>>953986>You assume everything Darwin theorized was true? That's not scientific, it's religious.No you fucking midwit retard, this is based on 100+ years of scientific development post darwin. Global population studies. Genetic sequencing. Psychological and sociological data. We know which genes influence behavior and intelligence, we know that the genes for, say, high intelligence (a prerequisite for functioning civilization) are overrepresented in certain groups (whites, asians, jews, etc) and underrepresented in others (subsaharan africa). This is one of dozens of examples.
Then there's genetic susceptability to disease. In addition to other tidbits, like being able to discern race with nearly 100% certainty from skeletal, hell, facial structure alone.
>talking pointsYet you haven't said a single thing to refute them, beyond this hand wavy "aren't different enough". Like nigger, do you understand how genealogy works? The fact that you can determine geographic province with such certainty exclusively from genetic data is enough to categorize humans, and obviously it predicts FAR MORE than skin color.
Here, because you're such a pathetic midwit, let me help you: what you're trying to say is that there is no way to classify humans such that race is a valid predictor of anything more than skin color.
Spoiler: poverty isn't the reason that everywhere niggers go, violence follows. We already know of hundreds of genes which directly influence behavior. Look up the warrior gene, it's much newer than Darwin and it completely changes the metabolism of monoamines which play a direct role in emotion and behavior.
You are the one who does not know what he's talking about, naively substituting a lifetime of propaganda for research or understanding. I'd pity you if you people weren't so militant about your ignorance. Races unambiguously exist. To deny as much is anti-scientific. Deal with it, faggot.
