/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10298200]

Why do scientists believe that animal subspecies are biological real but human races are a social construct?

>pic related the 2017 re-examination of tiger subspecies

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-tiger-subspecies-revised-2017/

[Anonymous No.10298201]

>>10298200
Darwin’s theory of evolution doesn’t apply to humans because God created everyone equal.

[Anonymous No.10298203]

>>10298200
What scientists say that?

[Anonymous No.10298204]

>>10298200
Races aren't subspecies and humans don't have subspecies. >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.10298211]

>>10298200
animal subspecies are a social construct and human races are also a social construct

[Anonymous No.10298216]

>>10298204
>humans don’t have subspecies but a tiger does
Hmmmmm God must have created humanity

[Anonymous No.10298217]

>>10298216
>this old person is tanned and has a beard so he's another species

[Anonymous No.10298223]

>>10298217
> all these tigers have strips and have closely the same physical appearance but are still defined as subspecies

[Anonymous No.10298233]

>>10298217
>species
>subspecies
Learn the difference brainlet

[Anonymous No.10298237]

There is no genetic or taxonomic reason to divide humans. Humans are are a large interbreeding population with no breeding barriers, and humans are all genetically extremely similar to each other.

[Anonymous No.10298241]

>>10298223
>>10298233
I wasn't taught about subspecies in my biological categorization courses so this is pseudoscience.
My university is among the top in the world in biological and health sciences. So if they didn't teach this, I think they considered it pseudoscience.

It's sad how we allow so much pseudoscience in society. We need a technocracy to stop letting idiots make important decisions when they don't even have a degree. Votes mean nothing.

[Anonymous No.10298256]

>>10298237
Humans share 60% of their DNA with bananas and 96% of their DNA with chimps. So we must all be the same species.

[Anonymous No.10298260]

>>10298256
Pointless facts that have nothing to do with this thread. Humans share 85% of genetic variation, and we are one of the least genetically diverse animals.

[Anonymous No.10298261]

>>10298256
don't cry so hard boi. There are domains, kingdoms, classes, geni and a fuckton of terms

[Anonymous No.10298266]

I’m not trying to make a big deal about race but there’s just seems to be a lot of dishonesty coming from modern scientists regarding race.

[Anonymous No.10298273]

>>10298266
you mean pseudoscientists.
Categorization was always a shitfest. And will never be hard science

[Anonymous No.10298274]

>>10298266
Science is a big conspiracy! Jews are paying people to lie about race, climate change, vaccines, and anything else I don't like!

[Anonymous No.10298286]

Why do you keep trying to pollute other boards with /pol/ shit?

[Anonymous No.10298292]

>>10298256
Wrong. Humans can not interbreed with chimps, so we are a different species.

[Anonymous No.10298294]

>>10298200
Subspecies are not really a criteria in biology since it has no real definition (unlike species).

[Anonymous No.10298295]

>>10298274
Wow you sound like republicans. When will democrats stop denying science as well? Stop denying nuclear power and gmo? Stop believing in alternative medicine? Must be the Russians, right?

[Anonymous No.10298298]

>>10298273
No, it’s pretty hard.

Can these two populations reproduce successfully, and produce fertile offspring?
No, different species.
Yes, same species.

[Anonymous No.10298300]

>>10298286
The far-right is about indoctrination. They hate objective truth. They hate the idea that ideas like justice or truth are concepts that are above human experience. They are animals and they just want everyone to believe what they believe. They hate science, and they think raiding /sci/ is going to somehow have an impact on objective truth.

[Anonymous No.10298305]

>>10298298
that was the old definition. But I guess it can still work

[Anonymous No.10298313]

>>10298295
>Denying science

The scientific community does not recognize subspecies to exist in humans.

[Anonymous No.10298315]

>>10298300
Funny how op doesn’t even mention politics but you just brought politics into the thread.

[Anonymous No.10298320]

>>10298305
It’s not an “old definition”. It’s the biological species concept, the “hardest” one.

[Anonymous No.10298321]

>>10298315
Only /pol/ is autistic enough to spend tons of time every day raiding a 4chan board, thinking it will somehow change the real world or win people over.

