The reality of race
John McCarthy
Miele presents a number of new discoveries indicating the genetic
reality of races to a fair degree of approximation. Sarich, a
professor emeritus of anthropology at UC Berkeley, is the discoverer
of the presently accepted view that humans diverged from chimps only 5
million years ago. Sarich and Miele offer additional evidence of a
big genetic change in homo sapiens only about 50,000 years ago that
led to the demise of the Neanderthals and to the development of the
various races.
I think those who deny the existence of race, which all good people do
these days, are in for further shocks as human genetics develops.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Michael S. Morris
Thursday, the 22nd of January, 2004
Aaron:
Whatever happens -- evidence for nature, evidence for nurture,
or no further evidence at all -- the IQ difference is a time bomb.
I don't understand how the IQ difference is ever going get around the
point that IQ is a test of cultural whiteness.
I mean, it seems to me the whole argument in favor of taking IQ
seriously
hinges on the claim that the tests can be made bias-free. And there are
statistical test of bias, but the bias tests meant by the
psychometricians
is not the same bias being being pointed to by the critics. And the bias
the critics are pointing to is not testable, but seems to rest on the
(utterly mistaken, in my opinion) belief that the kinds of
questions asked on the tests can be made so "abstract" as to
be axiomatically "culturally independent".
Furthermore, the best correlation-coefficients reported in
_The Bell Curve_ were on the order of 0.40. Correlating
IQ with other social-success stats. That seems to me to
signal a huge problem, since, technically what that means is
the proposed correlation explains 0.40^2=16 percent of the
variation in the data! I.e., what it means is that mostly
the correlations claimed for IQ don't explain the data.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Paul A Sand
> Aaron:
> Whatever happens -- evidence for nature, evidence for nurture,
> or no further evidence at all -- the IQ difference is a time bomb.
>
> I don't understand how the IQ difference is ever going get around the
> point that IQ is a test of cultural whiteness.
Not to quibble, and it's been awhile since I read _The Bell Curve_,
but my recollection is that Asians, including Asians in Asia, score better
averages than whites on IQ tests. So maybe it's a test of
cultural Asianness?
--
-- Paul A. Sand | Cogito ergo I'm right and you're wrong.
-- University of New Hampshire | (Blair P. Houghton)
-- p...@unh.edu |
-- http://pubpages.unh.edu/~pas |
David E. Latane
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Paul A Sand wrote:
> In article <400FFBB5...@netdirect.net>, Michael S. Morris wrote:
> > Aaron:
> > Whatever happens -- evidence for nature, evidence for nurture,
> > or no further evidence at all -- the IQ difference is a time bomb.
> >
> > I don't understand how the IQ difference is ever going get around the
> > point that IQ is a test of cultural whiteness.
>
> Not to quibble, and it's been awhile since I read _The Bell Curve_,
> but my recollection is that Asians, including Asians in Asia, score better
> averages than whites on IQ tests. So maybe it's a test of
> cultural Asianness?
That would make sense. Wasn't it devised by a Vietnamese, Mi Sur Bi Ney?
D. Latane
Michael S. Morris
Thursday, the 22nd of January, 2004
Paul Sand:
Not to quibble, and it's been awhile since I
read _The Bell Curve_, but my recollection is
that Asians, including Asians in Asia, score better
averages than whites on IQ tests. So maybe it's a test of
cultural Asianness?
Sure, but what I really meant is that it is testing a sort of
willingness to play along with that game. I would think that
black kids might many of them rebel at the idea of a bunch of
white geeks assigning numbers to them on the basis of IQ puzzle
questions. And that the cultural reasons that would lead to
kids blowing off the test could well explain the discrepancy
by race. I also think Asians in Asia are known culturally for
not rocking the social boat, and for a high regard for matters of
education and intellect, and that this might well translate into
a statistically significant better performance at IQ-type questions
than white Americans.
I find such "cultural" explanations sort of obvious and quite
plausible as an explanation of the differences. I just doubt that
anything that has been done in the way of study can get at that
kind of explanation.
I've made the point before, though I don't remember if it was
ever in this group, that a lot of staple kinds of questions on
IQ tests in fact have no correct answer. I'm thinking of
questions of the kind: Give the next term of the sequence 1,1,
2,3,5,8... or say which does not belong: north, south, east, grapefruit.
There is no reason 13 is a better answer to the first question
than 42, and "east" is clearly the only word on the list that
begins with a vowel. That is, I *do* think there is a kind
of "intelligence" which understands that 13 and grapefruit are
the answers the testmaker wants, but I think that is a cultural
knowledge and not at all any sort abstract intelligence. The only
mathematically correct answer to the first question is a finite
sequence ain't enough information to determine an infinite sequence.
And the only correct answer to the second is that any three of the
four words may be found to have a set quality which the other one
word does not share.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Francis A. Miniter
subject came up in a discussion with my wife, who is from Newfoundland.
She remembers the early 60s when she took her first IQ test and found it
littered with questions about Nathan Hale and Patrick Henry. Canadians
don't bother that much about U.S. history and to have someone's
intelligence based on a knowledge of particular American patriots was
insulting. She never forgot it.
Francis A. Miniter
Michael S. Morris wrote:
> Thursday, the 22nd of January, 2004
>
>
>Aaron:
> Whatever happens -- evidence for nature, evidence for nurture,
> or no further evidence at all -- the IQ difference is a time bomb.
>
>I don't understand how the IQ difference is ever going get around the
>point that IQ is a test of cultural whiteness.
>
>
> Mike Morris
> (msmo...@netdirect.net)
>
>
smw
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> It may be a test of cultural American whiteness. Just last evening the
> subject came up in a discussion with my wife, who is from Newfoundland.
> She remembers the early 60s when she took her first IQ test and found it
> littered with questions about Nathan Hale and Patrick Henry. Canadians
> don't bother that much about U.S. history and to have someone's
> intelligence based on a knowledge of particular American patriots was
> insulting. She never forgot it.
I think they pretty much weeded out that type of question; but I think
Mike gave some excellent examples showing that the IQ tests now widely
administered depend on a certain knowledge of (and acquiescence to)
expectations, rather than on intelligence in the abstract.
My daughter recently had to take one of these state-mandated tests in
her school, and just dandy, except for the "essay" question -- her score
was so widely off the way she's perceived that the principal demanded to
see her essay and decided that the question was too boring for her, so
she went into flights of fancy. Now, essay questions are, of course,
notoriously difficult to standardize anyway, but I think that this goes
somewhat in the same direction as the examples Mike gave for "wrong"
answers that do, in fact, make perfect sense. Many of my co-grad
students got rather low scores on the verbal part of the GRE because
they were overtrained; I did very well precisely because my English
wasn't that great back then, so I couldn't be fancy.
Michael S. Morris
Thursday, the 22nd of January, 2004
Also I remember a rather different kind of example
we encountered in homeschool. We do Iowa tests at the
end of every school year. It turns out the kids enjoy
it, it's a sign of incipient summer vac to them, and a break
in routine, and it teaches them how to do that kind of test,
which is a skill they'll need for doing PSATs and SATs and the
like later on. Also, from Martha's and my perspective, they
give us a record that the kids are n years ahead of the average
for all students taking the tests at there age, and this n
increases each year, despite the fact we don't "teach to
the test". Anyway, it's a nice paper record to have if
officialdom ever comes calling.
But, what I wanted to point out was a "social studies"
kind of question that was an example question on an
elementary school age test that Helen once took. The
question asked which of the following 4 pictures was
of something you would find in a museum. The two I
remember specifically were a clothes rack of Victorian-looking
women's dresses and there was a drawing of a carousel.
OK---the test writer obviously wanted you to choose the
rack of historical clothes. Helen cheerfully penciled
in the choice for the carousel. Now, at that age---
probably 7 or so---she's been dragged to a fair number of
museums. I know by then she'd been to the Indianapolis
Museum of Art, the Art Institute of Chicago, the Chicago
Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, the Nelson-Atkins
Museum of Art in Kansas City, and like that. I don't think
she had ever encountered a rack of Victorian women's dresses
at any museum. However, Helen's absolute favouritest museum
of all was The Indianapolis Children's Museum, and the star
attraction for Helen at the Indianapolis Children's, which
members get to ride for free as much as they like---and we're
members, is a vintage carousel.
See, that one wasn't an IQ kind of question---it was supposed
to test knowledge of "social studies". And I kind of
sympathize with the testmaker *against* my daughter---
that is, I think my daughter probably ought to understand
that vintage dresses might be a relatively common museum
item, and carousels might be more commonly found in amusement
parks than in museums. So, there is a kind of "social knowledge"
that was being tested that Helen didn't have (her peculiar
experience was misleading to her about the norm of cultural
expectation). Still, it was easy to spot the cultural embedding
of that particular question.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Jeff Inman
> I'm thinking of
> questions of the kind: Give the next term of the sequence 1,1,
> 2,3,5,8... or say which does not belong: north, south, east, grapefruit.
> There is no reason 13 is a better answer to the first question
> than 42, and "east" is clearly the only word on the list that
> begins with a vowel.
Isn't this the "equally valid" thing, that you usually hate?
Jeff
Douglas Clark
about 80,000 years ago and there hasnt been enough time for differences to
emerge, hence race and IQ are false measures.
--
Douglas Clark, Bath, Somerset, England ....
Lynx: Poetry from Bath ......
... http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com/lynx.html
Douglas Clark
recommend.
Jim Ward
> Seems to be ignorance about the latest research here. We came out of Africa
> about 80,000 years ago and there hasnt been enough time for differences to
> emerge, hence race and IQ are false measures.
It's still up to genetics to provide some facts. There may be chromosomes
that makes one set of people smarter than another. Until they identify it,
it's still a prejudice. I can forsee a future where people are classified
into "races" based upon their DNA (not their skin color). You'd have to
provide a hair sample to get into a popular bar, for instance. Perhaps even
countries would ethnic cleanse along chromosomal lines.
Don Phillipson
news:401046CD...@netdirect.net...
> I've made the point before, though I don't remember if it was
> ever in this group, that a lot of staple kinds of questions on
> IQ tests in fact have no correct answer. I'm thinking of
> questions of the kind: Give the next term of the sequence 1,1,
> 2,3,5,8... or say which does not belong: north, south, east, grapefruit.
> There is no reason 13 is a better answer to the first question
> than 42, and "east" is clearly the only word on the list that
> begins with a vowel. That is, I *do* think there is a kind
> of "intelligence" which understands that 13 and grapefruit are
> the answers the testmaker wants, but I think that is a cultural
> knowledge and not at all any sort abstract intelligence. The only
> mathematically correct answer to the first question is a finite
> sequence ain't enough information to determine an infinite sequence.
> And the only correct answer to the second is that any three of the
> four words may be found to have a set quality which the other one
> word does not share.
You forget both the origins of IQ tests and their
main current use, both to test the relative suitability
of people for specific further training (by Binet for
French secondary schools in 1900, nowadays to
choose individuals for expensive training in medical
schools, flying schools etc.) Of course IQ tests are
open to abuse, as by anyone who thinks a IQ
result indicates absolute status rather than relative and
specific rank.
I went through a specific selection process (partly
IQ, partly "character") for a military college in 1956.
A decade later a colleague worked out that we had
been an experimental group. The authorities were
not recruiting enough people who could pass the
tests, so the acceptance level was deliberately
lowered on trial. The results were (1) our group
had the highest washout rate (always high, but
50 per cent in our case), (2) our group was the
only one out of 100 from which, decades later,
emerged two commanders in chief.
The point is not that the selection tests were
cosmically right: it is that they meet the
immediate purpose at the time; and decades
later seem quite insignificant.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
David J. Loftus
>
> Paul Sand:
> Not to quibble, and it's been awhile since I
> read _The Bell Curve_, but my recollection is
> that Asians, including Asians in Asia, score better
> averages than whites on IQ tests. So maybe it's a test of
> cultural Asianness?
>
> Sure, but what I really meant is that it is testing a sort of
> willingness to play along with that game. I would think that
> black kids might many of them rebel at the idea of a bunch of
> white geeks assigning numbers to them on the basis of IQ puzzle
> questions. And that the cultural reasons that would lead to
> kids blowing off the test could well explain the discrepancy
> by race. I also think Asians in Asia are known culturally for
> not rocking the social boat, and for a high regard for matters of
> education and intellect, and that this might well translate into
> a statistically significant better performance at IQ-type questions
> than white Americans.
I'd say you got that half-right.
David Loftus
(half-Japanese, half-Caucasian)
Jim Ward
> (half-Japanese, half-Caucasian)
But which half? Top/bottom? Diagonal stripe?
