Evolution and Racism

File: back to pol.jpg (136KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 546x700px

>>8827706
>evolution and racis-

Stopped reading there.

File: IMG_0124.jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>8827709
>mfw

>>8827706
Because evolution is not about "higher life forms". There is no "higher" in evolution. Evolution is not advancement on a ladder. Evolution does not drive all species in a single direction that one might call "higher". It's a complete misunderstanding of evolution. To start making those sorts of racist valuations, you need to insert some values about what constitutes "better".

And as for that, it didn't stick because the molecular genetics didn't back it up. All humans are amazingly close. Any two humans on Earth are closer genetically than even two chimps in the same pack / tribe.

>>8827706
Racism is a natural part of evolution.

File: samuel-l-jackson.png (132KB, 476x297px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 476x297px

>>8828142
Except that it is not. Racism is inferior races exhibiting frustration at their maladapted genes.

One only need to look at racial breakdowns in the census to see how the white race is failing to reproduce. White women clearly are preferring black and Latino men in ever higher numbers.

White boys cling to artificial, biased tests like IQ to try and regain some perception that their genes and lives are worthy of passing on. But all a brother needs to do to prove his worth is unzip his pants.

I personally feel sorry for the limp dicked virgins of /pol/. But the feeling quickly goes away while I'm fucking their sisters.

Feels good, man.

>>8827706
>Answers in Genesis

>>8828135
Perhaps plebs have a misunderstanding of some of the jargon. The term "primitive trait" for example - it merely means that it arose earlier, not an indication of inferiority as the plebs would say.

>>8828447
Acceptable with that context.

>>8827709
*tips*

M'lady.

>>8828135
So humans are no better than earthworms? Killing an earthworm is just as bad as killing a human, because humans aren't "higher"?

>>8828461
I said that the scientific theory evolution makes no such distinctions. It has no such language in the theory.

Usually, one's morality or ethics does, but that sort of morality or ethics does not depend on the truth of evolution, and it's independent of the truth of evolution.

>>8828177
I feel ya, dog. White obcession with "intelligence" over street smarts just shows what cracker ass fucking faggots they is when you get down to it.

File: received_10203845491597245.jpg (23KB, 640x349px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x349px

>>8828466
>>8828177
>pretending to be black on the internet

>>8828464
But what does intelligence even mean in the context of biology if it doesn't mean betterness at problem solving? Can't we say that evolution has made some organisms better than others across a variety of domains?

>>8828470
"Better at solving problems" is a fine concept in the theory of biology. So is "more intelligent".

However, "higher on the evolutionary ladder" or "more advanced species" are not proper terms in evolutionary theory.

>>8827706
Go, your home board needs you

>>>/pol/

>>8828469
>yaaaas fuck drumpf and white ppl
Lying, shilling, false flagging is not beyond them
In fact, it's their favorite thing

It's really not very noble

>>8828470
Yes
Asian>White>black

Is that what you want to hear

>>8828476
Eyo shut up cracka you aint know shit about me, feel me?

File: 1489189325025.png (6KB, 253x199px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 253x199px

>>8828476
Who's "them"? And why are you making some grandiose implication of an organised group of people doing it and not just shitposters and trolls

>>8828473
Fair enough.

>>8828481
Pretty much, yeah. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Every. Single. Fucking. Day.

You /pol/tards should really get a fucking job. And a life.

>>8828491
Mfw the shills they cry about get paid while they do it for free

>>8828498
Dude. No one here is a shill. No one pays money to someone to post on 4chan. Least of all /sci/.

>>8828491
This. My food stamps ain't gonna pay itself, fucking racist ass honkies.

>>8828476
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/1znfrd/fake_photographs_that_are_used_to_promote/


You've seen nothing.

>>8827706
Why do niggas drink more juices in general? When I walk downtown I always see these niggas drinking orange juices. The more darker the nigga is the more juices they drink. What does it mean? Why do brown niggas drink less juices than black niggas? Why?

>>8828135
Higher can simply mean more complex, and that isn't a law of evolution either as I'm sure you know, but it does hold true for ecological evolution, ecological and sociological systems tend towards complex until entropy emerges failure, and even then complex adaptive-renewal cycles evolve.
>>8828461
>isn't into biocentric equalitarianism
Wew lad
There is no physical separation between a human life and and earthworm life, all organismal life is the same thing in different packages baka.
You could argue that earthworms have far more utilitarian value than humans do. Earthworms would do fine without us but we couldn't make it without em

>>8828534
let this fucking thread die already

>What does it mean?
It means you're a fucking retard

>>8828544
No u

>>8828562
[math]\color{green} {\textbf{>NO U}\bf{^{10}}}[/math]

>>8828568
[math] \color{red} {\textbf{FUCK OFF BACK TO } \underline{\textbf{>>>/MLPOL/}} } [/math]

>>8827706
Human racial evolution is more complex than that anon.

If multiregional theory was correct then the DNA of the races would so divergent that they could be considerered seperate species.

Say Homo Erectus mutates into the races, since Erectus began around 1.3 million years ago, it also means the races would have formed 500,000 years ago so the genetic difference would be enough to be a new species.

>>8828459
I own three vintage fedoras and look good in them, as a matter of fact. Even the teenyboppers on /b/ have grudgingly admitted they suit me when I've posted pictures of myself.

Goddamn it why do these fedoras type like such fucking faggots?
Take your pedophile cartoons back to >>>/a/

File: 15910295_688149834685688_445093712_n.png (444KB, 516x523px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 516x523px

>>8828586
But I need it hard and I need it NOW!

>>8828177
The whites who breed the most are actually the idiots so nice try stupid nigger.

>>8828606
>go to clubs on another state
>impregnate women without telling them your actual name
>flee to your home state
Population problem solved.

File: ota-benga-chimp.jpg (82KB, 800x650px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x650px

Remember your sins.

I have analyzed http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Phenotype/Locations?db=core;name=Educational%20attainment;ph=26069;r=6:98136357-98137357;v=rs9320913;vdb=variation;vf=5140739

This is educational attainment, I have yet to analyze information speed processing and cognition. Still, some interesting results.

To compare races I took the frequencies of the favorable alleles for each race, multiplied by the effect. If the effect is negative I just took the inverse frequency.

The function is:
def compare_pops(snps):
af = 0
mx = 0
ea = 0
eu = 0
sa = 0
for s in snps:
effect = s.effect
if effect > 0:
af+=s.AFR*effect
mx+=s.MXL*effect
ea+=s.EAS*effect
eu+=s.EUR*effect
sa+=s.SAS*effect
else:
af+=(s.AFR-1)*effect
mx+=(s.MXL-1)*effect
ea+=(s.EAS-1)*effect
eu+=(s.EUR-1)*effect
sa+=(s.SAS-1)*effect
print "Africans: ",round(af,2)
print "Mexicans: ", round(mx,2)
print "East Asians: ", round(ea,2)
print "Europeans: ", round(eu,2)
print "South Asians: ", round(sa,2)

I got:
Africans: 1.09
Mexicans: 1.14
East Asians: 1.16
Europeans: 1.19
South Asians: 1.13

Those are very small differences. The below function will illustrate just how small they are. Though there are other ways to calculate these things, you won't get much different results. Browse the genome browser and see for yourself.

I also did this function:
def compare_inds(snps):
sm = 0
re = 0
for s in snps:
sm += abs(s.effect)
re -= abs(s.effect)
print "Smartest: ", sm
print "Dumbest: ", re

and got
Smartest: 2.5408
Dumbest: -2.5408

basically those SNP's should in theory account for 70 iq point difference between absolute retard and smartie, since each SNP has an effect of ~0.025 SD and to translate to IQ you multiply by 15 (one of the studies says that's how it is calculated)

Why don't MODS ban already this weeb shitposters?

Fucking weeaboo mods. Go back to >>>/a/.

>>8828834
>educational attainment
>proceeds to draw conclusions about IQ
You seem to have missed the point of our last discussion.

>>8828902
It's in one of the studies. Even disregarding IQ completely (which is correlated with educational achievement, but anyway) the conclusions are the same, as far as magnitude and comparisons go. Just click around the SNP's and see the frequencies for the different groups, if you haven't. You will not see a pattern.

Either way, IQ or no IQ, the conclusion is the same. I haven't included the diabetics one, because that one is for cognition.

I'll do the cognition one later, but I doubt the results will be any different.

>>8828917
1) The fact that IQ and educational attainment are correlated is irrelevant because correlations are non-transitive (remember that GWAS in itself is already correlation). If A is correlated with B, and B is correlated with C, that does not mean necessarily that A is correlated with C.
2) You'd need to apply meta analytical statistics to draw any conclusion at all about the meaning of numerical differences in SNP frequency.
3) I appreciate the effort, but you're going about this the wrong way.

>>8828942
>2) You'd need to apply meta analytical statistics to draw any conclusion at all about the meaning of numerical differences in SNP frequency.
Not really.
It's generally OK to just sum the SNP effects multiplied by the frequencies, since inheritance of intelligence isn't really known other than it being reasonably cumulative.

To do a correct analysis you'd have to know how each SNP is inherited, are they associated to one another etc. etc. and this is beyond me. So I just assume they are all independent.

The meta analysis is assumed quite simple since all the studies use very similar metrics and results, almost all the SNP's have about the same contribution.

I made a few assumptions, but based on a lot of the meta analysis studies I've read, it can't be too bad.

>>8827706

anyone with a shred of intelligence could conclude that niggers are dumb through simple experience.

>>8828963
>all the studies use very similar metrics
I'll just copy what I wrote yesterday.

>Aside from that, and arguable even more importantly, an often overlooked point is that the construct validity of the 'cognitive' measures that the genes are correlated with is questionable. Or more precisely, the construct does not align with the conclusions that are subsequently drawn as to the putative function of the SNPs. Literally all of the studies I've seen posted in this thread use a different 'cognitive' measure, for example. Again, this is fine as far as individual studies are concerned (i.e. they test individual hypotheses), but it becomes an especially prominent problem in meta analyses, which rather bewilderingly collapse across studies with radically different measures on the cognition side of the GWAS.

It applies here as well, because you continue to see the metrics as synonymous with 'intelligence'. This is erroneous, as I've already pointed out.

>It's generally OK to just sum the SNP effects multiplied by the frequencies, since inheritance of intelligence isn't really known other than it being reasonably cumulative.
No, the point of meta analytical statistics is to see if numerical differences in frequency are significant. Moreover, the assumption that these SNPs are independent is probably not quite a valid one, given the proximity of their loci. Hardly any related SNPs inherit independently. But this point is minor.

>>8828481
>Asian
>the smartest
kek

>>8828834
I don't get it, what's the point you're makign?

>>8828979
>Educational attainment != intelligence
>Educational attainment != IQ
Ok, ok, what even is intelligence? Define it as educational attainment and you're reasonably OK. Educational attainment is very important in its own right.

As for whether the SNP's are independent, i guess you'll have to look at how many of them are on the same chromosomes, how close they are on the chromosomes - too much work for me and it might not even have much value - who knows. That would mean they're related, if they are in proximity to one another in the genome, not if their functions are related.

The biggest problem with what I did is, whether I've reconciled the studies' different metrics. Which I most likely have reasonably well since the SNP's give about the same contributions in all the studies. About equally small contributions.
>>8829000
Open the link, click around the SNP's, look at the population pie charts, explore it. You'll see the point.

>>8829004
still don't get it

>>8829004
Not that anon but gonna put in my two cents.
>Ok, ok, what even is intelligence? Define it as educational attainment and you're reasonably OK.
That doesn't work either because it's also strongly correlated with socioeconomics.

There honestly it's no good way to quantify intelligence. And honestly, intelligence is not something you can simply put into a number. It's like, how can you quantify how kind someone is? Or quantify their sense of humor? Intelligence is just another quality like that.

What you CAN quantify is capability at any given point. And that's what should be done at every opportunity.

>>8827706
No this was not the perspective, the justification for racism using Darwinian Evolution was that whites in Europe became civilized and Africans and other nations weren't, because Africans were genetically inferior. The West became civilized because that's where the Enlightenment happened, which happened due to Europeans losing faith in their deities. Becoming civilized has nothing to do with their genetics, it was just a series of fortunate events. There is a current notion around that because whites are "more evolved" they are genetically superior. Humans look different because they were seperated for thousands of years and speciation started to occur, however we are still the same species nevertheless. Africans look the way they do because their gene pool had not experienced genetic drift, and look differently from other populations because they were seperated. It does not mean either one is genetically superior, differences in phenotypes has nothing to do with superiority. There's also the case that Africans look the way they do and whites look the way they do because natural selection determines how they would to some extent. Africans having a lower IQ than the rest of the world could possibly be they live in a world where intelligence is a non-factor, likewise Africans also are the most naturally athletic in comparison to other races because other races did not experience natural selection for athletic genes as long.

File: 1483942763547.png (24KB, 612x331px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 612x331px

>>8829017
The SNP's discovered so far as contributing to Educational attainment are not differently distributed between Africans, Mexicans, East Asians, Europeans South Asians.

Here's an example of one where Africans "win". The "A" one is the "bad" one, reducing EA by 0.021 units.

As you can see Africans have 0.52, the other groups are 0.60+.

http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Variation/Population?db=core;ph=26069;r=15:47409745-47410745;v=rs188133;vdb=variation;vf=82646

To see whether it increases or decreases click on the little icon with the brown and the blue eye. It says "Phenotype or Disease" when you hover over it with the mouse.

But generally, my point is that you aren't able to explain an Educational achievement gap between Europeans and Sub Saharan Africans(not to mention other racial groups) in terms of the SNP data we have currently. Perhaps Africans are just more violent and that's their problem, I don't know. Not saying they are just as capable on average, but obviously there's a lot more to it.

This is my 2 cents and I feel I did a better job than pic related HBD bloggers cherry picking nine(lol) SNP's.

There's still some more SNP's to look at - in regards to a "Cognition" category, "Information speed processing" and possibly more if I can find. Based on a few peeks I've taken, I don't expect different results.

>>8829032
>genetic drift
What that should be is gene flow.

I'd also like to add that Europeans began to lose faith in their deities and religion in general because their states weren't as heavily controlled by religion, theocracies began to weaken, because of corruption.

I like how this obvious troll thread derailed into an actual science thread.

>>8828135
>any two humans on Earth are closer genetically than even two chimps in the same pack

Got a source for that kiddo? Its sounds like weapons grade bolognium.

>>8829032
>>8829042
>lost faith in their deities
There's a lot more to it than that but yeah, they were the first to have the fortunate events that lead to the needed navigational technologies. Also Europe happens to be in a prime location for imperialism.

>>8829061
Not him, but I do.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5890349/genetic-diversity-in-chimpanzees-reveal-just-how-closely-related-humans-really-are

File: 1481356446133.jpg (77KB, 852x852px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 852x852px

>>8827709
>it's a /leftypol/ denies science because it doesn't fit his retarded worldview but then foams and mumbles something about republicans and climate change episode

back to /r/politics with you, cuckboy

I dont understand /sci/? Why do you go apeshit when we discuss about human genetic divisions?

>>8829077
>C-cuck
Cuck, short for cuckold, is the automated response given by the /pol/ user when it gets confronted with something it does not understand. This confusional state often results in frog posting and further incoherent ramblings about "muh white genocide", or "muh cultural marxism". The /pol/ user will then often retreat to a safe environment, such as /mlp/, although it is on occasion also observed to 'double down' on its muddled and often prolix confabulations. This latter phenomenon is why the /pol/ user is widely regarded as an archetypal sufferer of double down syndrome.

