Thread 16710438

how do you respond without sounding mad?

this is an italian

>>16710482
She looks most similar to top left, just swap out some hair/skin color.

>>16710438 (OP)
Not everyone believes "subspecies" are a valid category. The same is true of race. Genetically it is not a useful tool, but socially it is. It's that simple.

>>16710486
Democracy good unless people vote to deport niggers (then it's bad)

>>16710487
How much biology do I have to learn to know whether racebaiters like OP have a point or not?

>capable of interbreeding
It doesnt really matter, what does matter is whether the child is fertile

>>16710491
Entry level genetics isn't terribly inaccessible and provides enough of a framework to read through research papers into the matter. The TL;DR of it all boils down to: distinct behavioral differences are barely influenced by individual genes if and when they are at all - you're more likely to see altered behavior from a 1ppm higher lead source in youth than you are in a small change in genome. Efforts to improve a population would be more significant for less money if money was spent improving the general material conditions people live in than it would altering genomes of infants.

>>16710492
Technically that doesn't matter either. The only thing that matters is that there's some sort of outbreeding depression which happens when they cross (i.e. a conflict of traits which reduces fitness or fertility), which human races do satisfy.

>>16710492
that's what "capable of interbreeding" means in that context. a biologist wouldn't say the same for horses and donkeys making mules.
research hybrid infertility. for example, ligers are not sterile even though they're a hybrid. it has something to do with the chromosomes lining up properly.

all of the birds in OP's pic are capable of having fertile offspring, that's what the point was.

>>16710491
as it turns out, not much.

>>16710438 (OP)
Bad example. Should've used the species of tigers which look identical.

>>16710487
>Not everyone believes "subspecies" are a valid category.
your cope falls apart when you see that lions and tigers (clearly different species) can produce fertile offspring.
>Genetically it is not a useful tool, but socially it is.
i assume by 'useful', you mean useful for destroying the White race.

>>16710438 (OP)
None of those specimens are truly human, those are hybrids, some with more beast blood than others.

>>16710527
>your cope falls apart when you see that lions and tigers (clearly different species) can produce fertile offspring.
This says nothing about people who think it isn't a valid category or not. I think you're talking about one of the criteria people who think it is a valid category use to define subspecies, so I'm not sure why you brought this up.
>i assume by 'useful', you mean useful for destroying the White race.
I meant more along the lines of "for discussion about origin of culture" and things like that, but sure buddy!

>>16710534
>This says nothing about people who think it isn't a valid category or not.
right. i was merely highlighting that your "subspecies am not real" cope doesn't help your case in establishing that racemixing is ok. just because two different species can have fertile offspring, doesn't mean they should. you'll find a whole array of problems that result when two clearly different species (or subspecies, for that matter) with different behaviors intermingle.

>I meant more along the lines of "for discussion about origin of culture"
oh, that's simple. see picrel and everything should make sense for you rather quickly.
https://guardian.ng/news/genetic-makeup-of-12-year-old-angolan-boy-in-dispute/
(there's nothing actually in dispute, fyi)

>>16710548
>doesn't help your case in establishing that racemixing is ok
Didn't say anything about that but ok. Have fun with your own conversation buddy.

>>16710438 (OP)
Biologists reserve "subspecies" for populations that are both genetically distinct and largely isolated. Humans don’t qualify; our genetic differences are modest, clinal, and constantly mixed by migration. That's why professionals talk about genetic ancestry or specific variants, not human subspecies. Saying "one human race" isn't politics so much as a reflection of how little our biology is subdivided.

>>16710548
>see picrel and everything should make sense for you rather quickly.
You don't even understand the basics of scientific reasoning.
Either go back to /pol/ or go back to school.

>>16710552
>Didn't say anything about that but ok.
so perhaps you can elaborate on your position a little further, are Whites and blacks the same species or no?

but don't worry about answering, your attempt to explain away le ebil nazi OP was all the information one needed to know what your stance was without you saying it.
we can see it coming from a mile away, and smell it from two.
see, this poster was at least brave enough to say it, although i have to assume it's a troll. >>16710564

>>16710548
Oh wow you're actually dumber than I thought.
I thought you were making a claim that "race mixing results in genetic abnormalities."

But after viewing the link you're actually claiming he's a human / chimpanzee hybrid.

>>16710574
>OP was all the information one needed to know
You don't know how science works. You've never studied any of it. You are a high-school drop-out. There is no point in "educating" you because you are too arrogant to see how supremely ignorant you are.

>>16710571
>You don't even understand the basics of scientific reasoning.
scientific reasoning relies on real-world examples. i provided one. i'm not the one with the misunderstanding here.

so perhaps you can teach me, senpai. why does the boy appear to be descended of monkeys, further confirmed by his own mother, with none of the "disputed" evidence being publicly available aside from selfish media organizations heralding him as a "national treasure"?

>>16710577
You are a drop-out and probable junkie.
You don't care about science, you are here to /pol/tard shill.
Prove me wrong by describing your scientific passions.

>>16710548
>you'll find a whole array of problems that result when two clearly different species (or subspecies, for that matter) with different behaviors intermingle.
What are the problems that arise when two people racemix?

>>16710575
>I thought you were making a claim that "race mixing results in genetic abnormalities."
that was my claim to the initial conversation, yes.
the link i provided was to answer your later question about "the origins of culture" or whatever you said here >>16710534 . two separate arguments.

>>16710576
perhaps you don't have any extensions installed, but you can see my previous posts in which i describe a lot of the genetic studies as to why donkeys & horses have sterile offspring, while tigers & lions have fertile offspring.
everything i've stated in this thread fits perfectly with scientific reasoning. you just don't like some of the uncomfortable truths that have been provided, that's all.

>>16710579
Prepare to him to give /pol/tard memes and "logic" pulled out of his ass without any citations or scientific evidence given.

>>16710574
>so perhaps you can elaborate on your position a little further, are Whites and blacks the same species or no?
Le non sequitur has arrived
My point is different fields have different opinions on different categories. Some biologists and geneticists disagree about the validity of "subspecies," but it has it's uses describing populations. Some biologists and sociologists disagree about the validity of "race," but it has it's uses describing culture.
Glad we cleared that up, you seemed pretty confused!

>>16710578
>Prove me wrong by describing your scientific passions.
do CNC machines count? i've built my own, and i assure you it requires quite a bit of science & sweat to accomplish. or are we going to split hairs and say i'm just a lowly engineer?

but aside from that, i'm into all sorts of things, genetic analysis included. you'll find quite a few people, including selfish media corporations, who think that racemixing is an acceptable practice. to continue to hold beliefs contrary to that while being banned and silenced from most platforms requires a significant amount of passion.

i like science simply because i like truth. it's the most pure form of passion you'll find.

>>16710548
>https://guardian.ng/news/genetic-makeup-of-12-year-old-angolan-boy-in-dispute/
Oh the ragebait slop (((journalism))) publisher? Nice work immediately showing your hand as uneducated.

>>>16710581
>>16710575
>I thought you were making a claim that "race mixing results in genetic abnormalities."
that was my claim to the initial conversation, yes.
>the link i provided was to answer your later question about "the origins of culture" or whatever you said here >>16710534 (You) . two separate arguments.
You're talking to two different anons

>>16710579
>What are the problems that arise when two people racemix?
trying to stuff a White brain into a black skull, gee i wonder what could go wrong. i don't suppose you've ever looked at the two different skull shapes side by side?

mixed race kids almost always have a mental condition, but it's often underdiagnosed and not highlighted because society is too afraid to offend people. but true scientists thirst for the truth no matter how much it hurts or offends.

>>16710581
You don't know what you're talking about.
You haven't studied science.
You are a high-school drop-out.
I have a BA in biology and have been a huge science nerd for 30 years.
I cannot "argue" or "debate" you because you. can't. reason. You were never taught mental discipline, critical thinking skills, media literacy, or how to research and check sources.
Anyone with even a casual interest in science would recognize you as being a complete dumbfuck.
Doubtlessly you are surrounded by uneducated idiots in your life. Probably poor white trash.

Your entire identity on being "supreme" because you are white is a cope to prevent your self-awareness from showing you how much of an arrogant idiot you are.

You had every opportunity to educate yourself and this is the best you could do. You claim to be "superior?" You're just as bad as the worst black ghetto trash you hate.

>>16710591
then they shouldn't have had a problem identifying what i was saying.
people samefag/phonefag so much these days that i tend to ignore the UID anyway.

either way, not my fault. people should just pay attention more and i wouldn't have to address them as if they were having a similar misconception.

>>16710595
>I cannot "argue" or "debate" you because you. can't. reason.
you could have just said "i can't refute your position and i'm angry about it" and saved yourself quite a bit of typing.

if you were being serious for even a minute, you would happily debunk my position. if not to educate me, then you could do so for someone else lurking who might be interested in how to refute such an argument when they came across it.
but the problem here is that you can't refute what i said, so you rely on anger and painting the opposition as a dumbass.
i've been the one to bring actual science & facts to the thread (talking about ligers, mules, mismatched chromosomes, what defines a subspecies, genetics in general, etc)
the only thing you've brought to the thread was anger and insults, mr. scientist.

take a deep breath, count to 10, and try again.

>>16710588
>Oh the ragebait slop (((journalism))) publisher?
are you saying the article in question is a fake, or are you simply saying you can't refute it?
if you were honest with yourself, and actually checked the facts, you would realize nobody can refute it. his true DNA analysis is under tight wraps. if it were true he didn't come from a monkey, they would happily publish said results to prove their point.

but instead they hide it, now why might that be?

>>16710605
answer me >>16710579

>>16710608
>if it were true he didn't come from a monkey, they would happily publish said results to prove their point.
Many studies regarding the viability of humans and other apes breeding exist, and readily refute it. It was so common sense, nobody thought you'd be stupid enough to believe it. Because it's a ragebait slop (((journalism))) outlet. They post fake shit. You fell for a fake story, and now you're shitting up a thread trying to get multiple people to argue race and genetics because you're mad about it.

>>16710598
>people samefag/phonefag so much these days that i tend to ignore the UID anyway.
oh you are a /pol/ tourist that explains it. Keep posting over there, I think they're more your speed.

>>16710610
i did. >>16710593

>>16710615
>Many studies regarding the viability of humans and other apes breeding exist
>(((studies)))
meanwhile, you can do the maths yourself and see that the human/chimp chromosomes align in such a way that it is indeed possible.
a lot of work has gone into seeing what species can or can't breed. there's a reason i constantly bring up the liger example. get down to the nitty-gritty yourself and you'll see that there's no reason to believe that humans & chimps can't breed. they just don't want people finding out where certain races came from, so they cope and sneed and cry fake. much like what you're all doing.

>They post fake shit.
>i didn't see it on my favorite news outlet CNN, so it must be fake

>trying to get multiple people to argue race and genetics
have you forgotten what thread you're even in? race and genetics was clearly the topic, pay attention.

>>16710619
>oh you are a /pol/ tourist that explains it.
IPs are constantly changing (especially on phones) regardless of whether you're posting on /pol/ or not.

>>16710622
>they would happily publish said results to prove their point.
>Immediately skeptical of studies
you can't have it both ways
>meanwhile, you can do the maths yourself and see that the human/chimp chromosomes align in such a way that it is indeed possible.
So this is bait, got it.

>>16710593
>>16710622
>trying to stuff a White brain into a black skull, gee i wonder what could go wrong.
Youre not saying anything here. That "argument" would only work for someone that already agrees with you.

>mixed race kids almost always have a mental condition
Do they? and if yes, couldnt it be correlated with poverty?

also, theres tons of diseases that have a correlation with being white

>but it's often underdiagnosed and not highlighted because society is too afraid to offend people
So your argument is "trust me my dude", got it

>>16710438 (OP)
humans are not one race, they are an animal species made up of multiple sub-species or different "races", yet for reasons unknown, certain humans deny the existence of multiple races and insist on one "human race"

>>16710626
>you can't have it both ways
i wasn't trying to have it both ways. i'm more than happy to read through said published results and make a determination for myself based on the evidence they provide.
but in both of the instances you speak of, they don't provide the results, they simply say
>experts agree
and leave it at that. which is a good reason for remaining skeptical.

unless you'd like to actually show me some of these studies that say humans and chimps can't breed. better make sure it isn't just an article saying "experts say". i want to see the actual DNA and math myself, that's fact-checking 101.
here's a good example for you between what an actual scientific study looks like compared to "just an article". we'll be using the chelating properties of charcoal for this exercise.

fake/goofy article where "experts say" charcoal has chelating properties (specifically for heavy metals):
https://naturalsociety.com/6-foods-natural-heavy-metal-chelation/

real scientific article where you can check the maths & results yourself, which says that the chelating properties of charcoal are non-existent at best, only slightly aiding in the intestinal tract:
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/USDANOPActivatedCharcoalTechnicalReport.pdf

see the difference? so when i say that i would like to see the published studies, i would like to see the latter example, and not just some sensationalist post you pulled from google.

>>16710640
>I'm happy to read them
>but I won't because I already disagree with them
yeah fuck off to /pol/ I think the intellectual rigor is more to your liking there.

>>16710629
i noticed you quoted every last part of my post except one, curious. is it because the differing skull shapes might help prove my point that there's a bit more going on there? you're aware that White and black brains are vastly different, no? you're aware that different medications work differently on Whites and blacks, no? you're aware that the chemistry of each and every part of a White and black's body is different, no? gee, i wonder what could go wrong when you mix so many elements and variables.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10773238/

>b-but we're all the same
so even if we were to approach this from a non-racist perspective, you would have to come up with new medicines for each and every different type of admixture, since it's a well-known thing that different medications affect different races in different ways.

>now we need a medicine to treat x, specifically for 25% White, 25% black, 50% hispanic people
>now we need a medicine to treat x, specifically for 33% abo, 33% black, 33% cambodian people
this list could go on infinitely, but i only have so many characters to work with.

>and if yes, couldnt it be correlated with poverty?
lmao even.

>also, theres tons of diseases that have a correlation with being white
and you'd be correct. i'll have you know my racism isn't limited to brown people.

>>16710438 (OP)
If you put the birds in a park together, can they and do they all take on interchangeable drone roles in service of the rothbird central seed exchange?

>>16710504
> i.e. a conflict of traits which reduces fitness or fertility), which human races do satisfy.
So humans can be categorised into separate subspecies? Simple example of fitneas reduction: white-black halfbreed would do poorly in the hot african sun.

>>16710644
>but I won't because I already disagree with them
is this your way of saying that you can't provide said info? no need to elaborate or expound, a simple link will suffice, and we can further discuss the contents. i would happily read it to help illuminate where exactly you're going wrong. i know you're not into science or anything, but you have to read the information in question even if you don't like it. if for no other reason than to debunk it, or to educate others.

>yeah fuck off to /pol/ I think the intellectual rigor is more to your liking there.
correct.
/pol/ knows more about science than /sci/
/pol/ knows more about history than /his/
/pol/ knows more about literature than /lit/
/pol/ knows more about esoterics than /x/
i'm sure we even have an origami expert that could outdo /po/

things just move a little too quickly over there sometimes, and the shills can get rather repetitive and boring. so, from time to time, we take a break and use our intelligence to educate those in other spaces. no need to thank me.

>>16710629
Im not sure what you’re both arguing about, but you should accept that genetics influences aspects of the mind like intelligence and behaviour, that possibility of these genetics clustering with other heavily genetic-influenced traits which are used to group people into races/ethnicities, could be possible, and frankly expected given the vast range of environments humans live in.

>>16710660
> pol/ knows more about science than /sci/
>/pol/ knows more about history than /his/
>/pol/ knows more about literature than /lit/
>/pol/ knows more about esoterics than /x/
This is true for taboo topics in those subjects.

>>16710655
Outbreeding depression in humans is perhaps more complicated than that, and that's because of the architecture of the human brain. While animals have about 1 in a thousand genes dedicated to the brain, humans have about 1 in a hundred genes for their brain.

Outbreeding essentially breaks down gene expression, so that genes that were there tend to become over/under expressed. The human brain is particularly sensitive to over/under expression of genes because it is much more advanced compared to other animals. And one can clearly see mutts tend to suffer from mental illness at rates far higher than average because of this, so yes human races can be categorized as subspecies.

>>16710660
>is this your way of saying that you can't provide said info?
Are you too stupid to use google scholar or something?
>/pol/ knows more about science than /sci/
>/pol/ knows more about history than /his/
>/pol/ knows more about literature than /lit/
>/pol/ knows more about esoterics than /x/
>i'm sure we even have an origami expert that could outdo /po/
top fucking kek sure thing bud

>>16710691
>Are you too stupid to use google scholar or something?
that's the thing, i've read quite a bit on the topic at hand, and it seems to agree far more with me than you. hence why i'd like to see this mystery study you seem to rely so heavily upon.
refer to this post >>16710640 to see the difference between a news article and an actual study.
if you had a single point to back up your claim, i'm certain you would have linked it long ago.

>top fucking kek sure thing bud
you've all done well to prove my point, /sci/ didn't even know the difference between a news article and a real study before i stepped in.
anything else you'd like me to teach you?

>>16710660
>/pol/ knows more about science than /sci/
>/pol/ knows more about history than /his/
>/pol/ knows more about literature than /lit/
>/pol/ knows more about esoterics than /x/
>i'm sure we even have an origami expert that could outdo /po/