sci/15345195.txt

-----
--- 15345195
Can you /sci/entists explain me why the concept of species is not applied to humans
Sure, German Shepard and bulldog are both dogs, but they belong to different species.
--- 15345205
>>15345195 (OP)
Those are breeds
--- 15345242
>>15345218
The distance to the Neamderthals is something like ten times greater.
--- 15345278
>>15345195 (OP)
Subspecies is not a biological term that is used 
The way species are distinct is in producing offspring.
For example, there are species of insects that look basically identical on the outside but are from different species. Why? Becouse they have incompatible genetalia. There's a similar thing in birds but with differences in courting behaviour instead.
There are exceptions like frogs interbreeding and making a fertile hybrids, but that sort of thing becomes less and less possible when you go towards mammals and birds, as there are a whole bunch of failsafes on all levels thst prevent that.

So if for example that weird guy that wands sexually dimorphic people gets what he wants but it's essentially impossible for impregnation to occur naturally with the size difference, they become kind of different species. Even then no, because dogs are all one species although some can't interbreed due to this. Even if they cinseive, you can expect complications during pregnancy.

Is that a sufficient answer to this question? I've taken it on myself to not view it in bad faith and would appreciate if you do the same.
--- 15345314
>>15345278
>Subspecies is not a biological term that is used
why because it's not politically correct?
--- 15345331
>>15345195 (OP)
I would say it's...
It's politics !
--- 15345346
Obvious troll thread. See Common Cuckoo and Happy Face Spiders as both those species have races too.
--- 15345359
>>15345195 (OP)
>>15345278
>The way species are distinct is in producing offspring.
No. 
Species are categorized arbitrarily without a sound scientific process. There's like 20 different definitions of species and none of them fit the actual uses of the term.
Many different species, even among mammals, are exceptions to your definition and have fertile offspring in the wild, like coyotes and wolves, sapiens and neandertal, or pic related.

The concepts of species and subspecies is not applied to humans because people are afraid it could be used to justify genocide, or to oppose population replacement in the west. There is no scientific argument, except fallacious ones designed to mask the political ones.
--- 15345386
>>15345195 (OP)
--- 15345403
>Sure, German Shepard and bulldog are both dogs, but they belong to different species.
smartest racist
--- 15345405
>>15345359
--- 15345438
>>15345195 (OP)
>Sure, German Shepard and bulldog are both dogs, but they belong to different species.
anon just went full retard
--- 15345964
>>15345195 (OP)
Why would you use a paraphyletic concept when human populations are monophyletic? So are animals of course. The paraphyly of subspecies is one of the main reasons it's a nonsense concept. You are "subspecies" of Africans in any case, and somehow I doubt you'll be happy with that fact.
--- 15346001
>>15345314
No, because it doesn't serve a purpose in modern biology
>>15345359
That might have been that way originally and we do suffer from historic conventions and the fact that non biologists often operate of a 1960s level of understanding biology at best, but no biologist worth their salt would dispute the fact that the concept of a species has a lot of exceptions.
How often do wolves and coyotes interbreed in the wild? As I said, it includes behaviour.
There are plants that can interbreed easily but they bloom at different times and this are defined as different species.
Just because they can artificially be made to produce fertile offspring is not that important. What matters is what happens in the wild
Also, you are being a lot more negative than the ammount this discussion seems to be reasonably able to warrant.
--- 15346026
>>15345964
>a paraphyletic concept
>subspecies
Who said so ? Subspecies don't have to be paraphyletic. Some are, like species, because the original classfication was based on phenotypes, but it's generally being corrected.

>somehow I doubt you'll be happy with that fact.
I don't know about OP, but I'm racist and i am just as fine with it as I am with being an ape.
--- 15346041
>>15346026
>Subspecies don't have to be paraphyletic.
Which is why I wrote the following,
>>15345964
>You are "subspecies" of Africans in any case, and somehow I doubt you'll be happy with that fact.
In any event the paraphyletic/monophyletic intermixing nature of such a designation makes it utterly ridiculous for anything but mere convenience for geographic or similar designation. Its lack of coherent meaning would easily explain "why" you don't bother with such a classification among humans.
>I don't know about OP, but I'm racist and i am just as fine with it as I am with being an ape.
Not sure how you square that circle given how ridiculously inbred humans are. You might as well just be a general misanthrope who hates everyone but his own family at that point.
--- 15346045
>>15346001
>it doesn't serve a purpose in modern biology
Why is it still used then ?

>How often do wolves and coyotes interbreed in the wild? As I said, it includes behaviour.
Then at what frequency of interbreeding do two populations become different species ?
And then we'll have to ask : how often do human populations interbreed in the wild ? We don't live in the wild anymore, but we did for millenia, and at that time there was very little gene flow between continents.
--- 15346050
>>15345195 (OP)
>German Shepard and bulldog are both dogs, but they belong to different species
Lol, no
--- 15346051
>>15346045
>Why is it still used then ?
NTA. Law, convenience, ecological subpopulation preservation, etc. Nothing that would be relevant for "applying it to humans".
--- 15346066
>>15346041
>>You are "subspecies" of Africans in any case,
Oh I see, you're saying that an "african" subspecies is necessarily paraphyletic if it doesn't includes the rest of humanity. 
But that's an easily solved issue : no one said such a subspecies has to exist. It's fine if for example, khoisan peoples are separated from other current africans into their own subspecies.

>Not sure how you square that circle given how ridiculously inbred humans are.
We're not very inbred. There is significant genetic distance between human groups that cause significant issues in multiracial societies.
--- 15346077
>>15346051
>Law, convenience, ecological subpopulation preservation, etc. Nothing that would be relevant for "applying it to humans".
I think all of these are relevant to humans. I'd add sociological and anthropological concerns.
--- 15346082
>>15345278
>Subspecies is not a biological term that is used
this is a plain lie. don't even continue.
--- 15346087
>>15345964
>a paraphyletic concept
now you are just throwing around words without understanding them.
--- 15346091
I think our anti-subspecies schizo here is one of those who think the "sub" in subspecies is the same "sub" as in "subhuman", that a subspecies is deemed inferior to a species, not a part of it.
--- 15346126
>>15345195 (OP)
>the concept of species is not applied to humans
It applies to everything including humans, but there's only one species of human

The definition of species is
>A group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring
That's all you need to know to see why there's only one species. All humans can breed with eachother and produce fertile offspring
--- 15346128
>>15345218
>>15346126
--- 15346240
>>15345278
>For example, there are species of insects that look basically identical on the outside but are from different species
Yeah but we are talking about the same species and it's sub-species
Are you a leftie or a n- lover?
--- 15346257
>>15345195 (OP)
>Can you /sci/entists explain me why the concept of species is not applied to humans
Because it's politically incorrect. That's literally the only reason there is. The solution would be to come up with an objective measure for what makes two groups different species. For instance, ability to interbreed. However, this would also be politically incorrect, since humans can interbreed with neanderthals and probably even homo erectus and possibly even chimpanzees. That'd mean that there are absolutely wild differences between people of one rase, and that's politically incorrect to the extreme.
--- 15346534
>>15346066
>It's fine if for example, khoisan peoples are separated from other current africans into their own subspecies.
Not really. Might as well declare each individual their own subspecies.
>We're not very inbred.
The effective genetic ancestry of modern humans is only ~7,000-14,000 individuals. Successive founder effects narrow that even further.
>There is significant genetic distance
Genetic distance is calculated different ways for different purposes, but is nonetheless an arithmetic mean. As everyone should know, the arithmetic mean is subject to being driven by rare extremes in the data. It makes it a useful tool for identifying population relatedness and distance, defined by those extremes, but not at all relevant nor useful for determining how similar most people are. Wrong tool. The right tool would be simple single base-pair differences. Even then, doesn't tell us if that 1/1000 nucleotide difference is meaningful or not.

In summation, 1. Humans compared to most other animals are very similar to one another, 2. Most of the genetic differences are within populations because we're highly inbred subsets of Africans.
Just picking a random summary with a very large set of references and citations https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/10/20/2199/559343
These two facts have been known for a very long time. More recent endeavors have only more strongly affirmed both. This is to such a degree that to argue otherwise would be as wrong as arguing that Earth is flat. The notion would be contrary to all relevant evidence, and only possible to think otherwise by gross misunderstanding of, or lying about, that evidence. Even if you for some reason reject correction on genetic distance, the same pattern occurs.
>cause significant issues in multiracial societies.
I would be genuinely impressed if you have managed to do the work to establish independent causal relationship for complex phenotypes. Otherwise you're just equivocating association with causation.
--- 15346541
>>15345195 (OP)
yeah, do I think that I am of different spiece from this picrel? yes
--- 15346615
>>15345195 (OP)

clearly we're sun based, move outta the way MOON FAGGOTS.

dark > light
--- 15346639
>>15345278
>The way species are distinct is in producing offspring.
There are plenty of species that can interbreed and produce viable offspring, but they are considered to be different species. The Savannah Cat is one example.
--- 15346654
>>15345278
>The way species are distinct is in producing offspring
>Becouse they have incompatible genetalia
isn't this false? I remember a fish species that are the same in everything but their xenomorph second mouth
--- 15346664
>>15345218
Abos are actually closer genetically to humans (white) than niggers (blacks) are.

You are thinking of pygmies.
--- 15346718
>>15346257
>Because it's politically incorrect. That's literally the only reason there is. The solution would be to come up with an objective measure for what makes two groups different species.
Yes, obviously. It is pretty much impossible to come up with a rigorous, objective definition of species/subspecies that groups humans as 1 unit while still maintaining useful divisions among other lifeforms. So the result is that the definition has to be left as vague and nebulous as possible, so that every PC position can be defended simultaneously. The easiest way for slimy leftists masquerading as scientists to achieve this is to map sociological concepts onto biology, since social constructs can be assigned arbitrarily.
--- 15346751
>>15346534
>Might as well declare each individual their own subspecies.
If it's more than three it might as well be 7 billions ? That doesn't sound right.
Grey wolves have 38 subspecies despite recent population bottlenecks, why shouldn't we have something similar ?

>The effective genetic ancestry of modern humans is only ~7,000-14,000 individuals.
I thought you were talking about gene flow between populations. How does it compare with the effective genetic ancestry of other species with subspecies ? Is it on the low end of the spectrum (in which case your argument fails), or outside of it entirely ?

>The right tool would be simple single base-pair differences.
Between populations ? That would hide dissimilarities that are due to differences in allele frequency.
After all "most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data"

>1. Humans compared to most other animals are very similar to one another, 
I dunno. Genetic distance between continental groups is similar to that of wolves and coyotes.
>2. Most of the genetic differences are within populations because we're highly inbred subsets of Africans.
That is irrelevant, the remaining differences can still be significant.

>Otherwise you're just equivocating association with causation.
We haven't established independent causal relationships for the difference in behaviour between wolves and dogs. But I think it's genetics. Don't you ?
--- 15346792
>>15346751
So are you a bot, or can you just not read? Guess I have to fucking spoon feed my own words to you. How fun.
>If it's more than three it might as well be 7 billions ? That doesn't sound right.
Strawman. If there's no valid formulation it cannot be said to have a stopping point that isn't arbitrary.
>How does it compare with the effective genetic ancestry of other species with subspecies
>>15346534
>>Just picking a random summary with a very large set of references and citations https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/10/20/2199/559343
>Between populations ? That would hide dissimilarities that are due to differences in allele frequency.
>>15346534
>>As everyone should know, the arithmetic mean is subject to being driven by rare extremes in the data. It makes it a useful tool for identifying population relatedness and distance, defined by those extremes, but not at all relevant nor useful for determining how similar most people are. Wrong tool.
So you're admitting, in effect, to deliberately misleading people with exaggerated quantifications of rare differences. Very cool.
>I dunno. Genetic distance between continental groups is similar to that of wolves and coyotes.
>>15346534
>>Just picking a random summary with a very large set of references and citations https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/10/20/2199/559343
>That is irrelevant, the remaining differences can still be significant.
>>15346534
>>Even then, doesn't tell us if that 1/1000 nucleotide difference is meaningful or not.
>We haven't established independent causal relationships for the difference in behaviour between wolves and dogs. But I think it's genetics. Don't you ?
Ever find wild dogs? Go ahead try petting one. While you're at it, don't get treated for rabies. Almost like your 4th grade understanding of genetics is laughably infantile. Go look up the definition of a phenotype, while you're at it a complex phenotype. No shit every phenotype "is genetic". Doesn't mean what you think it means.
--- 15346799
>>15345195 (OP)
Because dehumanizing people is the first step in genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization
--- 15347412
>>15346045
It's not used in actual biological education and modern literature as far as I'm aware.
>Then at what frequency of interbreeding do two populations become different species?
You must remember that "species" is a term with a loaded history and changing definition. Some operate on the earlier interpretations because they are not aware of the change or too stubborn to change their views.
Evolution happens incredibly slow, I don't think we ever witnessed the classic divergence of one species into two in the more "complex" taxa (have to be careful not to say "more advanced", that's some Whiggish view of evolution). There are hybridisation and other unorthodox ways, but nothing straightforward.

TLDR It's complicated. Species is a human made concept that doesn't fit reality neatly. So it's usually case by case basis if it's not obvious. 
Humans are a special case on top of that, and not just by civilization. We evolved really fast and apparently could still interbreed with neanderthals and Denisovans and other hominids because we weren't that different.
We are essentially a hybrid species ourselves it seems
--- 15347414
>>15345278
Why are cattle and bison different species? In fact different genuses? Is it just because the ability to interbreed is imperfect? I think the male has to come from a specific species and the female from the other, and that these specific combinations have to be followed for the breeding to work, but where is the line generally?
--- 15347419
>>15346240
Where did that come from?
>>15346654
You are judging by morphology which is an outdated approach. What makes a species different is the genotype, not the phenotype
>>15346082
Yeah, I guess I jumped the gun here. But the point is that it's a term used very carefully and mostly in relation to one celled organisms, plants and insects.
--- 15347423
>>15345195 (OP)
subspecies is the same species
--- 15347431
>>15347414
Again, species is a human term that is very full of holes and exceptions because nature doesn't care to be orderly for us
--- 15347525
>>15345195 (OP)
>German Shepard and bulldog are both dogs, but they belong to different species.

