/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8922943
Better word to use would be breed desu

>>8922943
Debunk what?

Well, the ones on the left are all black while the ones on the right are different colors.

pwned, n00b

>>8922943
DON'T FEED THE TROLL

>>8922956
you're the troll

>>8922943
The Criteria for race in humans are often arbitrary and based on looks, making it more a social-political term than a biological one.


If you wanna talk biology talk about genetic populations.

>>8922975
>genetic populations
aka race

>>8922982
Not really. Race is arbitrary, genetic populations is based on genes.

>>8922943
>drumpfy fascists can't into biology
ugh! try again hunny

>>8922988
Oh, silly me. I thought race had something to do with genetics. So when your wife gives birth to a black child even though you're both white, then that... that's just normal. Yeah.

>>8922990
ok what genetically makes a black person black? did a half black person impregnate your wife? if so is that person black?

When I go out and get a tan did I change my race?

>>8922988
Confusing race with culture there. People from different cultures can be of the same race. Still haven't seen an alt-right explanation for that. It seems important, since the whole basis for keeping races separate is the belief that the culture is tied to the race.

>>8922990
Yeah sure, race has its roots in genetics but they are so not well defined it's laughable.

You gonna start measuring someones "jewness" with a pair of calipers on people's noses?

>>8922994
This, and it also works in reverse. Multiple genetic populations within a culture.

>>8922988
you're wrong and ignorant
https://youtu.be/Y1lEPQYQk8s?t=54m4s

>>8922999
Are whites with a below the average IQ non-whites?

>>8922999
I'm not sure how the bell curve discredits anything I said.

>>8923004
are you retarded?
watch the video

>>8923005
watch that part of the video before replying

>>8923007
he LITERALLY says it's a blurry one.

I never said it had absolutely no basis in biology, looks are based on biology. Just that it's on arbitrary expressions of genes rather than the genes themselves.
Also, "Race" has a cultural/national component to it.

Race is a pretty worthless overly politicized term.

Come back to us when you've categorized which genes you must have to be white (or must not) and which to be black, asian, ect...

>>8923016
keep watching moron

>>8922943
So there's 4 races?

>>8923019
>>8923006
this guy is right
/sci/ is retarded morons

>>8923019
I listened to this before and been listening for 10 minutes now. Not sure what you want me to hear.
Caus I'm not hearing anything that disproves me, just a difference of opinions on the value of the term "race".
Even when doing demographic studies (so when you want broad generalizations) you probably want to define your groups a little better than just "Caucasian", "black", "Asian" because a lot of people are gonna have a different idea of who is in those groups.
It might not even be clear for researchers themselves.

>>8922990
>I thought race had something to do with genetics.
Well you thought wrong.

>>8922999
He says in that very podcast that race isn't a good word because it's so ill defined/fuzzy and anthropologists are using the term populations now.

>>8923101
aka race is pleb for genetic populations

They look so different to my eyes!

>>8923103
no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics

>>8922990
Do you consider eastern Europeans, Northern Europeans and Mediterranean Europeans to be different races? After all, they have different genetics and they look different. Are they different races to you?

>>8922994

>People from different cultures can be of the same race. Still haven't seen an alt-right explanation for that.

Brainlet detected.

Explanation is simple, it is supposed to hold only statistically, on average.

Race being real does not mean every black person has to act like a nigger.

>>8923108
yes
find one pleb or brainlet who uses the word genetic population

>>8923103
I'm pretty sure that what the Layman defines as different races is completely different to what anthropologists would consider distinct population groups.

>>8923120
i'm pretty sure no anthropologist considers europeans, africans and asians the same population group

i have no idea which subreddit is raiding /sci/ but nobody was this retarded two years ago

to be clear races are real, this thread is unneeded and the replies are autism

>>8923122
You'd be wrong.

>>8923122
An anthropologist probably wouldn't consider Nigerians, Ethiopians and Congolese to be in the same population group. Same with Scandinavians, Mediterraneans and slavs for that matter. Why aren't they considered different races? The Romans thought they were.

>>8923125
>to be clear races are real
Of course they do. They have no biological meaning or scientific use, but no one disputes that they exist as a concept.

>>8922994
Can you not be a tripfag
Its just easier being anonymous y'know

>>8923125
Define "race" within human population.

>>8923128
prove it redditor
>>8923129
and? they certainly wouldn't lump together ethiopians and scandinavians.

>>8923133
Christ you're obtuse. My point is that your classification of race is way to broad. You lump all Africans together on the "Black" label, yet there's a massive difference between west Africans and East Africans and even within those sub groups there are massive different population.

Your classification is arbitrary and, much more importantly, useless to biologists and anthropologists.

>>8923114
You're missing what I said.

>People from different cultures can be of the same race
Rednecks from the American south are very different from Scotsmen over in the UK. The communism in Venezuela is very different from the liberal democracy of Puerto Rico. If the culture is intrinsically tied to the race, how can different cultures be of predominantly the same race?

>>8923131
:^)

>>8922990
Why do you fags bring your interracial cuckold fantasy into everything?

>>8923138
i'm afraid you are retarded son. how does that prove there's only one race the human race? if anything it shows there are even more subgroups than non-qualified people usually think? how would that invalidate the findings regarding iq differences between races, considering these broader groups don't overlap and are only further broken down into smaller subgroups?
i strongly urge you to consider kys before replying again retard

Read this before posting:
https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14414/do-humans-have-enough-biological-differences-to-be-grouped-into-races-or-subspec

>>8922943
?

There's no point in discussing race because it turns into a flame war, but let's just say all us rational humans know there are distinct divisions

>>8923091
>race has nothing to do with genetics
how do people who unironically hold this position defend it?
denying the existence of race is one thing, but how do you say both that race exists and that it has nothing to do with genetics?

>>8923255
If you'd moved to Africa at a young age you'd be black now.
FACT!

>>8922990
You (a non-scientist) would obviously classify everyone in this picture as being in the 'black' race.

But to an actual geneticist each ethnicity has distinct differences.

>>8923269
I mean, you would actually be quite tanned so that's something

>>8923130
>They have no biological meaning
Thats why the shape of your skull varies by race right?

>>8923255
Race is based primarily on superficial features. If you actually want to classify people based on genetics, race would be a poor way to do so.

>>8923282
Black is a collective grouping not an ethnicity retard.

Black means Sub Saharan African human descent

White means European human descent.

>>8923138
>You lump all Africans together on the "Black" label, yet there's a massive difference between west Africans and East Africans and even within those sub groups there are massive different population.
this argument always baffles me, how is it not obviously fallacious?
all those groups, however different, can still all have something in common that another group does not have

imagine you have a set of things, some of which have property F and some of which do not, so there are subsets {F} and {~F}
then imagine those that have property F are otherwise different, so {F} subdivides into {Fa}, {Fb}, {Fc}, {Fd}, etc.
the argument says that because {F} has many different subdivisions there is no such thing as {F} and no distinction between {F} and {~F}

>>8923312
>>8923313
So you admit that race is a social construct with no scientific grounding

Glad we agree

>>8923016
>"Race" has a cultural/national component to it.
how so?

>>8923318
So thats why the race of a human has to be known before a blood transplant right?

>>8923318
what? that comment bears no relation to what i said here >>8923313

>>8922943

I think we need more attention brought to this.

The man who discovered the double strand helix of DNA has to sell his Nobel Prize because he was called a racist for agreeing that different sub-species of human have different IQ levels.

You can't even acknowledge race anymore without being called a racist.

Yet you can be racist if you're not white.
You can be sexist if you're not a man.

I couldn't even hold a conversation with a 10 year experienced archaeologist/paleontologist. Over the differences in the shape of the Human skull between sub-species of Human.

I'm getting sick of this world.

>>8923311
that doesn't defend the position that it has nothing to do with genetics
it seems pretty clear that the whole idea of race is about something heritable

>>8923282
why can't they all be black even though they are otherwise different?

It's 2017 and we still think those black low IQ subhumans are our equals

>>8923337
Because it wouldn't be a useful classification.

>>8923327
It does have something to do with genetics, but the genetic variations are so insignificant that they only lead to superficial differences, and it's pointless to get so worked up about them.

> whole idea of race is about something heritable

Not really. If race was about something heritable then brunettes and blondes would be different races.

>>8923346
>the genetic variations are so insignificant that they only lead to superficial differences
>brunettes and blondes would be different races.
completely incoherent rambling you should have kys when i told you to

Why is /sci/ scared to talk racial differences and racial IQ?

>>8923184
>how does that prove there's only one race the human race?
I literally never said this. I'm not arguing that different population groups aren't different, I'm arguing your classification system is wrong.

> how would that invalidate the findings regarding iq differences between races¨
This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and is a completely different brand of pseudoscience. Let's stay on topic shall we?Unless of course this whole thing is a ploy to confirm your beliefs, but that's not relevant here either.

>>8923344
how does that imply it isn't real?

>>8923346
If race is not heritable do explain why

Black + Black= Black

>then brunettes and blondes would be different races.
Oh its an idiot that thinks skin color is the only anatomical difference between us and niggers..

>>8923347
Not that guy but if race is based solely on genetics and heritability, why shouldn't I be able to classify people based on hair colour?

God this board is board is full of degenerate libcucks.

>>8923350
>your classification system is wrong.
you've failed to show how it's wrong
>pseudoscience.
wrong. read up on it

>>8923346
>Not really. If race was about something heritable then brunettes and blondes would be different races.
that's so fallacious i think reading it made me dumber
"if race was something heritable then everything heritable would be race"
jesus christ wtf

>>8923360
Its based on like traits seen on a very large level.

>>8923373
>Jew is caucasian
Fuck that list

>>8923377
Caucasoid not Caucasian.

>>8923373
So is it based on skull shapes?
Are Indians/Arabs White?
All I'm asking for is the genetic criteria that defines a "race"

>>8923351
Whether or not it's "real" is completely irrelevant. Money isn't "real" but I can still by a bag of apples on the market. Human tail bones are "real" but they probably wont have a massive effect on my life.

Matter of fact is, "race" isn't a useful classification system for biologists and anthropologists. 'Ethnicity' maybe is better but that's based more on culture.

>>8923384
White is a type of Caucasoid so no Indians are not white.

>>8923326
Strictly, the original and actual meaning of 'racist' (often in the original usage 'racialist') is someone that believes in the existence of race. Ergo, acknowledging race is the literal definition of 'being a racist'.

However, due to racial theory hypothesising that different races, as defined by skin colour or geographic origin (racial theories originating at a time when genetics was unknown, let alone the human genome sequenced), have different inherent behavioural or personality traits and that these traits may be negative, it's easy to see how the usage as 'someone who believes in race' quickly turns into 'someone who believes his race is superior'. I suppose the more precise term for the latter would be 'racial chauvinist', but the nuance has long been lost to time and common usage.

Furthermore, it is fallacious to assume that the person who first discovered a given thing or founded a field is necessarily the foremost expert on that field or in any way infallible. Sigmund Freud founded the concept of psychotherapy, but most of his actual theories have long since been debunked. Christopher Colombus was the first European to discover America, yet he was not the definitive source of knowledge of its geography. Crick and Watson determined that the structure of DNA is a double helix, but that doesn't mean they know all there is to know about genetics, especially with the incredibly rapid rate of discovery in the last few decades.

>>8923356
Explain how whites got white in the first place and when did they start being white.

>>8923388
And what genetic, anatomical, etc. traits makes white people different from other caucasoids?

>>8923351
'Red objects' is a class of definition, but doesn't give any information about the objects within that classification beyond the predominant range of the spectrum of light emission from their surfaces. A fire engine is not like a post box is not like a red supergiant. Similarly the term 'black' doesn't carry any actual specific genetic connotations beyond the level of melatonin present in a person's dermis.

>>8923397
Are you retarded?

You cant facially see the difference between a european or an arab?

>>8923393
Black and White are not equal genetic groupings, all Caucasoids and Mongoloids are still not an equal genetic grouping to blacks because of how ancient blacks are, by all means blacks should be called another species not even a subspecies.

>>8922956
How is it trolling?

I'd be willing to bet there's similar genetic variance between corvids as there are among races.

>>8923402
dense as fuck.
now imagine all red objects could be traced back to missouri and all blue objects to california

>>8923023

5 major groups of race as follows:

Caucasoid
Negroid
Mongoloid
Australoid
Capoid
Congoid

These studies were labeled racist by liberal pussies who want to mix all races and fuck the human race.

>>8923404
Yes, in exactly the same way I can 'see the difference' between these dogs >>8923104 and yet not only are they the same species, but the same breed. Without actual genetic definition your categorisation is meaningless.

>>8923313
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_-Zss2dYuM

>>8923404
I don't care about what you can see. I want a tangible, robust definition of race. All you've done so far is illustrate that people are different. Give me the definition of what constitutes a race according to you.

>>8923413
Dog breeds dont count as they were selectively designed to look different from eachother.

Once again you display how dumb you are by making this silly comparison. You can easily tell a euro from an arab or an indian showing there is a genetic distance between them but they are in the same main race the Caucasoid race.

>>8922992
There are (or at least were) drugs which work much more effectively in black people (see BiDil) . So there are some physiological therefore genetic differences which make blacks more prone to the drug. We are not the same. We are different. And it is not only blacks. E.g. more than 90% of the Asians do not tolerate lactose. We are all humans but there are different races having different "features". The black subspecies - aka race - is the most primitive one and the whites are the most advanced. Whites are superior.

>>8923418
A cluster of like genes over a vast swath of the earth's landmass.

Caucasoids live in West Eurasia while Mongoloids like in East Eurasia along with the Americas.

