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.