The American Association of Anthropologists
abia...@my-deja.com
but you are still not able to provide your "scientific data" to back it
up after we have asked you many times to post your so-
called "scientific data". So where is your "scientific data" or if
there is any? By end of this week, if you are not able to post it,
then we have to assume you lied, OK! :^))
As for so-called "During past 50 years..." from American Association of
Anthropologists, first of all, anthropologists are not genetic
scientists, secondly, genetic scientists just finished DNA sequences
this year so no scientists can claim they have "scientific data" to
prove "there are races" or "there are no races", lastly, Human Genome
Diversity Project at Stanford Univeristy has confirmed that genes
varied among different human groups.
At present, anthropologists have been able to classify human beings
into 9 different racial groups. As genetic science advances,
scientists should be able to figure out which genes have caused
different hair color, skin color, etc and why Jim Walsh looks different
from we Chinese. :^))
Also, anyone reads Recommendation 1 from American Association of
Anthropologists should know they did not deny existence of races. And
following is recommendation 1:
"1. The American Anthropological Association supports the OMB Directive
15 proposal to allow respondents to identify "more than one" category
of "race/ethnicity" as a means of reporting diverse ancestry. The
Association agrees with the Interagency Committee's finding that a
multiple reporting method is preferable to adoption of a "multiracial"
category. This allows for the reflection of heterogeneity and growing
interrelatedness of the American population."
In article <auejssg9i1h5fus54...@4ax.com>,
jimw...@transend.com.tw wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:25:06 +0800, Jim Walsh
> <jimw...@transend.com.tw> wrote:
>
> >By going to the following URL, you can read what the American
> >Association of Anthropologists said on whether there are races.
> >
> >http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm
> >
> >Clearly this is a group of qualified experts.
> >
> >And clearly it says that there are no races:
>
> For those that found the analysis difficult, let me high-light
> recommendation number 5:
>
> "The American Anthropological Association recommends the elimination
> of the term "race" from OMB Directive 15 during the planning for the
> 2010 Census. During the past 50 years, "race" has been scientifically
> proven to not be a real, natural phenomenon. More specific, social
> categories such as "ethnicity" or "ethnic group" are more salient for
> scientific purposes and have fewer of the negative, racist
> connotations for which the concept of race was developed."
>
> Let me repeat the key sentence: "During the past 50 years, "race" has
> been scientifically proven to not be a real, natural phenomenon. "
>
> Love, Jim
>
> "I share the view that å–ªace' is a myth. The idea is
> constructed by human beings themselves, often by small
> minorities greedy for wealth and power. A recent
> genome project has revealed that there is actually
> no scientific basis for race or for categorizing humankind
> according to racial differences. Nevertheless, there are
> still many who see themselves and others as separate
> from one another because of differences in their origins,
> religion, culture, skin color. And sadly, there are too
> many gruesome stories of ethnic and racial killings from
> all over the world, in Bosnia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Mindanao,
> Aceh, and Fiji." Dr. Syed Husin Ali, leader of the Malaysian
> People's Party, Newsweek, September 18, 2000, page 49.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
abia...@my-deja.com
abia...@my-deja.com
In article <sjdjsscqltt98l3re...@4ax.com>,
jimw...@transend.com.tw wrote:
> By going to the following URL, you can read what the American
> Association of Anthropologists said on whether there are races.
>
> http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm
>
> Clearly this is a group of qualified experts.
>
> And clearly it says that there are no races:
>
> "Anthropologically speaking, the concept of race is a relatively
> recent one. Historically, the term "race" was ascribed to groups of
> individuals who were categorized as biologically distinct. Rather than
> developing as a scientific concept, the current notion of "race" in
> the United States grew out of a European folk taxonomy or
> classification system sometime after Columbus sailed to the Americas.
> Increased exploration of far-away lands with people of different
> custom, language, and physical traits clearly contributed to the
> developing idea. In these pre-Darwinian times the observed
> differences--biological, behavioral and cultural--were all considered
> to be products of creation by God. It was in this intellectual
> climate that the perceived purity and immutability of races
> originated. Perceived behavioral features and differences in intellect
> were inextricably linked to race and served as a basis for the
> ranking, in terms of superiority, of races.
>
> "Early natural history approaches to racial classification supported
> these rankings and the implications for behavior. For example, in the
> 18th century, Carolus Linneaus, the father of taxonomy and a European,
> described American Indians as not only possessing reddish skin, but
> also as choleric, painting themselves with fine red lines and
> regulated by custom. Africans were described as having black skin,
> flat noses and being phlegmatic, relaxed, indolent, negligent,
> anointing themselves with grease and governed by caprice. In contrast,
> Europeans were described as white, sanguine, muscular, gentle, acute,
> inventive, having long flowing hair, blue eyes, covered by close
> vestments and governed by law.
>
> "In the 1800s, the first "scientific" studies of race attempted to
> extract the behavioral features from the definition of race. However,
> racist interpretation remained. For example the origin of racial
> variation was interpreted as degeneration of the original "Caucasian"
> race (the idea of a Caucasian race is based on the belief that the
> most "perfect" skulls came from the Caucasus Mountains). Degeneration
> explained the development of racial differences and racial differences
> explained cultural development. Biology and behavior were used to
> gauge the degree of deterioration from the original race. Measures of
> intellect were an important part of these early studies. In some
> cases, the degree of facial prognathism, bumps on the skull as
> interpreted by phrenology, cranial index, and cranial capacity were
> used as measures of intelligence. IQ is just the latest in the list of
> these so-called "definitive" features used to rank races.
>
> "The clearest data about human variation come from studies of genetic
> variation, which are clearly quantifiable and replicable. Genetic data
> show that, no matter how racial groups are defined, two people from
> the same racial group are about as different from each other as two
> people from any two different racial groups."
>
> In other words, there are no races at all.
abia...@my-deja.com
Skipper
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Jim Walsh, you have repeated hundred times that "there are no races"
> but you are still not able to provide your "scientific data" to back
it
> up after we have asked you many times to post your so-
> called "scientific data".
Abianchen aka taipei6785, you have been given hundreds of times proof
of scientific evidence that there are no human races, yet you are so
paranoid and stupid to insist in your brainless idiodity.
Let me give you some more help and stop further disgrace yourself
in front of everyone on SCT:
Check out the following web page:
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/wusl-gsrdeih.html
It says:
"Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans" as the subject.
Read the paper and make a wise conclusion yourself. It gives you all
scientific evidence you have been unable to find yourself. Don't further
make yourself a fool any more. Don't make foolish nonsense to yourself
any further. And don't come back and argue with Jim Walsh like a plain
idiot.
You are indeed a shame to all your dry daddies.
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
abia...@my-deja.com
I never claimed I have "scientific data" to back up "there are races"
but only quoted from Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at Stanford
University, HGDP confirmed that genes varied among different human
groups. I also quoted from encyclopedia that anthropologists have been
able to classify human beings into 9 different racial groups.
Jim Walsh claimed he has "scientific data" to back up the claim "there
are no races" and we have asked him many times to post his so-
called "scientfic data" but he failed to do so. And your source did
not provide any "scientific data" either but just a claim so dont make
a fool of yourself in front netters.
Genetic Scientists just finished DNA sequences this year, no scientists
can provide "scientific data" to support any claim. However, Human
Genome Diversity Project at Stanford has confirmed that genes varied
among different human groups.
In article <8qdo9t$ibq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8qcoup$bcf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Jim Walsh, you have repeated hundred times that "there are no races"
> > but you are still not able to provide your "scientific data" to back
> it
> > up after we have asked you many times to post your so-
> > called "scientific data".
>
> Abianchen aka taipei6785, you have been given hundreds of times proof
> of scientific evidence that there are no human races, yet you are so
> paranoid and stupid to insist in your brainless idiodity.
>
> Let me give you some more help and stop further disgrace yourself
> in front of everyone on SCT:
>
> Check out the following web page:
>
> http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/wusl-gsrdeih.html
>
> It says:
>
> "Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans" as the subject.
>
> Read the paper and make a wise conclusion yourself. It gives you all
> scientific evidence you have been unable to find yourself. Don't
further
> make yourself a fool any more. Don't make foolish nonsense to yourself
> any further. And don't come back and argue with Jim Walsh like a plain
> idiot.
>
> You are indeed a shame to all your dry daddies.
>
> --
> Skipper
>
> Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
>
Greg Moriarty
> I never claimed I have "scientific data" to back up "there are races"
> but only quoted from Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at Stanford
> groups.
This is not the same as saying there are races.
> Jim Walsh claimed he has "scientific data" to back up the claim "there
> are no races" and we have asked him many times to post his so-
> called "scientfic data" but he failed to do so. And your source did
> not provide any "scientific data" either but just a claim so dont make
> a fool of yourself in front netters.
>
> Genetic Scientists just finished DNA sequences this year, no
> scientists can provide "scientific data" to support any claim.
Of course they can. Certain genes (in fact, a great many genes) have
been known for years. These genes have been used as "scientific data"
for years. It is not necessary to map the entire sequence.
> However, Human Genome Diversity Project at Stanford has confirmed
> that genes varied among different human groups.
Well, duh. Genes vary among family members too. This is not the same as
saying there are races.
"As far as scientists know, no particular genes make a person Irish or
Chinese or Zulu or Navajo. These are cultural labels, not genetic ones."
-- Morrison Institute for Population and Resource Studies, a leader
in the HGDP
Phipps
>
> That is a lie! HGDP did not say there are no races but say the
> research is not to prove whether there are races or not because they
> dont want to be attacked by racists like you. HGDP has said genes
> varied among different human groups and some genes (still unknown) have
> caused different hair color, skin color, etc and that is the goal of
> HGDP to find out which genes caused different hair color, skin color,
> or facial structures among different human groups.
False. Utterly, and maliciously, false. You had been corrected on this
before.
I had contacted HGDP during your previous round of racist
disinformation, and got an email back - reposted below with his full
permission - from Professor Hank Greely (chair of HGDP/North America's
ethics subcommittee), whom Jean Doble of the Morrison Institute/HGDP
asked to reply in her stead.
A salient quote from that email totally refutes your claim:
> The HGDP has NOT "already confirmed some genes (unidentified yet)
> have caused different hair colors or facial structures among
> different human groups, eg, those genes have made ethnic Han Chinese
> look different from ethnic Irish." And "the HGD is [NOT[ making
> efforts to identify those genes."
Epidemiological studies have determined that certain populations have
higher susceptibility to certain diseases than do others. The French
Canadians, for example, have an unusully high incidence of
Creuzfeld-Jakob disease; the White Mountain Apaches, have an
inordinately high incidence of diabetes in the wake of changes to their
diets, vastly higher than the incidence of diabetes among other
populations eating the same foods.
Determining the genetic causality of such high rates of pathological
incidence among specific populations, is a scientifically legitimate
pursuit; wasting scarce resources on racist considerations when these
could have been applied to epidemiological research, is not. Not to
mention that, after what Nazi pseudo-science perpetrated in furtherance
of those bastards' racist agenda: anything even remotely connecting
genetics and "race" has essentially become academically taboo.
If you insist on trying to trying to paint HGDP as interested in racial
matters in any degree whatsoever: HGDP's representatives can be
contacted to set matters straight, i.e., that you are entirely
misrepresenting HGDP's work and goals.
How much of a beating are you prepared to take in furtherance of yur
racist agenda?
The full text of Professor Greely's email reply, reads as follows:
> Received:
> from mta2.snfc21.pbi.net ([206.13.28.123]) by ferret.slip.net with esmtp (Exim
> 3.12 #1) id 13DDwP-0007TC-00 for mrph...@slip.net; Fri, 14 Jul 2000
> 15:28:17 -0700
> Received:
> from [63.204.18.210] by mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server
> sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id
> <0FXP00L...@mta2.snfc21.pbi.net> for mrph...@slip.net; Fri, 14
> Jul 2000 15:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
> Date:
> Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:27:39 -0700
> From:
> hank greely <hgr...@stanford.edu>
> Subject:
> Re: Fwd: Cosmetic traits expressed by genes - redirected
> In-reply-to:
> <v04210102b58928d28fbb@[171.64.63.171]>
> X-Sender:
> hgr...@hgreely.pobox.Stanford.EDU
> To:
> mrph...@slip.net
> Cc:
> je...@charles.stanford.edu
> Message-id:
> <v0421010fb595411654d3@[63.204.18.210]>
> MIME-version:
> 1.0
> Content-type:
> text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> References:
> <v04210102b58928d28fbb@[171.64.63.171]>
> X-UIDL:
> a9415893588d252bb3f6d50c4762ed2b
> X-Mozilla-Status:
> 0011
> Content-Length:
> 5038
>
>
> Dear Mr or Mr Phipps,
>
> Jean Doble of the Morrison Institute referred your e mail about the
> Human Genome Diversity Project to me for a response. I'm a member of
> the North American Committee of that Project and chair of its ethics
> subcommittee.
>
> The HGDP has NOT "already confirmed some genes (unidentified yet)
> have caused different hair colors or facial structures among
> different human groups, eg, those genes have made ethnic Han Chinese
> look different from ethnic Irish." And "the HGD is [NOT[ making
> efforts to identify those genes."
>
> The HGDP is an international cooperative effort that seeks to
> collect, preserve, and analyze samples of DNA from throughout our
> species, not just from the handful of people whose DNA was used to
> sequence "the" human genome. The Project has almost no funding at
> this point and so, outside of its Chinese and SW Asian regions, it is
> confined largely to planning. What it is planning is the creation of
> a resource - a reference library - of human genetic variation that
> researchers could use for a variety of purposes. The purposes that
> interest most of those involved so far with the HGDP are historical
> or anthropological, with some additional interest in the mechanisms
> and theory of population genetics. The HGDP resource may ultimately
> have some medical value, but that will not be its primary goal or use
> - for real medical value, the DNA samples would have to be collected
> with extensive information about an individual's health status and
> physical traits (phenotype) which is not part of the plan.
>
> I've heard many researchers talk about what they would do with the
> HGDP resource and I've never heard one talk about identifying genes
> for physical traits that are commonly used to define "race" or
> "ethnicity". It's just not very interesting - and, for that matter,
> without phenotypic information on the individuals, could not be done
> very well (we won't know the particular "facial structure" or "hair
> color" of the individuals whose DNA was donated to the Project - to
> assume that all the Han who donated were identifical in those
> attributes would be shoddy science.)
