I'M A CHANGED MAN

>We aren't different subspecies, but rather just slightly different environmental adaptation wise.

You need to mull over this in your mind a little bit more. Let some more neurons communicate with each other, activate those almonds.

>>140004180
How about you actually debate the subject rather than stating I need to think about it more?

The most founded conclusions come from discussion after all.

>>140004715
What do you think separates groups into subspecies?

File: subspecies.jpg (59KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 800x600px

I'll make it easy for you

>When geographically separate populations of a species exhibit recognizable phenotypic differences, biologists may identify these as separate subspecies; a subspecies is a recognized local variant of a species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies#Criteria

>>140005595
>using Wikipedia as a credible source
What are you, 12?
The term subspecies exists to make it easier for biologists to organize evolution. The human species shares the same genetic makeup regardless of race. If you took black people and put them in western europe, after a few hundred thousand years, they'll be whiter.

>>140005380
The same species but with significant differences based on environment.

The difference between the human races are incredibly insignificant, when comparing them to the differences between subspecies.

>>140006230
This was taken from Wikipedia as well.
>A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species

>>140003982
you are an idiot and so is kraut
there are MANY species and subspecies (these are different things) that can hybridize successfully. He picked one meme-tier example that simply does not apply, and even worse, Donkeys and Horses are different species with a different chromosome count. Not even subspecies.
He got everything in the video wrong and it's unbelievable that he is that dumb. Literally Dunning-Kruger

>>140006230
>after a few hundred thousand years they'll be whiter

Well no shit, Europeans have been separated from Africans for far less time than that. Evolution moves pretty quick but not quick enough to do anything useful in our lifetimes.

File: 1498923260791.jpg (79KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 480x640px

>>140006322
well those minor differences create pretty different societies and temperaments, don'tcha think?

>>140006395
Donkeys and horses can't produce fertile young.
They are not close enough genetically to do such.

Ligers are a thing but they suffer from disabilities and only the females are fertile.

>>140006322
>The difference between the human races are incredibly insignificant, when comparing them to the differences between subspecies.
Time to break out the big guns, I suppose.

Black Americans are a hybrid race of around 22% White ancestry
https://archive.is/Drwfh
https://web.archive.org/web/20101109024947/http://genomebiology.com/content/10/12/R141
http://genomebiology.com/content/10/12/r141
Part 4:

This 22% ancestry is the cause of multiple negative health effects due to genetic incompatibility. Indeed, consistent with Haldane’s rule, unmixed Blacks from Africa and White Americans do not have the same rate of birth problems that hybrid American Blacks have: “In 2005, the mortality rate for black infants was 4.4 times higher than that of white infants… African women who come to the United States and have babies experience the same low rate of infant deaths as white American mothers.”
http://t1nyurl.com/6tr9e6t (docs.google)

>>140006670
Take a shitty uneducated species and put them in paradise and they never see their potential.

>>140006776
Uh no shit, that's exactly what I said, Donkeys and Horses don't have the same chromosome count so the gametes get BTFO. But there are many plant and animal species that DO hybridize successfully (corvids, bears, etc). The definition of species does not always rely on inability to reproduce.

K&T conflated the species and subspecies concepts and constantly misrepresented how they are defined in taxonomy

Here's a great example of outbreeding depression.
LTA4H, or “leukotriene A4 hydrolase” is found on chromosome 17. An allele of this gene increases the risk of heart attack (the #1 cause of death in America) in Blacks by more than 250%, but only 16% in Whites. The 30% of Whites with this allele have counteracting genes, while the 6% of Black Americans who obtained it through race mixing do not.
https://archive.is/RtzDl
https://web.archive.org/web/20091106164913/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16282974
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16282974

A match between two people who share more genetically in common significantly reduces the risk of the donor and recipient cells attacking each other. (READ: cells from people of two different races will attack and fight each other as though they are a virus)

The more people of different backgrounds who produce offspring = the more types that are harder to match.
Multiracial patients have uncommon profiles and since there can be many possible racial and ethnic combinations in multiracial societies, finding a match can still be extremely difficult.
https://archive.is/uJX9b
https://web.archive.org/web/20130627011716/http://m.phys.org/_news162659550.html
http://m.phys.org/_news162659550.html

>>140006521
>Well no shit, Europeans have been separated from Africans for far less time than that.
No. You do understand that modern man (homo sapien) sprung out of the middle east/africa. They spread to Europe and asia and settled. After hundreds of thousands of years, people in Europe became whiter due to less sunlight. People in Asia adapted to their surroundings.
They didn't evolve, they adapted to their surroundings. Evolution would mean they would become either superior or inferior to the rest of the population. If it were either of those, races wouldn't exist.

A White mother of mixed-race child would have more genetically in common with a random White person on the street than with her own child.
If such a dramatic and fundamental alienation from your own parents if not horrific enough, With a mixed-race child diagnosed with leukaemia, every member of the child's own family becomes an incompatible donor for a bone-marrow transplant, and finding a compatible donor is unlikely:

>One obstacle to finding a matching donor was her mixed ethnic background. Her father is black, with West Indian and Panamanian roots. Her mother is white, with Russian-Jewish roots. In addition, only 5 percent of registered donors are black.
https://archive.is/WJBHy
https://web.archive.org/web/20101110065949/http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/18/sports/baseball-rod-carew-s-daughter-dies.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/18/sports/baseball-rod-carew-s-daughter-dies.html

>''Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. Since all the immune system's cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body.
https://archive.is/H5Kc9
https://web.archive.org/web/20100605001133/http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html

Race matters when a patient needs a stem cell or marrow transplant
>If you become ill with a blood cancer or other disease that requires a stem cell transplant, here's an uncomfortable fact: Your race matters. Diversity is a strength in much of life, [citation needed!] but it's a curse when finding a stem cell donor match.
https://archive.is/VZEeQ
https://web.archive.org/web/20130824180603/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-05/national/41085742_1_stem-jeffrey-chell-ancestors
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-05/national/41085742_1_stem-jeffrey-chell-ancestors

>>140007059
Is this bait? The Out of Africa founder effect on Eurasians has been dated to less than 100kya.

"Evolution" doesn't imply becoming superior outside of better adaptation to a given environment. It only implies change over time, and we assign value judgments to that change after the fact.

The Race for Ancestral Genetics in Clinical Trials
>A seasoned cancer researcher would never set up a study in which all the ill patients were, say, Canadian, and all the healthy controls were Japanese. And yet cancer researchers risk making a similar mistake if they overlook genetic information that fleshes out what many of us like to think of as race or ethnicity, some experts say.
Part 11:
>Fortunately, awareness of how ancestral genetics might contribute to risk of disease and drug response in people has risen over the last several years. Studies that look directly at the problem are on the rapid rise, and this increased interest has biotechnology companies lowering the cost of tests that determine genetic ancestry, thanks to a little competition. However, experts have yet to decide on how to genetically define ancestry, suggesting examining anywhere from a handful to hundreds of gene variants.

>Not including information on the race or ethnicity of study volunteers could skew disease risks as stronger or weaker than they really are.

>"Alzheimer's disease is the poster child for this problem," says pharmacogeneticist Esteban Burchard, M.D., of the University of California in San Francisco. A variant of the gene ApoE4 is a strong genetic risk factor for early-onset Alzheimer's disease, and the characteristic most likely to raise or lower that risk is race.

>"It occurs in about 20% of the African American population, and it means nothing. It occurs in about 6% of the Japanese, and it makes their risk six times higher [than that for white people]," Burchard said. "Something about being Japanese unleashes the wrath of the gene, and something about being African American attenuates it."
https://archive.is/VZEeQ
https://web.archive.org/web/20110810112956/http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/18/1270.full
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/18/1270.full

He got RageAfterStorm fired from her job.

>>140007375
Irrelevant to his arguments about race realism. Too bad for him they are shit all on their own.

>>140007225
>Is this bait? The Out of Africa founder effect on Eurasians has been dated to less than 100kya
Are you implying homo sapiens have only been around for less than 100 thousand years?

>>140004715
You are arguing semantics. Wether you want to call them subspecies or " different environmental adaptation groups" matters little to the point. We are still different on a genetic level, but even that doesn't really matter.
Even if we were the exact same, we would still be incompatible at a social, cultural and civilizational level

>>140007896
Indeed.

>>140004715
You really are just debating the minutiae of semantics, which is pleb tier level of discussion.

>>140007452

Yes but he got her fired

>>140007840
That's not what was stated at all. Read the posts again, founder effect is due to population bottleneck since only a small subset of Africans actually left Africa to become Eurasian. That bottleneck is dated to less than 100kya, so saying "after hundreds of thousands of years" Europeans got lighter skin is technically inaccurate. Changes in skin color can take place over just a few thousand years.

>>140003982
>I'M A CHANGED MAN
Astolfo tends to have that effect on people.

File: 1502135251300.jpg (66KB, 291x290px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 291x290px

>>140008174
Toppest kek

>>140006230
Always thought about this, if we end up a space faring species wouldn't we all get whiter? That's assuming we use generation ships and don't send robots over with our seed inorder to populate a planet.

>>140008161
Yeah and that means that we are all descendants of that subset that left africa, doesn't it? If it takes a shorter amount of time, it doesn't really matter. It shows that race exists due to enviroment. Not because they're different species

>>140008629
Mankind isn't capable of long term space travel. Unless we create artificial gravity and other Sci fi stuff. I expect to see some sort of ai flying most of our deep space stiff. Much like the theory that the Grey ayys are just biological AIs

>>140008750
Are you confused about how evolution works? Different species and subspecies exist due to environment. You get speciation from variations between populations in different environments growing over time.

Clearly human groups are not species yet but we were well on our way before the technological advancement of Europeans bringing populations back into proximity.

>>140008629
Maybe blacker as there's no UV protection in space.
Then again our suits would be constantly protecting us so maybe.

>>140008629
Only if the environment selects for it through lighter-skinned offspring having more successful children. A technologically advanced species would have totally relaxed Darwinian selection. The only alternative is Lamarckism, and that's not exactly scientific.

The argument from Kraut are retarded but he's not really wrong when he claim that the definition of race has grey are.

What you all have to understand is that our sexual maturity is longer than any other species, so, our natural selection is much lower.

>>140003982
So your telling me that between populations, muscle density, bone structure, facial features, eye colour, hair colour, skin pigmentation, blood types, the ability to process certain types of food (lactose intolerant), weight, height, the shape of peoples fucking toes are all different and have adapted and changed over the years but the brain didnt change in the slightest?

>>140009695
Ridiculous, isn't it? Literally impossible too, due to pleiotropy connecting physical traits to behavioral traits.

>>140009177
The word subspecies was created to better organize a group of animals. For example a tiger has many "subspecies" like the Bengal tiger or Siberia tiger. They both share the same "root" but branch off due to the encoroment they're in.
>Clearly human groups are not species yet but we were well on our way before the technological advancement of Europeans bringing populations back into proximity.
Pretty stupid. Who would you classify as homo sapien? What would you call the other species?
Sapien is the only homo species still in existence

>>140009695
That's like saying every culture is their own subspecies.

File: 1383526481696.png (20KB, 111x143px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 111x143px

>>140003982
I don't care who you are OP.
sage

>>140009695
The difference between human population are single nucleotide polymorphisms, not warrant enough to claim a scientific classification.

I'm not saying that humans can't be classified, it's just not taxonomically valid.

>>140009695
Not noticeably no as seen if you raise a black or non white child properly in a developed country.

>>140006874
>Black Americans are a hybrid race of around 22% White ancestry
>White Americans do not have the same rate of birth problems that hybrid American Blacks have
nigger, if you think black americans are mixed but white americans arent? what the fuck are you even smoking?

>>140009695
brain makeup is a bigger and more fundamental change than anything you described so no

>>140009774
Here's more wiki for you anon, about when homo sapien spread across the world.
>Recent evidence suggests that humans may have left Africa half a million years earlier than previously thought. A joint Franco-Indian team has found human artefacts in the Siwalk Hills north of New Delhi dating back at least 2.6 million years. This is earlier than the previous earliest finding of genus Homo at Dmanisi, in Georgia, dating to 1.85 million years. Although controversial, tools found at a Chinese cave strengthen the case that humans used tools as far back as 2.48 million years ago

>>140007025
Wow what an in-depth thought out response. I wonder where OP went?

>>140009622
We don't really have much in the way of 'natural' selection in the 21st century, hence my reference to relaxed Darwinian selection. Infant mortality is ridiculously low, nearly everyone gets a chance to breed. This is a historical and evolutionary anomaly.

>>140009839
>The word subspecies was created to better organize a group of animals.
This is true of species, genus, order, class, family, and any other taxonomical term. These groupings are more arbitrary than we realize at first glance, even when cladistic taxonomy is used. I meant human groups are not separate species yet, that should have been clear. We can interbreed and sub-Saharan Africans still have most total variation, very few genes are not found somewhere in Africa. What makes the races different are the combinations in which genes are found: gene complexes.

File: image.jpg (21KB, 275x228px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 275x228px

The MCPH1 gene also shows signs of introgression;

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635020/
>The gene microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size during development
>Instead, our data are consistent with a model of population subdivision followed by introgression to account for the origin of the D allele
>the lineage leading to modern humans was split from another Homo lineage, and the two lineages remained in reproductive isolation for ≈1,100,000 years
>During this period of reproductive isolation, the modern human lineage was fixed for the non-D allele at the microcephalin locus, whereas the other Homo lineage was fixed for the D allele
>These two alleles are differentiated by a large number of sequence differences accumulated during the prolonged isolation of the two populations
>At or sometime before ≈37,000 years ago, a (possibly rare) interbreeding event occurred between the two lineages, bringing a copy of the D allele into anatomically modern humans
>Furthermore, the worldwide frequency distribution of the D allele, exceptionally high outside of Africa but low in sub-Saharan Africa (29), suggests, but does not necessitate, admixture with an archaic Eurasian population

>https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs2442513

Orange is AA, green is AC, and blue is CC. The three letter codes can be read here;

>https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Help_(population_diversity)

YRI, LWK and MKK are all African populations, and ASW is the acronym for American blacks.

If you look at pic related, you can see that CC only exists in Africans.

Only homozygotic Africans express microcephaly, but the point is that the CC homozygote genotype only exists in African populations. The low IQ's of every sub-Saharan African country is the evidence required to prove that blacks are clincally retarded, and that the C allele is associated with low IQ - as you can see, AC is also almost entirely limited to the African populations.

>>140006322
>based on environment

Scientists have found hints that a 'ghost' species of archaic humans
may have contributed genetic material to ancestors of people living in sub-Saharan Africa today.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170721113415.htm

>>140010094
Wrong. Nice try though. Subspecies of other species are not defined by that criteria. Taxonomic validity is determined by taxonomic usefulness, and an accurate proxy for geographic ancestry is quite useful.

The differences between human groups aren't just the SNPs but the specific combinations of thousands of them that make up gene complexes.

>>140010598

Y-haplogroups A and BT are defined by two mutations - M91 and P97;

Chimp/Y-BT = M91 = 9T, P97 = Allele-T,
Y-A = M91 = 8T, P97 = Allele-G.

Even if the claim that A's P97-G allele is ancestral was true, that doesn't imply that BT descends from A - A00 is also 8T, implying simply that the source of 8T bred into the human line within the last 254,000 years. The fact that every single BT subclade is 9T implies that BT had to emerge before 254,000 years ago, or else it wouldn't have A2-T and A1a-T's mutations while still having the ancestral 9T version of P91, thus making it a direct descendent of the P91-9T 'Root' like all the A's, not the descendent of A.

>>140010802
>ghost species
You mean the aliems
>>140010985
The differences between human groups are far more complex than just genetics

>>140010193
Completely delusional and against everything we know from empirical observation and scientific research. Hence the boogeyman of 'institutional racism' to explain the persistent gaps in achievement regardless of environment.

>>140010198
European Americans are like an average 98% European. The different ethnic groups in Europe are far more similar to each other than Africans are to any other group.

>>140003982
>rather just slightly different environmental adaptation wise
Explain then how white people are the only ones who can into space

>>140011136

On top of this, a recent source of pre-modern hominid DNA in Africans has been found to date to as recently as 35kYBP, with the DNA having diverged from H. sapiens' around 1250kYBP;

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3174671/
>A long-debated question concerns the fate of archaic forms of the genus Homo: did they go extinct without interbreeding with anatomically modern humans, or are their genes present in contemporary populations? This question is typically focused on the genetic contribution of archaic forms outside of Africa. Here we use DNA sequence data gathered from 61 noncoding autosomal regions in a sample of three sub-Saharan African populations (Mandenka, Biaka, and San) to test models of African archaic admixture
>Three candidate regions showing deep haplotype divergence
>Interestingly, the Mbuti represent the only population in our survey that carries the introgressive variant at all three candidate loci
>Extensive simulation results reject the null model of no admixture and allow us to infer that contemporary African populations contain a small proportion of genetic material (≈2%) that introgressed ≈35 kya from an archaic population that split from the ancestors of anatomically modern humans ≈700 kya
>One candidate locus with an unusual segment of DNA that extends for >31 kb on chromosome 4 seems to have introgressed into modern Africans from a now-extinct taxon that may have lived in central Africa
>We estimated an initial split time of 1.25 Mya (95% CI, 0.7–2.1 Mya) and an admixture time of 37 kya (95% CI, 1–137 kya

>>140010598
You will need a better sample for your claim.

See: https://youtu.be/-mGPJlTJIPI?t=298

>>140010985
Understanding Human Genetic Variation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20363/

Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

Genetic Structure of Human Populations
https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf

Genetic Variation, classification and 'race'
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

With your logic, you can claim numerous numbers of races.

>>140010293
Archaic fossils outside of Africa are not directly related to the Out of Africa population bottleneck. These hominins produced populations such as Neanderthal and Denisovan.

>>140011205
>Completely delusional and against everything we know from empirical observation and scientific research. Hence the boogeyman of 'institutional racism' to explain the persistent gaps in achievement regardless of environment.
So your saying that regardless if you give a black person a good education, teach them your morals and values, they're gonna be ignorant just because they're black?

>>140011378
Loos are in space now faggot.

>>140011205
I was under the impression that the gap in America was due to this black ethnocentric gang culture.

I have not met many black people here who are idiots, the ones who are seem to be part of a similar gang culture.

>>140011386

What this entails is that A000 is an H. erectus lineage defined by the P91-8T allele that split off from the rest of mankind around 1,250,000YBP, introgressing into multiple BT-lineages around 37,000YBP and granting it the mutant M91-8T allele that defines Y-haplogroups A1b, A1a-T and A2-T and their descendent clades. We have three candidate regions of introgression, and we need to explain exactly three different introgressions into different BT sub-clades.

Basal A00 supposedly dates to 338,000YBP;

>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713000736
>We sequenced ∼240 kb of this chromosome to identify private, derived mutations on this lineage, which we named A00. We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya

Although A00 is a clade derived directly from A000, it's point of divergence from A000 of 338kYBP corresponds to the Jebel Irhoud remains;

>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v546/n7657/full/nature22336.html
>Fossil evidence points to an African origin of Homo sapiens from a group called either H. heidelbergensis or H. rhodesiensis
>In combination with an age of 315±34 thousand years

The divergence point of H. sapiens and neanderthals is estimated to be 550k-765kYBP;

>http://www.nature.com/news/oldest-ancient-human-dna-details-dawn-of-neanderthals-1.19557
>The remains are known as the Sima hominins because they were found in Sima de los Huesos (Spanish for ‘pit of bones’), a 13-metre-deep shaft in Spain’s Atapuerca mountains
>And its age suggests that the early predecessors of humans diverged from those of Neanderthals between 550,000 and 765,000 years ago

>>140011479
To support you, I have link proving that black americans reduced the IQ gap.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40064475?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

>>140011157
Of course, because each group carries its culture with it, and culture and genetics co-evolve. This is Dual Inheritance theory and basic element of the new evolutionary synthesis.

>>140011157
>You mean the aliens
No, they mean 'proto humans' ie non humans, which they've 'not found yet'

>>140011575
Look up haplogroups and school yourself a bit. Wicherts, et al, somewhat deals with the issue of haplogroups.

The concept of "european admixture" is more of a social construct than a real thing. You can clearly track a persons heritage and ethnicity by region and nation using their genome because theres no single european genome, or even single genome for any race in general.

Europeans historically hated eachother based on tribalism and the phenotypic differences between even bordering nations several hundred years ago were incredibly apparent. IE: differences between Spain,

France and Britain, and Italy. I hope you do understand that was quite literally and actually racism between "european admixtures"- ones as simple as the british and french having big noses is/was a phenotypic difference that seperated them from other nations and is linked to genomic similarities based on tribal origins.

Even the concept of whites v minorites is fairly uneuropean when going back in history. The truth is that lighter and paler people, and fat people just to add a bit of accuracy, were preffered in general around the world because they were viewed to be of a higher caste and didn't have to spend a seemingly affective amount of time in the sun/exercising.

Off tangent, but a little bit off insight and truth that would and does, academically, tear down the very concept of our current races and not-so-physically tribal differences.

>>140010233
"brain makeup" is controlled by many thousands of genes, any of which can change (or be repeated more or fewer times) and cause only slight variations in the neurological structure and therefore resulting behavior. Psychological or behavioral traits are highly polygenic.

>>140011452
Yes of course, any population isolated for long enough will effectively become its own race. Population clusters vary both in size and distance from each other, and we define the term 'race' in ways that make it useful for us.

>>140011575

Evidence linking the Denisovan-Neanderthal-Y-Adam meta-group exists in the form of two genes related to pigment - BNC2 and UGT1A1;

>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134548#pone.0134548.ref058
>The microsatellite length in two Neandertal individuals [57] and one Denisovan [58] are similar to present-day humans outside of Africa in having a TA repeat of length 6 in the promoter of UGT1A1

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478293/
>BNC2 seems to be a strong candidate for adaptive introgression, as shown in two genome-wide archaic ancestry analyses23, 47. Sankararaman et al.47 applied the CRF model to detect introgressed segments, and then inferred selection based on departures from a null model of neutrally introgressed alleles. Vernot and Akey23 also found the introgressed region using S*, then confirmed its ancestry by matching it with the Neanderthal genome

However, neither Denisovans nor neanderthals had the A allele of the SLC24A5 gene;

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3525967/table/T7/?report=objectonly
>PCMs covered by both the Denisovan sequence and the Neanderthal sequence
>Increased skin pigmentation, association with
>SLC24A5 A > G:GGG

The oldest remains containing the A allele of SLC24A5 date to 13kYBP;

>http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912
>a Late Upper Palaeolithic (13,700 years old, 9.5-fold) male from Switzerland
>While we detect Late Palaeolithic–Mesolithic genomic continuity in both regions, we find that Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) belong to a distinct ancient clade that split from western hunter-gatherers ∼45kya
>Like EF, but in contrast to WHG, CHG carry a variant of the SLC24A5 gene17 associated with light skin colour (rs1426654

>Continuity in the Caucasus is also supported by the mitochondrial and Y chromosomal haplogroups of Kotias (H13c and J2a, respectively) and Satsurblia (K3 and J), which are all found at high frequencies in Georgia today

File: Skærmbillede (34).png (187KB, 1330x672px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1330x672px

>>140003982
First I prove the fundamental difference between men and women. Pic and essay related.
http://archive.is/dBehg
>>140010193
And in next post I prove the fundamental difference between human races.

>>140011479
"Ignorant" isn't the term I would use here, but there is a persistent gap in achievement, ability to accumulate wealth even at high incomes, and test scores despite being in the Americas for hundreds of years.

Also interesting to note that Africans with higher levels of European admixture consistently score better than those with less.

>>140011543
Black gang culture wherever they go is a product of essential collectivism and racial consciousness. They simply aren't as individualistic as Europeans have evolved to be. The UK has the benefit of more of its African population being voluntary immigrants and therefore represent the best of the best of that continent. American blacks are simply not up to those standards.

>>140011861
The human body functions in its own isolated way. It's a phenomena and statistical anomaly for someones body to react differently than anther's in a given circumstance with even moderate control over variables.

What you are doing is comparing the physicality of a human being to the mentality of one. The brain doesn't need for a change in genetic makeup/extreme adaptation in order to function completely differently than another. Most aspects of brain function is reliant on nurture excluding the genetic hardwiring for its groundwork.

In sum: the body can be absolutely understood and predictions/conclusions can be made about how it'll react to every stimulus given controls the vast majority of the time whereas no hard conclusions can be made about the brain because a single variable is enough to completely alter its framework.

Do you actually understand how memories are formed? Do you understand what roles chemicals and environment play in the makeup of the brain? Do you grasp the what potentiates the brain and what causes it to stagnate? Are you capable of understanding and accepting the absolute fact that you cannot draw a generalization from multiple studies that revolve around the brain unless they're almost absolutely constant?

The fundamental understanding of the brain we have today is based on decades (even centuries in some aspects) of actual hard evidence that no educated psychologist would draw a general conclusion from. Now try to understand this, I am not biased. If you were capable of showing me something that was absolute; some study that was repeated over and over again that repeatable and had repeating results and accounted for all variables indefinitely I would absolutely accept it. What I just stated was, in essence, the scientific method. The scientific method exists for a reason. So long as I can point out anything you say to disprove it, it will not be accepted as hard science.

File: 1487531420146.jpg (246KB, 619x682px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 619x682px

>>140010193
Australian aboriginals evolved isolated from the rest of mankind for 50.000 years. They can't build a modern house with everything installed and they can't be taught. A wolf and a border collie can breed, one has the genetic inclination to herd sheep, the other will never learn no matter the training.
There is your difference in the brain, with a repeatable experiment.

>>140011780
Oh atlanteans, gotcha.
>>140011603
Im guessing you're one of those nigger haters that hates niggers just because they're niggers. Nigger
>>140011655
Ones culture has nothing to do with genetics. What if I adopted a Chinese baby and taught it British culture?
>>14001200
>Yes of course, any population isolated for long enough will effectively become its own race.
No. Race has everything to do with enviroment.

>>140011157
"Genomes from Sub-Saharan Africa had a version of the gene that was wildly different from versions found in other modern humans."
"The Sub-Saharan variant was so distinctive that Neanderthal and Denisovan MUC7 genes matched more closely with those of other modern humans than the Sub-Saharan outlier did."

"Based on our analysis"
>the most plausible explanation for this extreme variation is archaic introgression.

or, more likely
>they are archaic sub-species

>>140011603
>the Flynn effect
This is a well-known effect that has unfortunately reached its limits as discovered recently.

