White Britons to be minority IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY by 2066

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

my post...however unless yer a watcher of BBC cookery progs will require googling...

That depends, both sides are spouting lies and biased opinions, very offensively at times. There's a bit of truth buried in here if you're willing to fish it out. Though that'd be quite tedious.

Go on then...if you are telling me that Lorraine Pascale is not worth looking then I say there is no hope for you. No hope at all. NO HOPE! ZERO HOPE ALL HOPE GONE LEFT VANISHED VAMOOSED DONE GONE UP A BUGGERED ORFT! etc.

[Zaras]

God DAMN your arguments are fucking idiotic and trying too hard to live to the "Reich" part of your name.
Hot damn this is motherfucking idiotic. Could you please make an effort to actually write something intelligent for once?

I dunno dude, these remarks are pretty personal and unnecessary.

I said "your arguments", and "this" specifically referring to the post, so it's not about the poster. Don't see the issue.

[Grave_n_idle]

Point out to me where the Irish gene is located.

Um as much as I support racial equality, we are not 100% the same. There are slight differences between us, see my above post on chromosomal disorders and varied susceptibility to diseases among racial groups. Why would we have racism in the first place if we were 100% identical?

Because 'tribal' psychology tends to create divisions, even among populations that are otherwise effectively identical - so a visible marker like a phenotypical expression of genes creates an easy line on which to divide.

Racism isn't about significant differences between genepools - it's about anachronistic tribal psychology.


(Which, ironically, actually suggests that racists are less 'developed' than their immigrant neighbours).

[Zaras]

(Which, ironically, actually suggests that racists are less 'developed' than their immigrant neighbours).

I love a good irony.

[Alice Gardens]

I would just like to add one last argument about tolerance. Tolerance isn't blindly believing we're all identical. Tolerance is accepting others DESPITE our differences. Fact is, we do differ genetically from one another, maybe not to the degree where different "races" exist but enough so that there are differences. To deny these differences and to blindly throw insults and accusations against other groups, white or nonwhite (both right here in this thread) is the very definition of racism. I think it'd be wise to reflect on that before accusing someone of being wrong, stupid, and racist. It's through mutually beneficial dialogue that we improve, not through insults. Thanks.

And again, small differences in DNA kinda do matter. We share 99% of our genes with Chimpanzees but doesn't mean we're Chimpanzees now, does it?
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... enced.html

[Grave_n_idle]

I would just like to add one last argument about tolerance. Tolerance isn't blindly believing we're all identical. Tolerance is accepting others DESPITE our differences. Fact is, we do differ genetically from one another, maybe not to the degree where different "races" exist but enough so that there are differences. To deny these differences and to blindly throw insults and accusations against other groups, white or nonwhite (both right here in this thread) is the very definition of racism. I think it'd be wise to reflect on that before accusing someone of being wrong, stupid, and racist. It's through mutually beneficial dialogue that we improve, not through insults. Thanks.

And again, small differences in DNA kinda do matter. We share 99% of our genes with Chimpanzees but doesn't mean we're Chimpanzees now, does it?
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... enced.html

The debate isn't about whether there are any differences AT ALL, but about whether there are SIGNIFICANT differences.

There aren't.

(You, yourself, just cited an example of significant difference - the 1% difference between us and Chimpanzees actually makes a significant difference. On the contrary, phenotypical expression in humans, like disposition to certain shades of skin pigmentation is not significant.)

EDIT: Related, interesting read.

[Bottle]

I would just like to add one last argument about tolerance. Tolerance isn't blindly believing we're all identical. Tolerance is accepting others DESPITE our differences. Fact is, we do differ genetically from one another, maybe not to the degree where different "races" exist but enough so that there are differences. To deny these differences and to blindly throw insults and accusations against other groups, white or nonwhite (both right here in this thread) is the very definition of racism. I think it'd be wise to reflect on that before accusing someone of being wrong, stupid, and racist. It's through mutually beneficial dialogue that we improve, not through insults. Thanks.

And again, small differences in DNA kinda do matter. We share 99% of our genes with Chimpanzees but doesn't mean we're Chimpanzees now, does it?
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... enced.html

The debate isn't about whether there are any differences AT ALL, but about whether there are SIGNIFICANT differences.

There aren't.

(You, yourself, just cited an example of significant difference - the 1% difference between us and Chimpanzees actually makes a significant difference. On the contrary, phenotypical expression in humans, like disposition to certain shades of skin pigmentation is not significant.)

EDIT: Related, interesting read.

Indeed, this is what boggles me: the insinuation that all "differences" are so very important.

I don't have an identical twin, so ALL HUMANS are different from me to varying degrees. Arbitrarily picking a few features and declaring that these are the only areas in which difference or similarity matter seems pointless to me.

[Alice Gardens]

I would just like to add one last argument about tolerance. Tolerance isn't blindly believing we're all identical. Tolerance is accepting others DESPITE our differences. Fact is, we do differ genetically from one another, maybe not to the degree where different "races" exist but enough so that there are differences. To deny these differences and to blindly throw insults and accusations against other groups, white or nonwhite (both right here in this thread) is the very definition of racism. I think it'd be wise to reflect on that before accusing someone of being wrong, stupid, and racist. It's through mutually beneficial dialogue that we improve, not through insults. Thanks.

And again, small differences in DNA kinda do matter. We share 99% of our genes with Chimpanzees but doesn't mean we're Chimpanzees now, does it?
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... enced.html

The debate isn't about whether there are any differences AT ALL, but about whether there are SIGNIFICANT differences.

There aren't.

(You, yourself, just cited an example of significant difference - the 1% difference between us and Chimpanzees actually makes a significant difference. On the contrary, phenotypical expression in humans, like disposition to certain shades of skin pigmentation is not significant.)

EDIT: Related, interesting read.

That's the same link I posted... And my posts were in response to several previous ones that argued that no differences exist at all and it's all some racist, unscientific lie.

[L Ron Cupboard]

That's the same link I posted... And my posts were in response to several previous ones that argued that no differences exist at all and it's all some racist, unscientific lie.

Can you post links to these posts that say everyone is exactly the same, because I think you are just using a strawman argument? For example "Tolerance isn't blindly believing we're all identical." - who believes tolerance is about believing everyone is identical?

[Grave_n_idle]

...my posts were in response to several previous ones that argued that no differences exist at all and it's all some racist, unscientific lie.

Because realistically, that's true.

Within your 'race', there is more genetic diversity - and probably even range of phenotypical expression - than between your 'race' and another 'race'.

If the differences WITHIN one population are greater than the differences BETWEEN two populations - than there's little scientific backing for the idea of 'race'. It's a social construct based loosely on gross phenotypical markers - not a scientific fact.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's the same link I posted... And my posts were in response to several previous ones that argued that no differences exist at all and it's all some racist, unscientific lie.

Can you post links to these posts that say everyone is exactly the same, because I think you are just using a strawman argument? For example "Tolerance isn't blindly believing we're all identical." - who believes tolerance is about believing everyone is identical?

I love the idea that those are the only two alternatives - either the species is divided into hard and fast categories that justify all kinds of discriminatory reasoning... or we're all ABSOLUTELY identical.

[Bottle]

Can you post links to these posts that say everyone is exactly the same, because I think you are just using a strawman argument? For example "Tolerance isn't blindly believing we're all identical." - who believes tolerance is about believing everyone is identical?

I love the idea that those are the only two alternatives - either the species is divided into hard and fast categories that justify all kinds of discriminatory reasoning... or we're all ABSOLUTELY identical.

They do it with gender, too.

Either men and women MUST fit in to specific sorts of gender stereotypes (those which are primarily based on Western Christian culture), or else men and women are completely and totally identical in every possible way. Hence the constant harping that feminists believe there is "no difference" between a man and a woman.

Yawn.

[Alice Gardens]

Can you post links to these posts that say everyone is exactly the same, because I think you are just using a strawman argument? For example "Tolerance isn't blindly believing we're all identical." - who believes tolerance is about believing everyone is identical?

You could just go back a few pages... I don't see why I have to keep quoting past posts because you're too lazy to click a few times. But here are some (there's more though, I wasn't responding to just this):
(Also I hear this argument quite often and I'm pretty sure someone says genetic differences have been disproved early in the thread and that it's all some kind of ficiton. But I'm not going to bother reading through 20+ pages AGAIN.)

The very idea behind this is silly anyway. White Britons are no more or less British than any other citizens.

Take one of my friends for example. We'll call him Johnny for the purposes of this. Johnny's parents are from China. Johnny speaks fluent Chinese. But Johnny was born in Ireland and has lived here his whole life. He speaks Irish as well as or better than I do and has always been an Irish citizen.

So tell me. What makes Johnny any less Irish than I am?

Genetics.

Then how about some information straight from the horse's mouth? I'm a student of evolutionary biology, with a particular interest in genetics.

To begin, a quick overview of genetics. The human genome can be divided into roughly two categories; coding and non-coding. Coding regions are the ones that everyone learns about in high school - they get transcribed into mRNA via a suite of enzymes and protein complexes, which in turn get transcribed by ribosomes into proteins, which are used by the cell as everything from forming pumps and channels in cell membranes to structural components to enzymes and everything in between. But, the coding region of the human genome is very small; the Human Genome Project estimates that about 2% of the human genome is composed of these coding regions, and it is also the best-understood region of the genome as a consequence. The non-coding region, therefore, is of massive importance to the functioning of the organism.

The non-coding region, as its name suggests, is all of the genome that doesn't directly code into protein. Despite what the popular media has said about this area of the genome and its status as 'junk DNA', the vast majority of the non-coding region performs very important functions, acting as 'landing strips' for the enzymes and proteins that latch onto the DNA during replication, 'stop signs' for those same proteins to detach, promoters to increase the transcription of certain segments and inhibitors for others, as well as lengthy sequences which act as spacers to minimize the effects of accidental deletion or mutation events. There are even 'parasitic' segments of DNA called transposons that can copy themselves and 'jump' around the genome all on their own, independent of the cell at large. And all this is without going into epigenetics, or the non-DNA-based regulation and modification of the human genetic material - suffice it to say that the human genome is a marvellously complex structure that will keep biologists busy for decades yet to come.

So what does this have to do with race? Well, in this case, we have to look at how evolution acts upon the genome.

The 'substrate' upon which all evolution acts is the mutation; it is mutation that drives the differences in fitness that in turn allow species to adapt to new circumstances or be out-competed by others, and is the bedrock upon which evolutionary biology has constructed itself. Mutations are most often caused by either environmental factors (ie a mutagen or radiation) or by errors in transcription, whereby the complex machinery that copies DNA makes a mistake in replicating the DNA molecule. In most cases, the organism has mechanisms by which to catch and correct these mutations, but every so often a few get past security, so to speak, and its those that evolution works upon. Biologists have also discovered that these mutations occur at a relatively constant rate, which we'll get back to later, but also that the mutations that get past occur at random throughout the genome, without any real preference for coding or non-coding regions.

And this is where things get interesting; while mutations themselves occur at random, the effects of said mutations are highly specific to where the mutation is in the genome. Coding regions are extremely sensitive to mutation, as the proteins that they code for are highly-complex structures that require a very specific sequence of amino acids in order to properly 'fold' themselves - any change to that sequence, statistically, is much, much more likely to be detrimental to the survival of the organism, if not kill it outright, if the protein coded for is extremely important, like DNA polymerase. Thus we say that coding regions are highly conserved, evolutionarily; when we look throughout the natural world, very little in the coding regions of DNA has changed over the millenia, when compared to the remarkable diversity life shows - as an example, a sponge is therefore likely to use almost all of the same proteins as you do, despite the distance between you, because those regions are so strongly conserved.

It's when we consider non-coding regions that things get interesting. Some non-coding regions are sensitive to mutations and are thus also highly-conserved, but a significant portion of them are not; these portions can have a mutation event occur to them and function with little-to-no change in the organism's fitness. Over the generations, these regions collect mutations in specific locations along the genome, which we can track by comparing the genomes of individuals and species and plotting back when the mutation events occurred in order to construct a chronological order. It is these regions, therefore, that act as our 'clocks', allowing us to trace the lineages of organisms back hundreds of millions of years, if not more, and allow us to construct detailed relationships between species and even larger groups over geological time frames.

How does this relate to humans, exactly? Consider that if I were to sequence your genome and that of any other person on the planet, be they African or Chinese or Finnish, you would share around 99.99% of your genome with them. This means that the 2% of your genome that is a coding region is likely exactly identical to them, and that you share another 97.99% of their non-coding genome with them, and it's that ~1-0.5% that makes up the genetic difference between you.

With that in mind, I direct you to this image, taken from one of the most comprehensive studies of human genetics;

(Image)

This is what's called a phylogenetic tree. Biologists construct these trees to create a visual depiction of the genetic relatedness of various groups, plugging specific sequences of that non-coding ~1-0.5% into a computer in order to calculate the order in which the mutations in that sequence occurred and the relatedness of the groups to one another.

The decimal numbers indicate, roughly, the relatedness of each group, with higher numbers indicating a larger distance from one another and lower numbers indicating a lesser distance (A 0.0 indicating that the two populations are identical in a particular mutation [ie are homozygous] and a 1.0 meaning they are completely different [ie heterozygous]).

The important thing to note here is that all of the genetic distances, even between the most distantly-related outgroups, are very small. The largest difference, between Africans barely squeaks in towards a '1.0' in this particular mutation, but not even then does it completely diverge. The rest of the human species has drastically higher homozygosities, to the point where different populations could be identical except for only a few mutations.

And this, to end it all, is why races in humans is irrelevant. Genetically, we are all so similar that in most cases, as Henry Harpending pointed out so succinctly, the "kinship between two individuals of the same human population is equivalent to kinship between grandparent and grandchild or between half siblings".

Basically you're jumping in at the end of a thread and assuming you've already got everything figured out. At least bother to read some of it if you're going to post.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Basically you're jumping in at the end of a thread and assuming you've already got everything figured out. At least bother to read some of it if you're going to post.

I think maybe you are the one who should be reading a little more closely. Those posts don't say that everyone is exactly the same.

[Grave_n_idle]

Can you post links to these posts that say everyone is exactly the same, because I think you are just using a strawman argument? For example "Tolerance isn't blindly believing we're all identical." - who believes tolerance is about believing everyone is identical?

You could just go back a few pages... I don't see why I have to keep quoting past posts because you're too lazy to click a few times. But here are some (there's more though, I wasn't responding to just this):
(Also I hear this argument quite often and I'm pretty sure someone says genetic differences have been disproved early in the thread and that it's all some kind of ficiton. But I'm not going to bother reading through 20+ pages AGAIN.)

Genetics.

Then how about some information straight from the horse's mouth? I'm a student of evolutionary biology, with a particular interest in genetics.

To begin, a quick overview of genetics. The human genome can be divided into roughly two categories; coding and non-coding. Coding regions are the ones that everyone learns about in high school - they get transcribed into mRNA via a suite of enzymes and protein complexes, which in turn get transcribed by ribosomes into proteins, which are used by the cell as everything from forming pumps and channels in cell membranes to structural components to enzymes and everything in between. But, the coding region of the human genome is very small; the Human Genome Project estimates that about 2% of the human genome is composed of these coding regions, and it is also the best-understood region of the genome as a consequence. The non-coding region, therefore, is of massive importance to the functioning of the organism.

The non-coding region, as its name suggests, is all of the genome that doesn't directly code into protein. Despite what the popular media has said about this area of the genome and its status as 'junk DNA', the vast majority of the non-coding region performs very important functions, acting as 'landing strips' for the enzymes and proteins that latch onto the DNA during replication, 'stop signs' for those same proteins to detach, promoters to increase the transcription of certain segments and inhibitors for others, as well as lengthy sequences which act as spacers to minimize the effects of accidental deletion or mutation events. There are even 'parasitic' segments of DNA called transposons that can copy themselves and 'jump' around the genome all on their own, independent of the cell at large. And all this is without going into epigenetics, or the non-DNA-based regulation and modification of the human genetic material - suffice it to say that the human genome is a marvellously complex structure that will keep biologists busy for decades yet to come.

So what does this have to do with race? Well, in this case, we have to look at how evolution acts upon the genome.

The 'substrate' upon which all evolution acts is the mutation; it is mutation that drives the differences in fitness that in turn allow species to adapt to new circumstances or be out-competed by others, and is the bedrock upon which evolutionary biology has constructed itself. Mutations are most often caused by either environmental factors (ie a mutagen or radiation) or by errors in transcription, whereby the complex machinery that copies DNA makes a mistake in replicating the DNA molecule. In most cases, the organism has mechanisms by which to catch and correct these mutations, but every so often a few get past security, so to speak, and its those that evolution works upon. Biologists have also discovered that these mutations occur at a relatively constant rate, which we'll get back to later, but also that the mutations that get past occur at random throughout the genome, without any real preference for coding or non-coding regions.

And this is where things get interesting; while mutations themselves occur at random, the effects of said mutations are highly specific to where the mutation is in the genome. Coding regions are extremely sensitive to mutation, as the proteins that they code for are highly-complex structures that require a very specific sequence of amino acids in order to properly 'fold' themselves - any change to that sequence, statistically, is much, much more likely to be detrimental to the survival of the organism, if not kill it outright, if the protein coded for is extremely important, like DNA polymerase. Thus we say that coding regions are highly conserved, evolutionarily; when we look throughout the natural world, very little in the coding regions of DNA has changed over the millenia, when compared to the remarkable diversity life shows - as an example, a sponge is therefore likely to use almost all of the same proteins as you do, despite the distance between you, because those regions are so strongly conserved.

It's when we consider non-coding regions that things get interesting. Some non-coding regions are sensitive to mutations and are thus also highly-conserved, but a significant portion of them are not; these portions can have a mutation event occur to them and function with little-to-no change in the organism's fitness. Over the generations, these regions collect mutations in specific locations along the genome, which we can track by comparing the genomes of individuals and species and plotting back when the mutation events occurred in order to construct a chronological order. It is these regions, therefore, that act as our 'clocks', allowing us to trace the lineages of organisms back hundreds of millions of years, if not more, and allow us to construct detailed relationships between species and even larger groups over geological time frames.

How does this relate to humans, exactly? Consider that if I were to sequence your genome and that of any other person on the planet, be they African or Chinese or Finnish, you would share around 99.99% of your genome with them. This means that the 2% of your genome that is a coding region is likely exactly identical to them, and that you share another 97.99% of their non-coding genome with them, and it's that ~1-0.5% that makes up the genetic difference between you.

With that in mind, I direct you to this image, taken from one of the most comprehensive studies of human genetics;

(Image)

This is what's called a phylogenetic tree. Biologists construct these trees to create a visual depiction of the genetic relatedness of various groups, plugging specific sequences of that non-coding ~1-0.5% into a computer in order to calculate the order in which the mutations in that sequence occurred and the relatedness of the groups to one another.

The decimal numbers indicate, roughly, the relatedness of each group, with higher numbers indicating a larger distance from one another and lower numbers indicating a lesser distance (A 0.0 indicating that the two populations are identical in a particular mutation [ie are homozygous] and a 1.0 meaning they are completely different [ie heterozygous]).

The important thing to note here is that all of the genetic distances, even between the most distantly-related outgroups, are very small. The largest difference, between Africans barely squeaks in towards a '1.0' in this particular mutation, but not even then does it completely diverge. The rest of the human species has drastically higher homozygosities, to the point where different populations could be identical except for only a few mutations.

