/sci/ - Science & Math

You can think of separate races as subspecies of homo sapiens. Phenotypically different but still able to produce fertile offspring

>>15441050
>But I do think humans are different. Somebody from Poland is going to be different genetically from somebody in Japan.
&
>Still think racism is wrong.
Supreme court ruled on this.
>On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. The Court said, “separate is not equal,” and segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
You keep seperation and thus are a racist.

I see only biological robots, soulless bio-machines.

All is One.

B^l

>>15441107
Nah, we're different species, but we're 'interfertile.'

>>15441050
>But how does biology view human diversity?
As almost entirely unrelated to race, because it isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation
Most variation occurs within groups. As all extant humans are derivative of a very small genetic ancestry (that doesn't mean the population was that small) from a very small region in Africa, it is not at all surprising that subset variation out of Africa pales in comparison to variations within those groups. The most significant differences are also the most superficial, such as skin color variations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution

There's many ways to end up at the same obvious answer. Pairwise coalescence times for one, demonstrating very little difference in the "timing" of populations as they exist today once out of Africa, and evolution can only work so fast from an already small genetic population. There has been nearly no time, biologically speaking, for much divergence in modern humans from one another let alone from Africans. We're so similar only ~0.6% of individual nucleotides differ in total, and of the differences that define us as modern humans only 7% of the autosomal genome is human unique accounting for admixture and ILS (incomplete lineage sorting). Looking at only human-specific regions, those shared in all modern humans, only 1.5% of that differs from archaic admixture. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abc0776

In order for there to be truly significant differences for what matters, genetically, individual nucleotide changes would have gigantic effect sizes on things like behavioral traits and brain development. What we find instead explains so little it has been called the missing heritability problem, because the effect of those individual changes doesn't add up. Any way you slice it race doesn't mean or explain much, and given how few subpop-wide or subpop-common SNPs exist that definitely can't explain much.

>>15441050
>Still think racism is wrong.
On what do you base this moral judgement? Define right and wrong.

>>15441374
You're such a massive faggot it's actually unreal. Your homosexuality is surpassed only by your ignorance.
>~0.6% of individual nucleotides differ in total,
1.2 % between humans and chimps.

>>15441374

>>15441385
>CoP
>Still on sci
>He was defeated the other day in a psychological debate
>He hella maddened but still continues to post
>Hmmm, why?
>Why suffer like dis?
>Bootel

>>15441374
>>15441384
>1.2 % between humans and chimps.
Not that it matters to dishonest people like you but I made a typo there due to an editing mistake. It's ~0.1% of SNPs that vary in humans. We're 99.9% genetically identical as a species. Of that 0.1% only 10% or less varies between groups.
>You're such a massive faggot it's actually unreal. Your homosexuality is surpassed only by your ignorance.
Yet you not only didn't know the number was 0.1% but the intergroup variation is 0.01% or less. What was that about ignorance?

>>15441405
Oh, you made the typo in the wikipedia article you yourself linked?
>Yet you not only didn't know the number was 0.1% but the intergroup variation is 0.01% or less. What was that about ignorance?
You're just once again spouting the Levontin's fallacy like a good drone. It's mind-bogglingly retarded to conflate the genetic distance between gene pools with the genetic distance of individuals. So either you're indeed just as ignorant as you're homosexual or you're just as malevolent as you're homosexual.

>>15441415
>Oh, you made the typo in the wikipedia article you yourself linked?
1000 genome project is a different estimate and a different kind of estimate including insertions and deletions. The 0.1% figure concerns nucleotide diversity. What was that about ignorance?
>You're just once again spouting the Levontin's fallacy like a good drone.
Says the drone mindlessly regurgitating "lewontin's fallacy". Go ahead, explain what you think that means and how it refutes or is relevant to anything I wrote. I'll wait.
>It's mind-bogglingly retarded to conflate the genetic distance between gene pools with the genetic distance of individuals.
Go on, explain why. I'm all ears. Show us all your deep knowledge.
>So either you're indeed just as ignorant as you're homosexual or you're just as malevolent as you're homosexual.
You sure do think about gay sex a lot while you're lying your ass off.

>>15441399
What is your profession?

