← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Conservative
Thread ID: 9060 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2003-08-16
2003-08-16 01:15 | User Profile
The following is from [url=http://www.adversity.net/FRAMES/Editorials/54_Paler_Shade_of_Black.htm]http://www.adversity.net/FRAMES/Editorials...de_of_Black.htm[/url]
We're ALL Black -- According to Geneticists! (Nov. 2002) Reproduced in its entirety with permission. Editorial by Linda Beckerman, Ph.D.
Original Title: A Paler Shade of Black é Linda Beckerman, Ph.D.
The jig is up. Thanks to the genetics revolution we now know that there is no such thing as race. The Human Genome Project (HGP) has determined unequivocally that there is the same amount of genetic variation among individuals within a so called racial group as there is between individuals in different racial groups. What that means is that there is no real genetic difference between blacks and whites or between whites and Asians or between any of the so called races.
Complete article is at [url=http://www.adversity.net/FRAMES/Editorials/54_Paler_Shade_of_Black.htm]http://www.adversity.net/FRAMES/Editorials...de_of_Black.htm[/url]
2003-08-16 10:27 | User Profile
It is getting boring about all these "scientific proofs" that there is no racial difference between various populations. The civilizational gap between Europe and Africa is so evident that it really boffles my mind that people can't see it. Obviously white people only believe something then it is written on paper. Like, I only notice a difference between Africa and Europe if the scientific community can prove it to me that a difference exists. I guess only white people fall for the complete abstract view on the world. No other race is so susceptable to ideology like whites.
2003-08-16 15:47 | User Profile
And the jews know this and use it against us.
2003-08-17 04:23 | User Profile
Nuts, People share practically the same genes with chimpanzees - humans and chimpanzees can even have offspring (try "Humanzee" in your search engine). Ask an Israeli, an African American and an Oriental if race exists and they'll each agree that he is a seperate race from the other two, and in addition that whites are a race. The so called almost nonexistent differences at the genetic level are pretty significant when expressed in real flesh and blood and it doesn't take a college degree to sense nature. :y
2003-08-17 07:24 | User Profile
This article is well rebutted at [url=http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/tab.htm]http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/tab.htm[/url]
Diamond offered a more colorful version of an argument advanced in 1972 by Richard Lewontin, a Harvard University geneticist. Lewontin had become convinced that virtually all meaningful differences between races are either random or culturally determined. Based on his review of the available data, he concluded that only a tiny fraction of the differences between individuals could be considered "racial." In other words, Lewontin maintained that the differences that separate "races" are little more than what distinguishes two random fans at a World Cup match--statistically nothing, genetically speaking. The article, published in the prestigious journal Evolutionary Biology, amounted to a frontal attack on the concept of race.
For sure genetic differences between any two individuals are extremely small in percentage terms. Coming from a geneticist, rather than a sociologist or anthropologist, Lewontin's article had enormous influence, although not everyone was convinced. Lewontin's finding that on average humans share 99.8 percent of genetic material and that any two individuals are apt to share considerably more than 90 percent of this shared genetic library is on target. Interpreting that data is another issue, however. Lewontin's analysis suffers both scientifically and politically.
Although the politics of a scientist is not necessarily an issue in evaluating their work, in Lewontin's case it is crucial. According to his own account, his sensibilities were catalyzed by the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He made it very clear that his science was in part a mission to reaffirm our common humanity. To geneticists and biologists with less of an avowed agenda, Lewontin appeared to leaven his conclusion with his personal ideology.
From a scientific perspective, Lewontin and those that have relied on his work have reached beyond the data to some tenuous conclusions. In fact the percentage of differences is a far less important issue than which genes are different. Even minute differences in DNA can have profound effects on how an animal or human looks and acts while huge apparent variations between species may be almost insignificant in genetic terms. Consider the cichlid fish, which can be found in Africa's Lake Nyas. The cichlid, which has differentiated from one species to hundreds over a mere 11,500 years, "differ among themselves as much as do tigers and cows," Jared Diamond has noted. "Some graze on algae, others catch other fish, and still others variously crush snails, feed on plankton, catch insects, nibble the scales off other fish, or specialize in grabbing fish embryos from brooding mother fish." The kicker, these variations are the result of infinitesimal genetic differences--about 0.4 percent of their DNA studied.
