|
|
Race is real—againI have not noticed here any mention of the latest paper on race and genetics to come out in the genetics literature ( by Tang et al.) so I reproduce the abstract and discussion below. The PDF is here: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v76n2/41839/41839.web.pdf We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ ethnicity-as opposed to current residence-is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed. Introduction From an evolutionary point of view, population strati- fication (genetically distinct subgrouping) and admixture (intermating between genetically distinct groups) are cre- ated by human mating patterns. Geographical, social, and cultural barriers have given rise to reproductively isolated human populations, within which random drift has produced genetic differentiation. Numerous recent studies using a variety of genetic markers have shown that, for example, individuals sampled worldwide fall into clusters that roughly correspond to continental lines, as well as to the commonly used self-identifying racial groups: Africans, European/West Asians, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans (Bowcock et al. 1994; Calafell et al. 1998; Rosenberg et al. 2002). Discussion Attention has recently focused on genetic structure in the human population. Some have argued that the amount of genetic variation within populations dwarfs the varia- tion between populations, suggesting that discrete ge- netic categories are not useful (Lewontin 1972; Cooper et al. 2003; Haga and Venter 2003). On the other hand, several studies have shown that individuals tend to clus- ter genetically with others of the same ancestral geo- graphic origins (Mountain and Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Ste- phens et al. 2001; Bamshad et al. 2003). Prior studies have generally been performed on a relatively small num- ber of individuals and/or markers. A recent study (Ro- senberg et al. 2002) examined 377 autosomal micro- satellite markers in 1,056 individuals from a global sam- ple of 52 populations and found significant evidence of genetic clustering, largely along geographic (continental) lines. Consistent with prior studies, the major genetic clusters consisted of Europeans/West Asians (whites), sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. It is clear that the ability to define distinct genetic clusters depends on the number and type of markers used (Risch et al. 2002). Reports that docu- ment inability to define distinct clusters generally used only a modest number of markers and, hence, had little power to detect clusters (Romualdi et al. 2002). Studies with larger numbers of markers appear to show strong evidence of clustering (Stephens et al. 2001; Rosenberg et al. 2002). Another major point of discussion has been the cor- respondence between genetic clusters and commonly used racial/ethnic labels. Some have argued for poor correspondence between these two entities (Lewontin 1972; Wilson et al. 2001), whereas others have sug- gested a strong correlation (Risch et al. 2002; Burchard et al. 2003). We have shown a nearly perfect corre- spondence between genetic cluster and SIRE for major ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrep- ancy rate of only 0.14%. Perhaps this is not surprising for the major groupings (whites, East Asians, and Afri- can Americans), since prior studies would suggestenough genetic differentiation between these groups to produce robust clustering. On the other hand, one prior study of Hispanics did not suggest a distinct cluster for this group, possibly because of the heterogeneous origins of that Hispanic sample (Stephens et al. 2001). From the genetic perspective, Hispanics generally represent a dif- ferential mixture of European, Native American, and African ancestry, with the proportionate mix typically depending on country of origin. Our sample was from a single location in Texas and was composed of Mexican Americans. Although the genetic distance analysis sug- gested relative proximity to the whites in our sample, the distance was still sufficient to allow for creation of a distinct genetic cluster for this group. Again, this is likely because of the large number of markers used in our analysis. On the other hand, in the analysis of the full sample, the two East Asian groups-Chinese and Japanese-did not emerge as distinct subgroups, likely because their distance from one another was too modest to be detectable in the context of the larger sample. However, when the East Asians were analyzed sepa- rately, two clusters-corresponding to Chinese and Jap- anese-did emerge, with only a small amount of dis- cordance (6 [1%] of 567 subjects). In contrast, cluster analysis within the three other major clusters did not produce robust, replicable subgroups, indicating a lack of further subgroups within these entities, at least in the current marker set. This observation does not eliminate the potential for confounding in these populations. First, there may be subgroups within the larger population group that are too small to detect by cluster analysis. Second, there may not be discrete subgrouping but con- tinuous ancestral variation that could lead to stratifica- tion bias. For example, African Americans have a con- tinuous range of European ancestry that would not be detected by cluster analysis but could strongly confound genetic case-control studies. Furthermore, our analysis likely underrepresents individuals with recent mixed an- cestry (who would require more complex categorization) and other groups typically underrepresented, such as South Asians. Further study is required to evaluate the correlation between genetically determined groupings and SIRE for these individuals. Our observations also emphasize the importance of SIRE information: although statistical approaches using genetic marker information recapture SIRE with high accuracy, such analyses need to be guided by SIRE in- formation. The outcome of statistical cluster analyses depends on the (relative and absolute) sample size of the subgroups and on the homogeneity within groups relative to distance between groups. Without proper con- trolling of these nuisance factors, cluster analyses based on genetic markers sometimes overlook important com- ponents of population structure, while producing arti- fact clusters other times. We note that the genetic cluster results indicate that older geographic ancestry-ratherthanrecentgeographic origin-is highly correlated with racial/ethnic categoriza- tions and, thus, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the population. Although our resultssuggest that genetic stratification may exist within racial/ethnic groups-specifically, whites and African Americans sam- pled from different geographic locations in the United States-we found the differences based on current ge- ography to be quite modest. On the other hand, geo- graphic matching of Hispanic subjects is likely to be of much greater importance, given the larger genetic dif- ferentiation between Hispanic groups on the basis of current geographic origins. In this study, we could not evaluate this question directly, since Hispanics were re- cruited only from a single site. Also, these geographic analyses do not rule out other potential sources of con- founding within geographic regions for these groups (for example, those based on specific ethnic affiliations), which still may require attention. Our results also suggested little confounding when sampling cases and controls within SIRE and geographic groups for studies of hypertension. We detected little, if any, genetic differentiation at the 326 microsatellite markers between hypertensive and normotensive sub- jects in any of the ethnic groups we examined. However, this topic merits additional scrutiny-in particular, for the admixed subjects (Hispanics and African Ameri- cans)-to determine whether cases and controls have differential levels of admixture, which is likely to be the greatest source of confounding for these populations(H. Tang, personal communication). In summary, from a very large study of four major racial/ethnic groups within the United States and Taiwan, we found extraordinary correspondence between SIRE and genetic cluster categories but only modest geo- graphic differentiation within each race/ethnicity group. This result indicates that studies using genetic clusters instead of racial/ethnic labels are likely to simply repro- duce racial/ethnic differences, which may or may not be genetic. On the other hand, in the absence of racial/ ethnic information, it is tempting to attribute any ob- served difference between derived genetic clusters to a genetic etiology. Therefore, researchers performing stud- ies without racial/ethnic labels should be wary of char- acterizing difference between genetically definedclusters as genetic in origin, since social, cultural, economic, behavioral, and other environmental factors may result in extreme confounding (Risch et al. 2002). Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, December 18, 2005 at 05:54 PM in Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity Comments:2
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 18, 2005, 07:14 PM | # Svigor, as with most things, the Age of Enlightenment got it approximately right. It was the advaent of the posionous ideas of the French Revolution, 19th Century Marxism and the modern movement that diverted humanity further and further from a true understanding. Our job is to convince everybody else of this, without alienating them by dwelling on unpleasantness or carrying out hate campaigns against particulalr ethnic groups—both the favorite tactics of our enemies. 3
Posted by Phil on December 18, 2005, 07:30 PM | # The godfather of the “race does not exist” school of thought was Franz Boas without a shadow of doubt. And in more recent times the most vocal proponent of that was the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard. 4
Posted by James Bowery on December 18, 2005, 08:11 PM | # Discussions of race are complicated because race research has taken place on at least two scales (global and national) and from the point of view of different research aims. Evolutionary scientists are typically interested in humanity as a whole; and taxonomic racial classifications are often either unhelpful to, or refuted by, studies that focus on the question of global human diversity. Policy-makers and applied professions (such as law-enforcement or medicine), however, are typically concerned only with genetic variation at the national or sub-national scale, and find taxonomic racial categories useful. These distinctions of research aims and scale can be seen by the example of three major research papers published since 2002: Rosenberg et al. (2002), Serre & Pääbo (2004), and Tang et al. (2005). Both Rosenberg et al. and Serre & Pääbo study global genetic variation, but they arrive at different conclusions. Serre & Pääbo attribute their differing conclusions to experimental design. While Rosenberg et al. studied individuals from populations across the globe without respect to geography, Serre & Pääbo sampled individuals with respect to geography. By sampling individuals from major populations on each continent, Rosenberg et al. find evidence for genetic “clusters” (i.e., races). In contrast, Serre & Pääbo find that with respect to geography human genetic variation is continuous and “clinal”. The research interest of Rosenberg et al. is medicine (i.e., epidemiology), whereas the research interest of Serre & Pääbo is human evolution. Tang et al. studied genetic variation within the United States with an interest in whether race/ethnicity or geography is of greater importance to epidemiological research. In contrast to Serre & Pääbo, Tang et al. find that race/ethnicity is of greater importance within the United States. Further recent research correlating self-identified race with population genetic structure echoed the conculsions in Tang. Indeed, the contrasting conclusions between global and national levels of analysis were predicted by Serre & Pääbo:
In other words they are claiming that if the same sort of phylogenetic cluster analysis that was performed for US populations were performed for global populations that the correlation with self-identified race (aka the “folk taxonomy” of race) would disappear. Moreover they are implying that the only cause of the contradictory between the tests of Tang vs Serre & Pääbo is the sampling. This doesn’t mean that the folk taxonomy of race is irrelevant for the US of course—and since the US has been subjected to the most vigorous campaign of propaganda claiming there is no scientific legitimacy to using racial classification within the US the conclusions of Serre & Pääbo are largely irrelevant to clarifying the politics of the US. Nevertheless, it would be good to figure out what the real phylogenetic cluster analysis of global populations says without the interference of the sort of political biases clearly embodied by Wikipedia. 5
Posted by James Bowery on December 18, 2005, 08:12 PM | # Erratum: The prior comment—up until “In other words” was pulled directly from the Wikipedia article on race. My introductory text got cut by the blog machinery. 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 18, 2005, 08:19 PM | #
Another one was Prof. Ashley Montagu, a student of Prof. Boaz and of Prof. Ruth Benedict, herself a prominent brainwashee of Boaz (there’s something wrong with women’s brains where science is concerned, such that it’s easier to brainwash them on science than it is men; as Chamfort observed, women “possèdent un compartiment de moins dans le cerveau et une fibre de plus dans le coeur” than men—they have a compartment less in the brain than men and a fiber more in the heart). Montagu, a rabid race-denier who wrote “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race” in, I think, 1943 (and had been spouting about the non-existence of race as early as the thirties) was influential in the U.N., its organizations, policies, and founding documents, and—if this can be believed—wrote the official U.N. policy on race in 1950. This is the sort of post-WW-II situation we were saddled with by the alliance of the victorious reds in Moscow and pinks and reds in D.C. and everywhere else, which has brought us to the present pass where the existence of the white race is under assault in every country of the West and its defenders denounced as something called “racists,” thanks to the fact that race-deniers and white-Christian haters have been in charge and running things for fifty years. “Hitler’s revenge,” indeed—that’s what it is: it’s Hitler’s revenge all right, from beyond the grave. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 18, 2005, 08:27 PM | # In reply to James Bowery’s post, above: There is of course no doubt that races exist exactly as men have always known they did and in exactly the way men have always said they did. The only question is what is the provenance of the political and academic drive to deny their existence: Who, exactly, is behind it and why? 8
Posted by June Gordon on December 18, 2005, 09:55 PM | # You people’s psychological problem with race blinds you to the fallacies of your reasoning: 1) ‘Race’ can be used to designate groups based on differences and similarities of various sorts. There can be the tall race and the short race, the straight little finger and the crooked little finger race, the big teeth and small teeth race, and so on. The focus on skin color as proxy for ‘racial’ supremacy you all are so obsessed with is historical, not biological. Historically, Europeans ascribed inferiority to people they intended to exploit through conquest, colonialization and slavery. Dehumanization of the exploited was a rationalization. Modern racists subscribe to that viewpoint mainly for political reasons rooted in a desire to maintain dominance. However, if, as some believe, racism is a mental illness, there is another basis for their behavior. 2) Discussion of ‘race’ by experts, none of whom subscribe to white supremacist views, is contextual. Most acknowledge the notion of skin color, eye shape and hair texture as proxies for race only because they are well-known. Scientists are emphatically not saying that variations in superficial characteristics result in inferiority or superiority or for those who have them. Racists say that. The leap from this week’s news of the discovery of the mutation that resulted in some black Africans having ‘white’ offspring to a claim that white people are superior is only possible for people who do not grasp what the researchers are saying, and, who have a desperate need to claim racial superiority. 9
Posted by J Richards on December 18, 2005, 10:37 PM | # John, Thank you for mentioning this study, but we have previously addressed this study at MR. JW Holliday mentioned it, without the citation information on May 9 of this year and I have formally cited it on June 6 of this year. Additionally, I corrected the heading of a recent post by you to read Church instead of Chur, while keeping the url the same. The url does not have to have the same words as the heading. Therefore, if you cannot fit all the words of your heading into the url, do not mess up the heading. 10
Posted by J Richards on December 18, 2005, 10:40 PM | # James, Don’t bother reading Wikipedia for an understanding of racial reality. Read the paper by Serre & Pääbo to see why they came up with their results. The first example they give used only 20 microsatellite markers vs. the 377 microsatellite markers used in the study by Rosenberg et al. and the 326 microsatellite markers used by Tang et al. Secondly, Serre & Pääbo’s conclusion regarding clinal rather than racial variation is based on analyzing subsamples of the data by Rosenberg et al. under a geography-based and uncorrelated allele frequency model, which assumes that the allele frequencies have become uncorrelated with time due to genetic drift. Now, microsatellites are neutral or presumably-neutral markers and if human populations have been separated for a long time, then should it be surprising that a geography-based sampling of predominantly selection-neutral markers reveals clinal variation? What about alleles involved in gene expression? Since selection pressures can result in both very high and very low Fst values, it is desirable to examine neutral markers in studies of population structure. However, geography-based clinal variation in neutral markers does not necessarily correspond to a clinal variation of alleles involved in gene expression. The relevance of race for social purposes is concerned with alleles involved in gene expression, not neutral markers. Also, by the standards of animal biology, humans easily meet the criteria for racial classification based on Fst values of neutral markers and phylogeographic criteria. 11
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 18, 2005, 10:42 PM | # 1) Your first sentence is nonsense. Refusal to accept scientific evidence is the mental illness—the left are as irrational on this subject as the Christian right are on evolution, and for the same reason—they regard politics as an intellectually worthwhile exciting activity that should be allowed to govern science, whereas in reality politics and government is boring and demeaning work, like trash collection, and should be subordinated to more worthwhile intellectual pursuits. 2) Your first sentence in 2 is untrue too—plenty of “experts” however you define them recognize racial characteristics, and indeed it has now reached the point where only those blinded by infantile leftism don’t. Skin color is superior or inferior depending only on aesthetics; personally I would welcome the advant of a race whose skin was a pleasing shade of blue. IQ is superior or inferior only to those who recognize the value of intelligence, which most of the left don’t. Thought I’d save you chaps the bother of responding to Ms. (?) June (?) Gordon (?) for a change. 12
Posted by J Richards on December 18, 2005, 10:43 PM | # June Gordon, It is time for you to learn about the phylogeographic criteria used for racial classification in the animal kingdom. Proposing races based on single traits such as height, lactose tolerance or skin color do not meet phylogeographic criteria for racial classification. A white-skinned albino Negro or a white-skinned Japanese no more belong to my race than a black-haired Doberman belongs to the same race as a black-haired Daschund. Besides, who has talked about racial superiority in this thread? This thread is about whether race exists. 13
Posted by John S Bolton on December 18, 2005, 10:46 PM | # If all that is available for leftist antidominants, in the place where a rational argument is expected and even mimicked, is to use ad hominem; doesn’t that look awfully weak? The study proves its case; now 100 years of anti-racial classification bite the dust. It has no rational argument or way to dispute the facts; only ad hominem psychologizing and attempts to set up packages where recognition of difference is pretended to automatically lead on to evaluative extravagance. A century of scientific posturing, on the equality of man and the indiscriminability of races, lies exposed as such, and as a dead end. 14
Posted by Svigor on December 18, 2005, 10:52 PM | #
Your obfuscations depend on us forgetting that ancestry is the crux of race (duh). That’s the fatal weakness of Gould’s (via you) argument.
Historically, the race-blind (a congenital defect?) have attempted to justify their illness by projecting their pathology away from themselves and onto others (inverting the facts, labels, and processes as they do so). 15
Posted by Svigor on December 18, 2005, 10:59 PM | # At least I think it was Gould. It was one of the usual suspects, with his “lactose-intolerant race,” among other stupidities, as if a fifth-grader couldn’t see through it. 16
Posted by Lurker on December 19, 2005, 12:27 AM | # Im a bit late here… June, you were the first person to mention skin colour as a proxy for racial classification on this thread. 17
Posted by James Bowery on December 19, 2005, 06:25 AM | # The reason “June” brought up the skin color gene as proxy for racial classification is the recent press reports of the genetics of skin coloring in which some reporter with the mentality of a 14 year old tried to claim that race realists are basing their claims on just a few traits/genetic locii. I bet there were similar pubescent articles running around Victorian England press responding to Darwin’s theory of evolution. 18
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 19, 2005, 09:28 AM | # James, I would remind you of Disraeli’s remark, on hearing of the Darwinian theory “There now appears to be some doubt as to whether we are descended from apes or angels. Perosnally I am on the side of the angels.” Good line, if you like that sort of thing; as a lover of only the most fashionably acceptable rebellions against conventional wisdom, he would doubtless be a race-denier today. 19
Posted by ben tillman on December 19, 2005, 11:13 AM | # ‘Race’ can be used to designate groups based on differences and similarities of various sorts. There can be the tall race and the short race…. All wrong. A race is a population with common ancestry that inbreeds to some degree. In non-human species, we designate races (or subspecies) on the basis of differences and similarities because we must infer ancestry. With humans we have histories that provide the information that is inferred for other species. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on December 19, 2005, 11:32 AM | # June, Instead of dragging out all the leftist same old, same old about supremacism and racism why don’t you adjust your ideological lenses and see what is actually being said here. You miss it every time and make a fool of yourself because you are just too damned keen to get in your big moral points. If MR ever puts up a thread about white supremacism I will very much look forward to reading you. But as things stand you are a cracked record. Or cracked, anyway. 21
Posted by Svigor on December 19, 2005, 01:21 PM | # GW: I always ask types like June how I can in good conscience be called a white supremacist when I call for a separate space for my race in no small part because my race is inferior at the racial spoils game, inferior at low-intensity racial conflict, and inferior at pursuing its own interests in multiracial societies. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten an answer. 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 19, 2005, 07:58 PM | #
June, here‘s a paper by Prof. Rushton explaining why, from the point if view of his own research interests, human races are taxonomically valid. It’s in pdf format and easy to read. There are other viewpoints according to which races are taxonomically valid of course, including the ordinary gross anatomical criteria known for centuries and still perfectly valid today, which have no need whatsoever of modern genetic confirmation or legitimation since they’re valid all by themselves but which modern genetics has completely confirmed anyway, and only keeps confirming more and more as each new piece of research is published: to date not one piece of modern genetics research has invalidated them in the slightest, but only confirmed them. Rushton has a web page of links to some of his articles which you may want to browse. He’s an unusually clear expositor of scientific subjects, whose writing is very accessible even to those without a scientific background. For the classical gross anatomical racial taxonomies see Carleton Coon whose work is completely intact and valid despite the efforts of politically-motivated dishonest intellectual midgets like Ashley Montagu who thought people were going to fall for the “argument” that because human races are one-hundred-percent gene-permeable they must not exist, which is like saying because there are intermediate colors blue and yellow must not exist, because there are mutts dog breeds must not exist, or because there are intermediate languages languages must not exist—transparent sophistry which only the liberal-left booboisie falls for. In a rainbow there are nothing but intermediate color gradations between red on one side and violet on the other, and applying the same sophistry Montagu used to deny races we can deny the existence of the colors orange, yellow, green, blue, and indigo, as well as red and violet. Colors aren’t the only things we can deny using that sophistry—we can deny the existence of everything in the universe, in fact. We can claim that nothing exists. When Jewish academics trot that sophistry out, by the way—I bring this up because Jewish academics are especially fond of it—the proper way to respond is to use it, the exact same sophistry, to “prove” Jews don’t exist. See their reactions then. Other politically-motivated dishonest academics attempt to use other sophistries to deny race. Some of the ones used by Prof. Stephen Jay Gould are unmasked in this paper by Prof. Rushton. Why do academics try to fob sophistries off on people? Because politics is an extremely strong motivation for many, even for college professors and researchers. Some of them can’t resist its pull, and they get corrupted. We saw the Lysenko phenomenon in Stalin’s Soviet Union, we saw certain German academics during the Nazi period claim Einstein’s theory of Relativity was “Jewish science,” we see Marxists of today distort facts in the interest of advancing Marxist goals. Gould was a lifelong Marxist and Montagu was at least pink if not outright bright red. There are many others of their stripe. 23
Posted by June Gordon on December 20, 2005, 01:43 AM | # John Boy, you said: “Your obfuscations depend on us forgetting that ancestry is the crux of race (duh).” Not one whit! The very core of what we are talking about is ancestry. Your and my, and everyone other human’s ancestry began with an African couple. All of us, on every continent, are still descendants of that African couple. Trying to dismiss the 99.9 percent commonality of the human genone to focus on a mutation of one gene that causes white skin is obfuscation beyond comprehension. That is why your motivation matters so much. Without the obsession with wanting to claim white supremacy there is no reason to spit into the wind. You desire a certaiin result, so you ignore all reason to try to obtain it. I am familiar with Rushton’s ignoble ‘career.’ He has become a living joke with good reason. I can think of only one question to ask you guys about him. It is well known that Rushton is obsessed with other men’s penises. When you all get together does he ask about yours? 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2005, 02:09 AM | #
Yes, and? Your point is? Do you think you’re proving races don’t exist? Sorry, you’re not. Races have differentiated since the “African Eve” two hundred thousand years ago. (The “African Eve” claim is not universally accepted, by the way. But whether it’s right or wrong, it doesn’t mean races don’t exist.) However long it took whites, Negroes, and Orientals to differentiate from the common ancestor, they’ve now done so and we have the different races. 25
Posted by seelow heights on December 20, 2005, 03:50 AM | # Dog breeds always come up in discussions like these. Mammologists now generally refer to the domestic dog as a subspecies (or race) of canis lupus. It should also be noted that dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals are all capable of producing fertile offspring with each other but behavioral differences and geographical separation make such crosses between the different species rare without human intervention. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on December 20, 2005, 04:36 AM | # June, On the emergence of white skin we have just put up this post. A complex picture is slowly coming into scientific focus. Why don’t you allow that process to go forward, observe it and then judiciously adjust your point of view to take account of it? On Rushton, he also observed that female genitalia are positioned slightly differently for negroids, caucasoids and mongoloids. Why not claim that it is well-known he is “obsessed” with that? Ah yes, because your purpose is to smear the man rather than confront his message. Your embittered tone, and the stubborn regularity with which you throw out crass insults of one kind or another, only demonstrate the intellectual poverty of your position. Don’t you see that? Race is real. Race differences are real. There are implications for human potential in those differences and, accordingly, for public policy and for Western Man in general. Now go away and work on saving your Marxism from this reality, if you can. Crass insults won’t do it. 27
Posted by seelow heights on December 20, 2005, 04:37 AM | # While doing canine research on the web I came across the rare(perhaps unique) case of a dog breed (or is it a separate subspecies?) created not through human intent but through geographical isolation. Interesting is the suggestion that the animal has created a distinctive canine “culture” in that isolation. First brought to the attention of the scientific community in the early 1950’s, the New Guinea Singing Dog NGSD ) was initially described as a distinct species and named Canis hallstromi after Sir Edward Halistrom, who brought the first pair out of the Southern Highlands District of Papua New Guinea to the Taronga Zoo in Sydney, Australia in 1957. In 1969 the NGSD was reclassified as a subspecies of the dingo group, Canis lupus ( or familiaris) dingo. 28
Posted by Metzger on December 20, 2005, 12:36 PM | # “Not one whit! The very core of what we are talking about is ancestry. Your and my, and everyone other human’s ancestry began with an African couple. All of us, on every continent, are still descendants of that African couple.”
I know that the race-deniers certainly aren’t going to go out of their way to read any of the scientific literature regarding race, but you could at least read the article you’re commenting on! Your ignorance is appalling. The notion that the only genetic variation between races is skin color is not supported by any scientific study.
You might as well be describing yourself here. As I demonstrated above, YOU are obviously willfully ignorant of science and reason on this matter. “You desire a certaiin (sic) result, so you ignore all reason to try to obtain it.” 29
Posted by Svigor on December 20, 2005, 02:38 PM | #
Really? Here’s what I was responding to:
Where is ancestry acknowledged as the criteria for racial designation? The implication of the entire passage is that phenotype is the whole of the discussion, which is clearly a lie by omission since race is ancestry writ large (duh). You should consider your statements more carefully; they are, after all, in written form and so a matter of record.
No, up until this point the core of what we’re discussing is ancestry; until now you’ve not addressed the issue.
That is inorrect. Your and my, and ever other human’s ancestry began with an unknown virus or proto-virus 4 billion years ago. All of us, on every continent, are still descendants of that virus.
Mice, men share 99 percent of genes http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/index.html Chimps are human, gene study implies http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744 What’s next, “species does not exist”?
Our responses to this article don’t indicate passionate attachment to this particular issue; many of us, myself included, respond to at least every second or third post here at MR. You, on the other hand, almost never post and I think it’s safe to assume that your posting on this particular thread is no coincidence, but rather an indication of passionate attachment to an issue (race-blindness, particularly the skin-color-as-race strawman).
I still haven’t gotten an answer.
You’re projecting.
Can you support that assertion with scientific argument, or is that a purely political statement?
So, I assume you refrain from citing Jared Diamond? That’s a real shame for you, since he’s a race-denier and master obfuscator, but it’s the only conclusion I can reasonably draw given your (implied) logic and the facts: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=“jared+diamond”+testicle+size&btnG=Google+Search http://www.webmonkey.ws/flillip.php?url=http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003206.html 30
Posted by Svigor on December 20, 2005, 02:56 PM | # Also, June: could you explain the tendency on the part of leftists (such as yourself) to champion homosexualists with one hand, and wield homosexuality-as-epithet with the other? Does it rely on the semantic point that you never actually condemn homosexuality but rather rely on the social stigma commonly attached? If so, that’s rather low, isn’t it? 31
Posted by seelow heights on December 22, 2005, 11:00 AM | # I’m shocked no one commented on the New Guinea Singing Dog, a far more interesting beast than June Gordon. Ethnic differences Variation in human testis size from Jared M. Diamond THE potential harvest from studies of human testis size, a subject that has received little systematic investigation, is indicated in a paper by R. V. Short (ref. 1), who documents variations between ethnic groups which could be correlated with the incidence of dizygotic twins and breast cancer. Although measurements of testis size by orchidometry in living subjects are difficult to standardize, they suggest smaller testes in Japanese and Korean men than in Caucasians. Weighing at autopsy is more accurate and showed that the size was twofold lower in two Chinese samples compared with a Danish sample (see figure). Differences in body size make only a slight contribution to these values. Could the testis size variation be a Y-chromosome trait lacking female correlates, as already documented for mice? (ref. 2) Interspecies differences in testis size among man and apes do fit this pattern, differences in the relative size of ovaries being negligible. In these species large testis size correlates with, and was probably selected by, two factors: high copulatory frequency; and high probability that a female will mate with several males during one ovulatory cycle. (ref. 3) However, evidence that these factors vary between human populations is lacking. An explicit test revealed no relation between testis size and copulatory frequency in Korean men. (ref. 4) (...) 32
Posted by Amalek on December 22, 2005, 12:55 PM | # June Gordon: FYI, Philippe Rushton is not precisely a joke: he is the recipient of two Guggenheim Fellowships and was awarded a DSc of London University not h.c. but on publications, an unusual distinction. You assert that we are all descended from one African couple and that therefore subspeciation is impossible. Apart from exhibiting curious logic, you may not be aware that the ‘out of Africa’ hypothesis of homo s.s.‘s origins is recent and has lately been seriously challenged by multiregionalists who use evidence incompatible with the idea that modern humans spread from Africa in successive migratory waves. 33
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 22, 2005, 01:34 PM | # (I don’t know how to undo the italics.) In regard to Amalek’s comment, above: Whether “Out of Africa” holds up or gets replaced by multi-regionalism, the existence of human races today will remain completely unchallenged. Neither theory in any way whatsoever invalidates or raises questions about the existence of distinct human races today or even has anything to do with the subject (apart from the fact that multi-regionalism almost mandates the existence of distinct human races while Out of Africa neither mandates nor casts any doubt whatsoever on their existence, not dealing with the question whatsoever). People who try to argue from the Out of Africa theory (which is the one I personally find most believable, by the way) to the impossibility of the existence of distinct races today are engaging in a huge non sequitur: the one has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the other. I personally favor the Out of Africa theory—and everyone here knows my views on the existence of human races today (and on the right of the members of communities and nations not to see their traditional races or collections of traditional races forcibly race-replaced by élite-influenced government policy). June Gordon doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Next entry: Amazing ape-man Previous entry: More on politically correct policing in Australia |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Robert Reis commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 04:07 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/09/12, 12:27 AM. (go) (view) anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 11:18 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:51 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:28 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) Mary commented in entry 'Anti-white ideology is like anti-biotic overuse' on 02/08/12, 09:24 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 09:04 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 08:15 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 08:09 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:52 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:48 PM. (go) (view) jamesUK commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 07:36 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 07:10 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:49 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:45 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:27 PM. (go) (view) marloe commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:21 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:17 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:08 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:07 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:03 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 05:53 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 05:51 PM. (go) (view) dc commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 05:13 PM. (go) (view) Lurker commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:55 PM. (go) (view) MP commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:43 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 04:31 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 04:07 PM. (go) (view) Wild Bill commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:02 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 03:47 PM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 03:24 PM. (go) (view) dosto commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 02:40 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 02:36 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Svigor on December 18, 2005, 06:21 PM | #
I linked to an article on this study in a recent thread, one of the Cronulla threads I think. This study is one of my favorites because it confirms “18th century notions of race,” as one of my favorite race-denying opponents once labelled them; ordinary folks self-identify their race with 99.86% accuracy.