>>15441428
>>15441415
While you're at it care to tell us all from your deep knowledge how many SNPs are different between populations in any kind of known functional region? I'll give you a hint. It's a lot smaller than 0.01%.

>>15441428
Yes, of course, you only say one figure even though you mean another figure, and then you compare it to another figure, by which you actually also mean yet another figure. Maybe you should just start from the beginning, if you're this confused.
>Go on, explain why. I'm all ears. Show us all your deep knowledge.
Are you sure you're ready for it? Your IQ would have to be at least 75. Here it goes: just because you find certain genes in a gene pool, it says nothing about how common that gene is or how often it occurs relative to other genes, but it still contributes to the overall variance, i.e., you might be able to pick and choose genes from the European gene pool and reconstruct a pitch black African, but this would NEVER happen naturally.

>>15441433
Oh look, yet another figure, which your malevolent homosexual thoroughly ignorant brain tries to conflate with.. something. Did you know that just dropping numbers is not an argument? They actually have to be compared to something of the same kind.

>>15441442
Aw what's the matter? Scared? Why suddenly run away from your claim of "Lewontin's fallacy"? Go on I'm waiting.
>just because you find certain genes in a gene pool, it says nothing about how common that gene is or how often it occurs relative to other genes, but it still contributes to the overall variance
And? My remark on your neighbor concerned variation. Your remark here concerns population prevalence, and isn't relevant at all. 0 for 2
>Did you know that just dropping numbers is not an argument?
lol 0 for 3

>>15441449
I just explained it to you.
0/12

>>15441050
>>>/pol/

>>15441384
It's actually around 4 percent. Goggle it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dna+difference+between+a+chimp+and+human+being&client=ms-android-samsung-gn-rev1&biw=412&bih=753&sxsrf=APwXEdeFROWvlmwxtYDr8izRkSOMlPJAuQ%3A1684237407410&ei=X2xjZJ7ZGMP29APui47oCw&oq=dna+difference+between+a+chimp+and+human+being&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBQgAEKIEMgUIABCiBDoKCAAQRxDWBBCwA0oECEEYAFDiDVilFWD4HGgBcAF4AIAB3QGIAb0EkgEFMC4zLjGYAQCgAQHIAQjAAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

>>15441405
So why are groups so different from each other? Why do some cultures greatly outperform others in different things? How can 2 or 4 different cultures that live in the same country have vastly different outcomes? Your trying to tell me all those differences aumount to about .1 percent. So a tenth of a percent is the difference?

>>15441415
Explain levontins fallacy? He bassically said that there is more differences amongst a group than outside? So Two Italians can be more different than a egyption and a Japanese person? Doesn't make sense logically. How did he come up with that and why do others disapprove it?

>>15441454
>I just explained it to you.
And I just explained how you explained nothing. Still waiting. Come on big boy I'm so ignorant you gotta fill me in.

Since you're slow I'll connect the dots for you, since you admitted you can't do so yourself. >>15441442
>Did you know that just dropping numbers is not an argument?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498066/
>We observed 762,000 variants that are rare (defined as having frequency <0.5%) within the global sample but much more common (>5% frequency) in at least one population (Fig. 3a).
Per figure 3 such variants are <200,000 (0.00625% of human base pairs) per population, <100,000 (0.003125% of human base pairs) for all but one.

How high of a frequency do you want to go and how small the intergroup variation? Because the greater of a disparity you seek to explain with a higher intragroup frequency the greater the effect size of those SNPs needs to be, and to such an extreme degree GWAS could not have failed to detect and explain. Know what that means? Race doesn't explain shit. Provably, empirically, because there is demonstrably no such effect sizes for those variations not least of which because they are overwhelmingly not known to be functional or in functional regions.

Want to guess what the human genome project found attempting putative functional variation analysis?
>The number of alleles associated with a disease or phenotype in each genome did not follow this pattern of increased diversity in Africa (Extended Data Fig. 4): we observed ∼2,000 variants per genome associated with complex traits through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and 24–30 variants per genome implicated in rare disease through ClinVar

This is not news. Race does not, and cannot, explain shit.
>>15441490
They lie and regurtitate a concept they've never looked up the source of and don't understand the mistake made by its author. It's a thought terminating cliche so they don't have to deal with reality.

>>15441483
As a prelude you maybe want to at least read >>15441532 and if you care the relevant citation. If you really care, read a bunch of citations concerning GWAS and how little intergroup differences can be explained by common intragroup functional variants.
>So why are groups so different from each other? Why do some cultures greatly outperform others in different things?
All the many other reasons people differ. Different age demographics, different disease loads (communicable and non-communicable), different levels of health, nutrition, education, cultural biases, individual and intergroup biases, the list goes on ad astra. How any given individual with some given genome will react in some given set of conditions is always genetic, of course, but as the missing heritability problem demonstrates we can't predict actual trait variation worth shit. The recent big accomplishment was 10% of intelligence variation could be predicted from n = 1,100,000 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5985927/ same for educational trajectory https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6522355/
>How can 2 or 4 different cultures that live in the same country have vastly different outcomes?
Apparently it's usually going to be luck. Thems the breaks.
>Your trying to tell me all those differences aumount to about .1 percent. So a tenth of a percent is the difference?
To whatever degree genotype and phenotype will correlate in some specific set of circumstances, yes, that's it. That is also why PGS, polygenic score, remains very low. This is also the case when it comes to within vs between families, as I and some others keep mentioning. https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(19)30231-9
Per that citation example, even something as reliably measured of a cognitive trait as intelligence had greater prediction between families than within families. Sporadicity is the norm, but laymen somehow never got the memo. SES, luck, also considerably confounded PGS.

>>15441490
>He bassically said that there is more differences amongst a group than outside?
It is well known to be true. Replicated hundreds of times. Every single GWAS involving intergroup analysis replicates it. It is as entrenched and factual as evolution is a fact.
>So Two Italians can be more different than a egyption and a Japanese person? Doesn't make sense logically.
Then you don't understand biology and evolution. No different from not understanding relativity or some other concept. That doesn't make the fact wrong, it means your understanding was wrong. You know that, so don't go all flat earther on us. Everyone eventually discovers they've made some critical mistake in some basic assumptions about something at some point, and if they don't they're living under a rock or a narcissist.

The logic is quite simple really, if you understand subsets. All humans from Egypt to Japan came out of Africa quite recently, and with an even smaller ancestral genome population than still present in Africa. On such a short scale of time, and with so few mutations, so little genetic drift, lack of selection pressure, etc, the differences from that founder population are going to remain very small. We fan out in subsets from Africa, and extremely few functional alleles achieved even slight prevalence. As the human genome project also notes >>15441532
>How did he come up with that and why do others disapprove it?
Relevant biologists/geneticists/whatever don't. It's a fact. Only /pol/tards disapprove.

>>15441567
Where do I start with studying all of this, if you have any recs? Preferably light, like for actual starters. The only knowledge I have on this is high school biology that was also extremely shitty

At least materials relating to the race question, be it a video or a blog or a book

Guys, I need to find my race quickly. I have a round skull. My body is mesocephal. I have folds in my eyes. I'm tall. I have pubic hair. My hair roots are strong. My cheekbones are wide. I have no hair on my body. My hair color is dark brown. My skin color is light wheat. My body is not conducive to getting fat.

>>15441573
>Where do I start with studying all of this, if you have any recs? Preferably light, like for actual starters. The only knowledge I have on this is high school biology that was also extremely shitty
Wikipedia usually has some kind of summary to learn the relevant jargon, or at least the words even if you have to seek out additional material to understand the concept. There are numerous pages concerning biology and often with respect to humans, such as this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics
And common misunderstandings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_misunderstandings_of_genetics
Human genomic topics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
What phenotypes are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
And so on. I do not know of some crash-course that is any good. I do know many universities have lectures freely available on Youtube for different biology classes, but I haven't personally watched any. I mention it in case you are unaware, or want to make a list of things to try searching out and might not have thought of that.
>At least materials relating to the race question, be it a video or a blog or a book
You can start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics for that.
I don't know of any good video or book summaries that explain it competently from an actual biological perspective, as opposed to equally inept /pol/tard level radicals on the opposite political side with the opposite position that biology totally doesn't matter at all. That is also what people often strawman me as believing because it's just easier to do that than try to understand the real subject.

The problem with asking me that is my understanding of this stems from general broader understanding of biology and, specifically, behavioral genetics. Not some one-stop shop summarizing everything specifically for the angle of race to the layman. Maybe I should write a book. Sadly, anyone needing to read it most probably wouldn't.

>>15441588
>Wiki for Genetics
>[redirected to Conspiracy Theory page]

>>15441374
>Lewontin's fallacy

>>15441659
Evolution deniers claiming facts are fallacies? Say it isn't so.

>>15441374
>Most variation occurs within groups
Reminder this is as meaningless as the statement that within Europeans you have 60 IQ Bob and 200 IQ Sir Issac Newton, but that even the largest difference between groups, such as abos and ne-asians/jews/whites is only about 30-50 points.

>>15441723
>Reminder this is as meaningless as the statement that within Europeans you have 60 IQ Bob and 200 IQ Sir Issac Newton, but that even the largest difference between groups, such as abos and ne-asians/jews/whites is only about 30-50 points.
Reminder GWAS effect sizes and the low amount of >5% population variants preclude that being due to population genetic differences. >>15441532

>>15441567
>It is well known to be true. Replicated hundreds of times. Every single GWAS involving intergroup analysis replicates it. It is as entrenched and factual as evolution is a fact.

in fact, it's so true that his specious reasoning is regarded as a fallacy!

i think i demolished you in another thread whereby i demonstrated that assuming within group heritability of IQ of 80%, then for the remaining cause of the well established 15 point gap in average IQ between blacks and whites to be 100% enviornmental would require the average black to have a 2.24 d worse environment than the average white, assuming 0% genetic contribution to the gap. absolutely ridiculous, but calling people who destroy your leftist cope arguments poltards seems to be working well for you, so keep doing it!

anyway, PCA clustering clearly demonstrate genetic clustering of race, every day common experience does in fact show that europeans are more similar to other europeans than they are to africans, east asians, indians, etc.
just because you can find outliers in each population that are highly unlike one another and therefore resemble some other population's average more than their own doesn't mean the median representative of a population is more like another race's median than their own.

no one smart will be convinced by your libtard illogic :)

>>15441723
YEP, guess whites and east asians have fewer differences than similarities with abbos after all!

>>15441732
>in fact, it's so true that his specious reasoning is regarded as a fallacy!
By a single author who misunderstood what Lewontin was refuting. Whoopsie.
>i think i demolished you in another thread whereby i demonstrated that assuming within group heritability of IQ of 80%
Which would be false. So, no, you definitely did not "demolish" me in any thread. You're conflating descriptive correlated heritability with predictive polygenic score, which for IQ is at beast 10-15% and only in a few studies.
>assuming 0% genetic contribution to the gap.
Which is not my assumption either so you got it wrong both ways.
>anyway, PCA clustering clearly demonstrate genetic clustering of race
Nope. You arbitrarily choose where to stop. Any group can be defined by any unique alleles for that group. For PCA you just choose the stopping point or you'd descend right down to individuals. So you think there are 7 billion races?
>just because you can find outliers in each population that are highly unlike one another and therefore resemble some other population's average more than their own doesn't mean the median representative of a population is more like another race's median than their own.
You are hilariously confused. There are very few variants with even a >5% frequency >>15441532 and less than 0.1% of those are even putatively functional. That means you're wrong dipshit.
>no one smart will be convinced by your libtard illogic :)
Least of all clueless but smug retards like you I suppose (:

>>15441374
>Still parroting lewontin's fallacy in the current year
Holy shit

>>15441050
>Still think racism is wrong
Thinking "wrong" exists is a mental illness.

>>15441788
>still denying reality in current year
cope and seethe

>>15441751
>You arbitrarily choose where to stop
Retarded argument, that applies to everything, of course you can continue to break down traits to the individual, but that would defeat the purpose for understanding the clustering of groups based on their allele frequencies, you literally said it yourself, and when you asses populations based on allele frequencies there are clear and obvious clusterings of people.
As for the shit about lewontin's fallacy, it's still bunk no matter how much coping you use. You can't compare inter population extremes between individuals to averaged intra population statistics and assess them against eachother honestly. It'd be the same as dismissing the "wage gap" argument by saying "uhhh well the richest woman makes more than poor woman" while wages between both sexes averaged still purport a significant net difference. Before niggas pounce on me for it I'm just using the wage gap as an example idgaf about economics.

