Through various citations and a comprehensive look at Krauts recent video, I have changed my mind.
We aren't different subspecies, but rather just slightly different environmental adaptation wise.
Not sage, wanted to make a point(that the red pill can go slightly the other way as well) as some of you may recognise my namefag name.
PS-To your benefit I do agree that Kraut was being somewhat arrogant in his refutations, but the science is well founded here nonetheless.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
archive.is
web.archive.org
genomebiology.com
t1nyurl.com
archive.is
web.archive.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
archive.is
web.archive.org
m.phys.org
archive.is
web.archive.org
nytimes.com
archive.is
web.archive.org
time.com
archive.is
web.archive.org
articles.washingtonpost.com
web.archive.org
jnci.oxfordjournals.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
snpedia.com
snpedia.com
sciencedaily.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
youtu.be
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
web.stanford.edu
nature.com
sciencedirect.com
nature.com
nature.com
jstor.org
journals.plos.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
nature.com
archive.is
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
geneticliteracyproject.org
isogg.org
isogg.org
nature.com
dana.org
twitter.com
>We aren't different subspecies, but rather just slightly different environmental adaptation wise.
You need to mull over this in your mind a little bit more. Let some more neurons communicate with each other, activate those almonds.
How about you actually debate the subject rather than stating I need to think about it more?
The most founded conclusions come from discussion after all.
What do you think separates groups into subspecies?
I'll make it easy for you
>When geographically separate populations of a species exhibit recognizable phenotypic differences, biologists may identify these as separate subspecies; a subspecies is a recognized local variant of a species.
>using Wikipedia as a credible source
What are you, 12?
The term subspecies exists to make it easier for biologists to organize evolution. The human species shares the same genetic makeup regardless of race. If you took black people and put them in western europe, after a few hundred thousand years, they'll be whiter.
The same species but with significant differences based on environment.
The difference between the human races are incredibly insignificant, when comparing them to the differences between subspecies.
This was taken from Wikipedia as well.
>A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species
you are an idiot and so is kraut
there are MANY species and subspecies (these are different things) that can hybridize successfully. He picked one meme-tier example that simply does not apply, and even worse, Donkeys and Horses are different species with a different chromosome count. Not even subspecies.
He got everything in the video wrong and it's unbelievable that he is that dumb. Literally Dunning-Kruger
>after a few hundred thousand years they'll be whiter
Well no shit, Europeans have been separated from Africans for far less time than that. Evolution moves pretty quick but not quick enough to do anything useful in our lifetimes.
...
well those minor differences create pretty different societies and temperaments, don'tcha think?
Donkeys and horses can't produce fertile young.
They are not close enough genetically to do such.
Ligers are a thing but they suffer from disabilities and only the females are fertile.
>The difference between the human races are incredibly insignificant, when comparing them to the differences between subspecies.
Time to break out the big guns, I suppose.
Black Americans are a hybrid race of around 22% White ancestry
archive.is
web.archive.org
genomebiology.com
Part 4:
This 22% ancestry is the cause of multiple negative health effects due to genetic incompatibility. Indeed, consistent with Haldane’s rule, unmixed Blacks from Africa and White Americans do not have the same rate of birth problems that hybrid American Blacks have: “In 2005, the mortality rate for black infants was 4.4 times higher than that of white infants… African women who come to the United States and have babies experience the same low rate of infant deaths as white American mothers.”
t1nyurl.com
Take a shitty uneducated species and put them in paradise and they never see their potential.
Uh no shit, that's exactly what I said, Donkeys and Horses don't have the same chromosome count so the gametes get BTFO. But there are many plant and animal species that DO hybridize successfully (corvids, bears, etc). The definition of species does not always rely on inability to reproduce.
K&T conflated the species and subspecies concepts and constantly misrepresented how they are defined in taxonomy
Here's a great example of outbreeding depression.
