/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6159678
Niggers are carriers of the sickle cell disease and nobody ever cares if they are getting nigger blood or healthy blood.

Not even now are people listening to science, they won't ever accept anything unless the media tells them to do so.

If humans were separated long enough for noticeable skin-color and facial differences, does that mean there are possible behavioural differences too?

How can it confirm them for sure? How can you know how influenced someone is by parents and culture stereotypes without growing black and white babies in an isolated cage cut off from external influences? There's no realistic way to do the perfect experiment and get a final exact answer.

>>6159694

Well, maybe if you present your message as "Africans have a prevalence of sickle cell anemia" and not as

"WATCH OUT DE NEGGERS R AFFER US"

people will be a little less creeped out by you.

Especially, I don't know, black people. Who are actually living breathing people with fairly-recent historical incentive to not listen to your bullshit.

>>6159705
Ok, since that's how it works. Let test specific groups in specific places and if they test, as the "racists" say, lesser than average on some kind of test, we have the right to say that those specific groups in those specific places are inferior than others in such and such attribute. You know, specific groups like american negroes whose ancestors were chosen to be savages who can work well in a field and who weren't chosen to be the intellectuals of Western Africa.

>>6159712
Define "inferior" - genetically inferior?

>>6159678
Who's "we"? Different people react in different ways.
Intelligent people update their beliefs when presented new evidence.
Stupid people find ways to rationalize their dogmas and biases.

>>6159697

In b4 /sci/

"He's an exceptional nigger. That's why we dress him up in a suit and give him a pat on the head. The others deserve nonfunctioning social services and to be cut off from society and education. Also we should never breed with them. My study says so!"

>>6159735
So "stupid people" are 99% of people on Earth? Not including me or you of course. But definitely including most users on /sci/. Diseased ultra-conservative /b/ and /pol/ users are the source of cancer on this board.

What the fuck kind of question is this? when has science ever purported any theory of racism?

You'd need something prooving that merits and testing are intrinsic and accurate and that aint somethign science is ever gonna do.

>>6159766

>when has science ever purported any theory of racism?

You cant be serious, here's just an example of the top of my head https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

>>6159678
People won't accept it until we can also bring a way to change it.

>>6159832
IQ=psychology

Psychology=pseudoscience

>>6159766
>2013
>having this much cognitive dissonance


racial IQs, racial exclusive diseases, racial resistance to alcohol, etc.

>>6159840

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

Scientists don't do racist studies anymore. No journal accepts them. Its unethical.

>>6159840
soft science=/= pseudoscience

>>6159840
That's a cute theory you have, except the actual data disagrees with him.

IQ has been shown to be hereditary. In the case of adoption, children have IQs closer to their genetic parents than to their adoptive parents, and that alone pretty much blows your theory of IQ being cultural out of the water. Also, even though IQ does fluctuate with income and access to education, if you compare people across the same income level or same education level you STILL see the same differences in IQ by race.

Literally the ONLY way you can claim IQ is cultural and not genetic is if you purposefully avoid actually looking at the data. If you enjoy science enough to come here on /sci/ you should be disgusted at yourself for being willfully ignorant to support a political agenda.

>>6159847
The only way it could be unethical is if the differences in race are real and the science would show it.

If racism was wrong than doing studies on races would be ethical because it would disprove racism.

How ironic.

In case you're actually interested in serious attempts at counter arguments. Least you can do is read them, think about them, and change your opinion or be better prepared if someone wants to wield these arguments agaisnt you in the future.

http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-science-reflections-on-the-moral-absurdity-of-racial-realism/

>>6159853

I have looked at these studies in ethics class you are full of shit. Adopted children have IQs closer to the adopted parents not the genetic parents.

Believe what bullshit you will tho.

race realism is best, it's based on the science. BTW as a race realist is there a compendium of scholarly articles (peer-reviewed, so opponents can't pull THAT card) that will come in handy during arguments? Thanks

>>6159853
I never made an argument regarding the heritability of IQ.

Its pseudoscience because it lacks basic requirements to be called scientific. For instance, clearly defined terminology and highly controlled experimental conditions.

>>6159874
>race realism

Isn't that the same thing as racism?

The thing is, racism isn't inherently incorrect. You'd have to be willfully blind deny that races exist and that physical differences exist between them.

