NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone who reads the whole article will get a cookie


A Family Tree in Every Gene

By Armand Marie Leroi*

Published: March 14, 2005, The New York Times, p. A23.

London — Shortly after last year's tsunami devastated the lands on the Indian Ocean, The Times of India ran an article with this headline: "Tsunami May Have Rendered Threatened Tribes Extinct." The tribes in question were the Onge, Jarawa, Great Andamanese and Sentinelese—all living on the Andaman Islands—and they numbered some 400 people in all. The article, noting that several of the archipelago's islands were low-lying, in the direct path of the wave, and that casualties were expected to be high, said, "Some beads may have just gone missing from the Emerald Necklace of India."

The metaphor is as colorful as it is well intentioned. But what exactly does it mean? After all, in a catastrophe that cost more than 150,000 lives, why should the survival of a few hundred tribal people have any special claim on our attention? There are several possible answers to this question. The people of the Andamans have a unique way of life. True, their material culture does not extend beyond a few simple tools, and their visual art is confined to a few geometrical motifs, but they are hunter-gatherers and so a rarity in the modern world. Linguists, too, find them interesting since they collectively speak three languages seemingly unrelated to any others. But The Times of India took a slightly different tack. These tribes are special, it said, because they are of "Negrito racial stocks" that are "remnants of the oldest human populations of Asia and Australia."

It's an old-fashioned, even Victorian, sentiment. Who speaks of "racial stocks" anymore? After all, to do so would be to speak of something that many scientists and scholars say does not exist. If modern anthropologists mention the concept of race, it is invariably only to warn against and dismiss it. Likewise many geneticists. "Race is social concept, not a scientific one," according to Dr. Craig Venter—and he should know, since he was first to sequence the human genome. The idea that human races are only social constructs has been the consensus for at least 30 years.

But now, perhaps, that is about to change. Last fall, the prestigious journal Nature Genetics devoted a large supplement to the question of whether human races exist and, if so, what they mean. The journal did this in part because various American health agencies are making race an important part of their policies to best protect the public—often over the protests of scientists. In the supplement, some two dozen geneticists offered their views. Beneath the jargon, cautious phrases and academic courtesies, one thing was clear: the consensus about social constructs was unraveling. Some even argued that, looked at the right way, genetic data show that races clearly do exist.

The dominance of the social construct theory can be traced to a 1972 article by Dr. Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, who wrote that most human genetic variation can be found within any given "race." If one looked at genes rather than faces, he claimed, the difference between an African and a European would be scarcely greater than the difference between any two Europeans. A few years later he wrote that the continued popularity of race as an idea was an "indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge." Most scientists are thoughtful, liberal-minded and socially aware people. It was just what they wanted to hear.

Three decades later, it seems that Dr. Lewontin's facts were correct, and have been abundantly confirmed by ever better techniques of detecting genetic variety. His reasoning, however, was wrong. His error was an elementary one, but such was the appeal of his argument that it was only a couple of years ago that a Cambridge University statistician, A. W. F. Edwards, put his finger on it.

The error is easily illustrated. If one were asked to judge the ancestry of 100 New Yorkers, one could look at the color of their skin. That would do much to single out the Europeans, but little to distinguish the Senegalese from the Solomon Islanders. The same is true for any other feature of our bodies. The shapes of our eyes, noses and skulls; the color of our eyes and our hair; the heaviness, height and hairiness of our bodies are all, individually, poor guides to ancestry.

But this is not true when the features are taken together. Certain skin colors tend to go with certain kinds of eyes, noses, skulls and bodies. When we glance at a stranger's face we use those associations to infer what continent, or even what country, he or his ancestors came from—and we usually get it right. To put it more abstractly, human physical variation is correlated; and correlations contain information.

Genetic variants that aren't written on our faces, but that can be detected only in the genome, show similar correlations. It is these correlations that Dr. Lewontin seems to have ignored. In essence, he looked at one gene at a time and failed to see races. But if many—a few hundred—variable genes are considered simultaneously, then it is very easy to do so. Indeed, a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia—more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.

One of the minor pleasures of this discovery is a new kind of genealogy. Today it is easy to find out where your ancestors came from—or even when they came, as with so many of us, from several different places. If you want to know what fraction of your genes are African, European or East Asian, all it takes is a mouth swab, a postage stamp and $400—though prices will certainly fall.

Yet there is nothing very fundamental about the concept of the major continental races; they're just the easiest way to divide things up. Study enough genes in enough people and one could sort the world's population into 10, 100, perhaps 1,000 groups, each located somewhere on the map. This has not yet been done with any precision, but it will be. Soon it may be possible to identify your ancestors not merely as African or European, but Ibo or Yoruba, perhaps even Celt or Castilian, or all of the above.

The identification of racial origins is not a search for purity. The human species is irredeemably promiscuous. We have always seduced or coerced our neighbors even when they have a foreign look about them and we don't understand a word. If Hispanics, for example, are composed of a recent and evolving blend of European, American Indian and African genes, then the Uighurs of Central Asia can be seen as a 3,000-year-old mix of West European and East Asian genes. Even homogenous groups like native Swedes bear the genetic imprint of successive nameless migrations.

Some critics believe that these ambiguities render the very notion of race worthless. I disagree. The physical topography of our world cannot be accurately described in words. To navigate it, you need a map with elevations, contour lines and reference grids. But it is hard to talk in numbers, and so we give the world's more prominent features—the mountain ranges and plateaus and plains—names. We do so despite the inherent ambiguity of words. The Pennines of northern England are about one-tenth as high and long as the Himalayas, yet both are intelligibly described as mountain ranges.

So, too, it is with the genetic topography of our species. The billion or so of the world's people of largely European descent have a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else; they are a race. At a smaller scale, three million Basques do as well; so they are a race as well. Race is merely a shorthand that enables us to speak sensibly, though with no great precision, about genetic rather than cultural or political differences.

But it is a shorthand that seems to be needed. One of the more painful spectacles of modern science is that of human geneticists piously disavowing the existence of races even as they investigate the genetic relationships between "ethnic groups." Given the problematic, even vicious, history of the word "race," the use of euphemisms is understandable. But it hardly aids understanding, for the term "ethnic group" conflates all the possible ways in which people differ from each other.

Indeed, the recognition that races are real should have several benefits. To begin with, it would remove the disjunction in which the government and public alike defiantly embrace categories that many, perhaps most, scholars and scientists say do not exist.

Second, the recognition of race may improve medical care. Different races are prone to different diseases. The risk that an African-American man will be afflicted with hypertensive heart disease or prostate cancer is nearly three times greater than that for a European-American man. On the other hand, the former's risk of multiple sclerosis is only half as great. Such differences could be due to socioeconomic factors. Even so, geneticists have started searching for racial differences in the frequencies of genetic variants that cause diseases. They seem to be finding them.

Race can also affect treatment. African-Americans respond poorly to some of the main drugs used to treat heart conditions—notably beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Pharmaceutical corporations are paying attention. Many new drugs now come labeled with warnings that they may not work in some ethnic or racial groups. Here, as so often, the mere prospect of litigation has concentrated minds.

Such differences are, of course, just differences in average. Everyone agrees that race is a crude way of predicting who gets some disease or responds to some treatment. Ideally, we would all have our genomes sequenced before swallowing so much as an aspirin. Yet until that is technically feasible, we can expect racial classifications to play an increasing part in health care.

The argument for the importance of race, however, does not rest purely on utilitarian grounds. There is also an aesthetic factor. We are a physically variable species. Yet for all the triumphs of modern genetics, we know next to nothing about what makes us so. We do not know why some people have prominent rather than flat noses, round rather than pointed skulls, wide rather than narrow faces, straight rather than curly hair. We do not know what makes blue eyes blue.

One way to find out would be to study people of mixed race ancestry. In part, this is because racial differences in looks are the most striking that we see. But there is also a more subtle technical reason. When geneticists map genes, they rely on the fact that they can follow our ancestors' chromosomes as they get passed from one generation to the next, dividing and mixing in unpredictable combinations. That, it turns out, is much easier to do in people whose ancestors came from very different places.

The technique is called admixture mapping. Developed to find the genes responsible for racial differences in inherited disease, it is only just moving from theory to application. But through it, we may be able to write the genetic recipe for the fair hair of a Norwegian, the black-verging-on-purple skin of a Solomon Islander, the flat face of an Inuit, and the curved eyelid of a Han Chinese. We shall no longer gawp ignorantly at the gallery; we shall be able to name the painters.


There is a final reason race matters. It gives us reason—if there were not reason enough already—to value and protect some of the world's most obscure and marginalized people. When The Times of India article referred to the Andaman Islanders as being of ancient Negrito racial stock, the terminology was correct. Negrito is the name given by anthropologists to a people who once lived throughout Southeast Asia. They are very small, very dark, and have peppercorn hair. They look like African pygmies who have wandered away from Congo's jungles to take up life on a tropical isle. But they are not.

The latest genetic data suggest that the Negritos are descended from the first modern humans to have invaded Asia, some 100,000 years ago. In time they were overrun or absorbed by waves of Neolithic agriculturalists, and later nearly wiped out by British, Spanish and Indian colonialists. Now they are confined to the Malay Peninsula, a few islands in the Philippines and the Andamans.

Happily, most of the Andamans' Negritos seem to have survived December's tsunami. The fate of one tribe, the Sentinelese, remains uncertain, but an Indian coast guard helicopter sent to check up on them came under bow and arrow attack, which is heartening. Even so, Negrito populations, wherever they are, are so small, isolated and impoverished that it seems certain that they will eventually disappear.

Yet even after they have gone, the genetic variants that defined the Negritos will remain, albeit scattered, in the people who inhabit the littoral of the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea. They will remain visible in the unusually dark skin of some Indonesians, the unusually curly hair of some Sri Lankans, the unusually slight frames of some Filipinos. But the unique combination of genes that makes the Negritos so distinctive, and that took tens of thousands of years to evolve, will have disappeared. A human race will have gone extinct, and the human species will be the poorer for it.


© 2005 The New York Times Company

*Armand Marie Leroi, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Imperial College in London, is the author of Mutants: On Genetic Variety and the Human Body.

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/

So I didnt say A human race in the title. I thought it'd be more catchy like this. Anyways, what should be done about this? Should Negritos be preserved? Taken into a breeding program or something? Or maybe their blood samples should be saved? Besides the romantic idea of saving something very old, their unique combination of genes might be needed in future, for example they can be more immune to a certain diseases or something...

Who needs em.

*shrugs*

So I didnt say A human race in the title. I thought it'd be more catchy like this. Anyways, what should be done about this? Should Negritos be preserved? Taken into a breeding program or something? Or maybe their blood samples should be saved? Besides the romantic idea of saving something very old, their unique combination of genes might be needed in future, for example they can be more immune to a certain diseases or something...

I thought you were going to say something about the untermenschen infecting our pure bloodlines with their genes.

I thought you were going to say something about the untermenschen infecting our pure bloodlines with their genes.

I'm fairly sure what Der Fuh...sory, Ny Nordland, is hinting at in broad strokes...

I'm fairly sure what Der Fuh...sory, Ny Nordland, is hinting at in broad strokes...

where have you been?

where have you been?

Around...

...Do I know you?

I'm fairly sure what Der Fuh...sory, Ny Nordland, is hinting at in broad strokes...

No, I'm very concerned about Negritos. Is the article too long so you started to talk about me instead of it?

No, I'm very concerned about Negritos. Is the article too long so you started to talk about me instead of it?

Read it. Laughed at it, actually. Need some amusement after a stressful day.

Anyone who reads the whole article will get a cookie


http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/

So I didnt say A human race in the title. I thought it'd be more catchy like this. Anyways, what should be done about this? Should Negritos be preserved? Taken into a breeding program or something? Or maybe their blood samples should be saved? Besides the romantic idea of saving something very old, their unique combination of genes might be needed in future, for example they can be more immune to a certain diseases or something...

Breeding program? ... well, yes, that suggestion was to be expected.
I don't really care about their genes, but I do think it's very remarkable what the article says about the three independent languages they speak. That definitely ought to be studies and preserved. If it survived.

No, I'm very concerned about Negritos.

You're posting this because you want to use this later on and say "Well, you all wanted to save Negritos... but not Whites. You are the racists, not I! See! See!"

Don't be a liar.

I still don't buy the concept of race. The article says that race can have medical purposes and all that. Well lets look at a tropic areas of Africa, for an example. In that area, there is a disease called Malaria. Malaria is an awful disease right? Killed many white men who tried to colonize the region. However, the black populace never did suffer from it. Why? because of simple adaptation and survival of the fittest. So we could say that the "african race" was nearly immune to the disease. But say we have a few european, or asian men that are also immune to the disease. Do we know classify them as part of the African Race? Or do we realize that, for fucks sake there is no race, except the human race, and the reason some people have characteristic A and other have charateristic B, is because of adaptation to their climate. And when they adapt to say battle malaria, perhaps they will lack what it takes to battle...the bubonic plague or something. There is no race, other than the Human Race.

I still don't buy the concept of race. The article says that race can have medical purposes and all that. Well lets look at a tropic areas of Africa, for an example. In that area, there is a disease called Malaria. Malaria is an awful disease right? Killed many white men who tried to colonize the region. However, the black populace never did suffer from it. Why? because of simple adaptation and survival of the fittest. So we could say that the "african race" was nearly immune to the disease. But say we have a few european, or asian men that are also immune to the disease. Do we know classify them as part of the African Race? Or do we realize that, for fucks sake there is no race, except the human race, and the reason some people have characteristic A and other have charateristic B, is because of adaptation to their climate. And when they adapt to say battle malaria, perhaps they will lack what it takes to battle...the bubonic plague or something. There is no race, other than the Human Race.


But this evolutionary developmental biologist at Imperial College in London disagrees with you. He says Negritos are a race and their extinction will be the loss of human species. :(

But this evolutionary developmental biologist at Imperial College in London disagrees with you. He says Negritos are a race and their extinction will be the loss of human species. :(

And? Just because he's an academic doesn't automatically make him right, especially in such a controversial subject.

And? Just because he's an academic doesn't automatically make him right, especially in such a controversial subject.

No shit, Einstein. But just because Zilam is Zilam doesnt make him right....:)

And? Just because he's an academic doesn't automatically make him right, especially in such a controversial subject.

Yes, there are many people in that field, that try to prove race exist just for their own bigoted purposes. I wouldn't be suprised if this was a subtle attempt at something like that.

Yes, there are many people in that field, that try to prove race exist just for their own bigoted purposes. I wouldn't be suprised if this was a subtle attempt at something like that.

I wouldn't say so. I would say it's a rathe blunt attempt. And not very insightful, either.

Yes, there are many people in that field, that try to prove race exist just for their own bigoted purposes. I wouldn't be suprised if this was a subtle attempt at something like that.

OH NOES!!!!1!1!! Evil bigoted agenda!!! :sniper: :mp5:

No shit, Einstein. But just because Zilam is Zilam doesnt make him right....:)

Actually I am always right ;)

OH NOES!!!!1!1!! Evil bigoted agenda!!! :sniper: :mp5:


Oh no....uber noob sniper!

OH NOES!!!!1!1!! Evil bigoted agenda!!! :sniper: :mp5:

Pretty much, yes. I'm glad you're willing to admit it, temporary though any honesty from you seems to be.

Oh no....uber noob sniper!

Me? Noob? :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

I don't see how it's racist to claim that race exists for scientific research. Facts are facts.

I've read it - I've even read some of the counter-essays featured on the website - NOW WHERE'S MY DAMNED COOKIE?!?!
http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/happy038.gif

Anyone who reads the whole article will get a cookie


http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/

So I didnt say A human race in the title. I thought it'd be more catchy like this. Anyways, what should be done about this? Should Negritos be preserved? Taken into a breeding program or something? Or maybe their blood samples should be saved? Besides the romantic idea of saving something very old, their unique combination of genes might be needed in future, for example they can be more immune to a certain diseases or something...

Yay Eugenics. :rolleyes:
So we can put them in a breeding program like they were dogs or horses because "their unique combination of genes might be needed" because they might be "more immune to certain diseases".

Yes, please, let's ignore the fact these are human beings and see how we can exploit them.

They should be permitted to marry and have consensual sex with whoever they want. If they choose for themselves not to intermarry, so be it, but we have no right to impose it upon them.

Give me my cookie. I suppose I can see a point there. Strong concentrations of genes in the different groups that split off from the tower of Babel. Genetic groupings would be just as correct as saying race, as would ethnicities. I don't think we need to necessarily preserve them, whose to say that their beneficial genes aren't already in the great genetic melting pot? I'm sure they've mixed with others and those genes will carry on, so it seems pointless to attempt to keep "pure" Negritos alive. Assimilation is inevitable.

I don't see how it's racist to claim that race exists for scientific research. Facts are facts.

and there are many facts pointing to the notion of there not being any race. Besides "facts" can be resulted from mis interpreted information.

Example. Mormons were polygamous in the beginning- Fact
Thus, all christians have more than one wife. -not a fact, but one could somehow reach that conclusion, right?

You see, these people want to make it that there is race, because they see it as a way to further keep people apart. When they make wild claims like X group has a 98% of getting X disease due to their race, they fail to factor in enviroment and surrounding. lets go back to my malaria example. If someone in lets say...sudan, an african man, not an arab man. say he goes over to the congo, he is likely to catch the disease, why? becuase he has not been exposed to it, and his body hasn't adapted to the enviroment. But if the notion of race holds up, shouldn't All africans be immune to the same things, and all should be malreceptive to other things?

I've read it - I've even read some of the counter-essays featured on the website - NOW WHERE'S MY DAMNED COOKIE?!?!
http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/happy038.gif

Close your eyes and open your mouth









:mp5:

That's what you get for reporting me to the mods. Next time be a good girl and get these:

http://www.smallbutdisorganized.com/images/DanishCookies.jpg

So where's mine? I didn't report ****, and I read the whole thing. Wait, butter cookies? How cheap is that? I wanted fudge chocolate chip!:(

Yah know, the article had me going there. It started to seem like something perfectly reasonable and scientifically accurate. Considering its length, whoever wrote it spent a good deal of time on it.

Then I got to the last section, realized it was Ny Nordland who posted, and my senses returned to reality. There is no such thing as race: only the human race, and adaptations within it.

Close your eyes and open your mouth


:mp5:

That's what you get for reporting me to the mods. Next time be a good girl and get these:

http://www.smallbutdisorganized.com/images/DanishCookies.jpg
http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/girlpower.gif Mmmm... I should report you more often it seems - that tasted GRRRREAT! Wohoo! http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/eatdrink011.gif

*Steals cookies*

Mmmm... Cookies :fluffle:

I don't see how it's racist to claim that race exists for scientific research. Facts are facts.

And the fact is that there are no races in humanity. Scientifically, race means subspecies, and Homo sapiens has none, as Neandertals were removed and a species cannot have one subspecies.

That's what you get for reporting me to the mods. Next time be a good girl and get these:


Gravlen isn't a girl, he's an amazingly hot sexy man. :)

Gravlen isn't a girl, he's an amazingly hot sexy man. :)

SHHHHhhh! We'd been sending him pics of some blonde chick and saying it was Gravlen for weeks! You ruined the whole plan to drug him and inject him with the pigment we've been secretly stealing from Michael Jackson for years! All that work...

Certain groups from certain regions have some similar genetic characteristics, espescially if they've been isolated, and have not interbred with the outside world. What a shocker.

The fact remains that genetic and phenotypic variations occur more drastically between random individuals than they do between 'races'.

I've said it many times before, but once in a while, it bears repeating:

The 'Races' as they exist(or existed as the term grows more meaningless) is a byproduct of geographic and cultural isolation. As the globe grows smaller, the races as we know them become more and more meaningless. Perhaps one day as mankind spreads to the stars, new races will develop. But the races as they exist now are obsolete as the isolation that made them viable ceases to exist.

And the fact is that there are no races in humanity. Scientifically, race means subspecies, and Homo sapiens has none, as Neandertals were removed and a species cannot have one subspecies.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9126111/race

yup, most biologists argue likewise

They should be permitted to marry and have consensual sex with whoever they want. If they choose for themselves not to intermarry, so be it, but we have no right to impose it upon them.

There was a thread on Sentinelese a while back. It was about two fishermen who got drunk and drifted onto the island...

Apparently they aren't too fond of strangers

Edit: here it is http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468159

SHHHHhhh! We'd been sending him pics of some blonde chick and saying it was Gravlen for weeks! You ruined the whole plan to drug him and inject him with the pigment we've been secretly stealing from Michael Jackson for years! All that work...

Hello Shepie. :)

Gravlen kept something secret from me?! I thought he trusted me. *Sniffles*

Hello Shepie. :)

Gravlen kept something secret from me?! I thought he trusted me. *Sniffles*

We... kind of forgot to tell him...

There was a thread on Sentinelese a while back. It was about two fishermen who got drunk and drifted onto the island...

Apparently they aren't too fond of strangers

Yeah, I remember seeing that.

I'd leave them alone, but for reasons that have nothing to do with preserving the "race."

"if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia—more or less the major races of traditional anthropology."

no fucking duh. extra, extra! people live on five distinct continents! president bush still a dumbass! read all about it!

and if a sample of people from around the world is sorted by computer into 1000 groups on the basis of genetic similarity, you'd have 1000 groups from various parts of the world. amazing!

race =/ choosing an arbitrary number of groups and dividing the population into them. not if the term is actually supposed to mean anything, anyways.

"if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia—more or less the major races of traditional anthropology."

no fucking duh. extra, extra! people live on five distinct continents! president bush still a dumbass! read all about it!

If I recall correctly, similar studies have indicated that that division is just one of several ways to organize the human species genetically - and that some of those divisions are really weird, and very much divorced from our traditional notions of race.

If I recall correctly, similar studies have indicated that that division is just one of several ways to organize the human species genetically - and that some of those divisions are really weird, and very much divorced from our traditional notions of race.

yeah, depending on what you are mapping you can get all sorts of trees. this pdf (http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf) has a couple rather nice maps y chromosome and mitochondrial haplogroups. definitely worth taking a look at.

Yay Eugenics. :rolleyes:
So we can put them in a breeding program like they were dogs or horses because "their unique combination of genes might be needed" because they might be "more immune to certain diseases".

Yes, please, let's ignore the fact these are human beings and see how we can exploit them.

Dont make it sound so naughty. I was thinking more along the lines of sending them flat screen tv's and lots of porn.

OR

They can eliminate whatever is causing their decline. It must be something negative, like a disease or starving. They cant be naturally decreasing since they probably dont have "OH NOES!!!1!1!1!! PWERKROWDATION!!!1!!" type tree huggers...

Give me my cookie. I suppose I can see a point there. Strong concentrations of genes in the different groups that split off from the tower of Babel. Genetic groupings would be just as correct as saying race, as would ethnicities. I don't think we need to necessarily preserve them, whose to say that their beneficial genes aren't already in the great genetic melting pot? I'm sure they've mixed with others and those genes will carry on, so it seems pointless to attempt to keep "pure" Negritos alive. Assimilation is inevitable.

Did you read the last couple sentences of the article?

Dont make it sound so naughty. I was thinking more along the lines of sending them flat screen tv's and lots of porn.

OR

They can eliminate whatever is causing their decline. It must be something negative, like a disease or starving. They cant be naturally decreasing since they probably dont have "OH NOES!!!1!1!1!! PWERKROWDATION!!!1!!" type tree huggers...

Maybe they just stopped doing it? Also, where the frak is my cookie?

Did you read the last couple sentences of the article?

Yes. i don't remember them now but I read the whole thing. I tend to forget things I deem unimportant.

and there are many facts pointing to the notion of there not being any race. Besides "facts" can be resulted from mis interpreted information.

Example. Mormons were polygamous in the beginning- Fact
Thus, all christians have more than one wife. -not a fact, but one could somehow reach that conclusion, right?

You see, these people want to make it that there is race, because they see it as a way to further keep people apart. When they make wild claims like X group has a 98% of getting X disease due to their race, they fail to factor in enviroment and surrounding. lets go back to my malaria example. If someone in lets say...sudan, an african man, not an arab man. say he goes over to the congo, he is likely to catch the disease, why? becuase he has not been exposed to it, and his body hasn't adapted to the enviroment. But if the notion of race holds up, shouldn't All africans be immune to the same things, and all should be malreceptive to other things?

If the notion of race doesnt hold up, how do you explain the results of the experiment in Stanford University?

Yes. i don't remember them now but I read the whole thing. I tend to forget things I deem unimportant.

Unimporant? :eek: No cookie for you. And I was going to give you the good chocalate ones.

Yah know, the article had me going there. It started to seem like something perfectly reasonable and scientifically accurate. Considering its length, whoever wrote it spent a good deal of time on it.

Then I got to the last section, realized it was Ny Nordland who posted, and my senses returned to reality. There is no such thing as race: only the human race, and adaptations within it.

Thx for admitting you are so biased and close minded about this. Read the end of the article for who wroted it...

Unimporant? :eek: No cookie for you. And I was going to give you the good chocalate ones.

I don't care about things like that. I find attractive who I find attractive, if europe was destroyed tomorrow, I might cry over the friends I have there, but I wouldn't lose sleep, just like with these tribes. If you aren't an American, I feel less empathy for you. And the only empathy I have for my fellow Americans is pity, as one would pity a cow ready for the slaughter. .... yeah I don't like humanity in general. ;p

Thx for admitting you are so biased and close minded about this. Read the end of the article for who wroted it...

...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wooh. That was just too hilarious. You calling someone closed minded and biased...too funny...just too funny...

yeah, depending on what you are mapping you can get all sorts of trees. this pdf (http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf) has a couple rather nice maps y chromosome and mitochondrial haplogroups. definitely worth taking a look at.

So? Europe looks very reddish at first pic while rest of the world dont have much. Same thing in the 2nd pic for light blue (not cyan)...

...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wooh. That was just too hilarious. You calling someone closed minded and biased...too funny...just too funny...

*ROLLS EYES*

there, you are beaten

If there’s going to be a breeding program it should be one to eliminate "racial" differences, not preserve them.

But this evolutionary developmental biologist at Imperial College in London disagrees with you. He says Negritos are a race and their extinction will be the loss of human species. :(

So. The system isn't designed that all sub-species should always remain.

If that was the case, then we would have Neanderthals still around.

*Looks around the forums*

Oops.

If there’s going to be a breeding program it should be one to eliminate "racial" differences, not preserve them.

No breeding program necessary. We'll do that ourselves, with enough time.

*ROLLS EYES*

there, you are beaten

I must bear my shame for the world to see. :(

You twisted an interesting article, albeit questionable and not that strong, into a conversation about racial control.

Way to go! *thumbs up*

And please, I think a small smiley works better than size 7 font.

Preserving the human race's current form(s) is pointless. Humans suck. Too stupid to use technology safely, eat fatty sugary foods when there isn't a famine going on, and many more things I'm sure.

So. The system isn't designed that all sub-species should always remain.

If that was the case, then we would have Neanderthals still around.

*Looks around the forums*

Oops.

Neanderthals or H. neanderthalensis IS A SPECIES.

*ROLLS EYES*

Neanderthals or H. neanderthalensis IS A SPECIES.

*ROLLS EYES*

Look up in the sky!

There is a point, flying over your head!

No breeding program necessary. We'll do that ourselves, with enough time.

I guess it is natural for people to think future as they want to see instead of objectively...

I guess it is natural for people to think future as they want to see instead of objectively...

You're really going to tell me that people aren't going to intermarry as the societal prejudice against doing so breaks down?

You do realize that historically, that has been the practice - even when there was societal prejudice?

You do realize that it's happening right now in lots of places?

Look up in the sky!

There is a point, flying over your head!

LOL. Ok, I guess you got no clue about the difference between species and sub-species...:D

You're really going to tell me that people aren't going to intermarry as the societal prejudice against doing so breaks down?

You do realize that historically, that has been the practice - even when there was societal prejudice?

You do realize that it's happening right now in lots of places?

You are assuming people dont intermarry due to "societal prejudice". They might as well not find other races attractive or less atractive and might prefer to marry within same race. Actually there are many PC people here and some of them said they prefer their own race usually.
And no, it wasnt historical in all cases. Look at jews, they kept pretty much to themselves...
And lots of places? You are too USA-centric, but that's understandable...

LOL. Ok, I guess you got no clue about the difference between species and sub-species...:D

Again you missed the point.

You're really going to tell me that people aren't going to intermarry as the societal prejudice against doing so breaks down?

You do realize that historically, that has been the practice - even when there was societal prejudice?

You do realize that it's happening right now in lots of places?

Indeed. I'll marry who I wish, love who I wish. Nothing really matters. Hell, if some random alien race were to show up and humans and this alien race became buddy-buddy, and there was some female amongst those aliens whom I fell in love with, I might even marry her. Very, very horrible example of what I'm trying to say. Point is, who CARES about races? Even if they were to exist, why should it matter? Me, I don't. And neither should anyone else.

Ny Nordland, this thread has been yet another attempt of yours at trying to make us care about something that DOES. NOT. MATTER. Get over your horribly bigoted self and shut up for once.

Again you missed the point.

Well, I understood you but your example was very incorrect. And you dont have any example to give, in your case. So eliminating the incorrect example, therefore, mattered.

You are assuming people dont intermarry due to "societal prejudice". They might as well not find other races attractive or less atractive and might prefer to marry within same race.

That's true. So? Sexual taste varies fairly widely; some people prefer those with similar "racial" characteristics, and others don't, at least not very strongly.

Actually there are many PC people here and some of them said they prefer their own race usually.

Again, so?

And no, it wasnt historical in all cases. Look at jews, they kept pretty much to themselves...

There was also strong social prejudice against intermarriage on the part of Jews, because of fear of assimilation. As Jews have assimilated and the prejudice has been reduced, intermarriage has become much more common. And why do you think Jews tend to have "racial" characteristics similar to the non-Jewish populations close to them?

Leaving aside Jews, the fact of the matter is that we do not leave in genetically distinct tribes. Human beings have intermarried throughout history.

And lots of places? You are too USA-centric, but that's understandable...

The US is also a somewhat integrated multicultural society, and thus appropriate to this discussion.

Indeed. I'll marry who I wish, love who I wish. Nothing really matters. Hell, if some random alien race were to show up and humans and this alien race became buddy-buddy, and there was some female amongst those aliens whom I fell in love with, I might even marry her. Very, very horrible example of what I'm trying to say. Point is, who CARES about races? Even if they were to exist, why should it matter? Me, I don't. And neither should anyone else.

Ny Nordland, this thread has been yet another attempt of yours at trying to make us care about something that DOES. NOT. MATTER. Get over your horribly bigoted self and shut up for once.

Chill out. You can use the ignore option or not read the thread. This censorist attitude isnt good for such an open minded person such as you...;)

Chill out. You can use the ignore option or not read the thread. This censorist attitude isnt good for such an open minded person such as you...;)

Oh, please. I am not trying to censor you. I'm simply offering up my opinion of what you have to say. You are, of course, free to continue on with your idiotic banter. I can't control it, and am not trying to.

Yah know, the article had me going there. It started to seem like something perfectly reasonable and scientifically accurate. Considering its length, whoever wrote it spent a good deal of time on it.

Then I got to the last section, realized it was Ny Nordland who posted, and my senses returned to reality. There is no such thing as race: only the human race, and adaptations within it.
What makes this even FUNNIER is that it refrences a Nature supliment that was used to show My Nordland that gentically speaking, there is more differences between a tall person and a short person than a black one and a white one.

And he even admitted it!

His high school biology course is just not serving him well.

BTW, on the subject of inter-racial marriage, it's on the rise in many places, including such traditionally xenophobic places as Japan.

That's true. So? Sexual taste varies fairly widely; some people prefer those with similar "racial" characteristics, and others don't, at least not very strongly.

Again, so?


So even if there were no "prejudices", some people will keep breeding within their own race and hence it'll continue even if "prejudices" fade.



There was also strong social prejudice against intermarriage on the part of Jews, because of fear of assimilation. As Jews have assimilated and the prejudice has been reduced, intermarriage has become much more common. And why do you think Jews tend to have "racial" characteristics similar to the non-Jewish populations close to them?


You said intermarriage is what happened in history despite "prejudice". But although jews were a very small minority, most of them kept to themselves throughout their history. There was a recent genetic study linking most jews to 1 guy and 3 women or something recently.


Leaving aside Jews, the fact of the matter is that we do not leave in genetically distinct tribes. Human beings have intermarried throughout history.


That depends on your definition of tribe and distinct.



The US is also a somewhat integrated multicultural society, and thus appropriate to this discussion.

USA got like 4% of the world population. It isnt "many places". Certainly, it isnt the norm...Most people in Africa and Asia even dont leave their villages, let alone marry someone from a different continent.

What makes this even FUNNIER is that it refrences a Nature supliment that was used to show My Nordland that gentically speaking, there is more differences between a tall person and a short person than a black one and a white one.

And he even admitted it!

His high school biology course is just not serving him well.

BTW, on the subject of inter-racial marriage, it's on the rise in many places, including such traditionally xenophobic places as Japan.

"there is more differences between a tall person and a short person than a black one and a white one."? Proof?
Oh and Japan is still like 98% ethnically Japaneese.

Dont make it sound so naughty. I was thinking more along the lines of sending them flat screen tv's and lots of porn.

OR

They can eliminate whatever is causing their decline. It must be something negative, like a disease or starving. They cant be naturally decreasing since they probably dont have "OH NOES!!!1!1!1!! PWERKROWDATION!!!1!!" type tree huggers...

Yes, please ignore the fact that I quoted you directly. You're the one suggesting breeding programs because their genes "might be needed."

But of course, trying to be mocking rather than actually answer the charge is par for the course.

So? Europe looks very reddish at first pic while rest of the world dont have much. Same thing in the 2nd pic for light blue (not cyan)...

you might want to look again. there are significant parts of europe where R1b is not all that dominant. also, note that R1a (yellow) and R1b (red) are actually closest to the group being called Rx (dark red) - which is located largely in cameroon. there is also an R2 group that doesn't appear to be shown here, but it is located largely in south asia. all of those are genetically closer to each other than they are to, for example, I, J, and N, which are found in significant parts of the population of even western europe.

Yes, please ignore the fact that I quoted you directly. You're the one suggesting breeding programs because their genes "might be needed."

But of course, trying to be mocking rather than actually answer the charge is par for the course.

I did, in the 2nd part. By breeding program I didnt mean like a concentration camp where they are forced to have sex...I meant like getting rid of the cause which makes them going extinct.

So even if there were no "prejudices", some people will keep breeding within their own race and hence it'll continue even if "prejudices" fade.

There will be less and less people belonging to any specific "race," and eventually they will die out.

You said intermarriage is what happened in history despite "prejudice". But although jews were a very small minority, most of them kept to themselves throughout their history.

And usually they weren't integrated with the native population very much, either. Nevertheless, Northern European Jews still look much closer to non-Jewish Northern Europeans than, say, Middle Eastern Jews.

There was a recent genetic study linking most jews to 1 guy and 3 women or something recently.

Mitochondrial/Y chromosome DNA studies tend to have such results; they don't mean much. Every human being can be traced back to one male and one female the same way.

That depends on your definition of tribe and distinct.

No, it doesn't. It's hard enough to even find sort of distinct "races."

USA got like 4% of the world population. It isnt "many places". Certainly, it isnt the norm...Most people in Africa and Asia even dont leave their villages, let alone marry someone from a different continent.

As globalization speeds up and immigration continues, more and more places will end up like that.

"there is more differences between a tall person and a short person than a black one and a white one."? Proof?
*ahem* The wonderful "Are Racists Right" thread, the part where Bottle, Jacoba, and I point this out to you (before the two of you go back to arguing about the US census).
Here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11629069&postcount=249

Oh and Japan is still like 98% ethnically Japaneese.
International marriages now count for one in 12 in Japan (as of 2004) in 2000 it was one in 20.

It's on the rise.

If the notion of race doesnt hold up, how do you explain the results of the experiment in Stanford University?

A test engineered to fit a pre-determined hypothesis.

I just wonder why Ny Nordland seems so against the idea of the disappearance of race. Currently, the division serves us no purpose and only gives us another reason to fight each another.

I just wonder why Ny Nordland seems so against the idea of the disappearance of race. Currently, the division serves us no purpose and only gives us another reason to fight each another.

Why else do people hold on to the obsolete? Fear of change.

I believe in Human Races, but does that make me a Nazi-Red Neck-Racist-Ass hole? Of course not. I don't believe any one race is superior to the others, but I do believe in unique 'attributes'. For example, I think a lot of stereotypes are actually quite true, but so many people feel to be PC that they don't want to be subjugated as their own sub-category. For some reason, this has been translated into putting others down and being racist. And to be honest, I know a lot of people who say these things *Example - Blacks run faster than whites* but I know they aren't racist. But others go ahead and look at them with a black and white mind set *And no, not skin color wise...;)* with no gray inbetween and they chose one extreme side mostly comming out as 'Your a biggoted ass whipe.' The thing is with races is that they are too sensitive, and even bringing something up about one and another becomes too grotesque for most. But in the modern world, there really isn't a lot of different races anymore. The world has become more 'open', with trade as the stepping stone. America is a great example, being perhaps one of the most open nations in existance. The reason why I bring that up is because there isn't like 15-30 races like Europe once had, there is just a few.

I could go ahead and list them but that might get me introuble. Now my point is with this modern world thing is that so many nations are culturally mixed, and no longer culturally unique, that it has mixed several different races. So, there is a literal meaning with the 'we are equal' beliefe in that not only are we *well, we should be* socially/politically/etc equal but that we are all, in essence, 'mutts'. But, there are several out there that are like '1/3 that, this and that'.

Anyways I've sort of lost where I was going with that. But to get on the thread starters topic, I believe something should be done to not only help preserve the Negritos but several other races as well. And I think there should be more organizations to look into this, and not to force modernization on aboriginal type people but to perhaps convince them to be more open and not so 'The world out there is so evil.' Which I'll admit, I think we are all pretty damn evil and they have their rights as human beings to say we are evil and we'll taint their culture because we probably will etc...and lost where I was going with that one too. So, basically, I agree that we should try and help protect these other more smaller races *in population that is, >>*, but I don't think we should do so with the sole purpous of 'Well, they could probably be immune to some diseases.'

Neanderthals or H. neanderthalensis IS A SPECIES.
um, no. Neanderthals (more accurately spelled "Neandertals") are classified as Homo sapiens neandertal, a sub-species of Homo sapiens. modern humans are also considered a subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

your anthropological information is a couple of decades old or so...

*snip*
Um, no, Blacks are not inherantly faster than Whites are.

Nor are Asians better at math.

Nor are Jews better at money.

None of the sterotypes have been shown to hold true over ANYTHING when actually looked at.

You twisted an interesting article, albeit questionable and not that strong, into a conversation about racial control.

Way to go! *thumbs up*

And please, I think a small smiley works better than size 7 font.
Doncha know?
Using 7 font bold is ny's attempt at being subtle.
As 'subtle' as his attempt in creating this thread to hide his bigoted and racist viewpoints.

I did, in the 2nd part. By breeding program I didnt mean like a concentration camp where they are forced to have sex...I meant like getting rid of the cause which makes them going extinct.

London — Shortly after last year's tsunami devastated the lands on the Indian Ocean, The Times of India ran an article with this headline: "Tsunami May Have Rendered Threatened Tribes Extinct." The tribes in question were the Onge, Jarawa, Great Andamanese and Sentinelese—all living on the Andaman Islands—and they numbered some 400 people in all. The article, noting that several of the archipelago's islands were low-lying, in the direct path of the wave, and that casualties were expected to be high, said, "Some beads may have just gone missing from the Emerald Necklace of India."

Please, tell us how you intend to get rid of tsunami and typhoons.

Um, no, Blacks are not inherantly faster than Whites are.

Nor are Asians better at math.

Nor are Jews better at money.

None of the sterotypes have been shown to hold true over ANYTHING when actually looked at.

africans brought over for slave labor were often bred to make stronger, healthier... well, work animals, to be brutally honest. the same mentality was used for dog breeds and horses (though humans should obviously not be subjected to the same standards as animals!). after all was said and done, africans in america did tend to be more athletically inclined, since the degree of variation in body type/musculature was "weeded out" much more stringently than the free white population.


i agree, the "jews are good with money!" thing is a loooong running (false) stereotype that usually was used as a stepping-stone to villify jewish people. jews, anglo-saxons, africans, pacific islanders - they all have people good at some things and bad at some things. sure, there are some rather famous jewish names at the tops of some industries, but the same's true for other "types" of people as well.


asians high-schoolers in america are routinely shown to, on average, score higher in standardized testing, especially scientific and mathmatical aptitudes. that's a fact.

however, it IS premature and somewhat ignorant to assume "welp, them asians must have brains for math... yup." the more likely "reason" is (again, on average) stronger work ethic instilled by social values carried over from asiatic cultures. it might not be it, but all i'm saying is it's MUCH more likely than "asians have math-oriented brains".

all in all, i guess i'm not arguing FOR or AGAINST your recent post, but rather hoping people will look for the "facts behind the facts," or something to that effect ;)

Um, no, Blacks are not inherantly faster than Whites are.

Nor are Asians better at math.

Nor are Jews better at money.

None of the sterotypes have been shown to hold true over ANYTHING when actually looked at.

So basically you ignorantly took what I said completely out of context. I just used an example stereotype, not saying it is true, but perhaps statistically it is true but not true with every single black. Basically, you are what I call who has no tolerance for a grey area of understanding.

Anyone who reads the whole article will get a cookie


quoted from http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/Happily, most of the Andamans' Negritos seem to have survived December's tsunami. The fate of one tribe, the Sentinelese, remains uncertain, but an Indian coast guard helicopter sent to check up on them came under bow and arrow attack, which is heartening. Even so, Negrito populations, wherever they are, are so small, isolated and impoverished that it seems certain that they will eventually disappear.

Yet even after they have gone, the genetic variants that defined the Negritos will remain, albeit scattered, in the people who inhabit the littoral of the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea.

So I didnt say A human race in the title. I thought it'd be more catchy like this. Anyways, what should be done about this? <snip>

Nothing needs to be done about this. The tsunami was a natural disaster, and certainly wouldn't be the first, even in the living memories of those islanders (Krakatoa.)

If there's one advantage to living in a stone age culture, it's having traditions which protect you against recurring and predictable threats. I'll bet that when the sea retreated, they didn't all go down to the beach and collect starfish like tourists would.

The "after they are gone" bit in the article is unpleasant, whether it refers to their culture or their genetic legacy. It's probably also wrong, but the article is still a more interesting take on genetics than most of Ny's offerings.
You can keep the cookie, though :)

Anyone who reads the whole article will get a cookie


http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/

So I didnt say A human race in the title. I thought it'd be more catchy like this. Anyways, what should be done about this? Should Negritos be preserved? Taken into a breeding program or something? Or maybe their blood samples should be saved? Besides the romantic idea of saving something very old, their unique combination of genes might be needed in future, for example they can be more immune to a certain diseases or something...

You make me sad.

So much in the world you could be doing, and you end up trawling through old news... one has to assume - since the article is more than a year old.

I'd like to believe you were just thumbing through old copies of the New York Times... but this is your 'pet topic' again... the 'difference' between human 'races'. Add that to the fact you present it in digital format... and one has to assume you were doing websearches with no intent other than racism.


Oh - it's cute. I like your angle of attack... "their unique combination of genes" as a discussion point for curing disease. It's a 'thin end of the wedge' though, isn't it?

World hunger. Poverty. Wars. Genocide. Failing governments. Environmental disasters.

And you are dedicating your free time to pushing an agenda about skin colour.

*ROLLS EYES*

there, you are beaten

Hey here's a hint, NN - if you have to tell someone when they are "beaten," you haven't beaten them.

Why are you trying to beat people anyway? I thought you made this thread just because you have lots of compassion for the Negritos? ;)

africans brought over for slave labor were often bred to make stronger, healthier... well, work animals, to be brutally honest. the same mentality was used for dog breeds and horses (though humans should obviously not be subjected to the same standards as animals!). after all was said and done, africans in america did tend to be more athletically inclined, since the degree of variation in body type/musculature was "weeded out" much more stringently than the free white population.
Off-topic slightly, but here's a question I'd like you to answer:
Why do you think the Scandanavian countries do so well in the Winter Olympics?


asians high-schoolers in america are routinely shown to, on average, score higher in standardized testing, especially scientific and mathmatical aptitudes. that's a fact.

however, it IS premature and somewhat ignorant to assume "welp, them asians must have brains for math... yup." the more likely "reason" is (again, on average) stronger work ethic instilled by social values carried over from asiatic cultures. it might not be it, but all i'm saying is it's MUCH more likely than "asians have math-oriented brains"..
fact? Care to provide a couple of links showing that?
Care to also explain what you mean by 'Asian'? Are you saying all Asians do better - that is Indonesians, Phillipinos, Japanese, Malayasians, Koreans, Mongolians, Tibetans, Han Chinese, Cantonese, Taiwanese (or any of the other 60+ Chinese ethnicities), Nepalese, Vietnamese, Thai, Camodian,...
Or are you refering to just one particular ethnic group?
Here's a thought: If it is true, maybe it's to do with their culture, not their race. Maybe they put more emphasis on succeeding in the science fields.
Also, if you're comparing just academic achievement of Asians living in the States - well, that's a bit of a skewered population sample there. How many poor Asians live in the States? I mean poor as in Chinese farmer poor.
Not many I'd wager. They're all still in China, living off $20US a month. In other words, you're only testing a group of people who are predominantly middle-class or above.
It'd be similar to testing Aussies and Canadians on Australian History and then conclude that Aussies are much more intelligent than Canadians.

Another thought (and one which I've been considering doing a Masters on): Maybe their language structure and form (specifically the Chinese, Japanese and Korean) is an aid to better mathematical concepts. In this I mean their language is pictorial form. I have a very mathematical brain (no musical ability whatsoever but score very high in visual and maths) and I've found learning Chinese characters has been, while not easy, certainly not particularly difficult.
Why? because I can see and remember patterns and shapes in their characters. "West" for example looks to me like the symbol for 'pi' halfway inside a square.
I wonder whether being taught this form of language, because it's so visual-based and structured, helps promotes mathematical processes early on in childhood development. Hence their 'racial' advantage in maths.

So even if there were no "prejudices", some people will keep breeding within their own race and hence it'll continue even if "prejudices" fade.


Perhaps you have in mind, a collection of people that have been entirely isolated for several thousand years?

If, on the other hand, we are talking about Joe or Joanne Average, we are likely to find their is no such thing as breeding 'within their own race'... because there ARE no pure races.

The average person can't even put a family name to all of their ancestors just a half dozen generations back. We must admit, then, that we have no idea who had their boots under great^6grandma's bed.

Off-topic slightly, but here's a question I'd like you to answer:
Why do you think the Scandanavian countries do so well in the Winter Olympics?

[snip]
Care to provide a couple of links showing that?
Here's a thought: If it is true, maybe it's to do with their culture, not their race.
[snip]
It'd be similar to testing Aussies and Canadians on Australian History and then conclude that Aussies are much more intelligent than Canadians.

Another thought (and one which I've been considering doing a Masters on): Maybe their language structure and form (specifically the Chinese, Japanese and Korean) is an aid to better mathematical concepts.

olympic athletes are hardly the stratified norm (correct term?) of the population :p

as far as fact links, i could dig up some TAAS websites if you want (yes, i'm from texas... go ahead and get the insults out now, those who wish). i'll rescend this point just as readily, since it wasn't my main point:

the part i bolded: i already SAID that! in the very sentence you quoted, to be precice.

please read the entirety of my post, rather than simply counter it, assuming i'm some close-minded fool

So basically you ignorantly took what I said completely out of context. I just used an example stereotype, not saying it is true, but perhaps statistically it is true but not true with every single black. Basically, you are what I call who has no tolerance for a grey area of understanding.
Not at all, I just have no tolerance for anyone who claims that one race is inherently better than another in a particular area of human doings because nothing has ever been shown to hold water. Not for races as a whole when compared to other whole races.

But, hey, if I am wrong, please show me something.

olympic athletes are hardly the stratified norm (correct term?) of the population :p

But you didn't answer my question!

But you didn't answer my question!

okay, fine; though i no next to nothing about the socio-economic status of Scandinavian countries, some possible explanations could be: 1) cleaner environment that leads to naturally healthier children, 2) better government-provided medical attention, 3) thinner air due to altitude, leading to stronger lungs, 4) plain and simply more rigerous training regimes...

now, any or all of those could be the exact opposite from the truth. i honestly don't know. if your point is to show that there could be different reasons behind appearant physical "superiority" (for lack of a better term) other than 'race,' then *COUGH* i already said that :D

okay, fine; though i no next to nothing about the socio-economic status of Scandinavian countries, some possible explanations could be: 1) cleaner environment that leads to naturally healthier children, 2) better government-provided medical attention, 3) thinner air due to altitude, leading to stronger lungs, 4) plain and simply more rigerous training regimes...

now, any or all of those could be the exact opposite from the truth. i honestly don't know. if your point is to show that there could be different reasons behind appearant physical "superiority" (for lack of a better term) other than 'race,' then *COUGH* i already said that :D

But why do they only excel at Winter Olympic sports and not in the Summer Olympics?

But why do they only excel at Winter Olympic sports and not in the Summer Olympics?

...

like, are you seriously asking me this?

is this some draw-out set-up for a lame pun or punchline or something???

i don't know, cuz it's cold there.

...

like, are you seriously asking me this?

is this some draw-out set-up for a lame pun or punchline or something???

i don't know, cuz it's cold there.

Lame draw-out just cause you wouldn't answer the question properly!

Still, my long-convoluted point here is that nearly everyone says, "I'm not racist, but Blacks are obviously faster than Whites cause look at the 100/200m finals at the Olympics" and then proceed to 'explain' in terms of genetics and conditioning and, in your example, breeding.
Yet when asked why Scandys do so well at Winter Olympics, the response is, as you put it, "It's cold there" =(lots of snow). Cross-country skiing is also a national sport in Norway.
No-one ever tries to explain it by saying that Norwegians, for eg, are genetically superior to everyone else at sliding downhill on a couple barrel staves, or that they've bred themselves to be better at swerving around flags at high speeds.

In other words:
If you're a top Black athlete, it's due to your 'genes'.
If you're a top White Athlete, it's due to your upbringing and environment.

To be even more blunt: It's inherrently racist.
It's making excuses why the Black guy's #1 due to things we can't change, so as to make whitey not feel inferior.


How many times have you read that Tiger Woods has a natural advantage due to his Thai genes?

Lame draw-out just cause you wouldn't answer the question properly!

Still, my long-convoluted point here is that nearly everyone says, "I'm not racist, but Blacks are obviously faster than Whites cause look at the 100/200m finals at the Olympics" and then proceed to 'explain' in terms of genetics and conditioning and, in your example, breeding.
Yet when asked why Scandys do so well at Winter Olympics, the response is, as you put it, "It's cold there" =(lots of snow). Cross-country skiing is also a national sport in Norway.
No-one ever tries to explain it by saying that Norwegians, for eg, are genetically superior to everyone else at sliding downhill on a couple barrel staves, or that they've bred themselves to be better at swerving around flags at high speeds.

In other words:
If you're a top Black athlete, it's due to your 'genes'.
If you're a top White Athlete, it's due to your upbringing and environment.

To be even more blunt: It's inherrently racist.
It's making excuses why the Black guy's #1 due to things we can't change, so as to make whitey not feel inferior.


How many times have you read that Tiger Woods has a natural advantage due to his Thai genes?


"Demented Hamsters" wins.

*ahem* The wonderful "Are Racists Right" thread, the part where Bottle, Jacoba, and I point this out to you (before the two of you go back to arguing about the US census).
Here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11629069&postcount=249


The fact that 90% of genetic variation is within continents doesnt necessitate that a white tall person is genetically closer to a tall black person then a short white person. :rolleyes:
Besides, that "genetic variation invalidates existance of races" hypothesis is challenged by many scientists, including the one in the OP.


International marriages now count for one in 12 in Japan (as of 2004) in 2000 it was one in 20.

It's on the rise.

Link?

you might want to look again. there are significant parts of europe where R1b is not all that dominant. also, note that R1a (yellow) and R1b (red) are actually closest to the group being called Rx (dark red) - which is located largely in cameroon. there is also an R2 group that doesn't appear to be shown here, but it is located largely in south asia. all of those are genetically closer to each other than they are to, for example, I, J, and N, which are found in significant parts of the population of even western europe.

R1a and R1b seems to be dominant in most of Europe. R1a is nowhere in Africa, Americas, Ocenia and large portions of Asia. Same thing for R1b. And RxR1 isnt dark red but it's brown.
And in the second pic all of Europe almost got 50% H, while this group is nowhere in Sub-saharan Africa, large portions of Asia and Ocenia and Americas. Same thing with T although it isnt dominant in Europe.

Dont make it sound so naughty. I was thinking more along the lines of sending them flat screen tv's and lots of porn.

OR

They can eliminate whatever is causing their decline. It must be something negative, like a disease or starving. They cant be naturally decreasing since they probably dont have "OH NOES!!!1!1!1!! PWERKROWDATION!!!1!!" type tree huggers...

Well, apart from the fact that I have no idea what PWERKROWDATION could possibly mean, aren't hippies usually the ones that have lots of sex?

There will be less and less people belonging to any specific "race," and eventually they will die out.


If one group increases in number (births>deaths), even if some people in that group chooses to intermarry, that group might remain stable in numbers or even increase. The fact that some people of a group might intermarry doesnt necessitate the numerical decline of that group. Even if it declines, it might take thousands of years in which a lot of radical changes might occur. A regime which doesnt tolerate intermarriage? Or maybe a group settles a planet just for themselves? Who knows? You cant know the future, and therefore, your absolutist prediction of future is silly. But I understand, you are mixed and you want everyone else to be like you.


And usually they weren't integrated with the native population very much, either. Nevertheless, Northern European Jews still look much closer to non-Jewish Northern Europeans than, say, Middle Eastern Jews.


That's because there are two types of jews. Ashkenazi and sephardic. Ask Atlantian Islands...


Mitochondrial/Y chromosome DNA studies tend to have such results; they don't mean much. Every human being can be traced back to one male and one female the same way.


Can be is not an argument because it is a hypothesis against something already proven.



No, it doesn't. It's hard enough to even find sort of distinct "races."


Many scientist disagree with that.


As globalization speeds up and immigration continues, more and more places will end up like that.

Trends arent linear. Anti-immigrant parties getting more and more votes in Europe. Even the socialist government in Spain is making statements conservative Bush goverment cant dream of, regarding to illegal immigrants. Spanish FM said anyone who enters Spain irregularly will eventually leave and they will not tolerate illegal immigrants anymore. You are still being too USA-centric, a common feature of Americans, to me, as far as my experiences go.

Well, apart from the fact that I have no idea what PWERKROWDATION could possibly mean, aren't hippies usually the ones that have lots of sex?

Too overcrowded...

Many scientist disagree with that.


No... a very few drips in a very large bucket.

Too overcrowded...

Hold on now... are you saying that PWERKROWDATION means too overcrowded, or that lots of hippies having sex would make it too overcrowded?

R1a and R1b seems to be dominant in most of Europe. R1a is nowhere in Africa, Americas, Ocenia and large portions of Asia. Same thing for R1b. And RxR1 isnt dark red but it's brown.
And in the second pic all of Europe almost got 50% H, while this group is nowhere in Sub-saharan Africa, large portions of Asia and Ocenia and Americas. Same thing with T although it isnt dominant in Europe.
First you appear to be confusing dominance with prevailance. Secondly, ifthe number of people in a group that have a gene is 50%, then 50% dont have it, so that would mean in the aspect of R1a 50% of people classified in the study as European are more similar to the persons classified as African, American and Oceanic than they are to Europeans....if we base race on such things then theoretically, in some cases people will be more similar to people they have not shared a common ancestor with for 1000's of years than to people who they share both parents with, which is kinda silly really isnt it?

Why else do people hold on to the obsolete? Fear of change.

Some fear of change are positive. Like it is a smart and positive thing to fear the change in global climate.

Some fear of change are positive. Like it is a smart and positive thing to fear the change in global climate.

But a little insane to fear the bathwater leaving the tub when you pull the plug.

First you appear to be confusing dominance with prevailance. Secondly, ifthe number of people in a group that have a gene is 50%, then 50% dont have it, so that would mean in the aspect of R1a 50% of people classified in the study as European are more similar to the persons classified as African, American and Oceanic than they are to Europeans....if we base race on such things then theoretically, in some cases people will be more similar to people they have not shared a common ancestor with for 1000's of years than to people who they share both parents with, which is kinda silly really isnt it?

By dominant, I meant majority and the majority of European locations show majority of R1 haplogroup.
And you seem to be confusing haplogroup with a single gene, which it isnt. And I wasnt just talking about r1a, I was also talking about R1b, read carefully next time.
And yes, if we base race on r1a, it'd be silly but we dont base it on just that, so I'm not surprised you reached to that silly conclusion yourself.


Groups A and B

Haplogroups A and B are only found in sub-Saharan Africa (and in populations extracted from there in modern times, primarily via Atlantic slave trade). The first to branch off was A, with defining mutation M91. All other haplogroups are summarized as BR (also referred to as YxA).

* Haplogroup A (M91)
* BR (M42, M94, M139, M299) ca. 55 kya
o Haplogroup B (M60)
o CR (see below)

[edit]

Groups with mutation M168 (CR)

The defining mutation separating CR (all haplogroups excepting A and B) are M168 and M294. These mutations predate the "Out of Africa" migration. The defining mutations of DE probably occurred in North Eastern Africa some 50 kya.

* Haplogroup C (M130, M216)
* DE (M1, M145, M203) ca. 50 kya
o Haplogroup D (M174)
o Haplogroup E (M40, M96)
+ Haplogroup E3a (M2)
+ Haplogroup E3b (M35)
* Haplogroup F (M89, M213)
o GR (see below)

[edit]

Groups descended from Haplogroup F (GR)

The groups descending from haplogroup F are found in some 90% of the world's population, but almost exclusively outside of sub-Saharan Africa. The mutation of IJ corresponds to a second Out of Africa wave some 45 kya that subsequently spread into Europe (Cro-Magnon). Haplogroup G originated in the Middle East or Caucasus, or perhaps further east as far as Pakistan some 30 kya, and spread to Europe with the Neolithic Revolution. Haplogroup H probably ocurred in India some 30-40 kya, and remains prevalent there, spreading westwards in historical times with the gypsy migration. Haplogroup K probably originated in southwestern Asia and spread widely to Africa, Eurasia, Australia and the South Pacific.

* Haplogroup G (M201) ca. 30 kya
* Haplogroup H (M52)
* IJ (S2, S22) ca. 45 kya
o Haplogroup I (M170, M258)
o Haplogroup J (M304, S6, S34, S35)
+ Haplogroup J1
+ Haplogroup J2 (M172)
* Haplogroup K (M9)

[edit]

Groups descended from Haplogroup K (LR)

Haplogroup L is mainly found in South Asia. Haplogroup M is most prevalent in Papua New Guinea. The NO haplogroup appeared ca. 35-40 kya in Central Asia. Haplogroup N probably originated in Mongolia and spread both east into Siberia and west, being the most common group found in Uralic peoples. Haplogroup O is found in East Asia and the South Pacific. Haplogroup P gave rise to groups Q and R, and is rarely found in its undifferentiated stage. It probably originated in Central Asia or the Altai region. Haplogroup Q also originated in Central Asia, migrating east to North America.

* Haplogroup L (M20)
* Haplogroup M (M4)
* NO (M214) 35-40 kya
o Haplogroup N (LLY22g)
o Haplogroup O (M175)
+ Haplogroup O3 (M122)
* Haplogroup P (M45)
o Haplogroup Q (M130)
+ Haplogroup Q3 (M242)
o Haplogroup R (M207, M306)

[edit]

Haplogroup R

Main article: Haplogroup R (Y-DNA)

The bulk of haplogroup R is represented in lineages R1a and R1b. R1a likely originated in the Eurasian Steppes, and is associated with the Kurgan culture and Proto-Indo-European expansion. It is primarily found in Central and Western Asia, India, and the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe. R1b originated prior to or during the last glaciation, when it was concentrated in refugia in southern Europe. It is most commonly found in European populations, especially in the west of Ireland.

* Haplogroup R1 (M173)
o Haplogroup R1a (M17)
o Haplogroup R1b (M343)
* Haplogroup R2 (M124)



For example, the following are common divisions for mtDNA haplogroups:

* West Eurasian: H, T, U, V, X, K, N, I, J, W[1]
* Sub-Saharan African: L, L1, L2, L3, L3*
* East Asian: A, B, C, D, E, F, G (note: C, D, E, and G belong to macro-haplogroup M)
* Native American: A, B, C, D, and sometimes X


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup

As you can see, West Euroasian population is distinct by either mtDNA or Y-DNA haplogroups analysis. When we analyse by looking to both haplogroups, Europeans are distinct then the rest of the West Euroasians (they got more r1b and h)...
And this is how, when you give samples of dna, they can tell you what continent and what race you are from.

um, no. Neanderthals (more accurately spelled "Neandertals") are classified as Homo sapiens neandertal, a sub-species of Homo sapiens. modern humans are also considered a subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

your anthropological information is a couple of decades old or so...

This is funny. :D


However, Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar anatomically -- so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification was popular through the 1970's and 80's, although many authors today have returned to the previous two-species hypothesis.


http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm

Please, tell us how you intend to get rid of tsunami and typhoons.

You know they can build tsunami warning stations and in the case of tsunami, sirens start screaming and people start going to inland before the waves could hit. They are doing it now in South East Asia, which could save hundreds of thousands of lives.
And tsunami is just one variable. There could be many solutions to other environmental challenges.

You make me sad.

So much in the world you could be doing, and you end up trawling through old news... one has to assume - since the article is more than a year old.

I'd like to believe you were just thumbing through old copies of the New York Times... but this is your 'pet topic' again... the 'difference' between human 'races'. Add that to the fact you present it in digital format... and one has to assume you were doing websearches with no intent other than racism.


Oh - it's cute. I like your angle of attack... "their unique combination of genes" as a discussion point for curing disease. It's a 'thin end of the wedge' though, isn't it?

World hunger. Poverty. Wars. Genocide. Failing governments. Environmental disasters.

And you are dedicating your free time to pushing an agenda about skin colour.

I know your generation isnt good at using google but the link comes with a "less than 1 minute search" . And it isnt of NY Times....:rolleyes:

Some of my favourite quotes from the article:

I like this one because it shows how the author understands that 'race' is merely one arbitrary grouping among many.
Yet there is nothing very fundamental about the concept of the major continental races; they're just the easiest way to divide things up. Study enough genes in enough people and one could sort the world's population into 10, 100, perhaps 1,000 groups, each located somewhere on the map. This has not yet been done with any precision, but it will be. Soon it may be possible to identify your ancestors not merely as African or European, but Ibo or Yoruba, perhaps even Celt or Castilian, or all of the above.


This paragraph is great on many levels. Not only does it underline the mixing of human populations over time, it also has something special for Ny Nordland at the end:
The identification of racial origins is not a search for purity. The human species is irredeemably promiscuous. We have always seduced or coerced our neighbors even when they have a foreign look about them and we don't understand a word. If Hispanics, for example, are composed of a recent and evolving blend of European, American Indian and African genes, then the Uighurs of Central Asia can be seen as a 3,000-year-old mix of West European and East Asian genes. Even homogenous groups like native Swedes bear the genetic imprint of successive nameless migrations.

As for the fate of the Negritos, the best thing is to leave them alone. If you are actually concerned about them, give them more land, and then leave them alone.

EDIT: And you can keep your cookie. I do not break bread with racist people.

I know your generation isnt good at using google but the link comes with a "less than 1 minute search" . And it isnt of NY Times....:rolleyes:

The article you posted clearly cites:

"A Family Tree in Every Gene

By Armand Marie Leroi*

Published: March 14, 2005, The New York Times, p. A23.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt... assuming you MIGHT have been reading the source material, rather than spending your time conducting websearches for material for your race agenda.

I guess this proves that you didn't even read your OWN source material, though.

I guess this proves that you didn't even read your OWN source material, though.
Why is it even necessary to read it?

Think about it. Nations not on the UN Security Council are waking up to the fact that the UN and the NNPT are toothless, weak, do-nothing hot-air blowhard strawmen.

Soon, many nations will have their own nuclear weapons.

Many.

The human race will be extinct soon, and not due to a birth rate problem, but due to a death rate problem.

The article you posted clearly cites:



I was giving you the benefit of the doubt... assuming you MIGHT have been reading the source material, rather than spending your time conducting websearches for material for your race agenda.

I guess this proves that you didn't even read your OWN source material, though.

Your post sounds really stupid as usual. "it", in second sentence refers to the "link", in first sentence. And the link isnt from NY Times.

Why is it even necessary to read it?

Think about it. Nations not on the UN Security Council are waking up to the fact that the UN and the NNPT are toothless, weak, do-nothing hot-air blowhard strawmen.

Soon, many nations will have their own nuclear weapons.

Many.

The human race will be extinct soon, and not due to a birth rate problem, but due to a death rate problem.

To be honest, although I did read it... there was little advantage gained from spending all that time doing so.

The only reason I mention it, was that Ny made something of a fuss about it: "Anyone who reads the whole article will get a cookie"... which is ironic, since he/she apparently failed to read it.

To be honest, although I did read it... there was little advantage gained from spending all that time doing so.

The only reason I mention it, was that Ny made something of a fuss about it: "Anyone who reads the whole article will get a cookie"... which is ironic, since he/she apparently failed to read it.

I'm just of the opinion that no one can fuck fast enough to make babies fast enough (even of a single "race") to keep up with thermonuclear destruction.

Think about it. Nations not on the UN Security Council are waking up to the fact that the UN and the NNPT are toothless, weak, do-nothing hot-air blowhard strawmen.


Which is why so few nations are clamoring to get permanent seats in the Security Council.

Oh wait.... :rolleyes:

Your post sounds really stupid as usual. "it", in second sentence refers to the "link", in first sentence. And the link isnt from NY Times.

You say: "I know your generation isnt good at using google but the link comes with a "less than 1 minute search" . And it isnt of NY Times...."

Okay - the 'link' leads to the same article, just on the "Is Race Real" page of the Social Science Research Council.

And - if you look on that site - it STILL categorically states that the article was originally taken from the New York Times... both at the top, and again, in the copyright details at the end.

I'm not sure how that makes me 'sound stupid'. It just sounds like you failed to read the material.


The upshot, however, is that we can be certain you didn't just 'happen' across this article while thumbing through old copies of the NYT... which means you DID specifically search out information for NO other reason than to support your 'arguments' about race.

Which is fine - if that is the most important thing you can think of to do. Long way down my list, though.

I'm just of the opinion that no one can fuck fast enough to make babies fast enough (even of a single "race") to keep up with thermonuclear destruction.

Even a fast breeder isn't as fast as a Fast-Breeder?

The upshot, however, is that we can be certain you didn't just 'happen' across this article while thumbing through old copies of the NYT... which means you DID specifically search out information for NO other reason than to support your 'arguments' about race.

Nonsense! As Ny Nordland himself states in post 7 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11637691&postcount=7), he is simply very concerned about the Negritos.

Therefore, since NN never lies just to try make himself look better, this thread has nothing to do with his other 2000 posts about race! ;)

You say: "I know your generation isnt good at using google but the link comes with a "less than 1 minute search" . And it isnt of NY Times...."

Okay - the 'link' leads to the same article, just on the "Is Race Real" page of the Social Science Research Council.

And - if you look on that site - it STILL categorically states that the article was originally taken from the New York Times... both at the top, and again, in the copyright details at the end.

I'm not sure how that makes me 'sound stupid'. It just sounds like you failed to read the material.


The upshot, however, is that we can be certain you didn't just 'happen' across this article while thumbing through old copies of the NYT... which means you DID specifically search out information for NO other reason than to support your 'arguments' about race.

Which is fine - if that is the most important thing you can think of to do. Long way down my list, though.

That makes you sound stupid because you assumed I was reading old issues of NY Times. That makes you sound stupid because you clearly misunderstood what a subject pronoun referred to, while it was clear. I think you might fail on TOEFL test or something, they ask many questions on what subject pronouns refer to. But back to subject, your post keep sounding stupid because you clearly assumed that I didnt read the article, even though you finally comprehended what "it" reffered to. And finally that makes you sound stupid because you assumed I was making that search out of nowhere, but actually, it was related to another discussion in a thread made by someone else.
So I suggest you add going to a course which teaches how to make better assumptions, to the top of your list.

That makes you sound stupid because you assumed I was reading old issues of NY Times. That makes you sound stupid because you clearly misunderstood what a subject pronoun referred to, while it was clear. I think you might fail on TOEFL test or something, they ask many questions on what subject pronouns refer to. But back to subject, your post keep sounding stupid because you clearly assumed that I didnt read the article, even though you finally comprehended what "it" reffered to. And finally that makes you sound stupid because you assumed I was making that search out of nowhere, but it was related to another discussion in a thread made by someone else.
So I suggest you add going to a course which teaches how to make better assumptions, to the top of your list.

You really enjoy the aspect of getting to insult anyone who dares disagree with your non-racist racism, don't you? It's too bad you suck at insults and they wind up making you... sound stupid.

Um, no, Blacks are not inherantly faster than Whites are.

Nor are Asians better at math.

Nor are Jews better at money.

None of the sterotypes have been shown to hold true over ANYTHING when actually looked at.

Just being black alone is not going to make you stronger or faster than someone who happens to be white. It changes for the individual, what genes they have, what training they've gone through, what shoes are they wearing. Just being black vs being white does not equal enough information or even influence the total amount of information given to equate to an intelligent conclusion.

Many asians are good at math because they're raised to be that way. Strict social traditions and putting the fear of god and parents into the children make many of them study until they get nosebleeds for fear of getting a B+ and being scolded or beaten for it. It's not like that for many American asians, but in traditional families around the world it continues to thrive. Though, this does not mean that just because they're asian that means they're smarter. Again, the race has nothing to do with it. It's the upbringing, the social expectations, and strictness in studying. Just being asian does not automatically make you smarter than someone who's white or black. If a white person was brought up in the same environment, the same result would most likely occur.

Jews aren't a race, they're a people who follow a specific religion. If reading the Torah made you better with cash, they would most likely become the dominant religion of the world by way of buying the Vatican and kicking out the Catholics. But, it doesn't make you smarter. Again, in traditional Hebrew families, there are social expectations and parental strictness that heavily influence how "smart" a child grows up to be. I use that term loosely, though, because just getting good grades or being good with money does not indicate intelligence, rather, a skill for playing a game of letters and numbers.

Bringing up my own stereotype, I'll introduce the "ignorant white Christian bastard". As with other stereotypes, it does not hold up at all - many Christians, white or otherwise, are not ignorant or bigoted in any way. Just being a white Christian does not make you ignorant. That being said, there ARE ignorant white Christian bastards out there. I recently ran into one on another forum I moderate, and he paints the perfect picture of this particular stereotype. Horrible grammar, considers all muslims to be terrorists because of something he saw on the news and what Bush tells him, general disregard for others' intelligence or feelings, a very low IQ, and with it, the inability to successfully or dignifyingly defend or debate his religious choice. They do exist, but they are by no means the majority... I hope. Honestly, I can't say. I've never been to the bible belt, I've never been to the south, I've never left Virginia (though there are quite a few of them here), and I realize the majority of rural states could fit the bill for breeding grounds of this particular stereotype. But that still does not mean that just by being white and being a Christian, you will automatically be bigoted or ignorant, so this stereotype is no more true than any other stereotype mentioned.

That makes you sound stupid because you assumed I was reading old issues of NY Times. That makes you sound stupid because you clearly misunderstood what a subject pronoun referred to, while it was clear. I think you might fail on TOEFL test or something, they ask many questions on what subject pronouns refer to. But back to subject, your post keep sounding stupid because you clearly assumed that I didnt read the article, even though you finally comprehended what "it" reffered to. And finally that makes you sound stupid because you assumed I was making that search out of nowhere, but actually, it was related to another discussion in a thread made by someone else.
So I suggest you add going to a course which teaches how to make better assumptions, to the top of your list.

If someone can translate this into a language with words in it, I'll be sure to give it my full attention.

Little note: If people are complaining that your posts aren't 'clear'... maybe, just maybe... the answer is NOT that everyone else is 'stupid'... maybe your posts just aren't all that clear.

R1a and R1b seems to be dominant in most of Europe. R1a is nowhere in Africa, Americas, Ocenia and large portions of Asia. Same thing for R1b. And RxR1 isnt dark red but it's brown.
And in the second pic all of Europe almost got 50% H, while this group is nowhere in Sub-saharan Africa, large portions of Asia and Ocenia and Americas. Same thing with T although it isnt dominant in Europe.

1) get your eyes checked

2) yeah, and?

If someone can translate this into a language with words in it, I'll be sure to give it my full attention.

Little note: If people are complaining that your posts aren't 'clear'... maybe, just maybe... the answer is NOT that everyone else is 'stupid'... maybe your posts just aren't all that clear.

Not really, it probably was due to YOUR lack of reading comprehension. Let's analyse:

"I know your generation isnt good at using google but the link comes with a "less than 1 minute search" . And it isnt of NY Times...."

What could "it" refer to in this sentence? "your generation" ? No. "google"? Of course it isnt of NY Times, DUH! (I hope you understood what it referred to, this time) So, No. "less than 1 minute search"? Less then 1 minute search isnt of NY Times. Makes sense? No, so this isnt what "it" refers to. And what else is left, besides verbs or adjectives and stuff? "The link". The link isnt of NY Times. Makes sense? Yes.

But you thought I was referring to "article" although "article" wasnt mentioned anywhere in my post. And when we use "article" instead of "it", things become: The article isnt of NY Times. This is still correct. NY Times didnt write the article, a scientist did. NY Times just published it. There is a difference, which obviously you didnt get, among myriad of other things. It's like when they publish a review of the book, it doesnt actually mean they *own" the book.

So yes, your post did sound utterly stupid, so did your assumptions. Now, add going to the course I mentioned about to the top of your list.

Preserving a race sounds like something an aryan would say, or a "culture challenged person", why do we need to preserve something of ourselves anyways. What we preserve is in books, files, and in DVD's and CD's. Why do we need to preserve our blood for future generations. So I guess this race was extinct, and some dumbass wants to bring them back. A reason why genetic engineering on intelligent beings is wrong, because maybe they won't be able to fucking cope in our time. They won't be able to cope with cars driving by. What do you want to do with them? Put em in a zoo for your own entertainment and study? Can you imagine if fucking aliens for space picked you up, and stuck all kinds of shit in you for tests, and then put you in a fucking zoo. Get some fucking morals for fucks sake. That is human torture. It'd be so funny because of the fucking hypocrisy that is in liberals faces, pro-abortion yet pro-genetic engineering, and yet they still have time to fit in more rights for illegal immigrants than a destined to be born child, or a fucking freak genetically engineered human. It's not an abomination to god, it's an abomination of US as humans to be better than that. To give life, but not to create life that can be so physically torturing, and yet so emotionally torturing.

Not really, it probably was due to YOUR lack of reading comprehension.

You'd say that to me, Jocabia, and anyone else on this forum who disagrees with your bigoted, racist views.

Always, the problem is other people not "comprehending" your vast intellect... it's never the fact that you're, you know, wrong. That english is not your first language. Or that your arguments are full of fallacies and outright lies.

Never you. It's always other people making "silly" posts and "sounding stupid."

Could it be that we're just not as superior as your White Nordic Race?

If one group increases in number (births>deaths), even if some people in that group chooses to intermarry, that group might remain stable in numbers or even increase. The fact that some people of a group might intermarry doesnt necessitate the numerical decline of that group.

No. Intermarriage necessitates a decline in the distinctiveness of that group. It will mean that categories of race will be blurred, as has happened to many of the white European immigrant populations that came to the US.

Even if it declines, it might take thousands of years in which a lot of radical changes might occur. A regime which doesnt tolerate intermarriage? Or maybe a group settles a planet just for themselves? Who knows? You cant know the future, and therefore, your absolutist prediction of future is silly.

Predictions are never certain.

But I understand, you are mixed and you want everyone else to be like you.

It may help you maintain your comfortable delusions to attack the person arguing against them, but it is not indicative of intellectual honesty.

That's because there are two types of jews. Ashkenazi and sephardic.

What does that have to do with anything?

Can be is not an argument because it is a hypothesis against something already proven.

What are you talking about?

Many scientist disagree with that.

Many scientists have found genetic differences based on geography. So what?

Trends arent linear. Anti-immigrant parties getting more and more votes in Europe. Even the socialist government in Spain is making statements conservative Bush goverment cant dream of, regarding to illegal immigrants. Spanish FM said anyone who enters Spain irregularly will eventually leave and they will not tolerate illegal immigrants anymore. You are still being too USA-centric, a common feature of Americans, to me, as far as my experiences go.

Globalization is inevitable. It is not going away. You and your fellow racial/cultural nationalists can scream and moan as much as you like, but it is here and it is here to stay.

Thankfully.

You'd say that to me, Jocabia, and anyone else on this forum who disagrees with your bigoted, racist views.

Always, the problem is other people not "comprehending" your vast intellect... it's never the fact that you're, you know, wrong. That english is not your first language. Or that your arguments are full of fallacies and outright lies.

Never you. It's always other people making "silly" posts and "sounding stupid."

Could it be that we're just not as superior as your White Nordic Race?

you should know by now, that if you dont believe that the 'white race' is superior,then ny nordland will claim you have no reading comprehension,no intellectual skills.Or even that your an idiot, orwhatever it takes to make him feel better about being a racist slimball.Its really the lowest form of debabting, to put up a psudo scientific arguement,when people disagree(often validly,argueing against bed science or mistaken veiws, even giving a contradictory opinion to ny's own)then attacking the charicter and inteligence of those holding opposing veiw.When people get annoyed at this, he reports them to the moderators.Funnily enough,pracically all NN's threads are about race, is there a superior race,are the germanic race about to die out, is race more than skin colour,ect ect.My advice to ny nordland is, that if he wants to express racist veiws(which he has the right to do)then he should know that people are going to agrgue against them, and if he cant take the criticism and if he cant take an honest debabte about the so called'facts' he presents then he should not present these facts at all or put this kind of thread up for discussion.
Other than that, the best thing to do is not to stoop to his level and try and debate honestly, with intellectual intelligence and integrity.

and by the way, the blurring of 'racial'lines, and 'inter racial'marriages and good for the health of the human population.This is because mixing and breeding only within a certain 'race'is unhealthy,just as breeding with your own family is.The wider the genetic mix the more likely a child is to be healthy.So unless ny actually wants the whole human race to die out then he should be encouraging 'inter-racial' breeding for the health of the species.(please correct me if im wrong, I am(like many involved in this debate)not a genetics expert.

Not really, it probably was due to YOUR lack of reading comprehension. Let's analyse:

"I know your generation isnt good at using google but the link comes with a "less than 1 minute search" . And it isnt of NY Times...."

What could "it" refer to in this sentence? "your generation" ? No. "google"? Of course it isnt of NY Times, DUH! (I hope you understood what it referred to, this time) So, No. "less than 1 minute search"? Less then 1 minute search isnt of NY Times. Makes sense? No, so this isnt what "it" refers to. And what else is left, besides verbs or adjectives and stuff? "The link". The link isnt of NY Times. Makes sense? Yes.

But you thought I was referring to "article" although "article" wasnt mentioned anywhere in my post. And when we use "article" instead of "it", things become: The article isnt of NY Times. This is still correct. NY Times didnt write the article, a scientist did. NY Times just published it. There is a difference, which obviously you didnt get, among myriad of other things. It's like when they publish a review of the book, it doesnt actually mean they *own" the book.

So yes, your post did sound utterly stupid, so did your assumptions. Now, add going to the course I mentioned about to the top of your list.

Since this is way, WAY off the topic... I'm not going to argue it any more.

The problem I had with your use of 'it'... is that the subject of conversation was the article.

How do I know.... because you were responding to MY post. I was talking about the article... you started talking about Google. Not my problem if you want to confuse the issue... just don't expect me to follow what the hell you are talking about.

If I started a thread with the question "What would you guess a thread started by NN is about?" it would be no wonder what it would be about. Is it just so frightening to you that people not buy into the failed concept of race?

Meanwhile, they aren't becoming extinct. They are having children and those children are having children. They just aren't staying 'pure' by your standards. That's not extinction. That's evolution. That's success.

And the genes are remaining and are still there to be studied. Any scientist who doesn't realize that 'racial purity' is not necessary to study characteristics commonly associated with a particular race isn't qualified to wash my car.

If I started a thread with the question "What would you guess a thread started by NN is about?" it would be no wonder what it would be about. Is it just so frightening to you that people not buy into the failed concept of race?

Meanwhile, they aren't becoming extinct. They are having children and those children are having children. They just aren't staying 'pure' by your standards. That's not extinction. That's evolution. That's success.

And the genes are remaining and are still there to be studied. Any scientist who doesn't realize that 'racial purity' is not necessary to study characteristics commonly associated with a particular race isn't qualified to wash my car.

hear hear.You should start that thread, but you will probably get reported by NN to the mods.

You'd say that to me, Jocabia, and anyone else on this forum who disagrees with your bigoted, racist views.


Interestingly when I read that comment I though exactly that. It's his pocket argument. I take it mean "wow, I don't have a reply to that so I'll attack you and maybe no one will notice". It used to operate mostly alone or in conjunction with smilies, but since he recently learned some HTML, he's added the really large text to his arsenal of non-arguments.

Look, we all know what a NN thread is about.

Let's look at the last few threads started by NN, in order of last post (not including complaints in moderation)
-Human Race Will Be Extinct Soon, Says Scientist (referring to racial decline)
-Population Decline in The West (referring to decline of racial decline)
-There Goes Germans....
-Does Race Exist?
-Teams Will Be Racially Grouped in New Survivor
-EU May Have More Than 125 Million Muslims by 2025
-Progressive Attitudes of Peaceful Muslims on Homosexuality (sarcasm)
-Census: 27% of 25- Germans Have Migratory Background
-Islam Incompatible with Europe, Say Dutch

Well, let's see 9 of 9 threads. Good thing he's not a racist.

But hey, maybe he's unbiased. I'm sure at least one of them presented an argument that wasn't talking about creating stronger racial divisions and protecting purity. At least one, right? Right?

hear hear.You should start that thread, but you will probably get reported by NN to the mods.

Nah, you couldn't start a thread like that. What's it matter? Every thread he starts degenerates into every pointing out his bias on the matter and the fact that he's unwilling to actually debate and him posting sniper smilies and giant text and telling people they're stupid. I mean, look around this one.

Actually, here's a question, NN, what were you searching for when you came across this article? What site did you find it on, originally?

No. Intermarriage necessitates a decline in the distinctiveness of that group. It will mean that categories of race will be blurred, as has happened to many of the white European immigrant populations that came to the US.


When a white intermarries, his/her children from the intermarriage is no longer a white. He/she is either mixed or something non-white. So intermarriage doesnt necessitate a decline in distinctiveness.


Predictions are never certain.


Including mine and yours.



It may help you maintain your comfortable delusions to attack the person arguing against them, but it is not indicative of intellectual honesty.


I thought that was an accurate psychological observation. Certainly not an attack against you.



What does that have to do with anything?


You said north european jews are different then mid east ones. Ashkanzi = European jews, sephardic = mid eastern jews. So difference is not all about intermarriage. It has to do that there are already different kinds of jews.



What are you talking about?


When they prove all humans come from 3 people, you got an argument. Until then your claim is just a claim and doesnt hold a value against something which was proven.


Many scientists have found genetic differences based on geography. So what?


Hence distinctiveness of geographical groups.



Globalization is inevitable. It is not going away. You and your fellow racial/cultural nationalists can scream and moan as much as you like, but it is here and it is here to stay.

Thankfully.

If you say so...

and by the way, the blurring of 'racial'lines, and 'inter racial'marriages and good for the health of the human population.This is because mixing and breeding only within a certain 'race'is unhealthy,just as breeding with your own family is.The wider the genetic mix the more likely a child is to be healthy.So unless ny actually wants the whole human race to die out then he should be encouraging 'inter-racial' breeding for the health of the species.(please correct me if im wrong, I am(like many involved in this debate)not a genetics expert.

There's enough genetic variation within a race so it is safe to breed within your own race. If you are equating breeding within race to breeding with families, that's really silly.

The fact that 90% of genetic variation is within continents doesnt necessitate that a white tall person is genetically closer to a tall black person then a short white person. :rolleyes:
"I have no question, given what we know about human genetics, that the tall person and the short person are significantly more different than the black man and the white man of a similar height," answers Dr. Sylvia Spengler, a geneticist at U.C. Berkeley.

Take skin color, for example. Melanin is the substance that colors our skin and helps protect us from sunlight. Pure melanin is the color and texture of charcoal dust, but our bodies can also produce it in shades of brown, yellow, and red. The mix of melanin we show to the world is controlled by our genes, but it is indeed a very small part of us.

How small? While each cell in the human body has 100,000 genes, only about six genes control skin color -- six out of 100,000!

What's more, everyone watching this program shares the same six genes, including the genes for dark skin! What that means may shock some people; that each of us has the potential to produce skin as black as an African native

"If you expect that there exists pure races, that is totally absurd," states Dr. Cavalli-Sforza, Stanford University

And that brings us back to our pop quiz: Why are the tall and short man more genetically different than the black and white man? Because remember, only six genes control skin color. A person's height, on the other hand, is affected by dozens of genes.
Yes, there IS more difference in hight than race.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/kron/archive/1998/02/23/race_part1.dtl&type=special

Besides, that "genetic variation invalidates existance of races" hypothesis is challenged by many scientists, including the one in the OP.
And they are losing badly as more and more science based upon gentics becomes avalable. I believe the Human Genom Project's findings are far more relivent and trustworthy when they state the racial differences don't exist vs someone in Norway with a high school biology class under his belt.

Link?
http://wwwdbtk.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/youran/data17k/1-37.xls (Excel document)
I'm afraid the 2005 stats are not out yet and the Japan Times is being a pain in the butt in retreval this morning (Birth of a prince ya know?). However, this document from the Ministry of Health shows a large increase in the number of international marriages in Japan. The 2004 rate for all Japan is 1 in 17 (I mis-remember, the 1 in 12 is Tokyo's and Osaka's rate). But, considering how fast it has climbed...

Well... the bright side is that the world won't be crowded for very long.

That makes you sound stupid because you assumed I was reading old issues of NY Times. That makes you sound stupid because you clearly misunderstood what a subject pronoun referred to, while it was clear. I think you might fail on TOEFL test or something, they ask many questions on what subject pronouns refer to. But back to subject, your post keep sounding stupid because you clearly assumed that I didnt read the article, even though you finally comprehended what "it" reffered to. And finally that makes you sound stupid because you assumed I was making that search out of nowhere, but actually, it was related to another discussion in a thread made by someone else.
So I suggest you add going to a course which teaches how to make better assumptions, to the top of your list.
Sounding stupid is vastly different to being stupid.
But then someone who is stupid probably wouldn't realise that now, would they Ny?








Now to wait for the inevitable comeback from Ny that this post 'proves' that I'm so upset, jealous and in awe of his vast intellect that I have to insult him - and hence also 'prove' that I'm stoopid.

Thus I may as well save time and get my reply in first:
Oh no.
i feel so belittled and embarassed by your riposte.
yes.
quite.
you're right ny.
you're right.
there there.
good ny.
good boy.

By dominant, I meant majority and the majority of European locations show majority of R1 haplogroup.
Another words prevailance, not dominance. Dominance refers to one alleles relationship to another (for instance the alleles that code for A B in the ABO blood group are both dominant to O, however O occurs more often - O is more prevailant than A and B, but certainly not dominant to either).

And you seem to be confusing haplogroup with a single gene, which it isnt.
No kidding a haplogroup isnt a single gene, which probably explains why no one who has a clue about biology would use the word dominant to refer to a haplogroup.

And I wasnt just talking about r1a, I was also talking about R1b, read carefully next time.
Really?
R1a and R1b seems to be dominant in most of Europe. R1a is nowhere in Africa, Americas, Ocenia and large portions of Asia.
:confused:

And yes, if we base race on r1a, it'd be silly but we dont base it on just that, so I'm not surprised you reached to that silly conclusion yourself.
Goodness logic isnt a strong point with you is it? What aspect of the premise "if we base race on R1a it'd be silly but we dont base it on just that" leads you to conclude that it is unsurprising that I would reach a contrary conclusion? So far as I can tell the premise neither necessitates nor indicates as likely such a conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup

As you can see, West Euroasian population is distinct by either mtDNA or Y-DNA haplogroups analysis. When we analyse by looking to both haplogroups, Europeans are distinct then the rest of the West Euroasians (they got more r1b and h)...
What you dont seem to understand is that only those Europeans that have the haplogroups referred to have the haplogroups referred to, those Europeans that dont have them are not distinct from the West Euroasians so far as that aspect goes, neither are they 'not Europeans'. This is what you just dont seem to understand. People either do or do not have a haplogroup, they dont 'nearly have' a haplogroup or have a haplogroup at some percentage other than 0 or 100%.
And this is how, when you give samples of dna, they can tell you what continent and what race you are from.
They can work out what the relationship is between genotypes. That there are clinal distributions that match geographic areas simply demonstrates what ought to be obvious - the closer people live the greater the likelihood of interaction of all kinds, including inter-breeding.

When a white intermarries, he/she is no longer a white. He/she is either mixed or something non-white. So intermarriage doesnt necessitate a decline in distinctiveness.
Getting married does not alter one's genes in any way, shape or form. Therefore if it is true that one's 'racial identity' (for instance as 'a white') is effected by getting married, then clearly race isnt about genotypes, but rather is determined by social rules, kind of like a social construct...

When a white intermarries, he/she is no longer a white. He/she is either mixed or something non-white. So intermarriage doesnt necessitate a decline in distinctiveness.

Then a huge portion of "whites" today aren't really white.

Including mine and yours.

Yes.

I thought that was an accurate psychological observation.

You thought wrong. Just because you are obsessed with race doesn't mean that the rest of us are.

You said north european jews are different then mid east ones. Ashkanzi = European jews, sephardic = mid eastern jews. So difference is not all about intermarriage. It has to do that there are already different kinds of jews.

Yes. And why do you think there are "different kinds" (in terms of racial characteristics)? Because God created them that way?

And defining Sephardic Jews as Middle Eastern is an awful definition, as I've pointed out to Atlantian Islands before.

When they prove all humans come from 3 people, you got an argument. Until then your claim is just a claim and doesnt hold a value against something which was proven.

Um, that's already been proven by precisely the same methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

And it isn't a question of "come from," really; it's a question of whose mitochondrial/y-chromosomal DNA manifest themselves after the other matrilineal/patrilineal lines have died out.

Hence distinctiveness of geographical groups.

You are not genetically identical to all other Northern European whites; does that mean that you are a different race?

Anyone who reads the whole article will get a cookie


http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/

So I didnt say A human race in the title. I thought it'd be more catchy like this. Anyways, what should be done about this? Should Negritos be preserved? Taken into a breeding program or something? Or maybe their blood samples should be saved? Besides the romantic idea of saving something very old, their unique combination of genes might be needed in future, for example they can be more immune to a certain diseases or something...
Have you read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? I don't think you can properly have a conversation about a topic like this without having read that book.

When a white intermarries, he/she is no longer a white. He/she is either mixed or something non-white. So intermarriage doesnt necessitate a decline in distinctiveness.
I am? *blinks* So, uh, how long does it take for this mixing to happen? I mean, I'm PRETTY sure I was still white when I said I do about three weeks ago.

Does it happen when the paperwork is filed? If so, what happens in my case when the US has reconized the marriage but Japan hasn't gotten around to it yet? Am I white in Japan but not in the US in that case?

And pray tell when can I tell I'm not white? I mean, I'm very sure I look nothing like the Japanese faces around me. And while I got a good, healthy Nevada tan when at home to get married, my skin is still lighter than theirs (my nose is also bigger, but that's family).

I'm hanging on every word because that has to be the stupidest thing I have heard on this board and I really want to know what screwed up logic came up with it.

The only thing seemingly unsaid:

"The fate of one tribe, the Sentinelese, remains uncertain, but an Indian coast guard helicopter sent to check up on them came under bow and arrow attack, which is heartening."

From the end of the article; am I the only one who found this hilarious?

The only thing seemingly unsaid:

"The fate of one tribe, the Sentinelese, remains uncertain, but an Indian coast guard helicopter sent to check up on them came under bow and arrow attack, which is heartening."

From the end of the article; am I the only one who found this hilarious?
I didnt, but that's probably only because I'd expect the helicopter to be fired on if the Sentinelese society hadnt been wiped out, so neither the arrows nor the heartiness have that quality of the unexpected that usually amuses.

But since you bring it up, it is this aspect of the Sentinelese that makes NN's suggestions regarding breeding programs/tsunami warmings so darn silly. The Sentinelese and the rest of the world are not in contact with each other, if they (the Sentinelese) heard Tsunami warning sirens they wouldnt have a clue what the point of them was, and since there are no means of communicating with the Sentinelese, it's not like we could tell them. Nor offer them incentives to breed more. The Sentinelese are completely isolated and do not tolerate approaches from the outside world.

There's enough genetic variation within a race so it is safe to breed within your own race. If you are equating breeding within race to breeding with families, that's really silly.

I am saying only breeding within one raace over many generations can be unhealthy.

"I have no question, given what we know about human genetics, that the tall person and the short person are significantly more different than the black man and the white man of a similar height," answers Dr. Sylvia Spengler, a geneticist at U.C. Berkeley.


One answer of one scientist in a tv series isnt the scientific consenssus.


"If you expect that there exists pure races, that is totally absurd," states Dr. Cavalli-Sforza, Stanford University


Yes, there IS more difference in hight than race.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/kron/archive/1998/02/23/race_part1.dtl&type=special


Is race only skin colour? There are lots of correlations within a race. Like colour of eyes and hair, and nose shapes, etc. When we add all those genes responsible for those, it must be much more numerous then the genes responsible for height. Besides, height can be another indication of race. i.e: pygmies, negriots, etc...


And they are losing badly as more and more science based upon gentics becomes avalable. I believe the Human Genom Project's findings are far more relivent and trustworthy when they state the racial differences don't exist vs someone in Norway with a high school biology class under his belt.


LOL. Were you under the impression I wrote the article in the OP? Do you know what OP stands for?


http://wwwdbtk.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/youran/data17k/1-37.xls (Excel document)
I'm afraid the 2005 stats are not out yet and the Japan Times is being a pain in the butt in retreval this morning (Birth of a prince ya know?). However, this document from the Ministry of Health shows a large increase in the number of international marriages in Japan. The 2004 rate for all Japan is 1 in 17 (I mis-remember, the 1 in 12 is Tokyo's and Osaka's rate). But, considering how fast it has climbed...

It's Japaneese. Show an english source. Besides, 1 in 17 is still a small number. Besides, international marriage doesnt necessitate interracial marriage. A japaneese could be marrying a brazilian of japaneese descent. A japaneese could be marrying another far eastern.

One answer of one scientist in a tv series isnt the scientific consenssus.
Neither is *gasp* Wikipedia. However since the news tends to be more vetted and it dovetails nicely with journals I have read...

Is race only skin colour? There are lots of correlations within a race. Like colour of eyes and hair, and nose shapes, etc. When we add all those genes responsible for those, it must be much more numerous then the genes responsible for height. Besides, height can be another indication of race. i.e: pygmies, negriots, etc...
And then we can add them as well because, dang it all, hair and eye colors go across races, so do shapes of noses.

When we get down to it, as we keep beeting you over your bloody head with, NOTHING is actually race specific in terms of your genes! You have every single one (I assume, though this may be a bit of a streach). Genetically there is very little to no differences between you and a black man of the same height. THAT'S what the project has been coming up with.

LOL. Were you under the impression I wrote the article in the OP? Do you know what OP stands for?
No, but I know that your comprehension of the article in the OP is being filtered through your high school bio course and that leaves you very suspect.

And I do know what OP means, it means YOUR post, not the article quoted in your post.

It's Japaneese. Show an english source. Besides, 1 in 17 is still a small number. Besides, international marriage doesnt necessitate interracial marriage. A japaneese could be marrying a brazilian of japaneese descent. A japaneese could be marrying another far eastern.
OF COURSE IT'S IN JAPANESE!! What did you expect a Japanese data set to be in, Swahilli? Besides nothing, you wanted proof that international marriages have increased dramatically in the last few years, there you are. In 1985 there were 12,000 marriages, in 2005, 39,000. In less than 10 years it more than trippled. That's an increase, don't'cha think?

BTW, I said international marriages, you never wanted a bloody breakdown of countries.

OF COURSE IT'S IN JAPANESE!! What did you expect a Japanese data set to be in, Swahilli? Besides nothing, you wanted proof that international marriages have increased dramatically in the last few years, there you are. In 1985 there were 12,000 marriages, in 2005, 39,000. In less than 10 years it more than trippled. That's an increase, don't'cha think?
Does this "trippling" take into account an overall change in population?

Is race only skin colour? There are lots of correlations within a race. Like colour of eyes and hair, and nose shapes, etc. When we add all those genes responsible for those, it must be much more numerous then the genes responsible for height. Besides, height can be another indication of race. i.e: pygmies, negriots, etc...

Wow. Just wow. For the genetic-understanding-challenged, if a genetic variance is available in most races then it is only an indicator in races it is absent in. If it is not, then it is in indicator in races it appears in. Regardless, one can isolate for other things like height and find just as much genetic uniqueness in artificial separation for height (again, for the those who don't know, there are genes that correllate with height so a seperation for height would include other alleles and not simply those that dictate height). You tend to act as if any other groupings wouldn't have the same kinds of correllations as race does, but this demonstrates a profound ignorance of genetics.

Does this "trippling" take into account an overall change in population?
Japan's population is still climbing, it'll hit the drop point in 2012. Over all marriages have dropped, but it still has trippled in terms of pure numbers (12k vs 39k) in ten years.

Actually, mixed marriages produce more children. International couples child rate is 2.3 births per woman where as a pure Japanese couple is 1.3 (below the rate needed to maintain Japan's population).

NN, what site did you come across this article on? What were you searching for?

I am? *blinks* So, uh, how long does it take for this mixing to happen? I mean, I'm PRETTY sure I was still white when I said I do about three weeks ago.

Does it happen when the paperwork is filed? If so, what happens in my case when the US has reconized the marriage but Japan hasn't gotten around to it yet? Am I white in Japan but not in the US in that case?

And pray tell when can I tell I'm not white? I mean, I'm very sure I look nothing like the Japanese faces around me. And while I got a good, healthy Nevada tan when at home to get married, my skin is still lighter than theirs (my nose is also bigger, but that's family).

I'm hanging on every word because that has to be the stupidest thing I have heard on this board and I really want to know what screwed up logic came up with it.

I know what you're saying. This shit is so hilarious that I keep expecting Ny Nordland to be a reincarnation of Jesussaves.

I know what you're saying. This shit is so hilarious that I keep expecting Ny Nordland to be a reincarnation of Jesussaves.
Jesussaves was funny, NN is just... sad actually. You know what I mean? You get the idea that he actually means this stuff as opposed to Jesussaves whom you never really knew if he was serious or not.

When a white intermarries, he/she is no longer a white. He/she is either mixed or something non-white.


http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif
http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif
http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

When a white intermarries, his/her children from the intermarriage is no longer a white. He/she is either mixed or something non-white. So intermarriage doesnt necessitate a decline in distinctiveness.


How 'white' does a child have to be to be 'white'?

I'm just wondering. You must be aware that, if you go back far enough, every family line will be 'mixed' to some extent, and that, unless your entire lineage has lived in absolute isolation, you probably have some small percentage (at least) of 'non-white' blood, no matter how 'white' you look.

I had a 'white' friend, with a black father. Looking at her, she favoured her mother so far, you really couldn't tell her 'genetic heritage'. Was she 'white'? Or is there some deeper measure?

Most of us that have 'Northern European' heritage (myself included), are aware of the fact that our ancestors travelled a lot, and intermarried (I'm being delicate, I know... not all the relationships involved formal vows) with the 'natives'. Are any of us truly 'white'?

There's enough genetic variation within a race so it is safe to breed within your own race. If you are equating breeding within race to breeding with families, that's really silly.

On the contrary, the two things are similar, it is only the scale that differs.

If one looks at breeding within a very small genepool (a family), one fairly quickly sees that the offspring become 'weakened'... within the order of a few generations.

One can counter much of this 'weakness' by breeding an external line back in... and the more diverse, the better, in terms of 'strong' offspring.


So - the question is - does this apply across whole 'race' (your word, not mine) lines?

The answer is yes - 'inter-race' breeding provides stronger, bigger, more symmetrical offspring (this symmetry is why so many people perceive these 'hybrids' to look so attractive... it also implies they are much better 'breeding stock').

The simple fact that 'hybrid vigour' can be observed in inter-racial marriage, means that the same kind of 'genepool stagnation' MUST be taking place, as in the incestuous family relationship... just at a much slower rate.

It's fairly basic science, Ny.

One answer of one scientist in a tv series isnt the scientific consenssus.


No - but the point HAS been 'sourced'.

If you want to refute it with 'consensus' data... oyu are going to need to provide it.

As a scientist, working in a science field, it has been my ANECDOTAL experience, that MOST scientists believe there is greater diversity WITHIN one 'race group', than there is BETWEEN the 'average' individuals in two different groups.

That's anecdotal evidence, of course... but it HAS been supported by another source (this scientist you are debating).


Thus - the ball is now in your court.

Where is your evidence to suggest that the consensus believes otherwise... that MOST scientists in the field, would argue the platform you insist they would?

Another words prevailance, not dominance. Dominance refers to one alleles relationship to another (for instance the alleles that code for A B in the ABO blood group are both dominant to O, however O occurs more often - O is more prevailant than A and B, but certainly not dominant to either).


Really? I think you forgot that a word might have more then one meaning. I didnt use dominant in biological sense.


Main Entry: 1dom·i·nant
Pronunciation: -n&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin dominant-, dominans, present participle of dominari
1 a : commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others <the dominant culture> b : very important, powerful, or successful <a dominant theme> <a dominant industry>


Get it now?



No kidding a haplogroup isnt a single gene, which probably explains why no one who has a clue about biology would use the word dominant to refer to a haplogroup.


Then why were you comparing R1a to a gene?

First you appear to be confusing dominance with prevailance. Secondly, ifthe number of people in a group that have a gene is 50%, then 50% dont have it, so that would mean in the aspect of R1a 50% of people classified in the study as European are more similar to the persons classified as African, American and Oceanic than they are to Europeans...


If 50% of the population belongs to one haplogroup, that doesnt mean rest of the population are more similar to the persons classified as African, American and Oceanic. To tell what it means, you have to look at what hapologroup rest of the population belongs to. And in this case it is mostly R1b, in most places, which is the closest haplogroup to R1a.


Really?


Yes, really. If you knew that I wasnt only talking about r1a, why would you assume that I was thinking race was based only on r1a. I see that the silliness of your assumptions are competing with GnI's.


:confused:


You got a problem with your eyes?


Goodness logic isnt a strong point with you is it? What aspect of the premise "if we base race on R1a it'd be silly but we dont base it on just that" leads you to conclude that it is unsurprising that I would reach a contrary conclusion? So far as I can tell the premise neither necessitates nor indicates as likely such a conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup


I'm going to quote your post again, since your memory doesnt seem to be of top functioning.

First you appear to be confusing dominance with prevailance. Secondly, ifthe number of people in a group that have a gene is 50%, then 50% dont have it, so that would mean in the aspect of R1a 50% of people classified in the study as European are more similar to the persons classified as African, American and Oceanic than they are to Europeans....if we base race on such things then theoretically, in some cases people will be more similar to people they have not shared a common ancestor with for 1000's of years than to people who they share both parents with, which is kinda silly really isnt it?

You said "if we base race on such things". If we correlate "things" with your silly and incorrect example, it is clear that you do not understand what those "things" are. As I said, "race basing" is not only looking at haplogroup percentages but it is also considering how much related those percentages are. (i.e.: R1a and R1b are the most related.) Even then, Y haplogroups isnt the only consideration since there are also mtDNA to be considered. When we consider Y chromosomes and mtDNA together and the relationships within those, that's when we get the correct meaning of "things". So, with your limited understanding of "things", I found it unsurprising that you reached a silly conclusion, because it was the only one you were capable of, given your condition of not understanding. Similarly, I'm not surprised about the conclusion you reached about my logic.




What you dont seem to understand is that only those Europeans that have the haplogroups referred to have the haplogroups referred to, those Europeans that dont have them are not distinct from the West Euroasians so far as that aspect goes, neither are they 'not Europeans'. This is what you just dont seem to understand. People either do or do not have a haplogroup, they dont 'nearly have' a haplogroup or have a haplogroup at some percentage other than 0 or 100%.

They can work out what the relationship is between genotypes. That there are clinal distributions that match geographic areas simply demonstrates what ought to be obvious - the closer people live the greater the likelihood of interaction of all kinds, including inter-breeding.

I understand that. However, in this case, what you seem to be not getting is that there are 2 type of haplogroups we are considering.
A European might have a R1a Y-DNA which might make him similar to some Indians, but that European might also have H mt-DNA which would make him different then those indians. You are thinking one sided, looking only at one data, without considering correlations and that's why you keep sounding clueless.

Getting married does not alter one's genes in any way, shape or form. Therefore if it is true that one's 'racial identity' (for instance as 'a white') is effected by getting married, then clearly race isnt about genotypes, but rather is determined by social rules, kind of like a social construct...

This is what I meant.

"When a white intermarries, his/her children from the intermarriage is no longer a white. He/she is either mixed or something non-white. So intermarriage doesnt necessitate a decline in distinctiveness."

Then a huge portion of "whites" today aren't really white.


This is what I should have written. I used the first subject pronouns prematurely. They were meant to refer to the children not to the white who's marrying.

"When a white intermarries, his/her children from the intermarriage is no longer a white. He/she is either mixed or something non-white. So intermarriage doesnt necessitate a decline in distinctiveness."



Yes.


You thought wrong. Just because you are obsessed with race doesn't mean that the rest of us are.


Yes. And why do you think there are "different kinds" (in terms of racial characteristics)? Because God created them that way?


They are different kinds because they got some different genetic characteristics. (ex: phenotype)


And defining Sephardic Jews as Middle Eastern is an awful definition, as I've pointed out to Atlantian Islands before.


Ok. Still, they are of a different kind and that inavalidates your mixing claim.



Um, that's already been proven by precisely the same methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

And it isn't a question of "come from," really; it's a question of whose mitochondrial/y-chromosomal DNA manifest themselves after the other matrilineal/patrilineal lines have died out.

You are not genetically identical to all other Northern European whites; does that mean that you are a different race?

That's why I asked you the definition of distinctiveness.


Groups A and B

Haplogroups A and B are only found in sub-Saharan Africa (and in populations extracted from there in modern times, primarily via Atlantic slave trade).


Not all sub saharan africans are gentically identical (some twins are). However A and B are only found within them so that's a distinctiveness. If you define distinct, as totally different, yes, sub saharan africans arent distinct since they share lots with non-sub saharan africans. However, if you define distinctiveness as something which seperates them from others, then sub-saharan africans are distinct.

I am saying only breeding within one raace over many generations can be unhealthy.

It can? Provide us some links then...

This is what I meant.

"When a white intermarries, his/her children from the intermarriage is no longer a white. He/she is either mixed or something non-white. So intermarriage doesnt necessitate a decline in distinctiveness."

So then when you are talking about the prevelence of certain races in your complaints about white extinction, you, of course, understand that the vast majority of the people you racially qualify don't actually qualify for any race according to your standards. For example, in the US, the an extremely large percentage of 'black' people have some white decendants as a result of slavery. But then, according to your made-up definition of race, it's really only a small percentage of people that qualify for any particular race at all, unless we make a new race for every possible combination of ancestry, sort of defeating the point.

So what race do most black people in America belong to if mixing makes one no longer a part of the races of one's ancestry?

It can? Provide us some links then...

You didn't study biology? You don't understand the biological benefit of genetic variation? What's the biological disadvantage of incest? Certainly, you're aware of such things since you're attempting to argue from a position of understanding genetics and biology, no?

You didn't study biology? You don't understand the biological benefit of genetic variation? What's the biological disadvantage of incest? Certainly, you're aware of such things since you're attempting to argue from a position of understanding genetics and biology, no?

Scale is an important issue here. Breeding within race is much different than incest. If you care so much about genetic variation, maybe in future, you'll be ok with modifing human genes to include genes of monkeys, lizards and plants to maximize genetic variation.

Edit: Oh and regarding to my answer to Checklandia's post, less healthy and unhealthy are different concenpts. You seem to be thinking in such black and white terms, ignoring the scale between two points.

I had a 'white' friend, with a black father. Looking at her, she favoured her mother so far, you really couldn't tell her 'genetic heritage'. Was she 'white'? Or is there some deeper measure?
I have a friend like that, his dad's greek and his mom's black and he's white as a sheet of paper. I've never even seen him with a tan.

Scale is an important issue here. Breeding within race is much different than incest. If you care so much about genetic variation, maybe in future, you'll be ok with modifing human genes to include gens of monkeys, lizards and plants to maximize genetic variation.

No, you don't understand. Scale is not important. It is an advantage no matter how big a pool you're dealing with. Introducing new variations makes a group more robust. It's the reason why we have mutations. It's also why over time species generally increase in variation or die out. There is nearly always a direct correllation between the amount of variation and the age of a species. If you read up on the variation in humans, we have a relatively small amount of variation due to being a relatively young species. You would have use further isolate variations, much to our disadvantage.

Amusingly, your misguided OP article is actually arguing for how important it is to have a broad variety of genetic variants available to the species. The part that is overlooked in the same article is that such variants due little good without interbreeding of races since they would only be available to the race that they belong to.

EDIT: As to your edit, in the sense s/he used it unhealthy and less healthy have the same significance. It is a disadvantage to do things on the scale you are arguing that are less healthy and it thus not only 'can be unhealthy' but is unquestionably unhealthy.



AGAIN, where did you find this article? What were you looking for and what site were you on when you came across it? Come on. You can at least make up an answer, can't you?

Really? I think you forgot that a word might have more then one meaning. I didnt use dominant in biological sense.

Then once again you are mistaken. This is a biological discussion, in this context your use of the word was incorrect.

Then why were you comparing R1a to a gene?
Because you discussed it in terms that indicated that you were discussing a gene.

If 50% of the population belongs to one haplogroup, that doesnt mean rest of the population are more similar to the persons classified as African, American and Oceanic.
So far as the aspect 'does not belong to haplogroup X' is concerned, they are more similar.

To tell what it means, you have to look at what hapologroup rest of the population belongs to. And in this case it is mostly R1b, in most places, which is the closest haplogroup to R1a.
That mostly those not in group R1a, are in groub R1b necessitates that the there is a group that are in neither haplogroup.

Yes, really. If you knew that I wasnt only talking about r1a, why would you assume that I was thinking race was based only on r1a. I see that the silliness of your assumptions are competing with GnI's.
Why would I assume you dont think that the presence of absence of a haplogroup can be equated with race?

You got a problem with your eyes?
:D

I'm going to quote your post again, since your memory doesnt seem to be of top functioning.
:rolleyes:

You said "if we base race on such things". If we correlate "things" with your silly and incorrect example, it is clear that you do not understand what those "things" are.
How is it clear?

As I said, "race basing" is not only looking at haplogroup percentages but it is also considering how much related those percentages are. (i.e.: R1a and R1b are the most related.)
And so? Why wouldnt we expect people would usually be more similar to those who live close by?
I dont believe that any one in this thread is arguing with you because they think Mendal got it all wrong.

Even then, Y haplogroups isnt the only consideration since there are also mtDNA to be considered.
No kidding, and two often dont correlate.

When we consider Y chromosomes and mtDNA together and the relationships within those, that's when we get the correct meaning of "things".
'So, with your limited understanding of "things", I found it unsurprising that you reached a silly conclusion, because it was the only one you were capable of, given your condition of not understanding. Similarly, I'm not surprised about the conclusion you reached about my logic.
:rolleyes:

I understand that. However, in this case, what you seem to be not getting is that there are 2 type of haplogroups we are considering.
And some of the people classified as Europeans dont fall into either of those two groups...

A European might have a R1a Y-DNA which might make him similar to some Indians, but that European might also have H mt-DNA which would make him different then those indians. You are thinking one sided, looking only at one data, without considering correlations and that's why you keep sounding clueless.
And equally that European might have R1a YDNA and not H mt-DNA...

Really? I think you forgot that a word might have more then one meaning. I didnt use dominant in biological sense.


No. If you are talking about haplogroups, genes, alleles, etc... and you use the word 'dominant', it carries very specific implications.

If YOU mean it to mean something else, that is irrelevent... you are confusing 'lay' understanding with technical 'jargon'.


I see that the silliness of your assumptions are competing with GnI's.


In other words, you can't answer it - so it must be 'silly'.

This is what I should have written. I used the first subject pronouns prematurely. They were meant to refer to the children not to the white who's marrying.

"When a white intermarries, his/her children from the intermarriage is no longer a white.

What about when a "black" intermarries?

I have a friend like that, his dad's greek and his mom's black and he's white as a sheet of paper. I've never even seen him with a tan.

Even within my own family, one of my brothers shows the celtic ancestry strongly, I favour the Jewish more, and my youngest brother is very stereotypical of our 'gypsy' heritage. All of us brothers from the same two parents... no two with matching 'colouring' or 'look'.

Scale is an important issue here. Breeding within race is much different than incest. If you care so much about genetic variation, maybe in future, you'll be ok with modifing human genes to include genes of monkeys, lizards and plants to maximize genetic variation.


Breeding within race is identical to incest. Both limit the genepool available. The only difference scale has, is the time it takes for the genepool to stagnate.... tens or hundreds of isolated generations, instead of one or two.

As for introducing non-human DNA to 'maximise' genetic variation... you might want to take even the most basic level of biology course. You are attempting to 'appeal to ridicule', by extending the idea to the risible extreme... but you are ignoring such simple facts as number of chromosomes.

Even within my own family, one of my brothers shows the celtic ancestry strongly, I favour the Jewish more, and my youngest brother is very stereotypical of our 'gypsy' heritage. All of us brothers from the same two parents... no two with matching 'colouring' or 'look'.
That's pretty funny. I'm dating this guy and he and his brother have red hair and a ton of freckles (well, he's got really dark red hair that's almost brown and his brother's hair is lighter) but his sister has quite a tan.

You're posting this because you want to use this later on and say "Well, you all wanted to save Negritos... but not Whites. You are the racists, not I! See! See!"

Don't be a liar.

FTW!!!11!!1

F*cking crackheads. Quit flaming and stay on topic.


EDIT: I'm aware this was from further back in the thread, but it was remarkable nevertheless.

A European might have a R1a Y-DNA which might make him similar to some Indians, but that European might also have H mt-DNA which would make him different then those indians. You are thinking one sided, looking only at one data, without considering correlations and that's why you keep sounding clueless.

or a european - visually indistinguishable from other europeans - might be in the E3b haplogroup, which links them with the middle east and africa, which originated somewhere near the horn of africa, and which most recently split from the the other E groups which are located almost entirely in subsaharan africa (except recently, due to the slave trade and modern migrations).

now by your above mentioned standard,
"When a white intermarries, his/her children from the intermarriage is no longer a white. He/she is either mixed or something non-white,"
we can conclude that any correlations you might see don't fucking matter.

If you care so much about genetic variation, maybe in future, you'll be ok with modifing human genes to include genes of monkeys, lizards and plants to maximize genetic variation.

Ah yes, because non-whites are comparable to non-humans. And here I thought you couldn't sink any lower.

You seem to be thinking in such black and white terms

That's fucking hilarious coming from a guy who thinks in terms of WHITES and NON-WHITES. It doesn't get any more black-and-white than that, buddy.

This is what I should have written. I used the first subject pronouns prematurely. They were meant to refer to the children not to the white who's marrying.

"When a white intermarries, his/her children from the intermarriage is no longer a white. He/she is either mixed or something non-white. So intermarriage doesnt necessitate a decline in distinctiveness."

Yes, and a huge portion of whites today have some non-white ancestors.

They are different kinds because they got some different genetic characteristics. (ex: phenotype)

Yes, to a large degree from intermarriage.

Ok. Still, they are of a different kind and that inavalidates your mixing claim.

They are of a different "kind" because they mixed.

That's why I asked you the definition of distinctiveness.

Not all sub saharan africans are gentically identical (some twins are). However A and B are only found within them so that's a distinctiveness. If you define distinct, as totally different, yes, sub saharan africans arent distinct since they share lots with non-sub saharan africans. However, if you define distinctiveness as something which seperates them from others, then sub-saharan africans are distinct.

No, mere difference is not distinctiveness.

Ny? can I ask you a serious question? According to your opinion, who is qualified to determine who is, in fact "White"? Because when I'm walking down the street, and I see a person who has light skin, I'm going to think "White", not check their entire genetic history. Who's to say your definition is any more right then mine? I'd really like to know.

Yes, and a huge portion of whites today have some non-white ancestors.


I'd imagine they all do, sooner or later.

I'd imagine they all do, sooner or later.

Considering how NN defines white, I suspect his 'theory' on the extinction of the white race is fairly accurate. I'd say we're all but gone. Of course, that's just the extinction of the racist concept of purity and we're all better for it, but, hey, let's give a moment of silence anyway. And I say the more you wish the concept of racial purity would stick around the more silence you should give. Who's with me?

Neither is *gasp* Wikipedia. However since the news tends to be more vetted and it dovetails nicely with journals I have read...


You are the one claiming your opinions are the scientific consenssus, not me. And the article in the OP isnt from Wiki. And since they are holding conferances to discuss race, it means there is no scientific consenssus.


And then we can add them as well because, dang it all, hair and eye colors go across races, so do shapes of noses.


If a black isnt mixed, can he/she get fair hair or eyes or a delicate nose?


When we get down to it, as we keep beeting you over your bloody head with, NOTHING is actually race specific in terms of your genes! You have every single one (I assume, though this may be a bit of a streach). Genetically there is very little to no differences between you and a black man of the same height. THAT'S what the project has been coming up with.


Yeah that was a LOT of stretch. For ex, I have neither A and B haplogroups which are lots of genes.
There is no evidence that a same height black and white are more similar then a white and white. That whole genetic variation within race invalidates race concept is challenged (including the op). Besides most DNA is "junk DNA", which doesnt code for polypeptides so there is no natural selection on them and races are result of natural selection.


No, but I know that your comprehension of the article in the OP is being filtered through your high school bio course and that leaves you very suspect.


Coming from someone who thinks everyone has every gene.


And I do know what OP means, it means YOUR post, not the article quoted in your post.


Something more than 90% of the OP is the article. Given the context, you should have understood what I was referring to. You seem to be not very good at simple reasoning.


OF COURSE IT'S IN JAPANESE!! What did you expect a Japanese data set to be in, Swahilli? Besides nothing, you wanted proof that international marriages have increased dramatically in the last few years, there you are. In 1985 there were 12,000 marriages, in 2005, 39,000. In less than 10 years it more than trippled. That's an increase, don't'cha think?

BTW, I said international marriages, you never wanted a bloody breakdown of countries.

God! Do you know some countries publish statistics besides their native language? :rolleyes:
The whole point of links is to prove something and you cant prove anything if you use a language almost noone understands in NS.
And I didnt ask for international marriages. We were talking about interracial marriages and you jumped. International marriage doesnt always mean interracial marriage because every foreigner may not be non-asian, in Japan's case. Again, you seem to be bad at simple reasoning. Anyways, 1 in 17 is still a low number.

No, you don't understand. Scale is not important. It is an advantage no matter how big a pool you're dealing with. Introducing new variations makes a group more robust. It's the reason why we have mutations. It's also why over time species generally increase in variation or die out. There is nearly always a direct correllation between the amount of variation and the age of a species. If you read up on the variation in humans, we have a relatively small amount of variation due to being a relatively young species. You would have use further isolate variations, much to our disadvantage.

Amusingly, your misguided OP article is actually arguing for how important it is to have a broad variety of genetic variants available to the species. The part that is overlooked in the same article is that such variants due little good without interbreeding of races since they would only be available to the race that they belong to.

EDIT: As to your edit, in the sense s/he used it unhealthy and less healthy have the same significance. It is a disadvantage to do things on the scale you are arguing that are less healthy and it thus not only 'can be unhealthy' but is unquestionably unhealthy.



AGAIN, where did you find this article? What were you looking for and what site were you on when you came across it? Come on. You can at least make up an answer, can't you?


I guess, if we encounter aliens in the future, and if they can find an artificial way to produce an offspring between species, you'd think breeding within human species is "unhealthy" and similar to incest. :rolleyes:
I'd find such freaks distasteful, no matter the "hybrid vigour".
And unhealthy and less healthy are different. X person might be less healthy then Y person but he might still lead a very healthy life although X is less resistant to some disease in the jungles of South America.

I guess, if we encounter aliens in the future, and if they can find an artificial way to produce an offspring between species, you'd think breeding within human species is "unhealthy" and similar to incest. :rolleyes:
I'd find such freaks distasteful, no matter the "hybrid vigour".
And unhealthy and less healthy are different. X person might be less healthy then Y person but he might still lead a very healthy life although X is less resistant to some disease in the jungles of South America.

Actually, you are talking about something that is a bastardization of the theory. Nature needs a broad spectrum of DNA within a species, but it also needs speciation. You are aguing against both and if you'd like to do so, you're going to have to show the advantage, not just bastardize the arguments because you don't understand them.

EDIT: From a misundertanding of both, not against both. Meanwhile, you still haven't addressed the fact that on a species scale genetic variation is necessary and that comparatively human beings, with interbreeding between races, have a fairly narrow spectrum of variation. You arguing for further narrowing that spectrum even while your original article points out the advantage of genetic variation and while you've been arguing from a position of claiming you think genetic variation is an advantage. Face it. You picked an argument to try and justify racism, not understanding that supporting that argument requires you to support interbreeding of races, not go against it. I'm sorry you picked the wrong horse. You embarrassed yourself. But don't expect us to ignore it.

And in terms of genetics, less healthy and unhealthy are the same thing. You argue FOR genetic disadvantage while claiming to do the opposite.

Anyone who reads the whole article will get a cookie


http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/

So I didnt say A human race in the title. I thought it'd be more catchy like this. Anyways, what should be done about this? Should Negritos be preserved? Taken into a breeding program or something? Or maybe their blood samples should be saved? Besides the romantic idea of saving something very old, their unique combination of genes might be needed in future, for example they can be more immune to a certain diseases or something...

(( I'm super-far-rightist, by the way.. ))

Of course they should be saved..! Only leftists believe in the utter homogenization of the human species.

And those "rightists" who are actually leftists (ie. fascists, where fascist=leftist).

The REASON they should be saved is because the loss of ANY information, but especially irreplacable information (species, bloodlines), is a BAD thing.

The WAY they should be saved is through some capitalist mechanism, of course (d'uh!), such as the featured attraction in some "Little Dark Island People" theme-park, or some such.

They deserve to continue existence as a people, but only if they want to, and only in some mutual beneficial relationship with their neighbors.


This means:

*) They can choose to assimilate into the larger world if they wish.
*) They can choose to remain in their own territory, unmolested, and unmolesting of their neighbors, as long as they and their neighbors choose NOT to trade (have cultural intercourse), which would of necessity "change" both parties and create a mutual "culture" that would defeat the purpose of leaving the "little people" isolated and "preserved".
*) They can choose to control the trade between their "nation" and their neighbors, such that they retain most of their culture, while not "sponging" off their neighbors such that neither "side" gains advantage over the other.


-Iakeo

Then once again you are mistaken. This is a biological discussion, in this context your use of the word was incorrect.


Because you discussed it in terms that indicated that you were discussing a gene.

So far as the aspect 'does not belong to haplogroup X' is concerned, they are more similar.


I wasnt talking about haplogroup X, I was talking about R1b. Or did you use X in a figurative meaning? Tsk tsk, this just shows you got no clue. We are making a biological discussion here and there is an *X* Haplogroup. :rolleyes:
Oh and You still dont get it, do you? :rolleyes: They might not belong to HL R1a but most of the rest belong to HL R1b which is closer to R1a then some non-white HL.


That mostly those not in group R1a, are in groub R1b necessitates that the there is a group that are in neither haplogroup.


Yeah but R1 haplogroups arent the only European ones. They can be of Haplogroup I for example.


Why would I assume you dont think that the presence of absence of a haplogroup can be equated with race?


Because, not to sound silly. You shouldnt have assumed anything or shouldnt have based your assumptions on your fabrications. Because I never said race is the presence or absence of ONE haplogroup. I said it was a consideration among many. And Both y-dna and mtdna analysis are a consideration among many.


:D

:rolleyes:


How is it clear?


I just explained it to you. Which part you didnt get? Perhaps I can put it in a simpler manner.


And so? Why wouldnt we expect people would usually be more similar to those who live close by?
I dont believe that any one in this thread is arguing with you because they think Mendal got it all wrong.


Then why were you saying those who dont belong in R1b (ex: R1a) are more closer to africans or asians then other europeans? You got memory problems again? Remember your 50% - 50% example?


No kidding, and two often dont correlate.
:rolleyes:


You confused again? Or your memory failing again? Ok, I'm used to that so:


What you dont seem to understand is that only those Europeans that have the haplogroups referred to have the haplogroups referred to, those Europeans that dont have them are not distinct from the West Euroasians so far as that aspect goes, neither are they 'not Europeans'. This is what you just dont seem to understand. People either do or do not have a haplogroup, they dont 'nearly have' a haplogroup or have a haplogroup at some percentage other than 0 or 100%.

They can work out what the relationship is between genotypes. That there are clinal distributions that match geographic areas simply demonstrates what ought to be obvious - the closer people live the greater the likelihood of interaction of all kinds, including inter-breeding.



Notice that you refer to haplogroup as haplogroup as in singular. You clearly didnt get there are two types of haplogroups. You didnt get even if one haplogroup of Europeans are same with indians, other can be different, which would make the difference. Hence your quote "People either do or do not have a haplogroup". And you still seem to be not getting it by "no kidding". The "kidding" here is the one on your reasoning.


And some of the people classified as Europeans dont fall into either of those two groups...


And equally that European might have R1a YDNA and not H mt-DNA...

That was an example. You still dont get that's not the only combination, do you? That European might have r1b which would seperate him from the indians without referring to mtdna.

What about when a "black" intermarries?

Frankly, I dont care.

Even within my own family, one of my brothers shows the celtic ancestry strongly, I favour the Jewish more, and my youngest brother is very stereotypical of our 'gypsy' heritage. All of us brothers from the same two parents... no two with matching 'colouring' or 'look'.

Ah...

Jesussaves was funny, NN is just... sad actually. You know what I mean? You get the idea that he actually means this stuff as opposed to Jesussaves whom you never really knew if he was serious or not.
Well, Jesussaves was just Drunk Commies pissing about, so obviously he wasn't serious and didn't believe the bull he was spouting.
Unlike Ny here who fervently believes in Der Master-race and woe betide anyone who disagrees. Ny will beat you down with his vastly superior intellect, snide comments, overuse of rolleyes and constant mention that you must be stupid for not agreeing with him.

No facts mind. Just insults.

Breeding within race is identical to incest. Both limit the genepool available. The only difference scale has, is the time it takes for the genepool to stagnate.... tens or hundreds of isolated generations, instead of one or two.

As for introducing non-human DNA to 'maximise' genetic variation... you might want to take even the most basic level of biology course. You are attempting to 'appeal to ridicule', by extending the idea to the risible extreme... but you are ignoring such simple facts as number of chromosomes.

OH NOES!!! Billions of people throught the history made incest then!!!1!1!
Is this your pathetic attempt to make incest acceptable? :rolleyes:

What about when a "black" intermarries?

Don't you know that it is the purity of the pure race that matters and not of the mud races ?

OH NOES!!! Billions of people throught the history made incest then!!!1!1!
Is this your pathetic attempt to make incest acceptable? :rolleyes:

Hey, look up, NN! Look real high! See that thing moving in the sky? It's the point.

OH NOES!!! Billions of people throught the history made incest then!!!1!1!
Is this your pathetic attempt to make incest acceptable? :rolleyes:

Hello, Mr. Strawman!!! The point is that incest is a problem because it has access to far too small a gene pool. Unnaturally limiting the gene pool within the species is a disadvantage, which is why the development of subspecies generally requires breeding isolation. He's not arguing for incest. He's arguing against incest and isolating breeding along racial lines.

Do you have an actual argument or do you only have the ability to pretend he made a different argument than he did?

Lame draw-out just cause you wouldn't answer the question properly!

Still, my long-convoluted point here is that nearly everyone says, "I'm not racist, but Blacks are obviously faster than Whites cause look at the 100/200m finals at the Olympics" and then proceed to 'explain' in terms of genetics and conditioning and, in your example, breeding.
Yet when asked why Scandys do so well at Winter Olympics, the response is, as you put it, "It's cold there" =(lots of snow). Cross-country skiing is also a national sport in Norway.
No-one ever tries to explain it by saying that Norwegians, for eg, are genetically superior to everyone else at sliding downhill on a couple barrel staves, or that they've bred themselves to be better at swerving around flags at high speeds.

In other words:
If you're a top Black athlete, it's due to your 'genes'.
If you're a top White Athlete, it's due to your upbringing and environment.

To be even more blunt: It's inherrently racist.
It's making excuses why the Black guy's #1 due to things we can't change, so as to make whitey not feel inferior.


How many times have you read that Tiger Woods has a natural advantage due to his Thai genes?

(very well written.)

I KNOW. Norwegians are a tall, big boned people, so they do have a genetic advantage. They slide down the hill very faster because they are heavier.

What about when a "black" intermarries?Frankly, I dont care.

If there has ever been proof that you are arguing for the purity of the white race.

"I don't care what the mud races do as long as we stay as pure as snow."

Yes, and a huge portion of whites today have some non-white ancestors.


All of us have same ancestors, since humans evolved in Africa. But you also have same ancestors with a fly, namely the single cell organisms at oceans. Or you got same "ancestors" with black holes since universe "evolved" from singularity. So this ancestory thing can be VERY inclusive, depending on your time frame.
If you pick a reasonable time frame, say a millenia, you'd be wrong for Europe. Europe was pretty much a homogenous place, race-wise, until the end of WW2. Of course there were Roma or some immigrants from british colonies or Sami, but I said "pretty much". You are still being too USA-centric.


Yes, to a large degree from intermarriage.


Or natural selection. Does ashkenazi and sephardic jews come from same source? When did they seperate?



They are of a different "kind" because they mixed.


So, you claim.


No, mere difference is not distinctiveness.

Speculative.

Off-topic slightly, but here's a question I'd like you to answer:
Why do you think the Scandanavian countries do so well in the Winter Olympics?



fact? Care to provide a couple of links showing that?
Care to also explain what you mean by 'Asian'? Are you saying all Asians do better - that is Indonesians, Phillipinos, Japanese, Malayasians, Koreans, Mongolians, Tibetans, Han Chinese, Cantonese, Taiwanese (or any of the other 60+ Chinese ethnicities), Nepalese, Vietnamese, Thai, Camodian,...
Or are you refering to just one particular ethnic group?
Here's a thought: If it is true, maybe it's to do with their culture, not their race. Maybe they put more emphasis on succeeding in the science fields.
Also, if you're comparing just academic achievement of Asians living in the States - well, that's a bit of a skewered population sample there. How many poor Asians live in the States? I mean poor as in Chinese farmer poor.
Not many I'd wager. They're all still in China, living off $20US a month. In other words, you're only testing a group of people who are predominantly middle-class or above.
It'd be similar to testing Aussies and Canadians on Australian History and then conclude that Aussies are much more intelligent than Canadians.

Another thought (and one which I've been considering doing a Masters on): Maybe their language structure and form (specifically the Chinese, Japanese and Korean) is an aid to better mathematical concepts. In this I mean their language is pictorial form. I have a very mathematical brain (no musical ability whatsoever but score very high in visual and maths) and I've found learning Chinese characters has been, while not easy, certainly not particularly difficult.
Why? because I can see and remember patterns and shapes in their characters. "West" for example looks to me like the symbol for 'pi' halfway inside a square.
I wonder whether being taught this form of language, because it's so visual-based and structured, helps promotes mathematical processes early on in childhood development. Hence their 'racial' advantage in maths.

demented, i think a study in this has already been done, and has shown that what you are saying is spot on. Was a topic on NS about 1 or 2 years ago i believe

(very well written.)

I KNOW. Norwegians are a tall, big boned people, so they do have a genetic advantage. They slide down the hill very faster because they are heavier.

And are Danes "lighter" since they are so different then Norwegians? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: How do you explain the fact that Danes suck at winter olypimcs?

















Hint: Because they arent interested and Denmark is very flat, not many mountain ranges for skiing or etc...

All of us have same ancestors, since humans evolved in Africa. But you also have same ancestors with a fly, namely the single cell organisms at oceans. Or you got same "ancestors" with black holes since universe "evolved" from singularity. So this ancestory thing can be VERY inclusive, depending on your time frame.
If you pick a reasonable time frame, say a millenia, you'd be wrong for Europe. Europe was pretty much a homogenous place, race-wise, until the end of WW2. Of course there were Roma or some immigrants from british colonies or Sami, but I said "pretty much". You are still being too USA-centric.

A millenia? How is that reasonable in terms of genetics? Do you realize that 1000 years is a blink of an eye in a species with a life expectancy nearing a century and where people don't give birth until at least a fifth of a century on average? You're not even talking about 100 generations. Closer to half that. By no biological scale is fifty generations a reasonable time frame to talk about genetic isolation. When biologists study genetic variation they look for 100s of generations. You'd limit our analysis of ancestry to 50. More proof you are in over your head on this subject.

Ny? can I ask you a serious question? According to your opinion, who is qualified to determine who is, in fact "White"? Because when I'm walking down the street, and I see a person who has light skin, I'm going to think "White", not check their entire genetic history. Who's to say your definition is any more right then mine? I'd really like to know.

Hmm...As soon as you see that person, you should grap his/her arm and snatch him/her to a dark alley and thrust your stick to his/her mouth, to get DNA sample from his/her salvia.

And dont think anything pervy, by stick, I mean this: ;)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40967000/jpg/_40967740_swabpa203.jpg


Edit: As for your question, you are right, phenotypes are usually very obvious way to identify races. But we are discussing genes here since "looks are so shellow". *rolls eyes*

And are Danes "lighter" since they are so different then Norwegians? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: How do you explain the fact that Danes suck at winter olypimcs?


You know, its comments like these that convince me you made your "Who makes the best cars" thread not because of cars, but because you believe each nation is its own race, and you wanted to make the point that Non-Whites make poor cars while Germanic Aryan Ubermenschen make the best ones (and are hence obviously superior due to racial differences).

It's pretty sad when the only example of a non-racist topic you've ever made... is actually still an example of your racist fascinations.

Hmm...As soon as you see that person, you should grap his/her arm and snatch him/her to a dark alley and thrust your stick to his/her mouth, to get DNA sample from his/her salvia.

And dont think anything pervy, by stick, I mean this: ;)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40967000/jpg/_40967740_swabpa203.jpg

And have you been proven to be 'pure', little buddy? Where did you have the test done and how do I get that test? And will you put your future wife through such a test? And it still avoids the question. What combination of genetics do they use as the measuring stick for assigning the the 'pure' race to people?

Don't you know that it is the purity of the pure race that matters and not of the mud races ?

I guess Ny will be overlooking the fact that the mongrels outnumber the "pure".

Like I said, Ny needs to get busy, and start propagating. At this rate, he's got about 100,000 children to father, and hasn't even started.

Actually, you are talking about something that is a bastardization of the theory. Nature needs a broad spectrum of DNA within a species, but it also needs speciation. You are aguing against both and if you'd like to do so, you're going to have to show the advantage, not just bastardize the arguments because you don't understand them.


Maybe nature also needs racialisation. Maybe since there is an enough variation within a species, since you seem to be against breeding with aliens, there is an enough variation within a race.


EDIT: From a misundertanding of both, not against both. Meanwhile, you still haven't addressed the fact that on a species scale genetic variation is necessary and that comparatively human beings, with interbreeding between races, have a fairly narrow spectrum of variation. You arguing for further narrowing that spectrum even while your original article points out the advantage of genetic variation and while you've been arguing from a position of claiming you think genetic variation is an advantage. Face it. You picked an argument to try and justify racism, not understanding that supporting that argument requires you to support interbreeding of races, not go against it. I'm sorry you picked the wrong horse. You embarrassed yourself. But don't expect us to ignore it.


HAHA. I find you extra amusing when you claim victory although you havent got a clue. The silliness of your this post was off the charts. This is from the article:


Yet even after they have gone, the genetic variants that defined the Negritos will remain, albeit scattered, in the people who inhabit the littoral of the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea. They will remain visible in the unusually dark skin of some Indonesians, the unusually curly hair of some Sri Lankans, the unusually slight frames of some Filipinos. But the unique combination of genes that makes the Negritos so distinctive, and that took tens of thousands of years to evolve, will have disappeared. A human race will have gone extinct, and the human species will be the poorer for it.


He is arguing for the survival of negrito race, not by just interbreeding with Sri Lankans or Filipinos but also by breeding with themselves so "the unique combination of genes that makes the Negritos so distinctive, and that took tens of thousands of years to evolve" can be preserved. I argue for the same thing. Some whites can breed interracially but some must breed within themselves so that "the unique combination of genes that makes Whites so distinctive, and that took tens of thousands of years to evolve" can be preserved and "A human race will not have to go extinct, and the human species will not have to be the poorer for it".


And in terms of genetics, less healthy and unhealthy are the same thing. You argue FOR genetic disadvantage while claiming to do the opposite.

Enough with Jocabia BS for today. I'll be leaving after this post. A person who cant hear might be less healthy then a one who can but he isnt unhealthy as in he can carry on his life, almost in a normal way, unlike someone who has a unhealthy genetic heart condition and will probaly die b4 the age of 5.

Frankly, I dont care.


And that, my friend.... is the nail in your coffin. The admission I have been waiting for.

From now onwards, it doesn't matter how you try to wriggle out of it, true colours have been shown.

Anyone who is not 'white' enough for you, is not 'white... but you "don't care" how 'black' they are.

It is nothing to do with genetic purity, haplogroups or any of the other tripe you've spouted... you finally came clean - it is about being 'white'.


Ah...

The letters in this sentence are outnumbered by the periods. I assume this is a postscore boosting technique.

Maybe since there is an enough variation within a species, since you seem to be against breeding with aliens, there is an enough variation within a race.


Again with the comparison of "races" to non-humans...

I'll be leaving after this post.

But your bigotry will remain.

OH NOES!!! Billions of people throught the history made incest then!!!1!1!
Is this your pathetic attempt to make incest acceptable? :rolleyes:

Way to miss the point?

Deliberate, I wonder... so that you didn't have to address it?

Billions of people throughout history DID relate to one another 'incestuously'. It is hardly the revelation of the week. One only needs to look back a hundred years or so, at census records for rural areas throughout Europe... and one will find entire communities that shared a surname.

I'll leave you to piece together what that 'means' in terms of genetic diversity.

Even within my own family, one of my brothers shows the celtic ancestry strongly, I favour the Jewish more, and my youngest brother is very stereotypical of our 'gypsy' heritage. All of us brothers from the same two parents... no two with matching 'colouring' or 'look'.

i blame the postman and the milkman for the variation. :D

Don't you know that it is the purity of the pure race that matters and not of the mud races ?

Apparently so. I believe that Ny has perhaps admitted more than he/she might have realised.

Maybe nature also needs racialisation. Maybe since there is an enough variation within a species, since you seem to be against breeding with aliens, there is an enough variation within a race.

Maybe? Prove it. Offer support. So far all we've seen you offer to support this is a wish and some insults and large text. How about, oh, you know, an ARGUMENT.


HAHA. I find you extra amusing when you claim victory although you havent got a clue. The silliness of your this post was off the charts. This is from the article:

I know he contradicts himself. He is arguing for the value of keep variety in the human race because of the advantage of genetic variation. Arguing that keeping a particular race around in a 'pure' form is an argument AGAINST the advantage of genetic variation, because it makes no different that varied genes are available if we isolate them in breeding.



He is arguing for the survival of negrito race, not by just interbreeding with Sri Lankans or Filipinos but also by breeding with themselves so "the unique combination of genes that makes the Negritos so distinctive, and that took tens of thousands of years to evolve" can be preserved. I argue for the same thing. Some whites can breed interracially but some must breed within themselves so that "the unique combination of genes that makes Whites so distinctive, and that took tens of thousands of years to evolve" can be preserved and "A human race will not have to go extinct, and the human species will not have to be the poorer for it".

I realize that. And that is a contradiction to the advantage of genetic variation. Genetic variation is important at the individual trait not as a combination of traits. If that were true then traits would be passed as combinations and not as individual traits.



Enough with Jocabia BS for today. I'll be leaving after this post. A person who cant hear might be less healthy then a one who can but he isnt unhealthy as in he can carry on his life, almost in a normal way, unlike someone who has a unhealthy genetic heart condition and will probaly die b4 the age of 5.

You are equivocating. We are talking about genetics and in genetics there is only advantageous (healthy) behavior and disadvantageous (unheathy) behavior. Your use of the word in other scenarios has no bearing on a biological discussion of genetics. We are talking about healthy and unhealthy behavior (advantageous or not), not specific traits. Make a real argument, please.

i blame the postman and the milkman for the variation. :D

I would... but we lived in the same place for quite a while. I knew the milkman and the postman, and neither had a genetic heritage that helps the speculation. :)

Again with the comparison of "races" to non-humans...



But your bigotry will remain.

His flight would be so much more honorable if he would simply admit defeat instead of tucking his tail and growling as he leaves.

And that, my friend.... is the nail in your coffin. The admission I have been waiting for.

From now onwards, it doesn't matter how you try to wriggle out of it, true colours have been shown.

Anyone who is not 'white' enough for you, is not 'white... but you "don't care" how 'black' they are.

It is nothing to do with genetic purity, haplogroups or any of the other tripe you've spouted... you finally came clean - it is about being 'white'.


Ok. Whether you believe or not, I actually care about preservation of all races. I admit I'm not passionate about some. However, I still care. In the case above, I dont care about blacks much since there are already a lot of them and they breed really fast, especially in Africa. Some african countries, for ex, got a birth rate of 6 children per women.

This doesnt mean I'm against interracial breeding. I'm just biased against it. One other thing I'm biased is numbers. I dont care if negritos are 0.00000001% of the world's population as long as some of them are preserved but I'd care if whites go below a certain amount. And I'd prefer a world with a white majority, but that's just too surreal.



The letters in this sentence are outnumbered by the periods. I assume this is a postscore boosting technique.

It was in the same post as the above quote. I guess this was just another of your silly assumptions. Do they never end?

And are Danes "lighter" since they are so different then Norwegians? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: How do you explain the fact that Danes suck at winter olypimcs?

Hint: Because they arent interested and Denmark is very flat, not many mountain ranges for skiing or etc...


sigh... yes i i know i was agreeing with demented.

Ok. Whether you believe or not, I actually care about preservation of all races. I admit I'm not passionate about some. However, I still care. In the case above, I dont care about blacks much since there are already a lot of them and they breed really fast, especially in Africa. Some african countries, for ex, got a birth rate of 6 children per women.

This doesnt mean I'm against interracial breeding. I'm just biased against it. One other thing I'm biased is numbers. I dont care if negritos are 0.00000001% of the world's population as long as some of them are preserved but I'd care if whites go below a certain amount. And I'd prefer a world with a white majority, but that's just too surreal.

*snip*

I thought you were leaving. And finally, you stop lying about your agenda and admit that you are very much in the business of arguing for a 'white' world. Glad that the veil has finally been lifted. It was tiresome arguing with a person trying to pretend not to be a racist.

Meanwhile, you still missed the point. Does you definition of 'race' include all races or are you only concerned about the purity of the white race? And your answer was that you don't care about purity unless we're talking about 'a white'.

Ok. Whether you believe or not, I actually care about preservation of all races. I admit I'm not passionate about some. However, I still care. In the case above, I dont care about blacks much since there are already a lot of them and they breed really fast, especially in Africa. Some african countries, for ex, got a birth rate of 6 children per women.

This doesnt mean I'm against interracial breeding. I'm just biased against it. One other thing I'm biased is numbers. I dont care if negritos are 0.00000001% of the world's population as long as some of them are preserved but I'd care if whites go below a certain amount. And I'd prefer a world with a white majority, but that's just too surreal.


First - I don't believe it. I think it is an artifact creation that you tout to cover your real agenda. I could be wrong, but the evidence says contrary.

Second - "I don't care about blacks much": this has already been established, but it is good of you to finally scrape together the wherewithall to admit it.

Third - "there are already a lot of them and they breed really fast"... the same is, of course, true of white Catholics, yes?

Fourth - "especially in Africa": red herring. You have consistently made the argument that this is not ABOUT Africa... you constantly bring the argument back to Europe. Thus - you feelings about 'black' races MUST be viewed in that light.

Fifth - "Some african countries, for ex, got a birth rate of 6 children per women"... again, there is a direct parallel with white Catholics or some other groups... Southern Baptists one generation ago, for example.

Sixth - "This doesnt mean I'm against interracial breeding. I'm just biased against it." This statement, on a logical level - is self-contradictory.

Seventh - "I'd care if whites go below a certain amount. And I'd prefer a world with a white majority". You might as well prepare for disappointment. 'White' skin was never anything more than a mutation... and, now that genepools are not under the same constraints of isolation, it is a mutation that is going to be hard pressed to survive.

But - again, you show your true colours... you don't care how few 'negritoes' there are, but you have an arbitrary line of how many 'whites' are okay... and you admit you would rathe see a 'white' world.


Like I've said before - you aren't telling us anything we didn't know. You are being more than usually forthcoming, though. I guess I should thank you, for at least finally being honest about it.

On the contrary, the two things are similar, it is only the scale that differs.

If one looks at breeding within a very small genepool (a family), one fairly quickly sees that the offspring become 'weakened'... within the order of a few generations.

One can counter much of this 'weakness' by breeding an external line back in... and the more diverse, the better, in terms of 'strong' offspring.


So - the question is - does this apply across whole 'race' (your word, not mine) lines?

The answer is yes - 'inter-race' breeding provides stronger, bigger, more symmetrical offspring (this symmetry is why so many people perceive these 'hybrids' to look so attractive... it also implies they are much better 'breeding stock').

The simple fact that 'hybrid vigour' can be observed in inter-racial marriage, means that the same kind of 'genepool stagnation' MUST be taking place, as in the incestuous family relationship... just at a much slower rate.

It's fairly basic science, Ny.

woo!someone agrees with me!(and has restated my point with more eloquence than I can ever manage to muster!)

You didn't study biology? You don't understand the biological benefit of genetic variation? What's the biological disadvantage of incest? Certainly, you're aware of such things since you're attempting to argue from a position of understanding genetics and biology, no?

If I was more eloquent, thats exactly what I would have said(thanks)but it certainly is high school biology,if you have little genetic variation over a number of generations, you are more likely to have certain genetic diseases and are also likley to be cross eyed and uuuugly!

Ok. Whether you believe or not, I actually care about preservation of all races. I admit I'm not passionate about some. However, I still care. In the case above, I dont care about blacks much since there are already a lot of them and they breed really fast, especially in Africa. Some african countries, for ex, got a birth rate of 6 children per women.

This doesnt mean I'm against interracial breeding. I'm just biased against it. One other thing I'm biased is numbers. I dont care if negritos are 0.00000001% of the world's population as long as some of them are preserved but I'd care if whites go below a certain amount. And I'd prefer a world with a white majority, but that's just too surreal.

you see why people call you a racist, 'blacks' breed too fast,you want a while majority(presumaby so that everyone can get skin cancer when the 'whites' move to africa)Btw,africans have up to 6 children, well,stike me down with malaria,funnily enough my father had 6 sisters and a brother,and that had more to do with thembeing roman catholic than their 'racial heratige',perhaps this has somehing to do with 'blacks breeding really fast'-you know-religion.You dont give a shit about anything bar the 'white race' or 'germanic race' becoming dominant.Well, whatever you ant to believe,but dont expect people not to call you a racist(and run to the moderators when they do)because YOU ARE RACIST(ie YOU THINK 'WHITES' ARE SUPERIOR)Just dont expect to start your racist threads and have people agree with you.
(btw, I am expecting this kind of response'you are intellectually inferior because you dont agree with my racist drivel)

Dear god, what would happen if sub-saharan africans all converted to catholicism. THATS 12 kids per family!!!

Anyone who reads the whole article will get a cookie


http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/

So I didnt say A human race in the title. I thought it'd be more catchy like this. Anyways, what should be done about this? Should Negritos be preserved? Taken into a breeding program or something? Or maybe their blood samples should be saved? Besides the romantic idea of saving something very old, their unique combination of genes might be needed in future, for example they can be more immune to a certain diseases or something...

No, we should just put them in a museum. And force them to dance for our entertainment.

No, we should just put them in a museum. And force them to dance for our entertainment.


That's not that far from the level of respect for them as individuals with a free will shown by NN in the OP.

That's not that far from the level of respect for them as individuals with a free will shown by NN in the OP.

Exactly. Or respect for them as a people with a right to self-determination.

you see why people call you a racist, 'blacks' breed too fast,you want a while majority(presumaby so that everyone can get skin cancer when the 'whites' move to africa)Btw,africans have up to 6 children, well,stike me down with malaria,funnily enough my father had 6 sisters and a brother,and that had more to do with thembeing roman catholic than their 'racial heratige',perhaps this has somehing to do with 'blacks breeding really fast'-you know-religion.You dont give a shit about anything bar the 'white race' or 'germanic race' becoming dominant.Well, whatever you ant to believe,but dont expect people not to call you a racist(and run to the moderators when they do)because YOU ARE RACIST(ie YOU THINK 'WHITES' ARE SUPERIOR)Just dont expect to start your racist threads and have people agree with you.
(btw, I am expecting this kind of response'you are intellectually inferior because you dont agree with my racist drivel)

Well, once people start using the Victorian science of racialism, it is only a matter of time before they arrive at very Victorian views about racial supremacy and the white race's "civilizing mission".

Exactly. Or respect for them as a people with a right to self-determination.

Self-determination, free will, potAto, potAHto.

Self-determination, free will, potAto, potAHto.

Fair enough. My point was merely that they have the right to determine as a collective, and not just as a collection of individuals.

Fair enough. My point was merely that they have the right to determine as a collective, and not just as a collection of individuals.

Yeah, I know. I was just pointing out that we're on the same page. I do have less consideration for the 'as a people' stuff, but meh, what difference does it make?

You are the one claiming your opinions are the scientific consenssus, not me. And the article in the OP isnt from Wiki. And since they are holding conferances to discuss race, it means there is no scientific consenssus.
Since you've never actually shown a large community of scientists think that race is a factor... I, however, have shown so in a number of threads.

If a black isnt mixed, can he/she get fair hair or eyes or a delicate nose?
Yes, it's called mutaions. Happens quite a bit. How do you think your family got theirs since we call came out of Africa.

Yeah that was a LOT of stretch. For ex, I have neither A and B haplogroups which are lots of genes.
There is no evidence that a same height black and white are more similar then a white and white. That whole genetic variation within race invalidates race concept is challenged (including the op). Besides most DNA is "junk DNA", which doesnt code for polypeptides so there is no natural selection on them and races are result of natural selection.
God, you REALLY don't have a clue when it comes to genes. You have all the same genes as any other person on the planet (baring genetic conditions or new mutations). It's if these have been turned 'on' or not. Go back and read where it says even the fairest skinned person has the same genes for dark skin as the blackest person. You're attempting to equate genes with genetic traits, which doesn't work.

Something more than 90% of the OP is the article. Given the context, you should have understood what I was referring to. You seem to be not very good at simple reasoning.
Oh noes! How mean, I7ve been hit my NN's personal attacks against my reaosning skills. How ever shall I survive?! I don't know if I could ever bear to show my face again on this board... oh woe is me, oh woe is me!!

God! Do you know some countries publish statistics besides their native language? :rolleyes:
The whole point of links is to prove something and you cant prove anything if you use a language almost noone understands in NS.
Yes, yes I do know. But since Japan, being Japanese, they are usually a year or so behind on getting them translated and you wanted the last numbers. And there's this remarkable thing called an online translator. Now, they usually humorously mangle Japanese to English, but they do manage to get the meanings across. You could always, oh, I don't know, use them or ask for a translation of the numbers.

And I didnt ask for international marriages. We were talking about interracial marriages and you jumped. International marriage doesnt always mean interracial marriage because every foreigner may not be non-asian, in Japan's case. Again, you seem to be bad at simple reasoning. Anyways, 1 in 17 is still a low number.
No, I said international marriages are gaining in Japan, YOU said you wanted proof of my numbers. Try to remember, m'k?

And the point wasn't that the number is low, but that the number has trippled in the last 10 years showing an very large increase in the number of international marriages from a normally xenophobic country which throws your "marriage within race and nation only" out the window.

BTW, if you knew anything about Japan, you would know that they do not consider themselves Asian as such.

Well, once people start using the Victorian science of racialism, it is only a matter of time before they arrive at very Victorian views about racial supremacy and the white race's "civilizing mission".

I really shouldnt be surprised at NN's veiws, after all, I have read many of his threads(and shake my head in despair).Perhaps he really believes what he says with all sincerity,but I hope for the love of all that is sane/reasonable/civilised that NN is just trying to provoke a reaction and doesnt really believe that 'whites' are superior(if such a 'race' exists anyway)

But what is NN stance?
is it he thinks whites/germanics are superior?

He does not want racial mixing because:
a) whites will mix into oblivion while other races will keep on breeding?
b) everyone will mix together and form a.... well mix?

Or is it a cultural thing more than a 'racial' thing? you know, europe will be muslim/hindu/animalist due to all the immigrants and the culture will be lost?

I didn't even bother reading the frst line...
I was ina book store today and there was a book on the diminishing Y Chromosone(Old hat but still),not cool...

I didn't even bother reading the frst line...
I was ina book store today and there was a book on the diminishing Y Chromosone(Old hat but still),not cool...

so its not whether we'll all be mixed in the future, but whether we'll all be women?

A millenia? How is that reasonable in terms of genetics? Do you realize that 1000 years is a blink of an eye in a species with a life expectancy nearing a century and where people don't give birth until at least a fifth of a century on average? You're not even talking about 100 generations. Closer to half that. By no biological scale is fifty generations a reasonable time frame to talk about genetic isolation. When biologists study genetic variation they look for 100s of generations. You'd limit our analysis of ancestry to 50. More proof you are in over your head on this subject.

Who said they were constantly breeding with non-europeans more than 1000 years ago?

Maybe? Prove it. Offer support. So far all we've seen you offer to support this is a wish and some insults and large text. How about, oh, you know, an ARGUMENT.



You are equivocating. We are talking about genetics and in genetics there is only advantageous (healthy) behavior and disadvantageous (unheathy) behavior. Your use of the word in other scenarios has no bearing on a biological discussion of genetics. We are talking about healthy and unhealthy behavior (advantageous or not), not specific traits. Make a real argument, please.

Prove our species has enough variation. Prove why we shouldnt immidiately start research of creating more genetically diverse humans, as in people who's DNA has been altered to include genes of other species, like cockroaches, flies, oak trees. By your logic of less genetically diverse = unhealthy, we should eliminate the distinctiveness of our species to be mixed with other species to be healthy. :rolleyes:



I know he contradicts himself. He is arguing for the value of keep variety in the human race because of the advantage of genetic variation. Arguing that keeping a particular race around in a 'pure' form is an argument AGAINST the advantage of genetic variation, because it makes no different that varied genes are available if we isolate them in breeding.


By keeping races pure as well as having mixed people is MORE DIVERSE than everyone being mixed. He's not contradicting himself. It's just you who dont get it. Like how you didnt get population decline. Or like how you didnt get he was arguing pro-my points, claiming I choosed a wrong article. :rolleyes: As usual, you are only clueless.



I realize that. And that is a contradiction to the advantage of genetic variation. Genetic variation is important at the individual trait not as a combination of traits. If that were true then traits would be passed as combinations and not as individual traits.


You dont realize a shit. If you had realized that you wouldnt have made the silly claim that the article I picked for OP didnt support me.
And you are still thinking on an individual basis. If everyone is mixed, people might be more diverse individually but they will be LESS DIVERSE as a species since some of the original and unique genetic combination of races will be lost, as argued in the last sentences of the article.

I thought you were leaving. And finally, you stop lying about your agenda and admit that you are very much in the business of arguing for a 'white' world. Glad that the veil has finally been lifted. It was tiresome arguing with a person trying to pretend not to be a racist.

Meanwhile, you still missed the point. Does you definition of 'race' include all races or are you only concerned about the purity of the white race? And your answer was that you don't care about purity unless we're talking about 'a white'.

Racism is a word that has many meanings. Like when people say star, they arent only referring to objects in outer space. Since racism is often correlated with violance, I'm not.

First - I don't believe it. I think it is an artifact creation that you tout to cover your real agenda. I could be wrong, but the evidence says contrary.

Second - "I don't care about blacks much": this has already been established, but it is good of you to finally scrape together the wherewithall to admit it.

Third - "there are already a lot of them and they breed really fast"... the same is, of course, true of white Catholics, yes?


WTF are you on? South European countries are catholic, especially sometimes portrayed in a very stereotypical way (i.e: Italy) but they got some of the lowest birth rates in the world.


Fourth - "especially in Africa": red herring. You have consistently made the argument that this is not ABOUT Africa... you constantly bring the argument back to Europe. Thus - you feelings about 'black' races MUST be viewed in that light.

Fifth - "Some african countries, for ex, got a birth rate of 6 children per women"... again, there is a direct parallel with white Catholics or some other groups... Southern Baptists one generation ago, for example.

Sixth - "This doesnt mean I'm against interracial breeding. I'm just biased against it." This statement, on a logical level - is self-contradictory.


It means, even if I had GOD like powers, I wouldnt ban interracial marriages/breeding. I'd just have them moved to Canada.


Seventh - "I'd care if whites go below a certain amount. And I'd prefer a world with a white majority". You might as well prepare for disappointment. 'White' skin was never anything more than a mutation... and, now that genepools are not under the same constraints of isolation, it is a mutation that is going to be hard pressed to survive.


Who knows? Since it is a mutation hard pressed to survive, according to you, it might have also caused people like me to evolve. Maybe a gene making me write all these on NSG.


But - again, you show your true colours... you don't care how few 'negritoes' there are, but you have an arbitrary line of how many 'whites' are okay... and you admit you would rathe see a 'white' world.


Like I've said before - you aren't telling us anything we didn't know. You are being more than usually forthcoming, though. I guess I should thank you, for at least finally being honest about it.

Yeah, I dont care how few negritos there are as long as they are preserved. And you dont have to use it in quotes, it isnt used as an insult derived from negro.

Dear god, what would happen if sub-saharan africans all converted to catholicism. THATS 12 kids per family!!!

LOL. I think the question is what would happen if they all converted to Islam.


Rank

Country

Total fertility rate
(children born/woman)

Date of Information
1
Niger 7.46 2006 est.
2
Mali 7.42 2006 est.
3
Somalia 6.76 2006 est.
4
Uganda 6.71 2006 est.
5
Afghanistan 6.69 2006 est.
6
Yemen 6.58 2006 est.
7
Burundi 6.55 2006 est.
8
Burkina Faso 6.47 2006 est.
9
Congo, Democratic Republic of the 6.45 2006 est.
10
Angola 6.35 2006 est.
11
Chad 6.25 2006 est.
12
Sierra Leone 6.08 2006 est.
13
Congo, Republic of the 6.07 2006 est.
14
Liberia 6.02 2006 est.
15
Malawi 5.92 2006 est.
16
Mauritania 5.86 2006 est.
17
Guinea 5.79 2006 est.
18
Mayotte 5.79 2006 est.
19
Gaza Strip 5.78 2006 est.
20
Oman 5.77 2006 est.
21
Madagascar 5.62 2006 est.
22
Sao Tome and Principe 5.62 2006 est.
23
Nigeria 5.49 2006 est.
24
Rwanda 5.43 2006 est.
25
Zambia 5.39 2006 est.


The highest European country on the list is Albania, which is number 133. The bottom 50 are almost all European.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

Who said they were constantly breeding with non-europeans more than 1000 years ago?

No one. That's not the point. You made a statement that is not reasonable. You did it because your argument sucks. You're not pretending that it doesn't matter, but clearly it does or you wouldn't have tried to limit it.

To me, the point of this article is not to advocate returning to the old concept of race, but to try to build awareness on the declining lack of genetic diversity in the human genome. Race is still a social construct, but the fact that some populations have more unique gene pools is important for long term human survival.

Prove our species has enough variation. Prove why we shouldnt immidiately start research of creating more genetically diverse humans, as in people who's DNA has been altered to include genes of other species, like cockroaches, flies, oak trees. By your logic of less genetically diverse = unhealthy, we should eliminate the distinctiveness of our species to be mixed with other species to be healthy. :rolleyes:

I don't have to. Nature did it for me, but making us unable to breed. Meanwhile, races can still breed so clearly we need the variations. By NATURE's logic of less diverse=unhealthy. Natural law makes becoming isolated enough genetically so much that we can't breed viable offspring take a LOT of generations so that by the time it happens there is enough diversity in each species. That's the proof. If you wish to prove it wrong, please get started, but nature has a few hundred million years on you.

By keeping races pure as well as having mixed people is MORE DIVERSE than everyone being mixed. He's not contradicting himself. It's just you who dont get it. Like how you didnt get population decline. Or like how you didnt get he was arguing pro-my points, claiming I choosed a wrong article. :rolleyes: As usual, you are only clueless.

Now are you going to continue to argue against the article and arguments you presented arguing that genetic variation is something we should preserve or are you done embarrassing yourself.




You dont realize a shit. If you had realized that you wouldnt have made the silly claim that the article I picked for OP didnt support me.

You are arguing against it, frequently. You don't realize that when you argue for isolation that you are arguing against diversity because biologically there is no advantage to a gene being present in a species if intermingling with that gene is discouraged. You encourage behavior that limits diversity while making the ignorant argument that diversity and isolationism mean the same thing. You are trying to make a social argument and pretend like it's a biological argument, but biology by its very nature disagrees with you. That's why we're laughing at you.

And you are still thinking on an individual basis. If everyone is mixed, people might be more diverse individually but they will be LESS DIVERSE as a species since some of the original and unique genetic combination of races will be lost, as argued in the last sentences of the article.

And again your embarrassing level of biological understanding rears it's ugly head. As a species as long as the variation exists in our genes we benefit from them. We cannot become less diverse if the genes are preserved. If the individuals have the genes even if they are mixed with other genes it has no bearing on a biological argument.

Biologically 'genetic combination' is not something that matters. If genetic combinations mattered we would reproduce asexually. However, instead a biological advantage formed to mixing and matching genes. If you're going to claim this is a disadvantage, you're going to have to prove it. But again, you'll be going against about a few hundred million years of biology.

Racism is a word that has many meanings. Like when people say star, they arent only referring to objects in outer space. Since racism is often correlated with violance, I'm not.

The limits of your vocabulary are not my issue. You are a racist by the very definition of the word. Familiarize yourself with the word, since you are one, you'll probably hear it often. Yes, when you say you are interested in creating a world where a 'pure white race' is in the majority, that's racist.