Does the biological and morphological differences between races warrant for the human race to be categorized into...

Before the 60's the "Science" was horrible cnducted and not adhering to the scientific method.

For very long time the entire medical establishment up until the ~70's in regards to women was

>Women are smaller men
>Eww women are disgusting.

Hell in the 1920's one doctor did a paper where he concluded that during menstruation women sweat out a substance that kills plants, spoils beer and does other ruinous things on contact with other things.

>Hell in the 1920's one doctor did a paper where he concluded that during menstruation women sweat out a substance that kills plants, spoils beer and does other ruinous things on contact with other things.

Got a link to that paper? I can understand if he's saying 'hey, women sweat out .000000001% of X chemical which has Y properties to do Z.'

>virginia.edu/woodson/courses/aas102 (spring 01)/articles/AAPA_race.pdf

See point 3. This from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in 1996.

No, there are no clear distinctions between human racial groups that you would need to define subspecies

Plenty of countries still supported eugenics into the 70s so im not really sure what your point is. Were people more enlightened in the 60s?

Also this,

>nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/box/ng1455_BX1.html

gee I wonder what board this fellow found his to way Veeky Forums from

guys, didn't you know that evolution stopped 90k years ago, the exact moment the races diverged, except obviously evolution continued in terms of skull shape, hip size, bone density, muscle and blood types.

obviously evolution only stopped when it came to the brain, exactly 90k years ago. oh, introgression of neanderthal dna? no, that's not evolution...

Read the entire paper. Literally fucking useless.

the earth is only 6000 years old.

You know what, here's a tl;dr for you.

>old classification of race is useless because of new foundings (this paper is basically arguing for the classification of race we have now)
>classification is hard with humans because in each race we're gonna have make sub classes for the sub classes. e.g. Whites: subclasses - slavics, germanics, anglo, anglo-saxon, celtic, nordics, etc
>No human population is better suited for an environment than others, but different human populations have created cultures that invent adopting technology to make themselves suit better in their environment
>race mixing is a-okay because humans are prone to mate with their own race and culture, so it's only affects the individuals and not the GP

A literal useless paper.

>classification is hard with humans because in each race we're gonna have make sub classes for the sub classes. e.g. Whites: subclasses - slavics, germanics, anglo, anglo-saxon, celtic, nordics, etc
Yeah, no, that's not what they're saying.

They're not saying, "wah, it's too hard," they're saying there's no objective, scientific reason to draw the boundaries between the "races" in any particular place -- the lines of division are cultural and arbitrary. Do Greeks and Turks belong to different "subraces" or ethnicities? Most Greeks would say "abso-fucking-lutely", but these days there's little genetic difference between them; the difference is cultural and linguistic, not biological. Same as with Czechs and Russians etc, they've both heavily bred with non-Slavic populations, so why are they still both ethnic Slavs? Because they both speak Slavic languages. Huh.

Start in Paris and head southeast, people will gradually stop looking "white", but when does the changeover happen? Italy? Croatia? Greece? Turkey? Go east, when do people become officially become Asian? Russia? Azerbaijan? Kazakhstan? How about a half-French, half-Kazakh man, is he Asian or white? How about if there's a country full of them and they all interbred 500 years ago? Doesn't matter what you say, I can find someone who'll disagree with every answer, because race is a cultural construct, not a hard biological division.

When anthropologists say stuff like, "race doesn't really exist," that's all they mean. I mean, fuck, like I keep telling you people, forensic anthropologists still sometimes use the Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid system of classification -- they're aware that people from X region tend to have Y trait. They're not denying that people from different sides of the world look different. What they're saying is ... well, basically, they're saying "race is a spook."

Yes because that is what a subspecies is, a division between species.

Blacks are obviously a subspecies.

nice continuum fallacy

you can never pinpoint the exact moment you're no longer clean shaven therefore you can never grow a bear huh

I like how the democrats are now officially the evolution deniers

>therefore you can never grow a bear
Ursine outrage.

you're correct. genetics happens to follow mostly, a spectrum of genes, save for a few signficant natural breaks, such as between europe and the med, the me and na and the sahara, middle asia and the sinosphere

what is ALSO very interesting, is that INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT IS ALSO A SPECTRUM. EVERY FEW HUNDRED MILES OR SO CLOSER YOU GET TO AFRICA IQ DROPS A POINT OR TWO.

