It's alright dude

Well there is

And it can be based of where the person has descended from

So brits would be Indo European

Skin color does not matter as much

I mean ultimately all humans are descended from Africans as that's where homo sapiens evolved

How do you define how far back you go to decide what "race" someone is?

Well it’s just a theory that all humans came from Africa

So I would go for when write history was a big think

@The Lemon How do you define someone’s race? Well it’s actually quite simple. In a non-scientific way, you can gather a lot of information by looking at someone generally, it’s not particularly difficult to tell whether someone is white black, Asian (with some Grey in between).

According to Neuroscientist Dr. Jean-François Gariépy the scientific definition of race is the measurable Sub-Division of hereditary characteristics in isolated populations. (Yes Europeans have been isolated from Africans genetically for tens of thousands of years, including South East Asians, Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals.

Additionally, 23 & me, Ancestry.com, and the Google corporation’s teams of geneticists, biologists , and Physical Anthropologists have no problem in determining who fits into what racial group and why. Also, the world’s leading population Genetics expert and Harvard lecture Dr. David Reich, not only asserts that their are taxonomical differences between races, but categorising them isn’t arbitrary (although he makes poor refutations of Rightist racial arguments within his New York Times Article).

Furthermore, I’m glad you brought up the the Richard Lewotin fallacy, just because the majority of variation is within groups (it’s important to also note that Lewotin only proved this level of variation in terms of blood proteins), the 6% of variation is still significant. Humans share 99.99% of our genes with Chimpanzees. We know that races have different genes, but the question is do these genes have an affect or are they not active. The 9 snips of DNA that have whites have in genes related to IQ that blacks don’t , along with the Minnesota twin study, and Dr. John Philippe Rushton South African university IQ study. In this regard alone.

Also every country that gives census data regarding race has to provide a legal definition for it you absolute nonce. In the US for example, both the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the United States Census Bureau provide one: https://factfinder.census.gov/help/en/race.htm

6% of genetics that isn't shared is entirely different to 6% of genetic variation you're trying to equate those two thiggs

And yes there are legal definitions

Which vary widely depending on the country and time period

And often contradict

Hence there is no one clear definition

Ultimately, this is the same arguments for race denial are being pushed by you and the Libtard sanity project, which were peddled by Jewess Ashley Montagnu in her book (which you definitely haven’t read), Man’s most dangerous myth: the fallacy of race. Nothing has changed 70 years onward.

Guess the word gay is invalid because its definition has changed over time. That’s a piss poor argument.

Are you saying that gay people don’t exist?

How homophobic

The definition of gay in relation to sexuality hasn't changed over time

It wasn’t known as gay then though, so it originally wasn’t related to sexuality

Silly boy

I know it wasn't but I'm saying in regards to sexuality read what I said

And again back to my point

You're trying to equate 6% of genetic variation to 6% of genes not being shared at all

By using the comparison of we share 99% of our genes with chimpanzees but are entirely different

Do you not see how disingenuous that is?

There are genes that aren’t shared though. Tibetan’s have blood impurities that allow them to live in high altitudes better then their Han-Chinese counter parts, of which there is no genetic difference.

There’s 94% of variation between groups in terms of blood Proteins lol

But you're missing jy entire point

Nothing else

Which is that there is no clear cut off beterrn han Chinese and Tibetans

It's not like you're in one area and everyone is han chinese, travel a mile and everyone is tibetan

Actually Tibetan’s have been isolated from Han-Chinese by 20,000 years mate.

Are you sure about that?

Are you trying to tell me there has been absolutely no migration between the west and the east of China ever at all in the past 20,000 years?

Because that sounds like bullshit to me

Got any evidence to back that up?

I have a question though, do you believe that there are no negative social, psychological, and genetic when groups miscegenation?

Well Mao did kill a lot of Tibetan’s so yes recently. Prior there was no significant change on a mass genetic level. If you would like to read about it, I recommend you read Dr.David Reich’s article in the New York Times. I knew about the example before, but he puts it in context.

No significant change isn't the same as completely genetically isolated

Stop changing you're rhetoric as soon as someone calls you out

Also what do you mean miscegenation

I’m rephrasing what I said. Broadly and in comparison to the rest of Asia, Tibetan’s would be considered completely isolated. But if you want to Nitpick then no.

What do you think miscegenation is lol?

It’s race mixing

No then, I believe there's no negative effects of race mixing. Especially not genetic

Well I recommend you take a gander to this National Vanguard article:

https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/04/mixed-race-infants-are-unhealthy-because-of-complex-gene-environment-interaction/

I could summarise it, but I see no point.

According to you - "Broadly and in comparison to the rest of Asia, Tibetan’s would be considered completely isolated"

You claimed that was for the past 20,000 years

While literally just looking at the wikipedia article for tibet tells you that there was mass immigration from northern China 3000 years ago

Ok from first impressions that article looks very non-scientific

It's using one specific data set about low birth weights to try and argue that all mixed race children are genetically inferior.

Secondly it dosen't seem to be controlled for any factors other than Race

Such as household income, nutrition (which will be incredibly important for this kind of argument), access to healthcare

Thirdly when you actually look at the statistics there does not seem to be any significant difference when looking at low birth weight or being small for gestational age and only a significant difference when you look at infant mortality

And infant mortality is a statistic which is far more likely to be explained by those variables I mentioned before that weren't being controlled for than genetics

Thirdly there does not seem to be any kind of actual proof here

If you knew about statistics you would know that in order to say that statistics prove something you need to do some sort of hypothesis test to show that the statistics are significantly unlikely with the assumption that your null hypothesis is true

And judging from how relatively non significant the differences in data seem to be here I'm guessing and hypothesis test at even a 5% signifcance level would show that there's insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis

Finally you argued that it was "race" mixing that caused these problems however these problems seem to have a higher representation in Black-Black couples than White-Black couples

Aka the statistics literally disprove the point that you are trying to make

All of this bullshit and I haven't even looked at a fifth of the article yet

So you can shut the fuck up

Yes mate. The point of the example was that the people living in Tibet were Han Chinese immigrants and I was comparing them to regular Han Chinese, thus demonstrating that significant genetic change can occur within a relative short span of time. (Useful when speaking about the longer isolation Europeans had with Africans, Saharan and Sub-Saharan).

The person who wrote the article isn’t a scientist. Neither are you, so your opinion about the scientificness of this argument holds no weight. What factors should be controlled for? It’s impossible to standardise the environment in this situation, so? The fact that it shows any negative difference should ring some alarm bells. What variables are you talking about and it’s your burden of proof to show me why they are influencing the statistics. Actually no, Infant mortality being more highly represented in Black-Black couples tells you everything you need to know about how much the average black family cares about their child. It shows that when whites mix with blacks and other groups they themselves lower themselves downward to the level of animals and thus become animals. So you haven’t looked at 1/5 of the article and you’re already drawing conclusions about validity? Someone’s a little unhinged.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/biracial-asian-americans-and-mental-health

If you don’t want to read the article because it’s not scientific, then I suggest you read this study of two University of California researchers is consistent with E.R. Jaensch’s theory of race-mixture as a cause of personality disorders.

Where is the scientific proof for miscegenation? Because it doesn’t work out well for any other animal or even insect

Dogs and Bees

If the article isn't written by a scientist why are you talking about it as if it is scientific evidence

Never said it was scientific evidence lol. You just said that you didn’t see it as being scientific

Also previously you mentioned specifically Han Chinese and Tibetans but then you changed your argument to between Tibetans and the whole of asia now you're backpedalling

You were acting as if it was

And I said I don’t care if some queer on the internet who is not a scientists finds as it non-scientific

Also you ask me what variables I'm talking about when I stated previously what variables I'm talking about

How can you tell me how I’m acting lol?

And if you can't see how bad nutrition would affect a baby's weight at birth you are a special kind of stupid

Its the impression I got from your rhetoric

Also I'm not gay and I am studying science at uni so you can fuck right off with your "queer non scientist" statement

Don't assume shit about me

There are white and black communities in America that are malnourished though. And the Federal government gives out food stamps to black families to fix such a problem regardless.

We wuz lead poisoned

We wuz starved

But we wuz Kangs and Sheiiiit

If you actually looked at the article you'd see the statistics were found in New York an urban area where poorer areas tend to be predominantly black rather than in the post industrial mid west where poorer areas tend to be predominantly white

And?

Therefore the areas with higher rates of malnutrition (the poorer areas) are likely to be predominantly black skewing the statistics for black babies being born underweight when that variable isn't controlled for

Do you need everything to be spelled out for you?

Ah, but are they malnourished as a failure of their own, and thus as group (race) or are they malnourished because of some conspiracy against black people? I mean, if both parents are working at least a minimum wage job, and if they receive food stamps, their children shouldn’t be malnourished, or at least not to a large extent, an extent of which does not disprove the thesis of the Article.

And you still haven’t made a comment of the actual study I cited.

I haven't had a chance to look at that, I don't read at the speed of light jesus

Remember your thesis was that race mixing doesn’t have any negative effects.

And your article doesn't prove that race mixing doesn't have any negative effects

The null hypothesis here is that race mixing does not have negative effects as there is no logical genetic reason for it to have negative effects

It proves that mixed race children have higher rates of infant mortality than white children especially. I didn’t say that racing mixing’s negative effects are genetic alone though. There are also negative social and psychological effects.

Also you talk about conspiracy against black people as if its something unrealistic while forgetting that there was government policies that stopped people of certain races from buying property in better off neighbourhoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

To say that it proves something you would have to firstly control those statistics for non-related variables like household income and nutrition, then you would have to ensure that appropriate sampling methods were used to ensure there was no bias in the data and finally you would have to perform some kind of hypothesis test to prove that assuming the null hypothesis these differences are significantly unlikely to prove a deviation from the null hypothesis you clearly have little to no understanding of how statistics work and think its ok to just throw around numbers and act like you can instantly prove everything in this way with a couple of tables and maybe a graph

If you aren't committed enough to put that effort in then you do not deserve to be able to say that the statistics prove your hypothesis

Right now all you're doing is throwing numbers at me, extrapolating the evidence with absolutely no proof of causation (only some highly questionable correlation) and acting as it it proves your racist agenda right