/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11680432]

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?

[Anonymous No.11680553]

>>11680432
there's no scientific definition of race

[Anonymous No.11680563]

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.

[Anonymous No.11680582]

>>11680432
>who is *better evolved?
certainly not 70IQ subsaharan niggers

[Anonymous No.11680584]

>>11680563
>having been around for longer
retard

[Anonymous No.11680848]

>>11680582
I didn’t say better evolved retard

[Anonymous No.11680994]

>>11680584
The bottleneck and selection pull of adapting to other enviornments that other groups went through effectively means they had a head-start, small head.

[Anonymous No.11681010]

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

[Anonymous No.11681517]

>>11680553
>there's no scientific definition of race

yeah because it's politically incorrect

[Anonymous No.11681542]

>>11680582
When will this /pol/ myth die? The IQ of Africa is closer to 85-90 than 70.

[Anonymous No.11681544]

>>11680553
population genetic clustering studies

[Anonymous No.11681545]

>>11681542
>The IQ of Africa is closer to 85-90

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

[Anonymous No.11681549]

>>11681517
>that pic
say it with me, /pol/
"ARABS ARE WHITE"

[Anonymous No.11681552]

>>11680563
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.

[Anonymous No.11681557]

>>11681545
No, actually do some research about stuff you don't know shit about, imbecile.

[Anonymous No.11681558]

>>11681552
>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

[Anonymous No.11681562]

>>11681552
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.

[Anonymous No.11681563]

>>11680432
The statement move evolved is only used by retarded pseudo science spraying retards

[Anonymous No.11681570]

>>11681549

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

[Anonymous No.11681580]

>>11681557
>All high values are from small population samples or upper class people (outliers) or not actually Sub-Saharian Africa
Anon... I

[Anonymous No.11681581]

>>11681570
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

[Anonymous No.11681582]

>>11681581
>Sub-Saharian Africa = Arabs
retard

[Anonymous No.11681584]

>>11681582
actually the two pictures indicate that
>Europeans = Arabs
You may not like it, but that's what the two pics combined strongly suggest

[Anonymous No.11681585]

>>11681557

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

[Anonymous No.11681587]

>>11681557
>CFT3 test

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

[Anonymous No.11681589]

>>11681584

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

[Anonymous No.11681591]

>>11681557

Fuck gonna repost it in english

>CFT3 test
Oh no no no no no no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattell_Culture_Fair_Intelligence_Test

[Anonymous No.11681595]

>>11681591
So?
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?

[Anonymous No.11681601]

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

[Anonymous No.11681604]

>>11681595

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.

[Anonymous No.11681605]

>>11681601
So all of them, then?

[Anonymous No.11681607]

>>11681601
>Cherry-picking ill people to try to prove all low-IQ people of Africa have low IQ because they're ill
well...

[Anonymous No.11681608]

>>11681604
but that doesn't address what I just asked you in >>11681595

are you stupid

[Anonymous No.11681610]

>>11681595
>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.

[Anonymous No.11681614]

>>11681605
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!

[Anonymous No.11681615]

>>11681610

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

[Anonymous No.11681616]

>>11681614
>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.

[Anonymous No.11681617]

>>11681610
IIRC the African kids who did that test got the same results as American or French children

[Anonymous No.11681620]

>>11681617
>the African kids

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

[Anonymous No.11681626]

>>11681616
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

[Anonymous No.11681627]

>>11681608
>are you stupid
Yes. Thanks for noticing.

[Anonymous No.11681628]

>>11681627

he replied to my post btw, who are you

[Anonymous No.11681629]

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

[Anonymous No.11681630]

>>11681620
Bro, the whole focus of the paper was the IQ of SUB SAHARAN AFRICANS, I.e black people.

[Anonymous No.11681633]

>>11681570
Arabs main issue is actually Islam and inbreeding.

[Anonymous No.11681636]

>>11681629

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?

[Anonymous No.11681640]

>>11681630

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?

[Anonymous No.11681641]

>>11681636
>I don't know what you're trying to prove.
These two groups are the same race/subspecies/breed
also
>trying

[Anonymous No.11681645]

>>11681640
not him, but there's two papers and the screencap is from one of them
here
>looks at raven's tests
https://jeltewichertsdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/wichertsravenafr2010.pdf
>looks at other tests
https://jeltewichertsdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/wicherts2010iqafr.pdf

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

[Anonymous No.11681647]

>>11681641

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.

[Anonymous No.11681650]

>>11681640
np
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010c.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiM2ePVz7rpAhVSSxUIHclyDLgQFjACegQIBhAL&usg=AOvVaw0MBZdeoHoViywLSEIcl2qK

[Anonymous No.11681651]

>>11681641
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.

