With few exceptions academia wholeheartedly refuses to talk about this subject and racial supremacists aren't exactly objective. Obviously we can be diverse in physical size and appearance. I'm more interested in IQ and temperament which have been proven to be at least partly influenced by genes.
>>16145597Your own image answers it, the “races” are just another name for subspecies.
>>16145597First of all, I dont think there is such a thing as 'genetic distance' or 'fixation index'.Second, neither do I believe in these arbitrary subclasses such as 'caucasian', 'mongoloid', 'negroid'.Third, why would academia talk about races? Don't they just talk about their research?And finally, your main conclusion seems to be that 'humans are not same'. Well yeah it is true even within genetically similar individuals like identical twins. Different humans can still make kids, so that makes them belong to same species.
>>16145597Dysgenic selection pressures make all races worse at complex civilization.Only free market eugenics via genetic engineering can prevent the collapse of civilization.
>>16145690>good times, weak men>hard times, strong menNot really.Society A with Good times = lots of resources and top half of men reproduce. Society B with bad times = only top 25% of men reproduce.So in society A and B both you have children of the top25% aka strong men. So strong men reproduce whether times are bad or good. These strong men then go on to lead and dominate the society in either case.
>>16145668>First of all, I dont think there is such a thing as 'genetic distance' or 'fixation index'.Isn't "genetic distance" simply a measure of how closely related different populations of humans are? In other words how many ancestors they share and how far back those ancestors split from other human populations?>Second, neither do I believe in these arbitrary subclasses such as 'caucasian', 'mongoloid', 'negroid'.Correct me if I'm wrong but "Caucasoid" races share more genetic similarities with each other than they do "Mongoloid" races. In other words Berbers and Germans are more closely related than than they are with Koreans. Doesn't seem arbitrary to me really.>Third, why would academia talk about races? Don't they just talk about their research?Outside of hard scientific disciplines (which are usually very reluctant to compare human genetics between races) the only time academia talks about race is to say it doesn't exist.>And finally, your main conclusion seems to be that 'humans are not same'. Well yeah it is true even within genetically similar individuals like identical twins. Different humans can still make kids, so that makes them belong to same species.When did I ever say any of the other human "races" belong to a different species? Subspecies like dogs, wolves and coyotes are genetically similar enough to have offspring with each other. That doesn't mean they are the same. Also of course no two people are the same. I'm simply wondering if human populations that are separated from one another by tens of thousands of years differ enough genetically to have noticeable differences in IQ and temperament. I'm not making any value judgements.
Here's a comparison
>>16145690>>16145702This was true before the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution shattered humanity.>>16145735>populations that are separated from one another by tens of thousands of years differ enough genetically to have noticeable differences in IQ and temperamentSee sub saharan Africa upon its discovery.
>>16145668>Different humans can still make kids, so that makes them belong to same species.Therefore, there is only one sexually reproducing species on earth.
>>16145797The industrial revolution was the best thing to ever happen to humanity, actually.
>>16145597The real question is, what is the most distant population from English that is still considered the same subspecies. Sicilians? Finns? Russians? Greeks?
>>16146184No, that's a point of detail.The real question is whether we're all the same. Once we've answered no, we can let biologists draw borders on their maps, they're good for that.
>>16146253Pic related
>>16146254is that a map from the 20th century?theres wolves all over Washington & Oregon, they're in northern Cali and Nevada too.
>wolves and coyotes are different speciesBecause taxonomists haven't revised their classification yet. They aren't in actuality, nor will they be taxonomically forever.
>>161462831944 and 2005
>>16146253>The real question is whether we're all the same. That has already been answered and it’s “no”.>we can let biologists draw borders on their maps, they're good for that.That’s why PCA maps exist.
>>16145875>the best thing to everAbsolutely false. The Industrial Revolution shattered humanity. We are forever closer and closer to playing God. The technology we have will lead the Earth to ruin. Not by climate, but by consumption. We have finite resources. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.
>>16146744>We have finite resources.we're on the verge of creating AGI and you're worried resource depletion? Resources are literally a non issue
>>16147124I'm worried about subhuman population increase, and consumerism to follow.
>>16147124Resource scarcity rumors play into the hidden emotional life of the savior complex crowd, particularly their greed and selfishness. They believe those rumors no matter how absurd or disproved because because their first thought it "what if theres not enough for me?" outweights all their other concerns
>>16147155How do you know you're not part of the subhuman population?
>>16149128Easy. It's color coded.
>>16145668So, coyotes and wolves are the same species.
>>16149386They literally are.
>>16146582lmao that the fags on this board are incessantly screeching about "nature is dying" and meanwhile a species like wolves that was extinct in the lower 48 states 30 years ago has massively expanded it's range over the past 20 years.
>>16145597>Different humans can still make kids, so that makes them belong to same speciesAnon I...
>>16145597Brain size is positively correlated with IQ. The difference in brain size between blacks and whites is ~100mL, imagine removing the equivalent to two large eggs from the white brain and you will get the black brain.
>>16145597
>>16150819>Brain size is positively correlated with IQ. You forgot to mention that positive correlation is weak. The Inuit Eskimos have the largest Cranium and Brain sizes of all human populations and it translates to 93-95 IQ. Lower than most European and East Asian populations. Along with this that large cranium and brain size amounts to little in academic and science feats. Blacks have lower IQ than Inuits but better feats. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188690900347X#:~:text=I%20estimated%20the%20mid%2Dpoints,and%20Congo%20Pygmies%20(1200).>estimated the mid-points of the ranges given for their cranial capacity measures and found, in (cm3): East Asians (1425), Europeans (1375), Inuit-Eskimos (1440), South East Asians (1325), Native American Indians (1350), Pacific Islanders (1350), South Asians and North Africans (1325), sub-Saharan Africans (1275), Australian Aborigines (1225), and Kalahari Bushmen and Congo Pygmies (1200).
>>16145690 Why did the people who built pyramids had 0 SSA DNA while being right next to africa though? something doesn't add up
>>16150852>East Asians (1425), Europeans (1375), Inuit-Eskimos (1440), South East Asians (1325), Native American Indians (1350), Pacific Islanders (1350), South Asians and North Africans (1325), sub-Saharan Africans (1275), Australian Aborigines (1225), and Kalahari Bushmen and Congo Pygmies (1200).Inuits are the only outlier here. Maybe there's a different factor at play that doesn't apply for the rest.
>>16150867Not him but DNA studies of Egypt are questionable because genetic assessments on human remains there have been limited geographically.It's like people 2000 years in the future doing genetic assessments of human remains left in present day Northeastern region of US. Then extrapolating the findings there to the rest of the country.It misses the complete profile of the total population and brushes of their existence because either remains weren't well preserved or wasn't in the places excavated.It should also be notated that the 0 SSA DNA claim is not feasible due to proximity of Nubia and Ethopia which is acknowledged to have substantial SSA DNA and historic trade and commune.
>>16145668Fuck off you ignorant moron, trash like you will be burned alive.
>>16150929>Analysis of 90 ancient Egyptian mummified genomes from 2000BC to 500AD>Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4) further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36 (Fig. 4b). In contrast, a substantially larger sub-Saharan African component, found primarily in West-African Yoruba, is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples
>>16150867That should be the population distribution right now. Niggers don't deserve to exist in such large numbers.
>>16150941lmao you gave them written language, church and your own genes lmfaoyou've sinned against godyou will be wiped out because of it
>>16150912They're not the only ones anon. Look at the green text you just highlighted again.>Native American Indians (1350)>Pacific Islanders (1350)>South Asians and North Africans (1325)Native Americans and Pacific Islanders have larger brains, craniums and higher IQ. But South Asians (e.g. India) and North Africans (e.g. Egypt) have better feats in Academics and Science.The Inuits aren't the only outliers.
>>16150939>>Analysis of 90 ancient Egyptian mummified genomes from 2000BC to 500ADNow tell us geographically where those 90 mummified genomes were pulled from.
>>16150965most of them are from that cross
>>16150935these niggas can produce fertile offspring and have a smaller genetic distance than the one between humans and subsaharans
>>16150972So a genetic profile of ancient Egyptians was done in a region within Lower Egypt, north of Luxor. And people believe it is reasonable to extrapolate the that genetic profile to the region of Upper Egypt south of Luxor, geographically closer to Nubia (Sudan), Ethopia and Sub-Saharan Africa?This is exactly why I brought up the Northeastern US example earlier.
>>16145668>First of all, I dont think there is such a thingStage 1 - denial
>>16150980Those are both the same species and interbreed all the god damn time in nature.>In July 2016, a whole-genome DNA study proposed, based on the assumptions made, that all of the North American wolves and coyotes diverged from a common ancestor less than 6,000–117,000 years ago. The study also indicated that all North America wolves have a significant amount of coyote ancestry and all coyotes some degree of wolf ancestry, and that the red wolf and Great Lakes region wolf are highly admixed with different proportions of gray wolf and coyote ancestry.Taxonomists are just fuckwits about certain shit. Most bears are the same species too.
>>16151006And yet they aren't both called wolves, so why should I call blacks human?
>>16150986modern ethiopians are caucasoid shifted sure probably cause they were fucking slaves like arabs and everybody elsebut all the pyramids worth anything are north of the point which had no SSA ancestrythe astronomists and architects who came up with everything in Giza had nothing to do with SSA
>>16151006>interbreed all the god damn time in nature.I literally said that they can inbreed retardbut nobody would say something which is 4x heavier than the other one is the species lmfao
>>16145597>>16145702>>16145690>>16145875>>16146254>>16150867I calculated a difference between group of north Finnish people and the computer was barely able to give some numerical value to the small differences hereinMost Finns who are actually geneticvally related to each other (as in not being a refugee or something) are very closely relatedThis is what I was comparing:tRNA: phe, leu, val, gln, met, asn, cys, tyralso genes: cytb, cox1, cox2, atp6, nd3, nd4l, nd5,nd6However for many humans all of these genes need to be precisely human or a person is not viable. At least there is a number of diseases where mutations to these genes are the cause of disease
>>16151009You let taxonomists dictate what you call wolves. I don't see why you would break pattern unless you're just buttmad.>>16151027>but nobody would say something which is 4x heavier than the other one is the species lmfaoAmazing. I literally didn't even need to leave the fucking species in question to prove you're a fucking idiot.
>>16150959There's just few native Americans.
>>16151006>Those are both the same species Most bears are the same species too.That's retarded. And jackals are wolves too ? Why not say there's only one species, the terrestrial species, while you're at it ?Treating a wolf like a coyote or a polar bear like a brown bear will get you killed. We have a survival imperative to recognize them as different.Yes, just like with africans and europeans.
Fags
>>16150947
>>16151516Therefore, all dog breeds are the same, and only a racist would find any differences between them.
>>16151522>all dog breeds are the same,
>>16149398They literally aren't. Just because they are similar enough genetically to reproduce doesn't make them the same. Lions and tigers can make babies but they are clearly distinct enough to be considered different species.
>>16151006Being able to interbreed doesn't make them the same species retard. By your definition basically all living canids are the same species.
>>16151466>That's retarded. And jackals are wolves too ?Just golden jackals.>Why not say there's only one species, the terrestrial species, while you're at it ?Because not all species can readily produce fertile offspring between each other.>Treating a wolf like a coyote or a polar bear like a brown bear will get you killed.And? Treating a wolf like a golden retriever will get you killed. Dogs are still wolves. The fuck is your point?>We have a survival imperative to recognize them as different.Recognize 2 populations as the same species doesn't mean you can't recognize those populations have differences.>Yes, just like with africans and europeans.Which are the same species. The fuck was your point?
>>16151918>Just because they are similar enough genetically to reproduce doesn't make them the same. Lions and tigers can make babies but they are clearly distinct enough to be considered different species.They can reproduce without reduced fertility.Ligers and tigons have drastically reduced fertility when they aren't infertile. Stop being a fuckwit.>>16151931>By your definition basically all living canids are the same species.No, but the canis genus is. And the standard is reproduce while regularly producing fertile offspring.Dogs, dingos, red wolves, Algonquin wolves, coyotes, grey wolves, African wolves, Ethiopian wolves, and Golden jackals are all the same fucking species.Ursinae is all one fucking species too. So that's sloth bears, sun bears, Asian black bears, American black bears, brown bears, and polar bears. There are literally only 3 species of bear. Taxonomists need to get their shit together.
>>16152052>can make babies = same speciesMidwit take if I ever heard one.
>>16152068I explicitly said that's not the case and you're an illiterate room temp.
>>16152072That's exactly what you said. Muh "reduced fertility" exception has absolutely no role in taxonomy and literally every biologist would think you are a fucking retard with good reason.
>>16152080
there is evidence even among humans of reduced cross racial fertility or ability for the offspring to thrive.these seem like indicators of sufficient genetic distance.
>>16152180There isn't.
>>16152180a number of issues also only properly show up at the f2 generation such as a compromised immune system or reduced intelligencejust saying they are the same species because they can produce offspring is a weak argument.
>>16152130Ernst Mayr's definition of species is regarded is grossly simplistic by most biologists and taxonomists which is why other factors are included such as specific adaptations. You claim polar bears and brown bears are the same species but if you place a brown bear in the arctic it would certainly die. Same with black bears. Same with coyotes in far northern climes as opposed to certain wolves. Being able to produce viable offspring can be considered one factor in determining a species classification but it's hardly the only one and almost nobody thinks it should be the sole stipulation.
>>16152186>just saying they are the same species because they can produce offspring is a weak argument.Which is why nobody fucking said that.>>16152221>but if you place a brown bear in the arctic it would certainly die1. Brown bears live in the artic.2. Populations having region specific adaptations don't make them a new species. The Mexican tetra isn't two species just cause some populations don't have eyes.
>>16152041>not all species can readily produce fertile offspring between each other.There's no reason to use this arbitrarily chosen characteristic to separate species. The point is that concepts need to be useful. The species label we put on animals serves to tell us what kind of animal it is, not to provide us with the useless information that it can have fertile offspring. Calling jackals, coyotes, and dogs "wolves" tells us what we don't need to know and hides what we need to know. It's thus retarded.BTW that's why the status of dogs as canis lupus familiaris is debated and many authors still have it as canis familiaris familiaris. Precisely because dogs are not wolves and no one calls a dog a wolf. Africans and Europeans should be different species.
>>16152221>b-b-but…LET IT GO MAN YOU LOSTTTTTTTT
>>16152232"we're all the same" faggots do all the time
>>16152261Can you look at different genetic sequences and immediately determine which combinations will produced reproducible offspring?
>>16152261>There's no reason to use this arbitrarily chosen characteristic to separate species.There is, insofar as if they CAN readily produce offspring between each other it becomes impossible to determine which species to place a specimen in if its been subject to aggressive crossbreeding. Or if two populations regularly crossbreed, then differentiating between the two becomes arbitrary as fuck.Do you want everything to be like citrus? Cause this is how you end up with everything being like citrus.>The species label we put on animals serves to tell us what kind of animal it is, not to provide us with the useless information that it can have fertile offspring.Species obviously share various characteristics by virtue of being closely related. Classifying things as the same species is still useful. If you think species is too vague, then everything above that is fucking meaningless. If you want more specificity, you can add more specificity. Shit like subspecies and breed are a thing.>Calling jackals, coyotes, and dogs "wolves" tells us what we don't need to know and hides what we need to know. It's thus retarded.It tells us how fucking related they are, you fucking idiot. What the fuck do you think is the point of cladistics?>BTW that's why the status of dogs as canis lupus familiaris is debated and many authors still have it as canis familiaris familiaris. Precisely because dogs are not wolves and no one calls a dog a wolf.You literally just called a dog a wolf. Canis lupus is wolf. Canis lupus familiaris is a subspecies of wolf. You did the thing you said nobody does. Stop being a fucking idiot.
