Is the "Out of Africa" theory correct?

[Anonymous No.6527696]

Are white people a different breed of humans and evolve from a different link in evolution?

If most people migrated out of Africa than how come most programs about the evolution of man portrays our early ancestors as white?

Shouldn't they have been Arab looking or even African looking?

[Anonymous No.6527699]

>If most people migrated out of Africa than how come most programs about the evolution of man portrays our early ancestors as white?
...Are you actually using television casting as an argument to prove a scientific point?

[Anonymous No.6527707]

Why does this theory seem popular among the racist populations of the world?

This is probably why multi-regional hypothesis would never be taken seriously as a theory.

Though after consulting Wikipedia, this seems far more likely than Out of Africa. I always wondered how people could lose their darkish hue just because they traveled Northward to colder lands, but really it baffers me how the complete head structure could change from migrating to Asia.

Also, what do they mean by "Modern Australians" and "Archaic Australians"? Aborigines?

[Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q No.6527709]

>>6527707
> I always wondered how people could lose their darkish hue just because they traveled Northward to colder lands,

They didn't, Africans mated with Neanderthals and invented white people. The got squintier eyes going to asia via the tundras.

[Anonymous No.6527710]

>>6527709
please no

[Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q No.6527719]

>>6527710
shut up and read

>http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/14-interbreeding-neanderthals

[Anonymous No.6527727]

notice that Kocoayello and aether tend to show up at around the same time

[Anonymous No.6527740]

>>6527707
>Why does this theory seem popular among the racist populations of the world?
because the idea that the common ancestor of all modern humans was dark-skinned is abhorrent to racists

they keep citing studies like the one referenced in the OP picture because they think they don't understand that "share a common ancestor" does not mean "are derived from". they think that if they can overthrow the out of africa theory then it means that White People didn't come from Black People and they don't have to lie awake at night fearing they Might Be Black

[Anonymous No.6527742]

>>6527740
woops, strike out that "they think" in the first sentence

[Anonymous No.6527752]

>>6527740
Technically, wouldn't black people not have shared a common ancestor who was black?

[Anonymous No.6527755]

>>6527740
Multi-regional theory does seem to explain why white people come from another planet though. Citing Louis CK.

[Anonymous No.6527777]

>>6527740
There is no evidence to support Out of Africa. It's merely just liberal retards screaming at something they do not fully understand or comprehend and the check your privilege tumblr fags.

[Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q No.6527781]

>>6527727
Yeah it's called the waking day.

[Anonymous No.6527796]

>>6527777
this is what /pol/tards actually believe, everyone point and laugh now

nice quads tho

[Anonymous No.6527813]

>>6527755

Kantek, now known as the asteroid belt.

Who is Louis CK?

[Anonymous No.6527843]

>>6527740
Even if the most common ancestor was from Africa (and it most likely was), it would be stupid to fear that modern whites were somehow the same as modern blacks (which still have not evolved to live as a part of advanced civilization). There are obvious differences besides "skin color."

[Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q No.6527858]

>>6527843
>(which still have not evolved to live as a part of advanced civilization)
Jesus Christ now I know I'm on /math/

[Anonymous No.6527890]

>>6527710

Yes yes yes yes yes.....

[Anonymous No.6527898]

>>6527858
The numbers don't lie. The odds say that blacks are more likely to kill, rape, or steal from you. That's even after controlling for poverty.

[Anonymous No.6527937]

>>6527898
>[citation needed]

Oh wait, you're talking about America, the country that has treated black people like subhumans for the since its existence.

[Anonymous No.6527951]

>>6527858
I don't know where you came from, and I wouldn't have thought it possible previously, but /sci/ is worse for your arrival.

[Anonymous No.6527995]

>>6527709
>>6527707

>accepting theory of evolution
>accepts that evolution involves species evolving a circulatory and pulmonary system
>can't rap head around change in skin color
Come on /sci/, we can do better.

[Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q No.6528006]

>>6527951
You guyses math threads are actually more interesting to me (I suck at math) because your science threads are absolute shite, even your consciousness threads. The one good thread was the one earlier this week from that guy with the PhD in nanotech.

>>6527898
This> >>6527937

[Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q No.6528012]

>>6527995
I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about, unless you are just being contrarian.

[Anonymous No.6528028]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Human evolutionary history can be traced pretty accurately.
Genetic analysis is usually pretty accurate and it can be easily determined that the last common ancestors of all humans alive today (sans that Neanderthal thing) was living in Africa about 200.000 years ago and was genetically very similar to modern humans

[Anonymous No.6528035]

>>6527696
>Europoids
>Caucasoids

>mfw there are people out there who still think these terms are legitimate science.

[Anonymous No.6528055]

>>6527719
That's kind of antiquated now anon. There's been new research papers since then showing that the "neanderthal DNA" in that study could just as easily be explained by a much older common ancestor to both homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

[Anonymous No.6528061]

>>6527858
Actually you don't normally see people that dumb in math or on /sci/. The anon you're responding to there is a stray /pol/esmoker who's wandered in.
>Claims there are obvious differences between different groups besides skin color
>Continues in partitioning groups based entirely on skin color

[Anonymous No.6528070]

>>6527696
You clearly don't understand skin color, OP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Genetics_of_skin_color_variation

It comes down to just a few genes. Those few genes mutating has nothing to do with other genes mutating.

[Anonymous No.6528076]

>>6527951
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6528171]

>>6527696
>Is the "Out of Africa" theory correct?
yes
>Are white people a different breed of humans and evolve from a different link in evolution?
no

[Anonymous No.6528442]

>>6528061
Africans as a population are still burning witches alive today. Africans as a population are unable to maintain the infrastructure left them by whites in South Africa. Africans are still killing white farmers during home invasions in SA merely because they are white. People with a higher incidence of African ancestry are more violent, selfish, opportunistic, and are less disciplined and intelligent. Africans have been handed civilization on a platter and are currently shitting it into devastation. Look at Detroit, Chicago, and South Africa. If a black is in charge there is guaranteed corruption, decay, and lack of progress or peace. It isn't their skin color which causes it. It's their skin color which presents alongside it. It's a simple correlation. I've seen it firsthand and you'd see it if you'd just look. Just because there are some genetically watered down blacks with really black skin doesn't mean that all the other purer Africans get off scott free.

Whites selectively pressured their overt bad behaviors by the necessities of living in harsher climates. Africans have never had to save, think ahead, or prepare in order to survive. They just had to have more stamina than their prey. This is all evident in their cultures, but you're too blind just think about it for a minute. They never developed the abstract concepts of rule of law, mathematics and music theory.

I lived the nightmare of attending majority black middle school and high school. I have heard the frustration black teachers have with their own people from their own mouths. Even the small proportion of smart blacks hate (at least pity) their contemporaries.

[Anonymous No.6528546]

>>6528442
Why don't you sit down and properly define your terms using scientific rigor there, slick.

[Anonymous No.6528555]

>>6528442
>maintain infrastructure
Congrats, you've observed that when any ruling class is taken out in a sudden event, decay occurs!
>still killing white farmers because they're white
Which isn't confined to just blacks vs whites in South Africa, the same occurs in any region where one group stood atop another; see Shite vs Sunni, 1917 Russia, Native Americans vs Aztec
>Detroit and Chicago
Yes, blame the blacks on the collapse of the American car industry, there is a reason they were fine until about a decade ago
>Guaranteed Corruption
See what the Warsaw pact countries have been up to recently
>living in harsher climates
Like the Sahara or Kalahari?
>Rule of Law
Africans have had several successful civilizations, see Zanj, Ghana/Mali, Zimbabwe
>Mathematics, Music Theory
University of Timbuktu (yes it's a real fucking place), unfortunately the scrolls are wearing away as the desert retakes the city, and no one seems to keen to move the damned things out

The last bit is just anecdotal, come on man, you're on /sci/, not /pol/

[Anonymous No.6528643]

>>6528555
Excuses, excuses, excuses. The simpler explanation is that blacks are less developed. Stop making excuses for them. You wouldn't defend them if you'd actually been exposed to their bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6528648]

>>6528555
>University of Timbuktu
Are you fucking serious? It was obviously set up by Arabian Muslims. Its component schools are even called by Arabic names. Africans didn't run that.

[Anonymous No.6528656]

>>6528555
>Zanj, Ghana/Mali, Zimbabwe
These "civilizations" were nothing but towns that smart Arabs taught how to trade. It was a case of "monkey see, monkey do."

[Anonymous No.6528661]

>>6528555
Nothing but special pleading for your pet negroes. I started off like you, always willing to cede that maybe it wasn't their fault. Then I had to live amongst them.

[Anonymous No.6528662]

>>6528643
>the simpler explanation is to disregard and belittle all points contrary to my argument, then suggest you'd have the same arguments if you had the same anecdotal experiences!

>>6528648
>Arabic names
Yes, because the country was muslim, and it's HIGHLY recommended that the Qu'ran is read in it's original language rather than translated; so all important place names are in Arabic.

Ghana was founded prior to the arrival of muslims, Mali was the successor state, and the population was primarily African.

>>6528656
Zimbabwe had no contact with Arabs, Zanj had complex societies and wealth prior to the arrival of Arabs

[Anonymous No.6528702]

>>6528662
>muh anecdotes!
Experience is still experience. Statistics are based on multiple someone's "anecdotal experience." You just want to be ignorant.

What's your definition of complex society? A society willing to sell its people for money? Because that's as complicated as Zanj got.

When a region's language is dictated by a foreign culture, it has been conquered and molded by that culture. Anything with an Arabic name in Africa is not natively African developed. Just think about it a little. Roll it around in your head and consider it.

[Anonymous No.6528718]

>>6528702
There are three types of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics; now go prove your anecdotal experience actually matches some statistics so the fun can truly begin; and if you bring up that Orphan study, a group of 100 in the same region being extrapolated to millions in other regions ain't good science m8

>Willing to sell people for money
Thats actually pretty damn advanced, for one they have excess people, for two they have a concept of economics, especially if they actually did have a currency as you just claimed.

So anything with an English name in America is not natively American developed?

[Anonymous No.6528785]

>>6528718
>So anything with an English name in America is not natively American developed?
America started off as a colony of England...when they were being established, they were directly derived from the English, so yeah, nothing then was natively American developed. Then time changed things. Timbuktu was controlled by Arabs from conception until demise.

You act like the dominant cultural group in Africa at the time of these was African, but everything was derived from the Arabs. Zimbabwe traded slaves and shinies...so fucking what? They had to trade with the Arabs because there wasn't anything else around them. Hundreds of years later, primitive american indians traded an island for a bunch of beads, at least they didn't sell each other into slavery.

Why should I even attempt to justify my stance with statistics, when you obviously already decided to discount them as lies?

[Anonymous No.6528820]

>>6528785
>dominant cultural group
When did I say that? Of the examples I gave, all but Zimbabwe and early Ghana were Muslim.

>Timbuktu was controlled by Arabs
Now here's where you're full of shit, the King of Mali was clearly African; as many European depictions of him attest to. They didn't trade with just Arabs as well, Moorish Spain was another destination for the gold of Mali.

>anything else around
India and China also traded with the Zanj

As well, American Indians DID sell eachother into slavery as well, but thats a story for another time.

[Anonymous No.6528845]

I read somewhere that a lot of chinese elite share the belief that chinese evoloved from 'different monkeys' than everyone else.

[Anonymous No.6528848]

>>6528820
what is this, /history/?

no, this is /sci/

[Anonymous No.6528857]

>>6528848
He's bringing history into a debate on race; gotta fight fire with fire.

[Anonymous No.6528861]

>>6528845
Makes sense to me,

I believe that Africans evolved from blacker, stupider monkeys.

[Anonymous No.6528866]

>>6528702
>statistics are based of anecdotal experience
top kek
>>6528442
>Africans didn't have to live in a harsh climate
>what is a tropical climate?
>what is a dry season?

[Anonymous No.6528873]

>>6528845
lel

The cognitive dissonance that must be involved in believing such overtly ridiculous racist superiority myths and then going to work each day wearing European clothing is frankly astounding.

[Anonymous No.6528912]

>>6528035
>mfw a creationist is mad on a science board

[Anonymous No.6528916]

Why don't people accept racial realism already?

This is getting really sad.

>there is absolutely no difference within the brains of different races

just wow

[Anonymous No.6528922]

>>6528861
Humans split from chimpanzees over 4 million years ago. Chimpanzees vary in skin color from really pale light skin color to dark black skin color throughout the course of their lives. You clearly don't know dick about monkeys.

[Anonymous No.6528925]

>>6528916
>>>/pol/ pls go

[Anonymous No.6528926]

>>6528912
Caucasoid and Europoid were terms from the 1900s. They were laughed out of modern science ages ago. Unless I misunderstood your post since only religious anti-science people still use those terms, and well retarded /pol/esmokers.

[Anonymous No.6528928]

>>6528925
>can't argue with fact

>BAWWWWWW /POL/

Are you a 12 year old?

[Anonymous No.6528933]

>>6528916
>racial realism
ahahahaha

[Anonymous No.6528934]

>>6528926
>They were laughed out of modern science ages ago.
So was Darwin, you idiot.

Wait, you're actually appealing to authority?
ahahaha what a faggot

>religious anti-science people
Yeah like you you creationist fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.6528936]

>>6528933
>being a creationist
hahahahaha

[Anonymous No.6528938]

>>6528928
This is you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8

>>6528934
Darwin was laughed out and then later on taken seriously. This bullshit was initially taken seriously and then laughed out. Religious people still believe that stuff, same with phrenology which is now considered pseudoscience by people with functioning brains.

[Anonymous No.6528942]

>>6528936
>>6528934
>Can't argue with science
>BAWWWWWWWW CREATIONIST

Are you a 4 year old?

[Anonymous No.6528945]

>>6528070
>Skin color

>Brain/Skull Size/Shape
>Body height and shape
>testosterone levels

>>6528171
A "theory" is not "correct", that defeats the whole point of it being a "theory".
Reality is a state of flux with NO absolutes, only relative ones and the ones that stand the test of time the most are defined as "true" or "correct".

[Anonymous No.6528946]

>>6528938
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8
Lel,

You're a literal CREATIONIST. Seriously the projection coming off of you is incredible.

>Darwin was laughed out and then later on taken seriously.
Exactly. New theories aren't taken seriously right away and religious people(like you) usually have a backlash against them.

>phrenology
No shit, nobody believes in that.

>>6528942
But you literally are a creationist.
Are you 3 years old?

[Anonymous No.6528948]

>>6527696
its not even doubtable anymore.

we have done:

>fossil evidence
>migration routes and patterns
>skeletal remains showing the lack of variation among homo sapien skulls
>the fact that humans have a fuckton of skull features no other homo have and the earliest ones are in africa
>intermediates between ancestor fossils are in africa

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY

>motherfucking GENETIC ANALYSIS AND LOOKING AT THE DNA
>you can literally not even debate this
>showing humans descended from a group of 1-10 thousand 75k years ago
>one group cleaved and left africa, genetic diversity greatest in the home area (africa)

anyways geographic selection favors white skin, looser hair because vitamin d deficiency = death. aside from that neanderthals did give us some genes, mostly the ones which helped with adapting to specifically local places. for example the genes that helped you digest starch better.

[Anonymous No.6528954]

>>6528948
>B-B-BUT MUH PROFESSOR TOLD ME ALL RACES ARE CREATED EQUAL

[Anonymous No.6528957]

>>6528954

Go back to /pol/. It's right next door. You can find plenty of edgy faggots like yourself back there.

[Anonymous No.6528959]

>>6528945
So you're saying that race should be defined by that short list of things. Surprise! you're still a retard for the same exact reason.

>>6528945
>Reality is a state of flux with NO absolutes, only relative ones and the ones that stand the test of time the most are defined as "true" or "correct".
This is wrong but for reasons that could convince someone dumb enough that they're right. How right a theory is doesn't change over time, reality is not in a state of flux. What happens is that theories are improved or superseded by more correct or complete theories.

[Anonymous No.6528962]

>>6528948
Inb4 bar raisers.

[Anonymous No.6528963]

>>6527709
>>6527719
neanderthal-human hybrids were remarkably sterile, and differ a fuckton from homo sapiens in body shape and skull features.

they contributed 2% to the non-african gene pool because human-human babies were more fertile.

most of our stock is homo sapien sapien, i would guess neanderthals might have been dying off since climate warmed and also the fact that they need 5k calories to live while we needed 2k.

but they gave us some genes which helped humans to cope with newly opened up geographic areas they already adapted to.

[Anonymous No.6528964]

>>6528946
hahaha, can anyone believe this creatinist? I bet he is a 1 year old.

[Anonymous No.6528966]

Author of "Out of Africa" theory doesn't believe in it himself anymore. "Out of Africa" theory is a PC bullshit.

>CHRISTOPHER STRINGER is one of the world's foremost paleoanthropologists. He is a founder and most powerful advocate of the leading theory concerning our evolution: Recent African Origin or "Out of Africa".

http://edge.org/conversation/rethinking-out-of-africa

FACT is that Homo Sapiens interbred with Neanderthals and that's where caucasians got the superior intelligence gene.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8898321/Neanderthals-were-too-smart-for-their-own-good.html

Some scientists believe that Neanderthals gave Homo sapiens a least 20 IQ points. This also meshes with the disparity among IQ of races of people who have neanderthal genes and of those who do not.

[Anonymous No.6528970]

>>6528957
>Go back to /pol/.
Ah yes the screams of someone who is having their worldview destroyed by facts.

Where are your arguments? Your rebuttals?
Where are they?\

>edgy
How is this edgy?
Also I have black friends and co-workers. I still understand the science behind their biology.

[Anonymous No.6528974]

>these two species that can interbreed and share genetic markers that display mutual lineage
>heh wuts wrong can't handle the truth??

>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6528975]

>>6528964
>hahaha, can anyone believe this creatinist? I bet he is a 1 year old.
i kno rite

xD

[Anonymous No.6528978]

>>6528948
>aside from that neanderthals did give us some genes, mostly the ones which helped with adapting to specifically local places. for example the genes that helped you digest starch better.
>>6528966
>FACT is that Homo Sapiens interbred with Neanderthals and that's where caucasians got the superior intelligence gene.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/08/15/3568306.htm

On a sidenote, neanderthals were for a long time argued to be black. You can look at old documentaries or models and the humans are shown with fair skin, blue eyes, and straight red hair while the neanderthals are shown with black skin, black eyes, and short curly black hair. You guys are idiots.

Here, for some perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mZbmywzGAVs

[Anonymous No.6528982]

>>6528934
>darwin

you do realize we don't take everything he says srsly. i mean if we did that for newton you'd believe in occult forces controlling the world becuz he was like "hey fuck i can't explain this i bet its god"

>>6528945
surprisingly there's much more overlap than differentiation. google lewontin's racial genetics study. bout 100 genes are different, controlling for geographic adaptations to climate and diet.

anyways brain sizes right now are lower on average than they were a 50k years ago. skulls have become more childish, and bones have became thinner.

averages are just averages, they don't mean we become a different species just some things shift here and there. you should learn some basic evolutionary prinicples son.

[Anonymous No.6528983]

>>6528957
>a- am- am i progressive yet?

>>6528959
So the difference in brain size has NO significant importance?

>reality is not in a state of flux.
>What is evolution

[Anonymous No.6528985]

>>6528970
>facts
There are no facts in science anon, only theories. All you're doing is shitting yourself in front of strangers.

>>6528970
>I still understand the science behind their biology.
You very clearly don't even understand the biology of anything with any level of sophistication.

[Anonymous No.6528986]

>>6528966
>muh argument from authority

>neanderthal dna
last time i checked the weren't to many neanderthals in east asia

[Anonymous No.6528989]

>>6528983
>So the difference in brain size has NO significant importance?

Difference in brain size between what exactly?

[Anonymous No.6528991]

>>6528978
>On a sidenote, neanderthals were for a long time argued to be black.

Bullshit. There isn't a single anthropologist who believes that. In fact, Neanderthals gave us not only white skin but also blonde hair, red hair and blue/green yes.

Yes, the genes for all of those are present in Neanderthal genome and also in Denisovan genome.

[Anonymous No.6528996]

>>6528982
>you do realize we don't take everything he says srsly.
I never said that.
That wasn't the fucking point you retarded mongoloid.
But funny enough he was correct on race.

>>6528985
>there are no facts whatsoever anywhere
This is what creationists actually believe.

>You very clearly don't even understand the biology of anything with any level of sophistication.
Does the fact the science proves you wrong upset you?
You must feel really uncomfortable right now.

[Anonymous No.6529000]

>>6528986

>>muh argument from authority

No, it's the argument from genetics. You don't have a clue what an argument of authority is. But your PC kind doesn't care about little things like DNA.

>>neanderthal dna
>last time i checked the weren't to many neanderthals in east asia

Denisovan genome is. Denisovans interbred with Neanderthals.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/denisova/skoglund-jakobsson-2011-south-china.html

[Anonymous No.6529001]

So science has already shown that blacks have on average smaller brains than whites.

Do people seriously think this doesn't contribute to their behaviors?

[Anonymous No.6529002]

>>6528996
>This is what creationists actually believe.
No, it's what the scientific method works on. It's the reason the scientific method works on top of the Socratic method as its complement.

You seem to not even understand the very basic concepts of science. I feel sorry for your miserable existence.

[Anonymous No.6529004]

>>6529001
PC crowd doesn't care about these facts. They only care about MUH EQUALITY.

[Anonymous No.6529008]

>>6529002
>No, it's what the scientific method works on.
You're actually telling me empirical evidence doesn't exist.

>I feel sorry for your miserable existence.
Lol dat reddit tier comment.

[Anonymous No.6529009]

>>6528991
>Neanderthals gave us not only white skin but also blonde hair, red hair and blue/green yes.
lol holy shit this guy. Link a research paper or accept you're full of shit. Also it takes 2 seconds on google images to find old models of neanderthals with black skin and curly hair.

[Anonymous No.6529013]

>>6528978
nobody will ever take you srsly in human genetics/anthropology/evolution if you ever even think about that video. its not even based on evidence or facts.

>>6528966
no its not he still believes in it. neanderthals had bigger brains but these are due to higher body size, they are smaller on the brain-body index.

i suspect they were intelligent in some aspects, but humans had huger social groups and exploited their environment more creatively, none of their cultural practices reached homo sapien sapien levels. neanderthals had huge visual-processing areas and can probably play detective better because lowlight/snow everywhere.

other than that you're a moron please don't take yourself seriously.

[Anonymous No.6529014]

>>6529008
Empirical evidence is stochastic. This is why we use statistical methods. Facts still don't exist in science.

[Anonymous No.6529021]

>>6529014
Statistics themselves rely on empirical evidence.

[Anonymous No.6529026]

>>6529000
>citing a blog post who's only citation is it's own blog

> argument from genetics
see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15641921

[Anonymous No.6529031]

>>6529021
>Statistics themselves rely on empirical evidence.
l2epistemology plz

[Anonymous No.6529033]

>>6529004
>>6529001
Samefag and not only are those papers from the mid 1900s but they don't rigorously define "blacks" using rigorous means. You can't define any race this way without using circular logic. You have to say something like
>okay I define this group of people to be the 'black' race, now I'm going to take a bunch of genetic samples and find some genes that set this group that I've pre-defined as 'black' from other groups. Ignore that I made the original decision using completely subjective means and that I would end up with a different set of genes had a chosen different individuals.

In the very best case most rigorous scenario you say
>Okay, I've fed a fuckload of genetic samples into this machine learning clustering algorithm of some type and I've had it look for exactly 10 clusters. I chose 10 because I wasn't getting the results I wanted when I chose other numbers. Also, I had to re-run the algorithm on the data a fuckload of times until it found clusters that were more along the lines of what I wanted. I've named these 10 clusters "black", "white", and so on (I chose the names before hand, but it doesn't matter, by running this algorithm and fudging the numbers a fuckload I've come up with the results I wanted).

[Anonymous No.6529035]

>>6529021
>Statistics themselves rely on empirical evidence.
lolol

[Anonymous No.6529037]

>>6529013
>nobody will ever take you srsly in human genetics/anthropology/evolution if you ever even think about that video. its not even based on evidence or facts.
Of course. That was not my purpose in linking it. I was merely pointing out that there are other social science based perspectives just as dumb as your own. Similarly for a long time retarded people who did not understand evolution believed that neanderthals were just "less evolved" humans. They likened the neanderthals to blacks and so you had a bunch of idiots claiming that blacks were "closer to" neanderthals.

[Anonymous No.6529049]

>>6528996
no he wasn't you idiot science doesn't believe in racial groups anymore. theres such a thing as geographic variation and different allotypes, but nobody even talks about race because its not even a scientific concept.

>>6528986
they populated the entire mid-east. other than that neanderthals were less intelligent, for example none of us inherited neanderthal language genes but we did inherit skin genes because their language abilities were probably less complex.

behaviorially neanderthals had much more simpler cultures, were much less social. they didn't even invent fucking spears and had to beat their kills to death. their burial practices didn't show the same symbolic culture humans did.

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/how-neanderthal-dna-changed-humans-140129.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140421-neanderthal-dna-genes-human-ancestry-science/

>>6529009
not that guy but they are able to reconstruct gene effects pretty easily

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7062415.stm

you can google the paper.

[Anonymous No.6529056]

>>6529049
>not that guy but they are able to reconstruct gene effects pretty easily
Interesting, I was not aware of this specific research. Thank you.

>>6529049
>no he wasn't you idiot science doesn't believe in racial groups anymore. theres such a thing as geographic variation and different allotypes, but nobody even talks about race because its not even a scientific concept.
This. Racial groups just are too subjective and not rigorous at all.

[Anonymous No.6529059]

>>6528970

>Ah yes the screams of someone who is having their worldview destroyed by facts.

Did it look like who I was responding to was someone who was using facts and not just strawmanning?

[Anonymous No.6529066]

>>6529049
>neanderthals didn't have spears
what?
http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba51/ba51feat.html

[Anonymous No.6529068]

>>6529033
>muh rigor

I knew the bar was going to be raised eventually.

[Anonymous No.6529078]

>>6529037
well my position isn't since i take the mainstream view. neanderthals weren't much different than us, i mean we only split from them for like 400-600k years. they have some traits that are different, but its not like they wouldn't be able to assimilate into human society.

i mean super-predators with fur, no homo species ever evolved into "super predators" since both groups followed the same general lifestyles and lost fur over a million years ago.

[Anonymous No.6529080]

Attempts by programs like head start to give blacks highly enriched educational environments have failed to produce lasting changes in their IQ’s relative to whites

Children of black parents that make between 160K and 200K a year are less intelligent than white children from families that make less than 20K a year. Similarly, the IQ difference between rich black kids and rich white kids is even larger than the IQ difference between poor black kids and poor white kids

Our society has obviously become much less “racist” over the last hundred years. Yet, the black/white IQ gap is basically the same today as it was in 1918

Genetic theory predicts that the children and grand children of smart people will tend to be ever dumber until they reach the average IQ level of the population. The children and grand children of smart black parents “regress” in this way to a mean IQ of 85 while the children of smart white parents regress to a mean IQ of 100. The only obvious explanation for this comes from genetics

Whites have larger brains than blacks. This seems to be for genetic reasons since there are also many other muscular and skeletal differences between blacks and whites that are associated with evolving larger brains and because these brain size differences are present at birth. Larger brains are also associated with being more intelligent. Three lines of evidence suggest that this association is causal: first, genes that are associated with being more intelligent are also associated with larger brains.Second, a person’s brain size changes over time predict changes in their intelligence over time.And third, smarter siblings have larger brains their their less intelligent siblings who grew up in the same home as them (this suggests that the relationship can’t be explained by any possible confounding variable in the family environment such as nutrition).So it seems that whites have evolved to be more intelligent than blacks partly by evolving larger brains

[Anonymous No.6529083]

>>6529080
Mulattos (people who have a black and a white parent) have higher IQ’s than blacks but lower IQ’s than whites. A genetic explanation would predict this because half of a mulatto’s genes are black and half are white. In fact, even with in black populations those who have lighter skin (because they have more white ancestors) have higher IQ’s.

The Minnesota trans-racial adoption study, which is the best of its kind, found that at age 17 blacks adopted into upper middle class white homes averaged an IQ of 84, Mulattos averaged 93, and whites 102. Thus, being raised in an affluent white family didn’t boost black or Mulatto IQ just as a (mostly) genetic hypothesis would predict.

Some IQ sub-tests are more heritable than others. (That is, twin studies show that differences between individuals on some tests are more due to genetic differences between people than others.) The race IQ gap is largest on those subtests with the highest levels of heritability and the only obvious explanation for this is that the B/W IQ difference is caused by genetics.

Versions of genes associated with intelligence differ in frequency between the races in such a way that favors white people.

[Anonymous No.6529085]

>>6529083
Egalitarianism isn’t evolutionarily or genetically plausible. We know that the different environments the races evolved in produced differences in just about every physical trait from bone density to height to muscle size. And we know that the large differences in weather and food availability must have caused people to behave differently. The idea that these different environments selected for intelligence with exactly equal pressure seems incredibly unlikely. Similarly, studies have found that the races differ in the frequency of most (or all) genes and this includes genes that affect brain development. So the races possessing any random single gene in the same frequency is unlikely. In order for them to have to same genetic profile with regards to intelligence, which involves thousands of genes, this would have to happen thousands of times. If we assume that that the probability of the races having the same frequency for some gene is 40% (it’s actually much lower) and that intelligence involves 15 genes (it actually involves thousands) the probability that the races would have the identical frequencies for each of these genes is 0.0001%. Given this, the idea that they would have the exact same frequency for the thousands of genes that affect intelligence is basically impossible.

[Anonymous No.6529086]

>>6528983
>neoreactionary cat

Is this what neoreaction has come to? I guess it just wasn't meant for anything but the rarefied air of its pre-2012 corner of the blogosphere...

[Anonymous No.6529087]

>>6529080
>the IQ gap basically the same it doesn't matter that it has decreased by a 1/3 of a SD from 1970 to 2002
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/17/10/913.abstract

[Anonymous No.6529089]

>>6529001
well humans lost 200 cm since tens of thousands of years ago in brain size, but dare i introduce the fact that qualitative features like brain size has a fuckton of factors simple measurements cannot control.

like adequate population sampling, epigenetics and the fact that maternal health and nutrition changes how genes play out and that brain size growth occurs for 20+ years and are remarkably the most plastic thing about humans.
>>6529033
see, people like this can reason

[Anonymous No.6529096]

>>6529083
>>6529080
you guys are fucking morons google first of all the fact that adoptions/environment AREN't FUCKING RANDOM AND ARE SUBJECT TO NON-RANDOM FACTORS.

i mean just the simple fact alone that blacks have higher maternal malnutrition and MATERNAL HEALTH AND EARLY CHILDHOOD IS THE BIGGEST FACTOR DETERMINING HOW GENES ARE EXPRESSED.

HERITABILITY =! GENETIC INHERITENCE

Just watch this you goddamn ignoramus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0WZx7lUOrY&list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D

[Anonymous No.6529101]

>>6529087
>http://pss.sagepub.com/content/17/10/913.abstract
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2006%20PSnew.pdf

[Anonymous No.6529107]

>>6529096
>i mean just the simple fact alone that blacks have higher maternal malnutrition

>Children of black parents that make between 160K and 200K a year are less intelligent than white children from families that make less than 20K a year. Similarly, the IQ difference between rich black kids and rich white kids is even larger than the IQ difference between poor black kids and poor white kids

[Anonymous No.6529112]

>>6529107
rekt

[Anonymous No.6529115]

>>6529033
>Samefag
Actually no.
Sorry.

[Anonymous No.6529118]

>>6529033
>>okay I define this group of people to be the 'black' race
Lol YES you fucking faggot.

People seriously from africa vs people seriously from europe.
You can't tell the difference between these two breeds?

[Anonymous No.6529121]

>>6529080
>>6529083
"Intelligence" is not even measurable because its qualitative. performance on iq tests are measured and taken as a quantitative trait. with that said if you measure anyone on such vague things you are going to find huge conflating variables.

i mean you have no idea what genetic theory says about "genetic heritence" first of all, regression to the mean is a statistical fact due to the inherent nature in measuring things, it doesn't say anything about how genes actually work.

second there's NO FUCKING GENE IDENTIFIED associated with BEING MORE INTELLIGENT AND HAVING LARGER BRAINS because these aren't controlled by one or two alleles they are controlled by probably millions. i already posted about epigenetics.

i don't really care that you are just espousing racist beliefs, but if you are going to pretend you have a background in science you are misrepresenting what people who study these things actually know.

watch and read this you'd see how retarded scientific racism still is.

http://robertsapolskyrocks.weebly.com/behavioral-genetics.html

[Anonymous No.6529125]

>>6529035
Except they do.>>6529049
>no he wasn't you idiot science doesn't believe in racial groups anymore. theres such a thing as geographic variation and different allotypes, but nobody even talks about race because its not even a scientific concept.
No fucking shit.

