How does that tree conflict with my explanation of races?
Both of these groups hail from West Africa. The Mandenka have a more recent common ancestor with Europeans and Asians then with the Hausa (and both of these are very large African ethnic groups, numbering in the tens of millions). Obviously they can’t be considered the same race, genetically. There are numerous pairings of large African ethnic groups that show this counter-intuitive genetic relationship.
Your “three race” categorization completely fails when genetic data from varied, large African populations is fed in. It doesn’t make sense to include groups that are so far apart (and closer to the other “races”) in the same “race”.
How could both of these groups, or groups like the Bamileke and Kikuyu, or the many other pairings that show this, possibly both be “Negro”?
Holy shit, this is still happening. I had hoped it was all a dream.
Dey looks black to him!
Yes, Olive, you really caught lightning in a bottle this time. Of course, the lightning is several magnitudes brighter than NDD or Brazil…
Because it shows numerous sub-Saharan African populations that have a more recent common ancestor with Europeans and Asians then with numerous other sub-Saharan African populations. (here is the chart again)
Here are several pairs of African populations (according to mitochondrial DNA) that show the same relationship- the first is closer to Europeans and Asians then it is to the second:
Bamileke and Kikuyu
Mandenka and Hausa
Yoruba and Biaka
Ewondo and Ibo
Yoruba and Mandenka
Ibo and Hausa
And there are others just in that chart, and probably dozens or hundreds of others involving population groups that this particular study did not utilize samples from.
It makes no sense to include any of those pairings in the same race, unless that race also includes all Europeans and Asians (which, as I said before, are closer to the first group than to the second in all these cases, according to this chart).
Human genetic relationships are hard, and science is hard. Genetics show that’s pretty much impossible to divide all (or even most) of humanity into just three groups by genetic relationships between populations.
Yeah, it’s amazing that after thousands of posts, the “genetic evidence” basically comes down to “I know it when I see it”.
And it’s still amazing that “evidence” apparently still means “correlation that I want to be true”, rather than “shown to be statistically significant and controlled for other factors”.
There’s dumb. There’s willfully blind. And then there’s this singularity of vapidity that threatens to doom human intelligence as we know it.
Fortunately, NDD’s own logic tells us their progeny (if any) are unlikely to survive to reproduce …
They are also primarily peoples of the Sahel.
It is in fact his real thinking.
You’re the guy who claims that African-Americans aren’t “negroes” but are “mulattoes” and then claim that studies of African-Americans prove that “negroes” are “superior athletically” but “mentally inferior”.
There is a very technical term for such logic. Stupid.
I think you’ve summed up NND’s contribution to this thread very well.
Hispanic is a race?
I would classify it as a hybrid race, composed of Europeans, American Indians, and some Negroes. Because of this mixed character the Hispanic crime rate and average IQ is between whites and Negroes.
The cliche “correlation is not causation” is repeated by those who do not want to recognize obvious causes.
Evidence of intrinsic racial inequality exists everywhere. I have posted quite a lot of it in this thread. Talk to a public school teacher who has taught whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Orientals. If the teacher tells the truth that teacher will tell you that there is a difference.
You did not answer my question. Is that because you were too stupid to understand it? That question once again: how does that tree contradict my explanation of race?
You weren’t addressing me, but are you kidding? I answered it in post #2102 and #2106, on this same page. Did you miss it?
If race is only a social construct, why does the non race of Negroes deserve special preferences in order to achieve diversity and inclusion? Why does the non race of Negroes need special preferences in order to achieve diversity and inclusion? When are those people going to behave and perform as well as whites and Orientals? Another fifty years? Another five hundred years? I would like an estimate.
So, now, we have “hybrid” races. And NDD has changed his tune ONCE AGAIN and added American Indian as a separate, distinct race (how many is that now? 6? 7?), where before, AmerInd was definitely one of the other races.
“Evidence of inequality” is NOT “evidence of a genetic link between race and intelligence”. You don’t assume the alternate hypothesis. You assume the null hypothesis until you have statistically significant evidence otherwise.
How many times does that need repeating?
I’ve made that point numerous times.
How have you controlled for socioeconomic factors?
How have you separated genetic factors from other potential biological factors in intelligence?
How have you separated even biological factors from ANY other factors?
You wouldn’t get as much backlash if you made even a slightly less inane point, like “This ‘race’ is less intelligence than this other ‘race’”. Sure, you’d get backlash (because it’s still a dumb, and as yet unproven point), but at least you wouldn’t be getting basic science as wrong as you get it here.
And that doesn’t even touch on the massive errors in history and culture you’ve made over the last several weeks (Imperial Exam, history of technology in Japan, performance of Asians in the US in Hawaii or 19th century California, representative democracy and high standard of living being higher among Western Europeans (not even all “white” people) in the 20th century well before East Asia, etc.)
As I pointed out, American Indians are a sub race of Mongoloids.