Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
genetic differences between races 2017-03-03 07:08:27 Post No. 8719282
[Report] Image search: [Google]
genetic differences between races 2017-03-03 07:08:27 Post No. 8719282
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: FST_distance_2.png (136KB, 1147x409px) Image search:
[Google]
136KB, 1147x409px
Are there any credible scientific articles out there that show the difference between whites and blacks in terms of genetics?
I found pic related not long ago, and when I went to check the first statement and its linked article,
"The FST between Whites (British) and Blacks (Bantu) is 0.23:
www.genetics.org/content/105/3/767.abstract",
I didn’t see any mention of any particular race. The article is above my level of comprehension though.
I didn’t check the other sources in the pic, because this first one is the core statement in the OP’s point, and without it, his whole message he’s trying to convey is weak.
>>
Why the fuck does /sci/ is so fascinated with this "oh but it is genetics" thing? Are you searching for a excuse for just being racists and assholes?
>>
>>8719289
Because this aspect is completely stifled in academia and taboo, and this is a counter cultural website where those kinds of things thrive in the domain of totally free, anonymous speech.
>>
>>8719289
is it wrong to be interested in this topic?
I don’t think being interested in it makes me a racist if I don’t use it for racist purposes.
>>
>>8719289
are you so uneducated that you think genetics has something to do with racism?
>>
>>8719289
>"oh but it is genetics"
Is it, though? How do we find out? Wouldn't it be interesting to know? Wouldn't we be able to better help people if we know they don't perform as well as they could do because of socioeconomic status, and see who are the worst affected?
>>
>>8719294
>>8719293
>>8719299
We all know that mostly of the people into this in this website are not for curiosity, but just because they want to have something as a background when they're being called racists.
I'm sorry for saying all of the anons are racists, I mean, the biggest part.
>>8719292
Well, I can agree with that.
>>
>>8719304
do you have any evidence for it ? or are you shitting up baseless assumptions about anonymous people that you haven't even seen ?
>>
Would it be possible to stop arguing about the reasons why this question is stupid/taboo/immoral/wrong, and rather focus on the question?
>>
>>8719282
This is gambler's fallacy.
FST is a measure of population variance. It would be easy to get 1000s of samples from Britain and Bantu. The people wouldn't even have to show up. You could get the samples from whole blood donations to the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, hell, even their respective militaries.
How many genomes do you have of Neanderthals or homo erectus? None, they went extinct. Incomparable sample sizes and methodologies.
For the implication that genetic diversity is the sole determination of species, you need to look up the definition of species.
This is just race baiting. Move on, nothing to see here.
>>
>>8719282
>fst between humans and 'thals is lower than between bantu and british
>fst between fucking erectus and humans is smaller too
>fst is a valid metric to use to justify racism
Your own data makes you look ridiculous.
Go post on /pol/.
>>
>>8719820
not my data. Just asking if there’s any truth in it.
stop being emotional over nothing.
>>
>>8719873
>post dumb shit
>gets called on it
>"s-stop being so emotional!"
>>
>>8719358
Thanks for helping me understand it
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2