Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Schwarzwald" data-source="post: 65931" data-attributes="member: 544"><p>Bro, you&#039;re still just vomiting the same half-read /pol/ copypasta, but every &quot;source&quot; you drop literally shoots your own argument in the foot. It&#039;s like you&#039;re trying to own me with papers that say the exact opposite of what you&#039;re claiming. Peak clown energy—keep citing stuff that refutes you; it&#039;s making this easy.Let&#039;s rip this apart one by one, since you&#039;re obsessed with ignoring the caveats in your own links:First, that 99.9% DNA similarity &quot;lie&quot;? Nah, that&#039;s straight from modern genomics (like the Human Genome Project updates—any two humans share ~99.9% at the base-pair level, with tiny variations in SNPs). Your hominid admixture rant is pure fanfic. Europeans/non-Africans average 1-4% Neanderthal (not 2%, and no credible source says Jews hit 8%—that&#039;s made-up BS; Ashkenazi averages ~2-3%, same as other Europeans). For Africans: the &quot;ghost&quot; archaic admixture in West Africans (Yoruba/Mende) is 2-19% max, per the actual 2020 Science Advances paper you probably skimmed (Durvasula &amp; Sankararaman). Not 25%, and not some &quot;downgrade&quot;—the authors call it neutral ancestry variation, no ranking of &quot;better ghosts.&quot; North Africans/Nile groups have even less due to back-migration, but it&#039;s not a flat 2%. If archaic DNA is an &quot;anchor&quot; like you say, you&#039;re dragging more caveman baggage than anyone. Hypocrite much? Ignoring this doesn&#039;t make your superiority complex real.On intelligence: The University of Edinburgh&#039;s Institute of Genetics and Cancer (using 1000 Genomes data) actually pegs heritability from DNA variants at ~30% (not 50-80%—that&#039;s from twin studies, which include environment too). Their 2017 review says &quot;only around 30% of the variation in intelligence is inherited,&quot; and they&#039;ve struggled to pin down alleles because it&#039;s polygenic as hell—no &quot;list of alleles for frontal lobe in Africans&quot; like you&#039;re demanding, because none exist that prove racial gaps are genetic. The articles you reference (like polygenic scores from Nature Genetics) warn against extrapolating to causation or races—environment crushes the rest. You say the writer &quot;disagrees&quot; but &quot;agrees with you&quot;? Nah, they explicitly say it&#039;s hard to determine alleles, and the 40% you mock is from shared environment/studies, not disproving anything. You&#039;re demanding proof that doesn&#039;t exist because your &quot;hominid admixture = IQ&quot; theory is junk—no studies link it to intelligence gaps.MAOA 2-repeat allele: Your &quot;article&quot; (likely Beaver 2013) only looked at African-American males vs other African-American males—no Caucasian comparison because it&#039;s super rare in them (0.1-0.5% across reports). They couldn&#039;t test cross-racial effects properly. It&#039;s within-group correlation at best, tied to GxE (gene-environment interactions), not &quot;genetic reality&quot; proving race=violence. Multiple reviews (like in Biological Psychiatry) warn against overinterpreting to races—it&#039;s not absent in Caucasians, just low-frequency, and no proof it&#039;s the &quot;crime gene&quot; without environment. Your own source says effects may be independent in rare cases, but the bulk is environmental. Keep waving a no-comparison study like it&#039;s proof—it&#039;s illiterate.That &quot;high employment background Black still outdo low employment Whites&quot; claim? You got it backwards, anon—it&#039;s the opposite of what data shows. Studies like Sampson 2005 (AJPH) on violence victimization: poor urban Blacks (51.3/1,000) have rates similar to poor urban Whites (56.4/1,000)—Whites actually slightly higher. When you control for SES/neighborhood, the Black-White violence gap shrinks over 60% (or vanishes in some datasets). High-SES Blacks have lower crime than low-SES Whites overall (Brookings 2024 review). Your graph (probably some cherry-picked FBI table) ignores confounders like policing bias, poverty depth, redlining—stats show SES explains most, not all, but definitely not your flipped narrative.Kansas City: Yeah, the 1985-1995 