Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 24th, 2013 #21
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Those alb nigs still get that nasty skin thing blacks often have, then you can't tell if they've got acne or it's just mottled reverse coloring.
Dey got dat Howdy Doody/Bertram from Family Guy/Morgan Freeman blotch thang goin' own.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old December 24th, 2013 #22
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
Default

Quote:
The article says race can be determined from the teeth, but they don't tell how.
If there's a gap you can put your fist through and they look like they came from Secretariat, the Dearly Departed was spabook.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old February 22nd, 2014 #24
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

Asians can't metabolize alcohol in the same way we can due to an enzyme deficiency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction

Quote:
Alcohol flush reaction (also known as Asian flush syndrome, Asian flush, Asian glow, among others) is a condition in which an individual's face or body experiences flushes or blotches as a result of an accumulation of acetaldehyde, a metabolic byproduct of the catabolic metabolism of alcohol.

This syndrome has been associated with an increased risk of esophageal cancer in those who drink.[1] It has also been associated with lower than average rates of alcoholism, possibly due to its association with adverse effects after drinking alcohol.[2]

Flushing, or blushing, is associated with the erythema (reddening caused by dilation of capillaries) of the face, neck, shoulder, and in some cases, the entire body after consumption of alcohol.
Quote:
Causes

It is commonly thought that the flush reaction is caused by an inability to metabolize alcohol. To the contrary, around 80% of Asian people (less common in Thailand and India) have a variant of the gene coding for the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase called ADH1B, and almost all Chinese and Korean people have a variant of the gene called ADH1C, [7] both resulting in an alcohol dehydrogenase enzyme that converts alcohol to toxic acetaldehyde at a much higher efficiency than other gene variants (40 to 100-fold in case of ADH1B).[2] In about 50% of Asians, the increased acetaldehyde accumulation is worsened by another gene variant, the mitochondrial ALDH2 allele, which results in a less functional acetaldehyde dehydrogenase enzyme, responsible for the breakdown of acetaldehyde.[7] The result is that affected people may be better at metabolizing alcohol, often not feeling the alcohol "buzz" to the same extent as others, but show far more acetaldehyde-based side effects while drinking.
Quote:
Genetics

Alcohol flush reaction is best known as a condition that is experienced by people of Asian descent. According to the analysis by HapMap project, the rs671 allele of the ALDH2 gene responsible for the flush reaction is rare among Europeans and Africans, and it is very rare among Mexican-Americans. 30% to 50% of people of Chinese and Japanese ancestry have at least one ALDH2 allele.[8] The rs671 form of ALDH2, which accounts for most incidents of alcohol flush reaction worldwide, is native to East Asia and most common in southeastern China. It most likely originated among Han Chinese in central China,[9] and it appears to have been positively selected in the past. Another analysis correlates the rise and spread of rice cultivation in Southern China with the spread of the allele.[2] The reasons for this positive selection aren't known, but it's been hypothesized that elevated concentrations of acetaldehyde may have conferred protection against certain parasitic infections, such as Entamoeba histolytica.[10]
 
Old February 22nd, 2014 #25
Alyss
vnn member
 
Alyss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,182
Default

Whites can consume dairy products, such as milk, without causing any effects. Asians can't consume dairy products, such as milk. Asians somehow receive a bad reaction. Theres a word for it.
 
Old February 22nd, 2014 #26
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

That's lactose intolerance. White people can have it too, though different regions and demographics are more susceptible than others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance

Quote:
It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase-persistent individuals in cultures in which dairy products are available as a food source.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, Arabia and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it was later shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
 
Old February 22nd, 2014 #27
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

 
Old February 22nd, 2014 #28
Alyss
vnn member
 
Alyss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,182
Default

There's differences in brain sizes too.

East Asians slightly have bigger brains than Europeans, Africans have the smaller brains of all. There was no study on Indian, Arabs, brain sizes as I recall.

On FB and Stromfront few months back.

