- This topic has 72 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Explain to me how DNA has nothing to do with race, because thats whats being taught at universities all over America.
-
They just redefined the word race.
Equality is a modern dogma you cant question. Medical professionals are allowed to tiptoe around it and keep quiet. Yes you live in a totalitarian state.-
Cry me a river. The West isn’t totalitarian nor is it egalitarian. It’s liberal.
-
https://i.imgur.com/pjwIYh7.gif
>liberal
-
The west is "liberal" in the same sense that Nazi Germany was "socialist".
-
Nazis killed socialists. Western governments put liberals into office.
-
Nazis killed socialists. Western governments put liberals into office.
They also were socialists. Sometimes Socialists of different kinds kill each other.
>inb4 commie seethe
-
-
>It’s liberal.
Your cult is very liberal about the truth, what kind of degenerate sexual behaviors are socially acceptable, and how much control banks and corporations are allowed to have over society. That’s it.
-
-
-
DNA has nothing to do with phenotype, scrotebrain
-
Y-yes it does….?
Without certain DNA markers you will never express certain phenotypes. -
What foods can I feed my baby that will cause their nose to grow wider and flatter and their skin to grow darker?
-
Fried chicken.
-
-
Purple drank and lots of processed food.
-
-
>american education
-
looks like you express the scrotebrain phenotype
-
>this is what leftards actually believe
-
american education
-
-
freaking CHUD BIGOT!11!1!
-
This is just a language problem. Also, the US is just 3% of the population so who cares they change a few words.
-
This is not being taught at universities in America.
-
It is literally being taught that race is a social construct with no relation whatsoever with human genetics. Not as much in biology classrooms, but in the sociology, psychology, anthropology, womans studies, etc. classes. You will even find a lot of people on LULZ making that assertion. Just check back on this thread a little later, and there will probably be a bunch of r*dditors reeeeing about poltards and how race has no connection with genetics and it is not a valid biological concept. They would say it’s merely a social construct.
-
I’ve never taken sociology or anthropology etc. but in the psych 101 class I had to take for a freshman general elective we were not taught that genes have no effect on mental states.
I honestly don’t know anyone who takes your stance that genes don’t code for phenotype. That makes no sense and no one believes that.-
>I honestly don’t know anyone who takes your stance that genes don’t code for phenotype.
Nice strawman, but I literally never said that. What I said, and I will quote, is that "race is a social construct with no relation whatsoever to human genetics". I didn’t say anything about genes not coding for phenotype.As for the point about race being a social construct, I don’t know what to tell you. If you’re not familiar with the concept of a "social construct", and the fact that lefties and scholars working in the humanities and continental philosophy like to apply the term to everything, then you are probably not someone who follows academic culture very closely. Post-modernism is a major philosophical trend, especially in the humanities, and one of their core tenets is that just about everything is a social construct. Anyone who keeps up with modern science and philosophy, especially the behavioral and cognitive sciences would be familiar with this kind of language and the ongoing nature vs nurture debates, and their connection with earlier 20th century debates between analytic and continental philosophers, especially those concerning "social constructionism". This is basically common knowledge to anyone who has looked into these topics. Again, if you wait long enough in this thread, people will start defending the position here on sci. If you don’t believe me, here is a news article from a major publication. I can provide other sources to if you’d like.
-
-
>It is literally being taught that race is a social construct with no relation whatsoever with human genetics.
it’s funny that you’ve never spend few minutes in google to learn what people mean when they’re talking about "race as a social construct". You won’t do it even now. You’re so afraid you might be wrong and scrotebrained, you will choose being ignorant and scrotebrained.-
>what people mean when they’re talking about "race as a social construct"
They mean they’re forfeiting all of their legal rights, and they want you to know that they are below moral consideration. Basically, they mean they want to be physically removed.-
told you you won’t do it
-
I’m not that poster. I’m just telling you my conclusion after having talked to dozens of them: when they say that stuff, they mean it’s morally ok to kill them and those who associate with them.
