At 9/24/13 10:44 PM, poxpower wrote: Big talk from a guy who got smashed to bits by the owner of http://humanvarieties.org/ recently.

Actually poxpower if you go back to the thread and read the links he didn't respond to and read the actual debate instead of predictably going off your confirmation bias and claiming I got "smashed" you'd be more informed about what actually transpired.

I guess it's easier to talk shit than to get demolished a second time on the same subject matter.

I'll gladly kick your ass on this subject,
How do you delineate "race" in your view? Because as it's already been established that human genetic variation amounts to .1% to .5%, and within that variation most human genetic variation genotypically and phenotypically is in groups not between them, race isn't useful in human categorization. I'll wait

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1438.html
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050254
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2574368/pdf/jnma00205-0096.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

can newgrounds actually discuss race without going full stormfront? i don't think it's possible.

At 9/24/13 11:38 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 9/24/13 11:09 PM, naronic wrote:

Which really bothers me (and I'm sure some NGBBS readers might agree), because I (we) would love to read some substantial defense of human intellectual equality. I'm just not seeing any.

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2011/nimh-26.htm

here's one he never responded to

Also in order to discuss race we need a delineating factor, something which I regrettably didn't talk about in any detail.

At 9/24/13 11:09 PM, naronic wrote:

I'll gladly kick your ass on this subject,
How do you delineate "race" in your view? Because as it's already been established that human genetic variation amounts to .1% to .5%, and within that variation most human genetic variation genotypically and phenotypically is in groups not between them, race isn't useful in human categorization. I'll wait

I can't believe you're still slinging this argument around.
This has been explained to you probably a dozen times already in every way imaginable yet you keep on repeating the same defeated notions.

What is it that you don't understand about the fact that it's useless to try and quantify these differences in percentages? This "in-group vs out-group" argument is such an obvious and blatant fallacy that I simply cannot understand what you don't understand about it.

Just take the easy example of dogs. Their genetic variation is incredibly small and yet their physical attributes are vastly different. All dogs are more closely related to each other than wolves or foxes yet some dogs are physically far closer to wolves than other dogs. This fact remains true whether there is a 0.00001% of a 10% genetic difference between breeds.

Simply switching a single gene on or off in an individual can have gigantic effects, in fact the whole theory of evolution banks on exactly this fact as mutations with large effects routinely happen in nature for better or worse.

A famous case is the Belgian Blue cow which has a simple mutation of a gene that causes it to have vastly increased muscle mass. The human genome contains 20 000 genes. Even a 0.1% difference is 2000 genes.

These mutations are in fact this is how human ancestry is traced; by mutations on the mitochondrial DNA.
http://www.kerchner.com/images/dna/mtdna_migrationmap_(FTDNA2006).jpg

The relevance of a "race" is simply in its power of prediction, and it has vast powers to do so indeed even based on such non-genetic and rough estimates as self-reported ancestry, meaning even knowing nothing of genetics you could group humans well enough by eye to predict things about different groups.

A "race" is not a scientific term ( this has been explained to you time and time again) the concept of a human race is no more real than the concept of a cat breed or a variety of cucumber. But there exist clear historical and largely homogenous ( even to this day ) genetic groups of humans with distinctively different DNA makeup and physical characteristics, so much so that they can be identified solely from their bones, as is done in forensic anthropology.

So clearly we have several already existing methods and standards for defining race that are relevant and have predictive powers. Only fools such as Naronic claim that there is no such thing as a race, you'd never see koreans, africans, native americans, tibetans or australian aborigines make the claim that they are not members of a distinct group of humans from caucasians and others. Yet you'd never see Naronic go up to an African American to let him know that he's not really Senegalese in origin, he's just "a human" indistinguishable from the British or the Mongols.

What Naronic really has a problem with is not race, it's potential intelligence differences between them. Any other difference he would never care about ( namely Athletic ) but he knows where this discussion is heading so he is pulling the parachute cord as early as he can and tries to negate the entire concept of a racial classification, just in case it might work this time around.

If this debate was about boxing or basketball, Naronic would be the first in line to tell us that african-americans have a distinct genetic edge over, say, the Chinese and that it would be stupid to implement a basketball affirmative action program which we'd use to fund more Chinese athletes and less black ones. This is absurd on its face to everyone.

Again this has all been explained to you many times yet you somehow do not get this. I'm done wasting my time with you.

At 9/25/13 12:24 AM, GameChild214 wrote:

At 9/24/13 11:21 PM, Powerage wrote: can newgrounds actually discuss race without going full stormfront? i don't think it's possible.

Haha StormFront is for kids anyway.

i thought the kiddies hung out at /pol/ or something.

and ahaha oh man, VNN. now there's some weapons-grade insanity.

* Even a 0.1% difference is 2000 genes.

That's 20 genes sorry. 0.5% being 100 genes.
Oh and 20 000 is the low estimate and that's for the genes that actually code for protein, which account for about 1.5% of the genome, which means there's 1.3-1.5 million genes in total, most of which are not active, but you can see that a 0.1-0.5% difference in 1.3 million genes is 1300-6500 genes.

I cannot tell you where the genetic variation between humans comes from, if it's mostly in the 20 000 protein-coding genes or in the "rest".

Anyway the point is that even if dealing with tiny percentages you can have massive variations on massive numbers of genes and that small variations on a few genes can combine to cause large effects, as is suspected for instance with autism, which completely destroys a person's ability to think.

Yet an autistic child is not affected by a virus or bacteria and his genome is extremely similar to that of his non-autistic parents, however he is completely non-functional on a level that is far greater than any possible group differences among human races. If autism, which is largely heritable, was a genetically beneficial trait to have in nature, imagine the difference between two populations, one autistic and one not, after 1000 years. The average IQ of one would be 100 while the other would be too low to even count, yet the two populations would be extremely genetically similar.

So yeah, again, the "blabla % variation blabla" argument makes no sense whatsoever.

The main thing that counts are:
- Geographic variations
- Environmental variations
- Time of separation from other groups

These are the actual factors which influence the characteristic of a group be it animals or people. Evolution can be slow or fast and often convergent for two distinct populations who live in similar conditions ( for instance both East Asian and caucasians have very light skin color whereas both Africans and south Indians have very dark skin color, despite being separated geographically by thousands of miles ).

aaaaaaaaaanyway go sleep

At 9/24/13 11:21 PM, Powerage wrote: can newgrounds actually discuss race without going full stormfront? i don't think it's possible.

I feel like it wasn't always like this and it's really bumming me out lately.

At 9/25/13 12:24 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/24/13 11:09 PM, naronic wrote:

Just take the easy example of dogs. Their genetic variation is incredibly small and yet their physical attributes are vastly different. All dogs are more closely related to each other than wolves or foxes yet some dogs are physically far closer to wolves than other dogs. This fact remains true whether there is a 0.00001% of a 10% genetic difference between breeds.

The problem with this argument is that dogs can be separated rather conclusively by phenotype, while in humans, negating superficial traits the phenotypic variation follows the same pattern as genotypic variation (see links above).

"Breeds" don't apply to non domesticated animals because for breeds requires deliberate selection, which you don't have for the human species.
http://references.260mb.com/Biometria/Relethford2002.pdf

"A number of analyses of classical genetic markers and DNA polymorphisms have shown that the majority of human genetic diversity exists within local populations (85%), with much less among local populations (5%) or between major geographic regions or “races”
10%). Previous analysis of craniometric variation (Relethford [1994] Am J Phys Anthropol 95:53–62) found that between 11–14% of global diversity exists among geographic regions, with the remaining diversity existing within regions. The methods used in this earlier paper are extended to a hierarchical partitioning of genetic diversity in quantitative traits, allowing for assessment of diversity among regions, among local populations within regions,and within local populations. These methods are applied to global data on craniometric variation (57 traits) and skin color. Multivariate analysis of craniometric variation shows results similar to those obtained from genetic markers and DNA polymorphisms: roughly 13% of the total diversity is among regions, 6% among local populations within regions, and 81% within local populations. This distribution is concordant with neutral genetic markers. Skin color shows the opposite pattern, with 88% of total variation among regions, 3% among local populations within regions, and 9% within local populations, a pattern shaped by natural selection. The apportionment of genetic diversity in skin color is atypical, and cannot be used for purposes of classification. If racial groups are based on skin color, it appears unlikely that other genetic and quantitative traits will show the same patterns of variation."