Considering we have slightly smaller brains, we done a heck more than what east Asians had done, proves whites are the superior ones.

Ps- I know how to place images on forum, but my father screwed up our home internet service for a while; I am unable to place images using my i-phone.
 
Old February 22nd, 2014 #29
Zander
Senior Member
 
Zander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ss alyy View Post
Whites can consume dairy products, such as milk, without causing any effects. Asians can't consume dairy products, such as milk. Asians somehow receive a bad reaction. Theres a word for it.
asians can't drink milk? nonsense.
 
Old February 22nd, 2014 #30
Alyss
vnn member
 
Alyss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,182
Default

Look at varg post.
 
Old February 22nd, 2014 #31
Zander
Senior Member
 
Zander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ss alyy View Post
Look at varg post.
I did.Your post that asians cant drink milk was the one that was nonsense.
 
Old February 22nd, 2014 #32
Alyss
vnn member
 
Alyss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,182
Default

Do you see me debating varg? Means i agree.

And Asians do have more trouble than any other race in consuming milk !
 
Old February 22nd, 2014 #33
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default Gross & inconsequential, but still shows genetic differences

Asians and Amer-Indians have dry earwax, also differences in sweating & body odor.

Scientists Find Gene That Controls Type of Earwax in People

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/sc...0ear.html?_r=0

Quote:
Earwax may not play a prominent part in human history but at least a small role for it has now been found by a team of Japanese researchers.

Earwax comes in two types, wet and dry. The wet form predominates in Africa and Europe, where 97 percent or more of people have it, and the dry form among East Asians. The populations of South and Central Asia are roughly half and half. By comparing the DNA of Japanese with each type, the researchers were able to identify the gene that controls which type a person has, they report in today's issue of Nature Genetics.

They then found that the switch of a single DNA unit in the gene determines whether a person has wet or dry earwax. The gene's role seems to be to export substances out of the cells that secrete earwax. The single DNA change deactivates the gene and, without its contribution, a person has dry earwax.

The Japanese researchers, led by Kohichiro Yoshiura of Nagasaki University, then studied the gene in 33 ethnic groups around the world. Since the wet form is so common in Africa and in Europe, this was likely to have been the ancestral form before modern humans left Africa 50,000 years ago.

The dry form, the researchers say, presumably arose later in northern Asia, because they detected it almost universally in their tests of northern Han Chinese and Koreans. The dry form becomes less common in southern Asia, probably because the northerners with the dry earwax gene intermarried with southern Asians carrying the default wet earwax gene. The dry form is quite common in Native Americans, confirming other genetic evidence that their ancestors migrated across the Bering Strait from Siberia 15,000 years ago.

The Japanese team says that the gene that affects earwax, known to geneticists as the ATP-binding cassette C11 gene, lies with three other genes in a long stretch of DNA that has very little variation from one person to another. Lack of variation in a sequence of DNA units is often the signature of a new gene so important for survival that it has swept through the population, erasing all the previous variation that had accumulated in the course of evolution.

But earwax seems to have the very humble role of being no more than biological flypaper, preventing dust and insects from entering the ear. Since it seems unlikely that having wet or dry earwax could have made much difference to an individual's fitness, the earwax gene may have some other, more important function. Dr. Yoshiura and his colleagues suggest that the gene would have been favored because of its role in sweating.

They write that earwax type and armpit odor are correlated, since populations with dry earwax, such as those of East Asia, tend to sweat less and have little or no body odor, while the wet earwax populations of Africa and Europe sweat more and so may have more body odor. Several Asian features, like small nostrils, are conjectured to be adaptations to the cold. Less sweating, the Japanese authors suggest, may be another adaptation to the cold in which the ancestors of East Asian peoples are thought to have lived.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/...r-earwax-scent
Quote:
Digging For Gold: Study Says Your Race Determines Your Earwax Scent

I'm not sure what type of situation would lead you to compare your earwax with anybody else's earwax. (Because, gross.) But researchers at the Monell Chemical Senses Center have found that the smell of ear gold varies by race. The volatile organic compounds in earwax — call it cerumen, if you're in a scientific mood — can contain key information about your body and your environment.

So Why Did The Researchers Start Digging?

The head researcher, George Preti, has been looking into animal and human body odors for more than 40 years. He tells me he's had a "long-standing interest" in underarm odor. Preti came across an article from Japanese researchers that examined the scents of East Asians and people of European backgrounds, and he says it linked earwax to underarm odor.

"I was curious about what odors are being produced in the ear and how similar or different they are to underarm odor. We already had a pretty good inkling that underarm odor is different in most East Asians than [people of] European or African descent," Preti says.

Finding Gold

Preti says that regardless of race, we all produce the same odors — just in different amounts. For instance: White men have more volatile organic compounds in their earwax than Asian men.

The researchers compared samples from East Asian and Caucasian men. (They're planning on sampling women — whose scents change during menstrual cycles — in the future, and don't think the results will change.)

If you're East Asian, for example, the scents of your earwax and underarms are most likely different from those of non-Asians. The earwax from the study's East Asian donors was "consistently drier and colorless." The samples of the white donors were "yellow and sticky in nature."


Also mentioned in the study: "Africans" have "wet, yellowish-brown wax," and Native Americans — similar to East Asian folks — typically have "dry, white wax."

"The difference between [the earwax] is caused by a single gene in the genome. And a change in that single gene gives you different earwax and different underarm odor," Preti explains.

What Does It All Mean?

In another study, a set of different researchers ran a chemical analysis on the earwax plug of a blue whale that had been struck by a boat. Since whales don't have hands or Q-tips to clean their ears out with, Preti says, the wax accumulated.

"[The wax] gave a life history of the whale, much like tree rings tell you things about the life of a tree — when it grew or didn't grow," Preti explains. The scientists were able to figure out the whale's life history — where it had been, what was in the water with it, when it went through hormonal changes during puberty, when it was sexually mature — through the different molecules that got stuck in the earwax.

So what, besides one's ethnicity, can earwax tell us about people? Preti says this is their next big question.

Earwax can be a pretty valuable source of information, according to these researchers. Molecules get trapped in the sticky, waxy goo, holding clues about a person's life. But since people tend to clean their ears (because, again, gross), it's not clear how long information can be retained in the wax — a couple of hours, a couple of months.

"We like to think it's going to be an exciting, novel area for environmental information as well as disease metabolites which may accumulate in the earwax — we're going to see what we can find," Preti says.

One of the burning questions I had for Preti after learning about the research was: Does earwax really have a scent that's strong enough for me, a mere human, to notice sans equipment?

"If you take a Q-tip and roll it around in your ear and stick it around in your nose," Preti tells me, "I think you'd be able to smell it. Give it a try."

Quiz answers: A) "acidic/pungent"; B) "fecal"; and F) "sweaty feet."

Last edited by varg; March 25th, 2014 at 04:32 PM. Reason: .
 
Old February 22nd, 2014 #34
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

http://book.neurosurgeon.org/?defaul...2150&layout=22

Quote:
Anthropologists have studied the racial and geographical variations in human anatomy very extensively. Unfortunately, neurosurgeons have not paid much attention to the racial or ethnic differences in neuroanatomy

The Skull

Racial differences have been documented in the thickness of the skull. An autopsy study of Black and White adults skulls in Harare, Zimbabwe, revealed that White women had the thickest skull followed by Black women, then Black men and White men. (Ross, Lee & Castle 1976). Adeloye, Kattan and Silverman (1975) in Cincinnati, USA, based on skull radiographic studies found that Black and White females had thicker skulls than males especially in the parietal and occipital bones. They further found that White males had thicker frontal bones than Black males while the reverse was the case for parietal and occipital bones. Ishida and Dodo (1990) in Japan found that the cranial thickness at the frontal and parietal eminence was significantly greater in females than in males. Smith et al (1985) in their study of cranial thickness in Near Eastern populations of Jordan and Israel found no significant differences in cranial thickness between the sexes. Gothlin and Gadeholt (1988) found that the Australian Aborigine had a thicker calvarian bone and a lower forehead profile than modern Scandinavian skulls.
Saxena, Jain and Chowdhary (1988) performed a comparative study of the pterion in the skulls of Nigerians and Indians and found some significant differences. Sphenoparietal pterion was present in 95.3% of Indians and 84.8% of Nigerians. Frontotemporal pterion was seen in 3.46% of Indians and 10.1% of Nigerians. Stellate pterion was found in 1.38% of Indians and 5% of Nigerians. More Nigerians tended to have high pterion, so that its distance from the zygomatic arch was greater. The pterion is an important landmark to the neurosurgeon and its anatomy deserves further investigations in other geographical areas.

Zivanovic (1967) in a study of skulls from East Africa found that elongated styloid process was common in Africans, 30% having processes longer than 25mm and 14% longer than 30mm. In Europeans, only 4% have styloid processes longer than 25mm. De Francisco et al (1990) studied the variations in the hypoglossal canal of 492 human dried skulls from different races. They found no significant racial differences in the anatomy of the hypoglossal canal.
Quote:
Pineal gland
Racial differences have been noted in the rate of pineal calcification as seen in plain skull radiographs. In Caucasians, calcified pineal is visualised in about 50% of adult skull radiographs after the age of 40 years (Wurtman et al, 1964). Murphy (1968) reported a radiological pineal calcification rate of 2% from Uganda, while Daramola and Olowu (1972) in Lagos, Nigeria had a rate of 5%. Adeloye and Felson (1974) found that calcified pineal was twice as common in White Americans as in Blacks in the same city, thus strengthening the suspicion that there may be a true racial difference. In India a frequency of 13.6% was found (Pande et al, 1984). Calcified pineal gland is a common finding in plain skull radiographs and its value in identifying the midline is still complementary to modern neuroradiological imaging that has diminished this role. Adeloye and Felson (1974) also found that radiological calcification of the falx cerebri was present in 16% of Black Americans but only 3% of Whites.
http://book.neurosurgeon.org/?defaul...ds[skip]=1

Quote:

Chapter 3: Basic Science (continued)

Racial differences exist in several aspects of cranial anatomy such as the size of the mastoid process, the prominence of the chin, cranial capacity, orbital index, metopism and other variations of the sutures, cranial index (cephalic index), and cranial capacity. These measurements have been of interest mainly to the anthropologists and forensic pathologists. (Williams PL et al 1989, Berry 1975, Berry& Berry 1967, Czarnetzki 1971). Craniofacial surgery and neurosurgery might benefit from further studies in this field.

Spine

Racial differences have been documented in the anatomy of the cervical vertebrae (C). The spinous processes of C3 to C6 are usually bifid in Whites but commonly undivided in Blacks. The bifurcation of C7 spinous process was found in 55% of 100 White skeletons but in none of 100 Black skeletons (Hollinshead, 1982).
Amonoo-Kuofi (1982 & 1985) performed osteometric study of the sagittal diameter of the lumbar vertebral (L) canal in normal adult Nigerians and found that the mid-sagittal diameter of the canal shows racial variation when compared to data from other parts of the world. The mean mid-sagittal diameter of the lumbar canal in Nigeria was greater than in black South Africans in males but the reverse was the case in females. The lumbar canal was found to be hour-glass shaped being widest at the level of L1, narrowing progressively down to L3 in males and L4 in females and then increasing again in width at L4 and L5 levels. This shape has been reported in other parts of the world but is only vaguely seen in South African population (Huizinga et al 1951, Hinck et al 1965, Sand 1970, Larsen & Smith 1981, Eisenstein 1977)
Several workers have studied interpedicular distances and geographical and racial differences have been demonstrated. (Hinck et al 1966, Eisenstein 1977, Amonoo-Kuofi 1982). The findings suggest that the lumbar canals of White Americans were the widest while the Zulus had the narrowest diameters. Nigerian Africans had wider spinal canals than the South African Whites at the levels of L3, L4 and L5 but at L1 and L2 levels, the reverse was the case. The interpedicular distance increases steadily from L1 to L5 although this pattern is reversed in mongolism (Weir & Abraham, 1978). Among South African racial groups the mid-sagittal diameter (average 16mm) was narrower than the transverse diameter (average 23mm) and the lumbar canal, was marginally less spacious in blacks than in whites (Eisenstein, 1977). A prospective study of the dimensions of the lumbar spinal canal in healthy Nigerian children 6-11 years of age (mean 8.5 years) found no features of stenosis and the canal-to-body ratio was 0.65 (Nwoha et al, 1991)
Lumbar pedicles have been studied also by several workers. Cheung et al (1994) carried out CT osteometry of Asian lumbar pedicles in adult Chinese patients. They noted differences between Asian lumbar pedicles and those of White patients. Asian pedicles had a larger pedicle inclination angle (transverse angle)) from L1 to L4 but L5 had a similar angle to those of Whites. They found that the inclination angle was 160 for L1 and L2, 190 for L3, and 230 for L4 respectively.
Bernard and Seibert (1992) studied the pedicle diameter and its relevance to pedicle screw fixation in the lumbar spine using CT images. They found that the average American pedicle diameters were L2=8.13mm, L3=8.7mm, L4=10.88mm, L5=14.54mm, S1=18.37mm. They noted that most pedicles were more than 7mm in diameter except 20% of L2, 15.6% of L3, 1.9% of L4 and none of L5 or S1. This knowledge is very important in the selection of screws for pedicle screw fixation. The small transverse diameter of pedicles above L1 in Asians may prevent the use of pedicle screw fixation for the upper levels.
 
Old April 4th, 2014 #35
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1672257&postcount=19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0402100056.htm

Europeans have three times more Neanderthal genes for lipid catabolism than Asians or Africans
Date: April 2, 2014
Source: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

Summary:

Contemporary Europeans have as many as three times more Neanderthal variants in genes involved in lipid catabolism than Asians and Africans. Although Neanderthals are extinct, fragments of their genomes persist in modern humans. These shared regions are unevenly distributed across the genome and some regions are particularly enriched with Neanderthal variants.
 
Old April 7th, 2014 #36
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default



There shouldn't be any differences between the people in these three rows if race were just skin color.
 
Old May 4th, 2014 #37
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

Hematologic differences between African-Americans and whites: the roles of iron deficiency and α-thalassemia on hemoglobin levels and mean corpuscular volume

Abstract
The average results of some laboratory measurements, including the hemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), serum transferrin saturation (TS), serum ferritin, and white blood cell count of African-Americans differ from those of whites. Anonymized samples and laboratory data from 1491 African-American and 31 005 white subjects, approximately equally divided between men and women, were analyzed. The hematocrit, hemoglobin, MCV, TS, and white blood cell counts of African-Americans were lower than those of whites; serum ferritin levels were higher. When iron-deficient patients were eliminated from consideration the differences in hematocrit, hemoglobin, and MCV among women were slightly less. The -3.7-kilobase α-thalassemia deletion accounted for about one third of the difference in the hemoglobin levels of African-Americans and whites and neither sickle trait nor elevated creatinine levels had an effect. Among all subjects, 19.8% of African-American women would have been classified as “anemic” compared with 5.3% of whites. Among men, the figures were 17.7% and 7.6%. Without iron-deficient or thalassemic subjects, the difference had narrowed to 6.1% and 2.77% and to 4.29% and 3.6%, respectively. Physicians need to take into account that the same reference standards for hemoglobin, hematocrit, MCV, and TS and the white blood cell count do not apply to all ethnic groups. (Blood. 2005;106:740-745)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1895180/
 
Old May 8th, 2014 #38
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Book Review: 'A Troublesome Inheritance' by Nicholas Wade
A scientific revolution is under way—upending one of our reigning orthodoxies.

By CHARLES MURRAY
May 2, 2014 5:35 p.m. ET

America's modern struggle with race has proceeded on three fronts. The legal battle effectively ended a half-century ago with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The second front, the battle against private prejudice, has not been won so decisively, but the experiences of Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling in the past few weeks confirm a longstanding truth about American society: Expressions of racial prejudice by public figures are punished swiftly and severely.

The third front is different in kind. This campaign is waged not against actual violations of civil rights or expressions of prejudice or hatred, but against the idea that biological differences among human populations are a legitimate subject of scholarly study. The reigning intellectual orthodoxy is that race is a "social construct," a cultural artifact without biological merit.



Quote:
A Troublesome Inheritance
By Nicholas Wade
The Penguin Press, 278 pages, $27.95

A digital representation of part of the human genome, which was fully mapped in 2003. Getty Images

The orthodoxy's equivalent of the Nicene Creed has two scientific tenets. The first, promulgated by geneticist Richard Lewontin in "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" (1972), is that the races are so close to genetically identical that "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance." The second, popularized by the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, is that human evolution in everything but cosmetic differences stopped before humans left Africa, meaning that "human equality is a contingent fact of history," as he put it in an essay of that title in 1984.

Since the sequencing of the human genome in 2003, what is known by geneticists has increasingly diverged from this orthodoxy, even as social scientists and the mainstream press have steadfastly ignored the new research. Nicholas Wade, for more than 20 years a highly regarded science writer at the New York Times, NYT -0.20% has written a book that pulls back the curtain.

It is hard to convey how rich this book is. It could be the textbook for a semester's college course on human evolution, systematically surveying as it does the basics of genetics, evolutionary psychology, Homo sapiens's diaspora and the recent discoveries about the evolutionary adaptations that have occurred since then. The book is a delight to read—conversational and lucid. And it will trigger an intellectual explosion the likes of which we haven't seen for a few decades.

The title gives fair warning: "A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History." At the heart of the book, stated quietly but with command of the technical literature, is a bombshell. It is now known with a high level of scientific confidence that both tenets of the orthodoxy are wrong.

Mr. Lewontin turns out to have been mistaken on several counts, but the most obvious is this: If he had been right, then genetic variations among humans would not naturally sort people into races and ethnicities. But, as Mr. Wade reports, that's exactly what happens. A computer given a random sampling of bits of DNA that are known to vary among humans—from among the millions of them—will cluster them into groups that correspond to the self-identified race or ethnicity of the subjects. This is not because the software assigns the computer that objective but because those are the clusters that provide the best statistical fit. If the subjects' ancestors came from all over the inhabited world, the clusters that first emerge will identify the five major races: Asians, Caucasians, sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans and the original inhabitants of Australia and Papua New Guinea. If the subjects all come from European ancestry, the clusters will instead correspond to Italians, Germans, French and the rest of Europe's many ethnicities. Mr. Lewontin was not only wrong but spectacularly wrong. Or lying. It appears that the most natural of all ways to classify humans genetically is by the racial and ethnic groups that humans have identified from time out of mind.

Stephen Jay Gould's assurance that significant evolution had stopped before humans left Africa has also proved to be wrong—not surprisingly, since it was so counterintuitive to begin with. Or, he was lying. Humans who left Africa moved into environments that introduced radically new selection pressures, such as lethally cold temperatures. Surely, one would think, important evolutionary adaptations followed. Modern genetic methods for tracking adaptations have established that they did. A 2009 appraisal of the available genome-wide scans estimated that 14% of the genome has been under the pressure of natural selection during the past 30,000 years, long after humans left Africa. The genes under selection include a wide variety of biological traits affecting everything from bone structure and diet to aspects of the brain and nervous system involving cognition and sensory perception.

The question, then, is whether the sets of genes under selection have varied across races, to which the answer is a clear yes. To date, studies of Caucasians, Asians and sub-Saharan Africans have found that of the hundreds of genetic regions under selection, about 75% to 80% are under selection in only one race. We also know that the genes in these regions affect more than cosmetic variations in appearance. Some of them involve brain function, which in turn could be implicated in a cascade of effects. "What these genes do within the brain is largely unknown," Mr. Wade writes. "But the findings establish the obvious truth that brain genes do not lie in some special category exempt from natural selection. They are as much under evolutionary pressure as any other category of gene." So what they find on the inside matches what we all see on the outside.

Let me emphasize, as Mr. Wade does, how little we yet know about the substance of racial and ethnic differences. Work in the decade since the genome was sequenced has taught us that genetically linked traits, even a comparatively simple one like height, are far more complex than previously imagined, involving dozens or hundreds of genes, plus other forms of variation within our DNA, plus interactions between the environment and gene expression. For emotional or cognitive traits, the story is so complicated that we are probably a decade or more away from substantial understanding.

As the story is untangled, it will also become obvious how inappropriate it is to talk in terms of the "inferiority" or "superiority" of groups. Consider, for example, the Big Five personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. What are the ideal points on these continua? They will differ depending on whether you're looking for the paragon of, say, a parent or an entrepreneur. And the Big Five only begin to tap the dozens of ways in which human traits express themselves. Individual human beings are complicated bundles of talents, proclivities, strengths and flaws that interact to produce unexpected and even internally contradictory results. The statistical tendencies (and they will be only tendencies) that differentiate groups of humans will be just as impossible to add up as the qualities of an individual. Vive les différences.

The problem facing us down the road is the increasing rate at which the technical literature reports new links between specific genes and specific traits. Soon there will be dozens, then hundreds, of such links being reported each year. The findings will be tentative and often disputed—a case in point is the so-called warrior gene that encodes monoamine oxidase A and may encourage aggression. But so far it has been the norm, not the exception, that variations in these genes show large differences across races. We don't yet know what the genetically significant racial differences will turn out to be, but we have to expect that they will be many. It is unhelpful for social scientists and the media to continue to proclaim that "race is a social construct" in the face of this looming rendezvous with reality.

After laying out the technical aspects of race and genetics, Mr. Wade devotes the second half of his book to a larger set of topics: "The thesis presented here assumes . . . that there is a genetic component to human social behavior; that this component, so critical to human survival, is subject to evolutionary change and has indeed evolved over time; that the evolution in social behavior has necessarily proceeded independently in the five major races and others; and that slight evolutionary differences in social behavior underlie the differences in social institutions prevalent among the major human populations."

To develop his case, Mr. Wade draws from a wide range of technical literature in political science, sociology, economics and anthropology. He contrasts the polities and social institutions of China, India, the Islamic world and Europe. He reviews circumstantial evidence that the genetic characteristics of the English lower class evolved between the 13th century and the 19th. He takes up the outsize Jewish contributions to the arts and sciences, most easily explained by the Jews' conspicuously high average IQ, and recounts the competing evolutionary explanations for that elevated cognitive ability. Then, with courage that verges on the foolhardy, he adds a chapter that incorporates genetics into an explanation of the West's rise during the past 600 years.

Mr. Wade explicitly warns the reader that these latter chapters, unlike his presentation of the genetics of race, must speculate from evidence that falls far short of scientific proof. His trust in his audience is touching: "There is nothing wrong with speculation, of course, as long as its premises are made clear. And speculation is the customary way to begin the exploration of uncharted territory because it stimulates a search for the evidence that will support or refute it."

I fear Mr. Wade's trust is misplaced. Before they have even opened "A Troublesome Inheritance," some reviewers will be determined not just to refute it but to discredit it utterly—to make people embarrassed to be seen purchasing it or reading it. These chapters will be their primary target because Mr. Wade chose to expose his readers to a broad range of speculative analyses, some of which are brilliant and some of which are weak. If I had been out to trash the book, I would have focused on the weak ones, associated their flaws with the book as a whole and dismissed "A Troublesome Inheritance" as sloppy and inaccurate. The orthodoxy's clerisy will take that route, ransacking these chapters for material to accuse Mr. Wade of racism, pseudoscience, reliance on tainted sources, incompetence and evil intent. You can bet on it.

All of which will make the academic reception of "A Troublesome Inheritance" a matter of historic interest. Discoveries have overturned scientific orthodoxies before—the Ptolemaic solar system, Aristotelian physics and the steady-state universe, among many others—and the new received wisdom has usually triumphed quickly among scientists for the simplest of reasons: They hate to look stupid to their peers. When the data become undeniable, continuing to deny them makes the deniers look stupid. The high priests of the orthodoxy such as Richard Lewontin are unlikely to recant, but I imagine that the publication of "A Troublesome Inheritance" will be welcomed by geneticists with their careers ahead of them—it gives them cover to write more openly about the emerging new knowledge. It will be unequivocally welcome to medical researchers, who often find it difficult to get grants if they openly say they will explore the genetic sources of racial health differences.

The reaction of social scientists is less predictable. The genetic findings that Mr. Wade reports should, in a reasonable world, affect the way social scientists approach the most important topics about human societies. Social scientists can still treat culture and institutions as important independent causal forces, but they also need to start considering the ways in which variations among population groups are causal forces shaping those cultures and institutions.

How long will it take them? In 1998, the biologist E.O. Wilson wrote a book, "Consilience," predicting that the 21st century would see the integration of the social and biological sciences. He is surely right about the long run, but the signs for early progress are not good. "The Bell Curve," which the late Richard J. Herrnstein and I published 20 years ago, should have made it easy for social scientists to acknowledge the role of cognitive ability in shaping class structure. It hasn't. David Geary's "Male/Female," published 16 years ago, should have made it easy for them to acknowledge the different psychological and cognitive profiles of males and females. It hasn't. Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate," published 12 years ago, should have made it easy for them to acknowledge the role of human nature in explaining behavior. It hasn't. Social scientists who associate themselves with any of those viewpoints must still expect professional isolation and stigma.

"A Troublesome Inheritance" poses a different order of threat to the orthodoxy. The evidence in "The Bell Curve," "Male/Female" and "A Blank Slate" was confined to the phenotype—the observed characteristics of human beings—and was therefore vulnerable to attack or at least obfuscation. The discoveries Mr. Wade reports, that genetic variation clusters along racial and ethnic lines and that extensive evolution has continued ever since the exodus from Africa, are based on the genotype, and no one has any scientific reason to doubt their validity.

And yet, as of 2014, true believers in the orthodoxy still dominate the social science departments of the nation's universities. I expect that their resistance to "A Troublesome Inheritance" will be fanatical, because accepting its account will be seen, correctly, as a cataclysmic surrender on some core premises of political correctness. There is no scientific reason for the orthodoxy to win. But it might nonetheless.

So one way or another, "A Troublesome Inheritance" will be historic. Its proper reception would mean enduring fame as the book that marked a turning point in social scientists' willingness to explore the way the world really works. But there is a depressing alternative: that social scientists will continue to predict planetary movements using Ptolemaic equations, as it were, and that their refusal to come to grips with "A Troublesome Inheritance" will be seen a century from now as proof of this era's intellectual corruption.

—Mr. Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...21482247869874

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 8th, 2014 at 08:36 PM.
 
Old May 8th, 2014 #39
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Race-mixing = jews encouraging white daughters to breed with violent retards.
 
Old May 8th, 2014 #40
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
Default

Quote:
There is no scientific reason for the orthodoxy to win. But it might nonetheless.
The jews who control the media & the social "sciences" don't give any more of a shit about the scientific truth of racial differences than lying kikes Lewontin or Gould did; itz all about defending their genocidal multicult religion and continuing to cram it down White throats, no matter what. Because they long ago decided that it is Good For The jews.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Reply

Tags
#1, color, race, skin, skin color

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:01 AM.
Page generated in 0.21044 seconds.