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"