Replies

While the markers may not be structural or regulatory genes, they are part of the genome (something you apparently don't understand). Just because we (in our ignorance) have not yet figured out what all these particular base sequences in the DNA molecule mean, doesn't mean they are not part of our genetics.

And, although I quoted from the article, I also quoted from the study itself--which you, of course, ignored ("self-reported population ancestry likely provides a suitable proxy for genetic ancestry").

But never-you-mind: keep denying reality and recite the mantra: "blank slate, all environment, no genetic difference between groups or individuals that's meaningful, etc. etc."

You do not understand the difference between gene and part of the genome. NOt every thing part of the genome is a gene.

Now, you are quite ignorant and apparently indifferent to knowledge or accuracy.

You have problems. Nothing I am saying is controversial or something anyone should take umbrage at.

You could even learn something.

But never-you-mind: keep denying reality and recite the mantra: "blank slate, all environment, no genetic difference between groups or individuals that's meaningful, etc. etc."

I never said any of this. Nor did I ever imply any of it.

It does point out a bit where you are coming from and why you have problems discussing science dispassionately.