What caused evolution in humans to hold after we left africa?

[Anonymous No.12385304]

Any other species would have developed subspecies by now, but according to the scientific community there are non within humans today, what caused evolution to stop for us?

[Anonymous No.12385316]

>>12385304
The magical forces of equality, woman empowerment, anti racism, peace and love have stopped evolution. And of course evolution is not occurring at all now and any suggestion it does is far right eugenism and social Darwinism.

[Anonymous No.12385335]

>>12385304
>Any other species would have developed subspecies by now

[Anonymous No.12385338]

>>12385304
Evolution did not stop. Humans around the world, including those in Africa, continued to evolve. On top of that, humans in Europe interbred to some extent with Neanderthals, and humans in Asia to some extent with Denisovans. We can trace genealogy by markers on the Y chromosome (in the patrilineal line) and especially in the mitochondria (in the matrilineal line), which mutate much more quickly.

But our species Homo sapiens didn't leave Africa all that long ago. Although there were other species like Homo erectus in Eurasia much earlier, Homo sapiens only left Africa for the first time about 50,000-70,000 years ago, with many later migrations. This is still slightly before the emergence of behavioral modernity, but it is recent enough that only comparatively minor genetic changes have happened since then.

On top of that, there has been constant mixing of genes along the borders of human cultures ever since. Few if any populations have been truly isolated. This has obviously accelerated in the modern era, with essentially all peoples closely connected to each other, with constant genetic exchange.

Still, there has certainly been enough evolutionary diversity to explain the visible differences in appearance and other traits by location. While there are no proper "races" that can be clearly delineated, obviously you can tell the difference between someone with Sudanese ancestry from someone with Vietnamese ancestry or whatever. This is due to evolution. Some of it demonstrates natural selection, like the generally darker skin tones in regions receiving more sunlight, and some of it is probably just genetic drift.

[Anonymous No.12385356]

>>12385304
Humans left Africa very quickly, biologically speaking.

[Anonymous No.12385402]

>>12385304
Humans are semi-aquatic, not in the umbrella pop-sci sense of aquatic ape theory, but in that we spent a LOT of time living along the costs of lakes and rivers.

Likely scenario is that coastal, semi-aquatic groups, and savannah groups, both existed simultaneous and interbred, which led to a prioritization of traits that benefited both groups. Then the coastal living groups travelled north with the savannah groups largely remaining jn africa.

[Anonymous No.12385700]

>>12385304
Evolution did not stop after leaving Africa. It may have even accelerated due to the Founder Effect and different groups moving in to different ecological niches. Pic related: subcortical brain parts after and before leaving Africa.

[Anonymous No.12385765]

We didn't left africa
Out of africa is a lie

[Anonymous No.12386786]

>>12385304

It didn't. After the agricultural revolution, evolution sped up.

[Anonymous No.12386798]

>>12385338
Australian Aborigines were isolated for 60,000 years.

[Anonymous No.12386913]

>>12385700
If it is the striatum, the right one seems damaged.

[Anonymous No.12386917]

>>12386798
yeah, that one is obvious lol
they are barely "human" desu

[Anonymous No.12386968]

>>12386786
This book makes a lot of questionable assumptions, and some outright false statements. For instance, the microcephalin variant they claim makes Europeans smarter is not a Neanderthal allele, and it is not associated with intelligence.

Some of it is true though. As indisputable examples, people have become better at metabolizing cereals and better at maintaining lactase production for their whole lives in cultures that drink milk.

[Anonymous No.12386983]

>>12386798
Estimates range from 45,000 to 65,000 years, which is consistent with the date of first migration from 50,000 to 70,000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.12387121]

>>12386913
It's a phenotype

[Anonymous No.12387142]

>>12385304
"Race" is just a PC term for subspecies. Mixed-subspecies animals exist and nobody gives a fuck because subspecies are for autistic taxonomists that jack themselves off to new taxa they created.
Similarly, if subspecies A is generally less intelligent than subspecies B, you wouldn't just outright claim that an intelligent member of subspecies A is unintelligent and would produce unintelligent offspring with a similarly intelligent mate. Literally nobody gives a flying fuck.

[Anonymous No.12387166]

>>12387142
Human variation is clinal, meaning there is a continuous gradient in phenotypes, not a few clearly distinct groups. So in that sense, it is not meaningful to talk about biological subspecies or races of humans. If it were meaningful, there would be some agreed-upon list of races.

[Anonymous No.12387187]

>>12385304
An alien discovering the planet would classify caucasions and negroids as different sub species. We dont because warm feelings of a non existant equality are more important

[Anonymous No.12387203]

>>12387166
>continuous gradient
humans come in discrete units
they're not continuous anywhere

[Anonymous No.12387206]

>>12387203
Continuous gradient of discrete units

[Anonymous No.12387222]

>>12385304
The entire middle east to North Africa used to be a vast savanna belt so humans just moving around in that belt is what caused humans to leave Africa.

[Anonymous No.12387255]

>>12387203
Human populations are numerous enough that variation can be continuous. You are being deliberately dense.

People have attempted to argue there are 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, or even over 20 human races. There was never a consensus, because there is no way to draw the line between one race and another. That is the definition of a cline. And that is why the modern consensus is that there are not distinct races of humans in the biological sense. (At least, not anymore.)

[Anonymous No.12387361]

The Evolution is here and we're all witnesses

[Anonymous No.12387372]

>>12387255
>it's not continuous but look at all these problems I get when I pretend it is

[Anonymous No.12387382]

>>12387372
Your argument was that it isn't continuous because there are only finitely many people. Fine. Then there is a different race for every human on Earth. That's the only non-arbitrary way to define it.

Unless you think you have cracked the code and know there are exactly 17 human races or some shit.

[Anonymous No.12387440]

>>12387255
Rainbow can be classified to many different number of colors and yet no one argues the colors at the same.

[Anonymous No.12387460]

>>12385304
Change of diet. It's likely getting away from consuming bone marrow as primary source of nutrition and consumed stem cells lead to the species stabilizing.
The biggest shifts will be seen in haplogroups and mDNA overtime.

