So race exists just on the basis of phenotype. I think genes are irrelevant. Are you aware of critiques to Rosenberg et al 2002?
-
-
Replying to @Race__Realist @HobbesianM and
I don't entirely understand the distinction between genotype and phenotype. Obviously they are related. It's preposterous to say there are environmental causes for why a sub-Saharan looks like a sub-Saharan. He looks like a sub-Saharan because both his parents were! 100% genetic.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arnoldtohtfan @Race__Realist and
You seem to think environment has no role in Evolution?! The genetic variation in all sub saharan genes is greater than that contained in all of Europe and Asia combined.
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TheDisproof @Race__Realist and
Yeah, I guess that's why sub-Saharans have such a massive diversity of hair and eye colour...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arnoldtohtfan @Race__Realist and
So blue eyes is a "race" now?! Define your own "race", what makes you your "race"?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TheDisproof @Race__Realist and
You said sub-Saharans have the most genetic diversity, but that's counter-intuitive as fuck. You would expect to see massive phenotypical variation if they were as diverse as you say. But nom, we see the most physical variation among white caucasoids.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arnoldtohtfan @Race__Realist and
Genetic and phenotypic Variation is highest within Africa because humans have been there longest. Interesting how you think skin colour is of huge importance when history shows us it is largely irrelevent e.g. an early briton from 10,000 years ago:pic.twitter.com/qHGFZ2doPL
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @TheDisproof @Race__Realist and
Clearly not, because compared to whites, they look much more similar to each other on average than we do. Cheddar man is more like an Indian, a dark-skinned Caucasoid, than a sub-Saharan. He has blue eyes, wavy hair, and thin lips. His dark skin is still music to shitlib ears.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arnoldtohtfan @TheDisproof and
It's definitely possible for one set of people to just have a bunch more random genetic noise than another set even without much phenotypic variation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HbdNrx @TheDisproof and
When I hear "genetic diversity" I naturally expect this to manifest in a population physically. If we're talking about genetics that contribute to unseen variation, then that should be explicitly stated. Compared to Caucasoids, sub-Saharans have much less phenotypical diversity.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Sure, we can say that most genetic diversity, is just random noise that doesn't seem to do much. *Selected* diversity is more important than *random* diversity
-
-
Replying to @HbdNrx @arnoldtohtfan and
The selected diversity is in the 5 percent of variation between populations.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.