There are environmental effects on intelligence that are reduced as you age (see: The Wilson Effect) and there are environmental effects that are not reduced. The latter are mostly negative (pollution, abuse and other trauma, malnutrition). If you remove these you allow the genes to reach their full potential. Blacks ironically can only reach their full genetic potential in White societies as they cannot produce societies with good environments on their own. The Flynn effect has limits and does not obviate the conclusions of the Jensen Effect.

File: 1431501565422.png (310KB, 780x1000px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 780x1000px

WHAT IS THE WARRIOR GENE?

The Warrior Gene refers to certain copies (alleles) of the MAO-A gene that have been linked to violent anti-social behavior. One such copy, 2R, which I'll call the "violent ape allele", is 55x more common in niggers than in whites:

>Studies have found differences in the frequency distribution of variants of the MAOA gene between ethnic groups:[32][33] of the participants, 59% of Black men, 54% of Chinese men, 56% of Maori men, and 34% of Caucasian men carried the 3R allele, while 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carried the 2R allele.[23][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#Antisocial_Behavior

The reason a majority of niggers act like violent apes is because they carry the violent ape allele. This supports the hypothesis that niggers are genetically inferior subhumans.

>>140012281
Your letting your racism get in the way. You can hate niggers that's fine, but hate them for what they do. Not because of their skin color

File: 1499214202553.gif (1MB, 370x288px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 370x288px

>>140003982
>thinks darwin is right
>thousands of years of different environment wouldnt create mental and physical differences

File: 1490607781196.png (396KB, 599x502px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 599x502px

>>140012322
>The fundamental understanding of the brain we have today is based on decades (even centuries in some aspects) of actual hard evidence that no educated psychologist would draw a general conclusion from. Now try to understand this, I am not biased. If you were capable of showing me something that was absolute; some study that was repeated over and over again that repeatable and had repeating results and accounted for all variables indefinitely I would absolutely accept it.
Dude.>>140012406
The problem is, people won't do the experiments. The same goes for proving the fundamental difference between men and women, people won't do the experiments, it is not that they can't be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy#Response_to_Edwards
"In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[21] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never"."

>>140003982
>but rather just slightly different environmental adaptation wise.
Hey, believe whatever makes submitting to sand niggers easier for you..

>>140012603
MAO-A do not explain black crime:

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/29/genes-linked-to-violent-crime-but-can-they-explain-criminal-behavior/

>>140012448
What? I'm defending you man.

>>140011837

>Off tangent, but a little bit off insight and truth that would and does, academically, tear down the very concept of our current races and not-so-physically tribal differences

I concur - and it replaces them with new races. There is no pure white race, I agree. To be honest, I'm more interested in creating the purity I once naively imagined to exist than I am in genociding anyone.

I'm really just a very freethinking, open-minded transhumanist.

>>140012159

If EF and CHG both have the A allele of SLC24A5 and diverged from one another 40k-50kYBP, this would be precisely the date of origin for haplogroup K and H;

>https://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpH.html
>The founder of haplogroup H probably lived about 30,000-40,000 years ago
>https://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpK.html
>Y-DNA haplogroup K is an old lineage established approximately 40,000 thousand years ago whose origins were probably in southwestern Asia

Y-haplogroup IJK is fouhd in Europe from 30kYBP, and HIJK from 15kYBP - both ancestral to H, I, J and K. If K was found in Europe circa 47kYBP, than IJK must be older than K, and HIJK must be older than IJK. On this chart;

>http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912/figures/2

the split between the SLC24A5-A allele remains 13kYBP in Georgia and EF and the SLC24A5-G allele remains of the WHG potentially happened 75.8kYBP, thus producing a range of 45k-75kYBP.

>>140012567
Considering that at one time we had fucking dinosaurs running around, I wouldn't doubt it.
The earth was a completely different place with a completely different atmosphere.
I'm more of an ancient civilization than ayy guy

>>140012833
I see that now. I misread the link you (you)d me.
Can we be friends again, anon?

>>140012322
You are massively retarded, Descartes. A stunted holdover from deranged Enlightenment thinking. None of what you are saying is true and there are many repeatable experiments on how different structures within the brain interact with each other and how that interaction changes when lesions are introduced to various tissues. Pretending that the connection between physical tissue and mental experience is somehow stochastic is an obfuscatory attempt to deny biological determinism and cling to free will and disembodied reason.

https://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/Default.aspx?id=39343

>>140012799
"The problem is, people won't do the experiments"

This is not an excuse since studies about intelligence are still done. The media has political correctness not science.

>"In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[21] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never"."

Dude, you didn't read my links at all, I said that humans can be classified, no Lewontin Fallacy with me.

My point if that the difference are not enough to claims that human has subspecies.

>>140010193
Twin and adoption studies show that IQ is mostly inherited genetically. Blacks raised by high IQ high income whites still have a low IQ

>>140012639

No one said anything about skin color. Character and culture are all rooted in biology. There is a significant degree of biodiversity among all primate populations that affects cognition, behavior, and physical traits. Skin color is one of the least relevant ones.

File: AdvancedAfricanMedicine.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>140003982
>We aren't different subspecies
We aren't products of crossbreeding between different hominid species, no such thing as neanderthals or denisovians. I'm not a fucking ignorant piece of shit. You should listen to what I say, which isn't retarded at all. Britbongs aren't a bunch of intellectually castrated cucks at all.

>>140012448
Your Chinese baby would learn British culture obviously but it would probably grow up with an interesting interpretation and an affinity for some aspects more than others.

It's a fact that Chinese evolved a "rice culture" due to their ancient farming practices, and this has resulted in their modern large-scale collectivist mindset.

File: 1494893713714.png (129KB, 314x278px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 314x278px

>>140013156
>guy gets knocked out
>jack him off

File: pygmies.jpg (192KB, 900x599px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 900x599px

>>140013076
>My point if that the difference are not enough to claims that human has subspecies.
Would you agree that if I am right that australian aboriginals can't build a house without the help from hybrids or other races, that they can be considered a sub-species?

>>140012639
I described African behavior in a dispassionate way. The only one talking about skin color is you.

>>140012833
MAOA 2R allele is also correlated with gang violence and shooting/stabbing behavior. The general criminality of blacks is probably best explained by lower IQ

>>140013076
>My point if that the difference are not enough to claims that human has subspecies.

Look up how subspecies are classified in other animals, I dare you.

>>140012839
At least you're honest. Because thousands of race can be claimed if we use the definition from society.

>>140013068
Your link does a bad job to prove that.

A quarter of century is very long in science.

Psychology receives the bad name of soft science because of idiots like you who decide that you'll use what evidence you can get your hands on to prove your point regardless of how falsifiable given evidence is. I can't possibly imagine an intellectual with any true investment in higher education, college level and beyond, would make such baseless unscientific claims.

>>140013343
Do you have any credible evidence of your claim. There is still a lot of unknow about the period of "evolution".

>>140013030
It's fine.

>>140013408
Did you read my link about the MAOA gene?

>>140013500
Except that we have much longer sexual maturity than any other species, so our natural selection is slower because we wait much longer to produce offspring.

>>140013076
>My point if that the difference are not enough to claims that human has subspecies.

wolves and dogs have a 1.2% dna difference yet are considered subspecies.

>>140003982
most refreshing thread all week DESU.

>>140013152
You're new to the thread, re read.
>>140013213
Your basing this assumption off of a person's thought process. They wouldn't know anything about china or Chinese culture except "I look like them". That's really it.

>>140013797
See >>140013728

We're not old enough to have legit races/subspecies.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 275x228px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 275x228px

>>140012603

Whites (CEU) share the same low-function allele of MAOA on rs6323;

>https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs6323
>The G allele encodes for the higher activity form of the enzyme.
>Subjects with major depressive disorder with the highest activity form of the enzyme (G or G/G) had a significantly lower magnitude of placebo response.

GG is orange, GT is green and TT is blue. As you can see, TT is the most common genotype among CEU, or Europeans. Pic related.

Whites fight very high kill count wars (WWI and WWII) and are massive drug abusers.

>>140012839

This would be fall within the range both of the evolution Y-haplogroup F in Melanesia at 55.6kYBP, and and close to it's appearance in Europe at 41kYBP;

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105016
>The MA-1 mitochondrial genome belongs to haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequency among Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers10–12, and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages5
>Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians
>Furthermore, we estimate that 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population
>Acknowledging the low depth of coverage, we determined the most likely phylogenetic affiliation of the MA-1 Y chromosome to a basal lineage of haplogroup R

The last common ancestor of O and R was K, which according to this chart;

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2336805/table/T2/
>Caveats
>To provide estimates of the age of the nodes, we chose to fix the time to the most recent common ancestor of CT (defined by P9.1, M168, and M294) at 70 thousand years ago (Kya), which is consistent with previous estimates from genetic and archaeological data

File: images.jpg (5KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 275x183px

>>140003982
>You may have noticed my name
>For those of you who have, I am a changed man
>people should give a shit
Blah blah reddit.

File: evil_cat.jpg (327KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1280x960px

>>140004180
living cells have antenna that sense environment which activates or deactivates genes did you know?

>>140013728
>Except that we have much longer sexual maturity than any other species, so our natural selection is slower because we wait much longer to produce offspring.
This is not only false, it's also not relevant to subspecies classification. You could just admit that you don't know how subspecies are defined, and stop giving your uninformed shit opinion on the topic.

>>140005595
>biologists MAY identify
So what does this prove exactly?

>>140013896
>We're not old enough to have legit races/subspecies.

We domesticated the dog and that is considered a subspecies so how on earth can the different races not be old enough to be considered one?

>>140013728
>such baseless unscientific claims
Except it's true. You're being a retard right now, using an equivalent of the 'god of the gaps' to avoid what we actually know about the brain and behavior.

>>140014022

However, note the caveat - the 70kYBP calibration is arbitrary. Above I place the origin of Y-haplogroup CT at 320kYBP, thus implying that the sub-clades of F evolved n-Kya after that date. R1 is the youngest at 18,500YBP, but as shown above R* emerged 24,000YBP, so; 70,000 - 24,000 = 46,000 years after 320kYBP, or 274YBP.

If the A allele of SLC24A5 evolved in a branch of humanity that split off 46kYBP, that would entail that it evolved 70 - 46 = 25kYBP after 320kYBP, or roughly 295kYBP: This is younger than A000 (1250kYBP,) Denisovans (1000kYBP,) or neanderthals and Y-Adam (765kYBP,) and thus explains it's absence in these populations, except for a particular branch of CT.

Evidence of ancient derived alleles related to pigmentation comes from the presence of OCA2 mutations in archaic hominids;

>http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(16)31267-2
>they encountered and interbred with archaic hominins, including Neanderthals and Denisovans
>Here, we describe a comprehensive set of analyses that identified 126 high-frequency archaic haplotypes as putative targets of adaptive introgression in geographically diverse populations. These loci are enriched for immune-related genes (such as OAS1/2/3, TLR1/6/10, and TNFAIP3) and also encompass genes (including OCA2 and BNC2) that influence skin pigmentation phenotypes

And of course, if a species of anatomically modern humans existed at Jabel Irhoud circa 315kYBP, is it so much of a stretch that they or their relatives produced light-pigmented descendents in the far north circa 295kYBP? Moreover, this would allow Y-haplogroup R1 to enter the Americas at 274kYBP - exactly when they needed to show up to produce the Hueyatlaco remains.

>>140006230
where's your source? burden of proof is on you.

>>140014143
Which part is false? Humans having a longer sexual maturity? Or since we have a longer sexual maturity, we can choose when to reproduce?
Last time I checked, both of those are facts

>>140013880
Thought processes are the product of genetics + environment. Chinese thought process + British environment in this case. Neurological structure is more important than you realize.

>>140014311

What this entails is that the alleles associated with light pigmentation arose with the dawn of Y-Adam, because any case of a haplogroup with Y-Adam-derived mutations which now predominantly has the dark pigment causing G allele of SLC24A5 can be explained via introgression from A000. For that matter, Denisovans and neanderthals may have acquired the G allele from A000, and Denisovans could have acquired the dark version of BNC2 at the same time.

If you had a pure population of A000 in Africa and a mixed population of A000 derived, P91-8T mutants and pure Y-Adam SLC24A5-A homozygotes in Eurasia, over the long term Y chromosomal signatures such as the P91-8T, if caused by recombination of A000 and Y-Adam sex chromosomes, would be lost in non-A clades since the P91-8T mutation could only be passed on by direct Y descent. Yet, other genes inherited from A000 such as the G allele of SLC24A5 could be passed down to P91-9T descendents.

