Second Video

Argues from "consensus" we have our own surveys

http://archive.is/iyMCx

11:00 kraut’s expert demonstrates that the source he’s using denies race because it’s controversial
/there is absolutely no reason to take the so called social effects of categorization into account in science. This is direct supporting of censoring science and betrays the motivation behind the entire video/
http://archive.is/bySB2

Also argues that using an average is neglecting overlap
http://archive.is/M3r81

And that the continuum negates race.

And that race is just appearance

even if we grant race is arbitrary we can still identify these groups and measure differences. A gotcha at best. But not even, imo, we know what race means and we know other people do to. So it makes sense to use it

If you think race is ambiguous...http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/10/01/a-list-of-26-species-concepts/

And his expert made a strange argument that we have to link intelligence differences with the genes involved in more superficial differences between the races. Vernaculis, who isnt an expert, tried this too. He seemed to claim that the genes which give someone black skin need to be what is behind their lower IQs. Nope.

Incorrect definitions of how species and subspecies are defined and categorized, just to muddy the waters. Sub-species can interbreed. Some species can too (lions and tigers, humans and neandertals) and produce fertile offspring. Despite species supposed to refer to the largest set that can breed together.
Insistence on rigid categorization which isnt quite real https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies#Criteria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Attempts_at_definition http://archive.is/SGhOQ

And fairly clear race is close to subspecies and is at worst an informal classification in a field with messy classifications
http://archive.is/iV8Ki


Conflating race with this warped definition of subspecies to obfuscate

Vee used lewontin to defend this
https://books.google.ro/books?hl=en&lr=&id=R2TTBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA381&dq=R.C.+Lewontin+(1972)+genetics&ots=Ay-AaVDqLY&sig=chFta470TgxYaCCkap7vjPMzKTE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false


12 25 expert says it’s only acceptable to use race when the advantages overweigh the disadvantages
/the same guy who was claiming race isn’t measurable before now uses something that vague as a rule
He’s referring to the disadvantages of social exclusion, a myth, that can be claimed to be of any weight and thus justifying all censorship
Kraut justifies censorship on the subject in this video while completely ignoring the subject is censored through out his videos when claiming he can’t find sources that are actually not promoted enough for him to find in his casual search, like sources on r/K on humans he couldn’t find and used his failure to do so as an argument/

And lied about what alternative hypothesis was claiming
http://archive.is/rHt6Y
The point about the genetic variation. Alt-Hype shows that animal species have about as much genetic variation as humans. The difference is that these animal species have subspecies, whereas humans do not. The point being that humans have so much genetic variation that "races" could be classified as subspecies, if it weren't taboo because raycism.

Kraut then takes this data, and assumes Alt-Hype said that there is a correlation between genetic variation and subspecies. They never said this, but this is what Kraut argues against, completely missing the entire point. Then he proceeds to show there is no mathematical correlation (that's sort of the entire point, humans don't have subspecies precisely because it's politically incorrect, although genetic variation would legitimize this view)

Usually when people strawman arguments, it's because the original argument is too difficult to rebut. Kraut does this because he doesn't understand the original argument.

Also, the expert's argument was literally a meme. Reminds me of creationists finding biologists who arent darwinists

>donkeys and horses are the subspecies of a same species

And the sickle cell thing, that it's all due to adaptation to the environment, only impedes race realism if it was endorsing a lamarckian or lysenkoist worldview. Darwinian selection would say that the same environment shaped their brains based on what they needed to be fit.