/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9378832

I wonder where OP could be going with this one

>>9378832
The only thing we know about races is that Amerindians are superior to europeans. How is this hard to get?

>>9378832
All the same species. All dogs can breed with each other.
But they've been selected by humans for the roles they play.

Border collies herd sheep. Dogs are descended from wolves; carnivores who'd love to eat a sheep. Generation after generation, any border collie which attacked a sheep was killed. And its siblings and parents and other relatives were killed. Unwanted genes were gradually edited out.

Pit bulls were bred for fighting, for savagery. You know the saying, "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." Bloodlust, ferocity, and "forget everything else but killing" were wanted. Dogs which didn't have it were either killed, neutered, or simply died in the arena.

>>9378832
Only a true moron would compare the selective breeding of dogs to the evolution of humans. I hope for your sake that that's not you, otherwise you have a very difficult life ahead of you with such a low IQ.

>>9378832
That's racist!

>>9378917
>m-m-muh artificial selection
This, boys and girls, is called "clutching at straws".

>>9378991
Not an argument.

>>9378832
The only thing I know is that Chihuahuas are annoying and mixed dogs are all retarded

>>9378917
You must be a low IQ moron to make the claim that it is stupid to compare selective breeding of dogs to the evolution of humans

The selective breeding of dogs had far more intensive selection pressures than the selection pressures that took place over human evolution.

This is a true statement that contains a comparison. I have just compared the selective breeding of dogs to the evolution of humans.

How does it feel to be wrong, stupid fucking retard?

>>9378994
Yes, your post wasn't an argument.

>>9378893
also this

>>9378832
take this shit elsewhere

>>9379043
>still no arguments
Haha

>>9379037
What an embarrassing post.

>>9378832
Isn't it funny how some races can be classified as "pro-science" and some as "anti-science", and this classification is robust over the generations?

>>9379043
Not for low-IQ people who have a difficult time making simple deductions, no.

>>9379079
>pennies for the hungry
>hungry
Who is she trying to fool?

>>9379076
>get completely owned and exposed as a retard
>y-y-you're embarrassing

Good one, tardo

>>9379075
>>9379084
Stop samefagging brainlet.

>A species is commonly defined as the largest group within which interbreeding produces viable offspring.
>A sub-species is a subgroup below the level of a species.
>One definition is a group which can interbreed successfully with other subspecies, but does not do so in practice (e.g. due to geographical isolation).

Think about this for two seconds and apply it to different species.

>>9378832
Because they were bred for specific traits and perpetuated among generations until inbred, half-functional cosmetic props were produced. The reason a pitbull is more aggressive than a pug on average is due to the fact that they were bred specifically for a certain behavior and even a certain mode of attack (their jaws are large and wide, they have strong supporting neck muscles to facilitate their particular bite strategy, and they have low enough intelligence to have 0 inhibitions regarding violence). Pugs were bred for cosmetics, and because of this are less functional than a normal dog.
>>9379037
Humans were 'natural' while dogs were 'artificial' and were largely bred for specific stuff that nature would not normally require of them. A comparison is not entirely accurate, but the distributions of wildly different traits within one species is relevant when discussing humans.
It could be argued that the races are sub-species, but I don't mean this in racist context. They simply exhibit things consistent with the current definition of subspecies (they can still interbreed but due to population and environment they changed dramatically). If naturally occurring and separate enough, maybe dogs would be defined as such

Can you really call it "temper"? We don't know if the dogs are actually angry, it's more like "proneness to attack". Are dogs even capable of feeling anger?

>>9379253
>m-m-muh artificial selection
It's the same mechanism you 'tard. For dog populations, the humans guiding its breeding are part of the "environment" of the population. The focus on "artificiality" is irrelevant. It's a subjective, anthropocentric distinction. Fitness is fitness is fitness.

I really hope you're not a bio student because making such trivial mistakes is solid proof that you should not be getting a biology degree.

>>9379079
That baby moma is whatever but hungry.

>>9379345
no it's not, natural selection has far more randomness

>>9379434
This, not to mention that I addressed that already. It's the same mechanism but the results are far, far different.
>Humans were 'natural' while dogs were 'artificial' and were largely bred for specific stuff that nature would not normally require of them. A comparison is not entirely accurate, but the distributions of wildly different traits within one species is relevant when discussing humans.

The reason the comparison between the two is not accurate is because dogs have a lot more variation, with the animals being produced having traits that are not beneficial.
The beagle's high tendency to have very shitty, mucus-lined lungs is something that would be bred out, like the fucked up nasal passages of chinese breeds.
Stop throwing 'anthro' buzzwords, because outside of constructed, specific standards that are not naturally occurring, these recessive, shitty traits are perpetuated on. The very opposite can be said about humans and most/all other organisms, as they breed selectively on beneficial traits, while the dogs were manually selected by an outside force. Without intervention, there is no naturally occuring scenario where the recessive, negatively impactful traits that compose a pug or shitzu would come to prevalence. So the dogs are not breeding based on survival, but are simply having their genetics directed for them, without any level of females selecting breeding partners that would be beneficial.
>hurrr but they both evolution! they the same becuz it the same mechanism!
>Don't be bio student !

Yeah, they're the same mechanism, obviously. Do you want a medal for implying that there is no difference between humans directing the outcome of an event for specific, unnatural purposes, and the selection that occurs within nature? I was talking about outcomes and said they weren't entirely comparable, implying there is a certain degree that they are similar.
The results of ''''anthropocentric''' breeding is that it has a goal vs natural random

Did you know that pitbulls get shot by police more than any other breed?

>>9379651
It's almost as if they take after their owners.

>>9379677
I thought black people didn't like dogs, your stereotypes contradict each other racist

>>9378917
>>9379037
>>9379253
>>9379533
>be niggers
>evolve in a place with bountiful food
>dont create civilization
>fight amongst rival tribes in a matriarchy
>become lazy and violent
>be whites
>evolve in a tough place to live (Evropa)
>have to work to survive
>create civilization
>need to be nice to your neighbors to make civilization work
>become hardworking and kind

>>9379685
what the fuck are you talking about? The most common stereotype is that trailer trash and ghetto savages are the ones most attracted to the concept of a big, intimidating, low IQ dog.
>>9379651
While I resent that police even have to shoot dogs in the first place, or that an innocent (I view animals as innocent) dog got shot, they have MASSIVELY high statistics in the department of attacks, killings, and instances of fighting.
Pit bulls are designed through breeding to be intentionally predisposed to violence, as they have low IQ and inhibitions, as well as a body structure of strong supporting neck muscles and wide, powerful jaws that facilitates a perfect biter.
Everything related to their history (bred for fighting and violence) and their current statistics shows a problem.
Not to mention a bite by a golden retriever or boston terrier that barely opens skin on someone is technically under the same label of 'bite' as something with the skull composition of a Tyrannosaurus permanently disfiguring people's faces in record numbers.
Yeah, they're gonna get shot more because they have such an enormous inclination to be violent and stupid, regardless of training.

>>9379717
>low IQ dog

Ironically pitbulls are actually pretty smart.
They're not naturally more aggressive either, but when you push them into it all bets are off and they just wont fucking stop.

I just wanted to discuss dog breeds :(

>>9379695
This board isn't going to validate your retarded pseudoscientific opinions.

>>9378917
>>9379076
The phenotypic variation in dogs is mostly wasteful (cosmetic) but it translates in the same degree of genotypic variation as humans, meaning that the phenotypic differences between human groups may appear superficially smaller, they are in fact structurally bigger because they are selected naturally. So really the whole distinction between natural and artificial selection supports the arguments of racial realism. But idiots wouldn't know that.

>>9379745
Also meant for
>>9379740
I wouldn't want you to be left out

>>9379738

>>>/an/

>>9379723
>They're not naturally more aggressive either, but when you push them into it all bets are off and they just wont fucking stop.
Well gee, I guess all these children DESERVED to have their faces torn off.

>>9379833
I absolutely agree, those little shits had it coming.

>>9379740
explain to me how my logic is flawed or what evidence there is that counters my theorum. I've literally spelled out for you step by step how niggers and whites diverged. I cant make it any easier for your brainlet ass to comprehend.

>>9379833
>be nigger of any skincolor
>treat your dog like shit
>surprised when bad shit happens

>>9379745
>The phenotypic variation in dogs is mostly wasteful (cosmetic)
This is patently untrue.

>>9379870
>be nigger of any skiing color
u fking wot

>>9378917
>>9378991
>>9378994
Here's an argument: The only difference between natural selection and artificial selection is the method of what's being selected, however, biologically they're essentially doing the same thing; altering gene frequency. It's like taking a bus to your destination vs your own car, you're still going from point A to point B, the only difference is the vehicle that got you there. If Nature would select for certain traits hard enough, then there is no reason you can't see drastic changes in a species fairly quickly.

>>9379723
>They're not naturally more aggressive either.
You're right, they are 'selectively' more aggressive. Breeding makes them more aggressive than other breeds that weren't selected for that trait or were selected against that trait.

>>9379853
>Live in hot sunny place.
>have dark skin
Oh wow have we solved the mystery yet?

>>9379695
>Africa
>Bountiful food

>>9379892
how is this post supposed to be anything but a non sequitur? Yes niggers evolved dark skin from living in a sunny place. In what way cant this translate to OTHER genetic traits changing, like alleles for aggressiveness or IQ?

>>9379880
In artificial selection you choose the offspring that get to reproduce based on the traits they exhibit. For example, we selected for teosinte to have more kernels and to be bigger etc until we got corn.
In natural selection it's whoever survives to reproduce gets to transmit their genes. The conditions might select for any number of things and the conditions themselves may change. For example, peppered moths were selected to be white to blend in with birchbark for camouflage, but when the industrial revolution started and covered the birch trees with soot the white moths easily got picked of by birds and the rare black moths survived.

>>9379875
Maybe but that doesn't change my argument, it is still more cosmetic than in humans (picrel) and still very wasteful as evidenced by health problems in pure bred dogs.

>>9379880
Basically: artificial selection selects for some given traits, natural selection selects for whatever allows you to reproduce.

>>9379723
explain the frequent (by dog standards) and brutal attacks on owners, children, etc that were totally unwarranted and it is always claimed by the owners that "oh he was such a nice dog I don't understand how he """"just snapped""""""
They were bred specifically (or maybe it was not intentional) so that they actually do the opposite of a normal 'scary dog'
while the rottweiler, german shepard, and doberman all bark and bare teeth, the pitbull waddles up apathetically to a person with ZERO indication that they are about to attack.
>they're not naturally aggressive either
they have an unparalleled level of 'being pushed into it' then. They tend to get 'pushed into it' by sleeping babies, caring dog walkers, and old friends, then.
The fact that retards are allowed to own such a potentially destructive animal is unbelievable to me, let alone that you have to obtain a permit in many states for large reptiles and do not need any expertise to own an animal that was bred purely for violence.
Personally, I think pits are cute, and I used to hang out with a friend who had a very gentle and friendly pit, but right alongside the gentle female was a ferocious male that would frequently hurt people and act fucking retarded.

>>9379916
>be fish
>evolve into human
>humans are genetically the same as fish because it was natural, not artificial

>>9379917
By artificially selecting for certain traits you may also accidentally select for other less-than-beneficial traits. That's why genetically modifying organisms are far superior to conventional artificial selection, you get only what you want and none of what you don't want.

>>9379912
Because a low IQ and high aggression doesn't defend against the sun.

>>9379930
Never said that, that's stupid.

>>9379929
>talking about doggos
>posts a hyena

>>9379943
so you think the only difference between europe and africa is the sun
>>9379944
saying genetic variance between the races isnt the same as that between dogs because the selection of dogs was artificial is tantamount to saying that natural selection doesnt influence behavior.

>>9379952
so bears are just giant dogs?

>>9379957
Yes.

>>9379969
its going to take 2 posts to demonstrate how retarded you are, so im going to take the time to ask you to do your 3rd grade geography homework.

>>9379969
>>9379979

>>9379957
It remains to be shown that natural selection affects human behavior across races especially because the brain is so plastic so psychology plays the biggest role in behavior and that phenotype is both nature and nuture. The genetic role on behavior is gonna be small all things considered, like a black father's role in a child's life.
And concerning dogs: dogs =\= humans, natural selection =\= artificial selection.

>>9379875
This, although I agree with >>9379917
Individual breeds have individual characteristics, one of them being behavior. Pits, on average, have a far, far, far greater likelihood of hurting you than any other dog breed in history. It's not even aggression for them, either. They just get rowdy out of nowhere and their feeble minds decide that taking a chunk of skull out of a teenage girl is a good move.

>>9379880
Everyone already understands that evolution is essentially the same process, artificially conducted or not. The results are what is being discussed, and the impact of 'guiding' evolution based on features that do not benefit the organism is exclusive to artificial selection.
>It's like taking a bus to your destination vs your own car, you're still going from point A to point B
>the only difference is the vehicle that got you there

Nope, the only difference is that natural stimulus and environmental conditions select for beneficial traits, while human-guided evolution is based upon traits that are in many cases negative and impact the resulting organism poorly.
Sure, the vehicle is the same if you want to reduce it to that, because they're both evolution, but the results are different because the organisms are forced to perpetuate certain genes based on what the breeders wanted as a result.
Humans diverged out of necessity and required mindsets, skill sets, and resistance to specialized weather and bacteria. The differences between races are comparable to dogs because different breeds have different intelligence levels, strength levels, and behavioral inclinations (good or bad).
Other than that, the superficial differences of dog breeds are not as deeply perpetuated or relevant as humans.

>>9379952
I have 0 pictures of dogs and although Hyenas are closer to felines, they're large, aggressive mammals built in a similar way to pitbulls specifically, as they're both evolved to be highly confrontational, savage, and competitive with others of their kind. The difference bing that hyenas are extremely intelligent... And their females have pseudo-penises.

>>9379986
Artificial selection is about something other than reproduction, natural selection is only about reproduction. There's your difference.

>>9379980
>>9379979
OK so it starts at mediteranian then it's hot and dry then hot and wet and then waaaaayy down at the tip it starts to get cool.

What does this prove again?

>>9379695
>>9379943
>>9379969
>>9379979
>>9379980
notice how europe is very cold, meaning shelter must be built to survive. Also, fire would be necessary for life, which is one of the ways it is hypothesized that abstract though might have first been invented (sitting around a fire not freezing to death with nothing to do).
Africa, on the other hand, is very warm. Meaning no shelter must be built and fire is not necessary. This is what i meant when i said africa was bountiful with food. Food grows at a constant rate in africas warm climate, so planning (i.e. harvesting) was less essential.

>>9380005
Not to mention that hunting simply required spears and quick legs. The bountiful presence of African megafauna must have helped get rid of a need to construct advanced tools and techniques. Africans, in their development, never had certain requirements thrust upon them that made them reliant upon abstract thought.
Asian and European reliance on seasons for growing and hunting probably helped develop the idea of planning ahead.

>>9380005
>which is one of the ways it is hypothesized that abstract though might have first been invented (sitting around a fire not freezing to death with nothing to do)
>africa was bountiful with food
>harvesting was less essential

So africans get all this free food and time not freezing to death but don't get abstract thought? Because they don't need to plant food at regular intervals? Is this what you think?

>>9380022
Hunter-gatherer lifestyles are also European, where do you think blue eyes came from?

