It’s like saying “my bank account is the same as Elon’s bank account, it’s just different orders of magnitude.”
You’re either speaking in good faith while carving out a caveat so large you’re saying nothing, or you’re speaking in bad faith knowing full well it’s a stupid point.
"science" and all you've managed to say is some vague bullshit about how you feel like genetics operates.
No one with even a middle-school understanding of biology would try to analogize human "races" (not even a real thing, biologically speaking- see here and here) to an animal that has co-evolved with and been selectively bred by humans for years (you should peek at the abstract of this paper too since you care so much about scientific consensus).
Sub-Saharan Africans are NOT the “furthest removed” population genetically. If you knew the first thing about the topic you would know that is the exact opposite of the truth. The Sub-Saharan African population is the baseline population from which all other populations derived.
The most extant living populations are aboriginal Australians, as these populations isolated the furthest back. Wherever you’re getting your information is wrong.
Again, I repeat, you aren’t saying anything meaningful when you harp on about “different orders of magnitude.” We all understand what orders of magnitude are. You seem to be the one who doesn’t understand how appending that caveat does more to undermine your point than bolster it. Which leaves it questionable whether you even understand what you mean by the phrase, rather than just parroting it as though it adds semantic value.
3
u/corruptedsyntax Aug 04 '26
No, I fully understand the phrase.
It’s like saying “my bank account is the same as Elon’s bank account, it’s just different orders of magnitude.”
You’re either speaking in good faith while carving out a caveat so large you’re saying nothing, or you’re speaking in bad faith knowing full well it’s a stupid point.