>>16152221I kinda stopped reading when you first started stating stupid bullshit about ranges, but coyotes ALSO get up into the arctic circle.Also, for fuck's sake how would you classify something like this?>In 2014, a DNA study of northeastern coyotes showed them on average to be a hybrid of western coyote (62%), western wolf (14%), eastern wolf (13%), and domestic dog (11%) in their nuclear genome. The hybrid swarm extended into the midwestern United States, with Ohio coyotes shown on average to be a hybrid of western coyote (66%), western wolf (11%), eastern wolf (12%), and domestic dog (10%) in their nuclear genome.They're all fucking wolves. Trying to draw clean lines through this mess is a joke.
>>16152338coyotes in the yellow range on your map look nothing like the ones in the heart of the orange range. the ones on the NW coast look more like small wolves.
>>16153465>coyotes in the yellow range on your map look nothing like the ones in the heart of the orange range.What is your point?Also, yeah, no shit, it's almost like the lines between these "species" are arbitrary as fuck.
>>16152324>if they CAN readily produce offspring between each other it becomes impossible to determine which species to place a specimen in if its been subject to aggressive crossbreeding. That's not a problem. Normal people call it an hybrid and move on. >Or if two populations regularly crossbreed, then differentiating between the two becomes arbitrary as fuck.And now we come back to the good old spectrum fallacy. Do you think all colors are red, since there's no clear border between red and orange? After all trying to draw clean lines in this color spectrum mess is a joke right? Except we don't need clean lines. In biology we call this clines or hybrid zones and it's not a problem.>It tells us how fucking related they areNo it doesn't you fucking retard. The ability to interbreed isn't lost at a particular threshold of genetic distance, some species can do it while being further removed from each other than some others that cannot.Hell there's species belonging to different genera or families that can hybridize. What do you make of those?>If you want more specificity, you can add more specificity. >Let's make species useless, and replace it with subspecies to fix the problem we just created! Just use species as it is you autist.
>>16152232>Populations having region specific adaptations don't make them a new species.No. It doesn't. At most, a subspecies. Like humans. Three major subspecies groupings of varying admixture with some outliers like Khoisan and uncontacted tribes.
>>16152304Technically yes if you introduce a gamete pair together and observe if it fertilises.
>>16145597adaptation to the environment. look where wolves live and where humans live.
>>16154519Subspecies require breeding isolation. If you wanted to call uncontacted tribes subspecies, I wouldn't fight it, but breeding isolation isn't really a thing in the modern era for most peoples.
>>16155287>Subspecies require breeding isolation.No. See >>16146254
>>16155287>hooded crow vs carrion crow
>>16155287Breeding isolation doesn't have to be geographical - the vast majority of people marry and have children with people of their own ethnicity, let alone race.
>>16146744It's iron poisoning, and lack of heavy metals, and it came long after the industrial revolution.
>>16155307Yes, see>>16146254>>16156154>Breeding isolation doesn't have to be geographicalI didn't say it did, dipshit. I implied geographic isolation causes breeding isolation, which it does.>the vast majority of people marry and have children with people of their own ethnicity, let alone race.Races are a social construct. And a shitton of people have mixed ancestry. Marrying and having children within your own race doesn't stop you or your kids from having mixed ancestry. Look at the aforementioned Black people in America.
>>16156819>>>16155307>Yes, see>>>16146254So you see that wolf subspecies have been defined without breeding isolation. Plenty of other cases are this way : individuals from point A looked different from individuals from point B, so they called them different subspecies, and then drew a line somewhere in the middle.Or do you really think Quebec wolves don't mate with other wolves two miles away because those are from Ontario ?
I'm entirely ignorant of biology. Is this just propaganda? I can't find a scale for what the pca refers to, but just based on the charts I've seen, it seems like people are genetically ten times more distant than wolves and coyotes.
