/sci/ - Science & Math

racism is just rude.

i mean, it's 2011, and no white man should do any menial work at all, if we have blacks and whatnot around, but why would someone go around making them feel bad is beyond me.

What are you talking about? It's a well-known fact that all races have identical capabilities!

>>2736963
The definition of racism is to support the belief that one race is superior to another. Now, if you also treat them like they are inferior that's up to you. For me, what matters is to accept the fact that some races are inferior/superior, I am not interested if you actually decide to act that way.

>>2736968
This proves me right you know. Africans are not the only ones that have traits that make them good at sports. Also, is that the most important trait that you can have? Running fast can help you mainly if you run for your life, trying to survive. If you don't live in the jungle you have other ways to protect yourself. It is like animals have abilities that help them survive, others run fast, others use poison etc. That's what separates humans from animals, physically humans might not have as strong jaws or fast feet but they can use their intelligence to survive.

>since the first humans were Africans, why not say that they are less evolved than other races

>>2736968
Black people are genetically more prone than whites to develop obesity-related diseases such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes type 2. The only thing that protects them is their ascetic lifestyle especially in parts of Africa unlike the crap-eating whites of the West.

>>2736992
Why don't you try and prove me wrong? Were is your argument?

/new/

anecdotal evidence isn't science, maybe you're the inferior race op.

>>2737006
Anecdotal? Taking in consideration the race of a person is one of the first things you do if you are about to prescribe medication, you fool.

>>2737002
You obviously don't understand the fundamentals of evolution. Just because one population because of geographic isolation splits in two and results in creating two different races, doesn't mean the one that didn't move stops evolving. Nothing stops evolving. Other apes didn't stop evolving simply because humanity became another branch.

Because white people aren't the "best" race.

>>2737030
Of course not. But they evolve in a different direction. Africans started evolving in two different branches. Some of them remained in the main branch, some of them evolved into the other races that exist today. Same as monkeys. That is what I said. I didn't know I had to get into technicalities. They evolved less I said, which might not be the best way to say it, granted.

Goddamnit, I hate white people.
We're such a bunch of racist assholes. NEWSFLASH: we aren't better than anybody; in fact, whites are pretty lame all things considered.
Blacks have sport, asians have math, what do we have? nothing except being assholes.

Although I'm not a huge fan of niggers, there is no superior race. It is nothing new. We are all good at certain things. It's like a video game and every character has their special power. Even the retards! Their special power is eternal happiness apparently.

>>2737044
You are trolling right? If not, then that was the most discriminative comment you could ever make. Stereotyping people like that.

We should start genetically modifying the next generation to be healthy and intelligent, if just so we won't have to be concerned about which race is inferior and which one is superior and how we should prevent genetic degradation as the forces of natural selection are reduced.

>>2737040

You still don't get it. If you understood you wouldn't use the term "less evolved".

Hint: We don't know what ancient homo sapiens who lived in africa looked like.

>>2737015
You're right OP, you've opened my eyes with basic censuses testing. Because they check your ethnicity for common genetic disorders white people are inferior.

Y'know out of the religious trolls, nuclear power trolls, and hippie trolls you pseudo scientific racists take the cake in entertainment. You guys are great! It's like watching insecure lemmings jump off a cliff together.

Props OP, I loving watching insecure douches.

OPs mother is his sister.

>>2737045
So then you cannot tell if a "special power" is actually better compared to another "special power"? Isn't it all summed up to what you value most?

>>2737051
there's no room for political correctness on the internet

>>2737040
>thinks he knows about evolution
>uses terms like: evolved less

>>2737040
>mfw you don't realize that African populations are actually more genetically diverse than other populations

god fuck this thread

time for op's reasoning!

>black people are better athletes
>They have bigger cocks
>they're better than whites

Well OP, we better get our wives and daughters over to them immediately so we can make a super race.

>>2737072
Damn right.
I'll be pissed if my child marries a white scumbag

OP here. It's funny how you all assume I am white or that I support the white race. My post was only a question as to whether there are races superior or inferior to others. I used the word "racist" and immediately you think is racism coming from a white person against a black one. If that isn't a discrimination then what is? The facts that I mentioned until now are well known. I only mentioned those because comments that were made were focusing on how the black race is not inferior. If someone was trying to support that the white race is not inferior I would provide evidence related to that. I know my facts. All races has plus and pros. The thing is, which of them have a greater importance helping you to survive, in term of species.

>>2737077
But you are white, James.

>They evolved less I said
This is the fucking error!

>>2737077
your bs is why people assume what you are.

shitty reasoning + age old /new/ bs + unacceptable of your incorrect assumptions about evolution point to you being a 'tarded insecure white dude who's mad about white women scoring black dicks.

