Some sub-Saharan African populations are closer to European and Asian populations, genetically, then they are to certain other sub-Saharan African populations. The example I gave was the Yoruba of Nigeria and the San of Tanzania- the Yoruba population is closer to Eurasian populations then it is to the San. So it’s ridiculous to say that the Yoruba and San are both in the same genetic grouping, unless that genetic grouping also includes ALL Eurasian populations.
See post 1052- I never said that about Han Chinese. And I never contradicted myself.
It means you’re either being deliberately obtuse or that English is not your first language or that you’re dumber than dirt.
Okay, since I’m only a little smarter than dirt I’ll try to explain. You cannot take everyone you want to label black and lump them in a big group and as a whole differentiate them from people you want to label white.
Why you ask? Because many subgroupings of blacks are genetically more different from each other than they are from the whites you’re comparing them to.
Never said WHAT about Han Chinese?
And please show me where I misrepresented your position. Please give quotes.
Umm, does that mean yes or no?
You’re getting your logical sequences mixed up.
The next logical step is ACTUALLY (as iiandyiii keeps trying to point out to you) that if you take some certain sub-Saharan population groups, you can’t, as a matter of just the genetics, necessarily group them with other sub-Saharan groups.
For example, let’s say we have a group of sub-Saharan Africans (say Group A) and try to force them into one of three groups:
- A different sub-Saharan population group (Group B)
- A European population group (Group C)
- An Asian population group (Group D)
There exist groups for which C or D will provide closer matches than B.
That’s NOT the same as saying they are indistinguishable from European or Asian groups but that they’re closer to them than to some other groups of sub-Saharan Africans.
Do you really not get that distinction?
For example, let’s say I’m a US citizen and live in New York City. If you asked if I’m closest to living in Colombia, Australia, or Afghanistan, the answer is Colombia. That doesn’t mean I live in Colombia or that it’s even a close thing.
Your answer appears to be that I’m closest to living in Australia, since the language is the same, which is a lousy way of measuring it.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. You assumed I agreed (with your statement) in the post I quoted in #1052, implying that I had already said it- which I didn’t.
I don’t know what “yes or no” is supposed to answer here. This is not particularly useful. I’ve asserted, and keep asserting, that sub-Saharan Africans (or “negroes” or “blacks”) is not a useful genetic category, because it includes populations that are more closely related to populations outside sub-Saharan Africans than to certain other sub-Saharn African populations. That’s all I’ve asserted.
The criminal justice system was harsher then. Also, the family structure was stronger.
The Egalitarian Hypothesis is an attempt to explain why it wasn’t possible to destroy the One Ring by the more obvious, simpler, means than the solution decided upon at the Council of Elrond.
CMC fnord!
I can’t believe you were stupid enough to go with this example…
Yeah, you know who else also carries a high percentage of the Kohanim gene? These guys.. Further proof that linking genetics and race is bullshit.
So genetics is the most important factor except when it’s not. Got it.
Huh. A bunch of conventionally uneducated hunter-gatherers do poorly on a Western-style intelligence test? Who’d have fucking thought it? I mean, these are only people who can track prey for days by the smallest signs, find water in the harshest climates and memorise entire oral story traditions stretching back generations. But they must be severely retarded, all of them.:rolleyes:
OK, I’m convinced - either NDD is functionally retarded, if he can’t see the disconnect, or he is trolling. I’m guessing the latter
But this incoherence has been evident. Yes he makes the naked argument that genetics must define any differnces he sees in the datas of the very mixed genetically populations that are called black in the USA. But any changes that do not fit to his argument, they are due to practice changes if of the USA, or if it is international data, he simply does not recognise it. There is a criminal gene in populations he calls black, but there is no coherent idea of criminal and not any definition that is objective of what the genetic population is, rather than a cultural population. And the international cases that even contradict a geneto-cultural argument like the North Africa, they are ignored. It is not that he or the other are making good arguments supported by facts. No they are avoiding the facts to make claims that have no good basis, and they make silly straw mens to avoid
Admitting errors
His is without a doubt the most moronic argument I’ve heard in my five years posting here… and believe me, I’ve encountered some pretty stupid shit. He keeps whining about how nobody will meet him in rational debate. For some reason he doesn’t seem to realize that’s exactly what’s been going on, and he’s had his ass handed to him by at least ten people by now. How fucking thick do you have to be to not even realize you’re debating someone? I guess he just doesn’t recognize reason when he sees it.
My hat’s off to those of you still working to get through to him… maybe because you have taken the time to respond, a lurker who is more reasonable but also racist will begin to see his own logic fall apart. As for me, as much as I’d love to take the high road, Martin Luther King I ain’t. Dude just pisses me off. I know people are a product of their environment but he is 100% responsible for the person he has become.
So, apparently, the answer is no. Good, that’s settled.
Genetics is a factor. Whether the crime rate goes up or down the same races have higher crime rates, and the same races have lower crime rates.
It is the same way with the illegitimacy rate.
I am simply trying to nail down your position.
Here’s our exchange from before:
When you say “SOME” in capital letters, it’s reasonable to infer that you mean “some but not all”
Is that what you meant? Simple yes or no question.
Assuming that’s true, so what?
Ok, so you concede that using markers and profiles, one can (generally) distinguish between European descended people and Sub-Saharan African descended people?
I get it, but it seems like you are changing your position.
Agree . . . so what?
Assuming that’s true, so what?
If I were a scientific researcher and I wanted to divide up the people in the world for genetic study it may very well make sense to use different groups besides the traditional Caucasian/Mongoloid/Negroid/Australoid distinctions. But so what?
It doesn’t change the facts that (1) there are groups out there which are commonly referred to as black, white, asian, etc; (2) the group known as black displays less intelligence than whites; and (3) the reason for this gap is in large part genetic.
Probably because you have no idea what you yourself are talking about.
This is the last time I will ask . . . what is the statement Han Chinese which I supposedly misattributed to you? Please quote me where I did so.
Your choice.
My question, which I will repeat:
Simple yes or no question.
- is true. But the groups are not useful classifications for genetics, because some “black” populations (and obviously some black individuals) are closer to “white” and “asian” populations than to other “black” populations. So any grouping based on genetics that includes everyone “commonly referred to as black” also must include all European and Asian populations- because there’s no way, genetically speaking, to put San and Yoruba (for example) in the same group unless that group also includes European and Asian people.
To put it in pre-historical context, the evidence points to a conclusion something like this: the ancient peoples that are the closest direct ancestors of the modern Yoruba were more closely related to the ancient peoples that left Africa and settled Europe and Asia (and are descendants of modern Europeans and Asians) then they were to some of the ancient populations that stayed in Africa and were the ancestors of modern groups like the San.
Considering the incredible diversity (genetically, geographically, culturally, etc.) of people commonly referred to as “black”, and the complete lack of data on “intelligence” for the vast majority of “black” people, and the shakiness of the data that does exist, there is not nearly sufficient evidence to conclude 2), much less 3), which has zero evidence.
No, I am asserting that there are some sub-Saharan African populations which are closer to European populations then to certain other sub-Saharan African populations.
I do not engage with people who weasel (i.e. misrepresent their own position) or strawman (misrepresent my position). You have done both by falsely asserting that I had misstated your position.
Goodbye, liar.