---

whatever

---

---

No I didn't.

---

Got trouble reading you own shit?

---

Race is, in NO WAY, a social construct.

---

"In no way" means there is "nothing social in it".

Guess you taking it back and admit you was wrong then?
 

---

No...
Chimpanzees are from 1.6% to 1.23% different, not 96%.

---

Trouble keeping up with the latet science?

---

Human-chimp DNA difference trebled
22:00 23 September 2002
NewScientist.com news service
Andy Coghlan
We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA.

It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.

The new value came to light when Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology became suspicious about the 98.5 per cent figure. Ironically, that number was originally derived from a technique that Britten himself developed decades ago at Caltech with colleague Dave Kohne. By measuring the temperature at which matching DNA of two species comes apart, you can work out how different they are.

But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation, called a single base substitution. These occur whenever a single "letter" differs in corresponding strands of DNA from the two species.

But there are two other major types of variation that the previous analyses ignored. "Insertions" occur whenever a whole section of DNA appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of the other. Likewise, "deletions" mean that a piece of DNA is missing from one species.

Littered with indels
Together, they are termed "indels", and Britten seized his chance to evaluate the true variation between the two species when stretches of chimp DNA were recently published on the internet by teams from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and from the University of Oklahoma.

When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to the expected figure.

But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic differences.

---

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2833-humanchimp-dna-difference-trebled.html

---

I doubt the classifications will change at all, really.

---

---

He also said that IQ tests would rate them as idiots, which can't be said.  But 75 points? I doubt it.

---

We don't know how IQ would be rated on them. It don't change the fact that it shows how using IQ to make claims about race is BS. IQ is realted to culture and social constrcuts too you know.

---

Last time I checked they scored lower - that means they aren't as good.

---

Here's the definition of racism in case you don't know.

---

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.  

---

---

Most of it I don't reject, I just tell them how it's pointless and irrelevant to say.

---

---

Yes, but it's not like it play no role in it.

---

---

Brain sizes are proven. Genetic influence on the brain is also proven.

---

The point is ALL that stuff CANNOT be used to make conclusion about races. All it says is that theres some differnces. Fuck theres genetic differences between ppl of different ethnic orgins. So what?

Those differences does NOT say anything about VALUE or GOODNESS or QUALITY of one race vs another.

If you try to do THAT you taking the racist approach.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Got trouble reading you own shit?

---

---

"In no way" means there is "nothing social in it".

Guess you taking it back and admit you was wrong then?

---

---

Trouble keeping up with the latet science?

---

Googled:

---

Scientists Complete Genetic Map of the Chimpanzee
Differences From Human DNA Pinpointed

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 1, 2005; Page A03

---

---

As predicted by preliminary studies, the human and chimpanzee genetic codes are essentially 99 percent identical, a testament to how fundamentally similar the two species remain. At the same time, it is powerful evidence that seemingly modest changes in molecular code can lead to very different stations in the web of life.

---

---

the classification won't. But your argument failed.

---

---

We don't know how IQ would be rated on them. It don't change the fact that it shows how using IQ to make claims about race is BS. IQ is realted to culture and social constrcuts too you know.

---

---

"AS GOOD" says you put VALUE to some race or race traits. THATS racist.

---

---

You think its "irrelevant" because it clashes with your litle worldview.

---

---

And again THATs NOT the point.

The point is ALL that stuff CANNOT be used to make conclusion about races. All it says is that theres some differnces. Fuck theres genetic differences between ppl of different ethnic orgins. So what?

Those differences does NOT say anything about VALUE or GOODNESS or QUALITY of one race vs another.

If you try to do THAT you taking the racist approach.

---

You see, if people learned that races are different, they would be more likely to accept racial existence instead of "EVERYBODY NEEDS TO MIX!"
Trust me, people exist that want everyone to mix, it's a disgusting, inhumane, horrific idea, but people still have it.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Racial hierarchies are cultural, not scientific. While every group has genetic characteristics—and sometimes flaws—that are more common than in other groups, not everyone in the group will share them. The Afrikaners, much more than South Africa's other ethnic groups, are prone to porphyria variegata, the blood disorder depicted in the film The Madness of King George. It turns the urine purple and can incite temporary insanity. Almost all the South African cases of this disease can be traced to a single Dutch couple who married in Capetown in 1688. Being an Afrikaner is not a risk factor; being a descendant of this couple is.

Not only is race or ethnicity a poor predictor of most genetic traits, it is very hard to define. Many people think they can easily tell an Asian from a European, but, says Paabo, ''If we start walking east from Europe, when do we start saying people are Asian? Or if we walk up the Nile Valley, when do we say people are African? There are no sharp distinctions.''