This could be explained by noting that chimps, gorillas and orangutans all have 48 chromosomes, while all humans have 46. Molecular clock analysis and the 765kYBP origin for neanderthals establishes 765kYBP as the latest date for chromosomal fusion;

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27708712/
>The reduction in chromosome number was caused by the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes to form human chromosome 2
>Next generation sequencing and molecular clock analyses estimated that this fusion arose prior to our last common ancestor with Neandertal and Denisovan hominins~0.74 - 4.5 million years ago

>>140014518

During this fusion, chromosome Y received a 100,000 basepair transposition from chromosome 1;

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11863072/
>During our search for evolutionary breakpoints on the Y chromosome, it transpired that a transposition of an approximately 100-kb DNA fragment from chromosome 1 onto the Y chromosome must have occurred in a common ancestor of human, chimpanzee and bonobo. Only the Y chromosomes of these three species contain the chromosome-1-derived fragment; it could not be detected on the Y chromosomes of gorillas or the other primates examined. Thus, this shared derived (synapomorphic) trait provides clear evidence for a Homo-Pan clade independent of DNA sequence analysis

The common ancestor of bonobos and chimpanzees lived less than one million years ago;

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15483319/
>The bonobo and the common chimpanzee are estimated to have diverged approximately 0.86 to 0.89 MYA, and the divergence of the two common chimpanzee subspecies is estimated to have occurred 0.42 MYA

However, chimpanzees and bonobos have interbred since 860kYBP;

>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161027142434.htm
>Published in the journal Science, the study from scientists at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and their international collaborators showed that one percent of chimpanzee genomes are derived from bonobos

And the oldest fossil evidence of chimpanzees only dates back to 500kYBP;

>http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/news050829-10.html
>500,000-year-old teeth shed light on evolutionary split between humans and chimps
>Palaeontologists digging in the dusty wastelands of East Africa have discovered the first known chimpanzee fossil

>>140014403
Let's go with both. There are certainly other organisms with longer time to sexual maturity, for various reasons, and the way humans "choose" to reproduce is no different from other organisms. Agency is socially constructed, our biology pushes us to reproduce in a certain way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern

>>140014334
fuck your source retard, look at the races on the fucking planet, look at what is happening with each of them, notice they look different but there is a pattern based upon humidity and sunlight levels...

YOU'RE SO FUCKING RETARDED FUCKING KILL YOUR SELF FAGGOT.,

They will never destroy the white race, they will never alter nature, it will all reset back to baseline.

File: iq race skin tone.png (1MB, 1126x1367px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1126x1367px

>>140003982
Enjoy getting violently displaced from your niche in life. I hope the overly empathetic wine of arrogance was worth it.

>>140014665

If it weren't for the evidence of introgression at 1250kYBP in Africa and the 1000kYBP estimate for the formation of the Denisovan gene pool, there would be no reason to believe chimpanzees were older than 860kYBP. However, if A000 was formed by introgression from a 48q-P91-8T hominid, that implies that Y-Adam was descended from a 46q-P91-9T hominid that emerged before 1250kYBP, meaning that the the 48-46 split happened before 1250kYBP. The extreme divergence of human and chimp Y chromosomes suggests an upper limit to the split of 6000kYBP, and this date represents the lower age range of the chimp Y chromosome, which would never recombine or receive information from the Y-DNYA genome - on the other hand, the X would recombine, assuring that it was shared by both chimp and human;

>http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/chimpanzees/genetics/chimpanzee-y-chromosome-2010.html
>Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation
>An interesting possibility: Maybe the extreme evolution of the Y chromosome in the emerging human and chimpanzee lineages explains the unusual similarity of their X chromosomes

>https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html
>Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content
>By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6million years. The chimpanzee MSY contains twice as many massive palindromes as the human MSY, yet it has lost large fractions of the MSY protein-coding genes and gene families present in the last common ancestor

>>140014413
You're saying that a chinese baby's empty brain will absorb information differently than an Indian baby, specifically because of where their ancestors come from?
>>140014334
http://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/difference-species-subspecies/
>>140014719
What about before marraige?

>>140014863

Comparing this date to the 740k-4500kYBP 2aq-2bq range, 4500kYBP seems to have been the antiquity of the 46q-P91-9T genotype. This entails that the Y-chromosomal Adam of Denisovans, neanderthals and Y-Adam (Y-DNYA) existed for 3250k years before it interbred with the African 48q-P91-8T hominid. However, there may have been as many as 310000kYBP or 310Mya between the divergence of the chimp and human Y.

When the 48q-P91-8T(B) hominid bred with Y-DNYA(A,) the resulting offspring would carry on a full 'B-line' and a full 'A-line' of alleles - except on 2q which would be AB plus unfused 2aq and 2bq, 4q-Xq-13q-18q which have introgression, and Yq which would be AB-1B. What this would entail is that the first generation would have 47 chromosomes - one fused 2aq-2bq chromosome, and a second set of unfused, pure 2aq and 2bq chromosomes which may have introgressed to human 2q, 13q or 18q.

The transposition of information from 1q to Yq would explain the P91-8T mutation, and the fact that 2q would recombine with either 2aq or 2bq would leave only one 2*q to recombine with 4q, 13q or 18q - meaning three seperate, but static and repeatable recombinations would be possible.

If a male 47-P91-8T hybrid was produced with a female 46-P91-9T human and male 48-P91-8T hominid, the result would be a Y chromosome with no Y-DYNA signatures - A000. However, such a hybrid would still have introgressions from 48q-P91-8T on 2q, 4q, Xq, 13q, 18q, and potentially on 19q-22q. The fact that bonobos and chimpanzees have the same 100kb 1q->Yq transposition as humans suggests that the basal Y-DNYA-P91-9T Y chromosome was transfered over to a mostly B-line genome, granting bonobos and chimps the P91-9T allele around 1250kYBP - within the 0.74-4.5Mya estimate of the 2*q fusion.

>>140014226
Our sexual maturity isn't the same, read my post.

>>140014303
Again, post your irrefutable claim which goes against book such as this:

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Intelligence-Earl-Hunt/dp/0521707811

Because yeah, I actually read books saying what we know about brain and intelligence.

>>140015120

The lack of other human Y signatures can be explained by the general gene loss the chimpanzee Y has experienced - the 1250kYBP-admixture genome seems to have split into a complete A000-46q-P91-8T form, and a truncated Chimp-48q-P91-9T form.

A female 47-P91-8T wouldn't pass on any unusual Yq signatures, but would pass on the introgressions. A000's daughters would also serve this purpose, and this was the vector for the transfer of 2q, 4q, 13q, and 18q introgressions into haplogroup B in Africa, as well as the origin of the mitrochondrial Eve - who only dates back 234kYBP.

Immediately after the initial interbreeding event, you would get a population which was sharply divided in terms of the origin of it's Y, X, and Table C chromosomes. Since the light allele of SLC42A2 would exist only on 5q of the first generation's A-line, there would be a 75% chance of passing it down to a double A-line Y-DNYA homozygote, and a 25% chance to pass it down to another A-line heterozygote - in Africa, the 48q-P91-8T derived B-line for Table C chromosomes would predominate. SLC24A5 would be just as fragile, and in fact all the genes would have a bias towards the B-line in the African admixtured population. On the other hand, the 2q-4q-13q-18q introgressions all have a 25% chance of being passed on with an 46-P91-9T homozygote mate.

Let's examine the implications of this on genes in terms of specific admixture vector;

Table A: Genes on chromosomes showing 48-P91-8T introgression (1250kYBP;)

18q - APCDD1
13q - 5HT2A, FGF9
Xq - 5HT2C - FGF13 - FGF16, GPR143
4q - CLOCK, EDAR, EN1, GAD1, LY87, FGFR3, DRD5, Dentin sialophosphoprotein, HAND2, Melatonin receptor, Osteopontin
2q - 5a-reductase II, 5HT2B, ASXL2, BMP10, FSHR, FAP, GPR35, GPR55, GPR113, GPR155, HOXD1-13, a-MSH, MAP2, PTH1R, PTH2R, PAX3, PAX8, SOX11, Wnt6, UGT1A1, GRB14
1q - 100kb->Y

>>140014932
That's the key here, brains are never "empty". This is the Cartesian dualist's delusion, the blank slate. Twins separated at birth provide some very compelling stories of how personal preferences are encoded in the genome, and this is corroborated by genome-wide complex trait analysis studies. There is a reason Turkheimer said in 2000 that all traits are heritable. This is the first law of Behavioral Genetics.

Differences in neurological structure cause chimpanzee brains to absorb information different from humans, and there is no reason to expect that information becomes magically unbiased when looking at any two human brains

>What about before marraige?
What about it? Historically the rate of premarital sex and childbirth was vanishingly low, especially in Europeans.

>>140015280

Table B: Genes on chromosomes inherited from a recombination of A-line and B-line (1250kYBP;)

22q - ZNRF3, A2Ar, MCH, Ku, RTN4R, Somatostatin receptor 1-3
21q
20q - ASIP, ADRA1D, Dynorphin, H3r, Noiciceptin receptor, Oxytocin, Vassopressin
19q
15q - SLC24A5, Aromatase, RHCG, SCZD10, BNC1
14q - BMP4
11q
6q - RSPO3, VEGFA, TFAP2B, RHAG
3q - ADAMTS9, NISCH

Table C: Genes on chromosomes inherited from either A-line OR B-line, not both due to lack of recombination;

17q - A2B, SHBG, SERT, PLD1, PLD2,
16q - MC1R, Norepinephrine transporter,
12q - ITPR2, HOXC13, TMTC2
10q
9q - ABO, BNC2
8q - MSRA
7q - NFE2L3, SDK1
5q - SLC42A2, CPEB4, 5a-reductase I,
1q - TBX15, LYPLAL1, DNM3, RHD

>>140014311
dickhead there is no such thing as evolution, because there is no such thing as time...

>>140015408

Table A lists chromosomes/genes that require an instance of interbreeding with the 48q-P91-8T hominid to produce the introgression, but thereafter are passed down normally. Table B lists chromosomes/genes that would recombine as normal, and thus be inherited by all descendents of the admixture event. Table C lists chromosomes/genes that would not recombine during an admixture event, and so lists genes that would define two new post-admixture branches. In Africa, humans inherited the B-line, and in the rest of the world the A-line predominated until very recently - African humans, chimps and bonobos would inherit the African B-line of Table C since it contained dark pigment-causing alleles which were adaptive in the south, and Europeans would have been selected to retain the A-line of Table C. Meanwhile, the chromosomes on Tables A and B would recombine, and so their alleles would be expected to show more variance - SLC24A5 is more variable than SLC42A2.

Another example of strict inheritance of TBX15 alleles;

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5430617/
>Archaic Adaptive Introgression in TBX15/WARS2
>The alleles with high PBS values and high frequency in GI are almost absent in Africa, but present across Eurasia
>The high-frequency alleles in GI tend to match the Denisovan and Altai Neanderthal alleles in this region. For example, rs2298080 has an A allele at a frequency of 45.45% in Han Chinese from Beijing (CHB) and at 99.74% frequency in GI. This allele is absent or almost absent (<1% frequency) in all African populations

>>140014143
Your arguments are retarded.

The distinction between a scientific classification and a mere classification is not trivial. One is used for identifying species and the other has practical uses in researching the biodiversity of an organism. They have different purposes but you don't want to see it this way because it doesn't suit your narrative. Biologists use pre-defined human populations, a mere classification, for research purposes but this doesn't mean they recognize these populations as different sub species or species. A classification's sole purpose isn't just for making disctinctions between species, it can also be used as a guide to study the genetic variation of different populations

>>140015131
I don't know of any claim that I am making that contradicts the Hunt book. Care to get specific?

File: wallraising-web.jpg (40KB, 448x299px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 448x299px

>>140013728
>Do you have any credible evidence of your claim. There is still a lot of unknow about the period of "evolution".
Can't you just answer the fucking question? it is a bit hard to prove that there is NOT a teapot in orbit around Jupiter, you get me? If you wish to claim australian aboriginals can build modern houses, then it is up to you to prove that, there exists no reason today to think that they can.

>>140015539

Table C also contains the ABO and RHD genes, which control bloodtype and Rhesus factor. This suggests that bloodtype is likely to have been sharply divided in inheritance - and indeed, the A allele of TBX15 at rs2298080 reaches it's highest frequency in south America, where type O blood is most common. The fact that neanderthals had type O blood proves that there was a strict inheritance of Table C;

>http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-8-342
>Our results indicate that the two El Sidrón Neandertal individuals were most likely homozygous for the O01 allele. Nevertheless given a low rate of potential modern human contaminants in an unknown allelic state, we cannot discard the possibility that both Neandertals could have been heterozygous (e.g. OA or OB). The results however suggest the presence of the human O01 allele already in the common ancestor of Neandertals and modern humans and thereby confirming an emergence of the O01 allele more than 1 Mya predating the divergence of the modern human and Neandertal populations

And RHD evolved before neanderthals;

>http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/rh-did-not-come-neanderthals
>Rh- blood probably arose millions of years ago rather than tens of thousands
>It is confusing that the Rh- blood type is as common as it is because it can have such profound effects. If an Rh- mother is pregnant with an Rh+ child, the child is at risk for something called hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN

>http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask381
>HDN makes it look like the mother is rejecting the child. As if the mother and child are from different species

>>140015357
See this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mGPJlTJIPI

>>140015682
We don't have irrefutable claims which were repeted with all variables being taken account.

Otherwise, it would be a huge discovery on science.

>>140015592
Both species and subspecies are scientific classifications. What are you even trying to say?

>>140015768

Type O Rh- blood was probably the ancestral form, and Rh+ blood may have been a mutation that would have been strictly inherited on the A-line or B-line of Table C. What this means is that a 46q-P91-9T-Rh- female couldn't carry a hybrid 47q-P91-8T-Rh+ baby - all her viable children would have to inherit the Rh- A-line on Table C. So all introgression into Y-DNYA would have included Y-DNYA Table C genes, and her sons would be Y-47q-P91-8T while her daughters could breed with pure Y-DNYA males and pass on only her autosomal DNA and Xq. On the other hand, a male Y-DNYA could have Rh- children with a 48q-P91-8T-Rh+ mother, and his otherwise human Y would acquire the P91-8T signature via the 1q->Yq transposition.

The children of the Y-DNYA female would be heterozygotes for RHD, with a 1q-Rh+ B-line and 1q-Rh- A-line. A000, Chimpanzees and bonobos inherited two copies of the Rh+ B-line, while non-Africans inherited both - probably because the ratio of B-line to A-line became more biased towards A-line with increasing geographic distance from the epicenter of admixture. Over time, selective pressures promoted the 46q-P91-8T B-line at the equator, and as A-line and B-line recombined fully after the admixture event, the B-line alleles that caused dark pigmentation dominated everywhere but Europe.

Chromosome 4 shows similar evidence of modification during the fusion of 2aq and 2bq;

>https://source.wustl.edu/2005/04/human-chromosomes-2-4-include-gene-deserts-signs-of-chimp-chromosome-merger/

So during this 48q-P91-8T-BT interbreeding, chromosome 1 transposed information to the Y chromosome, ancestral chromosomes 2 and 4 fused, human chromosomes 4, 13, 18 and X, and Y received received information from 48q-P91-8T.

>>140003982
>>140006230
>>140006322

Literally fucking nigger retarded bullshit. Get off out board shill you're not convincing anyone around hear that niggers and Whites are any bit the same

We're not the same genetically at all.

Okay well you're fucking retarded if you honestly believe black people will just suddenly turn White within a few hundred thousand years of living in Europe. We've been different forever and always will be because we're not the same species.

If you just made black people look White they wouldn't look like any normal White person because their fucking brains and skulls are different because they're from a different fucking species, just like asians.

Fuck your shilling nigger ass you faggot we're nothing like those beasts of the field, filthy fucking subhuman mongrels.

>>140015862
The heritability of IQ is closer to 80%. It goes up in adults, the Wilson Effect I mentioned earlier. Try to keep up.

>We don't have irrefutable claims which were repeted with all variables being taken account.
Nobody has or ever will. That's not how science works. All we can do is construct more accurate models over time.

>>140015964

Between chimps and humans, chromosomes 3, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and X are structually identical, making chromosomes 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 17 the 'mutant' chromosomes that define humans;

24/48-Chromosomes;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, X, Y,
23/46-Chromosomes;
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, X, Y.

The G allele of SLC24A5 is common among the Han Chinese, and the A allele of BNC2 that causes lighter pigment is absent in modern Asian populations. This would entail that neanderthals were almost as light as modern Europeans, and Denisovans were as light as modern Asians. The list is;

48q-P91-8T - BNC2-G, SLC24A5-G, UGT1A1-3/4T
A000 - BNC2-G, SLC24A5-G, UGT1A1-3/4T
Denisovans - BNC2-G, SLC24A5-G, UGT1A1-6T
Neanderthals - BNC2-A, MC1R-V92M, SLC24A5-G, UGT1A1-6T
Y-Adam - BNC2-A, MCR1R-V92M, SLC24A5-A, UGT1A1-6T

So, we now have a window for the origin of Y-DNYA - 4500kYBP-310000kYBP. However, the earlier part of this range is derived from mutation rates, and the seemingly enormous time (310Mya) seperating human and chimp Yq may be a result of the 1250kYBP 100kb 1q->Yq transposition. Thus we should be cautious, and push back Y-DNYA only as far as necessary - which seems to be 4500kYBP.

>>140015131
Why do you keep moving the goalposts? first you said we aren't different enough, then we aren't old enough, and now our sexual maturity isn't the same and i'm not even sure what you mean by that.

>>140015747
I don't claim anything, I'm asking you to prove your point.

The burden of proof in on you here.

>>140015881
I was talking about the classification of subspecies among species.

You have no credible evidence saying that humans can be classified as subspecies.

You're saying that i'm arguing semantics when i'm not,

The phylogenetic species concept isn't used to classify species.

There isn't an intense debate about this, it's been decided.

So here is the problem with the phylogenetic species concept. The phylogenetic species concept states that a species is the smallest set of lineages or populations that can be recognized by an unique combination of different traits.

It doens't focus on reproductive boundaries but instead genealogical relationships. Since the concept defines species based on morphology, without regard to populations and reproductive boundaries, it does not apply well in cases where morphologically different populations are connected by gene flow.

Humans have significant morphological variation from continent to continent, they are not reproductively isolated and their variation is largely distributed as clines over large geographic distances.

So, someone using this concept will say the humans on different continents are different species.

It does not identify species based on the reproductive boundaries between them and it may have the effect of identifying populations connected by gene flow as different species.

Which means, species identified by this concept may not correspond to a real prehistoric population that was the product of a speciation.

This concept has its uses but when it comes to classifying species, the biological or evolution species concept is the preferred concept despite its flaws.

>>140007059
>They didn't evolve, they adapted to their surroundings. Evolution would mean they would become either superior or inferior to the rest of the population.
Language skills: white boy tier. Science Knowledge: inbred nigger-tier.
Sage science denier cuck threads

>>140016143

NOTE: The following is out-dated because of recent discoveries in Greece. However, the information is still correct - in fact, the Trachilos footprints provide evidence that the first bipedal hominids were Eurasian.

In 1976-1978AD, Mary Leakey discovered the Laetoli footprints, which were dated to 3600kYBP. Examination revealed that, while modern, the Laetoli footprints didn't display a modern depth pattern, and the feet were less straight and curved inward like a sickle;

>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009769#pone.0009769-Bennett1
>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009769.g001
>These results provide us with the earliest direct evidence of kinematically human-like bipedalism currently known, and show that extended limb bipedalism evolved long before the appearance of the genus Homo. Since extended-limb bipedalism is more energetically economical than ape-like bipedalism, energy expenditure was likely an important selection pressure on hominin bipeds by 3.6 Ma

However, compare this to a clubbed foot;

>http://www.massgeneral.org/ortho/assets/images/pediatrics/clubfoot-diagram2.gif
>http://file.scirp.org/Html/4-2100559/aaa2547a-aced-4927-8af0-5cf640da3b8c.jpg

Or metatarsus adductus, also called 'pigeon toe;'

>https://www.humpath.com/spip.php?article6817
>http://www.orthoanswer.org/foot-ankle/metatarsus-adductus/index.html

>>140016233
The difference aren't enough, I explained you why, because of our sexual maturity, I don't need to repeat myself, just read my links.

Lewotin Fallacy is useless against me, The genetic variation in humans is enough to form population structures but not enough to validate race as a scientific classification.

You should actually post studies saying that humans can be classified as subspecies.

>>140016582

A metatarsal found at Hadar dated to 3200kYBP was human on all measures;

>http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110210/full/news.2011.85.html
>The finding, published today in Science1, centres on the discovery in Hadar, Ethiopia, of a 3.2 million-year-old fourth metatarsal bone
>At Laetoli, Tanzania, some hominins walked across a bed of wet volcanic ash 3.6 million years ago. "When I saw those footprints being excavated, I thought, gosh, you'd lose these on a modern day beach, they have an arch and a totally human gait," recalls Latimer. However, the movements were so close to human that many palaeontologists doubted they could have possibly belonged to the ancient A. afarensis. "This work certainly puts a nail in the coffin of that argument," says Latimer
>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750
>https://anthropology.net/2011/02/11/the-arched-metatarsal-of-australopithecus-afarensis/

The estimated height of the hominid that left the Laetoli footprints;

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetoli
>length of footprint 21.5 cm 18.5 cm
>reconstructed body-size 1.34-1.56m 1.15-1.34m

Aside from clubfeet, excess fat on the feet could contribute to the vague outline or the foot. The short estimated height allows us to suggest that the Laetoli hominids were highly neotenous - they may have retained the arch-hiding fatpad of the infant into youth;

>http://www.rch.org.au/uploadedFiles/Main/Content/rheumatology/Flat_feet_in_children.pdf
>Children with flat feet do not have an arch while standing. This is normal in nearly all infants and many young children (Figure 1). In infants, the baby fat pad in the foot hides the developing arch. Young children have flat feet because they are loose jointed

>>140006230
>The human species shares the same genetic makeup regardless of race.
Genetic testing can determine race. Dogs share genetics with wolves, we share genetics with plants. Plants have superior science cred than you, because they never say STUPID SHIT THAT IS OBJECTIVELY WRONG. sage stupid nigger attempts at science.

File: 1487523091925.jpg (530KB, 1334x694px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 1334x694px

>>140016310
>I don't claim anything,
"The fundamental understanding of the brain we have today is based on decades (even centuries in some aspects) of actual hard evidence that no educated psychologist would draw a general conclusion from. Now try to understand this, I am not biased. If you were capable of showing me something that was absolute; some study that was repeated over and over again that repeatable and had repeating results and accounted for all variables indefinitely I would absolutely accept it. What I just stated was, in essence, the scientific method. The scientific method exists for a reason. So long as I can point out anything you say to disprove it, it will not be accepted as hard science."

>>140016310
>I'm asking you to prove your point.
There exists no house today build by only aboriginals, they is no modern society being run by aboriginals.
>>140016310
>The burden of proof in on you here.
Prove me wrong. Protip. You can't.

>>140016097
I hope that you can do the difference between inherit and heritability do you?

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v9/n4/box/nrg2322_BX2.html?foxtrotcallback=true

"A high heritability means that most of the variation that is observed in the present population is caused by variation in genotypes. It means that, in the current population, the phenotype of an individual is a good predictor of the genotype. However, it does not mean that the phenotype is determined once we know the genotype, because the environment can change or can be manipulated to alter the phenotype. For example, the well-documented secular rise in height in many human populations77, 78 is not at odds with reported heritabilities of about 0.8, but is likely to reflect changes in the environment resulting from improved nutrition and medical care. Genetic determination is sometimes implied when making predictions about the phenotype of offspring given the parental phenotypes for traits with a high heritability. What this ignores is the segregation of genes within families: in a non-inbred population, half of the additive genetic variance is between families and half is within families. This implies that for a trait such as adult height in human populations, with a heritability of 0.8 and a standard deviation of approximately 7 cm in the population, which is not much smaller than the standard deviation in the entire population. Hence, tall parents have on average tall children, but with a considerable variation around the parental mean."

Also: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131001141218.htm

"The conventional view is that genes place an upper limit on the effects of social intervention on cognitive development," says Tucker-Drob. "This research suggests the opposite. As social, educational and economic opportunities increase in a society, more children will have access to the resources they need to maximize their genetic potentials."

>>140016310
>You have no credible evidence saying that humans can be classified as subspecies.
If you knew how subspecies are classified in other animals you would not say this.

Nobody was talking about different species concepts. Why do you keep bringing up red herrings?

>their variation is largely distributed as clines over large geographic distances.
The clinal argument often ends up being a continuum fallacy since there are large population clusters that tend to be of one specific subgroup. Like arguing that red and green don't exist because yellow and purple do.

>>140006322
theres a nearly two standard deviations gap between blacks and jews. That has massive real world implications. It doesnt matter wtf you call that gap, whether you call them races or subspecies or "minor variations" or wtv the fuck you want, what matters are the OUTCOMES, and they are stark.

Semantics is bullshit. Categories are either useful or not useful, they work or they don't, and in the case of differentiating a black from a jew, the categories work.

>>140016791

And to go with it, a 1420kYBP human metacarpal;

>http://m.pnas.org/content/111/1/121.long
>A newly discovered metacarpal from Kaitio, Kenya, dates to 1.42 Mya
>These questions are driven by the paucity of hand fossils in the hominin fossil record between 800,000 and 1.8 My old, a time interval well documented for the emergence and subsequent proliferation of Acheulian technology (shaped bifacial stone tools
>The earliest-known stone tools are 2.58 My old from Gona, Ethiopia
>http://m.pnas.org/content/111/1/121/F1.expansion.html
>The styloid process appears to be slightly smaller and the capitate-second metacarpal joint slightly less oblique than average in the Middle Pleistocene Atapuerca and the Neandertal samples compared with modern humans, but even so, the morphologies in these groups show substantial overlap with the modern human condition
>In all ways, this bone resembles that of a modern human in overall proportions and morphology
>The bone is long, falling within the upper range of modern human European and African American males
>Most likely, KNM-WT 51260 belonged to a relatively tall individual
>Applying stature regression equations developed for modern human males (32, 33) yields stature estimates of more than 167 cm

>>140016895
Your point about females approve my position actually.

Because factor such as brain/skull shape do not approve the existence of biological races.

And indeed, I didn't made any claims about evolution, I'm asking you to prove your point about evolution. What I stated is the result of actual research and the scientifc method.

>There exists no house today build by only aboriginals, they is no modern society being run by aboriginals.
Do you have a proof that they built no house? Or things close to houses? I'm asking for actual proof.

>Prove me wrong. Protip. You can't.
You failed to prove your point, you only suggest.

>If you knew how subspecies are classified in other animals you would not say this.
See >>140016310

>The clinal argument often ends up being a continuum fallacy since there are large population clusters that tend to be of one specific subgroup. Like arguing that red and green don't exist because yellow and purple do.

