/sci/ - Science & Math

It is arbitrary. There is no point classifying subspecies, and it would cause a lot of socioeconomic problems because it would imply that some sub species might be better than others, and should have different rights.

Yes, they do look different, but then so do people with brown hair compared to people with blonde hair. It would make about as much sense as classifying them as sub species as well. And there is obviously no reason that anybody should have any more or less rights than everybody else.

We are all still human.

Try /pol/

hi /pol/

they are all considered the same subspecies because they're less different from each other than they all are from Homo sapiens idaltu.

that's all.

>>4815170
>>4815171
It would be too much effort and would cause social problems, that makes sense, cheers /sci/

>>4815178
Classification would not be possible anyway. There is so much interbreeding between the 'races' now, that to actually label sub species would mean that those with mixed race parents would be very very difficult to classify. People like Obama and Tiger Woods.

>>4815168

Because OP, the terms you just through out are largely arbitrary and have little base in actual modern science. They come from the 1900s before we knew shit about genetics when people relied on "craniology" under which they alleged fictional races like "aryan".

Nowadays we deal in Haplogroups and other shit, and even that's foggy as shit. Just ask someone who the real Europeans are, R1a or R1b and brace for your shitstorm.

The only subspecies of human (from here on contracted as 'subhuman') is the one that feels a need to belittle other humans to feel themselves superior.

>>4815168

There have existed over 20 different species of humans in the past, but they evolved largely independently the differences between us and them make the differences between modern humans trivial.

Oy vey, GOY!!
Multiculturalism is good for you...
Multiculturalism is good for you...
Multiculturalism is good for you...
Multiculturalism is good for you...

Repeat, my little goy.

>>4815170
that picture is wrong, blacks have longer feet, asians are shorter, and nordics are taller; there may be others, but I don't recall them.

race isn't really a social construct, africans have a blood type that makes them more prone to anger which is probably one of the most stunting in their youth.

http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/news/20110914/african-americans-may-develop-hi
gh-blood-pressure-faster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world

>>4815201
>that picture is wrong, blacks have longer feet, asians are shorter, and nordics are taller; there may be others, but I don't recall them.
On the whole perhaps, but not objectively true to everyone.

>asians are shorter
See my picture.

There is so much variation in the human species, that the whole idea of sub species is just ridiculous.

>>4815201
High blood pressure is not 'A different blood type'

>>4815170

You are a Liberal Christian sir. Shuttin' you down with some Revilo P. Oliver:

The votaries of “Liberalism” would have much preferred to have the various human species specially created to form one race endowed with the fictitious qualities dear to “Liberal” fancy, but the cultists saw the advantage of endorsing the findings of geology and biology, including the evolution of species, in their polemics against orthodox Christianity to show the absurdity of the Jewish version of the Sumerian creation-myth.

The hypocrisy of the professed devotion to scientific knowledge was made unmistakable when the “Liberals” began their frantic and often hysterical efforts to suppress scientific knowledge about genetics and the obviously innate differences between the different human species and between the individuals of any given species.

At present, the “Liberals” are limited to shrieking and spitting when they are confronted with inconvenient facts, but no one who has heard them in action can have failed to notice how exasperated they are by the limitations that have thus far prevented them from burning wicked biologists and other rational men at the stake.

It is unnecessary to dilate on the superstitions of “Liberalism.” They are obvious in the cult’s holy words. “Liberals” are forever chattering about “all mankind,” a term which does have a specific meaning, as do parallel terms in biology, such as “all marsupials” or “all species of the genus Canis,” but the fanatics give to the term a mystic and special meaning, derived from the Zoroastrian myth of “all mankind” and its counterpart in Stoic speculation, but absurd when used by persons who deny the existence of Ahuru Mazda or a comparable deity who could be supposed to have imposed a transcendental unity on the manifest diversity of the various human species.

>>4815211

>different human species

>>4815185

I think you could benefit with some more wisdom from Doctor Oliver:

“Liberals” rant about “human rights” with the fervor of an evangelist who appeals to what Moses purportedly said, but a moment’s thought suffices to show that, in the absence of a god who might be presumed to have decreed such rights, the only rights are those which the citizens of a stable society, by agreement or by a long usage that has acquired the force of law, bestow on themselves; and while the citizens may show kindness to aliens, slaves, and horses, these beings can have no rights. Furthermore, in societies that have been so subjugated by conquest or the artful manipulation of masses that individuals no longer have constitutional rights that are not subject to revocation by violence or in the name of “social welfare,” there are no rights, strictly speaking, and therefore no citizens — only masses existing in the state of indiscriminate equality of which “Liberals” dream and, of course, a state of de facto slavery, which their masters may deem it expedient, as in the United States at present, to make relatively light until the animals are broken to the yoke.

