| > Just because we couldn't isolate it doesn't mean it's not there (or wasn't there in the past). As I said, the God-of-the-gaps argument. > Also, Pygmies and Northern Europeans are very niche populations with little extant diversity compared to the rest of mankind. How is this in any way relevant to what I said? I brought these two just as examples. I could bring you examples like these all day long, despite Saini confidently stating these don't exist. > It's literally my job to work in this kind of stuff. As in, I get paid for working in this, I clock in, have coffee with, have lunch with, clock out and sometimes binge drink with people who get paid for doing this as well. Feel free not to believe me but at this point it's just useless to fling "no you're the one who's wrong" one more time. I find it funny that you're claiming institutional authority from an anonymous throwaway account. That's not quite how authority works. You cannot just say that you have it, you need to credibly signal it in a non-falsifiable way. > Common conception of race isn't well-defined and changes depending on culture and whatever the researcher had in mind when they wrote their paper Same argument is true for dog breeds, and yet people have no difficulty distinguishing a chihuahua from a greyhound. Just like Saini, you keep saying things that are true, but irrelevant, hoping to deflect the attention from the core argument without having to actually address it. > Models have evolved a little bit since the 19th century. There were no real models of population genetics in 19th century to speak of. It was basically pioneered by Ronald Fisher in the 1920s. The Price equation I mention was published in 1970s. You'd have known that if you were the expert you claim you are, but as it turns out, you can't even be bothered to consult Wikipedia. > Also the fact that you're bringing up Gould and Lewontin for no apparent reason, just to trash them I'm bringing up Lewontin, because Saini brings up Lewontin. I'm also bringing up Gould, because the duo is a famous pair of agenda-pushers in this very field in the name of science. > as well as the useless snark when pretending to not know, not even google the term HBD I'm still waiting for you to explain the wrongthink I'm accused of. > leads me to think you just want to rehash the old wars of the 1990s and aren't in fact debating in good faith. It's Saini that wants that, of course. By the way, this is another contentless attack designed to deflect attention. I can't help but notice that in the whole thread, you haven't cited a single scientific finding, not a single one indeed. You just keep deflecting, attacking my perceived lack of credentials, while claiming institutional authority from an anonymous throwaway account, accusing me of some wrongthink you cannot even be bother to describe, asking me to consult google what I'm guilty of instead, and at the very end you have the gall of accusing me of not debating in good faith. |