Science and Technology news... :: View topic

DK · Guest

In article <014738d9-6d2c-4ace-b9e1-0d3d4f0c8a24@i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Daryl Krupa <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 1, 9:13=A0pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com" <caldervang...@gmail.com
wrote:
snip
... 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)...."
snip

They "commonly" "self-identify" from a restricted list of choices
of
what other people think that they might they might call themselves.
For more than a century, people were not allowed to self-identify
as
"Canadian" in our national census. Now they can, And guess what?
[/quote]
Last time I checked, Canadian is a nationality, not ethnicity.
Nationality, obviously, does not have to correlate that well with
genotype.

[quote]Many people now self-identify as something neither racial nor ethnic.
[/quote]
Most, however, do.

[quote]"Garbage In, Garbage Out" "observer effect".
The quotation above has embedded within it several methodological
biases that would skew the results.
"You get what you wish for."
[/quote]
Missing the point again. The point is that however you call yourself
ethnically, genetics has enough power to distinguish you from the
others. Just a matter of a number of markers.

DK

DK · Guest

In article <fb32c9c8-5136-429a-a0f7-a4fbab400b61@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Daryl Krupa <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 2, 6:13=A0pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
In article <3cc95e35-f15f-4a5f-b913-40f9cad38...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.=
com>, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
"Race doesn>t matter".

It does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidil-
"BiDil ... the combination preparation was approved by the FDA in June 200=
5
for African American-use only based on the results of a study by Taylor et=
al.
(2004). It was already known that African Americans with congestive heart
failure (CHF) respond less effectively to conventional CHF treatments
(particularly ACE inhibitors) than Caucasians. "

snip

"Caucasians" were people prized by 18th-Century Turkish harem masters
for
their anomalous whitish skin and black hair, who were to be found in
certain parts of the Caucasus Mountains.
The are not a "race", they are winners of a beauty contest.

Your "wiki-reference" does not matter.
[/quote]
LOL. Once again I see you are just evading the facts and the
real issue raised.

The facts:
- Blacks don>t respond the same way to some medicines as
whites do. And FDA approved a selectively for blacks, the
one that saves their lives. Ergo, "race" does matter.
- I provided you with an URL that gives links to the FDA>s search
engine and the supporting research that concerns BiDil.

Your dislike of the imprecise term "caucasian" and distaste for
Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hands.

Either start arguing like a grown up or have guts to admit that
the original statements to which I responded were in error.

DK

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 2, 8:57 pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
[quote]In article <bb70bef4-abd6-4ad3-b828-a3c1e1411...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups..com>, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 2, 7:31=A0pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
In article <45ef2279-bb14-4a10-be05-89b8426f2...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups> >.com>, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 2, 5:13=3DA0pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
In article <3cc95e35-f15f-4a5f-b913-40f9cad38...@j33g2000pri.googlegro> >ups.=3D
com>, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 2, 4:15=3D3DA0am, "Paul Crowley"
slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
snip

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

Quotes from the above:

"Race doesn>t matter".

It does.....

to a racist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidil-
"BiDil ... the combination preparation was approved by the FDA in June> > 200=3D
5
for African American-use only based on the results of a study by Taylo> >r et=3D
al.
(2004). It was already known that African Americans with congestive he> >art
failure (CHF) respond less effectively to conventional CHF treatments
(particularly ACE inhibitors) than Caucasians. (Exner, 2001) The study> > by
Taylor et al. demonstrated that isosorbide dinitrate with hydralazine > >redu=3D
ced
mortality by 43%, reduced hospitalizations by 39%, and quality of life> > mar=3D
kers
in African Americans patients with CHF

"In fact, it doesn>t even exist in humans".

Genetic clusters data suggest otherwise:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi> >kipe=3D
dia/commons/f/f9/Rosenberg2007.png

As you can see, different ethnic groups cluster by geographical
location and are differentiated from each other as well as, say,
colors in the rainbow.

http://physanth.org/positions/race.html

You wouldn>t argue that colors don>t exist would you? (Although,
it should be noted, individual colors really don>t exist - they simply
represent a continuum of electromagnetic waves within a certain
range of wavelengthes).