Michael S. Morris
Friday, the 23rd of January, 2004
I said:
I'm thinking of
questions of the kind: Give the next term of the sequence 1,1,
2,3,5,8... or say which does not belong: north, south, east,
grapefruit.
There is no reason 13 is a better answer to the first question
than 42, and "east" is clearly the only word on the list that
begins with a vowel.
Jeff:
Isn't this the "equally valid" thing, that you usually hate?
No, I'd most adamantly assert that it is *not* the "equally
valid" thing that I commonly hate.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Michael S. Morris
Friday, the 23rd of January, 2004
Douglas Clark wrote:
Seems to be ignorance about the latest research here.
Umm, since you stuck this under my post, I
have to indignantly respond that I am most certainly
not ignorant of that research.
Douglas:
We came out of Africa about 80,000 years ago and there
hasnt been enough time for differences to
emerge, hence race and IQ are false measures.
However, I would also say this is a transparetly false
claim. In the first place, 80,000 years is plenty of time
for all kinds of "differences to emerge" if "artificial
selection" is doing the breeding (humans domesticated
and bred a number of "races" of animals in that time,
and even in much shorter than that time).
Second, I disagree entirely with the implication
that if human breeding has not led to a genetic
differentiation basis for "race" and "IQ" that therefore
race and IQ are false measures. They might be perfectly
fine measures of something or the other, just not (maybe)
genetic makeup.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Jim Ward
> However, I would also say this is a transparetly false
> claim. In the first place, 80,000 years is plenty of time
> for all kinds of "differences to emerge" if "artificial
> selection" is doing the breeding (humans domesticated
> and bred a number of "races" of animals in that time,
> and even in much shorter than that time).
As a data point, human mitrochondrial DNA mutates about once every 10,000
years. I dunno the rate for chromosomal DNA. I'm also not sure as to
what events cause mutations.
Douglas Clark
to wait a million years for things to happen.
Don Tuite
<dgdc...@NOSPAMdgdclynx.plus.com> wrote:
>Wouldnt it be great if Mike was in charge of evolution. Then we wouldnt have
>to wait a million years for things to happen.
Relax. If there are 6 x 10^9 of us, there are roughly 6000/365 ~ 15
mutations per day.
On the other hand:
http://www.indystar.com/articles/1/113380-3621-102.html
Be careful what you wish for.
Don
volkischlemiel
> Race: the reality of human differences by Vincent Sarich and Frank
> Miele presents a number of new discoveries indicating the genetic
> reality of races to a fair degree of approximation. Sarich, a
> professor emeritus of anthropology at UC Berkeley, is the discoverer
> of the presently accepted view that humans diverged from chimps only 5
> million years ago. Sarich and Miele offer additional evidence of a
> big genetic change in homo sapiens only about 50,000 years ago that
> led to the demise of the Neanderthals and to the development of the
> various races.
>
> I think those who deny the existence of race, which all good people do
> these days, are in for further shocks as human genetics develops.
I think problem occurs when people confuse race for species. Clearly
there is only ONE human species. But, there are different races as
result of long periods of genetic and geographic isolation.
It's like all dogs belong to one species but there are different
breeds. A pit bull can kick a beagle's ass. Similarly, an average
Nigerian bantu can kick a Mexican's ass. They belong to the same
species but there are clear racial differences.
It's like this. If we have two groups of people and separate them for
100,000 yrs by putting them in vastly different enviroments, they are
gonna develop different characteristics. So, there is a genetic basis
for racial differences. There is a genetic basis for why black people
have curly hair and white people have straight hair. There is a
genetic basis for why Northern Europeans are generally taller than
Amazonian Indians. The differences are not so great that they've led
to separate species but there is a biological basis for racial
differences. Just throw some guy named Nguyen into the ring with Mike
Tyson and he'll soon find out racial differences aren't trivial.
Also, the notion that all races are the same because dna is nearly
same for everyone is also nonsensical since even the slightest, most
minute differences in genetic code have profound consequences. A chimp
may be genetically 97% human but in reality, it's not 97% human. A
genetic code of Albert Einstein is virtually identical to that of
someone suffering from Downs Syndrome, but one can formulate the
theory of relativity while the other can only drool and look stupid.
The genetic code of Woody Allen is nearly identical to that of Andre
the Giant but.. you know what I mean.
I think racial differences play a factor in social reality in the US.
For example, the fear of black crime isn't only due to economic but
physical factors. A white guy will feel less threatened by criminal
Cambodian-Americans than criminal blacks because blacks can much more
easily whup his ass.
Also, there may be differences in intelligence among races. But, I
think more crucial is the difference in temperament. The problem among
blacks seem to be they are too restless and easily distracted in order
to focus on longterm goals.
In fact, research at Harvard on racial differences have shown that
blacks are more sensitive to stimuli. For this reason, blacks have
certain advantages, like in music. Most indigigenous European or
Asiatic music lack that rhythmic flavor of Afro-derived music.
But, the disadvantage is black kids have a harder time sitting still
and focusing on a single task. If a bird be flying outside the window,
Leroy will be more likely to look out the window. Or, if some silly
distraction arises in Leroy's head, he might not be able to suppress
it and go yabbity dabbity boo and start tapping his foot, etc.
There might be an evolutionary basis for this difference. Whites and
Asiatics who lived for tens of thousands in cold freezing climate had
to sit still and preserve their bodyheat over long winters. Anyone who
felt like running and jumping and flipping and flopping would have
used up all his body fat and had less chance of survival. So, the
unrhythmic and lame among the Europeans and Asians survived and passed
down the lame characteristic which, though lame, is more suited to
devoting long hours to tasks that require patience and concentration.
But, the African, surrounded by lions and hyenas, had to react quickly
to wild threats that were everywhere. If a lion popped out of the
bush, he had to go 'dang!' and run like a mothafuc*a. So, evolution
favored the flippin and floppin characteristics among the African
blacks. A lame African who would have just sat quietly would have
turned into lion lunch and not passed down his genes.
In the area of certain types of creativity, like jazz, etc, blacks
have the advantage and it's a great quality they have. Jazz couldn't
have been invented by nonblacks though it can learned and mastered by
nonblacks. But, blacks, being so slippin' and slidin' and yabbity
diddly diddlin' couldn't have come up with systems of thoughts like
Buddhism, Judaism, and Taoism because their temperament is mainly
sensual and ass-centered. Imagine a black guy meditating quietly for
40 days? You craaazy???
And, even Christianity, which started out as a sober and reflective
religion, has become a paganistic and sexual celebration in the black
church, which is why I think the more honest among black church folks
decided to pursue careers in popular music: I aint singin' about Jesus
but about how I wanna be rubbin' against a hot ho!
From my interactions with black folk, I think the majority are not
less intelligent. In fact, there are many who are quite bright, yet
they underperform in school because they lack the requisite
temperamental characteristic to sit and work out problems. I've
observed Asian students who are mentally dull but do well in school
because they are able to devote alot of time to boring schoolwork.
So, I think there might be something to what that black guy said.. I
forget his name but he teaches at CUNY. He said black folk are sun
people and white people(and presumably Asiatics)are Ice people.
Blacks be sensual and creative whereas whites be rational and lame.
And, this is often reflected even in our liberal culture. Take Lilies
of the Field. The lame white folk hold civilization together but an
odd negro is needed to throw some spice into life. White man has the
patience, expertise, and dedication to design and assemble a trumpet
but the black man can toot the horn. White man can come up with
complex rule-and-strategy driven games like football but black man can
make the touchdown and do the endzone boogie.
I think this is one reason why black Africa is having troubles in
building up their societies. For complex society to exist, most people
have to be LAME and quietly and consistently perform their humdrum
duties. But, blacks, being unable to be humdrum and sacrifice their
individual wills for the common good, are naturally more comfortable
at the village level where everyone's duty is more or less the same:
men as all hunters or herders, and women as all food gatherers or
such.
Well, the great thing about America is it has the right balance; a
majority of lame white folk who build and maintain the government and
economy; and a minority of black folk who can make us dance.
John McCarthy
> Seems to be ignorance about the latest research here. We came out of Africa
> about 80,000 years ago and there hasnt been enough time for differences to
> emerge, hence race and IQ are false measures.
Vincent Sarich's research is the latest. It seems that 80k years is
more than enough.
Jeff Inman
>
> Seems to be ignorance about the latest research here. We came out of Africa
> about 80,000 years ago and there hasnt been enough time for differences to
> emerge, hence race and IQ are false measures.
Um, wasn't there a recent study that found genetic
differences in finches (based on wet versus dry
weather, and the kind of seeds that would be
available respectively) after only a few years?
Jeff
smw
Douglas Clark wrote:
> Wouldnt it be great if Mike was in charge of evolution. Then we wouldnt have
> to wait a million years for things to happen.
It is rather silly to apply the timeline from random evolutionary
processes to controlled breeding, Douglas, which seems to be what humans
do. I don't know of any society that doesn't practice eugenics. And once
that's the case, 80,000 years really isn't that short a time.
Jeff Inman
> > > I'm thinking of
> > > questions of the kind: Give the next term of the sequence 1,1,
> > > 2,3,5,8... or say which does not belong: north, south, east,
> > > grapefruit.
> > > There is no reason 13 is a better answer to the first question
> > > than 42, and "east" is clearly the only word on the list that
> > > begins with a vowel.
> Jeff:
> > Isn't this the "equally valid" thing, that you usually hate?
Mike Morris wrote:
> No, I'd most adamantly assert that it is *not* the "equally
> valid" thing that I commonly hate.
Oooo-kay. Why not? It looks just like it, from here.
Jeff
Jeff Inman
If you have genetic diversity and selective pressure
operating differently on different groups, you have
enough to develop gene pools with different trends.
At least, that would be the theory. All those things
would be present as populations spread out to different
areas.
Jeff
volkischlemiel
> Seems to be ignorance about the latest research here. We came out of Africa
> about 80,000 years ago and there hasnt been enough time for differences to
> emerge, hence race and IQ are false measures.
Differences have emerged. Not enoough to produce separate species though.
Douglas Clark
American DNA would imply a strong cultural effect.
Douglas Clark
breeding had been in effect for, what is it, 150,000 years.
Michael S. Morris
Saturday, the 24th of January, 2004
I said:
I'm thinking of
questions of the kind: Give the next term of the sequence 1,1,
2,3,5,8... or say which does not belong: north, south, east,
grapefruit.
There is no reason 13 is a better answer to the first question
than 42, and "east" is clearly the only word on the list that
begins with a vowel.
Jeff:
Isn't this the "equally valid" thing, that you usually hate?
I said:
No, I'd most adamantly assert that it is *not* the "equally
valid" thing that I commonly hate.
Jeff:
Oooo-kay. Why not? It looks just like it, from here.
OK, it seems to me I am asserting an absolute claim about judgment
of Truth, in the first instance that no finite sequence determines
an infinite pattern. In the second instance, I am claiming that
there are many ways to categorize 4 words. In other words, my claim
about "equal validity" is in fact an assertion that "the Fibonacci
sequence is the correct answer, and grapefruit being a fruit and
not being a direction is correct" is *not* more *valid* from the
point of abstract reason than other choices.
That is, the example seems to me to exemplify "one correct
rational statement" and lots of possible statements that are
simply incorrect. I.e., it exemplifies rational judgment
and does not negate it.
By the way, my common example of Euclid Prop I.47 seems to
me to be misunderstood in this way almost without fail by
someone every time I bring it up. Invariably, that is, someone
brings up "what about non-Euclidean geometry", as though that
were a negation, and an example of an alternative. Whereas, it seems
to me it is by no means a negation at all, but in fact a
generalization, and Euclidean plane geometry and
its theorems remain a special and completely valid case
in a larger subject area of "geometry" than may have once
been imagined. Lots of a priori possibilities remain negated
by Euclid Prop I.47.
I.e. the object lesson of the existence of non-Euclidean
geometries is *not* "rational judgment is a crock",
but rather "the field of rational judgment is probably bigger
than you might imagine". I see no problem with believing
exactly that when we are talking rational judgment in ethics.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Michael S. Morris
Saturday, the 24th of January, 2004
Douglas Clark wrote:
I suppose Silke is talking nonsense cos I hadnt
realised that controlled breeding had been in effect
for, what is it, 150,000 years.
Controlled breeding of domesticated animals has most certainly
been in effect for timescales like that. (Off the wall query:
I have friend who claims cats were late domesticated, and
by the Egyptians, and who wonders if his suspicion is correct
about this: That is, you need cats to hunt mice as soon as you
have barns, and so cats were domesticated by the people who
first stabled horses. Any responses to that would be received
with interest.)
Now, Douglas, it is obvious that on much shorter timescales
than 80,000 years, breeds of dogs and horses and cats and
cows and pigs and chickens, and so on, have been developed.
OK, what about humans? Well, I agree that humans have not been
bred by some master controlled breeding program by guys in white
lab coats, but, it seems to me *neither* is it the case that
humans have been subject only to "natural selection" pressures
in the last 80,000 years. That is, on that timescale, for
"reasons" (i.e. artificial ones) human groups have differentiated
themselves and split off into isolated geographical regions. Also,
there is evidence from story and song that human breeding was not
always a random free-for-all (i.e. Solomon and his 1000 wives and
concubines). And there is the artificial selection effect of war,
and war in particular along racial/tribal lines, so that whole genetic
lines were eliminated.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
smw
Douglas Clark wrote:
> I suppose Silke is talking nonsense cos I hadnt realised that controlled
> breeding had been in effect for, what is it, 150,000 years.
Perhaps you could get your time frame straight before we determine who's
talking nonsense?
Michael S. Morris
Saturday, the 24th of January, 2004
Douglas Clark wrote:
I would have thought that the researches on Black
American DNA/White American DNA would imply a strong
cultural effect.
It certainly implies a strong cultural effect to my
mind. But, so?
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
smw
Michael S. Morris wrote:
> Saturday, the 24th of January, 2004
>
> Douglas Clark wrote:
> I suppose Silke is talking nonsense cos I hadnt
> realised that controlled breeding had been in effect
> for, what is it, 150,000 years.
>
> Controlled breeding of domesticated animals has most certainly
> been in effect for timescales like that. ...
> Now, Douglas, it is obvious that on much shorter timescales
> than 80,000 years, breeds of dogs and horses and cats and
> cows and pigs and chickens, and so on, have been developed.
>
> OK, what about humans? Well, I agree that humans have not been
> bred by some master controlled breeding program by guys in white
> lab coats
And no one was suggesting any such thing -- in addition to the things
you mentioned, I was thinking of "eugenics" in the broadest sense --
breeding under socially co-determined conditions, often aesthetically
inflected. The idea that some people are suitable mates and others
aren't. The enforcement of that. Different diets for different social
classes. Etc. etc.
Richard Harter
wrote:
On average humans have about 100 mutations in their genome, of which
about 4 are in the effective genome. These numbers may be out of date
but they should be fairly close.
There are a number of types of mutations and a variety of causes. The
types can be broadly classified as (a) damage with failure of repair
(e.g. point mutations), (b) copying errors (e.g. chromosomal
inversions and duplications), and (c) mobile DNA (e.g., transposons
and retroviruses).
The relatively recent origin of modern Homo sapiens and its dispersal
out of Africa does not preclude there being genetically distinct
sub-populations (races, if you will) even though the overall genetic
diversity of our species is low.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
A man with money is always charming - pomposity is just
an eccentricity, forgivable in the rich.
gom
> I would have thought that the researches on Black American DNA/White
> American DNA would imply a strong cultural effect.
Culture always has a strong impact and can't be denied. But, even the
slightest most infinitesimal differences in DNA have profound effect
on physiology and psychology.
So, in terms of dna, blacks and whites are 99.999999999% the same.
But, even the .000000001% difference creates for marked and measurable
differences in physical makeup and behavior.
If you were to take 1000 black babies and 1000 whites babies, separate
them into two isolated groups, and raise them exactly the same way,
there will still be differences in behavior based on biological
differences in temperament and possibly intelligence.
smw
gom wrote:
How do you know?
gom
> In article <400FFBB5...@netdirect.net>, Michael S. Morris wrote:
> > Aaron:
> > Whatever happens -- evidence for nature, evidence for nurture,
> > or no further evidence at all -- the IQ difference is a time bomb.
> >
> > I don't understand how the IQ difference is ever going get around the
> > point that IQ is a test of cultural whiteness.
>
> Not to quibble, and it's been awhile since I read _The Bell Curve_,
> but my recollection is that Asians, including Asians in Asia, score better
> averages than whites on IQ tests. So maybe it's a test of
> cultural Asianness?
I could never answer those questions about chinese cooking.
Jeff Inman
But the-only-word-beginning-with-a-vowel is in no
way a negation of the-only-word-not-signifying-a-direction,
either. I think maybe you have misunderstood what someone
(at least could have) meant by bringing up non-Euclidean
geometry.
> I.e. the object lesson of the existence of non-Euclidean
> geometries is *not* "rational judgment is a crock",
> but rather "the field of rational judgment is probably bigger
> than you might imagine". I see no problem with believing
> exactly that when we are talking rational judgment in ethics.
I think the proper object lesson in the existence of non-
Euclidean geometry is that the conclusions depend on the
premises; you tweak a few of the postulates, and you can
get a coherent system in which I.47 doesn't fall out anymore.
Similarly, for other logical systems. The real
issue, I think, has been about whether premises are
logically necessary or not. It's been a long time, but,
I think you tend to look at the strong mutual reinforcement
among "propositions" in, say, physics, as a confirmation
that those premises are not just hypotheticals but necessary
facts. A philosopher, on the other hand, notes that the
situation is analogous to the case with Euclidean geometry.
Changing the premises in no way negates Euclidean geometry
(as we have already said), but it illustrates another
"equally valid" possibility.
Lew lectured me for not having read Sokal, so I'll just
present the case that everyone talked about as an example
out of thin air, because this case seems to appeal to
many without qualification: If gravity is merely a
"conclusion" as relevant as its premises, then why doesn't
someone with some other premises try jumping out of a window?
(It amounts to Berkeley's sense that Hume was refuted by
the simple "fact" that a rock tumbles when it's kicked.)
But the "equally valid" alternatives do not necessarily claim
that this should be possible. The point would be that the
objects of science reflect the metaphysics under which their
reality is developed, and are a (semi-)coherent system
of abstractions in their very reality.
The one snippet of Derrida I've read (which seemed to me
unnecessarily obtuse, though my girlfriend The French
Scholar tells me he's more coherent in French), referred,
as I recall (which is a serious qualification), to a sort
of odorless colorless nexus that is the "center" of the
network of interlocking postulates in a system like the
modern scientific worldview. But we can't even see it there,
can't find it or identify it. Nietzsche put it a lot more
elegantly. Anyhow, it's what we're talking about.
None of this means that you can jump out a 22nd story window.
Jeff
Michael S. Morris
Saturday, the 24th of January, 2004
I said:
I'm thinking of
questions of the kind: Give the next term of the sequence 1,1,
2,3,5,8... or say which does not belong: north, south, east,
grapefruit.
There is no reason 13 is a better answer to the first question
than 42, and "east" is clearly the only word on the list that
begins with a vowel.
Jeff:
Isn't this the "equally valid" thing, that you usually hate?
I said:
No, I'd most adamantly assert that it is *not* the "equally
valid" thing that I commonly hate.
Jeff:
Oooo-kay. Why not? It looks just like it, from here.
I said:
OK, it seems to me I am asserting an absolute claim about judgment
of Truth, in the first instance that no finite sequence determines
an infinite pattern. In the second instance, I am claiming that
there are many ways to categorize 4 words. In other words, my claim
about "equal validity" is in fact an assertion that "the Fibonacci
sequence is the correct answer, and grapefruit being a fruit and
not being a direction is correct" is *not* more *valid* from the
point of abstract reason than other choices.
That is, the example seems to me to exemplify "one correct
rational statement" and lots of possible statements that are
simply incorrect. I.e., it exemplifies rational judgment
and does not negate it.
By the way, my common example of Euclid Prop I.47 seems to
me to be misunderstood in this way almost without fail by
someone every time I bring it up. Invariably, that is, someone
brings up "what about non-Euclidean geometry", as though that
were a negation, and an example of an alternative. Whereas, it seems
to me it is by no means a negation at all, but in fact a
generalization, and Euclidean plane geometry and
its theorems remain a special and completely valid case
in a larger subject area of "geometry" than may have once
been imagined. Lots of a priori possibilities remain negated
by Euclid Prop I.47.
Jeff:
But the-only-word-beginning-with-a-vowel is in no
way a negation of the-only-word-not-signifying-a-direction,
either. I think maybe you have misunderstood what someone
(at least could have) meant by bringing up non-Euclidean
geometry.
You don't think they meant to negate Euclidean geometry?
I do think that is what they meant. That the lesson
they are taking is that it is an either one or the other
thing, instead of both apply, with these postulates going with
this geometry and these other postulates going with this other
geometry, and the flat case meaning a flat plane (and Prop I.47
remaining perfectly valid there), and one possible
non-Euclidean case being the surface of a sphere (where
Prop. I.47 would not be true---because it no longer is a
plane right triangle we are talking about but some curved-surface
analogue of a "right triangle").
Same as the-only-word-beginning-with-a-vowel and
the-only-word-not-signifying-a-direction. Both are
actually true. It isn't within the realm of possibility
to claim "north" begins with a vowel or doesn't
signify a direction. We know some stuff about the
puzzle.
I said:
I.e. the object lesson of the existence of non-Euclidean
geometries is *not* "rational judgment is a crock",
but rather "the field of rational judgment is probably bigger
than you might imagine". I see no problem with believing
exactly that when we are talking rational judgment in ethics.
Jeff:
I think the proper object lesson in the existence of non-
Euclidean geometry is that the conclusions depend on the
premises; you tweak a few of the postulates, and you can
get a coherent system in which I.47 doesn't fall out anymore.
And which isn't plane geometry anymore. See, the issue is you
haven't infinite freedom to tweak those postulates.
Jeff:
Similarly, for other logical systems. The real
issue, I think, has been about whether premises are
logically necessary or not.
Or at least how variable the premises may be. The answer is:
Somewhat variable, somewhat constrained.
Jeff:
It's been a long time, but,
I think you tend to look at the strong mutual reinforcement
among "propositions" in, say, physics, as a confirmation
that those premises are not just hypotheticals but necessary
facts.
Sure, and I look at the possible "geometries" open to postulation
as a rather limited set of structures, and not at all that
surprising a set, given that what we are talking about is
triangles drawn on the surface of a plane versus traiangles drawn on the
surface of a sphere and the like. I.e., once again what I see is more
in the way of necessary facts than "a freedom to invent new postulates".
Jeff:
A philosopher, on the other hand, notes that the
situation is analogous to the case with Euclidean geometry.
Changing the premises in no way negates Euclidean geometry
(as we have already said), but it illustrates another
"equally valid" possibility.
Only one postulate (of five?) may be varied in two
different ways, both of which make sense in terms of the
resulting "geometries". It doesn't exactly inspire one to
analogy of wide-open freedom of postulation.
Jeff:
Lew lectured me for not having read Sokal, so I'll just
present the case that everyone talked about as an example
out of thin air, because this case seems to appeal to
many without qualification: If gravity is merely a
"conclusion" as relevant as its premises, then why doesn't
someone with some other premises try jumping out of a window?
(It amounts to Berkeley's sense that Hume was refuted by
the simple "fact" that a rock tumbles when it's kicked.)
But the "equally valid" alternatives do not necessarily claim
that this should be possible.
Then the alernatives that are equally valid are a very
small number of all possible alternatives, and we
therefore "know" something judgmentally true---namely that
an infinite space of possible alternatives have been excluded.
Which is the very thing *I* have always wished to show.
Not that there are no "equally vaild" alternatives,
only that a huge space of possible alternatives have been
excluded by any requirement of equal validity.
Jeff:
The point would be that the
objects of science reflect the metaphysics under which their
reality is developed, and are a (semi-)coherent system
of abstractions in their very reality.
I'm afraid this sentence loses me. Whatever the metaphysics is,
it's gotta take into account you fall and die from 22 stories.
That seems to me to exclude most (imaginable) metaphysics.
Jeff:
The one snippet of Derrida I've read (which seemed to me
unnecessarily obtuse, though my girlfriend The French
Scholar tells me he's more coherent in French), referred,
as I recall (which is a serious qualification), to a sort
of odorless colorless nexus that is the "center" of the
network of interlocking postulates in a system like the
modern scientific worldview. But we can't even see it there,
can't find it or identify it. Nietzsche put it a lot more
elegantly. Anyhow, it's what we're talking about.
None of this means that you can jump out a 22nd story window.
Nor does it mean that there is an alternative metaphysical
postulate you can make, or that anyone has ever made. Nor,
if you ever found an alternative postulate,does it mean that
that really is a separate metaphysics, as opposed to part of a
single enlarged metaphysics.
Why not better think of 2d geometry as four-postulate geometry and
then with 3 cases for what we used to call the fifth postulate? Then
there
is only one geometry, and what we used to call Euclidean is just one of
the three cases of that geometry.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Michael S. Morris
Saturday, the 24th of January, 2004
Douglas Clark wrote:
Wouldnt it be great if Mike was in charge of
evolution. Then we wouldnt have to wait a million
years for things to happen.
What did I say to deserve this?
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
smw
Michael S. Morris wrote:
> Saturday, the 24th of January, 2004
>
> Douglas Clark wrote:
> Wouldnt it be great if Mike was in charge of
> evolution. Then we wouldnt have to wait a million
> years for things to happen.
>
> What did I say to deserve this?
I think you pointed to the differences between poodles and yorkies.
Douglas Clark
expressed by gradualism as in Dawkins whereas the US is brought up on Steven
Jay Gould's ideas which, of course, are wrong.
gom
Because they are the racial products of tens of thousands of years of
natural selection. The reverse is also true. Take two sets of
identical clones of 1000 babies each. Put one cloned population in
cold isolated clime and the other set of clones in a hot clime and
separate them for 100,000 yrs and they'll develop differnt racial
characteristics. In the hot clime, those with darker skin will be
favored over those with white skin and in cold clime those with white
skin will be favored over those with dark skin. If one enviroment
requires certain kind of temperamental and reasoning skill for
survival, those will be favored while the other enviroment will favor
differnt kinds of reasoning and temperamental characteristics(there
are more than one kind of IQ). Separate them over long long period and
differences emerge. Separate them for millions of yrs and different
species can develop.
This is true of animals as well. Release dogs into the wild and those
that are mild and gentle will slowly be eradicated while those are
temperamentally ferocious and alert will be favored.
With modern civilization where everyone has equal chance of survival,
this is no longer really true. But, mankind thru most of its existence
was at the mercy of its natural enviroment.
smw
gom wrote:
> smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<izxQb.33546$P%1.263...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>>gom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Douglas Clark" <dgdc...@NOSPAMdgdclynx.plus.com> wrote in message news:<R6pQb.18698$tQ6.9...@wards.force9.net>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I would have thought that the researches on Black American DNA/White
>>>>American DNA would imply a strong cultural effect.
>>>
>>>
>>>Culture always has a strong impact and can't be denied. But, even the
>>>slightest most infinitesimal differences in DNA have profound effect
>>>on physiology and psychology.
>>>So, in terms of dna, blacks and whites are 99.999999999% the same.
>>>But, even the .000000001% difference creates for marked and measurable
>>>differences in physical makeup and behavior.
>>>
>>>If you were to take 1000 black babies and 1000 whites babies, separate
>>>them into two isolated groups, and raise them exactly the same way,
>>>there will still be differences in behavior based on biological
>>>differences in temperament and possibly intelligence.
>>
>>How do you know?
>
>
> Because they are the racial products of tens of thousands of years of
> natural selection.
In other words, you don't know. "Nature" doesn't know of races, after
all, and human breeding depends proceeds via cultural selection.
> In the hot clime, those with darker skin will be
> favored over those with white skin and in cold clime those with white
> skin will be favored over those with dark skin. If one enviroment
> requires certain kind of temperamental and reasoning skill for
> survival, those will be favored while the other enviroment will favor
> differnt kinds of reasoning and temperamental characteristics(there
> are more than one kind of IQ).
Hey, that's be a _great_ argument if you had argued yourself into your
complexion.
John McCarthy
> I think the reason for this minor squabble is that in the UK evolution is
> expressed by gradualism as in Dawkins whereas the US is brought up on Steven
> Jay Gould's ideas which, of course, are wrong.
This speculation is mistaken. Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele, the
authors of "Race: the reality of human differences" are both Americans
and no fans of Gould. They're much closer to Dawkins.
> Douglas Clark, Bath, Somerset, England ....
> Lynx: Poetry from Bath ......
> ... http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com/lynx.html
>
>
--
John McCarthy
discusses both cultural and genetic effects.
There have been spectacular recent discoveries in the genetics of
human populations.
1. A large fracttion of Jews named Cohen have a common gene in the
Y-chromosome, meaning a common male ancrestor.
2. Icelanders mostly have Scandinavian Y-chromosomes and Irish
mitochondrial DNA. 1,000 years ago the Vikings captured a lot of
Irish wives.
3. A significan fraction of Central Asians have a Y-chromosome coming
from Genghis Khan.
4. A significant fraction of Irish from Connaught with Irish names
share Y-chromosome genes.
5. There's a lot more to come as sequencing DNA and comparing the
DNA's of different populations becomes easier.
The scientific establishment, which finds it tactful to deny the
existence of race, is spitting into the wind.
Douglas Clark
see the reviews when they appear.
--
Douglas Clark
yet.
Douglas Clark
US 1st Jan and is not yet published in the UK. (Amazon UK).
Jim Ward
> 1. A large fraction of Jews named Cohen have a common gene in the
> Y-chromosome, meaning a common male ancrestor.
I wonder since Judaism is matrilineal, whether they can trace the
mitrocondrial DNA back to a common female ancestor.
smw
John McCarthy wrote:
> Read the book, Silke. "Race: the reality of human differences". It
> discusses both cultural and genetic effects.
It would be nice to know the extent to which you consider this a
response to anything I wrote... I don't see anything in your 1-5 I find
in the least surprising or prima facie controversial. Your point, then?
>
> The scientific establishment, which finds it tactful to deny the
> existence of race, is spitting into the wind.
It seems to me that the scientific discussion has never been interested
in denying the existence of distinct gene pools -- they have pointed out
that those distinct gene pools have less to do with the cultural concept
of "race" than semi- to deci-science likes to think.
Jeff Inman
> This is true of animals as well. Release dogs into the wild and those
> that are mild and gentle will slowly be eradicated while those are
> temperamentally ferocious and alert will be favored.
> With modern civilization where everyone has equal chance of survival,
> this is no longer really true. But, mankind thru most of its existence
> was at the mercy of its natural enviroment.
You don't know much about wolves, clearly.
You're making shit up. Almost all animals are social,
and especially humans. Social factors *are* part of
the natural environment in which we have evolved.
smw
The Other wrote:
> smw <sm...@ameritech.net> writes:
> Basically, all his number-crunching has produced a map that looks
> about like what you'd get if you gave an unreconstructed Strom
> Thurmond a paper napkin and a box of crayons and had him draw a
> racial map of the world.
The problems come in, however, when you give him a box of crayons and
have him draw a racial map of the US.
Jim Ward
> You don't know much about wolves, clearly.
> You're making shit up. Almost all animals are social,
> and especially humans. Social factors *are* part of
> the natural environment in which we have evolved.
Speaking of wolves, a genetics book I read has a fictional scene where
the Cro-Magnons are gathered around a fire, a hungry she-wolf circles,
they toss her some meat, the wolf follows the migrating clan, they keep
feeding her and her cubs, eventually the ancestors become dogs (who help
to flush out game). Does this sound plausible?
Douglas Clark
He doesnt give much information.
gom
There are alot of solitary animals. For example, among cats, only
lions are social.
Badgers are soltitary animals as are most of the members of the weasel
family.
Bears are solitary animals.
Dogs are pack animals like wolves. Some regard wolves and dogs as
belonging to the same species since they bear offsprings that are
fertile.
Dogs were originally wolves but due to artificial selection, only
certain traits--physical and temperamental--were favored and selected
by man, which is why dogs are gentler than wolves.
Release dogs back into the wild, and nature will select only those
traits that will favor their survival, and being a gentle warm doggy
wuggy isn't one of them.
Also, social factors in the wild are not the same as under humans.
Chinese aristocrats who wanted toylike dogs for companionship chose
toyish characteristics.
Nature, whether of solitary or social dimension, will not favor peking
toydog characteristics in the game of natural selection.
gom
> gom wrote:
>
> > smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<izxQb.33546$P%1.263...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> >>gom wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Douglas Clark" <dgdc...@NOSPAMdgdclynx.plus.com> wrote in message news:<R6pQb.18698$tQ6.9...@wards.force9.net>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I would have thought that the researches on Black American DNA/White
> >>>>American DNA would imply a strong cultural effect.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Culture always has a strong impact and can't be denied. But, even the
> >>>slightest most infinitesimal differences in DNA have profound effect
> >>>on physiology and psychology.
> >>>So, in terms of dna, blacks and whites are 99.999999999% the same.
> >>>But, even the .000000001% difference creates for marked and measurable
> >>>differences in physical makeup and behavior.
> >>>
> >>>If you were to take 1000 black babies and 1000 whites babies, separate
> >>>them into two isolated groups, and raise them exactly the same way,
> >>>there will still be differences in behavior based on biological
> >>>differences in temperament and possibly intelligence.
> >>
> >>How do you know?
> >
> >
> > Because they are the racial products of tens of thousands of years of
> > natural selection.
>
> In other words, you don't know. "Nature" doesn't know of races, after
> all, and human breeding depends proceeds via cultural selection.
Nature doesn't KNOW anything. Certain traits are favored by certain
climates and enviroments because they ensure better chance of
survival.
If we put white people in very hot climate and leave them there for
100,000s of yrs, the ones with darker complexion will be favored over
lightskinned who are more prone to sunburn and skin cancer. If one of
them undergo a mutation that creates dark skin, this characteristic
will be favored and his offsprings will have more advantage to survive
over his white brethren.
>
> > In the hot clime, those with darker skin will be
> > favored over those with white skin and in cold clime those with white
> > skin will be favored over those with dark skin. If one enviroment
> > requires certain kind of temperamental and reasoning skill for
> > survival, those will be favored while the other enviroment will favor
> > differnt kinds of reasoning and temperamental characteristics(there
> > are more than one kind of IQ).
>
> Hey, that's be a _great_ argument if you had argued yourself into your
> complexion.
It's like the case of moths in Britain. During the industrial
revolution when soot turned all the trees dark, black moths were
favored over lightcolored moths because black moths were camouflaged
better from bird predation. When the air was cleaned up and the trees
turned lighter in color, the black moth population decreased while the
light colored moths were favored as they were better camouflaged with
the lightcolored trees.
If this goes on for 100,000s yrs, there might only be light colored
moths left.
smw
gom wrote:
> smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<U1HQb.33660$P%1.264...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>>gom wrote:
...
>>>>>If you were to take 1000 black babies and 1000 whites babies, separate
>>>>>them into two isolated groups, and raise them exactly the same way,
>>>>>there will still be differences in behavior based on biological
>>>>>differences in temperament and possibly intelligence.
>>>>
>>>>How do you know?
>>>
>>>
>>>Because they are the racial products of tens of thousands of years of
>>>natural selection.
>>
>>In other words, you don't know. "Nature" doesn't know of races, after
>>all, and human breeding depends proceeds via cultural selection.
>
>
> Nature doesn't KNOW anything. Certain traits are favored by certain
> climates and enviroments because they ensure better chance of
> survival.
> If we put white people in very hot climate and leave them there for
> 100,000s of yrs, the ones with darker complexion will be favored over
> lightskinned who are more prone to sunburn and skin cancer. If one of
> them undergo a mutation that creates dark skin, this characteristic
> will be favored and his offsprings will have more advantage to survive
> over his white brethren.
I agree entirely -- the problem was with your nonchalant jump from skin
color to "temperament and possibly intelligence."
>
>
>>> In the hot clime, those with darker skin will be
>>>favored over those with white skin and in cold clime those with white
>>>skin will be favored over those with dark skin. If one enviroment
>>>requires certain kind of temperamental and reasoning skill for
>>>survival, those will be favored while the other enviroment will favor
>>>differnt kinds of reasoning and temperamental characteristics(there
>>>are more than one kind of IQ).
>>
>>Hey, that's be a _great_ argument if you had argued yourself into your
>>complexion.
>
>
> It's like the case of moths in Britain. During the industrial
> revolution when soot turned all the trees dark, black moths were
> favored over lightcolored moths because black moths were camouflaged
> better from bird predation. When the air was cleaned up and the trees
> turned lighter in color, the black moth population decreased while the
> light colored moths were favored as they were better camouflaged with
> the lightcolored trees.
> If this goes on for 100,000s yrs, there might only be light colored
> moths left.
Yeah. Problem is, you need an argument for white moths having a
different "temperament and possibly intelligence" from black moths to
make your line work. Seems the satire in my comment flew right by you.
Ellizard24
>
>(snip) eventually the ancestors [of a >wolves that hung around Cro-Magnon
>man] become dogs (who help to flush out >game). Does this sound plausible?
A few years ago there was a nature show that discussed the idea that the early
relationship of wolves and man enabled Man to evolve, by helping Man hunt game
and protect him from predators. It was a bit 'out there' but interesting.
Lizard
John McCarthy
> I havent heard of the Sarich/Miele book before. It will be interesting to
> see the reviews when they appear.
If they appear. Genetic evidence for the reality of race is still
somewhat taboo.
>
>
> --
>
>
> Douglas Clark, Bath, Somerset, England ....
