[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 768 KB, 720x691, 80c447b47cb46cfce56de5fce26c7e162cb37be98c7784754120859395a808cc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8999770 No.8999770 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

I feel like this type of shit is comparing apples to bananas. Such disinformation talks about "evolution" despite the fact that dog breeding is about at unnatural as they come. Any thoughts?

>> No.8999778

The fuck are you even asking autist

>> No.8999783

If human selection is unnatural then humans are unnatural

>> No.8999785
File: 621 KB, 600x845, faq-races_faces.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Is there a real comparison between human races and dog breeds, despite being vastly different?

>> No.8999789

If you wanted to breed humans like dogs, you could take two albinos and after several generations get a "breed" of heavily inbred albino humans. It's not really the best idea ever.

>> No.8999792

it's pretty much true, we just avoid the subject because of how emotionally charged it is. I personally don't care that much, what is there even to gain by studying it?

>> No.8999803

Dog BREEDS were selectively bred unlike humans who bred on different continents for thousands of years. Dog breeds are vastly different compared to "races" aka ethnicities. It would be like comparing a Neanderthal to a Mongol man. But we don't consider dog breeds different species because there's not enough variations in the DNA. Just certain changes in the characteristics of behavior and physical form. But realize that I've studied little of this because I'm a mathfag.

>> No.8999826
File: 33 KB, 640x537, A4HHo5R-640x537.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

People want justification to treat everyone else like shit.

What about intelligence?

>> No.8999829

There's no solid separation of human races either that corresponds to "perceived" race. It's a continuum of different features. Australian aboriginals are the only group that stayed isolated for long enough to be considered "pure" in any sense.

>> No.8999847

I would never admit it in real life but I completely agree with the premise of the OP and have a hard time believing that people would disagree about it.

>> No.8999893

>People want justification to treat everyone else like shit.
Bullshit, if non whites were all given their own separate universe where they could flourish on their own and we would get our we would be happy with that.
Do you think niggers would be happy with that? Free from pigs? Free from whitey? No, and you know why.

>> No.8999900

Yeah, because they'd lose all their white friends
What other reason would there be?

>> No.8999909

>Do you think niggers would be happy with that? Free from pigs? Free from whitey? No, and you know why.
they were pretty happy in africa before whitey came

>> No.8999920

They all look like the same breed in different colours to me.
Get back to be when you finds some variation that comes close to OP's shitty strawman image.

>> No.9000019

>Any thoughts?
before that, can anybody tell me what the races are?
or name the races in this pic >>8999785

i'm confuzzled by it

>> No.9000079
File: 33 KB, 960x267, Race in Skulls (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

This is about as close as I could find. Most have a similar body type, save for high-altitude ethnic groups.

Most likely variations of the four major races: Caucasoid (European and Mediterranean), Negroid (African), Mongoloid (Asian and NA), and Australoid (Abos and Melanesians).

>> No.9000085

>Caucasoid (European and Mediterranean)
half the med is european - meaningless distinction

you are just a race denier that dare not admit what race meds are
the reason for that being is a few meds with the bad guy religion you don't like exist in places you don't want them to exist

>> No.9000099
File: 185 KB, 640x444, GiorgioC-caucasici.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Never said I didn't admit it, we all have reprobates in our family.

>> No.9000505
File: 49 KB, 610x690, impression-of-a-blue-eyed-hunter-gatherer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.9000520

>puts old people next to young ones to exaggerate the differences

>> No.9000531

Ironically, the site I got that from was trying to show the similarities.

>> No.9000541
File: 937 KB, 1525x2187, Breed vs Race.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

For a rough comparison.

>> No.9000552

Different breeds of dogs have higher genetic distances between them that the entire human population, and even dogs have much higher overall genetic diversity than humans.

Look up the Toba event.

>> No.9000553


Sure, they were pretty happy being a disparate continent of constantly warring and innumerable nations, with the odd empire scooping up slaves from their tiny neighbors like handfuls of candy.

>> No.9000555

What you retards need to understand is the concept of variation. All white people aren't the same, all black people aren't the same. Traits are found in every population in the world. Less than 2% of alleles are restricted to any one continent. It's extremely rare for one trait, like a particular looking nose or brow to only be found in one area.
picture is fake. Last skull is a Neanderthal, not a human skull. Others look like plastic models not meant to represent real skulls

Phrenology is not a real science.

>> No.9000571

That was every continent until about 300 years ago

>> No.9000580

>What you retards need to understand is the concept of variation. All white people aren't the same, all black people aren't the same. Traits are found in every population in the world. Less than 2% of alleles are restricted to any one continent. It's extremely rare for one trait, like a particular looking nose or brow to only be found in one area.
You realize the features termed "caucasoid" apply not onky to white people, but to Indians, Middle Easterners, and those living in the Horn of Africa, yes?

>picture is fake. Last skull is a Neanderthal, not a human skull. Others look like plastic models not meant to represent real skulls

>Phrenology is not a real science.
Was discussing racial characteristic, not some behavioral mumbo-jumbo.

>> No.9000589

Skulls cannot be accurately used to identify someone's race. That is pseudoscience. You can, to a certain degree, get an estimate of someone's race based on certain bones, but not just a picture of a skull. Variations in skull features are found in every race. Your idea that somehow one skull can represent an average from an entire race is retarded, and it is in fact just a continuation of phrenology.

>> No.9000610
File: 37 KB, 500x375, tumblr_inline_neysxpM7H71r173tz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I never claimed such, however there are certain characteristics which, to a certain degree, only appear in a certain pattern among certain ethnic groups.


>> No.9000617

Perhaps you should read your source. As I already said, you can't just look at someone's skull. Only the maxilla and zygomatic arch are listed there are methods for determination. That is a small section of the nose, and a small area where the jaw meets the skull visually.

Size or shapes of overall features, like eyes, brows, or overall dimensions cannot be used to determine race

>> No.9000650

People may overinflate the differences and confuse environmental differences with biological differences but there are differences and science has narrowed it down.

Also yes, there is no moral obligation for you to not judge people by these differences, whether they are biological or environmental. An ubermensch would do nothing less.

Any black people will be relieved to hear that the differences are overshadowed by environmental differences and individual genetic variation. Also if someone made it out the ghetto and is now a physicist that's something I guess, though in 2017 is largely as irrelevant as all the other factors. Also succumbing to emotions like hate is irrational and so our ubermensch should be unaffected by it. You will be judged by merit. If that is still a problem, you are the cause. You can whine to the ends of the earth but intelligent reasonable people will never be on your side on that one and will undermine you as much as they can.

>> No.9000655
File: 39 KB, 271x240, bindaboo1c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'm just using them as they were listed. I didn't determine what race they were, nor do I claim to, but I certainly see the differences. Also, you haven't addressed how the "Neanderthal" skull is from a Bindaboo tribesman, not a caveman.

>> No.9000708

so you don't think this applies to more "naturally bred" animals?

>> No.9000715

>Pit bulls are aggressive
Fuck you

>> No.9000724 [DELETED] 

Italians DNA is a mix between Nordic (British, etc) & Mideast (Arab,Afghan, Paki, Egyptian etc).

>> No.9000731


Med (Italian, Greek, Hispanic) DNA is a transition
between Nordic (British, German, Dutch, Scandinavian etc)
& Mideast (Arab, Persian, Turk, Afghan, Paki, Egyptian etc).

>> No.9000735

>t. pitbull

>> No.9000785
File: 297 KB, 582x2169, 1497721541974.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Did you know that the entire human species has less genetic diversity than a a single troop of chimpanzees? Humans had a massive genetic drift event in our past, possibly the Mt toba super volcano 65kya. We are talking 10-15,000 humans total on the whole planet.

Any differences humans have are genetic super small, and certainly don't justify any real special designation as sub-species. People will point to the thirty different crows that all look alike, but are separate species. they fail to acknowledge the technical definition of species being the ability to create viable offspring, and we all know race mixing is totally a thing.

Really though, the differences between humans is really not that much. Alot is just the whole needing more melonin on the equator for folic acid production thing, and that northern peoples need less for vitamin D. Burgmans and Allen rules about how lanky skinny critters do better in the heat than fatter stubbier critters in the cold takes up another big chunk.

Human faces are a big harder to categorize, but I know for sure humans have evolved very special attention to the differences between faces. Looking like your father would be a big advantage, basically helping your dad decide to stick around and help raise the kid. Blue eyes and red heads are thought to be a part of that.

> I got an A in Anthro 101, I think I know what I'm talking about. Also dogs are special, think about how much humans have messed with them over the years. Wolves look pretty similar to each other.

>> No.9000871

Black people already realise we are subhuman what do you stand to gain from constantly putting us down like this

>> No.9000960


>> No.9000972


>> No.9000992

wow dude you're good, keep writing.

>> No.9000994


Yes, dog breeds, human races, human ethnic groups, human families, and individuals are all different from each other.

human races are much closer to each other than different dog breeds.

>> No.9000998

mongoloids > caucasoids > negroids

light > dark

All we need to do now is exterminate european """"people"""" so the Finns can take over, and CRISPR all the chinks to have blue eyes.

>> No.9001001
File: 395 KB, 1360x1356, craniofacial trait distance.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'm an HBDer, and about 98% of everything ever uttered by people who follow this type of stuff is complete bullshit.

If you want a fun experiment, look at what some of the popular HBD bloggers said back in 2009, vs. what they say today.

Almost every one of them is a dogmatic insecure retard with an axe to grind. Some actually have a legitimate interest in it.

>> No.9001007
File: 675 KB, 1898x2555, Jens_Byggmark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Finland = 75% Nordic White + 25% East Asian.

Finns are the true Master race.

>> No.9001027
File: 29 KB, 812x727, creation of finland.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


We need to kill whitey and let the mongol horde rape his women, so that there may be more Finns on this earth.

>> No.9001076

For fuck's sake, why is it relevant whether or not certain races are prone to higher or lower intelligence or tendency towards violence or any other thing in this /pol/ tier thread? Outliers exist, regardless of what the norm is. Just make the standard the same for everyone, and even if the mean for a certain race is below the standard, the useful outliers will present themselves. All that's accomplished by trying to "prove" that niggers are inferior (or whatever your aim is) is sowing division in society and making a bunch of people angry. There is literally no practical use for the information.

>> No.9001100
File: 38 KB, 900x900, 1495825827105.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Identity politics needs to die.

Also btw OP, I found you in pic related.

>> No.9001122


Dog breeds take maybe 5 years to get a new generation and require much less time to speciate, so you can imagine that making a dog subspecies through selection doesn't even require an entire century of selection.

The last human race was the neanderthal.

>> No.9001167

Yes, races/ethnicities and breeds are analogous. Dogs and humans both have genomes, the same principles apply to both. Dog breeds can be created over only a few generations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jFGNQScRNY
Humans have 'unnaturally' selected each other for breeding over tens of thousands of generations. Now we have different races.

>Skulls cannot be accurately used to identify someone's race
yes they can
>idea that somehow one skull can represent an average from an entire race is retarded
'average' literally is one thing representing the entirety

>human species has less genetic diversity than a a single troop of chimpanzees
Not a single troop, different troops from different parts of africa. Different groups of chimps are recognised as being distinct, all this means is that those chimp groups are more distinct than human groups. Does not mean human groups aren't distinct.
>don't justify any real special designation as sub-species

>A species is commonly defined as the largest group within which interbreeding produces viable offspring. A sub-species is a subgroup below the level of a species. One definition is a group which can interbreed successfully with other subspecies, but does not do so in practice (e.g. due to geographical isolation)
Subspecies are exactly what human races are.

>> No.9001176

Because people make decisions and policy based on 'everyone is equal' type beliefs.

The race-denier's explanation is for racial gaps is racism, which is a wrong that needs to be righted. As long as gaps in crime, education, income, life expectancy etc. remain 'racism' still exist it means the poor colored people are suffering the injustice of the evil white man's oppression. That is where social division and anger come from. And if the deniers are right the injustice is real and the anger is appropriate.

But if the race-realists are right and niggers are just stupid and violent then the various racial gaps are just the way things are. Some useful outliers will make the grade, there will still be an overall gap but the gaps aren't injustices that we need to get into us vs them fights about.

So actually I think people not knowing about the differences that exist contributes a lot to social problems.

>> No.9001185
File: 152 KB, 391x600, cranium.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Yes, races/ethnicities and breeds are analogous. Dogs and humans both have genomes, the same principles apply to both
Cats would probably be a better analogue, as dogs are a bit more "pliable" when it comes to phenotypical characteristics. (See >>9000541)

>Subspecies are exactly what human races are.
Not enough genetic drift has occured to distinguish them as such. Now if they were isolated like the many subspecies of Erectus during the early to mid pleistocene, you'd have a point. But as it stands, the only group that has been relatively "isolated" are the abos, and that's only for a geologically short time.

>races are different
No shit, but that doesn't justify treating them like shit.

>denier-realist dichotomy
Never stoop to your oponent's level by trying to claim the ethical high-ground.

>> No.9001205
File: 10 KB, 574x511, gdist.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Not enough genetic drift has occured to distinguish them as such
How much drift is needed? There's not a hard number for it.
As it is geographic isolation has been enough for measurable genetic distances between phenotypically distinct groups. Where you draw the subspecies line is a bit arbitrary but only difference is whether it divides humans into the three major races (negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid) or dozens of smaller ethnic groups.

>doesn't justify treating them like shit
I don't advocate shit treatment.
However... I do wonder why race denial is a thing when race is so obviously a reality. I don't think anyone is surprised or upset about olympic sprinters and basketballers all being black.
Talking about things like intelligence and crime differences is what upsets people. My theory on what motivates deniers is intelligence and moral character are distinctly human things and a hierarchy there implies groups have more or less humanity. And that opens the door to shit treatment on a group level.

>> No.9001333

>race denial is a thing
It isn't
>athletes being black
Only the /pol/-tier "realists" think that black people are genetically more physically fit. Normal people know their prominence in certain sports is cultural. Where are the black hockey players?

>> No.9001345

>How much drift is needed? There's not a hard number for it.

Not hard, but quite proximate taking into account and H.Sapiens neanderthalensis and 20 years per human generation.

35.000 generations, and every human generation takes 20 years(700.000 years), random mutations might happen and shorten this time but we don't have any additional H.Sapiens subspecies in the fossil registry.

Humanity never really had something stopping the geneflow for so long, not even the indians much less Africa, and Africa is where you can see more genetic variation since they never suffered a founders effect.

The first time humanity expanded was with H.erectus, 2 million years ago, and we saw that H.erectus had many variations in Asia, Africa, Europe, middle east... but always probably was H.erectus.

Then we find H.Heidelberguensis, for around 300.000 years(appeared 600.000 years ago and disappeared 300.000 years ago)(which makes it quite hard to call it species but we don't have genetic data anyway), and neanderthalensis, which clearly interbred with humans so we its far easier to say that it was a race and while it only happened with "Neanderthal man over sapiens woman" we can say that we are talking about subspecies.

And Neanderthals appeared 300ky ago and disappeared 34 ky ago, without never getting into species.

So to say that, we should start calling people in the east H.Sapiens Asian or similar, taking into account that:
>Not enought time has passed since H.Sapiens sapiens came around 171.000 years ago in Africa, and expanded around 100.000 years ago(I don't have the exact numbers at hand right now but around that)
>The geneflow was never really cut and assimilation is what is what is more probable that happened.
>Since erectus that humanity always had many geographical variations with no clear speciation(and even Paranthropus boisei I have heard that only was a HUGE variation)

I would say that we are not seeing races around the world, but rather clines.

>> No.9001407
File: 387 KB, 650x429, races3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

No, see https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne/5/3/454
Just because they're good at one sport doesn't mean they're good at them all, and race is real at the same time.
>It isn't
It's enough of a thing that you just did it.
/pol/ are the only ones willing to touch race science, that automatically makes them the world's leading authority on it. We could get some higher quality work done on it if it wasn't taboo.

Have I entirely missed the point?
Maybe I should be saying clines instead of races if I want to use the official vernacular but ultimately I'm still talking about the same thing - there are various human groups that are genetically and phenotypically distinct.
It's not as extreme in humans as in dogs but it's not different in principle.
Proof: absolutely no problem guessing the breeds and races in pic.

>> No.9001419


When you say races, you are saying subspecies, and then we can start to see things like Haldane's rule or that they are about to speciate because the geneflow is not enough or selective pressures are gigantic.

When you say cline, you basically say that there are phenotypic variations in populations, but they are all the same subspecies and species, just that they can express a great variety of traits.

I would say its quite different.

>> No.9001421

The breed on the right is a cat.

>> No.9001436

>It's enough of a thing that you just did it.
You're not getting it. There is no such thing as denying race, simply acknowledging it's abritrarity. Black people have different skin and tendencies for other features. That's simply how we decided to define race though. Those same type of physical differences differentiate everybody. My white family is taller than most other white people's families. We also all have big noses, as it runs in the family. Are we a different race? Why not? Because we define race mostly on skin color?

In the paper you sited, the fact that the subpopulations who developed those physical differences belonged to one skin color or another doesn't make a difference. Because there are many subpopulations within the same race that do not exhibit those characteristics. The best runners also happen to be Ethiopian or Kenyan specifically, so of course they're black. But to say people with dark skin are better runners is false and arbitrary.

>> No.9001451

Races are as close to breeds as they come though. A Maori separated by 20,000 years from a European still contains all the same genes from which you could selectively breed somebody resembling a European using artificial selection, and vice-versa. Same with dogs, you can breed a golden retriever from a pug and a pug from golden retrievers. Evolution is not occurring in either case, since all of these genes remain across all humans and dog breeds alike.

>> No.9001455

Whites can be athletic

>> No.9001457

Okay well if I ask wikipedia,

In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies. It has been used as a higher rank than strain, with several strains making up one race.[1][2] Various definitions exist. Races may be genetically distinct phenotypic populations of interbreeding individuals within the same species,[3] or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically.[4] Genetic isolation between races is not complete, but genetic differences may have accumulated that are not (yet) sufficient to separate species.[5]

'Various definitions' so confusion about what it means is inevitable.

Doesn't look like it needs restricted geneflow or for races to be on the verge of speciation. I'd say your cline is closer in meaning to wikipedia's race.
You can call them human clines if you want, I'll call them races.

And apparently domestic dog breeds are all the same SUBspecies, so dog breeds are taxonomic race rank.

>> No.9001473
File: 39 KB, 720x405, ndt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Yeah I know.
So I'm curious about this type of response.
(I did say olympic sprinters and basketballers are _all_ black but that's overgeneralized, I have seen white people sprint or play basketball. Forget I said it)

When I say "whites are smarter than blacks" then a very common response is someone saying "wrong, see neil degrasse tyson" as if that disproves everything.
But when I say whites are smarter than blacks I mean it as in population distributions, like men being taller than women. Some men are midgets, some women are giants, but overall on average men are taller than women and most men are taller than most women.
Do people understand it in the sense of distributions or is that lost on most people?

But it's not arbitrary. Your family are more closely related to you than others, ethnic groups/races or whatever you call them are related to each other like in >>9001205 the genetic distance chart. The word might be arbitrary but the genetic distance isn't.
>Are we a different race? Why not?
No because race is more like at 0.012 genetic distance than 0.000000001.
>Because there are many subpopulations within the same race that do not exhibit those characteristics.
So then races can be subdivided into ethnicities and so on. That's not a problem.
>to say people with dark skin are better runners is false and arbitrary.
Except it's true according to that paper and olympic medals.
>(pls see 1st half of this comment)
Do you understand "people with dark skin are better runners" refers to population frequency distributions? Do you think it means the slowest black man is still faster than the fastest white man?

>> No.9001488
File: 183 KB, 625x405, height.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

95% of women are shorter than 95% of men
the overlap between male height and female height is very small

same can't be said about intelligence
your comparison is stupid and is prime example why using analogies is deception

>> No.9001496

>When I say "whites are smarter than blacks" then a very common response is someone saying "wrong, see neil degrasse tyson"
That never happened

>> No.9001506
File: 28 KB, 1357x800, map_iq.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It's not an exact quote but that's how it goes, see >>9001488 for example.