Asiatic lion, African lion, both capable of breeding with eachother, both classed differently.

“LIBERALISM” IS A succedaneous religion that was devised late in the Eighteenth Century and it originally included a vague deism. Like the Christianity from which it sprang, it split into various sects and heresies, such as Jacobinism, Fourierism, Owenism, Fabian Socialism, Marxism, and the like. The doctrine of the “Liberal” cults is essentially Christianity divested of its belief in supernatural beings, but retaining its social superstitions, which were originally derived from, and necessarily depend on, the supposed wishes of a god. This “Liberalism,” the residue of Christianity, is, despite the fervor with which its votaries hold their faith, merely a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied.

>>4815211
>>4815216
>>4815222
Stop with the anti liberal spamming, and copypasta.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

>>4815201

Race is a social construct.

Africa is a continent with many variations, African refers to anyone from the continent. The "race" would be "black" in this case, there are tons of different haplogroups that have people with black skin, all of them different genetically. This is the same for "white" or 'europeans'. There are lots of them but they all vary genetically by a lot as well.

The typical 'european' has more in common genetically with a 'northern african' than a 'northern african' does with an australian indigenous man. Despite the northern african and the australian indigenous man both being black whereas the european will be white.

Seriously OP, your shit is completely not based on science anymore. That was all early 1900s shit social science + pseudoscience shit.

If you want to actually apply the scientific method then you will need to actually get down to specific gene sequences or at the very least haplogroups, though the reason no one goes down to haplogroups is because europeans are a genetic clusterfuck and it puts them at a disadvantage.

>>4815216
And idiots like you rail against different people to make themselves feel significant.

>>4815224

Put some creme on it. Citing sources is not spamming.

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/2010/09/what-is-%E2%80%98liberalism%E2%80%99/

>Revilo Pendleton Oliver (July 7, 1908 — August 20, 1994) was an American professor of Classical philology, Spanish, and Italian at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who wrote and polemicized extensively for white supremacist causes.

>>4815229
We do not care
>>>/pol/

>>4815229
It is when it's pseudoscience.

>>4815227

But that's wrong you fucking retard. The observed differences of the races is enough proof for any rational human being that Negros and Aryans are at opposite poles of the moral and intellectual spectrum.

The Liberal appeal to science ends where facts religious delusion.

Not nearly enough genetic variation to classify as a subspecies. Different breeds, perhaps, but not subspecies.

Are you aware that every breed of dog is the same subspecies? From the chihuahua to the saint bernard, they are <span class="math">Canis[/spoiler] <span class="math">lupus[/spoiler] familiaris. They are different breeds within the same subspecies, and almost all can interbreed (most not physically due to sheer size differentiation, but with artificial insemination, etc).

The genetic variation between them is exceedingly slim, despite behavioral, developmental, and downright structural differences.


tl:dr; breeds, not subspecies

>>4815168
>every race is classed as the same species of human being instead of different subspecies of human? Is there not enough divergence between us for that? help me understand please /sci/ it intrigues me

This is true. The human species is very homogenous with little genetic variety between major groups. The fixation index number is about 0.12.

I don't know the formal criteria for subspecies. Perhaps races are really subspecies. If so, what does it matter?

>>4815222
What the fuck. Which moron edited out the data about asians in that picture?

Intelligence
East Asians>Whites>Latinos>Blacks>Aborigines

>>4815235
You are clearly trolling, and race really is a social construct.
>The observed differences of the races is enough proof for any rational human being...
There are 'observed differences' between men and women, between children and adults, and between people with blue eyes and people with brown eyes.

Does this mean that they are different sub species?
No.

Are they all still of the human race?
Yes.

Racism is not permitted on /sci/
Go away.

>>4815230

But that isn't true, he was not a "white supremacist", a phrase that signifies an imaginary bogeyman created by the inbred Jewish hatemongers to marginalize those that oppose their race mixing programs.

>>4815238
The fixation index number for dogs is around 0.23. Compared with humans' 0.12. The is about double as much variation between bogs as humans.

>>4815242
>The is about double as much variation between bogs as humans.
*wogs and humans

>>4815242

And still, they are not recognized as subspecies.

>>4815181
>Classification would not be possible anyway. There is so much interbreeding between the 'races' now, that to actually label sub species would mean that those with mixed race parents would be very very difficult to classify. People like Obama and Tiger Woods.

Yes, this is true. Blacks in the US have ~20% white genes. That's one of the reasons they are smarter than the blacks in Africa.

>>4815241

"Racism" does not it exist. It is a Jewish construct, a strawman created in place of an opposition they cannot defeat otherwise. The Real World triumphs theory every time.

Telling people Negros are just like us absurd to anyone who has real experience with them.

>>4815235

Wanna know something funny about that type of argument? Pic related.

>>4815240

These are charts made in paint from racist and supremacist sites.Disregard them at all costs.

Notice how it portrays extremes as propaganda would do. Picks ugly mixed children to argue against mixing, also when comparing blacks to white it picks the stereotypical sassy black and compares it to the most good looking white they can find. You can see this on the pictures from this very thread

>>4815252
Shame you cant find beyonce level blacks outside of magazines, shes most likely half white too.

I will end with this:

Liberalism is an offshoot of Christianity. It embraces Science so far as Science supports their views, than rejects and villainizes it when it refutes them. Liberalism is not based on truth but the vain fantasies of unstable people.

Enjoy your silly religion.

>>4815250
>Telling people Negros are just like us, is absurd to anyone who has real experience with them.
You are a disgusting racist!
Some of my friends are black people.

>>4815254
Quick google search and what do you know, beyonce IS half white.

>>4815252
Haha.
Very well played. Good post
:)

>>4815251
>These are charts made in paint from racist and supremacist sites.Disregard them at all costs.

No they aren't. But whoever did take that one edited out the asian scores. The only plausible explanation seems to be that he didn't like the fact that east asians are smarter than whites. Clearly, such a fact doesn't work with any white supremacy idea.

Here is an unedited table from the book.

>>4815259
Just ignore the fact shes a half-white photoshopped model.

>>4815251
>Notice how it portrays extremes as propaganda would do. Picks ugly mixed children to argue against mixing, also when comparing blacks to white it picks the stereotypical sassy black and compares it to the most good looking white they can find. You can see this on the pictures from this very thread

Yes, that is true. But again, people have been nice to create opposite versions as well, e.g.: >>4815252

A fair comparison wud ofc involve average persons from each race. Difficult to get examples from the US since US blacks have ~20% white genes. One wud have to go to Africa.

>>4815258
There is not even such a thing as being 'fully white' or 'fully black'
As I said; there is so much genetic mixing in the human population that we are all mixed, to some extent.

You yourself will have had negro ancestors somewhere down the line, no matter how ignorant and racist you happen to be now.

>Hagrid: "See, the thing is, Harry, there're some wizards, like the Malfoy family, who think they're better'n everyone else because they’re what people call 'pure-blood'."
>Harry Potter: "That's horrible!"
>Hagrid: "And it's codswallop, to boot. 'Dirty blood.' Why, there isn’t a wizard alive today that’s not half blood or less."
— Rubeus Hagrid and Harry Potter discussing blood purity.[src]

>>4815168
Hey, when I look at a daschund and a Great Dane, I wonder how the hell can they be the same species

Would have worked better, the differences between humans compared to dogs are so much more minor

>>4815235

No sir, the only aryans that exist are middle eastern. The Aryan you're referring to is a fictional "race" that was believed to exist in the early 1900s when people didn't know shit about genetics. It is now understood that there is no such thing as that and never was.

>>4815251
This man.
As a rule on /sci/ these type of threads are created by bigoted but not usually explicitly racist people. This thread seems to have attracted an actual retarded racist.

>>4815260
so whites are average at everything

I WONDER WHO MEASURED ALL THAT!

(ps. how is a IQ of 100, DEFINED as the average, considered high?)

>>4815281

It was also started by one. It wouldn't be so bad if they would at least follow the scientific method instead of posting bullshit. This is worse than biology as a hard science.

>>4815284
>(ps. how is a IQ of 100, DEFINED as the average, considered high?)

100 is defined as the white average, typically british, but one can in principle choose whatever reference group. Whether it is high or not is an empirical question. Since the world average is something like 90, then 100 is high. Ashkenazi jews are at ~113, which is very high in relation to world average ~90. Other groups are very low in relation to world average, say, african bushmen or aborigines.

>>4815286
Should the world average not be 100?

>>4815286

>talking about IQ without specifying age groups
>pretending to not be a retard


gb2/pol/ or /int/ there aren't even people as retarded as you in /b/.

>>4815235

>>4815288
>Should the world average not be 100?

If u want, u can standardize 100 to some 90 group if u want. This wud make things easier when comparing world wide scores, but otherwise there is no particular reason to do.

>>4815290
I'm aware that scores change somewhat with age. If u have some point, make it.

>>4815296

It's mental age/chronological age * 100, where mental age is normalized to some average.

It's really more significant as a rate.

If your IQ is 200 at 10 (mental age of 20), then to keep an IQ of 200 by the time you're 20 you will have to have a mental age of 40.

It simply does not make sense to talk about IQ without a context of age.

>>4815168
OP here, id like to note i am korean, as some of you seem to be under the impression i have been apart of this thread after my initial post.

>>4815304
Best Korea, or other Korea?

look up the meaning of species

than get back to me

>>4815308

Can the elite best koreans visit 4chan or any western internet sites for that matter?

>>4815265
Shut the fuck up you harry potter nerd, you know damn well i was talking about facial aesthetics.

>>4815311
Best Koreans know best proxies.

>>4815310
Which are very different, even amongst what you call 'white people'

And you still do have negro ancestors.
You are mixed race, as are we all.

It's not quantitative genetic difference that is relevant, but qualitative. So, don't come with this "how much genetic difference there is between groups" but think about what those difference actually code for.

If races differ in transcription factors for an important gene like SRY, then you can have very different behavioural outcomes. It's enough to have these differences in genes which are critical for adaption to different environments and, wham, major differences in intelligence and behaviour.

>>4815327

That's the thing, "races" don't necessarily differ in those. Especially not umbrella terms like "white", "black", "european", etc.. Even talking at haplogroup level it's very fuzzy.

This is why REAL scientists instead refer specifically to "people who have these genetic sequences vs people who don't". The only people who might try to extrapolate that are pseudo/social sciences.

>>4815296
I have not taken many IQ tests but there was one I took that required me to put in my age as the score was calculated based on age. It seems obvious that I would score better than I did as a 10 year old so the results need a calibration based on age.
I assume this is standard practice but I doubt that there is a universal IQ measuring method and some people may think they can devise an IQ test that does not require an age calibration.
I have to remain somewhat dubious of a table of IQ scores until I can have a look at the test and see the calibrations used.
One calibration that I have never seen is a question asking how many tests you have taken. It seems obvious that the more experience you have in taking tests the better your test scores will be.

>>4815311
>inferior korea
http://pylon.ytmnd.com/

We are all the same species, it's just after evolution of where they were living they're bodily parts had to adapt to the environment. Head shape, skin colour etc.

>>4815300
The mental age definition has not been used for decades. Except when comparing different populations of humans. Africans with IQ 70 are not really retarded. What they are is like white children, say 13 year olds.

>>4815332
>I have not taken many IQ tests but there was one I took that required me to put in my age as the score was calculated based on age. It seems obvious that I would score better than I did as a 10 year old so the results need a calibration based on age.

Yes.

>I assume this is standard practice but I doubt that there is a universal IQ measuring method and some people may think they can devise an IQ test that does not require an age calibration.

Yes, standard practice.

>I have to remain somewhat dubious of a table of IQ scores until I can have a look at the test and see the calibrations used.

Okay.

>One calibration that I have never seen is a question asking how many tests you have taken. It seems obvious that the more experience you have in taking tests the better your test scores will be.

It has been shown that that doesn't work. Training on one test does not transfer to another test. That's how we know that people do not get smarter by improving their scores on one test. They just get better at taking that test.

>>4815330
>This is why REAL scientists instead refer specifically to "people who have these genetic sequences vs people who don't". The only people who might try to extrapolate that are pseudo/social sciences.

No true scotsman fallacy much.

The fact is that races/populations/whatever word u like differ in their respective frequencies of genes/alleles. This translates to their differences, on average, in mental ability, height, disease resistance, rate of twinning, etc. etc.

>>4815365

This only holds true if there isn't frequent intermixing between populations.

Because political correctness.

We classify dogs sometimes entirely on looks, and cats, and other animals.

But not humans. We are all one humans.

>>4815371

We will be. Thanks to the sins of the white man's imperialism, the groundwork has been laid to give rise to mankind's next form.