>>2737081
The truth? I am not even white. I am a Roma, probably originating from India or Egypt. I sure don't know my genetic background though.

Also, I apologize if what I say doesn't make much sense sometimes. I really struggle with English.

>I am a Roma, probably originating from India or Egypt

oh...

where did you steal that computer, btw?

>>2737077
The mistake arises because you are using the same language in your post as is frequently heard from bigoted ignorant idiots.
>why not say that they are less evolved than other races
Is not true. If you understood evolution you would not spout that kind of bullshit. It is the type of ignorant argument that I hate.

I'm a not-white-supremacist supremacist

In that if you are a white supremacist I believe you're very inferior to those who aren't

It's only natural selection that would make other races more "evolved." As a race moves more frequently it would be natural to adapt to many different regions. However Africans generally stayed in the same environment for millions of years. I can understand where you're getting at, but that doesn't mean they're less evolved, just have only adapted to their "natural" environment.

I'm not sure about the science behind black Americans, but I can assume do to slave times only most fit survived or were even sold. Everything else was just returned to sender. So I assume that's part of the reason for their "big dick" stereotype (in those times a bigger penis was thought to make offspring stronger, etc) and natural strength.

>>2737114
Funny how I get attacked for being racist when I have seen racism in its worst form. You are an example. The thing is, nobody has provided until now a valid argument as to whether a race is superior/inferior to another or not. There are genetic differences, our species can be divided in groups and subgroups and mapped accordingly in many different ways. Once more, there is an importance in medicine when treating a disease. Is that what makes a race better than another? Isn't the continuation of the species what matters the most? Won't the strongest survive as in everything else in nature?

>>2737132
Not pseudo-science just history.

>>2737132
Yes, I agree with that logic. Even negative traits such as sickle-cell anemia and thalassemia were passed from one generation to another to protect from malaria in those regions. In less developed countries (don't get me wrong again when I say less), such as India or African countries, this traits still exist because certain diseases still exist. Don't they have to be eliminated at some point in the developed countries though? And comparing those populations, what could make a race better than another, without taking in consideration traits like those? Or is every single thing that we have a result of natural defense against elimination?

If someone says "one race is superior to another", one first has to define a few things:

* what constitutes a "race"? Is this even a well defined term?
* what is superiority? Superior in what way? Is there a measurable quantity called "awesomeness" and whichever "race" scores highest on the awesomeness-detector-test is the "superior" one?


Obvious insecure 12 year old lower middle class white fucktard is obvious insecure 12 year old lower middle class white fucktard.

Most people assume disparities and differences in performance arise from environmental differences. Racists assume disparities and differences in performance arise from genetic differences. Neither these positions are "proveable", but it's idiotic that one is taboo and held to arbitrarily higher standards of scientific rigor than the other. This should be a question of open inquiry, hurt feelings or not.

I see pokemon has made you confused about what evolution is.

>>2737172
I believe I have mentioned both. A race is defined genetically. Superior as to the characteristics of each race help them survive and develop not just like animals in the jungle but by being intelligent human beings.

And just to clear this one for good, I am not considering myself belonging to a superior race. I would be satisfied with myself no matter to which race I belong.

ITT: ignorants that have no knowledge of genetics. Genetical differences among races are proven long ago.

>>2737191
Actually that is completely untrue. When studying genetics, it is remarkably unclear as to where one race ends and where another begins. If you had ever taken a beginning-level Anthropology class you would know this. Race is very hard to define and is largely a socially-constructed illusion.

>>2737191
>A race is defined genetically.
So since no two humans have the exact same genes, each human is its own race?
Cool story, brah.

>Superior as to the characteristics of each race help them survive and develop not just like animals in the jungle but by being intelligent human beings.
Ok let's pick this bullshit apart piece by piece:

>survive
Ok, survive in what environment? 1km under sea level in the ocean? Because I don't think humans fare too well down there.

>develop not just like animals in the jungle but by being intelligent human beings
and we hit the main nerve.

>not just like animals
>implying humans aren't animals
fucktards. What do you think we are? Plants? Bacteria?
Fucking idiot.

>animals in the jungle
Yeah, obvious white idiot is obvious. "Jungle", lol..

>being intelligent human beings
Oh I see, so you're talking about intelligence?

And let me guess, I bet you also accept IQ tests as a valid means of obtaining an accurate measure of intelligence?

That's fucking it, I'm out of here.

>>2737248
I have do disagree. Genetic differences are perfectly clear. The only thing that you might find confusing is maybe how there can be genetic differences among two persons that belong in the same race but this can be easily explained by the movement of populations and the reproduction between two races. It all ends (or starts) with just 3 origins, the homo sapiens, the neanderthal and the hominins. Don't you think that is possible to detect the race of a person just by having knowledge of his genetic information? Do you really think that is impossible?

>>2737256
>And let me guess, I bet you also accept IQ tests as a valid means of obtaining an accurate measure of intelligence?

How do you define intelligence, then? Is it measurable at all by your definition?

I will make it clear so you can understand it.
1. Genetically. I never said that persons that belong in the same race have the exact same genes. Duh!
2. Survive in any kind of environment that humans have the ability to survive. Of course not under water, don’t act like you really don’t get it.
3. Humans aren’t animals. They are humans. See consciousness and realization of one’s self etc.
4. I do not live in a jungle. If that makes me a white idiot then I guess I am one (?)
5. I do not accept IQ tests at all.

You make up your own conclusions about everything. What I said until now had nothing to do with what you said.

>>2737287
>How do you define intelligence, then?
I don't. I think it's a stupid way too broad term. It's a typical example of stupid idiots trying to simplify extraordinary complicated things like the mammalian brain.
But here you go, there isn't even consensus between "scientists":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence#Definitions

>Is it measurable at all by your definition?
No. If one picks out a certain trait as "spacial visualization ability", then I suppose it is measurable.

But since there is no one big clusterfuck quantity "intelligence" in my view of things, your question ceases to make any sense.

>>2737315
You are a monkey.

>>2737287
IQ is not a full definition of intelligence. It's merely a test that determines potential.

It was originally meant to only separate those who were retarded compared to an average, not tell you how much intelligence you're capable of.

>>2737315
>Humans aren’t animals. They are humans. See consciousness and realization of one’s self etc.
what? That's a moronic statement.
Also,
>implying that black people aren't human

>>2737315
You're either really, really stupid or a decent troll.

I mean it. I usually call people stupid on 4chan when they annoy me. But I'm not even annoyed here. I'm just looking at your posts, and yeah, you're really not very intelligent at all.

evolution isn't something that is envitable over time like pokemon or something

it comes from adaption to different environments, one species isn't technically higher evolved than another

you wouldn't say blue frogs are higher evolved than green frogs would you, each serves a purpose or lack there of.

we did not evolve from gorilas or monkeys, we evolved from an ape like creature just like they did. We both evolved from the same thing in different ways (simplified way of looking at but you get the point)

so different races aren't higher evolved than others, they are adapted to different environments.

People with lighter skin adapted to colder or cloudier environments, people with darker skin adapted to hotter and sunnier enironments.

Certain races having higher IQs and other bullshit stats arent racial traist, they're social ones. The only thing that are "racial" are things like diabetes and other physical things

Lactose intolerant blacks? could it be that all were lactose intolerant but built up an immunity quicker because of actually having more cows?

tl;dr There are different races because of different environments and none are higher evolved than the other. The white bunny in the snow isnt higher evolved than the brown bunny in the forest. (It's harder for humans to realize this because we have things like sun tan lotion and guns)

>>2737315
>3. Humans aren’t animals. They are humans. See consciousness and realization of one’s self etc.
That was so terrible I think it gave me cancer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal

There is no magical biological rule that says "animals can't be self-conscious", you fucking idiot. You are an animal, it's such a blatant biological fact I'm fucking amazed you dare to challenge it publicly.

>2. Survive in any kind of environment that humans have the ability to survive. Of course not under water, don’t act like you really don’t get it.
Again we get an undefined measure of "superiority", since lets say we have two "races" A and B. Race A is perfectly fit to survive in climate/vegitation C, while race B is perfectly fit to survive in climate/vegitation D.

At the same time A couldn't survive in climate/vegitation D and race B couldn't survive in climate/vegitation C.

There is NO way of comparing these two races by means of "who survives better".

You're an obvious fucktarded child and I'm getting tired of telling you stuff you are supposed to learn in 2nd grade.

You guys are all ridiculous. I bet none of you have ever studied something like genetics or medicine. You just reproduce what you hear. OP was trying to make a point but lost it when he started saying things like "less evolved" etc.

There are noticable differences among races.

Humans are not animals. (Def. Any NON-HUMAN animal)

No race is superior to another, humans are not necessarily superior to other species.

>>2737338
>2.

exactly, the human race is blessed with tools and technology so adaptation is no longer needed. This is why some mistakenly claim some races are better than others in general

its the same argument with animal fights, what's better a lion or a tiger?
neither they are both suited to different situations

but what if you put them in a neutral place?
there is no such thing, every environment is an environment

but what if it was just a white zone like the matrix?
its still an environment

>>2737338
In case you didn't know, any race can survive in any part of the earth that is populated by another race in the time we live in.

