Shanemac requests you put your scientific arguments here

shanemac

Okay Skyeirl, you keep saying I'm dodging your arguments. Well, so as not to confuse other threads, please place them here and I'll do my best to answer them.

Of course anyone else that's got something relevant to say...and they actually know what they're talking about...please join in. But I don't want to see a bunch of posts like this "You talk a lot of ****, so you get called on a lot of ****", just take that stuff to another thread & have fun making fun of the nazis (mods....I'll leave that up to you)...

BigCon

And what exactly is this thread about?

shanemac

I'll start by going back to some refutations from another thread you say I ignored...

You realise that only 500 generations ago your direct lineage came from dark skinned (initially we were all black) africans.

Well a generation is normally taken as 25 years for humans. Given the fact that the Out of Africa theory argues that our ancestors left Africa some 100,000 years ago, this equates to 4,000 generations.

But this is a trivial point. The fact is that speciation can occur quite rapidly given a relatively strong selective pressure on a population. For evidence of this have a look at the dog...which has been bred into ...how many...500? different breeds, mostly within the space of a couple of hundred years.

If you go back far enough, you can say that we are really all apes, because we have only relatively recently separated off from the apes on the evolutionay tree (some 7 million years ago for Ramapithecus). Or you could go back a bit further, and say there's no real difference between us and the single-celled Amoebae, with whom we also share a common heritage.

The fact is that we are now fairly distinct races (sub-species) and, along with skin colour and hair-type, we have inherited certain racial characteristics, which may have some influence on patterns of thought and behaviour.

MiCr0

The fact is that we are now fairly distinct races (sub-species) and, along with skin colour and hair-type, we have inherited certain racial characteristics, which may have some influence on patterns of thought and behaviour.

there's very little actual difference's between your "sub-species"

shanemac

Altrusism, is again something that is learned from a community point of view its not an instint, its a learned behavioural trait. And so is racism. Its nothing to do with anything we inherited or is instintive. We learn it or aquire it directly from out environment or community.

I don't believe you can really totally isolate culture from genetics. Our genes give us certain framework within which societal influences can have an influence, but the basic framework is hard-wired. No doubt both genes and environment are important, but you can't say a certain phenomenon is 100% culturally learned or 100% biologically inherited.

I would say altruism is to a large degree inherited from genetics. Every human society on earth independently came upon the concept of altruism (I don't think such a coincidence is possible, if it was just a cultural phenomenon). As well as this, animals exhibit a great degree of altruism (eg lions not eating each other; monkeys in a troup calling out to each other when they hear predators coming despite putting themselves in danger, etc).

However, the altruism shown by primitive tribes is an altruism based on tribal recognition. They may save each other from drowning, or from the jaws of a wild animal....but they may then go to war and kill the members of another tribe. Similarly, animals do not often exhibit much altruism towards other species (eg a pack of lions will seek out the old and the young in a herd of wildebeest, because they are the easiest prey).

In a pride of lions that is taken over by a new pair of males, the new pride males will systematically kill all the young that were sired by the previous male (as they would be wasting effort raising someone else's offspring).

This can be better understood having read Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene".




There are a couple of points to note in here....

1 The real biological motivation for altruism is based on the factor of protecting people/animals with similar genetics....thus ensuring the profligation of your genes....because all of your behaviour is programmed to increase the population of your selfish genes.

This means that in a multicultural society (where you will have very little genetic similarity with the other members of the society) there is a lower motivation for altruism. This must mean a lowering in absolute incidence of altruistic behaviour in multicultural societies.

shanemac

Micro, are you going to back that statement up?

shanemac

To summarise, there is no genetic relation that I have ever seen published that relates to tribal behaviour. Genetics doesn't work like that. Sociological development is based on observed or learned traits and move from generation to generation through the community. Dawkins coined the term meme for this. Humans transfer memes everyday by conversation, mass media, books, the Internet, and any other way an idea can be conveyed. Your idea of tribalism is a meme. Racism is a meme.

Yes, Dawkins came up with the word "Meme"...as a kind of simile with "gene"....ie some ideas get passed down through the generations like genes also do.

Memes are things like religion, language, music, culture....

However, the fact that a meme exists, does not preclude the fact that genetics has some influence on these cultural phenomena. In other words, genes and memes are not mutually exclusive.

As I said before, culture is learned from ancestors (and society), but the kind of culture that we adopt is basically determined by the hormones in our bodies and our brain formation.

Hormone effect on culture
Different races of people have different levels of hormones. This is a biological fact, and has a major genetic factor. (look at sports.... Africans dominate high-testosterone sports...sprinting, boxing), whereas Europeans tend to be better suited to pursuits where high testosterone is not an advantage...long-distance running (not including Kenyans, who come from high altitudes), fishing, tiddlywinks (j/k). Asians have even lower testosterone than Europeans.

Women are attracted to high-testosterone males...so you see a lot of white women who like black men, and you see a lot of Asian women who like White men. You do not see a great deal of white male/black female or Asian male/White female attraction. (of course there are exceptions...so don't throw in any red herrings). (The logical conclusion to this would be black male/Asian female would be the most common, but you don't see this....why? I think it's because the two opposite ends of the spectrum are too far apart)

A certain amount of testosterone is a good thing...it gives us motivation to get up and give the world a shake. But too much testosterone makes us do a lot of crazy things, like start revolutions, like commit crime, and detracts from our ability to cooperate and quietly work together for a common good. I believe that's why Africa has always been, and will always be in turmoil.

The North Asian cultures (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan) are at the other end of the spectrum. Their lack of testosterone makes them prone to accept a situation that they really should do something about and change...that's why they've allowed themselves to be controlled by tyrants (including of the communist kind in latter days) for thousands of years.

I think a lot of racially stereotypically behaviour is in fact due to different levels of testosterone.

Meh

Originally posted by shanemac
Hormone effect on culture
Different races of people have different levels of hormones. This is a biological fact, and has a major genetic factor. (look at sports.... Africans dominate high-testosterone sports...sprinting, boxing),

Wrong. I can't think of a single African who has won a sprinting/boxing title. I can think of lots of African-Americans, but the vast majority of African-Americans have partly European ancestry, so according to your "theory", they should be worse at sports than native Africans.

whereas Europeans tend to be better suited to pursuits where high testosterone is not an advantage...long-distance running (not including Kenyans, who come from high altitudes), fishing, tiddlywinks (j/k).

What about weightlifting, which is a) full of testosterone and b) dominated by Eastern European whites? What about the Williams sisters and the distinctly non-agressive sport of tennis?

Women are attracted to high-testosterone males...so you see a lot of white women who like black men, and you see a lot of Asian women who like White men. You do not see a great deal of white male/black female or Asian male/White female attraction. (of course there are exceptions...so don't throw in any red herrings). (The logical conclusion to this would be black male/Asian female would be the most common, but you don't see this....why? I think it's because the two opposite ends of the spectrum are too far apart)

A certain amount of testosterone is a good thing...it gives us motivation to get up and give the world a shake. But too much testosterone makes us do a lot of crazy things, like start revolutions, like commit crime, and detracts from our ability to cooperate and quietly work together for a common good. I believe that's why Africa has always been, and will always be in turmoil.

The North Asian cultures (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan) are at the other end of the spectrum. Their lack of testosterone makes them prone to accept a situation that they really should do something about and change...that's why they've allowed themselves to be controlled by tyrants (including of the communist kind in latter days) for thousands of years.

Ahahahahahaha that's hilarious, did you come up with that yourself? I don't suppose you can provide even one piece of hard evidence to back this "theory" up?

DeVore

Originally posted by shanemac
<snip a bunch of utter tosh about altruism...

This can be better understood having read Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene".




There are a couple of points to note in here....

1 The real biological motivation for altruism is based on the factor of protecting people/animals with similar genetics....thus ensuring the profligation of your genes....because all of your behaviour is programmed to increase the population of your selfish genes.

This means that in a multicultural society (where you will have very little genetic similarity with the other members of the society) there is a lower motivation for altruism. This must mean a lowering in absolute incidence of altruistic behaviour in multicultural societies.

You obviously either havent read The Selfish Gene or you failed to understand its basic premise.

You're similarity with the rest of your tribe is irrelevant. Only the bloodlines matter. Tribes wider then a single family arose simply because of the maths. safety in numbers and being greater then the sum of their parts.

A bunch of other stuff you are trying to contort into an argument is not supported by The Selfish Gene either... the basic premise of the entire book was that there is NO SUCH THING as altruism.

You're final paragraph contains so many presumptions and "leaps" of logic that its difficult to understand where to begin to deconstruct it.

DeV.

shanemac

Originally posted by DeVore
You obviously either havent read The Selfish Gene or you failed to understand its basic premise.

You're similarity with the rest of your tribe is irrelevant. Only the bloodlines matter. Tribes wider then a single family arose simply because of the maths. safety in numbers and being greater then the sum of their parts.

A bunch of other stuff you are trying to contort into an argument is not supported by The Selfish Gene either... the basic premise of the entire book was that there is NO SUCH THING as altruism.

You're final paragraph contains so many presumptions and "leaps" of logic that its difficult to understand where to begin to deconstruct it.

DeV.

Your general abusive tone speaks volumes DeV (any relation to the original Dev I wonder). The phrase "the lady doth protest too much" comes to mind.

Anyway, many of the same genes will be shared amongst the individuals in a "population". Taking a tribe as a small, interbreeding population (which it is), many individuals within a tribe will have very similar genes.

From the perspective of the selfish gene, this makes the survival of the other members of your tribe a useful thing, because there is an aggregate better chance of survival for the genes (whichever organism they happen to currently reside in). This is what makes altruistic behaviour viable within the tribe. However, the less related the members of a particular society, the fewer genes the people share in common, so the lower the motivation for altruism on the whole. Do you find this overly complicated?

Meh

Originally posted by shanemac
From the perspective of the selfish gene, this makes the survival of the other members of your tribe a useful thing, because there is an aggregate better chance of survival for the genes (whichever organism they happen to currently reside in). This is what makes altruistic behaviour viable within the tribe. However, the less related the members of a particular society, the fewer genes the people share in common, so the lower the motivation for altruism on the whole. Do you find this overly complicated?

So who is my tribe? Is it just my immediate family? Does it extend to my close relatives as well? Or is everyone who has the same colour skin as me in my tribe? Keep in mind that the genetic variation between individuals far outweighs the genetic variation between "races".

From Scientific American
Those techniques have revealed that race is minor at the DNA level. The genetic differences between any two randomly selected individuals in one socially recognized population account for 85 percent of the variation one might find between people of separate populations. Put another way, the genetic difference between two individuals of the same race can be greater than those between individuals of different races--table sugar may look like salt, but it has more similarities with corn syrup.

Zombrex

Originally posted by shanemac
I believe that's why Africa has always been, and will always be in turmoil.
Their lack of testosterone makes them [Asians] prone to accept a situation that they really should do something about and change

oh my ... that is one of the most naive posts on Boards I have ever read

For a start .. at actually I am not sure where to start .. there is so much wrong with that statement.

1 - Europe has gone through many many series of unstablity and turmoil? Actually so has the rest of the world. You point doesn't make sense when viewed on a world stage looking back further than 50 years.

2- There is no evidence (afaik) that African men are more prone to violence and aggression than any other men. You are making a huge and rather distastlful leap there.

3- How do you explain the fact the Japanise fighters in WW2 were very aggressive, prone to suicide missions, very brutal in treatment of prisonners. In fact some of the most bloody wars have been fought in Asia and Japan has a long histroy of being a warrior culture going back to the Samurai. Again your statements don't make sense when looking at history passed 50 years.

Originally posted by shanemac
Your general abusive tone speaks volumes DeV (any relation to the original Dev I wonder). The phrase "the lady doth protest too much" comes to mind.

Think he was just a bit annoyed that you are quoting from a book you obviously don't understand and using it to draw conclusions contary to the original conclusions of the book .. he is after all a moderator after all, its his job

Jak

Originally posted by shanemac
Hormone effect on culture
Different races of people have different levels of hormones. This is a biological fact, and has a major genetic factor. (look at sports.... Africans dominate high-testosterone sports...sprinting, boxing), whereas Europeans tend to be better suited to pursuits where high testosterone is not an advantage...long-distance running (not including Kenyans, who come from high altitudes), fishing, tiddlywinks (j/k). Asians have even lower testosterone than Europeans.

Not really interested in this discussion as a whole.

However the difference does not lie in testosterone really, the primary factor is that black people have a higher proportion of fast twitch fibers, which is an advantage for sprinting. If you are looking for 'informed' information on the differences between different races of athletes in general, I'd recommend the following ...

Jon Etine part 1

and particularly the second part ...

Part 2

The basic points are:

Fast twich fibers
Training and Funding
Greater levels of mitochondria and blood carrying capilliaries around the muscle

and regional differences in populations - Scandinavians stand as an example of this relative to other white europeans.

The difference in testosterone is modest.

JAK.

patch

Shanemac, why don't you get to your real point? What statement exactly are you building up to? Out with it.

shanemac

Originally posted by Jak
Not really interested in this discussion as a whole.

However the difference does not lie in testosterone really, the primary factor is that black people have a higher proportion of fast twitch fibers, which is an advantage for sprinting. If you are looking for 'informed' information on the differences between different races of athletes in general, I'd recommend the following ...

Jon Etine part 1

and particularly the second part ...

Part 2

The basic points are:

Fast twich fibers
Training and Funding
Greater levels of mitochondria and blood carrying capilliaries around the muscle

and regional differences in populations - Scandinavians stand as an example of this relative to other white europeans.

The difference in testosterone is modest.

JAK.

I'm not suggesting testosterone is the only difference between the different races of mankind....but it is the primary one that affects behaviour. I haven't heard of people acting in an overly aggressive way because they have too much fast-twitch muscle fibres.

bonkey

Originally posted by shanemac
Anyway,

he says, deciding not to answer the points raised, and instead just continue blithely on as though no-one had already challenged any of his assertions.

Shanemac - honestly - you keep asking people to put their "scientific challenges" to you, and then completely ignore them when they do.

You failed to address a single post of mine to you in the endire "white racialist" thread, and here you're dismissing deV's entire point (that your chosen source of reference supports the antithesis of what you would have us believe) on the "scientific" grounds that deV is being a bit aggressive.

Who are you trying to kid here? Do you think that anyone is actually failing to notice that you don't answer a single solid point raised against you, and instead flit from one contradictory stance to the next, insisting in your absolute correctness the entire time?

jc

Turnip

Originally posted by shanemac
In a pride of lions that is taken over by a new pair of males, the new pride males will systematically kill all the young that were sired by the previous male (as they would be wasting effort raising someone else's offspring).

Shanemac is a lion. Raaar!

There was a genetic anthropologist on TV3's Agenda on Sunday talking about this very subject. Did anyone see it?

shanemac

Originally posted by bonkey
he says, deciding not to answer the points raised, and instead just continue blithely on as though no-one had already challenged any of his assertions.

Shanemac - honestly - you keep asking people to put their "scientific challenges" to you, and then completely ignore them when they do.

You failed to address a single post of mine to you in the endire "white racialist" thread, and here you're dismissing deV's entire point (that your chosen source of reference supports the antithesis of what you would have us believe) on the "scientific" grounds that deV is being a bit aggressive.

Who are you trying to kid here? Do you think that anyone is actually failing to notice that you don't answer a single solid point raised against you, and instead flit from one contradictory stance to the next, insisting in your absolute correctness the entire time?

jc

The only point Dev seems to make in his little unpleasant post is this

You're similarity with the rest of your tribe is irrelevant. Only the bloodlines matter. Tribes wider then a single family arose simply because of the maths. safety in numbers and being greater then the sum of their parts.

Which is exactly what I addressed in the following post...ie it's not only immediate family that matters in altruism from a selfish gene pov because the whole of the population contains a large proportion of individuals with a similar genome.

There were so many posts addressed to me that I chose only to address those that were posted by Skyeirl (who btw has not responded here). However, if you've got something relevant to say...please do.

Meh

Originally posted by shanemac
ie it's not only immediate family that matters in altruism from a selfish gene pov because the whole of the population contains a large proportion of individuals with a similar genome.

And did you read my link to Scientific American which refuted this?

Havelock

I know you said you wanted arguements of a scientic nature shanemac but you are basing your arguementson nothing more than mis-representation of the findings of "The Selfish Gene". You have failed to provide one credable area of arguement, your testosterone theory is less than a joke. The white race is blessed with more pychotics per head than any other race, the artical on this I can't find at teh moment but it argued that the social steiro-type of the violent black man was nothing more than myth, with something close to 70% of all violent crime in America committed by white males. Will post link when I've found it again, but for the moment, please stop your ranting, have a drink, maybe smoke some pot, get off your high horse and relax. All peoples of every race, colour and creed are united in thinking that maybe you have issues here, see a couciller perhaps. I personaly (as a white person) think that most anti-black racism comes from the white mans penis size envy, personally I'm not intimaded, but think about all the usually racist types, what do they all have in commen, small dicks and no balls.

BTW: In case you missed it the end of this post is to show with exactly how much contempt I have for racism and racists, so please don't ask me to clarify.

Hobart

Originally posted by shanemac
There were so many posts addressed to me that I chose only to address those that were posted by Skyeirl (who btw has not responded here). However, if you've got something relevant to say...please do.

Ye See,

That's not the way things really work around here (And I'm going to try to explain to you why as you seem relitively new here)

You simply cannot come onto a public bulliten board, such as this one, and start typing wild inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims, as you did above, and hope that the community will just let them pass. The fact is that we have listened, been patient, and some of us have even considered what you have said (myself included).

However on numerous occasions, within this thread, you have been asked to backup your claims, explain your "facts" and even re-read your reference material. And this you have failed to do. Unfortuneately, for you, this is not a forum which tolerates silly racist bigotry and silly unsubstantiated racist claims.

So why don't you put up or just shut up (Sorry if I'm being rude)

shanemac

The white race is blessed with more pychotics per head than any other race, the artical on this I can't find at teh moment but it argued that the social steiro-type of the violent black man was nothing more than myth, with something close to 70% of all violent crime in America committed by white males.

Oh really...have a look at this...color of crime report

shanemac

Originally posted by Hobart
Ye See,

That's not the way things really work around here (And I'm going to try to explain to you why as you seem relitively new here)

You simply cannot come onto a public bulliten board, such as this one, and start typing wild inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims, as you did above, and hope that the community will just let them pass. The fact is that we have listened, been patient, and some of us have even considered what you have said (myself included).

However on numerous occasions, within this thread, you have been asked to backup your claims, explain your "facts" and even re-read your reference material. And this you have failed to do. Unfortuneately, for you, this is not a forum which tolerates silly racist bigotry and silly unsubstantiated racist claims.

So why don't you put up or just shut up (Sorry if I'm being rude)

Show me one fact that I have not substantiated. If there is one, then I have made it plain that it is conjecture on my part....

So why don't you take a bit of your own medicine mate....put up or shut up....

BuffyBot

Originally posted by shanemac
Oh really...have a look at this...color of crime report

Link seems broken

GuanYin

For starters, Admins and Mods I don't like my username being used in the title of a thread that is basically touting racial hatred.

Could it please be edited.


Busy at the moment but I'll read through the thread in a bit.

Jak

Originally posted by shanemac
I'm not suggesting testosterone is the only difference between the different races of mankind....but it is the primary one that affects behaviour. I haven't heard of people acting in an overly aggressive way because they have too much fast-twitch muscle fibres.

I never suggested it is the only difference either. I was simply refuting the fact that their prowess in certain events was due to raised testosterone as you suggested in your earlier post. It is not. The proven differences are in the other areas. I would be interested in seeing your evidence of the differences in testosterone as I am aware of little evidence to suggest a racial difference in levels that cannot be accounted for by age, health or lifestyle.

Testosterone varies significantly on an individual level.

There is one study from a little known journal I am aware of that claims a very loose variance of 3 to 19% in testosterone levels between whites and blacks, but before you go quoting it, there are a large number of papers which denouce the findings. If you really want to make the point on testosterone, find publications from major journals on the subject to support your point.

JAK.

Capt'n Midnight

The fact is that we are now fairly distinct races (sub-species) and, along with skin colour and hair-type, we have inherited certain racial characteristics, which may have some influence on patterns of thought and behaviour.[unquote]

So once we find the "white racist gene" we can simple apply eugenics to remove it from the population. There should be no civil right implications because such a person would be genetically programmed to agree that the race should be pure and kept free of genetic defects (if they were allowed to grow up to express such an opinion).

Hey - it should be possible to generate a retro-virus to counter act this gene by inserting itself in the middle of it (preferably with a payload of the gene to de-repress your existing copy of the latent homosexual gene.)

Hobart

OK

1) Women are attracted to high-testosterone males Where is your proof of that?

2)But too much testosterone makes us do a lot of crazy things, like start revolutions, like commit crime, and detracts from our ability to cooperate and quietly work together for a common good Give me some exclusive scientific proof that this is the case.

3)The North Asian cultures (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan) are at the other end of the spectrum. Their lack of testosterone makes them prone to accept a situation that they really should do something about and change...that's why they've allowed themselves to be controlled by tyrants (including of the communist kind in latter days) for thousands of years. So what about Stalin?, Tito?, Franco?, Hitler?, To name but 4. Or are Eastern and Mid Europeans suffering form the same lack of testosterone on a less frequent basis?


4) As I said before, culture is learned from ancestors (and society), but the kind of culture that we adopt is basically determined by the hormones in our bodies and our brain formation. What are you saying here? Where is your proof?


These are just 4 totally unsubstantiated statements made by you (Which I have managed to throw together in the last 5 mins).

Meh

Originally posted by shanemac
Oh really...have a look at this...color of crime report

Do you have even one single link that's from a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal, not some far-right extremist website? If I were to quote Malcolm X or Robert Mugabe to support my position, you wouldn't be impressed. So why do you expect to get away with quoting their white equivalents?

bonkey

Originally posted by shanemac
The only point Dev seems to make in his little unpleasant post is this

I was referring to the fact that he pointed out the entire premise of Dawkin's book is that altruism does not exist, but you have been using the book to argue in favour of altruism repeatedly.

Indeed, to quote Dawkin's himself :

Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.

Now, not only is he saying that altruism is something we lack (as deVore pointed out, as you ignored), he is also pointing out that we can try to learn it which also flies in the face of your long-standing argument that there is no denying our allegedly genetic traits (although to be fair, you have varied from them being unquestionably genetic to being sociological and back to being genetic again)

There were so many posts addressed to me that I chose only to address those that were posted by Skyeirl (who btw has not responded here).

Really? In the last 4 pages alone, I see replies from you to Meh, Shinji, and Gordon, as well as Skyeirl. I also see several responses which do not attribute a quote you are repsonding to,. but which are clearly in response to some of the other questions asked of you (again, by poster's other than skyeirl).

Would you like me to go through all 12+ pages, and tell you who all you did reply to, or would you like to change your mind about "only Skyeirl" ???

As for the fact that you were getting broad-sided by a massive number of opposing views from a multitude of posters, maybe these words might ring a bell with you :

I feel a board invasion coming on....saddle up Magnus, Jay, Chain, Reverence ....

(hint : you wrote them on a different forum.).

I didn't realise an invasion, which - if you read the thread I borrowed that from - was intended to balance the representation meant that a lone ranger would come along and only respond to a handful of posters and ignore the vast majority.

But hey....if you think that a community discussion forum is all about ignoring the vast majority.....go for it. Just don't expect to get much (if any) sympathy.

However, if you've got something relevant to say...please do. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not in the habit of repeating myself after being ignored completely the first time round.

jc

GuanYin

Originally posted by shanemac
Well a generation is normally taken as 25 years for humans. Given the fact that the Out of Africa theory argues that our ancestors left Africa some 100,000 years ago, this equates to 4,000 generations.

Yes and if you read another ten journals you'll see esitimates that go further or shorter back. Genetically, we become us about 25K - 50k years ago. We decended from a group of about a few hundred humans who came out of africa. All th eother migrating species died out. Of course this isn't gospel, its merely speculation on the best scientific evidence we have to date. But I'm quoting papers published in '03 in light of discoveries in the past year.

Originally posted by shanemac
But this is a trivial point. The fact is that speciation can occur quite rapidly given a relatively strong selective pressure on a population. For evidence of this have a look at the dog...which has been bred into ...how many...500? different breeds, mostly within the space of a couple of hundred years.

If you go back far enough, you can say that we are really all apes, because we have only relatively recently separated off from the apes on the evolutionay tree (some 7 million years ago for Ramapithecus). Or you could go back a bit further, and say there's no real difference between us and the single-celled Amoebae, with whom we also share a common heritage.

The fact is that we are now fairly distinct races (sub-species) and, along with skin colour and hair-type, we have inherited certain racial characteristics, which may have some influence on patterns of thought and behaviour.

Alright, I think people have answered most of your stuff in much the same way or better than I would have so Lets start from here. Now, lets this time, try and take the facts at hand and not change the subject every time you can't answer.


Ok I'll just debunk your entire post from here on in and educate you on the fundamentals of human evolutionary genetics. Its an interesting and easy enough little course, so pay attention, ok?

Right. There is more genetic variation among any single troop of gorilla or chimanzee than in the entire human race (that includes people who are black, white, asian etc., in case you didn't know). In fact, of all the large animals on the planet, humans are the only ones with a planet-wide distribution with so little genetic variation.

This is because we went through a "genetic bottleneck" where the actual number of humans *that is homo sapiens was around 10,000 individuals. No there are billions of us, but the genetic diversity has not grown much beyond that passed on by those 10,000 ancestors.

when the guys with the white pointy hats showed up on the gentic scene, they hoped genetics would show us we had "sub-species" and they had big ideas about what made the races different and noone could really agree. However, genetics has shown that the situation is even more complex and that drawing a clear distinction between "races" is impossible.

Human races" are clines. If you want to look up the dictionary definition, it will say "a graded series of characters (as morphological or physiological differences) exhibited by a species ... along a line of environmental or geographic transition."

As such, the notion of "pure race" is a phalacy. The reality is a negligable grading of countless combinations of characteristics vaguely averaged together into another set of countless combinations of characteristics vaguely averaged together (in other words, the difference between you and me is greater, genetically speaking, than the difference between two races as a whole).

Every creature on this earth, including every single human being is a very complex mosaic of genetic traits inherited from both parents and redistributed into a new combination at conception. The new resulting genetic mix (ie. any individual) is even more complex as most characteristics and traits are not governed by one gene, but by several genes in combination. If you want to go down this genetic road you could make so many sub-classifications within the human race that in the end one has one race per individual.

If you want to look at it another way there is no human group that cannot have babies with a member of the opposite sex from any other human group.

GuanYin

Originally posted by shanemac
As I said before, culture is learned from ancestors (and society), but the kind of culture that we adopt is basically determined by the hormones in our bodies and our brain formation.

No it doesn't, I've gone through this with you already. Find me one peer reviewed scientic paper that shows this.

Originally posted by shanemac
Hormone effect on culture
Different races of people have different levels of hormones. This is a biological fact, and has a major genetic factor. (look at sports.... Africans dominate high-testosterone sports...sprinting, boxing), whereas Europeans tend to be better suited to pursuits where high testosterone is not an advantage...long-distance running (not including Kenyans, who come from high altitudes), fishing, tiddlywinks (j/k). Asians have even lower testosterone than Europeans.

Women are attracted to high-testosterone males...so you see a lot of white women who like black men, and you see a lot of Asian women who like White men. You do not see a great deal of white male/black female or Asian male/White female attraction. (of course there are exceptions...so don't throw in any red herrings). (The logical conclusion to this would be black male/Asian female would be the most common, but you don't see this....why? I think it's because the two opposite ends of the spectrum are too far apart).

ROFLOL.....

an insight into how your mind works. Erm. Some of what you are saying there is actually true, believe it or not, but the actual overall message isn't. I'm afraid things are just a huge bit more complicated than that. But its a nice theory.

Originally posted by shanemac
I think a lot of racially stereotypically behaviour is in fact due to different levels of testosterone.

I think you've been smoking something.

Zombrex

Originally posted by shanemac
Oh really...have a look at this...color of crime report

lol ... I am on the floor again ...

And here is my report stating that "All White People Are Evil" ... you can pick it up at any good Left-wing Hippy Communist Tree Hugging Black Panter website

meatball

"The fact is that speciation can occur quite rapidly given a relatively strong selective pressure on a population. For evidence of this have a look at the dog...which has been bred into ...how many...500? different breeds, mostly within the space of a couple of hundred years."

Different breeds of dog are not different species of dog. Oh, and you are a moron. Go back to your biology homework Adolf.

pete

Originally posted by shanemac
Your general abusive tone speaks volumes DeV (any relation to the original Dev I wonder). The phrase "the lady doth protest too much" comes to mind.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1079020#post1079020

Clintons Cat

shane,i have a question for you...

Hey you know when you're doing your usual threesome thing you do of a weekend, and the moonlight's bouncing of your heads and your arses and everything, does that not get a bit confusing? Right, this is you, ok? Millwall! That's the one. Do you know this chant? "Millwall, Millwall, you're all really dreadful, and your girlfriends are unfulfilled and alienated"...

Typedef

Originally posted by shanemac
For evidence of this have a look at the dog...which has been bred into ...how many...500? different breeds, mostly within the space of a couple of hundred years.

You're confusing eugenics with evolution.

Seeing as the dog has been selectively bred, whilst the human has evolved due to evolutionary pressures your analogy is completely false.

Evolution if one notices, takes a long, long time to occur.
For evidence of this I offer the hominid fossil record, from our primitive origins in the Chimpanzee nearly five million years ago, as opposed to your proposition of modern day 'race' distinction.

In fact, to truely be called a homo sapien, one must not really transcend the demise of the Neanderthal.

Thus, your proposition is that 'somehow' in the last ten to fifty thousand years, 'as if by magic' without eugenics, the process of evolution has 'somehow', been very significant in the species homo sapiens, despite the fact that, the more prolific a species, the less species alterting genetic variation takes place, due to the relative anonymity of genetic mutation.

In short, your argument holds no water.

shanemac

There's not a single patriot amongst you. So you can all go back to holding hands and singing Kumbaya while your country slowly sinks.

I'm not wasting any more time trying to tell you anything. You all obviously know a lot more about multiculturalism than someone who actually lives in a fully multicultural country...so why am I wasting my time trying to tell you anything.

For Typedef....dog breeding works in exactly the same way as evolution...ie selective breeding happens (whether this is done intentionally by man; or unintentionally by nature...the effect is the same (call it evolution or eugenics - go nuts).

For meatball...different races of mankind are just like different breeds of dog when you're talking about biological classification. They are not different species either.

Wicknight...you're obviously a fool.... just keep laughing. BTW maybe Sir Henry Parkes was right & the Australians of the late 19th Centrury should have restricted Irish immigration. From the evidence here it seems the Irish are too weak and soft-headed to want to defend their own country (although I don't want to believe this).

Skyeirl...you're just part of that same school of anthropological obfuscation (examples: Cavalli-Sforza, SJ Gould) ...ie tell half the story, so you don't offend anyone...then your papers get published and you make a tenured position at a uni....then you can repeat the process & keep telling half the story in biology to the young students coming through.....there's no such thing as academic independence & most academics now are simply cowards. If you still have an ounce of intellecual curiosity, read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker, Viking Press, 2002.

Meh...you are a traitor to your country... I've nothing more to say to you

Captn Midnight....it's not just white people who are racist....as you'll find out soon enough if you stay in multicultural Ireland.

For any readers who are not of this "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" mindset have a look on
Stormfront discussion - even if you want to just tell them all how wrong they are...you may do so as long as you remain civil (obviously not a rule policed here).

Now I'm finished with the lot of you.....To any silent observers not in the multicultural camp (why don't you say something...why do you allow the debate to be controlled by these people?)....sorry if I seem less than polite...but these people simply make me angry.

Erin go Bragh!

Zombrex

Originally posted by shanemac
There's not a single patriot amongst you...

Wicknight...you're obviously a fool.... just keep laughing.

From the evidence here it seems the Irish are too weak and soft-headed to want to defend their own country

Meh...you are a traitor to your country... I've nothing more to say to you

Now I'm finished with the lot of you.....To any silent observers not in the multicultural camp (why don't you say something...why do you allow the debate to be controlled by these people?).

ROFL (again) ..... seriously Shanemac, going to have a hernia


Shanemac, you have to relax bro ... just cause you have been shown to have a completely hypocritical, non-logical, self-contradictary view point, you don't leave Boards!! Hell! we would have no posters anymore if everyone did that!

Just an idea but maybe you should reply to the people who challange your ideas instead of insulting them and continuously changing the subject. I am especially interested to hear your reply about the hypocritical nature of being an Irish immigrant preaching against immigration ... maybe you need a bit longer to work that one out in your head first ...

Still if arguing your point was getting too much trouble maybe you should piss off back to Stormfront and your other racist websites, where no one challanges your views and everyone thinks the same. I know all this independent thought and challanging ideas can make the brain a little sore after a while.

BTW Meh!! how come you got to be the traitor and all I got to be was the fool ... everyone knows the traitor gets the women ... so not fair ...:p

LOL ROFL LOL ... oh mercy .. this has been the funnest thread in years ...

GuanYin

Originally posted by shanemac
are you capable of refuting any of my arguments by reasoning and logic, without engaging in a peronal attack?

How the worm has turned!

Originally posted by shanemac
Skyeirl...you're just part of that same school of anthropological obfuscation (examples: Cavalli-Sforza, SJ Gould) ...ie tell half the story, so you don't offend anyone...then your papers get published and you make a tenured position at a uni....then you can repeat the process & keep telling half the story in biology to the young students coming through.....there's no such thing as academic independence & most academics now are simply cowards. If you still have an ounce of intellecual curiosity, read The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker, Viking Press, 2002.

So lets see, you ask me for a scientific discussion directly.
I give you one.

You dismiss it, use big words to call me names and slag me off and base your whole counter argument on someone elses opinion in a book, that interesting though it may be, you claim "gives the true picture" despite the fact that all peer reviewed published work in the field agrees with the post I made.

Aren't you the guy who laughed at Dadakpf for using someone elses arguments?


For the record, there is no "half-truth" in anything I just told you. Its the same genetic axiom that applies to every living creature, it just happens that when you apply it to the human race, you don't get the answer you want. Sorry to dissappoint you.

You have taken a step from, All you boardsters are wrong and I'm right to "all scientists are wrong and I'm right". Wow, this is when you failed to get into medicine, imagine how you would have reshaped the thinking of modern science if you were smart enough to get in (sorry, but if you can make petty snide remarks about my job, I can do the same for you).

Come on, where are the counter arguments. Pick apart the science in that last post by me and show me where I'm wrong.

Silent Bob

Originally posted by shanemac
There's not a single patriot amongst you. So you can all go back to holding hands and singing Kumbaya while your country slowly sinks.

This guy is either incredibly brainwashed or the best troll to ever come to Boards.ie, I can't decide.

Originally posted by shanemac
Erin go Bragh!

Shame about his complete lack of spelling ability though

shanemac

Okay, this is my last post on this board....

I re-read Skyeirl's post, and thought it was a bit rude not responding, as he seems to have put some thought into it.

Alright, I think people have answered most of your stuff in much the same way or better than I would have so Lets start from here. Now, lets this time, try and take the facts at hand and not change the subject every time you can't answer.


Ok I'll just debunk your entire post from here on in and educate you on the fundamentals of human evolutionary genetics. Its an interesting and easy enough little course, so pay attention, ok?

How arrogant can you get? Just the type of academic that can't be told anything.....they think they know it all already.

Right. There is more genetic variation among any single troop of gorilla or chimanzee than in the entire human race (that includes people who are black, white, asian etc., in case you didn't know). In fact, of all the large animals on the planet, humans are the only ones with a planet-wide distribution with so little genetic variation.

This is a red herring that is always thrown in by the "we are the world school of modern anthropology". The fact is you cannot quantify racial differences by looking simply at the "genetic differences". Genetic differences can be counted by looking at differences in the 9 billion base-pairs, or among the 30,000 genes in the human genome. However, we share over 98% of our genetics with the Chimpanzee...this does not make us the same as chimpanzees.

Have a read of this.....brought to you by your friends at Stormfront....


"Diamond offered a more colorful version of an argument advanced in 1972 by Richard Lewontin, a Harvard University geneticist. Lewontin had become convinced that virtually all meaningful differences between races are either random or culturally determined. Based on his review of the available data, he concluded that only a tiny fraction of the differences between individuals could be considered "racial." In other words, Lewontin maintained that the differences that separate "races" are little more than what distinguishes two random fans at a World Cup match--statistically nothing, genetically speaking. The article, published in the prestigious journal Evolutionary Biology, amounted to a frontal attack on the concept of race.



For sure genetic differences between any two individuals are extremely small in percentage terms. Coming from a geneticist, rather than a sociologist or anthropologist, Lewontin's article had enormous influence, although not everyone was convinced. Lewontin's finding that on average humans share 99.8 percent of genetic material and that any two individuals are apt to share considerably more than 90 percent of this shared genetic library is on target. Interpreting that data is another issue, however. Lewontin's analysis suffers both scientifically and politically.



Although the politics of a scientist is not necessarily an issue in evaluating their work, in Lewontin's case it is crucial. According to his own account, his sensibilities were catalyzed by the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He made it very clear that his science was in part a mission to reaffirm our common humanity. To geneticists and biologists with less of an avowed agenda, Lewontin appeared to leaven his conclusion with his personal ideology.



From a scientific perspective, Lewontin and those that have relied on his work have reached beyond the data to some tenuous conclusions. In fact the percentage of differences is a far less important issue than which genes are different. Even minute differences in DNA can have profound effects on how an animal or human looks and acts while huge apparent variations between species may be almost insignificant in genetic terms. Consider the cichlid fish, which can be found in Africa's Lake Nyas. The cichlid, which has differentiated from one species to hundreds over a mere 11,500 years, "differ among themselves as much as do tigers and cows," Jared Diamond has noted. "Some graze on algae, others catch other fish, and still others variously crush snails, feed on plankton, catch insects, nibble the scales off other fish, or specialize in grabbing fish embryos from brooding mother fish." The kicker, these variations are the result of infinitesimal genetic differences--about 0.4 percent of their DNA studied.



In humans too, it is not the percentage of genes that is most critical, but whether and how the genes impact our physiology or behavior. Diamond mused that if an alien were to arrive on our planet and analyze our DNA, humans would appear, from a genetic perspective, as a third race of chimpanzees. Although it is believed they took a different evolutionary path from humans only five million years ago, chimps share fully 98.4 percent of our DNA. Just 50 out of 100,000 genes that humans and chimps are thought to possess--or a minuscule 0.3 percent--may account for all of the cognitive differences between man and ape. For that matter, dogs share about 95 percent of our genome; even the tiny roundworm, barely visible to the naked eye, share about 74 percent of its genes with humans.



Most mammalian genes, as much as 70 percent, are "junk" that have accumulated over the course of evolution with absolutely no remaining function; whether they are similar or different is meaningless. But the key 1.4 percent of regulatory genes can and do have a huge impact on all aspects of our humanity. In other words, small genetic differences do not automatically translate into trivial bodily or behavioral variations. The critical factor is not which genes are passed along but how they are patterned and what traits they influence.



Lewontin did collate genetic variability from known genetic markers and find that most of it lay within and not between human populations. Numerous scientists since have generalized those findings to the entire human genome, yet no such study has been done. Now it is believed that such an inference is dicey at best. The trouble with genetic markers is that they display "junk" variability that sends a signal that variability within populations exceeds variability between populations. However, the "junk" DNA that has not been weeded out by natural selection accounts for a larger proportion of within-population variability. Genetic makers may therefore be sending an exaggerated and maybe false signal. In contrast, the harder-to-study regulatory genes (that circumscribe our physical and athletic abilities) signal that between-group variability is far larger than has been believed. In other words, human populations are genetically more different than Lewontin and others who have relied on his work realize."

This is because we went through a "genetic bottleneck" where the actual number of humans *that is homo sapiens was around 10,000 individuals. No there are billions of us, but the genetic diversity has not grown much beyond that passed on by those 10,000 ancestors.

Well if you go back far enough, we all have the same mother (mitochondrial Eve...and one father). The fact that there was an evolutionary bottleneck is another red herring. After the various human populations passed into our various regions, and became reproductively isolated, then selection pressure was very high. Europe and Northern Asia were experiencing an Ice Age, the more southerly regions of the world were experiencing more favourable conditions. The challenges faced by early man forced him to rapidly adapt. That is why we have races...different adaptations for different conditions.

Biologically speaking, we've had plenty of time for racial differences to develop....4,000 generations as I said before.




Continued.....

shanemac

when the guys with the white pointy hats showed up on the gentic scene, they hoped genetics would show us we had "sub-species" and they had big ideas about what made the races different and noone could really agree. However, genetics has shown that the situation is even more complex and that drawing a clear distinction between "races" is impossible.

Human races" are clines. If you want to look up the dictionary definition, it will say "a graded series of characters (as morphological or physiological differences) exhibited by a species ... along a line of environmental or geographic transition."

As such, the notion of "pure race" is a phalacy. The reality is a negligable grading of countless combinations of characteristics vaguely averaged together into another set of countless combinations of characteristics vaguely averaged together (in other words, the difference between you and me is greater, genetically speaking, than the difference between two races as a whole).

Every creature on this earth, including every single human being is a very complex mosaic of genetic traits inherited from both parents and redistributed into a new combination at conception. The new resulting genetic mix (ie. any individual) is even more complex as most characteristics and traits are not governed by one gene, but by several genes in combination. If you want to go down this genetic road you could make so many sub-classifications within the human race that in the end one has one race per individual.

If you want to look at it another way there is no human group that cannot have babies with a member of the opposite sex from any other human group.

You can go into your little semantics game and call the human races "clines" if you like...the fact is that there are no real biological classifications that have not been invented by humans (even the most basic classifation...[species] is not really set in stone, and fertile offspring from cross-species individuals have been bred (especially in plants)...not to mention the implications of genetic engineering.

The fact is that human races most certainly do exist, whether you classify them as clines or sub-species.

More importantly, the man in the street naturally identifies with those who look like they do (as does every other species of animal)...which means racism is inevitable in a multicultural society (otherwise we would not be having this discussion).

Now I bid you adieu....:ninja:

Turnip

Well I don't identify with scanagers or skinheads or nazis or other forms of trash so there's that theory debunked straight away. I suppose it's too late to throw in the fact that many of our famous artists, like Joyce, Beckett, Wilde and even U2 were able to live abroad, adapt to foreign culture and change it in the process through the sheer power of their creativity. They're the actual producers of our culture while useless nazis produce nothing. Absolutely nothing. They leech.

Goodbye eejit.

GuanYin

Originally posted by shanemac

This is a red herring that is always thrown in by the "we are the world school of modern anthropology". The fact is you cannot quantify racial differences by looking simply at the "genetic differences". Genetic differences can be counted by looking at differences in the 9 billion base-pairs, or among the 30,000 genes in the human genome. However, we share over 98% of our genetics with the Chimpanzee...this does not make us the same as chimpanzees.

I'm not here to debate stormfront propaganda with you, I'm here to argue your scientific views.

You were the person who brought genetics into it. You were the one originally quoting genetics in your argument. Now its all gone pear shaped and you sod off. Well good riddance.

The point you are missing is, we share 98% of our genes with chimps fine. But when you say we, you are referring to all humans of all races. Thats to say, we all have the same genes (humans) while chimps have only 98% base pair homology.

I thought when I posted my last post that you understoof the following, but it seems I may have been a bit too advanced for you. I'll go back to the beginners class and you can read this and then re-read the last post. All humans have the same genes (black, white, asians, everyone) but different alleles of the same genes give us different traits. That is, a combination of genes give us skin colour, they are the exact same genes in everyone, but differ in configuration and protein expression to give different skin colours. There is no "white skin gene" or "black skin gene" its the same gene, that expresses in a different way at the protein level. Its not political, no political ideaology can effect the function of a protein or the expression of DNA.

So no, we are not the same as chimps, but yes, we are the same as each other.

Originally posted by shanemac
Well if you go back far enough, we all have the same mother (mitochondrial Eve...and one father). The fact that there was an evolutionary bottleneck is another red herring. After the various human populations passed into our various regions, and became reproductively isolated, then selection pressure was very high. Europe and Northern Asia were experiencing an Ice Age, the more southerly regions of the world were experiencing more favourable conditions. The challenges faced by early man forced him to rapidly adapt. That is why we have races...different adaptations for different conditions.

Biologically speaking, we've had plenty of time for racial differences to develop....4,000 generations as I said before.

The point is, all racial differences are, in evolutionary terms is the same genes expressing themsleves in different ways. You don't seem to grasp this.

GuanYin

Originally posted by shanemac
You can go into your little semantics game and call the human races "clines" if you like...the fact is that there are no real biological classifications that have not been invented by humans (even the most basic classifation...[species] is not really set in stone, and fertile offspring from cross-species individuals have been bred (especially in plants)...not to mention the implications of genetic engineering.

The fact is that human races most certainly do exist, whether you classify them as clines or sub-species.

More importantly, the man in the street naturally identifies with those who look like they do (as does every other species of animal)...which means racism is inevitable in a multicultural society (otherwise we would not be having this discussion).

What a stupid statement. Of course all classifications were made by humans. The whole concept of classification is a human one.
Isn't what you are arguing just semantics aswell? You argue species and sub-species as catagorisation. The only difference between yours and mine is that the entire science community excepts my view (based on the combined findings of many scientists from all over the world), while they just view yours as racist tripe.

What the man on the street does or doesn't do is a result of the society and environment he was raised in. You aren't born a biggot, its people like you who make them.

Hobart

It's a pity shanemac has decided to take leave and not try to defend his position. I actually found the discussion quite interesting, when I cut out all the dblespeak racist stuff. The fact is I know feck all about genetics/differences between the races (not that those differences shape my thoughts on the way we should live) and it is interesting.

I also saw that the tollerance level's for people who hold totally different views from most of the people on boards is quite low. Ok shanemac, IMHO, posted some wild and silly "facts" which he would not/could not substantiate.

But is this any reason to start calling him a Nazi/moron or question his sexuality? Seems that a lot of people just degenerate onto the same level as they put him on.

GuanYin

Maybe hobart, some people take offence to being called a sub-species.

For the record, I'm a "half-breed" decended from and immigrant and an Irish person. This doesn't invalidate any of my arguments as they were (in the science end) based on published scientif fact, usually borne of very white scientists in large institutions in white countries.

Now, how much tolerance would you have of shanemacs views if you were me?

Hobart

Well that's just a silly question as my views are just that. My views. I cannot put myself in your position totally.

However you seem quite an educated person, judging from your well put together replies, but I still say, that slagging him, or anybody, off is wrong.

Nobody has the right to call you a half-breed and nobody has the right to call him a Nazi or a moron. His views might be moronic in most peoples opinion. But personal insults just lead to the debate degenerating into flamage and name calling, which is of benifit to nobody.

If he has insulted you then use the report button and I'm sure the mods/admins will take care of it. Two wrongs and all that..........

BuffyBot

There's not a single patriot amongst you. So you can all go back to holding hands and singing Kumbaya while your country slowly sinks.

Ah, nice to see you'll resort to nice sweeping statements when your tired old rhetoric wears out.

The fact is, I like Ireland. I'm no anthem singing patriot, but I'm proud of my country. I'm also proud that my country can show compassion to those in need, and the maturity to accept those that are different.

patch

I was hoping he'd freak out at having all his theories debunked, and blurt out his masterplan.

It's a shame really, clearly the guy was fairly bright. Somewhere along the line his thinking was twisted to believe the crap he was almost spouting.

Which is quite frightening really.