trans atlantic slave trade where local african tribes sold off their captured enemies and the Sephardic Jews who owned most of the ships and auctions and financed most of it, they made huge profits

>>11252865
>dogs and wolves are different species

Not true. Dogs are canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of Wolf.

>>11252482
not an argument

>>11252318
/pol/tard bs is often true, if you are not a nigger or a girl

>>11252602
>tariff = tax
The absolute state of USAian education

>>11252791
>what were the world wars
The world wars were made on morals. First World War on vital land and expansionism and WWII on eugenics and revanchism.
>what was the Spanish civil war
Africa has more civil wars going on right now than you have fingers
>what were the inquisitions
Small clerical elite promoting religious nuttery; nothing heavily to the local people
>what was the 30 years war
You tell me
>what was the colonization of Africa
At least now they can kill one another with guns during the day and watch tv during the night, before colonization they killed one another with spears during the day and were enslaved by Arabics during night
>what were the napoleonic wars
Nothing more than the continuation of the French Revolution by a very small man
>what were the crusades
Pick a history book not written for children
>what was the Native American genocide
USAers aren’t Europeans nor humans
>what was slavery
Europe was the last to get into it and first to abolish it. Chinks and kebabs still do it
Anyway, I won’t carry on. Pick a history book or piss off back to >>>/lgbt/

>>11252810
Asian genes but adapted to an environment that selected more for subservience and endurance/strength than for intelligence and individual thinking
But look at the Aztecs though, despite being savages, they were achieving levels of civilization comparable to the Greek

>>11252863
Interesting map. Source for that?

>>11252965
nutcasery, nothing heavily tied to the local people*

>>11252318
They're comparing 17 year old Swedish and Chinese girls with a 70 year old Aborigine

Further, sub-species are based on animal behavior where interbreeding does not occur. This has never been true in at least the last 70,000 years of human of human evolution. We know from genetic research that even Native Americans and Polynesians had contact with other groups of humans.

It's just a dumb fucking uninformed image made by a moron.

OP intentionally confused subspecies and species just for a general /pol/ thread. Why did retards take the bait?

>>11252965
the fucking state of half of these "arguments"
>Spanish civil war is morally fine because other people have civil wars too
>30 years war doesn't count because I'm too uneducated to know what it is
>colonization of Africa was fine because now they have guns
>invading half of Europe is fine because it's a "continuation of the French Revolution" (the fuck?)
>Go find me an argument why the crusades were morally justified, I don't have to provide one but I'm right anyway
>people born in Europe don't count as Europeans because they took a boat trip (also south america and canada don't exist)
>Slavery was fine because other people still have slaves

>>11252983
You are a retard. Nobody is saying those things were fine and that whites are perfect. But if you compare with other races, then whites are the most peaceful and moral. Right now world is controlled mostly by white people and we are enjoying 75+ years of unprecendented peace and development. The only instances of significant warfare are in brown/black countries, as is the case with slavery.

>>11252482
Explain what he’s misunderstanding.

>>11252791
Whites are the only ones to give up imperialism, slavery and total wars.

>>11252990
>But if you compare with other races, then whites are the most peaceful and moral.
That's not what the post was doing at all. It simply called Europeans "hyper-moral", and the reply pointed out how stupid this is.
Backpedaling to the "well whites are the least bad" line doesn't change the fact that their track record of murdering millions of people for reasons ranging from stupid to outright evil is still fucking horrendous. Your neighbour murdering 10 people doesn't magically give you the moral authority to murder 1.

>>11253005
>Your neighbour murdering 10 people doesn't magically give you the moral authority to murder 1.

It could make me hyper-moral in comparison. I think you are arguing semantics here..

>>11253010
>It could make me hyper-moral in comparison.
Do you have some kind of reading impairment? This is not what you replied to.
"Hyper-moral in comparison to Africans" is not the same thing as hyper-moral.

>>11252980
>They're comparing 17 year old Swedish and Chinese girls with a 70 year old Aborigine
It's not about the wrinkles so it doesn't matter. The girl in your pic would fit the point too, even though she's mixed.


And subspecies are not based on that. Lots of subspecies interbreed, and ravens are among those.

You're the moron.

>>11252772
>Europeans are hyper moral

Hahahahahaha.

>>11252375
>Hard to say whether it is environmental or genetic, tough

If you're blind and/or dumb, it is.

>>11253005
Yes, they are hyper moralistic, you retard, do you even know what it means?
Blacks have no clue on self awareness and morals, so they act on impulses and selfishness. European eugenics and catholic inquisition were inherently moralistic, you retard, what do you think the church was inquiring against? Immoral (sinful) behavior. What do you think eugenics were? I’ll let you answer that one, but by your previous posts you are a black man by heart or by mind, waiting for people to feed you out of your poor situation.
Europeans are hyper moralistic people and history proves that.
>nooooooo you can’t do slavery whypipo bad
Imagine judging people from 500 years ago by today’s moral standards
>noooooo you can’t do eugenics
What do you think Nazi aryan supremacy was? Very influenced by ***moral*** philosophers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger — even if their philosophy was possibly distorted at the time
>nooooo you can’t expand the French Revolution
Do you think the FR was good or bad, you brainlet? Decide your political agenda
>noooo USAers are whypipo
It was a joke you microcephalic amoeba, was it not obvious enough?

>>11253076
even the heavily misrepresented Aryan ideology was more inspired by the Sanskrit use of the word to mean a sophisticated educated person than some physical ideal
Why else would it be possible to call some Asian, black or arab peoples Aryan?
by the mid nineties it was widely understood that Aryan a a population descriptor could only be used linguistically not racially

>>11253089
Nno surprise, nazis misused words all the time, and you know exactly what I meant by “aryan supremacy”. Do you have any point?

>>11253089
*mid thirties

>>11253005
Whites dont deny any genocide they did though so calling whites evil is peak retard. Now your jewish ass on the otherhand....

>>11252318
There's more genetic diversity within a group of chimps on a single hillside in Gomba than in the entire human species.

>>11252318

There is no refuting it. There are very obvious differences in the size and shape of the various races, in intelligence and personality which give rise to different cultures and achievements. Then we have to watch movies like Black Panther that give these dumber races the belief that they could be more technologically advanced than everyone else if it weren't for the White devil.

>>11253197
Funnily enough, Black Panther was created by white comic writers
Have blacks ever created anything by themselves, anything important? Serious question
Inb4: noooo nigers be dumb hehehe

>>11253208
>Have blacks ever created anything by themselves, anything important?

