Is the snek correct?

Is the snek correct?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88
ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/human-skull-challenges-out-africa-theory-001283?page=2,0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>blacks are inhuman monsters
Tell me something new

>half latino half white
>identified as asian to other whites
wut

The only thing about negros is the lack of intelligence, but that can be improved right? With good food and education, everyone can have a high IQ right?

>With good food and education, everyone can have a high IQ right?
No. And they also look like shit molded into a rough facsimile of a human.

Bumping for science.

Sa-Sa-Sa-Science Science. Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Where are the proofs?

>indians in European part

> look like shit molded into a rough facsimile of a human
true, but to us they are ugly, altough beauty is subjetive too, but IQ is objetive and that's why I hate them, I can tolerate that they don't have white beauty the same way asians don't have white beauty, but damn IQ is too important to me, that build good society and improve the human development

IQ is linearly related to SAT scores.

So according to this, Danish and English people are the most evolved.

Neat.

Do you fucking retards even know what "species" are ?

Whites can reproduce with blacks, therefore blacks are human. Fuck off with this unscientific shit, you make us look bad.

*monotonically

Lol, no. It's never been that simple.

Yes, because thats how speciation works. Distant populations diverge over time. and genetic distance is a rather accurate system for judging descent and divergence.

...

...

How do you deal with this as a black person? Fucking shit how do you retards expect someone deal with this piece of information? Oh shit im not human i guess i better accept that. You fucking dummies do worst by encouraging this shit.

Also which one are mexicans btw?

This picture is just the Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward flowchart

this is reddit this is memes this is reddit this is memes

Horses can reproduce with donkeys too

I had two year in uni studying taxonomy. From Systematic Entomology to Plant Taxonomy. It was grueling but one thing I realized is that humans do not classify our own species appropriately (with the same rigor that we classify all other plants/animals in the kingdom). At best we are all related on a Genus level, but the historical African is most definitely a different species than say a Native American or early European. The reason people think Evolution is not happening is because we are so vague about describing our own species. Actually interbreeding between races is creating hybrids everyday and some offspring have distinct advances. Unfortunately our evolution is not progressing towards anything because we have modern science and medicine and its actually the less educated and the less financially stable people that reproduce more. Which brings into light a question on the Ethics of Population Eugenics.

Its a topic that I find fascinating but I never bring up with anybody ever because as soon as you do you are compared to Hitler. There are a lot of reasons why it will never work. Humans are emotional, not objective. We are self-limiting. We care more about individual rights than progression for our species or for humanity in general.

Apparently fall under Mongoloid/Caucasoid

I'm afraid Sup Forumsrother, if we put political correctness over the truth we'll destroy humanity.

Putting political correctness over the truth is smooshing the black community in America.

The solutions are out there, inform the community.

>The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative
youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88

>abo master race

>South Chinese aren't actually asians but Austronesian subhumans.
This makes a lot of sense.

>care more about individual rights than progression fo rour species or humanity in general
because as soon as someone finds out they're just a piece in a much larger machine, they freak the fuck out.

Yes, but the offspring is infertile.

>A. Wyatt Mann
still butthurt about getting BTFO'd by TRS

OP misrepresented the data he presented. This isn't an evoutionary tree. Its a branch showing genetic distance, its not a "progression" showing who is more or less advanced.

Read my other post All races have some desirable traits that have helped them to survive.

So this is what happens when dummies try to comprehend phylogenetic trees...

You are misrepresenting OP's argument.

He said they're not part of the human race, that they're distant.

The plot is one of genetic distance.

True. The blacks have learned to live off of everyone else for their survival, much like dogs.

>not knowing how a phylogenetic tree works
This shit is pretty simple, it just means blacks are more related to our last non human ancestor than anyone else. If you Sup Forumssters want to spin it to your agenda and say that the blacks are the least evolved human race on earth.

You fail bio101
I'll give you a quick lesson:
>all organisms within a species must be able to produce fertile offspring
HOWEVER
>simply being able to produce viable young DOES NOT automatically group organisms into the same species.
There are thousands of species that can hybridize and have fertile offspring.
Btw- ligers are not sterile.
First highly documented case of a liger giving birth was at the new York zoo in 1942.
A cross between a lion and a liger is called a Liliger.

Yes there is the biological species concept, phylogenetic species concept, evolutionary species concept, morphological species concept, etc.

Species boundaries become blurry in many organisms, but to argue that Africans, whom we descended from relatively recently, are different species is absurd.

Interbreeding with the shortest genetic distance is called incest, so naturally, I would expect this argument to crop up on Sup Forums.

It's not just a tree - vertical axis is genetic distance, you dummies.

So where Brazilians (South Amerinds + Europeans in general + Blacks in general) fall into?

In your DNA

>doesn't know anything past the sexual species definition he learned in middle school
>calls others unscientific

By taxonomy standards they would be labeled a different species.
Remember, its not similarities that group organisms together- its the differences that split them into different species or sub species.

If I found a group of squirrels living isolated on an island- and they all had purple hair, they would at minimum be classified as a new sub species, since no other squirrels have purple hair. Even though that was the only difference.

>It's not just a tree - vertical axis is genetic distance, you dummies.
Which is why I said phylogenetic tree not cladogram.

Just stop before you look even more out of your element.

Hybrids- they're not natural so no longer a species or sub species.

I admit I'm a physicist by trade.

Then you landed on the wrong branch whitey. Asians have demonstrably higher IQ than Europeans.

Taxonomy is largely based on subjective interpretation of characters. There are no hard-and-fast rules based on genetic distance or morphological characters.

OP's tree uses Africans as the outgroup, so obviously they are going to be outside of the main human lineages. If you increased the sampling, included other primates, and had a better outgroup the topology would change.

Subspecies and other subspecific taxonomic ranks largely exist for humans to delineate populations. And again, there is no real objective criteria for what a subspecies is or isn't across kingdoms.

My uncle has a hunting permit that has been passed down in his family for over 100 years.

The permit goes as follows.

>2 giraffe
>1 Rhino
>4 Sprinbok
>2 bushman

Kinda weird, I feel bad because the bushman were quite peaceful but yeah they were not seen as actual humans.

He even told me about "a bushmans trap" quite funny how they did it but at the same time evil.

>implying genetic distance means anything in this case
Mind you, the genetic distance unit was never specified in OPs picture. So the vertical distances may be exaggerated because no actual numbers were given to show how much separation exists.
Again, all this picture shows is that blacks are the closest related to our common ancestor

OP didn't say anything about who is more or less advanced.

There is no "progression" from less advanced to more advanced in evolution, only a change from ancestral to derived forms. Some traits are developed over time and traits are lost over time. Evolution does not follow a specific direction.

Higher AVERAGE
Whites have a greater range, both high and low.
There are more genius level whites on the planet than Asians (but theres also more retarded whites than Asians)

That's a beautiful negro. Not in the "I would tap that" way. Kinda fascinating and smooth features with the contrasting red colored accessoires. Not used to seeing blacks looking non-vulgar and dignified.

>Abos are somehow more human than Blacks

dont even care about the content but why the FUCK would you orient the chart like this??? on its fucking side. all the shit you have to read - ON ITS SIDE.


absolutely beyond retarded. flip THAT SHIT

Europeans evolved independently, yes.

>The ‘Petralona man’, or Archanthropus of Petralona, as it has since been called, was found to be 700,000 years old, making it the oldest human europeoid (presenting European traits) of that age ever discovered in Europe. Dr Poulianos’ research showed that the Petralona man evolved separately in Europe and was not an ancestor of a species that came out of Africa.

ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/human-skull-challenges-out-africa-theory-001283?page=2,0

>closest related to our common ancestor

Does that mean it's saying they're 'less evolved'??

Snek is bestgirl and is always right.

are mestizos eurasian?

Most abos aren't violent savages. They're just lazy bums.

So in that regard, yes. They're more human, despite their orc like appearances.

>bushman

This image is absurd and appeals to uneducated people.

There are species of fungi that look virtually identical but belong to separate phyla. There are also species of fungi that look radically different but belong to the same genus.

I don't expect the average Sup Forums to understand things like homoplasy, synapomorphy, autapomorphy, and evolution and taxonomy in general. Just realize you have a belief and will cherry pick data you really do not understand to support this belief. This is why the "mainstream" doesn't take these apparently obvious revelations seriously.

Having higher variation means nothing. You do know offspring regress towards the mean. You also know that the higher IQ members tend to produce fewer offspring. And if that's not bad enough, the dumbest typically end up killing the smartest.

Higher average is better. You're a genetic sideshow. The real humans are Asian.

>There are no uncivilized ethnicities

Sure thing leaf

explain the bushman trap pls

>Does that mean it's saying they're 'less evolved'??
Evolution isn't static so "less evolved" isn't really correct terminology. You would say they are basal to other lineages.

Top to bottom literally looks like going backwards on an evolution chart

>Misrepresenting OP's argument
>OP said their not part of the human race

The claim that blacks aren't part of the human race is categorically false. If you have studied anthropology the historical lineage of mankind is quite clear, the discrepancies over some of the intermediates really don't impact the outcome. We are all Homo Sapiens (or what you call humans) and the graph which OP used to make the claim Blacks are not part of the human race distinctly includes blacks as part of the homo sapiens.

I am clarifying an actual point which can be made about the taxonomy of humans with respect to races. "Race" isn't a taxonomicaly useful term to begin with. "Human" isn't exactly useful either.

Well, what you said is partially true although you didn't say it properly. I reiterate, blacks are humans they stem from homo sapiens and I think the are different on a SPECIES level. Now, a common misconception is that species are determined by the ability to produce viable offspring. This is true in the sense that the offspring with species must be viable, but it is not mutually exclusive. (meaning it doesnt exclude genus level breeding to create viable offspring)

This thread is full of people not understanding the terms they are using.

Accurate. Everyone including OP is misinterpreting the OP image.
>No hard-and-fast rules based on genetic distance or morphological characters.
This is why there is so much controversy today even about naming species. Biologists literally spend years arguing over if one beetle should be a separate species than another. Its not as simple as people ITT want it to be

Blacks are actually perfectly evolved for living in the African wilderness just not in civilized society.

>There are no uncivilized ethnicities
Point out where you got this idea from my post. I'm curious.

This chart does not seem accurate.

How the fuck do australoids diverge directly from Africans like that? They came from poo in loos I thought?

The chart doesn't make sense chronologically and seems like someone pulled it out of their ass

They would take one of their kills and put it in the shade close to a tribe.

The hunters would come and eat as much as they could, pass out in the shade and they would rush them on horse back.

Quite dubious.

I quite liked the species definition one of my systematics professors uses.

Two populations are different species if they maintain genetic integrity while living in the same environment.

Although this can be vague at times too. In some places the two varieties of insect will interbreed to produce hybrids, while in others the same two varieties will not breed with each other

Much is based on interpretation, this is true.
But there are still accepted standards.
Since it was proven that lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring, nobody has suggested that they should be the same species.
Colubrids (a family of snakes) is constantly having genus/species/subspecies shuffled and reshuffled.

That doesn't change the fact that there is a drastic difference between sub Saharan Africans and all other races.

are dog breeds considered different species?

>This is why there is so much controversy today even about naming species. Biologists literally spend years arguing over if one beetle should be a separate species than another. Its not as simple as people ITT want it to be
I'm a fungal taxonomist and I've seen intense shouting matches at conferences over nomenclatural changes.

I don't care about people thinking what they think about blacks, but it annoys me when they try to justify their beliefs with a rudimentary and erroneous understanding of evolution, taxonomy, and nomenclature.

What's the end game - blacks are declared a separate species and you can feel superior to them? What would change and how would this better your life?

'Dindu IQ is around 85.' That's over 1 standard deviation below our white average. Every study and test shows that blacks lag behind other races consistently and severely, regardless of their background or upbringing. With blacks being 1/8th of the US population, they are essentially becoming an underclass of unintelligent, dangerously uneducated simpletons.

This fact is suppressed at every turn. Most just don't want to hear it.

This is another co fusing aspect.
You can have 2 identical populations of frogs, separated by a mountain range. So they never interact or cross breed. Even if they're genetically identical, they would still be considered 2 separate sub species.
You could also have 2 groups of frogs living in the same pond. One group breeds in the spring, the other breeds in the fall. Since they're never cross breed because of that simple trait, they would be considered different sub species. Even though the only gene that varied was the one controlling their breeding cycle.

Technically not, because Africans can breed with whites or any other humans and have fertile children. That is the basis for something being 'human' or not.

>Falling for the leaf posting meme

I'm just giving you shit m8. Don't take the b8 too hard when you're trying to defend your field of study.

"I believe that whoever tries to think things through honestly will soon recognize how unworthy and even fatal is the traditional bias against Negroes." -- Albert Einstein, smartest man in history.

alright alright you got me...

"Breed" is synonymous with sub species.
Man made sub species basically.
Coyotes can produce fertile young with dogs or grey wolves- but coyotes are a separate species and will never be regrouped.

>mfw I look caucasiod with black hair, brown eyes and slightly darker skin tone

False.
Read the thread since you have a poor understanding on taxonomy.

>(South Amerinds + Europeans in general + Blacks in general

Triracials?
What a balanced triracial looks like?

are you from north

That's just his Jewish cultural bias for multiculturalism coming out.

It has nothing to do with the fact he was the greatest physicist. Appeal to authority.

yfw when you really dont and are a piece of shit

I am on the side that thinks we could (and should have) classified historically geographically isolated populations of man as different species. Not as an inferior/superior but rather as a pre-global travel snapshot of how man had evolved quite differently in different parts of the world.

I would seperate modern man as most are now some sort of hybrid from the original populations and we could even forecast what mankind may look like in a few centuries after more mixing. Evolution is happening before our eyes but people think nothing is changing because we have refused to hold human taxonomy to the same rigor we use on other members of the plant/animal kingdom. Darwin was called a racist for attempting to do this when I truly think he was just trying to be objective. I admit though, we can't change things now though because of linguistics/culture people being called different species wouldn't taxonomically mean much, but people would take it personally to mean all-out war.

>theoretical phycisist
>thinks his opinions on biology matters
As all other super smart people, he was good at one thing.

We all know that normies will bring up
>hurr durr how come we can into race mixing
What will our answer be?
No meme-tier answers, please, I really want to convert normies.

Th example we were always given was about a certain type of birds in the northern arctic.

Populations of these birds live in a continuous ring around the globe, but are separated by the Atlantic. Birds from NA and birds from western Europe cannot produce viable offspring, but birds from the east coast can breed with birds in Alaska, which can breed with birds in Siberia and so on, so there is gene flow between all populations. Where do you draw the dividing line between species here?

Shit gets even more fucked with bacteria

>ITT: uncited infographics and debunked pseudoscience are legit sources

and you faggots complain when leftists use science for political purposes L M A O

I would go with

Completely different type of skin, different bone structure, different mind, different health problems, and nothing like any other race.

Really makes you think.

I don't complain but I do whenever they ignore scientifical evidence that blacks are not the same species as whites.

The average latin american my friend.

DESIGNATED

The term "human" doesn't even have place in this discussion really. If you're talking about Homindae, you are on a family level and you include neanderthals. If you are referring to homo sapiens and saying Africans shouldn't be included that is also false based on the description of a homo sapien.

You guys are literally trying to argue a taxonomic ranking that doesn't exist. What level of ranking do you think they belong together?

Also having fertile offspring does not deliniate what makes a hominidae and hominidae. If you are talking homo sapiens, again, its not a mutually exclusive requirement. You could still separate species which can produce fertile offspring at a genus level.

I don't understand where you guys want the distinction to lie.