>>8923405
>Africans are more genetically diverse than the inhabitants of the rest of the world combined
Are all of them black?

>>8923424
Yes, but WHAT ARE THOSE GENES

>>8923282

So you are arguing that race is indeed real, just more complicated than we thought?

Here is what I don't understand. You people say "It's way more complicated than "black", there's a lot of different groups". But then you say "therefore, race is a social construct and everyone is the same".

It makes no sense.

>>8923418

Even if you completely disregard the concept of race, human differences still exist. They don't magically become the same just because humans are bad at classifying themselves.

>>8923419
>You can easily tell a euro from an arab or an indian showing there is a genetic distance between them but they are in the same main race the Caucasoid race.

What is a Caucasoid race? Are we now dropping the terms White and Black? Again, are Arabs/Indians/Europeans now the same race?

this whole thing is just semantics
you don't even think a second about genetics when you see a german shepard next to a labrador and don't make such a fuss about people who call them with two different names, there's no discussion about the precise skull differences between them or the variation in color in their individual groups or what their FST is
it's just plain deconstructionism led by certain motives

>>8923431
YOU'RE definition of race is a social construct.

All we want is for you to make up a definition of race that isn't based arbitrarily and isn't influenced by culture.

>>8923435
If you yourself admit that our classification systems are bad, stop using them.

>>8923326

So let me ask you this, keyboard scientist.
Are you profoundly brilliant in the field? No? Okay.
If so show me what you got.

Different culture doesn't mean you're not of the same race.

We share 99% of the same DNA coding as mice, yet we are not fucking of the same race, let alone species.

I don't give a fuck about a pedo psychology professor. This is not the same field as biology. That was a retarded simile or whatever.

James Watson actually proved something factual with a picture.

You would try to discredit a discovery as great as that, comparing it to Christopher Columbus. Because you're autistic.

If you can't see that people are radically different in our sub-species. You must be retarded enough to think you evolved from a monkey.

>>8923442
>>8923444

But the point is, you can't say "race is a social construct" and claim that human differences DO NOT EXIST. They do. Your logic basically is

A) humans are bad at classifying groups of humans, therefore
B) human differences do not exist and we are all the same

That is your completely invalid argument. Race IS a social construct, invented by humans, BUT human differences are still real.

An Australian, a Taiwanese and a Frenchman are not all the same just because humans don't know how to classify race yet.

What's the point of this classification aside from helping to fuel more hatred?

>>8923393

Explain how the blacks got black in the first place, and when did they start being black?

>>8923385
>Whether or not it's "real" is completely irrelevant.
my question was, how does (1) "it isn't useful to recognize class C" imply (2) "there is no class C"?
since your answer is just that you don't care whether (2) is true, i'm guessing you grant that (1) does not imply (2)?

also
>reality is completely irrelevant
how did science come to this?

>>8923367
I never said that everything heritable would be race. It was only about the specific case of blondes and brunettes.You can see for yourself the variations in both hair color and eye color in different regions of Europe.

What, by the way, was Hitler's definition of a pure Arayan? It was someone with blond hair and blue eyes. What changed? Why are brunettes considered white? If you actually read a book about race for once in your life you would realize that race is a dynamic concept.

>>8923452
He claimed that you can only get black from black. I didn't make a similar claim.

>>8923449
>human differences DO NOT EXIST
Absolutely nobody is saying this, where did you even pull this from? Every single individual has differences

>>8923393
Higher latitudes have lower intensity of sunlight, this weakens vitamin D production so skin becomes lighter and more able to absorb the sunlight.

Fairly simple stuff yo.

>>8923459
And there are differences based on race and ethnicity, it's not a discussion of differences between individuals its a discussion between common differences between ethnic and genetic groups. i.e one group is one colour, another group is another and those are just surface level differences.

>>8923456
Did you seriously use Hitlers bizarre interpretation of race in an actual scientific discussion on race.

Wow.

>>8923402
>doesn't give any information about the objects within that classification beyond the predominant range of the spectrum of light emission from their surfaces.
right, so then that's the class
seems like your example proves my point

>>8923449
Will you stop attacking this strawman? Yes there are SOME crazy liberal types out there who literally think there're no difference between people. However, this is a SCIENCE board, and people who actually care about science, cares about their classifications. Fact of the matter is:

1. Race as a classification system doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.
2. Race has no practical use to scientists.

Humans are different, we know that. What's important to us HOW and WHY they're different. Race in its modern conception, simply isn't helpful in that regard.

>>8923458

But you assume that white people came from black people. With a question like that.

Wrong. Out of Africa theory has enough evidence against it, that its been debunked.

>>8923466
>actual scientific discussion on race.
You want an actual scientific discussion on race? Read some articles and stop getting your information from memes.

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

>>8923463
There are differences between tall and short, skinny or fat, dumb or smart
We're discussing the validity of race as a concept so the statement
>And there are differences based on race
is pointless if you don't even have a rigid definition of race

>>8923456
>I never said that everything heritable would be race. It was only about the specific case of blondes and brunettes.
still totally fallacious
the idea of race is obviously an idea of something heritable, i don't know what could be more obvious than that fact
there's no reason that would specifically imply blondes and brunettes constitute different races

>>8923475
So you think that two separate evolutions happened and ended up with 99.9999% the same result? When I look at the body of people of different races they look exactly the same to me.

>>8923474

Race is entirely helpful to help keep track of all the different sub-species of any organism.

With records, you can treat genetic defects that cause decreases in specific races.

The only people who think race is a bad concept when referring to humans are scared liberals.

>>8923419
>You can easily tell a euro from an arab or an indian
depends on the arab
a lot of syrians, lebanese, north africans, iranians can pass as southern europeans and vice versa
there's significant overlap
now iraqis(and also saudis) and indians for the most part don't have such an overlap and don't have light skin very often - some do
all groups still very similar

so i don't know, i guess those countries are multiracial? - lol

>>8923490
>subspecies
:)

>>8923488
>there's no reason that would specifically imply blondes and brunettes constitute different races

Do the physical differences not imply that they are separate races? Or is race only a thing when it supports your racist beliefs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Evolution_of_blond_hair

>>8923490
I'm not saying a classification system for humans is inherently bad, in fact many scientists are working in it and has been widely helpful in medicine and the study of human evolution.

The classification system that the average layman uses however is bad.

>>8923489

Holy shit, the autism is so prevalent in your DNA.

Ever hear of an Alligator and a Crocodile?

Two orders of the same species. Been "evolving" for million of years.

>>8923480
>a rigid definition of race
how about this

two populations (X and Y) are the same race if you can find a person in population X that looks like a person from population Y and vice versa

race here would be partly genetic (looks are genetic), but it will be a sort of a special case term - just for humans

this way you can identify about 5 races

oh and this definition only works pre colonization era, since now south america is really mixed
>>8923496
and when two brown haired people have a blond kid did they just have a kid of a different race?

