No.496288
>>496240>By watching the course of human events or studying them retrospectively? How do you think we got to hismat?Exactly. It can't be scientifically tested. it's just a series of educated guesses
No.496289
>>496287>Muh HARD SCIENCES Doesn’t explain why it’s not falsified or falsifiable
>If the model cannot predict reality Even stoichiometry is probabilistic
>>496288>We can RCT history No.496290
>>496289>Doesn’t explain why it’s not falsified or falsifiableIt is falsifiable, you can take take measurements of a distillation column and predict the vapor and liquid fractions in the reflex and reboilier. Since these variables can be verified as matching or not, means the model is falsifiable. And you keep doing experiments and changing your model, until it can reliably predict.
>Even stoichiometry is probabilistic stoichiometry is falsifiable and can predict reality because it is the mathematical ratios of a chemical equation, a scientific model.
No.496291
>>496290Math isn’t falsifiable. Or rather, mathematical laws are not.
And your distillation example is also not an example of falsification, you wouldn’t falsify your entire model of chemical processes from one test or failure to replicate and discard or tweak the model. Especially when there could be something wrong with the equipment
No.496292
>>4962881) No proof as to why it can’t be scientifically tested or what does that even mean
2) Falsifiability is not “can it be tested”
No.496293
>>496239>Delusional Brazilians who think they're white aren't white according to DNA testingHow does this prove that race isn't real? This is what happens when retards who don't even know the basics of scientific theory go on pubmed looking for papers to use in online arguments. You don't even know what the fuck you're reading do you? I can read a quantum physics paper and even tell you a few things from it, but that doesn't mean that I know what I'm looking at or can judge whether on not it's a good research paper.
No.496294
>>496293>Quote-mining from the very beginning of a paper Look, we get that you’re trying to make yourself seem more clever than you really are, but this ain’t it, chief
No.496295
>>496287>Do you honestly believe that chemical process modeling in non falsifiable? It's a HARD scienceYes, this is literally part of the controversy in regards to falsifiability in science. Multiple fields don't untilzie it at all, and one of those that don't put much importance to it is chemistry, which instead uses analysis and synthesis and the creation of certain models to operate. Not even the theory of evolution is something which is falsifiable by Poppers standards, which is why he initially said it was unscientific before he had to try and walk it back.
>>496293Race isn't a thing utilized in any clinical setting, and it has no basis in any legitimate "scientific theory" of genetics. Ancestry is a thing that is used, but that is not the same thing.
No.496297
>>496295NTA, but could you go into a bit more detail about what you mean by chemical modeling and what renders it unfalsifiable?
No.496298
>>496297Models are very different from theories. Models are schematic representations of reality thay assist in us understanding it and possibly making certain predictions regarding it, and lack the fully explanatory scope of theories. Most models are not entirely "complete", and are instead just generally describe phenomena and represent systems of things. What exactly are you falsifying when you are synthesizing a completely new molecule or substance? What is there to falsify when you are just using various models in the creative development of a drug? Are you falsifying literally every scientific theory in regards to how atoms work when you do so? No, that's not what you are going out of your way to do at all.
No.496299
>>496298Oh okay, many thanks, anon
No.496301
>>496300Cable news is not medical or even pop literature. Do you know what actual medical literature says about this?
No.496303
>>496302>Screenshots and not the actual articleLiterally one guy. But this is some big brave man fighting against the politically correct establishment, isn’t it?
Now, do you know what actual physicians and medical literature says about race and organ transplants?
No.496304
>>496302>>496303This is a 20-year-old New York Times article, not actual genetics research literature. And this guy isn’t a doctor, he’s a population geneticist trying to argue that his point of value is actually relevant to medicine.
No.496305
>>496303>Now, do you know what actual physicians and medical literature says about race and organ transplants?Yes, very low chance of success, even with matching rH groups. Now that that's out of the way why can't you accept racial differences? Non whites simply do not want to live with white people unless it's economically necessary. Even principles Marxists of color would grab a rifle to shoot their white comrades if they caught them with one of their women, even the non white posters here say so.
No.496306
>>496305>Refuses to provide scientific article proof, claims to have studied genetics>Continues to project his feelings of being cuckolded and emasculated by black men through fabricated stories Why can’t you accept that your sexual insecurity and narcissism isn’t a substitute for actual political, social and economic knowledge?
No.496307
>>496306>Refuses to provide scientific article proof,What;s the point> You'll just ignore it like my refutation of Lewontin because you don't know what you're reading.
>>Continues to project his feelings of being cuckolded and emasculated by black men through fabricated stories What I described isn't cuckolding. What I described was racial self defense. If I was shot in self defense by a black man for fucking a black chick then I would've been the one doing the cucking.
No.496308
>>496305>even the non white posters here say so<He can see what imageboard randos’’ races are Guaranteed the one flagposter/tripposter confirmed to be nonwhite here that I know you’ve interacted with were talking about you, not white people general, and he just thought that you’d deserve it for being so much of a manosphere reject race autist.
No.496309
>>496307>Racial Self-DefenseKek. How does it feel knowing that you can’t stop white women from fucking nonwhite men. Perhaps even the white women in your life.
By the way, of all your stories, has it occurred to you that the common detail wasn’t the race of the other me, but that they were interested in said girl? Because it might have taken you being a little less autistic, or rather being able to bed a woman in the first place, to realize that you didn’t run into some truth about races and sex, but just got into some petty squabbles over women.