The problem only arises if a study tries to suggest that one race is implicitly inferior because of their race. In other words, I believe what we're finding is that "nurture" is much more important than "nature", especially when it comes to intelligence.

>>6159886
Racism >implies that you believe some policy should be done towards people based on race (negative for the ones you consider inferior, not affirmative action, that's another kind of racism)

Racial realism >implies that you just acknowledge the differences, political correctness be damned.

Not a strict definition but the intented >Implications on people.

What would be the point of making the world 'face the facts' of, say, racial IQ differences? it would undo the social progression of the last 200 years, and everyone would hate each other just a little more.

>>6159886
>>6159888
yeah which is why "racial realists" (aka real racists) are always found hanging around stormfront or some kind of white supremacists anthropology blogs

>>6159723
If we can find the specific genes for the traits then sure. If not, psychometric tests are enough on large scales.

what happens when science confirms differences that are anti-racist?

>>6159918
Stormfronters bitch as usual

>>6159901
I'm talking about what the term implies or tries to imply of people. If racist use the term racial realist to be less hated then it's the problem of both of the groups.

>>6159888

so why isn't there religion realism, or income realism, or favorite ice-cream flavor realism, or tribe realism?

most people focus on Individual-realism because that's clearly the mos meritocratic measure of a person's value to society.

I find the exaggerated focus on race categories, when there are so many more accurate indicators, to be suspicious from scientists and laypeople.

my thinking is they are racist and see finding average differences in objective measurements as one way to legitimize their bigotry to others.

>>6159922
they do and it is; all racists are "racial realists"

I don't really accept the term race-realists because it's loaded in favor of their hypothesis.

It implies other ideas are by definition unreal.

>>6159699
The brain is too complex for there to be any measurable behavioural changes in such a short amount of genetic isolation.

>>6159927
its just one of new white supremacist fancy shmancy buzzwords: "anti-white" "white genocide" "racial realists"

>>6159935
>"anti-white" "white genocide" "racial realists"

oh boy here we go

What happens when science confirms kuffars are apes and pigs?

Will we accept it ?

>>6159923
>so why isn't there religion realism

there is. There are comparative studies of different religions and other factors in people's lives looking for statistical significance. it just doesn't use that name, at least in part I guess because it's not as politically incorrect today

>or income realism

there is, see above

>or favorite ice-cream flavor realism

lel. I can't say for sure it doesn't exist, but it problaby doesn't. Guess it's because it isn't as important, nor does it determine many different things in your life, wether you like it or not, social or not.

>or tribe realism?

aka antrophology

>>6159853
>>6159853
>Also, even though IQ does fluctuate with income and access to education, if you compare people across the same income level or same education level you STILL see the same differences in IQ by race.

Wait, how does that make sense?
I would figure if there were average differences it would mean some communities would have fewer people in higher-end jobs but the differences when controlling for income should be negligible.

Otherwise, IQ isn't a very good indicator of income or real world success in general.

>>6159950

I don't think you understood my point.
I'm not doubting these fields or categorizations exist.
What I'm arguing is why race should take precedent over other, more meritocratic taxonomies for so many people.
Race receives an unwarranted degree of importance, and this can be explained by bigots who attempt to use average differences in this or that metric to legitimize their racist ideology.

>>6159935
>"white genocide"
there are more whites on earth today than at any other time in human history.

I guess China's one child policy exemption for minority ethnic groups constitutes chinese genocide for these folks.

Some studies shoe that black ppl respond worse to some heart medication than whites.... Is this because drugs are racist?

>>6159968
some black people have a disposition toward sickle cell anemia.
not the vast majority of blacks, just a small, select community.
we only identify that blacks have a greater disposition because that's the denomination we're most used to.
if we identified a particular tribe, or individual (and most scientists would), we could make far more accurate distinctions.
unfortunately, doctors and pharmaceutical companies have to work with the social denominations people most readily identify with.

>>6159963
Not true not relative to other races.

Asia is full of yellow Asian Africa with black Africans India brown Indiana.

Europe and north america are forced to be multicultural and race mixing.

Whites are only 14% of world pop.