>>8923282
No I don't identify them as all black
There's obviously a dark-gray area, a nigger spectrum if you will

>>8923501
They are much less likely to have a blonde kid. It would only happen if both have the recessive gene for blonde hair.

Also a black parent and a white parent could have a white kid. Take, for example, Rashida Jones.

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

>>8923496
calm down man
my claim was just that the idea of race is an idea of something heritable
this is obvious in that every normal person who has the idea thinks you get your race from your line of ancestry, that race is a familial or kinship or bloodline thing
the point in making that trivial observation was to ask how anyone could defend the position that race has nothing to do with genetics
i don't think you hold that position or are interested in seeing how it could be defended anyway so whatever

>>8923501
>two populations (X and Y) are the same race if you can find a person in population X that looks like a person from population Y and vice versa
Okay

>this way you can identify about 5 races
[citation needed]

>>8923490

>The only people who think race is a bad concept when referring to humans are scared liberals.

And people who want to dehumanize other groups.

>>8923505
Not that guy
>Africans are more genetically diverse than the inhabitants of the rest of the world combined
Doesn't this mean they're the ones who should have more race definitions between them or do I understand this wrong?

>>8923429
Yes.
>>8923438
Caucasoid is the main race all West Eurasians are under, ever notice west eurasians look very similar to eachother.

I already told you European is a type of Caucasoid.
>>8923492
Only retards cant tell a euro from a middle easterner.
>hurr they have white skin so they are white guys

No, pale skin is a trait that evolved independently in different human breeds.

>>8923496
Only a minority of euros even have blonde hair you retard,if all euros had blonde hair that would indicate a completely different hair follicle set of genetics indicating genetic distance.

>>8923512
>muh morals
Fuck off.

>>8923520

Not talking about morals.

>>8923514

>>8923497
why wouldn't the result of such a classification just be a system of races?
can the theory that races exist only be correct if the races that exist are the familiar ones like white, black, asian, etc.?

>>8923501

You don't understand the workings of DNA.
Two people can look completely alike and have will different DNA. Yet, if you could x-ray the DNA strands of both and look at them closely you will see a huge similarity in a minute part of the structure that is COMPLETELY identical to anyone related to him. Eventually you get a mix of genes from recessive and dominant pool of every ancestor. This isn't a new species of a new race. Its a mixed race, holding the DNA of the different races.

I think if all the races mixed together, everyone would still be different in skin and hair color, IQ, structural DNA. We would still have whites, blacks, browns, gooks, and retards.

Is a person with down syndrome a different race?

In my eyes, yes and no. A mutational defect that results in a radically different human. Yet holds the same DNA of his race.

I feel like I'm being a douche in the tone of my wording. Sorry bro.

>>8923501
>race here would be partly genetic (looks are genetic), but it will be a sort of a special case term - just for humans

So race is just looks. You're not helping your case. All you've done is passively admit that there is no biological criteria that defines race beyond the superficial that is consistent
>>8923514
>Yes.
So do you consider East Africans with Caucasoid skulls black too?

>>8923480
>your statements are pointless if you can't rigidly define your terms
welp, there goes most language use

how do these naive hyper-positivists even function?

>>8923522
Morals are the only reason you associate dehumanization as a bad thing.
>>8923535
No they are niggers, Caucasoids end in the northern most part of Africa from then on is just niggers.

>>8923529

>>8923530
>why wouldn't the result of such a classification just be a system of races?
Well technically I guess it would be but it's not gonna be anything like anyone's understanding of race today.

>>8923530

In all honesty I believe we haven't found all the races yet.

OR

That we in fact probably made them go extinct.

>>8923529
That clearly a middle eastern person.

>>8923514
>Yes.
I don't agree
>Observations consistent with this are that Africa contains the most human genetic diversity anywhere on Earth
>Sub-Saharan Africa has the most human genetic diversity and the same has been shown to hold true for phenotypic diversity.

>>8923547
And?

>>8923543
is a uk reporter who 'wore a hijab for a day'

god i wish muslim women would scrap the hijab

>>8923545

No way, she's gotta be a hot Indian.

(the dot kind, not feather)

>>8923545
>>8923552
it's sicilian
a sicilian girl from taormina, ca 1900 wilhelm von gloeden

>>8923555
Well some south euros do have middle eastern admixture so they tend to look close to them.

>>8923540

I associate dehumanization as bad because I'm a normal functional member of my species.

>>8923555

For real! Only in Nationality then, cause my whole family on my Mom's side is from Sicily.

>>8923540
>No they are niggers, Caucasoids end in the northern most part of Africa from then on is just niggers.

So it's just what you see again, nothing to do with skulls or anything consistent as your groupings crumble after a little poking. This is why your flimsy notion of race goes out the window when it comes to science

>>8923535
but even if racial differences were superficial, that would not make them non-existent
your position is basically that race doesn't track other properties that we care about
but if i have a bunch of arbitrary different objects on my table, that doesn't mean there is no such thing as being on my table, even if it does mean that being on my table is not a deep property or useful for much classification
arguing against the importance of race is not arguing against the existence of race

also, if you only admit properties that track other properties you care about, then you have a regress problem

sicilians are too hard to guess

let me post something else - this one should be easy

no google image search though

>>8923559
Thats moral reasoning stupid faggot.
>>8923563
Id say that east africans particularly in Ethiopia and Eritrea are the remnants of an unknown race in Africa that got raped into niggerhood by the Congoids from Sub Saharan Africa. However the humans in Kenya are niggers.

Also your a retard, the Capoids also have flat faces yet are not Caucasoids either.

If you deny that there are cranial (aka the fucking skull) differences in races of Human.

You are either:
A. Blind as fuck
B. Dumb as fuck
C. Ignorant as fuck

>>8923571
>Thats moral reasoning stupid faggot.

And dehumanizing someone isn't a moral reasoning?

is this girl white

>>8923567
Indian?
>>8923576
No dehumanizing someone is not moral reasoning, why would someone moral dehumanize a person.

Anyway shut up with your moralfaggotry.

>>8923550
How can be categorized as one race if there is more genetic diversity between them?

>>8923567

Clearly middle eastern. Look at those eyes!

>>8923583
Because they are a genetically isolated group anon.

>>8923572
I.e. no one in this thread.

>>8923579

>No dehumanizing someone is not moral reasoning, why would someone moral dehumanize a person.

So how do you rationalize dehumanization of a member of your species?

>>8922988
>Race is arbitrary
This science denialism has to stop.
We are already at a point where people are claiming more then 2 genders exist (something ridiculous and anti-scientific beyond belief).

But if you have clear differences between a group of people which are genetically inherited then these can (by definition) not be arbitrary.

This is like claiming being born with 2 legs is arbitrary and not the results of the human genes.

>>8923576
Oooh, i havet read this conversation but that sounds like some serious reasoning right there.

