Talk:Racialism/Archive6

This is an archive page, last updated 24 August 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <7>, <8>, <9>

, (new)(back)

Excellent article

Your website is an great satire of SJW nonsense. I especially like how you chose a Negro "beating the Nazis" to show how "race doesn't exist". You totally the nailed the politically motivated delusion of these people. It's good to know there are still people sharp enough to not allow politics to infect science, and mock the idiots accordingly. Great stuff! 92.27.173.236 (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You obviously lack the sense of humor and/or historical knowledge needed to understand the placement of the image and caption. Bongolian (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing I wrote indicates I'm unaware of the history. You're a cheap slanderer with no valid points. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't know what slander is either. Bongolian (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You could resort to lame nitpicking when called out on your dishonesty. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha, great reply. Topnotch satire of an average alt-right "race realist". The way you brand everything that conflicts with your world view as "SJW" or opposes your politics are being "political"? Perfect! The ad hominum attacks? Genius! I do recommend casually throwing the word "cuck" at anyone who disagrees with you though, to really take your parody to the next level. Cheers and good luck!. Petey Plane (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The human gene pool does not divide neatly into geographical groupings

Nobody ever claimed it divided "neatly". Every race theorist has pointed out blending at boundaries. Strawman lies. It's pretty clear where you divide it if you want to operationalize it.

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html 92.27.173.236 (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Renaming Racism page

I'm proposing a renaming of the Racism page. See Talk:Racism#Page renaming for discussion. Bongolian (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Lewontin's fallacy

Is repeated around ten times in this article.

https://z139.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/fsthe3.png

Hell I think we share most of our variation with bananas. The race concept is about that portion of differential variation and informative for that. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem with having a black/white race classification is there's more genetic difference between many black people than between some white and black people. Christopher (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Data? And I take it you're agreeing "more variation within groups than between" doesn't invalidate taxa, since you're immediately changing the subject. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Eh, maybe I did change the subject. If you were to look at the racialism page you'd find a rebuttal to whatever it is you're saying. There's something about Lewontins fallacy there. Christopher (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If I didn't understand the subject I wouldn't post. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

So far the evidence is pretty clearly against that - David Gerard (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

New excellent quote from biological anthropologist John H. Relethford relevant to above discussion about local populations vs. continental/races

Although mapping continuous variation onto a small number of categories is often used for rough description (e.g., discrete categories to describe socioeconomic class or political orientation), information on the range of variation is lost in the process. For example, if we were to analyse allele frequencies using only geographic race as the unit of analysis, we would not see many of thee underlying patterns of clinal change and nested variation. Although it is sometimes useful to take regional aggregates of local populations to illustrate some general patterns (e.g., Relethford, 1994), care must be taken not to confuse a statistical and geographic aggregate with a unit of evolutionary change. Application of much of population genetics works best when considering variation between local populations and not between aggregates. The fine detail of our species' evolutionary history and its impact on patterns of genetic variation are lost when trying to categorize and classify into races.

- Relethford, J. H. (2017). "Biological Anthropology, Population Genetics, and Race" in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Race. Oxford University Press. p. 168. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.14.2.77 / talk / contribs}

Another Jewish-American anthropologist proclaiming that races do not exist. Very strangely, he has no problem with arguing that Jews are genetically distinct. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180699/ Anyhow, these are his personal opinions, but there are many non-US anthropologists who do think races exist. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15666627?dopt=Abstract H09o832j3 (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It all depends on how you define race, some of those scientists in your second link make race synonymous with a deme (local breeding population), this is particularly common among anthropologists in Poland. No one denies the validity of deme, which is the focus of population genetics. So are we all "race realists" now? You are notorious for confusing definitions of race and trolling with semantics.86.14.2.77 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems like H03984720987897598 just changes the definition whenever it suits his argument better. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Mikemikev's tea party

Can someone explain this

How is racialism nonsense when certain pathologies are unevenly distributed among diverse "racial constructs"? Lupus and Sickle Cell Anemia is more prevelant among African Americans and ALS tends to occur more frequently among caucasians. Nashhinton (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Geographic location, for sickle cell anemia, is more important than race, per our article. For ALS, the prevalence is focused more on geographical clusters and the researchers focus on the genetics and environmental factors, not race. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible source goldmine?

[1] - anything good here? - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

[2] - or here, Sam Harris talking with Bell Curve's author. Comparing that interview, it seems like the "Race and intelligence" section on this page has strayed far into the anti-science camp. 69.203.145.131 (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A response to the "Chinese researchers accept the race concept"

Simplified somewhat, it could be stated that ‘race’ plays different roles and fulfils diverse expectations in different societies. Two multiethnic countries, the USA and China provide good examples. The USA is a country with a long history of racial problems. Historically ‘racial science’ in America, from Samuel George Morton to Carleton Stevens Coon, was often racist in nature and even contributed towards the implementation of segregationist policies (e.g., Barkan, 1992; Marks, 1995; Gossett, 1997; Jackson, 2001). In the words of Baker and Patterson (1994: 1) “the ideology of race has played a significant role in the development and professionalization of anthropology in the United States”. Although American society endured radical changes through the process of desegregation, the consequences of its racist past are still felt. ‘Race’ is therefore a very sensitive and politically charged issue. Consequently, even belief in the existence of human races is often seen, especially in liberal academic circles (Sarich and Miele, 2005), as a potential contributor to social disturbance. In China, on the other hand, race seems to be a factor for social cohesion. A strong message that emanates from the research on human variation is that the ethnically diverse populations of China are unified by belonging to the same Mongoloid race (Wang et al., 2002, 2003). This seems to have been a leitmotif in studies of human variation in China throughout history and this racial identity is often traced back into the evolutionary past to the Chinese Homo erectus (Dikötter, 1992; Wang, 2002, 2003; Lieberman et al., 2004). Simplifying matters again, it may be stated that the racial approach is not a politically correct one in the USA. Anthropologists might therefore not feel at ease (to say the least) should they employ this approach, as they might be branded as racists. In stark contrast the racial approach is politically correct in China and scientists seem to be ‘encouraged’ to use the concept both in public and scientific discourse (Wang, 2003). Social context, therefore, plays a significant role in anthropologists’ attitudes towards ‘race’ and in the significant differences between the scientists from these two countries. Professional factors, too, seem to play an important role in scientists’ racial attitudes. Historically, the non-racial approach towards the study of human variation is a Western (primarily American) phenomenon. It was conceived in the works of authors such as Ashley Montagu, Frank Livingstone and C. Loring Brace (e.g., Montagu, 1964). It would appear that these ideas did not, for various reasons (political, social, linguistic), permeate equally well and equally fast through all scientific communities. Relative isolation from the West might be the reason why the race concept has received better acceptance among anthropologists from Eastern Europe and China than among those from Western Europe and North America.

http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/T-Anth/Anth-09-0-000-000-2007-Web/Anth-09-1-000-000-2007-Abst-PDF/Anth-09-1-073-078-2007-422-%20%8Atrkalj-G/Anth-09-1-073-078-2007-422-%20%8Atrkalj-G-Tt.pdf

FuzzyCatPotato of the Natural Houseplants (talk/stalk) 21:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice source, however a more simpler explanation is Chinese scientists use 'race' in a different sense/context/definition. Often to them there is a "Chinese race", like Winston Churchill wrote of a "British race". Very few today however in America or western Europe would call the Chinese, or British a race. It all depends how race is defined, and if it is being applied to local populations per se or broad regional/continental aggregates of local populations ("whites", "mongoloids" etc.) Notice that Chinese scientists use the word Mongoloid, but it seems to be more narrow: all native ethnic groups in China, but not the Japanese for political reasons etc. So even when Chinese scientists are using terminology racialists love, its different. Nitro Man (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Scientific consensus bits

The scientific consensus on race is best summed up in Templeton 1998's conclusion of "Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective":<ref name=Templeton1998>Templeton, A. R. (1998). "[http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/readings/templeton.pdf Human Races: a Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective]". ''American Anthropologist''. 100(3): 632-650</ref> {{quotebox|The genetic data are consistently and strongly informative about human races. '''Humans show only modest levels of differentiation among populations when compared to other large-bodied mammals, and this level of differentiation is well below the usual threshold used to identify subspecies (races) in nonhuman species. Hence, human races do not exist under the traditional concept of a subspecies as being a geographically circumscribed population showing sharp genetic differentiation.''' A more modern definition of race is that of a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. '''The genetic evidence strongly rejects the existence of distinct evolutionary lineages within humans.''' The widespread representation of human "races" as branches on an intraspecific population tree is genetically indefensible and biologically misleading, even when the ancestral node is presented as being at 100,000 years ago. Attempts to salvage the idea of human "races" as evolutionary lineages by invoking greater racial purity in the past followed by admixture events are unsuccessful and falsified by multilocus comparisons of geographical concordance and by haplotype analyses. Instead, all of the genetic evidence shows that there never was a split or separation of the "races'" or between Africans and Eurasians. '''Recent human evolution has been characterized by both population range expansions (with perhaps some local replacements but no global replacement within the last 100,000 years) and recurrent genetic interchange.''' The 100,000 years ago "divergence time" between Eurasians and Africans that is commonly found in the recent literature is really only an "effective divergence time" ''in sensu'' Nei and Roychoudhury (1974, 1982).<ref>Nei, M. & A. K. Roychoudhury (1974) Genie Variation within and between the Three Major Races of Man: Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloids. ''American Journal of Human Genetics'' 26:421—443.</ref><ref>Nei, M. & A. K. Roychoudhury (1982) Genetic Relationship and Evolution of Human Races. ''Evolutionary Biology'' 14:1-59.</ref> Since no split occurred between Africans and Eurasians, it is meaningless to assign a date to an "event" that never happened. Instead, the effective divergence time measures the amount of restricted gene flow among the populations (Slatkin 1991).<ref>Slatkin,M. (1991) Inbreeding Coefficients9 and Coalescence Times. ''Genetical Research'' 58:167-175</ref> Because of the extensive evidence for genetic interchange through population movements and recurrent gene flow going back at least hundreds of thousands of years ago, '''there is only one evolutionary lineage of humanity and there are no subspecies or races under either the traditional or phylogenetic definitions'''. Human evolution and population structure have been and are characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common, long-term evolutionary fate.}} [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3567320?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Polish anthropologists also reject race]

Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Good article

But I've still got a question. Obviously there's only one race, namely the human race but would it be racialism to acknowledge that there are ethnic groups? Obviously Asians, Europeans, Arabs, Africans et al have physical differences in skin pigmentation and physiognomy. Isn't Racialism the belief that some ethnic groups are better than others? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ideology

Why is a page that obviously attacks what is an ideology that tries to rationalize a certain kind of inborn xenophobia by selectively shopping in science in search for proof or arguments for racial superiority not explicit in the fact that these attacks are themselves also grounded in a certain kind of ideology. Namely multiculturalism, which means multiracialism, an ideology grounded in a lack of xenophobia, which from an evolutionary point of view may very well be mall-adaptive, which of course according to the ideology itself is not a bad thing since races don't exist to begin with so there is no harm in the reduction of contribution to the future human gene pool of people from any specific descend. If you disagree that this page is actually mostly about ideology and not about science then at least reflect on the fact that the whole page is entirely nonconstructive, it only attacks and tries to find fault on one side of the (straw man) argument while it offers no scientific categorization of itself at all. The only intent is leaving the reader with the notion that 'human classification is wrong and evil'. This is not a scientific attitude but an attempt to shut down scientific inquiry altogether motivated by a certain kind of ethical and political ideology, probably humanism. This might feel like 'being on the good side' but it really smashes truth to pieces between the extremes of left wing atheistic pro-immigration multicultural progressism and right wing racist and religious conservatism, typically anti-immigration. ^{— Unsigned, by: Johans / talk / contribs}

1. On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

2. Invalid theory. Multicultures are highly adapted to mall shopping contexts; preferentially over (your typically majority-ethnic) mom-and-pop stores. As such, your appeal to mall-adaptiveness falls flat. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Why you dismissed his argument over a wordplay about his typo? It can be funny but given the context, dunno, I'm perplexed. Basically you made 2 points, without addressing it, one is a rule reminding and the other one a wordplay, while I was expecting an explanation on why ethnic mixing would not be maladaptive. My view is that multiculturalism, if well managed, would be a potentially successful attempt to defuse what would otherwise be an implicit conflict over either races or cultures which would have to defend themselves from the usual external attacks and ultimately strive for dominance. Of course it doesn't work right in the context of strong economical competition or in the presence, from the cultural angle, of fundamentalism ingrained and rampant wahabism. I premise that I know there is the influence of Saudis and the relationship of the west with them, while silently they spread literalism on a community which was also taking the secularization road, in past. But the premise of multiculturalism wouls be the reciprocal consciousness of not being each other's enemy or direct competitor.--78.15.214.86 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Witness the impressive reasoning power of an alt-right memelord

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/6iab20/wow_this_racialism_overview_from_rationalwiki_is/ Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

from Forensic section

Claimed features of different "oids"
	Caucasoid	Mongoloid	Negroid
Nasal aperture width	Narrow (Nasal Index: <47)	Medium (Nasal Index: 47 — 51)	Broad (Nasal Index: 51>)
Nasal sill	Sharp	Moderate	Dull to absent
Skull shape (norma verticalis)	Medium (Cranial Index: 75 — 80)	Broad (Cranial Index: >80)	Narrow (Cranial Index: <75)
Maxillary incisor tooth shape	Blade	Shovel	Blade
Malar form	Retreating zygomatics ('beaklike')	Inferior zygomatic projection ('facial flatness')	Intermediate zygomatics
Alveolar prognathism	Absent to minimal	Moderate	Extreme

Howells 1983 notes: "[T]here is a sort of gradient beginning with [...] northeast Siberians (all very flat in the face and having the facial skeleton actually set more forward from the skull relative to other peoples) and sloping off in these and other ways into… Southeast Asians, and Indonesians. About mid-way on the scale are, by general appearance, Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese, all of whom in historical times have swelled into major populations."

</nowiki> |}

FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Relevant Vox article

“Scientific racism” is on the rise on the right. But it’s been lurking there for years. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

It is comic that you self proclaimed scientific "skeptics" are so blantantly denialist of science when it doesn't fit your social justice agenda. The fact is that there are very few Sub-Saharan African scientists, despite having a population well over 2 of that than Europe as well as the fact that there are virtually no major Sub Saharan African inventions to this day. Going further, there are currently no Sub-Saharan African nobel prize winners for the hard sciences. Outside of the hard sciences, one has been awarded for Economics and one for literature. Oh and the so called dominant "envioronmental" factor of intelligence is pure pseudoscience which most scientists agree on. Modern IQ tests are also tests for which one cannot learn to improve his/her results beforehand. This online wiki is social justice warrior grade pseudoscience and should be avoided by those who are trully skeptical.^{— Unsigned, by: DenialistFairytalesDestroyed / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It's always lovely when race realists bounce in, spout off the conventional racialist wisdom as if it's fact, and fail to cite any sources. Bonus points for "social justice warrior". Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Here https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142035.htm and http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf From these two articles, we can know that the intelligence of a person is conclusively a more important factor in establishing their socioeconomic status than the socioeconomic status of their guardians. Many of those who attempt to explain the US White-Black difference in intelligence and achievement use the difference in socioeconomic status, however what these people do not realise is that one's intelligence is the direct causation of their socioeconomic status and not the other way around. This is putting the cart before the horse. Also, bonus points for the Ad Hominem attack. --DenialistFairytalesDestroyed (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think citing Emil Kirkegaard is probably the high point of the above performance art - David Gerard (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@DenialistFairytalesDestroyed Thanks. You provide two sources. The latter one, Strenze 2006, falls immediately flat, as its abstract contradicts your narrative that "the intelligence of a person is conclusively a more important factor in establishing their socioeconomic status":

The relationship between intelligence and socioeconomic success has been the source of numerous controversies. The present paper conducted a meta-analysis of the longitudinal studies that have investigated intelligence as a predictor of success (as measured by education, occupation, and income). In order to better evaluate the predictive power of intelligence, the paper also includes metaanalyses of parental socioeconomic status (SES) and academic performance (school grades) as predictors of success. The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades. Moderator analyses showed that the relationship between intelligence and success is dependent on the age of the sample but there is little evidence of any historical trend in the relationship.

Try reading your sources, please. Strenze 2006 is a meta-analysis of a shit-ton of research prior to 2006, and so definitely outweighs any single study -- such as the first source you presented -- even if that study was published in 2012. But in case you're genuinely interested, I'd like to note two things:

First: Career success is associated with a lot of things (as Strenze 2006 notes). Some particularly interesting ones are teenage ambitions (Ashby and Schoon 2010), political views (Judge and Bretz 1992), and personality traits (Roberts et al 2007). Though these are but individual studies, it would be seem absurd to claim that a person's claimed genetic race controls their politics, their dreams, and their demeanor more than the individual themself -- especially when, as this page notes, genetic evidence tends to point against the existence of differentiated races.

Second: It's hard to argue that childhood disparities in wealth don't affect a person's teenage ambitions, politics, and personality traits (and so on). In particular, wealth (and the lack thereof) is known to have a very substantial effect on education and on health, both of which are themselves pretty substantial predictors of success. For example: Higher-income families tend to have much better scores on the Big Five psychological assessment. (A really neat study about basic income and family dynamics.) Roberts et al 2007 found that Big Five psychological assessments were almost as good predictors of career success as IQ. This would suggest that socioeconomic status might manifest itself in ways that aren't readily apparent when measuring income (such as health).

Or: Why do African immigrants have higher income, higher IQ, and higher education than white Americans? Is it because they're racially superior, or because they were raised by rich, smart, well-educated Africans? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@David Gerard To be frank, the "race and intelligence section" is pretty shit. It could really do with its own page. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear FuzzyCatPotato, First point on the Strenze source, it states that it is not an overhelmingly dominant factor, but as far as I can tell it does not state that SES is the dominant predector of intelligence. Also, just because Strenzo's study pillars on some slightly older data does not make it invalid. "as its abstract contradicts your narrative" as the study itself states, "not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades." What is does not state is that parental SES and general intelligence are of equal importance in deciding the SES of the subject. What is stated is that the difference between the two may not be overhelmingly dominant, however that it is in fact on average a more important factor in concluding one's SES. "especially when, as this page notes, genetic evidence tends to point against the existence of differentiated races." So what you're saying is that genetic evidence disproves race. Indeed, it's not like genetesists can point a person's race through a genetic study with a measly error rate. (Neil Risch, Stanford, 2005) Yes, I hear you say "Geneticist can identify people's haplogroups and their ethnicities" Yes. that is definetly the case, although can forensic anthropologists also distinguish ethnicities (within the same race)? As far as I can tell, they cannot. Can they distinguish persons of various races? Undeniably. Physical features such as skull and teeth incisor shapes differ between the human races and are used in identifying the race of the targetted subject. I also imagine you stating that races do not exist as there is a problem in defining what "race" means. And indeed, there is currently no official determination of how human races should be classified, which can be explained by that relative lack of official, modern studies on the subject. However this does not conclude that human races are not biological constructs. In comparison, we currently have only very fundamental understanding of dark energy and it's existance and role in our universe, explained by the fact that to our knowledge we've never encountered a form of dark energy. As such, there is currently no known process which can assist us in classifying a form of energy as either standart or dark energy. But does this disprove the existance of dark energy? It does not and analogously it does not disprove the existance of human race as a biological construct. Secondly, you stated that people of the upper class SES tend to score higher on general intelligence tests and this is rightfully so. However, have you also considered that people with below average general intelligence aren't likely to receive a high SES position as a sucessful entrepreneur? "This would suggest that socioeconomic status might manifest itself in ways that aren't readily apparent when measuring income"- Note the use of keyword "might". Again, you have not concluded that this is the case, although you do speculate that it is. This is a major difference. Another theoritcal question would be why is it that historically despite beginning on roughly the same ground, there has been such a stunning lack of civillization and innovation in Sub-Saharan Africa? When the first human population migrated from Africa into Western Asia (and later to Asia proper, the Americas and Europe respectively) forgive me if what I am stating is incorrect, but the situation in Sub-Saharn Africa was significantly more suitable for human habitation than ice age Europe or (Eastern) Asia. In addition, Sub-Saharan Africa overall stands out as being one of the most resource wealthy regions on the globe. Yet despite this, Sub-Saharan Africa still is by far the most underdeveloped and decentralized region on Earth with many people still living in nomadic tribal societies using technology compareable to that of the Stone Age. "Or: Why do African immigrants have higher income, higher IQ, and higher education than white Americans? Is it because they're racially superior, or because they were raised by rich, smart, well-educated Africans?" Leaving Sub-Saharan Africa for the US is not exactly an easy task. It makes decent sense that many of these highly intelligent and well-educated (mostly) Nigerian immigrants have the privilege of arriving in the US as their above average intelligence grants them access to securing highly sought-after and well payed jobs. On a sidenote, I happen to be missing a source pillaring your statement right there. --DenialistFairytalesDestroyed (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Several south-eastern European countries have mean IQ's as low as Sub-Saharan African countries. Yet I presume you consider southeast Europeans "white"? lol. Now what?86.14.2.77 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

---First of all, pretty much any worldwide IQ map shows that no South-Eastern European country drops below the score of 85, which is the highest IQ of any African country on these maps. Secondly, I do not believe that such maps classify as legitimate sources in the slightest. Almost all of these maps differ to a large extend from eachother and the lack of any provided sources as well as methods of research exhibits that they are at best very rough estimates made by a college undergraduate. --DenialistFairytalesDestroyed (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

There's very diverse mean IQ's among different native ethnic groups in the continents and even within large countries like China- this is why racialism is fallacious. China has dozens of autochthonous ethnic groups and average IQ's range by as much as 20 points, e.g. Uyghur IQ is 86, while Han Chinese is 105. See: Lynn, Richard, and Helen Cheng. "Differences in intelligence between ethnic minorities and Han in China." Intelligence 46 (2014): 228-234 [Lynn doesn't seem to understand this data contradicts his own race position.] There would be little problem discussing the average differences in IQ between ethnic groups if the latter weren't arbitrarily grouped with others with significantly different IQ's into "races". A racialist response to the above might be Uyghur are "Caucasoid" but Hans Chinese "Mongoloid", but if you check the above paper you find a whole load of diverse IQs between so-called "Mongoloid" populations and more examples can be found in Lynn's other papers: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Differences-in-intelligence-across-thirty-one-regions-of-China-and-their-economic-and-demographic-correlates.pdf e.g. Tibetans and Han Chinese differ by about 12 points in mean IQ that even Lynn admits is significant. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

What nonsense. Nobody anywhere claimed there was no within race variation. Do polar bears and black bears invalidate the category "bear" because of arctic foxes? Race and IQ are two different things and the correlations between them can be as detailed as one wishes. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Smith/Templeton

A race or subspecies requires a degree of genetic differentiation that is well above the level of genetic differences that exist among local populations. One commonly used threshold is that two populations with sharp boundaries are considered to be different races if 25% or more of the genetic variability that they collectively share is found as between population differences (Smith, et al., 1997).

Smith 1997 says no such thing. They discuss the 75% rule for the correct classification of hybrids in contact zones by multivariate phenotypic analysis. They both do not discuss Fst and contradict the "discrete boundaries" strawman relied on in your article. Using genomics classification of humans is accurate well above 75%. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

1: The full text of Smith et al 1997 is available on Nazi site Amerika.org. Smith et al 1997 write:

The non-discrete nature of subspecies is evident from their definition as geographic segments of any given gonochoristic (bisexually reproducing) species differing from each other to a reasonably practical degree (e.g., at least 70-75%), but to less than totality. All subspecies are allopatric (either dichopatric [with non-contiguous ranges] or parapatric [with contiguous ranges], except for cases of circular overlap with sympatry); sympatry is conclusive evidence (except for cases of circular overlap) of allospecificity (separate specific status). Parapatric subspecies interbreed and exhibit intergradation in contact zones, but such taxa maintain the required level of distinction in one or more characters outside of those zones. Dichopatric populations are regarded as subspecies if they fail to exhibit full differentiation (i.e., exhibit overlap in variation of their differentiae up to 25-30%), even in the absence of contact (overlap exceeding 25-30% does not qualify for taxonomic recognition of either dichopatric populations or of parapatric populations outside of their zones of intergradation). Phenotypic adjustment to differing environmental conditions through natural selection is likely the primary factor in divergence of parapatric subspecies, and undoubtedly is involved in some dichopaffic subspecies. The founder effect and genetic drift are involved more in the latter than in the former.

2: When you say, "genomics classification of humans is accurate well above 75%", you confuse actual genetic differences (which is what Templeton 2013 is referring to with "75%") with identification success rate using genetics. The latter is meaningless for subspecies identification. FuzzyCatPotato of the Crazed Classified ads (talk/stalk) 16:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's you that's confusing Smith's discussion, which is of identification success using morphology. That's the 75% rule. It's misrepresented here by Templeton as referring to Fst. This is found nowhere else in biology. Further your own quote opens by pointing out categories below species are not "discrete". Lies upon strawmen. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to assume Rapoport's Rules.

Where do you see Smith clarifying the 75% rule as phenotypical (morphological)? They write [1] "differing from each other to a reasonably practical degree (e.g., at least 70-75%)" (unclear whether genetic or phenotypical), [2] "full differentiation (i.e., exhibit overlap in variation of their differentiae up to 25-30%)" (unclear again), [3] "Phenotypic adjustment to differing environmental conditions through natural selection is likely the primary factor in divergence of parapatric subspecies, and undoubtedly is involved in some dichopaffic subspecies. The founder effect and genetic drift are involved more in the latter than in the former" (refers to phenotype as the cause of genetic divergence). Perhaps I am misreading Smith. If so, how?

Indeed, this quote notes that subspecies are not discrete. Yet [1] many racialists do argue for discrete races (think Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid) [2] even within this gradient definition, Smith notes that parapatric subspecies "interbreed and exhibit intergradation in contact zones" -- read: they fuck in certain areas, and are more mixed in those areas -- "but such taxa maintain the required level of distinction in one or more characters outside of those zones" -- read: the population on one side of the contact zone is genuinely different from the population on the other. If this is how human races worked, you'd expect to see very similar Asians until a small region between Europe and Asia, and then very similar Europeans. Suffice to say, you don't. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You seem unsure whether the 75% rule in biology refers to morphological classification success rate or Fst. Try googling "75% rule subspecies" to clarify. If that doesn't work out for you, I can copy paste some other sources to clarify. Also try finding Templeton's 75% Fst rule being used anywhere other than Templeton's paper about human race in biological classification. Also check Fst numbers for other subspecies and see whether they go under 25%. Is it possible Templeton just made this up ad hoc and you copied it? That would be kind of embarassing. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to assume Rapoport's Rules.

Ignoring your hostility, you seem correct that Templeton misrepresents the 75% rule. I'll add a note to that quote.

You have ignored the second part of my response: Smith's definition of subspecies is still at odds with racialism, discrete or otherwise. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm taking one point at a time. A common tactic is for opponents of the race concept to launch a shotgun blast of fallacies such that it's almost impossible to go through them all. A Gish Gallop I think it's called. I notice now that you've put in a small note stating that the material which you quoted and highlighted as definitive of the section title is incorrect. Really? Surely you should remove the demonstrably false material, or even better hold it up as example of fallacious thinking. Is it normal practice here to put in a note in an article "by the way all of this is wrong"? Is Templeton still a good source? I'm sorry if you don't like my tone. Perhaps you can try to tolerate that as I help fix the many errors in your article. I've really no idea which of "Rapoport's Rules" I'm breaking. Please explain. I only say this to avoid having to read what appears to be a condescending, irrelevant, and possible cheap excuse for banning tone argument at the top of every post. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course, you wont address the fact subspecies are strictly allopatric & parapatric (not sympatric) because it falsifies race in humans. Smith et al: "AllItalic text subspecies are allopatric (either dichopatric [with non-contiguous ranges] or parapatric"). Humans are sympatric. You're so dumb you cite a source that refutes race in humans. On the subject of Templeton, he uses Fst instead of the 75% rule because Wright (1978, Evolution and the Genetics of Populations p. 85) defines Fst above 25% as "very great" (as the maximum cut-off). Wright based this Fst values he observed between populations within many species, ranging from 1 to 50%. So regardless of whether Templeton misread Smith et al. (confusing Fst with the 75% rule), the 25% as a maximum cut-off is still found in Wright (1978), you can go read that now on google books, page 85. Templeton didn't himself make this statistical cut-off up.86.14.2.77 (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not addressing the ridiculous claim that "current location" is part of the defintion of race because it's not the point under discussion. Templeton claims that an Fst below 25% invalidates a distinction. This has nothing to do with your imaginary and fabricated "maximum cut off", even if it existed. What does that even mean? That distinctions above 25% are invalid? Can you explain with examples? Wright wrote that Fsts below 25% were significant. Nowhere in biology and your imagination is an Fst below 25% used to invalidate a taxonomy. You appear to be making up nonsense. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Templeton recognises the existence of demes with Fst values under 25%. What he though says, is races require the 25% threshold. You constantly confuse demes with races. These have always been two separate things: a deme has no genetic differentiation threshold, while races do. Even Wright (1978) distinguishes demes to races, for example on page 17 he says this: "While the subspecies, based on the existence of fairly consistent differences between extensive populations, is the smallest taxonomic unit, these usually include numerous local populations (demes)." Templeton's (2013) argument is there must be genetic differentiation threshold, otherwise:

Most demes or local populations within a species show some degree of genetic differentiation from other local populations, by having either some unique alleles or at least different frequencies of alleles. If every genetically distinguishable population were elevated to the status of race, then most species would have hundreds to tens of thousands of races, thereby making race nothing more than a synonym for a deme or local population. A race or subspecies requires a degree of genetic differentiation that is well above the level of genetic differences that exist among local populations

If Templeton is wrong, then so is Wright and every other population geneticist. How else do you explain they distinguish demes to races? You're clinging to an idiosyncratic definition of race only you use. If a deme with a low or negligible Fst value (say 1%) is a race, then as Templeton points out "most species would have hundreds to tens of thousands of races". The genetic distance between Danes and English is a small fraction of a single percent (0.2%), one of the smallest values recorded, see Cavalli-Sforza (1994). So are Danes and English separates races? Since you constantly ignore Templeton's threshold, this is the lunacy of your position. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Learn to indent properly. The point at issue is that Templeton misrepresents the 75% rule as applying to Fst. That's what needs to be removed. Indeed there is no threshold to classification by similarity or ancestry. There are indeed any number of races. This is irrelevant. What's relevant is that Templeton is setting an arbitrary threshold for human race which is found nowhere else in biology. That needs to be removed from the article. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

He's not misrepresented a Fst threshold. Race requires a high degree of genetic or phenotypic differentiation, otherwise it becomes synonymous with deme. That is Templeton's point throughout his 1998 & 2013 articles: "To avoid making race the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed" (Templeton, 1998). He sets the threshold at >25%, using Wright's "very great genetic differentiation" cut-off. If he misread Smith et al, who cares? The 25% value is in Wright (1978, p. 85); Templeton's uses it as a threshold and many other scientists have adopted it. A threshold (Fst or not) isn't unique to Templeton- it is set by virtually all biologists & population geneticists. Your fallacy is trying to equate all human classification as racial which funnily enough makes you similar in a way to the fringe lunatics denying any human classification because they consider it racialist (see my comments in the sections below). I'm basically defending the moderate consensus position in science and arguing against two silly extremes.86.14.2.77 (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a quote from biologist Edward O. Wilson in his article "The Subspecies Concept", about how evolutionary biology literature defines race:

[R]ace as conceived in present evolutionary literature is an unusually well differentiated deme, or local communal population. There is no reason to believe that it is an exceptional phenomenon or anything more than the extreme of the tendency prevalent in all geographically variable species to form local populations of a homogeneous and distinctive genetic constitution.

Note emphasis "unusually well differentiated", "homogenous" and "distinctive genetic constitution". These clearly all point to a large genetic differentiation threshold. But you deny this? lol. The above quote is noticeable because Wilson reviews all the available evolutionary biology literature at the time; he knows like Templeton that races must be highly genetically differentiated (i.e. multigenerational reproductively isolated) demes.86.14.2.77 (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody in biology has adopted 25% Fst as a "cutoff" and you are making things up. 10-15% is more than compatible with designated subspecies and indeed species, so "lol" at you claiming it invalidates race because you personally decided it was "large" based on nothing. Do I have to reference subspecies and species with Fsts under 25%? Why can't you show this being used anywhere else in biology? Also I will write a complaint about your indentation. You create an unreadable mess. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you are trolling at this point because you only have to search 25% Fst on Google books or Google scholar - to find hundreds of biologists using this threshold for subspecies. Concerning species, there are none with Fst values under 25%. Fst values of different species are always (or are near) 100%. You don't know what you are talking about, e.g. Chimpanzee - human Fst is 89%, bonobos - human Fst is 93%, gorilla - human Fst is 92%, orang - human Fst is 94% (Fischer et al, "Demographic History and Genetic Differentiation in Apes," 2006). Where are your examples of species below Fst 25%, are you getting them from Answers in Genesis? Fst is the measure of inter-population/subpopulation (S) genetic variation relative to the total genetic variation (T) within a species. Its not applicable to different species because there is no gene flow between them (Mayr's Biological Species Concept). A Fst value of 0% means panmixia, while 100% means complete reproductive isolation (hence extremely high genetic differentiation); species are typically 100%, or are close to this. Have you studied population genetics? Do you even know what Fst is? You come across as a massive pseudo-intellectual who is making numerous embarrassing mistakes and don't even know what Fst is used to measure. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

"Nobody in biology has adopted 25% Fst as a "cutoff"

So then Dave, what are all the following sources?

“”According to Wright, although the cutoff points are somewhat arbitrary, Fst values that range from 0 to. 0.05 indicate little genetic differentation (genetic dibersity) among subpopulations; 0.05 to 0.15, moderate; 0.15 to 0.25, great; and <0.25 very great... Generally, FST > 0.25 denotes the presence of subspecies within the total population. - Pasternak, J. (2005). An Introduction to Human Molecular Genetics. Wiley-liss. p. 285.

“”Many systematists use a minimum Fst value of 0.25 to mark racial difference. - Spencer, Q. (2009). "Is cladistic race a genuine kind?". Stanford University.

“”Subsequent studies of human genetic variation, including whole genome analyses, have generally also found estimates of Fst to be much less than Wright's critical value [25%]. Genetic substructure does exist in humans, but there are no natural divisions in our species equivalent to biological races. - Graves, J. L. & Rose, M. R. (2006). "Against Racial Medicine". Patterns of Prejudice. 40(4): 481-493.

The last quote is from the recent (2017) textbook The Princeton Guide to Evolution, co-edited by some of the world's top biologists:

“”Quantitatively, one commonly used threshold is that two populations with sharp boundaries are considered to be different races if 25 percent or more of the genetic variability that they collectively share is found as between population differences.

All the above are taken from only the firs.t and second pages of a Google book search, there are hundreds more; Dave MacIntosh is telling transparent lies.

Where does Wright say <25% invalidates classification? Nowhere. The others are all parroting Templeton in the context of human race. You can find any number of people parroting Templeton. You for example. For non-human subspecies or in biology in general this ad hoc value is never used. It's only used in the context of human race and is politically motivated. It's not biology. If it's biology find it being used outside the context of human race to invalidate taxa. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you denying there is a quantitative threshold or quality criteria to define subspecies? If so, not even Mayr agrees with you: "Subspecies are to be named only if they differ 'taxonomically'...how great this taxonomic different ought to be can be determined only through agreement among working taxonomists." (Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 210). Mayr throughout his work always recognised a threshold or quality criteria as diagnostic characters, e.g. his statement: "All findings agree that in every actively evolving genus there are populations that are hardly different from each other, others that are as different as subspecies, others that have almost reached species level [semi-species], and finally still others that are full species." (Ibid, p. 282). Note how Mayr is clear that populations "hardly different from each other" are not subspecies. Statements like this are repeated throughout his books and articles. So Mayr is in full agreement with Templeton that there is a threshold or quality criteria: "to prevent the term subspecies from being a synonym for local population [deme], it is necessary to add further conditions... a quantitative threshold of genetic differentiation" (Templeton, 2006) or "genetic differentiation for special racial traits." (Ibid.). You keep ignoring this.86.14.2.77 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying 25% isn't used as a threshold except to arbitrarily deny race. I'm saying Templeton falsely interpreted the 25% rule to get that. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

See Minimalist Biological Race. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't try to change the subject. Is 25% Fst applied only to human race by Templeton and did he misrepresent the 25% rule? Dave MacIntosh (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

So nobody's going to fix the fake material? This website is fake science. Sad! Dave MacIntosh (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Allopatry & parapatry

You've hit the nail on the head: races are allopatric or parapatric (Smith et al: "All subspecies are allopatric (either dichopatric [with non-contiguous ranges] or parapatric"), in contrast human populations are sympatric. When racialists spam a diagram with subspecies with very low FST values (under 1%), they don't point out that those subspecies are allopatric - in non-overlapping geographical territories, or in the case of parapatry interbreeding is restricted to a narrow contact zone. Obviously this isn't the case with humans. A final point worth mentioning: FST easily refutes both "black"/pan-African & "white"/pan-European nationalism, "Dave MacIntosh" would need to explain why Greeks are closer to Near-Eastern populations, than say Swedes:

• Swedes ~ Greeks Fst: 0.8%
• Palestinians ~ Greeks Fst 0.6%
• Druze ~ Greeks Fst: 0.5%

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730349/

These are all low values (under 1%), but Greeks are still closer genetically to Palestinians and Druze than Swedes. That's how ridiculous "white"/pan-European nationalism is on places like Stormfront: they exclude Middle-Eastern populations as being "white" when some Near Eastern populations are in fact closer genetically to southern European populations than northern Europeans.86.14.2.77 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but "For sympatrically-defined FST-unbounded white power!" isn't a ringer. FuzzyCatPotato of the Smelly Goat-botherers (talk/stalk) 02:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Problematic edits

I wrote most the original article 2 years back. What I said is that while human races don't exist, demes and ecotypes do. The problem with the current article is it now seems to deny human demes and ecotypes exist: nearly all references and paragraphs have been removed about this, furthermore the opening section now denies there is any possible human categorization and equates human biological classification (below the species level) as somehow racialism ("In short, racialism holds that biology divides humans"). This is incorrect and not even a scientific position, its nuts. Population geneticists work with demes, i.e. local breeding populations- if they didn't work with the latter, they wouldn't be population geneticists in the first place. Duh. In his 1972 article denying race, Lewontin does not deny the existence of local breeding populations, neither does Cavalli-Sforza (1994). The latter set up the Human Genome Diversity Project that categorizes 52+ demes.

There seems to be a lunatic fringe asserting there is no possible human categorization and only human individuals (not groups) exist; the latter is the opposite side of the same coin to the racialists, both are pseudo-science. It was never my intention to make the article pseudo-science like it now is.

http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/howells-william.pdf "Bill was clearly a committed population biologist. While Frank Livingstone (1962) made the widely quoted remark, “There are no races, there are only clines,” Howells wrote, more accurately, “There are no races, there are only populations” (1995)."

[if you read Livingstone's paper when he made that statement, he never denied human demes exist].

"86.14.2.77 (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The page needs a good section on genetic variation. Currently the only section is Racialism#Clines:_Gradual_human_variation_without_discrete_steps. Please add more. (And feel free to edit the introduction.) αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll just note that any appeals to being "the original author" of any given RW article — true or not — count for absolutely jack in terms of providing the claimant with any form of "interpretive priviliege" or veto capability. Now, I'm not saying that's definitively what you meant — so just consider this notice part of our standard "Ryulong prevention measures". Meaning: any claim to (personal mainspace) "article ownership" is strictly oxymoronical (and always suspect to see) here at RW. No matter how much time and effort you may have put in; period. Take it from me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed re-write?

here is what I propose to re-write as the main article opening-

Racialism is the taxonomic concept there are subspecies (geographical races) within the species Homo sapiens. Paleoanthropologists widely agree there were formerly human subspecies (tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago) when populations were more isolated and significantly differentiated. Subspecies however no longer exist because of the increase in level of gene flow between populations and mobility of individuals; the proportion of genetic variation between living human populations is modest and there are no "diagnostic" genetic or phenotypic traits exclusive to one population. The number of contemporary biologists or anthropologists who argue human races exist is very low; critics of racialism consider it a pseudo-science.

The idea of racialism does not necessarily entail racism or supremacism, although the belief in separate human races has a history of these. Most 21st century racialists maintain a hereditarian hypothesis of IQ, meaning they believe in a racial hierarchy.^{— Unsigned, by: 86.14.2.77 / talk / contribs}

Remember: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, this proposed intro [1] doesn't sufficiently define "race", [2] is not harsh enough towards racialism, and [3] doesn't include alternative terms for racialism. In particular, it should clarify that "subspecies" means that members of different races are genetically different, that these differences are important, that these differences are heritable. It should further note that racialist subspecies definitions are usually very large (continents) and clearly delineated (no gradients). FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Also rename the article "Cheap politically motivated strawmen against applying normal taxonomy to humans."

• Individuals never enter the other location
• There is some Fst threshold to taxonomic status
• Taxa are defined by a single trait found only in one population
• All scientists agree therefore it's true

Much more concise. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yawn...

“”Since subspecies interbreed where they come together, it is impossible by definition to have two subspecies of the same species in the same locality — to have sympatric subspecies. - King, J. C. (1981). The Biology of Race. University of California Press. p. 17.

Your other points have been addressed above. As for politics, you're a Rightpedia admin who identifies as a Neo-Nazi, posts on white supremacist/Alt-right sites such as Daily Stormer, and who denies the Holocaust. You're not politically motivated? You've never once tried to look at science data objectively. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol, are you retarded? It is impossible for an Indian and African elephant to be in the same location? Dave MacIntosh (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Minimalist Biological Race

There's a new article called "Minimalist Biological Race" (2017) by Michael O. Hardimon that summarizes the trivial re-definition of race that racialists now use like Dave MacIntosh; a quotes about the "Minimalist Biological Race Concept":

“”It is compatible with within-race diversity being large and between-race diversity being small. It does not require that most genes be highly differentiated along racial lines. It does not require the existence of a substantial genetic difference between races (apart from the genetic differences that underlie the obvious phenotypic differences between them.

Also, Hardimon adds that the number of races is impossible to count and arbitrary (and down to the classifier), while the geographical boundaries between races are also do not need to be sharp, but blurry. Like Dave MacIntosh, Hardimon's key argument is that minimalist races need not be significantly genetically differentiated quantitatively or qualitatively, only that minimal average genetic/phenotypic differences exist for traits (e.g. skin colour, hair texture, nose shape etc.) The only difference between Hardimon and Dave MacIntosh, is Hardimon has integrity and knows all this is a weakened or trivial re-definition of race (he admits this hence his theory is called the "minimalist" biological race concept) that barely resembles the standard/taxonomic concept of race.86.14.2.77 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Minimalist races are groups of human beings distinguished by patterns of visible physical features, groups whose members are linked by a common ancestry peculiar to members of the group, and which originate from a distinctive geographic location."

That's just the standard Darwinian ancestry based race concept used by all race realists. Don't tell me, racists actually think something else, that races have genes all members of a race share and all members of a race have the same IQ and there are "essences" or something. Same tired strawmen. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Race has been falsified in humans for all the reasons outlined above, so 'race realists' (who are ideologically driven) came up with that trivialized re-definition in recent years. The problem with redefining race like this, is no one disputes those "minimalist races" in population genetics or forensic anthropology; these aren't though "races" in the sense of subspecies in taxonomy. As Montagu wrote many years back: "There is the added objection that it is wholly redundant, and confusingly so, to distinguish as a race a population which happens to differ from other populations in the frequency of one or more genes. Why call such populations races when the operational definition of what they are is sharply and clearly stated in the words used to convey what we mean, namely, populations". And I've already pointed out words like "deme" are just technical terms for "[breeding] population", the basic operational unit of a population geneticist. You've actually been setting up the straw man for years that those scientists that deny race, somehow deny populations or population structure in humans. Can you provide a single example of the latter? I mean real scientists, not some SJW's on twitter.86.14.2.77 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

An old paper "THE AMOUNT OF OVERLAP ALLOWABLE FOR SUBSPECIES" (Rand & Traylor, 1950) pointing out the reductio ad absurdum of Dave's position:

“”Tucker (1946) has ably pointed out the horrible results of accepting Clancey's principles. He wrote, "any population can be shown to be genetically different from any other, provided only that the technique of analysis is sufficiently delicate and precise. If, then, a demonstrable difference is to be the only criterion, the logical and unavoidable conclusion which follows from this demonstration is that at least in the case of fairly sedentary birds--names should ultimately be given to the populations of every moderately isolated area of woodland, moor or marsh--it is merely a matter of the delicacy of the analytical technically applied to them." This is a reductio absurdum. A halt must be called at some point.

86.14.2.77 (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You're changing the subject. Address the point about 25% Fst above. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Its been addressed multiple times: all taxonomists apply a threshold or quality criteria (e.g. diagnostic characters only found in one population). Even Mayr (who was rather vague about quantitative thresholds) still recognised a cut-off: since he wrote populations that only show "slight" genetic differences are not subspecies. Fst threshold haves been used by many biologists, simply use Google scholar to find many studies on subspecies where a Fst cut-off is recognised. No biologist just says race is genetic difference or similarity with no threshold. This is nonsense you just made up. No two multigenerational breeding populations are genetically identical: a race cannot be applied to these because that would mean there would be tens of thousands of races. No biologist has ever made a classification of 10,000+ races, reductio ad absurdum.86.14.2.77 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

So post examples of biologists using a 25% cutoff? Why can't you? That would end the discussion. You can't because nobody does. Your argument that we can keep dividing, which we can, is a fallacy you could use against any division at all. It's silly sophistry. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources were already posted of biologists using the 25% Fst threshold. You ignored them or dismissed them as "parroting Templeton" (when some didn't even reference him). Furthermore you claim "we can keep dividing" is amusing, keep dividing from what? You are the person lumping heterogeneous peoples together, how on earth does that help ethnic nationalism? Now run along back to supporting mass Polish immigration into UK like your leader does.86.14.2.77 (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You haven't posted a single example of 25% Fst being used to impugn a taxonomic distinction. You posted Wright saying 25% represented very great differentiation, which actually contradicts you. Why do you lie all of the time? It's sad that you have to run to these lying anti-White cultural-Marxists to be accepted. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I've provided a biologist (Zink, 2004) who uses an even more rigorous and higher cut-off below; I also provided sources where the 25% Fst threshold is mentioned as in common use, with no mention of Templeton (so obviously he isn't the only biologist using it). You're clearly delusional to still repeat no examples were provided. Also, your claim denying race is "cultural Marxist" is more nonsense, on the contrary: racialism and ANTIFA go hand in hand - to the ordinary public racialism is crazy, it makes nationalists spouting this stuff look like crackpot, that is why actual Marxists/ANTIFA love to push exactly what you are typing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip-ec61xuIE ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.14.2.77 / talk / contribs}

1% Fst subspecies don't exist

There is a table made by a racialist that gets spammed on Alt-Right websites; Dave MacIntosh has also posted it. The table allegedly shows subspecies of different animals with very low genetic differentiation in terms of Fst values, some as low as 1%. However, as I suspected these subspecies are not subspecies at all, but breeding populations.

Here is the table: https://z139.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/fsthe3.png

Take a look at the "red-winged blackbirds (5 subspecies)" with 1% Fst.

However if you then go to the scientific source "Microsatellite Variation in Red-Winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus)" (Williams et al. 2004) of these 5 alleged subspecies, they are not subspecies but breeding populations: California, Louisiana, Alberta, Manitoba, Minnesota; 4 of these are clearly listed as the same subspecies in Table 1. So the Fst values are between breeding populations within the same subspecies, not between different subspecies. Hence the very low Fst values.

Dave is criticizing Templeton for confusing the 75% rule with Fst, perhaps he should look at the outright liars in his own movement who are manipulating sources like the above.86.14.2.77 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if that's right, which I haven't bothered to check, how does this demonstrate that 25% is a cutoff? What about all of the other subspecies with Fsts under 25%? Is your argument "somebody who agrees with you made a small mistake"? How pathetic. The only reason your silly nonsense is tolerated here is because the site owner is hostile to the race concept for political reasons. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Dave, your entire goddamn argument against Templeton 2013 is "somebody who agrees with you made a small mistake". For the love of all that is good, can you talk about anything else? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 13:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well above Dave said there are species with low Fst values, when Fst values between species are (or are near) 100% (species are extremely differentiated because of reproductive isolation. Low Fst values of intraspecific populations are not recognised in taxonomy; a threshold is set for subspecies, something Dave continues to ignore. No one is "parroting Templeton" with this claim, several sources I already provided mention the 0.25 threshold, but don't reference Templeton, furthermore while some taxonomists do not use the 0.25 threshold (I never said all do), they still recognise a quantitative threshold, e.g. morphological. No one doesn't use a threshold (or quality criteria) otherwise this means any two populations is a subspecies; no two breeding populations are genetically identical.86.14.2.77 (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You haven't posted a single case of 25% Fst being used to impugn a taxonomy other than Templeton doing it for human race. You are a liar. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Even more rigorous thresholds with higher cut-offs are in use, dummy. Zink (2004) proposes subspecies should be reciprocally monophyletic in mtDNA, since that is a way to objectively establish if they are phylogenetically distinct. By this criteria only 36% of putative subspecies of birds are actual subspecies; 64% would have to be re-classified. So I just provided an even more strict threshold, that "impugns a taxonomy" in non-humans. Now what? Taxonomists and conservation biologists always employ a threshold- bizarrely you are still denying this. I'm not sure why you think the 0.25 Fst threshold is the only cut-off in use. And I've already falsified your claim only Templeton uses that Fst threshold, just search on Google scholar. You have pathological liar tendencies.86.14.2.77 (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't suggest that as a threshold he suggests it as a reordering method for taxa which combine separate lineages. Everything you write is false. Nowhere can you find a "threshold". Dave MacIntosh (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Dave so are we then all race realists?

Dave, if what you are saying is true, then everyone is a 'race realist'. No one denies that there is human population structure, i.e. genetic/phenotypic differences between human demes (although those differences are a very small % of the overall variation): clearly anyone can tell apart Swedes from Mbuti Pygmies. The latter though has nothing to do with race. Saying it does is delusional since the more recent survey has shown the vast majority of biologists and anthropologists reject the race concept for humans. Your strawman is that by denying race, these scientists are denying differences between Swedes and Mbuti. No.86.14.2.77 (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, demes (local populations whose members preferentially interbreed) are not races, and the existence (or non-existence) of this social, moral, and political category (or set of categories) should not and cannot be read off the existence (or non-existence) of population structure in nature. To make the point as bluntly as possible: there is population structure in Homo sapiens, even if we are also, to a ‘‘zeroth’’ approximation, all genetically identical. However, that there is a population structure fails to provide epistemic and pragmatic grounds about the reality or justification of those socio-political categories about which there is so much discussion, race. - Kaplan & Winther (2011)

86.14.2.77 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You fail so hard at simple text formatting. That being said, what are these clowns even arguing against? They tell us what race is not. Is it even possible for them to engage with their opponent's definitions? Obviously not. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Dave can you provide a single source or definition?

According to Dave, subspecies are populations determined by genetic similarity/ancestry with no quantitative threshold, so as the above source mentions: if two populations or groups of populations to a "zeroth" approximation are genetically identical (meaning only in the very slightest differentiated) - in his view these are subspecies. If this is true, where is this accepted in non-human taxonomy or biological conservation? Why should humans be the exception? I cannot find a single source where populations of non-humans that only show slight differences are considered to be subspecies/races. The table that supposedly shows subspecies with low Fst values are either not subspecies, are of questionable taxonomic status or have been re-classified. I checked like 90% of those sources on the table, and its always one of the three. While you're at it also provide a single definition of this trivial definition of subspecies. Funny that no subspecies definition from textbooks agrees. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"I checked like 90% of those sources on the table, and its always one of the three."

Liar! Dave MacIntosh (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"According to Dave, subspecies are populations determined by genetic similarity/ancestry with no quantitative threshold, so as the above source mentions: if two populations or groups of populations to a "zeroth" approximation are genetically identical (meaning only in the very slightest differentiated) - in his view these are subspecies. If this is true, where is this accepted in non-human taxonomy or biological conservation? "

Grant all races of man descended from one race; grant that all structure of each race of man were perfectly known—grant that a perfect table of descent of each race was perfectly known.— grant all this, & then do you not think that most would prefer as the best classification, a genealogical one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to another, as it would have stood, if allocated by structure alone. Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races & their pedigrees would go together...

The grand fact of the natural subordination of organic beings in groups under groups, which, from its familiarity, does not always sufficiently strike us, is in my judgment thus explained. No doubt organic beings, like all other objects, can be classed in many ways, either artificially by single characters, or more naturally by a number of characters. We know, for instance, that minerals and the elemental substances can be thus arranged. In this case there is of course no relation to genealogical succession, and no cause can at present be assigned for their falling into groups. But with organic beings the case is different, and the view above given accords with their natural arrangement in group under group; and no other explanation has ever been attempted...

As descent has universally been used in classing together the individuals of the same species, though the males and females and larvæ are sometimes extremely different; and as it has been used in classing varieties which have undergone a certain, and sometimes a considerable amount of modification, may not this same element of descent have been unconsciously used in grouping species under genera, and genera under higher groups, all under the so-called natural system? I believe it has been unconsciously used; and thus only can I understand the several rules and guides which have been followed by our best systematists. As we have no written pedigrees, we are forced to trace community of descent by resemblances of any kind. Therefore we chose those characters which are the least likely to have been modified, in relation to the conditions of life to which each species has been recently exposed. Rudimentary structures on this view are as good as, or even better than, other parts of the organisation. We care not how trifling a character may be—let it be the mere inflection of the angle of the jaw, the manner in which an insect’s wing is folded, whether the skin be covered by hair or feathers—if it prevail throughout many and different species, especially those having very different habits of life, it assumes high value; for we can account for its presence in so many forms with such different habits, only by inheritance from a common parent. We may err in this respect in regard to single points of structure, but when several characters, let them be ever so trifling, concur throughout a large group of beings having different habits, we may feel almost sure, on the theory of descent, that these characters have been inherited from a common ancestor; and we know that such aggregated characters have especial value in classification...

Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species— that is, the forms which in the opinion of some naturalists come very near to, but do not quite arrive at the rank of species; or, again, between sub-species and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences. These differences blend into each other in an insensible series; and a series impresses the mind with the idea of an actual passage. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Why not put that in "RationalWiki" rather than Templeton's garbage. You clowns are a public disservice. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

To make a perfect gradation, all the extinct forms which have ever existed, along many lines of descent converging to the common progenitor of the order, would have to be called into life. It is due to their absence, and to the consequent wide gaps in the series, that we are enabled to divide the existing species into definable groups, such as genera, families, and tribes. If there had been no extinction, there would still have been great lines, or branches, of special development,—the Vandee, for instance, would still, as a great body, have been distinguishable from the great body of the Ophrea; but ancient and intermediate forms, very different probably from their present descendants, would have rendered it utterly impossible to separate by distinct characters the one great body from the other...

Extinction has only separated groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished from other groups, as all would blend together by steps as fine as those between the finest existing varieties, nevertheless a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

From the first dawn of life, all organic beings are found to resemble each other in descending degrees, so that they can be classed in groups under groups. This classification is evidently not arbitrary like the grouping of the stars in constellations. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What a buffoon. You're quoting Charles Darwin who clearly distinguishes different intraspecific degrees of differentiation (something you are denying): "species and sub-species— that is, the forms which in the opinion of some naturalists come very near to, but do not quite arrive at the rank of species", secondly Darwin distinguishes between subspecies and "varieties". You missed a quote where Darwin says this unambiguously: "the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms" (than subspecies and species.) Now what? You're quoting yet another source that doesn't agree with you: that supports my position, not yours. Darwin recognised different degrees of differentiation within species: subspecies > varieties. Those degrees have thresholds, even if arbitrary since otherwise varieties would not be less distinctive than subspecies, and subspecies less distinctive than species. What Darwin never said was all intraspecific degree of differentiation was one and the same and "racial" like you are saying: Mayr (1969) also disagrees with you:

<quotebox>Every local population is slightly different from ever other local population... It would be absurd and would lead to nomenclatural chaos if each such population were given the formal trinominal name that is customary for subspecies. Therefore, subspecies are to be name only if they different 'taxonimically', that is by sufficient diagnostic [morphological] characters.}}86.14.2.77 (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"What a buffoon..." *messes up quotebox*

Darwin never said that infrasubspecific categories were invalid, and in fact said they were of the same nature as any other category. Mayr is simply referring to the impossibilty of officially naming every taxon below subspecies, because of the numbers involved. He is not saying such taxa are invalid. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It's pathetic that you claim Mayr agrees with you:

"There are words in our language that seem to lead inevitably to controversy. This is surely true for the words "equality" and "race." And yet among well-informed people, there is little disagreement as to what these words should mean, in part because various advances in biological science have produced a better understanding of the human condition. Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word race indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races". Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. " Dave MacIntosh (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Mayr clearly states subspecies are not individual demes. So stop lying again. Just admit you are intellectually inferior to me and don't know much, if anything, about these topics. Just go back to the idiocy what you know best: 14/88 and holocaust denial.

“”A subspecies is a collective category because every subspecies consists of many local populations [demes], slightly different from each other genetically and phenotypically. - Mayr, 1969

I've also provided quotes where Mayr recognised a threshold for subspecies, but ignoring that for the moment: you're wrong that you think subspecies is applicable to individual populations rather than aggregates. As Fuzzy Cat points out, subsoecies is always a broad division. Mayr points out subspecies is a collective category of many demes, and elsewhere defines subspecies as an aggregate of local populations (Mayr & Ashlock, 1991).86.14.2.77 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)