You are functionally retarded.
--- 15347664
>>15346799
>is thing true or false?
>false, because i don't like the consequences of it being true
--- 15347667
>>15347419
>>15347412
Subspecies designations are used more than for those, but mainly in the western world in particular and especially as matters of geological designation convenience of subpopulations or ecological preservation due to retarded legalese reasons. If you are not in the anglosphere or particularly the USA you may not be aware of the slapdash way this ended up evolving in our literature.

In any event OP is a dishonest cunt. Or a completely retarded one.
--- 15347683
>>15347525
So blacks and whites are very different breeds?
--- 15347686
>>15347683
No. >>15346534
--- 15347692
>>15346534
Why do people go to such lengths to pretend that we are all the same when we obviously are not? If your metric says that we are all the same, your metric is useless and nonsensical. 

Also, why is there no movement like this to say that chimpanzees and humans are the same? We clearly are. And we absolutely should integrate chimpanzees into our societies. All the metrics say we are the same, after all. Any evidence to the contrary is just due to socioeconomic reasons and racist lies.
--- 15347700
>>15347692
>bla bla bla dishonest strawmanning bla bla bla
The real question is why are racists allergic to honest conversation? Oh, wait, I answered my own question.
--- 15347920
>>15345195 (OP)
Because shitskins can't handle the fact that whites are colored like snow instead of like a stinky brown shit log that's been sunken in your toilet like a 16th century Spanish galleon.
--- 15347938
>>15347700
>spout bullshit
>call others racist
This is why you need to be gassed. You're literally worthless and add nothing but noise to any conversation. Humans would be better off without you.
--- 15348340
>>15347938
Always find it hilarious how none of you are able to engage with high school level biology, and have to resort to lying, strawmen, and declarations of homicidal intent. Truly, you are the best among /pol/.
--- 15348403
>>15345195 (OP)
same reason why every feature is allowed to be considered genetically heritable except intelligence
--- 15348409
>>15348403
You clearly don't know what heritable means.
--- 15348688
>>15348340
>lose an argument
>call others racists
>pretend you won
Repeat ad nauseam. Leftypol trannies are so incredibly predictable that you wouldn't even need a deep language model to imitate one. A first year CS-student could build a lefty-bot with a handful of if-then-statements. Maybe that's what you are?
--- 15348783
>>15347667
Interesting. I'll check it out. Wasn't such an issue in my country
--- 15348810
>>15348688
>Avoid engaging with any argument
>Repeat doctrine blindly
>Unsurprisingly get called racist for assuming race is causal absent causal evidence
>Throw a tantrum and declare victory after shitting on the chessboard
You know, you /pol/tards have a lot in common with flat earthers.
--- 15348817
>>15348783
It's an issue in the anglosphere or more in the U.S. and canada where laws and things may be based on designations and conservation efforts have to be framed among subdivisions of local populations.

Unfortunately the motivating factor for using such designations, however arbitrary, is definitely more of a legal one than a scientific one here. Hence the dishonesty of OP's like this one. I think every single time this thread has been brought up someone has explained the same thing and been completely ignored every single time. Almost like there's an axe being sharpened on the grinding stone motivating such posts. Almost like the jannies should do their fucking jobs.
--- 15348820
>>15348810
>>Avoid engaging with any argument
Talking about yourself?
>>Repeat doctrine blindly
>>Unsurprisingly get called racist for assuming race is causal absent causal evidence
>>Throw a tantrum and declare victory after shitting on the chessboard
>You know, you /pol/tards have a lot in common with flat earthers.
Ad Nauseam, as I said.
--- 15348831
>>15348820
>Talking about yourself?
Given I am the only person to discuss the science and its limitations, let alone link any scientific article, no.
>>15348820
>Ad Nauseam, as I said.
You, however, definitely are talking about yourself.
Feel free to actually start discussing science at any point. Such as how it isn't racist to infer causation from race given the evidence does not and cannot support such an inference. Can't wait to hear any of you try to justify that one.

Or just keep up this narcissistic schizophasia. Making yourself look bad works too.
--- 15348840
>>15348831
Dismissing evidence and reason just because it points to racial differences does make you a good apparatchik, but, unfortunately, calling me a racist does not win a scientific debate.
--- 15348863
>>15348840
>Dismissing evidence and reason just because it points to racial differences
Feel free to quote where I did that. Or just admit your poor widdle ego is hurt because you can't engage with the actual topic and are scrambling to feel better about it to salve your narcissism.
--- 15348872
>>15348817
Science is an interesting cat. You can twist it to serve your goals even without lying.
Especially if you can pick and choose theories without any regard to other data.
100 studies say x but 1 say's maybe y? Easy win, write an article with y and get a lot of engagement and the truth is burried becouse no one has time and cares to correct with enough enthusiasm
--- 15348889
>>15348863
Your very first message to me was you calling me a racist. Which is really funny, since I put all 3 seconds of effort to my message, and it immediately broke you. Speaks volumes about how fragile your worldview really is.
--- 15348923
>>15345195 (OP)
in real science it is

if you consume soi and social media it isn't

next question
--- 15349013
I don't even know why I browse this place anymore. Man, I just want to talk about science with people and have good faith conversations about fields of study that I find interesting. But instead, every baord that is dedicated to anything requiring even a modicum of brain power is shat up by disengenuous faggots that live in echo chambers so full of pseudo-information that their reality is made up of grifted or schitzophrenic understanding of the most basic of scientific understanding. Then if you refute or engage with them in anyway, they will never enage you in good faith, only resporting to moving the goal posts or picking highly specific, nit picks in your posts.

It's all so tiring.
--- 15349028
>>15348889
>Your very first message to me was you calling me a racist.
Oh, you mean the reply where you imagined things nobody wrote >>15347692 and "coincidentally" made the comparison to wanting chimpanzees in society? You know, you're right, can't imagine why anyone would think you're a racist. Tooootally no reason to infer that from that comparison at all.
>Which is really funny, since I put all 3 seconds of effort to my message, and it immediately broke you. Speaks volumes about how fragile your worldview really is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_injury
>Admits to putting up no effort to understand what was written
>Compares not leaping to causation about race to integrating chimps into society
>Gets assmad for people noticing he is a racist
>Gets assmad people notice his lack of effort
The only thing fragile here is your ego. Grow up. Ideally past the toddler stage.
--- 15349078
>>15349013
There isn't any place that's any better. People who think there is only really mean "this other place agrees with my intuitions more". As science isn't about intuitions the idea of "a scientific social group" is an oxymoron.
--- 15349102
>>15349078
I hardly claim to be talking about intuitions, I talk more about how most people here do not, and will never engage with the scientific process. Intead, only sticking to their precieved ideals of reality, and upon conducting highly bias "research" come to conclusions so devoid of reality, or of repeatable tresting that it is literally impossible to engage with them at all.

