The central claim in the biological race discussion is that "two people of the same race are more genetically alike than either are to a person of a different race".
This has been categorically falsified scientifically.
This has been categorically falsified scientifically.
What often frustrates is that bio race realists will make claims based on this assumption, but then they refuse to stand by or defend it.
The smarter ones among them at least know their belief doesn't hold up to what's now known about genetics.
The smarter ones among them at least know their belief doesn't hold up to what's now known about genetics.
So one thing I want to see from bio race realists is a definition of race that is objective and independent of races they already believe to exist (i.e don't start by begging the question).
Present a method that can objectively construct what they believe to be bio races.
Present a method that can objectively construct what they believe to be bio races.
Since I posted this a lot of the responses has been that the key feature is in differences in gene variant frequencies.
That's the claim they only defend when one begins by embracing their assumption that race is real.
Just the worst approach to science.
That's the claim they only defend when one begins by embracing their assumption that race is real.
Just the worst approach to science.
https://twitter.com/rasmansa/status/1478911683313741830?t=BLOLLXC9qBvPj4wMA6ocKw&s=19
From a statistical perspective, the more precise version of my initial quote is that the concept of biological race being valid requires that there is less genetic variation within a race than between races.
Bio race realists reason on this assumption, but refuse to defend it.
Bio race realists reason on this assumption, but refuse to defend it.
Cool subthread here as well
https://twitter.com/vjpsyverson/status/1481321602952302592?t=8p3WmEjESxK4C3-CM2UBag&s=19
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
