Most intelligent scientists of credibility have publicly recognized that classifying humans by race is unscientific...

>as long as a negro and a nordic can have offspring, it's the same species.
Different species can have offspring. Some are even fertile after having different species parents.

sneaky african subhuman in america
I am a Greek

>the consensus has been debunked many times

Attached: 1522938355332.png (447x378, 15K)

Seems like another pro-leftwing study to me. Let's suppose this study is correct and relevant. How else are you supposed to classify humans of different ancestry? It would be plain impractical to specify all the "Intermediate characteristics" every time you refer to some race.
These scientists are being paid from tax money and this is what we get.

No you're a nigger like the rest of us, you dumb F*nn

>No you're a nigger like the rest of us, you dumb F*nn
Fucking kill your self muttoid. I am a proud Greek.

Only happens in plants, most animal hybrids die or can't have offspring.

Some have, but mainly for political reasons rather than scientific reasons. No one disputes that there are genetic differences between different human populations.

Full-genome sequencing will be able to identify race in a way that correlates with self identification with >99% accuracy.

Of course race is a clumsy and somewhat arbitrary. All human concepts are. What do we mean by size? What do we mean when we say an object is larger than another object? Is a needle bigger than a thimble? The bottom line is that different groups of humans geographically isolated for hundreds of thousands of years in radically different environments will differ from each other in many respects, including cognitive abilities. Expecting sub-Saharan Africans, who never even invented a written language, to have the same mathematical or reading skills as Europeans is wishful thinking at best.

You're literally black.
At some point in time, you had ancestors drooling on themselves in mud huts in Africa.
We all did, sweetie.

>Only happens in plants, most animal hybrids die or can't have offspring.
Wolphin

But that's true of everything, race as a broad concept is very real because we do have distinct populations a few people living on the fringe doesn't disprove that.
That's also a really specific definition of race, race is as much a cultural concept as it is a biological one. I mean back not even 200 years ago French or even something as specific as Friesian would be considered a race of people

>out-of-africa theory has already been debunked long ago but retards still believe that it's real. it's literal fantasy based on laughably weak evidence.

Attached: 46584263457465845735634563546356.jpg (392x379, 23K)

based and redpilled

You dumb fucking racists, just accept that you are black and accept african men into your country already. Goddamn

>we shouldn't create useful categories because outliers and transitional cases exist
bless your heart, sweetie

Attached: indo1.png (572x532, 109K)

Only very closely related species, species has a rather rough definition too. I mean by that logic dogs, wolves and coyote aren't separate species, but clines

Exception
Human arbitrary classifications of nature are useless, as nature does not follow our narrow minded conceptions
For instance, there are several different classifications of species and race

The dispute is almost entirely to do with semantics (i.e. lack of clarity on the definition). Genetic differences exist between different population groups.

This, anyone that uses this argument that race is a social construct to "disarm" an opponent in political discourse is an idiot. Also, anything can be considered a social construct if you abstract it enough.

>Genetic differences exist between different population groups
Of course they do, but since Homo sapiens are is an extremelly recent species (most conservative predictions say 500k years old), there was not enough time for significant diversification
What makes any absurd claims idioctic

This. Every pattern one human can evoke in another's brain by using some semantic proxy is a social construct. Any concept, word, mathematical object, gesture, moral, etc is a social construct.

In fact
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf
>nearly all North American gray wolf populations possess some degree of admixture with coyotes following a geographic cline
Yet they are classified as separate species. Only difference is that Coyotes are slightly smaller and colored differently on average. If what OP is saying is true than we need to rework our definition of species so that all canines are the same species with different clines or accept that race does exist. Especially with Australian aborigines who have been separate from the larger population for the most time and have the most unique adaptations to their environment

Attached: wolf coyote hybrid.jpg (588x399, 152K)

Evolution is not a social construct, it's a translation of a natural ocurring phenomenon within our universe, made by humans

>"There is no one trait you can use as a division between "races", because there are people with intermediate characteristics for any trait you care to look at

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Joseph_Gall

>not enough time for divergence
Come on now.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuegians
researchgate.net/publication/44596336_Genetic_Evidence_for_High-Altitude_Adaptation_in_Tibet
npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/09/17/441169188/the-secret-to-the-inuit-high-fat-diet-may-be-good-genes
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples
Just some examples of clear and relatively rapid adaptation. Not even bringing up the obvious with Ashkenazic Jews and their 7-12 point jump in IQ in just 1500 years.

In artificial selection, a dozen generations is often enough to produce strong phenotypical variance. Even if natural selection is slower, the major human sub-groups have evolved seperately for around 40'000 years or ~2000 generations. This is more than enough time for significant divergence. It's enough, many times over, given the presence of selective pressures.

If you feel the need to justify your pathetic mutt existence, don't do it with lies. Seek a philosophical, values based approach instead.

Attached: 1512139950011.jpg (228x221, 6K)

>Especially with Australian aborigines who have been separate from the larger population for the most time and have the most unique adaptations to their environment
source?

No. There is just the state of the universe as I perceive it with my sensory inputs. Any structure beyond the immediately observable is a figment of my limited cognitive capacity substituting abstracted models for direct computation.

Evolution is a very high level abstraction, everything involved in it is a construct - the very notion of "life", or even discrete objects for that matter. Everything you can argue about is an abstracted approximation of the interactions of fundamental quantum fields or whatever. The truth is unknowable, we can only empirically pattern match.

Thus if you use "x is a social construct" as an argument you are always correct for all x, but you are also a fucking idiot.

That's not diversification you idiot

Evolution is natural ocurring phenomenon that we try our best ot translate in a way other members of our species can understand

Yes it is, shitskin m*ttoid. New mutations accumulating and propagating through seperated populations' gene pools is the definition of genetic diversification.

Are you really gonna pull the christtard "muh microevolution" argument?

That's not diversification you idiot

>nature
>occur
>phenomenon
>you
>I
>animals
>plants
>species
>members
Literally everything here is an abstraction that wasn't created by either of us so a social construct.

Pretending to be retarded is the lowest form of bait.

Attached: 20180125_144634.jpg (375x450, 133K)

Evolution would still be a natural ocurring phenomenon even if humans did not exist to translate it in a manner we can understand

it produces diversification but not speciation

besides with open borders it wouldn't be natural evolution as it is artificially created by governments. Like introducing frogs to Australia. They disrupt the ecosystem.

Gravity is also just an abstraction of our mind and not real :) !

No. Evolution is something that exists in people's heads to map some set of sensory inputs to a predicted set of sensory inputs. Said sensory inputs may or may not depend on some underlying true state of the system we exist in, but the system just is. It takes an observer to exctract abstract patterns from it. If you were omniscient you wouldn't need to collapse complexity with abstraction and lose information in the process, you could just (probabilistically) track every single interaction between quantum phenomena (in as much as those are "real" themselves)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_and_heat_adaptations_in_humans
physiology.org/doi/10.1152/jappl.1958.13.2.211
>The white controls cooled almost as much, but unable to rest, they shivered and thrashed about all night, with a corresponding elevation of metabolism. The cooling adaptation of the Australian aborigines, which resembles the insulative cooling commonly found in mammals, differs from the metabolic compensation and greater peripheral heating developed in cold-acclimated white man.
These people literally sleep in below freezing weather with just a loin cloth after walking around all day in sweltering heat. It's also well known that Australia was isolated from the rest of the world for 10's of thousands of years. Longer than dogs have been around as distinct from wolves
independent.co.uk/news/science/aboriginal-australians-have-been-genetically-isolated-for-20000-years-a6895686.html

>(((Most intelligent scientists of credibility)))

Nop
Evolution is a natural ocurring phenomenon in our universe
It would still occur and exist, even if humans were not here to perceive it
By your logic, gravity is also just an abstraction of the human mind, which is absurd is narrow minded

If you leave genetic diversification running long enough in isolated populations you will reach a point when it becomes taxonomically practical to say "speciation" has occurred. But that point is arbitrary and dictated by practical consideration.
The concept of gravity is a mathematical object - an abstraction - to classify and predict the state of the universe given some patterns that have been observed. We only know as much as we can observe. If you start arguing about social constructs, better be ready to consider the implications.

Gravity would still occur even if humans were not here to perceive it

>Evolution is a natural ocurring phenomenon in our universe
Literally everything here is a semantic construct that exists purely in people's brains.
>It would still occur and exist, even if humans were not here to perceive it
No. The system - the universe, this simulation, boltzmann illusion, whatever - might "exist" but the ideas you mention - nature, life, phenomena, evolution - are just abstractions of the behaviour of the prime movers, whatever those are. Evolution only "exists" because you can spot a very complicated pattern in the interactions of innumerable quantum particles.
>By your logic, gravity is also just an abstraction of the human mind, which is absurd is narrow minded
I think you are simply too dumb to understand what the discussion is even about. I don't blame you. Here, brainlet redux: literally every concept is a mental construct. We use them because they are useful. If categorizing humans by race lets me make reasonably accurate predictions, the model has its uses and so I will use it.

I have addressed this statement a dozen times before. I can't increase your ability to reason about semantic objects beyond its limit, sorry.

Literally not an argument
Both evolution and gravity would still occur even if we were not here to perceive it, you have no way to disprove this

You didn't adress shit
You didn't even try to tackle my argument that it would still happen even if we were not here to perceive it

if humans were not here to perceive race, different races (or clines/subraces/species/whatever term you wanna use) of animals would still be naturally different from one another. And gravity is just a constant in the universe, it's something unexplainable that's just there and any attempt to define it as a force, for example, is in itself a social construct.

