/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3972585
Probably related to differences in melanin production necessitated by the low levels of sunlight in northern climes.

Because they wanted to be beautiful while other races didn't.

You're thinking of iris, not pupil. All pupils are black.

>>3972585
Proof of God! Pupils doesn't just change colours by magic! God did it! Great God makes whites beautiful! Allahu akbar! Either God did it or you're saying whites are more evolved than non-whites, therefore being racist therefore God did it!

>>3972652
Bro, why do you have to shit up /sci/ like this?

You're not being clever or funny, and the point you're making is one we're all well familiar with.

>>3972595
what about those middle eastern people who have green and light brown eyes?

>2011
>not denying every positive thing about caucasians

Grow up, guys

>>3972683
You know that middle easterners are Caucasian, right? I mean, the Caucasus is actually in the middle east by some definitions.

>>3972683
those are indo-aryan, not arab semite.

>>3972693
yes but they have brown skin and they evolved in hot desert climates

>>3972683
Yeah... what >>3972693 said. But the fact that that's where "white" people originated would throw a wrench in the idea, wouldn't it.

>>3972700
So what?

>>3972703
So clearly >>3972595 is wrong, or at least not entirely right.

Genetic drift, natural selection, and sexual selection, bro.

>>3972707
He's not right IIRC, non-brown eyes in humans was just a random mutation that wasn't doing any harm. It probably spread out because people thought it was pretty.

>>3972707
>>3972714
>>3972703
>>3972702
>>3972700
>>3972696
>>3972693
>>3972683

next time I heard the term ''caucasian'' im gonna kill someone

>>3972720
Is there a point you're trying to make, or did you just think that map was pretty cool?

You guys do realize that "Caucasian" (or "white") are not scientific terms, right? There's no such thing as "technically Caucasian," so arguing about who falls into that category makes you look like an idiot.

>>3972749
I don't think anyone started to argue about that in this tread. The troll OP wanted it, one guy contemplated murder and sage because of it, but nobody actually took the bait. So you're the only one who looks like an idiot.

>>3972749
>>3972749
I wish there were more people in this world like you.

Hey! I'm not a troll, I wanted to know why there were different eye colors.

Maybe they'll be some eye laser surgery in the future that will allow us to change into new colors.

>>3972749

Actually it is. Back in highscool I saw some bullshit presentation on racism at a university I later attended. Back in the day when science was more fun (ie racist) they did extensively study races and had classifications for them. Blacks were called negroids according to this system.

There you have it, scientific classification. Is it good science? I don't know much more about it, what I do know is that you like dick in the ass.

Most people in this thread are fucking stupid.
Modern Homo sapiens evolves out of Africa, towards Europe and Asia. The recessive eye mutation arose around this time prior to the divergence of the two populations: European, and Indo-European. BTW I know Middle Eastern girls with green eyes and blue eyes so it is not a trait exclusive to "white" people.

>>3972749
How can it not be scientific when there are obvious genetic differences between Caucasians and non-Caucasians? I know that racism is bad, but letting political correctness cross over to science is an atrocity.

>>3972891
>How can it not be scientific when there are obvious genetic differences between Caucasians and non-Caucasians?

No, there aren't. There is obvious genetic variation between people, but there is no non-arbitrary way to draw lines around "races," and that has absolutely nothing to do with "political correctness." You are white if society considers you white. That's it.

>>3972749
>You guys do realize that "Caucasian" (or "white") are not scientific terms, right? There's no such thing as "technically Caucasian," so arguing about who falls into that category makes you look like an idiot.

Uhhhh, racial classifications are valid (such as Caucasoid, Mongoloid, or Negroid) and confirmed by genetics. Sorry, liberals, science doesn't exactly conform to your fantasy worldview. GB2Reddit.

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.

>>3972905
You're white if your skin is light and your eyes aren't slanted. Both of those are genetic.

Face it, there's classification possible there. Problem is, it's in the middle of an ideological battleground that nobody can survive.

>>3972905
>implying all races are social constructs

If you wish, convert the term "race" to "isolated groups which have experienced evolution over several thousand years."

>>3972912

Except that clearly that's not good enough, since people are arguing about who is "technically" white and who isn't.

>>3972891
>on /sci/
>doesn't understand racism from an evolutionary perspective
>tries to not be racist; thus leaving himself open for other races to attack

>>3972922
What a random idiot on a street bitches about has NO IMPACT on genetic science, you retard.

>>3972914
>isolated groups which have experienced evolution over several thousand years.

That excludes almost everyone.

>>3972930
If you want to think in ridiculous absolutes, sure.

>the water around antarctica is pretty cold but around the equator it's pretty warm, I wonder if there's a scientific principle behind this...
>no there isn't, you racist! water mixes and it varies in temperature, therefore all water is the exact same temperature at all times and you're a bad person if you suggest otherwise

>>3972914

You misunderstand. Genetic variation is not a social construct. Clearly geographic ancestry is correlated with various traits. BUT RACE IS. And by race, I mean the actual categories, like "white" and "black." There is no scientifically justifiable way to draw a line. Society draws the line.

>>3972930
Some humans migrated out of Africa 125,000 years ago. That marks the first racial cleavage (i.e., non-Africans underwent 125,000 years of evolution in environments different from those of Africans). There were many other similar cleavages: ancestors of Asians migrated East and others went to Europe and the Middle East. A small group of Asians crossed the Bering land strait and developed into modern Amerindians.

So yes, the previous definition I gave for race is indeed interchangeable. Races are groups who underwent different histories of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

>>3972945
>If you want to think in ridiculous absolutes, sure.

Actually, "ridiculous absolutes" is what I'm saying doesn't exist.

Are blacks comparable to some ancient warrior race, while whites are like the technologically advanced new race?

