Continuation from >>1307487. We are discussing race and its conflict on western civilization...

Wew, nice fucking spooks faggots

Spooks? What an excellent way to operate, an amoral society filled with hyper-individualists.
Also, I'm not a Swede. That image is one step away from being WE.

Uh huh…

Keita, S O Y; Kittles, Royal, Bonney, Furbert-Harris, Dunston, Rotimi; Royal, C D M; Bonney, G E; Furbert-Harris, P; Dunston, G M; Rotimi, C N (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics. 36 (11s): S17–S20. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998. Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies ('races'), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological 'racial' classifications breeding populations. The 'racial taxa' do not meet the phylogenetic criteria. 'Race' denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term.

Keita, S O Y; Kittles, Royal, Bonney, Furbert-Harris, Dunston, Rotimi; Royal, C D M; Bonney, G E; Furbert-Harris, P; Dunston, G M; Rotimi, C N (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics. 36 (11s): S17–S20. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998. Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies ('races'), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological 'racial' classifications breeding populations. The 'racial taxa' do not meet the phylogenetic criteria. 'Race' denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term.

Harrison, Guy (2010). Race and Reality. Amherst: Prometheus Books. Race is a poor empirical description of the patterns of difference that we encounter within our species. The billions of humans alive today simply do not fit into neat and tidy biological boxes called races. Science has proven this conclusively. The concept of race (…) is not scientific and goes against what is known about our ever-changing and complex biological diversity.

Roberts, Dorothy (2011). Fatal Invention. London, New York: The New Press. The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistory. Human beings do not fit the zoological definition of race. A mountain of evidence assembled by historians, anthropologists, and biologists proves that race is not and cannot be a natural division of human beings.

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2008-9-7-404

Race doesn't exist.

No it doesn't.

I'll address these quickly:

1. The majority of geneticist reject race. The American Anthropological Association rejects race. 144 geneticists signed a letter disavowing Nicholas Wade's "A Troublesome Inheritance"
2. Clustering is not race. The tang study uses small sample sizes of about 50 each people to represent the human race. Clusters are calculated based on a program called STRUCTURE that makes assumptions about evolution that can be challenged themselves. If I took genetic markers from Spain, Siberia and Somalia people from these areas would cluster together while every other population would appear as a combination of these three "races", which is absurd. To look at clustering properly, we would have to take big sample sizes from populations around the entire world, including subcontinental populations. One of the variables when clustering is set by the researcher as well. It's impossible to discriminate for race in genetic clusters without prior knowledge of the social construct. People tend to cluster around linguistic groups (though sometimes pockets of the population will not). There is either a race for every ethnicity or there are none at all.
3. Subspecies is a tenuous category with no real biological meaning. It's used by scientist depending on its usefulness. A clearly demarcated cline would not allow for further subdivision, which is what a human population looks like. Our mean Fst of 0.110 is comparably low when compared to similar organisms (Grant’s gazelle (0.650), North American gray wolves (0.750), white tailed deer (0.600) while Chimps have 4x as much genetic distance between each subspecies as humans do.
4.
Yeah, no.
5. It's not just there is genetic variation of >1% in humans, only 8% or so of that accounts for variation between continental groups.
6. Already talked about Fst.
7. Witherspoon once again, used small sizes of geographically distinct populations to come to that conclusion. At the end of the study, he still rejected using "race" because it had poor predictive power in general. When he looked at samples of subcontinental populations, the 30% chance of misclassification that Lewontin talked about was present.
8. Once again, a well demarcated clime does not allow for division into biological races without creating arbitrary lines with no biological relevance.
9. We actually show very little phenotypic variation compared to other animals. Take a look at all the types of parrots and get back to me.
10. Yes, race is a social construct with no biological meaning.

If you bothered to click the link and read it:

No, they don't. You need to read the link before you make claims.
See above.
What a compelling argument. Everything is a social construct if you want it to be.
Read the link and analyze each argument, not the strawmans you want to exist. Just chalking things up to social constructs isn't argumentative.
If race doesn't exist, then evolutionary differences brought about by divergence doesn't exist either. Sorry, but science will trump your faith-over-facts non-arguments.

Here's all you need to know about race (and as a bonus all you need to know about gender too.) Every invention or innovation of any value and complexity, every single one, has been made by a white man. Every philosophy or system of morality of any worth, likewise. Other races can bang random shit together and record the progress, which sometimes results in rudimentary chemistry or engineering, but anything that requires creative visualization is out.

