"Race realism"

What genetic evidence exists to suggest races are different?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FfYIpgpMUYU
law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

Well, the color of skin pigment is a pretty big one.

Well, at a very basic level, different human population groups have different alleles which control a number of things expressed as biological differences. For example, the EDAR 370A allele seems to exist in East Asian populations and no others. When you sum up all those sorts of differences, you get population groupings that line up with the groupings we'd draw just from observation, without any knowledge of genetics.

All of it. Uneducated fucks.

Leave it to the left to deny literallybtue most basic common sense, then deny the irrefutable science BEHIND said common sense by inventing nonsensical junk science.

The best one is the Minnesota twin studies.

Surely if we have white people raise black children, they should perform as well as white children, right?

Nope, they perform as well as black children raised by black parents.

All of it?

This is what I don't get. My sister BF is a liberal, is well educated, and I was talking with him about race, IQ, and criminality since he brought up gun deaths in the states, and he absolutely refused to even consider that there was a genetic component to it. I cited the twin studies, but just got called out that since I don't have a background in psychology that I'm not equipped to understand those kinds of studies. So I gave real world examples. Nope, it's slavery. All over the world? Oppression.

How someone can look at the world as it is, and even without any knowledge about race&IQ, still believe that black are in no way genetically less intelligent on average...it actually boggles my mind.

Literally all genetic evidence. A very simple start, the 3% neanderthal dna that whites have and blacks do not. Damn. Those blacks have been trying to genocide our beautiful neanderthal dna for literally 10's of thousands of years. Makes you wonder who the real minority is.

the fact that they are different?

Forensic science and medical science are all the proof you need that race exists.
>Facial bone structure can be used to identify race.
>Hair can be used to identify race.
>Bone marrow transplant has to be between people of the same race.
>Stem cell transplant has to be between people of the same race.

Certain diseases are mostly prominent in a single race.
>Sickle cell disease is most prominent in people of sub-Saharan African descent
>Cystic fibrosis is most prominent in people of northern European descent
>Tay-Sachs disease is most prominent in people of Ashkenazi descent

Well that's easily falsified - if "oppression" or "slavery" or so on specifically caused violent crime, then we'd have to conclude that areas with MORE "oppression," however defined, would have more violent crime. But we don't see that; countries like Bangladesh with hunger-level poverty and domestic chattel slavery appear to have much lower rates of violent crime than black American cities with vastly more wealth.

Once that is established, the race-denalist has to start getting into increasingly-specific and decreasingly-plausible forms of "special pleading" - ie, trying to torture the evidence to fit your conclusion, which is not how science is supposed to be done.

Ask him the following question - "What evidence, for you, would establish genetic variances in traits like propensity toward violence?" If his answer is evasive or "nothing," then call him out for presuming his own conclusion and rejecting contrary evidence (a big sin in science).

Yeah it's strange that even though theres a massive lack of evidence in his position, that's the default one.

As things stand, the fficial leftist position is:

>"we are all the same under skin".

So, any scientific research which confirms this position is good science(no matter how bogus),
and any science which refutes this position is bad science(no matter if it is done properly or not).

This position will prevail until such time as leftists can acquire a political advantage by proving the exact opposite.

That is all leftist blockheads need to know.

If a black people tend to have black children, White people tend to have white children and Asian people tend to have Asian children then we can extrapolate from that children born are not random and will always share biological similarities with their parents.

You're 100% right
Races don't exist
Therefor racism doesn't exist
Black oppression doesn't exist
And so on...

Can't have your cake and eat it too, faggot

University of Toronto a white supremacist organisation? Some leftist blockhead thinks it so!

youtube.com/watch?v=FfYIpgpMUYU

..........................................................[17,046]

kys op

Beasts of the field(niggers) don't count as man.

You should ask him why Chinese-Americans, many of whom were brought over to America as slave labour, have higher academic ability and lower rates of crime than just about any other US demographic.

...

>don't have a background in psychology that I'm not equipped to understand those kinds of studies

you can still read and form an opinion, that's fucking retarded of him.

This shit is hilarious. It only "works" in people desperate to pretend race isn't real, or sociopathic academics who need a citation to pretend they don't believe in race.

It's a growing market. I might publish something like that. Just a load of shit, Lewontin's fallacy. It will look great in my resume

>with hunger-level poverty and domestic chattel slavery
Because its income inequality, not poverty. Common mistake.

I'm a quarter black and have a 130 IQ, therefore race realism is debunked because muh anecdotes xD

>Races don't exist
Nobody says this

What genetic evidence suggest Africans are human at all?

So why do poor white areas in rich countries have less crime than middle income black areas?

The ability to create fertile offspring

...

I wonder

>Surely if we have white people raise black children, they should perform as well as white children, right?
No, there could be other factors--societal pressures or some such--that affect all black children in the sample set.

The Minnesota twin study only indicates that some traits owe at least in part to heredity. It's far from an ideal case for race realism.

Like dolphin/whale hybrids?

>in rich co
As income inequality rises so does violent crime - not all crimes. As for white areas having less crime, is that less crime or less arrests? Have a look at this:

law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf

>The best national evidence on drug use shows that African Americans and whites use
illegal drugs at about the same rate. Nonetheless, African Americans are about five times as
likely to go to prison for drug possession as whites—and judging from exonerations,
innocent black people are about 12 times more likely to be convicted of drug crimes than
innocent white people

What genetic evidence exists to suggest cancer and heart disease are heritable?

>inb4 is da white mans fault

They say they are not genetically reliable. Which unless your being dishonest is the same thing.

>87% of black exonerees who were sentenced to death were victims of official misconduct
>not because they were actually found to be innocent

You just posted conflicting and unreliable points

No study has ever controlled for the fact blacks have less money on average for legal guidence and don't even make mention of how much they spent on said legal guidence or if they just used a public defender..

>African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent
defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated. They constitute 47% of the
1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and
the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and
convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in “group
exonerations.”

That's misleading, user. A wolphin (yes, that is the actual official term. Lol) can only be created through mating a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale. A false killer whale actually belongs to the dolphin family. Anyways, these offspring are incredibly rare, and rarely fertile, if ever.

That study doesn't mention previous convictions of arrestees, and confirms that blacks commit higher than proportional crime rates in all categories of crime.

It attributes everything to racism and doesn't even attempt to examine the data from another angle. It's junk science.

>No study has ever controlled for the fact blacks have less money on average for legal guidence and don't even make mention of how much they spent on said legal guidence or if they just used a public defender..

Does this change the fact that they are the majority of wrongful convictions? Should money be what decides who goes to jail or not?

This seems like a really arbitrary way of looking at the problem. Didn't neanderthals and homo sapiens create fertile offspring? And neanderthals are still considered a separate species, pretty far removed from us? Aren't there new data coming out about African Blacks reproducing with other, earlier breeds of hominids back in Africa?

None of this means anything to the point when theg commite more assaults and and rapes all of whom have victims that literally identify their attacer or corroborate the evidence

Blacks are also the majority of arrests. Clearly, if they're the majority of arrests, they're likely to be the majority of wrongful arrests.

Except it's not your assuming they are wrongfully convicted when they are in fact a race of people that also commit the most crimes.

It's like saying g why are men the most wrongfully convicted of rape and not women.

Why do you assume evolution stopped?

Your own study shows the were exonerated due to procedural and/or civil rights violations. Not because the were later found to be innocent.

Then why does the richest black county have more crime than the poorest white one?

Op did.

You know those genes, that some races have, that make them clearly look, function, and develop differently from other races of people. Those ones. Those are the ones, user.

You know those genes that birds have, that make a bird look, function, and develop differently from any particular mammal? Those are there, too.

One instance provided above, you simply have a little problem admitting to and want to throw out a bunch of well, lies, in order to continue living in a self imposed delusion over because the truth hurts your feelings. It makes you mad. It threatens the very foundations of how you'd like to view the universe, and people itself.

Nonetheless, the truth remains the truth. We're finding out more and more as time goes along, user. Every time we notice a trend in groups of human's genetic codes, where one group of people have a certain pattern of genes, while another group lacks, or have additional patterns of genes, we come further and further to the conclusion that is opposite to what you'd like to keep believing. Every time we notice a difference in people, when a certain gene here or there causes a difference in people; how they act, how they think, what they are inclined to do or how they are and behave, we get closer to understanding fully the differences between different breeds of the human race.

You can't live in fantasy land on the topic of human races forever, boo. I'm sorry. Eventually you'll have to admit there's more to it. That there is more to difference than the meager amount you let yourself currently out of a religious devotion to ideas, where you keep your thoughts limited to socially safe allowances such as difference of skin tones and average heights and curls of hair and such.

The easiest argument is “just fucking look at people”.

user, Neanderthals were previously looked at as being a separate species from homo-sapien-sapiens UNTIL evidence was found that they could create fertile offspring with us. Obviously, there is a sliding scale where, on one end, you have two organisms that can create perfectly healthy, fertile offspring; on the other end, you have two organisms incapable of reproducing. Inbetween is a grey area, where certain organisms that are part of a "ring species" can create offspring that are sometimes fertile. The different human races are on the broder of being in that grey area, and on the former end of the spectrum I described, which would yield perfectly healthy offspring. Btw, I'm not saying any of this to debunk race-realism. But, the idea that the different races have such a degree of separation that they would constitute separate species is asinine and scientifically illiterate. And, the other user's example of a wolphin was misleading, because false killer whales are taxonomically classified as dolphins.

Major differences in appearance isn't enough evidence?

They are sub species tho we just don't find it socially acceptable to say this hut it's biologically undeniable. There is less generic difference between bird subspecies than humans and both can create healthy offspring.

Looks like your author is jewish, nigger.

Poor reading comprehension. I said that they were not separate species.

And that's why I used the words they are sub species tho.....

Poor reading compression

Your reply just read like it was meant to be a rebuttal to mine, and I was confused as to why you would feel the need to state that they were a subspecies when my argument never really denied that.

Comprehension*

>What genetic evidence exists to suggest races are different?

Really the evidence suggests that niggers are a different species.

Its expanding on your point with facts as to say they might be the same species but they are biologically the same as sub species.

They are the same species,

>What genetic evidence exists to suggest races are different?
That a human skeleton can be found, and positively identified as a white, an nog, insectoid or even an abbo.

How can someone look at a skeleton and be able to tell the color of the skin if race is only skin deep?

Bump

Nope - sorry sweetie. Wrong. There is ENORMOUS income inequality within, for example, Indian cities, which range from high-security compounds for billionaires to food-insecure slums where kids still die of malnutrition-related illnesses like "pellagra." And yet, once again, murder rates appear to be nowhere NEAR as high as they are in many American neighborhoods. So, we can debunk the notion that "income inequality" NECESSARILY leads to high murder rates.