Whites at least 10% different from Blacks

[Osmium14]

Sorry I've been gone for so long. I've been busy with other stuff. lol. I just found an interesting news story written recently. This would seem to discredit the assumptions made by Sulla the Dictator that negroes and Whites are only 1% of genetically different.

Source: Cornell University
Date: July 12, 2007
More on: Evolution, Human Biology, Genes, Human Evolution, Charles Darwin, Early Humans

Evidence Of Very Recent Human Adaptation: Up To 10 Percent Of Human Genome May Have Changed

Science Daily — A Cornell study of genome sequences in African-Americans, European-Americans and Chinese suggests that natural selection has caused as much as 10 percent of the human genome to change in some populations in the last 15,000 to 100,000 years, when people began migrating from Africa.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2007/07/070711134400.jpg
DNA double helix. (Credit: National Human Genome Research Institute)


The study, published in the June 1 issue of PLoS (Public Library of Science) Genetics, looked for areas where most members of a population showed the same genetic changes. For example, the researchers found evidence of recent selection on skin pigmentation genes, providing the genetic data to support theories proposed by anthropologists for decades that as anatomically modern humans migrated out of Africa and experienced different climates and sunlight levels, their skin colors adapted to the new environments.

[...]

"We undertook a very careful study of genetic differences within and among major human groups, and aimed to explain why certain parts of the genome differed," said Scott Williamson, the study's lead author and a Cornell assistant professor of biological statistics and computational biology. "We aimed to eliminate as many possible confounding variables as possible, and when all is said and done, we find that as much as 10 percent of the genome may have been affected by one of these bouts of recent selection."

[...]

In the latest study, the researchers identified 101 regions of the human genome with strong evidence of very recent selection. These regions include genes that control proteins that help muscle cells attach to surrounding cells (mutations of this gene lead to muscular dystrophy), receptors that relate to hearing, genes involved in nervous system function and development, immune system genes and heat shock genes.

[...]

Overall, close to 10 percent of the Chinese and European-American genomes and only 1 percent of the African-American genome were linked to areas with evidence of recent selection. Since Africans have the greatest genetic diversity and the statistical method searched for areas where the majority of members within a population group have the same genetic changes, signs of evolution were much easier to detect in the less diverse European-American and Chinese genomes.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070711134400.htm

[Dr. Gutberlet]

I would hazard to say 100%, but that is just ol' racist me...

[Kamandi]

It says that 10% of the human genome might have been subject to recent selection. How's that prove that whites differ from blacks by 10%?

[harjit]

It says that 10% of the human genome might have been subject to recent selection. How's that prove that whites differ from blacks by 10%?
Osmium would see confirmation of his racist beliefs just looking at a tree or a car or a cat.

[ivory bill]

It says that 10% of the human genome might have been subject to recent selection. How's that prove that whites differ from blacks by 10%?

It says; close to 10 percent of the Chinese and European-American genomes and only 1 percent of the African-American genome were linked to areas with evidence of recent selection.

Since you seem to wish to quibble make it 9%.

[Kamandi]

Again, that hardly necessarily suggests that "black" and "white" humans differ genetically by 10%, let alone taking into consideration the fact that African Americans have a significant amount of European genes in their genetics on average.

"Recently selected" and "completely different genetically" aren't the same thing.

Please note that the differences they found were not very surprising or substantial:

For example, the researchers found evidence of recent selection on skin pigmentation genes, providing the genetic data to support theories proposed by anthropologists for decades that as anatomically modern humans migrated out of Africa and experienced different climates and sunlight levels, their skin colors adapted to the new environments.

However, the study found no evidence of differences in genes that control brain development among the various geographical groups, as some researchers have proposed in the past.

So we've now learned that the differences in skin tone between "black" and "white" individuals are a recently evolved phenomenon, while there's no observable distinction in brain genetics.

*yawn*

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

lol at "asian american," "european american," and "african american."

Lets get over geopolitics. Its WHITE, BLACK, and YELLOW.

[Kamandi]

Who says you have to categorize by skin color?

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

LOL

You can't be that naive.

Here are albino negros.
http://usuarios.lycos.es/sokodjou/hpbimg/albinos.jpg
http://usuarios.lycos.es/sokodjou/hpbimg/albinos.jpg

Do they look Caucasoid to you? Get a grip, its more than just the color of the skin.

[Sudaev]

Well, all I know is that negroes are, in the main, impulsive creatures who have higher levels of testosterone and correspondingly they have a penchant for violence. They have lower IQ's than whites and they very obviously resemble primitive man, especially the darker ones. Even the negroes that have a significant white admixture, are volatile.

Even the best of the negroes are mediocre.

I know that much.

[xxx]

while there's no observable distinction in brain genetics.


The article did not say that. It said they found no evidence of differences in genes that control brain development. The article states other researchers have said that they have found such evidence. They are most likely referring to Bruce Lahn and his work on ASMP and microcephalin.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

http://www.pieterhugo.com/albino/images/09.jpg
http://www.funmansion.com/images/african_american_albinos_10.jpg
http://www.funmansion.com/images/african_american_albinos_3.jpg
Here is some more for you Kamandi.

:rofl:

"its just the color of the skin" give me a break.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Whether we are 1% or 10% apart it doesnt matter. Humans are some 2% different than apes yet the differences are vast.

[Empress Cheesatine]

The article did not say that. It said they found no evidence of differences in genes that control brain development. The article states other researchers have said that they have found such evidence. They are most likely referring to Bruce Lahn and his work on ASMP and microcephalin.

What do you consider development? And what does this mean in the light of race-based medicine?

[Vissario]

Whether we are 1% or 10% apart it doesnt matter. Humans are some 2% different than apes yet the differences are vast.


Yeah, nappy hair, darker skin, and a sunken nose constitute a vaste difference in comparison to Europeans with straight hair, lighter skin, and a broad nose.

Seriously, you guys think the other dude was quibbling?

[calvin]

Seriously, you guys think the other dude was quibbling?

Quite obviously it’s not the degree of difference, but the significance of that degree that is important. If I am waiting on the 12 O’clock train and it turns up at a fraction of a second after 12 that’s of no consequence; if I’m running in the Olympic 100 meters final and I come in a fraction of a second behind the winner, that’s the difference between a gold medal and a silver medal. In genetics tiny differences have massive consequences.

[Ixtab]

Yeah, nappy hair, darker skin, and a sunken nose constitute a vaste difference in comparison to Europeans with straight hair, lighter skin, and a broad nose.There are also black-white differences in speed of physical maturation (dentition, age to walk, age of puberty), distribution of fat, psychometric g, reaction time, brain size, cranial index, skeletal structure, susceptibility to genetic diseases, mean testosterone level, self-esteem, aggression, impulsiveness, extroversion, time-orientation, longevity, height, and a congeries of other intercorrelated biological and psychological traits.

[Vissario]

Quite obviously it’s not the degree of difference, but the significance of that degree that is important. If I am waiting on the 12 O’clock train and it turns up at a fraction of a second after 12 that’s of no consequence; if I’m running in the Olympic 100 meters final and I come in a fraction of a second behind the winner, that’s the difference between a gold medal and a silver medal. In genetics tiny differences have massive consequences.
So your point is that because of an unknown, unobserved, and unidentifiable "advantage" exhibited by "white people", civilizations with them in it are better than one's with black people? Thought that point may be convincing to people sharing your belief, it has no real clout outside of a deluded mind.

There are also black-white differences in speed of physical maturation (dentition, age to walk, age of puberty), distribution of fat, psychometric g, reaction time, brain size, cranial index, skeletal structure, susceptibility to genetic diseases, mean testosterone level, self-esteem, aggression, impulsiveness, extroversion, time-orientation, longevity, height, and a congeries of other intercorrelated biological and psychological traits.

You say all of this and yet you forgot to provide a source. :rofl:

[xxx]

The article stated that the researchers (Dr. Scott Williamson, biological statitican and computation prof) did not find evidence that European and Asian groups have a different variant of ASMP and Microcephalin Allele. Dr Lahn ( a genetist) claimed in his research that Europeans and Asians do have these newer allele variants. Microcephalin and ASMP control brain size. I am assuming that the article is referring to Dr Lahn's work when they referred to previous researchers. The previous poster implied that this meant that the is no observable distiction in brain genetics between the races. The article never made that claim, it was refuting the previous researchers.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Yeah, nappy hair, darker skin, and a sunken nose constitute a vaste difference in comparison to Europeans with straight hair, lighter skin, and a broad nose.

Seriously, you guys think the other dude was quibbling?

Actually the differences are more "vast" than the ones you list here. As I already mentioned, there is a growing medical field in race-based medicine which compliments the existing knowledge of gender-based differences. Different races have been found to respond differently to different types of medications.

Race-based medicine articles:

http://www.cfah.org/factsoflife/vol11no2.cfm

http://www.forbes.com/home/healthcare/2005/05/10/cx_mh_0509racemedicine.html

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3462856.html

[Osmium14]

while there's no observable distinction in brain genetics.

"Finding no evidence" is not the same as "finding evidence of none." It's obviously a vast subject.

[Impérialiste]

You say all of this and yet you forgot to provide a source. :rofl:

J. P. Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior is at least one of his sources. It's a seriously researched book that the politically correct establishment in Canada put on the fringe.

This is when everything went to hell for Rushton. It was during this debate, and Dave Suzuki did nothing but ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-74-663-3727/people/david_suzuki/clip5

Even Charles Murray (a libertarian), who wrote The Bell Curve with Richard Herrnstein, noted that Rushton is a serious scholar (and Murray isn't even a racist).

[Ixtab]

J. P. Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior is at least one of his sources. It's a seriously researched book that the politically correct establishment in Canada put on the fringe.