[Anonymous No.11681652]

>>11681650
>mfw all the truly random samples except one give low IQ results

[Anonymous No.11681654]

>>11681647
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

[Anonymous No.11681658]

>>11681651
>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,
ok
>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

[Anonymous No.11681660]

>>11681658

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.

[Anonymous No.11681661]

>>11681652
>>>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

[Anonymous No.11681663]

>>11681658
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.

[Anonymous No.11681668]

>>11681658
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".

[Anonymous No.11681671]

>>11681668

This

[Anonymous No.11681675]

>>11681660
So Fst's are biased now?
>>11681663
>my cultural observations is more important than the unbiased computer clustering arabs with europeans time and time again

[Anonymous No.11681678]

>>11681675
>So Fst's are biased now

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

[Anonymous No.11681682]

>>11681628
Just some stupid guy, goofing around.

[Anonymous No.11681683]

>>11681675
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?

[Anonymous No.11681684]

>>11681682

lel

[Anonymous No.11681693]

>>11681683
>>11681668
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

[Anonymous No.11681695]

>>11681675
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5844529/

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...

[Anonymous No.11681699]

>>11681693
Are you an arab that wants to be white or something?

[Anonymous No.11681703]

>>11681699

yes he is lmao

[Anonymous No.11681707]

>>11681693
>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

[Anonymous No.11681708]

>>11681695
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

[Anonymous No.11681711]

>>11681693

[Anonymous No.11681713]

>>11681707
>I'm sure you can
oh no
see
>>11681658
>>11681549
>>11681544
>>11681517
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

[Anonymous No.11681714]

>>11681708
>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?

[Anonymous No.11681717]

>>11681708
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.

[Anonymous No.11681718]

>>11681713

you're really mentally retarded, get out

[Anonymous No.11681722]

>>11681713

what type of shitty normalization did they do here

[Anonymous No.11681725]

>>11681658
This picture shows euros and arabs are on net different tho. look at the orange bands at k=5 and 6?

[Anonymous No.11681728]

>>11681713

link the publication?

[Anonymous No.11681730]

>>11681714
>Nobody even gave a strict threshold for the FST to discriminate 2 species. I would say around 0.05 though.
OK
>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

[Anonymous No.11681732]

>>11681730
>answer is they are white, by YOUR definition

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

[Anonymous No.11681734]

>>11681725
That's east african admixture
The picture also show russians have pink bars (meaning asian admixture)
What, are they not white now?

[Anonymous No.11681736]

>>11681730
The only one embarrassing themselves is you buddy. Trying so hard to be white

[Anonymous No.11681740]

>>11681736

yes he's quite embarassing

[Anonymous No.11681741]

>>11681736
This map is debunked here
>>11681557
>>11681645
It is a fabrication by richard lynn
read the papers on why the african scores are wrong

[Anonymous No.11681742]

>>11681734
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

[Anonymous No.11681744]

>>11681711

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

[Anonymous No.11681745]

>>11681741
>This map is debunked here

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

[Anonymous No.11681746]

>>11681741
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.

[Anonymous No.11681748]

>>11681744
If arabs are white, why don't you love being arab?

[Anonymous No.11681749]

>>11681742
>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

[Anonymous No.11681753]

>>11681746
you just sound incredibly bias

[Anonymous No.11681754]

>>11681746
>>11681745
>I refuse to read the papers and that's final

[Anonymous No.11681757]

>>11681736
doesnt seem reasonable for african iqs to be this low. i call cultural bias.

[Anonymous No.11681762]

>>11681699
>>11681703
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?

[Anonymous No.11681763]

>>11681629
Another thing they do is post negroid and asian albinos
however
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

[Anonymous No.11681764]

>>11681749
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"

[Anonymous No.11681768]

>>11681764
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105090

[Anonymous No.11681775]

>>11681764
Oh wow look at how dissimilar those french and north russians are. Palestinians are our people, clearly.

[Anonymous No.11681776]

>>11681764
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

[Anonymous No.11681779]

>>11681763
Albinos prove race desu lmao :DDDDD

[Anonymous No.11681781]

>>11681629
>same logic can prove arabs are white
because they are

[Anonymous No.11681783]

>>11681776
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

[Anonymous No.11681787]

>>11680582
Africa can't solve retarded convoluted puzzles: DUMB HE IS !DUMB!!!!

[Anonymous No.11681790]

>>11681787
cope

[Anonymous No.11681815]

>>11681629
Don't try to refute them if you're retarded. You just reinforce their arguments.

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

[Anonymous No.11681819]

>>11681815
Fst*

[Anonymous No.11681826]

>>11681815
t. race denier