What can explain the phenotypic differences between populations who are genetically similar and who evolved in similar environment ?
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
Serious question
What can explain the phenotypic differences between populations who are genetically similar and who evolved in similar environment ?
|
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
Sub-races?
A lot of things, it’s usually environment or stuff that can effect development since phenotype is primarily due to genotype. I think what people get tripped on is their lack of understanding of what actual diversity looks like, so you get people like saying shit like “sub-races” when race isn’t even a biological category, it’s a social construct. We see differences in humans a lot easier because we’re not only the same species but we’re a social species so we’re highly highly evolved to differentiate, and we’ve all had really unique (minor) differences in evolutionary histories. But if you consider that we’re not trees or fish or elephants then it’s like: ok maybe human diversity isn’t THAT diverse considering wings or fangs or exoskeletons.
But this is a nuanced discussion and since there’s no more genuine discussion here anymore I expect I’ll get some schizos REEing about about race.
>it’s a social construct.
State sanctioned opinion that feeds the phenomena of Dunning Kruger.
Start by looking at history. There will be a mountain of evidence alone that should enable you to trace different genetic lineages to the present and find those traits in extant populations (India's caste system for example or European ethnic groups or ethnic groupings in the Caucus). Social stratification over time will actually work to reinforce dominant/divergent traits.
>saying shit like “sub-races” when race isn’t even a biological category, it’s a social construct.
What's the evidence for that?
I have studying this subject for like 8 months and I can't find much proof on this. I DO see many genetic studies that can trace ancestry. PCA charts like picrel.
I see videos about nose shapes and how you need to factor in different nose types, which are linked to ethnicity, when doing cosmetic surgery.
I see haplogroups, haplotype, yamnaya culture, corded ware culture.
I see the history of racial science in EUROPE where notions werent just "muh black", and it was caucasoid (which included dark skin), Black, mongoloid. And, furthermore, europeans found people to be of the "slavic race", alpine, celtic, etc.
I find that even if the USA category is simplistic, this doesnt deny existence of a category.
I find that two different SPECIES, like lions and tigers can mix.
I find that we are 98% similiar, genetically, to chimpanzees, but we are still greatly different.
And I find aboriginals: isolated, and very VERY different than most people.
Luckily I will be going to uni next month (even though Im just a math major), so I could actually confront people on these ideas. BUT, despite everything, I dont get how race isnt a bilogical category: no more than species, or subspecies like homoneandertal and denisovan.
Could you explain everything I adressed?
>race isn’t even a biological category, it’s a social construct
ALL biological categories are social constructs. "Category" is not something you can point to in the world, it's a term to group similar things.
>but we’re a social species so we’re highly highly evolved to differentiate
And hence phenotypical differences are even more important to us.
geographic isolation is a social construct.
separate a group for long enough and reproductive incompatibilities develop
This is why I still believe race exists. Although I have, for a week, kind of believed this nonsense.
Eitherway, these dumb constructivists are usually never able to respond to this mountain of evidence. They can be blindsided to the evidence, use ad hominems for the authors of the evidence, or use semantic/linguistic loopholes to explain that inadvertently everything is a social construct.
I will go to university and make it my duty to press these people to oblivion on their beliefs.
I think the main issue people have with social constructivism is the poor utilisation and politicization of it by morons. For example: some random they/them saying that something is a social construct like it's some kind of gotcha. It's even stupider to respond to these kinds of people with an equally moronic slogan developed by whatever moronic anglophone political thing you follow. Instead, ask- okay, "race" is a social construct. Now what? Sure? We've solved nothing here. I concede that even if I believe race is an immutable, physical reality, there is a layer of cultural-linguistic nonsense piled on top of that. My belief indeed does not exist outside of sociocultural boundaries. But now what?
A whole mass of people have conflated "social construct" with something negative to be destroyed. This is wrong and stupid. For example- the statements "gender is a social construct" & "i believe there are two genders" are not mutually exclusive- but first year sociology majors have successfully duped everyone into thinking they are
Who are you quoting?
are you aware that the sex ratio of various racemixed births can be highly skewed towards girls indicating the very argument you are using is bogus?
>ignoring that race isn’t an actual, biological, categorization of a human but a social identity so your “fact” is moot
To make this more clear to you; imagine me saying something about some commonality between the babies of parents who love horror movies. The initial presumption (there is a solid biologically real and divergent category of people distinguished by their love of horror movies) of this very clearly shows that whatever follows is bullshit even if it’s true because the “fact” (horror movie babies have bigger brains or are often girls) only serves to pervade/sell you on the existing falsehood (we can distinguish a real, divergent, biological category of people who love horror movies). Now before you knee jerk react: notice I didn’t say anything about “racism bad” or cite any opinion, I’m literally just talking about the holes in the structure of the “fact”or “statistics” you’re talking about, objectively.
>who are you quoting
I fricked up the greentext I meant to just highlight the part in quotes as an example of what I would say in response. Like I said, I don’t come here often anymore. It’s genuinely toxic and there’s very little substantive discussion going on here.
>ligers
IQfy absolutely unsalvageable, they’ve regressed to late 2000s arguments.
