/sci/ - Science & Math

just bumping with a few charts

>>6262917

Capable of interbreeding.

Source: The definition of the word species.

>>6262919
a video showing differences in skull shapes among the races
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TJH70aDctE

>>6262913
modern humans aren't even a species.

We're a subspecies of Homo sapiens.

We're called Homo sapiens sapiens.

so races would be a sub-sub species, and there's no such thing as a sub-sub species in taxonomy.

we don't name anything lower than subspecies.

If you have to make a disclaimer about thread not being /pol/ you are infact making an /pol/ thread.
>>>/pol/

>>6262932
yes i will give you that, let me rephrase the question to make it more specific.

Why are the Caucasian, East Asian, and Blacks all under the same epithet?

>>6262958
>epithet
last I checked, epithet was not a taxonomic rank.

you have now left the realm of science and entered the world of literature.

come back again real soon.

>>6262952
yes because making a list with undoubtedly offend a particular group of people. thank you so much in contributing to the betterment of this thread.

>>6262977
it seems to me you are just dodging the question

>>6262913
A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

We are only one species until two or more populations arise, which can interbreed within their population and have fertile off-spring, but can't produce fertile off-spring with other populations, similar to lions and tigers being able to produce tions and ligers (both of which are infertile).

>NOT A /pol/ QUESTION
pol plz go

>>6262977
/pol/ is right there, you can discuss /pol/ thread there freely.

>>6262985
this was ment as a response to this...
>>6262966

>>6262985
>out of date tree

yeah, humans are a subspecies of Homo sapiens just like dogs are a subspecies of Canis lupus.

until you understand exactly where you are taxonomically and why you're there, you can't make an argument that it shouldn't be true.

you asked why, you have been answered.

the only technical complaint you can make is that you're a racist bitch and don't like taxonomy.

that's cool, but it has nothing to do with science.

Calling different races subspecies is fine. It is an arbitrary distinction that only serves to represent the genetic differences that exist in different populations.

Though, I would be careful making definitive claims about hereditary predisposition of IQ by race. Also, the "chemicals" in our bodies are pretty much identical with the possible exception of differential expression patterns of certain kinds of melanin.

This thread does belong in pol. The science of genetic variation in humans speaks for itself, and it is not to the benefit of science to classify fellow humans.

>>6263018
>Calling different races subspecies is fine
no it's not.

Modern humans are already a subspecies, so races would be below subspecies.

we don't name things below subspecies, or if we do we call them "breeds," "races," or "morphotypes."

you don't get to just change the rules of taxonomy. Not without some agreement from taxonomists anyways.

>>6262991
your not answering the question good sir.
>>6262919 look at the picture the question im asking is why is it that we decided to round all homo sapiens up like there is nothing that differs them from another.

like how the finches are classified in the picture

The biological definition of a species is that two individuals of a species can reproduce to produce a fertile offspring.
Human races can reproduce to produce a fertile offspring.
Races =/= species

>>6263028
>we decided to round all homo sapiens up like there is nothing that differs them from another.
I keep telling you, those aren't Homo sapiens.

We are Homo sapiens sapiens.
the second sapiens means we're a subspecies of H. sapiens.

Until you understand this you're going nowhere.

>>6263018
the difference in chemicals was referring to significant differences in testosterone and other such things among the races

>>6263028
>crushing bill

If it's not a /pol/ question, what's with this sentence
>Their skeletal structures are different, their mean IQ's are different

You could easily have asked this question without talking about skull sizes and racial IQ differences, and then you wouldn't have to make 70% of the post disclaimers about /pol/.

>>6263036
i think you get what i mean.

>>6263025
Sorry, when I said "calling different races subspecies...", I meant sub-sub species (or whatever the logical next step would be). Rules are arbitrary, and the OP was making a point about how there is a political stigma against the biological classification of humans into taxa. To a biologist, "race" already implies genetic differences, but its usage is typically outside of the umbrella biology.

I'm a geneticist, and I can assure you that people in my field wouldn't care one bit about calling races sub sub species. (Taxonomists are weird)

Question.
Why are Caucasians even a single group?
Answer:
Because it is a retarded outdated label that classifies Everyone from Indians to Afghanis to Russians and Englishmen under the same 'race'.

I wonder if OP thinks like most americans that 'Caucasian' = White.

>>6263052
It's pretty simple.
Homo sapiens (undifferentiated) are extinct.

Homo sapiens idaltu, which may be the original Homo sapiens, is also extinct.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is likewise extinct.

that leaves us, Homo sapiens sapiens.

the races are all what we call "races," or "landraces" of Homo sapiens sapiens.

since they rank lower than subspecies we can't rename them as subspecies or species unless they're more different from each other than they are from H. sapiens idaltu and H. sapiens neanderthalensis.

they are noticeably different from each other, but not MORE different from each other than from other subspecies of H. sapiens.

so it's just a technicality of taxonomy. "Races" or "landraces" is the correct scientific term, but that has recently been disputed on the basis of genetics, and is moot anyways since they're expected to disappear soon due to interbreeding.

>>6263054
>(Taxonomists are weird)
I take that as a compliment.
a tip of the fedora

>>6263054
THANK GOD THIS GUY GETS IT

>>6263064
Yeah, he's just saying it's fine to call them "races," which may be a controversial POV in science but nobody here is arguing against.

