/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes. In my opinion it is.

>>6557452
It's not a scientific system. "These guys look kind of the same, so lets say they're the same race".

Look at all the parrots in the world. There are 6 different types (this is a simplification). The image on the left represents the parrots we can see; there are clearly 6 distinct subgroups of parrots that all look different from the other subgroups. Note the image on the right for an example of how we can easily identify the 6 groups of parrots. Even though each subgroup of parrots can still breed with each other subgroup, this does not happen in the wild because natural barriers divide them. This is the reason there are 6 subgroups in the first place, and not just one large group of varying colors.

>>6557463
oops

>>6557463
So it's whether they breed or not that determines species?

It's real. If I force two parrots to breed, they don't suddenly become the same species. Race mixing is artificially encouraged by the media, therefore they are different species.

as real as we want it to be

>>6557463
>>6557464
Now, look at all the humans we have running around. The colors in the image on the left represent all the different types of humans we have. Note that there aren't any clear divisions there, because geographical barriers do not do well to isolate humans from other humans. We can try to divide people up, but this usually involves going by national boundaries and rules we made up (see right image). There is no single way to divide humans into races, it just depends on where you are. To Japanese people, there's a huge difference between Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc. and they don't really have a concept of "hispanic." Here in the US, all asians are "asian" and due to political and historical happenings, all people who descend from people who came from Spain are "hispanic" and that's a very important distinction to us, even though people in Spain are just as white as people in Italy and France

>>6557470
Dividing humans up is easy. Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid. You might be able to narrow it down even more, but that is an easy and correct way of doing it. Race-denial is anti-science.

>>6557467
>If I force two parrots to breed, they don't suddenly become the same species.
Actually, if they reproduce successfully, yes. Yes they do. That's our definition of species. Can you fuck it and make a baby? Then it's a part of your species.

>>6557473
Separate subspecies' exist that can reproduce successfully.

>>6557470
Of course natural geographical barriers kept groups isolated genetically in the past. Have you not heard of the Atlantic? The Sahara? Don't be silly. Nobody is arguing there isn't overlap along the edges, what we are talking about is statistical and of course one can make easily sortable categories of race and sub races etc. people are not all the same, you're going to have to get vote that.

>>6557475
That's not a separate species, though. However, the classification of your offspring would probably be something different altogether. Like a mule isn't considered a donkey or a horse.

>>6557465
Yes, that's pretty much the definition of what a species is. I was just saying that subspecies develop from a divergence in population traits, which happens when populations are geographically isolated. This happens a countable number of times in any species that can be divided up into subspecies.

>>6557472
Where are those three subspecies of humans then? We don't have three continents with three populations of humans, that all look exactly as the same as everyone else in their subspecies. We have a spectrum of humans with varying physical traits.
>>6557477
The overlap along the edges IS the important part. The other key phrase here is "in the past." When we talk about parrot subspecies, you have no problem just going by what they look like. But for some reason, people get caught up in this "genealogy" thing when talking about race. If you just go by what people look like, it's a spectrum.

>>6557482
Before only a few hundred years ago races were quite separate, geographically.

a retard and a normal person can breed.
A murderer and a normal person can breed.
A loli and a normal person can breed.

But it's still useful to have these categories like retard, adult, murderer, etc...

Breeds/races are very useful categories to have even if they can still breed. Useful when identifying a mugger for example.

>>6557485
>A loli and a normal person can breed.
I'm not too sure about this one m8.

>>6557484
Well, what are the races? The races to you aren't the same as the races to someone in the middle east. There is no global scientific consensus on where the boundaries are that separate the races. Your so-called "race denialists" aren't ignorant to the fact that people from different countries look different, and that there are other traits like alcohol sensitivity that vary by region. That's not what I mean when I say that race is socially constructed. Sure, there's nothing wrong with identifying people by where they look like they're from, like in this guy's >>6557485 example. "He had dark skin," or "he looked like he was from x country" are fine. But pretending that there are some large and definite divisions of people is useless and just causes problems

>>6557482
There hasn't been enough miscegenation since the invention of faster travel to make a statistically significant difference in previously isolated populations.

