The day Veeky Forums lost it

The day Veeky Forums lost it

Other urls found in this thread:

io9.gizmodo.com/5890349/genetic-diversity-in-chimpanzees-reveal-just-how-closely-related-humans-really-are
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

And?
You already posted this and no one was surprised last time either.

I think you mixed up /pol/ with Veeky Forums

>poster creates dissonance in spergy brain
>attack

both of those things are true and both of them shit on right wing political beliefs about race
you must really be biased to not see why that is

i'll go read the chimp study because it's fascinating

>both of them shit on right wing political beliefs about race

Right, when diversity (as promoted by the media and liberal science) is revealed as characteristic of more primitive natures, that undermines right wing political beliefs?

diversity in humans isn't a more primitive nature
it's a consequence of migrations and founder effect
and it's very, very low
io9.gizmodo.com/5890349/genetic-diversity-in-chimpanzees-reveal-just-how-closely-related-humans-really-are

diversity itself isn't primitive nature either just because one species has it and the other doesn't

you are too /pol/itically motivated to have an objective stance on this it seems

>you are too /pol/itically motivated to have an objective stance on this it seems

The OP posters not saying anything different from your graphic, it agrees with it in fact.

Surely you're only triggered by the social and political repercussions of undermining the diversity message?

He claims diversity is a primitive trait.
Graduation of diversity (which we do not have a whole lot of apparently even though we are separated by continents) in humans is a direct result of migration "arithmetic", not evolution.

What do you not understand?

> primitive
Just using terms like that shows how little you understand about the papers discussed.

>estimated origin of modern human
>Angola
please stop

>What do you not understand?

There's a chain of diversity, with our ancient ancestors being more genetically diverse. It just happens blacks are closer to them on this chain. What's the problem with that?

>He claims diversity is a primitive trait.

Are you saying chimps aren't primitive?

Are you saying they are?
What definition are you using?

Can you define it for any two general species? genera?
Which are more primitive? Chimpanzees or apes? Orangutans or dolphins? Whales or cuddlefish?

primitive
ˈprJmJtJv/
adjective
adjective: primitive

1.
relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.

Then chimps are definitely not primitives of humans.

You know that the March of Progress pic is pretty much bullshit right?

>Then chimps are definitely not primitives of humans.

Never heard of common ancestry?

chimps and humans have a common ancestor from 6 million years ago

>chimps and humans have a common ancestor from 6 million years ago

And it looked like a modern human?

I have.
How does that imply that chimps are more primitive (using your definition) than humans?

The common ancestor of the chimps and humans would then be more primitive than both chimps and humans.

>looks
genetically it looked like the ancestor of a modern human and a modern chimp

>The common ancestor of the chimps and humans would then be more primitive than both chimps and humans.

>genetically it looked like the ancestor of a modern human and a modern chimp

Implying chimps have evolved much since then, if at all.

> implying it hasn't
why would you assume it hadn't?
They get stuck in a time warp?

>Implying chimps have evolved much since then, if at all.
i don't know
do you know?
have we evolved "much" since then, i'd say yes but what is "much"

all of this irrelevant since chimp groups in africa have more genetic diversity than humans separated by continents and thousands of years of "DIVERGENT EVOLUTION"

lol, op shot himself in the foot with this thread

le Horseshoe Crab

>arguing morphological vs temporal evolution
>muh crown groups are equally temporally derived
>what are basal and derived characters?
>what is morphometrics, Alex?
like monkeys fucking a football in here.

This isn't /pol/, it's goon false flag shilling. They're doing it on all boards

Sounds paranoid.

Nobody sent me here. This is about targeting the unholy alliance between genetic science and liberal politics.

>the unholy alliance between genetic science and liberal politics
kek
like how liberals are always promoting GMO's?

holy shit we've got a retard.

>like how liberals are always promoting GMO's?

It's not either or. The corporations promote multiracialism for profits and liberals support this because of their ideology. The two things happen to align on this issue.

Liberal scientists I might add, who get paid handsome salaries by the corporations and just do what their told.

>chimps are not objective less advanced than humans

I get that evolution has no "goal" or "endpoint" or whatever but come the fuck on, humans are less primitive than chimps

the faggy liberal is technically correct using the evolutionary definition of "primitive", if you are using the common definition which is "less technically advanced/less intelligent" then the non-liberal fag is correct

>we accept chimps are all the same
>bu genetically they are more different than uss!!!!

checkmate right wingerss!!!"!


Or maybe there is more to our real world differences than our mostly junk DNA genome

Well, this is the science board. If you want to use pleb definitions, then go to a pleb website like Facebook.
I think someone with your low-effort posts (you made like a third of the post in the last thread don't even capitalize words or use punctuation FFS) would fit in much better there.

Ah, the War On Judgement, a branch of liberal scientism.

Funny how it's the same people saying we can't call chimps more primitive than humans, and saying we can't call blacks more primitive than whites. The same people will tell us we mustn't judge sodomy to be less good than coitus, or Christianity less dangerous than Islam, or men stronger than women.

this is literally my only post in this website for weeks lmao

when a word means one thing to 99% of people and you want to use a different definition, at least point out you are using a different definition or you are just going to confuse people (which is what you want to do because you know you are wrong)

and i dont capitalise because i have an arm in a sling

All this proves is Africans:
>don't engage in incest
>don't attempt to spread their DNA by conquering massive swaths of land and repopulating it
>don't commit genocide

>bu-bu-but, muh chips

this is honestly more of a depressing shitpost than funny one, because it just reminds me of how people who don't understand anything about science pretend like they've come to some amazing conclusion or have tremendously insightful question, when they're being completely inane (and potentially harmful).

3/10 made me reply