Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Day Brown · Guest

Makouli wrote:
[quote]Hard to miss, well, OK. But really hard to
quantify, too. What constitutes "race" IYO? Give
me a definition here that is formulaic and results in
an objective appraisal of a randomly selected human
plucked fresh from the sidewalk. You can do that,
can>t you Pauly? Or would it perhaps be easier
to pretend I didn>t ask the question? What are the
gradations of skin color (say) that tip the balance
toward one race or another?
They are working on it. Sykes, "The Seven Daughters of Eve"[/quote]
reports that *all* native Europeans descend from just 7 mtDNA
lines that existed there from 10,000 to 50,000 BP.

I note what Sykes does not, that 50,000 years ago, the only
women in Europe were Neanderthals. This stands in stark contrast
to the adjacent parts of Asia which have scores of mtDNA lines.
WTF happened?

What we always see is that the warriors kill off all the men and
take all the women, so there are fewer Y chromosome lines, not fewer
mtDNA lines in a gene pool.

There are two more mtDNA lines found only in Finland. But even so
9 lines would demand explanation. Got a proposal?

Nevertheless, it only makes sense to abolish affirmative action
if you cant define what race is. But what you can do, is look at
the collection of markers on the Y chromosome and thereby determine,
on a case by case basis whether a given *individual* is at risk of
being a social predator, violent, schizoid, depressed, addicted,
or possibly gifted, charismatic, sociable, extrovert or introvert.

And when you look at a community, calculate how many of what kinds
of haplotypes are in the gene pool to determine how many police you
need on hand to deal with the violence or how many educators in
some specialties are appropriate. looking at the epigenetics mite
help refine the estimates.

The Fins did FMRI brain scans on their most violent prisoners and
found a constricted neural pathway from the corpus collosum to the
prefrontal lobes. When emotionally excited, prefrontal lobe activity
dramatically declines and they run on the "reptilian brain". There>s
no reason to think that this *physical diff* is equally distributed
across all gene pools any more than any other physical trait.

Primate field studies reveal the alpha males cause all the violence.
Study also shows the alphas have higher adrenalin and lower seratonin.
Gene pools that have more men like this will be more violent. But we
can draw the blood, and again, make a case by case judgment. It>d
prolly be wise to provide seratonin supplements to reduce violence
to those males at risk of being charged with attacking someone.
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

Paul Crowley · Guest

"Makouli" <men@work.com> wrote in message news:5oCdnaBqm6od5fTVnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...

[quote]does anybody have a good reference for any of the
"race doesn>t exist" stuff?

And while we>re at it,
does anybody have a good reference for any of the
"fairies don>t exist" stuff?

There are many stories about fairies,
and it is very easy to see their lack of
objective evidence. But racial features
-- like white or black skin, or red hair or
epicanthial folds -- are somewhat hard
to miss.

Hard to miss, well, OK. But really hard to
quantify, too. What constitutes "race" IYO?
[/quote]
From Webster:
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropol.
a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid,
and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no
longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a
combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and
now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members
share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other
humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

[quote]Give
me a definition here that is formulaic and results in
an objective appraisal of a randomly selected human
plucked fresh from the sidewalk. You can do that,
can>t you Pauly?
[/quote]
The real world is often complicated --
sometimes very complicated. But it
would not be very hard to classify
the bulk of a group of, say, 100 adults
picked at random from the entire
human population, particularly if you
had full access to their DNA, and
blood group analysis.

As is well known, it is possible around
50% of the time among Anglo-Saxon and
Icelandic populations, to identify a male>s
surname from his DNA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7459578.stm

In a very high proportion of cases, in most
populations, other male ancestors, and also
the female ones, will have lived in the same
locality (and been part of the same small
local population) for tens or hundreds of
generations. That will, in turn, have derived
from larger populations, each of which will
have separated off from larger ancestral
groups thousands or tens of thousands of
years earlier.