>>8923579
>Indian?
wrong

she's a famous lebanese woman - clooney's wife
>>8923584
correct answer

wrong reasoning >>8923578

You are guessing my friends

what about this one

no google images, again

>>8923592
Do you consider Indians and middle easterners to be white?

>>8923591
Why would I need to rationalize it? The facts are the blacks and australoids are primitive human breeds who are basically not human psychologically compared to Eurasians.
>>8923594
Well I knew she was middle eastern probably.

>>8923594

Ahhg. That is hard.

The nose says Caucasian, but the rest tells me closer to India.

Indian? Or somewhere close to it?

>>8923594
Is she Afghan?

posting cute girls is fun

this one just for fun
>>8923598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Vikander

Vikander was born in Gothenburg, the daughter of Maria Fahl Vikander, a stage actor, and Svante Vikander, a psychiatrist. Her parents are from small villages in the north and south of Sweden, respectively.

she;s nordic

>>8923592
Are Swedes the same race as Portuguese people? You can usually notice they're different.

>>8923602
Same subrace meaning they are all white.

>>8923597

>The only people who think race is a bad concept when referring to humans are scared liberals.

>The facts are the blacks and australoids are primitive human breeds who are basically not human psychologically compared to Eurasians.

So you consider race as a bad concept. Are you a scared liberal or what?

>>8923606
But what puts them into the same subrace? Are finns in the same subrace? Some of them even look Asian.

>>8923514
Ive seen many middle easterners here who could pass as european

>>8923609

Who is considering it a bad concept, and who is scared?

These are two different people you greentexted btw.

>>8923616

Middle easterners are just Caucasiod Mongolians.

>>8923609
>So you consider race as a bad concept
What?
>>8923616
Yes because you are in the same main race but middle easterners in general have distinct faces apart from Euros.
>>8923611
They all come from the same ancestral group in the Caucacus regions.

>>8923617

I don't think anyone is scared. Both are considering it in a negative concept but form different perspectives. The other party doesn't seem to agree with this it seems.

>>8923620
>Mongolians
No they would have slightly slanted eyes if they were Mongolian.

>>8923623

What?

I'm so confused.

They are in favor of the race concept. The greentext.

>>8923624

So why do Native Americans have wide eyes?

They got even wider when the Spanish fucked the shit out of those brown people and now we have the cestpool that is South America.

>>8923630
>So why do Native Americans have wide eyes?
Random genetic mutations accumulating, besides the natives in Central and South America literally look like orange skinned Mongoloids.

>>8923596
Do you claim there are no VERY distinct differences between the average Indian and European?

Obviously nationality is an awful measure for races so the your question makes little sense, someone whos ancestors lived in Europe for thousands of years can become an Indian which is obviously completely unrelated to his facial structure skin-color etc.

>>8923602
I dont care where exactly you draw the line and as I argued above the definition of race on the basis of nationality is not exactly a great Idea.
But in general it is notable that swedes in Portuguese are more similar then swedes and aboriginals or Portuguese and aboriginals.

It is a matter of fact that there are racial differences between certain groups of people which can be objectively measured.

>>8923636
>I dont care where exactly you draw the line

>>8923632

Interesting. I just googled images of those natives.
No doubt they are Mongoloids.

What are Middle Easterners then though? Did I miss a post?

What do you think at least?

>>8923637
Obviously I don't.

"White people" is an ill defined concept, because it gives no objective measure to judge whether a person is whit or not.

Where as something like "person who's ancestors lived for many generations in Europe" is a very clearly defined term and at least in principle (although not always in practice ) verify able.

Just like the definition of "metre" or "foot" was chosen based on a few practical considerations, they could have been easily replaced by other definitions. This doesn't mean that the concept of distance isn't real though.

>>8923654
>person who's ancestors lived for many generations in Europe

India confirmed to be white
Neanderthals confirmed to be white

>>8923654
>"White people" is an ill defined concept, because it gives no objective measure to judge whether a person is whit or not.
>Where as something like "person who's ancestors lived for many generations in Europe" is a very clearly defined term and at least in principle (although not always in practice ) verify able.
let me translate that - just enough generations for the bad guys to not be white
no, what you are talking about is a definition of 'european' not a definition of 'white'

your analogy is stupid and it defeats your own point of view
meter and foot are different names for the same thing - distance

this is why analogies are retarded and there's no real need to use them

>>8923659
Are you fucking retarded?

I was clearly trying to avoid calling anyone white. That was the whole point...

>>8923663
>just enough generations for the bad guys to not be white
Who are the bad guys? I dont really get what you are talking about...
> what you are talking about is a definition of 'european' not a definition of 'white'
Exactly. That was the point. I was arguing that basing racial differences on a person being "white" or not is a retarded Idea because the concept is ill defined and the defining race by looking at ancestry is a more objective measure.

We gooks are in far greater numbers than you other useless slave races.

One day we shall rule the wrold.

Ching chong CHOI!!

>>8923680
>The west still in the process of banning abortion for ethical reasons
>Meanwhile China already has 2 CISCO babbies

Fuuuuck I wish I was born a super-chink

>>8923680
t. cok smao

anyways, are indoneisans east asian
are philipenis people east asian

>>8923654
White is a brainlet term, the correct term is North West Eurasian Caucasoid.

>>8923687
no

it's homo caucausoidus euarsianus occidentus boreanus

let's be scientific here

>>8923687
That's fairly confusing. Europe doesn't have a North West, unless you count Iceland.

If under the latitude of Norway and Sweden, France and Germany are Northern Europe.

>>8923695
are you questioning northid westid europoid caucasoid masterrace

>>8923684

You will reincarnate as a mighty gook if you worship us in this life. Don't give your free will to the Lord when you enter Saturn.

>>8923686

Indo's are disgusting muslim fucks, they will be punished soon for follow the white mans religion.

Philipenis people are our own sex slave capital, where you can fuck anything and everything. We first race to make lady boys for fuckings.

>>8923694
If you want to get taxonomic then you have to define the groupings before NWECs.
>>8923695
North West EURASIA not Europe, the entire continent Eurasia.

North African Caucasoid
North West Eurasian Caucasoid(Europeans, Russians)
South Central Eurasian Caucasoid(Indians, and Pakis)
South West Eurasian Caucasoid(Middle easterners)
Central Eurasian Caucasoid(Turkmenistanis, and Afghans)

North East Eurasian Mongoloid
South Central East Eurasian Mongoloid
South South East Eurasian Mongoloid
North American Mongoloid
South American Mongoloid

North African Congoid
West African Congoid
East African Congoid

Australian Australoid
Indonesipapuan Australoid
Phillipine Australoid
Indian Australoid

>>8923702
afghans and persians are iranian peoples
i'm not sure you know that
afghans are very different from turkmens

>>8923702
>>8923703
>>8923705


There you go buddy!!

All these different subspecies of one genus.

Its amazing we can't study them without being called racist.

Imagine the eugenic programs we could make to bring out the best traits of all humanity into one being.

It could be astounding.

>>8923709
Iranian is an ethnic division not a subrace.

>>8923711
>subspecies
don't make him post it

i am 60% sure it's him, just don't do it

>>8923713

Post what?

>>8923719
the sub and subsub and subsubsubspecies of Man

a guy in one of these threads started posting some original research

>>8923711
No those are subraces, there are only five main races but depending how you define blacks then the negro group is another subspecies from Eurasians entirely.

Capoids are a subspecies since they are the most ancient humans on earth predating even the congoids of Africa

binomial naming fails if applied to humans.

>>8923726

Im not too educated on the matter, I want to learn though.
Could you define Subrace, and Subspecies?

Also are you saying that Nergroids are actually a species that came from Mongoloids (or Eurasains if those are the same?)

But Capoids are the most ancient subspecies?

I think knowing what subrace and subspecies is will help me here.

>>8923712
whatever it is, afghans and persians belong to the same thing

pashtun, tajiks, hazars living in afghanistan and are a vast majority of the people there, kurds, persians are basically the same people

>>8923732
Humans are already a subspecies since a subspecies of humans existed in 170,000 B.C thats now extinct.

>>8923407
nah, crows are all smart

>>8923737

Ahhh such as Neanderthals? Whoms DNA is still present in some Humans.

>>8923740
No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu

>>8923747

What the fuck. That is crazy.
I'm beginning to understand now.
You've convinced me we are all the same subspecies. I'll stop using that term.

So most humans are actually the subspecies of Homo Sapiens.

Capoids are a different one all together though? Not a subrace? That is extremely interesting.

>>8923737
but what is a nigger

>>8923764
A main race but they would be under a different order of human sub sub species.

>>8923492
>Arabs can look European
>Posts a picture of obvious not european girl

This is literally the same as saying all asians look the same holy shit.

>>8923512
How is classifying people according to their genetic and ethnic heritage dehumanising? Dehumanising people is dehumanising, understanding archetypes and differences isn't.

>>8923839
you mean to tell me you'd be able to tell that this girl is an albino from pakistan

>>8923852

>How is classifying people according to their genetic and ethnic heritage dehumanising?

It's not and I didn't try to claim that. It's using those methods to make certain groups seem less human so hatred towards them can be justified.

After reading this thread I need help filling in the gaps

So
Homo sapiens -> subspecies - > race then/or ethnicity->?->?

So modern humans are all the same subspecies of Homo sapiens, what then scientifically divides us next? Is it race?

>>8922943
I believe the birds are considered a "ring species". Meaning that only some of them can interbreed effectively or that each bird can only interbreed effectively with certain other birds, not with each bird presented. Also, behavioral characteristics rarely determine species, unless it stops them from breeding, which the little graphic indicates it may not.
Humans on the other hand can breed and produce fertile offspring with any other human of the opposite gender given both are sexually able to do so. In other words, humans are not a ring species.

While it is understandable that no single definition for a species is unanimously accepted, this is the most widely held one.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species

>>8923255
>how do people who unironically hold this position defend it?
Because it's true. There are no genetic markers for what we consider race.

>>8922943
Believing phenotypic and thus genetic variance only includes directly and easily observable characteristics on pictures of animals on the internet.
kys

>>8924161
Is that why races can be divided into genetic clusters?

>>8923986
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867623/
>Conclusions
>Mixed race black and white couples face higher odds of prematurity and low birth weight, which appear to contribute to the substantially higher demonstrated risk for stillbirth. There are likely additional unmeasured factors that influence birth outcomes for mixed race couples.

>>8924265
>Black/black couples had the highest level of risk (OR 2.11, CI 1.77-2.51), followed by black mother/white father couples (OR 2.01, CI 1.16-3.48), and white mother/black father couples (OR 1.84, CI 1.33-2.54). Virtually all of the higher risk of fetal death was explainable by higher rates of low birth weight and prematurity.

>Black/black has highest risk
>mixing black and white lowers the risk from that of black/black but higher than white/white
hmm, really makes one ponder

>>8924277
>hmm, really makes one ponder
it really does

from your study

>This analysis builds on our understanding of stillbirth in mixed race couples by demonstrating birth weight and gestational age as potential mediators related to the risk of stillbirth. The risks did not dissipate even when we controlled for multiple social and biological risk factors, raising questions about how these variables impact mixed race partnerships and adverse birth outcomes. Our findings reframe concerns about stillbirth for prospective mixed race/ethnicity parents by underscoring that the risk factor is not skin color per se but is related to risks for low birth weight and prematurity, particularly among black women.

and again, from your study
>The perinatal mortality rate among black women has been consistently higher than that of white women over time. Despite an encouraging drop in fetal deaths over the last few decades for all races, there has been more improvement in birth outcomes for whites than for blacks. In 1981, black infants had approximately twice the risk of fetal and infant death as white infants; by 2003, the risk for non-Hispanic black mothers was 2.34 that of non-Hispanic whites.20,21 Although some of this difference appears to be related to differences in maternal health, infection, use of prenatal care, and socioeconomic factors, the etiologies are not entirely understood.20,22 Stress in the maternal environment, including that caused by racism, may play a role in the increased morbidity and mortality in birth outcomes for black mothers.23,24

oh man

>>8924282
What's your point exactly? That white women are better for carrying babies among the American population than black women? That having a black father increases odds of the child being miscarried or having low birth weight? That black/black has the worst odds? If you were trying to imply the data suggests an overall incompatibility I simply don't see it, considering that fertile offspring are produced. What I do see is that black Americans are significantly less healthy than white Americans, and seem to have more genetic issues than Africans (like diabetes and heart disease).

>>8924277
see table 2 in the study. Once they adjust for
>demographic factors
>social
>biological
>genetic/congenital risk factors
>procedures
>birth weight
>gestational age

Risk of Stillbirth:
White mother/white father-1
Black mother/black father-1.04
White mother/black father 1.35
Black mother/white father 1.38

>>8924282
>>8924297
You both missed the important part:
>Although some of this difference appears to be related to differences in maternal health, infection, use of prenatal care, and socioeconomic factors, the etiologies are not entirely understood.20,22Stress in the maternal environment, including that caused by racism, may play a role in the increased morbidity and mortality in birth outcomes for black mothers.23,24
>As with any retrospective study, we were able to identify correlations but not causation. Validity of the data is, or course, dependent on statistics reported on the state birth or fetal death certificate. Other confounders not available in this dataset might help better explain differences in birth outcomes, for example, income, marital status, social support, obesity, sickle cell disease/trait, risky behaviors, or exposure to life stressors.

>>8924297
>Although some of this difference appears to be related to differences in maternal health, infection, use of prenatal care, and socioeconomic factors, the etiologies are not entirely understood.

>If you were trying to imply the data suggests an overall incompatibility
the opposite, obviously from the quotes
>>8924303
White mother/black father 1.35 (0.92-1.98)
Black mother/white father 1.38 (0.76-2.50)

meaning not statistically significant and compatible with the null hypothesis
you need 1 not to be in the confidence interval for something to be statistically significant

this is basic statistics

>>8924303
Oh fug, I missed that.

>>8924311
It seems like they also had to exclude a lot of data from their study as well. I wonder if there are any kinds of statistical trends in the populations of people who do race mix, like drug habits or alcohol abuse.

>>8924315
yeah
>. The full California dataset had a stillbirth rate of 5.7/1000 live births; after we limited the data as described, we had a stillbirth rate of 1.1/1000 live births, primarily because 80% of stillbirths had missing data on mother or father's race and were, therefore, excluded from our analysis. Our full multivariable regression model excluded subjects missing data for any variable, leaving 1.42 million cases.

80% of stillbirths had no race of parents

jesus fuck, that's no good, why can't california keep records

>>8924321
I wonder how many of those women accidentally fell down the stairs.

>>8923361
you were so enraged when typing that

>>8922994
>>8923146

I'd like an answer to this one, too.

I want /pol/ to go.

>>8924720
>Rednecks from the American south are very different from Scotsmen over in the UK.
>The communism in Venezuela is very different from the liberal democracy of Puerto Rico.
He used pretty bad examples desu. They actually hurt his argument than help. If you look at the "Scotch-Irish" (Ulster Scots) that migrated to the Americas and stayed relatively isolated genetically by not mixing with anglos and other groups (Appalachia), you have groups form the states and the british isles that actually do share a lot of similarities in music, food, dance, language and even genetic problems (diabetes). There's a reason why in the Americas, the southern mountains are known for it's whiskey and the mid-west is know for it's beer.

From what I can tell, Venezuelans have quite a different genetic admix compared to Puerto Ricans and even compared to their border countries, Venezuelans are genetically different. It would be much more accurate to compare Puerto Rico to the Dominican Republic which would then bring you to comparing DR to Haiti and why Haiti struggles with so many difficulties while DR does not.

>>8924779
I want you science denying leftists to leave too.

>>8923383
>Judaism is a race
zozzle

>>8922943
Debunk isn't a word, you're illiterate, your argument is invalid.

>>8925613
if debunk is not a word why is it in every dictionary?

Negroid

>>8922943
Race is based on things other than skin color, in that sense it is arbitrary in its current usage, but race definitely exists in a biological level. The issue with using skin color is that groups of skin colors are often apart of different genetic races. For example iirc East Africans are very different from West Africans yet they are considered to both be black race which doesn't make sense.

>>8922943
<- Same species... ...Not even subspecies.

When people say races aren't real what do they mean?

Do they mean that Caucasoids, Negroids, Mongoloids and Australoids aren't real? Or do they just have a problem with black/white/brown/asian etc?

European (White) Caucasoid

>>8925428
The consensus between real scientists is against /pol/

Mongloid

>>8923474
>I can't into Lewotin's Fallacy

>>8922990
ok that makes me feel better that that's possible

>>8923112
Not him, but I think races/ethnicities are a spectrum and not a defined set of categories. Let's say a 100% pure blood Chinese breeds with an Abo, what's the result ? It's half both.

>>8923513
>Doesn't this mean they're the ones who should have more race definitions between them
But they do, and there are many wars, and even genocides based on this. Look it up.

>>8923540
>North Africa is caucasoid
Nigger we have Arab (Middle Eastern), Nigger (Sub-Saharan) and Euro genes. Not everyone here has the same proportions of these, which makes for different sub ethnicities among N Africans. Some tribes in Morocco ("Rif") have the whitest, palest people on Earth, they're even whiter than 90% of French people; others have way too much sub-Saharan genes to be considered Caucasoid. And that's just the example of North Africa.
>Arabian Peninsula is Caucasoid
>FUCKING INDIA is Caucasoid
>Finniggers aren't Mongoloid
Races are retarded as a concept or even a representative tool; genetic populations/ethnicities is where it's at.

>>8923551
god I wish Slav preteens would stop wearing watches

>your turn

>>8923594
>>8923601
she looks British/French as fuck
reminds me of Nathalie Portman, Keira Knightley, Emma Watson, Marion Cotillard, Eva Green etc. kind of bitches.

alright guess this one

>>8922943
political correctness beats science

>>8926844
she can be anything between the UK and iran
but she looks mostly european, is she greek

also the girls you've listed are best sluts, no doubt about that

>>8927184
I find them all disgusting desu

>>8922943
>Debunk this
What do you mean by "this", Peasant?

Daily reminder niggers have more fast twitch muscle fibers than any other race.

Thats a soft tissue gennetic difference based on race alone so thats proof race is real stupid faggots.

>>8923422
>The black subspecies - aka race - is the most primitive one and the whites are the most advanced.
Way to go from reasonable to >>>/pol/ in one sentence. Also
>whites are more advanced than Japs

>>8927341
>whites are more advanced than Japs
Who built the atomic bomb?

That's what I though you weeabo piece of shit.

It seems, from both anthropoids and ursidae, that the definition of species needs to lose the fertile offspring clause.
Grolar bears are fertile with other Grolars, polars (U. maritimus), or grizzlies (U. arctos)

>>8922943
i have really struggled with whether and how to respond to this. The execution of this message was very nice and respectful, and I genuinely appreciate that. The premise, however, is problematic. Maybe not inherently, but within the context of the sexist society we live in. Men are allowed, and often feel compelled, to think out loud at women, to share unsolicited not necessarily informed thoughts at women. (And usually these men, unlike you, don’t even seem to recognize that their thoughts may not be useful.) Women on the other hand aren’t allowed to be as open. So, if you want to not just be respectful, but actually be anti-oppression, it is better (IMO) not to respond to a woman’s work with the types of thoughts that other men pawn off as insights, if you know what i mean. again, i appreciate your honesty, but i feel obligated to point these things out.

>>8922996
>mental gymnastics olympics finalist

>>8923037
libtards have to take things so literally NO MATTER WHAT IS SAID.

This is a common debate tactic for liberals and women.

If you make a statement, and aren't ridiculously specific, they will tear it apart based on your supposedly "vague" wording. They will pretend that they can't comprehend your specific implication, or read between lines, or draw the most obvious conclusion, solely so they can argue back with something - anything.

You: "BET doesn't appeal to me."
Them: "OMG You just said black people shouldn't be in movies and music!"

This shit is really old and tired. They do it CONSTANTLY and it's one of the reasons that Trump won. They are impossible to hold conversation or debate with because they deny that they can have basic perception skills.

People are sick of it. We're all called racists, homophobes, and sexists solely because of this one tactic they use of pretending to not understand what you're saying. They know damn well what's going on, but it's the only way they can push their extremist viewpoints - by making you EQUALLY extreme.