Nothing that wouldn't have been invented by anyone else in due time. I think some Black dude invented over 100 uses for peanuts, but an elephant could come up with more than that.

you cant refute it. you can only be offended by it and get upvotes for mocking it on reddit

>bait for retards
>over 100 posts ommitted

EVERY FUCKING TIME

>>11253208
>Have blacks ever created anything by themselves, anything important?
You must be deaf?

>>11252791
this is the most anti-euro-centric view ive ever seen. all the different societies and civilizations have brutal periods to them. not to mention the crusades were a response to hundred years of islamic aggression into Europe.

>>11253156
>There's more genetic diversity within a group of chimps on a single hillside in Gomba than in the entire human species.

And yet, human genetic diversity could still be significant. Even a single point mutation is enough to turn a genius into a drooling retard.

>>11253291

Take it easy on them anon. It's clear they have nothing going for themselves as if they did they wouldn't be wasting their time here, especially today.

>>11252701
Having a well paying job is not a genetic trait. There are specific genes that code for having a well-shaped snout, but having a well-paying job is not genetic. There are no "good job" genes.

>>11253535
There's no "good herder" genes. That means that dogs were not selected to be able to herd sheeps.

Stop playing dumb anon.

>>11253548
Dogs do have genes that make them good herders though.

>>11253535
>There are no "good job" genes.

There are genes for intelligence and conscientiousness. "good job" genes by proxy.

>>11253551
Humans do have genes that make them good workers too.

>>11252318
Your answer is litterly that the left side could just have the text

>birds

and it would match the right

>>11253567
>>11253557
Being a good worker does not mean that you will have a good job. Having a well-paying job depends on environmental factors more than genes.

>>11252627
>hurr i literally suck at my job as a geneticist working in special classification but listen to me !! ME JUST CANT DO IT !! TOO HARD !!!!

>>11253603
>Having a well-paying job depends on environmental factors more than genes.
Not true. Almost all high paying jobs require abilities dependent on genes.


When did we start talking about high-paying jobs as if they mattered in the evolution of human groups anyway ?

>>11253621
>reddit spacing
>can't read
go back

>>11253496
>And yet, human genetic diversity could still be significant. Even a single point mutation is enough to turn a genius into a drooling retard.
Way to miss the point. The question was about races as an alias for subspecies. In humans there are none. Your trivial off-topic observation doesn't change that.

>>11252326
Don't forget transphobic and ableist

>>11253628
I'm here forever newfag.

>>11253653
how do they feel about height?

>>11253603
well yeah just because you've got a border collie it's purely environmental whether the collie's highly selected psychological predispoistion to herd sheep and capability to memorise and comprehend multiple potentially complex whistle calls and maneuvours, lithe athletic body able to work for days on end on the side of a moutain under cold harsh winds and heavy rainfall that has been under intense selection for thousands of years will have any more relevance to a task than a pug

>>11253687
*if there aren't any livestock to herd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FX9rviEhw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI6iBFUuCQI

I don't think drawing from animals will strengthen a racist argument, considering how genetic variability and natural selection work.

>>11253696
I think they support the plasticity of a species to potentially contain sub-groups highly adapted to vastly different environmental conditions.
And contextually these adaptations matter.

>>11253696
Humans are animals and natural selection affects them in the exact same ways.

>>11253603
Imagine having to do all these mental gymnastics to reaffirm your world view. It must be exhausting.

The more I think about the more convinced I am that africans have chimp and bonobo dna in them.
If you really think about it, it only makes sense. You have people of all races and both sexes fucking dogs and horses and cattle and dead corpses. So it only makes sense in Africa they also fuck chimps and bonobos, both men and women. Let's say it happens just 1000 times a year in Africa that chimps and humans have sex, a very low estimate considering the depravity of what non-africans will fuck. Over the course of 1000 years that's one million inseminations. Of either chimp sperm in humans eggs or human sperm in chimp eggs.
Biology says that will lead to offspring. And if you are willing to fuck a chimp, you are willing to fuck a human-chimp offspring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

>>11253738
are you fucking stupid?

>>11253738
why isn't there a taboo againt men fucking female bonobos?

>>11252751
>Caucasoid and Mongoloid only look different facially
>congoids and australoids look like another species
Congratulations, you just debunked racism. Negroids and Australoids are genetically about as far as it gets from eachother.
You have Sub Saharans on one end, a considerable gap, then West Eurasians, then East Eurasians (which includes Mongoloids, Native Americans and Australoids).

>>11253760
It would explain why niggers are so far behind evolutionary despite having had the biggest headstart of all the humans. In Africa unlike other places on Earth there is a small but consistent influx of chimp and bonobo genes into the human population. Something that is not biologically possible anywhere else on the globe. I saw in India that some indian men had catched a female orangutang and used the poor thing as sexslave. But since the orangutang is so far an ancestor that cannot lead to offspring no matter how many times they raped the poor thing. The same thing is not true in Africa. There is nothing biologically impossible about what I am suggesting and human depravity knows no bounds for some people. They fuck anything, dogs, horses, cadavers and probably even worse that my imagination can't conjure.
>>11253764
I don't know. I don't understand nigger culture. In their legends it was a woman who had offspring with a bonobo. But biologically speaking a human man should also be able to impregnate a female chimp.

>>11253779
The australians lived isolated for 60.000 years and devolved. Shit happens. If anything it proves racism.

>>11253780
Anon right now you are the sort of idiot that makes having a rational discussion on the genetic causes of variation in intelligence so difficult, our last common ancestor with chimps was over 7M years ago.
This blatantly disingenuos rhetoric is precisely what is used to discredit the field.

>>11253787
Why did they ruin a perfectly good dog?

>>11253787
My point was that major differences in phenotype are often not proportional to genetic distance. We can identify races due to a combination of skull metrics and genetics.

>>11253797
https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/060515-10.html
But researchers led by David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, now calculate that the split may have occurred no more than 6.3 million years ago, and possibly as recently as 5.4 million. That would make Toumaï older than the time of the split.

There is nothing to discredit. The difference is there for anyone to observe daily. The only intelligent discussion is why and how. Idiots who truly believe there is no difference are so dumb that they can't contribute to the discussion anyway.
>>11253799
Fair enough, but according to genetics there is no major difference between a german sheperd and a, let's say boxer and both are used as police dogs and guard dogs. But the cranial difference is another story. However, there is a bigger genetic difference between a wolf and a german sheperd. But smaller cranial difference.
Listen, what I am trying to say is that nigger and native australians are clearly subhumans and anything else is just semantics.

