/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10529140]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/aboriginal-australians-have-been-genetically-isolated-for-20000-years-a6895686.html
How is it possible for a population that's been isolated for 50,000 years not to be considered at least a sub-species?

I'm starting that not much has changed since the days of Galileo and society is still more concerned with maintaining the ideological status quo than the truth.

[Anonymous No.10529146]

>>10529140
We need to exterminate them.

[Anonymous No.10529150]

>>10529146
Hey man Aboriginals aren't a demographic threat, there's less than a million of them and they're far far to retarded to ever pose a real threat to anybody. Not to mention they're extremely interesting from a anthropological perspective.

But it's still a fact that they're not homo sapiens and everyone knows it.

[Anonymous No.10529152]

>>10529140
i'd fuck the left one, and we don't have proper definitions of all that. You can call them a different subspecies if you want, but " isolated for 50,000 years" doesn't mean shit

[Anonymous No.10529160]

>>10529152
There's no way that humans left alone for 50,000 fucking years won't diverge in a significant enough manner to be afforded a different taxonomic classification. Come on man.

[Anonymous No.10529166]

>>10529150
>But it's still a fact that they're not homo sapiens and everyone knows it.
bullshit, you're the reason i'm starting to hate 4chan.They ARE homo sapiens and it is believed they are close to direct descendent to the humans that left africa, with a bit of denisovan from south-east asia mixed in

[Anonymous No.10529170]

>>10529160
its like you didn't even try to understand my post

[Anonymous No.10529173]

>>10529166
Yeah okay buddy no significant divergence here.

[Anonymous No.10529183]

>>10529173

[Anonymous No.10529188]

>>10529183
It's not about them being ugly or fat it's about the clearly different facial structure you absolute tosser.

[Anonymous No.10529189]

>>10529173
i didn't say there wasn't any, but they ARE homo sapiens

[Anonymous No.10529194]

>>10529188
>You can call them a different subspecies if you want, but " isolated for 50,000 years" doesn't mean shit

[Anonymous No.10529195]

>>10529189
Why did you post an image comparing blacks, whites, and asians when we're talking about Aboriginals?

Please keep on topic.

[Anonymous No.10529196]

>>10529194
hypsicranic skull with heavy brow, minimal eyes, epicanthic fold

Obviously not human

[Anonymous No.10529199]

>>10529196
Well he is a Jew so that goes without saying

[Anonymous No.10529201]

>>10529195
because we are talking about divergence

[Anonymous No.10529203]

>>10529195
>are they even really human?

[Anonymous No.10529205]

>different species

[Anonymous No.10529206]

Haven't East Asians been almost entirely isolated from West Eurasians for roughly 40k years? All Eurasians have been separated from Sub Saharans for nearly 75k years. Who gets to be OG human and who gets to be "not human" or "subspecies" in this context, nordposting meme nigger?

[Anonymous No.10529214]

>>10529206
>Who gets to be human
>Who get to be subspecies
Are you trolling? Wtf. That's not how subspecies work, if we devide humans onto subspecies then all humans will be allocated to some subspecies, all of them will still be classified under human since that's a species.

[Anonymous No.10529254]

>>10529214
I don't think you understand how species work

[Anonymous No.10529355]

>>10529254
Google 'subspecies', first link should be the wiki, it's a pretty short one, so you should be able to get at least half way before giving up. In it it will explain to you that a species has 0, or 2 or more subspecies, if it has subspecies, it forms a partition of the species.

[Anonymous No.10529448]

>>10529140
>sub-species?
Far as I can tell it's down to definitions. Subspecies by definition have no interbreeding/gene flow at all, but human groups all have some interbreeding at geographical boundaries which technically means they're not subspecies even though they're more genetically and phenotypically different to each other than other species' subspecies are.
> isolated for 50,000 years
If that's right they probably should be considered a subspecies.

[Anonymous No.10529475]

>>10529140
>https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/postcolonial-blog/2016/aug/09/cause-to-celebrate-australias-indigenous-population-is-on-the-rise
>Cause to celebrate: Australia's Indigenous population is on the rise
They actually published this.

[Anonymous No.10529509]

>>10529140
>is still more concerned with maintaining the ideological status quo than the truth.
Except they're closer to us genetically than Africans.
Pic related, they're far easier to become intermediate white than blacks.

[Anonymous No.10529511]

>>10529509
>english
>they're far easier
It's far easier for them*

[Anonymous No.10529520]

>>10529448
>Subspecies by definition have no interbreeding/gene flow at all, but human groups all have some interbreeding at geographical boundaries
Are you saying polar bears and grizzlies are not different subspecies?

[Anonymous No.10529538]

>>10529509
>woman on right
Looks like Princess Leia lol. This explains so much

[Anonymous No.10529541]

>>10529194
Jews are a different species

[Anonymous No.10529545]

>How is it possible for a population that's been isolated for 50,000 years not to be considered at least a sub-species?

And what exactly does labeling them a sub-species get you op? Even with said isolation Europeans were still able to admix with them to derive fertile offspring.

What is your aim here?

[Anonymous No.10529551]

>>10529140
>They don't look just like me, they're not even human!
Fuck off back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.10529599]

>>10529551
Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10529702]

>>10529520
They're different species apparently.
Though taxonomy is a mess. Most of it's from the pre-genetics era.

[Anonymous No.10529796]

>>10529140
They are a sub-species, it's just not acceptable to point it out yet. In the future, all of this left-wing racial dogma will be considered as daft as the Victorians judging people by the shape of their skull.

>They haven't bred with any other people for tens of thousands but they are just like you and me lol

The common man knows it's all bullshit, it's only the lunatic left keeping common sense from being put into books.

[Anonymous No.10529801]

>>10529796
>>10529551

[Anonymous No.10529806]

>>10529194
YO

[Anonymous No.10529984]

>>10529796
>In the future, all of this left-wing racial dogma
In the future everyone will be brown and thus subspecification will be unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.10529992]

>>10529189
prove it

[Anonymous No.10530013]

>>10529160
The Native Americans were genetically isolated from asians for 40,000 years, yet they're still technically asians.

[Anonymous No.10530021]

>>10529992
they are believed to be descendants of the original humans that left Africa who btw would include the ancestors of all other races besides Africans themselves, and those descendants are considered homo sapiens

[Anonymous No.10530024]

>>10530021
sorry, *ancestors
>and those ancestors are considered homo sapiens

[Anonymous No.10530031]

>>10530021
That doesn't prove that they would still be classified as the same species were we not talking about homo sapiens in particular and the politics associated with it

[Anonymous No.10530142]

>>10530031
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.10530174]

>>10529140
Wonder why people are so obsessed with this classification, especially those who aren't interested in taxonomy otherwise. It's almost as if if they can scientifically classify these people differently then they can disenfranchise them politically.

[Anonymous No.10530179]

>>10530142
Genuinely curious. What's the answer?

[Anonymous No.10530186]

>>10530174
Because it fuels their suspicions that science isn't solely interested in the truth and instead is willing to kowtow to public opinion and politics

[Anonymous No.10530190]

>>10529140
>not much has changed since the days of Galileo
wat

[Anonymous No.10530193]

>>10530179
>1. Biology A group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Species+(biology)

[Anonymous No.10530199]

>>10529545
Plenty of different species can produce fertile offspring. You don't even need the same fucking chromosome count, nature is fast and loose.

[Anonymous No.10530224]

>>10530199
species aren't some hardly defined rigid classification. most commonly its just types that can produce fertile offspring but like you pointed out there are exceptions to that rule. it's really just a grouping method for our convenience.

[Anonymous No.10530248]

>>10530224
So it's arbitrary bullshit. Thx anon

[Anonymous No.10530425]

>>10529801
Ecologists have no trouble classifying other species as sub-species with much looser specifications.

[Anonymous No.10530478]

>>10530199
Your mom was fast and loose.

[Anonymous No.10530601]

>>10530186
Come on brutha, we all know scientific inquiry is just a cover story for whitey to oppress us and steal our Wakandan technology like dey been doin since WE WUN KANGZ

[Anonymous No.10530700]

can we just end this thread already?
YESS we know science is infiltrated by the joos
YES we know it caters to emotional feminists
YES we know we would have been better of with a nazi scientific guidance policy
YES we know every race is different, and that the differences are more than just appearance

and bill nye please come back to us

[Anonymous No.10530743]

>>10529140
duh

[Anonymous No.10530791]

>>10530248
pretty much, yes.

[Anonymous No.10530836]

>>10529140
everyone seems to be forgetting that taxonomy have moved on since the victorian era and we tend to define species based on genetic distance rather than morphology...

They are not divergent enough to be considered a different species, and what terminology is used to discriminate genetic lineages within a species is pretty much arbitrary, which many taxa having their own convention. In humans the convention is to use "race" rather than something like subspecies, strain, subtype, genotype etc (all of which mean pretty much anything depending on the convention of discrimination for that organism).

I really don't understand the insistance by amateurs on redefining what arbitrary tems we use to discriminate discrete populations. You could just as well point at any organism and say "why do they say subspecies, rather than race" or "why do they say subtype rather than genotype or strain".

[Anonymous No.10530854]

>>10530031
This is not the correct board to discuss politics. Go back.

[Anonymous No.10531184]

I mean, some humans were separated for even longer periods of times on totally different biomes, yet they could reproduce with each other. Darwinists eternally btfo.

[Anonymous No.10531558]

>>10529152
>not wanting to fuck the right one

You're never gonna make it, anon.

[Anonymous No.10531583]

>>10530013
In what sense are they "technically asians"? Asian is to a large extent a semantic category, not a phylogenetic category. I.e. there's no scientific criteria for determining whether American Indians are or are not asians. One can certainly do tests to determine genotypic and phenotypic traits associated with such populations, and then examine how similar or different two populations are in comparison to one another. In the case of American Indians and Asians, the genetic resemblance is quite high, especially amongst Eskimo-Aleut peoples, but that still doesnt entail that American Indians are "technically asians" in any sense that this category could be construed as a natural kind term.

Also, iIrc (1) newer research has moved human migration into the Americas, (2) we now believe that there were seprate waves of migration resulting in phenotypically and genotypically distinct American Indian populations (cp. the aforementioned Eskimos and Mesoamerican Indians), (3) Most recent migration to the Americas occured later than thought (although I dont follow the subject academically, I would personally suggest that this might account for the (somewhat tenuous) similarities we find between Turkic, Uralic, and Eskimo-Aleut).

[Anonymous No.10531590]

>>10531184
Polar bears and Brown bears can reproduce with each other.

[Anonymous No.10531674]

>>10531590
So can mules and horses and numerous other animals. Their babies cant reproduce though.

[Anonymous No.10531749]

>>10531674
Interspecific crosses are relatively rare, and are seldom fertile. Much of it has to do with the chomrosmones and the enges

[Anonymous No.10531758]

>>10531749
yet, people seperated from each other by thousands of miles and thousands of years can produce perfectly fertile offspring.

[Anonymous No.10531766]

>>10530174
It's about the lies not hate you fucking coward. By the way if SHTF liberal self-hating whites are my mortal enemy not blacks or Abos or brown people. RWDS are reserved for traitors not retarded brown "people"

[Anonymous No.10531782]

>>10531758
that was my oipnt

[Anonymous No.10531984]

>>10530478
based.

[Anonymous No.10532003]

>>10531766
You are proving him right by acting like someone who only vacations in science when you feel like it.

[Anonymous No.10532004]

aboriginals are a sub-species and it's retarded politics that forces otherwise. the fact that people can be genetically different beyond skin colour brings up the possibility of an inferior/superior which brings back memories of hitler, so everybody is exactly as unique as everybody else.

[Anonymous No.10532077]

[Anonymous No.10532079]

Why are they all fat?

[Anonymous No.10532164]

>>10532004
pretty sure that neanderthal skull, until I noticed it didn't have a bun.

[Anonymous No.10532179]

>>10532004
I think it's first necessary to indicate the lack of negative connotations of the word "subspecies" before continuing. It does sound a bit too close to "subhuman" and such. At the very least doing that, and ensuring to apply the concept of genetic variance leading to other subspecies of humanity would be a good step towards getting rid of those debating with political aims.

[Anonymous No.10532458]

>>10530174
>>10529545
My hope is that once we recognize that we as groups are innately different, we stop expecting similar social results, and stop blaming white people when they fail to appear.

[Anonymous No.10532471]

>>10532458
My hope is that once /pol/ fucks off we stop seeing so many shitty "race realism" threads.

[Anonymous No.10532472]

>>10531583
good answer, nice to see that there are a few others on here with something other than a childs grasp on the science of race

[Anonymous No.10532473]

>>10532458
I think even for abos and Africans, if would be appeasing to know that all of their disadvantages are not due to other people hating and oppressing them; that they don't have as many enemies as they've been told.
Of course that also requires that European and Asian people don't start treating them as cattle again.

[Anonymous No.10532475]

>>10532077
>>10532004
>>10529173
>>10529140

one rayce

da hooman rayce

[Anonymous No.10532478]

>>10532471
/pol/ is not a separate species

[Anonymous No.10532490]

>>10529992
They don't fit the modern, most practical definition of a seperate species. Looks have nothing to do with that definition.
Some different species are almost indistinguishable while other species have males and females or first and second generation show such huge differences they were only recently identified as belonging to the same species.

[Anonymous No.10532496]

>>10529448
>Subspecies by definition have no interbreeding/gene flow at all
what about fucking huskies and bulldogs?

[Anonymous No.10532499]

>>10532004
Bringing pol into science is always a mistake.
>the possibility of an inferior/superior
That's always true, all subspecies or isolated populations are superior in their environment and inferior in others. It's just not that important since we can compensate.

[Anonymous No.10532509]

>>10532079
They adapted to life in a very hostile environment in which getting as much nutrients as possible from food and holding on to them was vital. So the modern diet is fucking them up way more than people who started to adapt to modern food sources a while ago.

>>10532496
Those are breeds.
What we see as species or subspecies mostly depends on how they act in the wild. So you can argue that Aboriginals were subspecies until they encountered and started to live with and breed with non-aboriginals on a larger scale.

[Anonymous No.10532512]

>>10532496
my bad, german wiki is shit.

[Anonymous No.10532520]

>>10532496
in no way is citing dog breeds in a conversation about the uninfluenced evolution of discrete populations of humans going to be fruitful. They are totally different circumstances, governed by entirely different evolutionary influences. You will just end up confusing people in this thread who are clearly already bewildered by evolutionary biology.

Also, they are considered breeds rather than subspecies. The terms are not synonymous, nor do they reflect similar biological principles.

[Anonymous No.10532525]

>>10532509
>breed with non-aboriginals on a larger scale.
Do they ?

[Anonymous No.10532530]

>>10532520
What's the difference between environmental selection involving humans and environmental selection involving humans ?

[Anonymous No.10532549]

>>10532530
>What's the difference between environmental selection involving humans and environmental selection involving humans

You are conflating a set of natural influences that act on humans and a set of human influences that act upon another species.

The general difference is that we have interfered with breeding populations (a general definition of how we might define a sub-species), which means considering dog breeds as discrete sub-species makes no logical sense.

[Anonymous No.10532552]

>>10531583
no no no, you see, humans are magically exempt from evolutionary pressure

[Anonymous No.10532558]

>>10532475
We're nowhere near being unable to interbreed, hence we're certainly subspecies but not seperate species proper. Whatever the fuck "race" even refers to these days.

[Anonymous No.10532560]

>>10532549
No, I am conflating a set of natural influences (among which human ones) that act on humans and a set of natural influences (among which human ones) that act upon another species.

We are selecting ourselves too, almost as actively as we selected dogs (dog breeding in the past that formed the dog breeds was largely spontaneous and relaxed).
But even then there's no fundamental difference between a species evolving to adapt to, I don't know, hot and dry climate, and evolving to adapt to sheep husbandry.

[N No.10532562]

>>10529140
Dammit OP what have you done

[Anonymous No.10532581]

>>10532525
Of course, they already did around 1900 and even more so in modern times
www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/06/aborigines-australia-marriage

[Anonymous No.10532593]

>>10532560
You cannot conflate selective breeding with natural selection. Selective breeding is an entirely different force. They work on totally difference principles, natural evolution being "more optimally adapted populations proliferate more readily", and selective breeding being pretty much anything any breeder wants it to be. We are not selected in anything like the same manner. Although nor is natural selection the architect of our evolution anymore.

>... there's no fundamental difference between a species evolving to adapt to, I don't know, hot and dry climate, and evolving to adapt to sheep husbandry.

This is just plain wrong. There is, by definition, no natural selection in animal husbandry beyond obvious health deficits dying or being culled. There is an absolutely fundemental difference between the influences that drive this divergeance. The two concepts should not be conflated, it does not benefit any kind of analysis to do so.

[Anonymous No.10532613]

>>10532581
>in Sydney, as many as nine out of 10 university-educated Aborigines had a non-indigenous partner.
Yeah, abos like those in pic related.

The problem with that article is that it goes with the one-drop rule to define who is aboriginal.

But we are concerned with the original group.
> in the outback, just 2% of men and 5% of women take a non-Aboriginal partner.
Is that a large scale ?

[Anonymous No.10532629]

>>10532613
forgot pic from
https://www.murdoch.edu.au/news/articles/aboriginal-graduates-honoured

see also
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/close-gap-growing-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-medical-workforce

[Anonymous No.10532634]

>>10532593
They work on the exact same principles : individuals more adapted to their environment proliferate.
The fact that that environment includes human activities doesn't change the principle, anymore than the inclusion of anemones changed the principle for clownfish, or that of wolves for deer.

Humans are part of nature.

The difference is superficial, it only consists in what characters are selected; the mechanism is identical.

[Anonymous No.10532693]

>>10529140
Abos and blacks are a subspecies regardless of your pointless empathy they have genetic distance to be considered distinct from all Western and East Eurasians.

[Anonymous No.10532695]

>>10529509
That just a unique aspect of Abo DNA it has nothing to do with genetic relativeness as Abos actually look more prehistoric than african blacks and have lower intelligence than african blacks as well which is very bizarre as blacks are older than them.

[Anonymous No.10532726]

Anyone remember when that guy from /pol/ overturned 40 years of genetics and anthropology research and won a Nobel prize?

[Anonymous No.10532735]

>>10532726
>and won the Good Goy prize?

[Anonymous No.10532741]

>>10532735
>science is as jewish conspiracy
every thread

[Anonymous No.10532748]

>>10532741
No, but modern scientific institutions have been infiltrated by dishonest leftists.

[Anonymous No.10532750]

>>10532748
Nope. Science is based on repeatable and verifiable predictions. It's not a conspiracy. You're just as bad as flat earthers.

[Anonymous No.10532756]

>>10532741
Jews dont care about science because they still think their small population is some sort of master race superior to all of mankind combined which is nonsense, but they use science which is a white concept to fool whitey into killing himself.

SCIENCE SAYS FUCKING AFRICAN JUNGLE SAVAGES IS GOOD FOR YOU!

SCIENCE SAYS THAT DIVERSITY IS GOOD FOR YOU!

DO WHAT SCIENCE SAYS GOY!

Jews are the reason we have this sudden blackwashing of archaeological homini in science they are pure cancer who need to be banned from every human institution because they cant control their insanity:(WE JEWS ARE THE MASTER RACE SERVE US!)

[Anonymous No.10532758]

>>10532750
Note how I didn't say "science", but "scientific institutions".
Is the Noble winner decided based on "repeatable and verifiable predictions" you dishonest mule?

[Anonymous No.10532760]

>>10532758
Yes, the Nobel prize is based on published scientific work.

[Anonymous No.10532763]

>>10532750
Science has proven that blacks and abos are dumb animals compared to:
Europeans
Russians
Central Asian
Middle Easterners
Indians
South East Asians
Pacific Islanders
Inuit
North Africans
North American Natives
South American Natives

but that is ignored because muh racism illogical nonsense even though science accepts that niggers do good in sports due to a genetic higher number of fast twitch muscle fibers that no one other than them has, yet intelligence differences as abominable.

[Anonymous No.10532764]

>>10529140
They can be considered a sub-species. It's only that most people don't really want to use this for humans since all our subspecies run around all over the planet so there is no real geographical separation anymore, which depending on the definition, is one thing that 'natural' subspecies usually have if they breed with each other on sight.

[Anonymous No.10532769]

>>10532760
Can you show me the paper that scientifically show how they decided that Obama had to win the Nobel Peace Prize?

[Anonymous No.10532772]

>>10532763
And all noted together are dumb animals compared to jews. Still you won't stop arguig against our overlords.

[Anonymous No.10532774]

>>10532769
Grasping for straws

[Anonymous No.10532780]

>>10532769
Probably by not invading another country based on the need for an election campain.

[Anonymous No.10532782]

>>10532764
There is an entire island of humans related to Abos who lived in the literal stone age until the 1800s even though they had contact with the more intelligent south east asians in Indonesia and Borneo.
>>10532772
There are only 15 million jews they are more whites with IQs above 120 than jews on Earth right now so shut the fuck up shekelstein. Your such a race of geniuses that you have to dumb down the inferior white and asian goyim just to compete SAD.

[Anonymous No.10532786]

>>10532774
>Each year, thousands of members of academies, university professors, scientists, previous Nobel Laureates and members of parliamentary assemblies and others, are asked to submit candidates for the Nobel Prizes for the coming year. These nominators are chosen in such a way that as many countries and universities as possible are represented over time.
>After receiving all nominations, the Nobel Committees of the four prize awarding institutions are responsible for the selection of the candidates.
Is this the scientific method?
I remember it being a bit different.

>>10532780
What is the Arab Spring?

[Anonymous No.10532816]

>>10532782
There are more chinese people with a higher IQ than most whites.

[Anonymous No.10532823]

>>10532772
If jews are so smart why does Israel, the Jewish ethnostate, have an average IQ of 95?

https://brainstats.com/average-iq-in-israel.html

[Anonymous No.10532852]

>>10532823
Jews are about 75% of israel's population, and the askenazis, the smart ones, are about 50% of those.

[Anonymous No.10532972]

>>10529984
Surprised that nobody took this b8 desu

[Anonymous No.10532979]

>>10532852
Ashkenazis are basically European Jews, again kind of suggesting something you don't want to admit

[Anonymous No.10532989]

>>10529140
I don't know about abbos but niggers are definitely not humans.

[Anonymous No.10533022]

>>10532979
Ashkenazi are genetically distinct from Europeans. They lived in Europe but didn't interbreed.

[Anonymous No.10533025]

>hurr whityes superior durr niggers are animals hurr
Thank god the Jews are systematically exterminating your race.

[Anonymous No.10533047]

>>10529188
Does Ethiopians having different bone structure make them subspiecies then?

[Anonymous No.10533116]

>>10532989
Your wife isn't human, faggot.

[Anonymous No.10533145]

>>10533116

[Anonymous No.10533152]

>>10533116
>faggot

>>>/pol/
We don't use homophobic slurs on this board.

[Anonymous No.10533161]

>>10532989
>greentexting outside 4chan(nel)

[Anonymous No.10533210]

>>10529140
How are they a different fucking sub species if you can fuck them and make a baby? This place is retarded

[Anonymous No.10533234]

>>10533210
>doesnt know the difference between species and subspecies

Bruh just so you know, if you actually study math or science, then you're just wasting your time if you're actually that stupid.

[Anonymous No.10533257]

>>10533210
It depends on what species definition you are using. There is no consensus among biologists.

[Anonymous No.10533264]

>>10533210
Because you're a high schooler and fertile hybrids exist.

[Anonymous No.10533279]

>>10532989
Hard to work the land when you don't have anything to make tools with

[Anonymous No.10533283]

>>10533145

[Anonymous No.10533284]

>>10533279
Hard to work the land when your IQ is 60.

[Anonymous No.10533289]

>>10533284
>Falling for the 60 IQ meme

[Anonymous No.10533290]

>>10533283
There are albino niggers too

[Anonymous No.10533296]

>>10529188

[Anonymous No.10533298]

>>10533289
Prove their IQ is not borderline retard. Show one study with measurements of African nigger IQ where the results are different.

[Anonymous No.10533380]

>>10533298
don't know how to read a chart?

[Anonymous No.10533402]

>>10533022
Wrong.
https://amp-livescience-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQECAEoAQ%3D%3D
>Though the finding may seem intuitive, it contradicts the notion that European Jews mostly descend from people who left Israel and the Middle East around 2,000 years ago. Instead, a substantial proportion of the population originates from local Europeans who converted to Judaism, said study co-author Martin Richards, an archaeogeneticist at the University of Huddersfield in England.

[Anonymous No.10533422]

>>10532634
>the mechanism is identical
This is simply not true. Look at a pug and tell me that this is natural selection at work. There is nothing natural about the selective forces that lead that pug to be born. Just because humans are part of a natural system does not mean that selective breeding and natural selection are the same. The only similarities they have are in that they are based on principles of heredity.

The difference is not superficial, it's fundemental. In the wild, populations more suited to their environment are more likely to produce offspring. This is nothing remotely close to how selective breeding works. We circumvent this process to select for traits that will be beneficial to us, not to the animals survival in a competetive system (the term 'competetive' is key here). Release a herd of dairy cattle into the serengeti and you will quickly see what I mean.

The key here is: does introducing principles of natural selection explain the profileration of traits in domestic animals. Of course it does not. They are not subject to it, therefore the difference is not merely superficial.

[Anonymous No.10533425]

>>10529140
>Another racism thread

Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10533427]

>>10529150
Homo sapiens has existed for over 100,000 years. Are you a moron? Yes.

[Anonymous No.10533433]

>>10532003
>the only people who truly care about science accept heterodox opinions and politically correct consensus.
You are the manifestation of the rot in modern day academia.

[Anonymous No.10533458]

>>10531766
>RWDS
I wonder how many of you actually have the stomach for this?
All the white ultraviolent mass shooting spergs go after unarmed people in houses of worship.

[Anonymous No.10533467]

>>10533458
I too hate white people my fellow black man.

[Anonymous No.10533503]

I'll never understand people so worried about race. If you're superior why are you spending time here of all places trying to convince people? Most people I've seen that worry about this stuff don't really have a background with genetics. Like they've never even talked to a vet about dog breeds, let alone sequenced genomes.
cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(18)30363-X.pdf

[Anonymous No.10533632]

>>10533503
I don't think anyone is saying that they're superior so you're already approaching this argument from the wrong foot. The entire purpose of race realism is to accept that there are racial differences in IQ, not to say that whites are better than others. Also if you wanted to say that racial IQ averages makes a race superior then Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are superior to whites so trying to argue that race realism is white supremacist makes no sense.

The reason people care is because the current Academic establishment is so hostile to the idea for political reasons, which is symptomatic of a larger issue of political bias in higher education (especially the humanities). Most academics are ready to accept that there are average height differences between races for example but discussing average IQ differences is taboo. The double standard is what I hate personally.

[Anonymous No.10533651]

>>10529140
Consider the Texas longhorn. A breed of cattle in all regards except for its horn size. They are descendants of cow brought by Christopher Columbus in 1493. No other cow looks like that to date. Evolution happens a lot faster than "millions of years."

[Anonymous No.10533691]

>>10533422
>Look at a pug and tell me that this is natural selection at work
This is natural selection at work. They evolved to display an appearance that was valued in their environment. Not any different than peacocks evolving for a certain appearance.
The principles of heredity and of selective pressure are working in both cases to lead these species into their current state. And that's what we call evolution.

The problem here is that you have a skewed view of nature. How is selective pressure coming from humans different than selective pressure coming from any other living or unliving element of the environment ? It's not different.

Populations more suited to their environment are more likely to produce offspring ? This is exactly how selective breeding works : certain individuals produce (more) offspring; because they're more suited to their environment, which happens to contain humans killing and/or feeding them.
The reality is that domestic cattle were not taken out of this world you call a competitive system. They are still walking on the same earth as the rest, and they ensured their survival by entering a certain relationship with another species and evolving to improve this relationship. They're not adapted to the serengeti, what does it matter ? They're adapted to the environment where they are living like every other species. Or even better, considering that they're generally not threatened by extinction. Domestic cows are hugely more successful ecologically than wild ones, and dogs are hugely successful compared to wolves. That's natural selection.

[Anonymous No.10533696]

>>10533632
Literally nobody argues about IQ test results. You know race realism goes beyond that, otherwise it wouldn't be a thing. Race realism is about using that info for discrimination.

[Anonymous No.10533721]

>>10533696
>Race realism is about using that info for discrimination.
Not necessarily. I know there are groups that use it for their political agendas but there are activist groups everywhere that use science for their political goals. Why is it that only race realism gets this taboo? Communists and progressives actively use the fields of anthropology, history, and the humanities in general to advance their goals yet nobody but the "far-right" seems to care about that.

[Anonymous No.10533744]

>>10533503
As the other anon said, its all pretty simple to understand. Nobody is claiming whites are "superior". I wouldnt even call myself a "race realist" - just someone that recognizes the existence of differences between races. Beyond that its all just Statistics 101 and Philosophy 101: (1) Im not claiming that these features apply categorically or exclusively to members of a single racial group, (2) im not claiming that things "should" be this way, that this makes one group of people "superior" to the other. On fact Im not even sure what such a claim could mean. This is basically the is-ought distinction: somethong that any intelligent person has come to (at least tacitly) understand by the time they graduare high school.

Saying, e.g. "oak trees are, on average, taller than beech trees" does not logically entail that "oak trees are superior to beech trees". First of all, such an inference is basically a non-sequiter, and even if it was formally valid, it would still be meaningless because "superior" is undefined in this context. The cases we're dealing with when we e.g. claim that "white people are on average taller than asians" is more analogous to saying that "giraffes are bigger than hamsters" than it is to saying something like "white people are superior to asians".

[Anonymous No.10533794]

>>10533632
I think you're being presumptuous about academia. How many people have you interacted with that study genetics and have opinions on race? From what I've discussed, most people agree there are differences. But the idea that many differences can be be easily assigned and grouped (skin color, intelligence, height) just doesn't hold up given our current understanding of genetics as various papers have shown. I acknowledge groups of people are different for sure, as this person said: >>10533744. But I don't think we have enough functional genomic information to make hard conclusions yet beyond peoples biases adn what they want to think. For example, most people in academia think IQ has too many confounding variables (discrimination, upbringing, etc.) when try to correlate it to race, which most geneticists don't really believe in to begin with. Even trying to link something like outward appearance to intelligence is ridiculous when you consider just how many genes are interacting, how peoples definition of intelligence changes, and how we still don't have all the functional human genes down. From what I've seen race realism is mainly for people outside of genetics to confirm biases. Again I acknowledge differences and I think anyone else would. But its far more complex than simple groupings, especially when you consider confounding variables etc. There are certain institutions that definitely preach diversity etc. But those institutions don't reflect every individual within them or academia.

[Anonymous No.10533823]

>>10531583
What can I say? They're asian, they came from asia, and they share the most genes with asians.