What this is all for? I have no idea, part of me wants to believe that they do it to find the "real" truth behind it all. But I feel thats its more people want their baises confirmed over why its kikes or niggers ruining everything.
--- 15349106
>>15345195 (OP)
>German Shepard and bulldog are both dogs, but they belong to different species.
No, they don't. They're different breeds, not different species.

Race is just the polite word for breed.

Taxonomy isn't an exact science, but the genetic range and morphological differences among human breeds is particularly narrow compared to most mammals thanks to a nasty genetic bottleneck known as the Toba Catastrophe around 74,000 years ago or so, when the species was reduced to maybe a dozen extended families. If we were any closer we'd be able to pass cancers to one another the way Tasmanian devils can.

We get this same /pol/ thread every three days though.
--- 15349109
>>15349013
Then a topic worthy of discussion is why do some people seek to learn and why do others seek to confirm what they already know?
--- 15349158
>>15349109
Beacuse most people don't want to discuss and more so wish to afirm what they already know. Or in some cases, to just be a disengenous faggot and to shitpost.
I personally, want to learn more about the subjects that I am interested in and talk and discuss and scrutinise research found. However, that is very hard to do when you are debating or discussing with people who are either misinformed or are working on a different line of logic to you. I follow and use scientific, peer reviewed papers, that I read and scrutinise against other peices I have read. To most in this thread, I am sure, would call me a kike, a nigger or a lefty faggot for doing such a thing; and instead I should collect my sources for, country tiktokers who have the entire state of israel living in their head.
The most infuriating thing that I experience the most, is the petty, pendantic chasing people do here, where people get hung up on the wrong ideas or look for such specific definitions for things, or don't understand the greater context how they are used. Ie the defintion of Species in this thread. People are arguing about the semantics adnausium and not going anywhere just claiming ad hominem or being deliberately obtuse.
--- 15349246
>>15349158
>Beacuse most people don't want to discuss and more so wish to afirm what they already know.
Sure, but why? Possible explanations:
>Discomfort. 
Not a good argument, because they might tolerate discomfort just fine in other ways.
>Pleasure
Some people may enjoy conflict. However, from my limited point of view, that seems to me like enjoying stimulants. Conflict will exhaust a person eventually, but online debate seems inexhaustible.
>Conditioning
Communication is evolving to trigger impulses that are hard to resist or redirect. Giving in to impulses causes a downward spiral to living a reactive life.
>?
--- 15349253
>>15346792
Your post is a mess. Don't you know how to use a spoon ?

>Strawman.
It's literally what you wrote. 
Of course the stopping point is arbitrary. That's never been a problem for other species.

>you're admitting, in effect, to deliberately misleading people with exaggerated quantifications of rare differences.
No, the quantification is not exaggerated as the mean is the mean, and the differences are only rare according to your arbitrary judgement.

>Ever find wild dogs? 
Yes. They lived in cities among humans and most interactions were non-aggressive because they were selected for this. You can take one of their pups and raise it and it'll be a fine pet. You can't do that with a wolf pup.
--- 15349268
>>15349158
>>15349102
>I hardly claim to be talking about intuitions
You say that, and yet proceed to complain about exactly what I wrote.
>I talk more about how most people here do not, and will never engage with the scientific process. Intead, only sticking to their precieved ideals of reality, and upon conducting highly bias "research" come to conclusions so devoid of reality, or of repeatable tresting that it is literally impossible to engage with them at all.
Biases are the result of intuitions, mistaken and hastily made inferences from limited data. "gut feelings". The process you then outline of confirmation seeking to affirm that bias also follows from following one's intuitive notion of what's true.
>>15349246
The "why" is also what I have just clarified to the opiner. The conclusion shopping follows from trusting one's intuitions over higher reasoning, and by having such trust often never bothering to develop any higher reasoning.
--- 15349284
>>15347412
>Evolution happens incredibly slow
>We evolved really fast
hm ?

Besides that I mostly agree with you except that it doesn't seem to me that subspecies are not used.
They mention repeatedly subspecies here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Zoological_Nomenclature
--- 15349319
>>15349158
Are you the same anon as >>15346792 ?
--- 15349330
>>15345205
So are races sort of like the human versian of breeds? I'm not a racists but it's obvious humans are a diverse species where humans in Japan are a bit different to humans living in the Amazonian rainforest or a German in Berlin or a Arab in Lebanon.
--- 15349345
>>15349319
nah, i dont like mass replying
--- 15349348
My only problem with dividing humans into subspecies for scientific reasons is how and what are the political implications of this? I domt want some dictator somewhere using these categories to be a asshole to poeple of another subspecies. I also want to know just how would you draw the lines? What if somebody is 25 percent german. 25 percent Lebanese. 50 percent Indian. What does that make him?
--- 15349374
>>15349268
>The conclusion shopping follows from trusting one's intuitions over higher reasoning, and by having such trust often never bothering to develop any higher reasoning.
Honestly, I sympathize with your frustration but I also sympathize with ''schizo's''. It's obvious that most people online write the conclusion first and do the research later to support that conclusion. I'll give you that. But /sci/ does have a blind spot that /sci/ doesn't want to admit. As long as /sci/ stays stubborn like that, /sci/ will not advance the discussion with the schizo's. Not all schizo's are dishonest and /sci/ needs to be honest that no rational framework can capture reality. That's why autists have trouble connecting with people. There is intelligence beyond reason and it's not intelligent to condem everything outside a rational framework as religion, emotion, delusion or guessing.
--- 15349377
>>15349253
>It's literally what you wrote.
Nope. The strawman is implying I am making a continuum fallacy. I am not saying "define a heap by an exact amount", I am saying "no amount can be said to be meaningful". So why do it? What "utility" do you think you get from this, since the designation has no inherent meaning or implication?
>That's never been a problem for other species.
Never? Yet it is such a problem, and so central a problem, it is so-named "the species problem". Pure cluelessness on your part.
>No, the quantification is not exaggerated as the mean is the mean
The mean exaggerates supposed difference, as explained, due to being largely driven by rare extremes. Replying to a common observation in statistics about mean averages with blind affirmation of "but the mean tho" is not a refutation. Either you do not understand basic high school statistics, or you're being dishonest.
>and the differences are only rare according to your arbitrary judgement.
The differences are rare according to the data. Else, as explained, said data would not show the common sense result of being subsets of African populations. Namely, that differences between individuals are greater within subpopulations descended from Africans than between subpopulations. Here, too, you either don't understand how descent works or you're being dishonest.
>Yes. They lived in cities among humans and most interactions were non-aggressive because they were selected for this.
Nope. I said wild. You either don't comprehend that "wild" means "feral", as in uncared for and without human socialization, or you're being dishonest here too.
>You can take one of their pups and raise it and it'll be a fine pet. You can't do that with a wolf pup.
You can, in fact, do that with a wolf pup. Here again, dishonest or ignorant.

