What were these guys up to before the Euros came?
Some did not even have fire
>>459897
Burnt land protein management.
Eel farming.
Making up really convoluted stories about big rocks and forcing their kids to memorize them
>>459897
Are these guys even human?
>>459897
I heard they had spaceships and were well on their way to colonising Mars.
Just remember, all ethnic groups and cultures are 100% equally good at everything, they are just 'different', and if you use logic or science to dispute this you are a bigoted racist.
Speaking literally thousands of different languages. Tribes in the north were generally more advanced because they interacted with asians (who introduced the dingo). Also Aboriginal societies went through periods of growth and decline. There is very technical and intricate, human-focused rock art painted over with primitive dreamtime shit that dates thousands of years later
>>459967
First post you quoted fits your complaint, the second one arguably has much to do with historical analysis of people. History and politics have things to share.
>>459967
I think it's about time we eliminated the "There's no crossover between /his/ and /pol/" meme.
>>459984
This
/pol/ is rotting shit, but lets not pretend they don't rightful bleed over in subject.
>>459984
There is a crossover between history and politics, but /pol/ isn't about politics, it's memes about Jews and niggers, and flamewars over the ethnicity of your ideal gf.
slowly starving them selves to death through ecosystem destruction.
>>459999
The problem isn't it's subject matter, but the people. It's why I like /int/, it's like /pol/, but lite and not shitty.
>>459967
It is relevant though. Modern history has been manipulated by 'social justice' types to such a great extent in the last few years that it's on topic and relevant to mock it.
No one is questioning whether people should be treated equally in the modern age, it's just pointing out that in the past, certain people and cultures were not on par with others in many regards.....they of course would have some things they were great at.....but to say they were all 'equal' is retarded.
>>459967
Have you ever met an Abo?
Also, I looked it up. Heavy Denisovian admixture. Probably not human.
>>460024
That does make them human tho
I know new zealand had a maori kingdom. Did Australia have organized aboriginal kingdoms and states?
>>460033
No. They had no domesticatable plant/animals and thus no farming. No farming means no civilization
>>460048
Why couldn't they domesticate kangaroo
>>459897
Chillaxing probably for 10,000 yrs then the white trash came
>>460187
>10,000
try 60,000 years
>>460067
>why couldn't they fence this mammal that's specialized for jumping
Gee, I dunno.
>>460191
Let's look at what other mammals they could have domesticated.
>koalas
>possums
Climb over fences.
>wombats
Specialized at digging
>dingos
The one thing they did kinda domesticate, not really "native" though.
I wish thylacines still existed ;_;
>>459897
Eating dirt
>>459897
didgideroos and frisbees?
>>460222
Trips of truth
>>460067
you ignored the part about plants
>>460067
Some animals are just not meant for domestication.
>>459939
eel farming, huh? weird
they invented the woomera (a stick), the boomerang (a curved stick) and the digeridoo (a hollow stick)
but they seemed to have gotten along just fine with these inventions so eh
>>459950
>just found "intro to anthropology"
>there's discussion about what is human
Even homo erectus & neandertal share many technology with majority of homo sapiens history, so why bother asking wether they're human.
>>460212
Yes I'm sure this is why they failed to create a civilisation, not like they could have farmed plants or anything....
All of your argument is based on the ASSUMPTION that they are equally as capable at certain things as every other type of people in the world...which makes no scientific sense at all... Ethnic groups evolved and adapted to specific environments, no one bats at eye at the fact that West Africans have won almost every single sprinting competition since they were allowed to compete in the Olympics, meaning they have a genetic advantage..... But everyone screams racism when it comes to other attributes.
It boggles my mind that people fail to understand, or acknowledge basic biological concepts of adaption when it goes against their personal beliefs. It's seriously as bad as Christians denying evolution.
>>460415
IIRC there has only been one native australian plant domesticated in modern times, the Macadamia tree.
Not many options for fauna/flora domestication desu senpai
>>460420
Lol
They even think rice may have originated in Australia....
>http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-11/wild-rice-australia-linked-to-main-varities-developed-in-asia/6764924
>>460432
>rice may have originated in Australia
The article says that wild rice in Australia seems more genetically diverse, and potentially more similar to the ancestral Asian rice
but sure, I don't know much about paleolithic rice cultivation, maybe in cape york were it's found it could have been possible, that being said cape york is in the monsoonal region and the water for rice farming would also come with a fuck load of crocodiles
>>460450
I live close to the area. There are crocodiles everywhere up north here, yet the aborigines have still lived here for thousands of years.
I know people from some of the original tribes in the area.
>>460469
I meant more if they tried farming rice up north, wading through a flooded rice field with crocs possibly anywhere might be a problem
t. Brisbane
>>460415
Seeing as plenty of aboriginal peoples have proven to be entirely capable of existing and thriving in 'Western' societies, your claim that they AREN'T capable is the one that seems retarded to most people.
Daily reminder that tribalism is a mental defficiency.
>>459950
Hypothetically if they weren't would you still go out of your way to be an asshole just because they aren't?
>>460415
>no one bats at eye at the fact that West Africans have won almost every single sprinting competition since they were allowed to compete in the Olympics, meaning they have a genetic advantage
The number of East Africans who dominate long distance running far outstrip the West Africans who domiante in Sprinting. In reality it's the diaspora in the New World that are the champs of sprinting.
At least from the mid 17th century (so after Janszoon, Tasman, and de Torres had explored the coast), but possibly earlier, Sulawesi and Timorese fishermen and traders made voyages to Arnhem Land in northern Australia for sea cucumber which was a delicacy in China.
Yolngu mythology mentions another group of voyagers, the Baijini, supposedly from before the Indonesians arrived. They are described as growing rice and living in stone houses, and some historians think they might have been chinese, the name coming from the chinese word bei meaning north
>>460565
>They are described as growing rice and living in stone houses
Source? sounds interesting
>>460415
>failed to create a civilisation
They didn't have the narrow minded, colonialist and anthropocentric concept of civilization you have. This idea of "we bring progress" is a sad attempt at political legitimation for pillaging and conquest. It is an ideological category because you have no scientific (epistemological) grounds to justify the superiority of a culture.
>Ethnic groups evolved and adapted to specific environments
You cannot explain cultural phenomena with biological science alone, this is called reductionism.
>people fail to understand, or acknowledge basic biological concepts of adaption
You are just projecting your ideology into some scientific categories. You are completely ignorant of the political dimension and implications of what you think is "neutral objective" knowledge.
