/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3712312]

Genetic technology is increasing in efficiency exponentially. A new "gene for X human trait" is identified almost every few months now. It's only a matter of time before geneticists locate the genes for intelligence. A research team in China is actually working on this (genetics of intelligence) at the moment.

Suppose it turns out that races differ in frequencies of these high-IQ/low-IQ alleles. What do you think will be the cultural and political aftershock? Will affirmative action still exist? How will politics change? How will our culture change, given that in the last forty or so years, everyone has been brought to assume that all races are equal in inherent cognitive abilities?

Discuss.

[Anonymous No.3712325]

I predict that the genes governing intelligence are too numerous to analyze in that manner.

[Anonymous No.3712329]

Mentioning it will be political suicide. Submitting a grant proposal for related research will end your career. Nothing will change.

That said, "intelligence" is a sufficiently complex trait that it's not going to be a single gene, or even a relatively small collection of genes.

[Anonymous No.3712337]

>>3712312

I predict that you will find that there are about six genes that determine 'race' and none of them have anything to do with intelligence

[Anonymous No.3712338]

They won't find it, because it doesn't exist.

Intelligence is based upon environment, not genetics.

There are, of course, genes that can affect intelligence detrimentally, and they are recognised as legitimate conditions, but this doesn't mean that these genes must have a counterpart that enhances intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3712344]

>mfw 85% of /sci/ wouldn't know who was in your pic if it weren't for the name

[Anonymous No.3712346]

>>3712329
>That said, "intelligence" is a sufficiently complex trait that it's not going to be a single gene, or even a relatively small collection of genes.

True. In fact, a recent GWAS (genome wide association study) confirmed this.

http://www.lifescientist.com.au/article/396724/many_genes_make_smart/

As with height, there are something on the order of 200 different genes controlling it. That's a lot, but it doesn't mean we can't quantify it. The technology is improving. We will be able to predict a to a significant degree of accuracy one's height (or intelligence) just by taking a cheek swab.

[Anonymous No.3712350]

>>3712344

>mfw I recognised it straight away because of the makeshift double-helix and two people, not because I recognised their faces.

[Anonymous No.3712357]

>>3712346
Intelligence is a lot further towards the "nurture" end of the scale than height is. I don't deny there will be a visible and reasonably strong correlation, but I'd be surprised if you could get more accurate than SD 10%ile.

[Anonymous No.3712359]

>>3712338
>Intelligence is based upon environment, not genetics.

See the link in:
>>3712346

That recent GWAS put a nail in the coffin to the idea that "intelligence has no correlation to genetics." There were several decades of twin and siblings reared apart studies that showed intelligence was highly heritable (therefore most likely genetic). But now we have solid evidence that intelligence does come from the genes. What we don't know yet are the specific genes, and that's what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.3712368]

"Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence."

"Genetic influences on brain morphology and IQ are well studied. A
variety of sophisticated brain-mapping approaches relating genetic in-
fluences on brain structure and intelligence establishes a regional distribution for this relationship that is consistent with behavioral studies. We
highlight those studies that illustrate the complex cortical patterns associated with measures of cognitive ability. A measure of cognitive ability,
known as g, has been shown highly heritable across many studies. We
argue that these genetic links are partly mediated by brain structure
that is likewise under strong genetic control."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21826061

www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/PDF/TT_ARN05.pdf

[Anonymous No.3712384]

>>3712338
People have already cited studies for why you're wrong within human populations, but there's another obvious thing you're missing: Human are smarter than mice, in a way not correctable by the environment. Therefore intelligence has a positive genetic component.

[M No.3712389]

Keep in mind that the Chinese will likely claim superior intelligence compared to the rest of the world irregardless of the findings. They will alter their data to support the view that the Chinese are the most intelligent people in the world if the facts do not actually support this view. It's similar to how Chinese scientists have repeatedly claimed that Chinese people did not evolve out of Africa despite all the evidence to the contrary. This belief is taught to students, and plants the seed of a belief in superiority that can be catalyzed by government propaganda. The government's influence over such research cannot be underestimated.

There's a rising nationalism in China. Not urgent at the moment, not something I'm particularly scared about, but it's promoted by the government to quell the social unrest that leaders fear may get out of hand in the near future.

