Another perfect example of people trying to use science to back up their arguments, but not actually UNDERSTANDING science.

Fortunately, neuroscience has more advanced techniques than “a line drawn down from the eyes.” ACTUAL brain analysis done by MRI scans, volumetric analysis, and gross weight show that not only is there no difference in frontal lobes between caucasians and blacks, if anything the orbitofrontal cortex (part of the frontal lobe) is larger in blacks. Not significantly, of course.

And secondly, your cute little genetic graphic there is only of the X/A ratios, not of any actual genome sequence. The X/A ratio, in essence, is just a measure of how likely a child is to be male or female.

Sorry. If you’re going to use science, make sure you KNOW the science. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, but dont use points that are objectively wrong or misleading.

How did you post 3 images at once? I tried to do so and my post is still hidden, awaiting verification from site owner.
Anyway, I’ll try to post them separately. Here’s skull volume that Twilk9 is lying about:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/adb528fb33e1b60836143929c25642f6ec6c73ace6b12a1a3b81c731f2a090e0.png
(source by Kenneth L. Beals, Courtland L. Smith, and Stephen M. Dodd)

Right, it’s not a substitute. It just so happens to perfectly correlate with brain volume. The study you linked shows a wopping 10% difference in brain volume, I seriously wonder if you’re just trolling. 10% is no difference, fraction of a percent in genome is no difference? Hell, maybe chimps are humans too, what’s the difference, a percent or two?

Are you pretending to be retarded right now? I didn’t say it didn’t matter, I said it’s a “w(h)opping 10% difference”, which is huge. The data I posted is not about brain volume, but then you’ve proven my point by posting the data that shows that there IS a large difference in brain volume (in African-Americans, by the way, not even Africans who would probably show a worse result), which didn’t need to be pointed out because cranial capacity correlates with brain volume anyway. You were right about the frontal lobe though. I wrongfully assumed that you claimed that their brains weren’t deficient.

They aren’t the same, most values have around 5% difference. You keep downplaying the differences, and they aren’t even Africans. There’s also a high probability they were testing university students, since most of them were younger, which is really suspicious.
I don’t believe that correlation between intelligence and brain volume is weak. According to https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00137-X, brain volume has a very strong corellation with racial traits (0.94). African(-American)s still have their 10% smaller brains and asians have slightly bigger ones. According to multiple studies, brain volume and IQ correlation is significant, 0.3-0.6. Asians having a higher IQ and Africans having a lower IQ is practically common knowledge. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a47504ccda491482857bed887258de04aa1180f5fff61e8a2d76694e35aa2792.jpg

I’ll read that, thanks.

why do you continue to make a differentiation between African Americans and Africans?

First and foremost, African-Americans are not pure Africans. In addition to that, any research related to them will have a significant bias unless researchers pick most African-Americans from a ghetto, which they won’t. Most of the chosen African-Americans would be ones taught by whites, rather than the ones who grew up in a black society. Having bigger brains increases their chances to get into the sample.

I said they aren’t pure Africans “first and foremost”. Other factors play a role, but it’s certainly not big enough, seeing how the richest of blacks commit more crimes and perform worse at studies than the poorest of whites.

What happened?

Free gibs?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2173b3dc4bdcc40b84c9308b50b9333449ff8c95ca2e4796ffe18dcd576b720c.png

Whether or not its welfare is irrelevant; assuming that all that welfare is going to blacks, and assuming that this is causation and not just correlation (which is a huge assumption) that STILL indicates that more money/security/stability is causing a huge ongoing upturn in black IQ/test taking.

Which is STILL not a genetic factor. Its environmental.

This isn’t an argument about welfare or production; that’s not one I am going to be drawn into.
This is an argument about genetics and intelligence.

What are these “studies,” and do they use testing that measures intelligence directly or are other variables taken into effect? What is this data about the crime rate?

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6cb89ee7e0b6b627cde782f32282ee3fdd1e1a0677b2de328cb86d89f3b1ec21.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/72bbbc21cafc9fc67b5ca22c44a0c89700c0777e6e7ca536292bbd3d63da51d9.png

That study is the SAT, which does not effectively control for many factors, as there exist many organizations dedicated to SAT prep and practice. These preparation organizations are in frequent use but their use is not spread uniformly, so the SAT is not a good test for examination of “default” intelligence – there are too many other factors that influence their result, as is widely known in research.

Studying SAT results is really only good for SAT related work/research, and attempts to modify the SAT.

Tests like the NAEP or the IQ test are better (but still not perfect) for analyzing intelligence/education status, because these tests cannot be prepared for outside of public school settings which are accessible by all.

No, it has nothing to do with nazis and everything to do with poor experiment design. If you want to test general intelligence as a result of genetics or intrinsic intelligence, the SAT is a poor way to do it because it allows for multiple methods of preparation. Any study done wouldn’t be reflective of intrinsic intelligence because it would also reflect preparation and ability to prepare, which is not an intrinsic or a homogeneous value. Thats just basic experimental design, and it’s why SAT based studies are usually only used for SAT related projects.

The fact that black IQs have been rising faster than whites for decades is very clear, but closing the iq gap is not something that will happen all at once.

Black wealth is a relatively new phenomenon, and therefore their iq growth and rate is more reflective of the iq growth of immigrants, second, and third gen americans than citizens that have been here for a while.

Remember; the IQ of European white immigrants during the Great Wave was roughly 20 points below average before leveling out to average over the course of the next century. In fact, there were numerous studies done at that time to point this out and try to keep european immigration down. We are seeing similar trends with blacks today, now that blacks have been allowed to build wealth and work more easily since the 60s/70s.

I didn’t respond to the crime stats because I hadnt seen that you had posted more than once. I was also asking more out of my own curiosity, since crime is very much a chicken and egg argument regarding culture and genetics that I’d rather not get into. As opposed to intelligence and genetics, which is far more clear cut.

No, because preparation and availability of preparation both have factors not influenced by intelligence. Cultural factors are also at play here, and arguing about certain deficits in black culture is not something I’m going to get into.

Why would the african IQ prove anything? I could find information about it, I’m sure, but showing it without growth while african american IQ HAS growth would only show that epigenetic factors and societal factors play the greater part in IQ and intelligence. I’m not sure what your goal is here.

If you read Jason Richwines dissertation, the only reason he shows that study at all is to provide an example of earlier, poor studies on immigration and IQ. He brings it up only to expose all its biases and failures in method, and ends discussing the study in question with “obviously, science like this should not be emulated.”

No, because the only parts of the dissertation that mention that data about european immigrants is the study that he quotes in his dissertation. The one that he uses as an early flawed example of iq studies on immigrants, examining the biases and failures of the author. The one that he ends discussing by saying “obviously science of this kind should not be emulated.” And every time he mentions the data from that study he always prefaces it with some form of “while deeply flawed, such and such shows….”

That still doesnt explain what you’re trying to prove with african iq alone. If african iq is not rising, while african american iq is, it would just support my case that epigenetic and environmental factors influence iq more. If african iq is rising at the same time and rate as african american iq, it would just show that somehow Africans globally underwent some structural change that is making them smarter at a rate not seen before in humans. What are you trying to prove by asking for african iq?

I sont want to get into culture because culture cant be quantitatively measured. It’s clear to anyone with eyes that there exist deep rooted societal problems in the black community. However, how much of this influences certain aspects of individual black character cannot be known and is all conjecture, which is why I’m not getting into it. Itd be a stupid circular argument with no end.

You are insufferable. I DON’T care what that guy says in his dissertation. I only mentioned it because it had data from multiple relevant studies in it and I couldn’t post links to them because my comment was getting flagged as spam.
The DATA right there shows that European immigrants had lower test scores than white natives, but their children fully eliminated the difference during the next generation. That’s it, stop quoting random bullshit to me, unless it’s somehow relevant to this data. Your argument about white immigrants having to catch up over a century is a lie. Meanwhile, Blacks and Hispanics never reached that level to this day.

That still doesnt explain what you’re trying to prove with african iq alone

I’m trying to prove that Africans are naturally stupid and aren’t evolving on their own, not anymore at least. Pumping money into them still doesn’t allow them to reach intelligence levels of whites. Crime rates, welfare, all that.
Let me repeat: it is unacceptable for whites to gamble on black IQ at their own expense. I don’t want someone to force the government to spend wealth created by whites on “people” that don’t and won’t make money.
I don’t want to pay for the blacks. That’s it, that’s my point.

