I'm terrible at biology. But I am somewhat familiar with taxonomy. I'm trying to understand why variation between human populations are dismissed as skin deep. It turns out there's something called an Fst score for determining if different populations are subspecies. Apparently different human populations don't score high enough on the Fst to qualify as different subspecies. That seems pretty definitive, and a counter to memes like picrel (which is also wrong, because the different orangutans mentioned are separate species not subspecies). Are there any anons on here who can explain how the Fst score works and why human races should be considered different subspecies?Also, isn't it "populations" the more accurate term than "race?" Doesn't populations or geographic populations still allow for differences between groups?and yes I know that the inventor of the Fst score was a jew.
>>543889794Fst isnt some fixed threshold, its a loose guide. There are many animals we consider subspecies that have a much lower fst than .25. Its only woke bullshit that stops us from defining different races as sub species, which they are
>>543890139can you give some examples of subspecies that don't meet the threshold?
>>543890294Cheeta, white tail deer, puma/cougar. The list is exhaustive. In fact, modern mammalian and avian taxonomists rarely use a rigid fst cutoff. In practice, the vast majority of recognized animal subspecies do not meet the .25 fst score
>>543890139Incorrect. Properly used, "race" would mean subspecies, with the classification closely matching country borders where the borders haven't been completely ruined.Race as currently used is species. The lie is multilayered.
>>543890606thanks. what criteria do they use instead? also i found out that pairwise Fst differences can be as high as .20, and that pairwise distances cluster into 5-7 groups which closely match races. but the spectrum argument gets made, which is, I think, a fallacy. since we don't deny that blue exists just because it transitions into purple.
>>543890767can you explain genetic discordance?
>>543890995Why would I explain anything to you? This wouldn't be a question if you weren't a parasite.
>>543889794The real answer, OP, is that UNESCO decreed there are no differences between races. It's all political.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO_statements_on_race
Every human being on earth is their own ethnic group. You could test the DNA of two Swedish people, and both wouldn't have the same exact % of ancestry as one another because both had different ancestors from 4000+ years ago. Therefore, even if two white people have children, it's race mixing.
>>543889794Jeets aren't even vertebrates.
>>543891518I am being redpilled most by the Fst of south american versus north american cougars. very highly effective argument since pairwise differences between human populations are at equivalent levels
>>543891437that's a great contribution to the discussion, niggerbrain
>>543889794Race as a word was coined recently, like 200 years ago or less and is (((Jewish))), just like the term racism which was coined by Trotsky to have a win all political answer against the opposition
>>543891635It's more effective to point out how and why "all races are equal" became dogma. There was never any science behind it. Post WW2 this position was seen as morally righteous and as preventing Nazism from being vindicated.
>>543889794Carl Linnaeus established humans in the taxonomic heiarchy with a list of 7 subspecies. In the past 50 years there has been considerable work to change the science to reflect a more humanist perspective with the "one race" bullshit.
>>543892140thanks I didn't know that about Linnaeus. >>543891754but if they're attacking race as a concept it is harder to use it to redpill. pairwise Fst differences in populations is a good one
>>543891518>Morris Ginsberg>Claude Lévi-Strauss>Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg)I haven't the slightest care for what tengu have to say. We are different and that's okay. Chinese are different from Koreans. Filipinos are different from Indians. Sub-Saharan niggers are different from Icelandics.We are different and that is a good thing. Becoming one big tan blob with bronze hair and green eyes is globohomo. I don't want that. No one truly wants that.
>>543889794The term is "ethnic cluster". It's real, it's biological. Nothing to debate. Anyone with two eyes can observe it (other than libcuck deracinated muttspawn). Thanks for coming to my sneed talk.
>>543889794I don't think "subspecies" adequately captures the differences between niggers and humans.
>>543889794Jews.The answer is always jews.
>>543894597It's a good graph, but for a layman it isn't clear what the dimensions are, it also suggests breaks discrete groups that don't fall into racial categories.>>543894553what's the difference between an "ethnic cluster" and a "geographical population"?
>>543894732An ethnic cluster is homogeneous. A geographical population is often heterogeneous.
>>543894871but what constitutes an ethnic cluster? doesn't it include things like religion and language which can change over centuries, much faster than genetics can?
Government doesn't have jurisdiction over tigers, orangutans etc so they're allowed to be different races, have ethnostates etc.
bump
