Could someone please explain why pic is wrong

/thread

humans haven't but our predecessors did

In humans, physical differences in the face and skin etc. are pronounced and genetic distance is extremely close, whereas in the other species it is the opposite(certain birds look similar but have more genetic difference than any two humans)

I don't know why this is, maybe sexual selection, maybe those birds *are* very different visually but we can't tell(birds can see different colors and bland basic looking birds are actually really bright)

>don't trust your own senses, intuition or experience, goy, trust our (((experts)))

>My own senses, intuition and experience trump molecular data
Humans have very little genetic variation

Right.

>conventional thinking
>conventional terms

in general a plebian would look at any black bird with a longish beak a crow.
the same thing about the human race.

its only when you get into real specifics , im sure geneticsts and epidemiologists give people and creatures a whole new name based off of genetic variation. like all those fag spouting the 2b1 meme or what ever the fuck.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/biospecies_01

Once two humans can't produce a fertile offspring, those two are of a different species.

Cool, except nobody was talking about species but about subspecies, or races. Like German Shepherds and labradors, who can have fertile offspring.

Will you admit there are different subspecies or races present for the species of Homo sapiens sapiens?

New user here, but it depends on the frame of reference for deciding what you might call genetic differentiation. In the case most commonly looked at, it's the ratio of the genetic variation within a population to the genetic variation between populations that determines subspecies. The reason this is the most common measure is because it's the only measure that accurately controls for the specific breeding patterns/generation time of a species, and merely looks at how deviated a population may have become holistically via selection.

Think of it like this. You have a species with an incredibly long generation time, like elephants, and you try to compare that with, say, ants. Among the ants, due to the fact that there are many generations, and large numbers within populations, there is going to be an incredible diversity of genes, as there's a possibility for any one of the offspring (with many offspring occurring in a short period of time) to be born with a mutation. Thus, there's a greater genetic diversity within the population, compared to elephants which will be relatively homogeneous, with a lot more evolutionary dependence on physical events that split populations, bring them together, and the sort for there to be any kind of genetic diversity/new alleles in the gene pool.

It'd be pretty retarded to then say that because ant #132529 and ant #134000, which have a greater total # of genetic differences from each other, yet live in the same anthill as a part of the same population are separate subspecies, on the basis that Asian and African elephants are considered separate subspecies though they have less total variation.

Science is so beautiful, yet so tricky at the same time. On one hand, it is a truly amazing tool for analysis of the world. On the other, if you look at it on a surface level, without understanding, you can misinterpret so much, and come out of it more retarded than if you'd never encountered. Poor thing.

Biologists are now pretty reluctant to use the biospecies definition, and are leaning more towards quantifiable genetic variance based definitions. Makes bioinformatics a lot more versatile, and allows for an easier time with all kinds of analysis. Just like how skin color is controlled by a handful of genes, compared to the vast human genome, viable fertility isn't necessarily a good quantifier.

Not by the definition of subspecies. In any sense of gene population mapping, it's impossible to separate it by race in any meaningful way- like I described in , the evidence has shown that humans have a greater degree of variance among populations than between, which
1) Implies not enough gene isolation to differentiate to a point of 'subspecies'
and
2) Even if the limits were lowered on what variance would be the cutoff for subspecies among homo sapiens sapiens, any model would be confusing and meaningless, drawing the lines all over the place, and not adhering at all to our understanding of race societally.

For your education, at your leisure;
science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095

science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564.full

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032721

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871

nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7561/abs/nature14618.html?foxtrotcallback=true

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514343/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403703/

genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full

It's all very interesting stuff, if you're into science and all that.

>viable fertility isn't necessarily a good quantifier.

So are you saying, if we find two groups of human looking individuals, that can not interbreed, but are very similar genetically.
You would not consider them different species?

I understand your point, but when it comes to, humans or mammals in general, I think fertility is a good qualifier.

Wings and feathers are more expressive than arms, so birds had more options than our ancestors when inventing dance moves. It's fair to assume this allows stronger competition, which should cause more differentiation.

Race is real, and we all know it. Veeky Forums is just filled with spics and nigger undergrads that watch SciShow unironically.

Well, the reason your pic is wrong is because of a little theory that has been getting traction lately but it is still controversial: HUMANS. ARE. NOT. BIRDS.

Humans are not genetically isolated. Genetic studies show that human populations form genetic gradients rather than isolated clusters. This makes it impossible to define races without arbitrary cutoffs.

Simply ranking genetic diversity does not tell you how that diversity is distributed, which is key. Human races are based on only looking at certain arbitrary phenotypes and cutoff points, as your graph shows.

the 2nd dog from the right is the smartest.

>and not adhering at all to our understanding of race societally
This is pure nonsense.

Different ethnic groups and races are produced by their real world societies often semi-geographically isolated, so that a mix of genetic identity and cultural practices wind up literally defining the race or sub-species characteristics.
You must be from America where so called Political Correctness defines people by which office cubical they inhabit in the employment world.

BTW, the first part of your sentence isn't much better.

Remember guys, evolution stops at the brain.
Different groups of humans seperated for thousands and thousands of years have exactly the same brains even if the rest of their body is completely different. Studies showing lower IQ is because those tests are biased towards white people. Never mind that Asians actually score higher on them.
We are all one race the human race, but we must stop racial discrimination and give some races that don't exist easier options. We are all the same and diversity is our strength, also of all the non-existent races whites are the worst.

That's like saying red and yellow don't exist because orange is a thing.

They kind of don't. It's a continuous spectrum, and the dividing lines were defined by humans. It could be divided differently. Our human eyes are receptive to red and yellow so we noticed it more distinctly.

Race =! Phaenotype
Please get back to your /pol/ containment board, thank you.

> the dividing lines were defined by humans
This is nonsense.

The lines are defined by the unique 3 color receptor cones in the retina of the human eye.

So genetic evolution defined the lines.

Fun fact: dogs have more genetic diversity than all humans.

>dogs have more genetic diversity than all humans
Depends on how you measure it.
Domesticated canines have been part of a centuries long breeding experiment that includes some amount of focus on divergence.

There is no "depends on how you measure it." Dogs have a lot more SNPs and alleles for their genes than humans do.

No, colors are discretized by the three photoreceptor cell types. Humans are discretized in populations, not races. And these populations are distributed as clines, not races. Your analogy completely misses the point.

Define "cline" please.

>the dividing lines were defined by humans
>3 color receptor cones in the retina of the human eye.
>human eye

Exactly what I was saying....

An ecotone in which a series of biocommunities display a continuous gradient.

So it's a synonym for modern airline travel between countries?

Breeds aren't different subspecies retard. All dog breeds are one subspecies of wolves.

Yes, one might think that due to relative geographic isolation for thousands of years, some speciation to the point of subspecies may have occurred. The data, however, tells another story. It has nothing to do with political correctness, it has nothing to do with an agenda, just that it's been shown through hard genetic evidence that there is not enough genetic differentiation between populations compared to the variance within populations to consider subspecies, and that there can be no non-arbitrary (I.e. deciding weight of certain phenotypes of 'importance' via a counsel, which is very much a social issue) way of classifying race.

>not enough genetic differentiation between populations compared to the variance within populations to consider subspecies
The OP's photo kind of refutes this.

>there can be no non-arbitrary (I.e. deciding weight of certain phenotypes of 'importance' via a counsel, which is very much a social issue) way of classifying race
That can also apply to the larger animal and plant kingdom classification. Scientist often do argue about subspecies issues.

>The OP's photo kind of refutes this.
Visual appearance does not encompass of an organism's genetics. You can see, with your eyes, the fact that humans have less genetic diversity and are more closely related to each other than those birds.

>Visual appearance does not encompass of an organism's genetics
Much visual appearance is literally defined by the organism's genetics.
Environment and other factors can obviously contribute to the final "overall appearance" though.

>You can see, with your eyes, the fact that humans have less genetic diversity and are more closely related to each other than those birds.
You can't trust your eyes with these things anyway. "Races" certainly do look more different (to us) then different animals. But genetics show that we are indeed more closely related than most animal species.

>Much visual appearance is literally defined by the organism's genetics.
But it doesn't work the other way around. Visual appearance is a very small part of an organism's genetics.

Isn't this all semantics ?
Words like race and ethnicity are OK, but don't you dare use the word "subspecies" like they do with the birds in OPs photo because that will not fit with modern sociology or such ?

There's one trait, one, that is more common among groups that between groups. That trait and that trait alone happens to be the most visible of human differences, skin color.

You are being nitpicky.
Funny, we are in the same category of diversity than the Leopards, aka the best know example of no genetic diversity whatsoever.

No, because definitions like subspecies have scientific definitions based on population genetics, and humans do not meet those criteria.

Irrelevent.
But usually if two organisms look identical they will indeed be very closely related. There might be a few mimicry related anomalies but in general it does go both ways.

Yeah it's just skin color, huh
Skin color is like the least defining trait when comparing human races

It's not irrelevant. You can't just ignore genetics.

Exactly why is the OP on the wrong track then ?

The humans are more genetically similar to one another and more related to one another than the birds.

It's not wrong. Ancient Greeks and Romans didn't give a fuck about race. White people being held as slaves in Rome while Egypt was ruled by black Nubians was pretty normal. Of course there was still classes, but "race" didn't really play any role in what class you would end up in.

Racism only exists since a couple of centuries, and they largely are about two core ideas:

1. Jews are evil
2. Blacks are inferior

Idea number 1 has largely died out (well, at least in mainstream society), while idea 2 is still somewhat prevelant. Idea 1 though is interestingly enough being currently replaced by "Muslims are evil".

Sure, there is always "tribalism". But tribalism centered around "race" is pretty new.

Can you give the scientific numbers please,
or more specifically, can you elaborate on how you decided the weight of certain phenotypes of 'importance' via a social counsel ?

This poster for example produced some actual numbers:

There is plenty of information here
The pictures you see on /pol/ are ad hoc and taken out of context.

If you don't have any understanding of genetics there is not a more simple way I can put it. For example, do you even understand what is going on in that picture? Do you understand what heterogygosity means? Do you know how fixation distances are calculated? One picture just shows a graph with no labels and no data. Just because you see a picture doesn't mean you understand genetics. The people that make these have zero understanding of genetics either.

WTF is this bird?

I may have been exagerating a little for emphasis.

But have you seen the black people from ethiopia and namibia? I'm half-convinced the africans who migrated to the rest of the world came from there, just judging by facial traits and ignoring skin color.

Not saying its claims are wrong because I've never done any research on the matter, but its argument is bullshit because it only pays attention to differences in appearance, which doesn't actually prove anything.

>quora.com/Why-are-there-not-breeds-of-humans-like-breeds-of-dogs

That's asinine. There can be one or two genes that code for a very large structure that would look, to us humans, as a very large departure from the ancestor species, even with a handful of mutations. On the flipside, there could be hundreds of thousands of mutations that end up revamping the immune system, reproductive track, or other internal organs/cellular features that definitively change the function of an organism, yet due to how the environment's resource allotment works, could be very outwardly similar to other species.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here in terms of argument. "b-but they look separate!".

Image related.

This page is a mix of fact and speculation.

One recurring theme is that dogs have breeds because they were kept pure artificially whereas humans were not. This is irrelevant since by geography, choice, or chance, humans have kept relatively closed mating patterns amounting to "informal breeding" for thousands of years.