Misinformation about Race

MELANET UnCut Chat and Discussion: MelaNet UnCut Talk: Misinformation about Race
By Martin ( - 205.188.200.41) on Monday, March 5, 2001 - 11:16 am:

Largely to support or deter people from
interracial dating, there is alot of
misinformation about race out there. Here is an
unbiased opinion.

Go here:
(http://www.vdare.com/sailer_human_prop.htm)
Or read below.

We Know They Said “Created Equal.” But They Didn’t
Mean…

By Steve Sailer
Human Genome Project scientists have been
conspiring with journalists recently to lard press
reports on their findings with politically-correct
disinformation.
Nobody was bamboozled more than former GOP vice
presidential candidate Jack Kemp, who informed us,
"The human genome project shows there is no
genetic way to tell races apart. For scientific
purposes, race simply doesn't exist."
Of course, if all you know is what you read in the
newspapers, you're not going to know much about
the scientific reality of race.
For example, Eric Sorensen, Seattle Times science
reporter, wrote,
"The human genome, to be published in nearly
complete form this week in the journals Nature and
Science, stands to cure cancer, prevent mental
illness, and even, as one local researcher joked,
locate the "don't-ask-for-directions gene" on the
Y chromosome unique to men. But billions of pieces
of genetic code sequenced thus far are notable for
what they don't appear to contain: a genetic test
to tell one race of people from another."
I asked evolutionary biologist Gregory M. Cochran
about this Race-Is-Not-A-Scientific-Concept party
line emanating from the Human Genome Project.
"I don't know what they are talking about. I
suspect it's all political. These days, you could
certainly screw up your academic career with a
single truthful comment," snorted Dr. Cochran. "No
such thing as race? Then how can population
geneticists like L.L. Cavalli-Sforza calculate
your ancestry from different parts of the world to
the percentage point? How come forensic
anthropologists can determine a suspect's racial
makeup from hair or semen left at the scene of a
crime?"
Indeed, the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences
even provides a handy web page where crime
fighters can enter the data from nine loci of DNA
extracted from crime scene evidence. Then, by
comparing this individual's DNA to racial
databases provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police and the FBI, the website calculates for
them the odds that the perp belonged to such
racial groups as Caucasians, African-Americans,
East Asians, East Indians, and "Saskatchewan
Aboriginals."
Cochran is a physicist turned evolutionary
biologist. He is best known for developing the
"New Germ Theory," which attempts to drag medicine
into the Darwinian age. He argues that germs, not
genes, must cause most chronic diseases like
cancer and heart disease because, according to
Darwin's theory of natural selection, killer genes
tend to kill themselves off. (Click here to read
the February, 1999 Atlantic Monthly cover story
about Cochran and his research partner, Paul
Ewald, a prominent public health biologist at
Amherst College. Click here to buy Ewald's recent
book, Plague Time: How Stealth Infections Are
Causing Cancers, Heart Disease, and Other Deadly
Ailments.  And for the scientifically-inclined,
click here for Cochran and Ewald's landmark
scientific paper "Infectious Causation of
Diseases: An Evolutionary Perspective.")
Maggie Fox of Reuters asserted that the Human
Genome scientists "have also confirmed that there
is no genetic basis for what people describe as
race, and found only a few small differences set
one person apart from another. … [W]e all are
essentially identical twins - even more than I
thought. … [R]ace is not a scientific concept,'
[Craig] Venter [of Celera Corp.] said."
I asked Cochran, "Can differences in only a small
number of genes account for racial differences in
looks, physical abilities, personality, and other
capabilities?"
"Sure they can," Cochran replied. "We don't know
for sure for any particular trait, but it's often
a definite possibility."
"Go ask the guys working on the Dog Genome project
about how few genes separate Dachshunds from
Weimaraners." Cochran suggested. "Go ask the
cattle breeders. There are only a few genetic
differences between Guernseys and Longhorns. Yet
they sure act different. It's not cultural.
Longhorns don't learn how to act like Longhorns by
watching Western movies!"

continued:
------------------


By Martin ( - 205.188.200.41) on Monday, March 5, 2001 - 11:18 am:

continued...........

