Is there really any geneticist that think in 2018 that races exist?

[Anonymous No.9508079]

[Anonymous No.9508086]

>Is there really any geneticist that think in 2018 that races exist?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.9508100]

>>9508079
Yes

[Anonymous No.9508107]

>>9508100
This also works if you replace "white distribution" with "jewish distribution" and "black distribution" with white distribution". Also shifting the x-axis 15 points to the left.

[Anonymous No.9508114]

>>9508086
.>>9508100
Name a few please

[Anonymous No.9508115]

>>9508079
Of course races exist. What are you retarded? Ever heard of a white person with sickle cell anemia? Genetic diseases wouldnt be able to discriminate if we were all genetically the same.

[Anonymous No.9508118]

>>9508100
who are those blacks who have 130 IQ ?

[Anonymous No.9508123]

>>9508115
The question is
>Is there really any geneticist that think in 2018 that races exist?

Can you name them?

[Anonymous No.9508129]

>>9508118
Will Smith

[Anonymous No.9508133]

>>9508086
No.

Gene differences exist, but race is a superficial an arbitrary construct. Laws can change a person's race, like the treaty of Hildalgo.

[Anonymous No.9508138]

>>9508129
yeah he's kind of smart

[Anonymous No.9508148]

>>9508133
>Gene differences exist, but race is a superficial an arbitrary construct.
You are splitting hairs. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying “there are only differently aged adults, babies do not exist”. Discrimination is wrong and everyone deserves equal rights, but saying race doesnt exist just outs you as a retard. Nobody will listen to anything you say after “Race doesnt exist” because it clearly does and you are a crazy person.

[Anonymous No.9508150]

>>9508079
There could be lots of them, but you'd never hear about it because most geneticists are probably aware that would be career suicide.

[Anonymous No.9508151]

>>9508114
Negroid: Black
Caucasoid: Nordic White, Mediterranean "White", Semitic, Indic (Pajeet)
Mongoloids: East Asian, Southeast Asians (as Thais), Polinesian, Amerindian.
Australoid: Abos

& Mutts

[Anonymous No.9508157]

>>9508086
>>9508100
>>9508115
>>9508148
>>9508150

Can someone here give me at least 3 names of geneticists that believe in races among humans?

No one?

[Anonymous No.9508160]

>>9508157
>There could be lots of them, but you'd never hear about it because most geneticists are probably aware that would be career suicide.

[Anonymous No.9508170]

>>9508160
That's just speculation.

But the cold fact is that there are not geneticists that believe in race for what I can see.

Not even a single one among millions of professionals in that area.

[Anonymous No.9508172]

>>9508079
>two populations have the same skin tone so that means that they're genetically indistinguishable

This is how retarded race antirealists are.

[Anonymous No.9508178]

>>9508157
the fact that you have to resort to an appeal to authority to try and prove your point rather than the facts about human biodiversity and genetic clustering by geographical location shows how weak and indefensible your position is.

Races exist because you can look at a person's DNA and tell what race or mix of races they are.

[Anonymous No.9508179]

>>9508170
>Why don't these well compensated professionals publicly espouse a view that will ruin their career and make everyone hate them?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm............. Really.................... Makes.................. Me............................ Think?

[Anonymous No.9508198]

>>9508079
Why the fuck is this thread nothing but /pol/ charts, racism and antisemitism? Who let all of you alt-right scumbags in to roleplay as intellectuals and scientists? It's time for you to go home now: >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9508205]

>races that have been genetically isolated from eachother and evolved in radically different environments for more than 70'000 years are mentally identical from a biological perspective

[Anonymous No.9508209]

>>9508172
>>9508178
>>9508179
>>9508198

Look, I'm a geneticist myself. So I'm curious about race realism. I really want to know if there is another scientist like me, that believe in races. Because I can't really name a single one.

[Anonymous No.9508216]

>>9508205
>races that have been genetically isolated from eachother and evolved in radically different environments for more than 70'000 years are ocularly identical from a biological perspective
They are. So why shouldn't that apply to neurology?

[Anonymous No.9508222]

>>9508209
I'm fine with having the discussion, but I'm not fine with a science board being clogged up with /pol/ sources and literal bigotry. Be objective, or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9508225]

>>9508216
>ocularly identical
you on the left

[Anonymous No.9508232]

>>9508225
>Thinking I'm talking about osteotopology and not the physiology of the ocular organ itself.
Our eyesight is identical.

[Anonymous No.9508233]

>>9508079
all the ones in /pol/

[Anonymous No.9508237]

>>9508209
obviously you aren't a geneticist because if you were then you'd have looked at the geneticists whose research you are regurgitating in the form of images.

if you're a geneticist then open up pubmed or googlescholar , if not then fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9508241]

>>9508222
Why /pol/? I can't control who can post here.

The discussion is clear, safe and clean.

[Anonymous No.9508246]

>>9508232
not true
incidence of red/green and other forms of color blindness are much higher in caucasians than negroids
there's also the fact that light ires are almost exclusively found in caucasians

[Anonymous No.9508250]

>>9508246
Our cardiovascular system. That's the same.

[Anonymous No.9508259]

Clearly there must be a scientist somewhere that uses the terminology of low-self-esteem males that identify with right-wing -rhetoric!

[Anonymous No.9508263]

>>9508250
Quit moving the goal posts. You race deniers get proven wrong at every turn and just shrug it off. Then when you grab on to something that supports your retarded views, you never let it go despite overwhelming evidence telling you that you are wrong. Race exists and niggers are stupid, anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.

[Anonymous No.9508269]

>>9508263
>Not understanding what I'm doing.
Have you not heard of falsifiability? I'm providing strength to YOUR argument. Please learn to science.

[Geometric Unity No.9508272]

there are definitely people in 2018 that still try to debate race without an accompanying disambiguation of the 900 things people think "race" can mean

[Anonymous No.9508288]

>>9508241
>I'm a geneticist, but uses haplogroups to argue about modern racial genetics.
Watch this, you moron:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AabWNnVbXUU
TL;DR:
>Haplogroups are great for genetic chronology, but not for exploring what genetic makeup you have.

[Anonymous No.9508298]

>>9508269
>says something retarded
>gets proven wrong
>I'm helping your argument. please learn to science

fuck off retard

[Anonymous No.9508302]

>>9508079
>>9508272
This. I think the whole question is semantic, there are genetic differences between isolated populations, that's fact. Whether that is race or not depends entirely upon the definition(s) you're using.

[Anonymous No.9508314]

>>9508263
Yes, races exists, but modern systematic biology is about evident and distinct biological units. Races are not evident (are slavs white?), but a bit arbitrary drawn boxes on a more complicated genetic background.
No scientist is forcing this classification upon him because it makes things insanely complicated and false due to arbitrary drawn lines.
Describing human variation without putting your findings into set boxes describes the reality more accurate. Race is just a box to put things into that more or less fit in. It is not a necessary thing to do for science and not for white survival because human variation can be acknowledged in form of races, subpopulations or however you name it.

[Anonymous No.9508340]

>>9508298
You really don't know anything about science, do you? You don't try and prove your point, you try and disprove your point, thereby proving it if no errors are found. Actually return to /pol/, you are not welcome here.

[Anonymous No.9508341]

>>9508302
That's why I don't use the term race anymore. I use cline or deme.

I don't believe in the dishonest and hippie argument that "there's only one race, the human race" (this even goes before the discovery of DNA).


But race is a course concept.

[Anonymous No.9508343]

>>9508114
>we never read

explains it

[Anonymous No.9508357]

>>9508079

all I know is that I'm 96,4% ashkenazi, so you gentiles go ahead and fight amongst yourselves like you always do.

maybe once genetic engineering of IQ is achieved you can realise some things.

[Anonymous No.9508363]

>>9508357
>96,4%
You're probably not, there aren't many Ashkenazi left in Europe and that's a Continental European notation.

[Anonymous No.9508371]

>>9508341
This is the only reason these threads exist, because of murky linguistics, no one is seriously denying that there are genetic differences between isolated populations.

[Anonymous No.9508378]

>>9508357
le 96,4% faec
What is the rest?

[Anonymous No.9508384]

>>9508378
Whoa, this literally just became a /pol/ thread.

[Anonymous No.9508385]

>>9508079
Yes but they suck

[Anonymous No.9508386]

>>9508384
Sorry bro, I am from /int/.

[Anonymous No.9508391]

>>9508386
Save that shit for your boards, this isn't welcome on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.9508396]

How do we define race?

If one or many definitions of race are wrong, or if one or several classifications or race are incorrect, then race cannot be attibuted with scientific confidence, hence in sociological, economic, and politcal aspects of law and judiciary that recognize or define the individual, decree the individual as such, and mandate laws pertaining to the individual should the term race not be applied nor considered.

[Anonymous No.9508402]

How do we define race?

If one or many definitions of race are wrong, or if one or several classifications of race are incorrect, then race cannot be attibuted with scientific confidence, hence in sociological, economic, and politcal aspects of law and judiciary that recognize or define the individual, decree the individual as such, and mandate laws pertaining to the individual should the term race not be applied nor considered.

[Anonymous No.9508413]

>>9508391
Meme aside, I was asking out of legit curiosity what the rest is because 96,4% sounds like the result of a commerical genetic test.

[Anonymous No.9508425]

>>9508148
>but saying race doesnt exist just outs you as a retard.
It does exist, just as a arbitrary and superficial construct. It's a sociological concept, not a scientific one.

The "Hispanic" race is made up of people with genetic ties to europe, america, and africa. They have very little in common genetically, but because of geographic, cultural, and legal reasons they are a single race. Serbs and Slovenians are two different races, but come from an almost identical genetic group.

Race =! genes.

[Anonymous No.9508429]

>>9508413
I doubt the purity of anyone claiming to be that Ashkenazi. I too have Ashkenazi heritage via matrilineal descent, which would mean that I would classify as ethnically Ashkenazi, because they classify by mitochondrial DNA.