-
I’m the anon you are talking about. I know exactly what they mean by social construct, and I have already addressed the point here
Moreover, if races dont wxist and we should just ignore them, then how come you SJWs always talk about shit like white privilige and underrepresentation of minorities? If the concept of race is meaningless, then saying that "minorities are underrepresented" is literally meaningless.
I dont think there is a single area in tye entirety of science where one concept is perfectly reducible to another. I guess in some mathematical contexts you could maybe make that argument, but certainly not in the empirical sciences. Even genetics itself isnt reducible to the study of nucleotides and genetic profiles, because as the Extended Modern Synthesis, the EvoDevo paradigm, and modern epigenetics have shown, basically all genetic traits are influenced by environmnetal and developmental factors. Which brings me to another point. By your own reasoning literally all of genomics is meaningless because (due to epigenetics), we know that even a full genome sequence is not sufficient to
Predict the phenotypic traits of an organism with perfect accuracy.>I honestly don’t know anyone who takes your stance that genes don’t code for phenotype.
Nice strawman, but I literally never said that. What I said, and I will quote, is that "race is a social construct with no relation whatsoever to human genetics". I didn’t say anything about genes not coding for phenotype.As for the point about race being a social construct, I don’t know what to tell you. If you’re not familiar with the concept of a "social construct", and the fact that lefties and scholars working in the humanities and continental philosophy like to apply the term to everything, then you are probably not someone who follows academic culture very closely. Post-modernism is a major philosophical trend, especially in the humanities, and one of their core tenets is that just about everything is a social construct. Anyone who keeps up with modern science and philosophy, especially the behavioral and cognitive sciences would be familiar with this kind of language and the ongoing nature vs nurture debates, and their connection with earlier 20th century debates between analytic and continental philosophers, especially those concerning "social constructionism". This is basically common knowledge to anyone who has looked into these topics. Again, if you wait long enough in this thread, people will start defending the position here on sci. If you don’t believe me, here is a news article from a major publication. I can provide other sources to if you’d like.
SJWs want to control public discourse and are willing to use political pressure to force various social groups to adopt SJW values, ideology, and terminology. This includes scientific and academic institutions. I am genuinely not a conservative, and I would even say I despise a lot of Republican politicians and journalists, but the fact of the matter is that if right-wingers tried to do the same thing, they would be labeled conspiracy theorists and SJWs would literally be making comparison with Nazi Germany and "book burning", and the people probably be fired, deplatformed, and perhaps would even being facing charges for harassment, intimidation, and domestic terrorism.
In reality, race is a perfectly valid concept. Is it a robust and precise as more modern concepts that have been introduced in the age of molecular genetics? Of course not, and we shouldn’t expect phenotypic race to have a perfect one-to-one correlation with some concept of molecular genetics, but that is a scrotebrained standard to have. Taxonomy in general is not reducible to molecular genetics. One is a historical, phylogenetic, and functional description. The other is a biochemical description. The fact of the matter, is that race still a real phenomenon, that we already have an intuitive, pragmatic understanding of just woke af on our everyday empirical experience, and scientifically speaking, their are undeniably statistical regularities associated with our concepts of race and ethnicity. This is why genetic testing works. This is why different populations are susceptible to different diseases. This is why people from different racial group tend to have similar skin tones, stature, height, etc.
You seem to think that I’m some misinformed scrotebrain, but I know plenty about this subject, because I’m literally a grad student studying mathematical biology, and I’m very familiar with the concept of a "social construct". This isn’t like some advanced concept, and I have read both analytic and continental philosophy, and I literally own the book that introduced the concept of a "social construct" (pic related). If you read my earlier posts, I think its pretty clear that I have a good general understanding of this topic, probably better than you. For instance, a lot of people probably don’t realize that the debate about genetics determinism recapitulates the nature vs nurture debate of the 20th century and the nativism vs empiricism debates in cognitive science, which themselves recapitulate the empiricist vs rationalist debates of the 17th century.
SJWs are the ones who don’t understand definitions and what people mean when they say things like gender and race are related to genetics. Obviously these concepts are sociological in nature, and the definitions are to some extent arbitrary. That is accurate, but again all concepts are arbitrary, but in science, what we are concerned about is whether the concept is useful to understanding empirical phenomenon. In that respect, the concept of race is just as robust and valid as other taxonomical categories like cultivar, subspecies, phylum, strain, genus, etc. I don’t understand why it is so hard for leftists and continental philosophy fanboys to understand the difference between claiming that something is a social construct, and claiming that it has no relation whatsoever with empirical reality. Race is a social construct, but racial categories are closely (but not perfectly) related with genetic and evolutionary concepts.
-
>I don’t understand why it is so hard for leftists and continental philosophy fanboys to understand the difference between claiming that something is a social construct, and claiming that it has no relation whatsoever with empirical reality.
no one is claiming that. -
Why do you specifically emphasize nature vs nurture in the 20th century? Is there something that makes is stand out from the previous centuries?
-
-
-
-
Pretty rich coming from a scrotebrained leftist.
-
-
-
-
-
SJWs want to control public discourse and are willing to use political pressure to force various social groups to adopt SJW values, ideology, and terminology. This includes scientific and academic institutions. I am genuinely not a conservative, and I would even say I despise a lot of Republican politicians and journalists, but the fact of the matter is that if right-wingers tried to do the same thing, they would be labeled conspiracy theorists and SJWs would literally be making comparison with Nazi Germany and "book burning", and the people probably be fired, deplatformed, and perhaps would even being facing charges for harassment, intimidation, and domestic terrorism.
In reality, race is a perfectly valid concept. Is it a robust and precise as more modern concepts that have been introduced in the age of molecular genetics? Of course not, and we shouldn’t expect phenotypic race to have a perfect one-to-one correlation with some concept of molecular genetics, but that is a scrotebrained standard to have. Taxonomy in general is not reducible to molecular genetics. One is a historical, phylogenetic, and functional description. The other is a biochemical description. The fact of the matter, is that race still a real phenomenon, that we already have an intuitive, pragmatic understanding of just woke af on our everyday empirical experience, and scientifically speaking, their are undeniably statistical regularities associated with our concepts of race and ethnicity. This is why genetic testing works. This is why different populations are susceptible to different diseases. This is why people from different racial group tend to have similar skin tones, stature, height, etc.
-
>right-wingers tried to do the same thing
>if
Zoomers don’t remember when opposing wars abroad could get you fired and when police and military were basically a protected class in public discussion-
https://i.imgur.com/7DegAKw.gif
I’m not a zoomer. I am aware of the censorship that occurred in connection with the "War on Terror", and in fact that censorship is still going on, as we can see with people like Julian Assange (and many other less publicized cases). That being said that was 20 years ago. The cultural climate has changed a lot. The American right simply does not have the same power it had 2 decades ago. Furthermore, the censorship surrounding the War on Terror was largely bipartisan – and this is still going on with the bipartisan Anti-BDS laws. In fact, you see the same thing with the pullout from Afghanistan. There is a lot of bipartisan support for remaining in Afghanistan, and a lot of establishment democrats have been extremely critical of Joe Biden for pulling out of Afghanistan.
But yes, I wouuld certainly agree that the same censorious tendencies exist on the right. The thing is, there power has been decline for decades, whereas the left has been getting more powerful, more centrist, and more authoritarian in recent decades, so conservative thought police do not have the same capacity to influence public discourse and institutional policies as do leftist thought police.
-
The war in Iraq is over, but right wing cancel culture is very much a thing, and it doesn’t seem to get as much attention as its "left" wing counterpart.
-
Yes, same anon, and I would certianly agree. And the Iraq War isnt even entirely over in a sense. Or rather, the Iraq and Afghan conflicts have died down, but only because our efforts have shifted to Syria and Iran, which is still the same geographic neigborhood.
A lot of people talk about left wing cancel culture, including people like Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson, but neither of them address the real and ongoing censorship of Anti-war activists, and there was actually even an uptick in this kind of censorship under the Trump admin. The Anti-BDS laws that I mentioned are a good example of that. So is a lot of the rhetoric that has be directed towards people like Ilhan Omar. She has been absolutely smeared by the right wing media, and I am honestly a fan of hers.
