Racefaggotry thread

Let's have another racefaggotry thread, debunking stormfag and race "realism" bullshit again.

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11965045/White-working-class-boys-are-the-worst-performing-ethnic-group-at-school.html
youtube.com/watch?v=teyvcs2S4mI
jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/transracial-adoption-and-the-black-white-iq-gap/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25739558
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/
web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
debunkingdenialism.com/2015/02/03/mailbag-fetishizing-richard-lewontin/
americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
physanth.org/about/position-statements/biological-aspects-race/
livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/race-reconciled-debunks-race/
science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5930/1035
web.archive.org/web/20110711111007/http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
therightstuff.biz/2015/05/18/the-rational-view-on-race/
youtube.com/watch?v=CZPsXYo7gpc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_L._Graves
genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2008-9-7-404
nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/papers/2005/NLetki_social capital and diversity_final.pdf
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/on-the-concept-of-race-in-chinese-biological-anthropology-alive-and-well.pdf).
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24326626/
livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/race-reconciled-debunks-race/)
nytimes.com/2003/06/03/us/unusual-use-of-dna-aided-in-serial-killer-search.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_anthropology#Determination_of_ancestry
archive.is/8OwCl
jewishgeneticdiseases.org/jewish-genetic-diseases/
stateofobesity.org/disparities/blacks/
cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/black-health.htm
scientificamerican.com/article/lower-iq-in-children-linked-to-chemical-in-water/
genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570143.html
newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scientists-learn-how-food-affects-52668
telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8308726/Food-for-thought-diet-does-boost-your-intelligence.html
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/23/race-iq-and-lead/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22183/
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/iq-and-socio-economic-status/
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-014-9648-8
psychologytoday.com/blog/fetishes-i-dont-get/201011/no-science-please-were-anthropologists
nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.12573/full
theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/why-lefties-make-less/383635/)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

/r/equesting that pic showing niggers in the UK doing better than whites at their SATs (or whatever the UK equiv is).

At the heart of it, nazis aren't nazis because of others performing worse or better than them, they are nazis because they are spooked tribalist faggots.

Race is real it's clear as day

Stop this pathetic psyop with your attempt to apply 19th century internationalism intended for Western Europe to the rest of the world. Especially when Marx and Engels themselves considered everyone east of the Oder to be subhumans inherently incapable of Communism.

Man i almost feel pity for Holla Forumstards, they are so emotional and fucked in the head, a gulag is the only place they can go

Doesn't change the fact that you are full of mongs barely passable as aryans.
Back then and today, it's not just war, that never changes.

What are you using the word Tribalist to define here, the idea of us vs. them as it comes to race and ethnicity, or actual Tribalism, where society is formed of small, self sufficient communities bound by a number of things, one chief aspect being the ethnicity?

Do we really need entire threads devoted to this?

Let's have some fucking threads that AREN'T about pointing out that retards on Holla Forums are wrong about stuff. Seriously, lay off. I mean, I guess have your fun, but this is like how Westboro spend all that time just talking about gay shit they hate.

well, there is nothing wrong with better reflexes

No. We don't need threads like this. They encourage discussion of race in unrelated threads.


Not surprised. Are you the State administered gf Nazi?

telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11965045/White-working-class-boys-are-the-worst-performing-ethnic-group-at-school.html

Since Holla Forums doesn't like reading actual papers on genetics, I'll just post this video series by Conc0rdance on Race, it addresses:
- no clusters aren't race
- no we have no evidence that recent positive selection in niggers made them subhumans
- Africans are niggers because they need to run is Lamarck-tier understanding of evolution
- Archaic hominid DNA is not nigger secret
- There is literally no pure races

youtube.com/watch?v=teyvcs2S4mI

Also, fun fact: Over half the datasets in "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" were estimated using the I.Q.'s of surrounding countries or the I'Q's of the race. These of course, were averages of unrepresentative sample sizes.

t. brownskin

These threads are always complete trash. Stop making them

Hiding thread now, stop making these. We should just compile all information from this thread into a pastebin.

It was from this source: jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
On the MTAS: thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/transracial-adoption-and-the-black-white-iq-gap/
Also, I am not sure where you are getting this "inconclusive" result: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
The third image literally admits to disregarding the validity of the data, opting to see the orange for being more red than it is. "The two colours ares similar and all differences are racist". Not an argument.

does this mean that white working class men are the most oppressed group of all?

Taking races as essential concepts is 19th century absolutism, the same is true for the marxian conception of class.

You like geneticists, here's is one: theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal

If clusters aren't races, then evolution doesn't exist. There would be no need for divergence. There would be no divergence at all. If you claim that it is arbitrary when differences arise, ergo the differences, when pointed out, are racist, then at what point do these arbitrary differences become arbitrary?
I mean, save for intelligence quota. They are inferior in regards to intelligence quota testings.
Strawman. Nobody claims this. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25739558
None of these testings would be capable if they could not account for race. If it just an apparition of the racists, then none of these tests could replicate their results and differentiate based off of race, but they can. The very mere existence of them indicates that there are quantifiable differences which can be plotted.
Well, Africans were not the first to map the human genome, it sure isn't their secret.
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7
Please read this, it debunks all the pseudo-science conspiracies. Science does not care about emotions, if it is emotionally unsettling to the point that one resorts to deliberate misrepresentation of reality, then the scientific method is not for you.

So what is Mensa testing? You know there are other sources besides the one you dislike?

Of course you wouldnt analyze or question anything and just post simplification to make your sad self better.

You sure you arent the pee pee man on twitter ;^)

try again sweetheart

From your study, the "political orientation" was on a five point scale. You don't think there are better ways to test for this? Political orientation seems limiting and difficult to isolate.
Pseudo-science is wrong!… except when I use it.

That metric is insanely obfuscated, it's basically pupils getting grades higher than C – meaning getting all C's is better than getting all A's but one F

Picture related, when those kids actually get a numerical score.

...

Citation?

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/

aka jumping to conclusions because you ego is based on it

Okay, then read the link. Instead of relying on dissecting the society as being "wayciss" when your confirmation bias of hyper-egalitarianism isn't verified, read the link. I regret to inform you that evolution exists, we are subject to divergence which includes things like bone structure and cognitive ability.

lol leave it to racialists to resort to infantilizing, condescending pablum in the face of the slightest skepticism of their ideas. Turns out there's plenty of scientific evidence that your view is retarded and is just sperging out over your own made up delineations:

web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
debunkingdenialism.com/2015/02/03/mailbag-fetishizing-richard-lewontin/
americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
physanth.org/about/position-statements/biological-aspects-race/
livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/race-reconciled-debunks-race/

Of particular note:
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."

Lee et al. 2008:
"We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as Autism Level scores"

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."

Kindly uncuck yourself and stop wasting your and everyone else's time with bullshit. Identity politics is always fucking garbage

Then you go on to whine about racialists. I see you lack self-awareness, too.
If this is what passes as scientific evidence, then farmers are going to have a shortage of straw.

"Critics of the existence of races have often attacked what can be considered straw men definitions of race. One example is by defining biological races so that "all the members of these races share certain traits and tendencies with each other that they do not share with members of any other race. These traits and tendencies characteristic of a race constitute, on the racialist view, a sort of racial essence". This straw man definition is then easily refuted by pointing out, for example, that one can find some Blacks who have a higher intelligence than some Whites. However, at least many of the modern definitions imply that the different races differ on average on many different traits but that individual members may differ widely from this racial average.
Another example could be the existence of albinos with white skin color in all human populations. Again, many of the definitions above state or imply that the different races differ on average on many different traits and that these average differences together characterize a race. An individual may differ greatly from one or a few of the racial averages of a particular race and still be considered a member of this race if the individual's characteristics despite this overall are similar to those of the race. Thus, a person with albinism would still be considered a member of a race which has on average a very dark skin color if the person's characteristics overall correspond to those of this race.
Yet another example is that not all Sub-Saharan Africans have the sickle-cell trait and some individuals from outside Sub-Saharan Africa do. Again, non-straw men definitions do not depend on all group members absolutely having or absolutely not having a single (or several) "essentialist" trait(s).
See also the genetic research mentioned in the "Lewontin's fallacy" section in the "Arguments regarding the existence of races" article which support that race is not defined by absolutely having or absolutely not having certain "essentialist" traits but instead by a very large number of correlated traits.
Critics have argued that these "essentialist" demands are so demanding that they require that the different groups must be separate species or even that they are so demanding that even different species would fail to pass such requirements. "In practice, the characters that define a species will not be present in all members of that species and absent from all members of other species. Nature is too variable".
Other straw men definitions or part of such definitions include that each race as compared to all other races must be "discrete", "non-overlapping", "sharply discontinuous", etc.
It has also been argued that the views of early race scientists have been incorrectly described as being hardcore essentialist in order to create a simple "essentialist" straw man definition of race which can then be easily attacked and defeated. "It is now clear that individual traits do not make for good differentia. But this is not a new discovery. It was recognized by Buffon, Blumenbach, Darwin, and the many others who argued that one should simultaneously take into account similarity in numerous traits.""

Nobody is claiming this, if you can't not resort to strawmen, then you have no basis to make assertions against the opposition.

oh sorry, is "racialist" not the PC term for you? Is it "race realist"? Sorry I can never sort out your pronouns

Fascinating

"There are arguably some senses in which different races do have different racial "essences" (but not in the sense(s) used in straw men definitions).
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."

Great, is it now bigoted to discuss autism?

Verifiably incorrect: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7
science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5930/1035
None of that would be possible if these social apparitions were social apparitions, as you claim.

Read this thoroughly: web.archive.org/web/20110711111007/http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

More strawmen. Read this again, you clearly skimmed over it: thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/

As usual, ad-homs and dissociation. I'm playing identity politics? When did I make it clear where my allegiance was, and to which party? You were the one who mentioned it, not me. This is nothing political, this is discussing evolutionary differences.

False equivalence. I am not offended and won't throw a hissy fit on Twitter if you call me a male or female. I point out the term "racialist" because you started off by berating me for thinking you were just concerned about racists/racism, then you went on to whine about racialists and infantilizing.

Tell me what quote of his I used out of context. I quoted him directly. Tell me where I am misrepresenting his claims. It isn't enough to just say that, you need to cite what you actually mean to say.

it's a wordfilter for intelligence quotient newfag, fuck off back to Holla Forums

And you're free to read and understand my five links before you come at me with "read my 1 shitty paper better". I read it and I remain unconvinced both by its arguments and by its framing of the axioms used to assume racial divides.

An-prim go home

Intelligence quotient is not defined as autism. You just created an infinite regression problem. What will become the definition of autism? And what of its replacement, and so on ad nauseum.
Do you know how simple it is to just use ad-homs to swear the opposition away? Sadly for you, it isn't a coherent or substantive point.
You mean the strawmen that claim there are neat and tidy definitions independent of one another? They are all refuted, if you bother to open up the links I sent you. Nobody is claiming that, you are chasing strawmen to make it seem like you have a leg up. Nobody is claiming that, you can attack it all you want, but that's on you at this point.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/
Try reading it, I'm in the middle of reading your points. So far, it's nothing that hasn't been covered in what I sent.

jesus fuck you're retarded. it's a word filter. I typed in *IQ and it got autocorrected to "Autism level" precisely because the people who come here to this board obsessed with *IQ are racecucks like you

Right, all 5 papers are making the one argument you're "refuting" by offering your preferred author's definition of what constitutes race. Really BTFO my argument there

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
I'm aware; the point was that the filter is illogical because definitions are related to the word they define, not to the things you dislike.


"preferred"? I quoted you directly here:
It's open for all to see, there is no need to misrepresent if we can all see. You just made a claim and said that I presented my preferred, ergo biased, author's definition/refutation of race. Show me how I did that when I quoted you directly.
I can't BTFO pseudo-science, by the way. Evolution is factual, verifiable, objective truth. To claim humans are beyond the range of evolution when presented with heritability of certain factors present in some people over others is not an argument.

therightstuff.biz/2015/05/18/the-rational-view-on-race/

From: thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/
The argument is rooted in relativism, that because the individual at-hand cannot (or chooses not to) arrive at a conclusion, then that conclusion is arbitrary because of its inherent subjectivity.

Sad!

>web.archive.org/web/20110711111007/http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html
It's evolution, the natural selection of traits among a species which increases their fitness with respect to the niches they occupy. To claim that human beings operate independently of evolution/divergences brought about by evolution (in different geographic locations) is a case for special pleading. Not really a great point, basically. Nobody is ever claiming "muh specific pure race", that doesn't exist, but there are verifiable, objective differences. The fact that they can be measured in the first place/replicated validates their existence. Don't take my word for it, read the links I've posted.

Oh god, it's another one of these threads.

Any sources that debunk race realism can be found here

defined race (European Americans) to claim that racism is no longer the central
factor determining the life chances of persons of non-European descent (particularly
dark-skinned individuals of African descent).
Evolution will always exist, sorry.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/
therightstuff.biz/2015/05/18/the-rational-view-on-race/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25739558
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7
web.archive.org/web/20110711111007/http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html
science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5930/1035
youtube.com/watch?v=CZPsXYo7gpc
I also like how it is literally a black guy whining about racism, as if modern blacks can have any say and play victim with regards to racism. All your sources are from the same guy attacking men of straw/obfuscating the truth (also known as non-argumentative drivel).

From: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_L._Graves

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2008-9-7-404
nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Cited by 437
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
Cited by 116
nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/papers/2005/NLetki_social capital and diversity_final.pdf

Ok lad

Read what is posted as opposed to throwing a hissy fit. You are appealing to authority by parading around the label "Stanford" as if it makes it 'extra truthful'. If it is incorrect, then it is not valid.
Same strawmen:
What newspeak. Refute natural selection or don't. The paper did not put forth substantive refutation of the theory of evolution, disproving that humans are bound by genetic drift.
Great argument, lol.
The second and third. And? Cited by how ever many? "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -bigoted racist hwhite male


What evidence? Evidence is, by nature/definition (factual), persuasive. When you fly in the face of evolutionary theory, that is not "evidence", it is hearsay to appeal to the status quo, which just so happens to be emotionally childish. If I posted something whining about emotions and making appeals to ethos, it would be dismissed in a single second because of its absolute off-base nature. It simply isn't a substantive argument refuting evolutionary theory.
Just read this and refute the main points directly. This is about race and this is the evidence I am putting forth as the burden of proof is on ME to prove my claims, not on you to refute them.
web.archive.org/web/20110711111007/http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html


>web.archive.org/web/20110711111007/http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html


When large numbers of loci are evaluated, it is often possible to infer individual ancestry, at least approximately. If done accurately and with appropriate reservations, ancestral inference may be useful in genealogical studies, in the forensic arena and in the design of case-control studies. This should not be confused, however, with the use of ethnicity or race (genetically measured or self-identified) to make decisions about drug treatment or other medical therapies. Responses to these therapies will often involve nongenetic factors and multiple alleles, and different populations will often share these alleles. When it finally becomes feasible and available, individual genetic assessment of relevant genes will probably prove more useful than race in medical decision making.

In the meantime, ethnicity or race may in some cases provide useful information in biomedical contexts, just as other categories, such as gender or age, do. But the potential usefulness of race must be balanced against potential hazards. Ignorance of the shared nature of population variation can lead to diagnostic errors (e.g., the failure to diagnose sickle-cell disease in a European individual or cystic fibrosis in an Asian individual) or to inappropriate treatment or drug prescription. The general public, including policy-makers, are easily seduced by typological thinking, and so they must be made aware of the genetic data that help to prove it wrong.

A particular area of concern is in the genetics of human behavior. As genes that may influence behavior are identified, allele frequencies are often compared in populations67, 68. These comparisons can produce useful evolutionary insights but can also lead to simplistic interpretations that may reinforce unfounded stereotypes69. In assessing the role of genes in population differences in behavior (real or imagined), several simple facts must be brought to the fore. Human behavior is complicated, and it is strongly influenced by nongenetic factors70. Thousands of pleiotropic genes are thought to influence behavior, and their products interact in complex and unpredictable ways. Considering this extraordinary complexity, the idea that variation in the frequency of a single allele could explain substantial population differences in behavior would be amusing if it were not so dangerous.


Cooper, R.S., Rotimi, C.N. & Ward, R. The puzzle of hypertension in African-Americans. Sci. Am. 280, 56−63 (1999).
Laitinen, T. et al. Characterization of a common susceptibility locus for asthma-related traits. Science 304, 300−304 (2004). | Article |
Altshuler, D. et al. The common PPARgamma Pro12Ala polymorphism is associated with decreased risk of type 2 diabetes. Nat. Genet. 26, 76−80 (2000). | Article |
Hugot, J.P. et al. Association of NOD2 leucine-rich repeat variants with susceptibility to Crohn's disease. Nature 411, 599−603 (2001). | Article |
Van Eerdewegh, P. et al. Association of the ADAM33 gene with asthma and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Nature 418, 426−430 (2002). | Article |
Selkoe, D.J. & Podlisny, M.B. Deciphering the genetic basis of Alzheimer's disease. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 3, 67−99 (2002). | Article |
Chung, C.H., Bernard, P.S. & Perou, C.M. Molecular portraits and the family tree of cancer. Nat. Genet. 32 Suppl, 533−540 (2002). | Article |
Gilad, Y., Rosenberg, S., Przeworski, M., Lancet, D. & Skorecki, K. Evidence for positive selection and population structure at the human MAO-A gene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 862−867 (2002). | Article |
Ding, Y.C. et al. Evidence of positive selection acting at the human dopamine receptor D4 gene locus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 309−314 (2002). | Article |
Harpending, H. & Cochran, G. In our genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 10−12 (2002). | Article |

My sources being cited by over four hundred people.

Whoops. :^)

Harding S: Should philosophies of science encode democratic ideals?. Science, Technology and Democracy. Edited by: Kleinman DL. 2000, New York: State University of New York Press, 121-138.Google Scholar
Fredrickson GM: Racism: A Short History. 2003, Princeton: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Lewontin RC: Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA. 1991, New York: Harper PerennialGoogle Scholar
Ramachandran S, Deshpande O, Roseman CC, Rosenberg NA, Feldman MW, Cavalli-Sforza LL: Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005, 102: 15942-15947. 10.1073/pnas.0507611102.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Mountain JL, Cavalli-Sforza LL: Multilocus genotypes, a tree of individuals and human evolutionary history. Am J Hum Genet. 1997, 61: 705-718. 10.1086/515510.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK: Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics. 2000, 155: 945-959.Google Scholar
Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Ramachandran S, Zhao C, Pritchard JK, Feldman MW: Clines, clusters, and the effect of study design on the inference of human population structure. PLoS Genet. 2005, 1: 660-671. 10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza LL: Genes, Peoples, and Languages. 2000, New York: North Point PressGoogle Scholar
Zhivotovsky LA, Rosenberg NA, Feldman MW: Features of evolution and expansion of modern humans, inferred from genomewide microsatellite markers. Am J Hum Genet. 2003, 72: 1171-1186. 10.1086/375120.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Bertoni B, Budowle B, Sans M, Barton S, Chakraborty R: Admixture in Hispanics: distribution of ancestral population contributions in the continental United States. Hum Biol. 2003, 75: 1-11. 10.1353/hub.2003.0016.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Hernstein R, Murray C: The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. 1994, New York: Free PressGoogle Scholar
Jensen A: The G Factor. New York: Praeger Press
Gould SJ: The Mismeasure of Man. 1981, New York: Norton and CompanyGoogle Scholar
Mountain JL, Risch NJ: Assessing the genetic contribution to phenotypic differences among 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups. Nat Genet. 2004, 36: S48-S53. 10.1038/ng1456.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Ossorio P, Duster T: Race and genetics: controversies in biomedical, behavioral, and forensic sciences. Am Psychol. 2005, 60: 115-128. 10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.115.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Editorial: Genes, drugs and race. Nat Genet. 2001, 29: 239-10.1038/ng1101-239.
Sankar P, Cho M, Mountain JL: Race and ethnicity in genetic research. Am J Med Genet. 2007, 143A: 961-970. 10.1002/ajmg.a.31575.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Celeste CM, Ofulue N, Sheedy KM: Determinism and mass-media portrayals of genetics. Am J Hum Gen. 1998, 62: 979-984. 10.1086/301784.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Holden C: Race and medicine. Science. 2003, 302: 594-596. 10.1126/science.302.5645.594.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Condit CM, Parrott RL, Bates BR, Bevan JL, Achter PJ: Exploration of the impact of messages about genes and race on lay attitudes. Clin Genet. 2004, 66: 402-408. 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2004.00327.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Feldman MW, Lewontin RC, King MC: Race: a genetic melting pot. Nature. 2003, 424: 374-10.1038/424374a.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Mountain JL, Risch NJ: Assessing the genetic contribution to phenotypic differences among 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups. Nat Genet. 2004, 36: S48-S53. 10.1038/ng1456.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

...

...

But hey, gotta trust the guys at alternative hypothesis and the right stuff and single out one black author right?

Fucking autist. Stay BTFO

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Also, my personal favourite. It sure does make your case when you are discussing one topic, to then jump around and sneak in "muh nahztees", fulfilling Godwin's law. In your second image here:
"genetic experiments which cannot be performed on human populations (at least not outside a Nazi state)."
What a focused and valid argument!
Congrats, you've become the meme. Keep drinking that identity political kool aid, I'm sure assigning political orientations to your opposition in order to make them easier to attack is a great way to go about debates.
If you claim that SO many people love your sources, then it must be status quo knowledge. If this is true, then just hurry up and provide substantive evidence proving that humans are not bound by the evolutionary process, and that the thousands of years of evolving in drastically different climates/niches has had a negligible effect.
this is why the Dems lost the election, btw. Keep on with the kool-aid, though.


wtf I hate the scientific method now


"Single out one black author"?
From:
3 of the 4 pdfs were from the guy. He opened one of them by whining about racism. That isn't how you make an argument, appeals to ethos do not constitute arguments, no matter what your confirmation bias may lead you to think.

Stay BTFO lad.

Ok, fam.


So you're not denying that socio economic factors have an impact on you? Good to know we've established something.


Ebin strawman.


From: (You)


Of which he made references to various sources. Wew lad. And as opposed to you linking shit from the right stuff and alternative hypothesis, I think the confirmation is on you, buddy. Again; stay BTFO.

Is that not the goal of the divisive? To deviate from the topic at-hand by resorting to "fascism, commie, nazi, etc."? It just isn't an argument.
The meme fits when Godwin's Law is fulfilled within two paragraphs. It's just petty projection, not real "evidence" disproving the evolutionary process.
I don't understand the first image. You are committing a crime by physically assaulting people because they disagree with your political beliefs.


Start arguing anytime. When you are prancing around citation figures over solid arguments refuting the evolutionary process with respect to humans evolving in different geographic locations over thousands of years, people are going to call you out on it. Not everybody in life is going to be friendly and look past your errors in logic/reason.

If you don't have an answer/evidence to refute the evolutionary process, just hurry up and let me know.

Well, the image talked about how "the totally unintelligent peons are easily swayed by wayciss pseudo-science, unlike us enlightened folk, which is why we must be careful not to give any attention to these nazi bigots".
"The general public, including policy-makers, are easily seduced by typological thinking, and so they must be made aware of the genetic data that help to prove it wrong."
Even though that same genetic data is used to validate racial divergences, with respect to brain volume or bone structure. I guess the bigots changed African skull shapes to fool the troglodyte public who are very dumb unlike us who are very smart.
By just assuming some elitist high ground, you lose the favour of the public. That's why Hillary whining about racism sexism islamophobia etc etc did not garner any attention other than the people who drink that flavour of kool-aid (also known as, not enough people to win the electoral college).
Certainly not poisoning the well by going on about how we should totally acknowledge racist poopoo science that totally doesn't count because evolution is……. pseudoscience?
I'm not sure you understand, but when you wish to debate, you must remain logical and coherent, otherwise nobody will take you seriously. I attack black authors who whine about wayciss poopoo heads (herro I am chinese biologist yes race exists now excruse me i have to go to my KKK meeting: lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/on-the-concept-of-race-in-chinese-biological-anthropology-alive-and-well.pdf). When your narrative relies on some ebil white guy killing black men in his leisurely time (who is also a geneticist), it isn't a good argument when you try to garner pity based off of that.
Making genetic fallacies without even ONCE referencing what it is you disagree with from the source provided, or quoting what you think is intellectually dishonest, does not constitute an argument. Your highness does not like these websites because???
Then here: web.archive.org/web/20110711111007/http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html
That's gotta be the fourth time.
I did not assume your political orientation, I did not stick my flag in the sand, presume victory, then leave, I did not rely on appeals to ethos/authority (in fact, according to you, I linked to some backwoods moron site, which is the opposite of an appeal based on the authority of the source!), and I did not deliberately obfuscate the truth and assume the opposition's stance for them ("Good to know we've established something."). All of these display dishonesty. If you were to have a formal debate, running around calling people racist fascists and letting them know how many people have cited the paper (this is now more true) would not reflect highly of your character.

I ask you once more: directly refute the evolutionary model with respect to humans evolving over thousands of years in different niches, or don't. I have provided my case and sources, I have no power over making you want to read them or engage in a debate. The onus is not on you to show why race doesn't exist because this assumes that it exists to be refuted; the onus is on me to prove its existence. When the opposition does not care to even read, then it is not on my shoulders.

Got it, lad.

Again, see

your sources don't stack up when most of them have been debunked lad. No one's denying the fact that there aren't some biological differences, but they can hardly be deemed to seperate people into races.

Lee et al. 2008: "We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as Autism Level scores"

AAA 1998: "For example, 'Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic 'racial' groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within 'racial' groups than between them.'"

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.


"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."

I've already refuted your sources lad, and the best you could do is link to TRS and alternative hypothesis.

Stay BTFO

Ironic that the unfair generalization of an entire population based off of the actions of the wealthy few comes from the guy who is attempting to disprove the evolutionary process.
Look forward to the argument. I am sure it is rational and isn't a strawman definition.
Please read: web.archive.org/web/20110711111007/http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html
If you claim it isn't enough, then this paper should literally not exist, by nature of the limitation due to the "race" being a falsified concept without merit: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25739558
Again, typical strawman definitions. In a formal debate, when you start debating the audience and random people, that doesn't really constitute an argument.
This would be true if race was only skin-deep.

You quoted yourself twice, by the way.

Find me the person who is claiming this, please. It sure isn't me. Do you want to debate or not? If you do, then directly refute the evolutionary process with respect to humans evolving over thousands of years in different environments. Common ancestors exist precisely because evolutionary divergences exist.
What a convincing argument, I did not know people can speak on behalf of science. If there's one thing we know, science is an absolute and certainly not dynamic/proven wrong/improved upon over time.
This doesn't support your argument, by the way. That is exactly what I am claiming. It's called gradualism.
Who is claiming this? That isn't the argument. Using this strawman, they would also claim that we are equally chimps, as we are basically similar. Nobody is claiming this. The permutations of those genes are what result in the divergences we see today.
That is actually exactly the point. But I guess it's trivial, just like how science decided the conclusion earlier.

This is that same scientific rigour and honesty we see above, when "science" came to the conclusion. This is how rational people debate, right?

Funny you should link sources from ncbi

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24326626/

Read these again

americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
physanth.org/about/position-statements/biological-aspects-race/
livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/race-reconciled-debunks-race/


Really makes you think

...

Oh yeah, I forget "science" decided it was refuted.
Okay, link your definitions like I did, then quote me directly and make your case.
There is a difference between empty accusations and me quoting your statements which I find illogical.
Same exact quote! I regret to inform you that this doesn't disprove the evolutionary model. Find me who is claiming this, please. Misrepresenting the opposition is known as a strawmanning.

When did I mention Jewishness? Quote me directly. Where is your proof that I am from Holla Forums? Putting people into political orientations so that you can attack them isn't a good argument. Ad-homs, like how every post you tell me that I'm blown the fuck out? When did I use explicative language against you and pawn that off as a point?

Your evolutionary model has been refuted again and again, how many fucking times do I have to remind you.

americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583

physanth.org/about/position-statements/biological-aspects-race/

livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/race-reconciled-debunks-race/


see

You pretty much cherry picked info, gave into confirmation bias by linking TRS and alternative hypothesis.


Literally no argument, especially given the fact that this was refuted.

Again BTFO.

So not only have your sources been debunked, but you're literally choosing feels over reals, because you didn't like the way the people were arguing.

And see

But hey have fun getting the last word in or whatever

This last source (livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/race-reconciled-debunks-race/) really deserves a medal for unfounded assertions, guilt complex (which is now an argument because science decided it was an argument; yup, Mr. Science himself), and non-arguments.

If you bother to read the comments, the author is removing links that disprove his stance, one of them just reads [link removed]. What showmanship of the scientific method, shut down opposition by banning them?

It looks at skin colour and says that people there are mixed breed, so that means race is ill-defined.
Some more men of straw. Nobody is claiming this. Common ancestors exist because evolution exists.
This is my favourite, your own source betrays you. Shows how much you care to even read your own material.
There was no citation, they just asked Mr. Science himself and that was enough.
lol, if you honestly think it's only television shows… Where do you think they dramatize their material from?

This is the claim put up. This is a direct refutation of your claims, as only one claim can be true.
I mean, it works: nytimes.com/2003/06/03/us/unusual-use-of-dna-aided-in-serial-killer-search.html
Marriage rates have nothing to do with murder rates or criminal activity: ascribe agency to the criminal when they are of sound judgement. When you claim "oh, well they were forced to be criminals, don't you see?", you are removing moral/legal guilt; we only do this for children, the inebriated (during, not prior to), and the mentally disabled. Not normal adults. Not an argument.
"Different continental ancestry"? Specific to Africans? How is this an argument against race, again? Institutional racism and appeals to ethos are still non-arguments, btw. I'm a non-white who faced hardships, I don't feel the need to kill people because da white man made me do it.
So because there can be differentiations made on bone samples, every single differentiation is rooted in racial divergences? That isn't an argument.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_anthropology#Determination_of_ancestry
Why lie when the truth is out there?
You don't just get to call out people, this is supposed to be evidence for your claims, not a hit piece on some blog targeting people you disagree with. They subtly hint to a TV challenge between Wade and the "scientists". Yet you accuse me of having nonsense sources without even reading/quoting from them.
Again, I suggest reading the comments, they do a good job of raising concerns because of Cunningham's Law.

Pot calling the kettle black. You refuse to read my sources, but your own sources are filled with inconsistencies that refute themselves. I don't really need to do anything except read the comments which refute them.

Is this you? What are you talking about, you put forth claims and I respond. It isn't a "last word", the debate hasn't even started. You just made genetic fallacies, appealed to how many people cited your claims, then said it was settled because "science" said so. That isn't remotely close to a coherent argument, not by any stretch of the most wildest imagination.

Not him, but you're pretty stupid if you haven't read the other sources which debunk you.

The fact of the matter is, these posts have again refuted your arguments of race. And yet you choose to remain wilfully ignorant. See

You can whine about appeals to authority but considering the fact that you pretty much cherry picked evidence to suit your confirmation bias (especially when said evidence is from TRS and alternative hypothesis and goes against the scientific consensus within the 21st century) it's pretty sad to still see you arguing.

You also happen to ignore the professionals who were cited which refuted those claims easily.

Just stop lad, you're embarrassing yourself

There you go again. Another appeal to authority. Did Mr. Science tell you that it was settled? I guess the majority is never wrong when it comes to science…
Simple question: do those sources refute the evolutionary model with respect to humans?

I quoted them directly, that's why I ignored them, right? Those same, totally scientific, non-emotional people talking about institutional racism, right? Mr. Science agrees!
Are you sure you aren't him? Just like the other guy, you make the same appeals to authority within the first post.

Yes they have. How hard is this for you to fucking grasp? You whine about catposter being wilfully ignorant but this is just sad.

See

Again, stop embarrassing yourself. Your wilful ignorance is cringe enough

If you cared enough to read the posts in this thread, you would see that those that you posted are from the same source as the other guy. Keep posting men of straw, though. You are attacking apparitions you create to make it seem like you have a claim.

Okay, so evolutionary differences don't exist. Can you explain off of what "bigotry" these papers are written?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24326626/
How? Do the "racists" mould skull shapes to fit their bias, or change the data to make genetic disease more prevalent in different groups?

Yeah like you haven't been doing the same. As for your refutation. Here.

here are myriad factors that affect health disparities between racial groups. Among these factors are genetic differences within racial populations, cultural mores, and social and environmental factors. For instance, in some populations where perceptions of race are linked with socioeconomic disparities and differences, the access to care can be considerably lesser.

Dually, bias in healthcare systems themselves can perpetuate non-biologically founded higher instances of disease. For instance, in a study conducted by the National Health Service checks programme in the United Kingdom, which aims to increase diagnosis across demographics, "due to the reported lower screening in specific black and minority ethnic communities [-] who are recognised as being more at risk of cardiovascular disease [-] there are concerns that NHS Health Checks may increase inequalities in health."


archive.is/8OwCl
Get a scientific understanding of biology, chemistry, physics.
Mounting evidence for the presence of AMHs out of Africa earlier than 75,000 years ago
High-coverage whole-genome sequence studies have so far focused on a limited number1 of geographically restricted populations2, 3, 4, 5, or been targeted at specific diseases, such as cancer6. Nevertheless, the availability of high-resolution genomic data has led to the development of new methodologies for inferring population history7, 8, 9 and refuelled the debate on the mutation rate in humans10. Here we present the Estonian Biocentre Human Genome Diversity Panel (EGDP), a dataset of 483 high-coverage human genomes from 148 populations worldwide, including 379 new genomes from 125 populations, which we group into diversity and selection sets. We analyse this dataset to refine estimates of continent-wide patterns of heterozygosity, long- and short-distance gene flow, archaic admixture, and changes in effective population size through time as well as for signals of positive or balancing selection. We find a genetic signature in present-day Papuans that suggests that at least 2% of their genome originates from an early and largely extinct expansion of anatomically modern humans (AMHs) out of Africa. Together with evidence from the western Asian fossil record11, and admixture between AMHs and Neanderthals predating the main Eurasian expansion12, our results contribute to the mounting evidence for the presence of AMHs out of Africa earlier than 75,000 years ago.

I informed him that I have already replied to the same posts that make men of straw and think they have standing when they are not attacking realistic claims. Are you him? Why are you responding? Pick an identity and debate me already.
What? What the hell did you just assert? Culture affects health? Unless you are some cave-dwelling animal, every culture in the Western world practices health and values medical attention. I'm talking about heritable diseases: jewishgeneticdiseases.org/jewish-genetic-diseases/
Please tell me how these diseases are altered by "culture". Maybe if you stopped the inbreeding, but it has already happened and it heritable now.
stateofobesity.org/disparities/blacks/
cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/black-health.htm
Cardiovascular disease is linked to obesity. They are more obese in the US, I am not surprised.
lol, this is your "evidence" and your rock-solid analytical expertise? "they don't treat them as much, ergo they are inequal"
Can they afford the services? What life choices have they made to limit their income? How are they managing their finances?
Lower screening now equates to bigotry, copy that. Solid argument, btw. Appeals to ethos still aren't arguments.

Let me go ask Mr. Science, I'll be right back.
Common ancestors exist, yes. Do you think that "africa=black"? You just contradicted yourself with your own source. It talks about out-of-Africa migration, with respect to evolution. Populations diverging over time/in different regions; this also applies to the migration from Africa. They are not identical to the modern population precisely because common ancestors/the evolutionary model.

IDK why this thread was bump locked.

WEW LAD

Environmental factors including lead exposure, breast feeding, (as stated by Campbell, 2002) and nutrition (as covered by Ivanovic, 2004 and Salojee and Pettifor, 2001) can significantly affect cognitive development

The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools, nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care (Nesbit, 2009 and Cooper 2005).

scientificamerican.com/article/lower-iq-in-children-linked-to-chemical-in-water/

Again, you're assuming that they're fat because they're black. Stupid.


I don't know fam, you tell me

genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570143.html


Racial genetic explanations may be overemphasized, ignoring the interaction with and the role of the environment

Goodman AH (November 2000). "Why genes don't count (for racial differences in health)". American Journal of Public Health. 90 (11): 1699–702. doi:10.2105/AJPH.90.11.1699. PMC 1446406Freely accessible. PMID 11076233.

You= BTFO. Again.

In regards to how your food can affect your intelligence

newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scientists-learn-how-food-affects-52668

telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8308726/Food-for-thought-diet-does-boost-your-intelligence.html

And your health mind you

Strawman. We are talking about culture, you said that "culture" affects the health. Food and "class" are not part of the discussion. You said: Among these factors are genetic differences within racial populations, cultural mores, and social and environmental factors. For instance, in some populations where perceptions of race are linked with socioeconomic disparities and differences, the access to care can be considerably lesser.
Nothing mentions food. As for class, why are they impoverished? What choices did they make do end up there? Surely, you cannot think of your pet negroids that lowly to absolve all agency on their behalf, as that would be… racist!
Do they have problems with drug abuse? Did they have children when they were not financially prepared to raise them? Did one of the parents (looking at you, black dads) leave the child for the mother to raise?
They are in crime because they choose to. You make your own choices, nobody makes them for you. When you make choices and they have consequences, that's on you, not some mystery boogeyman called "society".
Yeah, nutrition is vital to healthy brain development. Again, attacking men of straw and deliberate obfuscation of the opposition are not arguments. You keep making them, I don't know what your rationale is. They aren't not going to be illogical because you repeat the same mistake. Your definition of race was wrong, misrepresenting my stance so you can attack it. Of course no "specific" human exists, common ancestors exist. That is because the evolutionary model is tried and true, speaks for itself, and is within the parameters of reality as it is observed.

Why? Could it be… I don't know, maybe living in shit-hole neighbourhoods brings with it low standards of living? Now why are the neighbourhoods shit? Certainly single motherhood, fatherlessness, drug abuse, and a culture idolizing/promoting crime have nothing to do with it. Those people chose to act out on their impulses; the result is now because da white man be keepin a bruva down, yo. Or maybe, following Occam's razor, some magical external influence did not come and "make them" kill each other at staggering rates, they did it to themselves because they make decisions FOR themselves.

> scientificamerican.com/article/lower-iq-in-children-linked-to-chemical-in-water/
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/23/race-iq-and-lead/

Ad-homs don't make you "more right", sorry to tell you. You want to act mature, or name-call? You are following in your hit-piece sources, acting like a child.
You were talking about "biases" in the healthcare, and I showed you that they are disproportionately obese in the US. Also that the onus is not fulfilled, "bias" is a heavy term that needs more evidence than "well, they are in shit condition, obviously it is the fault of the healthcare services because they just can't do anything right and hate blacks!"

They make the decision to act out on their irrational impulses. They make the choices, the "culture" doesn't do it for them. They directly influence that culture. The culture is dependent upon their independent actions, not the other way around.

What are you talking about? Do heritable diseases not exist anymore? They are now environmental? Why don't we see what happens when they don't pass down their genes, if what you say is true, then we should see the same results.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22183/

Cool. Never argued against that. Nutrition is vital to develop normally. If don't eat, you die. If you don't eat enough, your growth is stunted. How is this new? Evolution will still exist, you still have not refuted the evolutionary model. You cannot dismiss the concept of race as a social entity (paper is also a social construct) and believe in evolution. Divergences are a part of natural selection. Nobody claims it was overnight, like you accused me of here:
Gradualism exists, because red and yellow are similar does not mean they are identical, and nobody is claiming they are independent of one another either.

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/iq-and-socio-economic-status/

Let's see if you can go one post without making genetic fallacies or telling me how Mr. Science agrees with you because people cite your source.

The food you eat is part of your culture you idiot.

Race is a real social construct

Political races are real.
There is the "conservative race" and the "liberal race". Conservatives have on average lower Autism Level than liberals.
Here is the scientific evidence that proves it.
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-014-9648-8

If it is a social construct, that means that its existence is dependent upon the society in which we live in (for it to have some social value).
Rather selfish and egotistical, as evolutionary divergences are not dependent upon any society at all.

Hes not saying they are incapable, hes saying socio economic factors contribute to behaviour, not race.

Again, he's debunked your definition, and the best you could do is link to fringe resources from TRS and alternative hypothesis.

I was expecting an actual argument when I got back, but this is just fucking pathetic.

AAA 1998: "For example, 'Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic 'racial' groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within 'racial' groups than between them.'"
^ 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.
"If races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?" He concluded:

[T]he successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed "racial" category. A specimen may display features that point to African ancestry. In this country that person is likely to have been labeled Black regardless of whether or not such a race actually exists in nature.

Sauer, Norman J. (1992). "Forensic Anthropology and the Concept of Race: If Races Don't Exist, Why are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying them". Social Science and Medicine. 34 (2): 107–111

Got it lad.

>americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
Please stop using this source. The AAA openly hates science.
psychologytoday.com/blog/fetishes-i-dont-get/201011/no-science-please-were-anthropologists

Ok, well then I'll make sure I keep on using the other sources which aren't AAA.

...

You're a moron dude. Rushton, Lynn and Jensen all took money from the Pioneer fund which is a fascist think tank. Complaining about Joseph Graves childhood experiences is laughable.

Okay. Only 8% of genetic variation in the human species takes place between continental groups. Our Fst is relatively low at .110. This is not even halfway to the >.25 required in biology for a species to be divided into subspecies. Chimps have 4x more genetic difference between continental subspecies, Wolfs have an Fst of .650 etc.

You just keep typing pedantic bullshit over and over.

Also, reminder that Richard Lynn literally made half his data on national Autism Level up for "IQ and the Wealth of Nations". nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html


Top kek.

No one cares.

...

That's oke. Recent events have shown that Holla Forums is mostly non-white anyway.

"Clusters" are not the same as "race". "Race" used by race realist refers to continental populations. People can cluster around linguistic lines, or ethnic lines. The whole point is that traditional racial categories do not exist.

Yeah, and John Maynard Smith was a Marxist but you don't see me appealing to his politics as if he was an authority.

I've seen it claimed here many, many times and on many race realist blogs. The PDF you linked is locked behind a paywall, so it's impossible for me to check out the sample size. It should be noted however, that olympic runners from Africa usually have higher European admixture than normal.

Again, I can't read this since it's locked behind a paywall. Looking at the sources, they seem to be using the same cluster studies I have already addressed. It should be noted that "Tang" specifically talks about "non-admixed populations" in the study cited there so I'm not beating down a strawman. This also relies on a lot of evo-psych. By the way, in the Witherspoon study mentioned there when subcontinental populations were included the rate of dissimilarity went up to .3 or 30%.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT LEWONTIN FUCKING SAID YOU RETARD.

What does this have to do with Richard Lynn inventing half his data set?

This isn't true, the good short distance runners are from West Africa and the good long distance runners are from East Africa. East Africans have a higher percentage of admixture of middle eastern heritage than the rest of Africa. That statement is a quite brazen lie, you swap European for Middle Eastern, falsely equivocate two sports that require very different muscle fiver distribution and compare regions rather than people.

A study in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine found that elite African American runners had more European ancestry than non-elite African Americans, whereas this wasn't really true for Jamaicans. I apologize for "lying", I forgot the details of the study.

The point this retard keeps making - that each race develops an evolutionary niche is the Lamarck-tier understanding of evolution I was railing against. There's really no reason why long distance running or intelligence would be disadvantageous for any continental population. The study that was linked (and locked behind a paywall) also seems to be dealing solely with African Americans.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.12573/full
This here?

No, it's called "The importance of mitochondrial and maternal lineage in sprint performance among individuals of West African Ancestry".

Now, pay attention to the end of the study:


At the same time, I have no idea why when I mention a study that compared the genetic admixture of African Americans and Jamaican runners, you go up and pull up another study from the journal testing something completely different and using samples of a completely different ethnic group. It does however sound, like you are rather poor at reading.

Also, the point with copy and pasting of the study was to highlight the small sample size. The thing is, even a statistical physiological difference could be completely due to cultural factors. In Africa, competing in the Olympics is a source of national pride. They're more likely to champion younger runners to go into sports than perhaps, other careers since choices are fairly limited in these underdeveloped countries. My point with the African American study is that it showed the opposite of what racialist would expect. Dividing a group arbitrarily will always produce statistical differences especially when small sample sizes are used and reverse causation isn't accounted for. Left handed people have been known to make less than right handed people (theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/why-lefties-make-less/383635/) and income is linked to Autism Level. However, I don't see how any sane person would try to incorporate this into their politics which is what Holla Forums does.

Actually I wasn't the person you were arguing with and I was just trying to find the study you were talking about. GG for being a cunt though.

Okay sorry, I thought you were the Holla Forumslyp. Couldn't tell if the picture was supposed to be making fun of leftypol in a meta-ironic way or OC from here.

Ay, and not only them