Continuum fallacy? Is that what race realists call something they reject because it hurts their position? Evidence supports the genetic diversity of humans existing in a continuous manner. Please cite a source that says otherwise

>>140016899
That's a surprisingly retarded way to spin the Wilson Effect. The study says exactly what I did, that genetics account for the overwhelming majority of variation in intelligence by adulthood, and that good environments allow this potential to be reached.

It says nothing against the idea that genetic potential varies by race, as the slowing/stopping of the Flynn Effect shows.

There is also the matter of the dual occurrence hyothesis, whereby dysgenic reduction in biological IQ is being masked by the environmental Flynn effect.

>>140017285

All of this suggests a gracile body, and indeed the KNM-WT 51260 metacarpal is actually thinner and more gracile than the modern average. The Hadar metatarsal was also thinner and more gracile - and, critically, shorter, as this image shows;

>https://boneclones.com/product/set-of-4th-metatarsals-from-human-al-333-160-afarensis-chimpanzee-and-gorilla-KO-390-4MT-SET

However, 400Kya and a large geographic distance means that the hominid finds at Laetoli aren't the same individual or even the same group that left the Hadar metatarsal - or, for that matter, the same species. But these traits had to come from a common ancestor, and likely did because both feet and hands are regulated by the same genes, generally speaking.

As far as piecing together the rest of the skeleton, it has to be remembered that 'Lucy' hasn't been reconstructed from a single individual, but rather many individuals seperated by hundreds of thousands of years. The fragmentary nature of hominid finds is well known, and humans are well known for simply leaving ancient corpses out in the open to rot, and grinding up mummies for fertilizer. Mungo lady, for example, shows evidence of being, in sequence, set on fire, having her bones crushed, and being set on fire again;

>http://www.visitmungo.com.au/who-was-mungo-lady
>Her body was cremated, the remaining bones were crushed, burned again and then buried in the growing lunette

Mungo man was 'buried' with his hands in front of his pelvis and ribcage - a defensive posture, or indicative that his hands were tied in front of his body. The only evidence of a ceremony is red ochre found on Mungo man's head and upper body. This red ochre would have made Mungo man stand out to di- and mono- chromats, and may have been a mark of defeat as well as a sign to lead other hominids to his remains.

>>140017428
>It says nothing against the idea that genetic potential varies by race

You have no proof of that to begin with, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mGPJlTJIPI

>>140017337
>Evidence supports the genetic diversity of humans existing in a continuous manner. Please cite a source that says otherwise
Nobody is denying clinal variations over distance. This is an obvious fact due to environments changing over distance and the resulting restriction on potential interbreeding partners. However there are extremely large population clusters along that clinality that we have to explain. That variation is not distributed uniformly.

>>140017655

Mungo man, let's remember, displayed mt-haplogroups S, H, V, and U - and only the 'contaminant' haplogroup V was found in both attempts at sequencing his genome. Mungo lady was probably either a mummy who was dug up and set on fire, or a living woman who was first set on fire, then beaten to pieces, and finally left - any ochre again might have only marked a kill. As well, bolstering this claim, modern Australian aboriginees display the rare R1b1 haplogroup as well has haplogroup I.

The skulls of Mungo man and Mungo lady can be seen here;

>http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
>http://www.donsmaps.com/clickphotos/mungoskull.jpg
>http://www.donsmaps.com/images15/mungoIMG_2340b.jpg

There's clearly a 'type' to the skull, and this 'Mungo-type skull' is clearly a subset of the Cro-magnon type;

>https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cro-Magnon-male-skull.png
>http://www.modernreaders.com/kennewick-man/45284/melissa-taylor

At the bottom and back of the Cro-magnon and Kennewick skulls, a projection can be seen that resembles the projection of neanderthals - the skull is almost a pyramid in that the back, front and sides all taper towards the top. Modern Ameriendian skulls still display this feature, but have become progressively rounder and less tapered;

>https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_American_Indian/Chapter_18
>https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/File:The_American_Indian_Fig_93.jpg

>>140017734
Once again, your misunderstanding my position. I never said it was impossible. You can classify humans into categories but that doesn't validate it as a scientific classification. A scientific classification as seen by taxonomists. I don't mean you can't scientifically classify humans, I mean that race doesn't fit within the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, and Sub species taxonomy. No fallacy on my end here. You're the one thinking I mean race isn't a classification of humans.

Race is an informative category and that's about it. It's not a sub species. You haven't cited a source that suggests race is a sub species of humans

>>140016899
Literally what being in denial looks like. I was in your position for years before I finally broke.

Come back in ten years, you and the rest of the world will have admitted we were right.

>>140017337
>Do you have a proof that they built no house? Or things close to houses? I'm asking for actual proof.
You seem to have a hard time understanding the scientific method, I argued with you before I think.>>140015747
>it is a bit hard to prove that there is NOT a teapot in orbit around Jupiter, you get me? If you wish to claim australian aboriginals can build modern houses, then it is up to you to prove that, there exists no reason today to think that they can.
The burden is on You. It is not on me. I don't have to prove there is not a teapot, you have to prove there is a teapot. I don't have to prove there is Not a house, YOU have to prove that there is a house.
https://www.google.dk/search?q=aboriginal+houses+before+first+settlement&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnvrq8y4fWAhVGMZoKHS71AX4Q_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=662

This is just above gorilla and chimp nests.

>>140017680
If you believe that YT video I feel very sorry for you. He looked at one paper from six years ago when there are many, much more recent papers that show stronger effects over more genes. Also interesting are papers that show the specific genes that vary between races and how their functions tend to be associated with neural tissue and other aspects of physiology connected to cognition.

>>140018076
You have no proof that the genetic basis for intelligence differ between what you call "race".

Also, race isn't even a scientific classification, you will go nowhere with an inaccurate classification.

>>140018112
You're the one who claim that they didn't built a house, I claim nothing about it in my case, just asking for proof, the burden of proof in on you.

>>140018192
Show it then. I hope for you that they're peer reviewed.

>>140003982
>We aren't different subspecies, but rather just slightly different environmental adaptation wise.

does it matter? both lead to genetic differences

its like saying hey my toy poodle isnt a different sub-species to a rottweiler let them play it'll be fine

>>140018192
If you talk About Piffer's paper, it only talk about 9 SNP while hundreds of SNP are involved in intelligence.

You have to prove that these 9 SNP determine intelligence and that blacks lack of the same genes.

It was rejected by Richard Haier for that reason.

>>140017875

This Mungo-type skull is also found in southern China in the form of the 68k-159kYBP Liujiang remains;

>http://www.anthro.amu.edu.pl/pdf/ve/vol010/01rose.pdf
>at least 68,000 years old, but more likely to 111-139 ka. Alternatively they would be older than ~ 159 ka. Thus, the date of 67,000 years old which has usually been attributed to the specimen in the past is plausible as a minimum
>Woo did not give much attention to the innominate other than to describe the iliac fossa as shallow and the acetabulum as facing forward
>His conclusions about the specimen were that on the whole, however, the Liukiang specimen shows clearly its Mongoloid racial affinities
>He remarked on the small size of the individual compared to living people which he estimated as 145-150 cm (on the upper border of the Pygmy range
>The small size of the acetabulum and the wide sciatic notch might on first analysis, suggest that the individual may be female. The sciatic notch is fairly wide and the two parts are more symmetrical than J-shaped. The arc composé takes the form of a double curve which has been reported as more common in females than in males
>By the standards of the Chinese sample, the Liujiang specimen is clearly male: by the standards of the Australian Aboriginal sample it would be intermediate (when measured following Davivongs) and by the Czech and Ugandan samples it is also intermediate between males and females

>>140017912
Race and subspecies are equivalent terms in biology when looking at non-human animals. There is no absolute standard for what constitutes a subspecies and what does not, biologists have to make this judgment based on the usefulness of the classification. Coincidentally after WW2 there was intense political pressure on scientists to avoid examination of race or classification of humans into separate categories of any kind, that's the world we live in now and are moving away from day by day.

>>140018372
>You're the one who claim that they didn't built a house, I claim nothing about it in my case, just asking for proof, the burden of proof in on you.
You still don't understand it. There is no reason to think that australian aboriginals who have evolved isolated from the rest of mankind for 50.000 years, that is before ANY humans were building houses, can build a modern house.
I can't prove a negative statement. I can't prove that there is NOT a teapot in orbit, because it is a negative statement. You have a really hard time understanding this. And you have still not answered the question.
>>140013343
And I have a feeling you won't. You argue like a woman to be honest.

>>140019038
There isn't an intense debate about this, it's been decided.

See >>140016310


>>140019115
>You still don't understand it. There is no reason to think that australian aboriginals who have evolved isolated from the rest of mankind for 50.000 years, that is before ANY humans were building houses, can build a modern house.
I can't prove a negative statement. I can't prove that there is NOT a teapot in orbit, because it is a negative statement. You have a really hard time understanding this. And you have still not answered the question.

Except that your argument is "LUL THEY CAN'T BUILT HOUSE" when you have no proof of that.

You have to prove that they can't, that's why I'm asking for proof, to see if you have actual evidence saying that they didn't built an house.

>And I have a feeling you won't. You argue like a woman to be honest.


You're a retard who don't even know what biological taxonomy is.

File: 1485649470483.jpg (27KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 420x420px

>>140003982
^when she types stuff^

>>140019038

Also, see>>140015592

File: 1478725501893.jpg (42KB, 532x509px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 532x509px

>>140019674
cuck said twat?

>>140018594
>Haier
Citing a Jew on psychometrics, you are a funny guy. His tribe has a known bias against this kind of research.
Oh and it's at least thousands, not hundreds.


>>140018372
https://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.3869.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/38/13790
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916308042
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3652710/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15651931
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5741/1717.abstract
http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-16

So you can see a common thing among the Marxists in this thread just like their god Marx did. He would always assume a result and then construct evidence around it. Whereas actual science would base the conclusion on the data.

Notice how everyone that says that the "brains didn't change across races" types have to pull justification for IQ differences out of thin fucking air.

>you have to raise them right
>wealth
>culture
>racism

Also notice how none of these things they pull out of thin air are reliably measurable. They have to keep them vague in order to hold onto their presupposed beliefs. This is them constructing fictions to keep their indoctrinated reality intact. It's quite breathtaking to watch.

They just will not let go of it. Their earth is flat and always will be. And they'll attack anyone who challenges them.

>>140019674

>muh settled science

>>140020155
checked

>>140020155

>aren't reliably measurable

File: 1360553162431.jpg (20KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x500px

>>140020155
when you get excited...stupid liberal commies win

>>140003982
Environmental adaption is the root of all sub species REEE

>>140019674
Yeah, we argued before. And you are a woman. And you have no concept of how to do science. You will never contribute with anything.
How about the fact that women can't play a soccergame in a full stadium? Pic. related.>>140012161
Do I need to prove anything? Or is the fact that women have never done it a very very compelling argument? I can't point to anything specific to prove women have never done it, other then the fact that no such evidence exist.

>>140020440
Yes this is the obvious part some people are missing. Subspecies are just a human way of noting microevolutionary changes that don't yet affect ability to reproduce. Hell even BETWEEN species there are cases of reliable hybridization.

File: 1478870504549.jpg (32KB, 345x336px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 345x336px

>>140020449
^the "science" I do informs me you are a piece of stinky shit^

>>140020711
/warn

>>140020798
more like
>/insecure

>>140018617

Neanderthals had specific mutations involving the spine that reduced their lordotic curve, whereas humans and denisovans have the ancestral form;

>http://m.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/04/17/1405138111.DCSupplemental/pnas.1405138111.sapp.pdf
>Among the derived non-synonymous changes seen on the Neandertal lineage, but that are ancestral in Denisova and present-day humans, the only significantly enriched phenotypic term is “hyperlordosis

This means that Y-DNYA had a human lordotic curve, and judging by the clearly foreward-facing Acetabula of the Cro-magnon Liujiang remains, this lordotic curve was used to bend the spine back at the waist to compensate for a constant seated-posture in the lower body. Liujiang man is feminine and neotenous in the same manner as whatever left the pigeon-toed footprints at Laetoli - officially left by afarensis, who also shows the lumbar curve and general gracile build;

>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Owen_Lovejoy/publication/51367381_The_natural_history_of_human_gait_and_posture_Part_1_Spine_and_pelvis/links/09e4150576bc55d3fe000000/The-natural-history-of-human-gait-and-posture-Part-1-Spine-and-pelvis.pdf
>In any case, however, australopithecines had lumbar spines that were more mobile and capable of lordosis than are those of average modern humans
>Haeusler et al. recently presented detailed arguments [40] that these two specimens exhibit only five lumbar vertebrae (as well as KNM-WT15000, a specimen of H. erectus also described as having six lumbar vertebrae [31,36,41]; see be- low), but with the last thoracic essentially having lumbar-like function
>The implications are quite profound. Since apes exhibit the opposite change of lumbar column reduction (Fig. 2), the demonstrably more lordotic column in Australopithecus than occurs even in most H. sapiens

File: image.jpg (365KB, 833x1200px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 833x1200px

>>140021067

Even at Laetoli, the connection between the bone fragments that produced the collected Lucy specimen didn't necessarily come from the same individual or the same species - even back in 3600kYBP, it was probably a Liuliang man who left those modern, clubbed footed prints. For that matter, the bones said to belong to Lucy may belong to something like Liujiang man. But the time between 3600kYBP and 159kYBP - 3441k - is enormous, and between the Laetoli footprints and the split between humans and chimps was itself 900k years. For that matter, any hominid fossils found in Africa may be Y-DNYA-48q-P91-8T hybrids - which would explain the skull fragments found at Laetoli.

