/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12593005
>By A2 and L1
By A2 and P1*

>>12593005
>Proof: The proof is obvious from the axioms.

>>12593020
>>Proof: The proof is obvious from the axioms.
Not my fault you are a brainlet who needs every step written down.

>>12593005
The only reason anyone denies this is ideological training. All the population genetics and data support it. The fixation index (genetic distance) between Europeans and subsaharans is literally the same as between gray wolves and coyotes.

>>12593005
Proposition: OP is a faggot
Proof:
Left as an exercise to the reader

>Proposition: OP is a faggot
>Proof:
>Left as an exercise to the reader

>>12593005
>approaches genetics/biology as if it is an axiomatic system

The pseudointellectualism on this board is hitting an all time high. Why do dimwits seek a scientific justification for hating niggers?

>>12593355
>hating niggers
No one said anything about hating homo africanus. Hate is for the wicked. I am just trying to bring the "science" back into "natural science". By the way every scientific discipline is axiomatic.

>>12593005
We really need to IP ban all Americans already, this is getting out of hand. I seriously wish I could go on 4chan one fucking day without some nigger obsessed amerimutt making off-topic threads because he saw another racemixing ad and felt the need to take a big shit on the catalog.

>axioms

>We really need to IP ban all Americans already, this is getting out of hand. I seriously wish I could go on 4chan one fucking day without some nigger obsessed amerimutt making off-topic threads because he saw another racemixing ad and felt the need to take a big shit on the catalog.

Still no refutation

>>12593306
>>Proposition: OP is a faggot
>>Proof:
>>Left as an exercise to the reader

>>12593005
Didn't read the post but cops definitely discriminate against men. Argueably, the entire legal system is.

>>12593306
>being a woke SJW faggot who probably hates white people and supports censorship
>using "faggot" as an insult

That is pretty homophobic of you. It doesn't matter if it was just a 'joke' or you were using it as an insult. You are still perpetuating a culture and system of homophobia. Hopefully none of your woke friends will find out, otherwise they will all realize that you are a homophobic bigot.

>>12593020
>>12593032
>>12593306
>>12593429
>>12593435
>>12594829
Kys

>>12593005
It's all so obvious, but even really smart people at university (profs and grad students) will never openly admit to believing things like this. It's gonna be another hundred years before this is accepted by the normies

>>>12593306 (You) #
>>being a woke SJW faggot who probably hates white people and supports censorship
>>using "faggot" as an insult
>That is pretty homophobic of you. It doesn't matter if it was just a 'joke' or you were using it as an insult. You are still perpetuating a culture and system of homophobia. Hopefully none of your woke friends will find out, otherwise they will all realize that you are a homophobic bigot.

>>12594882

>>12593005
>A1: Genes will change as necessary in order to best adapt to their environment.
False. If you place two populations in radically different environments, it might change their genetics might change substantially after many generations, but not necessarily. If there are no substantial selection pressures, the difference in their genomes will be negligible.
>A2: Before the mid 19th century there was an insignificant amount of transcontinental migration.
False. The discovery of the Americas centuries prior is the simplest counterexample to this.
>A3: The environments of Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, Australia, and Mesoamerica are highly distinct.
Partially true. But by the time humans had moved into these regions we had already developed the tools to largely negate the selection pressures of this different locales. Otherwise we wouldn't have spread to them so quickly.
>Proof: The proof is obvious from the axioms.
False. Even if every axiom was true, this postulate would not follow logically. That the significance of the passage of time is not even established in your axioms despite being integral to your conclusion is evidence of extremely shoddy reasoning.
>L1: The human subspecies have differing average intelligences.
This better be good....

Continued

>>12593005
>>12595143
>Proof: Intelligence is a consequence of the brain, and the brain is a product of genetics.
False. The brain is a requisite for intelligence, but intelligence does not follow from a brain, therefore it is not a consequence. The brain IS partially a consequence of genetic instructions, but the brain's development and structure are more a direct consequence of its environment. If you lock a newborn in a box and feed it gruel through a tube, in 20 years the now adult's brain will be severely underdeveloped.
Moreover, the definition of subspecies is never given.
>By A2 and L1, sufficient time in genetic isolation elapsed to distinctly alter the brain genes. Therefore, the brains changed distinctly, and hence intelligence changed distinctly.
As stated the time rate of genetic change was not establish in any of your axioms, but the more egregious issue is that the changability of neuron-specific genes is never established and is not supported by research. If selection pressures are such that the genes for an animal's hair thickness changes of the course of 1000 generations, there is no reason to assume the genes for liver function will change as well.

