This is what liberals actually believe!
And also the thousands of geneticists at the Human genome Project who explained concisely why race is an obsolete term.
And also every anthropological society in almost every developed nation.
Not that polteens care about actual science or facts.
>>77339290
You can call retards 'mentally challenged' but it doesn't change the fact that they're retarded. Call population groups whatever you want but it won't change the fact that some are shittier than others.
>>77339078
All three of those girls have one thing in common, there not.
>>77339290
So how do those geneticists explain how two wongs don't make a white?
I agree, though, race is an obsolete term. We should use the term subspecies instead.
>>77339290
>what is lewontin's fallacy
Forensic anthropologists can determine the race and gender of skeletal remains. Race denial has little to do with science it's 100% political. In fact, it only seems to not exist when POC do something wrong and always exists when white people do wrong.
>>77339078
It's in my school textbooks for political science courses, either competitive politics or International relations I forget which.
>>77339290
Correct they're different species. Race is an old term
>>77339290
The correct term is subspecies.
>>77339078
I seen the fat white girl picture on the internet for years.
It's so sad, because I went to school with her. I remember looking at her on the way to lunch thinking, oh my god how the fuck can someone be this ugly.
>2008
man those were the days
>>77340366
top kek
please, tell us more
>>77339501
Race is below subspecies. Neanderthal and Denisovan were subspecies; all the extant human races share the homo sapiens sapiens subspecies, just like how all domestic dog breeds are technically part of the same canis lupus familiaris subspecies.
>>77339078
>tfw there's a 10/10 ebony at my college in an exchange program
I don't want to be a filthy mixer but she's literally perfect.
Help me.
>>77341580
do what your ancestors done before you
rape the filthy nigger
>>77339290
>actual science
Yeah, the "form a conclusion first, do research to support it...eventually" studies that deny the existence of race aren't really actual science. They're just polemics from ideologues who happen to have degrees.
The founder of population genetics, Sewall Wright, asserted that 15% genetic difference was enough of a margin to recognize different subspecies, and it's more than taxonomy actually requires to differentiate between different species entirely in several cases (chimps and bonobos, for example). It was Timothy Lewontin who declared that the 15% difference between races was "insignificant", and who the fuck vested him with the authority to make that decision exactly? Nobody.
Disregarding the existence of race with the logic SJWs use to do it is akin to proclaiming that species is a social construct because all animal DNA is made of cytosine, guanine, adenine, and thymine. It's not really legit science.
>>77339706
>Forensic anthropologists can determine the race and gender of skeletal remains.
Actually, that's quite an oversimplification of the issue.
Having studied biological anthropology and forensics I can tell you right now that it's practically impossible to determine the sex of a person prior to a certain age. Even then we find that there are inconsistencies.
From there, the race argument is absolutely shit. Race is a social construct because it's opinion based organization off of phenotypes. You can have multiple different lines of heritage and subsequently have different genetics shape your genotype. What we often find his people who identify themselves as a particular race due to the skin base phenotypes, often cause for issues when identifying people who have genetics from multiple ancestry lines.
What we identify in forensic anthropology is "ancestry," not race.
We often come across homicides with people who identify as black, but have the skeletal shape of a Caucasian person. We also often come across black and white people who have skeletal shapes similar to that of Native Americans.
>Race denial has little to do with science it's 100% political.
That's actually not true whatsoever. It's dumbasses such as yourself who don't understand the science and believe what you can personally interpret at face value to be more valid than the science itself. Often people such as yourself support race as being a legitimate biological classification because people against it wound up counterarguments into PC bullshit. Race is a folk taxonomy.
>In fact, it only seems to not exist when POC do something wrong and always exists when white people do wrong.
It exists because in science we organize people based upon allele distribution, which allows for proper ancestry organization. There is more genetic (specifically allele) diversity within Africa than the whole of Asia in Europe combined. Race is not specific enough.
>>77342912
>The founder of population genetics, Sewall Wright, asserted that 15% genetic difference was enough of a margin to recognize different subspecies, and it's more than taxonomy actually requires to differentiate between different species entirely in several cases (chimps and bonobos, for example). It was Timothy Lewontin who declared that the 15% difference between races was "insignificant", and who the fuck vested him with the authority to make that decision exactly? Nobody.
You do realize that practically all humans have the same genetic makeup, the only major difference between us is the allele distribution. There is more genetic diversity within "racial populations" then there are when averaged out between the two.
Not only that, but all humans alive today are the same subspecies. "Homo sapiens sapiens," opposing sub species would be like neanderthals.
It would seem that you do not understand the scientific reasoning that has gone into validating the stuff. In terms of genetics there are so many different scientists involved, it's practically impossible to slip something by because the whole point of this crap is to constantly keep testing it and seeing if it holds up.
This whole scientific racism bull shit is from the early 1900s, it fucking astounds me that people think that shit back then was more accurate than it is now. Hell, in the year 2000 and cost almost $1 million alone to test someone's genetics. Like they do for that family tree stuff. Nowadays it cost less than 200 bucks... You don't think with the acquisition of more scientific information we haven't solved this shit?
>>77339078
>social construct
>appropriation
Gettingcomfy.jpg
>>77343213
>but have the skeletal shape of a Caucasian person
If you weren't such a dumbass faggot you would know that's because the average american "black" person has up to 25% European DNA contribution through miscegenation.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html
Read what George W. Gill has to say.
>>77343616
>what is lewontin's fallacy
>what is lewontin's fallacy
>what is lewontin's fallacy
>>77344065
I can Google "race is real" for myself, but you're not actually showing me you personally have a fundamental understanding of the shit you spout.
Anybody can find a random website, but nobody saying raise within itself doesn't exist at all. What we are saying is it's a folk taxonomy, but it's nothing more than that.
Race includes factors like language, skin color, geographic location... What the heck does that have to do with genetics, Mr. Science man?
Something which George brings to attention,
"Well, you may ask, why can't we call those regional patterns "races"? In fact, we can and do, but it does not make them coherent biological entities. "Races" defined in such a way are products of our perceptions. "Seeing is believing" will be the retort, and, after all, aren't we seeing reality in those regional differences?"
See, you can say race exists. It does, it's a folk taxonomy. But when you're making arguments related to a persons genetics within itself based upon race, you're wrong. Your own argument says you're wrong. We don't use race in most scientific context. We use ancestry, it's more specific, it's more accurate, it's safer, and it doesn't rely on cultural interpretation.
Race is phenotype, cultural perception, language, and geographic position.
Ancestry is genotype, and allele distribution.
It would appear you have a very little idea of what you're talking about or the major thoughts within academia over this shit... Get an education dumbass.
>>77343616
Lol at your understanding of genetics.
>>77344995
We use race in medicine. Get fucked you lying, agenda having windbag faggot.
>>77339078
Well, what else can it be? It isn't 'genetic', like those "haplo-type" nuts rave about.
>>77345592
Actually, we use ancestry. Simply being black doesn't mean you're going to have heart problems, for incidence.
Genetic disorders run in ancestry lines, not your skin color and skull shape...
Clearly most of the people year who thing race is a legitimate biological classification system don't seem to taking consideration things like 23andme, which not only gives you a proper assessment over where your current alleles are historically from, but also potential and genetic disorders. Alzheimer's being an example...
In forensics, modern medicine, we use ancestry. Race doesn't tell you jack shit in most situations.
>>77343213
Well said. Best post on this topic, possibly ever.
>>77345948
>If we breed races together then race doesn't exist
Lol!
>>77339501
kek
>>77345592
You may SAY 'race' but what do you MEAN by that, in Irish-medical terms?
>>77339078
All 3 of them are ugly.
Nigger might have nice body but face...face is turnoff
>>77341580
fucking women of another race is victory for yours
another fucking a woman of yours is a failure
>>77339078
Race is an invention of nineteenth-century pseudoscience. It's up there with phrenology. /pol/ wishes it were true because it it were, it might serve the political interests of poor white butthurt permavirgins.
There are genetic differences between populations of people, but race isn't a term that describes these differences. It's already too cultural a term.
People who embrace "race" as the term around which to organize their politics are very stupid and uneducated.
>>77346064
Race would have to not be a folk taxonomy in the first place, my friend, for that argument to even be anything more than the strawman it already is.
Here is the difference, I don't need to justify this shit to justify treating people of a different "race" like the human beings they are, I will do that regardless of information. You on the other fucking hand have to justify this goddamn ignorant bullshit so that you, based upon your own personal ignorance interpretations a scientific information you seemingly have no understanding of, can justify some pseudo superiority.
Fuck off, you dumbass. You know understand the science relating to this stuff worth a shit... You ain't got no pancake mix... God damn it.
>>77346339
There's a reason that picture is black and white. Wanna bet her skin is surprisingly light because she has a huge admixture of other non nigger genes?
Races do not exist. They are just fabrications of the sick and delusional mind of racist scum
>>77346612
More long winded bullshit saying nothing. When you can persuade medical science that race doesn't exist you can come back.
Until then you can kiss my sack you uneducated nigger.
>>77346343
Basically this. Only female reproduction is limited. The only problem arises when it's about raising those children. Make her family and people do that, while you wander off to have a proper family.
>>77346612
Damn, I'll make sure to proofread a little bit more from now on one. Wouldn't want to confuse anybody.
>>77339078
>Is race really a social construct?
In the US it seems to mostly be a legal construct... US census definitons for races are hilariously broad.
>related
>typical white American criminals
>>77346930
Just keep copying and pasting your pseudo science. You can't have spelling mistakes then.
>>77339959
If whiteys and abo's can produce fertile offspring they're the same species.
>>77339290
People evolving in different environments for hundreds of thousands of years are going to be measurably different in many ways. They will look different, be predisposed to different genetic disorders, and have different intellectual abilities. These differences are not small in many cases. Keep feeding yourself libcuck ideas you fucking leaf.
>>77346307
The accepted definition according to biological science. Populations with distinct genetic and phenotypic differences. These differences occur due to evolution and geographical isolation. For examples, Africans are geographically isolated from the rest of the world by the Sahara.
Pacific islanders by the Pacific,
North and south Americans by the melting of the glaciers.
The list goes on and on.
>>77346382
>Race doesn't exist...unless I am insulting and expressing my jealousy of white Europeans.
This thread is pure Kek. In addition I would like to propose that the coloured need to take off their tinfoil hats. Racism can't exist if races do not exist.
>>77346776
>More long winded bullshit saying nothing. When you can persuade medical science that race doesn't exist you can come back.
Dude, you're the one supporting a positive claim in this case. Somebody made a positive claim, I responded, you responded to me calling out of person who made the positive claim.
If you start providing actual evidence for your own claim, and then things can start getting interesting.
All you need to do is learn how allele distribution works and you've got your answer, this is genetics/evolution 101. Campbell's Biology is a great start.
I already know this shit. I don't think you do.
>Until then you can kiss my sack you uneducated nigger.
First of all, I am a pasty French American guy from New England. Calling me and nigger means absolutely nothing to me.
You are so unbelievably full of yourself, that's the problem. You like taking things at face value, and it's pretty sad.
Again, I don't need to justify this shit to treat people like goddamn human beings. You on the other hand need to desperately justify yourself in order to not have to look like you have some piss poor moral perspectives... God dammit. Who raised you, O'scar the cunt?
>>77347384
Race exists as a phenomenon in discourse. It just doesn't describe the underlying genetics as best we currently understand them. Racism exists because faggots like yourself use race as a category to organize the turds and chaos in your own head when you're trying to divide people into groups you like and don't like.
>Racism can't exist if races do not exist.
This statement is pure autism.
>>77347557
You talk like a nigger though. Just convince biological science and medicine to say race doesn't exist and I will accept it.
>>77347620
>I have no argument so I will fling poo.
You are a monkey.
Also I never said one race is superior to another. Just that race exists and the AMOUNT of insults and words put in my mouth by you niggers.
Defensive and insecure much? Lol
>>77347691
>You talk like a nigger though. Just convince biological science and medicine to say race doesn't exist and I will accept it.
Nobody is saying that race doesn't exist... It's a folk taxonomy. It's like saying grouping people by nationality doesn't exist, their constructs based upon particular criteria but they are no better or worse from each other in terms of organizing people by genetics.
We don't use race, we use ancestry. There is nobody in biological science and medicine who doesn't already use ancestry instead of race in a mass majority of situations.
>>77339078
>>77345948
>race only concerns genetic disorders
Lemme guess, you think the racial I.Q. is purely environmental?
>>77347939
>>77347905
Ancestry it's genetic implications of course exist.
Glad you can admit that.
>>77347951
His whole argument is based around a change in the definition of words and the US having a lot of mixed race people.
His argument based on the definition of words can be dismissed out of hand. His argument based on the US having a lot of mixed race people is of course a very very weak argument anywhere there is not large mixed race populations, which is most of the world.
Most of the world is still poor and geographically isolated.
>>77347035
Same species, different subspecies
Learn 2 taxonomy
>>77347905
it's sad that some marxist professor taught you all this nonsense. They're just trying to prevent future genocides by denying race while simultaneously encouraging "interracial" (???) couples. Of course, they're not teaching this to blacks in Africa who genocide quite often.
>>77348097
What?
Race is a folk taxonomy. Ancestry is the organization of people based upon allele distribution.
But your argument is inconsistent at this point.
Race is entirely based upon generalizations and in many cases the disingenuous usage of holotypes as >>77347939 has displayed.
>>77347951
Well, no... Because race is a folk taxonomy.
Do you believe in Nationality I.Q. to be anything less than environmental?
>>77348300
Semantics. Yeah that's a pretty common tactic.
>>77348491
Outside of the US race and ancestry is used interchangeably because we don't have the same amount of race/ancestry mixing you do.
Most of the world, in fact, does not have the same amount of race/ancestry mixing you do.
The attempt to destroy the idea of race I'm the US is just politically and socially convenient. An attempt to reduce divisions between people in your country. It has no scientific basis.
>>77348491
You're expressing this clearly and helpfully. Thanks! Nice to see someone who knows what they're talking about.
>>77348660
You know little about the world (and I'm not even American). What race are Irish people anyway?
The irish are black.
>>77348438
Do you have any proof that it was some Marxist professor?
Considering my evolutionary biologist professor was one of the most hard-core libertarians I've ever met, no...
Nobody is denying race, I'm not denying race. I'm saying it's a "folk taxonomy." What I am denying is the usage of it as an accurate means of genetic classification, and subsequently the baggage that comes along with it...
You know they don't teach this to blacks in Africa? Because most of them don't go to university at all, let alone have classes dealing with this stuff... Most people in impoverished places, just like for most of impoverish people in Western countries throughout history, they didn't get higher educations. Most of them didn't even go to high school or middle school equivalents. I have numerous great-grandparents that dropped out at elementary school.
>>77339078
There are only three major races: caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid. Hispanic isn't a race.
>>77348964
Your whole 4th paragraph doesn't say or address anything. Why are you so long winded??
Also
>Race exists. It's just not accurate.
It's quite effective if you don't have a genome sequencer to hand.
To sum up this whole thread:
Yes race exists
Yes races have characteristic genocide and phenotypes
If you are going to genetically sequence someone race isn't quite accurate enough to describe the information you generate.
Thanks niggers. Stop making this political. Race exists.
>>77349056
You left out spergaloid, as is predominantly represented on this board. They have trouble reproducing outside their shared genetic group.
>>77348660
>Outside of the US race and ancestry is used interchangeably because we don't have the same amount of race/ancestry mixing you do.
>Most of the world, in fact, does not have the same amount of race/ancestry mixing you do.
>The attempt to destroy the idea of race I'm the US is just politically and socially convenient. An attempt to reduce divisions between people in your country. It has no scientific basis.
Clearly you know nothing about the massive amount of diversity that exist throughout all of the Americas, let alone Central Asia, Oceana, the cross between North and sub-Saharan Africa, Turkey, and so on.
You are generalizing so much it's an absolute joke. Just because in Ireland almost everybody is white doesn't mean organizing people simply by "race" stands up in the context of humanity.
If anything Ireland proves why race is a stupid means of organizing people because of all the ancestries that exist on the island. Like the Scott Irish up in Ulster.
Take no consideration into anything, you just don't know what you know and you run with it.
You need to justify your position over race in order to justify your behavior towards other people, I don't.
>>77348819
Thanks, I actually went to school for this stuff. I'm basically arguing with hobbyists who think they know better because they know all that they know.
The great thing about getting an education is you're introduced of things you didn't consider, and when you have people who generalize like they do you know for fact that they have a very minimal education over this crap.
The only defense now for them is to say I was taught by Marxists, Hahaha. Damn, my professors would be offended. Haha
>>77349399
>My treatment of other people
You know nothing about me! All you have Is an agenda. You dumb fuck.
>>77349548
Nothing beats an education and actually knowing what you're talking about. A good friend of works for 23andme and is always great for chatting about how people misunderstand genetics in popular culture, especially when they take thoroughly anachronistic taxonomies that are laden with all kinds of irrational political freight.
And not everyone in a university is a Marxist SJW. The diversity of actual through and research in the world is quite inspiring.
>>77348945
Glad you mentioned this. The idea of the "black Irish" as a race is one of the categories used by British to identify a racial difference between themselves and the Irish. It was probably just a genotype that produced occasionally darker skin tone but which also showed up in the English population too, so was of no real genetic value. Nevertheless, it got used in the 19th and early 20th centuries as way the English could codify hatred towards the Irish (nationalism masquerading as race theory). I speak as someone with mixed Irish, English, and Scottish ancestry.
>>77349261
>Why are you so long winded??
Dude, this stuff is complex. For you to really simply think that a short answer is going to explain this shit is absolutely mindnumbing.
I had to read books upon books upon books and spend hours, weeks, and years of my life learning this.... And you're worried about a paragraph or two???
God dammit. I am an actual god damn anthropologist... lol
I can't.... hahaha
>It's quite effective if you don't have a genome sequencer to hand.
Well, it's a good thing we're no longer in the 1990s and back anymore. Just for the low low price of about 100 bucks or so, you can get your self genetically sequenced and find out both you're ancestry and potential diseases you might want to be aware of.
Because fun fact, race is only skin deep. And that's depending on who is looking at yet.
>>77349399
>in order to justify your behavior towards other people
How do you know
1) He is white.
2) How he treats non-whites.
>>77350026
>race is only skin deep
>>77349562
>You know nothing about me! All you have Is an agenda. You dumb fuck.
I know you're obsessed with the notion that I am potentially a "nigger."
I know you're from Ireland, I know you don't understand genetics very well, I know you have a piss poor understanding over how we use race in academia, and I know you're all talk.
I don't have an agenda, I don't give two shits what people do with their life so long as they do not restrict another individual's ability to achieve life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't like this PC bull crap either, but I'm sick and tired of dumb fucks like you who will defend pseudoscientific information on the sole motion that you will not agree with the people you oppose politically.
What now, are you guys going tell me the world is 6000 years old? What about that it's flat? And all that jazz... Get a grip, Christ.
The fact that you're in this constant state I'm thinking that people who disagree with you are part is some goddamn conspiracy is pathetic... They're absolutely always has to be an excuse... If you can't support yourself with evidence, you make it a borderline ad hominem.
>>77350471
>I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me - George W. Gill
>dats pseudoscience!!1
You act like you speak for every anthropologist and you don't. You're just parroting what some cultural marxist whispered in your ear.
>>77350040
His usage of the word Nigger, it doesn't take a rocket scientist. Have you been actually reading his posts?
I'm not even black, I understand this is 4chan by Christ.
This guys vocabulary is pretty piss poor. haha
>>77350362
That actually perfectly proves my point, it's all about the alleles. There is no logical justification for generalize groupings like race in place of context specific organizational methods like ancestry and allele distribution.
>>77339078
>you actually believe you skin decides your character
>you believe examples of hoodrats is evidence supporting you
>>77350679
Seriously, it's not cultural marxism; it's contemporary genetics. It doesn't work do to ad hominem dismissals when you don't like well-described information.
Cultural marxism is a very different thing (and not what /pol/ sometimes imagines).
>>77350679
>You act like you speak for every anthropologist and you don't. You're just parroting what some cultural marxist whispered in your ear.
Really? Barney the god damn dinosaur could whisper something in my ear, but if it's true it's true... The issue being that you're only justification for your argument is to immediately try to devalue my position through the notion that I was educated by Marxists.
First of all, go ahead and prove that. Positive claim, batter up.
Secondly, no. First of all, Marxism doesn't work. Carl Marx was a whiny little bitch, and China proved distributing manufacturing makes it almost impossible to maintain quality control. So no, China in many respects is a shit hole. And Marxism didn't help them.
I'm not a Marxist, and this shit is not Marxism. Marxism in it's true form has nothing to do with understanding humanity through its actual genetic context.
But let's say for instance it theoretically did, even though again it doesn't, it wouldn't make any difference if it was actually true... lol
You do understand the issue with that line of reasoning? Don't you?
Of course I don't speak for all anthropologists, I'm not speaking for all anthropologists. Where did I suggest otherwise? I am an anthropologist, and I actually understand this shit. That's the difference.
>>77350026
You havnt had more than a single lecture on this. You show a total lack of understanding by continuously repeating arguments that are no more than semantics.
Race doesn't exist...unless you call it ancestry, then it totally exists. Lol!
>>77351344
Your over dramatic way of speaking and diatribes tells me you are a teenager.
>>77351716
Ad hominem dismissals fail against good content. You sound really angry and resistant to clear ideas. What might be really interesting is to work out why you're so angry and so obsessed by what you think is a clever logical trap: either race doesn't exist so there's no racism, or it does so genetics is race.
Serious question: what's your socioeconomic and demographic situation? What makes you most angry in the world? Do you get special benefit from scapegoating or directing anger at others?
>>77350015
Black was just an insult back then.
Black = bad.
>>77351916
Upper middle class. Clinical chemist.
I don't believe for a second you know what you are talking about.
>>77352040
How about the anger. Whence and why?
>>77341580
You know what gonna happen, go forth and colonize her!
>>77352108
What anger? I just called you a nigger a few times to get a rise from you. Since I got paragraphs of bile back in return I'd say it worked.
You are trying to apply a sociology understanding of race to genetics and then backing down and saying it's ancestry when pressed.
You don't know shit. You arnt a scientist.
>>77351920
As someone Irish, you should know that calling someone "black Irish" has a lot more meaning than that. At my Catholic high school, the term was widely recognized and was sometimes pejorative and sometimes people would try to reappropriate it to make it positive again. It's a good example of a purported race term that is complete garbage when understood according to genotypes or phenotypes.
Your background actually surprises me. I was expecting less education. It still doesn't work to argue that a highly historically specific term ("race") that is based on externally observable features combined with some geographical convergences can stand in for the way we currently understand genetic variation. What interests me more is how much you want these two things to be the same and why. I don't get the motivation.
>>77351716
>You havnt had more than a single lecture on this.
Actually, I have. I have spent well over four years investigating this stuff.
You on the other hand, you have hardly even talked about the scientific information within itself. You just may claims, that I am some spooky scary Marxists and must be a "nigger." haha
>You show a total lack of understanding by continuously repeating arguments that are no more than semantics.
Of course it's an issue of semantics, you have a misunderstanding over the validity of particular terminology. Do you not believe that ancestry is a more accurate means of organizing people than race, let alone the notion that they're actually different things?
The funny part is, you're often just claiming I am making faulty arguments. You have actually yet to provide examples and break them down. I literally replied to you and break stuff down. You just make blanket claims without anything to support them beyond simply saying it.
Of course I know what I'm talking about, otherwise we both would be agreeing right now..
>Race doesn't exist...unless you call it ancestry, then it totally exists. Lol!
Nobody is saying that race doesn't exist, it's a folk taxonomy. That being said ancestry is not the same thing as race. You should know that.
>Your over dramatic way of speaking and diatribes tells me you are a teenager.
No, I just think this is goddamn hilarious. Because you are refusing to have an intellectual discussion, I have been having fun with this. I am well in my 20s, you on the other hand. I'll be hard pressed to believe you are even over 20 yourself.
That said, quit coming up with excuses for being accountable for yourself. Even if I was five years old, if I'm right I'm goddamn right.
>>77352755
It means something different in the US clearly. It just means scumbag in Europe. We call protestants "blacks" too.
God knows it's difficult to be bisexual bottom black fetishist in Russia.
>>77352850
You claim race doesn't exist. When pressed you admit it exists buy you want to call it ancestry.
Literally an argument based on semantics. I take your many paragraphs apart with one. You are not a scintist and whatever you spent 4 years learning, they used that time to indoctrinate you.
>>77353069
I'm actually Australian and went to a Jesuit school surrounded by Irish priests. Maybe not so different from your own education. And seriously, "black Irish" is used to label Irish people with a slightly more olive complexion, darker eyes and thicker brows. People with this appearance show up in families where others are more people and red haired with green eyes. It stands out visually a little bit and is absolutely something that is targeted by the English -- like by our local rival Anglican school at sporting events. It's a race label with a complex history. Your denial or supposed ignorance of this term seems disingenuous. I don't believe you're that ignorant.
>>77352755
Great points, from what I have been able to uncover investigating people like this person; it often boils down to refusing to accept what opposition argues on the simple notion that it is often coming from people they disagree with politically.
If liberals are arguing for these exact things, and maybe are pushing policies because of it, clearly people like this guy are going to do everything they can to disagree with it.
That said, what should be happening is both people agreeing but understanding the reality of using ancestry over race in the context of their own political ideology.
That, and/or they're simply trying to justify their worldview.
Race and ancestry are very different things, and when it comes to properly understanding people, nothing beats ancestry. Ancestry being understanding people through genotype or allele distribution. One is often a generalization the other is context.
Homo Erectus on the right
yes, yes it is. Just go back 30 years ago and Croatians where seen as Arabs. Now we are all Europeans.
If you honestly want the truth read this article from 1992. Race IS a social construct and changes over time.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/24/world/yugoslav-refugee-crisis-europe-s-worst-since-40-s.html
>>77352256
Read the whole exchange, nice simple refutations of the semanticist.
>>77353318
It's simply not used in ireland except as a generic insult. You want it to be something.
Maybe it changed meaning when your ancestors became mixed with aboriginals?
>>77353641
>Race doesn't exist
Yes it does here is proof
>That's ancestry. Check mate racists
Dude...
>>77339078
The niggress still has the same level of attractiveness as pics on the left.
>>77353297
>You claim race doesn't exist. When pressed you admit it exists buy you want to call it ancestry.
I have literally said multiple times that race is a folk taxonomy.
Race doesn't exist through ancestry. They're not the same thing. The fact that you are arguing for race, or simply believing that me arguing for ancestry is somehow making arguments for your position over a race, shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding over what race and ancestry are within themselves.
>Literally an argument based on semantics. I take your many paragraphs apart with one. You are not a scintist and whatever you spent 4 years learning, they used that time to indoctrinate you.
Literally the only person who is indoctrinated appears to be yourself. I have no issue with being wrong, the problem is you are yet to provide any substantial evidence to support the notion that race is a better means of organizing people than ancestry, or that race is not a folk taxonomy.
You are so convinced that you are right do your own basic understandings of this stuff that you will not change your mind no matter what. That would require you to accept that you are wrong and you appear to be far too egotistical and narcissistic to let yourself recognize it...
Unlike you, I'm not here to force people to change their mind. I provide information and breakdown pseudoscience. I don't need to accept the information I do to justify my lifestyle, my treatment of people. You do, otherwise it's pretty obvious you are morally bankrupt...
>>77354110
Semantics.
>>77339290
LOL no they don't.
>>77350731
You don't know he is white all you know is he types the word nigger on 4chan. You conveniently filled in the blacks to follow the narrative that whites are racist to non-whites and they need race to exist to enable their behavior. Neat.
>>77353809
>>77346339
found the fags
>>77350731
How does that prove your point. You can't say "race is skin deep" when clearly melanin has very little to do with it.
>>77354161
This is a clear refutation of your position. You need to try to demonstrate that race does correspond to genetics, rather than just asserting this. The other anon has provided good information to show it's a very different kind of taxonomy. This position is currently winning unless you can provide something substantial to refute it and present positive content to demonstrate your own counter-position. You have a lazy, sloppy habit of dismissing ideas you don't like as merely semantic distinctions or as the result of the faggotry of the poster. Neither argument works, however many times you repeat them. I think you can make a stronger case and would like to hear it.
>>77354366
They are two people with sociology degrees that are here to put them to the test.
>>77354482
It's a good thing someone who has been agreeing with him this whole time decides who is right.
>>77354161
No accountability, no argument.
Though I will say it's funny for you to simply say "semantics," when the issue obviously is the fact that you seemingly don't understand the fundamental differences between race and ancestry.
So yes, semantics. That's how communication works.
Technically all life is the same, or in even larger sense, everything that exist is part of the same essence. It is true that race is just a category, a man created concept. However, we need categories and labels to effectively navigate the reality.
Humans around the world have developed differently because they have adapted to different types of surroundings. It's very helpful label different subtypes under separate names, just like it's useful to recognize that a crow and a pigeon are different types of birds. Rejecting these labels does not make the differences go away. Quite the contrary, trying to see every human as the same kind of human:only serves to create more confusion among people of different races.
>>77354661
This is just anons with bantz. I'm open minded and really interested to hear more about how it is that you think a very unusual taxonomy that comes out of some unusual 19th C. circumstances might line up with how we understand contemporary genetics, despite some of the obvious points of divergence and difference (like the weirdness of the category "Caucasian" or the implausibility of a category like "black Irish," which you improbably think doesn't exist).
>>77354806
The biological definition of race has already been stated. It is very similar to what you want to claim is ancestry.
It's scientific fact. Making sociological arguments against it does not eliminate it as a scientific and medical fact.
Thanks for arguing for so long sociology degree dummies. Your education will always be worthless.
>>77354806
It is indicative of your habit to redefine words to fit your argument. I'm surprised he continued responding.
>>77355029
Also, race, culture and ancestry all point to the same place. They are not separate entities.
>>77354366
>You don't know he is white
He's already said he is.
>>all you know is he types the word nigger on 4chan.
No, I've had quite a lengthy discussion with him. Have you not been following that?
>You conveniently filled in the blacks to follow the narrative that whites are racist to non-whites
Nope, you're making generalizations. This person appears to use derogatory terms for particular group of people as an insult towards me in light of defending his arguments which are clearly geared towards his worldview. This has no narrative whatsoever, this is just pointing out his behavior.
>and they need race to exist to enable their behavior. Neat.
Good job Sherlock, impressive detective work.
>How does that prove your point. You can't say "race is skin deep" when clearly melanin has very little to do with it.
Race is based upon phenotypes (relating to the context of skin), geography, and language often being entirely conditioned through generalizations.
This person is ancestry, or allele distribution is what defines this person. The black race is based upon generalized characteristics, even with white skin this person by your own standards is still technically a "black" person.
It's all about alleles. Do you have an argument to counter that?
>>77355058
Your argument is that what is commonly mis refered to as race does in fact exist but the accurate name for it is ancestry.
Is that the case?
>>77352850
>Nobody is saying race doesn't exist
>it's a social construct
What is the point of even saying that? Mental gymnastics. Reality is a social construct.
>>77355112
The biological definition of race? First of all, race is many different things at once. There isn't just a biological aspect to it.
White, Black, Asian, Native American, Hispanic. People are genetically diverse, but these racial groups do not account for the exact allele distribution between the groups, nor do they work well in general.
Not only that, but you didn't even provides resources. I love how you can just say this is something without actually providing evidence. How hard is it to simply copy and paste the URL so all of us can investigate the legitimacy of the source, and understand the context behind the suppose definition.
>>77355145
>It is indicative of your habit to redefine words to fit your argument. I'm surprised he continued responding.
I haven't been redefining any terminology. Definitions are extremely important, and unless you want to prove that I've been using terminology like alleles, ancestry, genotype, phenotype, and race incorrectly please do provide some examples.
Anybody can simply say what you have just said, but verify it. Otherwise you're just a person with an opinion but no validation.
>>77355419
I feel you are being disingenuous when framing in such a way. To me it seems you are trying to disconnect phenotype from alleles. You also refer to skin heavily and exclude other expressions of genes/alleles.
>>77343213
Found the peice of shit being paid by the Jews to peddle lies. Everybody knows your being paid to spout lies. Stfu.
>>77355419
I do have an argument to counter that. Black Africans never crossbred with neanderthals, meaning that they have 0% neanderthal DNA. Everyone else in the world did with the highest percentages of neanderthal DNA being in Northern European people. So, you can sit there and argue semantics all day but clearly there are significant differences between Africans, Europeans and Asians.
>>77355145
I'm getting small essays every time I say "semantics". I want to see how long they will claim race does not exist and them resort to redefinition of words to support it.
>>77339078
>>77356240
berry fondling?
>>77339078
> look typically black
> be fugly
> look typically european
> be good looking
> .jpg
>>77343213
>>77355788
>What is the point of even saying that? Mental gymnastics. Reality is a social construct.
Because it is a folk taxonomy, people often incorrectly associate race with many different scientific contexts. Such as it's supposedly accurate means of organizing people based upon their genetics... When that is not what it really does.
You can take an individual who has 50% Southern African ancestry and 50% Northern European ancestry and bring them to different places of the world and have that person's race to be assess differently.
Four instance, in the United States having the slightest amount of African phenotypes can often have you associated with being black regardless of how much African ancestry truly makes up your genetics. This is why we have a "black" president. Take that same person and go to a country like the Dominican Republic and you will have an opposite interpretation.
People with the slightest amount of European ancestry are often and immediately associated with being White.
Who is truly more correct? It's based upon regional interpretation, it's a folk taxonomy.
>>77355965
I'm done, but this is thoroughly convincing as a way of showing that "race" is a very different category than what is described in genetics. "Race" is appearance based, mixed in with geography, language, and history. This is what makes it different and weird. Irish anon has not shown how to deal with all these factors or how they might turn out to be the same as a genetic description of human variation. But I'm out. A good day to all fellow anons!
>>77356425
Are you being paid per word?
You come across as more intelligent when you use short and simple language to successfully describe complex things.
Using over complicated and long winded language to describe simple things is a sign of low intelligence.
>>77356402
Look at this.
Fucking abos.
>>77356425
I get it. So, for example, if one person thinks only 100,000 jews died in WW2 and another thinks 6,000,000 died it means the holocaust is a social construct?
>>77356425
Evidence from genetics has established that negroids and caucasoids are separate species. Caucasoids are modern humans, negroids are a more primitive hominid species.
The most cited reason for race not existing is the American Anthropological Association's official statement in 1998, but there are three problems with the statement:
1) All but the first two paragraphs discuss social aspects of race (i.e. racism), going into detail about racial pseudo-theories and discrimination from colonial times to the Holocaust. Albeit interesting, it doesn't belong in a statement regarding the scientific aspects of race.
2) The brief paragraph that actually deals with anthropology emphasizes the overlapping across biological populations of single, adaptive traits like skin color and hair form, but it makes no mention whatsoever of skeletal structure and its uses in determining racial affinity in the field of forensic anthropology.
3) The other scientifically oriented paragraph delves into population genetics (not the AAA's field) to argue that large within-group variation renders any between-group variation meaningless. This may have seemed true back in the 70s when the field was still in its infancy, but today it's rejected as Lewontin's fallacy: http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf
>>77356925
Fixed URL: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/A.W.F.-Edwards-Human-genetic-diversity-Lewontins-fallacy.pdf
>>77356106
>I feel you are being disingenuous when framing in such a way. To me it seems you are trying to disconnect phenotype from alleles. You also refer to skin heavily and exclude other expressions of genes/alleles.
Provide examples. I recognize that genetics encompasses many different components to a person's anatomy. Ancestral groups are not phenotypes. You can have people in the same ancestral group with different alleles, especially in the context of things like skull shape. But we can organize people based upon understanding how things like evolution work by understanding the distribution of alleles within a population. This allows us to get a better understanding of common ancestors.
>>77356150
>Found the peice of shit being paid by the Jews to peddle lies. Everybody knows your being paid to spout lies. Stfu.
Because everything has to be a conspiracy. If anybody disagrees with you at all apparently it's the Jews... Christ... Where's my paycheck then?
>>77356191
>I do have an argument to counter that. Black Africans never crossbred with neanderthals,
Doesn't mean the genetic information didn't get down there. Ethiopians have it, and almost all African populations that met with Arabs have it.
>meaning that they have 0% neanderthal DNA. Everyone else in the world did with the highest percentages of neanderthal DNA being in Northern European people. So, you can sit there and argue semantics all day but clearly there are significant differences between Africans, Europeans and Asians.
The problem is you're making blanket statements without understanding the actual information out there. Most people of African ancestry do in fact do have neanderthal DNA. But that doesn't change the fact that we are all still the same subspecies. One must also prove that this difference is significant enough to make such an argument. There are people all around the world without African ancestry that have very little Neanderthal DNA as well.
>>77339290
Science is more politics than fact in the current year.
>>77356776
>OSGTP
Oh look, it's the fag that shits up the programming threads on /g/.
>>77357208
It's your job to argue about this here isn't it?
>>77339290
Yes, so we renamed "race" to "ethnicity". What exactly does it solve or change???
>>77356402
Holotypes don't prove much, especially clearly cherry picked one. haha
>>77355965 (You)
Great points, take care!
>>77356425 (You)
>Are you being paid per word?
I wish I was paid for this. haha. I'm just descriptive, you have to be.
>You come across as more intelligent when you use short and simple language to successfully describe complex things.
I'll take that as a compliment, but details are necessary. This is complex stuff.
>Using over complicated and long winded language to describe simple things is a sign of low intelligence.
Not really. It's just necessary to discuss this stuff. Simple answers are going to explain everything. Otherwise simple answers would be simply just calling you out without properly explaining issues.
Do you have sources yet?
>>77356718
Nope.
>>77356733
We are all the same sub species, if we were different species we wouldn't be able to procreate and have fertile offspring. We are the same subspecies due to all major human populations having the ability to transfer alleles to each other. Genetic drift cant really happen due to advanced means of transportation and such.
There's no such thing as more modern, in evolution things aren't more evolved. There are so many components to it, but inconsistencies due to context specific examples make generalizations such as that unsubstantiated.
>>77357904
>We are all the same sub species, if we were different species we wouldn't be able to procreate and have fertile offspring.
Lions and Tigers can breed to produce a fertile Liger. Are they the same species?
>>77349056
you forgot aboriginals
>>77357764
No, I just got the day off from work and came here to look at some Donald Trump memes.
Saw people trying to argue over race, thought I would chime in. This has been a blast.
Honestly, you can learn a lot from people who disagree with you. You bring up a lot of information that requires me to constantly be on top of things. I love this type of stuff, if I was only ever surrounded by people who agree with me then that would be hypocritical of the lifestyle I constantly challenge other people to live.
It's one thing to argue with people, but I'm authentically interested in the arguments/excuses people come up with.
Do you think any great debater became that way simply because they lived in an echo chamber? haha
>>77356925
Thanks. This is basically everything I have been saying. I'm glad I'm not just imagining that everything they are saying is scientifically flawed.
>>77339290
Well then what the fuck is this
>>77358265
Well the guy posting the info dump that you are all wrong was a relief to me. Everything you say is so wrong and seeing that there are proper arguments against it feels good.
Everything g you said just came across as sociology and not science.
>>77358265
Nice, why don't you address >>77356925
and >>77358150, though?
>>77358381
>russia that high
chart confirmed fo rbullshit
>>77358150
Do you have an example of a 'fertile' liger I can look at, that's pretty cool.
That said, yeah. In more recent times since the advent of genetic sequencing, scientists have been trying to understand how much genetic variation should be required as a standard.
But beyond that, if producing fertile offspring is normal then I don't see any reason why they couldn't be classified as different subspecies. Us organizing them as different species came at a time long before the advent of genetics.
But it's fascinating nonetheless, taking animals from different environments that wouldn't meet naturally and seeing if they can breed together. Something that would've never happen without the advent of humans.
>>77358590
>Do you have an example of a 'fertile' liger I can look at, that's pretty cool.
Here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2650808/No-need-cross-Oklahoma-zoo-worlds-LILIGER-cub-thats-hybrid-male-lion-female-ligress.html
And there are many other such examples, no need to put fertile in inverted commas.
And do you now admit that your contention that
"IF we were different species THEREFORE we wouldn't be able to procreate and have fertile offspring." is clearly false.
>But beyond that, if producing fertile offspring is normal then I don't see any reason why they couldn't be classified as different subspecies.
The same can be said for humans, no?
Also, please address >>77356925
>Beefalo, also referred to as cattalo or the American hybrid, are a fertile hybrid offspring of domestic cattle (Bos taurus), usually a male in managed breeding programs, and the American buffalo (Bison bison), usually a female in managed breeding programs.
>>77356295
>>77356776
>>77357521
>>77358789
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SEND BLACK GIRLS TO CROATIA
>>77343213
>We often come across homicides with people who identify as black, but have the skeletal shape of a Caucasian person.
Because people with minimal African ancestry identify as black. That is an issue somewhat unique to black people in diaspora.
>What we identify in forensic anthropology is "ancestry," not race.
Race is still a farily good proxy for ancestry lineage. Particularly for groups that don't follow the "one-drop rule" like White Americans, Africans, Europeans and Asians.
If we were talking any other species beside humans this wouldn't even be controversial. The controversy is politically driven.
>>77356925
>The most cited reason for race not existing is the American Anthropological Association's official statement in 1998,
You do need to understand that scientific information builds off of other scientific information, simply because it's been cited the most doesn't mean that adds more validity to the paper within itself. Have you come across any Scientific articles in the almost 20 years since this has come out that provide a stronger argument? The sciences changed dramatically, I'm a bit astounded that you would resort to a 1998 article over something from this decade at least.
1) All but the first two paragraphs discuss social aspects of race (i.e. racism)...
Okay. How does this inherently counter organizing people through allele distribution. The price to sequence someone's genetics back in the year 2000 alone was well over $1 million. Today you can get it done for about $200, a lot has changed since then. What was once just a handful of samples to make arguments for how to more properly organize people with, has now been strongly supported through millions upon millions of samples. Organizing people through allele distribution makes race practically obsolete in science.
2) The brief paragraph that actually deals with anthropology emphasizes the overlapping across biological populations...
Do any scientific articles since? Again, this article doesn't dictate the legitimacy have a counter argument for organizing people by race. Simply being cited the most doesn't add any more legitimacy, Scientific information doesn't work like that. You will still find people citing Darwin, even when there are things wrong with certain aspects of his position. Where is it being cited anyway? By people disagreeing with it too?
3) The other scientifically oriented paragraph delves into population genetics ... but today it's rejected as Lewontin's fallacy:
Again, one would have to assume any position countering "race" is inherently from Lewontin.
>>77360271
kill me, just end my suffering
I've seen maybe 3-4 black girls here and they were all taken by Chad Croats.
Scoring with a black chick here gives you high normie social status
They are gold
>>77359080
But are both males and females fertile?
Mules are for all intensive purposes sterile, but on very rare occasions a female mule can be impregnated by a donkey.
Males are still infertile, subsequently still making the species incompatible in most respects. It is statistically very improbable to happen to females, an unlikely will never happen in nature.
Do understand that the notion of species is simply something we have made up, nature doesn't always necessarily work in human units. That's why race still doesn't work well in many respects.
There are no major human populations that are not in contact with each other. Lions and tigers don't me in the wild, there are no major human populations that don't meet and share alleles. So no, all anatomically modern humans are the same exact subspecies.
>A wholphin or wolphin is an extremely rare hybrid born from a mating of a female common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) with a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens). Kekaimalu proved fertile when she gave birth at a very young age.
>>77339290
Read "Race, evolution and behavior" by John Rushmore. You will see exactly why race exists, and that it's more than skin pigmentation.
>>77360108
>Because people with minimal African ancestry identify as black. That is an issue somewhat unique to black people in diaspora.
Depends on where you are. We've had people who identify as white and black be mistaken for native Americans based upon their skulls.
We've had native Americans be confused as white people, we've had Hispanics be confused as Asians. The list goes on.
>Race is still a farily good proxy for ancestry lineage.
In a broad sense if you don't have a lot of mixed ancestry. But that's increasingly not the case in most parts of the world.
>Particularly for groups that don't follow the "one-drop rule" like White Americans, Africans, Europeans and Asians.
Yeah, in some respects. I'm sure you can find examples where that does work. But there are also examples where doesn't.
>If we were talking any other species beside humans this wouldn't even be controversial. The controversy is politically driven.
The issue is we are still dealing with constructs constructed from a long time ago being challenged with scientific information of today.
Ancestry is much more specific than race, it doesn't have opinions, it doesn't have agendas, it is exactly what it is.
I prefer it, and I'm tired of seeing people miss use race to make arguments pertaining to something that is solely genetic.
Even though racial identification has a fairly significant cultural and arbitrary component, it also has a real, biological underlying component serving as a solid proxy for ancestral lineage. One strong enough to permit inferences about things that do matter in the real world.
Which is why it is useful for medical research, forensic anthropology, etc.
The chronically triggered leftists will of course respond as lewtonin's fallacy expects armed with a thousand strawmen and appeals to outliers, but this aforementioned fact remains true nonetheless.
>>77361275
All you are saying is the more races mix the less race exists. I don't think anyone here will disagree with that.
>>77341580
C O L O N I Z E
O
L
O
N
I
Z
E
>>77361116
>Race, evolution and behavior
The book came out in 1995, that's over 20 years ago. It would've also been citing information even older.
The science of genetics has changed so rapidly since the 2000's it's really hard to take information before that more seriously then more recent stuff.
Rushmore may have very well assessed the information of the time quite properly and could have made an argument for that, but so much is changed since then it's very difficult for anybody to take seriously book recommendations over things dealing with such rapidly changing sciences that are over 10 years old, let alone 20.
Programs like 23andme show how organizing people through race is very obsolete. And there are many other ones out there too.
>>77361275
>I prefer it, and I'm tired of seeing people miss use race to make arguments pertaining to something that is solely genetic.
Race influences genetics.
People are not wrong to suggest that certain races may have more probability to have certain genetics that may cause certain behaviors or actions.
If you are uncomfortable with people talking factually accurate topics, then you may have bias on the subject.
>>77361275
You are citing things from the 70s when you say that there is more variation within a race than between. Why are you so desperate for race not to exist?
Why do you lie?
>>77361700
>Programs like 23andme show how organizing people through race is very obsolete. And there are many other ones out there too.
Not as of now. Maybe 40 years from now in certain 'diverse' big cities. The amount of mixed race people in the world is highly insignificant today. Less than 1% of couples even in the 'Melting Pot' are of different race.
>>77339290
as a working geneticist, I can safely say, you're talking shit.
>>77360740
>But are both males and females fertile?
Female Ligers have only ever reproduced (and it was by accident) male Ligers have been tested, and possess high enough testosterone. Dr. Bhagavan Antle, an expert, believes that they are both fertile.
The phrase is: "all intents and purposes". what is an "intensive purpose"?
>Do understand that the notion of species is simply something we have made up
Yes? Like the alphabet, colours, wearing clothes etc. The idea that because something is a human construct it is invalid is bizarre in that it only applies to concepts you wish to disregard (not everything else) such as IQ and race.
>nature doesn't always necessarily work in human units.
Humans create units to measure nature - we fit our units to nature, we don't randomly create concepts and hope they stick.
>That's why race still doesn't work well in many respects.
Name one. Race is very accurate in matching the phenotypical appearance of a person to a geographic source.
Or is the idea that someone with pale skin and blonde hair has recent ancestry from Europe bizarre to you?
>There are no major human populations that are not in contact with each other.
Not "major", perhaps, however you'd define that - but Amazonian tribes and the natives of the Andaman Islands have little contact.
>Lions and tigers don't me in the wild,
In the past they did. And is it not equally valid to say that Caucasians and Sub-Saharan Africans would never meet "in the wild"?
>there are no major human populations that don't meet and share alleles.
And again you recite Lewontin's Fallacy, it's not about the sharing of alleles, but their frequency within different loci. With this method it possible to classify people into racial groupings with 100% accuracy.
>>77360740
>So no, all anatomically modern humans are the same exact subspecies
Earlier you denounce anatomy as a social construct, now you're back again to using it with the non-sequitur that because human populations are in contact with eachother, they are the same exact subspecies. By this logic those humans that we are not in contact with (previously mentioned) are not the same exact subspecies by your definition?
>>77341580
Use a condom
>>77361520
>All you are saying is the more races mix the less race exists. I don't think anyone here will disagree with that.
The major issue is simply assuming it's a race to begin with.
Race consists of things like phenotypes, language, geography, and so on.
That's why you have White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and so on.
It can change depending on who is looking at you, and the person might incorrectly racially identified themselves. Happens all the time in forensics.
It's also why people who are Arab are in this weird racial group that people in some cases is not white, but also know isn't Asian or black.
Ancestry clears all of this up, ancestry simply uses genotype which also accounts for phenotype. The same cannot be said the other way around.
When understanding allele distribution, we can see the ancestry of groups which is much more specific then race.
Other than having white people, we have large populations of people that share particular genetics. We can differentiate Irish people, from Italian's, from Greeks, from Iranians. We can also account for individuals and those populations who have ancestry from different parts of the world.
In Africa, instead of just black people, we have hundreds of ancestral groups. Including Ethiopians, Zulu, the many in Nigeria too. There is more diversity in Africa than there is in the whole of Europe and Asia combined, but Europeans and Asians get two racial groups but everybody in sub-Saharan Africa is black. Ancestry is an all-around win.
The more specific you get with race, eventually you find yourself looking at just genetics and stepping into the realm of ancestry. But they are not the same thing.
>>77339438
I went to high school with top left ogre. She wasn't mentally disabled. Just a salty cunt.
>>77339078
No, this is what the well-informed believe.
Liberals, in most cases, have simply learned to mouth the words without understanding them.
>>77362450
So what you are saying is that there are groups with high likelyhoods of certain genetic make ups. Race exists.
>>77361709
Genetics influence race, but it's only one component of it.
Race includes skin color, language, and geography. Ancestry is just genotype.
>>77361896
Show me exactly what I "cited" from the 70s. We didn't have the ability to do the genetic testing that we have today in the 70s. Haha
Why are you so desperate for a race to exist, I want context, you want generalizations.
Do you honestly think race is a better means of organizing people than ancestry? Categories like white, Asian, Hispanic really overgeneralize genetic diversity.
Where is your citation for the definition you provided?
>>77362373
Show me exactly where I said anatomy is a social construct... I said race is a social construct, it's a folk taxonomy. You're not properly representing my argument.
All major human populations have contact with each other, isolated populations around the world are still part of larger allele groupings. People who are in uncontacted tribes in the Amazon for instance, still have individual members from other tribes that share similar allele distributions with many native peoples and close regions that are in contact.
But of course, we are can still breed, and we are all still the same subspecies. Most "uncontacted" tribes are still in contact with other tribes that have had contact. This is definitely the case in Papua New Guinea.
>>77362450
Okay, so your whole problem in this thread posting 40+ lengthy posts is because people aren't using the correct terms you want them to use eventhough they are clearly referring to the same, or similar, things.
Do you also spergs like this whenever someone refers to different types of computer software as app.
Clearly this is a case of autism.
>>77339290
Fuck off back to Italy, Razio
>>77339078
The genetic distance between an abo and an african is greater than the genetic distance between chimp subspecies.
>>77343213
What about DNA haplogroups?
>>77339078
im still amazed by the fact the fat chink's glasses are shaped in such a weird way to fit her huge nose
>>77363378
You claimed there is more genetic variation within race than between. This statement is based on work from the 70s but you slam work from the 90s.
It's sad.
>>77363378
You are using a sociological definition of race. That means you are irredeemably wrong and biased.
It's a propaganda subject.
>>77343213
>There is more genetic (specifically allele) diversity within Africa than the whole of Asia in Europe combined.
This is probably yet baloney misinterpretation you're mindlessly parroting.
See
>>77363544
If you lump sub-Saharan Africans (bantus) with north Africans, you will get your duhversity.
>>77363944
yet another*
>>77363544
here's the full chart
>>77363378
>Show me exactly where I said anatomy is a social construct...
Do understand that the notion of species is simply something we have made up, nature doesn't always necessarily work in human units.
>All major human populations have contact with each other, isolated populations around the world are still part of larger allele groupings. People who are in uncontacted tribes in the Amazon for instance, still have individual members from other tribes that share similar allele distributions with many native peoples and close regions that are in contact.
So what you're saying is, is that groupings of alleles can be correlated to a people from a geographic area? So you've literally just regurgitated my argument back at me?
>But of course, we are can still breed
[Citation needed] These are "uncontacted tribes" for a reason.
>Most "uncontacted" tribes are still in contact with other tribes that have had contact.
I'm going to need a source to believe this utter hogwash you're peddling.
>This is definitely the case in Papua New Guinea.
But I didn't cite Papua New Guinea, I cited the Andamans and the Amazon.
>>77363378
Race is genotype + phenotype.
Genotype influences phenotypes.
>skin color, language
No, someone with an asian facial structure (flat face, nose, etc) with darker skin wouldn't be considered african, even if he speaks whatever the hell african speaks.
>geography
Geography doesn't imply race.
Race implies geography.
>Why are you so desperate for a race to exist
>I said race is a social construct
You are confusing the definition of race.
What most people here refer to race are what you probably would refer ancestry as. Not 100%, but probably more similar than what your definition of race and what the people here define race as.
>>77363380
He has been spinning in circles for hours.
>Race doesn't exist
What about these things?
>social factors
What about genetics
>Genetics show race doesn't exist because of (very old and wrong) research.
This newer research shows you are wrong
>Race means this other thing which means you are wrong. You arnt using the right words
So race does exist and so does ancestry which we have claimed
>You are using the wrong words.
That's semantics
>Race does not exists semantics are not an argument
He has not stopped in literally hours. I do need to thank him for arming me with all the proof I need next time it comes up.
>>77364304
I like the part where he called Lewontin's Fallacy outdated and then prattled on about even older shit.
>>77362348
>Female Ligers ... fertile.
Okay. Show it. Again, one could simply argue that they are just different sub species. It's not a big deal.
We'll have to see if scientists want to use a percentage of different genetic makeup as a signifier too, who knows.
>"all intents and purposes"?
Mules are often stated to be sterile, but there are are rare instances where only females can get impregnated. And it's very unlikely.
>Yes? Like the alphabet ... and race.
The thing is, some of those components rely on the human perspective. Species does not. We're just organizing nature.
>Humans create units to measure nature - we fit our units to nature,
Yes, and we make corrections and find better unit sometimes without needing to constantly change old ones. Like dwarf planet, we kept the concept of planets around but added a new unit.
>we don't randomly create concepts and hope they stick.
I never said that.
>Name one. Race is very accurate in matching the phenotypical appearance of a person to a geographic source.
Asian. That said, nonspecific regions. Mostly just continents. Again race, is not specific.
>Or is the idea that someone with pale skin and blonde hair has recent ancestry from Europe bizarre to you?
Again, Europe is big. We can be more specific with ancestry.
>Not "major", perhaps, however you'd define that - but Amazonian tribes and the natives of the Andaman Islands have little contact.
But they are the only populations that contained the majority of the same alleles.
>In the past they did. And is it not equally valid to say that Caucasians and Sub-Saharan Africans would never meet "in the wild"?
Yes they did, one notable region being Ethiopian/Egypt.
>And again you recite Lewontin's Fallacy, it's not about the sharing of alleles, but their frequency within different loci.
Then it is not race. It simply being called a racial group without actually being one. Race is a folk taxonomy, pertaining to language, geography, and phenotypes.
Depends, it's not nearly as clear cut or relevant as those that try to use it as an excuse for anything would have you believe.
But it's a very real thing that underlies all those ham-handed and conveniently picked definitions of "races".
>>77341580
Invade her pussy and leave some of your troops behind to conquer her womb :)
>>77364489
>just different sub species
The genetic distance between abos and africans is greater than the genetic distance between two chimp subspecies. Races could be scientifically understood as subspecies of humans.
Walked into a shit show here.
>>77364466
He is basing his whole argument on something from the 70s but shits on a book from the 90s. He claims scientific knowledge but only wants to talk about sociology.
Who shills this hard?
>>77361275
>We've had people who identify as white and black be mistaken for native Americans based upon their skulls.
And some people identify as fucking dragons.
>>77341141
Neanderthal is a separate species from sapien
>>77364489
>Asian. That said, nonspecific regions. Mostly just continents. Again race, is not specific.
>what are east asians, hapas, mongoloid, malayans, etc
That's like saying germanic aryans are of the same race with hispanics because they're both caucasians.
Oh wait, you probably thinks all of us here consider that as true. Since we didn't use what you consider as correct terms and you are probably too autistic to consider what we really meant by race.
>>77346776
Holy shit you're autistic. He's not saying that race doesn't exist. He's saying that we classify(and misclassify) people into races based off of their phenotypes when a more accurate classification would be based off of lineage. Obviously races exist because we're having this discussion. See the problem is that the characteristics of races were defined long before we were actually able to look at the humane genome, and have persisted since then because the idea is so ingrained in society. I don't understand how you plan on defending a conclusion that was reached when we had little to no information on the subject.
>>77364489
>
The thing is, some of those components rely on the human perspective. Species does not. We're just organizing nature.
Oh ok, next time we'll ask chimps what their relationship to other animals is?
>I never said that.
You very much implied it.
"Do understand that the notion of species is simply something we have made up, nature doesn't always necessarily work in human units."
>Asian. That said, nonspecific regions. Mostly just continents. Again race, is not specific.
When did I say it was specific? The fact that you can identify an "Asian" from genes and his appearance, and be correct in doing so, is evidence that race exists.
>We can be more specific with ancestry.
Which is looking at people's DNA to ascertain their geographic origin. We can also look at their allele clusters and determine what race they are.
>But they are the only populations that contained the majority of the same alleles.
Source?
>Yes they did, one notable region being Ethiopian/Egypt.
So when man was building the pyramids is "in the wild" to you?
>Then it is not race. It simply being called a racial group without actually being one.
Then what is it? We're applying a label that means a distinct human subspecies to genetic groupings that show this. What would you call it?
>Race is a folk taxonomy, pertaining to language
No. I can learn Chinese, that doesn't make me Asian.
>>77363380
Words have definitions for reason. If you want to assume that a word mean something it actually doesn't, go ahead. But you're wrong, even if you think you're correct.
>>77363551
That can be taken into consideration because we understand where a particular alleles are coming from.
>>77363802
Provide actual evidence please. Simply saying it's from the 70s doesn't prove anything. Prove it. Then justify how do I no recent evidence validates it.
>>77363944
Could that chart had been more poorly designed?
Again even if you want to make an argument against that, it doesn't change anything.
>>77364040
1Misrepresentation.
2Geography doesn't dictate name.
3Uncontacted is a "human unit," often means Government workers aren't going out and contacting them. No means of actually knowing who they truly contact.
4quite frankly it doesn't fucking matter if they're contacted, we're talking about illegal distribution making an argument out of mediocre shit.
5http://www.vox.com/2014/7/9/5882135/theres-no-such-thing-as-an-uncontacted-tribe-but-isolated-tribes-are
Yeah it's Vox, get over it. Look more into the terminology.
>>77364099
Race is phenotype, language, geography. It also incorporates one's own interpretation, and cultural perspective over what a racing compasses. The Dominican Republic and the United States what associate the person who is 50% European and 50% African to be white and black respectively.
You don't understand that races apparently though.
>>77364304
>This newer research shows you are wrong
You provided newer research? hahaha
>>77364466
No, not everything that calls out race is inherently part of Lewontin's fallacy. Nor does his work represented all counter arguments. Hahaha
>>77365340
No, he's claiming race has no scientific basis and is a social construct. He keeps saying that sometimes mistakes are made in anthropology but since he already admitted he is not speaking for all anthropologists we can assume he is the one making mistakes. He's trying to lecture us while there are other anthropologists in his field that disagree with (((him))).
>>77365340
>reading comprehension
read >>77363378
I don't know what they teach you at American schools.
But race doesn't only consider phenotypes.
Even if american enducation was that bad, rather than disqualify and dismiss hundred of years of research and findings by renaming or using a completely different term, why not add to pre-existing terms when the new findings we have now doesn't even contradict the findings of races in the past.
Every city and country where the government is majority of Sub-Saharan African descent is an absolute shithole. Is that not consistent observation of inferiority in a group?
>>77364489
>Race is a folk taxonomy, pertaining to language, geography, and phenotypes.
I can move to Niger and spend there for my whole life, but that wouldn't make me or my chilren any less caucasian.
Race is a visual categorization. I got no time to ask for the ancestry of some person when I can just say that he's a nigger just by looking.
>>77349364
Dude nobody has said that race doesnt exist. You are wilfully misinterpreting everything thats being said so that you can continue arguing about a point that everybody here agrees on
>>77365340
He has claimed multiple times race does not exist in any form. He retreats to what you are saying when cornered and then begins again.
>>77363544
>picture of romanian politician for europe
>>77366014
You claim that there is more variation within race than between. That's from the 70s. You are incredibly full of shit.
>>77366014
>Words have definitions for reason
>By the way my definition is 100% correct, I don't need sources to back me up, because I'm right
The road goes both ways, faggot.
>>>Race is phenotype
>>No, here people refers race as phenotype + genotype
>Race is phenotype, language, geography
>mfw
Definitions are dynamic.
Your arguments are shit-tier semantics.
Keep posting another 40+ posts, you wouldn't change shit in here.
THAT WHITE GIRL THICC
>>77366014
50% euro 50% african is a mulatto. It doesn't matter how Dominican Republic or the United States sees it (whatever that means).
>>77364704
>The genetic distance between abos and africans is greater than the genetic distance between two chimp subspecies. Races could be scientifically understood as subspecies of humans.
So? Chimpanzee populations are quite isolated from each other. Australian aboriginals are not isolated from the rest of the world and there are many populations where the the alleles have been introduced into European and Asian populations, with stable populations of people with mixed ancestry. There not isolated.
Sub species is actually more like humans and Neanderthals. Hybridization was still complicated there in ways it wasn't and is not in anatomically modern humans.
>>77364962
Good argument. Really... /s
>>77365123
You're not even properly quoting me.
Again, that example shows why race doesn't really work. Caucasian is just an overgeneralization of people from a particular region with a specific set of alleles, but as you have displayed with the Iranian argument it's inconsistent.
Which is why ancestry is best.
>>77365735
Your arguments are getting very obnoxious and pointless.
> you very much implied it
No. No I did not. You should've asked me what I meant exactly rather than trying to reinterpret what I'm saying.
That's why nothing gets done, and that's why this is getting really stupid fast. People are pretty much being trolls because no one is giving consistent arguments.
>No. I can learn Chinese, that doesn't make me Asian.
The grouping of Hispanic was related to language, not learning Chinese. God this is so dumb.
Believe what you want to believe dude, you are either completely hopeless or just a really piss poor troll.
Goodbye
I got a other things I got to do, I'm going to call it good.
If all you guys want to continue using race, be my guest. But it'll always be a folk taxonomy, and it will never take the place of genotypic organization through ancestry. Goodbye, and have fun agreeing with yourself. Look for recent studies to! <3
Maybe I'm retarded but what's the big distinction between race and ancestry?
>>77367402
What was the name of your sociology course?
>>77367402
>You're not even properly quoting me
You must be new. Which is no surprise since you are having a hard time discussing with people here with fundamentally different sets of definitions.
Its called implications. Lurk more.
Also, no. You can market your shit-tier terms somewhere else.
We'll be using race to refer to what you refer as ancestry, since you'd seem mad if we do so.
>>77367402
What isn't a social construct?
>>77367636
Literally nothing.
Autistic guy want to redefine what words mean so that he can call people racist.
>>77367402
If I can attempt to summarize what you are saying, do you believe that race is a general classification that groups some phenotypic and behavioral traits with somewhat reasonable accuracy, but it is not a rigid, specific, and determining factor?
Race is convenient, it's easy, it's not going anywhere.
It is a folk taxonomy. It's not that it does not exist, IT DOES!!! But it's about as useful for organizing people genetically as nationality.
But given the conditions that are related to race involving language (Hispanic) geography (Asian) color (White), it doesn't allow for accurate understandings of a persons actual genetic makeup. Even if you're white, where exactly are you from? Ancestry allows for us to actually assess what the hell makes you up. You'll understand that 5% Cherokee, that 5% Japanese, or that 40% Sicilian...
If you prefer calling yourself a white guy, do it. But that doesn't mean I can't recognize that there is more to it than that. I am made up of many different ancestral groups even though I am "white." And even though I might have heritage heritage from a particular region, might or might not necessarily mean I have disorders that are associated with that region are not.
If anything, it's up to you guys to take advantage of this and quit letting the PC police actually get an upper hand. Christ.
