Jacob Blake Police Shooting

Again you're showing you don't understand the difference between simple genes and complex multi-gene traits.

Let me explain again.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

If single genes can be distributed unevenly across populations, multiple traits can too.

The declaration above, is wrong.

Originally posted by JohnnyRotton
If single genes can be distributed unevenly across populations, multiple traits can too.

The declaration above, is wrong.

Again you're showing you don't understand the difference between simple genes and complex multi-gene traits.

Let me explain again.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

Yeah, that statement is wrong and makes no distinction between single genes and multi gene traits.

I can in fact rank populations based on genetics :

You are using a simple single Trait which fits simple mendalian crosses.

Again you're showing you don't understand the difference between simple genes and complex multi-gene traits.

Let me explain again.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

Again, the paper you're citing doesn't make exemption for "single genes" or multiple ones.

It just says I can't rank populations using genetics, which is factually wrong.

Originally posted by JohnnyRotton
Again, the paper you're citing doesn't make exemption for "single genes" or multiple ones.

It just says I can't rank populations using genetics, which is factually wrong.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

Please read the Scientific position of most geneticists.

Whirly, stop spamming.

It says I can't rank populations with genetics, it doesn't' specify wether I can use single genes or multiple genes.

They made a statement that was flat out wrong.

Originally posted by JohnnyRotton
Whirly, stop spamming.

It says I can't rank populations with genetics, it doesn't' specify wether I can use single genes or multiple genes.

They made a statement that was flat out wrong.

Triggered by American geneticists general consensus.

I doubt a scientific consensus agreed on every bit of wording on that paper.

for example the idea of "racial purity" is bogus, so that we agree. That human populations are diverse and can't be best defined by race is correct. The idea that race is purely socially constructed, is factually wrong. The idea that you can't rank human populations via genetics is factually wrong seen as I can do that on average when it comes to a variety of traits.

so far no scientists have debunked the idea that genes relating to intelligence are more prevalent in some racial groups than others.

Originally posted by JohnnyRotton
I doubt a scientific consensus agreed on every bit of wording on that paper.

for example the idea of "racial purity" is bogus, so that we agree. That human populations are diverse and can't be best defined by race is correct. The idea that race is purely socially constructed, is factually wrong. The idea that you can't rank human populations via genetics is factually wrong seen as I can do that on average when it comes to a variety of traits.

so far no scientists have debunked the idea that genes relating to intelligence are more prevalent in some racial groups than others.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

Please read the Scientific position of most geneticists.

Yes whirly, I agree that there is no such thing as racial purity. The alt right don't even argue that these days. I also agree that there is overlap.

However, that populations can'r be ranked on average using genetics with traits that are genetic in nature, is factually wrong.

So either american genealogists are shit
The claim is political in nature
or not every scientist agreed on the specific wording of this press release

I'm going with option 3.

anyway we haven't even come remotely close to debunking IQ and race. So I guess I'll leave your concessions at the door.

Quite triggered by Scientific opinion of American Geneticists to your views. 😂

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

Please read the Scientific position of most geneticists.

All of that is fine whirly.

The only missfact is that you can't use genetics to show differences in populations. So either not every scientist agreed on that specific point, or they are all wrong. I chose the first.

Originally posted by JohnnyRotton
All of that is fine whirly.

The only missfact is that you can't use genetics to show differences in populations. So either not every scientist agreed on that specific point, or they are all wrong. I chose the first.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

Please read the Scientific position of most geneticists.

Just so we are sure who you are disagreeing with.

Pro Tip: When the people defending state violence against black people also defend the discredited notion that black people are less intelligent and more violent than other races, they out themselves and each other as racists.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Pro Tip: When the people defending state violence against black people also defend the discredited notion that black people are less intelligent and more violent than other races, they out themselves and each other as racists.

Well black people are factually more violent and less intelligent then average.

So I don't know where you're agreeing with notion that this is discredited. It's not anywhere close to being discredited.

Originally posted by JohnnyRotton
Well black people are factually more violent and less intelegent then average.

So I don't know where you're agreeing with notion that this is discredited. It's not anywhere close to being discredited.