/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3841226
the graph, with 1e6 obs instead of 10

>>3841226

your racist garbage is neither helpful to an end goal, nor is it frowned upon by higher intelligence (such as myself).

therefore, you have cancelled out.

picture not related.

>>3841261 neither helpful...nor is it frowned upon

So you approve of it?

Some higher intelligence you are.

>>3841261
my bad, i just chose some random pic

>africans 4000 years ago

niggers

>>3841278
Incorrect, because OP was referring to black people, or "niggers" as he likes to think of them. The people that built the pyramids were the ancestors of the Copts, eg. not black.

why yall bein so racist

black people white people man cant we jus get along know what im sayin

>>3841296

[citation needed]

wasnt there some ancient empire in africa that built very advanced (for the time) buildings? I remember seeing a documentary about it.

They were some of the first stone structures built or something.

>>3841284
What about South Africa? They're well off aren't they, with modern cities and such?

nope, no black people here.

nope, no blacks here...

>>3841320
I think I know what you're talking about.

I forget the name, but they had mud/clay skyscrapers, right?

>>3841320
what, like the fucking Egyptians?

>>3841330
I see them offering donuts, that's all.

>>3841342
i suppose that sounds about right. I wasn't very impressed while watching it but apparently it was really something neat for the time it existed.

>>3841343
No, i mean black people, not brown people.

>>3841330
>nubians-offering.jpg
>implying those are the egyptians

So can anyone answer the original question?

>>3841330
>implying this image doesn't show nigger slaves offering glazed donuts on their knees to the mighty emperor

Despite the refusal of the Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, Zahi Hawass, to release any DNA results which might indicate the racial ancestry of Pharaoh Tutankhamen, the leaked results reveal that King Tut’s DNA is a 99.6 percent match with Western European Y chromosomes.

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/06/king-tuts-dna-is-western-european/

>>3841226
it's funny how of those 3 civilizations, the "nigger" one it's the most ancient and stable

efficience anyone?

>>3841399
how...humans with similar DNA? how about that

>>3841411
King Tut was in the R1b haplogroup, which is extremely common among European males.

He was clearly Arab/Mediterranean, as were the majority of the non-slave portion of ancient Egyptian society.

>>3841399
99.6% matching DNA =\= "King Tut had western european DNA"

And that says fuckall about whether he was "black" or not anyways.

>>3841430

>>3841425
lol he thinks race is genetic

>>3841437

Weren't blacks the first to smelt metals? Or is it more Zionist, Communist, Muslim, Liberal media propaganda?

inb4 white guilt or any other inane gibbering

never posted here before but,
phenotypical differences are genetic
google it fucker

>>3841444
>>3841442

Idiots.

Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(07)62578-6
>We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.

TL;DR:
>Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population

And: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128221025.htm

>>3841452
>phenotypical differences are genetic
In other news, the sky is blue!
More irrelevant statements from captain obvious, coming up at nine!

OP let this be a lesson:

NEVER

EVER

EVER

POST A PICTURE MORE INTERESTING THAN YOUR TOPIC.

>>3841468
hahaha yeah i see that know

>>3841468
"interesting"? The picture isn't "interesting" at all; it's facile bullshit in every respect.

It's just more rage-inducing than his post, and so attracts more attention.

>>3841485
How is it bullshit? Sub-Saharan Africans are living in mud huts, except in places where whites have colonized in the recent century. And it is true that whites, Arabs, East Asians, and even Mesopotamians all had ancient civilization. It is also true that there have been no civilizations originated by *pure* sub-Saharan Africans.

>>3841457
Some populations are more related to some than they are to others. Thank you Gregor Mendel. That still doesn't prove that there is an objective thing called "race" which lets us divide humanity into subspecies.

The Ancient Greeks divided race into "Greeks" and "Barbarians". We can assume that Greeks were more related to each other than to non-Greeks. That still wouldn't prove that we are now scientifically obligated to divide the humans into "Greeks and "Barbarians"

>>3841502

i agree with the fact that sub-saharan africans share the furthest common ancestor than caucasians and asians but what's your point? that they are inferior?

>>3841515
My point is simply that OP's image is correct. And it is not "facile bullshit in every respect" as >>3841485 said.

>>3841502
africa has little or no arable land.
they couldn't have started any large civilization if they wanted to.

>>3841502
Oh great, it's the "significant events" pseudoscience.
I love how all of stormfront-/new/'s racist bullshit relies on copypasta'd shit-"science" that has no validity and that they don't understand anyways.

>>3841516
You didn't even read my post and the study posted therein, did you? The boxes people tick to self-identify their race are highly correlated with their genetics. That is exactly what the study says.

>>3841226

@ OPs pic.

arabs, euros, and asians used slave labor to build their opulent palaces, they taxed the poor until they starved while they lived and ate like glutton pigs.

their life styles weren't sustainable, they had to dominate their neighbors and steal their gold in order to maintain.

the africans led sustainable lives, they were close with nature, they didn't command slaves--in fact they were taken as slaves by arabs and whites...

so who is leading the better life?

Nubians also had pyramids.

From this we can therefore conclude that the Nubians must have been Celtic.

>>3841523
>copypasta'd shit-"science"
>that they don't understand anyways

Really? Please don't tell me you think scientific evidence is invalid simply because the messenger may not understand it.


>that has no validity and

Oh shit, you just did.

>>3841524
>>3841524
And yet your picture doesn't have categories for "white" and "black", does it?

Fuck off.

There's no scientific basis for your racist bullshit, and you've demonstrated that with your own evidence.

>>3841531
It has no validity because IT IS BAD SCIENCE.
What was the author's objective method for determining what "significant events" were?

IT IS TOTAL BULLSHIT.

>>3841519

Indeed

>>3841516

Perhaps, but we cannot objectively quantify or qualify "species" either. Darwin explicitly states that in "Origin of Species". However, race is more of a "folk science" in the same regard that there are different breeds of dogs. No one can argue against the fact that different breeds of dogs have different phenotypes (intelligence, coat, posture, tail length) and therefore classification into race is convenient, if anything. Now, biologists today cannot agree on how to define "species" (although it can be construed as two organisms mating to produce viable offspring, it is however not agreed upon), however its a convenient demarcation for discussing anything regarding organismal biology. Furthermore, if anyone argues that race is politically incorrect and therefore should be avoided, that is just being idiotic.

>>3841531
And good job at failing basic reading comprehension.
The clauses "do not understand" and "has no validity" are unrelated to each other in that sentence.

I wasn't saying that it's invalid because they don't understand it.
I was saying that it's invalid because it's shitty pseudo-science, AND that they don't understand it anyways. They're just parrots; brainwashed fools regurgitating flimsy nonsense motivated by simple hatred and an unwarranted desire to be superior without having to earn it.

>>3841532
I was referring to the study I linked to, but if you want to talk about the image, then that also supports my statement.

Take another look at the image in >>3841457. Sub-Saharan Africans lie on a separate branch from all other peoples. European Caucasoids lie on the branch which shares a common ancestor with non-European Caucasoids and Asians.

So, yes, genetics does delineate between whites and blacks.

>>3841543
No, it does not.
It delineates between Africans and non-africans, to some extent.

That is NOT "whites and blacks", and it's not scientific vindication of the stormfront ideology.

>>3841525
I may not be 100% qualified to speak on this as I have never lived in a mud hut, but from my limited knowledge and experience I do believe that I am living a better life than the majority of people who do live in mud huts.

>>3841535
>IT IS TOTAL BULLSHIT.
>It has no validity because IT IS BAD SCIENCE.

So something is "bad science" just because you do not like its findings?

>What was the author's objective method for determining what "significant events" were?

It's taken from the book "Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950" by Charles Murray.

>>3841553
economics is bad science, no matter what ideology it bolsters.

>>3841551
Yes, it does. Take another look at the image in >>3841457. "Blacks" are Africans. "Whites" are European Caucasoids. They are very distinct genetically, as shown by the genetic distance markings on the chart.