>>15441804
>Retarded argument, that applies to everything, of course you can continue to break down traits to the individual, but that would defeat the purpose for understanding the clustering of groups based on their allele frequencies, you literally said it yourself, and when you asses populations based on allele frequencies there are clear and obvious clusterings of people.
I literally said "Any group can be defined by any unique alleles for that group". As in, you can make any clusterings of people you want and there will be some unique genetic cluster for that group. By definition. It is no less surprising that PCA follows population ancestry when the starting point is literally the starting point of our population ancestry. You can choose to call that race, but that doesn't make it meaningful or relevant for differences.
>As for the shit about lewontin's fallacy, it's still bunk no matter how much coping you use.
You mean commonly accepted fact. I guess you know more than all the geneticists?
>You can't compare inter population extremes between individuals to averaged intra population statistics and assess them against eachother honestly.
Isn't extremes. Literally the opposite. "You are hilariously confused. There are very few variants with even a >5% frequency >>15441532 (You) and less than 0.1% of those are even putatively functional. That means you're wrong dipshit."
>It'd be the same as dismissing the "wage gap" argument by saying "uhhh well the richest woman makes more than poor woman" while wages between both sexes averaged still purport a significant net difference. Before niggas pounce on me for it I'm just using the wage gap as an example idgaf about economics.
Which I'm not doing and you're too scared to bother trying to address what I am actually writing.

>>15441809
You keep using the size of the number being small as if that's a significant counter argument. The functional component of the human genome is already incredibly small, and unique functional alleles among groups can create drastic differences between them, even if making up a minute percentage of the proponent genome versus the non-coding component. Individuals themselves might differ between eachother on gargantuan metrics of non-coding/non-functional alleles, but that variation is physically irrelevant. The genetic variation that exists between dog breeds like a great Dane and a chiwawa is probably incredibly insignificant, yet still the phenotypic coding genes between them are impactful enough to result in net gross physical disparity between both groups.

>>15441374
Schizo

>>15441567
>It is well known to be true
It's obviously wrong lol
Might as well claim that birds are more genetically distant from other birds than they are to crocodiles. Obvious bullshit.

>>15441728
>Abos are braindead retards for purely environmental reasons goyim

>>15441732
Yup, it's that same guy in every fucking thread.
He clearly has no life or job and makes no meaningful contributions to society of any kind.
He just spams every single thread about genetics with this snopes-tier "debunking" of extremely obvious facts. Even if you get the upper hand, he starts the next thread over from scratch as though it never happened. Lol, in a previous thread someone speculated that he could be an AI designed for that one task.

>>15441853
>he starts the next thread over from scratch as though it never happened

>>15441890
Why are all Jews like this? Is it genetic?

>>15441832
>You keep using the size of the number being small as if that's a significant counter argument.
You lot keep lying about what people write. >>15441532
>>How high of a frequency do you want to go and how small the intergroup variation? Because the greater of a disparity you seek to explain with a higher intragroup frequency the greater the effect size of those SNPs needs to be, and to such an extreme degree GWAS could not have failed to detect and explain. Know what that means? Race doesn't explain shit. Provably, empirically, because there is demonstrably no such effect sizes for those variations not least of which because they are overwhelmingly not known to be functional or in functional regions.
There is not some "third option". If you believe race must be meaningful and must have innate differences those differences must therefore be represented as innate population genetic differences, and those variants must therefore have huge effect sizes due to how few high-frequency variants there are. We don't see that, therefore you're wrong.
>The genetic variation that exists between dog breeds like a great Dane and a chiwawa is probably incredibly insignificant
On the contrary, dog breeds have way more genetic differences than humans by far.
https://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1706.full.html
>However, the variation between dog breeds is much greater than the variation between human populations (27.5% versus 5.4%). Conversely, the degree of genetic homogeneity is much greater within individual dog breeds than within distinct human populations (94.6% versus 72.5%).
Unsurprisingly due to artificial selection by humans the variations are also more functional.

So you tried to give an example thinking it refuted me when it reinforces exactly what I've been saying is common knowledge for biologists. Going to give up lying yet?

>>15441899
It has to be in part. Like everything else.

Neardentals and denisovans were also humans homo erectus too im tired of pretend they were not

>>15441928
Doesn't change the fact that your argument doesn't distinguish non-coding vs functional between physically distinct populations. Think about it logically, evolution is primarily motivated by natural selection, selecting for a difference in physically relevant, if not genomically "minor" coding genes as opposed to the bulk of non coding dna, which is highly represented between individuals as mentioned in your source, creating the illusion of greater distance, when in reality these geographically unique functional genes are what create differences between various extant human population. It makes sense, natural selection can only select for what is physically relevant, otherwise evolution wouldn't function in the manner we know it to. "Diluting" the variation between populations by using the net difference of the entire genome, including non functional genes is disingenuous to the degree of difference that exists and is facilitated by physically relevant genes.

>>15441899
They aren't.

>>15441986
>Doesn't change the fact that your argument doesn't distinguish non-coding vs functional between physically distinct populations.
Yes I did. Figure 3 are variants which are considerably more numerous than putatively functional variants. >>15441532 You're not even trying.

>>15441245
> Nah, we're different species
Explain why

>>15442197
Am I missing something? Figure 3a shows a highly population correlated reading for f2 variants, 3b data relates to randomly sampled regions in the genome, and 3c doesn't differentiate between functional / non functional variants either. In fact, as per your own source's findings, they state
>"We show that individuals from different populations carry different profiles of rare and common variants, and that low-frequency variants (enriched for functional mutations) show substantial geographic differentiation"
>"Variants present twice across the entire sample (referred to as f2 variants), typically the most recent of informative mutations, are found within the same population in 53% of cases"

>>15442203
natural selection, genetic drift, geographical isolation, and mutation

Dumb fuck.

>>15442203
explain to me species can be differentiated for the most minute difference even if they're genetically compatible (IE finches) but when "humans" have vastly different bone, muscular, and other adaptions for their environments they're all still the "same species? Should we consider every single finch and finch-like sexually compatible with them as one species?

>inb4 muh racism non argument.
just because people could be categorized differently as it stands doesn't mean I hate anyone.

>>15442821
why species*

>>15442821
>>15442824
Because species is an arbitrary human concept. Arbitrary in the sense that you can choose some set of features in reality to make the concept, but the concept is not self evident or some real category absent our choice to do that. This is known as the species problem because there's no known way to independently categorize a species concept. Also, you appear to be talking about subspecies or breeds rather than species.

Your example of difference is possibly helpful but on a more specific genetic level. You can differentiate persons genetically down to individuals. From there, where's the choice independent some utility between grouping them? You can start by family lineage, but these converge continuously in a gradient of each point always being able to breed with other points without natural boundary. Since life is a bush of divergences, there's no natural stopping point. Subspecies are just designated mostly because it's useful, and for biologists species as a concept would get really fucking messy/useless if we had every specimen that ever existed. Since any starting point of "x can't breed with y" would be relative, too. We'd probably just decide on one arbitrary point just for utility like with a ring species.

>>15442802
You don't seem to understand what any of those words mean

>>15444535
Nice rebuttal retard

>>15441050
Humans aren't diverse at all, genetically speaking. You differ by a negligable fraction of a fraction of a percent from a nig or abo or spic or ruski or yank or chink etc. It's just hardwired into our brains (instincts) to identify and pick out miniscule differences in other humans (especially in the face area) so to aide in selecting a mate.

>>15444569
lol, imagine believing this.

>>15444824
All shitskins and leftists believe this because it fits their narrative.

>>15444824
Trump lost
Hitler lost
You and your racist beliefs will forever be scorned by society

>>15444837
? Trump is a jew enabling yankee faggot, don't equate him to the divine man against time

Phenotypical difference is self-evident
IQ tests
Natural religion
Etc.

>>15445128
Heil.

>>15442727
>Am I missing something?
Yeah I typo'd and hit 3 instead of 4. The post I referenced would've made that clear but in any case the functional spectrum section and figure 4, though the figure is not very informative read the section.

>>15442727
>Am I missing something?
Turns out the pubmed link in that post was wrong, this was the right study https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15393
You aren't missing something. Just fucked up copy pasting.