[Anonymous No.12387467]

>>12387460
Direct implantation of stem cells cross species is even a research topic today.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3445044/
The question becomes. What happens when you eat stem cell material (like bone marrow, or plants in key stages)? Does the stomach completely dissolve the cells or are they able to be adopted while in the process of chewing or digestion.

[Anonymous No.12387479]

>>12387440
How many colors are there? 6? 7? Clearly there isn't a definite number of colors. Just like there isn't a definite number of races. Humans have clinal variation. Gradual variation. There are no distinct races.

Nobody is denying that people from different parts of the world are genetically different.

[Anonymous No.12387489]

>>12387460
You can transplant stem cells from one organism to another. You can't just eat them and expect them to somehow survive, work their way out of the digestive tract, and start functioning as human cells. That's not at all how it works.

[Anonymous No.12387493]

>>12385304
we didn't stop evolving, we evolved increadibly fast in the time frame, that's why you have skin colour and races. 50k years is literally nothing, crocodiles have been essentially exactly the same for hundreds of MILLIONS of years.

[Anonymous No.12387500]

>>12387479
>How many colors are there?
Depends who you ask, there are over 100 that human eye can distinguish, some less developed people might only say 3 or even just 2. Again just because you can put the colors in multiple number of categories doesn't mean red and blue are the same color. The argument that just because the transition points between races are vague doesn't mean races aren't real just the same way colors are real despite the transition between them being vague. That's not to even look at genetics which clusters people pretty neatly.

[Anonymous No.12387515]

>>12387500
There is a genetic gradient. That is simply the opposite of races. "Race" is essentially a synonym for "subspecies." You cannot have a gradient of subspecies. There are either a few distinct subspecies or there are not.

And you are totally mischaracterizing my argument. I said "Nobody is denying that people from different parts of the world are genetically different." Of course they are different. But there are no meaningful racial categories. Is an Indian person the "same race" as a Chinese person? Is gold the "same color" as orange? It depends how precise you want to be. There is nowhere to draw the line.

If it is impossible to tell whether or not someone is white, then there isn't a "white race." Rather, there is a set of traits that people have or do not have to varying extents and in varying collections around the world. We can look at someone and judge completely arbitrarily "eh, he looks white," but that is not a biologically meaningful determination.

[Anonymous No.12387520]

>>12387515
There is a color gradient, that is simply the opposite of colors. Blue is essentially a synonym of Red, you can't have gradients of colors there are either few distinct colors or there are not.

[Anonymous No.12387533]

>>12387489
If they are active they can. Entering blood stream like any blood borne pathogens that may infect while consuming. So before you claim how something doesn't work, you should really look at how things do work. Organic cells do survive the digestive tract and may be a slow factor of change overtime.

[Anonymous No.12387539]

>>12387533
Especially looking at human adipose stem cells. At the same processes would exist in animals as well

[Anonymous No.12387556]

>>12387520
You have no idea what you are talking about. Race and subspecies are indeed synonyms. Red and blue are not. The entire subspecies concept is predicated on the idea of clearly delineated groups. It's a taxonomic term. The whole point is to be able to categorize into distinct populations that do not interbreed (or interbreed very little). That just doesn't apply to humans.

You can look this up yourself. I dare you to find a reliable source backing up your position. Again, NOBODY IS DENYING humans are geographically diverse. What I am denying is that there are meaningful GROUPS of people. And you seem to agree. When a taxonomist says there are not human races, or just one race, that is exactly what they mean. If you don't like it, you can go write your own dictionary I guess.

[Anonymous No.12387560]

>>12387533
>If they are active they can.
No. They can't. And even if they could, that is not how horizontal gene transfer works. What you are proposing makes no sense and sounds like something you just made up on the spot.

[Anonymous No.12387566]

>>12387556
Kind of silly about skin color probably a very poor indicator of subspecies. You can have people of the same Y chromosome or haplogroup present with different skin colors.

[Anonymous No.12387573]

>>12387560
Gene transfer would come after incorporation of animal stem cell. Are you even familiar with how stupidly easy it is to put adipose stem cells to work in a given system?

[Anonymous No.12387579]

>>12387573
To be clear, your proposal here is that people used to eat more fresh bone marrow than they do now, which allowed more living stem cells to enter their GI tract. Some of these stem cells migrated into the blood through lacerations or ulcers or whatever. Some of these stem cells survived and got implanted into the testes. While in the testes, these stem cells then turned into spermatogonia and began producing pig sperm or whatever. Am I on the right track?

And then this pig sperm produces half-human, half-pig hybrids. And in the long run, we ended up with some pig DNA or something. And this happened so frequently, that our species couldn't "stabilize" until we stopped eating marrow.

Seems reasonable

[Anonymous No.12387581]

>>12387579
You went overboard. Fuck off dishonest cunt

[Anonymous No.12387582]

>>12387581
At what point does the pig DNA enter human nuclei then?

[Anonymous No.12387584]

>>12387581
>You went overboard
to be fair, you never explained your theory

[Anonymous No.12387823]

>>12387382
>different race for every human on Earth. That's the only non-arbitrary way to define it.
how is that not arbitrary?

[Anonymous No.12387845]

[Anonymous No.12387919]

>>12385304
>what caused evolution to stop for us?
It didn't stop. Evolution continues to this day. But there's sufficient out-breeding to keep a stable gene-line that can all generally inter-breed.

"Sub-species" is just any group that has collected identifyable traits within a species. "Race". And we can track that via broad haplogroups. Or narrow, if you want to make a fuss about Irish vs English for some ungodly reason. But we're all the same species.

What you're talking about though, why Africans can still mate with someone from S.America. That's just a matter of scale. If we stayed as paleolithic hunter-gatherers for another million years, we probably WOULD have split into different species. But we only got out of Africa 80,000 years ago, and we hauled ass around the globe.

[Anonymous No.12387941]

>>12387823
Because each variation is now a separate race, so there's no quibbling over how much variation or similarity there needs to be to define a distinct race as opposed to another.