Why? Because of smaller overlap?
>analogies is deception
Analogies demonstrate the principle in a clear, familiar way. They're not supposed to be taken as identical. The overlap may be smaller but the distributions are still different.

But actually the intelligence overlap might be smaller than you think. If average african IQ is 70 and white 100 (which believe them or not are the figures race scientists have arrived at) and SD is 15 then 85% of whites are smarter than 85% of africans.

>stupid, deception
this is also race denial
Why do people argue so hard against the truth?

>> No.9001516

If whites are better than blacks then why isn't neil degrasse tyson replaced?

>> No.9001518

No, only retarded /pol/niggers who can't into modern genetics think that.

>> No.9001521
File: 78 KB, 640x533, neckbeard-lighter-640x533.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>race scientists

>> No.9001546

Did you read >>9001473?
He's like an unusually tall girl. No need to replace him because he reaches the requisite intellectual height.

>> No.9001548
File: 78 KB, 960x695, 1497290523721.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>/pol/ are the only ones willing to touch race science, that automatically makes them the world's leading authority on it

just like jenny mccarthy is the foremost global expert on the connection between vaccines and autism? or how jill stein is one of the foremost experts in the field of crystal energy? please, anon.

>> No.9001555
File: 262 KB, 500x600, 1494512634201.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>higher standard-of-living correlates with higher IQ
that's crazy, anon. blow my mind harder. tell me more about how the only reason there are so many black men in pro basketball is because of biological differences, and not the fact that they self-select for it culturally AND that NBA scouts look out specifically for black up-and-coming players because of centuries of tautological self-justifying stereotypes.

>> No.9001558

yeah I wonder why black men are in basketball despite how whites are taller than them on average

>> No.9001559

Those guys have been proven wrong though.

Meanwhile there's no evidence that blacks are as smart as whites, or that whites sprint as fast as blacks, and plenty to the contrary. Problem is you're not allowed to say it because it's politically incorrect (enter /pol/).

Larry Summers lost his job over saying women might not be as capable in hard sciences as men. It's taboo, not crank science. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Honestly I'm surprised anons on sci aren't more scientifically minded about it all.

>> No.9001564

China is not >105 though.

>> No.9001566

>or that whites sprint as fast as blacks, and plenty to the contrary.
Dude, I already explained this to you. The top sprinters will be a certain subpopulation of Ethiopian/Kenyan. It has nothing to do with race. Take away those subpopulations, and it gets way more diverse.

>> No.9001567

>higher IQ enables a higher standard of living
>believing this makes you a nazi
cmon anon
What's crazy is the lengths deniers will go to.
Where's the science? If anyone should have it this board should.

>only reason
Again a very common response. Don't know whether people legitimately don't understand reality or are strawmanning deniers.
Genetics isn't everything, it matters more for some things than others. Environment/culture plays a part.
But how many african pygnies would make it onto an NBA team? Even if basketball was their culture they're still too fucking short to be competitive for biological reasons.
Think about it guys.

>> No.9001571

yeah no way can china be >105.
DELETE THIS>>9001506


>> No.9001572

no, it IS crank science. recall that it's been less than a century since blacks were an OFFICIAL underclass in the USA, and then ruminate on the kinds of effects that being kept as slaves for hundreds of years, kept purposefully under-educated, discriminated against LEGALLY for another century, and shafted repeatedly by institutions might cause in a population. then consider the relationship between causation and correlation.

it's just not possible at this time to tease out what biological differences may exist between populations like different races or genders. it's too early. when global standard-of-living has been stable for a healthy number of generations, and cultural predjudices and stereotypes have been extinct for the same duration, then, if there are still noticeably self-segregated ethnicities, can you hope to draw conclusions. anything before that point is wild extrapolation.

>> No.9001575
File: 1.17 MB, 1488x1854, Subspecies vs Race.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>this guy thinks the bottom is equivalent to the top

>> No.9001578

ok update us once you find some better data

>top sprinters will be a certain subpopulation of Ethiopian/Kenyan. It has nothing to do with race
>nothing to do with race
I don't know what to tell you anon.

Seems like just accepting the truth would be a lot easier for you than trying to argue against it.

>> No.9001585

in the US, but compare them to UK blacks who were never slaves or african blacks and you see all the same patterns holding
>not possible at this time to tease out what biological differences
it's more possible than ever before, we have whole genome sequencing and computers powerful enough to crunch the data, better sociological data gathering, better statistical methods and all the results are coming out the same way

>> No.9001586

Exactly. That's why saying blacks (which includes pygmies) are biologically better at basketball, is meaningless. And you're really underestimating the cultural factors that lead to black people dominating basketball or white people dominating hockey. Even if there was some obtuse biological factor that makes someone good at basketball vs hockey somehow, it's way overshadowed by culture.

>> No.9001599

>That's why saying blacks (which includes pygmies) are biologically better at basketball, is meaningless

It's as meaningless as saying men (which includes midgets) are biologically taller than women.

It just means the word 'blacks' when used in the US about NBA is referring to US blacks and ignoring a lot of different african blacks. It's not a big deal, most people don't bother including pygmy exceptions in everyday speech because they don't need to. It only causes 'confusion' when deniers need to twist things into deniable shapes.

But blacks are better than whites at basketball. If you want to be more specific about what type of blacks these guys are you can try looking it up, maybe they're jamaicans or somalis, idk. They're definitely not pygmies though.

>> No.9001606
File: 1.42 MB, 1920x1080, Capoid-People.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Are you applying this to Afro-Americans, or the racial group as a whole? Please do be specific.

>> No.9001609


>> No.9001610

>But blacks are better than whites at basketball.
You say this as if there are people denying it. I maintain that it is hugely cultural though. You must prove it to be biological before making that claim. Sprinting abilities wouldn't translate to basketball of all things.

>> No.9001650

Applying to whatever group it applied to in the comment that was being responded to.
Both blacks and whites in the US play basketball with enough cultural seriousness to make it into the NBA if they're competitive. By population NBA teams would be mostly white but they're majority black. This is statistical evidence that blacks outcompete whites in basketball.
No pygmies have ever made it, despite black cultural advantage. This is for biological rather than cultural reasons.
Where's the evidence that it's cultural?

>> No.9001669

>evidence that it's cultural

>> No.9001692

Here is a decent explanation:
I can add more to that, like how socioeconomics, public policy, and education can all contribute to the cultural connection of black people to basketball.

>> No.9001702


Many people see the 108 for Hong Kong and think that is the average for China. Furthermore, Lynn et al. often uses PISA scores as proxies for IQ tests. It's no secret that China, for example, has been only selecting its top students in Shanghai to write it.

People need to realize that most countries don't have good IQ samples (and the testing they do do usually are biased towards the extremes of the spectrum) and standardized tests are used instead.

>> No.9001714


I tend to avoid using the n-word, but it's like you never read roots.

The biggest slavers in African countries were other Africans of competing tribes.

Even the perception of racial differences results in a fucking race war and ensuing genocide there.

Ever heard of Rwanda?

Im not claiming to be an expert, but if you isolated Africa and South America like the person you're responding to - particularly before lifetime slavery became hugely popular - you likely would have a lot of tribal infighting until someone tripped over themselves hard enough to develop sophisticated war machines.

>> No.9001722

>own separate universe
That's great. Go back to Europe. AMERICA FOR THE AMERINDIANS.

>> No.9001723

>you likely would have a lot of tribal infighting until someone tripped over themselves hard enough to develop sophisticated war machines.
Indeed. That's a basic developmental step of any civilization.

>> No.9001726

Incas were superior to europeans.

>> No.9001729

>south america
They were in the bronze age. They arrived 15000 years after savage europeans settled on Europe.

We are replacing you. You can't do anything. Your race is dying.

United Hispanic States.

>> No.9001734

But to be clear, though,

Without the developments in math and science brought about by the incredibly fortunate rapid-but-not-crushing arms race between the states of Europe, much of them would still be tribal - such as how many countries still are.

But tribal states can still modernize if they take unilateral action - take Japan's adaptation of dutch military in the transition from the Edo to the Meiji period.

What keeps many countries in 'Third World' status is shit like basic birth control, lack of public education, and the corruption of whatever political leaders they have.

>> No.9001735

Then why were they conquered by Europeans? Moron.

>> No.9001740

Incorrect. We were genocided. The pestilence of the dirty european who didn't know how to take a bath, brought dangerous bacteria to our lands. The civil war we were experiencing left our empire celebrating it. The natives were the protagonist of the fall of the empire.

Subhuman europeans didn't conquer shit. They only keep doing what they did on europe. They backstabbed everyone even their own men.


>> No.9001749

I do have sympathy for the plight of native American (both north and south, of course), and I admire their mathematical, astrological, and cultural achievements. Yes disease played a role in their demise, but you are a fool if you deny that European technology and warfare didn't equally aid their victory.

>> No.9001761

>european technology
Most battles were between natives. Spanish didn't do shit. The rest of the battles, the archeological research and the corpses, all of them are natives and had contusions made by inca weapons. Only a handle of battles were fought by spanish savages. They just picked a side and let their pestilence genocide our people.

Aztec savages were inferior anyway, they didn't even get the Mayan culture correctly.

Also, horses are useless against Incas. Most INCA battles were in the mountains. There is no corpse found on most battles that show a native being shot by spanish weapons.

Incas were superior to europeans.

>> No.9001772


The thread was surprisingly civil until this enchilada showed up.

>> No.9001776

Enchiladas are delicious, and don't call me a mexican mutt. At least they are the same level as your subhuman race.

>> No.9001778


lol thanks paco

>> No.9001780

You all aren't subhuman. A few tribes are Jew tier. The rest should go back to Africa or enter the eugenics phase of America when we take all of those european savages out of there.

>> No.9001783
File: 1.15 MB, 600x845, cvbvb.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

For all the retards that think different looking face= race

I color coded all the racial groups in this picture.

>> No.9001789


>> No.9001797

>>9001783 >>9001789

India Pajeet DNA is half Abo & White

Southeast Asia DNA is half India Pajeet & half East Asian.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid_race

>> No.9001800

Blue Caucasoid
Red Mongoloid
Green Negroid
Purple Australoid

>> No.9001802

No Indians are a different Caucasoid subrace from whites you fucking retard
>but but they have pale skin

So what? So fucking what?

>> No.9001865
File: 343 KB, 1158x1600, The five races of Mankind, 1911.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.9001873

The girl with the dot on her forehead is not australoid

>> No.9001887
File: 120 KB, 1200x542, b91615_5844609.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Indian is Australoid
How many layers of ideology are you on?

>> No.9001905
File: 108 KB, 500x410, 4312256811_bb82bab0e2_z.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>>9001802 >>9001887

It says on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is wrong then try to edit it
(The Wikipedia Mods won't let you so obviously you can't)

India Pajeet DNA is Half-Caucasoid & Half-Australoid.
The North India is more Caucasoid.
The South India is more Australoid.


>> No.9001950
File: 38 KB, 658x475, unnamed (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>The South India is more Australoid.
But that doesn't negate the fact that they're also caucasoid.

Nice meme.

>> No.9002118

>People need to realize that most countries don't have good IQ samples (and the testing they do do usually are biased towards the extremes of the spectrum) and standardized tests are used instead.
could be happening in every country.
Maybe blacks are the only ones that don't cheat?

>> No.9002121

Most pakis aren't whitish

>> No.9002618
File: 175 KB, 1240x1268, HO206a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>mfw this is what racists think race is

>> No.9003047

Leaving aside the whole pointless discussion of inherent racial attributes, isn't it just common sense that people of radically different origins living together is a recipe for disaster?

Humans throughout history have preferred to keep to homogenous groups.

>> No.9003052


People migrate all the time throughout history.

>> No.9003071

Go to a major US city sometime.

>> No.9003088

>Evolution is real
>Intelligence is not
You suffer from cognitive dissonance like every SJW.
Species evolve differently, and what's not needed it's cut-off.
Humans who lived in harsh environments developed different skills, that's why places closer to the Poles have better human development index.
I am not racist, darkies are less inteligent while Asians are Asians are more intelligent. You can't interpret simple patterns.

>> No.9003097

>Humans who lived in harsh environments developed different skills, that's why places closer to the Poles have better human development index.
That's not how evolution works.

>> No.9003099

>places closer to the Poles have better human development index.

You know that these were backward places around 100 years ago right? And 100 years ago Europe was cucked by middle easterners and northern Africans.

And China is not in the poles and for around 1000 was far more powerful than Europe and could have been the one that colonized the rest of the world but they literally said "its too expensive fuck it"(see treasure voyages)

You confuse race with intelligence, intelligence with success and modern history with all history.

>> No.9003109

Are you trying to prove my point here, or something?

>> No.9003117

....no? I'm saying evolution isn't a constant striving towards enhancement. Throwing a species into a harsh environment doesn't make it evolve into something "superior." There's an equally real chance that a lower-calorie diet from harsh environments can lead to diminished cognitive abilities.

>> No.9003121

I don't believe that any race is inherently better or worse than any other. I just don't think they should live together. In my ideal world, every people would have their own ethnostate.

>> No.9003149

Is it because they do not assimilate or is it because you feel uncomfortable around them?

