So its been discovered that all white people are just mutants

[bell-the-cat]

Re: So its been discovered that all white people are just mutants

Still not European.

I quoted those lines to agree with you, Tom

[bell-the-cat]

Re: So its been discovered that all white people are just mutants

Onward Christian soldiers - subjugate colonize destroy!

White Power!

etc

What a jerk you are, Winston. Will the wino-creature rush home to picket his local school, coz he can't have fascistic literature like Shakespeare, or Milton, being propagated in his neighbourhood?

[TomServo]

Re: So its been discovered that all white people are just mutants

What a jerk you are, Winston. Will the wino-creature rush home to picket his local school, coz he can't have fascistic literature like Shakespeare, or Milton, being propagated in his neighbourhood?

Well, you Brits did do all of those things.

[karoaper]

Re: So its been discovered that all white people are just mutants

Tom, i don't think Brits want to be considered European. After all, those pesky Spaniards and the French really were a pain in the ass of the British Colonial/Empirialistic aspirations. If it was up to Britons, they'd rather their little island was situated on Mars.

[winoman]

Re: So its been discovered that all white people are just mutants

What a jerk you are, Winston. Will the wino-creature rush home to picket his local school, coz he can't have fascistic literature like Shakespeare, or Milton, being propagated in his neighbourhood?

I do not object to the literature per se - not at all - but in the context you have posted it - what you are saying by posting such in this thread - and considering that in fact those who espoused such beliefs - those who held such attitudes (as you reflect even today - don't worry - I see you...) - were so caught up in their own concept of their superiority over others - and had the means to act with impunity - well they did most terrible things - they devalued the lives of millions of others that they saw as being beneath them - not fully human - and for what? - because they didn't compose sonnets? ...because they hadn't forged steel, blended gunpowder, established standing armies of conquorers, and perhaps didn't have the (Christian) greed to do what it took to subjegate, enslave, overun and slaughter others (in the name of the Lord - amen...) - so be (blindly and unapoligeticaly) proud - just like the Turk - the few, the proud - the joyful killers of innocents...

[TomServo]

Re: So its been discovered that all white people are just mutants

Tom, i don't think Brits want to be considered European. After all, those pesky Spaniards and the French really were a pain in the ass of the British Colonial/Empirialistic aspirations. If it was up to Britons, they'd rather their little island was situated on Mars.

Explains why they're trying to destroy Europe today.

[karoaper]

Re: So its been discovered that all white people are just mutants

If it was up to Britons, they'd rather their little island was situated on Mars.

I should add that in light of our own history, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea anyways.

[Anonymouse]

Re: So its been discovered that all white people are just mutants

Again funny rat that you use for your example something which clearly speaks to the concept of natural selection - incredibly so:

Hemoglobin exists in several varieties. Hemoglobin A is the most common, but in parts of West Africa, where malaria is rife, one-fourth of the population has at least one gene for hemoglobin C. Children with at least one hemoglobin C gene are less prone to deadly cerebral malaria, in which parasite-infected red blood cells accumulate in the brain

Obviously among this population exposed to the malaria virus - those with certain traits have tended to better survive passing on such traits so that they become more predominate in subsequant generations...quite blashemous of you to support such scientific THEORIES and principles eh?

Note the above has nothing at all to do with race - as white skinned folks would develop the same resistence in the same manner after generations of exposure...

A very good friend of mine's husband died of malaria BTW and she was in coma for weeks before recovering...both were doctors in Chad or Sudan or some such...(not well adapted to that environment eh?)

One does not have to believe in evolutio to note racial differences. Only a pea brain of your magnitude can confuse the two. Natural selection is an assumption, in fact, if you want to go down to the nitty gritty, it's a tautology, and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Anonymouse]

Re: So its been discovered that all white people are just mutants

Think for a second - use your brain a bit -all of those 100 billion + nuerons - in theory...the difference between 99.9% compatability (between human population groups) and 99.4% - when we are talking what - 3+ billion genetic sequences - well 99.4% of 3+ billion is a great number of differences - and much of the rest that is so exactly the same - well common ancestry you dolt!

I made the argument you really cannot and did not refute it ( I never said "more different" - I said pretty much just as different - and certainly unpredictably so - for the most part...that is different in a variety of ways - perhaps not as apparent but different none the less...though again what numbskull could ever consider a pygmy and a Bantu part of the same "race" - unless of course its the highly variabe human race we are talking about...) - so why repeat it over and over again eh? Just because you have no real arguments - such as in the Evolution thread - and feel the need to only repeat your straw man claims - well - I have no need to do such - I'm flaexible, adapatable as it were...

This is a wasted effort at trying to vindicate your futile argument, though I will say it was a valiant effort, considering it's you. You can't even respond in a coherent fashion. All your posts are a hodge podge of emotional outbursts and mini-thoughts. It's as if you walk around with Post-Its all day posting your thoughts. That is how your posts are. As always it is the way of winoman to try to weasle out of his intellectual fallouts when he knows he hit a intellectual brick wall, but as always being the winoman is a tough job since it usually ends in failure, and you have to be accustomed to that if you are ever going to be a winoman.

The claim you made that there is more variation between people of the same race, than two people of different races, is what is at issue at here, it does not matter which way or what word you used to state it. There is only one claim advanced like that, and it was proposed by Lewontin. And that claim was addressed and shot down. Simply put, of the millions of gene frequences, it is possible that whoever measured them, had an agenda. And so, they may have measured the gene frequences that were similar in all races, but failed to measure those that differ widely between races. And ironically, this rebuttal was offered by Cavalli-Sforza, a population geneticist who often likes to claim race is not real.

[Anonymouse]

Re: So its been discovered that all white people are just mutants

rat - perhaps you would be interested in reading other books written by your favorite author (that you reference above):

Such as: The Great Human Diasporas: The History of Diversity and Evolution

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0201442310/qid=1135067573/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-3426280-6204919?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

where among other thigs he addresses: "exceedingly slight differences among the races" (again using the common term while rejecting it a a scientific one...)

And from a review: He makes a strong case that differences among human "races" are only skin deep, reflecting adaptation to different climates over the last sixty thousand years, and tells some of his own part in the battle over the IQ and race debate (recently re-ignited with the publication of _The Bell Curve_) --- (I suspect he is not so much in agreement with you on this one rat...)

If you know anything about Cavalli-Sforza, he likes to publically proclaim the racial mantra of colorliss bliss, but I assure you, read the book by him that I recommended. Clearly you will see the man believes in race, as his work shows.

I can engage in the same buffoonery you do. Let's pic a review from that book and see what it's about, eh?

This is the second review taken:

In this book, a group of Italian researchers present their study of the repartition of a sample of human genetic sequences, based on data they collected between 1978 and 1986. This is certainly very interesting for the study of human races, even if based on only a sample of sequences, many of them being not relevant for races. Although the authors acknowledge that some scientists were able to identify and classify the majors races, they pretend the concept of race is a failure because there is much intra-class variation for some DNA sequences within given races (by saying this they already implicitly recognize the existence of given races.) This is however the fallacy of strawman - attacking a caricatured enemy - for the concept of race never meant that there would not be great inner variation for specific sequences, but only that it is possible to cluster and classify human groups and that such classification should correspond to a higher degree of common ancestry for individuals of the same cluster, as the races are the result of micro-evolution. And given that we now know that most of the genome is not used, that the active genes are a very small proportion, the intra-class variability makes sense, as these genes are not expressed and thus not submitted to the selection of evolutionary pressure. It is enough to find some sequences clusters that correspond to the existing races to show that different races indeed exist, which the authors actually do (something confirmed recently by the result of the genome projects, finding that inter-races distance is 0,1 of the genome, something enormous given that most of the genome is not expressed, and that the distance between humans and monkeys is 1%, the difference between human races being then 10% of the differences between humans and the closest animals.) Besides, the same intra-classes variability is also observed among animal races and vegetal varieties, yet no scientist will say that this makes the concept of animal race or vegetal variety useless. Anyway, this misconception allows the authors to get a green light from the politically correct thought police and avoid censorship.

The book follows with an exposition of their data analysis method. The main issue is the distance measure for the genetic data, something new for me. Otherwise, they use standard methods of data mining / pattern recognition : design of classification trees, and clustering with principal component analysis (PCA, for which the authors use the PC acronym).

Then, after 60 pages, come their results, which make the rest of the book, 300, p, that is most of it. It is way too much to review in detail, I will make general comments.

Globally, when dealing with the main racial groups, their findings are corroborations of what was already known or supplementary information. The PCA gives a mapping corresponding to the main racial groups (Africans, Australoids, Mongoloids, Euripids.) .After 200 000 years of existence (at about -200 000), our African ancestors start to move northwards and evolve into the common ancestor of the non-African races. 100 000 years later, at -110 000, occurs the split between the Australoids and the Eurasian. And then at -80 000 the split between Mongoloids and Euripids, Europeans appearing very lately, at -20 000.

In the remaining 200 pages, the authors deal with each local populations, proceeding continent by continent, and comparing the local races together. Interestingly, they add a lot of environmental and cultural information. But here they miss the most relevant, namely the history and anthropology that is relevant to the given population, which makes them miss important considerations and analysis. For example they seem to believe that the Basque are an ancient Indigenous population, failing to know the well established facts that they arrived very late (in the 8th century) and are believed to have come from the Caucasus. It would have been interesting to compare the Basques with the populations of the Caucasus, instead of comparing them with the native Western Europeans. Or they fail to know that the native populations of North-Africa (Berbers, Kabyls, etc.) were very blond and tall Nordic people, as is attested by the Egyptian, Greek and Roman antic sources, as well as by their Arabs conquerors. And when the Spanish conquered the Canari Island, the Berbers (Ganches) they found there were also Nordics. The genetic change of the North-African population occurred after the Arabs imported many African (Negroids) slaves, as they did in many other places, like Egypt, Palestine, etc. This the authors ignore, speaking only of the Arab genetic influence (which was probably insignificant.) It would have then relevant to compare the North-Africans with the Nordics and with the Negroids, and see how close they are to each, and the same for those Berbers populations in the mountain who did not so much racially mix and often have light hair of eyes. To their credit, the authors find out with their genetic analysis that the North-Africans have Caucasoid ancestors.

In conclusion, this book is a mine of interesting data analysis. It would have been though quite better if the authors had teamed up with historians competent in the field of racial history, or with true anthropologists (anthropology having becoming ethnology.) Let's hope that the next similar book, which will exploit the data of the human genome, will be able to improve this. Anyway, human diversity, as long as intermixing does not destroy it, is a thrilling subject that illuminates history, as this book shows.