Do humans have subspecies?

>>8795163
how so?

either way it's a classification that has no benefit of being made. they are just as much the same species right?

are you basing this purely on skin color/facial features? then why arent italians a different sub species than northern euros?

>>8795163
Maybe a hundred years ago, now the world has become so small and there is so much movement of people that geographic separation has become meaningless. You can only really sustain the separation of gene pools by creating artificial reservations and withholding outside technology, politics and culture from the 'protected' population.

>>8795172
I read somewhere that earwax in east Asians and native Americans is chemically different
Africans clearly have more than just skin color separating them.

>>8795177
I wouldn't be surprised if populations that aren't so different become become less over time, but truly divergent groups such as Aboriginals just don't reproduce with other ethnicities enough.

And why? Because if we do it to other species why should we be any exception.

Breeds more like. There are border collies like ur 110 iq asians and jews, and there are chiauauas like ur 85 iq africans. Its all shown in the book the bell curve by charles murray. We dont have races but we do have iqs.

>>8795200
>And why? Because if we do it to other species why should we be any exception.

Because our reason and socialization overrules instinctual mating behavior.

Two subspecies of crows with different coloring, beak shape and a sexual preference for their respective sub-species appearance will separate further from another genetically over time and then become distinct species eventually. Similarly two populations of brown bears separated by an eroded land bridge will continue to evolve in different directions from another and become more distinct from another over time up until a point where they couldn't even mate and create viable off-spring if they tried.

I mean you can define human races as sub-species if you want, it's a made up definition for classification purposes, but what's the point?

>>8795163
I agree.

That we are different species seems obvious when you consider that scarlet Macaws are considered to be a separate species from blue and gold macaws which are different from military macaws, even though they cal all interbreed. Red squirrels and grey squirrels can interbreed but are considered different species. African and Indian elephants are considered different species but can interbreed. The whole "disctinct only when they can't interbreed" argument only ever seems to be brought up as an excuse to think of different human species as the same. It's easy to find individuals who are of mixed race, but that doesn't reflect on the fact that there at least half a dozen distinct human species.

>>8795163
daily reminder that aboriginal societies didn't have a number greater than 1 until after the year 1800

>>8795234
I'm not sure I believe that

I struggle to find and fully African or Aboriginal girl attractive, I have great preference for white girls and that's true for most folks.
We normally prefer our own race/subspecies.

>>8795248
Explain

>>8795163
just like how cats have different fur colours and sizes
we are like that

>>8795268
There are enough people who interbreed. Remember that the evolution and speciation of species happens on evolutionary time frames. We are talking about time frames between ten thousand to millions of years here.

I am talking out of my ass with this, but I assume you can give it maybe a thousand years at most of current levels of race mixing and you won't find any separate races anymore. In-group preferences aren't strong enough to prevent it in my opinion, at least judging by the USA and other western nations with large minority populations. You would be hard pressed to find a multi-generational native white guy in the US without black ancestors in his family tree.

>>8795282
Cats are polytypic

>>8795290
I'm not all that certain. People very rarely mix races.

>>8795290
Aboriginals split off from European and Asian populations 75,000 years ago, while Asian and Europeans split a mere 24,000.
That's plenty of time to classify as a subspecies.

>>8795312
2.9% of american citizens self-identify as mixed-race (there are probably way more than that). As long as we have a constant rate of 2.9% of new babies being born mixed race, then we must end up with a growing percentage of mixed race people in the country overall. Like two fluids that only very slowly mix unless stirred, but eventually given enough time the two fluids become a homogeneous solution.

Unless you have some reason to assume that race mixing would slow down over time, or you could somehow supply more pure-bred specimen from outside, then I can't really see how it wouldn't happen naturally.

>>8795290
True, and a mixed races individual has better chances of reproducing with a pure one, and as long as that 2-3% exists it'll continue to happen.
This can be seen today with Mestizos "Latinas" (half white half amerindians) being really hot to white folks, and Asians as well. Amerindians came from Asiatic populations and Asiatic populations recently diverged from European ones, so it's sensible that the differences are less profound enough that reproduction is viable.

I'm more interested in Aboriginal and secluded African populations like Pigmies that are likely to continue to diverge.

That and the Apocalypse will break down global connections.

>>8795347
Meant to reply to >>8795331

>>8795347
Pigmies might have a chance to stay distinct and split off further if their current level of protection and separation stays intact.

But aborigines are in too much in contact with the regular australian population, many have already integrated into regular society. And the numbers of traditional aborigines is dwindling. Not to mention the forced integration programs in the 19. and 20. century where aboriginal children were taken away from their parents to grow up as 'white children'.

Like I said a few hundred years ago I might have agreed with you.