[Anonymous No.3712405]

>>3712389
>implying Lysenkoism
>implying that people can actually doctor hard scientific data these days when it has to be reproduced in laboratories everywhere to stand peer review
>implying Fleishmann and Pons got away with their scam for more than 48 hours

[Anonymous No.3712424]

>>3712405
Nah, he's got a point. The problem is that this sort of research can't be done in the current Western political environment, so it'll be a while before we can really trust that sort of research. Whether true or false, no one outside of China or India is going to get the funding to check for a good long while. And in the meantime, all such research coming out of China in particular is suspect.

[Anonymous No.3712431]

>>3712424
Chinese scientists regularly work and collaborate with Americans and Europeans. They are no less legitimate simply on account of their government. You can't make up results these days; nobody will let you get away with it.

[M No.3712455]

>>3712405
You really don't understand the nature of the Chinese, or the influence that the government has over their people. Do you think that research contradictory to their beliefs or goals will necessarily make it into the grade school textbooks? Do you think that information critical to these beliefs will be allowed to spread so easily within China? Furthermore, scientific news is hardly ever broadcast internationally and when it is, the impact of the news is relatively small. I doubt contradictory findings will make that big o a splash in the media, unless China has been bragging about it's superiority to the world, which it definitely will not.

You're talking about a country where most people under 26 don't have any idea what happened at Tienanmen Square.

[Anonymous No.3712458]

>>3712424

see: >>3712368

[M No.3712491]

>>3712431
There may also be international collaborations, but other times there are not. Even though China's claim of a separate Origin of Man has been refuted countless times, it is still taught to students.

The culture in research, at least in universities, is to get published no matter what. If that calls for cooking up data, then so be it. If the government threatens to cut funding unless a particular result is found, then those results will be published. If other findings contradict the data in the future, experimental errors or other sources of error can be blamed.

[Anonymous No.3712496]

According to a guy i know who just attained a degree in genetics the chinese routinely carry out genetic/biological research and don't share the results with the west.

He's a known bullshitter though so i'm not sure whether or not it's true.

[Anonymous No.3712506]

>>3712491
Yes, but that only applies within China. Namely, how findings are interpreted to other Chinese. If their data is sound and reproducible, we can use their findings equivalently with those of non-Chinese researchers.

[Anonymous No.3712507]

China is in favor of genetic engineering, and they are researching the genetic basis of intelligence.

The West will have to drop their bullshit just to keep up, once the Chinese engaged in intelligence enhancement.

[Anonymous No.3712529]

>>3712507
Genetic engineering or "new eugenics" will be opposed in the West because of christfags and pussy liberals.

[M No.3712531]

>>3712491
Something else to add that's interesting. Roughly 75 percent of Chinese college applications have parts that are faked. That's why at my university, the advisers make two piles of applications: One for the Chinese, and one pile for everyone else. This actually happens, and for god reason. For example, it's very common for students to write up their own recommendations. A Chinese girl asked me to do this for her last year. You'd be surprised at how much different it is there.

After all my bashing, let me also say that China has many redeeming qualities, and that I enjoy traveling there every year. I'm also not against a rising China. Apprehensive, sure, but that's only natural due to the young culture of the Chinese and the fact that modern China has never been tested as a world power.

Sorry that I'm all over the place. Cleaning my apartment at the same time and not proofreading my posts.

[Anonymous No.3712534]

>>3712529
They'll wise up once the Chinese children outnumber them 5 to 1 and are all superior in intelligence (not just work ethic).

[M No.3712537]

>>3712507
I agree. The US response should be interesting.

[Anonymous No.3712555]

>>3712529
The fun part is that it's like a company with an outdated business plan. Or, more historically, like the USSR. Weaker ideas - like the idea that you shouldn't use technology to self-enhance - die off naturally. Evolution, bitches!

[Anonymous No.3712565]

>>3712555
>Evolution, bitches!
Memetic evolution is best evolution. Fuck yes, technology.

[Anonymous No.3712576]

> China is in favor of genetic engineering, and they are researching the genetic basis of intelligence.
> implying the west is somehow opposed to researching this

what are you talking about.

what research does china do that the west is to pussy about?

[Anonymous No.3712596]

>>3712576
>what research does china do that the west is to pussy about?
Actually trying to identify the genetic basis for human intelligence. Some people overstate the problem, but it's something of a taboo topic to suggest that not all humans are genetically equal in intelligence potential.

I think our environment has a strong limiting impact on what functional intelligence you actually achieve in life, but it should be obvious that there is also a genetic limit. And just like not everyone has equally good environments, not everyone has equally good genetics.

