/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9509547
No, race does not exist if you believe human genetics did not drift over 500,000 years

It kind of exists, but people can get it really wong. Like black people in America are not a race. They are descendants from a large number of diverse African nations. I would break it down at the geographically bound nation level. Races roughly equate to ethnic lines, defined by groups that have had children together over many generations - usually inside national or tribal boundaries. But it is quite fluid and with the massive amounts of interracial sex we have nowadays - according to porn anyways - the ethnic lines are a lot less clear, especially as people marry people they like or get along with. Like my family is enthnic but seems to marry along pan European heritage so their kids aren't really going to have a definite ethnic group, or race.

>>9509547
Morphological differences exist between every population sub-group you could possibly come up with. Race is arbitrary and based on skin color.

>>9509547
Decide for yourself

>>9509603
Dogs were artificially selected, you brain dead cunt

>>9509600
>>9509603
Fuck outta here with that pseudoscience.

>>9509600
>>9509603
>these eyes don't lie
- alberb einstump

>>9509607 telling it like like castes weren't a thing in every major civilization
hell even right now we're all collectively selecting 2D for breeding over disgusting 3D piggus

>>9509547
It made sense a hundred years ago to break things apart by "Race" or overt physical differences, but this really isn't a hard break. There is no set of genes that can be found among one "race" and among no members of any other races. So, race is arbitrary. That doesn't mean it isn't useful though or make a good sub analysis, but ethnicity is probably more important.

>>9509600
The crows have must more genetic distance between them.

Anyone have that orange juice pic?

>>9509600
>>9509603

It's a semantic argument

Race is not a construct in the sense that these people are usually separated by a number of generations and as a result have some differences in allelic frequencies and gene polymorphisms. It's also the case that these people tend to have had as a consequence of geographical isolation and historical events had different histories. This is beyond dispute

It's a construct in that it's a human tool of classification. That it classifies objective aspects of reality does not change this. Disagreement over what the list of races should be among people who get a kick from arguing that shows it too, there is no accepted methodical Linnaean race taxonomy everyone agrees upon and in America we end up using some half assed classification (see: "white") for convenience.

People have strong feelings about it because its existence or non-existence is argued alongside questions of whether some such races should be less protected or discouraged from reproducing, to which "there's no race" is a much more half baked "there are no race hierarchies under the law because the government represents all people"

>>9509600
That is literally just cherry picking pictures of the ugliest non-whites. Why not use this picture for the white woman?

>>9509655
The problem is we can measure those genetic differences very precisely. Humans have less genetic diversity than all apes and most animals. There is no genetic justification to divide humans into groups.

>>9509659
The fst ratio for all humans is 0.11. That means that there's maximum of 11% difference in between humans. You need 25% to consider any group of individuals in a species as a subspecies.

>>9509547
>>9509575
>>9509599
>>9509600
>>9509603
>>9509607
>>9509608
>>9509609
>>9509613
>>9509647
>>9509654
>>9509655
>>9509657
>>9509659
>>9509669
How many times a day do you need to post this thread, /pol/?

>>9509659
>The problem is we can measure those genetic differences very precisely.
Yeah, and we can measure the change of allele frequencies and unique genetic polymorphisms that are different between an Angolan and a Chinese person. With a larger sample of genes you can come to predict with a good degree of certainty the ancestral origin of a person.

>There is no genetic justification to divide humans into groups.
There is no genetic justification to divide animals into different species either, neither genes nor the organisms carrying them exist to be classified but we make those classifications because they are convenient in understanding them. Whether these classifications are useful enough as a diagnostic tool, as a feature for the study of groups of people in society, etc. to outweigh the social effects of classifying people you can argue til the cows come home and not get anywhere

>>9509676
Every few days. They have problems with reality when it conflicts with their emotional beliefs. Things like global warming and human genetics really rustle their jimmies. They hate science.

>>9509681
>Yeah, and we can measure the change of allele frequencies and unique genetic polymorphisms that are different between an Angolan and a Chinese person. With a larger sample of genes you can come to predict with a good degree of certainty the ancestral origin of a person.
Sure, but you need some perspective. How much genetic diversity do humans have compared to other animals, and how closely related are these populations of humans compared to other animals?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032721

>>9509547
There’s the space race, olympic race and the real race.

>>9509688
You forgot the rat race.

>>9509685
>Sure, but you need some perspective. How much genetic diversity do humans have compared to other animals, and how closely related are these populations of humans compared to other animals?
The intraspecies diversity of other animals doesn't have clinical, sociological, or historiographic use. That of humans, to the extent that it exists, does offer a useful classification in those areas. The definition of race is not set in stone between species, and is used to mean different things in different areas of biology. That this difference in humans is relatively small compared to others in our taxonomic family is of interest but not relevant to whether the classification should or should not be used.

