/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12063195]

Are native australians homo sapiens sapiens? Could they be another subspecies? Homo sapiens australis?

[Anonymous No.12063258]

[Anonymous No.12063268]

[Anonymous No.12063282]

[Anonymous No.12063314]

>>12063195
It doesn't matter what the truth is in this situation. Acknowledging that human subspecies exist is a gateway to scientific racism and all the troubles it brings. The social sciences and biology are political in nature, they must pay attention to politics, and this kind of thinking will not fly in the political sphere. Move on from this topic of inquiry.

[Anonymous No.12063490]

>>12063195
>Could they be another subspecies? Homo sapiens australis?

what if they are? what would you propose?

[Anonymous No.12063615]

>>12063314
no one is falling for this bait /pol/

[Anonymous No.12064109]

>>12063195
You already made this exact thread before. You have an agenda it seems and do not care for honest debate or discussion. Leave.

[Anonymous No.12065197]

>>12063195
However you classify them won't change the tiniest bit about what they are, so stop obsessing over this and do something more important, all right?

[Anonymous No.12065536]

>>12063195
It's an open question.

[Anonymous No.12065580]

>>12065197
>However you classify them won't change the tiniest bit about what they are
But it would change what they're expected to be.
>>12064109
He did, but you seem quite opposed to discussion yourself.
>>12063490
I think we should acknowledge the difference in needs and abilities between subspecies to tailor social policies to each of them.
>>12063314
Telling people that they are equally able as europeans and that consequently their lack of success is proof that the white man is keeping them down because of racism, that brings a lot of troubles too.

[Anonymous No.12065756]

>>12063314
>>12065197
I was so disappointed with Sam Harris for having this view, that we shouldn't pursue some questions because of political implications.

[Anonymous No.12065771]

>>12063314
>Acknowledging that human subspecies exist is a gateway to scientific racism and all the troubles it brings

Appeal to consequences fallacy. Scientific racism is true so get over it.

[Anonymous No.12065774]

>>12065197
>However you classify them won't change the tiniest bit about what they are

A subspecies of Homo sapiens, inferior to the rest?

[Anonymous No.12065781]

>>12065756
When did he say that?

[Anonymous No.12065784]

>>12063195
define species
define subspecies

[Anonymous No.12065795]

>>12065784
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319562X17301365

[Anonymous No.12065806]

>>12065781
He said this an a few of his podcasts, when it came up, i don't know exactly which.

[Anonymous No.12065811]

>>12065806
Thats pretty gay. Doesn’t that retard also believe in moral realism?

[Anonymous No.12065855]

>>12065811
Yes, but i don't see how that has anything to do with anything.

I pretty much respect his views, except on some things. Like how he immediately accepted the covid-19 paranoia.

[Anonymous No.12065863]

>>12065795
so which one of those definitions are you referring to

[Anonymous No.12065866]

>>12065855
He’s just another soulless atheist who supports murdering babies.

[Anonymous No.12065873]

>>12065863
Curiously, if you google definitions of “Subspecies”, many dictionaries specifically use the term “race”.

Hmm.

[Anonymous No.12065874]

>>12065866
Yes, but he is too intelligent to ignore. I still respect him.

[Anonymous No.12065883]

>>12065873
They way we define race for humans, it's the same as subspecies. We just don't use it cause hurt feelings, just like we don't call ourselves animals.

[Anonymous No.12065884]

>>12065866

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jFqhjaGh30

Do you people actually exist, or is it some next level trolling?

[Anonymous No.12065887]

>>12065884
Yes, people who think abortion is killing actually exist, myself included. Go figure.

[Anonymous No.12065890]

>>12065884
>Do people who think murdering babies is wrong exist?

Yes.

[Anonymous No.12065901]

>>12065887
>>12065890

I bet you are the same fuckers who have no problem with "justified wars" and "let's kill all [insert some group you don't like]"


But there is just something about a barely formed lump of flesh with no developed nervous system (and thus no feelings of pain) that makes you into a SJW all of a sudden.

[Anonymous No.12065913]

>>12065901
You would lose that bet. And i'm not an sjw, since i don't try to force my view on you, or even resent you. You're more of an sjw than me.

Sort your shit out, edgyfag.

[Anonymous No.12065927]

>>12065901
>I bet you are the same fuckers who have no problem with "justified wars" and "let's kill all [insert some group you don't like}”

Not even a contradiction so I dunno what that’s supposed to mean.

> But there is just something about a barely formed lump of flesh with no developed nervous system (and thus no feelings of pain)

You don’t even know that that is actually the case, and that only applies to very young embryos anyway; nor is the reason people oppose killing others about the pain they experience, it is about ending their subjective awareness, or potential subjective awareness. Coma patients will eventually achieve subjective awareness and so will embryos, so it seems reasonable to kill neither.

