I'll see your quoting of SolarCross's whining about being special, and raise you the Smithsonian:
The Smithsonian wrote:Modern Human Diversity - Genetics
People today look remarkably diverse on the outside. But how much of this diversity is genetically encoded? How deep are these differences between human groups? First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse – a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution. For example, the subspecies of the chimpanzee that lives just in central Africa, Pan troglodytes troglodytes, has higher levels of diversity than do humans globally, and the genetic differentiation between the western (P. t. verus) and central (P. t. troglodytes) subspecies of chimpanzees is much greater than that between human populations.
Early studies of human diversity showed that most genetic diversity was found between individuals rather than between populations or continents and that variation in human diversity is best described by geographic gradients, or clines. A wide-ranging study published in 2004 found that 87.6% percent of the total modern human genetic diversity isaccounted for by the differences between individuals, and only 9.2% between continents. In general, 5%–15% of genetic variation occurs between large groups living on different continents, with the remaining majority of the variation occurring within such groups (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005). These results show that when individuals are sampled from around the globe, the pattern seen is not a matter of discrete clusters – but rather gradients in genetic variation (gradual geographic variations in allele frequencies) that extend over the entire world. Therefore,there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between peoples on different continents or "races." The authors of the 2004 study say that they ‘see no reason to assume that "races" represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history. An exception may be genes where different selection regimes have acted in different geographical regions. However, even in those cases, the genetic discontinuities seen are generally not "racial" or continental in nature but depend on historical and cultural factors that are more local in nature’ (Serre and Pääbo 2004: 1683-1684).
Let's look at this though.
You decided that you didn't like Ben Franklin's description of race. Why not?
You instead decide that there are these laughably firm lines somewhere in which different races exist, because SolarCross said so.
This is completely counter to everything we know about genetics.
And as implied, this is not what people thought a hundred years ago, when Celts were considered African; and two hundred years ago when Germans weren't white.
Now, after a thousand years of being completely wrong, you think the same horseshit feelings you are having will trump mapping the human genome because--what, you want to feel like a special victim?
Forgive me for not being impressed with this horseshit. I'll stick with science instead of your feelings.
Albert wrote:TIG, why are you asking me all these childish questions? Also, it is virtue to have sex with less women then more.
My question was whether when you say, "cucks," you mean people not having sex, or people having sex.
It seems that you don't know what that slur means
But, I'll admit, it is a funny image to think of you getting on /redpill and whining, "This guy is in my room fucking my girlfriend right now. He literally has a different woman every night, and my girlfriend is his designated Thursday. What a cuck, amiright? I hate cucks so bad, all they do is fuck the girlfriends of us red-pillers and we have to just sit here and listen to it the whole time."
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!