[Anonymous No.12387960]

>>12387203
Naw, not discreet. There's a lot of overlap between all the old neighbors. The Middle-east is a shmorgas board of DNA as everyone's been travelling through there for a long time.
>>12387255
It's most certainly not one continuous gradiant though.
There are very clear groupings if you sort by genetic variance. You know, since Asian people look alike and Europeans look alike. This is kind of a "duh" sort of thing that absolutely gets backed up by the science. There were pools of people that bred with each other and not those across the globe. Those pockets experienced genetic drift from each other and acquired identifyable traits.

>People have attempted to argue there are 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, or even over 20 human races
Well there's a few broad groups, but you can subdivide that down as fine as you want to go. Irish and German are different groups, but they're both European.

> because there is no way to draw the line between one race and another.
Haplogroups. Genetic markers that were acquired and passed down to descendants. We can tell where you ancestors came from. (which is what race IS).

>And that is why the modern consensus is that there are not distinct races of humans in the biological sense. (At least, not anymore.)
And this sort of obviously wrong bullshit is what drives people into the arms of the science-deying republicans.

Here we go: Explain for me why people from Asia look different than people from Africa. Is there a reason for that? Is it genetic? Does that get passed down to their children? THEN RACE IS A REAL THING YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!!! Seriously, you're making my political party look bad. Knock it off.

[Anonymous No.12387968]

>>12387479
Most humans have three types of cones in their eyes with measurable absorbtion rates for frequencies of radiation (which is what color IS). From those three frequencies we can have any number of combination within the visible light spectrum. There's a limit to what we can differentiate, although freaks with 4 types of cones can differentiate more at certain frequencies. And generally women CAN see more colors then men. There's a biological basis for that. (All the 4-cone freaks are women, btw).

Just like there is a word for "red" in every culture on Earth (and even unconnected cultures generally agree on what shade of red that is), there is a biological basis for the different races. The variation within humans is not gradual. There are obvious groupings, as observable from genetic sequencing, which obviously arose from humanity's time apart from each other as we travelled across the globe. The Out-of-Africa model really stands up to all cricisism. This is science. Science is real.

[Anonymous No.12388107]

>>12386983
australoids left africa 100,000 years ago. stop reading boomer science lmao

[Anonymous No.12388329]

>>12387960
>Haplogroups
Except haplogroups do not even come close to corresponding to the common notion of race. You could easily be from a completely different Y-chromosomal haplogroup from your mother but look just like her. Perhaps more to the point, there are more haplogroups in Africa than the rest of the world, leading to the apparent conclusion that there are more "races" in Africa than everywhere else combined, if that's how we want to define "race."

>>12387960
>Well there's a few broad groups
Like, how many? Three? Six? A dozen?

>obviously wrong bullshit
It's unbelievable to me that on the /sci/ence board, people have such sneering disregard for scientists. I know, I know. They are all liberal snowflakes, or they're all corporate shills, or they're all government toadies, or they're all contrarians. Nobody can agree what their problem is, just that clearly they must be wrong. After all, they said something counterintuitive, and science is *never* counterintuitive. People here know better.

>>12388107
>"australoids"
>not boomer science
Troll harder

[Anonymous No.12388351]

>>12387941
That's still arbitrary tho. What other species is treated that way?
What would be non arbitrary is doing normal population statistics. Clusters and distributions with a bit of overlap won't stop real statisticians.
In pic you can work out how many groups and who's in which with 100% accuracy even without knowing a single nucleotide or doing a single calculation.

[Anonymous No.12388868]

>>12387166
There used to be, the idea of separate races of humans existing was accepted in the early 1970’s

[Anonymous No.12389449]

>>12385304
It's because Nazis and colonialists and whatnot were assholes, and often wrong, about different races existing and what that implies. Thus they decided to lie for the greater good of creating a non-racist society.

[Anonymous No.12389971]

>>12388329
>Except haplogroups do not even come close to corresponding to the common notion of race.

Let me guess, you have no real defintiion for any "common notion of race" and can't describe that at all can you? OH! Let me guess, you're going to say that since there's no agreed upon notion of just what race is, that means it doesn't really exist! So you both simultaneously know exactly what everyone means when they talk about race, and can't possibly know what anyone means when they talk about race! It's a neat trick.

...YEP, here it is: >>12387166 "If it were meaningful, there would be some agreed-upon list of races."

>You could easily be from a completely different Y-chromosomal haplogroup from your mother
That's cause your Y-Chromosome came from your Dad. You know, if you're a dude. Not all Haplogroups are defined by the Y chromosome. But those are certainly easier to study, along with women's mitochondiral DNA since that only comes from eggs and your mother. And what do these studies tell us? That there are clear trends of where people descended from as we

Listen, "haplogroup" just means groups of people that are descended from one person. Your brothers are all in the haplogroup of your dad.

Come on, don't dodge it:
Explain for me why people from Asia look different than people from Africa. Is there a reason for that? Is it genetic? Does that get passed down to their children?

>>Well there's a few broad groups
>Like, how many? Three? Six? A dozen?
About 7, depending how you count
https://web.archive.org/web/20200102073445/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rosenberg2007.png

But you're appealing to loki's wager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager
There is clearly a head and clearly a neck, and just because it's pretty arbitrary where you draw the line doesn't mean you don't deserve to have your lips sewn shut for whining about the details.

[Anonymous No.12390007]

>>12388329
>have such sneering disregard for scientists
Just the ones that are wrong.
I'm actually liberal myself. I don't like war. I believe in progress. I think people should be free to be whomever they want to be. (As long as it doesn't harm others). I like Bernie Sanders, and I think all of his flaws would be easily halted and managed by congress holding the purse strings. Damn shame the youth simply didn't get out and vote. They get what they deserve I guess.

But I hold science as the pinnacle of human achievement. It is our best way forward to discovering the truth. And I'm downright religious about the truth.