As a running tally, you are either completely clueless about every single topic you raise or you're dishonest. So the bottom line is "you're fulla shite"
--- 15349400
>>15349253
>the quantification is not exaggerated as the mean is the mean
Same energy as picrel
--- 15349403
>>15349390
>It's arbitrary but I would draw the line at 0.1 Fst.
Why? at all?
--- 15349411
>>15349374
Well since you think you know something I don't and want to embark on this holy crusade all I can say is lol okay gl hf gg no re
--- 15349419
>>15349374
More specifically I'm hinting for example at mythology. Ayurveda is not a schizo in need of meds for talking about digestive fire. It just took science a while to figure out the molecular details of this concept like enzymes, acid and bile. Scientifically speaking digestive fire doesn't exist, yet the practical implications of modern science and such ancient belief overlaps.
--- 15349458
>>15349411
>Well since you think you know something I don't
You're misinterpreting what I wrote. We both don't know for sure, but you might want to be inspired by crazy ideas to see they have any merit. For example, if a conspiracy theorist makes a prediction that turns out to be true, you might want to investigate if at the time of prediction he had information that could reasonably be interpreted as having predictive merit, instead of rejecting it as a broken clock showing the right time twice a day.
--- 15349494
>>15349458
>>15349419
Listen, Mr. Peterson, you smoke too much peyote. All I'm going to do is watch you stick your finger in that light socket because I know you won't listen. Likewise, you won't see my perspective as valid unless and until you receive a sufficiently bad shock. So there's no point in the conversation. Feel free to blame me for that right up until you receive that sufficiently bad comeuppance.
>instead of rejecting it as a broken clock showing the right time twice a day.
Case in point. I'll do so if and only if it is ever demonstrated to be otherwise. If you want to "have faith" you go right ahead. I'll watch from here with my beer in hand all comfortable.
--- 15349514
>>15349345
Good man.

>>15349377
>I am saying "no amount can be said to be meaningful"
But then that's absurd. Subspecies are widely used. The small differences that separate them are meaningful enough for that, and you're fine with it. For non-racists, it should be enough.
As for me, the utility I see is mostly political, by way of informing sociological, ecological, anthropological concerns.

>Never? Yet it is such a problem, and so central a problem, it is so-named "the species problem". Pure cluelessness on your part.
Pure dishonesty on yours. I'm aware of the difficulties in defining species, I mentionned it here before. It's doesn't stop biologists from classifying other species, that's what I meant by problem. Do you think they shouldn't or are you just making a special case for humans ?

>largely driven by rare extremes.
"Largely" is just your personal interpretation of it. It's just a mean. Rare extremes (btw they're found on both sides, balancing each other) enter into account and common middles values too.

>The differences are rare according to the data.
Rare is relative. What are you comparing these difference to, to call them rare ? And what has being subsets of african populations to do with this ?

>You either don't comprehend that "wild" means "feral", as in uncared for and without human socialization
No, you. Feral just means that they escaped human control. Populations of dogs or cats that live in urban areas close to humans are feral. But even if we used your definition, the fact that uncontrolled populations of dogs stick close to humans shows a behaviour difference with wolves.
>You can, in fact, do that with a wolf pup.
No you can't. Stop being dishonest. Wolves can be tamed like most other mammals, but they can't make pets like dogs. When people try it, even with wolf dog hybrids, it ends badly.

>So the bottom line is "you're fulla shite"
Same to you baby.
--- 15349537
>>15349403
>Why? at all?
To show that human groups are not interchangeable.
--- 15349561
>>15349494
Do you mean that following the /sci/ is less risky decision-making? If so, my view is more like post-modernist Baudrillard than Peterson: the real has been murdered and replaced with symbols and copies. Since no one remembers the original, the murder of the real is the perfect crime. Such is the fate of science.
--- 15349570
>>15345218
How bloody dare you racist bigot we will not tolerate this disrispict to the First Persons of Austroilia. We must understind they are identical to us despoite being different in every way possible
--- 15349577
>>15349514
he invokes lewontin’s fallacy like they always do, classic libshit tactic.
--- 15349866
>>15349514
>But then that's absurd
Nope. You just don't get it. Invalid concepts do not have intrinsic meaning, only mere social convention. Not absurd at all. You're just ignorant.
>Subspecies are widely used.
For reasons that have nothing to do with your racism.
>Pure dishonesty on yours.
Nope. If you understood at all you wouldn't need to ask this question,
>Do you think they shouldn't or are you just making a special case for humans?
Utility. Because it is useful. Case in point,
>>15349537
>To show that human groups are not interchangeable.
So unlike biologists who are defining terms as useful to biology, you want to define terms as useful to your racism. Hence the chronic dishonesty you /pol/tards exhibit.
>"Largely" is just your personal interpretation of it.
Nope. That is the continued demonstrated empirical fact repeated over many decades.
>Rare extremes (btw they're found on both sides, balancing each other) enter into account and common middles values too.
lol

Genetic distance is calculated by a probability mean. The genetic distance is defined by the probability that members of different groups will share a given locus. That means that "rare extremes balancing each other" would result in no distance, as the distance is defined by definition by the rare extremes. The more rare, the more distance.

You're so clueless you just said something that would render every group the same distance, yet said it as if to correct me. Do I really need to demonstrate how ignorant and dishonest you are further? It's like beating a drowned puppy at this point.
--- 15349869
>>15349577
>he invokes lewontin’s fallacy like they always do, classic libshit tactic.
Not a fallacy. Continuously empirically demonstrated fact. That book was written prior to many such hundreds of papers with all kinds of validations of the concept, as well as completely misrepresented what Lewontin was saying.

Just because you cling to the hope Lewontin was wrong like you cling to a rosary bead doesn't mean he's wrong. It means you're ignorant.
--- 15350023
>>15349866
>For reasons that have nothing to do with your racism.
My point exactly retard. It is not an invalid concept, you're just bullshitting.

>So unlike biologists who are defining terms as useful to biology, you want to define terms as useful to your racism.
No. I don't try to redefine terms, you are. Terms useful to biology are useful to my racism and detrimental to yours.

>That is the continued demonstrated empirical fact repeated over many decades.
No. Your preferences regarding what is appropriately representating genetic distance are not an empirical fact.

>as the distance is defined by definition by the rare extremes
No. How can you write that ? all the values enter into the mean. The rare extreme high differences, the rare extreme similarities, and the more common middle values.

I've never been dishonest here. Just telling you straight what I think. You're the one avoiding questions, bait and switching, being obtuse. I guess you don't need to bother trying further, you won't convince anyone like that.
--- 15350037
>>15349869
>t. absolute retard
It is literally called a "fallacy" because it is so manifestly wrong and partisan it barely requires a response.
--- 15350069
>>15349869
>That book was written prior to many such hundreds of papers with all kinds of validations of the concept, as well as completely misrepresented what Lewontin was saying.

haha, yeah okay sure buddy. any scientist worth his salt researching these matters does not align with lewontin's misinterpretations, inadverently or fraudulently, of the probabilistic nature in genetic variance between and within subpopulations.
--- 15350229
>>15350023
>It is not an invalid concept, you're just bullshitting.
lol
>>claims to know about the species problem
>>doesn't realize it's a problem due to contradicts, paradoxical results
>>doesn't realize a contradiction means invalid
>>doesn't realize that's why the species problem is a problem
>>claims I'm the one bullshitting
lol
>No. How can you write that ? all the values enter into the mean.
Holy fucking kek you literally are going "but steel is heavier than feathers". The fact "all values enter into the mean" is precisely why mean averages are prone to being biased by their extremes. This is middle school math. You can't understand 6th grade math.
>I've never been dishonest here. You're the one avoiding questions, bait and switching, being obtuse.
You can't understand 6th grade math but I'm the one being dishonest? Sure pal.
>>15350037
>It is literally called a "fallacy"
>>15350069
>any scientist worth his salt researching these matters does not align with lewontin's misinterpretations
And now that you retards shoved your feet in your mouths it's time for the reveal.

The term "lewontin's fallacy" stems from an article written by Anthony Edwards in an essay titled "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy", wherein he concludes the following,
>There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation
In other words, the man you're citing who dubbed the supposed "fallacy" isn't even calling what I mentioned nor what I said has been repeatedly demonstrated empirically "a fallacy".
>only with the belief that it is relevant to classification.
Which is correct. As classification is completely arbitrary and you can define any group you want given some equally arbitrary ratio of some equally arbitrary alleles, Lewontin was wrong to use the fact to disregard classification outright. He is right, however, to disregard such classification as anything but arbitrary.
--- 15350264
Please up your game with good discussion or put this thread out of it's misery
--- 15350290
>>15350264
Kind of hard to have good discussion when the people replying range from being unable to understand 6th grade math to parroting boomer memes about a paper they've never read.

Don't blame me for the fact jannies don't purge /pol/tards like they should. Feel free to ask a question or discuss something at a higher proficiency than a flat earther. Ball is in your court.
--- 15350299
>>15350290
blah blah blah blah /pol/chud ramblings blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah /pol/chud ramblings blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah /pol/chud ramblings blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah /pol/chud ramblings blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah /pol/chud ramblings blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah /pol/chud ramblings blah blah blah blah
--- 15350423
>>15350290
you're not as good at math as you think you are, and neither was your academia lord who you seem to bootlick so much, or perhaps he feigned being obtuse because his politically inclined immaturities got ahead of his professionalism. we don't know, he's dead so we'll never be able to ask him how or why he made such a blatant faux pas that any retard would be able to understand.

>There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation

you were almost there...
--- 15350449
>>15350423
Oh please don't wait on my account, demonstrate for us all your brilliant mathematical insights. Feel free to use the mathjax.
>you were almost there...
That quote was the author coining the term you retards lie about. From the horses mouth. I guess to be embarrassed you'd have to be smart enough to realize how fucking stupid you are so rubbing your nose in it is a bit of a lost cause.
--- 15350760
>>15345195 (OP)

>Differing Phenotype = Sub-Species

That's the main issue with the idea of subspecies in general, the DNA variance between "sub-species" is puny.
--- 15352201
>>15349028
Such a simple message, and you've twice now had no response to it. Just a triggered wall of text. 
>can't imagine why anyone would think you're a racist.
I never denied being a racist. Reality is racist. Your anti-racist worldview, however, is thoroughly unrealistic and utterly indefensible. You'd need incredible and extraordinary evidence to support your god-awful worldview, but all you clearly can come up with is message after message of rage and screeching.
--- 15352244
>>15352201
>Uses a logically invalid purely socially constructed concept
>reality is racist
lmao
--- 15352254
>>15352244
Niggers will never be white
--- 15352265
>>15345278
>Subspecies is not a biological term that is used
It's pointless trying to educate the people that think "subspecies" -- even "species", but "subspecies" is particularly egregious -- is a thing. It's a vacuous label. Because it's vacuous, you can fill it with any content. You can use it as a token to stand for anything. Sure, use it to refer to human races. Other midwits will recoil in indignation, not realizing that they are, also, getting their feathers ruffled over literally nothing.
It's fruitless trying to educate these types. They are symbol-thinkers who don't realize just how few of the symbols you manipulate in your day to day life reduce to human-independent concepts.
--- 15352353
>>15352265
Perhaps. It is hard to know where the shocking incompetence ends, like being unable to understand middle school averages, and the dishonesty begins. Could very well be both. Like due to that ineptitude perceiving everything as one would a cargo cult, treating concepts as ritual with zero understanding.

My money is a normal person would realize something is wrong about their idea and competence. Narcissists probably never.
--- 15352358
>>15352265
By the way, just in case you don't realize, the issue is hardly my or anyone else getting ruffled over a vacuous concept. The real issue is the rhetoric, and evidently utterly mistaken belief, that such vacuous labeling carries intrinsic meaning or value absent their assumptions or meaning they give it. That's kind of the whole "game" they play, whether they know it or not. Else, if they truly understood it was vacuous, they'd rightly put no value on it.
--- 15352359
Final redpill is realizing there are no species, but kinds.
--- 15352362
>>15352359
PFFF get the fuck outta here only about two people will even understand that joke
fuckin natural categories/kind lmao
--- 15352382
>>15352244
>uses social construct as a synonym for not real
lmfao
--- 15352397
>>15352382
Uh, yeah, means not objective. Just because you imagine a concept and it has some arbitrary attachment to reality doesn't make the concept real. Just because some arbitrary line has some referent point to reality doesn't mean anything. I could equally claim the invisible unicorn in my room exists because gravity. It's fucking sad you're this stupid. Stop huffing ideological farts and maybe read people who aren't fox news anchors or pink haired gender studies feminists.
--- 15352602
>>15350229
>There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation
Are you an imbecile? His statistical analysis wasn't the source of the fallacy. It was the wildly incorrect non-sequitur that his analysis of 17 markers was sufficient to conclude race cannot be genetically or taxonomically valid.

Just out of curiosity, can you tell us what your own ethnic origin is?
--- 15352620
>>15352602
lol somebody can't read.
--- 15352623
>>15352620
I wish you had told us that earlier. I wouldn't waste my time replying if I had known you couldn't read.
--- 15352673
>>15352623
lmao yeah sure bud you sure showed me
--- 15352681
>>15345386
Scientifically speaking, why aren't White people allowed to have literally anything to themselves?
--- 15353227
>>15352681
--- 15353277
>>15345386
Thats just evidence for out of africa 2.
--- 15355291
>argue to death precisely how we should caragorize niggers
>ignore the fact that they're objectively retarded and useless
Yeah I don't really care what scientists call them, I know what they're called.
--- 15355507
>>15352265
>"subspecies" -- even "species", but "subspecies" is particularly egregious -- is a vacuous label. Because it's vacuous, you can fill it with any content. You can use it as a token to stand for anything. Sure, use it to refer to human races.
I don't get your argument. You can't fill it with just any content, it refers to populations of one species that show marked differences. What's vacuous about that ?
It is widely used by biologists. Are they midwits ?
--- 15355525
>>15345278
Tigers and lions can produce viable offspring.
--- 15355662
>>15355507
Nta. Invalid concepts merely have convention and such for utility. Ultimately given enough data the distinctions result in paradoxes. The utility offered by such designations are akin to a local optimum. That is, they are only useful because we have comparatively so few specimens in biology. If we had them all you would get the ring species paradox, such that any starting point results in entirely different groupings. Biologists know this, racists are just flat earther tier.