>>460518
this point you're arguing is moot, as if a 0,5ms better potential running speed was even minimally important or determinant for anything regarding the meaning of being human.
>>460587
>They didn't have the narrow minded, colonialist and anthropocentric concept of civilization you have. This idea of "we bring progress" is a sad attempt at political legitimation for pillaging and conquest. It is an ideological category because you have no scientific (epistemological) grounds to justify the superiority of a culture.
What revolting nonsense. I'll have to assume you're a first year student to be spouting this kind of ultrapoliticized junk.
A narrow minded view of civilization versus barbarism? Said you on your miraculous electronic machine across the globe. Progress is real and measurable - that's why you want to root it out with semantics - the fact of it is so fundamentally irrefutable that you *need* to pretend it doesn't exist in order to support the jenga tower of your politics.
Reductionism works. In fact it's the only place you're going to find real science. Anything else stinks of ideology.
Civilization is real. Progress is utterly obvious and you've been taught to make yourself blind to it.
>>460593
>Papuans DID undergo a Neolithic Revolution
yes, and they grew taro, yam, bananas and sugarcane, and later had domesticated pigs
are these Australian species?
>>460595
Not that guy, but I can't make any cohesion out of what you are trying to say.
What on earth does the singular invention of the computer tell us about Aboriginals and the myriads of environmental factors that shaped their civilization in relation to what shaped yours and mine?
Are you arguing that it is a racial thing? A cultural thing? An environmental thing?
Seems you are just spouting your bogeymen with blanket projections.
>>460593
> all plants and animals are equally useful
I know right. It's shouldn't have been a problem that people in the Americas or Sub-Saharan Africa didn't have access to cattle or horses, they had lions and guinea pigs. Niggers are just stupid.
>>459897
Firestick farming
>start forest fire
>let it burn while the animals run for their lives
>kill animals fleeing for shelter
>fire burns for a few days, weeks, months even (they didn't exactly have fire departments back then)
>go into the burned forest and eat the suffocated and cooked animals
Pretty genius really, until the entire continent ran out of forest...
>>460190
No 10,000
>>460595
you didn't actually address his argument
>>460671
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mungo_remains
>>460685
The mungo man was proven to not be the same race as the modern Australian aboriginal
>>460693
I'd guess that's due the DNA deterioration from the remains being 40,000+ old
>>460701
http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm
I found a much better article a few months ago but I couldn't find it at the moment
>>460710
>Unlike the younger skeletons that had big-brows and thick-skulls, Mungo Man's skeleton was finer, and more like modern humans.
second paragraph in, this is completely wrong
https://theconversation.com/working-with-elders-and-return-of-first-australians-remains-23838
>this incredibly robust fossil has been a focus of much scientific debate.
Also that article seems to say investigation into the genetics hasn't been carried out
>>460587
0/10 see me after class for a good caning
>>460595
>barbarism
What you call civilization is the more dangerous barbarism, ready to genocide anyone for profit.
>Progress is real and measurable
and built on the blood of millions of innocents for a few.
> ultrapoliticized
Yes, and? You think you aren't? I admit it and therefore am able to consciously choose my political position. I recognize that not even science is exempted from politics and ideology. If you had even a minimal insight into the history of ideas, you'd realize that this has always been the case.
>Reductionism works. In fact it's the only place you're going to find real science. Anything else stinks of ideology.
Read a book, reductionism is an ideological operation par excelence.
>>460587
Civilization requires agriculture.
They were very primitive hunter gatherers of the australoid race who had a simple culture and did not make any advancements between the time they set foot on the Australian continent and the time that the British colonized their continent. They slept on the desert ground, burned grass, hunted things with sticks and stones and told their children folk stories. The most interesting things to say about them relate to anthropology and genetics because they are so unique and their way of life was a living picture of how other groups of humans lived 60,000 years ago.
>>459897
One group created a system of aquaculture for farming eels other than that they were hunter gatherers that were suprisingly uniform in how primitive they were a whole contintent and their tech and traditions were farily simmilar.
>>460490
>Seeing as plenty of aboriginal peoples have proven to be entirely capable of existing and thriving in 'Western' societies, your claim that they AREN'T capable is the one that seems retarded to most people.
Bahahahahahahaha
If you are even Australian, which I doubt, you have obviously not met many aborigines. I am from the northern part of Australia, where there are a great many of them. They are the bane of everyone's existence. From spearing each other, to shitting in the streets, to constant stealing and general assault. Aborigines are the cause of 90% of the problems where I'm from.
You have no idea at all. But yes, there are some who are decent intelligent people, but these are few and far between.
>>460883
>and compared to other hunter gatherer cultures Australian aboriginal, art (some of/if not the earliest), methods used to acquire food, etc were on par with other hunter gatherer cultures
Its a pretty sad claim when you can only find parity with peoples that only existed 3000+ years ago.
>people have no problem with the concept of subspecies when it comes to animals
>bring up differences between human ethnic groups that have adapted to different environments
>OMG NO HUMANS ARE ALL 100% EQUAL IN EVERY WAY RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
Seriously, humans aren't special....
>>460930
I'm pretty sure Europeans couldn't have developed from scratch in Australia. There is very little food, no animals that are capable of domestication, drought and bushfires are constant and everything tries to kill you.
>>460945
>language
>>460514
yes
>>460951
>language prevents evolution through natural selection
Wow, when did they make this discovery?
>>459999
Chequed my good sir. *tips fedora*
>>460946
>There is very little food, no animals that are capable of domestication, drought and bushfires are constant and everything tries to kill you.
Not really, you think cows were just hanging around Europe? It took an immesnley long and difficult process of domestication to get a vicious auroch to a cow. Kangaroos, and emus could have been domesticated likewise pigs and chickens would have been available through trade with the Javanese peoples.
>drought and bushfires are constant and everything tries to kill you.
This is a myth the east coast doesnt suffer from this problem nearly as badly as it is portrayed. Not only that but Aboriginials were the principal cause of bushfires as that was their best method of "hunting" in bulk.
>>460945
>I have literally no idea what phenotype means
>I have no idea about basic genetics cause I attended a shit school and/or didn't pay attention
>>460222
To be fair, dirt is sometimes the most efficient source of several essential minerals.
>>459950
They were once known as "fauna" in straya, so you could say they are not really human.
>>460969
>It took an immesnley long and difficult process of domestication to get a vicious auroch to a cow.
They were relatively tame and almost domesticated themselves.
>>461008
Stop making shit up or provide sources.