[Anonymous No.12065974]

>>12065927
>Coma patients

Coma patients are people who are ill and could get better.

An embryo is as far "people" as a boiled egg is a chicken.

People are always going on about "killing babies" when it comes to abortion. As far as I'm aware the practise of aborting in the 8th month of pregnancy is not widely common.

And calling an "embryo" a "baby" is just tailored to get an emotional response out of people to support your own views.

[Anonymous No.12065981]

>>12065756
No. I'm saying it's a pointless pursuit, like arguing if Pluto is a planet. It's still the same damn thing, you're just wasting your time quibbling over what you are going to call something.

[Anonymous No.12066008]

>>12063195
Genetic distance between Human races is 0.133

Genetic distance between different dog breeds is 0.26

[Anonymous No.12066019]

>>12065974
>Coma patients are people who are ill and could get better.

And lack subjective awareness, the possession of which is a defining trait of personhood. If they don’t come out of it, they are deemed to be legally dead and killed.

> An embryo is as far "people" as a boiled egg is a chicken.

Embryos may lack subjective awareness, but may gain it, just as comatose people lack subjective awareness, but may gain it. Subjective awareness is the only quality I attribute any relevance whatsoever, so in this context the comatose and the embryo are practically identical.

> People are always going on about "killing babies" when it comes to abortion. As far as I'm aware the practise of aborting in the 8th month of pregnancy is not widely common.

Killing the developing human is always murder bar self-preservation, and inarguably so past the point of viability.

> And calling an "embryo" a "baby" is just tailored to get an emotional response out of people to support your own views.

Morality itself is an emotional response. You are a sociopath.

[Anonymous No.12066025]

>>12066008
Literally no one defines species and subspecies by genetic distance, though dog breeds would 100% be labeled separate species in the wild.

[Anonymous No.12066034]

>>12066019
>Embryos may lack subjective awareness, but may gain it
>Killing the developing human
you kill potential humans by masturbating. To go further, every second not reproducing in any way possible is prohibiting the development of a human and would be murder. The only moral way to live is raping every woman you see, to kill as few potential humans as possible.

[Anonymous No.12066038]

>>12066025
>Literally no one defines species and subspecies by genetic distance
There are several criteria to define species. Humans would classify as a single species under all of them.

>though dog breeds would 100% be labeled separate species in the wild.
Dog breeds as we know them would not exist in the wild, they were created by Humans through selective breeding. Using the classical definition of species, if all Humans disappeared tomorrow, and all dogs on Earth became wild animals, they would be the same species or different ones depending on whether they interbred naturally.

[Anonymous No.12066045]

>>12066038
>they would be the same species or different ones depending on whether they interbred naturally.

The ability to breed does not make two populations the same species. Grizzly bears and polar bears can fuck too and they will where the populations meet.

> There are several criteria to define species. Humans would classify as a single species under all of them.

Darkies are a different subspecies from whites.

[Anonymous No.12066046]

>>12063490
I would propose acknowledging scientific facts. It is not a necessary consequence that people go apeshit crazy and 3rd Reich each other.

[Anonymous No.12066049]

>>12066034
>you kill potential humans by masturbating

Nope, because sperm are merely my own motile cells, not the genetically distinct cells of another human. Cool job comparing murdering babies to cumming tho, sociopath.

[Anonymous No.12066050]

>>12065774
define inferior.

[Anonymous No.12066052]

>>12066050
Stupider.

[Anonymous No.12066055]

>>12065981
I don't think it's a pointless pursuit. I'll just leave it at that.

[Anonymous No.12066063]

>>12066045
>The ability to breed does not make two populations the same species.
No, under the classical definition, it needs to occur naturally and with some regularity. Otherwise they are considered different species, such as Bonobos and Chimpanzees

>Grizzly bears and polar bears can fuck too and they will where the populations meet
Their paths have rarely crossed. Only two hybrids have been observed in the wild during the entire run of Human history.

>Darkies are a different subspecies from whites.
Not under any taxonomical definition.

[Anonymous No.12066079]

>>12066063
>Not under any taxonomical definition.

There is no taxonomic definition of subspecies. It merely refers to a variety that is a bit different but not enough to claaaify as a species

[Anonymous No.12066081]

>>12065580
And zero tasmanians.
They got extinct lol they were definitely inferior

[Anonymous No.12066091]

>>12066049
what about embryos that fail to implant? Not trying to save them is murder.

[Anonymous No.12066098]

>>12066091
I don’t know how we would save them.

[Anonymous No.12066104]

>>12066079
A subspecies refers to a subset of a species that occupies a different geographical region and ecological niche.
Again not applicable to Human raced which overlap and are distributed across the world in all continents.

[Anonymous No.12066108]

>>12066098
dunno, catch every ovulation, check and try to grow them in vitro with live ones.

[Anonymous No.12066128]

>>12066008
Genetic distances between 42 selected human populations averages at 0.133. It ranges from 0.002 to 0.457. New guineans average distance from other humans is around 0.2.

[Anonymous No.12066138]

>>12066128
So like I said, even taking the max value it's not enough to categorize Humans as a different species under a criterion of genetic distance. Dogs are all the same species even though the average Fst between the 26 most popular breeds is in average twice that of Humans.

Another criterion would be the classical definition but Human races have interbred in the wild since before the paleolithic so that is ruled out as well.

[Anonymous No.12066165]

>>12066104
>blacks and white overlap
Only since we artificially brought individuals from those subspecies to the territory of the other. It didn't happen naturally. If these artificial changes are more important to you than their originally separated locations, then you have to count hybrids of different species happening in zoos as proof that they are not different species.
>>12066063
>Their paths have rarely crossed.
Define rarely. How many "natural" hybrids do you need to consider different species as the same ? And again, how many "natural" hybrids of subsaharans and europeans, or aboriginals and chinese, ever existed ?
But if you want species with more natural hybrids, there's wolves and coyotes for example. Should we consider them the same species and the same subspecies ?

[Anonymous No.12066180]

>>12066138
No, taking the max value it's totally enough.

>Hartl and Clark (1997) had some classes for FST.
><0.05 = little genetic diff.
>0.05-0.15 = moderate genetic diff.
>0.15-0.25 = great genetic diff.
>>0.25 = very great genetic diff.
>Frankham et al. (2002; 2010) had FST>0.15 = significant differentiation

[Anonymous No.12066199]

>>12066165
>Only since we artificially brought individuals from those subspecies to the territory of the other. It didn't happen naturally
No, it's happened naturally many times before Human civilization was a thing. Modern Africans have in average 25% Eurasian DNA from archaic migration events.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34479905

>How many "natural" hybrids do you need to consider different species as the same ?
I wouldn't presume to know that, but certainly two grizzly bear hybrids is not evidence of widespread hybridization.

>And again, how many "natural" hybrids of subsaharans and europeans, or aboriginals and chinese, ever existed ?
All Humans are hybrids, you are only embarassing yourself with these statements. There were multiple back and forth migration events before industrial civilization was a thing, both from Africa, and to Africa.

>But if you want species with more natural hybrids, there's wolves and coyotes for example. Should we consider them the same species and the same subspecies ?
Yes, North American Red Wolves should not be considered a separate species from Coyotes, but hybrids. There are several papers arguing that point.

[Anonymous No.12066203]

>>12066165
Another example that I know of would be crows. Carrion crows and hooded crows have been accepted as different species even though they overlap and naturally and regularily hybridize.

[Anonymous No.12066206]

>>12066180
See >>12066025

[Anonymous No.12066209]

>>12066203
Just because two subgroups of a single species are wrongly categorized as separate species is not a good reason to do the same with Humans.

Yours would be an example of "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

[Anonymous No.12066218]

>>12066209
Animals having sex doesn’t mean they’re the same species and never has.

[Anonymous No.12066223]

>>12066019
>Morality itself is an emotional response. You are a sociopath.

No you fucking idiot. Most if not all rules we have that are under the umbrella of "morality" have developed purely under utilitarian principles.

>Do not kill.
Society will break in pieces if everybody goes and kills whoever they want. Relatives would retaliate etc. ...

on the other hand
>Killing other people is perfectly fine as long as you are in the military and do the killing while following orders.
As long you kill protecting us and our valuable assets, we are fine with it. Muh society above everything!

>Do not steal.
Again, there would be no stable society if stealing was allowed. You would steal from me. I would get angry and steal from you etc. Maybe I would just kill you, once I'm fed up with you taking my shit.

>People shouldn't have sex before marriage.
If my daughter fucks all kinds of men before marriage, there is no way to know who the father is - then I'm left here providing for her useless ass and her bastards too. No way! People should only fuck when married. Then at least the married couple provides for the children.

>People shouldn't have sex with other people when married.
See above and modify it for the husband's view.

>Prostitution is wrong.
Valuable assets that could be used to provide for wife and children are spent on whores. Not good for muh society.


Feel free to provide other examples of "Morality" and I will tell how it developed.