The concept of "Race" as commonly held, is not all made-up make believe. To say otherwise, to denounce what is VERY APPARENT and MEASURABLY PROVABLE is costing democrats political capital and it's driving people into the arms of the anti-science crowd. We simply can't afford to be wrong. I know there have been a lot of race issues. I understand the statistics aren't so convenient. I'd even say that a harping too much on all this is taboo and not the best for society. It really would be better if we glossed over it and moved on. But to reject the truth is far FAR more dangerous. To accept that little delusion. That wedge in an otherwise solid foundation of verifiable truth that underpin scientific knowledge. That path is far more dangerous and leads to madness.

The correct response to all of this is along the lines of "Yes, the races loosely correlate [it's not loose, but that's the progressive spin] to the genetics and everyone's historical lineage, but we're moving beyond that and everyone is interbreeding with everyone else and we're all one species. Our differences within our groupings far exceed the differences between groups. Society works better if we look past those differences and work together with fellow humans rather than bicker between different races, which really aren't so different in the end."

[Anonymous No.12390013]

>>12390007
whoops!

[Anonymous No.12390064]

>>12387845
Thank your for this anon. I will be using this pic, and I will also have to make a note of 'lokis wager'. I knew it was some sort of fallacy, but the only could describe it was sort of vaguely in terms of the type/token identification, and the concept of vagueness.

[Anonymous No.12390078]

>>12390064
Human have color cones in their eye though with measurable abortion rates for frequency bands. We can measure all humans (the dead ones at least) and find what the peak frequency of absorption is for the green cones. That is an objective definition of "the most green". Likewise with blue. And that means that half-way between them is the exact transition point between the two and we get to lop off loki's head.

Science is in the business of solving philosophical questions. We know the egg came first. And if a tree falls in a forest, and it's causually isolated from the rest of the universe, it exists in a wave-like state of probabilities. Science finds the magic of the unknown and mystic, and fucking straight-up kills it with knowledge.

[Anonymous No.12390192]

>>12388868
>There used to be
When? I'd love for you to look up that widely-accepted number of human races.

>>12389971
Actually, I have repeatedly asked people in thread for a definition of race, any definition, and no one has given me one. You didn't either. You just left a sarcastic response like "oh, of course there is a definition of race that corresponds to this," but you can't give me one. Why?

>Not all Haplogroups are defined by the Y chromosome
They all come from either the Y-chromosome or the mitochondria. Mitochondrial DNA mutates much faster. In either case, what you get is *not* the racial categories people normally come up with. For instance, people from South America are more closely related to people from the U.S. than they are to people from Mexico. People from North Africa are more related to people from Europe than they are to non-Cushitic people from central Africa. Moreover, these haplogroups only account for a tiny amount of variation. There is far more genetic variation between individuals within a race than between them.

So we have,
(1) Nobody here has given me a list of races, number of races, method of determining a distinction between races, or author that could give me one of those,
(2) Human variation is clinal, not cladal, and
(3) Modern scholarship rejects the existence of clinically or anthropologically meaningful races, let alone taxonomic races.

>Listen, "haplogroup" just means groups of people that are descended from one person.
No. A haplogroup is the group descended *through the male line* from one man or *through the female line* from one woman. I am related to my father's mother, but we are not necessarily in any of the same haplogroups. You are thinking of a clade.

Your "citation," incidentally, is a graphic from Wikipedia they don't even use anymore.

My source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC515312/pdf/0141679.pdf..

[Anonymous No.12390205]

>>12390078
The peak absorption (not abortion lol) frequency of the M cone is probably not the most saturated green color. The most saturated green color may be the frequency that has the greatest contrast between the M and L cones, or between M and S+L. Actually, it is not known precisely how the stimuli from cone cells translates to color perception. Another way to attempt to define the "greenest green" would be to find a set of three primary colors with the greatest gamut, which is approximately what wide gamut displays try to show for pure green. But note that if we increase the number of primary colors, the widest gamut will have a different green.

[Anonymous No.12390216]

>>12390007
It's not just Democrats, it's scientists. It's not like there is a Republican cohort of scientists and a Democrat cohort of scientists and they disagree. That's not how science works. And scientists aren't trying to pull a fast one over society. As recently as 2008 there was significant debate on this subject. They are just reporting what modern genetics has actually found.

If populations really did cluster into clearly delineated groups, then yes, there would be races. In fact they do not. Your picture shows people sampled from geographically distant places, with none sampled between. Of course that will give the appearance of clustering. It would do so with any population gradient. You could use the same technique to "prove" that people came in just two heights, short and tall. Because you chose not to sample anyone of average height.

Seriously, read the Rosenberg paper.

[Anonymous No.12390227]

>>12390192
Why not just use the definition of race that is used for each and every single animal on this planet then (other than humans of course)?

[Anonymous No.12390235]

>>12387556
When you can literally predict with high accuracies the ancestors origin of someone based on their blood. As well as give an estimate and standard deviation of where their IQ might be how can you even pretend like there are no meaningful groups. No matter the grouping you choose it will be meaningful.

[Anonymous No.12390240]

>>12390216
>populations not clustering
uhh what?

[Anonymous No.12390253]

>>12390216
If you disagree with the politically correct opinion you will be fired and persecuted by the media. How can you even pretend that the scientists are telling the truth given this fact.

[Anonymous No.12390261]

>>12390216
On too of that your height argument is retarded. The existence of a spectrum of height does not invalidate the use of the terms "short" and "tall"

[Anonymous No.12390262]

>>12390227
That is precisely the definition I am using. The taxonomic definition. Where races are subspecies, distinct clades of animals. That is the definition that does not fit human "races."

>>12390235
>you can literally predict with high accuracies the ancestors origin of someone based on their blood
Well, yes. With very high precision, in fact. Are you going to use this to prove there are 500 races?

>>12390240
>graph with no annotation
>no link to study
>no explanation of sampling
>"point proved"

>>12390253
>If you disagree with the politically correct opinion you will be fired and persecuted by the media
You have no idea how science is done.

[Anonymous No.12390265]

>>12390261
But is there a single "short race" and a single "tall race" of people? No? Then that's my fucking point.

[Anonymous No.12390266]

>>12390262
You are the one who has no idea how science is done. James Watson was ostracized for going against politically correct opinion.

[Anonymous No.12390282]

>>12390262
>That is the definition that does not fit human "races."
Why exactly is that? I'm kind of unclear about this whole subject, what is it that differentiates one subspecies from another but does not apply for the quite notable differences between humans? I mean the difference between two different species' isn't always that wide and yet nobody seems to care about that.

[Anonymous No.12390289]

>>12390262
> the taxonomic definition... does not fit human "races"
Can you name a specific manner in which it doesn't?

[Anonymous No.12390290]

>>12390262
>>If you disagree with the politically correct opinion you will be fired and persecuted by the media
>You have no idea how science is done.
uhh that kinda is how things go nowadays, if you wanna keep your job as a scientist studying differences between ethnic groups you have to keep it PC if you wanna keep your job.

[Anonymous No.12390297]

>>12390192
>When?
The dude said "in the early 1970's" Read dumbass.
>I'd love for you to look up that widely-accepted number of human races.
At least more than one. Duh.

>Actually, I have repeatedly asked people in thread for a definition of race, any definition, and no one has given me one.
OH SHIT! Sorry for missing that. Here we go:
The group of people with similar traits (both apparent and not) that were accrued during the last 100,000 years of human evolution when pools of people didn't interbreed with those across the globe. These are defined regionally and the edges of one area almost always blur into the neighboring regions unless there's a hard impassible wall, like an ocean or a mountain range. These traits typically helped the locals adjust to the environment. This can be seen with the direct correlation between an area's light intensity and how dark the skin gets. Race goes far deeper than just skin though, and affects everything from bone structure, disease resistance or susceptibility, and probably even some behavioral tendencies.

>You just left a sarcastic response
I dropped a lot of science on your ass.
Haplogroups, the out-of-africa model, statistical models on DNA grouping, and a general appeal to science.

>>Not all Haplogroups are defined by the Y chromosome
>They all come from either the Y-chromosome or the mitochondria.
Well, no. Those are just the easiest to study. Our records can go back further and more definitely looking at the Y-chromosome or the DNA of mitocondria (it's the powerhouse of the cell). Maybe it'll help if you re-read the definition of haplogroup.
>a group that share a common ancestor with a single-nucleotide polymorphism mutation.

>Your "citation," incidentally, is a graphic from Wikipedia they don't even use anymore.
Yes, it's a very taboo subject. I've linked it too many times and the social justice warriors went to war and burned it down. Damn shame. It's why this is such a big deal.

[Anonymous No.12390310]

>>12388351
>That's still arbitrary tho.
No, it isn't.
>What other species is treated that way
Convention does not define whether or not something is arbitrary, you brainless catamite. You asked a question, got your answer, and are too stupid to realize that's not an invitation to further discussion.
I realize this is a late reply, and I don't particularly care.

[Anonymous No.12390312]

>>12385304
Genocide and nomadic lifestyles that ensures uniform distribution and interbreeding

[Anonymous No.12390315]

>>12385338
Shut up no one cares about the Dominicans or any other meme tribes. No one knows what happened 20.000 years ago. No one believes you.

[Anonymous No.12390324]

>>12390205
...huh, you know I was going to post the absorption frequencies of the cells and tell you to quite your bullshit. But here we go. Green's peak is smack-dab in green, but look at red and blue. It'd be intellectually dishonest of me to just ignore this.

.... oh shit, looking around everyone places these curves at different areas on the sepctrum. Come Internet, why are you failing me like this?

Still, most show the red cone being off.

[Anonymous No.12390330]

>>12390078

[Anonymous No.12390331]

>>12390216
>It's not like there is a Republican cohort of scientists and a Democrat cohort of scientists and they disagree.
Actually.... Yeah, there kinda is. It's a growing problem.
What do you call a conservative sociologist? Fired. Alternatively, they're called nazis a lot.

>If populations really did cluster into clearly delineated groups,
There's a lot of gradient. But there's clearly a difference between South Americans and Africans. Duh.

>You could use the same technique to "prove" that people came in just two heights, short and tall.
We're not saying that there are just 6 races (or whatever number). We are saying that there ARE races. That there ARE people of different heights. That short people and tall people exist. That it's not just a sociological construct made of lies and bullshit.

Come on, don't dodge it:
Explain for me why people from Asia look different than people from Africa. Is there a reason for that? Is it genetic? Does that get passed down to their children?

[Anonymous No.12390344]

>>12390331
Make it look scientific, i know races are hard to crack formally. Are there 6 races or 600? Is it superficial to focus on skin color and some facial bones? Perhaps the differences are widespread within the body and cells. How do we make this more rigorous?

[Anonymous No.12390347]

>>12390297
That page got deleted just last month by the way. Link to too much hard science these days and the luddites will tear it down because it doesn't fit the current narrative.

[Anonymous No.12390355]

>>12390344
> Are there 6 races or 600?
Same as last time. "About 7, depending how you count"

>Is it superficial to focus on skin color
Yes, but there's correlation there.

>Is it superficial to focus some facial bones?
Yes, but there's correlation there.

>Is it superficial to focus on skin color and some facial bones?
Yes, but there's more correlation there.

>Perhaps the differences are widespread within the body and cells.
Most certainly.

>How do we make this more rigorous?
Measure everyone genomes and group them by similarities. Leave the arbitrary choices to statistics.

[Anonymous No.12390365]

>>12390331
>What do you call a conservative sociologist
Based on what I've seen from sociologists they're called "the apolitical guy who really likes beer" and then you meet him at the range later lol

[Anonymous No.12390367]

>>12390355
OH LOOK!
>>12390240 (but yeah, what are PC1 and PC2?)
>>12390013
>>12390289

oh hey,
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-PC-plot-PC1-vs-PC2-based-on-whole-genome-SNP-variation-in-63-Eurasian-populations_fig2_305643100

It's "Principle Component". No idea what it was in that graph. But it's a means of grouping. And... just to throw you a bone. There really ARE a lot of different ways to count it. Different means of measuring. Literally different parts of DNA to observe fading away as more mutations over-write it as we exit Africa. But when you line up almost any of these measurements with the location from where you measured it, race is obviously derived from the location of your ancestors, because that's where your genes came from. Physically.

[Anonymous No.12390378]

>>12390367
It seems to me like you're agreeing with all these anons.

[Anonymous No.12390393]

>>12385304
In reality, the truth about human evolution is a mixture of old and new theories. Older theorists believed various species of hominids evolved towards humanity independently (greater neoteny higher iq) while modern theorists say it was one group that came out of Africa. In reality, human like fossils in Asia predate the migration out of Africa. In the same way Neanderthals interbred with African interlopers, independently evolved human species interbred with migrants from other independently evolved human type hominids to create a mosaic of types. Pic related is a skull from China that predates the migration of Homo sapiens out of Africa. Could very well be a neotenized denisovan. Hasn’t been dna tested.

[Anonymous No.12390435]

>>12385304
constant racemixing

[Anonymous No.12390540]

>>12390393
>In reality, human like fossils in Asia predate the migration out of Africa.
Homo sapian fossils or hominids?

Because currently the out of Africa model is the current working theory of how we spread across the globe.

>Pic related is a skull from China that predates the migration of Homo sapiens out of Africa
Oh yeah. Plenty of that. Early hominids spread across the globe about a million years ago, while homosapians only popped up ~100,000 years ago. We left Africa and largely ate or fucked the other humans so much that all the others died out.

>>12390435
Outbreed for stability and health. In-breed for freaks.

[Anonymous No.12390653]

>>12390540
Both.
Europeans interbred with a specific subtype of Neanderthal whereas East Asians interbred with another Neanderthal type as well as denisovans. Most races/subspecies today are hybridizations of archaic subspecies. Blonde hair probably evolved in a subgroup of ancient north eurasians and transmitted it to ancestral Europeans through assimilation, which is why modern Europeans are genetically related to native Americans. The potential connection between the Ainu and cro magnons is interesting too. Basically Homo sapiens hybridized with humanlike species, spread out and speciated, and then mixed again.

[Anonymous No.12390856]

>>12390282
>what is it that differentiates one subspecies from another but does not apply for the quite notable differences between humans
There can be notable differences between frogs in a single pond. Those aren't different subspecies of frogs. Even if frogs live in an estuary, and there is a saline gradient, and frogs at one end are on average better adapted to saltier water than frogs at the other end, there aren't two subspecies of frogs. However, if two different populations did develop that didn't exchange much genetic material, then there would be different subspecies.

One way to think about it is that the frogs would still follow a unimodal distribution to salt tolerance in the first example but a bimodal distribution in the second example. The requirement is actually a little stricter than that, since for instance men and women are not different races, but it gets across the idea.

When considering a large number of traits, we use cluster analysis like other people have been suggesting. If the vast majority of individuals fit one of a few phenotypes, and there is not much gene exchange between these subpopulations, then they are different subspecies. That is what everyone else has been claiming. But it is simply a result of sampling. If you sample roughly equal numbers of people from each place on the Earth, you do not find much clustering. More to the point, there are always a large number of people at every point in between.

And even when clustering is visible to some extent, it's important to understand the magnitude of the differences we are talking about. The large majority of variation is between individuals, not between populations. It is essentially a very low coefficient of correlation. It's true that there are *some* genetic markers that give pretty reliable knowledge of ancestry. But these are a tiny fraction of the human genome, or even in the variation of the human genome.

In no other species would we call these different subspecies.

[Anonymous No.12390885]

>>12390297
>The group of people with similar traits (both apparent and not) that were accrued during the last 100,000 years of human evolution when pools of people didn't interbreed with those across the globe.
But people *did* interbreed, and they still do. That's the whole point. Maybe not frequently, but occasionally. The biggest exception (that isn't recent in evolutionary terms) is Australia, and even they saw gene exchange with New Guinea and probably with other islands.

>These are defined regionally and the edges of one area almost always blur into the neighboring regions unless there's a hard impassible wall, like an ocean or a mountain range.
In this case, you don't have two different races. You have a genetic gradient. Like I said, this is clinal variation, not cladal. The point is that you can't pick up one person along that gradient and say he is X or Y. You can ask them what race they identify with, or what language they speak, but you can't determine it genetically. This is particularly obvious in Latin America. Races are black and white. They are not shades of gray.

>This can be seen with the direct correlation between an area's light intensity and how dark the skin gets.
But that correlates very poorly with genetic ancestry. There are plenty of Africans with lighter skin than plenty of Indians. The best predictor of skin color is latitude, not ancestry. So that is emphatically not a racial trait, unless you think a people can join a different race over time by changing skin color.

>>12390297
>Haplogroups, the out-of-africa model, statistical models on DNA grouping
But zero citations, and not even an acknowledgement of mine.

>autosomal haplogroups
Autosomal haplogroups are no good for tracing ancestry that far back. You could use them to test for paternity or close relationship, not for heritage.

And you missed the point that Y-chromosomal and mtDNA haplogroups overlap and don't always agree, so they can't give a specific enumeration of races.

[Anonymous No.12390890]

>>12390324
To be fair, all my suggestions for the greenest green probably are reasonably close to each other. So I do agree that there is a clear objective (if slightly vague) idea of "green" that should work for all people with normal color vision.

[Anonymous No.12390903]

>>12390540
>Outbreed for stability and health. In-breed for freaks.
I'm guessing your partner is asian?

[Anonymous No.12390905]

>>12390331
>We're not saying that there are just 6 races (or whatever number). We are saying that there ARE races. That there ARE people of different heights. That short people and tall people exist. That it's not just a sociological construct made of lies and bullshit.
But that is NOT what a "race" is. Holy shit, am I the only one getting this? Race is not some vague continuous gradient of genes across the world. Race, by its very definition, is the opposite of this. Races have to be clearly delineated. If there are as many races as there are people, then race is indeed meaningless.

Yes, people from different places are genetically distinguishable, but they are not *classifiable* into discrete races. So there is no "African race" or "Indian race," just a continuous gradient of phenotypes.