Anyway yes you absolutely can fill it with any content. It just wouldnt be useful. But the use is motivated in biology by that utility, and such utility as it offers does not exist at all for human populations. Not least of which because any grouping is equally invalid in this sense. That is, has no intrinsic implication or meaning merely for being so designated. So the weird racist obsession with inventing some narrative that there exists som hidden truth or reality to their racist assumptions is based, from the start, on a reification fallacy. They first assume their racism is true and group likewise. The sole utility that serves is their racism, certainly not prediction. Individual traits and grouping on said traits is always the better predictor.
--- 15355700
>>15355507
So you could just ask, "why are you choosing to group arbitrarily instead of by actual traits?"
There is no good answer.
--- 15356640
>>15345195 (OP)
For political reasons.
It’s not nice to think of other groups of humans as different species.
Hitler used the American genocide of Native Americans as an excuse to exterminate Jews, Poles, Gypsies, etc during the Holocaust.

But yeah, there are probably 100 different species/breeds of humans.
But it’s not politically correct to notice it.
--- 15356756
>>15356640
>For political reasons.
You mean "because it isn't useful except for racism". Individual traits and proximate family history cover the overwhelming majority of use cases.
>It’s not nice to think of other groups of humans as different species.
Not even "not nice", it's just wrong. If you care about the traits, you group by trait. Grouping by something else merely for the sake of some other reason, like being an asshole, is what is "not nice". Gee, I wonder why nobody likes that?
--- 15356792
>>15356756
You seem very emotional as evidenced by your use of expletives.
--- 15356892
What's the point of trying to frame human biodiversity in these terms? Just to use it as argumentative fodder for racist policies? You can enact racial segregation without scientific basis too. As a matter of fact, giving the current state of things, even if you bend classifications to get "whites" into a supposed superior category (which is hardly even possible, as you'd already need a racist scientific ethos to do that), you wouldn't be able to do much with it. What, you think you NEED scientific excuse based on taxonomy to morally justify segregation, genocide or eugenics? That's ridiculous. You'd need racism before you could tinker with scientific classification.
Racists are still just dumb moralists by the end of the day.
--- 15356915
>>15356892
>Just to use it as argumentative fodder for racist policies?
You're giving them far too much credit by framing it as if they're consciously aware of that.
>You can enact racial segregation without scientific basis too.
no no see if they did that they'd have to go back to being honest about being racist purely because they're retarded.
--- 15358263
>>15356892
>What's the point of trying to frame human biodiversity in these terms? Just to use it as argumentative fodder for racist policies?
Not only for policies, also for racist analysis pf social problems.

For example, currently, the dominant ideology claims that there is no human biodiversity to speak of, no significant phenotypical differences between groups besides skin color, and no scientific biological basis for differenciating races. 
Consequently, differences in outcomes between races are ascribed to external factors, mainly racism from whites against others, and racist policies favouring other races (sometimes excepting asians) over whites are implemented or discussed.
If we establish that there is significant biological differences between races, this logic falls apart. Policies hopefully will follow. A lot of us would already be happy with limiting those antiwhite policies, even without implementing racist policies of our own.

In short, this scientific basis for racial differences is the core of the anti-racist argument (see how you and the other idiot insist on it) and so it became also very important to us.

>You'd need racism before you could tinker with scientific classification.
No, you'd just need scientific honesty. By the way, the point is not to put "whites" into a superior category, that's just an anti-white fantasy. It's to acknowledge human biodiversity and the correlation between traits and populations, that's all. Doesn't matter if there's no hierarchy, doesn't matter if there's no "white" group, doesn't matter if there's 3 or 300 of them, doesn't matter if they're called race or subspecies. The only point is to acknowledge that human groups are not interchangeable.

>>15356915
Dishonest idiot.
--- 15358298
>>15356640
There is 1 species of human because all human groups can successfully interbreed. OP's image is dishonest because humans have only been diverging for 80k years at max. I dont know about crows, but subspecies can take hundreds of thousands of years to diverge despite looking phenotypically similar.
--- 15358327
>>15356640
>>15358298
Also to give you an example: we know Neanderthals and humans were definitely different species (and are classified as such) because Neanderthal-human hybrids experienced infertility. Hybrid incompatibility follows a very specific pattern, with males experiencing infertility in the first generation, and about 3-4 generations later the infertility will shift to females. The large absence of neanderthal DNA on human X chromosomes tells us it underwent a bottleneck, and thus there was enough incompatibility. Also it was believed Neanderthal-human hybrids were prone to clotting disorders.

No such problems exist in humans.
--- 15358335
>>15358327
Also forgot to mention, Neanderthals and humans had diverged for about 400k years by the time they met, so enough time had elapsed.
--- 15358373
>>15358298
>humans have only been diverging for 80k years at max.
No, at least. There might have been other divergences among sapiens before Out of Africa, and there's been introgression of genes from divergent erectus descendents into different groups.
>subspecies can take hundreds of thousands of years to diverge
They don't have to.
--- 15358448
>>15358298
>I dont know about crows
The divergence between hooded crows and carrion crows (>>15345359) happened in the late pleistocene, due to the glacial maximum from 25000 years ago that sent the two groups into italy/greece and spain.
They are almost genetically identical, but are considered (since 2002) to be different species.
--- 15358456
>>15358373
There is a gray area in how species are defined, so technically a single mutation is sufficient to produce a speciation, and that does actually happen in nature. However, the problem is that subspecies arise exclusively due to geographic variation. The single gene marks local adaptation.

The biggest driver of human evolution is not geography, it's culture/society. So for instance this is what "race" really is, a collection of genes which exhibit geographic independence. So, if you look at Europe, MENA, India, Persia, etc. and remove all the local variation, then there's a caucusoid "core" of genes which do not exhibit geographic variation. Within these groups the main driver of evolution is the arrival of new mutations which dont exhibit geographic variation, which then spread. Same thing is happening in Asia/Africa.

These are genes tied to culture, and since European culture has spread across the entire world, well that means humans will probably all convergently evolve caucusoid genetics anyways, just through natural geographic diffusion.
--- 15358510
>>15358456
>well that means humans will probably all convergently evolve caucusoid genetics anyways, just through natural geographic diffusion.
Caucasoid genetics are associated with decreased fertility.
--- 15358523
Why is OP retarded? Do his retard genes, that exclude him from the sexual reproduction with homo sapiens sapiens, classify OP as in a species of his own? Please discuss.

Also here's your (You), OP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
--- 15358765
>>15358263
>no significant phenotypical differences between groups besides skin color
I don't think even the most apt racecrafters say this. I understand that the issue of hue is relevant for discourse in America for distinguishing different "levels of oppression" between black people specifically, but a differentiation of whites and non-whites still brings over other phenotypical characteristics other than color.
>differences in outcomes between races are ascribed to external factors... racist policies favouring other races
These are all political in nature. The previously dominant "race-blind" ethos of political correctness and policies has been replaced by "positive discrimination" and it was a decision based not on scientific discoveries or a changing understanding of race - as the creed in the difference of outcomes not being ascribed to biology is not a novelty - but on changing political perception. Activism, lobby and propaganda pushed this change, politically and with a political outcome in mind. No change in science.
>If we establish that there is significant biological differences between races, this logic falls apart. Policies hopefully will follow
That's quite an assumption. Even IF you could establish that there exist relevant biological differences between populations, the manner in which you would rank these differences in terms of suitability, desirability, morality and so on would necessitate an underlying framework that would not be scientific. So let's say a certain population of blacks has a hard cap on intelligence which is 100% biologically determined. I'm skeptic that you could actually prove that, but regardless: what are you going to do with it is not a trivial question to answer and your desired political outcomes would necessitate an already politically racist framework to work on.
>No, you'd just need scientific honesty
But you admit that you just want a new taxonomy to enact racist policies. How's that honest?
--- 15358794
>>15349284
>>Evolution happens incredibly slow
relative to our timeframe of 50-100 years
>>We evolved really fast
relative to everything else around us at the time.

reading comprehension is hard.
--- 15358796
>>15358263
>It's to acknowledge human biodiversity and the correlation between traits and populations, that's all
You just said that it's not "all". Policies would hopefully follow, no? 
>doesn't matter if they're called race or subspecies
That's what this whole thread is about - that the socially constructed concept of race is substituted by a positively scientific one -, but I don't mind that you're moving goalposts.
>The only point is to acknowledge that human groups are not interchangeable.
In what way are they not interchangeable? The history of foreign populations taking over some other population confounds itself with the history of humanity. They are very much interchangeable.
If, however, you're saying that replacing the American or European white, educated, and more or less culturally homogenous populations from their dominant positions in their respective societies for foreign populations, be it black or whatever, would have significant and potentially catastrophic consequences, that can be argued. But it is a political and moral discussion, not one pertaining to taxonomy or biology in general. In the end, I still believe you just want to use it as argumentative fodder.
--- 15359161
>>15358263
>No, you'd just need scientific honesty.
As has been explained to you dishonest retards numerous times, the "scientific honesty" is that categories are made up for utility. All you're doing is masking off and admitting, constantly, you solely want this to further your racism. It has no intrinsic meaning nor value to abuse the concept as you are, so this rhetorical trick of yours doesn't work.

"muh scientific honesty" the honest position is such categorizations are racist.
--- 15359174
>>15358523
Because this guy says so
--- 15359190
>>15358263
>The only point is to acknowledge that human groups are not interchangeable.
Case in point. Mask off again.
>>15346534
>I would be genuinely impressed if you have managed to do the work to establish independent causal relationship for complex phenotypes. Otherwise you're just equivocating association with causation.
Note how at no point do any of these liars attempt to establish causation. This is a trick on my part, of course, because causation cannot be said to be established on the basis of a vacuous concept.

If the cause of a given outcome is the trait, then the only reliable predictor would be the trait. It should be self evident how fucking retarded it is to draw arbitrary groups and then declare the groups cause the trait, which is ultimately what "muh groups not interchangeable" rhetoric is doing.
--- 15359221
>>15345359
/thread
--- 15359292
>>15359221
No it isn't retard. Go ahead, try to justify what utility doing so would serve OTHER THAN racism. I predict, no matter what you dream up, that utility is better served via other means. If you think not go ahead, I'll happily slap you around for your ignorance and lack of imagination.
--- 15359763
>>15358765
>But you admit that you just want a new taxonomy to enact racist policies.
You skip a few steps. But what's dishonest about that ? Politics are the reason why I care, and I make no secret of it, but my argument on taxonomy is only based on science.

>I don't think even the most apt racecrafters say this.
"Race is only skin deep" is a common idea. 
>No change in science.
Right, but it's still based on the search for an environmental explanation because biological explanations are dismissed. At first antiracists believed that race blindness would solve the problem, but differences in outcome remained, so they moved on to positive discrimination, identity politics, systemic racism.
>the manner in which you would rank these differences in terms of suitability, desirability, morality and so on would necessitate an underlying framework that would not be scientific.
Sure, if you consider that social sciences are not science. But this manner is a different matter. First biology, then after sociology and politics.
--- 15359774
>>15359763
>"Race is only skin deep" is a common idea.
Feel free to demonstrate causation. You keep implying there is some "natural kind". You have no evidence to suggest that is the case.
--- 15359844
>>15358796
>Policies would hopefully follow, no?
It's not part of the argument we're making. Yes, we hope for it, and yes, once human biodiversity is acknowledged we will use it to back our ideas just like the current denial of biological group differences is used to back anti-white policies. But as you said that discussion is for /pol/ not /sci/.

>In what way are they not interchangeable?
Biologically. Different populations will have different levels of cognitive abilities for example. 
The social consequences of this are to be considered separately.
--- 15359848
>>15359190
>t. retard
--- 15359882
>>15359161
>>15359190
>>15359292
No, dishonest idiot.
You're the one trying rhetorical tricks, trying to muddle the scientific issue and the political one. The fact that we're racist doesn't affect the utility of taxonomy. It has the same utility for birds, slugs, wolves, etc, as for humans.
Subspecies is a useful concept, that's all.
--- 15360001
>>15359844
>Biologically. Different populations will have different levels of cognitive abilities for example.
And what evidence, exactly, leads you to infer it is sensible to say that is "due to" how you've defined those populations?
--- 15360072
>>15360001
It is not due to how i've defined those populations, it is due to divergent evolution.
--- 15360104
>>15360072
>It is not due to how i've defined those populations, it is due to divergent evolution.
Okay. How? Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies between individuals, and given some estimate like only 8% of that variation (so 8% of that 0.1%) being between populations, how does that explain large differences in complex phenotypes?

Even the largest GWAS associations do not have significant effect sizes capable of explaining that much difference from such a miniscule number of genes.
--- 15360109
>>15345195 (OP)
>concept of species is not applied to humans
It is though. Humans are a species. /pol/ conspiracy theories don't count as science. Modern taxonomy is comparatively straightforward, we can do DNA analysis. Human races are clearly not different species nor subspecies. Morphology is not always a good indicator of taxa.
--- 15360260
>>15355525
Tigons and Ligers are sterile
--- 15360268
>>15360104
That number of genes is sufficient.

>>15360109
>Morphology is not always a good indicator of taxa.
By any chance can you give me a few examples of species with morphological differences between geographically separate populations, that are not classified into subspecies ?
--- 15360356
>>15360268
>That number of genes is sufficient.
Not according to any results of any GWAS I've ever read. Care to provide a source saying as much?
--- 15360551
>>15360356
it came to me in a dream