> Lynx: Poetry from Bath ......
> ... http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com/lynx.html
>
>
--
John McCarthy
The interesting further fact is that certain Jewish ritual duties were
reserved to members of the Cohen tribe. Thus the genetics and the
cultural descent often agree.
The Other <ot...@no.email.pls> writes:
> I read somewhere (don't remember where) that it doesn't trace back
> like the Y-chromosome DNA does. There are lots of different ancestors
> for the mitochondrial DNA, often from gentile populations. I think
> the hypothesis was that Diaspora communities were partly descended
> from (male) Jewish merchants who moved to new regions and
> intermarried.
>
> I don't know when it was decided that Jewish descent would be
> matrilineal, but I'd guess it happened after a lot of this
> intermarrying had been going on, considering that even before the end
> of the Second Temple period, more than half of the Jewish people was
> living in the Diaspora.
John McCarthy
Sarich and Miele say that feral dogs revert to a type they call
"pariah dog". It's certainly not a wolf and hangs around humans
scrounging.
John McCarthy
What do you think of Phillippe Rushton's work? I've never
read any of it. Is it sound research?
I've read a short summary he put out. That didn't include any
recent work with DNA. He did statistics on head size, IQ, and
penis size among orientals, whites and blacks (both in the West
and in Africa). The orientals have the biggest heads, the
highest IQs, and the smallest penises.
I've seen no criticism of his work but a fair amount of criticism
of him.
John McCarthy
> John McCarthy wrote:
>
> > Read the book, Silke. "Race: the reality of human differences". It
> > discusses both cultural and genetic effects.
>
> It would be nice to know the extent to which you consider this a
> response to anything I wrote... I don't see anything in your 1-5 I find
> in the least surprising or prima facie controversial. Your point,
then?
I didn't preserve what you wrote. As I recall, it was a one sentence
dismissal. However, my longer account of what had been discovered was
mostly for other people's benefit, not yours.
> >
> > The scientific establishment, which finds it tactful to deny the
> > existence of race, is spitting into the wind.
>
> It seems to me that the scientific discussion has never been interested
> in denying the existence of distinct gene pools -- they have pointed out
> that those distinct gene pools have less to do with the cultural concept
> of "race" than semi- to deci-science likes to think.
>
By the establishment, I mean the leaders of scientific organizations
like AAAS and NAS which interact with politicians. The people elected
to these positions have, in the last 30 years, been very PC in their
expressed views.
R.A. Leonard
John McCarthy wrote:
>
> The other includes
>
> What do you think of Phillippe Rushton's work? I've never
> read any of it. Is it sound research?
>
> I've read a short summary he put out. That didn't include any
> recent work with DNA. He did statistics on head size, IQ, and
> penis size among orientals, whites and blacks (both in the West
> and in Africa). The orientals have the biggest heads, the
> highest IQs, and the smallest penises.
>
> I've seen no criticism of his work but a fair amount of criticism
> of him.
>
How big is his head?
Rose Anne
--
__________________________________________
R.A. Leonard
Ottawa Canada
http://www.raleonard.com/
JimC
"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4hisiz...@steam.Stanford.EDU...
> The other includes
>
> What do you think of Phillippe Rushton's work? I've never
> read any of it. Is it sound research?
>
> I've read a short summary he put out. That didn't include any
> recent work with DNA. He did statistics on head size, IQ, and
> penis size among orientals, whites and blacks (both in the West
> and in Africa). The orientals have the biggest heads, the
> highest IQs, and the smallest penises.
>
I don't know about the sizes of heads, IQs or penises, but
the Republicans have warned police to be on the lookout
for people with *almanacs*.
Of your other researchers, Sarich and Miele (co-authors of
_Race: The Reality of Human Differences_), there is this at
Amazon.com:
[Miele is] also a dog enthusiast, and his deep knowledge
of breeds (which are artificially selected races) adds
perspective to "Race."
He is a journalist, by the way. Sarich, an anthropologist with
training in genetics, is the researcher. Miele is also author
of _Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Converations with
Arthur R,. Jensen_, a name which I trust you recognize,
and with whom he, Miele, is sympathetic. I know it
gives short shrift to an author to judge him by his
friends, but frankly, some of his friends are
crackpots.
For the record, Size XLG, 157, and 6.5 " at its
prime here. Democrat, I should also mention.
Jeff Inman
> Jeff Inman wrote:
> > gom wrote:
> >
> > > This is true of animals as well. Release dogs into the wild and those
> > > that are mild and gentle will slowly be eradicated while those are
> > > temperamentally ferocious and alert will be favored.
> > > With modern civilization where everyone has equal chance of survival,
> > > this is no longer really true. But, mankind thru most of its existence
> > > was at the mercy of its natural enviroment.
> >
> > You don't know much about wolves, clearly.
> > You're making shit up. Almost all animals are social,
> > and especially humans. Social factors *are* part of
> > the natural environment in which we have evolved.
>
> There are alot of solitary animals. For example, among cats, only
> lions are social.
I've got two contradictory examples curled up together
on the bed in the spare bedroom.
> Badgers are soltitary animals as are most of the members of the weasel
> family.
>
> Bears are solitary animals.
Tell it to a momma bear.
> Dogs are pack animals like wolves. Some regard wolves and dogs as
> belonging to the same species since they bear offsprings that are
> fertile.
I think that was my point, but nevermind. Earlier, you said this:
> > > If you were to take 1000 black babies and 1000 whites babies, separate
> > > them into two isolated groups, and raise them exactly the same way,
> > > there will still be differences in behavior based on biological
> > > differences in temperament and possibly intelligence.
I have no philosophical problem with the possibility that
this might prove true, but, so far, I guess it's something
you made up. Why would you want to make something like
that up? What trend of argument does it support? Haven't
seen you around here, before, so I can only guess. Maybe
I missed your point.
> Dogs were originally wolves but due to artificial selection, only
> certain traits--physical and temperamental--were favored and selected
> by man, which is why dogs are gentler than wolves.
Some dogs, I guess you mean. I think this "gentleness"
thing is off, though. Wolves are plenty gentle with each
other, modulo one that doesn't understand the ordering.
Communal care of the pups. Working together. It's just
that they don't have much interest in relating to people
in general the way domestic dogs do, though they can bond
really tightly with an individual. And, yeah, they're
much more ready to kill, so I hear.
> Release dogs back into the wild, and nature will select only those
> traits that will favor their survival, and being a gentle warm doggy
> wuggy isn't one of them.
Not clear. By one way of looking at it,
dogs *are* in the wild.
> Also, social factors in the wild are not the same as under humans.
> Chinese aristocrats who wanted toylike dogs for companionship chose
> toyish characteristics.
> Nature, whether of solitary or social dimension, will not favor peking
> toydog characteristics in the game of natural selection.
But any of us is fucked, if the rules that bred him are suddenly changed.
Jeff
gom
> gom wrote:
> > smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<U1HQb.33660$P%1.264...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> >>gom wrote:
> ...
>
> >>>>>If you were to take 1000 black babies and 1000 whites babies, separate
> >>>>>them into two isolated groups, and raise them exactly the same way,
> >>>>>there will still be differences in behavior based on biological
> >>>>>differences in temperament and possibly intelligence.
> >>>>
> >>>>How do you know?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Because they are the racial products of tens of thousands of years of
> >>>natural selection.
> >>
> >>In other words, you don't know. "Nature" doesn't know of races, after
> >>all, and human breeding depends proceeds via cultural selection.
> >
> >
> > Nature doesn't KNOW anything. Certain traits are favored by certain
> > climates and enviroments because they ensure better chance of
> > survival.
> > If we put white people in very hot climate and leave them there for
> > 100,000s of yrs, the ones with darker complexion will be favored over
> > lightskinned who are more prone to sunburn and skin cancer. If one of
> > them undergo a mutation that creates dark skin, this characteristic
> > will be favored and his offsprings will have more advantage to survive
> > over his white brethren.
>
> I agree entirely -- the problem was with your nonchalant jump from skin
> color to "temperament and possibly intelligence."
Such political correctness. Racial temperaments are as visible and
obvious as skin color. Blacks in general are DIFFERENT in temperament
from whites. Black people know white people are slow and lack rhythm.
White folks couldn't have invented Jazz. Use your eyes and ears
instead of relying on political correct dogmas. Whites and blacks are
99.99% alike in terms of DNA but it only takes a .01% difference to
result in profound differences.
If you take Eskimos and turn only their skin color black, they still
won't be black temperamentally. They still won't have that funkiness
that James Brown's so well known for.
> >
> >
> >>> In the hot clime, those with darker skin will be
> >>>favored over those with white skin and in cold clime those with white
> >>>skin will be favored over those with dark skin. If one enviroment
> >>>requires certain kind of temperamental and reasoning skill for
> >>>survival, those will be favored while the other enviroment will favor
> >>>differnt kinds of reasoning and temperamental characteristics(there
> >>>are more than one kind of IQ).
> >>
> >>Hey, that's be a _great_ argument if you had argued yourself into your
> >>complexion.
> >
> >
> > It's like the case of moths in Britain. During the industrial
> > revolution when soot turned all the trees dark, black moths were
> > favored over lightcolored moths because black moths were camouflaged
> > better from bird predation. When the air was cleaned up and the trees
> > turned lighter in color, the black moth population decreased while the
> > light colored moths were favored as they were better camouflaged with
> > the lightcolored trees.
> > If this goes on for 100,000s yrs, there might only be light colored
> > moths left.
>
> Yeah. Problem is, you need an argument for white moths having a
> different "temperament and possibly intelligence" from black moths to
> make your line work. Seems the satire in my comment flew right by you.
Intelligence and temperament are partly based on genetics. So if a
certain enviroment demands certain kinds of intelligence or
temperament for survival, those traits will be favored. Over 100,000s
of yrs, those traits become quite pronounced. Or, is it just too hard
for a politically correct tightass to accept?
smw
gom wrote:
> smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<V4WQb.33880$P%1.266...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
...
>>>If we put white people in very hot climate and leave them there for
>>>100,000s of yrs, the ones with darker complexion will be favored over
>>>lightskinned who are more prone to sunburn and skin cancer. If one of
>>>them undergo a mutation that creates dark skin, this characteristic
>>>will be favored and his offsprings will have more advantage to survive
>>>over his white brethren.
>>
>>I agree entirely -- the problem was with your nonchalant jump from skin
>>color to "temperament and possibly intelligence."
>
>
> Such political correctness.
Such a simple request for basic logic.
> Racial temperaments are as visible and
> obvious as skin color. Blacks in general are DIFFERENT in temperament
> from whites. Black people know white people are slow and lack rhythm.
> White folks couldn't have invented Jazz. Use your eyes and ears
> instead of relying on political correct dogmas.
I have, darling. I've lived with a black woman for two years, and I'm
pretty sure that if you'd have no visible clues, you would have taken me
for the black one and her for the white one.
Look, it's simple -- you made a plausible case for evolutionary
advantages of skin color. You've then switched to the stuff "everybody
knows," with zilch argument whatsoever, other than "gee, it's obvious,"
even when politely asked to do better than that.
So, my conclusion, you're not to be taken seriously.
...
>
> Intelligence and temperament are partly based on genetics. So if a
> certain enviroment demands certain kinds of intelligence or
> temperament for survival, those traits will be favored. Over 100,000s
> of yrs, those traits become quite pronounced. Or, is it just too hard
> for a politically correct tightass to accept?
Yeah, it's just too hard to accept that "having rhythm" is an
evolutionary advantage in a hot climate but not in a cold one, or that
intelligence would confer evolutionary advantages sub-, but not
supra-Sahara.
Did nobody tell you that the "everybody who asks for evidence is PC"
makes you look like a pathetic ideologue with no argument to support
his, shall we say, intutions?
Crowfoot
walru...@hotmail.com (gom) wrote:
> "Douglas Clark" <dgdc...@NOSPAMdgdclynx.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:<R6pQb.18698$tQ6.9...@wards.force9.net>...
> > I would have thought that the researches on Black American DNA/White
> > American DNA would imply a strong cultural effect.
>
> Culture always has a strong impact and can't be denied. But, even the
> slightest most infinitesimal differences in DNA have profound effect
> on physiology and psychology.
> So, in terms of dna, blacks and whites are 99.999999999% the same.
> But, even the .000000001% difference creates for marked and measurable
> differences in physical makeup and behavior.
>
> If you were to take 1000 black babies and 1000 whites babies, separate
> them into two isolated groups, and raise them exactly the same way,
> there will still be differences in behavior based on biological
> differences in temperament and possibly intelligence.
In America, at least, most genetic inheritances are wildly mixed --
many Blacks have White "blood" thanks for generations of White-
on-Black rape by slaveholders and bosses, not to mention entire
mixed-blood communities (like the many very carefully divided
groups in Louisiana, since dispersed into the general population),
and many "Whites" have Black blood, Indian blood, lots of other
inheritances. The "measurable differences" are pretty much nonsense,
given the overt and covert mixtures in American geneaologies.
Certain self-sequestered groups may have more "unmixed" heritages --
the Amish, say -- but that is not the majority pattern, in this
country at least. This is the "dirty little secret" of American
would-be racists. Cain't be done.
Reality check. We're mixed. You can't unmix us at this late date,
no matter what your agenda.
SMC
--
Crowfoot
gom
> gom wrote:
>
> > smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<V4WQb.33880$P%1.266...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> ...
>
> >>>If we put white people in very hot climate and leave them there for
> >>>100,000s of yrs, the ones with darker complexion will be favored over
> >>>lightskinned who are more prone to sunburn and skin cancer. If one of
> >>>them undergo a mutation that creates dark skin, this characteristic
> >>>will be favored and his offsprings will have more advantage to survive
> >>>over his white brethren.
> >>
> >>I agree entirely -- the problem was with your nonchalant jump from skin
> >>color to "temperament and possibly intelligence."
> >
> >
> > Such political correctness.
>
> Such a simple request for basic logic.
Euphemism for political correctness.
>
> > Racial temperaments are as visible and
> > obvious as skin color. Blacks in general are DIFFERENT in temperament
> > from whites. Black people know white people are slow and lack rhythm.
> > White folks couldn't have invented Jazz. Use your eyes and ears
> > instead of relying on political correct dogmas.
>
> I have, darling. I've lived with a black woman for two years, and I'm
> pretty sure that if you'd have no visible clues, you would have taken me
> for the black one and her for the white one.
Well, that explains your political correctness. You afraid she gonna
call you racis' honkey and whup your scrawny ass.
>
> Look, it's simple -- you made a plausible case for evolutionary
> advantages of skin color. You've then switched to the stuff "everybody
> knows," with zilch argument whatsoever, other than "gee, it's obvious,"
> even when politely asked to do better than that.
>
> So, my conclusion, you're not to be taken seriously.
Look, how a black woman chose you over a black man... I mean DAT sho
is strange, meaning she must be new mutation among black folk.
>
> ...
> >
> > Intelligence and temperament are partly based on genetics. So if a
> > certain enviroment demands certain kinds of intelligence or
> > temperament for survival, those traits will be favored. Over 100,000s
> > of yrs, those traits become quite pronounced. Or, is it just too hard
> > for a politically correct tightass to accept?
>
> Yeah, it's just too hard to accept that "having rhythm" is an
> evolutionary advantage in a hot climate but not in a cold one, or that
> intelligence would confer evolutionary advantages sub-, but not
> supra-Sahara.
Shit, when some hyena creep up on your ass, you gonna wish you had
that rhythm as you run into the bush.
Also, there is MORE than one kind of intelligence. Like women have
higher verbal skills while men generally have better visual/spatial
skills. Why? Because over 100,000s of yrs, women sat around gossiped
alot whereas men had to go hunting. A woman who couldn't talk well
were shunned by others and considered less desirable mate; and a
caveman named Eugene and wearing thick glasses couldn't bring home the
bacon and so starved to death and no woman married him.
>
> Did nobody tell you that the "everybody who asks for evidence is PC"
> makes you look like a pathetic ideologue with no argument to support
> his, shall we say, intutions?
Wrong, I'm for both nurture and nature argument yet you refuse to
consider the latter because you's a pathetic white boy who afraid to
take a whupping from his girlfriend.
gom
For chrissakes, everyone was mixed even before coming to America. The
white Russians were gangraped by Mongols for 300 yrs. Egypt invaded
other lands and was invaded by other lands. Greeks were raped by Turks
for over 300 yrs.
Arabs invaded Africa and did some banging, and Moors invaded Sicily
and Spain and did some serious banging and Soviet troops with Asiatic
genes went into Germany in WWII and raped 100,000s of women.
Besides, because we all originated from the black man, we's all black.
Just that most of us lost our rhythm when snow fell on us and washed
away the blackness.
Look at Michael Jackson. He loses his pigmentation and he aint got
much rhythm left either. He an icefolk now.
smw
gom wrote:
> smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<ql0Rb.33973$P%1.267...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
>
...>>
>>I have, darling. I've lived with a black woman for two years, and I'm
>>pretty sure that if you'd have no visible clues, you would have taken me
>>for the black one and her for the white one.
>
>
> Well, that explains your political correctness. You afraid she gonna
> call you racis' honkey and whup your scrawny ass.
Grin. Nothing like a polite request for evidence to flush out the
loonies. But whaddayaexpect from someone who thinks that "living with a
black woman" means you're a man. Bit of a one-track mind when it comes
to race, huh?
Jim Ward
> smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<V4WQb.33880$P%1.266...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> Such political correctness. Racial temperaments are as visible and
> obvious as skin color. Blacks in general are DIFFERENT in temperament
> from whites. Black people know white people are slow and lack rhythm.
> White folks couldn't have invented Jazz. Use your eyes and ears
> instead of relying on political correct dogmas.
Anyone who asserts "black people got rhythm" hasn't been watching American Idol!
smw
Jim Ward wrote:
hey, watch your attributions, man! You make it look as if I had produced
that dwaddle...
Jim Ward
> hey, watch your attributions, man! You make it look as if I had produced
> that dwaddle...
What, you don't watch American Idol?
John McCarthy
belong to populations indentifiable by appearance and other traits.
Jeff Inman
> > > > Michael Morris wrote:
> > > > > I'm thinking of
> > > > > questions of the kind: Give the next term of the sequence 1,1,
> > > > > 2,3,5,8... or say which does not belong: north, south, east,
> > > > > grapefruit.
> > > > > There is no reason 13 is a better answer to the first question
> > > > > than 42, and "east" is clearly the only word on the list that
> > > > > begins with a vowel.
>
> > > Jeff wrote:
> > > > Isn't this the "equally valid" thing, that you usually hate?
>
> > Michael Morris wrote:
> > > No, I'd most adamantly assert that it is *not* the "equally
> > > valid" thing that I commonly hate.
>
> Jeff wrote:
> > Oooo-kay. Why not? It looks just like it, from here.
Michael Morris wrote:
> OK, it seems to me I am asserting an absolute claim about judgment
> of Truth, in the first instance that no finite sequence determines
> an infinite pattern. In the second instance, I am claiming that
> there are many ways to categorize 4 words. In other words, my claim
> about "equal validity" is in fact an assertion that "the Fibonacci
> sequence is the correct answer, and grapefruit being a fruit and
> not being a direction is correct" is *not* more *valid* from the
> point of abstract reason than other choices.
I think that when you said that "There is no reason 13 is a
better answer to the first question than 42" you argued that the
attribution of "correct" to that answer is really a judgement of
what was expected by the questioner. I took you to be arguing
that the answer 13 was only "correct" by virtue of illustrating that
one is capable of identifying the context in which the quesiton
was asked, and so would be a demonstration of "intellectual worldliness",
or something, rather than of powers of rationality.
> That is, the example seems to me to exemplify "one correct
> rational statement" and lots of possible statements that are
> simply incorrect. I.e., it exemplifies rational judgment
> and does not negate it.
Well, that depends on whether we consider "rational judgement" to
be exemplified by "one correct rational statement" or by a
capacity to appreciate the nature of rational statements in
general. In this case, the rational statement is only correct by
virtue of (at least *seeming* to be) identifying one context in
which the question could have been asked. But isn't it a better
illustration of rational judgement for one to demonstrate a
recognition that the question itself is flawed if it is taken to
suppose only one correct answer? I thought that that was your
point, in complaining about these tests. If so, then it seems to
me to open the door to the issue of "equally valid" other
answers. Or, better yet, the answer to the question would be
"what do you mean by that question?"
> > Mike:
> > > By the way, my common example of Euclid Prop I.47 seems to
> > > me to be misunderstood in this way almost without fail by
> > > someone every time I bring it up. Invariably, that is, someone
> > > brings up "what about non-Euclidean geometry", as though that
> > > were a negation, and an example of an alternative. Whereas, it seems
> > > to me it is by no means a negation at all, but in fact a
> > > generalization, and Euclidean plane geometry and
> > > its theorems remain a special and completely valid case
> > > in a larger subject area of "geometry" than may have once
> > > been imagined. Lots of a priori possibilities remain negated
> > > by Euclid Prop I.47.
> Jeff:
> > But the-only-word-beginning-with-a-vowel is in no
> > way a negation of the-only-word-not-signifying-a-direction,
> > either. I think maybe you have misunderstood what someone
> > (at least could have) meant by bringing up non-Euclidean
> > geometry.
Mike:
> You don't think they meant to negate Euclidean geometry?
> I do think that is what they meant. That the lesson
> they are taking is that it is an either one or the other
> thing, instead of both apply, with these postulates going with
> this geometry and these other postulates going with this other
> geometry, and the flat case meaning a flat plane (and Prop I.47
> remaining perfectly valid there), and one possible
> non-Euclidean case being the surface of a sphere (where
> Prop. I.47 would not be true---because it no longer is a
> plane right triangle we are talking about but some curved-surface
> analogue of a "right triangle").
Well, I don't know what *they* meant. But let's suppose that we
wanted to find something interesting that they could have meant,
along the lines of helping an opponent find the best move in a
chess game. So, suppose they didn't mean to negate Euclidean
geometry at all, but merely to point out that alternative
geometries demonstrate that the nature of rational judgements is
to depend on the premises, and that the premises can be changed
in many ways, some of which even produce consistent systems.
Mike:
> Same as the-only-word-beginning-with-a-vowel and
> the-only-word-not-signifying-a-direction. Both are
> actually true. It isn't within the realm of possibility
> to claim "north" begins with a vowel or doesn't
> signify a direction. We know some stuff about the
> puzzle.
Right, but we're just talking about the fact that there
are multiple positive cases.
> > Mike:
> > > I.e. the object lesson of the existence of non-Euclidean
> > > geometries is *not* "rational judgment is a crock",
> > > but rather "the field of rational judgment is probably bigger
> > > than you might imagine". I see no problem with believing
> > > exactly that when we are talking rational judgment in ethics.
> Jeff:
> > I think the proper object lesson in the existence of non-
> > Euclidean geometry is that the conclusions depend on the
> > premises; you tweak a few of the postulates, and you can
> > get a coherent system in which I.47 doesn't fall out anymore.
Mike:
> And which isn't plane geometry anymore. See, the issue is you
> haven't infinite freedom to tweak those postulates.
Who said we were talking about plane geometry? We had some
postulates, and we derived I.47 Then we changed the postulates,
and I.47 was no longer consistent with them. We didn't
necessarily even have to notice that the new system was easier to
grasp if we thought of it as drawn on a curved surface.
> Jeff:
> > Similarly, for other logical systems. The real
> > issue, I think, has been about whether premises are
> > logically necessary or not.
Mike:
> Or at least how variable the premises may be. The answer is:
> Somewhat variable, somewhat constrained.
The fact that they are variable at all is the starting point. So
far, we have "equally valid" alternative worlds falling out of
changes in the premises.
> Jeff:
> > It's been a long time, but,
> > I think you tend to look at the strong mutual reinforcement
> > among "propositions" in, say, physics, as a confirmation
> > that those premises are not just hypotheticals but necessary
> > facts.
Mike:
> Sure, and I look at the possible "geometries" open to postulation
> as a rather limited set of structures, and not at all that
> surprising a set, given that what we are talking about is
> triangles drawn on the surface of a plane versus traiangles drawn on the
> surface of a sphere and the like. I.e., once again what I see is more
> in the way of necessary facts than "a freedom to invent new postulates".
You're getting ahead of us. It seems to me that the expectation
that the existence of "equally valid" alternative geometries
(and, by analogy, alternative metaphysics) implies "a freedom to
invent new postulates" was never more than your unjustified
attempt at a reductio, to make the problem go away. If that
implication is dropped the reductio doesn't apply, and we are
left with the original agreement that there are at least *some*
alternative geometries we can derive by finding or inventing
new postulates, and/or dropping some old ones.
The question of the number of degrees of freedom in that
enterprise is interesting. [For example, can we reject, on
purely rational grounds, those "geometries" that are
inconsistent? Why do we suppose that an inconsistent system is
completely useless? I grant that it is an almost irresistable
conclusion, but is it justified?) Do we reject systems that are
"pathological"? [For example, in a zero-dimensional geometry, I
could imagine that there are almost no constraints, but also
little that can be decided with proof.]
> Jeff:
> > A philosopher, on the other hand, notes that the
> > situation is analogous to the case with Euclidean geometry.
> > Changing the premises in no way negates Euclidean geometry
> > (as we have already said), but it illustrates another
> > "equally valid" possibility.
Mike:
> Only one postulate (of five?) may be varied in two
> different ways, both of which make sense in terms of the
> resulting "geometries". It doesn't exactly inspire one to
> analogy of wide-open freedom of postulation.
But that wasn't our goal. The goal was to see whether there were
*any* alternative geometries, and by analogy to wonder about
alternative metaphysics. It seems pretty unfair of you to reject
them on the grounds that they "make sense". I'd rather say that
the intelligent people who have been arguing for "equally valid"
alternatives have all along been saying that they would "make
sense". And now here we have an analogy to help us understand
what they might mean and you reject it? So, we find an
illiterate animist pygmy who doesn't want to walk out of a 22nd
story window, and I say, hmmm, maybe he's got an "equally valid"
alternative metaphysics.
> Jeff:
> > Lew lectured me for not having read Sokal, so I'll just
> > present the case that everyone talked about as an example
> > out of thin air, because this case seems to appeal to
> > many without qualification: If gravity is merely a
> > "conclusion" as relevant as its premises, then why doesn't
> > someone with some other premises try jumping out of a window?
> > (It amounts to Berkeley's sense that Hume was refuted by
> > the simple "fact" that a rock tumbles when it's kicked.)
> >
> > But the "equally valid" alternatives do not necessarily claim
> > that this should be possible.
Mike:
> Then the alernatives that are equally valid are a very
> small number of all possible alternatives, and we
> therefore "know" something judgmentally true---namely that
> an infinite space of possible alternatives have been excluded.
> Which is the very thing *I* have always wished to show.
We haven't counted alternatives, yet. Perhaps that should
be the next step. It seems to me that the fact that there is
even one alternative is the important first step. Then we can
wondering how to start eliminating others, and how to count
the number of remaining ones.
> Not that there are no "equally vaild" alternatives,
> only that a huge space of possible alternatives have been
> excluded by any requirement of equal validity.
For instance: don't walk out of 22nd storey windows. It's a
constraint, but it leaves open some substantial room for play.
For example, it says nothing about "gravity".
And we haven't even dicussed what to do with alternatives that
are internally inconsistent. I mean, what if it turns out that
there are inconsistencies in all of them?
> Jeff:
> > The one snippet of Derrida I've read (which seemed to me
> > unnecessarily obtuse, though my girlfriend The French
> > Scholar tells me he's more coherent in French), referred,
> > as I recall (which is a serious qualification), to a sort
> > of odorless colorless nexus that is the "center" of the
> > network of interlocking postulates in a system like the
> > modern scientific worldview. But we can't even see it there,
> > can't find it or identify it. Nietzsche put it a lot more
> > elegantly. Anyhow, it's what we're talking about.
> >
> > None of this means that you can jump out a 22nd story window.
Mike:
> Nor does it mean that there is an alternative metaphysical
> postulate you can make, or that anyone has ever made. Nor,
> if you ever found an alternative postulate,does it mean that
> that really is a separate metaphysics, as opposed to part of a
> single enlarged metaphysics.
Should we lump Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries together
and call them all "geometry"? There are times when it makes
sense to do so, and other times when it doesn't. Similarly, you
could choose to say that the animist pygmy's desire to avoid the
22nd storey window is identical to the relativistic physicists
similar desire. Neither one wants to fall. But when it comes
down to particulars, you might find that the pygmy has a
different explanation.
Mike:
> Why not better think of 2d geometry as four-postulate geometry and
> then with 3 cases for what we used to call the fifth postulate? Then
> there
> is only one geometry, and what we used to call Euclidean is just one of
> the three cases of that geometry.
Because that blurs together their distinctions, which are
important in the context of this conversation.
Jeff
JimC
> In spite of all the mixing that occurred, many people, indeed most,
> belong to populations indentifiable by appearance and other traits.
Are these populations broadly the three alleged
human subspecies of Philippe Rushton: Negroids,
Caucasoids, and Mongoloids?
As a member of the alleged Caucasoid group, I can't for the
life of me figure who in the family tree spent any formative
time in the Caucasus. It would seem to me that a more
appropriate name for Europeans based on their
prehistoric ancestry would be "children of the steppe". This
would make Europeans the steppe-children of certain
Mongoloids.
Hmm. "Yer mudder was a Chinaman." Doesn't it sound
just like the boyhood world of Frank McCourt?
gom
> belong to populations indentifiable by appearance and other traits.
Depends. Central Asians are really a hodgpodge. Same with many in the
middle east. But black africans and northern europeans both have what
are largely unique gene pools. Indians of the Americas too.
Bruce McGuffin
> smw <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<izxQb.33546$P%1.263...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> > gom wrote:
> >
> > > "Douglas Clark" <dgdc...@NOSPAMdgdclynx.plus.com> wrote in message news:<R6pQb.18698$tQ6.9...@wards.force9.net>...
> > >
> > >>I would have thought that the researches on Black American DNA/White
> > >>American DNA would imply a strong cultural effect.
> > >
> > >
> > > Culture always has a strong impact and can't be denied. But, even the
> > > slightest most infinitesimal differences in DNA have profound effect
> > > on physiology and psychology.
> > > So, in terms of dna, blacks and whites are 99.999999999% the same.
> > > But, even the .000000001% difference creates for marked and measurable
> > > differences in physical makeup and behavior.
> > >
> > > If you were to take 1000 black babies and 1000 whites babies, separate
> > > them into two isolated groups, and raise them exactly the same way,
> > > there will still be differences in behavior based on biological
> > > differences in temperament and possibly intelligence.
> >
> > How do you know?
>
> Because they are the racial products of tens of thousands of years of
> natural selection. The reverse is also true. Take two sets of
> identical clones of 1000 babies each. Put one cloned population in
> cold isolated clime and the other set of clones in a hot clime and
> separate them for 100,000 yrs and they'll develop differnt racial
> characteristics. In the hot clime, those with darker skin will be
> favored over those with white skin and in cold clime those with white
> skin will be favored over those with dark skin.
So how come eskimos have dark skin?
Bruce
Bruce McGuffin
> John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> writes:
>
> > The Cohen gene is prominent only among Jews with names like Cohen.
>
> Actually, I don't think we were talking about the cohen genes now. It
> wouldn't make sense to look for them in mitochondrial DNA, since the
> priesthood has always been patrilineal.
>
> Anyway, what the researchers asked, I think, was not just the
> subjects' names, but whether they identified themselves as cohanim
> (plural of cohen). Those who said they were cohanim typically had one
> of the genes, even if their name was not Cohen, Katz (Hebrew acronym
> for cohen tzedek), Kagan, etc.
>
> > The interesting further fact is that certain Jewish ritual duties
> > were reserved to members of the Cohen tribe.
>
> Pedantic correction: they're not a tribe. They are members of the
> tribe of levi. The classification -- still used in Jewish worship
> today -- is cohen, levi, yisra'el, where each is a proper subset of
> the next.
>
> > Thus the genetics and the cultural descent often agree.
>
> The interesting thing is that they still agree now, two thousand years
> after most of the priestly duties became moot with the destruction of
> the Temple.
These questions are discussed in Mapping Human History by Steve Olson.
Olson is a journalist, describing other people's work, over
lightly to boot. Still, it's a fun and informative read.
The Cohen study is based on the Y chromosomes, which are inhereted
from the father, as is Cohen status. It was found that about 50% of
self-identified Cohen's are descended from the same man, who lived
rougly 3,000 (IIRC) years ago. This seguays into a discusson of
"nonpaternity" which is doctor talk for "his father isn't his mothers
husband, and the mother's husband doesn't know". (seems like there may
be a Kinston Trio song in there somewhere). Nonpaternity turns out to
be more common than we laymen expect, in all cultures.
As for Jews in general, they don't have that kind of genetic link:
there is no single Jewish ancestor, male or female, from historical
times, or even late prehistoric times, for any observable fraction of
Jews. The mid-eastern component of Jewish genetic makeup is the same
as that of other mid-easterners. Further, European Jews have a strong
central european/germanic genetic component (I don't recall Olson
giving precentages, but Cavalli-Sforza (The Great Human Diasporas: The
History of Diversity and Evolution) estimates that Ashkinazi Jews are
about 50% european in descent). Olson says that Ashkinazi Y
chromosomes (passed down the male line) are more likely to be
mid-eastern, and mitochondrial DNA (the female line) are more likely
to be European.
Even more interesting, there is a tribe in Southern Africa called the
Lemba who have long claimed to be descended from the Jews. To everyone
else's surprise, DNA analysis supports their claim: the Lemba's Y
chromosomes are largely mid-eastern, and their mitochindrial DNA is
Southern African. Even more interesting, men in the most prestigious
Lemba clan show descent from the Cohen progenetor at a significantly
higher rate than Cohens do.
There's lots of other interesting stuff in the book, about lots of
different ethnic groups.
Bruce
Bruce McGuffin
> "John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> news:x4hn089...@steam.Stanford.EDU...
> > In spite of all the mixing that occurred, many people, indeed most,
> > belong to populations indentifiable by appearance and other traits.
>
> Are these populations broadly the three alleged
> human subspecies of Philippe Rushton: Negroids,
> Caucasoids, and Mongoloids?
>
> As a member of the alleged Caucasoid group, I can't for the
> life of me figure who in the family tree spent any formative
> time in the Caucasus. It would seem to me that a more
> appropriate name for Europeans based on their
> prehistoric ancestry would be "children of the steppe". This
> would make Europeans the steppe-children of certain
> Mongoloids.
Did anyone else hear Prairie Home Companion a week ago? The Guy Noir
episode was a gut buster. George Bush on the upcoming Iowa caucases:
"I knew with all those caucasions, there were bound to be caucases".
Guy reminds George of his own platform in Iowa four years ago
(balanced budget and no nation building), George replies "In
retrospect, I wish I'd just smiled and shook hands".
Bruce
tejas
"Bruce McGuffin" <mcgu...@edinburgh.ll.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:our1xpl...@edinburgh.ll.mit.edu...
ObPunchline: In a crowded St. Peter's Square in in the Vatican..
"Oggi, paisan'. Who's that up there with Hyman the
Jew?"
Ted
jonah thomas
> walru...@hotmail.com (gom) writes:
>Take two sets of
>>identical clones of 1000 babies each. Put one cloned population in
>>cold isolated clime and the other set of clones in a hot clime and
>>separate them for 100,000 yrs and they'll develop differnt racial
>>characteristics. In the hot clime, those with darker skin will be
>>favored over those with white skin and in cold clime those with white
>>skin will be favored over those with dark skin.
> So how come eskimos have dark skin?
This is all speculation. The first place I saw the speculation that
cold climate selects for white skin, it was in an old editorial in a
science fiction magazine, by the editor Campbell. He suggested that
people who wear furs all the time would get vitamin D deficiencies
unless they got plenty of sunlight. Wearing furs, they'd have to get
their sunlight from jusdt their faces. (So they ought to have white
faces.) I'm not sure he was the first to come up with that idea, but
that's the earliest place I've seen it. I've seen it in some
sort-of-scientific places since then including a biology textbook.
But eskimos don't have to worry about getting enough vitamin D.
Various arctic animals have so much vitamin D in their livers that the
livers are quite poisonous. I don't know whether that is true for
less-extreme cold-weather animals but I have heard it is true for bears.
It's widely believed that whites in tropical sun get lots of
melanomas, and blacks don't. I don't know how important it is on
average. It makes sense that one would be real.
It's all speculation, it tells an interesting story about natural
selection but it isn't real. I don't think anybody knows what white
skin gets selected for or when it gets selected.
Sawfish
>walru...@hotmail.com (gom) writes:
>Bruce
He's got it wrong. Light skin is slightly favored in a climate of low
sunlight. It may be that the "blond suite" (light skin/eyes/hair) is
attached to a more generally favored genetic divergence. Perhaps
compatibility with certain dietary conditions that existed in the
environment at the time of the divergence.
Eskimos/N Asiatics have dark skin for the same reason that other gorups
have dark skins: protection against over exposure to UV. This is a real
problem in a cold, but clear, environment, where a lot of snow on the
ground reflects UV everywhere.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish
Chris Krolczyk
> In spite of all the mixing that occurred, many people, indeed most,
> belong to populations indentifiable by appearance and other traits.
So? If "being identifiable by traits" is such a big thing,
then why in the hell is there so much WRT ethnicity that those
traits can successfully mask?
Case in point: my godson is, at least as far as
"identifiable traits" are concerned, obviously descended
from Africans; what's less obvious is that he's also descended
from Poles through his mother and Scots and Irishmen through his
father as well. It might be that he'll identify with one or
the other of these cultures when he grows up, or all, or perhaps
*none* of them, but the simple fact is that merely being "identifiable
by appearance and other traits" is not nearly as simple as some
people want it to be. In many ways, genetic mixing has trumped
ethnic appearance as a form of rigid caste identification, and
we're all the better for it.
ObPeeve: Professor McDuck bringing this sort of thing up
again after the tiresome _Bell Curve_ brouhaha on rab
of so many moons ago.
ObPeeve the Second: rec.arts.movies.past-films?
-Chris Krolczyk
Jeff Inman
> But eskimos don't have to worry about getting enough vitamin D.
> Various arctic animals have so much vitamin D in their livers that the
> livers are quite poisonous. I don't know whether that is true for
> less-extreme cold-weather animals but I have heard it is true for bears.
Um, that's vitamin A.
ObJohnnyEnglish: "Okay, I was wrong about the archbishop."
gom
> Bruce McGuffin wrote:
> > walru...@hotmail.com (gom) writes:
>
> >Take two sets of
> >>identical clones of 1000 babies each. Put one cloned population in
> >>cold isolated clime and the other set of clones in a hot clime and
> >>separate them for 100,000 yrs and they'll develop differnt racial
> >>characteristics. In the hot clime, those with darker skin will be
> >>favored over those with white skin and in cold clime those with white
> >>skin will be favored over those with dark skin.
>
> > So how come eskimos have dark skin?
>
You try showering in minus 40 degree weather.
Jim Ward
> So how come eskimos have dark skin?
In a tangential vein, I read that Aussies call beer coolers "eskies".
Richard
> Race: the reality of human differences by Vincent Sarich and Frank
> Miele presents a number of new discoveries indicating the genetic
> reality of races to a fair degree of approximation. Sarich, a
> professor emeritus of anthropology at UC Berkeley, is the discoverer
> of the presently accepted view that humans diverged from chimps only 5
> million years ago. Sarich and Miele offer additional evidence of a
> big genetic change in homo sapiens only about 50,000 years ago that
> led to the demise of the Neanderthals and to the development of the
> various races.
>
> I think those who deny the existence of race, which all good people do
> these days, are in for further shocks as human genetics develops.
Who said the descendents of Neanderthals aren't with us now?
What race can you think of that has a heavy brows, heads
that slop forward at the jaw and backward at the forehead, with heavy
bone structure and who appear radically inferior intellectually but not
physically to most other races?
What race failed to master many tools, failed to evolve and advance
the way EVERY OTHER race did? Current anthropology is so rife with political
considerations that it can't be taken seriously.
-Rich
jonah thomas
> jonah thomas wrote:
>>But eskimos don't have to worry about getting enough vitamin D.
>>Various arctic animals have so much vitamin D in their livers that the
>>livers are quite poisonous. I don't know whether that is true for
>>less-extreme cold-weather animals but I have heard it is true for bears.
> Um, that's vitamin A.
Ooops. Sorry. I don't know what I was thinking.
I'll back up. Traditional sources of vitamin D are mostly fatty fish.
4 ounces of salmon a day gives enough, or 40 ounces of beef liver.
But this only considers animal parts that people eat. Muscle tissue
and liver. Could your digestive system separate active vitamin from
its carrier proteins, from blood? Eskimos don't get much sunlight in
winter, regardless.
The JustSo story started out with two facts.
1. People with dark skin don't get as much melanoma from heavy sun
exposure.
2. People with dark skin need more sunlight to make the same amount
of vitamin D.
So this lead to the idea that dark skin might be selected in places
with lots of sunlight, and light skin might be selected in cold places
where people don't get as much exposure to sunlight. It makes sense.
But it's a JustSo story. We have no evidence that people who ate
most of the animals they killed needed sunlight to create their own
vitamin D. It's a plausible story but the evidence is weak.
jonah thomas
> Who said the descendents of Neanderthals aren't with us now?
> What race can you think of that has a heavy brows, heads
> that slop forward at the jaw and backward at the forehead, with heavy
> bone structure and who appear radically inferior intellectually but not
> physically to most other races?
> What race failed to master many tools, failed to evolve and advance
> the way EVERY OTHER race did? Current anthropology is so rife with political
> considerations that it can't be taken seriously.
What race is chinless?
I have met europeans who had a more-or-less neanderthal chin. I
myself have an occipital bun, though not a large one.
There may be neanderthal traces in the 'white' population but they're
only traces. I've heard of fewer such traces in the other races.
Jim Ward
> Who said the descendents of Neanderthals aren't with us now?
I think it's been ruled out by DNA - barring some unknown strain, we
all trace our ancestry back to Africa.
smw
Jim Ward wrote:
Did "Richard" sound to you like a man who wants to hear facts?
Francis A. Miniter
I have trouble believing sometimes that this is a book forum. You would
think that people who read would read before they speak. But no.
Here's a couple of references:
Stringer, Christopher, Gamble, Clive, 1993. The Fate of the
Neanderthals. In: In Search of the Neanderthals. Thames and Hudson Ltd,
London, England, pp.179-194.
Tattersall, Ian, 1995. The Last Neanderthal. In: The Last Neanderthal:
the rise, success, and mysterious extinction of our closest human
relatives. Macmillan, Inc., New York, NY, pp.8-9, 198-203.
And here are a few facts:
1. Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal man were always different species,
meaning different gene structures. They were probably not capable of
interbreeding, though the following quote indicates that the issue is
not fully resolved:
From Modern Human Origins and Neanderthal Extinctions in the Levant by
John J. Shea in the Athena Review, Vol. 2., No. 4
"Paleoanthropological models of Neanderthal-early modern human
evolutionary relationships vary substantively. At one extreme,
proponents of “multiregional continuity” regard Neanderthals as a
geographically distinct subspecies of Homo sapiens, one that was
absorbed into expanding modern human populations by interbreeding
(Frayer et al. 1993). At the other extreme are proponents of
“replacement” who view Homo sapiens as having originated in only one
region, expanding from that region by competitively displacing the
Neanderthals without interbreeding (Stringer 1992). Some researchers
hold intermediate positions, arguing for replacement in some regions and
continuity in others (Smith 1994). The crucial question, though, of
whether Neanderthals and early modern humans could have interbred and
produced both viable and fertile children (the definition of a species)
remains unanswered, and perhaps unanswerable. However, strands of DNA
have been recovered from Neanderthal fossils which suggest a lack of
direct ancestry between the two species (Höss 2000; Ovchinnikov et al.
2000, and this issue). Conversely, recent claims argue that fossils of
an Upper Paleolithic child from Lagar Velho reflect a hybrid
Neanderthal-modern human ancestor (Duarte et al. 1999; Zilhao
<http://www.athenapub.com/8zilhao1.htm> this issue)."
2. Neanderthals occupied Europe for a substantial period of time before
humans moved in and expanded westward into Europe.
3. The latest known skeleton of a neanderthal dates from about 28,000
years ago, whereas earliest human skeletal remains in Europe date from
about 35,000 years ago. (First contact seems to have been in the Levant
about 47,000 years ago.) Changing climate, changing nutrition, war with
humans all may have caused the extinction. BUT EXTINCT THEY ARE!
4. All humans now living are homo sapiens only. We all have the same
gene structure. We can all breed with each other. We all came out of
Africa originally.
Francis A. Miniter
Jim Ward
> Did "Richard" sound to you like a man who wants to hear facts?
Naah. Usenet must be the place you go when you've worn out the ears of
your friends.
jonah thomas
> jonah thomas wrote:
>> Richard wrote:
>>> Who said the descendents of Neanderthals aren't with us now?
>> What race is chinless?
>> I have met europeans who had a more-or-less neanderthal chin. I myself
>> have an occipital bun, though not a large one.
>> There may be neanderthal traces in the 'white' population but they're
>> only traces. I've heard of fewer such traces in the other races.
> I have trouble believing sometimes that this is a book forum. You would
> think that people who read would read before they speak. But no.
> Here's a couple of references:
> Stringer, Christopher, Gamble, Clive, 1993. The Fate of the
> Neanderthals. In: In Search of the Neanderthals. Thames and Hudson Ltd,
> London, England, pp.179-194.
> Tattersall, Ian, 1995. The Last Neanderthal. In: The Last Neanderthal:
> the rise, success, and mysterious extinction of our closest human
> relatives. Macmillan, Inc., New York, NY, pp.8-9, 198-203.
Do you feel my comments are incompatible with your references?
> And here are a few facts:
> 1. Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal man were always different species,
> meaning different gene structures. They were probably not capable of
> interbreeding, though the following quote indicates that the issue is
> not fully resolved:
> From Modern Human Origins and Neanderthal Extinctions in the Levant by
> John J. Shea in the Athena Review, Vol. 2., No. 4
> "Paleoanthropological models of Neanderthal-early modern human
> evolutionary relationships vary substantively. At one extreme,
> proponents of “multiregional continuity” regard Neanderthals as a
> geographically distinct subspecies of Homo sapiens, one that was
> absorbed into expanding modern human populations by interbreeding
> (Frayer et al. 1993). At the other extreme are proponents of
> “replacement” who view Homo sapiens as having originated in only one
> region, expanding from that region by competitively displacing the
> Neanderthals without interbreeding (Stringer 1992). Some researchers
> hold intermediate positions, arguing for replacement in some regions and
> continuity in others (Smith 1994). The crucial question, though, of
> whether Neanderthals and early modern humans could have interbred and
> produced both viable and fertile children (the definition of a species)
> remains unanswered, and perhaps unanswerable.
So, what's your claim?
> However, strands of DNA
> have been recovered from Neanderthal fossils which suggest a lack of
> direct ancestry between the two species (Höss 2000; Ovchinnikov et al.
> 2000, and this issue).
"suggest". I haven't seen these papers, but consider the differences
in genetic structure between recently-created fruit flies and their
parent species.
> Conversely, recent claims argue that fossils of
> an Upper Paleolithic child from Lagar Velho reflect a hybrid
> Neanderthal-modern human ancestor (Duarte et al. 1999; Zilhao
> <http://www.athenapub.com/8zilhao1.htm> this issue)."
> 2. Neanderthals occupied Europe for a substantial period of time before
> humans moved in and expanded westward into Europe.
> 3. The latest known skeleton of a neanderthal dates from about 28,000
> years ago, whereas earliest human skeletal remains in Europe date from
> about 35,000 years ago. (First contact seems to have been in the Levant
> about 47,000 years ago.) Changing climate, changing nutrition, war with
> humans all may have caused the extinction. BUT EXTINCT THEY ARE!
That is, we no longer have people with skeletons that match
neanderthals. Even people who are chinless with brow ridges and
occipital buns tend to have *small* brow ridges and *small* occipital
buns.
> 4. All humans now living are homo sapiens only. We all have the same
> gene structure. We can all breed with each other. We all came out of
> Africa originally.
The question this apparent troll was asking, was whether there are
neanderthal descendents alive today. If there was significant
interbreeding, then the answer is maybe. If there was not, the answer
is no. It seems to be undecided at the moment.
Francis A. Miniter
>Who said the descendents [spelling] of Neanderthals aren't with us now?
>What race can you think of that has a heavy brows [syntax error], heads [again, syntax]
>that slop [spelling] forward at the jaw [syntax error reversed] and backward at the forehead [syntax again], with heavy
>bone structure and who appear [syntax, again a number reversal] radically inferior intellectually but not
>physically to most other races?
>What race failed to master many tools, failed to evolve and advance
>the way EVERY OTHER race did? Current anthropology is so rife with political
>considerations that it can't be taken seriously.
>-Rich
>
Maybe, I was wrong about the extinction of neanderthals.
By the way, Richard, Neanderthals were a Europe based species. If, and
that is a BIG IF, - If neanderthals could have interbred with homo
sapiens and did, the descendants (note the correct spelling) would be
Europeans, not Africans. Africans would be purely Homo Sapiens.
Your accusations are extraordinary. There is not a shred of evidence to
support your racist position. If only you could examine what you are
saying from outside of yourself. You seem to be implying that people of
African origins "failed to master many tools". Which ones? Can you
even try to prove it? Look around you and you will see the utter
falsity of your declaration. If you are trying (but failing) to say
that Africans failed to invent firearms, or other European inventions,
then how does your reference to "EVERY OTHER race" apply. Europeans
introduced firearms to Asia, for instance. But so what that Europeans
invented firearms? Now humanity could show how advanced it was by
killing each other more efficiently? Maybe, it would have been wiser of
humans not to have made that invention. [You may find it interesting to
note that Japan had just about had working fighter jets at the end of
WWII. The US stole the technology. ]
You start with a conclusion and try to find evidence for it. Why? What
are you afraid of?
Francis A. Miniter