File: ntsa.jpg (46KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x375px

>>8795163
The question is not whether humans have subspecies, but why you care so much.

>>8795227
No, we don't. The Bell curve graphs are fake Stormfront shit. Believe in fairy tales if you want. Just stop shitposting them every day. It gets old.

>>8795385
Go try shilling on /pol/, it doesn't work here maggot.

Knowledge is power and not seeking it makes you a fucking faggot.

>>8795385
>The question is not whether humans have subspecies, but why you care so much.
Why does that matter?

>>8795163
official answer no
pol answer yes

>>8795488
It will give us some insight on why there's another thread like this every other day

>>8795163
Humans generally arent considered to be divided into subspecies because there are no clear boundaries between racial/ethnic groups

>>8795385
Go and take your shill bullshit back to the 'ddit you fucking bitchfaggot.

File: Homo-Stammbaum,_Version_Stringer-en.svg.png (98KB, 950x701px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 950x701px

in my mind it's kind of like this:
Sub-Saharan Africans = Homo sapiens
Eurasians = Homo sapiens + Homo neanderthalensis
Southeastern Asians and Oceanians = Homo sapiens + Homo neanderthalensis + Denisova hominin

I think we're living very interesting times with the new revelations on how the 2-5% of neanderthal DNA actually has affected eurasian populations and so on

>>8795227

Fuck off moron.

>>8795271

The simplest thought, like the concept of the number one, is an elaborate logical underpinning.

>>8796066
>how the 2-5% of neanderthal DNA actually has affected eurasian populations and so on
by giving some of them a lot of non-coding dna, shorter height and more body hair
and so on

Oh boy, another thinly veiled /pol/ thread

>>8796117
>by giving some of them a lot of non-coding dna, shorter height and more body hair
Actually by giving us different quality of nails and hair, also freckles are due to neanderthal genes

>>8795385
You must be delusional. There is a correlation between race and IQ, this has been demonstrated several times. The biggest question (a question racists tend to see as already solved) is whether this is because of genetics or environmental factors/poverty.

Reminder that niggers are subhuman

"Race" literally means "subspecies" brainlets.

>fucking /pol/ threads

>>8795385
>thinks bell curve is all about race
confirmed for knowing jackshit
The APA verified the text-twice- with no issues found.

>>8795163
if you were to go by phenotype, an obese person who says inside all day and a thin person who works under the sun all day would qualify as difference subspecies.

>>8796198
being fat has about the same heritability as iq

File: 1439751189518.png (417KB, 956x851px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 956x851px

>>8796198
yes but it is not typically a relevant variation.

>>8796139
incredible if true

i am racially conscious now, the quality of my nails is superb

>>8796203
are you trying to say IQ isn't genetic? Because being fat definitely isn't, just eat less you disgusting slob.

>>8796230
google twin studies on being fat
iq isn''t completely genetic, 50% of the difference in iq between two people is explained by genes, gwas studies

why do you post in genetics threads when you have no idea what's going on

File: 138819901580.png (351KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 500x334px

>>8796235

>>8796230
Eating more is heritable.
Culture is heritable.
Something being highly heritable doesn't mean it's caused by genes. It means difference in phenotypes tends to correspond to a genetic difference.
If I'm born to a family that overeats, I'll probably be overfed too. But that doesn't mean there exists a causal relationship between my genes and my overeating.
In fact it's the same with IQ. We have to be careful what we mean when we say genes are responsible for a trait. Something highly heritable may be more sensibly the result of an environmental difference that simply corresponds to a genetic difference.

>>8795163
Yes because humans together makes a species meaning genetic divisions are subspecies.

>>8796267
go away lamarck

>>8795385
Then explain gaps in intelligence when factors such as environment and income are controlled for. Oh wait you won't because even though the methods are valid it goes against the 'we are all equal' bullshit which your masters use to push open borders and the like.

>>8795163
>>>/mlpol/

>>8796280
>wah wah why haven't geneticists banned interracial marriage yet

>>8795893
First time I ever made this thread

>>8796138
>>8796152
>>8796281
>I have nothing to offer the thread, because I'm an intellectual coward and a brainlet who premtivly avoids uncomfortable truths
Either make your refusal or fucking leave you leftist shitposters

>>8796289
He didn't say that


Furthermore, you haven't disproven him.

>>8796347
he expects some sort of a racially motivated policy making, it's in his post
and there is no grounds for that even if you take the most right wing hbd blogposts on face value

the 'disproving' is in the thread for him to read

>>8796357
All he asked for was for you to explain gaps in intelligence, nothing more. You extrapolated anything else out of thin air.

Nothing in the thread so far has proven that humans don't have subspecies, only complaining that some people are asking.

>>8796382
>All he asked for was for you to explain gaps in intelligence
>nothing more
but he said
>bullshit which your masters use to push open borders and the like.
which strongly implies he wants an immigration policy with a racial agenda

>Nothing in the thread so far has proven that humans don't have subspecies, only complaining that some people are asking.
the point was about how genetic iq actually is, which has been addressed
this was his request
>Then explain gaps in intelligence
this is explained itt - according to gwas studies an iq gap is 50% explainable by genes

as for subspecies, which is much less consequential than intelligence differences:
>Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[9] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[10] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[11][12][13][14][15]

>Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[16] While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour that has not been invalidated as a taxonomic construct,[17] others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[11] or simplistic way,[18] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[19][20]

we have had this thread many, many times, i encourage you to look through the 4chan archive as well as all other archive servers out there for more information that doesn't come from race warriors

>>8796414
>but he said
>>bullshit which your masters use to push open borders and the like.
>which strongly implies he wants an immigration policy with a racial agenda
he was calling you out on what looked to be a leftist bias, a conclusion he arrived to on the basis that it looked like you were the same poster as >>8795385, who only cared about the politics of it at hand and not the biological interest.
I think it was fair on his part to think you had a political bent, but if you renounce that now then that is that.

>the point was about how genetic iq actually is, which has been addressed
>this was his request
I see here is where he deviated a bit from the overall point of the thread, he chose to focus on specifically on intelligence, but the thread was dedicated to the overall assessment of the identification of subspecies. I assumed this is still the overall fact being debated, one in which it appears you believe to be that homo sapiens is monotypic.

>>Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[16] While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour that has not been invalidated as a taxonomic construct,[17] others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[11] or simplistic way,[18] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[19][20]
i see three points made in this:
>1. the lines are blurry
in which i reply that despite that hazziness, there are very clear differences within homo sapiens sapiens nonetheless. only a fool would argue against this clear fact.
CONT

>>8796447
>who only cared about the politics of it at hand
is that the guy you are white knighting you mean

>>8796447
CONT
>2. it doesn't matter
irrelevant, and only a political pandering. Does it matter if we identify subspecies in ravens then? This is science, not politics. You decide what the implications are, this is knowldege for knowledge's sake.

>3. we are the same subspecies
which is being debated.
personally, we've discovered that subspecies can develop over a mountain range, homo sapiens has traveled globally and has only within a grievously recent time have we begun to reconnect. We're here to debate the specifics, but how we can say that all homo sapiens are the same to being the same SUBSPECIES is pretty silly.

>>8796451
??
i just said, it was >>8795385 who made this a political talk

>>8796458
so did the guy you are defending, but you are too biased to see it

do you browse /pol/

>muh malnutrition

cant explain a 32 point IQ gap between niggers and whites.

>>8796459
>so did the guy you are defending, but you are too biased to see it
because he made the appropriate reply. if you truly cared, you would take a stance against the poster he replied to.

>do you browse /pol/
nah, i browse /k/, and /int/, but namely /his/.
anthropology got me interested in this topic, so i made a thread.

>we have this thread every day

No. Generally, the cutoff for subspecies is that the populations have to have a Fst above around 0.3-0.4 depending on the populations. Humans have an overall Fst of about 0.15

File: 1490201880939.jpg (260KB, 900x948px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 900x948px

>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.
>but they do not usually interbreed in nature
>in nature

There's your problem, unless we define what "in nature" means the definition can not apply accurately to humans.

What does "in nature" specifically mean here? The natural world in general in the absence of human intervention or technology? Or just the natural world including human action?

Does the sub-species classification go away once contact between two populations is established? How long does it take for the sub-species classification to return after separation?

Are you a certified taxonomist op?

>>8796481
>Humans have an overall Fst of about 0.15
>the cutoff for subspecies is that the populations have to have a Fst above around 0.3-0.4 depending on the populations
where can i read this? this is the sort of meat of the topic at hand i am looking for.
the simplistic definition that Wikipedia have me supported human subspecies, but I'd like to get into this. What i got from 'Is Homo Sapiens Polytypic' is that we had a variation of 0.7.

>>8796490
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index

More recently, the International HapMap Project estimated FST for three human populations using SNP data. Across the autosomes, FST was estimated to be 0.12. The significance of this FST value in humans is contentious. As an FST of zero indicates no divergence between populations, whereas an FST of one indicates complete isolation of populations, Anthropologists often cite Lewontin's 1972 work which came to a similar value and interpreted this number as meaning there was little biological differences between human races.[6] On the other hand, while an FST value of 0.12 is lower than that found between populations of many other species, Henry Harpending argued that this value implies on a world scale a "kinship between two individuals of the same human population is equivalent to kinship between grandparent and grandchild or between half siblings".[7]

>>8796357
the only recommendation you can make from this is dismantling affirmative action, ungifted colored should be just as scrutinized as ungifted whites.

>>8796488
>There's your problem, unless we define what "in nature" means the definition can not apply accurately to humans.
>What does "in nature" specifically mean here? The natural world in general in the absence of human intervention or technology? Or just the natural world including human action?
>Does the sub-species classification go away once contact between two populations is established? How long does it take for the sub-species classification to return after separation?
good questions, because if we still were seperated like we have been for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years then it would a given, but with further contact between people we previously had not the differences may be less pronounced
>Are you a certified taxonomist op?
nope, that's why i made the thread

>>8796503
A common argument i have found is that Homo Sapiens has a genetic variation that is the same as other species' who are considered to be polytypic.

Does this hold true?

>>8795385

>calls put /pol/ for what it is
>immediately called faggot and gets (you)'s with "much IQ"

/pol/ is the actual lowest IQ board

>>8796724
In biological terms, rather than in relation to nomenclature, a polytypic species has two or more subspecies, races, or more generally speaking, populations that need a separate description.[7] These are separate groups that are clearly distinct from one another and do not generally interbreed (although there may be a relatively narrow hybridization zone), but which may interbreed if given the chance to do so. These subspecies, races, or populations, can be named as subspecies by zoologists, or in more varied ways by botanists and microbiologists.

A monotypic species has no distinct population or races, or rather one race comprising the whole species. A taxonomist would not name a subspecies within such a species. Monotypic species can occur in several ways:

1.All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories.

2.The individuals vary considerably, but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned.

3.The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species, even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious.

this ought to be clear

>>8796753
>>calls put /pol/ for what it is
it was an honest biological discussion, and then it came in with offense at the implications?
why the FUCK is it /pol/? because it has vague racial connotations?

>>8796811
>1.All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories.
at least on a surface level humans clearly vary
>2.The individuals vary considerably, but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned.
these differences don't seem to be random, there are common factors among humans from different parts of the earth
>3.The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species, even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious.
this part interests me the most. we seem to have a decently stable gene flow, but a decently long one. there are noticeable differences. is there any concrete line for when a subspecies can be said to be such, or is it all circumstantial?

I think you could make the case that some pygmy people are well on their way becoming different species or atleast subspecies.

Consider african pygmies who reach senescence in their 30s, are <150 cm tall, have iqs in 50 range and genetically separated from the rest of humanity over 60000 years ago.

Humans may have sub species, but we're super mixed, and its been that way for a long time. I don't know of any example of a "pure" ethnic strain for any people group, but I might be wrong.
However we can still tell where people come from based on DNA. A blood sample can tell what kind of person you are, what your bone structure would generally look like, and a plethora of further implications. We can even determine general ethnicity and gender based on skeletal measurements. There are very clear distinctions between ethnic groups on the high level.
If you look at the lower level you can find certain people may not have a given gene, while others do. Some people can drink milk into adulthood, and metabolize large amounts of alcohol without issue, others cant, and we know this is a genetic component.

The issues at hand are that there is a high degree of intermixing with ethnic groups, and our systems of classification are lacking.

>>8796753
>let me use the anonymity to support myself on a anime website

Truly sad.

>>8797148
i don't know desu
it's just a couple of genes that was selected for with them - and actually there's two pygmy groups in africa who are small, but using different adaptations, that happened independently

they're not that different from other africans, with the exception of being smaller

File: Aubrey-de-Grey.jpg (366KB, 1405x1405px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1405x1405px

>>8795290
>give it maybe a thousand years at most of current levels of race mixing and you won't find any separate races anymore

I have some bad news for you, kike.

>>8797148
>IQs of 50 on average
I don't think you know what an IQ of 50 means. IQs in the 70s are considered retarded-tier. Not even people with Down's Syndrome score so low.

>>8797220
Just go to remote areas.
I fail to see how a remote village in Norway could be mixed.

>>8795163
I don't know but I'm going to say yes because that supports the biases I already have and it's me feel more confident about them.

>>8797467
Somehow I feel your disingenuous

>>8797335
you'll be bred out of existence kiddo, deal with it

>>8795163
if they lost weight and shit they'd look just like what you consider human but with darker skin

>>8795248
Let's not let facts get into the way of hating darkies...

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

File: bait-poster01.jpg (421KB, 936x1378px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 936x1378px

>>8796145
> You must be delusional.
I'm not the one holding onto fake graphs and false data because it makes me feel superior to someone else.

> this has been demonstrated several times.
It's funny how the same people who swear up and down and round and round that the IQ correlation is fact have yet to produce a SINGLE scientific source to it.

Just because something is shitposted over and over does not make it true.

>>8795312
You best be joking. It's happening all the time, as long as culture doesn't prevent it. Look up population in Madagascar, or south America.

Only aboriginal societies could be considered 100% "pure" nowadays, and it's mostly due to isolation from other ethnic groups.

>>8798224
The Bell Curve remains definitive, The APA couldn't even naysay. You can't really argue the what of statistical evidence, only the why and how. IQ is as hereditary and as undemocratic as athleticism, which is why equalitarians treat it as anathema,

>>8797346

A 70 iq asian or caucasian would probably have serious cognitive problems that don't show up in a standard iq test, but which cripples them even worse than low iq does.

A 50 iq pygmy would probably be neurologically healthy otherwise, able to cope in their own environment quite well. They might lack capabilities for abstract reasoning, math, planning etc, but these traits have been eliminated from gene pool due to the benefits (not obvious in rainforest) not justifying higher energy consumption and longer childhood.

>>8798845
>but these traits have been eliminated from gene pool
source?

>>8797492
Spotted the manlet chink. Go back to r/asian"masculinity"bitch.

>>8798876
what you spotted is a white false flagger who thinks whites are being 'bred out of existence' - a common meme

but you knew that already

>>8798899
said white is right for the wrong reasons.
whites nationally have below replacement birth rates- this is because they drank the ovary-shriveling kool-aid of feminism first. women are working and sterilizing themselves during their fertilie years now, they only had the headstart.

>>8799065
what
whites will probably be minorities in usa and brazil, but a majority overall on the continent
the same, but much more so is true for europe and australia
that's if you have a pretty purist definition of white

if you use caucasian(which is the scientific term), you get significant footholds in east asia as well as north africa

those are some facts

>>8799080
white denotes the european subset of Caucasians, don't shift the goalposts here. anyways when whites are only a plurality, but a minority of the progeny, who assimilates to whom?

>>8795163
>capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature
>in nature

"In nature" here means in the absence of human interference.
This is a meaningless term as applied to humans.

>>8799100
>white denotes the european subset of Caucasians
White is in the eye of the beholder.
>european
A hundred years ago, most people wouldn't have counted Irish or Italian people as white, and plenty of people still don't consider Spaniards or Easter Euros to be white.

>>8799100
>white denotes the european subset of Caucasians
what makes spaniards the same as russians - they are caucasian first and foremost

white is a social construct, caucasian isn't
basically you shifted the goalposts and projected

>>8799126
they're recalling that meme mate.

File: albino_afghan.jpg (278KB, 1247x820px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1247x820px

pic related
albino afghan

File: albino_paki.png (255KB, 343x444px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 343x444px

>posts african albino
>race isn't just skin deep guys sjw btfo

it works both ways

File: albino_paki_girl.jpg (86KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 500x333px

i think she's cute

>>8799150
>>8799165
>>8799170
thats pretty disgusting 2bh

>>8796488
It also depends on your definition of "usually".

One could arguably say that even today, races do not "usually" interbreed.

>>8795172
>it's a classification that has no benefit of being made
Denial of the reality of racial differences has had severe consequences due to basing policy on the delusion that a Norwegian and a Congolese are equally likely, if raised under the same circumstances, to vote against his own short-term individual interests for the good of the nation or rape a 12-year-old girl believing this will cure him of the AIDS he also contracted through rape.

>>8799264
lol
what matters is the individual, not races

you don't get judged by your race, just because of average differences, it's that simple

>>8797346
>I don't think you know what an IQ of 50 means. IQs in the 70s are considered retarded-tier. Not even people with Down's Syndrome score so low.
An IQ of 50 is not particularly severe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
>The average IQ of a young adult with Down syndrome is 50, equivalent to the mental ability of an 8- or 9-year-old child
An 8-year-old child can learn basic literacy, arithmetic, how to prepare food, how to ride a bike and obey traffic laws, etc.

Intellectual disability is a combination of low IQ with deficits in adaptive behavior. A healthy animal in the wild might have low intelligence compared to humans, but it has no deficits in adaptive behavior: it can take care of itself. It's important not to confuse low IQ with maladaptive behavior, or with emotional immaturity. They are separate issues.

Most people of all races are healthy animals capable of surviving unaided, as was every step from our last common ancestor with the chimp to fully-modern human, even though their intelligence progressed only gradually from animal level to being capable of designing microchips. A population all with intellectual disability anywhere in the wild would die out quickly, because there's more wrong with their minds than low intelligence.

Arbitrarily low intelligence is consistent with survival in the wild.

>>8799302
>tl;dr iq is retarded
those people have language, culture, tools, buildings, music

you are being silly

>>8799281
>what matters is the individual, not races
>you don't get judged by your race, just because of average differences, it's that simple
That's great except that offspring of exceptional parents tend to regress to the mean. So when you're setting immigration policy you let in some IQ 100 people with normal first-world standards of forethought, self-control, and respect for society from a population of IQ 70 people who will steal from, rape, or murder strangers whenever they think they can succeed at it, and a couple of generations later you're dealing with their IQ 80 criminal grandkids.

