Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Typos mine.
1 posted on 06/04/2002 5:24:32 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last
To: *crevo_list
2 posted on 06/04/2002 5:25:59 PM PDT by JediGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis
bttt for future reading.
3 posted on 06/04/2002 5:29:26 PM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis
Thanks for the article. I was especially interested to read how theories of race arrived rather suddenly in the 19th century. Good example of how science itself is determined by history and culture.

I was brought up in the "post-racist" world, and all my education, and those whom I looked up to, taught that there is no real difference based on color. I know this sounds frightful, but over the years I have come to feel that there are real differences between the races. I have based this on experience, and travel, and learning to recongise and respect difference. It is hard to say if these differences are the result of culture or race.

One consequence of modern reproductive technologies is that we will be able to determine if genetic material, on its own, can determine individual characteristics. Up until now, the only studies done on "acquired vs inherited" characteristics, have been done on identical twins seperated a birth (limited and unreliable studies.)

7 posted on 06/04/2002 5:37:36 PM PDT by BlackVeil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis
To summarize: Bla bla bla Lysenkoism bla bla bla nonsense data bla bla bla egalitarianism bla bla bla equality bla bla bla submission bla bla bla give more bla bla bla surrender it's hopeless bla bla bla just give more money bla bla bla and then die already.

BTW - did you know that chimps and humans differ in their DNA by only 1.5%? We're about 98.5% identical! So, I guess we're really just the same as chimps! And we're really just the same as the gorillas and the spider monkeys as well. Heck, we're probably only about %5 different from a shark! We should make sharks citizens! Oh, wait, we already have lawyers, that's right.

What a seriously rank load of hogwash. I'm no genetic scientist but I can look at Africa and see just what happens when the Europeans who built cities on that continent leave those cities behind to the natives. Hmmm, some peoples build cities, some peoples tear them down. No, no difference between them at all. Then I look here at formerly great cities like Detroit, populated with people who have been American citizens for generations. Hmmm. What do these examples have in common?

This is a very serious case of the Emperor having no clothes whatsoever.

8 posted on 06/04/2002 5:42:31 PM PDT by Billy_bob_bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis
Scientists now know that this was a false proposition, both at the level of the physical features and of the genes that produce them.

Scientists don't "know" any such thing! This is merely wishful thinking - something that the Hudson Institute specializes in.

First, any student anatomist can identify a person's race by a variety of physical features. Forensic pathologists can often identify a person's race by a single tooth or a few bones.

Second, when it comes to genes, it is much more honest to say that based on the current state of knowledge scientists cannot identify a person's race by analyzing his genes. To point out that there is very little genetic diversity between humans of all races does not mean there aren't meaningful differences between the races. Sometimes, a single genetic defect can make a HUGE difference in a person's wellbeing. Or, look at it this way: Chimps and humans share over 98% of their genetic makeup. Clearly, that 2% makes a LOT of difference.

What bothers me most about this pseudo-scientific hokum that tries to say there are no differences between the races is that it begs the question: Why the disparity in behavior and outcomes? If we are all the same, then why do blacks - 13% of the population - make up only 2% of corporate executives and commit 50% of the crime? Why has black student achievement lagged that of whites at the same rate for nearly 30 years - ever since the government has measured it - despite $billions of government money? If we are all the same - THEN WHITE PEOPLE MUST BE RACIST OPPRESSORS WHO WILL NOT/CANNOT CHANGE. If you were black and believed that the only reason you were not doing as well as whites was because they have been keeping you down for hundreds of years and show no sign of every stopping, how long would YOU put up with this situation?

13 posted on 06/04/2002 5:49:46 PM PDT by Arleigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis
Given that the entirety of his discussion is concerned with genetic differences and that very, very few individuals have had their genome mapped, his writings are nothing but speculation, uninformed opinion, and complete bullsh!t. Furthermore, minor genetic differences are easily shown between all major racial groups and especially between certain isolated southern africans and all other groups including most other africans and all caucasian, oriental, and australian subgroups. How can he be ignorant of past studies in his own field?

What a utterly hopeless mess of a book - ten years from now he will have to write a complete retraction.

20 posted on 06/04/2002 6:04:03 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Race Bannon
You'd better get here quick and prove you exist.

21 posted on 06/04/2002 6:05:52 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis
I personally believe their are mostly culteral differances, which are affected by enviormental conditions and historical affects. However, there is evidence of certain biological differances. Indians prefer spicier food, African-americans prefer fruitier drinks (magic johnsons company actually did the research that proved that one), etc. Then there is prone to types of disease, athletism. African americans are in general more athletic there any other type of black group in the world, orinetals generally are not size wise comparabel to europeans, etc. There are differences, we should do research into the whys.
23 posted on 06/04/2002 6:07:54 PM PDT by Sonny M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis
Good God what a confused article.

Ok - first of all he presents some analysis of statistics that show that the DNA diversity between human races is less than that what biologists use to define races or subspecies. Fine, by that definition, humanity is one race. By that definition, fine -- so what?

From this he determines that the assumption that there is significant biological variation amongst groups of humans is false, and that racial categories are socially constructed. Baloney. One example that comes to mind is the difference between East and West African runners. One strong in the sprints, the other in long distances. Or I look at the big men in the NBA - a higher percentage of blacks than in the general population, even though I am one of thousands of white men who would have given our eye tooth to be there, but I'm too short and suffer from white man's disease: white men can't jump.

He goes on to deduce that it's just recent history and racial myth. And he equates thinking to the contrary with racial supremists, such as those who might think that Europeans stand at the pinnacle of perfection, using such thinking to make it legitimate to declare the African slave as chattel. Well, since no person would admit in this day and age to such racist thinking, the contrary position must be right -- that there are no statistically significant biological differences as a group. Baloney. There are clearly such differences, just not large enough to pass the threshold for a separate subspecies.

One way I like to put the point is thus. Say I task you with forming a winning basketball team, and I say you have a choice of two players, one black and one white. I refuse to tell you anything else about these two. In such a case, your best bet would be to pick the black player. Now it might turn out that the black player was Colin Powell, and the white player was Larry Bird. In which case you made the wrong choice, for lack of sufficient information. But given what information you had, you did the right thing.

From all these false arguments, he goes on to determine that racism can be easily deconstructed -- it's just a social disease. But he has changed the topic here entirely.

Racism is unfairly prejudging someone on basis of their race. Any competent basketball team wouldn't ask who's black and pick them, sight unseen. They would find out how well they had played, and how well they could play now. And Larry Bird would beat Colin Powell for such a position everytime, as easily as Tiger Woods would beat me at golf, or I would beat Tiger at computer programming.

However he is not taking racism as this, but rather taking it as any making of statistically significant differences between the human races, which he is saying is just a social confusion which we can easily deconstruct.

I'm not sure where he is going with these confusions, but they can't possibly serve us well.

32 posted on 06/04/2002 6:17:29 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

That race cannot be biologically defined is objective fact.

Animosity demonstrated here against this simple observation is very irrational.

What's y'all's problem?

36 posted on 06/04/2002 6:20:46 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis
Darwin outlined the basic reasoning that still stands today concerning the races of mankind. Darwin pointed out that if we used the techniques that naturalists used to identify race in nonhuman species, we would conclude that there really were no races in anatomically modern humans. Over one hundred and forty years of research have demonstrated that Darwin’s reasoning was correct.

OK. So a rose is a rose by any other name. Darwin, what a genius.

As I have stated before: if you take, “A Pygmy and an Eskimo”, and add, “walk into a bar” – you got the beginnings of a pretty good joke.
The punch line is Evolution…

38 posted on 06/04/2002 6:24:43 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis; All
We Dodged Extinction
‘Pruned’ Family Tree Leaves Little Genetic Variety

Just one group of chimpanzees can have more genetic diversity than all 6 billion humans on the planet. (Corel)

Special to
A worldwide research program has come up with astonishing evidence that humans have come so close to extinction in the past that it’s surprising we’re here at all.
    Pascal Gagneux, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California at San Diego, and other members of a research team studied genetic variability among humans and our closest living relatives, the great apes of Africa.
     Humanoids are believed to have split off from chimpanzees about 5 million to 6 million years ago. With the passage of all that time, humans should have grown at least as genetically diverse as our “cousins.” That turns out to be not true.
     “We actually found that one single group of 55 chimpanzees in west Africa has twice the genetic variability of all humans,” Gagneux says. “In other words, chimps who live in the same little group on the Ivory Coast are genetically more different from each other than you are from any human anywhere on the planet.”

Primate Tree
The branch lengths illustrate the number of genetic differences, not only between species, but among species as well. The pruned bush for humans shows how little genetic diversity exists. (Marco Doelling/

The Family Bush
“The family tree shows that the human branch has been pruned,” Gagneux says. “Our ancestors lost much of their original variability.”
     “That makes perfectly good sense,” says Bernard Wood, the Henry R. Luce Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University and an expert on human evolution.
     “The amount of genetic variation that has accumulated in humans is just nowhere near compatible with the age” of the species, Wood says. “That means you’ve got to come up with a hypothesis for an event that wiped out the vast majority of that variation.”
     The most plausible explanation, he adds, is that at least once in our past, something caused the human population to drop drastically. When or how often that may have happened is anybody’s guess. Possible culprits include disease, environmental disaster and conflict.

