Governments are handing out a lot of money to study global warming. If it came to be believed that global warming is not a serious problem, that funding would dry up.
You of all people should know that a conspiracy is not necessary for groupthink to take place.
Trust me, I receive a lot of venom for my views about global warming.
Are there genetic markers which distinguish “ethnic Germans” from “non-ethnic Germans”?
Are there genetic markers which distinguish Ashkenazim from non-Ashkenazim?
If so, what are they?
And if not, is it your position that “ethnic Germans” and “Ashkenazim” are not useful genetic groupings?
No, no; let’s discuss it. It provides a very good model to the very same sorts of logical fallacies, cherry-picking of data, and rhetorical slipperiness you bring to this thread.
Er, the rest of us remember that this sub-thread began with one of your critics citing a book, even if you don’t.
Your dismissal of the evidence that refutes your claims (like the fact that “black” or “sub-Saharan African” is not a useful designation, genetically speaking, or studies and test scores that show the “gap” is shrinking, or groups like Nigerian immigrants who have great levels of education and achievement), and your refusal to budge one inch despite the central thesis of your position has absolutely zero supporting genetic evidence reveals the deficiencies in your education and character.
It’s almost comical- you’re making an argument about genetics and DNA, and you have absolutely zero genetic or DNA evidence! You haven’t even tried!
Not only are you very wrong, but there are markers that connect most male Jews whose last name is Cohen or a variant of it to one man who lived in Israel over three thousand years ago.
Jewish tradition, based on the Torah, is that all Kohanim are direct descendants of Aharon, the original Kohen. The line of the Kohanim is patrilineal: it has been passed from father to son without interruption from Aharon, for 3,300 years, or more than 100 generations…
If there were a common ancestor, the Kohanim should have common genetic markers at a higher frequency than the general Jewish population…
In the first study, as reported in the prestigious British science journal, Nature (January 2, 1997), 188 Jewish males were asked to contribute some cheek cells from which their DNA was extracted for study. Participants from Israel, England and North America were asked to identify whether they were a Kohen, Levi or Israelite, and to identify their family background.
The results of the analysis of the Y chromosome markers of the Kohanim and non-Kohanim were indeed significant. A particular marker, (YAP-) was detected in 98.5 percent of the Kohanim, and in a significantly lower percentage on non-Kohanim.
http://www.cohen-levi.org/jewish_genes_and_genealogy/the_dna_chain_of_tradition.htm
Look at my comment #926. 
Who cares? I’m talking about the dubious distinction of “blacks” or “sub-Saharan Africans” as a genetic grouping or “race”.
You’ve submitted zero genetic/DNA data that says “blacks” or “sub-Saharan Africans” are less intelligent or have a propensity for violence. Zero.
And you’ve conveniently ignored, again, the fact that sub-Saharan Africans contain more genetic diversity than the rest of humanity, and that some African groups are more closely related to Europeans and Asians than to other African groups.
Governments are not handing out that money to perpetuate a scam. I am confident that good research that finds that global warming is not a problem receives the same level of funding as good research that finds that it is a problem.
I said nothing about Jews. My statement was absolutely correct.
What are those African groups? If they are descended from immigrants from Europe, north Africa, and Asia they do not count.
Here’s the example I used in the thread in GD- Yoruba (Nigeria) and San (Tanzania and surrounding area):
Look at figure 1 here: Nigerians/Yoruba are closer to Chinese and the French, genetically, than to the San of south-eastern Africa.
Look at table S 6.2 here showing genetic divergence dates (relative): Yoruba and the French and Chinese have a more recent common ancestor than Yoruba and the San people (note that the researchers used French, Han Chinese, Yoruba, Papuan, and San to compare a broad selection of human populations with Neanderthals).
It is an absolute, and commonly accepted fact that Africa is more genetically diverse than the rest of humanity. And it is an absolute and commonly accept fact that some black African populations are closer, genetically, to Eurasians than certain other far-flung black Africans. And yet you lump all blacks as one race.
I care. Because the easiest way to show that your criterion is silly is to apply it to other groups besides race.
Not intentionally, perhaps. But let me ask you this: In general, do people who are researching a problem have an incentive to convince people that the problem is serious?
I’m not confident about that.
This is what you said:
and it is not true. A tissue sample for DNA testing can easily determine the race of the person from which it came.
That’s my whole point- that “race” is not a useful genetic grouping. There are useful genetic groupings (for example- San, or Papuan, or Han Chinese). But “race” is not one of them.
I would say not, especially if the solution is expensive and politically unpopular.
No it can’t- “race” is not a genetic category. A DNA sample might tell you something about your ancestry/population group (for example- that you have Yoruba ancestry, or Ashkenazi ancestry, or Han Chinese ancestry)- but nothing about “race”. And that’s because, as I and others have stated over and over again, race is not a genetic classification.