[Anonymous No.3712602]

>>3712576
It's not just doing the research, it's acting on it. For example, I imagine they'd be more than willing to require you to throw out all fertilized eggs with measured genetic potential for intelligence less than the median for the batch, when doing in-vitro fertilization.

[Anonymous No.3712607]

>>3712534

if creating the most intelligent original thinkers involves people with quite "anti-chinese" personalities, would china swallow it's pride and breed/encourage these traits?

If they encouraged these traits in everyone it would radically alter chinese culture. So would they just encourage them in a select few?

Even so, having all these free-thinking anti-conventionalists as the glorified intellectual elite (because they are the people who innovate) would destroy political system (or at least the highly authoritarian aspect of it), destroying the threat china poses the west (in fact they could help us).

Genetic engineering in china could be just the ticket we need for a peaceful, just and plentiful world.

[Anonymous No.3712612]

>>3712602
And with the rising wealth and numbers of the Chinese middle class and the continued one-child rule, Chinese parents will invest heavily in having high-quality children.

[Anonymous No.3712627]

>>3712607
They might actively put the intelligent kids in government office. Government positions are sought-after, and they don't seem to have problems with merit-based competition (though there is a lot of corruption and nepotism too).

If nothing else, the high-ranking officials will probably have enhanced children.

[Anonymous No.3712649]

>>3712596
no. this is just complete imagined bullshit you faggot. you have somehow confused the libtards on /sci/ with actual scientists.

there is plenty of scientific research into the heritability of IQ and such, and it isn't taboo at all.

>>3712602
why do you think this? what do you know about china?

chinese people would be pretty pissed off at mandated abortions for perceived inferior qualities too, you know. the leaders of china would never dare attempt this, they are always trying to avoid a revolution of the billion people who live there.

[Anonymous No.3712671]

>>3712649
Not him, but there is some opposition to any acknowledgement of innate intelligence in American society. Think of the reaction to "The Bell Curve."

Funny how some black groups in the U.S. actually publicly say, "IQ tests are racist." People walk on eggshells in America when it comes to any intelligence research because it might--gasp!--prove that blacks are less intelligent. China doesn't have this bias because they have no blacks; they're mostly a homogenous society.

[Anonymous No.3712687]

>>3712627
I don't think the genetic tests could possibly outperform observational intelligence. By the time you're ten, you can get a much better measure of your intelligence by testing than by genetics, and I am reasonably sure this will be true forever.

Your second point is a good one, though, made in the post preceding yours also: Parents who can afford it will start screening their children for high intelligence. (That sort of shit would never fly in America, not on a wide scale.) That should increase the average intelligence (of certain groups) very, very quickly.

A worked example:

If 90% of upper-class parents agree to only carry to term fetuses with above-average intelligence, then the average child in the next generation will be at about the 70th percentile in the overall population - a full standard deviation ahead. For reference, that corresponds to about 15 IQ points (and lets not have the IQ/intelligence debate; this is just for illustration). Moving a full standard deviation ahead every single generation would be a ridiculous increase in intelligence in a very, very short period.

[M No.3712690]

>>3712596
I'm always skeptical about claims of intellectual superiority based on genetics. For example, brain volume and intelligence is only correlated 0.30-0.40 at best, which looks like a shotgun blast on graph paper. I need to find more sources on brain volume and race, but I've seen many conflicting studies, some more recent ones claiming that the races had very similar brain volume among similar climates.

I also think that environment is a big factor. Sure, there have been blacks raised in white families, but most of us in the US have probably seen first hand how a lot of these adopted blacks gravitate towards popular African American culture, which itself promotes ideals that would lead to lower IQ test scores.

Finally, there is no guarantee that IQ tests even measure intelligence. I'm more in favor of the view that IQ tests only measure intelligence superficially, especially since humans still don't fully understand the nature of intelligence.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if some genetic basis for intelligence among different races is found. For example, one good argument I've heard is that as humans moved into more northern climates, survival required more ingenuity which in turn would require greater intelligence. However, I'd expect these differences to be small, and fear that they may be exploited to cause greater suffering among those who are considered to be the least intelligent.

[Anonymous No.3712695]

>>3712649
>chinese people would be pretty pissed off at mandated abortions for perceived inferior qualities too, you know. the leaders of china would never dare attempt this
Many Chinese abort or abandon their children just for being female, because of how highly male children are valued and the restriction on family size. They also invest heavily in the success of their children, and would jump on the chance to give their kids a competitive edge in academics. You seem out of touch.

[Anonymous No.3712699]

>>3712649
> mandated abortions for perceived inferior qualities too
Mandated abortions, yes. But in in-vitro fertilization, you create dozens of fertilized eggs, and carry only one to term. People - at least the middle to upper classes - would have no problem being told that half of those eggs were unfit.

[Anonymous No.3712701]

>>3712671
speaking as a westerner outside of america (they exist), this really isn't an issue. there would be no problem with talking about how heritable intelligence is at dinner or whatever; you might get some denialist libtard spew wishy washy bile at you, but who cares; and these people certainly aren't scientists. there is plenty of scientific research into this, with no controversy.

i remember a programme on the BBC a while ago where they actually talked about exactly this, and the conclusion was that IQ is highly heritable, in fact one of the most heritable biological traits.

the idea that china is the only country to research this is just nonsense.

[Anonymous No.3712706]

>>3712671
>Think of the reaction to "The Bell Curve."

Wasn't that like over 15 years ago?

Society has moved on. You have "gene for this" stories in the media all the time.
There won't be any shitstorms. At worst a culture war, but when the evidence is taken out only one side will lose, and very publicly too.

[Anonymous No.3712707]

>>3712312
Its rather a philosophical question than a question about politics.
Lets say they find that gene and one person will become more intelligent than anyone else. What do you think will he do with his advantage?
Call me pessimistic but i dont think that person will stick
to politics or bullshit like that. He will probably suicide when he realizes how fucked up this world has become.

OP should probably watch the movie Limitless

[Anonymous No.3712717]

>>3712701
>the idea that china is the only country to research this is just nonsense.
As another anon mentioned, the shit doesn't hit the fan until you talk implications.

The Chinese will be much more willing to use embryo selection for positive traits. Knowing recent politics in the US, it might be banned here.

[Anonymous No.3712724]

>>3712707
>Call me pessimistic but i dont think that person will stick to politics or bullshit like that. He will probably suicide when he realizes how fucked up this world has become.
>OP should probably watch the movie Limitless


You're repeating the "intelligence makes you sad" trope and then pulling in fictional evidence. Stop it. Go away.

[Anonymous No.3712727]

>>3712699
> Mandated abortions, yes. But in in-vitro fertilization, you create dozens of fertilized eggs, and carry only one to term. People - at least the middle to upper classes - would have no problem being told that half of those eggs were unfit.

are you a human?

you think an entire nation would agree to a ban on natural conception? you think people would accept mandatory IVF with the state destroying inferior embryos?

this is just ridiculous. no way would people be okay with this, definitely not everybody or anywhere near.

[Anonymous No.3712748]

>>3712727
Exactly what >>3712602 >>3712529 is talking about.

Fucking liberal pussies will get in the way of science for no better reasons than creationists.

[Anonymous No.3712750]

>>3712724
It doesnt make you sad, it makes you insane.
Do you honestly think you could bare the weight of entire knowledge?

[Anonymous No.3712754]

>>3712727
And if you'll kindly go back and read my posts, you'll see that I never suggested mandating IVF.

[Anonymous No.3712757]

>>3712750
>Do you honestly think you could bare the weight of entire knowledge?
... wat

[Anonymous No.3712758]

>>3712750
>It doesnt make you sad, it makes you insane.
Another silly trope.
>Do you honestly think you could bare the weight of entire knowledge?
Wut?

You may be shocked to learn that intelligence is not correlated with depression.

[Anonymous No.3712781]

>>3712758
Why u mad if its bullshit?

[Anonymous No.3712784]

>>3712781
I ain't even mad.

[Anonymous No.3712789]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=depressions-evolutionary&page=2

[Anonymous No.3712790]

NEW PORN CHAN - For the love of God, be a contributor, not a leecher! Enjoy.

http://slutchan(DOT)us/board/

Be sure to bookmark.
>>3712312

[Anonymous No.3712813]

>>3712789
Thanks. Looking it over, it doesn't seem to directly support the idea that more-intelligent people are more likely to suffer from depression. It discusses possible adaptive functionality of depression.

[Anonymous No.3712838]

"If the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

*no idea who said this.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3712846]

>>3712838

Lyall Watts

[Anonymous No.3712853]

>>3712838
An interesting concept, but not very rigorously sound.

The closest concept that I think you can argue for rigorously is that you can't contain within your mind a full uncompressed mental map of your entire neurological structure, i.e., it takes more than one neuron on average to "store" or "represent" a mental understanding of the position and state of one neuron.

But this is a long way from saying "no one can understand the human brain". Even if this were the case, we could still distribute the understanding over many brains (specialization).

No one knows how to make a pencil. You need knowledge in geology, mining, metallurgy, agriculture, polymer chemistry, logging, etc. to create the graphite, wood, metal, rubber, and combine them all into a pencil. No one person knows how to make a modern pencil. And yet we make them.

[Anonymous No.3712881]

>>3712853
>create the graphite
>create graphite

[Anonymous No.3712882]

>>3712312
>A research team in China is actually working on this (genetics of intelligence) at the moment.
Why did you feel the need to clarify that: (genetics of intelligence) , even though you mentioned it at the end of the last sentence?

[Anonymous No.3712889]

>>3712882
Clarity

problem?

[Anonymous No.3712899]

>>3712881
Pure graphite.

You didn't bitch about "make wood". You know what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.3712908]

>>3712748
> banning couples from natural conception and having the child they want, not wanting the state to destroy all inferior ones

confirmed for autistic fascist

[Anonymous No.3712913]

>>3712899
>pure graphite
>pure
>implying pure is a verb

You must have meant "purify"

[Anonymous No.3712927]

>>3712913
I mean "make pure graphite".

You're doing an excellent job of misunderstanding me, and I'm doing an excellent job of making it easy to do so. So I guess we both win.

[Anonymous No.3714267]

bump

[Anonymous No.3714654]

Personally I stopped caring about the intelligence associated with different human races. I'd be happy if human subspecies were finally accepted as taxonomically valid. There is enough data that suggests that you can easily group different populations as subspecies based on FSTs, some have greater distance than dogs and wolves along with genes that are only found in their clusters. And if there is gene flow it results in irreversibly changing that cluster, even losing a few polymorphisms or genes because Hardy Weinberg doesn't apply, unless the initial population is conserved. And that's where my main concern is with conserving human biodiversity. The fact remains if human populations would hybridize only one cluster would be left which would seriously impair this species' survivability to a pandemic due to there being only one chance. The more distinct populations a species has the greater the probability that one or even a few population would survive and thus the species surviving. This which race is more intelligent debate is nothing short of pointless.

[Anonymous No.3714669]

Nothing will change.

Have you people ever considered that attractiveness is more important then intelligence in terms of hapiness for the person having them, and in terms of attracting a mate (the highest source of pleasure).

you can be ugly and smart, everyone else would perfer to be beautiful and dumb

[Anonymous No.3714708]

>>3714654
>This which race is more intelligent debate is nothing short of pointless.

There is a point. If we can show blacks are only held back by their low IQs, we can stop affirmative action and piles of welfare money sent their way.

A subspecies which literally wallows in its own filth, left to its own devices, is somehow supposed to magically have the intelligence of whites and Asians just because they live in their countries? Liberals actually believe blacks and spics are held back by "de whyte man," and that IQ tests are "rayciss and culturally biased." Funny that they ignore how native Chinese, unaccustomed to Western culture, do better on average than whites on "da honkey's IQ test."

They can deny the reality of race and heredity only for so long before the truth shows itself. After 100 years and niggers are STILL on welfare and still blaming their ills on slavery, people should finally wake up.

[Anonymous No.3714738]

lol at people thinking breeding will matter

at the rate we're going we will be able to artifically boost ANY human's intelligence/memory within 10-15 years. which enables even more progress in that field

breeding my ass. technology advances far too fast to be beholden to evolutionary timescales, even boosted evolutionary timescales.

in that respsect, we're already a sort of "trans-human", we are our own evolution

[Anonymous No.3714745]

>>3714708
Affirmative action and welfare should be stopped because it is a pointless drain on resources and institutionalized racism when based on race, racial differences in IQ or not. Personally I don't think any person let alone race should be entitled to my tax dollars which should be going to the deficit and services which only the government can provide better than the private sector. But again this isn't my main concern, I pointed out that I'm mostly interested in the conservation of different human populations, Basque, Sardinians, Bantu, Han, Himalayans, etc. Any one of these populations could have polymorphisms that may confer some survivability advantage so it's necessary to ensure they are conserved.