[Anonymous No.9508435]

>>9508178
Why the fuck do people keep misusing “appeal to authority” every single fucking time? It is not an appeal to authority fallacy if the authority agrees with the initial claim, “you should smoke because most doctors smoke” is an appeal to authority, “all physicist believe the Earth is not flat” is not fucktard

[Anonymous No.9508442]

>>9508429
How do they resolution it though? Mitochondrial dna goes all the way back to before humans were humans

[Anonymous No.9508444]

>>9508435
Because they failed critical thinking.

[Anonymous No.9508445]

>>9508396
We can't even define gene, species, life or even fields like biology.

It's all about semantics. So it's arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.9508447]

>>9508442
resolve***

[Anonymous No.9508449]

>>9508442
No idea, I've never taken the care to research any further than that. The fact I'm Ashkenazi changes nothing, certainly when my genetic makeup and cultural makeup is mostly non-Jewish.

[Anonymous No.9508457]

>>9508449
Tay-Sachs disease only happens in ashkenazi Jews ircc so maybe they are a race
but maybe that's not enough to define a "race"

[Geometric Unity No.9508459]

>>9508302
After about twenty years on the internet I can now proudly claim that someone has gone on record agreeing with me on five different occasions

[Anonymous No.9508462]

>>9508429
My mtdna is W5a1, so I don't classify, but Y is J-M92, maybe jewish more than 600 years ago.

100% Ashkenazi is probably just a thing in commercial testing because the young age and mixing with local peoples should prevent at least some of their DNA from being correctly assigned.

[Anonymous No.9508470]

>>9508457
Tay sachs is a handfull of mutations out of three billion basepairs, way too few for a meaningful difference. It also occurs in flemish people I think.

[Anonymous No.9508475]

>>9508470
Well fuck, my grandmother was of Flemish extraction.

[Anonymous No.9508477]

>>9508459
Post-structuralism will do that.

[Anonymous No.9508478]

>>9508445
Then you would agree that there is no confidence in the classification or the mandating of laws on racial terms, correct?

How individual norms and stereotypes persist among society is not my concern, but rather whether laws that are backed by the confidence of a governing body should be allowed that have racial distinctions.

[Anonymous No.9508480]

>>9508475
You would already know if you were an affected carrier because it is a severe disease. Even the chances you're heterozygous are close to zero anyways, no concern.

[Anonymous No.9508491]

>>9508478
Yes, but law doesn't try to be scientific, it tries to be philosophically pragmatic.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

[Anonymous No.9508493]

>>9508250
yeah and ribosomes are the same as plants'
does that mean there's no difference between the Animal and Plant kingdoms?
faggot

[Anonymous No.9508499]

>>9508475
whoops, not flemish

Ashkenazi Jews have a high incidence of Tay–Sachs and other lipid storage diseases. In the United States, about 1 in 27 to 1 in 30 Ashkenazi Jews is a recessive carrier. The disease incidence is about 1 in every 3,500 newborn among Ashkenazi Jews.[34] French Canadians and the Cajun community of Louisiana have an occurrence similar to the Ashkenazi Jews. Irish Americans have a 1 in 50 chance of being a carrier.[citation needed] In the general population, the incidence of carriers as heterozygotes is about 1 in 300.[7] The incidence is approximately 1 in 320,000 newborns in the general population in United States.[35]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay–Sachs_disease

[Anonymous No.9508501]

>>9508493 see:
>>9508269
>>9508340
And learn to read the whole thread before replying.

[Anonymous No.9508502]

>>9508477
thanks anon

[Anonymous No.9508510]

>>9508118
Ben Carson (MD, neurosurgeon), Neil DeGrasse Tyson (PhD astrophysics)

[Anonymous No.9508511]

>>9508491
Would you not argue that scientific understanding has lent itself to philosophical pragmatisms, especially in the realms of the judiciary in how to enact or rule in favor or against a standing practicing of said laws?

Did philosophical pragmatism of certain governing bodies originate as a correction of dogmatism when enacting rules of land and people?

[Anonymous No.9508515]

>>9508478
Arbitrary definitions could men validate any definition of race.

There are functional definitions. It's like species. Rigth now there are more than 60 definitions.

So yes, you can say that races exists.

[Anonymous No.9508522]

>>9508480
>>9508499
Thank you for the heads-up.

[Anonymous No.9508533]

>>9508511
Systematic biology is all about philosophical issues.

[Anonymous No.9508536]

>>9508511
>Would you not argue that scientific understanding has lent itself to philosophical pragmatisms, especially in the realms of the judiciary in how to enact or rule in favor or against a standing practicing of said laws?
Of course, science is a tool for understanding the world around us and sometimes applying those principles to tools (medicine is a tool, for instance).
>Did philosophical pragmatism of certain governing bodies originate as a correction of dogmatism when enacting rules of land and people?
Yes, many states had ecclesiastical laws and these were often reformed due to secularism.
However, that's neither here nor there, pragmatism doesn't search for truth, therefore the truth or race doesn't matter, it searches for utility, and having some form of classification is useful.

[Anonymous No.9508537]

>>9508536
>*or race = of race

[Anonymous No.9508548]

>>9508515
If race is a functional definition of qualifying skin color, or only the number of external characteristics that can be pragmatically distinguished within a body, then does it not become superseded in any case where formal definitions are required, such as qualifying for a voter ID, holding land, and participation in governance?

Functional definitions of race in the judiciary have historically been overruled when the functional characteristics of race have been called into question.
For example, If race can determine the skin color, the eye color, and the hair type of an individual, but cannot determine the intelligence quotient or the aptitude in terms of mental complicity, then such a definition would fail fundamentally in any governing body
in upholding classification with regards to individual mandates in racial terms.

[Anonymous No.9508562]

>>9508548
I' talking from an exclusive systematic and cladistc perspective.

I don't care about humanities fields at this point.

[Anonymous No.9508564]

>>9508548
>when the functional characteristics of race have been called into question

should be formal characteristics of race called into question, as formal characteristics of race often fail both functionally and scientifically

[Anonymous No.9508580]

>>9508548 see >>9508536
>However, that's neither here nor there, pragmatism doesn't search for truth, therefore the truth or race doesn't matter, it searches for utility, and having some form of classification is useful.

[Anonymous No.9508586]

>>9508562
Humanities take into account noncompliance with the governance, or should.

Representative government attempts to reflect pragmatisms found in society, of which scientific literacy is a fundamental part as it seeks trusts and permissions to pursue a mandate, backed with confidence of the governance, as in scientific literature is a product of private and public enterprise and not a rogue state.

[Anonymous No.9508604]

>>9508586
From a cladistic point of view. Biological race exists at a genetic level. What we nedd in this centurt is a formal phenotipical definition. At least for Europe. But those kind of definitions are from the 40s or before that decade.

Now it's a just a taboo.

[Anonymous No.9508606]

>>9508580
>>9508580 see >>9508586

[Anonymous No.9508607]

>>9508604
Holly cow, this is full of spelling mistakes. Pardon for my cellphone.

[Anonymous No.9508611]

>>9508302
But I think the question (or what I'm interested in at least) is whether or not the races people would self identify as (Caucasian, Romani or whatever) are actually good indicators of genetic makeup. That is whether the genetic diversity within races is small enough to make them an important method of identification.;

I believe lactose intolerance for example can be quite confidently predicted from race, but is it easy with many genetic traits?

[Anonymous No.9508613]

>>9508586
It still doesn't matter, because it isn't a search for truth, it is a search for usefulness. So that brings the "truth" of race back to:
>>9508302
So, for governance is exists out of usefulness.
So, for objectivity it is semantic.
So, what definition are you using?

[Anonymous No.9508642]

>>9508604
>Biological race exists at a genetic level.
False, as functional definitions denote the external phenotypical classifications appilied to the field of governance, or whose formal definitions fail tests of confidence to ground it in genetics.
Thus, race reform is inherently not biological, but social both characteristically and pragmatically.

[Anonymous No.9508659]

But certainly theres a scientist someplace using terminology of lower class males that identify with rhetoric that would elevate them to any status (other than "unemployed").

[Anonymous No.9508661]

>>9508079
Is there really any geneticist that think in 2018 that niggers are humans?

[Anonymous No.9508665]

>>9508642
Do you read papers of human genetics on a daily basis?

Because I do since 2005. Yes, they exists at a genetic level. That have been the most notable transformation of this decade. The validation of race/deme/cline at a genetic level.

[Anonymous No.9508671]

>>9508661
Yes, all of them.
They are humans.

[Anonymous No.9508674]

>>9508613
For governance, race is not reflective of scientific literature, which has been mandated to exist in terms of utility and the ability to govern, and backed by taxation and aliquoted funding. Objective scientific principles are duly applied to systems of government, backed by confidence dollars.

[Anonymous No.9508693]

>>9508674
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.9508702]

>>9508665
>Do you read papers of human genetics on a daily basis?
Where were you educated if you don't mind saying, and in genetics specifically or some broader field?

[Anonymous No.9508703]

>>9508659
>Being a national socialist makes you employed.
What?

[Anonymous No.9508713]

>>9508671
Then why they are so stupid and violent?

[Anonymous No.9508714]

>>9508665
You are attempting to affirm that the consequent, validation of race at the genetic level, is true because you have read papers on human genetics since 2005, a fallacy.

[Anonymous No.9508718]

>>9508713
For the same reason impoverished whites are.
>What is the root of the Mafia?
>What is the root of the Bratva?

[Anonymous No.9508723]

>>9508693
I speculate that you have misunderstood. Science has been mandated to exist, not race.

[Anonymous No.9508729]

My low level of education didn't afford me with the luxury of conscience of the phenomenon known as confirmation bias.

Therefore I'm still looking for scientists that would use my lower class vernacular to describe complex genetic phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.9508732]

>>9508723
No, race is used for governance. However, the fact that race is used for governance doesn't mean that it is down to a scientific definition, it is there because of usefulness. That is, you have a group of people, they tend to be self-segregating and therefore having some form of classification is useful.

[Anonymous No.9508736]

>>9508170
>>9508160
>>9508157
>>9508172

>It's a big conspiracy and it's all being covered up! They can't tell the truth out of fear, or they're being paid to lie!

>Oh also, he's some graphs that I don't understand, but I believe support my ideas. Somehow they were published despite aforementioned coverup, completely contradicting myself.

There is no conspiracy or limit on what geneticists can and cannot say. There is no coverup.

