3 ms·

I’m not the author of the comment we are both replying to, but I’m pretty sure you’re trying to use his comment as a soapbox to push your own views. Moreover t

I’m not the author of the comment we are both replying to, but I’m pretty sure you’re trying to use his comment as a soapbox to push your own views. Moreover the quoted paragraph does support that claim, and you still have not engaged with it. You are the one failing to understanding statistics. The quoted paragraph does not support the idea that people can’t be categorized into races, of course depending on how you define race, but you’re the only one talking about that. I think you need to check your tone and stop trying to politicize this discussion. You might have good points, but I’m really disappointed in how you seem to be trying to incite people.

said 8y ago
I’d like to understand your point of view. To say that there is more variation within a race than between races when examining a single gene at a time does not support the notion that there are black Africans “much more related” to white Europeans than to each other. The fact that there is more genetic diversity among black Africans than among white Europeans doesn’t support that claim, either.
- posterboy 8y ago
  There is no single gene that determines skin coloration. You are right insofar you allow yourself to be imprecise and make sweeping generalizations. Of course a light skinned person is far less likely than a person with darker complexion to have ancestry who lived ca. 2000 years ago in for example south africa, but there's a whole lot of leeway in those 2000 years and at the very least its ignorant of e.g. India. And then the question is whether the question mattersat all.