[Anonymous No.10533831]

>>10533744
>just someone that recognizes the existence of differences between races.
Except the particular difference you "recognize" here doesn't appear to be real

[Anonymous No.10533843]

>>10533289
While I believe in differences of race, it literally makes no sense for a demographic to have an purported IQ that low. Also I'd like to know what metrics are being used to measure IQ because I honestly doubt the average Chinese IQ is as high as it is, and is not being manipulated at all

[Anonymous No.10533862]

>>10533794
My experience with academia comes from studying in the humanities and that's where my prejudice comes from. I've personally experienced left wing profs using their positions to try and spread their political views and i've seen student union goons come in to assert their dominance and preach typical SJW doctrine in front of the whole class while the prof sits there emasculated waiting for them to just get it over with and leave.

[Anonymous No.10533866]

>>10529140
because subspecies are shit and the base taxonomic unit is species

[Anonymous No.10533870]

>>10533862
>SJW doctrine

Pretty sure minors aren’t allowed on 4Chan. Go watch Armored Skeptic or something.

[Anonymous No.10533881]

>>10533870
I'm almost certainly older than you bud.

[Anonymous No.10533904]

>>10533458

[Anonymous No.10533907]

>>10533380
It says Lynn's data is flawed. Where are other measurements of African nigger IQ that contradict his data, you nigger-lover faggot?

[Anonymous No.10533938]

>>10533843
> it literally makes no sense for a demographic to have an purported IQ that low
Why not?

[Anonymous No.10533942]

>>10533296
That white woman and that black girl have very different face structure.
What's your point?

[Anonymous No.10533957]

>>10529140
Humans are not going to get classified because racists turn it into politics. Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.10533960]

>>10533957
humans arent gonna get classified because then we would have to come to the realization that jews are superior and that whites are niggers to jews and niggers and niggers to jews as well and everyone is a nigger to the Jew

white people dont want to come to that realization

[Anonymous No.10533962]

>>10533907
Please return to your containment board. Racial hatred is for teenagers and boomers

[Anonymous No.10533987]

>>10533957
>Humans are not going to get classified because racists turn it into politics.
But then you've turned non-classification into politics.

[Anonymous No.10533994]

>>10533942
It's a reversed exaggeration of the commonly posted picture: An average looking elderly aboriginal women with battered skin vs. an adolescent or young adult female with modeling features and good skin. I think he's just trying to show the irony in the comparison of those two, regardless of the usual facial differences between races.

[Anonymous No.10534027]

>>10533794
>most people in academia think IQ has too many confounding variables (discrimination, upbringing, etc.)
Studies on identical twins BTFO this bullshit. Intelligence is mostly genetics.
>Again I acknowledge differences and I think anyone else would.
Why are you ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS so dishonest? Most liberals deny the existence of races as something real. Whenever we have those kinds of threads here they always start with leftists denying races, just to pretend nobody does midway through, returning to deny races the next time we have a thread like this.
Slimy fuckers.

[Anonymous No.10534032]

>>10533994
I get that, but it's stupid since it end up reinforcing the initial point. Races are different.

[Anonymous No.10534141]

>>10533994
>>10534032
I corrected this one.

[Anonymous No.10534191]

>>10534141
whoa i'm like so redpilled now based

[Anonymous No.10534210]

>>10529194
>>10529196

high IQ ashkenazi jew

he's a lot more intelligent than the average eurobrainlet

[Anonymous No.10534220]

>>10534141
i see you failed general biology

[Anonymous No.10534292]

>>10534220
what makes you think so, specifically ?

[Anonymous No.10534304]

>>10529189
Why are there 3 Asian types but only one black and white. Especially when all Asians look the same. Is this Chinese propaganda?

[Anonymous No.10534337]

>>10532750
ehehehehe
https://youtu.be/xjl-R-Ts39g

[Anonymous No.10534350]

>>10532475

like I can understand talking about the common races being the same species. I don't share the opinion but we are very similar all the same. aboriginals absolutely are a subspecies, they're blatantly different.

[Anonymous No.10534389]

>>10534292
Convergent evolution you nigger.

[Anonymous No.10534413]

>>10532458

>My hope is that once we recognize that we as groups are innately different, we stop expecting similar social results,

Allow me to respond to this statement by asking a biological question steeped in philosophy. How is it that babies regardless of race/ethnicity are able to learn any human language/ writing and negate both distance and time engraved in said language/writing system? You say that we should stop expecting similar social results but what happens when biology openly fights against such a view?

I'm not even saying that human groups don't have innate differences. But it's hard to not expect similar social results when one of the keystones of human existence that is behind both the survival and cognition is extremely ubiquitous on a large scale.

This doesn't even get into other areas such as religion, music, cooking or entertainment where the wide spread emulation of similar behavior in populations globally highlights a very modular biology that at least ""seems"" to favor similar social results.

[Anonymous No.10534414]

Is it true the aborigines never mastered fire?

Or that Native Americans never functionally used wheels?

[Anonymous No.10534437]

>>10534413
>race/ethnicity are able to learn any human language/ writing
The American blacks seems to have lots of problems with the English language.

[Anonymous No.10534443]

>>10534414
>Native Americans didn't have wheels

They didn't have draught animals, which precedes the pottery wheel in Eurasia. This really doesn't mean anything. Indigenous Europeans didn't invent anything, from farming ,to writing, to the wheel. It all came from Anatolia and the Levant.

[Anonymous No.10534454]

>>10534437
>The American blacks seems to have lots of problems with the English language.

Wrong. Ebonics is a dialect of English, and they have no issue with Ebonics.

[Anonymous No.10534487]

>>10534413
Because all human groups can do the same things doesn't mean that they can all do them as good as good as each other.
You bring language, but as >>10534437 was saying, African Americans perform much worse in language tests than other races. Not only that, but native African languages are much more limited and primitive than European ones.

[Anonymous No.10534501]

>>10534487
>native African languages are much more limited and primitive than European ones.
Proof?

[Anonymous No.10534502]

>>10534437

No, they don't. The expression of a language does not denote the inability of understanding and using said language. Such varied expressions of a given language are common in all countries by regions and show up even in highly racialy homogenized populations.

Also there are American blacks who speak English absent of varied dialects or more appropriately speak it the same way as affluent whites. As even white Americans have various expressions of the English language.

[Anonymous No.10534518]

>>10534487
>Not only that, but native African languages are much more limited and primitive than European ones.
I doubt that can be solidly linked to be mainly a product of genetics, sounds much more like a factor of environment. The fact that their terrain didn't provide opportunities (agriculture, etc.) for a large city to arise where linguistic culture could be exchanged and developed at exponentially higher rates than their hunter-gatherer tribes could alone is what I'd chalk it up to. Not that these same environmental factors didn't also significantly affect their genetics. I'd instead make the comparison between other somewhat recent hunter-gatherer societies, such as those found in South America and potentially those in North America, the steppes, and North-East Asia. While African tribes did practice some degree of animal husbandry or crop farming, I think comparing them to tribes elsewhere with similar levels would be essential.

>>10534502
While of a somewhat distinct genetic group, the black people of England seem to be integrated fairly well and have no issues with language. I'd quite like to see what sort of ancestry they have.

[Anonymous No.10534525]

>>10534502
>>10534501
>No, they don't. The expression of a language does not denote the inability of understanding and using said language.
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-41171196

>Also there are American blacks who speak English absent of varied dialects or more appropriately speak it the same way as affluent whites.
Average vs Individual cases.
Also African American have on >average< 20% European blood.

[Anonymous No.10534536]

>>10533691
I guess Plutonium is a naturally occurring element since it’s been produced by humans.

[Anonymous No.10534538]

>>10534487

>African Americans perform much worse in language tests than other races.

Testing is different than literacy anon. And specifically that testing is related to reading tests. Their literacy rates are roughly 98%.

https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

>Not only that, but native African languages are much more limited and primitive than European ones.

And yet there are African countries with European languages as their national language. This is about comparing which languages are more "complex" it's about the fact they can learn it regardless of it.

[Anonymous No.10534551]

>>10533907
>It says his studies are flawed
But that's not what it says, inbred.
You realize that chart plots the iq results for over 40 studies?

[Anonymous No.10534559]

>>10534525

>Also African American have on >average< 20% European blood.

You say that as if having Caucasian genes in African population is unique to them. Did you forget about Ethopians?

[Anonymous No.10534579]

>>10534538
The issue is that knowing a language is not a Boolean values. A person might speak a language very well, while his friend poorly, yet neither of them are analphabet.

Finally I want to say that knowing a language is not this particularly difficult thing for human. In every populations there are always a certain amount of really stupid people yet even those can still speak it.

[Anonymous No.10534619]

>>10534579
>a language is not a Boolean values
sounds like someone is genetically disadvantaged when it comes to linguistics

[Anonymous No.10534623]

>>10534525
You have proved nothing, good job.

[Anonymous No.10534636]

>>10534619
>typos? In my 4chan? NO WAY
You can't even capitalize or use punctuation.

[Anonymous No.10534643]

>>10534636
I was just being le funny man, no need to get so serious.

[Anonymous No.10534644]

>>10529140
>>10529140

aboriginal dreamtime

The Aboriginal Australians dream collectively which implies an advanced spiritual consciousness.

Frivolous western intellect or lack thereof has brought us to the doorstep of the 6th mass extinction.

[Anonymous No.10534651]

>>10534643
I appreciate that you took my criticism to heart.

[Anonymous No.10534670]

>>10534651
no i use different levels of punctuation regularly so people don't know i'm samefagging

[Anonymous No.10534728]

>>10534027
I'm not liberal dude. I dunno why your jumping to conclusions, it just sounds like you don't like liberals and hold a bias. I'm aware of the twin studies but that doesn't relate race to intelligence. Again I'm not doubting there's genes for intelligence. But current genetics doesn't support the idea of easy racial groupings where the genes for outward appearance interact with the genes for intelligence. Especially when you consider that we still don't fully understand all human gene, interactions, etc. And that's still not including confounding variables. I just see this sorta thing as an excuse to be angry online since most of the data supporting these claims is cherry picked and outdated or taken out of context. If you're in the field of genetics and have recent studies I'd be interested but until then I just don't see these claims as reasonable.

[Anonymous No.10534764]

>>10534027
I think you're missing the point. He's not talking about genes being related to intelligence. Just that race and intelligence isn't as easily related as you may think. The twin point doesn't really address confounding variables either. You'd have to design a study where you had people from different races with the exact or very similar backgrounds and that's just not possible right now. Especially when you hold a bias yourself. On top of that most genentists don't even believe in the idea of race as clear groups. That cell.com link addresses most of this stuff anyway. Also why are you so mad about liberals all of a sudden? What field do you study anon?

[Anonymous No.10534795]

>>10534027
There are differences in people, that is true. The idea of races as a scientifically backed concept isn't. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that. Can you or anyone else who's into this explain why you care so much about race? I honestly don't get it. It just seems like a way to make you outraged online and not actually do anything productive

[Anonymous No.10534810]

>>10529194
HEY LIL DONNIE

[Anonymous No.10534827]

>>10529140
>wahhhh why aren't people I don't like classified as non human?
In 50 years we'll look at people that espouse this bullshit the same way we look at phrenology

[Anonymous No.10534852]

>>10534827
What I find funny, is say we'll decided fuck it, let's cull everyone who's IQ is below genius level, you'd end up killing a ton of white people. There's some research showing conservative beliefs correlate to a lower IQ (I don't personally believe it's that simple but for the fun of it let's assume). After the great IQ culling you be left with some smart niggas, a bunch of lefty white people, and a ton of bug people, at least based on the current IQ data I've seen. So I don't know why race realists value IQ so much lmao

[Anonymous No.10534867]

>>10533632
>The entire purpose of race realism is to accept that there are racial differences in IQ, not to say that whites are better than others.
>implying you're fooling anyone with that bullshit

[Anonymous No.10534892]

>>10534867
>opinions

[Anonymous No.10534909]

>>10529152
>>10531558

[Anonymous No.10534934]

>>10534852
>There's some research showing conservative beliefs correlate to a lower IQ
naturally. and there's actually a fair bit.
a willingness to collect and accept facts, consistently apply logic, and exercise abstract thought will all turn you into a liberal; that's why academia and the sciences are so full of them.

[Anonymous No.10534960]

>>10534934
Sounds like a bit of cherrypicking with regards to what you define as "conservative". Not to mention the hiding of inconvenient facts is now commonplace in academia. Again:
>>10534337

[Anonymous No.10534987]

>>10534960
I'm the guy from earlier who joked about the hypothetical culling, like I said I don't think it's as simple as beliefs correlating to IQ. I also don't know if I'd take YouTube as a source. I understand the complaints about academia but I don't see how arguing here would change things you don't like about it. Why not get involved in the sciences? I agree there's a left leaning tendency for institutions but I've found the people I work with tend to not all just blindly share those same beliefs

[Anonymous No.10534999]

>>10534987
I'd agree with you there. What I think is more important is that the lecturers for human sciences tend to push their own agenda a bit more than I'd like. I took a geography paper last year and in place of the rational sources I'd expect of a physics or biology paper I found appeals to emotion and one-sided stories being presented. I guess I'd say that something along the lines of rationalism is seperate from both conservatism and whatever "progressivism" refers to at the moment, and is the bracket under which most seasoned practitioners of "hard science" fall under, or at least more so than the human sciences and humanities.

[Anonymous No.10535007]

>>10534999
I agree, I think it's hard for people in humanities with reasonable conservative views right now to express themselves in lots of academic institutions. Which is a shame cause it prevents good discussions and just people thinking and considering their viewpoints rather than echo chambers and whining like I tend to see here often.

[Anonymous No.10535202]

>>10534413
The question is how similar is similar.
I was referring to social facts like criminality, academic and economic success... The results are already dissimilar, and a lot of people recognize this and agree that they are. They usually believe that this dissimilarity is a major problem, and that it comes from systemic racism and white privilege. They then logically feel disenfranchised, and resentful at whites, which isn't good for our society.

[Anonymous No.10535207]

>>10529166
>the reason i'm starting to hate 4chan
baitu

[Anonymous No.10535213]

how is this science and math? seems more like a pol trash thread.

[Anonymous No.10535214]

>>10535213
>genetic isolation
>not science

[Anonymous No.10535428]

>>10532077
they are so fucking ugly holy shit.
How can anybody not believe they are a sub species?

[Anonymous No.10535469]

>>10535428
nice false flag

[Anonymous No.10536392]

>>10532499
>That's always true, all subspecies or isolated populations are superior in their environment and inferior in others. It's just not that important since we can compensate.
When Europeans went to Africa they built first world countries, when Africans go to Europe they create ghettos.

[Anonymous No.10536477]

>>10533427
>there hasn't been any evolution in the past 100,000 years
>it's okay to let people unknowingly mate with a lesser subspecies because MUH ONE RACE
and then there's
>THAT'S JUST RACIST BS YOU DON'T KNOW THAT
>[is shown technical genetics literature]
>WELL THAT'S JUST RACIST SCIENCE. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY WE FUND THAT HUR DUR

[Anonymous No.10536485]

>>10533458
>One is a hero and the other is a racist white supremacist terrorist bigot REEEEEEE
or maybe nobody was surprised when the black guy shot up the neighborhood.

[Anonymous No.10536503]

>>10534934
Probably not at all related to the fact that conservatives, or basically any researcher who arrives at the wrong finding, are often BOOed into an early retirement, if not refused at hiring. Academia is a liberal cult that has lost all credibility with most people, so the fact that you think we would eat up that garbage propaganda article...LOL KYS FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.10536514]

>>10535213
Creationist detected

[Anonymous No.10536542]

>>10529140
>How is it possible for a population that's been isolated for 50,000 years not to be considered at least a sub-species?

Because of Jews.

[Anonymous No.10536560]

>>10536477
>it's okay to let people unknowingly mate with a lesser subspecies because MUH ONE RACE
How do you do, fellow fascist?

[Anonymous No.10536586]

>>10533116

[Anonymous No.10536589]

>>10534551
>inbred

[Anonymous No.10536628]

>>10534960
>Muh cherry-picked data

>>10536503
>Muh oppression
>Muh discrimination
>Muh conspiracy

Amazing how you faggots suddenly figured out how to raise questions about a study's methodology and results.
Why don't you stop denying science? IQ is genetic. That's why conservative parents have conservative children.

[Anonymous No.10536706]

>>10534728
>>10534764
>>10534795
>even if twin studies show that intelligence is mostly genetics somehow this is magically not true when you compare populations

[Anonymous No.10536713]

>>10535469
What am I supposed to be falseflagging?

[Anonymous No.10536741]

>>10529140

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288200/
>On this time scale, ages for the Eurasian-distributed Val60Leu, Val92Met, and Arg163Gln variants are 250,000–100,000 years; the ages for African silent variants—Leu106Leu, Cys273Cys, and Phe300Phe—are 110,000–40,000 years. For the European red hair–associated Arg151Cys and Arg160Trp variants, we estimate an age of ∼80,000 years

rs1805005-T = Val60Leu, 250kya-100kya
rs2228479-A = Val92Met, 250kya-100kya
rs885479-T = Arg163Gln, 250kya-100kya
rs1805007-T = Arg151Cys, 80kya
rs1805008-T = Arg160Trp, 80kya

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917718/
>The AuR sample is a clear mixture of two clusters corresponding to Oceanic ancestry and the majority ancestry component of Western Eurasian populations. Recent admixture with Europeans, who began settling the continent in 1788, is an obvious source for this Western Eurasian component and would be consistent with known genealogical information. However, contact with India earlier in the Holocene has also been proposed on the basis of mtDNA19 and Y chromosome20 data. At K > 5, further population distinction emerges in the Western Eurasian cluster, with gradual separation of European from Central and South Asian populations (Figure S1). Although the distinction is never complete, the non-Oceanic component in the AuR sample is most consistent with European ancestry. Such a conclusion is anecdotally supported by the presence of evolutionarily recent alleles (for example, the blue-eye-associated allele of the rs12913832 SNP, near the OCA2 gene21 [MIM 611409] and the red-hair-associated allele of rs1805007 in the MC1R gene22 [MIM 155555]) that are essentially restricted to (primarily northern) Europeans

[Anonymous No.10536749]

>>10536741

However, since Europeans are, by virtue of Y-haplogroup R, nested within Oceanian generic diversity, the notion that these alleles might have introgressed into Australians from Europeans is not parsimonious. European-to-Australian introgression entails that a population moved from Africa to Australia, from Australia to Europe, and back to Australia - after at least one of the supposedly introgressed alleles (rs1805007-T) had already emerged in an African population circa 80kYBP and migrated directly to Australia.

The distribution maps (Figures 12-16) of rs1805005-T, rs2228479-A, rs885479-T, rs1805007-T and rs1805008-T substantiate the hypothesis of this paper; that rs885479-T evolved exclusively in a lineage which went on to compose East Asians, and which has introgressed into northern Europeans (FIN.) If rs885479-T was was native to Europeans, the allele would be found in TSI - in contrast, rs1805005-T (Age 250-110kybp) is found in both Amerindians and CEU, while rs1805007-T and rs1805008-T (Age 80kYBP) are found solely in Europeans - and, perhaps, in Australian aborigines.

The Natufian culture circa 12kya is the direct descendent of Melanesian colonists, and is the ancestor of the Canaanite and Egyptian civilizations. Starting 6kya (4000BC,) Canaanites began migrating en masse to the Aegean, and from there to Crete. The Cretans colonized the Balkans, and from there they colonized Tuscany. Their next stop was Denmark, and from there the British Isles.

Some historical confusion has occured, because Europe has been mis-identified as the continent where Europoids evolved. Because of this, the darker peoples of the Mediterranean have been considered seperate from the lighter peoples of northern Europe.

[Anonymous No.10536768]

>>10536749

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30127404
>individuals from the Levant_ChL population had a greater affinity on average to Iranian agriculturalist-related populations than was the case for earlier Levantine individuals
>We highlight three findings of interest. First, an allele (G) at rs12913832 near the OCA2 gene, with a proven association to blue eye color in individuals of European descent40, has an estimated alternative allele frequency of 49% in the Levant_ChL population, suggesting that the blue-eyed phenotype was common in the Levant_ChL
>Second, an allele at rs1426654 in the SLC24A5 gene which is one of the most important determinants of light pigmentation in West Eurasians41 is fixed for the derived allele (A) in the Levant_ChL population suggesting that a light skinned phenotype may have been common in this population

>https://www.livescience.com/63396-ancient-israel-immigration-turkey-iran.html
>Blue-Eyed Immigrants Transformed Ancient Israel 6,500 Years Ago
>Thousands of years ago in what is now northern Israel, waves of migrating people from the north and east — present-day Iran and Turkey — arrived in the region

>http://time.com/4538142/human-rights-first-award-yazidi-girls-iraq/

>http://sciencenordic.com/genetics-confirm-migrants-brought-farming-mediterranean
>Migrants from the Near East were moving into Central and Northern Europe

>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187408
>Consequently, despite corresponding to isolated and homogenous populations, contemporary Assyrians and Yazidis from Northern Iraq may in fact have a stronger continuity with the original genetic stock of the Mesopotamian people

>https://www.livescience.com/49147-egyptian-cemetery-million-mummies.html
>Blond and redheaded mummies

This Yazidi girl resembles the people who built western civilization. Modern brown eyed brunettes in these regions - Greece, Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, North Africa - do not resemble them.

[Anonymous No.10536777]

>>10536560
Lazy troll. Fuck off faggot. I'm talking about science. Objective reality doesn't care about your definition of right and wrong. The fact is we live in a world where evolution encourages divergence. Equality is a social construct.

[Anonymous No.10536798]

>>10533691
>They're adapted to the environment where they are living like every other species

No they aren't the adaptation is being forced for the benefit of humans, not the bred population. This is simply not natural selection. If you do not realise this then you don't understand the principles of either.

Whether you see it or not, you are misunderstanding the fundementals of what natural selection is, in contrast to selective breeding. It is not enough to say "humans select the traits, humans are natural, therefore the selection of the traits is due to natural selection". This is a fallacious conclusion and does not lead to accurate assessments on ecological and evolutionary dynamics.

I am not going to try and convince you any further, because you are repeating the above fallacy and clinging to it. We will just go round in circles, so I will leave you with what I said. Ultimately, you would be rejected by reviewer 1 if you claimed that in a publication.

[Anonymous No.10536799]

>>10536749

Forgot the distribution maps.

[Anonymous No.10536832]

>>10532726

>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/132555v1.full
>The plain green component is absent in post-Magdalenian Europeans, and the pine green component is present in significant amounts in Europeans from the Copper Age on, which eliminates modern contamination as a possible source of the European admixture in the Chinchorro sample
>The medium blue component is completely absent in the Chinchorro sample, and since the Eastern European and Western Siberian hunter-gatherers are made up mostly of that component, they are excluded as sources of the European admixture in the Chinchorro sample
>The ADMIXTURE analyses further shed light on exactly which European population the non-Amerindian admixture in the Chinchorro sample might be from: only the pre-LGM Europeans show a pattern of non-Amerindian components similar to that seen in the Chinchorro sample, which strongly suggests that the pre-LGM Aurignacians or Gravettians, or possibly the LGM Solutreans, were the source of the admixture
>A complicating factor in identifying the exact source of the European admixture in the Chinchorro sample is the amount of divergent genetic drift that would have occurred between the arrival of the European source population in the Americas and the time of the Chinchorro individual analyzed
>Regardless of the exact source of the European admixture in the Chinchorro sample, the fact that such admixture exists is the first ancient DNA proof of pre-Norse transatlantic contact

Yes, I do remember when that happened.

>>10532735

This. There's proof for everything /pol/ says;

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960200137X
>African-descended people (Blacks) average cranial capacities of 1267 cm3, European-descended people (Whites) 1347 cm3 [...] It must be concluded that the race differences in average brain size are securely established [...] Blacks average an IQ of 85, Whites 100

[Anonymous No.10536859]

>>10536777
>Controlling who you can or cannot fuck
>It's science!

[Anonymous No.10536876]

>>10536798
>No they aren't the adaptation is being forced for the benefit of humans, not the bred population.
What are the benefits of adaptation for a given population ?
A higher number of descendants.
What happens to populations selected by humans ?
They get a higher number of descendants.
Aurochs disappeared and cows spread all over the world in billions. How is that not benefitting the domesticated population ?


I agree that we're going in circles, because you seek to define natural selection in contrast to selective breeding. You start from the conclusion instead of the facts, and you keep repeating empty assertions like "this is simply not..." or "it is not enough.." without giving a single argument to defend your preconception. Why is it not enough ? Why is it fallacious ? I expect you don't know.

The truth is that there's no need to contrast the two. If you start from the facts (same mechanisms - heredity and procreative failure/success; same outcomes - adaptation to the environment and survival of the population, specific element of the environment involved - humans, particular relationship with this element - a certain form of mutualism), you can only conclude that selective breeding is part of the phenomenon called natural selection.

[Anonymous No.10536904]

>>10536798
>Ultimately, you would be rejected by reviewer 1 if you claimed that in a publication.

See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4371924/

"Domestication is a sustained multigenerational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in order to secure a more predictable supply of a resource of interest, and through which the partner organism gains advantage over individuals that remain outside this relationship, thereby benefitting and often increasing the fitness of both the domesticator and the target domesticate."

[Anonymous No.10537007]

>>10532520
If anything, dog breeds are the closest analogy to human races that exists instead of just sub-species. Both experienced human selection that rapidly accelerate phenotype changes, both descend from smaller more genetically homogeneous populations.

[Anonymous No.10537136]

>>10536768

it's true that blue and green eyed, paler skinned ethnic groups were predominant in the middle east historically and were displaced by arabs during the islamic period, but greeks and romans are pretty much the same as they've always been. the concept of romans having blue eyes and blonde hair is a beauty thing, not genetic; they thought nordics were an inherently beautiful race and tried to emulate them.

[Anonymous No.10537174]

Race deniers are the new creationists

[Anonymous No.10537223]

>>10536768
Propaganda.
>pic related: actual Yazidi's

[Anonymous No.10537231]

>>10537223
Egyptian portrait (Roman Imperial Era crica 1 AD)

[Anonymous No.10537236]

>>10537231
Looks identical to the modern Egyptian if you've seen any.

[Anonymous No.10537246]

>>10537174
Preach brother. We are men of SCIENCE. And SCIENCE says race is a biological FACT, and absolutely NOT socially constructed. I just misplaced my copypasta of studies that say so, could you help me out? I've been trying to spread the good work on race but haven't been able to back it up.

[Anonymous No.10537272]

>>10537231
>>10537236
Egypt was conquered by Greece by that point.

[Anonymous No.10537285]

>>10529702
>Most of it's from the pre-genetics era

More like pre-politically correct.
No one will directly fund ethnic studies nowadays--you got to get sneaky about it, like through the mining of meta data from genetic testing companies

[Anonymous No.10537457]

>>10537272
So? My point was ancient egyptians look exactly like modern egyptians. Those portraits were before there was any group of desert nomads we call today arabs... I was replying to that /pol/ propaganda capture insinuating that the middle east used to be some golden white paradise before islam displaced all native populations... blatantly untrue... you can still find pale skin blue eyes in ALL parts of the middle east even in eastern province saudi arabia....

non-europeans with white-passing features is apparently something that /pol/ can't handle so they must always have a story of the mythical aryan that either mysteriously migrated away or disappeared by breeding with the lesser darkies...

[Anonymous No.10537514]

>>10536628
>IQ is genetic. That's why conservative parents have conservative children.
Generally, conservative children do seem to lack the mental acuity to ask the critical questions, or to refine contradictory thoughts until they form a coherent position from any angle.
They think, "Rush is right because daddy said so" and "Fags are evil because the Bible says so".
Two seconds later, they'll say, "being White doesn't make me [X]!"
You may think they're being disingenuous, but that's not true. They just can't think very hard.

[Anonymous No.10537525]

>>10537457
You can blabber your ellipses all you want but it doesn't change the fact that even if they're "white passing" they still live in a medieval society.

>>10537514
What a trite observation. Children will wholeheartedly mimic the beliefs of their parents because that's how ideas are passed on in the lack of external influence. You're being disingenuous about something we all are innately aware of.

[Anonymous No.10537540]

>>10532750
Yeah, after the Gould debacle where we found out Gould was fucking fudging numbers to promote his bullshit hypothesis that Morton was just an EVIL RACIST deliberately measuring African skulls to give them lower estimates. It's hard to take what establishment WESTERN science has to say about race.

Hey, remember that time someone on /pol/ who happened to be a graduate in a university that hosted Morton's skull collection decided to actually double check Gould "Mismeasure of man" claim and found out that Gould was lying and that Morton measurement were right? And we ONLY know this because someone decided to double check, with some of other Gould claim, we actually cannot double check his numbers.

I cannot trust Westerners and science when it comes to race, because its a career ending taboo (unless you push racial hatred in the guise of sociology, then its okay). For that, you have to literally read between the lines, and used studies were guys are basically kinda sorta using race, but not quite.

[Anonymous No.10537556]

>>10533458
>All the white ultraviolent mass shooting spergs go after unarmed people in houses of worship.

You know, your dumb insecurity would have more impact before the NZ thing, but after that? No one cares what you think, its clear from that day just how much you're afraid if that type of thing starts becoming the norm among young Europeans. Governments and youtube itself is shitting itself, having to censor every comment on videos that had the same music playlist, just because too many people were being supportive.

[Anonymous No.10537639]

>>10537514
>>10534934
>>10534852

Boy, you little ugly repulsive leftist black. You sure are schizophrenic today! What is it with these ugly repulsive fucking blacks, being both physically and behaviorally repulsive? That's the main reason why I consider blacks genetically inferior. Not your IQ, but all the other personality traits of your race that are also genetics. You deny this too.

First, race realist value IQ so much because IQ is the most studied genetic trait when it comes to populations. Race realists/HBD are also interested in other genetic traits. Because every single human trait is genetic. All of them, and they all differ between populations, and they are in many ways, more fascinating then just IQ, because it explains why the Finns can have Europe's highest IQ, yet why UK/France/Germany/Netherlands were the reason why White Europeans became superior. Not all race realists are political, many are just autistic individuals who find genes and how they differ between populations fascinating, but they are forced to become political thanks to people like you who demonize them, deny their implications, and post a pseudoscience called racial equality. Denying human classification is wrong, because pretending that human races don't exist for a pseudoscience is politics.

Second, when you lose the arguments. Why do you make this juvenile revenge scenarios? LOL, race realist, guess what, we'll just kill everyone who doesn't have a high IQ and you'll be one of them but not "smart niggers". Are black people THAT STUPID? You're admitting that we're right. More importantly, in any scenario where the world decides to kill everyone who score below genius level would result in essentially a genocide of the complete black race. Killing half of Africa would result in less dead blacks. I forgot the ratio, but 1 in every 8 white is genius level, while 1 in every 32 blacks is genius level, they'll all be dead, you'll be dead.

