We have clines, not races. "Race" implies discontinuous subsets, but human variation is continuous. There is no one trait you can use as a division between "races", because there are people with intermediate characteristics for any trait you care to look at - including the most obviously visible ones like skin color and bone structure.
And importantly there is more genetic variation between "races" than between them. It is possible to make a very reliable prediction of what continent someone's ancestors came from if you look at thousands of loci on their genome simultaneously (see link here:ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Debunking "Race realism"
Other urls found in this thread:
webmd.com
forbes.com
youtu.be
genetics.thetech.org
twitter.com
...
wtf I hate race realism now
Bad picture
>it's impossible to be certain which population they came from
see #1
>very little genetic variation within humans compared to other species.
see #4
wrong image
TL;DR
niggers are still violent and subhuman. cry more.
Race is not just skin color. That's a straw man.
Race is genetic distance. 5 main races with large separations between them. So much for Op's idiot argument about Intermediate characteristics.
>if white woman decides to race mix, she will have more in common with a white person on the street than with her own child
This is genius
none of this has anything to do with intelligence differences between groups
Well this is very telling the same people who think there is genetic differences also think that their are entirely inferior and superior classes do you guys think life is a game of D&D or something?
There's no sensible reason to expect that, because all humans faced nearly identical selective pressures until the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago, and there hasn't been enough time for much evolution since. While there's evidence of some recent evolution in human populations, there's none for weird tradeoffs like that. (The closest is in a couple cases where there's heterozygote advantage, like the genes for ovalocytosis and sickle cell anemia). When we find recent adaptations, we don't find things like "good at math and bad at running."
Inferior is your judgement call.
That race exists is indisputable: it can be repeatedly measured and is consistent with the evolution hypothesis. That the differences have statistical significance is also not debatable.
Pointing out gradients in skin color between different races and claiming race is just skin color is a straw man fallacy.
By the act of Saint Stalin, all races, which have significant genetic difference and different selection pressures on intelligence and brain size, have identical IQ distributions. So, you toss out all the data that says other wise.
Are you trying to discredit yourself as a shill? Because you just did. Perhaps you're LARPing and a SJW because you're doing so bad a job at the race argument that if you didn't exist, we'd have to invent you.
There's just no evidence to suggest racial intelligence differences or anything like that. Do you know the scientific definition of heritability?
Do you know what any of this is?
Hello Destiny & Kraut shills, you can fuck off with your anti intellectual bullshit.
>low IQ bellow the special needs at an average of 60-80
>disease ridden to the point the CDC released a warning specifically for black women for their higher than average number of STDs
>So violent the richest black neighborhoods in America experience more crime than the poorest all white cities in the country.
How can you not feel they have a lot of evolving to do before they can be stable members of society?
ah! The appeal to ignorance fallacy. We don't know ergo your conclusion.
Idiotic on it's face.
And then there's the fact they're finding the genes for intelligence.
webmd.com
Several more genes have been found since this. You have every bad argument and fallacy in rebuttal. Facts are:
1) the intelligence difference exist.
2) it's genetic.
3) There are also genetic difference in behavior.
The difference between your intelligence and the dog is genetic.
>not understanding science
im not surprised
- asian aka mongoloid:
- caucasoid
-negroid
You can always class them to the right bracket.
There are no intermediates either.
To be clear you're saying the IQ of someone who receives poor or no education should be the same as someone who received a full K-12 education?
Honestly the way I see it you can devide human populations into an infinite amount of "races". Whether it be three (white black asian) or 600 (serbs, corats anglos, japs etc). The point is human populations across the world evolved different physical and mental capacities.
interesting chart. where could I read more about it to better understand what it means?
The term "race", at least as used in America, is a genetically meaningless concept. There certainly are genetic differences between populations that have lived in relative isolation for a long period. For example, the Ashkenazi of Eastern Europe or the Pygmies of Africa had very little intermarriage for a long period, leading to many common traits. But this does not in any way translate into the modern American (and probably European) view of race.
We now look at race largely in terms of large groupings: black, white, Asian, etc. A white person can come from any of a wide variety of ethnic groups. There's no reason to expect great genetic similarity between someone of Tunisian ancestry and someone of Scandinavian ancestry, despite some similarity in skin color.
I asked you to demonstrate an understanding of what you posted,I don't think you know what you posted.
>black, white, Asian
these are the core races
>A white person can come from any of a wide variety of ethnic groups.
yes
>There's no reason to expect great genetic similarity between someone of Tunisian ancestry and someone of Scandinavian ancestry
actually there is, and dna confirms this, they are like 75% similar
this is much lower than scandi / scandi or scandi / europe, but it's still true.
Tunisians are mixed race.
The US definition of race is biased in the following though:
If you are partially black, then you're black.
No, you changed topic because you couldn't debunk any of it.
>shifting the goal posts.
>in some cases you can get a pretty decent estimate with 100 loci. But if you look at just one or even ten places on the genome, it's impossible to be certain which population they came from. In some cases, you can't make a very reliable prediction even if you look at several hundred loci at once
in other words the closer you look at the genome, the stronger a case for race you make
It's just not true though.
this is just continuum fallacy
races are real and race realism is incontrovertible
>Race is real, but let's call it a cline instead.
No.
>Lewontin's fallacy.
There's more height variation between men that between the average man and woman. Does this mean that sex isn't real? That height isn't real? Should we refer to sex and height by some madeup word as well?
>all humans faced nearly identical selective pressures until the invention of agriculture 10,000 years
Slide thread confirmed.
lol what does this change exactly? I guess I'm a cline realist now. All non European clines into the gas chambers!
We must secure an existence for the white cline
funnily enough thats actually been studied in africans who have been adopted by europeans and raised in europe.
the adopted children do just as well as white students up until their mid to late teens, when they start to fall behind and regress to being closer to their racial average.. the closest correlation to academic performance and IQ is the size of their brains, the african brain stops growing in their late teens.
historically humans who evolved in europe were naturally selected to be more intelligent, as surviving the winter was a life or death struggle, stupid people died in the cold as they didnt prepare. its no different to west africans becoming amazing athletes, as surviving local predators required running for your life, naturally unfit people were eaten, it didnt matter how intelligent you were if you couldnt outrun the slowest tribe member when the lions were hungry, kind of like how herding animals still operate in nature. also there was never a period of the year where food wasnt available, you didnt need the intelligence required to harvest or store food.
also no bumping a slide thread
>lewontin's fallacy
into the trash it goes
>There's no sensible reason to expect that, because all humans faced nearly identical selective pressures until the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago, and there hasn't been enough time for much evolution since
patently false
you can change the words as much as you want, black people are more violent, whites are vegetables, yellow dont have feelings, japanese are virgins who breed with androids europoors like to be fucked in the ass. jews are merchants.brazilian hue hue argentina is white, australia was conquered by emus, germany is cucked.
see? its clear
>And importantly there is more genetic variation between "races" than between them.
That's a non-sequitur. You still inherit your genetic payload from your ancestry, and it's apparent to anyone who is paying attention that regardless of the 'differentiation' within races, North Europeans are still the most accomplished by every measure.
>lewontin's fallacy
>, because all humans faced nearly identical selective pressures until the invention of agriculture,
right the guys who lived in contanst fear of lions, sufered the same adversity that brazilian indians did.
yeah user you're a tard.
What does that picture prove?
i blame the negro culture, it puts down almost all blacks.
>stupid people died in the cold as they didnt prepare
This is an outmoded theory. The arrival of white peoples was largely a genetic accident. It expressed itself as ferocity and intelligence (whereas for Hebrews it expressed itself solely as intelligence) which led to the establishment of cultural institutions which furthered the eugenic project. Even today a ton of whites are unexceptional because their families haven't been subject to this selection process, and as outbreeding among the middle and upper class becomes more common, that genetic legacy is at risk of being lost forever.
no because iq is idiotic methood to measure ones inteligence.
if you ask for an europoor to survive in the savanna for 1 week he would not be able to.
but ask him to do a simple math count, 5x10 i asure you he will be able to.
its about your experiences.
meanwhile the average african of the tribe can and will survive mostly of his live on the wild.
>"Race" implies discontinuous subsets
it doens't
> but human variation is continuous
by that standard there are no species either
>whereas for Hebrews it expressed itself solely as intelligence
hahaah what about greedyness too user?
If you drop a lion in the savannah it will also survive better than a european, and probably better than your average african. You have a far more retarded methodology for measuring intelligence than iq tests thats for sure. But desu the only reason iq tests are a good measure is because they tend to be heavily g-loaded
A simple mans race realism
>You are at the Olympic games
>Who wins the Running
>Who wins the swimming
>Who wins the gymnastics
Why would our intellectual capability be any different?
Good job, you debunked the argument no race realist has ever made. This wasn’t debuning race realism, you fucking retard. You distorted an argument
not really there are many cases where lions fron circus got caged their whole lifes, when released they simply are unable to hunt.
soo fuck off.
Don't forget the skillfulness in manipulation and subversion!
they must have evolved together with another culture!
as a para----- i mean simbiotic.
C'mon cunt, give us something else to pick apart. You had one goal when you made this thread, surely you've got shit to back up your position.
See the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.
Lol wtf is that supposed to mean? Are you admitting the only reason europeans would perform poorly if dropped in the savannah is because they probably wouldn't be educated in survivalism? That wouldn't make sense because you are supposed to be making a case against measuring intelligence (ie one's ability to absorb and utilise information, perform complicated tasksetc) nit "know how".
The semantic fallacy! Just define race to not exist.
This is, literally, Non-science.
>because all humans faced nearly identical selective pressures until the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago
We could argue if this is really true, but lets just accept it as true for the sake of argument
>and there hasn't been enough time for much evolution since
Completely wrong. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles. Events like the Black Death, or the Columbian Exchange make evolution happen within a generation. The fact that you admit that the invention of agriculture changed the selective pressures in humans means you admit that it influences the alleles in humans. To determine if it 10k years is "enough" to cause evolution in humans time is not the only variable we need to consider, but also general turnover of the population.
In terms of time 10000 years is 400 generations if each generation is 25 years, and 500 generations if each generation is 20 years. Its likely some where it between those two. Merely through genetic drift (random variations collected over time) we would expect some variation between populations, consider that the hardy-weinberg principle, which says that in the absence of selective pressures allele frequencies will remain the same, but only if the population is sufficiently large enough, which for most of human history the population of humans IN EACH isolated location (agriculturalized people don't move very much so they are effectively isolated from one another with the exception of the surrounding nomadic peoples or traders) was relatively small.
General estimates for the world population in 8000BC are between 5-10 million, and only really started to ramp up beyond the tens of millions with the advent of civilization in 4000BC, which means that even if agriculture didn't cause different selective pressures, the mere fact that for 4000 years relatively small groups of people didn't move around would mean that genetic drift would cause the different locales to be different. (continued)
That study neglects environmental variables there are many external influences that could've effected the results of that study.
>what do you mean these pictures are different, if I zoom in on any 4 pixels they look exactly the same
>stop zooming out to see the differences, my 4 pixel standard is law
I didn't define race to not exist I'm just looking at the facts
it wasnt a genetic accident, it was natural selection. people with light skin could survive with less sunlight, light coloured eyes can see better in the dark, the ferocity was a product of intelligence as killing your rivals for limited winter resources was the intelligent thing to do.
i could write 10,000 words on the modern state of white genes and their issues, youre right to say its eugenics, much of it managed especially through the industrial revolution in europe but mostly the bi product of tech advances artificially supporting people. we select for different traits now than we did even 30 years ago and although we have lost much, we have gained in other areas.
we're in an odd position here in the uk actually, the white birthrate is increasing but its among the lowest tier of whites, as for now at least the welfare state has become so generous that children are actually a resource again like they were during the subsistence ages or early industrial revolution.
personally id gas 90% of white people but thats another thread lol
Black people do not have an extra muscle in their legs . The claim that West Africans are more likely than others to have a gene that makes them better sprinters is not supported by the evidence, (see link here:forbes.com
>There's no reason to expect great genetic similarity between someone of Tunisian ancestry and someone of Scandinavian ancestry, despite some similarity in skin color.
If I put them next to a nigger, you can see that the differences inbetween the whites are negligible.
Light blue and turquoise are technically different colors on the spectrum, but the difference isn't meaningful when you compare them to red, yellow, or orange. You can group people the same way you group anything else on a spectrum.
No, you're not. You do an ad hom on every fact presented (bad study!), put forth staw man arguments (race is just skin color and therefore a "cline"), engage in semantic denial of term fallacies (define race not to exist), and are generally acting silly.
Perfect example of the race denialist - special rights for races when you want them, then race disappears when we start to really talk about the differences.
...
even destiny, a skeptic liberaltard, has admitted that the evidence for race realism is overwhelming. he just chooses to pretend it doesnt exist.
>Its not true if I used a different arbitrary word to describe it than the one you're using
Cline realism then, what now? Call it hoity-toity buggery-boo realism if you want, nobody cares.
You simply don't know you're talking about.
also whites and asians have neanderthal mixture. nigs do not, so ironically, when niggers call whites subhuman, technically they are right. niggers are more human then whites, its just that they left out the fact neanderthals where in fact highly intelligent.
>be white parent
>be dirty race mixer
>have mixed kid
>oh fuck, ihave leukemia
>go to doctor, ask for bone marrow transplant
>doctor says i need someone with similar genes
>suggest my child
>doctor keks, says that it wont work
>mfw a literal random white person has closer genes to me than my own mixed son
holy shit we need to meme this
Debunk genetics you god damned kike
Holy fuck I hate you
Everytime one of these threads is won you souless fucks slide it and start a new one.
I look forward to the day you are crusified and set on fire.
Interestingly, the web site for the national marrow donor program (Medical guidelines – who can join? ) asks about 33 characteristics of a possible donor. Race is not one of them, I wonder why?
>it wasnt a genetic accident, it was natural selection
Which arises due to genetic accident, you fucking mongoloid.
>personally id gas 90% of white people but thats another thread lol
Based on your failure to learn your own language I don't think any of that 90% needs to worry about you ever being in a position of power.
And when you find a match go ahead and tell me who they look like 99% of the time. They don't ask for race because people are mixed all over the place and they need as close as match as possible, they ARE looking for race, they're just doing so in an extremely specific and scientific way that does not rely on some idiot giving them a broad categorization of themselves.
self identified race correlated with actual biological race over 95% of the time
Having something like HIV would disqualify you from being a donor, because no one needs aids marrow.
Race wouldn't disqualify you from appearing on the registry, but it would disqualify you from donating to certain people.
Now that we have talked out genetic drift (which is the only part of evolution which is completely dependent on "time" (more accurately generations), all other factors are dependent on both "time" and general turnover)
When I refer to general turnover what I am talking about is selective pressures causing an increase or decrease in the populations of humans in certain locations according to certain characteristics. These selective pressures can be quick, or long lasting, basically random, or genetically selective.
For instance the Black Death killed about 50% of the population of europe (with the exception of some places like poland) and the remaining population had a genome that was more immune to the disease. The black death also targeted most of the old world, so the same effect was felt elsewhere. But in the 30 years war something like 30% of the german population was killed because armies would live off the land which meant people couldn't grow food because it would just get eaten by the armies. Its difficult to tell what effect this had on the german genome, as it could have been completely random or not (though it likely killed much more peasants than people of other classes). Similarly the mass killing perpetrated by the Romans and Mongols (also others but those are the ones I am familiar with) were also somewhat random, but did provide an opportunity for large gene turnovers. Now none of those turnovers might effect anything important, but the concept is important to consider when talking about turnovers that could be relevant but were much slower to happen, such as agriculturalization, which you had admitted yourself causes different selective pressures. Due to agriculture by the year 1000, after 9000 years, the population had reached about 300 million, which was an increase seen primarily among agriculturalized populations. If agriculture in different climates has different selective pressure then evolution definitely occurred
>If I put them next to a nigger
Are these two genetically different? Not in any real sense, no. Then how come they look so different? The answer, is, of course, massive genetic inbreeding - especially in the case of the guy on the left.
Inbreeding produces physical attributes which are actually multi-genic: all members expressing the characteristic have exactly the same copies of lots and lots of genes, spread across lots and lots of chromosomes. Any deviation from the standard set is liable to remove or reduce the characteristic, and such effects are only possible because the available pool of genetic difference, drawn from, is so small as to ensure that it persists.
So the guy on the left, above, is not genetically all that different from the one on the right: he simply has a very highly selected combination of genes which ensure he looks like he does. Break that special mixture up, and you get something like this:
...
Not to mention that non-agriculturalized populations would have completely different selective pressures on them than agriculturalized
Due to nomadic tribes raiding and raping settled populations, these genes would periodically be reintroduced into the genepool, so areas without widespread agriculture would still be genetically more nomadic even if they nominally had agriculture for the same amount of time
Kek, yes sweetie.
>when genetically distinct breeds interbreed they produce an intermediate form therefore distinct breeds do not exist
HAHHAHAHAAA
>race implies discontinuous subsets
not really.
youre going to have to define genetic accident in this context desu, to me it sounds like youre using that term to describe all genetics as being accidental and then natural stress picks a winner rather than the relationship being the other way around.
so am i reading you right by saying if (for example) all people in the middle east and europe are similar, when an ice age hits europe and only the palest skinned and intelligent people survive to breed, its a genetic accident that some humans were capable of surviving in the first place before natural selection refines their genes?
Not at all what I said don't debate someone of something if you have no idea what you're talking about.
colours dont exist
its only really your interpretation of the word that implies it.
>not really
Lmao bravo.
Humans are around 99% similar from one another.
Humans and macaques are around 98% similar.
We are also around 50% banana, does eating fruit turn us into cannibals?
you are the person who has no clue what you're talking about, you deny race realism you deny evolution you are basically a creationist
see
When you look at blood or eyes maybe. I'll let Alt Right Scieneman explain
I am a nationalist, i don't care for this argument at all. Try debunking the fact that i am russian. Good luck
>But if you look at just one or even ten places on the genome, it's impossible to be certain which population they came from.
Then quit cherry picking genomes faggot.
When people are talking about evolution and time, what it implies they are talking about is genetic drift, which random changes in allele frequencies independent of selective pressure. Time if only semi relevant when talking about selective pressure, in that it is only relevant in so far as more time allows more selection to occur, but its only relevant insofar as it causes the integral to increase, what is ultimately important is the integral, and the integral can be quite large even in the time is small under certain conditions
Agriculture and Civilization caused massive selective pressure changes as evidenced by the fact that the population increased by an order of magntiude in the first 4000 years after the advent of agriculture, and another order of magnitude with civilization in the next 4000 years. The last 2000 years led to another order of magnitude increase. That level of change combined with the fact that there was lots of turnover means that the integral was large despite the time being relatively small (according to you, 400-500 generations seems like a lot to me)
>Humans are around 99% similar from one another
this isn't exactly true
I agree Humans share 99% DNA with Chimpanzees.
We share more than 99.99% with eachother.
Genetically speaking, i read that, if you have something to disprove it I'd stand corrected.
Are you talking about Neanderthal and Denisovan genes? In which case yes, but not everybody in Europe and Asia hold those genes.
>Are these two genetically different?
Is the pug different from the doberman relative to the difference between two pugs. If you run cluster tests, you'll find they're different genetically.
