/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15667916
>That black chick
Only one I would of the 4

>>15667916
>inb4 muh anglo diet
All other races eat the gloyslop and look at least somewhat like their natural form

>>15667916
because you are nigger

>>15667962
I'd rape the abo no cap

>>15667916
Science™ works in mysterious ways.

>>15667916
all those birds should be considered a single species

>>15667916
yes
the logic is that low IQ individuals are afraid of outgroups, and find post-hoc justifications for that fear
one of the manifestations of this is the production of images trying to dehumanize the outgroups, so that the low IQ can cope
The other side of this is that the low IQ can cope with their inadequacy by imagining they are valuable because they are part of the "good" ingroup
Hope that a logical enough explanation for you

>>15668319
Are you saying that crows, ravens and rooks are low-IQ and flock together with their respective in-groups merely to cope with their inadequacies and irrational fears?

>>15668327
Yes bigot

>>15668329
But crows are famed for their intelligence. I'm starting to think anti-racists cope with their low IQ by painting everyone smarter than them as racist.

>>15667916
yes
the logic is that jews are afraid of white people, and try to destroy them as a group without coming into direct conflict
one of the manifestations of this is the production of pseudoscientific propaganda, pushing ideas like evolution was only skin-deep for homo sapiens after it appeared
The other side of this is that the midwit whites can cope with being alienated by what was once their own societies by imagining they are valuable because they are part of the "good goy" group that accepts this propaganda without question and selflessly sacrifice itself for the greater good (of jews)

>>15667916
By the expression: [math]97^{2}-89^{2}[/math]

>>15668432
explain please

>>15668319
Racism is a population level trait meant to further your own genetics above others, based on relatedness. It is classic tribal behavior.
It has very little to do with worldviews per se.
It is simply the case, that low IQ people are less educated, which causes them to believe in more stereotypes, which is how we measure racism.
Ironically, though, science and academics used to be incredibly racist through most of its history.
Even today many of the old arguments can be made and backed up with data. The reason why the data exist is then blamed on everything, but genetics. Who is right, we simply do not know, we need to collect more data, that should be the proper neutral scientific stance of a high IQ person.
Anyways, It is only now, after decades of top-down mandates have brought societal change through mass education, public shaming and what could be called propaganda, that racism has apparently reduced.
Interestingly, the average minority now holds more racist views than the average white person.
You can see the logic problem?
Does low IQ cause poor education, or does poor education cause low IQ? Is it genes or the environment?
We are back to square one.
The truth is, that we do not yet know. Anyone who claims to know for certain is a charlatan.
From an evolutionary standpoint it makes sense to be racist and to seek confrontation, especially when there are any kind of signs of possible weakness.
You might think that it is morally wrong, but morals merely pertain to the upholding of society, if they bind your thoughts, then you are certainly retarded.

>>15667916
japanese girl has cute fangs

>>15668319
Corporations in developed countries (particularly banking and construction) rely almost entirely on high birth rates in undeveloped countries for continued growth.

>>15667916
Why should your skin colour affect your life?

>>15669242
Because it can cause miscegenation that ruins superior races

>>15669320
If you are intelligent enough to not mate with lower races you just creat a new race that is more intelligent and white than all others. It's like a filter

>>15669242
Because you're not blind.

>>15667916
yes. the right pic is wrong. you also have different subspecies in regards to humans

>>15668432
True and real.
/thread

>>15667916
Religion is devoid of logic.

>>15667916
Humans are all the same species (homo sapiens) and subspecies (homo sapiens sapiens). Varying definitions for race exist, one of which is as a synonym for subspecies, but we don't vary enough genetically to be considered different subspecies. So in that sense the right image is correct. But by the social construct definition of race, it is not.

>>15669442
>but we don't vary enough genetically to be considered different subspecies.
Really ?
What's the required level of genetic variation to separate subspecies, and what is the level of human genetic variation ?

>>15669453
It's not formally defined, so it's basically up to biologists to decide whether an organism is different enough to qualify as a different subspecies. But the percent of genetic variation that typically qualifies an organism as a separate subspecies is much greater than the genetic variation seen amongst extant homo sapiens.

>>15668334
Wow, you cracked the code

>>15668432
Lol, I didn't even have to do the calculation to know what this was

>>15669510
>But the percent of genetic variation that typically qualifies an organism as a separate subspecies is much greater than the genetic variation seen amongst extant homo sapiens.
What are they ?

>>15669553
Couldn't tell you offhand.

>>15669573
Then how do you know ?

>>15669580
Just what I've read on the subject. I'm not a biologist, so not something I've studied.

>>15668319
Honestly, as much as I detest hating a stranger because of their race or whatever, it's kinda clear by now that many have an issue with certain groups due to their underperformance, refusal to assimilate, and general inclination towards violence. There are people I like of all groups, but if you were to say "you're gonna have to live among x group", there are many that would make me shit my pants and make me want to plan my escape.
Essentially, I think it's a bit silly to imply no one remotely intelligent dislikes outgroups. Having too many of them creates chaos and a weaker nation state. How many countries can you point to that are among the best places to live that are very diverse yet also enjoy a lack of extreme political and social conflict?

Niggers aren't human tho

>>15669582
>Just what I've read on the subject.
Where from ?

I've read this here a few times and I've been searching a bit for a source and never found any.

>>15667916
While those black birds all look the same to us, to each other they probably see others how we view the right image

>>15669603
Maybe it's inaccurate, I don't know.
Ultimately, the bottom line for me is that these categorizations are defined by subject experts (i.e., biologists), and therefore is somewhat arbitrary in terms of what characteristics ought to count and how to weight them, etc, but the current consensus is that there are no subspecies of homo sapiens recognized (other than (h. s. sapiens). Not that there haven't been proposals in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy#Homo_sapiens_subspecies

>>15669641
>the current consensus is that there are no subspecies of homo sapiens recognized
Of course, the question is was this consensus reached through science or politics ?

>>15669807
Science doesn't tell us where to draw the lines though, right? How much difference is "enough" to call something a different subspecies? The categorizations seem to be applied more for their utility in talking about different populations rather than any consistent criteria. So on that basis the utility of talking about Europeans, Africans, or East Asians as a whole is probably outweighed by the negative utility of the racist ideologies such categorization has historically tended to support.

>>15669807
no cherry picking FST chart here

>>15670292
It's interesting that Europeans are closer to Africans than Asians are. If one wanted to draw a very tenuous correlation one might suggest that this parallels the average IQ of these three groups (i.e. Asians and Africans at either end, Europeans in the middle).

>>15670292
why is there no "Jewish" in this FST chart?

>>15669222
>Racism is a population level trait meant to further your own genetics above others, based on relatedness. It is classic tribal behavior.
I agree. Whites should not mix with whites unrelated to their ethnic group. Same applies to blacks and Asians. You
This idea is retarded because it completely disregards human behavior under the guise of supporting it. Humans just love to fuck. Whether it's a nigger, cracker, or a gook, men especially want to fuck what they see. There's been many copes for this but at the end of the day race mixing is race mixing. Hell, the only reasons our populations exist as they do now is because our ancestors mixed to fucking hell. Every continent has what we describe nowadays as intraracial conflict because they didn't fucking like each other period.
Tribalism is big part of human nature, this is undeniable, but tribalism has never exclusively been a race thing. On the contrary, fucking has always been a favorite human pastime tribalism be damned. Not advocating for anything in particular, I don't care what you do but I'm tired of hearing this cope that it's natural.

>>15670371
>Humans just love to fuck. Whether it's a nigger, cracker, or a gook
Nope. Most people fuck people who look like them, even in multicultural societies (which are an artificial creation and not natural). Race mixing is a marginal phenomenon.

>tribalism has never exclusively been a race thing.
Who cares ? The fact is that it also has been a race thing.

>>15670540
>Most people fuck people who look like them
that's racist

>>15669846
>The categorizations seem to be applied more for their utility in talking about different populations rather than any consistent criteria.
What's the criteria for utility though ? What's the use of dividing wolves into 38 subspecies ?
As for the racist ideologies it's a matter of politics. Anti-racist ideologies have negative utility for white people.

>>15670292
>no cherry picking FST chart here
But it says the same thing ?
Danes and english are 0.15 or more away from african populations (except east africans)

>>15670546
Idk man, people like to study and learn about things and categorizing is a way of organizing that information.

>Anti-racist ideologies have negative utility for white people
Some do, sure. At least at the invidual level where someone misses out on a job or promotion or gets canceled because they're white. But otoh that's hard to compare to e.g. slavery or the holocaust or apartheid. Humans as a whole are probably better off with less racism going around.

>>15670563
>categorizing is a way of organizing that information.
You're right. For humans too.

>At least at the invidual level
Yes, and at the social level too. There's all the victims of the heightened criminality of brown people, and the damage done by race riots and such, but there's also more pervasive damage like loss of social trust (see Putnam's study), and loss of one's fatherland.

>>15669807
Its just as valid to say the wolf breeds shouldn't be separated into different species according to their FST score but of course you're too stupid to realize your own bias in all this.

>>15670371
rabbi please

>>15670292
How would a half Guinean half New Guinean child look?

>>15669807
>consensus reached through science or politics
consensus is always a social thing, not science OR politics - science doesn't care how many people agree with it, its only truth constraint is how well it survives the application of doubt.
even when a scientific idea survives enough doubt to be considered true, the formation of a consensus around that idea is STILL fundamentally a social process.
likewise, a politically driven consensus is still ultimately a social process because a) the establishment of political consensus itself is a social process, and b) the "enforcement" of that political consensus is social.

in short: truth isn't democratic, and consensus is a social construct.

>>15667916
Nigs gun nig

>>15670665
>Its just as valid to say the wolf breeds shouldn't be separated into different species according to their FST score
Obviously. But no one seriously think wolves and coyotes should be considered to be the same thing.

>>15671678
>in short: truth isn't democratic, and consensus is a social construct.
Well duh. Everything we do is a social construct. That's irrelevant.
It remains that this particular consensus could have been reached because its scientific backing is solid, or because it's politically correct.

>>15672317
I would bet that humans aren't as easily categorized into subspecies as most other animals due to the fact that we're nowhere near as geographically constrained. Take the crow example from >>15670540 and note how narrow the hybrid band is. Would you expect a human subspecies band to be so narrowly constrained? I wouldn't. What I would expect are gradients of genetic diversity across the entire globe, with hotspots scattered here and there, but the majority being somewhere in between. So the question becomes, where does one draw the lines of what counts as a different subspecies, when there are no well-defined lines in the data?

Consider the FST averages from >>15670292. According to the chart, on avarage East Africans are closer to Danish people (0.09) than to Mbuti people (0.12). Does that mean East Africans and Danish should be the same subspecies, different from Mbutis? Or all three should be different subspecies? This implies that either a 0.12 or 0.09 difference is sufficient to be considered a separate subspecies. How far do you want to go? 0.06? 0.03? 0.01? Should Japanese and Koreans be different subspecies? And then of course we're just talking averages; an individual could easily be closer to the average of a different group than their presumed native group, depending how narrowly and where you draw the lines.

As a practical matter, it doesn't seem feasible or particularly useful.

>>15672425
Admixture between subspecies happens all the time and many subspecies have varying degrees of ancestry within populations.

By the end of the Middle Paleolithic humanity had already split into the following clades: South Africans, Pygmies, West Africans, East Africans, Aterians, Basal Eurasians and the common ancestors of Eurasians. Among those the South Africans had split 250 thousand years ago.

After that it is arguable that Eurasians can be split into West and East Eurasians since this took place during the Upper Paleolithic around 50 thousand years ago. After that Papuans and Australians split from East Eurasians, and later Negritos from East Asians. These splits took place such a long time ago that many subspecies in other animals formed way after them. At the very least any split that happened during the Middle Paleolithic before OOA has to be considered significant enough to compare to a subspecies.

As for the utility of these classifications and clades, clearly you do not browse /his/ and/or aren't interested in population or archaeogenetics. They tell of human movements, history and formation through genetics. Just as they do in every other species. I do not give a damn what society thinks of these classifications or if they're subspecies, race or populations, they exist. Dismissing them would dismiss the very concept of structured populations. If you want to learn more I highly suggest going to /his/ instead of this board which seems to be stuck in the 90s

>>15672853
well they're straight out denying the possibility of evolution in any context at this point. so good luck talking to them

1. intelligence is genetic. that's why monkeys aren't smart
2. intelligence MUST be genetic for evolution to function
3. humans evolved intelligence. that's why we're not monkeys.
4. current intelligence differences are genetic.

this can ALL be completely concluded with absolute confidence with zero understanding of the exact mechanisms of genetic inheritance.

when it comes down to it, leftists are just bloodthirsty murderers. they want you dead and raped, and they think its funny

>>15672425
>humans aren't as easily categorized into subspecies as most other animals due to the fact that we're nowhere near as geographically constrained. Take the crow example from >>15670540 (You) and note how narrow the hybrid band is
The crow exemple is of populations that are considered different species (for that reason among others), not subspecies.
Subspecies usually are clinal when they are in contact. Like wolves in >>15670546, their genetic structure doesn't actually neatly follow borders.


>Or all three should be different subspecies? This implies that either a 0.12 or 0.09 difference is sufficient to be considered a separate subspecies. How far do you want to go? 0.06? 0.03? 0.01?
That is another question, which has never been a big issue for other clinal substecies group. To take the old comparison, you have no problem using the red and orange categories even though you'd be unable to tell me exactly at what frequency one ends and the other begins.
Same for subspecies, it doesn't matter much if the line is drawn more or less arbitrarily, like it was for wolves or others.

That being said we do have material basis to draw the lines over geographic divides, like the sahara, and as >>15672853 says we know the history of human population migrations and splits that separated groups over geographic areas, and that also can inform the line drawing.

>>15668319
Based

>>15672890
To add onto this, all clinality is a result of admixture
This can only happen if there are two or more populations that are purer and have experienced no gene flow prior to the creation of the cline.

Now the true question of what constitutes a category is rather how long does it take for a split within a population to be significant.

>>15672926
Also as for the weird East Africans being more related to Eurasians than they are to Mbuti, they in fact are more related to Eurasians. Same applies to West Africans, and Mbuti are more related to all of them than any of them are to South Africans.

>>15672853
>>15672890
So how do you determine who's which subspecies? Can you address the question of East African/Danish/Mbutis asked here >>15672425?

>>15672859
You're missing the link between intelligence and genetics and it's misleading your conclusion.
My understanding of your explanation is:
>genetics specify how the brain is structured.
>the structure of the brain influences intelligence
>therefor genetics influences intelligence.
But your 'zero understanding' has left you without certain information you need such as:
>the brain can restructure itself into radically new forms without genetic alterations.
>learning and study can increase intelligence long after the body is fully developed.
>People consider a level of intelligence equal the smartest non-human to be profoundly disabled.
>Profoundly disabled individuals can still exhibit savant behaviour in 'intellectual' fields such as math
The conclusion you should be reaching is that genetics' influence of the differences in intelligence between healthy adults is insignificant in the face of the brains ability to improve itself, as well as the significant non-genetic factors such as pollution, diet, trauma and education.
But I want to talk about the OP since I got here late so here's why none of this matters.
Taxonomy isn't real. Every 'group' is made up. I can belong in a group with anything in the universe if I stretch the definition enough. Either I am one with everything in the universe, or my composition is truly unique amongst the entirety of existence. Every other method of grouping is either hatred or an autistic need to label everything.

>>15672946
how does the brain restructure itself to form new things? this is NOT a genetic capability ANY other animal has, therefore the capability to do so is GENETIC you fucking nigger

>learning can increase capability
why can't monkeys learn. where did this come from initially, at what point, millions of years ago did this process develop? at that point, it was GENETIC. when it developed further, it DEEPENED the associated genetic trait you nigger

lizards don't have culture. intelligence is a biological trait like everything else you fucking nigger

at what point, neurologically and biomechanically, does intelligence stop coming from neuron function and begin to come from your pixie dust that beams thoughts magically into a head? please tell me in detail

>>15672317
>Obviously. But no one seriously think wolves and coyotes should be considered to be the same thing.
Coyote has lower FST score than the red wolf does to the other wolves yet obviously the red wolf has much more physical and behavioral traits in common with the the fellow wolf breeds than the coyote does and the eastern wolf is almost equally related to all three breeds so are they both part of the same species as gray wolves and red wolves at the same time? This doesn't gel with the simplistic application of the scores you're doing in this thread.

>>15669846
>>15670563
>bad things happened to other groups in the past so now bad things have to happen to you
are the sins of the father the sins of the son? people who identify historical (multiples of generations) abuse as a justification for current abuse would probably wisen up if they had to assume their parents' debts and credit scores. either it was wrong then, and it's wrong now, or we revert to tribalism where it's okay as long as it's directed at another group. this is assuming that members of either group have the same capacity for success as the members in the other group, a painful assumption to get wrong.

and the groups look very different - they act differently, too, traits that are preserved beyond culture, upbringing or education. whether you want to refer to this observation by calling it race, ethnicity or nationality is less important. what's important is that the categories have value. think accuracy, or general utility. if we applied the same level of distinctifying scrutiny to human populations as we did for, say, crows, there would very obviously be distinct subspecies. with the exception of much of the 20th century, most of anyones ancestors knew this without genomics / anatomy / cranium volumetrics / standardized academic tests / etc.

without getting too into the potential political / ethical / spiritual theories on why there's "one human race" you could also consider the "lumpers vs splitters" debate, but if I remember correctly that only has to do with morphology

>>15667916
Its the same shit as
>theres no such thing as white people
>white people carry the original sin of racism
Disregard everything that tries to demoralize you/your group

>>15672930
>So how do you determine who's which subspecies?
Same way they did it with wolves I suppose. Which I expect is to observe extreme phenotypes and their geographic position, see how the clinal zone appears and put a line in the middle if it's localized or somewhere in between the two extremes if it's very progressive.
>Can you address the question of East African/Danish/Mbutis asked here
They could very well belong to three subspecies. There's not reason to limit ourselves to the 3, 4 or 5 races of old.
But I've read some stuff that indicates that black african groups are in fact closer to each other than they are to the groups that went out of africa to india and then back to the middle east, north africa and europe ("whites"). And the relatively low FST between EAs and the dutch is slightly suspect because the italians are more distant...
If I was to draw lines according to FST, for arbitrary reasons I'd put it at .1 and according to pic it would create 5 groups that happen to correspond to the main migration groups you can see in >>15672890.


But anyway, what the most accurate classification is, is up for scientific debate that couldn't yet happen because of antiracism, so I can't answer precisely.

>>15673110
>the italians are more distant...
here's where I got that from

>>15667916
Humans don't actually differ very much. It's just human instincts to notice negligible differences in facial structures.

>>15673121
lol. lmao even.

one group of people can identify the elemental composition of a star with a simple analog telescope, and discern the subatomic composition of neutron without any instruments to detect or see it

the other never even made the wheel

>>15673131
>accumulation of other's knowledge over tens of centuries vs over a couple generations
your dumbass couldn't even make a spear or fire without looking up how to do so. Or using something someone else made.

>>15672946
>taxonomy isn't real.
Sorting populations into groups via Measurable differences isnt real?

>as well as the significant non-genetic factors such as pollution, diet, trauma and education.

Enviornmental factors are a result of your group/sub species historical success or failings. Which is a result of intelligence/genetics.

Group A has poor diet because their ancestors failed to move to an area with better enviornmental factors. Because they failed to create technology to improve/sustain a proper diet.

Group B has poor education because they failed to spend the resources to create a proper educational system.

Group C has excess pollution because they failed to spend the resources to gain a proper education, to understand the world and the impact their actions have on it.

Group D has excess trauma because they failed to spend resources to build proper military defences, allowing for invasion.

All of these failings are in part due to your groups level of intelligence.

The other anon was spot on about learning history. Its not hate or autism to want to divide yourself into groups of similar people. Its the only manner on which civilization can be created. Wolves and cyotes seperate based on group diffs. Its dangerous and foolish for humans to not recognize and act on those diff.

>>15673131
Read the thread retard. We're talking about biology.

>>15673142
But his group was able to while another group wasnt. And those groups can be easily defined by genetics and racial differences.

>>15673145
>Group D has excess trauma because they failed to spend resources to build proper military defences, allowing for invasion.
Note that serious trauma didn't prevent the jews from havinf high IQs and being overrepresented in the elites of the countries they infec- I mean inhabit

>>15673147
show me the point in biology where intelligence magically stops being genetic

was it from lizard to mammal? or from mammal to mouse? or from mouse to monkey? or from monkey to human? at the point humans became human, our brains stopped being genetic biological organs ,and started to operate on fairy dust?

>>15673151
His group didn't do shit. A handful of individuals over the course of tens of thousands of years, across multiple regions, ethnicities and cultures did.

>>15673167
why can't niggers read.

sumerians living in mud huts could read in between dying of plague, and eating a 1300 calorie diet.

but somehow niggers living in singapore still cant read. it really gets the noggin joggin

>>15673159
You can't even define intelligence.
And how does any of what you'd said have anything to do with anything?

>>15673175
I am defining intelligence. it is defined.

so now you must define at which point intelligence magically transforms away from an evolved capacity, into magic, as you claim

>>15673167
And all of those people and concepts you mentioned can be formed into groups which coincide with genetic diffs. Thanks for proving my point

>>15668319
You are ironically making a case for why black people are so overwhelmingly racist.

>>15673175
Ill take a shot. I think this works;

>The ability to understand information and apply it in a manner that is beneficial to you and your goals.

I added the application bit because, having info without applying it makes you a dumbass.

the answer to your question is here
>>15673218

>>15673219
so what causes that plasticity. is it genetics?

what would happen if there was a group of people who were less plastic? for example, niggers, who are incapable of reading a childs book because of "socioeconomic reasons"

actually, socioeconomic reasons is the perfect definition of LACK of plasticity.

so please, define exactly at which point mental plasticity stops being genetic

>>15673280
there's no sliding scale, once you hit a certain event horizon you're high-level enough to qualify.

That's why I included the Apple II -- even if you went back to 1837 and used Babbage's Analytical Engine, a /mechanical/ computer, it would still be Turing complete and thus capable of abstracting to the same layer of compatibility.

Here's the groupings
Within humans the major clades from this graph I made are
South Africans - Rest
Western Pygmies - Rest
Eastern Pygmies - Rest
West Africans - Rest
East Africans - Eurasians
West Eurasians - East Eurasians
East Asians - Papuans
Some of these populations are only extant in admixed form like Western Pygmies

>>15673346
And we group those computers into seperate sub groups. There are enough differences to merit that. The only reason people resist these sub groupings in humans is because your scared of exclusion, either for yourself or for others or youre scared of being labelled a racist

>>15668319
Kek

>>15673386
>And we group those computers into seperate[sic] sub groups
...do we? when was the last time you visited a website that had `POWERPC ONLY, AMD64FAGS GO HOME' written atop it?

>>15673524
Bro this is /sci/. We're discussing the obvious refusal of mainstream biology journals/departments/doctors to classify humans into different subspecies based on genetic differences. Your analogy was poor and you didnt prove or express anything except your own off topic fears.

>>15673624
>Bro this is /sci/ [...] We're discussing...
I am obviously aware of this
>Your analogy was poor
why?

>>15673627
Because most subspecies of animals self segregate from other subspecies. Your implications are obvious and detract from the debate and are hardly relevant. A banner made by a small percentage of one subgroup saying that they only want members of their subgroup here doesnt address the main topic. You're also implying that this banner was wrong on a moral or ethical ground which is largely false. I'll agree that it wasnt kind or nice but that doesnt make it unethical, particularly when you address the main topic of subgrouping based on genetic differences.

We classify animals based on certain criteria. Except in humans. Why? The only answer is fear and that implies that social and political motivations are negatively impacting our study of the world and the life in it. Cope.

>>15667916
Identifiably different subspecies' WHAT?
"Subspecies" is already its own plural. Adding an apostrophe-S to the end of a word (or just an apostrophe if the word ends in S) only ever makes it possessive, never plural.

>>15673656
>You're also implying that this banner was wrong on a moral or ethical ground
I am not.
>We classify animals based on certain criteria. Except in humans. Why?
because, as I stated above, humans are advanced enough that the main difference (behavioral) no longer applies. races that evolved with specific predators/circumstances will have instincts tailored to that circumstance, but the level of thought humans are capable of is so high that it literally doesn't matter. to abuse the analogy again, some processor architectures may be tailored towards specific operating conditions, but in the end they can all act as C compile targets.
let's go through the bio 101 standards for species differentiation, shall we?
>biological species concept: human races can interbreed just fine, and cannot interbreed properly with other things (e.g. monkeys), so all races are part of the same species
>morphological species concept: the difference in skeleton shape between species is fairly slight (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5004623/)), especially compared to literally anything else
>ecological species concept
all races, even before globalization, held effectively the same niche in the ecosystem. making tools, hunting, farming, etc.
>evolutionary/lineage species concept: all races pretty obviously derive from a common homnid ancestor, and have not diverged wildly since

>>15673898
We classify all life forms. By the standards we classify all other animals, humans should be split into sub species based on our genetic differences. Its that simlple. Anything else is cope.

I never said humans arent the same species. I said we fall into obvious sub species. These same differences you are calling slight, are more than enough to classify humans into sub groups. In all fields of scienctific study, it is crucial to use the same standard for all aspects of that field. You're purposly being dishonest about this, in the same fashion as the major public institutions.

Also behavioural differences do still apply. If you look at current, various statistics of the world you will see a marked differences between the behaviours of the sub groups that aligns with the proposed subgroupings based on genetic differences.

These are facts. Nothing can change that save for a massive global genetic mutation/evolution

>>15673936
>Also behavioural differences do still apply. If you look at current, various statistics of the world you will see a marked differences between the behaviours of the sub groups that aligns with the proposed subgroupings based on genetic differences.
presumably you're talking about crime statistics for africans people, spatial IQ for asians, etc.
if so, please explain why evolutionary differentiation in Africa/Asia (or any other specific factor like prey type or water availability) would lead to these changes.
you can't just ad-hoc correlatively link race and behavior without consideration for the likelihood of the association compared to simpler ones (e.g. [math]poor \implies uneducated \implies social\ separation/detachment \implies violence/crime \implies further\ systemic\ detachment[/math]).

>>15673976
(when replying to this, remember "stupid" traditionally links more easily with "complacent/docile" than "aggressive")

>>15673976
My point stands on its own and can be defended with logic, I'm not going to let you bog this down with debating sources.

Intelligence is an evolutionary differentiation. Some parts of it are shaped by the environment but that too is a result of previous in group actions based on their intelligence.

Enviornmental factors and the ability to adapt your groups behavaiour to them is effected by the groups intelligence. An entire group being poor and uneducated can be traced back to a failure to account for environmental factors which is a result of intelligence, which is determined by genetics.

That is why evolutionary differentiation has lead to the current behaviours in various sub groups.

>>15674065
Goddamn effect and affect. If only i wasnt a poor retard

>>15674065
>I'm not going to let you bog this down with debating sources
nobody mentioned sources. I certainly didn't. I was asking for an intuitive line of reasoning.
>Intelligence is an evolutionary differentiation
no, intelligence as we quantify it is efficiency at handling higher-level concepts. species don't evolve intelligence as a trait, they evolve a lot of other things that combine to improve performance in certain situations. nobody evolved specifically to be able to hold the shape of a complex 3D object in their head, it's the accidental result of needing to be able to navigate a space to return back to camp or something like that.
>Enviornmental[sic] factors and the ability to adapt your groups behavaiour[sic] to them is effected[sic] by the groups intelligence
i mean, not really. if africans took a crop of whites to Niger and forbid them from learning to read for a few hundred years, they'd be pretty retarded at the end no matter how intelligent they originally were.
>>15674068
at least you know how to spell environmental ;^)
>That is why evolutionary differentiation has lead to the current behaviours in various sub groups.
I haven't seen a less sound line of reasoning since I took AP Seminar as a high school freshman and a girl tried telling me that freedom of speech caused the Holocaust.

>>15674088
I misunderstood your links statement. I withdraw it.

Allowing another group to gain dominance over you, to dictate your groups actions is a clear result of intelligence.

Now your arguing the meaning of the word intelligence. But thats okay, replace intelligence with the traits dereived from genetics that allow for the the ability to navigate the environment around you, including an understanding of higher level concepts

Some groups had these traits and while others did not. The very fact that some of these groups were seperated by significsnt land masses or bodies of water for several thousands of years (without significant interaction by other groups i.e. invasion) and did not reach the same levels of civilization despite having equally effective resources only strengthens my point about the genetic diffs.

My reasoning is sound and you still have not presented an argument disproving a single point nor have you addressed the main argument. There is no reason to not seperate humans into sub groups, which we do for all animals. There is significant reason to do so

>>15674124
>The very fact that some of these groups were seperated by significsnt land masses or bodies of water for several thousands of years (without significant interaction by other groups i.e. invasion) and did not reach the same levels of civilization despite having equally effective resources only strengthens my point about the genetic diffs.
half of advancement at that stage in civilization was trial-and-error RNG. it's telling that alchemy is the precursor to chemistry, despite making no actual sense whatsoever -- anytime an experiment (read: rich guy throwing chemicals together) "worked", it was through no actual understanding of the subject. besides, that's often not even what was focused on. pretend for a moment that Native Americans were 500% as intelligent on average compared to Europeans. the Europeans would still advance more, because the Natives would focus on being nomadic rather than building castles where kings can commission mathematicians and scientists to do work.
>There is no reason to not seperate humans into sub groups, which we do for all animals.
technically there is no reason not to split any species into increasingly small subgroups based on shared features. I'm just telling you why it isn't really all too useful to do with humans.
say, for instance, you succeed in this. Harvard and UChicago Anthropology send out new standards, detailing that from now on there should be subspecies underneath the banner of 'human', and that these subspecies should follow the lines of existing racial development. what then? there is literally nothing useful about the declaration.

>>15674148
>half of advancement at that stage in civilization was trial-and-error RNG.
At what stage and in who's civilization? Also, trial and error is the very foundation of the scientific method. The very fact that some groups couldn't do this is the most definitive proof of genetic diffs of intelligence.

>it was through no actual understanding of the subject.
No understanding of the subject? Is that how the wheel came about? Ships? Rifles? Gunpowder? Paved roads? Huh? Your position gets even more absurd by the post. You are now stating that the significant advancements that allowed certain groups to gain dominance is chance? That's absurd and you are wrong and have no evidence to support that.

>pretend for a moment that Native Americans were 500% as intelligent
You keep throwing up hypothetical situations because there is no real world evidence for your position. 1. That's literally a fantasy you made up, you have no way of knowing the desires and intentions of a people without a written history. 2. Whys and why not's do not matter. They had the resources to do so, and did not and were conquered for it. A clear lack of genetic traits allowing for the ability to navigate the environment around them. A measurable difference between a population of a subgroup.

1/72

>>15670343
Only humans there, not demonic spawn.

>>15674148
>>15674263
>technically there is no reason not to split any species into increasingly small subgroups...
Technically there is. Here's one of the top of my head. Genetic diffs in humans play a critical role in understanding disease and medicine and in how they affect us. The fact that in some if not all of the proposed sub groups, you can observe differences in disease patterns is a perfect example of its usefulness. I'm not sure which is worse, being ignorant of this or pretending to be.

> these subspecies should follow the lines of existing racial development.
I did not and I don't believe anyone else in this thread has proposed this idea. Another hypothetical fantasy. You are arguing based on fear, which I said at the start was the one of the reasons you would be against the sub grouping of humans.

So far I have proven through logic and reason
>There are measurable differences between sub groups
>There is good cause to use these sub groups

And your counter argument is that technological advancements are a result of luck and that other groups didn't want to do it anyway and fearful outlandish hypothetical situations.

>>15670292
It seems that the Danish data was "massaged".

>>15674148
LMAO

>>15673976
LMAO, not even Chat GPT can write nonsense like that.

>>15667916
>>15667962
the asian is unironically higher IQ than that stupid white on the top left.

and guess what: she is more white. "whites" are actually pink.

>>15673397
The one in the left descends from people who had easy lives until the britshits stole their nice lands. The one in the right descend from people who suffered countless invasions and had to be cute or get eaten alive instead getting fucked.
Is simple as that.

>>15667916

Classification of biological organisms into various groups is called taxonomy. The major hierarchical levels, referred to as the taxonomic ranks: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species

Species: This is the most basic unit of classification. Members of the same species can typically breed with each other and produce fertile offspring. They have the most traits in common compared to higher classifications.

Genus: A genus comprises one or more species that are closely related. Ex, genus Panthera includes lions, tigers, etc are all big cats

Family: This group contains one or more genera

Order: Families are grouped into orders. For example, cats along with dogs and bears belong to the order Carnivora

Class: Orders are grouped into classes. Both birds and mammals are classes—Aves and Mammalia, respectively

Phylum: This contains one or more classes. For example, the phylum Chordata includes all animals with spinal cords

Kingdom: Kingdoms include animals (Animalia), plants (Plantae), fungi (Fungi), etc

Domain: This is the highest taxonomic rank. Currently, three domains are recognized: Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya

All humans, regardless of race or ethnicity, belong to the same species: Homo sapiens. The genetic differences among different human populations are minimal. The variations we observe in skin color, hair texture, and other phenotypic characteristics are adaptations to different environments and represent a tiny fraction of our genetic code

What makes them different species, as opposed to different races or breeds within a species, is typically their inability to produce viable, fertile offspring with members of other groups. Different looking birds might be classified as different species because of significant genetic differences, reproductive isolation, or differences in behavior, habitat, or other biological traits

>get btfo in argument
>don't reply
>new post
>no new posters
oh he's hurt

>>15673346
even once hardware is powerful enough to run software there are still hardware differences in power. a low power computer cannot run high level software, ever. humans are the same

there is nothing magic about this

>>15674380
>a low power computer cannot run high level software, ever.
this is flatly untrue. you could run photoshop by hand, with pen and paper, if you wanted to. lrn2theoryofcomputation.
>>15674378
just got back to my computer; why would I post a reply defining species when it was pre-established in my argument that were talking about subspecies?
see: >>15673936, moron.

>>15667916
>Comparing 17 year olds with 75 year old women

>>15669084
1488

>>15674263
>trial and error is the very foundation of the scientific method
no, "trial, /notation of results/, new trial" is the foundation of the scientific method. doing random shit isn't /sci/ence.
>The very fact that some groups couldn't do this is the most definitive proof of genetic diffs of intelligence.
no, it isn't. see the thought experiment with the Natives and Europeans in the above post.
>No understanding of the subject?
yes
>Is that how the wheel came about
if you're betting that someone conceptualized the concept of rotational smoothness and planned out the first wheel, instead of just putting a cylinder on the ground accidentally and noticing it roll, I'm afraid I have to bet against you.
>Rifles
this one was probably planned.
>Gunpowder
absolutely. Wei Boyang literally threw random shit together 24/7 and noted when something interesting happened, that was his job.
>Paved roads
putting rocks on the ground isn't really /sci/ence
>You are now stating that the significant advancements that allowed certain groups to gain dominance is chance?
yeah
>That's absurd and you are wrong and have no evidence to support that.
what do you think alchemy was? how do you think they derived chemical formulas before knowing that molecules existed?
>You keep throwing up hypothetical situations because there is no real world evidence for your position
no, i keep throwing up hypothetical situations because I know you're too retarded to intuit conclusions.
>That's literally a fantasy you made up, you have no way of knowing the desires and intentions of a people without a written history
before America expanded to the whole continent, the Natives were given access to the tech needed to stop being nomads. they kept doing it anyway, until we trail of tears'd them into reservations.
>Whys and why not's do not matter
hahhahahahahahh oh anon you're so funny!
>KKKDX

>>15668266
>abo
They're fucking hideous.
Every other race can come up with gracile or at least tomboyish femmes, and heeeerrrre's Australia, with degenerate blobs.

>>15674390
are you legitimately retarded? photoshop requires millisecond by millisecond point computation of millions of coordinates.

be honest. you are from lit or his

>>15674281
>A clear lack of genetic traits allowing for the ability to navigate the environment around them
yeah bro when the godzillas game up from the mariana trench and made humanity extinct, it was totally because they were smarter than us and not because we're thinkers and they're make-humans-extinct-ers.
>Genetic diffs in humans play a critical role in understanding disease and medicine and in how they affect us. The fact that in some if not all of the proposed sub groups, you can observe differences in disease patterns is a perfect example of its usefulness. I'm not sure which is worse, being ignorant of this or pretending to be.
we literally already do this, moron. or do you think they check white people for sickle cell at the same rate as black people?
>I did not and I don't believe anyone else in this thread has proposed this idea. Another hypothetical fantasy. You are arguing based on fear, which I said at the start was the one of the reasons you would be against the sub grouping of humans.
sorry, have you seen the OP picture?
>So far I have proven through logic and reason
...that you are retarded. I'm so sorry, anon.

>>15674423
once again, lrn2theoryofcomputation.

>>15674423
let's say you reduce the computation to a series of register MOV instructions. with the instruction and registers in front of them, a person can probably fully execute one instruction in 10 seconds. they don't need to increment the program counter or anything -- just look at what's being moved where, and write it on the appropriate piece of paper then move the program sheet back a little.

that person could do 6 a minute, 360 in an hour. in an eight-hour work day, they could execute 2,880 instructions. 14,400 for a five-day work week. 676,800 a year, with five weeks vacation. 29,779,200 in a lifetime if they work from 18 to 62, retiring on social security.

in a few generations you'll have your ragecomic.

>thought experiment
>they could have invented all of those things if they wanted to!
>but the guys who did, did it by chance!
>you have to write it down to be real science
>thought experiment
>nobody needs to build roads!
>all luck
>considering the possibility of invasion? Godzilla!
>the invention of the wheel was luck!
>thought experiment
>name calling
>they didnt need the wheel anyway!
>they could have built all of those things too!
>thought experiment
>chance

>>15674486
>verification not required

>all technological achievments are luck!
>pure chance!
>if I wanted to!
>we're thinkers!
>all chance!
>write it down!
>theres no behavioural difference!
>luck!
>moron!
>wanted to!
>the NA would have killed the
>pure chance they had roads
>americans if they wanted to!
>all luck!
>not scientific!
>all luck!
>could have if they wanted to!
>its just chance!
>moron!
>roads are luck!
>socio economic factors!
>are all luck!
>who needs roads!
>thought experiment

the samefagging in this thread is horrendous

>>15668319
if abroginal australians/papua new guineans were extinct we would consider them a hominid species based off of their remains.

>>15674540
papuans and africans would be classes as a step after egaster, objectively

>>15674523
>verification not goddamn motherfucking required, bee-yatch

>>15667916
So where would you scientifically draw the line? Different African groups are distinct from each other. Same as Asians.

