/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11762182]

Let's be objective. No pol tard. No SJW. Just how different are the races of man?

[Anonymous No.11762192]

>>11762182
Well there are different “breeds” oh human but at the end of the day we are still the same species.

>t. mexican

[Anonymous No.11762194]

Race is real, but, its also not clear how different two groups have to be in order to be distinct races.

Every little part of Europe is distinct: Irish, English, Scandinavian, French, etc. Are they all distinct races?

[Anonymous No.11762195]

>No pol tard.
>posts race bait image

[Anonymous No.11762197]

>How different ?
This table quantifies it.

[Anonymous No.11762199]

There is literally none. And this isn’t science so go back to /x/

[Anonymous No.11762204]

>>11762182
There's no races, that's just social science shit.

[Anonymous No.11762206]

>>11762197
>the biggest difference is between two indistinguishable shades of shitskin and not between whites and blacks
okay, real source now?

[Anonymous No.11762223]

all dogs are same subspecies despite being very different. some species are just more diverse than others for several reasons but generally it either has something to do with humans selecting or continually inhabiting vast geographic distances

[Anonymous No.11762231]

>>11762182
True. Whites are so agressive that trying to civilize them was a mistake. Now they are still savage, but think they are better off because they are now "civilized", even though something like half of them are almost dumb to speak.

[Anonymous No.11762239]

>>11762182
True. Whites are so agressive that trying to civilize them was a mistake. Now they are still savages, but think they are better than others because they are now "civilized", even though they are almost too dumb to speak.

Blame the Jews.

[Anonymous No.11762242]

>>11762206
Why are you doubting it.

The aborigines are like the last people on this planet with bony brow ridges. They have been genetically separated from everyone else for a long ass time, most of all Africans.

Africans on the other hand, have been through some of their own population turn overs in recent genetic history, and have had admixture with middle eastern people. None of those recent developments have poured into that ancient aborigines gene pool.

[Anonymous No.11762246]

>>11762182
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Dogs were purposely bred. Humans have also interbred during the entirety of that 60,000 years.

[Anonymous No.11762247]

>>11762242
Because white people landed on the moon and african tribes don't know how to make fire?

[Anonymous No.11762257]

>>11762247

So, you are pointing to a big stark phenotype difference. Going to the moon and inventing rocketry stuff is a kind of phenotype.

But genetic diversity is differences in genes, and genotype diversity isnt the same as phenotype diversity. Genetic diversity is roughly a measurement of how long two populations have been separated, but its not a measure of how different they are in their phenotypical characteristics.

Like, for most of human history, it was just humans and human-like animals running around like cavemen. I suppose in many ways they were all quite similar. But because they all lived so separately for so long the genetic diversity among them was quite high. There were more distinct gene pools, and those gene pools had more unique gene variants.

[Anonymous No.11762277]

>>11762242
>The aborigines are like the last people on this planet with bony brow ridges.
You mean except whites.
>>11762247
Everybody knows how to make fire. Africans probably invented iron.

[Anonymous No.11762279]

>>11762246
>Humans have also interbred during the entirety of that 60,000 years.
>implying dogs haven't
Pedigree breeding is only 200 years old. If people moved around and fucked strangers, they brought their dogs with them to do the same.

And there's no qualitative difference between human selection and the rest of natural selection.

[Anonymous No.11762288]

>>11762242
>>11762206
The genetic distance of new guineans is probably due in part to them having inherited a lot of Denisovan genes.

[Anonymous No.11762301]

>>11762288
Yeah. Good point.

[Anonymous No.11762303]

>>11762277
White people dont have brow ridges.

Brow ridge, like a protrusion of bone extending forward in front of your face above and around your eye socket.

White people have smooth foreheads that just fall into the eye socket.

[Anonymous No.11762313]

>>11762182
humans seem more different to us as humans because we are designed to seek out other humans that are more similar to us and notice any differences. Being able to distinguish between who was in your tribe and who wasn't was literally life or death, so it was naturally selected for vs. being able to pick out differences between antelopes and other types of antelope. In actuality if we take out our human bias out of the picture we are a lot more similar to each other than say, Chimpanzees from one part of africa vs. another.

[Anonymous No.11762316]

>>11762182
> Just how different are the races of man?
My cat gave birth to a litter of 7. Two were black, two were white, two were grey and 1 was tiger striped. Did my cat give birth to 4 different races? Skin color is an arbitrary division, like hair or eye color.

>>11762206
> the biggest difference is between two indistinguishable shades of shitskin and not between whites and blacks
Fst is a measure of interbreeding more than anything else. All the numbers prove is that white women love black cock.

