/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.962021]

Some questions for and libtard egalitarians or "Anti-racists" on /sci/

1) Do you think human intellect, behavior, and personality has a genetic component?

2) Does that mean that families could share certain intellectual, behavioral, and personality traits?

3) Are racial groups an extended family that is inbred to some degree?

4) Wouldn't that mean that it is possible for racial groups to share intellectual, behavioral, and personality traits?

5) What evidence convinces you, that (if you have answered "yes" to all of these premises), although it would have been possible for them to differ, all current races are instead EXACTLY equal in intellect, personality, and behavior?

pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.962027]

>>962021
Interbreeding of the races

[Anonymous No.962041]

>>962027
thank you for not answering any of my questions and essentially spamming my thread

[Anonymous No.962042]

Conclusion-
Niggers are dumb

[Anonymous No.962043]

Did you know sylvester stallone was a pornstar

[Anonymous No.962046]

>>962021
How about the fact that all evidence shows us that they are? that theres absolutely no credible evidence for your idea? what more do you need? because this is science, evidence is all that counts.

[Anonymous No.962066]

>>962046
sooo are you saying that blacks statistically have lower IQs or something?
I have yet to see evidence of a study, although I do think all races differ in personality, intelligence, and physical stature

[Anonymous No.962073]

All races have equal potential for the development of their intellect, personality and behavior.

No two people, regardless of which race they belong to, are EXACTLY equal in anything.

[Anonymous No.962078]

>>962021
I fucking love the Beetles

[Anonymous No.962084]

>>962046
This.

If there is a difference, it's not great enough for me to have noticed, ergo the argument is moot.

[Anonymous No.962086]

>>962073
Although if it was proven that blacks generally have lower IQs than other races, the same cannot be said.

[Anonymous No.962088]

>>962066
Not my job to cough up 25 bucks to try and convince an asshole on 4chan that the KKK in fact are not awesome or right, If you want to actually learn shit, go do it yourself. I'm just telling you the obvious.

[Anonymous No.962094]

>>962088
Send me 25 bucks faggot

[Anonymous No.962102]

OP don't you think there are multiple kinds of intelligence?

Races are not equal at all, but some have certain kinds of intelligence that others do not. Selecting for just one would be problematic, because you could lose a kind of intelligence that might be valuable some day.

[Anonymous No.962111]

>>962046
>says all the evidence points to one thing
>does not give any evidence whatsoever
HAHAHA

>>962066
>sooo are you saying that blacks statistically have lower IQs or something?
That is not what I was trying to say, but I do believe that they do, and this is a well known fact that every single psychologist agrees with.

>>962073
Why? Is this at least partially due to genetics?


>>962086
It has been proven. Millions of people taking IQ tests have shown a lower average for Blacks.

[Anonymous No.962120]

>>962102
Yes, but I'm mostly referring to g.

What "Intelligence" do Negroids have moreso than other races?

[Anonymous No.962121]

>>962111
This guy has the answer to everything. So tell me, who was phone?

[Anonymous No.962133]

>>962121
Good job plugging your ears and saying, "La la la!"

[Anonymous No.962139]

Well since race does not exist biologically or genetically I would say the question is moot and subjective.

[Anonymous No.962151]

>>962111
They have lower IQs on average, though this is probably at least mostly because of malnutrition, not genetic disposition.

Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, etc.

Except for abbos. Aboriginals are fucking retarded on purpose. They WANT to do nothing but huff fuel fumes.

[Anonymous No.962155]

>>962021


>Are races different from each other in a number of different ways?!!??!

Yes. That's not what racism is.

Racism is discrimination towards another race.

[Anonymous No.962162]

SO you guys are talking about niggers right?

[Anonymous No.962177]

>>962111
>>blatent trolling, hypocrisy, generalizations, and lying,
alright, if this is what you are going to do in our board you can have a time out
consider yourself reported and spammed.

[Anonymous No.962187]

>>962139
Yes, nevermind the fact that "race" is poorly defined and doesn't at all speak for the small variation we're talking about here.

You don't have to have Dwarfs and Elves for there to be a difference in intellect between different lineages.

[Anonymous No.962199]

>>962177
Lolumad bro. I'm not spamming. I'm asking questions. GG on trying to do something about it though.

[Anonymous No.962200]

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-05/gs_06iqtest
I don't buy IQ.

[Anonymous No.962201]

Judge people on the merits of the individual. Don't worry about race, or give preference for or against. Let the cream rise to the top. If that cream is white or black or yellow with squinty-eyes... then so be it.

Tribalism breeds collectivism.

[kramerr No.962202]

The average IQ of any population is meaningless when dealing with individuals because of the high variance. Assuming someone is of low intelligence based on nothing more than race is as retarded as assuming everyone in a high-school with a low average is dumb.

[Anonymous No.962205]

>>962177

[Anonymous No.962207]

>>962139
Please substantiate this claim.


>>962151
If it's due to malnutrition, why do Sinids(East Asians) malnourished at birth have higher IQs than Whites?
Why do full Blacks adopted and raised in middle-class Whites homes have lower IQs than 1/2 Blacks adopted and raised in middle class White homes (And their parents and they thought they were full Black, and they were socially treated as such) and why do they have lower IQs than Whites adopted in middle class White homes?

Hmmm?

>>962155
Discrimination is a form of TREATMENT, not whether or not groups differ.
RETARD

[Anonymous No.962208]

>>962021

There is no such thing as "Race". All living humans belong to the same race, or subspecies, Homo sapien sapien.

The very foundation of your argument is invalid.

[Anonymous No.962213]

[Anonymous No.962227]

[Anonymous No.962229]

Honestly, after people post in /sci/ this is what the confirmation message should be.

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.962230]

I hate this "g" bullshit. I've never seen it outside the internet except in fringe science books, so I can only conclude it's a desperate attempt by IQ test-makers to stir up controversy, and subsequently generate interest in "proper" tests that accurately measure this silver bullet metric of a human being's cognitive capabilities.

[Anonymous No.962233]

[Anonymous No.962239]

>>962207

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-race-exist

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TB25NTPIESSS0C7N5

[Anonymous No.962242]

>>962208

Someone took the basic concept of race and crapped all over it. Race is no longer what you think it is:

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

[Anonymous No.962252]

>>962177
There is none of that in my post, stop being a fucking moron.

>>962187
>"race" is poorly defined
false

Just because mouth-breathing retards feel the need to defy what has been scientific commonplace for years doesn't mean race is poorly defined.

>>962200
Numerous tests have shown the exact same tendencies (Black/Negroid<White/Caucasoid<East Asian/Sinid in intelligence), such as culture-free tests, reaction tests, brain size and weight, brain morphology, distribution of intelligence-influencing genes(DAB1, ASPM, MCPH1, and more), and many other measures.

ALL CONSISTENT

>>962202
It may be meaningless when dealing with individuals, but we don't always deal with individuals. Group tendencies are very important and the belief that racial groups are identical below the skin can be disastrous if applied to social policy.

[Anonymous No.962257]

[Anonymous No.962261]

if you are not reporting this thread you are a bad human being.

[Anonymous No.962265]

[pornstar187 !!59WxnBiOWPG No.962270]

Even if my IQ were 1, I'd still be able to compensate better than you can for your small penis!!!

[Anonymous No.962272]

>>962242
>wikipedia as a reputable source
>pic related

>>962239
>horrible strawmen, irrelevant claims
>pic related

I could refute every single point given if you want me to, but I won't go through the trouble unless.


>>962230
I suggest you go talk to some psychologists because various reputable psychologists believe it is a useful measure.


>>962229
not trolling....

[Anonymous No.962275]

[Anonymous No.962277]

[Anonymous No.962282]

[Anonymous No.962287]

How to "Debate" on /sci

>someone says something you don't like
>insult them because they disagree with you
>post links with fallacious arguments (if it is in fact relevant at all) as "Proof"
>call them retarded/troll/moron/spammer if they start to give actual arguments
>report them

Oh, how intelligent!

[Anonymous No.962289]

>>962230

Psychometrics is still decorated with academic titles.
And forget about tenure if you don't buy "g".

This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Terman
used to decide what's good psychology and what is not.

[Anonymous No.962290]

>>962272

Oh no please do as if you think ....

[Anonymous No.962292]

[Anonymous No.962304]

>>962252
>Numerous tests have shown the exact same tendencies (Black/Negroid<White/Caucasoid<East Asian/Sinid in intelligence), such as culture-free tests, reaction tests, brain size and weight, brain morphology, distribution of intelligence-influencing genes(DAB1, ASPM, MCPH1, and more), and many other measures.
I don't care. I'm just saying that IQ is a shitty gauge of intelligence. If you can practice for it, it's not a good metric.

