Environment and Raciation

If you're trying to explain racial differences to liberals, use the term "human biodiversity".

They've been conditioned to accept diversity as inherently good, and by appropriating their rhetoric you can influence them subconsciously.

No such thing as "Human race" exists. There are only Homo species.

As for the environment efect, it creates differences in the species and does not magically change one specie into another specie.

Zebra is one species, horse another. It doesnt matter, zebra lives in Africa or on the North pole, it would never ever become horse.

As for the environment caused differences in one species, for example Caucasian species, yes, therefore we have many races (breds, subspecies) in the Caucasian species.

"Race" doesn't exist and skin colour is only affected by lattitude.

ayy lmao

The light skin of Europeans is an adaptation to the low levels of sunlight in Europe (to increase vitamin D production), especially in N. Europe. Redheads for example have the lightest skin of all and have the highest concentrations in N and W Britain, one of the cloudiest places in the world. The red hair is a side effect of a genetic mutation that reduces melanin production.

If Europeans went to live in Africa for thousands of years most likely our skin colour would darken significantly. The light skin becomes a liability in the stronger sunlight with major health issues such as skin cancer. Maybe our hair would also become more wooly like that of niggers for the wooly hair helps heat escape more easily than our dense straight hair which is good at trapping heat. We may keep our light eyes and hair however.

It's not known for sure why Europeans have light hair and eyes. It's most likely sexual selection - e.g. blue eyes and blonde hair is seen as striking and attractive, so those (esp women) with these traits will have more children than those who don't.

Chinks meanwhile may have evolved slitty eyes to reduce snow blindness during the Ice Ages. The Ice Age climate in Mongolia where chinks evolved was probably even harsher and colder than in Europe.

There is no human species.

All the different races are different species. Tigers and lions can breed and create offspring.

Uh wait a minute.

If they were to go naturally. Currently the program is 'take the lowest IQ population and replace all other species with it'. It would probably take thousands of decades of relentless, targeted breeding specifically for increase of IQ only to get niggers that are on a white level.

Here, try to educate yourself:
theapricity.com/snpa/racesofeurope.htm

No, those Europeans would not turn into Africans due to fact that modern humans are almost completely freed form environmental pressures(unless racemixing would become something that is not so marginal that it has been for last few centuries).

What you are talking about, is adaptation in one particular species. Caucasians and Negro are of different species.
Pic related are Europian subraces in the Caucasian species.

Not to mention Chapter II/5 of that book:

In western Europe, Neanderthaloid skeletal material begins to appear in the second interglacial, with the Heidelberg jaw,14 and is followed, during the early part of the Riss retreat, by the Steinheim and Ehringsdorf crania. The whole of the third interglacial, and the advance of Würm I, belonged to Neanderthal men, and not a single sapiens skull has been found, in Europe, dating from this long time expanse.

The Neanderthal group was extremely variable, and showed within its ranks clear evidence of evolutionary change in a human direction. On the wholes the western European specimens formed a marginal, and relatively primitive, geographical sub-group of the species. The center of its dispersion probably lay farther east, as did, one may suppose, that of the Mousterian flake culture with which the Neanderthal species seems to be basically associated.

In Palestine, which falls on a periphery of this cultural range, excavations in caves near the Sea of Galilee and Mount Carmel have revealed a number of Neanderthaloid skeletons which are different from those in Europe, and others which are, in fact, only partly Neanderthaloid15 The materials from the Mountain Carmel caves, situated in a late Middle Pleistocene setting, corresponding to the latter part of the third interglacial in Europe, were found imbedded in a breccia thick with Levalloiso-Mousterian implements. It is with these late Mousterians, who showed atypical racial features, that we are at present concerned.

In one of the Mount Carmel caves, that of Tabun, was found the skeleton of a small woman, fully Neanderthaloid, and associated with it was a male mandible equal in size to that of Heidelberg, but possessed of that human feature, a chin. In a nearby grotto, the Mugharet es-Skhul, were the remains of a number of individuals, including three male crania sufficiently complete for reconstruction and measurement, A preliminary publication16 of three of these skulls, and of the long bones of the same and other individuals, gives us a reasonably accurate idea of their position in the human family tree. Originally considered members of the Neanderthaloid species, they are now known to be fully human, although preserving a number of unmistakable Neanderthaloid characteristics.

The leg bones of the Skhul people are long and slender, the femora heavily pilastered, in contrast to the Neanderthaloid form. The feet are fully human, but lack the reduction found in the middle phalanges of modern races, while the heels are short. The humeri are likewise long and slender, the radii and ulnae straight, instead of being bowed as with Neanderthal man, including the Tabun female. The hands of Skhul men were broad and large.