>
> Some researchers involved in the HGDP are interested in finding
> genetic markers (usually those that do not code for protein and that
> have no known effects on phenotype) that are associated,
> probabilistically, with current cultural groups because those could
> help reveal something about the migrations, history, and evolution of
> our species. Even then, the data is likely to be things such as 60%
> of, say, the samples from an Irish population having a "G" at a
> particular point in the genome and only 20% of samples from, say, the
> Han having that base. With lots of samples and lots of markers, that
> can provide some useful information about the relationship between
> the Irish and the Han; it doesn't say anything at all about what they
> look like (or even whether the categories "Irish" and "Han" make
> sense genetically).
>
> I believe your poster was misinformed (perhaps by a very poorly
> written article that recently appeared in Newsday). You have my full
> permission to post this reply.
>
> Hank Greely
> Professor of Law
> Professor, by courtesy, of Genetics
> Stanford University
abia...@my-deja.com
groups indicating there are races.
In article <8qe4uf$25o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net> wrote:
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > I never claimed I have "scientific data" to back up "there are
races"
> > but only quoted from Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at
Stanford
> > University, HGDP confirmed that genes varied among different human
> > groups.
>
> This is not the same as saying there are races.
>
> > Jim Walsh claimed he has "scientific data" to back up the
claim "there
> > are no races" and we have asked him many times to post his so-
> > called "scientfic data" but he failed to do so. And your source did
> > not provide any "scientific data" either but just a claim so dont
make
> > a fool of yourself in front netters.
> >
> > Genetic Scientists just finished DNA sequences this year, no
> > scientists can provide "scientific data" to support any claim.
>
> Of course they can. Certain genes (in fact, a great many genes) have
> been known for years. These genes have been used as "scientific data"
> for years. It is not necessary to map the entire sequence.
>
> > However, Human Genome Diversity Project at Stanford has confirmed
> > that genes varied among different human groups.
>
> Well, duh. Genes vary among family members too. This is not the same
as
> saying there are races.
>
> "As far as scientists know, no particular genes make a person Irish or
> Chinese or Zulu or Navajo. These are cultural labels, not genetic
ones."
> -- Morrison Institute for Population and Resource Studies, a leader
> in the HGDP
>
Jim Walsh
>Of course, HGDP confirmed that genes varied among different human
>groups indicating there are races.
That is a lie. HGDP specifically said, and I posted it here for you to
read, that there are no races.
Love, Jim
"If a state is governed by the principles of reason,
poverty and misery are the subjects of shame.
If a state is not governed by the principles of reason,
riches and honors are the subject of shame."
Confucius, as quoted by Thoreau in Civil Disobedience.
abia...@my-deja.com
research is not to prove whether there are races or not because they
dont want to be attacked by racists like you. HGDP has said genes
varied among different human groups and some genes (still unknown) have
caused different hair color, skin color, etc and that is the goal of
HGDP to find out which genes caused different hair color, skin color,
sufficient evidence pointing to there are races!!!
In article <onflsso2gkalg9a4s...@4ax.com>,
abia...@my-deja.com
Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at Stanford University. In that
website, HGDP confirmed that genes varied among different human groups
and they are doing research to find out which genes have caused
different skin color, hair color, or facial structures.
In article <39CAF9...@slip.net>,
abia...@my-deja.com
In article <voflss0gjnt6ai2vs...@4ax.com>,
jimw...@transend.com.tw wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:11:57 GMT, uboat2001 <uboa...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <sjdjsscqltt98l3re...@4ax.com>,
> > jimw...@transend.com.tw wrote:
> >> By going to the following URL, you can read what the American
> >> Association of Anthropologists said on whether there are races.
> >>
> >> http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm
> >>
> >> Clearly this is a group of qualified experts.
> >
> >Seems the American Association of Anthropologist is the only source
you
> >have to back your claim. Can't you find other source outside USA to
> >back your argument?
>
> It is easier for me to get sources in English.
>
> It is false to say that I only quoted the AAA. I have quoted dozens of
> sources, not all of which were in America.
>
> Love, Jim
>
> "If a state is governed by the principles of reason,
> poverty and misery are the subjects of shame.
> If a state is not governed by the principles of reason,
> riches and honors are the subject of shame."
> Confucius, as quoted by Thoreau in Civil Disobedience.
>
Skipper
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> False!!! I have corrected you people by referring you to website of
> Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at Stanford University. In that
> website, HGDP confirmed that genes varied among different human groups
> and they are doing research to find out which genes have caused
> different skin color, hair color, or facial structures.
>
> In article <39CAF9...@slip.net>,
> mrph...@slip.net wrote:
[ stuff deleted to not repeat it ]
> > > I believe your poster was misinformed (perhaps by a very poorly
> > > written article that recently appeared in Newsday). You have my
> full
> > > permission to post this reply.
> > >
> > > Hank Greely
> > > Professor of Law
> > > Professor, by courtesy, of Genetics
> > > Stanford University
> >
>
Taipei6785 aka Jeff Chen, you are truely a shame to all Chinese!
You deserve the title as the number one asshole of the SCT.
You are a brianless idiot.
You really think by saying "false" out of your mouth you can change
the truth? No. It only tells us by your own mouth that you are an idiot!
Let me give you a suggestion. Dig out your Compton Encylopedia again
and repost the garbage you found there once again. That might help you
to regain some frustration and self esteem. Let the encylopedia for
children to help you a little.
What a miserable loser you are, taipe...@aol.com!
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
Skipper
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Of course, HGDP confirmed that genes varied among different human
> groups indicating there are races.
Great! You have just admitted that you "indicated" there are races
by yourself. In fact not single occurrance of the word "race" or
"races" in the HGDP reference you are refering to. Obviously this
"there are races" conclusion is made up by your empty skull with no
IQ.
Now we all know how you came out to insist that there are huiman races.
You have just admitted that it is YOUR OWN STUPID IDEA.
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
Skipper
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> That is a lie! HGDP did not say there are no races but say the
> research is not to prove whether there are races or not because they
> dont want to be attacked by racists like you.
Wonderful, you have just admitted yourself here again that you are
making things up out of your mouth. Can you show us where they did say
"they don't want to be attacked by racistli you"? If you can not show
it to us you are everybody's dry son OK?
HGDP has said genes
> varied among different human groups and some genes (still unknown)
have
> caused different hair color, skin color, etc and that is the goal of
> HGDP to find out which genes caused different hair color, skin color,
> or facial structures among different human groups.
Wow! Can you you show us where does HGDP say "to find out which genes
caused different hair color, skin color, or facial structures among
diifferent human groups" is the HGDP's goal? If you are not able to
show us what you claimed you are everbody's dry son, OK?
Those are
> sufficient evidence pointing to there are races!!!
Pointed by your mouth directed by your empty brain again. Can you
prove otherwise?
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
ltl...@mindspring.com
The following are excerpted from the HGDP website:
======================================================================
"All human groups seem to be interested in their origins; many are
interested in scientific evidence about those origins. The information
this Project gathers may help clarify the history of specific human
populations and of our species as a whole. The frequencies of different
variations in different populations can reveal how recently they shared
a large pool of common ancestors. Those frequencies can be used to see
if, for example, the Irish are more closely related to the Spaniards or
to the Swedes.
The kinds of genetic variation useful for these studies are often
common forms of variation such as the genetic differences among
individuals that are responsible for different blood types or the (as
yet unidentified) genes that lead to some people having narrow noses
and others wide noses; some having dark hair and others light hair..."
=====================================================================
Their language, "All human groups seems to interest in their origins,"
does give rise the impression it is valid for people to expect/believe
different groups have different origins.
If physical characteristics such as narrow noses and wide noses are
part of the criteria that allow people to differentiate one group/race
from the ohter, then human groups/races do have a genetic base.
In article <8qg5kb$cmd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8qf869$9ff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > False!!! I have corrected you people by referring you to website of
> > Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at Stanford University. In
that
> > website, HGDP confirmed that genes varied among different human
groups
> > and they are doing research to find out which genes have caused
> > different skin color, hair color, or facial structures.
> >
> > In article <39CAF9...@slip.net>,
> > mrph...@slip.net wrote:
>
> [ stuff deleted to not repeat it ]
>
> > > > I believe your poster was misinformed (perhaps by a very poorly
> > > > written article that recently appeared in Newsday). You have my
> > full
> > > > permission to post this reply.
> > > >
> > > > Hank Greely
> > > > Professor of Law
> > > > Professor, by courtesy, of Genetics
> > > > Stanford University
> > >
> >
>
> Taipei6785 aka Jeff Chen, you are truely a shame to all Chinese!
> You deserve the title as the number one asshole of the SCT.
> You are a brianless idiot.
>
> You really think by saying "false" out of your mouth you can change
> the truth? No. It only tells us by your own mouth that you are an
idiot!
>
> Let me give you a suggestion. Dig out your Compton Encylopedia again
> and repost the garbage you found there once again. That might help you
> to regain some frustration and self esteem. Let the encylopedia for
> children to help you a little.
>
> What a miserable loser you are, taipe...@aol.com!
>
> --
> Skipper
>
> Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
>
Greg Moriarty
> Their language, "All human groups seems to interest in their origins,"
> does give rise the impression it is valid for people to expect/believe
> different groups have different origins.
What people expect or believe is irrelevant to the scientific truth.
> If physical characteristics such as narrow noses and wide noses are
> part of the criteria that allow people to differentiate one group/race
> from the ohter, then human groups/races do have a genetic base.
Narrow and wide noses have a genetic base. This proves there is genetic
variation in the human species. It does not prove that there are
distinct races of people. Neither does it prove that nose shape is
accompanied by other physical characteristics (such as skin color, hair
style, etc.).
ltl...@mindspring.com
Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net> wrote:
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > Their language, "All human groups seems to interest in their
origins,"
> > does give rise the impression it is valid for people to
expect/believe
> > different groups have different origins.
>
> What people expect or believe is irrelevant to the scientific truth.
Truth is what people believe behaviorally speaking. It is what matter
anyway.
Two guys was watching a man moving toward them.
One guy asked the other, "Is an black man moving? Or is a man with dark
skin moving?"
The other guy answered, "May be your heart is moving."
> > If physical characteristics such as narrow noses and wide noses are
> > part of the criteria that allow people to differentiate one
group/race
> > from the ohter, then human groups/races do have a genetic base.
>
> Narrow and wide noses have a genetic base. This proves there is
genetic
> variation in the human species. It does not prove that there are
> distinct races of people. Neither does it prove that nose shape is
> accompanied by other physical characteristics (such as skin color,
hair
> style, etc.).
abia...@my-deja.com
Calm down or you will embarrass youself again, David Kao at HP
(davi...@hp.com aka skipper gilbr...@my-deja.com). No wonder even
TIers said you are disgrace to HP and embarrassment to Taiwanese.
In article <8qg5tr$d2h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8qeadn$8l2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Of course, HGDP confirmed that genes varied among different human
> > groups indicating there are races.
>
> Great! You have just admitted that you "indicated" there are races
> by yourself. In fact not single occurrance of the word "race" or
> "races" in the HGDP reference you are refering to. Obviously this
> "there are races" conclusion is made up by your empty skull with no
> IQ.
>
> Now we all know how you came out to insist that there are huiman
races.
> You have just admitted that it is YOUR OWN STUPID IDEA.
>
> --
> Skipper
>
> Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
>
abia...@my-deja.com
Generally speaking, there are races. Call your US Census Bureau for
Census 2000 form if you have not filled out yet and choose your racial
identity in the form.
In article <8qdo9t$ibq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8qcoup$bcf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Jim Walsh, you have repeated hundred times that "there are no races"
> > but you are still not able to provide your "scientific data" to back
> it
> > up after we have asked you many times to post your so-
> > called "scientific data".
>
> Abianchen aka taipei6785, you have been given hundreds of times proof
> of scientific evidence that there are no human races, yet you are so
> paranoid and stupid to insist in your brainless idiodity.
>
> Let me give you some more help and stop further disgrace yourself
> in front of everyone on SCT:
>
> Check out the following web page:
>
> http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/wusl-gsrdeih.html
>
> It says:
>
> "Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans" as the subject.
>
> Read the paper and make a wise conclusion yourself. It gives you all
> scientific evidence you have been unable to find yourself. Don't
further
> make yourself a fool any more. Don't make foolish nonsense to yourself
> any further. And don't come back and argue with Jim Walsh like a plain
> idiot.
>
> You are indeed a shame to all your dry daddies.
>
> --
> Skipper
>
> Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
>
abia...@my-deja.com
(davi...@hp.com, skipper gilbr...@my-deja.com).
Keep barking, doggie!
In article <8qg5kb$cmd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8qf869$9ff$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > False!!! I have corrected you people by referring you to website of
> > Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at Stanford University. In
that
> > website, HGDP confirmed that genes varied among different human
groups
> > and they are doing research to find out which genes have caused
> > different skin color, hair color, or facial structures.
> >
> > In article <39CAF9...@slip.net>,
> > mrph...@slip.net wrote:
>
> [ stuff deleted to not repeat it ]
>
> > > > I believe your poster was misinformed (perhaps by a very poorly
> > > > written article that recently appeared in Newsday). You have my
> > full
> > > > permission to post this reply.
> > > >
> > > > Hank Greely
> > > > Professor of Law
> > > > Professor, by courtesy, of Genetics
> > > > Stanford University
> > >
> >
>
> Taipei6785 aka Jeff Chen, you are truely a shame to all Chinese!
> You deserve the title as the number one asshole of the SCT.
> You are a brianless idiot.
>
> You really think by saying "false" out of your mouth you can change
> the truth? No. It only tells us by your own mouth that you are an
idiot!
>
> Let me give you a suggestion. Dig out your Compton Encylopedia again
> and repost the garbage you found there once again. That might help you
> to regain some frustration and self esteem. Let the encylopedia for
> children to help you a little.
>
> What a miserable loser you are, taipe...@aol.com!
>
> --
> Skipper
>
> Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
>
abia...@my-deja.com
his so-called "scientific data" to back up the claim but he failed to
do so. Why dont you post your "scientific data" to back up the
claim "there are no races"?
In article <8qgb5d$jq6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net> wrote:
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > Their language, "All human groups seems to interest in their
origins,"
> > does give rise the impression it is valid for people to
expect/believe
> > different groups have different origins.
>
> What people expect or believe is irrelevant to the scientific truth.
>
> > If physical characteristics such as narrow noses and wide noses are
> > part of the criteria that allow people to differentiate one
group/race
> > from the ohter, then human groups/races do have a genetic base.
>
> Narrow and wide noses have a genetic base. This proves there is
genetic
> variation in the human species. It does not prove that there are
> distinct races of people. Neither does it prove that nose shape is
> accompanied by other physical characteristics (such as skin color,
hair
> style, etc.).
>
abia...@my-deja.com
without "scientific data". For example, the statements like "If you
ask what percentage of your genes is reflected in your external
appearance, the basis by which we talk about race, the answer seems to
be in the range of .01 percent" is not scientific evidence but peronal
guess. So dont let those personal statements make fool of yourself
here.
Genetic science is still in its infancy, genetic scientists just
completed DNA sequences this year, it will take many years for
scientists to understand. Human Genome Diversity Project already
confirmed that genes varied among different human groups but which
genes have caused different skin color, hair color, facial structures,
etc are still unknown (Jim Walsh falsely claimed they are known for
years) and that is the goal of HGDP research.
Remember scientists claimed that monkeys and human beings have 98%
identical genes, ie, only 2% difference in genes that already made
human beings separated from monkeys. Why dont you call yourself monkey
because genes show you have 98% genetic overlap with monkeys??? So
even 0.01% genetic difference causing different hair color, skin color,
facial strutures is enough for different racial groups. As long as
People can tell difference between white people and black people or
Asian people unmistakenly, that is races!!!
In article <20000922194038...@ng-fl1.aol.com>,
demor...@aol.com (Demorising) wrote:
> Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show
>
> New York Times - Science Times
> August 22, 2000
> By Natalie Angier
>
> Excerpt 1:
>
> Scientists have long suspected that the racial categories recognized
by society
> are not reflected on the genetic level. But the more closely that
researchers
> examine the human genome -- the complement of genetic material
encased in the
> heart of almost every cell of the body -- the more most of them are
convinced
> that the standard labels used to distinguish people by "race" have
little or no
> biological meaning.
>
> They say that while it may seem easy to tell at a glance whether a
person is
> Caucasian, African or Asian, the ease dissolves when one probes
beneath surface
> characteristics and scans the genome for DNA hallmarks of "race."
>
> As it turns out, scientists say, the human species is so
evolutionarily young,
> and its migratory patterns so wide, restless and rococo, that it has
simply not
> had a chance to divide itself into separate biological groups
or "races" in any
> but the most superficial ways.
>
> "Race is a social concept, not a scientific one," said Dr. J. Craig
Venter,
> head of the Celera Genomics Corporation in Rockville, Md. "We all
evolved in
> the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that
migrated out
> of Africa and colonized the world."
>
> Dr. Venter and scientists at the National Institutes of Health
recently
> announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence
of the
> human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is
only one
> race -- the human race.
>
> Excerpt 2:
>
> "If you ask what percentage of your genes is reflected in your
external
> appearance, the basis by which we talk about race, the answer seems
to be in
> the range of .01 percent," said Dr. Harold P. Freeman, the chief
executive,
> president and director of surgery at North General Hospital in
Manhattan, who
> has studied the issue of biology and race. "This is a very, very
minimal
> reflection of your genetic makeup."
>
> Excerpt 3:
>
> The possibility of such gene networks shifting their
interrelationships
> wholesale in the course of humanity's brief foray across the globe,
and being
> skewed in significant ways according to "race" is "a bogus idea,"
said Dr.
> Aravinda Chakravarti, a geneticist at Case Western University in
Cleveland.
> "The differences that we see in skin color do not translate into
widespread
> biological differences that are unique to groups."
>
> Excerpt 4:
>
> Unfortunately for social harmony, the human brain is exquisitely
attuned to
> differences in packaging details, prompting people to exaggerate the
> significance of what has come to be called race, said Dr. Douglas C.
Wallace, a
> professor of molecular genetics at Emory University School of
Medicine in
> Atlanta.
>
> Excerpt 5:
>
> Dr. Jurgen K. Naggert, a geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar
Harbor,
> Me., said: "These big groups that we characterize as races are too
> heterogeneous to lump together in a scientific way. If you're doing a
DNA study
> to look for markers for a particular disease, you can't
use 'Caucasians' as a
> group. They're too diverse. No journal would accept it."
>
> Excerpt 6:
>
> And there are a handful of researchers who continue to insist that
there are
> fundamental differences among the three major races that extend to
the brain.
> Dr. J. Philippe Rushton, a psychologist at University of Western
Ontario in
> Canada and author of "Race, Evolution and Behavior," is perhaps the
most
> tireless proponent of the belief that the three major races differ
genetically
> in ways that affect average group I.Q. and a propensity toward
criminal
> behavior.
>
> He asserts that his work reveals east Asians to have the largest
average brain
> size and intelligence scores, those of African descent to have the
smallest
> average brains and I.Q.'s, and those of European ancestry to fall in
the
> middle.
>
> Yet many scientists have objected to his methods and interpretations,
arguing,
> among other things, that the link between total brain size and
intelligence is
> far from clear. Women, for example, have smaller brains than men do,
even when
> adjusted for their comparatively smaller body mass, yet average male
and female
> I.Q. scores are the same. For that matter, fossil evidence suggests
that
> Neanderthals had very sizable brains, and they did not even last long
enough to
> invent standardized tests.
>
> Excerpt 7:
>
> Dr. Eric S. Lander, a genome expert at the Whitehead Institute in
Cambridge,
> Mass., admits that, because research on the human genome has just
begun, he
> cannot deliver a definitive, knockout punch to those who would argue
that
> significant racial differences must be reflected somewhere in human
DNA and
> will be found once researchers get serious about looking for them.
But as Dr.
> Lander sees it, the proponents of such racial divides are the ones
with the
> tough case to defend.
>
> "There's no scientific evidence to support substantial differences
between
> groups," he said, "and the tremendous burden of proof goes to anyone
who wants
> to assert those differences."
>
> Excerpt 8:
>
> Some genes, notably those of the immune system, show enormous
variability, but
> the variability does not track with racial groupings. Then there are
the genes
> that control pigmentation and other physical features. These also
come in a
> wide assortment of "flavors," but unlike immune-related genes, are
often
> distributed in population-specific clusters, resulting in Swedes who
look far
> more like other Swedes than they do like Australian Aborigines.
>
> A few group differences are more than skin deep. Among the most
famous examples
> are the elevated rates of sickle-cell anemia among African-Americans
and of
> beta-thalassemia, another hemoglobin disorder, among those of
Mediterranean
> heritage.
>
> Both traits evolved to help the ancestors of these groups resist
malaria
> infection, but both prove lethal when inherited in a double dose. As
with
> differences in skin pigmentation, the pressure of the environment to
develop a
> group-wide trait was powerful, and the means to do so simple and
> straightforward, through the alteration of a single gene.
>
> Excerpt 9:
>
> Dr. Sonia S. Anand, an assistant professor of medicine at McMaster
University
> in Ontario, proposed that clinicians think about ethnicity rather
than race
> when seeking clues to how disease patterns differ from one group to
the next.
>
> "Ethnicity is a broad concept that encompasses both genetics and
culture," Dr.
> Anand said. "Thinking about ethnicity is a way to bring together
questions of a
> person's biology, lifestyle, diet, rather than just focusing on race.
Ethnicity
> is about phenotype and genotype, and, if you define the terms of your
study, it
> allows you to look at differences between groups in a valid way."
>
> Excerpt 10:
>
> "Science got us into this problem in the first place, with its
measurements of
> skulls and its emphasis on racial differences and racial
classifications," Dr.
> Freeman said. "Scientists should now get us out of it. They need to
be leaders
> in promoting an evolutionary understanding of the human race."
abia...@my-deja.com
completed DNA sequences this year, how could it possibly for any
scientists to claim there are no races based on genes? And not to
mention many of statements Jim Walsh posted here dated back 1970's.
Isnt he joking himself or he thinks others are as stupid as him?
Human Genome Diversity Project at Stanford already confirmed that genes
varied among different human groups and which genes have caused
different skin color, hair color, facial structures, etc are still
unknown (verus Jim Walsh's false claim that those genes are known for
many years., that already showed how ignorant Jim Walsh about genes).
So please dont say "gene shows" to fool yourself here. No scientists
fully understand genes yet and it will take them many years to
understand. And genetic mappings just completed 3 months ago, how
could it possibly for any scientists to make any claim even dated back
1970's as Jim Walsh posted here???
As long as genes have caused different skin color, hair color, facial
structures, etc and as long as people can tell difference unmistakenly
among white people, black people, Asian people, then there are
races!!! I am sure people like Jim Walsh, demorising can tell I, David
Kao, or C.W. Huang etc are Asian not native Africans or native
Europeans by just looking our faces, that is races!!!
In article <q9vnss8tp6tkpplgv...@4ax.com>,
jimw...@transend.com.tw wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:19:35 GMT, uboat2001 <uboa...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> It is false to say that I only quoted the AAA. I have quoted
dozens of
> >> sources, not all of which were in America.
> >
> >I certainly might have missed them as I don't spend that much time to
> >go through all the posts. But the burden of proof is yours to show
> >that you have quoted other sources.
>
> I am doing this ONLY once more. Below are two of the several articles
> that I have posted (each of which refers to several different
> scientists and studies that show that there are no races) I have also
> made repeated reference to several definitive sources (such as
> Montague's book).
>
> From now on, if you "pretend to deny" that I have posted other
> sources, you can expect us to LOL.
>
> By Robert Boyd
> WASHINGTON- Thanks to spectacular advantages in molecular biology and
> genetics, most scientists now reject the concept of race as a valid
> way to put human being in separate groups.
>
> Contrary to widespread public opinion, researchers no longer believe
> races are distinct biological categories created by differences in
> genes that people inherit from their parents.
>
> "Race has no basic biological reality," said Yale University biologist
> Johnathon Marks, "The human species simply doesn't come packaged that
> way." race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely
> on superficial appearances.
>
> In the social sense, race is a reality; in the scientific sense
> Scientists concede people do look different, primarily based on the
> environments in which their ancestors lived, and they agree that, as a
> social concept, race matters a great deal.
>
> The color of a person's skin, the texture of his hair and the shape of
> her eyes can be sources of love, pride and partnership of fear, hatred
> and injustice.
>
> The idea that races are not the product of human genes may seem to
> contradict common sense. It is suggested that physical traits such as
> skin color, eye shape and susceptibility to disease vary gradually
> between neighboring populations, producing almost imperceptible
> shadings.
>
> As recently as 1985, anthropologists split 50-50 when one of their
> number, Leonard Lieberman of Central Michigan University, asked in a
> survey whether they believe in the existence of separate biological
> races.
>
> In response to the uproar over The Bell Curve, the American
> Anthropological Association adopted a statement declaring that
> "differentiating species into biologically defined 'race' has proven
> meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation, whether
> in intelligence or other traits."
>
> Genes vary, they say, but not in ways that correspond to the popular
> notion of black, white, yellow, red or brown races.
>
> "Race has no basic biological reality," said Yale University biologist
> Johnathon Marks, "The human species simply doesn't come packaged that
> way."
>
> Instead, a majority of biologists and anthropologists, drawing on a
> growing body of evidence accumulated since the 1970's, have concluded
> race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely on
> superficial appearances.
>
> "In the social sense, race is a reality; in the scientific sense, it
> is not," said Michael Omi, a specialist in ethnic studies at the
> University of California in Berkeley. Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, an
> eminent genetics professor at Stanford University, said: "The
> characteristics that we see with the naked eye that help us to
> distinguish individuals from different continents are, in reality,
> skin-deep. Whenever we look under the veneer, we find that the
> differences that seem so conspicuous to us are really trivial."
> Scientists concede people do look different, primarily based on the
> environments in which their ancestors lived, and they agree that, as a
> social concept, race matters a great deal.
>
> The color of a person's skin, the texture of his hair and the shape of
> her eyes can be sources of love, pride and partnership of fear, hatred
> and injustice.
>
> Many government policies including housing, schools and voting rights
> - treat "minorities" differently than whites. Resentment over
> "affirmative action" is a burning political issue in this year's U.S.
> elections.
>
> American educators, police and the military routinely ask for racial
> identification. The U.S. Census Bureau officially classifies every
> American by race, although its categories are widely criticized. The
> idea that races are not the product of human genes may seem to
> contradict common sense.
>
> "The average citizen reacts with frank disbelief when told there is no
> such thing as race," said C. Loring Brace, a University of Michigan
> anthropologist. "The skeptical layman will shake his head and regard
> this as further evidence of the innate silliness of those who call
> themselves intellectuals."
>
> The revised concept of race also reflects recent scientific work with
> DNA, the complex molecule that contains the genes in every living
> cell. "We are beginning to get good data at the DNA level," said Yale
> geneticist, Kenneth Kidd, who studied minute variations in the genes
> of people from 42 different population groups around the globe. "The
> DNA data support the concept that you can't draw boundaries around
> races." It is suggested that physical traits such as skin color, eye
> shape and susceptibility to disease vary gradually between neighboring
> populations, producing almost imperceptible shadings.
>
> Only when people travel rapidly over great distances - as when slaves
> were brought from West Africa to North America, or a Londoner jets to
> Tokyo do the differences become distinct.
>
> This is especially true in North America, which is occupied by
> immigrants from widely scattered zones of Europe, Africa and Asia, as
> well as indigenous peoples who populated the continent at least 10,000
> years ago. "When you sharply juxtapose populations that have been
> separated so long, of course they look different," said John Moore,
> head of anthropology at the University of Florida. "But it doesn't
> last long. Soon they fall in love, marry, have kids, and everybody
> looks the same. Look at Puerto Rico."
>
> The new understanding of race draws on work in many fields.
