Your conclusion is wrong and rather than ascertain the correct facts(like you did below), you made something up. You are a liar.
Apologize for you lies? That I believe other posters have linked to studies that eliminate other causes? No. Stop trying to weasel your way out of your lies.
Not until a pathway is shown. At least that’s my personal belief, you are apparently free to make-up a false one that fits your argument, as you can’t seem to honestly debate. Good-bye, liar.
I’ve been away from the thread for a while - and lo and behold I return and find out b84 is trying to use one tiny snippet of my responses as a “gotcha” to support his position. :rolleyes:
At the time I was posting, no one had linked yet to the information about the Han chinese genetic markers. See b84 - this is how you might try to prove your position - by linking to actual genetic studies. I do note, incidentally, that the study identified some actual genetic markers that are shared by many (but by no means all) people who might be traditionally defined based on appearance/family/culture as being part of the Han group.
However, it is typical of you to take this one study saying that one ethnic group has some shared genetic markers, and then just assert (without evidence) that it must apply to other groups as well. I mean, the other groups you posited that I was responding to in my quote include “Ashkenazim” and “ethnic French”. Not to mention that a group with more (historically) isolated culture and presumably less gene flow like the Han is in no way comparable, population genetics-speaking, to “the blacks”. If you’re trying to claim that they are “genetic groups” (and not just religious/national groupings or people how have a vaguely similar skin color) then the onus is on you to find actual scientific evidence of that. ::crickets:: ::crickets::
B84 has been doing so much goalpost moving in this thread it’s not even funny - and then he self-righteously accuses others of doing the same.
No faith involved. I’m going for the preponderance of the evidence.
What else does he have? He has no scientific studies, no genetic information at all, just his stubbornly held position and his version of logic for dummies.
If there had been any evidence at all posted that held to his position that didn’t contain admitted made up numbers, I would have read it and maybe be swayed to at least a more neutral position, but so far… nothing from the racist contingent.
ETA: Since NDD is still posting here… no, NDD, your numbers about criminality say nothing about genetics and your racial separations are seriously flawed.
So did NDD STFU yet?
What happened with the making fun? Mock! Mock! Mock!
Genes have nothing to do with genetics!
Nonsense, you clearly asserted the existence of a study which proves smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer in humans. You even tried (unsuccessfully) to cite such a study.
Perhaps you wish you hadn’t said it, but wishes cannot substitute for reality.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with changing your position, but if you do so while pretending you are not, then you are weaseling, i.e. misrepresenting your own position.
I do not engage with people who insist on weaseling.
Goodbye, liar.
I’m not sure what you mean by “gotcha.” The fact is that different people have different ideas about the “genetic group” concept.
Unlike you, I’m not going to assume that everyone on your side of the debate has essentially the same identical position.
Another lie. For example, look at Post #1100.
What exactly is my position in your view?
Please show me where I did so (or did something similar). Please QUOTE me. Failing that, please admit that I did not such thing and apologize.
I’m not trying to claim that any group is a “genetic group” since there isn’t a clear, generally accepted definition of the phrase.
Please show me where I have done so. Please QUOTE me. Failing that, please admit I did no such thing and apologize.
Also, please answer the questions I asked you in Post #2237.
I’m sure it seems that way to you. But perhaps the mote is in your own eye? After all, it was perfectly reasonable for me to ask the same question multiple times of different people. And yet you criticized me for it.
You don’t even deny any more that your criticism was baseless.
Then you should pick one and stick to it. Put that goalpost in the dirt and don’t move it.
I’m trying! But it’s almost like… I dunno. Endie and Brazzy are mad at me, or something!
Your position is that “blacks” are less intelligent than others, and this intelligence gap is determined by their genetics. And all I was saying is that if you think an intelligence gap is due to genetics, and you want to convince anyone else that you’re correct, then you need to produce evidence that there actually is a genetic difference that is linked to intelligence.
Well, aside from the intelligence gap and genetics, this thread also has you and NDD asserting (without evidence) that there are three or four major “races”, and that by examining an individual’s DNA and tell which group they belong to.
The study about the Han indicates that some members of that group tend to have particular genetic markers. However, you can’t then take that and then assume any other given traditional “racial” or ethnic group must have similar markers. Vis-a-vis your hypotheticals about Ashkenazim and assuming that they must have genetics in common that distinguish them from other groups - despite having no genetic evidence of that.
I must say that I’m amused by your continued demands that others must quote you or else apologize. And yet you continually demand that others respond to particular posts by number from many pages or thousands of posts ago, and you’re too lazy to actually quote those posts or just re-ask the questions you’re interested in. Meanwhile, others in this thread have had to re-ask you the exact same questions (word for word) dozens of times to get you to finally respond.
You asked me a bunch of questions in that post. I have no interest in continuing to parse each others posts back and forth and answering each sentence in each post, however I will answer the questions you asked in that particular post.
No. Do you have no reading comprehension ability whatsoever? Seriously? When you observe a “difference between races” all it tells you is that there is an observed difference. It tells you nothing about the etiology of that difference. For that you would need what we call evidence - not just conclusions you pull out of your ass based on a gut feeling.
Have you always been this stupid? I gave you a detailed post about how if there are genetic differences between groups, those genetic differences don’t necessarily mean there is any actual difference in functioning genes. Even if (hypothetically) you were to find genetic markers that were unique to a particular group, it wouldn’t necessarily follow that this would lead to any difference in their biology, if the difference is found in the large part of human DNA that is “junk” or non-coding DNA.
And even if the difference is found within working genes (which would require evidence, which you don’t have), it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the magnitude of the difference caused by the genes is large. For example, I could easily image a hypothetical gene linked to intelligence being found, but having a relatively small effect compared to the environment. Differences in early fetal development, childhood nutrition and education, value systems and culture, differences in life opportunities, socioeconomic status, income, healthcare, etc… could easily have a large enough effect to swamp a hypothetical small difference in genetics.
My post also discussed how population genetics can define hundreds of ethnic/geographic groups that have shared genetic differences, but this is absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that there are a few major races. On the basis of genetics and evidence, there are either *hundreds *of human races, or there is one.
And all you do is look at that and just say “Ah Ha! So you concede there might be differences in genetics between ethnic groups!” :smack: Talk about missing the point.
No. Again - do you have no reading comprehension whatsoever? How on earth can you read a post that says that in general both Nature and Nurture are important in varying degrees, and then say that much of the intelligence gap is due to genetics?
I would say it is possible intelligence may be in part influenced by genetics. However, you have absolutely no evidence to assert that “much” of an observed gap in intelligence testing is due to genetics. It could just as easily be that “a very tiny part” of the gap is due to genetics. You have no evidence to support your assumption about how important genetics is for intelligence, and saying that the differences are significant between “races” is even more asinine when you cannot consistently define what those races are (and have even said that you have no interest in actually defining the races genetically, despite attributing genetic differences to them). :smack:
Again, I have no interest in continuing to sentence-by-sentence parsing of my posts. Especially when you repeatedly post the same arguments over and over again, ignoring the others is this thread who have repeatedly dismantled your arguments. If you have any further questions to my post that are original and not completely moronic, I will respond.
No, that’s not my position. Again you demonstrate that you are lying when you claim to have read the thread. My position is that a substantial part of the gap is the result of genetics.
You seem to think that it’s necessary to point to actual genes (actually alleles) to do this. Which it is obviously not.
I made no such assumption. Or assertion. Which is why you are unable to show me where I did.
I have my own rules of debate, and one rule is that I will not engage with people who strawman me, i.e. who misrepresent my position.
Since you have done so repeatedly, this exchange is over. Welcome to my ignore list. And goodbye, liar.
Cowardly troll is cowardly.
Does he not understand how nonsense this last response is?
He understands. He doesn’t comprehend.
Brazil84 - the new Oxford definition of stupidity, ignorance while being a complete shit-for-brains retard.
So, when you have a really dumb individual in front of you, just ask it:* Are you a Brazil84? Since you look and sound like a complete retard.
*
Lol, i.e. I have dared to point out the fallacies advanced by the politically correct.
I guess, but then again you are a racist – that’s it!
Whatever argument you try to bring up, this is what it boils down to – you are a racist.
Don’t try to make excuses for it.