The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling

[The Poona of Peshwa]

Nice job reducing European society to "we like cattle ."

There are thousands of catalysts for cognitive evolution, and the main ones are certainly not the means of getting food.

Hunter-gatherer society most definitely has much less advanced cognitive competition; the competition is much more geared towards physical attributes: speed, strength, endurance, et cetera; and also physically-geared cognitive attributes: reflexes, pain tolerance, coordination, et cetera. This is all really quite self evident. Hunting & gathering requires great physical aptitude, and not too much advanced thinking.

Whereas agricultural society takes the focus away from the importance of being able to acquire enough food: farming leaves society with much added free time. This free time was filled with thinking: advanced cognitive pursuits. These activities became much more meaningful, much more central, to society, and the simple ability to acquire food and the attributes associated with thus became inconsequential. Philosophers, scientists, writers, artists, et cetera became the highest class, those most likely to survive, and hence intellect became the most naturally selected trait.

So no, you are very, very wrong. African society has spent much more time in hunter-gatherer society, therefore advanced cognition is at a much lower level. Whilst European society has spent much more time in agricultural society, therefore advanced cognition is a much higher level.

As for the increased variation between individuals than between groups, that is entirely irrelevant. It is fucking obvious that the genetic differences between the degenerates and greats of any single race are going to be larger than the difference between races, but that doesn't mean anything, extremely fucking obviously.

Sir, do you honestly believe that between the dawn of agriculture and the modern period people had free time to think about philosophy and science? The literacy rate in Europe before the advent of the printing press was limited to monks who would hardly have been passing on a signficant amount of genetic material. The vast masses of humanity lived short, brutish, nasty lives until after the industrial revolution. Thinking was not a popular passtime in medieval Europe, far less than in the Muslim world.

Intelligence just plain would not have been selected for ahead of disease resistance on a continent riddled with plague and smallpox for the better part of a millennium. A dolt with generations of exposure to the animals that carried the disease would have a better chance of survival than a genius who did not.

As far as the diversity of genomes is concerned, what I meant to imply was the tawdriness of emphasizing ethnic genetic disparity. If you annihilated all races on earth except for one, you would still preserve nearly all human genetic diversity. The most recent common male ancestor of all living humans probably lived as few as 60,000 "fucking" years ago, after all.

 

[Έρεβος]

Sir, do you honestly believe that between the dawn of agriculture and the modern period people had free time to think about philosophy and science? The literacy rate in Europe before the advent of the printing press was limited to monks who would hardly have been passing on a signficant amount of genetic material. The vast masses of humanity lived short, brutish, nasty lives until after the industrial revolution. Thinking was not a popular passtime in medieval Europe, far less than in the Muslim world.

Make chronological sense and I'll respond fully. And at no point was I talking about Christian Europe - that decadent era was a rather modern spawn. There is a hell of a lot of time you're not covering: there were many periods in the history of Europe where the majority certainly did not lead brutish, nasty lives. The lifespan and quality of life in ancient Greece was about the same, or arguably greater than, ours, without the need for sustaining catatonic-state-of-survival machines to bring the average up.

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

First things first, I'm not sure what is decadent about bathing once a year. . . Anyways, I used the medieval period as an example because a time of mass death would have far higher selection pressure than one of prosperity. Civilization has a tendency to drastically reduce selection pressure. The greatest periods of evolutionary change follow cataclysms. On the level of geological time, species which are successful are remarkably static. Brief periods of prosperity on the scale of human lifetimes have little to no effect on the grand scale. With a social support network and agricultural surplus the infirm have a greater chance of survival.

The ancient greeks flat out did not have a standard of life even remotely approaching ours, I don't know where you would even come up with such a wild claim. Infant mortality rates alone put a vast chasm between us and them. Women, worn down by childbearing, would be lucky to see 50. There were many remarkable men alive at that time, but let's be serious, they didn't even know germs existed! The majority have ALWAYS led short, nasty lives. The slave population of ancient Athens exceeded the citizenry!

I can't decide which is more tenuous, your grasp on history, or your understanding of evolutionary theory. . .

 

[Norsemaiden]

Clearing up some misconceptions expressed in previous posts:

Other models reported in Rohde, Olson, and Chang (2004)[3] suggest that the MRCA of Western Europeans lived as recently as AD 1000.

It is incorrect to assume that the MRCA passed all (or indeed any) of his or her genes down to every person alive today. Because of sexual reproduction, at every generation, an ancestor only passes half of his or her genes to the next generation. The percentage of genes inherited from the MRCA becomes smaller and smaller at every successive generation, as genes inherited from contemporaries of MRCA are interchanged via sexual reproduction.

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

The "common male ancestor" from 60,000 years ago lived long after the human migration from Africa. So how could he be a common ancestor to Africans who have never left the continent?
I suppose any man who impregnates enough women who's offspring reproduce with others who go to Africa and various other places in the world can happen to become a common ancestor to all these people. If my father, a European, has a child with an African woman and that child then has progeny with other Africans, then those Black kids have a common male ancestor with any Nordic children that I have. But you can see how that does not imply any African blood came from that common ancestor. However, all of humanity originated in Africa - so once the ancestors of European were a kind of African (very evolved away from those that live there now).
Come to mention it, once we were all apes and once we were rodents and once we were all fish, etc.

Africans are mostly Bantu, who are agriculturalists. They became agriculturalists in the middle of the last century BC.
http://www.anthro.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/resources/clarifications/BantuExpansion.html

The Bantu are a genocidally aggressive people (who have a lot of genetic diversity within them). They spread over Africa killing off other tribes

Hunter-gatherers had much more leisure time than agriculturalists ever did, or most people who work in modern industrial society. They generally only spent a few hours a day looking for food.

While the Vikings had farming, much of Scandinavian land was unsuitable for crops, while game and fish were in abundant supply - so they were not as agriculturally dependent as the Bantu of Africa from that perspective.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Maybe my mind isn't on top form at this moment, but I wonder how it can be that humanity's common male ancestor could have been born 60,000 years ago, long after leaving Africa, and yet the guy's mother is NOT the common female ancestor, who in fact lived thousands of years earlier....

 

[Norsemaiden]

The measurable inequalities lie between everyone, not merely between specific racial groupings. Of what use is grouping in this instance?

Think about your question in the context of the many observed scientific racial differences regarding pysiological phenomena.
For example: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071029083857.htm

Ethnic Differences In Sleep Quality And Blood Pressure

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

Maybe my mind isn't on top form at this moment, but I wonder how it can be that humanity's common male ancestor could have been born 60,000 years ago, long after leaving Africa, and yet the guy's mother is NOT the common female ancestor, who in fact lived thousands of years earlier....

The two numbers, one for Y-chromosome Adam and one for Mitochondrial Eve correspond to patrilineal and matrilineal descent. That is every man has Y chromosomes derived from this Adam, and every person has mitochondria derived from Eve. Men don't pass along mitochondrial DNA, and women lack Y chromosomes.

 

[Blowtus]

Think about your question in the context of the many observed scientific racial differences regarding pysiological phenomena.
For example: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071029083857.htm

I still don't get it sorry. That data doesn't indicate any need to treat them differently. If you'd like to answer the question instead of trying to get me to answer my own, I'd like to hear it

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

The "common male ancestor" from 60,000 years ago lived long after the human migration from Africa.
...
Hunter-gatherers had much more leisure time than agriculturalists ever did, or most people who work in modern industrial society. They generally only spent a few hours a day looking for food.
While the Vikings had farming, much of Scandinavian land was unsuitable for crops, while game and fish were in abundant supply - so they were not as agriculturally dependent as the Bantu of Africa from that perspective.

I'm fairly certain that there haven't been any fossis of modern humans found outside of Africa that date back further than 50,000 years.

You seem to be saying that there is some sort of correlation between leisure time and intelligence. Setting aside the fact that this a cultural fact and not a genetic one, I wonder how you would account for Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Jews are consistently graded one standard deviation higher than those of other Europeans.

The fact is that the differences which characterize races are largely responses to sexual selection, and to climatic pressure. Both of these are readily apparent to the eye. Fact is, IQ levels were lower among eastern and southern European immigrant population in the USA, but over a few generations they've levelled off. Centuries of slavery and segregation are just now loosening their grip on the African population of North America. Scientists are not cowards afraid to speak the truth. There are simply no theories regarding selective pressure that would account for an intelligence discrepancy between Europeans and Africans.

Trying to justify ethnic homogeneity on the basis of such paltry evidence as differences in sleep patterns is nothing but petty tribalism.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I'm fairly certain that there haven't been any fossis of modern humans found outside of Africa that date back further than 50,000 years.

You seem to be saying that there is some sort of correlation between leisure time and intelligence. Setting aside the fact that this a cultural fact and not a genetic one, I wonder how you would account for Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Jews are consistently graded one standard deviation higher than those of other Europeans.

The fact is that the differences which characterize races are largely responses to sexual selection, and to climatic pressure. Both of these are readily apparent to the eye. Fact is, IQ levels were lower among eastern and southern European immigrant population in the USA, but over a few generations they've levelled off. Centuries of slavery and segregation are just now loosening their grip on the African population of North America. Scientists are not cowards afraid to speak the truth. There are simply no theories regarding selective pressure that would account for an intelligence discrepancy between Europeans and Africans.

Trying to justify ethnic homogeneity on the basis of such paltry evidence as differences in sleep patterns is nothing but petty tribalism.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/
According to this, modern humans left Africa 85,000 years ago, and "all non-African people are descended from this group".
75,000 years ago they reached Borneo and South China.
74,000 years ago there was an erruption that reduced the world's population to 10,000 adults. They would have been in a number of different groups who became so separate that this is considered to have greatly assisted future racial development and differentiation. Between 65 and 52 thousand years ago, humans reached Europe.

I don't assert that leisure time is what caused the development of intelligence at all. It has little to do with it. Mind you, if you work people to death it doesn't give them much time to think and learn. My remark was simply to point out that hunter gatherers had much free time. They are not reknowned for their intelligence. The Bantu have been agriculturalists and had much less leisure time - and they are none the wiser either. So leisure time is not the answer to how intelligence evolves. In fact, the need to use intelligence or else die is the driving force behind the evolution of this trait. Natural selection.

I do not "justify ethnic homogeneity on the basis of such paltry evidence as differences in sleep patterns". I only justify ethnic differences by giving evidence of such differences that are openly acknowledged in science and not even considered controversial.

Why does science draw these conclusions? Why are they using ethnic categorisation of behaviour or traits rather than just talking in terms of individual differences?

And why do they do the same with diseases, such as noting that glaucoma is more common amongst Blacks?

Might I suggest that the answer is that it is considered important to realise that ethnic groups are distinctive in various ways? And if intelligence, as a trait, was not one that it is taboo to put into these same ethnic categories, then we might ask: why is the IQ of our population dropping so radically? If the population is increasingly made up of people from an ethnicity known to have a lower IQ the answer is easily found, and there is no need to waste time on attempts to blame teachers or to spend millions trying to make a return to old standards. (Unless it be by changing the demographics back).

 

[Έρεβος]

Trying to justify ethnic homogeneity on the basis of such paltry evidence as differences in sleep patterns is nothing but petty tribalism.

Petty tribalism? How exactly can tribalism be "petty"?

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

pet·ty (pt)
adj. pet·ti·er, pet·ti·est
2. Marked by narrowness of mind, ideas, or views.
3. Marked by meanness or lack of generosity, especially in trifling matters.

 

[Έρεβος]

pet·ty (pt)
adj. pet·ti·er, pet·ti·est
2. Marked by narrowness of mind, ideas, or views.
3. Marked by meanness or lack of generosity, especially in trifling matters.

Right. And that has to do with the political or social philosophy of tribalism how? Because realizing organizing humans into small groups would be healthy for the environment and for humankind is lacking generosity? Or is it that having strong cultural/ethnic identity is being narrow-minded? I could call you a petty globalist, not that it would make any sense. Let's all add random negative adjectives before philosophies!

 

[zoidberg]

Right. And that has to do with the political or social philosophy of tribalism how? Because realizing organizing humans into small groups would be healthy for the environment and for humankind is lacking generosity? Or is it that having strong cultural/ethnic identity is being narrow-minded? I could call you a petty globalist, not that it would make any sense. Let's all add random negative adjectives before philosophies!

indeed

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

Right. And that has to do with the political or social philosophy of tribalism how? Because realizing organizing humans into small groups would be healthy for the environment and for humankind is lacking generosity? Or is it that having strong cultural/ethnic identity is being narrow-minded? I could call you a petty globalist, not that it would make any sense. Let's all add random negative adjectives before philosophies!

Tribalism was the perjorative there. I wasn't referring to any specific philosophy.

It's possible to have a cultural identity and not be a xenophobe. Tribalism leads to war, if that's what you want, fine.

 

[OldScratch]

Tribalism was the perjorative there. I wasn't referring to any specific philosophy.

It's possible to have a cultural identity and not be a xenophobe. Tribalism leads to war, if that's what you want, fine.

It is also possible to desire a distinct cultural AND ethno-racial identity and not be a "xenophobe" either. Xenophobe being the pejorative...

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

Well, yes but say your daughter brings home a Hindu man, threatening to sully your ethno-racial heritage with Indian blood? What then?

 

[Έρεβος]

Tribalism was the perjorative there. I wasn't referring to any specific philosophy.

It's possible to have a cultural identity and not be a xenophobe. Tribalism leads to war, if that's what you want, fine.

I realize it was used as a pejorative; it was labeled as such with the inclusion of "petty."

What system of societal organization does not lead to war, exactly? War is a historical and natural inevitability, and hardly something inherently wrong.

Tribalism doesn't have to be war-obsessed inherently. The past cultures which were tribal simply happened to be war-like. There have been more non-tribal societies obsessed with war. And modern war is much more gruesome.

Also, xenophobia is not inherent, to any degree, of tribalism.

 

[Έρεβος]

Well, yes but say your daughter brings home a Hindu man, threatening to sully your ethno-racial heritage with Indian blood? What then?

I say it is her choice. Homogeneity is not exclusive. There will always be small-scale interbreeding, which is perfectly healthy, as long as general identity is maintained (biologically: so that genetic specialization & stratification is not skewed). In any society where homogeneity is maintained nationally, immigration is highly restricted or prohibited, therefore your scenario isn't even feasible, or if it is it would occur at a low enough scale that there would be no problem (as said above).

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

Homogeneity is by definition exclusive. Wouldn't there have to be massive bloodletting and hardship of a xenophobic nature to "purify" a contemporary society to the degree that your example is relevant?