Originally posted by JohnnyRottonBut genetically this isn't true.
Everyone deserves equal treatment, yes.That doesn't explain why there are average disparities between racial groups in all sorts of areas.
"Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue - Scientific American" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
More than 100 years ago, American sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois was concerned that race was being used as a biological explanation for what he understood to be social and cultural differences between different populations of people. He spoke out against the idea of "white" and "black" as discrete groups, claiming that these distinctions ignored the scope of human diversity.
Science would favor Du Bois. Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning. And yet, you might still open a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like "white" and "black" being used as biological variables.
I've read that paper Whirly,
It says that Race isn't an absolute metric to judge people by due to genetic diversity within races.
However, it tacitly admits that there are, on average, differnces among racial groups as a result of genetics.
I.E take a person of african american hertiage, they're more likely to be genetically simmilar to someone who fits that same racial class, just that it's not always going to be the case.
Obviously this is a bit too nuanced for your poor understanding of logic to understand though, which is why you brought forth a study that isn't relevent to the discussion in the first place.
Originally posted by JohnnyRottonYou clearly haven't read that paper then.
I've read that paper Whirly,It says that Race isn't an absolute metric to judge people by due to genetic diversity within races.
However, it tacitly admits that there are, on average, differnces among racial groups as a result of genetics.
I.E take a person of african american hertiage, they're more likely to be genetically simmilar to someone who fits that same racial class, just that it's not always going to be the case.
Obviously this is a bit too nuanced for your poor understanding of logic to understand though, which is why you brought forth a study that isn't relevent to the discussion in the first place.
In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim.
Also, your article literally says there are differences in racial groups in america :
"However, he added that, in North America, where the majority of the population has come from different parts of the world during the past 300 years, distinctions like "African Americans" or "European Americans" might still work as a proxy to suggest where a person's major ancestry originated."
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
You clearly haven't read that paper then.In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim.
Originally posted by JohnnyRotton
Also, your article literally says there are differences in racial groups in america :"However, he added that, in North America, where the majority of the population has come from different parts of the world during the past 300 years, distinctions like "African Americans" or "European Americans" might still work as a proxy to suggest where a person's major ancestry originated."
yes, it really does.
again.
"However, he added that, in North America, where the majority of the population has come from different parts of the world during the past 300 years, distinctions like "African Americans" or "European Americans" might still work as a proxy to suggest where a person's major ancestry originated."
What I said on the matter :
Originally posted by JohnnyRottonI.E take a person of african american hertiage, they're more likely to be genetically simmilar to someone who fits that same racial class, just that it's not always going to be the case.
Originally posted by JohnnyRottonHaha triggered. You do realise no Genome wide studies have ever concluded specific genes are associated with IQ anyway, as Surt alludes it's a lot more complicated than that.
Yes, and your article doesn't even begin to debunk the differnce in intelligence between, for example, african americans and Europeans.Despite your scientifically illiterate ass claiming so.
Honestly if this is the level of discourse you bring to the table, you should have stayed banned.
Originally posted by JohnnyRottonIt depends how you define intelligence. Obviously, at the extreme ends a Mozart or an Arlie Petters had different specific gifts. Petters is a prodigy Mathematician of African descent, think Srinvinista from Africa rather than Asia. You probably know of Mozart. But, the way genes combine, randomly, lead to mosaic effects, it's unlikely a single set of genes exists for intelligence. Obviously environment has a role if Mozart hadn't had access to a Piano, and music no one would have recognised his genius.
So wait Putinbot, are you trying to say that genetics doesn't play a role in intelligence at all?
Saying that a person's skin color dictates that person's level of intelligence sounds pretty damn racist to me.
It sounds a lot like that racist Darwinian belief that certain "races" are "more evolved" than others. That is what is truly hogwash as is the idea of macro evolution itself.
And the belief that all people are created equal is not hogwash either. In the eyes of God, we are all equal at birth. That is one of the great underlying principles of this country.
That new guy is starting to sound a lot like the founder of the alt-right movement.... Something Spencer or whatever his name is.