Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nobel Prize Scientist Loses Titles after Race and IQ claims

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Originally posted by //// View Post
    Percentage figures in regards to genetics mean very little. We are around 99% genetically identical to chimpanzees but that remaining 1% makes a big difference. All mammals share the vast, vast majority of their DNA.
    Well it the figure of 94% of that 0.1% of the variation is among individuals from the same populations and only six per cent between individuals from different populations.

    That is what you should have being paying attention to.

    96% of the Chimpanzee match. Are you 99% genetic match with a Chimp?

    T
    he most commonly used racial typology uses the major geographic migrations that resulted in thousands of years of reproductive segregation to divide into a model of 5 subspecies: Caucasoid, mongoloid, capoid, congoid, australoid. It fell out of favor in the 20th century when "humanist" social scientists adopted a position of human exceptionalism & exemption from taxonomy methods used on other animals, but made a comeback in the 21st century as it's been found to align remarkably well with modern genetic clusters & hereditarianism in general has become dominant (largely due to China taking the lead in genetic research and forcing the "PC" west to finally exit the 1970s).
    Yes a theory from before DNA discovery and based on superficial appearances. And yes they are difference between certain groups, but they are tiny

    You are again conflating population averages with individual traits & trans-racial clines. Of course variation within a group is greater than between averages! In regards to IQ, of course there is a larger gap between a black man with an IQ of 150 and a black man with severe down syndrome than there is between the black and white IQ averages.
    I did no such thing. Not a clue what you are referring to.

    This is stating the obvious and not an argument against the existence of subdivisions within our species. It's a "feelgood" headline you might see on a popular science magazine, but has no significance to the argument.

    So what is your point? You need a mystical or religious explanation to exempt humans from speciation while accepting that its present in other animals.
    I already stated the reason why there is so little variation in the human species.

    But for the second time.

    Human almost wiped out small group 100,000 years ago from that group we spread across the world. Our species only came into being around 50,000 years ago

    It might seem like a long time ago to you but very short to get the variation for a subspecies. Added to that that many groups were reproducing with other groups.

    Animals on the other hand, say the Bengal Tiger and the Siberian Tiger have developed for much generations in isolation. The species in about 110,000 years old but many times more generations than **** sapiens

    Why are you dismissing this? Do you not understand?

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by Xoo View Post
      Who did you vote for? If it was Conservative no wonder that country is ****ed.
      Canada is a great country and I'm proud to be a Canadian. Where the hell are you from or are you too ashamed to say.

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by D4thincarnation View Post
        Well it the figure of 94% of that 0.1% of the variation is among individuals from the same populations and only six per cent between individuals from different populations.

        That is what you should have being paying attention to.

        96% of the Chimpanzee match. Are you 99% genetic match with a Chimp?

        T

        Yes a theory from before DNA discovery and based on superficial appearances. And yes they are difference between certain groups, but they are tiny



        I did no such thing. Not a clue what you are referring to.



        I already stated the reason why there is so little variation in the human species.

        But for the second time.

        Human almost wiped out small group 100,000 years ago from that group we spread across the world. Our species only came into being around 50,000 years ago

        It might seem like a long time ago to you but very short to get the variation for a subspecies. Added to that that many groups were reproducing with other groups.

        Animals on the other hand, say the Bengal Tiger and the Siberian Tiger have developed for much generations in isolation. The species in about 110,000 years old but many times more generations than **** sapiens

        Why are you dismissing this? Do you not understand?
        Your dealing with a guy who doesn't want to understand. His world is simple as long as he can divide people into groups.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by //// View Post
          Hannibal was 100% Phoenician like all other Carthaginian colonial nobility. Celebrating him as an "African" is equivalent to celebrating Erwin Rommel or Genseric are African. Don't be silly. You don't need to steal Lebanese history.

          Musa Mansa was immeasurably wealthy as an individual (perhaps the richest), sat upon a literal gold farm and flooded gold exports into the Middle East, but Mali as a whole was still comparatively primitive & not the richest civilization. In fact the absurd wealth gap between himself and the average west African enabled his feat. Two very different statements.
          I highly doubt you are north African, African or middle eastern. If I am wrong then I am sorry. Gathafi ( Gaddafi) is also north African and he viewed him self has no only African but black. Algerians view them selves as African. If you are on the continent of Africa you are African. This is point blank middle school common sense.

          I am actually of Mali blood and for you to sit him and type bs is funny but that is what y'all like to do. Timbuktu was not only one of the biggest trade centers in the world in the 15 century it was the Mali Empire capital city. In its golden age the towns numerous Islamic scholars write about its riches. All empirea have poor people but there was a lot of wealth in West Africa during this time with trade.

          Go read Leo Africanus. See my high IQ friends all you needed was education.
          Last edited by Removed Now; 01-15-2019, 10:50 AM.

          Comment


          • #85
            Alot of these high IQ people are looking pretty dumb if you ask me. Especially about African history.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by JcLazyX210 View Post
              I highly doubt you are north African, African or middle eastern. If I am wrong then I am sorry. Gathafi ( Gaddafi) is also north African and he viewed him self has no only African but black. Algerians view them selves as African. If you are on the continent of Africa you are African. This is point blank middle school common sense.

              I am actually of Mali blood and for you to sit him and type bs is funny but that is what y'all like to do. Timbuktu was not only one of the biggest trade centers in the world in the 15 century it was the Mali Empire capital city. In its golden age the towns numerous Islamic scholars write about its riches. All empirea have poor people but there was a lot of wealth in West Africa during this time with trade.

              Go read Leo Africanus. See my high IQ friends all you needed was education.
              I am Middle Eastern (would never call myself Africanm and rarely see Libyans/Egyptians/etc refer to themselves as "African" unless they're explicitly referring to North Africa in a geographic context).

              The thread is about "race and IQ". When you use Hannibal (a Phoenician settler) "African" in a racial context you are deliberately falsely portraying him as black.
              Last edited by ////; 01-15-2019, 02:50 PM.

              Comment


              • #87
                Wait now it's controversial that Africans are stupid? Even Africans know they are stupid how is this even a thing? Damn people are too sensitive nowadays.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by //// View Post
                  I am Middle Eastern (would never call myself Africanm and rarely see Libyans/Egyptians/etc refer to themselves as "African" unless they're explicitly referring to North Africa in a geographic context).

                  The thread is about "race and IQ". When you use Hannibal (a Phoenician settler) "African" in a racial context you are deliberately falsely portraying him as black.
                  Black is a color not a race. Never used the term "black" in my life. Nice try.

                  Never called him black, I called him African.

                  Asia is a continent and it is also used as a race Asian. African can be used like wise.

                  Only Americans used the terms Black or White.

                  Middle Eastern is not African but north African is African. You are not stating any facts.

                  FYI - middle eastern is not a race also so maybe you are on the lower end of the scale too according to your European friends. I will love to hear what country you come from since there's not too many decent countries out there In the desert.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X
                  TOP