LTA4H, or “leukotriene A4 hydrolase” is found on chromosome 17. An allele of this gene increases the risk of heart attack (the #1 cause of death in America) in Blacks by more than 250%, but only 16% in Whites. The 30% of Whites with this allele have counteracting genes, while the 6% of Black Americans who obtained it through race mixing do not.
archive.is
web.archive.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
A match between two people who share more genetically in common significantly reduces the risk of the donor and recipient cells attacking each other. (READ: cells from people of two different races will attack and fight each other as though they are a virus)
The more people of different backgrounds who produce offspring = the more types that are harder to match.
Multiracial patients have uncommon profiles and since there can be many possible racial and ethnic combinations in multiracial societies, finding a match can still be extremely difficult.
archive.is
web.archive.org
m.phys.org
>Well no shit, Europeans have been separated from Africans for far less time than that.
No. You do understand that modern man (homo sapien) sprung out of the middle east/africa. They spread to Europe and asia and settled. After hundreds of thousands of years, people in Europe became whiter due to less sunlight. People in Asia adapted to their surroundings.
They didn't evolve, they adapted to their surroundings. Evolution would mean they would become either superior or inferior to the rest of the population. If it were either of those, races wouldn't exist.
A White mother of mixed-race child would have more genetically in common with a random White person on the street than with her own child.
If such a dramatic and fundamental alienation from your own parents if not horrific enough, With a mixed-race child diagnosed with leukaemia, every member of the child's own family becomes an incompatible donor for a bone-marrow transplant, and finding a compatible donor is unlikely:
>One obstacle to finding a matching donor was her mixed ethnic background. Her father is black, with West Indian and Panamanian roots. Her mother is white, with Russian-Jewish roots. In addition, only 5 percent of registered donors are black.
archive.is
web.archive.org
nytimes.com
>''Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. Since all the immune system's cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body.
archive.is
web.archive.org
time.com
Race matters when a patient needs a stem cell or marrow transplant
>If you become ill with a blood cancer or other disease that requires a stem cell transplant, here's an uncomfortable fact: Your race matters. Diversity is a strength in much of life, [citation needed!] but it's a curse when finding a stem cell donor match.
archive.is
web.archive.org
articles.washingtonpost.com
Is this bait? The Out of Africa founder effect on Eurasians has been dated to less than 100kya.
"Evolution" doesn't imply becoming superior outside of better adaptation to a given environment. It only implies change over time, and we assign value judgments to that change after the fact.
The Race for Ancestral Genetics in Clinical Trials
>A seasoned cancer researcher would never set up a study in which all the ill patients were, say, Canadian, and all the healthy controls were Japanese. And yet cancer researchers risk making a similar mistake if they overlook genetic information that fleshes out what many of us like to think of as race or ethnicity, some experts say.
Part 11:
>Fortunately, awareness of how ancestral genetics might contribute to risk of disease and drug response in people has risen over the last several years. Studies that look directly at the problem are on the rapid rise, and this increased interest has biotechnology companies lowering the cost of tests that determine genetic ancestry, thanks to a little competition. However, experts have yet to decide on how to genetically define ancestry, suggesting examining anywhere from a handful to hundreds of gene variants.
>Not including information on the race or ethnicity of study volunteers could skew disease risks as stronger or weaker than they really are.
>"Alzheimer's disease is the poster child for this problem," says pharmacogeneticist Esteban Burchard, M.D., of the University of California in San Francisco. A variant of the gene ApoE4 is a strong genetic risk factor for early-onset Alzheimer's disease, and the characteristic most likely to raise or lower that risk is race.
>"It occurs in about 20% of the African American population, and it means nothing. It occurs in about 6% of the Japanese, and it makes their risk six times higher [than that for white people]," Burchard said. "Something about being Japanese unleashes the wrath of the gene, and something about being African American attenuates it."
archive.is
web.archive.org
jnci.oxfordjournals.org
He got RageAfterStorm fired from her job.
Irrelevant to his arguments about race realism. Too bad for him they are shit all on their own.
>Is this bait? The Out of Africa founder effect on Eurasians has been dated to less than 100kya
Are you implying homo sapiens have only been around for less than 100 thousand years?
You are arguing semantics. Wether you want to call them subspecies or " different environmental adaptation groups" matters little to the point. We are still different on a genetic level, but even that doesn't really matter.
Even if we were the exact same, we would still be incompatible at a social, cultural and civilizational level
Indeed.
You really are just debating the minutiae of semantics, which is pleb tier level of discussion.
Yes but he got her fired
That's not what was stated at all. Read the posts again, founder effect is due to population bottleneck since only a small subset of Africans actually left Africa to become Eurasian. That bottleneck is dated to less than 100kya, so saying "after hundreds of thousands of years" Europeans got lighter skin is technically inaccurate. Changes in skin color can take place over just a few thousand years.
>I'M A CHANGED MAN
Astolfo tends to have that effect on people.
Toppest kek
Always thought about this, if we end up a space faring species wouldn't we all get whiter? That's assuming we use generation ships and don't send robots over with our seed inorder to populate a planet.
Yeah and that means that we are all descendants of that subset that left africa, doesn't it? If it takes a shorter amount of time, it doesn't really matter. It shows that race exists due to enviroment. Not because they're different species
Mankind isn't capable of long term space travel. Unless we create artificial gravity and other Sci fi stuff. I expect to see some sort of ai flying most of our deep space stiff. Much like the theory that the Grey ayys are just biological AIs
Are you confused about how evolution works? Different species and subspecies exist due to environment. You get speciation from variations between populations in different environments growing over time.
Clearly human groups are not species yet but we were well on our way before the technological advancement of Europeans bringing populations back into proximity.
Maybe blacker as there's no UV protection in space.
Then again our suits would be constantly protecting us so maybe.
Only if the environment selects for it through lighter-skinned offspring having more successful children. A technologically advanced species would have totally relaxed Darwinian selection. The only alternative is Lamarckism, and that's not exactly scientific.
The argument from Kraut are retarded but he's not really wrong when he claim that the definition of race has grey are.
What you all have to understand is that our sexual maturity is longer than any other species, so, our natural selection is much lower.
So your telling me that between populations, muscle density, bone structure, facial features, eye colour, hair colour, skin pigmentation, blood types, the ability to process certain types of food (lactose intolerant), weight, height, the shape of peoples fucking toes are all different and have adapted and changed over the years but the brain didnt change in the slightest?
Ridiculous, isn't it? Literally impossible too, due to pleiotropy connecting physical traits to behavioral traits.
The word subspecies was created to better organize a group of animals. For example a tiger has many "subspecies" like the Bengal tiger or Siberia tiger. They both share the same "root" but branch off due to the encoroment they're in.
>Clearly human groups are not species yet but we were well on our way before the technological advancement of Europeans bringing populations back into proximity.
Pretty stupid. Who would you classify as homo sapien? What would you call the other species?
Sapien is the only homo species still in existence
That's like saying every culture is their own subspecies.
I don't care who you are OP.
sage
The difference between human population are single nucleotide polymorphisms, not warrant enough to claim a scientific classification.
I'm not saying that humans can't be classified, it's just not taxonomically valid.
Not noticeably no as seen if you raise a black or non white child properly in a developed country.
>Black Americans are a hybrid race of around 22% White ancestry
>White Americans do not have the same rate of birth problems that hybrid American Blacks have
nigger, if you think black americans are mixed but white americans arent? what the fuck are you even smoking?
brain makeup is a bigger and more fundamental change than anything you described so no
Here's more wiki for you user, about when homo sapien spread across the world.
>Recent evidence suggests that humans may have left Africa half a million years earlier than previously thought. A joint Franco-Indian team has found human artefacts in the Siwalk Hills north of New Delhi dating back at least 2.6 million years. This is earlier than the previous earliest finding of genus Homo at Dmanisi, in Georgia, dating to 1.85 million years. Although controversial, tools found at a Chinese cave strengthen the case that humans used tools as far back as 2.48 million years ago
Wow what an in-depth thought out response. I wonder where OP went?