This is when everything went to hell for Rushton. It was during this debate, and Dave Suzuki did nothing but ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-74-663-3727/people/david_suzuki/clip5

Even Charles Murray (a libertarian), who wrote The Bell Curve with Richard Herrnstein, noted that Rushton is a serious scholar (and Murray isn't even a racist).Thank you. I had been looking for this clip. Is there a way to save it? Every streaming audio or video clip is played on my computer in slow motion.

[Impérialiste]

Thank you. I had been looking for this clip. Is there a way to save it? Every streaming audio or video clip is played on my computer in slow motion.

I doubt it, though there may be software that you could download to get these clips.

[Vissario]

J. P. Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior is at least one of his sources. It's a seriously researched book that the politically correct establishment in Canada put on the fringe.

This is when everything went to hell for Rushton. It was during this debate, and Dave Suzuki did nothing but ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-74-663-3727/people/david_suzuki/clip5

Even Charles Murray (a libertarian), who wrote The Bell Curve with Richard Herrnstein, noted that Rushton is a serious scholar (and Murray isn't even a racist).
It's humorous that you cite J. P. Rushton and his work when there are serious non ad-hominem arguments which plague both his methodology and conclusions drawn from that same methodology. If you wish to contest that he is still correct, I will draw out for you a very long list highlighting all of the major flaws as identified by equally "serious scholars".

Do you wish to continue?

[Vissario]

Actually the differences are more "vast" than the ones you list here. As I already mentioned, there is a growing medical field in race-based medicine which compliments the existing knowledge of gender-based differences. Different races have been found to respond differently to different types of medications.

Race-based medicine articles:

http://www.cfah.org/factsoflife/vol11no2.cfm

http://www.forbes.com/home/healthcare/2005/05/10/cx_mh_0509racemedicine.html

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3462856.html
So you must think that white people needing extra sun-block is also a race-based medicine, I presume?

Ah, but what of all of those medicines made explicitely for females; does this prove that females are of a different "race" than males?

If you're not catching my point, it is that using a few separate examples where a medicine is designed to treat a specific problem occuring primarily in the black community[/i] does not constitute a huge racial difference. Once again, quibbling is only acceptable when it is done by people who support this quasi-WN bullshit.

[Kamandi]

The article did not say that. It said they found no evidence of differences in genes that control brain development.
And you see that as appreciably different than "brain genetics" in exactly what way...?


The article states other researchers have said that they have found such evidence. They are most likely referring to Bruce Lahn and his work on ASMP and microcephalin.
And they also mentioned that they found no such evidence, as I stated.

[Kamandi]

"Finding no evidence" is not the same as "finding evidence of none." It's obviously a vast subject.
Given the lack of morphological variation in neurostructure between the races, the burden of proof would clearly have to be on those who claim the existence of genetic racial differences in brain structure to provide evidence of it.

[Impérialiste]

It's humorous that you cite J. P. Rushton and his work when there are serious non ad-hominem arguments which plague both his methodology and conclusions drawn from that same methodology. If you wish to contest that he is still correct, I will draw out for you a very long list highlighting all of the major flaws as identified by equally "serious scholars".

Do you wish to continue?

Sure, I'll continue, and Ixabert can jump in this as well. However, I will say this.

I seriously doubt you've read ten sentences typed by the fingers of J. P. Rushton. When you asked Utopian for his source, why did you, if you happen to be that familiar with Rushton's scholarly research. It was so obvious that Utopian was citing Rushton that I knew exactly which work he was talking about in not even two sentences past. So of course, I would like to continue.

Anyhow, little does it matter. Your "serious scholars" can easily be just as flawed and intellectually dishonest as mine. Let's put it this way. Given the number of "serious scholars" who attacked Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein's Bell Curve, hardly any of them hold much water. Appeals to emotion, political egalitarianism, and unproven theories were regularly cited. Keep this in mind: Though Rushton undoubtedly cites some of his own research in Race, Evolution, and Behavior, he also cites multitudes of other studies too. If you want to critique Rushton, fine; however, be prepared to cross-reference his sources too and critique those as well. Why do I say this? Because numerous anti-Murray authors tried to act like he did all of this research on IQ, when in actuality, he merely took numerous other studies and interpreted those. And on that note, Murray only got in trouble because he mentioned that different races perform differently on average (and Murray making it a point that he isn't a racist didn't help him much either; the media still treated him like he's a Klan member). As the old saying goes: bring it on.

I will say once more, however. I doubt you read ten sentences from Rushton's book, so it begs the question as to why you're worthy to debate if all you're going to do is Google all day long.

Utopian: "There are different racial statistics in IQ, penis size, testosterone, brain size, etc."
Vissario: "Your source?!?!?!!?"
Imperialiste: "Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior."
Vissario: "I read that before."
Imperialiste: "Right. . ."

So you're either a dickhead, a troll, do a substandard job in connecting obvious dots (being that Rushton's book is very unique), or you did read the book, which makes you either a liar or stupid (based on your previous post).

[Impérialiste]

Ah, but what of all of those medicines made explicitely for females; does this prove that females are of a different "race" than males?

They are different LOL, unless your girlfriend just happens to have a dick. That was a rather poor analogy on your part.

[klipgeit]

Given the lack of morphological variation in neurostructure between the races, the burden of proof would clearly have to be on those who claim the existence of genetic racial differences in brain structure to provide evidence of it.
Before I answer this,I would like you to"fully" explain in laymen's terms what you mean by your remark.:thanks::thanks:

[Kamandi]

There's no observable structural differences between "black" and "white" brains - in fact, there's no means to distinguish them without genetic or chemical analysis - hence those who claim genetic "differences" in brain structure across racial groups exist need to provide evidence to support it.

It's not incumbent on people who find no evidence for them to prove they DON'T exist.

[SteamshipTime]

There's no observable structural differences between "black" and "white" brains - in fact, there's no means to distinguish them without genetic or chemical analysis - hence those who claim genetic "differences" in brain structure across racial groups exist need to provide evidence to support it.

It's not incumbent on people who find no evidence for them to prove they DON'T exist.

Actually, I believe structural differences have been noted in the brains of peoples with less abstract language, e.g., African tribal tongues that rely more on intonation. But really, you don't need to get too technical to see that this

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v285/SteamshipTime/?action=view&current=kalahari-bushman-bg.jpg

is different from this

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v285/SteamshipTime/?action=view&current=NORWAYFISHERMAN.jpg

[Kamandi]

That's NOT just "cross-racial" - it's the brain of an individual from an entirely different nation, economy and culture. Caucasoids from hunter-gather societies using a non-tonal phonemic system would also show variance from our typical brain structures.

"Racial" brain structure differences would also be seen in African Americans across the nation. That's the key comparison, not with an individual from a non-industrialized traditional culture.

[SteamshipTime]

That's NOT just "cross-racial" - it's the brain of an individual from an entirely different nation, economy and culture. Caucasoids from hunter-gather societies using a non-tonal phonemic system would also show variance from our typical brain structures.

"Racial" brain structure differences would also be seen in African Americans across the nation. That's the key comparison, not with an individual from a non-industrialized traditional culture.

That is research that will never be performed, though I don't doubt the differences exist given the persistent difference in speech patterns and dialect and the consistent underperformance on standardized tests.

[Kamandi]

Those persistent testing differences are standard for any economically distressed minority vs. a dominant majority.

They've also been found in such racially homogenous/disadvantaged caste-like sect populations as the Irish in Britian, the Palestinians in Israel, the Basque in Spain, the Copts in Egypt etc.

A genetic basis is unlikely for that reason. When adjusted for environmental variables like maternal effects, the gap has even been found to vanish in controlled studies.

Of course, even the most uninformed individual discovers in the course of their lives that people will generally speak in any manner they're raised to - blacks raised in Beverly Hills don't speak any differently than I do - so no evidence of mendelian transmission there.

[Ixtab]

Actually, I believe structural differences have been noted in the brains of peoples with less abstract language, e.g., African tribal tongues that rely more on intonation. But really, you don't need to get too technical to see that this

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v285/SteamshipTime/?action=view&current=kalahari-bushman-bg.jpg

is different from this

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v285/SteamshipTime/?action=view&current=NORWAYFISHERMAN.jpgYes. There are significant structural differences between Negroid and Caucasoid brains. There are also significant differences in brain size. Magnetic Resonance Imaging studies have given an average brain size for Asians of 1,364 cm, for Whites of 1,347 cm, and for Blacks of 1,267 cm, differentiating the races by hundreds of millions of cerebral cortex neurons. I will post more on this later.

[klipgeit]

There's no observable structural differences between "black" and "white" brains - in fact, there's no means to distinguish them without genetic or chemical analysis - hence those who claim genetic "differences" in brain structure across racial groups exist need to provide evidence to support it.

It's not incumbent on people who find no evidence for them to prove they DON'T exist.


Step 2.Please explain the difference of Anatole France(1100 cc) and Einstein(about 16/1700 cc) bothe are famous in different areas and both could not duplicate each other brillance

Step 3. Explain Nurture and Nature
Step 4.IQ

Just in simple terms

[klipgeit]

Yes. There are significant structural differences between Negroid and Caucasoid brains. There are also significant differences in brain size. Magnetic Resonance Imaging studies have given an average brain size for Asians of 1,364 cm, for Whites of 1,347 cm, and for Blacks of 1,267 cm, differentiating the races by hundreds of millions of cerebral cortex neurons. I will post more on this later.

WHY???/////////
I just happen to know the Bushman aka hottentot akak Koi in total the San people.

[Macrobius]

That's NOT just "cross-racial" - it's the brain of an individual from an entirely different nation, economy and culture. Caucasoids from hunter-gather societies using a non-tonal phonemic system would also show variance from our typical brain structures.

