IF we found out the origin of COVID was a leak from a Chinese lab, what should be done?

Oh boy, another genetic basis of race conversation.

The point is that, for most traits of "interest" to race-science fanboys, the variance within a race is much larger than the difference between the means of two races (if there is even any difference).

If you take a "homogenous" sample of people living around you, constrain it such that those people must -look- like you AND must have lived there for generations, you will find ~90 % of the variability relative to a similarly sized randoms sample across the entire world.

Differences in appearance just do not predict importance differences in other traits. Genetics is complicated and often counterintuitive.

I am not talking about phenotypic distributions and I didn't say "race as a construct" doesn't exist.

I said it is a cultural rather then genetic definition. You cannot look at someone's genome and say with high predictive value what race they are!

Unbiased clustering of high-coverage genetic data doesn't assort people into preexisting racial categories... so race is not some primary determinant of genetic fate/predisposition.

easyanswers wrote:

runnerboy70 wrote:

Remember when Trump suggested this came from a lab and all the libtards mocked him?

Now they're eating crow...

Orange guy says stupid and/or dishonest things everyday.

People like you believe him.

Every once in while, that person MIGHT accidentally get something right.

Third sentence doesn't cancel out the badness and stupidity of the first two.

Duh.

And no one is eating crow.

A reasonable and honest person would reflect a little and perhaps be more open-minded as to the possibel truth of 'the other dumb things'. If labelling what increasingly looks like the true origin of a virus that has killed millions and caused monumental havoc as 'fake news' doesn't make liberalists question their dogmas a little more, then there is no hope.

Mr T wrote:

easyanswers wrote:

Orange guy says stupid and/or dishonest things everyday.

People like you believe him.

Every once in while, that person MIGHT accidentally get something right.

Third sentence doesn't cancel out the badness and stupidity of the first two.

Duh.

And no one is eating crow.

A reasonable and honest person would reflect a little and perhaps be more open-minded as to the possibel truth of 'the other dumb things'. If labelling what increasingly looks like the true origin of a virus that has killed millions and caused monumental havoc as 'fake news' doesn't make liberalists question their dogmas a little more, then there is no hope.

I dont think an accidental lab leak of a natural strain (the most likely of the not zoonotic transmission option) is the earth-shattering, paradigm-shifting revelation you are claiming it to be...

2600 bro wrote:

Mr T wrote:

A reasonable and honest person would reflect a little and perhaps be more open-minded as to the possibel truth of 'the other dumb things'. If labelling what increasingly looks like the true origin of a virus that has killed millions and caused monumental havoc as 'fake news' doesn't make liberalists question their dogmas a little more, then there is no hope.

I dont think an accidental lab leak of a natural strain (the most likely of the not zoonotic transmission option) is the earth-shattering, paradigm-shifting revelation you are claiming it to be...

Then what's the point of investigating it?

Harambe wrote:

Oh boy, another genetic basis of race conversation.

The point is that, for most traits of "interest" to race-science fanboys, the variance within a race is much larger than the difference between the means of two races (if there is even any difference).

If you take a "homogenous" sample of people living around you, constrain it such that those people must -look- like you AND must have lived there for generations, you will find ~90 % of the variability relative to a similarly sized randoms sample across the entire world.

Differences in appearance just do not predict importance differences in other traits. Genetics is complicated and often counterintuitive.

You parroted the same flawed argument 2600 proposed. What difference does it make what the variance is when it's the mean and standard deviation that we're talking about? All variance is is the difference between the highest and lowest data points of a given distribution - that's just one characteristic of a distribution. Saying that the variance is higher than the difference between two means is a moot point and frankly seems like just a disingenuous attempt to stifle debate.

LOOK AT THIS (photo)GRAPH!!! Huge variance among all the race-iq distributions, but very obvious differences in mean and std. deviation

Let it Rupp wrote:

You parroted the same flawed argument 2600 proposed. What difference does it make what the variance is when it's the mean and standard deviation that we're talking about? All variance is is the difference between the highest and lowest data points of a given distribution - that's just one characteristic of a distribution. Saying that the variance is higher than the difference between two means is a moot point and frankly seems like just a disingenuous attempt to stifle debate.

LOOK AT THIS (photo)GRAPH!!! Huge variance among all the race-iq distributions, but very obvious differences in mean and std. deviation

Funny how the folks "just asking questions" about "why isn't there more research in race-science" always seem to care exclusively about races and IQ.

We all knew this was coming.

A primary mistake you make is that nothing about that graph suggests that performance on an IQ test is genetic. The whole point everyone has been making to you is that cultural and environmental factors have been implicated in test performance to a far greater degree than genetics.

You still seem to think that just because two groups look different that they must be genetically distinct.