>>2737320
Then perhaps I.Q. is simply more useful and relevant concept than intelligence.

>>2737352
because of technology, not because of genes

if there was no buildings or creams or tools or clothes, germans would get skin cancer in africa before africans

genes=/= tools

ITT: Retards who thinks differences equals superiority.

>>2737361
Technology made by who? Humans of course. And then again, I mentioned intelligence. I sure don't know if a race is more intelligent than another since as I said I don't believe in IQ tests or anything. But I wouldn't be surprised if that could be proved somehow. Once again though, I do not have such information.

>>2737363
Well, if you pick a metric, than differences on that metric are defined to be "better/worse".

But OP is a moron. There is no all-encompassing metric of "how good of a human are you". At best we can look at very many tightly constrained metrics. The physical ones are easiest: standing long jump, endurance running, weight lifting of a given type, etc.

>>2737348
>>Humans are not animals.

Wait, wat.

an·i·mal
   /ˈænəməl/ Show Spelled[an-uh-muhl] Show IPA
–noun
1.
any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
2.
any such living thing other than a human being.
3.
a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc.
4.
the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of human beings; animality: the animal in every person.
5.
an inhuman person; brutish or beastlike person: She married an animal.
6.
thing: A perfect job? Is there any such animal?

---

As you can see, even dictionaries directly contradict themselves.

>>any such living thing other than a human being.
>>a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc.
>>human being not a mammal
>>birds not animals
>>mfw

>>2737357

IQ tests arent a fair way to measure intelligence because they are based on certain western ideals.

Its kind of the difference between street smarts and book smarts, can you really say which is more important in general?

Does a swedish guy know how to hunt and kill a lion with only a knife?

Does a Asian guy know how to make an igloo without any tools?etc

>>2737371

That is of course assuming that every individual in that race fits into the average.
Then and ONLY THEN can you speak about superior races.

>>2737369
Smarter by whos definition? Wouldn't a tribe in the amazon call a scientist dumb because he didn't know a certain plant is poisonous?

wouldn't a scientist call some guy in a tribe dumb because he didnt know what a trapezoid was?

>>2737374
I forgot the most important part.

>>Origin:
>>1300–50; Middle English (< Old French ) < Latin, noun derivative (with loss of final vowel and shortening of ā ) of animāle, neuter of animālis living, animate, equivalent to anim ( a ) air, breath + -ālis -al1 ; E adj. also directly < Latin animālis

>>living
>>animate
>>breathing

Human beings are animals. Q.E.D.

To all: intelligence is not how much information I have access to but if I actually do have the ability to learn new information and use it accordingly.

>>2737390
but that puts us in the situation where being smarter is automatically better, which it might be in a puzzle competition. In survival? it may not be needed.

dolphins aren't better animals than sharks, but they are more intelligent

mfw you all say you are animals

>>2737399
Because they have the ability to learn new information maybe?

>>2737400
>mfw you are a cat, and clearly an animal

>>2737400
The subject is (or was) the scientific view on races i. e. biology. Biologically speaking we're all animals.

Yuri Gagarin wasn't the first man into space. Discuss.

>>2737410
everything takes energy, if more is spent on intelligence some is taken away from other areas

whether it be strength, camouflage, or etc.

it's a trade off on what's more imporant, and just because you can learn how one would hunt a deer doesn't mean that you had the strength to pull it off every time.

That's why humans have technology, basically trying to make up for these things. Bears are dumber but they could kill us if we dont have a gun. Bears are better than humans?

Stating that one race is superior to another takes a stance that one race's qualities are superior, which is rooted in bias.

Objectively, no race is superior to another, and no species is superior to another, no matter how much more evolved. Not until you introduce the identifying and comparing of an ability are you able to compare the differences of each species against another. But doing so means you have just made a bias that that chosen ability is something of merit.

>>2737433
true, except for the more evolved part

>>2737431
Who was? Sauce.

>>2737212
>Genetical differences among races are proven long ago.

First, I cannot let you escape without pointing out your use of "genetical" as if it were an actual word.

Second, please define "race". Third, please cite the studies you have read that "prove" differences amongst these races.

My guess is that you have the capability to do none of the above.

>>2737432
>IMPLYING CONSERVATION OF HUMAN ABILITY
WHAT

This isn't an RPG with stat points to distribute, dammit.

>>2737436
Evolving usually produces creatures more suited for their environment. However, the stance that one being more suited for their environment is superior than one less suited, is again, bias.

One could argue that a particular animal has become too suited for their environment and is now disturbing it, and they will be just as right as someone who says the animal is just superior to the other animals in the environment.

Even though it feels so natural to lean toward the latter option as superior (being as humans, animals ourselves) you must still recognize that being human, being an animal, striving to live and produce.... makes us bias from the start.

>>2737446
Not that guy, and I approve of your objection, but there clearly ARE broad genetic groupings we call "races". It's just not very significant. Asian people and black people are recognizably distinct genetically, and you can tell them apart just form the DNA.

But again, it's not very significant/important.

I asked yesterday where /sci/ would classify me, and I'll ask one more time:

I do believe there are differences between the races, and I do believe that, on average, some races are more intelligent than others. However, I still believe we should all be afforded equal integrity as human beings.

The stormfags don't want me and the non-racists don't really want me.

>>2737456
I was OK with your post until "more intelligent". There is no such all-encompassing metric of mental ability. It can't be reduced to a scalar.

>>2737450
but thats kinda how it works naturally, obviously today you can be a giant musclehead and a genius. But, thats through a lot of effort.

>>2737463
>but thats kinda how it works naturally
No. This is a silly fantasy that arises out of rationalizing the idea "all people are equal". It's also evidenced by your assertion that effort is all that makes one person more capable/successful than another, on the whole.

It's not true. That kid with Down's syndrome? Yeah, he's not physically the Hulk either.

>>2737461
what a rhetorical cop-out. you know what I mean by "intelligence," generally speaking.

>>2737472
No, no I don't. Intuition is worthless here.

But you could go for something that is both vague AND measurable. Like "ability to make money in the world".

>>2737456
>>2737461

Races arent smarter than others because of genes or skin color, its because of different societies and cultures.

ie an asian baby raised by people who don't know math, wont have a better idea of how to do math.

so half wrong/half right

>>2736942
From the beginning you have clearly shown you know nothing about race, nor do you know anything about evolution, nor can you clearly define what a race is.

The way you are using the term "race" lacks any and all scientific meaning. The idea of a biological race is based on the completely false notion of a genetically isolated human group. Such groups do not exist. There is no "pure" race. Interbreeding has occurred all throughout human history; conquests, invasions, trading, and travel have ensured this. There is no distinct genetically-defined race.
As some in the thread have seemed to imply, resistance to malaria is demonstrative of a race group (an "African race" trait). However, not all African groups display this quality. Furthermore, white-skinned Norwegians would also belong to this race group (they too display resistance to Malaria in the same way that many African groups do), which I sense is in direct opposition to what you would like to call a racial group.

Take the trait of digestive capabilities. If we are to define a race based on this quality, we achieve similar results. South Europeans, some Africans, and Asians would all belong to the same group. North Europeans and West Africans would belong to another group.

>>2737472
Don't bother, man. Guys like that will constantly claim "lol i dunno" without adding anything of substance to an argument.

>>2737480
If you pick a very specific metric, it is also NOT just culture. There is probably a genetic component.

Just not all that large a factor.

Anyway, huge wiki article is huge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

>>2737484
Your argument:

Premise: Biologically-distinct races exist

Premise: Races inherit distinct traits according to their racial groups

Premise: Some inherited traits are necessarily superior to others at performing certain tasks (i.e., running fast)

Conclusion: Some races are superior to others


The problem I have pointed out with this argument is that your first 2 premises are broken and invalid, thus rendering the notion that certain races are superior to others as a complete nonsensical postulation. Your use of the term “race” is literally meaningless.
The problem with the first premise is that biologically-distinct races do not exist. If you wish to challenge this claim, I suggest you cite evidence, as all scientific research up to this point has confirmed my position (the position that is held by all anthropological experts everywhere).
The problem with the second premise is that when we observe a single trait (such as digestive qualities or resistance to malaria), there is no single genetically-distinct group of people to exhibit this trait. You can find people all over the world of varying skin color and physical appearance who have the same trait.

>>2737487
Possible samefag, and no.

>>2737493
Obviously you have never read any contemporary studies of DNA composition. Read “The Fallacy of Racial Medicine”, a study done by Richard Lewontin in 2005. According to his study, 85% of human genetic variation occurs within local populations. An example would be “the British” or “West Africans”. Roughly 5 to 9% of variation occurs between local populations (such as between West Africans and East Africans). 6 to 9% of total human variation is what you seem to think of as “race” (hair color, facial features, skin color, etc).

This study obviously demonstrates that within-group differences are markedly greater than that between groups. I'm sorry sir, but you strike me as the type of person who has never read any of the arguments against your position ever. You also clearly do not understand that biologically-defined races do not exist. You also seem not to understand evolution at all when you use phrases like “less evolved”. You also seem not to understand the genetic historical record of the human species when you suggest that “Other races occurred as a result of evolving from Africans”, nor do you understand the fact that interbreeding has occurred and no distinct “African group” exists today.

>>2737469

think of it this way, we eat to gain energy, our body then uses that energy to perform tasks.

If brain functions was a task that took alot of energy you would have to eat more. If there was a way to not use high brain functions and eat you would want to break even as animal.

So if you could just get food, avoid predators, and mate without being as smart as a chimp, there is no adaptive reason why it would change.

That's why sharks aren't geniuses, but still work as a species.

You mistook it as singling out person by person, I mean species by species

>>2737493
Not the guy you're replying to, but...
>The problem with the first premise is that biologically-distinct races do not exist.
Don't be overzealous. The idea that different major ethnic groups are somehow nearly different species is wrong. But they ARE genetic, OBVIOUSLY, and you can tell in double-blind tests just from the DNA what someone's race is with high accuracy.

It's just not a big difference.

>>2737499
Not the guy you're replying to, but...
>85% of human genetic variation occurs within local populations.
Sure.
>You also clearly do not understand that biologically-defined races do not exist.
Doesn't follow.

Think of it as a double-gaussian where the two gaussians overlap very strongly. Doesn't mean there aren't clearly two gaussians, and not one.

I'd be surprised if this weren't the case, given the long genetic isolation that formed the major ethnic groups in the first place.

>>2737499
If you wish to continue this fascinating little “debate”, I suggest you define what a race is. No one in this thread seems to understand that races do not exist in the way you are using the term. Races as the common man knows them today are purely social constructs that are reflected in no way by real biological differences. Please read a peer-reviewed scientific paper on a subject before forming your opinions on apparent “science” that exists nowhere in the scientific community today. The opinions you are putting forth are reflective of thinking that has been outdated for quite some time.

I'm truly disappointed, but not at the fact that you could possibly be proposing such ignorant and frankly stupid opinions in the face of all modern science. I'm more disappointed at the fact that you think you are on solid ground in forming such opinions when you have clearly demonstrated you understand nothing about which you are discussing and you have done absolutely no research to support your claims. You clearly took no time to research the current scientific understanding of human genetic composition or anthropological history. Yet, despite the fact that you know nothing about either of these fields, you wish to make claims about both (claims that are highly controversial when considering the available evidence which you neglected to gather). I seldom accuse my debating partners of being ignorant, but in this case the slipper truly does fit. And you should wear it with shame, friend.

>>2737510
I don't think you even understand the meaning of the statistic you are citing.

>>2737502
Cite such double-blind studies.

>>2737487
>>2737472
Except his point is completely valid and there is no single all-encompassing definition of intelligence. And no I don't "know what you mean", so please tell me.

>>2737456

I am a "near-genius" (I think IQ is a good way of roughly measuring what ball park your potential intelligence is in, but I don't think someone with a 105 is definitely smarter than a 95) human mutt. A southeast asian and western european mongrel.

I believe what you believe. You can come with me and all the other honest scientists.

I also believe that if embryos were screened to make perfect humans, I wouldn't exist. I'm very weak and I'm just not that healthy naturally. Maybe it's because my parents were too genetically different. I'm very intelligent and good-looking at least. inb4 weak people aren't good looking, I am female

Inbreeding is bad, but so are mixed babies. Adults should have sex with whoever they want (wincest and interracial love: it's awwright) but people are healthiest when they come from young sperm and young eggs, and when the parents are 3rd cousins.

We need to get artificial wombs and outlaw amateur reproduction if we want a healthy species.

pic very slightly related

Only a racist would care

>>2737456
>there are differences between the races
Define this differences.

>some races are more intelligent than others
Define intelligence. Define what a distinct racial group is. List examples of these racial groups. Does "Asian" count or do you go so far as to say "Korean"? You could then further break that group into "North Korean" and "South Korean". And further into just communities which display distinct traits when compared to other local communities. You clearly do not understand anything that you are saying.

>>2737528
>implying that the only way to have healthy offspring is 3rd cousin incest

>implying you being weak and unhealthy is because you are mixed

No, genetic difference is not how a species gets weak

>>2737526
A very reasonable request. I don't have a source off-hand. This is very closely related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering

I'm not making any claims about there being any large separation or important differences BETWEEN genetic clusters of homo sapiens. But these clusters exist nonetheless.

>>2737545
(cont)
From the article:
>Nevertheless the Rosenberg et al. (2002) paper shows that individuals can be assigned to specific clusters to a high degree of accuracy

>>2737528
IQ tests arent how one measures "intelligence" it measures how good someone is at taking an IQ test.

>>2737545
The classifications of "White, black, asian, and hispanic" are so vague and general that obviously the genes that define different physical characteristics such as facial structure will be picked up on. However, "racial group" does not go further beyond those characteristics.

>>2737556
Agreed. I never meant "race" beyond anything more specific than very general and perhistorically genetically isolated populations.

>>2737563
Then we are agreed.

>>2736942

>more evolved

Hard luck OP.

Don't worry though, this is 4chan and you're anon. You can always start over, just give it a few days :).

>>2737549
>IQ tests arent how one measures "intelligence" it measures how good someone is at taking an IQ test.

You are correct. Being good at taking IQ tests demonstrates intelligence. Since you can practice taking IQ tests, they leave a high amount of uncertainty when used to measure intelligence.

George Bush's IQ is said to be 125. He will never, no matter how much he practices, beat me at an IQ test. (Unless he memorizes the answers to a specific test or something

>>2737564
>>2737563
Science!

>>2737528
I find it funny the fact that you so readily shoehorn your irrelevant intelligence-test scores and apparently flattering level of physical attractiveness into a conversation.

I also find your definition of "honest science" to be quite peculiar as well. See, I and most others would define honest science as a consideration of all evidence, even evidence that supports a conclusion we do not like. However, it is very obvious that you have not done this because if you had, you would understand the extremity to which the rest of your banter is completely inane. Just know your position is not based in evidence, but complete ignorance as to the evidence and the false definition of race that society has bestowed upon you.

>>2737570
>taking IQ tests demonstrates intelligence

Still no one has defined intelligence.

>>2737544

3rd cousin intercourse isn't even incest! They're hardly related. It means you share a great great grandparent.

I didn't say it's the only way to have a healthy baby. It's just your best bet. 18 year old third cousins, yep.

>>2737581
No, you are being silly until you can prove your claims that having sex with non family leads to healthier children

>>2737570
I said IQ test DONT demonstrate intelligence, they measure how good you are at taking an IQ tests

there is practice, there are people who arent good with pressure, there are others who arent part of the predefined societies that the IQ test is based on.

when will you people get it..
sex and race do influence parameters, but the difference on an individual level are much higher.
See the scatter plot attached.
Sure you could argue that the most successful people are white males, but males are also much more unsuccessful than women. You could argue that black men are less successful on average, but still many blacks will be more successful than other whites.
It's not really useful to talk about who's better 'on average'. Plus there are many different parameters you would have to value..

>>2737599
forgot pic

>>2737599
nice scatter plot

>>2737603
what does the Y axis mean? just distinctions between race?

>>2737603
Blacks should be farther left, you haven't represented a full standard deviation there

>>2737587
Are you suggesting that inbreeding closer than that doesn't carry risk?

Sibling inbreeding is obviously bad. First-cousin still is risky. Second cousin? Depends on the ancestry details, IMO.

Check this guy out. Epic inbreeding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

>>2737611
Seems like it. y axis is not data, just separation between data sets.

>>2737622
>mfw

>>2737611
yea the y axes is useless actually, it could as well be a monodimentional plot, it was just to make it clearer...
let's say the y is the age, with white man receiving a standard bonus of 150, and black people a malus of 150...

/sci/ - pseudo science

Protip: subjective standards of superiority are not science in rating majors, it's not science in rating race (someone needs to define this), and it's not science when you're mad that racism is nothing but another form of group selection.

ur genes mad bros

>>2737615
my bad...
but you'd have to consider that being a successful gangster is still considered success, that would explain it all

>>2737647
this is why this thread is pointless

>>2737622
>mfw

>>2737574
>I also find your definition of "honest science" to be quite peculiar as well.

I didn't define honest science, I just stated that I consider myself to be an honest scientist...

>See, I and most others would define honest science as a consideration of all evidence, even evidence that supports a conclusion we do not like.

I agree with you here. I've actually concluded something that I don't like: if the world was perfect, I wouldn't exist.

Can you elaborate? I genuinely want to see the evidence you have. It's annoying how you explained why you know I'm wrong rather than why I'm wrong.

I don't believe that popular labels for groups of people are good. "Black" is not good enough to describe all africans.

I don't remember where I read it, but browsing the internet has led me to believe that 3rd cousin young parents are the best baby makers.

>>2737668
How about you study the entire field of Anthropology for a beginner. I'm sure you will find that your opinions are reflected by none of the evidence we have collected today. I have not stated why you are wrong because the necessary information is right in front of you, you just haven't cared to look at it and I won't speen food it to you.

>>2737544
>No, genetic difference is not how a species gets weak

I'll give you an example. A male donkey can impregnate a female horse and the baby will be a mule. The mule is less healthy than his parents because it is sterile. The horse and donkey genes don't mesh well together.

Too genetically similar is bad. Too dissimilar is also bad.

>>2737705
>speen food

HAW HAW

OP here. I don't care how mad you will get or whatnot. The truth is I do not believe and support any of the statements I made above, or at least not in that extend. I do believe there are racial differences (if someone is interested in what I believe) but that doesn't really have any significant meaning unless you are interested in the origins of language/cultures and how they spread throughout the world or when you study epidemiological diseases and you are in a need to find a cure for massive populations and still, it is not very accurate and there is always doubt.

This is my very first thread on /sci/ and all I wanted to do is study a simple experiment, what is known as the "Socratic irony". I've given you something to discuss about and prove it right or wrong. Some people came very close to that, some not. The thing is you all tried to contribute something to it. If that made me (us) wiser or not it doesn't really matter. All I wanted to see is if and how people will use their minds to produce some thought sequence and in that I think I have succeeded more or less.

Have a nice day /sci/. Thank you for your cooperation.

>>2737705

Look, there is obviously a balance between "too inbred" and "genes don't mesh well together". If you're saying that 3rd cousins are too related to be that perfect balance, tell me what is? Are humans so genetically similar (I've heard that they are, compared to chimps) that interracial children are really the healthiest?

Jesus, I'd like to be an anthropologist if I was fucking immortal, but until then I'm going to be an amateur who skims through the data and then asks /sci/ what they think. I don't have all the time I want to spend on this, you unhelpful jerk. You can tell me the conclusion without spending a lot of time explaining it and showing evidence. You haven't, though.

>>2737730
>hurr durr retarded statements
>oh I was just kidding guys haha wasn't that fun?

>Since science has studied for years (and still does) the differences between races, and has discovered that some of the hypotheses really exist, why is someone racist when claiming that a race is superior to another?

For the same reason that saying a cockroach is to a human, there's no such thing as a superior species in evolution.

>Also, since the first humans were Africans, why not say that they are less evolved than other races, since other races were occurred evolving from that race?

We can say that X race diverged from each other at a point in time but we cant say that the Africans from today are exactly the same as the one we diverged from, hell Africa has the most genetic diversity.

>Isn't it similar when we say that humans and monkeys had the same origin but humans evolved?

Oh boy it seems you dont understand natural selection and evolution. You believe in the higher chain of being and evolution is nothing like that. Species diverge from one another but evolution is not like when a Pokemon evolves is a gradual change from different populations.

song related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikbCiI29lxM

>>2737730

>>2736942

I'll try to put this as simply as possible.

First there were:

Humans who lived in Africa--arguably they were black people of varying types. I say varying because REMEMBER color of skin (or what we erroneously use as part of the definition of race) IS NOT IN OUR GENES.

then...

These VARIED folks went to other places and lived in different environments, with different foods and different temperatures which may play a role in the evolutionary sense- on organisms (not to mention epi-genetic factors etc.), as we have seen in archaeological records (ie finches), and they also procreated within a smaller gene pool. HENCE their offspring began to look different from the original group.

Just because this happened, however, doesn't mean that the second group is more evolved than the first, nor does it mean that they are better.

Why is someone better because they have a different skin color? They aren't. Is it more adaptable to have black skin in an environment that is hot where lots of melanin in your skin can help you from getting skin cancer? Yeah, but does that make you better? NO

Is it more adaptable to have lighter skin in colder environments so that your skin can absorb more Vitamin D? Yeah, it is. Does that make those human beings better? NO

Stop looking at things from a place of ignorance. The answers are there for all to see. You guys only look like morons when you make statement about one 'race' being better than another (there is no 'race' anyway but just using this term for arguments sake as OP apparently thinks there is).

Humans are so competitive and they see things all in graphs with the line going up or down but that isn't the case here.

It's relative, all of it, really...which is why variety will always be the spice of life.

>>2738073
color of skin is not in our genes? wtf wtf?

I know people can tan... but why are africans dark and europeans light of skin color isn't coded in our genes?

>>2738073
>...REMEMBER color of skin (or what we erroneously use as part of the definition of race) IS NOT IN OUR GENES.

So two well tanned white parents can have a black baby??
Is that what your wife told you?

>implying modern africans are identical to ancient africans

>>2738073
RACE IS NOT ONLY THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN YOU RETARDED FUCK

There are significant differences in skeletal structure and even peoples organs have noticeable differences in different races.

>Post a race thread on /sci/

>300+ posts

Learn to sage you fuckers.