[Anonymous No.12066229]

dude, you guys should check out botany
the autistic shitflinging about pointless taxonomic disputes NEVER ends there, you'll love it

[Anonymous No.12066235]

>>12066218
It does under the traditional definition of species. This definition has been challenged. But Humans do not classify as different species under any definition, traditional or otherwise.

Seeding doubt with examples of wrongly-categorized species won't change this fact.

[Anonymous No.12066236]

>>12066223
>I’m a sociopath and feel no emotional revulsion towards the practice of murder and rape, and I believe no one else does either haha

Neck yourself

[Anonymous No.12066242]

>>12066235
>It does under the traditional definition of species.

We don’t use that one anymore, so don’t bring it up. Next.

[Anonymous No.12066246]

>>12066242
There is no proposed definition under which Humans would be different species. Seethe harder.

[Anonymous No.12066252]

>>12066236

Oh wow, I like how you refuted my arguments.
Obviously I'm ill equipped to discuss such matters with an intellectual heavyweight like you.

[Anonymous No.12066256]

>>12066246
>There is no proposed definition under which Humans would be different species

I never proposed categorizing living humans as separate species so whatever.

[Anonymous No.12066257]

>>12066199
> Modern Africans have in average 25% Eurasian DNA
Your article says ethiopians and 20%...
But I'll forgive your exaggerations. Okay, humans naturally hybridize with neighbouring populations, and occasionally with distant ones that migrate to their habitat.

Well it happens that this is quite similar to the bears' hybridization patterns.
>Genomics studies of brown bears and polar bears have revealed that gene flow from polar bears into brown bears, but not the other way around, was widespread in time and space during the Pleistocene.[7] Of particular note, the bears living on the islands of the Alexander Archipelago of southeast Alaska trace their maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA entirely to polar bears, but over 90% of their nuclear genome to brown bears. This appears to reflect a process in which a population of polar bears was left behind as the species retreated northwards at the end of the last ice age, with male brown bears subsequently introducing genes from the adjacent mainland, but female brown bears being generally unable or unwilling to swim across several km of open ocean to reach the islands (thus the lack of exchange of mitochondrial DNA).[22]
>Such studies have not been limited to polar bears and brown bears, and it now appears that gene flow between species has been widespread during the evolution of the living species of bears.[23]

>North American Red Wolves should not be considered a separate species from Coyotes, but hybrids.
Okay. What about the other parent population, the wolves ? should it not be considered a separate species from coyotes, since they naturally and regularily hybridize ? What about separate subspecies ?

[Anonymous No.12066272]

>>12066209
>>12066235
>wrongly categorized
>boohoo, taxonomists don't use my the outdated definition of species that is convenient for my argument
It was not a mistake on their part but an informed decision based on a largely accepted definition of species. The fact that you dislike it don't make it wrong.

Remember, btw, that most of us don't argue for humans to be classified as different species but as subspecies. We're just arguing about species because it applies more strongly to subspecies.

[Anonymous No.12066275]

>>12066257
>Well it happens that this is quite similar to the bears' hybridization patterns.
Your example refers to the bears of a particular archipielago, which I agree, should be considered hybrids. It does not refer to bears as a whole.

I agree this is a grey area, which is why this traditional definition of species has been discarded. Still irrelevant to the Human situation.

>Okay. What about the other parent population, the wolves ? should it not be considered a separate species from coyotes, since they naturally and regularily hybridize ? What about separate subspecies ?
Conservationists have argued that. All hybrids should not have special protection, only pure North American Grey Wolves should. Extending protected status to Coyote-Wolf hybrids such as the Red Wolf threatens the status of NA Grey Wolves, which are not hybrids.

It's on the very paper you extracted this image from >>12066165

[Anonymous No.12066285]

>>12063195
>native australians homo sapiens sapiens
Yeah.
Ausland still received gene flow

[Anonymous No.12066286]

>>12066272
>It was not a mistake on their part but an informed decision based on a largely accepted definition of species. The fact that you dislike it don't make it wrong.
The fact that you keep bringing up unrelated examples to muddy the waters doesn't change the fact that Humans do NOT classify as different species under ANY definition, traditional or otherwise.

>Remember, btw, that most of us don't argue for humans to be classified as different species but as subspecies. We're just arguing about species because it applies more strongly to subspecies.
There is no accepted definition of a subspecies. And shitposting bait threads on /sci/ hardly constitutes arguing.