>>6159959
see
>it just doesn't use that name, at least in part I guess because it's not as politically incorrect today
>>6159950

>>6159963
Chinese don't follow that policy they just pay the extra tax, and there is no shortage of Asians worldwide trust me. I live in Vancouver and its like all Chinese here, they call it Hongcouver and lots of writing is in chinese

>>6159975

>Europe and north america are forced to be multicultural and race mixing.

forced?
white countries are still majority white.
nobody is forcing you to marry anyone.

as globalization increases everyone will mix and we'll achieve a type 1 world economy without borders.

Of course there will be resistance in the interim from tribalists.

>>6159963
Well y'know, racist were never in charge of being smart or rational at anything ever, so is simply best to laugh.
Funny thing is Chinas one child-policy is most likely ending soon, the "white genocide" now truly begins!

>>6159975
>implying China doesn't have black ghettos already
>implying inmigration isn't a suggested and already starting solution for Japan's aging, voluntarily sterile population
>implying people are going to inmigrate to countries with a lower standard of living
>implying there aren't countries, states over 90% white
>implying the total number of white people isn't still rising

Other groups being more numerous every day isn't genocide. If it was, then whites ain't got shit to jews.

>>6159976
Those deficiencies are trans-cultural and tans-tribal. In fact other races respond differently not just blacks, I.e Hispanics had different tolerance levels than both Whites and blacks.

>>6159979
The US was always multicultural.

Our current definitions of race weren't always that way. During industrialization it was theorized by some that US would be destroyed by German migrants, the US should remain Anglo saxon. Southern Europeans were then thought inferior.

>>6159930
>What is the domestication of foxes by russian scientists?

>>6159985
and a black person could honestly think "at least I'm not Irish" because they sure weren't considered white.

>>6159979
Immigration policy + liberals + multiculturalism.

Whenever a euro country tries to stick to its values it gets labeled racist & antisemitic lol

Some northern country voted to bam genitalnmutilation and Israel went nuts calling them antiaemites but no one judges israel when it prohibits civil marriage and marriage to non-jews

>>6159979
Toronto in the 70s was 90% white now its less than 50%

Vancouver is similar, I don't have the numbers. The world is heading in a grim dorection

stormfront logic: BWAHAHA! Silly Native Americans! You're obviously inferior to the glorious white race because your low tolerance to foreign hostile diseases, lactose and alcohol!

>>6159981
White pop is in decline world wide due to
First world economics
Immigration & miscegination
Declining culture

>>6159993

No one is saying such tjingz . there are far better reasons anyway that deal with values, ethics and human excellence

;)

>>6159985
Yeah this is really true, Hitler wanted to wipe out the "ubermensch" slavic Russians, now they're the biggest fascist in the world! And that whole Hitler thing was just a big mistake or soemthing lol. "Race" is just as much a political ideology as any other, and like politics the meanings and exceptions are subject to change over time by what "races" are acceptable by the powers at be.

>>6159992

I think this sort of thinking is unfortunate.

Western culture and people are great, no doubt.

But if we keep our tribal distinctions then I don't think we will become a type-1 world economy.

We will remain several disparate civilizations that occasionally infight and compete and cooperate.

Is that really what's best for humanity indefinitely into the future?

Isn't there a better way to unite the world without destroying what we love of lowering its productivity?

>>6159996

>White pop is in decline world wide due to

But it isn't. The amount of people that are white is increasing. Take, for example, the US census data

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

From 2000 to 2010, the US white population has increased by 2 million.

>>6159992
The number of Africans in Guangzhou increases 30-40% every year

>chinse genocideeee

>>6160011

I kinda agree with your point but what stormfags are nervous of is only the US and Europe will mix and everyone else when confronted with the prospect of immigrants will just be like "lol no way".

They don't like the idea of ending up the only ones to end up sacrificing for such a thing.

>>6160011
Culture > economics + consumerism

1 word

Epigenetics.

genotype (G) + environment (E) → phenotype (P)

We know jack shit about epigenetics at the moment but its a very real thing and the more we find out about it the more racialism will be debunked.
And because we no so little about epigenetics any argument from a genetic standpoint is automatically invalid as you cant separate the two.

>>6160018
Please learn what a ratio is and then goggle population trends and birth rates relative to other races

>>6160059
Do these change that the total amount of white people in the world keep increasing?

Japan's is decreasing, but you don't hear about how their media is a jewish plot to prevent them from reproducing and causing a Japanese genocide.

>>6160054
this
People who say science "proves" racist bullshit are fucken idiots
inb4 social science has any validity

>>6160080
Yes they say african american women are genetically more masculine despite the fact that masculinized females is a sign of developmental stress.
Considering the average african american is earns 10x less income than the average white, and lower income is a proxy for substantially different environment, its ridiculous to draw any conclusion from the data other than there is a correlation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23499769

>>6159705
Even then, you'd have to account for the health of the parents and even there grandparents parents to take into account epigenetics fully. You'd be surprised how much can stunt human brain development.

>>6159694
do you really think using racial slurs on an issue as sensitive as this will help your case?

>>6159705
We have transracial adoption studies, like the Minnesota transracial adoption study
Whether blacks are raised by white parents or blacks are raised by black parents will have no affect on IQ
Whether blacks are raised by rich parents or blacks are raised by poor parents will have no affect on IQ

Whether mulattoes were told they were black or mulattoes were told they were mulatto had no affect on IQ, which shows that attitudes that society have towards them and their self-assessment don't affect their IQ

>>6159847
Luckily we still have Northeast Asia and Eastern Europe

>>6160188
Economic status during childhood is only one piece of the puzzle. Parents health and womb conditions likely have more impact.

>>6159871
>3. Intelligence as formally measured has no necessary correlation to the traits we hope to maximize in society,
"the validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology" - Look it up

>>6159930
>The brain is too complex for there to be any measurable behavioural changes in such a short amount of genetic isolation.
You are worse than a creationist
You have just made this up because you FELT that it sounded good
It makes no sense and it is incorrect

Races differ in brain size
http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/antrop/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.html

Races differ in relative lobe size
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013642

Science already confirmed those and we chose to ignore them to not hurt anyones feelings

>>6159694
The gene that is resposible for sickle cell disease also makes you more resistant to malaria.

The one's with the disease just had bad luck but if I had to live in areas with malaria I'd rather chose to be born with the gene even if there is a chance of getting the disease

>>6159930
That makes no sense at all. If anything there are more opportunities for a mutation in a more complex organ you turd

>>6160219
Of course, but even so there's not particularly any good reason we should discriminate on the sis of race oer the individual.

>>6160222
See:
>>6159976

>>6160227
But it's a good reason not to let sub saharan africans immigrate into european countries.

I can deal with every other race though except for abbos maybe

>>6160232
What am I supposed to see? I don't understand how his post related to mine except that we've both been talking about sickle cell disease

>>6160231
There are even sub sharans with higher IQ than the European average.
At the end of the day, the smaller the population, the more accurate your judgements.
There is no more meritocratic a way to judge someone than to judge the individual.

>>6160215
Those differences are effected by epigenetic changes and developmental instability, so since you cannot eliminate those variables in a controlled study. You cannot reach any conclusion from that data.
You want to prove black people are low IQ because of genetics, then you would need control for every single variable which can induce developmental instability or epigenetic changes (impossible) and keep them constant for a number of generations (illegal/slavery).

>>6160239
>There are even sub sharans with higher IQ than the European average.
Are you familiar with regression to the mean?

>>6160264
yes, but that doesn't mean all africans are doomed to have future generations regress to the mean for their race any more than jews are doomed to have future generations regress to the european mean or mexicans are doomed to have future generations regress to the human mean.

intelligence differences could not arise in the first place between populations if that were the case.

the smaller the community / tribe / or individual, the more accurate we can judge the IQ of future generations.
race categories are fairly wide and inaccurate to this effect, there is nothing more meritocratic about them.
we are still better off assuming a higher IQ individual will tend to breed higher IQ children.

>>6160239
>There are even sub sharans with higher IQ than the European average.

you mean individuals? but that's an illogical and absurd comparison.

You must be saying something else entirely, please explain.

>>6160264
>thinks evolution affected the brain

of course, human evolution was selected for in Africa, where it evolved.
The environments in Africa certainly also selected for intelligence.
There is no evidence some environments selected more than others.

As infrastructure and culture develops in Africa, the flynn effect will allow intelligences to rise, and lower class families will have fewer children which means the more intelligent and more successful will constitute a larger portion of the population. Africa too will reach human potential for intelligence.

