/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11883419
The reason why this got no replies is because people evidently aren’t interested in entertaining racist /pol/ack fantasies.

>>11883419
Obviously neanderthals, though I presume you actually meant to ask about mongoloids.

>>11883419
To blacks. DIVERGED 60K YEARS AGO AS OPPOSED TO 800K YEARS AGO.

Forgot to turn off caps.

Which one is most human?

>>11883419
Typing in some words in the internet, preferably not google, will yield you pictures like this one.

Different studies tend to deliver different estimations for genetic distance and divergence. Usually the distance is measured in terms of base differences, sometimes restricted to coding parts which tend to diverge less (yielding the 99.9 % similarity part), sometimes including non-coding segments, which, because they're not actively pro-selected for (or so it's assumed. We know non-coding dna has functions too), alter gradually and linearly. Including all base segments (regardless of their function) will actually increase the genetic distance considerably. Because it is often not readily clear what parts of the DNA are actually studied, most studies cannot really be compared with each other. Thus you get a wide range of possible estimations when it comes to the assumed genetic distance between black and white (going from 0.05 % to over 1 %). Most studies pinpoint it to around 0.15 %. The same is true for any other sub-group.
>>11885216
Also the fact that most studies can't be compared with each other means that you get varying and more often than not bad estimations of when two hominid groups started to diverge.

>>11885262
Checking now this data table, we would assume if we actually applied a linear model, that Neanderthals and humans started to diverge from each other roughly 700 thousand years ago. 400 thousand years ago, blacks would have also already branched off. What's the problem with all this now? The thing is that linear models don't really work well with genetics. This is on one part because dna doesn't code linearly, on the other because many such studies ignore statistical noise and also ignore interbreeding.

>>11883419

>>11885414
So what you're telling me is that white people are natural-born sea-dwellers?
Nice, I'm a merman. I'll happily leave dry land behind for the darkies to have. There's more water than land on our planet's surface anyway.

>>11885414
Based and redpilled.

>>11885414
Sad. You're just trying to convince yourself at this point.

>>11885840
SEETHE and COPE wh*tey

>>11885840
>t.

>>11883419
95% black DNA and 5% Neanderthal DNA

>>11885840
Which part of it is wrong?

>>11885414
Well that just means monkeys are cool now and homosapiensexuals are dumb uglies.

>>11883419
#AbolishWhites #DecolonizeSTEM

>>11887246
Bring back eugenics.

>>11887620
artificial means of eugenics always leads to dysgenics, thanks to the corruptability of man
natural cataclysms are our only hope

>>11887323
You really like posting this anon, I commend your persistence at baiting.

>>11887652
What's baiting about it? The photo he posted is exactly what it claims to be. The social sciences have won the war against the hard sciences. There's nothing good about that outcome.

>>11885414
So what you're telling me is that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor?
No way!

>>11887246
ultimately this proves nothing. There is about three times as much of this shit available of africans than there is of amerimutts

>>11885414
So niggers are a different species? Good to know!