> Lewontin’s Fallacy is the only card I got, I, someone who studies genetics Here was an opportunity to blow me out of the water with “race is genetically relevant in medecine”, but ypu can’t even do that, save for posting popular news articles and not actual science.
No.496310
>>496309It wasn't just a random op ed, they cited an actual scientist. If want to read more from him you can just google his name
> How does it feel knowing that you can’t stop white women from fucking nonwhite menDon't care about nasty low value slampigs burning coal. A lot of escorts and craigslist whores straight up say "No black, Arab, or Indian men"
>but that they were interested in said girl?That's false. I've been given shit by random dudes for mingling with women of their race. It's different than stealing a girl on the dance floor. This is why spoon feeding research papers is a fools errand. You can't read. I tried it in the other thread and it didn't work because you people aren't proficient enough in biology to be reading those papers
No.496311
>>496310Again with the refusal to use actual scientific articles. And the “Someone gave me a dirty look, they’re gonna jam my testicles in my eyesockets”.
>I don’t care about slags dating black men. These prostitutes and hookup services totally refuse to fuck black people<Implying the only white women that exist, much less fuck black men are ugly slags, call girls or hookup serviceaSounds like sour grapes. Or an inability to do racial self-defense.
No.496312
>>496310>This is why spoon feeding research papers is a fools errand. You can't read. I tried it in the other thread and it didn't work because you people aren't proficient enough in biology to be reading those papers<It’a not that I don’t understand, it’s that they’re just too dumb Why cope?
No.496313
>>496312The problem is that I understand and you don't
No.496314
>>496313>He understands<Which is why he refuses to post actual scientific literature and journal articlesWho do you think you’re kidding?
No.496315
>>496314I've posted them before in the ancom sperg thread but you couldn't read them then so how are you going to read them now?
No.496316
>>496315>I got btfo before, so now I’m gonna pretend otherwise Posturing without proof. Very beta male behavior
No.496317
>>496316 I soundly refuted your lewontists bullshit before, you just don't when to quit.
No.496319
>>496318I already posted the paper by Edwards and all you did was cry. If it wasn't true I wouldn't have said it so anyone who contradicts is automatically arguing in bad faith
No.496320
Before the mod sperged out someone naively asked "What if two people of different races just fall in love?" Nobody just falls in love, that just doesn't happen. Love is an investment not a disease you just catch. Listen to a black woman on the issue
https://twitter.com/search?q=ericaleshai%20interracial&src=typed_query No.496321
>>496319>I posted the paper by EdwardsWhat does tracing ancestry groups to geographic locations have to do with race?
No.496322
>>496321Because those ancestry groups are races. The only counterarguments are "These genetically distinct groups aren't race"
No.496323
>>496322>There is a german and russian race, not a white race Thank you for the concession
No.496324
>>496323Those groups aren't far enough apart to be different races; nice try though.
No.496325
>>496324>These groups aren’t far apart enough to be different racesDon’t switch goalposts. According to whom? And what does it mean to be far apart?
No.496327
>>496311>Or an inability to do racial self-defense.More like I'm not going to prison over it. I'm sure the non white men who've seen me or other white guys with their girls have had brief fantasies in that back of their heads about unloading a glock into me or the offending white man. A little while ago I had to pull out this baby because I was out on the town with a few brown chicks and some "youths" accosted us and started getting aggressive
>>496325How did I switch goalposts
>According to whom?Edwards and other geneticists. You can do your own research. I know you'll hand waive away anything I give you. You can find tons of articles and paper son how Europe is very genetically homogeneous.
>And what does it mean to be far apart?Genetically different.
No.496329
>>496327That ain’t your gun, quit fooling
No.496337
>>496319https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/#!po=1.04167> A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.Race isn’t clinically useful at the very least
> The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.An example of this is the distribution of both genetic diseases across populations and successful organ donation rates which can vary depending on the organ being donated.
Livers: Mostly doesn’t matter
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2954674/Kidneys: Some Racial Differences, but asian and latino recipients actually have more successful transplant rates from black and white donor kidneys compared even to same-race transplantation from white to white or black to black
No.496341
>>496337A few hundred loci isn't much.
No.496344
>>496341The paper basically debunked itself
>Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations. No.496346
>>496344>The paper “debunked” itselfNot how it works. For someone who studies biology you don’t seem to understand how to read journals. You’re assuming a hypothesis that isn’t presented in the paper
1) Again, geographic ancestral groups =/= race and the authors are very clear about it, especially for clinical applications
2) They mention that this “thousands of loci” thing is only true if you sample only a few specific populations and not the world at large. Essentially, that’s saying that if you sample Hutus, Danes and Mongolians using thousands of Loci, and not any other groups that may possibly be in-between. More importantly, the Richards paper used only a few hundred loci to try and establish “Lewontin’s Fallacy”, Rosenberg (2002) used 377 and the Authors themselves said the minimum threshold is around 100 Loci and can determine geographic ancestry with 100% accuracy.
Saying that “a few hundred loci isn’t much” is what we scientifically call a cope. Just like how geographic ancestry is the same as race.
No.496350
>>496346>Again, geographic ancestral groups =/= race and the authors are very clear about itExcept they're not
>used 377 and the Authors themselves said the minimum threshold is around 100 Loci and can determine geographic ancestry with 100% accuracy.Using c and not ω, ω is more accurate.
n such cases, ω becomes zero. Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci.
Unique IPs: 15