>>6160277

my point is the focus on race is nonsense, lets treat it for what it is: just one aspect of the complex that constitutes the human condition.

let's treat humans as individual humans first and foremost before we group them into the infinite number of possible taxonomies we can come up with.

>>6160278
>There is no evidence some environments selected more than others.

European and Asian environments feature extremely cold winters and the inhabitants of these regions historically faced greater challenges to survival than Africans...these survival challenges would have created selection pressures for greater intelligence. Africans on the other hand live in tropical conditions all year round and hence did not need as much intelligence

There have been several studies supporting this theory. Could be very plausible, we need further research.

>>6160278
*human intelligence was selected for in africa

>>6160286
>my point is the focus on race is nonsense

this is a very dangerous blanket statement, that could prove fatal in the long run, specially with drug treatments and health related concerns.

We already know some drugs are more effective in certain races than others, and races have predispositions to diseases in different ranges.

To hold such a strange and blanket assumption about reality is really really absurd.

It's as crazy as assuming both genders are identically the same in every aspect.

>>6160249
I am surprised no one pointed out their shitty sources, Richard Lynn, the most discredited joke of an eugenicist in the world. I bet the racialists will call me a jew or something now for saying that.

>>6160293
see:
>>6159976

>>6160278
>There is no evidence some environments selected more than others.

Yeah, living in northern europe is totally the same as living in a jungle in africa.

Have you ever been to africa? I've been to gambia 2 years ago and you could literally just eat everything straight from nature. Mangos everywhere and all kins of fruit and sprouts as well as crabs out of your ass.
We'd just throw them in a pot and eat crabs all day.

Now try and do the same in a forest in europe

>>6160289
African environments feature extremely dry seasons, frequent drought, and famine, and inhabitants of these regions historically faced greater challenges to survival than Europeans and Asians. These survival challenges would have created selection pressures for greater intelligence. Europeans and Asians on the other hand live in temperate conditions all year round conducive to agriculture (see map) and hence did not need as much intelligence.

Human intelligence evolved within Africa. It is demonstrably true that Africa was selecting for intelligence.

>>6160301

If that were the case then we would expect parts of India and the middle east to have the dumbest indigenous people in the world but that doesn't turn out to be the case either.

>>6160301
Another big difference is that africa has no good way of preserving foods available to paleolithic people. Northern Europe gets cold enough for permafrost, allowing hunters to bury their kills and save them for winter.

This difference imparts an environmental pressure in the North favoring individuals who are willing to save up, while a lack of methods of preservation in africa applies a pressure leading towards prefering instant gratification.

>>6160296
see
>>6159982

Splitting races into tribes, cultures, genetic heritages might be more accurate, or it might be negligible in terms of pay-off. Either way, it still supports the notion that race is an important factor in treatment and health concerns :)

>>6160307
And if you look at the way humans spread it's obvious why that isn't the case.

Did you even think for a second before making that post?

>>6160308
like I said:
>>6160286

It's one of countless nuances to any given individual.

Unfortunately given its distribution across the globe it's also one of the denominations easier to 'weaponize' for ideological / political purposes.

>>6160316
I've seen no indication of an advanced ancient innuit civilizaiton.

>>6160289
>>6160301
Ok you people really crack me up! Chock some your shit up to your neanderthal uncles who helped you survive that harsh European bullshit (winter) lets forget they were basically "retards" oh wat I mean enlightened superior beings who taught us beyond light sped travel, oh wait thats just nonsense! They couldn't even make distance projectiles! Fuck off! Also you like to cite brain size so much, never take into accordance brain density? Nope I bet not? Yeah thats what I thought.

>>6160303
>African environments feature extremely dry seasons, frequent drought, and famine

Those are catastrophic conditions that you can't really resolve and are very hard to adapt to. Or at least they did not adapt to them well at all.

Harsh but transient winters can be adapted to with sufficient effort and ingenuity, and really force you to think. But if they are too harsh and too long you will be limited and stuck in a perpetual survival mode (Eskimos)

>It is demonstrably true that Africa was selecting for intelligence.

Yes but it had greater pressure in Europe and Asia which accounts for the obvious disparities between countries and races.

>>6160325
We're lucky that that's not how genes work.

You could for example receive a gene for a bigger brain but retain your own genes for brain density.

Mixed breeds in dogs for example can result in a bigger dog than either of the parents were for example

>>6160313
>Unfortunately given its distribution across the globe it's also one of the denominations easier to 'weaponize' for ideological / political purposes.