[Anonymous No.12066321]

>>12066275
>should be considered hybrids
That's not the point. It's not about which populations are hybrids, but about whether the two species are one. If all individuals need to be hybrids before the species become one, then that doesn't apply to humans among which hybridization is not generalized (it doesn't happen without migration and only selected groups migrate).
Under your definition, they should be, since they naturally produce hybrids.
But it's generally accepted that they deserve to be different species. And up to now you haven't said that they shouldn't be.
Which means your definition is wrong.

>>12066275
>All hybrids should not have special protection, only pure North American Grey Wolves should. Extending protected status to Coyote-Wolf hybrids such as the Red Wolf threatens the status of NA Grey Wolves
That comes down to protecting the purity of the grey wolves though. If all individuals were to be considered the same species and subspecies, like we do for humans, it should be fine to protect them all as one and let them hybridize.
But you didn't answer my question : are wolves and coyotes the same species and subspecies ?

>unrelated examples
They're not unrelated. The relation is pretty clear : those are examples of different species illustrating how taxonomists use the category.
By comparison, we could use it the same way to find that humans are at least subspecies.

[Anonymous No.12067830]

we all know what homo OP is

[Anonymous No.12067879]

>>12063195
humans have variations between them
comparing a negroid mongoloid and Caucasoid skull you will see obvious differences
as long as we can interbreed we are the same species

[Anonymous No.12068558]

>>12066236
Only sociopaths don't get that people will hate them in response to getting hurt.

[Anonymous No.12068588]

>>12066223
On the contrary, society was held together by the threat of feud or retaliation. Sociopaths can rule if the laws protect them from their victims retaliation.
>>12066236
Only sociopaths don't get that people will hate them in response to getting hurt.

[Anonymous No.12068627]

>>12066223
>Again, there would be no stable society if stealing was allowed. You would steal from me. I would steal from you etc.
That's called sharing. Societies thrive on sharing. Only sociopaths want everything to be privately owned, so that they exploit it without others interfering.

[Anonymous No.12068659]

>>12068627
>stealing is sharing
fuck off nigger, sharing by definition requires consent.

[Anonymous No.12068942]

>>12066236
I think you confuse sociopaths with psychopaths.

[Anonymous No.12068954]

>>12063490
Considering the effects of colonial rule upon the natives, it would seem they have different needs that need to be acknowledged, even if it means saying that we're different.

[Anonymous No.12069006]

>>12065580
>to tailor social policies to each of them.
Please elaborate. Give us the full policy wish-list of Modest Proposals. All of it, including those that do not pertain to race/sub-species.

[Anonymous No.12069116]

>>12066128
this is extremely outdated

[Anonymous No.12069143]

>>12068659
Sharing may be expected. Anyway the point is that sociopaths never share, and if they do, it is something the recipient obviously couldn't need as a form of virtue signalling.

[Anonymous No.12069171]

>>12063195
honest question: is there even one example of an attractive abbo? not heavily admixed ofc. like there are plenty of attractive jungle, snow, curry, rice and you name it bunnies but i still have yet to see one abbo. every example i'v seen is some variant of pic related.

[Anonymous No.12069203]

>>12069171
They are deformed from nutrient deficiencies, to which they are more vulnerable than whites. Look up some old photos of abos.

[Anonymous No.12069229]

>>12069171
I wonder why if you rape and muttify a gene pool, selecting for only the cowardly that would be subservient to white colonizers and then import a legion of disease and a diet unheard of in the genetic history of the colonizers, combined with centuries of second-class status, you get a group of repulsive people

[Anonymous No.12069299]

>>12069171
>>12069229
Here's a full abo model and miss world candidate.

[Anonymous No.12069301]

>>12069299
As you can see it's not a problem of diet.

[Anonymous No.12069314]

>>12066052
What evidence do you have of this.

[Anonymous No.12069343]

>>12065771
correct

[Anonymous No.12069347]

>>12069314
you have clearly never met an abo

[Anonymous No.12069368]

>>12069347
Anecdotal evidence.

[Anonymous No.12069451]

>>12069368
I could present you a snail in the guise of a human and tell you that it has a low intelligence but you would spurn common sense and only agree if there was a reliable study from a peer reviewed journal.

[Anonymous No.12069564]

>>12069368
abos and nogs are literally basal humans

[Anonymous No.12069565]

>>12069006
Modest Proposals ? is that a thing I should know about ?

As for my wishlist, well thinking about it it comes down to stop supporting abos for being unproductive.
Grant them sufficient land to live in the wild as hunter-gatherers. If we can't give them enough land to sustain themselves, provide them with food on request but nothing else. Give them autonomy and leave them alone.
Allow them individually to try and join regular society if they want to, but expel them back to their reservation in case of crime, and in case of offenses coupled with unemployment. No positive discrimination.