And since this is obviously a political bait thread, I wil say that the scientific idea is less important than if certain groups can get along naturally. I imagine that Germans and Koreans could get along fine and not have much hostility towards each other. They could also interbreed with each other. If these two groups wanted to have one country with each other becuase they for whatever reason saw each other as such good friends that they wanted one country to live in together, I would not see the issue? But if groups cannot naturally get along, then they should not be forced to do so.

>>15674609
everyone draws the line along the same natural conclusion

asians and whites are not murderous psychopathic low iq monkeys

all of the other races are.

this is pretty simple

>>15674618
But can you keep drawing more sub groups though within the broad racial group? If so what does that mean? Should those sub groups not mix with each other?

>>15674622
who cares. everyone knows very clearly who is subhuman and who is not.

>>15674634
very scientific of you

>>15674639
He wrote it down so it is. But perhaps it was luck?

>>15674654
probably.

>>15674618
>t. chink

>>15674303
Something something fixation index something. Bored of you faggots.

>>15669510
>But the percent of genetic variation that typically qualifies an organism as a separate subspecies is much greater than the genetic variation seen amongst extant homo sapiens.

That’s not true at all. The genetic distance between other ape sub species such as gorillas and chimpanzees is less than the genetic distance between human races.

>>15669846
> So on that basis the utility of talking about Europeans, Africans, or East Asians as a whole is probably outweighed by the negative utility of the racist ideologies such categorization has historically tended to support.

Except that race based medicine is growing more important these days and is the fastest growing field of medicine.

>>15670371
> Humans just love to fuck. Whether it's a nigger, cracker, or a gook, men especially want to fuck what they see.

This is correct and I’ll break down OPs picrel. Aboriginals and Asians fucked an extinct homo species called Denisovans. Asians and Caucasians also fucked Neanderthals. Niggers fucked an even older archaic species that doesn’t show up in any other race’s DNA.

>>15674889
If you ask these faggots to explain why homo sapiens are different from neanderthals (which they always accept because soience allows them to) and point out this difference is in spite of shared features: bipedal, hominid, skeletal structure similarities, general anatomical similarities etcetera. Then, they must confront the reality that we are classified as different species of animal because we have sufficient genetic divergence from one another, which is also present between modern races. They feign incredulity about the threshold required for this classification, but all it boils down to is: are there noticeable, genetic differences between the organisms as a result of geographical/environmental differences? The answers is clearly yes. As attested to by Nobel prize winning, genome sequencing scientist James Watson.

>>15674949
I would agree with you. Now fellow scholar, perhaps you could explain why every breeding age couple on TWD is either gay or mixed race.

>>15674972
Don't know what you're referring to or talking about. Are you asking me why people race mix? The answers is high mutational load.

>>15674975
The Walking Dead. At one point the highest rated show on television. Zero white couples of breeding age in a post apocalyptic America. It’s specifically a political question. Recognizably outside your scope.

>>15668298
/thread

>>15674979
>faggot begins babbling about pop culture
Twitter refugee or something? Heard of this place called reddit? You can go there and stay as long as you want with braindead faggots like yourself. Isn't it great?

>>15674984
Nah. Just getting ahead of myself anon. Apologies to you. To the thread. To the board.

Though I’d say there’s an intersect there I haven’t quite mapped out.

>>15674979
>>15674972
I checked wikipedia and surprisingly it doesn't seem that the people responsible were jewish.

>>15675027

>>15675034
oi vey

>>15668319

>>15670540
this is the dumbest shit I've ever read
I'm far more sexually attracted to people who are as ethnically dissimilar to me as possible

>>15667916
Left: meme-tier biology. Right: meme-tier philosophy.

>>15668319
go off sis

>>15674356
>The genetic differences among different human populations are minimal
What is this meme
Seriously what the fuck
The earliest split in humanity took place 270 thousand years ago
How is that not significant?

>>15676477
>>The genetic differences among different human populations are minimal
that's not a meme, but 100% true
>The earliest split in humanity took place 270 thousand years ago
total nonsense with zero basis in reality
all humans on the planet are descended from a population that lived 70,000-100,000 years ago

>>15676892
Unironically true
(because lacks are not human)

>>15676892
Holy fuck /sci/ truly is dumb as hell
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/37/10/2944/5874945
>By sequencing the genome of the Stone Age boy from Ballito Bay (BBA), South Africa, the deepest population divergence in Homo sapiens was estimated to 350,000–260,000 years ago (Schlebusch et al. 2017). Consistent with the recent admixture into all modern-day Khoe-San groups, which reduces population divergence time estimates (Schlebusch et al. 2017) (supplementary section 8 and figs. S7.2, S7.4, and S8.2, Supplementary Material online), we found the mean divergence time of all Khoe-San populations from all other groups to be within the 200–300 ka range (supplementary tables S7.2 and S7.2, Supplementary Material online, and fig. 3). These dates correlate well with previous estimates (Gronau et al. 2011; Veeramah et al. 2012) that also fall within the 200–300 ka (kiloannum: thousand years ago) range when applying the mutation rate used here. The Ju|’hoansi (with the lowest level of recent admixture) had a point estimate of ∼270 ka (∼9,000 generations), SD 20 ka (GphoCS method; TT method: ∼260 ka, SD 12 ka), whereas the Nama (with the greatest level of recent admixture) had a point estimate of ∼210 ka, SD 30 ka (TT method: ∼210 ka, SD 30 ka; supplementary tables S7.1 and S7.2, Supplementary Material online). The Mbuti then diverged around ∼220 ka, SD 10 ka (TT method: 215 ka, SD 9 ka), with the other population divergences occurring subsequently. We inferred a mean divergence time of ∼160 ka, SD 20 ka (TT method: ∼190 ka, SD 20 ka) among the different San groups, consistent with previous estimates (Schlebusch et al. 2017).

>>15677293
For example Tiger subspecies only diversified 110 thousand years ago at most

>Both nuclear and mitochondrial genomic data have thus far converged on a recent late Pleistocene coalescence in modern tigers. The time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) estimated in this study for tiger mitogenomes is approximately 112,600 years ago (95% credible interval [CI]: 72,200–154,800 years ago; Figure S2C), consistent with previous estimates [5, 6, 8, 9]. The pairwise sequentially Markovian coalescent (PSMC) model of autosomal variances (Figure 3B) suggested an ancient expansion and contraction that likely reflect the speciation of Panthera tigris 2–3 mya [24, 25, 26]. Jointly, the mitogenome and autosomal data suggest that despite the fossil evidence for a widespread distribution of tigers in Asia by the late Pliocene and early Pleistocene [24], repeated glacial cycles and suboptimal climate during the Pleistocene likely caused severe range restriction that lead to a prolonged stage (1 mya until approximately 110,000 years ago) with a relatively small yet stable effective population size (∼50,000 individuals).

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(18)31214-4

>>15676892
>>15677293
>>15677385
>110 KYA, enough for 6 subspecies
>270 KYA, no subspecies or any clades at all LMAO
You can't have both nigga. WHICH IS IT FAG?

>>15677398
you're talking about a small and almost negligible population of admixtured humans in Africa, dumbtard
also, the fact that you don't understand that's it's fully possible for subspecies to form in one species in a shorter time than another one exists without subspeciation makes it obvious than you don't have the faintest idea about evolutionary biology
typical retarded racist /pol/-tard, go back where you belong

>>15677421
The population of Khoe-San outnumber the total species of Tigers by several magnitudes.

You have not the slightest idea of mutation rates in either humans or Tigers. They don't magically have an extreme mutation rate just to fit your beliefs. Tigers are extremely bottlenecked and they are notoriously so similar to each other that it makes their conservation efforts difficult. Thus why they have been genetically sequenced to confirm the different subspecies.

Even if you ignore South Africans and Pygmies, West Africans had already split from Eurasians and East Africans by the time Tigers were still stuck in their bottleneck and thus are comparable to their subspecies divergence times. Besides the earliest split in Tigers is the Indonesian subspecies.

>>15677458
>The population of Khoe-San outnumber the total species of Tigers by several magnitudes.
imagine being so clueless about biology that you think this is a valid argument
>You have not the slightest idea of mutation rates in either humans or Tigers.
mutation rates are totally irrelevant in this case, because humans have had far more severe genetic bottlenecks
>They don't magically have an extreme mutation rate just to fit your beliefs.
lmao
it's hilarious how you try to distract from your own cluelessness by trying to make it out as if anything I'm saying is based on "belief", when you're the racist /pol/-tard desperately wanting to cling to your retarded beliefs that have zero basis in reality
>Tigers are extremely bottlenecked
LOL
>Thus why they have been genetically sequenced to confirm the different subspecies.
genetic sequencing is done for countless reasons
>Even if you ignore South Africans and Pygmies, West Africans had already split from Eurasians and East Africans
still total bullshit, still trying to make it out as if some admixture somehow means they had split
seriously, you need to learn basic biology before continuing to embarrass yourself further with this retarded bullshit

>>15677635
Fine by me to ignore population size for classification since it is irrelevant.
Let's go over your argument here again. You claim that Tigers have diverged more than human clades have in the 110 thousand years since they split. By more you must mean that there is more of a genetic difference between the subspecies of Tigers and that they are more diverse. However, the study I quoted pointed out a bottleneck in Tigers until they split off from each other. You have to also remember that this first split is only between continental and Indonesian tigers, subsequent species split off way later

But now let's ignore all that and stick to your last point:
>still total bullshit, still trying to make it out as if some admixture somehow means they had split
What do you mean by this. West Africans had split from the population ancestral to Eurasians and East Africans by the time Tigers started to diversify. That's not "admixture" that's splitting to different populations. West Africans became their own population, their own clade.

>>15677661
You know he's just trolling right ?

all of them are humans except the abo

>>15674401
shut up gay retard thats what abos look like when they hit 20

>>15667916
b-b-b-but the jew on tv says we are all the same!!!
the science is settled!!!

>>15667916
But everyone agrees those people are of different races and there have been innumerable genetic studies to determine how they differ.

Is this one of those threads where a poltard ignores reality to claim he is a victim?

>>15667916
>One race: the Human race
it's amazing how much politics changed. That used to be the progressive view. By the 2000s, everybody more or less agreed with it. Now the left are the ones saying that only white supremacists think "One race: the Human race."

>>15673131
Why assume all tribes have the same aims and the same methods for reaching those aims? Native Americans prioritize environmentalism and often practice very collective behaviors and Europeans prioritize industry and science but have tended to be noticeably more individualistic. Both groups have resorted to violence and means of exploitation but on no comparable scale.

>>15668347

>>15678987
none of the things at the bottom half is socially acceptable except some straight up bullshit like "not believing experiences of POC" lmao wtf it even means, niggers just blatantly lie as always

>>15667916
obviously the reasons are political

>>15667962
fpbp kek

>>15668319
chuds fuming at the truth lolmao

>>15673131
I doubt you could do any of those

>>15667916
I dunno, subspecies seem more arbitrary of a definition. Consider that even species is somewhat arbitrary (polar and grizzly hybrids have fertile offspring, so why do we consider them separate species?). Clearly, those definitions don't always tells us what's really going on genetically.

>>15681479
>polar and grizzly hybrids have fertile offspring, so why do we consider them separate species?
Because the definition you were taught in kindergarten isn't the one zoologists actually use, retard.

>>15681497
It's not really just kindergarten.
Wikipedia, for example
>In biology, a species (pl: species) is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.
And if you look the taxonomy of ursus, brown and polar bear are considered sperate species there as well.
So what gives, zoologists? Why don't you tell wikipedia and others to fix this?

>>15681511
>Wikipedia
Yes, kindergarten.

>Why don't you tell wikipedia and others to fix this?
Because I'm fine with wikishills destroying their own operation.

>>15681514
But look
>This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/species-definition-meaning-biology-science-darwin-a9010631.html
I assume it's from this.
https://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/10/01/a-list-of-26-species-concepts
Seems even zoologists and biologists are being special snowflakes about it.

>>15681520
>independent.co.uk
>wikishills
>scienceblogs.com
Why are you even on this board?

>>15681479
The thing is that usually taxonomy tends to highlight differences by creating different species (polar and brown bears are an example among others like wolves and coyotes, carrion and hooded crows, or even Neanderthals and sapiens) and large numbers of subspecies (38 for wolves, most of them without genetic isolation).
Only for homo sapiens they err on the other side completely.

>>15681592
>Only for homo sapiens they err on the other side completely.
Which is incidentally why that retard keeps finding the meme definition with fertile offspring in the normie edutainment section of the internet he never bothers to look beyond, but that's lost on him. lol

>>15670292
Continentals nonwhite confirmed, anglo bros we just keep winning

>>15681592
I understand that, and it would seem to me that as long as we are talking about races, subspecies it's all rather arbitrary and in case of homo sapiens also political.

>>15668319
So you're saying black people and white liberals are retarded?

>>15681675
>it's all rather arbitrary
How would you know, retard? You don't even know what a species is.

>and in case of homo sapiens also political.
In the sense that we make special exceptions for different subspecies human.

>>15681697
>You don't even know what a species is.
Not my problem that biologists and zoologists can't make up their minds on it.

>>15681714
>Not my problem that I don't know the bare basics of what I'm talking about
You're not wrong. Your being a nigger is not as much problem for you as it is for everyone around you.