In many cases, the distinctive features
of local populations will derive from
'founder effects', but many will also have
evolved (i.e. been selected) to fit local
conditions.

This is all Biology 101, and applies to
every species on the planet. Although
I appreciate how, when you are
Politically Correct, you are necessarily
obliged to deny the most basic of
elementary facts.

Paul.

DK · Guest

In article <OcGdnTo-pZEtgffVnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@comcast.com>, "Makouli" <men@work.com> wrote:

[quote]I>m still waiting to hear how *you* distinguish
one race from another.
[/quote]
Elementary, Watson!

A set of 326 genetics markers matches self-identified
race with a 99.86 percent accuracy (!!!):
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372

So, you look at those 326 markers (called Single Nucleotide
Polymorphysms, SNPs) and with bettter than 99/100
chance you can distinguish between "races" different
people self-identify with.

And if you are willing to settle for 95 percent accuracy,
just 30 SNPs is likely to be enough. A test for 30 SNPs
can be as cheap as cholesterol level check.

DK

mclark · Guest

On Jul 1, 7:55 am, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
[quote]In article <OcGdnTo-pZEtgffVnZ2dnUVZ_o7in...@comcast.com>, "Makouli" <m...@work.com> wrote:
I>m still waiting to hear how *you* distinguish
one race from another.

Elementary, Watson!
[/quote]
Why, thank you, Pauly.

[quote]A set of 326 genetics markers matches self-identified
race with a 99.86 percent accuracy (!!!):http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372

So, you look at those 326 markers (called Single Nucleotide
Polymorphysms, SNPs) and with bettter than 99/100
chance you can distinguish between "races" different
people self-identify with.

And if you are willing to settle for 95 percent accuracy,
just 30 SNPs is likely to be enough. A test for 30 SNPs
can be as cheap as cholesterol level check.
[/quote]
And you>re going to do this while standing in
the checkout line, right? And these "races"
you claim these folks self identify with, were
they created when someone noted SNP
groupings or were they already in existence
when someone noticed a coorelation....?

> DK

caldervangogh@gmail.com · Guest

On Jul 1, 8:51 pm, mclark <mbclar...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 1, 7:55 am, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:

In article <OcGdnTo-pZEtgffVnZ2dnUVZ_o7in...@comcast.com>, "Makouli" <m....@work.com> wrote:
I>m still waiting to hear how *you* distinguish
one race from another.

Elementary, Watson!

Why, thank you, Pauly.

A set of 326 genetics markers matches self-identified
race with a 99.86 percent accuracy (!!!):http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372

So, you look at those 326 markers (called Single Nucleotide
Polymorphysms, SNPs) and with bettter than 99/100
chance you can distinguish between "races" different
people self-identify with.

And if you are willing to settle for 95 percent accuracy,
just 30 SNPs is likely to be enough. A test for 30 SNPs
can be as cheap as cholesterol level check.

And you>re going to do this while standing in
the checkout line, right? And these "races"
you claim these folks self identify with, were
they created when someone noted SNP
groupings or were they already in existence
when someone noticed a coorelation....?

[/quote]
I think most people standing in line at a checkout would self-identify
themselves into a particular race (SIRE). And the study cited here
states that there is a definite correlation between that SIRE and the
genetic testing.... often divided into geographical units roughing
related to the continents.
"From an evolutionary point of view, population stratification
(genetically distinct subgrouping) and admixture (intermating between
genetically distinct groups) are created by human mating patterns.
Geographical, social, and cultural barriers have given rise to
reproductively isolated human populations, within which random drift
has produced genetic differentiation. Numerous recent studies using a
variety of genetic markers have shown that, for example, individuals
sampled worldwide fall into clusters that roughly correspond to
continental lines, as well as to the commonly used self-identifying
racial groups: Africans, European/West Asians, East Asians, Pacific
Islanders, and Native Americans (Bowcock et al. 1994; Calafell et al.
1998; Rosenberg et al. 2002)...."