Now, look objectively at your childish behavior:

"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jul 9, 7:31 pm)."

Evading the subject AGAIN.
[/quote]
You have it just backwards. Not archiving is an admission of evasion.
You believe nothing you have said is worthwhile keeping.

[quote]Seems like you know you lost but
don>t have guts to admit it. How pathetic!
[/quote]
How pathetic you don>t know how to read. Here, try again for
comprehension this time:

AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race
Published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 101,
pp 569-570, 1996
PREAMBLE
As scientists who study human evolution and variation, we believe that
we have an obligation to share with other scientists and the general
public our current understanding of the structure of human variation
from a biological perspective. Popular conceptualizations of race are
derived from 19th and early 20th century scientific formulations.
These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits,
primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of
the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued
with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race.
These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of
the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which
presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all
other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often
been used to support racist doctrines. Yet old racial concepts persist
as social conventions that foster institutional discrimination. The
expression of prejudice may or may not undermine material well-being,
but it does involve the mistreatment of people and thus it often is
psychologically distressing and socially damaging. Scientists should
try to keep the results of their research from being used in a biased
way that would serve discriminatory ends.

POSITION
We offer the following points as revisions of the 1964 UNESCO
statement on race:

1. All humans living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens,
and share a common descent. Although there are differences of opinion
regarding how and where different human groups diverged or fused to
form new ones from a common ancestral group, all living populations in
each of the earth>s geographic areas have evolved from that ancestral
group over the same amount of time. Much of the biological variation
among populations involves modest degrees of variation in the
frequency of shared traits. Human populations have at times been
isolated, but have never genetically diverged enough to produce any
biological barriers to mating between members of different
populations.

2. Biological differences between human beings reflect both hereditary
factors and the influence of natural and social environments. In most
cases, these differences are due to the interaction of both. The
degree to which environment or heredity affects any particular trait
varies greatly.

3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure
races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not
exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they
have ever existed in the past.

4. There are obvious physical differences between populations living
in different geographic areas of the world. Some of these differences
are strongly inherited and others, such as body size and shape, are
strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life, and other aspects of
the environment. Genetic differences between populations commonly
consist of differences in the frequencies of all inherited traits,
including those that are environmentally malleable.

5. For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in
nature by classifying living things. The only living species in the
human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global
array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation
within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity.
Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with
absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history
make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in
classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the
inadequacies of these classifications.

Generally, the traits used to characterize a population are either
independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association
with one another within each population. Therefore, the combination of
these traits in an individual very commonly deviates from the average
combination in the population. This fact renders untenable the idea of
discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives.

6. In humankind as well as in other animals, the genetic composition
of each population is subject over time to the modifying influence of
diverse factors. These include natural selection, promoting adaptation
of the population to the environment; mutations, involving
modifications in genetic material; admixture, leading to genetic
exchange between local populations, and randomly changing frequencies
of genetic characteristics from one generation to another. The human
features which have universal biological value for the survival of the
species are not known to occur more frequently in one population than
in any other. Therefore it is meaningless from the biological point of
view to attribute a general inferiority or superiority to this or to
that race.

7. The human species has a past rich in migration, in territorial
expansions, and in contractions. As a consequence, we are adapted to
many of the earth>s environments in general, but to none in
particular. For many millennia, human progress in any field has been
based on culture and not on genetic improvement.

Mating between members of different human groups tends to diminish
differences between groups, and has played a very important role in
human history. Wherever different human populations have come in
contact, such matings have taken place. Obstacles to such interaction
have been social and cultural, not biological. The global process of
urbanization, coupled with intercontinental migrations, has the
potential to reduce the differences among all human populations.

8. Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of
human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local
populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence.
Such populations do not correspond to breeds of domestic animals,
which have been produced by artificial selection over many generations
for specific human purposes.

9. The biological consequences of mating depend only on the individual
genetic makeup of the couple, and not on their racial classifications.
Therefore, no biological justification exists for restricting
intermarriage between persons of different racial classifications.

10. There is no necessary concordance between biological
characteristics and culturally defined groups. On every continent,
there are diverse populations that differ in language, economy, and
culture. There is no national, religious, linguistic or cultural group
or economic class that constitutes a race. However, human beings who
speak the same language and share the same culture frequently select
each other as mates, with the result that there is often some degree
of correspondence between the distribution of physical traits on the
one hand and that of linguistic and cultural traits on the other. But
there is no causal linkage between these physical and behavioral
traits, and therefore it is not justifiable to attribute cultural
characteristics to genetic inheritance.

11. Physical, cultural and social environments influence the
behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although heredity
influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given
population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to
function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for
intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our
species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to
differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to
possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture.
Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge
concerning modern or past human populations.

Got it yet?

[quote]
Nothing>s wrong with the X-No-Archive.
[/quote]
Of course not. If I wrote the mindless drivel you have, I wouldn>t
want it archived either.

[quote]It>s a matter of principle.
[/quote]
Since you don>t have any, what would you know about principles?

Daryl Krupa · Guest

On Jul 2, 8:59 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com" <caldervang...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Jul 2, 8:41 pm, Daryl Krupa <icycal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
For more than a century, people were not allowed to
self-identify as "Canadian" in our national census.
snip[/quote]

[quote]Actually, race and country of origin have been separate questions
since the 1880 census (or 1850 by one method of looking at the data).
snip[/quote]

Actuaklly, Calder, tyhat>s not what I was talking about.
I was talking about
our national census, not
the national census of the United States of America.
I am not one of your kind.

- Daryl Krupa

Daryl Krupa · Guest

<snip>
[quote]start arguing like a grown up
snip[/quote]

LOL!

- Daryl Krupa

Daryl Krupa · Guest

On Jul 2, 9:57 pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
[quote]In article <014738d9-6d2c-4ace-b9e1-0d3d4f0c8...@i18g2000prn.googlegroups..com>, Daryl Krupa <icycal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
For more than a century, people were not allowed to
self-identify as "Canadian" in our national census.
snip

Last time I checked, Canadian is a nationality, not ethnicity.
snip[/quote]

Last time I checked, it was a choice of ethnicity on
our national census.
You have a narrow view of these things.

- Daryl Krupa

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 3, 5:53 pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
[quote]In article <8cfcfef2-9743-46c4-9844-38bff4db2...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 2, 8:57=A0pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
Evading the subject AGAIN.

You have it just backwards. Not archiving is an admission of evasion.
You believe nothing you have said is worthwhile keeping.

No, don>t even hope that I am letting you off the hook by switching
the subject.
[/quote]
Your drivel is very much a part of this subject.
You total lack of confidence in your posts is proven by your refusal
to use the archives.

[quote]Not archiving comment can be found in the
very end of this message - because it has nothing to do with
this thread or the subject matter at hand.

With that: You consistently refuse to offer a refutation of
any kind to the research I gave links to and the logical arguments
I provided. Instead, all you did is to copy and paste 12 years old
AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race.
[/quote]
Ah, not so fast Sport, I also posted this from 2003:
http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/184.html
That>s not 12 years.

BTW, what would 12 years have to do with anything? Do you have a link
to a AAPA rebutal?

[quote]I>ve read it when
it was first published and looked at it several times since.
[/quote]
So you didn>t understand what the two citations were saying then and
you obviously still don>t. Proven by the fact you can>t read a post.
I cited two sources, demonstrating where the "no race" arguments were
coming from. You then came back making the ludicrous
claim about me personally: "After diplaying all the normal signs of
losing an argument"
Up to that point I never made a personal comment or took position
about anything about anything in this thread.
Do you have any comprehension as to what a citation is? How I could I
lose when I didn>t take a position?
You simply imagined I did. You seem to imagine a lot of things. Try
actually reading a post before making bizarre and irrational
accusations.