>>11253846
sorry meantover 5M originally, typo.
Anon you going around and claiming africans fucked chimps and that's why they're so different does not help anyone
and there is no genetic evidence to support it
if there were given the state of dna science we would have found it
the fact that even our hybridising with neanderthals was only one way and quite limited gives you an idea of the challenge inter species hybridisation would pose given we only separated from neanderthals 300,000-800,000 years ago (depending on study methodology).

>>11253890
* 800,000 according to a study on dental evolution
https://www.livescience.com/65499-neanderthal-human-last-common-ancestor.html

>>11252318
The four human ethnicities shown in your picture can interbreed, while the birds cannot.

>>11253904
But the birds can interbreed?

>>11252318
Depending on your definition, either there are eight races in the Congo Basin alone, with a separate race per populations on relatively isolated islands and God knows how many overall; there were five races but they all intermixed by now; there are as many races as there are combinations of physical characteristics; or races are basically basic combos of haplogroups.

>>11253890
>and there is no genetic evidence to support it
>if there were given the state of dna science we would have found it
Not if it is a small influx. Then it just looks like ancient hybridization. Read the article.
https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/060515-10.html
"The researchers make their claim after comparing the genetic codes of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and other primates in unprecedented detail — more than 20 million DNA 'letters' in all. By checking the differences between different species' DNA sequences, they were able to estimate the time since they first diverged.

But the story is not simple, Reich and his team explain in their study, published online in Nature1. Different sections of the genome differ by different amounts, suggesting that they parted ways at different times. The divorce period between the two species, the data suggest, could have lasted a million years."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16710306
The genetic divergence time between two species varies substantially across the genome, conveying important information about the timing and process of speciation. Here we develop a framework for studying this variation and apply it to about 20 million base pairs of aligned sequence from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and more distantly related primates. Human-chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84% to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years.

The genetic difference between human and chimps/bonobos is 1,4 %
So you have a hybrid, 50/50. Then another. 25/75. Then another. 12,5/87,5. then 6,25/93,75 then 3,125/96,985 then 1,5/98,5
That is just 6 generations and you can no longer tell through genetics that a human fucked a chimp in Africa and had a baby.
But the stupidity from the chimp would still be way more present since the genes are positioned differently.

>>11252318
Very simple: if races exist, that means that there can't be "subhumans" either, just races adapted to their enviroment.

>>11253941
>https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/060515-10.html
>2006/05/17
you're a retard

>>11252318
The argument fails because it is an intentionally misleading picture; the camera angles of the birds don't clearly show any significant differences in the physiology of each species. That lazy, visual simularity of the images themselves to distract from the deeper scientific understanding of them is intentional. By contrast, the skin tone of different humans is chosen for a similar visual effect, to highlight a contrast between the top two with fair skin and the bottom two with darker skin.

In short, the picture doesn't actually examine anything scientific at all that would explain what differences and similarities there are between subspecies or races, and the impact they might have. It relies on a visual effect.
>>11253943
There's no argument about "subhumans" being made in the pic though, except implicitly by knowing something about the author.

>>11253946
I'm a retard because the article is from 2006? What does that have to do with anything. David Reich is still a renowned geneticist working at Harvard.
But outright saying that the evidence shows that niggers fucked chimps and had babies is so politically incorrect that it will never be outright said by our current intellectuals.

>>11253943
>Very simple: if races exist, that means that there can't be "subhumans" either, just races adapted to their enviroment.
Pure semantics by the way.

>>11252318
Species classification is a social construct

>>11252318
this picture has never made sense to me

Animal classification is often done for our convenience. Its just a book keeping type of thing.
It's likely half of those birds can interbreed, share the same ancestor, and exhibit the extremely similar behaviors.
For most dogs they just see each other as dogs and they will happily breed with one another.
And for behavior, there are non-interracial families where the father's side of the family is quite and calm, but the mother's side is loud and hectic. Behavior is generally more about environment then genetics.

>>11253968
Then surely you can fix the image of the bird and show how vast the difference is between the different subgroups.

>>11253968
>the camera angles of the birds don't clearly show any significant difference
The pictures were not intentionally selected to obscure the differences. They're the main illustration pictures of the respective Wikipedia pages.

As for the humans, you can arrange and pick the pictures of individuals of each group however you want, the difference remain obvious.

This picture shows thus the different standards applied to animals and humans : for the former, slight phenotypical changes and clinal separations between populations are enough to describe subspecies. In the latter, stark phenotypical differences and similar degrees of separation are not.

its environmental

>>11252318
You can't debunk it. It's true and 4chan is /pol/.

>>11252563
We are all /pol

>>11252570
Looks like Reddit is mad.
Go back.

>>11252606
We're all /pol/ here.
4chan is /pol/.

There was an intentional push to stop focusing on racial differences to stop people from seeing blacks and others as subhumans and treat them as such. A nobel and well intentioned thing really. But it went way, way too far. Now you have a significant portion of people that truly believe that Africans are just white people with a tan and that’s literally the only difference. It’s almost like a kind of brainwashing because if you just look at them you can see that’s not the case, as just psysically their faces are a different shape. If skin color was the only difference am African with white skin would be impossible to distinguish from a European, which isn’t true obviously. It’s now almost impossible to study genetic and other differences between races for pc reasons which is stupid, because there could be many benefits. Medical ones are obvious, but educational and others as well. Blacks do fucking terrible at white schools, and it’s not only a cultural problem. There’s a lot of evidence they aren’t as intelligent, especially in the ways that matter in education, and there’s evidence they learn differently. It’s doing no one any good to give them the same curriculum in the same schools as white kids, they fail out at astounding rates and drag down other kids with them somewhat, hurting education for everyone involved. Would it be better to say, have math classes geared towards black students and the way they learn? Maybe separate classes altogether? Or different schools entirely? People react automatically negative to these ideas and call them racist, but the way we are currently doing things is not helping black students, pretending they are the same and just as capable as other students. But we can’t consider changes that might help them and everyone else, because no one will admit the truth. It’s like taking a special ed student in high school, skipping him ahead to college and sticking him at Harvard. He doesnt belong there.

>>11252646
As said before. We are all /pol/.

>>11252605
It's funny you claim we ignore facts when your argument had been debunked time and time again.

>>11254815
Cont.. then people ask, “what’s wrong with Harvard? Why is this special ed 15 year old not succeeding? Is there bias against 15 year olds? Bias against special ed kids at Harvard? Maybe we are teaching wrong. I mean the other students are doing fine but what else could be going on?” While not just looking at the obvious answer. Harvard is for smart adults, not special ed 15 year olds. If it is true(and evidence points to yes, but further research is needed and not being done) that black students are significantly less intelligent then other races, nothing we do will ever stop them from failing and being miserable at our schools. If that’s true, we are doing them and ourselves a great disservice keeping them there. If that’s true we will just keep working on the wrong problem, racism etc, and never do anything real to help them.