This is why every civilization run by white men have been great, while all others have been shit (as you can easily observe by opening a history book.) Every shithole on this planet that was colonized should thank their lucky star for this, because when we found them they were pretty much living in mud holes, raping, plundering and eating each other.

White women on the other hand, had somewhat of a point that they hadn't been given a fair shake and a chance to shine. Gracious as we are, we let them leave the kitchen and try their luck. A hundred years into that project we now see that they have produced nothing. No science, no philosophy, nothing of value, only whining about how they can't accomplish anything on their own is still white men's fault.

So now you know about race and gender.

Also the author is lying when they talk about what earlier "race realist" meant. When race was first conceived, it was supposed to represent homogenous populations within, that were heterogeneous in between. And the original conception of race was literally by phenotype, this author is a sophist.

Also, I missed number 4. They just keep repeating the same studies about clustering over and over.

I did. He doesn't tell us about what the sample size of scientist was, or the methodology. Not only that, but this is misleading. "Race" has various meanings when used by scientist. It could be used for taxonomic purposes, social purposes, or genetic purposes. The name of the study is "The race concept in 6 regions: variation without consensus".
Does not address anything I said. Here, read something by a geneticists.
I did. You addressed nothing.

So Egypt, China, the Islamic caliphates, and their contributions to history all don't exist now? Good to have that cleared up

WRONG.

Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell. We were all created in God's image and descended from Adam and Eve. We are one race - the human race.

Uh huh

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_scientists,_inventors,_and_scholars

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

Yes. Egypt and China were stagnant shitholes that leeched off superior white neighboring cultures. In the case of Egypt it was Sumeria first, and Hellenic civilization later. With China it was Aryan India, the cradle of every "Chinese" philosophy and science.

The Islamic caliphates, while not stagnant of course because it's hard to call what amounts to a thousand year long glorious uprising stagnant, pretty much just scavenged all it's "innovations" from Greece and Rome. The only thing they were ever any good at was zerg rushing and losing battles against whites 10 to 1. But as Rome fell they were able to swoop in and loot some mathematics they still crow about today.

No problem bro.

I guess this means those wayciss Chinese scientists are wrong… Oh wait.
What? So because there is no single race for every certain group of people, then race doesn't exist? yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
Pick one. Subspecies is pretty useful.
I guess bone structure means nothing, we are all just same and no race exists to differentiate. Take that, Darwin!
So Australian aborigines don't exist anymore, got it…

The link was highlighted right there.
collegium.hrvatsko-antropolosko-drustvo.hr/_doc/Coll.Antropol.28(2004)2_907-921.pdf
If you bothered to read the link, which you claim you did, you would see that race was defined at the beginning. It isn't my burden to improve your reading comprehension.
Your rebuttal was just "it's a social construct". That isn't a refutation. Read and actually click on the links.

Then how come chinks dont belive in god

...

Considering the evidence we posted which debunks your bullshit claims, yeah.

Here, have some more

Yes. If a classification that is supposed to denote "a homogenous population within that is heterogeneous in contrast to others" is found to be false, then it doesn't exist.
How do those statements conflict with each other?
Darwin thought we all came from a common ancestor and that we were more similar than different. But I'm glad you think we should use crude evolutionary biology from the 19th century to study HBD instead of modern genomics.
You have no idea what I just said, do you?

The link is broken.
And the Lierberman study focuses on how it's used in a variety of ways by anthropologist and scientist. Try again.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China

The government suppresses them so accurate numbers are hard to come by, but they do exist.

So cruel but this only proves my arument that chinks are not human

...

Conditioning under communist regimes tends to turn people into collectivist sub-humans.

Which is why you had to kill Rosa Luxemburg right?

Fuck you

Stop shitposting.

Christians deserve it

Regime refers to the government, not the organization nor the state itself.

Why did you have to burn reichstag and give Hitler dictatorial powers?

Yes, Christianity caused the Taiping Rebellion

t. Satan

Yes, and that is the harsh reality, do you think the ruling class cares about your morals or feelings? does that make you feel angry? Only slaves follow such morality

Stay mad, im glad the muzzies will take over you parasites, as they dont preach weakness

Bullshit claims?
You just posted a bunch of "response video" type papers that refute nothing. They do not refute evolution and the fact that animals diverge. You need to refute this fact of life, and the evidence you posted is not sufficient enough to assert what you claim.

You're right, we can look to see what the bigoted racists like Rushton have to say… oh wait.
If you claim that classifications are irrelevant because they are social constructs, then the differences brought about by evolution ought to not exist anymore because this intellectual said they don't. So aboriginals which deviate from whites shouldn't exist.
This is not a refutation of the definition, you just said that because others use the same thing that it doesn't count.

Uh, I was saying Christianity didn't do anything good for China so it's in their right to suppress it

t. Catholic Church

Rushton is a retard who applied the r/k theory backwards and tried to correlate penis size with intelligence using a playboy.

I have no idea what you mean. You can construct biological "races", like haplogroups. That is not what Rushton means by "race", he's using the completely biologically irrelevant racial structure from the 17th century.

Speak English nigger.

Just watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=teyvcs2S4mI.

Except for the fact that they do that is if you read them

:^)

Neither did the imperial rule, they got literally cucked in the opium wars

This has to be fucking bait.

No bait like the truth.

This is why people hate homosexuals

I'm pretty sure you're just proving that Holla Forums is full of pseudointellectual NEETs.

You mean lies which were refuted here

If you want to just bury your head in the sand because of semantics, you should have just said so!

All of the words in that sentence have a definition (with respect to the English language) and are used correctly. Again, if you have no argument, just make semantic claims until the other side gets tired.

I got through half of the first, I cannot get through one hundred pages in the time it takes to respond. You need to take into account that people can't read at super-human speeds.

"Throughout 6,000 years of recorded history, the Black African Negro has invented nothing. Not a written language, weaved cloth, a calendar, a plow, a road, a bridge, a railway, a ship, a system of measurement, or even the wheel. (Note: This is in reference to the pure-blooded Negro.) He is not known to have ever cultivated a single crop or domesticated a single animal for his own use (although many powerful and docile beasts abounded around him.) His only known means of transporting goods was on the top of his hard burry head. For shelter he never progressed beyond the common mud hut, the construction of which a beaver or muskrat is capable. greatest inequality is the equal treatment of unequals
The White race has crossed seas, harnessed rivers, carved mountains, tamed deserts, and colonized the most barren icefields. It has been responsible for the invention of the printing press, cement, the harnessing of electricity, flight, rocketry, astronomy, the telescope, space travel, firearms, the transistor, radio, television, the telephone, the lightbulb, photography, motion pictures, the phonograph, the electric battery, the automobile, the steam engine, railroad transportation, the microscope, computers, and millions of other technological miracles. It has discovered countless medical advances, incredible applications, scientific progress, etc. Its members have included such greats as Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Homer, Tacitus, Julius Ceaser, Napoleon, William the Conqueror, Marco Polo, Washington, Jefferson, Hitler, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Magellan, Columbus, Cabot, Edison, GrahamBell, Pasteur, Leeuwenhoek, Mendel, Darwin, Newton, Galileo, Watt, Ford, Luther, Devinci, Poe, Tennyson, and thousands upon thousands of other notable achievers.
and the lesson to be learnt here? "The greatest inequality is the equal treatment of unequals.""

Yeah, great list of "inventors." The only ones halfway decent were whites from South Africa. The rest were just bullshit scraped together to have something to show.

Classic Holla Forums

You stated that white people didn't invent anything. I proved you wrong by stating that not only Africans but CHINESE people did so.

Low energy! Sad!

Everytime

No he's an ideologue with poor methodology. He's been repeatedly reputed for it.

Haplogroups and "Race" are qualitatively different ways of looking at the human species. Kill yourself.

The grammar was incoherent, the point made no sense, and I'm getting stupider by the minute talking to you.

I didn't know you could read 100 pages in ten minutes. Pretty sure that's a world record!

Funny that you claim others are illiterate when you cannot even spell. It is a valid point when you stop committing genetic fallacies.

Hey look! More genetic fallacies!
I love it when the word "refuted" is just tossed around. Here he is with totally scientific Suzuki: youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY
So because haplogroups exist, race doesn't exist? That is the opposite of what I and the original link claim: that is WHY race exists. There are genetic distances between the people of the world.
You know how easy it is to call the other side stupid and just run away from a debate?

...

Map showing the geographical distribution of the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in pre-colonial populations. It has been used as an argument against the existence of races with the argument that the different areas do not correspond to the traditional races. Sometimes other maps showing the distribution of other characteristics are used to make similar argument (such as maps showing the distribution of the sickle-cell genetic trait or maps showing the distribution of blood groups). However, such arguments rely on the "essentialist" straw man definition of race.

en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race
The whole thing if you want it.
I suggest reading the whole thing while I read the other guy's info.
Also, just resorting to "muh wayciss" and other genetic fallacies doesn't constitute a rational argument, not by any stretch of the imagination.

pathetic

=HA=

Kind of like how:
Argues? I am not saying that you are wrong because of it, I am saying that you are in no position to correct my grammar when you make the same mistakes.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
Start arguing anytime. If you can't stick to topic and resort to "nazi superhuman ovens that can cremate bodies in 15 minutes" conspiracies, then what's the point in talking about race?