Don't worry, your descendants will eventually become part of the cosmic race as well. Some of us just had a head start. America is already being retaken by its native sons. Population dynamics will do the rest.

>>4815370
>This only holds true if there isn't frequent intermixing between populations.

There isn't on a global level. There is in some regions. It's always been like that.

Even the Ashkenazi jews that lived adjacent to other european populations didn't breed enough with them to stop selection for intelligence. The out-breeding frequency was around 0.5%.

>>4815380
>We will be. Thanks to the sins of the white man's imperialism, the groundwork has been laid to give rise to mankind's next form.

>Don't worry, your descendants will eventually become part of the cosmic race as well. Some of us just had a head start. America is already being retaken by its native sons. Population dynamics will do the rest.

If so happens, it will be very bad for civilization.

And apparently, it might not even be happening.

http://phys.org/news116529402.html

>>4815385

Give it a few more years. It's happening. Humans have always moved around and intermingled. It's our way.

>>4815390

Careful, racist guy. Harpending also said that Ashkenazi Jews are the chosen people of god, who have a higher health and intelligence than other ethnicities.

>>4815394
Seems not. One can look at the interracial marriages in the US. Even in the US the rates are still low, and they have lived together for 300 years or so. And this number is artificially boosted because all the half-breeds are counted as black, even if they have 80% white genes.

>>4815400
>Careful, racist guy. Harpending also said that Ashkenazi Jews are the chosen people of god, who have a higher health and intelligence than other ethnicities.

They do have higher intelligence. I don't know about health. Intelligence and health correlates but they have lots of genetic diseases. Perhaps there is no benefit for them compared with whites.

>>4815401

Look immediately to the south, and you have a neighboring continent full of half-breeds.

>>4815405
The continent to my south is Africa. Eh.

>>4815185
>>4815170

>>4815385

You're a retard. Here is JUST haplogroup R and it's descendents. There are tons of other haplogroups out there. The intermixing is so much it's absurd. The more we look into genetics the more intermixing we find.

>>4815417

My bad, wrong picture. The highlighted ones. This is just in this region however.

>>4815168
Race and subspecies are classification tools.
There is no point to classifiy men into races and subspecies because those different "races" CAN and WILL procreate with one another, race mixing is a fact for humans. In what race does a half asian half white fall ?

>>4815218
Yes but african and asian lion NEVER breed in nature. So when I say "this is a african lion" no one can argue, there's a consensus.
But if you start saying "he is asian" when he's actually half asian half white, then someone else might say, no "he is caucasian", there's no consensus.

>>4815265
>There is not even such a thing as being 'fully white' or 'fully black' As I said; there is so much genetic mixing in the human population that we are all mixed, to some extent.

You'd like that wouldn't you. It would fit with your ideology by which everyone is equal. Sorry, but people aren't, and if you forced the worldwide average right now you would make our current situation look like paradise.

>>4815431

The two arguments are not mutually exclusive, however unless you can define your "race" social construct firmly in science then it holds no value.

>>4815359
>Africans with IQ 70 are not really retarded. What they are is like white children, say 13 year olds.

Since when are 13 year old children strong and aggressive enough to commit genocide, effectively enslave a nation, burn a witch or storm through the streets forcefully circumcising people.

Africa is a shithole.

>>4815433
Don't bother, dude doesn't understand basic math.

>>4815433
Actually since the barbarian invasions and through the middle ages. And they were fully grown adults.

>>4815432
You ask for a firm scientific classification of different races but you use a silly dismissive term like "social construct" in the same sentence? What does it mean? Is gender a social construct? Are humans a social construct?

Have you really convinced yourself you can't tell with fair accuracy someone's genetic heritage when you examine them?

>>4815441
If you're trying to make an argument for equality by skimming over 2000 years of European history you might want to try a little harder.

>>4815443

Gender the way that normal people talk about it is actually a social construct. Genetically it's XX vs XY chromosomes, but one has to take into account genetic disorders that cause XXY and XYY chromosomes as well as pseudohermaphrodites and true hermaphrodites. Taking it further it's possible that the Y chromosome will completely disappear in the future and the human body will switch to different sets of chromosomes to decide gender (as has happened in platypus and other animals). Furthermore, many cultures across the planet historically talk about "third" or more genders which they use in a completely social sense. You can find a short list here.