Folks, genetic differences are all relative.
The notion that, say, basketball behemoth
Shaquille O'Neal and Supreme Court Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg are "essentially identical twins"
is more likely to make sense to three-headed
flying saucer pilots from the planet Zweeb than to
their fellow Earthlings. Differences among humans
that would seem negligible to Zweebian saucer
jockeys can loom very large in influencing, say,
who makes the NBA All Star Game (which, you may
have noticed, had only one white player again this
year).
Of course, the Zweebsters would probably consider
humans to be "essentially identical twins" to all
other mammals on Earth. As Venter himself pointed
out, "There are only a few hundred genes that we
have in the human genome that are not in the mouse
genome." Another story reported, "Given the minor
difference between man and mouse, Dr. Venter said
he expected the chimpanzee, which parted company
from the human line only five million years ago,
to have an almost identical set of genes as people
but to possess variant forms of these genes." So,
Venter's statements about how large the variances
among humans are in some ill-defined absolute
sense are meaningless.
The announcement that the number of human genes is
probably in the range of 30,000 rather than
100,000 - as was widely guesstimated until
recently - has inspired all sorts of propaganda
about how this shows that nurture is more powerful
than nature. Harvard paleontologist Steven Jay
Gould unburdened himself of some of his trademark
sonorous imponderables in the New York Times.
"The social meaning may finally liberate us from
the simplistic and harmful idea, false for many
other reasons as well, that each aspect of our
being, either physical or behavioral, may be
ascribed to the action of a particular gene "for"
the trait in question. But the deepest
ramifications will be scientific or philosophical
in the largest sense."
Robin McKie of The Guardian (U.K.) made the same
point more blatantly:
"This is a far lower total than expected, and
dramatically undermines claims that human beings
are prisoners of their genes.… 'We simply do not
have enough genes for this idea of biological
determinism to be right,' said Dr Craig Venter,
the U.S. scientist whose company Celera was a
major player in the sequencing project. 'The
wonderful diversity of the human species is not
hard-wired in our genetic code. Our environments
are critical.'"
Do fewer genes mean nurture is more important than
we had thought?
"It means no such thing," said Cochran.
We already have a very good idea of how important
genes are from twin and adoption studies.
Identical twins are genetically identical. For a
surprising number of traits, identical twins
raised apart are more similar than fraternal twins
raised together. And the correlations between
adopted siblings tend to be very low. Whatever the
final number of genes turns out to be can't make
those facts disappear.
This spin is the logical equivalent of Exxon
announcing that they've discovered that cars have
30,000 parts in them instead of 100,000, and
therefore you should buy expensive premium gas.
"Hey," Exxon would say, "Even if experience has
shown you that high octane gas doesn't help your
car's performance much, the Car Genome Project has
demonstrated scientifically that your car has
fewer parts than you thought it did, so the
difference between Ferraris and Plymouth Voyagers
must be environmental. Who are you going to
believe: Science! … Or your lying eyes? So, spend,
spend, spend!"
Why do Human Genome laboratory scientists so often
issue unsupportable pronouncements about race? A
leading genetic anthropologist reflected, "I can
understand the genome people spouting it: they are
afraid of bad press about genetics. The posturing
is defensive." (See my VDARE essay on race
scientist Cavalli-Sforza's addiction to
politically correct boilerplate.)
However, he went on to note another cause: the
"bench" scientists who have become media
celebrities during Human Genome Mania don't
actually know much about what they are asked to
comment upon. "Human evolutionary genetics has
lots of people who are geniuses in the lab ('good
hands') and who contribute great data sets but who
have no clue about what they mean," said this
veteran anthropologist, who has spent years
working with both the most sophisticated
mathematical population genetics models and with
the Bushmen of the Kalahari. "What people like
these guys you see quoted know about is whether to
put vinegar or lemon juice in the test tube."
Cochran backed this anthropologist up. He feels
the lab guys seldom understand evolutionary
theory. "They say a lot of things that aren't
true, like these genes are going to explain the
roots of most diseases," Cochran argued. "From
twin studies, we can see that no more than 5% or
10% of major chronic diseases are likely to stem
from heredity. A full 3% percent of breast cancer
appears to derive from bad genes."
According to Cochran, "The Human Genome Project
will uncover a lot of interesting stuff, but how
much will be good for human health? Developing new
antibiotics will be a lot more effective over the
next few decades."
According to Cochran, the fundamental flaw of the
Human Genome Project is that "Genes exist for
function, not for disease."
In an upcoming essay, I'll describe in more detail
why genetic research is going to uncover less
about health and more about racial differences
than the media want to know.
[Steve Sailer is president of the Human
Biodiversity Institute and Adjunct Fellow of the
Hudson Institute.]  
February 22, 2001
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
------------


By Guido ( - 152.158.26.53) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 08:58 am:

Aayyyyyyyyyyyymen.


By DARKOVERLORD ( - 211.61.250.241) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 11:47 am:

RIGHT ON!! WHAT CAN BE MORE DIFFERENT THAN THE PRIMITIVE MONKEY-LIKE ANCESTOR OF THE HUMAN RACE: THE NIGGER AND THE REST OF HUMANITY!

NIGGERS LIKE THE EARLY MEMBERS OF ANY SPECIES, CARRIES THE WIDE DNA OF THE SMALL BRAINED ANCESTORS. THEIR ANCESTORS WHO WENT ON TO BE MORE INTELLIGENT AND ADAPTABLE WENT ON TO CONQUER THE WORLD AND EVEN DO THEM THE FAVOR OF MAKING THEM SLAVES AND DRAGGING THEIR SUB-HUMAN ASSES OVER THE ATLANTIC AND MAKING THEM PICK COTTON, INTERBREEDING WITH THEM AND IMPROVING THE NIGGER SPECIES BY INTRODUCING MORE ADVANCED DNA INTO THE NIGGER GENOME!


NIGGERS SHOULD PAY REPARATIONS TO THE WHITE MAN FOR PUTTING MORE ADVANCED DNA INTO YOU, MAKING YOU DO SOMETHING MORE THAN CHASE MONKEYSUP TREES AND GIVING YOU NIGZ A CIVILIZATION THAT IS ABLE TO ADVANCE BEYOND THE COPPER AGE! NIGZ SHOULD ALSO PAY REPERATIONS FOR ALLTHE CIRMES THEY COMMIT! MAYBE YOU CAN GET OUT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY ADMITTING YOUR DNA IS PRIMITIVE-AND GET A ONE WAY TICKET BACK TO APE-FREAK-UH!

EITHER WAY, NIGGER YOU OWE THE WHITE MAN FOR MAKING YOU PICK COTTON, IMPROVING YOUR GENES AND GIVING YOU CIVILIZATION!


By Roger Tyk ( - 64.209.134.135) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 02:50 am:

DARKOVERLORD(sic): What an absurd and paranoid response to Sailer's article. He in no way even remotely suggested an interpretation like yours. It's as if you fear (even suspect?) that your statement is the true reality, and that your hostility only serves to suppress your own fears.


By Roger Tyk ( - 64.0.99.137) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 02:55 am:

MARTIN: I'm not sure what you mean: Do you really believe Sailer's article was motivated by a desire to "deter interracial dating"? Or did you mean something else?


By DARKOVERLORD ( - 211.61.251.241) on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 06:02 am:

SO?!?!?


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" box and leave the "Password" box empty. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail: