Bad Science: Harper's article, "Mighty White of You"

infoterror said:
You'll note that most dolphins don't breed with whales, or there wouldn't be dolphins
Click to expand...
i think the concept of dolphins mating with whales might have been some sort of misinterpritation of the well documented instances of dolphins mating with porpises which is really just the aquatic version of a horse mating with a zebra
 
LORD_RED_DRAGON said:
i think the concept of dolphins mating with whales might have been some sort of misinterpritation of the well documented instances of dolphins mating with porpises which is really just the aquatic version of a horse mating with a zebra
Click to expand...

exactly. or to quote a frequent poster, USE COMMON SENSE.
 
the alumnus said:
exactly. or to quote a frequent poster, USE COMMON SENSE.
Click to expand...

According to you it seems that in the begining (like Genesis) there would be many different species (God put them there) which just arrived "bang" and are busily merging into very few species by interbreeding, and this is evolution.:loco:
 
LORD_RED_DRAGON said:
i think the concept of dolphins mating with whales might have been some sort of misinterpritation of the well documented instances of dolphins mating with porpises which is really just the aquatic version of a horse mating with a zebra
Click to expand...

And then there's what happened in Enumclaw...

Note that Scott W. has ceased to reply.
 
Volcano14 said:
there's this one at least :

Racial groupings match genetic profiles, Stanford study finds

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/sumc-rgm012705.php


besides the differences the physical anthropologists have discovered are real. You may believe they're irrelevant because they haven't been genetically located yet but they're very useful on crimes scenes or historical sites where there are skeletons.

and speaking of crime DNA Genomics Print is a company that the police is increasingly using to identify suspects. Their genetic test identifies ancestry and in the case below they even identified the suspect's nordic aspect

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1568/


so when someone looks at the right set of genes/markers the lineage - race/ethnic group - of a person can be identified.



isn't that the Lewontin fallacy, the "there is more genetic variation between individuals than between groups" ? It is usually followed by a claim that for example it is possible for an african to be more genetically similar to a european than the latter to another european. I've never read or heard anyone quantify this possibility. What are the chances, 1 in 10 or 1 in 1000000000000000 ?



But again if it can so much why is it never quantified ? Have you read AWF Edwards's paper on what he calls the Lewontin fallacy, which is the base on which Lehrman's assertion quoted above is built ?

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001525.html



those can be subjective and flawed too. Richard Lewontin and DNA Genomics Print both work with genes/DNA yet their conclusions on the existence of races are different. The marxist zoologist says the categories are meaningless because it leads to racial discrimination, the other uses genetic tests that discriminate between human groups to help the police solve crimes.



OK populations then. Cavalli-Sforza may be publicly politically correct because he insists that races don't exist but his research show that it is possible to distinguish groups of humans from other humans on a genetic basis.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/may_24.htm



Racial lineages can be visibly, physically and genetically distinguished.

One example of racial difference in ear wax and nitroglycerin tolerance :

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/those_pesky_race_based_genes_again/


There's even a heart pill for blacks only, BiDil.

What do race-based or population-based genetic differences mean if humans aren't supposed to be classifiable in biologico-geographical sub-groups ? The differences exist but the groups to which they are linked to don't ?
Click to expand...
I dont disagree with alot of what you are saying, but the problem is using the term subspecies (race). Alot of what happens in forensics and medicine, is the use of "ethnicity" and "shared ancestry". Its really not race. Just because a bunch of people can pick their "race" on a box, doesnt mean that race is valid, all it means is that people can look in the mirror and tell whether their ancestors came from Africa or Europe or Asia. Same goes with forensics. As I have already stated (ive lost track of how many times), geneticists can link you to a region in the area you are from. If the logic follows that a geneticist can detect your "race" because he can determine you are black, then logically it follows that if geneticists can determine that same black guy came from Kenya and NOT south africa, that has to be a race too. Its a logical fallacy. Being able to pinpoint ancestry doesnt mean race. Im all for using geographic polymorphism to help medicine and to catch bad guys. Its just unfortunate that people keep using race when it isnt valid.