[Anonymous No.10537667]

>>10534852
>>10534934
>>10537514

I think it says alot about you that you have to make some stupid revenge fantasy that debunks you. It really shows that inability to abstract thinking. Do you think WE race realists are gonna change our minds because of a potential negative implications of the truth? Are you fucking retarded?

Finally, for someone who is obsessed with debunking Lynn data because he thinks that makes him "win" (which is meaningless the black-white IQ gap stands without Lynn, that comes from thousands of IQ studies). You think you would learn this important fact, that one study is meaningless, and the idea that "liberals" are more intelligent then conservatives is wrong, and you posting one study is meaningless, especially since you are basing it off the little abstract you are reading, and not the actual data. Do you know, just how much fucking race realists/IQ differences between populations papers I could post on this board? Many things, some looking at racial differences in video game playing. No joke. But I don't, because most are just one study not saying much.

If conservatives are less intelligent then liberals, then how come National Socialists who had to stand in trail for the Nuremberg trail, had higher then average IQ compared to Germans. Some reaching genius level. I'll tell you why, because the truth is that its not a simple "liberal" vs "conservative" thing, in that case, in the French Revolution,, who had the highest IQ, the rich elite monarchist (conservatives) or the peasant revolutionaries (Liberal)? Yeah, doesn't work. What correlation there is between political views and cognition is that acceptance of novel political ideas are correlated with intelligence. Which makes sense, people who go outside the norm of your typical political, Nazism, Fascism, Anarchocapitalist, communists, they all seem to be brighter then the average person, especially the ones who actually read the basis of such movements.

[Anonymous No.10537673]

>>10529140
Please tell me 3 valid reasons why this is an important distinction for scientists to make. Why does it matter? Protip: It doesn't

change my mind

[Anonymous No.10537679]

>>10537639
You disgust me, do something meaningful with your life.

[Anonymous No.10537683]

>it's another "/pol/tard gets utterly BTFO and starts frothing at the mouth" episode
another day
just the same

[Anonymous No.10537686]

>>10537679
Not. A. Fucking. Argument.

I win. I WIN. This whole board is fucking retarded and I intellectually dominate every single one of you. Goodbye.

[Anonymous No.10537689]

>>10537686
I saw one post and gave you my opinion, never wanted an argument. You wouldn't be open to anything I have to say against race realism anyways, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10537691]

>>10537639
>many are just autistic individuals who find genes and how they differ between populations fascinating
Lol. There are many interesting traits inherent to populations that have nothing to do with race. Yet these people love to only talk about race. And IQ.

[Anonymous No.10537703]

/sci/ will eternally btfo /pol/niggers kek

[Anonymous No.10537726]

HAHAHA LE STUPID SUBHUMAN 60 IQ DEGENERATE AIDS NIGGERS XDDD LE GAS LE NIGGERS XDDD!!!!

[Anonymous No.10537758]

>>10537686
This has to be ironic on some level. If it isn’t, I’m sad.

[Anonymous No.10537819]

>>10537667
>I think it says alot about you
>>10537639
>Boy, you little ugly repulsive leftist black.
>>10537556
>You know, your dumb insecurity
ITT: white niggers triggered

The evidence is clear and abundant.
Whether you are a radical Muslim extremist who believes fags should be stoned to death, or a tendie-munching neckbeard praying fervently for the day of the rope, you have something in common: low cognitive ability, which, as you have always maintained, is genetic.

>I'll tell you why, because the truth is that its not a simple "liberal" vs "conservative" thing
Interesting you can perceive all these nuances in this case, but still argue doggedly in favor of a simple "black" vs "white" thing.
It's as if you can't see the inconsistency in your appraisal of the research.
Lower cognitive ability.

>who had the highest IQ, the rich elite monarchist (conservatives) or the peasant revolutionaries (Liberal)?
I could ask you a question in return: re the American revolution, who had the highest IQ, the rich conservative elite monarchy, or the founding fathers of the United States (who embraced an ultra-liberal concept of self-governance)?
At any rate, both cases are really irrelevant to the discussion at hand; we are talking about modern conservatives, who prove themselves brainlets because they're motivated by bigotry and their holy books.

[Anonymous No.10537831]

>>10537556
>You know, your dumb insecurity would have more impact before the NZ thing, but after that?

>unironically referencing a chimpout from one of the biggest brainlets in history
"I had little interest in education during my schooling, barely achieving a passing grade."
"I did not attend University as I had no great interest in anything offered in the Universities to study."
"Subscribe to PewDiePie xD"

[Anonymous No.10537913]

>>10537819
>At any rate, both cases are really irrelevant to the discussion at hand; we are talking about modern conservatives, who prove themselves brainlets because they're motivated by bigotry and their holy books.

I think you are not so high up on the brain scale as you think. Otherwise you'd avoid making such blanket statements.

[Anonymous No.10537977]

>>10537913
Sir, are you suggesting that blanket statements about entire groups are indicative of lower cognitive functioning?
I-I guess I've got something to think about, huh?

[Anonymous No.10538155]

>>10529183
Yeah nah this is still WAY better

[Anonymous No.10538216]

>>10537686
>I win. I WIN. This whole board is fucking retarded and I intellectually dominate every single one of you. Goodbye.
Observe how when cornered by his own retarded "logic", the brainlet's primal instincts take over and he lashes out with abandon.

[Anonymous No.10538254]

>>10537913
He's just you average thinks highly of himself black. There is no point in reasoning with him. Like many of his race, he is stupid, narcissistic, and again, lacks the ability to abstract thinking, which causes him to make some really mind-blowing stupid statements. I don't even know if he's aware how embarrassing some of them are. Blacks are the only people who believe their race is superior, which is why they feel such intense insecurity and are threatened by the mere presence of Europeans, and why they seem fucking obsessed with them.

His stupidity is a plague in this thread, that's why whenever I make a race realist thread on /sci/, its always subtle and not obvious, seems to cause him to ignore those type of threads.

I am so happy that intelligence is mostly genetics by the way. That makes it easy to change the intelligence of a population. Imagine actually being an environmental determinists, there would be literally no point or hope in fixing cognitive problems in people, because it seems like it causes by some almost impossible to figure out environmental factor.

People who deny race, IQ and genetics are such repulsive people. They never seem to talk about how pissed off people are when they learn the truth, they always think the anger would be directed towards blacks. Just leftists and any stupid black supremacist.

[Anonymous No.10538278]

>>10537977
>>10538216

Just fucking stop. No one wants to see some clearly low IQ mentally unwell black denying scientific facts trying to psychoanalysis anyone. If you felt any shame, you would realize just how easily you dehumanize your race on these type of threads. You're the easiest guy to spot, the loser black faggot on /sci/ who always posts juvenile reaction images or irrelevant studies that have no meaning. Its amazing how much blacks suck, you think blacks on 4chan would be different. They aren't. And what's amazing is that you spout stupid Republican/Conservative bad shit that only a stupid black puppet does. You ruin all these thread with your genetically inferior neuroticism.

Environmentalism is bullshit, genetics influences IQ, races exists and are not equal, and soon the whole world will know it too. Racial equality is a pseudoscience that is having destructive societal effects. It's a moral imperative to stop it.

By the way, you seem triggered by the concept of having shit genes, so I just want you to know that conservative blacks, and empathetic blacks are genetically superior in my eyes then you cunts, who seem to enjoy putting down civilized blacks by calling them "uncle toms". gross.

[Anonymous No.10538290]

>>10537691
>Lol. There are many interesting traits inherent to populations that have nothing to do with race.

They have a lot to do with race, in fact, this is something I don't understand about race deniers. You realize that because traits differ in population, then the implications you fear (that you can easily predict average traits in a population like behavior, intelligence, and personality), then you can do the same for race? Like IQ, you can eliminate race from the equation, but no matter how you see it, the average person with light skin from the European continent is gonna have, as a group, a higher IQ then those people from the African continent with dark skin. The only differences is scale, family, population, ethnicity, race. In the end, real cognitive differences occurs between groups and its mostly genetics. So maybe stop this garbage polluting our society that this disparity is caused by myths like "institutional racism"?

>Yet these people love to only talk about race. And IQ.

Because its a fact that there are IQ differences between race, and the only one with strong evidence to have a genetic cause. And it also has real consequences on our society, since the failure of Africa or the disparity in functioning nations on Earth can be answered by knowing that this is the real cause. There are racial/ethnic differences in the ability to taste and enjoy cilantro, but unless you seel cilantro, where it would have real social consequences, no one cares.

[Anonymous No.10538302]

>>10537831

COPE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6mJDsEcAXw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFYORs4p51c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hfRTp9tCic

[Anonymous No.10538370]

>>10532475
European best skull. African one looks plain goofy. And Asian doesn't even lift.

[Anonymous No.10538386]

It’s kind of amazing that so many of you race deniers are willing to claim we can’t perform an accurate and informative study because we can’t perfectly replicate conditions between people of two different races. Don’t twin study’s rectify this “problem”? And even if they didn’t, the current data on iq and race is enough to demonstrate that there’s at least some degree of variation between innate intelligence between human population groups. Also, saying we don’t have a concrete definition of race is a cop out. We make arbitrary distinctions in biology all of the time, so why not with race?

[Anonymous No.10538405]

>>10529160
>I say it's significant, therefore it must be

[Anonymous No.10538411]

>>10534141
>look the same must be fundamentally similar
>look different must be fundamentally different
This just in: Thousand years of biology research BTFO by man who determines what is similar by looking at things

[Anonymous No.10538447]

>>10533960
You wish slomo

[Anonymous No.10538472]

>>10538411
>subspecies
>fundalentally different
Did you know that strawmanning is unlikely to ever convince anyone ?

[Anonymous No.10538486]

>>10529140
Why is it so important for you to consider someone else as a subspecies anon? Even if we did how would that change anything in your miserable life where you have nothing to look forward to but showing your inferoity complex on an anonymous bean counting form?

[Anonymous No.10538498]

>>10533942

Still both homosapiens, your shit's arbitrary

[Anonymous No.10538604]

>>10538472
>fundamentally
>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fundamentally
>in a basic and important way:
So you're saying that two beings can be of different subspecies even if there are no important differences between them?

[Anonymous No.10538615]

>>10538604
Yes.