ALMOST LIKE THE IQ IS CHANGING IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO THE SPECTRUM OF GENETIC CHANGES.

WOW, REALLY SHOCKS THE THINKING-BOX

youtube.com/watch?v=bNuYGxMV-xQ&list=PL7WG0c0bgs6ub7RWaIUsQw4rKKNYuY8L1&index=3

Remember folks, the darker the shade of the people of a nation, the worse it is, with a 100% correlation all over the earth. The rule even scales down to cities, in fact.

I'd be guilty of the continuum fallacy if I denied that there would be biological differences between someone from Ireland and someone from Vietnam (or wherever). I am explicitly not doing so. Feel free to read my last paragraph again.

Irish people do not look like Vietnamese people. I am not claiming they do. No anthropologist is claiming that. No sane person is claiming that.

When something is a relatively smooth continuum, though, it's not a fallacy to point out that there's no objective reasons to draw the lines in any particular place. That's not the continuum fallacy. Sit me down in a room, watch me grow a bear (or a beard) and try to pinpoint the moment when I'm officially no longer clean-shaven and am now sporting five-o'clock shadow, or when my five-o'clock shadow changes into stubble, or when my stubble can be officially classed as a beard. Spoiler: you won't be able to. And if you try and somebody disagrees, you won't be able to defend your choice with anything harder than "muh feels!"

humans are not smart creatures. we devote 90% of our brainpower to figuring out how to get sex, and the tastiest food to eat. only people with iqs higher than 120 can even begin to understand things like abstract concepts, such as values or accounting.

when a country is filled with too many brown people, anyone who points out reality is killed. because high iq people are generally unwilling to hurt others, even violent low iq people, the smart all end up dying.

civilization collapses.

you need to be willing to put low iq people nto the ground to preserve civilization. it's a thermodynamic law

This

>figuring out how to get sex
Easy find a woman and force your dick into her, rape is the most logical way to have sex because it avoids pointless things like getting to know the woman or risking a chance at rejection yet rape is a crime because women get butthurt when they cant control you.

but europeans understood abstract concepts and they killed a lot of people desu

They get more diverse closer to the fall because they are big and powerful empires at that point that people want to be protected by.

Give me evidence that diversity causes collapse.

I don't give a shit about any of that. Really, I don't. I'm not interested in the nature vs. nurture debate w/r/t intelligence -- I'm sure both play a role, but I don't care about the proportions. I'm also not interested in arguing about the scientific validity of IQ tests themselves. You want to argue about all that stuff, you'll have no shortage of volunteers, but I'm not one of them.

I'm not trying to preach peace, love and equality here, I'm just correcting somebody who misread an anthropology article. Nothing more or less.

niggers kill people over air jordans or "racism"

whites killed people over conflicts over resources and political control over territory. conflicts that are inherent in human nature, and which we were THIS CLOSE to snuffing out completely... until we imported a bunch of mexicans and muslims into our countries, and then had to either make rape legal or outlaw convicting brown people of crimes.

big fuckng difference, you nigger.

now, the capital crime in the west is pointing out that brown people are genetically inferior. it's a more punishable crime than murder.

No.

Also biology belongs in

he misread your anthropology article, and you misread just about every other genetics paper ever written

race is real

>They're not saying, "wah, it's too hard," they're saying there's no blah
5., "humanity can not be classified...into absolute boundies," do to "complexity of human history makes many ethnicities hard to categorize." Loose quotes here.

>the lines of division are cultural and arbitrary.
.4 in the paper proves you wrong and they even admit it, ya little meme master.

>Do Greeks and Turks belong to different "subraces" or ethnicities?

Two studies (Oscar Lao et al. [52] and Novembre et al. [53]) were published in 2008 documenting the genetic relatedness of 2,514 and 1,387 Europeans respectively. They included 51 [52] and 8 [53] Greeks respectively from Macedonia (Northern Greece). They used 309,790 and 197,146 autosomal single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for the construction of the map, respectively and had the following results:
Greeks are closest to Italians, Romanians (small sample size) and Former Yugoslavians [52], and to Albanians, southern Balkan Slavs, Romanians, Bulgarians, and Italians [53] (FIG. 26).
Vardar Slavs cluster very close to Bulgarians [53] (FIG. 26).

>Same as with Czechs and Russians etc, they've both heavily bred with non-Slavic populations, so why are they still both ethnic Slavs?
Because the majority of their bloodline is ethnic Slavic.

>Start in Paris and head southeast, people will gradually stop looking "white", but when blah blah blah...
Sure, categories are a social construction, but the biological differences in these categories are not.

>When anthropologists say stuff like, "race doesn't really exist," that's all they mean.

>I mean, fuck, like I keep telling you people, forensic anthropologists still sometimes use blah blah
So basically you agree race - or biological differences in populations that categorize into different groups exist but you don't care because its a spook?

>well, basically, they're saying "race is a spook."
Thespookyness and you, by Marx Stranner also said rationality is a spook.

Nah; we can still breed and produce fertile offspring. Once that stops being possible we can be considered different subspecies of the homo sapiens

>scientific progress is wrong when it doesn't match my distorted view on reality

no. that's a different species. species distinctions are fertile 99% of the time with other species

offspring stops becoming fertile around the genus clade

further, cladistics is less advanced than genetics. you don't now what you're talking about

this.

don't forget that SQUARES are a social construct because they are not found in nature or describable by natural numbers or natural processes, but must be defined by humans

math is also a social construct. kek

Literally nothing I've said is at odds with the mainstream consensus in either field -- genetics or anthropology.

Neither quote you linked "proves me wrong." Point 5 affirms what I said exactly; if you actually read the damn thing it's abundantly clear that they're not whining "this is too complicated!", they're pointing out that, given the smoothness of the genetic continuum, and the amount of mixing that's gone on given our tendency to migrate and fuck each other, there's no set of criteria by which you can determine "Okay, these are the races, this is how many there are and this is how you sort somebody into this race or that race."

Point #4 doesn't even address the part of my post you quoted, you idiot. I practically restated what they said in that paragraph in the last para of my post.

>Sure, categories are a social construction, but the biological differences in these categories are not.
Congratulations. You agree with me about race, and with anthropologists in general, including the authors of that paper. Wasn't as hard as you thought it would be, right?

Difference between "squares" and "the white race" is I can come up with an exact definition of squares in about five seconds, while you can try all day and fail to come up with an exact definition of "the white race" that won't leave something ambiguous.

A regular four-sided polygon, the angles of which are 90 degrees.

All right, now you go ahead and unambiguously define "the white race." I'll wait.

And today you learned the difference between an "abstract object" and a "social construct."

people give precise definitions for the white race all the time but they're never accepted

btw, rectangles

Jesus fucking Christ.

Please look up the definition of "regular polygon" and then get back to me, and then get back to high school.

Actually, I think we learned that in elementary school. I'm not kidding.

>Neither quote you linked "proves me wrong."
It was a quote pointing out that there's too many categories of ethnicities to use a umbrella term such as 'race.' You're just going in circles.

>"Okay, these are the races, this is how many there are and this is how you sort somebody into this race or that race."
That's what I've been saying too, ya lil fucker, but apparently you don't understand what an umbrella term is or how it's used.

>Point #4 doesn't even address the part of my post you quoted, you idiot. I practically restated what they said in that paragraph in the last para of my post.
Point 4. address that biological differences exist and they're not a made up fancy bullshit science based on culture like you wish they were, which you claimed to be only 'culturally and arbitrary.'

well I guess I'm a dumbfuck

oh well

wait, what's a 90 degree angle with a straight line though? because angles are determined by the angles at which straight lines separate, but STRAIGHT LINES DONT EXIST

straight lines are just geodesics within a limited plane. all straight lines are actually curved according to the best physics we have available at the time.

so those definitions you're working with are socially constructed. they're not true. they don't conform to truth except in local space with a variety of conditions.

also, we CAN define the white race. it's a group of people with extremely high iqs, late puberty caused by genetics, and extremely low rates of violence, predominated by haplotypes r1b and r1a, found almost exclusively in europe.

there ya go, faggot

you're aware that even very small mutations between species determine whether say, a bird can count or not, or the types of hunting patterns a given bird/mammal will prefer

not al of these mutations/genes are species exclusive

among mice, they SHARE a human gene called FOXP2 in differing frequencies. in human, foxp2 variations detrmine verbal intelligence levels. in mice, foxp2 ALSO determines intelligence, and they have the SAME good and bad variations we do

very interesting

so are you saying humans and mice are the same species, just because we share a few crucial genes that share the exact same function?

I get it. you're a fucking idiot and you want to push leftism. what yuo need to come to terms with is the fact that you're fucking stupid, and the people you oppose are in fact, much smarter than you

As expected of white trash

that's not very nice

The
>races
didn't split at that time though. There was quite a lot of mixing between various groups from the beginning. That's part of the reasons why we have no subspieceses. Human genetics is more like a spectrum than a few blocks (and some blacks can be closer to some whites than to other blacks etc. )

The definition of "species" is similar individuals capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. Even some sub-breeds of dogs can't do this.

And yet all races of humans can.

Plenty of different species can produce fertile offspring.

Your comment about dogs is probably bullshit and even if true stems less from incompability at a chromosomal level and more from a great Dane being incapable of mounting a chihuahua.

WAIT JUST A GODDAMN SECOND
>white
MAXIEBOO SAID THATS A SPOOK AND YOU ARE A GOOD COMMIE (communism has never been tried, by the way ;) ) ARENT YOU???

you're uneducated. you don't understand the very basics of genetics.

you just spouted something called lewontin's fallacy.

the first major racial split among humanity such as they have survived, was between everyone else and blacks, about 90k years ago. you can go 200k years back if you want to include the capoids of the kalahari and various pygmies.

whites and east asians were the last ones to split, about 40k years ago or so.

when whites went into europe and asians went into asia they mixed with OTHER HUMANS WHO HAD NOT HAD CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER. which means that when proto-europeans mixed with hunter gatherers in europe they actually GOT FURTHER AWAY from asians by mixing, and asians got further away when they mixed with local populations who were even more distant from europeans than the other asians were.

mixing races within the last 40k years made us FURTHER apart. not closer.

blacks continued to come out of africa and mix with the levantine people to create modern semites, who are, again, because of the admixture, FURTHER AWAY from eurasians because of the african mixing.

MOREOVER, the rate of genetic change has been SPED UP since the last 10k years.

east asians are the most homogenous population on earth. they've lost roughly 99% of the variable genes that they shared with whites when they separated.

the process of evolution itself has REMOVED similarities/diversity as part of the process of selecting for survival

>what are proportions

>Plenty of different species can produce fertile offspring.
Not true by definition

I think he's talking about subspecies, m8. Hence the talk about dogs.

By that logic a donky and a horse, a loin and a tiger, are the same species

Mules and liger males are infertile. Peoples of mixed races are not

I don't think anyone here is arguing that mixed people or minorities are a different species, but instead a subspecies.

Polar and grizzly bear mixes are fertile. Female ligers too.

Red wolves are supposed to be a hybrid of wolves and coyotes as well.

This belongs on Veeky Forums

All right, I'm going to walk you through this one more time.

The POINTS OF DIVISION between the "races" are "cultural and arbitrary." The physical biological differences that exist, on average, between a human population A and a human population B, are not cultural and arbitrary, and no one's claiming that they are.

You're trying to respond to me and you haven't understood a damn thing I've said. I'm not sure you've even really tried to. But what I'm saying isn't difficult to grasp; it's not rocket science, it's not even difficult for the humanities. Forget stupid, at this point you're just being lazy.