Besides that, we never have total information about individuals. We're always playing the odds about what people will act like based on incomplete information. That's why most car rental companies won't rent to people under 25 years old. There are some very mature, responsible 20-year-olds, and indeed, it's quite a small minority of under-25s that will actually do something bad with a rental car, but this simple rule saves far more money that it costs in lost rentals.

Race is a hugely useful indicative factor, for instance blacks are about ten times more likely to commit violent crimes than whites, as much more violent as men are than women, but we're forbidden to take it into account (and police are doubly forbidden to ever admit acting on this critical statistical indication). Of course, people do ordinarily take it into account, because it's such incredibly practical information that it's near-suicidal to ignore, but we have to hide that we're doing it, we have to make up a plausible justification for decisions where the real justification isn't permitted. This accustoms our whole society to dishonesty.

>>8795385
>The Bell curve
You triggered my applied mathematics knowledge with your normie meme

>>8799307
>those people have language, culture, tools, buildings, music
Simple language, primitive culture, stone-age tools, rough huts, crude music. They survive well enough in their environment, but try to raise their children into modern society and you'll find them appallingly stupid.

Do you think 8-year-old children don't have language or culture, can't be taught to make simple tools, don't build little forts with mud and branches, and never make up their own songs?

>>8796145
correlation doesn't imply causation. Many other factors can contribute to a group having a lower iq besides their race like their socioeconomic background.

>Well hidden Race Realism bait
well played

>Do humans have subspecies?

Absolutely not. Anyone claiming otherwise is /pol/ bleed over.

There is less genetic diversity in the entire human species than there is in a single group of chimpanzees. This was caused by the human population almost going extinct creating a genetic bottleneck. Differences between groups of humans are superficial.

>>8795268
Which is why the niggers are always trying to steal white women, right?

>>8799515
t. creationist

so why does ethnicity resemble race when you do genetic cluster analysis if it isn't a breed?

>>8799515
>There is less genetic diversity in the entire human species than there is in a single group of chimpanzees.
>Differences between groups of humans are superficial.
By that reasoning, surely differences between individual humans are also superficial.

>>8796753

>/pol/ is the actual lowest IQ board


Racist people that believe in a jew conspiration, and voted Trump? Color me surprised

Any scientific inquiry must have a motivation. What do you do with the conclusion that different races are different sub-species?

>>8799860
Nothing. This has nothing to do with science. Even if /pol/'s claims were true, it wouldn't mean anything. They only care about the political implications. They want to violate peoples' rights and have an "excuse" to do it. Even if their pseudoscience was true, it would still have nothing to do with politics and wouldn't change what is legal or illegal.

>>8799602
Actually the highest

>>8798860
his ass.

>>8799347
what you are saying would make sense if it wasn't mostly false
Firstly smart parents have smart kids
Secondly white iq is slightly below 100
Thirdly African iq is in the 80s, not 70, inb4 Lynn, Lel
Fourthly while blacks are more criminal, value isn't ten fold

>>8799170
>>8799165
>>8799150
Indo-europeans are an uniform race, prove me wrong

File: fuck_you.jpg (35KB, 519x617px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 519x617px

>>8795163
Every day...

<- See these two dogs?

Same species.

Not even sub species.

You trying to tell me that there's humans more morphologically different than these two dogs?

Race is just PC speak for "breed". These are two different breeds. Blacks and whites are two different breeds.

AGAIN RACE = BREED

But there's less genetic diversity and more genetic homogeneity in our species than nearly any other mammal on the planet, as, once upon a time, the entire species hit an extreme genetic bottleneck where there were maybe ten thousand of us total, all interbreeding like mad.

The only mammal with greater genetic homogeneity than modern man, is the Tasmanian Devil, a species so genetically homogenous, it can actually spread cancers between members.

No, science is not in any way ignoring the difference between races. Several fields study this, and nothing but this. Genetic racial identification and race specific medicines are huge fields right now. But there is truth to the old statement, that there is oft more genetic diversity within a race than between any two given races, and there's such blurry rainbow involved, that no one is purely any race.

>>8795290
>I am talking out of my ass with this, but I assume you can give it maybe a thousand years at most of current levels of race mixing and you won't find any separate races anymore
We're already there. By even our recent ancestors standards, all sorts of people are considered white that would never have been considered so before, within living memory.

But tribalism is a core social instinct, so we're very good at focusing on differences, regardless of how subtle, and if none exist, we will create them.

