"Genetics" determines the manifestations, and genetics is determined itelf by prior conditions, biology, physics, etc....

Below-copied by ap submitted, but CENSORED/deleted by kike, Unz, at comments, http://www.unz.com/jthompson/healthy...-genetic-code/

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Genetics" Mere Manifestation Of Prior Source(s), Determinist Nature
(Apollonian, 11 Feb 19)

Golly gee, "res," but it sure is complicated, isn't it, this business of "race"? But if one just cks dictionary, race is group of people descended fm common ancestors, right? And diff. race means they're descended fm a diff. group of ancestors of some other race. And geography has quite a lot to do w. it all, doesn't it?

And "race" can be general, like all blacks fm Africa, but it could also be more specific, like the races of Nigeria, or Ethiopia, etc. Indeed, race could be isolated to specific individuals, like race of Ham, Japheth, and Shem.

Then we see thou wants to bring in "genetics," which actually is just more internal counterpart to external manifestation(s), like skin color, those genetics or genes, now considered the foundation/basis/source for all the manifestations. But didn't we already know this about the genetic foundation(s) as source?--what else would genetics refer to?

So for all external manifestation(s) there must be a genetic component, like for red hair, blue eyes, skin color, etc.

But regardless all this material about genetics and whatever it is thou are attempting to make of it, we know RACE, and reality, including race, is determined in accord w. absolute cause-effect, necessarily--there's no perfectly "free" will.

Thus "genetic code" is founded upon prior biology and physics, and no "post code" can possibly change or contradict the fundamentals--everything is DETERMINED in accord w. absolute cause-effect, no perfectly "free" will, which perfectly free will is definition of "God." Whatever manifests follows fm prior source, and nothing can manifest in disregard of this source.

"Res," it seems thou want to quibble, like w. Thompson, insisting more needs, or should, or ought be known regarding details of genetics, which actually no one seems to deny. Then thou presents thy graphic showing the presumed descent fm the negroid or African (evidently) which doesn't really seem to be too terribly relevant to the basic thesis regarding "nature and nurture," or "post" vs. "genetic" "code."

Finally, we racists say race matters--that things are DETERMINED in accord w. absolute cause-effect, there being no perfectly "free" will which is just fictional pretext for subjectivism and Satanism against which Satanism and Satanist genocide of Agenda-21 and -2030, for one instance, humanity presently struggles. Q.E.D.


-------------------above by ap in response to below-copied---------------------

# 71, res says:
February 11, 2019 at 6:31 pm GMT • 600 Words
@CanSpeccy

You quote this comment with reference to my definition of the present-day scientific understanding of race with apparent approval.

I think that quote captures most of the “scientific” zeitgeist (if not the scientific reality). But if you think race can be defined by gene pool then perhaps we disagree less than I thought based on your other statements. In which case I would expect you to be more accepting of genetic evidence like PCA and the dendrogram I presented. I do realize your understanding is more sophisticated than the “race is solely a social construct” version better represented by that quote. My response would be better read as agreeing that trend is prevalent and troublesome than as believing your thinking is exactly that.

A good way to put it is I object to your statements where and to the extent they align with that comment.

Regarding

A race is not defined by skin color or any other particular morphological trait, but by breeding pattern and genetic relatedness. Specifically, a race is an interbreeding population separated by geographical, political, social, or religious divisions from other groups. A race can therefore be defined by its gene pool.

I partially agree.

I do agree gene pool provides a good definition for race (me presenting genetic evidence for my assertions might have provided a clue here). But since skin color and other morphological traits are largely dictated by genes they correlate quite heavily with race. Trying to pretend race and genes have nothing to do with physical (and behavioral) traits is exactly the kind of Lysenkoism I decry. At the same time, I agree single traits have a very imperfect relation to race. You have done a good job of drawing out the classic dark skin color examples demonstrating that.

And since I am playing nice with you about that, please do me the courtesy of doing the same with this.

Do you actually deny that the biggest single genetic split between human groups occurs between Africa and the rest of the world?

If so, please grace us with your understanding of human genetic variation across geographic groups. In particular, I would be interested in learning whether you believe in the Out of Africa theory (strong or weak, I tend to believe in a weak version) and how that relates to your answer. You might throw in a discussion of how small founder populations affect genetic variation as well.

But spare us another of your useless caption-free graphics.

There is a reason I include links to the source when I post things like that. If you are incapable of understanding the graphic (as I assume from your response) then feel free to follow that link. Is spoon feeding you enough, or do I also need to pre-chew your food for you?

I think the reason you object to my graphics is because they provide extremely compelling evidence for the points I make. And you aren’t man enough to admit that.

P.S. In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I interpreted you responding to my request to stop with the ad hominems by calling me hypersensitive as you saying you are thick skinned and I can feel free to heap as much abuse on you as I like. I can back off if you actually want to have a civil conversation about this. But don’t ever think my preference for civil conversation means I can’t trade insults with you.