Cavalli-Sforza has probably spent more time trying to classify human groups by genetic analysis than anyone else. In his massive book The History and Geography of Human Genes, he groups people into geographic and evolutionary clusters--but, he writes, ''At no level can clusters be identified with races.'' Indeed, ''minor changes in the genes or methods used shift some populations from one cluster to the other.''

Geneticist Steve Jones makes this point by looking at blood. ''We would have a very different view of human race if we diagnosed it from blood groups, with an unlikely alliance between the Armenians and the Nigerians, who could jointly despise the...people of Australia and Peru,'' who generally lack type-B blood, Jones writes in The Language of Genes. ''When gene geography is used to look at overall patterns of variation,'' he writes, ''color does not say much about what lies under the skin.''

Not only is our concept of race arbitrary, but it is based on a relatively insignificant difference between people. Skin pigment, eye shape, and hair type are all determined by genes. Indeed, as the human genome is mapped, geneticists might be able to reconstruct what mummies or other ancient people looked like. But the physical ''stereotypes'' of race, writes Cavalli-Sforza, ''reflect superficial differences.'' For example, light skin color is needed in northern climates for the sun's ultra- violet light to penetrate into the body and transform vitamin D into a usable form. This mutation may well have arisen at different times, in different ancestral groups, on different points along the DNA. That's true for cystic fibrosis, which occurs almost exclusively in people of European descent but is caused by several different mutations.

In other words, ''white people'' do not share a common genetic heritage; instead, they come from different lineages that migrated from Africa and Asia. Such mixing is true for every race. ''All living humans go back to one common ancestor in Africa,'' explains Paabo. ''But if you look at any history subsequent to that,'' then every group is a blend of shallower pedigrees. So, he says, ''I might be closer in my DNA to an African than to another European in the street.'' Genetics, he concludes, ''should be the last nail in the coffin for racism.''

---

http://web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/what_dna_says_about_human/index.html


-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Quote: from Hontoshimu at 4:14 pm on Sep. 25, 2008

---

either way theres something  
 and considering white+black=half way id say its in genetics somewhere

---

Equals halfway in terms of what? What some person says? The white man's guide to the one-drop rule? Or do scientists do a blood test and determine whether or not said person has 50% Black and 50% white? I don't believe doing that is even possible.

---

---

Here is more on Race as social construct

---

About the first bolded point - Asian, European, and African aren't races.

All they're speaking of is location - not genetics.

---

''minor changes in the genes or methods used shift some populations from one cluster to the other.''

---

And I really don't think Cavalli-Sforza spent more time than anyone else.

---

''white people'' do not share a common genetic heritage; instead, they come from different lineages that migrated from Africa and Asia.

---

Also, everyone migrated from Africa - and many of the earlier Aryans didn't really touch the Black Sea Basin at all, but went straight to Europe.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

''If we start walking east from Europe, when do we start saying people are Asian? Or if we walk up the Nile Valley, when do we say people are African? There are no sharp distinctions.''

---

The point is that if gradually go from west to east and look at features and characteristics and even genetics theres no sharp division between eruopean and asian.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

I'll repeat it because you still don't get he point.

---

''If we start walking east from Europe, when do we start saying people are Asian? Or if we walk up the Nile Valley, when do we say people are African? There are no sharp distinctions.''

---

The point is that if gradually go from west to east and look at features and characteristics and even genetics theres no sharp division between eruopean and asian.

---

Are you trying to say you couldn't tell the difference between a European (White) and an Asian (Eastern Mongoloid)?

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

If you look at the EXTREMES of what people think of as European and Asian yes you can. If you trying to find the divisions by looking at the wide variety of what europeans and asian CAN look like no.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Still not getting the point.  

If you look at the EXTREMES of what people think of as European and Asian yes you can. If you trying to find the divisions by looking at the wide variety of what europeans and asian CAN look like no.

---

The thing is, there is 40,000 years of evolution dividing Caucasians from Mongoloids (or so your sites claim).

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

Look at those people. Which ones are european looking and which are not?

Does she have slanted eyes?

european or asian?

european or asian?

eruopean or asian?

european or asian?

european or asian?

You note that ALL the asians above have an Epicanthic fold...

And we were not speaking of "whites" we were speakin of Europeans. I hve not made the DNA test on those ppl so I can't tell you if they are "aryans" or not but some of them ARE indo-iranians...

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

Are the people I posted Eruopean looking or Asian looking?

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

And the ORIGINAL point was about Europeans NOT whites.  

Are the people I posted Eruopean looking or Asian looking?

---

But the ideas we have with race are all out of colonialism.

Basically, (for example), the British wanted cheap (free) labour, went into West Africa, took Africans as slaves, and needed some way to justify it.

So they said, were white, you're black. Were 'civilised', you're not. That means we're more advanced than you. That means you are inferior to us, and the lowest common denominator there was being African in appearance.

Thats a VERY rough, undetailed version of where our social idea of race came from.

-------
Shakespeare