Evolution and Racism

Was this the view of human origins a century ago? If so, why did it change?

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/history/comments/1znfrd/fake_photographs_that_are_used_to_promote/
ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Phenotype/Locations?db=core;name=Educational attainment;ph=26069;r=6:98136357-98137357;v=rs9320913;vdb=variation;vf=5140739
ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Variation/Population?db=core;ph=26069;r=15:47409745-47410745;v=rs188133;vdb=variation;vf=82646
io9.gizmodo.com/5890349/genetic-diversity-in-chimpanzees-reveal-just-how-closely-related-humans-really-are
journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002504
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>evolution and racis-

Stopped reading there.

>mfw

Because evolution is not about "higher life forms". There is no "higher" in evolution. Evolution is not advancement on a ladder. Evolution does not drive all species in a single direction that one might call "higher". It's a complete misunderstanding of evolution. To start making those sorts of racist valuations, you need to insert some values about what constitutes "better".

And as for that, it didn't stick because the molecular genetics didn't back it up. All humans are amazingly close. Any two humans on Earth are closer genetically than even two chimps in the same pack / tribe.

Racism is a natural part of evolution.

Except that it is not. Racism is inferior races exhibiting frustration at their maladapted genes.

One only need to look at racial breakdowns in the census to see how the white race is failing to reproduce. White women clearly are preferring black and Latino men in ever higher numbers.

White boys cling to artificial, biased tests like IQ to try and regain some perception that their genes and lives are worthy of passing on. But all a brother needs to do to prove his worth is unzip his pants.

I personally feel sorry for the limp dicked virgins of /pol/. But the feeling quickly goes away while I'm fucking their sisters.

Feels good, man.

>Answers in Genesis

Perhaps plebs have a misunderstanding of some of the jargon. The term "primitive trait" for example - it merely means that it arose earlier, not an indication of inferiority as the plebs would say.

Acceptable with that context.

*tips*

M'lady.

So humans are no better than earthworms? Killing an earthworm is just as bad as killing a human, because humans aren't "higher"?

I said that the scientific theory evolution makes no such distinctions. It has no such language in the theory.

Usually, one's morality or ethics does, but that sort of morality or ethics does not depend on the truth of evolution, and it's independent of the truth of evolution.

I feel ya, dog. White obcession with "intelligence" over street smarts just shows what cracker ass fucking faggots they is when you get down to it.

>pretending to be black on the internet

But what does intelligence even mean in the context of biology if it doesn't mean betterness at problem solving? Can't we say that evolution has made some organisms better than others across a variety of domains?

"Better at solving problems" is a fine concept in the theory of biology. So is "more intelligent".

However, "higher on the evolutionary ladder" or "more advanced species" are not proper terms in evolutionary theory.

Go, your home board needs you

>yaaaas fuck drumpf and white ppl
Lying, shilling, false flagging is not beyond them
In fact, it's their favorite thing

It's really not very noble

Yes
Asian>White>black

Is that what you want to hear

Eyo shut up cracka you aint know shit about me, feel me?

Who's "them"? And why are you making some grandiose implication of an organised group of people doing it and not just shitposters and trolls

Fair enough.

Pretty much, yeah. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Every. Single. Fucking. Day.

You /pol/tards should really get a fucking job. And a life.

Mfw the shills they cry about get paid while they do it for free

Dude. No one here is a shill. No one pays money to someone to post on Veeky Forums. Least of all Veeky Forums.

This. My food stamps ain't gonna pay itself, fucking racist ass honkies.

reddit.com/r/history/comments/1znfrd/fake_photographs_that_are_used_to_promote/


You've seen nothing.

Why do niggas drink more juices in general? When I walk downtown I always see these niggas drinking orange juices. The more darker the nigga is the more juices they drink. What does it mean? Why do brown niggas drink less juices than black niggas? Why?

Higher can simply mean more complex, and that isn't a law of evolution either as I'm sure you know, but it does hold true for ecological evolution, ecological and sociological systems tend towards complex until entropy emerges failure, and even then complex adaptive-renewal cycles evolve.
>isn't into biocentric equalitarianism
Wew lad
There is no physical separation between a human life and and earthworm life, all organismal life is the same thing in different packages baka.
You could argue that earthworms have far more utilitarian value than humans do. Earthworms would do fine without us but we couldn't make it without em

let this fucking thread die already

>What does it mean?
It means you're a fucking retard

No u

[math]\color{green} {\textbf{>NO U}\bf{^{10}}}[/math]

I am beautiful precious little cinnamon roll. Fuck me user!

[math] \color{red} {\textbf{FUCK OFF BACK TO } \underline{\textbf{>>>/MLPOL/}} } [/math]

Human racial evolution is more complex than that user.

If multiregional theory was correct then the DNA of the races would so divergent that they could be considerered seperate species.

Say Homo Erectus mutates into the races, since Erectus began around 1.3 million years ago, it also means the races would have formed 500,000 years ago so the genetic difference would be enough to be a new species.

I own three vintage fedoras and look good in them, as a matter of fact. Even the teenyboppers on /b/ have grudgingly admitted they suit me when I've posted pictures of myself.

Goddamn it why do these fedoras type like such fucking faggots?
Take your pedophile cartoons back to

But I need it hard and I need it NOW!

The whites who breed the most are actually the idiots so nice try stupid nigger.

>go to clubs on another state
>impregnate women without telling them your actual name
>flee to your home state
Population problem solved.

Remember your sins.

I have analyzed ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Phenotype/Locations?db=core;name=Educational attainment;ph=26069;r=6:98136357-98137357;v=rs9320913;vdb=variation;vf=5140739

This is educational attainment, I have yet to analyze information speed processing and cognition. Still, some interesting results.

To compare races I took the frequencies of the favorable alleles for each race, multiplied by the effect. If the effect is negative I just took the inverse frequency.

The function is:
def compare_pops(snps):
af = 0
mx = 0
ea = 0
eu = 0
sa = 0
for s in snps:
effect = s.effect
if effect > 0:
af+=s.AFR*effect
mx+=s.MXL*effect
ea+=s.EAS*effect
eu+=s.EUR*effect
sa+=s.SAS*effect
else:
af+=(s.AFR-1)*effect
mx+=(s.MXL-1)*effect
ea+=(s.EAS-1)*effect
eu+=(s.EUR-1)*effect
sa+=(s.SAS-1)*effect
print "Africans: ",round(af,2)
print "Mexicans: ", round(mx,2)
print "East Asians: ", round(ea,2)
print "Europeans: ", round(eu,2)
print "South Asians: ", round(sa,2)

I got:
Africans: 1.09
Mexicans: 1.14
East Asians: 1.16
Europeans: 1.19
South Asians: 1.13

Those are very small differences. The below function will illustrate just how small they are. Though there are other ways to calculate these things, you won't get much different results. Browse the genome browser and see for yourself.

I also did this function:
def compare_inds(snps):
sm = 0
re = 0
for s in snps:
sm += abs(s.effect)
re -= abs(s.effect)
print "Smartest: ", sm
print "Dumbest: ", re

and got
Smartest: 2.5408
Dumbest: -2.5408

basically those SNP's should in theory account for 70 iq point difference between absolute retard and smartie, since each SNP has an effect of ~0.025 SD and to translate to IQ you multiply by 15 (one of the studies says that's how it is calculated)

Why don't MODS ban already this weeb shitposters?

Fucking weeaboo mods. Go back to .

>educational attainment
>proceeds to draw conclusions about IQ
You seem to have missed the point of our last discussion.

It's in one of the studies. Even disregarding IQ completely (which is correlated with educational achievement, but anyway) the conclusions are the same, as far as magnitude and comparisons go. Just click around the SNP's and see the frequencies for the different groups, if you haven't. You will not see a pattern.

Either way, IQ or no IQ, the conclusion is the same. I haven't included the diabetics one, because that one is for cognition.

I'll do the cognition one later, but I doubt the results will be any different.

1) The fact that IQ and educational attainment are correlated is irrelevant because correlations are non-transitive (remember that GWAS in itself is already correlation). If A is correlated with B, and B is correlated with C, that does not mean necessarily that A is correlated with C.
2) You'd need to apply meta analytical statistics to draw any conclusion at all about the meaning of numerical differences in SNP frequency.
3) I appreciate the effort, but you're going about this the wrong way.

>2) You'd need to apply meta analytical statistics to draw any conclusion at all about the meaning of numerical differences in SNP frequency.
Not really.
It's generally OK to just sum the SNP effects multiplied by the frequencies, since inheritance of intelligence isn't really known other than it being reasonably cumulative.

To do a correct analysis you'd have to know how each SNP is inherited, are they associated to one another etc. etc. and this is beyond me. So I just assume they are all independent.

The meta analysis is assumed quite simple since all the studies use very similar metrics and results, almost all the SNP's have about the same contribution.

I made a few assumptions, but based on a lot of the meta analysis studies I've read, it can't be too bad.

anyone with a shred of intelligence could conclude that niggers are dumb through simple experience.

>all the studies use very similar metrics
I'll just copy what I wrote yesterday.

>Aside from that, and arguable even more importantly, an often overlooked point is that the construct validity of the 'cognitive' measures that the genes are correlated with is questionable. Or more precisely, the construct does not align with the conclusions that are subsequently drawn as to the putative function of the SNPs. Literally all of the studies I've seen posted in this thread use a different 'cognitive' measure, for example. Again, this is fine as far as individual studies are concerned (i.e. they test individual hypotheses), but it becomes an especially prominent problem in meta analyses, which rather bewilderingly collapse across studies with radically different measures on the cognition side of the GWAS.

It applies here as well, because you continue to see the metrics as synonymous with 'intelligence'. This is erroneous, as I've already pointed out.

>It's generally OK to just sum the SNP effects multiplied by the frequencies, since inheritance of intelligence isn't really known other than it being reasonably cumulative.
No, the point of meta analytical statistics is to see if numerical differences in frequency are significant. Moreover, the assumption that these SNPs are independent is probably not quite a valid one, given the proximity of their loci. Hardly any related SNPs inherit independently. But this point is minor.

>Asian
>the smartest
kek

I don't get it, what's the point you're makign?

>Educational attainment != intelligence
>Educational attainment != IQ
Ok, ok, what even is intelligence? Define it as educational attainment and you're reasonably OK. Educational attainment is very important in its own right.

As for whether the SNP's are independent, i guess you'll have to look at how many of them are on the same chromosomes, how close they are on the chromosomes - too much work for me and it might not even have much value - who knows. That would mean they're related, if they are in proximity to one another in the genome, not if their functions are related.

The biggest problem with what I did is, whether I've reconciled the studies' different metrics. Which I most likely have reasonably well since the SNP's give about the same contributions in all the studies. About equally small contributions.
Open the link, click around the SNP's, look at the population pie charts, explore it. You'll see the point.

still don't get it

Not that user but gonna put in my two cents.
>Ok, ok, what even is intelligence? Define it as educational attainment and you're reasonably OK.
That doesn't work either because it's also strongly correlated with socioeconomics.

There honestly it's no good way to quantify intelligence. And honestly, intelligence is not something you can simply put into a number. It's like, how can you quantify how kind someone is? Or quantify their sense of humor? Intelligence is just another quality like that.

What you CAN quantify is capability at any given point. And that's what should be done at every opportunity.

No this was not the perspective, the justification for racism using Darwinian Evolution was that whites in Europe became civilized and Africans and other nations weren't, because Africans were genetically inferior. The West became civilized because that's where the Enlightenment happened, which happened due to Europeans losing faith in their deities. Becoming civilized has nothing to do with their genetics, it was just a series of fortunate events. There is a current notion around that because whites are "more evolved" they are genetically superior. Humans look different because they were seperated for thousands of years and speciation started to occur, however we are still the same species nevertheless. Africans look the way they do because their gene pool had not experienced genetic drift, and look differently from other populations because they were seperated. It does not mean either one is genetically superior, differences in phenotypes has nothing to do with superiority. There's also the case that Africans look the way they do and whites look the way they do because natural selection determines how they would to some extent. Africans having a lower IQ than the rest of the world could possibly be they live in a world where intelligence is a non-factor, likewise Africans also are the most naturally athletic in comparison to other races because other races did not experience natural selection for athletic genes as long.

The SNP's discovered so far as contributing to Educational attainment are not differently distributed between Africans, Mexicans, East Asians, Europeans South Asians.

Here's an example of one where Africans "win". The "A" one is the "bad" one, reducing EA by 0.021 units.

As you can see Africans have 0.52, the other groups are 0.60+.

ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Variation/Population?db=core;ph=26069;r=15:47409745-47410745;v=rs188133;vdb=variation;vf=82646

To see whether it increases or decreases click on the little icon with the brown and the blue eye. It says "Phenotype or Disease" when you hover over it with the mouse.