African Americans are unique because of all the rape etc. They seem to carry around 20 percent euro DNA which likely accounts for the (statistical averaged) IQ difference between them and their sub Saharan cousins.

>>6557492
A system I'd use is this, base it off of the purest countries belonging to each race. Or just divide into three clear subgroups like >>6557472 said.

>>6557492
May cause problems but it's true. There's a thing called "population genetics"

>>6557452
Scientifically speaking yes, there are groups as per pic related, BUT you quickly get into semantics arguing about it with leftists on the internet because everyone that isn't a scientist in the field has a different idea of what "race" means.

Furthermore all humans are actually more similar to each other genetically than we would expect given how long we've been around (though that's still hardly any time at all on geological time scales.) It's thought that this means some catastrophe came pretty close to making us extinct at some point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index#FST_in_humans

Frankly I don't understand the detail of any of this, ask /sci/ (in a non-/pol/ fashion) if you want more information.

>>6557493
Yeah, or the fact that we actually eat food in America and live in houses and go to school. Sub Saharan Africans have shit culture, worthless shit language, no societal infrastructure, and they barely eat food. How do you expect people there to just grow up and start thinking actual thoughts? You can get the whitest kids in the world and let some shitty African families raise them, and then see how smart they turn out.

Point is, it's not genetics that keep the African people living in a shithole. It's the fact that living in a shithole perpetuates living in a shithole. It takes a long time to develop society from nothing. Think about it this way: White people in Europe have the same genes, and the same potential for intelligence, as they did in the middle ages. How well do you think farmers from the middle ages would do on our IQ tests? And, would you say that it was genetics that caused them to live in straw huts and squalor? No, that's ridiculous. Their fathers lived in straw huts and squalor, and populations don't just spontaneously develop infrastructure

90% of blacks are lactose intolerant.

>>6557492
>The races to you aren't the same as the races to someone in the middle east. There is no global scientific consensus on where the boundaries are that separate the races.

Except that's fucking wrong.

>>6557502
yes that is quite a strong argument

>>6557473
so a donkey and a horse are the same species
A lion and a tiger are the same species?

>>6557452
>>6557500
Also I forgot to mention that epigenetics exist, this is a relatively new field but hugely important. Basically it means that the EXPRESSION of your genome can change depending on environmental factors, e.g. regular exercise effectively makes you more fit genetically even though your genome hasn't changed, and not only that but these changes can be INHERITABLE. This explains phenomenon like kids who had grandparents that nearly starved to death getting fat really easily. You can hypothetically extend that to /pol/ theories about propensity for aggression, criminal behaviour etc.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090118200632.htm

>>6557504
Well, let's count the number of different consensuses we have just among the people in this thread.

>>6557500
This guy has 9 races.

>>6557495
This guy has two ideas; he doesn't really know. Maybe he could just go by countries and not really have a definite number, or maybe there are only three races.

>>6557472
This guy is confident that there are three.

>>6557459
This guy thinks it just goes by how they sort of look.

>>6557477
This guy thinks that there are a good amount of people who, even though they look distinct, are actually just blends of other types and not races of their own

>>6557501
We'll no they don't have the same genetics as European people in the Middle Ages did. Tons of selective pressures and plagues have changed their DNA in the past thousand or two years. Selected for different immune responses, different psychological types based on the prevailing culture. Etc. you think evolution stopped? Or just for humans it stopped?

>>6557508
Lamarckism is pretty controversial really. There is no evidence that experience can make changes to the germ line and it will be selected for.

>>6557511
I'm not arguing that evolution "stopped." But two thousand years is not a long time in terms of evolution, especially not for organisms that live as long as we do. Humans in the middle ages were functionally exactly the same as us.

>>6557492
>Well, what are the races?

So we can discriminate against white people and "white diseases"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/students-drop-shinerama-fundraiser-for-illness-targeting-caucasians-1.743844

>>6557510
Because it's a vague question. "Race" can be used to refer to any population that can be considered to be an extended family, but you need some metric for when to stop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup

>>6557515
Only the scope of it, it's now known that DNA methylation changes *can* make it into sperm / eggs and thus at least some traits like starvation resistance can "evolve" and be passed on in remarkably short timescales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism#Epigenetic_inheritance

>>6557517
What point are you making? No rational people think that what that school did makes any sense. It made the fucking international news, that's how insane people think it is. If people agreed with that shit do you even think it would be a story?

>>6557516
Nonsense. 10 percent of Europeans are immune to HIV this is directly linked to the plagues thAt swept Europe and the selection for certain immune systems. Look, how long did it take for those Russians to make tame foxes? 10 maybe 15 generations to make fundamental behavioral changes to an animal? We are continuously changing and faster than apparently you realize or maybe are comfortable with

>>6557452

>>6557520
Tell that to Lysenko and the millions that starved because of his epigenetic experiments with crops.

There is no known mechanism to change the germ line because of environment. Maybe it's possible, but if it is it's very rare.

>>6557452
AUTHORIAL BIAS 101:

>show two male African grey parrots
>assert that those are pictures of different subspecies (probably correct)
>show a female human and a male human
>assert that those are pictures of the same subspecies, but hey look that one is black, must be different species amirite?
>disregard sexual dimorphism and the taxonomy of species classification
>look like a retard on the internet

>>6557516
People have flawed ideas of how evolution works too, there needs to be significant "selection pressure" or change doesn't happen. A lot of the details of how our bodies work are kludges that aren't the optimal way of solving a problem but are good enough that they've stayed around.

The classic example is the eye of humans and most other animals:
>Retarded design whereby there are no photoreceptors where the optic nerve enters
>This means you have a "blind spot" in your vision
>But you don't normally notice it because your brain interpolates and MAKES SHIT UP to fill in the hole

Cell transport proteins are another good one, some move around when they need to, which is like if you needed a new door upstairs in your house but rather than building one instead built a mechanism to transport one from downstairs as needed.

>>6557532
Also good job picking a black woman with abnormal facial characteristics. There are also white people with ape noses and monkey faces too.

>>6557523
Humans aren't foxes, your argument is worthless. There is no evidence to suggest that humans from the middle ages were less intelligent than we are now. And why wouldn't I be comfortable with it? That doesn't even make sense, you're just trying to make my argument sound like ignorant ramblings

>>6557532
Hilarious. Ok sure different sexes, and nobody here has ever seen a woman of European descent so there's no way we could possibly extrapolate.

>>6557536
That's an Australian aborigine mate

Still, nobody can answer this:

Why should categories like "negroid," "caucasoid," and "mongoloid" even be valid for anything other than researching our evolutionary history? What we have today is a lot of people with a spectrum of various physical characteristics. Why should it matter what their ancestors looked like? When we divide up parrots, we're fine with just looking at the way they look now and using that as the basis.

>>6557543
And?

>>6557452
It's an abstract categorization. If two animals can make fertile offspring, they are the same species. Everything else is completely arbitrary

>>6557539
No but as far as science can tell we respond to selective pressure pretty much the same as foxes.

>>6557544
Well for one thing it helps us to tailor medical treatments in an effort to make them more effective

>>6557549
Well, that's pretty much entirely false. Canines respond to selective pressure drastically, and very fast.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100810203503.htm

>>6557546
But there are sub species aka races with significant physical and behavioral differences from one another

>>6557545
It's not african

>>6557553
And your evidence that humans do not is?

>>6557551
That's more like looking at family medical history, but on a larger scale.

>>6557558
Are you saying humans vary in appearance as much as canines?

>>6557559
Yeah that's pretty much what races are. Genetically isolated and somewhat inbred populations.

>>6557557
>It

>>6557562
Yao Ming and pygmies?

>>6557562
Are you saying they don't?

>>6557564
Yeah, but where you draw the lines is completely arbitrary. Just because there are some methods of categorizing humans that are more popular than others doesn't mean those are any more special. I acknowledge that race exists in the sense that, if you give me a method of dividing people up, we can talk about the different races that you've defined. But in the end, you made up the guidelines

>>6557567
b-but race is just a social construct

Mainstream science now pretty much agrees that race is a social construct. Everyone who disagrees: Do you really think that you are part of a fringe group whose message of truth is being silenced by jews who aim to destroy America by promoting racemixing?

>>6557579
>Do you really think that you are part of a fringe group whose message of truth is being silenced by jews who aim to destroy America by promoting racemixing
Yes.

>>6557472
>>>/pol/

>>6557572
Well no they're not completely arbitrary. They're based on genetic flow among populations. They are useful for a lot of reasons. Tell me, why do we need to identify our race on government forms? At least in the US we do

>>6557575
Dude, you don't know what those words mean. NOBODY claims that people from different places don't look different. Modern science just agrees that we originally came up with those distinctions based on geo-political factors and historical events, and they don't have any objective meaning.

When I say race is a social construct, I don't mean to say that people from the middle east don't all tend to have tan skin and curly body hair. I just mean to say that there's no objective reason why people from Egypt should be considered the same "race" as people from Afghanistan, but different than people from Algeria.

>>6557579
You need to look into the last 10 or 15 years of genetic study. Race as a construct and blank slate are widely discredited by the hard sciences.

>>6557592
We'll they aren't actually considered the same race. Race is useful as a sorting mechanism. It's real and can be adjusted to encompass large or smaller populations. If the word offends maybe you could use sub species?

>>6557587
The races that people talk about today are mostly the same as the ones they talked about in the 1850s. They did not have any sense of analyzing genotype in the 1850s.

>>6557599
The word doesn't offend me. I hung out on /pol/ up until the end of last summer, before I went to college. I was scared to go because I feared what types of mind control and horrifying liberal trickery the jewish agenda would try to push on me. I was ready for girls to run around and scream at men for yawning on the bus. I expected to find plenty of instances where a minority or woman got an opportunity I didn't, just because I'm a white man. I expected to take classes in which glaring holes in reasoning were ignored in the interest of political correctness. But none of that stuff happened. My mind was completely changed about the concept of race, and I honestly feel like I spent a long time wallowing in a pile of shit with lonely virgins for no reason.

Anyway, I'm not saying the concept of race doesn't have uses as a sorting mechanism, if we can all agree on where we draw the dividing lines and then use statistics to help with things like medical treatment. But that in itself is a social construct, because in the end, we did draw the dividing lines ourselves.

>>6557452
Yes. If you can sequence the genome of an individual you can tell his race, thus proving that race is real.

>>6557630

anthropologists/forensic guys can tell by looking at bones, it's neat.

>>6557616
Sounds like a fairytale, m8

>>6557616
In that case mathematics is a social construct, since we came up with those theorems by ourselves.

>>6557638
Well, no, it isn't really the same at all. Race is a social construct in the same way that base-10 numbering systems being standard is a social construct. Which they are. I don't know why so many people on this board are so fucking retarded when it comes to any scientific field that the JOOOOOOS might have influenced.

>>6557645
Quit strawmanning, the only person mentioning jews is you.

You seem to be woefully ignorant about race. I suggest you read some literature about it. Since the sequencing of the human genome it has become obvious that humans didn't stop evolving from the neck up when they seperated.

>>6557649
I doubt you've read any literature besides /pol/ "nigger facts" infographics. But if you want to keep shoveling this crap at me about how the races that white slaveowners made up just happened to be confirmed when they invented genetic testing, why don't you read this literature

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/

>>6557653
Someone's never heard of Lewontin's fallacy.
You have anything not written 30 years ago?

>>6557659
Lewontin's Fallacy was a 2003 paper. My links were from 2006 and 2007. Also, neither of my links discuss Lewontin's original argument in the first place. If you don't have any rebuttal, try actually reading the articles; it might help you think of something to say that's actually relevant.

>>6557664
>2014
>Citing Lewontin

Top lel