Except I'm not him. Try again.

yeah and read this. It's proven race doesn't exist fam. You're still in denial.

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2008-9-7-404

Never claimed you were.

Here, read this, it proves race does exist: openpsych.net/paper/7
Why don't you read the page? Is it because they are meanies and don't believe what you do? I am still reading what you sent me, I suggest you extend the same courtesy. I can just make genetic fallacies all day, but that is irrational.

Wait, I thought you said we couldn't classify people. If, from your own source, it is stated that: However, in a reanalysis of data from 377 microsatellite loci typed in 1056 individuals, Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time
then why should we be able to compare to anything, if ALL races don't exist?

Such genetic similarity is not based on just one or a few "essential" genetic characteristics but on all as an average or a correlated composite. This means that an individual may differ markedly from the racial average on one or a few genetic characteristics as long as the individual's genetics despite this overall are similar to the racial average.
Because you don't want to read bigots, I will post for you.

First, the members of a race are argued to share a particular genetic ancestry as described above (not necessarily a monophyletic genetic ancestry). This is an "essence" characteristic shared by all race members and not shared by any race non-members.
Second, as described in the Arguments against the existence of races: Lewontin's fallacy it is possible to genetically compare different individuals based on how overall genetically similar or dissimilar they are. This can be visualized as it being possible to determine an individual's location in a multi-dimensional genetic "space" with the dimensions consisting of all the genetic variables that vary between individuals. If using an increasing number of genetic markers, then an individual's location in this genetic space can be increasingly accurately determined. If using the entire genome of an individual, then an individual's location in this genetic space can in principle be determined perfectly. "Clusters" of genetically similar individuals in this genetic space very often correspond to races that share a particular genetic ancestry as described above. Therefore, the genetic space can often be naturally divided into different subspaces that correspond to different genetic clusters/races. Then belonging to a particular genetic subspace is again an "essence" characteristic shared by all race members and not shared by any race non-members.
In some cases it may be less clear and natural how to exactly define the genetic ancestry requirements for belonging to a particular genetic ancestry group and correspondingly how exactly to draw the boundary between different genetic subspaces. However, once this is decided (even if this decision is to some degree arbitrary), then this decision delimits groups that have "essences" in the form of all members having a shared genetic ancestry and belonging to a particular genetic subspace, characteristics not shared by any non-members.

And read these. It proves race doesn't exist.

Keita, S O Y; Kittles, Royal, Bonney, Furbert-Harris, Dunston, Rotimi; Royal, C D M; Bonney, G E; Furbert-Harris, P; Dunston, G M; Rotimi, C N (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics. 36 (11s): S17–S20. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998. Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies ('races'), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological 'racial' classifications breeding populations. The 'racial taxa' do not meet the phylogenetic criteria. 'Race' denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term. Keita, S O Y; Kittles, Royal, Bonney, Furbert-Harris, Dunston, Rotimi; Royal, C D M; Bonney, G E; Furbert-Harris, P; Dunston, G M; Rotimi, C N (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics. 36 (11s): S17–S20. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998. Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies ('races'), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological 'racial' classifications breeding populations. The 'racial taxa' do not meet the phylogenetic criteria. 'Race' denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term.

Harrison, Guy (2010). Race and Reality. Amherst: Prometheus Books. Race is a poor empirical description of the patterns of difference that we encounter within our species. The billions of humans alive today simply do not fit into neat and tidy biological boxes called races. Science has proven this conclusively. The concept of race (…) is not scientific and goes against what is known about our ever-changing and complex biological diversity.

