One Race

Sup Forums, if this is true (maths doesn't lie), how can there be distinct races?

science denying faggot detected. race is real.

Conversely, how can racism be real if race isn't?

I have 1.073.741.824 grandparents from 1400-2011 not just from 1400, thread OBLITERATED

subspecies are defined by the 90% rule. If you put different subspecies together, mix them up randomly, then set them back and divide them into their original subspecies groups with 90% accuracy, then they are subspecies. You can't look at this picture and tell me these people are the same subspecies as eachother.

>dog breeds are a social construct.
>takes wolf home as pet, eats babby.

People responding to perceived differences caused by phenotypical variation?

that's where you're wrong kiddo

your greatx25-grand-dad had sex with your greatx24-grand-ma and greatx23-grand-ma and probably your greatx22-grand-ma

Dogs and wolves have been reproductively isolated for far more than a few hundred years though.

Dog breeds are also selectively bred, and even then the process of refining a breed has taken many generations.

Humans have never selectively bred themselves. I don't think that's a valid comparison.

Humans have selectively bred themselves, sub consciously and consciously. Outliers exist but they're not the norm no matter how hard you shill race mixing.

As are humans, race mixing despite what you see in tv is not that common, and before the 1600's humans were largely geographically isolated.

...

Given the wide variation in height, facial features amongst the black guys, the only thing that really stands Bush apart is his hair, lips and skin colour. His nose is as wide as some of those guy's and everything else from musculature and skeleton would be the same or within a limited variable comparable to species-wide human norms.

I think you have to take into account comfirmation bias when it comes to """race""". Given how different structually our closest ancestor, Neanderthal Man, was (which some scholars argue wasn't a seperate hominid species but actually closely related enough to be a sub-species) would an alien looking at those people really identify them as seperate subspecies?

Subspecies are defined by reproductive isolation over periods of tens of thousands of years, humans don't seem to have had that.

Jews are selectively breeding us (ie. removing whites and created a mixed race)

>Cherrypicking
>"Cherrypicking"

>a few hundred years though.
try a few tens of thousands. Granted, it's still not a great deal in evolutionary timeframes, which is why human populations can generally still interbreed easily.
Surely you see how humans from separate areas of the world are different. An asian, a peruan, a congolese and a mediterranean are distinct in very clear ways.

>before the 1600's humans were largely geographically isolated.

No they weren't, human populations have traded since the neolithic.

Sure people didn't trade globally but with everyone reproducing with the village/tribes directly next to them, genes get spread around the entire population.

The closest we have to reproductive isolation would be Australian aboriginies or native Americans, but even then, the period of isolation is only about 50,000 years, which is possibly enough to consider a sub-species forming but both populations are relatively small and largely ignored in Sup Forums race discussions which largely focus on Eurasian and African peoples.

african and asian lions are different subspecies and are more geneticall similar than human races

it was a trick question the difference is actually his brain

we can do it with near perfect accuracy just based on skeletal remains

>Surely you see how humans from separate areas of the world are different. An asian, a peruan, a congolese and a mediterranean are distinct in very clear ways.

Yes, I'm not proposing there are no differences, mearly that there is no reason to presume these differences correlate entirely along phenotypical lines as defined by racial theory, which proposes that humans exist in distinct segments equivilent to subspecies that share little recent common ancestry (or none if you disagree with the OOA theory).

Yes, and genetic evidence shows that difference, abbos and africans are further removed genetically, while arabs and certain near asians are more closer genetically to europeans genetically, this shows up in larger DNA studies. I don't see how you think what you are saying refutes anything. The fact DNA is able to show race directly proves it's a biological reality, not a mere social construct as half baked marxist intellectuals would have one believe.

turns out that genetic evidence matches what everyone can already visually determine. Clear distinct population groups match what we observe to be human races

>abbos and africans are further removed genetically, while arabs and certain near asians are more closer genetically to europeans genetically

If you read those studies though, you're talking about a handful of allele out of tens of thousands in the human genome. If you take any two individuals from northern Europe, you'll find a similar number of gene variables.

DNA is able to show hair colour directly too, but that doesn't neccesarily mean gingers and blondes need to be categorised into seperate subspecies.

I think you're letting confirmation bias alter your interpretation of the results.

lewontin fallacy

No, his skull shape is different (his forehead doesn't slope back, for example) and his IQ is also likely at least 20 points higher.

Pic Related is a chart of principal component chart of genetic variation. Shockingly, groups are largely genetically distinct from one another.

>Given the wide variation in height, facial features

This isn't really valid; trends exist among traits which exhibit wide variation, and signfigant differences in those trends exist between the races.

>would an alien looking at those people really identify them as separate subspecies?

If they categorize subspecies in the same manner as we do, then yes, considering that we designated geographically separate groups as subspecies based on far less

32 generations ago there weren't 4 billion humans on the planet. Humans must not exist.

because you aren't related to everyone in the world twice. If you are fully european, that means you would be related to everyone in europe many times over.

>Not writing (You) at the top

Saged

>what everyone can already visually determine

This is just untrue. For example, west Africans have a huge number of distinctive ethnic groups, easily comparable to European/African variations, but I defy you to look at a mixed group of them and tell me what they all are.

Likewise, we spent that last century declaring the English a Germanic and racially different from the Celts of Scotland, Ireland and Wales, but actual genetic studies have proven that not only is there no real variations between those groups, but that all inhabitants of the British Isles are actually distinct from the rest of the European population. Englishmen are no more Germanic than Welshmen.

This underlines how phenotype identification of ethnicity is largely just confirmation bias mixed with social history.

Unless you propose we start seperating mankind into millions of 'races' based on these slight genetic variants, which whilst distinct, are so negligible to the overall organism as to be irrelevent (and would be entirely arbitary), I can't really see how arguing for a continuation of racial categorisation has any basis in scientific fact.

Take for example the CDH13 and MAOA genes, the so-called 'warrior genes' which often linked to a predilication to violent behaviour. These are shared across ALL phenotypically defined human populations or 'races' to varying degrees, so why do you see calls from Sup Forums for the deportation for all niggers (with the justification being a marginally higher occurrence of these genes in west African-descended populations compared to Europeans) rather than the deportation of all people with these genes, across all phenotypically defined groups?

Only the latter would even have the pretence of scientific backing and even then, would speak to a degree of belief in absolute primacy of biological determination that in itself, would be counter-factual i.e. we're not creatures entirely of nature, but nuture.

The same person can show up multiple times in your family tree. Not just within a single generation either they may be great great grandparents of two different people which would collapse those two people's branchs of the tree down to one.

Image was made by a moron.

Actually, subspecies are not exclusively defined by their reproductive isolation, you can also define them using physiological and geographical traits.

So in this case; congoids have higher melanin to reflect the sun rays of the intense African sun without eliminating their folates and ruining their birthrate (physiological trait). This gives them an edge when maintaining evolutionary dominance in geography where this applies.

To deny subspecies is to deny that certain phenotypes can have certain advantages when living in certain environments.

>This is just untrue. For example, west Africans have a huge number of distinctive ethnic groups, easily comparable to European/African variations, but I defy you to look at a mixed group of them and tell me what they all are.

Yes its easier to distinguish population groups that are more distinct visually

>but actual genetic studies have proven that not only is there no real variations between those groups, but that all inhabitants of the British Isles are actually distinct from the rest of the European population. Englishmen are no more Germanic than Welshmen.

genetic similarity operates as a funtion of geographical distance

>This underlines how phenotype
identification of ethnicity is largely just confirmation bias mixed with social history.
It is effective to a certain degree as mentioned earlier

>Unless you propose we start seperating mankind into millions of 'races' based on these slight genetic variants, which whilst distinct, are so negligible to the overall organism as to be irrelevent (and would be entirely arbitary)
>Take for example the CDH13 and MAOA genes, the so-called 'warrior genes' which often linked to a predilication to violent behaviour. These are shared across ALL phenotypically defined human populations or 'races' to varying degrees, so why do you see calls from Sup Forums for the deportation for all niggers (with the justification being a marginally higher occurrence of these genes in west African-descended populations compared to Europeans) rather than the deportation of all people with these genes, across all phenotypically defined groups?
>Only the latter would even have the pretence of scientific backing and even then, would speak to a degree of belief in absolute primacy of biological determination that in itself, would be counter-factual i.e. we're not creatures entirely

Lewontin fallacy