>> No.9003389

>And 100 years ago Europe was cucked by middle easterners and northern Africans
You're an idiot.

>> No.9003396


Well 1000 years ago, sorry for the typo.

>> No.9003426

Anyone who values diversity actually should want segregation.

If races and cultures are all thoroughly mixed, then there will be NO diversity. Everyone will be the same shade of brown, with all the same cultural traditions.

>> No.9003436
File: 17 KB, 313x339, 1373009551696.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9003465

People don't value diversity because of all duh pretty colurs. They value diversity because they don't want people to be excluded because of their race. They don't have a problem with everyone being brown (which wouldn't happen by the way).

>> No.9003470
File: 19 KB, 400x384, art-factory-color-wheel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>mixing evething together
>not getting more glasses to mix the colors in new and unexpected ways

>> No.9003496


Human evolution is also as unnatural as it gets. Who determines if two dogs get to breed? Humans. Who determines if two humans get to breed? Also humans.

>> No.9003501
File: 1.14 MB, 446x469, 8ad6b789b22c5ffa4f0b8dbea6ed225ab327b14db0de6ffa5791ba8a6d9807e2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Who determines if two frogs get to breed? Frogs.
>Who determines if two mouse deer get to breed? Mouse deer.
>Who determines if two tamanduas get to breed? Tamaduas.

>> No.9003724
File: 204 KB, 584x570, FstSubspecies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Did you know that the entire human species has less genetic diversity than a a single troop of chimpanzees

You realize how this really doesn't mean much when we're talking about phenotypical difference? There is no correlation between genetic diversity and the number of recognized subspecies. After all, African are said to have the highest genetic diversity (although I'm not sure how or why this claim is being made), compared to non-African. Assuming this is true, that doesn't tell us much because non-Africans clearly have more phenotypical differences compared to Africans.

>> No.9003742

Subspecies is not defined. It's an arbitrary term used to describe any number of grouping criteria being done by whoever is doing a study. It could be genetic or phenotypical.

>> No.9003753

I swear, this is the same negro that appears in every single IQ thread saying the same stupid shit "muh /pol/ boogeyman".

Everything in this world is genetic idiot. All life on Earth are just physical representation of genes. Blacks may not be represented in the NHL because of "culture", but they easily could since they are genetically prone to certain positions in hockey. Racial gaps exist everywhere in everything that can be measured because they are a product of genetics. There may be blacks in the NFL, but there is a reason there is no over representation of blacks in NFL coaches, and its genetic.

Race and gene deniers are fucking annoying. There is an overlap, since race deniers deny the genes can influence anything period.

>> No.9003770
File: 164 KB, 946x812, 1464936872605.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It's not arbitrary though, its a useful heuristic to categorize differences. Like race.

>> No.9003792

...if you choose to define it that way, quite the same way we decided to define race. You can use your eyes if you want. Or geography. There's no genetic definition for subspecies. It's up to the taxonomist.

>> No.9003929
File: 175 KB, 634x763, 0BC017E6000005DC-0-image-a-28_1465297989729.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>says black people play basketball better because "muh genetics"
>won't admit that Chinamen are objectively smarter than white people for the same reason

>> No.9003973

How will there be the same cultural traditions?
And why should people care about diversity of colour?

>> No.9003976

>says Chinamen are objectively smarter even though whites contributed most to the world

>> No.9003982 [DELETED] 


The guy who formulated the indo-aryan migration hypothesis was killed at Nuremberg, i'm starting to think he was onto something.

>> No.9004025
File: 17 KB, 250x243, 250px-Truganini_and_last_4_tasmanian_aborigines.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9004062

You just described Europe for the past 5,000 years, dumbass.

>> No.9004086

>Who determines if two frogs get to breed? Natural and/or sexual selection.
>Who determines if two mouse deer get to breed? Natural and/or sexual selection.
>Who determines if two tamanduas get to breed? Natural and/or sexual selection.


>> No.9004117

So that would mean
> Who determines if two humans get to breed? Natural and/or sexual selection.

>> No.9004130

Right, dog breeds were from artificial selection, rather than natural selection. The problem with that line of reasoning, is the method of selection doesnt matter. The degree of selection matters, and natural selection can be as brutal and fast as artificial selection under the right conditions.

Human evolution today is as fast as its ever been.

>> No.9004159
File: 735 KB, 300x200, tenor[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9004164

>Human evolution today is as fast as its ever been

A statement, but no reasoning? What did he mean by this?

>> No.9004296

No, jews discriminate white genetic freaks thats why niggers infest sports in the West.

>> No.9004303

Races can't all mix you retards. Genetics is not paint.

Humans only mate from two parents, and offspring only get DNA from their parents. One child can't have 100 parents.

The very idea that believe we would all mix together shows you have zero understand of basic genetics, or how genetic variation works.

>> No.9004308

phenotype means nothing in terms of genetic, since environmental factors are also in play

>> No.9004311
File: 165 KB, 303x311, Only_10_Int.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You really understand nothing about genetics, wow.

>> No.9004314

There actually are hard genetic definitions for subspecies, however the largest genetic distances between humans don't go above 0.16 (on a 0 to 1 scale) and we are a large interbreeding population, so there is no way in hell you could divide humans into different subspecies.

>> No.9004317

/pol/tards believe in complete determinism.. by guess is this is also the reason they are so comfortable and smug in their stupidity. They just accept they are stupid.

>> No.9004327

Fucking retarded kennel clubs have ruined dogs. What they did to those breeds is unconscionable.

>> No.9004328

Okay, you can say that some group believes in "complete determinism" and then vaguely refer to "/pol/tards" to avoid naming names, when on virtually any issue of importance it's environmental determinist crazies versus proponents of 40 to 80 percent between group heritabilities.

>> No.9004330

The Finns have existed in Europe far longer than indoeuropeans.

>> No.9004332

There is no such thing as "environmental determinism crazies."

What is retarded is claiming things like "we can control for all /ignore environmental factors!" when it comes to complex things like intelligence.

You also do not understand the problem. It doesn't matter how heritable intelligence is in humans overall.. the claim is that different races have different heritability, or "worse" genetics, for intelligence. Even if intelligence was 99% genetic if we all had the same genetics for intelligence, average differences between groups would be attributed solely to environmental factors.

>> No.9004688

You genocided amerindians and oppresed them.

You will go back to europe.

>> No.9004743

I am in Europe actually, France to be specific.
Even if i wasn't it still doesn't argue the fact that whites made the most inventions

>> No.9004752

>we can control for all /ignore environmental factors!

I don't think no one is claiming that intelligence is completely environmental, just that the genetic part of it is too homogeneous and small to be taken into account or deserve some attention

>> No.9004886

are you implying their IQ is too low to figure out how to cheat?

>> No.9004891

chinks have higher IQ on average
if you exclude verbal, the difference is even more pronounced

it's a small (imo insignificant) difference, but it's there

>> No.9004908

Excluding chinks the Asians are a more civilized breed of humans in general compared to Caucasoid. Notice Caucasoids are the ones with barbaric monotheistic religions and a caucasoid ethnicity in a subrace is human cancer(jews) while mongoloids have very complex religious systems that cant be summed up as WORSHIP OR DIE. This higher civilized state is why whites usually call asians prudes or boring because they are less intune with their simian instincts compared to white people.

>> No.9004909

>Excluding chinks
no reason to do that

your post is confused gibberish

>> No.9004981

I meant to say including.

>> No.9005050
File: 1.66 MB, 262x460, 1490578449554.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Anyone that gets hungry after watching this cannot possibly be civilized.

>> No.9006220
File: 369 KB, 403x600, races-of-men.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9006324

UK blacks were predominantly from the British West Indian colonies you brainlet. Jesus Christ you guys are fucking retarded, at least read before starting debates, scroll through a high school atlas or something... Anything...

>> No.9006326

Jamaican and Somalian basketball teams?? ffs

>> No.9006350

This so much.

What do you propose we do? Put them all on a boat to Africa?

>> No.9006353

Daily reminder that OP just posts these threads so he can run back downstairs and tell his mom "See mom? Niggers ARE inferior! These SCIENCE people on the internet agree with me"

>> No.9006391
File: 132 KB, 297x245, 1498811646581.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>OP asks if the comic is accurate or not
>somehow translates to "Fuck Niggers: the Thread"

>> No.9006396

The thing is we get these threads every single day, and what's the point?

>> No.9006397
File: 39 KB, 600x450, Basement_Dweller-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>OP run back downstairs and tell his mom "See mom? Niggers ARE inferior!

Upstairs if OP lives in the basement.

>> No.9006417

Are we all supposed to feel like racists for asking scientific questions? Is that your SJWtarded agenda on how to kill science?

>> No.9006419

I understand this reasoning for most races, but not all.

Take abos. They have an average IQ of 62. That means that assuming a normal distribution for a population of about 2 million, the smartest abo in existence has an IQ of about 136.

This race cannot be expected to flourish in a society built for people of IQ 100 any more than we coup flourish in a Vulcan society, and it's time we accept this fact and stop trying to force them to integrate.

>> No.9006461


human biodiversity denialism is still a big issue, thats why

>> No.9006571

>made the most inventions
Incas were superior to europeans.

Tawantinsuyu was an advanced state for a civilization that recently got into the bronze age.

United Hispanic States soon.

>> No.9006616
File: 66 KB, 300x300, deep_thoughts_with_Jack_Handey.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

There will be a war first. It's going to be bad.

I might argue that behaviors are genetic, that europeans got the best technology the fastest because they went through tens of thousands of years of genetic selection where those who didn't store food for the winter died. Those who couldn't get along with a social group died. Over and over, each generation, the dumb and hostile were culled by nature. There is another thing nobody ever talks about, light-colored eyes transmitting more information about a person's thoughts through involuntary pupil dilation and contraction. People with light irises easily differentiated from their pupils sort of have a rudimentary second set of eyebrows that they can't control. This looks to me like it's a case of a random mutation being beneficial, not just increased breeding because of the novelty or "beauty" of the first people with blue eyes, but actually being beneficial to communication. The combination of all these things look like they work together to create a breed of humans that are measurably better at cooperation and slightly crippled against deception, which is why they were able to build those societies that could produce boats that could cross the Atlantic, and a few hundred years later built boats that could land on the moon.

One thing you see all over the world is that great cities, great historical societies, tended to be on peninsulas or islands. China and Babylon don't fit this mold, but Japan, Korea, basically all of Europe, the Yucatan, they all were isolated from attack on 3 or 4 sides by water. The people had to find a way to live together and get enough food in this confined area, so really it's hard to separate human biology from human behavior when you get down to brass stacks, is all I'm saying.

>> No.9006648

>war first
Hehe you are already dying. The number of non-whites babies is superior to white babies. Your race is dissapearing.

United Hispanic States will be an inevitable event.

>> No.9006658

Mexicans are smart and vicious and brave, but they're up against the best innovators and communicators our species has to offer. Both sides are being played by globalist jews, there's no reason to help them along. Furthermore neither side even has a choice about which side they're on. It's not something to gloat about, anon.

>> No.9006666

other races each seem to have different general averages in iq

>> No.9006674

Is this literally your first day here?

>> No.9006679

Mexicans are inferior to Incas.

United Statians are being invaded by inferior beings, hehe.

>> No.9006683

Just remember, blending everyone together is literally the opposite of diversity.

>> No.9006696

Gosh Paco, you look cold this far north. Would you like a blanket?

>> No.9006700

Incas weren't tricked into dirty eurangutan blankets, shart.
Incas were superior to europeans. Your people are the ones who have black fever. They worship the black warrior hehe

United Hispanic States soon.

>> No.9006708

The only way you ever win against us is when you have 20x the numbers. Anyway it really doesn't matter. Your brown bean people are way too easy to get hooked on communism. Your descendants will be slaves of the jews, there is no way around it. You stand zero chance of resisting their manipulations. My people will spread onto other planets. I'm learning Russian so I can cooperate with the only other motherfuckers who could keep up. We know we can work together in space, even when we're having a tiff.

Here's one for ya.

>> No.9006716

>win against us
You literally begged mexicans to come and fill the low-worker forces hehe
>hooked on communism
0 history understanding. Thanks for revealing you are an eurangutan hehe
>zero resisting manipulations
You know what's black fever? hehe
Gyahahahahahah let's see if you prosper without backstabbing each other like you did on America.

Mexicans' taking of America will be the first step. You genocided and mixed millions of niggers with the amerindian bloodline. You mongrelized the amerindian race with eurangutans with zero pride and future.

The funny thing is these mutts are going to invade you in no time. Hehe

>> No.9006717

That sure was a lot of replies. Did I get under your skin, favela monkey?

>> No.9006719

Then comes the realization. You cannot literally not make any of this shit up hehe

Your race is dying and you can't do anything to save them. You'll get the same treatment as amerindians got.

America belongs to the Amerindians.

>> No.9006721
File: 12 KB, 179x200, 1496992123663.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

this entire thread is just one big shitpost

>> No.9006727

You keep holding up the Incans like some magic talisman. Are you Incan? No? Where are the Incans? Gone? Are my poor dying people going to find them on Mars? Floating among the clouds of Venus perhaps? The oceans of Enceladus? I don't think so. If your magical horde that doesn't even have its own name for itself ever gets off this rock one day, you'll find us in those places and you know it.

>> No.9006731

Just remember, you don't know jack shit about genetics.

>> No.9006733

Mutt detected.

>> No.9006734

Your time on America is going to reach to an end.