Roberts, Dorothy (2011). Fatal Invention. London, New York: The New Press. The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistory. Human beings do not fit the zoological definition of race. A mountain of evidence assembled by historians, anthropologists, and biologists proves that race is not and cannot be a natural division of human beings.
Legal scholar Dorothy Roberts argues, "Edwards did not refute Lewontin's claim: that there is more genetic variation within populations than between them, especially when it comes to races. (…) Lewontin did not ignore biology to support his social ideology (…). To the contrary, he argued that there is no biological support for the ideological project of race." "The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistoric times. Race [however defined] collapses infinite diversity into a few discrete categories that in reality cannot be demarcated genetically."
Similarly, biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century—the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation." The view that, while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist, this does not lend biological validity to racial groups, was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032687/

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Cited by 437
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

evolution-institute.org/article/book-review-great-are-wades-errors-in-a-troublesome-inheritance-genes-race/

No it isn't. He applied the r/k theory backwards. Europe was much more likely to be "unstable" compared to Africa, but nevertheless he assumed that Africans were "r" selected and Europeans "k" selected. Even then, empirical studies critiquing and refuting r/k came out, yet he still continued to use it. He's also notorious for using small sample size and cruel measurements to arrive at crude generalizations.

I didn't say "refuted", I said "reputed". Suzuki wasn't taking him seriously because his methodology was horrible and unscientific. Either way, that doesn't save Rushton's research from being flawed, antiquated and pseudoscientific.

No, what I said is that haplogroups and race are qualitatively different ways of studying HBD and I was not arguing about semantics. But apparently you have the reading comprehension of a third grader.

No, the original conception of race was homogenous continental populations distinguished by phenotype. I have now attacked a straw man definition and we are not talking about phenotypic traits like intelligence, we are talking about genotype. In that regard, it doesn't matter if there is 300 races or 1 because the conception of race Rushton uses has no biological basis, only a social one.

Again, it's not a straw man. You have changed the definition. It's not like these continental groups are mostly homogenous, they are not at all. The essentialist view of race is the original one Lewontin refuted and now "race realist" in their intellectual bankruptcy shift between different definitions but still fail to provide any evidence that their classification is anything but arbitrary, and not scientifically useful; instead they rely on pseudoscience done by sex obsessed retards like Rushton, and Lynn who are psychologist.

To give you an example: The national Autism Level of 101 of the 185 nations in "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" was "estimated" using small samples sizes of countries in close proximity.

And I should've said disreputable, not "reputed".

...

You still need to read the original post: archive.is/pxlcm#selection-451.280-451.370

By the way, none of this:
Should ever be possible if race doesn't exist.

What was it Einstein said when 100 scientists came out against him? That if he was wrong, it would only have taken one?

That's cool. You called him a retard and dismissed his stance on race because of it by citing his retardedness. He is not mentally delayed, by a long shot.
We are talking about race, not r/k.
Don't act like that means anything, I posted the same "studies" which classify/categorize, but you dismiss them as being "social constructs". Somebody should go tell those KKK Chinese scientists.
[citation needed]

Definition provided in the original link you claim to have read and: en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race
Genotypical differences also exist. Oh, but they are too close to it doesn't count. We are also now chimps because they are so close they don't count.

Read the links, the definition is provided there. Attacking my character for being a "third-grader", yet you can't be asked to read a link's intro?
nice argument

If you have nothing else to say but attacks on character, then just let me know. Psychologists, as opposed to legal scholars?
Kind of like denying evolutionary divergences…

Source?

Yes. His theory of why niggers were subhuman was completely dependant on r/k. The fact that he applied a theory wrong, and then continued to apply it even when the theory was superseded by a new one shows how poor his work is. Do you not understand science? Your data is only as good as your theory. If you have no evolutionary theory to explain your data, the data means nothing.

You are using a Neo-Nazi website to give you an honest definition of how race has been used. Why don't you try looking somewhere else that isn't ideologically driven?

And that's exactly what is being contended, that there is any one gene exclusive to a continental population. I know what definition they are trying to use. I actually just read the link and you confirmed what I said: the definition Lewontin argued against is the 19th century definition they are referencing.

Also the article lies:

No. Me and Bakhno have provided you with paper and paper, and I with a video contending this propaganda.

nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html

>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912004047
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822165/bin/NIHMS473355-supplement-1.pdf
>journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0735275112448053
None of these should be possible if race doesn't exist. If the theory doesn't match the facts, change the theory, not the facts.>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912004047

Lol, so you have to defend what others ad-hom you as? He disavowed KKK and all that WN nonsense.

Hey mods, why don't you allow debate instead of banning the opposition?

No, he was the head of the Pioneer Fund for quite a some time. They were a fascist organization specifically funded to promote research on race and eugenics.

You have not taken a look at anything I have given you. I've already addressed the majority of these arguments (clustering, Fst, etc) and MAOA is only found in about 5.4% of the African American population and we have no data on its frequency in other African countries.

Your data doesn't fit the theory but you wouldn't know because you've refused to actually read it.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
I don't call your sources "wrong" because they are of some political orientation. Start arguing anytime.