You should consider your own ideology too. It tries to ignore, downplay and undermine real racial differences.

Reality is intolerant, unjust and unfair. Chihuahas can not run as fast as Grey Hounds.

Different races respond differently to medication, they have different immune systems and disease incidences; race-mixed offspring are more susceptible to disease and behavior problems due to genetic non-compatibility, races have very different hormone levels which influence behavior and psychology.

Study the diversity, it's fascinating.
Pretending that all races are the same is factually wrong.

>>6160331
>Those are catastrophic conditions that you can't really resolve and are very hard to adapt to. Or at least they did not adapt to them well at all.


>The most important thing in San life is water. Droughts can last many months and waterholes may dry up. When this happens, they use sip wells. To get water this way, a San scrapes a deep hole where the sand is damp. Into this hole is inserted a long hollow grass stem. An empty ostrich egg is used to collect the water. Water is sucked into the straw from the sand, into the mouth, and then travels down another straw into the ostrich egg.

>>6160325

>incoherent drivel

Now try saying that again, but this time in coherent sentences.

>>6160278
Oh these radically different environments with different temperatures, levels of agriculture, sexual habits, levels of predation and moisture that caused differences in brain size, relative compositions of grey and white matter, neuron density and relative lobe sizes just happened to produce precisely equal cognitive traits.

You are worse than a creationist

>>6160343
If you actually had a clue to begin with you wouldn't need a citation.

>>6160345
Hey, black people can have bigger muscles and be better at sports but saying that other races have better cognitive abilities would be racist.

>>6160340
>You should consider your own ideology too. It tries to ignore, downplay and undermine real racial differences.

I never claimed to do any such thing. But I certainly believe for meritocratic reasons that it is wrong to judge individuals as such. Market economies are a sort of cultural selection enforcer. They have recognized the value of judging the individual as a priority over all other categories.

>>6160349
>you wouldn't need a citation.

No one asked for a citation.
Apparently you can neither speak nor read properly.

>>6160343
it's obvious samefaggotry

>>6160322
>I've seen no indication of an advanced ancient innuit civilizaiton.
unfair comparison
Europe is mostly temperate forest and grassland, whereas the Inuit live in taiga and tundra

>>6160350
>black people can have bigger muscles

jay cutler Mr Olympia 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010... Arnold won it like 8 times?

go look at any northern or eastern european weightlifters for strength, they are much stronger than black athletes.

>>6160360
>jay cutler
Maybe not "bigger" but I hope you get the picture when looking at every basketball or football team or at sprinting etc

>>6160345

It's a mistake to assume because some genotypes did experience unique selection pressures, then all genotypes must follow suit to a significant degree.

Even if we compare dog breeds, we experience a bit of observer bias when the differences are most obvious to us. But even then two dogs from different breeds are still almost identical with respect to the vast majority of genotypes. In most capacities, that they're both dogs is all you need to know.

What reinforces your incorrect belief is the fact that those differences that were selected for happen to be related to outward appearance (skin color, nose shape, eyes, hair, body-type) and are most apparent to us.

>>6160362
And different dog breeds clearly posses different levels of agressiveness and cognitive ability.

>>6160353
do i have to talk in absolutes to babies like you? no you want to work in pointless technicality; go ahead exercise your mental muscles dipshit, you know what I meant all along.

>>6160358
My point is there are enough exceptions to the rule that I question whether living in a cold place will necessarily select for higher intelligence.
There's little evidence that harsh environments in Africa did not select as much, especially considering our intelligence did evolve there.

>>6160364

sure but rugby players and gymnasts are ripped
and are 95% white

>basketball and sprinters
they're all juicing very heavily, plus dark tanned skin gives the illusion of more muscle definition so they have a bonus right there

>>6160368

Dogs are not perfectly comparable to humans nor are they immune to their own sort of cultural influence / stereotype threat of sorts.

For one, dogs and humans did not occupy the same niches so they did not experience the same selection pressures.

>>6160373
Dude, I was talking about the ability to perform these sports well.

I don't care how big the muscles actually are but you can't deny that black people domintate in a lot of different sports

>>6160375
And not all humans occupied the same niche either.

It's like talking in a circle here but you don't even register any argument.
I'm out. If people seriously believe that big differences in height, color, bone structure etc are possible but a complex organ such as the brain didn't possibly mutate differently in different and often isolated groups that lived under completely different circumstances then there is no point in arguing.

I'm seriously mad right now and hope that you choke on something for so much intelectual dishonesty just to fulfill your own bias.

>>6160362
>that they're both dogs is all you need to know.

There's a million other things we want to know too. Like behavior characteristics, physical ability, genetic predispositions and disease rates, mental ability etc....

Grey Hounds are faster than Chihuahas, sorry.
Dalmations are genetically predisposed to various disorders (only 70% have normal hearing).
Some breeds drool a lot more than others. Some breeds are more tame and docile, some more energetic, etc...

Human races have various differences, I'm not sure why we try to downplay them or ignore them. Strange

>>6160383
>It's like talking in a circle here but you don't even register any argument.

You're telling me it's like talking in a circle?

see:
>>6160386

I could easily reference him to several other posts where we covered everything he's said already.

I guess that's what stormies have on their side; lots of people who are willing to post the same thing ad infinitum.

>>6160389
>I could easily reference him to several other posts

notice every time you reference a post it has replies that basically refute it or show a misunderstanding and you ignore them.

>>6160373
Non practical muscle mass is faggy as hell.

>>6160405
>Non practical muscle mass is faggy as hell.

>criticizing an olympic gymnast for being too big and impractical

lol wtf?

>>6160406
His shit is exaggerated and aesthetically unpleasing because he's been juicing.

>>6160411

you sound pretty jelly, i know cuz I've sounded just like you before

>>6159930
Would minor changes in a complex system be MORE noticeable?

mixed-race children have a very very hard time finding blood donors and bone marrow donors.

But wait a sec, every race is the same, we're all the same black = white = asian, same genetics, same blood, same intelligence, same everything why would this happen

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/31/mixed-race-blood-marrow-donors-gen-y-millennials_n_2570078.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/multiethnic-blood-cancer-patients-struggle-marrow-search-article-1.1454268
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
http://pulse.seattlechildrens.org/the-struggle-to-find-donors-for-mixed-race-children/

>>6159697
wow, that's some ignorant ass shit

>>6160418
More people need to stop being selfish assholes! Mixed people (i am mixed btw!!) need to just give up the good stuff! When they hit the bucket, if this was a requirement, to recycle all of humanity then there would be no issue on this shit.

>>6160418
Who are you arguing against?

Go back to /pol/

>>6160432
>>6160434

but all races are the same, they should be able to get blood from whites or blacks! oh wait they cant

>>6160434
mad hippy is mad

>>6160449
they aren't the same, the white race is shit and parasitic, give me your bone marror to the masses you little shite!

>>6160463
>the white race is parasitic

ya cuz whites are flocking to china, india and the middle-east and trying to live off their great technological systems, welfare, and cultures

oh wait

>>6160469
They are and always have been! Whites have been sucking like mosquitoes off the innovations of asians! Bout' time you admitted it!

>>6160475
le troll

>>6160477
Wow you got me! An organized cultist nazi rally! I give in! BWAHAHAHA!
All I have to say to "you people" is be afraid!!

>>6160481
>types in caps
>uses many exclamation marks
>makes threats
>troll on /sci/

>>6160475
You sound kind of racist, bro

>>6160486
Well its all kind of down to material conditions, I love my white bros in the modern tense, but c'mon, just look at history, its nothing personal.

>>6160493
European history is pretty impressive

>>6160215
>brain size = intelligence

>>6160507
>>brain size = intelligence

No, but there is a 0.4 correlation between the two.

Whites have 6% more nerves/dendrites than blacks, asians have 1-2% more than whites.
Which sort of reflects the common IQ disparities.

>>6160509
Needed my daily dose of phrenology thanks.

Now if you could gb2 /pol/ we could maybe continue discussion.

>muh feelings
Literally the only argument against races being different in more ways than looks

>>6160513

>phrenology

but no one is talking about bumps on a skull...

>>6160514
Who ITT made the argument at all?

>>6160515
I tend to get my pseudosciences mixedmixed, haven't looked into them much.

>>6160514
>all species evolve at the same velocity

>>6160539
>there is no way on earth that some races think differently or have different levels of intelligence
>I know this because