[Anonymous No.962307]

>>962289
Tenure? In what?

When does a Physicist need to know this pseudoscientific shit?

[Anonymous No.962312]

>>962292

[Anonymous No.962314]

[Anonymous No.962320]

[Anonymous No.962321]

>>962202
As someone who has lived in the same environment as lower class American blacks, and attended a government paid vocational training school for two years with hundreds of others that have lived in the same conditions from all over the country, I can say from experience that blacks have by far been the stupidest people I've ever encountered.

They are the only ones that aren't there to turn their shit around, and try to make something of themselves. They're there for a the free food and bed. They're violent, rude, and loud. They get frustrated, confused and angry when asked to work with technology, and the overwhelming majority of them just drift through and then go back to where they were before as soon as their time runs out, if they haven't been kicked out for some rule violation already.

The difference in intelligence between whites and blacks in that place was very much noticeable.

I can acknowledge the fact that intelligence varies within a race, and it's entirely possible for some blacks to succeed in the western world, but it absolutely astounds me when people like you refuse to acknowledge the fact that they are in general, just flat out stupid compared to the rest of the world.

[Anonymous No.962322]

>>962272
>I could refute every single point given if you want me to, but I won't go through the trouble unless.

You're here to prove that persons of African descent are less intelligent than other races and that "race" is an acceptable biological construct.

Let's see some proof.

[Anonymous No.962327]

[Anonymous No.962328]

>>962321
mmm pasta

[Anonymous No.962339]

>>962304
Well what do you have to say about the other measures then?
Ah, you don't have to say anything -- if you ignore it then it doesn't exist, right?


And you can hardly practice for the more g-loaded tests; sadly not all tests that claim to measure IQ are heavily g loaded.

Don't worry, numerous people have gone to college for years and call themselves "Psychologists" just so they can weigh the validity of these tests.

[Anonymous No.962341]

>>962252
>It may be meaningless when dealing with individuals, but we don't always deal with individuals. Group tendencies are very important and the belief that racial groups are identical below the skin can be disastrous if applied to social policy.
We got a policy maker in here. Everybody smile and wave.

[Anonymous No.962346]

>>962321
more than 60% of america does not believe in evolution, guess how many white people live here,
You are by far the biggest retard I've ever seen,

[Anonymous No.962354]

>>962346

[Anonymous No.962358]

[Anonymous No.962362]

[Anonymous No.962363]

>>962322
Actually i just asked a few questions (Nobody has answered them all either, and there have been 61 posts)

[Anonymous No.962366]

>>962339
>Well what do you have to say about the other measures then?
Nothing. I don't care. What makes you think I care? This is a recurring pattern in your posts, that I somehow care about any other metric besides IQ.

I'm only here because I question IQ tests. Other tests might be perfect measures of intelligence, but no one in the public sphere seems to give a shit about those tests, so I'm not going to protest or praise them here.
>Don't worry, numerous people have gone to college for years and call themselves "Psychologists" just so they can weigh the validity of these tests.
That's a bit depressing. Calculus wasn't that hard.

[Anonymous No.962370]

[Anonymous No.962374]

>>962363
Oh no, I could care less what you came here for. I'm just stating your current objective, outlined in one sentence within my previous post.

Go.

[Anonymous No.962377]

>>962341
actually i'm against policies only applying to some races; for instance, affirmitive action
it is partially based on the claim that all races/sexes are equal in intelligence and other factors like that, and thus the most succesful group is obviously pushing down the less successful groups because if given equal playing fields, there would not be this discrepency.

however, the axiom of equality is fundamentally bullshit that goes unsubstantiated; the reason blacks are less successful tahn whites in this country is because they are less intelligent, on average, and do not posess the same behavioural and cognitive traits that whites do -- this is also why ashkenazi excel so much compared to whites

[Anonymous No.962383]

>>962321
And yet nigerians hold the college degrees out of any ethnic group.
This discussion is retarded, and is based on stereotypes.
Nurture plays a far larger role in intelligence and trumps any effect nature could have, unless however you are missing a chromosome.

Also, more female roasting. fap fap fap

[Anonymous No.962384]

>>962366
then why the fuck are you still in my damn thread?