[Anonymous No.10298322]

>>10298320
Yes it is, but these days people are dividing animals into separate species even when they can reproduce and make fertile kids. Maybe those scientists are idiots. I only saw this on /sci weird how fringe material ends up here

[Anonymous No.10298325]

>>10298313
>The scientific community all have the same opinion on every topic

[Anonymous No.10298326]

>>10298322
Some prefer different species concepts. It’s just dividing things up for human convenience.

[Anonymous No.10298329]

>>10298325
Ok, will you believe 8,000 genetics researchers?

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(18)30363-X.pdf

[Anonymous No.10298330]

>>10298325
On this one, they do.

[El Arcón No.10298331]

>>10298200
Why do people insist that species (and race) are genetic rather than semantic things? If you define species such that all humans are one species then they are all one species but if you define each sufficiently differently looking group of humans as different subspecies then there multiple species. In either case, no one's genes change. It's just what is meant by the word that changes.

[Anonymous No.10298346]

>>10298329
>Although there are clear observ- able correlations between varia- tion in the human genome and how individuals identify by race
Oh so scientists believe there are genetic differences between human groups but the categorization race is wrong
I wish you retards would actually read what you post

[Anonymous No.10298349]

>>10298346
the word race is wrong.
You'll never stop using the word race so we won you lost.

[Anonymous No.10298361]

>>10298349
Ofc the categorization of race is wrong dummy, you can’t just define humans just by skin color when there’s also differences in physical appearance and other things like intelligence. Which is why subspecies is better.

[Anonymous No.10298372]

>>10298361
Subspecies isn't used to suggest varied physical appearance or intelligence differences. If that were the case, literally anything can be a subspecies.

It requires substantial geographical or sexual exclusivity, and even then it's to the discretion of the taxonomist. So maybe the Sentinelese can be a subspecies, but that's about it.

[Anonymous No.10298400]

>>10298315

The OP did bring race into the discussion in his original post.

Race is a social, not a scientific, category. Also, he's using the terms interchangeably the category 'race' existed hundred of years the category 'species'.

>>10298200
I've partially answered OP's question. 'Race' was first used to refer to speakers of a common language (pre-nationstate Europe) and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century the term race began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits. This is called Revisionism and science, generally disregards pre-scientific concepts. E.g. Alchemy may be the precursor to Scientific Chemistry but Alchemy is based on Magick and astronomy while Chemisty is based on Physics thus the two are unrelated.

[Anonymous No.10298407]

>>10298372
Whatever barriers to interbreeding between races are purely cultural. Most people don’t give a shit anymore, or even fetishize other ethnicities.

[Anonymous No.10298416]

>>10298237
rofl

[Anonymous No.10298422]

>>10298407
outbreeding depression is an obvious barrier regardless of the species

[Anonymous No.10298430]

>>10298200
race is de facto an informal word for "subspecies", everyone who says otherwise is fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.10298432]

>>10298237
this, all of you fuckers go back to /pol/ and stop baiting with this bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10298434]

>>10298400
>Race is a social, not a scientific, category

For some reason most experts agree that race is a biological and evolutionary reality of human species.

Around 95% of Chinise experts aknowlage race as biological reality, 75% of experts in Eastern Europe and ex Warsaw pact countries recognise race and around 45% of experts in western Europe and north America recognise race your a brainlet and you have no idea what your talking about.

Also

>muh someone back then thought diferant of race than we do now so race dosen't even exist
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.10298437]

>>10298237
>subspecies
>species
>genus
>family
learn how taxonomy works, even fucking dogs have "subspecies"

[Anonymous No.10298444]

>>10298292
Humans and neanderthals bread with each other, do you consider neanderthals to be Homo-Sapiens?

[Anonymous No.10298447]

>>10298444
Have you ever learned basic logic?

No breeding = different species.

That doesn't imply that breeding = same species.

But you are a frogposter so...

[Anonymous No.10298450]

>>10298444
Yes, actually. Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalis are the same species since they can interbreed. Just a fact.