[Anonymous No.12069675]

>>12069451
So you have no real evidence then. Just admit you're racist and have no scientific justification for it.

[Anonymous No.12069686]

>>12063314
The more they try to hide it the worse the fallout will be when the dam finally breaks. Basing equal rights on the idea that all people are the same biologically was a terrible mistake

[Anonymous No.12069695]

>>12065974
Lot he embryo doesn't start out as a boiled egg anon, You're the one who boils it

[Anonymous No.12069721]

>>12069675
https://www.human-intelligence.org/australian-aborigines/
" Race differences in intelligence. An evolutionary Analysis », Chapter 8 pp. 68-77, Richard Lynn, Washington Summit Publisher, 1st edition 2006 and 2nd edition 2015."

[Anonymous No.12069726]

>>12069675
>>12069721
median iq of 69

[Anonymous No.12069743]

>>12069675
>>12069721
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qClBRaretEk
It is to such a degree that ads are run to tell them to stop sleeping on actual roads and we even developed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opal_(fuel) a petrol designed so they can't fucking huff it

[Anonymous No.12069750]

>>12069721
>Richard Lynn
Infamous hack notorious for his flawed, inconsistent methodologies, gross manipulation and distortion of data, and blatantly transparent white supremacist rhetoric.

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

[Anonymous No.12069758]

>>12069750
I've read the criticism's about his work and they're absolute nonsense can you provide some specific evidence as to why he is wrong about aboriginals having a median iq of 69 or will you just yell about racism?

[Anonymous No.12069762]

>>12065901
>NOOOOOOO if you don't want to rape and murder children then you're a hypocrite if you want to kill the active and proven stains on humanity who have caused documented damage and suffering

[Anonymous No.12069781]

>>12069758
He sources IQ data from studies with wildly variable methodologies, sample sizes, and participant general education.
He flat out makes up data for countries with no IQ information available.
He derives IQ data from tests that have no bearing on IQ.
He ignores studies where people of African descent score relatively high, in some cases, higher than whites in certain regions.

[Anonymous No.12069786]

>>12069781
Post them.

[Anonymous No.12069793]

>>12069786
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289609000634?via%3Dihub
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886909002475?via%3Dihub
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886909003675?via%3Dihub

[Anonymous No.12069812]

>>12069793
First one concludes african iq is 82 and is irrelevant for Australian Aboriginals.
The second one I agree with that geographical distance and longitude are inaccurate models and gross simplifications although that has little to do with aboriginals.
Finally I do agree that brain size isn't entirely responsible for the differences in IQ as we're still discovering hundreds of genes that contribute to ones intelligence, but a gain little to do with aboriginals

[Anonymous No.12069813]

>>12069812
again*

[Anonymous No.12069832]

>>12069812
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002202217100200409
>Two tests of classificatory ability based on Piaget's theory of cognitive development, and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), were administered to 40 full-blood urban Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory of Australia. The PPVT was also given to 80 white urban children of similar low-socioeconomic status. A trend in an earlier study for high-contact Aboriginals to perform on classification tests at about the same level as white children in a similar environment was confirmed, despite the markedly lower verbal IQ scores of Aboriginal children.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191124082600/http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/items/e9f46c68-53ce-404e-aa76-a3e8a9ab115a/1/
>Following Porteus, over the next two decades from the 1930s, a study was undertaken by psychologists at the University of Western Australia. They tested Aboriginal men and women on stations in the Gascoyne region of Western Australia (WA) and remarked on the wide range of scores, commenting that ‘some natives have intelligence of a high degree’.19p(41-2) The study indicated test score equivalence between Aboriginal and white Australian people, raising the question of the effects of differential experience on test performance.

[Anonymous No.12069838]

>>12069832
https://ideas.repec.org/p/auu/dpaper/578.html
>Improving cognitive skills of young children has been suggested as a possible strategy for equalising opportunities across racial groups. Using data on 4-5 year olds in the Longitudinal Survey of Australian Children, we focus on two cognitive tests: the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and the ‘Who Am I?’ test (WAI). We estimate the test score gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children to be about 0.3 to 0.4 standard deviations, suggesting that the typical Indigenous 5 year-old has a similar test score to the typical non-Indigenous 4 year-old. Between one-third and two-thirds of the Indigenous/non-Indigenous test score gap appears to be due to socio-economic differences, such as income and parental education. We review the literature on test score differences in Australia, and find that our estimated gaps are lower than most of those found in the literature. This implies that the test score gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children may widen over the lifecycle, a finding that has implications for policies aimed at improving educational opportunities for Indigenous children.

[Anonymous No.12069842]

>>12069838
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049538608259009
>A research approach based on probable cognitive skills of desert Aboriginal people was derived from suggestions for research in comparative psychology made by Lockard (1971), and from contradictory reports of high Aboriginal skill in difficult environmental circumstances and inferior performance in school and on IQ tests. Aboriginal children and adolescents of both semi-traditional and non-traditional groups performed significantly better than White Australian subjects on visual spatial memory tasks requiring memory for spatial location of a kind postulated as useful in desert way-finding. This difference was seen to support a genetic hypothesis, on the assumption that non-traditional Aboriginal children were reared like White Australian children. It is now apparent that this assumption is unjustified, and that many traditional child-rearing practices are maintained by non-traditional Aboriginal people, even of the city, which may be important for the development of particular cognitive skills. The genetic hypothesis is therefore abandoned. Suggestions are made for cross-cultural research on child-rearing and its cognitive effects in both Aboriginal and White Australian groups.

[Anonymous No.12069859]

>>12069832
First one makes sense that aboriginals score relatively high on pointing to the correct picture of a word as they're still higher than monkeys although that doesn't have much to do with a proper IQ test
Second link doesn't actually let me read the study unless you have a function link to the study somewhere?

[Anonymous No.12069864]

>>12069838
>>12069842
Before I read these and you drown me in a hundred extra papers do any of these actually have anything to do with IQ beyond basic spacial ability?

[Anonymous No.12069874]

>>12069864
What is your fixation on IQ, specifically? It's been proven many times over that IQ is malleable and factors like poor nutrition and general lack of education can and do impact it.

[Anonymous No.12069879]

>>12069874
Best current indicator and things like the PPVT test and spatial tests while indicative of a degree of intelligence are simply inadequate

[Anonymous No.12069886]

>>12069838
>>12069842
>>12069859
You will always score low on verbal IQ tests when you are illiterate or only write in characters, because the tests are largely based on the knowledge of the alphabet.

[Anonymous No.12069890]

>>12069874
>>12069879
PPVT boils down to match the word to the picture which isn't the greatest reflection of intelligence

[Anonymous No.12069901]

>>12069890
Verbal IQ is primarily the test of literacy. The more you read, the more you will score.

[Anonymous No.12069902]

>>12065774
A subspecies is just a subspecies. It doesn't mean they're subhuman, you brainlet. Is Homo sapiens idaltu superior to us because their brains were bigger on average? Are we all inferior to the great almighty Omo 1 or Jebel Irhoud? What about Boskops Man (which turned out to be a very large brained population of Khoisan)? Their brains were bigger than any humans alive today, are they superior?

[Anonymous No.12069904]

>>12069901
Ya but those tests were done on school children some from the same school so there shouldn't be a huge difference in literacy

[Anonymous No.12069905]

>>12063314
The only thing that matters is the truth and I will smite you for your lack of respect for that truth

[Anonymous No.12069906]

>>12066045
If humans had subspecies, many "darkies" would be classified under the same subspecies as "whites". All Eurasians + Native Americans + Australasians are descended from Africans who left the continent some 70,000-80,000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.12069913]

>>12066138
The different between a chihuahua and an arctic wolf is roughly .3

To say that chihuahuas and artic wolves should be together is fuckin nuts

[Anonymous No.12069915]

>>12069171
White people raped them so hard that most Aboriginals tend to look more Middle Eastern than Aboriginal these days, so I'd assume that some were physically attractive.

[Anonymous No.12069918]

>>12069906
>every continent populated by hominids for the last 5 million years
>implying testing ancient dna is accurate

Related species evolved regionally, over the last 2 million years.

[Anonymous No.12069921]

>>12069299
>>12069301
Not all Aboriginals look the same, it depends on what region of Australia they came from. Some look more like South Indians (like that woman you posted, who might not even be "pure" herself), while others look like these women. Others still look like Papuans with gigantic brow ridges, some have blonde or reddish-brown hair that didn't come from Europeans, etc.

[Anonymous No.12069935]

>>12069918
Homo sapiens is 300,000-350,000 years old. Despite all the attempts of trying to leave Africa between 110,000 and 300,000 years ago, no archaic Homo sapiens genes have been discovered in modern Eurasians, so they are not descended from extremely ancient migrational patterns like that. Shit, if there were, they might be as distant from us as Neanderthals are to Denisovans.

>>12069564
>"nogs"
>basal humans

Staying in the same continent doesn't mean that you don't wind up diverging from generic archaic Sapiens stock. Look at the neotenic, baby faced African guy on the right compared to the much more robust, earlier member of our species on the left.

[Anonymous No.12069988]

>>12069935
Homo-erectus became homo-sapien, homo-erectus did this independently in at least 3 different continents.

Out of africa was pre-sapien, but due to the constraints of mating and generations each group became sapien in a similar time period.

[Anonymous No.12070010]

>>12069988
Sounds like CCP propaganda. Have any reliable sources to back up your claims?

[Anonymous No.12070195]

>>12069921
Are you sure those girls aren't mixed ?
>>12069915
Fuckable and attractive are two different things, especially for sex-starved pioneers. And young, athletic girls are usually fuckable even with ugly features. Pic related, 4/10 would rape.

[Anonymous No.12070209]

>>12070195
>pioneers
>he doesnt know australis was a prison island.

[Anonymous No.12070222]

>>12070195
>pioneers
Is that what they call us now?

[Anonymous No.12070247]

>>12070222
>>12070209
Sorry I'm not anglo and I don't know the right word. I assumed the guys doing the raping were free at the time.

[Anonymous No.12070250]

>>12069988
It doesn't awem we came from the erectus lineage at all. There seem to be many features (such as the brain being located above vs. behind the face) that would need to change for no clear reason.

[Anonymous No.12070252]

>>12069988
It doesn't seem we came from the erectus lineage at all. There seem to be many features (such as the brain being located above vs. behind the face) that would need to change for no clear reason.

[Anonymous No.12070453]

>>12070195
Wait, looking it up, I found that this was a censored version.
For scientific purposes, here's the one with the tits, along with some others from the same source.

[Anonymous No.12070461]

>>12070453

[Anonymous No.12070472]

>>12070453
And how old do you think she is...?

[Anonymous No.12070473]

>>12070461

[Anonymous No.12070476]

>>12070453
>>12070461
I'm just dying to mix my genes with those.

[Anonymous No.12070477]

>>12070472
All of these models are at least 18. No doubt in my mind.

[Anonymous No.12070499]

>>12070461
>>12070453
LOOK AT THOSE EYES. It's like they're not even conscious creatures.

[Anonymous No.12070540]

>>12070499
t.

[Anonymous No.12070712]

>>12070540
Why can't you see the whites of their eyes as much? Do they just have giant pupils for night vision?

[Anonymous No.12071225]

>>12069988
>Multiregional theory

The only multiregional theory that's correct is the African multiregional theory. Current studies suggest that Homo sapiens is an amalgamation of now extinct populations of humans that hybridized to create a new species, in Africa.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/rethinking-the-origins-of-homo-sapiens/

[Anonymous No.12071233]

>>12070712
They have large brow ridges so you can't see their eyes as clearly as someone with flat ones. For the record, many Europeans have larger than average brow ridges too, just not as large.

[Anonymous No.12071324]

>>12071225
That article was rather thin on details. Also I saw no evidence that there was no amalgamations outside Africa. Svante Paabo, on the other hand, has argued there was hybridisation between homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans and possibly a fourth as yet unnamed group, all outside Africa.
And later it became "necessary" to posit a "back to Africa-hypothesis".

[Anonymous No.12071513]

>>12071233
No no. You can't the the whites because the iris is fucking huge like a dog, or any other wild animal.

[Anonymous No.12072142]

>>12070247
We're descendants from convicts

[Anonymous No.12072347]

>>12066091
Is not donating money to save starving African children "murder"?

[Anonymous No.12072353]

[Anonymous No.12072356]

[Anonymous No.12072803]

>>12070499
>LOOK AT THOSE EYES. It's like they're not even conscious creatures.

[Anonymous No.12072827]

>>12072803
Given the amount of offspring this mating pair has produced, it is likely they are indeed not.

[Anonymous No.12072937]

>>12072803
Why do you have such an obscure photo?

[Anonymous No.12072941]

>>12072803
Low quality, can't see consciousness either way.

[Anonymous No.12074886]

Troll

[Anonymous No.12075652]

>/pol/fag upset being in the same species as black people
Average IQ. Doesnt even vary that much (range of roughly 7 points throughout the states) but if it bothers you that you are the same species as black people, just give them schools dude. That shit works.
1/2

[Anonymous No.12075658]

>>12075652
2/2

[Anonymous No.12075666]

>>12075652
Pop. for reference

[Anonymous No.12075844]

>>12075652
>>12075658
>>12075666
Why are you talking about niggers when the topic is Australian Aboriginals which aren't even from the negroid grouping?

[Anonymous No.12075846]

>>12075652
>>12075658
>>12075666
Why are you using state statistics when racial specific statistics exist? is this the power of burger education

[Anonymous No.12075847]

>>12075652
>just give them schools bro

[Anonymous No.12076286]

>>12075652

[Anonymous No.12076309]

>>12075652