There are many possible permutations/concentrations of genes among people, there will never be any one specific, "pure" people because that doesn't exist. However, using your black/white fallacious line of reasoning to assert that no race exists because of that isn't an argument.

It's the truth. They exist today, all the testings done and all the forensic matchings based on race/matching race based on self-identity (to a stunning level of accuracy) show that race exists.
If it doesn't, then:
plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020143
chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/anthropology-association-rejecting-science/27936
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15666627?dopt=Abstract
dx.doi.org/10.1002/bies.10315
Are testing/analyzing nothing, chasing apparitions that don't exist. Yet their conclusions are sound and their hypotheses are verified.

pastebin.com/zapWyu7A

dx.doi.org/10.1086/427888
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001229/122962eo.pdf
"A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History", Wade, N. (2014).
pnas.org/content/108/37/15123.full

for lurkers interested, I will dump until mods ban the truth.

"Genetic fallacy" is not always a fallacy. If the source you are using is disreputable, I can point out how that might obscure your view.

I've already addressed the clustering matching self identified ethnicity earlier in the thread. I already told you: The K variable is set by researchers, they used small sample sizes and clusters are only as good as the sampling. If I sampled people from Serbia, Kenya and Australian Aboriginals and set K to 3, all other populations would appear as a mix of these three races.

You keep spamming links but you have no addressed anything I've given to you specifically. You are relying on the works of smarter men to cover your ineptitude on the subject. I gave you research by a geneticists to look at. You have not, and you provide no original arguments.

144 geneticist came out and said Wade's book was garbage. But I like how you've refused to address the fact that Lynn and Rushton use meme-tier data.

Now that you're going to spam links from Stormfront, I'm going to promptly leave. But if you think spamming links is going to convince anyone on lefypol that you're some sort of fascist intellectual and not an angry troll, you've got a very skewed view of the world.

How eloquent, by calling them retards. Certainly not fallacious!
So this means that all of the sources I have posted/you refuse to look at because any conclusion against yours is "bigoted" rely on fallacious lines of reasoning/pseudoscience EXCEPT your sources? That only yours contain the truth, but the rest can be summarized in "well, they deliberately obfuscated the truth, so it doesn't count at all". You speak down upon generalizations from this info (which Rushton denounces, but who cares about the truth), yet you make the same error of judgement here.
Pot calling the kettle black, you still haven't refuted the first link: archive.is/pxlcm#selection-488.1-513.283
The arguments made are in stark contrast to what you claim, but you dismiss them because socially constructed things exist? Everything is socially constructed with respect to social spheres of influence, what the hell does that mean? How can you berate me for "not making original arguments" when you make the same mistakes? Holier-than-thou mindset does not constitute coherent arguments.
If I am posting information, then there is no ineptitude. I admit they are smarter, but are you not doing the same thing? We are not allowed to post things from people who are intelligent? What is your point here?
As have I. It's all in the racist link. Oh wait…

Appeal to majority of the authority/status quo
Didn't you berate me for that, as well? Again, pot calling the kettle black.
That is excellent, but that which can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. Start making direct refutations outside of "memes" and "retarded".
Metapedia is now stormfront because your ad-homs dictate reality? Didn't know that!

Also
Can you go one post without attacking the source? Is that possible? I can call you a Marxist, you have his avatar after all, and be done with it. But only irrational people argue in this fashion.

Start a coherent and sourced argument refuting the original archived link or don't, it's as simple as that. If there are differing pieces of evidence, we weigh the evidence. And if the facts don't match the theory, you change the theory.

Not him, but what he meant is that the cluster method used to classify "races" rely on arbitrary . Because you can subdivise population into as many group as you want, using any criteria and find one or several loci statistically found in thoses groups.
We could find loci more statistically found in people living in mountains, near coasts or in plains, and using thoses loci clustering, human population could be divised into the mountain race, the beach race and the plain race. That's how clustering work.
In other word using clustering for proving the validity of racial classification is circular logic, because the racial classification you want to objectivise is already set to be a valid standard in the very premises of the experience.

And your link use archive.is/0bd3D as an argument which is analyzing heritability which doesn't say much about between groups differences, due once again to the way it is calculated:
debunkingdenialism.com/2012/08/11/the-widespread-abuse-of-heritability/

Source it, replicate your findings, and make your hypothesis a theory.
So because we can analyze differences from different angles, those divergences don't exist and arriving at any conclusion regarding said divergences is irrelevant because another might exist?