[Anonymous No.962388]

>>962383
oh, when you only take the best of the best of nigeria, what the fuck do you expect?
fine example of selective immigration right there

>>962374
alright, brace yourself - i'll start with race

[Anonymous No.962396]

>>962370

[Anonymous No.962412]

>>962374
>that "race" is an acceptable biological construct.
You know what, this will be a lot easier if you tell me why you don't believe that it is one because addressing 100 strawmen is really a bad way to argue.

[Anonymous No.962413]

>>962383
Sorry, I'm out, =/ I typicaly dont have alot of shit to spam, I was hoping /sci/ would help but I guess they like being trolled by christfags and KKK members.

[Anonymous No.962415]

>>962346
You see, I gave an example of blacks under performing compared to other races when raised and schooled in a similar environment.

What you have done, is taken an entire culture, compared it to nothing, and made a conclusion based on how many of each race are within that culture. The two are very different.

American culture is shit, fine. I don't think that proves blacks are equal to all other races.

[Anonymous No.962420]

The intelligence test measures your cognitive ability to interpolate and extrapolate patterns. But i would argue that this is not intelligence. Some of the greatest inventions in humanity were not brought up by linear thought, but by veering off the path into the unknown. Into the abstract. I bet my bottom dollar you would claim the likes of DaVinci Edison and Einstein to be of great intelligence, however they did not follow the line , but stepped "outside of the box" onto a parallel of abstract thoughts that were considered retarded to be blunt. In north american society we are taught to be creative and explore new frontiers in thought, i fail to see any such question in the IQ test that really forces you to do more then mathematical calculations or find synonyms. No imho(which granted could be complete bullshit) the intelligence quiz measures your cognitive ability(which is great) but does not measure intelligence, in the sense that the pattern of humanity is a pattern of mediocrity, intelligence is pure abstraction.

[Anonymous No.962422]

>>962282
Any higher resolution of this? Tis unreadable

[Anonymous No.962425]

>>962420
yet whatever iq tests measure has a strong correlation with success in life

hmmm

[Anonymous No.962426]

>>962415
see
>>962383

I have taken "blacks" and compared them to every other ethnic group on the planet. They outperformed every other ethnic group, and since correlation implies causation, nigerians are the superior human race.

[Anonymous No.962431]

>>962021

1) Yes

2) They could

3) No

4) No

[Anonymous No.962434]

>>962425
Actually, IQ has shitty correlation with success /quality of life

Now Fluid Intelligence on the other hand, that's like 90% related with how well you'll do.

[Anonymous No.962436]

>>962415
It refutes your central point, if you could call it that; "I saw alot of black people and they suuuure was dumb guyz"
with.
"there are statistically way more stupid white people than black people"

why arent you faggots reporting this thread? I wish CP was legal if only so I could spam threads like this to death with it,

[Anonymous No.962462]

The whole "You can't measure intelligence, we don't know what it means" slippery slope argument is so laughable.
Majoring in evolutionary psychology I know how old and well-answered these shit arguments happen to be, and it's painful to have to repeat the arguments over and over again. /sci/, I am dissapoint.

Anyway, IQ and intelligence are two different things. One is a measurement, a scale, and the other is a psychological construct that is measured, to some degree, by IQ tests. Confusing IQ and intelligence is like confusing weight and pounds.
Next, few scholars study intelligence. While the word is used in common parlance, there is no common definition; instead, most serious scholars study g, or general factor of intelligence (I see this has been said in this thread) or one of its subconstructs, such as fluid or crystallized abilities.
Once you jump to "g" the definition becomes more agreeable and meaningful. There are technical debates, just like any area of science, but its measurement, by factor analysis, goes undebated.
Sure, for most purposes in normal life, it's alright to quasi-equate intelligence and g, as well as IQ scores and intelligent, but they are different concepts.

However, this does not mean g is not meaningful and a very real concept that often correlates with important traits.

Having said that, I will gtfo out of this fail thread, have fun OP.

[Anonymous No.962473]

>>962021
Rambo is the answer.

[Anonymous No.962475]

>>962425
Sauce? Also define success, so we don't go on a semantic tangent.

