File: IMG_2735.jpg (69.8 KB)

69.8 KB JPG

>comically primitive
They just look like Africans mixed with Indian Indians to me

File: GQIqJDMXcAA_OnX.jpg (258.4 KB)

258.4 KB JPG

>>16951832
Their skulls are cray.

>>16951781
Maybe the denisovian admixture? Abos and the similar looking folk on the islands to the north are like 4% to 5% denisovian, which is at least ten times more than any other group of people.

>>16951781
But you are being mean in a very roundabout passive aggressive way boomer housewives do when they try to establish a pecking order onto their son or daughter in law.

File: image_processing20250225-2-d8kyo2.jpg (22.4 KB)

22.4 KB JPG

>>16952209
I don't doubt that's related, but it's definitely not the full story. The strain of Denisovan that brought Abbos their Erectus admixture also bred with their adjacents, yet they have a very distinct look. Papuans in particular, who have the least Austronesian admixture out of all melanesians iirc, almost look like blacks. Maybe it was sexual selection?

File: timosoini.jpg (115.7 KB)

115.7 KB JPG

>>16951781
What does it mean more primitive or less, how do you measure it?
The large shape of the nose and teeth, protruding eyebrows?

>>16952211
How would the world be if no one ever did these things? Ever?

>>16952417
By that I mean less derived.

>>16951781
>posts a woman who's actually pretty cute
okay 4channer

File: old-aboriginal-indigenous-australian-man-portrait-sydney-oct-estimated-life-expectancy-birth-80071300.jpg (77.8 KB)

77.8 KB JPG

>>16952462
She is quite beautiful, but still has a rather archaic look. I specifically chose her because I wanted to emphasize the recessed chin.

File: plate31.jpg (41 KB)

41 KB JPG

>>16952481

File: plate03.jpg (41.2 KB)

41.2 KB JPG

>>16952482

File: put in.png (356.8 KB)

356.8 KB PNG

>>16952481
>recessed chin

Groups with peculiar skull features are fascinating.

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_105-DOA0047,_Deutsch-Ostafrika,_Einheimische_Bevölkerung.jpg (96.3 KB)

96.3 KB JPG

>>16952525
I forgot my fucking pic of course

>>16952527
What particular tribe is this?

>>16952530
the infamous Gogo/Wagogo/Ugogo

>>16952062
Anons, redpill me on biological race theory, I’ve drank too much from the poison that is critical race theory.

>>16952943
bigger brain wins
capoid master race

>>16952062
man, caucasian skulls are fucking scary

>>16952943
Different groups cluster together. Picrel shows Nilote vs Pygmy vs Niger-Congo vs Cushite (descriptors like "black", "Negroid", and sub-saharan are quite vague and should generally be avoided). Niger-Congo people (along with what seems to be all other sub-saharans) are predisposed to schizophrenia for largely genetic reasons.

File: Northeast_African_genomic_variation_PCA.png (1 MB)

1 MB PNG

>>16952998
Dammit -_-

File: 1758923708521381.jpg (85.2 KB)

85.2 KB JPG

>>16951781
Subhuman CONVICT thread

>>16952998
>predisposed to schizophrenia for largely genetic reasons
Dat "Holy Ghost gene". Maybe....maybe he really dindo shit after all.

>>16951781
that's the kind of neanderthal cuties I'll be breeding when I travel back in time and become high chief by impressing the oogabooga tribes with my technomagic

>>16951832
Wewuz saars n sheit.

File: image-02a.jpg (52.3 KB)

52.3 KB JPG

>>16951781
Aboriginies are a population of early modern humans hybridised with Denisovans that entered Australia 60,000 years ago and remained isolated. They "look funny" because they are Archaic Homo Sapiens, not Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

File: australian_aborigines_09_jpeg.jpg (87.7 KB)

87.7 KB JPG

>>16953464

File: Aboriginal_Man.jpg (30.2 KB)

30.2 KB JPG

>>16953468

File: 1490208000338.jpg (49.8 KB)

49.8 KB JPG

>>16953471

File: images.jpg (11 KB)

11 KB JPG

>>16953474

File: modern human.jpg (64.8 KB)

64.8 KB JPG

>>16953477

File: Tasmanian.jpg (50.2 KB)

50.2 KB JPG

>>16953482

File: 1514156186411.jpg (88.8 KB)

88.8 KB JPG

>>16953484
Bonus, a Khoisan. The sub saharan population is an admixture of various archaic homo sapiens populations that never left the continent. Fully modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens only exists in the African diaspora populations in Eurasia.

