When did you finally realize that the whole "there's more variation within than without" gripe was nothing more than a...

>they can
Wrong. America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans.

Go back to the shithole you came from, subhuman.

There is nothing to discuss, though. Amerindian superiority is a historical fact. Their higher development rate is evident by itself.

>higher development rate
Fascinating. Does this metric correlate well with IQ, earnings, criminality, sexual deviancy, addiction, ect? I'm not opposed to the races returning to their homelands, but let's try to keep this scientific, not political.

>modern measures
>modern populations
It's pretty simple. You can see how the Inca society was based on a strong micro-societal organization of family education and indoctrination for an agrarian life. The most intelligent and warrior-like became priviledged ones.

The genocide put the population under the death of 90% of the population which let the bottle-neck effect favour the enslaved and kill the rebels/assimilate the entrepreneur. The noble and middle classes were assimilated by the europeans. The low classes were thrown to toxic mines full of mercury where the life expectancy was less than 30 years old, for 4 centuries. All of this under the constant mongrelization of Amerindians by eurangutans and niggers.

Nowadays, millions have poor nutrition and resources, don't have an effective (african tier) school, local corruption by the majors, and the typical effect of non-homogenous nations.

Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans even though they had more disadvantages. Their "fertile crescent" was even a hellhole, they had to change the center of culture activity to the mountains. The coastal zone became quickly a desert due to the Niño. 100% of SouthAmerican crops are from the mountainous and high-jungle zones.

But I think this conversation is primarily concerned with modern populations. That is interesting, though. I wonder what an 'elite' specimen from that era would look like and behave like.

every time

Honestly, I never knew that people were so deluded, until a few years ago. I never thought I would see mainstream media outlets and "academics" claiming that race was more-or-less negligible. I mean, who can take an honest look at a west African and a Frenchman and immediately think that they are fundamentally of the same stock. I would usually refrain from using the term 'subspecies', simply out of respect for humanity, but because we are in a deluded society, I think we should put this information out there. It's basic, common sense that has been brainwashed out of (usually) intelligent people.

>modern populations
How so?

To compare elements we have to put both on the same circumstances. eurangutans have to suffer the same genocide.

>desert due to Niño
Wtf are you smoking climate change started with the industrial revolution.

Nigger, the peruvian coast was filled with fertile land until the deglaciation. The zone is now desert.

The Caral culture settled on the remnants of the peruvian "fertile crescent" but the Niño fucked over these lands for thousands of years.

>who can take an honest look at a west African and a Frenchman and immediately think that they are fundamentally of the same stock
1. "Stock" is not really scientific. The problem with race is that you can literally draw the line of "races" anywhere. It's all about resolution. I don't understand how polynesians being more related to each other than to europeans somehow proves they are a different "race" anymore than my grandma being more related to me than my 2nd cousin is.
2. Visuals are a shit way of telling animals relatedness. Small mutations can have huge effects while big mutations might not be so readily apparent.

>tl;dr John Oliver tells jokes

>brown labrador
fucking disgusting

Essentially what this guy said ,
you arbitrarily divide racial groups primarily based on obvious physical traits, why don't you do it based on foot shape, eye color, or dominant hand? Can you can prove that I shouldn't consider left- and right-handed people to be different races?

Black box verse white box. Fact is not enough is understood about the effects of genetics to do white box analysis. Basing ideas on black box formulation is far more fruitful but leads to obvious conclusions you don't like.

You can continue to try to delude yourself into thinking abos and Chinese belong to the same group but nearly everyone else will agree it's wrong.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

>I suppose the color Orange doesn't exist because it exists on a continuum, and since you cannot define the discrete point that it differs from purple, we'll just have to say its no different from purple!
>Race is a meaningless term!

No, we are comparing them AS THEY ARE TODAY, not as if we had decimated the upper echelon of their gene pools, regardless of if that happened in the past.

>decimated the upper echelon
>murdered the elite and middle classes
>assimilated the survivors
The proof of their superiority is demonstrated in all history. We will see how do eurangutans manage to bear 1% of the cataclysm Amerindians have suffered and led to genetic and social consequences, when the eurangutan extinction and mongrelization is over.

I still don't understand what you're on about. As I said, this is not an attempt to 'order' the races, in terms of which is 'superior.'

You seem like a firm believer in the genetic reality of race. What was the most convincing evidence that allowed you to realize this?

It's pretty simple. If races exist, Amerindians are superior to europeans. How is this hard to get?

Are you unable to follow the topic at hand?

But I'll take the bait. You don't believe it's morally reprehensible to say, outright, that one race is superior to others? Please explain.

Wrong. The topic of races isn't a scientific one, but a merely taxonomic and practical one. Thus, if races exist, then for consequence, the Amerindian race would be superior to the european race or whatever mongrelization they have become by then now that they are drowning in their own shit and want african, mexican and arab immigrants t

-o replace them.

Are you -- dare I say? -- a native american supremacist?

I just made an observation how Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. How is this hard to get?

Oh, fascinating. Now show me the study where they earn more on average, perform better academically, ect. :)

Or, stop trolling because your bait is weak.

Variation is a meme. The genome is 99.8% conserved between humans. We're nothing more than palatte swapped sprites with some color codes that cause cancer.

You're right. Let's work together to make Europe all-white and the Americas all-American-Indian.

>implying we would give up land rightfully gained via conquest 200+ years ago

I could see giving a large chunk, though, and maybe small pockets throughout. Like I'm talking Lower Cali, Arizona, NM, some bits of texas, a lot of the plains, maybe some land stretching up to Canada.

