Message from @The Lemon
Discord ID: 565544736731955200
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
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:
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