You simply do not understand genetics, especially data published in scientific journals. You may pretend to understand, and you may fool other morons into thinking you do, that such interpretations support racism but you are simply factually inaccurate.

The reason geneticists say race doesn't exist is because it doesn't. You're just a bunch of morons on 4chan with no education and some dumb conspiracy theories.

[Anonymous No.9508741]

>>9508736
This is what happens when you have a leaky /pol/.
Someone needs to call in the chemical engineers.

[Anonymous No.9508754]

>>9508736
This
you should be suspicious when a group with obvious political bias talks about how the science is flawed. Yes science can be flawed and often is but if it's a political group saying that you should doubt them.

It's dumb when the flat Earthers do it
It's dumb when the anti-vaxxers do it
It's dumb when the anti-evolution lot do it
It's dumb when the commies do it
It's dumb when /pol/ does it

[Anonymous No.9508759]

>>9508732
I argue that both historically and pragmatically, scientific definitions have superseded racial classifications in that every time science fails to produce a formal definition of race, then that statute no longer is upheld by the judiciary.

As for objective proof of this consequent, scientific literature is backed in full confidence by this governing body which allows judicial precedent of scientific formal consensus. Hence race, deemed not formal in scientific terms, by scientific bodies backed in confidence, upholds a policy that exists due to scientific ruling.

[Anonymous No.9508760]

>>9508754
This. Science must be objective.

[Anonymous No.9508773]

>>9508172
Who are the Komi people?

[Anonymous No.9508775]

>>9508759
Mhm, that is a good point. I guess I was approaching it from a legislative chronology standpoint.
Whereas I should be applying a Hegelian dialectic to the problem. Which would mean that we're both, it is a synthesis between pragmatic tradition (usefulness) and scientific literature (via 'litigious legislation').

[Anonymous No.9508778]

>>9508775
>*that we're both = that we're both partly correct

[Anonymous No.9508780]

>>9508773
The graph is total garbage. No Fst distances that small can be calculated with any certainty. Whoever did it probably tried to do their own calculates on paper with no regard for uncertainty or accuracy. Either way, the distances there (all far below 0.1) are laughable. They intentionally made the units so small to make the lines visually large on the picture in order to deceive gullible people.

[Anonymous No.9508805]

>>9508780
Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.9508815]

>>9508396
>how do we define species?
If one or many definitions of species are wrong , or if one of several classifications of species are incorrect , then species cannot be attributed with scientific confidence and we can't use it in law

your standards aren't applied to far more fundamental and wide-spread terms used in law therefore your complaint is bogus.

It's perfectly possible to talk about both race and species in a scientifically and legally sensible way even though there are multiple definitions or criteria or classifications of race and species and some are wrong and some are right.

>>9508425
hispanic isn't a race. hispanic means people who speak spanish.

race is a colloquial term for a group of ethnic groups who are more closelely related to each other ethnic groups within that race than to ethnic groups outside that race. Or you could consider it as a cluster or ethnic groups essentially. see >>9508172
any unsupervised clustering algorithm would be able to pick out a caucasoid cluster and a mongoloid cluster from this or similar datasets of ethnic groups mapped out by fixation index distance.

you'd probably say "yes , but the exact border for where the cut off of those races is is up for debate therefore race only exists as a social construct"
Well you're the right that by their very nature clusters nearly always have slightly fuzzy borders and some region which is disputed. However the fact that part of the border is fuzzy doesn;t mean that there are no areas where we can't be sure of which race we are in. This would be making a fallacy similar to loki's wager.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager

furthermore, the clustering is not a totally arbitrary process. if you were to group some ethnic groups together and call them a race you could easily make a race with no predictive value that describes nothing about the data set.

[Anonymous No.9508818]

>>9508718
Many impoverished whites became scientists and mathematicians. E.g. George Green.
Why we don't have great nigger mathematicians?

[Anonymous No.9508820]

>>9508818
*I mean, became great scientists and mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.9508829]

Lysenkoism

Academics view race differences as immediately leading to genocide and act in that manner. Hence anyone advocating it or researching it is excommunicated.

Unfortunately the leftism in academics has led to this state of affairs with the death of science in the west.

[Anonymous No.9508840]

>>9508780
>>9508773
>>9508805

>. No Fst distances that small can be calculated with any certainty.
>Either way, the distances there (all far below 0.1) are laughable.

These are bold claims. would you care to prove that his calculations are wrong ? the data he's using is publicly available. http://www.hagsc.org/hgdp/files.html

I'd be very doubtful that the information in that picture is "total garbage" when otherd scientists have similar findings for Fst distances between races and detailed Fst distances between ethnic groups.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730349/

I think it's more likely that rather than the published and peer reviewed work of scientists being garbage , it is your post which is garbage.

[Anonymous No.9508857]

>>9508780

You mean the 'race warriors' made up bs in order to beguile the noneducated into their culty ranks?

Never! Such a fabricated innuation!

[Anonymous No.9508859]

>>9508840
Those are definitely interesting papers, but they only say that such data would only help things like GWAS, and maybe ancestry. I never says anything about race or that populations are significantly different from one other, only that our ability to do genetic testing is very good.

[Anonymous No.9508867]

>>9508815
Scientific consensus is the utility backed by government that can supersede a precedent determined on racial grounds. Their, the scientific body that concludes, consequence of not identifying race is reflected, without interference, and respected though trusts, by the governance whose duty through the judiciary measures the legal understanding of race against scientific consensus.

The existence of wide-spread terms can disqualify scientific principle from its application to existent principles that define an individuals rights. Thus, the legality of racial conversation is upheld, entrusted by the mandate of individual rights and formal consensus.
Standards and practices are therefore approached similarly to conversations and consesus on race, whose criteria are left to be respected by consensus, to be challenged only on grounds of precedent. Complaints will be dutifuly measured against established standards and practices and can contain in their body, words pertaining to race, justly.

[Anonymous No.9508874]

>>9508857
You're believing a random post on 4chan with no proof or justification rather than looking up the evidence yourself just because it agees with your anti-scientific lefty prejudice that race doesn't exist.

lol the fact that you try and take the intellectual highground with so little self awareness is hilarious.

The results of that picture >>9508172 are far from new. the genetic distances between the races were being measured since the 90s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index#FST_in_humans
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730349/

[Anonymous No.9508875]

>>9508840

You think its likely, but you don't have the skills to know one way or the other?

So, you go by your confirmation bias, instead?

To "verify" laymens concepts that have nothing to do with genetics?

Why, thats the very definition of "self-deceit".

[Anonymous No.9508882]

>>9508867
>blah blah blah I got caught contriving a reason for never using or paying attention to race that applies to multiple other useful concepts in biology and now I'm having to backtrack after my disingenuous , ignorant nonsense has been exposed

[Anonymous No.9508902]

>>9508859
>goalshift moving : the post

those papers show the measurable genetic differences between ethnic groups and collections of ethnic groups (races). Measurable differences outside of population genetics, in traits like average height, skin colour, hair, eye colour, disease rates , biochemistry and intelligence are already well known

Your original claim >>9508780 was that this >>9508172 picture showing the Fst distances ( a measure of genetic differences) between different ethnic groups was "total garbage"

Do you have enough integrity to admit, given that other scientists have published similar genetic distances between races and ethnic groups, that you were talking shit?

[Anonymous No.9508911]

>>9508875
No. Your assumptions are based on me using words like "doubtful". This reflects rhetorical stylistic choice by me. I actually know full well that the person I was replying to was wrong and I've given the evidence which demonstrates that.

[Anonymous No.9508917]

>>9508079 hey /pol/

What's the usefulness of attempting to validating the concept of race with genetics besides creating a scientific excuse for parochial altruism and racial tension?

Seriously, fuck this thread and every thread like it. Genetics is a burgeoning field with a lot of medical utility. GWAS data, when plugged into supercomputers, can help design specific cancer treatments that can save mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters. It can help someone make lifestyle changes that can help them reduce their chances of developing a certain disease thus reducing the cost to society (for you heartless, utilitarian fucks). All you fuckers seem to care about is corroborating your own biases with science, not discovery or the betterment of mankind or helping us reach the stars we're destined to colonize.

Even genes that are deleterious in some cases can become advantageous in others. The survival of a species is very much tied to its genetic diversity. That fact is that yes, there are genetic trends and correlations tied to certain populations, but they don't limit the specific individuals that live within those populations, nor do they make them any less "human."

You should be ashamed of yourselves because all the energy you waste on this shit is energy that could be spent trying to cure disease or help your fellow man.

[Anonymous No.9508919]

Nobody answered why we don't have niggers on the same level of Gauss, Euler, von Neumann, Grothendieck, Itō etc.

[Anonymous No.9508925]

>>9508917
attempting to validate*

>mah subhuman typos

[Anonymous No.9508936]

>>9508911

You are making things up.

In fact, you propose that a "Population" is the same as "Race", and that FST proves it.

One can clearly see you have absolutely no knowledge of genetics or the mathematics required to analyse the data.

So, therefore its probable you are just another suprematist spinning stories in order to perpetuate participation on behalf of the "dumber-than-me".

[Anonymous No.9508955]

>>9508917

Personally I think its great that these people indirectly expose their manipulative nature online on a massive scale.

A decade or two down the line genetics will be mainstream, and these people will be publicly shown for the liars they are.

On a massive scale. No way for them to escape this eventuality. Chickens, home, to roost.

[Anonymous No.9508961]

>>9508919

We do have, hundreds.

It's just that you're simply not educated or intelligent enough to find them...

...and the educated and the intelligent are not interested in interacting with the nihilist or the left-behind.

[Anonymous No.9508962]

>>9508917
One extremely useful and socially relevent outcome of establishing the different average IQs between different races and the genes causing those average differences is that we would be able to stop the very irritating and intrusive and invalid assumption that when an intellectually demanding role in an industry or company is in a state where by the % of workers in that role of a particular race does not match the % of people of a particular race in the country at large it must be the result of racially prejudiced hiring practices.

This invalid assumption has a massive impact on hiring practices and would be removed when the body of evidence for genetically caused differences in average IQ between the races becomes overwhelming and glardingly obvious enough to overcome the current dogma.
Even if there were no use, it wouldn't matter.
Do you have so little intellectual integrity that you would smother scientific facts because you don't like them?

> The survival of a species is very much tied to its genetic diversity.
To a certain degree. However you might be suggesting that the more genetic diversity a species will have , the more successful it will be in a linear relationship. Infact there are very diminishing returns to this and it probably tends asymtotically to a limit or grows slower and slower.
> That fact is that yes, there are genetic trends and correlations tied to certain populations, but they don't limit the specific individuals that live within those populations,
Incorrect. Show me a 6'4 pygmie.

Show me an aboriginal native that can drink alcohol.
Some genetic differences do apply to all members of the population.

>You should be ashamed of yourselves because all the energy you waste on this shit is energy that could be spent trying to cure disease or help your fellow man.
You and other lefties should be ashamed of yourselves spending so much time denying or muddying the waters in order avoid acknowledging emprircal facts

[Anonymous No.9508975]

>>9508902
There's no goalpost moving at all. Those papers say absolutely NOTHING about race. read them. Those papers do not say anything about the traits you listed.

[Anonymous No.9508977]

>>9508936
Show me where I have made things up? Show me where I have said something incorrect about genetics or mathematics?
It seems to me that you are flinging out accusations that you know you can't demonstrate because they're false but are doing so in the hope that they stick.
If you had a real argument to demonstrate that something I've said is wrong you would provide it instead of making impotent accusations.

>In fact, you propose that a "Population" is the same as "Race", and that FST proves it.

rather than strawmanning me you can see what I actually believe here.
>>9508815

[Anonymous No.9508992]

>>9508975
Those papers were never meant to say anything about non-genetic differences between races , you retard.

Those papers were posted to disprove your claim in >>9508780 that >>9508172 was "total garbage"

You made a claim about a specific image which I showed was wrong using evidence from two papers.
Now you are desperately moving the goalposts to talk about differences between races in general to try and save face.


Is this how intellectually dishonest and disingenuous race anti-realists are?

I can't think of ever encountering a single person who argued that "race isn't real" or "race is a social construct" that had intellectual honesty or integrity.

[Anonymous No.9508996]

>>9508977

Yes, trolling is one of the possible functions on this board.

It won't make your population a race, nor will it make you superior to anyone.

But then again, I might as well argue with a bot.

[Anonymous No.9508999]

>>9508992
>Those papers were never meant to say anything about non-genetic differences between races
Those papers do not even say that.

[Anonymous No.9509000]

>>9508961
I'm satisfied with just one example of a nigger whose contributions to mathematics or physics are on par with Newton, Euler, Gauss etc.

[Anonymous No.9509005]

>>9508992
Those papers only say we can make very accurate measurements of very small genetic distances. Nothing more.

You cannot use those papers to imply race exists.

[Anonymous No.9509047]

>>9508962
>Do you have so little intellectual integrity that you would smother scientific facts because you don't like them?

I assume this entire first part of your comment was about affirmative action. Affirmative action isn't really about the refutation or confirmation of race as a concept as much as it's about creating pathways to advantage for people that've been entrenched in socioeconomic penury. I'm sure you're of the belief that slavery, ghettoization and institutionalized racism are all liberal ruses and don't have any relevance, so arguing these things with you would be futile. I think it is important to recognize the flynn effect is much more pronounced in blacks and the slope has precipitously increased since the civil rights act, so maybe you could look into that...

People, like genes, aren't either "good or bad;" that's not how science works. There are lots of shades of gray, and in certain situations things that are bad can be good. Take sickle cell trait, which confers resistance against malaria in heterozygotes, or CF trait, which protects against dehydration for excessive diarrhea in heterozygotes. The traits you described (height and IQ [insofar as it's correlated to g {psychometrics is a bit too psuedo for me}]) are very polygenic. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could find an outlier in a Pygmy population who is way above average -- maybe not 6'4'', but probably taller than you or me.I don't live in Africa though so I can't really refute or confirm your argument.

Aldehyde and alcohol dehydrogenase polymorphisms are pretty conserved in populations, but believe it or not most people in those populations can still drink alcohol. In fact, some lucky ducks have a more effective form of aldehyde dehydrogenase but a less effective form of alcohol dehydrogenase, so they don't get hangovers but they can get drunk on much smaller amounts of alcohol and their inebriation lasts a lot longer. That's a gene I want in my population lol.

[Anonymous No.9509048]

>>9508996
>be challenged to show us where I have said something wrong
>unable to
>accuse me of being the one who is trolling
Good job, weakling.
>>9508999
fixation index is a measure of genetic difference so yes, they do.
>>9509005
>get called out for moving the goal posts
>continue moving the goal posts.

Those papers are one part of the evidence that races exist. First you notice that different populations of humans are phenotypically similar in terms of facial features and skin colour, and you come up for names grouping these ethnicities (e.g. caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid). then you measure average differences between these races like height, predisposition towards certain genetic disorders, biochemistry (e.g. alcohol metabolism) and so on . At the same time , you find look at the genes of the ethnic groups within these racial groupings and find out that these crude racial groupings you made up based on simply facial features and skin colour do overlap pretty well with genetic reality because when you map out fixation index distances between different ethnic groups , you find as extremely visible clusters the caucasoid and mongoloid categories you came up with and you find that ethnic groups considered caucasoid are genetically more closely related to each other than to ethnic groups considered mongoloid or negroid.

If you concede all this then you concede everything I want from you and I've already won.
You admit that different ethnic groups have different traits on average from other ethnic groups and you admit that ethnic groups are more or less related to each other in a way that matches the 19th century understanding of race pretty well considering that all they were estimating by were facial features, skin colour and some linguistics and history and geographical guesswork.

[Anonymous No.9509056]

>>9509048
I already said the papers were right here. >>9508859. The papers are correct.

However, they are not "part of the evidence that race exists." That is your own assumption. Those papers do not mention race at all, as I already said. You're making personal assumptions about things not said in the paper. You're making an imaginary ad hoc in your head between unrelated things.

[Anonymous No.9509084]

Only a rabid SJW would consider niggers a human "race". They are non-human animals, obviously. We are evolutionarily related to them only in the sense that we are related to the other great apes.
We can teach them some tricks and they can be trained to exhibit some human behaviors. But without proper supervision, they quickly go back to the feral state.

[Anonymous No.9509096]

>>9509047
no I'm not talking about affirmative action unless you're taking a more broad interpretation of the term than I understand by it.

I'm talking about how a leftist observer might look at a company like say Jane Street Capital and say "hey, only 1% of your employees are black but blacks are 13% of the population. this must mean that you are racially prejudiced against hiring blacks. You must forcibly remedy this or being slandered as a racist company"

When people say affirmative action I understand it as meaning when it is recognised that a selection process is racially unbiased but one believes that black people have been disadvantaged educationally earlier in life and so should have lower standards applied to them to ensure proportionate participation rates.

Affirmative action is clearly garbage too btw. It makes sense to have lower standards in college admission for students who have had access to worse education, but this should be done on a school by school basis rather than assuming that because someone is black they automatically have had a worse education so you should more easily impressed by them. There are hundreds of thousands of blacks who went to some of the best private schools money can buy ant it is clearly 100% braindead for top universities to assume that they have been educationally disadvantaged and be more easily impressed by a 2300 SAT test score from them than from a white kid in rural south louisiana who went to a school where the average SAT score of students who went there was 1200.

>People, like genes, aren't either "good or bad;" that's not how science works.
I didn't make that claim. it sounds like you're conflating good with fitness. I disagree. IQ 100 individuals are fitter than Iq 140 individuals but I don't consider IQ 100 individuals to be better.

would you want that particular aldehyde dehydrogenase enzyme in your population if it meant the average IQ of your population dropping as you'd probably have to interbreed

[Anonymous No.9509105]

>>9509096
You're thinking of life like a game and populations like teams. Can't you see how dehumanizing that is? Also, assuming it were a game, I would want to interbreed since it would increase the fitness of my population since, as you so correctly implied, lower IQ is associated with higher fertility. But it's not a game.

[Anonymous No.9509106]

>>9509047
[cont.] with aboriginals to get it?

>'m sure if I tried hard enough I could find an outlier in a Pygmy population who is way above average -- maybe not 6'4'', but probably taller than you or me

exactly, so then compare a pygmie outlier with an non-pygmy outlier. the tallest brit is probably 7+ feet tall. the tallest man in china is 8 + foot tall.
Do you think you tallest pygmie is 7 foot tall?

[Anonymous No.9509113]

>>9509056
you clearly did not read my argument the first time since you are trying to refute me with a point I address so let me repeat my argument for you so that this time you can read and understand it.

Those papers are one part of the evidence that races exist. First you notice that different populations of humans are phenotypically similar in terms of facial features and skin colour, and you come up for names grouping these ethnicities (e.g. caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid). then you measure average differences between these races like height, predisposition towards certain genetic disorders, biochemistry (e.g. alcohol metabolism) and so on . At the same time , you find look at the genes of the ethnic groups within these racial groupings and find out that these crude racial groupings you made up based on simply facial features and skin colour do overlap pretty well with genetic reality because when you map out fixation index distances between different ethnic groups , you find as extremely visible clusters the caucasoid and mongoloid categories you came up with and you find that ethnic groups considered caucasoid are genetically more closely related to each other than to ethnic groups considered mongoloid or negroid.

If you concede all this then you concede everything I want from you and I've already won.
You admit that different ethnic groups have different traits on average from other ethnic groups and you admit that ethnic groups are more or less related to each other in a way that matches the 19th century understanding of race pretty well considering that all they were estimating by were facial features, skin colour and some linguistics and history and geographical guesswork.

[Anonymous No.9509119]

>>9509106
There's a huge mortality tradeoff with height. It's very energetically expensive for people to maintain that much "person," not to mention that the more cells an organism has the higher the chance of a stochastic event that eventually gives way to a tumor.

I don't get you /pol/ guys and your obsession with height.

[Anonymous No.9509129]

>>9509096
Also, a lot of SNP's associated with "intelligence" are found in different populations. Some are found higher in some European populations, others in some Asian populations and yet others in a few African populations.

[Anonymous No.9509136]

>>9509048

> I've already won

No, you've only shown yourself the phenomenon of confirmation bias, using yourself as the subject.

There's a saying "young, dumb and full of spunk".

Spunk trumps reason every time, just like Trump seems reasonable to the dumb.

You can use logical propositions to prove anything, but it won't necessarily make them "real", nor will such be "science", ever.

[Anonymous No.9509139]

>>9509113
Those papers only talk about fixation distances. Not only that, but extremely small fixation distances, which says the populations are actually very closely related to each other. If you measure average GENETIC differences between populations, you find most of the variation is shared with all humans, not segregated between groups. Skin color does NOT overlap with genetic reality.

You also completely fail to understand the concept of genetic variation, or even phenotypic variation. Not all black people look the same or have the same skulls, like the memes from /pol/ try to imply. You find variations of genetics and phenotypes in all groups.


In fact, we already tried to segregate humans intro "groups" based solely on genetic distance and similarity. It does not replicate any racial groups.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full

[Anonymous No.9509144]

>>9509129
>Some are found higher in some European populations
That's not how SNPs work, brainlet.

"some are found higher in some European populations"

People try to explain that in scientific terms.

[Anonymous No.9509145]

>>9509144
I'm typing responses very quickly, so you can nitpick semantics all you want, but you know what I meant.

>found in higher frequencies

[Anonymous No.9509149]

>>9508118
I am

[Anonymous No.9509150]

>>9509000
Still awaiting for the examples...

[Anonymous No.9509154]

>>9509150
I'll be waiting for a /pol/ member to contribute anything to society. All they do is try to take credit for other people's work. They only thing they have is their skin.

[Anonymous No.9509155]

>>9509119

But height means one is superior to everyone else, especially women, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.9509162]

>>9509155

On behalf of Alex Jones, I'm curious to know the sexual orientation of that frog that Obama is so gleefully consuming.

[Anonymous No.9509166]

>>9509150

Why do you bother?

Its just a priviledged caucasian thats lived such a protected life it can't even learn and understand basic genetic concepts despite being given private schooling that most are left without.

You are wasting your time on this degenerate created by the elitist culture.

[Anonymous No.9509167]

>>9509105
At this point you are abandoning the factual argument than before which is fine but let it be noted that you decided to stop challenging me on the facts and decide to challenge my motives instead, which make no difference to the facts.
>You're thinking of life like a game and populations like teams. Can't you see how dehumanizing that is?

that's the way nearly the whole world views it.
in-group preference is widely practiced in virtually every ethnic group all over the world . The only group that has suppressed that instinct to a large degree whereby such thinking is considered enough to make you a social pariah are white people. everywhere else and in every other group of people it is normal and people take pride in their race and openly want what is best for their people.

why is it a good thing to hold ourselves to standards that other people don't match? a group of people who loosely cooperate and practice some form of nepotism will be comparatively advantaged compared to a group of people who do not , and the group who do not will be comparatively disadvantaged.

Is it benevolent to give up being the majority ethnic group in our ancestral homelands when none of the other ethnic groups flooding into our countries would willingly allow their ethnic group to become the minority in their home country?

most "woke" black activists aren't motivated by egalitarian principles, they're simply chauvinists. they want what is best for their people and using this social movement is how they get it. their interest in egalitarian principles ends as soon as criticising examples of black racism, such as the racially targetted robbing and assault of east asians in the bay area by black people, begins.

why is it a good thing to accomodate another race's chauvinism at our race's expense?

[Anonymous No.9509173]

>>9509162

Green.

[Anonymous No.9509179]

>>9509154
This discussion has nothing to do with skin, but with behavior. And you know that.
And obviously I'm not trying to take merits from these men I mentioned. Even if I wanted, I'm a Brazilian mongrel.
The question remains though.

[Anonymous No.9509184]

>>9509167
>why is it a good thing to accomodate another race's chauvinism at our race's expense?

They've accommodated the chauvinism of white people for the entirety of last two centuries.

While we're talking about games, did you know that in game theory a more effective strategy when there's a surfeit of resources is cooperation and not competition? If you truly want humanity to progress at a faster rate, you shouldn't advocate for parochial altruism and identity politics, you should advocate for cooperation and multiculturalism.

The way things are going, though, I'm not sure if that's ever going to happen.

[Anonymous No.9509190]

>>9509167

Generalizations based on your own personal views?

Confirmation bias - its all you got.

And that means you will end up knowing very little, and end up getting that little very wrong, too.

[Anonymous No.9509192]

>>9508611
>I believe lactose intolerance for example can be quite confidently predicted from race
Literally 3/4 of humanity is lactose intolerant from Nigeria through Japan to Chile

[Anonymous No.9509196]

>>9509166
These pampered first world dudes live in a bubble. They can't imagine what it is to live among feral niggers. Yet.

[Anonymous No.9509213]

>>9509119
you seem to have trouble following the conversation. I picked height of pygmies as an example because you claimed that belonging to a certain population did not limit the specific individuals in that population and I used pygmies being above 6'4 or 7 feet as a counter example.

>>9509129
Are you telling me this as though it contradicts something I have said? it doesn't.

>>9509136
If I'm wrong then demonstrate which of my claims or reasoning is wrong. Otherwise your post is just worthless posturing.

>>9509139
>
In fact, we already tried to segregate humans intro "groups" based solely on genetic distance and similarity. It does not replicate any racial groups.
>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full

bullshit. did you even take a cursorary look at the paper? look at K= 3
the 3 clusters fall basically perfectly into subsaharan african, caucasoid, and mongoloid categories invented by racial scientists in the 19th century.
meaning that when you look at the 3 divisions or clusters that capture the most genetic BIC about the world's populations they well match the categories coined by anthropologists in the
19th century.

the earlier part of your post is shameless straw-manning and information that does not contradict my claims.

[Anonymous No.9509223]

>>9509196

This guy really got to you, didn't he? Now you don't have anything to elevate your status.

And if you study genetics or biology further, you will learn that your pale pink skin is actually a defect.

A failure of the melanin pigment genes to function.

As far as I can tell from reading related studies, this defective set of genes was introduced, when your ancestors cross-bred with cave-apes.

According to archeologists, this took place in the geographic are of the modern Spain some 18 to 7 thousand years ago.

Google it up, you might learn something about yourself. A mutt, a freak of nature, a mutant: "white".

Its a scientific fact. You cannot refute this. You cannot argue this. You can repeat the studies, and you will end up with the same result.

Pic is one of the scientists who did the gene sequencing that provided the data, from Sweden.

Belief in race is just like religion. If you are dumb enough to blindly believe in something that doesn't exist, you probably are beyond help.

[Anonymous No.9509237]

>>9509213

You lack sufficient skill to make a convincing, strong argument. In fact, you are only acting out a type of soapboxing. Preaching.

It has nothing to do with the studies that propose genes within populations can be grouped into statistical groups, and then modeles as "distance between populations".

Of course it is perfectly ok to troll around in order to waste one's time. I can't blame you for that.

[Anonymous No.9509240]

>>9509223
>And if you study genetics or biology further, you will learn that your pale pink skin is actually a defect.

I'm not talking about skin color. I couldn't care less about that. You guys are obsessed with skin. i'm talking about behavior.

And by the way, I'm not white-skinned (or whatever you wanna call it).

[Anonymous No.9509251]

Can someone explain something to a brainlet? Let's say in 1400 AD some catastrophe had wiped out all of humanity except for two small populations in southern Africa and central America respectively. A while later some alien scientists show up and are able to determine these populations are the same species as they can interbreed, but it seems that it would also be reasonable for them to be categorized as two different "sub-types" of that species as they could be easily distinguished by appearance, skeletal structure, genetics etc.

Now in reality of course this catastrophe never happened so there is a smooth gradient of other human populations between these two. But does that mean that such a categorization no longer exists, or cannot be made? There's a smooth gradient in time between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus but we still make that categorization.

[Anonymous No.9509252]

>>9509184
>They've accommodated the chauvinism of white people for the entirety of last two centuries.

No, they were made to accomodate it. And they would all agree that it was unjust and not a good thing that it happened.
Africans are an example of how accomodating another race's chauvinism is a bad thing.
>While we're talking about games, did you know that in game theory a more effective strategy when there's a surfeit of resources is cooperation and not competition?
Human history has in general seen a process of smaller groups of more related humans forming larger groups of less-related, cooperating humans. from families to tribes to ethnic groups to nations to sometimes empires.
However it would be very simplistic to assume that therefore it just always happens naturally like water evaporating. in early history it was made to happen by a conqueror's will with a lot of bloodshed and destruction and absobption of defeated tribes/ethnic groups a lot of the time, which does not happen in modern, civilised times. And the circumstances under which distinguishable ethnic groups can form a stable state are quite particular and far from a foregone conclusion.

In modern rimes, more ethnically diverse states are generally less stable politically than less ethnically diverse states and people there are less trusting.

You can't just force different people to live and cooperate together with beneficial results under all circumstances. to say so would be naive.

If YOU want humanity to progress at a faster rate you would not want europeans , east asians and jews with mean IQs of >= 100 interbreeding in more than tiny numbers with negroes, whose mean IQs even when raised in 1st world countries with 1st world education systems is between 85 and 90.

if every black interbred with a non-black then in one generation the mean IQ of say western europe or america would plummet from 100 down to 92-95 meaning that the occurence of someone with the IQ of say paul dirac or

[Anonymous No.9509260]

>>9509184
[cont] einstein would become much rarer. That would be a much greater hindrance to human progress than simply having humanity progress with ethnically mostly-homogenous nation states like from 1950-2000.

besides, multiculturalism can work when it's just whites, east asians and indians. It's negroes with their low average IQ and middle eastern muslims with their uncivilised , potent belief system that prevent multiculturalism from working well.

[Anonymous No.9509267]

>>9509190
generalisations based on proxy indicators from their observed behaviour in real life, on social media, in news stories and mass demonstrations of tribalism by them (such as most blacks supporting oj simpson being found not guilty of murdering his white wife despite tonnes of evidence of it, and most blacks supporting R kelly being found innocent of underage sex despite there being a video of him urinating on a 14 year old prostitute)

[Anonymous No.9509268]

>>9509213
>bullshit. did you even take a cursorary look at the paper? look at K= 3
So you're saying all PIE people, including the middle east, india, and northern africa are all one race? That's what the paper says.

[Anonymous No.9509272]

>>9509252
These guys seem to really believe that the only difference between a subsaharan nigger and a human is the skin color.
So since a have a fairly dark skin I must be a nigger for them.

[Anonymous No.9509278]

>>9509237
>You lack sufficient skill to make a convincing, strong argument. In fact, you are only acting out a type of soapboxing. Preaching.

You lack the skill either to bring any evidence to support your claims or provide any reasoning showing how my arguments are wrong.
All you can do is empty posturing like this sentence or worthlessly vague sentences like the next.
>It has nothing to do with the studies that propose genes within populations can be grouped into statistical groups, and then modeles as "distance between populations".
Ok, so what are you saying , could you elaborate as to how what I have said is wrong? Or would producing less vague be instantly exposed?

>ur a troll
you are actually the troll but that's ok. I have free time right not and I get dopamine from this.

[Anonymous No.9509283]

>>9508100
>t. not a geneticist

[Anonymous No.9509286]

>>9508100
>>9508086
>>9508151
That's not how it works. Africans alone are more genetically diverse than whites are from Asians.

[Anonymous No.9509288]

>>9509268
I've been saying that a caucasoid racial cluster exists since more than 100 posts ago see >>9508815 and >>9508172

[Anonymous No.9509298]

>>9509286
subsaharan Africa as a whole doesn't cluster but bantu people do.

[Anonymous No.9509323]

biology is a pseudoscience, darwinism is unfalsifiable, what geneticists say doesn't matter because they're just taking a guess

[Anonymous No.9509826]

So, here is the list of the geneticists.

>

Ok, so, with that, its

/thread

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9509857]

>>9508079

absolutely no biologist thinks races exist. The problem is american vocabulary. The US is the only country in the planet that still talks about races.

Americans love to be unique (pic related) but it can be dangerous sometime.

[Anonymous No.9509868]

>>9508079
Please direct all queries about racing to /o/.

[Anonymous No.9510189]

>>9508079

[Anonymous No.9510195]

>>9509223
>And if you study genetics or biology further, you will learn that your pale pink skin is actually a defect.

niggers

[Anonymous No.9510338]

wh*te genocide is good

[Anonymous No.9510472]

The question stands: why niggers on average are borderline retards?

[Anonymous No.9510604]

>brainlet doesn't realize nothing "exists" apart from the whole

[Anonymous No.9510612]

>>9508107
Jewish iq is a meme. Notice that all of these iq studies differentiate between east Asians and southeast Asians, as well as Ashkenazi and other jews, yet all gentile whites are lumped together - Irish with English, northern Italian with southern, and all of the rest.

The fact remains that 90%+ of all STEM related endeavors are the product of gentile European ingenuity. There will never be a jewish Newton, Gauss, or Galois. Word games and aggregation are all they are good at.

[Anonymous No.9510633]

>>9510612
>The fact remains that 90%+ of all STEM related endeavors are the product of gentile European ingenuity. There will never be a jewish Newton, Gauss, or Galois.
Einstein, Bohr, Oppenheimer, Feynman, Von Neuman, etc. The list goes on and on.

[Anonymous No.9510638]

>>9510338

>I'm oppressed!

[Anonymous No.9510640]

>>9510638
>brown people exist and I might have to see them = white genocide!

[Anonymous No.9510661]

>>9510612
>Jewish iq is a meme

No it's not. Just look at the number of famous jewish physicists and mathematicians in the last century.

>>9510633

There are many White, Jewish, Indian and East Asian geniuses in Physics and Math. Why there are no niggers of renown in these areas?

[Anonymous No.9510662]

>>9510633
>Einstein
The og meme scientist. He begged Hilbert to create the mathematics necessary to describe his theories, and Lorentz and Poincare did all the mathematical groundwork for SR. In all honesty saying they are Einstein's physical theories is still giving him too much credit. Gauss, Riemann, Bolyai and numerous others posited that the universe was non-Euclidean more than 100 years before Einstein.
>Bohr
Half goy. Hebes really must be desperate; I always see the "le 27% of all Nobel prizes" meme, yet no one cares to mention that statistic includes people that have as little as 1/8 Jewish ancestry.

[Anonymous No.9510664]

>>9510661
I meant that the gentile - jewish deficit is a meme.

[Anonymous No.9510666]

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f96/50ed07fb419fc6b2a0de80417ae12e5bcc82.pdf

[Anonymous No.9510669]

>>9510662
i'm Alt-Right, but this anti-Einstein crusade is ridiculous. Back to stormfront!

[Anonymous No.9510672]

>>9510669
Who said I was anti- Einstein? I'm just saying his accomplishments are conspicuously blown out of proportion by mainstream popsci. And I've never been to Stormfront.

[Anonymous No.9510677]

>>9510664

If you want a kike whose influence was really deleterious to science in the last century check (((Thomas Kuhn))).
Most of the great jewish scientists of the last century were not against science at all. On the other hand, many of the "good guys" were opposed to science, e.g. Heidegger.
Race is important, but it you must not reduce the whole history and sociology of science to it.

[Anonymous No.9510682]

>>9510672
Okay, sorry then. But this sort of thing happens all the time e.g. Stephen Hawking.
The mainstream pop sci say nothing about Robert Crane, whose work saved millions, just to give an example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Crane

[Anonymous No.9510691]

>>9508205
>races that have not been genetically isolated from eachother and not evolved in radically different environments for more than 70'000 years are mentally identical from a biological perspective
lol

[Anonymous No.9510697]

Guys what are pajeets? Are we a subspecies of humans? We live in Asia but don't look like 'asians'. Most of us are turdskins and dark but our features do not match negroids.

[Anonymous No.9510709]

>>9508263
>niggers are stupid.
It's literally impossible to talk these kind of topics with someone who can say this.

[Anonymous No.9510711]

>>9510697
This article can help: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14317
Use Sci-Hub if you don't have access.

[Anonymous No.9510715]

>>9510711
>No mention of race
Fucking dropped.

[Anonymous No.9510716]

>>9510697
But answering your question more directly, I think only subsaharan niggers and abos should be considered different species.

[Anonymous No.9510721]

>>9510716
>A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.
/pol/ does not know the basics of the topic they are "discussing", what a shocker

[Anonymous No.9510722]

>>9510715
Race was a scientific term in the 19th century and early 20th century. Today it's used informally, like nigger etc., but should not used in technical writing. We use terms like clusters, subspecies etc. instead of race.

[Anonymous No.9510730]

>>9510722
It should be used in technical writing though. It's scientific fact that race exists.

[Anonymous No.9510735]

>>9510721

I understand Mayr motivations when he created this definition (in the pre-cladistics era). This is obsolete now though. The only criterion used to determine a biological group is monophyly.

[Anonymous No.9510743]

>>9510730
Who cares about names? Look at an Eukarya cladogram, you need hundreds of rankings for taxons, new rankings are created all the time. Why use loaded terms like race?

[Anonymous No.9510748]

>>9510743
Because race is real. Science shouldn't care about being politically correct.

[Anonymous No.9510750]

>>9510735
[citation needed]

Also, which definition of "monophyly" are you referring to?

[Anonymous No.9510753]

>>9510730
You could say that subsaharans are a different species, for example. Or a different subspecies, cluster, whatever. You just need a label. This label does not need to be race. This is an obsolete term.

[Anonymous No.9510757]

>>9510750
The definition you find in any Phylogenetic Systematics textbook.

[Anonymous No.9510765]

>>9510753
But race is the most accurate classification. Why use any other label?

[Anonymous No.9510766]

>>9510748
No. Race is a label. Like species, genus, family etc. Clades exists. How we label them is a matter of convention.

[Anonymous No.9510768]

>>9510766
Correction: clades exist

[Anonymous No.9510779]

>>9510765
What's so accurate about race?

[Anonymous No.9510780]

>>9510766
Okay, but the article still never mentioned the known "clades" like negroid and caucasoid, etc. Pretending like it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.9510789]

>>9510765
You are confounding taxonomy with systematics. Nobody seriously denies that there are genetically different human populations and that this difference is reflected in their physiology and behaviour. That's the systematics.

Now the taxonomy. The label race is not used by zoologists, it's not on the ICZN, iirc. Why should we apply this label to humans?

[Anonymous No.9510790]

>>9510662
>>9510612

stop it. you're making our side look stupid. ashkenazi jews have a high mean IQ.

That's fine. this is just more evidence for their being racial differences in average IQ.

[Anonymous No.9510796]

>>9510697
see >>9508172
nearly all indians are part of the caucasoid cluster . indians from the 7 sisters are intermediate between caucasoid and mongoloid and some indians are intermediate between australoid and caucasoid.

[Anonymous No.9510800]

>>9510789
>Now the taxonomy. The label race is not used by zoologists, it's not on the ICZN, iirc. Why should we apply this label to humans?
Because race is scientifically valid and accurate. They can call is subspecies or whatever, that works too.

[Anonymous No.9510803]

>>9510780
Because that was not the aim of the paper. Now open any journal on human evolution and you will find many cladograms. Not only of populations of individuals, but cladograms of genes, proteins etc.

[Anonymous No.9510805]

Where's the actual, peer-reviewed publication on the Cheddar Man thing? I can literally only find blog posts, no *real* sources.

[Anonymous No.9510812]

>>9510779
Have you seen the correlations of genes?

[Anonymous No.9510813]

>>9510800
Subspecies is used. It's an okay term. The only reason we don't use it with humans groups is political/social. For humans, we use terms like ethnic groups (cringe), clusters, clines etc. But any zoologist would call these subspecies or even species.

[Anonymous No.9510817]

>>9510800
>Because race is scientifically valid and accurate.
It is not. In contrast to species, races have overlap zones and those are more or less arbitarily put into the nearest box. Many scientists drop the whole sub-species classification concept because it is way too shallow to depict the reality. It doesn't mean we are all the same, it just means we are not evidently different enough to be put into a set box.
Just think about following classification problems: Are Greeks, Italians or Slavs white? Are Turks asian? This is far from evident.

