Nigeria is one of the most diverse countries on the planet with so many different ethnicities and cultures and languages. You can be any kind of black you want in Nigeria.
Unlike in South Africa, the three white people who live in Nigeria are treated very well and are not being genocided. All three Caucasian Nigerian citizens are afforded full human rights, their votes are mostly counted, and their voices are sometimes even heard a little bit by somebody.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,130
@previous (B)
Well, genetically, they’re actually pretty different. Humans have been living in Africa so long, everybody categorizes black as a race, but modern geneticists don’t. Two black people can be more genetically different than a British person and a Japanese person.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 4 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,131
Which is also why biological determinism is silly. Black people cant all be biologically determined to the same thing if they don’t have any biology in common in the first place.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 12 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,133
…they all do have getting colonized in common though. So that’s probably more the actual reason. It’s just that’s not really convenient because it makes Europe look bad and Europe doesn’t want to look bad, so they need another reason. Either the common inferior biology that Africans do not share or the common inferior culture that Africans do not share.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,136
@1,404,131 (A)
People within close family have genetic differences, but phenotypically and behaviorally the differences are minimal within a race. There are few black races, but there are multiple. A Hutu and Tutsi are both black, but interbreeding almost never yields a live birth.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 35 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,139
Nobody believes different races can’t breed with each other anymore. That’s the type of dumb stuff European explorers thought like 500 years ago. I’m half black half white myself.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,145
@previous (B)
I mean, there are countries where a significant amount of the population is mixed raced. There’s only one human species. Black people and white people are way more similar than lions and tigers.
There are individuals of hybrid races, and there are even examples of lineages that survived and formed a new subtype. Just as there are intersex individuals.
But racial boundaries are a reality in most cases. The finely tuned genes that code for proteins and brain structure don't work when you just recombine them with an entirely different set of DNA. Just like you can't take half of a git repo and mix it with half of another unrelated programs code and expect it to work. Yes, some will load and do something but it's not the same thing.
Endogamous relations work because most mutations within a race are small, and don't cause cascading issues with DNA allignment and dependent DNA to work.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 56 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,148
Brazil for example, has 213 million people, about 45% of Brazilians are mixed race. Mules, ligers, and tigons can’t reproduce. Obviously, all humans are the same species by the definition of what a species is, which is that any two members of the opposite sex can produce viable offspring. Because otherwise, how would Brazil exist? Brazil isn’t one generation old.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,149
@1,404,145 (A)
An environment can become dominated by a hybrid species, and that's happened before.
Speciation is a known phenomena, where a new species is created, but a new hybrid race doesn't mean race doesn't exist. If I combine two recipes for an entree, that doesn't mean all entrees are the same.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,151
Race is a social construct. The way we classify people based on how they look doesn’t really have anything to do with how different people are genetically.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 31 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,153
@1,404,148 (A)
Some hybrid species can reproduce. There's a consensus among biologists that it has happened many times, sometimes with DNA being added from viruses, or cells trading DNA in rare encounters.
Mulattos exist. An Iberian shooting his DNA into an indigenous woman can yield non-sterile offspring but it takes time for ineffective offspring to die off and the lucky offspring that got the best combination of immune systems and neural abilities to survive and grow their race. Speciation takes time.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 18 seconds later, 35 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,155
@1,404,153 (B)
You keep trying to equate things that are fundamentally different. You brought up the example of ligers and mules and compared them to mixed race people which is obviously ridiculous because mixed race people can produce viable offspring unlike ligers and mules.
Also, race and species are not synonyms and race doesn’t have any biological meaning. Different cultures categorize humans into racial groups differently. There is no one universally agreed upon definition of what a race is or how many races there are in the world because it’s a social construct, not a scientific fact based on biology. It’s true that some people have dark skin and some people have light skin, but it’s not true that two people with light skin have light skin because the same genes cause them to have light skin and it’s not true that two people have dark skin because the same genes cause them to have dark skin. There are multiple combinations of genes that can lead to similar looking phenotypes. You’re just regurgitating pseudoscience and trying to pass it off as knowledge when it’s obvious to me that you never actually studied genetics.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 51 seconds later, 39 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,158
@1,404,155 (A) > You keep trying to equate things that are fundamentally different. You brought up the example of ligers and mules and compared them to mixed race people which is obviously ridiculous because mixed race people can produce viable offspring unlike ligers and mules.
I pointed out that there are also many non-sterile hybrids, and you ignored it. Focusing on that detail is disingenuous, because you won't concede the point if I list off non-sterile hybrid species will you?
> Also, race and species are not synonyms and race doesn’t have anything biological meaning. Different cultures categorize humans into racial groups differently. There is no one universally agreed upon definition of what a race is or how many races there are in the world because it’s a social construct, not a scientific fact based on biology. It’s true that some people have dark skin and some people have light skin, but it’s not true that two people with light skin have light skin because the same genes cause them to have light skin and it’s not true that two people have dark skin because the same genes cause them to have dark skin. There are multiple combinations of genes that can lead to similar looking phenotypes. You’re just regurgitating pseudoscience and trying to pass it off as knowledge when it’s obvious to me that you never actually studied genetics.
All breeds of dog are considered Canis Lupus (just like grey wolves), and yet even within just domesticated dogs we can see a very wide range of intelligence.
Saying that a species can't have a range of intelligence is just ideology blinding you to a fact that you can easily accept for any other species. Imagining humans are the one exception to this rule is purely religious thinking.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,161
Different dog breeds were created through humans artificially selecting traits in wolves they wanted to keep as pets. Birds are archosaurs, archosaurs are defined as the most recent common ancestor of birds and crocodilians and all of their descendants. Archosaurs can be divided into dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs. More specifically, there are ornithischian dinosaurs and saurischian dinosaurs. Saurischian dinosaurs have hollow bones, lungs with bidirectional airflow, and air sacs in their neck vertebrae. Saurischian dinosaurs are divided into two groups: sauropods and theropods. Birds are theropods. All non-avian dinosaurs went extinct 66 million years ago. You’re comparing one species that diverged from wolves thousands of years ago, to hundreds of different species that diverged from each other tens of millions of years ago.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,404,162
@1,404,158 (B)
The reason why dogs have different levels of intelligence is because animals with larger brains are more aggressive than animals with smaller brains, so humans selectively bred dogs over generations to have smaller brains. The variance in the intelligence of dogs isn’t comparable to the variance in the intelligence of humans because the distribution of intelligence in dogs isn’t natural.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 2 months ago, 24 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,404,164
Also I’m just going to say, it’s really annoying that you accused me of not believing in science because of ideology when I never mentioned ideology and you don’t understand science. It’s obvious that you don’t care about science, you just want to use science to justify your political beliefs, but you can’t do that, because you never studied science. Which is infuriating.
Anonymous A (OP) quintuple-posted this 2 months ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,404,165
Your entire argument is based off of comparisons like "aren’t humans like chickens," "aren’t humans like dogs, "aren’t humans like lions and tigers?" The only reason why you have to make arguments through comparisons is because you don’t actually understand how anything works so you can’t make any arguments as to the mechanisms for why anything happens all you can do is point to things and try to justify how they’re related when they’re not. And I know why you’re making these specific comparisons, these specific comparisons where used by people in the 1960s to justify segregation, but most of these people didn’t know anything about evolution or biology or science or genetics, they were mostly racists who believed blacks and whites are different in terms of their worth, therefore they should be separate and treated differently. There isn’t actually any scientific or moral justification for those ideas, and the fact that it’s morally wrong doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not also objectively factually wrong at the same time. It’s possible to be factually wrong and morally wrong at the same time.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,404,252
@1,404,165 (A)
I compared humans to dogs because they are both mammals.
There's no law in biology that says varied abilities can only come about through artificial breeding.
There was varied ability in animals, within the same species, long before humans came around.
You are promising everything on humans being the unique and not subject to the variety present in other species, without ever showing why that would be true.
Homo Sapiens have limited genetic diversity compared to other species, this is due to several bottleneck events in the distant past, most famously the near extinction event where humanity was reduced to 1,000 people, from whom all 8 billion today are descendants. And then a later one where levels was again reduced to about 5,000 people.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 33 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,404,258
@previous (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
Humans also have complex social systems that affects how much an individual reproduces, reward top athletes and intellectuals with resources and status.
Humans also live on every continent, and every environment with those continents.
Evolution doesn't go at the same rate for every species.
Weeeeeeeelllllllll… extinct human species had larger brains than modern humans and Homo Sapiens brains have shrunk over time. I know it’s a stereotype that smart people don’t get laid, but there’s an unfortunate truth that intelligence actually does not make someone more attractive and have more sex.
EbolaBoy double-posted this 2 months ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,404,260
Now, if you are in the camp that thinks Elon Musk is smart (I’m not but let’s just say for the sake of argument because I can feel the universe telling me you’re going to bring him up next), you do have to admit, even though he is a white dude, he is an African, so that’s more of a cultural quirk.
EbolaBoy triple-posted this 2 months ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,404,261
Of course, the average IQ of Americans has gone up over time, since nutrition has improved. Brains have shrunk in size basically everywhere on the planet by basically the same amount.
EbolaBoy replied with this 2 months ago, 10 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,404,265
Although, now that I think about it, hypothetically if you were a white supremacist who believes that societies value intelligence, if Africa has a much higher birth rate than Europe, that would have to invalidate your belief that higher IQ people reproduce more than lower IQ people, which would consequentially invalidate the belief that Europeans have higher IQs because people with higher IQs are valued by society and reproduce more, which would invalidate the idea that Africans and Europeans have different IQs due to biology, which would invalidate the original premise of white superiority in the first place.
Well, no Elon Musk actually is genetically African. Europeans are just pale Africans. Light skin evolved after Europeans got to Africa, genetic analysis on early human remains in Europe shows that at one point in time, Europeans actually looked like Africans.
EbolaBoy triple-posted this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,404,268
People have this idea that white people evolved from black people, and then they moved into Europe. That’s wrong, otherwise there would be white people somewhere else. What happened is Europe was empty, black people from Africa colonized it, then over 10,000 years their skin turned white. But the first Europeans were actually black.
I think that it's the other way around, the monkeys turned into Anglo-Saxons and then moved to Europe, and the ones that stayed behind got steadily blacker because of the hot sun.
EbolaBoy replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,404,270
@previous (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
I can’t tell if you’re trying to insult British people, but during the last ice age, sea levels were lower, so there was a land bridge called Doggerland that connected Britain to mainland Europe, so it was possible to walk directly from Sub Saharan Africa to England without crossing any water.
EbolaBoy double-posted this 2 months ago, 23 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,404,271
One interesting consequence of the fact that all humans migrated out of sub Saharan Africa, is you know how Asians have epicanthic eye folds? Epicanthic eye folds actually originated in East Africa, since Asians are actually the descendants of East Africans. So there are some tribes in Africa like the Khoisan that have eyes that look Asian. But the reason isn’t because Asians ever colonized Africa it’s actually the other way around.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 2 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,404,296
@1,404,266 (EbolaBoy)
When someone says whites, they're referring to that group with the genetic changes, not the group that stayed behind and evolved along a different path.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 29 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,404,318
@previous (EbolaBoy)
Usually mutations and interbreeding is detrimental, like cancer or muddy complexions.
Occasionally it is more advantageous. Neanderthals had a long time to adapt to a harsher environment, but could not reproduce as quickly. A sapien-neanderthal hybrid race would end up having the best combination of cooperation and larger neocortexes.