When considering intelligence differences between populations you're going to have multitudes and multitudes of genes that effect it, again. You cannot weave a "racial intelligence" narrative from a small number of genes. So your constant babbling about this isn't going to work
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v8/n1/full/4001095a.html

Then you have to actually see what would lead to higher Intelligence, not just IQ. These would be where your neurons are wired, how efficient they are and what functional organization your brain has.
It's been known for a while that "neurons that fire together wire together"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_enrichment_(neural)

If you have time, read through both of these sources.

Only fools such as Naronic claim that there is no such thing as a race

Actually my argument has always been that race has no scientific or taxonomic significance, especially when applied to humans. Your using IQ data to argue against the wealth of this information.

Race having "predictive power" is not enough to justify wild unsupported theories on why it's suddenly genetically significant and why we should incorporate your theories into the scientific mainstream.

we should get a big calendar marking how many days we can get past without another race-war and for each week that we pass, everyone gets a free alien hominid plushie or something

At 9/24/13 08:27 PM, poxpower wrote: Then why is it that most non-black colonies are doing quite alright? Hong Kong for instance? Or India. Almost all of South America were European colonies but they are doing decent today, at least far better than Africa.

Do you expect me to make a resumé describing all the geopolitical, socioeconomical, psychosocial situations of all these countries to tell you why some of them ended up in a better situation then others? Plus, you've been arguing ever since the beginning like there is no country in Africa that does rather well. Which is wrong.

You have to understand that Africa's situation wasn't the same as the others. If you want to dig in deeper on that subject, go on. But you can't truly expect me to give you a simple answer to that question.

You also forget that the Americas were colonies. Why did colonialism make those countries the most prosperous on earth yet somehow crippled black nations to this day?

Most likely because the populations in the Americas were not threated as an inferior race. Simply put, they were white colonies for a white population. There was no intense segregation (read slavery) of white people in the Americas. Even if they were colonies, they were seen as extensions of the European world, not as some natural ressources asshole of the humanity with a lot of cheap workforce (read slaves).

How did Germany and Japan rebuild so fast after world war 2 despite large sanctions from the rest of the world and massive devastation and loss of life? Unified Germany is now one of the strongest countries on earth a mere 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall.

Because they were helped a lot by their new allies (which were their enemies during the war). Churchill once said "The allies of today will be the enemies of tomorrow, and the enemies of today will be the allies of tomorrow". He was right, and the French, English and American governments knew it. They helped the west-side of Germany to get back up on their feet for the beginning of the Cold-War. Same thing goes for Japan. Those were important countries, and they were not kept down after the war. As opposed to African countries. These are kept down on purpose.

What corporation is holding Haiti hostage exactly? How are "corporations" keeping THE ENTIRE CONTINENT as well as scattered islands from achieving the prosperity that you claim they would achieve if only they had ruled themselves from the get-go? At what point in their long history were black nations prosperous?

I already explained that. You have countries with strong cultural/ethnic tensions, wars started ages ago by colonists when they drew the maps. You have a weak economy and no kind of social structure keeping it from falling back down again. Now, take the IMF and foreing interest to control the economy with their unmatchable production (both in quantity and speed of production) selling for a cheap cost, destroying local economies.

But the cultural groups who do get political representation in black countries and who are black don't achieve prosperity either. And the blacks who live under white rule are more prosperous than those who don't, irrespective of how "represented" they are in that country's government.

You could also argue that some dictatorships made the countries "richer" and more "prosperous". That would be great.

In what way is the tribal nature of the African continent, which emerged millennia before any invaders, the fault of "colonialists"? Furthermore, there are plenty of countries today that are vastly multi-ethnic and yet seem to do quite well; Canada, USA, France, China, India to name a few.

See, that's another assumption of positivists. They believe, probably based on a "hunch", that time, societies and history is in constant progress. They see evolution as a line, rather then a tree that would branch out in various directions. They are different, not retarded.

Africa is one of the most ethnically diverse continents on earth, if you separate each group into its own country Africa would be hundreds if not thousands of countries. Explain in what way this would solve any of their current problems.

Again, I simplified. What I meant is that the boundaries were traced to follow the needs and the well-being of colonist elites, not the population. So it might have been population that were splitted up, or the territories might have been created in such way that ressources were not distributed the way it used to be. Plus, this states and territories system, was forced upon them, yet again. I can't describe all the specific situations so easily. I'm talking about various elements that have affected Africa negatively. If you want to understand everything about a specific country, feel free to do so. I don't have a 20 pages essay to write for you...

Also, I'm not talking about giving each population a territory. There are countless ways to protect minorities and their interests in a bigger country.

Oh ok so before they had local economies that thrived and produced tons of scientific advancement, high GDP and high standards of living?

Before when? Before the first colonisations? 500 years ago? You do the history research here. You're just blowing this out of proportion now.

Forces them how?? Who's forcing them? With what? Guns?

When a country has a huge debt, they can get help from the IMF. They give money, and in exchange you have to accept their policies. And before you say the Africans are the only ones to blame for this. Just think about the debt as something that goes through generations. A debt this huge basically holds down a country. And btw, a lot of Asian and South American countries have "needed" the help of the IMF to get by. But once they land money... you are fucked. They force a system on you, which basically prevents you from ever being able to get back up.

Otherwise, some countries don't have the natural ressources or the education or specialized labor force to live in a protectionist state. So when they open their borders, they are subject to predatory economical systems.

This same process of industrialization was brought to China decades ago. Now they are one of the first world economies. How exactly did they manage to do this and yet no African country is able to escape these evil "corporations" who "force" themselves onto them ( somehow )?

China has huge protectionist policies and are powerful on countless aspects when it comes to international relations. You are, again, comparing apples with pears...

Again this same thing is happening all over the world, how is it that it's only keeping Africa in the stone age?
Why was industrialization a bounty for the west but some horrible curse for Africa?

Because industrialization was lead to build strong local economies at first (a lot of protectionism was involved), but it was later used for neo-colonialist purposes (economical colonialism). And again, that's a vast topic. The western world didn't live industrialization the same way Africa lived it.

He sounds like a dumbass.

You obviously didn't read shit. I'm talking about ACTUALLY READING HIM. Like... challenging your close-minded and wrong opinions a little.

In this day and age to think that psychoanalysis of all things is more relevant than neuroscience to the betterment of humankind of flat-out mind-blowing.

You are completely missing the point. Science isn't the only way to true knowledge.

Holy shit, thank you HeavenDuff and naronic. You guys are true menschen.

At 9/25/13 01:33 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Plus, you've been arguing ever since the beginning like there is no country in Africa that does rather well. Which is wrong.

In fact, seven of the world's ten fastest-growing economies are African, and the continent's economic growth is only projected to get even faster.

Most likely because the populations in the Americas were not threated as an inferior race. Simply put, they were white colonies for a white population. There was no intense segregation (read slavery) of white people in the Americas. Even if they were colonies, they were seen as extensions of the European world, not as some natural ressources asshole of the humanity with a lot of cheap workforce (read slaves).

Pox is idiotically comparing the experiences of European colonists in the Americas with those of the indigenous people being colonized in Africa. If you want to compare the colonial histories of Africa and the Americas, then Native Americans are a more apt comparison, and look how things turned out for them.

See, that's another assumption of positivists. They believe, probably based on a "hunch", that time, societies and history is in constant progress. They see evolution as a line, rather then a tree that would branch out in various directions. They are different, not retarded.

Yeah this pretty much affirms my suspicion that pox hasn't read any history written less than 50 years ago. He claims that history has just made the same assertions over and over for decades, yet for the past half-century historians have been steadily dismantling the kinds of baseless, ethnocentric assumptions he takes for granted as fact.

Again, I simplified. What I meant is that the boundaries were traced to follow the needs and the well-being of colonist elites, not the population. So it might have been population that were splitted up, or the territories might have been created in such way that ressources were not distributed the way it used to be.

Not to mention that these borders were frequently drawn up with little attention paid to long-standing ethnic or tribal tensions, helping lead to the various instances of brutal dictatorships, violence, genocide and civil war that have greatly exacerbated the region's already significant troubles.

At 9/25/13 01:33 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:

You have to understand that Africa's situation wasn't the same as the others.

No country's situation was the exact same as another, this does not somehow invalidate comparisons.

Most likely because the populations in the Americas were not threated as an inferior race.

Actually that's specious since black people never colonized anything that I'm aware of.. How could you possibly say this is the cause when you have nothing to compare it with?

Almost all peoples throughout history have been treated as second class citizen with the ebbs and flows of warfare yet it's always the same who end up on the bottom after freedom is installed.

The Jews for instance have been massively hunted and persecuted throughout the middle ages and treated as second class citizen ( or worse ) for centuries yet they are now arguably the most intellectually and financially prosperous ethnic group on earth.
Similarly the Chinese in the Americas were every bit as segregated and discriminated against as the blacks;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chinese_Americans#Discrimination

Because they were helped a lot by their new allies

And Africa isn't helped?
If we tried to do to an African country what we did in Japan, you would call it colonialism.
Instead we send billions upon billions in foreign aid every year.

Those were important countries, and they were not kept down after the war. As opposed to African countries. These are kept down on purpose.

Again I see 0 evidence for such a claim.

I already explained that. You have countries with strong cultural/ethnic tensions, wars started ages ago by colonists when they drew the maps.

That is blatantly false. Africa was always a warring continent of tribes long before anyone colonized it.

See, that's another assumption of positivists. They believe, probably based on a "hunch", that time, societies and history is in constant progress. They see evolution as a line, rather then a tree that would branch out in various directions. They are different, not retarded.

Lol again this perpetual and obvious lie that faux-intellectuals tell themselves so they don't feel racist.
They know perfectly well the benefits they enjoy from living in a first world democracy vs a third world dictatorship or a neolithic tribe. To claim these are all just the same, but different, is preposterous.

It's not a "hunch" that humanity is doing better today in all aspects that humans care about vs 50 years ago either.
There is a myriad ways to measure the betterment of a population's condition.

So it might have been population that were splitted up, or the territories might have been created in such way that ressources were not distributed the way it used to be.

That's been the way it worked for most of human history in Europe as well as countries fought each other to expand.
But what happened eventually? Borders were traced for better or worse and the population adapted.

Why aren't Africans able to do this?

Before when? Before the first colonisations? 500 years ago? You do the history research here. You're just blowing this out of proportion now.

When was sub-saharan Africa prosperous exactly?
The way you describe it, we just came in and devastated long-standing peaceful and prosperous status quos.

Otherwise, some countries don't have the natural ressources or the education or specialized labor force to live in a protectionist state. So when they open their borders, they are subject to predatory economical systems.

That's just conspiracy theorist nonsense.
Almost all the websites you will find that talk about this are written by social science commentators and not economists.

Economics is extremely complicated and every economic policy that you will implement will have advantages and disadvantages.

I cannot find data that supports this idea of a prosperous Africa destroyed by the IMF.
This argument is strikingly similar to the "Wal Mart is evil" argument as well.

China has huge protectionist policies and are powerful on countless aspects when it comes to international relations. You are, again, comparing apples with pears...

Yes it does seem that no example I can ever give is a good comparison to black people or Africa for you.

The western world didn't live industrialization the same way Africa lived it.

Once again, strangely enough, Africa is always exempt from any comparison to anything.

You are completely missing the point. Science isn't the only way to true knowledge.

Yeah by definition it pretty much is.

Anyway I don't want to go much further into Africa because quite frankly I think it's pointless and not that interesting. It's far too easy for anyone to offer hand-waving explanations as to why they suck so badly.

What is actually more interesting and possible to study is Africans themselves and how they do in their own countries and the countries of "others". Race differences are far more well studied and compelling than geopolitical messes which can never be untangled to the satisfaction of anyone.

We can sit here all day long with me asking questions and you answering with plausible but vastly unsubstantiated claims or demanding impossible standards of evidence and we'll get nowhere.

At 9/25/13 11:35 AM, Elitistinen wrote:

Weird, why do blacks always synonymous with high poverty?

People like Dr Worm will cite systemic racism, historical discrimination, "black culture" and other such factors that we now pretty much know don't account for the whole picture. In fact in American there seems to be no amount of money and attention that can overcome these past transgressions, where they don't affect the Jews, the Japanese or the Chinese very much at all today.
There are a few examples of ( small ) but thriving black groups that all have one thing in common: They were selected genetically for intelligence through stringent immigration policies.
It seems odd that when you do select the most intelligent blacks, systemic racism and a history of slavery, colonialism etc. doesn't seem to hold THEM down.

What is actually more interesting and possible to study is Africans themselves

Since poxpower doesn't seem to get it, there is no substantial genetic delineation of race. Especially not with complex traits such as personality and intelligence, all the "studies" you're referring to are from psychology, not genetics or even neuroscience, where the "debate" has been over for quite some time now.

You running around attempting to hijack every thread having to deal with race, leaving behind a string of comments along the lines of Africa sux hurr durr I'm such a race realist look at IQ scores, has more to do with your personal politics than any actual science on the matter

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1350408/4#bbspost24817607_post_text
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1350408/4#bbspost24817696_post_text

Naronic's entire argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy

Again, done wasting my time with you son. Sorry.

At 9/25/13 02:26 PM, poxpower wrote: Naronic's entire argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy

Again, done wasting my time with you son. Sorry.

Do you even know what lewontin's fallacy entails or is this just you projecting your incapability to argue genetics past your dog breed phenotype analogy?

"Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at an individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. This happens because differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations — the alleles that are more frequent in a population at two or more loci are correlated when we consider the two populations simultaneously. Or in other words, the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations"

"Biological anthropologists such as Jonathan Marks and philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. According to this view Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct"

http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0005857.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy

"Similarly, Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation"

"In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[23] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis.[23]

Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.""

serious red neck stuff

More on races and human genetic diversity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxqrF1rykE

Again things that Naronic and most social scientists ( most likely willfully as this point ) misunderstand.

hahaha oh man the Newgrounds r̶a̶c̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ Racial Realists™ are still at the "why won't those anti-white Libtards take the Red Pill and see The Truth®" routine? more persistent than libertarians and Reddit Atheists.

i'm surprised that references to "drinking the Kool-Aid" haven't been used yet ITT.

24901miles, you know, I'm busy. Lot of works. I have read just briefly this thread. Mostly, I had focused mostly on Naronic posts because he seems to have more knowledge on this topic than the average of the forumers here or any where you will see.

It's not the first time I tell him that I suspect he fails to understand most of what he reads or cites. Again I don't really care. In fact, I don't know really what kind of games Naronic is playing around here. But it's a lot of fun. Indeed, he cites Whitherspoon et al. 2007 paper as a proof against Lewontin and his followers, meaning the "fact" that individuals of different races are more alike than are people within the same race. See Figure 1 below ?

Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations

Figure 1C shows you what you need to know, the common allele frequencies between races, meaning the very fact that there is virtually no overlap between races when it comes to between-race comparison involving many thousands of loci. The more information you put in your genetic analyses, the more between-race overlap you should get especially when more unique alleles are used in the comparison analyses.

Thus the answer to the question ‘‘How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?’’ depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, wˆ, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is wˆ ~= 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, wˆ ~= 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes ‘‘never’’ when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

What is shameful, really, is that today, we need empirical proof to establish that same-race persons are more alike among them than are people from different races. It's really a joke we need to prove it. White people are so laughable sometimes.

At 9/28/13 12:48 PM, MH19870410 wrote: Thus the answer to the question ‘‘How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?’’ depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, wˆ, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is wˆ ~= 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, wˆ ~= 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes ‘‘never’’ when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

You apparently really don't know how to interpret papers or deduce what they mean, this quote mine is a good example, you using something that might sound like it supports your opinion if you don't read it through all the way. Bottom line, I'm aware that this quote exists.

For instance, it being proven that when looking at a genetic dataset with a high enough resolution (on SNP no less) you can assign genetic similarity doesn't necessarily mean there is more genetic similarity within populations than between them. You can look around and "define" any number of populations with polymorphisms (even if those polys don't lead to a real difference, only 3 to 5% of human polymorphisms are functional and a lot of them can simply code for superficial differences)

http://flygxe.ua.edu/evolutionary_genomicspapers/humanpopulations2_9_11.pdf

"The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with 100 polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but v remains sizable,even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations.This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race."

The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/8/12/1229.full

A functional, or non-synonymous, SNP is one that affects some factor such as gene splicing or messenger RNA, and so causes a phenotypic difference between members of the species. About 3% to 5% of human SNPs are functional (see International HapMap Project). Neutral, or synonymous SNPs are still useful as genetic markers in genome-wide association studies, because of their sheer number and the stable inheritance over generations.