[Anonymous No.12390921]

>>12390367
>https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-PC-plot-PC1-vs-PC2-based-on-whole-genome-SNP-variation-in-63-Eurasian-populations_fig2_305643100
Holy mother of fuck, look how many races there are in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. By God, there must be hundreds of them worldwide.

[Anonymous No.12390930]

>>12390856
>However, if two different populations did develop that didn't exchange much genetic material, then there would be different subspecies.
Sure, except individuals overwhelmingly tend to mate with people from their own population. And the clinal argument (with large populations forming a clinal gradient with intermediate traits of either local variant) is irrelevant because many other populations with clines are considered in terms of subspecies, for instance >>12390289
>It's true that there are *some* genetic markers that give pretty reliable knowledge of ancestry. But these are a tiny fraction of the human genome, or even in the variation of the human genome.
Yes, same goes for other species with subspecies.

[Anonymous No.12390954]

>>12390905
>Races have to be clearly delineated. If there are as many races as there are people, then race is indeed meaningless.
Why must they be?
The very fact that people CAN and DO talk about race as a deciding factor in e.g. social relations, policy, and so forth, means that it is a useful category that exists. It's just that some people use it as a political tool when convenient, and deny it when that is convenient. Again, invoking Loki's Wager as per earlier in the thread.

[Anonymous No.12391049]

>>12390954
Races certainly exist as a social concept. But they do not exist as taxonomic categories. Biologically speaking, there is no way to classify humans into races.

[Anonymous No.12391271]

>>12391049
Firstly, as a rule, subspecies are not concretely defined in biological terms. Oftentimes there are morphological characteristics that are strongly associated with social or territorial groups, with occasional exceptions due to interbreeding, and which may even be found in multiple distantly-related groups at either end of a continent, but still form the basis for subspecific organization on a local level.
Secondly, in every other species, social organization and social constraints on gene flow between populations are supporting arguments for subspecies definition. We see that in humans as well, with interracial offspring being much less frequent than intraracial offspring.
Exceptions are dictated for humans in this area because the prevailing political sentiment in ecology and in science more generally finds human exceptionalism convenient in this case, but not in literally any other.

[Anonymous No.12391286]

>>12391271
You keep saying we are being exceptional in the case of humans, but you haven't brought up any other cases or entertained my argument or the argument of Serre and Pääbo. You're just saying things.

[Anonymous No.12391321]

>>12391286

Yes, I have. I have given the easy example of the gray wolf and addressed why clinal variation i.e. GRADIENTS does not rule out the existence of subspecies.
Serre and Pääbo claim there is no clustering beyond that introduced by the study design of the previously-cited paper, but that is literally typical for clustering, which is used to find local maxima in continuous gradients i.e. clines. Here's an example where this was done for canids, refer to Fig. 1C: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6231604/

On a tangential note, here's an amusing quote from your paper:
>It has recently been claimed that “the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level” (Risch et al. 2002). Our results show that this is not the case, and we see no reason to assume that “races” represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history. In clinical practice, the “classification” of people into “races,” as recently suggested (Risch et al. 2002; Burchard et al. 2003), could perhaps have some justification as a proxy for differences in environmental and other factors of relevance for public health or to help identify rare disease alleles (Phimister 2003). However, in the absence of other knowledge, most alleles influencing susceptibility to disease or outcome of medical interventions cannot be expected to show significantly different frequencies between “races.”
Contrary to this equivocation, racial profiling has literally become standard in clinical practice and the 2002 paper by Risch et al. has over 900 citations.

[Anonymous No.12391401]

>>12390905
>Race, by its very definition, is the opposite of this.
So is there any race denial argument that doesn't rely on retarded definitions and unrealistic standards?
>some vague continuous gradient of genes across the world
But there is a gradient of genes across the world that's sharp at geographic boundaries, dividing humans into statistically distinguishable genetic clusters that correspond to what everyone calls races.

[Anonymous No.12391418]

>>12385304
>what caused evolution to stop for us?

Evolution never stops though

[Anonymous No.12391426]

>>12391321
>I have given the easy example of the gray wolf and addressed why clinal variation i.e. GRADIENTS does not rule out the existence of subspecies.
Your example of the grey wolf was just an example of a species with subspecies. You made no argument that the grey wolf doesn't cluster in a few clearly defined subgroups. In fact, your graphic shows that they do, in a way humans specifically do not. If I asked you to list the subspecies of grey wolves, you would just give me that list. If I asked you to list the subspecies of humans, you would ho and hum about "well you can't actually list them but they're still real." It's a counterexample if anything.

>Serre and Pääbo claim there is no clustering beyond that introduced by the study design of the previously-cited paper, but that is literally typical for clustering
No it isn't. The whole point of the PC analysis is to identify groups that cluster naturally, i.e. people really do exist primarily in these clusters and not just in a continuum. If this were true of humans the way it is with wolves, we would see it in the analysis even when we take a geographically even sample. The fact that we have to manipulate the sample in order to make the clusters appear demonstrates that humans do NOT fit that pattern.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6231604/
What this paper actually says is, "the discriminatory power offered by our dataset suggests all North American grey wolves, including the Mexican form, are monophyletic, and thus share a common ancestor to the exclusion of all other wolves." Again, that is not the case with humans.

>Fig. 1C
In most cases, populations that cluster by one component do so in every component. The main exception is the Yellowstone wolves, which were introduced from other places. Again, that's not like humans.

[Anonymous No.12391430]

>>12391321
>Contrary to this equivocation, racial profiling has literally become standard in clinical practice
And yet it has become common practice in spite of the research. In particular, diseases believed to be racially linked like cystic fibrosis have become underdiagnosed as a result of this approach. In any case, there probably is *some* utility, as the authors mention.

>the 2002 paper by Risch et al. has over 900 citations.
Yeah, that's what happens to controversial papers.

>>12391401
>But there is a gradient of genes across the world that's sharp at geographic boundaries
Again, the whole point is that it is not sharp at geographical boundaries. If you compare someone in South Africa to someone in Spain, sure, they look different genetically. If you compare someone in North Africa to someone in Spain, they look pretty similar. There is very little effect of the geographical boundary of the Mediterranean Sea. Moreover, this isn't a gradient of all genes, just a tiny minority of them. The vast majority of genetic variation occurs within populations, not between them.