We don't really have much in the way of 'natural' selection in the 21st century, hence my reference to relaxed Darwinian selection. Infant mortality is ridiculously low, nearly everyone gets a chance to breed. This is a historical and evolutionary anomaly.
>The word subspecies was created to better organize a group of animals.
This is true of species, genus, order, class, family, and any other taxonomical term. These groupings are more arbitrary than we realize at first glance, even when cladistic taxonomy is used. I meant human groups are not separate species yet, that should have been clear. We can interbreed and sub-Saharan Africans still have most total variation, very few genes are not found somewhere in Africa. What makes the races different are the combinations in which genes are found: gene complexes.
The MCPH1 gene also shows signs of introgression;
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>The gene microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size during development
>Instead, our data are consistent with a model of population subdivision followed by introgression to account for the origin of the D allele
>the lineage leading to modern humans was split from another Homo lineage, and the two lineages remained in reproductive isolation for ≈1,100,000 years
>During this period of reproductive isolation, the modern human lineage was fixed for the non-D allele at the microcephalin locus, whereas the other Homo lineage was fixed for the D allele
>These two alleles are differentiated by a large number of sequence differences accumulated during the prolonged isolation of the two populations
>At or sometime before ≈37,000 years ago, a (possibly rare) interbreeding event occurred between the two lineages, bringing a copy of the D allele into anatomically modern humans
>Furthermore, the worldwide frequency distribution of the D allele, exceptionally high outside of Africa but low in sub-Saharan Africa (29), suggests, but does not necessitate, admixture with an archaic Eurasian population
>snpedia.com
Orange is AA, green is AC, and blue is CC. The three letter codes can be read here;
>snpedia.com
YRI, LWK and MKK are all African populations, and ASW is the acronym for American blacks.
If you look at pic related, you can see that CC only exists in Africans.
Only homozygotic Africans express microcephaly, but the point is that the CC homozygote genotype only exists in African populations. The low IQ's of every sub-Saharan African country is the evidence required to prove that blacks are clincally retarded, and that the C allele is associated with low IQ - as you can see, AC is also almost entirely limited to the African populations.
>based on environment
Scientists have found hints that a 'ghost' species of archaic humans
may have contributed genetic material to ancestors of people living in sub-Saharan Africa today.
Wrong. Nice try though. Subspecies of other species are not defined by that criteria. Taxonomic validity is determined by taxonomic usefulness, and an accurate proxy for geographic ancestry is quite useful.
The differences between human groups aren't just the SNPs but the specific combinations of thousands of them that make up gene complexes.
Y-haplogroups A and BT are defined by two mutations - M91 and P97;
Chimp/Y-BT = M91 = 9T, P97 = Allele-T,
Y-A = M91 = 8T, P97 = Allele-G.
Even if the claim that A's P97-G allele is ancestral was true, that doesn't imply that BT descends from A - A00 is also 8T, implying simply that the source of 8T bred into the human line within the last 254,000 years. The fact that every single BT subclade is 9T implies that BT had to emerge before 254,000 years ago, or else it wouldn't have A2-T and A1a-T's mutations while still having the ancestral 9T version of P91, thus making it a direct descendent of the P91-9T 'Root' like all the A's, not the descendent of A.
>ghost species
You mean the aliems
The differences between human groups are far more complex than just genetics
Completely delusional and against everything we know from empirical observation and scientific research. Hence the boogeyman of 'institutional racism' to explain the persistent gaps in achievement regardless of environment.
European Americans are like an average 98% European. The different ethnic groups in Europe are far more similar to each other than Africans are to any other group.
>rather just slightly different environmental adaptation wise
Explain then how white people are the only ones who can into space
On top of this, a recent source of pre-modern hominid DNA in Africans has been found to date to as recently as 35kYBP, with the DNA having diverged from H. sapiens' around 1250kYBP;
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>A long-debated question concerns the fate of archaic forms of the genus Homo: did they go extinct without interbreeding with anatomically modern humans, or are their genes present in contemporary populations? This question is typically focused on the genetic contribution of archaic forms outside of Africa. Here we use DNA sequence data gathered from 61 noncoding autosomal regions in a sample of three sub-Saharan African populations (Mandenka, Biaka, and San) to test models of African archaic admixture
>Three candidate regions showing deep haplotype divergence
>Interestingly, the Mbuti represent the only population in our survey that carries the introgressive variant at all three candidate loci
>Extensive simulation results reject the null model of no admixture and allow us to infer that contemporary African populations contain a small proportion of genetic material (≈2%) that introgressed ≈35 kya from an archaic population that split from the ancestors of anatomically modern humans ≈700 kya
>One candidate locus with an unusual segment of DNA that extends for >31 kb on chromosome 4 seems to have introgressed into modern Africans from a now-extinct taxon that may have lived in central Africa
>We estimated an initial split time of 1.25 Mya (95% CI, 0.7–2.1 Mya) and an admixture time of 37 kya (95% CI, 1–137 kya
You will need a better sample for your claim.
See: youtu.be
Understanding Human Genetic Variation
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Genetic Structure of Human Populations
web.stanford.edu
Genetic Variation, classification and 'race'
nature.com
With your logic, you can claim numerous numbers of races.
Archaic fossils outside of Africa are not directly related to the Out of Africa population bottleneck. These hominins produced populations such as Neanderthal and Denisovan.
>Completely delusional and against everything we know from empirical observation and scientific research. Hence the boogeyman of 'institutional racism' to explain the persistent gaps in achievement regardless of environment.
So your saying that regardless if you give a black person a good education, teach them your morals and values, they're gonna be ignorant just because they're black?
Loos are in space now faggot.
I was under the impression that the gap in America was due to this black ethnocentric gang culture.
I have not met many black people here who are idiots, the ones who are seem to be part of a similar gang culture.
What this entails is that A000 is an H. erectus lineage defined by the P91-8T allele that split off from the rest of mankind around 1,250,000YBP, introgressing into multiple BT-lineages around 37,000YBP and granting it the mutant M91-8T allele that defines Y-haplogroups A1b, A1a-T and A2-T and their descendent clades. We have three candidate regions of introgression, and we need to explain exactly three different introgressions into different BT sub-clades.
Basal A00 supposedly dates to 338,000YBP;
>sciencedirect.com
>We sequenced ∼240 kb of this chromosome to identify private, derived mutations on this lineage, which we named A00. We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya
Although A00 is a clade derived directly from A000, it's point of divergence from A000 of 338kYBP corresponds to the Jebel Irhoud remains;
>nature.com
>Fossil evidence points to an African origin of Homo sapiens from a group called either H. heidelbergensis or H. rhodesiensis
>In combination with an age of 315±34 thousand years
The divergence point of H. sapiens and neanderthals is estimated to be 550k-765kYBP;
>nature.com
>The remains are known as the Sima hominins because they were found in Sima de los Huesos (Spanish for ‘pit of bones’), a 13-metre-deep shaft in Spain’s Atapuerca mountains
>And its age suggests that the early predecessors of humans diverged from those of Neanderthals between 550,000 and 765,000 years ago
To support you, I have link proving that black americans reduced the IQ gap.
Of course, because each group carries its culture with it, and culture and genetics co-evolve. This is Dual Inheritance theory and basic element of the new evolutionary synthesis.
>You mean the aliens
No, they mean 'proto humans' ie non humans, which they've 'not found yet'
Look up haplogroups and school yourself a bit. Wicherts, et al, somewhat deals with the issue of haplogroups.
The concept of "european admixture" is more of a social construct than a real thing. You can clearly track a persons heritage and ethnicity by region and nation using their genome because theres no single european genome, or even single genome for any race in general.
Europeans historically hated eachother based on tribalism and the phenotypic differences between even bordering nations several hundred years ago were incredibly apparent. IE: differences between Spain,
France and Britain, and Italy. I hope you do understand that was quite literally and actually racism between "european admixtures"- ones as simple as the british and french having big noses is/was a phenotypic difference that seperated them from other nations and is linked to genomic similarities based on tribal origins.
Even the concept of whites v minorites is fairly uneuropean when going back in history. The truth is that lighter and paler people, and fat people just to add a bit of accuracy, were preffered in general around the world because they were viewed to be of a higher caste and didn't have to spend a seemingly affective amount of time in the sun/exercising.
Off tangent, but a little bit off insight and truth that would and does, academically, tear down the very concept of our current races and not-so-physically tribal differences.
"brain makeup" is controlled by many thousands of genes, any of which can change (or be repeated more or fewer times) and cause only slight variations in the neurological structure and therefore resulting behavior. Psychological or behavioral traits are highly polygenic.
Yes of course, any population isolated for long enough will effectively become its own race. Population clusters vary both in size and distance from each other, and we define the term 'race' in ways that make it useful for us.
Evidence linking the Denisovan-Neanderthal-Y-Adam meta-group exists in the form of two genes related to pigment - BNC2 and UGT1A1;
>journals.plos.org
>The microsatellite length in two Neandertal individuals [57] and one Denisovan [58] are similar to present-day humans outside of Africa in having a TA repeat of length 6 in the promoter of UGT1A1
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>BNC2 seems to be a strong candidate for adaptive introgression, as shown in two genome-wide archaic ancestry analyses23, 47. Sankararaman et al.47 applied the CRF model to detect introgressed segments, and then inferred selection based on departures from a null model of neutrally introgressed alleles. Vernot and Akey23 also found the introgressed region using S*, then confirmed its ancestry by matching it with the Neanderthal genome
However, neither Denisovans nor neanderthals had the A allele of the SLC24A5 gene;
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>PCMs covered by both the Denisovan sequence and the Neanderthal sequence
>Increased skin pigmentation, association with
>SLC24A5 A > G:GGG
The oldest remains containing the A allele of SLC24A5 date to 13kYBP;
>nature.com
>a Late Upper Palaeolithic (13,700 years old, 9.5-fold) male from Switzerland
>While we detect Late Palaeolithic–Mesolithic genomic continuity in both regions, we find that Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) belong to a distinct ancient clade that split from western hunter-gatherers ∼45kya
>Like EF, but in contrast to WHG, CHG carry a variant of the SLC24A5 gene17 associated with light skin colour (rs1426654
>Continuity in the Caucasus is also supported by the mitochondrial and Y chromosomal haplogroups of Kotias (H13c and J2a, respectively) and Satsurblia (K3 and J), which are all found at high frequencies in Georgia today
First I prove the fundamental difference between men and women. Pic and essay related.
archive.is
And in next post I prove the fundamental difference between human races.
"Ignorant" isn't the term I would use here, but there is a persistent gap in achievement, ability to accumulate wealth even at high incomes, and test scores despite being in the Americas for hundreds of years.
Also interesting to note that Africans with higher levels of European admixture consistently score better than those with less.
Black gang culture wherever they go is a product of essential collectivism and racial consciousness. They simply aren't as individualistic as Europeans have evolved to be. The UK has the benefit of more of its African population being voluntary immigrants and therefore represent the best of the best of that continent. American blacks are simply not up to those standards.
The human body functions in its own isolated way. It's a phenomena and statistical anomaly for someones body to react differently than anther's in a given circumstance with even moderate control over variables.
What you are doing is comparing the physicality of a human being to the mentality of one. The brain doesn't need for a change in genetic makeup/extreme adaptation in order to function completely differently than another. Most aspects of brain function is reliant on nurture excluding the genetic hardwiring for its groundwork.
In sum: the body can be absolutely understood and predictions/conclusions can be made about how it'll react to every stimulus given controls the vast majority of the time whereas no hard conclusions can be made about the brain because a single variable is enough to completely alter its framework.
Do you actually understand how memories are formed? Do you understand what roles chemicals and environment play in the makeup of the brain? Do you grasp the what potentiates the brain and what causes it to stagnate? Are you capable of understanding and accepting the absolute fact that you cannot draw a generalization from multiple studies that revolve around the brain unless they're almost absolutely constant?
The fundamental understanding of the brain we have today is based on decades (even centuries in some aspects) of actual hard evidence that no educated psychologist would draw a general conclusion from. Now try to understand this, I am not biased. If you were capable of showing me something that was absolute; some study that was repeated over and over again that repeatable and had repeating results and accounted for all variables indefinitely I would absolutely accept it. What I just stated was, in essence, the scientific method. The scientific method exists for a reason. So long as I can point out anything you say to disprove it, it will not be accepted as hard science.
Australian aboriginals evolved isolated from the rest of mankind for 50.000 years. They can't build a modern house with everything installed and they can't be taught. A wolf and a border collie can breed, one has the genetic inclination to herd sheep, the other will never learn no matter the training.
There is your difference in the brain, with a repeatable experiment.
Oh atlanteans, gotcha.
Im guessing you're one of those nigger haters that hates niggers just because they're niggers. Nigger
Ones culture has nothing to do with genetics. What if I adopted a Chinese baby and taught it British culture?
>Yes of course, any population isolated for long enough will effectively become its own race.
No. Race has everything to do with enviroment.
"Genomes from Sub-Saharan Africa had a version of the gene that was wildly different from versions found in other modern humans."
"The Sub-Saharan variant was so distinctive that Neanderthal and Denisovan MUC7 genes matched more closely with those of other modern humans than the Sub-Saharan outlier did."
"Based on our analysis"
>the most plausible explanation for this extreme variation is archaic introgression.
or, more likely
>they are archaic sub-species
>the Flynn effect
This is a well-known effect that has unfortunately reached its limits as discovered recently.
There are environmental effects on intelligence that are reduced as you age (see: The Wilson Effect) and there are environmental effects that are not reduced. The latter are mostly negative (pollution, abuse and other trauma, malnutrition). If you remove these you allow the genes to reach their full potential. Blacks ironically can only reach their full genetic potential in White societies as they cannot produce societies with good environments on their own. The Flynn effect has limits and does not obviate the conclusions of the Jensen Effect.
WHAT IS THE WARRIOR GENE?
The Warrior Gene refers to certain copies (alleles) of the MAO-A gene that have been linked to violent anti-social behavior. One such copy, 2R, which I'll call the "violent ape allele", is 55x more common in niggers than in whites:
>Studies have found differences in the frequency distribution of variants of the MAOA gene between ethnic groups:[32][33] of the participants, 59% of Black men, 54% of Chinese men, 56% of Maori men, and 34% of Caucasian men carried the 3R allele, while 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carried the 2R allele.[23][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]
en.wikipedia.org
The reason a majority of niggers act like violent apes is because they carry the violent ape allele. This supports the hypothesis that niggers are genetically inferior subhumans.
Your letting your racism get in the way. You can hate niggers that's fine, but hate them for what they do. Not because of their skin color
>thinks darwin is right
>thousands of years of different environment wouldnt create mental and physical differences
>The fundamental understanding of the brain we have today is based on decades (even centuries in some aspects) of actual hard evidence that no educated psychologist would draw a general conclusion from. Now try to understand this, I am not biased. If you were capable of showing me something that was absolute; some study that was repeated over and over again that repeatable and had repeating results and accounted for all variables indefinitely I would absolutely accept it.
Dude.The problem is, people won't do the experiments. The same goes for proving the fundamental difference between men and women, people won't do the experiments, it is not that they can't be done.
en.wikipedia.org
"In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[21] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never"."
>but rather just slightly different environmental adaptation wise.
Hey, believe whatever makes submitting to sand niggers easier for you..
MAO-A do not explain black crime:
What? I'm defending you man.
>Off tangent, but a little bit off insight and truth that would and does, academically, tear down the very concept of our current races and not-so-physically tribal differences
I concur - and it replaces them with new races. There is no pure white race, I agree. To be honest, I'm more interested in creating the purity I once naively imagined to exist than I am in genociding anyone.
I'm really just a very freethinking, open-minded transhumanist.
If EF and CHG both have the A allele of SLC24A5 and diverged from one another 40k-50kYBP, this would be precisely the date of origin for haplogroup K and H;
>isogg.org
>The founder of haplogroup H probably lived about 30,000-40,000 years ago
>isogg.org
>Y-DNA haplogroup K is an old lineage established approximately 40,000 thousand years ago whose origins were probably in southwestern Asia
Y-haplogroup IJK is fouhd in Europe from 30kYBP, and HIJK from 15kYBP - both ancestral to H, I, J and K. If K was found in Europe circa 47kYBP, than IJK must be older than K, and HIJK must be older than IJK. On this chart;
>nature.com
the split between the SLC24A5-A allele remains 13kYBP in Georgia and EF and the SLC24A5-G allele remains of the WHG potentially happened 75.8kYBP, thus producing a range of 45k-75kYBP.
Considering that at one time we had fucking dinosaurs running around, I wouldn't doubt it.
The earth was a completely different place with a completely different atmosphere.
I'm more of an ancient civilization than ayy guy
I see that now. I misread the link you (you)d me.
Can we be friends again, user?
You are massively retarded, Descartes. A stunted holdover from deranged Enlightenment thinking. None of what you are saying is true and there are many repeatable experiments on how different structures within the brain interact with each other and how that interaction changes when lesions are introduced to various tissues. Pretending that the connection between physical tissue and mental experience is somehow stochastic is an obfuscatory attempt to deny biological determinism and cling to free will and disembodied reason.
"The problem is, people won't do the experiments"
This is not an excuse since studies about intelligence are still done. The media has political correctness not science.
>"In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[21] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never"."
Dude, you didn't read my links at all, I said that humans can be classified, no Lewontin Fallacy with me.
My point if that the difference are not enough to claims that human has subspecies.
Twin and adoption studies show that IQ is mostly inherited genetically. Blacks raised by high IQ high income whites still have a low IQ
No one said anything about skin color. Character and culture are all rooted in biology. There is a significant degree of biodiversity among all primate populations that affects cognition, behavior, and physical traits. Skin color is one of the least relevant ones.
>We aren't different subspecies
We aren't products of crossbreeding between different hominid species, no such thing as neanderthals or denisovians. I'm not a fucking ignorant piece of shit. You should listen to what I say, which isn't retarded at all. Britbongs aren't a bunch of intellectually castrated cucks at all.
Your Chinese baby would learn British culture obviously but it would probably grow up with an interesting interpretation and an affinity for some aspects more than others.
It's a fact that Chinese evolved a "rice culture" due to their ancient farming practices, and this has resulted in their modern large-scale collectivist mindset.
>guy gets knocked out
>jack him off
>My point if that the difference are not enough to claims that human has subspecies.
Would you agree that if I am right that australian aboriginals can't build a house without the help from hybrids or other races, that they can be considered a sub-species?
I described African behavior in a dispassionate way. The only one talking about skin color is you.
MAOA 2R allele is also correlated with gang violence and shooting/stabbing behavior. The general criminality of blacks is probably best explained by lower IQ
>My point if that the difference are not enough to claims that human has subspecies.
Look up how subspecies are classified in other animals, I dare you.
At least you're honest. Because thousands of race can be claimed if we use the definition from society.
Your link does a bad job to prove that.
A quarter of century is very long in science.
Psychology receives the bad name of soft science because of idiots like you who decide that you'll use what evidence you can get your hands on to prove your point regardless of how falsifiable given evidence is. I can't possibly imagine an intellectual with any true investment in higher education, college level and beyond, would make such baseless unscientific claims.
Do you have any credible evidence of your claim. There is still a lot of unknow about the period of "evolution".
It's fine.
Did you read my link about the MAOA gene?
Except that we have much longer sexual maturity than any other species, so our natural selection is slower because we wait much longer to produce offspring.