Why should we think they are? As has always been shown repeatedly “ethnic groups” turn out to be a collection of genetic groups, which may not even be that closely related. It seems highly unlikely that a group as huge and old as “Han Chinese” is all one genetic group. And a quick hop over to Wikipedia gets me this:
Yeah, that sure sounds like they are all the same genetic group. :rolleyes:
I don’t know . . . it depends on how you define “genetic group.” ETA: For purposes of the race and intelligence debate, I don’t think it’s necessary to have such a concept.
The reason I asked the question is that it’s pretty non-controversial that there are differences between ethnic groups which are primarily the result of genetics.
Again, it depends on how you define the phrase “genetic group.” Without a definition, it’s rather pointless to argue whether Han Chinese are a “genetic group.”
Of course. If you define a “genetic group” has having a certain gene, then people with the gene belong to that group. People without the gene don’t belong to that group. I’m not seeing how this is a difficult concept.
My mistake, I was thinking your referring to “3 races” was how either you and NDD have said that there are three major races (e.g. white, Oriental/Mongloid, and black). I forgot post #1148 referred to your non-sensical hypothetical.
Many people have posted evidence that “blacks” don’t exist as a “genetic group”. It has been repeatedly shown that there is greater genetic diversity within Africa (even within just sub-Saharan Africa) than within the rest of the world. And that many sub-Saharan African groups are more closely related to Europeans or Asians than to other sub-Saharan African groups. Just because you ignore the criteria posted by others doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
These criteria can’t be applied to ethnic groups reliably, because ethnic groups cannot be accurately defined by genetics. They are culturally or historically defined groups, that do not have a genetic basis. That’s the point of this thread.
I’m a chick, thanks. And I have read every single post (unlike you, who at least claims to ignore many of them). just because I didn’t immediately recall all the details of one of your posts (over 1,000 posts ago) doesn’t mean I haven’t read it, and doesn’t excuse you acting like a sanctimonious prick.
Of course there is no gene that defines any of those groups. And of course they are not “genetic groups” by my definition (or any rational definition). They may be an ethnicity, or a culture, or a traditional socio-economic group, but they are not a “race” or a “genetic group”.
You may not have noticed, but that’s kind of the point of this thread. If you can provide proof that any of those groups have an identifying gene(s) that has any specificity or sensitivity for reliably identifying members of those groups, please don’t hesitate to post it.
I know. But sometimes it’s just too difficult.
If you’d actually read the thread (which you obviously haven’t) you would know how evasive people have become when asked questions along these lines.
I specifically referred to the “3 Races I defined earlier.” So if you had actually read the thread, you would have known what I was talking about.
Yes, depending on how you define “genetic group.” Of course there is no need to post evidence for a claim if everyone agrees on it. I am happy to concede that there is no gene which is universal among blacks and universally lacking among non-blacks.
I haven’t ignored the criteria at all; I have simply asked for precision and asked that those criteria be applied universally.
Ok, and let me ask you this:
Do you agree that there exist gaps between ethnic groups which are primarily the result of genetics?
For example, Ashkenazim are much more likely to have blue eyes than Han Chinese and to suffer from Familial Dysautonomia than Han Chinese?
The polite thing to do would have been to say “I don’t recall you defining 3 races before. Can you point me to the post where you did so?”
Instead, you rudely (and falsely) claimed that I had never defined 3 races.
Sure. Now please answer my questions.
Do you agree that there exist some genetic traits which are not evenly distributed among the 3 Races I defined earlier?
Do you agree that there exist measurable differences between ethnic groups which differences are primarily the result of genetics?
If a non-white person like myself finds the “silly little tree” a true-blooded aryan such as yourself finds it “difficult to read” doesn’t that suggest that your theories of whites being “mentally superior” is bullshit?
BTW, why is it that you have such an obsession with this subject and such a strong hatred of black people?
Did a black person beat you up once?
Did a white woman you had a crush on wind up going out with a black man instead?
That would certainly explain your odd reactions to the claim of your hero Rushton that whites were anatomically inferior to blacks when it came to penis size and the ability to satisfy sexual partners and why you prattled on for several paragraphs insisting that women didn’t actually care about the size of a man’s penis.
I’ll make this simple in your native retardese.
He banned you, you bag of cunts.
Oh but in his retard science, you probably have a mixed ancestory, making you a mojito! Or some similar sounding thing just as retarded.
Be honest, do you have any inferior alcoholic spirits in your ancestry? Are you 1/8th minty?
Maybe? But the “Races” you defined in your hypothetical are so arbitrary and random, that I don’t see the point. I think this question is pointless anyways, as you’ve only set it up as an attempted “gotcha” to lead into your second question.
A lot of the genetic differences between population groups are actually from non-coding portions of DNA (often called “junk” DNA) or mitochondrial DNA. Non-coding/junk DNA actually comprises 95-98% of the human genome (estimates vary). And actually, non-coding DNA is more likely to be used to study the relationships between human populations because it doesn’t code for an actual gene - therefore it isn’t selected for or against very much, and it makes a more useful “clock” to date when populations diverged in history and how much admixture there has been between them.
So even if I stipulate that there are some differences in the DNA between populations that may in some cases correspond to traditional ethnic or "racial: groups, these differences wouldn’t necessarily correspond to coding sections of DNA that affect gene expression or a particular phenotype or physical trait.
Of course there are measurable genetic differences between population groups, but it’s pretty messy and it’s impossible to draw neat “race” categories around those groups. However, what you have completely failed to acknowledge is that even if there are some genetic differences that, on average, differ between fuzzily-defined groups, that doesn’t mean that any particular observable difference in physical traits or phenotypes or behaviors are due to genetics.
It’s ridiculous. You have repeatedly derided “Pure Environmentalists” (IIRC that’s the name of the straw man you set up?). “Nature versus Nurture” debates have always seemed stupid to me, because it seems obvious that most of the time people’s behaviors are not Nature or Nurture - they’re both. You dismiss out of hand the possibility that observed performance gaps in IQ testing or rates of criminal convictions are due to “nurture” (i.e. sociocultural factors or environmental non-genetic factors). But you have no proof whatsoever that those observed differences are solely or even mostly due to genetics - just you bald assertion that it is so.
So to more succintly answer your question - "Do you agree that there exist measurable differences between ethnic groups which differences are primarily the result of genetics?"
There are some measurable physical/behavioral differences between individuals and populations that sometimes loosely corresponds to ethnic groups but often does not. Some of these differences may be not at all, or slightly, or somewhat, or mostly, or totally the result of genetics. It depends on which differences you are talking about, and if there is any scientific studies and genetic proof to back up any particular association. In regards to this thread - I have not yet seen any compelling evidence to state that intelligence can be linked to any gene(s), or that those (not identified) genes can be linked to populations or ethnic groups.
Maybe he ate someone today.
“I don’t know . . . it depends on how you define “genetic group.” ETA: For purposes of the race and intelligence debate, I don’t think it’s necessary to have such a concept.”
“I haven’t ignored the criteria at all; I have simply asked for precision and asked that those criteria be applied universally.”
Does it hurt much when you do that?
To begin with, the burden of proof here is on you.
Yeah - I can’t imagine how he doesn’t sprain something in his brain with all those contortions and mental gymnastics going on up there.
Imitating b84: “Is it too much to ask that precise criteria be defined and applied universally? Except when it comes to this debate - then I’ll just ignore it all and go with the truthiness I know in my gut.”
Brazil’s bad news: science is hard. Boo!
His good news: it is not needed for this debate! Yay!
Jeepers - Cannibals and savages ? I was right. NDD really does see Africans like this.
:rolleyes: If you want to claim that groups are genetically less intelligent, then you most certainly need such a concept. Or are you going to claim that the groups you don’t like are less intelligent because of a divine curse? Or perhaps it’s stupification rays projected by the gay Jewish Illuminati.
Let’s gently take your definitions and repackage them back over to you; keeping it on an honest mark with the assertion of this thread and the OP; no obfuscation:
Race 1) {Negroes}
Race 2) {Orientals}
Race 3) {Caucasians}
We’ll start with just two simple, and honest questions:
Genetically, how should we define each of the races you insist exist? That is, by what genetic criteria is each to fall under, at the minimum?
Failing genetics, how is someone like myself supposed to determine, with accuracy, which race some individual should fall under?
The point is that even with arbitrarily defined “Races,” it’s still logically possible to (1) observe average differences between those races; and (2) conclude that much of the difference is due to genetics.
I take it you agree with this?
I take it this means “yes”? i.e. you concede that (1) there are observable differences among ethnic groups which (2) are due in large part to genetics?
I completely acknowledge that. But it’s irrelevant to my point.
So you concede that much of the observed achievement gap between blacks and whites is likely to be due to genetics?
And let me ask you this: Why do you think people in this very thread talk about economic embargos on Haiti? Why do you think they assert that blacks underperform because of American culture? Seriously, why?
That’s not true, my position is that the performance gaps are due in large part to genetics. I am open to the possibility that some of the gap is due to non-genetic factors. Again, please do not misrepresent my position.
Again, not true. The evidence is that the differences are substantially universal in space and time.
Fine, so the claim that races are not “genetic groups” does not mean that the observed achievement gaps among the races are not substantially genetic in cause. In other words, the “race doesn’t exist” argument is a red herring.
Why?
In your view, is the “Race 1” I defined earlier a “genetic group”?
Perhaps the contortions and mental gymnastics are going on in your brain. After all, you have misstated my position 2 or 3 times now.
No one denies there is an achievement gap, so any evidence for the achievement gap is pointless for this discussion. There is zero evidence that this achievement gap is due to genetic difference between populations (or “races”). You believe it despite there being no evidence for it. And you apparently believe all “black” populations share this, despite the fact that many “black” populations are more closely related to “white” and “asian” populations than to other “black” populations.
Your only explanation (which you have no evidence for) is that some “smart” genes appeared in “white” and “asian” populations after those populations were separate from “black” populations… but if it’s such an adaptive advantage, why didn’t it spread to the rest of humanity? Humans have been (and still are) breeding across “racial” boundaries for all of history… why wouldn’t those (hypothetical and evidence-free) beneficial genes spread through all of humanity?