>>3841553
>It's taken from the book "Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950" by Charles Murray.
I'm familiar with the book. That doesn't answer my challenge.
Are you fucking illiterate?

>So something is "bad science" just because you do not like its findings?
Again with the reading comprehension. It's not bad science because I dislike it (in fact I dislike it because it's bad science), it's bad science because it draws conclusions based on subjective, unsubstantiated data.

You're being deliberately stupid. I'm done with you.

>>3841562
>provide no citations to support your view
>claim victory

>>3841560
>"Blacks" are Africans. "Whites" are European Caucasoids
No, those are your categorizations, not the data's, and they're being imposed upon the findings.

The image says nothing about "white" and "black" groupings.

And that aside, "African" is still not "black". You can't deny that; that's a fact that your racist buddies make a VERY big deal out of when it comes to Egypt in order to keep that case from disproving their "africa has never produced civilization" line.

I'd also like to point out that forcing facts to fit ideology is bad science, as well.
You're supposed to do it the otherway around; ideology and theory conform to fit facts.

>>3841537

Did anyone even read that? Science readily accepts the concept of species, rather arbitrarily, but when the notion of race comes up, all of a sudden, discussion is forbidden. This is some retarded PC agenda. Darwin EXPLICITLY states that he cannot define species nor explain when one organism has diverged sufficiently to be considered an independent species from another, and modern science STILL can't agree on a methodology to do so. So what makes race so taboo then, if it's the same principle? It's taboo because dumbasses who jump on the PC bandwagon want to silence actual discussion from the topic. I am not the one posting the infographics, but if you are any sort of open-minded critical thinker, you will realize that there is something to consider regarding this topic instead of an immediate dismissal based on some false claim of "racism".

>>3841581
>>3841581
No-one has claimed that race is a taboo subject and shouldn't be scientifically addressed.

Fuck off and go spout your stormfront bullshit at a wall, if that's how you're going to be.

>>3841578
>"African" is still not "black". You can't deny that

You've got to be fucking kidding me. Sub-Saharan African is "black." They are Negroids, Negroes, whatever you want to call them.

Also see this study:
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(07)62578-6

The boxes people tick on forms for their race correlate with their racial genetics.

People need to deprogram their PC conditioning.

>>3841586

Have you even read the thread? Almost every response is exactly that.

>moot opens /sci/
>Filled with stupid troll shit and /new/
>Leave
>Come back years later
>Same old shit

Don't you assholes get bored of this?

>>3841596
Someone better tell Australian aborigines that they're actually African then.

>>3841617
No, they are Australoids/Australopaupuans. Check the chart in >>3841457 as well as pic related.

It's funny because that mosque in the OP's pic was built by Moors who were a mixed population...

also comparing a stick hut from an obviously poor village to things built by the orders of monarchs wut

>>3841596
>Sub-Saharan African is "black."
Sub-Saharan African does not equal African.

African does not equal black.
Black does not equal African.

"Black" does not even equal sub-saharan african, though sub-saharan africans are "black".

I'm sorry you racist fucks have such a hard time with basic logic.

>>3841639

>>3841625
>Did anyone even read that? Science readily accepts the concept of species, rather arbitrarily, but when the notion of race comes up, all of a sudden, discussion is forbidden. This is some retarded PC agenda.

Stop it with the god damn crypto-Illuminati shit about PC police. Scientists *USED* to talk about race as if it were an objective property but then they stopped because everyone reached the conclusion that race is a (uh oh) cultural construct that just shouldn't be used.

But yeah, you can think that the idea that there are real objective races isn't talked about in science because of political correctness. That's also the reason that biologists stopped talking about living things as if they had objective design and why social theorists stopped saying that a fall in religiosity would lead to higher crime. It's all political correctness.

>>3841657
That actually doesn't address the point of my post at all.

Have fun with your repertoire of copy-pasta and stupid images to support your irrational hatred, though.