'Black Lives Matter' Organizer Outed as White?

[erowe1]

Your arguments are utterly incoherent. There are genetic differences between the races. Modern genetic tests can tell where someone's ancestry comes from very accurately.

This is you: "Race is a social construct, but there are biological differences, but biologists say there aren't biological differences, but anyone from anywhere with any ancestry can have the biological differences, but DNA can't tell where someone's ancestry comes from, even though it can."

It's like a pathetic clown act.

I notice how you didn't actually quote me, but made up a quote and pretended I said it. Are you arguing against me, or some imaginary person who says things that you make up?

 

[PRB]

I tried my best and couldn't find anything in there indicating that it's ever possible to determine that anyone is 0% black or has no African ancestry.

1. We assign marker traits
2. If you don't find marker traits on the person, you can say he's practically lacking ancestry from that area
3. Nobody says you must accept the market traits or marker genes to determine ancestry, but it's as good as we have
4. If a person can't be 0% black, what's the minimum black he must be? You must know, since you're so sure it can't be 0%.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Did you notice how you didn't actually quote me, but made up a quote and pretended I said it?

I'm putting the implications of your arguments into one sentence to illustrate how ridiculous they are. It's called "hyperbole", little boy. You don't know anything about this subject. It's like you just spout off things you've heard smart people say and hope against hope that something, anything ​sticks.

 

[erowe1]

I just fucking love it when creationists deny DNA is a good measure for ancestry in support of humans being related to apes, then liberals who want to use common ancestry to argue all humans are one. But then come the paternity tests, destroys both arguments.

You can cherry pick both similarities and differences to emphasize in your argument, can't you?

If that's happening, then can't you turn it around? Isn't it odd when evolutionists want to use DNA to show the common ancestry of all life, but then want to ignore the exact same science when it shows that races are social constructs?

 

[tod evans]

LOL.

We gotta have a beer sometime.

I would bet that most of these folks can't trace their family lines back 300 years.. let alone know who was fucking who 2000 years ago.

I can trace the French lines back the farthest. but that is still only a few hundred years.

I've got documentation back to the mid 1500's on my moms side, late 1700's on my dads.

Kudos to my uncle for investing the time to trace and document it!

There's everything from French Knights to Scottish sheep thieves, clergy and criminals coursing through these veins....

 

[PRB]

You said 0%. Isn't that the same thing?

LMAO. Are you serious?

Certainty of a finding is not the same (at all) with finding itself.

Determining that a person has 50% DNA of each parent, does not mean you're 50% certain of each answer, in fact, it usually means you're 99% certain barring miracles and practically 100%. Technically 100% is irrelevant and not required in science.

 

[erowe1]

1. We assign marker traits
2. If you don't find marker traits on the person, you can say he's practically lacking ancestry from that area
3. Nobody says you must accept the market traits or marker genes to determine ancestry, but it's as good as we have
4. If a person can't be 0% black, what's the minimum black he must be? You must know, since you're so sure it can't be 0%.

When you say "practically lacking," what do you mean by "practically"?

On 4, I don't know. You were the one who said you could tell the guy in the OP was lying if some genetic test showed that he had 0% African ancestry (which is not possible). Are you changing your mind about that now?

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If that's happening, then can't you turn it around? Isn't it odd when evolutionists want to use DNA to show the common ancestry of all life, but then want to ignore the exact same science when it shows that races are social constructs?

It doesn't show that! My God, you're an idiot!

 

[PRB]

If that's happening, then can't you turn it around? Isn't it odd when evolutionists want to use DNA to show the common ancestry of all life, but then want to ignore the exact same science when it shows that races are social constructs?

No, it's not. Because I totally admit race (walls) are social constructs. I do not take the claim so far to say therefore all humans are equally black and equally white and Barack Obama is equally Japanese to all people in Japan.

 

[erowe1]

LMAO. Are you serious?

Certainty of a finding is not the same (at all) with finding itself.

Determining that a person has 50% DNA of each parent, does not mean you're 50% certain of each answer, in fact, it usually means you're 99% certain barring miracles and practically 100%. Technically 100% is irrelevant and not required in science.

You said you could use this to determine that the guy in the OP was lying. How do you do that without having certainty?

 

[pcosmar]

I just fucking love it when creationists deny DNA is a good measure for ancestry in support of humans being related to apes, then liberals who want to use common ancestry to argue all humans are one. But then come the paternity tests, destroys both arguments.

You can cherry pick both similarities and differences to emphasize in your argument, can't you?

I deny that I am related to plants too.. but they have DNA,, and some similar markers.

All life on the planet does. We were created for this place,, we share all the elements of the earth we were made from.
This is no conundrum.

All DNA can show (without pure base samples) is a general family line.
If you had preserved DNA samples from the original individuals,, you could get a more accurate ancestral line.,, and % of mix.

 

[erowe1]

No, it's not. Because I totally admit race (walls) are social constructs. I do not take the claim so far to say therefore all humans are equally black and equally white and Barack Obama is equally Japanese to all people in Japan.

Is Japanese a race now?

 

[PRB]

When you say "practically lacking," what do you mean by "practically"?

The same way you "practically" know you're safe when you drive out in your car, you're not 100% safe, but not 100% certain to die. You're safe enough to not have to worry as long as you follow laws and common sense.

On 4, I don't know. You were the one who said you could tell the guy in the OP was lying if some genetic test showed that he had 0% African ancestry (which is not possible). Are you changing your mind about that now?

No, I'm not changing my mind. I stand by that it's possible to show a person has 0% African ancestry, or so low that it's practically zero.

Can we show he's 0% Japanese? If not, what is the minimum he must be?

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

You said you could use this to determine that the guy in the OP was lying. How do you do that without having certainty?

If a genetic test shows no African ancestry, then any ancestry that exists from Africa is so far back, that it is not in that person's genome. This is exceedingly fucking simple.

 

[erowe1]

It doesn't show that! My God, you're an idiot!

If I am, then so are most scientists of all fields who have studied this subject. If you can prove them wrong, you should write an article explaining how races aren't social constructs and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. Your research will turn out to be very important.

 

[PRB]

Is Japanese a race now?

Pretty much always was. Japan is the name of the country, but its people are an identifiable racial group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_people

 

[PRB]

If I am, then so are most scientists of all fields who have studied this subject.

No, because you are not in complete agreement with them.

 

[PRB]

If you had preserved DNA samples from the original individuals,, you could get a more accurate ancestral line.,, and % of mix.

ok, so where do we disagree?

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If I am, then so are most scientists of all fields who have studied this subject.

"Most scientists" (weasel words) do not agree with you. People who claim that there is some consensus on this are liars, in either direction.

 

[PRB]

If a genetic test shows no African ancestry, then any ancestry that exists from Africa is so far back, that it is not in that person's genome. This is exceedingly fucking simple.

yeah, but what gene says "African continent" on it?! [sarcasm]