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

Human is not a social construct. Neither are species of humans, of which there have existed over 20 types throughout earths history (with all but 1 going extinct). "Race" is a social construct and I am referring it in that way consistently for clarity.

>>4815168
> How come different colors of cats are classified as the same species? Shouldn't they be different subspecies?

>>4815453
So we should not have equal rights because we got more technologically advanced ?

Yes Africa is a shithole, but it doesn't mean we should enslave African people. Whether you like it or not they are still humans and the fact that we were once as savage as them proves that we are a lot like them.

>>4815462
You're obviously talking about a house cat felis catus, but there's many different members of felis, some of which can interbreed despite their differences.

>>4815467
Where did I mention slavery or even a difference in rights? No we were never africans and africans were never us. In fact africa is quite a pleasant place when the people are living in the tribal societies which come to them naturally, and not being enslaved by black dictators.

But what, you think we should just let them sort it out? When we could do so much better with some of the land, as south africa and rhodesia showed? When millions would die without our aid?

There are no objective criteria for classifications like this(except for species and that criteria dont always work and are debatable) so calling something a family or a subspecies is just a convention among biologist and disliked by most.
Its realy just useful to avoid confusion if a species consists of very different looking individuals so you dont mistake them for a different species. Humans are one species and there is no danger that someone accidentially describes another ethnicy as its own species so there is no point in describing them that way.

>>4815482

>No we were never africans.

lol why are you even on /sci/

Also, the parts of Africa with the highest AIDS prevalence are also the parts of Africa with the largest British populations.

>>4815489
Obviously I'm talking about things which have developed more recently than the 125,000 to 600,000 years ago humans are estimated to have left Africa in that theory.

What is that observation relevant to? Are you implying British populations are a cause of aids? A few other places in the world with significant populations might hurt that theory.

>>4815494
Typo, 60,000

>>4815482
>Where did I mention slavery or even a difference in rights?
>But what, you think we should just let them sort it out? When we could do so much better with some of the land, as south africa and rhodesia showed?
Except South Africa was a colony, and that the main argument for colonization was the belief that african people were inferior and that we could enslave them. Moreover, it is because of colonization that the African Kingdoms that existed before were destroyed, therefore allowing dictators to make a shithole out of Africa.
Also, apartheid stopped not that long ago in SA, and if this is not unequality in rights, I wonder what it is.

So yes, Africa would have been better off without us, the same way Aztecs, Mayas and Incas would have been better off without Conquistadores.

Nice try though.

>>4815494

Ground zero brah.

This
>>4815506
is a far more robust argument than this shit
>>4815216
>>4815222
>>4815211

>>4815498
>the main argument for colonization was the belief that african people were inferior and that we could enslave them

Really? I wonder how that one went down in New Zealand. The first large waves of colonization to South Africa were not allowed to own slaves... and it was later a state of apartheid, something which removes the possibility. South Africa was envisioned as a colony here, a Zulu kingdom here, etc. But obviously slowly things became intertwined and it's very difficult to unmake an omelet.

Not that South Africa is a good example of equality today, with policies of "fair discrimination" privileging black people and much of the money and land still in the hands of the more intelligent and industrious whites despite them. High level politicians talking about killing the white man and taking his land with little fuss, but a national outcry when a dumbass model says the word kaffir. Equality? Try again.

>>4815498
You must be joking bro. Africa, before British colonisation had no fucking state borders, no modern state structures, no administration, no infrastrcuture. You see cities like Nairobi today which are financial centers in Africa and whose only whatever degree of modern development is owed to their past colonisation by the Brits. Btw, I don't like Brits and what they did with their empire, but this is why Africa has any foundation for modern development at all. Same for India. So, yeah, indded, it would have been better if Brits stayed home and Africans never knew that there is such a thing as modern state, modern buildings, telecommunication lines, state borders or roads. Because this shitty involvement in Africa has also led to the present guilt-ridden perpetual vicious cycle of business plunder tactics and charity for Africa. They should have been left at that pigmy stage of tribal wars and African "kingdoms".

>>4815513
South African "equality" typical of European Colonization. You're whining about bullshit.

>>4815514

>Talking like he knows shit.
>Oblivious to the fact that africa is a continent larger than most of the others combined and has had cities for longer than europe has had cities.

>>4815513
>I wonder how that one went down in New Zealand
Well I don't know either since there wasn't any African people in New Zealand at that time.
>The first large waves of colonization to South Africa were not allowed to own slaves
I'd like a source on that.

Also, I never used South Africa as an example for equality or else, you did.
Affirmative action is stupid and unnecessary but saying that black people are inferior is stupid too.

>>4815519
This is real talk, your stupid picture and dismissive attitude is the bullshit.

>>4815522
So what you're saying is that Africa is a huge resource rich continent, has "had cities longer than europe has had cities" whatever that meaningless but vaguely pro Africa statement means, and yet can't get it's shit together? And you're using this as an argument that race is a silly meaningless concept?

How about India, industrializing quite nicely post British control. How about the colonies of Aus and NZ which are flourishing first world nations. How about Russia and Germany, which rebuilt in 15 years after the total fucking devastation of WW2.

The ANC has had what nearly 20 years of democratic "equality" now and has only managed to pillage the riches and drive the country into the ground.

>>4815462
You're an idiot, because you don't know why that analogy doesn't work.

>>4815536
What this guy said.

The Indigenous Australians arrived from India and the Maori (New Zealand Indigenous peoples) are from Polynesia.

Idiots think they're all just Africans because they're black though. Fact of the matter is that they're very different from Africans genetically, arguably more than Europeans are from Blacks.

>>4815536
>Well I don't know either since there wasn't any African people in New Zealand at that time.

Which would point out quite clearly that saying the driving force behind colonization was the belief that Africans should be enslaved is a load of bullshit.

>>4815544
No one said they're africans, you missed the point.

>>4815544
No one said they're africans, you missed the point which was about colonization. They're not black at all, their skin is a pale brown, they are a unique subgroup of the Polynesian race.

>>4815540

Africa is one of the 6 places in the world where written language was developed independently. As far as modernization, most of the colonized countries are doing horribly for themselves. The modern commonwealth countries are barely even valid from the larger perspective.

The US has almost 3 times the population as South Africa, Canada, and Australia combined. Not to mention the only reason the UK even has nukes is because he US lets them. Though it's arguable that US indigenous were treated as badly as Canadian indigenous, the people in the US don't push a pro-british agenda. If you ask someone their ancestry most people will neglect to mention British at all without even thinking twice about it. I'm not making a pro-african statement so much as I'm letting the air out of your pro-british statements.

>>4815514
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kingdoms_in_pre-colonial_Africa
Educate yourself.

>>4815546
It was obvious the dude meant the driving force behind colonization in Africa. You lack reading comprehension.

>>4815553
You're letting the air out of your credibility, thanks.

>>4815555
It wasn't the driving force behind any colonization, which at it's root comes down to making a buck and of course the individual colonists who are driven to build and grow their civilization.

>>4815559

No, not when it's the best basis for an argument you've managed to provide throughout the whole thread. Afterall, it's obvious you're not a person who understands the value in the scientific method nor one who will change their opinion despite all of /sci/ telling you you're wrong for plainly obvious reasons. If your argument is that of British superiority and that they benevolently modernized other countries to colonization for the good of everyone then go for it. It's obvious you're delusional but I have no problem telling you Britain is a terrible place.

>>4815170
That is possibly the stupidest picture I've seen in my entire life. It gave me both cancer and AIDS.

Caucasian, asian, aboriginal and negro DNA is different. Just like, we as a specie are different from apes, are we as individual races different from eachother. But of course to a much, much lesser degree. The bone structure is different. See how Asians are smaller than negroes for example. This is politically incorrect to say, but our IQ is dependent of our race. See, our DNA plays a role in that.

Don't believe me? Does this collide with your political bias? Well, I invite you to watch the sixth episode of Hjernevask with subtitles.

http://vimeo.com/19922972

Password is 'hjernevask'.

>>4815546
Are you denying that white people believed that Africans/Indigens were inferior to them and that they used it as an excuse to take their lands and/or enslave them ? Because that's exactly how it happened.

>>4815565

You're using "Caucasian" and "Negro" the way they were used in the 1900s. These words no longer mean what you think they mean. Please read some modern genetics literature. It's everywhere and you're just embarrassing yourself.

>>4815544
>Fact of the matter is that they're very different from Africans genetically, arguably more than Europeans are from Blacks.

But that's wrong, Africans are the most genetically isolated group.

The History and Geography of Human Genes, by L.L. Cavalli-Sforza (1994)

>>4815566
I don't live in Britain, I live in what was once a colony. As do you American.

>>4815565
>Caucasian, asian, aboriginal and negro DNA is different
Yeah no shit. My DNA is different from my mother's too.

We all have the same genes, the only things that differs from a individual to another the "version" of those genes : alleles. People from a same ethnic group share a common allele pool. But we all have the SAME GENES.

>>4815576

This tree doesn't depict isolation the way we're using it.

>>4815586
You mean slapping some "races" onto the tree?

>>4815578

I'm not American, though I've lived in many countries including that one. I doubt your colony is even sovereign, however.

>>4815569
I'm not denying that happened in some places, I'm pointing out the differences in native response, even in settler response between racial groups while others claim the differences are non existent and it's all a "social construct".

>>4815580
Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry, should've been clearer.

>>4815597
This cat is a different species to the one in this post: >>4815470

>>4815576
>>4815588

No, it's not what I meant, obviously. Besides, if I had to guess, your graphs look like they're using classical genetic markers, not DNA.

Politics.

>>4815600
It's a standard reference on human genetic variation.

Perhaps if your hackles didn't rise the second you saw anything which seemed to disagree with your ideology that everyone is the same, you might have been able to use it to argue about the meaningless of commonly acknowledged "races" such as "black" or "white."

>>4815593
Look retard, I'm gonna spell this out for you. Whether or not the differences exist and whether or not it's a social construct have nothing to do with each other.

You can still say the differences exist but instead of using retarded terms from the 1900s like "race" you have to use modern terms. The science has progressed and we can now identify specific genes and proteins that cause specific effects (kind of). It does not make sense to say "his skin is black, that means he is a black race, that means he has a higher disposition towards violence and other shit I heard from shady social scientists who've never ran a proper experiment". If instead you said "this person is of this haplogroup and has a higher disposition towards diabetes" then that's something else entirely. With the progress of science we can be much more specific and don't have to rely on make believe shit.

>>4815612
I refuse to use politically correct terms to distort a serious matter.

>>4815609
Blood antigens are classical genetic markers and they're not made of DNA. They were used by Cavalli-Sforza in his early work (1960s to 1990s).

>More recently, Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues have published an exhaustive compendium of genetic information based on the analysis of blood groups and many other classical (that is, non-DNA) markers in many modern human populations. They have interpreted these in the context of archaeological and linguistic data. In the last few years, however, the emphasis of genetic research has shifted from the study of classic genetic markers to the use of DNA analysis for detecting human variation. Studies on one particular type of DNA, mitochondrial DNA, have made a particular impact on the study of human evolutionary history.
>genetic information based on the analysis of blood groups and many other classical (that is, non-DNA) markers

In other words, it's outdated bullshit. Like everything else you've posted.

>>4815621

Not asking you to use a politically correct term, I'm asking you to use a scientifically correct term (correct term for short).

>>4815189
God I love these posters.
They always make me grin.

>my face when jewish women are my fetish
>my face when I have a jewish wife

>>4815622
1994 is not outdated and it's used as a standard reference, I posted the source if you want to look into it. Perhaps you'd like this quote by the author:

"The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin"

Those reasons don't change the reality.

>>4815628
I do, take your strawman elsewhere.

>>4815637
Yes, they go that there is no place to draw a line, so magically this makes all differences disappear!

Liberals are fucking retarded traitors.

>>4815637

So it is, my mistake, I guess I was wrong on that one. I should've just checked his wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza

On another note.

>Cavalli-Sforza has summed up his work for laymen in five topics covered in Genes, Peoples, and Languages.[1] According to an article published in The Economist, the work of Cavalli-Sforza "challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all". The book illustrates both the problems of constructing a general "hereditary tree" for the entire human race, and some mechanisms and data analysis methods to greatly reduce these problems, thus constructing a fascinating hypotheses of the recent 150,000 years of human expansion, migration, and human diversity formation.[2] In the book Cavalli-Sforza asserts that Europeans are, in their ancestry, about two-thirds Asian and one-third African.[3]

>>4815640

Race is not a scientific term, which is why it's a social construct.

>>4815650
then call it subspecies you dumb faggot

>>4815644
Going back to the OP, he once called for subspecies. This is /sci/ after all, where people can look at evidence and draw conclusions. Or did everyone run away when they saw some politics?

>>4815659

No dumbshit there have been subspecies of humans in the past but the differences between them and us dwarfed those between "races"

>>4815168

>>4815662
Can you quantify your claims, or are you just parroting pop. sci.?

>>4815666
>What is race mixing ?

>>4815644
>According to an article published in The Economist