>development rate

What do you mean by this?

A whites-only Europe is worth the loss of the colonial lands at this point.

Simple.
Europeans settle on europe: 40000BC
Amerindians reached Canada: 25000BC; then after the deglaciation (10000 years later) populated the rest of the continent in 15000BC

European crops date from 10000BC.
Amerindian crops date from 6000BC.

Europeans getting the bronze from other culture in 3200BC.
Amerindians reached the bronze age in 500BC approximately.

Also as a great factor:
Horse domesticated in 3000BC approximately.

Knowing that the rests of all amerindian populations of 14000BC to 10000BC were pretty much paleolithical-tier and all lived as nomads, practiced some artistic manifestations as european paleo-populations. It's safe to assume they started again in the paleolithic and had to morph the environment of woods, jungles and coasts to their convenience, the same the europeans did with their environment for thousands of years before the Neolithic.

Then let's compare:
Europeans lurking around as nomads: 30000 years.
Amerindians lurking around as nomads: 9000 years.

Europeans reaching the bronze age from other cultures after the Neolithic stage: 6800 years.
Amerindians reaching the bronze age by themselves without the influence of a culture thousands of years ahead of development: 5500 years.

Let's check also how many years have humans modifyed the horse population and environment: 37000 years.
Let's check how many years have amerindians affected the camelids of South-America, when the spaniards came: 16500 years. They had less than half the time, yet they already domesticated diverse species for food and whool. Llamas can carry up to 50 Kg.

And I didn't mention the disadvantages such as continental isolation (north-south and east-west), Niño fenomena that destroys coastal villages, less cultures to trade with, and no naval technology, iron, horses, wheel, and writting from north-african nor anatolian cultures.

So, it's safe to affirm. Incas were superior to europeans. Their higher development rate was excellent compare to europeans.

America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. How is this wrong?

>modern comparison
>90% epidemic disease genocide for 2 centuries
>elites and middle class murdered
>rest of the priviledged class assimilated
>low class thrown to toxic mines for 2 centuries
Amerindian higher development rate is a historical fact.Get over it, subhuman.

I don't think there is this big denial of groups genetic diversity in humans, like you imply. Of course you can group people, that is always true in any set with variation.

"there's more variation within than out" just stems from scientist not finding grouping into those generalizations of groups of genetics traits that useful. There is just too much diversity with in a group and other factors such as environment that cant be controlled for in the best studies even.
Is it possible to group traits of genetics into groups? Of-course, but you are drawing arbitrary lines at this point, its not very scientific way of going about things. You could probably make up a thousand or even millions of different races if you were going really specific.

try again, brainlet
we are talking about dimensionality, not continuity

the climate is always changing regardless of humans.

How come there is no genetic test for race?

>(11:50) The evidence suggests that this continuum is almost exclusively one-dimensional

Okay, brainlet.

See Or, better yet, just watch the video.

>He doesn't know how imageboards work
The posts you responded to said nothing about continuums, You're strawmanning.

There is. Ever heard of 23andme?

The truth is that the general population simply cannot handle the idea that there might be variances between different races.

While the truth can be useful for research, development, and the better understanding of ourselves and what our future might hold the fact is that the general population (not even just talking about Americans). The general population of the world would lose their shit and use it as an excuse for genocide, an excuse for not trying, and an excuse to further racist ideals.

The people posting these threads aren't likely geneticists who are intrigued by these studies and want to understand and better the world. There people are god damn cuckfags who want to justify their ape like tribalism and racism.

>the general population simply cannot handle the idea that there might be variances between different races.

Dude, the non-white races know very well the difference between the races. The only people who think the races are equal are white leftists. Race equality was something the white race invented in the 20th century and non-whites have been taking advantage of it ever since. They laugh at us behind our backs for giving them our women, wealth, and countries.

>The post he responded to was an explanation of the continuum fallacy
>He responds, saying that this is an issue of dimensionality and not continuity
>I respond with a quote from the material suggesting that it is a one-dimensional continuum

Can you read? Is English your first language?

I agree that it might be hard to handle, at first. But suppressing this information is doing great harm to some populations. For example, being an Asian is actually a DETRIMENT, when applying to competitive academic programs, while being black is a benefit, provided they have similar backgrounds.

>difference between races
We all know Amerindians are superior to europeans.
>laugh
Time to get extinct'd, subhuman. You will see who will laugh then.

>Time to get extinct'd, subhuman.

It's your kind who will be extinct in 200 years.

Whites are already waking up and uniting, and when we truly unite, we're going to wipe out all the races that attempted a genocide on us.

We allowed you to live before, and like cockroaches you proliferated and came back stronger. We won't make that mistake again.

>denying reality
Already wiping your subhumanity off this planet.
>waking up
From what? Their stealing and genocide of Amerindians?
>allowed
Wrong. Amerindians managed to not get their culture massacred nor several native settlements which conserve less than 1% eurangutan genes.

Amerindians are superior to europeans. All history demonstrates this. The Amerindian genocide will never ever be forgotten. Time to get extinct'd, inferior being.

>t. littlebrain brownfeather

This is almost all copypasta; ignore this faggot. It's just bait.

>He doesn't even know what a dimension is
Looks like you're not equipped for this discussion.
Learn the basics, then come back. Let me google it for you.
statisticshowto.com/dimensionality/

The General relativity theory, classical mechanics, linear algebra theorems, calculus theorems and all kinds of absolute knowledges are also copied to bring the ones who want to learn useful information.

Amerindian superior development rate is a historical fact. Get over it, subhuman.