File: images (75).jpg (24.4 KB)

24.4 KB JPG

>>16953489
Holy cherrypicked. The Khoisan are largely orthognathic.

> Fully modern Homo Sapiens
How do you seperate modern and archaic?

> Homo Sapiens Sapiens
No.

>>16953611
With a braided river there aren't any hard separation points but the most archaic humans are found at the point of origin.

>>16953727
Sterotypical africans(niger-congo, nilote, omotic) look less like the humans who are literally most archaic (Sapiens likely arose in South Africa, the Khoisan are the oldest race regardless) than the people you say are fully modern.

>>16952417
he's fat and old albeit

>>16952998
So gene clusters imply that even if people lie using statistics to say some bs like “we are all 99.99% similar”, there is still significant variation that rears its ugly head during even double-blind peer-reviewed clinical trials?

>>16955865
Pretty much, yeah.

>>16955865
>>16955887
no there's not, the amount of genes required to code for hair texture and skin color are relatively not very many and require little environmental variation btn group populations, compared to genes that code for intelligence or height, gene clusters are just another useless implicit posthoc assumption about race, which is non existent, you retards still don't understand, all humans are essentially the same, the phenotypical differences throwing people off like hair and skin are surface level differences that require relatively few genes to change, and stand out purely because of psychology, case in point aborigines and papuan s whose hair color is completely different due to being separated after the flooding of sundaland yet they live a few hundred kilometres from each other, and have been doing so for tens of thousands of years, you can try coming up with mystical statistical explanations for why people appear dumber but it won't hold under proper scientific scrutiny, i see these retarded threads everyday on /sci/ and feel sorry for the ignorant retard making them trying to bait people into an unscientific useless debate about non existent races

let me make it easy for you retards since its obvious you are not very bright, if intelligence and height are the knowledge and scars and friends and enemies you get by walking from the tip of south america to alaska, then skin color and hair texture are the temperature differences that make you sweat on a warm sunday afternoon after eating too many marshmellows, whatever differences in 'intelligence' or iq you think exist between populations are cultural expressions of what a group of people choose to prioritize in order to survive their current environment

>>16955989
So critical race theory was true after all? It's all sociological classes with no real basis in biological traits?

>>16956830
there are no races, only cultures, what you hate is cultural or rather the refusal of a group of people to follow or conform to your culture, so you come up with all manner of explanations for why they do that like they are dumb, dirty, uncivilized, godless, heathens, etc when an explanation already exists, but most people are just too dumb and lazy to understand it so they fall back on mindless hate, admitting critical race theory does not mean you have to love black people or indians or chinese just because it is promoted by leftists, it means you dislike their cultures for legitimate scientific reasons, and can then organize your personal life around this or propose practical working solutions at the bureaucratic level, but don't bring this up in you next maga meeting, they won't want to listen

File: 20260305_231757.png (93.7 KB)

93.7 KB PNG

>>16955989
>>16956935
>>16956830
> no there's not
This is silly. Polygenic scores for introversion trained only on white people still (correctly) predict Niger-Congo people to be more extroverted and East-Asians to be more introverted.
>inb4 portability issue
Shared architecture in such traits pretty much ensure that predicted group differences are directionally correct. Furthermore, regarding introversion in particular, European populations are genetically predicted to be more introverted depending on latitude and climate even after controlling for ancestry. It'd be silly to say that Africans, Europeans, and East-Asians do not differ from each other in such a trait.
> there are no races, only cultures
Culture actually has a genetic component, but I'm not too sure how strong it is among Sapiens. This could sort of be seen in the fact that different people around the world convergently developed similar stories and tropes.

>>16956999
> European populations are genetically predicted to be more introverted depending on latitude and climate
*differ in introversion

>>16956999
again, these traits exist inside cultures, and cultures have a way of rewarding them, this isn't genetic, for instance east asian cultures reward timidity because standing out in their large populations mean dissent, europeans may appear introverted because the culture rewards thinking and writing and reading and other private hobbies compared to african cultures which frown upon them and prioritize openness, loudness, exuberance, etc, you can't give me a map and tell this group of people who follow this culture is more this than that, then go on to discredit the role of culture in promoting that trait, that's a circular argument, also this kind of argument is useless becauseintroversion/extroversion is not a population thing, it is an individual thing that can btw change btn childhood and adulthood, just another useless category of experience that does not generalize well

>>16957026
Brochacho, I literally just presented proof that populations differ in such traits in the typically perceived direction on the genotypic level, and I made sure to mention that this was certainly not a result of drift either, but instead a means to adapt to different climates. Exceptions do not make the rule, some individual differences in such traits(which are also largely genetic in origin) do not change the average.
> you can't give me a map and tell this group of people who follow this culture is more this than that, then go on to discredit the role of culture
I'm pointing at ethnic groups, it's genes that discredit the role of culture as typically imagined.

>>16957032
>>16957026
As previously mentioned, there is some genetic cause for differences in culture. The fact that different cultures emphasis the traits the people who made them are genetically predicted to have supports this. The only question is on cultures strength.
> for instance east asian cultures reward timidity because standing out in their large populations mean dissent
This would create selective pressure for East-Asians to be naturally close to such an ideal. Those who failed to do so would be shunned and have less success as a result.

>>16957032
your evidence does not say anything meaningful because introversion/extroversion is not a population trait that is repeatable or even reproducible in any way, its a catchall term for what some individuals appear to do while in certain situations, its like saying you have two and half marriages btn three people then trying to generalize that made up category to polyandry or polygamy, when the govt only recognizes marriage btn two people or a man marrying two women, etc then trying to sell it as some important observation, your data and evidence are not measuring real things
>>16957035
no there's not, cultures differ mostly because of geography not genetics, not especially in species as genetically close as humans

>>16952062
crazy how wolves are considered different species because their head is a different shape or they have different color fur but not humans

native Australians are one of the groups furthest from Africans, genetically speaking. It just illustrates that genetics are more than "looks".

Genetic drift and the loss in gene diversity and resulting increase in deleterious DNA are all factors which cause populations to diverge.

>>16957040
>le big five cluster is entirely subjective and even if there's genes involved it's overshadowed by social pressures
kek, the psychologists solved the nature vs nurture problem years ago by emphasizing both are involved. There was, and is, an important genetic component to race that is completely ignored in sociological discussions of race.

>>16957223
there's no such thing as race, so your argument is moot, whatever genetics are involved, their expression can be masked by cultural constraints, go to japan and tell me whether every local is an introvert because they are pretending to be polite, that pretension is culture and is strong enough to suppress whatever genetic expression you think gives rise to introversion/extroversion, hence the argument that this isn't a population trait you can measure meaningfully because culture is always influencing it, now move the local out of their normal environment and watch them change their personality to match the culture of their current environment, this isn't difficult to understand

>>16957245
>there is no such thing as race
You start with the premise that there is none, so what did you expect to see? With tinted glass, the world is tinted.

>>16957253
this is a scientific position, if you want to refute it then publish your own work proving races are a thing and let's see who takes you seriously

>>16957275
You are the only person not showing any scientific work while arguing against biology and saying nuh-uh each time. The proponents of biological race have shown scientific results, and you haven't other than to say "this is science".

>>16957275
anon, so far all the science shows extremely distinct differences. Only a low IQ retard can't discern them.

>>16957280
i have refuted those results which you keep strawmanning and ignoring everything else, first it was introversion/extroversion, now the current strawman is the definition of race, show me the accepted definition of race by any anthropologist current in an academic position accepted by consensus

>>16957290
>creates strawmen
>accuses others of strawmanning
>0 sources
>accuses others of not having scientific sources despite them being posted in thread
truly spoken like a sociological race retard. y'all can't even decide what is and isn't scientific anyway and end up being utterly buckbroke in your hopeless theorizing upon a molehill of evidence.

>>16957300
yea, come back when you have a definition

>>16957210
>native Australians are one of the groups furthest from Africans
OK so how did they arise and who are they close to?

If abbos had gone extinct before Australia's discovery, they'd be considered proto-human hominids