Incas were superior to europeans. Deal with it.

>> No.9006737

Superior at what? I'm genuinely curious.

>> No.9006740


>asking scientific questions


>> No.9006742

Genetics, society, state system, hierarchy, conquered treatment, military, relative technology, agricultural advancement, metallurgy; basically everything, and the funny thing is that they got to America 15000 years after eurogoons settled on europe.

Incas were entering the bronze age and had all this advancement even though they got less time to develop, less cultures to trade with, isolation between north-south continents and harsh climate destroying coastal civilizations.

Meanwhile early bronze age was full of shithole people who didn't even know how to register shit.

Registry management has been on America since 2500BC.

Your race is full of thiefs and backstabbers.

You will face extinction for the genocide and obliteration you did to a noble and superior race.

>> No.9006745
File: 51 KB, 562x730, 1483248512678.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>be superior militarily
>get obliterated by an expeditionary force
looks like that one didn't quite work

>> No.9006748

That's all really cool stuff you obviously didn't just make up, but where are they now?

>> No.9006750

stop giving it (You)s
report it instead

>> No.9006751

>expeditionary force
Eurangutan pestilence desestabilized the empire. The civil war contributed to the fall. And native warriors were the ones who fought the Inca.

Eurangutans just kept doing what they were doing on europe: backstabbing everyone even their own kind hehe

Now USA will become United Hispanic States in no time.

In the same place you will be in 50 years from now hehe

America belongs to the Amerindians.

>> No.9006757

Hey, he really put his heart into it, he deserves them.

It's been fun Paco but the sun's coming up and I'm going to bed. See ya next thread.

>> No.9006759

Sleep tight, dead race.

>> No.9006923

Why not? Dogs are food to asian cultures while they are substitutes for kids in white cultures.

>> No.9008491

not an argument

>> No.9008536

Wow, what a fantastic job reviving this garbage thread you did. It sure belongs on the front page. Good work!

>> No.9009162
File: 33 KB, 632x167, Genetic Distance (fst).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

By that standard very few other species could be subdivided, there would be no different subspecies of fixes, wolves, bears, mice, rats etc. Most species on the planet would not have subspecies, cats and dogs are the only exception I can think at the top of my head.


Pictures used:'
Genetic Distance (fst)
"There are many other species which have recognized subspecies that are less genetically distinct than human races are. Such species include, for example, the Canadian lynx, the African Buffalo, The Plain Zebra, and the Red Winged Black Bird. Dog breeds are more genetically distinct than most subspecies are and there is no plausible justification for using them as the standard by which to judge other species. The choice of dogs is obviously motivated entirely by the fact that dog breeds are more genetically distinct than human races. There is no other reason that RationalWiki decided to use them as their example. But if we use the same standards as we do for other species the level of genetic differentiation between human race is more than enough to justify calling them subspecies."

>> No.9009922

I don't think five random skulls is going to do much to help us. Isn't there some kind of study that creates average skulls?

>> No.9009936
File: 47 KB, 417x600, 5f1[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>/pol/ are the only ones willing to touch race science, that automatically makes them the world's leading authority on it.

>> No.9011976

>tfw get out of /pol/ just to see /pol/ infestation

>> No.9012008

>tfw get out of reddit just to see reddit infestation on 4chan

>> No.9012486

Take your retarded baits out of this board. Incas were superior to europeans. Deal with it.

>> No.9012719

Same here, I remember my biology professor back in school holding the same position.

It was a different time, I guess.

>> No.9012720

Underrated, really.

>> No.9012729

>pretending you are replying to someone from two weeks ago just to resurrect a shitpost thread


>> No.9012733

>two weeks ago
>6 days ago
>being so triggered by somebody posting an opinion you don't like

Sometimes I wonder what it feels to be this desperate.

>> No.9012734

This has nothing to do with "opinions"

This is off-topic raiding

>> No.9013246

looks reasonable doesn't it?

>> No.9013417

>incas were entering the bronze age
>in the fucking 16th century
That is nothing to brag about

>> No.9013695

The sad thing is that Incas were genocided by the diseases the Europeans bring to the American continent.

>> No.9013807

>got to America 15000 years after shitopeans settled on yurop
Incas were superior to yurangutans. Deal with it.

>> No.9014548
File: 1.94 MB, 1421x1800, Erectus among Sapiens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.9014569


>> No.9015653

have you no shame?
Equating humans to apes?

>> No.9015655

Every retarded African American nationalist would like a word with you. Some of them even want a return to segregation.

>> No.9015700

The first article talks about reproductive success in terms of fertility. Assuming its conclusion that the effect is biological is correct, I invite you to go look at the fertility of just about every European country 100 years ago and today. You'll notice for other significant reasons that's not even relevant today. And, considering you're not a squirrel, it shouldn't be a metric of success.

The outbreeding depression article talks about genetic distances not comparable to humans. But even if that was the case, it's talking about fitness in the terms by which an animal or plant is more or less fit, in a natural environment for which that animal or plant has evolved over thousands or millions of years. Regardless of where you're from, odds are your ancestors weren't living like you do 5000 years ago in terms of diet or cognitive demand. The comparison is moot.

As for the last one, it's a 1927 article about "Negroes". If I could see something other than the first page without paying $19.50 I'd give it a shot, but I think the very age of that article gives me a satisfactory reason to say it's unlikely to have the level of scrutiny similar research would have today, starting with defining "Negroes"

>> No.9016104

>Skulls cannot be accurately used to identify someone's race
>yes they can
But not for the reasons you probably think.

>> No.9017530

>race (divergent evolution) doesn't exi-

>> No.9018107
File: 55 KB, 854x479, 1497353911125.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>John Fuerst
Ah, so this is creationist-tier tripe.

>> No.9018123

>he is a dummy head
Anon, I...
>u idiot creationist
>we were all created the same

>> No.9018168

I agree with you.

Incas were superior to europeans.

>> No.9018171
File: 24 KB, 700x706, 1499208318070.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>not peer-reviewed, and claims it is due to institutional bias, similar to that of creationists
>published by a "racial realist" for "racial realists," just like creationist "research journals"
>website is pretty much "alternative facts," along the lines of the DI's many ID websites
Again, I see little difference between this and creationist pseudoscience. No amount of "hurr" will make me back down from this.

>> No.9018180

>not peer-reviewed, and claims it is due to institutional bias, similar to that of creationists
>published by a "racial realist" for "racial realists," just like creationist "research journals"
>website is pretty much "alternative facts," along the lines of the DI's many ID websites
Interestingly enough, with all these shots against it putting the information at a disadvantage, you haven't actually refuted any of the claims. Keep going, this is great primer material, but you've got to actually address the claims that are raised. If they are so obviously wrong, why not just prove them incorrect? Just calling something alternative facts does nothing.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.