"Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'. Approximately 85−90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10−15% of variation is found between them. In other words, approx 90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only approx 10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans. The proportion of total genetic variation ascribed to differences between continental populations, called FST, is consistent, regardless of the type of autosomal loci examined. FST varies, however, depending on how the human population is divided. If four Old World populations are examined instead of three, FST (estimated for 100 Alu element insertion polymorphisms) decreases from 14% to 10%. These estimates of FST and pi tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations...
...Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types."
We studied human population structure using genotypes at 377 autosomal microsatellite loci in 1056 individuals from 52 populations. Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subclusters that often correspond to individual populations. General agreement of genetic and predefined populations suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate assessments of epidemiological risks but does not obviate the need to use genetic information in genetic association studies.
In this paper we have shown that the proportion of neutral alleles shared between populations can to a large extent be predicted by geography. This prediction should remain true for any polymorphism under weak selection, and is thus expected to apply to variants underlying complex traits. The distribution of individual variants of medical interest involved in simpler traits is expected be very variable and essentially impossible to predict. However, even for variants, whose distribution cannot be accurately predicted by geography, there is no particular reason to believe the pattern could be better captured by some general ethnic classification. This strongly suggests that ethnic groups will generally be inadequate proxies for the distribution of traits of medical relevance. A more powerful approach when considering the host’s genetic background in medicine might be to use individual geographical locations as a continuous variable, or even better, use both geography and ethnicity together.
The recent focus on between-group genetic comparisons has raised inevitable questions about race. Contemporary molecular genetic data show that humans are not naturally divided into four or five discrete racial categories. Most genetic variation is within any racial category. Only a tiny percentage of the genetic variation can be found between groups that could be described as different races, and this variation is no more significant in defining human groups than is other, within-race genetic variation. Genetics can provide some information about ancestry, but ancestry may or may not correlate well with a person’s race. psych.colorado.edu/~willcutt/pdfs/Ossorio_2005.pdf
Brayden Adams
We are brothers , but , African people are not.
Brody Young
I'm a realist when it comes to race, and that there are concrete biological differences that can useful for classification/medical purposes.
But your genetic arguments are weak. There's nothing inherent about non-European races that implies lesser intelligence or capability, and any thorough study of ancient/classical civilizations shows pretty clearly that many techonological and cultural developments came out of a highly developed Africa and Asia, while Europe was living in the squalor, poverty, and famine associated with the dark ages.
Kayden Rivera
A multiethnic society is never stable and will eventually colapse. Humans are naturally tribalistic and will segregate themselves.
This is of course not taking into consideration IQ differences between the races.
Colton Lewis
>There's nothing inherent about non-European races that implies lesser intelligence or capability, What about iq tests? Oh wait those rayciss. Figuring out patterns is for whities.
There is nothing wrong with saying one race is statistically less intelligent than another, as lomg as you realize exceptions exist.
Ryan Allen
Im not arguing for multiculturalism here. I'm just refuting the widespread belief by the far right that non-European races, specifically black people, are inherently less capable or intelligent. The right often cites the state of the 3rd world as evidence, ignoring the sociopolitical circumstances that create power dynamics. It's a weak argument.
Re IQ, Im not convinced that IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence at all and there's plenty of credible research refuting it's validity. IQ reflects more about who has access to quality education, not one's capacity for learning. Mensa cards don't mean shit anymore.
Carson Edwards
>Social economic factors
Oliver Bell
...
Colton Baker
It would be more accurate to say that the lack of intelligence is not at fault for the state of the 3rd world, as many morons seem to think.
Aiden Hill
Muuh no races muuh no differences in intelligence muuh we are all equal
Go fuck yourself, citing one study to proof your libtard viewpoint doesnt matter, you can't see the truth so fuck off, there are thousands of non biased science articles for you to research that there are races and racial differences
Btw sage
Easton Johnson
>Approximately 85−90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10−15% of variation is found between them. tl;dr Also, did this study factor in sub-groups, and sub-sub-groups? Of course there's more variation above races, and below them, they are only one level of categorization. Nothing you said disproves race, only enforces it, you literally looked directly at the information, and denied it.
Henry Scott
Genetic variation on even a 0.000001% level can have huge implications on the species phenotype. Just because the difference in the genes is small, doesn't mean the difference in the races is small as well.
Nature (genetics) defines our responses to our environment at the base level. There is no such thing as nurture, it's all in your genes.
Lucas Adams
>and any thorough study of ancient/classical civilizations shows pretty clearly that many techonological and cultural developments came out of a highly developed Africa and Asia, while Europe was living in the squalor, poverty, and famine associated with the dark ages.
You have a very Orientalist and romantic view of history, friend. Though I'm very interested which technological and cultural developments originated out of Africa, as you say. Not many people in "racist" circles deny Asian achievements, but I have to wonder which advancements a continent which couldn't even write produced.
Nathan Jones
genes interact with nature. there is nature and environment. they are interlinked like liquid puzzle pieces
Michael Jenkins
...
Caleb Adams
...
Jose Ortiz
You mean that there are black people with genes to code for blue eyes and straight blonde hair, no melanin, and european-like bone structure?
Wow really made me think
But no that's fucking bullshit because it's intrinsic knowledge there are different races and ethnic groups. Of fucking course we share most of our DNA, blacks have kidneys too and have hemoglobin and neurons. But that small percentage that is different is what makes the difference. Which is why we're so different from chimps despite the small difference in genetic variation.
Take this garbage away because this isn't science, this is politics shoehorned into science to push an agenda.
Brayden Green
>encourage desegregation Why do these people never stop to think that maybe the naturally occurring behaviours work well?
Dylan Bennett
Obama couldn't quiet down his crowd of rowdy nogs when a white vet stood up.
If that were a white crowd, within 10 seconds of trying to gain the floor they would have STFU and not 2 minutes.
Caleb Wright
This
Tiny genetic differences make huge phenotypical differences.
A few genes can make the difference between Danny Devito and Wilt Chamberlain.
Joseph Ramirez
He's pulling a fast one and trying to suggest North Africans were black (They were caucasian and/or arab).
Charles Moore
Africa has the most genetic variation and diversity within its total population. If diversity is strength why is it so backward and the people lower in intelligence?
Henry Nguyen
>Genetic variation on even a 0.000001% level can have huge implications on the species phenotype. Just because the difference in the genes is small, doesn't mean the difference in the races is small as well.
Exactly. African ethnic groups don't have different cardiovascular systems, their bones are made from the same materials, their nervous system works the same, their internal organs produce the same waste and process the same molecules in the same way, their epidermis works the same, etc. It's not at all surprising that we are 95% genetically similar, that's because we are 95% the same. We share genes with pigs, making their organs and tissue viable for human transplant.
Now, a Chihuahua dog has the same internal organs, blood flow, general anatomy, etc. as a Border Collie. But which one do you want herding your sheep? Why are certain dog breeds more capable at learning tricks or pulling sleds? Are they not for the vast majority of their genetic make-up, similar?
Brandon Rodriguez
On average white people are by far the stupidest race - the bell curve is skewed right though explaining enlightenment, science development etc.
This combined with democracy, explains why whites make up less than 10% of the world population.
By 2100 they'll be pretty much extinct, however the world will be a complete shithole by then - probably capable of sustaining only a tiny fraction of its current population.
Chase Martin
I'm doing some reading about the difference in SAT scores, which is certainly a reasonable point to bring up. I'll try to respond directly when I have a better understanding of the test scores.
I cited 4 studies. These journals are non-biased and they freely admit that there are measurable differences between the races. Why don't you actually read them before passing judgment?
>Nothing you said disproves race, only enforces it, you literally looked directly at the information, and denied it.
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not saying that race does not exist, but that the statistically significant genetic differences that do exist are largely based on geography.
The earliest known surguries were performed in Egypt around 2750 BC, and it's well known that the Egyptians were familiar with advanced mathematical and astronomical concepts far before the Europeans. Timbuktu was once the largest and wealthiest city in the world, and Tanzania developed furnaces that burned up too 400C hotter than any other known at the time. In the 12th century Mozambique and Zimbabwe were famous for the number of cities they had that sported massive walls, one was over 250 meters long and was 15000 tons. Architectural feats in early Africa are well documented.