Goddamn you are fucking retarded. I hope you are trolling, but you probably aren't. I bet you haven't studied physics, otherwise you would know that "gravity" is just an equation thought up by people that happens to let us make accurate predictions. It has already been superseded by spacetime curvature, by the way. But it's still all just in people's heads. By using an abstract model you give up information for computation speed.

Gravity, as evolution, is a natural ocurring phenomenon within our universe, not just an abstraction of the human mind
It did, does and will affect all living things on all conceptual levels, until the universe is no more

Attached: my dick.jpg (171x295, 6K)

The very idea of something "happening" requires an observer with a notion of time and the difference between states in the substrate system. Again, you keep repeating yourself because you lack the intelligence to grasp what I am telling you.

I honestly don't think you understand what I'm trying to explain here

You operate at an arbitrary level of abstraction, unwilling to allow further reduction. But that is your choice, and I don't have to operate within your semantic constraints.

There's no need for an observer
Evolution was happening from the birth of the universe

BREAKING: Latvian-Brazilian relations at their all-time worst

It's not arbitrary, it's reality

I understand perfectly. I feel like trying to explain complex numbers to a 3rd grader right now.
>hurr durr but sqrt2 IS NOT REAL!!! How can it be real??

You are still to disprove that gravity and evolution are just abstractions of the human mind, and not natural ocurring phenomenon within our universe
Go ahead, I will wait

>because there are people with intermediate characteristics
Tell me, do you know precisely when warm becomes hot? Do you know when a child becomes a teenager? Do you know the minute at which day becomes night?
According to your logic, since you can't tell for sure, all these classifications cannot exist. Children and teenagers are all the same because there are some intermediate people that cannot be clearly sorted in, and therefore everyone else cannot be classified.

Why does anyone in the scientific community believe in such flawed logic?
We do know that on average there are differences between those groups, so it makes sense to distinguish them.

Reality, whatever fuzzy intuitive definition of it we are using here, just is. "You" need to be able to perceive a limited subset (state) of reality to map patterns to a different state. "You" need to experience a computational advantage by choosing to decrease the fineness of your approximation of these patterns and focusing on emergent behaviour of large groups of patterns. If you didn't have this constraint you wouldn't need to do arbitrary shit like define a certain shifting set of particles "an animal" and then assign a class to it that you extend to other similar patterns, and then model the propagation of certain patterns within these patterns by introducing concepts such as "genes", "alleles", "natural selection" and so forth.

You think in terms of things and high level patterns because it is computationally infeasible to model the same system in finer terms.

Anyway, I am done here. You will not understand and even if you did, you would just keep drilling the same irrelevant tangent that has long been addressed. I will leave this for any impartial observer to conclude that race is as real as a number, gravity, the sun or your mom.

Attached: a1f9bfa3744bd23fe72ef0d8c3ac24a70c3f338e5dcf13aefd9f31046b548af6.jpg (480x479, 52K)

>If you leave genetic diversification running long enough in isolated populations you will reach a point when it becomes taxonomically practical to say "speciation" has occurred. But that point is arbitrary and dictated by practical consideration.

No doubt about it, defining that point is still problematic

I haven't said that niggers are a different species. Clearly they are more similar to me than neanderthals. But there is no reason to say that species is the finest useful category, because it isn't. We sort dogs by breeds, we can sort humans by races. It sure as hell has predictive value.

the fst distance between an European and a Yoruba negroid is about the same as that between a north american Wolf and a Coyote, two different species(canis lupus and canis latrans)

Attached: 1532554503059.jpg (1089x889, 94K)

And the practical use of that is?

Statistically people from certain regions are more inclined to act in some way, and also people of certain regions happens to share certain physical characteristics. Great, so we have subgroups of cultures, and we know that some groups of cultures wants to kill other group of cultures even regardless of how do they look.

So I'm the species as narcos, pedophiles, robbers, kidnappers, low-life scum, you name it.

I fucking know you retard, but I could care less about race, if I have people in my own community doing shit here and there, so if I know that certain groups are less likely to commit the crimes are being committed here, is obvious I'm going to trust that people way more than my own. Even I'm going to criticize my own and also other groups that I know are way worst.

That would only happen if you are an uncivilized fuck. (sadly it will happen)

www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/amp/
>american outdatedness and education

Dogs were breed using artificial selection
It's completely different than natural selection

You could make the same argument for dogs and wolves and bears. Humans have even more hetrezygosity. DNA cluster grouping (5 locii) predicts self described race in americans with 99% accuracy.

Racists. Delete your posts.
Good posts. Do not delete.

Nothing racist about acknowledging race existing.
In fact classifying different humans as different species could pave the way for respecting the rights of other intelligent animals and not reserve rights for humans only