Why do so many americans on here not understand evolutionary theory or taxonomic distinction between race and species?
Blacks are a strain of homo sapiens, not a subspecies, or as some absolute morons claim, species. The human genepool is extremely small as it is, due to the fact that homo sapiens only appeared100 thousand years ago. This is not enough time for separate species to appear, considering the extremely high lifespan of the average human, even in prehistoric times.
Other urls found in this thread:
telegraph.co.uk
nature.com
sciencedirect.com
jbhe.com
udel.edu
psycnet.apa.org
sciencedirect.com
udel.edu
wsj.com
articles.latimes.com
psychology.uwo.ca
sciencedirect.com
pastebin.com
msu.edu
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
content.time.com
sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.ca
nature.com
books.google.com
genetics.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
m.mbe.oxfordjournals.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
friendsofpast.org
youtube.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pnas.org
newscientist.com
thegreatcourses.com
twitter.com
>H. neanderthalensis admixture.
/thread
...
tking the intrnt srsly LOL
>creating your own opposing argument so you can dismantle it
Well done.
user can you explain to me how DNA/RNA evolved simultaneously to the encoding and producing proteins?
I mean you can there be protein when you need DNA to make them?
Human intelligence up to 75% inheritible
telegraph.co.uk
Human intelligence is highly heritable.
nature.com
Scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased.
sciencedirect.com
Very poor Whites are comparably intelligent to very wealthy blacks.
jbhe.com
Privately, intelligence experts hold more hereditarian views than they express in public.
udel.edu
Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households.
psycnet.apa.org
The average African IQ is estimated at 79.
sciencedirect.com
The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average White IQ of 100.
udel.edu
The white-black gap in SAT scores, a proxy for IQ, is increasing.
jbhe.com
Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.
wsj.com
Intelligence has at least a 40-50% genetic basis.
articles.latimes.com
IQ scores are the best predictor of success in Western society.
psychology.uwo.ca
IQ is 75% heritable among Whites.
psychology.uwo.ca
Frances IQ drops 4 points per decade because of African immigration
sciencedirect.com
>Homosapiens only appeared 100,000 years ago
Implies the earth isn’t 4,000 years old
- RACE MIXING AND WHY IT'S BAD
---------------------------------
pastebin.com
msu.edu
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
content.time.com
sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.ca
nature.com
slash thread
Broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower were the same plant only like 500 years ago. So what is the point of this post?
Evolution can happen very fast. For example, if a mutation occurs in the promoter region of a regulatory gene which regulates the activity of an entire battery of genes, you will see many traits change at once, and evolution can act on any one of those traits.
As for taxonomy, it is somewhat arbitrary and there are many ways to define a 'species'. One way is to gauge whether two species can produce fertile offspring, but there are other equally valid ways.
Aww man some of my copypasta made it in there it looks like :)
How about dessert?
The FST between Whites (British) and Blacks (Bantu) is 0.23.
The FST between the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus) is 0.103
>which is half the White-Black difference despite the two being classified as separate species.
The FST between two gorilla species, Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei is 0.04
books.google.com
>www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/bioc/2005/00000014/00000009/00004781;jsessionid=ebk3f9ja9mb61.alexandra?format=print
www.berggorilla.org/fileadmin/gorilla-journal/gorilla-journal-20-english.pdf
>or 1/6 the difference between Blacks and Whites.
The FST between Whites and Neanderthals is less than 0.08
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018442X04700335
>www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6593.abstract
mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/8/1359.full
>or about 1/3 the Black-White difference.
The FST between Whites and Homo Erectus is 0.17
>which is 3/4 the Black-White distance.
genetics.org
>www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018442X04700335
Whites and Blacks are more genetically distant than two different chimpanzee species, two different gorilla species, Whites vs Neanderthals, and Whites vs Homo Erectus.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>m.mbe.oxfordjournals.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
FST numbers: friendsofpast.org
Ranges from .0021 to .45, Danes v English and Pygmy populations, respectively. Average FST is .1338
West Africans to English: .1487
Largest European difference: .066
Geographically separated populations with noticeable phenotypic differences.
