Any two humans are 99.9 % genetically similar, and out of that 0.1%...

Any two humans are 99.9 % genetically similar, and out of that 0.1%, 94 per cent of the variation is among individuals from the same populations and only 6% between individuals from different populations.
So two Germans can be as different genetically as a German and a Japanese.
Why are you people attributing so much to genetics and particularly physical traits when science has clearly demonstrated this?
Why do you ignore the cultural, geographic and historical factors?
>b-but genetics influence culture
Prove it.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=1r7Tl0FYJ64&t=0h0m1s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The whole "it's a small difference so the differences that make a big difference in achievement and behavior must be no difference".
It's a bad argument, Op. Shill level bad.

Because a little percent difference can make HUGE practical differences. Drive down the highway with a .1% deviation to the left. Have fun in on coming traffic.

Think about humans and our closest relatives. Took millions of years to deviate by 1-2% and are vastly different. Also taking into account how most of our DNA is "junk" and unused your case starts looking worse and worse. What percent difference would "support" racial discrimination. Has to be somewhere between 0 and 1%.

Chimpanzees are 99% genetically identical to humans. Small amount can be a huge difference.


And just because there is more genetic variation within groups than between does not mean that the groups do not exist, or that the differences are unimportant. This is a false pretense

There are blacks with an IQ of 60. There are blacks with an IQ of 140. Yet the average IQ difference between blacks and whites is only 15 points. More variation within than between! Racists BTFO!

>So two Germans can be as different genetically as a German and a Japanese.

Point is two individuals from a same group can be as genetically different as two individuals from different groups.
It's not wrong, it's reality.
Groups are formed around other things, not genetics.
There are no "genetic" Germans or Russians.

More inter diversity than intra diversity

chimps share 99% of our dna
gorillas 98%

any fraction of a percentage difference is fucking massive

fake and debunked pseudo science. go home kike.

Which makes it all the more amazing considering how much of a difference that 6% makes in predictable outcomes.

>So two Germans can be as different genetically as a German and a Japanese.

can we get a citation, OP?

Now talk about the ' garbage dna' that they don't count in these equations. We are way different than you think

>genetically similar
You have don't even know what that means. Your thread is a stupid reductionist argument on par with "bro we are all just made of star dust".

That 6% between populations (races) matters. There are 3 billion DNA base pairs in the human genome. That 6% of the .1% is still millions of base pairs. And you act as is all DNA is equal. A small change in a gene (even a few BP) can have a significant affect on phenotype (that practical part that matters).

It's like arguing that because the number is small that theres no actual difference. Even if you believe people are basically the same, the fact we all prefer our own groups similar to us is gonna mean that theres always going to be segmentation in populations. Different subcultures and cultures and languages form in these different in groups and you end up with de facto races anyway. Our neuro biology doesnt lend towards homogenous diversity.

>Prove it.
How could it not? You only need to follow a series of logical deductions to get to genetics influencing culture.

If you accept that genes can influence behaviors then from there you can easily accept that behaviors of the individual can influence the behavior of the group and the behavior of the smaller group determines the behavior of a larger group made out of collections of smaller groups and so on and so forth until you reach the cultural level where the collective average predispositions of all the individuals are manifest in group expectations and societal norms or what we could call a culture.

Genes effectively determine which memes (actual memes as coined by Dawkins not internet ones) will be able to propagate inside a particular population because genes determine the environment (mental spaces of individuals) memes have to propagate in. The memes that are "fitter" and more able to survive are the ones it could be said that the population has a genetic predisposition to.

inb4 the 'jews are neandertals' faggot starts spamming the thread.

>So two Germans can be as different genetically as a German and a Japanese.
this is lewontin's fallacy.

>a single fucked up gene can lead to death
>a single fucked up gene can't lead to stupidity

>Any two humans are 99.9 % genetically similar,

No.

>So two Germans can be as different genetically as a German and a Japanese.

No.

>Why are you people attributing so much to genetics and particularly physical traits

What should this even mean?

>Why do you ignore the cultural, geographic and historical factors?

We don't.

>>b-but genetics influence culture
Prove it.

It influences intelligence. This alone is more than enough.

No they can’t. That’s objectively false. Two people from the same group are more genetically more similar than two people from different groups.

Are you retarded?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=1r7Tl0FYJ64&t=0h0m1s
This video by Alt Hype debunks the “more variation within than between” argument

Niggers are apes.

the connection between genetics and behavior is well established. the connection between behavior and culture is well established. it doesn't take a genius to see that culture is a result of genetic content.

Also, why are computers able to accurately cluster human populations when given DNA? And how come it gets more densely clustered with the more DNA markers you use?

How many times does this argument have to be debunked before you fucktards give up on it? How many times?

You're full of shit kike. We also share 99% with apes, 98% with cats and 60% with a fucking sea sponge.

"chimps share 99% of our dna
gorillas 98%"
The most close to as a the bonobos.
However, the difference is the famous chromosome 2. All hominidae, excepting humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, the others apes 24. The chimpanzee has the same structure for the chromosome 2, but in two different chromosomes. Also valid for gorilla and orangutan. Some of the segments which can be found in human chromosome 2 and not to the apes are identical to chains found in rats chromosomes.....So....

...

Your info is outdated ... this alleged small genetic difference does not take into account stuff like repeating sequences, endogenous retroviral sequences, transposons etc etc. Stuff that was once considered 'junk DNA'. Protip: it is no junk. It acts as regulatory elements mostly, as gene switches so to speak. It is also a hotbed for evolution as changing expression patterns of a gene is simpler than changing the actual protein coding sequence (btw if you knew anything about protein chemistry, folding etc you would know that changes in a single genetic 'letter' may already drastically influence a protein's function).

there are people that will never accept the depravity of niggers, there's no reasoning with them

And you other guys STFU about this whole similarity to chimps crap. According to that principal you almost have the same similarity to a fucking mouse. This only takes into account CODING sequences, stuff that is translated into protein. No cis- or trans-regulatory elements, no repeats acting as chromatin spacers, no sites for epigenetic modification. A load of horsecrap. Fucking understand genetics before you try to discuss with a moron (sorry) like OP. I am frankly quite annoyed by the lack of understanding of all those newfags, I have explained this stuff maybe a dozen times here.

That is a meme. It is wrong. I'm too lazy to look up the details right now, but that study was based on differences in individual genes or something. However if you look at CLUSTERS of genes, then the result is the exact opposite, little variation within a given group and significant variation between groups.

>Any two humans are 99.9 % genetically similar, and out of that 0.1%, 94 per cent of the variation is among individuals from the same populations and only 6% between individuals from different populations.

these are single genes. this is lewontin's fallacy again.
>So two Germans can be as different genetically as a German and a Japanese.
wrong. the more information you add the more precise the cluster becomes.

>Why are you people attributing so much to genetics and particularly physical traits when science has clearly demonstrated this?

it didn't, social scientists posing as geneticists just insist that they did (lewontin and gould, fyi). you can use the same argument to say that 46 chromosomes isn't enough information to differentiate humans from primates, therefore the races must all be separate sub species of primate.

races cluster almost perfectly with self report, well above 99%

>Why do you ignore the cultural, geographic and historical factors?
>>b-but genetics influence culture
>Prove it.
what are you, stupid? secular creationism is not an argument. its pure superstition. so no.
sage

>
>
>
>Point is two individuals from a same group can be as genetically different as two individuals from different groups.
>
>It's not wrong, it's reality.
>Groups are formed around other things, not genetics.
>There are no "genetic" Germans or Russians.

only with single traits
not really
there are, pic related

why do only white people believe in pan humanism?

> (OP)
>There are blacks with an IQ of 60. There are blacks with an IQ of 140. Yet the average IQ difference between blacks and whites is only 15 points. More variation within than between! Racists BTFO!

actually their ceiling is about 130.