Now where is that paycheck from those pesky Jews...
>>77341580
Do what any self respecting European would've done in the past... Fuck the negress
>>77343616
>All humans are the same
By this conjecture my Chihuahua is exactly the same as my Golden Retriever
>>77339290
Fucking syrup flag each time
kek
It's evident that niggers aren't even the same species as humans. Funny thing is that even a dog, or a little child, can tell this.
>Be tiny anon
>with my mother at some cafe or something
>point at nigger
oooouch
>but anon!
ooooouch
>hush anon
"mamma han er svidd"
untranslatable.. like when you burn a match.. I said he was burned!
oh dear.. but yeah their brain is different than that of a human. It's way of thought is therefore completely different.
But hey! We celebrate that we find an unknown humanoid that lived side by side with us 15k years ago... Yet there are two or three (aboos) humanoid species living on the planet right now
That's actually pretty amazing and should be celebrated, like we did with the other humanoids of the past, WE KILL AND EAT THEM
or make them into salmon pellets
Mudslimes should also be wiped out and made to trælls. Just castrate them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCRqZ5n909k
Vestheim/america could have been free of niggers if the jews hadn't spread the black death... We knew that fucking blámenn was useless as well anything, we just killed them on site. To this very day the most common swear is related to these niggers or blámenn.
We said blue to black before, now we say svart applies to icenigger who hold the old tongue.
Svarte faen - Black devil
Svarte helvetes faen - Black hell devil
Blámenn til fjandins - Black men of the devil
WE WUZ WIKANGZ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-YCtdu7gAM
>>77360740
Good to see someone else here who understands genetics.
>>77361700
Err well, almost.
23andme has some MAJOR problems. Autosomal DNA is simply not reliable for deep ancestry analysis, as they use it.
>>77363544
Absolutely false.
There's more difference between chimp sub-species that live within a few miles of each other than there is in the entire human race.
If you want a genetic-based division below race, it's real messy, but based on ancestry you could mostly work it out with 6-7 subraces. ALL BUT ONE of those exists near-solely in Africa. The last is common in East Africa, North Africa, and the rest of the world as well.
>>77339078
MY DICK
>>77348621
holy shit how hard can you bait why am I even linking this
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YnBGMpIMfJ0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA53&dq=heritability+of+intelligence&ots=l0IOiCwXBU&sig=VbK9Ol-i-ZyItVV_iPfoVpy5Ybo#v=onepage&q=heritability%20of%20intelligence&f=false
you refuse to acknowledge any opposing point because "muh evidance" and yet you seem strictly opposed to actually exploring any of the evidence that contradicts your "folk taxonomy" worldview
>>77346382
Again by this conjecture dog races are bullshit and every dog is the same
>>77339290
They are just caving to politics. Behind closed door they still do race based medical research.
Race isn't a social construct because big PHARMA spends billions of dollars developing race based therapies and treatments.
This is just a straight up fact.
While some SJW geneticist is out bullshitting the dumbfuck SJW plebs... the mad scientists out there are researching the differences between races and developing medicine.
A reminder that if you are not of norse or dane blood, you are a nigger.
>>77339078
Do you really think there are no differences between races?
>>77369266
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787
Humans are significantly more distant than the furthest chimps. Their heterozygosity is 0,235 where ours is 0,776.
Lie more!
>>77343213
>how to spot a quack: the post
People want to use science to destroy religion and then twist it to support the social justice crusade.
Science sounds racist to the ignorant.
>>77369691
Tfw Danskblut.
>>77367927
>If I can attempt to summarize what you are saying, do you believe that race is a general classification that groups some phenotypic and behavioral traits with somewhat reasonable accuracy, but it is not a rigid, specific, and determining factor?
Yeah, pretty much. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying it's not perfect in light of a better system. People often generalize populations and particular features that supposedly a population has and it's prone to issues.
Sure white people have blond hair but it's obviously going to be more prevalent in particular ancestral groups, let alone numerous other alleles.
Race is a folk taxonomy, it has many bizarre qualifications and can be missed representative of a persons actual ancestry in light of what a person recognize him/herself as or is recognized by other people as. It's easy for a casual conversation, but these casual units are not as specific as people are seemingly making them out to be.
A lot of counter arguments are based upon simply looking at White people in general and not looking at issues pertaining to when a white person has children with a nonwhite person.
I'm not here to be some PC police or whatever, I'm just here to get people understanding that there is more context to this stuff. Most of the people here I would assume would be more onboard with this because it is addressing the humans are not all the same. There are many regionalize variations, but it's a step below sub species. AKA, ancestry.
>>77369818
>are the Jews white
EVERYTIME
>>77346382
>>77346612
Why are you guys even trying? The US Census Bureau has cucked you with this idiotic race taxonomy, now you are done, condemned to forever believe that, somehow, italians, whites, jews and blacks are specific, compartimentalized "races".
Good luck tho
How the fuck did the discussion reach species interbreeding when it was about race?
Btw what we classify as different species, Wolves, Coyotes, Golden Jackals and Dogs can interbreed and have 100 % fertile offspring.
We also classify common RAVEN subspecies even though in places where they meet, and they meet often we get hybrids of these subspecies, even though only a trained ornithologist could tell the difference between subspecies.
>>77369930
Then you are not a nigger, and should track your blood line all the way back. Who knows, maybe you find some historical celebs or even earls or kings.
A friend of mine found out that he hailed from Olav Trygvason, pic related. That was a pretty badass motherfucker, hollywood style, but real.
He was leader of the jomsvikings and later took the throne. Sold as a træll while captured while fleeing as a kid. Killed his owner at 11. The russian queen happen to be there and spot the kid as the village was about to lynch him, and recognized he was norse and therefor could not be træll to begin with. He was raised there, when she learned who he was. Then he came and took revenge for his father. He loved to run on the men's oars when they rowed
Read his saga
Icenigger still do this (I think), they can name their lineage all the way til they moved from the shitrock in the 800ds. I mean like right there on the spot.
>>77360740
Lions used to be plentiful in Eurasia. The span of the lion spanned from Africa to Europe to Asia.
The panthera genus evolved in Asia, I believe. All panthers originate from Asia.
European lions got wiped out by Eurasian when they tamed wolves, horses, cows, etc. They became pests that ate livestock.
Eurasians use to worship a lion god in the Ice Age.
Lions and tigers can interbreed and produce fertile young but are considered a different species.
>>77370735
I live in an ethnic commune. Everyone here is Scandi and our neighboring village is all Germans. Breddy nice.
I trace back to some guy with a name like King Gorm the Old.
>>77339438
it's just that "population groups" don't neatly line up with traditional race
>>77370991
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/
read section 3 you illiterate troglodyte
>>77370961
>King Gorm
wow that's pretty amazing actually
>>77370784
That might be simply due to logistics and not updating our scientific understanding over the issue.
If this is definitely the case, and scientist feel comfortable with it while understanding the genetic drift that already occurred, I see no problem with reclassifying them as sub species from each other.
That doesn't contradict my argument. The thing is, we do often find in nature organisms that are perfectly capable of breeding with each other and don't. That is also typically used when understanding taxonomy in some cases. Things don't always fit perfectly.
There are numerous factors we need to consider, like behaviorally tigers are very independent wild lions often live in the family units.
All that said, I'm not part of the committee that decides this by weighing in all of the factors. I'm an anthropologist, I particularly deal with human stuff.
But I have no objection over changes pertaining to the stuff, so long as it's justified.
>>77369266
Everyone agrees that a genetic bottle neck occurred when homo sapiens left Africa and bred with neanderthals. Everything in Africa is quite different to everything outside.
Go ahead and make any assumptions you want with that info.
Shitposting on web forums is not going to discredit decades of scientific research
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271140/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.10079/abstract;jsessionid=F7CE43E76C6B6AF7D965CF1A2F1C7E34.f02t03
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707610015
http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1436.html
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1454.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000178
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.short
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1800886/
>>77366954
Thanks man
Hopefully, Ill find my black angel someday
>>77372106
me too
>>77371999
Not really. It's more like Neanderthals got successful and fucked too many sheboons and other similar homo sapiens.
Look at the spread and variety of y-chromosomes.
You gotta look at y-chromosome haplogroups and how they spread. Because populations went where the men took them.
Male dominated species. Family goes where man leads it.
Yap+ DE haplogroup males are rare in Asia. Most of them are in Africa and the islands south of Asia.
Tropical human hominids, "blacks," couldn't get a foothold in Asia proper.
The Neanderthal was cold weather adapted. He lived in caves, had to learn to make fires, prepare for winter, hunt big animals, survive on a high protein diet.
It's possible that when some darker, tropical hominids move into their turf... they ended up getting killed in cold winters.
They may have picked up sheboon sex girls and such.
Over time they might have gotten greedy and polygamous, started fucking sheboons like crazy... making mutt children who outnumbered the pure bloods.
>>77369833
False. You misread your own link
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/8/1131.full
All human beings on the planet are more closely related to each other than troops of chimpanzees separated by a few hundred miles.
Humans went through two major bottleneck events that drastically lowered our genetic diversity before we expanded to a population of 7 billion.
>>77372568
>ecause populations went where the men took them.
That's not why. Haplogroups use Y-chromsome or mitrochrondrial DNA because we can't use autosomal DNA to trace ancestry because of crossing over.
You don't understand the science.
>>77372722
No, I didn't. From genetic tests - chimpanzee diversity 0,235, human diversity 0,776. Pretty simple..