/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8975932]

Are northeast asians like Japanese/Koreans closer to Caucasians or southeast asians?

[Anonymous No.8975961]

how stupid do you have to be to ask this question

[Anonymous No.8975962]

bumpity

[Anonymous No.8975963]

>>8975961
Its legitimate, I heard someone say they were closer to Caucasians then SEA's

[Anonymous No.8975965]

southeast asians

[Anonymous No.8975969]

>>8975965
that picture makes it seem the opposite

[Anonymous No.8975970]

>>8975969
or am I not reading it correctly

[Anonymous No.8975972]

>>8975963
well if you heard someone say it then it must be legit

[Anonymous No.8975973]

>>8975970
You are, but the guy who posted it isn't

[Anonymous No.8975977]

>>8975972
well is it?

[Anonymous No.8975981]

>>8975932

genetically closer to southeast Asians, by a long shot.

[Anonymous No.8975986]

>>8975969

ancestry trees are mostly wrong. What it's trying to show there is that a north Eurasian race contributed ancestry to both Asians and Caucasoids.

That does not mean that Asians and Caucasoids both evolved from Eurasians.

[Anonymous No.8976023]

>>8975986
gotcha

[Anonymous No.8976041]

>>8975932
To verify I meant genetically not on the map lol

[Anonymous No.8976186]

>>8975963

Probably because they look closer. They look closer primarily because they're both cold adapted people with relatively light skin.

[Anonymous No.8976192]

>>8975965
>Fst distances far below 0.1

>WE ARE SO DIFFERENT!
kek

[Anonymous No.8976203]

>>8975932

The question is irrelevant. Race is a social construct, we are all just human beings. Genetically you probably have more in common with people living in the Congo than you do with your next door neighbor.

[Anonymous No.8976284]

>>8976203
>Race is a social construct
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. It's a semantically vacuous formula that people throw around. When people talk about race, they refer to differences in phenotype across human populations, difference which one expects to be rooted in genetics. Moreover, your claims about the genetics of Congolese people and your next door neighbor make it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Here may be a better board for you. >>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.8976399]

>>8976284
>When people talk about race, they refer to differences in phenotype across human populations, difference which one expects to be rooted in genetics

>not knowing the difference between differential phenotypical saliency and genotype

dark skin, and even different features, does not an ancestry make.

[Anonymous No.8976403]

>>8976203

This is wrong also. A given Japanese person will on average have more in common genetically with another Jap than with a Congolese.

However, 99% of the interest in this topic stems from the fact that we look different anyway. If we hypothetically all looked the same, but maintained our genetic ancestries, noone would give a shit.

[Anonymous No.8976513]

[Anonymous No.8976527]

>>8976399
>heritable features are not hereditary
wut?

[Anonymous No.8976949]

So NE Asians and WE typically have the O haplogroup?

[Anonymous No.8976952]

>>8976949
SE Asians

[Anonymous No.8976970]

>>8975986
that's exactly what it is saying retard

[Anonymous No.8976982]

>>8976403
We dont just look different from the outside there are literal tissue differences in races.

[Anonymous No.8977474]

>>8976982

and nobody would care (aside from some medical professionals) if we looked the same to begin with.

And there aren't literal tissue differences in races. East and west Africans are considered the same race by 99.9% of IRL people, yet lie at opposite ends of the muscle fiber spectrum.

[Anonymous No.8977937]

>>8976399
I'm going to assume you're being facetious and move on.

[Anonymous No.8978058]

>>8976949
So yes or no?

[Anonymous No.8978078]

>>8977937

same.

[Anonymous No.8978084]

How to stop a /pol/ thread:
obvious political comments

resurrected after long periods of no replies