[Anonymous No.10538620]

>>10538405
Significance is always relative to who’s looking. You can plug your ears and say la la la la but you won’t be able to give concrete reasons for why something is or isn’t significant

[Anonymous No.10538637]

>>10529140
>sub-species
It's a vague and not a very useful term.
>at least
Since we can all create fertile offspring we're all the same species.
>Abos
They're not even the most distant living group.

[Anonymous No.10538642]

>>10529166
>with a bit of denisovan from south-east asia mixed in
They have neanderthal dna as the rest of non subsaharan africans too

[Anonymous No.10538655]

>>10538620
You're reasoning is backwards though. You should define first what a significant difference is and then show that such a significant difference exists, and not say "it's been 50 000 years, it MUST be significant, therefore I define the differences between us as significant"

[Anonymous No.10538662]

>>10538615
There are between 7 and 8 billion human races living on earth right now

[Anonymous No.10538677]

>>10538662
*subspecies, my bad

[Anonymous No.10538701]

If you want to see subhumans just come to 4chan.

[Anonymous No.10538705]

>>10538290

I pray one day you wake up from this racist pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10538825]

>>10538677
>either there's no subspecies or every individual is one
I told you already, being dishonest is unlikely to achieve anything.

[Anonymous No.10538858]

>>10532475
You've been fooled. The last skull is not an aboriginal. It's a neanderthal skull.

The entire idea of phrenology is wrong. There is variation of shape and size of skulls within each population. All the skulls form one group of people do not look the same.

[Anonymous No.10538962]

>>10538637
>It's a vague and not a very useful term.
Not that I am advocating for the use of the term, but what do we use instead? Sounds like you know your stuff. I'd quite like to see where those groups are now (or perhaps more usefully, where they were 2000 years ago) on a map, since it would be a little more useful that the maps with arrows showing "time of migration".

[Anonymous No.10539768]

>>10538655
That’s exactly what I’m trying to get at, actually

[Anonymous No.10539933]

>>10536768
The one thing that this doesn't mention is that "gentiles" were living in the region later known as Israel for a long ass time. The Jewish tribal arrival to the region was far far later in history than what they've tried to claim, and they've made no secret about their dislike of blue eyed gentile races. Point is the meme of the aryan jewsus is exactly that, a meme. The jews were a conquering tribe in and of themselves and weren't actually bearing any white european features until the immigration into eastern europe and whatnot later on. Point is they werent the traditional tribe that lived in Palestine. Jews themselves may have an ethnic origin similar to that of the gypsies, as in, ancient india.

[Anonymous No.10539996]

>>10532475
There one of them in your head right now. Proper weird if you actually think about it.

[Anonymous No.10540193]

>>10529183
>>10529173
Clearly they got that way from interbreeding with the British, i'm sure the Aboriginals were a beautiful people before then.

[Anonymous No.10540346]

>>10538278
>>10538254
>>10538290
You seem upset. But the fact is your intelligence was passed down to you by your parents. That is why you are a conservative. Pic related. Finding increasingly inventive ways to try to insult me will not protect you from this basic truth.
Notice which one of us is posting peer-reviewed studies and which one of us is settling for sophistry and handwaving.
Your "cilantro" argument is idiotic on its face. A difference in one trait does not necessarily imply that all other traits must vary significantly. The vast majority of human traits are exactly the same between different races.

[Anonymous No.10540480]

>>10538254
Just fyi, you're not talking to one guy. See pic for example. I can deduce you've been arguing with a minimum of 4 different people ITT.

You've managed to meld them into a single individual; a mentally-disturbed, stupid, leftist black supremacist and race denialist who is somehow simultaneously neurotic, narcissistic, and schizophrenic. Then you ferociously attack that one boogeyman.
No real surprise there, of course. That's the typical modus operandi of conservatives, as several of the studies I've posted have stated. All you are is case in point.

If, by the end of this thread, I have presented all of the research of links between lower cognitive ability and conservatism, and all you've achieved is to chimp out at your boogeyman, then I'd say things turned out as well as they could.

[Anonymous No.10541622]

>>10538705
Anti-racists all deserve a bullet in the head. You fuckers lied to me as a kid, and you spread this morally evil bullshit that races are equal. You think we're gonna forget that? People like you are a threat to science! Look how much damage you did to humans!

That's why its time for people on /sci/ to take a sides, there needs to be a movement, an effort to shame this disgusting religious pseudoscience of racial egalitarians and expel them permanently from any institutional position, or they will continue to think its acceptable to shit up and pervert the entire field of genetics because these freaks are afraid of inherentness. All of them need to be gone. Even David Reich, a geneticist who thinks his left wing control can survive as long as they can control the narrative about the truth that racial equality is a literal lie.

[Anonymous No.10541747]

>>10540346
>>10540480

Commit suicide you little black faggot. We told you to piss off. You cannot transcend your race, so your writing style is easy to pick out.

>Notice which one of us is posting peer-reviewed studies

Yeah, and if you weren't black you would realize how dumb this is. Maybe I will teach your black ass so you don't embarrass yourself again next time when you spread your racial equality pseudoscience again (like your belief in pseudowords like "bigotry"). Posting decontexualize studies are meaningless. Posting studies that nonetheless AGREE WITH ME that traits are genetics and DEBUNK YOURSELF is the type of stupidity you see only from a black. But you don't care, your lizard brain cannot consider abstract thinking or the future, instead you try to make these retarded arguments where you assume I'm correct, but then show how it makes me look bad, so your negro brain thinks "lol, now he has to disagree with the truth" So what if conservatives are less intelligent, so are blacks! And why do you assume that only conservatives think blacks are repulsive ugly humans? The victory of the left and the Democrats is because they KNOW blacks are not like whites. Conservatives make the stupid mistake of believing that blacks are humans.

>Your cilantro argument is idiotic on its face. A difference in one trait does not necessarily imply that all other traits must vary significantly. The vast majority of human traits are exactly the same between different races.

Wrong. This is not an opinion, this is a lie. Your wrong, learn how population genetics work jackass. If traits are genetic, then its IMPOSSIBLE for them not to vary by population because of genetic drift. Your black ass seems to not understand anything. The only reason I respond to you is to make more people on /sci/ read your post and realize just how retarded this IQ denying blacky really is. Leftists, you sure you wanna keep believing racial equality pseudoscience?

[Anonymous No.10541790]

>>10538254
The most disgusting thing about intelligent blacks is that they cannot see the obvious reason behind their race's lack of progress which is that most of their kind are very fucking stupid. It blows my mind seeing intelligent blacks with jobs defending ghetto psychopathic animals who would rape and kill his intelligent black wife and daughters for fun without even thinking about it. Then these same smart negros run to white communities then bitch about our "white privilege" while they there. Fucking scum just seeing them in my university pisses me off. Very smart black listening to that rap filth, dressing like the sociopaths(gangbangers) who kill around 6000 of their own kind every year in America. Its really just unbelievable.

[Anonymous No.10541854]

>>10529140
If they're a subspecies so is everyone else

[Anonymous No.10542490]

>>10541747
You took it too far in the end and it is like you are having a stroke in your last sentence
I loled so 7/10

[Anonymous No.10542549]

ITT: low IQ retards getting anally devastated and screeching like autists

[Anonymous No.10542614]

>>10541790
You must not know a lot of blacks... the smart and successful ones are mostly conservatives... just look at the hodgetwins on youtube (look up: conservative twins) - they were a goofy bunch of comedian meathead weightlifters that got redpilled when feminists and other blacks on the internet started calling them "not black enough" because of their opinions...

What's funny is they married latinas and their kids look white as fuck....

[Anonymous No.10542634]

>>10542614
>What's funny is they married latinas and their kids look white as fuck....

This happens to every other colored that marries into the white race. They become super conservative and shield their kids away from the destructive culture of their parent race. They move into nice neighborhoods, dress them nice, speak proper, highly invested in education... it's like they suddenly internalize 14 words: a future for white children.

[Anonymous No.10542674]

>>10542634
>They move into nice neighborhoods, dress them nice, speak proper, highly invested in education...
This has nothing to do with being conservative...

[Anonymous No.10542940]

>>10536777
>lesser subspecies
>science
You can't use subjective emotional terms and call it objective facts

[Anonymous No.10543090]

>>10541747
>Posting studies that nonetheless AGREE WITH ME that traits are genetic and DEBUNK YOURSELF
Intelligence is heritable. That's a simple fact. That's why conservative parents tend to have conservative children. Their lower cognition is inherited by their children. Beliefs, being a function of the mind, can clearly be causally linked to intelligence.
This doesn't debunk the claim that lower IQ scores from cherrypicked studies fail to positively prove population-level intelligence differences.

>If traits are genetic, then its IMPOSSIBLE for them not to vary by population because of genetic drift.
Wrong.
If you compile every single human trait into a long list you will see that the overwhelming majority are the same across populations. This is a simple scientific fact.
All "races" have the same basic body structure, breathe oxygen, have the same cellular processes. Even on a higher level, our organs work the same to the point you can transplant them from one "race" into another. We can even reproduce with one another.
When you talk about "genetic drift" you're talking about <1% of total genetic material.
Thus, for any given trait, it is more likely than not that it is the same across populations; the burden is on you to prove the difference. So far, you have failed, and miserably.

[Anonymous No.10543141]

>>10542490
>>10542549
If I had the time, I'd chart the growth in the number of insults, uses of the word "black", the number of capital words, etc. per post over the life of the thread, I think it'd be entertaining.
I can understand some of his frustration; he's playing hardmode, trying to rely on pure rhetoric against data, facts, and logic. Like bringing a knife to a gunfight. But I guess that's just what you do when you have reduced cognitive ability.

[Anonymous No.10543250]

>>10543090
>That's why conservative parents tend to have conservative children.
Or maybe because they raise and teach them conservative things.

[Anonymous No.10543394]

>>10543250
Those who are able to accept those conservative things do so because they, like their parents, have lower cognitive ability.

[Anonymous No.10543945]

Recently I saw this VOX documentary on Haiti and the Dominican Republic, in order to explain why Haiti is poor, trying to avoid the obvious explanation (genes and race), they go out and attack the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC itself as being a fundamental force of Haitian inferiority. How barbaric. The lengths far left environmentalists must go simply because they want to ignore the simplest and correct explanation.

[Anonymous No.10543953]

>>10543394
>implying

[Anonymous No.10544360]

>>10530186
It doesn't help considering that James Watson the former head of the Human Genome Project was treated as a heretic for voicing a common view among many biologist.

[Anonymous No.10544364]

>>10544360
He should write a paper discussing his views. Nothing left to lose at this point anyways.