'Black Lives Matter' Organizer Outed as White?

[erowe1]

You're the one who doesn't even know what 50% African and 100% African means.

Correct. It's meaningless gibberish unless we can first agree on some meaning for it. Whatever meaning we use will have to be something we posit and agree on among ourselves, rather than discover in nature (i.e. it must be socially constructed). Because Africa is a place, and not something in DNA.

So anything that's not 100% certainty is as good as 0% certainty?

Not at all. And again, this is just illogical and has nothing to do with anything I said.

It's not ridiculous, because you can take genome samples of people representative of African countries and pool them, then compare them to people living in Japan, India, Australia, the Amazonian rainforests, this is where you'll find patterns of differences.

I don't deny that. But it does not follow from that that you could ever devise a genetic test to show that none of a person's ancestors were born in Africa. Your test could show that I have 0% African ancestry even if both of my parents were born there.

If you actually read the literature associated with the links you've provided me (which themselves say practically nothing relevant to this discussion), you will find that the very scientists practicing those tests themselves agree with everything I've said here.

 

[erowe1]

So if I found a wikipedia article you'll STFU?

Not necessarily. But I highly doubt that you could find one that supports your claims anyway. Since you've pretty much just been either making stuff up or drawing false conclusions from science that the scientists you refer to themselves don't support.

Why? Do you dispute the claim I quoted? If so, why?

 

[erowe1]

Africa is not a gene, therefore everybody is equally African.

You keep saying this. It makes no sense.

Christianity is not a gene. Therefore everybody is equally Christian?

Libertarian is not a gene. Therefore everybody is equally libertarian?

I'm not sure how you ever got the idea that this reasoning was logical.

 

[PRB]

Not necessarily. But I highly doubt that you could find one that supports your claims anyway. Since you've pretty much just been either making stuff up or drawing false conclusions from science that the scientists you refer to themselves don't support.

Why? Do you dispute the claim I quoted? If so, why?

I don't need to dispute what you quoted, you don't even know what it means.

 

[PRB]

You keep saying this. It makes no sense.

Christianity is not a gene. Therefore everybody is equally Christian?

Genetically speaking, yes.

Libertarian is not a gene. Therefore everybody is equally libertarian?

Genetically speaking, yes. Both of these claims assume you do not believe there's such as thing as inheriting personalities or behavior genetics. If you did, you'd have to admit personalities prone to being Christian or libertarian can be inherited genetically.

I'm not sure how you ever got the idea that this reasoning was logical.

If you dispute that something can be genetically proven, you're saying genetically all people are equal on that aspect, what is missing in my argument that would counter it?

 

[erowe1]

Genetically speaking, yes.

How so? What does that even mean?

If you dispute that something can be genetically proven, you're saying genetically all people are equal on that aspect, what is missing in my argument that would counter it?

No, if you dispute that something can be genetically proven, you're not saying that genetically all people are equal in that aspect. What's missing in your argument is that there is no connection between the "if" and the "then." Your conclusion simply doesn't follow. I'm not sure why you think it does, or how you even dreamed it up. It is an utter non sequitur. It's as bad as saying, "If roses are red, then Obama is Japanese."

 

[PRB]

I don't deny that. But it does not follow from that that you could ever devise a genetic test to show that none of a person's ancestors were born in Africa. Your test could show that I have 0% African ancestry even if both of my parents were born there.

Because you're conflating being geographically located somewhere at the time of birth with genetic patterns of people native to the area.

Africa is indeed a location, it's also an area for which people who've lived there over centuries share genetic patterns (and differ from people who do not).

 

[PRB]

How so? What does that even mean?



No, if you dispute that something can be genetically proven, you're not saying that genetically all people are equal in that aspect. What's missing in your argument is that there is no connection between the "if" and the "then." Your conclusion simply doesn't follow. I'm not sure why you think it does, or how you even dreamed it up. It is an utter non sequitur. It's as bad as saying, "If roses are red, then Obama is Japanese."

it means I am equally Christian as you are if we looked solely at genetics, since you cannot point to any genes that would make me more Christian or more likely to be Christan than you are.

However, you can point to genes that makes a person retarded and highly unlikely to be Christian, so there's an example of how "Christian is not a gene, but people are still not all equally Christian".

Basketball is not a gene, but a person genetically missing a leg cannot play basketball normally.

 

[erowe1]

I don't need to dispute what you quoted, you don't even know what it means.

Yes I do. You claimed, wrongly, that it's not possible for paternity tests to have a high degree of certainty. The quote I gave said they do. If you think it's wrong, and have any reason for thinking that, feel free to state it.

 

[PRB]

"If roses are red, then Obama is Japanese."

If genetics cannot determine how "racially and genetically" Japanese Obama is, what would?

Again, I am not asking whether he can speak or act Japanese, or how long he lived there, I am asking what genetically can you find about him that differs him from Japanese Yamato people? If nothing, you can say he's genetically and racially Japanese as 99% of people in Japan, why not?

You can also say that any person picked at random living in Japan is equally black and equally African genetically speaking as any person living in Kenya. There is no area indicator in their genes to tell you otherwise. Am I right?

 

[PRB]

Yes I do. You claimed, wrongly, that it's not possible for paternity tests to have a high degree of certainty. The quote I gave said they do. If you think it's wrong, and have any reason for thinking that, feel free to state it.

You don't know how certainty is measured, that's your problem.

They give a result that 0-99.99% of genetic markers point to the parent being the parent. This has zero to do with certainty. You are conflating abundance of evidence with certainty.

 

[erowe1]

Because you're conflating being geographically located somewhere at the time of birth with genetic patterns of people native to the area.

No I'm not.

Africa is indeed a location, it's also an area for which people who've lived there over centuries share genetic patterns (and differ from people who do not).

It's also an area that over all of those centuries people have gone in and out of. The populations of all the geographical regions of the world aren't like discrete billiard balls bouncing off one another. They are ever changing blobs with members going in and out of them all the time, with migrations, displacements, enslavements, empires, adoptions, and miscegenation happening across all lines in all generations. Anybody with any genes can be born in any location. And none of this will prove useful in trying to prove that the guy in the OP lied about being black.

 

[erowe1]

You don't know how certainty is measured, that's your problem.

They give a result that 0-99.99% of genetic markers point to the parent being the parent. This has zero to do with certainty. You are conflating abundance of evidence with certainty.

No. You're the one who doesn't know how certainty is measured. Go back and read the quote. It's the exact opposite of what you say. It is about certainty, and not percentage of genetic markers.

the probability [i.e. degree of certainty] of parentage is typically 99.99% when the alleged parent is biologically related to the child.

 

[PRB]

No I'm not.

So you admit there's people who live in Africa who can genetically differ from people who DON'T live in Africa? How can that be? Africa is not a gene!

It's also an area that over all of those centuries people have gone in and out of. The populations of all the geographical regions of the world aren't like discrete billiard balls bouncing off one another.

Again, does that mean everybody is equally there and equally not just because there's always migration?

They are ever changing blobs with members going in and out of them all the time, with migrations, displacements, enslavements, empires, adoptions, and miscegenation happening across all lines in all generations. Anybody with any genes can be born in any location. And none of this will prove useful in trying to prove that the guy in the OP lied about being black.

So you're back to saying everybody is genetically equally black, unless you can show otherwise, right?

 

[PRB]

No. You're the one who doesn't know how certainty is measured. Go back and read the quote. It's the exact opposite of what you say. It is about certainty, and not percentage of genetic markers.

inserting the words in there doesn't make it true.

 

[erowe1]

So you admit there's people who live in Africa who can genetically differ from people who DON'T live in Africa? How can that be? Africa is not a gene!

Of course. Not only that, but they even differ genetically from other people who do live in Africa.

Again, does that mean everybody is equally there and equally not just because there's always migration?

No. And why do you keep saying this? Even after I pointed out how stupid it is, and you haven't yet come up with any way to make any logical argument to reach this conclusion, you keep repeating it.

So you're back to saying everybody is genetically equally black, unless you can show otherwise, right?

No. And I have never said anything like that. You keep saying it, and it makes no sense at all.

 

[erowe1]

inserting the words in there doesn't make it true.

The parenthesis I inserted was just to clarify that it was talking about certainty (or, to use the word the quote used, probability), not percentage of genetic markers, as you claimed.

 

[PRB]

The parenthesis I inserted was just to clarify that it was talking about certainty (or, to use the word the quote used, probability), not percentage of genetic markers, as you claimed.

probability is not certainty. at least not in statistics.

 

[erowe1]

it means I am equally Christian as you are if we looked solely at genetics, since you cannot point to any genes that would make me more Christian or more likely to be Christan than you are.

I doubt that that's true. Most likely you could point to genes that indicate greater likelihood of someone being a Christian. But what you can't do is point to genes that can prove that someone either is or isn't one.

 

[PRB]

Of course. Not only that, but they even differ genetically from other people who do live in Africa.


No. And why do you keep saying this? Even after I pointed out how stupid it is, and you haven't yet come up with any way to make any logical argument to reach this conclusion, you keep repeating it.


No. And I have never said anything like that. You keep saying it, and it makes no sense at all.

It's not stupid, it's the logical conclusion of you saying Africa is not a gene.

"Not only that, but they even differ genetically from other people who do live in Africa."

Do they differ equally?