>>8795268
>We normally prefer our own race/subspecies.
Have you not seen that dating service response rate pic that they are always posting up on /pol/? Hell nah, certain races just get tons more offers for wang and wu tang from other races and many races abhor their own - and it ain't always the white guys.

>>8800398
breed is something that arises on purpose, after we have bred some species to select for some trait - a breed is not something naturally arising
>A breed is therefore not an objective or biologically verifiable classification but is instead a term of art amongst groups of breeders who share a consensus around what qualities make some members of a given species members of a nameable subset

race is a term for humanoid creatures, human race, orc race, alien race etc. you wouldn't say a lion race, because that's not what the word 'race' is for. aside from the biological meaning (subspecies) in humans the word has gained a more broader meaning where at times people of the same biological race have been considered different races

i don't really disagree with the rest of your post though

>>8800184
>what you are saying would make sense if it wasn't mostly false
>what you are saying would make sense if I couldn't find a few hairs to split

>Firstly smart parents have smart kids
...but regression to the mean is real.

>white iq is slightly below 100
Dubious claim (probably depending entirely on who you count as "white", for instance, typically in officially classification schemes Mestizos and Arabs are thrown into that category), also totally irrelevant. "Slightly" doesn't matter. IQ isn't a good enough system that a few points matter, but the evidence supports differences of whole standard deviations (i.e. 15 points) having strong significance.

>Thirdly African iq is in the 80s, not 70, inb4 Lynn, Lel
African-American (mixed race, on average about 1/3 white) is in the 80s. North Africans are also of varied and mixed races. Pure-blooded Sub-Saharan African black is down around 70.

>Fourthly while blacks are more criminal, value isn't ten fold
It was "violent" not "criminal", and yes it's roughly tenfold when you look at incidents of serious violence such as murder. The more violent the community, the less likely less-serious incidents of violence are to be reported, but corpses get counted.

>>8800606
>breed is something that arises on purpose, after we have bred some species to select for some trait - a breed is not something naturally arising
You mean a breed is what happens when human intelligence is applied to mate selection and to culling undesirable examples?

Surely nothing like that has happened in human populations through history...

>>8800606
>race is a term for humanoid creatures, human race, orc race,

So by your own criteria race doesn't exist?

> you wouldn't say a lion race, because that's not what the word 'race' is for.

Then I guess Darwin didn't know what he was talking about when he talked about the "races" of cabbages?

>>8800686
you are wrong about sub saharan iq
it's actually in the 80's but the values you have seen are due to 'researchers' excluding 'values that seemed to high'

also white iq is actually most likely below a 100 even if you exclude whites you don't like

the percentage of individuals in each racial demographic arrested for murder in 2013 was:

0.01% of Black or African American population (4,379/38,929,319)
0.0017% of White American and Hispanic American population (3,799/223,553,265)
0.0033% of American Indian or Alaska Native population (98/2,932,248)
0.0007% of Asian American population (101/14,674,252)
0.001% of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander population (6/540,013).

>>8800691
no i mean a breed is not natural and you get it by having breeders who have a program
if you are being cheeky you can say anything is 'a breed' in the end, but that's just pointless taxonomically
>>8800703
the word is used much differently today

i looked at cabbage taxonomy, it doesn't use race

>>8800733
don't get me wrong, africans don't have an iq as high as caucasians, but it's not 70:

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nations_and_intelligence#/Studies%20of%20national%20cognitive%20ability

>>8797335
There was no value judgement in that statement. If you don't like how things are going, then do something about it.

File: iqbynation.png (62KB, 742x508px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 742x508px

>>8800792
The north african states are pulling up the curve. Look at those <65 states, is there a war going on in these states or something?

>>8800841
You literally cant make this shit up, the parts of Africa with much higher IQ is the part not populated by blacks.

>>8800841
are you blind(ed)? by africans i mean sub saharans
yes, your map is bogus, better revise it

did you look at the two links
let me quote from the second link
>In 2009, Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, and Han L.J. van der Maas conducted a new analysis of IQ in sub-Saharan Africa, which was critical of many of Lynn and Vanhanen's methods.[16] Wicherts et al. concluded that Lynn and Vanhanen had relied on unsystematic methodology by failing to publish their criteria for including or excluding studies. They found that Lynn and Vanhanen's exclusion of studies had depressed their IQ estimate for sub-Saharan Africa and, after including studies excluded in "IQ and Global Inequality", the average IQ for sub-Saharan Africa was found to be 82, lower than the average in Western countries, but higher than Lynn and Vanhanen's estimate of 67.

also, i will ask you to look at the avg by country and note that there's a few sub saharn states above 80
if you are allowed to cherry pick the absolute optimal white countries as representative, then surely i am allowed to pick completely suboptimal shit holes as representative

you are just being funny

>>8800859
>did you look at the two links
This map is from your links

>words words words
Did you read your own linked article? Right after your quote it says:
>Lynn and Meisenberg criticized their method of analysis, claiming that it was based on unrepresentative elite samples. They claimed that acceptably representative analysis samples reliably give an IQ of 68 as the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa.
>Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Jerry S. Carlson, and Han L.J. van der Maas replied that their selection of research is still unsystematic...

>>8800841
this shit doesnt make any sense. you cant have any kind of society with an average iq of 70. a person with an iq of 70 would die without extensive support.

>>8800866
>This map is from your links
yea, and it's bogus as the IQ average values are the more recent ones, since the map was obviously made before the numbers were calculated correctly
the whole point of the links is that lynn calculated the avg subsaharan IQ wrong
later, the numbers were revised

i've been saying the same thing for 3 posts now - the 70 iq estimate is bogus, and here's why

what don't you understand?

>>8800871
Why aren't you replying to the second half of my post?

I've read your wiki article from the second link and according to it, the guys who said the image is wrong had shitty insufficient methods, which they admitted. And after that comes a paragraph about a guy who makes a 'guess'.

>>8800879
>Why aren't you replying to the second half of my post?
but that's the whole point of the posts i've been making
read >>8800733

1.the 70 iq estimate comes from lynn
2.turns out he messed up calculations a little
3.the average is actually ~80 if you use the data correctly

i think you misunderstand what 'their' means in that paragraph

see his 'elite' samples are just his gut telling him 'ooh, that's too high' and throwing scores out
he is a fraud
>"The majority of the data points were based upon convenience rather than representative samples. Some points were not even based on residents of the country. For instance, the “data point” for Suriname was based on tests given to Surinamese who had migrated to the Netherlands, and the “data point” for Ethiopia was based on the IQ scores of a highly selected group that had emigrated to Israel and, for cultural and historical reasons, was hardly representative of the Ethiopian population. The data point for Mexico was based upon a weighted averaging of the results of a study of “Native American and Mestizo children in southern Mexico” with result of a study of residents of Argentina. Upon reading the original reference, we found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain. Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ across cohorts (the “Flynn” effect), on the assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved. While there appears to be rather little evidence on cohort effect upon IQ across the developing countries, one study in Kenya (Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, & Neumann, 2003[5]) shows a substantially larger cohort effect than is reported for developed countries."

here's what the guy did in one of his other books

>>8800733
>i looked at cabbage taxonomy, it doesn't use race

The point is that no two people can agree what "race" is. Are you going by skin color? By skull shape? By the genes? By historical considerations? Because they pretty much all paint different pictures, giving you between one and six billion possible "races" of modern humans, depending where you draw the lines.

>>8800733
>no i mean a breed is not natural and you get it by having breeders who have a program

You mean like how humans do? Or do you think humans breed randomly like bonobos? Human breeds exist exatcly because of human agency in preferring one type of mate over another, consistently, for generations. Thus blue eyes have spread like wildfire thru the "white" genepool since their emergence, not because blue eyes are inherently a trait of the "white race", but because white women preferred mates with blue eyes and BRED the trait into us.

>>8800918
>bonobos breed randomly
bonobos don't breed randomly

>A breed is a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species. Breeds are formed through genetic isolation and either natural adaptation to the environment or selective breeding, or a combination of the two. Despite the centrality of the idea of "breeds" to animal husbandry and agriculture, no single, scientifically accepted definition of the term exists.[1] A breed is therefore not an objective or biologically verifiable classification but is instead a term of art amongst groups of breeders who share a consensus around what qualities make some members of a given species members of a nameable subset.[2]

are humans a domesticated species? no.
inb4 philosophy sociology pop sci 'we've domesticated ourselves' - feel free to think that if you like

>>8800956
>are humans a domesticated species? no

Actually the answer is YES you dense motherfucker.

And thanks for providing your definition, you dumb bastard. Now explain how human "races" aren't breeds by that definition.
>having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species

>>8800963
humans aren't 'domesticated', humans don't breed much differently than other species - the difference between human breeding habits and other species' is entirely contained and described within the spectrum of difference of the two species, that's obvious and basic
domesticated animals don't breed according to natural laws, like humans do, but according to the laws humans have made for what dog breeds we like

>Now explain how human "races" aren't breeds by that definition.
read the whole definition and not take a little piece?

you seem to be getting mad
i am sure that's because you aren't allowed to be edgy and say things like 'humans are no different than dogs, we have breeds, it's just not PC to say it'

you will get over it

>>8800978

Oh so you're a simpleton. Carry on then.

>>8795320
Hahahahahahahaha

>>8799581
they are
>>8799544
^retard /pol/ bleed over.