Any biologists here? Isn't it possible that you could determine

>>129524420
Ask this on /sci/

>>129524420
I know it's a lefty meme to discredit race, but race is unironically a social construct. However that doesn't mean it's not real, or is irrelevant somehow because of that.
Race is not strictly defined, and where race "starts and ends" (retarded analogy) is debatable. The term "white" is an American term used originally to define the European settlers in America from the niggers, since the Americans were all mixed euros with similar cultures, they were no longer "Hungarian" or "German" or "Anglo Saxon", but "White".
And the untainted purity of European people's is what Spencer is defending. The very strict definition of Europeans with no other ethnic mixes in there.
You cannot make an equation or formula when you can't even define the race.
If you use your brain and look at our reproduction rates (negative growth rate at this time), and account for all the mixing and people not starting families who aren't accounted for at all in the reproduction equation which is already negative, you can easily see the race will dwindle out quickly without a change in our culture and focus on reproduction and in group preference.

>>129526067
You're dodging the question in favor of semantics.

fuck off antifa cuck

White ethnostate or death

>>129526330
he's saying that your question can't be answered because the premises are false. retard.

>>129524420
We can't even decide on what phenotype counts as "white", we have constant threads of Euros talking shit about each others ethnicity and calling each other shitskins.
Before you can create a model like that we'd first have to establish what it means to be white from a phenotypic standpoint.

>>129524420
Literally Google this. There are thousands of simulators for ecological research. You'll have a hard time though cuz white isn't just one gene

>>129527607
This.

The last two digits of this post is how many years whites have left.

File: blue eyes rate.png (19KB, 575x140px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 575x140px

this NYT article might give you some insight
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/americas/18iht-web.1018eyes.3199975.html

You already went down from a 50% rate for blue eyes to one of 15% in 100 years.

>>129529020
>unarchived clickbaiters
https://archive.is/VUho

File: IMG_0483.jpg (79KB, 642x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 642x720px

>>129529070
Jesus Christ man, you're a machine
All fucking day I swear
The true Guardian of pol

>>129529070
It's an article from 2006, why the fuck would I archive that?