>>12866923Closer but still apart. Europeans and Asians split somewhat recently as compared to blacks.
If you go back far enough, everyone's an African. That doesn't make you a negro any more than it makes me, or us a similar race, albeit we share some similarities.
>>12866957>I'm not denying genetics gives traits, I'm denying those traits can be understood in any racial framework.Why wouldn't they? It's agreed upon, subconsciously we act as if it's accepted. We always have. Western Euros always acted as if Eastern Euros and Southern ones were not white and that does align to the 1/3 thingy in regards to intelligence.
We can't explain it, yet, that's how we act, we're hard-wired to it. And that's genetics as well. It's backed up by shallow and reductionisms because of the complexity sitting behind human beings. Yet.
>racial framework.They are taken as such. Adaptation to your environment and hybridization, that's where the issue's sprouting. The Racial framework comes from features associated with environmental adaptation, skull shapes is affected by it, the population size being the main dead-giveaway.
It's hard to categorize 1b people. But you've got enough, more or less homogenous populations to distinguish them and their traits. The sample is simply too high to be ignored.
>The blue eyes gene was a mutation that people have still today in all "races".Only a few Africans and Asians have them. Only a few Europeans and Asians have extremely intelligent people, perhaps it's because of the environment, perhaps because of selective pressure, yet; it's undeniable that the frequency of occurrence is higher, beyond belief, demonstrably so, in these 'social' standards of race.