>>9380005
>this is one of the ways it is hypothesized that abstract thought might have first been invented (sitting around a fire not freezing to death with nothing to do).
This is why so many of the best-known thinkers and writers are cats.

>>9378917
its actually completely applicable especially since no claim is being made that there are distinct species of homo left on earth. If you thought about it for even 5 seconds it would be obvious that there are different breeds of humanity

>>9379985
>It remains to be shown that natural selection affects human behavior across races especially because the brain is so plastic so psychology plays the biggest role in behavior
there is an IQ gap between whites and blacks. IQ has been shown to be, at least in part, genetic. Alleles that are linked to aggressiveness are also found in blacks, but not in whites. These are just 2 ways (off the top of my head) that natural selection affects human behavior across races.
>phenotype is both nature and nuture.
Phenotype is both nature and nurure, but it gas been shown that when blacks and whites are raise in similar conditions, the whites have the higher IQ, and asians higher than that.
>The genetic role on behavior is gonna be small all things considered
There is only a 0.1% difference between us and chimps, and a 40% difference between us and bananas. A small difference in genotype could be a large difference in phenotype.
>natural selection =\= artificial selection
this is like saying that cutting something with a knife =\= cutting something with an axe. Yes, they are slightly different, but the result is the same.

>>9380027
Abstract thought (I think he meant this) is a product of a need to plan and theorize about future events to better anticipate climate changes, food availability, and whatever else.
What >>9380005 is saying is that since Africans did not have certain necessary steps they needed to take (enduring structures, fire use, complex tools, planning complex ideas, etc) they simply did not need to select for certain traits that would facilitate the development of these things.

Africans did not need abstract thought because they did not need nearly as much planning and did not have nearly the reliance upon schedules and changes as other groups did.

https://whitelocust.wordpress.com/morality-and-abstract-thinking-how-africans-may-differ-from-westerners/

>>9380046
muh IQ (psychology, ie not genetic)

actual genetic distance is more complicated than that

natural selection and artificial selection are fundamentaly different

>>9380037
>where do you think blue eyes came from?
That's unknown. One hypothesis is that it came from the advent of agriculture. By this theory, people around the Baltic went from a fish-based diet rich in vitamin D to a grain-based diet low in it, leading to a general decrease in melanin in order to get more vitamin D from the sun.

>>9380047
>whitelocust.wordpress.com
nope

>>9380058
this is just lies

>>9379940
I know

>>9380047
this is photoshopped and the snow nigger is on a step looming over the ape-man. i agree blacks are dumb but don’t cum onto this board and insult others intelligence by linking to blogs. take what you are talking about seriously or keep it to yourself. nigger

>>9379986
>the only difference is that natural stimulus and environmental conditions select for beneficial traits
I see the problem here. You are assuming that niggers being trash human beings is not a benificial trait for survival, and therefore would not be selected for. This is not the case, as humans living in civilization need to behave very differently from one living in the wild. In a civilization, you need planning, IQ, respect, and hard work. In the wild, qiuck decisions are more important than long term planning (how youll grow your tribe in the next five years isnt as important as escaping that lion), a large brain isnt a good investment when food is scarce, respecting your fellow tribesmen isnt as useful as killing him and taking his stuff, and spending as little effort as possible on tasks means you conserve calories.

>Why do different dog breeds have such differences in temper? Aren't they the same spiecies?

The short answer is Metabolism apparently plays a role in dog behavior. Correlative links have been recognized for hyper activeness in dogs and metabolism. Couple this with drastic body sizes across different breeds (which affect other species in general too) and you have a base explanation for behavior differences.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161004105848.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347213003060

The long answer is that due to heavy artificial selection from small dog populations at the beginning of domestication for the species their genome is extremely sensitive to change. They are more severely affected by population bottlenecks and have lower homozygosity which in turn reduce genetic segregation within each breed thus allowing their wide expression in phenotypes without becoming divergent species on their own.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3559126/

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002316#s3

Their genome behaves somewhere between the environment/ disease variability of humans and discreet and fixed backgrounds of a lab rat.

To say the least the other anons who are actively trying to compare how dog breeds and human populations work are undermining the how functionally different the dog genome mechanically works in biology.

>>9378888
checked

>>9380001
its a climate map, showing the vastly different climates in europe and africa. If you think a climate is just temperature, then i dont think i can help you any further.

>>9380089
>a large brain isnt a good investment when food is scarce
>>9380005
>africa was bountiful with food
OK now you are contradicting yourselves.

>>9380089
>respecting your fellow tribesmen isnt as useful as killing him and taking his stuff
This is literally the opposite of how tribes work.

>>9380037
>>9380058
>>9380064
>>>where do you think blue eyes came from?
>>here's a theory
>this is just lies
OK, so you think blue eyes come from hunting and gathering in some way. I've never heard this theory. Could you explain it a bit?

>>9380102
Yeah so skin color is because of climate not just temperature. What difference does that make? This isn't a thread about climate last time I checked.

>>9380089
>I see the problem here
Yeah I can't tell if you're even agreeing with me or if you're talking about the problem stemming from their behavioral and evolutionary requirements.
Either way, they developed (unfortunately) to be opportunistic but food was not scarce. They simply developed in an area that was not harsh enough to get them to cooperate on a large scale and form technology, but the area was harsh enough to require the 'savage' mentality to survive.
>>9380078
The blog is just text from a book from a black author/professor sharing analyses of african people, culture, and development.
The photo is of a mentally disabled Pakistani man and Britain, I believe, and I thought it was funny because it looked like beetlejuice

>>9380040
sleeping is not the same as being bored, my friend. When you are bored, your mind wanders and you have time to think. Sleeping is an active process that allows little time to think.

>>9380116
the retard you were replying to did not know what he was talking about. I addressed this.
>>9380047
this

>>9380057
>muh IQ (psychology, ie not genetic)
pic
>natural selection and artificial selection are fundamentaly different
in what way? i feel like you're just going to start talking in circles.

>>9379985
You can tell someone's race just by looking at their brain.

>>9380147
>Don't believe that retard believe me who agrees with him on this retarded thing but not that retarded thing.
Sure I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe both of you are retarded.

>>9380063
>certain sources are unreliable even when they provide their own reliable sources because they disagree with me
>>9380116
>you are contradicting yourself
I clarified this in an earlier post. I meant that food was available year round in africa, not that food was in large supply.

>>9380171
Oh, Okay.
Provide an argument to the points presented here >>9380047 using factual evidence.
But then again, you're probably not retarded enough to ever stoop to my level and provide a coherent argument. No, you being above that of course makes you able to
>say le funny swear word XD
>epic OWNED

>>9380190
>Provide an argument to the points presented here >>9380047 using factual evidence.
I would enjoy reading your attempts greatly.

>>9380196
What the fuck are you talking about you absolute retard? If you can oppose my viewpoint with supporting data that fully contradicts it, I'll be inclined to believe you. Actually say something about how you disagree instead of just having a quip. What's your position, because so far you've provided nothing to indicate that you have any opinion on the topics being discussed besides a contrarian desire to disagree with others and call them retards. If you can stop being an edgy moron and actually say "well, that's not how I believe abstract thought or behavioral evolution happened, here are my reasons" we could actually progress somewhere. Having a smug insult is not fooling anyone into subscribing to whatever beliefs you even have.

>>9380235
>call them retards
>>9380147
>the retard you were replying to did not know what he was talking about. I addressed this.

>>9380152

Not that anon but natural selection is highlighted through a genome's response to an environment consisting of multiple stimuli that have no predetermined intent between each other. Artificial selection is highlighted through a genome's response to the behavior of another species which has explicit predetermined intent.