[Anonymous No.10298451]

>>10298447
The biological species concept is concerned only with reproductive ability. Other concepts tread into subjective ground.

[Anonymous No.10298453]

>>10298447
In that case your argument dosen't hold ground.

[Anonymous No.10298457]

>>10298450
So seperating neanderthals from humans isn't logical, they are same as us, same as Europeans and Australian aboriginals, or native Americans, we are all same thing right?

[Anonymous No.10298461]

>>10298300
>They are animals
So a different species?

[Anonymous No.10298464]

>>10298451
I guess lions and tigers are the same species (ligers can still mate)

>>10298453
Yes it does.

[Anonymous No.10298467]

>>10298300
Ironic considering your the ones stripping man from he's titles because of ''wrong thinking''

[Anonymous No.10298468]

>>10298457
You’re using slightly wrong terminology. Neanderthals and sapiens would both be “humans” even if we were reproductively incompatible, because “Homo” is a significantly larger clade that goes at least as far back as Homo habilis. They are the “same” in the sense we are the “same” as a gibbon because we cohabitate in the ape clade.

[Anonymous No.10298470]

>>10298464
Yes, and bears. They could be said to be in the process of speciation, because humans have disrupted the lion and tiger habitats, preventing “wild” hybridization. Previously, lions and tigers would have intermingled in Persia and Mesopotamia.

[Anonymous No.10298481]

>>10298470
And most of India and the Caucasus. I wasn’t aware of how widespread they used to be and how constricted they are now.

[Anonymous No.10298483]

>>10298298
That dosen't mean that subspecies can not be existant, even small diferances in genes can cause large diferances overall.

[Anonymous No.10298485]

>>10298313
Who told you that?Your socialist prof

[Anonymous No.10298489]

>>10298313
Who told you that?Your socialist professor?Or let me gues some shitty article in scientific American?Thats just wrong, most experts recognise race as biological reality.

[Anonymous No.10298498]

>>10298447
so what were you saying again

[Anonymous No.10298499]

>>10298331
some taxonomic decisions are less useful than others, some categories are necessarily less informative but more politically and socially useful than others. The veracity of taxonomy is only justified by how well it informs a foundational understanding of evolutionary theory and supplements future endeavors in that field. With the current definition, if researchers actually believed the media/publicly expressed opinion on which model to us, there would be a stagnation in evolutionary theory, medical science and our understanding of human phylogeny, if we allow for a stronger definition of race as applied to the human species there is a net gain despite the social cost of introducing a divisive, fear inducing category for human populations.

[Anonymous No.10298501]

>>10298204
>humans dont have subspecies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu

[Anonymous No.10298502]

>>10298483
Defining a subspecies requires some degree of reproductive isolation, which humans have never really had except for isolated island populations.

[Anonymous No.10298504]

>>10298498
I was new to the thread, but the DNA % doesn't matter. Species classification requires breeding.

[Anonymous No.10298505]

>>10298502
lol

[Anonymous No.10298509]

>>10298502
>which humans have never really had except for isolated island populations.
Australia and Africa.

[Anonymous No.10298510]

>>10298434
Most of those researchers are in biomedical and anthropological research, very few of them are geneticists though I wouldn’t be surprised if Chinese and East Euro geneticists believe race has a biological basis and use in the life sciences.
>>10298470
Its unlikely that there were not many subspecies of various big cat species in europe and asia, just as you can find many subspecies of big cat in the Amazon and in northern canada where humans have not significantly disrupted their range or breeding patterns to the degree that happened with West and East Eurasian Tigers.

[Anonymous No.10298511]

>>10298502
So you think that there are no diferances between human populations?

[Anonymous No.10298517]

>>10298502
no it does not and humans have had geographic isolation for as long as many animal subspecies have, Eurasians and Sub Saharans did not interbreed heavily at all, especially West-Congo Sub saharans and Northern Eurasians and SHG’s for extremely long periods of time, similarly australonesian populations and for instance Greenlanders or Iberian neolithic populations did not interbreed basically at all after the initial diffusion from the middle east, North American hunter gatherers and Canary Islanders did not interbreed for probably tens of thousands of years and Eastern Siberian populations and Khoisan peoples in SE Africa are almost certainly very genetically distant from each other compared to Mongolics and Eastern Siberians or San and KhoiKhoi people.

[Anonymous No.10298520]

>>10298509
People still migrated out and into Africa.

[Anonymous No.10298539]

>>10298520
oh okay we're all the same then

[Anonymous No.10298548]

>>10298520
No, because there are genetic differences between individuals and populations, just not great enough to define subspecies.

[Anonymous No.10298581]

>>10298216
>dogs don't have subspecies but humans should because we can recognize individuals of our own species

ok

[Anonymous No.10298584]

>>10298200

It depends on the context in which the term "race" is used

[Anonymous No.10298591]

>>10298581
Wake me up when there’s comparable difference between a chihuahua and a Great Dane amongst humans, I say. Because even then, with such dramatic differences, we still wouldn’t be subspecies.

[Anonymous No.10298598]

>>10298548
Okay forget about the subespecies, for a secound, i disagree with you but lets just asume that there are not great enough variations in homo-sapiens there for to be subspecies, so what?Do you think that there are no diferances between Australian aboriginals and Native Americans?The IQ diferances between populations are very important factor that needs to be taken into acount expecialy in our ever globalising world and considering that mainstream opinion on heritability of IQ stands at around 50% those diferances woun't go away with imporoved education and nutrition and what not.

[Anonymous No.10298606]

>>10298598
Who makes the one million?

[Anonymous No.10298610]

>>10298606
I don't know if specificly million but i would expect largest number to be for Ashenazi jews.

[Anonymous No.10298613]

>>10298598
Ah. You just want to be racist. Okay then.

[Anonymous No.10298615]

>>10298610
Jews would be classified under white in US statistics, so actual white people are likely parasites too.

[Anonymous No.10298619]

Cline is the used term for human population sorting.

[Anonymous No.10298621]

>>10298613
Just.......look man, i will ask you simple question, what is your solution for diferances in human populations regarding the average IQ diferances?Or you will just keep calling me buzzwords?

[Anonymous No.10298623]

>>10298615
US race cathegorization is retarded and dosen't make any sence to the point where they consider Mestizos same people as European Iberians because bouth speak Spanish.

[Anonymous No.10298639]

>>10298598
There are differences, obviously, like different skull shapes, hair textures, and skin tones.

[Anonymous No.10298643]

>>10298621
My solution is to toss out race altogether. There are so many dumb white people, more than there are dumb black people (in the US). I really don't care what your race is. If you want an authoritarian cogni-state, you also shouldn't care about race. You're talking about solutions to problems that don't exist. Our welfare spending is so fucking small compared to corporate tax evasion or military spending.

[Anonymous No.10298644]

>>10298621
Why does there have to be a “solution”? Who cares? If there is one, which is not apparent, it’s nothing we can’t genetically engineer out.

[Anonymous No.10298652]

>>10298643
Im not from the US, im from Eastern Europe, why should i alow Somalis into my country?Why should i take the risk of skyrocket in criminality and possible ethnic conflicts USSR collapsed because of ethnic tensions because organisms in general have a trait of group prefearance, we don't have many racial minorities here but of those which we do (gypsies) they make up huge percentage of incarserated despite not making up even 2% of the population.
>>10298644
Genetic engineering is not a thing yet (in general public) and woun't be for some time, but that is onother story.

[Anonymous No.10298666]

>>10298652
The USSR collapsed because it was unable to reform. The republics voted to stay in the union.

>we don't have many racial minorities here but of those which we do (gypsies) they make up huge percentage of incarserated despite not making up even 2% of the population.

Why? What are their living standards, education levels, and how does the rest of the population feel about them? Treating a pariah cast like pariahs keeps them pariahs.

[Anonymous No.10298669]

>>10298652
I can't speak for Eastern Europe, but I agree you shouldn't take in too many Somalis at once. I assume you're talking about refugees too. I believe Kenya is the largest harborer of Somali refugees, which is good, due to closer cultural identities. But they can't do it alone. Ideally everyone would share the burden and work together to resolve the conflict there, so they can all return home ASAP. But the world sucks at cooperating.

[Anonymous No.10298675]

why are americans so incessant about changing other peoples cultures into "melting pots", it's about as bad as exporting democracy by force policys

[Anonymous No.10298678]

>>10298666
>The republics voted to stay in the union.
Wrong
>The USSR collapsed because it was unable to reform
There where many factors that led to collapse of USSR but most notibly ethnic tensions just like in Yugoslavia.
>Why?
Most likely because Gypsies are essentialy tribe from India and their average IQ could be around the same as average Indian.

[Anonymous No.10298695]

>>10298678
There are 1,000,000 gypsies in the US. We don't even realize it, because they just blend in. They are not a large part of our incarcerated population. Doesn't that show how "bad" populations can integrate if given the chance (and they themselves take it)?

[Anonymous No.10298708]

>Another /pol/tard doesn't understand what a social construct is thread

[Anonymous No.10298716]

>>10298451
wrong. It is the main one factor though

there are many factors that go into the definition of a species such as morphology, taxonomy, as well as breeding compatibility. I think there was one more but I forget atm.

[Anonymous No.10298725]

>>10298675
Because they are demoralized. Even if you present them with facts to their face. Will keep telling them that black is black and white is white they wont ever accept it. The only thing that will wake them up is war.

[Anonymous No.10298726]

>>10298695
USA is diferant than European countries, say France is called France because ethnic french live there, but that is besides the point, we here don't realy use term ''white'' but rather group people by their ethnicity even though i personaly believe that Europeans do share comon ground when it comes to genetics, Gypsies will NEVER be one of us, they themselves don't asociate with us, and they are not like us, they are diferant population, that looks diferant, acts diferant and has diferant goals than rest of us, they work specificly in self interests of their own group, same as most African-Americans vote for democrats in US, despite maybie not agreeing with some of the policies and agree more with republicans, (there are few studies on this) or you can look how refugees in Sweden vote, wast mayority votes for pro imigration parties, WHY?Because they work in interests of their own group.I for one think that Eastern Europeans are not as ''capable'' as say north west Europeans or Scandinavians, it hurts my feelings but i can't just say ''no'' to datta, thats just what datta sugests.You have to understand that its not about ''GaSSING DEM JEWS AND NIGGERS'' no, its about not wanting to wake up at 80 when your people are minority in your own country.

[Anonymous No.10298727]

>>10298695
>There are 1,000,000 gypsies in the US. We don't even realize it, because they just blend in

Of course they blend in when America is only 60% white. You illogical fucking cunt.

[Anonymous No.10298733]

>>10298678
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum

Moron

[Anonymous No.10298735]

>>10298716
The biological species concept concerns itself only with reproduction. Other species concepts may use different criteria,

[Anonymous No.10298736]

>>10298726
I highly doubt you understand scientific data considering the things you've been posting

[Anonymous No.10298742]

>>10298726
>its about not wanting to wake up at 80 when your people are minority in your own country.
That's perfectly valid. It also has nothing to do with IQ. If you had an Asian invasion, I'm sure you would be just as upset.

So back to the original post:
>>10298621
Population IQ differences isn't really the problem. It's cultural identity and immigration.

[Anonymous No.10298747]

>>10298742
White racists often like to say “Oh Asians are even better than whites” to somehow soften their idiocy.

[Anonymous No.10298749]

>>10298256
/pol/ack intelligence, everyone.

[Anonymous No.10298757]

>>10298747
But thats what datta says, they have larger average IQ, larger average incomes, smaller amount of crimes per capita, alltrough there might be a debate on IQ distribution but thats onother topic, so why saying this is unresenable?

[Anonymous No.10298758]

>it's another "/pol/ gets BTFO for the millionth time yet still comes back tomorrow to make another dumb brainlet thread to get BTFO again" episode
Getting really tired of this.

[Anonymous No.10298766]

>>10298757
Those are all compounding social factors, where's the conclusive evidence that their genetics are making them superior?