>>6529059
Ah yes call your opponants argument a "strawman" when it clearly isn't.
You seem upset.

[Anonymous No.6529127]

>>6529089
>well humans lost 200 cm since tens of thousands of years ago in brain size, but dare i introduce the fact that qualitative features like brain size has a fuckton of factors simple measurements cannot control.
Not only do blacks have smaller brains but they have smaller grey matter as well.

[Anonymous No.6529131]

>>6529118
You realize those are continents, right? How do you decide if someone is "from" these places? How do you not realize how vague this is?

[Anonymous No.6529132]

I love watching egalitarian creationists get blow the fuck out.

It makes my day.

[Anonymous No.6529135]

>>6529125
>being this retarded
Empirical evidence is stochastic.

[Anonymous No.6529137]

>>6529101
nobody even talks about them in fucking neuroscience and behavioral genetics because their psychologists who design quizzes and don't actually study genetics. i mean just the abstract alone says a REDUCED GAP in IQ meaning environment actually changes things.

the fact is that humans don't have a lot of actual gene differences going at that level, because humans descended from a really fucking inbred group of people very recently. i mean chimps have greater genetic diversity in ONE TROUPE than humans do as a species.

[Anonymous No.6529141]

>>6529125
k then why is "darwin right about caucasoids and negroids and mongoloids".

[Anonymous No.6529148]

>>6529121
Now you are just deconstructing the concept of intelligence to avoid having to deal with the data that has been shown.

One can deconstruct the idea of "health" to the point where firing a bullet to the brain can be justified as "healty", that doesnt mean its healthy.

>genetic heritence
>NO FUCKING GENE IDENTIFIED
You dont need to indentify specific genes to infer heritability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwZQCf2rfZs

[Anonymous No.6529153]

>>6529141
He had the right idea, it just had to be clarified.
You knew what I meant idiot.

>>6529131
>How do you decide if someone is "from" these places?
If they evolved with the people there for 100s of thousands of years and have the same genetic makeup?
This isn't difficult.

[Anonymous No.6529156]

>>6529118
>breeds
First that is a layman's term , its vague.
Second humans are actually genetically homogeneous , to the point where the term 'race' is a flimsy biological term, because in humans there is no ironclad genetic basis for it. Most of the genetic variation is in a population, not between them.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html?iframe=true&width=100%&%20rel=

[Anonymous No.6529163]

>>6529153
You do realize that almost no Europeans "evolved with themselves(?)" for 100s of thousands of years. For one thing, anatomically modern humans have only been around for over 200 thousand years. For another there's been insane amounts of intermixing across all those continents (what race do intermixed people belong to?). Even worse, by that definition you're more or less saying that anyone who leaves Europe is no longer of the "European race".

[Anonymous No.6529166]

You know, I thought the level of discussion on the topic of racial differences couldn't possibly get any lower than what I experienced on /lit/, but this board has proven me wrong.

[Anonymous No.6529170]

>>6529156
>First that is a layman's term , its vague.
No shit.

>Second humans are actually genetically homogeneous
lol no they aren't holy shit
There are vast differences between human populations.

This is some very desperate stretching of the truth.

>>6529163
>For one thing, anatomically modern humans have only been around for over 200 thousand years.
Yes, I know. Your point?

>For another there's been insane amounts of intermixing across all those continents
Yes, I know. Your point? There's wasn't enough race mixing to completely blend the races so what you're saying is irrelevant.

>Even worse, by that definition you're more or less saying that anyone who leaves Europe is no longer of the "European race".
No, just no. That has nothing to do with my definition.

[Anonymous No.6529174]

>>6529156
>Lewontin's fallacy

I can't believe someone in 2014 just made use of Lewontin's fallacy. Are you an anthropology undergrad or something?

[Anonymous No.6529175]

>>6529132
you haven't been following this thread. stormfront science vs. actual science by people who study this and understand it.

>>6529127
i haven't even seen credible studies i just assume you idiots are right but google the rushton study shows he used autotopsy and craniometry(measure of the inner parts of the skull) which are disgustingly inaccurate in talking about the brain.

other than that, fine go measure two plants one thats deprive of nutrients and one thats provide some and go call it genetics because if you believe that's the case you're retard. all these measurements of head size were literally at this level, if you believe this somehow determines that brain sizes are established facts i'm done trying to explain science to you.

[Anonymous No.6529181]

>>6529174
well i'm not that guy but you don't even understand the counter-argument if you believe its a "fallacy" since those who call it that don't disagree on genetics, only on whether its possible to classify groups based on one or two genes.

stop throwing around stupid buzzwords without understanding basic genetics. i'm done you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.6529182]

>>6529175
>you haven't been following this thread. stormfront science vs. actual science by people who study this and understand it.
The thread speaks for itself.
Keep calling your opponents "EVIL RACIST NEO-NAZIS WHO WANT TO KILL SIX MILLION JEWS!!"
It really makes you look grown up.

[Anonymous No.6529185]

>>6529175
>i haven't even seen credible studies i just assume you idiots are right but google the rushton study shows he used autotopsy and craniometry(measure of the inner parts of the skull) which are disgustingly inaccurate in talking about the brain.
What your saying was already debunked in the study.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/sizematters.pdf

[Anonymous No.6529186]

>>6529181
lel

You're not even at the level of an anthropology undergrad. Probably a sociology babby who took an intro to genetics course.

[Anonymous No.6529187]

>>6529181
>stop throwing around stupid buzzwords
>Lewontin's fallacy is a buzzword

Lol holy fucking shit.

Watch this well done video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHDWlnah3b0
inb4 >youtube

[Anonymous No.6529191]

>>6529186
These creationists don't understand the first thing about genetics.

They're compulsive liars.

[Anonymous No.6529198]

>>6529170
>Yes, I know. Your point?
Races haven't existed long enough to "live amongst themselves for 100s of thousands of years".

>Yes, I know. Your point?
Then your definition is not sufficient. You're saying it yourself. If there has been mixing then you still have to have some way for the individual to be considered part of the same race despite the mixing.

>No, just no. That has nothing to do with my definition.
I suggest you re-read it. How are they evolving with the people? Are you instead suggesting that they don't instantly become another race but that it takes time? If so, how much time? When exactly do you draw that line?

[Anonymous No.6529200]

>>6529148
i didn't you idiot you didn't even read my argument, any of them actually.

go measure something like "athletic ability" and you quickly realize how complex it is to do that since you can even make sense of what it means in the first place. second you realize there's just too much non-random factors that play into studying this.

i mean you totally didn't understand what i said by what heritability means within statistical measurement. it doesn't say a thing about identifying genes that's entirely different ballpark and nobody disputes that.

go listen to the sapolsky lecture. i'm cringing at how much you fail to understand basic concepts and facts about a field you pretend to know.

[Anonymous No.6529202]

>>6529182
As if /pol/esmokers are smart enough for anyone to legitimately consider them evil.

[Anonymous No.6529204]

>>6529186
believe what you want its pretty clear i cannot convince you, i'm just doing it so noone else falls for you throwing around terms without understanding it.

[Anonymous No.6529206]

>>6529198
>Races haven't existed long enough to "live amongst themselves for 100s of thousands of years".
Okay, however long human beings have been in europe and interbred with each other.

> If there has been mixing then you still have to have some way for the individual to be considered part of the same race despite the mixing.
The european race as it stands includes all of the mixing. We are talking about the final product. Not some imaginary hypothetical of Europeans who have never race mixed.

>When exactly do you draw that line?
When they look completely different that a fucking pre school kid could tell them apart. When their genetic makeups are different.
You retarded mongoloid.

It's like you people deny there are differences in intelligence in dog and cat breeds too.

>>6529202
Good one kiddo.

[Anonymous No.6529210]

>>6529204
The claim you made is literally the original example of Lewontin's fallacy, firstly because it came from Lewontin and second because it is FALLACIOUS.

[Anonymous No.6529213]

>>6529185
wasting precious seconds reading this again shows none of them used actual brain measurements.

all of them used skull measurements which again are in accurate. even more so they did a fucking ruler test on live people instead of actual inner skull measurements.

[Anonymous No.6529218]

>>6529187
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teyvcs2S4mI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVmj8dDx9yY
please these two have much more rigor

[Anonymous No.6529221]

>>6529206
>Okay, however long human beings have been in europe and interbred with each other.
So Europe is the marker for all human beings? Is that when races started existing?

>The european race as it stands includes all of the mixing. We are talking about the final product. Not some imaginary hypothetical of Europeans who have never race mixed.
Do you not realize how large a margin you're giving here? Combined with your other lax definitions you could fit tons of different groups in as Europeans.

>When they look completely different that a fucking pre school kid could tell them apart.
What about when they don't.

[Anonymous No.6529223]

>>6529206
>Good one kiddo.
Yea, got you good you fucker!

[Anonymous No.6529225]

/pol/ pls go

Out of africa and regional are both half right
1st wave gave us existing Australians, Polynesians and Ainu
2nd wave produced Asians and the people of the Americas after those people crossed the Bering Strait
3rd wave got stuck in the middle east until they couple properly get into europe and outcompete the neatherthals who were not adaptable

and then we've got mixing all over because we like to fug

Maybe given another million years of separation we might have become different species
But at the end of the day the German Shepard and French bulldog are both Canis lupus familiaris
Just as a tribes man on the Savannah and a lonely fat man child staring into a white box are both human

[Anonymous No.6529231]

>>6529225
>But at the end of the day the German Shepard and French bulldog are both Canis lupus familiaris

nobody is saying different species anonymous. Would you insist my yorkiepoo lapdog is just as physically capable of a racing dog?

[Anonymous No.6529235]

>>6529206
fine we'll have kids decide that some people are part of the blonde race and some are part of the ginger race and exterminate them because again just because kids detect visual difference means they are clearly categorically different.

genes don't operate on the level of human thought. they don't organize themselves into groups and say hey you're part of us and you're not. they are blind mechanical things like chemical molecules reacting and not reacting are.

the fact that variations BETWEEN groups are minimal and variations WITHIN groups are greater really doesn't add to your feeble attempt at a genetic argument.

>>6529210
read the debate you retard.

lewontin did two things

first he revolutionized genetics and discovered electrophorasis and used that to find out humans don't really differ genetically between groups.

second he claimed because of the first races as a concept is meaningless.

they argue the second and agree that on the genetic level humans don't really differ between groups except for a scattered few genes.

[Anonymous No.6529241]

>>6529231
>>6529225
Dogs are a bad comparison to humans. Their rates of speciation are huge compared to humans. Overall humans barely vary throughout the planet by FST. Dog breeds on the other hands vary by huge amounts in comparison.

[Anonymous No.6529245]

>>6529231
no i wouldn't
the point im making is that over the last 20000 years of civilization or continued tribalism the people of each nation and region have undergone adaptation to suit their needs
I don't doubt that west europeans are on average more intelligent than subsaharans
By the same token I don't see many europeans winning the mens 100 metres anymore

We a different because of our needs in life
but that is no reason to parade superiority real or feigned as some here use to indicate their worth
thus pol pls go

>>6529241
It's an example thats close to home
Perhaps house cats would be a better example, little variation there

[Anonymous No.6529247]

>>6527699

fucking lol

if this doesn't show us the demographic concerned with this sort of information, nothing will.

[Anonymous No.6529251]

>>6529225
well you seem reasonable so i won't argue with you but here's the most recently accepted model.

wave one migrated out and went to australia or became ainu circa 100-80kya. this group bred with denisovans, more or less denisovans were more neandertal than homo sapiens.

wave two migrated out and bred with neanderthals 70kya, started seperating 45kya into east and west eurasians, and a few east eurasians and a smaller number of west eurasians went to north america 12kya.

this doesn't really matter though think of all these groups as a ring that are linked together. genes kept being swept into and out of africa and other areas for thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.6529260]

>>6529251
yeah I only have a rough idea
I just don't think the Denisovans and Neanderthals had the huge contribution some believe they had to the current shape of the human race

I believe any human population would have either killed them off or enveloped them entirely
the same way many empires have in recent history

[Anonymous No.6529272]

>>6529241
>Dogs are a bad comparison to humans
Only because they have been bred, if humans started controlling their own breeding in the same way the same sort of results would be seen. The point is there is no reason to say every animal but humans has differences between different 'breeds'.

And that russian study on those blue eyed foxes show that it only takes like three generations of selective breeding to turn a wild animal species into a domesticated floopy-eared tail-wagging facsimile of a dog.

[Anonymous No.6529277]

>>6529245

farming only took off 11kya, and it made life shittier for everyone. as soon as it happened people became shorter, more malnourished and i'd doubt they would have selected for any cognitive traits.

"history" took place for about 3-5kya for most regions, and civilization doesn't select on such short time frames, its hard to tell whether it did since its not something you can measure but nobody really knows such things.

i mean the same traits which made homo the dominant land species thrice ( human ancestors actually colonized the world frequently but kept dying off every ice age) was when we were hunter-gatherers. it made humans more clever, saw the rise of language, and saw people adapt to inductive and deductive thinking.

we didn't evolve "intelligence" in 10ky, we did it in 2-4 million years.

anyways athletic abilities is easily explained by body distribution. people who go north have bigger torsos smaller arms and legs to retain heat which causes differences in sports (for example strength sports favor one type agility sports favors another). stance runners.

http://www.livescience.com/10716-scientists-theorize-black-athletes-run-fastest.html

[Anonymous No.6529289]

>>6529260
there's no evidence for warfare at any site.

they needed to eat 5kcal but humans need 2kcals. when humans moved in they killed almost all the big game, who were also simultaneously dying off because of warmer climates.

I'd guess both more or less occurred, but hunter gatherers are actually more peaceful than not. there are some evidence of one very late human-neadertal "hybrid" 5 year old in a cave called "abrigo de lagar velho" but most of the evidence suggests the children would have been infertile.

the explanation that fits best is that humans were simply more efficient, and when they did mate it would have spelt extinction because of the infertile offspring

[Anonymous No.6529293]

>>6529277
>http://www.livescience.com/10716-scientists-theorize-black-athletes-run-fastest.html

I skimmed the article and couldn't find a link to a research paper.

Anyway, on the same topic a lot of people often think africans are all really good runners because of some really good dark skinned olympic runners. However most of those olympic competitors all come from one tribe that's known for being hardcore bad ass at running even within Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalenjin_people

[Anonymous No.6529298]

>>6529293
>tribe
err, I meant ethnic group.

[Anonymous No.6529304]

>>6529235
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=143PJEcScbQ

>humans don't really differ genetically between groups.
Yes they FUCKING do, why the fuck would they LOOK and ACT different?

God dammit im tired of arguing this shit, just because a difference seems superficial doesnt mean its insignificant or malleable.

What the fuck drives you to be so benevolent towards defending blacks? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO GAIN? THEIR RESPECT? YOU THINK THEY GIVE A SHIT WHETHER YOU DEFEND THEM ON SOME ONLINE FORUM? REALLY?

>but im just being skeptical

I know your being selectively skeptical towards this subject because if you applied this level of skpeticism towards reality then you would be dysfunctional.

im done with this shit, keep kissing "academic" ass, im out.

[Anonymous No.6529306]

>>6529298
thats what a tribe is, stop being so PC.

theres a 'tribe' in south america who are really into running all the time too, and they do it at some crazy high altitude if i recall properly. cant remember what they are called though, or where exactly in south america they inhabit. But its not africa, i know that.

[Anonymous No.6529312]

>>6529293
its interesting you mentioned that, these are long distance runners and the fact is that these are probably the most original human phenotype given thats where humans mostly lived for 4-6 million years until a few hundred thousand years ago.

humans exploded from where kenyans currently lived, and in fact evolved FOR long distance running, you see almost no sprinters here. i suspect they didn't have to adapt to cold temperatures and all ancestors ran like they did.

what's interesting though are that sprinters come from west africa, while virtually no famous marathoners do. i suspect dry climates means you go far to find food is the reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis

anyways as for the paper:

http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=454

[Anonymous No.6529318]

>>6529304
disagree with me i don't care but if you are going to pretend to use science to back you up i'm going to reply.

i'm not stupid enough to think everyone who is X are therefore evil. i mean i've met plenty of black people i've liked and did not like, just as i have with all groups. like normal people i'm going to judge people on what their personality says.

[Anonymous No.6529322]

>>6529306
I think you're referring to the Tarahumara, they're in Mexico.

There's some technical difference between Ethnic group and Tribe. As I understand it a tribe is a subdivision of an ethnic group. The Kalenjin are an ethnic group but have a lot of different subdivisions which we call tribes. It's also mentioned on the wiki page. They all speak different languages and shit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalenjin_people#Subdivisions

[Anonymous No.6529326]

>>6529304
>im done with this shit, keep kissing "academic" ass, im out.
Back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.6529331]

>>6529322
>>6529306
humans are innately able to run long distances.

i mean the fastest woman marathoner is a 30something year old british woman with kids. the japanese make up a good number of marathoners too.

evidence converges on the fact that all humans innately are able to run marathons. this makes sense i mean the progress going from lifting 100 to 200 pounds or running 10-5 seconds is remarkbly slow than training to run from 5k to 40k. this makes sense since slow-twitch muscles are faster to develop than high-twitch strength/speed muscles.

if all of us were forced to live on the savannahs i guarantee most people will within a year be able to marathon if they don't die.

[Anonymous No.6529338]

>>6529331
>the japanese make up a good number of marathoners too
Now that you mention that I think there's also a Japanese group historically known for being really good runners. I don't remember any details off the top of my head though, I could be mistaken.

I agree though, a lot of it probably comes down to these people are all in situations where they have to run a fuckload all their life. It's essentially like putting a whole city population on a soft running training program. Of course any people that you find that excel at running in that group will really blow others away.

[Anonymous No.6529340]

>>6529318
Where do you get the idea that acknowledging there are broad differing trends between racial groups means you stop judging each individual person individually?

I really want to know because its been my observation that people who are so adamantly for 'everyones the same' dont seem capable of understanding that you can judge a group of people as its own singular entity, with out judging any of the individual components.

There are always overlaps in the curves and the extremes are always unique cases which necessitate this, its about broad demographic categorization not making up some system where everyone is forced to conform to their racial stereotype. Its actually just like rpg racial bonuses. You can have a dwarf mage if you want, the stat difference wont matter too much when hes maxed level, but on the whole if you took 100 randomly selected dwarf mages and compared them to 100 randomly selected elf mages, the elves gonna have better average mage stats, objectively. Who will be the most powerful mage of them all? Statistically you would want to bet on an elf, but in the end the odds in their favor are only going to be a small percent and it could very well be a dwarf. If you then repeated this thousands of times times, and compared the best mage of each group, you may see it fall in line with the general % of better mage stats that elves have racially than dwarves.

Point is ive always felt that its people who are less willing to actually look at people as individuals who are threatened by the assertion that there are differences between races, as if they feel like if that's true they must try to cram everyone into certain molds. The purpose of looking at racial differences is more of one for the purpose of sociology, medicine, and perhaps large scale geopolitics if you have heavily skewed demographics, not individual-judging.

[Anonymous No.6529355]

>>6529340
I'm not that guy, but I think you're misinterpreting the posts.

>Anon claims that other groups all "look and act" different and therefore the trend exist.
>Second anon asserts that the first anon is incorrect since he knows individuals that don't "act" but "look" certain ways and so the argument cannot be justified (by contradiction).

The second anon wasn't making his own implication only sanity checking the argument of the first.

All that said, my issue is that it's just not rigorous. It's a subjective concept that belongs in the social sciences, not in proper science. One could say that it is a "social construct".