№3278079[Quote]
sorry for interrupting your tranny discord call niggers
GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEG
№3278094[Quote]
swedish man do you have any arizonid sisas saved
№3278165[Quote]
>>3278160Second one is a remake, not the original
№3278166[Quote]
>>3278160Your own sources contradict you.
>Barbujani et al. (1997), specifically "An Apportionment of Human DNA Diversity" published in PNAS, analyzed 109 DNA markers across 16 world populations. They found that ~84.4% of human genetic variation exists within populations, with only ~1/10 of diversity due to continental differences, indicating race is not a valid biological division №3278171[Quote]
>>3278166>109 lociAre you retarded?
№3278177[Quote]
>>3278166Looking at as little as a few thousand snps we can accurately classify race
№3278178[Quote]
>>3278171That's just what the study stated, you included it as a source in one of your images.
№3278190[Quote]
>>3278178And it was about fsts overall, there are far more studies repeatedly showing the same, you are citing lewontin's fallacy while I am using specific fst numbers. Please learn basic population genetics before you run your mouth, fren.
№3278193[Quote]
>Racially progressive tendencies in a race are typically modern sapiens features. In this context I mean neomorphic, new features, which are both balanced, versatile, under as much conditions as possible advantageous and efficient. The new feature must be generally advantageous or at least not disadvantageous, neutral, if considering as much factors as possible, to be called progressive. Usually this tendencies are on line with the general trends of Hominisation, f.e. decrease of prognathy, prominence of the upper jaw, changes in the position of the foramen magnum and the form and position of the parietal bone etc.
№3278199[Quote]
>>3278177This sentence makes no sense. SNPs are a type of DNA variation where a single nucleotide base differs between individuals, a locus is the position on the genome where that SNP can show up.
№3278219[Quote]
>>3278190What was about FSTs overall? The meta-study citing Barbujani?
Also, that's not what Lewontin's fallacy is. Nor am I even engaging in it, I'm just pointing out that the images you post aren't of any congruence to your beliefs.
№3278232[Quote]
>>3278218This is shifting ground fallacy.
№3278241[Quote]
>>3278199In the actual study they mention
loci and it is still a form of lewontin's fallacy as they use so few alleles, I put forward the counterpoint that looking at just a few thousand snps we can accurately calssify race.
>>3278232I am in vc, accidentally quoted your post in relation to my conversation in vc, why dont you join?
№3278257[Quote]
>>3278241Which study?
Regardless, If you're refuting a study that supposedly engages in Lewontin's fallacy, why screenshot a meta-study that cites it as proof?
I don't have a mic.
№3278265[Quote]
If you want to discuss it you can join vc as it's a bit hard to have two discussions at the same time. But my central argument was
>The study itself cites lewontin's fallacy and only uses a small number loci
>Using only a few thousand loci we can accurately classify the main racial groupings.
№3278271[Quote]
wish i could join voice but it's 'eepy time
№3278274[Quote]
>>3278265My point was that you were using a meta-study that cites the article that supposedly engages in Lewontin's fallacy as proof.
№3278288[Quote]
>>3278274>SupposedlyIt literally does, please read it yourself as it only uses a small number of loci which doesnt refute the existence of race as only using a relatively small amount of snps.
>Engaged in a studyIt was one singular study noting fst based on a small amount of loci for comparative purposes. If you want to have a high quality discussion get on your phone and join vc as I am having two conversations at the same time.
№3278294[Quote]
>>3278160Btw, the triangle was a recreation, not the original, I'll get Agrippa's original
№3278377[Quote]
Hungary_LateC_EBA_Baden_Yamnaya,0.1202727,0.169255,0.0275297,-0.057494,0.0709873,-0.0271453,-0.0028983,-0.0004613,0.0411773,0.076539,0.0009203,0.0109403,-0.01997,0.0012387,-0.0292707,0.0128613,0.0254247,0.003167,0.0108937,-0.0072537,-0.00653,0.0079137,-0.0068197,-0.0115277,0.0003993
№3278408[Quote]
>>3278384My grandfather kinda looked like the pacifid guy
№3278438[Quote]
>>3278433this one is hard
№3278462[Quote]
>>3278433Japanese
>>3278442The Ainu look somewhat Polynesian
№3278472[Quote]
>>3278468Not a single drop of testosterone
№3278480[Quote]
Racially progressive tendencies in a race are typically modern sapiens features. In this context I mean neomorphic, new features, which are both balanced, versatile, under as much conditions as possible advantageous and efficient. The new feature must be generally advantageous or at least not disadvantageous, neutral, if considering as much factors as possible, to be called progressive. Usually this tendencies are on line with the general trends of Hominisation, f.e. decrease of prognathy, prominence of the upper jaw, changes in the position of the foramen magnum and the form and position of the parietal bone etc.
Knussmann said that different races have different progressive features. For the Negrids he mentioned the full lips in the Grzimek Enzyklopadie.
The dynamic of progressive types (Europids and Mongolids, with certain types being more progressive than the average of the race) replacing in prehistoric times more primitive variants was mentioned by v. Eickstedt (1963), Lundman (1952).
Rough translation:
"The other, even more progressive main race, the white race…", from Lundman, Umriss der Rassenkunde in historischer Zeit, 1952, S. 51.
"Very clear is the connection of races to the ontogenetic development: There are races, which retain the more childlike (paedomorphen) habitus (f.e. Palaemongolids, img 308 - look at the pictures posted in the phy. anthro. section from Knussmann), and such, which are more typical adult formed - or even overreaching (f.e. Nilotids, img 304).
"The protuberance of the mucous membrane (lips) of Negrids is a phylogenetically progressive, whereas the strong prognathy is an archaic (primitive) feature."
Knussmann (see below) S. 407.
"Highly specialised organisms or organs are being designated as phylogenetically progressive. Phylogenetic primitivity is the retaining of original, undifferentiated features. (very rough The (theoretical of primitivity) advantage is the potential for further specialisation in more directions…"
- means: Primitives can develop, Progressives already developed. If there new development if advantageous, there form is it. Now my point is not everything new is progressive, insofar I use it like Eickstedt and Lundman, because only advantageous and versatile features are progressive, too one sided overspecialised (took further potential).
"Original ("ancestral") features are also called plesiomorphies, specialised "derived" as apomorphies.
Knussmann, Vergleichende Biologie des Menschen, 2nd edition 1996, S. 268-269.
There are various threads in which I described what progressive should mean.
Some images which show progressive-neomorphic evolutionary trends during hominisation.
First the general developments of the skull:
№3278486[Quote]
>>3278478Looks kinda iranian doe
№3278494[Quote]
>>3278484thats a cute ass cat but that nigger looks darker then me