White guy brutally knocks out Asian guy (Asian women love this)

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

 

[onfoenem]

seen ts live

 

[mcmentalonthemic]

SAAAR DE ASHAN WOMAN LAV DIS ONE SAAAR
WHITE MAN CUCK THEM GOOD SAAAR

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

seen ts live

It's brutal how Asian males can't succeed in any combat sports if they're fighting whites and blacks lmao. They're the most blatant proof of race realism I've ever seen. All they do is get knocked out by whites and blacks, brutally too. Add onto of that all of the cucking, Asian women getting hot and bothered over shit like this, and it paints an image of unimaginable emasculation and suffering.

This world is truly evil and cruel to some people, for absolutely no reason.

 

[onfoenem]

It's brutal how Asian males can't succeed in any combat sports if they're fighting whites and blacks lmao. They're the most blatant proof of race realism I've ever seen. All they do is get knocked out by whites and blacks, brutally too. Add onto of that all of the cucking, Asian women getting hot and bothered over shit like this, and it paints an image of unimaginable emasculation and suffering.

This world is truly evil and cruel to some people, for absolutely no reason.

thats the biggest bullshit ive heard

i think you havent watched a single muay thai fight

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

SAAAR DE ASHAN WOMAN LAV DIS ONE SAAAR
WHITE MAN CUCK THEM GOOD SAAAR

No but unironically. The "oxford study" trend doesn't exist for nothing, this is a very well known and documented phenomenon lol.

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

thats the biggest bullshit ive heard

i think you havent watched a single muay thai fight

Oh shit. You don't wanna go there. Whites are taking over oneFC Muay Thai, literally half of the roster is European now lmao. Every onefc event is filled with whites knocking Asians the fuck out BRUTALLY like 75% of the time (sometimes the Asian wins like how sometimes a white dude beats a black, but it isn't common)

 

[Deleted member 283752]

It's brutal how Asian males can't succeed in any combat sports if they're fighting whites and blacks lmao. They're the most blatant proof of race realism I've ever seen. All they do is get knocked out by whites and blacks, brutally too. Add onto of that all of the cucking, Asian women getting hot and bothered over shit like this, and it paints an image of unimaginable emasculation and suffering.

This world is truly evil and cruel to some people, for absolutely no reason.

"Race realism" is a contradiction in terms. Race is a social construct and social construct are NOT REALITY.

 

[onfoenem]

Oh shit. You don't wanna go there. Whites are taking over oneFC Muay Thai, literally half of the roster is European now lmao. Every onefc event is filled with whites knocking Asians the fuck out BRUTALLY like 75% of the time (sometimes the Asian wins like how sometimes a white dude beats a black, but it isn't common)

you sound like a cuck bum ass nigga

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

"Race realism" is a contradiction in terms. Race is a social construct and social construct are NOT REALITY.

Don't be obtuse, when I refer to "race" referring to the 3 distinct variations of human, black, Asian and white. Each distinct from each other with GLARING biological differences and body builds. Asians get cucked because of their genes and biology. they have been scientifically proven to have more brittle bones than whites and blacks, less androgen receptors in the upper body, less testosterone, lower muscle density, more slow twitch muscle fibers, shorter limbs (so short that it impacts their ability to throw hard punches and kicks due to lack of leverage) small dick (scientifically proven)

I mean they just fucking suck, literally designed in a lab to be a walking minstrel show for whites and blacks to cuck over relentlessly while they slave away for money and marry a Chinese chick that fucked 200 white dudes in college and walk her down the isle in a white dress like some sort of fucking princess lmao. This is the brutal reality of the Asian man

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

you sound like a cuck bum ass nigga

I wish I was. This is the reality...

Want me to grab some clips? If you can stomach it. It's fucking brutal. A few whites start taking interest in their sport and end up replacing them in other own sport, yet Asians can't do shit for themselves in any western sport from soccer to American football to boxing to MMA, they just fucking suck at everything manly, so they get cucked. That's it. Blackpill. Basic human biology 101.

 

[onfoenem]

I wish I was. This is the reality...

Want me to grab some clips? If you can stomach it. It's fucking brutal. A few whites start taking interest in their sport and end up replacing them in other own sport, yet Asians can't do shit for themselves in any western sport from soccer to American football to boxing to MMA, they just fucking suck at everything manly, so they get cucked. That's it. Blackpill. Basic human biology 101.

everything but a job

youre raising my cortisol

 

[Deleted member 283752]

Don't be obtuse, when I refer to "race" referring to the 3 distinct variations of human, black, Asian and white. Each distinct from each other with GLARING biological differences and body builds. Asians get cucked because of their genes and biology. they have been scientifically proven to have more brittle bones than whites and blacks, less androgen receptors in the upper body, less testosterone, lower muscle density, more slow twitch muscle fibers, shorter limbs (so short that it impacts their ability to throw hard punches and kicks due to lack of leverage) small dick (scientifically proven)

I mean they just fucking suck, literally designed in a lab to be a walking minstrel show for whites and blacks to cuck over relentlessly while they slave away for money and marry a Chinese chick that fucked 200 white dudes in college and walk her down the isle in a white dress like some sort of fucking princess lmao. This is the brutal reality of the Asian man

"Scientifically proven"

Myths are NOT scientific proof. There is no solid evidence that "Asians" have smaller penises.

There is no evidence for a "white race" or "Asian race" or "black race" or any "race". There's evidence that humans are 99.5-99.9% similar. Nobody says there are "zero differences" between continental groups but these are not enough to determine "race".

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

everything but a job

youre raising my cortisol

Whites cuck Asian males, and they can't even crash out over it because whites can physically beat the shit out of them. Brutal

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

"Scientifically proven"

Myths are NOT scientific proof. There is no solid evidence that "Asians" have smaller penises.

There is no evidence for a "white race" or "Asian race" or "black race" or any "race". There's evidence that humans are 99.5-99.9% similar. Nobody says there are "zero differences" between continental groups but these are not enough to determine "race".

Asians absolutely have smaller penises. Anecdotal and objective measurements confirm this. Blacks also have this biggest, this is also confirmed both anecdotally and empirically.

Race is absolutely real, if it wasn't all races would show equal participation and success in all fields of sports and academics, but they don't. Blacks dominate strength and speed- whites and especially Asians are nowhere to be found there, whites are better than Asians at absolutely everything, and Asians are... Good at math... I guess.

Same trend every time. Asians objectively have lesser dimorphism and bone density and have more slow twitch muscles fibers, this is something analogues to their entire racial lineage, including native Americans. That's how deeply rooted it is in their biology to be physically incompetent when compared to whites and blacks and why they cannot succeed in any sport when competing against them unless they fight the up MOUNTAIN battle and somehow win. But they have to put 1000x the amount of effort to do so.

Because they are genetically inferior.

 

[iblamechico]

Race is a social construct

Brutal grey IQ

 

[iblamechico]

shorter limbs (so short that it impacts their ability to throw hard punches and kicks due to lack of leverage)

Mike Tyson had short arms

 

[ikramy]

@asiangymmax

 

[Deleted member 283752]

Brutal grey IQ

Ad-hominem attack.

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

Mike Tyson had short arms

Yeah, but they weren't short in the same way Asians arms are short, they were only shorter than the average.

And plus, he was black so it doesn't matter for him anyway.

 

[Deleted member 283752]

Asians absolutely have smaller penises. Anecdotal and objective measurements confirm this. Blacks also have this biggest, this is also confirmed both anecdotally and empirically.

Race is absolutely real, if it wasn't all races would show equal participation and success in all fields of sports and academics, but they don't. Blacks dominate strength and speed- whites and especially Asians are nowhere to be found there, whites are better than Asians at absolutely everything, and Asians are... Good at math... I guess.

Same trend every time. Asians objectively have lesser dimorphism and bone density and have more slow twitch muscles fibers, this is something analogues to their entire racial lineage, including native Americans. That's how deeply rooted it is in their biology to be physically incompetent when compared to whites and blacks and why they cannot succeed in any sport when competing against them unless they fight the up MOUNTAIN battle and somehow win. But they have to put 1000x the amount of effort to do so.

Because they are genetically inferior.

"Am I normal? A systematic review and
construction of nomograms for flaccid and
erect penis length and circumference in up to
15,521 men" Veale et al 2014

"It is not possible from the present meta-analysis to draw any conclusions about any differences in penile size across
different races. Lynn suggest that penis length and girth are greatest in Negroids (sub-Saharan Africans), intermediate in Caucasoids (Europeans, South Asians and North African), and smallest in Mongoloids (East Asians), but this is based upon studies that did not meet our present inclusion and exclusion criteria. The greatest proportion of the participants in the present meta-analysis were Caucasoids. There was only one study of 320 men in Negroids and two studies of 445 men in Mongoloids. There are no indications of differences in racial variability in our present study, e.g. the study from Nigeria was not a positive outlier. The question of racial variability can only be resolved by the measurements with large enough population being made by practitioners following the same method with other variables that may influence penis size (such as height) being kept constant. Future studies should also ensure they accurately report the race of their participants and conduct inter-rater reliability."

"Ah ha, they mentioned race; race does exist!"

Slowdown, boy. Not only did they not mention a "white race" but they defined as "Caucasoid" people from "Europe", "South Asia" and "North Africa". "Racial realists" DON'T believe that "Europeans" and "North Africans" constitute "the same race" regardless if they share skin colour or not (which might I add, are due to direct common ancestors and not "convergent evolution")

Not only is it "not possible" to infer anything, but even the concept of "race" that was used is AGAINST YOUR CONCEPT OF "RACE".

Also, the "differences" between humans at an individual level (there's more variance within so-called races than between them) aren't enough to stop fertile offspring with "other races".

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

"Am I normal? A systematic review and
construction of nomograms for flaccid and
erect penis length and circumference in up to
15,521 men" Veale et al 2014

"It is not possible from the present meta-analysis to draw any conclusions about any differences in penile size across
different races. Lynn suggest that penis length and girth are greatest in Negroids (sub-Saharan Africans), intermediate in Caucasoids (Europeans, South Asians and North African), and smallest in Mongoloids (East Asians), but this is based upon studies that did not meet our present inclusion and exclusion criteria. The greatest proportion of the participants in the present meta-analysis were Caucasoids. There was only one study of 320 men in Negroids and two studies of 445 men in Mongoloids. There are no indications of differences in racial variability in our present study, e.g. the study from Nigeria was not a positive outlier. The question of racial variability can only be resolved by the measurements with large enough population being made by practitioners following the same method with other variables that may influence penis size (such as height) being kept constant. Future studies should also ensure they accurately report the race of their participants and conduct inter-rater reliability."

"Ah ha, they mentioned race; race does exist!"

Slowdown, boy. Not only did they not mention a "white race" but they defined as "Caucasoid" people from "Europe", "South Asia" and "North Africa". "Racial realists" DON'T believe that "Europeans" and "North Africans" constitute "the same race" regardless if they share skin colour or not (which might I add, are due to direct common ancestors and not "convergent evolution")

Not only is it "not possible" to infer anything, but even the concept of "race" that was used is AGAINST YOUR CONCEPT OF "RACE".

Also, the "differences" between humans at an individual level (there's more variance within so-called races than between them) aren't enough to stop fertile offspring with "other races".

Yes, humans are the same species, but the different "races" are like a categorization that is a little under "sub-species" which means there is significant morphological differences between two populations of the same species, but they are still part of the same species so they can still have viable offspring, that doesn't mean there isn't big differences morphologically between them.

That's why

Blacks are the strongest

Whites are in the middle

And Asians are at the bottom

Every time. Because they have anatomical differences, and this is also why Asians get cucked by whites every time they turn their backs

 

[unstable]

Don't be obtuse, when I refer to "race" referring to the 3 distinct variations of human, black, Asian and white. Each distinct from each other with GLARING biological differences and body builds. Asians get cucked because of their genes and biology. they have been scientifically proven to have more brittle bones than whites and blacks, less androgen receptors in the upper body, less testosterone, lower muscle density, more slow twitch muscle fibers, shorter limbs (so short that it impacts their ability to throw hard punches and kicks due to lack of leverage) small dick (scientifically proven)

I mean they just fucking suck, literally designed in a lab to be a walking minstrel show for whites and blacks to cuck over relentlessly while they slave away for money and marry a Chinese chick that fucked 200 white dudes in college and walk her down the isle in a white dress like some sort of fucking princess lmao. This is the brutal reality of the Asian man

what about indians, pakistani, central asians and middle easterners?

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

what about indians, pakistani, central asians and middle easterners?

Well I know less about them TBH... But I'd imagine South Asians have a higher potential than East Asians or any mongoloid descendant purely due to their Caucasian admixture. If they changed their habits a bit and focused on sports I'm they'd do decent. Central Asians are great because they're mixed with white and have a rugged culture, shavkat rakhmanov is good example of a highly Asians phenotype in central asia having high fighting success but that's most certainly due to his ancient European genes, also he's mostly slow twitch. He wins fights on pure grit, not explosiveness, typical of Asians. Not that Asian have any grit anyway, but still.

Middle easterners are just caucasoids. They'd do perfectly fine. They have some sub Saharan DNA too, but I think it's the bad one (nilotic, cushitic) and not west African, so no athleticism coming from that side I unfortunately, but still decent. Certainly better than East Asians though.

 

[unstable]

Well I know less about them TBH... But I'd imagine South Asians have a higher potential than East Asians or any mongoloid descendant purely due to their Caucasian admixture. If they changed their habits a bit and focused on sports I'm they'd do decent. Central Asians are great because they're mixed with white and have a rugged culture, shavkat rakhmanov is good example of a highly Asians phenotype in central asia having high fighting success but that's most certainly due to his ancient European genes, also he's mostly slow twitch. He wins fights on pure grit, not explosiveness, typical of Asians. Not that Asian have any grit anyway, but still.

Middle easterners are just caucasoids. They'd do perfectly fine. They have some sub Saharan DNA too, but I think it's the bad one (nilotic, cushitic) and not west African, so no athleticism coming from that side I unfortunately, but still decent. Certainly better than East Asians though.

what do you think about aboriginal australians?

 

[Deleted member 283752]

Yes, humans are the same species, but the different "races" are like a categorization that is a little under "sub-species" which means there is significant morphological differences between two populations of the same species, but they are still part of the same species so they can still have viable offspring, that doesn't mean there isn't big differences morphologically between them.

That's why

Blacks are the strongest

Whites are in the middle

And Asians are at the bottom

Every time. Because they have anatomical differences, and this is also why Asians get cucked by whites every time they turn their backs

There are no extant human "subspecies" or "breeds". We're (far) less diverse than dog breeds, let alone chimpanzee subspecies.

Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy - Evolution: Education and Outreach

In 1956, evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane posed a question to anthropologists: “Are the biological differences between human groups comparable with those between groups of domestic animals such as greyhounds and bulldogs…?” It reads as if it were posted on social media today. The analogy...

link.springer.com

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/genetics-and-the-shape-of-dogs

Interesting excerpts from each study. The first linked:

"While the data and results from structure can be misinterpreted in the ways described above, they can be helpful in illustrating if and how genetic variation is shared across groups. Now, let’s consider levels and patterns of dog and human genetic variation to see how they compare. In 2004, Parker and colleagues analyzed data from single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for 120 dogs representing 60 breeds as well as 96 microsatellite loci genotyped in 414 dogs representing 85 breeds. Both STR and SNP data demonstrated low levels of within-breed heterozygosity, indicating that within breed genetic variation was low (H = 0.313–0.610), while FST estimates also indicated high levels of differentiation among breeds (FST = 0.33). These results were consistent with earlier studies looking at smaller numbers of breeds (Koskinen 2003; Irion et al. 2003), and have been supported by subsequent studies of dog population structure and domestication (vonHoldt et al. 2010). In their AMOVA analysis of the 96 genotyped microsatellites, Parker and colleagues (Parker et al. 2004) report that ~ 27% of variation among dogs in their sample could be attributed to variation across breeds, with the remainder of the genetic variation explained by within-breed variation, implying that the breeds in their sample are highly genetically isolated from each other.

Parker et al. (2004) then used the program structure to place individual dogs into a predefined number of population clusters. Running structure on overlapping subsets of 20–22 breeds at a time, they observed that the majority of individual dogs could be placed into distinct clusters that corresponded with their reported breed identity (Fig. 1). Using genotype data alone, they correctly identified the breed of 99% of the dogs included in their sample. Taken together, the low within-breed heterozygosity, high among-breed FST, AMOVA, and structure results all present a picture of a highly structured population.

Parker et al.’s analysis of dog population structure can be compared to an earlier study of human population structure using similar methods (Rosenberg et al. 2002). In this paper, Rosenberg and colleagues utilized allele frequency data from 377 microsatellites genotyped in the 52 populations of the HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Panel. Rosenberg et al. conducted AMOVA that examined genetic variance components within and among the individual populations of the HGDP-CEPH as well as within and among five and seven broad geographical groupings of these populations. These regional groups can be viewed as generally analogous to continental regions and U.S. census groupings (the seven-region scheme divides Europe/Middle East/Central Asia into three separate categories). The authors observed that genetic differences among regions accounted for only 3.3–4.7% of global human genetic variation (much smaller than the 27% of genetic differences among dog breeds reported by Parker et al. 2004), and that variation within populations accounts for ~ 92.9–94.3%. Differences among populations within regions accounted for 2.4–2.6% of the remaining genetic variation. In addition, within-region levels of heterozygosity (0.664–0.792; Rosenberg et al. 2002) were notably higher than those observed for dog breeds (0.313–0.610; Parker et al. 2004). This reflects the much greater total genetic variation within human groups compared to dog breeds. These results are comparable to those from other human datasets/populations, including HGDP-CEPH multilocus SNP data (Li et al. 2008). Furthermore, data from The 1000 Genomes Project demonstrates that FST values between continental groups are far lower (0.052–0.083) than FST values for dog breeds (The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium 2015). In sum, these data suggest that a greater degree of global genetic variation in humans can be attributable to variation within local populations, rather than between regional (racial) groups, and that substantial heterogeneity can be found within these groups. This stands in marked contrast to the lower levels of heterozygosity observed within dog breeds and the large amount of genetic variation that can be explained by breed differences."

Excerpt from the second study:

"In order to determine the degree to which dogs could be assigned correctly to their breed group, my lab utilized data from 96 microsatellite markers spanning all the dog's 38 autosomes in a set of 414 dogs representing 85 breeds. We found, first, that nearly all individual dogs were assigned correctly into their breed group when we used a set of statistical tools called clustering algorithms, which look for similarities in the frequency and distribution of alleles between individuals. The exceptions largely included six sets of closely related breed pairs (for example whippet-greyhound and mastiff-bullmastiff) that could only be assigned to their respective breeds when considered in isolation from other breeds.

We also showed that the genetic variation between dog breeds is much greater than the variation within breeds. Between-breed variation is estimated at 27.5 percent. By comparison, genetic variation between human populations is only 5.4 percent. Thus the concept of a dog breed is very real and can be defined not only by the dog's appearance but genetically as well."

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

There are no extant human "subspecies" or "breeds". We're (far) less diverse than dog breeds, let alone chimpanzee subspecies.

Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy - Evolution: Education and Outreach

In 1956, evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane posed a question to anthropologists: “Are the biological differences between human groups comparable with those between groups of domestic animals such as greyhounds and bulldogs…?” It reads as if it were posted on social media today. The analogy...

link.springer.com

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/genetics-and-the-shape-of-dogs

Interesting excerpts from each study. The first linked:

"While the data and results from structure can be misinterpreted in the ways described above, they can be helpful in illustrating if and how genetic variation is shared across groups. Now, let’s consider levels and patterns of dog and human genetic variation to see how they compare. In 2004, Parker and colleagues analyzed data from single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for 120 dogs representing 60 breeds as well as 96 microsatellite loci genotyped in 414 dogs representing 85 breeds. Both STR and SNP data demonstrated low levels of within-breed heterozygosity, indicating that within breed genetic variation was low (H = 0.313–0.610), while FST estimates also indicated high levels of differentiation among breeds (FST = 0.33). These results were consistent with earlier studies looking at smaller numbers of breeds (Koskinen 2003; Irion et al. 2003), and have been supported by subsequent studies of dog population structure and domestication (vonHoldt et al. 2010). In their AMOVA analysis of the 96 genotyped microsatellites, Parker and colleagues (Parker et al. 2004) report that ~ 27% of variation among dogs in their sample could be attributed to variation across breeds, with the remainder of the genetic variation explained by within-breed variation, implying that the breeds in their sample are highly genetically isolated from each other.

Parker et al. (2004) then used the program structure to place individual dogs into a predefined number of population clusters. Running structure on overlapping subsets of 20–22 breeds at a time, they observed that the majority of individual dogs could be placed into distinct clusters that corresponded with their reported breed identity (Fig. 1). Using genotype data alone, they correctly identified the breed of 99% of the dogs included in their sample. Taken together, the low within-breed heterozygosity, high among-breed FST, AMOVA, and structure results all present a picture of a highly structured population.

Parker et al.’s analysis of dog population structure can be compared to an earlier study of human population structure using similar methods (Rosenberg et al. 2002). In this paper, Rosenberg and colleagues utilized allele frequency data from 377 microsatellites genotyped in the 52 populations of the HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Panel. Rosenberg et al. conducted AMOVA that examined genetic variance components within and among the individual populations of the HGDP-CEPH as well as within and among five and seven broad geographical groupings of these populations. These regional groups can be viewed as generally analogous to continental regions and U.S. census groupings (the seven-region scheme divides Europe/Middle East/Central Asia into three separate categories). The authors observed that genetic differences among regions accounted for only 3.3–4.7% of global human genetic variation (much smaller than the 27% of genetic differences among dog breeds reported by Parker et al. 2004), and that variation within populations accounts for ~ 92.9–94.3%. Differences among populations within regions accounted for 2.4–2.6% of the remaining genetic variation. In addition, within-region levels of heterozygosity (0.664–0.792; Rosenberg et al. 2002) were notably higher than those observed for dog breeds (0.313–0.610; Parker et al. 2004). This reflects the much greater total genetic variation within human groups compared to dog breeds. These results are comparable to those from other human datasets/populations, including HGDP-CEPH multilocus SNP data (Li et al. 2008). Furthermore, data from The 1000 Genomes Project demonstrates that FST values between continental groups are far lower (0.052–0.083) than FST values for dog breeds (The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium 2015). In sum, these data suggest that a greater degree of global genetic variation in humans can be attributable to variation within local populations, rather than between regional (racial) groups, and that substantial heterogeneity can be found within these groups. This stands in marked contrast to the lower levels of heterozygosity observed within dog breeds and the large amount of genetic variation that can be explained by breed differences."

Excerpt from the second study:

"In order to determine the degree to which dogs could be assigned correctly to their breed group, my lab utilized data from 96 microsatellite markers spanning all the dog's 38 autosomes in a set of 414 dogs representing 85 breeds. We found, first, that nearly all individual dogs were assigned correctly into their breed group when we used a set of statistical tools called clustering algorithms, which look for similarities in the frequency and distribution of alleles between individuals. The exceptions largely included six sets of closely related breed pairs (for example whippet-greyhound and mastiff-bullmastiff) that could only be assigned to their respective breeds when considered in isolation from other breeds.

We also showed that the genetic variation between dog breeds is much greater than the variation within breeds. Between-breed variation is estimated at 27.5 percent. By comparison, genetic variation between human populations is only 5.4 percent. Thus the concept of a dog breed is very real and can be defined not only by the dog's appearance but genetically as well."

Ok interesting. So if there is no difference why do Asians show a genetic difference in muscle mass, bone density and muscle fibre type? Why do they lose at all combat sports and why do black people dominate? I really want to know.

 

[unstable]

There are no extant human "subspecies" or "breeds". We're (far) less diverse than dog breeds, let alone chimpanzee subspecies.

Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy - Evolution: Education and Outreach

In 1956, evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane posed a question to anthropologists: “Are the biological differences between human groups comparable with those between groups of domestic animals such as greyhounds and bulldogs…?” It reads as if it were posted on social media today. The analogy...

link.springer.com

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/genetics-and-the-shape-of-dogs

Interesting excerpts from each study. The first linked:

"While the data and results from structure can be misinterpreted in the ways described above, they can be helpful in illustrating if and how genetic variation is shared across groups. Now, let’s consider levels and patterns of dog and human genetic variation to see how they compare. In 2004, Parker and colleagues analyzed data from single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for 120 dogs representing 60 breeds as well as 96 microsatellite loci genotyped in 414 dogs representing 85 breeds. Both STR and SNP data demonstrated low levels of within-breed heterozygosity, indicating that within breed genetic variation was low (H = 0.313–0.610), while FST estimates also indicated high levels of differentiation among breeds (FST = 0.33). These results were consistent with earlier studies looking at smaller numbers of breeds (Koskinen 2003; Irion et al. 2003), and have been supported by subsequent studies of dog population structure and domestication (vonHoldt et al. 2010). In their AMOVA analysis of the 96 genotyped microsatellites, Parker and colleagues (Parker et al. 2004) report that ~ 27% of variation among dogs in their sample could be attributed to variation across breeds, with the remainder of the genetic variation explained by within-breed variation, implying that the breeds in their sample are highly genetically isolated from each other.

Parker et al. (2004) then used the program structure to place individual dogs into a predefined number of population clusters. Running structure on overlapping subsets of 20–22 breeds at a time, they observed that the majority of individual dogs could be placed into distinct clusters that corresponded with their reported breed identity (Fig. 1). Using genotype data alone, they correctly identified the breed of 99% of the dogs included in their sample. Taken together, the low within-breed heterozygosity, high among-breed FST, AMOVA, and structure results all present a picture of a highly structured population.

Parker et al.’s analysis of dog population structure can be compared to an earlier study of human population structure using similar methods (Rosenberg et al. 2002). In this paper, Rosenberg and colleagues utilized allele frequency data from 377 microsatellites genotyped in the 52 populations of the HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Panel. Rosenberg et al. conducted AMOVA that examined genetic variance components within and among the individual populations of the HGDP-CEPH as well as within and among five and seven broad geographical groupings of these populations. These regional groups can be viewed as generally analogous to continental regions and U.S. census groupings (the seven-region scheme divides Europe/Middle East/Central Asia into three separate categories). The authors observed that genetic differences among regions accounted for only 3.3–4.7% of global human genetic variation (much smaller than the 27% of genetic differences among dog breeds reported by Parker et al. 2004), and that variation within populations accounts for ~ 92.9–94.3%. Differences among populations within regions accounted for 2.4–2.6% of the remaining genetic variation. In addition, within-region levels of heterozygosity (0.664–0.792; Rosenberg et al. 2002) were notably higher than those observed for dog breeds (0.313–0.610; Parker et al. 2004). This reflects the much greater total genetic variation within human groups compared to dog breeds. These results are comparable to those from other human datasets/populations, including HGDP-CEPH multilocus SNP data (Li et al. 2008). Furthermore, data from The 1000 Genomes Project demonstrates that FST values between continental groups are far lower (0.052–0.083) than FST values for dog breeds (The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium 2015). In sum, these data suggest that a greater degree of global genetic variation in humans can be attributable to variation within local populations, rather than between regional (racial) groups, and that substantial heterogeneity can be found within these groups. This stands in marked contrast to the lower levels of heterozygosity observed within dog breeds and the large amount of genetic variation that can be explained by breed differences."

Excerpt from the second study:

"In order to determine the degree to which dogs could be assigned correctly to their breed group, my lab utilized data from 96 microsatellite markers spanning all the dog's 38 autosomes in a set of 414 dogs representing 85 breeds. We found, first, that nearly all individual dogs were assigned correctly into their breed group when we used a set of statistical tools called clustering algorithms, which look for similarities in the frequency and distribution of alleles between individuals. The exceptions largely included six sets of closely related breed pairs (for example whippet-greyhound and mastiff-bullmastiff) that could only be assigned to their respective breeds when considered in isolation from other breeds.

We also showed that the genetic variation between dog breeds is much greater than the variation within breeds. Between-breed variation is estimated at 27.5 percent. By comparison, genetic variation between human populations is only 5.4 percent. Thus the concept of a dog breed is very real and can be defined not only by the dog's appearance but genetically as well."

see this video in tranlation it clearly explains why asians have higher iqs and africans have it low.
racial differences exist humans and chimp have 1-2% difference but look at us.

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

what do you think about aboriginal australians?

Aboriginal Australians are a funny one. First of all their skulls are amazingly robust, with a brow ridge that can deflect a bullet, so I wouldn't be surprised if they'd make amazing fighters theoretically purely because of their ability to take hard hits and not get knocked out.

On the other hand, Europeans always described the aboriginals as "sinewy" and "thin" never as strong. So I'd imagine they'd be more like a Kenyan than a Nigerian in physical build unfortunately. So no explosive power, so I'd say they'd do alright, but mostly slow twitch.

 

[Deleted member 283752]

see this video in tranlation it clearly explains why asians have higher iqs and africans have it low.
racial differences exist humans and chimp have 1-2% difference but look at us.

Pseudoscience vs actual studies. No thanks.

 

[unstable]

Pseudoscience vs actual studies. No thanks.

he actually references real studies and also explains prominent academic theories on what causes these differences

 

[unstable]

Pseudoscience vs actual studies. No thanks.

its just baffling how you expect animals living in different environments for tens of thousands of years to have the same characteristics and be the same race
i don't think you genuinely believe this. it is just a ragebait.

 

[tightmason]

View attachment 4410823

this nigga after the fight

 

[tightmason]

see this video in tranlation it clearly explains why asians have higher iqs and africans have it low.
racial differences exist humans and chimp have 1-2% difference but look at us.

nigga made this himself with dogshit tts you not getting adsense money nigger heres a better one

 

[unstable]

nigga made this himself with dogshit tts you not getting adsense money nigger heres a better one

i gave this because this had studies in it i don't know about what you have posted.

 

[2d v2]

View attachment 4410823

I'd rather see whites knocking out niggers

 

[tightmason]

I'd rather see whites knocking out niggers

theres plenty dont fall for MUH BLACK GENES!!!!!

Spoiler: the bbc in question NSFW

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

I'd rather see whites knocking out niggers

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

theres plenty dont fall for MUH BLACK GENES!!!!!

Oops sorry about that

 

[tightmason]

View attachment 4412448
Oops sorry about that

found a nigger

 

[dudebroguy]

"Scientifically proven"

Myths are NOT scientific proof. There is no solid evidence that "Asians" have smaller penises.

There is no evidence for a "white race" or "Asian race" or "black race" or any "race". There's evidence that humans are 99.5-99.9% similar. Nobody says there are "zero differences" between continental groups but these are not enough to determine "race".

Race is real get over it faggot. It's self-evident and science backs it up. There are genetic differences between races that go beyond skin color.

 

[Deleted member 283752]

he actually references real studies and also explains prominent academic theories on what causes these differences

If those "studies" contradict that which is known by necessity (race being a social construct or that there's more genetic variation WITHIN populations as opposed to outside of them), then they're rejected LET ALONE essentialist intelligence claims about about "race".

 

[Deleted member 283752]

Race is real get over it faggot. It's self-evident and science backs it up. There are genetic differences between races that go beyond skin color.

You're saying the OPPOSITE of the general consensus. When you have ideology over strong evidence.

 

[Deleted member 283752]

nigga made this himself with dogshit tts you not getting adsense money nigger heres a better one

Didn't provide any evidence to support the concept of "race".

 

[Deleted member 283752]

Humans don't have distinct, biological categories. We have CLINES, small allele shifts and variation between groups. Ignoring these facts for "racial reality" nonsense (that only Americans seem to promote for some reason) is absurd.

 

[tightmason]

Didn't provide any evidence to support the concept of "race".

MUH CONCEPT!!!!! its no concept nigga you must be a deathnic to be trying to deflect it that hard

 

[Deleted member 283752]

MUH CONCEPT!!!!! its no concept nigga you must be a deathnic to be trying to deflect it that hard

Ad-hominem attack. It's settled that there's no concept of "race". Also, "ethnicity" has nothing to do with skin colour, but even if it did, my point couldn't be undermined by it. If this is the best you can do, perhaps your education wasn't good and you need to do more.

 

[tightmason]

Ad-hominem attack. It's settled that there's no concept of "race". Also, "ethnicity" has nothing to do with skin colour, but even if it did, my point couldn't be undermined by it. If this is the best you can do, perhaps your education wasn't good and you need to do more.

no one cares fag jump off a bridge

 

[dudebroguy]

You're saying the OPPOSITE of the general consensus. When you have ideology over strong evidence.

I shudder to think what kind of el goblino la creatura you are.

I am not the same as a nigger. A chink is not the same a nigger. I am not the same as a chink. I am not the same as an indian.

There are provable genetic differences between races beyond skin deep. Stop looking at leftoid jewish scientism made to stop copers like you roping.

 

[Deleted member 283752]

I shudder to think what kind of el goblino la creatura you are.

I am not the same as a nigger. A chink is not the same a nigger. I am not the same as a chink. I am not the same as an indian.

There are provable genetic differences between races beyond skin deep. Stop looking at leftoid jewish scientism made to stop copers like you roping.

None of these constitute a "race". Ad-hominem attacks or epithets won't refute the facts.

Ah yes, the typical "Jewish leftism" canard.

Provide evidence that "race" exists between humans (you can't) then provide evidence there are "provable genetic differences".