Let’s just sum up what we talked about so far, what a couple others in this entire Disqus comment section mentioned, only hard facts with data to support them:
– Africans have poor ability to save money and plan for the future, especially Nigerians who practically lack that ability
– Africans have 5% smaller relevant brain structures, 10% smaller brains in general
– Sub-Saharan Africans carry eight genes just on chromsome 13 that are identical to those on the homologous chromosome in chimpanzees, a trait shared by no other human population
– Africans are the most genetically distant race
– richest African Americans have test results worse than those of poorest whites
– richest African Americans commit more crimes than poorest whites
– rich Africans have lower IQ than the poor whites (I didn’t see you debunk this, data is from “The Bell Curve” book)
– African Americans are very likely to abandon their families, single mother rate is almost 100% at lower income ranges
– despite being 29% of the population of USA, blacks and hispanics consume 55% of welfare expenditures
– average African American is a $10k/year net loss for economy of USA
– IQ of European immigrants caught up with IQ of white natives with the very next generation, while Blacks never caught up

Don’t give me your “genetic difference between blacks and whites is the same as the individual difference between you and your third cousin” here, they’re still the most distant race as a whole. I can twist your own argument to say that “all the third cousins of Africans are the most genetically distant from all the third cousins of any other race”. You’re trying to compare apples to oranges. And I reckon most of the 3rd cousins of other races still don’t have the chimp genes.

That’s the point. The data about turn of the century immigration, as presented in the paper, comes from one study. And the author uses it sparingly and only really to pick apart its flaws. If you cared so much about the data on european immigration from turn of the century, why would you present it in a paper where the author chiefly discusses all the failures in methodology, biases, and flaws with collecting and analyzing the data you want to present? You are literally making my argument for me.

“I’m trying to prove that Africans are naturally stupid”

You would only be showing that africans have lower IQs, in africa. That has no pertinence to what their IQs may be in the states. That’s the point. You wouldn’t be showing a natural predilection to “stupidity.”

“I can twist your own argument to say that “all the third cousins among Africans are the most genetically distant from all the third cousins from any other race”

That’s not how genetics work. You are imagining genetics and variation as a line with the ‘races’ at set points on the line. Genetics are not linear. It’s very possible that the african’s third cousins is more genetically similar to a caucasian than another african. That’s how genetics works in humans. It’s not simple. Humans are too closely related, and too much variation comes from individual difference. Only about 5 % or so of genetic variation between people comes from population differences.

“I don’t want to pay for the blacks. That’s it, that’s my point.”

Ok, cool. Then you and I aren’t even arguing about the same thing, because I really dont care about your opinion on that. It’s yours. You dont want to pay for that? Ok. Fine. Whatever. I never argued that in the first place.

Not touching your bullet list, because it’s either all things previously discussed or matters with large cultural influence that I said i wasnt getting into

“even if the difference isn’t huge.”

There you go. That’s my whole argument. I dont know why you’ve turned it into me arguing that africans aren’t different. My argument isn’t that they arent different, just not radically so.

I like your table! That’s a little better. Than the line I thought you had in mind. But again, you are neglecting to mention that these numbers and the dots that represent them are averages, and that individual variation within these dots is large and overlapping. And that these differences between individuals within the dots often exceed the differences between racial groups. Its complex, like I said.

A couple things you didnt note from that study, as well:

– the African population sampled is still far FAR closer to the other humans than to chimpanzees by genetic distance.
-That only 10% of genetic differences found could be attributable purely to population wide differences
– that 60.5% shows not that the African population shares only 60.5% of its Gene’s with the other human populations, just that they HAVE these alleles in lower proportion than other groups that have them in higher proportions, like 70-85. They have other alleles not shared by the other groups (but not stated to be shared with chimps) which are expressed at high levels which drive this shared number down.

Thanks for sharing the study.

Correct, because neanderthals were present and interbreeding with other humans north of the Sahara, particularly in southern europe. Thus, because Neanderthals were still interbreeding with europeans (after europeans had already left africa and settled in Europe) long after sub-saharan africans were still interbreeding with europeans, it stands to reason that europeans would share more genetic similarities with neanderthals.

But this brings up another point, one that is in contention today. And that is; were neanderthals even really a separate group from homo sapiens, or just another branch of modern humans?

When neanderthal bones were first discovered, they weren’t even identified as a separate species because they’re so nearly identical to human that everyone assumed they were human. It wasnt until 30 years later these first bones were retroactively categorized.

We now know that neanderthals also practiced almost all of the same cultural practices that we used to separate them as being non-human, such as making fire, tending to their sick, burying/mourning their dead, creating art and tools, and practicing commerce.

Current genetic analysis also suggests that the most recent common ancestor between humans and neanderthals may not be the million or so years previously thought, but actually as recent as 200 thousand to 100 thousand, which is less than the blink of an eye, evolutionarily.

Because of that, theres a lot of debate over whether or not neanderthals were separate species from modern humans at all. Current trends in genetic analysis suggest (and I believe) they were not.

In fact, that paper you’re quoting was one of the first to posit the idea that neanderthals and humans should be reclassified to the same species.

It’s entirely possible. But again, brain volume only has very weak correlation to intelligence, and has a greater correlation to climate of the area inhabited, as your quoted paper clearly says. It’s well known that increasing volume while reducing surface area (ie larger, rounder objects) increases the capacity for the object to hold heat.

Classifying humans into separate species based on minor differences in skull shape seems rather arbitrary, no? As opposed to any other metric that varies far more between human populations, such as height or metabolic rate. And again; differences between human populations are so minute that if we didnt consider ourselves “different” from other animals somehow, not only neanderthals would be considered humans as a species but homo erectus and other early humans would be too. Theres just so little variation between human populations.

Additionally, you are again arguing that brain size has a strong and direct correlation to intelligence and cognition among humans. Based on the very data presented in the article you just quoted, that would mean that Mexicans are smarter than nordic and Germanic peoples. I dont think that’s an argument youd be eager to make, I’m assuming.

My points are (and the reason I used that study) that actual brain size, measuring the ACTUAL thinking parts of the brain like the grey matter, white matter etc (and not the water and structural material) is the same.

I maybe should have clarified, but I wasn’t expecting that people would zoom in on the water content of the brain and ignore the data that showed that actual brain matter is not significantly different.

And correct. Comparing normal brain variation between individuals (and not averages between races) and their intelligence, these differences are so small that people would be not able to tell the difference. So the whole argument is rested on a moot point anyway. So spare me

Your neglected to mention that the blacks sampled with older brain age in your first study also had higher levels of stress hormone like cortisol, which has been shown to increase brain age in all races. All that study shows is that blacks are, as a population, under more stress than whites. Which the study says, clearly. But why would you mention that when it doesn’t fit your agenda?

As for your second study, I’m not even sure why you brought it up….seeing as their results regarding caucasian and black mothers are quoted as such:

“Compared to offspring of Caucasian mothers, offspring of African American mothers had thicker cortices in bilateral postcentral gyri, superior parietal lobules, precuneus, and the supramarginal gyri, as well as the right precentral gyrus, insula, inferior parietal lobule, supplementary motor area, and rolandic operculum.”

In other words, all differences observed where maternal ethnicity was a predictive element showed blacks had LARGER cortices, which is associated positively with intelligence, slightly.

Higher IQ leads to more democracy, you say? Well, you should be ecstatic to hear that black IQs have been growing faster than white IQs for decades now, closing the iq gap.

It’s a good thing your goal wasnt to convince me of anything, because you would have done a very bad job of it.

Read my post again, there was no dishonesty. I clearly said that my quote referred to models that found maternal ethnicity was predictive. That’s not all models.

But tell me, why did you bother bringing up a study that at best, supports my argument that there are no significant genetic racial differences in brain makeup, and at worst, suggests that black children are born smarter than whites?

And while we’re on the topic of academic dishonesty, you’ve failed to explain why you neglected to mention that the brain age of blacks was different due to stress hormones. In your first study. Remember?

you know, maybe if you actually posted some sources to back up your own claims, like the person you’ve been arguing with for the the entire disquis thread, maybe people here would actually take you seriously, but you still have yet to post a single piece of evidence highlighting that brain size correlates to cognitive ability, or that africans have a demonstrably equal brain capacity to asians, whites, jews etc when literally every single piece of replicable evidence says otherwise.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say you were just trying to muddy the waters with bad science based on utopian drivel about everyone being ‘exackly da saym’ when that statement doesn’t even ring true within homogenous racial groups (See ‘The Bell Curve’ for more info on this subject).

You know, there are a number of possible explanations for several phenomena whose existence are universally acknowledged, like the Negro’s joyful proclivity to mayhem and crime, sloth, and wretched performance on any and all tests of intelligence yet devised. Those who point to biological explanations have physical evidence on their side–cranial capacity as much as 15-20% smaller depending on populations being measured, the MAO-A gene for violent psychopathy being the norm in Negroid populations, and so on. None of this contradicts facts that were common knowledge long known in 1850.

People like the person with whom you are trying to reason invoke magic, coincidence, and conspiracy theories instead. It’s “institutional racism,” which has never been anything but a conspiracy theory. It’s “a moot point.” It’s “but but but but there was this one black guy who was smart so neener neener that changes everything and you have to go back to the drawing board.” It’s “but that study was flawed because it didn’t control for cultural differences,” never mind that culture is downstream of biology. It’s “but the Negro’s genes are over 90% identical to a White man’s,” never mind that White men share over 95% of their genetic material with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans–red herrings, in other words.

Occam’s Razor strongly implies that one of you is standing on a much firmer foundation, epistemologically speaking, than the other. On the one hand, we have facts already known and nearly universally accepted. On the other, conspiracy theories, pilpul and casuistry. But that too is to be expected, I suppose.

He’s not pretending.

Patrolling Stonetoss comment sections after leftists have another collective tantrum almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

If it bitches like a leftist, pilpuls like a leftist, and gets emotional like a leftist, it’s a leftist.

God you sound like a stereotypical MAGApede redditor, but a leftist instead.

He’s talking about the Berbers, a Caucasian people living in North Africa, very closely related, culturally, linguistically, and genetically to Bedouins, but wording it to make it sound like a claim that there is scientific documentation that Bantu and Masai are genetically indistinguishable from Norwegians and Irishmen.

In other words, this is just more of the usual pilpul and casuistry.

Oh. Was someone curious about the actual science?

Sub-Saharan Africans carry eight genes just on chromsome 13 that are identical to the homologous genes carried by chimpanzees, a trait shared by no other human population. Documented and printed in a peer-reviewed publication: Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995.

Remember, class–“race is a social construct” is the Official Truth Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Tuesdays, Thursdays, and weekends it’s “White men are a special kind of evil and deserve to be exterminated, replaced, and erased from history by stunted little brown IQ-55 goblins demonstrably incapable of civilization.” We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Put words in your mouth? Nonsense. No one can get anything into your mouth until your pimp removes his cock.

and in fact many europeans and blacks have sequences closer to each other than those within their own race

It’s too bad statistics don’t work like that. Africans as a whole are distant from the general human population.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a3d59ac575bf4a930ae89d2f50d6e39863d6a37825b183e483f315dfc452bb75.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/90c65ce3c61a30cedfd1e224daf38b9a015ec96006fb7aca6b03d8e1c1b717e1.png
And everyone knows they’re savage, smelly, dumb criminals.

Fraction of a percent difference is huge. Enough to create a permanent development rift between Africa and Europe. Or to make a sertain fraction of a population commit most of the crimes in that country.

They’re less different from me than niggers.

No, actually. I have no idea where you got that we share 99.5% of our genome with everything else.

Lol. So the guy who 12 hours ago didn’t know that humans had major genetic differences from other living things is now the expert who’s telling me not to come to him for details on genetics?

I’ll tell ya what, bud. I am 100% sure I will never come to you if I wanted to know more about genetics.

And yes, I would say that the fraction of a percent that marks average differences in races can be brushed off, considering that that percent difference is roughly the same as the difference between you and your third or fourth cousin.

Plus, the fact that caucasians can produce fertile offspring with blacks is pretty significant evidence that the difference is not significant. By definition, genetically different species are not able to produce fertile offspring.

But go look it up. I’m not your personal pda lol

Read my post again, professor. I said produce FERTILE offspring. Mules are sterile.

And since apparently I am going to HAVE to be your PDA and explain genetics to you – You can slap a lot of two random species together and get offspring (zebras and horses, tigers and lions) but only individuals that are of the same genetic species with low genetic variation can produce FERTILE offspring, which is a world of difference, because it indicates that their chromosomes are SO homologous that they can safely and consistently complete gene transfer during meiosis.

Lol really resisting the urge to insult you after that one

And I never disputed anything you said about conserved and junk DNA, because that’s fact and I know it. But here’s an easy to read source on genetic differences between family members. This one found that third cousins can be different by about 0.8%.
https://owston.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/an-analysis-of-fourth-cousins-and-other-near-distant

Of course, theres dozens of other papers that all find roughly the same thing if you dont like that one. But Google them yourself cause I’m trying hard not to be your pda again here.

Really, all you’re doing is convincing me even more not to ever come to you if I want to learn more about genetics. If that was your goal, kudos. You succeeded wildly.