I don>t like it. I would like to pretend, like anthropology would
love to, that race doesn>t exist. Alas, it isn>t the current state of
the world. Perhaps in a few hundred or thousands of years, all people
will be of the same "race"...and this issue will be a very distant
memory.

So, I resort to the less courageous tactic and remind myself that race
is OT for sap.
--calder

Guest

On 30 juin, 14:59, irna <i...@orange.fr> wrote:
[quote]sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr a écrit :

The myth of Prometheus is
there then to remind us that during his fight against Hercules, as
long as he kept his contact with the Earth, Prometheus was
invincible

Antaeus...
[/quote]
Yes, correct.
Thank you for being aware, and I hope you see this myth as being a
lesson for the present time.
Regards jpturcaud

DK · Guest

In article <6c38e28f-ca22-4155-a85c-25954693ba97@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, mclark <mbclark55@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 1, 7:55=A0am, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
In article <OcGdnTo-pZEtgffVnZ2dnUVZ_o7in...@comcast.com>, "Makouli" <m...=
@work.com> wrote:
I>m still waiting to hear how *you* distinguish
one race from another.

Elementary, Watson!

Why, thank you, Pauly.

A set of 326 genetics markers matches self-identified
race with a 99.86 percent accuracy (!!!):http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/=
articlerender.fcgi?artid=3D1196372

So, you look at those 326 markers (called Single Nucleotide
Polymorphysms, SNPs)
[/quote]
Oh, my mistake! Turns out I misremembered - this particular
study used microsatellite markers and not SNPs. (Not that it
ultimately makes any difference).

[quote]and with better than 99/100
chance you can distinguish between "races" different
people self-identify with.

And if you are willing to settle for 95 percent accuracy,
just 30 SNPs is likely to be enough. A test for 30 SNPs
can be as cheap as cholesterol level check.

And you>re going to do this while standing in
the checkout line, right?
[/quote]
Irrelevant - right or not.

[quote]And these "races" you claim these folks self identify
with,
[/quote]
I don>t claim anything, I gave you a reference to the
research on genetic clusters in which people DID
self-identify.

[quote]were
they created when someone noted SNP
groupings or were they already in existence
when someone noticed a coorelation....?
[/quote]
<sigh> I gave you a link to the complete paper...
Even the Abstract makes it perfectly clear: "Subjects
identified themselves as belonging to one of four major
racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian,
and Hispanic)".

You wanted to hear how to distinguish one race from
another - I showed you how. But suddenly you don>t seem
to be very interested...

DK

Day Brown · Guest

DK wrote:
[quote]In article <1214799180_381286@pro-front01.com>, Day Brown <daybrown@daybrown.org> wrote:
Paul, Google seems to have taken the link down, but it usta have
a report on a Russian geneticist, who in a purge, was shipped out to
a black fox ranch in Siberia years ago.

Belyaev is the guy>s name. He wasn>t purged and wasn>t shipped
anywhere. He went voluntarily to establish a new research institute
of which he was a director for many years. As did many bright young
Soviet scientists in all kind of fields because the place was fresh,
very well funded and seemed far from Moscow>s internal scientific
squabbles.

The dude discovered the foxes raised in capitivity were hard to
manage and their innate aggression tore holes in the hide.

LOL. "Discovered". Foxes are "known" for aggressiveness,
silver foxes in particular. Before this research program,
it was universally considered that foxes cannot be
domesticated.

So, he began breeding just the most docile foxes. And after just
12 generations was successful.

It took way more than 12 generations.

I>ve seen the video. The fox kits are
as sweet and playful as puppies.

There>s only one problem; the kits are not all black any more.

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

One of the papers published suggests that the selected line
(breed, variety, race) is "smarter" than the wild type foxes.
At least as measured in its ability to recognize human gestures.
About as smart as dogs, the report says:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15694305
We apparently have different sources.[/quote]
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/russian-fox-farm/1753374377
says he "was out of favor". And shows us the foxes they started with,
which look black. And goes on to show us the multicolored foxes the
tameness program resulted in.

Then reports on the lower level of adrenalin to explain the docility,
and how that is on the same strand of DNA as melanin. Lower the melanin
level, you lower the adrenalin level, and with the lower adrenalin, you
lower the rate of innate violence. period.

Of course, genetics is always a crap shoot, so you have to judge
each individual on the basis of their own hormone levels regardless
of what the melanin level is. But with a gene pool, now the averages
kick in, and the results of higher or lower melanin are obvious.
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

Day Brown · Guest

GoldLions wrote:
[quote]GOLDLIONS writes; Excellent point DAY, but what has H.S. learned from
Neanderthal? So far no one really knows except at one time they shared
the same tooling industry. However one thing is clear, they didn>t
seem to feel any need to invent more than what they felt was necessary
living day by day even after 500,000 years time?
Much of the HNS behavior was instinctive; they didnt havta think[/quote]
about how to make a stone point. Which is why it didnt change.

But what the HSS prolly got from the HNS was clothing technology.
In any case, I dont think we have enuf samples from either line in
Europe to know much of what was going on.

Where>d the Kennewick man come from? I>ve not read any report on
his DNA yet. Part of the problem I>ve read is that only the mtDNA
is stable enuf to examine. Which is curious when all the reports
are about MEN.

Wasson "Persephone>s Quest" shows us rock art at the arctic circle
just 500 mi West of the Bearing strait that depict Amanita Muscaria.
which never grew that far north. I>ve read also of minerals in the
teeth that show that male skeletons found in England grew up near
the Mediterranean. This sorta jives with "Pappillon", about an
escapee from Devil>s Island that made it to the South American
coast and lived with an Indian tribe, even siring kids.

But according to Kauffman, "The Origins of Order", without some
further input of genes from an innovative line, they just get
washed out in a large population. How far we can apply this is
moot cause we really dont know how many hominids of whatever
kind existed in Ice Age Europe largely because the glaciers
kept coming down and driving everyone down to the Mediterranean.

I>ve read of the Neanderthal hybrid child found in Portugal, and
more recently an apparently hybrid skull found in central Europe.
but we really dont have enuf samples to know whether these were
just isolated mutants that died out, or whether their DNA still
remains in the Native European gene pool.

Kauffman says dramatic mutation occurs in small isolated gene
pools, and so far as we can tell, this was the case for both the
HNS and the HSS in Europe. So, we cant tell if the changes seen
are the result of local mutation or hybridization or both.

Its perhaps more useful to examine hybridization between species
in general, in which we see lotsa fertile males, but very few of
the females because of the much more complex reproductive system.
So, if hybridization was going on, we>d expect to see lotsa Y
chromosome lines in Native Europeans, but very few mtDNA lines.

this is, in fact, the case. Sykes, "The Seven Daughters of Eve"
says there are only seven progeniture female lines that existed
in Europe from 50,000 to 10,000 BP. Why else are there only 7?
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

mclark · Guest

On Jul 1, 10:08 pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
[quote]In article <6c38e28f-ca22-4155-a85c-25954693b...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups..com>, mclark <mbclar...@comcast.net> wrote:

On Jul 1, 7:55=A0am, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
In article <OcGdnTo-pZEtgffVnZ2dnUVZ_o7in...@comcast.com>, "Makouli" <m...> >@work.com> wrote:
I>m still waiting to hear how *you* distinguish
one race from another.

Elementary, Watson!

Why, thank you, Pauly.

A set of 326 genetics markers matches self-identified
race with a 99.86 percent accuracy (!!!):http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/> >articlerender.fcgi?artid=3D1196372

So, you look at those 326 markers (called Single Nucleotide
Polymorphysms, SNPs)

Oh, my mistake! Turns out I misremembered - this particular
study used microsatellite markers and not SNPs. (Not that it
ultimately makes any difference).

and with better than 99/100
chance you can distinguish between "races" different
people self-identify with.

And if you are willing to settle for 95 percent accuracy,
just 30 SNPs is likely to be enough. A test for 30 SNPs
can be as cheap as cholesterol level check.

And you>re going to do this while standing in
the checkout line, right?

Irrelevant - right or not.
[/quote]
No, it>s not irrelevant. Simply because that is where racial
determinations are made --there and the hiring desk. I really don>t
care what you can do with SNP>s or satellite markers because chances
are that you can>t do that as a lay person whilst in the middle of
exercising some prejudice.

[quote]And these "races" you claim these folks self identify
with,

I don>t claim anything, I gave you a reference to the
research on genetic clusters in which people DID
self-identify.

were
they created when someone noted SNP
groupings or were they already in existence
when someone noticed a coorelation....?

sigh> I gave you a link to the complete paper...
Even the Abstract makes it perfectly clear: "Subjects
identified themselves as belonging to one of four major
racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian,
and Hispanic)".

You wanted to hear how to distinguish one race from
another - I showed you how. But suddenly you don>t seem
to be very interested...
[/quote]
No, I wanted to hear how Pauly distinguished one race
from another -while standing in the checkout line. You
are right though, I>m not very interested in a rehash of how
it>s done in the lab. My point was that these physical traits
Pauly uses come in such a wide variation --even *within* populations--
that they cannot reliably be used to make such a distinction.
You come back with "But I>ve got this test tube here with these
PhD>s and this paper....". Big deal. That isn>t how racism is
conducted.

[quote]DK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 2, 4:15 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
<snip>

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 2, 6:17 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
<nothing>

http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/184.html

Paul Crowley · Guest

<caldervangogh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165b8d7-0925-463a-ba9e-26ba63e1508d@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

[quote]On Jul 1, 7:55 am, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:

In article <OcGdnTo-pZEtgffVnZ2dnUVZ_o7in...@comcast.com>, "Makouli" <m...@work.com> wrote:
I>m still waiting to hear how *you* distinguish
one race from another.

Elementary, Watson!

Why, thank you, Pauly.
[/quote]
Thanks to DK for the reference.

[quote]A set of 326 genetics markers matches self-identified
race with a 99.86 percent accuracy
(!!!):http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372

So, you look at those 326 markers (called Single Nucleotide
Polymorphysms, SNPs) and with bettter than 99/100
chance you can distinguish between "races" different
people self-identify with.
[/quote]
I>m half-surprised that such clear results
can be obtained from the 'melting pot'
that is the Americas. Of course, on
reflection, one realises that the amount
of racial mixing even in the Americas
has been relatively limited.

[quote]And if you are willing to settle for 95 percent accuracy,
just 30 SNPs is likely to be enough. A test for 30 SNPs
can be as cheap as cholesterol level check.

And you>re going to do this while standing in
the checkout line, right?
[/quote]
Mikey gets it wrong -- inevitably. The
point is that there are distinct races --
meaning that the members of each have
had no difficulty recognising each other
for many generations.

[..]
[quote]I don>t like it. I would like to pretend, like anthropology would
love to, that race doesn>t exist.
[/quote]
Idiots in anthropology (such as Mikey
and Daryl Krupa) DO pretend that it does
not exist. They often state it explicitly
and denounce those who recognise
ordinary everyday facts as 'racists'.

[quote]Alas, it isn>t the current state of the world.
[/quote]
A ridiculous way of thinking. There is
nothing wrong with race, nor with
having racial differences. Glory in them.

[quote]Perhaps in a few hundred or thousands of years, all people
will be of the same "race"...and this issue will be a very distant
memory.
[/quote]
And when we all speak one language,
and have one standard culture? They
will look back on these times with envy.

[quote]So, I resort to the less courageous tactic and remind myself that race
is OT for sap.
[/quote]
It certainly is not OT. You can>t explain
the history and evolution of a species
without understanding its current nature.
It is absolutely essential to be aware of
the manner in which the separate races
evolved and dispersed. We also need to
have some grasp of the nature of the
hominid populations they displaced.

Paul.

DK · Guest

In article <1214976634_400914@pro-front01.com>, Day Brown <daybrown@daybrown.org> wrote:
[quote]DK wrote:
In article <1214799180_381286@pro-front01.com>, Day Brown
daybrown@daybrown.org> wrote:
Paul, Google seems to have taken the link down, but it usta have
a report on a Russian geneticist, who in a purge, was shipped out to
a black fox ranch in Siberia years ago.

Belyaev is the guy>s name. He wasn>t purged and wasn>t shipped
anywhere. He went voluntarily to establish a new research institute
of which he was a director for many years. As did many bright young
Soviet scientists in all kind of fields because the place was fresh,
very well funded and seemed far from Moscow>s internal scientific
squabbles.

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

One of the papers published suggests that the selected line
(breed, variety, race) is "smarter" than the wild type foxes.
At least as measured in its ability to recognize human gestures.
About as smart as dogs, the report says:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15694305

We apparently have different sources.
[/quote]
My sources are biologists from Novosibirsk who knew
Belyaev and other people involved in the project.

[quote]http://video.aol.com/video-detail/russian-fox-farm/1753374377
says he "was out of favor".
[/quote]
The usual journalistic bullshit, that>s all.

[quote]And shows us the foxes they started with,
which look black.
[/quote]
Of course. Silver foxes are black. Their fur is particularly
valued in Russia.

[quote]And goes on to show us the multicolored foxes the
tameness program resulted in.
[/quote]
Yep. Just like the picture in Wikipedia.

[quote]Then reports on the lower level of adrenalin to explain the docility,
and how that is on the same strand of DNA as melanin. Lower the melanin
level, you lower the adrenalin level, and with the lower adrenalin, you
lower the rate of innate violence. period.
[/quote]
I think this is way, way too simplistic. Plus, I couldn>t find the
actual paper that reports differences in adrenaline or
noradrenaline levels.

DK

Paul Crowley · Guest

"mclark" <mbclark55@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a9fb71cb-7744-4092-8007-20548ad75d5a@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

[quote]On Jul 1, 10:08 pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
You wanted to hear how to distinguish one race from
another - I showed you how. But suddenly you don>t seem
to be very interested...

No, I wanted to hear how Pauly distinguished one race
from another -while standing in the checkout line.
[/quote]
Liar. This was your request

"Makouli" <men@work.com> wrote in message news:5oCdnaBqm6od5fTVnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...

[quote]Hard to miss, well, OK. But really hard to
quantify, too. What constitutes "race" IYO? Give
me a definition here that is formulaic and results in
an objective appraisal of a randomly selected human
plucked fresh from the sidewalk. You can do that,
can>t you Pauly? Or would it perhaps be easier
to pretend I didn>t ask the question?
[/quote]
The standard (and idiotic) PA view, to
which you blindly and unthinkingly
subscribe, is that there is no scientific
concept of race. This has been articulated
here recently on numerous occasions: e.g.

"Rick Wagler" <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:cFK5k.34251$gc5.844@pd7urf2no...
[quote]No, Paul, racism - the idea that the human species can
be separated into discrete **biological** entities - is bullshit.

"Daryl Krupa" <icycal...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel
messaggionews:4f0f01c8-36f1-4cce-80da-c49dd789231c@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
No, racism is the belief that human beings can be classified into
separate races of people.
[/quote]
On losing that argument, you are now
trying to change it into a completely
different one. What a surprise!

Paul.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Anthropology - Paleo Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 43, 44, 45 Next
Page 2 of 45