This committee as reviewed your research and rejected it in light of profound misunderstandings of genetics and basic logic. Doctorate denied with prejudice.

>>12595143
>>12595148
Imagine writing all that and being wrong about literally everything kek

>>12595143
>>12595148
Chad.
>>12595168
Sad.

>>12593005
>Axioms

its not math white inbred retard

>proof=the proof is obvious

much wow

but this only exists in mental space. it doesn't make it true, it makes it reasonable, since the elements we base it on don't exist in mental space.
It's a good way to make a hypothesis, but we'll now need to find empirical evidence for the claim.
otherwise it's not science, it's conspiracy.

>>12595443
But it isn't reasonable. The OP's conclusions don't follow logically from his axioms.

>>12595489
how is it not reasonable?

>>12595498
>The OP's conclusions don't follow logically from his axioms.
Also see
>>12595143
>>12595148

>>12593005
making the genome a mathematical object:
G is an object with parts [a,g,t,c] of a length L.
human genome satisfies G_h (Gh).
Over time Gh will randomly mutate its contents at a rate in time. M(Gh)(t) (M for mutation) transform of Gh by time.
we can create a permutation family of M(Gh)(t).
father-mother : children.
Based on certain pressures certain permutations will not have as many successors as other, and will be out bred.
breeding can be represented as a two part transform R(M(Gh_P1)(t), M(Gh_P2)(t)) (R for reproduction), which returns a child of genetic combination of the two.
between major branches of the family of permutations you can measure the average difference between them with contemporary products.
If groups within Gh represent partial groups of meaning Gh : ({brain}, {heart}, {height}, etc) (hox genes) we trivially know they will mutate as well.
Thus if there are two distinct branches from the original family, their parts will be measurable different.

>>12595510
>>The OP's conclusions don't follow logically from his axioms.
how so?

>>12593005
>The proof is obvious from the axioms.

>>12595561
not him but c'mon how is it meant to nout be like that just for humans?

>>12595143
>False. Even if every axiom was true, this postulate would not follow logically. That the significance of the passage of time is not even established in your axioms despite being integral to your conclusion is evidence of extremely shoddy reasoning

:) yeees the master of critique has arrived

>>12595148
Imagine being this retarded

>>12593005
This whole argument was superfluous. Different races have differing average intelligences simply due to the Law of Identity.

>>12593005
>axioms are empirical observations

>>12595955
>>axioms are based on empirical observations
FTFY and yes

>>12595533
>>12595561
Notice how they can't refute the logic. Sad!

>>12596186
>axioms are based on empirical observations
no they arent.

>>12596232
In the sciences they are

>>12593005
Conclusion is correct but axioms and logic are wrong.
Even if all environments were the same with no pressure there'd still be genetic drift and selection that differ regionally.

>calls everyone buttmad limp wrist faggots
>posts basedjacks and rockthrow comics when people debate his ideas. can't handle criticism.
>has provided no defense beyond calling others retarded
>keeping thread up through sheer force of retardation

evacuate thread.

>>12593005
You need to provide a mechanism for different intellectual capacities to evolve.
Saying "environments were different, therefore intelligence genes is different" isn't sufficient. Following that logic African species should be lower in intelligence than non-african species.

By your logic, why are most of the worlds most intelligent animals in warmer countries?

>>12596353
evacuate your bowels power bottom tranny

>>12596496
what is a power bottom? I don't speak homo sorry

>>12595533
Because they don't by definition of "follow". Axiomatic systems are deductive. In deductive logic, if the axioms are true, there is no possible way the conclusion could be false. There's no wiggle room or implication. We can easily say that all of OP's axioms are true but none of his conclusions are, therefore it's a bad theorem. OP only establishes that genes change in response to environment, not that they change over time. He doesn't establish the timeframe in which populations were isolated, nor that this timeframe is significant enough to result in the formation of subspecies. He doesn't give any criteria for what "subspecies" means. He doesn't establish that neuron forming genes specifically change within the timeframe in question. All this should have been established in the axioms, but it wasn't because OP can't into basic logic.

>>12593005
I mean, it's pretty obvious once you shed off the liberal religion and their faith based beliefs in equality. Evolution can apparently affect skin color, facial features, resistance to certain diseases, heights, skeleton size and shape, eye color, etc. The one thing that it apparently cannot change is the human brain, because "we're all the same on the inside" lol.

>>12597452
by that logic, are certain white races smarter than others?