>>3972951

Yes, humans spread. And yes, drift happened non-uniformly. That's not the same as there being actual isolated populations.

>>3972947
>There is no scientifically justifiable way to draw a line.

Sure there is. Any theoretically correct way would be scientifically justifiable.

Society is where the problems and objections arise.

>>3972963
>Any theoretically correct way

What?

>>3972952
>X is what I'm saying doesn't exist.
>I believe this absolutely.

>>3972969

Now you're just being silly.

>>3972968
Let's say there's a group of people who all hold the trait X in common. It's scientifically justifiable to say they are all members of their group.

Is this hard?

>>3972973

Yes, exactly! And there is no trait that white people have in common that is unique to white people.

>>3972972
You say that almost everyone is excluded from isolated evolution. You take this so far that you are able to say that no differences between various groups of people in the world exist. This makes it seem that you believe that the prevalence of darker skin in africa is just an illusion.

>>3972947
But there is. Pic related.

Hybrids do not disprove the validity of racial groups. Nobody is arguing that pure races exist, nor is acknowledging the existence of racial clusters tantamount to saying pure races exist.

Sure, culturally we try to "predict" a person's race by identification, and then we ascribe a race to that person based on nothing but visual cues. But those visual cues happen to reflect genes, in much the same way that a person's height reflects their individual height genes. Generally speaking, a person with white skin descends from the Caucasoid racial group (either European or non-European, such as some North Africans). Similarly, we call a person "black" whose ancestry is from sub-Saharan Africa. But there are many non-Africans with dark skin. Australian Aborigines, for example, are more genetically distant from black Africans than nearly any other race, but their skin and facial features often resemble black Africans.

So I agree that the cultural/visual representations of race are not perfect, but they are very correlated with actual genetic ancestry.

same reason they has more colors of hair
mutation was desirable so mutation breed into our genes

>>3972981
Never said there was. It doesn't HAVE to be. There needs to be a trend, not a universally unique set of traits to make a race.

What you're proposing implies human 'races' are thought of as different species, not as different subspecies.

>>3972984
>You say that almost everyone is excluded from isolated evolution.

Yes.

>You take this so far that you are able to say that no differences between various groups of people in the world exist.

Obviously variation exists, as I've said repeatedly. The social construct is the well-defined categories.

>>3973000
>Never said there was.

Yeah, you really did. But I guess changing your story is the closest I'll get to someone on 4chan admitting they were wrong, so I'll take it.

>>3973006
But nobody is excluded from some degree of isolated evolution. You can look at people from various parts of the world and see how obvious this is. People in siberia look different from people in the amazon. Why? Because their ancestors were isolated from each other for a long enough time.

I'm not trying to say they were isolated to an absolute degree, like you seem to think everyone is implying. That would be, as they say, completely retarded.

>>3973020
Dude, sorry, but I never went there. I never wrote "white people" in this thread, even. I disagree with you completely on your thinking that, for a group of people to make a 'race,' they need a completely unique set of traits. That's retarded. That wouldn't make a 'race'. That would make a new species. A fucking orangutan.

>>3973022
>You can look at people from various parts of the world and see how obvious this is.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm denying that, since I've repeated that genetic variation exists in practically every post I've made ITT. I'm not sure how to say at any clearer. Genetic variation exists. Non-arbitrary defined groups do not, except as social concepts.

Why did asian girls become so cute?

>>3973026
> Non-arbitrary defined groups do not, except as social concepts.

So explain how these two graphs exist, then.

>>3972985
>>3972914

>>3973036

Someone drew them?

>>3973030

>how can you draw the line?
>with unique traits
>but there are no unique traits
>i never said there was!

......

>>3973036
I can classify all people into sets of two non arbitrary group that are not social concepts right here, right now.

Dark eyed people vs. light eyed people.
People with naturally strongly curly hair vs. people with relatively straight hair.
Populations that on average weigh less than 70 kg vs those who weigh more.

These are all significant differences in some way, so they're not arbitrary. They are all physical traits, so they are not social constructs.

>>3973043
>>how can you draw the line?
>with unique traits
>but there are no unique traits
>i never said there was!

YOU are the only idiot who ever mentioned unique traits, you retard.

>>3973052

All of those things are continuous. So yes, drawing a line at any particular point would be entirely arbitrary.

>>3973057
>YOU are the only idiot who ever mentioned unique traits, you retard.

>Let's say there's a group of people who all hold the trait X in common. It's scientifically justifiable to say they are all members of their group.

......

>>3973043
As I said four times already, it's not unique traits that make a different 'race.' If you want to find them go compare humans with orangutans. If you want to define a race, look at genetic trends.

Nature did it to demarcate the master race.

>>3973064

>red headed people don't belong to the group of all red headed people in the world

>>3973064
>>Let's say there's a group of people who all hold the trait X in common. It's scientifically justifiable to say they are all members of their group.

So... where's the word "unique" in there? Show it to me, please.

Offtopic:
>>3972961
European and scandinavian people are extremely agressive and violent atleast culturally and always have been towards anything that they dont consider their own. Be it country or in the more closedminded times the town next to "ours". -> Overpowering other "races" and ruthless taking over of their land when "white" people got bored oppressing themselves and had a possibility not to.

I find it exremely funny when people go on and on about how violent black people are when they arent even slightly observent what´s brewing inside themselves and where their own direction of thought and unbased personal hate seeps from.

>>3973857
>European and scandinavian people are extremely agressive and violent atleast culturally

Sweden is probably one of the meekest countries in europe. I should know, I live here.

>>3973884
Now it is.

Talk to Gustav Adolph about war sometimes. He invented the modern army.

>>3973963
The word used was "are", not "were".