"Racial" brain structure differences would also be seen in African Americans across the nation. That's the key comparison, not with an individual from a non-industrialized traditional culture.

I don't see how this follows logically. At the variety level (equivalent to races and subraces in animals) it would be very hard to pick one portion of the plant or its seed and demand the whole phenotype be explained on the basis of a superficial inspection of it. Yet it is patent that the seed is the cause the plant, in so far as it is a member of its variety.

[Kamandi]

Yes. There are significant structural differences between Negroid and Caucasoid brains.
Let's see the evidence.



There are also significant differences in brain size. Magnetic Resonance Imaging studies have given an average brain size for Asians of 1,364 cm, for Whites of 1,347 cm, and for Blacks of 1,267 cm, differentiating the races by hundreds of millions of cerebral cortex neurons. I will post more on this later.
As Michael Peters pointed out some time ago when Rushton released his cross-racial interpretation of the MRI studies, his conclusions were based on bogus statistics:

Rushton and Ankney (1995) suggest that cranial capacity estimates for Mongoloid-, Caucasoid-, and Negroid-Americans are 1416, 1380, and 1359 cm3, respectively, indicating larger differences than Rushton's (1992) values given above for these groups (1464, 1468, 1449cm3). The former values for the three groups represent cranial capacity estimates which are based on values corrected for body parameters (Rushton, 1992). To perform this correction, Rushton used slopes for the log/log plot of brain against body weight which are not appropriate for within-species comparisons (Harvey, 1988). For comparison of individuals drawn from the same species, a slope which is almost horizontal is appropriate, and should be close to the .08 determined empirically by Reed and Jensen

The rest of his study was fraught with extremely bad methodological errors as well:

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED357046&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED357046

It's just racially-motivated junk and not science.

[Kamandi]

I don't see how this follows logically. At the variety level (equivalent to races and subraces in animals)
It's not at all clear that there's anything that corresponds to "race" in the animal kingdom, as there's no scientific definition of race to begin with. It's essentially a social category and not really a scientific one.


it would be very hard to pick one portion of the plant or its seed and demand the whole phenotype be explained on the basis of a superficial inspection of it. Yet it is patent that the seed is the cause the plant, in so far as it is a member of its variety.
It's not clear what parallel to the human species and our genome you're making here.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

When you see the vast differences between human groups, its borderline hopelessly romantic to defend everything can change from human to human group BUT the intelligence.

Btw...Whats that story about Basques in Spain? Basque people or their descendants live all over this place. There are no basque ghettos in Spain, thats ridiculous.

[ivory bill]

It's not at all clear that there's anything that corresponds to "race" in the animal kingdom, as there's no scientific definition of race to begin with. It's essentially a social category and not really a scientific one.

It's not clear what parallel to the human species and our genome you're making here.

It's clear to ornithologists that there are races among birds.

The Canada Goose has 11 races, including the biggest and one of the smallest geese in the world.

Common grackles are divided into a purple and a bronze race.

the snow goose and the blue goose are of the same species, different color phases.

[Kamandi]

Understood, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're analogous to human "races" as there's no scientific definition of "race" applicable to anthropology.

[Kamandi]

When you see the vast differences between human groups, its borderline hopelessly romantic to defend everything can change from human to human group BUT the intelligence.
Actually, legitimate differences between the "races" are generally found to be trivial not profound.

For example, for a lengthy period of time, it was believed that Asians must have lower genetic potential for height. Then secular height increases were noted for Koreans and Vietnamese in the North America over the decades and it was realized that genetic potential for height is probably universal amongst humans.

Considering the far greater adaptative sensitivity of brain structure, there's little reason to think that it would be any more likely to vary "racially" over a few thousand years.

Btw...Whats that story about Basques in Spain? Basque people or their descendants live all over this place. There are no basque ghettos in Spain, thats ridiculous.
I'd have to imagine that "the Basque Country" would probably be predominantly Basque.

[Björn]

One thing I find fascinating about this article is that we share so much genetic structure with other animals that it almost implies that these different ethnic groups of humanity, really are different races. Ive heard we shared as much as 83% of the genetics of Pigs. From this we could gather that a difference of only a fraction makes all the difference in the formation of a species.

[Kamandi]

It's a lot more complicated than just the total percentage of genes shared.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Considering the far greater adaptative sensitivity of brain structure, there's little reason to think that it would be any more likely to vary "racially" over a few thousand years.

There is little reason? C´mon...Something as sensitive and utterly complicated as a brain should be somehow be left out in some Bennetton limbo when so many other human details vary so much? I rather think you just wish desperately hold to that thought and not see the obvious as it would shatter your card house.


I'd have to imagine that "the Basque Country" would probably be predominantly Basque.

Basques have build modern day Spain from the momment they started moving south along with the rest of the Reconquista. Basques have been integral part of whatever Spain has done throughout the centuries much as galicians, valencians, andausians and what not. The Basque Country is nor was some sort of fenced Ghetto. As a matter of fact, any spanish last name that ends in -ez is basque in origin..Gonzalez, Perez, Ramirez, etc, etc... Its XIX century politics that have made Basque something suddenly special and non-spanish. A better example for your case would have been Gypsies and Spaniards. They surely never liked to mingle with each other since the cursed day they came over the border in the XV century.

[Kamandi]

There is little reason? C´mon...Something as sensitive and utterly complicated as a brain should be somehow be left out in some Bennetton limbo when so many other human details vary so much? I rather think you just wish desperately hold to that thought and not see the obvious as it would shatter your card house.
Um, yes - that's exactly how it is. You see, small mutations in brain structure cause big changes in a human being's ability to survive; most are fatal.

For that reason, brain structure doesn't evolve very quickly, since most people with mutated brains die. In fact, it evolves more slowly than any other human feature, typically taking millions of years to adapt.

Basques have build modern day Spain from the momment they started moving south along with the rest of the Reconquista. Basques have been integral part of whatever Spain has done throughout the centuries much as galicians, valencians, andausians and what not. The Basque Country is nor was some sort of fenced Ghetto.
I didn't mean to imply that it is. However, that doesn't mean that it's not an autonomous Basque region.

[Brechun]

Why does the existence of race mean a causational factor in psychological makeup?

No, isn't that what this whole thing is about?

For that reason, brain structure doesn't evolve very quickly, since most people with mutated brains die. In fact, it evolves more slowly than any other human feature, typically taking millions of years to adapt.

I've heard you say this before, but do you have an exact cite on it? I already know about the link between serious evolutionary changes and brain size, but I've yet to come across anything specific on primates.

[Helios Panoptes]

Just keep in mind this same individual of Jewish descent has defended Israeli bigotry and even offered a defence for the rabidly bigoted Chabad movement. (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=410993&postcount=18) Chabad doctrine teaches that Gentiles and Jews are from an entirely different 'species' let alone race due to grand differences in the social construct known as the 'soul.' :rolleyes:

Stop bringing up Jewish holy texts in every thread. The idea of this 'thread' concept is that you should discuss whatever the title of the thread and the OP are about, not whatever you wish.

[Frank]

Stop bringing up Jewish holy texts in every thread. The idea of this 'thread' concept is that you should discuss whatever the title of the thread and the OP are about, not whatever you wish.

My apologies; if anyone wants to continue this discussion feel free to start a thread in Jewology. I will end it here...again my apologies to the mods.

[Helios Panoptes]

Talmud digression split: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=415179#post415179

Feel free to pick up there.

[Brechun]

Let's get back on it- Kamandi, do you have a cite?

[Ixtab]

As Michael Peters pointed out some time ago when Rushton released his cross-racial interpretation of the MRI studies, his conclusions were based on bogus statistics:
As J. Philippe Rushton has also pointed out, (a) there is no completely agreed upon method of correcting for body size, but (b) it typically does not make much difference which correction method one employs or whether one simply reports the absolute numbers. It is true, the magnitude of the differences can alter thereby, but significant race differences typically remain. The single best method of correcting for body size, however, is to use analysis of covariance to control for height (and perhaps weight, too). The use of ratios can be misleading for within-species differences. Now, using analysis of covariance on Negroid-Caucasoid differences, they remain approximately 100 cm3 even after corrections; for Mongoloid-Caucasoid differences, the difference favouring Mongoloids may increase dramatically upon corrections, particularly on older samples when Mongoloids are frequently much smaller than Caucasoids.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

For that reason, brain structure doesn't evolve very quickly, since most people with mutated brains die. In fact, it evolves more slowly than any other human feature, typically taking millions of years to adapt.

Evolution is evolution and there are certainly qualitative steps between an Australopitecus and today´s man. Evolution is continuos (when said evolution is allowed) and to imply that one day, some good milenia ago, some ape suddenly developed a modern day human brain that then decided to stop evolving from that day, although all sort of other changes DID happen, on is ludicrous. I know for a fact you can not possibly believe that yourself.

Aknowledging such an obvious fact does not make a potential mass murderer or childmolester Kamandi.

[klipgeit]

There is little reason? C´mon...Something as sensitive and utterly complicated as a brain should be somehow be left out in some Bennetton limbo when so many other human details vary so much? I rather think you just wish desperately hold to that thought and not see the obvious as it would shatter your card house.




Basques have build modern day Spain from the momment they started moving south along with the rest of the Reconquista. Basques have been integral part of whatever Spain has done throughout the centuries much as galicians, valencians, andausians and what not. The Basque Country is nor was some sort of fenced Ghetto. As a matter of fact, any spanish last name that ends in -ez is basque in origin..Gonzalez, Perez, Ramirez, etc, etc... Its XIX century politics that have made Basque something suddenly special and non-spanish. A better example for your case would have been Gypsies and Spaniards. They surely never liked to mingle with each other since the cursed day they came over the border in the XV century.


Halleluya,good remark

[klipgeit]

Evolution is evolution and there are certainly qualitative steps between an Australopitecus and today´s man. Evolution is continuos (when said evolution is allowed) and to imply that one day, some good milenia ago, some ape suddenly developed a modern day human brain that then decided to stop evolving from that day, although all sort of other changes DID happen, on is ludicrous. I know for a fact you can not possibly believe that yourself.

Aknowledging such an obvious fact does not make a potential mass murderer or childmolester Kamandi.

Well said;
How much should an animal(humans too) invest in biological repair depends on the expense of the repair and on a comparison of the animals lifespan with and without the repairs.
But such'should' questions belong to the realm of evolutionary biology,not
physiology.
Natural selection tends to maximise one's rate of producing offspring that survive to leave offspring of their OWN(no pun intended).
Evolution can thus be regarded as a strategy game,in which the individual whose strategy leaves the most descendents wins.Hence the type of reasoning used in game theory is helpful in understanding how we came to be the way we are.

Evolution does not need to be gradual.
I refer to the fruitfly which in laboratory condition took 15 days to make different.

Mutated brains do not die as is said.
The first human was a brain mutation and won and became the last chimpanzee.
In sex--we have frontal copulation----so does the Bobono if he wants too,but not the chimp.
Our brain did not invent frontal copulation,we were beaten by a mere ape.:bitchfight:
My question is why did we not evolve to become on average bigger,smarter and faster than we are now,when we were still fending off lions and hyenas.

The answer is in "predictive index" not IQ or brain size .

So much is said of the San people,their click lingo,their backward ideas etc.
What is backward and howmuch do you need of your brain to survive in the Kalahri desert,which part the left of right,smell or is it the IQ putting a Mercedes together.
Even remarks on Basques and Irish are totally out of line.
How do we develop our collective and individual brain in Basqueland, non other than by swarm intelligence ie how to make do with what you get dished up in Basqueland or Ireland not America.
The Irish were very successful in America and South Africa because of their adaptibility and I bet that an Irishman can survive better in the Kalahari than the American.
It is a question of Predictive Index :Generalist vs Specialist.

[Professor John Frink]

Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease

Abstract
A debate has arisen regarding the validity of racial/ethnic categories for biomedical and genetic research. Some claim ‘no biological basis for race’ while others advocate a ‘race-neutral’ approach, using genetic clustering rather than self-identified ethnicity for human genetic categorization. We provide an epidemiologic perspective on the issue of human categorization in biomedical and genetic research that strongly supports the continued use of self-identified race and ethnicity.

PDF: http://bioethics.stanford.edu/events/documents/pdfs/genomebio.pdf

[Kamandi]

Mutated brains do not die as is said.
The first human was a brain mutation and won and became the last chimpanzee.
That's asinine - I didn't say ALL brain mutations are fatal, otherwise there'd be no natural selection. :rolleyes:

MOST brain mutations are fatal, which is why brain evolution happens so gradually. Tiny changes in brain structure produce big results unlike the case of most other forms of structural evolution.

BTW, your knowledge of evolution is unimpressive: humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and the great apes evolved from a common ancestor.

[Kamandi]

Lack of morphological variation? Quite the contrary.
There's no evidence of morphological variation on a "racial" basis. One can not distinguish brains from different races by observation without a chemical analysis.

[Kamandi]

Evolution is evolution and there are certainly qualitative steps between an Australopitecus and today´s man. Evolution is continuos
Actually not - we now know that it's punctuated.

(when said evolution is allowed) and to imply that one day, some good milenia ago, some ape suddenly developed a modern day human brain that then decided to stop evolving from that day, although all sort of other changes DID happen, on is ludicrous. I know for a fact you can not possibly believe that yourself.
1. Apes did not evolve into humans; humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

2. The time scale of brain evolution and the time scale of skin pigment adaptation are on a 1000:1 ratio.

Aknowledging such an obvious fact does not make a potential mass murderer or childmolester Kamandi.
Of course not - it just makes you wrong.

[xxx]

And you see that as appreciably different than "brain genetics" in exactly what way...?


Its not a matter of difference of terms.

And they also mentioned that they found no such evidence, as I stated.


Actually that “they have found no such evidence” is not the case. The study makes no such claim. That is the claim of the science mag author. The study identifies complete sweeps that occur in snps that seem to have been recently adapted. A number of statistic models were used for the scan to control for different variables including the fact that Afro Americans may have European admixture.

From The Study:
Loci that have been previously identified as targets of recent or ongoing selective sweeps, but do not show evidence for a selective sweep in the present analysis, include MMP3 [48], CD40LG [8], CCR5 [7], ASPM [49], and MCPH [50]. Like LCT, previous work indicates a partial selective sweep at these loci, and in all of the above cases, the frequency of the putatively beneficial allele is relatively low (between 10% and 70%). Because these loci are thought to deviate more strongly from the complete sweep model, the CLR test probably does not have adequate power to detect selection at these loci. “

LCT is mentioned. LCT is presumed to affect lactose metabolism in adults. It is ~77 in the European haplogroups . It is not a complete sweep as are the genes listed above. This study was designed to detect complete sweeps and it gives no values for incomplete sweeps. Other studies of the above genes used haplogroups vs a controlled racial model designed for US population an different statistic models.

[xxx]

There's no evidence of morphological variation on a "racial" basis

The African American sample shows strong evidence of selective sweeps for SV2B, that is a synapticve vesicule glyco protein which is expessed in the cererbral cortex. GMP6A another neuro glycoprotein is also selected. This is a difference. The implications are unknown. It needs a lot more work from neuro- molecular biologist.

[Kamandi]

Its not a matter of difference of terms.
Then what's your complaint?

Actually that “they have found no such evidence” is not the case. The study makes no such claim.
Really? Where does the study claim that differences in brain genetics were detected?

That is the claim of the science mag author. The study identifies complete sweeps that occur in snps that seem to have been recently adapted. A number of statistic models were used for the scan to control for different variables including the fact that Afro Americans may have European admixture.
Didn't notice a correction for that in their regression model, so I may have inappropriately stated that they didn't control for it.

I'm used to models of psychometric results and I'm not a geneticist, so I'm might have dropped the ball on that one.

[Kamandi]

The African American sample shows strong evidence of selective sweeps for SV2B, that is a synapticve vesicule glyco protein which is expessed in the cererbral cortex. GMP6A another neuro glycoprotein is also selected. This is a difference. The implications are unknown. It needs a lot more work from neuro- molecular biologist.
Those are potential chemical differences, not evidence of structural ones. It doesn't contradict my statement that no observable variation exists to allow distinction by inspection without chemical/genetic analysis.

[xxx]

The African American sample shows strong evidence of selective sweeps for SV2B, that is a synapticve vesicule glyco protein which is expessed in the cererbral cortex. GMP6A another neuro glycoprotein is also selected. This is a difference. The implications are unknown. It needs a lot more work from neuro- molecular biologist.


The above is a mistake. I didn't read my own post. This what it should have said.

The African American sample shows strong evidence for selective sweeps for SVB2B that is a gene that encodes for a synaptic vesicle protein found in the cerebral cortex. GMP6A another gene that encodeds for another glycoprotein is also selected. This is a genetic difference. GMP6A is found on chromosome 4 and SVB2B is found on chromosome 15.

[Kamandi]

Those are evidence of potential differences, not necessarily actual ones.

My point that the "racial status" of a human brain cannot be determined by visual inspection stands.

[xxx]

Those are evidence of potential differences, not necessarily actual ones.


Either way, that doesn't equal no evidence.

[Professor John Frink]

Actually not - we now know that it's punctuated.


Not necessarily. What Gould calls "punctuated" is rather a hypothesis.

2. The time scale of brain evolution and the time scale of skin pigment adaptation are on a 1000:1 ratio.


That's an interesting figure. What's your source?

[Kamandi]

It's a pretty well-established hypothesis, although like everything else in anthropology, it's subject to debate.

I simply extrapolated from the fact that skin color adaptation has been seen to occur within millenia while brain structure evolution has been surmised from the evidence to take place over millions of years.

[Kamandi]

Either way, that doesn't equal no evidence.
It certainly equals no evidence of differing brain structure evolution. In fact, it's not even evidence of differences equal to a differing allele.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Thats just pure wishfull thinking Kamandi and you know it perfectly well. Apparently while all sorts of human body and senses have evolved from the day the first proto-human left Africa, miraculosly the brain never changed an inch while it DID change quite some UP to that point. Humanoid migrations have left Africa in quite some waves creating with time such individuals as Neatherthals and others...BUT...the modern human brain never changed an inch.
You really do not see yourself silly?

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

Yes that is certainly a joke. Some people just don't grasp the concept of central tendencies such as mean, median, and mode. They point out the exception and they ignore the broader rule.

[Kamandi]

Thats just pure wishfull thinking Kamandi and you know it perfectly well. Apparently while all sorts of human body and senses have evolved from the day the first proto-human left Africa, miraculosly the brain never changed an inch while it DID change quite some UP to that point. Humanoid migrations have left Africa in quite some waves creating with time such individuals as Neatherthals and others...BUT...the modern human brain never changed an inch.
You really do not see yourself silly?
No, it's silly to claim that "evolution" has occurred that's neither observable nor falsifiable when the time-scales for skin color adaptation and brain adaptation are incommensurate by a factor of 1000.

Quite simply, the length of time since the human migration out of Africa has not been of great enough extent to suggest "evolution," in what would be just a few millenia. Add to that the fact that brains cannot be distinguished on a "racial" basis without chemical analysis and there's no argument for racial variation in brain evolution.

When you have proof of brain structure evolution (or even differences) between the "races," get back to me. Until then, stop claiming to know what you don't.

