Sup /sci/ I kinda feel bad for making this thread, but do you

>>8505184

Im 99.9% inclined you believe that you OP are from /pol/ and merely shitposting. Because otherwise you would see the weekly threads and overwhelming evidence against race being a valuable genetic characterization.

But just in case you're the 0.1% and are sincerely unaware of how often we get this bullshit:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613000460

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full

http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/9/4516.full

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.full

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7571/full/nature15393.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tan.12165/abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271140/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707610015

>>8505184
Also populations =/= race

These are wildly different concepts in a biological sense.

>>8505207
*biological sense.
rigorous definitional sense

>>8505198
Nah I'm geniunely wondering, and I usually never read those threads, though I do know you guys get a lot of these.
I'll read your stuff but I don't have time to do it right now, I was kinda expecting a point-to-point answer.

>>8505184
>>8505220
Can be rather easily thrown off by the mix-and-match sources and points used. It's not rigorous, so if Wikipedia or any other authority source contradicts it, it can be dismissed.
I know, it seems like an argument from authority but don't feel too bad about it, they are also using a fallacy.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish%20Gallop

100% factual, niggers aren't human.

>>8505198
/thread

mods pls sticky

>>8505259

they are real articles. i think the main issue is what they dont include. Mainly continuum of variability. 1. If using whole population, i imagine this would look continuous. 2. and 3. again continuous variability and in both of these studies, the categorization at the onset is arbitrary and apriori. What neil risch says would be expected under a continuum. 3. 6. no one denies genetic variability but again, this cannot be categorised arbitrarily and superficial race categories e.g. black and white are often not reliable. I even saw in medical articles saying that though yes there are genetic links between diseases and groups, these are not as simple as saying "black people muh diabetes", and the relationships aren't always smooth whether between or within those superficial groups... ultimately an individuals genetics is a far better predictor than those superficial groups.

This brings up that these studies also neglect that genetic variability is often stronger within than between groups and large labels like "black" are inadequate for scientific purposes (but not sociological obviously or everyday purposes necessarily)