Race red pills.
>>533999051A white person cannot accept blood from a black person.
>>533999183Not true.
>>533999051Classic pictures you can’t find on the surface web anymore
>>533999051I just stopped by to see which memeflag was used by this jew/poo
>>533999051At roughly 16 to 18 months Western children are able to recognize themselves in a mirror, which is a universal test for human development and also for animals to indicate self-awareness. Black children can usually not identify that they're looking at a reflection of themselves until around age 6 or 7. 5-year-old black children almost universally fail the test.
>>534000894BTW even some insects recognize themselves enough to pass the mirror test.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285620537_The_Effect_of_Ethnicity_on_Human_Axillary_Odorant_Production
>>533999051https://phys.org/news/2016-03-world-neanderthal-denisovan-ancestry-modern.html
>>533999051are albinos a race?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10358-1>>534000493LOL
you don't think it's strange how we are neurologically gearded towards categorising LITERALLY EVERYTHING? We love to divide and organise stuff into neat little groups. shapes, plants, animals. Literally everything. It's how we make sense of the world.But different humans? Naaa we don't like to do that anymore
>>533999051They all are white, they all are typical Finns.100% accurate phenotype of the snow niggers
>>534002130right looks like a black-face version of Wilson ball
>>533999051That one at the end. He's a white guy.
>>533999051Perhaps the one who doesn't have a nose as wide as a fucking bell pepper?
>>534002130>Literally everything. It's how we make sense of the world.Literally the entire point of Genesis.
>>533999051This one looks white to me
>534000325This source has not attached paper and is a word press >534000894No source at all>534001482This is sourced and has an attached paper>534002111Weird this would be here as it strongly applies material conditions and modes of production epigenetically influence genetics and intelligence which is a very progressive, anti-race science concept >534002130Scaled up the difference between the crows and humans are massive compared to the few millimeters of bones that differentiate the races we just are more perceptive to differences in things we’re more familiar >>534004139All humans have a mix of all these hominid groups because due to modern genetics we know that other than extremely isolated populations race mixing was historically common and inly limited by geography. Again and again we arrive at dialectical materialism as the true explanation for these things. The theory of knowledge dictates its our material conditions that shape intelligence and knowledge and aprioris do not exist. Hereditary traits exist but they are primarily limited to physical function and have had little time to speciate in the roughly 50,000 years modern man has existed in its most recent evolutionary form. Once again, the truths of Soviet science explain the pitfalls of the mechanistic , metaphysical materialism ofModern bourgeois academia which is also why they incorrectly assumed the big bang was teal which the James Webb telescope disproved.
>>534009412>Weird this would be here as it strongly applies material conditions and modes of production epigenetically influence genetics and intelligenceNo it doesn't. >All humans have a mix of all these hominid groupsTo varying degrees.
>>534006747he's black
Belyaev's farm fox experiment shows how 3000 years of domestic selection can produce 450 existing breeds of dogs from 1 species of semi-domesticated red wolf.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsIibD-TLcMThese lizards gained a new gut and heads in a few decades. This means it's not about random mutation through millions of years, but rather quick and direct changes.https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/lizard-evolution-island-darwinMutations are within the bounds of the given genome, they aren't evolving per se, nor changing into different organisms, they are bringing forth pre-existing genetic potential.
>>534009994On average, everyone carries around 100-200 mutations. The majority of genetic mutations are benign, not malignant. If a mutation is benign, it will persist into future generations. Further genetic changes down the line can, and will, build atop the prior mutations, often creating new and novel traits in the genome that did not exist before. Pair this with natural, sexual and/or kin selection and you wind up with traits like complexion variance. New traits can also emerge from parts of DNA that were benign ("junk"), which can have unpredictable and nigh infinitely possible effects.Mutation is not the primary driver of biological evolution. Natural, sexual and/or kin selection is, resulting in genetic drift. Natural selection refers to whether a given life-form dies before passing on its genes or not. By definition, natural selection weeds out most detrimental mutations from a given population. Natural selection and inherent modification affect the frequency of alleles in a given population to either increase or decrease a trait's observable presence.The epigenetic landscape plays a fundamental role in most biological processes that involve the manipulation and expression of DNA. The molecular mechanism of gene regulation is understood, but the hierarchical order of events and dependencies that lead to protection against infection remain largely unknown.Random mutations do occur, but what drives evolution is selective and environmental pressures, adaptation in the form of mutations can occur very quickly depending on the species.
>>534010024DNA is intelligent. Epigenetics is the science of change.Higher life forms have anti-change measures, including the requirement of two partners for offspring. There is no proof that variations extrapolate. A successful mutation would also have to overcome anti-mutation measures, including survival in the womb. Variations in higher life-forms (i.e. different fur colour) exist because these higher life-forms have the genetic potential to be capable of these variations. However, a cow with a different fur colour will not become a cat even after trillions of years."Evolution" is mutation + selection. Some mutations are selected and phenotypically seen, others are not.Considering that life has existed for the majority of this planet's existence, the sheer sophistication of even the simplest unicellular organism’s reproductive process, the improbability of abiogenesis (that which can theoretically replicate itself while continuously introducing changes within acceptable limits within its own design), the possibility of alien origin, work of some metaphysical entity, or any number of near infinite coincidences, you're still in the dark. Common forms could arise from uncommon origins, which is as likely as common forms arising from common origins.
>>534006747handsome nigga
>>534010052Humans don't descend from apes. Humans have the same chromosomes as other primates, but humans have a fused chromosome (chromosome 2) that is separated in chimpanzees.https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_47.htmlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/There's zero evidence of a singular-common link because nobody knows the details of life that far back, it's all speculation.Humans are incompatible with apes because of chromosomal incompatibility. Humans have what's called chromosome 2, which is exactly the same size as two chimpanzee chromosomes, which are named chimpanzee chromosome 2A and 2B. The human chromosome is chimpanzee chromosome 2A and 2B merged via an unknown mechanism. Chromosome 2 has a highly complex protein within it called the TRPM8 protein, which is different from the one in apes, and it makes humans tolerate the cold.Overall, human genes are about 90% identical to that of a chimp. However, human and chimp are 99% identical in mitochondrial DNA, whereas a human and gorilla are 98% identical in mitochondrial DNA. Furthermore, a human and a woodpecker bird share 66% of the same mitochondrial genes, which might be due to the possibility of both having originated from the same lizard that gave birth to mammals some 280 million years ago.DNA percentage similarity is abused to convey the politics of "we are all one and the same", yet the small difference in percentage has an immense impact that makes all the difference.Evolution theory:1. Chimps with 2A & 2B.2. Over time 2AB connect via genetic mutation.3. This mutation causes a major shift in genetic variation due to all recombinations now possible with the two combined.4. This explodes into dozens of sub-species.5. A few of those eventually become proto-humans.6. This results in genetic variation once more.7. Somewhere along the way we get the current genetic populations.If true, this is likely when chromosome 2 appeared.
>>534010089The phrase "missing link" is derived from Scala Naturae, not biological evolution. An illustration of biological evolution would not look like a tree but rather a tumbleweed, if not multiple tumbleweeds, growing, moving, and breaking off in every direction. With each direction representing different lines of each organism along with their descendants and sibling groups, each stemming from the same roots as each other and/or separate roots altogether.However, if you use modern illustrations derived from Scala Naturae while entertaining the 'Out of Africa' theory, then it only illustrates the vast time scale over which the Homo genus evolved and changed. It doesn't account for any genetic differences in modern day populations, which wouldn't be the whole story either. It also fails to effectively illustrate concepts like the founder effect and the effects of any genetic bottleneck(s), either of which can lead to descendant populations which show considerable phenotypical differences from their ancestors. If you take the tree of life illustration, the bifurcations are always diverging and never going back to the trunk. Therefore, even with a false illustration, let alone a false origin premise, speciation is correctly presented as not just desirable but the only way.
>>534010115We are no more than 99.5% genetically identical.The individual human genome is comprised of over 3,000,000,000 (billion) DNA base pairs. 0.1% of that is still 3,000,000 (million) DNA base pairs, and the extent of genetic information within that 0.1% is monumental. Change no more than 1000 specific DNA base pairs of yours and you would turn into something resembling a jelly fish. One atomic sized string of DNA out of place in a chromosome is the only thing differentiating a fully functioning body from another with down syndrome. When it comes to genetics, any small change makes all the difference. A 0.0001% difference is more than enough of a genetic variance to create a new species. The primary genetic difference between men and women lies in their sex chromosomes. Men have an XY chromosome pair, while women have an XX chromosome pair. This difference accounts for the observed 60 million base pair variation between men and women. However, these specific differences do not represent a fundamental evolutionary divergence.On a nucleotide-by-nucleotide basis we have a 98.8% match with chimpanzee reference sequences. That difference gives you human social dynamics, civilization etc. Epigenetics and environmental factors play a role, yet neither of which are immediately apparent when you look at phylogenetic trees to analyse clades.Having "shared DNA" is meaningless, every organism on this planet has common DNA. The notion of sharing DNA with apes only applies to coding DNA, which less than 1% of our total DNA. The remaining 99% is non-coding DNA, which is mostly unexplored, barely understood, and more complex than coding DNA. Even in that shared 1%, we don't have the same code; We have similar functions, since we obviously share functions like sight, hearing, digestion, etc., which is also why, for example, we share something like 50% of our DNA with bananas, because these proteins and their functions are so common that you find them in fruits.
>>534010166Divergent evolution has been becoming ever more so distant at an accelerating rate.Chromosomal speciation of humans and chimpanzees revisited: studies of DNA divergence within inverted regionshttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17268178/https://phys.org/news/2007-12-humans-evolving-faster-alike.htmlThere is already a subset of the European population that is not compatible with other Europeans, let alone non-Europeans. This distinct demarcation among Europeans is neglected by technological intervention, because we prescribe specific medications, such as the RhoGAM shot (anti-Rh serum), to pregnant women who are Rh negative so to prevent Rh immune miscarriage. In this case, a considerable sum of people can only reproduce due to medical intervention as opposed to natural selection, which is a sign that, despite appearances, two given people who may appear racially similar are actually different species. The Rh factor could be an anti-miscegenation adaptation, seeing as the immune system of an Rh- mother will attack and kill any Rh+ children gestating inside her womb.
>>534010195There are thousands upon thousands of species that can breed with other species. Polar bears and grizzly bears can breed, so can wolves and coyotes.The offspring from a liger (lion & tiger cross) crossed with a lion is called a liliger. There's about 100 in existence. All 4 of the big cats have been crossed and some of the hybrid offspring have been crossed again.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera_hybridConsider wolves, coyotes, jackals, and other canids. All separate species taxonomically and genetically. They have a similar genetic distance as one would find between humans. Yet, all of them can interbreed and have fertile offspring. This is even such a problem that Canis lupus familiaris (the dog) is a danger to the gene-pools of coyotes, dingoes and wolves.Many different species of animals are capable of producing valid offspring. Cross chahoua geckos with crested geckos, which are not even of the same genus, and they produce viable offspring.Human sperm was inserted into gorilla eggs and a macaque monkey by Swedish and Soviet researchers. An embryo started to grow. They allegedly killed the experiment early and didn't let it go any further.We are not a mono-species. We are a polytypical set of species. It's not only individuals from the same species who can have offspring that are fertile, this is also possible with separate species assuming no difference in chromosome numbers (even though it can happen in rarity).
>>534010222https://www.apeinitiative.org/bonobos-chimpanzees#:~:text=Although%20they%20are%20two%20distinct,great%20apes%3A%20orangutans%20and%20gorillas."Although they are two distinct species, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) share a close genetic relationship.">Canis lupus is the same species as Canis familiarisC. familiaris and C. Lupus. Same genus, different species. Wolves and dogs are part of the same genus, but they are different species. "In 300 years (10 generations) your descendants will have less than 1% genetic relation to you."This statement confuses centimorgans with genetic similarity/ancestry. Each of us are unequally related to our given ancestors, but we descend from all of them, and without them individually we would not exist.The "survival of the fittest" quote comes from Alfred Russel Wallace, an entomologist (insect studies) who observed the ways in which different beetles evolved in the Caribbean archipelago; where he observed that, despite only the island habitats of the beetles being only a stone's throw apart from one another, the creatures which evolved on the respective islands could nonetheless evolve with vastly disparate [adaptive] attributes."Fittest" (or favourable) refers to 'suiting a given environment' in order to pass on its genes and survive, it has nothing to necessarily do with physical strength or intelligence..Allele refers a specific nucleotide, such as in a SNP or point mutation, which may or may not have functional consequences.Variants are factors that affect genes.A recessive (or dominant) gene is a mode of phenotype expression (aka inheritance pattern). A recessive gene is not phenotypically expressed in a heterozygous individual. A lot of genes that make Europeans "White" are recessive (e.g., the diversity of hair colours, skin complexions, etc.), hence why complexion doesn't establish phylogeny.
>534009507I would appreciate dropping the meme flag, but the second link is broken so I can’t properly address it. From my research the fst of man is 0.11 to 0.15 which admittedly is from Wikipedia primarily but seems to be a general consensus so I would need further confirmation.
>>534010260Autosomal is the DNA of all of ancestors combined. A haplogroup is the marker of a single ancestor from perhaps 10,000 years ago or more, seeing as a number of pre-historical populations overlapped due to semi-related ancestors. All the other ancestors from in-between are not taken into account since they carry the same haplogroup, even though genetically they can be completely different. E.g., Norwegians and Swedes have different Y-haplogroups while Brits and Spaniards have the same Y-haplogroups, yet the Norwegian and the Swede are almost identical while the Spaniard are the Brit are, relatively speaking in comparison to Norwegians and Swedes, more distantly related.Haplogroups are 0.5% of our DNA at most, they're not autosomal DNA, they don't determine individual ancestry or genetic distance, nor do they contribute anything to the genes that determine the species or racial group. Haplogroups are only somewhat useful for tracking population movements.Common DNA tests only quantify the percentage of specific modern groups (emphasis on modern) via shared genetic data in their defined geographic areas. Also, a type of cold weather adaptation could result in a similar pattern of falsified results, such as northern Europeans receiving Siberian or Asian percentages without sharing the ancestry. These major flaws are done on purpose as soft propaganda.
>>534010280Lower pH / more acidic = less likely to get pregnant (copper IUDs do the same thing). The L in L. crispatus and L. iners stands for Lactobacillus. Meaning they produce lactic acid, with crispatus producing the most. That explains the low pH and the lower prevalence of bacterial infections. The lower pH precluding the reproduction of other bacteria. Also, fewer diseases.Africans (and some spics) fall into the same vaginal pH range as chimps/baboons/bonobos etc.More acidity reduces the motility of sperm, so a more acidic vagina will kill off weak swimmers and anything below a PH of 5.0 is absolutely hostile to weak sperm.White woman body kills more sperm, so she needs more frequent intercourse. European genes are so selective that a Euro vagina is more likely to generate pregnancy from repetitive breeding, selecting for intentionality. And the pH level might ensure only the best sperm inseminates by killing the average sperm.White women also have the widest hips and widest birth canals, and white babies have the largest craniums. Vastly more c-sections when non-White females are birthing children from White males.
I found him, he's at the bottom right
>>533999051> Race red pills.You kikes are actually cannanites and Carthaginians
>>534010479I thought that too. but I don't want to be racist, so, I don't know
>>534006747No he's Argentinian
>>534000325It appears to be rather true, though:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3082202/>African American recipients of blood transfusion, both specialized, such as sickle cell disease patients, and general hospitalized patients, have a better chance of receiving phenotype-matched or appropriate red blood cell units when there is a significant percent of products in inventory from African American donors.
>>534010881>have a better chanceIsn't the same thing as being incompatible.
>>533999051B O T T O MR I G H TThe rest of those abominations are niggers
>>534000325>I can't breave
>>534010975You can survive a blood transfusion from literal animals, you just have a better chance with humans
