/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10782254

Holy shit, you don't know anything about genetics, you anti-/pol/ fucktard. In fact, if you believe
1) In racial equality pseudoscience
2) Denying that IQ has predictive validity
3) That intelligence, behavior and personality are built on a genetic framework

Then there is no reasoning with you. All of these points have been validated, and yet you far left anti-/pol/ fucks bring up your retarded politics, and think that's enough to validity your environmental determinism over genetic science. I'm not gonna listen to the people, who have murdered thousands of people thanks to this racial equality nonsense. It's even more mind bogglyingly when some of you actual admit that IQ is legit, but then say that "racial differences in IQ" is pseudoscience. Well dipshit, then how do you explain the findings of IQ that suggests there are racial differences that have been both consistent and heritable?

>There are no isolated genes which are tied to intelligence. The system is too complex. There are no neatly packaged intelligence genes.

Pure nonsense drivel that can only come from someone who doesn't even understand genetics. Well you anti /pol/ fucktards, why don't you just deny genes? I mean, what even is a gene? It's just a human social construct that we randomly assign to long segments of DNA. I mean, where does a gene for hair begin and end? HUR DUR HUR DUR

>And it's been also said that the rapid "evolution" was possible because they were forbidden to marry outside of the Jewish community - which leads to the "don't cross-breed" /pol/ meme.

This kinda highlights your inability to understand genetics. See, you realize that even if humans were near 100% genetically identical, then it would still be possible for populations of said human to show genetic differences in cognitive traits right? You do know why that would be possible right? You are aware that "genetic drift" makes it 100% impossible for populations to be genetically equal, right?