Hyperlordosis, pigeon-toe, short stature, and evidence of the retention of fat pads on the feet which is a neotenous feature when retained in adults.

Pic related, along with OP's pic.

>>140020144
Prove your point then because he defended murray and sam harris.

Your studies does not really disprove his videos of goes against my pposition.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.10092/abstract

This link show that the avearge brain size do not really differ between africans and europeans.

You've yet to prove that the genetic basis for intelligence differ, especially since the IQ gap decreased.

>>140021527
*his video or goes against my position.

>>140020449
Are you butthurt because you have no evidence?

File: image.jpg (96KB, 684x684px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 684x684px

>>140021359

On the Venus of Lespugue, you can see how this would have looked with copius gynoid fat deposits;

>http://donsmaps.com/lespuguevenus.html
>http://donsmaps.com/images28/lespugeoriginal.jpg

Note the short shins and small feet of the Venus - these likely represented the thin shins and small, clubbed feet of the person being depicted. As well, neanderthals had short forearms and shins;

>http://donsmaps.com/lemoustier.html
>http://donsmaps.com/images25/neanderthaladaption.jpg
>The Neanderthals were a northern form of human in the same way that the arctic hare is a northern form of the jackrabbit. They evolved the most extreme anatomical adaptations to cold climates ever found among hominids, and have been characterised as 'hyperpolar

Even up to 7kYBP, these short shins and small feet were being depicted;

>http://www.anthropark.wz.cz/mmka.htm
>http://www.anthropark.wz.cz/morkul4.jpg
>http://www.anthropark.wz.cz/morkul15.jpg

Note how a modern woman's frame fits almost perfectly with the Venus figurines - except for her shins and feet, which are too long and thick to be the woman that the Venus was modeled on. Yet, a neanderthal woman (Or man, if he had Aromatase Excess Syndrome) would display these short shins and steatopygia, and likely so would Y-DNYA. However, a neanderthal woman would likely have no lordotic curve - a Y-DNYA woman or Liuliang man, however, would.

>>140020144
Your links show that you didn't watch the video I linked.

Watch it entirely, it's not even that long.

>>140021527
Is this a fucking joke?
Your linked study measures 46 people. Why not refer to something with an actual decent sample size which will clearly indicate the difference in cranial volume between Africans and Eurasians?

http://www.oregonstate.info/instruct/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

Cranial volume is of course highly heritable (~90%) and correlates with intelligence.

>>140018372
Here's something you should go home and think about.

The hereditarian hypothesis is the null hypothesis. The environmental hypothesis is what has to be proven. The entire debate about the intelligence gap revolves around "is an environmental hypothesis even PLAUSIBLE?" - there's nobody who would claim that the environmental hypothesis has any "proof", because there isn't a shred.

The chutzpah required for environmentalists to claim that the burden of proof is on hereditarians is frankly astounding. IQ is highly heritable within populations (not remotely debatable). There's an IQ gap between populations (not remotely debatable). Is the IQ gap between populations entirely environment, or part environment and part genetic? Think about how extraordinary a claim you're making, saying its the first! And you want to talk about our burden of proof! Its frankly incredible.

Nobody cares about the semantic issues, whether a thing is a race or a subspecies or a local variant or whatever. The taxonomy has real world implications. Thats what matters. The IQ gap is real, no matter what you choose to call the groups being described.

Its a bad joke, and as I said, within the next decade your position will vanish. Genetics research marches on whether your feelings get hurt by it or not. My advice is you stop wasting your time

>>140003982
>Name-fagging

>>140021929
Wrong. I watched it already, watched it again just for you. It's garbo and you should be embarrassed to have linked it here.

>>140006322
>The difference between the human races are incredibly insignificant, when comparing them to the differences between subspecies.
And you are not incredibly stupid, if I compare you to some sort of fish, or cabbage.

File: Pepe skellingtron.jpg (65KB, 540x454px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 540x454px

>>140022555
checked

>>140006521
>Evolution moves pretty quick but not quick enough to do anything useful in our lifetimes.
False. https://www.poz.com/basics/hiv-basics/hiv-drug-resistance

>>140022263
Oh wait, you can't access to the full article.

I'm precisely quotting Smith and Beals im 1990, based on 20 000 cranial mesurement of 87 population.

>>140022555
>The hereditarian hypothesis is the null hypothesis. The environmental hypothesis is what has to be proven
Nope, prove that it's the default position, you're claiming bullshit on an inconclusive subject.

And there isn't really any evidence disproving the fact that the IQ gap decreased.

You've yet to prove that genetics basis for intelligence differ greatly.

If you want to talk ashit about Richard Haier and Earl Hunt, I can do the same with Rushton/Lynn/Jensen, all tied to the pioneer fund, a biased organization.

>>140023053
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Scroll down to "genetics variation, race and medecine"

>>140023053
Well yes in bacteria and viruses obviously that is the case. Much more rapid life cycle and much stronger selection pressures

>>140023152
Oh wait, I've quoted a wrong study, I have to find the one i'm talking about.

And please post recent studies about difference in average brain size/cranial size, just to be sure..

Anyway, the brain structure actually matter much more than brain size.

>>140023152
Nobody talked shit about Earl Hunt. You refused to provide any citations that showed anything mentioned in this thread even contradicted what he said in his Human Intelligence book.

Tell me at what point in evolutionary history that cognition stopped being a purely biological phenomenon. The environmental position is stupid Jew lies. Boas-tier. You have zero understanding of g factor.

Bringing up the Flynn Effect, which is often misunderstood, doesn't disprove the biological and genetic basis for cognition. There is still a gap and there always will be as long as the genetic makeup differs. Rich blacks perform worse than poor whites. What environmental factors would you blame in 21st century America? Stereotype threat? Highly overstated and produced by fraudulent papers.

File: image.jpg (288KB, 1000x738px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1000x738px

>>140021903

The recent Trachilos footprints do two things for this hypothesis;

1: They provide proof that bipedalism evolved in Eurasia, not Africa, and allow me to cite a non-African source to argue for a modern human phenotype circa 5.7 million years ago.

2: The Trachilos footprints are smaller and more neotenous than the Laetoli footprints, in that their lack of an arch is proof that their hands and feet (And therefore the rest of their body) was fatty and neotenous.

The Venus figurines provide artistic proof of steatopygic (Fatty-rumped) hominids, and these footprints provide proof that that their overall morphology was neotenous.

In my essays, I suggest that the Laetoli footprints belonged to a much more gracile hominid than typically imagined. I argue that the Laetoli footprints, which are rather large for such small hominids (1.55m-1.34m,) actually belonged to taller hominids that had proportionally smaller feet than modern humans.

The Trachilos footprints are smaller - as small as 4" long - and are very similar to the Laetoli footprints. This larger sample size provides proof of the smaller footprints I suggest exist.

I think we have conclusive evidence that we evolved from a race of traps.

>>140004180
fpbp

OP you are retarded, a subspecies is literally the same thing

>>140004715
>actually debate the subject rather than stating I need to think about it more?
Because the evidence you are WRONG is obvious, has been posted, and anon was courteous enough to assume you were capable of understanding this evidence. Now kys, retarded nigger.

>>140023811
>Nobody talked shit about Earl Hunt. You refused to provide any citations that showed anything mentioned in this thread even contradicted what he said in his Human Intelligence book.


See >>140012322

Also, studies reviewed by Hunt, et al, in "Human Intelligence", and critical analysis of his review show that the previously established iq gap of a full standard deviation between american whites and african whites has decreased by .33 deviations: putting African americans at an average iq score of 90 rather than 85. Another conclusion by critical analysis by Hunt was that the increase in their average iq was not due to an increase of African immigrants, whom generally achieve more and score higher on testing than african americans, but an increase of average score from the bottom portions.

>Tell me at what point in evolutionary history that cognition stopped being a purely biological phenomenon
You actually have to prove this.

>You have zero understanding of g factor

You don't even know how memories are formed.

>There is still a gap and there always will be as long as the genetic makeup differs. Rich blacks perform worse than poor whites

Except that the IQ gap continue to decrease, you actually have to prove that "Rich blacks perform worse than poor whites" is due to genes.

Read more about the scientifc method.

>>140023749
Yes, the study you posted agrees with mine, that cranial capacity varies by latitude and racial grouping. No surprise there.

>Anyway, the brain structure actually matter much more than brain size
I have to agree here. The relative sizes of specific substructures is very significant. I can guarantee you will find differences between the racial groups.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2201026

>>140009391
>The only alternative is Lamarckism, and that's not exactly scientific according to decades old science that also says humans do not neurogenesis, and was not aware of DNA, or epigenetics.
t. schmuck who always believed in lamarckism without evidence, and is happy the evidence scale is swinging the other way

>>140024407
You have to prove that the difference exist.

Again, all i'm doing here is going against the "null hypothesis" which you claim to have.

That's why i'm asking for studies which take account of all variables.

There is no null hypothesis on intelligence, more research are needed.

But we should drop the race card which is scientifically innacurate.

>>140009839
>Sapien is the only homo species still in full existence, not just in the DNA of current humans
ftfy

>>140010193
>as seen if you raise a black or non white child properly in a developed country.
Somebody should do that experiment. Oh wait, they did; and you're WRONG. Repeatedly.

>>140024268
Nobody at any time denied the Flynn Effect. I addressed it several times, even mentioning the dual occurrence hypothesis which apparently you know nothing about.

>You don't even know how memories are formed.
You mentioned this dozens of posts ago and it is a complete red herring, like most of the content of your posts. I treated the question as rhetorical, which you should be grateful for. Do you have anything to say about the relevance of memory to your argument? Certainly not more relevant than the biological nature of g factor and its influence on every type of cognitive task. Or does Spearman himself now qualify as an evil racist pseudoscientist?

>>140010501
>in-depth thought out response. I wonder where OP went?
Niggers can't understand depth, or thought.

>>140024828
>studies which take account of all variables
You are setting the standard of proof to something unattainable. This is highly fallacious and you should be ashamed of yourself. Science works by constructing more and more useful models, but it is a human enterprise and can never account for everything. For instance, we assume naturalism, from a methodological standpoint. We can never say scientifically that Zeus or Odin is definitely not manipulating our results.

>>140011157
>You mean the aliems
No, they just didn't want to take the heat for saying black people are a mix of human and some monkey type creature.

>>140003982
niggers are dumb,if you add them into our gene pool you will get a dumb brown mess

stfu shill

>>140025277
Say it with me:
Unknown archaic admixture
Research A00 haplogroup for more fun

>>140006230
>The human species shares the same genetic makeup regardless of race
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

File: HeilDesu.gif (32KB, 270x318px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 270x318px

>>140011378
>Explain then how white people are the only ones who can into space
Because the ayylens gave that tech to the best humans they could find.

>>140011479
>So your saying that regardless if you give a black person a good education, teach them your morals and values,
No, statistics say that. Basic pattern recognition plus history says that. Things that say different are statistical outliers, ignorance, and jew lies.

>>140011543
>I have not met many black people here who are idiots
compared to your retarded ass.

>>140011603
>To support you, I have link proving that black americans reduced the IQ gap due to less malnutrition, and race mixing.
Yup, we know that already moron.

don't worry you will be back to normal after one nigger hate thread

>>140025671
How statistics take account of all variables again?

>>140026045
Really now? Got any evidence that the mixing has significantly increased since the 70s/80s and that this is the cause for the rise in IQ? Or are you simply speculating?

Rules Puerto Ricans are of majority European decent and yet they have a lower IQ than African Americans who are of majority African decent. Why is that? Hm... Beats me!

>>140012639
Fuck off, stupid nigger. Here, nigger does not refer to your skin color (which I do not know), but your behavior.

>>140025868
No, UK blacks (the ones you wouldn't automatically avoid, the chav-analogues) tend to be OK. If you've got 1 black kid in a class of 30 he turns out alright, when you have say 10 you get the problems.

>>140013323
>>guy gets knocked out
>>jack him off
The only cure for when shaman cause lightning to strike down their enemies.

>>140026651
It helps that they're not a former slave population

>>140026287
Best way to resolve this would be to look at people with majority-African ancestry and how they perform in Puerto Rico
And then compare that to people with average Puerto Rican ancestry living in the US

File: differentSubspecies.png (550KB, 1507x320px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1507x320px

>>140003982

These tigers are all different subspecies. Yet human races, with pronounced and predictable phenotypical differences right down to the bone structure, are all the same subspecies.

Really soaks your cornmeal.

>>140027057
>not a former slave population
They didn't fucking swim to the Caribbean m8. What helps is that their parents/grandparents are the ones who decided "fuck these backasswards niggers, whitey has his shit sorted out" and actually made an effort to fit in.

>>140027415
A higher % of UK blacks arrive directly from Africa. In general yes I agree you are dealing with a self-selected population

>>140027057
So there is no evidence about his claim saying that race mixing explain the rise of IQ? Good.

>>140027513
Yeah but that's these days. The originals, i.e. the ones who aren't infuriating niggers, are mostly Caribbeans.

>>140025251
Facts accepted in the SCIENTIFIC community are accepted because they're repeated and proven unfalsifiable/irrefutable.


The facts made in psychology based on correlational studies are accpeted as facts because the conclusions those facts are, are not refuted in any way. That is also why one may notice many psychological facts change from year to year (ie the ICD); the facts have been refuted and proven wrong; thus, removed from proper literature stating it as a fact. I honestly have reached a point where if you say another idiotic thing, I will say good day and stop replying. You've proven yourself lacking in necessarily areas of understanding/education to understand how and why you are wrong, including the bare minimum level of critical thought needed to recognize contradictions in your own thoughts.

>>140023315
>Much more rapid life cycle and much stronger selection pressures mean that evolution can do useful things in our lifetime with small fast breeding things, like bacteria and insects.

>>140027682
European admixture has been found to correlate quite well with higher intelligence scores and life success in the USA. It may also explain some of the difference between average sub-Saharan African and African American scores

I don't think there are any studies that track increase in admixture over time, although that is theoretically possible.

>>140025370
>Research
Haha, I save effort like that for somewhat serious things, not shitposting in retarded slide threads, remember to sage those.

>>140027832
You are an idiot if you think any study can account for all variables. That is all I was talking about. Why are you going off on a tangent about something I don't even disagree with you on?

There is an unbridgeable gulf between "irrefutable" and "unrefuted". Stop conflating terms - is this a language barrier?

>>140026651
>No, intelligent blacks (the ones you wouldn't automatically avoid, because the don't act like most blacks) are statistical outliers.
ftfy

>>140028098
See this>>140011837

About the correlation of higher IQ with sucess, I agree completely that the trend is present and that you can make predictions based on IQ.


Something you need to understand about all the facts you stated is that they're due to confounding.

IQ scores are heavily correlated to financial success, stability, etc. due to higher levels of societal base education- education being the underlying factor.

Most studies show, given no change in education/societal levels of education, offspring of any given parent will have extremely similar IQ scores, but offspring with an altered education in accordance to the parent will have a vastly differing set of IQ scores (IQ tests are given in multiples over set time to find the actual baseline because variations in environment, mentality, alertness, etc. can alter the scores to a degree).

You can clearly see every trend correlating to levels of education (that relate to the ones we've chosen to isolate in this discussion), given controls and accountancy for differences in societal norms/values.

Easy ways to expose the confounding are by comparing states, their educational curriculum, IQ scores, et al, and comparing European countries with each other (some African countries compared as well).

Keep in mind that looking through the statistics while comparing, and contrasting if you like, that economic standings, and the actual society of the areas MUST be as similar as possible, hence; comparing European countries to European countries, and states to states.

I can't disagree with it having anything to do with race because there's been nothing to disprove it as of yet, but i can't agree either for the reason there's been nothing to prove it either

>>140028379
Well obviously, the first wave was more or less selected.

>>140028336
I'm just stating the scientific method though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

File: The_10,000_Year_Explosion_(Cover).jpg (37KB, 256x390px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 256x390px

>>140003982

>slightly different

No.

Significantly different.

>>140023152
There is no "proving" which is the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis is what you default back to when evidence isnt conclusive either way. In this case, we know complex traits vary between populations. For example, the average pygmy is much shorter than the average dutch. Noobdy disputes this gap is in large part genetic, because when a pygmy is raised in holland they don't magically become as tall as a dutchman. We observe a similar gap in intelligence. It MIGHT be all environment: but there is no PROOF it is, and given what you know about other traits, WHY WOULD YOU DEFAULT TO THAT EXPLANATION? Unless you want to argue that all height differences are environmental, and that it has nothing to do with genetics? Do you realize how EXTRAORDINARY a claim that is? Do you realize how extraordinary the evidence you'd need to support it?

Supporting a hollow consensus like youre doing is an understandable mistake. People want to trust our experts haven't gone horribly wrong for ideological reasons. They did. They're humans. It happens. The "race is a social construct" bullshit was not pushed because we discovered some incredible scientific evidence in support of that claim, which is why outside the west nobody believes it. Read Degler's In Search of Human Nature if youre interested in how the environmental hypothesis actually came to dominate.

PS: You don't need Lynn, Rushton, or Jensen to argue the hereditarian position. Asked anonymously, most intelligence researchers agree that genetics explain a significant portion of the variance, the people who believed it explained none of it being only 17%. Why dyou suppose they have to be asked anonymously?

>>140003982
Only faggots are swayed by YouTube videos

>>140028758
Education does not change your IQ, that is idiotic. You have everything exactly backward. IQ is more predictive of income, educational attainment, etc. than any other single factor.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3907681/
http://m.pnas.org/content/114/5/E727.full.pdf
https://psmag.com/education/does-education-really-make-you-smarter-4543

>>140028910
Wrong. You are being intellectually dishonest. No study CAN account for all variables so that's a bullshit reason to discount anything. I have explained the social practice of science far better than you have.

>>140029152
Post your survey then, i'm sure that only a few responded, which do not represent the opinion of all researcher.

>which is why outside the west nobody believes it
>nobody care outside of the west
FTFY.

Also see >>140028758
and this >>140012322

>>140025078
Just see this >>140028758

There is no reason to held your position as default position.

>>140005595
Under that logic we are all subspecies

>>140029790
>Under that logic we are all subspecies
Which tiger is not a subspecies?>>140027385

>>140010198
>black and white person have kids
>children are considered black because of black features
>marry full blacks
>1/4 white kids are considered full black because they have two black parents
>are added to black genetic group
meanwhile
>white person marries half black
>kids have too many black features to be considered white
>treat them as mixed instead
>never added to white genetic group

>>140029567
The studies cited fail to account for variables such as area of education, given educators/mediums, and economic status/education requirements. What you've done just now by citing these sources is shown a lack of understanding and education

>>140029662
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399/full
71, which is pretty good considering the size of the field in question. Why are you being such a little bitch?

File: 3b83c493dd5244cf14a6d33e22f5cc3c879611e8e7eac045e6fd32a4da42aed6.jpg (233KB, 959x960px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 959x960px

>>140003982
the red pill is that you are dirt and will die, you only exist to propogate your own genetics and you do that by ganging up with genetics like yours and killing niggers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mcf9CLMQuRQ

>>140030240
Fake and gay. Stop lying about the links and just admit that you are illiterate on this topic. You don't even understand the Flynn Effect and have been misapplying it to this topic the entire time.

>>140030332
>http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399/full

"One limitation of the study can be seen in the small sample and low response rates. The sample consisted of 71 respondents, which is small compared to Snyderman and Rothman's sample of 661 respondents (of 1020 invitations). In addition, self-selection of experts could have biased the results."

>>140030470
Prove me wrong then.

Given data doesn't conclude a race-genetic based gap. It suggests theres a gap of sorts and that's all. You're extrapolating data to make a conclusion it cannot support.

>>140029662
Rindemann, Becker, Coyle
Snydermann, Rothman

>>140029567
Also, never said that education is the only variable for IQ, i'm just explaining to you why your position isn't straight fact.

>>140030847
Here's a study with Rindermann data BTW:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603674/

The validity of the Naep score is an another debate but this is something done with Rindermann data.

>>140030666
I wasn't talking about a race-based genetic gap in that post, dummy. I was talking about your idiotic assertion that reverses the relationship between IQ and education. Try to keep up. You have been blown the fuck out a dozen times in this thread by multiple people but you just keep pretending nothing happens and bringing up new red herrings. For someone with a practically metaphysical view of the connection between brain and behavior, I am not surprised.

File: 1491047867458.jpg (25KB, 641x530px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 641x530px

>>140030666
>>http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399/full
>"One limitation of the study can be seen in the small sample and low response rates. The sample consisted of 71 respondents, which is small compared to Snyderman and Rothman's sample of 661 respondents (of 1020 invitations). In addition, self-selection of experts could have biased the results."
Ok. So here is the Snyderman and Rothman's sample.
http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0003-066X.42.2.137
" There is overwhelming support for a significant within-group heritability for IQ, and a majority of respondents feel that black-white and socioeconomic status IQ differences are also partially hereditary."

>>140031202
What a crock of shit. The dysgenic decline in genotypic IQ has been masked by the Flynn effect, which cannot last forever due to biological limitations in genetic potential. In fact it is believed to have stopped in developed nations already.

>>140031352
Who destroyed me? Stop being delusional.

Here's an interesting article about european intelligence:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/race-iq-and-wealth/

Richard Lynn failed to respond to him correctly:

http://www.ronunz.org/2012/08/05/unz-on-raceiq-response-to-lynn-and-nyborg/


>>140031545
Your link do not work, and we should also check the methodology of the survey in question.

>>140031651
You have to actually prove your claims with enough evidence to be claimed as hard science.

>>140031545
Oh wait, already saw the survey.

Your survey is pretty old, a quarter of century is pretty long in science, so your survey do not really have any credibility now.

>>140031545
Also, your survey contacted non specialist too, why contacting non specialist?

Please check your own sources.

>>140031891
>Your link do not work, and we should also check the methodology of the survey in question.
The link does work. At least for me, you can just follow the link here
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399/full#B41
And then press crossfulltext.
But it does not make a difference. Because even your own citations admits that the general view is that heritage plays a role.
>>140016899
>"The conventional view is that genes place an upper limit on the effects of social intervention on cognitive development," says Tucker-Drob. "This research suggests the opposite. As social, educational and economic opportunities increase in a society, more children will have access to the resources they need to maximize their genetic potentials."
>"The conventional view is that genes place an upper limit on the effects of social intervention on cognitive development
And still you don't get it. What a waste of time you are.

>>140031891
https://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-hispanic-asian-flynn-effect.html

I am familiar with the Unz-Lynn feud. I don't consider either of them to be completely honest.

>>140031891
In general it helps to avoid research that relies on IQ studies of children because their IQ varies wildly due to environmental influences. Once they hit their 20s, IQ becomes much more stable because the brain finishes maturing and genes increase their influence. It is tell-tale that both Lynn and Unz rely on child data in their arguments with each other.

p.s. Unz is a kike

>>140033334
Ron Unz did responded to this though, just see the comments.

And in contraty to you, I do not claims their position as facts, they're just interesting.

>>140032524
see >>140032157

And you should read the study that I quoted actually.

>>140033555
The problem is that you don't even know if black reached their genetics potential.

>>140033983
They are interesting positions from an anthropological or cultural perspective I guess. But modern psychometric and neurobiological research has left them both behind.

I can guarantee you it is not as high as Eurasian groups. lol. Interesting how Africans seem incapable of creating environments where that is possible. Non-falsifiable explanations sure are comfy aren't they?

File: Africa-Ethnic-Borders.png (128KB, 564x304px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 564x304px

>>140034881
Factors to your claims can be due to the poor boarders made by colonialist; pic related.

They mixed numerous population with different culture abruptly, creating war, tension then destabilization.

>>140003982
What about wolves and dogs?

>>140035203
African tribes are not capable of the high level of organization or abstract thought necessary to maintain civilization as we know it. The history of decolonization is everywhere the same: Whites leave voluntarily or are kicked out, and the Africans fight each other until they have totalitarian leadership.

One has to wonder at the connections between individualism and intelligence. They are undeniable.

>>140035903
Scientific evidence supporting your claim?

There is pre-colonial civilization in Africa BTW.

>>140035389

Interestingly, dog breeds are ~70% genetically similar, despite their huge morphological differences.

Human races are ~85% similar, which is sometimes used for the fallacious argument that there is potentially more variation between two black men than there is a black and a white.

If 30% difference can make a dog over 100 times more massive, then 15% variation in humans probably isn't arbitrary.

>>140003982
actually it's neither so much as it is everyone being one race, look at your ancestry if you don't believe it, it's far rarer to be a pure blood anymore than it is to be some kind of mutt. After invention of boats we humans started going everywhere and having sex with the natives, that's pretty much the entire of the South and Central American Population. The only real reliable way to distinguish what we call whites from other populations is through nipple color, not even DNA can do it. Most of us are mongrels, to some extent. It's high likely Jew blood, for example, courses through your veins as you read this, along with who knows what else.

File: 1476493316693.png (279KB, 898x790px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 898x790px

>>140014022
>>140012603
>MAOA

Violent crime is a major issue that affects the quality of life even in stable and wealthy societies. In industrialized countries, the majority of all violent crime is committed by a relatively small group of antisocial recidivistic offenders,1,2 and more than 50% of severe antisocial behavior is attributable to genetic factors.3 The classic study by Mednick et al.,4 reported a significant correlation between adoptees and their biological parents for property crimes, but not for violent crimes. However, a recent study using an enormous Swedish nationwide adoption database with a long follow-up period found convincing evidence that the criminal records of biological parents predicted both violent and non-violent criminality among their adopted away children.5 Two decades ago, it was observed that a rare mutation leading to a complete deficiency of monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) was associated with impulsive and aggressive behavior in a Dutch kindred.6 Thus far, only two studies have reported an association between a specific gene and criminal violent offending.7,8 In the study by Caspi et al.,7 55 (12%) of the boys who were studied had a combination of the low-activity MAOA promoter genotype and childhood maltreatment, which accounted for 44% of the violent convictions in their cohort.7 Although this finding has not been replicated, and the majority of violent convictions in this cohort were not severe, such as homicide or attempted homicide, this MAOA variant has become widely called as a ‘warrior gene’.
>Although this finding has not been replicated

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776744/