That is the definition of a subspecies and up until the advent of long range sail, it was absolutely true. An alien could close his three eyes, aim the teleporter at a random location on earth, hit the button, and stand a pretty good chance at guessing where the human came from based on phenotype.
Blond hair blue eyes, obviously northern europe, those phenotypes functionally did not exist elsewhere. Slanty eyes, East Asia; dark skin, kinky hair, sub-saharan Africa.
Human subspecies absolutely do exist. The only people saying they don't are trying to make certain subspecies functionally extinct.
Quit committing genocide.
blacks are a "race" or "variety." a "strain" is a single cell line, i.e., an individual person.
for measuring performance, strain >>> race
>user can you explain to me how DNA/RNA evolved simultaneously to the encoding and producing proteins?
>user can you explain to me how DNA/RNA evolved simultaneously to the encoding and producing proteins?
>user can you explain to me how DNA/RNA evolved simultaneously to the encoding and producing proteins?
Anyone?
spontanous creation in the volatile chemical soup that covered earth at the time? sounds pretty unknowable to me famalamadingdong
now, i didnt say theres no genetic difference between the strains. I firmly believe that there is a certain disparity on average, in the favor of caucasians. However, a few generations of strict selective breeding would even this out. My point is that we are different strains, not subspecies.
thank you, this is what i was trying to convey, based Joe
Evolutionary theory isn't science. It's the most anti science religion out there. It's a bunch of warped lies that are utterly disproven by science at every turn, but in the minds of the religious zealots only make believe that fits the religion of evolution is 'science',
Nothing ever evolves, that's the opposite of what science observed every day. Nothing gains genetic information, only looses it at it deteriorates.
If you think humans can appear from monkeys your a bit mad, or brainwashed, that's silly.
this is true, but presupposes that the plant has a very swift lifecycle. Additionally, the plants have been artificially bred for centuries, which easily amounts to hundreds of thousands of years of natural evolution.
Brutal, saving this. Thanks!
You know that proteins are highly complex 3D structures with very specific task like reading RNA and building new proteins.
You now propose that there somehow accidently were formed RNA in a form with meaningful and uncorrupt information and at the same time the machinery needed to make RNA useful.....
Sounds pretty brainlet desu
Sup Forums doesn't say that blacks are a different species except in humor. obviously we can reproduce with them and so we're the same species.
sub-species is a vague term so it's not a fruitful discussion whether they are the same subspecies as caucasoid people or not.
What we can definitively say is that there is evidence to suggest that the reason for blacks (aka people of subsaharan african stock) having a much lower average IQ than europeans or east asians is partially genetic.
Why constrain ourselves to these pre-established notions. We haven't let this hold us back in territories of religion, art and culture. Why is science built on bedrock, because we define niggers as the same species according to some outdated notions of taxonomydoesn't mean we have to continue these silly notions. Isn't it clear that we are so different from other animals that we could use our own distinction? Anyways, Rassenschande ought to be avoided.
>However, a few generations of strict selective breeding would even this out.
So what you cuckold faggot?
The average IQ of niggers brought up in white societies is 85, the average IQ of whites brought up in white societies is 100.
If every white was forced to breed with a black then the average IQ of the next generation would be around 92.
Which would mean that the frequency of geniuses like einstein or paul dirac or enrico fermi would drop drastically , since a small difference in the means of two normal distributions with similar variances results in massive differences in comparative frequency at the far tails.
We would just be lowering humanity, poisoning our gene pool by making collectively much more stupid on average and so much much less likely to have the geniuses who move humanity forward.
This is what your cuckold fantasies lead to, the human race becoming idiots
Well, then they're proto-subspecies, and then racemixing is undesirable due to reduction of biodiversity, so in the case of something horrible, we all die instead of one group picking up what's left
>implying you have to racemix with whites
take a look at the standard centumid piece of garbage, head so far in ass his autistic solutions must fit his hardcoded autism
You can put literally 10 genes, which asians and europeans have that increase intelligence inside an asymptomatic, artificial virus using the CRISPR method, and release it in Africa, basically fixing the continent in 1 generation
You can also pull internal eugenics. Many Igbo (or some other people in that part of Nigeria) are compared to niggers, geniuses, and score exactly like whites in IQ
What are the alternatives?
The chance isn't zero, and the chances of life coming into existance was extremely low from the start.
I hope you aren't calling me a brainlet only to then suggest god did it, because that would make you a huge hypocrite
>KEKKEKCUKCREEEEE
i know you cannot properly read nigel, but try to understand what i am trying to say.
I am not saying there is no difference between the races, i am saying that the difference doesn't warrant a sub-species distinction.
The rest sounds a lot like projection of your own repressed desires.
It’s been like 6 years since I took my genetics course but rna is used by mitochondria which evolved separately vs the host eukaryotic cell which ate it that uses dna replication
thanks, meme flag man. However i believe that the """ethics""" enthusiasts would block the project, claiming its somehow immoral to better humanity because "it aint naturell" or some similar bullshit. Hell, even creating brainless human fetuses to test drugs on is forbidden.
i think he is asking how the proteins themselves came into existance, when the biological mechanisms required to create them need them to function in the first place
>how’d it come to be
Well that’s simply just melting pot genetics
Amino acid structuring follows the same rules that molecular stereochemistry uses meaning you can only have a certain number of structure variations due to the nature of a molecules bond strength
So because of this it limits the number of helical structures than can exist and of course over time there’s only going to be a few that actually form larger bonds
What we got was RNA and DNA on used primarily by prokaryotic evolved organism and eukaryotic ones
So what is the criteria that determines what is a subspecies and what is a race? Other animals have been classified as sub-species which exhibit much less variation that we see in humans.
ONE SPECIES THE DOG SPECIES!
What do you mean my micro-pug can't be a police dog? Fucking racist!
Wait, are you saying my pit bull isn't allowed to be the class pet in this nursery? Fucking racist!
>I hope you aren't calling me a brainlet only to then suggest god did it, because that would make you a huge hypocrite
I prefer to believe in God rather that something can come from nothing for no reason...
>Well that’s simply just melting pot genetics
t. Sup Forums scientist
If anything, this is an argument against evolution
My argument is while they are one species, like human, the are split into very distinct breeds, like human.
Each breed of dog has their own characteristics and behaviours, some breeds are more friendly, more loyal and some are more curious or active dogs, they aren't just physically different.
Now humans have their different breeds, and like dog breeds we also have different attitudes and abilities, this should be embraced instead of shunned.
>. This is not enough time for separate species to appear, considering the extremely high lifespan of the average human, even in prehistoric times.
Yet its enough time to have morphology differences, and differences in disease risks and many other things including genetics for violent behavior being more prevalent in some blacks.
>This is not enough time for separate species to appear
Is this a typo? Why are you talking about species now if at the beginning of the paragraph you were talking about subspecies?
If it not a typo, you're right and most people anywhere would agree with you.
If you actually mean subspecies, you're wrong. I don't even think you understand that subspecies is used in a very loose fashion in scientific literature, there isn't a magic threshold that indicates different subspecies, and the fact is that any species with consistent morphological, physiological and behavioural variations as huge as the ones found between human populations would be considered distinct subspecies (as it were until science was contaminated by liberal ideology).
If you consider how many of these differences can be interpreted directly as environmental adaptations (skin color, body proportions, etc.), you can be 100% certain that no biologist would have any problems to consider these populations as difference subspecies if they we were talking about any other animal.
But yes, we arent different species, everyone knows that since we can have fertile kids with other races. We're all aware the mixed people exist. OP confirmed retarded.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
yes of course because theres a low chance of amino acids and proteins forming (even though explained it) means the metaphysical superbeing that also came from nowhere made it.
>Blocks your path
>"Tell me that I am a a breed of dog with violent behaviours, I dare you"
What do?
You're literally just- disagreeing on the semantics off the subject that you agree with, and not the inherrent contents of it.
Get the fuck outta here.
i meant species
Right. My point was a little off topic, but I think dogs disprove the theory of evolution.
Despite aggresive artificial selection and the wild variance of breeds we have produced in dogs, we have never made a new species.
Species cannot procreate with other species, and despite how divergent the pekingese and elk-hound lineages are, they could still breed.
It's more in keeping with the biblical description of "kinds"
...
>implying that the redefinition of words isnt a powerful ideological tool.
you arent very smart, are you colgate?
Why do Swedes worship black dick
>Not an argument.
Ftfy, you can change the words but not the facts cuckshed.
Example: Niggers.
/thread.
Redefinition of words IS a powerful tool, which is why you are doing it you fucking shifty snownigger. You are deliberately obscuring the lines of subspecies, race, kind, species, and conflating them all together and acting like they mean the same thing with is incredibly intellectually dishonest, but of course you know that because you want to deny the evidence that's right in front of your eyes.
The definition of species is specious and taxonomy is often politically motivated.
For instance, rabbits were classified as lagamorphs because it was considered uncouth to eat rodents
>there is an arbitrary limit that prevents us from altering an organism to the point where it is no longer compatible with the genes of its original
Why do you creationists not understand that small changes add up?
there is physical evidence of many stages between man and monkey, and yet you choose to believe a book written when the general population believed in magic and supernatural creatures?
And for your information, we HAVE created a new species. Dogs were originally bred from a group of russian wolves, which they cannot procreate with anymore. Dogs are actually very similar genetically, they just posses a large amount of recessive phenotypical genes
because M'bungu can control the lightning
shoot to kill
The genome is a 4dimensional instruction set.
as amusing as i find the term snownigger, i still have to disagree. I'm arguing for upholding the standard definition in taxonomy, which states that any two individuals (of opposite gender if sexual) that can sire fertile offspring is considered the same species. I deny Neanderthals being classified as a separate species as well, as i think it is an attempt to promote the "all races are the same" agenda by removing an example of racial differences existing
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
user you are gullible if you believe Sup Forums sciences department without fact checking it.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
"Up to now, most scientists interested in the studying of DNA replication have not been apparently concerned by the problem of the origin and evolution of this central cellular mechanism. The problem of the origin of DNA is also largely ignored, with few exceptions"
"Science" has no answer on my question up to date as far as I know. Merely hypothesis but it seems not very much interest is there.
Consider the following user... I know mixing up physics or science and metaphysics should not be done and can only answer questions within their own field respectively. But we have a very big dilemma not only from the point of contingency but also from the idea of potentiality, because the potential for life in this earth even as complex as we are was unquestionable there, even in the tiny proto universe the potentiality, hence the concrete set of all constants that allow life, were there. Arguably you were already in the plan of the universe from its beginning.
Now it is up to you to believe that this beautifully and complex system as it exists just randomly came out of nothing or that there is a creator that is able to create ex nihilo as primacy for existence. To believe is that something can come from nothing imho is way more preposterous user and metaphysically corrupt
.
I’m a person of slightly above average intelligence. Is the OP trying to say that race is a social construct? Average people like me will never accept that unless someone can explain away the presence of Neanderthal admixture and the fact that forensic science can predict race, and explain it in a non-autistic or show-offy way. I’m tired of manlets like Destiny muddying the waters with convoluted hair-splitting. Can somebody here do that?
You'll still have to believe that something came from nothing, as this theoretical creator would have to come from somewhere.
The best way to avoid facing that dilemma is believing in a loop, without ending or beginning
I recently heard on radio that different races perceive colors differently.
Lel
>muh race ain't real
Mostly because evolution as a whoe is utter BS.
No, I am not denying the facts: creatures change, quite a lot too, due to natural and artificial selection, however there are limits that cannot be broken.
This has been shown time and time again even by evolutionists: Google "60000 generation bacteria experiment" which showed that even after 60k generations of easily mutable bacterias exposed to enhanced selection pressue, those were in the end still normal bacterias, even if they differeed in appearance.
Then there is the fact that new genes are never created, only lost across inheritance: pnas.org
(not a young-earth creationist btw.)
sorry about that. Im being pretty unclear here.
I'm trying to say that the people on this board who claim that we are different species are morons, and that the sub species argument is unsteady at best.
Infinite regression and circular reasoning are a corrupt form of logic and goes hand in hand with sophism
>I'm arguing for upholding the standard definition in taxonomy
Humans qualify as having subspecies in every criteria there is. Distinct - clearly, genetically? Yes. Passes the 80-20 rule and then some. Don't generally interbreed? True, geography made it practically impossible, even post-segregation US has limited racemixing. FST distance? Much higher than many other recognized subspecies', even proper species'.
There is no scientific reason to deny subspecies(race). It's political, and any argument against humans having them can be applied to the concept of subspecies at large.
Well some cross breeding between some species is possible.
Native Americans called the white man “pale face” and “moustache lip” because it was ridiculously obvious he had encountered a different race.
>but James Baldwin said slave owners invented whiteness
Read through this. The theory that new genetic information is never created is completely false. Most new genes are created from copies of old ones, that mutated until they started to perform a different function. I honestly don't know how this myth has survived until now, but i suppose insular environments do that to people
newscientist.com
>You'll still have to believe that something came from nothing, as this theoretical creator would have to come from somewhere
No. You got the wrong idea of God. God is the primacy allowing existence in first place not bound to space, time and matter. The unmoved mover and uncreated creator. You can transcend the barrier of what can be known trough seeing and testing with the use of reason - a divine ability itself - but there are certain laws and axioms one is not allowed to break. I really recommend you to go a little bit into the philosophy of the middle ages especially Thomism to refine your knowledge about God metaphysically. Maybe that will help you to get in close contact with him as it helped me on my journey a lot.
thegreatcourses.com
No, I’m just being slow. Sub-species or not, what is the bedrock of your point? That evolution/adaptation stopped at the brain somehow?
>Read through this. The theory that new genetic information is never created is completely false
OK
> Most new genes are created from copies of old ones, that mutated until they started to perform a different function.
Whoops, already a contradiction.
Where the hell would old genes come from?
See, evolution theory is a pretty, quite awesome skyscraper. Except its floating in the air because someone forget to build the ground level, instead opting to polish the roof shingles.
>I honestly don't know how this myth has survived until now, but i suppose insular environments do that to people
Reality you mean? Yes, this environment is horrible, Ill give you that.
>evolution theory
>theory
Other than that, science is supposed to be debatable. Regardless of how much evidence there is, there is room for debate and questioning. Antiscience is scientific thinking and it is how a scientist should think in order to effectively investigate. If a scientist ever goes "hurr durr, look at all this evidence. I'm right. I don't need to do any more research and I am 100% unchallengable," then they stop being scientists.
Blacks are not a strain of homo sapeins, they are a strain on our welfare system.
Every knee will bow to our king finally.
Various subspecies seem a fairly accurate when you compare differences between subsaharans and other groups such as northern Europeans or east Asians.
Exactly. Doesn’t the presence of Neanderthal admixture in Asians and Caucasians support this? Why is that poo-pood away like it’s nothing?
How aren't the different races subspecies? I don't hate people of other races, btw.