>
> "Vast new data in human biology, prehistory and paleontology ... have
> completely revamped the traditional notions," said Solomon Katz, a
> University of Pennsylvania anthropologist.
>
> This is a switch from the scientific dogma of the 19th and much of the
> 20th century. During that period, most scientists believed humans
> could be sorted into a few (usually three, four or five) inherited
> racial types distinguished primarily by skin color. As recently as
> 1985, anthropologists split 50-50 when one of their number, Leonard
> Lieberman of Central Michigan University, asked in a survey whether
> they believe in the existence of separate biological races.
>
> A dwindling number of scholars still cling to notions of gene based
> racial superiority.
>
> In his controversial 1994 book, The Bell Curve, political scientists
> Charles Murray asserted that African-Americans inherit lower
> intelligence than persons of Asian or European descent.
>
> In response to the uproar over The Bell Curve, the American
> Anthropological Association adopted a statement declaring that
> "differentiating species into biologically defined 'race' has proven
> meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation, whether
> in intelligence or other traits."
>
> A leading holdout is Canadian geneticist Phillipe Rushton, who
> continues to claim that crime and violence are biologically determined
> tendencies.
>
> "Among humans, three major races of Monogoloids, Caucasoids and
> Negroids are typically considered, " Rushton writes in the February,
> 1996, Journal of Current Anthropology ."Genetic research has built a
> strong case for the importance of heritable factor (genes) in
> personality, psychopathology, violent crime and other social
> variables."
>
> "Rushton is dead wrong," snapped Moore, who reflects the majority
> view. In part the new consensus is an effort by scientists to stop
> misuse of race to justify the evils of racism.
>
> "Misconceptions about race have led the forms of racism that have
> caused much social, psychological and physical harm, " said Katz,
> based on outmoded biological concepts of race.
>
> Madeleine Hinkes, a forensic anthropologist who identifies soldiers'
> bodies for the U.S. Army, said, "When we remove the most obvious
> racial cues, such as skin color, hair and eye shape, the remaining
> evidence can be ambiguous."
>
> Some diseases strike certain populations but the variations don't
> correspond with traditional notions of race. Sickle-cell anemia has
> been regarded as a "black" affection because about 25 per cent of
> those descended from west Africans have a gene that can cause the
> painful blood disease. Yet light-skinned populations in India and the
> Middle East have the same percentage of the sickle- cell gene.
>
> Most scientists accept the evolutionary theory, based on DNA evidence,
> that modern humans originated in equatorial Africa about 200,000 years
> ago where our progenitor' genes were programmed to produce dark skin -
> as protection from the tropical sun's cancer-linked ultraviolet rays.
> Africans who later migrated north into Europe benefited from more
> sunlight, rather than less, because ultraviolet rays also make vitamin
> D, preventing rickets and other diseases.
>
> By a flip of the genetic dice, some newcomers had a variant gene that
> gave them slightly lighter skin. These migrants tended to get more
> vitamins, live longer and have more children - a trait they passed the
> their descendants.
>
> The trend continues for generations after generation, eventually
> producing Anglo-Saxons Swedes and other fair-skinned northern
> Europeans.
>
> "Skin color genes are turned off and on very quickly in evolution,"
> Moore explained. "People can go from black to white, or white to
> black, in 10,000 years."
>
> The farther you go from the equator, north or south, the paler people
> look. "There is no hint of a skin-color boundary," said Brace.
>
> Downloaded from CNN.COM without the permission of
> Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service.
>
> ------------------------------- Now begins the second article
>
> For Immediate Release: 7 October 1998
> Contact: Tony Fitzpatrick
> tony_fit...@aismail.wustl. edu
> 314-935-5272
> Washington University in St. Louis
> Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans
> Race doesn't matter. In fact, it doesn't even exist in humans. While
> that may sound like the idealistic decree of a minister or rabbi, it's
> actually the conclusion of an evolutionary and population biologist at
> Washington University in St. Louis.
> Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences at
> Washington University, has analyzed DNA from global human populations
> that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million
> years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in
> humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While
> between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is
> a quantitative variation, or it is not the right qualitative type of
> variation -- it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.
> Using the latest molecular biology techniques, Templeton has analyzed
> millions of genetic sequences found in three distinct types of human
> DNA and concludes that, in the scientific sense, the world is
> colorblind. That is, it should be.
> "Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society,
> but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what
> many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans --
> genetic differences," says Templeton. "Evolutionary history is the key
> to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so
> much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some
> objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the
> outcome is not even a close call: There's nothing even like a really
> distinct subdivision of humanity."
> Templeton used the same strategy to try to identify race in human
> populations that evolutionary and population biologists use for
> non-human species, from salamanders to chimpanzees. He treated human
> populations as if they were non-human populations.
> "I'm not saying these results don't recognize genetic differences
> among human populations," he cautions. "There are differences, but
> they don't define historical lineages that have persisted for a long
> time. The point is, for race to have any scientific validity and
> integrity it has to have generality beyond any one species. If it
> doesn't, the concept is meaningless."
> Templeton's paper, "Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary
> Perspective," is published in the fall 1998 issue of American
> Anthropologist, an issue almost exclusively devoted to race. The new
> editor-in-chief of American Anthropologist is Robert W. Sussman,
> Ph.D., professor of anthropology in Arts and Sciences at Washington
> University in St. Louis.
> Sussman and his guest editor for this issue, Faye Harrison, Ph.D.,
> professor of anthropology at the University of South Carolina, have
> enlisted the talents and expertise of anthropologists across the
> discipline's four subdivisions -- biological, socio-cultural,
> linguistics and archeological anthropology -- plus Templeton and
> literary essayist Gerald L. Early, Ph.D., Merle Kling Professor of
> Modern Letters in Arts and Sciences at Washington University in St.
> Louis, to provide a renewed perspective on race, a topic that
> historically is linked closely to anthropology.
> "The folk concept of race in America is so ingrained as being
> biologically based and scientific that it is difficult to make people
> see otherwise," says Sussman, a biological anthropologist. "We live on
> the one-drop racial division -- if you have one drop of black or
> Native American blood, you are considered black or Native American,
> but that doesn't cover one's physical characteristics. Templeton's
> paper shows that if we were forced to divide people into groups using
> biological traits, we'd be in real trouble. Simple divisions are next
> to impossible to make scientifically, yet we have developed simplistic
> ways of dividing people socially."
> Single Evolutionary Lineage
> Templeton analyzed genetic data from mitochondrial DNA, a form
> inherited only from the maternal side; Y chromosome DNA, paternally
> inherited DNA; and nuclear DNA, inherited from both sexes. His results
> showed that 85 percent of genetic variation in the human DNA was due
> to individual variation. A mere 15 percent could be traced to what
> could be interpreted as "racial" differences.
> "The 15 percent is well below the threshold that is used to recognize
> race in other species," Templeton says. "In many other large mammalian
> species, we see rates of differentiation two or three times that of
> humans before the lineages are even recognized as races. Humans are
> one of the most genetically homogenous species we know of. There's
> lots of genetic variation in humanity, but it's basically at the
> individual level. The between-population variation is very, very
> minor."
> Among Templeton's conclusions: there is more genetic similarity
> between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and
> Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there
> is between Africans and Melanesians. Yet, sub-Saharan Africans and
> Melanesians share dark skin, hair texture and cranial-facial features,
> traits commonly used to classify people into races. According to
> Templeton, this example shows that "racial traits" are grossly
> incompatible with overall genetic differences between human
> populations.
> "The pattern of overall genetic differences instead tells us that
> genetic lineages rapidly spread out to all of humanity, indicating
> that human populations have always had a degree of genetic contact
> with one another, and thus historically don't show any distinct
> evolutionary lineages within humanity," Templeton says. "Rather, all
> of humanity is a single long-term evolutionary lineage."
> Templeton's analysis gives impetus to the trellis model of
> evolutionary lineages, as opposed to the candelabra model, still
> popular among many anthropologists. The candelabra model generally
> holds that humanity first evolved in Africa and then spread out of
> Africa into different populations in Europe and Asia. Picture a
> candelabra, then imagine three distinct populations emerging from a
> single stem, each of them separate genetic entities that have not
> mixed genes, and thus are distinct, biological races.
> The trellis model pictures humanity as a latticework, each part having
> a connection with all other parts. It recognizes that modern humans
> started in Africa about 100 million years ago, but as humans spread,
> they also could, and did, come back into Africa, and genes were
> interchanged globally, not so much by individual Don Juans as through
> interchanges by adjacent populations.
> "If you look down at any one part of a trellis, you see that all parts
> are interconnected," Templeton explains. "Similarly, with modern
> molecular evolutionary techniques, we can find over time genes in any
> one local area of humanity that are shared by all of humanity
> throughout time. There are no distinct branches, no distinct lineages.
> By this modern definition for race, there are no races in humanity."
> Out of Africa
> The candelabra model often is used to justify the "out of Africa"
> replacement theory, whereby modern humans descended from a single
> African population, expanding out of Africa and replacing the less
> advanced Old World humans in Europe, Asia and Africa.
> Templeton's analysis suggests a less hostile scenario. "Traits can
> spread out of Africa to all of humanity because all of humanity is
> genetically interconnected," he says. "Spreading traits doesn't
> require spreading out and killing off all the earlier people. They're
> spread by reproducing with people -- it's make love, not war."
> Sussman says one of his motivations in devoting his first issue of
> American Anthropologist to race was to show the relevance of
> anthropology both in the academic world and in our everyday lives.
> "Historically, race has been a key issue in anthropology," says
> Sussman. "Since about 1910, anthropologists have been fighting this
> lack of understanding of what people are really like, how people have
> migrated and mixed together.
> Anthropologists such as Franz Boas, W.E.B. Dubois, Margaret Mead, Ruth
> Benedict and Ashley Montagu were in the forefront of warning people
> about the dangers of Nazism during the '30s and '40s, yet the
> anthropologists' profile on key issues in America has been so low
> recently that when President Clinton appointed a committee on race in
> 1997, there wasn't a single anthropologist on it.
> "Anthropology, in some ways, has become too esoteric. One of my goals
> with the journal is to show what anthropologists are doing and how
> they relate to how we think and how we live."
> ###
>
> Love, Jim
>
> Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in
> Arts and Sciences at Washington University explains.
> "Similarly, with modern molecular evolutionary techniques,
> we can find over time genes in any one local area
> of humanity that are shared by all of humanity throughout
> time. There are no distinct branches, no distinct lineages.
> By this modern definition for race, there are no races...."
Tom Billings
> In article <8qgb5d$jq6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net> wrote:
> > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > Their language, "All human groups seems to interest in their
> origins,"
> > > does give rise the impression it is valid for people to
> expect/believe
> > > different groups have different origins.
> > What people expect or believe is irrelevant to the scientific truth.
> Truth is what people believe behaviorally speaking. It is what matter
> anyway.
Build a bridge, or an aircraft with that definition of truth
and you'll make a lot of dead bodies very fast. That "matters"
a lot more, in an industrial environment, than the type
of politicizing blather used to manipulate people's emotions
over unsubstantiated characteristics like "race". The idea
that we can fudge definitions of truth to accommodate
differing perceptions is a path to sophistry's triumph
over science, straight and sure.
> Two guys was watching a man moving toward them.
> One guy asked the other, "Is an black man moving? Or is a man with dark
> skin moving?"
> The other guy answered, "May be your heart is moving."
In neither case was any charateristic of
the man relevant to his behavior mentioned.
Perhaps a heart, or the perception of a mind,
of what that man is, is moving. That does not
affect the truth, just the perception of it by
one person.
Regards,
Tom Billings
--
Oregon L5 Society
http://www.OregonL5.org
ltl...@mindspring.com
it...@teleport.com (Tom Billings) wrote:
> In article <8qgd1l$m2s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net> wrote:
> > > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > > Their language, "All human groups seems to interest in their
> > origins,"
> > > > does give rise the impression it is valid for people to
> > expect/believe
> > > > different groups have different origins.
>
> > > What people expect or believe is irrelevant to the scientific
truth.
>
> > Truth is what people believe behaviorally speaking. It is what
matter
> > anyway.
>
> Build a bridge, or an aircraft with that definition of truth
> and you'll make a lot of dead bodies very fast. That "matters"
> a lot more, in an industrial environment, than the type
> of politicizing blather used to manipulate people's emotions
> over unsubstantiated characteristics like "race". The idea
> that we can fudge definitions of truth to accommodate
> differing perceptions is a path to sophistry's triumph
> over science, straight and sure.
Truth is not simple objective fact.
Truth is what people believe to be truth.
> > Two guys was watching a man moving toward them.
> > One guy asked the other, "Is an black man moving? Or is a man with
dark
> > skin moving?"
> > The other guy answered, "May be your heart is moving."
>
> In neither case was any charateristic of
> the man relevant to his behavior mentioned.
> Perhaps a heart, or the perception of a mind,
> of what that man is, is moving. That does not
> affect the truth, just the perception of it by
> one person.
The question is only a question because of something else is happening:
racism. Racism is not the results of scientific facts. Arguing there is
no race is meaningless because it will not change the existence of
racism. If one observes no racism, it doesn't matter race has a genetic
basis or not.
Racism is behind the moving heart. Solve it and the question whether a
black man is moving or a man of dark skin is moving is irrelevant.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Billings
>
> --
> Oregon L5 Society
> http://www.OregonL5.org
>
Tom Billings
> In article <itsd1-23090...@a48-01-10.pdx.du.teleport.com>,
> it...@teleport.com (Tom Billings) wrote:
> > In article <8qgd1l$m2s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <8qgb5d$jq6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net> wrote:
> > > > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > > > Their language, "All human groups seems to interest in their
> > > origins,"
> > > > > does give rise the impression it is valid for people to
> > > expect/believe
> > > > > different groups have different origins.
> > > > What people expect or believe is irrelevant to the scientific
> truth.
> > > Truth is what people believe behaviorally speaking. It is what
> matter
> > > anyway.
> > Build a bridge, or an aircraft with that definition of truth
> > and you'll make a lot of dead bodies very fast. That "matters"
> > a lot more, in an industrial environment, than the type
> > of politicizing blather used to manipulate people's emotions
> > over unsubstantiated characteristics like "race". The idea
> > that we can fudge definitions of truth to accommodate
> > differing perceptions is a path to sophistry's triumph
> > over science, straight and sure.
> Truth is not simple objective fact.
> Truth is what people believe to be truth.
Not correct on many levels. One most important one is that
level of intellectual action in which we build models of the
world inside our heads to guide our actions, which actions
have consequences. If we use unsubstantiated concepts,
like race, as a basis for some of these models, then a large
part of the time the consequences will be tragic. We are
not in the business of tragedy.
> > > Two guys was watching a man moving toward them.
> > > One guy asked the other, "Is an black man moving? Or is a man with
> dark
> > > skin moving?"
> > > The other guy answered, "May be your heart is moving."
> > In neither case was any charateristic of
> > the man relevant to his behavior mentioned.
> > Perhaps a heart, or the perception of a mind,
> > of what that man is, is moving. That does not
> > affect the truth, just the perception of it by
> > one person.
> The question is only a question because of something else is happening:
> racism. Racism is not the results of scientific facts.
Correct!
> Arguing there is
> no race is meaningless because it will not change the existence of
> racism.
Incorrect. While much racist argument is emotionally based, most
of its adherents have an intellectual justification for it within their
intellectual models of the world, by which they justify their racist
actions and statements. Stating the point, that race, and therefore
their arguments, have no basis in models of reality based on the
scientific method, is a powerfull intellectual argument against racism
itself, weakening its hold on people's minds.
> If one observes no racism, it doesn't matter race has a genetic
> basis or not.
It does matter for those who desire real knowledge about human
actions, and about predicting them. The fact that genetics has
shown no biological basis for race, or for predicting human actions
based on such categories as race, allows policy-makers and others
in society to look towards *real* predictors for the behaviors of
their fellow human beings. These are, as yet, too few and too
uncertain, which calls for further research into the *real* drivers
of human behavior, not for submitting to old models now proven
to be far from accurate in their predictive abilities.
> Racism is behind the moving heart. Solve it and the question whether a
> black man is moving or a man of dark skin is moving is irrelevant.
The intellect *can* influence the heart, and through it, we can open
doors to a heart caged in ignorance.
ltl...@mindspring.com
it...@teleport.com (Tom Billings) wrote:
Most human are rational most of the time. If one decide to
disparage/mistreat someone, he can always find/invent reasons.
Again, racism is the moving cause. The question whether one sees a
black man moving or a man of dark complexion moving is the effect or a
distraction. The answer is irrelevant if the cause is not dealt with.
If one is serious in weakening racism's hold on people's minds, he
should begin with himself. Posters of the Chinese NGs can start to
demand themselves the highest standard before they disparage China and
her citizens.
> > If one observes no racism, it doesn't matter race has a genetic
> > basis or not.
>
> It does matter for those who desire real knowledge about human
> actions, and about predicting them. The fact that genetics has
> shown no biological basis for race, or for predicting human actions
> based on such categories as race, allows policy-makers and others
> in society to look towards *real* predictors for the behaviors of
> their fellow human beings. These are, as yet, too few and too
> uncertain, which calls for further research into the *real* drivers
> of human behavior, not for submitting to old models now proven
> to be far from accurate in their predictive abilities.
>
> > Racism is behind the moving heart. Solve it and the question
whether a
> > black man is moving or a man of dark skin is moving is irrelevant.
>
> The intellect *can* influence the heart, and through it, we can open
> doors to a heart caged in ignorance.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Billings
>
> --
> Oregon L5 Society
> http://www.OregonL5.org
>
ltl...@mindspring.com
it...@teleport.com (Tom Billings) wrote:
> In article <8qijls$2h3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > matter
> > > > anyway.
>
> > > Build a bridge, or an aircraft with that definition of truth
> > > and you'll make a lot of dead bodies very fast. That "matters"
> > > a lot more, in an industrial environment, than the type
> > > of politicizing blather used to manipulate people's emotions
> > > over unsubstantiated characteristics like "race". The idea
> > > that we can fudge definitions of truth to accommodate
> > > differing perceptions is a path to sophistry's triumph
> > > over science, straight and sure.
>
> > Truth is not simple objective fact.
> > Truth is what people believe to be truth.
>
> Not correct on many levels. One most important one is that
> level of intellectual action in which we build models of the
> world inside our heads to guide our actions, which actions
> have consequences. If we use unsubstantiated concepts,
> like race, as a basis for some of these models, then a large
> part of the time the consequences will be tragic. We are
> not in the business of tragedy.
>
Yeah. You are right.
All Christians including the Pople are in the business of tragedy
because God can never be substantiated.
> Regards,
>
> Tom Billings
>
> --
> Oregon L5 Society
> http://www.OregonL5.org
>
Tom Billings
> In article <itsd1-23090...@a48-01-35.pdx.du.teleport.com>,
> it...@teleport.com (Tom Billings) wrote:
> > In article <8qijls$2h3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > Arguing there is
> > > no race is meaningless because it will not change the existence of
> > > racism.
> > Incorrect. While much racist argument is emotionally based, most
> > of its adherents have an intellectual justification for it within
> their
> > intellectual models of the world, by which they justify their racist
> > actions and statements. Stating the point, that race, and therefore
> > their arguments, have no basis in models of reality based on the
> > scientific method, is a powerfull intellectual argument against
> racism
> > itself, weakening its hold on people's minds.
> Most human are rational most of the time.
Correct, and in being rational, they will look for accurate models
to guide their actions, thus maximizing their fullfillment in the world.
> If one decide to
> disparage/mistreat someone, he can always find/invent reasons.
He can, but will he, if he knows that today's most powerful means
of gaining knowledge, science, is showing those reasons to be wrong?
> Again, racism is the moving cause.
You sound here like you believe that racism exists independently
of a human being's experience, emotions and actions and is somehow
intrinsic. It isn't, at least as far as anyone has shown.
> The question whether one sees a
> black man moving or a man of dark complexion moving is the effect or a
> distraction. The answer is irrelevant if the cause is not dealt with.
These 2 sentences are highly ambiguous in English. Can you try again?
> If one is serious in weakening racism's hold on people's minds, he
> should begin with himself. Posters of the Chinese NGs can start to
> demand themselves the highest standard before they disparage China and
> her citizens.
The debate, on what that standard should be, might go on forever,
and indeed probably will. If we accepted this, when someone thinks
he should criticize the CCP/PLA, it would always wait on some
"highest standard", which someone else will argue he/she has
not attained, indicating the critic is not intent on avoiding racism.
This simply silences criticism, and should not be expected. We
know we aren't perfect, never will be, and expect criticism.
Indeed, when it points out a better path for us, many welcome it!
Few here want to disparage China itself, though many
are in opposition to *portions* of society in China today.
ltl...@mindspring.com
Self-interest reigns most of the time.
If the costs of some activities can be externalized, ususally they will
be externalized in the absence of strict laws.
> > If one decide to
> > disparage/mistreat someone, he can always find/invent reasons.
>
> He can, but will he, if he knows that today's most powerful means
> of gaining knowledge, science, is showing those reasons to be wrong?
>
No powerful means of gaining knowledge are needed to tell all races are
equally human.
> > Again, racism is the moving cause.
>
> You sound here like you believe that racism exists independently
> of a human being's experience, emotions and actions and is somehow
> intrinsic. It isn't, at least as far as anyone has shown.
I don't believe racism is intrinsic.
Racism exists because of profit motive. To the slave owners, holding
other humans as slaves was cheaper than paying them monthly salaries.
Racism exits because it can make people feel good about themselves. No
matter how bad their situations are, they can still superior people.
If people enjoy other people/coutnry being disparaged, some
organizations will step in to provide the serivce.
> > The question whether one sees a
> > black man moving or a man of dark complexion moving is the effect
or a
> > distraction. The answer is irrelevant if the cause is not dealt
with.
>
> These 2 sentences are highly ambiguous in English. Can you try again?
The question whether there are races or not reflects the existence of
racism. But it can also be used to distract people from the problem of
racism. If there were no racism, the question is irrelevant. Diversity,
skin deep or otherwise, is a cause for celebration.
> > If one is serious in weakening racism's hold on people's minds, he
> > should begin with himself. Posters of the Chinese NGs can start to
> > demand themselves the highest standard before they disparage China
and
> > her citizens.
>
> The debate, on what that standard should be, might go on forever,
> and indeed probably will.
> If we accepted this, when someone thinks
> he should criticize the CCP/PLA, it would always wait on some
> "highest standard", which someone else will argue he/she has
> not attained, indicating the critic is not intent on avoiding racism.
> This simply silences criticism, and should not be expected. We
> know we aren't perfect, never will be, and expect criticism.
> Indeed, when it points out a better path for us, many welcome it!
No, I am not talking about a public standard. I am talking about one's
own standard. I am talking about the standard of a person who is
serious in weakening racism's hold on people's minds.
> Few here want to disparage China itself, though many
> are in opposition to *portions* of society in China today.
>
To me, nonsafety related human rights are not human needs.
International cross-cultural advocacy should be considered harmful.
> Regards,
>
> Tom Billings
>
> --
> Oregon L5 Society
> http://www.OregonL5.org
>
Skipper
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Could not debate then curse... Typical David Kao from HP
> (davi...@hp.com, skipper gilbr...@my-deja.com).
What kind of problem did you have with David Kao from HP? Your
identity as "Taipe...@aol.com" is written all over your face by
now. Your evil intention by using "abianchen" as your face mask
is all well recognized now. FIrst was Peter Sun and TC Yang then
there was the David Kao. Now there is the Skipper.
You are truely an idiot and this is spelled out by your own mouth!
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
Skipper
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Truth is what people believe behaviorally speaking. It is what matter
> anyway.
What people believe is only an objective perception of people. It has
nothing to do with truth whatsoever. People have believed over many
generations that people got cold becuase of cold weather. The truth is
people get cold because of flu or virus attacks.
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
tchen00
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Could not debate then curse... Typical David Kao from HP
> (davi...@hp.com, skipper gilbr...@my-deja.com).
>
> Keep barking, doggie!
Since it has taken you so long.... Let me give you some hint.
David Kao's contract with HP as far as I checked a while ago
was in hybernation. Go figue, butthead!
Thomas
Phipps
If there were no concept of 'race', there would be no racism.
Humans have an inate propensity to categorize. This would have been
essential to survival during the hunter-gatherer expansion phase, e.g.,
'people eating these new plants with this number of leaves of that
particular shape all died soon after eating it, so let's not eat these
plants.'
It is one of the fundamental building blocks of language: there are a
bunch of things with identified similar characteristics, so they are
given a common name. The more salient or culturally relevant a
characteristic, the more likely it is to be given a separate name, i.e.,
categorized.
Among humans, skin color is one of the most salient of visible
characteristics, so many - though not all - societies have coined
category labels accordingly. If other attibutes were highly evident and
divergent - say the presence or absense of prominent nose hairs -
category words might have evolved for them, too/instead.
A categorization label is more likely to be applied where there is a
"critical mass" to support it. If a group of 3 anthropologists - a
Japanese, a Dane, and a Nigerian, were to make first contact with an
isolated tribe in the highlands of Mindanao: the tribe members might
talk of "the one with hair the color of dried grass" or somesuch. They
are unlikely to coin a word for "white man" because, for all they know,
he might be the only one, or his pigmentation does not stand out as a
relevant characteristic as compared to what he has in common with the
other two. For them, the anthropologists might be all members of the
same ethnic group, "outsiders with funny tools and no pigs to barter",
or whatever.
> Diversity,
> skin deep or otherwise, is a cause for celebration.
Not only that. At a species level, genetic diversity is an 'insurance
policy' against pandemic diseases.
>
> > > If one is serious in weakening racism's hold on people's minds, he
> > > should begin with himself. Posters of the Chinese NGs can start to
> > > demand themselves the highest standard before they disparage China
> and
> > > her citizens.
> >
> > The debate, on what that standard should be, might go on forever,
> > and indeed probably will.
> > If we accepted this, when someone thinks
> > he should criticize the CCP/PLA, it would always wait on some
> > "highest standard", which someone else will argue he/she has
> > not attained, indicating the critic is not intent on avoiding racism.
> > This simply silences criticism, and should not be expected. We
> > know we aren't perfect, never will be, and expect criticism.
> > Indeed, when it points out a better path for us, many welcome it!
>
> No, I am not talking about a public standard. I am talking about one's
> own standard. I am talking about the standard of a person who is
> serious in weakening racism's hold on people's minds.
Would you not agree that weakening the perceived validity of racial
categorization would help to weaken racism's hold on peoples' minds?
HGDP's website has clearly stated that "in biological terms, there is no
such thing as a clearly defined race." There is no such thing, in
biological terms. Would it not help in combatting racism, to be able to
say that the concept of 'race' is scientifically invalid?
One would think so: telling a racist that it is all in his head and that
there is no scientific basis for it, would help force him to confront
his unfounded prejudices. If you disagree: please tell us why you think
it would not be helpful.
You have expressed nice, warm and fuzzy, sentiments; but you have
refrained from confronting "abianchen"'s desperate efforts to promote
presumed validity of the concept of race. He has resorted to outright
fabrication, even in the face of clear statements to the contrary.
One of his most outrageous fabrications, is that HGDP is working to
identify genes coding for physiological traits (and, by extension, those
traits that would be racially typical.) A spokesman for HGDP stated
clearly that physiological traits/phenotype of the DNA sample donors are
not recorded as part of the Project: and it follows that if you don't
know the physiological traits of the DNA sample donor, you can not use
the sample to identify genes coding for the [unknown] physiological
traits.
There is a certain squeamishness among the community of geneticists over
identifying genes expressing cosmetic traits. Identifying genes
responsible for susceptibility to an autoimune disease can lead to an
eventual cure; identifying (say) genes for producing a faster sprinter
leads to ethical dilemas, such as the parental right of predetermining
the life of their progeny. Worse: can you imagine what Hitler might have
done... if he had available to him, the tools to produce a
genetically-engineered "Aryan Master Race"?
>
> > Few here want to disparage China itself, though many
> > are in opposition to *portions* of society in China today.
> >
>
> To me, nonsafety related human rights are not human needs.
> International cross-cultural advocacy should be considered harmful.
You are entitled to your opinions.
You might construct an ethical argument to support your position, and
submit that for debate. If your argument is clear and well founded
enough: you might stand a chance at bringing some others around to your
pov. A mere statement of your pov is nothing more than that, and
unlikely to sway anyone.
Phipps
>
> Truth is not simple objective fact.
> Truth is what people believe to be truth.
If people hold that the truth is that the world is flat: is the truth
then that the world is flat?
It might be useable as a working proposition; but had we not learned
that the premise that the world is flat, is false? And, if false: how
can it be true?
abia...@my-deja.com
How about this, if you David Kao of HP is behind skipper gilbraltar@my-
deja.com, you are my dry grandson? :^))
ps. David Kao (aka skipper) posted from HP computer as below
NNTP-Posting-Host: 15.255.208.3
In article <8qo2m1$b5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8qghl0$rrt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Could not debate then curse... Typical David Kao from HP
> > (davi...@hp.com, skipper gilbr...@my-deja.com).
>
> What kind of problem did you have with David Kao from HP? Your
> identity as "Taipe...@aol.com" is written all over your face by
> now. Your evil intention by using "abianchen" as your face mask
> is all well recognized now. FIrst was Peter Sun and TC Yang then
> there was the David Kao. Now there is the Skipper.
>
> You are truely an idiot and this is spelled out by your own mouth!
>
abia...@my-deja.com
If there were no concept of 'race', there would be no racism.
If ther were no concept of 'gender', there would be no sex
discrimination.
If there were no concept of 'religion', there would be no religious war.
If...
But the fact is that there are races, genders, religions... Only when
you face the fact and deal with the problem, there is always the hope
to solve the problem. If you put your head into the sand, the problem
will be there.
In article <39CFAE...@slip.net>,
mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <itsd1-24090...@a48-01-44.pdx.du.teleport.com>,
> > it...@teleport.com (Tom Billings) wrote:
> > > In article <8qllth$ap8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ltl...@mindspring.com
wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <itsd1-2309001429570001@a48-01-
abia...@my-deja.com
any "scientific data". You Jim Walsh claimed to have "scientific data"
to backup the claim "there are no races" and we have asked you many
times to post it but you failed to do so. Therefore, we have to
conclude you dont have any "scientific data" as you claimed and those
sources you posted have no scientific foundation either.
In article <f6e0tsgiard63j4a3...@4ax.com>,
jimw...@transend.com.tw wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:32:06 GMT, uboat2001 <uboa...@my-deja.com>
>
> >Well, it is a joke. Take it eay. But I do like to know if you have
> >other non-US sources. Canada does not count, it is too closely
related to US.
>
> 1. Since you have never posted a SINGLE source in support of your
> "flat-earth" racism, how dare you complain that my sources are limited
> to one continent.
>
> 2. That claim is false. My sources and their sources are world-wide.
>
> 3. Look at the signature that follows. Look closely.
>
> Love, Jim
>
> "I share the view that å–ªace' is a myth." Dr. Syed Husin Ali, leader
of the Malaysian
> People's Party, Newsweek, September 18, 2000, page 49.
ltl...@mindspring.com
mrph...@slip.net wrote:
If people consider a flat world as true, they clearly hadn't learn the
premise that a flat world is false.
ltl...@mindspring.com
Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8qgd1l$m2s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > Truth is what people believe behaviorally speaking. It is what
matter
> > anyway.
>
> What people believe is only an objective perception of people. It has
> nothing to do with truth whatsoever. People have believed over many
> generations that people got cold becuase of cold weather. The truth is
> people get cold because of flu or virus attacks.
>
Whatever relationship between cold symptoms and virus attacks, it is
only as true as it can make people believe it.
People believed they got cold because of cold weather in the past
because it was the most convincing explanation at their time.
> --
> Skipper
>
> Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
>
Skipper
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <8qo33d$v9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8qgd1l$m2s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > > Truth is what people believe behaviorally speaking. It is what
> matter
> > > anyway.
> >
> > What people believe is only an objective perception of people. It
has
> > nothing to do with truth whatsoever. People have believed over many
> > generations that people got cold becuase of cold weather. The truth
is
> > people get cold because of flu or virus attacks.
> >
>
> Whatever relationship between cold symptoms and virus attacks, it is
> only as true as it can make people believe it.
In such people's mind the truth is the cold weather that makes them
sick, which is why it is called "get cold". But don't you agree that
every effort should be made to find the true truth that a flu or
virus is the real reason they get sick? Old grand parents would force
evry sick child to wear inches thick of clothes to keep warm based
on the false truth they believed in. But the true truth is just the
opposite that much less clothing is required to keep cool to reduce
the pain caused from fever. I think this is a typical example that
a false truth could do to harm people.
>
> People believed they got cold because of cold weather in the past
> because it was the most convincing explanation at their time.
Time is on the move all the time. It is people's best interest in
finding the truth to change their mind of false truth all the time.
What is considered truth now might turn out to be false tomorrow.
If what people believe to be truth is never questioned then such
people would pretty much stay in the stone age time.
Skipper
tchen00 <tho...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Since it has taken you so long.... Let me give you some hint.
> David Kao's contract with HP as far as I checked a while ago
> was in hybernation. Go figue, butthead!
>
> Thomas
>
Taipei6785 does not have the intelligence to look at any hint.
While it is clear to us, it is as clear as ink bottle to him.
That's why so many of us call him an idiot.
Welcome back, Thomas
Skipper
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> You may say
>
> If there were no concept of 'race', there would be no racism.
>
> If ther were no concept of 'gender', there would be no sex
> discrimination.
>
> If there were no concept of 'religion', there would be no religious
war.
>
> If...
>
> But the fact is that there are races, genders, religions... Only when
> you face the fact and deal with the problem, there is always the hope
> to solve the problem. If you put your head into the sand, the problem
> will be there.
Very interesting idea indeed!
The problem is you make things up to create problems for yourself.
For example, there is no Peter Sun but you kept on fighting with him.
There is no TC Yang here either but you kept on looking for the ghost.
Now obviously there is no David Kao for a long time. Yet you seem
hurt by getting kicks right at your butt from him.
Time to get smart, Taipei6785. There are good reasons people kept on
calling you idiot.
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
ltl...@mindspring.com
I assume you are referring to the concept of race.
Racism is the cause.
Racism was not and is not the results of scientific findings on races.
Sciences were not the cause, sciences cannot be the solution.
It is obvious that there are different races.
It is equally obvious that all races are equally human. Sciences can
never prove races do not exist. Sciences can only inform us that we are
the same more than we are different. It then depends on the individual
to interpret these sameness and differences.
abia...@my-deja.com
How about this, if you David Kao is behind skipper then you are my dry
grandson. :^))
David Kao posted from HP computer as below:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 15.255.208.3
In article <8qqpvp$6ub$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8qoriu$v35$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > You may say
> >
> > If there were no concept of 'race', there would be no racism.
> >
> > If ther were no concept of 'gender', there would be no sex
> > discrimination.
> >
> > If there were no concept of 'religion', there would be no religious
> war.
> >
> > If...
> >
> > But the fact is that there are races, genders, religions... Only
when
> > you face the fact and deal with the problem, there is always the
hope
> > to solve the problem. If you put your head into the sand, the
problem
> > will be there.
>
> Very interesting idea indeed!
>
> The problem is you make things up to create problems for yourself.
> For example, there is no Peter Sun but you kept on fighting with him.
> There is no TC Yang here either but you kept on looking for the ghost.
> Now obviously there is no David Kao for a long time. Yet you seem
> hurt by getting kicks right at your butt from him.
>
> Time to get smart, Taipei6785. There are good reasons people kept on
> calling you idiot.
>
> --
> Skipper
>
> Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
>
74276...@compuserve.com
L. T. Lee's observation that "truth is not simple objective fact;
truth is what people believe to be truth" is the hogwash of relativism
-- a concept apparently embraced by L. T. Lee and replete in much of
that which has been posted by L. T. Lee in recent months. Use of the
concept is obviously advantageous to one who can provide no "objective
truth" to support his/her/their assertions. While truth is a matter of
perception in some measure, there are, nonetheless, objective
observations of truth for which there can be no argument and no
relativistic interpretation for those who reach conclusions on the
basis of tangible elements in their physical existence rather than on
the basis of theoretical, emotional, theological, and/or political
modifiers. L. T. Lee may be desirous of an analytical process
more compatible with chaos and freedom to interpret without the
slightest support of peer-reviewed physical evidence and equally
accepted logic. Whether such desire translates into a process the rest
of the World should adopt is another matter.
As an element of culture, race and racial differentiation has some
validity. In genetic science it does not -- regardless of whatever
out-of-context material from whatever source the person or persons
posing as "Abianchen" might select and post. Chinese people do not
represent a different race within their species from Irish people
because of the dichotomy in facial structure or eye and hair color
anymore than an albino of any species is a separate "race" -- in terms
of genetics -- from others who are not albino. In looking to the
definitions of "Anthropology" and "Genetics," one might come to
understand the flaws inherent to mixing concepts from both disciplines
of science to reach invalid conclusions such as those promulgated by
the person or persons posing here as "Abianchen." But, let's be clear.
The person or persons posing as "Abianchen" care little for discussion
of race as a real or imagined component of genetics other than to
distract participants here from the discussion of China and its
politics. Ergo, the discussion of scientific evidence for the
existence or lackthereof regarding individual races of human beings
has no true relevance to the politics of China.
Race may have some impact on China's culture as it pertains to
co-existence of those of traditional Han Chinese descent with those of
traditional Mongolian descent or those from Western China who are of
the Muslim faith. However, the person or persons posing as "Abianchen"
have done nothing substantive -- scientifically or logically -- to
illustrate pressing relevance to the overwhelming majority of China's
citizens. Thus, the person or persons posing as "Abianchen" manage
only to waste time and resources toward no appreciably positive goal,
unless the goal is something other than to discuss *CHINA'S* political
and cultural condition. As for the notion put forth by the person or
persons posing as "Abianchen" that Jim Walsh should prove "there are
no races:" such is an attempt to require that Jim Walsh prove a
negative. Readers here should understand the natural and inherent
fallacy of requiring proof for lack of existence. In other words:
there is no truly reliable scientific test that proves, once and for
all, the complete absence of a condition, substance, or item. One can
only prove, in absolute terms, that a condition, substance, or item
exists and do so without reasonable doubt.
Why should one assume, as is evident in the comments issued by the
person or persons posing as "Abianchen," that what "genetic science"
may "eventually" find can be considered as fact in the present? The
person or persons posing as "Abianchen" might ASSUME science is the
art of ASSUMPTION and would thereby ASSUME in error while peddling
concepts and rhetoric that will contribute little or nothing to an
understanding of or improvements in Chinese politics and/or Chinese
culture. Why not return to or begin discussion of that which focuses
on China and a better way of life for the people of China, whatever
that way of life might be?
Walter Scott
+================================================================+
| Quoting abia...@my-deja.com: A good dictator is much |
| better than a lousy politician. Without good dictator |
| Bismarck, there won't be today's Germany. |
+================================================================+
| Quoting Tom Goodman <Comment...@Headquarter.CCI>: Don't |
| mind me, I am against freedom of speech. I believe in law |
| and order. Only criminals and pedophile need freedom of |
| speech. |
+================================================================+
| What Future Can The PRC Expect Without Implementation Of |
| Democracy And Democratic Principles In Some Unique Form |
| Accompanying Economic Progress? |
+================================================================+
NTReader v0.31(P)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
Skipper
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> David Kao of HP (davi...@hp.com, aka skipper
gilbr...@my-deja.com);
>
> How about this, if you David Kao is behind skipper then you are my dry
> grandson. :^))
>
> David Kao posted from HP computer as below:
>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 15.255.208.3
>
> In article <8qqpvp$6ub$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8qoriu$v35$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >
> > For example, there is no Peter Sun but you kept on fighting with
him.
> > There is no TC Yang here either but you kept on looking for the
ghost.
> > Now obviously there is no David Kao for a long time. Yet you seem
> > hurt by getting kicks right at your butt from him.
> >
> > Time to get smart, Taipei6785. There are good reasons people kept on
> > calling you idiot.
Same old stupid tatics again. Can you ever face any challenge? Let me
tell you straight! Just keep on bashing David Kao as many times as you
wish. But can you ever answer the challenge just once and be a real
man behind the name Jeff Chen or Taipe...@aol.com?
You made nobody to be your grandson or anything. You will hear kids
everyday saying "you are my son", or "you are a dog" or whatever.
But that only make them kids. Do you understand it?
I hope you can really grow up once by reading my scientific data
I posted a few days ago. At least you should read it and refute it.
Asking me to provide it again and again but fail to read it after I
post it really makes you exactly like a kid.
Hpoe this time you are convinced that your behavior is realy like
a kid. Get it now?
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
Skipper
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> I assume you are referring to the concept of race.
>
> Racism is the cause.
> Racism was not and is not the results of scientific findings on races.
Thus racism can not be the base to determine if human races exist.
This is simply because racism is originated from some people's
objective view. For examle, if I objectively think you are a bad
guy, it can not be the base to determine if you are really a bad
guy.
> Sciences were not the cause, sciences cannot be the solution.
Agreed. Science did not make human races exist or non exist. Science
is a highly credible method human beings use to find facts. It can
be used with little doubt to determine if human races exist. No matter
how advanced science is it can not change the fact if human races
exist or not.
>
> It is obvious that there are different races.
By saying so, you need to provide credible evidence to prove it.
Scientific evidence is widely accepted as credible evidence. So why
don't you post some scientific evidence to prove your point?
> It is equally obvious that all races are equally human. Sciences can
> never prove races do not exist. Sciences can only inform us that we
are
> the same more than we are different.
I can see that you have a good will to not be a racist. But it is
a common interest for human beings to find out if human races do exist
or not.
> It then depends on the individual
> to interpret these sameness and differences.
>
You may have your own perception that you choose what to believe and
what not. However, in terms of truth your own perception is not
enough to make a conclusion for everyone including yourself. That is
exactly why scientific proof is desired since scientific perception
is widely accepted to be much more credible than any individual's
own perception.
abia...@my-deja.com
How about this, if you David Kao is behind skipper then you are my dry
grandson. And if you David Kao is behind skipper and deny you are, you
also everyone's dry-grandson. :^))
ps. David Kao posted from HP computer as below:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 15.255.208.3
In article <8qrgk7$q4o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
abia...@my-deja.com
You called anyone who uses terms like "white people", "black people"
racists and said Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson are racists because
they have used those terms.