[Anonymous No.12391646]

>human diversity is clinal so subspecies don't exist

That would be a good argument if it didn't completely ignore that this was never a criteria to categorize other species into subspecies.

[Anonymous No.12391673]

>>12391426
>>12391430

>If I asked you to list the subspecies of grey wolves, you would just give me that list
No. Simply put, it is still debated which grey wolf subspecies schema are valid. There are more conservative models and less conservative models, which produce fewer / more subspecies respectively, just as with races and ethnicities.

>The whole point of the PC analysis is to identify groups that cluster naturally, i.e. people really do exist primarily in these clusters and not just in a continuum
That is the argument of Serre and Pääbo, but unqualified PC analysis just approximates k-means clustering, which will fail to correctly recognize many types of data structure. It tends to find equally-sized clusters which is much less grounded than Rosenberg's assumption that there IS a structure without further qualifying what it is. In fact, k-means clustering is literally incapable of even closely approximating clusters in the seminal Iris data set which forms the foundation for taxonomic clustering approaches, and greatly reduced dimensionality as well.

[Anonymous No.12391675]

>>12391426
>>12391430
>>12391673

>Again, that is not the case with humans.
I mean, outside Africa, it is.

>And yet it has become common practice in spite of the research. In particular, diseases believed to be racially linked like cystic fibrosis have become underdiagnosed as a result of this approach.
It stands to reason that the approach would increase correct diagnosis in groups predisposed to a given illness, and decrease it in those groups that are not. What is your point? Have you considered that doing away with this heuristic would cause the total number of diagnostic choices to balloon across clinical contexts and almost certainly lead to bigger problems than otherwise, which is the exact rationale put forth by the opposing party?
That's not even getting into other reasons the medical field might think differently, like the very obvious ethnic patterns in organ donor suitability.

>Yeah, that's what happens to controversial papers.
It also happens to influential papers, you weasel. On that note, why do Serre and Pääbo have 72 citations after 16 years, when their paper is cited everywhere as the main counter to the clustering approach?

>If you compare someone in South Africa to someone in Spain, sure, they look different genetically. If you compare someone in North Africa to someone in Spain, they look pretty similar.
Again, Loki's Wager fully applies here.

>Moreover, this isn't a gradient of all genes, just a tiny minority of them. The vast majority of genetic variation occurs within populations, not between them.
And only a tiny minority of genes need to vary in order to cause significant phenotypic differences. This single fact rebuts the "within not between" argument entirely especially given the proven impact of the founder effect in human migration.

[Anonymous No.12391676]

>>12391430
>very little effect of the geographical boundary of the Mediterranean Sea
You think people just jumped in and swam across like they were walking to the next village?

[Anonymous No.12391677]

>>12391426
>>12391430
Are you a member of the tribe?

[Anonymous No.12391680]

>>12385304
>(((scientific community)))
anthropology professor i know told me that departure from "races" was not caused by science, but by politics

[Anonymous No.12391687]

>>12390331
>there's clearly a difference between South Americans and Africans
But there's no hard boundary. In fact that's not a great example you have pulled because there are a lot of people in South America who would be mostly descended from African ancestors.

[Anonymous No.12391703]

>>12391680
It was. There is a European Union directive which verbatim states "The European Union rejects theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races."
The entire fiasco is an attempt at a white lie in the name of the greater good, except in practice it just works as another weapon racially-conscious nonwhites use against naive whites. In the end it will not do any good, just facilitate revenge; in other words the summary of the humanist policy on ethnic conflict is "it's good when we don't do it" when by their own standards either approach should be equally bad. Just goes to show that there is no principle behind this ideology, just weakness and self-resentment

[Anonymous No.12391705]

>>12391687
Hard boundaries don't exist between subspecies. Although I agree that example was bad because anybody with any knowledge of South America would qualify it as multiethnic. I think anon was referring to amerindians and hispanics.

[Anonymous No.12391732]

>>12391703
fuck the EU

[Anonymous No.12391846]

>>12387121
Source? I cannot find anything.

[Anonymous No.12391858]

>>12387255
>because there is no way to draw the line between one race and another.
There can be broadly thrre races biologically:
Warriors/nomads
Hunters/horti/agriculturalists
City dwellers.

[Anonymous No.12391872]

>>12387255
>because there is no way to draw the line between one race and another.
There can be broadly thrre races biologically:
Warriors/nomads
Hunters/horticulturalists
City dwellers/agriculturalusts
This is given biologixally and people suffer having to live in the wrong niche.

[Anonymous No.12393164]

>>12391680
/this
in the world of archaeology, forensics, human evolution and genetics human population groups are very much unique and identifiable. the terminology has changed but race is much more than "skin deep" lol

[Anonymous No.12393190]

>>12385304
The different races are human evolution, but it hasn't been long enough to become more than minor cosmetic changes.

In the last 20 years the selective pressure on humans has drastically changed. Now, those who are good at chatting online and taking good photos of themselves with have the most breeding success.

[Anonymous No.12393463]

>>12391846
That's a de-identified sample dataset (called Buckner) used to validate the FreeSurfer brain segmentation programming. I downloaded it from their site years ago when I worked with FreeSurfer, not sure if it's still there. I know they correspond to race from seeing those same phenotypes in labelled data. Unfortunately race labels are HIPAA controlled so I can't give a source for which phenotype is which race, but you can still see that very different human brain types exist.

[Anonymous No.12393487]

>>12393463
>>12391846
https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/FsTutorial/Data
I found the page, but looks like the link to the dataset is dead.

[Anonymous No.12393577]

>>12385304
We got bottle-necked pretty hard during the early days. Not to mention, we've already got subspecies, but most of it is minor shit like 'only Europeans, North Africans and Middle Easterns can drink milk or people who live in High-altitudes I.E. the Himalayas or the South American Highlands don't get altitude sickness.'

[Anonymous No.12393601]

>>12385304

There is subspecies, though. You can't possibly think that there's no difference between the races.