Lets all talk about the proven science of eugenics and how some races are fundamental inferior to others.
ITT: Eugenics General Bread
Charles Flores
Other urls found in this thread:
nature.com
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
science.sciencemag.org
nature.com
pnas.org
genome.cshlp.org
nature.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
sciencedirect.com
en.wikipedia.org
web.stanford.edu
twitter.com
Connor Hughes
Okay, I'll start:
nature.com
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
science.sciencemag.org
nature.com
pnas.org
genome.cshlp.org
nature.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
sciencedirect.com
Do you have any correlational research on the contrary?
Owen Murphy
check the catalogue next time and delete this thread you faggot
Jaxson Turner
Do you even know about the Josiah Nott? He was a fucking creationist, most of his work centered around the bible. Not to mention that the picture is dated 1856. Wtf user?
en.wikipedia.org
Wyatt Lopez
Allow me to annotate those links for you. Greentext is direct quote and tl;dr: is a quick rundown.
nature.com
>Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information.
tl;dr: There is some amount of correlation about race and genetics and when you have no better alternative then you may use race as a last resort to try and make some inferences about a piece of data however said inferences aren't guaranteed to be correct and nothing compares to assessing genetic data directly.
sciencedirect.com
>The pattern of decrease in genetic diversity along colonisation routes is very smooth and does not provide evidence for major genetic discontinuities that could be interpreted as evidence for human ‘races’
tl;dr: Just some basic results about population genetics and why "race" is a shit tier social science concept.
(cont.)
Michael Johnson
sciencedirect.com
>Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not. Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race. As a consequence, adaptive traits do not define races in humans. Much of the recent scientific literature on human evolution portrays human populations as separate branches on an evolutionary tree. A tree-like structure among humans has been falsified whenever tested, so this practice is scientifically indefensible. It is also socially irresponsible as these pictorial representations of human evolution have more impact on the general public than nuanced phrases in the text of a scientific paper. Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness and not race.
science.sciencemag.org
direct link to the paper: web.stanford.edu
tl;dr: A paper on population genetics that has nothing to do with race.
nature.com
tl;dr: An anthropology paper (social science) that is still using shit tier pre-modern genetics methods like taxonomy on the "hard science" side of their argument.
(cont.)
Juan Perez
pnas.org
>It is often taken for granted that the human species is divided in rather homogeneous groups or races, among which biological differences are large. Studies of allele frequencies do not support this view, but they have not been sufficient to rule it out either........Genetic variation remains high even within small population groups. On the average, microsatellite and restriction fragment length polymorphism loci yield identical estimates. Differences among continents represent roughly 1/10 of human molecular diversity, which does not suggest that the racial subdivision of our species reflects any major discontinuity in our genome.
>But what do these results imply for the race concept? Although no consensus has ever been reached on how many races exist in our species, with proposed figures ranging from 3 to 200 (20), in general a species is divided in races when it can be regarded as an essentially discontinuous set of individuals (21). Studies on a limited number of populations, like ours, cannot exclude that there are true discontinuities in the distribution of some genetic markers all over the world. However, only for one of the 109 loci studied was the within-population component of variance less than 50% of the total. If loci showing a discontinuous distribution across continents exist, they have not been observed in this study, and so the burden of the proof is now on the supporters of a biological basis for human racial classification.
(cont.)
Angel Stewart
Much appreciated.
Jose Russell
genome.cshlp.org
>Genetic variation in humans is sometimes described as being discontinuous among continents or among groups of individuals, and by some this has been interpreted as genetic support for “races.” A recent study in which >350 microsatellites were studied in a global sample of humans showed that they could be grouped according to their continental origin, and this was widely interpreted as evidence for a discrete distribution of human genetic diversity. Here, we investigate how study design can influence such conclusions. Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”
nature.com
tl;dr: Another paper on population genetics that has nothing to do with race
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
>However, only a minimal fraction of alleles, and a small fraction of combinations of alleles along the chromosome, is restricted to a single geographical region (and even less so to a single population), and diversity between members of the same population is very large. The small genomic differences between populations and the extensive allele sharing across continents explain why historical attempts to identify, once and for good, major biological groups in humans have always failed. Nevertheless, racial categorization is all but gone, especially in clinical studies. We argue that racial labels may not only obscure important differences between patients but also that they have become positively useless now that cheap and reliable methods for genotyping are making it possible to pursue the development of truly personalized medicine
(cont.)