In the Skhul pelves, definite Neanderthaloid features appear; the entire structure is lower and narrower than those of most modern men. The Tabun woman’s pelvis, on the other hand, is quite different from other Neanderthaloids in the possession of a long, plate-like pubis, which is an ape-like character. The vertebral Column of the Skhul men, while human, and possessing a lumbar curve of sapiens character, is short in the cervical region. The total height of the cervical vertebrae is only 55.7 mm., as contrasted with a mean of 68.4 mm. for modern man. Thus the Skhul men were short-necked, and in this respect possessed a Neanderthaloid trait. In comparison with Neanderthal man, the Skhul thorax was flat, while that of the Tabun woman retained the barrel-like earlier form. The ribs of the Skhul men are variable in cross-section; some are flat and ribbon-like, as in modern man, others are thick and rounded, as with Neanderthal. The latter form is also associated with the Upper Palaeolithic European men,17 whose relationship to the Skhul people will be treated later. The stature of the Skhul males was tall, ranging from 173 to 179 cm., while that of the females, estimated from long bones, was short, 158 cm. The sex differentiation thus revealed is great.

theapricity.com/snpa/racesofeurope.htm

2/2
In the skull, Skhul man is definitely intermediate between the Neanderthal and sapiens groups, but much closer to the latter, so that its inclusion in the living species cannot be denied. The skulls of the three males are extremely large. In length, they equal Galley Hill, but far exceed it in breadth; the vault height of two specimens, #5 and #9, measured from the ear holes, is equal to that of Galley Hill, but the third, #4, is as low as with true Neanderthals, while the extreme breadth of this specimen acts as a compensatioi, permitting a greater capacity than with the other two. In vault form, then, two are mainly sapiens, while one appears, from the measuremenis, to be largely Neanderthaloid. The capacities of these three skulls are 1588, 1600, and 1616 cc., respectively, much greater than those of Galley Hill or others of his type, and greater than those of most living men. At the same time, they exceed most Neanderthal figures. In brain size as in stature, Skhul man exceeded either Neanderthal or Homo sapiens as previously known.
The best preserved and most complete specimen, #5, is a heavy, thick skull, with heavy browridges, which do not, however, attain a maximum Neanderthaloid development. The greatest length falls higher, in the rear, than with the Neanderthals; although the occiput is protruding, it is not conical in form, as with many Neanderthal specimens. The vault is well-arched, the lambdoid region slightly flattened, and the forehead no more sloping than in many modern sapiens crania.

The face, while large, fails to attain the gorilla-like proportions of Neanderthal, and falls within the modern range in height and breadth. The interorbital distance is, comparatively speaking, great: the upper borders of the orbits straight. Both the maxillae and mandible are of great size and robusticity, exceeding most modern specimens, and the alveolar prognathism is excessive. The mandible has, however, a fully human chin, and the teeth are, like those of the Tabun specimens, not taurodont. The palate, viewed from below, while large, is long in proportion to its breadth, unlike Neanderthal in which the breadth exceeds the length. The foramen magnum, like that of Neanderthal, is long and narrow.

Although the anthropometric position of the Skhul crania will be discussed later in more detail, it is worth noting at the moment that in most characters capable of measurement the #5 specimen falls between Homo sapiens, as exemplified by Galley Hill and later examples of the same type, and Neanderthal, as known from the totality of that species.18

Keith and McCown have demonstrated, beyond serious doubt, that the Skhul skeletons are intermediate between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, and that Neanderthal must therefore be included among the ancestors of modern races. Thus the opinions of Hrdlička, Aichel,19 and others, expressed earlier on the basis of equally valid but less striking evidence, are at last, in one sense or another, substantiated We now know that the Neanderthal strain did not become extinct, but passed over into the genetic stock of modern man. If this occurred once, it could have occurred a number of times. The field is flow open to discover survivals of non-sapiens accretions in modern races in other parts of the earth. This privilege must, however, be used with caution.

theapricity.com/snpa/racesofeurope.htm

pls be quiet. you're disgracing us by saying such stupid things. no human race qualities as a separate species

...

It is just quote from Darwin. Want to search for it? Or maybe you know that, but Darwin was just "rasiss white man"?

Even if it should hereafter be proved that all the races of men were perfectly fertile together, he who was inclined from other reasons to rank them as distinct species, might with justice argue that fertility and sterility are not safe criterions of specific distinctness. We know that these qualities are easily affected by changed conditions of life, or by close interbreeding, and that they are governed by highly complex laws, for instance, that of the unequal fertility of converse crosses between the same two species. With forms which must be ranked as undoubted species, a perfect series exists from those which are absolutely sterile when crossed, to those which are almost or completely fertile. The degrees of sterility do not coincide strictly with the degrees of difference between the parents in external structures or habits of life. Man in many respects may be compared with those animals which have long been domesticated, and a large body of evidence can be advanced in favour of the Pallasian doctrine,* that domestication tends to eliminate the sterility which is so general a result of the crossing of species in a state of nature. From these several considerations, it may be justly urged that the perfect fertility of the intercrossed races of man, if established, would not absolutely preclude us from ranking them as distinct species.

Charles Darwin (rassis white male)

Human beings will never become distinct to the point of becoming distinct, different species because we never become genetically isolated for long enough, heck there were Iraqis in the UK in Roman times.

Height will change with weather because you need to lose heat more rapidly in hot environments, as well as the necessity to be nimble in dense forest. I also suppose diet would limit height in areas like Africa.

This map is outdated. Mongolia has an average IQ of 92, same as other Central Asian herders. Lynn's original estimate for Mongolia used the Chinese province of Inner Mongolia as a proxy, the province is 90% Han.

The Italian sample is also outdated, it was skewed toward Northern Italy.

Evolution selects for the bare minimum required to survive and reproduce in a given environment. Europeans are evolved to survive in harsh northern environments, therefore their genetic characteristics are in excess of African environmental requirements. Evolution does not work backwards, that is, superior traits are conserved due to their higher reproductive fitness. Europeans living in Africa will not evolve into Africans, just as Africans living in the jungle will not evolve into Chimpanzees.

Probably not. Modern Europeans are a result of very unique evolutionary and historical circumstances.

If gene flow is limited for a sufficiently long time, then they would certainly raciate withing 50,000 years and speciate within 500,000 years. Obviously, this sort of separation is not possible given current transportation technology, or even classical sailing technology. Human speciation will be of greater concern during interstellar colonization.

Speciation through random genetic drift can occur even in the absence of divergent environmental pressures.

I get the impression that you fundamentally misunderstand how evolution works. Evolution is caused by an external force changing the gene frequencies within a population. 100,000 years ago, the ancestors of Europeans were very much like niggers, but the selective pressures that existed in Eurasia weeded out maladaptive genes. These selective pressures are no longer in play. Somalians in Sweden are not evolving "Swedish-like" characteristics because they are not actually exposed to the Swedish environment, they are basically livestock being bred by Swedes. If all Swedes disappeared and Somalis in Stockholm had to fend for themselves for 100,000 years, the resulting population would have a lot of physical and cognitive traits common with modern Swedes, but there would still be many differences, due mostly to different starting alleles (the ancestors of Swedes were not Somalis) and random genetic drift.

No. This is Boasian marxistic BS.

We will first consider the arguments which may be advanced in favour of classing the races of man as distinct species, and then the arguments on the other side. If a naturalist, who had never before seen a Negro, Hottentot, Australian, or Mongolian, were to compare them, he would at once perceive that they differed in a multitude of characters, some of slight and some of considerable importance. On enquiry he would find that they were adapted to live under widely different climates, and that they differed somewhat in bodily constitution and mental disposition. If he were then told that hundreds of similar specimens could be brought from the same countries, he would assuredly declare that they were AS GOOD SPECIES as many to which he had been in the habit of affixing specific names. This conclusion would be greatly strengthened as soon as he had ascertained that these forms had all retained the same character for many centuries; and that negroes, apparently identical with existing negroes, had lived at least 4000 years ago.* He would also hear, on the authority of an excellent observer, Dr. Lund,*(2) that the human skulls found in the caves of Brazil entombed with many extinct mammals, belonged to the same type as that now prevailing throughout the American continent.

Charles Darwin (rassis white male)

There were men on the moon in the 1960s.

Our naturalist would then perhaps turn to geographical distribution, and he would probably declare that those forms must be ==distinct species==, which differ not only in appearance, but are fitted for hot, as well as damp or dry countries, and for the arctic regions. He might appeal to the fact that no species in the group next to man- namely, the Quadrumana, can resist a low temperature, or any considerable change of climate; and that the species which come nearest to man have never been reared to maturity, even under the temperate climate of Europe. He would be deeply impressed with the fact, first noticed by Agassiz,* that the different races of man are distributed over the world in the same zoological provinces, as those inhabited by undoubtedly distinct species and genera of mammals. This is manifestly the case with the Australian, Mongolian, and Negro races of man; in a less well-marked manner with the Hottentots; but plainly with the Papuans and Malays, who are separated, as Mr. Wallace has shewn, by nearly the same line which divides the great Malayan and Australian zoological provinces. The aborigines of America range throughout the continent; and this at first appears opposed to the above rule, for most of the productions of the Southern and Northern halves differ widely: yet some few living forms, as the opossum, range from the one into the other, as did formerly some of the gigantic Edentata. The Esquimaux, like other arctic animals, extend round the whole polar regions. It should be observed that the amount of difference between the mammals of the several zoological provinces does not correspond with the degree of separation between the latter; so that it can hardly be considered as an anomaly that the ==Negro differs more==, and the American much less from the other races of man, than do the mammals of the African and American continents from the mammals of the other provinces. Man, it may be added, does not appear to have aboriginally inhabited any oceanic island; and in this respect, he resembles the other members of his class.

Charles Darwin (rassis white male)

Since when does Europe include Russia?

The Negroid phenotype is basal, if you go back far enough, all humans looked like niggers. Papuans and Andaman Islanders are more closely related to Europeans and Chinese than to niggers, but they would not look out of place in the Congo. Papuans, Andaman Islanders and other ancient South East Asian negroids did not convergently evolve a "nigger-like" phenotype, they merely preserve the basal out-of-Africa phenotype.

Since Russia was colonized by Slavs.

Here we go again with Out of Africa debunked marxistic agenda.

Yawn…

How far is that?

I still refuse to believe this.

Aryans must have descended from the stars if that's the case.

Otherwise why and how could a TINY evolutionary change be enough to spread white people globally?

Refuse to believe what?

What Negro phenotype?
- skin collor?
- skul shape?
- wolly hair?
- ?

"Cro Magnons" are not a valid genetic classification. The population of Europe was repeatedly replaced by invaders from the East over the last 30,000 years. That infograph is wrong.