In humans too, it is not the percentage of genes that is most critical, but whether and how the genes impact our physiology or behavior. Diamond mused that if an alien were to arrive on our planet and analyze our DNA, humans would appear, from a genetic perspective, as a third race of chimpanzees. Although it is believed they took a different evolutionary path from humans only five million years ago, chimps share fully 98.4 percent of our DNA. Just 50 out of 100,000 genes that humans and chimps are thought to possess--or a minuscule 0.3 percent--may account for all of the cognitive differences between man and ape. For that matter, dogs share about 95 percent of our genome; even the tiny roundworm, barely visible to the naked eye, share about 74 percent of its genes with humans.
Most mammalian genes, as much as 70 percent, are "junk" that have accumulated over the course of evolution with absolutely no remaining function; whether they are similar or different is meaningless. But the key 1.4 percent of regulatory genes can and do have a huge impact on all aspects of our humanity. In other words, small genetic differences do not automatically translate into trivial bodily or behavioral variations. The critical factor is not which genes are passed along but how they are patterned and what traits they influence.
Lewontin did collate genetic variability from known genetic markers and find that most of it lay within and not between human populations. Numerous scientists since have generalized those findings to the entire human genome, yet no such study has been done. Now it is believed that such an inference is dicey at best. The trouble with genetic markers is that they display "junk" variability that sends a signal that variability within populations exceeds variability between populations. However, the "junk" DNA that has not been weeded out by natural selection accounts for a larger proportion of within-population variability. Genetic makers may therefore be sending an exaggerated and maybe false signal. In contrast, the harder-to-study regulatory genes (that circumscribe our physical and athletic abilities) signal that between-group variability is far larger than has been believed. In other words, human populations are genetically more different than Lewontin and others who have relied on his work realize.
2003-08-17 21:42 | User Profile
I told you that we were all one race, Tex!! [Tex didn't believe Uncle Franco]... :D
"Embrace diversity -- unless you live in Israel." -- Rabbi Joseph Silvergoldrosenbloom
2003-08-17 21:53 | User Profile
[color=red]Ok Mr Franco - This isn't a race? [/color]
[img]http://www.i3mm.com/~guest2/NYart.jpg[/img]
[color=blue]Holy sh*t - These things are the missing link between man and reptile[/color]
[img]http://www.i3mm.com/~guest2/235rfwq.jpg[/img]
2003-08-17 22:48 | User Profile
Milk is 99% water, as is apple juice and swamp water. Apparently the devil is in the details!
It is extremely dispiriting to realize that the great mass of adults are incapable of seeing through these transparently fraudulent arguments. In a healthy society they would not even impose upon those freshly out of diapers.
What sort of imbecile could possibly confound a boot lipped congoid/canting Jew with a ruddy faced Scotsman/honorable Norseman? Or, more significantly, the works of the former with those of the lattter?
Two different classes of object may very well produce the same output - but two presumably IDENTICAL classes of object LOGICALLY MAY NOT.
I guess A. Linder was right - an American (feel free to substitute 'Western European' as needed) would rather die than endure the unbearable pain of THINKING.
2003-08-17 22:52 | User Profile
NB Zounds and Gadzooks! Tex's autocensor interfered mightily with my alliterative artistry. The phrase in question should have been 'Canting K*kes'.
2003-08-18 15:20 | User Profile
Jeez, Skunk, where do you get these pictures? Uglyzhid.com?
2003-08-18 17:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ares@Aug 16 2003, 01:15 * ** ... The Human Genome Project (HGP) has determined unequivocally that there is the same amount of genetic variation among individuals within a so called racial group as there is between individuals in different racial groups. What that means* is that there is no real genetic difference between blacks and whites or between whites and Asians or between any of the so called races. ... **
Ares, your conclusion doesn't follow at all. Think about it. :nerd:
2003-08-19 01:52 | User Profile
Yes, blacks and whites are the same race. Blacks are dark just because they're full of sh!t. I think it would be far kinder to blame genetic differences for dark skin.
2003-08-19 19:36 | User Profile
I just wonder how the same people that claim that there are no racial differences are the same people that claim that homosexuality is rather inborn than adopted.