>>9509700
Sure, but that's how classifications systems work. You're basically trying to say we should divide humans based on taxonomic classifications used by animals, but when confronted with the fact that those models don't fit humans, you try to throw them out and say animal classifications doesn't matter. Are you saying we should divide humans just because you say so?

Based on your first statement, are admitting race has no genetic relevance and we should divide humans based on social factors?

>>9509708
> You're basically trying to say we should divide humans based on taxonomic classifications used by animals,
No, and you missed my point entirely. Please go up and read it again slowly.

>but when confronted with the fact that those models don't fit humans, you try to throw them out and say animal classifications doesn't matter. Are you saying we should divide humans just because you say so?
But there isn't a taxonomical consensus on what constitutes "race" - and there needn't be, I already explained above that it is useful for some disciplines to consider the race of individuals or groups. That the classification carries that utility is justification enough for them to use it and us to know it.
>Based on your first statement, are admitting race has no genetic relevance and we should divide humans based on social factors?
Putting words in my mouth. It's genetically relevant in that it carries understanding of risk for specific diseases (of genetic origin), and in that it helps us to track the general ancestral movement of people, even if in a simple and imprecise way. It also carries social meaning and that's another reason to consider different classifications of race that people have believed in in the past.

In short, I think what you're missing is that the classification is of relevance to fields other than animal taxonomy and that to some extent justifies using it, if the negative factors are not considered

Someone should finally just do a large scale IQ & DNA test and plot one against the other.

>>9510740
If you really think that can get any kind of meaningful results you should consider killing yourself.

>>9509547
Social constructs are fundamentally biological constructs.

>>9509547
What is race? How come /pol/ always loves to talk about race but never wants to say what it is?

>>9510782
Race realists before:
>lel, race just a social construct? You're saying it's imaginary bullshit?
Race realists now:
>W-well, technically everything in science is a social construct!

>>9509547
The human race is defined by a recent common ancestor
subsaharan africans would have to have a more recent common ancestor
jewish tribes define themselves by ancestors

>>9509547
Its quite obvious that race exists.

the only people saying it doesn't are either minorities themselves and what to persuade whites that is doesn't so they feel more accepted, or its an attempt by government to lie to control its populace by saying we're all the same.

Both are wrong.

>>9511058
>exists
...as a social construct?
I guess race could be defined biologically but it would be arbitrary

>>9511068
Race is obviously more than skin colour. There are 3 major races:

1. Caucasoid (Europeans, middle easterners, north indians, Ainu, north africans)
2. Negroid (sub saharan africa)
3. Mongoloid (chinese, japanese, south east asian, native american)

There are many sub-races in these races, each of which have different DNA which is not just skin colour.

Hell, just take the skull shape of a white person vs a black person ffs. A pure nordic many from norway is completely different to a pure black man from the congo, who is different to a pure jap, who is different to a pure aussie abo. Each have differing intelligence as evidenced by certain countries doing better than others and what they've achieved.

This is not difficult to understand.

>>9511083
>muh skulls
>Each have differing intelligence as evidenced by certain countries doing better than others and what they've achieved.
Holy moly

>>9511095
If you took a photo of me and photoshopped my skin colour black, I would not look black. Even if you dyed my eyes and shaved my head, I would still not look like a man from sub-saharan africa,

What exactly are you not getting?

I'm tired of these threads. Why can't /pol/ and /sci/ be friends?

>>9511083
Yes. That's why Amerindians had a higher development rate, making them have more civilization potential than europeans.

I believe any kind of POV lead to the same conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans.

>>9511121
>race
Not science.

>>9511121
Fuck off and let the grownups talk Juan.

>>9511121
Amerindians are certainly superior to niggers.

>>9511142
Wrong.

Amerindians have demonstrated a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

All kinds of POV lead inevitably to the same conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans.

Deal with it.

>>9511153
Amerindians are superior to europeans. History demonstrates it. Get over it.

>>9511163
Cool. I'm a brazilian mestizo.

>>9511121
>That's why Amerindians had a higher development rate
Genuinely curious, which period are we talking about here?

>>9511173
Well that explains your attitude, arrogance and low intelligence.

Brazil is shit and will collapse in a few years. Then you will beg us for aid, like the £80 million we gave you a few months ago.

Please get your mongrel ass off this site, Deomingo.

>>9511174
The period comprehended between the first Amerindian stepping foot on America back in 25000BC, to the end of Amerindian civilizations in the XV-XVI centuries.

>>9511184
Why are you guys on /sci/ are so racist?

Race is a concept that the europeans invented to remain in power, and to justify to themselves the endless violence and oppression, in direct conflict with the "christian values".


And so they killed and enslaved millions.

Tell me again why would you need such a concept?

>>9511184
I may be a mongrel but at least I'm not a nigger.

>>9511194
>Tell me again why would you need such a concept?

To differentiate niggers from humans.

>>9511194
Any race or people who had the power whites had would've done a fuck ton worse.

Just look at China. They don't give a shit about human rights or the environment and eat dogs. They do not have the sefl-awareness or empathy that whites do... they are just like calculators.

The less said about blacks the better.

>>9511201
I highly doubt that

>>9509547
There are clusters, but to calsify things in terms of race are for sociological observations as there are better means to describe variation in humanity within the field of biology.

>>9511208
Não dou a mínima para sua opinião.

>>9511201
t. joelso neto

>>9511204
>ton worse
Wrong in everyway.

Amerindians demonstrated higher relative civic values in their territories. Amerindians are superior to europeans. Time to deal with it.

>>9511083
> colour
Fuck off, Britbong.

>>9511223
shit bait

>>9511226
Make me fuckstick. and learn how to spell fatty.

>>9511228
>rejects historical facts
Wrong again. Amerindians have demonstrated superiority against europeans in almost every single way. How is this hard to get?

Amerindians are superior to europeans. History demonstrates it. Face it, monkey.

>>9511223
>Amerindians demonstrated higher relative civic values in their territories.

I the past maybe...

>>9511232
I think I broke the autistic kid

>>9509682
Modern leftist scientists? Yes, they indeed hate science and white people.

>>9511233
In all their history.
>>9511235
Try again, subhuman.

Amerindians are superior to europeans. History demonstrates it. Deal with it.

>>9511243
Amerindians are superior to niggers, not europeans or East Asians.

>>9511247
Wrong.

Amerindians have demonstrated a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

All kinds of POV lead inevitably to the same conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans.

Deal with it.

>>9511257
Ok, why my country is a shithole then?

>>9511261
>why
Is your comparison refered to a zone after Amerindians civilizations ended?

>>9511185
Really, overhaul?
Because I'd be ready to understand that individual precolombian civilizations had some pretty fast development if considered alone, but if you take into account the various civilizational collapses, I don't see how American civilizations as a whole developed faster than in Europe.

>>9511264
There was no civilization in Brazil before the Europeans. Only in the Andes and Bolivia.

>>9511223
>higher relative civic values
dude the Inca were like the most evil empire to ever stand the Earth. We're talking of a working population enslaved to a degree they had to illegally consume coca to keep up with the workload here.

>>9511188
I think all of /pol/ is racist
If you talk to real scientist, they'll probably acknowledge differences between races because they're more objective. However the best ones don't even care. They're just occupied with their work.

>>9511266
>europeans
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to solutrean:10000 years (30000BC-22000BC)
>from aurignacian-antelian to start of crop development: 9000 years(30000BC-21000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 12000 years (21000BC-9000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze: 4000 years (9000BC-5000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 5200 years (9000BC-3800BC)

>Amerindians:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to clovis: 5000 years (16000BC-11000BC)
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to the start of crop development: 7000 years (15000BC-8000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 5000 years (8000BC-3000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze independently: 2000 years (3000BC-1000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 3500 years (3000BC-500 AD)

Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. How is this hard to get?

>>9511269
Considering there was agriculture in most of brazil, and the southamerican civilizations spread to parts of the frontier of Ecuador-Brazil. Yes there was civilization.

>>9511273
Wrong. Prosperity, spread of bronze technology, quipu accounting system, and meritocracy based on intelligence and warrior-like behavior, from Colombia to the middle lands of Chile. All of this relatively ahead of europeans. Try again, monkey.

Race is real, period.

I'm black and my "half-black" children (got a white wife) identity themselves as African and are considered African in society.

>>9511299
what where they doing during those first 14000 years?

>>9511257
>Amerindians have demonstrated a higher development rate compared to europeans
Oh, so that's why they were building pyramids to make human sacrifices while europeans were achieving unseen feats of engineering and science?

>>9511312
Masturbating, eating human flesh and sopa de macaco.

>>9511223
>They were still roaming tribes of people who would skin their neighbors scalp off and rape their women

Sure, bud.

>>9511312
Who and when?
>>9511326
>that's why they were
Let's see:
>16000BC to 1500AD: 17500 years of development. They were sacrificing people.
>40000BC to 3800 BC: 36200 years of development. They were sacrificing people.

So it means that Amerindians spent relatively less time to reach that phase too. Hmm...

>>9511333
See>>9511337

>>9509651
>The crows have must more genetic distance between them.
Where is your Source to back your claim?
Oh wait... (You) have no Source.

I have a source however to back my claim:
That Race is a Biological Fact.
Determined by Genes/DNA.

>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5959/1541/F1

Get BTFO Social Sciences Retard.

>>9511337
>So it means that Amerindians spent relatively less time to reach that phase too
Yeah, it's kinda easy to do stuff when you have virtually infinite supply of food from the forest, and don't have to deal with the certain death that comes with the winter.

>>9511345
Image from:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5959/1541
>Asia harbors substantial cultural and linguistic diversity, but the geographic structure of genetic variation across the continent remains enigmatic.
> Here we report a large-scale survey of autosomal variation from a broad geographic sample of Asian human populations. Our results show that genetic ancestry is strongly correlated with linguistic affiliations as well as geography.
> Most populations show relatedness within ethnic/linguistic groups, despite prevalent gene flow among populations.

>>9509547
>Does race actually exist or is it a social construct
Car insurance is a "social construct" but still exists,
Go back to /pol/ "race realist".

>>9511356
>infinite supply of food
"Vanguardist" cultures and civilizations in the Americas weren't located in the Amazonian jungles nor the mesoamerican jungles.

SouthAmerican main cultures were located in deserts and mountains.

SouthAmerican mountainous climate zones were the vanguardist center of civilization of southamerica.

The european comparison considerates middle-eastern cultures, as antelian, thr neolithic revolution and the bronze age started near the middle east.>>9511299
And Amerindians had still a higher development rate.

>>9511308
>identify as
>considered
>in society
Sure sounds like a social construct. So I agree, race is real because social constructs are real. But you can't just say "race is real" as an independent statement because it doesn't mean anything on its own.

>>9509600

Why niggers stink so bad? I'm not kidding, this is a serious question.

>nigger
Why the racism?

>smell
For the same reason "whites", if that even exist, have more skin secretions than east asians, making them stink.

>>9512328
Why niggers on average are borderline retarded?

Race doesn't exist in the way humana define it. There are biological differences between people but lumping groups into white, black, ect is all artificial.

>>9512343
Why you cant make question good?

>>9509547
races exist cars and athletes do them every day

>>9512350
No. These classifications are backed by phylogenetic analysis. And you have not answered the question: why niggers are so dumb?

>>9512363
>dumb
[citation needed]

Take your pedophile cartoons back to >>>/a/

>>9512768
>[citation needed]

Circumspice.

>>9512363
>>9513539
>>9512768

http://aristocratsofthesoul.com/average-iq-by-race-and-ethnicity/

Makes sense. The low GDP per head is a consequence of the average low IQ per head.

>>9513557 >>9513563
Average IQ (Average Income)

Jew 110 ($97,500)
East Asians 105 ($76,260)
White 100 ($60,256) (not hispanic)
Hispanic 89 ($42,491)
Black 70 ($35,398)

http://aristocratsofthesoul.com/average-iq-by-race-and-ethnicity/

>>9513557
Sweet map. This proves everything. I like this new scientific method, the old one was boring.

>>9513563
Saudi Arabia has Low IQ but High GDP only because Oil (petroleum)

>>9513572
Niggers have lower average income because they have on average lower IQs. It's very simple.

>>9509547
Genetic groups exist but our social understanding doesn't coincide with the scientific concept.
For example Obama is considered black while being half black and half white.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a poltard.

>>9513585
I'm a /pol/tard and I agree with you.

>>9513557
>>9513572
>race
>iq
Not science.

>>9513743
Russian bot.

>>9513557
>>9513572
Wrong. Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

>>9513754
Yet, iq and race are still not science.

Iq and race are pseudoscience.

Bump

>>9509547
data about race is illegal in civilized countries
t. proud frenchfag

>>9509600
That black women is delicious. Would breed/10.

>>9509547
The thing with races of humans is that it is social construct. But it is important social construct that does matter and is correlated with other differences that are clearly visible when reading through large scale data.

Black people have less IQ on average than whites or asian and are more aggresive.

Asians are best at math and Ashkenazi Jews have verbal IQ off the charts.

Those are NOT stereotypes but hard data.

That doesn't mean that every black person is stupid and jews are smart. Variability between individuals are still bigger then among groups but at the end of distribution there will always be huge difference. People with highest verbal iq on earth will be Ashkenazi Jews and the most aggressive and stupid people will be black. I am afraid that it's not due too hunger too. African Americans are a bit smarter than Africans but not by a large amount.

>>9514237
Please stop spreading these hatefacts.

>>9514237
>African Americans are a bit smarter than Africans but not by a large amount.
Because Blacks like Obama are actually Mulattoes (partially White)

Obama's mother is White. Obama's father is African.

And His father abandoned His mom. So
Obama's mother was a Single Mother. (Surprise! Surprise!)

Obama grown up without His father. Unsurprisingly because most Blacks grown up without father too.

>>9514251
Life sucks and the world isn't fair, only thing you can do is open your eyes, accept what you see and use that knowledge for betterment of humanity. Don't be asshole we had enough of them ine XX century both on the right and on the left. Tell the truth and stop lying to yourself and others.

>>9513762
Are you really saying that niggers do not exist?

>>9514237
Actually Amerindians are superior to europeans.