There is more genetic variation, for example, within groups racists call "race" than there is between those groups. In an age of Genomics, being a racist is akin to believing in homeopathy despite all we know in medical science. It's stupid.
Sup Forums BTFO
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
pastebin.com
sciencedirect.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
books.google.co.uk
archive.org
nature.com
jstor.org
jstor.org
nytimes.com
sciencedaily.com
birdaz.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
aob.oxfordjournals.org
twitter.com
>Just because Groups A and B have a lot of variety, the moderate and unique variety between groups A and C don't exist!
>this fallacy again
sage, don't worry
a lie, or are you just ignorant of what you speak?
This is just you presenting a very old and bad argument. Only you’ve done a worse job than most others do at presenting it. No one is saying there’s not a lot of genetic variance among race. If one group randomly selects a number 0-50. And another group selects a random number 25-100. Are those groups basically the same? That’s the gene argument you just made, you absolute autist.
Here’s a good introductionary video for you to watch. It’s short, it’s ADD compatible so it should be good for you.
Remember that if you ever need a bone marrow transplant.
pastebin.com
>The FST between humans and homo erectus is 0.17 which is 3/4 the Black-White distance.
sciencedirect.com
>Blacks are by far the genetically closest group to Chimpanzees. The Nigerian-Chimp genetic distance using Nei's method is 1.334, 72% of the White(German) distance of 1.865; using Cavalli-Sforza's method the Black distance is 0.539, or 79% of the White distance of 0.680.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Some scientists prior to the domination of leftism and egalitarianism argued that Blacks and Whites should be considered separate species.
books.google.co.uk
>There is a far greater difference between the Negro and the European than between the gorilla and chimpanzee."
archive.org
>Haldane’s rule is “when in the offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterogametic [XY] sex.”
nature.com
Indeed, although Black-White mixes are not sterile and males are not absent, males (the heterogametic sex) are more rare than females.
jstor.org
The wolf (Canis lupus) and the dog (Canis lupus familiaris), the coyote (Canis latrans), and the common jackal (Canis aureus) are separate species yet can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
jstor.org
Two species of orangutan (Pongo abellii from Sumatra and Pongo pygmaeus from Borneo) can interbreed despite having different chromosomal numbers.
nytimes.com
The common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus) and many species of birds, such as the pintail (Anas acuta) and the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), can interbreed as well.
sciencedaily.com
birdaz.com
The gibbon and the siamang can also interbreed to produce a hybrid
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Some species that aren’t even in the same genus can interbreed.
aob.oxfordjournals.org
>muh race not valid concept
losing position
it's really not important how much variance there is or isn't within or outside of groups
So, refute all this with sources, and we'll have a conversation about "Genetic Distance".
You know that if you really think about the statement you just made, it doesn't make sense right? I mean, I'm sure 90% of Sup Forums is too stupid to think critically about the statement, but still, the statement is a logical fallacy.
go ask your doctor if people can have organ, stem and bone marrow transplants between races.
Lewontin's fallacy. btfo'd in the 70s.
for example, genders within races only vary by about 70 genes on a single chromosome. given just that, a personality profile can predict gender with above 90% accuracy.
Lewontin was trying to use genetic arithmetic without taking the varying effects into account.
Traits between races cluster quite cleanly, and correspond to self report nearly 100% of the time. even mixed race people will display a phenotype of one race or the other.
there is really no debate. the opposition either perpetually denies that any amount of data is sufficient to identify a race, when in fact only a fraction of what we're capable of using is quite sufficient, or else they claim that there needs to be more proximate data to understand the internal mechanisms, which only shows that social scientists aren't scientists.
if you're trying to be predictive, races exist.
Sure. I guess that's why most Central and South American countries, where virtually everone is mixed, are violent shitholes with average IQs in the 80s.
There is more genetic variation in between individual humans and chimps than between humans and chimps
chimps actually have 48 chromosomes while humans have 46. They are much more different than any two humans.
retarded answer. Organ donation is not important. You might not be able to donate blood to your own mom while some black guy can.
LeWontin fallacy.
Lewontin was furthermore a marxist, he get firstly BTFO'd by Mitton then by Edwards in 2003. But it was too late since the month after his fallacy, all of the media and academics preyed upon it and enforced it into everybody's brain.
>organ donation is not important
>but blood transfusion is
nope, neither is blood transfusion. I just used it as an example of why donations are not indicative.
This fallacy has even its own name for the love of god.
You do know that the only contributing factor to blood cell compatibility is the glycocalyx, while for organ transplents that isn't the only factor? Doctors very frequently will tell you to try to find someone in your family because it makes way more difference then your retarded ass tries to make it sound, for example blacks in the US have their own heart medication because the type used for whites doesn't work on them, money needed to be pumped into RnD just so that they could get a type of medication that would work on them.