Jace Long
What the fuck is this area supposed to be?
Isaac Sanders
We share 50 % of DNA with worms. Does not mean we are half-worms.
Josiah Sullivan
And virtually every credible study I can find suggests that these tiny genetic differences are more rooted in geographical location than inherent differences between race.
Jose Barnes
Nice over-used leftist talking point meme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy#Edwards.27_critique "Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at an individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time."
Jose Sullivan
>Re IQ, Im not convinced that IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence at all and there's plenty of credible research refuting it's validity. IQ reflects more about who has access to quality education, not one's capacity for learning. Mensa cards don't mean shit anymore. check what Thomas Sowell wrote on this, or the stats showing how chinese kids did better on IQ tests than the kids of british colonial officials when they got there, even though they had way less education, or the stuy on adopted kids showing them closer in IQ to biological parents then adopted parents, or the one about mother's influence on IQ
Otherwise you are right, the stormniggers are retarded when it comes to "race" and can only see what reinforces their biases
Christian Turner
Africans need to be exterminated, but traitors should be tortured to death.
Colton Reed
>The earliest known surguries were performed in Egypt around 2750 BC Well before the last two non-Mesopotamian dynasties? >Timbuktu was once the largest and wealthiest city in the world, and Tanzania developed furnaces that burned up too 400C hotter than any other known at the time During the mud pottery period of human advancement? >In the 12th century Mozambique and Zimbabwe were famous for the number of cities they had that sported massive walls, one was over 250 meters long and was 15000 tons. Architectural feats in early Africa are well documented Literal earthenworks devoid of masonry or stone?
Wtf?
Oliver Collins
>but that the statistically significant genetic differences that do exist are largely based on geography. What are you trying to prove? We've always known this, certain peoples evolved in certain ways due to unique pressures in their environment. This is the most fundamental aspect of racism.
Samuel Nelson
See? Just look at this fucking witch burner.
LOL.
Brody Roberts
>Genetic >Not inherent by definition >People are somehow not products of evolution
Are you winding me up mate? Because what you just said is incredibly stupid.
Blacks and whites, other races, all have different genetic traits that produce phenotypical traits, that they are products of their environments is the cause is almost beyond doubt given what we know about evolution but this is true but trivial. Whatever CAUSED the differences are immaterial, that there are differences is indisputable.
Hunter King
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations", Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020)
Chase Hill
Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes",[21] and warn that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further
Leo Reyes
If you drew in pigs, deer and mice on C, what would the circles look like?
Hunter Rogers
Just a comment from a vile degenerate. Many of Sup Forums users want to see a large scale ethnic cleansing of Europe, North America or Oceania instead of firstly tackling major issue - cultural marxism. You can deside on whether to purge the "racially foreign elements" after you clean up the society from the cultural marxists and ethnic Jewish mafia operating within. I know that many can miss the homogeneity of their societies and rightly so. Status quo of the founding group shall be preserved. Little bit involved in mixing myself I would be dishonest to skip, that part, but it's not of significant value. hate on interethnic relationships, ethnically or racially mixed people seems strange. Eugenics, hopefully a lack of disturbing racial fetish and quality of people involved is the first thing to look at to. >dad is Russian (paternal grandfather is Finnish) >mom is Hungarian >I'm married to half-Irish half-Japanese girl from US >cousin married to quarter Lebanese, quarter Greek, half English chick from Shitpostland >sister is married to a Belgium born "black" guy - with a bit of white to him(he's grandfather is a Walloon and his mother is half Flandrian half black) our partners, allthough don't match us ethnically, possess the following >good incomes >education >health >and decent personalities. Go out more and appreciate unique culture we have in the world and in the West. I think some people are wired to mix, most people don't. Let them and let's see what happens. Cultural marxism, mass migration and lack of universal eugenics is cancer.
Matthew Sanders
>When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian What the fuck kind of population is "European" or "African"? Do they claim that North-Africans are the same as Sub-Saharans? >and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never" NEVER
Stop fucking spamming those texts and form your own arguments, for Christ's sake. You haven't even read them, have you?
John Davis
>During the mud pottery period of human advancement?
I think its pretty impressive they figured out how to use grass and mud to forge steel, considering nobody else on earth was able to do it at the time. >Literal earthenworks devoid of masonry or stone?
They used granite.
Nathaniel Myers
TRUE BUT TRIVIAL
How can you not grasp this concept?
Yes genotypes are caused by geography, but it doesn't matter.
A lion and a housecat are products of geographical changes and changes in conditions that over time produced mutations, but nobody doubts the lion's physical superiority.
Geography and changes in conditions have allowed for Europeans and Asians to develop greater intelligence than African counterparts.
Adrian Phillips
>Apples are more different from each other than from oranges
Chase Davis
You aren't refuting anything there, hombre.
Your beat-to-death argument ignores the significance of the genes that make us different, which is asinine when you consider that even a single gene can mean the difference between a Friedrich Gauss level intelligence and a being a two steps above a fucking potato.
Ryan Evans
Im not disputing the differences. The cause of the differences is not immaterial, as it informs the logic behind racist belief systems. The studies I've linked to clearly demonstrate that you can take samples from a bunch of people in one area--say a bunch of Englishmen, and you'll find far more genetic variation than you will if you take samples from different geographic locations--say from the Congo and Norway, to compare.
Jaxon Ward
>I think its pretty impressive they figured out how to use grass and mud to forge steel, considering nobody else on earth was able to do it at the time. and what did they do with this apocryphal head start over the rest of the world? Nothing.
So I'm not impressed.
Nolan Flores
>The earliest known surguries were performed in Egypt around 2750 BC, and it's well known that the Egyptians were familiar with advanced mathematical and astronomical concepts far before the Europeans.
Alright, yeah, sure.
>Timbuktu was once the largest and wealthiest city in the world. >In the 12th century Mozambique and Zimbabwe were famous for the number of cities they had that sported massive walls, one was over 250 meters long and was 15000 tons.
It's a bit misleading to use trading cities whose richness came from trade with advanced civilizations such as the Islamic world or India as evidence of a very developed Africa. These places only grew due to trade, and they immediately fell apart again once that trade dried up when other parts of the world eclipsed them. Would you call Europe a developed continent if only Gibraltar were rich, because it profited from trade ships taking the strait?
>Architectural feats in early Africa are well documented.
Yes, and done better by nearly every other ethnic group in the world.
>Tanzania developed furnaces that burned up too 400C hotter than any other known at the time.
And yet, they never produced it in high quantities. It never led to societal development nor to them gaining dominance within or outside Africa. They even forgot how to make their mud furnace when they imported foreign steel, and only a few elders knew how to do it by the time someone discovered they could.
What do you think would have happened if say, the Kingdom of Macedonia had learned how to make steel?
>The studies I've linked to clearly demonstrate that you can take samples from a bunch of people in one area--say a bunch of Englishmen, and you'll find far more genetic variation than you will if you take samples from different geographic locations--say from the Congo and Norway, to compare. When comparing SINGLE locuses. When comparing multiple loci, which is actually relevant, there was NEVER more genetical variation within populations than outside of them. Stop fucking repeating Lewontin's fallacy like it had any fucking validity.
Caleb Miller
Oi mate did you ignore the minnesota transracial adoption study?
Nathan Nelson
/thread
Liam Cox
if you did one for species a lot of the circles would be mostly the same, eg chimps and humans would only have 4% not overlapping, hell a fucking banana and a human would have 50% overlap
Hudson Allen
> as it informs the logic behind racist belief systems.
Not significantly, no.
Nothing significant can come out of this.
You're just being pedantic.
> and you'll find far more genetic variation than you will if you take samples from different geographic locations--say from the Congo and Norway, to compare.
Maybe, but this is true but trivial.
They may vary greatly but the genes that make them white are all in common.
An analogy for you: A man can own a remote control of many shapes and sizes, and it can be deformed and designed as such that it is no longer recongizeable as such, and yet, upon operation, it is functional as a remote control.
Yet I can own what appears to be a remote control, and in fact it is a lighter.
The trait that the remote controls had in common made them remote controls.
The trait that whites have in common make them white.
The traits that blacks have in common make them black.