>There is a third kind, consisting of those animals which are called uri. These are a little below the elephant in size, and of the appearance, color, and shape of a bull. Their strength and speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have espied. These the Germans take with much pains in pits and kill them. The young men harden themselves with this exercise, and practice themselves in this kind of hunting, and those who have slain the greatest number of them, having produced the horns in public, to serve as evidence, receive great praise. But not even when taken very young can they be rendered familiar to men and tamed. The size, shape, and appearance of their horns differ much from the horns of our oxen. These they anxiously seek after, and bind at the tips with silver, and use as cups at their most sumptuous entertainments.
Yeah sounds mega tame.
>>459897
They were isolated without any means of inspiration or development. Imagine locking a bunch of stone age morons on an island. The whole world might take to space but if they have no contact with anyone else they just won't develop. Humans are adept at finding an easy position and remaining there. It has nothing to do with intelligence, it's all about circumstances.
>>461027
>They were isolated without any means of inspiration or development. Imagine locking a bunch of stone age morons on an island. The whole world might take to space but if they have no contact with anyone else they just won't develop. Humans are adept at finding an easy position and remaining there. It has nothing to do with intelligence, it's all about circumstances.
Not true they had contact with the relatively developed Javanese people
>>460969
>Not really, you think cows were just hanging around Europe? It took an immesnley long and difficult process of domestication to get a vicious auroch to a cow
Europeans didn't domesticate aurochs
>>459950
I hope you aren't being serious.
>>460024
>heavy
Up to 6% isn't heavy. Heavy would be around 20%.
>>460710
>>Unlike the younger skeletons that had big-brows and thick-skulls, Mungo Man's skeleton was finer, and more like modern humans.
No shit, the thicker skulls and big brows are recent in their physical development. They probably looked like other "black" Asians at the time.
>>460637
>didn't have access to cattle
Stop this meme, there is an African native subspecies of bovine spread throughout the continent.
>>460969
Europeans didn't domesticate cattle, can you stop lying?
>>461038
The fact that people living in caucus and the north of the near east did instead of celts and germans doesnt have much of a bearing on the inability of Aboriginal peoples to domesticate thier own native species
>>461034
And the Indians too, as some Indians went to Australia (and vice versa apparently), causing some admixture between the two groups.
>>461041
Let's be honest, they are closer to homo erectus than to homo sapien sapien.
>>461057
It kinda does. Domesticating the auroch is a trial and error process which, when done once, spreads everywhere it can, but isn't very likely to happen.
>>461057
He's referring to Europeans, not "Caucasians". You know, the people who domesticated the rabbit, rat, mouse, and reindeer. That's pretty much it.
>>461059
Aborigines have chins and a forehead., not to mention larger brains on average than Homo erectus. Your point is invalid.
>>461066
I didn't say they are homo erectus, I said they are closer to them than to us humans, retard.
>>461061
You stated that Europeans domesticated aurochs, modern breeds are descendant from populations domesticated in the middle east and India.
>inability of Aboriginal peoples to domesticate thier own native species
Please tell me about all the Australian species we have been able to domesticate post colonisation, and with modern understandings of genetics?
>>461062
>It kinda does. Domesticating the auroch is a trial and error process which, when done once, spreads everywhere it can, but isn't very likely to happen.
Yeah and they tens of thousands of years and species that were far less brutal than the auroch. Emus and Kangaroos alone are two potential domestic species which were neglected
>>461072
>You stated that Europeans domesticated aurochs, modern breeds are descendant from populations domesticated in the middle east and India.
I was wrong in using that as a definitive and exclusive example.
>Please tell me about all the Australian species we have been able to domesticate post colonisation, and with modern understandings of genetics?
There was no need. It takes a great deal of time to domesticate animals, it would make no practical sense to put the effort into domesticating these species when they already had superior ones for their needs.
However as Kangaroo meet becomes more popular we might see a shift here.
>>461076
>Emus and Kangaroos alone are two potential domesticABLE species
Why would you do that when you can just kill them for food anyway?
>>461076
>Emus and Kangaroos
So building substantial fences, and gathering all the food to sustain large domesticated herds in a continent as climatically variable as Australia (see El Niño) is more likely to succeed than hunting wild populations?
and these species still haven't been domesticated, just farmed like crocodiles are these days
>>461083
>Why would you do that when you can just kill them for food anyway?
Why would you domesticate a dingo when you could just kill it for food and to stop it from eating other animals you can eat?
Though seriously food stability would be the motivation
More stable food supplie
>>461070
You do know how physically diverse Homo erectus was, right?
>>461085
>
So building substantial fences, and gathering all the food to sustain large domesticated herds in a continent as climatically variable as Australia (see El Niño) is more likely to succeed than hunting wild populations?
Even if small scale nomadic pastorlism wasnt an option what you talk of would be quite sustainable not only are they already adapted for the climate but the weather in Australia is not nearly as devistating as you seem to make them out to be
>>461088
> food stability would be the motivation
Are you neglecting to consider that you must get more energy out of agriculture than goes into attempting to force it to work?
The available species, and climate of most of the country make this highly unlikely to be feasible.
and Aboriginals did develop eel aquaculture and lived in stone houses in a area where the conditions were suitable
http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/monmag/issue17-2006/research/research-eels.html
>>461085
>and these species still haven't been domesticated, just farmed like crocodiles are these days
For the same reason beavers havent there isnt the demand for it.
>>461059
>Erectus
>not Heidelbergensis
Then again, all of humanity is closer to Heidelbergensis than Erectus.
>>461095
https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:9786/effect_of_drough.pdf
Kangaroos declined by about 40% across 1 million square kilometers in eastern Australia in a 1982-83 drought over 4 months
>>461096
>Are you neglecting to consider that you must get more energy out of agriculture than goes into attempting to force it to work?
Nope, Im just not automatically assuming it would fail.
>The available species, and climate of most of the country make this highly unlikely to be feasible.
Most of them were not living in central Australia. The eastern and southern coasts had aviable species and climates that werent so hostile to domestication as to render it a pipe dream
>and Aboriginals did develop eel aquaculture and lived in stone houses in a area where the conditions were suitable
I know I mentioned it back here
>>460879
Australian Aboriginals are arguably the most prime example of wide scale anthropomorphic land modification in the world followed only by California tribes.
People inaccurately state they turned forests into desert, but the reality is the climatic shift that dried the planet to the extent that humans fled to rich bottom lands and intensify grain management also occurred there.
