White Genocide is happening. ADMIT IT.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2014, 09:48 PM
White Genocide is happening. ADMIT IT.
(22-05-2014 09:44 PM)lone_white_man Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 09:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no difference between the races, except a very very very few genes. Humans share almost all of their DNA. (99.5 % +)

You are quite ignorant of how genetic variation and heritability works.

(22-05-2014 09:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Humans also share a vast % of their genes with other primates.

Yes, and we're still quite different from other such primates.

You've defeated yourself.

[Image: hu6eze5a.jpg]

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 09:49 PM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2014 09:53 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: White Genocide is happening. ADMIT IT.
(22-05-2014 09:39 PM)lone_white_man Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 09:19 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  When you fly the confederate flag do you think to yourself "I'm honoring my heritage and I'm proud to have been on the losing side" or "We racist bigots got our asses handed to us by other white guys"? Consider

Because in case you haven't figured this out "your" people and "your" culture took your miscreant ancestors behind the woodshed and whooped your ass until ol' General Lee had no choice but to surrender. Long live the 20th Maine!

People like you are a blemish on this country and the world at large. You think somehow an accident of birth means something. You throw around the word "honor" and yet you have no idea what it means.

This is honor and bravery:

Melvin Morris was fresh-faced and 19 when he volunteered to go to Vietnam. In 1969, the Army Green Beret "charged into a hail of fire" to save his injured comrades and retrieve the bodies of the fallen, even though he was shot several times and bleeding. The Army would later say his actions on the battlefield that day showed "determination possessed by few men."
Morris -- who is African-American -- received his nation's most esteemed military honor, the Medal of Honor.

Jose Rodela, who, while commanding a mobile strike force in Vietnam's Phuoc Long province, "was wounded in the back and head by rocket shrapnel while recovering a wounded comrade," according to a military commendation. Still he single-handedly assaulted and knocked out a mortar position before returning to lead his men. Medal of Honor.

Santiago J. Erevia, a radiotelephone operator from Texas who in 1969 tended injured comrades in Vietnam's Quang Tin province when his position came under attack. According to the citation, Erevia took out three machine gun bunkers with grenades and gunfire. He then returned to care for his wounded comrades, crawling from one wounded man to another to administer aid. Medal of Honor.

Sydney G. Gumpertz, (Jewish) left the platoon of which he was in command and started with 2 other soldiers through a heavy barrage toward the machinegun nest. His 2 companions soon became casualties from bursting shells, but 1st Sgt. Gumpertz continued on alone in the face of direct fire from the machinegun, jumped into the nest and silenced the gun, capturing 9 of the crew. Medal of Honor

On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order that she give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled. Help lead a cultural transformation.

The last one may be the most heroic and the bravest.


I have no such affiliations. Stop making presumptions.

Why shouldn't people make presumptions? Jewboy here has been trying to get your attention for the past several pages and you haven't so much as told him to fuck off.

If you're so gung-ho about good-ol tightie whities, why have you been going out of your way to berate your fellow whites while this jewfuck is kicking sand in your eyes?

Sure seems suspicious if you ask me.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
22-05-2014, 09:51 PM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2014 09:59 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: White Genocide is happening. ADMIT IT.
(22-05-2014 09:40 PM)lone_white_man Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 09:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Besides which, the variation between races is less than the variation within a race.

Race is a shallow concept without any real genetic meaning.

*Lewontin's Fallacy*

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins agreed with Edwards' view and summarized it as "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." Dawkins also wrote of Lewontin that he is "known for the strength of his political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possible opportunity."[4] Neven Sesardic has argued that, unbeknownst to Edwards, Jeffry B. Mitton already made the same argument about Lewontin's claim in two articles published in The American Naturalist in the late 1970s.[10][11][12]

Philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. From this sociological perspective, Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct.[13][14][15]

Similarly, biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."[6]

The view that while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist this does not lend biological validity to racial groups was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.[7][16][17][18][19]

In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[20] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis.[20]

Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes",[20] and warn that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Gen...'s_Fallacy



Look at that, another ignorant absolutist that fails to grasp nuance. Color me surprised. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
22-05-2014, 09:56 PM
RE: White Genocide is happening. ADMIT IT.
(22-05-2014 09:51 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 09:40 PM)lone_white_man Wrote:  *Lewontin's Fallacy*

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins agreed with Edwards' view and summarized it as "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." Dawkins also wrote of Lewontin that he is "known for the strength of his political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possible opportunity."[4] Neven Sesardic has argued that, unbeknownst to Edwards, Jeffry B. Mitton already made the same argument about Lewontin's claim in two articles published in The American Naturalist in the late 1970s.[10][11][12]

Philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. From this sociological perspective, Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct.[13][14][15]

Similarly, biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."[6]

The view that while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist this does not lend biological validity to racial groups was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.[7][16][17][18][19]

In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[20] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis.[20]

Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes",[20] and warn that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Gen...'s_Fallacy



Look at that, another ignorant absolutist that fails to grasp nuance. Color me surprised. Drinking Beverage

You can use Wikipedia! Good for you. But you have no idea what you're dealing with here, cretin.

I will ruin you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 09:57 PM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2014 10:04 PM by rampant.a.i..)
White Genocide is happening. ADMIT IT.
(22-05-2014 09:56 PM)lone_white_man Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 09:51 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins agreed with Edwards' view and summarized it as "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." Dawkins also wrote of Lewontin that he is "known for the strength of his political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possible opportunity."[4] Neven Sesardic has argued that, unbeknownst to Edwards, Jeffry B. Mitton already made the same argument about Lewontin's claim in two articles published in The American Naturalist in the late 1970s.[11][12]

Philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. From this sociological perspective, Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct.[13][14][15]

Similarly, biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."[6]

The view that while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist this does not lend biological validity to racial groups was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.[7][16][17][18][19]

In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[20] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis.[20]

Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes",[20] and warn that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Gen...'s_Fallacy



Look at that, another ignorant absolutist that fails to grasp nuance. Color me surprised. Drinking Beverage

You can use Wikipedia! Good for you. But you have no idea what you're dealing with here, cretin.

I will ruin you.

[Image: reha5ana.jpg]

Quote:An anthropologist who proposed using race as a serious way of describing human variability would be laughed out of the profession—not for reasons of political correctness, but because the idea displays a manifest ignorance of biology. [hide]More than 60 years ago, M. F. Ashley Montagu demolished the concept of “race” in his book, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race (1945). Nevertheless, like many a bad idea, the notion persists that there is some useful purpose in classifying humanity into five, six or a dozen races. But it persists at the margins of anthropology, among popular-science books and in the nonscientific imagination. [/hide]Living humans share too recent a common ancestor for there to be many deep-seated biological differences among us. From an evolutionary standpoint, we are all Africans.

Quote:Race is folk taxonomy, not science. The variables used to organize it, such as skin color and hair texture, are arbitrary choices. A case can be made that the concept of discrete European, African, Asian and American races probably arose from the medieval theory that variation in human behavior reflected imbalances in the four (white, black, yellow and red) “humours.” [hide]A belief in discrete races might also have arisen from a shift from overland travel by caravan to the use of ocean-going watercraft in the 15th century A.D. Prior to this period, voyagers traveling overland and sailors making frequent landfalls would have observed gradual changes in the appearance of the people they encountered. With longer oceanic voyages and less frequent landfalls, differences appeared more stark, leading to categorical models of human variation, such as race. Tellingly, most racial classifications of humans postdate this innovation in marine transportation. [/hide]Whatever their origins, racial classifications are not informed by prior knowledge or compelling evidence that these physical characteristics are biologically significant.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/...-race-real

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 10:03 PM
RE: White Genocide is happening. ADMIT IT.
(22-05-2014 09:56 PM)lone_white_man Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 09:51 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins agreed with Edwards' view and summarized it as "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." Dawkins also wrote of Lewontin that he is "known for the strength of his political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possible opportunity."[4] Neven Sesardic has argued that, unbeknownst to Edwards, Jeffry B. Mitton already made the same argument about Lewontin's claim in two articles published in The American Naturalist in the late 1970s.[10][11][12]

Philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. From this sociological perspective, Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct.[13][14][15]

Similarly, biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."[6]

The view that while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist this does not lend biological validity to racial groups was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.[7][16][17][18][19]

In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[20] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis.[20]

Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes",[20] and warn that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Gen...'s_Fallacy



Look at that, another ignorant absolutist that fails to grasp nuance. Color me surprised. Drinking Beverage

You can use Wikipedia! Good for you. But you have no idea what you're dealing with here, cretin.

I will ruin you.

The difference being, I can actuality read and understand it you ignoramus.

Nice try fucktard. 0/10 Would try harder next time. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
22-05-2014, 10:05 PM
RE: White Genocide is happening. ADMIT IT.
(22-05-2014 09:57 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 09:56 PM)lone_white_man Wrote:  You can use Wikipedia! Good for you. But you have no idea what you're dealing with here, cretin.

I will ruin you.

[Image: reha5ana.jpg]

Quote:An anthropologist who proposed using race as a serious way of describing human variability would be laughed out of the profession—not for reasons of political correctness, but because the idea displays a manifest ignorance of biology. More than 60 years ago, M. F. Ashley Montagu demolished the concept of “race” in his book, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race (1945). Nevertheless, like many a bad idea, the notion persists that there is some useful purpose in classifying humanity into five, six or a dozen races. But it persists at the margins of anthropology, among popular-science books and in the nonscientific imagination. [quote]Living humans share too recent a common ancestor for there to be many deep-seated biological differences among us. From an evolutionary standpoint, we are all Africans.

Quote:Race is folk taxonomy, not science. The variables used to organize it, such as skin color and hair texture, are arbitrary choices. A case can be made that the concept of discrete European, African, Asian and American races probably arose from the medieval theory that variation in human behavior reflected imbalances in the four (white, black, yellow and red) “humours.” A belief in discrete races might also have arisen from a shift from overland travel by caravan to the use of ocean-going watercraft in the 15th century A.D. Prior to this period, voyagers traveling overland and sailors making frequent landfalls would have observed gradual changes in the appearance of the people they encountered. With longer oceanic voyages and less frequent landfalls, differences appeared more stark, leading to categorical models of human variation, such as race. Tellingly, most racial classifications of humans postdate this innovation in marine transportation. [/hide]Whatever their origins, racial classifications are not informed by prior knowledge or compelling evidence that these physical characteristics are biologically significant.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/...-race-real

LOL at you appealing to Montagu. Montagu is a disciple of Boas, who was a scientific fraud that allowed his political convictions to pervert the science of race.

Race denialists are hilarious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 10:08 PM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2014 10:14 PM by rampant.a.i..)
White Genocide is happening. ADMIT IT.
(22-05-2014 10:05 PM)lone_white_man Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 09:57 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  [Image: reha5ana.jpg]



http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/...-race-real

LOL at you appealing to Montagu. Montagu is a disciple of Boas, who was a scientific fraud that allowed his political convictions to pervert the science of race.

Race denialists are hilarious.

And you're appealing to The Bell Curve, instead of socioeconomic factors, and a worldwide media by "The Jews," a vague, mythical "white race" that does not exist, likely because you're unaware of the origins of your family pole, you ignorant slut.


[Image: sumuve6a.jpg]

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 10:11 PM
RE: White Genocide is happening. ADMIT IT.
(22-05-2014 09:56 PM)lone_white_man Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 09:51 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins agreed with Edwards' view and summarized it as "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." Dawkins also wrote of Lewontin that he is "known for the strength of his political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possible opportunity."[4] Neven Sesardic has argued that, unbeknownst to Edwards, Jeffry B. Mitton already made the same argument about Lewontin's claim in two articles published in The American Naturalist in the late 1970s.[10][11][12]

Philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. From this sociological perspective, Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct.[13][14][15]

Similarly, biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."[6]

The view that while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist this does not lend biological validity to racial groups was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.[7][16][17][18][19]

In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[20] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis.[20]

Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes",[20] and warn that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Gen...'s_Fallacy



Look at that, another ignorant absolutist that fails to grasp nuance. Color me surprised. Drinking Beverage

You can use Wikipedia! Good for you. But you have no idea what you're dealing with here, cretin.

I will ruin you.

What type of half-assed, White-supremacist are you? A Jewboy steps all over your holy whiteness, then a black guy states his intention to mate with a white woman, and you don't bat an eyelash for either. A fellow Aryan implies you are an idiot and you start foaming at the mouth.

I've met tree-loving hippies more racist than you.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
22-05-2014, 10:11 PM
RE: White Genocide is happening. ADMIT IT.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/agustin-fu...44248.html
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ghostexorcist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: