Races don't exis-

>retarded misinterpretation on a blog

trash

Wait... So what does /pol do now that the jews are promoting /pol views?

Also David Reich
nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

"It is true race is a social construct."

Who is right: David Reich, or some retard that doesn't understand science who is trying to misquote David Reich?

Here is the original, antifa thug.
nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

Did you even that? It says what I already know.

There are small genetic differences between populations, even though we are all very similar and share most genetic variation among populations.

Those small differences, however, do no equate to racist stereotypes.

As I said they are on damage control.

Who is on damage control? What damage are they trying to control?

I have a more plausible idea. Race isn't real. There is no conspiracy theory. You're a bunch of morons who can't read and live in a fantasy world.

sorry for being so smart

>Those small differences, however, do no equate to racist stereotypes.
That is an empirical claim. Prove it. A "racist stereotype" is that black men have poor impulse control and commit crumes. Chetty from Stanford, who tried hard to hide the plain truth of his data, found that black males in rich families are more likely to commit crimes that white men born in poor families. Are you saying that genes have nothing to do with this?

>There is no conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy is just a group of people that conspire to do something. If academics collectively or communally decide that investigating race scientifically is not allowed then there is a conspiracy. A conspiracy theory is simply stating there is a conspiracy.

>His parents are novelist Tova Reich and Walter Reich, a professor at George Washington University, who served as the first director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Someone is missing the oven

Your assumption is that those stereotypes are 100% due to genetics.

This not only shows you have no idea how genetics really works, and you put faith in things you do not understand. You also assume you understand more than all geneticists know today and that you can simply wish away environmental factors for things like IQ or behavior.

The behavior of liberal creationists is very predictable. At least old-school creationists were funny sometimes.

>Your assumption is that those stereotypes are 100% due to genetics.
No, I am saying that they could be partially caused by genetics. You are saying they are not at all.

That is not the case, though. For one thing this idea contradicts itself. Either people are publishing data for your racism, as you claim, or there is a conspiracy and the truth is being subverted. You do realize those two ideas are mutually exclusive, right? The explanation is that there is no coverup, people are free to study anything they like, and you simply do not understand the results and wish to try to interpret them in your own way.

just turn up the cognitive dissonance and self loathing projection dials a bit more and all systems equilibriate

>Your assumption is that those stereotypes are 100% due to genetics.

Not him, but this is an obvious strawman. Everybody knows that behavioral patterns have a genetic and an environmental component.

>You are saying they are not at all.
I never made any such claim. The truth is that any trait is the result of gene-environment interactions. The old nature vs nurture model is a fallacious way of thinking about genetics.

It doesn't matter. What these people want is political action based solely on skin color.

>You do realize those two ideas are mutually exclusive, right?
Those aren't mutually exclusive. They could be spinning the data in the most PC way, avoiding asking certain tough questions, and even not publishing certain data sets. Just because some of their data agrees with a certain point of view does not mean they aren't also trying to subvert that point of view. You can't logic.

>The old nature vs nurture model is a fallacious way of thinking about genetics.
Of course it is, but when we run regressions we get these things called regression coefficients.

Nope. Since it's impossible to keep the old narrative, they will change the discourse a bit. That is, they will concede some (attenuated) points to maintain the egalitarian quasi-creationist narrative.

>skin color

Stop the strawmen. You know very well that this has nothing to do with skin color but with race.

>I never made any such claim.
This is an empirical claim you made:
>Those small differences, however, do no equate to racist stereotypes.
You didn't support it and now you are claiming that such claims can't even be supported. Maybe stop making sweeping empirical claims?

There is no "narrative." There is only data.

You are assuming that the small genetic differences we can measure equate to your ideas of race, intelligence, and behavior. They don't. You simply don't understand the science and refuse to learn. Then when someone posts anything about human genetics you BELIEVE supports your idea, you try to tout it as evidence, only to realize you can easily be contradicted by your own sources.

And behavior, of course. This "skin color fallacy" is very tiresome.

Ok, give me a genetic definition of race.

>There is only data.
All data in psychometrics support the view that there are significative differences in IQ between races

>You are assuming that the small genetic differences we can measure equate to your ideas of race, intelligence, and behavior. They don't.
Again, you are making sweeping empirical claims with zero support. Then you throw out elementary logical fallacies -- "you must thing this is 100% genetic!". Just stop. You are annoying.

There is zero evidence that any of those differences are due to 'races' or differences in heritability.

And before you try to rattle off some number like "genetics is XX% heritable!" try to understand that differences in traits between populations does NOT imply differences in heritability between populations. That's one of the small things you would know if you actually tried yo learn about genetics.

Taxons are not defined with only genetic data. Races, species etc. Must be clades to be valid taxons.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

That's all you can do? Link a wikipedia article with a high school biology class definition?

I'm asking you to give me solid genetic reasons to divide people into groups.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
Although the heritability of IQ for adults is between 58% and 77%,[5] (with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[6] and 86%[7]) genome-wide association studies have so far identified only 20%-50% of the genetic variation that contributes to heritability.[8]

>differences in traits between populations does NOT imply differences in heritability between populations

Learn how population genetics works.

How does he not know what year he was born? How is that possible for someone born in the 70s in the US?
Seriously, how does that happen, what about his parents, they dont remember? Wtf im confused.

unz.com/jman/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/

>population genetics is pseudoscience
Not an argument

I'm trying to help. You probably do not know how a phylogenetic analysis work. All taxons in systematics must be clades. A clade is a group of organisms that share not just a common but also an exlusive ancestor. How you label these clades (races, species etc) is just convention.

I'll help you out. People have already tried to do it. It doesn't work. If you try to group people based on how similar or different they are genetically to others, it doesn't produce what you call race... unless you believe al PIE people as well as places like India and Pakistan are European.

science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full

Nobody is claiming that there is a difference in heritability between groups. The assertion is that there is a genetical component to cognition.

No, the assertion is that blacks have worse genes for intelligence or behavior. That assumption is that there are differences in heritability, and that assumption is fallacious.

No, you may have different alleles for such and such gene. That does not mean that the pattern of inheritance of these alleles will be different.

Right. And the assumption is that difference races on average have more alleles that are better or worse than others. That assumption is what I am saying is false. Differences in traits between populations does not imply differences in heritability between populations.

>MFW people dedicate significant amounts of their time to shit like this

This isn't just autism, there has to be something wrong with you to care THIS MUCH about something which would only make the world a worse place if research was released proving this to be true. Its funny that ANYONE can be like this, but I probably should be sad.

Attached: 23.jpg (530x600, 149K)

That is literally the definition of "caucasian" which was how "racist" Eugenicists categorized people at the turn of the 20th century. It is based on skull shape, it is is remarkably accurate genetically.

>what is the MAO-A gene

>creates a strawman and then proceeds to refute it
Well done my friend well done

>I'm going to show those racists cretins promoting 19th century racist pseudoscience!
>gives literally the definition of caucasian that 19th-20th century Eugenicists gave

That is not what the paper says at all. Learn to read.

Genetic variation, classification and race" by L.B.Jorde and S.P.Wooding. (2004) Nature Genetics Supplement

This is an example of a cladogram of human evolution. We could label these branches as species, subspecies, races etc. These labels don't carry any ontological weight. Unless you are a creationist.

Attached: 341px-Cladogram.png (341x599, 36K)

That's not more or less alleles. They are just different due to drift or selected on different environments. There are no superior or inferior races, species etc.

Caucasians include all of the Middle East and much of the Indian Subcontinent. The fact that we all group together genetically confirms 19th century Eugenic research.

nature.com/articles/ng1435
The average proportion of nucleotide differences between a randomly chosen pair of humans (i.e., average nucleotide diversity, or π) is consistently estimated to lie between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 1,500 (refs. 9,10). This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees11,12

Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'16,17. Approximately 85–90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10–15% of variation is found between them18,19,20 (Table 1). In other words, ∼90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only ∼10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans. The proportion of total genetic variation ascribed to differences between continental populations, called FST, is consistent, regardless of the type of autosomal loci examined (Table 1). FST varies, however, depending on how the human population is divided. If four Old World populations (European, African, East Asian and Indian subcontinent) are examined instead of three, FST (estimated for 100 Alu element insertion polymorphisms) decreases from 14% to 10% (ref. 21). These estimates of FST and π tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.

Considering the results shown in Figures 2 and 3a, it might be tempting to conclude that genetic data verify traditional concepts about races. But the individuals used in these analyses originated in three geographically discontinuous regions: Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia. When a sample of South Indians, who occupy an intermediate geographic position (see also Fig. 1) is added to the analysis (Fig. 3b), considerable overlap is seen among these individuals and both the East Asian and European samples, probably as a result of numerous migrations from various parts of Eurasia into India during the past 10,000 years40

ncestry, then, is a more subtle and complex description of an individual's genetic makeup than is race41. This is in part a consequence of the continual mixing and migration of human populations throughout history. Because of this complex and interwoven history, many loci must be examined to derive even an approximate portrayal of individual ancestry.

Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is “biologically meaningless.” On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types.

When large numbers of loci are evaluated, it is often possible to infer individual ancestry, at least approximately. If done accurately and with appropriate reservations, ancestral inference may be useful in genealogical studies, in the forensic arena and in the design of case-control studies. This should not be confused, however, with the use of ethnicity or race (genetically measured or self-identified) to make decisions about drug treatment or other medical therapies. Responses to these therapies will often involve nongenetic factors and multiple alleles, and different populations will often share these alleles. When it finally becomes feasible and available, individual genetic assessment of relevant genes will probably prove more useful than race in medical decision making.

It took me all of what, 10 minnutes?, to read and understand that paper and point out the parts that directly contradict your ideas.

Learn genetics or shut up about it.

Here is another example.
A.M.Bowcock , A.Ruiz-Linares , J.Tomfohrde , E.Minch , J.R.Kidd & L.L.Cavalli-Sforza (1994) High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites. Nature 368,455-457

Attached: High_resolution_of_human_evolutionary_trees.jpg (490x400, 52K)

There are no contradictions. There is enough variation otherwise they would not be able to make a cladogram. Each branch is a monophyletic group. The labels you use to name the branches are irrelevant. I also dislike the label race since it is a loaded term.

>9614650
You suck at rhetoric then because that makes no contradictory claims, it just tries to rhetorically spit numbers.

For instance:
> These estimates of FST and π tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.
This says nothing about what the variations that do exist amount to. Absolutely nothing. Most of our DNA is junk. Just because a small percentage of DNA varies between the races does not mean that those differences don't cause dramatic behavioral and cognitive differences. It does not answer the question at all. It only uses rhetoric, not science, to try to convince you there "couldn't possibly be anything there". There certainly could be.

You are intellectually pathetic. Take a basic logic course.

>Because traditional concepts of race

Traditional concepts of race are based on folk taxonomy. Of course most of them will not map in the modern clades. The same way groups like Protists, Reptiles, Fishes etc also do not exist (they are not clades).

understanding how genes express itself in humans will allow us to modify negroids to be smarter with cripsr cas9 technology. the problem is that research into this field is highly taboo and stating basic conclusions get your funds slashed and so on.

You're using uninformed comments on a subject you know nothing about. We can also only look at alleles if you want. Less than 2% of alleles are restricted to any one continent, and most alleles are shared by all populations is almost equal variation.

Nothing is taboo. You can study human genetics all you want. It's your political ideologies that are backward and ill informed.

Even if any of the ideas of racism were true, that would not be an excuse for political action.

>Less than 2% of alleles are restricted to any one continent, and most alleles are shared by all populations is almost equal variation.
This is the same fallacy I already outlined. Just because you use rhetoric to say the differences are small does not mean the differences aren't meaningful. Those are two difference claims. You are a cliche from the book "How to Lie with Statistics".

That's not a fallacy. It's observable fact. The fallacy is is you pretending to understand genetics and saying "the small differences matter because I say they do, and they matter in the ways I say they do!"

>understanding how genes express itself in humans will allow us to modify negroids to be smarter with cripsr cas9 technology

And less violent. That is, to make them like East Asians.

Less than 1% of any given population is actually violent. You're just scared.

>Nothing is taboo.

Attached: lB5wmMp_d.jpg (320x240, 10K)

so why did james watson almost lost his career for stating basic human genetic facts? he also got slandered in the article linked for stating the plain fact of ashenazkism superiority.

He said things that were not scientifically accurate.

If Hawkings said the Earth was flat, should we have believed him? In science, who you are does not matter. Only data matters.

You are the one claiming small genetic differences couldn't possibly amount to race stereotypes. That is a fallacy. Stop projecting. You are the one flatly claiming that these small variations couldn't possibly be meaningful. It is a logical fallacy. You have to then research how these "small" variations affect behavior and cognition which you are claiming they can't. Take a basic logic course. Fallacies are fallacies.

Attached: images.png (329x327, 4K)

It's not a fallacy. Read the David Reich article. Read the papers cited here. When all the leading geneticists in the world are saying race isn't real, your only fall back to constantly scream that it's a conspiracy and that's why you're shitposting on Veeky Forums. You hate science and you hate reality.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24326626

The "warrior gene" is a myth. There is no evidence that higher testosterone, let alone an allele of the MAOA gene, results in higher levels of violence and antisocial behavior. It was a big popsci myth.

you're the genetically retarded one. every difference in genes matter. of course, it would be context dependent based on the cascading results of proteins and ensuing interactions. for example, the difference of someone having blood that literally carry less oxygen is just ONE nucleotide.

now, a typical nigger blood is different just because of ONE nucleotide. now think of all other 10% fst accounts for.

Attached: hemomutant.gif (316x193, 6K)

maybe read the greentext in op for what the author thinks? he is infact trying to inform masses that quantifiable group differences is the emerging opinion.

Race is just a label. I don't care about taxonomy. The important things for a biologist are the evolutionary lines of ancestry (systematics). That is, we want to know if a group is a monophyletic, paraphyletic etc. If you want to call the group race, species whatever it does not matter.

OP is not the author. It's a blog.

nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

kek
You are boring me, but for the sake of all the other readers here:
Saying that genetic variation is small, or even using rhetoric like "tiny", does not mean that said variation isn't important to behavior and cognition.

Read

>There is enough variation otherwise they would not be able to make a cladogram.
You could make a cladogram of your own family tree look exactly like that one. This statement is literally meaningless.

Every family member is there own race! It works!

>I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

>With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.
>I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science.

Attached: 1519759724707.png (800x800, 84K)

And? This was a critique?

>If I only read two sentences I like, I can't be wrong!

To be fair this is not true. We are not at the phylogeny, but on the tokogeny level at this point.

Why couldn't racism be scientifically accurate? What am I missing? I keep reading stuff like this and it never made sense why they were exclusionary.

Sounds like you're the one who didn't read the NYT article. This is the concluding sentence.
>Arguing that no substantial differences among human populations are possible will only invite the racist misuse of genetics that we wish to avoid.
In case you're still not getting what this means: he acknowledges group differences but disagrees with racist conclusions.

Well you have the Sandra race and the Cathy race, they have been warring for years. The timothy race is a race of lazy good for nothings while the Calvin race are more likely to do something with their life. The Richard and Charles races are the longest lived races at 65 and 72 respectively, while Brittany and Justin are the youngest two races at 23 and 26 respectively.

Racism is mostly related to moral position. To discriminate people because they're inferior is not nice.