Page 1 of 7 1 2345 ... Last

Ok, so here is what I don't get about DNA, mutations, races, offspring, yadda yadda, and all that.

So, I live in a world of humans. Living in this world of humans, I have after a while started to see some characteristics in these humans. I have been able to quite often make predictions of their behavior, solely based on their looks and heritage.

I am of course a dirty rotten racist.

So, I live in the world of dogs. Living in this world of dogs, I have after a while started to see some characteristics in these dogs. I have been able to quite often make predictions of their behavior, solely based on their looks and heritage.

I am of course the average dog owner.




So what is my point?

This may not be a problem in other countries, I don't know. But here in Sweden these two factors are... incompatible. It came to the degree where I ponder if I could face prosecution based on what I have written just now.

So what does people think?

Where I am, I am pretty damn close to going to jail just for saying "races" unless I talk about dogs.

What's up with this? Am I the only one thinking it doesn't seem very... logical?

There ARE as many differences between blacks and whites, as it is between whites and whites (or yellows and white or whatever).

However, bear in mind, and this is where it gets important, it's not the SAME differences.

IE, an somalis and a japanese have some 5000 hard programmed factors they share in random.

However, ALL somalis have this +dna factor of might is right... Whereas ALL japanese have this factor of "the winner is the one with the best case".

Even though they share much in common, even though their differences can be mended with enough time and procreation... And even though the difference is so small that it only activates in even a MINORITY of the population... It is still enough to create very different societys.

And know what? There are differences. Not just the colour of skin, but on the very basic DNA levels.

Normally skin colour of dogs doesn't determine our perception of its breed.

For instance Labradors come in mainly blond or black. Both main types are Labradors.

So I wouldn't use skin colour as the basis of racial division.

Who would?

It's not like an albino negro is less negroid, is it?

Racial divisions are best estimated in the actual divisions. No?

JUSTICE FOR AVON

It's a nature/Nuture divide as well.

You can see big differences in a family simply with country vs city raised cousins of a similar age group.

Sure, similar genetics but different outcomes.

Also the differences between siblings can be quite marked. So it isn't simply genetics, culture, family or society.

Our genetics alone mean we have 23 pairs of chromosomes of which on average you will share half with your siblings. And that doesn't even take into account which of the genes get activated and in which sequence.

People are highly complex machines.

So, so... That is indeed an interesting field of research, but as of yet, if you are result oriented - I would bear with me.

However, nah, that isn't the point of the OP. My point of the OP is that science (at least in some countries?) have a ban on even remotely touching anything Goodwin.

What happened to "information wants to be free"?

I don't care if science would prove that this specific African tribe pretty much has the best damn DNA. All I care for is to let science be science, without political agendas.

I am so, so, so SO, SO against all kinds of limitations of the human mind. Science and popular results have already proven in everyone's eyes that Negroes jump higher and run faster.

This is also accepted knowledge around the world.

If science as easily could prove they are more stupid than the rest of the population of the world, would that be seen with as loving eyes?

Or is it that being rather stupid as a race have so many historical connotations even in this modern day that the thought is inexcusable?

Uh...

Rubbish.

Sorry... That came off as rude unintended. I meant to say that what you wrote was complete ****, intended.

Yes "people are complex machines". But with that said, two siblings will generally have a DNA structure WAY more attuned than any one of them separately would have with some random guy from some other continent.

Much like a white guy would make a rather safe bet if he bet his DNA would more resemble another white guy than a yellow guy.

Can we move on from the stuff you are supposed to have understood from having a brain, or are we going to sidetrack this into a discussion of your educational system?

Grew up on a farm. Seen both breeding programs for natural and artificial insemination.

Identical parents does not equal identical children.

Further even twins who have the same chromosomes don't all have the same ones switched on.

For instance whilst a twin may be gay it doesn't follow 100% that the other does.

So you can share a pool of genes but they are not as determinative as one thinks.

Just look at obesity. It's genes, which ones get switched on, social group, bacteria and individual lifestyle.

Genes are indicative not determinative. Big difference.

Mathematically speaking on average you only share half your genes with a sibling.

In the dog world to get these pure breeds you are fond of quoting it requires the genetic pool to be concentrated. In humans we call that inbreeding. Not really a good recommendation to survival.

Mongrels are less likely to get cancer, live longer and generally display hybrid vigor.

Indeed, and this is the reason why the comparison between humans and dogs fail. Dog(and cat, which I'm more familiar with) breeds are inbred families, humans are not. A breed you could compare to humans would be the "back alley" cat breed, and trying to give that breed certain characteristics will result in a massive fail.

I would tend to think it is more environmental. A black kid growing up in the north of Norway is likely to think and act a lot different than his grandparent from Kenya, lest say.

The same for a white kid growing up in the inner-city of Detroit. His ideas, speech etc. are going to be different than his cousin who grew up in rural Alabama. The wouldn’t fit the mold too well.

Now as an aside, Kadagar AV, what are you doing back in Sweden? I thought you had made a permanent move to Austria. How is it you are so different from the average Swede?

And do you hate your self and that is why you keep going back? Next summer you should try Greece or something where you won’t get arrested for nonconformity. There are lots of runaways from Sweden and Norway hiding out down there being politically incorrect.

No, Norwegian refugees are colonizing Spain(the elderly) and Thailand(the pedos), not Greece.

Anyway, you could expand your statement to include adopted children, Fisherking. Will an Asian/African/Whatever adopted as a toddler by European parents act according to the culture of its country of origin or the country it grew up in? I can't see any research showing it will act according to the culture of its country of origin, and that sways the facts heavily in favour of nurture over nature.

I am glad there is no mass Nordic exodus to Greece, more specifically the Greek Islands. Of course with the populations of those places 3 expats constitutes a colony, and might show up in whole percentage points of the population.

Back on topic, I forget the percentages of environment vs. genetics but environment has the greater determinant in behavior.

Look at the 100m Olympic event. Definite propensity towards certain ethnicities.

And many humans are inbred - especially from certain groups where marrying one's first cousin is considered a good idea.

From a scientific viewpoint, it's very hard to differentiate between cultural upbringing and genetical factors, in particular since the first one is much stronger when looking at a group (that's why different cities got different attitudes for example). And pure genetical research hasn't reached that level yet and an fully accurate research would probably involve many clinical trials, that would be unetical (you'll need a lot of orphans for that).

But such reasearch is done regularly, it's not common as newspaper material though.

It'll also be very abused since people don't know what the data really means. Basically you got 2 factors, mean and spread. The mean is easy enough, they peak at different values. With the same spread it would mean most in the edges. Taking the US as an example, that would mean a lot more "asians" are top scoring and more blacks are in the bottom rung. Easy enough, but in the middle, where most people are, the differences are almost unnotable. A higher spread can be seen with left-handed vs right-handed. Lefties are more topscoring and also more retarded than the Righties.

Now add social pressure. The left left or sinister (latin for left) left would of course be scoring as normal while they were being oppressed historically correct?

Here's another possible example. Does black people dominate high jump? NO. My suspicion is that you're refering to basketball, where the US team is usually very black and used to be superdominating, while they can lose to say Spain or Lithuania nowadays. So why does the US basketball looks like it does? Because it was much more popular in the US compared to the rest of the world and got promoted to blacks when the sport was very young -> the sport blacks could and would seriously compete in -> established as a black sport -> blacks taking the sport seriously completely outnumber the whites in the US.

So it's a hard field, a place where you need to tread carefully and you'll find yourself working the same field as a bunch of pseudoscientists, that does have a political axe to grind. So, no not a big field.

I'm also not sure how much use it has, since it's a backtrack from an induvidual level, making the picture more grainy (first rule of prejudices are that they are very rarely spot-on, more of a better than average guesses, those times they are somewhat correct).

Yeah, let's have a look at that:

http://www.olympic.org/olympic-resul...hletics/100m-m

Yanks and Caribbeans. Not very specific ethnicities(where's Ghana or Nigeria?), but incredibly specific countries of origin.

Yeah sure, that points to purely genetics. It's no indication at all of sporting culture having a drastic effect.

The thing is, if you grow up in Jamaica and run fast, you end up a runner and live the sweet life with education, freebies and glory. If you grow up in Norway and run fast, you become a striker. If you can run for a long time, you become a midfielder. In Kenya, you would've become a runner.

Since Saihou Sarr played for Mjøndalen, Norway has imported quite a few footballers from the ethnicities you believe are great sprinters. What defines most of them? Not speed, but muscle. Nearly all of them are played as target men. In the later years we've expanded a little to also include midfield ballwinners(Anthony Annan) and dribbling wingers(Vamouti Diomande), but the sterotypical african player in Norway is still the target man.

As a matter of fact, the players who have been brought in due to their speed(Kyle Helton, Joshua Gatt, Jonathan Barrojo etc) are american college players.

Countries of Origin... which oddly all appear to have the same groups year after year, which happen to be a tiny minority.

And Yanks and Carribbeans. A mix of white and black. For all I know that is the optimal mix for sprinters.

Did I say that pointed purely to anything?
And no one sprints int Europe, or Asia...?

I guess winning the 100m has so little fame and money few can be bothered to try...

A 100m runner in Norway will have to have a regular job on the side to make end meet. If he plays as a striker instead he'll earn millions and do celebrities on a regular basis.

The choice is obvious.

There are also extremely few running coaches or clubs, while you'll find a football coach on every other street corner. I live in the central area of Norway, but the closest athletics club is 40km away. Of course I played football instead.


But I suppose you have research showing that a particular European/African mix results in optimal running results?

You do realise that you require very different skills to be a footballer and a sprinter, right? Such as, oh I don't know, the ability to play football/
You are aware that there are other sports in America that let in blacks these days beyond track and field, and that they are also paid as well as the whites? So this simplistic "explanation" falls down very quickly.

And I'm afraid that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I, as stated already, suggest that the results of certain sporting events can be used as an epidemiological study, albeit with the potential for confounding factors. I picked the 100m as the resources to run in a straight line are limited whereas competing in the sailing / cycling does require massive investment.
Another example would be the long distance event runs. They tend to be African... Oh, except for the British winner Mohamed Farah. Who happens to be Somali. Slim, tall build makes better endurance runners? Piffle!

Yeah, the long distance. Dominated by Ethiopia and Kenya. Tanzania, on the other hand, hasn't had a proper runner ever. Same ethnicity and geography, and far more of a functioning country than Ethiopia.

Kenya and Ethiopia has running academies, Tanzania does not. A Kenyan and Ethiopian is groomed by qualified coaches from an early age, a Tanzanian is not. Neither is a Norwegian, we're groomed as midfielders.


The claim that playing football requires you to be able to play football is countered by the existance of Theo Walcott. Running fast is enough.


The British has always had a strong tradition for running sports, far more than any other european country. The French, with a bigger african population than England, has never competed in running. Again I say sporting culture.

And there are no running academies in the whole of Europe and USA?

All you shown is that with ability and support they are the best.

What I'm trying to show is that those trying to prove genetic difference between races because of sporting results haven't looked closely at the facts and are ignoring the major influence proper training and sporting culture has.

There are no running academies in Norway by the way. They exist in Britain and the US, two countries who have always had strong traditions in the sport, and consequently perform well in the olympics.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowl...avior-13907840

Heh.
Heheh.
Heheheheheheheheheheheh.

Basically says that even the experts are not clear. I do somewhat agree however that there is sometimes a bit of a stigma on generalizations, partially justified and partially overblown IMO. There are certain trends and recognizing a trend does not have to result in discrimination or loss of objectivity concerning individuals. A trend is a trend and does not cover every single data point.

So if I say that people around the equator tend to look lazy because they avoid the sun during parts of the day that's not discrimination, it is in fact a testament to their adapted lifestyle. It's not very different from saying people in the polar regions waste energy because they heat up their homes all winter. Which also incidentally shows that the environment simply has an impact on behavior and that is only a testament to the ability of all humans to adapt to their environment. A Spaniard who moves to Scandinavia will stop making siesta to avoid the hot sun and start wasting heat. The only things that are genetic are things like pizza-making abilities that are genetically coded into Italians or the ability of the dutch to move around in wooden shoes and build the best ships.

Oh and on running, it makes a difference whether you're used to wearing shoes or not. If you don't wear shoes you tend to hit the ground with the forward part of your feet first while people used to wearing shoes with dampened heels tend to put their heels onto the ground first. It's a different running style borne out of environmental/behavioral circumstances and it does affect running performance of course, regardless of race.

Nurture will only count for so much. Sooner or later, blood tells.

Youtube Video

Is being a racist so bad that you have to keep explaining it to self-congratuling moralists. Racism means acknowligement of the existance of different sorts of human-beings. That isn't a bad thing, everybody knows it's simply true, you just don't admit it. Differences between races exist, you don't have to dislike them for it but Asians are smarter than whities, and negroes are dumber. That is just how it is

Nothing like a completely unbased assertion being delivered with absolute certainty to brighten ones day.

Looks pretty obvious to me http://www.google.nl/search?q=Iq+wor...eQs_MuyT-zM%3A

You can exactly see where asians are, where arabs are, where whites are, where blacks are.

We've already dealt with the lack of credibility of those, Frags. I can't be bothered to go through it again, sorry.

You stopped believing people who have a phd to show? That's good. Why doubt me so much this is all official.

Page 1 of 7 1 2345 ... Last