Joblom wrote:I denounce this study and declare it to be total BS because race doesn't not exist and thus can't be distinguished. There is no way to tell populations apart because there is no fundamental difference between them. This supposed study is a hoax because in reality it would be impossible to carry out.
Please, PLEASE, stay away from genetics, because you obviously do not understand anything about what is happening.
Raga's criticism is valid - indeed, the sample size is very small. I'll add that I am iffy about any study that "ranks" ethnicities without any obvious medical reason to do so, because it tends to easily look like supremacy.
But yours is utterly clueless. Of course it is possible to tell populations apart with genetics. That's how we discovered how much of our genome came from Neandertal (0-3%, depending on the people) or Denisovians. That's how we can explain why people in Nepal are way better at tolerating higher altitudes. That's how we can explain why white Australians have waaaaay more skin cancer than aboriginals.
I mean, the melanine gene should be a pretty obvious clue to distinguish populations, and that's only one of many. Black curly hair also has a genetic origin, if you have the gene that allows you to get an afro cut, chances are you are not a Irish redhead.
And there also are tons of "invisible" genes that can be used to distinguish populations, like pathogen resistances as a whole, since different regions are exposed to different pathogens. And then, you have thousands of non-coding areas of the genome - so, DNA, but not genes - that you can use to tell two populations apart thanks to statistics because all populations have a limited rate of cross-breeding.
So insult the study as much as you like because it does not fit your abundantly mentioned racist worldview, but don't try to act as if you have any clue as to how genetics work.
Vol wrote:While in the practical world, whites are the physically strongest and most varied in their gene expressions. It's obvious information for anyone who's taken a biology course wrapped in usual journalistic buffoonery.
Physically strongest - that's just run-of-the-mill white supremacist cherry-picked BS. Strength has environmental factors, like how much food you get to eat, and those tend to favor white people. Genetics have nothing to do with it. Also, there has been no actual study that properly tested the average strength of people of different races because A/ that would obviously be racist B/ that would be rather pointless C/ there are way too many factors that could skew the results.
And finally, if you take track and field gold medals as a basis for your conclusion, then yes, the strongest people are white (more accurately, they're Eastern European, between Germany and Russia), but yet again there is a cultural bias in that those are the regions where those specialties are the most popular. If you add Viking games and the such, then the only participants (and the only people actually remotely interested in it) are Scandinavians, so it's hard to conclude that others wouldn't be as good if they never really tried.
Another thing: it says nothing of the average white person. I have no data to back it up, but I am pretty sure that if you are looking for the population on Earth that is the physically strongest on average, then it's probably Polynesians. In rugby, a sport in which many white (and black) people are playing at a very high level, the most impressive athletes still tend to come from islands that are fifty times less populated than the major nations like England, Australia or South Africa, and their supply looks infinite. I heard you had a number of Polynesians in the NFL too. And even if I end up being true on my prediction, then I'm sure it's not all fine and dandy because Polynesians also have a way higher susceptibility to becoming obese - and that's related to their genetics (stockpiling fat reserves was an advantage for long maritime travels, and many of them were fishermen - also, they tended to have a very, very high protein rate in their alimentation because they mostly ate fish and had little room for agriculture).
And finally, the "most varied" part, I would really love to have some source that properly studied that, because hearsay doesn't cut it. Maybe it exists, mind you, but if it does I'm quite sure "white people" is not the term that was used (as that also includes Palestinians or Berbers).
