Races of the World

How did whites evolve to have the best looking features?
Serious question

> they lived in cold conditions
> they didn't grow rice
> Jewish propaganda

ooga booga genes

i don't know nor do i care but some races are objectively superior to others
MAGA

I don't know nor do I care what race you are, but I use a metric superior to skin color.
And you sir, are a retard.

shut da fuck cracka
yo dum really dum

Depends, what do you even mean by "race"?
For years, Irish, English, French and German were believed to be all completely distinct "races". Differences between say, Japanese and Korean, or Hutu and Tutsi have led to centuries-long enmity, even though an outsider would be hard pressed to tell them apart.

That map contradicts its own premise, and is contradicted by reality

Who are the indigenous whites from Argentina and and tazmania?

What's really amazing is how in different races almost every specific thing you can measure is different, from bone shapes to disease immunities to muscle density and composition to hair qualities

but human brains evolved in literally exactly identical ways in every single human race, with absolutely no differences whatsoever and every race has perfectly exactly the same IQ with no variations. Realy makes you think

Not that cute desu

FUCK U NAZI POL I FUCKIN HATE YOU LEAVE LEAVEEEEE

>aussies
>dark
Abos make up like 0.5% of australia's population

do you know what the word indigenous means

The problem here is the differences you are talking about are not that significant, you do not understand evolution, and we can study DNA now.

They didn't.

But srsly I don't have a preference, I like both.

Lots of traits become prevalent with literally no explanation, like Irish having red hair. Sometimes there's a function (white skin gets more sunlight for vitamin D), but isolate any group and genes will diverge. Literally nobody is exactly the same. Skin color is just 1 quality that we have found to be quite malleable, and we naturally categorize humans that way because it's immediately recognizable and generally regional (on a large scale though).

Why have you posted this to three boards are you that curious?

sauce pls

Some physical traits evolve as an adaptation to environmental stressors.
>melanin, metabolism in hot/cold climates, sickle-cell anemia in places with malaria

Other physical traits happen to change as a byproduct of other, non-physical adaptations.
>changes in physical appearance in Russian domesticated wolves

Now, since this is a race bait thread, if you're trying to bask in the reflected glory of your own race, you should consider killing yourself. There's no reason to be proud of the average of your race unless you land below that average.

Polyphenisms expressed by genetic accommodation and to a lesser extent novel mutations and selected for by eco-ethological and sexual selection in complex human socio-ecological systems.
As humans spread to new environments this kind of adaptive radiation acured but never resulted in speciation because of interbreeding between populations and phenological plasticity

The common ancestors of Homo sapiens migrated to different parts of the world and then speculated into Homo sapiens and neanderthals.

Some interbreeding occurred there until neanderthals died out and homo sapiens evolved in Africa and then continued to migrate to different parts of the world. Asia and Europe, the americas.

Lack of gene flow resulted in some slight morphological differences, but by nearly all definitions of species, it wasn't substantial enough to create a unique species. There are three elementary definitions of species.

Biological - define as a species ability to breed and produce fertile off spring. A white person from NYC with a masters degree can mate with and produce fertile offspring with blacks in Africa. Hence, same species.

Morphological - examines differences in morphology. Humans have the same skeleton and muscles and brain structure. Hence, same species. The subtle differences in morphology is called "phenotypic plasticity" and refers to differences within a species. Like why some frogs are bigger than other frogs and have different spots while being in the same species.

Ancestral - this one is easy. Humans all have the same common ancestors. Hence, all the same species.

This is elementary evolutionary biology. Now fuck off /pol/ race baiters.

They lost all monkey features due to the cold climate in Ice Age Europe forcing their cranial structure to morph to preserve body temperature

Same reason black people have the most ape looking cranial features of the races because in tropical Africa they could keep those traits without it compromising their ability to survive.

> Humans have the same skeleton and muscles and brain structure.

nope. there are pronounced and well-documented differences in bone structure, brain fissures, and ratio of muscle fiber types between the races.

Don't like it? Go back to your tumblr/reddit safe-space.

>Don't like it? Go back to your tumblr/reddit safe-space.

as i expected from crossposter

See: phenotypic plasticity. Please read a book for once.

You anti-science SJWtard propaganda has no place here. If you're too retarded for """racebaiting"""(discussion about evolutionary genetics) you don't belong here.

Haplogroups have nothing to do with races, most of the genetic makeup including everything relevant to appearence is in autosomal DNA.

An englishman can have a West African haplogroup and it will not be known without a genetic test.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6293333.stm

Would anyone mind debunking pic related? I cropped out the parts irrelevant to Veeky Forums

>extremely hairy
>straight hair
>no lips
>white skin
>eyes closer from each other
>lighter eyes
white people share more similarities with most apes than black people do

your racism doesn't amuse anyone tyrone

That's the kind of graph with data taken from academic studies and original race ideas added. The question is not about debunking the studies, it's actually about whether the data shows differences big enough to justify race talk.

The genetic differences between Chinese, Italians and African Hausa are actually two or three times smaller as those between western chimps and other chimps, or between Sumatran and Bornean orangutans. Do we talk of "orangutan races" or "chimp races"?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index

I see, that makes sense. So is the fixation index between the several dog breeds much higher?

Often is, see belgian shepherd vs german shepherd

Good to know, thanks user

90% of those girls look either ugly-fuckable or überugly-still fuckable without make-up. Make up your mind, beta-senpai.

Also, those abos think their girls look great, also primitive conditions individuals tend to fuck almost everything that moves, so there is your answer.

Not an argument, LARPer-senpai.

>When and how did humans gain so many different traits

When: I imagine it started from the moment the first individual (a girl who grew into a woman) gave birth to the second individual (a boy).
How: They noted differences (the female immediately and the boy as he grew up).

>race
nice meme

Funny thing is, I could put 3 different British skulls together with some variation and label them African, Asia, white and you'd use this same argument.

OP you replied too is right. Read about it, it's pretty interesting desu.

So even back then, Americans were lying about their ancestry.

Black skin is better for survival under intense sun. That's ok. Then why people turned to have lighter skin in other areas? Is light skin better for survival under weak sun light? I think having black skin is not a weak point under weak sun.

>zero ass

truly the """"""""""master race""""""""""""

Tell that to the forensic science people, they can identify a body's race using the skull. Not agreeing with that guy but you're not really being honest, scientifically
Also british people aren't people desu

Paper 1 has nothing to do with race. It's looking at evolution of diseases in humans or something. The discussion also says: These results, however, say nothing
about the origin and distribution of human
phenotypic variation. The observed population
structure can be largely explained by random
drift at neutral loci

From paper 2:
Our observations also emphasize the importance of SIRE information: although statistical approaches using genetic marker information recapture SIRE with high accuracy, such analyses need to be guided by SIRE information. The outcome of statistical cluster analyses depends on the (relative and absolute) sample size of the subgroups and on the homogeneity within groups relative to distance between groups. Without proper controlling of these nuisance factors, cluster analyses based on genetic markers sometimes overlook important components of population structure, while producing artifact clusters other times.

This result indicates that studies using genetic clusters instead of racial/ethnic labels are likely to simply reproduce racial/ethnic differences, which may or may not be genetic. On the other hand, in the absence of racial/ethnic information, it is tempting to attribute any observed difference between derived genetic clusters to a genetic etiology.

The point of paper 2 is to show errors in researchers' methods when using race in science

From paper 3
The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.

As for the papers on the right side: they are all from 2005 or earlier. ASPM and MCPH1 were found to have nothing to do with skull size, IQ, mental disorders, or any mental traits in 2007 after more rigorous research was done.

A note on how these work.
People that make these are no real knowledge of science nor do they have the ability to read scientific literature. Also, making these pictures contradicts their claim that science is a jewish/PC liberal conspiracy that want's to hide the truth about race. And yet here is published information that they claim supports their political agenda. The simple fact is their are conspiracy theories and science deniers. They make these pictures in hopes their followers will blindly believe them without reading the sources.

Stop pretending to be smart. Dogs are an "artificial" population that has undergoes severe selective pressure, as with most domesticated animals. Comparing them to animals from nature is apples and oranges.

Also if you had the ability to even look at the graph you posted, you'd notice that human are all more closely related to each other than other apes are. Chimps all have over twice the Fst humans do in their subspecies. Generally, the cutoff between one species and divided subspecies is around 0.3 depending on other factors.

Humans have about 10 times less overall genetic diversity than other apes, and we're all that much more related to each other than any ape species is related to all its other members.

It's well known. When diet is lacking, white skin helps absorb more sunlight to produce more vitamin D. Humans started with dark skin and it became white when they migrated to colder climates.

Shouldn't the percentage between a and b be the same as between b and a ?

...

They are, fst's are above the diagonal.

are you retarded or is english not your first language?