Also, there has been a lot of censorship of some of the more grass root environmental activism, and I think that even a lot of leftists are unaware. E.g. I’m from Maryland, and a few weeks ago, a bunch of hippie folks were areested in Montgomery County for peacefully protesting in a drum circle. Why? Their crime was taking the protests to the neighborhood of wealthy politicians.-
>Also, there has been a lot of censorship of some of the more grass root environmental activism, and I think that even a lot of leftists are unaware. E.g. I’m from Maryland, and a few weeks ago, a bunch of hippie folks were areested in Montgomery County for peacefully protesting in a drum circle. Why? Their crime was taking the protests to the neighborhood of wealthy politicians.
Jesus
A lot of the people protesting oil pipelines and deforestation have gotten in trouble too. One lady got 8 years in prison for sabotaging a pipeline.-
Yeah, I heard about that. They really don’t like the pipeline protestors at all, and there has definitely been a big crackdown on environmental activism in the last few years. Environmentalism is cool, as long as were talking about stuff like buying a Tesla for $100k or dropping 30 grand on new solar panels for you McMansion, but as soon as anyone talks about holding corporations or politicians accountable for pollution, or instituting actual reforms, then they start throwing around labels ranging from tree-hugger, to communist, to eco-terrorist.
There was also a story out in Louisiana like 2 years ago, and they literally charged these two people with terrorism because the left a bunch of trash from a local pond in front of the house of this guy who was on the board of this company Formosa Plastics, and he felt threatened by it. Pic related.
-
-
-
>Sorry goy, chanting and burning sage in front of a politicians house is political extremism and a form of violent protest, we’re gonna have to arrest you for that
-
>I am honestly a fan of Ilhan Omar
You are honestly scrotebrained
-
-
>source: my ass
Examples?
-
-
Lol, I like how when non-woke lefties are criticized, many of them are willing to identify and acknowledge flaws in non-woke ideology, and will admit that conservatism, centrism, etc have flaws of their own , but then when woke lefties face criticism of their ideology, they try to dismiss it, ignore it, or engage in semantic games, straw manning, and gaslighting like here
. Its like they think there could never be any examples of leftist bias or irrationality because we live in a bigoted, right wing society, and any criticisms of woke ideology are either baseless, or evidence that the opposing position is rooted in bigotry, racism, intolerence, etc. It is a perfect example of an infalsifiable ideology. Any criticism can be a priori rejected and ignored.
I dont really have a voice in these debates on places like LULZ or in mainstream politics, because I am a social libertarian but an economic leftist, and there really arent many of us, but if there are crazy factions in my ideology or flaws in my belief system, I actually want people to point them out. Then I can address those flaws or issues, and thereby make my position more robust and convincing to others. Of course, if someone has a shitty argument, then I will defend my position as much as possible, but if someone points out a genuine flaw, and I cant address it, then my instinct is not to engage in semantic games or gaslighting, but rather to re-examine my own ideology. The sad thing about our political climate today, is that even making these sort of innocuous claims is liable to set off everyone from the Qtards to the Woke left. If you goal is actually to convince other people and to engage in good faith political debate and discussion, then you need to be prepared to acknowledge flaws in your own political camp, and you can’t just ignore people because theyre a "shill" or a "poltard", or whatever demonizing buzzword is popular in in your segment of the political community.
-
>the left has been getting more centrist
Lmao
-
-
-
-
>thats whats being taught at universities all over America
What shitty major are you in that this topic even comes up?-
pre-requisite for all students to complete their degree, no matter what degree it is. it may not be in every single state but if it is a blue state or even a moderate one, this is being taught as fact.
-
>lies
-
bullshit, if its being taught at my uni its being taught in every liberal state guaranteed. at this point, its not even a controversial topic either and like the other guy said, its being taught in humanities classes, not even science classes where they can prove it.
-
>they can prove it.
can they?
Can you? There have to be some lectures of that crap leaked on some tube if what you say is true. But it is not.
-
-
-
-
-
>Explain to me how DNA has nothing to do with race
>tfw blacks have RNA -
>thats whats being taught at universities all over America
Whether you’re lying or commies still hate genetics because it fucks their dogma in ass and mouth. -
ok.
race is essentially
>this person looks this way, we’re going to categorize them this way
whereas dna is
>a molecule that contains genetic information
so dna doesn’t have anything to do with race because dna is about your genetics whereas race has to do with how society groups you woke af on your outward appearance. there’s no black or asian codon. there’s black or asian people because society has determined that certain features that qualify as that, and the people then identify as that.-
> the way people look has nothing to do with their dna
ERR!!!
Tanned whites are not considered blacks. -
This is the kind of braindead redditard
>I honestly don’t know anyone who takes your stance that genes don’t code for phenotype.
Nice strawman, but I literally never said that. What I said, and I will quote, is that "race is a social construct with no relation whatsoever to human genetics". I didn’t say anything about genes not coding for phenotype.As for the point about race being a social construct, I don’t know what to tell you. If you’re not familiar with the concept of a "social construct", and the fact that lefties and scholars working in the humanities and continental philosophy like to apply the term to everything, then you are probably not someone who follows academic culture very closely. Post-modernism is a major philosophical trend, especially in the humanities, and one of their core tenets is that just about everything is a social construct. Anyone who keeps up with modern science and philosophy, especially the behavioral and cognitive sciences would be familiar with this kind of language and the ongoing nature vs nurture debates, and their connection with earlier 20th century debates between analytic and continental philosophers, especially those concerning "social constructionism". This is basically common knowledge to anyone who has looked into these topics. Again, if you wait long enough in this thread, people will start defending the position here on sci. If you don’t believe me, here is a news article from a major publication. I can provide other sources to if you’d like.
was talking about.
-
-
>Explain to me how DNA has nothing to do with race
DNA on its own is just genetic instructions for a given organism so they can form and function in a environment. Because nature is thrifty and likes recycling any and all resources at its disposal, large swaths of DNA is often reused in completely different organisms.You wouldn’t classify humans as part insect just because we share coding sequences for diseases with fruit flies would you? What about protein encoding similarities with mice? Although I suppose there are those threads with people obsessed with creating Human x Cat hybrids. So I suppose it could be fair game actually.
As far as race is concerned there is obviously a genetic component. However that has a lot more to do with how you categorize populations. You can easily make as many or as few races as you desire simply woke af on how you categorize and define those categories. Every European population isn’t genetically the same, nor are East Asians or Sub-Sahara Africans. Yet we cluster said groups in three major groups instead tens or hundreds. Honestly nothing stopping us from categorizing everyone with Myopia as their own race. I think the medical sciences would probably prefer we went that route for everyday use since we already break the human species into haplo groups in genetic science.
-
> You can easily make as many or as few races as you desire simply woke af on how you categorize and define those categories.
Yep, but today we have the concept of races in our cultures. And though each concept is somewhat different in each particular head, we have some semantic centres of those concepts each personal comprehension gravitate towards, and recognizing as many races as there are genes would be more beneficial to understanding of genetics than ignorant way of ignoring those group traits determining their cultureal peculiarities.
I understand reddirt’s wish to have some of their disgusting genetic flaws ignored, but you better work on bettering yourself and not trying to fit in where you don’t belong. Genetic therapies are already here, so you just wait for them to be affordable, which I expect to happen in a decade if we’re lucky or in two if we’re a little less lucky. -
https://i.imgur.com/Ea3V2Vo.gif
>Explain to me how DNA has nothing to do with race
>As far as race is concerned there is obviously a genetic component.
Sir? -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
>Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.>inb4 cope and mental gymnastics
-
-
Show me the DNA sequence that confirms someone is black. You can’t? It’s almost as if what we consider race is arbitrary.
-
This goes for literally any organism. I mean pretty much every category in biology is fuzzy, which is why a lot of bioinformatics requires the use of fuzzy sets and similar objects. Its obvious that you are talking out of your ass, because if you had any knowledge of genetics, then you would know this. The same thing applies to literallly every other species and every other taxonomical category. For example, there is no genetic definition of "c. elegans" or of "drosophila" or of the genus "homo". Thats not how taxonomical or phylogenetic concepts are defined in biology. Phylogeny and taxonomy are closely related to genetics, but they are not reducible to genetics or any other biochemical concepts (not that you even knoe what any of that means). Its a complete non-sequiter in fact. Its literally like saying that schizophrenia doesn’t exist because the behavioral tendencies associated with schizophrenia cannot be completely predicted by genetic methods. Of course schizoohrenia cannot be preducted pyrely on the basis of genetic data, but genetics is still one of the primary determining factors in the development of schizophrenia.
I dont think there is a single area in tye entirety of science where one concept is perfectly reducible to another. I guess in some mathematical contexts you could maybe make that argument, but certainly not in the empirical sciences. Even genetics itself isnt reducible to the study of nucleotides and genetic profiles, because as the Extended Modern Synthesis, the EvoDevo paradigm, and modern epigenetics have shown, basically all genetic traits are influenced by environmnetal and developmental factors. Which brings me to another point. By your own reasoning literally all of genomics is meaningless because (due to epigenetics), we know that even a full genome sequence is not sufficient to
Predict the phenotypic traits of an organism with perfect accuracy.-
Exactly, it’s all arbitrary. The only thing you’d get by classifying humans into different races/subspecies is prejudice.
-
Moving the goalposts. Nice. A classical logical fallacy. First you said that race is "meaningless" because it is defined arbitrarily, but all definitions are arbitrary, so your argument was just vacuous sophistry. Then you switched your position and now you are claiming that the concept should be discarded because it would only result in prejudice. This by the way, is another logical fallacy, called the naturalistic fallacy. In other words, you are objectively wrong. I know this is hard for SJWs to understand because they are scientifically illiterate, but one of the central tenets in modern biology and psychology is that you cant make moral inferences woke af on empirical claims. I know you dont understand what that means, so let me explain. An empirical claim is a statement of fact, e.g claims about the relationship between phylogenetic, taxonomical, and genetic phenomenon would be an empirical claim. A moral claim would be that one race is superior or inferior, one race is better, or etc. Empirical claims about racial or getic categories cannot entail moral claims about the superiority of one race over another. Again, this is a core tenet of modern science and philosophy, so if you disagree with that you are simply wrong. For more on the matter, look into the natualistic fallacy and the is-ought distinction.
Moreover, if races dont wxist and we should just ignore them, then how come you SJWs always talk about shit like white privilige and underrepresentation of minorities? If the concept of race is meaningless, then saying that "minorities are underrepresented" is literally meaningless.
-
Dumb redditard
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
>Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.>inb4 cope and mental gymnastics
-
-
-
Dumb redditard
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
>Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.>inb4 cope and mental gymnastics
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
>Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.>inb4 cope and mental gymnastics
The reditards have truly been btfod in multiple posts just ITT alone. We’ve basically proven that they are lying, both about what biology actually says and about the scrotebrained drivel that humanities scholars and woke lefties are pushing. As usual, they will most likely either ignore the data and arguments and respond with some semantic word games, or just end the conversation altogether. This is why SJWs have to resort to censorship. If any professor disagrees with the SJW then thebprofessor needs to be fired. On the other hand, if someone wants to criticize a woke SJW professor, then everyone needs to listen to the woke SJW professor, and anyone who disagrees needs to be censored, deplatoformed, and they should be labeled a nazi. And in fact, I dont know if youve heard the latest news stories, but last week the SJWs literally petitioned the FBI and Federal Goverment to have anyone who publicly disagrees with critical race theory at school meetings should literally be investigated for terrorism because they could be a white nationalist terrorist.
-
-
-
>because thats whats being taught at universities all over America.
sauce? -
>scrotebraination and lies are taught across the nation
I know.-
-
-
>the majority of them are introns
Are you scrotebrained?-
just google them. some of them literally return nothing but an ifunny post of that pic
here is the first one and the one with 2981%
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp/rs7963801
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp/rs159428
the sources listed are just generally related to population genetics and don’t support the claims made in it in anyway
-
-
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.