YOU SAID: Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease found most frequently in sub-Saharan Africans, particularly West Africans. ME: Right. MOSTLY. It increases with prolonged (generational) exposure to malaria, was common in much more common Southern Europe when malaria was common there and disappears rapidly from a population... what's this have to do with intelligence? YOU SAID: If you were in a crowd of mixed Nigerians and Swedes and you were looking for examples of people with sickle-cell anemia, you would have no trouble determining which population to test, nor would you have any trouble identifying the appropriate subjects based off superficial traits like skin color. ME: So what? Irrelevant. Does being a carrier for sickle-cell, which can occurr in any "race" make you dumb? YOU: No one is denying the existence of smart Africans. ME: In a way, I am. African as a genetic population is meaningless. There might be a link between genes and intelligence but you would first have to prove that with populations who are related genetically. Africans are not related genetically, as I said ten times. You don't seem to get the point. YOU: Genes are not evenly distributed among various races. ME: And genes are not distributed evenly between a town in Zaire and another in Namibia. And if you don't know the "race" of the populations you would never know is the group is in China or Peru. YOU: Yes, Tay-Sach is located most frequently in a particular ethnic group, Ashkenazic Jews - proof that you don't even have to go to the level of major races of the world to find genetic variation among identifiable ethnic groups. ME: What do you mean "don't even" have to go the major race -- I'm saying you CANNOT go to "major races." You missed the point again, genus. 
YOU: We are talking about the evolution of intelligence here and you've presented no evidence that characteristic must have necessarily evolved equally among all races in equal measure. ME: I have argued that intelligence is pretty damn unlikely to be linked to race since there is as much genetic diversity about "blacks" as among the entire rest of the world. Also, Europeans split from some group of Africans maybe 40,000 years ago. One group of Africans split from another group before that. So, East and West Africa are further apart than some part of Africa and Europe. Why would intelligence occur in groups that left Africa time and time again but independently from one another but not in groups that move from place to place within Africa.
 YOU: Mitochondrial DNA has no known function... ME: It has a function but is used for tracing genetic links since it is only inhereted from the mother. I called you out for "BASE PAIRS" since you didn't seem to understand what DNA I, and everyone who does population genetics, means by mtDNA. YOU: Your previous insinuation that small amounts of genetic variation between different populations cannot make a difference, or that larger overall differences between certain groups must necessarily make a difference, is what is not only irrelevant but entirely wrong. ME: You must have me confused with someone else. I have been trying to get you understand that "race" is a social not a genetic construct. I never mentioned small amount of difference between races because I don't think talking about the genetic difference between races makes any sense if there is more difference within one race than within all the others combined. If you understood my point, you could argue with me. You are arguing against what you think I probably meant, not what I said. YOU: I never claimed evolution stopped in Africa. I indicated that selective pressures for intelligence have not been as great in Africa as elsewhere, just as selective pressures for blond hair and blue eyes hasn't been as great in sub-Saharan Africa as in, for example, northern Europe. 
ME: Okay, the eyes has to do with dark and the skin color with vitamin D. Why would intelligence be selected independently many times outside of Africa but never within? Makes no sense. YOU: Save the ad hominem. Sorry, but you haven't ripped anyone. You're demonstrably wrong and now you're simply sputtering. ME: You took elements of logical reasoning when you were a freshman in college and learned "ad honinem" and "fallacy." Congrats. But you don't even understand what population genetics is and you are dumb as shit. And a racist. How's that for Ad Honinem, you igornant piece of shit.
 YOU: I'm not interested in your personal life or your opinion of yourself. I'm interested in the topic at hand. Thanks. ME: Then try to understand what I said, if you can. So far, you are arguing issues I did not raise.