But generally, my point is that you aren't able to explain an Educational achievement gap between Europeans and Sub Saharan Africans(not to mention other racial groups) in terms of the SNP data we have currently. Perhaps Africans are just more violent and that's their problem, I don't know. Not saying they are just as capable on average, but obviously there's a lot more to it.

This is my 2 cents and I feel I did a better job than pic related HBD bloggers cherry picking nine(lol) SNP's.

There's still some more SNP's to look at - in regards to a "Cognition" category, "Information speed processing" and possibly more if I can find. Based on a few peeks I've taken, I don't expect different results.

>genetic drift
What that should be is gene flow.

I'd also like to add that Europeans began to lose faith in their deities and religion in general because their states weren't as heavily controlled by religion, theocracies began to weaken, because of corruption.

I like how this obvious troll thread derailed into an actual science thread.

>any two humans on Earth are closer genetically than even two chimps in the same pack

Got a source for that kiddo? Its sounds like weapons grade bolognium.

>lost faith in their deities
There's a lot more to it than that but yeah, they were the first to have the fortunate events that lead to the needed navigational technologies. Also Europe happens to be in a prime location for imperialism.

Not him, but I do.

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

>it's a /leftypol/ denies science because it doesn't fit his retarded worldview but then foams and mumbles something about republicans and climate change episode

back to /r/politics with you, cuckboy

I dont understand Veeky Forums? Why do you go apeshit when we discuss about human genetic divisions?

>C-cuck
Cuck, short for cuckold, is the automated response given by the /pol/ user when it gets confronted with something it does not understand. This confusional state often results in frog posting and further incoherent ramblings about "muh white genocide", or "muh cultural marxism". The /pol/ user will then often retreat to a safe environment, such as /mlp/, although it is on occasion also observed to 'double down' on its muddled and often prolix confabulations. This latter phenomenon is why the /pol/ user is widely regarded as an archetypal sufferer of double down syndrome.

>gizmodo
Read the source they got that from. They never said that it was chimps in the same tribe. In fact, the entire paper has nothing to do with studying the genetic diversity of humans. Its basically saying "all human races are one subspecies, using that, can we confirm the existence of a subspecies of chimp?"

>We demonstrate conclusively the existence of P. t. ellioti as a genetically distinct subgroup.

>We show that there is clear differentiation between the verus, troglodytes, and ellioti populations at the SNP and haplotype level, on a scale that is greater than that separating continental human populations

They have proved the existence of a subspecies of chimps that live in several different places using human genetic variation as a baseline for what constitutes a subspecies. Of course you are going to find chimps are more diverse than humans if you are specifically looking for genetically diverse chimps. You suck at sources.

journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002504

Nigger, biology itself is barely a science.

And you expect people to respect 'subspecies' when the obvious cutoff point is viable offspring?

Furthermore humans inherit memes as well as genes - the lens of meme inheritance is far more enlightening than BS gene (as with claims of 'species') inheritance fuckwittery.

>Any two humans on Earth are closer genetically than even two chimps in the same pack / tribe.

sounds like complete pop-sci bullshit, you're just discrediting yourself by spouting this

...

because it invalidates left wing ideology about hierarchy and egalitarianism, and instead of admitting they are wrong the 17 year old pasty virgins with "refugees welcome" stickers on their bedroom windows double down and mumble something about science being racist. They're a fucking embarrassment to this board and need to be banned or directed back to /r/politics

You aren't disagreeing with me there.

it happens to be true

we went through a population bottleneck which greatly reduced our genetic diversity

The only actual science in this thread explicitly addresses the question that /pol/ loves to ask, yet it disagrees with /pol/'s preferred answer. You're the embarrassment.

>Using the word cuck unironically

Humans already are a subspecies since a subspecies of humans existed 170,000 years ago.

Human races are weird its better to call them subsubspecies to make it clearer. We need to create genetic divisions based on the genetic time distance. Like say create one for a gap of 90,000 years.

I believe Blacks alone would make one group

The East Africans another

While all other humans would make a third group.

As for the San they predate blacks meaning they are another genetic division away from the rest of us since they predate the very creature that split us from blacks in the first place.

Should the San be considered another species? No the San are human but the genetic distance is very far from us Eurasians, the closest to them are blacks.

Not as retarded as some other racial classifications you can come across.

Of course I wouldn't call it subspecies, because we aren't that far separated(looking at Fst). But more importantly humans are sentient beings and have races. The term 'race' in modern days is usually used to describe humanoid, intelligent creatures - just like in sci fi. It's a more noble and more correct term than subspecies.

I prefer K=5, which sort of amounts to a similar thing, since human variation strongly follows how humans migrated (go figure).

evolution is about adaption and continuation of life . There is no rule that says each new evolution will be superior in intelligence

Niggers were living in mud by the time we conquered the oceans invented calculous and sustained agriculture

>It's a more noble and more correct term than subspecies
what is this nonsense

humans are a subspecies

our species is Homo Sapiens
our subspecies is Homo Sapiens Sapiens

the latter one includes all 'races', because these are not markedly different enough to warrant different classifications

>the latter one includes all 'races', because these are not markedly different enough to warrant different classifications
You are joking right?

No.

The three main races have different hair follicles meaning they are very different from eachother, you are just being an egalitarian moralfag refusing to see humans are animals to be studied.

I agree with that, but races is still something we can talk about without it being subspecies.

No, I'm a biologist. I'm very well aware that humans are animals. I'm not saying that 'races' don't differ from each other, I'm saying that 'races' don't differ enough from each other to classify them in different taxonomic categories. All races fall under Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which is a simple fact that, and you don't have to take my word for it either. It's easy to look up. So do that before you go full autismo, /pol/tard.

Sure, I never denied that. But it's probably a better idea to talk about categories of phylogenetic ancestry or ethnicity, since those are more clearly defined constructs.

They can classified though since they have genetic differences from eachother. I am no calling other races different species, I am saying they are the same but require classification due to how unique human phylogenetic diversity is. We are the only species on this planet that looks very different from eachother depending on where we are.

Are you not aware of dog breeds? All same subspecies.

Not exactly because not all dog breeds came from one creature meaning they have genetic distance and thus can be classified into groups.

Humans already classify eachother into genetic groups like Anglos and Nordics or Han and Japanese etc.

Yup. Just don't call it subspecies, since that implies more profound taxonomic differences.

>We are the only species on this planet that looks very different from eachother depending on where we are.
I get what you're trying to say, but if I'm being pedantic then this isn't exactly true. 'Races' have spread all over the globe, for one. And second, other species show similar phenotypical variation as humans. Darwin's finches show quite a strong geographical dependence on phenotype, for example.

>genetic groups
Those are social groups. Social groups with a genetic correlate, sure, but that's not quite the same as a genetic group.

Nordics are a genetic group since they share like traits with eachother no matter the country.

Three Dachshunds, same subspecies, same breed. Different hair follicles like you mentioned.

But there is genotypical variation within the group, and overlap with other groups... This is why race is not regarded as a genetic construct, but a social construct. The borders are too fuzzy, and principally not defined on genotype but on phenotype. This is biology 101...

But are they the same Sub-Subspecies?
Race is a genetic construct or it simply wouldnt exist at all, race is human attempt to genetically classify theirselves based on like traits.

>on phenotype
There's plenty of nords with brown eyes and/or hair. If you genotyped them they'd just be traced back to northern europe.

It's retarded even then.
I support the concept of race on a genetic basis, but you are not being very helpful.

Nords are Caucasian and in terms of race are the same as Greeks. As you say, if that's false then you might as well through out race all together.

>Race is a genetic construct or it simply wouldnt exist at all, race is human attempt to genetically classify theirselves based on like traits.
We keep going in circles. You don't give an argument here, you've simply rephrased your position. I've already explained why this is position is inconsistent with reality. Look it up yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

>If you genotyped them they'd just be traced back to northern europe.
Genes trace back to regions, not individuals. You're suggesting that there are no mixed race people at all, and that it's an all or none distinction. People go by appearance when it comes to classifying race, even if there is some phenotypical variance (which is trivial).

Because humans are not simple, there are many genetic differences which constitutes a classification system to recognize all of them.

Hey dumb shit. This isn't 8ch you cancerous fuck.

>Was this the view
It wasn't
>Why did it change
Learn how evolution works before posting here faggot.

>People go by appearance when it comes to classifying race
But people are dumb. If we really want races we must look at genes.

Variation is clinal, but the largest jumps occur with 5 races. If you really really want races you can get away with 4, but no less than four. You can't REALLY get away with more than 5 or 6.