Why is the white race so diverse?

...

>white people are more phenotypically diverse

The African gene pool is more diverse. The most phenotypically and genetically diverse place on Earth is sub Saharan Africa.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

If you're talking just about eye and skin color Northern Africa is more diverse while having a much smaller population. Afghans for example have every eye color and skin color ranging from pale to tanned. They even have red and blond hair.

The least phenotypically diverse ethnic group is also the largest, the Han Chinese. This is because of two factors

a) They possess only dominant phenotypes
b) They're incredibly successful from an evolutionary standpoint

All 1.3 billion of Han Chinese come from villages along the Yellow River. White lineage is hard to trace, with no defintion of what white is. But Han are genetically and culturally very similar.

Did you forget the endless racial, tribal and national wars whites fought

>The least phenotypically diverse ethnic group is also the largest, the Han Chinese. This is because of two factors
>a) They possess only dominant phenotypes
>b) They're incredibly successful from an evolutionary standpoint
Interesting.
Also too spooky for me.

>heh race, like gender and morality, is simply a social construct. There's a great book about this by Professor Rosenbergstein, check it out.

Hah! I knew chinks look all alike for a reason!

>race isn't a social construct

Race doesn't even have a defintion that stands up to scrutiny.

...

it's called dominant and recessive genes you fucking idiot

>Let's only look at eye color
The "black" race has a wider variety of skin tones than whites. Nice cherry-picked image.

>posting the same 30 year old picture again and again

99 % of Afghans are some brown mix of asians and arabs. The handful of light skinned, blue or green eyed people in Afghanistan or Syria are descendants of the whites that lived there centuries ago before the islamic conquests.

t. I've been there.

Blacks are the most diverse, africans have some of the weirdest head shapes I have ever seen, the fact their cranial shape can differ from individual shows how genetically diverse they are where as all whites basically have the same skull shape.

im too lazy to open paint but true world diversity would be if cultures didnt mix into amalgamous pile of crap and kept in their regions
imagine if every country in the world looked like america it would be disgusting

y'all just retarded overgrown sexualized baby apes anyways

Afghan girl is Pashtun, an ethnic group that has been in Afghanistan for thousands of years, before the Islamic conquest.

I'm very interested in how you could tell the ethnic origin of a people by vacationing in Afghanistan when anthropologists spend years conducting and cross referencing genetic profiles, historical records and artifacts to do the same.

white "race" is not just one race, but several.

Shouldn't you be busy shitposting about the elections on /pol/ right now?

>im in this thread to shitpost and cry about pol
back to your ghetto you rapist piece of shit

So are you saying the Chinese arr rook shame?

In addition to being lazy, you are also stupid.

>le phenotypes show i am le master race

This crap obviously belongs in /pol/. There's very little in terms of genuine genetics discussion and too much in snowflake identity politics. See .

Africans have low IQs, evident from their history, their crime stats and everything else they display they are an awful match for breeding.

But nobody is forcing you to breed with them anyway, if you don't want to have a low IQ primitive child, you don't have to breed with africans.

What's even the point of your image OP? Nobody ever claimed dark people are physically diverse opposed to whites

Whites simply have low pigmentation. Because of that it is possible to see certain elements in white peoples' eyes and hair that give them distinct colors. Because of the high pigmentation in other races, you can't see it for them. That doesn't mean other races aren't genetically diverse though. Eye color and hair are just a small part of someone's DNA.
Basically what this guy said >people shouldn't mix because of my personal taste and preference
Fuck off.

You are confusing race with ethnicity, retard.

>when you mix hot water with cold water you get the middle temperature
>two people having children is the same thing!
Yet again /pol/ proves to be mind numbingly retarded. You do realize Europeans are the product of pure Homo Sapiens (Africans) having children with Neanderthals, who were ACTUAL subhumans? Also some (black) African nations have a higher GDP than European nations. Some (black) African countries also have a lower homicide rate than Asian and Eastern European countries and even the United States.
Kill yourself. You are vermin.

Neanderthals were significantly smarter than humans. They were just too huge and swole to survive the ice age since scoops had not been invented. And thank god, since they hunted, raped, and ate humans. But their superior intelligence plus our human sociability plus the pressure of a complex environment led europeans to become the dominant race.

We whites are not the warmongering types.
Blacks dont get ahead in life because they waste time with waging war, thus creating enemies. forcing them to face different problems
whites prefer to tackle academic problems furthering our well being.

the warmogering shitskins basically killed off most genes by now and thats why they all look alike

Only South Africa, and it's because it's been enriched.

>p-pol is retarded rite guise??
>tries to defend that blacks are acutally smart

You're pushing your luck way too much Tyrone. Selling weed and stealing TVs is NOT an indicator of intelligence. Please go back to your aids ridden shithole.

>that cherry picked hilarious monkey rage
Always a laugh. Thanks /pol/

So in other words it was still worth it to mate with less intelligent mates? Because other attributes are also necessary.

Wrong.

>stuttering meme
Stop projecting you social reject.

>beta sjwtard has problem with social rejects
ironic...

You have 0 grasp of the situation and are autistic. Kill yourself.

>We whites are not the warmongering types.
>Blacks dont get ahead in life because they waste time with waging war

>I have never opened a European/American history book: The post

>my bullshit explaination should be enough for all the disgusting plague africans have brought to the society.
Looks like someone didn't recieve his banana today.

I hate whites and everything is their fault: the post

You seriously didn't see the hypocrisy in that statement before you typed it down?

No where in my post I was "explaining" anything about some /pol/ fairy tales of "disgusting plagues africans have brought to society". Yet again you have 0 grasp about the situation you delusional failure.
How come it's always racist whites who are the lowest their race has to offer?

I don't hate whites and nothing about my post even implied that.
You and this guy should kill yourselves, because you are idiots.

It's been deterred that there are several ways to view gender: biological and sociological. Biological proves there are different varieties of gender based on your genetic structure, such as some people may have more "male" chromosomes than female but they still have the biological structure of a female. The sociological determines that gender is determined by a set of shared characteristics designated to one of 2 groups of people and are mandated by the society that they live in. That's why people who are perceived as gay or transexual are considered "others" and outside the "traditional" gender construct. But typically most societies have a culture or designation of peoples who did not either conform to their birth gender or either of the socially constructed genders and consider themselves either a mixture of the 2 or an "other".

>i don't hate whites
>blacks dindu nuffin its all fairy tales
>i don't even know who you are but ill assume you're white and run huge generalizations about white people based on my baseless racist assumption.

Your deeply ingrained hatred towards white people make it really difficult for me to take you a tiny bit seriously. Please stop trying to sell your bullshit, you're stinking up the place.

>muh white race

Everything in your post just tells me you have no idea what is going on.

>generic dismissal template shitpost with zero context
here you go with that banana talk again

Lol, what a quick response. Do you refresh this thread every 5 seconds eagerly awaiting if I actually dignified your trolling and shitposting with a response?
Yeah, your posts give me the impression you have no idea what is going on. I am not your special ed teacher. Reread every post I made and realize that whatever I said doesn't fit in with what you currently believe I said. This is your personal IQ test right now.

you really need a life

Nice projecting my friend

>race and gender are social construct.

SJW confirmed. The left has rotted his scientific mind.

so whats up

>has a frog image raction saved
>can't discern sarcasm even with rosenbergstein
>claims to be intellectually superior

I'm not that guy but he's right. They're abstractions. Gender deals with the sociocultural aspect of things. There's no real inherent reason why men and women should dress in certain ways or take part in certain activities, only social and cultural reasons. Moreover there are societies/cultures that have more than two genders where a certain group of people will exhibit certain mannerisms and dress in a certain style while maintaining certain roles in those societies.

Gender captures that abstraction, it varies from society to society and within many western societies it refers to the gender system where men and women have certain mannerisms and certain roles. Gender is also what determines whether a homosexual man will "act gay" or not (though their sexual orientation is the same their gender may differ).

Of course, as soon as you put a label on something (in this case by introducing an abstraction) you will have people questioning it. In this case there are many in our society who argue that our gender system shouldn't go unchallenged. Simultaneously you've got people who feel threatened by the introduction of new abstract machinery that allows people to reason about the world more precisely even if said machinery was introduced in an effort to help science (if researchers can deal with sex separately from gender then they can avoid all sorts of weird social phenomenon and focus solely on biology).

tl;dr: Kill yourself, you anti-science moron.

>more than two genders
So genders are not related to our sex? They're just like our ice cream flavor preference?
Why do you even bother mentioning it like its relevant then?

Yes. That's basically what gender is. No it's not relevant.

I'm not in this thread I just schooled to that dumb /pol/nigger from the front page.

yes

>Evolution
>still believing this old debunked theory

>we whites are not warmongering types

Hah
Hah
Hah

Before Shaka Zulu the African tribes were far more peaceful than whites ever were. Fighting consisted of taunts, long range spear throwing and minimising casualties.

Go on buddy, tell us the difference. I'll wait.

Yes.

Whilst Native Americans, Asians, and White people are evolved from neanderthals, Africans are evolved from a mix of neanderthals and another homo-sapian through interbreeding.

africans have no neanderthal DNA in them. europeans have a small amount. none are evolved from neanderthals.

Might I ask for a source on this claim?
If I do have misinformation I should like to correct it.

>recessive
>inferior

are you retarded?

recessive genes are nearly impossible to eliminate from a population, while dominant genes vanish immediately when selected against

this desu

there is more genetic variety within sub-saharan africa than all other humans combined

>hominid species
>subhuman

No other living species is subhuman. All extant species are equally fit because they have all survived to the present.

Neanderthals were also smarter and stronger than homo sapiens. They lost to humans because of r/k selection and because humans are pack animals while neanderthals were loners.

Also the entire continent of Africa has a lower GDP than California. Sub-Saharan Africa minus white South Africa is a political and economic non-entity

>There's no real inherent reason why men and women should dress in certain ways or take part in certain activities, only social and cultural reasons.
Pretty sure there is a genetic reason to why women want to flaunt their assets, and men want to look tough.

Neanderthals lost to homo sapiens because homo sapiens were superior in some way which allowed them to thrive at the cost of the survival of the Neanderthals.

Regardless of how ">>low IQ kek kek kek" non-white races are, if they are the ones who survive into posterity, clearly they are the ones who are superior with regards to reality.

>Regardless of how ">>low IQ kek kek kek" non-white races are, if they are the ones who survive into posterity, clearly they are the ones who are superior with regards to reality.
Survival means nothing if it means descending from civilization to barbarism. A roach can survive almost anything, but they're not a goal to strive for.

Since you actually wrote a few paragraphs I'll assume your not just baiting. You're whole post is anti-science.

The reason 2 sexes exist is to create more combinations of genes and then force greater selection for the best combinations. Otherwise there would be only asexual reproduction. Some species of fungi have even taken this to the extreme, where there are dozens of biological sexes capable of sexual reproducing in different combinations to create different phases of that organism, analogous to the haploid/diploid split in the human life cycle as we rotate between our gamate/fertilized forms.

Because females are incapacitated for large periods of time while pregnant, men are the sex that has evolved to hunt and fight. It would also not make sense for a woman to be at risk while carrying a child, as the child would also be at risk. Hunting and fighting require complex social coordination and physical strength. thus men have evolved these abilities farther than women.

Because females are the sex which has a time-limiting factor on reproduction, sexual selection is placed upon males, not females, to fight for the ability to reproduce thus men are more violent and more promiscuous than women.

I'm not placing moral judgments on any of this, simply explaining human evolution

Survival means everything. If a sub-group of humans cannot accept this, harsh reality itself deems them as inferior, and they will die off.

If the roaches are the ones writing history, they are superior.

what he is saying is that sex =/= gender, you are not giving any argument against it

You are confusing my two arguments.

By definition "human" is any member of the genus "homo"

Neanderthals are "Homo neanderthalensis", therefore by definition human.

Therefore neanderthals cannot be subhuman.

You are correct that neanderthals are evolutionary inferior to modern humans because humans survived and neanderthals (mostly) didn't.

>Survival means everything
No it doesn't. Roaches live in muck and shit, and I'd rather be dead than live at that level.

>If the roaches are the ones writing history, they are superior.
What history? They simply exist and do nothing substantial with it. It's not worth it.

OOOOHHHHHH GOT IT!!!

user said that:

>There's no real inherent reason why men and women should dress in certain ways or take part in certain activities, only social and cultural reasons

and claimed that any argument to the contrary was unscientific.

My argument rebutted this, by pointing out why men and women have evolved certain differences, and saying that these differences remain regardless of social or cultural boundaries.

I have no argument against sex =/= gender, because claiming sex =/= gender is not itself an argument, merely a baseless assertion. There is no empirical justification for any such thing as "gender" existing independently from sex.

>survival means everything

Without survival, anything you have done is moot, simply because you cease to exist. Survival is a necessary condition for superiority.

>it's not worth it

Clearly you are inferior to the roaches if you cannot survive; clearly you are inferior to roaches, simply because an insubstantial existence is objectively more than non-existence in reality.

Then you are weak and will die (ie lose).

Are you honestly claiming that you are less evolutionary fit than a cockroach?

Must be a turk

The """black race""" actually has much more genetic diversity than the """white race""" and it's because humans originated from Africa.

>but muh eye color
Dumbass.

If genders are not related to sexes then why do men who want to act like/be perceived as women take on the typical characteristics of a human female and why do women who want to act like/be perceived as men take on the typical characteristics of a human male? What is this third gender and if it exists, to what sex, of which there is only two, does it draw itself from?

OP's pic is obviously a reaction to liberals appeal to emotion of a more aesthetically diverse society and wasn't making any claim of superior gene range.

Is it though? Iknow for a fact that there's much less genetic diversity in the European branch than there is in Africa. The only thing I can think of that you're talking about are hair and Eye color. Somewhat notable, but that's it.

Sociologist have redefined "gender" to be made up of social constructs by definition.

Gender is not a social construct in the colloquial meaning of the word.

>Some (black) African countries also have a lower homicide rate than Asian and Eastern European countries and even the United States.
Such as? Before you call me a /pol/ack, I think every race should be treated equally

No, that's just your biased politically charged interpretation of it. And it doesn't make sense.
The two groups are separated after all and both are labeled separately.

>No, that's just your biased politically charged interpretation of it.

Interpretation of what? The OP pic? What is there to interpret?

>The two groups are separated after all and both are labeled separately.

Purely by aesthetics, yes.