>>8923346
>superficial
>dark skinned races create less vitamin d than lighter skinned races per hour of sun exposure

vitamin d is used in everything in the body, not just bones. it's important to make sure that people are taking measures to ensure they are synthesising the optimal amount of vitamin d for their personal situation, including skin colour

>>8922993
>implying the only difference is melanin content

>>8923028
Straight /sci/ bros tend to lack really flexible thinking. This is why liberal arts majors tend to make much better programmers.

>>8922943
IQ is real and niggers are dumb

Now fuck off to your containment board.

You should be required to show proof of a 130+ IQ, in order to post on this board. Brainlets need to be culled

>>8923282
>putting an Amhara in a collage of niggers

Seriously?

>>8923282
False choice, all are black and yet are distinct ethnicities. Not difficult.

Daily reminder that the person who spams these threads is a Greek olivenigger who isn't even White

>>8923513
the naturals are less useful than the reals

>>8923016
No one has done that for garter snakes. Anything weird between major populations are just called intergrades.

>>8922943
The birds probably have Fst values of 0.3 or greater.

Humans have Fst values below 0.16.

Debunked.

>>8925684
This "fallacy" is not real. Lewotin's findings are repeatable and verifiable. That's how science works. If you don't believe it, go get DNA from thousands of people from around the world and do the tests yourself. That's what science is. It's a process. It's not a list of facts you can "debunk" with names of rhetorical arguments you learned in highschool.

The person that criticized Lewontin said that race was still a valid concept, even despite that data. He is, of course, wrong. Just because you have one person that doesn't like the results, and 99 other researchers that accept the results doesn't mean the results are wrong just because it hurts your feelings.

>>8927683
All Europeans are white.

>>8927748
Most South Americans are more European than native now. Are they white?

>>8923492
Well, that's because Arabs, Syrians, Indians, Europeans, etc., are from the same race, broadly speaking : the causasoid race as Coon defines it. Ofc the 5 major races can be divided into several sub populations whose genetic differences are large : whites, Semites, Indo-ayrians, etc. And these sub populations can also be divided into sub sub populations whose genetic differences are easily spottable, but less significant as they don't match with deep changes in features such as intelligence : Mediterranean, Alpine, Nordic, etc.

>>8927748
> Greek shitskin detected

>>8922989
>hunny
>>HUN
>>>HON

That's all you're ever going to be, you degenerate; now hop along back to >>>reddit

>>8927749
>Most South Americans are more European than native now.

This it's a meme and doesn't holds up to scrutiny, maybe most south americans that participate in genetic studies have enough european admixture but the actual population of the countries aren't, in that regard argentina ain't white and so on.

This it's important cause no one considers amerindians to be blacks or aboriginals or they use them for the retarded macros like the one in OP.

Genetically they are the same as Japanese people considering that they also come from the same haplogroup, but no one would claim that they look the same, therefore they feel the need for a classification that ignores actual facts.

>>8927781
> now hop along back to >>>reddit
Sure thing - when you slither back into /pol/.

>>8922943
You can't. There are different subspecies of humans. Deal with it, faggot.

>>8927738
>I'm a fucking idiot

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2460058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049837

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871

Gene pressure turns mixed race descendants white (when living in the north) after a while
can't see that in corvids

>>8928134
If you wanted people to stop posting, why did you bump this up to page 1 again?

The /pol/tard racebait troll doesn't want to argue facts or publications. He just wants to see "hurr durr niggers muh brain" on page 1.

My hypothesis is that he was either cucked by a black bull, raped in prison, or really has nothing better to do with his life.

We're all distinct subspecies of Homo Sapiens. We can't call it that for political reasons today, but it's true. We're like tigers. There are around a half dozen subspecies of Panthera Tigris, from Sumatran tigers not much larger than leopards to monster Siberian tigers that are 800 lbs and 14 feet long. There is a wide variety of markings, coloration and size among tigers, but those variations are naturally isolated to distinct regions.

The same applies to humans. There had been migration and interviewing, but for the most part the various "races" are from distinct regions.

Humans from Northern Europe evolved adaptations to deal with Ice Age Europe. They're stockier than Sub Saharan Africans with finer hair which is better at trapping heat. Pale eyes give them better night vision. Pale skin allows them to absorb more UV light to convert into vitamin D during short winter days.

From a mental standpoint, intense competition for land and resources has given some ethnicities more intelligence, inventiveness or aggressivity to outcompete other groups for resources. We are no different from animals.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/culture-etched-onto-our-dna-more-than-previously-known-research-says/
>Culture etched on our DNA more than previously known, research suggests

>>8928332
The mutation that made most of europe white literally only happened 7000 years ago because of immigrants, the allele that causes whiteness was so desirable that it whitened people with gene pressure. Nice try kid, but that's after the ice age(or at the very very end of it). Other than that there is next to no reason to suggest that races can't have the intelligence improving alleles that other races have. It is true that there are populations inherently dumber than others but there are no skin colors that make you inherently dumber. Also human intelligence is mostly social intelligence, and all populations have social cooperation so there is no reason why any would be dumber other than random mutations that they missed.

>>8927749
Yes they are white since they came from white people Portuguese and Spaniards.

>>8928332
>truth about race
this chart has been debunked over and over and still gets posted

the genes in grey don't actually do what it says there, and yes races do have more variation within than between - that's what the Fst is for

calling something you don't understand a fallacy doesn't make it a fallacy.

>>8928380
>Also human intelligence is mostly social intelligence, and all populations have social cooperation so there is no reason why any would be dumber other than random mutations that they missed.

Other than, you know, almost every scientific study about the subject, and common sense.

Human intelligence up to 75% inheritible
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html

Human intelligence is highly heritable.
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html

Scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305

Very poor Whites are comparably intelligent to very wealthy blacks.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001

The average African IQ is estimated at 79.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741

The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average White IQ of 100.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

The white-black gap in SAT scores, a proxy for IQ, is increasing.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

>hhhuuuurrrr evolution stops at the neck
>but based black men are good at running because of their superior genetics!

This is /sci/ as in "science", not "science fiction". /lit/ exists if you want that.

>>8928397
>this chart has been debunked over and over and still gets posted

Go ahead and do it then.

>>8928428

Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115040765329081636

Intelligence has at least a 40-50% genetic basis.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/news/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809

IQ scores are the best predictor of success in Western society.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

IQ is 75% heritable among Whites.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

France's IQ drops 4 points per decade because of African immigration
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001221

>>8928428
>>8928430
>heritability
This meme needs to stop. Or they need to change the terminology. Because it doesn't mean what laymen think it means.

>>8928437
>Intelligence is not genetic
>says this on a board that proves that wrong everyday since its full of lazy assholes who still get straight As.

>>8928443
>nurture=! effort

>>8925637
Dictionaries are written by illiterates.

>>8927790
At least pol can spell honey

>>8922943
this entire picture is nearly a coincidence.

we are all equal goy-i mean bro.

>>8922943
The modern races were conceived by Spaniards in order to justify slavery and have no bearing on scientific reality.