[SteamshipTime]

Ashkenazi Jews seem to have accomplished brain evolution pretty quickly.

Even assuming there's no difference in brain structure (which I believe has already been shown to exist in different linguistic groups generally corresponding to those north and south of the equator), you concede there are differences.

[Kamandi]

Ashkenazi Jews seem to have accomplished brain evolution pretty quickly.
Really? So where's the test that allows you to distinguish an Ashkenazi brain from a non-Ashkenazi brain on visual inspection with statistical significance?

The fallacy here is the idea that proof exists that a pattern of intellectual achievement inevitably implies "brain structure evolution." That's just an unproven hypothesis.

Even assuming there's no difference in brain structure (which I believe has already been shown to exist in different linguistic groups generally corresponding to those north and south of the equator)
Linguistic groups are not birth groups; any child raised in a language group will take on the characteristics of that language without regard to ethnicity.

Language is learned, not present at birth, as Montessori showed.

you concede there are differences.
That doesn't mean they're necessarily biological/genetic ones conferred collectively by ethnicity and birth.

[SteamshipTime]

Language is learned, not present at birth, as Montessori showed.

I believe this is inaccurate too. Human brains are built for language, and people who developed more abstract language show differences in brain structure from people with less abstract language, i.e., Europeans from Africans. I'd refer you to an article posted at Speakeasy, if Speakeasy still existed.

I have seen black children adopted at birth by white parents and raised as white. Their speech still betrays them as negro. Something's different, and at a fairly fundamental level.

That doesn't mean they're necessarily biological/genetic ones conferred collectively by ethnicity and birth.

But, you concede that such differences do exist.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Apparently everything can change on the human body throughout millenia except the brain. But it changed at some point (quite some) in time but has never bothered to change again since then. Nothing, zilch.
We have bones for how many different evoluted humanoids in Europe alone? Several migrating waves. Quite some difference between them and they all came at some point in time from Africa. Africa a huge continent with different climates yet again the whole of Africa was somehow always keeping the last brain update ready for export.

Is this not oh so convenient to say?

[Kamandi]

I believe this is inaccurate too. Human brains are built for language, and people who developed more abstract language show differences in brain structure from people with less abstract language, i.e., Europeans from Africans. I'd refer you to an article posted at Speakeasy, if Speakeasy still existed.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, ST.

According to Chomsky, and supported by some but not a lot of experimental evidence, the human brain is indeed "built for language" in the sense that it is structurally predisposed to acquire language as a whole.

That does NOT mean that any particular brain is predisposed to acquire any specific language!!

As Montessori demonstrated long ago, regardless of ethnicity, a child will acquire any language (or languages) they're raised with and their brains will reflect the same differences.

I have seen black children adopted at birth by white parents and raised as white. Their speech still betrays them as negro.
I'm sorry, but there is no evidence whatsoever this is true. No documented evidence of any kind exists to substantiate it and the evidence that does exist suggests that children take on the language and speech characteristics of their environment and not their birth parents.

I've also worked with children as a psychologist for many years and seen many cases of transracial adoption at birth and have never observed any invariant distinction and the ones that do exist can easily be explained in terms of superficial vocal cord adaptation.

Black children raised in France will sound indistinguishably "French" in their language usage, as will Asian children, Native Americans, as is the case of children raised anywhere else.

Something's different, and at a fairly fundamental level.
Something's different about your projections onto it, at a fundamental level.

But, you concede that such differences do exist.
I don't know if they do or not. It's very difficult to objectively measure them.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

Belief in racial differences is a good indicator of whether you are leftist scum or you are politically incorrect.

Its a litmus test issue, and you are clearly a puppet of the egalitarians if you deny races exist, and you clearly think independently if you do not (except for stormfront/vnn).

[Ambrosio Spinola]

I find it utterly childish to be so blind as to not see the obvious. I do not really care if these plain to see facts do interest you or move you. I do not care wether you think or not these differences makes the other guy better or worse as an human being. Those moralistic approaches are not for me. But to believe blindly in magic and wellwishing is in this case just bad faith.

[Kamandi]

It's not at all "obvious" that there are evolutionary racial neuro-structural differences in any way. In fact, there's no evidence of them.

When you provide hard, documented scientific evidence of them that passes muster in refereed, peer-reviewed academic journals, then I'll reassess my position.

As it currently stands, there's no reason to believe it other than simple ethnic contempt that I don't share.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

I have serious doubt wether any "hard, documented scientific evidence of them that passes muster in refereed, peer-reviewed academic journals" would mean anything to you. Its quite easy to observe your modus operandi here and elsewhere. You have already your script you recite to a gallery of "ethnic contemptuos" people and nothing we might bring forward would be for you that "hard, documented scientific evidence of them that passes muster in refereed, peer-reviewed academic journals".

[Commander]

I am a Leftist / Socialist, with perceptions of, & understanding of, racial reality. Where I grew up, if you did not have a certain amount of racial reality, your life may not be a long one.


To say the negro brain is 10% different, is definitely not an over estimate, my interpretation would be much higher, closer to the 50% range.

[Brechun]

He should have been clearer, but Kamandi is reffering to the idea of their being deep-seated, major structural differences in the brain that come out by way of long-term evolutionary processes, which are wholly immutable by way of simple environmental effects that can greatly change within a period of generations- which is how it works for the psychological makeup of humans.

It's really hard to explain, but it's true, and an often misunderstood aspect of human evolution when it comes to discussing racial differences. As a simple rule of evolution, species with large brains take very long periods of time to truly evolve, while species with small brains take shorter periods to evolve.

From what I've gathered on these sorts of forums and this sort of community, the way people view racial differences has alot of variations, but goes with 2 different modes of thought:

1). The existence of group averages, that different races, on average, differ in their inellects and personality, though whether one is a racialist or not depends on how heritable you think they are.

2). The existence of deep-seated evolutionary differences in the brain structure of different ethnic groups.

#2 is outright false since there's extreme psychological overlap among every single ethnic group, and once again with the fact that they take a very long time to come out in primates, hominids especially.

Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease

Uh, you shouldn't get too hyped up with this. Race and medicine just refers to group averages. Bildil is targeted at something with how blacks have significantly lower levels of blood nitrogen in their blood compared to other ethnic groups, and it doesn't even work on all african-americans.

MOST brain mutations are fatal, which is why brain evolution happens so gradually. Tiny changes in brain structure produce big results unlike the case of most other forms of structural evolution.

Like this?

http://www.orangutan.org.au/333.html

Lee, a junior psychology researcher at Harvard, found that in primates, at least, different rules seem to apply — the development of one set of mental skills seems to prompt the primate brain to develop other mental abilities as well.

One difference in a primate brain means a whole set of differences for the rest of it.

The African American sample shows strong evidence of selective sweeps for SV2B, that is a synapticve vesicule glyco protein which is expessed in the cererbral cortex. GMP6A another neuro glycoprotein is also selected. This is a difference. The implications are unknown. It needs a lot more work from neuro- molecular biologist.

Which study? Is this that one about 15% of the human genome being selected in the past 50,000 years?

Yeah, alot of that *did* involve the brain, but this says nothing of anything deep-seated. The fact that a certain group of africans saw different selective pressures for one particular aspect of cognition throughout all those years really doesn't tell us.... Anything.

Not necessarily. What Gould calls "punctuated" is rather a hypothesis.

Gould wanted to apply slow evolution to all life, not just big-brained animals. That's why his theory is BS.

Ashkenazi Jews seem to have accomplished brain evolution pretty quickly.

Er, I honestly don't even know what to think of the case of the Ashkenazi. It's nothing short of an evolutionary anomaly, though it began with just one jew.

Once again Kamandi, what's your cite on this? Is there a particular timeframe set? Have you seen anything that's come out in the past years to contradict it? And when was the last time this occured for humans?

To say the negro brain is 10% different, is definitely not an over estimate, my interpretation would be much higher, closer to the 50% range.

Chavez is part black. Uh oh.

I believe this is inaccurate too. Human brains are built for language, and people who developed more abstract language show differences in brain structure from people with less abstract language, i.e., Europeans from Africans. I'd refer you to an article posted at Speakeasy, if Speakeasy still existed.

Wait, are you talking about those people who hypothesize ASPM and MCH1 are correlated with linguistic differences? Did they really make a consensus on that?

[Commander]

Chavez is part black. Uh oh.

Yes, about 10% or something like that, not uncommon for a South American country.

Fidel Castro, to the best of my knowledge, is 100% white Hispanic. I think the white population of Cuba is 45% something like that, I was reading about it a couple days ago. Venezuela has a similar mixture of whites [Spanish & Portuguese mostly] and the others, mixtures, blacks, native Indians etc.

[Brechun]

Yes, about 10% or something like that, not uncommon for a South American country.

Fidel Castro, to the best of my knowledge, is 100% white Hispanic. I think the white population of Cuba is 45% something like that, I was reading about it a couple days ago. Venezuela has a similar mixture of whites [Spanish & Portuguese mostly] and the others, mixtures, blacks, native Indians etc.

Something like 20%, actually. And Cuba is largely a mixture of blacks and whites.

[Commander]

~~~~~~~~Cuba~~~~~~~~

According to the CIA World Factbook, Cuba is 51% Mulatto (mixed white and black), 37% white, 11% black, and 1% Chinese. DNA studies throughout the Antilles region have suggested that the contribution of indigenous neo-Taíno Nations to the local populations may be more significant than formerly believed.[8]

According to Cuba's Oficina Nacional de Estadisticas ONE 2002 Census, the Cuban population was 11,177,743,[45] including:

* 5,597,233 men and
* 5,580,510 women.

The racial make-up was 7,271,926 whites, 1,126,894 blacks and 2,778,923 mulattoes (or mestizos).[46] The Chinese population in Cuba is descended mostly from laborers who arrived in the 19th century to build railroads and work in mines. After the Industrial Revolution, many of these laborers stayed in Cuba because they could not afford return passage to China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Demographics

By his first wife Mirta Díaz Balart, Castro has a son named Fidel "Fidelito" Castro Díaz-Balart. Díaz-Balart and Castro were divorced in 1955, and she remarried. After a spell in Madrid, Díaz-Balart reportedly returned to Havana to live with Fidelito and his family.[145] Fidelito grew up in Cuba, for a time, he ran Cuba's atomic-energy commission before being removed from the post by his father.[146] Díaz-Balart's nephews are Republican U.S. Congressmen Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart, vocal critics of the Castro government.

Fidel has five other sons by his second wife, Dalia Soto del Valle: Alexis, Alexander, Alejandro, Antonio, and Angel.[146]

While Fidel was married to Mirta, he had an affair with Naty Revuelta resulting in a daughter named Alina Fernández-Revuelta.[146] Alina left Cuba in 1993, disguised as a Spanish tourist,[147] and sought asylum in the United States. She has been a vocal critic of her father's policies.

His sister Juanita Castro has been living in the United States since the early 1960s and was featured in a film documentary by Andy Warhol in 1965.[148]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#Family

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Venezuela~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some 49% of the estimated 27,483,200 Venezuelans are Mestizo (mixed white and Amerindian ancestry); another 41% are white Latin American, mostly of Italian, Spanish, German, and Portuguese stock.[citation needed] Other important minority groups include Afro-Venezuelans (7%), and Asians (2%), who are of predominantly Arab and Chinese descent. Only 1% of Venezuelans are Amerindian. These groups were joined by sponsored migrants from throughout Europe and neighboring parts of South America during waves of immigration in the early 20th century; many were attracted again, by the mid-20th century economic boom. About 85% of the population live in urban areas in northern Venezuela; 73% live less than 100 kilometres (62 mi) from the coastline.[36] Though almost half of Venezuela's land area lies south of the Orinoco, only 5% of Venezuelans live there.

The national and official language is Spanish; 31 indigenous languages are also spoken, including Guajibo, Pemon, Warao, Wayuu, and the various Yanomaman languages. European immigrant communities and their descendants commonly use their own native languages. Nominally, 96% of the population belongs to the Roman Catholic Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela#Demographics

Hugo Chávez has been married twice. He first wedded Nancy Colmenares, a woman from a poor family originating in Chávez's own hometown of Sabaneta. Chávez and Colmenares remained married for eighteen years, during which time they had three children: Rosa Virginia, María Gabriela, and Hugo Rafael. They separated soon after Chávez's 1992 coup attempt. During his first marriage, Chávez also had an affair with young historian Herma Marksman; they had a relationship which lasted nine years, but ended.[13][193] Chávez is divorced from his second wife, journalist Marisabel Rodríguez de Chávez.[194] Through that marriage, Chávez had another daughter, Rosinés. Chávez has two grandchildren, Gabriela[195] and Manuel[196]

Chávez was raised a Roman Catholic,[197] although he has had a series of disputes with both the Venezuelan Catholic hierarchy and Protestant groups like the New Tribes Mission.[71][198] He has traditionally kept his own faith a private matter, but over the course of his presidency, Chávez has become increasingly open to discussing his religious views, stating that both his faith and his interpretation of Jesus' personal life and ideology have had a profound impact on his left-wing and progressivist views.[21] He often invokes God and asks for prayer in speeches, as he did when he asked Venezuelans to pray for Fidel Castro.[199]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#Personal_life

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Viva Fidel, Viva Chavez !! :)

[Professor John Frink]

It's a pretty well-established hypothesis, although like everything else in anthropology, it's subject to debate.

I simply extrapolated from the fact that skin color adaptation has been seen to occur within millenia while brain structure evolution has been surmised from the evidence to take place over millions of years.

Brain structure is a rather complicated matter, but it's subject to natural selection (obviously). As for brain size, the greatest cranial capacity for Australoids that was ever recorded was less than 1,500cc. Mine is about 1,850cc and I'm Caucasoid. From my cranial capacity alone one can pretty much conclude that I (let alone individuals like Turgenieff) couldn't be Australoid. If such a cranium were a possiblity in Australoids, then I wonder why the biggest one wasn't nearly as large.

[Brechun]

Brain structure is a rather complicated matter, but it's subject to natural selection (obviously). As for brain size, the greatest cranial capacity for Australoids that was ever recorded was less than 1,500cc. Mine is about 1,850cc and I'm Caucasoid. From my cranial capacity alone one can pretty much conclude that I (let alone individuals like Turgenieff) couldn't be Australoid. If such a cranium were a possiblity in Australoids, then I wonder why the biggest one wasn't nearly as large.

Brain size varies substantially even within racial groups, just as IQ does. Though tell me, what's the exact correlation between CC and IQ in humans? I think I've seen a chart given by Jensen before, and the abo IQ seems to be something in the 70's in reality, going by their estimates of brain and skull size.

[Professor John Frink]

Wait, are you talking about those people who hypothesize ASPM and MCH1 are correlated with linguistic differences? Did they really make a consensus on that?

There is no concensus on how ASPM and MCPH1 express themselves.

[Brechun]

There is no concensus on how ASPM and MCPH1 express themselves.

There's been some neuroscientists who've been thinking that those alleles have something to do with language recognition, since they seem to correlate rather well the frequencies of tonal and non-tonal languages. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with cognition. The APSM and MCPH genes have been found to be involved with far, far more than brain size.

[Professor John Frink]

Brain size varies substantially even within racial groups, just as IQ does. Though tell me, what's the exact correlation between CC and IQ in humans? I think I've seen a chart given by Jensen before, and the abo IQ seems to be something in the 70's in reality, going by their estimates of brain and skull size.

http://www.vcu.edu/uns/Releases/2005/june/061705.html

According to Jensen, the correlation between IQ and brain size is about .40, while McDaniel puts it at .33. The correlation increases with age and reaches .80 (can't find the source atm).

[Brechun]

http://www.vcu.edu/uns/Releases/2005/june/061705.html

According to Jensen, the correlation between IQ and brain size is about .40, while McDaniel puts it at .33. The correlation increases with age and reaches .80 (can't find the source atm).

Er, I meant how cranial capacity factors into IQ. How many IQ points does 1 cubic centimeter mean, for example?

[Professor John Frink]

There's been some neuroscientists who've been thinking that those alleles have something to do with language recognition, since they seem to correlate rather well the frequencies of tonal and non-tonal languages. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with cognition. The APSM and MCPH genes have been found to be involved with far, far more than brain size.

There is NO concensus ;)

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7974
http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB115040765329081636.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0604066103v1
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5784/172a
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5784/172b
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n7/full/5201624a.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1704016.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?tmpl=NoSidebarfile&db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17220170&dopt=Abstract
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5823/370b
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?tmpl=NoSidebarfile&db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17604569&dopt=Abstract
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=D87BB853-E7F2-99DF-3CE5ED42E188F867
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/ddl126v1

[xxx]

It certainly equals no evidence of differing brain structure evolution. [QUOTE]

My points pertain to the study. They found that SV2B exhibited strong evidence for a selective sweep in the African American sample. Evidence of a difference.

[QUOTE]In fact, it's not even evidence of differences equal to a differing allele.

Is that so? The SNP sweep for SV2B occurs in a coding sequence, 4kb from the gene. The sweep for GMP6A was right next to the gene loci. Its now thought that these cSNPs do influence genes.

[Brechun]

[QUOTE]It certainly equals no evidence of differing brain structure evolution. [QUOTE]

My points pertain to the study. They found that SV2B exhibited strong evidence for a selective sweep in the African American sample. Evidence of a difference.



Is that so? The SNP sweep for SV2B occurs in a coding sequence, 4kb from the gene. The sweep for GMP6A was right next to the gene loci. Its now thought that these cSNPs do influence genes.

...Please just link the study.

[Kamandi]

My points pertain to the study. They found that SV2B exhibited strong evidence for a selective sweep in the African American sample. Evidence of a difference.
No, it's not - it's evidence of a POTENTIAL difference and not necessarily an actual one. For evidence of an actual difference in brain structure evolution, there'd have to be evidence of an actual difference in brain structure, which there is not at this time.

"Genetic difference" =/= actual phenotypic variation in brain structure between populations, let alone evolution.


Is that so? The SNP sweep for SV2B occurs in a coding sequence, 4kb from the gene. The sweep for GMP6A was right next to the gene loci. Its now thought that these cSNPs do influence genes.
It doesn't necessarily mean that there's any specific gene or even allele that it's influenced. It indicates that there MIGHT be influence, not that any actual gene has certainly been affected.

[Kamandi]

I have serious doubt wether any "hard, documented scientific evidence of them that passes muster in refereed, peer-reviewed academic journals" would mean anything to you.
Nonsense - as a scientist, it would mean everything to me.

Its quite easy to observe your modus operandi here and elsewhere. You have already your script you recite to a gallery of "ethnic contemptuos" people and nothing we might bring forward would be for you that "hard, documented scientific evidence of them that passes muster in refereed, peer-reviewed academic journals".
I'm afraid that the reverse is true; you'd never believe anything that didn't conform to your racial prejudices.

Outside the realm of religious belief, I accept primarily what the scientific method, competently applied to empirical data, rationally indicates.

[Kamandi]

Er, I honestly don't even know what to think of the case of the Ashkenazi. It's nothing short of an evolutionary anomaly, though it began with just one jew.

Once again Kamandi, what's your cite on this? Is there a particular timeframe set? Have you seen anything that's come out in the past years to contradict it? And when was the last time this occured for humans?
The idea that impressive intellectual accomplishments achieved by members of a particular birth broup implies that the birth group in question is therefore smarter as a whole - let alone possesses actual superior brain evolution via natural selection - is a fallacy.

For example, Hungary happened to produce a number of extraordinarily talented mathematicians and physicists in the 20th century, for a number of well-known social and historical reasons. It doesn't necessarily suggest that Hungarians are intellectually superior, let alone more highly selected for intelligence.

Neither does it imply that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically superior in intelligence or better evolutionarily adapted by birth. The Jews simply valued education as a concomitant of their religious beliefs, rewarded it, and were forced by historical circumstances into jobs requiring extensive education and high cognitive skills.

That doesn't mean they have genetically better brains as a group.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Nonsense - as a scientist, it would mean everything to me.

Oh please, if and only IF such a scientist would come out you would just automatically attack the messenger as some sort of closet racist, neo-nazi past or some other non sense. You have your script and you will not leave that path no matter what.

I'm afraid that the reverse is true; you'd never believe anything that didn't conform to your racial prejudices.

I take myself as quite a rational person (such as yourself do) and find that such observations are certainly a fast way out for you when confronted with these subjects. In the same way you would treat any "scientific" reasearch that would burst your bubble.

Outside the realm of religious belief, I accept primarily what the scientific method, competently applied to empirical data, rationally indicates.

I find that this ailment is what is actually hurting you. You have these religious bennetton belief and full stop. Everything else is just people trying to gass mankind or rape poor black children.
To really believe in this "one brain" BS since the dawn of mankind is so irrational that it makes all your posturing seems worthless.
The worst is that I´m sure that deep within yourself you know this to be true but a mix between feeling like a inquisitor who needs to stomp out any possible view in your flat world vision because you find those racial differences not to mean anything really and the fear out of your own racial background that "God heavens I might be missing the latest complete evolutionary "patch".

[Kamandi]

Oh please, if and only IF such a scientist would come out you would just automatically attack the messenger as some sort of closet racist, neo-nazi past or some other non sense. You have your script and you will not leave that path no matter what.
Nonsense - I would analyze their data on a rational basis, as I do here. Personality is a non-factor in science.

I don't care that Einstein was a socialist nor that Newton died a virgin. What matters is their science; theories, analysis, and evidence.

I take myself as quite a rational person (such as yourself do) and find that such observations are certainly a fast way out for you when confronted with these subjects. In the same way you would treat any "scientific" reasearch that would burst your bubble.
I've seen no evidence that you're a rational person. You're pseudo-rational, it appears.

I find that this ailment is what is actually hurting you. You have these religious bennetton belief and full stop. Everything else is just people trying to gass mankind or rape poor black children.
More stupid smack talk and not an argument.

To really believe in this "one brain" BS since the dawn of mankind is so irrational that it makes all your posturing seems worthless.
The worst is that I´m sure that deep within yourself you know this to be true but a mix between feeling like a inquisitor who needs to stomp out any possible view in your flat world vision because you find those racial differences not to mean anything really and the fear out of your own racial background that "God heavens I might be missing the latest complete evolutionary "patch".
Quite simply, there's no scientific evidence to support your racist beliefs in the lesser evolution of blacks and other minorities. You've never produced any, nor has anyone else.

You can believe whatever you wish to, but that doesn't make it "science."

[Brechun]

The idea that impressive intellectual accomplishments achieved by members of a particular birth broup implies that the birth group in question is therefore smarter as a whole - let alone possesses actual superior brain evolution via natural selection - is a fallacy.

For example, Hungary happened to produce a number of extraordinarily talented mathematicians and physicists in the 20th century, for a number of well-known social and historical reasons. It doesn't necessarily suggest that Hungarians are intellectually superior, let alone more highly selected for intelligence.

Neither does it imply that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically superior in intelligence or better evolutionarily adapted by birth. The Jews simply valued education as a concomitant of their religious beliefs, rewarded it, and were forced by historical circumstances into jobs requiring extensive education and high cognitive skills.

That doesn't mean they have genetically better brains as a group.

I know this, but have you actually read the work on the Ashkenazi? They truly do carry certain traits that set them apart from the rest of humanity, though all of it's just a matter of being a carrier for those particular genotypes- none of it is a fixture on the genomes or brains of the Ashkenazi. Not that it would be, and it could perhaps easily be winnowed out.

And yes, social conditions obviously did matter, since the Ashkenazi didn't even achieve prominence until the 1600's and 1700's- extreme discrimination against them kept them from really doing anything.

Just answer me- what's the estimate for the onset of what you're talking about?

To really believe in this "one brain" BS since the dawn of mankind is so irrational that it makes all your posturing seems worthless.
The worst is that I´m sure that deep within yourself you know this to be true but a mix between feeling like a inquisitor who needs to stomp out any possible view in your flat world vision because you find those racial differences not to mean anything really and the fear out of your own racial background that "God heavens I might be missing the latest complete evolutionary "patch".

There's nothing nutty about it at all. You'd do yourself a favor to explain how the human brain would be exempt from such a basic law of evolution.

[Kamandi]

I know this, but have you actually read the work on the Ashkenazi? They truly do carry certain traits that set them apart from the rest of humanity, though all of it's just a matter of being a carrier for those particular genotypes- none of it is a fixture on the genomes or brains of the Ashkenazi. Not that it would be, and it could perhaps easily be winnowed out.
Ashkenazi Jews have done an excellent job of achieving. But we were discussing evolution and the brain, not group achievement.

There's no evidence of brain structure differences amongst the Ashkenazis as a whole. If that's not so, let's see the discriminant function test that can make the distinction between randomly selected European Jews and non-Jews (and non-European Jews, for that matter) without chemical analysis.

Just answer me- what's the estimate for the onset of what you're talking about?
Onset of what in particular?

[Brechun]

Ashkenazi Jews have done an excellent job of achieving. But we were discussing evolution and the brain, not group achievement.

There's no evidence of brain structure differences amongst the Ashkenazis as a whole. If that's not so, let's see the discriminant function test that can make the distinction between randomly selected European Jews and non-Jews (and non-European Jews, for that matter) without chemical analysis.

I might go into this later, but yes, as I said some time ago in my detailing of the Ashkenazi intelligence work, not even on all jews carry the genotypes. Only about half of all jews combined carry the particular cancers and DNA repair disorders.

Just go ahead and read the Cochran and Harpending study if you haven't. What do you think of it?

Onset of what in particular?

Again, the evolution of large-scale evolutionary changes in primate brains. You keep saying millions of years, but I'd like a particular reference, citation, professional estimate, etc. What do you really have? How much study has been put into this?

[Kamandi]

I might go into this later, but yes, as I said some time ago in my detailing of the Ashkenazi intelligence work, not even on all jews carry the particular genotypes. Only about half of all jews combined carry the particular cancers and DNA repair disorders.
I was specifically referring to distinguishing brains "racially" by observation, not genetic signatures inferred from chemical analysis.


Again, the evolution of large-scale evolutionary changes in primate brains. You keep saying millions of years, but I'd like a particular reference, citation, professional estimate, etc. What do you really have? How much study has been put into this?
That's the standard estimate: however, some theorists have proposed the "social brain" model of neural evolution - suggesting that sexual and social selection processes have shaped neurogenesis as much or more than natural selection - and they believe in a "fast evolution" scenario for brain development:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1636539

On the basis of their mathematical model, Gavrilets and Vose believe, for example, that significant increases in cognitive structures could happen in as "little" as 200K - 400K years (or 10,000 - 20,000 generations).

[Brechun]

That's the standard estimate: however, some theorists have proposed the "social brain" model of neural evolution - suggesting that sexual and social selection processes have shaped neurogenesis as much or more than natural selection - and they believe in a "fast evolution" scenario for brain development:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1636539

On the basis of their mathematical model, Gavrilets and Vose believe, for example, that significant increases in cognitive structures could happen in as "little" as 200K - 400K years (or 10,000 - 20,000 generations).

Yes, thank you! Though again, do you have any other references on the standard estimate then? Also, would this also apply to significant changes in things like biochemical and physical differences?

[Kamandi]

There's a review of the lit in that article, I believe. Otherwise, it's just Science News-type stuff that you can google at your leisure.

[Kamandi]

http://www.vcu.edu/uns/Releases/2005/june/061705.html

According to Jensen, the correlation between IQ and brain size is about .40, while McDaniel puts it at .33. The correlation increases with age and reaches .80 (can't find the source atm).
That's because there isn't one - the accepted correlation of cranial capacity to IQ is around .3 or 9% of measured variance.

If a .8 correlation in adulthood was valid, then Anatole France would have suddenly become retarded in his mature adult years, as he had the smallest measured skull ever documented, I believe.

[Brechun]

Well Kamandi, in regards to that one link on Machiavellian intelligence, how much credibility do you lend to their view over the standard one?

[Hippias]

That's because there isn't one - the accepted correlation of cranial capacity to IQ is around .3 or 9% of measured variance.

If a .8 correlation in adulthood was valid, then Anatole France would have suddenly become retarded in his mature adult years, as he had the smallest measured skull ever documented, I believe.

Why is microcephaly associated with Down's syndrome and other neurological disorders that impair intellectual development?

[Brechun]

That study didn't have much serious literature beyond a few books directly dealing with it- most of them largely academic, and very hard to find.

Do you have any pieces going with the "standard" model, and covering the entire topic?

And how is this whole thing elaborated upon? Is it just theoretical and statistical, or are there genetic studies and fossil evidence to back it up?

[Kamandi]

Well Kamandi, in regards to that one link on Machiavellian intelligence, how much credibility do you lend to their view over the standard one?
It's certainly an interesting one; it makes a lot of sense that we've spent a lot more time and effort outwitting each other than the natural environment.

That doesn't, however, mean it'snecessarily true that social competition has been driving forward brain evolution in absence of substantial environmental selective pressures.

It will depend on whether testable hypotheses can be formulated and validated by experiment.

[Kamandi]

Why is microcephaly associated with Down's syndrome and other neurological disorders that impair intellectual development?
Because abnormally disproportionately tiny craniums obviously impair normal brain development.

It doesn't follow that within normal ranges, the smaller the skull, the less cognitive capacity of the brain.

[Brechun]

It's certainly an interesting one; it makes a lot of sense that we've spent a lot more time and effort outwitting each other than the natural environment.

That doesn't, however, mean it'snecessarily true that social competition has been driving forward brain evolution in absence of substantial environmental selective pressures.

It will depend on whether testable hypotheses can be formulated and validated by experiment.

I really doubt it. The lowest range seems to be about 1 million years, (well, 1-1.5 million years- where have you heard that it usually takes millions?) and considering the evolutionary laws regarding large brain size and long life span, we're such an extremity as a species- well, most primates are as well- that the variations in selective pressure on that have to be truly great, extended for such a long period in a particular environment to have any real effect. Our ancestors experienced this throughout their evolutionary history, all focused in singular environmental facets in Africa, while humans have transisted across numerous different environments. You could say that the continuums leading up anagenesis/phyletic change in the hominid lineage have been constantly reset for us.

That's just guesswork, though what you've written probably goes in line with it, right?

A few other things-

Is there really any support for this Machiavellian thing regarding hominid brain evolution being accelerated so greatly? It takes significant pressures over very extended periods of time to make any of these "significant cognitive differences" to take place, going by the human evolutionary chart- seems to be about 1 million years or more intervals. How widely supported is that thesis when significant phyletic change is so profoundly gradual among hominids, and can be reset rather quickly? I read the abstract, but they make little to no mention of the dynamics, timing, and puncuation of phyletic change in cognitive structures- they seem to act as if it can be accelerated constantly, with no set interval.

Have these intervals also been identified throughout the hominid lineage? When did it last occur for humans, and how far off was this from our speciation from h. erectus?

[Kamandi]

I'm a psychologist and not an anthropologist so I can't really answer the question very authoritatively.

Given the fact that observed secular increases in IQ scores and changes in cranial structures over the last century (and recent several decades) have never been effectively accounted for, there's certainly room for "social brain" theory as a theoretical explanation for hypothetical phyletic cognitive development.

The issues you've mentioned will continue to obstruct the possibility of experimental verification for the foreseeable future, I suspect.

[Hippias]

Kamandi, have you read this paper by Philippe Rushton?

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PAID-1999.pdf

The gains in IQ over time (the Lynn-Flynn effect) are unrelated to g and therefore unlike the Black-White IQ difference.

What do you think of his conclusions?

[Kamandi]

On the basis of the best regression analysis to date, he appears to be correct on that particular point - IF we accept the concept of g-loading in the first place, which many experts do not.

(Of course, many do.)

[klipgeit]

On the basis of the best regression analysis to date, he appears to be correct on that particular point - IF we accept the concept of g-loading in the first place, which many experts do not.

(Of course, many do.)

Instead of IQ and intelligence one should and must concentrate on the Predictive Index System.

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

http://www.piworldwide.com/PredictiveIndex/Default.asp.

I have used this system on at least a hundred people and it works.
Once you understand the "gut feel" of this system one can predict
peoples behavior with regard to crime,abuse,drug prone will power,stamina etc
IQ is a lose canon,it depends on the environment one is in.
Ever seen a Bushman doing an IQ test with a European make up.
Or a European mastering the click language.
In most cases of IQ done,it is the testee who suffers.
What I mean is:"Do not ask an Eskimo the workings of a Fridge,which he does not need and has no interest in it,not even the mechanical side of it.

Or is a Mercedes Mechanic a better driver than Tom Jones.

[Kamandi]

Don't know - I'd never hazard a guess about a supposed psychometric tool that's never been peer-reviewed or validated.

[Nemo]

Stop playing the numbers game1-2-10%, it is quite obvious to the naked eye that the difference looks like we are a 90% difference, would any of you liberal quacks would like your daughter to marry an Ape looking man like Mike Tyson

their is a big difference in phenotype between the white caucasian and the negro race

Try to synchronize your eyes with your brain if you have a brain.

[klipgeit]

Don't know - I'd never hazard a guess about a supposed psychometric tool that's never been peer-reviewed or validated.

In South Africa no Psychometric tests are allowed to be done by companies on prospective employees for obvious reasons.
See Nemo's remark above

But the Predictive system is a favorite and it works.

[Nemo]

You don't need any scientific results to see that their is a big difference between blacks and whites racially

Just use common sense and the eye balls God put on the top of your face

If you look at many blacks at their facial and body phenotypes, many still have the features of Apes
I bet if the truth were ever told, blacks have a lot of dna as Apes, that's why they are violent and commit heinous crimes against people

And you can't white wash it with bullshit.

They never completed the evolution process, some where along the line it was stoped which left them a hyhrid of animal and human

You don't need a PHD to know that just common sense and honesty

As Shakespeer said, " to thy own self be true"

Get rid of communists Zionists etc, because they are destroying the moral fabric of the world.

[klipgeit]

You don't need any scientific results to see that their is a big difference between blacks and whites racially

Just use common sense and the eye balls God put on the top of your face

If you look at many blacks at their facial and body phenotypes, many still have the features of Apes
I bet if the truth were ever told, blacks have a lot of dna as Apes, that's why they are violent and commit heinous crimes against people


And you can't white wash it with bullshit.

They never completed the evolution process, some where along the line it was stoped which left them a hyhrid of animal and human

You don't need a PHD to know that just common sense and honesty

As Shakespeer said, " to thy own self be true"

Get rid of communists Zionists etc, because they are destroying the moral fabric of the world.

Hold it I will go along with you,BUT
Whites features likened to Apes;1.Hair and thin lips
Blacks:Nose and Jaw,their least are the cornhead hair.
You can work out the likeness of the Mongoloid race to apes yourself
I suggest you stay clear of your assumption"apes and blacks"

[Dr. Generius Persona]

Even if the difference were only .001% it is obviously the .001% that MATTERS.

[klipgeit]

Even if the difference were only .001% it is obviously the .001% that MATTERS.

Sure it matters but not the ape story.

[Dr. Generius Persona]

Clarification: I was refering to the difference between whites and blacks, not blacks and apes.

[klipgeit]

Clarification: I was refering to the difference between whites and blacks, not blacks and apes.


Regret, I was referring to the one who compared the blacks with apes,although I agree,strictly speaking we -whites-too have similarities.

[Kamandi]

Stop playing the numbers game1-2-10%, it is quite obvious to the naked eye that the difference looks like we are a 90% difference, would any of you liberal quacks would like your daughter to marry an Ape looking man like Mike Tyson
It's impossible to determine genetic variation by simple visual inspection.

BTW, not everyone bases everything on looks.

their is a big difference in phenotype between the white caucasian and the negro race?
So what? Phenotype and genotype aren't the same thing.

Try to synchronize your eyes with your brain if you have a brain.
AKA "The Naturalistic Fallacy: Stormfront Edition."

[Kamandi]

Even if the difference were only .001% it is obviously the .001% that MATTERS.
It's not even marginally evident that genetic racial variance affects anything other than things that don't matter in the slightest, like skin pigmentation and superficial bone morphology, etc.

Again, assuming that social and cultural differences are automatically genetic is the Naturalistic Fallacy.

[klipgeit]

It's not even marginally evident that genetic racial variance affects anything other than things that don't matter in the slightest, like skin pigmentation and superficial bone morphology, etc.

Again, assuming that social and cultural differences are automatically genetic is the Naturalistic Fallacy.


I am not so sure about that,but before I answer,please elaborate to prevent misunderstanding.

[Kamandi]

Observable differences do not necessarily imply genetic differences.

Assuming otherwise is "the naturalist fallacy."

[Nemo]

It's impossible to determine genetic variation by simple visual inspection.

You don't see a difference between a white person and a negro, also your genetic make up determines your race

BTW, not everyone bases everything on looks

I hope you and Tyron will be very happy together.

So what? Phenotype and genotype aren't the same thing

Your phenotype has everything to do with your genetic make up.


AKA "The Naturalistic Fallacy: Stormfront Edition."

don't know what the hell you mean

[klipgeit]

Observable differences do not necessarily imply genetic differences.

Assuming otherwise is "the naturalist fallacy."

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

http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Naturalistic_Fallacy


What has that got to do with the price of eggs???????????????????????

[Kamandi]

I'm referring to the anthropological naturalistic fallacy. For example, see:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/biph/2003/00000018/00000005/05104197

[klipgeit]

I'm referring to the anthropological naturalistic fallacy. For example, see:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/biph/2003/00000018/00000005/05104197


Let me chew on that.
Also look at the behaviour of a chimp and a Bonobo
Just quick:Altruism is learned and not ingrained in men.
Whereas egoism is.
I shall come back to you.
I dislike you:) you make me work,I do not like work.:dance2:

[Kamandi]

Your hate makes me strong. :)

[xxx]

No, it's not - it's evidence of a POTENTIAL difference and not necessarily an actual one.

The dna regions were not the same that makes them different. They are either exactly the same or they are different.

[/QUOTE]. For evidence of an actual difference in brain structure evolution, there'd have to be evidence of an actual difference in brain structure, which there is not at this time.[/QUOTE]

Gross anatomical structure is only half of the equation. The other half is brain function which is influenced by approximately 1/3 of the approximate 30,000 genes on the human genome. These genes and their impact have yet to be completely investigated.

[klipgeit]

Your hate makes me strong. :)You mean this.?????????

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genotype-phenotype/