>angles are determined by the angles at which straight lines separate, but STRAIGHT LINES DONT EXIST
They exist in Euclidean space, an understanding of which is assumed by the definition (an understanding which I realize is probably absent in ). You need to know what Euclidean space is, and how it differs from physical, real-world space, in order to fully understand what "polygon" means. But words like "polygon" and "plane" and "Euclidean space" are also precisely, unambiguously definable -- and here we come back to the difference between "abstract object" and "social construct."

>also, we CAN define the white race. it's a group of people with extremely high iqs, late puberty caused by genetics, and extremely low rates of violence, predominated by haplotypes r1b and r1a, found almost exclusively in europe.
Cool. So this definition is precise and unambiguous, with no holes I (or others) could poke in it, no fuzzy gray areas -- for every person on the planet, given a picture of them, their nationality, life history, and their complete genome sequence, somebody could classify them as "white" or "not white", with no reasonable disagreement possible?

That's what you think you've done with this definition?

Well. Okay, then.

prove it

Male coydogs are fertile too. Females sometimes as well.

>so are you saying humans and mice are the same species, just because we share a few crucial genes that share the exact same function?
I'm obviously not saying that. It's not implicit in anything I HAVE said, and any cute gotchas you have locked and loaded to show that it is are fallacious.

>I get it. you're a fucking idiot and you want to push leftism.
When your side learns what a regular polygon is, then you get to call me an idiot.

As far as "pushing leftism", I haven't put forth a single opinion of my own in this entire discussion. In fact, above I explicitly disclaimed any interest in arguing about "racial equality"; I don't spend my evenings denouncing The Bell Curve or the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.

euclidean space does not exist. it is an abstraction of values into an ideal, whose higher forms not only do not manifest in the real world, it's unknown if they actually correlate to anything in ideal dimensions either

they exist as a social construct for imperfect human knowledge in trying to describe something MUCH MORE COMPLICATED than human language allows

kind of like RACE. it's MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN A SINGLE WORD and any idiot who thinks that the blessing of a single word or otherwise makes somehting true or not is an idiot.

race is real. just because the boundaries aren't discrete enough for your puny brain to understand concretely doesn't mean it's not real. for race to not be real, genetics would need to be arbitrary. which it isn't.

if there were much stronger divisions between the races, you would still dispute that the time period of separation was still not long enough. for you, a category is NEVER discrete enough.

because you're an idiot.

>your definition isn't perfect enough.
see. and for you, it never will be.

the races have discrete behavioral and neurological differences with VERY divergent outcomes.

we can use molecular science to discern with 99.99% certainty what race someone is.

but that's not discrete enough for you. a COMPUTER can understand it. but you're an idiot with a tiny fleshy brain and you don't SEE what's different. and if you don't see it, surely it do esn't exist, right?

you're like the idiots that think computer programs can't identify cancer cells. which tey can, by the way. if a computer can identify between cancer and healthy cells, but YOU can't, by vision, does that mean cancer doesn't exist, or that you're an idiot?

I needn't remind you that the differences between a cancer cell and normal cell are genetically minimal. 99.999% identical, in fact!

my cancer cells are more identical to my other cells than the cells in my brother, therefore, cancer doesn't exist

put a gun in your mouth

what definition of social construct are you using to suggest that euclidean space is one?

>A social construct or construction concerns the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by the inhabitants of that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event.

and as an abstraction, euclidean space does exist. it doesn't need to manifest in the real world to exist. but a social construction is something that directly results from the experience of whatever is manifest in the real world.

I'll give you a good piece of evidence that I'm sure you'l call a 'gotcha'

there are things called gene environments. certain genes have ONE effect on one race and a different effect on another. these are called gene environments.

the reason for this is that on a molecular level, any given allele is simply a number of base pairs made from quatrenary code, base 4 code. their function depends ETIRELY on the location within a string of larger alleles.

a good example of this is fetal grown genes. there is a gene in blacks that DECREASES fetal growth n the x chromosome. the ENVIRONMENT in which this applies is along a string of DNA in black genomes in which there is a complex sequences of many genes PROMOTING GROWTH on the y and many retardants along the X. they are in BALANCE when blacks reproduce with each other.

when black mothers have children with white fathers, however, the alleles code for a different function, and the balance falls out. the alleles are either nonfunctional or fetal growth is reduced. asians have even FEWER growth promotng alleles, so a black mother and asian father has the LOWEST BIRTH WEIGHT of any racial pairing as well as one of the lowest brain sizes and highest rate of metabolic diseases

this is proof that genes evolved independently in different ALLELE ENVIRONMENTS.

when these discrepancies separate too much, the result is weird stuff like ligers being TWICE AS BIG as their parent species, as well as infertile.

blacks and other races are already SO FAR DIFFERENTIATED that half black kids have a number of these discrepancies that reduce fertility, fuck with growth patterns, and cause early death and metabolic problems, EXACTLY LIKE A LIGER, but slightly less so

but molecular genetics is a "gotcha" right?

I needn't remind you that the differences between a cancer cell and normal cell are genetically minimal. 99.999% identical, in fact! my cancer cells are more identical to my other cells than the cells in my brother, therefore, cancer doesn't exist

just because you don't have the education to understand something doesn't mean it ceases to exist. the genetic differences ARE discrete

Not him but you've just proven that there is genetic difference in humans, not that race 'is real'.

white trash is a social construct

Does it for any species of animal? If yes, yes.

>race is discrete genetic differences!
>you cant prove race is real, there's no discrete detail!
>computers can sort through the millions of base pairs and find discrete details and sort them with 99.99% accuracy
>you didn't prove it!
uh...

I am low IQ and hardly ever cared about sex

Sort them into what?

genetic patterns can tell, with 99.99% accuracy what VILLAGE in a country you come from

just because these patterns are not explainable in human language does not mean they don't exist.

again, a human can't look at a genome and determine cancer or not. but a computer can.

humans are stupid. and you are stupid. race is real, the genetic patterns are discrete and discernable with near 100% accuracy.

if you're arguing that it needs to be understandable to you to be real, you're arguing that cancer doesn't exist either. and yo're a fucking idiot

Oh so you're saying genetic difference exists.

Of course Euclidean space doesn't physically exist. Something doesn't have to physically exist to be precisely definable. That's what a fucking abstract object is.

It's clear from your post that still, somehow, you aren't getting what anthropologists mean when they say "real" (and by extension what I mean when I say it). So I'm going to try an analogy, which hopefully will make things clear. It might even make you realize that you don't really disagree much with me, or at all. Or maybe not. You're not very smart. Either way, after that, although I'll stick around for a few minutes in case you reply, I'm going to bed.

This is the color spectrum.

The colors on the left end of the spectrum correspond to shorter wavelengths. On the right end, longer ones. Obviously there are real, concrete differences between the color at any one given point on one end and a given color at the other end. In fact, there are real, concrete differences between a color at a given point and one right next to it! Color-anthropologists aren't disputing that. Nobody is.

However, different cultures draw the boundaries between the colors at different spots on the spectrum. Japanese people place the boundary between green and yellow slightly further to the right than we do. Vietnamese people don't draw a boundary between green and blue at all, they're considered shades of the same color. We use two basic color words to refer to red and light red ("pink") even though to most people they're the same basic color (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_color_word). Russians use two basic color words to refer to dark blue and light blue, even though to most people they're the same fucking color, just different shades.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering

Fuck off back to /pol/, anti-science plebs.

(pic related -- it's the color spectrum)

Obviously nobody's "wrong" or "right"; there's nothing we can do to PROVE to the Vietnamese that blue and green are different colors, even though, you know -- just fucking look at them. The only real difference is how many nm their wavelengths are. Japanese people can't prove to us that what we stupidly think is yellow is actually green. Because the boundaries are cultural and arbitrary. The physical reality, though, the fact that a ray of light with a wavelength of 100 nm less than another does indeed have a shorter wavelength and will be closer to the violent end of the spectrum, is beyond dispute. That reality is emphatically not arbitrary.

And the color-anthropologists aren't trying to do away with the concept of color. Because color is useful. We've drawn a distinction between green and red (several distinctions), which is useful when we want to know whether to stop or go in traffic. If your urine is too far towards the right end of the spectrum, it might tip your doctor off that you have a kidney stone. Nobody wants to tell artists they have to mix all their paints together because color is racist. The color-anthropologists just want us to keep in mind, in certain situations but not necessarily in everyday life, that the divisions between the colors aren't determined by objective, defensible criteria, but rather by convention -- widespread conventions which, in many arenas, EVEN SOMETIMES IN ANTHROPOLOGY (e.g. forensic anthropology), certainly in medicine and politics and etc etc, are very useful.

And if after reading all that you still think you disagree with anthropologists about whether or not "race is real," you're ornery and you just want to argue -- or you're an idiot.

Can we just delete Veeky Forums? We are just getting the same copy pastas threads. This isnt even /his related.

they are indeed idiots.

but it goes beyond that, as I explained in my post above about gene environments, genes AREN'T a spectrum. they are pure realization of euclidean properties in physical space.

they're fucking machines. we are gene machines and the divisions between the races signal IMPORTANT differences in the configurations of those machines.

there's a BIG difference between an engine and a clump of iron with an approximate elemental makeup.

in fact, the more finely tuned a machine is, the SMALLEST of differences can BREAK the machine.

our genomes are very finely tuned. the differences in the races mean that when the genes of two races are mixed, SHIT BREAKS in the genome and stops functioning. the gross concept for this is caled outbreeding depression, but there are thuosands of specific incidences that are well documented down to the molecular level.

racial denialists are fucking idiots. utterly and completely.

the differing components of a machine DIFFERENTIATE the function of a machine.

these idiots think that anything in the world need be immediately understandable to their 110 iq brains with an undergrad in history

I fucking swear to god we should ship these idiots to boot camp to shut them up

Take 5000 random people and divide them into white and black.
There will be people in the white group who look more like some people in the black ground than some people in the white group.
This is a spectrum.

So can all the super intelligent people itt just dump all their sources from their obvious years of research on this matter? kthnxbai

Only in ameriblubberstan

that... literally doesn't happen. there is no such thing as a person with 100% african blood who would ever be mistaken as a european.

genes are not undifferentiated wavelengths. genes are machines. one loose screw, and a mahcine breaks.

they use this current understanding to fix metabolic and neurological problems.

racial mixing leads to very specific diseases that DO NOT appear in intra-racial couplings.

interracial children BREAKS our genetics. the races are REAL

Everywhere on the planet. Fine, lets lower the IQ requirements a bit.

Imagine the numbers from 0 to 20.
Lets call the numbers from 0 to 10 the "small numbers", and the numbers from 10 to 20 the "big numbers".
The number 9, a small number, is closer to the number 11, a big number, than it is to number 2, a fellow small number.
This is a spectrum. Some members of a group are closer to members of the neighboring group than some members of their own.
This the group appears arbitrarily defined, like colors, or races.

>there is no such thing as a person with 100% African blood who would ever be mistaken as a European.

There is no such thing as a person with 100% African blood.
There is no such thing as a person with 100% European blood.
There is no such thing as African or European blood.

Learn genetics, lad.

>MUH SPECTRUM

You are aware that the distance between these is arbitrary, and the division is the artist's rendition of reality, right?

you kidding lad? the majority of subsaharan africa never had the WHEEL before 100 years ago. decent amounts of the continent didn't have FIRE.

those africans are free of modern european blood.

>FST is an arbitrary distance
>clustering is arbitrary

He's right. You can pull the entire native population of the Congo and not one of them would be ever mistaken for a white person. It's completely absurd to even come up with such an idea, you're either trolling or completely stupid.

There isn't a single piece of evidence you've offered that concludes 100% that race exists and that a genetic spectrum isn't a viable explanation. It would help if you actually replied to specific arguments instead of your conjectural ranting and begging the question.

Wow look how long the lines are!