"Races" is the proper term, and there's no particular reason why we shouldn't call different races races.

making this thread seem more than a bit silly.

>>6262913
>Biology question here (NOT A /pol/ QUESTION)
>why are Siberian huskies, Chihuahuas, and Beagles all classified under the same species?

hurkaDURRR. /sci/ truly is worse than /pol/

>>6263072
Dog breeds grouped together don't constitute a species any more than human races do.

they are both sub-sub species, respectively known as "breeds," and "races."

though if we want to get really technical, dog breeds aren't actually breeds at all in the scientific sense. They aren't equivalent to human races because they're crossbred extensively while human races were until recently quite isolated.

>>6263072
The doggy equivalent of human races would be "landraces," NOT breeds.

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

>>6263067
wait so races are like dog breeds? Even though they differ greatly in traits there all still dogs.

*sigh*... i guess i just don't like the fact that people say all humans are the the same even though we differ significantly in multiple fields. Its like saying a Chihuahua is a Husky.

>>6263080
No one says 'everyone is identical'.
The entire fucking point is that despite differences in average IQ or whatever you're supposed to judge everyone on their personal merits.

Why don't racists and fucking morons get this?

>>6263080
see
>>6263077
and
>>6263078

dog breeds aren't equivalent to human races.
mostly because of all the interbreeding that goes on with dog breeds.

A Chihuahua isn't a Husky, but they're both the same genus, species, and subspecies.

they're both Canis lupus familiaris.

>>6263083
haven't you ever heard of equality. Yes it is says that we all should be treated as equals because we are equals, but we are not all the same are we? one man is different from another and i feel as though we refuse to accept that as fact. In this day if you think a black man is different from a white man your considered a racist even if your not racist. This is what im mad about, in an effort to make the world better we just make it worse

>>6263090
>In this day if you think a black man is different from a white man your considered a racist even if your not racist.
Where the fuck do you live?

>>6263090
why cant we just accept our differences instead of pretending like they are not there? That doesn't mean one race is superior then another it just means that we are not the same and i dont see why we can't accept that

>>6263092
United States of Murica

>>6263090
it's not that people are equal, but that value judgments are subjective and thus worthless.

since what you value isn't what other people value, we say that all are equal in value. Not to you, but to themselves, or those that love them.

this is too complex for neocons to understand, they think in dichotomies and not subtleties.

so there was no point in typing this, if you don't understand these things instinctively you probably won't understand them reasonably.

>>6263096
>That doesn't mean one race is superior then another it just means that we are not the same and i dont see why we can't accept that
we do accept that.
that's why we use words like race.

that's why our census asks you what race you are.

>>6262913
Because they can breed to produce fertile offspring, of which I myself am living proof. Offhand OP, I know you've bent over backward to not offend anyone, but this question is absolutely ridiculous. All races of humanity share a common gene pool, they are all part of the same freely interbreeding population, and this makes them the same species. It's really very simple. Skeletal structures, mean IQ differences, and chemical differences are completely irrelevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

>>6262913
>implying iq isnt biased towards white culture

>>6263109
Then why do Asians score better than whites?

>>6263028
>why are Caucasian, East Asian, and blacks all classified under the same species?

You're asking a specific question about biology to which the answer is:
Because a species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.


I assume what you meant to ask is: Why are Caucasians, East Asians and Black Africans classified under the same species IF they differ significantly in skeletal structure, mean IQ and other chemicals that are in our bodies.

Caucasians, East Asians and Black Africans can all have children which produce fertile offspring. I know Caucasians who aren't intelligent enough to get through high school and Black Africans who are studying at universities ranging from good to elite.

Any differences in IQ, "chemicals that are in our bodies", skeletal structure, or any other variations are not significant enough to distinguish these populations as distinct species, although they can be distinguished as a unique population within the species.

If you are asking why Black Africans have a lower mean IQ, there are several factors, such as epigenetics (which causes a change in the expression of DNA based on the environment and can often cause permanent life long changes), it can be argued that the self-imposed segregation between Caucasians, East Asians and Black Africans can also result in different environments for each individual and thus cause epigenetic variation in different populations of people which would explain why IQ can be observed in children of different ethnic backgrounds based on the combination of their parents ethnic backgrounds, who ultimately determine their adopted child's environment during critical points of development at a young age.
In which case, a higher percentage of "Whites" and "Asians" have the right epigenetic factors than "Blacks".

So yes, I did answer your unclear and ignorant question, which implies racism while not being directly racist.
/pol/ please go.

>>6263114
East Asian cultures place a higher importance on intelligence than White populations, mostly because there are over 1 billion Chinese people living under the one child policy, and thus a higher proportion of parents push their children to develop intellectually more than in other countries and cultures.

>>6263115
>epigenetics
This is just a buzzword, genetics already covers genetic expressions based on environment differences.

>>6262919

So according to this infographic, causasians are a subspecies of africans?

>>6263121
China has a total fertility rate of 1.55. There are 40 countries with a lower rate. The one child policy has always been for the poor, the rich buy their way out of it.

Try again.

>>6263121
So when it's whites doing better than Blacks and Hispanics it's genetic but when it comes to Asians it's cultural?