>>11252700
>It is refreshing that the black one is the best to look upon.
?

>>11254826
So it should be illegal for black people to go to Harvard? The black people that do go there seem to do fine.

>>11254839
I never said that. It’s a complex issue and would take a complex solution. Probably the way to go would be to find out early what students might do better at a normal school. And the goal would be to make them better prepared, not worse for the real world, college included. Again it would be complex and I’m not proposing legislation here just stating some observations. Also, black students on the whole do terrible at Harvard compared to others. Why? Because they are let in with lower test scores, so many black students there(not all obviously, some do fine) get into Harvard that have no business there, and if they were a different race would not have got in. Those students tend to do badly.

>>11254815
The worst thing are people being called autistic simply because they were born with non-white body langauge, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them otherwise.

>>11254815
The worst thing is people are being called autistic simply because they were born with non-white body langauge, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them otherwise.

Yes, you're right, I'd say neurotypical whites learn backwards (from the conclusions, to the basics).

>>11254815
The worst thing is people are being called autistic simply because they were born with non-white body langauge, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them otherwise.

Yes, you're right, I'd say neurotypical whites learn backwards (from the conclusions, to the basics). But it isn't becasue of low intelligence, it's because it's kind of like having to master triple integral first, before you are allowed to learn basic algebra.

Love Corvids, me. Simple as. Even the "ugly" crow noises in the morning, I think sound beautiful.

Merry Christmas, even to the salty antifa brainlets that keep losing the arguments with "poltards" itt. Hope your partner got you a nice rainbow coloured bad dragon dildo for you to fuck your shit up.

CAW CAW CAW, and a happy new year.

Isn't there more genetic distance between some groups of the same subspecies of chimpanzees than there is separating the races from one another? Might be due to the decreased mutation rate present in humans.

>>11254815
The worst thing is people are being called autistic simply because they were born with non-white body langauge, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them otherwise.

Yes, you're right, I'd say neurotypical whites learn backwards (from the conclusions, to the basics). It isn't becasue of low intelligence, it's because it's kind of like having to master triple integral first, before you are allowed to learn basic algebra.

https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

>>11254850
>Also, black students on the whole do terrible at Harvard compared to others. Why? Because they are let in with lower test scores, so many black students there(not all obviously, some do fine) get into Harvard that have no business there, and if they were a different race would not have got in. Those students tend to do badly.
Why do you talk out of your ass so much?

>>11252318
>ctrl+f " sun"
>0 results
lol @ /sci/

>>11252318
This just in:
>men and women are different species
>tall people and short people are different species
>skinny people and fat people are different species

>>11254882
That’s 100 students you just posted man. Graduation rates of AA minorities has been a problem in the Ivy’s for years. Is that pic recent? Maybe they just decided the solution was to simply start graduating them. Regardless, again, gpa and graduation rates of aa students has plagued colleges for a long time, and why wouldn’t it? You think that less intelligent students are going to do better?

>>11254900
Who cares if they fail out though??

>>11254900
I'm racist myself but you're being stupid.
>blacks are less intelligent so they fail more
>I don't have data but they must fail more since they're less intelligent

>>11254882
>>11254900
So I went to check it out and it's true that blacks do rather well at Harvard.
In fact they do well or not so bad in prestigious universities in general, pic related.
The average graduation rate for all blacks in higher education on the other hand is under 50% and consistently lagging more than 20 points behind that of whites.
https://www.jbhe.com/2018/01/the-nationwide-racial-gap-in-college-graduation-rates-3/

>>11252318
All humans are the same species, sun and dust just make them look different.

>>11254867
based norf poster.

>>11254808
>>11254813

Yeah that's what people on pol think.

Well maybe if you weren't a brainlet, you'd see that this was valid criticism

>>11254936
you do have to pass what amounts to an IQ test to get in.

They're wrong, all of 4chan is /a/

>>11254989
How do you make a lesbian chemist the best girl?

>>11253738
>>11253780
>>11253846
>>11253941
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Friendly reminder that all evidence points to the conclusion that niggers in Africa to this day are still fucking and breeding whith chimps and bonobos and passing on those traits to the rest of the niggers in Africa.

>>11254987
Whites and Asians have to pass the test. Minorities and especially blacks do not. They only have to compete with other blacks. >>11254927
Sorry mate, I have extensive knowledge of this because I studied psychometrics and other test taking subjects in college(psychometrics is more or less learning to design tests). I shouldn’t have assumed everyone else has the same knowledge. I’m not going to trade graphs or info graphs with people here, blacks, how they do on tests in general, college entrance tests specifically, how they do in college etc is complex as hell, and there just isn’t enough room in a thread or multiple threads to properly discuss it. The information is out there if you are interested though. Massive resources have gone into trying to design tests like the sats, gmat, gre etc that minorities but mostly blacks don’t do terrible on. The problem is they have actually gotten fairly good at designing tests that predict college or graduate school success(well, they are far from perfect, but it’s not bad if you know how difficult it is to design a valid test, the results are impressive honestly especially the graduate school tests) but they have been completely unable to design a test that blacks do well on, or to put it another way a test that they do anywhere near as good as whites. Not even those tests, ANY test. Iirc one of the ways you can figure out how to reduce disparity is to find questions where there isn’t the disparity on a test, find out why etc and replicate that. But even finding single questions on the sat that blacks don’t do shit on is difficult. Anyway the whole subject is interesting.

>>11255039
>Minorities and especially blacks do not.
>I studied psychometrics and other test taking subjects in college
You're full of shit. Nobody is getting into ivy league with shit test scores (unless by bribery). Blacks still have to do well to get in, even if they do get some leverage.

>>11255046
Again, feel free to look all this up yourself if you want. If you check black on the race box in a college application the sat requirements go down significantly, sometimes by as much as hundreds of points.(well the old scoring, I think there’s a new scoring method now, not familiar with it). You say I’m talking out my ass because it “seems” like bullshit. Lmao. Well unfortunately for all of us your feelings don’t define reality. So look it up. Or just assume you are right for no reason ikc

>>11252863
Unnamed archaic, also known as bonobos.