[Anonymous No.3714758]

>>3714745
Stop beating around the bush. It's vital for our species that low-IQ peoples be prevented from breeding as much as possible.

Do you really want the planet to be overrun with literally retarded niggers, spicks, etc.? Because that's how they breed. Leave them be and they will do nothing but mate like the fucking animals they are.

[Anonymous No.3714761]

>>3714738
>implying such technology will be affordable to the vast majority of the population.

[Anonymous No.3714764]

>>3714761
>implying they will be able to afford designer children instead
>implying anyone gives a fuck about making things better for their kids when they could easily make it better for themselves instead

make no mistake, if tommorow everyone was given the choice "immortality and no children, or children and die", 99.999% of people would choose to be immortal.

[Anonymous No.3714767]

>>3714758
The only way to conserve any population is to have some sort of barrier to gene flow so even if their fertility is 100 times that of your population's they will not be in your territory and therefore little to no concern to you.

[Anonymous No.3714785]

>>3712312
>exponentially
Drastically*

Going through a Biotech course in hope of Genetic engineering career.

[Anonymous No.3715035]

>>3714764
[citation needed]

Desire for immortality isn't as universal as you might think, and desire to procreate makes a large hole in many people lives they have to fill.
For example,my mother and my girlfriend both have expressed that given the choice to live forever they would not take it, and that trying to extend the human lifespan is "unnatural". I had friends growing up that wanted nothing more than to raise a family.

i personally love children, and given ntohing else going on in my life and the means to support them, sure why not have them. Would i have a child an sacrifice an indefinite lifespan? hell no. i wouldn't even shorten my lifespan for one by ten years. Not all people are as self centered as you or I, or rather their priorities are very different.
If its 99.999% this is an odd anomaly of 6 different people within my social circle, all being within that .001%

[Anonymous No.3715046]

>>3712338
I should know, I'm a chimpanzee adopted by an upper middle class harvard-alum couple. I just graduated from Brandeis.

[Anonymous No.3715059]

>>3715035 Desire for immortality isn't as universal as you might think
Yeah that's pretty much a lie we tell ourselves because the option isn't on the table.

>i personally love children
ewww okay you have a veiled motive

[Anonymous No.3715067]

>>3712312

>A new "gene for X human trait" is identified almost every few months now.

Whenever I read such popular media "boil down" I cringe inside. Genes do not act in isolation, their interaction is more important.

>>3712346

Another useless SNP association study.

A SNP association study doesn't explain anything.

[Anonymous No.3715087]

>>Would i have a child an sacrifice an indefinite lifespan? hell no. i wouldn't even shorten my lifespan for one by ten years.

Where is the veil? id take immortality in a heartbeat, and i have no children and may not ever. My point was that i would opt immortality over children NOT because i don't like children or don't want offspring.

Many people would honestly sacrifice their lives for children, especially women. when that biological clock ticks down you cant stop them. Women already sacrifice their youth, their body, their future, their freedom, and their money. Men sacrifice the last three. Most parents would lay down their lives for their children given a chance.

People have a very hokey veiw that nature must take its course, as if we just let things go naturally its for the best and life will take its intended path. Nature wants us to die at 30, and weve fought that line back to 100. Nature would have us digging roots and chasing pigs in the wild, working 16 hours a day to always be skinny and hungry and exhausted. The warped veiw that we need to take a "natural" path to death boggles my mind, but it still exists.

[Anonymous No.3715113]

>>3712312
Africans are between 4-13% hybridised with H. Erectus
Eurasians are between 2-4% hybridised with H. Neanderthalis
Melanisians are 4% hybridised with H. Denisovans

Neanderthalis was the smartest non H. Sapiens, followed likely by Denisovan and Erectus as a distant third.

This happened because it turns out most Primates with the same chromosome number can hybridise. Bornean and Sumatran Orangutans are a good example. All members of the Homo genus have 46 chromosomes. They hybridised as well.

While modern africans all have gone through behavioral modernity and language development not likely present in Erectus, they still likely harbor some Erectus alleles. These alleles may be a holdback when it comes to intelligence. It should be noted that this effect would be lessened in African Americans, who are about 30% White and 5% Amerindian.

African American intelligence deficits are likely explained by an engrained culture, previous systematic discrimination/ breeding and some bad holdover H. Erectus alleles that didn't survive into eurasian populations.

[Anonymous No.3715114]

>>3715067
You still need the required genes for the interaction to work out in a particular way. So the interaction is important but useless if the necessary genes are missing. So associative studies are not useless.

[Anonymous No.3715130]

>>3715113

Biggest jumble of pseudoscience bullshit I've ever heard.

[Anonymous No.3715137]

>>3715130
angry H. Erectus detected

[Anonymous No.3715143]

>>3715130
occam's razor and the human genome project would like a word with you.

[Anonymous No.3715163]

>>3715113
I have heard the Eurasian-Neanderthal and Melanesian-Denisvonan interbreeding before, but this would be the first that I heard of a Negroid-Erectus interbreeding.

Are there any papers which suggest this might be possible? We don't have any part of an Erectus genome, do we? If so, do any Negroid genomes overlap?

It would make sense, but then again the traditional theory would work without it--namely, that blacks evolved in a sporadic, warm environment, which places selective pressures for smaller brain sizes.

[Anonymous No.3715169]

>>3715163
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/29/1109300108.abstract
Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa

Very recent.

[Anonymous No.3715171]

>>3715163
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/09/africans-arent-pure-humans-either/

it's about two days old. enjoy.

[Anonymous No.3715173]

>>3715143

>Implying heuristics and incomplete projects are valid evidences.

[Anonymous No.3715186]

>>3715173
So we don't know anything about physics because the grand unification is incomplete?

[Anonymous No.3715187]

>>3715169

>>One candidate locus with an unusual segment of DNA that extends for >31 kb on chromosome 4 seems to have introgressed into modern Africans from a now-extinct taxon that may have lived in central Africa. Taken together our results suggest that polymorphisms present in extant populations introgressed via relatively recent interbreeding with hominin forms that diverged from the ancestors of modern humans in the Lower-Middle Pleistocene.

tl;dr

there is huge region of erectus genes on chromosome 4 of alot of sub-saharan africans.

certainly explains their behavior.

[Anonymous No.3715203]

>>3715169
Wow. So it is true. Negroids are mixed with archaic species they lived side by side with. This definitely explains the reduced brain size among sub-Saharan Negroids.

I recall seeing a resemblance between the rough models of Erectus features and modern day Negroids. Who knew they actually carry some of these genes.

I wonder how much press this research will get.

[Anonymous No.3715212]

>>3715203
Zero.

[Anonymous No.3715254]

>>3715203
look at the head shape. compare

[Anonymous No.3715260]

I find comments like those of >>3714708 rather disturbing on /sci/, but I console myself that they are not /sci/entists. Otherwise they would know that the population of sub-Saharan Africa is over 863 million (World Bank, 2010), which means that a huge number of people reside on the right side of shithead >>3714708's graph, and probably more than the entire population of white America. (I'm far too tired at the moment to do the calculations, but even with >>3714708's bogus bell curve an eyeball estimate is sufficient to verify my ballpark numbers.) And let's say it's not quarter of Africa's pop to the right of the curve - 20-30% doesn't seem out of the question.

So, having said that, this BS about Negroes "wallowing around in filth" et cetera ad nauseum must have some cause other than low IQ.

I wonder what that could be?

[Anonymous No.3715271]

>>3715260
Are you black?

[Anonymous No.3715275]

>>3715203
look at the caucasian woman behind the s. african runner. look at their foreheads. that region is where the prefrontal cortex is. this region is roughly twice as large in the caucasian woman.

[Anonymous No.3715283]

>>3715260
There is something called sampling which is why you don't ever need to test an entire population.

Just saying.

[Anonymous No.3715292]

>>3715275
Here is some data on skull size by race. It's interesting to note that this is not due to body size differences, because blacks are on average larger than other races.

Some might complain that skull size or brain size is not useful to determine intelligence. But when comparing two populations that have actually separately interbred with prehistoric species, distinctions do matter. Brain size does matter.

[Anonymous No.3715293]

here is a better picture. again, compare the relative brain cases.

[Anonymous No.3715298]

>>3715203
viewed from this angle it is pretty hard to deny that there are h.erectus features in modern africans.

[Anonymous No.3715327]

>>3715298
Here's another representation of Homo erectus obviously based on genetic and skeleton evidence.

It's almost uncanny how similar he looks to a Negroid.

[Anonymous No.3715359]

I wonder how different humans would be if they had not mixed with neanderthals and h.erectus?

[Anonymous No.3715366]

>>3715359
>humans mixed with h.erectus
fullretard.jpeg

[Anonymous No.3715368]

>>3715359
all human populations would be roughly equal in average intelligence

[Anonymous No.3715371]

>>3715298
>>3715293
black lady is all around bigger, giving her head the appearance of being smaller. also her facial musculature is way more developed, again making the top portion of the skull with no muscle looks smaller in comparison. i'd bet that her head is bigger than the other chicks there.

[Anonymous No.3715376]

>>3715366
See:
>>3715187
>>3715171
>>3715169

Negroids but not other races are mixed with archaic hominid species that lived simultaneously in Africa; that is, Homo erectus.

[Anonymous No.3715384]

>>3715366
behaviorally modern humans mixed with a holdover h.erectus group in africa. h. sapiens had already arisen, but came into contact with h. erectus at some point and there was gene flow into more modern h. sapiens from archaic h.erectus.

[Anonymous No.3715390]

>>3715371
um. are you attracted to the black runner or something? the white runners obviously have a larger head.

[Anonymous No.3715394]

I'll just leave this here.

[Anonymous No.3715399]

>>3715394
Good for those kids. Hit the jackpot.

[Anonymous No.3715400]

>>3715394
I heard albinos get killed in these countries, true?

[Anonymous No.3715401]

>>3715399
Don't know if elevated skin cancer risk can be equaled with hitting the jackpot.

[Anonymous No.3715402]

>>3715371

The black runner does not only have a smaller brain than the white runners, but she also have a much larger and muscular body, while the white women are petite compared to her. Which leads to the conclusion, that even with a similar body, the white women would have more brain for solving problems and pursuing intellectual goals (cognitive ability) and taking into account that the black woman's body is much larger, it is obvious that her intelligence must be much inferior to the white runners.

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.3715404]

>>3715400

Yes, eating albinos grants you magical powers

[Anonymous No.3715405]

>>3715400
no, that would be in Africa. Brazil is, fortunately, not as backwards.

[Anonymous No.3715406]

genetics, much like everything else, is statistics applied

everyone is a slave of statistics

[Anonymous No.3715407]

>>3715394
>Implying they haven't negroid features, apart from the color of the skin/hair.

[Anonymous No.3715409]

albinos get straght hair regardless of genetic source? smells fishy

[Anonymous No.3715413]

[X] Nuclear power created by science
[X] Computer technologies created by science
[X] Man on moon by science
[X] Women proven inferior by science
[X] Racism proven by science

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.3715415]

Caster Semenya's testosterone level is three times higher than normal for a female

She is clearly a male

[Anonymous No.3715418]

>>3715409
It's Brazil. They have some Spanish/Portuguese genes.

[Anonymous No.3715433]

>>3715415
I would say shes intersex, which is one of the saddest conditions in this society. where do you suggest she compete? its not fair to make her run with women, she has an advantage, and its not fair to make her run with men, she has a disadvantage. What washroom does a hermaphrodite use?

I forget the statistic, but there are huge numbers of people born Intersex. doctors usually just decide for you and never tell the parents. one of the controversies of sex change later on is that often they were born in between, and they identify with the half the doctors didn't choose.

Not to suggest a shemale division of the olympics, but the result would be entertaining.

[Anonymous No.3715461]

>>3715402

This is such a bunch of pseudoscientific armchair speculation I don't even. Please, stop embarrassing yourself. You remind me of those Nazi's who thought they could pick out a joo by facial features and then they got shit on their face when they accidentally picked out an Aryan.

inb4 butthurt libtard, if you have any peer reviewed science to back up your claims go ahead, but please shove these anecdotal observations back up your ass where they came from.

[Anonymous No.3715479]

nig nogs

[Anonymous No.3715486]

>>3715461
You can pick out a jew by looking at his penis.

[Anonymous No.3715509]

>>3715486
Yeah, it's bigger.

[Anonymous No.3716057]

>>3715327

Looks a lot like Randy Savage to me. Where is your God now?

[Anonymous No.3716083]

Seriously, mentioning China is superfluous and appealing only to hysteria

There are no doubt a great many science teams working on the genes that correlate with intelligence, when they are discovered, they should be made available so that they can be added to the DNA of people of all races, thus increasing the potential of the human race

[Anonymous No.3716096]

>>3715035
desire for immortality is the only reason anyone follows a religion.

[Anonymous No.3716115]

>>3716096

>desire

lol inward reflection much?
take a look in the mirror and then hate