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 3, 7:21 pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
[quote]In article <2fedb575-bda7-444f-a722-c60576949...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 3, 5:53 pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
In article
8cfcfef2-9743-46c4-9844-38bff4db2...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Lee Olsen
paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 2, 8:57=A0pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
Evading the subject AGAIN.

You have it just backwards. Not archiving is an admission of evasion.
You believe nothing you have said is worthwhile keeping.

No, don>t even hope that I am letting you off the hook by switching
the subject.

Your drivel is very much a part of this subject.
You total lack of confidence in your posts is proven by your refusal
to use the archives.

Not archiving comment can be found in the
very end of this message - because it has nothing to do with
this thread or the subject matter at hand.

With that: You consistently refuse to offer a refutation of
any kind to the research I gave links to and the logical arguments
I provided. Instead, all you did is to copy and paste 12 years old
AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race.

Ah, not so fast Sport, I also posted this from 2003:
http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/184.html
That>s not 12 years.

BTW, what would 12 years have to do with anything? Do you have a link
to a AAPA rebutal?

I>ve read it when
it was first published and looked at it several times since.

So you didn>t understand what the two citations were saying then and
you obviously still don>t. Proven by the fact you can>t read a post.
I cited two sources, demonstrating where the "no race" arguments were
coming from. You then came back making the ludicrous
claim about me personally: "After diplaying all the normal signs of
losing an argument"
Up to that point I never made a personal comment or took position
about anything about anything in this thread.
Do you have any comprehension as to what a citation is? How I could I
lose when I didn>t take a position?
You simply imagined I did. You seem to imagine a lot of things. Try
actually reading a post before making bizarre and irrational
accusations.

I gave you facts
[/quote]
No you didn>t, you cited someone else that you claim the are facts.

[quote]that go against the very core of what is
said in your outdated links. You repeatedly refuse to discuss them.
[/quote]
I didn>t need to, they have already been discussed in the citations I
gave.

[quote](And don>t pretend you posted those links without taking a position.
[/quote]
Liar, show where I took a position. Your imagination is working
overtime.

[quote]Not to mention calling me a racist as an example that you "never
made a personal comment or took position". LOL).
[/quote]
Liar. I said "to" a racist. Are you admitting you are one?

[quote]
So the case is closed
[/quote]
So you lost, don>t feel bad. See if you can>t refute Templeton in a
journal paper.

- you are a drooling cut and paster
[quote]incapable of intelligent discourse. (And a shameless liar to
boot).
[/quote]
So says the delusional liar.

But you are improving, I see you dropped the no archive foolishness.

[quote]
DK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 3, 7:55 pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
[quote]In article <34427cce-82c9-4700-98dc-75fdc1903...@g16g2000pri.googlegroups..com>, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 3, 7:21=A0pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:

I gave you facts

No you didn>t, you cited someone else that you claim the are facts.

Genetic markers ARE facts.
[/quote]
Genetic markers are not race.

[quote]
that go against the very core of what is
said in your outdated links. You repeatedly refuse to discuss them.

I didn>t need to, they have already been discussed in the citations I
gave.

Right. The 1996 AAPA Statement and 2003 popular article discuss
2007 paper and 2005 FDA approval.

Can you possibly sound MORE STUPID???
[/quote]
Read this again, Stupid:

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

[quote]
But you are improving, I see you dropped the no archive foolishness.

LOL again. Once again, you fail to see the obvious.
X-No-Archive: Yes
Message-ID: <7Pfbk.1169$gz3.904@newsfe04.lga

Can you possibly be MORE STUPID?
[/quote]
Hopefully not as stupid as you.

[quote]
Bye, I am not going to waste time on you anymore.
[/quote]
Bye troll.

DK · Guest

In article <89e154a0-20ac-49c1-826b-c061ee5d310d@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Daryl Krupa <icycalmca@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 2, 9:57=A0pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
In article <014738d9-6d2c-4ace-b9e1-0d3d4f0c8...@i18g2000prn.googlegroups=
.com>, Daryl Krupa <icycal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
=A0For more than a century, people were not allowed to
self-identify as "Canadian" in our national census.
snip

Last time I checked, Canadian is a nationality, not ethnicity.
snip

Last time I checked, it was a choice of ethnicity on
our national census.
You have a narrow view of these things.
[/quote]
That some PC-minded folks allow nationality substitute
for ethnicity on a particular census does not in any way
mean that nationality and ethnicity are equivalent.

Try to prove the opposite or admit that you were wrong.

By the way, you refusal to dispute the research I linked
to and arguments I provided is duly noted. Can>t do it,
can you?

DK

GoldLions · Guest

On Jul 2, 1:33 am, Day Brown <daybr...@daybrown.org> wrote:
[quote]GoldLions wrote:
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?
===============================[/quote]
DAY BROWN writes; 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.
===========================[/quote]
GOLDLIONS writes; While I wouldn>t doubt Homo Sapiens Neanderthal,
(H.S.N.), relied more on instinct than Homo Sapiens, (H.S.), I>m
fairly confident that like H.S. and the "higher" primates,
Neanderthals also relied on what behaviors they picked up from the
adults which include fashioning various tools.

================================
DAY BROWN writes; But what the HSS prolly got from the HNS was
clothing technology.
===============================
GOLDLIONS writes; Personally I think it>s more like the other way
around. From what I>ve read so far, only the Homo sapiens sites offer
up samples of bone/stone needles which were used to fashion clothing
and similar goods. If there>s some new data I>ve missed regarding
Neanderthal "sewing needles" please do post a link.
===============================
DAY BROWN writes; Where>d the Kennewick man come from? I>ve not read
any report on
[quote]his DNA yet.
====================[/quote]
GOLDLIONS writes; It>s unfortunate what four DNA extraction>s made on
the Kennewick Metacarpal didn>t yield enough detailed information with
the present technology. I>ve also read that what fragmented bits of
DNA that were uncovered may been contaminated.

==============================
DAY BROWN writes; Part of the problem I>ve read is that only the mtDNA
[quote]is stable enuf to examine. Which is curious when all the reports
are about MEN.
=========================[/quote]
GOLDLIONS writes; In 1997, Paavo, a pioneer in the field of fossil DNA
research sequenced MITOCHONDRIAL Neanderthal DNA.
Later he and his colleagues worked on the Nuclear (Y) DNA of male
Neanderthals.

Biased on these first attempts, the results seem to show that there>s
no "line of decent" from Neanderthal trickling into the modern gene
pool.

What was really intriguing were the results of the Y male Neanderthal
genome.

The findings indicate what had made a male Neanderthal a male
Neanderthal was vastly different from what makes a male Homo Sapiens a
male Homo Sapiens.

The upshot here is, should there had been any hybrids produced between
Neanderthal and Homo sapiens union, it>s highly unlikely that there
were any "Neanderthal Dads" in the picture.
===============================
DAY BROWN writes; Wasson "Persephone>s Quest" shows us rock art at
the arctic circle
[quote]just 500 mi West of the Bearing strait that depict Amanita Muscaria.
which never grew that far north.
================================[/quote]
GOLDLIONS writes; Sounds like a fasinating read, one worth looking
into, thanks. Personally I wouldn>t be surprised that the ancient
European shamans were very similar to those of the ancient American
Indian cultures.
==============================
DAY BROWN writes; I>ve read also of minerals in the
[quote]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.
==========================[/quote]
GOLDLIONS writes; I>ve read similar stories, one which involved a
European man that once lived among some Cannibals for some time and
even had a native wife which eventually saved him from a bite of some
poisonous snake. Sadly, the title of this paperback, complete with
photos, eludes me.
==============================
DAY BROWN writes; I>ve read of the Neanderthal hybrid child found in
Portugal, and
[quote]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.
===========================[/quote]
GOLDLIONS writes; Till there is actual DNA evidence that this boy>s
skeleton proves that it is an actual hybrid, I can>t get too excited
about it. The same applies with the other find.
===============================
DAY BROWN writes; So, if hybridization was going on, we>d expect to
see lotsa Y
[quote]chromosome lines in Native Europeans, but very few mtDNA lines.
============================[/quote]
GOLDLIONS writes; Again according to Paavo>s team findings, especially
concerning the male Neanderthal genome, there>s probably no
interbreeding between the two hominids.
In fact when there were some comparisons made with Neanderthal, Human,
and Chimp genomes, it showed that at multiple locations, that the
Neanderthal DNA sequences matched up with chimp DNA and not with
human....
================================
DAY BROWN writes; 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?
===================================
GOLDLIONS writes; Hard to say at this point It>s all a crapshoot.
Perhaps only these 7 lineages survived by having better understandings
of herbal medicines, and knowledge of the land and where to locate
edible foodstuffs when times were harder along with a higher birth
rate of offspring that lived longer which in turn did likewise by
being able to pass down such knowledge to their offspring orally.
Perhaps these women also had stronger family/tribal ties with their
offspring bearing extremely aggressive males which eventually replaced
the earlier hominids into oblivion.

DK · Guest

In article <8cfcfef2-9743-46c4-9844-38bff4db24e9@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 2, 8:57=A0pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:

Evading the subject AGAIN.

You have it just backwards. Not archiving is an admission of evasion.
You believe nothing you have said is worthwhile keeping.
[/quote]
No, don>t even hope that I am letting you off the hook by switching
the subject. Not archiving comment can be found in the
very end of this message - because it has nothing to do with
this thread or the subject matter at hand.

With that: You consistently refuse to offer a refutation of
any kind to the research I gave links to and the logical arguments
I provided. Instead, all you did is to copy and paste 12 years old
AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race. I>ve read it when
it was first published and looked at it several times since. There
is a lot that can be said and commented about it - but this, again,
would mean switching subjects. I can (and will, if you wish) do
it in a separate thread. All that>s sufficient to say now is that
*the statement it is not a scientific proof of anything*. So, please
behave like a rational adult, follow the thread and contribute
if you can:

[quote]Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote:
DK wrote:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php

Quotes from the above:
1. >>"Race doesn>t matter".

It does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidil -
"BiDil ... the combination preparation was approved by the FDA in June 2005
for African American-use only based on the results of a study by Taylor et al.
(2004). It was already known that African Americans with congestive heart
failure (CHF) respond less effectively to conventional CHF treatments
(particularly ACE inhibitors) than Caucasians. (Exner, 2001) The study by
Taylor et al. demonstrated that isosorbide dinitrate with hydralazine reduced
mortality by 43%, reduced hospitalizations by 39%, and quality of life markers
in African Americans patients with CHF
[/quote]
Comments?

2. >>"In fact, it doesn>t even exist in humans".
[quote]
Genetic clusters data suggest otherwise:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Rosenberg2007.png

As you can see, different ethnic groups cluster by geographical
location and are differentiated from each other as well as, say,
colors in the rainbow.

You wouldn>t argue that colors don>t exist would you? (Although,
it should be noted, individual colors really don>t exist - they simply
represent a continuum of electromagnetic waves within a certain
range of wavelengthes).
[/quote]
Comments?

DK

P.S. "X-No-Archive: Yes" has been a default on all my newreaders
installations for at least 12 years. It has absolutely nothing to do
with the content of my messages. I>ve always objected to
DejaNews/Google screwing up with Usenet for commercial
reasons. Google is a new AOL. As a rule, Google newsgroups
users are just as clueless as AOLers were.

DK · Guest

In article <2fedb575-bda7-444f-a722-c605769492a6@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 3, 5:53 pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
In article
8cfcfef2-9743-46c4-9844-38bff4db2...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Lee Olsen
paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 2, 8:57=A0pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
Evading the subject AGAIN.

You have it just backwards. Not archiving is an admission of evasion.
You believe nothing you have said is worthwhile keeping.

No, don>t even hope that I am letting you off the hook by switching
the subject.

Your drivel is very much a part of this subject.
You total lack of confidence in your posts is proven by your refusal
to use the archives.

Not archiving comment can be found in the
very end of this message - because it has nothing to do with
this thread or the subject matter at hand.

With that: You consistently refuse to offer a refutation of
any kind to the research I gave links to and the logical arguments
I provided. Instead, all you did is to copy and paste 12 years old
AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race.

Ah, not so fast Sport, I also posted this from 2003:
http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/184.html
That>s not 12 years.

BTW, what would 12 years have to do with anything? Do you have a link
to a AAPA rebutal?

I>ve read it when
it was first published and looked at it several times since.

So you didn>t understand what the two citations were saying then and
you obviously still don>t. Proven by the fact you can>t read a post.
I cited two sources, demonstrating where the "no race" arguments were
coming from. You then came back making the ludicrous
claim about me personally: "After diplaying all the normal signs of
losing an argument"
Up to that point I never made a personal comment or took position
about anything about anything in this thread.
Do you have any comprehension as to what a citation is? How I could I
lose when I didn>t take a position?
You simply imagined I did. You seem to imagine a lot of things. Try
actually reading a post before making bizarre and irrational
accusations.
[/quote]
I gave you facts that go against the very core of what is
said in your outdated links. You repeatedly refuse to discuss them.
(And don>t pretend you posted those links without taking a position.
Not to mention calling me a racist as an example that you "never
made a personal comment or took position". LOL).

So the case is closed - you are a drooling cut and paster
incapable of intelligent discourse. (And a shameless liar to
boot).

DK

DK · Guest

In article <34427cce-82c9-4700-98dc-75fdc1903a35@g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Lee Olsen <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 3, 7:21=A0pm, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:

I gave you facts

No you didn>t, you cited someone else that you claim the are facts.
[/quote]
Genetic markers ARE facts.

[quote]that go against the very core of what is
said in your outdated links. You repeatedly refuse to discuss them.

I didn>t need to, they have already been discussed in the citations I
gave.
[/quote]
Right. The 1996 AAPA Statement and 2003 popular article discuss
2007 paper and 2005 FDA approval.

Can you possibly sound MORE STUPID???

[quote]But you are improving, I see you dropped the no archive foolishness.
[/quote]
LOL again. Once again, you fail to see the obvious.
X-No-Archive: Yes
Message-ID: <7Pfbk.1169$gz3.904@newsfe04.lga>

Can you possibly be MORE STUPID?

Bye, I am not going to waste time on you anymore.

Makouli · Guest

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:sqLak.26143$j7.470389@news.indigo.ie...
[quote]"mclark" <mbclark55@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a9fb71cb-7744-4092-8007-20548ad75d5a@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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.

Liar. This was your request
[/quote]
Liar? Gee, those are pretty strong words for such a small
man, aren>t they? I don>t see any raging difference between
"checkout line" and "randomly selected human plucked fresh
from the sidewalk" but maybe you do. And I *still* don>t
see any ~response~ to the question <yawn>. I guess you>ve
opted for the "...pretend I didn>t ask the question" route.

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

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?

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.
[/quote]
Again, you would have to know something about
anthropology before you could pass such sweeping
pronouncements --especially to this crowd.

[quote]"Rick Wagler" <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:cFK5k.34251$gc5.844@pd7urf2no...
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.

On losing that argument, you are now
trying to change it into a completely
different one. What a surprise!
[/quote]
Such beautiful irony. Pauly, you are the master.

[quote]Paul.
===================================[/quote]
"The fat is to keep the infant warm
when put down to sleep on its own
-- especially at night." Pauly 9/7/07


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, 4, 5 ... 46, 47, 48 Next
Page 4 of 48