Lol theres no question of “can i, should i” because the mere fact that it’s POSSIBLE indicates that the races are almost genetically identical. As you so astutely said, horses and donkeys differ enough that their chromosomes cannot consistently and successfully exchange alleles during meiosis. Humans of all races can. All this talk about “replacement” is just distraction from that fact.

And again, fortunately, we DO know what these differences in the genomic sequence between races and family members are. In fact, we’ve named them; they’re called SNPs, and analyzing them is how research sites like Ancestry can tell you what your risk for cancer is based on your genetics, what height you’ll grow to, etc.

So yes, we do know about these variations and what they cause. We’ve actually marketed and put a price tag on telling you what YOUR specific SNP differences say about you. Just visit 23andMe or Ancestry or any other site like that. But do it yourself – after all, I’m not your pda. Hahaha

Hahaha now you’re just completely abandoning all pretenses and putting words in my mouth and attacking me based on the things you made me say. As a matter of fact I’m very opposed to government, mega-corporations, and the media. But I really dont have to justify myself to you.

What’s particularly funny is that YOU are the one who started making this personal. And everything I’ve said that can be construed as insulting or offensive are words YOU said that I’ve just turned around and used against you.

Guess you can dish out, but not take it, huh? For someone who tried very hard to say he wasnt offended many times, you sure are acting like it.

Anyway, have fun with genetics lol

Smug? Lol smug, says the guy who started this whole convo by calling me a wild pokemon, whatever the hel l that means. And then acted like the expert who couldnt be bothered to explain things to me, called my CORRECT comparison the dumbass one, assumes I’m a woman because he thinks somehow that will insult me, signs off with dumb catchphrases that he thinks are football spikes, etc….

…And then completely falls apart and starts the strawmans and insults in force when his entire argument is proven wrong and someone dares to fling a little of his own medicine back at him. It’s hilarious, really. Cute, even.

Thanks for the laugh, bud. Again, glad you got some intro to genetics

Hahahahaha of course you aren’t. What a ride

Setting aside that YOU quite obviously are reading my comments…

Falllacy? Rich, coming from the guy who posted two studies earlier: one that supported my case without him realizing, and another whose results he blatantly lied about to suit his agenda. Remember that?

Now, if theres any fallacies in this argument, please point them out with evidence instead of just sitting there and crying “fallacy” and whining

The part of the study YOU YOURSELF quoted said:

“Furthermore, maternal ethnicity was not an important predictor of global brain volumes in this sample of neonates.”

In other words, race and ethnicity of the mother had no significant impact on what the brain size of the child. That is clear cut. And YOU posted it, for some reason.

And then when I brought up that certain controlled models in that study showed that africans had slight increases in brain size, you again repeated that there was no significant racial predictor in the full models.

So if you CLEARLY making the case that race has no effect on brain size is somehow not supporting me, please. Explain why. You have my attention.

Semantics, the favorite argument of people who dont want to talk facts.

If you’ve got a problem with my evidence, then please disprove and argue that instead of picking apart my word choice.

Well, since you apparently haven’t been actually paying attention to the sources and papers mentioned in this thread:

https://owston.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/an-analysis-of-fourth-cousins-and-other-near-distant-relatives/

This one’s a study showing that the average difference in genome between third cousins is about 0.8%, roughly the same as the average difference between races. Because individual genetic variation is far more drastic than racial variation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1801145/?page=2

This one’s yours! The one you said showed that Africans had 8 genes alone on Chromosome 13 that they shared with chimps. Just so you know, the study doesn’t say that at all and I’m not sure where you got that from. What it DOES say is that Africans are far far closer genetically to other humans than chimps, and that only 10% of genetic variation sampled was due to racial differences.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7668280

This one, like yours, shows that there is more genetic variation WITHIN a population group than between groups.

And then of course there’s the fact that humans of all races can consistently produce fertile offspring, which indicates near identical genomes. I won’t source this one because it’s pretty much common knowledge, but I could if you wanted.

There’s more sources than this in the thread, but here’s the essentials on facts and evidence. Now that you’ve got it, will you continue to argue semantics?

(Nobody tell him that dingoes, dogs, and wolves are all the same species. It’ll be a suprise)

Also, once again, I must tell you that they must produce CONSISTENTLY FERTILE offspring. Coydogs are far more sterile and reproductively unviable than plain dogs, by a LONG measure, and the lines that can cant reproduce at all past a couple generations.

“>denounces scientific evidence to the contrary because of her programming”

Lol what evidence? You’ve brought forth ONE piece of evidence, and that was your paper about chromosome 13 who’s results you made up. Remember, the one that actually showed that africans are much much closer to other humans than chimps? The one that showed only 10% of genetic variation they saw was due to race?

So come on, show us your other evidence. Otherwise you just “have opinions that are not borne out by reality.”

Setting aside that you’re trusting Wikipedia with your info, Wikipedia DOES list them as the same species. They are all designated as Canis lupus. Canis is the genus, lupus is the species. The trinomial designators that you see (ie Canis lupus familiaris, Canis lupus lupus, Canis lupus dingo) are just the way people taxonomically identify different populations within the same species.

And blacks are not genetically so similar to apes; only barely more so than every other human. As the study you brought up so clearly says, blacks are much more similar (almost identical) to the other human populations than they are to chimps. Did you read that part? You still haven’t answered.

Besides, if your point is that people who are furthest from Chimps are somehow more “advanced,” then based on the data you supplied, Europeans would be the middle of the pack. After all, the South American population, Native American population, and Pacific Islander population were all further away from Chimps than the German population was. Are you admitting that they are more advanced than Germanic peoples, since Germans are closer to chimps? I look forward to your non-reply.

>hurr durr projection much

lol it’s not projection. I told you what your paper actually said and you reply with two straight posts of nothing but hilarious jokes and insults. Still waiting for your response to the contents of that paper, by the way. I give you a summary of sourced articles and evidence, you ignore almost all of it and zero in on the bit about breeding while ignoring everything else.

If you’re not deflecting, tell me what you thought of the other sourced evidence i brought up. Instead of ignoring it. And then submit evidence other than your one article.

THERE’S the non-reply I was expecting. Another perfect blend of funny witty insults and jokes that really hurt my poor little feelings.

Man, you REALLY dont want to talk about the science and evidence in this argument, do you? Not even the evidence and science you yourself brought up.
This whole argument started, and continued to be about, the genetic status of african people and their relationship to broader human genomics

Remember. All the evidence I’ve presented is right there for you to click on and read. Even your own article. But you’re REALLY trying hard to not talk about that and instead about what you feel is right with youtube videos, even though it has nothing to do with genetic structure.

As a wise man once said: “You have opinions that are not borne out by reality and an unwillingness to change them.” -TRVTH, 2020

If you would actually read the posts, click the links, and pay attention, I wouldn’t have to do this:

– IQ tests that show lower on-average IQs for blacks ALSO show that their IQs have been growing at a rate faster than whites for several decades now, closing the iq gap. If you accept that black iq is due to genetics, do you accept that somehow they have all en masse become genetically more intellectually capable and able to learn than whites?

-Tests measuring the actual thinking parts of the brain (and not water content/structural portions) show no significant difference between blacks and whites. And depsite that, if you claim that gross cranial capacity is a metric of intelligence, as the other guy did, then you must also accept that Mexicans are more intelligent than nordic and Germanic people. Do you?

– I cant believe I have to say this yet again, but blacks are STILL much much closer to other humans than they are to chimps. Nothing has changed since the last time you posted. They are only barely closer to chimps than other human populations. And if you claim that genetic closeness to chimps is indicative of primitiveness, than you must also accept that germans are more primitive than Latinos, based on your data. Do you?

That’s how an argument and discussion works. You present evidence, then I present evidence and refute it, then you again. It’s not I present evidence, then you ignore it and make great jokes and claim i never presented it in the first place.

Until you answer the three questions i asked, all you’re doing is ignoring my counter points and deflecting. Keep on making your jokes.

Lol if that makes you feel more secure about your ungrounded beliefs about genetics

Wouldn’t wouldn’t to keep pressing for an answer if youd just stop deflecting and address my points.

When you feel like responding to my actual argument and counterpoints to your points, feel free to actually respond

And you’re just another person trying to claim his opinions and feelings are fact, even though all empirical scientific evidence says you are wrong, and that they are human.

Again, if you assert that being a human with more Gene’s homologous to chimps means you are more primitive, then you are ALSO asserting that Germans are more primitive than Mexicans.

Cant wait for you to reach that part of your argument.

Lol so including your own article you presented, that you were so excited about?

You didnt think it was pseudoscience then. You were so excited to show off that article, dated to WELL after ww2.

You only started saying it was fake when you realized the science didnt back up your opinions and feelings. The science YOU presented.

It CANT be that your opinions and feelings are wrong – no, it must be that all the science is wrong and you are right, right?

“You have opinions that are not borne out by reality and an unwillingness to change them.” – TRVTH, 2020

So is that a yes or a no about your article being pseudoscience? Hahaha

What do my beliefs about race, sociologically, have to do with anything? I’ve never mentioned what they are. They’re irrelevant.

What’s being debated here is objective scientific data, and you people trying to twist it to say what you want it to say.

And then claiming it’s fake when you find out it says things you DONT want it to say.

I’m only arguing against your twisted perceptions of what science says. I dont care what your feelings and opinions are.

Couldnt have said it better myself. Reading IS fundamental.

Because see, if you’d READ the article you presented, you would have seen that:

– Africans are genetically grouped with the other humans
– they found only 10% of all genetic variation between humans was due to racial differences
– germans are closer to chimps than latinos, native americans, and pacific islanders
– what you said about 8 genes on chromosome 13 was never mentioned.

So, either you didnt read the article, you DID read it but didnt understand it, or you were openly blatantly lying about what the article said.

Which is it?

Lol. I’ll just put this here, from my last post:

“(Looking forward to you trying to claim it’s not anthropology, while ignoring the rest of this post and the question)”

The most predictable of the predictable. Focus only on the semantics because you cant argue anything else.

You cant even argue the semantics, too. What do you think anthropology is?

It’s the study of man. Go to any university, and “human genetics” will be part of the anthropology curriculum. Read any published anthropology journal and you’ll find scads of genetics paper.

Your Deka guy, the author of the paper you completely didnt understand? Guess the name of the other journal he published his genetic work under? “Anthropology.”

But what do they all know, right? After all if TRVTH, internet commentator, feels it’s not anthropology, then it must not be.

Now, maybe we can quit semantics and you can answer my question from my last post?

Anthropology isn’t genetics. Genetics isn’t anthropology. The American Journal of Human Genetics is a scholarly journal pertaining to genetics, not anthropology. It’s right there in the title. You don’t get to have your own list of definitions that apply only to you, tard. Words mean things, tard.

Keep on backpedaling, though. Keep bleating out that pilpul that was ladled into the top of your head from the televitz. Keep trying to show up those wascally wacists. Keep telling yourself what kind of an epic story you’ll have to tell to all the other tards on Tumblr.

Normal people subconsciously view miscegenation with the same disgust as bestiality:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103116300555

There’s a new definition of speciation that doesn’t involve “ability to produce fertile offspring”, this one simply uses genes to determine where one species ends and another begins:

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1644/06-MAMM-F-038R2.1

Once again you’re on the losing side of reality.

the average genetic difference between blacks and whites is the same as the individual difference between you and your third cousin. Do you consider your third cousin to be subhuman?

No it isn’t. That’s completely and utterly wrong. Only a fü çking nïg gër would be so desperate for something so patently false to be true.

The fact that you didn’t delete all of these comments in embarrassment and humiliation is enough to convince me that you’re trolling and merely pretending to be retarded.

Nothing challenges scientific evidence better than epic twitch meemees.

Don’t break an arm jacking yourself off, there.

I’m trying, but goddamn if you don’t keep popping up with your r/atheism-tier facade of smugness.

It’s obvious and undeniable to anybody who’s ever had to deal in person with real live specimens of H. Africansis.

Of course, if you’re eleven years old and your parents are sweating blood to send you to a private school to protect you from “cultural enrichment,” and you have too much free time to follow Internet trends, it’s understandable–not to be condoned, but understandable–that you might spend too much time on Tumblr and decide that “raycisms” is the worst thing EVAR and gird your loins to do battle with people who are LITERALLY HITLAR, so that you can pat yourself on the back and virtue-signal about what a good person you are.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/562cc5d93215cbfe3b98852a4b5c88c37b768741fd8da748b9f1acb819fe7447.jpg

VERITAS MAGNVS EST ET PREVALAEBIT

The truth is mighty and it shall prevail. The universe doesn’t care about his insistence that two and two make five.

yeah idk about that broski i’ve hung out with a few “h africansis” before and they seemed pretty coolio to me

i dunno dude i dunno something tells me this isn’t quite right

lmao aight then

There is more to it than that.

Remember, the African American minority devolved from fighting for their right to sit on the bus to what the situation is now because the left has succeeded in controlling them with Planned Parenthood and the loan processes, they have literally created the culture of a Black man leaving his wife when she breaks the news that she is pregnant.