[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 1.96 MB, 1351x1938, 9B54D7D2-EBE5-4BF7-B598-A85CAAB45F1D.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11680432 No.11680432 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Speaking from a systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment perspective, could Africans have evolved from whites?

>> No.11680553

there's no scientific definition of race

>> No.11680563
File: 648 KB, 1198x1492, Screenshot_20200323-200432_AliExpress.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Having a larger breeding pool and having been around for longer, Africans have almost certainly "gone through more evolution" than other peoples, good luck using that fact to convince anyone to do anything out of their own interest though.

>> No.11680582

>who is *better evolved?
certainly not 70IQ subsaharan niggers

>> No.11680584

>having been around for longer

>> No.11680848

I didn’t say better evolved retard

>> No.11680994

The bottleneck and selection pull of adapting to other enviornments that other groups went through effectively means they had a head-start, small head.

>> No.11681010

>more evolved
I've never seen evidence that blacks have more differences with chimp DNA than whites

>> No.11681517
File: 1.65 MB, 1498x1516, Red Pill 5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>there's no scientific definition of race

yeah because it's politically incorrect

>> No.11681542

When will this /pol/ myth die? The IQ of Africa is closer to 85-90 than 70.

>> No.11681544
File: 303 KB, 659x582, human genetic diversity - 3D PCA.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

population genetic clustering studies

>> No.11681545

>The IQ of Africa is closer to 85-90

yeah if you only consider North Africa. Now try with Sub-Saharian.

>> No.11681549
File: 106 KB, 1251x722, fst_cauc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>that pic
say it with me, /pol/

>> No.11681552

Africans stayed in Africa, a natural range of humanity. On the other hand, ancestors of other races went out of Africa into more inhospitable northern regions (and during an ice age no less). So they were under a lot more selection in order to survive.

>> No.11681557
File: 556 KB, 1080x1741, Screenshot_20200513-043925_Moon+ Reader Pro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

No, actually do some research about stuff you don't know shit about, imbecile.

>> No.11681558

>into more inhospitable northern regions (and during an ice age no less).
that's bullshit
humans evolved as africans
everywhere we're invasive and at a significant advantage since we've btfo every other species into extinction

it's like cats hunting flightless birds in australia, completely invasive and overpowered

>> No.11681562

Humans are under constant and brutal selection from the presence of one another, throwing a novel environment and and a smaller breeding pool into the mix can only slow shit down.

>> No.11681563

The statement move evolved is only used by retarded pseudo science spraying retards

>> No.11681570


Arabs are very close to be white, their main issue is Islam

>> No.11681580

>All high values are from small population samples or upper class people (outliers) or not actually Sub-Saharian Africa
Anon... I

>> No.11681581

i dont really care, it's just hilarious to me when shit like >>11681517 blows up in the creator's face when he so clearly didn't know about >>11681549 and he most certainly didn't intend it
re-poster even named it "red pill 5.png" LOL - embarrassing

>> No.11681582

>Sub-Saharian Africa = Arabs

>> No.11681584

actually the two pictures indicate that
>Europeans = Arabs
You may not like it, but that's what the two pics combined strongly suggest

>> No.11681585


You can remove all the South Africa entries, and also the Sudan ones, anon.

>> No.11681587 [DELETED] 
File: 3 KB, 125x124, kek 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>CFT3 test

Oh no no no no no nohttps://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_fair_intelligence_test

>> No.11681589


Nobody said otherwise, retard. The pic speaks about Europe vs Sub-Saharian Africa. Learn to read.

>> No.11681591
File: 3 KB, 125x124, kek 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Fuck gonna repost it in english

>CFT3 test
Oh no no no no no no


>> No.11681595

they scored more or less the same regardless of test
also CFT is present like twice in that table out of like 20 studies

that the best you can do?

>> No.11681601
File: 360 KB, 1120x630, 1589584089531.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>>All low values are from small population samples or malnourished and defective children (outliers)
fixed it for you

>> No.11681604


Look at the correlation percentage with actual IQ tests man. It goes down to 50% for some of them. It's a test created to be easier for african countries. It contains less logic. You could say it's not even an IQ test.

>> No.11681605

So all of them, then?

>> No.11681607

>Cherry-picking ill people to try to prove all low-IQ people of Africa have low IQ because they're ill

>> No.11681608

but that doesn't address what I just asked you in >>11681595

are you stupid

>> No.11681610

>they scored more or less the same regardless of test

You can't say that. There's no group in that pic who did both tests.

>> No.11681614

85 isn't actually a low value though, I mean it is in our current first world society, but it wouldn't stand out in 1950s Europe for example. Given that Africans are a century behind I'd say 85 is good, certainly not bad!

>> No.11681615


Except the Congo ones with parasites, who got a low result in two different tests, and it's not surprising.

>> No.11681616

>85 isn't actually a low value though

The U.S. Army considers 83 to be the minimum value to be of effective use as a soldier, that isn't exactly the smartest job in the world.

>> No.11681617

IIRC the African kids who did that test got the same results as American or French children

>> No.11681620

>the African kids

From South Africa and Sudan? You know that they're probably arabs or europeans?

>> No.11681626

It's bad in comparison to contemporary norms, but not bad to the point where the person is dysfunctional. Otherwise our ancestors would have never been able to get shit done

>> No.11681627

>are you stupid
Yes. Thanks for noticing.

>> No.11681628


he replied to my post btw, who are you

>> No.11681629
File: 282 KB, 1920x1080, a_moment_of_clarity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

all you need to use to refute /pol/tard science is /pol/tard science
it just contradicts itself very easily and at every turn
as a believer in eugenics, it's really pathetic such people have more or less hijacked the idea

>> No.11681630

Bro, the whole focus of the paper was the IQ of SUB SAHARAN AFRICANS, I.e black people.

>> No.11681633

Arabs main issue is actually Islam and inbreeding.

>> No.11681636


I don't know what you're trying to prove. Arabs are genetically closer to europeans than sub-saharian africans. But more distant than a swede and a frenchman. It's obvious. Wtf is going on in your head?

>> No.11681640


Why don't you post a link to the actual paper so I can read it fully instead of only posting screencaps out of context?

>> No.11681641

>I don't know what you're trying to prove.
These two groups are the same race/subspecies/breed

>> No.11681645

not him, but there's two papers and the screencap is from one of them
>looks at raven's tests
>looks at other tests

the main point of the papers is to say sub saharan africans have an average IQ of 78 to 82 instead of 70. Read them for why and how

>> No.11681647


Yes trying, because all depends on your definition of race. My idea is that some arabs can in some cases be considered white. On average though, they're quite distant from european people anyway. It depends on where they come from geographically. They're closer to us (0.02 FST difference let's say) than sub-saharian africans (0.15 difference). I would not put a huge boundary between arab people and europeans. But there is a certain difference. The cultural difference is a huge problem for arabs, for example.

>> No.11681650


>> No.11681651

No one said Fst's are the be all and end all of human sub calssification? We could just go with taxonomy, say these groups are physically separated by geography, exhibit noticeable differences, done and dusted - subspecies.

>> No.11681652

>mfw all the truly random samples except one give low IQ results

>> No.11681654

Exactly this. Its about defining useful catagories. One way arabs are quite different is consanguinity, ie rates of cousin marriage, this has noticeable effects on the structure of their society, the presence of democracy...
Thats plenty to define a notable classification

>> No.11681658
File: 883 KB, 1692x4137, k_means.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>No one said Fst's are the be all and end all of human sub calssification?
I've seen at is a talking point by many anons here, but also by Woodley a famous HBD blogger
Anyways, three's more than one way of showing it
>We could just go with taxonomy,
>say these groups are physically separated by geography,
they're not, they overlap both geographically and genetically through logical locations such as asia minor, caucsus and the balkans
>exhibit noticeable differences,
not really
arab looking europeans are very common and so is the reverse - can't say the same for africans

>> No.11681660


Fst's are an instrument, a strong classification comes from the use of many instruments together and possibly not biased like the "culturally fair" IQ tests invented by literal communists.

>> No.11681661

>>>mfw all the truly random samples except one give low IQ results
what are you talking about
there's 4 actually truly representative samples and they give an average of 78, it's in the second link here >>11681645
a far cry from 60 or 70 and far closer to the 80 the authors conclude

>> No.11681663

They were geographically separate for thousands of years. Ok some individuals may have spilled over the edges, but we're not talking individuals.

And yes they are different. Saying otherwise is just being disingenuous. Why didn't the Iraqis jump on democracy when ofered. They're a different people. Why do they marry their cousins, difference again. Why are they less individualist...
Do some people blur the lines, sure, but so what, there's white upper caste indians, so what? India is different to Europe.

>> No.11681668

You're approaching this the wrong way round. We don't say "look the FSt's are different, they're a different people".
I'm saying "these people are clearly different, some of that variance may be explainable through FST's, but other things too".

>> No.11681671



>> No.11681675

So Fst's are biased now?
>my cultural observations is more important than the unbiased computer clustering arabs with europeans time and time again

>> No.11681678

>So Fst's are biased now

No, Fst's are mostly exact. Culturally fair IQ tests are biased.

>> No.11681682

Just some stupid guy, goofing around.

>> No.11681683

Why are you making such a big deal out of this. You can see arabs are different, adn it makes sense to group them together for the study of history. foreign relations...
Ok some number doesn't agree with your theory. Maybe there's just something we're overlooking?
Maybe FST's aren't the be all and end all of classification like you wan't to believe?

>> No.11681684



>> No.11681693

but it's not just muh Fst's
>19th century anthropology with skulls showed arabs and whites - the same race
>Fst's do the same
>clustering on autosomal DNA does too
>b-but maybe there's something we don't know yet, it c-can't be
You cannot prove africans and euros are a different race/subspecies/breed without simultaneously proving arabs and europeans are THE SAME race/subspecies/breed.

It is mathematically impossible

>> No.11681695


If i wanted to I could differentiate different types of arabs and claim there are lots of euro subspecies, i don't, cause at a political, day to day level, its not that useful.

If you're studying the effects of indo-european migration maybe it's correct to view these populations as actually quite similar.

If you're studying arab history its correct to split up the arabs.

If you are just a guy, who lives in the world, notice differences between euro's and arabs politics and society, it makes sense to differentiate at that level when examining politics and modern history...

>> No.11681699

Are you an arab that wants to be white or something?

>> No.11681703


yes he is lmao

>> No.11681707

>You cannot prove africans and euros are a different race/subspecies/breed without simultaneously proving arabs and europeans are THE SAME race/subspecies/breed.

I'm sure you can

>> No.11681708

you are right, but only if you don't actually want to scientifically separate humans into subspecies

If you want subspecies in humans, you can't just change your definitions willy nilly

>> No.11681711
File: 72 KB, 700x953, 1583065141709.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11681713
File: 55 KB, 1330x582, 1574104541374.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>I'm sure you can
oh no
you'd have the sardinian race, the southern italian race, the sicilian race and all kinds of weirdness that is both useless and scientifically wrong especially when thinking about how we differentiate other animals as far as subspecies go

>> No.11681714

>change your definitions

Nobody even gave a strict threshold for the FST to discriminate 2 species. I would say around 0.05 though. So arabs are still human beings, but maybe not white?

>> No.11681717

I'm not changing them willy nilly. I'm saying, at different levels of analysis, different groupings are appropriate.
I don't "want" sub species in humans. I "want" classifications between groups that are clearly different. When i say Arab, everyone knows what i mean, as when i say bantu or hispanic. Is there some physical evidence these separations are warranted. The answer is yes.

>> No.11681718


you're really mentally retarded, get out

>> No.11681722


what type of shitty normalization did they do here

>> No.11681725

This picture shows euros and arabs are on net different tho. look at the orange bands at k=5 and 6?

>> No.11681728


link the publication?

>> No.11681730

>Nobody even gave a strict threshold for the FST to discriminate 2 species. I would say around 0.05 though.
>So arabs are still human beings, but maybe not white?
this >>11681549 answers your question
are they white with a threshold of 0.05
answer is they are white, by YOUR definition

Read the thread next time before you embarrass yourself

>> No.11681732

>answer is they are white, by YOUR definition

No, they are human beings (same species), and you're a retard

>> No.11681734

That's east african admixture
The picture also show russians have pink bars (meaning asian admixture)
What, are they not white now?

>> No.11681736
File: 80 KB, 1272x800, 1582744701534.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The only one embarrassing themselves is you buddy. Trying so hard to be white

>> No.11681740


yes he's quite embarassing

>> No.11681741
File: 71 KB, 617x523, literal_fraud2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

This map is debunked here
It is a fabrication by richard lynn
read the papers on why the african scores are wrong

>> No.11681742

No but you said, arabs and euros are the same. They are not. And you're being disingenuous saying the amount of orange is comparable to the amount of pink. Bruh

>> No.11681744


It's so sad to look at their circular logic isn't it?

>> No.11681745

>This map is debunked here

No it is not, that graph is based on biased and notrandom data

>> No.11681746

But that doesn't refute the arab scores. Ok maybe african scores are higher. Maybe the "debunking" was because they just made the tests easier (more low g loaded sub tests) which is exactly what they did. I'd go with Lynns work as a proxy for g over the others.

>> No.11681748

If arabs are white, why don't you love being arab?

>> No.11681749

>No but you said, arabs and euros are the same.
i didn't say this
the same race
i said they are THE SAME race
>And you're being disingenuous saying the amount of orange is comparable to the amount of pink. Bruh
it is though
other than the mozabites who live south of morocco in the literal desert of sahara and that one bedouin dude who's actually from east africa they are ENTIRELY comparable on average in palestinians for example where russians have way more pink.
So i ask again, are russians less white than palestinians or what

>> No.11681753

you just sound incredibly bias

>> No.11681754
File: 538 KB, 834x817, ostrich-head-in-sand-istockphoto-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>I refuse to read the papers and that's final

>> No.11681757

doesnt seem reasonable for african iqs to be this low. i call cultural bias.

>> No.11681762

No he's just showing that despite being so different Arabs and Euros aren't that genetically different.
Let's just say in the hypothetical scenario that he's a we wuzzer, can you still refute his arguments?

>> No.11681763
File: 119 KB, 666x567, albino_ethipoian.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Another thing they do is post negroid and asian albinos
even horners that barely have any actual white DNA look caucasian when albino

a side note, albinos have crooked eyes frequently as part of the condition, for those who don't know

>> No.11681764
File: 100 KB, 600x314, 600px-WestEurasia_admixture_crop.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

No, because i have eyes, you plonker.
What russians did they test anyway, russia is a big country, maybe the easter people just skew the data.

Image from wiki "genetic history of europe"

>> No.11681768


>> No.11681775

Oh wow look at how dissimilar those french and north russians are. Palestinians are our people, clearly.

>> No.11681776

That and >>11681658 are plotting two different things
Your graph is plotting variation within caucasian people. Things like WHG, EHG, natufians or even unnamed groups etc. It's why you see groups that look way similar seem way different as if they have nothing in common when in reality that's just magnifying the very minor differences within that are mostly the same groups in different ratios giving rise to populations.
Basically the variation WITHOUT >>11681658 is so much higher that what's WITHIN(yours) is barely notable as per Fst's for example.

What you posted is real, but simply not enough of a variation to show in any sort of racial clustering as per Fst's.

and let me post the text from the paper
>Figure 2. ADMIXTURE analysis of autosomal SNPs of the Western Balkan region in a global context on the resolution level of 7 assumed ancestral populations (See Table S1 for population data).
>7 assumed ancestral populations
You can assume 1 or 2 or 3 or 17 and all those ancestral populations will be slightly different but still caucasian and very similar as far as race goes.

Hopefully you understand what I'm saying to you. You are essentially posting a form of Lewontin's while trying to disprove arabs are white. Which is hilarious

>> No.11681779
File: 82 KB, 1079x1088, algerian.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Albinos prove race desu lmao :DDDDD

>> No.11681781
File: 46 KB, 627x459, yesarab.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>same logic can prove arabs are white
because they are

>> No.11681783

I don't do my "clustering" on FST's. They show there is genetic variation. Maybe we have the same genes expressed differently. Maybe genetic variation isn't a great trait to go off. Maybe phenomenological differences are a better approach.

You're like the "find the genes" crowd, except now you've found them, you just ignore the phenomenological variation between these people. Which is dumb

>> No.11681787

Africa can't solve retarded convoluted puzzles: DUMB HE IS !DUMB!!!!

>> No.11681790


>> No.11681815

Don't try to refute them if you're retarded. You just reinforce their arguments.

Subspecies aren't define by Fast. End of story.

>> No.11681819


>> No.11681826

t. race denier

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.