What these race deniers do is cycle through these fallacies
in an endless loop and when you stop responding they claim "you can't address the point".
Oh look I addressed "99.9%" (one of the stupidest arguments) in the article.
Like someone said, you need proper sources - not linking to a Nazi loon article you wrote.
So called "Lewontin's fallacy" was never a fallacy regarding the 99.9%.
“There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation,” argues
Edwards, “only with the belief that it is relevant to classification.” Notice that this
claim about relevance
begs the question. Edwards believes that single-locus statistics
are not relevant to racial classification because they do not support racial
classification. The question of relevance remains unanswered. If single-locus studies
had found that populations were genetically distinct it seems as though Edwards
would consider them relevant to classification [...] "
It is not clear that ‘Lewontin’s fallacy’ is a genuine fallacy." (Hochman, 2013)
As Hochman points out: if Lewontin's study came back showing high inter-populational differentiation, Edwards would not criticize single-locus.
For non-humans Fst is used, yet when it comes to humans,
suddenly there is a different method applied by "race realists". Why?
"Genetic differences between groups develop under isolation because
lost alleles are not reintroduced, and new mutations are not spread. Under such
conditions, the kinds of genetic discontinuities develop that lead biologists to apply
the subspecies concept. These genetic discontinuities are represented by high FST
values." (Ibid.)
"
Perhaps the most obvious objection to the idea of ‘Lewontin’s fallacy,’ however,
is to point out that in
non-human biology single-locus statistics are the standard tools
used for subspecies classification." (Ibid.)
"
Sesardic claims that he is simply applying the subspecies concept from non-human to
human biology. However, this passage suggests that multilocus, rather than singlelocus
statistics are used to determine whether non-human species are divisible into
subspecies. This is misleading, as
the new multilocus clustering methods have not, to
my knowledge, been used to redefine subspecies in non-human animals." (Ibid.)
You never respond on this point because you are totally debunked.