There may be variation, but these things remain.
Colton Jenkins
nogs usually have bad genetics
Lucas Sanchez
That's not true. Here the same thing is demonstrated comparing mutliple loci.
Dude fuck off. You reposted Lewontin's fallacy in 2016 like it's something we haven't debunked before. Even fucking Kikipedia has an entry debunking it. Sage
Nathan Carter
No, I've considered this and I won't pretend its insignificant. But give this a read:
>much dark ages. Artificial societal stagnation caused by corrupt government.
Zachary Davis
That's a good way of putting it
Jason Young
>muh one study I don't know why the racists keep flogging this study as proof of what they're saying when it's clearly not. It disproved the authors' hypothesis but it says nothing about genetics.
A paper that concludes that one specific examination of how culture doesn't fully explain IQ doesn't mean the only other possibility is that it's genetics
Jonathan Ortiz
Endless pedanticism won't get you away from the fact that ethnic groups share traits at their core in common that define them as those groups.
There can be variation, one white man may be 6'11" and the other 5'2" but they share traits in common that make them white.
So saying >HURR VARIATION
Is as meaningless as you can get.
Once again, true but trivial.
Levi Perry
Humans share about 50% of their DNA with a banana. A fucking banana. Its not the similarity's that matter, its the differences.
Nathan Long
Levontin's Fallacy 2.0: 50 Loci Boogaloo >Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations", Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". See what it reads here? When comparing thousands of loci, there was NEVER, not one fucking time, more variation within the population than between. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020
Can you fucking read? You yourself posted this study.
Julian Wood
The whole basis of it being "debunked", as I understand it, rests on Edwards assertion that differences are only insignificant when comparing single loci and not multiple loci. But that has clearly been shown not to be the case, as you can compare a large number of loci with the same results.
Aiden Rodriguez
>377 autosomal microsatellite loci >1056 individuals hahahahahahahahahah
Brody Cooper
>as you can compare a large number of loci with the same results. NO YOU FUCKING CANNOT. >Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations", Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never".
And theres no evidence that the differences which do exist have anything to do with intelligence, but are more related to superficial differences in physiology
Parker Garcia
>Assuming I'm racist because you don't like real life Fuck you. Literaly first time I posted it, along with the difference in STA scores.
Lucas Bell
OP is the douchebag at the beginning of Good Will Hunting who rattles off other peoples shitty ideas because he's unoriginal and gets BTFO.
Camden Lee
SAT*
Eli Turner
10 to 15 percent is still relevant and unlikely resigned to superficial morphology
Landon Cook
When most studies show that IQ is between 50-80% genetic, and you know there are genetic differences between whites and blacks, and whites and blacks have a large IQ gap, the model that we are building starts to imply, along with Occam's razor, that the explanation is likely genetic.
You're using the "Wog of the gaps" argument.
Benjamin Jenkins
"It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes. " ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Samuel Ross
oi fagbender, link to the study you got that image from
>When we use a sample that supports our hypothesis it supports our hypothesis Oh wow. It's almost like humans have a full genome, instead of a miserable few hundred, or fifty loci like in this study.
Kevin Allen
There are countless examples where mutations in single or small numbers of loci can affect an individual in a dramatic number of ways, such as retarding their intelligence, causing severe health problems, causing chemical imbalances that result in gender dysphoria, you name it.
Counter-point 2: Show me the differences between dogs and wolves genetically, using the same metric as the human example. Or perhaps pitbulls and corgis? Remember, an adult's ability to function in society (everything from interpersonal relationships to functional intelligence) can be affected by such small things as their emotional disposition towards friendliness or aggressiveness.
Logan Brooks
pic related, with only 107 SNPs associated with face shape you can already start to separate Africans and west Eurasians/east Eurasians
when you use thousands and thousands of SNPs it only gets much better
Jonathan Martin
It clearly refutes Edwards claims about comparing multiple loci, which has been the strongest argument against me in this thread.
Charles Turner
the more loci you use, the more the differences appear, it's not hard to understand few hundred cherrypicked loci are literally nothing and it's a perfect case of looking at details that support your idea than the whole picture
and even then, if those loci are properly chosen, you can still start to see differences, see
Sebastian Lewis
Except no it doesn't. Edwards never claimed that it's about "multiple" loci, but simply stated that misclassification probability comes close to zero if ENOUGH loci are studied.
Elijah Brooks
This guy is a shitskin looking to boost his ego. Just ignore him and move on.
Angel Martinez
> with only 107 SNPs associated with face shape you can already start to separate Africans and west Eurasians/east Eurasians
Right, superficial physiological differences.
Are there any existing studies that demonstrate this but the genes identified to correlate with intelligence? This isn't a loaded question, I'd really like to see concrete evidence.
I understand many of your points, particularly -- but I also think that without anything concrete to "connect the dots" it's a slippery slope argument considering evidence to the contrary exists.
Camden Mitchell
Pretty obvious that for random loci we often are similar to other races, because we share, what, 99% of the genome? But the few differences are what matter, and those get more sampled the more loci you take into account.
50 loci diff might just y chance be those one coding proteins which we have in common with africans or even with a monkey.
I try to have an open mind about this too but at this point you're just being stubborn.
Julian Moore
>They used granite.
>Only granite constructs in Zimbabwe OR Mozambique
>Scratch that, the only stone constructs in pre-21st century Africa
>Constructed by 19th-century Shona, a Christian/Islamic people
Blacks have literally accomplished nothing, huh?
Robert Hughes
Racism is a social construct. Invented to keep the working class divided.
Noah Hill
I understand that. What I don't understand is the leap in logic assuming that those minute differences are related to intelligence.
Kayden Nelson
>Why don't you actually read them before passing judgment? They only understand pictures here, user.
Samuel Jackson
the point is that you need few mutations to have important differences, and if you do an unsupervised analysis on enough loci, structure appears automatically, indicating that we are different
intelligence, or possible inherited behavioral patterns, are still not properly understood concepts to be able to find mutations strongly correlated with those, but it's perfectly possible that they are there, the brain is not magically resistant to evolution and adaptation
That prove his point, and help build a model that implies... Meaning YOU are running counter to evidence.
Anthony Hughes
Hit the history books for a second will you You need to be better in some way to conquer and colonize And considering the brits couldn't have just walked over with stones in massive numbers...
Also, if you're using the culture and/or information passing argument Guess what, a lot of people had to create and adopt such systems A lone genius cannot accomplish any of those, it must have to be a lot of whites Hence? You can fill in the rest
Andrew Taylor
>Right, superficial physiological differences. Because evolution only runs skin deep, am I right? >Are there any existing studies that demonstrate this but the genes identified to correlate with intelligence? We have not found the genes responsible for human intelligence. We do know that intelligence is highly hereditary, but not exactly what loci are responsible.
>considering evidence to the contrary exists. Except no, it doesn't.
Dylan Hall
After World War II, many American GI's (both white and black) fathered children by German women; these children were then raised in German society. The children fathered by black GI's had an average IQ of 96.5, and the children fathered by white GI's had an average IQ of 97 -- a statistically insignificant difference. (3)
In another study of children raised in residential institutions, black, white and racially mixed children who were raised in the same enriched environment were given IQ tests. At four years of age, the white children had an average IQ of 103, the blacks had an average IQ of 108, and the racially mixed children had an average IQ of 106. (4)
Another study measured the IQ's of children from black-white unions. Assuming that mothers are more important than fathers in the education and socialization of their children, the study sought to see if a child's IQ is higher when the white partner is the mother. This turned out to be true -- the IQ of a racially mixed child averages 9 points higher when it is the mother who is white. (5)
John Price
Of course most of our DNA is the same. We share the same fundamental biological properties. Between Caucasians and Africans we are both carbon based lifeforms that respirate oxygen, have lungs and eyes and circulatory systems, we both eat, breath and shit. That means our DNA is going to be pretty similar.
But the same is true of dogs. Humans and dogs have 99% similar DNA for all the reasons I listed above. That doesn't make dogs equal to humans.
Julian Gutierrez
>Fiction
God it's shit like this that makes me reach for the bottle.
Owen Hernandez
How the actual FUCK are /fa/ggots more intelligent on average than /k/ommandos