deseg program dumped $2B+ into facilities (11.7k/pupil, low ratios, labs/pools)—and it flopped. But your &quot;own source&quot; (Cato/Hoover reports) says why: &quot;structural problems of our current educational system,&quot; not biology. They called out how fancy resources diverted from fixing systemic rot, poverty legacies, segregation fallout. Test scores didn&#039;t budge because it didn&#039;t address the real issues—policy, family support, bias. Not a &quot;gotcha&quot; on genes; it&#039;s proof throwing money at symptoms ignores the broken foundation.Chinese gunpowder/Mali vs Mongols: &quot;Doing something first doesn&#039;t mean anything&quot;? Lmao, then why brag about European &quot;achievements&quot;? Mali Empire wasn&#039;t just &quot;gold and Berber routes&quot;—they built sustainable wealth through innovation in trade, agriculture, scholarship. Sankore University (25k students, 700k manuscripts) advanced surgery (cataracts), astronomy, math, chemistry while Europe was post-plague slumping. Mongols were nomadic conquerors—brutal logistics, yeah, but they didn&#039;t &quot;maintain routes without resources&quot;; they looted and taxed. Leaving &quot;buildings&quot; vs &quot;developing society&quot;? Mali left a legacy of knowledge that influenced global trade/Islam—Europeans later &quot;contributed 94%&quot;? That&#039;s from Murray&#039;s biased 2003 book &quot;Human Accomplishment,&quot; which cherry-picks Western inventories (97% science from Europe/NA, ignoring Islamic/Asian foundations like algebra, optics, gunpowder precursors). It&#039;s Eurocentric BS—actual history shows non-Europeans drove half the breakthroughs (e.g., Arabic numerals from India via Arabs). You&#039;re not &quot;taking both environment and inheritance&quot;—you&#039;re twisting environment to prop up inheritance myths while ignoring how colonialism gutted non-European progress.Your whole rant boils down to dodging hominid facts (your numbers are wrong), pretending environment doesn&#039;t dominate (it does), and goalpost-shifting because equality scares you. I&#039;m not &quot;pretending&quot; you&#039;re ignoring environment—you straight-up are, by cherry-picking abstracts and ignoring conclusions. This ain&#039;t debate; it&#039;s you sealioning with refuted memes because admitting systemic factors mean your &quot;superior/inferio clan&quot; fantasy crumbles.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Schwarzwald, post: 65931, member: 544"] Bro, you're still just vomiting the same half-read /pol/ copypasta, but every "source" you drop literally shoots your own argument in the foot. It's like you're trying to own me with papers that say the exact opposite of what you're claiming. Peak clown energy—keep citing stuff that refutes you; it's making this easy.Let's rip this apart one by one, since you're obsessed with ignoring the caveats in your own links:First, that 99.9% DNA similarity "lie"? Nah, that's straight from modern genomics (like the Human Genome Project updates—any two humans share ~99.9% at the base-pair level, with tiny variations in SNPs). Your hominid admixture rant is pure fanfic. Europeans/non-Africans average 1-4% Neanderthal (not 2%, and no credible source says Jews hit 8%—that's made-up BS; Ashkenazi averages ~2-3%, same as other Europeans). For Africans: the "ghost" archaic admixture in West Africans (Yoruba/Mende) is 2-19% max, per the actual 2020 Science Advances paper you probably skimmed (Durvasula & Sankararaman). Not 25%, and not some "downgrade"—the authors call it neutral ancestry variation, no ranking of "better ghosts." North Africans/Nile groups have even less due to back-migration, but it's not a flat 2%. If archaic DNA is an "anchor" like you say, you're dragging more caveman baggage than anyone. Hypocrite much? Ignoring this doesn't make your superiority complex real.On intelligence: The University of Edinburgh's Institute of Genetics and Cancer (using 1000 Genomes data) actually pegs heritability from DNA variants at ~30% (not 50-80%—that's from twin studies, which include environment too). Their 2017 review says "only around 30% of the variation in intelligence is inherited," and they've struggled to pin down alleles because it's polygenic as hell—no "list of alleles for frontal lobe in Africans" like you're demanding, because none exist that prove racial gaps are genetic. The articles you reference (like polygenic scores from Nature Genetics) warn against extrapolating to causation or races—environment crushes the rest. You say the writer "disagrees" but "agrees with you"? Nah, they explicitly say it's hard to determine alleles, and the 40% you mock is from shared environment/studies, not disproving anything. You're demanding proof that doesn't exist because your "hominid admixture = IQ" theory is junk—no studies link it to intelligence gaps.MAOA 2-repeat allele: Your "article" (likely Beaver 2013) only looked at African-American males vs other African-American males—no Caucasian comparison because it's super rare in them (0.1-0.5% across reports). They couldn't test cross-racial effects properly. It's within-group correlation at best, tied to GxE (gene-environment interactions), not "genetic reality" proving race=violence. Multiple reviews (like in Biological Psychiatry) warn against overinterpreting to races—it's not absent in Caucasians, just low-frequency, and no proof it's the "crime gene" without environment. Your own source says effects may be independent in rare cases, but the bulk is environmental. Keep waving a no-comparison study like it's proof—it's illiterate.That "high employment background Black still outdo low employment Whites" claim? You got it backwards, anon—it's the opposite of what data shows. Studies like Sampson 2005 (AJPH) on violence victimization: poor urban Blacks (51.3/1,000) have rates similar to poor urban Whites (56.4/1,000)—Whites actually slightly higher. When you control for SES/neighborhood, the Black-White violence gap shrinks over 60% (or vanishes in some datasets). High-SES Blacks have lower crime than low-SES Whites overall (Brookings 2024 review). Your graph (probably some cherry-picked FBI table) ignores confounders like policing bias, poverty depth, redlining—stats show SES explains most, not all, but definitely not your flipped narrative.Kansas City: Yeah, the 1985-1995 deseg program dumped $2B+ into facilities (11.7k/pupil, low ratios, labs/pools)—and it flopped. But your "own source" (Cato/Hoover reports) says why: "structural problems of our current educational system," not biology. They called out how fancy resources diverted from fixing systemic rot, poverty legacies, segregation fallout. Test scores didn't budge because it didn't address the real issues—policy, family support, bias. Not a "gotcha" on genes; it's proof throwing money at symptoms ignores the broken foundation.Chinese gunpowder/Mali vs Mongols: "Doing something first doesn't mean anything"? Lmao, then why brag about European "achievements"? Mali Empire wasn't just "gold and Berber routes"—they built sustainable wealth through innovation in trade, agriculture, scholarship. Sankore University (25k students, 700k manuscripts) advanced surgery (cataracts), astronomy, math, chemistry while Europe was post-plague slumping. Mongols were nomadic conquerors—brutal logistics, yeah, but they didn't "maintain routes without resources"; they looted and taxed. Leaving "buildings" vs "developing society"? Mali left a legacy of knowledge that influenced global trade/Islam—Europeans later "contributed 94%"? That's from Murray's biased 2003 book "Human Accomplishment," which cherry-picks Western inventories (97% science from Europe/NA, ignoring Islamic/Asian foundations like algebra, optics, gunpowder precursors). It's Eurocentric BS—actual history shows non-Europeans drove half the breakthroughs (e.g., Arabic numerals from India via Arabs). You're not "taking both environment and inheritance"—you're twisting environment to prop up inheritance myths while ignoring how colonialism gutted non-European progress.Your whole rant boils down to dodging hominid facts (your numbers are wrong), pretending environment doesn't dominate (it does), and goalpost-shifting because equality scares you. I'm not "pretending" you're ignoring environment—you straight-up are, by cherry-picking abstracts and ignoring conclusions. This ain't debate; it's you sealioning with refuted memes because admitting systemic factors mean your "superior/inferio clan" fantasy crumbles. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread