Interesting essay by former Macquarie Law Professor Andrew Fraser. He discusses how debate is effectively shut down in some institutions on the basis of claimed offence by protected groups. However, it's fine to slag off europeans.

I hope he is successful with his court case.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-cult-of-the-other/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywt6q_P-4lQ&feature=relmfu

oops

wrong thread lol

Check017 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 9:45am:

Interesting essay by former Macquarie Law Professor Andrew Fraser. He discusses how debate is effectively shut down in some institutions on the basis of claimed offence by protected groups. However, it's fine to slag off europeans. I hope he is successful with his court case. http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-cult-of-the-other/

Very interesting indeed.
While Mr Fraser most probably enrolled in the theology course to ruffle a few feathers, rather than to truly study, he nonetheless makes many very good points. The leftists have control of the Academe and 'free speech' is the last thing on their mind. The anti-white, anti-Western, anti-male bias is so ingrained in academics it has become dogmatic.

The time of purification is at hand. The Academe needs to be purified of this disease. The only question now that remains is do Australians have the balls to undertake it? 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 10:57pm:

The anti-white, anti-Western, anti-male bias is so ingrained in academics it has become dogmatic.

WTF are you smoking?

Seriously.  Could you be any more of a living cliche?

::)

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 11:55pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 10:57pm: The anti-white, anti-Western, anti-male bias is so ingrained in academics it has become dogmatic. WTF are you smoking? Seriously.  Could you be any more of a living cliche? ::)

says the living cliche.

barnaby joe wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 11:58pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 11:55pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 10:57pm: The anti-white, anti-Western, anti-male bias is so ingrained in academics it has become dogmatic. WTF are you smoking? Seriously.  Could you be any more of a living cliche? ::) says the living cliche.

What are you, 12 years old?

FFS kid, go away and get an education before you start with that bullshit in here, ok?

::)

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 12:00am:

barnaby joe wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 11:58pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 11:55pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 10:57pm: The anti-white, anti-Western, anti-male bias is so ingrained in academics it has become dogmatic. WTF are you smoking? Seriously.  Could you be any more of a living cliche? ::) says the living cliche. What are you, 12 years old? FFS kid, go away and get an education before you start with that bullshit in here, ok? ::)

what bullshit would that be, uncle meat?

barnaby joe wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 12:03am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 12:00am: barnaby joe wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 11:58pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 11:55pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 10:57pm: The anti-white, anti-Western, anti-male bias is so ingrained in academics it has become dogmatic. WTF are you smoking? Seriously.  Could you be any more of a living cliche? ::) says the living cliche. What are you, 12 years old? FFS kid, go away and get an education before you start with that bullshit in here, ok? ::) what bullshit would that be, uncle meat?

"says the living cliche."

Did your mum write that for you?

Seriously guys, if all you're going to do is type school boy grabage like that, just stay away, OK.

Go back to your playstation and let the adults talk.

::)

i know you are but what am i.

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 11:55pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 10:57pm: The anti-white, anti-Western, anti-male bias is so ingrained in academics it has become dogmatic. WTF are you smoking? Seriously.  Could you be any more of a living cliche? ::)

They are far from clichés. And later tonight I will list a number of readings from a university course on Australian history which will prove my point.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 5:29pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 11:55pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 10:57pm: The anti-white, anti-Western, anti-male bias is so ingrained in academics it has become dogmatic. WTF are you smoking? Seriously.  Could you be any more of a living cliche? ::) They are far from clichés. And later tonight I will list a number of readings from a university course on Australian history which will prove my point.

Oh my goodness! Will you really?

I'm sure we're all just giddy with anticipation.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 5:35pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 17th, 2012 at 5:29pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 11:55pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 10:57pm: The anti-white, anti-Western, anti-male bias is so ingrained in academics it has become dogmatic. WTF are you smoking? Seriously.  Could you be any more of a living cliche? ::) They are far from clichés. And later tonight I will list a number of readings from a university course on Australian history which will prove my point. Oh my goodness! Will you really? I'm sure we're all just giddy with anticipation.

You're not being smug and privileged again are you, Annie?   ;D

That must have really hit home, Bolshie.

Hurry up with your readings. I can't wait.

All of these texts come from the one course. A course on Australian history. Don't tell me it's a cliché to claim there's systematic anti-male, anti-white, anti-Western bias at university. 



Ann McGrath A National Story in "Contested Ground. Australian Aborigines Under the British Crown."

Basically, a text hell bent on claiming how horrible white men (males only, apparently white women were pure and innocent) treated aboriginals. This text frames colonization in a completely negative light. No mention of the benefits of civilization that was brought to Australia.



Ann Curthoys Men of All Nations, Except Chinamen in "Gold: Forgotten Histories and Lost Objects of Australia."

Basically, a text designed to induce guilt into today's white population because of how "we" treated the Chinese on the gold fields in the 1860s. Never once did it occur to Curthoys to look at the issue from the white's perspective; it's totally written from the postmodern deconstructionist racial lens parading as a Chinese perspective.



Patricia Grimshaw Federation as Turning Point in Australian History in "Australian Historical Studies" vol. 33 no. 118

Funnily enough, with a title like that you'd think that there would be some interesting details about the arguments for Federation. But no, it's just another text that goes on and on about how bad white men supposedly treated Aboriginals and white women. There's nothing in there actually about Federation at all.



Ann McGrath Beneath the Skin: Australian Citizenship, Rights and Aboriginal Women

One of the biggest attempts I've read to induce guilt into white Australians over the supposed sins of the past. Basically, all history of Australia is wicked, and, this is of course the fault of white men. Everything that went wrong with Aboriginals and women was the fault of the white male. While trashing Australia's effort in WW II, McGrath manages to write something positive: women taking the roles of men while they're away at war. (Apparently men's roles become "good" when women do them).



Kay Saunders The Dark Shadow of White Australia: Racial Anxieties in Australia in World War II

A text that highlights the racist attitudes Australians held toward the Japanese, Germans, and Italians during world war II. Fancy that, a country being suspicious of certain nationalities they're actually at war with. Germans gassing and slaughtering Jews, Russians etc, Japanese starving to death and cutting off the heads of prisoners. How dare Australians be suspicious of them!

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

That must have really hit home, Bolshie. Hurry up with your readings. I can't wait.

They "hit home" because throwing irrelevant, personalized, derogatory slogans seems to be the main feminist tool in "debating." I mean, seriously, does saying someone is "smug" or "privileged" really deal with the issue in any form whatsoever? For example, if you are arguing for higher wages and I say you're just a "slut" and "slag," does that create any form of legitimate counter-argument?
It wouldn't surprised me if you picked up those tags from a gender studies class. It just goes to show the complete lack of cognitive and analytical skills feminists possess.

Whether or not I am a slut or a slag has no relevance to an argument for higher wages.

You being a pretentious, over-privileged, smug misogynist has every relevance to almost every piece of bigoted crap you write here.

McGrath addresses the impact colonisation had on Indigenous Australians. It's pertinent to a discussion on Australian history, yes?

Curthoys isn't attempting to put a guilt trip on white Australians. She's drawing attention to the valuable contributions early Chinese Australians made to the building of this country and the attitudes that keep that knowledge from the mainstream.

I am not familiar with Grimshaw.

Innocent families were placed in internment camps during WW2. Their appalling treatment is probably what Saunders is talking about. That's a relevant part of Australia's history.

Would you rather Australian history students be exclusively force fed Ward or Blainey? Of course you would.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 10:10pm:

Whether or not I am a slut or a slag has no relevance to an argument for higher wages. You being a pretentious, over-privileged, smug misogynist has every relevance to almost every piece of bigoted crap you write here. McGrath addresses the impact colonisation had on Indigenous Australians. It's pertinent to a discussion on Australian history, yes? Curthoy isn't attempting to put a guilt trip on white Australians. She's drawing attention to the valuable contributions early Chinese Australians made to the building of this country and the attitudes that keep that knowledge from the mainstream. I am not familiar with Grimshaw. Innocent families were placed in internment camps during WW2. Their appalling treatment is probably what Saunders is talking about. That's a relevant part of Australia's history. Would you rather Australian history students be exclusively force fed Ward or Blainey? Of course you would.

Force fed Blainey??  Blainey is now verboten, a BAD THING?

Is that what I said, Miss Blyton? I said exclusively.

Do you agree with Bolshie that Saunders et al are worthless due to a "systematic anti-male, anti-white, anti-Western bias?"

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 10:31pm:

Is that what I said, Miss Blyton? I said exclusively. Do you agree with Bolshie that Saunders et al are worthless due to a "systematic anti-male, anti-white, anti-Western bias?"

You said exclusively forcefed, bint.

Who is Saunders?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ro6fcj6Ek

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 10:10pm:

McGrath addresses the impact colonisation had on Indigenous Australians. It's pertinent to a discussion on Australian history, yes? Curthoys isn't attempting to put a guilt trip on white Australians. She's drawing attention to the valuable contributions early Chinese Australians made to the building of this country and the attitudes that keep that knowledge from the mainstream. I am not familiar with Grimshaw. Innocent families were placed in internment camps during WW2. Their appalling treatment is probably what Saunders is talking about. That's a relevant part of Australia's history. Would you rather Australian history students be exclusively force fed Ward or Blainey? Of course you would.

Firstly, none of these texts are balanced. They're purely one-sided. That's not what's required of an academic; they're meant to aim for objectivity and impartiality.

Secondly, none of these texts deal with the morals of the time. None of them analyse how and why the morals and behaviours of the time were considered good or bad. A proper understanding of history requires you to be able to understand the Zeitgeist you are examining; you must be able to transport yourself back to that time and understand what made it tick. None of those authors do that. They approach each issue from a postmodern deconstructionist angle (which didn't even become fashionable until the 1960s), by examining all the past through the issue of race and gender only. They then add a moral dimension to their arguments! That of being male = bad, white = bad. Aboriginals = innocent, good. Women = innocent, good.
This isn't scholarly, it's propaganda.



Quote:

annie anthrax blathered Whether or not I am a slut or a slag has no relevance to an argument for higher wages. You being a pretentious, over-privileged, smug misogynist has every relevance to almost every piece of bigoted crap you write here.

I see, so when I use ad hominem they're irrelevant, but when you use them they're relevant.
Can't your peanut brain grasp the f*cked up logic here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igB0akHTMh0&feature=related

lol, soren has discovered those videos. you can make your own too if you want.

this one was my favourite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMvARy0lBLE

barnaby joe wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 10:51pm:

lol, soren has discovered those videos. you can make your own too if you want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWS_MDJSiEE&feature=related

everything is funnier with synthetic computer voices.

I liked Soren better when he was Kierkegaard.

As soon as he became not a pipe, he turned into a bit of a pr.ck.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 11:02pm:

I liked Soren better when he was Kierkegaard. As soon as he became not a pipe, he turned into a bit of a pr.ck.

Well, at least I've never been a bint.

No, you just play one for Karnal.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 11:18pm:

No, you just play one for Karnal.

What? Now you are rooting for arsefvckers?

ARe you working through a list? You have been Muslim, now you are pro-arsebanditry - what stupidity is next for you?

Don't be vulgar, darling. It doesn't become you.

Anyone read The Conversation? It's a site where academics write articles. http://theconversation.com/au

A potentially interesting article on the genetic history of Europeans basically just became a rant about "racists."

Quote:

Scientists have uncovered what, for some couples, may be an uncomfortable truth: all people of European descent are related. Go back a few generations and even people from opposite ends of the European continent share common ancestors, according to a new study of genome data published today in the journal PLOS Biology. Researchers from the University of California, Davis, conducted what they described as one of the first surveys of recent European genealogical ancestry over the past 3,000 years. “We detected 1.9 million shared long genomic segments, and used the lengths of these to infer the distribution of shared ancestors across time and geography,” the scientists wrote in their paper. “We find that a pair of modern Europeans living in neighbouring populations share around 12 genetic common ancestors from the last 1,500 years, and upwards of 100 genetic ancestors from the previous 1,000 years.” The researchers concluded that “individuals from opposite ends of Europe are still expected to share millions of common genealogical ancestors over the last 1,000 years.” One of the co-authors of the paper, Graham Coop from the University of California, Davis, said the study focused on Europe. “While it is likely true that all humans world-wide likely share all common ancestors a few thousand years ago, we can only demonstrate this in Europe so far,” he said. Pause for thought Associate Professor Darren Curnoe, a human evolution specialist at the University of New South Wales, said the findings should be a major pause for thought. “This research greatly reinforces the idea that we living humans are all exceptionally closely related, no matter where we live today or our perceptions of our ancestry,” said Dr Curnoe, who was not involved in the study. “Bigotry based on "race” should be seen for what it is, completely divorced from biological reality. We all share very recent direct ancestors no matter where you come from." The new findings also apply to Australians of European heritage, he said. “We can all trace our immediate ancestors back only a handful of generations, only a few thousand years. The differences we think we see are remarkably superficial and largely biologically meaningless,” he said. “If your ancestors are from a relatively small part of Europe, especially say Eastern Europe, then all of your direct genetic ancestors may have lived only in the last thousand years. For the whole of Europe, this might be just a few thousand years.” The end of ‘race’? Professor Maciej Henneberg, Wood Jones Professor of Anthropological and Comparative Anatomy at the University of Adelaide said the findings mean that “all Australians of European heritage are closely related and there is no use distinguishing between Australians of English or Irish ancestry and those of Greek or Italian heritage.” “Biological anthropologists have argued for the last 50 years that human species cannot be divided into "races” because all humans are so closely related that there is not enough difference between gene pools of people living in different continents to produce reliable biological distinctions between Africans, Europeans, Asians and so on,“ said Professor Henneberg, who was not involved in the study. “The few externally visible differences like skin colour or nose shape are not enough to justify divisions.” Professor Henneberg said it was no wonder all Europeans were related. “In a densely populated continent, genes travel through neighbourly contact. In one generation, somebody marries someone from the next village, in the next, a person from that village marries somebody from yet another village further away and so on,” he said. “This way, with nobody moving more than 20 kilometres in a generation, a gene can travel about 2000 kilometres (the distance from Berlin to Madrid) in 3000 years.”

http://theconversation.com/family-ties-study-finds-all-europeans-are-related-14004

Quote:

Professor Maciej Henneberg, Wood Jones Professor of Anthropological and Comparative Anatomy at the University of Adelaide said the findings mean that “all Australians of European heritage are closely related and there is no use distinguishing between Australians of English or Irish ancestry and those of Greek or Italian heritage.”

And those of aboriginal heritage? 


Quote:

there is not enough difference between gene pools of people living in different continents to produce reliable biological distinctions between Africans, Europeans, Asians and so on,“ said Professor Henneberg, who was not involved in the study.

I must be really perceptive, becasue I can, with just the naked eye, see "reliable distinctions."  Watch as I demonstarte my mastery:

I deduce this guy is African

http://www.savingwater.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/kalahari-bushmen.jpg

I deduce that this girl is Jpanaese

http://esengasvoice.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/geisha_2.jpg

And this man is Injun

http://imgc.artprintimages.com/images/art-print/ed-george-an-informal-portrait-of-an-indian-man-with-a-long-beard_i-G-28-2877-IXGPD00Z.jpg

Want more?

The Conversation is replete with these type of articles. It's mostly just academics inserting their trendy morality into every topic under the sun.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 9:23am:

The Conversation is replete with these type of articles. It's mostly just academics inserting their trendy morality into every topic under the sun.

So you’re essentially saying you want academics to write things that agree with your point of view. And you think it’s the end of "academic freedom" if they don’t.

The article above is a good point - a biological study finds no genetic difference in Europeans. Its findings - that bigotry based on race has no biological standing - discomforts you. Would you prefer the study to state the opposite? Skew its research? Bury its findings?

Not say anything at all?

Yes, that would certainly be academic freedom.

On Australian history though, I think you’ve got a point. However, the more negative historians seem to have had their day. "Middle road" historians like Grace Karskens have come to dominate Australian history. It’s a view that questions much of the "fatal shore" myth of Australian history, along with the notion of invasion.

However, Karskens does not shy away from the horror stories of our history. They can’t be denied.

Presumably, you believe they should not be mentioned - academic freedom, you see.

A reasonable gauge of academic freedom would be if an opposing view got published on The Conversation or in an academic journal of some description. Are there any academics claiming an opposing view? Let me know, and I'll believe it when I see it. 

The article itself started out interesting (it links to the actual study in the early part) but then it just became an opportunity to moralise. 

I only really put it in this thread because it was the closest to relevance, and I didn't want to start a new thread.

Academic freedom doesn't really exist. Peer-reviewers act as gate-keepers of what is considered desired or good knowledge.

I mean, if you have a bunch of postmodern trendies peer-reviewing a journal  do you think they'll allow strongly opposing views? Take The Journal of Refugee Studies. Do you think they'll publish an article that advocates ceasing foreign aid, withdrawing from the UN, and stating these problem countries need to fix their own issues?

Hardly.

Universities are funded by government, not students. That's why there is no diversity of views.
For hundreds of years a professor earned his income from the students who subscribed to his lectures. Now he gets his money from the government.
universities, like free cities, were set up precisely to be outside of and free of the prince's influence. Now they are fighting tooth and claw to remain on the public teat.
The political teat, the fickle, non-free, utterly dependent teat. (what an image!)

An image only rivalled by your colostomy tube, old chap.

The Amerikan universities live off the corporate teat. Your hallowed students of yore lived off their rich parents who, most likely, chose their courses for them.

The public teat may well be the closest we get to being free from Uncle and Daddy’s influence.

As fickle as it is.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 3:42pm:

I mean, if you have a bunch of postmodern trendies peer-reviewing a journal  do you think they'll allow strongly opposing views? Take The Journal of Refugee Studies. Do you think they'll publish an article that advocates ceasing foreign aid, withdrawing from the UN, and stating these problem countries need to fix their own issues? Hardly.

Yes, Mistie - postmodern biologists. Trendy anatomists.

The one thing these disciplines can’t ignore is a compelling new idea based on proof.

Grace Karkens, the historian I mentioned, based her histriographical stance on archaeological digs in Sydney’s Rocks. She didn’t just wake up one day with an idea - she spent ten years sifting through broken crockery, disgarded oyster shells AND letters and journals. 

And she wrote of life in the early colony of Sydney where Aboriginals and convicts lived in close proximity, shared tools, bottles, fishing and water sources. And in doing so, she debunked the invasion narrative, which formerly had found its way into Australian history through the novels of writers like Eleanor Dark.

If this is postmodern trendyism, it’s strange that it uses hard archaeological evidence to deconstruct fiction.

Still, perhaps it would be nicer if we all sat at home and griped.

Now that would be academic freedom.

I wouldn't call that trendyism. I have read histories that explain the interactions between Aboriginals and the early settlers. These are actually quite interesting. The key word here is "explain," not moralise.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

I wouldn't call that trendyism. I have read histories that explain the interactions between Aboriginals and the early settlers. These are actually quite interesting. The key word here is "explain," not moralise.

Darren Curnoe, the author of the study you mention, did explain - in his findings. Read the linked abstract - nothing moralistic there. Your quote is an interview with him.

The petty rivalry and bigotry among Europeans is profound. Darren Curnoe is pointing out the relevance of his findings - that there is no genetic difference between Europeans.

Likewise, the Human Genome Project have found no genes that cause race. They've found genetic propensities towards diseases which are more prevalent within some races, but they've discovered no genes for race itself.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-genome-project-announces-race-does-not-exist

For a more in-depth discussion:

http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/C45405%20resources/McCann%20race%20human%20genome.pdf

This is science, not moralizing. The question, from a scientific point of view, is how we can conceptualize a biological phenomenon such as race, when there is no biological evidence for it. Cultural, sure, but not biological.

If you're after hard science, this is what you'll get. The moralizing is just an add-on. Do with this information what you will.

"Race" is a social construct, created out of fear of the "other".  It is promulgated through those that feel the need to denigrate others on the basis of physical appearance rather than any underlying genetic differences.  It was used to justify (largely but not completely) European imperialism and in particular the slave trade to the New World from the ~16th century onwards.  It has been reinforced through the creation of disciplines such as Anthropology and Sociology within the Academic sphere.    ::)

Big Donger wrote on May 17^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 1:45pm: I wouldn't call that trendyism. I have read histories that explain the interactions between Aboriginals and the early settlers. These are actually quite interesting. The key word here is "explain," not moralise. Darren Curnoe, the author of the study you mention, did explain - in his findings. Read the linked abstract - nothing moralistic there. Your quote is an interview with him. The petty rivalry and bigotry among Europeans is profound. Darren Curnoe is pointing out the relevance of his findings - that there is no genetic difference between Europeans. Likewise, the Human Genome Project have found no genes that cause race. They've found genetic propensities towards diseases which are more prevalent within some races, but they've discovered no genes for race itself. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-genome-project-announces-race-does-not-exist For a more in-depth discussion: http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/C45405%20resources/McCann%20race%20human%20genome.pdf This is science, not moralizing. The question, from a scientific point of view, is how we can conceptualize a biological phenomenon such as race, when there is no biological evidence for it. Cultural, sure, but not biological. If you're after hard science, this is what you'll get. The moralizing is just an add-on. Do with this information what you will.

The link is to a study by Ralph and Coop. I read it and it is interesting. There is no finger-wagging moralising in the article. It is a very well written academic piece that simply reports on the findings, with a few speculations here and there. The finger-wagging is inserted into a commentary piece on the article by Curnoe.

The Conversation seems to be a site where trendies flock to espouse their personal morality.

brian ross is that who i think you are

Big Donger wrote on May 17^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 1:45pm: I wouldn't call that trendyism. I have read histories that explain the interactions between Aboriginals and the early settlers. These are actually quite interesting. The key word here is "explain," not moralise. Darren Curnoe, the author of the study you mention, did explain - in his findings. Read the linked abstract - nothing moralistic there. Your quote is an interview with him. The petty rivalry and bigotry among Europeans is profound. Darren Curnoe is pointing out the relevance of his findings - that there is no genetic difference between Europeans. Likewise, the Human Genome Project have found no genes that cause race. They've found genetic propensities towards diseases which are more prevalent within some races, but they've discovered no genes for race itself. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-genome-project-announces-race-does-not-exist For a more in-depth discussion: http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/C45405%20resources/McCann%20race%20human%20genome.pdf This is science, not moralizing. The question, from a scientific point of view, is how we can conceptualize a biological phenomenon such as race, when there is no biological evidence for it. Cultural, sure, but not biological. If you're after hard science, this is what you'll get. The moralizing is just an add-on. Do with this information what you will.

Did anyone ever think there was a single gene for 'race'?   :-/  Sounds like a strawman to me.

races are characterised by the patterns of genes they share,not specific 'race genes'.


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17339205


Quote:

One scientific topic that I have previously discussed is the biological validity of the race concept. This, unfortunately, has become necessary, because some people, perhaps with political motivations, assert, contrary to the evidence, that “race does not exist” and that race is a “social construct” with “no biological foundation.” These views have been effectively refuted in various forums, and more objective researchers support the race concept as well, if for no other reason the important medical implications of racial differences. One popular and misinterpreted finding that has been eagerly grasped at by those who preach that “race is not real” is derived from the work of Richard Lewontin, which demonstrated that more genetic variation exits within rather than between groups. I have previously explained how Lewontin’s finding in no way discredits the race concept. However, there are “anti-racist” activists who still claim, based on their misinterpretations of population genetics, that individual Europeans (“whites”) can be more genetically similar to sub-Saharan Africans (“blacks”) than to other Europeans. Until now, there has been no formal proof that this assertion is incorrect. I am now pleased to say that a recent scientific paper has delved into this very topic and that the findings of this paper clearly demonstrate that the race deniers are wrong. First, let me give a brief introduction for the sake of clarity. A number of scientific studies have shown that it is possible to genetically cluster individuals to their self-identified race with near 100% accuracy. Further, racial categories can be determined by the genetic data even without any a priori information about the groups involved. In other words, racial groups can be empirically observed through genetic analysis without any prior assumptions about these groups by the researchers. However, does that imply that individual members of these races will always be more genetically similar to members of their own racial group compared to members of other groups? Or, are genetic clustering and individual genetic similarity so different that this may not be always so? Can individuals share more genetic similarity to members of other groups rather than to members of their own group, even if everyone is properly clustered with their self-identified race? In other words, can there be significant genetic overlap between individuals on the fringes of, say, the European and African clusters? These are the questions asked, and answered, in the paper Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations by Witherspoon et al., Genetics 176, pgs. 351-359, 2007. I will simplify the authors’ statements and analogies so as to make the work more understandable to the broad readership; although this may mean that certain detailed specifics are glossed over, the main “take home” points and essential interpretations remain intact. And, since the paper is available online at no cost, any reader interested in delving into the scientific details can do so at their leisure. The authors introduced the metric “w”, which they defined as: … the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. In other words, what is being determined with “w” is the frequency with which, for example, individual whites and individual blacks may be more similar to each other than to members of their own race. This measurement, which is based upon gene by gene comparisons between individuals, is different from the two clustering measurements that the authors compare to “w.” Unlike “w”, the clustering measurements incorporate population-level genetic information, and thus consider the “aggregate” qualities of the population’s genetic information. To put it simply, and bypassing many details, “w” compares individuals to each other, while clustering is, essentially, comparisons of individuals to the “genetic average” (or “centroid”) of different populations. By crude analogy, we can consider physical traits. “W” would be analogous to how similar two individuals are to each other in height, weight, eye color, skin color, hair color, facial features, etc. Clustering, in contrast, is more analogous to how similar each individual is to the average measurements of height, weight, eye color, etc. for any group. Thus “w” can tell us how similar individuals are to each other, while clustering tells us whether an individual is more similar to one group or another. Clustering allows us to “bin” (or “cluster”) individuals as belonging to one group or another.

Quote:

As the authors used more and more markers to compare the three major racial groups (Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans), the less stringent clustering measurements rapidly fell to a 0% overlap, as expected from previous studies. What about the more stringent measurement “w”, which looks at comparisons between individuals, and does not consider group data? Once the authors reached 1,000 (or more) markers, the genetic overlap between these groups essentially reached zero. It is useful at this point to quote the authors about this fundamentally important finding: “This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically more similar to members of their own group.” With respect to the question of whether individual members of one group may be genetically more similar to members of another group, they write: However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations. Thus, the naïve “anti-racist” view, actually stated by some people, that it is possible for individual Europeans and Africans to be more genetically similar to each other than to members of their own race, is simply false. Any such “finding” is simply due to insufficient numbers of DNA markers being used. With an adequate methodology, individual members of the major racial groups will always be more similar to members of their own group than to members of other groups. Some may not like this, and deem it “racist,” but these are the scientific facts, nonetheless. For whatever reason, the authors were not satisfied with ending their study with these findings and decided to repeat their data analysis incorporating populations they term “intermediate” or “admixed.” These included New Guineans, South Asians, Native Americans, African Americans and “Hispano-Latino” groups. Not unexpectedly, it became somewhat more difficult to distinguish between groups, with a given number of markers, when these additional “intermediate/admixed” populations were added. Even with more than 10,000 markers, the “w” measurement and the clustering measurements never quite reached zero with respect to overlap, although the numbers were low. For example the authors state that with 1,000 or more markers the “w” measurement reached a value of 3.1%, meaning that even with the intermediate/admixed populations, genetic overlap was at a frequency of less than 5%. Do these latter findings mean that there will always be genetic overlap between members of more closely related groups, especially when so-called “intermediate” and “admixed” populations are considered? Although some people may fervently wish that 100% accurate classification will remain impossible, except for the most widely divergent groups, this may well not be the case. We are entering an era in which reasonably affordable whole genome sequencing will be possible, and with the proper methodologies, it will be possible to compare a number of markers considerably larger than what is used in the current paper. While 10,000 markers may not be sufficient to eliminate overlap between all groups completely – although it does reduce the overlap to very low levels – it is possible that larger numbers of markers, or even whole genome comparisons, could do so. With more data, it may well be possible to distinguish, with near 100% accuracy, between groups that still demonstrate a low level of “w” with current data. Then we must consider the issue of genetic structure, not directly addressed in this study. Although structure can include such genetic phenomena as inversions, deletions, and copy number variation, the major component of genetic structure is the co-inheritance of specific genes. In other words, we must consider not only the frequencies of each gene taken in turn, but the frequencies of specific genes together. For example, there are genes that code for eye color, skin color, hair color, etc. One can examine the frequency of each gene on a one-by-one basis in an individual (or group) and do all the pairwise comparisons to another individual (or group) and determine “w.” But what are the frequencies of particular combinations of gene types inherited together? For example, what is the frequency of having genes for blue eyes and blonde hair and fair skin, etc. co-inherited, rather than measuring the frequencies of each of these genes in turn and averaging the results? Genetic structure superimposes further genetic differences on top of one-by-one consideration of genes; therefore, differences between groups are going to be larger when structure is considered compared to when only frequency differences of individual genes are measured and averaged. To further explain the difference between genetic similarity and genetic structure, I present an analogy using colored marbles. Assume that individuals of different races each have a set of marbles, numbered from one to 100, with the marbles being of various colors. Genetic similarity (the basis of the “w” metric) would be analogous to comparing the marbles of two individuals one-by-one; first comparing the color of marble #1, then #2, then #3, and so forth, on an individual basis and then counting the total number of matches. Genetic structure, on the other hand, would be analogous to asking if the two individuals have similar, or even identical

Quote:

combinations of colors for specific marbles. For example, person A may have red marbles for #1, 6, and 15; blue marbles for # 3, 10, 33, and 95; green marbles for # 7, 8, 22, and 84, and a yellow marble for # 38. If this particular, specific combination of colored marbles is of importance, we can then ask if person B has a similar combination. What is important here is not the one-by-one counting of matches, but whether the whole pattern is replicated, or almost replicated, between two individuals (or groups). What about the relation between genetic ancestry and individual phenotype? The authors do state that: “Thus it may be possible to infer something about an individual’s phenotype from knowledge of his or her ancestry.” However, since phenotypic traits are coded for by a number of genes smaller than that required to yield low genetic overlap, the authors assert that there may be significant phenotypic overlap between people of different groups. They give an example of a trait “determined by 12…loci,” which would yield a 36% overlap of phenotypes between individuals of different groups. Yet, racial groups show markedly different phenotypes. How is this so, if what the authors state is true? There are two points that the authors neglect to emphasize. First, many phenotypic traits, including racially relevant ones, have been selected for because of their adaptive value, or the populations commonly exhibiting these traits have been subject to genetic drift isolated from other populations. Thus, it is not reasonable to assume that genes that code for phenotype are going to have the same “worldwide distributions” as markers used in this study. For example, gene alleles coding for skin color show markedly higher frequency differences between populations than do the neutral markers used in population genetics. A second point is that racial phenotypes are the result of genetic structure, of many types of traits co-inherited together, and it is the sum total of all these differences that allow for racial distinction at the phenotypic level. Looking at individual phenotypic traits, just like looking at individual gene frequencies, is going to provide a markedly incomplete picture of human racial variation. How do the findings of the paper relate to the subject of Frank Salter’s concept of “ethnic genetic interests?” This paper strongly supports the concept, which is dependent upon genetic differences between peoples. After all, there is essentially zero genetic overlap between individual members of the major racial groups; a member of one of these groups is always going to be more similar to a member of their own group than to that of another. Multiplied over the large numbers of people that constitute racial groups yields a very substantial genetic interest. Even if we take at face value this paper’s findings concerning the intermediate/admixed populations, the ethnic genetic interest concept holds as well. In the vast majority of cases, an individual will be more similar to members of their own group; overlap, while not zero, is low. When one multiples these differences over the large numbers of people involved, then there are very large and crucial differences of genetic interests regardless of which populations are considered. But that is not all. First, consider that with sufficient numbers of genes assayed, the small degree of overlap observed with the intermediate/admixed groups may disappear; it would almost certainly disappear if genetic structure is considered. Second, and perhaps most important, the ethnic genetic interest concept is not based on overall genetic similarity/difference, but rather on differences in frequencies of distinctive genes, above and beyond random gene sharing. After all, those genes that do not differ in frequency between groups do not contribute to differences in genetic interests, because their frequency stays unchanged regardless of the outcome of competition. Even if an entire racial group were to die out, the frequency of these “shared genes” would remain unchanged. Note that measurements of overall genetic similarity, such as “w,” will as a matter of course also include genes that do not differ in frequency between groups. Therefore, even when “w” shows a low degree of overlap, there may well be no overlap at all with respect to those genes that are distinctive, that vary in frequency between populations. To further explain the importance of distinctive genes vs. “w,” I will go back to my colored marbles analogy. Imagine that the distribution of colors for marbles 1-80 was completely random, but the colors for marbles 81-100 were specific to a person’s race. Overall similarity in marble color (analogous to “w”) would consider all 100 marbles. However, if we were to ask how the color frequencies of the marbles were to change if people of one race were completely removed from the example, we would observe that only marbles 81-100 would be affected. For marbles 1-80, since the color distribution is completely random with respect to race, it doesn’t matter if one race or another is eliminated from this marble counting exercise. Only the “population-distinctive marbles” are at issue here. Likewise, when considering competition and conflicting genetic interests between human groups, the gene frequencies that really matter are those that exhibit differences in frequency between the groups, not those that are randomly distributed between the groups.

JC Denton wrote on May 17^th, 2013 at 5:27pm:

brian ross is that who i think you are

Sorry?  I am me.  Who do you think I am?   ::)

... wrote on May 17^th, 2013 at 5:41pm:

Big Donger wrote on May 17th, 2013 at 10:24am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2013 at 1:45pm: I wouldn't call that trendyism. I have read histories that explain the interactions between Aboriginals and the early settlers. These are actually quite interesting. The key word here is "explain," not moralise. Darren Curnoe, the author of the study you mention, did explain - in his findings. Read the linked abstract - nothing moralistic there. Your quote is an interview with him. The petty rivalry and bigotry among Europeans is profound. Darren Curnoe is pointing out the relevance of his findings - that there is no genetic difference between Europeans. Likewise, the Human Genome Project have found no genes that cause race. They've found genetic propensities towards diseases which are more prevalent within some races, but they've discovered no genes for race itself. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-genome-project-announces-race-does-not-exist For a more in-depth discussion: http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/C45405%20resources/McCann%20race%20human%20genome.pdf This is science, not moralizing. The question, from a scientific point of view, is how we can conceptualize a biological phenomenon such as race, when there is no biological evidence for it. Cultural, sure, but not biological. If you're after hard science, this is what you'll get. The moralizing is just an add-on. Do with this information what you will. Did anyone ever think there was a single gene for 'race'?   :-/  Sounds like a strawman to me.

You think the Human Genome Project are playing a rhetorical game? It’s in their interest to find a biological cause for race. They’ve found racial propensity for certain diseases and traits, but they can’t find race itself.

If they did, they’d isolate genetic weaknesses and win Nobel prizes. But they can’t. At least 8 blood types I can think of, and that doesn’t include the ones that have faded into scientific obscurity - none of them match race.

This doesn’t mean they won’t find something one day, but if race was such a critical marker of human biology, you’d think they’d have come up with something by now. Mind you, they said the same about Saddam’s WMDs.

And if you and Imperium were all about the science, you’d listen to actual scientists and not "moralizers" like Imperium’s article above. "Political motivations", eh?

Does that count as moralizing, Mistie?

Nobody needs a study to tell them there's such a thing as race when their own eyes will do. 

Genes cause a persons basic characteristics.  It's just simple cause & effect. 

Brian Ross wrote on May 17^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

JC Denton wrote on May 17th, 2013 at 5:27pm: brian ross is that who i think you are Sorry?  I am me.  Who do you think I am?   ::)

hoighty toighty morally indignant arrogant bastard who feels it necessary to stick on a " ::) " at the end of every post - is that you ziggy?!?!!?

bugger me, pull the stick out of your bum hole son.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 12:00am:

Nobody needs a study to tell them there's such a thing as race when their own eyes will do.  Genes cause a persons basic characteristics.  It's just simple cause & effect.

Our "race" is determined by our outer appearance. That's about it.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 12:00am:

Nobody needs a study to tell them there's such a thing as race when their own eyes will do.  Genes cause a persons basic characteristics.  It's just simple cause & effect.

Simple, eh? Then how come they can find genes for things like red hair and albinism, but nothing for tintedness or stick inventing? By your measure, redheads and albinos should be classed as races.

No one here is saying race doesn’t exist. What is shown, however, is that genetically, no differences have been discovered.

Read Imperium’s long article. It’s very careful to state that it has no evidence for its claims. It’s just a hunch.

The Human Genome Project is a little more than a hunch - it’s actual evidence.

All science can state at this stage is that there is no known biological cause of race. This alone blows all your brain size arguments out of the water.

If you want "academic freedom", this is it. Freedom is a dual-edged sword. Sometimes freedom leads you to places you don’t want to go, but to be truly free, you’re compelled to go there. Freedom has very definite limitations.

Freedom is bound by truth. Don’t like it? Don’t blame science.

Blame yourself.

Mnemonic wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 2:05am:

... wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:00am: Nobody needs a study to tell them there's such a thing as race when their own eyes will do.  Genes cause a persons basic characteristics.  It's just simple cause & effect.  Our "race" is determined by our outer appearance. That's about it.

If genes for the appearance of skin, hair, and facial structure differ, why not genes for the million other traits?  I don't think genes care about conforming to such arbitrary distinctions.

Genes change. Allergies, immunity to disease, hormones  - all are influenced by an organism’s negative feedback systems.

The same is true for behavioural traits. Cell division - and neurological functioning -is never linear or static.

And that’s as medical/biological as I’m prepared to get.

Big Donger wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

Genes change

And the genes represented in a population change also.  Why do they change karnal?  And what do you call the result of these incremental changes over long periods of time?  I'm almost sure there's a word for it....it's on the tip of my tongue....oh never mind, it'll come to me.

I have no idea, but I’d hazzard a guess: external stimuli. Temperature, wet and dry, pressure, etc.

I’ve found an old boy can change into a simpering little virgin in no time due to a bit of pressure.

Marvellous stuff, it really is.

You changed the question. Sneaky.

Big Donger wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 12:32pm:

You changed the question. Sneaky.

yeh, and added a few more.  I don't have all day to play this game you know. 

JC Denton wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 1:39am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 17th, 2013 at 9:47pm: JC Denton wrote on May 17th, 2013 at 5:27pm: brian ross is that who i think you are Sorry?  I am me.  Who do you think I am?   ::) hoighty toighty morally indignant arrogant bastard who feels it necessary to stick on a " ::) " at the end of every post - is that you ziggy?!?!!? bugger me, pull the stick out of your bum hole son.

"ziggy"?  Never heard the name before.  I have always posted under my real name.

I add the rolling eyes because that conveys my opinion of so many of the opinions posted here.  They are demonstrably based upon ignorance and all too often prejudice.

You got a problem with me expressing my opinion?   ::)

Mnemonic wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 2:05am:

... wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:00am: Nobody needs a study to tell them there's such a thing as race when their own eyes will do.  Genes cause a persons basic characteristics.  It's just simple cause & effect.  Our "race" is determined by our outer appearance. That's about it.

Spot on, sir!  Well said! 

It's not spot on, nor well said.  It's a blatant falsehood.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 2:20pm:

It's not spot on, nor well said.  It's a blatant falsehood.

"Race" as the term is generally used has no scientific basis.  It is a social constructed created by those who believe they are superior to people who look different to them.  Therefore, it is a reaction to physical appearance and behavior.

There is only one "race", the Human Race.   Anybody who suggests otherwise doesn't understand the genetics.

Therefore, what was said was well said and made the same points in far fewer words.

I often wonder why so many people are so insecure about themselves over this issue.    ::)

::) ::) ::)

... wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:54am:

If genes for the appearance of skin, hair, and facial structure differ, why not genes for the million other traits?  I don't think genes care about conforming to such arbitrary distinctions.

The millions of other traits don't determine our "race." They may lead to certain health problems, disorders or deformities or provide certain benefits, but they don't determine your "race."

Is there a six-fingered or four-fingered race? A race prone to heart disease? High blood pressure? Diabetes? Iron deficiency? Prostate cancer? Epilepsy? Lactose intolerance? If genes define our "race," then these people could also belong to different races. Let me now introduce you to the high blood pressure community, the diabetes, iron deficiency community. Let's discuss their rights.

JC Denton wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 3:46pm:

::) ::) ::)

The only people whom get their knickers in a twist over the issue of "race" are racists, Secondary Unit.

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:

JC Denton wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 3:46pm: ::) ::) ::) The only people whom get their knickers in a twist over the issue of "race" are racists, Secondary Unit.

so i take it you're a racist then? you're the one getting their knickers in a twist, getting all agitated and antsy at any discussion of race.

i'm as cool as a cucumber, son.

Racial differences are as "real" as family differences. People live together in a particular climate, doing particular things and doing things a certain way, and they start to develop similar traits and appearances.

Same as families of coopers, ironsmiths and goat herders - to a point. Acquired traits are not passed down.

It doesn’t mean they will always live this way or be stuck with certain genetic traits. Much of central Asia is descended from nomadic Mongols and horsemen. Now many of them are farmers, factory workers or work in IT.

Modern Greeks look nothing like ancient Greeks. Europeans are taller. The chinks are getting fatter now they eat meat. Things change.

Sure, there must be a genetic code that makes my hair cells grow brown hairs and others grow black hairs, but is this race?

The scientists say no. Who to believe?

Mnemonic wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 5:23pm:

The millions of other traits don't determine our "race." They may lead to certain health problems, disorders or deformities or provide certain benefits, but they don't determine your "race."

Well something causes chinesies to have slitty eyes and Islanders to have fuzzy hair.  If it ain't genes it must be...

...magic!

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 3:14pm:

I often wonder why so many people are so insecure about themselves over this issue.    ::)

yeah.  'sepcially when they're so insecure they have to deny what their own lying eyes tell them with some convoluted doublethink.

Me, I just take the truth as it comes.  Aint no thang to me.

So does my next door neighbour’s goldfish.

I guess that’s why you’re called Honky, Honky.

... wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

Mnemonic wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 5:23pm: The millions of other traits don't determine our "race." They may lead to certain health problems, disorders or deformities or provide certain benefits, but they don't determine your "race." Well something causes chinesies to have slitty eyes and Islanders to have fuzzy hair.  If it ain't genes it must be... ...magic!

It is genes but those genes are not exclusive to either Chinese or Islanders.  We all have the same genes, it is how they combine which determine our features.   Chinese people look Chinese 'cause their genes are ordered a particular way.  By breeding with other people (ie Chinese) who share the same genetic order, they reinforce that order.  However, it does not prevent them from breeding with non-[insert "racial" group].  If it did, we would have different species of humans.  We don't.

You can get Europeans or Indians or Africans with Asiatic features if their genes combine in that way which creates them.   I've known Yogoslavs which look like they'd just stepped down off a Mongol Pony, despite there being no Mongolians in their family since the 13th Century when the Mongolians invaded the Balkans last.  I've known Eurasians who looked more European than Asian, despite half their genes being from both groups.  I've know Europeans who'd pass for Indians once their skin got a tan.  These appearances are essentially superficial, just as your reaction to them is.   ::)

... wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 6:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 3:14pm: I often wonder why so many people are so insecure about themselves over this issue.    ::) yeah.  'sepcially when they're so insecure they have to deny what their own lying eyes tell them with some convoluted doublethink. Me, I just take the truth as it comes.  Aint no thang to me.

"lying eyes"?  I am nonplussed.  I deny the existence of "separate races" because there are none.  We all belong to the one "race", the Human Race.

You're the one who appears to be denying all the scientific findings which disprove the concept of "race".

As I have pointed out, we all share the same genes.  It is simply how they are ordered which determine our appearance.   You seem though, to put a great deal of stock in those appearances.   I wonder why?  Does it offend you to think we are all descended from Africans and all share the same genes as Asians or Africans or Indians or Europeans or Australian Aborigines?     ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

"lying eyes"?  I am nonplussed.  I deny the existence of "separate races" because there are none.  We all belong to the one "race", the Human Race.

Brian. 
Mate.
C'mon.

Look at these 2 pictures:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DMbWqcUYwtM/TyIjFsYWPAI/AAAAAAAABDw/ECH4w3ecqp8/s1600/China_man.jpg

http://japaniatours.co.za/images/heritage/zulu%20man.jpg

You telling me you can't see any difference between those guys?  You're really gonna sit there and lie to me like that?

How many times have you said "there's only one race, the human race" now?  It's like a mantra you're repeating to convince yourself.  Don't bother man.  The truth will set you free!

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

You're the one who appears to be denying all the scientific findings which disprove the concept of "race".

Pretty sure there is no such study.  But, I'm always eager to learn - if you know of one, can ya share it with me?

... wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:08pm: "lying eyes"?  I am nonplussed.  I deny the existence of "separate races" because there are none.  We all belong to the one "race", the Human Race. Brian.  Mate. C'mon. Look at these 2 pictures: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DMbWqcUYwtM/TyIjFsYWPAI/AAAAAAAABDw/ECH4w3ecqp8/s1600/China_man.jpg http://japaniatours.co.za/images/heritage/zulu%20man.jpg You telling me you can't see any difference between those guys?  You're really gonna sit there and lie to me like that?

I can see physical differences.  However, both men have exactly the same genes, therefore the differences are superficial and the emphasis you place on them is a social construct and has no basis in science.  I am unsure why you are unable or unwilling to accept this simple, basic scientific reality.


Quote:

How many times have you said "there's only one race, the human race" now?  It's like a mantra you're repeating to convince yourself.  Don't bother man.  The truth will set you free!

I am not convincing myself, I know it.  You however appear to have real difficulties coming to grips with it.

Tell me, what "race" is this person?

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/97565/97565,1239902575,1/stock-photo-beautiful-eurasian-woman-staring-at-viewer-28614913.jpg

... wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 7:23pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:08pm: You're the one who appears to be denying all the scientific findings which disprove the concept of "race". Pretty sure there is no such study.  But, I'm always eager to learn - if you know of one, can ya share it with me?

This might enlighten you to how the concept of "race" is a social construct...

The non-belief in racial differences is a social construct.  ;D

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

I can see physical differences.  However, both men have exactly the same genes

If they had exactly the same genes, there wouldn't be any differences to see.  Maybe a scar or something, but the structure would be identical.


Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

therefore the differences are superficial

Genes control all a persons traits, not just those you can see.  Genes don't play by the rules of your fad ideology. 


Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

the emphasis you place on them is a social construct and has no basis in science.

The emphasis I, or anyone places on it is their perorgative, and not a question for science.  The issue here is whether it exists.


Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

I am unsure why you are unable or unwilling to accept this simple, basic scientific reality.

Because it defies science.  


Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

I am not convincing myself, I know it.

That's the spirit. 


Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

You however appear to have real difficulties coming to grips with it.

yeah.  I believe in evolution.  Creationist bullshit never did sit well with me.


Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:

Tell me, what "race" is this person?

A mixture of a few by the looks of it.  What breed of dog is this?

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_366/1234697201hj03fq.jpg

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 8:47pm:

... wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:23pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:08pm: You're the one who appears to be denying all the scientific findings which disprove the concept of "race". Pretty sure there is no such study.  But, I'm always eager to learn - if you know of one, can ya share it with me? This might enlighten you to how the concept of "race" is a social construct...

You didn't read it right until the end, did you?  ;D ;D


Quote:

This new construction of race…is socially inflected—but it is not solely a social construct because biology is front and center.”

... wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 7:23pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:08pm: You're the one who appears to be denying all the scientific findings which disprove the concept of "race". Pretty sure there is no such study.  But, I'm always eager to learn - if you know of one, can ya share it with me?

We’ve been secretly posting them throughout this thread. Only those with eyes to see will find them.

Don’t bother looking. Your ability to open a link is not great at the best of times. As for actual reading, forget about it.

Anyway, you know already. Why bother?

Big Donger wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 10:09pm:

Anyway, you know already. Why bother?

So that I can use them against you. 

oh...I've said too much.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 9:31pm:

The non-belief in racial differences is a social construct.  ;D

Such differences are superficial physical ones, nothing more.

Get back us when you understand the genetics, Mist.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 9:31pm: The non-belief in racial differences is a social construct.  ;D Such differences are superficial physical ones, nothing more. Get back us when you understand the genetics, Mist.   ::)

hey Brian...since you understand the genetics so well, maybe you can help me with a nagging question:

How is it that genes work precisely in accordance with how the current zeitgeist wants them to? 

I mean, I just can't figure out why a completely different set of rules would apply to the expression of genes that we can see, and those we don't. 

Thoughts? 

... wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 9:37pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 8:44pm: I can see physical differences.  However, both men have exactly the same genes If they had exactly the same genes, there wouldn't be any differences to see.  Maybe a scar or something, but the structure would be identical.

You really don't understand how genetics work, do you?   All humans share the same genes, it is what makes us human.  How those genes combine determine our physical characteristics.   Physical characteristics however are just that, physical characteristics, they do not make us different to the point where we cannot interbreed.  If they did, then we would be separate species.   The "races" aren't, though, are they?  Therefore while you concentrate on those physical differences, in reality they are meaningless, except socially.


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 8:44pm: therefore the differences are superficial Genes control all a persons traits, not just those you can see.  Genes don't play by the rules of your fad ideology.

What "fad ideology"?  I am expressing the scientific opinion on the issue.   You however are attempting to claim that the social reaction to physical differences is important.  It is, if you're a racist.  I am not.  Are you?


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 8:44pm: the emphasis you place on them is a social construct and has no basis in science. The emphasis I, or anyone places on it is their perorgative, and not a question for science.  The issue here is whether it exists.

As science has shown, the concept of "race" is non-existent.  You appear unable or unwilling to accept this reality for some strange reason.   ::)


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 8:44pm: I am unsure why you are unable or unwilling to accept this simple, basic scientific reality. Because it defies science.

Does it?  Please demonstrate how it does so.


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 8:44pm: I am not convincing myself, I know it. That's the spirit.  Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 8:44pm: You however appear to have real difficulties coming to grips with it. yeah.  I believe in evolution.  Creationist bullshit never did sit well with me.

I suspect you understand evolution about as well as it appears you understand genetics.   ::)


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 8:44pm: Tell me, what "race" is this person? A mixture of a few by the looks of it.  What breed of dog is this? http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_366/1234697201hj03fq.jpg

Immaterial to the argument.  If you believe "race" means there are substantial differences between groups which affect their ability to interbreed or make them somehow "inferior" to other groups, then I'd suggest you are an idiot.  "Race" in the way racists use the term is based upon their prejudices, not scientific reality.   ::)

... wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 10:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 10:52pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 9:31pm: The non-belief in racial differences is a social construct.  ;D Such differences are superficial physical ones, nothing more. Get back us when you understand the genetics, Mist.   ::) hey Brian...since you understand the genetics so well, maybe you can help me with a nagging question: How is it that genes work precisely in accordance with how the current zeitgeist wants them to?  I mean, I just can't figure out why a completely different set of rules would apply to the expression of genes that we can see, and those we don't.  Thoughts?

You're talking nonsense.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:01pm:

... wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 10:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 10:52pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 9:31pm: The non-belief in racial differences is a social construct.  ;D Such differences are superficial physical ones, nothing more. Get back us when you understand the genetics, Mist.   ::) hey Brian...since you understand the genetics so well, maybe you can help me with a nagging question: How is it that genes work precisely in accordance with how the current zeitgeist wants them to?  I mean, I just can't figure out why a completely different set of rules would apply to the expression of genes that we can see, and those we don't.  Thoughts?  You're talking nonsense.   ::)

OK, let me put it another way.  Why are the only genetic differences the ones we can see?


What causes the genetic representations we can see to differ, but those we can't to be identical?  It's a distinction that's a little too politically convenient to be correct, wouldn't you say?  I mean, you are the expert on genetics here, so if anyone would know, I figure it'd be you.

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 9:31pm: The non-belief in racial differences is a social construct.  ;D Such differences are superficial physical ones, nothing more. Get back us when you understand the genetics, Mist.   ::)

So you're a proponent of the blank slate theory?

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:

How those genes combine determine our physical characteristics.   Physical characteristics however are just that, physical characteristics, they do not make us different to the point where we cannot interbreed.

Question for the Professor Ross!

These 2 dogs could interbreed, right?

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images21/MiniaturePoodleSnowbell7YearsOld.jpg

http://puppyer.com/img/other_dogs/chi_staffy_bull_502_4.jpg


Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:

If they did, then we would be separate species.

But they're the same species though, aren't they?


Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:

The "races" aren't, though, are they?

No, they're not.


Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:

Therefore while you concentrate on those physical differences, in reality they are meaningless, except socially.

I dunno...   :-/ I wouldn't want to take that poodle pig hunting.  I'm not sure it's characteristics would be equally suited to that particular task as the staffy.  What do you think?

... wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:19pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 11:00pm: How those genes combine determine our physical characteristics.   Physical characteristics however are just that, physical characteristics, they do not make us different to the point where we cannot interbreed. Question for the Professor Ross! These 2 dogs could interbreed, right? http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images21/MiniaturePoodleSnowbell7YearsOld.jpg http://puppyer.com/img/other_dogs/chi_staffy_bull_502_4.jpg Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 11:00pm: If they did, then we would be separate species.  But they're the same species though, aren't they? Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 11:00pm: The "races" aren't, though, are they? No, they're not. Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 11:00pm: Therefore while you concentrate on those physical differences, in reality they are meaningless, except socially. I dunno...   :-/ I wouldn't want to take that poodle pig hunting.  I'm not sure it's characteristics would be equally suited to that particular task as the staffy.  What do you think?

Ah, now you're getting into physical abilities, not attitudes towards physical appearance.  Tsk, tsk, if you were a student of mine, I'd suggest that you should attempt to move the goalposts!   ::)

Tell me, using your analogy of dog breeds, which of these would be best for your pig hunting?

This one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier_600.jpg/220px-Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier_600.jpg

Or this one?
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images21/StafordshireBullTerrierLara15MonthsKCReg.jpg

Both are the same "breed", just different coloured.

That is a closer analogy to humans.

If you're going to do comparisons, it might be better in future to compare apples with apples, not oranges.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:

You really don't understand how genetics work, do you?   All humans share the same genes, it is what makes us human.

I think the keyword here is allele. We have the same genes, but different alleles.

Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:27pm:

Ah, now you're getting into physical abilities, not attitudes towards physical appearance.

I've said about 5 times now that attitude towards it is subjective, and not a matter for science. 

But the interesting thing, is that different dog breeds have well documented differences in intelligence and internal charcteristics, not just visible characteristics. 

How, I hear you ask?  Well simple - because genes don't conform to what you find politically convenient.  I'm sure that's been raised a few times too - can you even read?


Brian Ross wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:27pm:

That is a closer analogy to humans.

No, it's a more convenient analogy for your ideology.  I, nor genes, care about your ideology.

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:38am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 11:27pm: Ah, now you're getting into physical abilities, not attitudes towards physical appearance. I've said about 5 times now that attitude towards it is subjective, and not a matter for science.

So why the continual disputation of the science then?  ::)


Quote:

But the interesting thing, is that different dog breeds have well documented differences in intelligence and internal charcteristics, not just visible characteristics.  How, I hear you ask?  Well simple - because genes don't conform to what you find politically convenient.  I'm sure that's been raised a few times too - can you even read?

You do understand how averages are calculated?

Just as with your dog breeds, exactly 50% of humans in any given group will be below average intelligence, strength, etc., but the funny thing is, the other 50% will be above it.  So, suggesting that one particular "race" is less strong, less intelligence on the basis of their physical appearance (ie skin colour, shape of their eyes, size of their nose, etc.) is a falsehood and again, I'll point out, based more upon prejudice than science (and please don't trot out the bullshit "bell curve" thesis). 


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 11:27pm: That is a closer analogy to humans. No, it's a more convenient analogy for your ideology.  I, nor genes, care about your ideology.

I have no ideology in this matter.  I am merely pointing out that "race" as a concept as used by racists, is a social issue and has no scientific basis.  You however, appear unable to accept that for some reason.   Again I ask, are you a racist?    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

So why the continual disputation of the science then?  Roll Eyes

Because you're a flippin' and a floppin' and substituting 2 different questions at will. 

YOU are saying there's no such thing as race, which isn't supported by science at all.  When corrected, you switch to a different question, which is what you think people's attitude towards these differences (which apparently don't exist  :-?)  should be.  You can't scientifically prove that people shouldn't notice race, because that's a moral judgment, not a scientific truth. 


Brian Ross wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

Just as with your dog breeds, exactly 50% of humans in any given group will be below average intelligence, strength, etc., but the funny thing is, the other 50% will be above it.

Yep.


Quote:

So, suggesting that one particular "race" is less strong, less intelligence on the basis of their physical appearance (ie skin colour, shape of their eyes, size of their nose, etc.) is a falsehood

It has nothing to do with their physical appearance.  Their physical appearance is governed by the genes that govern physcial appearance, while their intelligence is governed by the genes that govern intelligence.

But what your mind has obscured from itself, is that the genes that govern intelligence vary as much as the genes that govern physical appearance.  Once again, genes don't care about conforming to your ideology. 

They act in ways that benefit the propagation of themselves, not in ways that you, a nondescript vessel of a fleeting ideology in a random period of time, find comfortable.


Perhaps you should do some basic reading before going any further?

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

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 1:10pm: So why the continual disputation of the science then?  Roll Eyes Because you're a flippin' and a floppin' and substituting 2 different questions at will.  YOU are saying there's no such thing as race, which isn't supported by science at all.  When corrected, you switch to a different question, which is what you think people's attitude towards these differences (which apparently don't exist  :-?)  should be.  You can't scientifically prove that people shouldn't notice race, because that's a moral judgment, not a scientific truth.

Perhaps you would care to point out to us the individual genes which determine what "race" a person is and which prevent different "races" from interbreeding?

I look forward to you also finding the genes which determine one "race" is inferior to another in any meaningful way.

I have always talked about the social aspect of "race" and how it is something constructed not on any scientific basis but is actually a social construct created by racists on the basis of superficial physical aspects and their prejudices to justify their discriminations  based on the issue.   This is, afterall a forum devoted to social matters, not scientific ones.

I am unsure why you seem to perceive these matters in the way you have but it appears you have a comprehension problem.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

Perhaps you would care to point out to us the individual genes which determine what "race" a person is and which prevent different "races" from interbreeding?

You're confusing race (breed) with species.  Seems like a very rookie mistake from a professor...

need I post more pictures of dogs to remind you?

Brian Ross wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

I have always talked about the social aspect of "race" and how it is something constructed not on any scientific basis but is actually a social construct created by racists on the basis of superficial physical aspects and their prejudices to justify their discriminations  based on the issue.   This is, afterall a forum devoted to social matters, not scientific ones.

You can argue that race isn't important all you like,  I'd even agree with you to a large extent. 
But don't confuse that with saying there's no biological basis for it.   Hell even your own link said as much.  Remember this?


Quote:

This new construction of race…is socially inflected—but it is not solely a social construct because biology is front and center.”

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 1:10pm: So why the continual disputation of the science then?  Roll Eyes Because you're a flippin' and a floppin' and substituting 2 different questions at will.  YOU are saying there's no such thing as race, which isn't supported by science at all.  When corrected, you switch to a different question, which is what you think people's attitude towards these differences (which apparently don't exist  :-?)  should be.  You can't scientifically prove that people shouldn't notice race, because that's a moral judgment, not a scientific truth.  Brian Ross wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 1:10pm: Just as with your dog breeds, exactly 50% of humans in any given group will be below average intelligence, strength, etc., but the funny thing is, the other 50% will be above it. Yep. Quote: So, suggesting that one particular "race" is less strong, less intelligence on the basis of their physical appearance (ie skin colour, shape of their eyes, size of their nose, etc.) is a falsehood It has nothing to do with their physical appearance.  Their physical appearance is governed by the genes that govern physcial appearance, while their intelligence is governed by the genes that govern intelligence. But what your mind has obscured from itself, is that the genes that govern intelligence vary as much as the genes that govern physical appearance.  Once again, genes don't care about conforming to your ideology.

And yet, your ONLY proof for your argument is pictures of chinks and Africans, poodles and bull terriers.

Your Dawkins article has nothing to say about race. It’s about individual organisms. Again, there is no scientific or proven genetic basis for race. This has been proven without a doubt here. If you come up with an article that does show a proven gene grouping responsible for race, lay it out.

Until then, you’re free to keep posting pictures of poodles and saying you don’t need "doublethink" to tell you what you intuitively know, but you can’t say your argument is based on science. It’s not.

You’re also free to sulk and whinge about the political motives of biologists, but this just reads as a tantie. Sadly, the scientific evidence doesn’t conform to the belief system you’ve been rattling off for years.

No problem. Change your mind or stop pretending to have a scientific basis for your claims. You’re free to remain a racist - you’ve just got no justification for it apart from your views on dog breeding and your persistant claim that you know what your eyes tell you to be true.

Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

And yet, your ONLY proof for your argument is pictures of chinks and Africans, poodles and bull terriers.

It's all the proof one could need. 


Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

Again, there is no scientific or proven genetic basis for race.

It could easily be proven if anyone wanted to prove it.  How do I know?  Those wonderful pictures of chinks and africans, poodles and bull terriers. To claim there is no such thing as race is the same as claiming there are no different breeds of dog.  these guys would probably disagree - how does it feel to know dogs know more than you on this matter?

http://dog-photos.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Chihuahua-with-greatdane.jpg


Quote:

This has been proven without a doubt here.

tut tut. the absence of proof is not proof of absence.  You're even committing that basic fallacy now?!

Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

Your Dawkins article has nothing to say about race. It’s about individual organisms.

True, but it's crucial to understanding gene flow.

Once you understand the 'selfish" nature of the gene, it's obvious that if the characteristics that we can see vary, so do the ones we can't.

There isn't 1 set of rules for politically acceptable genes, and another for politically inconvenient genes.  Any suggestion there is, is for purely political/idoleogical reasons, not scientific. 

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

Big Donger wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 2:23pm: And yet, your ONLY proof for your argument is pictures of chinks and Africans, poodles and bull terriers. It's all the proof one could need.  Big Donger wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 2:23pm: Again, there is no scientific or proven genetic basis for race. It could easily be proven if anyone wanted to prove it.  How do I know?  Those wonderful pictures of chinks and africans, poodles and bull terriers.

Maybe you should send them in to the Human Genome Project.

To summarize, their current evidence, after looking, is this: there is no known genetic cause for race. There is no known genetic difference between races. Humans, on the whole share almost identical genetic information. The bits we don’t share do not correspond to racial types.

This is the evidence of the Human Genome Project after more than a decade of looking and perhaps the biggest research grant in history. They are, without a doubt, the most credible source of knowledge on human DNA.

What they say is this: statistically, certain races are more likely to share some biological traits than others, but only on paper. Some races are more predisposed towards baldness, diabetes, immune diseases, etc, but this information is only statistical. The stats do not correspond to any particular genes that the Human Genome Project knows of.

And they have been looking. It’s their brief.

The Human Genome Project does not know whether these traits are related to diet, environment, genetics, or a combination of all three. And they’ve mapped out most of the human DNA sequence - don’t ask me how.

So yes, please send them your dog pictures, Honky. I’m sure they’ll look into them. Perhaps you could attach these to an email outlining your thoughts - most welcome.

Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 3:01pm:

Maybe you should send them in to the Human Genome Project.

I might send them this one. 

http://www.mattduk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/favourite-frequency.jpg

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

Big Donger wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 2:23pm: Your Dawkins article has nothing to say about race. It’s about individual organisms. True, but it's crucial to understanding gene flow. Once you understand the 'selfish" nature of the gene, it's obvious that if the characteristics that we can see vary, so do the ones we can't. There isn't 1 set of rules for politically acceptable genes, and another for politically inconvenient genes.  Any suggestion there is, is for purely political/idoleogical reasons, not scientific.

As far as I can tell, the only one arguing against genes for political reasons is you.

I would have thought, for example, that there would be an obvious skin pigmentation DNA sequence shared by all Africans, but there isn’t. I find that quite strange, given that they have found genes for albinism. Are albinos a race?

No. I’m not being ideological at all. Race does exist.

It’s just that no one can find any genes that correspond to it.

To put this into an argument you might relate to, do you think all those "white" Aboriginals have ancestral Aboriginal genes?

Alas, the evidence doesn’t help them out much either. You can’t get a blood test to claim Abstudy.

The evidence, therefore, points to race as a cultural, not biological category. Anything else you might point out is worthy of being examined and investigated - and, no doubt, praised - by the Human Genome Project. But it doesn’t prove a biological component for race.

Nice picture of a dog though - he looks clever.

Is he giving you arguments for your posts?

Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

Race does exist. It’s just that no one can find any genes that correspond to it.

Yep.  So what are we arguing about?

Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

You can’t get a blood test to claim Abstudy.

Can you get a DNA test for it?

Honky, we’re discussing the End of Academic Freedom.

You seem to want academics to prove your views, and when they come up with evidence to the contrary, you claim they’re politically motivated.

Genes aren’t politically motivated, and I can’t really see how scientists can pretend they do things that they don’t. The evidence is that they don’t follow the cultural grouping of race. What do we do with this information?

So far, you’ve ignored it, argued against it, said it doesn’t exist, and when the evidence is clear, saif that you don’t need complicated scientific doublethink to tell you the opposite of what you already know - from looking at pictures of dogs.

Now you can call me old fashioned, but I do think this goes against the general tone and spirit of scientific reasoning, don’t you?

You may recall those puzzle pictures Descartes used to show the illusiory nature of seeing. You know, is it a vase or two faces? A hill with a tree or a woman in a hat? Sometimes our eyes deceive us, and it was this this insight that brought on the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, and scientific movements like empiricism. Truth must be explored using evidence from all the senses. Facts are not self evident.

Academics should have the freedom, to quote one of your favourite writers, to say that one plus one equals two. If we think that one plus one equals three, and a research team is given a trillion dollars and goes away for 15 years or so and proves that, no, one plus one equals two, what should we do about it?

If the kids used your example, they’d all ignore it and keep counting three. Three marbles, three lolly teeth, three deals of pot. When we say that, no, one plus one equals two now, they’d all go away and google pictures of three, post Wikipedia articles on maths (but not three), and moan and complain about political correctness. It MUST equal three. It’s ALWAYS equalled three. I KNOW it equals three.

But it doesn’t. Should human knowledge be a welfare state to safely prop up the views of those who refuse to change their minds? Or should it impartially state its facts and let the knuckleheads battle it out?

You seem to want the former (when it suits you). I’d passionately argue for the latter whether it suits me or not. I’ve changed my mind about a lot of things in this life. I don’t believe being rigid in your beliefs represents any sense of strength or personal integrity at all. Personally, I see this as inflexibility and arrogance.

If biologists isolate genes that cause race, no problem. I’m not against it, and I really don’t see why we should have such strongly held views either way on this subject. It’s not an issue like global warming or food or energy security where the knowledge has very severe and long-term consequences.

Same for you. I don’t understand why the issue of race is so crucial for you. Where you live and work is predominantly white - the tinted races are not invading and clogging up Perth or Rotto. And I don’t understand why it’s so important to feel racially superior to a group of people you rarely see  - much of your posted racist literature has been about African Amerikans.

Why bother?

I really don’t know, but academic freedom is about the freedom to state some form of truth, not say whatever superstition or prejudice you have.  You can do this ad nauseum, of course, but you can’t do it from a scientific perspective. On this topic, with the evidence we have, you can only do it from a racist perspective.

That, I think, is what we disagree on. And if you find an article that proves a genetic basis for race, I’m all ears.

So far, Imperium has given it a go. You?

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

Yep.  So what are we arguing about?

I think it's whether:

(1) races can be identified genetically
(2) there are differences between "races"

My views:

(1) not sure

(2) Yes, but only statistically. So-called "races" are not mutually exclusive. Draw a Venn diagram and we would probably find a lot of overlapping regions. A concept like race is only useful when it helps us make decisions, like how much to tax to collect from a certain group of people, or how many financial benefits a government should offer them. Because there is plenty of variation within "races" and because "races" can overlap, the idea of race isn't particularly useful to society except as an opportunity to discriminate and treat people differently.

Should we treat people according to whether they fall within the boundaries of a particular, identifiable "race" or where they are in the multidimensional, phenotypical map of traits they have? Because "races" can overlap or expand/migrate due to intermarriage and interbreeding, would it not be irrational to discriminate according to race and not phenotypical qualities? It's like laws restricting who can drink alcohol. Under 18, it's illegal, over 18 it's ok. You have to wait for your 18th birthday.

Mnemonic wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Big Donger wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 3:24pm: You can’t get a blood test to claim Abstudy. Can you get a DNA test for it?

No. Someone might want to correct me here, but I think DNA can prove a strong likelihood that your parents are your parents. It’s better at proving that they aren’t your parents.

But it can’t prove your race - there is no discovered sequence or code for race. At all.

Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

Honky, we’re discussing the End of Academic Freedom. You seem to want academics to prove your views, and when they come up with evidence to the contrary, you claim they’re politically motivated.

But they don't come up with evidence to the contrary.  They don't ask the right questions to begin with. 

i looked at that article

i read down a few paragraphs and it had a lot of red herrings (99.9% the same!!!) (more variation within than between), etc

whats been disproven exactly?

Yes the old "99.9% the same" cry doesn't take into account the fact that we're 99% the same as chmpanzees.  Obviously, a small percentage of variation produces significant differences. Either that, or species is just a social construct.

in all fairness species is highly edgy/fuzzy as a concept as well. theres a big dispute about just what a species actually is, but you don't get a whole plethora of cretins coming out of the woodwork to vociferously proclaim that there are no distinct types within the biological kingdom because of niggling theoretical/conceptual disputes regarding the matter of exact classification. taxonomists classifying some species of butterfly into two distinct subspecies because one has some black spots and the other has some purple spots (but are identical otherwise) doesn't appear to inspire the incense and rage of the race denialists.

races can be distinguished using genetic information quite easily, you just need enough genetic information to do it.

http://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/324_1035_f2.jpeg

Mnemonic wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 4:45pm:

... wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 3:28pm: Yep.  So what are we arguing about? I think it's whether: (1) races can be identified genetically (2) there are differences between "races" My views: (1) not sure (2) Yes, but only statistically. So-called "races" are not mutually exclusive. Draw a Venn diagram and we would probably find a lot of overlapping regions. A concept like race is only useful when it helps us make decisions, like how much to tax to collect from a certain group of people, or how many financial benefits a government should offer them. Because there is plenty of variation within "races" and because "races" can overlap, the idea of race isn't particularly useful to society except as an opportunity to discriminate and treat people differently..

Exactly. I think you’ve got it.

It would be useful, however, to identify race biologically if genes could be isolated that cause disease or other problems within particular population groups.

This is the motivation for the Human Genome Project to discover race, and why it’s so dumb to claim that they’re not looking because they’ve been brainwashed by political correctness. It’s aim is to map out ALL human DNA, with all the possibilities and permutations this involves.

Race, I think, is useful as an identifier. It allows us a shorthand to describe someone’s appearance. "Arab male", for example, rules out a lot of other males in a non-Arab dominated society. When I go to Thailand, I’m often called a Farang when they think I’m not listening. This says a lot about who I am socially and (especially) economically, but nothing about my biology apart from the way I look.

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 5:03pm:

i looked at that article i read down a few paragraphs and it had a lot of red herrings (99.9% the same!!!) (more variation within than between), etc whats been disproven exactly?

You DON’T think that’s important?

I thought you were a eugenicist.

Nothing has been disproven - just not discovered.

philosophical questions about just what a 'race' is is pretty pointless. henry harpending had it right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pNn3gOELAg

dont know why so many people bother with these arguments.

mostly word games.

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:

races can be distinguished using genetic information quite easily, you just need enough genetic information to do it.

I think that's a big part of where the denialists are going wrong - they seem to classify everyone in a few, very broad categories (intelligence, size, strength, speed...and that's about it) and when no pattern is found, say "no such fing as race".  Patterns would be far easier to distinguish if they'd use a far greater number of far narrower categories. 

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:

in all fairness species is highly edgy/fuzzy as a concept as well. theres a big dispute about just what a species actually is, but you don't get a whole plethora of cretins coming out of the woodwork to vociferously proclaim that there are no distinct types within the biological kingdom because of niggling theoretical/conceptual disputes regarding the matter of exact classification

Niggling? Using race as a measure of biological classification would be the same as hematologists using the four humours of the ancient Greeks as blood types. Basically, choler, phlegm, blood and bile just doesn’t correspond to the science of blood clotting and what classifies your blood so well, they can take blood from someone else and pump it into you.

There’s no denialism here. Once, operating on the human heart was seen as a great social and medical taboo. The English doctor who performed the first successful human heart transplant received death threats.

The denialism is coming from those who hold race to be such an important mark of human classification that they’re missing what could be much more effective classification criteria, such as blood types. This is the entire point of the Human Genome Project - what actually makes your genes do what they do?

If you keep insisting that one population group or another is biologically predisposed to crime or obesity or low IQ or dipsomania, you’d better get your classification right.

The finding that race is biologically insignificant means that we need a better system of classification. To argue the opposite is denialism.

You two are still free to feel superior to darkies, you know - you just have no scientific justification for it.

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

JC Denton wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 5:16pm: races can be distinguished using genetic information quite easily, you just need enough genetic information to do it. I think that's a big part of where the denialists are going wrong - they seem to classify everyone in a few, very broad categories (intelligence, size, strength, speed...and that's about it) and when no pattern is found, say "no such fing as race".  Patterns would be far easier to distinguish if they'd use a far greater number of far narrower categories.

That’s strange. I could have sworn I remember you saying how we should disregard all this scientific mumbo jumbo and just keep it simple - with a picture of a poodle and a bull terrier.

I’m glad you’ve changed your mind, Honky. It shows you’ve been listening.

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:

races can be distinguished using genetic information quite easily, you just need enough genetic information to do it. http://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/324_1035_f2.jpeg

Are you saying race can be discovered quite easily through a DNA test?

Quote:

Niggling? Using race as a measure of biological classification would be the same as hematologists using the four humours of the ancient Greeks as blood types. Basically, choler, phlegm, blood and bile just doesn’t correspond to the science of blood clotting and what classifies your blood so well, they can take blood from someone else and pump it into you.

why?

what's so antiquated/out of date about:

Each race has developed in a unique geographic location. Uniqueness does not imply non-shared environmental variables with the geographic location of other races.
Each race has a unique natural history.
Members of a race share a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters. Phylogeny refers to evolutionary relationships; the more recent the last common ancestral population, the closer two populations are phylogenetically. The phenotype refers to physical appearance, behaviors and other manifestations of gene expression.
There is recognizable phylogenetic partitioning between the races.
Evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically-based traits.

seems pretty common sense to  me.


Quote:

If you keep insisting that one population group or another is biologically predisposed to crime or obesity or low IQ or dipsomania, you’d better get your classification right.

Quote:

On the matter of biology and race, there seems to be considerable confusion, no doubt artfully sowed. Given that, let me clarify: When it comes to the hereditarian hypothesis, we are not discussing the philosophy of biology — I discuss some aspects of that here — we are discussing the etiology of differences between socially identifiable ethnoracial groups. These groups represent different biological population structures. The assumption here is not that these ethnoraces are taxonomically identifiable groups or that there are clear boundaries between these groups, but rather that the said groups have different population structures. When the Human Genome Project states that “DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern human,” they are talking about biological taxonomic classifications and saying that there are no population specific genes that would warrant classifying various populations as subspecies. That is a separate issue. (See: 70-71). With regards to the current discussion, we are starting with socially identified ethnoracial groups which have different population structures and asking: “Why are there behavioral differences?”

a.k.a - however the bugger you define (or define out) whatever a 'race' is, socially identified populations, given existent genetic differences, can differ on traits for genetic reasons. even arthur jensen  did not bother with a sturdy defense of the concept of 'race' because he knew this to be so.

Quote:

Are you saying race can be discovered quite easily through a DNA test?

i already posted about this before:


Quote:

In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[20] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never".

people of different 'races' are more related to one another than people from other races, measured with enough genetic information. i don't care whether or not people feel this does or doesnt justify drawing boxes around the clusters of relatedness and calling them  "populations", "races", "breeds", or whatever. point is human differences at the continental level exist.

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 6:13pm:

Quote: Are you saying race can be discovered quite easily through a DNA test? i already posted about this before: [quote] In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[20] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never".

people of different 'races' are more related to one another than people from other races, measured with enough genetic information. i don't care whether or not people feel this does or doesnt justify drawing boxes around the clusters of relatedness and calling them  "populations", "races", "breeds", or whatever. point is human differences at the continental level exist.[/quote]

So your answer’s "no", right?

I can’t tell. Cunning.

https://www.23andme.com/ancestry/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Search-Beta-Ancestry-Intl&utm_term=mid236&gclid=CK6GhY7gobcCFQRapQodvSsA5A


See your ancestry composition.

Find out what percent of your DNA comes from each of the 22 worldwide populations we analyze, ranging from East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and more. Get unprecedented insight into European Ancestry, broken down into distinct ancestral origins such as Great Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia, Italy, Ashkenazi Jewish, and more. Individuals of mixed ancestry, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans can get an accurate breakdown of ancestry as well.

Monica is a real 23andMe customer who has provided her consent to share her beautiful Ancestry Composition.

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

Quote: Niggling? Using race as a measure of biological classification would be the same as hematologists using the four humours of the ancient Greeks as blood types. Basically, choler, phlegm, blood and bile just doesn’t correspond to the science of blood clotting and what classifies your blood so well, they can take blood from someone else and pump it into you. why? what's so antiquated/out of date about: Each race has developed in a unique geographic location. Uniqueness does not imply non-shared environmental variables with the geographic location of other races. Each race has a unique natural history. Members of a race share a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters. Phylogeny refers to evolutionary relationships; the more recent the last common ancestral population, the closer two populations are phylogenetically. The phenotype refers to physical appearance, behaviors and other manifestations of gene expression. There is recognizable phylogenetic partitioning between the races. Evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically-based traits. seems pretty common sense to  me. [quote]If you keep insisting that one population group or another is biologically predisposed to crime or obesity or low IQ or dipsomania, you’d better get your classification right.

Quote:

On the matter of biology and race, there seems to be considerable confusion, no doubt artfully sowed. Given that, let me clarify: When it comes to the hereditarian hypothesis, we are not discussing the philosophy of biology — I discuss some aspects of that here — we are discussing the etiology of differences between socially identifiable ethnoracial groups. These groups represent different biological population structures. The assumption here is not that these ethnoraces are taxonomically identifiable groups or that there are clear boundaries between these groups, but rather that the said groups have different population structures. When the Human Genome Project states that “DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern human,” they are talking about biological taxonomic classifications and saying that there are no population specific genes that would warrant classifying various populations as subspecies. That is a separate issue. (See: 70-71). With regards to the current discussion, we are starting with socially identified ethnoracial groups which have different population structures and asking: “Why are there behavioral differences?”

a.k.a - however the bugger you define (or define out) whatever a 'race' is, socially identified populations, given existent genetic differences, can differ on traits for genetic reasons. even arthur jensen  did not bother with a sturdy defense of the concept of 'race' because he knew this to be so.[/quote]

Have you heard of the Blood Type Diet? Or the "Eat Right For Your Type" diet?

A guy called Peter D’Amano claims the blood types come from different stages of evolution. A is agrarian, B nomadic, O or AB hunter-gatherer. He says a lot of Jews and Asians are type B - I forget the rest. There’s a slightly racial component to it, but on the whole it tells you what food is best for your blood type. He’s a naturopath who took the system from his father.

It sounds very logical and reasonable, and a lot of people are obsessed by it. The books sell well. There are a lot of "miracle" stories about people going onto the diet and curing their incurable diseases. You know, the doctors were hopeless, but this diet - cured!

The problem is, there’s absolutely no evidence for any of it. It’s a grand, all-encompassing theory, but there’s no substance to it. I went on the diet once. I didn’t feel any difference, so I found his site and posted on the forums. I asked.polite questions about proof and was howled down by the converts. Peter D’Amano came on and said to be nice - good to have questions, etc. He posted a couple of articles I couldn’t really understand.Actually, one of them actually seemed to contradict his theory - I didn’t get a reply when I asked about this. Maybe I just didn’t get it.

Anyway, I checked up on the other article, and the theory was just that - unproven. The whole evolutionary biology thing? Not mentioned anywhere else. The foods that work well for certain blood types? Trial and error by Peter D’Amano’s dad - what Peter D’Amano called "clinical experience".

And that’s all there waa. I gave up the diet and didn’t look back. Another "best-selling" health fad debunked by Korporal Karnal.

Theories are fine, but they need to have some weight behind them. For me, "clinical experience" doesn’t cut it. Honky’s dog pictures are nice, but they don’t tell you anything.

Except the dog with the glasses and fancy scarf - he’s telling me he’s writing Honky’s posts.

No wonder they’re all about dog breeding. It’s internet porn.

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 6:29pm:

https://www.23andme.com/ancestry/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Search-Beta-Ancestry-Intl&utm_term=mid236&gclid=CK6GhY7gobcCFQRapQodvSsA5A See your ancestry composition. Find out what percent of your DNA comes from each of the 22 worldwide populations we analyze, ranging from East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and more. Get unprecedented insight into European Ancestry, broken down into distinct ancestral origins such as Great Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia, Italy, Ashkenazi Jewish, and more. Individuals of mixed ancestry, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans can get an accurate breakdown of ancestry as well. Monica is a real 23andMe customer who has provided her consent to share her beautiful Ancestry Composition.

Great answer, Imperium. Utterly inscrutable.

You weren’t once called 1nner Health Plus for nothing, I see.

Does this constitute academic freedom?

that blood type thing doesnt sound common sense at all. sounds frankly weird/crank-witted. the definition i gave there is of subspecies. it you need to have a working definition of such a thing because policies are made all the time that regard preserving subspecies/natural habitats of endangered subspecies so they dont die out. human 'races' more or less tract those criteria fairly decently.

All five groupings have historically differentiated in unique geographic locations.
All five groupings have unique natural histories.
The vast majority of individuals within any of these groupings can be easily distinguished from the vast majority of individuals in other groupings by a) a visual examination of overall physical appearance; b) multiple, say 21-24, craniofacial inter-landmark distances;3) c) 20 discrete cranial traits,4) etc. This is because members of a race share a set of phenotypic characters consistent with their evolutionary history.
There is recognizable phylogenetic partitioning between the five groupings in the form of overall physical appearance and also neutral genetic markers.5)
Concordant evidence for the classification of these five groupings as separate subspecies/races comes from genetic studies involving a) 993 microsatellite markers,6) b) 79 autosomal RFLPs,7) c) 8 Alu insertions,8) d) 40 biallelic slow-evolving insertion-deletions,9) etc.

seriously just trust your lying eyes. its one thing tos ay human beings have diverged, its another to say that human groups differ on average in iq, propensity in criminality, w/e.

Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 6:49pm:

JC Denton wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 6:29pm: https://www.23andme.com/ancestry/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Search-Beta-Ancestry-Intl&utm_term=mid236&gclid=CK6GhY7gobcCFQRapQodvSsA5A See your ancestry composition. Find out what percent of your DNA comes from each of the 22 worldwide populations we analyze, ranging from East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and more. Get unprecedented insight into European Ancestry, broken down into distinct ancestral origins such as Great Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia, Italy, Ashkenazi Jewish, and more. Individuals of mixed ancestry, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans can get an accurate breakdown of ancestry as well. Monica is a real 23andMe customer who has provided her consent to share her beautiful Ancestry Composition. Great answer, Imperium. Utterly inscrutable. You weren’t once called 1nner Health Plus for nothing, I see. Does this constitute academic freedom?

hows it inscrutable? its a website that offers a service to people - you send them your dna and they find out what your ancestry is. aka theyre finding out youyr race, your ethnicity, your geographic origins (whatever it is) - from your dna.

these services are offered everywehere.

Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 6:02pm:

... wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 5:29pm: JC Denton wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 5:16pm: races can be distinguished using genetic information quite easily, you just need enough genetic information to do it. I think that's a big part of where the denialists are going wrong - they seem to classify everyone in a few, very broad categories (intelligence, size, strength, speed...and that's about it) and when no pattern is found, say "no such fing as race".  Patterns would be far easier to distinguish if they'd use a far greater number of far narrower categories.  That’s strange. I could have sworn I remember you saying how we should disregard all this scientific mumbo jumbo and just keep it simple - with a picture of a poodle and a bull terrier. I’m glad you’ve changed your mind, Honky. It shows you’ve been listening.

I was just trying to keep it simple for you novices.   

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

Big Donger wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 6:49pm: JC Denton wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 6:29pm: https://www.23andme.com/ancestry/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Search-Beta-Ancestry-Intl&utm_term=mid236&gclid=CK6GhY7gobcCFQRapQodvSsA5A See your ancestry composition. Find out what percent of your DNA comes from each of the 22 worldwide populations we analyze, ranging from East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and more. Get unprecedented insight into European Ancestry, broken down into distinct ancestral origins such as Great Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia, Italy, Ashkenazi Jewish, and more. Individuals of mixed ancestry, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans can get an accurate breakdown of ancestry as well. Monica is a real 23andMe customer who has provided her consent to share her beautiful Ancestry Composition. Great answer, Imperium. Utterly inscrutable. You weren’t once called 1nner Health Plus for nothing, I see. Does this constitute academic freedom? hows it inscrutable? its a website that offers a service to people - you send them your dna and they find out what your ancestry is. aka theyre finding out youyr race, your ethnicity, your geographic origins (whatever it is) - from your dna. these services are offered everywehere.

Is it legit? You’re saying they can find all this out from a strand of your hair? How accurate is it?

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 1:57pm: Perhaps you would care to point out to us the individual genes which determine what "race" a person is and which prevent different "races" from interbreeding? You're confusing race (breed) with species.  Seems like a very rookie mistake from a professor... need I post more pictures of dogs to remind you?

Dog breeds can interbreed.  The physical characteristics of different dog breeds are the result more of selective breeding than anything else and are a consequence of preference or prejudice if you like than anything else.  Essentially all dogs, no matter what their breed are still dogs.  Same for humans, no matter what their "race", they are still humans, all sharing the same characteristics.  Where they differ, it is in physical aspects which are superficial, except to racists whom seem to place inordinate, social meaning on them.

I am unsure why you continue to be unable to grasp these simple facts.

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 6:53pm:

that blood type thing doesnt sound common sense at all. sounds frankly weird/crank-witted. the definition i gave there is of subspecies. it you need to have a working definition of such a thing because policies are made all the time that regard preserving subspecies/natural habitats of endangered subspecies so they dont die out. human 'races' more or less tract those criteria fairly decently. All five groupings have historically differentiated in unique geographic locations. All five groupings have unique natural histories. The vast majority of individuals within any of these groupings can be easily distinguished from the vast majority of individuals in other groupings by a) a visual examination of overall physical appearance; b) multiple, say 21-24, craniofacial inter-landmark distances;3) c) 20 discrete cranial traits,4) etc. This is because members of a race share a set of phenotypic characters consistent with their evolutionary history. There is recognizable phylogenetic partitioning between the five groupings in the form of overall physical appearance and also neutral genetic markers.5)9 Concordant evidence for the classification of these five groupings as separate subspecies/races comes from genetic studies involving a) 993 microsatellite markers,6) b) 79 autosomal RFLPs,7) c) 8 Alu insertions,8) d) 40 biallelic slow-evolving insertion-deletions,9) etc. seriously just trust your lying eyes. its one thing tos ay human beings have diverged, its another to say that human groups differ on average in iq, propensity in criminality, w/e.

Sorry, Imperium, I’m not following. You need to keep it simple for us novices.

Which races are the five groupings that form the human sub-species?

Brian Ross wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

... wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 2:08pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 1:57pm: Perhaps you would care to point out to us the individual genes which determine what "race" a person is and which prevent different "races" from interbreeding? You're confusing race (breed) with species.  Seems like a very rookie mistake from a professor... need I post more pictures of dogs to remind you? Dog breeds can interbreed.

Don’t tell him that. You’ll have him humping my leg again.

I guess he thinks it’s a sub-species.

Brian Ross wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

... wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 2:08pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 1:57pm: Perhaps you would care to point out to us the individual genes which determine what "race" a person is and which prevent different "races" from interbreeding? You're confusing race (breed) with species.  Seems like a very rookie mistake from a professor... need I post more pictures of dogs to remind you? Dog breeds can interbreed.  The physical characteristics of different dog breeds are the result more of selective breeding than anything else and are a consequence of preference or prejudice if you like than anything else. Essentially all dogs, no matter what their breed are still dogs.  Same for humans, no matter what their "race", they are still humans, all sharing the same characteristics.

Why you telling me this?  Ive been trying to tell it to you.  The only thing I will point out is that selective breeding has been in practice throughout human history, via geographical and cultural constraints.  Populations were, and largely still are subject to the same selection pressures that created breeds of dog.  It is an act of doublethink to think there is one rule for how the genes of animals express and how those of humans express.  One rule for all, whether it conforms with your ideology or not. 


Quote:

Where they differ, it is in physical aspects which are superficial,

And here's where you have trouble - where they differ isn't limited to superficial physical characteristics. It is is an act of doublethink to think there is one rule for how superficial physical genes express, and how other, non-visible or intangible genes express.  One rule for all, whether it conforms with your ideology or not. 

How many times does this have to repeated before it sinks in?


Quote:

except to racists whom seem to place inordinate, social meaning on them.

How much social meaning should be/is placed on them is another issue entirely.  But you've got to ask who places more meaning on it - those who just take it as it is, or those who craft a convoluted web of deception on ideological grounds, demonising and suppressing those who see through it?

There’s that doublethink again. It looks like Honky’s the only one who can pierce through the veils of ignorance with such laser-like clarity.

One rule for all. Dog breeds and human sub-species alike.

Do you have anymore dog photos, Honky? One with red lippie and a Betty Grable hairdo, thanks.

Honk if you’re hornty.

Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:47pm:

It looks like Honky’s the only one who can pierce through the veils of ignorance with such laser-like clarity.

Sometimes it feels that way, but apparently there's another 2-3% who potentially could too. 

Anyhoo, did someone say this thread needed more dog?

http://i.imgur.com/RL56VRZ.jpg

Bunch of inbreds. Not one sub-species in the lot.

Internet porn for dog racists. I can hear honking, you know.

Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:19pm:

JC Denton wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 6:55pm: Big Donger wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 6:49pm: JC Denton wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 6:29pm: https://www.23andme.com/ancestry/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Search-Beta-Ancestry-Intl&utm_term=mid236&gclid=CK6GhY7gobcCFQRapQodvSsA5A See your ancestry composition. Find out what percent of your DNA comes from each of the 22 worldwide populations we analyze, ranging from East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and more. Get unprecedented insight into European Ancestry, broken down into distinct ancestral origins such as Great Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia, Italy, Ashkenazi Jewish, and more. Individuals of mixed ancestry, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans can get an accurate breakdown of ancestry as well. Monica is a real 23andMe customer who has provided her consent to share her beautiful Ancestry Composition. Great answer, Imperium. Utterly inscrutable. You weren’t once called 1nner Health Plus for nothing, I see. Does this constitute academic freedom? hows it inscrutable? its a website that offers a service to people - you send them your dna and they find out what your ancestry is. aka theyre finding out youyr race, your ethnicity, your geographic origins (whatever it is) - from your dna. these services are offered everywehere. Is it legit? You’re saying they can find all this out from a strand of your hair? How accurate is it?

I’ll answer my own question after reviewing the site.

Absolute bollocks - the sort of thing Alan Jones would advertise if the Third Reich was still going.

"European Ancestry, broken down into distinct ancestral origins such as England, Ireland, Scandinavian..."

Impossible. If anyone believes this, they’re dumber than I would ever have imagined knuckleheads to be.

Which is saying something, because I don’t give them much credit as it is. Worse than the Blood Type diet, Imperium. This one’s a real doozy.

I’ve a good mind to get one for Honky. They claim to do neanderthal percentage.

How about canine?

Are you qualified to give a review?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23andMe

23andMe is a privately held personal genomics and biotechnology company based in Mountain View, California[1] that provides rapid genetic testing. The company is named for the 23 pairs of chromosomes in a normal human cell. Their personal genome test kit was named "Invention of the Year" by Time magazine in 2008.[2]

In 2008, Time magazine named the company's saliva-based DNA-testing service "Invention of the Year". The service and ability to map significant portions of the genome has raised controversial questions including whether the results can be meaningfully interpreted, and if they will lead to genetic discrimination. The states of New York and California unsuccessfully attempted to block the tests (provided by 23andMe as well as other companies) under the grounds that they were not properly licensed[2] and attempted to require tests to be conducted only when ordered by a physician.[12][13] By August 2008, 23andMe had received licenses that allow them to continue to do business in California.[14]


karnal do you actually know how these measures work

they work by taking your genes and then measuring them against other peoples genes

then this can be charted into clusters of group relatedness

amazingly, people with shared geography tend to be related / more genetically similiar than people who dont share their geography so thus they cluster together

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6493/genesmirrorgeographyfor.jpg

races are just super relatedness clumps that span continents


http://infoproc.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/no-scientific-basis-for-race.html

Exactly. Statistics, innit. In other words, according to people’s self identified racial data, they give you a result which may or may not be a statistical likelihood.

I have no issue with their other DNA testing, but DNA can’t tell the difference between Micks and Poms. There’s no measurable difference. And how could there be? They’ve intermarried for generations.

The only test that can tell you where you were born is a bone cell test that measures soil trace elements from region to region. Even this is problematic now as we ship our food around. This test is often used by archaeologists.

Saying where your ancestors were born? It’s not yet possible.

Mind you, if everyone’s DNA was taken at birth and cross-checked against everyone else’s, I do think this could one day be possible. It’s not a comfortable idea, but I’ll bet this is the norm some time in the future.

... wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 8:27am:

Are you qualified to give a review?

Absolutely not.

I’m qualified to give out bones though.

Islamophobia Comes to Canberra
by Mark Durie  May 31, 2013 at 3:00 am

Are we to let our freedoms be shaped by the worst kind of intolerance found in the sharia badlands? How will discrimination among religions based on fear distort human rights?

Like student magazines all over the world, Woroni, put out by students at the Australian National University, publishes satire. It did when I attended 30 years ago, and it still does today. Much of what is written is offensive to someone or other, but it is a rare day when the university pays any attention.

However last week, The Australian newspaper reported that university authorities responded to a complaint by international students to compel Woroni "to pulp a satirical infographic which described a passage from the Koran as a 'rape fantasy'". Rachel Baxendale wrote:

The University also threatened student authors and editors of the infographic with disciplinary action, including academic exclusion and the withdrawal of the publication's funding.

The piece was a fifth in a satirical series entitled "Advice from Religions" which had previously discussed Catholicism, Scientology, Mormonism and Judaism.

No complaints were received about any of the earlier installments.

The university issued a statement that:

… the infographic breached university rules and Australian Press Council guidelines, as well as posing a threat to the ANU's reputation and security.

"In a world of social media, (there is) potential for material such as the article in question to gain attention and traction in the broader world and potentially harm the interests of the university and the university community," the statement said.

The university cited an ugly demonstration by Muslims which took place in Sydney on September 15, 2012, and the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy.

The Sydney demonstration involved protestors displaying placards such as "Behead all those who insult the prophet" and "Sharia will dominate the world."

Baxendale reported that one of the Woroni editors was told by a complainant: "I don't think you understand the seriousness of this. In Pakistan, people get shot for this kind of thing."

This logic is terrifying. People can get shot for many things in Pakistan: for gay sex or for belonging to the wrong Muslim sect. Are we in Australia to let our freedoms be shaped by the worst kinds of intolerance found in the sharia badlands?

Australian National University was motivated by raw fear -- of Islam. They virtually admitted as much. They did not bat an eyelid when diverse religions were mocked week after week in the pages of Woroni, but Islam is different. It seems the university did not even go through the motions of pretending they were acting to protect Muslims: they just didn't want to get hurt.

This is a real example of true Islamophobia, in which an individual or organization discriminates between religions on the basis of the degree to which they fear Islam. The Australian National University has shown itself to be genuinely Islamophobic, yet at the same time, sharia-friendly.

This is the surrender of fear, which aligns with Muhammad's call to non-Muslims to aslim taslam: "Surrender and you will be safe." The Australian National University has acted to secure its safety, but at a great price.

This university could dig deeper and consider two implications of their actions.

One is: Why is it they have such fear of Islam? Do their actions show that they agree with Geert Wilders that "Islam is the problem"? Do they agree that it is Islam's own theological characteristics that have caused Australia's leading university to threaten its students with expulsion, simply for doing what students have always done?

The second question is: How will discrimination among religions based upon the criterion of fear distort human rights and the very fabric of the society in which we live? Are we to bow down before Islamic dogmas in every domain of life, out of the fear of being shot "as in Pakistan"? Will the demands of Islamic sharia determine the boundaries of human safety in every corner of the globe, as the September 2012 Sydney protestors so brazenly demanded?

Mark Durie is an Anglican pastor and an Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.

I know it is islamophobic to ask questions about Islam but question must be asked precisely because questioning is labelled islamophobic.

Muslims are invited to nominate areas of Islam that are OK to question.  None are known yet.