Also on the topic of lewontin, its not really a fallacy, its more about confusion about what he said. It IS possible for someone who is black to be more related to a white guy than another black guy. However, what lewontin initially said, is that given the 100% of differences between individual one, and individual two, 85% is within one's "race" and 15% with the rest of the species. Thats a large sum, and not a logical fallacy. If races do exist, everyone who is "negroid" should be really closely related (assuming phylogenetics, which we do), and strongly unrelated to someone of another race. This however, isnt found in genetics. Its really quite a mess of differences throughout populations. Shades of grey, as one would expect of a species that has migrated the way humans have.
 
Volcano14 said:
Rushton clearly states that his hypothesis (racial trichotomy) fits with the out of Africa hypothesis.

Are you saying the physical anthropologists and racialists typically believe in The Multiregional hypothesis ?



the not enough time argument isn't valid if the observable and detectable differences are indeed real. It would simply mean the human groups of 60,000 years ago that moved out of african moved away from there rapidly and evolved in relative isolation.



how about both ?



same race too ?



and it would be a good thing because the question of whether races exist or not will be put to rest, right ? As in "Well race doesn't matter anyway because in 100 years we'll all be a grey-beige race, I mean species". That's a bit like those saying the globalization of markets will destroy national borders anyway so having a debate on the issue is irrelevant





there wouldn't as much ethnic/racial diversity as there is right now if that had been the case.

And what do you make of Bruce Lahn's discovery ? Why are the genes he discovered rare in sub-saharan africans if these humans have not been reproductively isolated ?

Researchers Say Human Brain Is Still Evolving
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/s...&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
Click to expand...
1. Im not saying all anthropologists support the multiregional hypothesis, its just higher in that discipline than anywhere else. A few anthropologists support out of africa.

2. But the time argument is valid in considering how long it takes a species to subspeciate and then speciate entirely. The differences we see are certainly real, they just dont amount to anything quantitatively.

3. A species CAN adapt to its local environment AND subspeciate, assuming the populations are reproductively isolated. In this case, that wasnt happening as breeding was always occuring on the edges of populations.

4. In gopher snakes there are no races. And when one assumes the same biases humans have for physical characteristics, gopher snakes vary more than humans do, yet they are a single species, and the wide variety seen in the US alone isnt do to subspecies, they are just one species.

5. I brought that up, not to claim the argument isnt worth debating (obviously since I have been posting in this thread so much), but rather to point out to all the pro-race crowd that even if they are correct (which the genetics dont agree with) race WILL eventually disappear. Just something to contemplate.

6. Your question makes sense at first, but the problem again has to do with focusing on one thing and missing the big picture. The differences found between populations are how we track the migration out of africa. The fact that most sub saharan africans dont have this, but pretty much everyone else does, is a strong support for the out of africa hypothesis. At some point during the migration out of africa, a mutation occurred that was carried throughout the world, but is rarely found in sub-saharan africa. If interbreeding occurred on the edges of civilisations then we would expect this gene to be common after a certain point (when the mutation occurred), and rare in the areas prior to the mutation. However, if interbreeding didnt occur, then the allele would NEVER occur in the previous populations. All that article says, is that it is rare in MOST sub saharan africans. That means that in a few it is NOT RARE, and that in others it occurs, but not often. This is support for interbreeding. You wouldnt expect to see a complete heterogeneity of the human species, you would expect mutations (genetic markers) to be common in populations founded after the mutation event, and rare (but not entirely missing) from the areas previous of the mutation. As the humans migrated out of africa, some people moved on while others stayed and took up residence. This happened all along the migration route as the africans split and went into asia and europe. All the while, breeding was occuring within and among the populations. Sure the africans werent breeding with the asians, but the africans were breeding with the tribes that settled right outside africa, and that tribe was breeding with the tribe that settled a little further down the way, and so on.