> real source now?
Ask your mom.

[Anonymous No.11762317]

>>11762279
>thinks I only mean pedigree breeding.
Sigh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication

[Anonymous No.11762323]

>>11762303
i'm white and I have a protrusion of bone sticking from my face above my eyes...

[Anonymous No.11762326]

>>11762317
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism

[Anonymous No.11762361]

>>11762316
Different races have more than just different skin colours though. They have different physical characteristics and different average IQ scores. They evolved for many thousands of years under different environmental pressures.

[Anonymous No.11762364]

>>11762317
why is human sexual selection any different than artificial selection of another species?

[Anonymous No.11762374]

>>11762317
>>thinks I only mean pedigree breeding.
Well I had to, because domestication never stopped canids of all kinds from occasionally interbreeding.
Pedigree breeding is the only thing that excludes interbreeding.

[Anonymous No.11762377]

>>11762182
>60,000 years of evolution

The real number is likely a few hundred thousand years. Non-African populations also have admixture with Neanderthals, who diverged from Homo Sapiens even longer before that and were likely more intelligent than Homo Sapiens.

[Anonymous No.11762397]

>>11762364
sexual selection seems to act as a form of purgative selection that in many instances improves the population's fitness. artificial selection takes the measure of fitness to be the trait value of the character of interest. So, if an organism is being selected for some type of crop/animal product yield and there is a specific lineage in your population that has exceptionally good yield and you believe that this lineage has some alleles that code for heightened yield when you begin selecting for those genes by mating them and/or culling the others you have made the measure of fitness the trait value for the character you artificially deem worthy of propagating. This does not actually optimize fitness in the broader sense, in fact many of these artificially selected organisms are much lower fitness than their wild analogues and it is a constant balancing act on the part of breeders to stave off the inevitable downstream depression of population fitness and viability of future offspring. Sometimes breeders can do this for very long periods of time and you end up with extremely robust artificially selected organisms, and then many generations later the organisms start to present bizarre congenital illnesses, weird mutations pop up that render whole generations very sickly. Other times you immediately see fitness depression. The difference with sexual selection is that in most cases where this term applies the choosy sex (usually females but not always) is selecting for general measures of robustness in the competitive sex. So, the females might be selecting for physical robustness, size, aggression, intelligence, foraging success, sociability, all of these are usually fitness promoting. Artificial selectiion is almost always selecting for a very specific trait that is often not easily optimized in nature and so is frequently found at a sub-maximal trait value compared to what is possible.

[Anonymous No.11762408]

>we are all the same
>but culture's a thing that exists
It's like 'pick one' amirite
It doesn't matter how different. That they're different at all justifies my hatred for niggers. In fact, anyone is justified in saying they hate any race, and it's merely a matter of opinion.
>b-but they don't like being called niggers
"Honesty is the best policy, stupid niggers." - Kant

[Anonymous No.11762415]

>>11762364
You could argue that artificially selecting for these broader measures of robustness is actually more efficient than the haphazard combination of natural selection and sexual selection in the wild. But, the difficulty with this approach is that we have very little sense of what exactly is considered an optimal balance of "robustness" traits in a wild population and also do not really know how natural selection acts dynamically on these traits w/continuous time models w/overlapping generations, drift, nonrandom mating, mutation, gene flow and all the other assorted perturbations of the idealistic models we use for determining fitness. Estimating how close to or how far from a population is from a fitness optimum (using fitness landscapes which is a very tricky applied math problem no one has come close to mastering yet), and also determining the precise mixture of traits that are typically favored in any given environment for any given population (which is probably impossible) is the most important problem in evolutionary genetics by far. The type of modeling required to do this is so complex and requires so many simplifying assumptions (including things like neutral theory being correct; incorporating or ignoring eco-evolutionary processes) that it is very safe to assume we are utterly incapable of the relative efficiency of natural selection at this time.

[Anonymous No.11762436]

>>11762397
I think you're slightly conflating sexual and natural selection here. I think sexual selection looks for arbitrary measures of fitness the same way artificial selection does. Just look at how ridiculous male birds look. I think, much like a farmer or breeder, female peacocks will select a male with brighter feathers and more colours at the expense of overall robustness.

Natural selection keeps this in check somewhat by killing off those who aren't strong enough to survive and were just chosen for their appearance. I suppose in an artificial setting we insulate against the forces of natural selection by protecting domesticated species, but those forces still exist.

I really see sexual selection and artificial selection as playing similar roles in evolution.

[Anonymous No.11762466]

>>11762195
These threads are ALWAYS pol.