/sci/ - Science & Math

nazi bullshit

>>11930650
Missed the entire point of this thread

>>11930645
Note how many of the sources come from
>chink authors
>open-access and pseudojournals
>recurring authors

evolution can't happen over the course of the tens of thousands of years that these groups were separated because we are all one species and one race and saying otherwise is just admitting to being a disgusting nazi

far left faggots need to be hung in the streets

>>11930670
are you discrediting it based on the source?

>>11930668
Nazi

>>11930645
So, it's mainly this >>11930670

The first thing to do would be to find each of those articles and examine the methodology. For example, the "#3" section, BMC Evolutionary Biology - that's not a source I've ever heard, but I try to avoid publication bias when possible. I can't be bovvered but immediately when I saw all that info on neurological development, I kinda chuckled. How are they getting that data? Neuron development, positive regulation of neural differentiation, hindbrain dev, D/V neural tube patternings - are they taking autopsy data? if so, are they accounting for:
>diet & nutrition
>education
>exercise
>pollutants/contaminants in environment
>socioeconomics (aka how likely could they have addressed the above despite their environmental conditions)
or did they just grab a bunch of autopsy data from wherever they could get their hands on it? then, how do you look at neural development across members of a "subspecies" without directly examining neural tissue across various individuals of different stages of development who are otherwise comparable to the above-greentext criteria. If they did MRI or other non-invasive means, that's fine but they would've had to have mentioned that somewhere and also cost-prohibitive so then you need to ask what the sample size was and if it was sufficient to reduce sampling error.

Overall, just look at the fucking graphs, they're terrible, the way they organize their data is very suspect. The first chart is ridiculous, they don't even bother to mention what gene clusters they're looking at, for all you know they could've ordered the data biased to give such specific groupings. Some of the papers they cite don't even have dates, which makes me wonder - how old are they?
Most of the rest of it is socioeconomic analysis which I'm not going to bother with since it's not my expertise, but overall you can refute a lot of this on methodological basis if you actually bother to look up the papers.

>>11930668
bullshit

>hi guys leftist here fuck nazis amirite haha now I totally disagree with this gigantic racist infographic I just happen to have saved but I can't refute any of it please post in my thread so I can argue that blacks are retards not a racist tho
you're not fooling anybody you spineless little /pol/shit

>>11930790
Also, the argument that genetic ability to determine someone's heritage exists - well no shit, look up CODIS, no surprise to anyone. But that's all based on microsatellites, non-coding repeats. Because guess what? The DNA that is important, if it's of significantly less fitness, is selected out, and was selected out long before you or I or our ancestors back thousands of years were even kicking around. It's only been 12,000 years or so since the end of the last ice age, and most of our civilizations are only 4-5 kya or so back in terms of history. That's enough time for a fair amount of relatively superficial attributes to accumulate, but a lot of people really underestimate how fundamental our intelligence is to our provinence and how significant factors like diet/nutrition/[early] education/metal poisoning are to neural development, to the point where most of the differences in "top-end" intelligence are attributable to the above as influenced by socioeconomic and environmental factors. Sorry reality is boring, but take a poor baby and put it in a (upper) middle class family and with the right motivations the emergent properties derived from that baby can do advanced theorums with the best of them

>>11930645
Alright, I'll bite.

>Race has no biological basis
Race is useless from the standpoint of biology. There's more genetic variation within races than between them.

>Race is a social construct
It is exactly that. Genealogy confirms as much. Genetic testing can allow you to stick labels to people, but these tests are biased by the way people are grouped up based on geographical location and culture. Many people who have traced their lineage genealogically have disputed the results of their genetic tests for this reason.

>Race is only skin deep
Humans have some adaptive radiation, but "race" doesn't take any of that into consideration. A racist will not wait for the results of your gene test to mark you as inferior or superior to themselves or someone else. It's literally only about what they can see.

>"Lewontin's fallacy"
All of those objections were covered in Lewontin's work. This is always brought up as an attempt discredit the work in the eyes of those who don't have the relevant expertise to examine the work for themselves

>Racial differences in intelligence are explained by socioeconomic factors
Largely they are. The works claiming otherwise typically fail to examine the larger picture, for example with that SAT score study. Black neighborhoods developed from ghettos (like Harlem) typically have shit education because they have a shit budget.

