Human taxonomic diversity paper

Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications

The term race is a traditional synonym for subspecies, however it is frequently asserted that Homo sapiens is monotypic and that what are termed races are nothing more than biological illusions. In this manuscript a case is made for the hypothesis that H. sapiens is polytypic, and in this way is no different from other species exhibiting similar levels of genetic and morphological diversity. First it is demonstrated that the four major definitions of race/subspecies can be shown to be synonymous within the context of the framework of race as a correlation structure of traits. Next the issue of taxonomic classification is considered where it is demonstrated that H. sapiens possesses high levels morphological diversity, genetic heterozygosity and differentiation (FST) compared to many species that are acknowledged to be polytypic with respect to subspecies. Racial variation is then evaluated in light of the phylogenetic species concept, where it is suggested that the least inclusive monophyletic units exist below the level of species within H. sapiens indicating the existence of a number of potential human phylogenetic species; and the biological species concept, where it is determined that racial variation is too small to represent differentiation at the level of biological species. Finally the implications of this are discussed in the context of anthropology where an accurate picture of the sequence and timing of events during the evolution of human taxa are required for a complete picture of human evolution, and medicine, where a greater appreciation of the role played by human taxonomic differences in disease susceptibility and treatment responsiveness will save lives in the future.

Humans are a species, deal with it.

I don’t care if I’ve posted this before, I’ll post it a hundred times if it’s true.

Paper: Race: A social destruction of a biological concept

It is nowadays a dominant opinion in a number of disciplines (anthropology,
genetics, psychology, philosophy of science) that the taxonomy of human
races does not make much biological sense. My aim is to challenge the arguments
that are usually thought to invalidate the biological concept of race. I will try to
show that the way ‘‘race’’ was defined by biologists several decades ago (by
Dobzhansky and others) is in no way discredited by conceptual criticisms that are
now fashionable and widely regarded as cogent. These criticisms often arbitrarily
burden the biological category of race with some implausible connotations, which
then opens the path for a quick eliminative move. However, when properly
understood, the biological notion of race proves remarkably resistant to these
deconstructive attempts. Moreover, by analyzing statements of some leading contemporary
scholars who support social constructivism about race, I hope to demonstrate
that their eliminativist views are actually in conflict with what the best
contemporary science tells us about human genetic variation.

mentioned here

Suicide and low IQ

Bet you won’t hear the manosphere explain one of its pet victimhoods.

You can’t make a silk’s purse out of a sow’s ear.

The findings of a 2005 study out of Sweden contradict Lisa’s assertion:

In one of the largest studies on suicide ever conducted, researchers found that men with especially low scores on intelligence tests are two to three times more likely than others to kill themselves.

Average IQ men aren’t overwhelmed.
Look at EI/EQ too. The emotionally disturbed ones suck on that but denies its existence.
As you’d expect.
The study was carried out in Sweden, which, along with other Scandinavian countries, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
good design
Epidemiologist Finn Rasmussen at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and two colleagues monitored nearly 1 million Swedish men, measuring their IQ when they entered national service at 18 and following them until age 44.
They should also do a study of bachelors. (see end)
In that time, 2,811 men committed suicide, with the highest rate found among those who scored lowest on the logical component of the IQ test.
Suicidal people make bad decisions, really.
Men academically in over their heads–those with low IQs who had received at least some higher education–were the most likely to commit suicide.
The “women shouldn’t be allowed to attend Uni, even if they qualify” crew literally want to increase male suicides. Most of you aren’t smart enough to go! Same goes for women! We need less people attending overall!
Unemployed and divorced men had a consistently higher RR in each year analyzed.
A protective effect of marriage has been observed in a number of previous studies and this article updates figures up to 2005. The article shows that despite changes in marriage  patterns over the last 25 years, those who are married still have the lowest risk of suicide, and there has generally been no obvious decline in the difference in suicide rates between those who are married and those who are not.
Reminds me of the quote “A bachelor’s life is a fine breakfast, a flat lunch, and a miserable dinner.”

Video: What is white?

Apply to the BBC.

If they say no, you must be white.

Make a joke.

If you are told you are Hitler, you must be white.

Walk around a diverse area.

If you are raped…

Note: modern invaders of European countries e.g. Turkey, Italy, do not magically change DNA thanks to particles of feels in the dirt. This has been a PSA from Captain (Fucking) Obvious.

The books are online for free.

No, you don’t need to take a course to understand Darwinian evolution (there is no other).

He wrote a book you can see for free.

It is here.




By Charles Darwin, M.A., F.R.S.,

Author of “The Descent of Man,” etc., etc.

Sixth London Edition, with all Additions and Corrections.

Pause to consider:

The 6th Edition is often considered the definitive edition.

If you want the raw form?

With slightly less information?

Also see Project Gutenberg Etext #1228 for the First Edition.


You have no excuse now.

I am not one of those people who lie about Darwin. I encourage you to read the bloody books. Plural, this is the first one you start with or don’t use that word around me. Picture someone going on and on about cookery who doesn’t know how to crack an egg. That’s how you all sound.

The atheists are shit scared of this being required reading in schools.
That’s because it deals in fact and compares humans with other animals.

I know you’ll see my way if you have any capacity for logic and literacy.

Note: genes can jump within and between chromosomes within an organism.
“Jumping genes” so-called and ignored for decades.
This was discovered by a woman so don’t be shocked you weren’t taught it in school.

Barbara McClintock. Look her up.

Human genetic load dragging us down
The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition, potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies, and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern.” The word is dysgenic for $200.
“Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention.”

Good luck with dropping global IQ, if anyone dared measure such a thing. Sum IQ/global population is the equation.

Who will pay for this global NHS? Our NHS is already running down with a slight immigrant pressure.

It is slight compared to The World.

As JF has mentioned, “clusters” as seen in racial categorization, pertain to findings of genetic distance.

Examination of the relationship between genetic and geographic distance supports a view in which the clusters arise not as an artifact of the sampling scheme, but from small discontinuous jumps in genetic distance for most population pairs on opposite sides of geographic barriers, in comparison with genetic distance for pairs on the same side.

Called it.

Speaking of germline mutations ruining society.

Older fathers’ children have lower evolutionary fitness across four centuries and in four populations

Is that a large enough sample for the manosphere? They don’t like the answer so obviously not.

As if I don’t post topics strategically… tut tut.

“Higher paternal age at offspring conception increases de novo genetic mutations. Based on evolutionary genetic theory we predicted older fathers’ children, all else equal, would be less likely to survive and reproduce, i.e. have lower fitness.”
The sins of the father…
Old dads, no grandkids?
“showed negative paternal age effects on infant survival and offspring reproductive success.”
Sexual selection goes for young men, with better hormone profiles and less obesity.*
Darwin says aged paternal societies are bad for it. Nobody needs your dusty DNA. That’s a sign of corruption – keeping the young men down, not breeding. *another direct link to children again
“Effects survived tests for key competing explanations, including maternal age and parental loss,”
Again, you cannot blame the women.

“We can use our findings to aid in predicting the effect increasingly older parents in today’s society will have on their children’s survival and reproductive success. To the extent that we succeeded in isolating a mutation-driven effect of paternal age, our results can be understood to show that de novo mutations reduce offspring fitness across populations and time periods.”

As close as science gets to settled.

Old fathers are a sign of a dying society. Right up there with strippers and crossdressers. You passed the time period where you were viable with decadence but managed to breed anyway, that society’s social norms are seriously damaged. Applies to women too but paternal age is a bigger factor so I have to spotlight. In a Patriarchy, you would expect fathers are held to the highest standards possible. Their total authority relies on the moral authority consequent of that fact.

Chromosomes make culture, including language

Language is genetic, and it’s racial.
FOXP2 mutations exist in humans and we still count them as human despite the devolution (atavism) being common to chimps. For the same reason you can look like a long-dead relative, humans can have pre-human mutations. This is likely the (un-PC) explanation behind retardation and certain other disability in the nervous system. You’ve heard people can be maladapted for the modern world (low IQ) well, how about maladapted in any environment? Full stop. In every generation, those mutations re-emerge but less so over time since they don’t procreate.

“They connected FOXP2 to more than 200 genes that control the development of neurons, the release of neurotransmitters that send messages between nerves, and the changes in synapses that underlie learning and memory. Some of these genes will very likely turn out to be involved in speech and language.”
When people act like one gene between two groups isn’t a big deal, you can tell they’re thinking in ratios and not in biology. Your heuristic of enough is wrong.
“Geschwind has been captivated by this asymmetry, and by its relationship to handedness. Roughly 90 percent of us are right-handed, and nearly all righties depend on that left “perisylvian” region for speech and language. (About 40 percent of lefties instead rely on the right peri­sylvian region or use both hemispheres.) “There’s some kind of benefit to the kind of processing that’s going on in language–which is extremely rapid processing–to keep everything in one circuit in one hemisphere,” he concludes.”
Handedness being genetic and based on the nervous system. The brain is also part of the nervous system.
That would be the logical next step, to use the full brain. There are no racial studies on handedness.
“Francks and his colleagues could not corroborate that suggestion, but they did find a region of chromosome 2 that seemed linked to left-handedness. They then examined the DNA of pairs of healthy left-handed brothers: the same linkage to chromosome 2 surfaced, evidence that a gene or genes in that region might influence handedness.”
Again, one chromosome and a huge effect.
“They found four DNA differences that distinguished the schizophrenics from the mentally healthy lefties; the location of these variations led them to a gene called LRRTM1. Geschwind collaborated in the work that helped identify where in the human brain LRRTM1 was turned on, or expressed: it probably helps shape forebrain structures and influences how neurons connect.”
Imagine if we applied these methods to other concepts.
“Moving from correlations between genes and disorders to knowledge of the neural circuitry that allows a human but not a chimp to ask, “To be, or not to be?” requires researchers to find connections between seemingly disparate findings.”
Like all races have a ton of Shakespeare level art. Where?
“Linguists and psychologists who have studied “talking apes,” including researchers who have taught them to communicate, stress that the animals rarely combine even two words into a semantic whole and never utter the type of complex “recursive” sentence–like this one–that embeds one thought in another.”
Possible to answer what is white by what is chimp?
These questions are old as Darwin. Genus>Species>Race. Undeniable. I can no less be non-white than a non-mammal.
“In the hope of beginning to explain this discrepancy, Geschwind investigated which genes are turned on in the brains of humans and in those of chimpanzees, our closest genetic relatives. He found hundreds of differences but had no way to determine which ones mattered–which were most significant in driving evolution and determining brain function. Overwhelmed, he turned to a mathe­matician friend at UCLA, Steve Horvath.
With Horvath’s guidance, Geschwind and his grad student Michael Oldham arrived at a new way to approach the problem. Rather than looking at differences between individual genes, they analyzed differences between networks of genes expressed at the same time.”
“It became startlingly clear not only which genes are uniquely human, but also which of those are most important.”
Race-mixing is risky because mutations are usually very bad for the fitness of the organism.
“Biologists believe that if proteins undergo little alteration over an evolutionary span of tens of millions of years, they must perform such essential functions that they simply cannot tolerate change.”
They aren’t as tailored to the old environment, or its pressures but the temporary social one.

Have you noticed African-Americans, left to their own devices, switch to speech patterns more common to Africa, compared with European Americans, who switch to European modes? It’s the little things. Bear in mind, this is after Africans were mixed for centuries.

Fake scientists are already trying to conflate language with racial classification, despite admitting you can learn if you start early enough, a language you wouldn’t naturally conform to.
“the vast majority (97.3%) of individuals have mixed ancestry” then the term is meaningless, you’re conflating the species with the sub-species (race) and who are the exception?
“The data indicate that continents, ethno-linguistic groups, races, ethnicities, and individuals all show substantial ancestral heterogeneity. We estimated correlation coefficients ranging from 0.522 to 0.962 between ancestries and language families or branches.”
If language and race are so tied, if language is real…
“Initial efforts to characterize the movement of early humans in relation to ancestry grouped populations according to five geographical regions: Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/the Middle East/Central Asia/South Asia, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. Subsequent analyses allowed for refinement of the genetic history of global ancestries, revealing regional structure through the identification of 7, 14, and 19 ancestries.”
And you don’t believe in race?
If you don’t believe in gravity, jump off a cliff. You’ll float.
The language/race correlation has clear genetic evidence elsewhere of causation and those same genes are also racial markers because races by geography differ in language structure.

Wait, so wouldn’t it work the other way? you ask, shitposting me.


Yes, it would.

“Now, scientists at Stanford and other universities have combined large databases of globally distributed linguistic and genetic data, revealing in greater detail how languages might change in parallel with genes.”
“Through an advanced statistical analysis, the authors found that geographic distance was linked to both genetic and phonemic distance. On average, the closer together two languages or two genetic samples were to one another, the more similar they were, even when the languages compared were not in the same language family.”
If genetic distance seems familiar, that’s the gap between races.
It doesn’t exist between sexes because a white woman can give birth to a white male, a white man can father a white female. Good luck trying that with race, if it isn’t genetic.
“Numerous studies of human populations in Europe and Asia have revealed a concordance between their extant genetic structure and the prevailing regional pattern of geography and language.”
Different people are different. Groundbreaking.
You can’t talk immigrants out of their genetic neural structures.
They won’t be uplifted being surrounded by white people, they’ll sink lower and lower from inbreeding until their envy provokes a civil war. You can’t bus in new brains.

In other news, Lombroso’s concept of criminal atavism has largely been proven, with the genetics of criminology and behavioural genetics coming to the fore.

Update: I should’ve given you search terms.

Look up left realism, right realism, Instrumental Marxism and Marxist criminology. All of these are real. Why is crime so bad? Well… there are a lot of liars after that human rights money. Ignore biocriminology at your peril, but they care about all the new rape victims. At least, their bank manager cares a lot.