[Anonymous No.9510819]

>>9510812
No. What do they correlate with? Genes?

[Anonymous No.9510824]

>46 people made 234 posts in a troll thread

[Anonymous No.9510835]

Jesus christ, Marie. They're minerals.

[Anonymous No.9510836]

>>9510817
this is a fallacious argument. You're claiming that because the border of something does not have perfect clarity, that the thing does not exist.

This implies that no clusters exist and that a cluster is an invalid concept. But infact clusters are a well understood and useful concept used frequently in statistics and machine learning.

It is also wrong because you're using the fact that colloquial terms might differ in their understood meaning from person to person to imply that they do not describe some underlying , objective reality.
For example, one person might consider 100 a large number. another person might consider 100000 a large number. Would you then say that "large" is a social construct? Obviously not because even though people's view of what constitutes large may be socially constructed, we can objectively say that 100000 is larger than 100 and we can objectively say that if you consider 100 to be a large number then you must also consider 1000000 to be a large number.

It's very similar with race.
One person might consider native europeans to be white.
Another person might consider native europeans and north africans to be white. fair enough, white is a slang word which does not have a codified meaning. However we can definitely say that if the 2nd person considers north africans to be white then he must also consider persians to be white, since persians are more close genetically to both egyptians and to europeans than europeans and egyptians are to each other.

So it is not a social construct meaning that it is something totally arbitrary that can be decided however we want.
It's like calling a number large. the label or standard to consider something large can be subjective, but the underlying size of a number is not subjective and how we designate other numbers once we decide on a standard of large is not subjective either.

[Anonymous No.9510857]

>>9510836
>This implies that no clusters exist and that a cluster is an invalid concept. But infact clusters are a well understood and useful concept used frequently in statistics and machine learning.
Yeah, and then you change a few parameters, or take a different clustering algorithm, or just use a different distance measure, or you get some new data, and suddenly you have completely different clusters. Which clusters are the "correct" ones then?

>It is also wrong because you're using the fact that colloquial terms might differ in their understood meaning from person to person to imply that they do not describe some underlying , objective reality.
>For example, one person might consider 100 a large number. another person might consider 100000 a large number. Would you then say that "large" is a social construct? Obviously not because even though people's view of what constitutes large may be socially constructed, we can objectively say that 100000 is larger than 100 and we can objectively say that if you consider 100 to be a large number then you must also consider 1000000 to be a large number.
It's almost as if you have to define words in science so they get meaning. If you define large as "100 or bigger", then there is no ambiguity about it all. If you do not define it, then you cannot use the word in a scientific context
This is coincidentally the situation with race: Lots of "realists", but nobody saying what race is actually supposed to be

[Anonymous No.9510862]

>>9510817
>In contrast to species, races have overlap zones

You should read a bit about the tokogeny/phylogeny divide.

[Anonymous No.9510876]

>>9510836
We are talking about scientifically useful labels here. You yourself are using geographic groupings yourself which are far more useful than when talking about genetic clusters. "Black" and "White" are way to general if you want to be rigorous.

Race-realizm is not science just because you want scientist to use your useless labels. It doesn't work that way.

[Anonymous No.9510880]

>>9510817
And you are using the term "species" in the essentialist pre-darwinian sense (folk biology). This concept of species is as real as the concept of race you are criticizing.

Here is a good book on this:
https://www.amazon.com/Species-Concepts-Biology-Development-Theoretical/dp/3319449648/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518453020&sr=8-1&keywords=species+concepts+in+biology

[Anonymous No.9510893]

>>9510836
>>9510857
Oh, and I almost forgot, about clustering:
Most clustering algorithms DO NOT converge to an unique solution.
You give them the same data, the same parameters and the same distance measure, and run them twice, and IT GIVES YOU DIFFERENT RESULTS
Even though you didn't change anything.
Clustering is nice for finding correlations, but it's horrible if you want to classify data points, and that's why no scientist would ever suggest making a classification according to some clusters they found

[Anonymous No.9510898]

>>9510790
You're an idiot. I never said Ashkenazi jews had low average iq. I'm saying it doesn't make any sense to discern between the different ethnicities of jews and not gentiles (which these studies are notorious for). Notice also that variance is never reported.

[Anonymous No.9510901]

>>9510893
This is why we should stick to phylogenetic analysis to reconstruct the evolutionary history.

[Anonymous No.9510914]

>>9510857
>Yeah, and then you change a few parameters, or take a different clustering algorithm, or just use a different distance measure, or you get some new data, and suddenly you have completely different clusters.

except that hasn't happened with the data set of humanity. Caucasoid and mongoloid clusters have been arrived at independently by multiple different methods see >>9508172 (where caucasoid and mongoloid clusters are screamingly obvious and would be picked out by any clustering algorithm).


and http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full for K = 3

>This is coincidentally the situation with race: Lots of "realists", but nobody saying what race is actually supposed to be
This is yet more dishonest semantics by you.

Any race realist is perfectly happy to specify which ethnic groups he is talking about if you ask him to be more precise.
It seems more your side who wants to hide from the facing the reality of there being mean differences between different ethnic groups by avoiding the conversation by saying "there is no such thing as race" every time the discussion arises.

the word race itself is not especially important. here is what it means >>9508815

>>9510876
Black and white when talking about groups of people mean "of native subsaharan african ancestry" and "of native european ancestry"

An albino bantu from nigeria is not a white person.

[Anonymous No.9510923]

>>9510893
furthermore, the level of resolution you want to use when talking about races doesn't really matter as long as the groupings or clusters you construct are consistent with genetic reality, i.e. you don't say that europeans are white except for the irish

The real issue is that different ethnic groups or populations of humans who have been partially reproductively isolated and evolved under different selection pressures from populations of humans living in other geographic locations have significantly different traits on average due to the differing allele distributions of those populations or ethnic groups.

[Anonymous No.9510971]

>>9510914
>except that hasn't happened with the data set of humanity. Caucasoid and mongoloid clusters have been arrived at independently by multiple different methods see >>9508172 (where caucasoid and mongoloid clusters are screamingly obvious and would be picked out by any clustering algorithm).
That depends on your definition of "caucasoid" and "mongoloid". And border cases will fluctuate between clusters in any case

>and http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full for K = 3
What's so bad about K=2? Only the fact that it doesn't give you the clusters you want?

From the paper:
>This procedure, implemented in the computer program structure (14), places individuals into K clusters, where K is chosen in advance but can be varied across independent runs of the algorithm
>At K = 2 the clusters were anchored by Africa and America, regions separated by a relatively large genetic distance (table S1). Each increase
in K split one of the clusters obtained with the previous value. At K 5, clusters corresponded largely to major geographic regions.
>However, the next cluster at K 6 did not match a major region but consisted largely of individuals of the isolated Kalash group, who speak an Indo-European language and live in northwest Pakistan (Fig. 1 and table S2).

>>>In several populations, individuals had partial membership in multiple clusters, with similar membership coefficients for most individuals.
!!!

>These populations might reflect continuous gradations in allele frequencies across regions or admixture of neighboring groups. Unlike other populations from Pakistan, Kalash showed no membership in East Asia at K 5, consistent with their suggested European or Middle Eastern origin (15).

Basically "choose the K you want to get the answer you want"

>For K = 3, similarity coefficients for pairs of runs were typically moderate (0.1 to 0.85), rather than large (0.85 to 1.0).
!!!

[Anonymous No.9510991]

>>9510914
>Any race realist is perfectly happy to specify which ethnic groups he is talking about if you ask him to be more precise.
>It seems more your side who wants to hide from the facing the reality of there being mean differences between different ethnic groups by avoiding the conversation by saying "there is no such thing as race" every time the discussion arises.

>the word race itself is not especially important. here is what it means >>9508815

>race is a colloquial term for a group of ethnic groups who are more closelely related to each other ethnic groups within that race than to ethnic groups outside that race.
That's a non-definition, it can mean anything depending on what "more closely" is supposed to mean. By your definition all of humanity is a race if you choose the right "more closely"

[Anonymous No.9511108]

All if them. They just cannot say it.

[Anonymous No.9511123]

>race
Not science.

[Anonymous No.9511132]

>>9510914
How is that useful? If you are going to have to give your current definition of who you mean when talking about a certain race anyway, why not just cut the useless, vaguely defined labels?

Its almost like race-realists desperately want their ideology to be accepted as science to give some unearned creditably to alt-right ideas.

[Anonymous No.9511135]

>>9508151
Negroid: Nigger*

[Anonymous No.9511159]

>>9511123
>nigger
Not human

[Anonymous No.9511166]

Pol Pot was right

[Anonymous No.9511171]

>>9511159
Sorry not sorry. Race is not science. No matter how many threads you create and spam your BASELESS opinions.

Race is still not science. Race is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9511181]

>>9511171
Ok, I don't believe in race. Niggers are not humans though.

[Anonymous No.9511205]

>>9511171
Yes, because every race discussion is de facto banned in scientific community.

[Anonymous No.9511212]

>>9511205
>because
Easily wrong.

Race is not science, anon.

[Anonymous No.9511218]

>>9511212
Race is not science that's why scientists don't talk about race that's because race it not sciences that's because scientists don't talk about race ...
Everyone who will ever try to talk about race will lose his career btw. Tot because there is some conspiracy, just because it is not scientific.

[Anonymous No.9511221]

>>9511212
We have a deal:
-Race is not science
-Niggers are not humans

I think we can all agree on that.

[Anonymous No.9511318]

>>9511181
>>being this delusional

[Anonymous No.9511323]

>>9511218
>scientist mentions astrolog-
>"news:astrology is science"
Race is not science.
>>9511221
I think it's easy to understand that race is not science, anon.

[Anonymous No.9511346]

>>9511323
> scientist mentions race
> no news coverage
> scientists loses his position and finding

[Anonymous No.9511354]

>>9511346
>x loses job
>race becomes science
Incredibly wrong. Race is not science, anon.

Race is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9511370]

>>9511354
I got it, leftypol raid, I saw it on /v/ recently.

[Anonymous No.9511378]

>>9511323
I'm not saying that niggers are a race.

[Anonymous No.9511386]

The question stands: why niggers on average are borderline retarded?