Its a range of breeding, and not isolation due to something like, just as an example: primitive modern humans are living on africa. An enormous vicariance event, perhaps caused by an asteroid, split africa in two. The western piece became an island and was so far away from land that the humans could not make it to the other piece without dying along the way. That population on the island africa, COULD POSSIBLY have been isolated long enough for genetic differences to build up making them so closely related (and so unrelated to everyone else) to warrant making them a subspecies and race. This would take many thousands of years. But this is what we are talking about in biology to cause something to subspeciate. The reason this is more common in other animals, is because they get isolated much easier than modern humans. Put a small river in the middle of a forest, and you have just isolated two populations of lizards that cant swim. I dont know if Im making any sense here...

I have to admit Im getting rather bored with this conversation. Its the same thing over and over.
 
The trouble is Scott that when we who are white and want our people to stay that way look at non white cultures we are glad that we are not like them. We know that they cannot be changed to be like us, and we have no desire to impose our values on them anyway, because that would be unfair.
We are very worried and sadened by the way that these, often savage and unintelligent, cultures are being imported into our lands and we know that as whites racially mix with these other cultures, we deteriorate from our high standards of the past and certainly lose hope of improving in the future. We cling to our race with loyalty because we want to be our own people and not rootless slaves who have no feeling of belonging.
The picture that you paint of all races mixing (although the last to do this would be a certain people who resist it the longest and who will take advantage of their cohesiveness and identity to exploit the rest) is tragic. Each race has a physical perfection and beauty to it. No race is superior, only different. Mixing up these (phenotypical only, according to you) differences would result in perpetual warfare (race mixing and balkanisation always leads this way) no human rights, a total hell on Earth.
We who value racial seperation question the motives of those who wish to deny race. Who benefits from denying the benefits of racial seperation? Who's side are you on?
A stupid creature does not know who its enemy is, but the stupidest creature of all is the one who even helps its enemy to achieve their aims.

A society is either based on kinship or else (where this is not possible due to mixing) it is based on money.
When kinship breaks down people only do things to help eachother for financial reward. There is no love and no trust. There is brutality and shallowness. It causes people to be only interested in what is good for themselves and to see others as their competitors. Crime rises and people don't feel secure any more.
This has happened many times in different places in the world, without any recovery.
 
Norsemaiden said:
According to you it seems that in the begining (like Genesis) there would be many different species (God put them there) which just arrived "bang" and are busily merging into very few species by interbreeding, and this is evolution.:loco:
Click to expand...

strawman argument, you lose.
 
Norsemaiden said:
The trouble is Scott that when we who are white and want our people to stay that way look at non white cultures we are glad that we are not like them. We know that they cannot be changed to be like us, and we have no desire to impose our values on them anyway, because that would be unfair.
We are very worried and sadened by the way that these, often savage and unintelligent, cultures are being imported into our lands and we know that as whites racially mix with these other cultures, we deteriorate from our high standards of the past and certainly lose hope of improving in the future. We cling to our race with loyalty because we want to be our own people and not rootless slaves who have no feeling of belonging.
The picture that you paint of all races mixing (although the last to do this would be a certain people who resist it the longest and who will take advantage of their cohesiveness and identity to exploit the rest) is tragic. Each race has a physical perfection and beauty to it. No race is superior, only different. Mixing up these (phenotypical only, according to you) differences would result in perpetual warfare (race mixing and balkanisation always leads this way) no human rights, a total hell on Earth.
We who value racial seperation question the motives of those who wish to deny race. Who benefits from denying the benefits of racial seperation? Who's side are you on?
A stupid creature does not know who its enemy is, but the stupidest creature of all is the one who even helps its enemy to achieve their aims.

A society is either based on kinship or else (where this is not possible due to mixing) it is based on money.
When kinship breaks down people only do things to help eachother for financial reward. There is no love and no trust. There is brutality and shallowness. It causes people to be only interested in what is good for themselves and to see others as their competitors. Crime rises and people don't feel secure any more.
This has happened many times in different places in the world, without any recovery.
Click to expand...
You claim no race is superior, but state that black culture is savage and unintelligent? Id say it sounds to me like you think one is superior over another. However, to address your point, if a group of people takes pride in their sociological race, thats cool. If you want it to be biological, why not take pride at a smaller geographic level, such as country, or region? An example would be the people who love and respect the south and display confederate flags. I know they arent all bigots and racists, they just have pride in their area (though I may not agree with that pride). They can protect their culture and geographic anscestry by not breeding with other races. They have the choice to not breed with any black people. Though admittedly it would be basically impossible to not have any african based genes in a gene pool these days, but you were speaking on the larger level of culture, I think. Basically, im saying to focus on the small scale. Take care of what you can control. Dont worry too much about what you can not control.

You asked what side I am on. I am on the side of science in this case. This whole thing started because I was stating the position of the Life sciences community. I will admit that I dont agree with your postulations that racial mixing has only negative consequences. I think arguing motivations is going to be a stagnant conversation. Conservatives will claim liberals have an agenda to remove race and make everyone live in peace and perfection. Liberals could counter saying that conservatives want to keep race because the white race is usually favored in such things. It doesnt really get anywhere. All I will say is, if you want something to cling to, why not cling to a geographic area, rather than focusing on something that most likely doesnt exist (biologically speaking). Your post does help me to understand why some people take it so seriously though.
 
I accept your point of view Scott and that it is a case of agreeing to differ on this matter. The reason I don't say blacks are inferior despite their savagery and other controversial aspects of their character, is that to do so is to impose white values on a race that has never had any history of admiring the things we admire. An valid view is that blacks have many qualities that whites lack. Chief among these is a stronger instinct for survival: reproduction and better overall health, when disease caught in the environment is discounted. If whites are extinct through lack of life drive, and blacks are living in primitive harmony with their environment (if they can get back to that after our interference) it is clear the ones who are still alive have the greatest claim to superiority.
 
Norsemaiden said:
I accept your point of view Scott and that it is a case of agreeing to differ on this matter. The reason I don't say blacks are inferiour despite their savagery and other controversial aspects of their character, is that to do so is to impose white values on a race that has never had any history of admiring the things we admire. An valid view is that blacks have many qualities that whites lack. Cheif among these is a stronger instinct for survival: reproduction and better overall health, when disease caught in the environment is discounted. If whites are extinct through lack of life drive, and blacks are living in primitive harmony with their environment (if they can get back to that after our interference) it is clear the ones who are still alive have the greatest claim to superiority.
Click to expand...
i was gonna say pretty much the same thing but you just articulated it better
 
the alumnus said:
strawman argument, you lose.
Click to expand...

But I was asking you a question, not making an argument, so where is your answer? Did I sum up your position correctly? Are you a Jehovah's Witness or something like that? Strawmen don't come into it!
 
Strawman argument. Where you set up a false argument on the basis of an opponents actual argument and knock it down, its a logical fallacy as the actual real oppositional argument is never addressed.
 
Norsemaiden said:
I accept your point of view Scott and that it is a case of agreeing to differ on this matter. The reason I don't say blacks are inferior despite their savagery and other controversial aspects of their character, is that to do so is to impose white values on a race that has never had any history of admiring the things we admire. An valid view is that blacks have many qualities that whites lack. Chief among these is a stronger instinct for survival: reproduction and better overall health, when disease caught in the environment is discounted. If whites are extinct through lack of life drive, and blacks are living in primitive harmony with their environment (if they can get back to that after our interference) it is clear the ones who are still alive have the greatest claim to superiority.
Click to expand...
It just seems to me that the word "savage" has only negative connotations. In addition, intelligence is a relative term. I would argue that africans arent any less intelligent than europeans, for the same reason you state. Intelligence can be a great many things, its not just how well you can do complex algebra and read moby dick. So for me, to claim they are unintelligent is to make another negative connotation. However it appears you arent looking at it the same way that I am, so I see where you are coming from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back