Now, Jim Walsh, based on your definition of racists and the fact that
CNN, New York Times also used terms like "white people" and "black
people", please tell us if CNN, New York Times etc American media are
racist media. Yes or No? Please choose one.
If you refuse to choose one by end of this month, 9/30/00, then I have
to conclude that your definition of racists is false or you agreed
American media are racist media but have no courage to admit it because
they are American mdeia.
So Jim Walsh, be brave, please pick "yes or no" to my very simple
question.
In article <0833ts4ga0tb001i3...@4ax.com>,
jimw...@transend.com.tw wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:24:47 GMT, uboat2001 <uboa...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >FYI, no one agree your view that those accept the concept of races
are
> >racist or have anything to do with racism.
>
> Look up the definitions of the suffixes -ist and -ism. The
> dictionaries agree with me.
>
> Love, Jim
>
> "I share the view that å–ªace' is a myth." Dr. Syed Husin Ali, leader
of the Malaysian
> People's Party, Newsweek, September 18, 2000, page 49.
>
abia...@my-deja.com
the one opened the thread about races two weeks ago and Jim Walsh
claimed he has "scientific data" to prove the claim "there are no
races". And we have asked Jim Walsh many times to post his so-
called "scientific data" but he failed to do so. By end of this month,
9/30/00, if Jim Walsh fail to post it, then I have to conclude that Jim
Walsh's claim of so-called "scientific data" and "there are no races"
are false.
Now, the motherfucker or motherfuckers Walter Scott should prove why
she think I am not a person but PERSONS.
In article <8qrgcs$34v$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
Walter Scott
The person or persons posing as "Abianchen" have been asserting -- for
at least several months -- there is a genetic basis for race and have
improperly cited the HGDP to support his/her/their thesis in an effort
to divert discussion from China's politics and culture to mostly or
entirely irrelevant issues. Whatever Jim Walsh may or may not have
done does not change what the person or persons posing as "Abianchen"
have done. He, she, or they are asked again, along with others here:
abia...@my-deja.com
open the thread about races which this Walter Sissy considered non-
Chinese related thread, of course, Walter Sissy is typical hypocrite
will not blame Jim Walsh.
As for HGDP, anyone can go to their website to see if HGDP has
confirmed that genes varied among different human groups and some genes
have caused different skin color, hair color, facial structures, etc.
And Walter Sissy does not have to lie here, anyone can find it in HGDP
website.
And motherfucker or motherfuckers, Walter Scott should tell us why she
thinks I am not one person but PERSONS.
In article <8qst4g$65u$1...@sshuraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
74276...@CompuServe.COM (Walter Scott) wrote:
>
>
> The person or persons posing as "Abianchen" have been asserting --
for
> at least several months -- there is a genetic basis for race and have
> improperly cited the HGDP to support his/her/their thesis in an
effort
> to divert discussion from China's politics and culture to mostly or
> entirely irrelevant issues. Whatever Jim Walsh may or may not have
> done does not change what the person or persons posing as "Abianchen"
> have done. He, she, or they are asked again, along with others here:
ltl...@mindspring.com
Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8qqvd9$btm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > I assume you are referring to the concept of race.
> >
> > Racism is the cause.
> > Racism was not and is not the results of scientific findings on
races.
>
> Thus racism can not be the base to determine if human races exist.
> This is simply because racism is originated from some people's
> objective view. For examle, if I objectively think you are a bad
> guy, it can not be the base to determine if you are really a bad
> guy.
>
> > Sciences were not the cause, sciences cannot be the solution.
>
> Agreed. Science did not make human races exist or non exist.
Sciences did not make the colors of the rainbow.
The different colors form a continous spectrum. One color shades into
another and then into another. Sciences cannot tell the exact frequency
where the color blue ends and color greens starts. We humans see the
different colors and we name the colors. Different people also name
different shades of color differently. One's greenish blue is another's
bluish green.
Sciences can never prove human races do not exist. Human behaviors
determine whether races exist or do not exist. The urgent problem we
are all facing is racism. Without racism, the existence races is either
irrelevant or a cause for celebration.
Walter Scott
Why not return to or begin discussion of that which focuses on China
and a better way of life for the people of China, whatever that way
of life might be? Is there some reason why the person or persons such
as those posing as "Abianchen" do not wish to discuss China's
politics and relevant culture? If there is no reason, there should be
no diversion. If there is a reason or several, perhaps the person or
persons posing as "Abianchen" might reveal such reason(s).
Walter Scott
+================================================================+
| Quoting abia...@my-deja.com: A good dictator is much |
| better than a lousy politician. Without good dictator |
| Bismarck, there won't be today's Germany. |
+================================================================+
| Quoting Tom Goodman <Comment...@Headquarter.CCI>: Don't |
| mind me, I am against freedom of speech. I believe in law |
| and order. Only criminals and pedophile need freedom of |
| speech. |
+================================================================+
| What Future Can The PRC Expect Without Implementation Of |
| Democracy And Democratic Principles In Some Unique Form |
| Accompanying Economic Progress? |
+================================================================+
NTReader v0.31(O)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
Walter Scott
Why not return to or begin discussion of that which focuses on China
and a better way of life for the people of China, whatever that way
of life might be? Is there some reason why the person or persons such
as those posing as "Abianchen" do not wish to discuss China's
politics and relevant culture? If there is no reason, there should be
no diversion. If there is a reason or several, perhaps the person or
persons posing as "Abianchen" might reveal such reason(s).
Walter Scott
+================================================================+
| Quoting abia...@my-deja.com: A good dictator is much |
| better than a lousy politician. Without good dictator |
| Bismarck, there won't be today's Germany. |
+================================================================+
| Quoting Tom Goodman <Comment...@Headquarter.CCI>: Don't |
| mind me, I am against freedom of speech. I believe in law |
| and order. Only criminals and pedophile need freedom of |
| speech. |
+================================================================+
| What Future Can The PRC Expect Without Implementation Of |
| Democracy And Democratic Principles In Some Unique Form |
| Accompanying Economic Progress? |
+================================================================+
NTReader v0.31(O)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
Skipper
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Sciences did not make the colors of the rainbow.
> The different colors form a continous spectrum. One color shades into
> another and then into another. Sciences cannot tell the exact
frequency
> where the color blue ends and color greens starts.
From the science's point of view, light has the characteristics of
wave. So certain color of light can be perceived as wave at a certain
frequency. Light also has characteristics of particles that carry
energy. But you may want to ask what exactly is light. The answer
really depends. If your question is originated from the color's
perspective then the answer for you would be light is a wave. But if
your question is from why light is hot then the answer to you
would be light is particle that carries energy.
I agree that science does not tell you exactly what light is. But
depends on why you ask it may tell you light is wave or particle.
> We humans see the
> different colors and we name the colors. Different people also name
> different shades of color differently. One's greenish blue is
another's
> bluish green.
These are all objective personal perceptions. A color blind person
may objectively perceive a red color as green. So you should never
make a judgement based on personal objective perceptions. This
is why intelligent human beings seek other ways to make judgements.
A scientific approach is one example that is widely accepted as fairly
credible for this purpose.
>
> Sciences can never prove human races do not exist.
However, scientific researches make credible conclusions that is
far more credible than personal objective conclusions resulted from
observing skin/hair color, etc. Scientists found that differences of
genes within a human group, commonly believed to belong to a certain
race, is far greater then the differences between different human
groups. This means genetic differences between Chinese can be more
than the differences between an African and a Chinese. So from the
science point of view all people really belong to the same race.
This perception is far more credible than observing the skin/hair
colors then jump into a personal objective conclusion that if your
hair/skin color is different from mine then we belong to different
races.
Human behaviors
> determine whether races exist or do not exist.
That's not a scientific determination. That is a personal, religious
or political racial perception of race. You would not consider these
being more credible than scientific perception, would you?
The urgent problem we
> are all facing is racism. Without racism, the existence races is
either
> irrelevant or a cause for celebration.
This is true words of wisdom. Without racism the world would not have
the question if there are human races. It would have shut up the mouths
of those who insist that human races exist.
abia...@my-deja.com
open the thread about races which this Walter Sissy considered non-
blame Jim Walsh.
And motherfucker or motherfuckers, Walter Scott should tell us why she
thinks I am not one person but PERSONS.
In article <8qtg5e$a2p$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
74276...@CompuServe.COM (Walter Scott) wrote:
>
>
> Why not return to or begin discussion of that which focuses on China
> and a better way of life for the people of China, whatever that way
> of life might be? Is there some reason why the person or persons such
> as those posing as "Abianchen" do not wish to discuss China's
> politics and relevant culture? If there is no reason, there should be
> no diversion. If there is a reason or several, perhaps the person or
> persons posing as "Abianchen" might reveal such reason(s).
>
> Walter Scott
>
> +================================================================+
> | Quoting abia...@my-deja.com: A good dictator is much |
> | better than a lousy politician. Without good dictator |
> | Bismarck, there won't be today's Germany. |
> +================================================================+
> | Quoting Tom Goodman <Comment...@Headquarter.CCI>: Don't |
> | mind me, I am against freedom of speech. I believe in law |
> | and order. Only criminals and pedophile need freedom of |
> | speech. |
> +================================================================+
> | What Future Can The PRC Expect Without Implementation Of |
> | Democracy And Democratic Principles In Some Unique Form |
> | Accompanying Economic Progress? |
> +================================================================+
>
> NTReader v0.31(O)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.
Phipps
>
> False!!! I have corrected you people by referring you to website of
> Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at Stanford University. In that
> website, HGDP confirmed that genes varied among different human groups
True; however, Professor Hank Greely had clarified that, for the purpose
of the Project: groups were identified on statistical bases.
> and they are doing research to find out which genes have caused
> different skin color, hair color, or facial structures.
False.
a) NOWHERE in the website does it say they are doing this. Readers can
check this for themselves by browsing to HGDP's website
http://www.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/hgdp.html
I invite anyone to identify any passage by which HGDP would have
indicated, in their own words - no spin, no personal interpretation -
that they are doing this. Just the words of HGDP's web pages, and let
the readers decide for themselves.
b) I had contacted HGDP and received a reply from Professor Hank Greely
of Stanford University, member of the North American Committee of the
Human Genome Diversity Project and chair of its ethics subcommittee -
which reply I had reposted in full.
Quote:
"we won't know the particular "facial structure" or "hair
color" of the individuals whose DNA was donated to the Project"
You can't determine which genes code for facial structure or hair color
if you don't even know what was the facial structure or hair color of
the DNA sample donors.
the DNA samples would have to be
> collected
> > > with extensive information about an individual's health status and
> > > physical traits (phenotype) which is not part of the plan.
> > >
> > > I've heard many researchers talk about what they would do with the
> > > HGDP resource and I've never heard one talk about identifying genes
> > > for physical traits that are commonly used to define "race" or
> > > "ethnicity". It's just not very interesting - and, for that
> matter,
> > > without phenotypic information on the individuals, could not be
> done
> > > very well (we won't know the particular "facial structure" or "hair
> > > color" of the individuals whose DNA was donated to the Project - to
> > > assume that all the Han who donated were identifical in those
> > > attributes would be shoddy science.)
Phipps
>
> In article <8qej12$i7a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > That is a lie! HGDP did not say there are no races but say the
> > research is not to prove whether there are races or not because they
> > dont want to be attacked by racists like you.
>
> Wonderful, you have just admitted yourself here again that you are
> making things up out of your mouth. Can you show us where they did say
> "they don't want to be attacked by racistli you"? If you can not show
> it to us you are everybody's dry son OK?
>
> HGDP has said genes
> > varied among different human groups and some genes (still unknown)
> have
> > caused different hair color, skin color, etc and that is the goal of
> > HGDP to find out which genes caused different hair color, skin color,
> > or facial structures among different human groups.
>
> Wow! Can you you show us where does HGDP say "to find out which genes
> caused different hair color, skin color, or facial structures among
> diifferent human groups" is the HGDP's goal?
Of course not, since they didn't say it.
The chair of HGDP/North America's ethics subcommittee, Prof. Hank Greely
of Stamford, said clearly that the project won't take phenotype data on
the sample donors. If you don't know what a person looks like, you can't
use his DNA sample to determine why he or she looks like that... can
you?
Bill Moore
>Skipper wrote:
>>
>> In article <8qej12$i7a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > That is a lie! HGDP did not say there are no races but say the
>> > research is not to prove whether there are races or not because they
>> > dont want to be attacked by racists like you.
>>
>> Wonderful, you have just admitted yourself here again that you are
>> making things up out of your mouth. Can you show us where they did say
>> "they don't want to be attacked by racistli you"? If you can not show
>> it to us you are everybody's dry son OK?
>>
>> HGDP has said genes
>> > varied among different human groups and some genes (still unknown)
>> have
>> > caused different hair color, skin color, etc and that is the goal of
>> > HGDP to find out which genes caused different hair color, skin color,
>> > or facial structures among different human groups.
>>
>> Wow! Can you you show us where does HGDP say "to find out which genes
>> caused different hair color, skin color, or facial structures among
>> diifferent human groups" is the HGDP's goal?
>
>Of course not, since they didn't say it.
>
>The chair of HGDP/North America's ethics subcommittee, Prof. Hank Greely
>of Stamford, said clearly that the project won't take phenotype data on
Liar! Stamford is a city in Connecticut ;-)
>the sample donors. If you don't know what a person looks like, you can't
>use his DNA sample to determine why he or she looks like that... can
>you?
Obviously, yes. But I'm not sure such reasonable statements will have
much impact on this rather irrational debate... just watch ;-)
--
Remove 'blackhole.' from the address to send e-mail
abia...@my-deja.com
genes varied among different human groups and some genes have caused
different skin color, hair color, and facial strutures.
2. No genetic scientists have denied HGDP's claim.
3. We all know skin color, hair color, facial strutures etc are one of
factors determined today's racial groups.
So whether races have genetic basis, readers can draw very clear
conclusion from above.
In article <39D29C...@slip.net>,
mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > False!!! I have corrected you people by referring you to website of
> > Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at Stanford University. In
that
> > website, HGDP confirmed that genes varied among different human
groups
>
abia...@my-deja.com
different human groups and some genes have caused different skin color,
different human groups such as native Americans, Europeans, Asians, etc
and those groups are known as today's racial groups.
In article <39D29C...@slip.net>,
mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> Skipper wrote:
> >
> > In article <8qej12$i7a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > That is a lie! HGDP did not say there are no races but say the
> > > research is not to prove whether there are races or not because
they
> > > dont want to be attacked by racists like you.
> >
> > Wonderful, you have just admitted yourself here again that you are
> > making things up out of your mouth. Can you show us where they did
say
> > "they don't want to be attacked by racistli you"? If you can not
show
> > it to us you are everybody's dry son OK?
> >
> > HGDP has said genes
> > > varied among different human groups and some genes (still unknown)
> > have
> > > caused different hair color, skin color, etc and that is the goal
of
> > > HGDP to find out which genes caused different hair color, skin
color,
> > > or facial structures among different human groups.
> >
> > Wow! Can you you show us where does HGDP say "to find out which
genes
> > caused different hair color, skin color, or facial structures among
> > diifferent human groups" is the HGDP's goal?
>
> Of course not, since they didn't say it.
>
> The chair of HGDP/North America's ethics subcommittee, Prof. Hank
Greely
> of Stamford, said clearly that the project won't take phenotype data
on
> the sample donors. If you don't know what a person looks like, you
can't
> use his DNA sample to determine why he or she looks like that... can
> you?
>
Walter Scott
The person or persons posing as "Abianchen" have focused, for quite
some time, on issues of genetics. Why is it that he, she, or they have
difficulty in focusing on issues relevant to the politics and culture
of China rather than spend such time as is evident debating genetics
with other people -- Jim Walsh included? In this regard, the issue
should not be whether someone has initiated a topic and posted
erroneous information or an opinion on which others disagree under
that topic, but whether it is a waste of time and resources as well as
irrelevant to the purpose for existence of these newsgroups to begin
or continue debate on such topic(s). This concept seems, at least to
this point, entirely ignored or unrealized by the person or persons
posing here as "Abianchen."
Walter Scott
Skipper
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> 1. Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at Stanford has confirmed
that
> genes varied among different human groups and some genes have caused
> different skin color, hair color, and facial strutures.
Gene differences makes some people male and some others female.
Are you classifying male and female as difference races?
Just answer yes or no please!
Your father and your mothers have different genes. Are you also
going to classify them as different races?
Just answer yes or no please.
How about you? Are you going to classify your self a different race
from everyone elese on SCT?
Just answer yes or no please.
Hint, just say yes.
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
Mike
That you can only deduce.
abia...@my-deja.com
and some of idiots started understanding a little bit. Now David Kao
of HP (aka skipper gilbr...@my-deja.com) started understanding a
little but still need us to guide him.
Yes, David Kao, some genes caused different genders, there's why there
are male and female. Some genes caused different skin color, hair
color, facial structures, that is why there are races. Some genes
caused cancer, that is why there are sick people.
Keep learning and eventually you may be able to understand and even
teach Jim Walsh there are races. :^))
But remember cursing will not get you anywhere and only thinking will
help you grow up.
In article <8r05vd$iei$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Skipper <gilbr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8qujtr$a6t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > 1. Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) at Stanford has confirmed
> that
> > genes varied among different human groups and some genes have caused
> > different skin color, hair color, and facial strutures.
>
> Gene differences makes some people male and some others female.
> Are you classifying male and female as difference races?
>
> Just answer yes or no please!
>
> Your father and your mothers have different genes. Are you also
> going to classify them as different races?
>
> Just answer yes or no please.
>
> How about you? Are you going to classify your self a different race
> from everyone elese on SCT?
>
> Just answer yes or no please.
>
> Hint, just say yes.
>
> --
> Skipper
>
> Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
>
abia...@my-deja.com
black couples do, then there are no races, in biology, we know you can
NOT, therefore, there are races.
Anyway, most people in this world believe there are races. UN, USA,
CNN, New York Times etc all believe there are races. That's enough.
In article <20000928225454...@ng-cu1.aol.com>,
demor...@aol.com (Demorising) wrote:
> Gender is polymorphic, "race" is not.
>
> http://www.britannica.com/seo/p/polymorphism/
>
> ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
>
> polymorphism
>
> in biology, a discontinuous genetic variation resulting in the
occurrence of
> several different forms or types of individuals among the members of
a single
> species. A discontinuous genetic variation divides the individuals of
a
> population into two or more sharply distinct forms. The most obvious
example of
> this is the separation of most higher organisms into male and female
sexes.
> Another example is the different blood types in humans. In continuous
> variation, by contrast, the individuals do not fall into sharp
classes but
> instead are almost imperceptibly graded between wide extremes.
Examples include
> the smooth graduation of height among individuals of human
populations and the
> graduations possible between the different geographic races. If the
frequency
> of two or more discontinuous forms within a species is too high to be
explained
> by mutation, the variation--as well as the population displaying it--
is said to
> be polymorphic.
>
> A polymorphism that persists over many generations is usually
maintained
> because no one form possesses an overall advantage or disadvantage
over the
> others in terms of natural selection. Some polymorphisms have no
visible
> manifestations and require biochemical techniques to identify the
differences
> that occur between the chromosomes, proteins, or DNA of different
forms. The
> castes that occur in social insects are a special form of
polymorphism that is
> attributable to differences in nutrition rather than to genetic
variations.
>
> abianchen wrote:
> >Yes, David Kao, some genes caused different genders, there's why
there
> >are male and female. Some genes caused different skin color, hair
> >color, facial structures, that is why there are races. Some genes
> >caused cancer, that is why there are sick people.
>
>
Francisco Cestero
Tom Billings wrote in message ...
>> If one is serious in weakening racism's hold on people's minds, he
>> should begin with himself. Posters of the Chinese NGs can start to
>> demand themselves the highest standard before they disparage China and
>> her citizens.
>
>The debate, on what that standard should be, might go on forever,
>and indeed probably will. If we accepted this, when someone thinks
>he should criticize the CCP/PLA, it would always wait on some
>"highest standard", which someone else will argue he/she has
>not attained, indicating the critic is not intent on avoiding racism.
>This simply silences criticism, and should not be expected. We
>know we aren't perfect, never will be, and expect criticism.
>Indeed, when it points out a better path for us, many welcome it!
>
>Few here want to disparage China itself, though many
>are in opposition to *portions* of society in China today.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tom Billings
>
Yes. For my part I only disparage the Chinese leadership, who do far more to
disparage China and the Chinese people than every poster on this group could
ever do -- put together.
Oh, and human diversity is not equal to "races". Is there a human "race" of
left-handed people?
Why pick some physical traits and not others, hmmm?
Regards,
Francisco
Phipps
> Human Genome Diversity Project already
> confirmed that genes varied among different human groups but which
> genes have caused different skin color, hair color, facial structures,
> etc are still unknown (Jim Walsh falsely claimed they are known for
> years)
True
> and that is the goal of HGDP research.
Absolutely false.
Professor Hank Greely, chair of the North American section of HGDP's
ethics committee, confirmed the contrary.
Furthermore, he stated that trying to do so would be shoddy science,
since the recording of phenotypal data on the sample donors is not part
of the HGD Project. Put in terms even a dolt like you should be able to
understand: if you don't know what a sample donor looks like, it is
impossible to use his sample to determine why he looks that way.
>
> Remember scientists claimed that monkeys and human beings have 98%
> identical genes, ie, only 2% difference in genes that already made
> human beings separated from monkeys.
False. The 2% difference applies to great apes of the genus Pan (chimps
and bonobos), not to monkeys. To you, chimps might be monkeys, of
course.
abia...@my-deja.com
you and apes share more than 98% genes.
In article <39D971...@slip.net>,
Skipper
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Human Genome Diversity Project has confirmed that genes varied among
> different human groups and some genes have caused different skin
color,
> hair color, facial strutures, etc. And the Project also mentioned
> different human groups such as native Americans, Europeans, Asians,
etc
> and those groups are known as today's racial groups.
Taipei6785's Human Genome Diversity Project at SCT has confirmed that
Taipei6785 belongs to a human mule race. So far this claim has
received zero oppositions. BTW, human mule looks like normal human
(well, normal human kids) but the IQ level is really like a mule.
--
Skipper
Life is beautiful, wonderful and magical.
da...@my-deja.com
several questions, the most compelling of which is why some people seem
to need for there to be races in the first place. Why are certain
individiuals so threatened by the idea that physical appearance really
has no meaning?
The idea of race breaks down when it comes to things like medicines,
which have the same effect on the same diseases around the world.
Statistical evidence such as intelligence, creativity, propensity to
violence, homosexual behaviour, etc. all show no significant variation
from one population to another, except in extreme cases such as areas
hard struck by famine or the like. Even the genetics argument fails to
show that various genetic combinations do anything more significant than
determine one's outside appearance, which is essentially meaningless.
Unless, of course, you are one who wants to separate the peoples based
on their outside appearance, which is the basis of the
sociological phenomenon of racism as we know it. As such, race is not a
physical reality, but an idea, in the same category as other
ideas. So a person who clings dogmatically to the idea of race could be
classified as an ideolog--someone who believes in a philosophy, rather
than a knowable scientific fact.
Why would a person want to believe in race? One good possibility is that
the person feels a need to practice in-group out-group politics, in
which the in-group (usually an oppressor group) polices attitudes,
opinions, or behaviour of its members to its own benefit and often to
the detriment of the out-group. A case in point would be the good ol
boy network in the American south during the segregation period.
In-groups are defined in other ways than the arbitrary method of
personal appearance. Language is another way of defining such a
group--slang or jargon within the language group defines cliques and
factions. Income or material accomplishment can be used to stratify a
population or set off boundaries between one group or another. Power is
yet another political and social dividing line between people.
The thing that all these tools have in common is their power to capture
the public imagination and garner great power for those who are at the
leadership of the given group. So the idea of race is of crucial
importance to those who aspire to have great power over others. Now we
are getting somewhere in our definition of race. Race is a powerful idea
that manipulative people use to gain and hold power over others.
A compelling aspect of this type of power-grabbing is that it is
practiced by all cultures and in all periods of history. No group,
however you define it, is innocent of this behaviour.
It is interesting to note that the more insular and reactionary a group
becomes about its identity, the more violent things become. What's
happening in serbia right now is an interesting way for an extreme form
of in-group out-group politics to play itself out. Ultranationalism,
which has worked to shrink Yugoslavia four times through successive wars
based on the idea that somehow belonging to the in-group justified doing
almost anything to members of the out-group, has been rejected. From
this we can see that Milosevic's entire *raison d'etre* has been a sort
of hollow nationalism, based in part on the etherial notion of a Serbian
'race.'
Other experiments in ultranationalism based in 'race' that failed are
Nazi Germany and WWII Japan.
Let us sincerely hope that nationalist, racist, scripturalist, or
isolationist forces inside Russia, US, and China remain in the minority
and never come to power. The results of that could be disastrous.
You'll never get me to beleive that a person's external appearance has
any significant meaning.
Da Ye
Phipps
>
> Then why dont you consider yourself as an Ape not a human being since
> you and apes share more than 98% genes.
Conventionally, humans have been classified as a distinct genus.
However, Jared Diamond (professor of physiology at UCLA) argued in his
book, "The Third Chimpanzee" (HarperCollins, New York - ISBN
0-06-018307-1) that, from a cladistics perspective, this distinction is
wrong (page 25): the various species of genus Vireo, and those of genus
Hylobates, differ within the genus one from another genetically to a
greater degree than do humans and the 2 conventionally labelled chimp
species. Humans and chimps, therefore, should be considered as members
of the same genus.
Since the genus "Homo" had been proposed before genus "Pan", he argues
that the 2 species of chimps should be "Homo troglodytes" and "Homo
paniscus", rather than call humans "Pan sapiens."
If "Pan sapiens" were adopted, I'd have no quarrel with it. Either H.
sapiens is the 3rd chimpanzee, or P. troglodytes and P. paniscus are two
other hominid species.
Classifying humans in a separate genus is a cultural convention, but one
unsupported by molecular biology and the conventions of cladistics. I
would wait for the conventions to change before calling members of H.
sapiens "chimpanzees", since it is likely to distress not only idiots
who fail to understand that the concept of distinct 'races' among humans
is biologically untenable, but also most of the general population.
>
> In article <39D971...@slip.net>,
> mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> > abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Human Genome Diversity Project already
> > > confirmed that genes varied among different human groups but which
> > > genes have caused different skin color, hair color, facial
6785_D88
abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Just a very simple question for you to answer:
>
> Why dont you consider yourself as an Ape not a human being since you
> and apes share more than 98% common genes.
A pig wants to be an ape? Taipei6785, enjoy your countable days as a pig
now. Then you can be an ape, one that does not have a brain still.
6785_D88
abia...@my-deja.com
Why dont you consider yourself as an Ape not a human being since you
and apes share more than 98% common genes.
In article <39E511...@slip.net>,
mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Then why dont you consider yourself as an Ape not a human being
since
Phipps
>
> Just a very simple question for you to answer:
>
> Why dont you consider yourself as an Ape not a human being since you
> and apes share more than 98% common genes.
> >
It's not easy to explain to you what grown-ups say. Ask a grown-up
person near you to explain it to you, and maybe you'll understand some
day.
abia...@my-deja.com
Why dont you consider yourself as an Ape not a human being since you
and apes share more than 98% common genes.
Of course, any human being knows how to answer but an ape does not how
to answer. See the difference!!! So if you dont know how to answer,
you are probably an ape. :^))
In article <39E57E...@slip.net>,
mrph...@slip.net wrote:
> abia...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Just a very simple question for you to answer:
> >
> > Why dont you consider yourself as an Ape not a human being since you
> > and apes share more than 98% common genes.
>
> > >
> It's not easy to explain to you what grown-ups say. Ask a grown-up
> person near you to explain it to you, and maybe you'll understand some
> day.
>