No, you disgusting piece of racist filth. You’ve just been too blinded by your own stupidity to actually understand anybody else. Try reading for comprehension without your idiot glasses on.
And here I thought you “got it”. I guess not.
The WHOLE POINT is that you haven’t shown that the common groupings called white, black, and asian exist on a meaningful genetic basis.
Define “black” on a genetic basis. That was the point of my example (which you’ve clearly missed).
My distance from New York to other countries was supposed to be instructive on this point. Grouping “New York” with “Australian” as both being “English-speakers” is socially/genetically as useful as trying to group “Khoi/San” and “Bantu” as being “black”.
Further, since nobody has shown such a genetic basis, it’s not possible that you could have shown how such a nonexistent basis could be correlated with intelligence.
You’re jumping ahead to step 100 (i.e. “blacks are less intelligent than white”) before you’ve even done step 5 (“the genetic basis for differentiation between black and white”).
Try and keep up, eh?
He really hasn’t, but I guess you lack the reading comprehension to get that. I understand that feeling. You’ve ignored or misread evidence throughout this thread. Reasoning with you is worthless. GIGO, indeed.
I was asking about someone else’s position – not yours. Do you agree with everything Antibob has said in the last 100 posts or so?
Ok, so your position is that if there are two groups of people, Group A and Group B; and there are people in group B who are genetically more different from eachother than they are different from people in Group A; and one observes a gap between Group A and Group B in terms of some trait; then it cannot be the case that the difference is in large part the result of genetics.
Lol, your anger suggests to me that the cognitive dissonance is starting to build in your brain.
To do that, one would need to set forth the criteria for determining whether whether a “grouping” exists on a “meaningful genetic basis.”
People have tried to do essentially that, but then they start getting very evasive when I try to nail down their position. And angry when I try to apply those same criteria to other groups.
Yes he has. If you disagree, then please quote me where I misrepresented his position.
Also, I am still waiting for an answer to my questions (and this is the last time I will ask you):
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.
Ok, so you concede that using markers and profiles, one can (generally) distinguish between European descended people and Sub-Saharan African descended people?
Lol, more mindless invective. The fact is that the “anti-racist” position is based on special pleading and when it is scrutinized, people who hold that position have a tendency to unleash a torrent of nastiness.
Look, do you agree that andy very clearly contradicted himself? If so, why is it that he can’t just admit it?
Just because you can’t understand what he was saying doesn’t mean he contradicted himself. He explained it at a grammar school level and I see no where where he contradicted himself. He actually made me understand his points much better.
First, do you agree that he and I had the following question and answer:
(Post #918)
Second, do you agree that he asserted that “Han Chinese” is a “useful genetic grouping”? (Post #941).
Third, do you agree that if iiandyiiii asserts that “Han Chinese” is a “useful genetic grouping,” then “Han Chinese” must past the test he offered for determining whether a grouping is a “useful genetic grouping”?
Ok, so then according to iiandyiiii’s reasoning and definition there must be a genetic marker or markers which distinguishe “Han Chinese” from “non-Han Chinese”.
Nowhere here, or anywhere else, did I contradict myself. Remember, I’m talking about populations, not individuals. Here is a basic rundown of the general distinguishing characteristics of the Han Chinese population’s DNA.