All non-Sub-Saharan African peoples are descended from a single migration out of Africa which occurred about 100,000 years ago. This means that Australian Aborigines, Japanese and Irish are all more closely related to each-other than to any Sub-Saharan African.

Archaeological evidence is sparse, but it appears that Negroids dominated all of Eurasia, until the new Mongoloid and Caucasoid phenotypes evolved in Siberia and began to expand southward over the last 40,000 years, displacing the ancient negroids from most of Eurasia, now they only survive in Australia and the jungles of Southeast Asia.

The anthropologist Peter Frost believes that Mongoloids and Caucasoids were a single north Eurasian population that didn't fully split about until about 30,000-20,000 years ago.

unz.com/pfrost/out-of-north-eurasia/

"Cro-Magnons" may have been a series of different North Eurasian proto-caucasoids who made early migrations southwest into Europe over the last 40,000 years, before true Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved. The hunter-gatherers in living in Europe 7,000 years ago appear to have still had dark skin and an Asiatic Y-haplogroup.

dienekes.blogspot.ru/2014/01/brown-skinned-blue-eyed-y-haplogroup-c.html

Yes, this is the Negroid phenotype. All of these traits are shared by the very distantly related Asian and African Negroids.

You're so full of shit it's funny.

This post is so stupid, I will simple noth bother answering to it.

But i have one important advice for you: live the Holla Forums and go back to Reddit, Tumblr or some other site with majority of morons, they will beleive your marxistic/Boasian/Jewish propaganda shit anthropology.

And for the end - learn something about Negro phenotype. Your left picture is just normal mesocephalic Caucasian (with blue eyes, lel), nothing Negroid on them.

*on him

Cro-Magnon is a broad term for any hunter-gatherer that lived in Europe from 40,000 years ago until their final displacement by Near Eastern farmers about 6,000 years ago. The "Cro-Magnons" of 40,000 years ago did not have a close genetic relationship with the "Cro-Magnons" of 20,000 years ago, who in turn, did not have a close genetic relationship to the "Cro-Magnons" of 10,000 years ago. Cro-Magnon is simply a broad term for "European hunter-gatherer", not a racial, ethnic or cultural classification.

There is no evidence of non-Negroids anywhere in the world until the migrations out of Northern Eurasia began about 40,000 years ago. Caucasoids and Mongoloids simply hadn't evolved before then.

filtered

To be considered the same species, two populations must

1) intermingle
2) breed fertile, viable offspring

That is the working definition. Those crows, those betta fish, don't meat the criteria. If you have a problem with that go protest outside of a major university.

Doesn't mean jack shit. Males and females look different and act different, obviously we're the same species. We intermingle and interbreed.

Dr. Rohlfs writes to me that he found the mixed races in the Great Sahara, derived from Arabs, Berbers, and Negroes of three tribes, extraordinarily fertile. On the other hand, Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the Negroes on the Gold Coast, though admiring white men and mulattoes, have a maxim that mulattoes should not intermarry, as the children are few and sickly. This belief, as Mr. Reade remarks, deserves attention, as white men have visited and resided on the Gold Coast for four hundred years, so that the natives have had ample time to gain knowledge through experience.

Charles Darwin (rassis white male)

Well, this is what is wrong with you marxists. You are against a nature.

Same to you. Back to the Reddit.

Our supposed naturalist having proceeded thus far in his investigation, would next enquire whether the races of men, when crossed, were in any degree sterile. He might consult the work* of Professor Broca, a cautious and philosophical observer, and in this he would find good evidence that some races were quite fertile together, but evidence of an opposite nature in regard to other races. Thus it has been asserted that the native women of Australia and Tasmania rarely produce children to European men;

Charles Darwin (rassis white male)

The fish don't meet the criteria. If those betta fish intermingled in the wild, then they would qualify as being the same species because there would be no clear distinction between the two.

There is no clear distinction between humans that is wide enough to call separate species. In the wild we intermingle, and while there is a huge difference between a European and an African, there are intermediary nodes on that chain all the way over. There is not as huge of a difference between a German and a southern Italian, or a southern Italian and a North Africa, or a North African and an East African, or an East African and a West African.

Confirmed for not having an IQ above room temperature though you deluded retard

Look at the pic again.

Confirmed for a nevrotic Jew and spammer.

Filtered.

Even if it should hereafter be proved that all the races of men were perfectly fertile together, he who was inclined from other reasons to rank them as distinct species, might with justice argue that fertility and sterility are not safe criterions of specific distinctness. We know that these qualities are easily affected by changed conditions of life, or by close interbreeding, and that they are governed by highly complex laws, for instance, that of the unequal fertility of converse crosses between the same two species. With forms which must be ranked as undoubted species, a perfect series exists from those which are absolutely sterile when crossed, to those which are almost or completely fertile. The degrees of sterility do not coincide strictly with the degrees of difference between the parents in external structures or habits of life. Man in many respects may be compared with those animals which have long been domesticated, and a large body of evidence can be advanced in favour of the Pallasian doctrine,* that domestication tends to eliminate the sterility which is so general a result of the crossing of species in a state of nature. From these several considerations, it may be justly urged that the perfect fertility of the intercrossed races of man, if established, WOULD NOT PRECLUDE US FROM RANKING THEM AS DISTINCT SPECIES.

Charles Darwin (rassis white male)

deys look different because deys dont breed together. if deys bred together they weren't be so different

is it finches

Exsactly.
And ofspring of that mixing would be HYBRID specie.
Like you Jews, who are hybrid species between Caucasian, Negro and Neanderthal.
Or Negro, whitch is hybrid species between some Caucasian outcast and bonobo.
Now GTFO, Bernie.

You don't seem to understand.

Are Germans and southern Italians the same species? Yes?

Are southern Italians and North Africans the same species? No? Are you sure you could tell the difference? The degree of genetic distance is relatively small. If Germans and southern Italians are the same species, southern Italians and North Africans must also be.

Are North Africans and East Africans the same species? No? There is significant sub-Saharan African DNA in North Africa and visa versa in East Africans. The degree of genetic distance is similarly small and they likewise interbreed and overlap in territory. Of course they must also be the same species.

Are East Africans and West Africans the same species? Of course.

It would therefore appear that Germans and West Africans are the same species. Well wait, lets test that for the sake of validity. Do they live in the same areas? Yes. Do they ever interbreed? Yes. Do they produce fertile, viable offspring? YES. So they are the same species, both logically and as a matter of fact.

It honestly doesn't matter. Some species have radically different phenotypes.

It doesn't matter, dude.

Sure sure. They are all the same. They all bleed red.

Like Equus asinus and Equus caballus are exactly the same. Because 4 legs and two ears, see. They even reproduce. Just ofspring is somehow weird. It is caled MULE.

Mules are viable but not fertile.

No, you silly nigger. It's because having white skin allows us to absorb vitamin D in areas where there is little sun. Negros on the other hand have constant sun exposure, so their skin is black so they don't get burnt to a crisp.

There are five main species of Homo:
- Caucasian
- Negro
- Mongolian
- Aboriginal
- Khoisan
What are you larping about, are hybrids.
About fertile, viable offspring - read fucking Darwin quotes i posted.

Then go and fuck some Hotentot negress, what are you waiting for?
Oh wait, that is just for the goys…

Sure Shlomo. Exactly the same. Everybody is just the same. Except for the Jews, who are from the some other galaxy, acording to your rabbis.

clap clap clap, highschool wannabe anhropologist

Independently of fertility, the characters presented by the offspring from a cross have been thought to indicate whether or not the parent-forms ought to be ranked as species or varieties; but after carefully studying the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that no general rules of this kind can be trusted. The ordinary result of a cross is the production of a blended or intermediate form; but in certain cases some of the offspring take closely after one parent-form, and some after the other.

Charles Darwin (rassis white male)

Are Arabs caucasian?

Do you know anything about central Asia? Are they caucasian? Mongolian? Oh the entire area is mixed?

Is East Africa negro or caucasian? Their skulls and body types usually conform more closely to the caucasian type.

Is India caucasian? Are south Indians caucasian? What "species" are they?

Is half of the world population some type of "hybrid species"

Are your retarded?

I'm an honors student studying molecular biology in at a university.

His theory of evolution is wrong, buddy. Great thinker but by no means a prophet

What species are Mexicans? Not sure? What about Brazilians or other South Americans? Are they the same species as Mexicans or different? What species are Indonesians? Are you sure what species your neighbor is? How much foreign blood do you need to count as a separate species? What if you're 5% African and didn't know it? Hybrid species now?

…from some other galaxy

My uncle works for Nintendo

What species is your uncle?

100% Bavarian phenotype. Absolutely no Romanian, I swear.

10 points to whichever expert anthropologist can identify which species these people belong to

You are talking about hybrids. Sure, mulatta is hybrid between two species. Also mexicans. You Jew are expecially fucked, hybrid between 3 species (Caucasian, Negro, Neanderthal). That is why you are so fucked up.

still Mulata

I dont know, Shlomo, why are you so upset? I just changed "race" with "specie". All scientists know that, but they are too scared to talk about it. Remember what happened to Crick?
I didnt put that Darwins quotes here for nothing. He knew, "human races" are just different species of genus Homo.

I have advice for you. If you are not a Jew (because they allready know all of that stuff), study old anthropology stuff, I can see, you are interested, but heavily brainwashed. Here, try with this book for the start:

theapricity.com/snpa/racesofeurope.htm

>memes control culture

Poo in loo lower caste?

"Race" does not mean a different species. RACE means RACE, aka sub species. Human races do not qualify as different species.

Two poo in loos, d3 is African.

cultures are a meme

Dude I hate to break this to you but the majority of the world population is some time of hybrid species by your retarded definition. A taxonomic cluster fuck

Huh, never seen an african like that before.
What tribe?

That's some type of Somali

I'm fully aware of the interesting differences between the races of man and have read some old German anthropology texts, which were profoundly interesting, but the fact of the matter is that no human race qualifies as a separate species. You have to understand the tremendous gap between species serves as the fundamental taxonomic unit, but if we arbitrarily define the races of man as different species than the concept loses all meaning because there are no concrete distinctions between the races of man. We can characterize "pure" types as sub species if we deem it useful, but that's just exchanging the word race for subspecies. That would probably prove useful scientifically. If you go on saying we're different species though than the idea loses all credibility.

Semitic races are stabilysed mix between Caucasian, Negro, with 20% Neanderthal.

Mix between that two, but without neanderthal influence.

North India Brahmin and Kshatria caste are Caucasian. South Indians are Negrito.

Yes.

I will filter you again, dont use ad hominem.

Yes, I saw that you are heawily brainwashed. But then again, if you are on Holla Forums, there is stil hope for you. Are you Jewish? Be honest and dont be ashamed of you ancestry.

Wow. They actually teach you this on that UNI?

It is a mixture of Arab, Mediterranean and African race. It is called Somalis.

So what "species" are they? How do you define them taxonomically? Homo arabicus? Are Iranians homo arabicus or some other species?

You never defined negrito as a race. Negritos are not genetically related to negros at all. Did you mean that they are aboriginal? So Indians are a hybrid species between which species?

Do you see how dumb this is. Do you not know what a species is?

No, dude.

Its a matter of fact. They are subtle about it, but yes. The fossil record supports a punctuated equilibrium model, not a gradualistic model, although they still acknowledge gradualism as a tip of the fedora to Darwin

necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evolution/grad punct/evolution_grad punct.html

Arabs and whites are pretty much the same genetically (same race) you dumb nigger.
"West Eurasian", "Caucasoid" whatever you wanna call it.

I ain't no somaliologist.

How much of the mean height and IQ are because more than half the population is comprised of AIDS babies that don't live past 12 years?

here, wait a minnut for my answers

I am just answering your question.

Where are you from?
I didn't even call you a faggot or anything.

I am Aussie. I never implied that you insulted me so I am sorry for making you think that way m8.

That's not what I meant and you know it.
Where are you from?

I told you that I am Aussie.

One more time now.
Where are you from?

Here we go:

1. Non Europian Caucasoid, South Indomelanid
2. Non Europian Caucasoid, Hamnitic
3. Non Europian Caucasoid + Negro mix, Ethiopian

...

Queensland, Australia. If you meant my race then I am anglo.

Proove that. But without SJW BS.
Try with Nordids and Abos. That is extreme. Now we will talk about genetic distances, agree? Your ball.

Sure, that is true. Whole world is clusterfuck. But we are talking about definitions, see. It is about SCIENCE.

1) Do they intermingle in the wild?

Yes, in Australia.

2.) Do they interbreed and produce fertile, viable offspring in the wild?

Yes, in Australia.

1) Do they intermingle in the wild?

Yes, in Australia.

2.) Do they interbreed and produce fertile, viable offspring in the wild?

Yes, in Australia.

Okay then, buddy. How do you scientifically define a species?

You know much about buddhism, user?

It is just too harsh for you to swallow that red pill. But, as I said before, at least you are on Holla Forums. Wait for some year from now. See, there is hope for people, who are arguing from theirs poins of wiew, ewen they are wrong.
Also, reread that Darwin stuff. Full of knowleage, seriously man…

No I don't.

It is said the buddha closed his eyes three times.
I am not the buddha.

Um..I don't understand.

you will

user, it just doesn't make sense. I would support a separate subspecies classification of races. Subspecies designations you can play around with and be more liberal about, which would prove useful especially in medicine. But while there is no perfect way to specify the genetic lineage of organisms, we currently have a working definition under which all humans are of the same species. If you have some brilliant new idea about how to classify species, please share it.

None. Hybrids. Like mixing milk and shit produce something strange (shitmilk).
Semites.
Iranians are expecially fucked up from fucking ewerywhere. Just Iranians is enought.
Yea, l talked about main species. Dont really know for sure about negritos.
Yes, I read some fucking Darwin and you didnt bother with him because now your kikedemia tells you, he vas rassis.
kike invention

Dude you can't have a fertile, viable population of wild organisms with no species classification. You're saying that you're doing this all in the name of science but really you're just pushing a moralistic political agenda. You're no different than the liberals who say there is no such thing as race.

Dub confirms

Lel. Show me some pics. No, really.
And again. You didnt bother to read Darwin quotes I posted. Here:

"Our supposed naturalist having proceeded thus far in his investigation, would next enquire whether the races of men, when crossed, were in any degree sterile. He might consult the work* of Professor Broca, a cautious and philosophical observer, and in this he would find good evidence that some races were quite fertile together, but evidence of an opposite nature in regard to other races. Thus it has been asserted that the native women of Australia and Tasmania rarely produce children to European men;"

Charles Darwin

People who can't handle alcohol should never go online.

So where did this come from? Don't tell me white women got on their knees for an Abo

And redditors should get the fuck out.

Then leave.

...

kek

Didn't know the Australians had abo-fever

I do not. I am not fucking Darwin, as you are not.
Our difference is, you are studying on kikedemia and think, Darwin was wrong, and i am reading books from prefuckedup Boasian anthropology.
So what do you want? To search for some fucking definitions or what? Jesus. We are talking for 5 hours now and you think, this is some weird theory from my own ass?
No. I am talking about knowledge of 200 years of anthropology. About all that burned books from old scientists.

And that is enought for now, bioAnon. Still you have to finnish that kikedemia.

Alright then we've come to a compromise. Sub-species works for all of us. Now we have to get to work actually delineating them

Again. You are not reading fucking Darwins quotes I posted:

Independently of fertility, the characters presented by the offspring from a cross have been thought to indicate whether or not the parent-forms ought to be ranked as species or varieties; but after carefully studying the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that no general rules of this kind can be trusted. The ordinary result of a cross is the production of a blended or intermediate form; but in certain cases some of the offspring take closely after one parent-form, and some after the other.

Charles Darwin

Lel. That girl is maybe 5% Aboriginal. Dont be manipulative, bioAnon, post fifty fifty…

That girl is not even close to 95% European dude. She is kinda hot though tbh, in a savage sort of way. I'd estimate she's 35-50% Abo and got lucky with her gene inheritance. It happens

I think people fail to consider how little humans actually vary genetically. That's a subjective description, but cases like these, although outliers, serve to highlight that. Two people with the same parents and concieved in the same womb at the same time can vary tremendously phenotypically only with a few small genetic differences

Look, bioAnon. Darwin is not just prophet, Darwin is fucking GOD for nowadays Boasian school anthropology (races doesnt exists, now even gender doesnt exist, etcetra). You should know that, and I think you know, because you are smart but net yet redpilled polack.

Ok, agreed. Hand. Dawkins for whitness.
(and this is because even Darwin didnt bother to speak openly about different species)

...

What seem like insurmountable differences to us are actually quite minor in the scheme of things. As genetic engineering comes into play the boundaries will fade even more

Not advocating race mixing, I'm against it. It reduces genetic diversity. But it isn't the sin of sins either

bleached

No. Newer 50%. Up to 15%. Listen. I am doing classifications for years. Not that I am bragging about…
This pictures are about whitewashing propaganda. Never trust the kike, expecially in the media. Do genetic research for yourself.

Sorry, I wasn't accusing you. Should have pointed out I was talking about the pics.

O yea? Than why you didnt post some genetic distances, I was asking about? Nordic - Abo distance? Related to Nordic - chimp distance, for example?
Again, those pics Negros are 10% Negroes. Still they look very negro, as you know, negro genome is dominant in almost all aleles.

ehh I'm not sure you're an expert in race mixing. I know mixed race people and they sometimes look incredibly different between siblings. One can almost pass for white, the other is Obama tier black. The genetic differences between human races are relatively small so just a couple genes can make a huge difference in whatever character you're looking at.

They really aren't. We have this mindset in America because historically one drop black = black. Those people are not considered black in Africa

No, they would evolve into elephants and lions.

Kek, it's not a "mindset", lefty, it's genetics.

Yes, if they didn't mix.

African Americans are on average 15-15% white, for context. I'm sure you'd consider them 100% black in most cases, because you are accustomed to associating a mixed race phenotype with blacks.

This guy is probably around 50% black but he would definitely not be considered black in Africa and he's not even close to European. He's a mixed breed.

No.

Yes.

The same way (assuming no miscegenation) lions stay lions and tigers stay tigers.

Wait isn't 70 the cut off for mild mental retardation?
Holy Fuck, so half of Africa is literally retarded?

Ok, these are clear hoaxes. Where did you get this shit? Some SJWs are spreading this shit arround?
Look at the first one. Even mother is not white, she is mulatta. Newer in the wold she could have that white child.
Second pic. Dolihocephalic and mesocephalic skuls? Different hair pattern?Those two are not even of same race. Left one is Mongolian mix, right one Negro mix.
Ok, thirth pic may be genuin, but those two are brothers, newer twins.

Now you are talking like a /po/lack.
IT IS GREATEST OF SINS EVER!

But not between twins.
Sure I am not. Still I can reckognise 1/32 Jew just from listening his voice. Negro mix is simple in comparison to that.
You do realise, he is 1/4 Jewish, do you? Btw, bob marley was 50/50 Negrojew.
Are huuuge. Millions of genes. Yes, there are billions of genes in genome, but they are universal. There is 50% same genes between human and banana. This is just SJW propaganda for dumb people who dont realise, both house and boath are from wood.
This is true. 1/32 Negro is still a Negro. And I am not from Murrica, as you can see from my poor English.

This guy is 80% white. No, I would not. And this is clear from median IQ of American nogs. It is one standard deviation higher, then Africans Negroes.
Btw,you have problems with niggers in America because of racemixing. Original slaves used to be docile and working hard. Than slave owners fucked up fucking Shaniquass.. Now, there is little hope but resegregation.
They used to kill mulatoes. I think, they still does, but not so frequently.

can you link the new one?

Exactelly! And that is, what I am talking about all the time. Different species.

Actualy, mean IQ70 is due to small Caucasian admix (R1b) in central Africa (Bantu, Zulu). Khoisan, Pygmy, are mean IQ60, if I remember correct.

...

what about caucasoid-negroid offspring? don't they have an increased chance at suffering various health ailments?

As I said. Naturally. Jews can corrupt human nature only to a point. When they jew society long enough it usually slashes back. As you can see it now.

Learn to read the whole post, said it in the next sentence nigger. Yes it is for camoflague. And everything you listed.

Primarily population immobility, big barriers to movement (like seas and deserts), and occasional invasions.

Invasions have a dual effect on the distinctiveness of races. On the one hand, when you have race A conquering race B, you get lots of halfbreeds that are half A, half B, and so intermediate (you see this in India, for example). On the other hand, in some places the whole reason there are distinct races to begin with is that an intermediate group has been genocided (you get this with the Mongols killing off the groups halfway because European and Asian).

It is both physical geography and climate and also cultural factors. The genes affected by climate and the genes affected social dynamics are the same genes, so it's hard to say in any one case whether it is nature or society that is driving the selection process.

Not necessarily. Just as a matter of basic evolutionary theory, evolution can only occur between adjacent (or at least nearby) "islands of fitness". That means that a worm isn't going to evolve into the being that is most fit for its current environment… it will evolve into the worm-creature most similar to the original worm which is best able to survive and reproduce in that environment.

That's why, for example, when fish evolved into mammals to live on land, and then some mammals evolved into aquatic forms to live in the water, the mammals didn't evolve back into fish. Some fish-like options were no longer available to them, and some mammal-options which were inaccessible to the fish were possible for the mammals.

Only if migration between the different regions ends. That is the first requirement.

No, for the reason I outlined above. The only reason a group of populations would EVER converge on the exact same genetic profile is interbreeding; the only reason identical populations would EVER diverge into distinct genetic profiles is lack of interbreeding. Once groups stop interbreeding, even if they face the same environmental conditions they will face different options in terms of mutations that adapt to those conditions, so they'll become more and more genetically divergent over time.

"Even if it should hereafter be proved that all the races of men were perfectly fertile together, he who was inclined from other reasons to rank them as distinct species, might with justice argue that fertility and sterility are not safe criterions of specific distinctness. We know that these qualities are easily affected by changed conditions of life, or by close interbreeding, and that they are governed by highly complex laws, for instance, that of the unequal fertility of converse crosses between the same two species. With forms which must be ranked as undoubted species, a perfect series exists from those which are absolutely sterile when crossed, to those which are almost or completely fertile. The degrees of sterility do not coincide strictly with the degrees of difference between the parents in external structures or habits of life. Man in many respects may be compared with those animals which have long been domesticated, and a large body of evidence can be advanced in favour of the Pallasian doctrine,* that domestication tends to eliminate the sterility which is so general a result of the crossing of species in a state of nature. From these several considerations, it may be justly urged that the perfect fertility of the intercrossed races of man, if established, would not absolutely preclude us from ranking them as distinct species."

– Charles Darwin

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Niggers, Abos and Jews are of different species then whites.

Minor is subjective.

I have a question. Apparently Asians evolved the epicanthic fold as an extreme cold weather mutation. Yet I had always thought of the Nordic specimen as most representative of cold weather mutation. I have also discovered that the "yellowish" tinge to Asian skin is due to a layer of fat below their skin which was evolved as an additional cold weather trait. So if Asians are the most adapted to cold weather, why did they not evolve light hair and eyes like the Nordics? Are the Nordic traits of light skin and eyes due to an adaption for less SUN and not necessarily an adaption to an environment as cold as the one the East Asians adapted to? So they were in an environment with very little sunlight, but not quite as cold as the Asian? And the Asians were an in an environment with MORE sun but also more cold?

Nordic people evolved in cloudy conditions. Not necessarily cold. Pale skin allows for fast vitamin D creation. White people need only about 15 minutes of sun a week to create enough vitamin D, vs Black people who need hours.

Asians are mainly from Mongolia, were there are sweeping cold winds, but it's sunny about 2/3s of the time.

Thanks. That is essentially what I suspected. So the epicanthic fold could also be as a protection from wind in the eyes? Also, why did Asians evolve a more flat face, whereas Europeans and Africans have more deep set eyes? And in some Nordics, the eyes are very deep set. Having deep set eyes was even used in the Third Reich's classification of Nordic individuals.

1. Dot Indian
2. Somali
3. Somali

Not as cold as Asia can be, sure.

But when most of it was covered in glaciers during the European peoples' development - to call it anything but cold is a misrepresentation.

They didn't develop the epicanthic fold because of wind - it was to protect against snow blindness.

They have flatter faces/more compact skulls to better keep body heat.

...

My mistake. A simple misclick.

Meant for

You're really bad at this. They're all genuine

That's not how genetics work dumbass. There is no blending, genes are discrete.

Filtered

Aw shit.

This post stinks of intellectual cowardice.

Typical triggered Christcuck.

FUCK I replied to the wrong person
Meant for

Wait, you replied to my post.

Accident?

KKK.

I was gonna give you shit for bitching when I made the same mistake.

But I will let your own fuckup do the talking.

Its not intellectual cowardice, its just intellectualism. If the mother carries white genes and the father carries white genes they can have a white skinned baby, even if neither one of them has white skin

Its amusing that someone who isn't familiar with baby-tier Mendelian inheritance wants to talk about genetics though

Can any bio expert explain seriously to me why the development of slant eyes? And the epicanthal fold, what is it, what purpose it serves, etc

Read:

A supreme gentleman inherits the epicanthal fold, right? Because he still has the slant eyes.