Did you just make an assertion that someone said something they didn’t? How the hell are you going to ban yourself? This will be fun to watch.
Then why the hell were you trying to prove that studies that classify black people as less intelligent than white people are valid?
You admitted that in the thread in question, your point was that a test should not be ruled invalid because it charted differences in race. The only tests that are ruled invalid are the ones that attempt to say there is a genetic component that causes black people to be inferior. There is no reason to want those tests to be seen as valid other than the fact that you are a racist.
If you aren’t a racist, then stop trying to get racist studies accepted.
P.S., I’d love it if another poster would quote me to show how fucking stupid his putting people on ignore is. He ignores all people who disagree with him. When they agree with him, he ignores the fact that they break his rules.
And, as I’ve said before, the best way to deal with him is to make him have to ban every single person on this messageboard. Come on, people. He contributes absolutely nothing, and has given us a way to get rid of him.
I wish it were so easy with Chen19. But the mods just won’t ban the racist little shit, despite being a one issue poster who constantly lies about what citations say, and clearly posts just to stir up shit.
They’d rather make up a rule that Blake is not allowed to continually point out that someone hasn’t answered his question, while not using the preexisting rule in GD that one must respond to questions asked or directly say that you will not respond.
It suggests that your claim about the clusters being statistical artifacts was wrong. Now you’re retreating by saying that the discontinuous jumps aren’t “major” 
Given that no definition of biological race is provided in the paper, I would agree with the blogger - it’s a politically correct statement tagged on with no real explanation.
Which is why I’ve been at pains throughout these discussions to go back to basic commonly used definitions of race or sub species. Then work from there.
Okay, so there are minor and insignificant “racial” differences, then? But not “major” ones, in your eyes.
You’re engaging in a funny kind of argument here. As your citation demonstrates, there aren’t clear categorical differences between these purported “races”; there are, at best, statistical groupings demonstrated on the basis of examination of an enormous number of loci, that hint at there being a small degree of geographical separation between different human populations tens of thousands of years ago. Something I would consider incontrovertible but something that doesn’t remotely establish any actual validity for racial descriptions of human beings.
I.e. you’ve demonstrated – although you may well not be smart enough to realize it – that only minor differences exist between human populations. Because one wouldn’t have to resort to examining larger and larger sets of loci – as your authors here did – in order to confirm the existence of geographically separate groups. Genetic markers confirming their separateness would have emerged quickly, had they been separate. But they didn’t – researchers couldn’t just examine a few loci to determine relatedness. In other words, your own citation disproves your point. It takes large amounts of DNA and resulting statistical tools to identify “clusters”, not the sort of simple genetic markers that actually confirm isolation between groups. Because, of course, human groups have never been isolated from one another in the way that species of grasshoppers or whatever you wish to compare us to have been. That’s precisely why you and the scientists you keep misrepresenting haven’t found comparable differences between human subpopulations.
Certainly one would naturally conclude that a published scientist’s explanation of their own data was less reliable than a blogger.
Too bad you’ve done so in a way that equivocates between actual isolated biological races and human groups that – as your own cites clearly prove – are not isolated in the way that actual biological races are.
You misspelled “realists”. So, for the record, if my claim you cited is bullshit, then the 14 fastest men in the world do not share West African ancestry. But they do. That’s a simple fact. Yet, you call it bullshit. Hmmm. Sound like you are the one who is peddling bullshit.
So you think the West African sprinting gene is so powerful that not makes West African sprinters faster than God. :eek:
Fixed.
Anyway, you really think that the fact that most of the top sprinters in the world, Jesse Owens, Carl Lewis etc. are white is proof that people of European descent have genes that make them faster?
Please.
No, the bullshit is your inference from a trace of West African ancestry, that ancestry is the only common factor they share, or that it dominates their other commonalities.
Must be why there are all those Ghanaian and Congolese sprinters dominating the athletics world :dubious:
This doesn’t parse into English…
…and the fact that you think there is a “West African sprinting gene” just says all that needs to be said about your scientific credibility.
It’s another of those pick’n’mix genotype/phenotype/socio-ethnic subculture/geography arguments. If they match in one category, they match in all of them, right? Right?
Lol, no.
(all bolding mine)
Nonsense, I ignore those people who insist on breaking my rules. If you think I’m wrong, why not just provide an example to back up your claim?
If you prefer not to engage with me, then just put me on ignore. It’s as simple as that.
Well, they presumably share at least some West African ancestry, although we can’t be sure how much until we get hold of their genome sequences. But as Mr Dibble and Ibn Warraq point out, they also presumably share some European ancestry too.
And you know, so do a whole heaping lot of other people in the world. Demographically speaking, there’s just nothing that special or extraordinary about belonging to “the Black race”—i.e., having dark skin and recent sub-Saharan ancestry.
Being one of the top 10 or 15 fastest sprinters in world history, though, is something that’s really special and extraordinary. If we want to understand whether and how genetic factors might have played a role in the remarkable achievements of this tiny super-elite, then we should be looking at their actual genetic heritage based on their individual DNA. Not pulling speculative inferences out of our asses about some hypothetical “West African sprinting gene”.
(And even if there does turn out to be some gene or combination of genes in one of the genetic principal components characteristic of West African populations that does produce traits that conduce to fast sprinting—and I certainly wouldn’t think it surprising or disappointing in any way if there did—why isn’t anybody getting excited about the equally plausible hypothetical Jamaican sprinting gene?
Statistically speaking, it is far more unlikely that 6 out of 8 of the world’s top sprinters should just happen by random chance to be Jamaican-born than it is that 14 out of 14 of them should just happen by random chance to be black. Considering how statistically unlikely it is that a tiny population of Jamaicans should dominate the sprinting records the way they do, even compared to other world-elite black sprinters, then clearly the hypothetical Jamaican sprinting gene is way superior to the more common hypothetical West African version.
Moreover, since black Jamaicans are a much smaller population than “the Black race” in general, it should be much easier to get a realistic estimate of their shared genetic heritage. So why aren’t the “race realists” making a big deal about that?)
Do you have any photos of him with his pants on fire?
Oh, the old let-me-ascribe-to-you-positions-you’ve-never-stated-but-makes-it-easier-for lame-me-to-shoot-holes-in-your-argument ploy. In other words, Holy Scarecrow, Batman. There’s nothing but straw here.
Which might be a valuable insight if me or anyone else in this thread expressed an opinion that all one needed to be an elite sprinter was West African ancestry. But since no one did, you’re typing into the ether. Man, you do move straw, don’t you.
You must not have the humor gene. Not your fault.
It’s true - magellan01 didn’t say any of that.
Of course, if that wasn’t what he intended to imply by what he did say, then the entire West African sprinter discussion is a pointless digression and can safely be ignored.
And if European ancestry gave one an edge in sprinting, wouldn’t you expect to find a Caucasian among the top 14 fastest people in the world? So, right now, if you had to place a million dollar bet on which ancestry is the one that apparently gives someone an edge in sprint speed, would you choose European or West African?
You’re contradicting yourself. Their West African ancestry is a part of their actual genetic heritage, is it not?
While I share your appreciation that’s it’s pretty startling that Jamaicans do so well, it seems to boil down to one of two things: one the WA ancestry “mingles” with some other part of the Jamaican make-up which results in a sprinting edge. Or, there is something about the culture/diet of Jamaica that allows those with inherent sprinting ability to maximize that ability. Refresh my memory, of the elite sprinters you identified as being “Jamaican”, were they all raised in Jamaica? That would be another interesting to look at. If I remember correctly, they weren’t, is that right?
I don’t know why thou think that people aren’t interested in the understanding the reason(s) Jamaicans do so well in sprinting. I certainly think itis interesting. I think the West African prism is interesting, as well. It seems like you are the one starting with some preconceived notion and MUST take the more racial component off the table. Again, I just don’t get that.
The problem is that “West African” is only a geographic grouping, not a genetic one, and a fairly large one at that. So the designation “West African” in this context is fundamentally useless. “Jamaican” is at least a much smaller population and easier to winnow genetically, but even that is not a “race”.
We are. Did you read Kimstu’s last post?
Which you’re entitled to do, but “finding it interesting” is right up there with “just asking questions” - innocent on the surface but often hiding other agendas. But of course you don’t do that sort of thing.
Clearly not, since you’d have to ignore vast swathes of this thread to reach that view.
So they’re “West African”, because they (presumably) have West African ancestry? So that means that if they have Caucasian/European ancestry, then the sprinters themselves are “Caucasian/European”? Great! So not only did we find 1 “Caucasian among the top 14 fastest people in the world”, it’s very likely that there are close to 14 Caucasians among the 14 fastest people in the world.
Neither, because all the 14 top sprinters in the list you linked to have BOTH European and West African genetic ancestry (as far as we can tell from what we know about their personal backgrounds and genetic mixing in black populations in the Western Hemisphere).
As a matter of fact, as far as we can tell, there isn’t a “pure” West African anywhere on that list of top sprinters. If it was really a gene in some particular strain of West African ancestry that provided the sprint speed edge, wouldn’t you expect to see actual West Africans dominating the sprint speed records, rather than people with mixed West African and European ancestry?
Consequently, if I were being unscientific enough to speculatively infer a genetic basis for top sprinting speed without doing any actual genetic testing, I would speculate instead that the “sprinting gene” was the result of mixing West African and European ancestry.
Because the people with only W. African ancestry don’t produce world-class sprinters, and neither do the people with only European ancestry. Clearly it’s something about the mixing of those populations that has resulted in the genetic advantage for sprinting. [/unscientific “race realist” thinking]
Why wouldn’t it just be a Jamaican super-sprinting gene that produced the “edge”? In other words, a genetic trait peculiar to Jamaicans that improves sprinting ability and leads to their disproportionate dominance in sprinting events? If you’re willing to hypothesize such a gene for West Africans in general, why not one for Jamaicans in particular?
Five of the six are Jamaican nationals and as far as I know have lived in Jamaica for their entire upbringing. The sixth, Donovan Bailey, lived in Jamaica till he was 13 before moving with his family to Canada. (The other “Canadian” on the list, Bruny Surin, lived in his native Haiti till he was 8, if we want to extend our speculation about the Jamaican sprinting gene to a possible Caribbean sprinting gene.)
Because the “more racial component” provided by simplistic phenotypic racial classification is a trivial and frequently misleading distraction from the reliable scientific information provided by actual genetic analysis. It doesn’t belong “on the table” with the real issues of genetic heritage because it’s so informationally inferior to them.
Honestly, magellan01, it’s as though you were claiming to be interested in lepidoptery, while ignoring the serious study of butterfly species in order to keep re-reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar.
I come along and say “Stop fixating on that superficial story and study some real sources on Lepidoptera!”
And you keep saying “But this book is about butterflies too! It’s related to the topic I’m interested in! Why do you insist on taking it off the table?”
After several rounds of that kind of exchange, you can’t be surprised if the credibility of your claim to be seriously interested in the study of butterflies ends up somewhat damaged. Dude, it’s pretty clear that you just enjoy reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar.
So the West African ancestry is significant, how, again? If it’s not the overriding factor, which is where you say I got the wrong end of the stick, whi couch it in terms of “West African sprinter” when you admit that’s not the significant bit?.
So, you think there might be environmental factor at play too? So the (dubiously-derived) race of the sprinter is significant because…?
Oh, I see, “It was all just a joke” now? That’s so not predictable at all.
No, I think you really do think there’s magic genes for sprinting, long distance and for intelligence. Which would be about the level of scientific knowledge you’ve shown to date.