Secondly, the a wide variance in distributions means that when you sample from them, you are quite uncertain of the value that you are going to get. This means that knowing someone's race doesn't really tell you much about their IQ!

Third the Flynn effect shows that IQs (and IQ gaps) change drastically over short periods of time. This is quite inconsistent with a genetic explanation -- you simply cannot have that much selection over 2-3 generations. This points toward environmental factors in explaining IQ and achievement gaps.

Resolving achievement gaps will require fixing environmental factors. I know the racists wish we could just write off people as genetically inferior, but the evidence is not there.

A bit comical that the COVID denier-fearmongers have managed to turn this thread into a whine-fest about race. "Why can't whites consider themselves a true master race!! I'm being canceled and silenced!!"

Good riddance.

It’s looking more and more like this virus was created in a lab. Today’s leaked Faucci emails provide further evidence for this lab theory as even Faucci himself said there are parts of the COVID genome that look man made and non-evolutionary. If you combine this was the fact that this virus first popped up near a Wuhan lab that specialized in virology and Gain-of-Function research the evidence seems pretty damning.

Do I think the Chinese government purposely let this virus leak to hurt the west? No. I think this leak was due to Chinese incompetence more than anything.

However, what I believe this Wuhan Lab situation exposes, despite what some on the left yell and scream, is that the handling of COVID was highly political in many ways. Essentially because Trump claimed the virus was created in a lab the theory was dismissed as a right wing conspiracy even though many experts have, and are now saying, this was a real possibility. This was far from the only part of COVID that was & is higly politically charged.

I've heard, read, and watched this theory from Day 1.......how is this news now??

Additionally what does his "graph" have to do with genetics? Rupp really doesn't get the science here.

A. Moran wrote:

I've heard, read, and watched this theory from Day 1.......how is this news now??

Large part of the media establishment considered the Wuhan Lab Leak a right ring/Qanon Trump driven conspiracy, not news.

Now, that Biden is president, it turns out that the lab leak is very much a real possibility. So much so that the federal government is investigating the Wuhan Lab leak idea.

2600 bro wrote:

Additionally what does his "graph" have to do with genetics? Rupp really doesn't get the science here.

The distinction between within group heritability and between group heritability is confusing, to be fair.

Yeah, I'm not sure what is to be gained from arguing about genetics when one person believes that two people that look different are not genetically different. Also, the reason IQ is brought up is because it's one of the most common and valid psychometrics we have.

No point in arguing every point either. Here's a quick study done in South Africa on race and IQ. Who could have guessed - East Asians scored the highest on average, followed by whites, followed blacks. That's the same pattern we see everywhere else. If your argument is that sociocultural factors (and 0% genetic factors), please tell me what it is about East Asians' culture in South Africa is making them so darn smart, and what is making Blacks less intelligent on average. Also, be sure to tell me why these results are consistent around the world.

Also, to be clear I am not arguing that intelligence is 100% heritable, that would be silly, I am in the hereditarian camp of 50% genetic, 50% environmental.

No one ever said they weren't genetically different. You aren't understanding this at all. It's that their genome has no predictive value (what we care about) toward IQ.

If you cannot look at someone's genome and tell me their race, then you cannot say racial differences on IQ tests have a genetic basis!

So before you make these claims you need to establish a genetic definition of race.

Just because morphology or melanin content is clustered by race doesnt say anything about other (more?) polygenic traits. It's a much bolder claim than you think it is. If you are implying some strong founder effect, linkage between physical phenotype loci and intelligence loci, or selective pressures towards cognition since human migration... you need to 1) state that 2) show some evidence.

Environment is about much more than where you live, obviously. So again, this does nothing to show a strong genetic component for between group differences.

Rushton was one of the more prolific academic racists out there. He is not even respected by the current crop of "HBD" folks.

Considering you still seem to think that you can cluster humans into meaningful genotypic groups based on appearance alone, I think we should just drop this.

fudgersyy wrote:

A. Moran wrote:

I've heard, read, and watched this theory from Day 1.......how is this news now??

Large part of the media establishment considered the Wuhan Lab Leak a right ring/Qanon Trump driven conspiracy, not news.

Now, that Biden is president, it turns out that the lab leak is very much a real possibility. So much so that the federal government is investigating the Wuhan Lab leak idea.

And those who don't think the media drives what we believe will remain silent as the rich buy the news and content providers.

Bezos will rule us all...

Reminder: a leak from a lab probably was not intentional (if it happened).

If it were determined, then I think sanctions should be imposed less for the leak in the lab (CDC has had its issues) than for the covering up of it. Also, outside inspections of all labs should occur to make sure protocols are in place and being followed. That does not mean no other leaks will ever happened, but let's decrease the chances.