Evan Torres
every fucking time, and every fucking thread, the same responses
Wyatt Phillips
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
/pol/ status: TOLD
tl;dr: Points out that race as a biological notion hasn't been taken seriously for a long time but also argues that race as a social construct is similarly harmful and shit tier. Instead the paper explores alternative notions to race.
sciencedirect.com
>In the past, concepts drawn from genetics have been used—both by geneticists and by individuals outside the field—to justify and perpetuate racial and ethnic discrimination (Kevles 1985; Provine 1986). The belief that racial and ethnic groups have substantial, well-demarcated biological differences and that these differences are important has contributed to many of the great atrocities of the 20th century and continues to shape personal interactions and social institutions (Mosse 1985; Shipler 1997).
tl;dr: Modern geneticists should be wary of these terms (race, ethnicity, etc..).
Brayden Turner
Are you going to make a conclusion about how these are or aren't related to the question at hand or are you simply annotating?
Oliver Powell
Just copy pasting what another user wrote the last time someone posted that identical list of links
Easton Reed
Mmm, gotcha.
Joshua Nguyen
What do you expect about the board?
"muh freedom" is ruining the board with circlejerks and shiposting
Kevin Gomez
>Racial eugenics
Just cuck my shit up senpai
Landon Brown
This is an extremely dangerous ideology (look at all the genocides ) and not science at all.
Even if it were true that you could prove that one ethnic group is better , which you can't, it would still be dangerous because you will have the extreme people feel comfortable to discriminate in the environment. Eventually can lead to genocides .
Nathaniel Fisher
Well the Nazis seemed to land on their feet so I'm for it.
Adam Howard
daily reminder stormniggers from 8gag organize raids into the slower boards of Veeky Forums to spread their "message"
Jaxon Hernandez
eugenics is already in full swing OP
whites are too susceptible to education, which is a negative selective force. Women prone to education have almost no children, and so whites are being selected out for their inability to breed under the pressure of education. Races that either choose not to get educated or can become educated but still will have children are being selected for.
Additionally, you are being genocided by a continual storm of taxes and student loans along with over priced childcare that makes you wait on having children till you are infertile. The other races are given free childcare, no taxes, free college tuition, and are encouraged to breed
eugenics is in full swing to select for those most able to handle the current strongest selective force against humankind which is education. Whites do not have the genes necessary to become educated while maintaining their fertility. They will be genocided because of it, and they will actually support it as well.
Hunter Evans
Does genes affect the ability to work in structured societies as humans? Just like it affects animal working in packs to hunt their prey?
Are some races more prone to chaotic behavior than organized ones?
Jeremiah Lewis
>fundamentally superior
No.
>superior at certain things under certain conditions.
Maybe.
First define "race" tho.
Adam Ross
Is eugenics a meme on Veeky Forums?
Are you boys memeing in here?
There's no way in hell I'm taking your shitty bait.
Go back to /pol/.
Carter Gray
...
Jacob Price
Non-whites are proven to be lactose-intolerant, so we're obviously the master race
Wyatt Anderson
>applying this much effort for a shitpost
lol this thread
Easton Phillips
if i was smart enough to get a Ph.D. In math, then I wouldn't have to major in math to convince everyone I was smart in the first place
Jason Evans
wrong thread lol
Michael Martinez
/Veeky Forums
Ethan Powell
Ignoring the SJWtard shitposters, yeah they have lower intelligence and ape-like behaviour. The logical thing to do is to avoid them and not support their existence.
Jayden Morales
This thread is fedora and cringe af