>>11252819
Not him but damn you ceded fast anon

>>11254826
There's a general lowering of standards everywhere so as to eliminate the appearance of any one group being superior to another, unless of course it's white men being shown to be inferior. My theory is that it's yet another attempt to force Communism on us

>>11252373
Sure buddy

>>11252373
>>11255268
I must be imagining a pattern here

>>11252318
Species is not the same as race you dumb fuck

>>11252373
>>11255268
>>11255292
I bet it's entirely environmental

>>11252373
>>11255268
>>11255292
>>11255297
Yep, totally unrelated to race

>>11255297
I bet it's entirely genetic

>>11252570
Nigga what the shit how old are you. Democrats have been the tax tax tax party since the 60s. Have you not visited a major city yet?

>>11254829
There is a point where racism is just gay.

>>11254973
which is everyone on this site.

>>11255055
What if you claim you're black because 8 generations ago one of your ancestors was an african?

Sci should enforce a basic IQ test in the form that any graph or infoographic should include full title, key, and axis titles along with the full citation.

failing to comply should see you banned

>>11255419
OK here you go.

Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (2nd special abridged ed.). Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute. ISBN 1-56000-320-0.

>>11255427
>>11255419
*full citation included within the image
I'm sick of not knowing where
1577174031062.jpg, *.png, *.webm, *.gif etc, etc, were sourced from

>>11255432
Better?

>>11255441
Nice. Where's the proof these differences are due to genes though? That should be a basic requirement, right?

>>11255447
GUTEN TAG

>>11252965
retard

>>11255447
very difficult to prove causality, taboo to research in the west and even if you did prove it outright the progressives would smear you and make you a pariah so not happening any time soon

>>11255462
It happened,see>>11255453

>>11255465
that's correlation, not causation

>>11255469
What would an experiment designed to test for causation look like?

>>11255469
Pertinent correlations = causations until you prove them wrong. Bring a plausible counter hypothesis

>>11255469
can you reject the null hypothesis that they are not causative of IQ?

>>11255471
Lots of CRISPR experiments on animals and probably humans. We find causal genes all the time. Pic related is the literal gene that can have an abnormal allele that creates hemoglobin a certain way as to make your red blood cell misshapen, causing sickle cell. We will eventually find genes and how they effect neural pathways that translate to intelligence.

>>11255475
>correlations = causations when I say it does
Oh my

>>11255475
there isn't one but the consensus in the sci community is that there is not sufficient *evidence* to [reasonably] prove causation, correlation is part of said evidence but the case is not yet water tight
>>11255475
pertinent correlations = pertinent correlations, not causation
I am not denying the correlation or the hypothesis, I am pointing out plausible deniability. I understand your point that the evidence suggests you are correct but the issue has become so politicized and controversial almost nothing less than a true causal link or undeniable body of evidence will change anything and we're not there

>>11255517
>Strawmaning me

>>11255537

The current state of affairs,the amount of evidence that we have that is,points to this theory. All the evidence that we currently possess supports this theory and until something new appears , we ought to admit that this is the only explanation.

>plausible deniability

You have to support it with evidence,simply stating that it ***could*** exist is utterly invalid. This is the type of logic used by christcucks when confronted by science: muh theory,not 100% proven,we can still deny it even though we have no evidence that supports OUR theory.

>the issue has become so politicized

I love to use my reason and the studies only inside the sphere of knowledge. Any external factor or sphere that has a tangency with our own does not concern me. I don't care about politics,I care about the truth.

>>11255541
I mean, you pulled all of it out of your ass. You didn't quote any study. How about a study that says the correlation is "pertinent" and thus, we can consider it causative.

Otherwise, it is just you saying so.

>>11255550
And when I say science, I mean physics. I hate lumping all the verifiable disciplines under the name of "muh science"

>>11255550
>I don't care about politics
>Le SS officer
Sure thing

>>11255551
Lee,James et al. ,google it ,but be sure to take a break before that as you seem fairly angsty.

>>11255471
>>11255469
So I understand that the alternative explanation is that whites are more intelligent than blacks due to environmental factors, and these genes are associated to intelligence because they're associated with whites.

But isn't it easy to confirm ? If these genes when they do appear in (non-mixed) blacks are also associated with intelligence, or if their absence among whites is associated with lack of intelligence, then their action is pretty solidly established.

Didn't the studies control that ?

>>11255557
Is this supposed to be an argument?

>>11255560
>Lee,James et al
you could simply test genes vs the IQ within a population of whites and separately within blacks
if you came to the same conclusions for both poplations independently that would be quite strong evidence

>>11255559
All I'm getting from that is that they identified a sub-group of genes that's good at predicting (aka correlates with) educational attainment, and that these genes have something to do with neurons, so it could give clues toward the genetics of intelligence in the future.

>>11255587
You do not know how to search it

>>11255550
>we ought to admit that this is the only explanation.
no. the social and environmental arguments are usually weak but if you want a well reasoned economic based argument for disparities read intellectuals and society
>You have to support it with evidence,simply stating that it ***could*** exist is utterly invalid
again no, *you* are the one asserting causation where there is none so *you* require further evidence to prove your assertion. the consensus from the scientific community worldwide -not just in the west on this issue is there is no causal link proven and there is not sufficient evidence to put forward such a claim at this time. what you have is a theory with decent evidence but no proof

>>11255634
>no,the social and environmental arguments are usually weak.

1. This is not an argument,it's an opinion.
2. You can't lump social and environmental together,as a matter of fact,the social component has more to do with the economic problem.
3. This retarded theory is again infirmed by pic related.
Try to beat that; protip:calling the SAR reeecist will not work

>you are the one asserting causation where there is none.

Wrong. There is a phenomenon and there are hypotheses about its causes. One of them stands out as being more plausible ,this can be proven objectively through MEASUREMENTS. This hypothesis must be accepted as the only one until someone dismisses it directly or indirectly.

>you require further evidence
I have all the evidence needed. You dislike the hypothesis based on your personal opinion and hide behind a veil of false skepticism. In this context,common sense says that you must support a counter-hypothesis or sod off.

>the consensus from the scientific community worldwide
1. Irrelevant
2. The west is all that matters (unless you want an untermensch's opinion).

>there is no causal link proven reee

There is no valid (ot existing) counter-hypothesis.

>what you have is a theory
The big bang theory is also a theory and yet it has been accepted. I am 100% sure that you do not know what a theory even is.
https://theracecardproject.com/poor-whites-score-higher-than-rich-blacks/

Kys with that fake skepticism.

>>11255666
Find the study that says it identified genes that cause the racial IQ gap. Lee et al doesn't. In fact, it only sampled people from Europe.

So wait, how'd this shift from races being part of the same subspecies to intelligence? Unless you're trying to argue average IQs constitute another factor that should be taken into account for taxonomic identification.

>>11255683
Lahn,2006

>>11252873
so that stands to reason that humans also can be divided into subspecies, thus debunking the "one race human race" dogma, right?

>>11255711
Idk why we're arguing with these pricks,to be honest

>>11255704
Don't see anything about intelligence or IQ

>>11255711
I'd say it argues subspecies and race are arbitrary concepts when it applies to humanity, as we don't occupy different niches like wolves and coyotes do. Also aren't genetic mutation rates and such quite different in carnivorans and apes? Not sure one is a good model for the other.

>>11255719
I love how people like you claim some higher pedigree than the people you spit upon under a scientific veneer, yet probably look more like this than anything else.

>>11255744
Are we even talking about the same Lahn? Bruce Lahn,right?
>>11255747
Ad hominem,but believe what you wish about me,it changes nothing in the end.

>>11255758
It informs what kind of person you are, and how far you are willing to skew facts to justify your prejudice, so I would say it changes everything.

>>11255747
>when it applies to humanity
and why's that? It sounds like isolating humanity is arbitrary
>as we don't occupy different niches like wolves and coyotes do.
not true

>>11255779
I find it ironic that you speculate about my intentions/motivation while dismissing any speculation when it comes to the topic itself.

>I would say...

Who are you?

>>11255396

Not even remotely.

>>11255779
Can I have a source for this?

>>11255798
Back to r e d d i t, friend.

>>11255780
Considering how much ground H. Sapiens has covered in such a short time, I'd say were quite abberant in comparison to simple wolves and coyotes. And as I noted before, comparing the mutation rates and so on between species so far apart is bound to run into a few confounding variables.

>not true
Going off the areas either subspecies occupy, I'd say it's very on the nose.

>>11255782
I do not dismiss it, I merely question the intent of said speculations, and the title you strut around with seems to confirm my suspicions.

>>11255800
Here you go.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259201048_A_Mitochondrial_Genome_Sequence_of_a_Hominin_from_Sima_de_los_Huesos

>>11252318
Contradictions due to playing fast and loose with the concepts of "species" and "race"

>phenotype and behavior determines species
Men and women have distinct phenotypes and behaviors.
Tall and short people have distinct phenotypes and behaviors.
Are they different species?

>ability to interbreed
Completely irrelevant. For example, men cannot interbreed with men, and women can't interbreed with women. Thus, two sisters wouldn't be the same species, but are the same species as any human male on the planet. Obviously this makes no sense.

You can go back now.

>>11255798
pol here, can confirm I am everyone on this site via induction

>>11252482
>you don't understand PCA
at this point this is the biggest meme on /sci/

>>11255823
low iq post

>>11255836
>my social construct makes sense

>>11255838
I meant you are low intelligence regardless of the validity of racialist theories, your reasoning is idiotic and infantile.

>>11255835
Not as big as posting stuff you don't understand

>>11252991
The PCs can be literally anything. It can be just literal skin color separating the "races".

>>11255819
>Here you go.
Danke.

>>11255845
think about what you just posted, brainlet.

>>11255819
>I'd say were quite abberant in comparison to simple wolves and coyotes
Not in any way that is relevant to our evolution.

>Going off the areas either subspecies occupy
What are you talking about ? They occupy the same areas, except for three factors, wolves killing coyotes, humans killing wolves, and artic temperatures favouring wolves.
Africans and Europeans on the other hand evolved to fit different areas.

>>11255878
>Not in any way that is relevant to our evolution.
Spreading faster than mutations can stack in any significant way. Morphological traits between the populations appear relatively consistent when compared to our closest extinct relatives, as does our genetic makeup. You can compare humans to canines as much as you wish, but it's apples to oranges.

>wolves killing coyotes
>artic temperatures favouring wolves
So they do occupy different niches.

>>11255878
>Not in any way that is relevant to our evolution.

>>11255819
>H. Sapiens has covered in such a short time
but we're talking about the subspecies of humans in the modern times. Your argument can only speak for our future evolution, not our current state
>Going off the areas either subspecies occupy, I'd say it's very on the nose.
What do you mean we don't occupy different niches? I may have misunderstood you initially.

>>11255908
Wolves kill coyotes precisely because they occupy the same niche and are competitors. There's overlap on like 95% of their distribution areas, you'd have to be stupid to call that different niches.
When European settlers wiped out the wolves coyotes took over all the areas they left.
Which shows that they spread just as fast as we do too.

>>11255918
Yes, and ?

>>11254683
No, I don't think I will.
>>11254754
The pictures are clearly chosen because of the visual similarity of the birds. I'm pretty sure some of those birds are much larger than some of the others, and it is only the perspective of the picture that makes them look similar, but I'm not an ornithologist so I can't really identify the specific species from a picture.
>As for the humans, you can arrange and pick the pictures of individuals of each group however you want, the difference remain obvious.
Superficially. Phenotypically. Those bird species probably can't interbreed, but humans can, which is a different indication than appearance is of some genetic relation. The argument in this picture is at the very least intentionally dishonest, and woefully incomplete when it comes to a real discussion based on science.
>This picture shows thus the different standards applied to animals and humans
The standard you've offered is so vague that it is useless.

>>11255940
>but we're talking about the subspecies of humans in the modern times
Considering our dispersal, something like a subspecies might not even be applicable in our case.

>What do you mean we don't occupy different niches?
We don't follow standard ecological principles like other animals do, ergo it's not a direct 1-1 comparison.

>>11255953
Hawks kill snakes, are you going to argue they occupy the same niche? It's obvious you don't know how ecosystems work, but that's irrelevant to the topic of race.

>>11255970
>I can't really identify the specific species from a picture.
I told you it's the subspecies of the common raven. Head to Wikipedia for short descriptions of their differences.

>Those bird species probably can't interbreed
A 2011 study suggested that there are no restrictions on gene flow between the Californian and Holarctic common raven groups, and that the lineages can remerge, effectively reversing a potential speciation.[26

>The standard you've offered is so vague that it is useless
Tell that to the biologists who use it.

>>11252318
the easiest way is to show how the crow/raven species' colors always maintain because black colored feathers increases their fitness around the world. this trait will never change in normal ecosystems, so it is irrelevant towards speciation and general distinctness.

you could also come up with a taxonomy chart for the crow genus showing how species divergence is orders of magnitude longer in time than divergence in human racial characteristics.

>>11255982
>Hawks kill snakes, are you going to argue they occupy the same niche?
Europeans kill native Americans, are they occupying different niches ?

>>11255953
>95%
No. Coyotes aren't outside North America.

>>11256011
>this trait will never change in normal ecosystems

>>11256032
>majority black colored feathers
are you trying to prove my point by posting the greatest divergence?

>>11256022
Neither are American wolves.

>>11255966
So you're saying that the number of generations that can happen in a given time period is not relevant to evolution?

>>11256033
The greatest ?
No I took the first pic I found to prove you wrong. Lots of corvid species have two colours in various patterns. Because of this they were classified as different species, whereas black corvids with no obvious differences became subspecies of raven.

>>11256047
It is. But both canids and homos had enough time. We didn't compare times either but genetic distance which accounts for different rates of reproduction.

>>11256056
>We didn't compare times either but genetic distance which accounts for different rates of reproduction.
But it doesn't because not all mutations are selected for. Having more generations means more differences even with the same mutation rate.

>>11256049
>first pic I found to prove you wrong
Very believable that the first pic you'd find is of an african crow instead of a western variety.
What I stated is still true as the black coloration acts as a flocking identifier which isn't easily broken. Here's a pic of the same species you disingenuously posted seen from the ground.
With this in mind, there's no correlation between crow/raven color and human skin color because human skin color is based on how much melanin is needed for optimal Vitamin D/Folate production.
>lots of crow species have two colors and were classified as different species
they weren't classified as different species just because of their colors... the first major reason why they are considered different species is because their ranges don't often overlap unless one or more species is invasive, and the second reason is that in this case they don't breed with the other species (queue anecdotal evidence of a crow and a raven breeding successfully despite instinct-based hostility in >99% of scenarios).
>black corvids with no obvious differences became subspecies of raven
this statement is false in two ways as there are many different species of ravens (maybe you're referring to common ravens alone erroneously) and ravens were classified based on size difference to crows and not coloration

>>11256040
Grey wolves are the same thing, found in Asia.

>>11252318
Do they interbreed?

>>11252318
it's impossible to phylogenetically group people by race unless you are using literally 1000's of unique races
>>11252326
>>11252328
>>11252335
>>11252331
have not taken biology past middle school

>>11255982
>Considering our dispersal, something like a subspecies might not even be applicable in our case.
I'd argue the contrary for the very same reason
>it's not a direct 1-1 comparison
ok but there are real, demonstrable differences between races. A European person is going to have the same genetic difference with a Sub-Saharan African as a wolf does with a coyote so it may not be 1-1 but you can't just wave off a finding like that. I just prefer to use the same language. Instead of "races," I think "subspecies" is scientifically more accurate

>>11252318
>How to debunk pic related?
You don't. It's BAIT. You ignore it like you would any other retarded bait. There is no real science involved here, just political agendas.

Why? It's intended to lead you down a path to a pre-determined conclusion:
>"""Non-whites are not HUMANS"""
It's Jim Crow-level racist shit. They want to convince you that non-white people aren't humans, therefore """human rights""" shouldn't apply to them. Ultimately they'd like all white people to believe that these """non-humans""" are too troublesome and should be exterminated.

However logically it wouldn't end there. The level of willful ignorance involved in that sort of mindset would still need someone to pick on. So once all the ostensibly non-white people were exterminated, they'd start in on how """pure""" everyone is. Think Nazi Germany. They'd probably start genetically testing everyone. Got 10% African blood in you, but you're lilly-white? Into the gas chamber you go.
There'd be no end to it, until what was left of the human race was so lacking in genetic diversity that inbreeding would be common and ultimately deadly.

So just wave it off as the bullshit it is. Don't let them get into your head.

>>11256234
>it's impossible to phylogenetically group people by race unless you are using literally 1000's of unique races
Why would you lie?
Ethnic groupings are often boiled down by anthropologists and geneticists alike. Did you even read this thread before posting? Holy guacamole.

>>11255268
>>11255292
>>11255297
>>11255298
Fake data from racist websites. Post links to all data not /pol/ memes

There are differences among races, of course. But I think any human should have the right to be happy, fed , and the chance at education.

Also it probably has something to do with world peace and getting along with our neighbors being more important than picking apart our differences.
>inb4 but the truth
Where the religion fags at now? Infinite knowledge is seen as a darkness for a reason and it's told demons possess it specifically. There's nothing good for us down that road.

>>11256471
You're a retard.

>>11256494
No you, inbred.

>>11252627
Yea at the end of the day, there’s differences but if that’s what you pride yourself on, you’re a loser at the bottom rung of your group’s average.

>>11256464
>A European person is going to have the same genetic difference with a Sub-Saharan African as a wolf does with a coyote
Again, apples to oranges. Attempting to oversimplify shit like this is what leads to politicized misinformation spreading.

>Instead of "races," I think "subspecies" is scientifically more accurate
And how long before you claim there's an entire ecology based around humans, with Europeans and Asians at the top, and Africans and Aboriginals at the bottom?

So from what I've seen in this thread, "race realists" are just race baiters acting under a scientific veneer, correct?

>>11256553
That ecosystem already works,it's called society. Whites build societies and blacks roam around as mere slaves....it's as if all the disciplines ranging from genetics to psychology and anatomy to history confirm my theory...in fact,the more disciplines we consult,the worse it gets for you.
The whites are the herrenvolk.

>>11256582
There is a correlation between skull size,brain size and intelligence as well...guess who's at the top and who's at the bottom.

>>11252418
oh yeah women are not at all picky

>>11252836
its interesting that you think its interesting that they think its interesting

>>11256823
I don't think it's interesting that you think it's interesting that they think it's interesting that others think it is interesting.

>>11256828
>>11256823

I think you're both retarded

>>11255823
dude

>>11256534
or just someone who got diversified/affirmative actioned out of their choice career

>>11256534
ok not if pride.. but still one can care about this

>>11256840
i think its interesting that you must also be retarded to say that

>>11256808
So the Chinamen are the superior race then? Glad to know they'll eventually buy out the Amerimutts.

>>11256805
The confirmation bias is strong with you, would you treat any deviation you see as a mere exception and nothing more? How often have you done so?

>herrenvolk
Tone down the larping there, sport.

>>11256889
They aren't creative
>>11256896
If I were you I'd start corroborating some evidence as you're deep in the mud. You don't seem to understand what bias confirmation even means. All the evidence that we currently possess confirm that hypothesis over and over and over again.

History: 90%+ of the meaningful civilisations came from Europe,Egypt (which was ruled by whites at the time),the indus valley and Mesopotamia were the only exceptions and even those civilisations had white blood,that is to say they were close to Evropa genetically (google it).

Moreover,97% of all the inventions came from OUR race (Murray)
Moreover,the negroes have always been used as slaves by various civilizations (Ottoman Turks,Arab Caliphates,the Portuguese,the Spanish,the English,the Shitmericans etc.)
Moreover,the negroes haven't been able to build one successful civilisation as of december 27th,2019 (Example:they ruined Rhodesia).

Psychology: it has been proven repeatedly that the negroes are FAR more violent and aggressive than the whites. They do not think about the consequences of their actions and do not anticipate.

Genetics: see my study,they have inferior genes.

Anthropology: They have smaller brains,smaller craniums and this is justified by the fact that they had evolved in a different environment.
See Josias C. Nott's study

Post Scriptum: Nothing these people said has ever been 'muh debunked'.

Post Post Scriptum: Mountains of evidence support my theory. You have nothing and until you bring some evidence,the europeans remain the Herrenvolk.

>>11256924
>They aren't creative
What an objective and unbiased perspective, truly enlightening.

This is merely a Gish gallop
There's quite clearly cherrypicking in regards to civilization and technology. How convenient that suddenly "white" now extends to any developed nation outside of Africa, negating the Chinese, whose influence you have attempted to shrink with bogus percentages.

I can assume you're using an extremely small sample in regards to psychology, if any at all.

You've also attempted to place both genetic makeup and antomical differences into some fabricated hierarchy of your own construction (utilizing an extremely old, limited and biased source I might add).

>negro
>Evropa
>Herrenvolk
Once again, these terms don't make you appear intellectually superior.

>>11256924
>Moreover,the negroes haven't been able to build one successful civilisation as of december 27th,2019
Pre-colonial Africa had plenty of prosperous and successful kingdoms.

Random thought, if we were to establish that there are superior and inferior races, wouldn't that mean those considered inferior would need more support in order to survive in a society built for the superior ones? It just seems like this runs counter to what a "race realist" would want ultimately.

>>11256484
>Post links to all data
Sure.

Rape Map is a bit old but basically looks the same, comes from NGO WomanStats:
http://www.womanstats.org/maps.html

Murder rate is based on UN data, which you can check here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

IQ map is based on Richard Lynn's studies:
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/uploads/pdfs/Intelligence%20and%20the%20Wealth%20and%20Poverty%20of%20Nations.pdf

>>11256976
>pre colonial africa
>successful

Ahahahahahahaha. This is not even remotely true; Not even comparable to egypt.

>>11256962
>muh criticizes creativity
1. It has been proven that they are not creative (Kanazawa)
2. It has been proven that their muh contributions were not relevant and only happened during Evropa's darkest hour (the early middle ages).


>>11256979
No,they should be exterminated

>>11257033
Cause and effect,cause and effect ...
Bonus round: they did not know how to use the gun powder ,nor did they use the compass. Marvelous indeed

>muh cherrypicks
LMAO. Evropa has always been and will always be the epitome of civilisation. Have you heard of the Renaissance??? what about the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution??? We did all of that. What did the rest of the world do?? they STOLE IT ALL.
>how convenient that white extends to any developed nation outside of africa.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/ancient-egyptians-were-more-european-10530527

You're retarded. Modern egyptians,Persians and Indians do not look like the ancient ones,not even by far. Have you heard of a guy callees Ali Bakr?
And the differences between the celts and the germanics and the ancient. egyptians were (and still are) FAR smaller than the differences between ancient egyptians/persians/indians and the negroes. The differences between celts/germanics and negroes are out of the question.

Bonus round: ancient Egypt became a hellhole after the muslim invasion
Bonus two: The muslims burned Egypt's libraries (have you heard of a guy called Omar?)...yeah...the same people lmao,not as if the people who had lived deep in the arabian peninsula and who later colonized north africa and the levant are different too.

>chinese whose influences you've attempted to shrink.

I attempted nothing,they have always been irrelevant,fractured and they have never colonized anything. Do you know anything about Japan and China during the middle ages? They were primitive.

>you've so attempted to place both genetic makeup and anatomical differences into some fabricated hierarchy

>>11257035
1. So you admit the fact that the differences are real!?
2. LMAO """fabricated""". Look in any history book and it shall only talk about Evropa,North america and the near east (in antiquity). Wanna know why?! Not because history is reecist,but because we're the only ones who did anything at all! The africans are the most primitive subspecies...hell ,I'd even go as far as to call them a different species that can reproduce with us out of sheer luck. Had we lived separated from each other for 15.000 more years,we would have been different altogether.

>old limited construction
Big words from someone who knows nothing about any topic. Do you even know what you're implying?! You're implying that Culture,inventions,language (literature,poetry),arts,architecture etc. DO NOT MATTER at all. You're denying all the defining elements of a group of people that lived in a geographical space and calling it all "muh limited" or "muh biased" JUST BECAUSE you deliberately refuse to accept a REALITY.

>>11256553
>Attempting to oversimplify shit like this is what leads to politicized misinformation spreading.
I'm appealing to nuance, not simplification. Arbitrarily singling out humans when discussing genetics as you've attempted to do here >>11255747 is oversimplifying things.
>And how long before you claim there's an entire ecology based around humans, with Europeans and Asians at the top, and Africans and Aboriginals at the bottom?
I don't see anything wrong with this so long as there is an agreed upon moral framework that prevents a value judgement (or anything worse). There's nothing inherently evil in recognizing truth. Nothing inherently good either.

>>11256896
>The confirmation bias is strong with you
not him but I can claim the same for you. You refuse to acknowledge the well-documented science. Need I remind you you are on 4channel?

>>11256479
I don't lie
Show me a grouping using only true clades

>>11257014
>posting the Lynn """studies"""
lmao he didn't even survey over half the countries in that map, and in the ones he did the samples varied sizes and class background varied so much from country to country that the results are almost meaningless

What conclusion can we draw from this thread?

>>11257559
/pol/tards will spin anything they can to suit their narrative, and then almost immediately discard it.

>>11257564
wrong

>>11257587
Still felt the need to respond, so I'd say I'm in the ballpark

>>11257517
they aren't meaningless
they did show a broad trend and forced a trail that others have since filled with more accurate data

>>11255813

But according to your retarded logic I'm from pol and not from plebbit.

>>11257693
>since filled in by accurate data
such as

>>11252373
Lol

>>11252595
lmao most of the tax cuts expire after 2027 and are ballooning the deficit, lowering healthcare coverage, and increasing healthcare costs in the meantime and after. truly a big brain moment for you

>>11258049
The barbarism of the Irishman