What a human selects for is not always in-tuned to what nature selects. Humans select for utilization, nature selects for survivability. Nature would never allow for animals like the Merino sheep to survive. Humans would though because we utilize their wool which is why they exist and depend on us to survive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merino

>>9378832
>Why do different dog breeds have such differences in temper?
They are raised that way.
https://youtu.be/c7puPXZVsFQ

>>9380240
The guy I called a retard actually made his point clear and established that his point was valid historically.
A lot more than you have done :)

>>9380259

>>9380271
Damn son you got me. You win this time, but next time I'll have a preemptive meme image, you'll see.

>>9380244
alright then, since youre getting so cought up in the fact that dogs were bred artificially and humans naturally, let me ask you something different. Why are West African lions, Congo lions, East African lions, Southwest African lions, Southeast African lions, Barbary lions, and Cape lions so different? Arent they all lions?

>>9380270
>The guy made his point clear and all he got for it was being called retarded because I disagree with him.
Really motivates me to do the work to make my point clear.

>>9380259
>all dog breeds like chasing balls
>all dog breeds like to be petted
>and DOZENS of studies have shown all dog breeds can navigate this laboratory maze
The fact that there are "dozens" of scientific studies doing this is an argument AGAINST the scientists, not FOR this woman's conclusion. If you want to appeal to science, give us a quick summary, ANY summary, don't just say it's science and that's that. This type of lazy, dare I say, low-IQ bullshit is the reason the terms "evidence-based" and "science-based" had to be banned from government reports.

>>9380306
She summarizes it already... That's why I linked the video. She provides citations for her claims that you can explore. Lrn2science please.

>>9380278

Research indicates that West and Central African lions are more genetically related to Asiatic lions. This is due environmental changes in Africa that would force migration into the middle East and Asia. Afterwards there were smaller populations that migrated back to Africa for dispersal. This is why there are genetic similarities between West and Central African lions and Lions from India specifically. And why they are different from East and Southeast African lions.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110401085113.htm

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/West_African_lion.html

You're basically comparing lions that have a greater history of cross regional bottlenecks and Lions that have not.

>>9380341
so you're saying that because they evolved in different places they are different, even though they can interbreed? Gosh that sounds awfully familliar...

>>9380317
>She summarizes it already
She says one dog breed is "more similar" to another dog breed than to "other breeds" in its traditional grouping. She doesn't say what this means. So I looked at all THREE of the papers linked in the video description, and here is a summary for you.

PAPER 1. Breed-typical behaviour in dogs—Historical remnants or recent constructs?
>breed differences were studied using data from a standardized behavioural test from 13,097 dogs of 31 breeds
>breed scores were calculated for four behavioural traits: playfulness, curiosity/fearlessness, sociability and aggressiveness
>The present results suggested large differences between breeds in all of the investigated traits

PAPER 2. Does perceived trainability of dog (Canis lupus familiaris) breeds reflect differences in learning or differences in physical ability?
>measured athletic performance of trained dogs from different breeds
>found some breeds were faster than others

PAPER 3. The pet dogs ability for learning from a human demonstrator in a detour task is independent from the breed and age
>We hypothesized that commonly kept breeds will show differences in their problem solving ability in a detour task around a V-shaped fence
>We compared the results of the 10 most common breeds
>there was a trend that German Shepherd dogs were the quickest and Giant Schnauzers were the slowest

In other words, this dumb bitch not only is waving science around as a non-argument to suit her dumb political agenda, the studies she's citing, which are shit, are actually reaching conclusions exactly OPPOSITE to what she wants, and she marches on anyway. Please stop shilling your shitty fucking videos on this board, jesus christ you retarded cunt.

>>9380351

Yeah it sounds familiar because you're dealing with the same biological tools in the end. It still does not invalidate the premise of natural and artificial selection being different. Unless of course you believe either nature has its own sapient agency akin to humans or that humans are devoid of sapient agency akin to nature.

>>9378916
>arena
IIIII AMMMM BARKKKAACUSS

>>9380383
>The present results suggested large differences between breeds in all of the investigated traits
The paper goes on to describe how it is because people train their dogs with specific goals in mind. Dogs that were bred specifically to be smart or whatever, aren't the ones who are smart. It's the dog breeds that people TRAIN to be smart, and training has a correlation with breed. The dogs do not exhibit the behavior or intelligence of their original purpose, but by their common current training.

>found some breeds were faster than others
Please. This is obvious yet says nothing. I wouldn't even argue with you that human populations have slight morphological differences.

>there was a trend that German Shepherd dogs were the quickest and Giant Schnauzers were the slowest
Funny you omit the next few sentences:
>Our results showed that the pet status of a dog has probably a stronger effect on its cognitive performance and human related behaviour than its age or breed. These results emphasize that socialization and common activities with the dog might overcome the possible breed differences

Funny.

The point is you have to isolate the nurture-related correlations that create differences in breeds. But these continually show much more significance than the genetic differences when it comes to behavior.

>>9380408
>The point is you have to isolate the nurture-related correlations that create differences in breeds. But these continually show much more significance than the genetic differences when it comes to behavior.
Except none of these papers, which by the way are shit, appear to claim "much more significance" to nurture than to nature. Rather, that extremely vague claim comes directly out of your ass. Maybe once we've properly studied what kinds of claims come from different types of asses we can evaluate its merits on that basis, but until then, first apologize for shitting up the board with badly-made scientistic propaganda videos, and then lurk for six months before posting.

>>9380421
No. I used studies for my claims. You used feelings and cherry-picking. I would like more studies, but what we currently see is that training takes precedence over historical breeding. The studies I provided support that claim.

>>9378832
>>>/pol/

>>9380434
>I used studies for my claims.
Well, "your" studies, which are shit, and which don't even try to prove what you say they prove:
>Dogs that were bred specifically to be smart or whatever, aren't the ones who are smart. It's the dog breeds that people TRAIN to be smart, and training has a correlation with breed.
each manage to find a correlation between breed and some other factor such as speed through a maze, and go on to suggest training as a possible confounding factor. Now, the fact that "your" studies were only linked in your dumb and badly-researched propaganda video SEEMS like an admission that you're one of the morons who made that video, just trying to shill it on /sci/ for a few clickbucks, but even if you're not, you need to apologize NOW for linking that abomination. Where do you even find this shit?

>>9380483

>>9380483
>>9380544
Wow somebody produces evidence and you manage to prove my point >>9380283 for me now I really don't have to work.

>>9380483
/pol/-think in a few easy steps.

1. Decide who you hate.
2. Describe the features you believe them to have that justify your hate.
3. Describe the reason why you think those features exist while also making sure to subtly call them primitive or monkeys.
4. Find "studies"(racist blogs) on the internet that back up your claim.
5. Insult anyone who tries to correct you.
6. If they can produce evidence or real studies say that those were funded by (((them))) or that they are biased.
7. Continue hating damn near everyone.

>>9380602
I'm the poster you're responding to. How about you go through and show me exactly where I took these seven steps of yours. Because it looks to me like I've skipped them all except your #6 (approximately: I pointed out correctly that the three studies linked in a certain video description are shit; and to be honest the first of the three is not as bad as the other two) and #5 (where I hereby call you a faggot and a retard, which is a reasonable and measured response to this personal attack).

>>9380656
Fortunately for you /sci/ doesn't have the same systems in place that pol has for making it known who exactly posted what.

>>9380675
All right, so you're conflating my posts, which began with >>9380306 with some other user's. It would be impressive if you were right, but you're not. Luckily for you, we are all Anonymous, and there is no record linking you personally to this failure. I think it's a good system as it allows you to take risks, make mistakes, learn & grow, etc etc

>>9378832
>Why do different dog breeds have such differences in temper? Aren't they the same spiecies?

All I know is that Steve Sailer shouldn't have made that bet on dog fixation indexes based on the chromosome count alone.