[Anonymous No.10298770]

>>10298766
When looking at Average IQ's and heritability of IQ?

[Anonymous No.10298774]

>>10298757
>But thats what datta says
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing there being a problem with populations having difference in IQs. It is severely outweighed by cultural identity when it comes to social functionality.

[Anonymous No.10298775]

>>10298742
I wouldn't rely have problems with taking in some Asian refugees as long as they go to their home countries after set crisis.

[Anonymous No.10298778]

>>10298774
So what makes one culture to produce people with 115IQ on average (ashenazi jews) and other culture producing people with 60IQ (Australian aboriginals)?Is there some magical way that humans should live and we all would be super geniuses?Should we all convert to judeism?

[Anonymous No.10298788]

>>10298770
Just because the trait is blah% heritable doesn't mean that differences are best explained by genetics

Take the Burakumin in Japan, historically they were severely discriminated against and lived in poverty with shitty lives, they're IQ in Japan is 10-15 points lower even today. However those Burakumin who have moved to the USA score the same as other Japanese americans

[Anonymous No.10298797]

>>10298736
Well, i think that populations of homo sapiens have been seperated for thousands of years and thus developed diferant characteristics including intelligence, thats about it, the idea itself makes a lot of sence, now i could be wrong, but thus far i have no reson to think i am.
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/

[Anonymous No.10298802]

>>10298788
This can be explained by the fact that imigrant populations are not good representatives of native populations.

[Anonymous No.10298803]

>>10298733
Okay i was wrong, still though, from where i am ethnic tensions where largest reson for the split.
(see redest areas of map)

[Anonymous No.10298807]

>>10298241
You are so smart and can't recognize poster was just looking for word phenotype?

You can't deny phenotypes..

[Anonymous No.10298811]

>>10298778
A combo of environment and genetics. Why do you ask?

[Anonymous No.10298815]

>>10298811
I agree with you, but i think that, genes play mayor role and enviroment plays not as significant role as one may think, not saying of course that it plays no role.

[Anonymous No.10298819]

>>10298329
>>10298346
That study doesn't even say there are no differences, it just says that there is no "racial" superiority, it don't deny genetic superiority of one human over another.

Difference is real, you just can't tell by race. That's what they say.

[Anonymous No.10298826]

Genes differ more than feature than a race, yes member of race can have racial feature, but those racial features doesn't make human "supreme" because there are different features.

[Anonymous No.10298827]

>>10298807
Visible phenotypes are the product of a small amount of genes. You can't deny that variations in this minuscule amount of genes are enough to produce human "subspecies"

[Anonymous No.10298831]

>>10298797
>Well, i think that populations of homo sapiens have been seperated for thousands of years and thus developed diferant characteristics including intelligence, thats about it, the idea itself makes a lot of sence, now i could be wrong, but thus far i have no reson to think i am

Ok, well it seems to me that you think you have scientific backing for your agenda just because you've come up with a scientific hypothesis using common sense, that's not the same as actually having any scientific backing. It's a tactic used by literally every conspiracy theory. There's tons of different fields where unintuitive results seem to defy what feels or seems right, and yet they are true.
The genetics of intelligence is largely unknown, and it's virtually impossible to rid IQ experiments of environmental factors, even in MZ twin studies. Until we actually know more it is it's unscientific to spout racist shit

>imigrant populations are not good representatives of native populations
They're not good genetic representatives?

[Anonymous No.10298833]

>>10298509
Do you really think a few thousand years is enough for a species to diverge into subspecies anon? Your knowledge of evolution must be elementary.

[Anonymous No.10298838]

The real question we must ask is why Americans are obsessed with race? A fair amount seem to congregate around this ideology.

[Anonymous No.10298843]

>>10298831
>>imigrant populations are not good representatives of native populations
>They're not good genetic representatives?
Meant for
>>10298802

[Anonymous No.10298860]

>>10298200
If human races are separate subspecies does that mean you create a new one every time you interbreed? Retard

[Anonymous No.10298864]

>>10298827
No, that will take larger groups of features with minimum differences between each other to call it like that.

e.g. Skin color can be correlated to some other genetic features, but it's not that big amount of features to call it by different name. There are also groups, that can be same across different subspieces, but different across same subspiece.

[Anonymous No.10298877]

>>10298831
Well, thus far most studies to date, suggest that intelligence is mostly related to genes, for example Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study
, as well as twin studies which you mentioned, no one has problems with ackowlaging this when speaking of induviduals, but why can't same logic be aplied to populations?There is genualy not much one can do to incrase he's/her IQ by significant margins.Most experts if not mentioning race, would claim that IQ is mostly tracable back to genes.
>>10298843
Trait vise, as much for genes, they wouldn't seem too diferant from native peoples of country them came from, with few slight diferances however these diferances are huge, by human standarts (mostly speaking about IQ) for example Indian americans are amongs top earners in US and they have one of highest average IQ's out of all minorities living in US however their native populations are not even near as ''sucesfull'' as their american counterparts and this makes a lot of sence since only most sucesfull and ''well put'' of them are alowed to imigrate into US, onother example would be blacks in UK, who on some verbal tests do better than native brits, but again keep in mind that only most sucesfull of africans are alowed to imigrate in UK.

[Anonymous No.10298896]

>>10298860
Kick the shitskins out, and the problem of interbreeding will be solved.

[Anonymous No.10298906]

>>10298860
Do you when dogs do?

[Anonymous No.10298909]

>>10298501
>humans had subspecies

[Anonymous No.10298911]

>Why do scientists believe that animal subspecies are biological real but human races are a social construct?

I'm no expert, but I heard it might be a Jewish plot or something.

[Anonymous No.10298913]

>>10298509
>Africa is an island

[Anonymous No.10298953]

>>10298877
>Well, thus far most studies to date, suggest that intelligence is mostly related to genes
They don't, they're scientifically inconclusive as to how much it plays a role. You can look and the results and decide for yourself but a proper scientific conclusion can't be made because of how challenging it is to remove environmental factors entirely to isolate the genetic difference.
>Scarr & Weinberg (1976) interpreted the results from age 7 suggesting that racial group differences in IQ are inconclusive because of confounding of the study

>The follow-up data were collected in 1986 and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992; they interpreted their results as still supporting the original conclusions

>For example, one group of authors wrote, "Generally, scholars in the field of intelligence see the evidence from this study . . . as consistent with both environmental and genetic hypotheses for the cause of Group IQ score differences . . ."

>Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible.

>only most sucesfull and ''well put'' of them are alowed to imigrate into US, onother example would be blacks in UK, who on some verbal tests do better than native brits, but again keep in mind that only most sucesfull of africans are alowed to imigrate in UK.
That simply isn't true, again automatically believing in a hypothesis just because it suits your agenda

[Anonymous No.10298959]

>thinking that only 5 users from /pol/ are the only people on this whole site that don't like niggers.

my main boards are g, o , tv and sci. I rarely visit pol.
the west is finished, I hope the chinese get to conquer the whole world so all this bullshit about being politicaly correct gets smashed. the chinese have strict controls to africans residing in china they don't like niggers and they dont care about your feelings.

[Anonymous No.10298960]

>>10298953
But again, most of these studies are related to race, which is why the datta is interpreted in the way it is, when not speaking of race most experts would say that IQ is tracable back to genes.
>That simply isn't true
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.10298994]

>>10298960
>How do you know?
Take the UK for example. The majority of black people in the UK weren't only allowed to immigrate if they were highly successful
>most experts would say that IQ is tracable back to genes
How do you know? Most of what I can find suggests that nobody knows whether genetics explains racial IQ gaps

[Anonymous No.10299019]

>>10298994
>The majority of black people in the UK weren't only allowed to immigrate if they were highly successful
Source?
>How do you know?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

[Anonymous No.10299047]

>>10299019
>Source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
Yep, a lot of inconclusive experts in there.
Many more in here as well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Research_into_the_possible_genetic_influences_on_test_score_differences

[Anonymous No.10299060]

>>10299047
Okay so your main argument is ''we don't have enough studies and evidence to claim that intelligence is mostly genetic'' so it still can go either way, so what about we stop mass imigration from 3rd world countries into west before we know for sure?That would be safer, as oposed to taking a gamble.

[Anonymous No.10299070]

>>10298200
>Subspecies
Brainlet detected. Subspecies are not what you think they are and were never the prevailing opinion when identifying two animals of the same species, but with slightly different characteristics.

[Anonymous No.10299072]

>>10298598
>Keep people in slavery
>Free them and deny them access to the economy and prevent them from building up their own communities for 100 years
>"See guys look! They aren't contributing!"
So dumb.

[Anonymous No.10299087]

>>10299060
Cause maybe they will get rid of inbreed idiots like you who are so afraid of outsiders lowering the average iq of those who are themselves too stupid to realize the lack of brains is already part of their own population

[Anonymous No.10299090]

>>10299072
or maybe its just their average IQ?

[Anonymous No.10299093]

>>10299090
low IQ response

[Anonymous No.10299094]

>>10299087
Why are you so mad?We had civilized discussion up untill now, i proposed logical alternative and you went nuts.

[Anonymous No.10299098]

>>10299093
No its not, Mestizos where newer slaves in US (in large numbers) yet they don't contibute as well, while Asians who have larger average IQ are contibuting more than whites and ashenazis who have even larger IQ's contibute even more.

[Anonymous No.10299105]

>>10299098
What part of being kept out of the economy don't you understand? Asians and Jews were never discriminated against to the extent of Blacks in America. It really shows how much of a brainlet you are to compare a small minority in a country that has historically hounded them with violence and laws that were designed to keep them from building stable communities, to the majority

[Anonymous No.10299111]

>>10299105
Yeah sure kid......what about the mestizos though?

[Anonymous No.10299115]

>>10299111
What about them? They're currently starting to dominate economically in the South West, but they still too faced discrimination, only difference is they have numbers.

[Anonymous No.10299129]

>>10299115
>Imagine being so delusional
Look buddy we have litteraly tested bouth populations, bouth sore below average of 100, soo.....yeah, your just wrong.

[Anonymous No.10300183]

Gorilla, orangutan, chimps have 24 pair chromosomes. They are one specie, but different subspecies.
Humans with 23 pair chromosomes are one species with different subspecies. Neanderthal was a subspecie.
Same goes for tiger, lions, leopards & jaguars

What about this statement?

[Anonymous No.10300202]

>>10299129
>litteraly
>bouth
>bouth
>sore
Are you drunk?

[Anonymous No.10300243]

>>10298256
You don't understand how genetics works.

[Anonymous No.10300257]

is anyone in this thread arguing that iq isn't completely genetic?

are you same idiots arguing hair color is half environment too?

you literally CANNOT evolve a trait if it is not entirely genetic because if it is not ENTIRELY genetic, selection cannot act upon it

intelligence is 100% heritable among monkeys, that didn't suddenly change at homo ergaster or something you nimrods

[Anonymous No.10300258]

>>10300257
>I don't know what heritability measures, the post.

[Anonymous No.10300267]

>>10300258
people that score under or above their parents are still inheriting their traits that might not have been phenotypically epressed

there is a genetic phenomenon due to mathematical recombination called regression to the mean. kids tend to be shorter than very tall parents due to the mathematical mechanics of inheritance. that doesn't make height less heritable. it is still 100% inherited and 100% controlled by genes.

[Anonymous No.10300319]

>>10300267
>I don't know what heritability measures, the 2nd post.
Do you enjoy being wrong all the time?

[Anonymous No.10300325]

>>10300319
you're arguing that hair color isn't 100% heritable because blonde kids can be born to black haired parents

the mechanisms that cause intelligence and hair color are both 100% genetic. heritability is not merely displayed phenotype you nigger

[Anonymous No.10300337]

>>10300325
>I also enjoy the subtle art of Ad hominem.
We are all really impressed.

[Anonymous No.10300383]

>>10298201
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS??????

[Anonymous No.10300395]

Races in human are like breeds in dogs, it's that simple.