>>8829075
>gizmodo
Read the source they got that from. They never said that it was chimps in the same tribe. In fact, the entire paper has nothing to do with studying the genetic diversity of humans. Its basically saying "all human races are one subspecies, using that, can we confirm the existence of a subspecies of chimp?"

>We demonstrate conclusively the existence of P. t. ellioti as a genetically distinct subgroup.

>We show that there is clear differentiation between the verus, troglodytes, and ellioti populations at the SNP and haplotype level, on a scale that is greater than that separating continental human populations

They have proved the existence of a subspecies of chimps that live in several different places using human genetic variation as a baseline for what constitutes a subspecies. Of course you are going to find chimps are more diverse than humans if you are specifically looking for genetically diverse chimps. You suck at sources.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002504

>>8829123
Nigger, biology itself is barely a science.

And you expect people to respect 'subspecies' when the obvious cutoff point is viable offspring?

Furthermore humans inherit memes as well as genes - the lens of meme inheritance is far more enlightening than BS gene (as with claims of 'species') inheritance fuckwittery.

>>8828135
>Any two humans on Earth are closer genetically than even two chimps in the same pack / tribe.

sounds like complete pop-sci bullshit, you're just discrediting yourself by spouting this

>>8829123
because it invalidates left wing ideology about hierarchy and egalitarianism, and instead of admitting they are wrong the 17 year old pasty virgins with "refugees welcome" stickers on their bedroom windows double down and mumble something about science being racist. They're a fucking embarrassment to this board and need to be banned or directed back to /r/politics

>>8829132
You aren't disagreeing with me there.

>>8829149
it happens to be true

we went through a population bottleneck which greatly reduced our genetic diversity

>>8829157
The only actual science in this thread explicitly addresses the question that /pol/ loves to ask, yet it disagrees with /pol/'s preferred answer. You're the embarrassment.

>>8829077
>Using the word cuck unironically

>>8829137
Humans already are a subspecies since a subspecies of humans existed 170,000 years ago.

Human races are weird its better to call them subsubspecies to make it clearer. We need to create genetic divisions based on the genetic time distance. Like say create one for a gap of 90,000 years.

I believe Blacks alone would make one group

The East Africans another

While all other humans would make a third group.

As for the San they predate blacks meaning they are another genetic division away from the rest of us since they predate the very creature that split us from blacks in the first place.

Should the San be considered another species? No the San are human but the genetic distance is very far from us Eurasians, the closest to them are blacks.

File: Rosenberg_1048people_993markers.jpg (884KB, 1692x4137px) Image search: [Google]

884KB, 1692x4137px

>>8829310
Not as retarded as some other racial classifications you can come across.

Of course I wouldn't call it subspecies, because we aren't that far separated(looking at Fst). But more importantly humans are sentient beings and have races. The term 'race' in modern days is usually used to describe humanoid, intelligent creatures - just like in sci fi. It's a more noble and more correct term than subspecies.

I prefer K=5, which sort of amounts to a similar thing, since human variation strongly follows how humans migrated (go figure).

>>8828135
evolution is about adaption and continuation of life . There is no rule that says each new evolution will be superior in intelligence

>>8828135
Niggers were living in mud by the time we conquered the oceans invented calculous and sustained agriculture

>>8829329
>It's a more noble and more correct term than subspecies
what is this nonsense

humans are a subspecies

our species is Homo Sapiens
our subspecies is Homo Sapiens Sapiens

the latter one includes all 'races', because these are not markedly different enough to warrant different classifications

>>8829361
>the latter one includes all 'races', because these are not markedly different enough to warrant different classifications
You are joking right?

>>8829363
No.

>>8829367
The three main races have different hair follicles meaning they are very different from eachother, you are just being an egalitarian moralfag refusing to see humans are animals to be studied.

>>8829361
I agree with that, but races is still something we can talk about without it being subspecies.

>>8829405
No, I'm a biologist. I'm very well aware that humans are animals. I'm not saying that 'races' don't differ from each other, I'm saying that 'races' don't differ enough from each other to classify them in different taxonomic categories. All races fall under Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which is a simple fact that, and you don't have to take my word for it either. It's easy to look up. So do that before you go full autismo, /pol/tard.

>>8829459
Sure, I never denied that. But it's probably a better idea to talk about categories of phylogenetic ancestry or ethnicity, since those are more clearly defined constructs.

>>8829467
They can classified though since they have genetic differences from eachother. I am no calling other races different species, I am saying they are the same but require classification due to how unique human phylogenetic diversity is. We are the only species on this planet that looks very different from eachother depending on where we are.

>>8829405
>>8829471
Are you not aware of dog breeds? All same subspecies.

>>8829480
Not exactly because not all dog breeds came from one creature meaning they have genetic distance and thus can be classified into groups.

Humans already classify eachother into genetic groups like Anglos and Nordics or Han and Japanese etc.

>>8829471
Yup. Just don't call it subspecies, since that implies more profound taxonomic differences.

>We are the only species on this planet that looks very different from eachother depending on where we are.
I get what you're trying to say, but if I'm being pedantic then this isn't exactly true. 'Races' have spread all over the globe, for one. And second, other species show similar phenotypical variation as humans. Darwin's finches show quite a strong geographical dependence on phenotype, for example.

>>8829484
>genetic groups
Those are social groups. Social groups with a genetic correlate, sure, but that's not quite the same as a genetic group.

>>8829488
Nordics are a genetic group since they share like traits with eachother no matter the country.

File: dachshund12.jpg (36KB, 400x266px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x266px

>>8829484
Three Dachshunds, same subspecies, same breed. Different hair follicles like you mentioned.

>>8829493
But there is genotypical variation within the group, and overlap with other groups... This is why race is not regarded as a genetic construct, but a social construct. The borders are too fuzzy, and principally not defined on genotype but on phenotype. This is biology 101...

>>8829500
But are they the same Sub-Subspecies?
>>8829502
Race is a genetic construct or it simply wouldnt exist at all, race is human attempt to genetically classify theirselves based on like traits.

>>8829502
>on phenotype
There's plenty of nords with brown eyes and/or hair. If you genotyped them they'd just be traced back to northern europe.

It's retarded even then.
>>8829510
I support the concept of race on a genetic basis, but you are not being very helpful.

Nords are Caucasian and in terms of race are the same as Greeks. As you say, if that's false then you might as well through out race all together.

>>8829510
>Race is a genetic construct or it simply wouldnt exist at all, race is human attempt to genetically classify theirselves based on like traits.
We keep going in circles. You don't give an argument here, you've simply rephrased your position. I've already explained why this is position is inconsistent with reality. Look it up yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

>>8829519
>If you genotyped them they'd just be traced back to northern europe.
Genes trace back to regions, not individuals. You're suggesting that there are no mixed race people at all, and that it's an all or none distinction. People go by appearance when it comes to classifying race, even if there is some phenotypical variance (which is trivial).

>>8829519
Because humans are not simple, there are many genetic differences which constitutes a classification system to recognize all of them.

>>8829077
Hey dumb shit. This isn't 8ch you cancerous fuck.

>>8827706
>Was this the view
It wasn't
>Why did it change
Learn how evolution works before posting here faggot.

File: cauc_mena3.gif (55KB, 1330x582px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1330x582px

>>8829527
>People go by appearance when it comes to classifying race
But people are dumb. If we really want races we must look at genes.

Variation is clinal, but the largest jumps occur with 5 races. If you really really want races you can get away with 4, but no less than four. You can't REALLY get away with more than 5 or 6.

File: e1.png (39KB, 1446x616px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1446x616px

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

As I said before all humans are already a subspecies of the original humans that existed 200,000 B.C. With the existence of Idaltu it confirms it so I took the time to make groups based on genetic distance.

As you can see every human is in the same range since all of our genes were one 170,000 B.C.

>>8829520
Race isn't really used in biology because there is no real definition for it. A human is made up of several genes. You can't just choose specific ones and decide that makes a race because not everyone would have those genes. For example Blacks from one point in Africa to another are likely as generically different if not more so than a white man and an asian.

File: e2.png (42KB, 1450x616px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1450x616px

Around 120,000 years the first Capoids show up, due to the gap between Capoids and non Capoids they create seperate group from the rest of humanity.

File: e3.png (45KB, 1800x616px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1800x616px

Around 100,000 years ago the humans who split from Capoids split into three groups based on genetic distance of 100,000 years.

As you can see our relationship with blacks and east africans is very far in the past.

>>8829544
>If we really want races we must look at genes.
When it comes to talking about genes, the only people who willfully stick by the archaic classification of race are either idiots or /pol/ards, and those are two non-mutually exclusive categories.

Why would you stick with such a muddled concept if you can make much more accurate and actually useful classifications? Like phylogenetic ancestry or ethnicity.

>>8829552
Well yeah, that was exactly the point that I was making.

File: e4.png (45KB, 1800x616px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1800x616px

Around 80,000 years ago

The human group that makes up most of everyone split into two more groups, one group would become all Eurasians, the other would become the ancient Australoids of tropical Asia.

The group of humans that in the jungles of Africa split into two groups, the Congoids and Pygmoids. Black people are Congoids.

>>8829561
>Like phylogenetic ancestry or ethnicity.
This is less clear to me, and more importantly less useful.

>An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences.[1][2] Unlike other social groups (wealth, age, hobbies), ethnicity is often an inherited status based on the society in which one lives. In some cases, it can be adopted if a person moves into another society. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, and physical appearance.

The above is very confusing to me.

File: e5.png (47KB, 1800x616px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1800x616px

50,000 years ago

The group that most humans are in mutates into two new groups the Caucasoid and Mongoloid, the Australoid mutates into multiple new races although only the Papuan and Australian one can be seen on this map.

The Congoid mutates into three new subraces:
The Jungle Congoid or what you would call a nigger

The Saharan Congoid

and the Savannah Congoid

The East African splits into two groups, the Saharans and Horners.

File: e6.png (47KB, 1800x616px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1800x616px

42,000 B.C

The Mongoloid splits into three groups

The Caucasoid splits into three groups

>>8829571
Yes, it is. Ethnicity is a fully cultural and self-identification dependent concept. In contrast, phylogenetic ancestry is clearly defined on genes.

Race lies exactly in the middle, taking the worst of both worlds. It's neither fully genetic, nor fully cultural in its definition.

File: e7.png (48KB, 1800x616px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1800x616px

39,000 B.C

North African Caucasoid splits

Caucasoid Group in the middle splits into three new groups.

Mongoloids of North East Asia split into two three groups.

South East Asia has two groups.

Mongoloids of Far North Asia split into two groups.

>>8829571
And skin color is nice and simple, we get it. But on a practical basis, everything you quoted is more accurate and useful.

>>8829589
Mind if you post an example of a human phylogenetic tree?
>>8829594
I'm not a /pol/tard. Of course I'm not referring to skin color, which is (roughly) 1 tyrosinase gene or whatever in your body. Skin color is not especially relevant then.

File: ewhatever.png (47KB, 1800x616px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1800x616px

tldr this is the final result of a genetic of 24,000 B.C meaning these are the races of humans.

As I said before if something has DNA it can be classified into groups no matter what, thus race is real.

File: Rxr1MNs.png (495KB, 960x808px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 960x808px

>>8829596
>Mind if you post an example of a human phylogenetic tree?

>>8829596
Ah, aight.

>>8829597
>24,000 B.C.
>Migration extents align with 2017 national borders

Fuckin wat?

>>8829597
>these are the races of humans.
You don't mean your map do you? The colors on your map are the races of human? You don't mean that right.
You are making me look bad, you need to read this thread. Slowly.

>>8827706

After World War II, the CIA funded UNESCO and a bunch of other shit that propagandized anti-racist literature.

The goal was to keep Europe peaceful, because the State Department was (and is) full of a bunch of Europeboos. So alienate any possible of a "racial" nationalism and turn majority opinion towards cosmopolitan views of race.

>>8829597
kek, you've just redefined race to mean exactly phylogenetic ancestry

It's fine redefine words, but I'm pretty sure that no where can you tick the race box that says 'central-east asian mongoloid of the 2nd order'. You haven't shown that 'race' is real, you've shown that genes are distributed heterogeneously across the globe, which is trivial.

>>8829602
Assume the map is before the discovery of the new world. The native americans are a very recent genetic group in human evolution thats why it takes until 24,000 B.C for them to split up.
>>8829604
This is based on genetic distance, if you go back to 100,000 B.C then there are only three races. Technically what you are seeing are

Human subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies

>>8827706
>why did something outdated and obsolete change?
Keep deluding yourself, /pol/ard.

>>8829615
>genes
No this is all based on physical traits not genes.

>>8829617
Yes, and they decided where the borders between USA, Canada, and Mexico are?

>>8829627
The Natives of Central America and North American are different groups from eachother.

>>8829623
We tracked migratory patterns through traits, yes, but we use those as a proxy for ancestry.

File: T.png (209KB, 2000x1140px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 2000x1140px

My attempt at trying to do ti without borders.

>>8829597
>thus race is real
kek, so how many races are there?

>>8829628
See this
>>8829632
Migration patterns shouldn't be aligning with political borders, only physical geographic features.

Not quite what that anon did but at least he tried.

>>8829634
Depends how much genetic distance, 24,000 B.C is the best I can go for generalizing traits, any further I have to start picking out ethnic groups which requires alot of genetic science to do accurately so thats my limit.

I mean you could say in 9000 B.C Swedish Nordics were different from Norwegian ones, but I dont fully comprehend Mongoloid genetic gaps of this level so I cant do the map.

Based on my map there are 54 races from the genetic distance of 24,000 B.C

However there more races but they barely exist like the Negritos, Indian Australoids, and the various Australoids on the Pacific Island. Central Asia is race mixed thus a headache to classify by genetic distance.

>>8829659
>there are 54 races
So pretty much what you're saying is that there is no white race, and so no white genocide? That has to be a relief for /pol/.

File: e8.png (48KB, 1800x616px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1800x616px

>>8829666
White is another way to say North West Eurasian race and from a genetic distance of 37,000 B.C there is a white race.

>>8829672
By that definition, Latino's would be white

Based on 50,000 B.C these are the races

Caucasoid
Mongoloid
Jungle Congoid
Saharan Congoid
Savanna Congoid
Saharan Afrasoid
Horn Afrasoid
San Capoid
Australian Australoid
Indonchina Australoid
Indian Australoid
Chinese Australoid
Ainu homo sapien
>>8829678
They would be white if they were over 80% North West Eurasian.

>>8829686
>They would be white if they were over 80% North West Eurasian.
wouldn't that be the case for most latino's? Their roots are Spanish, after all.

>>8829632
That's fucking retarded.
Balkans aren't that different from the greeks, but Ukranians clearly are. And the turks really. Iraqis are arabs. Finland has Asian admixture.
East Asia is a complete clusterfuck.
And Britain with Ireland.
>>8829672
The hell are iraqis their own race.
And Pakis are somehow a different race from Indians.

I call bullshit, until I see an actual 'genetic distance' metric that supports all of these divisions.

Protip, I won't see one. But what I can see is this >>8829544, which doesn't support your maps.

>>8829694
Modern Iraqis are arabs, the ancient ones are not, use your head stupid faggot.

>>8829694
>Balkans arent that different from greeks.
The IQ differences between them indicates a genetic difference.

Britain is supposed to be the actual natives of Britain not the Anglo faggots.

>>8829712
>The IQ differences between them indicates a genetic difference.
That's a nonsensical argument.

>>8829703
It still makes no sense. Ancient Iraqis were so different from ancient palestinians or ancient people who lived in modern day kurdistan so they get a different race. Yeah I bet. No actual evidence though. I bet if I knew more about the human populations I'd find even more issues with the maps.
>>8829712
>richard lynn tells me balkans are dum, he tells me southern italians and northerners have a 10 point IQ difference too
AHHAAHHA
Long debunked shit. There's posts in this very thread that debunk that.

You should rethink some things.

>>8829723
>Richard Lynn
Who?

Balkans are white just so you know just that they split from other Europeans in a genetic distance of 24,000 years.

you think rome had sjws going on about how they should let the poor germanic refugees in?

just curious

>>8829728
[citation needed]

Actually, on this whole thing. What is the basis for your division of groups?

>>8829736
Physical traits.

>>8829646
>further I have to start picking out ethnic groups which requires alot of genetic science to do accurately so thats my limit.
I thought all of it was based on traits?

>>8829745
So basically you have no evidence, but drew a map based on how people look. Guy. Come on now.

File: 46dc1a521bb31b01a7395fbd0ec97e3d.jpg (86KB, 564x864px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 564x864px

Is no one going to bring up the two legitamate subspecies of modern man aside from s. sapiens?

>>8829753
name them?

>>8829748
Ethnic groups are hard to tell apart physically.

I mean most Jungle Congoid ethnic groups look the same.
>>8829753
I already posted Idaltu in this thread.

>>8829758
Then I'll reiterate:
>kek, you've just redefined race to mean exactly phylogenetic ancestry

>It's fine redefine words, but I'm pretty sure that no where can you tick the race box that says 'central-east asian mongoloid of the 2nd order'. You haven't shown that 'race' is real, you've shown that genes are distributed heterogeneously across the globe, which is trivial.

>>8829745
fucking kek, get a load of this guy

>>8829754
>>8829758
h. s. Idaltu and h. s. balangodensis, both registered as archaic offshoots, though balangodensis has modern descendants who retain many of its features.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balangoda_Man

>>8829767
But his phylogenetic tree isn't even well thought through.

>>8829771
But both are extinct. What's the relevance?

>>8829773
exactly

it's somewhat scary actually, this guy clearly spent a lot of time making these maps, but it's all his own arbitrary classification scheme

and then he claims it proves there are races, kek

File: 1492018015651.jpg (50KB, 778x688px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 778x688px

>>8829784
And this is why 5 races is the best if you really really want races.

At least I can DEFINE it and have some data.

>>8829777
Distinct genotypical and phenotypical differences that distinguish them from the races of man. A legitimate subspecies from which one could judge how closely the races are.

Also, checked.

>>8829767
Race means division of man It works like this anon

Species:Human

Subspecies:
E-Idaltu:

Subsubspecies:
E-Capoid:


Subsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Caucasoid

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies::
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
North West Eurasian

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:European

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Scandinevean

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Nordic

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Swede

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Sami

>>8829801
>stack overflow, recursion too deep

>>8829796
But the five skulls dont match genetic distance so they are a bad way to determine race.

>>8829797
>A legitimate subspecies from which one could judge how closely the races are.
But 'race' is not a genetic construct. Even if they were, why would you need another subspecies to judge how related / different groups within a subspecies are? I just don't see the point is all.

>>8829801
Christ, you're just reiterating your own classification.

We've already covered that this deviates for proper taxonomy by virtue of our 'subspecies' being Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

You don't prove anything, or provide evidence for anything at all, you've simply presented an alternate way of classifying 'race'.

>>8829796
>if you really really want races.
But biologists have much better concepts, as mentioned about 20 times in this thread. No one 'wants' race besides /pol/tards and idiots.

Another one


Species:Human

Subspecies:
E-Idaltu:

Subsubspecies:
E-Capoid:


Subsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Caucasoid

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies::
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Gulf

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Arabic

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Saudi Arab

>>8829814
This is starting to look seriously schizophrenic.

>>8829818
there are a lot of those here.

Even works for Mongoloid:

Species:Human

Subspecies:
E-Idaltu:

Subsubspecies:
E-Capoid:


Subsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Mongoloid

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies::
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Chinese

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:North East China

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Han

>>8829821
go away

File: nature01669-f4.2.jpg (73KB, 699x595px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 699x595px

>>8829810
>But 'race' is not a genetic construct. Even if they were, why would you need another subspecies to judge how related / different groups within a subspecies are? I just don't see the point is all.
That's what I was trying to show. When one compares the archaic humans to the modern races, there's no contest. Modern man will always group in with modern man, no matter what nitpicky titles you give them like >>8829801

Here is one for a Brits people

Species:Human

Subspecies:
E-Idaltu:

Subsubspecies:
E-Capoid:


Subsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Caucasoid

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies::
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
North West Eurasian

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:European

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Central European

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Germanic

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:British

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Anglo Saxon

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Modern British Anglo
American Anglo
Australian Anglo
New Zealand Anglo

>>8829826
fair enough, I get the point now

>>8829813
>better concepts
Depends what you are looking for.

As far as intelligence SNP's are concerned Iberians are not different from UK people. Which sort of matters the most - in these threads anyway.

Even works for Mongoloid:

Species:Human

Subspecies:
E-Idaltu:

Subsubspecies:
E-Capoid:


Subsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubspecies:
Congoid

Subsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Mongoloid

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Jungle Congoid

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies::
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Bantu

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Slave Cluster

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:West Indian

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Jamaican Negro

My way of classifying humans is perfect because it works with everything. I will post an Aboriginal one in a couple of seconds.

>>8829846
>Sir, what can I fill out as your race?
>Slave Cluster

guy, come on now

File: 1492148631875.png (193KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 500x500px

>>8829848
>abos
Hooo boy.

>>8829858
>>8829848
Since we've reached the Abo point.

>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226651711_Estimating_Cognitive_Gaps_Between_Indigenous_and_Non-Indigenous_Australians

A study done to see whether they actually have intelligence that's 3 SD's below Caucasians (and in the retarded range).

You will have to read to find the result.

>>8829850
Slave Cluster is because the West Indian blacks come from a cluster of random west african bantu types that cannot be defined. Same for American blacks.

Here is the Slave Cluster.

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Slave Cluster

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
West Indian
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Jamaican Negro
Haitian Negro
Cuban Negro
Dominican Negro
Bahamian Negro
Turks and Caicos Negro
Virgin Island Negro
Puerto Rico Negro
Monsterrat Negro
Trinidad Negro
Aruba Negro
Barbados Negro
St Kitts Negro

North American
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
West American Negro
Southern American Negro
Northern American Negro
Central American Negro

European:
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
(Insert European country here) Negro

Central American:
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Mexican Negro
Belizean Negro

South American:
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Brazilian Negro(not the pardos)
Colombian Negro
Argentinian Negro
Suriname Negro
Guinean Negro

Species:Human

Subspecies:
E-Idaltu:

Subsubspecies:
E-Capoid:


Subsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubspecies:
Australoid

Subsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Australian Australoid

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies::
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Something

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Aboriginal

Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:(Insert Aboriginal Tribe Ethnicity Here)

>>8829869
You're not getting the point here schizo, no one's buying your retarded classification scheme.

>>8829875
How is it retarded if its consistent and efficient?

I already said there are 13 races if we go the Caucasoid or Mongoloid route, I only care about classifying humans not monolithic races fag.

>>8829866
>We estimate the test score gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children to be about 0.3-0.4 standard deviations
I think you missed a decimal point there buddy

>>8829876
>How is it retarded
Because it's arbitrary. You literally made it up, and cite no evidence for its basis whatsoever.

>>8829878
>he isn't well versed into the memes
the meme is abos have an iq of 60

>>8829882
oh, I see

and the joke is that they don't

>>8829880
I made nothing up except the "Somethings" this is all based on scientific fact you retarded fag.

>>8829889
>I made nothing up
You literally made everything up.
>scientific fact
So put forth those scientific facts, you retarded fag. Because last time I asked, you didn't.

>>8829893
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Australoid%20race&item_type=topic

Aboriginals are 50,000 years old making their racial group that ancient, Caucasoids and Mongoloid originated 50,000 years ago making them races.

What is so hard to understand?

I admit I did make up some shit regarding the Mongoloids because I dont really understand how they are divided. Like I assumed all the Temperate Asians are in one group, the tropicals in another and the Siberians in a third last group.

Maybe Japanese and Chinese should be closer genetically speaking.

I dont know the divisions of Afrasoids of East Africans to be exact.

I know there had to be North African Congoid race because of beings like the Nubians.

>>8829908
>What is so hard to understand?
It's not hard to understand at all. It's quite clear that the borders you draw are arbitrary. You identify a group of people (which in itself is fine), but then proceed to call that group of people a race, and further claim that this proves the existence of said race. What's so hard to understand about the fact that these borders between groups are non-absolute, yet you quite blatantly present them as absolute, and then cite those borders as evidence of the absoluteness of the distinction between your defined groups? Can't you see that this is entirely circular?

>I admit I did make up some shit
I rest my case.

>>8829937
>call that group of people a race
Race is arbitrary regarding genetic distance, what we call race is a genetic distance of 50,000 B.C so that would make 13 races on earth. However there is no white race in this scale and yet white is considered to be a race. Basing things on genetic distance makes things more consistent rather than just blind appearance.

Its hard to classify Congoids by appearance alone since they look the same basically, not much facial structural differences.

>>8829941
You've missed the point. Or purposefully ignored it.

>>8827706
>>>/his/

All this thread has proven is that many are hesistant to classify humans for some reason.

>>8829572
Tajiks are caucasian

>>8829597
Do you know just how much intermingling occured between all of them?

>>8829745
Genotype>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Phenotype

>>8828491
This

>>8829884
Well, they do have a tested IQ in the mid-60s, but that (along with differences in brain size, cortical density, etc.) is very likely due to socioeconomic disparities. Yep, you read that right. All the noise being made about racism causing performance differences may actually be justified, something /pol/tards can't help but autistic screech about when the truth is put to them.

>>8830692
Even if the differences WERE genetic, you have to be a retarded psychopath to rub it in their faces.

>but muh reverse racism

No. Fuck off. If you are going to colonize and genocide an entire race, you get to pay a fucking price for that.

>>8830692
>Well, they do have a tested IQ in the mid-60s
Where is the source for that

All i see is this study >>8829866 which has a very different conclusion.

>>8830693
THIS

File: liberal_science.jpg (283KB, 992x1104px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 992x1104px

>>8827709

>>8829125
Not him but christ you're insecure m8