[Anonymous No.962486]

>>962462
report on your way out please

[Anonymous No.962494]

Not a "libtard," whatever that means, but let's do this anyway.
>1) Do you think human intellect, behavior, and personality has a genetic component?
Yes. Genetics are probably the largest factor in intelligence, but environment is more important. An illiterate child convinced he is worth nothing will never capitalize on his wonderful mind, while a person of average intellect in a positive environment with sincere motivations may achieve great things.
>2) Does that mean that families could share certain intellectual, behavioral, and personality traits?
Possibly, but intelligence seems to regress towards the mean. A highly intelligent parent may produce an even smarter child, but the odds of them producing a child of lower intelligence are better. However, that does not imply any sort of reverse extrapolation. Parents of IQs (Not a great measure of intelligence, but whatever) 140 and 140 might get a 130 daughter, but, provided that child mates with a partner of similar intellect, IQ should remain in the 120-130 range across generations.
>3) Are racial groups an extended family that is inbred to some degree?
In my most humble opinion, yes, but the differences across the racial spectrum appears to be severely exaggerated. We have more in common than we care to admit, but we're not the same.

Part 2...

[Anonymous No.962503]

>>962494
>Part 2

>4) Wouldn't that mean that it is possible for racial groups to share intellectual, behavioral, and personality traits?
Once again, intelligence seems to regress towards the mean, but that doesn't mean that significant inbreeding, as seen in the Ashkenazi Jews, can lead to recurring traits within the group. But you knew that already. Just look at their IQ scores.
>5) What evidence convinces you, that (if you have answered "yes" to all of these premises), although it would have been possible for them to differ, all current races are instead EXACTLY equal in intellect, personality, and behavior?
Like I said: We're similar, but not the same. How boring would that be?

Conclusion: Intelligence is a measure of our CAPACITY for intelligent decision making, but by no means a guarantee. A strong correlation exists between success and intelligence, but that does not mean we live in a world where an average man with above-average ambitions is doomed to fail.

Oh, life dealt you a shitty brain? It did that to Richard Feynman too.

Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.962505]

>>962494
Lets not.
age

[Anonymous No.962519]

>>962462
>and it's painful to have to repeat the arguments over and over again
Nice rhetoric bro. I think 4chan is the only place I've seen people not completely credulous towards g.
Wikipedia's pages on intelligence do not have criticism sections that would attest of people's awareness of the megabullshit psychometrics is.

[Anonymous No.962520]

>>962426
No, you have taken an elite sample of Blacks and compared them to people raised in drastically different environments with entirely different morals.

However, the Minnesota transracial adoption study tested Blacks, half Blacks, and Whites adopted into middle-class White families.
The parental IQ of the Black and half Black children was virtually identical, but the 1/2 Black kids had higher IQs than the Black ones (Whites had the highest)
However, they BOTH grew up in the same environment (White middle class adoptive parents) and they BOTH were percieved as full Black by society, their parents, and themselves -- BUT the 1/2 Blacks scored higher on the IQ tests than the Blacks.

Explain this please.

Here's a chart.

[Anonymous No.962540]

>>962503
>can
That should be "can't". Sorry.

[Anonymous No.962546]

>>962503
>>962494
OP here.
brofist for not being a brainless faggot

[Anonymous No.962552]

ITT: propensity, proclivity, a fundamental misunderstanding of matter and evolution in general

[Anonymous No.962554]

>>962475
economic and educational success mainly

[Anonymous No.962569]

>>962520
it obviously means that whites have higher IQs. but since you're full of shit, so are the findings

[Anonymous No.962579]

>>962552
THEN ENLIGHTEN US, PLEASE!

[Anonymous No.962589]

>>962546
Just doing my best to keep threads on topic.

[Anonymous No.962598]

>>962569
nice logic there, moron

[Anonymous No.962651]

age and bump, /sci/ deserves any thread like this it fails to report.

[Anonymous No.962667]

1) behavior and personality I'll predominantly put in the environment more important than genetics column, as for intellect I'm not really sure, frankly I don't think we have a good idea what we're talking about with intellect, we have some nice psychofags in here discussing different rubrics but all I know is I've seen IQ tests and they seem mainly to be about spatial puzzles, a nice skill but not what I'd call intelligence. This g factor shit doesn't impress me much either. I'm sure how to sort people based on intelligence accept in creating three broad piles, those sorely lacking it, those possessing roughly average, and those who exceed greatly. (Hint the third one is mostly made of fields medal recipients).

2)Families share many traits often because of shared environment along with learning behaviors from parents etc.

3)Not really no. They're broad populations consisting of millions of members filled with all sorts of variety, except with the regard to the few characteristics we choose to define them by, and even then there is great variety in those traits largely we just choose not to see it.

4)Evolution always encourages, nay requires as a prerequisite, a certain degree of variation within a population, this diversity will be present within single-race populations.

5)I didn't answer yes to all the premises.

[Anonymous No.962673]

>>962021
Ok, this is one of the few times when me and Conservapedia will agree... Especially on such a fucktardingly obvious subject:
>The concept of race is no longer considered scientifically valid, as there is very little genetic difference between the so-called races, and those differences are mostly superficial.
http://conservapedia.com/Race

[Anonymous No.962684]

1) Yes, but a very tiny one
2) Could, but don't, because environmental factors are a bigger deal
3)... No, not any more than all of humanity is
4) No...
5) I didn't.

[Anonymous No.962696]

>>962673
Conservapedia, being reasonable? My God.

[Anonymous No.962708]

>>962673
There is a LOT of genetic variation between populations, just not enough to be considered a differenet species.
Compare human fst (genetic distance) to other species [pic related]


as for the differences being superficial, that is an opinion - there are more differences than one can imagine.
disease risk, intelligence, behavioral traits, etc

[Anonymous No.962713]

>>962569
Or it could mean that black children raised by white suburbanites in Minnesota around a whole bunch of other mostly white people will feel alienated and under achieve.

Or it could be an artifact of the fact that sample size is so much larger for the non-adopted case than for the others that it an outliers or two skew it.

Or it could be the case that the nigglets that were abandoned were abandoned with good reason because even their parents thought they looked stupid.

[Anonymous No.962766]

>>962713
>Or it could mean that black children raised by white suburbanites in Minnesota around a whole bunch of other mostly white people will feel alienated and under achieve.

But only those that aren't UNKNOWINGLY half White?
Right?
Right?

What about their UNKNOWN White ancestry makes them feel less alienated?

>Or it could be an artifact of the fact that sample size is so much larger for the non-adopted case than for the others that it an outliers or two skew it.
Lol, someone hasn't read the study, as this is certainly not the case.

>Or it could be the case that the nigglets that were abandoned were abandoned with good reason because even their parents thought they looked stupid.
I suggest you read the study sir.

[Anonymous No.962778]

>>962766
>implying mulattos don't look different than blacks

[Anonymous No.962783]

"Race" is a cultural construct and has no real biological support on a meaningful level. There are certain genetic differences more common in certain populations however dividing anything into race is problematic due to the continuum of variation in humans.

[Anonymous No.962790]

Given any individual you cannot prejudge their ability them based on race, therefore under the law we consider everybody to be equal until they show their individual talents.

Starting with the premise that all races are equal or not equal seems kinda silly and beside the point and does not really matter regardless of if you could prove it or not.

[Anonymous No.962811]

>>962783
someone doesn't know what race means...
>>962790
>Given any individual you cannot prejudge their ability them based on race, therefore under the law we consider everybody to be equal until they show their individual talents.
did ANYONE in this thread suggest that?

[Anonymous No.962814]

>>962708
if by "a LOT" you mean almost nothing in comparison to the variation in other species. The genetic differences in human populations is virtually minuscule when compared to other species. Looking at the degree of similarity its likely that humanity experienced a significant bottleneck effect genetically when the first populations were radiating outward.

We as a species, have not been around long enough to be too different from each other.

[Anonymous No.962818]

>>962811
Yeah, and obviously its you. ^.^

Honestly nice trolling but race is really only a cultural concept.

[Anonymous No.962831]

Races don't exist biologically. They certainly exist socially, but that's about it. If you don't know why they don't, then you don't understand evolution or modern taxonomy or biology.

[Anonymous No.962838]

>>962783

Human populations developing in different areas of the globe for 60,000 years. There are differences in the DNA. Race deniers deny evolution and DNA. Congratulations you are basically a creationist. Read Before The Dawn, then maybe you will learn something about human development and evolution. I'm sorry that differences scare you and cause you to deny reality.

[Anonymous No.962857]

>>962831
>If you don't know why they don't, then you don't understand evolution or modern taxonomy or biology.

Sorry, but you are the one with no understanding. You don't believe human evolution continued in the last 60,000 years when human populations migrated throughout Asia and Europe. Do you cover your eyes when you meet a black person or an Asian? You deny DNA, what you clearly see, and human evolution of the past 60,000 years?

[Anonymous No.962865]

>>962838

~slow clap~

Nice trolling, I mean its just perfectly executed.

So yes humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years (about 200,000 or so to be exact) However if you would actually look at the markers for genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA you can see how truly NOT diverse we are; when compared to the diversity of other species. As a species 200 ka is fairly young, consider that we didn't radiate outwards for another 150 thousand years or so and you can understand the bottle necking that takes place. If you know anything about evolution at all that is.

[Anonymous No.962867]

>>962811
Way to ignore the actual point of what I had to say...

Saying races are equal or not equal is meaningless since we judge people as individuals.

[Anonymous No.962871]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Was never convinced of that. Doesn't make racism logical though.

[Anonymous No.962881]

Dear people who claim race is only a cultural concept/social construction, you clearly deny evolution.

Do I have to start citing peer reviewed studies? Just read Before The Dawn.

[Anonymous No.962889]

JUST READ BEFORE THE DAWN!

[Anonymous No.962891]

>>962857
Established rates of genetic mutation show that the changes that have occurred in 60 thousand years are minuscule. You're referencing a timescale in thousands of years where the clocks smallest measurement is generally done in hundreds of thousands of years in not millions. You're talking about maybe a few loci at most. The physical differences are because of very plastic loci and phenotype traits. <--- Molecular Anthropology Bitches!

[Anonymous No.962894]

>>962865
Still not going to read those peer reviewed journals? Open Before the Dawn, flip to the section on race.

[Anonymous No.962895]

>>962857

I believe evolution is continuous. However that doesn't define race. Black people come from many places, brown people come from many places. You can have black people who are closer to white people genetically speaking than the white person is to other whites. How does your hypothesis account for that? You're unnecessarily drawing lines and compartmentalizing to a point that contradicts science.

[Anonymous No.962897]

Why area Hispanics always separate from white on questionnaires asking to mark for race? Hispanics are descended from Spain, which is clearly a white country.

[Anonymous No.962898]

Quantity of genetic differences is virtually meaningless. The overwhelming majority of our DNA is redundancy and ancient artifact. The important bit is which specific genetic differences there are.

[Anonymous No.962904]

>>962889

>a book says it's true so it must be!

Sure is appeal to authority in here.

[Anonymous No.962906]

Races do exist, but racism is still stupid, and OP is a republitard.

[Anonymous No.962910]

What even makes you think that if you separated all white people into two groups that they would be exactly equal?

Doesn't that make you wonder what you even mean by equal?

[Anonymous No.962917]

>>962889


You want to imply that Before the Dawn is a scientifically valid book eh? Sounds more like a science editor wrote a narrative about cherry picked research to appeal to a popular audience.

Hurrp Durrp

[Anonymous No.962921]

>>962898
So pretty much the important differences are the differences you consider important.

[Anonymous No.962933]

>>962021

Hey OP, nice to see a fellow sailerfag on the 4chan.

[Anonymous No.962952]

>>962867 Saying races are equal or not equal is meaningless since we judge people as individuals

It isn't meaningless to people who pursue truths and try to develop as accurate an understanding of the world as possible.

You may as well say Cosmology is meaningless because it doesn't affect our every day lives.

[Anonymous No.962953]

Yes, yes, yes, yes at all
But we should all have the same rights.

[Anonymous No.962957]

>>962894

What journals are the studies from? I don't have access to that book at the moment but I likely quite a few database accounts I can pull from. If it concerns evolutionary biology of humans I can pretty much get a hold of it.

[Anonymous No.962969]

>>962814
see this:
>>962708
an actual comparison of the variation
>>962818
>calls me troll
>says race is a cultural concept
LOL! Almost fell for it
>>962831
Races exist biologically. If you don't know why they do, then you don't understand evolution or modern taxonomy or biology.

>>962838
Yo dawg, 60,000 is an understatement
OoA occurred maybe 100,000 years ago and differentiation in Africa occurred before that

then we have the big squish theory for africa (I don't know the real name, but after OoA all africans came together and made one big population and then expanded out again is what it claims) but i dont buy it

>>962867
It's meaningless when looking at individuals, but not group differences.
derp
i dont think that we should use these group differences to discriminate or assume things about specific races

>>962891
>calls it miniscule
>doesn't realize that's subjective
>retardface.jpg

>>962895
>You can have black people who are closer to white people genetically speaking than the white person is to other whites. How does your hypothesis account for that?
"White" and "Black" are not races first of all; you're referring to a subset of Caucasoids for White and combining a race and others for Black (Negroids + others).

No Negroid and Caucasoid outside of zones of admixture will have more traits in common with another race if you ignore junk DNA

SOMEONE DOESNT KNOW WHAT RACE MEANS, NO WONDER HE THINKS HIS SHIT ARGUMENTS REFUTE IT
/cruisecontrol

[Anonymous No.962986]

Arabs are Caucasians?

[Anonymous No.962987]

>>962921
With respect to the topic of conversation, yes. Genes which effect intelligence are much more important to the conversation than genes for producing egg yolk (a reptilian artifact which each of us have).

[Anonymous No.962991]

>>962969

What autosomal microsatilites where they performing this study on exactly? That table by itself is pretty meaningless.

[Anonymous No.962993]

>>962891
60,000 years is a significant time for evolution to occur. For 900 years Ashkenazi Jews were only allowed to practice finance. Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ almost a full standard deviation higher than white Europeans and non Ashkenazi Jews as a result. In less than 1000 years. Modern human evolution developed over a period of less than 70,000 years. Look at the complexity and change of tool sets that developed over the last 100,000 years. Evolution doesn't sit around and wait it continues. Look at the characteristic differences between them in the face. Your race denial is also dangerous. Look at the heart drug enalapril. It reduces blood pressure and risk of heart failure for whites, but does nothing for blacks. If the doctor refuses to acknowledge racial differences he will let people die. But just keep going spouting that race is just a social construction while those black people die of heart failure. At least you don't look racists right?

[Anonymous No.963017]

>>962953
No one is saying differently. It's just silly to cover your eyes and ears and deny reality just because you don't like it. How can science move forward with that kind of attitude?

[Anonymous No.963032]

>>962952
Ok, I should narrow the focus of what I mean by "meaningless" then. It is not meaningless as a scientific inquiry. You could generate statistics and if you are careful, define certain groups and determine if there are meaningful statistical differences in certain traits like intelligence and personality that are predicted by their phenotype, that is, their outward appearance and ancestry.

But it would be meaningless in determining policy or making decisions about individuals or even groups of people because, well, they are people with rights.

One of those rights is to not have policy made that makes distinctions between people based on ancestry.

[Anonymous No.963035]

>>962904
It's based on peer reviewed scientific journals and assembles there information better than I can.

[Anonymous No.963038]

>>962957
http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

[Anonymous No.963051]

>No Negroid and Caucasoid outside of zones of admixture will have more traits in common with another race if you ignore junk DNA

Just not true. Just because you say something is true doesn't mean it is.

Try looking at Rosenberg et all 2002 and you may have a better understanding of population genetics sense you seem so confused.

[Anonymous No.963062]

>>962991
error, field too long, so go here:
http://paste2
.org/
p/834854

[Anonymous No.963072]

>>962987
You missed the point. You are making a value judgement about which genes are more important. That isn't scientific.

Showing that there is much less variation between races than there are within races would be an objective way to show that race is a social not a biological construct. Otherwise you are just cherry picking genes. Besides, its not like you have even shown that such differences actually exist.

[Anonymous No.963076]

>>962986
Arabs are just people who speak arabic.
But if you're thinking of sand niggers, then yes

[Anonymous No.963100]

>>963051
>>963051
For one or a few markers, in trials where an individual is compared to a randomly selected co-ethnic or a randomly selected individual from another population, in a minority of cases, the individual will be closer to the person selected from a different ethnic group, but the proportion of such cases will decrease with the use of more markers. However, if the entire genetic information is considered, then an individual will be closer to a random co-ethnic than a random individual from another ethnicity.

[Anonymous No.963133]

>>963072
no, it's a way to create your own strawman definition of race and pretend what you say disproves the actaul defintiion of race when it just disproves yours

[Anonymous No.963139]

hey look /stormfront/ is spilling out of /new/

time to tell moot to pull the plug on that board

[Anonymous No.963184]

Jailnigger is not amused by this thread.

[Anonymous No.963198]

>>963072
I'm sorry, what?

Explain to me how observing consistent differences between Negroids and Caucasoids is cherry picking data?

Genetically we're within a few percent of a banana. Clearly certain genes are more important to what makes us different than others. I don't see how filtering out "junk DNA" can be called cherry picking. Most of our DNA is completely irrelevant to the conversation, and you include it when you say "LEIK OMG WERE ALL 99% THE SAME."

>Besides, its not like you have even shown that such differences actually exist.

That wasn't the purpose of my post. The purpose was to state that % of total variation of genetic information is irrelevant to individual traits.