On a more serious note if you’re actually interested in learning refutations of race realism here’s like a baby’s first guide to it: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism they cite their sources, just look through it if you’re confident in your beliefs and ideas and make your own conclusions. No harm no foul, you can go through the citations and you clearly care a lot so you can verify if it’s bullshit or not. If you have an issue with it don’t take it up with me, I’m not here to talk you through it, I didn’t make it I’m just pointing you in that direction since you’re loudly saying that you’ll listen to the other side.
>One of the ways people define things like species and populations is by their inability to reproduce with one another (although there are obviously some exceptions) and since this has yet to happen among different “races” of people, we automatically know this genetic division hasn’t happened and we’re all still the same species/population.
If that were true then you wouldn't be getting lowered male birth rates. these indicate a degree of reproductive incompatibility.
>because it’s not actual scientists or science people wanting to discuss shit. It’s /misc/offshoots
I made this
I have never browsed /misc/ until the Ukrainian invasion. And IQfy has been my main board since 2017. Like I said I am planning to go to uni, and I am a math major. I have liked STEM for awhile now, so your statement is false.
> If any of you actually knew shit about evolutionary biology, biodiversity, even just some basic ecology
This is the shit that pisses me off, because I have picked up such texts, but nothing about it really gives any valid reasoning. It usually isnt talked about or critiqued. The only thing I read is "race is a social construct" in like every book, but there's no section to explain WHY.
WHY IS IT THE CASE YOU GOD DAMN moron. WHY. Instead of saying anything of substance, you chose to meander and bullshit. Rely on dogmatism, and ignore any appeals to LOGOS. And yet, this response
> One of the ways people define things like species and populations is by their inability to reproduce with one another (although there are obviously some exceptions) and since this has yet to happen among different “races” of people, we automatically know this genetic division hasn’t happened and we’re all still the same species/population.” From here I could go into the genetic evidence that points to race being bullshit but this is what I mean; what I’m talking about here is actual science
Is one to the weakest arguments on this thread. My own post adressed this, with lions and tigers: ligers being able to mix, but still being different species. Also neanderthals and denisvans could mix with humans, but were considered seperate.
Secondly, thats not always the way it was defined. We cant test if dinosaurs could reproduce with others. The other way is to observe skulls and genetics. Clearly this is still possible, as it is needed to identify fossils.
What makes the category of race impossible!?
>This is why I never come here anymore, because it’s not actual scientists or science people wanting to discuss shit.
Wow. The ignorance on display here is shocking. Trying being less arrogant and opinionated and you might learn something you narrow minded liberal twit.
We don't know whether extinct phenotypes on the hominid timeline could interbreed either. But clearly there is a strong evolutionary trend towards larger, more complex brains. This isn't an isolated trait but is accompanied by a whole raft of other physical and psychological characteristics that enable us to identify nascent species (using your definition). Taken together some phenotypes are visibly more primitive than others and this is born out in the data (although that should be unnecessary as these qualities are self-evident to people who have not been brainwashed by multiracial Marxist propaganda).
Whether full speciation is achieved or not is irrelevant. The driving evolutionary force is towards increasing intelligence. Just like colors obviously exist without absolute boundaries and can mix together so it is with races.
I suggest you try thinking for yourself for a change instead of relying on sources like Wikipedia.
>The driving evolutionary force is towards increasing intelligence
>category is: tell me it's scientific racism without telling me it's scientific racism
intelligence largely is a byproduct of predation ability, if you studied evolutionary biology or zoology rather than got all your racist "facts" to confirm your views from the internet you'd know that. Evolution isn't a process of perfection or directionality, it just is. Sometimes species go in one direction and then another and then lose features and gain others. It's nonsense of whatever survives based on sex and environment. In the short term yes features can follow some direction but long term they clearly don't beyond more basal shit like hox genes and all that. It's literally just noise, whoever survives to frick or cheats their way into the gene pool. Natural selection exists but you're moronic and probably don't actually care to change your mind so I'm not gonna waste more time going through this.
>a strong evolutionary trend towards larger, more complex brains
>Taken together some phenotypes are visibly more primitive
>more primitive
>MODERN phenotypes are """"more"""" """primitive"""" (after thousands of years of human evolution) """""visibly"""""
every day we stray further and further from the light
>intelligence largely is a byproduct of predation ability
Wrong. Only limited intelligence is required for predation you moron. Animals do it all the time with far less intelligence. Much more important is competition between individuals and groups (races/sub-races) within larger national/social hierarchies.
>It's literally just noise,
You don't want to see it because you're a coward like most other liberals.
>Much more important is competition between individuals and groups (races/sub-races) within larger national/social hierarchies.
No it isn't. It can be easily avoided by punishing or killing those who try to compete.
humans evolved large brains and great intelligence in order to keep up with our complex social groups. We've always been a social species, and we may have developed our intelligence in part to maintain those relationships and function successfully in these environments
This seems unlikely, as premodern societies didn't tolerate such behaviour.
They are exposed to similar socioeconomic factors
How do we even determine men and women?
You cannot define what a woman is