Almost Extinct
“The evidence would suggest that we came within a cigarette paper’s thickness of becoming extinct,” Wood says.
     Gagneux, who has spent the last 10 years studying chimpanzees in Africa, says the implications are profound.
     “If you have a big bag full of marbles of different colors, and you lose most of them, then you will probably end up with a small bag that won’t have all the colors that you had in the big bag,” he says.
     Similarly, if the size of the human population was severely reduced some time in the past, or several times, the “colors” that make up our genetic variability will also be reduced.
     If that is indeed what happened, then we should be more like each other, genetically speaking, than the chimps and gorillas of Africa. And that’s just what the research shows.
     “We all have this view in our minds that we [humans] started precariously as sort of an ape-like creature” and our numbers grew continuously, adds Wood. “We’re so used to the population increasing inexorably over the past few hundred years that we think it has always been like that.”
     But if it had, Gagneux notes, our genetic variability should be at least as great as that of apes.

A Stormy Past
Gagneux is the lead author of a report that appeared in the April 27 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study, carried out with researchers in Germany, Switzerland and the United States, is the first to examine large numbers of all four ape species in Africa.
     “We can do that now because new technology allows us to non-invasively take some hair, or even some fruit that these apes chew, and then we get their DNA from a couple of cells that stick to a hair or a piece of fruit they chewed.”
     Then they compared the DNA variability of apes and chimps to that of 1,070 DNA sequences collected by other researchers from humans around the world. They also added the DNA from a bone of a Neanderthal in a German museum. The results, the researchers say, are very convincing.
     “We show that these taxa [or species] have very different amounts and patterns of genetic variation, with humans being the least variable,” they state.
     Yet humans have prevailed, even though low genetic variability leaves us more susceptible to disease.
     “Humans, with what little variation they have, seem to maximize their genetic diversity,” Gagneux says.
     “It’s ironic,” he notes, that after all these years the biggest threat to chimpanzees is human intrusion into their habitats. When he returned to Africa to study a group of chimps he had researched earlier, Gagneux found them gone.
     “They were dead,” he says, “and I mean the whole population had disappeared in five years.”
     Yet as our closest living relatives, chimps still have much to teach us about ourselves.

Lee Dye’s column appears Wednesdays on A former science writer for the Los Angeles Times, he now lives in Juneau, Alaska.

55 posted on 06/04/2002 6:42:13 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis
Bump for great freeping.
90 posted on 06/04/2002 7:33:56 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis

The author, Joseph L. Graves, Jr.

Yup.....I can't tell what "race" he is. I reckon he's right then.

93 posted on 06/04/2002 7:37:18 PM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis
What a pantload of PC at it's worst. In his next book he will prove that there is no difference between men and women and that our personal observations on that subject are completely in error as well.



102 posted on 06/04/2002 7:43:11 PM PDT by NMC EXP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis
If humans had biological races, there should be some non-trivial underlying hereditary features shared by a group of people and not present in other groups, or possibly average differences that could be made sense of in some statistical way.

And what can these hereditary features be? The article looks only at genetic differences and completely ignores the profound differences found in expression patterns. It is those changes in expression patterns which account for the augmented variation between humans and chimps in such areas as physical, behavioral, and cognitive expression.

Furthermore, considering that we don't even know what genetic sequences in the human genome are meaningful and how (for instance, there is a 2-3 fold spread in opinion about how many genes are contained in the human genome), it is far too early to make a determination about the extent of the biological basis of racial differences. Yet, differences, even in genetic markers follow racial differences closely enough that ethnic identity markers can usefully group people into racial categories. This becomes important not only for disease markers, but also for targeting of pharmaceutical treatments.

(Nevertheless, under the law, we're all equal.)

123 posted on 06/04/2002 8:04:02 PM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis

Traditional classification of species would not say that there are diferenet species of mankind; ala races.

Yet all IQ tests over the last 100 years indicate that average IQ DOES show statistically diferences between groups according to self identified race.

The low to high average is 17%. This means that on the average, certain self identified races score 17% higher on intellegence tests than other self identified races.

Traditional classification of species seeks to find identifiers that distinguish between species. Here it is.

The IQ differential is more than 100 years old, and continues to today. SAT scores, ACT scores, are reliable IQ indicators to get you into Mensa. Yet the racial gap remains. Read "the bell curve."

Oh yeah, I am not in the highest racialy scoring group. That would be Asians.

132 posted on 06/04/2002 8:15:09 PM PDT by MonroeDNA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis
At least I'm not the only one who feels this way.
155 posted on 06/04/2002 8:37:23 PM PDT by In veno, veritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cornelis
There is no "biological case" against race. Dobermans, Golden Retrievers, and poodles are all the same species and undoubtably interbreed far more often than European-Americans, blacks, and Asians do - but anyone who's been around dogs much knows that all three breeds (races) of dogs are markedly different both physically and mentally.

Or has anyone forgotten the O.J. trial - at which his black-led legal defense team argued that DNA comparisons had to be made to the same racial group?

Or what about racially-linked genetic diseases - such as sickle-cell anemia?

It is time to tell the truth!

160 posted on 06/04/2002 8:41:49 PM PDT by
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3; Khepera; elwoodp; maknight; South40; condolinda; mafree; trueblackman; FRlurker...
Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Don't know how I missed this one!

184 posted on 06/04/2002 9:03:35 PM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson