NationStates Jolt Archive

And the thread goes oddly still...

Reading. I don't know how good the Baltimore Sun is, but their reports contain more details than JuNiI's links.

Similarly, I think it is important to identify a Black as someone who is descendant of slaves or not in order to get a good racial history because of the genetic pressures placed on slaves in the rough conditions of the slave ships.
Uh, do you think they had families in those things or something? They were in those for a couple of months, that's hardly enough time to accrue "genetic pressures".

Uh, do you think they had families in those things or something? They were in those for a couple of months, that's hardly enough time to accrue "genetic pressures".

I disagree. The slave ships were not cruise ships. The living conditions were terribly filthy. Many died of diareahal illness or rather died of dehydration secondary to diareahal illnesses. The folks who remained were typically those who were good at retaining salt and passed this on to the children. This is a great trait to have aboard a filthy slave ship but is a lousy one to have in a society with a lot of processed foods containing quite a bit of salt.

I disagree. The slave ships were not cruise ships. The living conditions were terribly filthy. Many died of diareahal illness or rather died of dehydration secondary to diareahal illnesses. The folks who remained were typically those who were good at retaining salt and passed this on to the children. This is a great trait to have aboard a filthy slave ship but is a lousy one to have in a society with a lot of processed foods containing quite a bit of salt.
Oh, I getcha now. Didn't think of that one, for some idiot reason.

Too much not to know. Damn that video camera. Pretty useless boyfriend Sarah's got there, or perhaps she was trying to get him killed.

I think in that situation I wouldn't be insisting on my right to sit down, certainly if the only seats were up the back with the kids and they didn't want me there. And no, I'm not saying it was her fault or she deserved a beating. I'm glad she wasn't killed.

...and I'm about done with this thread unless anyone else wants to talk about the case.

This thread gave me a headache. :headbang:

This thread gave me a headache. :headbang:

and banging your head against the wall doesn't help either. :p

Reading. I don't know how good the Baltimore Sun is, but their reports contain more details than JuNiI's links.

can you link to the B.S?

those links I provided are all off of the OP's link.

I've found this one of the more interesting threads on this forum despite it's beginning. :)
If anyone is interested there is a short bit on the origin of white people on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people#Origins_of_light_skin), I won't pretend to know much about the topic, so feel free to distrust this.
Also, I find using 'one' as an alternative for 'you' to be a lot less confusing and I do not believe it to be pretentious in the slightest (Unless, like that one person said- it is being used to refer to oneself).

Thanks for a good read!

can you link to the B.S?

Sure. Woman injured in bus beating.
(http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-md.ci.beating06dec06,0,5412204.story)
It's from the 6th dec, most of the Examiner links were from the 7th. Some details might have been debunked, but that makes it more interesting really.
Once on the Baltimore Sun site, there's links to articles like this one (http://http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.mta08dec08,0,5111771.story?page=1&coll=bal-opinion-headlines), from the 8th.

those links I provided are all off of the OP's link.
To be honest, I was just too lazy to call the Examiner by name, but I remembered yours. Sorry. :)

Sure. Woman injured in bus beating.
(http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-md.ci.beating06dec06,0,5412204.story)
It's from the 6th dec, most of the Examiner links were from the 7th. Some details might have been debunked, but that makes it more interesting really.
Once on the Baltimore Sun site, there's links to articles like this one (http://http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.mta08dec08,0,5111771.story?page=1&coll=bal-opinion-headlines), from the 8th.


To be honest, I was just too lazy to call the Examiner by name, but I remembered yours. Sorry. :)
Thanks.

*pulls out scalpel* Time to disect the article.

I love doing this... :cool:

But the mother of one of the suspects says the victim, for an unknown reason, provoked the attack by spitting in the face of one of the girls. Beverly Bell, whose son is an eighth-grader at Robert Poole, said the victim's boyfriend then pulled out a knife and threatened the girls, which prompted the boys to attack the man.

ok, so the boyfriend pulls out a knife... so why did they beat up the woman more?

Kreager was taken to Maryland Shock Trauma Center. Her companion, Troy Ennis, also was beaten, police said, but did not require hospital treatment.

then there's the fact that this article and the others mention that the couple was dragged out of the bus and while the other article mentions the beatings continuing, this one mentions them (the kids) breaking the rear door.

Glad they (Baltimore Sun) never hinted at it being a 'hate crime' and curious that this one doesn't mention the "N" word being said.

Ah, brings back memories of the 'Rosa Parks was a terrorist' thread by MTAE.

I used to tear apart MTAE back when I posted as Icovir.

Not all racists are trolls.

True. I wasn't implying otherwise.

I used to tear apart MTAE back when I posted as Icovir.

is there anyone who couldn't tear apart MTAE's arguments?

is there anyone who couldn't tear apart MTAE's arguments?

It felt good. Let me swim in the memories of the past in which I was the God of Debating. Please.

It felt good. Let me swim in the memories of the past in which I was the God of Debating. Please.

Oh, sorry... carry on.

*Patrols around memories with life preserver for anyone drowning in their memories.*

Similarly, I think it is important to identify a Black as someone who is descendant of slaves or not in order to get a good racial history because of the genetic pressures placed on slaves in the rough conditions of the slave ships.
Is it really relevant today?

Really?

Well if you're white and you get a white woman pregnant, and 9 months later she gives birth to the baby while in Nigeria you'll have a baby who is both white and African. Magical, no?

I was mainly referring to descent.

Thanks.

*pulls out scalpel*

Woa dude! Are you sure you want to pull a knife on this bus? ;)

Time to disect the article.

I love doing this... :cool:

Yeah, why not. The time to argue facts is after the trial, so for now let's examine the media coverage to the limit of our patience (actually, I had a rotten night's sleep and probably will quit soon, but ...)

But the mother of one of the suspects says the victim, for an unknown reason, provoked the attack by spitting in the face of one of the girls. /Beverly Bell, whose son is an eighth-grader at Robert Poole, said the victim's boyfriend then pulled out a knife and threatened the girls, which prompted the boys to attack the man.
ok, so the boyfriend pulls out a knife... so why did they beat up the woman more?

I think the reporter (or editor?) has hedged this report with that phrase "for an unknown reason."

Hey, hang on -- did the Sun just give identifying information on one of the underage suspects? (Surely that's not legal? Sure ain't in Australia.)

Or are they pulling a trick here? Should there be a paragraph break where I put the blue / ...?

I don't know how many kids are in the eighth grade, but 'someone's mom' isn't a particularly solid source.


Kreager was taken to Maryland Shock Trauma Center. Her companion, Troy Ennis, also was beaten, police said, but did not require hospital treatment.

ok, so the boyfriend pulls out a knife... so why did they beat up the woman more?

She started the trouble. He tried to defend her (the knife isn't mentioned in later reports, and in any case no-one was cut) and perhaps they went easy on him because that's just what a man should do.

Reports variously describe Troy as Sarah's 'companion' or 'boyfriend.' It's not out of the question that they were on their way to score drugs, and Troy didn't really care much about her at all.

then there's the fact that this article and the others mention that the couple was dragged out of the bus and while the other article mentions the beatings continuing, this one mentions them (the kids) breaking the rear door.

I find that plausible. All accounts have the bus driver intervening on behalf of the adult couple, so he presumably locked the doors when he used the panic button. The kids wanted to get her out of sight of the cameras presumably ... and also, if there's a fight in a crowded area like a bus, other people might intervene just to protect themselves.

Glad they (Baltimore Sun) never hinted at it being a 'hate crime' and curious that this one doesn't mention the "N" word being said.

All the real evidence is from adult witnesses on the bus. If they're granted anonymity at the trial, there should be a pretty good description of events then, and the bus driver's testimony (he can't avoid being called) will have to stand in lieu of a working surveillance camera.

You have to hope that the MTA (the busses of course) are checking all their cameras over thoroughly. They should have done that before!

I'm going to quote a passage you didn't. It seems almost comical, but it's the closing paragraph! The reporter is trying to imply something here:

A few weeks earlier, city and schools police arrested 22 girls involved in a melee that sent one student to the hospital with minor injuries after a high school football game at M&T Bank Stadium.

Is this really a race problem in Baltimore? Or bad girls?

(For anyone who's curious, we're dissecting Woman injured in bus beating (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-md.ci.beating06dec06,0,5412204.story), an article from 6th Dec in the Baltimore Sun.)

Is it really relevant today?

Really?

Read his reply two later than that. It's more interesting ... but begs the question "is the typical American diet good for anyone?"

This helpful comment brought to you from the land of beer and meat pies ...:p

Not all racists are trolls.
We mustn't unfairly stereotype racists-- or trolls :p

Not all racists are trolls. *snip*We mustn't unfairly stereotype racists-- or trolls :p

I found the post admirably frank, and certainly won't be attacking it.

Though of course, endangered mythical creatures have my blessing too!
Whites, for instance. Or trolls.

Read his reply two later than that. It's more interesting ... but begs the question "is the typical American diet good for anyone?"

This helpful comment brought to you from the land of beer and meat pies ...:p

No the typical American is not so great, Hey, we have meat pies here and they are great however, our meat pies typically contain chicken breasts or thighs, not beef and kidneys :)

I am making mussles right now which apparently were not eaten by folks around here until US servicemen returned from serving in Britain. So it is not all bad over there.

Yes, they are fellow Americans. And its not THEM that deserve ALL of the blame. I would like to place a fair amount of blame on our media and our culture, which emphasize racial tension between various groups of Americans, which can eventually lead to tragic events, such as this.

And yes, if someone is black, then it is fair to say that they are of African descent. If that offends any of you, then I'm sorry.

Because there are no people of color in the Caribbean. Or in Latin America. Or any other continent on the Earth. Nope, every black is automatically African.

Geez.

Is it really relevant today?

Really?

You betcha. I think that our genetic backgrounds are important on an individual level to understand health risks and such. On a societal level ist is important to for understanding public health issues. For example, you sometimes hear that Blacks are discriminated against in healthcare. When you hear that a higher incidence of heart disease and high blood pressure in Blacks is the "evidence", you can identify other causes such as genetics.

I heard something like this I think it was about 2 years ago. It was shameful.

Oh and I think your name for your country is pretty cool.

You betcha. I think that our genetic backgrounds are important on an individual level to understand health risks and such. On a societal level ist is important to for understanding public health issues. For example, you sometimes hear that Blacks are discriminated against in healthcare. When you hear that a higher incidence of heart disease and high blood pressure in Blacks is the "evidence", you can identify other causes such as genetics.

I heard something like this I think it was about 2 years ago. It was shameful.
Slightly flawed, because being a slave doesn't change your DNA, unless instead of picking cotton and working on sugar plantations, the slaves from Africa were actually being used to handle highly radioactive substances.
Oh and I think your name for your country is pretty cool.
Merci beaucoup!

Saw a cartoon a while ago (it's German): A white guy yells at an African-looking boy to go back to where he came from. The boy replies "Why would I want to stay in Düsseldorf?"

If you're willing to take it that far back, you'd have to prove that whites are of European descent first.

Read previous posts.

Of course. Where you were raised doesn't erase where you were born.


Dont be silly.

Slightly flawed, because being a slave doesn't change your DNA, unless instead of picking cotton and working on sugar plantations, the slaves from Africa were actually being used to handle highly radioactive substances.


:rolleyes:

Be quite if you dont understand natural selection.

Slightly flawed, because being a slave doesn't change your DNA, unless instead of picking cotton and working on sugar plantations, the slaves from Africa were actually being used to handle highly radioactive substances.

Please read my post which is numbered 253 and I believe in on page 17. It is not the slavery but the slave passage that changes the DNA.

:rolleyes:

Be quite if you dont understand natural selection.
Take your own advice.

The vast majority of "genetic" differences between people of different ethnic backgrounds aren't actually found in genes. They're found in what is sometimes called "junk DNA," and this happens for a very simple reason: "junk" DNA doesn't code for genes, so mutations to junk DNA are much less likely to interfere with an individual's survival chances.

In other words, most of the "racial differences" that exist at the genetic level are found specifically in the regions that are LEAST impacted by natural selection.

Oh, and FYI: a tall white man and a tall black man probably have more in common genetically than do a tall and a short black man. This is because there are more genes involved in making somebody tall than there are in making somebody black. The actual nuclear gene differences between the "races" are so negligible that even the FBI doesn't usually rely on them when DNA testing to determine race. Instead, they use mitochondrial DNA because mtDNA mutates fast enough to be useful in tracking relatively recent migrations of different populations ("recent" in genetic terms, of course). Nuclear DNA doesn't mutate (on the population level) very quickly, because selection is much less forgiving on mutations.

Which, again, leads us back to the fact that selective pressures actually act to REDUCE differences between the "races," and the majority of genetic differences between the races exist mainly because they are in places where selective pressures are minimal.

Take your own advice.

The vast majority of "genetic" differences between people of different ethnic backgrounds aren't actually found in genes. They're found in what is sometimes called "junk DNA," and this happens for a very simple reason: "junk" DNA doesn't code for genes, so mutations to junk DNA are much less likely to interfere with an individual's survival chances.

In other words, most of the "racial differences" that exist at the genetic level are found specifically in the regions that are LEAST impacted by natural selection.

Oh, and FYI: a tall white man and a tall black man probably have more in common genetically than do a tall and a short black man. This is because there are more genes involved in making somebody tall than there are in making somebody black. The actual nuclear gene differences between the "races" are so negligible that even the FBI doesn't usually rely on them when DNA testing to determine race. Instead, they use mitochondrial DNA because mtDNA mutates fast enough to be useful in tracking relatively recent migrations of different populations ("recent" in genetic terms, of course). Nuclear DNA doesn't mutate (on the population level) very quickly, because selection is much less forgiving on mutations.

Which, again, leads us back to the fact that selective pressures actually act to REDUCE differences between the "races," and the majority of genetic differences between the races exist mainly because they are in places where selective pressures are minimal.

Go Bottle! I do not even begin to believe I fully understood all that but it sure did sound smart.

Go Bottle! I do not even begin to believe I fully understood all that but it sure did sound smart.
Haha, well, sounding smart is only half the battle.

In all seriousness, I may not have communicated as clearly as I intended. If there's something I should clarify, please let me know! (I like talking nerdy, baby, all night long.)

Haha, well, sounding smart is only half the battle.

In all seriousness, I may not have communicated as clearly as I intended. If there's something I should clarify, please let me know! (I like talking nerdy, baby, all night long.)

Junk DNA??? Anyway, I loved the "I like talking nerdy..." quote it had me in stitches.

Because there are no people of color in the Caribbean. Or in Latin America. Or any other continent on the Earth. Nope, every black is automatically African.

Geez.

LOL! Just like all Asians are the same. I laugh everytime I watch "Memoirs of a Geshia". Think about it... a story set in Japan, about a Japanese profession, but cast with mostly Chinese actors/actresses. :p

snip You mean the desire for diversity that motivated Europeans to get their slaves from Africa?

Junk DNA??

Ah! Okay, this is actually pretty cool.

Most people know that DNA has something to do with genes, and genes have something to do with how our bodies are built.

The short version is that a gene is a segment of DNA that has the instructions for making a particular "gene product," which usually will be some kind of protein. Proteins are a bit like worker-bees, because they are the chief actors in the cell and they run around taking care of just about everything that goes on in the cell. Each worker bee has a particular set of tasks it is assigned to.

Being the complex animal that you are, your body needs a lot of these "worker bees." Hence, your DNA has craptons of genes.

But it has even more "junk"!

"Junk" regions are areas of DNA that don't encode genes. The reason I keep putting "junk" in scare-quotes is because we don't know for sure that it is junk. We know junk DNA doesn't have instructions for making proteins the way that genes do, but it's possible it serves some other function.

There have been recent experiments in which big chunks of junk DNA were deleted from genetically engineered mice, and so far I don't think any of them have reported measurable effects on the mice. In other words, it doesn't seem to make a difference if you remove the "junk" from the mouse DNA.

This gets back to what I was originally talking about. See, a mutation in a gene area of your DNA will often result in some kind of change to the particular "worker bee" that it codes for. Sometimes the mutation will result in a defective bee being made. Sometimes it will cause the cell to make way too many of that type of worker bee, or way too few, or even none at all. Changes like these can sometimes help, and sometimes hinder. Regardless, natural selection will be at work...if the mutation to the gene ends up changing things in a way that helps the animal, then the animal will be more likely to thrive. And vice versa.

However, mutations to "junk" DNA aren't likely to do anything. As seen with those genetically engineered mice, you can just flat out remove the junk and nothing happens. So a mutation doesn't make much difference either. This means that natural selection isn't really going to "notice" mutations to junk DNA.

The reason this relates to race is because it means that mutations can accumulate in junk DNA very easily, since selection isn't weeding them out or impacting how likely they are to be passed down.

I wasn't kidding about the "all night long" bit, you see...


Anyway, I loved the "I like talking nerdy..." quote it had me in stitches.
I have it on a t-shirt, too. I wear it under my lab coat.

I r teh sexy.

*snip*

Junk DNA (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426086.000-junk-dna-makes-compulsive-reading.html) - more surprising than you think :)

Junk DNA (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426086.000-junk-dna-makes-compulsive-reading.html) - more surprising than you think :)
Yeah, that's the awesome/annoying thing about biology...it's NEVER as simple as the simple explanation!

I think 2007 can be termed 'Year of Junk DNA' at end-of-year parties for geneticists.

Another view (http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/Research/Evolution_Transforms_Junk_DNA_into_Genetic_Machinery.asp)

Annoyingly, the focus may well be because it ties very much into the ID debate alas.

Creationists Treasure (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/junk_dna)

Anyway, tis a digression...

EDIT: More on topic - genetics and pigmentation (http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/Research/Same_Genetic_Machinery_Generates_Skin_Color_Evolution_in_Fish_and_Humans.asp)

Take your own advice.

The vast majority of "genetic" differences between people of different ethnic backgrounds aren't actually found in genes. They're found in what is sometimes called "junk DNA," and this happens for a very simple reason: "junk" DNA doesn't code for genes, so mutations to junk DNA are much less likely to interfere with an individual's survival chances.

In other words, most of the "racial differences" that exist at the genetic level are found specifically in the regions that are LEAST impacted by natural selection.

Oh, and FYI: a tall white man and a tall black man probably have more in common genetically than do a tall and a short black man. This is because there are more genes involved in making somebody tall than there are in making somebody black. The actual nuclear gene differences between the "races" are so negligible that even the FBI doesn't usually rely on them when DNA testing to determine race. Instead, they use mitochondrial DNA because mtDNA mutates fast enough to be useful in tracking relatively recent migrations of different populations ("recent" in genetic terms, of course). Nuclear DNA doesn't mutate (on the population level) very quickly, because selection is much less forgiving on mutations.

Which, again, leads us back to the fact that selective pressures actually act to REDUCE differences between the "races," and the majority of genetic differences between the races exist mainly because they are in places where selective pressures are minimal.

First of all I wasnt talking about racial differences. I was talking about this. If a group of people and their offspring are used as manual slaves for a long period of time (say, 1000 years), this will affect their DNA due to natural selection. Like, genes for strength may be under positive selection under this scenario. Much more than a group of people whose most members do not do manual labor.

Secondly, you are wrong. People from the same continent are on avarage more genetically similar with each other. An avarage European (that is someone whose ancestral origin is in Europe, ie: white) would be more genetically similar to another European than to an African (that is someone whose ancestral origin is in Africa, ie: black. Ancestral origin means origin after major population movements between 55,000 and 60,000 years ago when some members of our species left Africa to colonize other parts of the world.)

So your info is outdated. Here's research from 2007:


Similarly, educational material distributed by the Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that “two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world.” Previously, one might have judged these statements to be essentially correct for single-locus characters, but not for multilocus ones. However, the finding of Bamshad et al. (2004) suggests that an empirical investigation of these claims is warranted.
........
Accordingly, Risch et al. (2002, p. 2007.5) state that “two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.” However, in a reanalysis of data from 377 microsatellite loci typed in 1056 individuals, Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time (Bamshad et al. 2004; population definitions and data from Rosenberg et al. 2002).
............
Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 [congruent with] 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 [congruent with] 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1893020

:rolleyes:

Be quite if you dont understand natural selection.

..or if you don't know the difference between quite and quiet?

*snip*

No - there is greater genetic variance within populations not between populations, that is what this article is saying.

What is says is that although you can isolate certain characteristics to isolate population, these are, to some extent, insignificant in determining genetic similarities.

It's like saying the African carrot cake and the African blueberry pie are distinct in that they both put an African cherry on top as opposed to the European versions, which use a European cherry.

Yet the make up between the two carrot cakes are highly similar compared to the blueberry pies.

Which is more important in judging the difference, the cherry?

No.

Hence...

The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes

No - there is greater genetic variance within populations not between populations, that is what this article is saying.

What is says is that although you can isolate certain characteristics to isolate population, these are, to some extent, insignificant in determining genetic similarities.

It's like saying the African carrot cake and the African blueberry pie are distinct in that they both put an African cherry on top as opposed to the European versions, which use a European cherry.

Yet the make up between the two carrot cakes are highly similar compared to the blueberry pies.

Which is more important in judging the difference, the cherry?

No.

Hence...

Please dont give me silly examples before you understand the difference between genetic variation and genetic dissimilarity.

I have it on a t-shirt, too. I wear it under my lab coat.

I r teh sexy.

Ah-hah! Nerd.

*pounces, stuffs in pigeonhole*

Because there are no people of color in the Caribbean...

Actually.....common misconception. The native carribean population was not black, but more closely resembled native americans in the Yukatan penninsula or similar. Most of the native carribean population died out, few remain. Much of the "black" population of the caribbean now are, yes, descendants of african slaves and workers. So while yes, there are many in the caribbean that would fit the description of "black", they're not from native carribean families.

Actually.....common misconception. The native carribean population was not black, but more closely resembled native americans in the Yukatan penninsula or similar. Most of the native carribean population died out, few remain. Much of the "black" population of the caribbean now are, yes, descendants of african slaves and workers. So while yes, there are many in the caribbean that would fit the description of "black", they're not from native carribean families.

Good call. The advantage of an island for keeping slaves is obvious. And sea power was the thing back then.

And yes, if someone is black, then it is fair to say that they are of African descent. If that offends any of you, then I'm sorry.

It may offend some, like Australians...

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/41/74/22617441.jpg
http://www.azfoto.com/graphics/oz/aborigines.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/06/21/waboriginal.jpg

It may offend some, like Australians...
Or indeed all of humanity, since it’s quite likely we’re all ‘of African descent’.

Please dont give me silly examples before you understand the difference between genetic variation and genetic dissimilarity.

I missed this.

It's understood.

All that's being said is that skin colour is one of the least significant genetic variances between people other than it's highly visible, visibility that causes problems when you have people calling it 'African-American crime against European-American' as if those terms had any relevance whatsoever.

Crime is not inherent to colour, there's psychological, economic, social and historic reasons for crime.

Given there seems to be a lot more to the story than mere refusal of seat, this is a prime example of colour suddenly being the issue people focus on rather than the facts.

It's understood that it's accepted that African-American means black but it's not really relevant that this OP is titled 'European woman reaps benefits of diversity'.

It has nothing to do with either.

And yes, if someone is black, then it is fair to say that they are of African descent. If that offends any of you, then I'm sorry.
It's fair to say it of anyone, since humanity is suspected to have come about in Africa.
Dont be silly.

I'm not.

First of all I wasnt talking about racial differences. I was talking about this. If a group of people and their offspring are used as manual slaves for a long period of time (say, 1000 years), this will affect their DNA due to natural selection. Like, genes for strength may be under positive selection under this scenario. Much more than a group of people whose most members do not do manual labor.

1000 years? "Group" of people?

And you are actually presuming to tell OTHER people that they don't understand natural selection?


Secondly, you are wrong. People from the same continent are on avarage more genetically similar with each other. An avarage European (that is someone whose ancestral origin is in Europe, ie: white) would be more genetically similar to another European than to an African (that is someone whose ancestral origin is in Africa, ie: black. Ancestral origin means origin after major population movements between 55,000 and 60,000 years ago when some members of our species left Africa to colonize other parts of the world.)

You don't seem to understand how it works. See, you don't get to just say "you are wrong" and that's that. You actually have to, you know, back up what you're claiming.



So your info is outdated. Here's research from 2007:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1893020
I'd strongly suggest you actually READ the article you quoted. It says exactly what I was saying: that, while "racial" genetic differences can exist, they are minor compared to many other genetic differences between individuals. (For instance, the tall black man and short black man I mentioned before.)

But it was nice of you to cite a source to back me up. Thanks!

Please dont give me silly examples before you understand the difference between genetic variation and genetic dissimilarity.
He was right, though. It appears he read your article more carefully than you did.

I'd like an expert opinion on this. When I went to school, the accepted knowledge was that visible characteristics were significant adaptations to cope with different living conditions. White skin was better for creating vitamin D from scanty sunlight, dark skin more resistant to the destructive effects of copious sunlight. But I went to school more than twenty years ago, and certainly we have much more knowledge of the evolution of "racial" characteristics now.

So, experts, which of these is closest to the truth:

Visible characteristics are one of the adaptations of sub-species of homo sapiens, from living in different environments for many generations. Pale or dark skin had a purpose, and was selected for. Nose shape, stature etc, likewise.

Visible characteristics are a measure of objective beauty, and beauty only thrives where other genetic factors like resistance to disease or famine don't weed out the weak.

God favours the beautiful.
Humans, with their over-reliance on the sense of sight, have been selecting each other (by mating or persecuting) on the basis of appearance since prehistory ... so races are the basis of tribes and then nations.

Visible characteristics are randomly associated with characteristics which were significant (over many generations) in the past. Those characteristics, when we discover them through genetics, will matter more than the visible clues.

Some other significance to visible characteristics.

No significance whatsoever.

History is natural selection, speeded up. Humans, by fighting each other, have in the past selected the most viable specimens by fighting ability, within the geographical confines of walking distance. Now we're all within a days travel of each other, we're going to finish that battle. Humanity will be perfected by exterminating the losers of history.


It seems to me that most of the "evolutionary" characteristics which operated over millennia to create visible differences between "races" are now obsolete. With knowledge of our own genetic heritage, and above that with the civilized ability to choose our own environment, no genetic heritage should be any impediment to successfully reproducing. We will be able to examine our own genetic heritage, and choose what we want to keep or discard.

Please read my post which is numbered 253 and I believe in on page 17. It is not the slavery but the slave passage that changes the DNA.

Hahahah can I refer you back to your own post where you invite all those who do not understand natural selection to shut up.

Coz we all know that the genetic mutation required for this type of change to DNA, takes place not over many generations, but one ship ride.

For fucks sake you racist pig, flee now before you make yourself look even more stupid, come back in a few weeks with another nick, and well tear you apart again, fun fun fun!

I'd like an expert opinion on this.

I don't know if I consider myself an "expert" in this area, but I probably have had a bit more training than the average person. (My specialties are physiology, pharmacology, and neuroscience, not genetics, but fundamentals of genetics were part of my required course load.)

You are correct that, for example, the melanin pigmentations levels of different skin types probably arose for functional reasons.

However, a great many "visible characteristics" that are used to distinguish ethnic groups are not particularly associated with any functional role.

And, as I remarked earlier, if you really want to find the largest number of differences between ethnic groups at the genetic level, you won't find them among "visible characteristics." The majority of the genetic differences between, say, a white man and a black man are going to be found in non-coding regions of their DNA.

Hahahah can I refer you back to your own post where you invite all those who do not understand natural selection to shut up.

Coz we all know that the genetic mutation required for this type of change to DNA, takes place not over many generations, but one ship ride.

For fucks sake you racist pig, flee now before you make yourself look even more stupid, come back in a few weeks with another nick, and well tear you apart again, fun fun fun!

Surely one could set up an example where 50% selection on one characteristic, in one generation, could produce a lasting effect on the genetic characteristics of the descendants?

Sure, the descendants wouldn't ALL have the characteristics of the survivors of this ... er, filtering ... but if the eugenist (slave ships in this example) were to kill 50% of the population based on one characteristic (say, blue eyes) ... wouldn't that characteristic be less common?

The 'selection' of slaves by survival of the ships might not be entirely by the characteristic "ability to retain salt", nor may the culling ratio be 50%, but the same principle applies.

I'm just saying it was interesting. If you don't find it interesting, disprove it. Not so much with the calling people pigs, huh?

Surely one could set up an example where 50% selection on one characteristic, in one generation, could produce a lasting effect on the genetic characteristics of the descendants?

Sure, the descendants wouldn't ALL have the characteristics of the survivors of this ... er, filtering ... but if the eugenist (slave ships in this example) were to kill 50% of the population based on one characteristic (say, blue eyes) ... wouldn't that characteristic be less common?

The 'selection' of slaves by survival of the ships might not be entirely by the characteristic "ability to retain salt", nor may the culling ratio be 50%, but the same principle applies.

I'm just saying it was interesting. If you don't find it interesting, disprove it. Not so much with the calling people pigs, huh?

You have a point, if we killed 50% of people with blue eyes, there would be less blue eyed people about. What though would be the percentage of the population of people with blues eyes 200 of years after this event?

Ohh as to the pig thing, if it smells like a pig, and it craps like a pig....

Surely one could set up an example where 50% selection on one characteristic, in one generation, could produce a lasting effect on the genetic characteristics of the descendants?

Sure, the descendants wouldn't ALL have the characteristics of the survivors of this ... er, filtering ... but if the eugenist (slave ships in this example) were to kill 50% of the population based on one characteristic (say, blue eyes) ... wouldn't that characteristic be less common?

Don't forget recessive traits. Also remember that we are talking about "racial" differences. To the best of my knowledge, black people did exist before the Western slave trade.


The 'selection' of slaves by survival of the ships might not be entirely by the characteristic "ability to retain salt", nor may the culling ratio be 50%, but the same principle applies.

I'm just saying it was interesting. If you don't find it interesting, disprove it.
The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. If you assert that such things happened, find evidence to support your claim. It is not up to anybody else to prove a negative.

You are correct that, for example, the melanin pigmentations levels of different skin types probably arose for functional reasons.

Excellent! Not too much of what they taught me in school a quarter-century ago was really wrong.

And what you call "basic genetics" still puts you into the "expert" range for NSG.

=============

Anyone else?

Ummm...no...

I'm British, and to me someone from the Indian subcontinent is...Indian, believe it or not. Someone from East Asia is...Asian...

Even if they are Pakistani or Bangladeshi?

Even if they are Pakistani or Bangladeshi?

Yep just like somebody from Germany can be called European.

It's bizare that anyone would travel over to America and name part of it after a place in the back-end of no where in Cork. I could get naming it after Dublin, Limerick, Belfast or even after Cork City itself but why Baltimore?

It was named after Lord Baltimore.

You have a point, if we killed 50% of people with blue eyes, there would be less blue eyed people about. What though would be the percentage of the population of people with blues eyes 200 of years after this event?

Less than would be without the event. More than would be with two such events. Don't ask me to do maths, please!

Ohh as to the pig thing, if it smells like a pig, and it craps like a pig....

This being the internet, it might well be a Pig Simulator. Properly speaking, you don't have even one sense to detect its porcinity!

But to go to your intent, I think you must be relying on some previous experience of this poster, and be addressing the intent rather than the facts. A single 'selection event'* clearly has SOME effect, or else "natural selection" wouldn't mean dick.

*improvised term. May not have a formal meaning in evolution theory.

Excellent! Not too much of what they taught me in school a quarter-century ago was really wrong.

If you're interested in genetic tracking of lineage, you probably will want to read up on mitochondrial DNA.

Most of the DNA in your cells is found in the nucleus, and when most people talk about DNA they are talking about nuclear DNA. But there is also a totally separate set of DNA found inside your mitochondria (structures found in the cytoplasm of the cell).

All your mitochondria are inherited from your mother. This is because sperm carry nuclear DNA, but egg cells contain all the other cellular machinery necessary for life...including mitochondria!

This is important because it means that mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to child with virtually no changes. Your nuclear DNA is a combination of the DNA from your father's sperm and your mother's egg, which shuffled around and came together to make your DNA, so your DNA ends up being very different from each of your parents. Your mitochondrial DNA is going to be pretty much the same as your mothers, though, because it's not combining with any other mtDNA.

Notice that I say "pretty much," however, because mitochondrial DNA still experiences mutations (just like nuclear DNA) and it is these mutations, and how they are passed down, which allow lineage to be tracked through mtDNA.

There are different mtDNA groups (like T, U, or A), and each group is commonly found in a different region of the world. For example, the most common mtDNA found in Europe is U. All the people in group U share ancestors in the recent past.

I doubt the op expected I five page argument over grammar when he set about posting. Yes, he meant white when he said European, yes, most Americans just say "white", yes, the article was a lame effort to incense more prone readers in this thread. The truth is, the reason for the beating could have been anything, and in a city like Baltimore there is enough of a black and white population that there is a fairly good chance the races involved were pure coincidence.

The reason for any beating could be anything. Had the races of the perpetrator and the victim been reversed, how do you think the incident would have been interpreted? Would it have taken very long for Al Sharpton to make an appearance?

It's not five pages. It's two. Can't you people count? 40 posts per page, with 72 posts...

Which "you people" would that be?

Less than would be without the event. More than would be with two such events. Don't ask me to do maths, please!

Heh are you sure? There are bound to be countless other factors. What if, for example, the remaining blues eyes got together and breed like rabbits for 100 years? I mean we have had two world wars that drastically cut the human population on this lil' planet of ours, and the all to human response? Have more babies.

Lets get back to the slaves ships and numbers of death, I guess then we would expect to see less black people in the world? Well according to our pigish friends, that does not seem to be the case, I mean if it were, then the blacks couldn't be on the verge of taking over.



This being the internet, it might well be a Pig Simulator. Properly speaking, you don't have even one sense to detect its porcinity!

But to go to your intent, I think you must be relying on some previous experience of this poster, and be addressing the intent rather than the facts. A single 'selection event'* clearly has SOME effect, or else "natural selection" wouldn't mean dick.

*improvised term. May not have a formal meaning in evolution theory.

All of which is true, but I have a mind and can infer from his words his stance on this subject, and reading his words throughout this thread, his swineness has been adequately proved for me. I will concede that it was my intent to ignore any of his arguments(as the ones I have seen thus far have just not been up to par) and just shout the bleeder down.

This is not only great fun for me, but I wholly believe it is the only type of rethoric these people(and I use that term under duress) understand, indeed are capable of understanding.

I'm just saying it was interesting. If you don't find it interesting, disprove it. Not so much with the calling people pigs, huh?
The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. If you assert that such things happened, find evidence to support your claim. It is not up to anybody else to prove a negative.

I don't see what, in Glorious Freedonia's assertion that slave ships selected the slaves carried in them, called for GF being called a racist pig.

In fact, it's true. Any death before reproductive age is a selective event (albeit very tiny for the genome) ...

leaving this well into the realm of inference. I hardly know GF at all, I wouldn't dare ascribe any intent to their suggestion that slaves were selected to some extent by the passage in ships (well I make many speculative points myself, just whatever crosses my mind as I read the posts of others)

... so I retire.

Defend a flame if you will. You're fit for this battle, while I'm drunk and tired and damn sick of this thread. I can barely spell any more. I'm going to bed.

Yes, even if they raise the baby in US after birth and even if that baby has nothing to do with anything African except being born there. :rolleyes:

Well, she certainly wouldn't be considered an African-Amercian by the people beating the s**t out of her on a Baltimore bus.

This is not only great fun for me, but I wholly believe it is the only type of rethoric these people(and I use that term under duress) understand, indeed are capable of understanding.

Well, I put my back into making this thread something other than "us smart people vs Stupid racist pigs"

... now I'm done with it. Over to you smart people.

I don't see what, in Glorious Freedonia's assertion that slave ships selected the slaves carried in them, called for GF being called a racist pig.

He did actually admit to being racist and express reservations about mixed race relationships around the #240 mark...

Yes also true. You get your nationality from whatever country you were born in. Silly little thing that huh.

Not necessarily the case. Quite a number of countries do not regard that as the determinant of nationality.

Defend a flame if you will.

I'm not defending a flame, I'm ignoring it. I'm trying to keep the thread on topic by discussing the actual science behind some of the claims that are flying around.


You're fit for this battle, while I'm drunk and tired and damn sick of this thread. I can barely spell any more. I'm going to bed.
Sleep well.

Oooooh. So that's why I have a UK passport! I thought it was a mix-up!

Or the British Labour Party will sell you one if you're able to contribute enough cash.

In Baltimore? Hardly.

Baltimore isn't a nation is it?

So when a bunch of teenaged punks act like douchebags and beat the shit out of a random stranger, they better make sure the stranger looks like them first? :confused:

Unless they want Al Sharpton after them they had better.

I was hoping that it was some story about Irish peasents travelling to Maryland and naming all the place after Baltimore and there would have been lasers and peguins but Oh No, Reality has to be BORING!!

I think a lot of the peasants were taken to Africa by African slave traders in 1631. Should the present day inhabitants demand reparations I wonder?

I think a lot of the peasants were taken to Africa by African slave traders in 1631. Should the present day inhabitants demand reparations I wonder?

Repatriation, ahh one of my favoriute Burning Spear, songs.

Yep just like somebody from Germany can be called European.

I think that's just laziness in Britain calling people from "the subcontinent" Indian. Though I suppose if there are people who think "East Angular" is "on the continent" it's understandable.

Oh for christ's sake

I'm not defending a flame, I'm ignoring it. I'm trying to keep the thread on topic by discussing the actual science behind some of the claims that are flying around.The topic is Europeans getting beaten on Baltimore busses. I'd actually be very disappointed if we got underway discussing that.

Baltimore isn't a nation is it?Neither is any other place that news or non-news happens. All just locations.

Diversity and multiculturalism have done nothing but wonders for the European race in America.

For example..

Such brilliant ideals have made this wonderful speech possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJJuj-rfQVI&feature=related

The topic is Europeans getting beaten on Baltimore busses. I'd actually be very disappointed if we got underway discussing that.

Worse, Europeans getting beaten on a Baltimore bus because of diversity.

Worse, Europeans getting beaten on a Baltimore bus because of diversity.
Yeah. I've been to Baltimore on a bus and I never got beat. And those that came close weren't even diverse!

I think that's just laziness in Britain calling people from "the subcontinent" Indian. Though I suppose if there are people who think "East Angular" is "on the continent" it's understandable.

Yeah sure that is lazyness, if that is what was said. What I read though said that Indian people are Asians.

The OP still hasn't replied? Figures...

The OP still hasn't replied? Figures...

Stormfront must be back up.

Heh are you sure? There are bound to be countless other factors. What if, for example, the remaining blues eyes got together and breed like rabbits for 100 years? I mean we have had two world wars that drastically cut the human population on this lil' planet of ours, and the all to human response? Have more babies.

Lets get back to the slaves ships and numbers of death, I guess then we would expect to see less black people in the world? Well according to our pigish friends, that does not seem to be the case, I mean if it were, then the blacks couldn't be on the verge of taking over.




All of which is true, but I have a mind and can infer from his words his stance on this subject, and reading his words throughout this thread, his swineness has been adequately proved for me. I will concede that it was my intent to ignore any of his arguments(as the ones I have seen thus far have just not been up to par) and just shout the bleeder down.

This is not only great fun for me, but I wholly believe it is the only type of rethoric these people(and I use that term under duress) understand, indeed are capable of understanding.

Wow Peepelonia, you are revealing your nasty side. Why do you have to be so mean to me? What is this "shout the bleeder down business"? Why do I need to be shouted down? Based on the way you have treated me, I am forced to conclude that you, Peepelonia, are a complete kneebiter.

Yeah sure that is lazyness, if that is what was said. What I read though said that Indian people are Asians.

There is no worse descriptor of people than Asian. There is no continent as vast or as diversely peopled.

He did actually admit to being racist and express reservations about mixed race relationships around the #240 mark...

A tiny bit racist yes. A racist pig? Come on, now.

Wow Peepelonia, you are revealing your nasty side. Why do you have to be so mean to me? What is this "shout the bleeder down business"? Why do I need to be shouted down? Based on the way you have treated me, I am forced to conclude that you, Peepelonia, are a complete kneebiter.

Meh, yeah coz words uttered by faceless individuals on this here net thingy matter so much to us all.

We all have nasty sides and it is true that today mine seems to have surfaced more than normal, that's emotions for you I guess. I'll not applogise to some racist thug though, I don't like them, and I know that they them selves are not averse to using their fists instead of their *choak* intelligence, to settle matters.

Call me what you want, when I go home today, you and your words will have made exactly nil impact on my life.

A tiny bit racist yes. A racist pig? Come on, now.

*looks*

Nope, no curly tail. Not a pig.

There is no worse descriptor of people than Asian. There is no continent as vast or as diversely peopled.

Not even Africa? Or Europe? Come on now, it's only a label of which continent you come from, whats insulting about that?

Diversity and multiculturalism have done nothing but wonders for the European race in America.

For example..

Such brilliant ideals have made this wonderful speech possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJJuj-rfQVI&feature=related
"Moron is a tool shocker".

Diversity and multiculturalism have done nothing but wonders for the European race in America.

For example..

Such brilliant ideals have made this wonderful speech possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJJuj-rfQVI&feature=related
Oh no! Video evidence of the Black Hivemind proves they're all out to GET US! To arms, my white brothers, we must fight the black Masonic plot to exterminate us! Oh, and won't someone please call the Daily Mail?

:rolleyes:

Oh no! Video evidence of the Black Hivemind proves they're all out to GET US! To arms, my white brothers, we must fight the black Masonic plot to exterminate us! Oh, and won't someone please call the Daily Mail?

:rolleyes:

:eek:

:rolleyes:

Be quite if you dont understand natural selection.
Seeing as you're too stupid to understand that white skinned people didn't originate in Europe, I'll disregard your petty little comment for now ;)
Please read my post which is numbered 253 and I believe in on page 17. It is not the slavery but the slave passage that changes the DNA.
No, once again, unless they were being stored with nuclear waste or something, nothing will have changed their DNA simply from being on those ships.

The fact that the slaves will have bred with those of many different nations, including, in some cases, the white plantation owners, meant that the importance of the salt-retention gene in future.

Cholera death rates are also to do with your immune system's knowledge of the disease as much as anything else. Again, with the mixing of slaves, and the general lack of cholera in the last 100 or so years, people won't be particularly immune to this disease at this point in time.

Don't really see how whether someone is descended from a slave or not has that much effect after about 200 years. That's about 8 or so generations' worth of mixing and a lack of many of the diseases in the slave ships.

And light coloured skin originated in Europe. Relatively (compared to Africans) light skin also originated in Asia but almost all Asians arent considered white. Almost all Asians also have darker skins compared to Europeans, especially Northern Europeans.
Hahaha. Yeah, right. Tell that to my friend of Japanese ancestry when I beat her in a "who's darker contest" hell, I've met black people lighter than me in the summer and I'm white, my family is entirely from Europe, even the really pasty parts...

Hahaha. Yeah, right. Tell that to my friend of Japanese ancestry when I beat her in a "who's darker contest" hell, I've met black people lighter than me in the summer and I'm white, my family is entirely from Europe, even the really pasty parts...

Scotland. *nods*

Not even Africa? Or Europe? Come on now, it's only a label of which continent you come from, whats insulting about that?

It is not insulting it is just meaningless. What does an Israeli have in common with a Korean?

Diversity and multiculturalism have done nothing but wonders for the European race in America.

For example..

Such brilliant ideals have made this wonderful speech possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJJuj-rfQVI&feature=related


It doesn't feel so comfortable when your race is the one being nominated for extermination does it?

It is not insulting it is just meaningless. What does an Israeli have in common with a Korean?
What does a tall person have in common with a short person?

Ah, brings back memories of the 'Rosa Parks was a terrorist' thread by MTAE.
I miss that guy. His threads were so entertaining.

I missed this.

It's understood.

All that's being said is that skin colour is one of the least significant genetic variances between people other than it's highly visible, visibility that causes problems when you have people calling it 'African-American crime against European-American' as if those terms had any relevance whatsoever.

Crime is not inherent to colour, there's psychological, economic, social and historic reasons for crime.

Given there seems to be a lot more to the story than mere refusal of seat, this is a prime example of colour suddenly being the issue people focus on rather than the facts.

It's understood that it's accepted that African-American means black but it's not really relevant that this OP is titled 'European woman reaps benefits of diversity'.

It has nothing to do with either.

1000 years? "Group" of people?

And you are actually presuming to tell OTHER people that they don't understand natural selection?


You don't seem to understand how it works. See, you don't get to just say "you are wrong" and that's that. You actually have to, you know, back up what you're claiming.



I'd strongly suggest you actually READ the article you quoted. It says exactly what I was saying: that, while "racial" genetic differences can exist, they are minor compared to many other genetic differences between individuals. (For instance, the tall black man and short black man I mentioned before.)

But it was nice of you to cite a source to back me up. Thanks!

He was right, though. It appears he read your article more carefully than you did.

It seems that in all instances, you two just said I'm wrong and didnt explain and/or back up your claims. So I'm curious, what part of this do you not understand?


Two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian

http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

Is it your mistaken assumption that race is only about skin color? That'd explain Barringtonia's rambling about skin colour, then mentioning African Americans. It'd also explain Bottle's incorrect claims since genes that affect height are more numerous than genes that control skin colour (a tall white man and a tall black vs short black man example).

Again (Of course, by "same geographic region", they dont mean a black and a white living in NYC. They mean continent of origin):


The picture that begins to emerge from this and other analyses of human genetic variation is that variation tends to be geographically structured, such that most individuals from the same geographic region will be more similar to one another than to individuals from a distant region.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#t1

Just to clarify, since most of you seem rather ignorant about this subject, none of my arguments defend the existance of human races in its traditional taxonomic meaning.

I'd like an expert opinion on this. When I went to school, the accepted knowledge was that visible characteristics were significant adaptations to cope with different living conditions. White skin was better for creating vitamin D from scanty sunlight, dark skin more resistant to the destructive effects of copious sunlight. But I went to school more than twenty years ago, and certainly we have much more knowledge of the evolution of "racial" characteristics now.

So, experts, which of these is closest to the truth:

Visible characteristics are one of the adaptations of sub-species of homo sapiens, from living in different environments for many generations. Pale or dark skin had a purpose, and was selected for. Nose shape, stature etc, likewise.

Visible characteristics are a measure of objective beauty, and beauty only thrives where other genetic factors like resistance to disease or famine don't weed out the weak.

God favours the beautiful.
Humans, with their over-reliance on the sense of sight, have been selecting each other (by mating or persecuting) on the basis of appearance since prehistory ... so races are the basis of tribes and then nations.

Visible characteristics are randomly associated with characteristics which were significant (over many generations) in the past. Those characteristics, when we discover them through genetics, will matter more than the visible clues.

Some other significance to visible characteristics.

No significance whatsoever.

History is natural selection, speeded up. Humans, by fighting each other, have in the past selected the most viable specimens by fighting ability, within the geographical confines of walking distance. Now we're all within a days travel of each other, we're going to finish that battle. Humanity will be perfected by exterminating the losers of history.


It seems to me that most of the "evolutionary" characteristics which operated over millennia to create visible differences between "races" are now obsolete. With knowledge of our own genetic heritage, and above that with the civilized ability to choose our own environment, no genetic heritage should be any impediment to successfully reproducing. We will be able to examine our own genetic heritage, and choose what we want to keep or discard.

None since your assertion which equated "racial characteristics" with "visual characteristics" is wrong.

I don't know if I consider myself an "expert" in this area, but I probably have had a bit more training than the average person. (My specialties are physiology, pharmacology, and neuroscience, not genetics, but fundamentals of genetics were part of my required course load.)
......


When did you graduate? It seems you havent updated your knowledge about population genetics.

I'm trying to keep the thread on topic by discussing the actual science behind some of the claims that are flying around.
Why this thread? :(

Oh for christ's sake
Indeed!

It seems that in all instances, you two just said I'm wrong and didnt explain and/or back up your claims. So I'm curious, what part of this do you not understand?

Yes, congratulations, you can selectively ignore the multiple posts I've made in which I explain and support my assertions. That's lovely for you, but I should warn you that your selective quoting doesn't actually prevent anybody from reading the thread for themselves and noticing your tactic.


It'd also explain Bottle's incorrect claims since genes that affect height are more numerous than genes that control skin colour (a tall white man and a tall black vs short black man example).

Actually, I wasn't talking exclusively about skin color. I used "black" because "African" isn't really what we're talking about (there are many Africans who are ethnically more similar to Europeans, like the Dutch-descended South Africans, and there are also many people of African descent who don't live in Africa, etc).

But of course, to know that you'd have had to read my posts.


Just to clarify, since most of you seem rather ignorant about this subject, none of my arguments defend the existance of human races in its traditional taxonomic meaning.
Naturally it's everyone else who is ignorant...

When did you graduate? It seems you havent updated your knowledge about population genetics.
You've yet to produce any information whatsoever that contradicts what I've been saying. Do you have any?

Hint: Calling other people "ignorant" while making false statements and posting articles you haven't bothered to read does not constitute a sound argument.

Just to clarify, since most of you seem rather ignorant about this subject, none of my arguments defend the existance of human races in its traditional taxonomic meaning.
Right, right.

2+2=5

That's in my system of bullshit maths, and if you don't understand that, you're rather ignorant.

Right, right.

2+2=5

That's in my system of bullshit maths, and if you don't understand that, you're rather ignorant.
Of course!

What we are witnessing, ladies and gents, is what the professionals refer to as "projection." An individual who is subconsciously aware of his own glaring ignorance on a topic projects onto others around him. This is similar to the observed phenomenon wherein an unfaithful spouse becomes increasingly suspicious of their partner, projecting their own lack of trustworthiness onto the other party (even in the absence of any rational cause).

This is encouraging because it suggests that somewhere, deep down, our friend is aware of his own ignorance, and it troubles him on some level.

Yes, congratulations, you can selectively ignore the multiple posts I've made in which I explain and support my assertions. That's lovely for you, but I should warn you that your selective quoting doesn't actually prevent anybody from reading the thread for themselves and noticing your tactic.


Actually, I wasn't talking exclusively about skin color. I used "black" because "African" isn't really what we're talking about (there are many Africans who are ethnically more similar to Europeans, like the Dutch-descended South Africans, and there are also many people of African descent who don't live in Africa, etc).

But of course, to know that you'd have had to read my posts.


Naturally it's everyone else who is ignorant...

You've yet to produce any information whatsoever that contradicts what I've been saying. Do you have any?

Hint: Calling other people "ignorant" while making false statements and posting articles you haven't bothered to read does not constitute a sound argument.

Again, as I said, you failed to explain AND/OR back up your claims. I did read your posts. But none of them contained any links. They just contained your misinterpretations like:


I'd strongly suggest you actually READ the article you quoted. It says exactly what I was saying: that, while "racial" genetic differences can exist, they are minor compared to many other genetic differences between individuals. (For instance, the tall black man and short black man I mentioned before.)


There is no basis for this and you failed to provide any links or quoted text in support of any of your arguments. Same for your silly tall short black men example. Instead you keep chanting ingorance:

Of course!

What we are witnessing, ladies and gents, is what the professionals refer to as "projection." An individual who is subconsciously aware of his own glaring ignorance on a topic projects onto others around him. This is similar to the observed phenomenon wherein an unfaithful spouse becomes increasingly suspicious of their partner, projecting their own lack of trustworthiness onto the other party (even in the absence of any rational cause).

This is encouraging because it suggests that somewhere, deep down, our friend is aware of his own ignorance, and it troubles him on some level.

:rolleyes:

Again, as I said, you failed to explain AND/OR back up your claims. I did read your posts. But none of them contained any links. They just contained your misinterpretations like:

*Insert Bottle quote here for Hi-score*

There is no basis for this and you failed to provide any links or quoted text in support of any of your arguments.
Yes, well since you have your own system of bullshit anthropology, you're hardly one to talk ;)
Same for your silly tall short black men example.
What's silly about it?

Again, as I said, you failed to explain AND/OR back up your claims. I did read your posts. But none of them contained any links. They just contained your misinterpretations like:

There is no basis for this and you failed to provide any links or quoted text in support of any of your arguments. Same for your silly tall short black men example. Instead you keep chanting ingorance:

Look, I know it's got to be embarrassing when you post a link to a paper, and then it turns out that if you'd bothered to do more than skim the abstract you'd have realized it doesn't actually say what you think it says. In fact, it specifically states that you're wrong. I can imagine how lousy that must feel.

It's also reasonable to want lash out at somebody who points out your mistake and brings it to the attention of others.

But none of that changes the fact that you've yet to present anything supporting your claims, or refuting my assertions. If you want to do so, please do. Just don't bother wasting time trying to insult me any more. I don't care, nobody else is impressed, and you're not helping your case.

What's silly about it?
I'd be interested to know that, as well.

Of course, the statement that a tall white man and a tall black man probably have more in common genetically than do a tall and a short black man is actually not so much an "example," as a fact. It's not even a controversial one, at this point, at least not for anybody with even a rudimentary background in genetics.

Based on current research (and yes, I mean CURRENT), there are more genes involved in height than in observable racial differences (including BUT NOT LIMITED TO traits like skin tone).

Look, I know it's got to be embarrassing when you post a link to a paper, and then it turns out that if you'd bothered to do more than skim the abstract you'd have realized it doesn't actually say what you think it says. In fact, it specifically states that you're wrong. I can imagine how lousy that must feel.

It's also reasonable to want lash out at somebody who points out your mistake and brings it to the attention of others.

But none of that changes the fact that you've yet to present anything supporting your claims, or refuting my assertions. If you want to do so, please do. Just don't bother wasting time trying to insult me any more. I don't care, nobody else is impressed, and you're not helping your case.

I'm not trying to insult you, I really dont care about it. But you are repeating yourself, saying those papers dont actually say what I think it says. I think the same thing about you. Either give direct quotes that back up your position or stop repeating yourself.

What part of this do you not understand:


Again (Of course, by "same geographic region", they dont mean a black and a white living in NYC. They mean continent of origin):


The picture that begins to emerge from this and other analyses of human genetic variation is that variation tends to be geographically structured, such that most individuals from the same geographic region will be more similar to one another than to individuals from a distant region.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#t1


Can you not understand that this refutes your short-tall black men example? Can you not understand that it also refutes your claim: "that, while "racial" genetic differences can exist, they are minor compared to many other genetic differences between individuals."

If it is me who is mistaken, then explain with links and direct quotes, just dont repeat yourself by ONLY saying that I dont understand the paper, because I do.

Maybe you need something more visual?

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/8678/fig1rf2.jpg
http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

I'd be interested to know that, as well.

Of course, the statement that a tall white man and a tall black man probably have more in common genetically than do a tall and a short black man is actually not so much an "example," as a fact. It's not even a controversial one, at this point, at least not for anybody with even a rudimentary background in genetics.

Based on current research (and yes, I mean CURRENT), there are more genes involved in height than in observable racial differences (including BUT NOT LIMITED TO traits like skin tone).

Link? Source?

I dont know the number vs number but I know you may be making these mistakes:

1) you seem to think observable racial differences are the only racial differences.

2) Besides you seem to be ignoring relationships between different traits. Eg: There may be 14 genes involved in eye&hair colour and skin colour vs 30 genes for height. However, some hair and eye colours usually come with a certain skin tone (blond, blue, white). That's information right there. You really need to read Lewontin’s fallacy before attempting to discuss with me further:

http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf

Maybe you need something more visual?

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/8678/fig1rf2.jpg
http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007
That's about the shittest diagram ever, it also doesn't prove anything.

Right, right.

2+2=5

That's in my system of bullshit maths, and if you don't understand that, you're rather ignorant.

Actually, for a given value of 2, 2+2 can equal five.

Actually, for a given value of 2, 2+2 can equal five.
Yes, if two becomes two and a half...

That's about the shittest diagram ever, it also doesn't prove anything.

Ok, send your expert criticism to that journal. :rolleyes:

Yes, if two becomes two and a half...

Naw. It's a rounding trick. Basically, 2.4+2.4=4.8 becomes 2+2+5. It's a bit of an in-joke among mathematicians.

Ok, send your expert criticism to that journal. :rolleyes:
For starters, which way up is the tree?

Slanting it like that was an idea poorer than Zambia.

For starters, which way up is the tree?

Slanting it like that was an idea poorer than Zambia.

It's a cladogram. There's no "up".

It's a cladogram. There's no "up".
It claims to be an 'evolutionary tree'.

That's about the shittest diagram ever, it also doesn't prove anything.

It is a vast simplification of what is in the article. But this should have been in the key to the diagram:

Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American.

and from further down:

For our purposes here, on the basis of numerous population genetic surveys, we categorize Africans as those with primary ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa; this group includes African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans. Caucasians include those with ancestry in Europe and West Asia, including the Indian subcontinent and Middle East; North Africans typically also are included in this group as their ancestry derives largely from the Middle East rather than sub-Saharan Africa. 'Asians' are those from eastern Asia including China, Indochina, Japan, the Philippines and Siberia. By contrast, Pacific Islanders[/COLOR] are those with indigenous ancestry from Australia, Papua New Guinea, Melanesia and Micronesia, as well as other Pacific Island groups further east. Native Americans are those that have indigenous ancestry in North and South America. Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians

The practical consequences of the consideration of these broad catagories of race would be to create genetic remedies specific to race. Since such remedies would be created according to ability to pay for them, the practical consequence would actually be a systematic advantage health-wise to those who already have an economic advantage.

As such, I oppose making research decisions based on the existence of race. Unscientific as that may be ...

Naw. It's a rounding trick. Basically, 2.4+2.4=4.8 becomes 2+2+5. It's a bit of an in-joke among mathematicians.

But, 1.6 + 1.6 = 3.2

So 2 + 2 = 3

It claims to be an 'evolutionary tree'.

There's no "up" in evolutionary trees either.

But, 1.6 + 1.6 = 3.2

So 2 + 2 = 3
Yep.

There's no "up" in evolutionary trees either.
Oh, ok.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/8678/fig1rf2.jpg

Population genetic studies actually suggest that genetic variation within the continent of Africa is greater than the genetic variation between any other 'major group'.

Also, that chart smacks of ethnocentricity.

It is a vast simplification of what is in the article. But this should have been in the key to the diagram:



and from further down:



The practical consequences of the consideration of these broad catagories of race would be to create genetic remedies specific to race. Since such remedies would be created according to ability to pay for them, the practical consequence would actually be a systematic advantage health-wise to those who already have an economic advantage.

As such, I oppose making research decisions based on the existence of race. Unscientific as that may be ...

Those categories are not set in the stone btw. When you use more markers, Indians seperate into another category. And you can "zoom into" categories. There may be North European and South European categories in Europe. That's because human genetic variation is composed of both clines and clusters.

Diversity and multiculturalism have done nothing but wonders for the European race in America.

For example..

Such brilliant ideals have made this wonderful speech possible.

*snip, did not watch*

There is no "European race" in America, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you in the thread.

The descendants of slaves committed this crime, and though we won't know until the perpetrators are brought to trial, it is very unlikely that the woman was blameless.

The crime occurred in the centre of a city where 274 people have been murdered this year. As such, it is not a very significant crime anyway.

I am curious as to why you would use the term "European" -- you mean "white" really don't you? It casts considerable doubt on your nationalism or your being an American that you would use a term which Americans always use to mean those living in Europe.

Of course, your choice of user name is your business. But real Americans might find it somewhat insulting to see the name of their continent attached to such ignorance.

I am sworn never to reply to Nova Magna Germania unless that poster denies that he and you are the same. You could perhaps help us out there ... even if you reply to no other part of this post ... or any of the dozens which have tried to engage you in debate:

Are you Nova Magna Germania? Without jokes please, without ambiguity. Are you and NMG the same person posting under different names?

For starters, which way up is the tree?

Slanting it like that was an idea poorer than Zambia.

If the diagram corresponds to the description below (Cavalli-Sforza), then it branches from the left towards the right.

The 'original' point is the right angle at the left, and has no 'race' name attached to it, since it is beyond question that the genetics of modern Sub-Saharan Africans have changed in 100,000 years or so since humans spread out of Africa. It would be a terrible mistake to assume that climate or soil type is the only determining factor in evolutionary change. Humans are not plants.

The first split in the phylogenetic tree separates Africans from non-Africans, and the second separates two major clusters, one corresponding to Caucasoids, East Asians, Arctic populations, and American natives, and the other to Southeast Asians (mainland and insular), Pacific islanders, and New Guineans and Australians. Average genetic distances between the most important clusters are proportional to archaeological separation times.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3166138&dopt=AbstractPlus&holding=f1000%2Cf1000m%2Cisrctn (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3166138&dopt=AbstractPlus&holding=f1000%2Cf1000m%2Cisrctn)

Before anyone attacks me for endorsing the conclusions of any of this research, let me make plain I am no expert and am finding the literature heavy going.

The article the diagram was from, for anyone who doesn't want to go back through the thread for it:

Categorization of humans in biomed research. (http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007)

There is no "European race" in America, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you in the thread.

The descendants of slaves committed this crime, and though we won't know until the perpetrators are brought to trial, it is very unlikely that the woman was blameless.

The crime occurred in the centre of a city where 274 people have been murdered this year. As such, it is not a very significant crime anyway.

I am curious as to why you would use the term "European" -- you mean "white" really don't you? It casts considerable doubt on your nationalism or your being an American that you would use a term which Americans always use to mean those living in Europe.

Of course, your choice of user name is your business. But real Americans might find it somewhat insulting to see the name of their continent attached to such ignorance.

I am sworn never to reply to Nova Magna Germania unless that poster denies that he and you are the same. You could perhaps help us out there ... even if you reply to no other part of this post ... or any of the dozens which have tried to engage you in debate:

Are you Nova Magna Germania? Without jokes please, without ambiguity. Are you and NMG the same person posting under different names?


I only read certain portions of what you wrote.

1) In the Western Hemisphere, the vast majority of white-skinned individuals are referred to as Europeans because their ancestors were white-skinned individuals who had arrived from Europe.

2) No, I am not Nova Magna Germania, I am however Fassitude's Heterosexual and Racist alter ego...:rolleyes:

3) Here we see a fine young British lad who had benefited so much from diversity that his life...well...I guess it was too good to keep living?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=502309&in_page_id=1770

He was probably a NationStates member who supported and defended diversity...

Population genetic studies actually suggest that genetic variation within the continent of Africa is greater than the genetic variation between any other 'major group'.

Are you talking about Africa as a whole, or Sub-Saharan ?

Also, that chart smacks of ethnocentricity.

If you were to take the well-defined word "Caucasians" out and put "Europeans" in, yes. It would also lose any meaning it has.

I only read certain portions of what you wrote.

1) In the Western Hemisphere, the vast majority of white-skinned individuals are referred to as Europeans because their ancestors were white-skinned individuals who had arrived from Europe.

Western shmestern. You are not an American.

2) No, I am not Nova Magna Germania, I am however Fassitude's Heterosexual and Racist alter ego...:rolleyes:

That's your best attempt at a unequivocal reply, a statement about your own identity which cannot be taken as a joke ??

I don't understand why people find this so hard. It's not like I'm asking for a real world name or some such.

I am not Fassitude.

I am not the same poster as Bottle.

I AM the same poster as BunnySaurus Bugsii.

Seems pretty easy to me ...

3) Here we see a fine young British lad who had benefited so much from diversity that his life...well...I guess it was too good to keep living?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=502309&in_page_id=1770

He was probably a NationStates member who supported and defended diversity...

I can see you have a huge file of news stories about "black-on-white" crimes, and that any attempt to communicate with you will just bring forth one more piece of anecdotal "evidence" of how diversity causes crimes.

Please answer my question. Without joking, or rolling your eyes. Or white text, or whatever dodge you are thinking of trying next.

Are you Nova Magna Germania? Yes or no.

I can see you have a huge file of news stories about "black-on-white" crimes, and that any attempt to communicate with you will just bring forth one more piece of anecdotal "evidence" of how diversity causes crimes.

Yeah he does. I'm finding them quite persuasive, actually. I mean, sure, there's something to be said for logic, reason, for actually reading and writing and making relevant comments and arguments. But let's face it, semi-literate anecdotal digressions on a message board are a convincing testimony to the ultimate supremacy of White Europeans, and I for one welcome our new Nationalist overlords.

"In the Western Hemisphere, the vast majority of white-skinned individuals are referred to as Europeans "
Actually, in the Western Hemisphere the word "Europeans" is used to mean "people who live on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean".

Yeah he does. I'm finding them quite persuasive, actually. I mean, sure, there's something to be said for logic, reason, for actually reading and writing and making relevant comments and arguments. But let's face it, semi-literate anecdotal digressions on a message board are a convincing testimony to the ultimate supremacy of White Europeans, and I for one welcome our new Nationalist overlords.

Indeed. After all, if we get rid of all black people there will be no more crimes at all in pure white Europe ! No white would ever rape, molest or beat another one after all. No white would ever steal. No white would ever dare to declare war and kill untold millions. No sir !

It's interesting that NA's three links so far are so poorly illustrative of his case.

I mean, here we have a European (whose name includes the word "American" ... rather comically ... I mean, it should be --Nationalist Europe- surely?) who empathizes with other Europeans wherever they be in the world. As long as there's a black person doing them harm, --Nationalist America- is there, decrying multiculturalism and diversity on their behalf.

Here's what NA said about Africa:

I only care about the European South Africans being harassed, murdered, and raped by the black majority in their nation.

Off-topic, I just couldn't resist.

My point was, if NA cares about 36-yo Timothy Smith so much, and steps up to defend him against diversity, how must Timothy's grieving family feel? They'd be pretty angry about this hate crime, wouldn't they? Over to the Daily Mail:

Last night Mr Smith's family called for tougher sentencing for knife crime.

His brother Chris, 42, said: "Every time I look at a knife, a small knife, an ordinary knife, I wonder was it like this?

"It haunts me. He was touched by pure evil that day and we are the ones serving the life sentence.

"This is the reality of knife crime, this poison, what it leaves behind and destroys.

"Where is the real deterrent, the penalty for carrying knives?"

Hmm.

It is not insulting it is just meaningless. What does an Israeli have in common with a Korean?

Ummm they come from the same continent?

Ummm they come from the same continent?

No, they appeared on the same game-show, and neither won.

One Korean is an individual like you or I. One Israeli is an individual like you or I. Don't accept the precept, that one individual represents a race, an ethinicity, a nationality or any other minority. We are individuals first, humans second, and all else is the burden of our terrible human history.

Eh, you're doing fine. I really wish our time-zones co-incided, so I wasn't looking to my bed when you were putting up your best stuff. :)

Well, --Nationalist America- ... are you Nova Magna Germania ?

Yes or no.

Ummm they come from the same continent?

Yep, they come from Asia.

8, actually. =P

On topic, however, when I got to wait for Ilie during the NS Baltimore meetup at the Baltimore Downtown Greyhound Station, it was the white people that accosted me.

There, now we have an anecdote that shows that "Pseudo-Europeans" aren't the nicest people in Baltimore either.

I remember that! The bus station had moved and we couldn't find it. Poor Laerod, we were like 3 hours late picking him up.