[Anonymous No.9511388]

>>9508079
Image from
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5959/1541

>Asia harbors substantial cultural and linguistic diversity, but the geographic structure of genetic variation across the continent remains enigmatic.
> Here we report a large-scale survey of autosomal variation from a broad geographic sample of Asian human populations. Our results show that genetic ancestry is strongly correlated with linguistic affiliations as well as geography.
> Most populations show relatedness within ethnic/linguistic groups, despite prevalent gene flow among populations.

[Anonymous No.9512176]

>>9511132
>>9510971
>>9510991
See, you're both just proving my point. If your problem is that you don't understand who I mean when I make a statement about the differences between white and black people, all I need to do is rephrase with more precision that by white I mean people of native european ancestry and by black I mean people of native subsaharan african ancestry and the factual differences between these two groups remain.

You are perfectly proving my point that because you don't want to talk about or acknowledge these average differences between these populations you're simply hiding behind semantics.

>What's so bad about K=2? Only the fact that it doesn't give you the clusters you want?
There isn't anything bad about K = 2 . At whatever level of resolution you want to consider different populations or groupings of populations , categorisations based on genetic similarity remain a good indicator of more closely shared ancestry than populations with less genetic similarity.

It is not important for my argument whether we say that there are exactly 3 races , or 6 or 30 , etc. so long as racial classifications are sensible based on genetic similarity as a proxy for ancestry. (e.g. It would not be sensible to say that the english and japanese belong to the same race but turkish people do not because turks are more closely related to british and japanese people than british and japanese people are to each other)

>>>>In several populations, individuals had partial membership in multiple clusters, with similar membership coefficients for most individuals.
Yes mixed race people and populations exist. I feel we've already been over this ground >>9510836
> You're claiming that because the border of something does not have perfect clarity, that the thing does not exist.

>This implies that no clusters exist and that a cluster is an invalid concept.

see >>9508172
uygur and hazara for example clearly do not fall clearly within either the caucasoid [cont]

[Anonymous No.9512186]

>>9510971
[cont] cluster or mongoloid cluster. this matches what we know about the history of steppe people . nevertheless a caucasoid and mongoloid cluster are readily apparent.

[Anonymous No.9512193]

Probably, but it's career-ending to admit it so they keep quiet.

[Anonymous No.9512200]

>>9511132
because why say "people of european ancestry" instead of white and "people of subsaharan african ancestry" instead of black when most people already know what these terms mean anyway?

>Its almost like race-realists desperately want their ideology to be accepted as science
biological differences between races ARE accepted science already you ignorant retard.

black people don't end up with black skin just because they're raised in hot climates. they have black skin because of their genes.
Already it's emphatically proven that different races are biologically different.

[Anonymous No.9512248]

>>9511386
They were never able to properly "evolve" (Both culturally and evolutionary).

Evolution is driven by changes in the habitat, African blacks have been living under identical conditions for a long time, while the people who left Africa met new challenges and opportunities that forced them to evolve and change in order to survive. Sure, not every change is a good one, but once in a while a good change comes a long, and good evolutionary changes spread fast! And now, pretty much every group of people who left Africa have been seen to reach some sort of "success", unmatched by Africans at least.
So clearly, going away from the African habitat, then specifically the sub-Shara areas, was the needed change for humans to evolve to the stage we see to day. Different climate, fauna/biodiversity, topography and every other difference one can think off...

Africa is just the key to all of it. It's just a shit place, it lacks the conditions for humans to evolve into the next, civilized stage. So in the end, blacks are not the problem, it's that they unfortunately were stuck in Africa.

[Anonymous No.9512276]

>>9510189
>>9510195

[Anonymous No.9512311]

>>9512200
Except race isn't science, anon.

[Anonymous No.9512348]

Why niggers are on average borderline retarded?

[Anonymous No.9512357]

Do low-IQ people actually believe this stuff? They think that race is not determined genetically? I'm sure Asian couples just randomly pop out black babies.

Don't care about politics, but this is some next level retardation.

[Anonymous No.9512370]

>>9512357
>Don't care about politics, but this is some next level retardation.

Never underestimate the sheer stupidity of liberal creationists

[Anonymous No.9512398]

>>9512370
>All the geneticists and anthropologists in the world who have studied human genetics and evolution = "creationists"

[Anonymous No.9512411]

You said it.

Believe.

Thats what people like you do.

Geneticists, otoh, do not believe, but study phenomena instead.

And no, there is no such phenomena as "race" to be found, using the toolset of science.

Its a phenomena common men use to describe their projected prejudices and stereotypes - psychology would be more suited to study "races".

Then again, plebs won't get it.

[Anonymous No.9512416]

Believe. Thats for the undeducated.

Geneticists, otoh, do not believe, but study phenomena instead.

And no, there is no such phenomena as "race" to be found, using the toolset of science.

Its a word common men use to describe their projected prejudices and stereotypes - psychology would be more suited to study "races".

Then again, plebs won't get it, ever.

[Anonymous No.9512422]

>>9512416
>>9512398

K

[Anonymous No.9512434]

>>9512416

OK, let me apologize.

This board is after all for pleb-children. (and people on their level)

[Anonymous No.9512441]

>>9510898
It does make sense because ashkenazi jews are the majority of jews whereas these high IQ white subgroups are a minority.

[Anonymous No.9512447]

>>9512416
>>9512434

>Blah blah blah
>I'm so smart
>That's why I speak condescendingly, yet provide no data

[Anonymous No.9512454]

Dear Pleb Child,

I truly am sorry for hitting a nerve. I apologize deeply, and promise not to tell the truth about this board being for pleb children/man-childs/ppl-on-their-level.

Best,

Anon

[Anonymous No.9512485]

>>9512422
All those Fst distances are really small. Do you even understand fst distances and genetic variation?

[Anonymous No.9512488]

>>9509857
12 points in a line 12 lines in an inch 12 inches in a foot.
12 ounces in a pound then there is a gross and then a great gross

The reason we don't still have base 12 supremacy is because the same idiots who think you should count to 1000 for your measurements decided that they should fuck with the good measurements.

[Anonymous No.9512734]

>>9511388
This is from 2009, idiot.
It's clearly outdated.

[Anonymous No.9512745]

>>9512422
>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Yeah, the lactose intolerance race, the R1b race and the squatting race lol
>>9512357
>iq
Not science.

[Anonymous No.9512797]

>>9508357
The arrogance of people like you, really

[Anonymous No.9512833]

>>9508079
No, we totally don’t check on sickle cell based on skin color

[Anonymous No.9512857]

>>9510662

singles out two and ignore the others. uncle /pol/ is off with his ramblings again

[Anonymous No.9512888]

>>9510672
Yeah, just like Salk got the bulk of the credit in the media, even though he worked with a team. I suppose the media didn't feel like any of the gentiles were worth mentioning.

[Anonymous No.9513379]

>>9512485
>find conserved Fst distances between different continental groups
>let's say that they're small so that we don't need to pay attention to them

>>9512416
geneticists study different races all the time, they just say "of subsaharan african ancestry" instead of black and "of european ancestry" instead of white.

and the fact that we can tell which of these groups someone belongs to looking just at their genes means yes it is something that is found in the tool set of science.

[Anonymous No.9513502]

>>9509286
and?

[Anonymous No.9513506]

>>9510612
>desperately try to find any evidence for blacks IQ being lower than whites
>at the same time deny all the evidence that jewish IQ is higher than whites
how deluded do you have to be?
you don't care about the facts, you care about bending your perception of the world so that you believe your race is the smartest
pathetic

[Anonymous No.9513508]

>>9513379
>let's say that they're small so that we don't need to pay attention to them
Very small Fst distances means there is very little genetic variation between the groups, so most getting variation is going to be shared between all populations.

[Anonymous No.9513514]

>>9508079
>think in 2018 that races exist?
Race is a categorization system invented by human beings, just like the Dewey Decimal System.
Does the Dewey Decimal System "not exist"?

[Anonymous No.9513516]

>>9513514
The general claim is that there are large genetic differences between people of different skin color, which is false.

[Anonymous No.9513517]

>>9512734
So Is Einstein & all modern Physics outdated?
Einstein died in 1955, you know.

Is Darwin's Evolution Theory outdated?
Darwin died in 1882, you know.

but I agree that Marxism is clearly outdated.
Since Karl marx died in 1883.
19 century retard ideology.
It's 2018 common.
Stop with Marxist Retardation.

[Anonymous No.9513518]

>>9512734 >>9513514
Karl Marx died in 1883.

It's 2018 come on!

[Anonymous No.9513520]

>>9513518
>>9513517
>anyone I don't like is a communist!

>hey don't call me a nazi just because I agree with everything they stood for and constantly post on an image board that supports them! Also, look how many people the communists killed! The holocaust? Oh that's not real!

[Anonymous No.9513536]

>>9513518
>>9513517

[Anonymous No.9513544]

>>9513520
>being this triggered and shitposting on a tibetan oilpainting forum

What do you think you will gain?

[Anonymous No.9513551]

>>9513544
>someone responded to a post

>they must be triggered! lel! troll face!

[Anonymous No.9513567]

Average IQ (Average Income)

Jew 110 ($97,500)
East Asians 105 ($76,260)
White 100 ($60,256) (not hispanic)
Hispanic 89 ($42,491)
Black 70 ($35,398)

http://aristocratsofthesoul.com/average-iq-by-race-and-ethnicity/

[Anonymous No.9513591]

>>9513567
oh /pol/, you never learn...

[Anonymous No.9513602]

>>9513567
>Spamming the same post in multiple threads
Talk about triggered

[Anonymous No.9513648]

>>9513591
>let's ignore evidence that suggests something contrary to our world view for no reason other than it being contrary to our world view

[Anonymous No.9513664]

>>9513648
Now apply the same to yourself.

[Anonymous No.9513675]

>>9513648
Tell me, what is this evidence suggesting that is contrary to our world view?

[Anonymous No.9513744]

>>9513567
Wrong. Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

[Anonymous No.9513806]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1lEPQYQk8s

[Anonymous No.9514743]

>>9512857
Way to not refute any of my points.

[Anonymous No.9514747]

>>9513506
Can you address any of the objections I made to these studies? If not then squarely fuck off.