The forests became brush, they in turn created mosaic burns that 1. Created opportunity for fire loving grasses to grow luxuriantly beneath tree canopies increasing forage for the main hunted animals and seed for harvest 2. Fertilized key root plants 3. Prevent the wide spread high intensity fires that killed everything
Australian soil in general is very old, it's not fertile and salinity is an issue even with irrigation which make the issue worse.
Fact of the matter is the continent wide alterations maximized the plants in a way that did not have any foreseeable ecological negative effects that could cause collapse.
>>461104
>Kangaroos declined by about 40% across 1 million square kilometers in eastern Australia in a 1982-83 drought over 4 months
and sheep by only 14% despite their lack of adaption to the climate. Human care makes a huge difference.
>>461116
don't forget modern anthropogenic water sources
>>460584
I only just found out about the Bajini off Wikipedia
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=B040KquZAEIC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=Baijini&source=bl&ots=Ag0udoEyP6&sig=QSG2vwp3PbzKgeh52u9Vq1W-73Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUle2Bh_fJAhVM2WMKHRcxAfYQ6AEIQDAI#v=onepage&q=Baijini&f=false
>Yoortijing the Maccassar loaded up his boat. Barwal the dingo-man sat down and watched the Maccassars. "Pull up everything you have made," said Barwal. "Pull up the bamboo you have planted. Pull up your garden. Take everything. Take your iron, your nails with you...Go back to your country and stay there. This is my country. I sit down here"
>This myth has nothing to do with actual transactions with the Macassans but rather establishes the rightful abodes of people and their respective jurisdiction. From this primordially demarcated base, relationships among living people can proceed through trade. The problem of co-residence is probed more extensively in stories dealing with the Baijini, another class of trepangers. Said to be a more ancient people, they built substantial stone houses and established their rice-based agricultural subsistence in northern Australia. Whether these people were actual visitors or whether they were rather reflections of Aboriginal experiences during travels to southern Sulawesi transposed onto coastal Australia is largely irrelevant [to their role in mythology].
>>459897
They actually survived quite well during ancient times even forming villages of (relatively) complex houses with some being comparable to a small town! But climate change destroyed half the lush vegetation of Australia and as the populations focused on on what was left they caused and environment collapse, ending their heyday, then their fortunes went up and down for a millennia and they unfortunately happened to be in one of their nadirs during the colonisation period. They did have a complex culture at one point but they had seriously degregated since then and gone back to an almost feral state, and this would have pushed natural selection to create a more animalistic race hence modern abos
>>461119
Something which the aboriginals were capable of - even if it only meant sticking to great rivers like the Murrary) especially considering that the burden would be much less as they wouldnt be engaging on mass farming for global export.
>>461112
What did the cali tribes do?
>>461122
>They actually survived quite well during ancient times even forming villages of (relatively) complex houses with some being comparable to a small town!
Source?
>>460587
>They didn't have the narrow minded, colonialist and anthropocentric concept of civilization you have
>anthropocentric concept of civilization
all civilization is anthropocentric you utter dolt
>>460990
>I have no idea how evolution works.
>I think that because humans are incredibly closely related, that unique genetic variations would not have developed in specific environments that other populations don't share.
>>461052
Yes, but for most of their history, tsetse flies made it difficult to effectively husband them. Besides, they were introduced thousands of years after they became a popular breed in Eurasia, surely that head start matters.
>>460911
That may be, but the discussion is that they should somehow be inherently inferior, even to the point of being a different species. There are artists and inventors of Aboriginal origin, who are celebrated and recognized world wide, on their own merit.
That hardly applies to chimpanzees or orangutangs.
>>461141
see
>>460982
>>461126
I do remember a really good source but having trouble finding it, if I do I'll post but otherwise I guess ignore me
>>461142
>That may be, but the discussion is that they should somehow be inherently inferior
Why does no one here understand the concept of a bell curve? Of course if you have a decent sized population you are going to get outliers who are incredibly intelligent. It happens in every population.
I'm not saying they should be treated differently, or anything of the sort. I'm just saying that the assumption (because it definitely is an assumption) that all human ethnic groups are going to be 100% equally good at everything is completely stupid from a scientific point of view.
People have no problems with this concept when it comes to animals, but everyone gets up in arms about it when comes to different, isolated human populations. It makes no sense whatsoever.
>>461144
>>460982
I'm not talking about races. I'm talking about ethnic groups.
Of course humans share the vast majority of their genetics, but if you deny that there aren't unique adaptions that will have evolved in different populations to help them survive, then you are legitimately retarded, this is basic biology and how evolution works.
Animals adapt and develop unique variations due to their unique environment, humans are no different to animals in this regard....
Do you think non-caucasoids would ever have reached the level of development we currently have without outside interference?
>>461148
> I am not saying they should be treated differently
Then what is the whole point of your statement? The same outliers also exist everywhere else in the world, so what exactly is the argument you are making? That there are stupid aboriginals just as there are stupid Europeans? What does that tell us about anything?
Seeing as you quite rightly pointed out that there isn't sufficient evidence for us to act upon it in any way, and seeing as intelligence is pretty much impossible to quantify anyway, people generally don't waste their time discussing it. The social factors that contribute to nation state failure can be affected though, so of course they are the ones people focus on. Sitting around debating how many philosophers or rapists people of this and that skin color had is a dilletantic venture since it will always ultimately lead no where.
>>461154
Don't bother wasting your time with these retards. They derive their ethics and knowledge of anthropology from Guns, Germs and Steel and Stephen Jay Gould
>>461155
Do you think Europeans would have reached the level of development they currently enjoy without outside influences (for example agriculture from the middle east)
>>461155
that's about as retarded a question to ask as > do you think caucasoids would ever have reached the level of development they have without outside interference.
Looking at caucasians as somehow more developed because of a short head start due to a short, perceived advantage in the industrial revolution (which only occurred on its own in ONE country, not the entire caucasian sphere) is to look at history with 1,9 eyes closed.
>>461154
yeah, but evolution takes millions of years. Humans left Africa 60,000-120,000 years ago.
Besides, no evolutionary biologists have, to my knowledge, conclusively proven that it would have occurred anyway. Beyond simply things like some people being more resistant to sunlight and some being better at processing milk.
>>461164
>Beyond simply things like some people being more resistant to sunlight and some being better at processing milk.
This, only minor adaptation to severe conditions seems to have occurred, like Himalayan adaptations to altitude
>>461164
>yeah, but evolution takes millions of years.
To develop into a new species or subspecies, maybe. But Homo sapiens is quite young. The only subspecies that have actually existed besides us was Homo sapiens idaltu, and they looked pretty similar.