>There isn't significant genetic distance between races
Any study claiming this typically restrictions the genes they examine in order to influence their results. Unless you really think there's significant difference between Americans and Europeans.

>There isn't qualitative genetic difference for racial differences
There isn't, and pointing out that not all of human genes can be found in every group of people doesn't change that.

>>11930645
>>11930854
>Individual successes disprove the relevance of race
This is basically the same as #5, but I would like to point out that your genes don't determine your actions or your future. For example, I have a friend (he's about as white as they come) with an extra adrenal gland which predisposes him to rage and aggression. Despite this he's one of the chillest motherfucker's I know.

Now, if none of that convinced you and you still believe that race is some immutable law, then just remember: the Jews are superior to you in every regard, and you're just a dirty snownigger

>>11930645
Refutation is pointless, they're already brainwashed. Here's a similar meme though.

>>11930854
That's hilarious.

>Myth 5
Socioeconomic factors involve more than just base economic factors. There are no valid verifications of pure intelligent measurements that can exclude all socioeconomic factors. To be honest there isn't even a
consensus on definition of intelligence itself.
In biology, a broad commonly accepted definition of intelligence is the capability of a single organism to adapt via non-unconditioned-reflexive behavioral patterns. Thus an aboriginal nigger is more intelligent than a Harvard professor in a survivalist environment.

>Myth 7
ASPM levels have zero correlation with IQ levels.
https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/16/6/600/610971
The C.940G variant of the microcephalin (MCPH1) gene is not associated with microcephaly or mental retardation.
>However, in normal individuals no effect on mental ability or behavior has yet been demonstrated in either this or another similarly studied microcephaly gene, ASPM.[10]
>However, scientists have not identified the evolutionary pressures that may have caused the spread of these mutations.[15]
>Modern distributions of chromosomes bearing the ancestral forms of MCPH1 and ASPM however a study in 2007 showed neither microcephalin or ASPM had any signicant effect on IQ. [1]

>Myth 8
That can also contribute and be indicative of socioeconomic factors. Without certain socioeconomic factors present, (like mixed-race kids in the Eyferth study) the relationship between IQ and race gets muddled.

Average IQ is estimated to have increased by a standard deviation since the end of WW1.
If tomorrow, under-performing nations and under-performing peoples within nations increased the quality of education and other factors related to cognitive performance, poor IQ testing would be less heritable. This has been confirmed in cases like China or Korea, where the IQs of its citizens were relatively low before each country became first-world.

>>11930869
Really the joke is in the second post
>>11930858

>>11930670
>chink authors
That's racist

>>11930945
It's usually a Wordpress blog

Why would you want to refute the obvious?

>>11930650
how do you explain the overrepresntation of jews among hereditarian researchers then if it's le nazi bullshit? the co-author of the bellcurve was jewish for instance.

>>11930670
Notice how you didn't actually say anything of value or refute any of the information

>>11930846
>That's enough time for a fair amount of relatively superficial attributes to accumulate, but a lot of people really underestimate how fundamental our intelligence is to our provinence and how significant factors like diet/nutrition/[early] education/metal poisoning are to neural development, to the point where most of the differences in "top-end" intelligence are attributable to the above as influenced by socioeconomic and environmental factors. Sorry reality is boring, but take a poor baby and put it in a (upper) middle class family and with the right motivations the emergent properties derived from that baby can do advanced theorums with the best of them
giga brainlet

>>11930645
Real, most amerindians are small, the taller ones reach 1.81m

>>11930885
>Socioeconomic factors involve more than just base economic factors

What are the other factors? No argument here.

>There are no valid verifications of pure intelligent measurements that can exclude all socioeconomic factors

So iq isn't real? or because there is no "pure" intelligence test means that we can't measure intelligence?

>Thus an aboriginal nigger is more intelligent than a Harvard professor in a survivalist environment

Only thing here that makes sense. Though a rational person would come to the conclusion that black people living in a western society intellectually developed by white people would not succeed by western culture standards, such as math or reading(at all because they didn't develop their own written language, lol) but especially in English, you would see a disparity.

Math and english were created by white people, thus white people were more evolved for such things, the same way the aboriginal who has stayed in hunter-gatherer conditions would be more adapted for such things.

>>11930854
>There's more genetic variation within races than between them.
Isn't that comparing variance with mean? That would be apples vs. oranges.
If you have the sources, please provide the figures for both.