And this, to end it all, is why races in humans is irrelevant. Genetically, we are all so similar that in most cases, as Henry Harpending pointed out so succinctly, the "kinship between two individuals of the same human population is equivalent to kinship between grandparent and grandchild or between half siblings".

Basically you're jumping in at the end of a thread and assuming you've already got everything figured out. At least bother to read some of it if you're going to post.

Not sure what you think you're showing here.

L Ron Cupboard said that he thinks the idea that we're all identical is a strawman... and you 'rebut' by presenting someone saying there are differences in genetics, but nothing significant.

Can you explain how you think that's a response?

[Juristonia]

Man, I would hate to become the minority, considering how badly they tend to get treated.

If cities become "no-go zones" like in Malmo or Rotterdam than the whites will flee to villages.

All your other "so dumb it's making my brains melt" arguments have been answered already, but as someone who's actually from Rotterdam, I would love for you to even remotely attempt to back this up.
Considering housing demands here have been sky rocketing, despite having a "native" population that only takes up about 45%, this should be humorous.

[Alice Gardens]

Not sure what you think you're showing here.

L Ron Cupboard said that he thinks the idea that we're all identical is a strawman... and you 'rebut' by presenting someone saying there are differences in genetics, but nothing significant.

Can you explain how you think that's a response?

First of all, I quoted the previous quotes to put my posts in context. You were the one who asked me to post them out of your own laziness. Now you're asking why I posted those quotes? Also, I agree with some of Avenio's post where he says the differences are small but I was expanding on that by saying they can be significant since some previous posters were denying any differences existed or that these differences don't matter because they're so small. But they do, because they translate onto the macroscopic scale, such as susceptibility to different diseases and phenotype (looks are important in modern society...or will you deny that too?).

Again, this wasn't an argument for white superiority, just that saying Whites should be exterminated since they have done evil in past is racist and offensive (somewhere near the fist few pages...or I might have confused that with some other recent thread). Also, I am not backing the OP's claim that immigration is genocide, just that it can have consequences such as exacerbating the world's population growth. And that is all. Seriously, I get the feeling some of you come to forums just to insult people and feel good about yourselves instead of actually discussing things. And I'm off to play Skyrim, screw this!

[Terruana]

Gee, it sure would be horrible if an influx of foreigners changed Britain's culture...

700/600 BC The Celts invade
43 BC Emperor Cladius invades
450 AD The Anglo-Saxons invade
410 AD The Romans leave
793 AD The Vikings invade
1066 AD The Normans invade
1688 AD The Dutch invade

Or even worse, imagine if the British themselves started bringing parts of other cultures back from countries they themselves invaded! Imagine that!

[Forsakia]

Gee, it sure would be horrible if an influx of foreigners changed Britain's culture...

700/600 BC The Celts invade
43 BC Emperor Cladius invades
450 AD The Anglo-Saxons invade
410 AD The Romans leave
793 AD The Vikings invade
1066 AD The Normans invade
1688 AD The Dutch invade

Or even worse, imagine if the British themselves started bringing parts of other cultures back from countries they themselves invaded! Imagine that!

Lies, everything we have is indigenous. We took tea from Yorkshire and gave it to China and India.

[Ostroeuropa]

Gee, it sure would be horrible if an influx of foreigners changed Britain's culture...

700/600 BC The Celts invade
43 BC Emperor Cladius invades
450 AD The Anglo-Saxons invade
410 AD The Romans leave
793 AD The Vikings invade
1066 AD The Normans invade
1688 AD The Dutch invade

Or even worse, imagine if the British themselves started bringing parts of other cultures back from countries they themselves invaded! Imagine that!

It wasn't the Dutch.
It was the private retinue of William D'orange, who was our Monarch because Parliament said so. So The British Monarch and his mercenaries invaded Britain, while Parliament and the reformist lords stood by and glared at the catholic faction opposed to orange.

[Terruana]

Gee, it sure would be horrible if an influx of foreigners changed Britain's culture...

700/600 BC The Celts invade
43 BC Emperor Cladius invades
450 AD The Anglo-Saxons invade
410 AD The Romans leave
793 AD The Vikings invade
1066 AD The Normans invade
1688 AD The Dutch invade

Or even worse, imagine if the British themselves started bringing parts of other cultures back from countries they themselves invaded! Imagine that!

It wasn't the Dutch.
It was the private retinue of William D'orange, who was our Monarch because Parliament said so. So The British Monarch and his mercenaries invaded Britain, while Parliament and the reformist lords stood by and glared at the catholic faction opposed to orange.

Yeah.. but that's not really the point. They still had a significant cultural influence, and "The Dutch invade" is much pithier than explaining it in full detail.

[Ostroeuropa]

It wasn't the Dutch.
It was the private retinue of William D'orange, who was our Monarch because Parliament said so. So The British Monarch and his mercenaries invaded Britain, while Parliament and the reformist lords stood by and glared at the catholic faction opposed to orange.

Yeah.. but that's not really the point. They still had a significant cultural influence, and "The Dutch invade" is much pithier than explaining it in full detail.

Not really.
The invasion was essentially a Parliamentary coup. The only effect on the culture the Glorious Revolution had were native to the land.
(Parliament became sovereign finally, etc.)
There isn't really a "Dutch" element to the culture from that event. It's a democratic coup, you'd have seen precisely the same effect on culture regardless of where we grabbed a monarch from, since his job was to sit in the chair and not complain about what Parliament did

Like if a President kept vetoing bills and the senate+congress decided "That canadian MP is now our president. /coup." it wouldn't be a canadian invasion, nor would canadian culture take over. It'd be the senate+house taking control of the nation with a puppet.

[The Archregimancy]

Within your 'race', there is more genetic diversity - and probably even range of phenotypical expression - than between your 'race' and another 'race'.

I agree with your general point about genetic diversity being largely irrelevant to the social construct of race, but the specific quote above is not inherently and necessarily true.

It would be more accurate to state that human genetic diversity is not tied to race, but rather to distance of a human population from Africa; as a result of bottlenecks within human migration patterns there's greater human genetic diversity within subsaharan Africa than there is within all of the rest of the human population on the planet.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1978547/

Latter link compares genetic variability with cranial phenotype variation.

[Terruana]

Yeah.. but that's not really the point. They still had a significant cultural influence, and "The Dutch invade" is much pithier than explaining it in full detail.

Not really.
The invasion was essentially a Parliamentary coup. The only effect on the culture the Glorious Revolution had were native to the land.
(Parliament became sovereign finally, etc.)
There isn't really a "Dutch" element to the culture from that event. It's a democratic coup, you'd have seen precisely the same effect on culture regardless of where we grabbed a monarch from, since his job was to sit in the chair and not complain about what Parliament did

Like if a President kept vetoing bills and the senate+congress decided "That canadian MP is now our president. /coup." it wouldn't be a canadian invasion, nor would canadian culture take over. It'd be the senate+house taking control of the nation with a puppet.

Yeah, I suppose. I do recall reading somewhere that there was a large influx of Dutch folks moving to the UK after the coup, which I guess was where the cultural effect would have come from. I don't think it covered whether or not that influx would have happened anyway or not though, and I don't think it was implying a complete cultural takeover either. Meh.

[Grave_n_idle]

Also, I agree with some of Avenio's post where he says the differences are small but I was expanding on that by saying they can be significant since some previous posters were denying any differences existed or that these differences don't matter because they're so small...

Then the citations you cited don't help you - because they DON'T claim that the differences are significant, and they DON'T prove this claim that you keep making that there is absolutely no difference between people, at all.

Quite the opposite, in fact - you posted a fairly major post describing how differences are small and insignificant.

I have to say - I don't have much faith in the thought process that brought you to this argument in the first place, because you're totally misreading even simple concepts IN the thread. How can you have any faith in your preconceptions that you brought with you, when even the stuff in the thread that YOU cite, doesn't say what you want it to say?