>>16156926>So you see that wolf subspecies have been defined without breeding isolation.No?>Or do you really think Quebec wolves don't mate with other wolves two miles away because those are from Ontario ?Subspecies can make hybrids where they come into contact with one another. The map shows geographic isolation which implies breeding isolation. Whether the map is accurate is a separate matter of discussion. Wolf taxonomics are in a terrible shape right now, so I would be surprised if it were.Anyway, ultimately the lines between subspecies without absolute breeding isolation will be blurry, even more than the lines between the various taxonomic ranks above species. Taxonomics is an evolving field and a lot of junk is still floating about in current records.Also stuff like lines between species and breeding isolation don't even work for species that don't reproduce sexually or all the nonsense that goes on with plants.
>>16156957Wolves and coyotes diverged more recently than people.
>>16156969So... yes? That there is what I would consider a substantial genetic drift between different groups of humanity?
>>16156973If you define substantial as greater than between wolves and coyotes bearing in mind wolves and coyotes are incredibly closely related.I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Substantial relative what? They're the same subspecies.
>>16157009WellWhy are all humans considered the same when there is a greater genetic difference by what looks like a factor of ten in various relatively closely related animals
>>16145668Agreed. Human diversity is like a spectrum. People who live bear you are going to be more similar and the farther you go the less similar they are. How we identity black and Asian and white are made up even though there are differences between a population of scottish people vs japanese or native americans in the amazon jungle. Not complicated to understand. And with all the interracial boning I see. We are all going to pretty soon become more similar as those genes that were specific to Ireland or Japan get mushed together.
>>16145702I hate the very idea of the "top" men. How do you determine that? How much money they got? A sexy man with 1 kid is a genetic failure compares to the ugly rich guy who was able to have 4 kids? What about smart people living in poor countries? They are lesser men than a garbage collector from the 1st world bc the different in wages? Never made sense to me. Evolution is more random and a lot less the better men out reproduced the lesser men lol. Such a juvenile way of looking at things.
>>16157107>Why are all humans considered the same when there is a greater genetic difference by what looks like a factor of ten in various relatively closely related animalsBecause they're the same?The thing breaking pattern here is wolves and coyotes, not humans. Canis taxonomy is still based on morphology instead of genetics. It's phrenology-tier.
>>16145735Yes. Your basically right. Lots of variety can exist in a population. But you talk about an entire species there is a lot of diversity there. And your right about academia not wanting to talk about race. I'm not crazy but I'm fairly sure that everyone in academia just agreed not to mention it or study it bc they are scared people will use it as an excuse to fuck each ither over. Which makes sense but makes them look strange for denying diversity in humanity.
>>16146744Then go move to a non industrialized country lol. Go try to scratch a living and support your kids working 14 hours on a farm or making crafts. The power countries with worse metrics are all undevoped countries. Go have fun there.
>>16147124Plus us and japan is trying to figure out how to mine asteroids. Just by figuring that out we can practically have unlimited reocurces when it comes to metals. Now land and water are two reocurces we are going to have a hard time making more.
>>16150852Wow. But on one hand Eskimos brains prove that evolution has changed more than just skin color. Makes sense for them have different brains that are geared more towards surviving the frozen tundra.
>>16150939So bassically egypt used to be more middle eastern and over the years became more like Africa? Makes a lot of sense. I wonder if egyptions saw negroids moving in and were bothered by their behavior? Or just accepted them.
>>16150852>Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan (2009) showed that even after excluding low scoring countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 60 national IQs correlated with latitude (.50), fertility (−.75), >fertility (-.75)
>>16157138>The thing breaking pattern here is wolves and coyotes, not humans.Liar. >>16145786
>>16157837>liarI'm not and your dumbshit post doesn't prove I'm not.Beqrs break the pattern too, incidentally. Taxonomy is being constantly revised for a reason. Some shit is just old and wrong.
We different species nigga, not subspecies or races, fr fr
>>16157329>Or just accepted them.as dick washers
>>16149527Urbanites are like that because they never visit the nature that they constantly virtue signal over and consider themselves experts about.