>>461175
>Himilayan adaptations to altitude
All thanks to our unseen, Heidelbergensis descended cousins Denisovans, more inbred than us, but less inbred than Neanderthals.
>>461178
*Himalayan
>>461157
>outliers
Australian Aboriginies have an average IQ of 68.
>it leads nowhere
Does it though? Should we expect aborigines to be able to adapt to the requirements of the modern world when they lack basic cognitive abilities?
>>461163
Yes, are you thick or just trolling?
>>461184
>History would turn out the same, even if a continent was isolated from outside influence
>>461189
to add to that, maybe it would end up similar, maybe it would take an extra 5000 years to reach the current level of development
>>461186
Sadly, we aren't even half as diverse as Homo erectus was.
>>461186
>dismissing intelligence tests because you don't like the outcome
See, this is why no one takes leftists and their cries of race equality seriously
>>461207
> because I don't like the outcome.
I never said that. But looking at a couple of squares and then correlating that with a persons future development is far too reduced a definition of intelligence, and what it takes to function in society, for my liking.
Besides, the people that actually take IQ tests tend to do so because they are vain. It has far more to do with measuring your dick than it does with intelligence, and it's typically done so some company can sell you stuff.
>>461175
>>461164
You realise that the genetic differences between dog breeds is almost indiscernible right? Yet you have St Bernards compared to Chihuahuas.
They've been running a selective breeding experiment with foxes in Russia for the last 40 or so years, they've created two completely different breeds, one incredibly violent, and one extremely friendly in just a few generations. Are you trying to tell me that humans would not have undergone significant evolutionary changes due to environmental pressures in 60,000 to 120,000 years?......
Lol.
Apparently they were only native peoples to nto invent the bow and arrow.
They still lagging a fair bit.
>>460048
>domesticatable plant/animals
You mean they didn't domesticate animals and they didn't farm, there are plenty they could have domesticated for food. I'm not saying they are dumb for not doing it but to say there were no animals that can be domesticated is untrue.
They have emus, they have dingos, and look at this shit http://alpinerice.com.au/
I do agree that it was much harder for them cause it was much harder for them to gain the knowledge in the first place. Europeans could learn the knowledge from easy things and then apply it to the harder to domesticate things later, but in Australia it was quite difficult to do since everything is tough and dangerous as fuck there.
>>461226
> selective breeding produces selective results in one cases, therefore random breeding should produce a result that fits my narrative
Well, if an apple tastes sweet I guess a banana must taste sour.
>>461231
> all animals are equally valid for domestication
I thought we went over this a million times.
An emu is not a chicken. There are differences
>>461237
Chickens didn't exist until humans made them exist
>>461238
yeah but not from emus
>>459982
Neat. A real answer. Didn't see that coming. Interesting.
>>461240
That's why I said it's hard but you can still selectively breed emus.
>>461245
They're easily the least advanced race of people ever, if Australia was never colonised they probably would have gone backwards somehow. They have nothing to be proud of and everything to be ashamed of.
>>460374
>digeridoo
pretty based instrument desu
>>461125
Same thing as them, smaller scale
>>461250
>They have nothing to be proud of and everything to be ashamed of.
Surviving in the Australian bush for thousands of years with just three variations of stick inventions is kind of cool. There's not much else to do there, really.
>>461255
animals did he same thing
>>461263
and i bet they're proud as punch about it!
Why does /pol/ insist on endlessly bullying abbos?
>>461234
> selective breeding produces selective results in one cases
Hahahahaha.
Yes, one off cases, like every single animal ever domesticated and all the different breeds of dogs, cats, chickens, mice etc
>therefore random breeding should produce a result that fits my narrative
Oh man, you really have no clue how evolution works do you? You realise I wrote under 'environmental pressure'? Natural selection ensures mutations that are beneficial are passed on. How do you not understand this?
>>461214
Except IQ tests have been shown to predict job success, among other things.
There's a reason why Google, IBM...virtually all large companies make applicants do cognitive testing, because it works....
>>460982
>not in genotype.
Lewontin, get out.
Your 1970s marxist propaganda has been thoroughly debunked thanks to the decrypting of the genome 15 years ago.
>>460415
>Ethnic groups evolved and adapted to specific environments
Yet you act like these differences just magically appeared instead of being in response to the environment. Australia simply didn't have the availability of native grains harvestable en mass with decent yield compared to other regions of the world. The soil even today is heavily fertilized in order to produce arable land with decent soil only really existing in fringes of the East, and the country is racked by droughts and frequent bushfires. It just wouldn't have been worth it.
>It boggles my mind that people fail to understand, or acknowledge basic biological concepts of adaption when it goes against their personal beliefs.
Except you have the whole thing totally ass backwards. Aboriginals didn't develop and hone "civilized" traits because the first steps to sedentary agricultural civilization just wasn't worth the effort in their environment. You act like Asians just immigrated to Australia and became petrol-sniffing Aboriginals the second their feet hit the shore.
>>461301
Yes, have you?
And yes, the notable anti-racists such as Lewontin and Gould who started the "there is no such thing such as race" meme were all self-avowed marxists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering
>>461318
Not him, but prove that IQ tests do not measure intelligence.
>>461283
IQ testing is utterly useless for measuring aptitude across the breadth of human experience.
For example, the problem solving skills desirable for being hired by a fortune 500 company aren't going to do shit for you in the bush.
>>461305
You're right about genetics but holy fuck stop sweating over the Marxist under the bed. Lots of people were Marxists before the horrors of the Soviet Union became public, you can't just slap the label "Marxist" on someone and act like it discredits everything they say, that's literally a mirror image of SJWs who scream "racist!" like it disproves the matter at hand, let alone tangentially related opinions.
>>461328
>You're right about genetics but holy fuck stop sweating over the Marxist under the bed.
>Lots of people were Marxists before the horrors of the Soviet Union became public, you can't just slap the label "Marxist" on someone and act like it discredits everything they say, that's literally a mirror image of SJWs who scream "racist!" like it disproves the matter at hand, let alone tangentially related opinions.
I'm not "slapping" a label upon them, they literally were SELF-AVOWED marxists. Read the preface to their political manifesto "not in our genes" :
>http://www.rudygarns.com/class/110/lib/exe/fetch.php/rose.pdf
Are you also against discrediting Lysenkoism?
>well, you know, lots of people were marxists back then, so you shouldn't criticize lysenkoism mmmkay?
>>461318
>You are comparing artificial selection to natural selection. You are clearly the one with no clue.
The point I was making was that a short selective breeding study on foxes, only 40 years old produced radically different breeds of foxes. So of course there is going to be significant changes in 60,000 to 120,000 years of natural selection for humans.
Are you fucking retarded or something?
>>461324
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence#Culture.27s_influence_on_intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views
It's a little hard to claim that something can "measure intelligence" when there isn't even a set definition of what intelligence is. IQ tests only measure what you do in them, arrange bunch of colored symbols.
>>461351
Please, I beg you, go to a university and write a paper on this based on the argumentation that
> _natural_ selection has clearly had noticeable effects on _humans_, because _artificial_ selection has had an effect on _foxes_.
It's apples and oranges, mate. You are talking about two different things.
>>461359
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence#Culture.27s_influence_on_intelligence
I love how there is not a single citation bracket save for a [citation needed] in that paragraph
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views
>Stephen Jay Gould
Please avoid quoting a charlatan who deliberately fudged his data to advance his political goals.
>It's a little hard to claim that something can "measure intelligence" when there isn't even a set definition of what intelligence is.
Are you a moron or just misinformed? There's a very clear definition of intelligence in the academic community : "g".
Here, read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
> IQ tests only measure what you do in them, arrange bunch of colored symbols.
...and the reason why IQ tests measure your ability to arrange colored symbols is because it is PROVEN that the ability to arrange colored symbols CORRELATES with the g factor. IQ tests are very highly loaded in g. If you don't know what "g-loaded" means I suggest you read the wiki article I linked to you.
I mean, how do you think IQ tests are constructed? A bunch of old white men gather in a room and tell themselves "all right boys, we need to construct an arbitrary test which will oppress minorities".
>>461363
Not him, but just curious, you don't believe that natural selection had an effect on humans? Why do africans and europeans have different skin color?
>>461363
It really does not.
You have two pressures for selection in these cases:
Natural selection in human evolution
Human selection in fox breeding experiment
Are you trying to say that natural selection does not work on human populations?
>>461294
>implying Marx was not a hardcore Darwinist who even measured the skulls of his visitors
It sure is /pol/ in here.
>>461376
Not that guy but the point is that you can't prove any causality between genetically defined brain functions (intelligence if you like) and the phenotype. To my knowledge there were several post-war studies trying to do that and they failed. Natural selection i.e. the pressure to solve problems in an enviroment applied to all humans everywhere.
>>459984
i'd rather we not
>>460968
lel XD XD
>>461372
>believing in psychometrics
Some things are non quantifiable anon. There certainly is a "psychic economy of desire," and "libido," excitement, sexual energy, is something that increases and decreases but it is impossible to quantify. The same happens with intelligence. Psychometrics produces arbitrary statistical generalizations that cannot reflect the infinite depth of human subjectivity.
>>459999
Agreed
>>460657
Did this actually happen?
Seems hilarious.
The Aborigines had the best and truest myths, that a human culture could invent.
In the beginning each man and creature had his own Dream, his own Dream-space, every being could traverse the virtual simulacra of his dream, traverse vast spaces of fantastical plateaus out of space and time,forming great "Songlines", or "dream-tracks". Thus the Aborigines never spoke a language of the earth, but a highly abstract language of dreams. Unlike other Animist cultures that had barriers and signals that separated the spirit world, from the waking/real world through the Numen (i.e. Shinto Japan), the Aborigines had no such distinction.
When the Aborigines went into torpor after the Whites had wiped them out, they took revenge on the Whites by way of trapping us within "Dreamtime", now all of the world is trapped within simulation and virtuality, reality is now dead. Now we live in the thousand plateaus of Dream, unable to wake up from the nightmare that Western Civilization become.
>>461345
>I'm not "slapping" a label upon them, they literally were SELF-AVOWED marxists.
Way to miss the point. I don't give a fuck whether the label is self-identified, it doesn't mean they were wrong about everything they said. It's as short-sighted as dismissing everything Aristotle said because he falsely claimed men have more teeth than women, or that Wittgenstein was wrong about everything because logical positivism is self-refuting.
>Are you also against discrediting Lysenkoism?
This is a total red herring irrelevant to the biological validity of race as a taxon. Marx himself didn't even believe in Lysenkoism you fucking mongoloid, it was a creation of the Soviet Union almost 50 years after he died. Marx was strongly influenced by Darwin as enabling a foundation for his materialist worldview and explicitly references this in Das Kapital, along with sending Darwin a copy of his book.
>The sky is brown because a Marxist said it was blue hurrr durrr
>>461586
"The strangest feeling one is left with after reading Bruce Chatwin' s Songlines is a lingering perplexity about the reality of the 'lines' themselves : do these poetic and musical itineraries, these songs, this 'dreamtime', really exist or not? In all these accounts there is a hint of mystification; a kind of mythic optical illusion seems to be operating. It is as though the Aboriginals were fobbing us off. While unveiling the profoundest and most authentic of truths (the Austral myth at its most mysterious), they also play up the most modern and hypothetical of considerations: the irresolvability of any narrative, absolute doubt as to the origins. For us to believe these fabulous things, we need to feel that they themselves believe them. But these Aboriginals seem to take a mischievous pleasure in being allusive and evasive. They give a few clues, but never tell us the rules of the game, and one cannot help getting the impression that they are improvising, pandering to our phantasies, but withholding any reassurance that what they are telling us is true. This is doubtless their way of keeping their secrets while at the same time poking fun at us- for in the end we are the only
people who want to believe these tales.
The Aboriginals' secret resides not in what they omit to say, however, but entirely within the thread, within the indecipherable filigree of the narrative; we are confronted by an ironic form here, by a mythology of appearances . And
in the manipulation of this form the Aboriginals are far more adept than we are.
We Whites are liable to remain mystified for a good while yet."
>>461481
>believing in psychometrics
I don't "believe" in it. It is fact. Likewise I don't "believe" in mathematics and I don't "believe" in physics.
>The same happens with intelligence.
Prove it. Or rather, disprove psychometrics.
>>460657
>>461538
North American indians did the same thing.
Burning the bigger bush clears the scrubby thorny plants animals don't like to eat and encourages (the next growing season) the young tender shoots that animals DO like to it. It is very effective, if you want to hunt game. Yea, during the burning, you can also come across the odd roasted or scared animal and club it, but the main purpose is to clear brush to encourage game.
I agree aboriginals are rather primitive and not too bright or pleasant on the whole, but there is no reason to believe Australia was some kind of Amazonian continent 'before' Abos showed up and 'ruined' it all. In terms of climate zones, the Abos haven't really done much to alter it in ways it didn't already exist before they showed up. Big dif is maybe that they killed off the larger game animals, but that's humans everywhere for you. Pre-modern societies tend to live rather lightly on the land (except on islands, perhaps) because there just aren't enough of them to have a huge sustained impact on the grand scale.
>>461680
Why are you so mad? Take a chill pill and start conversing like a human.
>>460048
Nah
The Maori (and all Polynesians) are a Eurasian people. They had a lot of nifty technologies like boats, pottery, nets, huts, thatching, archery, and some basic metalworking.
These traits were shared with most Native Americans, Asians, and Europeans.
Aboriginals are a much more archaic people and didn't have any of those useful technologies.
>>461070
>they are closer to them than to us humans
...no
not at all
>>459897
They fought emus...
and won.
>>461034
How much contact? I mean if we look at the golden triangle we have dozens of civilizations constantly trading, fighting and evolving in an evolutionary civilization arms race. If the aborigines had some limited trade contact with other relatively primitive tribes or civs then that contact can't contribute to any lasting technological/societal development. The aborigines were cut off from the greater world, all alone on a huge continent devoid of everything.
It's possible that the coastal villages and communities that did have contact with other civilizations may have advanced a bit but prolonged drop in communications would easily have had them revert back to what they knew was canon, sort of speak.
>>461005
That was a myth though.
>>461120
>ancient "fuck off we are full."
>>461070
>Citation needed
Out of all boards (maybe /sci/ being the other exception) stop spreading these stupid ideas here.
>>461768
The Aborigines are descended from Eurasians, and the Polynesians are more related to Aborigines and other southern ethnic groups than other Eurasians.
>>461619
I saw a documentary on contemporary Aboriginal art, or 'Australian jazz'. It is basically about depicting songlines on canvas, which were traditionally drawn in the sand. Realising paint was a more permanent medium, and the white debil debil was inteterested in buying the works, the artists devised all these methods of hiding the true meaning of the stories, so what you're left with is autistic abstract expressionism that sells for millions
>>461089
>>461776
>>462085
It should be obvious by just looking at them. They look like fucking denisovans.
Ugly, small stature and dumb as bricks. What else do you need to say that they're just not quite human? The fact that Australians considered them fauna before 1967 (1967 is in the fucking 20th century) should really say something to you.
They're so fucking dumb and ferile that colonists decided it would be a good idea to import negros from africa for slave labour instead of the local aboriginals.
>>461251
This Sempai
I know didjeridoo is the name the Brits came up for that (that word is almost literally thingy) but even abos use that word
>>459967
>See something slightly racist
>SAFE SPACE /pol/ GET OUT!
Want to know how I know you're new?
>>462534
>The fact that Australians considered them fauna before 1967
"No"
Views on Aboriginal capacity have been incredibly diverse since the first settlers arrived, from low to equal to that of whites.
>They're so fucking dumb and ferile that colonists decided it would be a good idea to import negros from africa for slave labour instead of the local aboriginals.
"No"
Settlers on the frontier found Aborigines on the frontier especially useful, they knew the land better than anyone after all. And Australia never had slavery
>>459999
Quads
>>459950
The most common definition of a species is when similiar organisms are able to interbreed to create a fertile offspring. As Aboriginals fit that definition, it is safe to say that they are human.
>>462534
>The fact that Australians considered them fauna before 1967
That's a myth. You could have easily fact-checked, but it's not surprising that you didn't, considering you /pol/tards will believe just about anything that adds padding to your ill-informed worldview.
>>460490
Tribalism is a human default
People who look more similar to you (see--same tribe) are the people you are most comfortable around as a baby
>>462641
Honestly it was the government being complete assholes to them that fucked things up like the Stolen Wages being the case example of government bureaucracy gone wrong.
>>460067
How the fuck is a kangaroo gonna pull a plow
>>463173
Not just as a baby, there has been studies that show the level of trust in communities is greatly reduced by multiculturalism.
Which is as you would expect given our tribal origins. Which is why I don't see racism ever disappearing, humans are hard wired to see the differences and categorise people.
>>461246
So what, you think the aboriginals were just stupid for not deciding at some point that genetics exist and initiating a centuries-long breeding program in order to bring about a theoretical form of society that doesn't have any immediate advantages over simple hunter-gatherer systems?
There's a reason it took tens of thousands of years for like, two or three different civilizations to form in Eurasia. It was more than likely a fluke that turned out sort of good and diffused through the three continents.
>>461862
>How much contact? I mean if we look at the golden triangle we have dozens of civilizations constantly trading, fighting and evolving in an evolutionary civilization arms race. If the aborigines had some limited trade contact with other relatively primitive tribes or civs then that contact can't contribute to any lasting technological/societal development. The aborigines were cut off from the greater world, all alone on a huge continent devoid of everything.
I recall that the Javanese would create temporary colonies to process the sea slugs they caught there seasonally. Sure it wasnt on the same scale as the middle east, but there was still great oppertunity here for things like metal working or pigs.
>It's possible that the coastal villages and communities that did have contact with other civilizations may have advanced a bit but prolonged drop in communications would easily have had them revert back to what they knew was canon, sort of speak.
But thats the thing these communities that were in contact didnt seem to advance at all. Likewise this contact wasnt a once off thing.
>>461237
You know there were tons of birds in australia that would have been far easier to domesticate. Its not like the only bird they had was an emu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_brushturkey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_bustard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleefowl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Barren_goose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_wood_duck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmeted_guineafowl
ect.
>>463375
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmeted_guineafowl
Not actually an Australian species, it's a recent introduction from Africa
And i'm not sure how easy it would be to domesticate brush turkey and malleefowl (mound builders). especially containing the birds, let alone being able to become a sedentary culture relying off just birds. Some Aboriginals did manage to subsist from eel aquaculture in sedentary villages
>>460748
I'm not going to argue that the concepts of "progress" and civilization/barbarism aren't inherently politicized, but
>for a few
Is inaccurate. It's one thing to argue that the western understanding of progress is not superior to "uncivilized" cultures, but if for the sake of argument you accept that progress is beneficial, then it has objectively helped a great deal of people - at the very least the majority of the approx. 1.2 billion living in the western world proper, plus several billion more living in China, India etc.
It's not as though billions were slaughtered to support the lavish lifestyles of a few thousand aristocrats. Rather, millions died to support the lavish lifestyles of the entire first and second world, aka a significant majority of the humans currently alive.
>>463414
>Not actually an Australian species, it's a recent introduction from Africa
My mistake but the rest are certianly native and viable candidates.
>And i'm not sure how easy it would be to domesticate brush turkey and malleefowl (mound builders). especially containing the birds, let alone being able to become a sedentary culture relying off just birds.
No more difficult than any of the other species of fowls domesticated by humans world wide including those in the new world.
> Some Aboriginals did manage to subsist from eel aquaculture in sedentary villages
Thats point has already been mentioned many times in this thread, the second of which was by myself in >>460879 not sure why thats relevant to domesticating birds.
>>463438
>No more difficult than any of the other species of fowls
I'd think that the nesting behaviour in which a large mound is constructed would mean that farming this species at high enough densities to be able to subsist off would be problematic. And I mentioned the eel farming as an example of a species which is contained easily within canals and can occur in relatively high densities
>>463415
>It's not as though billions were slaughtered to support the lavish lifestyles of a few thousand aristocrats. Rather, millions died to support the lavish lifestyles of the entire first and second world, aka a significant majority of the humans currently alive.
Dang this it the first Thirdworldist ive come across on /his/. You know the Chinese just cooked that theory up to justify cosying up to capitalist countries like Pinochets chile
>>463447
>I'd think that the nesting behaviour in which a large mound is constructed would mean that farming this species at high enough densities to be able to subsist
Why? likewise you dont have to subsist of a species for it to be domesticated.
>>463456
Why bother to domesticate and farm it rather than just hunting wild animals then?
>>463456
and to domesticate a species, you wouldn't be able to have a nomadic lifestyle (except for dogs maybe)
>>463462
To supplement your gathering. The same reason they partially domesticated dingos.
Straya is fucking hot
GL expecting anything to happen in a place where 2/3rds of the day is too hot to be actually doing anything.
>>463486
> i'd like to see someone try to herd brush turkeys through various types of terrain
Cages would suffice given the size of their tribes, the size of the birds and the fact that they werent constantly on the move.
>>460067
because kangaroos are savage
>>459954
If you use logic or science to dispute the fact that whitey was just born better than everyone you are a deemed a shill. Were all homo sapiens friend, but you are more homo than most.
>>459950
One race: The HUMAN race
fucking shitlords
>>463566
>roo doing a chokehold
fokken cunt
>>459999
I used to agree with some of their politics and conspiracies, and I'm in general a very right wing person, but the meme-spamming of Jews, Muslims, Feminists, etc. outweighs most discussion of politics, everything comes back to race for them. Funnily enough it reminds me how BLM are obsessed with race in everything. I had left /mu/ when memerap and reviewers started to get significantly more attention than any true music discussion, and now /pol/ has fallen to a similar fate. /int/ on various chans including this one I find to be a lot more tolerable.
>>460982
Phenotype is caused by genotype. If they're phenotypically different, they're genetically different.
>>460024
Wtf qualifies as human then? They can breed with white people too. It's not a topic for discussion, of course they're human.
>>463649
Cows can breed with Buffalo as well
>>463660
as can lions and tigers
>>463644
same charcteristics can evolve in different places due to similar environments or pressures?
>>459936
ebin
>>463618
>Just look at how ugly they are!
>This is scientific evidence to /pol/
All non whites belong in the gas chamber
>>464040
There's one women with brown hair that people post around as some type of Abo behemoth despite the fact that she is educated, married an Aussie of Irish decent and actually a pretty nice women to be around and brought up some interesting insights on aboriginality as pure one as well as the mother and grandmother to half and quarter ones.
>>464049
So blond haired, blue eyed, pale skinned Scandinavians are genetically identical to black skinned sub-Saharan Africans?
Is it magic that makes them look different?
>>464086
You really have no idea what phenotypes are do you, you could have genes for intelligence, but be dropped on your head as a kid, and end up with a retard phenotype
>>464086
Race is a social construct. A blue eyed, pale skinned Scandinavian can be black if that's what he wants to be.
>>464086
Are different populations relatively homogeneous for certain features, such as adaptations to sunlight or sexually selected characteristics. While being genetically heterogeneous for many other genes?
>>460587
>on all levels except physical
>I am civilized
>>463528
Isn't it rather mild in the winter in some parts though?
>>464099
>Aphenotype(from Greek phainein, meaning "to show", and typos, meaning "type") is the composite of an organism's observable characteristics or traits, such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, phenology, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest).
Yes, phenotypes are the observable features that genes produce? What the hell are you trying to say? Phenotypes are not caused by genes?
>>464115
I think a better question is, if there are obvious physical differences caused by genetic changes, how many non-phenotypical changes are there going to be?
I'm talking, temperament, hormone levels, genes for problem solving or susceptibility to cold etc etc
>>464445
No, i'm saying that genetics have a variety of potential expressions, such as a white person getting tanned, is a change in the phenotype without changing genotype
>>464456
Sure, and how many non-phenotypic changes are exclusive to a particular population, rather than occurring sporadically in many populations?
>>464458
Yes. But the black skin of Africans, the blue eyes of Europeans, or the epicantic folds in Asians etc. are phenotypes caused by genetics....
>>464465
Yes, but the genetics for epicanthic folds are not exclusive to Asian populations, and blue eyes are likely a sexually selected trait
>>464463
A lot, what is your point?
There are still genes that are going to be unique to certain ethnic groups.
For example, the genes for blue eyes and pale skin is not present in sub-Saharan Africans...
I'm not even saying these groups are better or worse, but denying that they are different is just blatantly wrong.
>>464472
And they are still phenotypes caused by genetic differences....
>>459897
Surviving the most godawful continent for longer than any group of humans have ever lived anywhere.
God I hate Australia.
>see thread in catalog, expect /pol/ thread
>look through thread, literally the same as on /pol/ except with 'stormfront' replaced with '/pol/'
wew
Anyways, they stayed mostly isolated for a while.
I heard a while ago that they had brief contact with some cannibals but that might just be a bs rumor.
>>463222
Instead of one long line of tilled soil you'll have dots and dashes
>>464495
Yes, I never denied that, that is scientific fact.
But I'm sure the exact same claim would be true for breeds of dog. Yet look at the massive difference in size, strength, temperament etc a few unique genetic changes can cause.
>>464523
Artificial selection actually has a goal in mind (intentionally moving towards the limits of speed, strength, herding sheep etc), while natural selection has no goal. only trends visible in hindsight, due to adaptation to the conditions.
