First thing that came to my mind were these guys
What is population characteristics? Can you give me a couple examples so I know what you are referring to?
No, the problem is that the “anti-racists” do not understand the subject and are therefore unable to provide clear definitions and clear answers to reasonable questions.
It is already provided in the links about distribution frequencies. It is clear that you are not reading anything but think you are being very clever. The answers are clear, it is not the fault of the others that you are either very stupid and can not understand or you are making deliberate problems.
i.e. you have no idea what you are talking about.
i.e. you have no actual substantive response and no clear answers to the simple, reasonable questions I have asked.
It is more that I see no reason to waste time retyping the information you can find easily by reading the links that have been given to you. Since you do not wish to learn but you only want to try to make empty arguments, it is a waste of time.
I think it very funny that you believe you are making great points here. Your game of restatements and false questions is quite evident to everyone.
Yes, it’s so hard to cut and paste a quote and the provide a link to it. NDD made an excellent point about people who simply cite to an entire book. The same principle applies here: If all you can do is vaguely wave your hands in the direction of some source which supposedly contains killer evidence and arguments, then you have lost the argument.
You are the one who does not wish to learn since you don’t want to have your arguments scrutinized. You would rather just vaguely wave your hands.
On a number of occasions I have been told that I do not understand how populations evolve, but I have not been told what I do not understand.
Anyone who says that a small gene pool evolves faster than a large gene pool because beneficial genes are dispersed and absorbed in a large gene pool clearly does not understand the process of evolution. In a large gene pool there will be more beneficial mutations. These will spread to a larger population.
This is why, as the human population has grown, evolution has accelerated. Nevertheless, the evolution of beneficial qualities, like intelligence, has not happened with the same velocity in every racial group because population pressures have been different.
Even here, there are specific exceptions. Because the Ashkenazim were placed in an environment where they had to be intelligent in order to survive and reproduce, they did develop an average level of intelligence that was superior to that of the Gentiles with whom they lived closely, even though the Gentile population was larger.
What matters is the size of the gene pool and the population pressures on that gene pool.
And Group A and Group B also significantly differ on another trait, and that trait otherwise explains variance in the first trait, it’s your position that it can only be genetics that explains the variation in the first trait?
No it is not.
You were given a link to a very clear paragraph that tells you what you claim to want to know in one paragraph. I consider it a sign of bad faith, the way you proceed. It is not someone in good faith who acts like you do. One click and you have your information. The information on the frequency of haplogroups is there.
Yes, this is your game, to make lots of postures and engage in rhetoric so you can ‘win.’ It is boring and not convincing.
You have.
You rejected ad hoc what does not fit your ideas. Like your strange claims about criminalities, that have no consistencies.
Well one can ask what would have happened if Ahkenazim and European Gentiles were isolated from each other but subject to the same evolutionary pressure to be smart. My guess is that the Gentiles would have ended up a bit smarter since they would have had a bigger genetic pool to draw upon in the search for genetic improvements which make you smart.
On the other hand, during the same time there might very well be more random drift among the Ashkenazim.
Not that any of this really matters to the subject at hand since the overwhelming evidence indicates that racial intelligence gaps have a large genetic component. Any argument that it could not have happened must founder on the reality that it did indeed happen.
Please give me the link and quote this paragraph. All it will take is 10 seconds of your time.
If you make a ridiculously weak argument, i.e. your vague hand-waving, it’s reasonable of me to point it out. If you find this “boring,” you are perfectly free to leave the discussion.
You’re making things up- what is the measure of evolution “speed”? What data do you have on evolution “speed”? What evidence do you have that evolution has “accelerated” for humans since our population has grown?
Tell ya what, brazil84: when you start asking New Deal Democrat these questions, since his are the original claims we’re discussing, we’ll come back to play your little games. He said there are races with genetic differences. He needs to explain how that’s remotely possible if they don’t have the same genes. He has yet to do so.
Nope, no evidence of this. There needs to be actual genetic evidence for an argument about a genetic component.
Personally I blame it on an excess of phlogiston in the aether.
Posts 1098 and 1100 today by iiandyiii both contain direct links, that we know you did not look at since they go directly to the relevant paragraphs in each case. They would take you ten seconds perhaps to click.
I need no greater evidence that you are playing rhetoric games and have no honest argument.
Instead of posting a link with the implication, “The truth is here,” compose your own arguments, using the links to substantiate specific factual assertions. If you cannot do that I suspect you do not really understand the link, or its relevance to the discussion.
Ashkenazi Jews have genetic markers that point to the Israelites who lived in Israel 3,000 years ago, and to other populations. What matters about them is that they have the highest average IQ of any racial group, and that this can be explained by fairly unique population pressures lasting from at least the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the eighteenth century Enlightenment.
Yes you have. You either ignore it or are too fucking stupid to understand it.
This is supremely ironic considering your utter lack of understanding of evolution or genetics.
Not necessarily.
Complete fabricated bullshit.
Ditto.
I’m not even sure what “population pressures” is intended to mean. But it doesn’t matter, since it’s obvious you’re just making shit up as you go along.
That link was just meant to answer a question about Han Chinese population genetics. My over-arching point (lately) has been that because some “black” populations are closer, genetically, to Eurasian populations than to certain other “black” populations, one cannot talk about “black” or “sub-Saharan African” genetics as if they are separate from non-“black” or non “sub-Saharan African” genetics.
It’s possible to have a group (which is genetically coherent) that includes all “sub-Saharan African” populations, but it also must include all Eurasians as well.