Religious intolerance in the GOP

Dutch Uncle said:
Fuck political correctness. The LWers have fucked up everyone with that concept.

"Genetic groups" is a long way from saying they are different "races".

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute. Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity (Figure 3). “Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry. However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another. In a clinical setting, for instance, scientists would say that diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are common in those of “sub-Saharan African” or “Northern European” descent, respectively, rather than in those who are “black” or “white”.
Click to expand...

This is kinda just semantics, though. Sure, if you want we can use another word besides "race." We can call it "breed." But we're still talking about the same thing. The human species can be grouped into different genetic groups, whether we call those races or whatever.

I do agree that "white" and "black" are not races in the strictest sense. As I said before, white people are an ethno-race defined by culture and genetics. That's why Ashkenazi Jews aren't white.
Here's a fun fact for Blacks. Negroids and Australoids are two different genetic races. However, because they both have dark skin, both would just be called "black" by most people. So like white people, black people are not defined purely by genetics.
 
Phantasmal said:
I don’t care what you consider, they are genetically Caucasians. What you or others think doesn’t matter.

I didn’t realize that experiences had colors, that is hilarious.
Click to expand...

The ONLY reason that Europeans & Near-Easterners look quite a bit a like is because of mixing genes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Bdb4NeWKG7EkpKMzZJVW2_MME/edit#gid=2002805772

Basal Rich is Near-Eastern genes, and it varies in Europeans from 51% in Southern Italians to 17% in Estonians.
 
StoneByStone said:
This is kinda just semantics, though. Sure, if you want we can use another word besides "race." We can call it "breed." But we're still talking about the same thing. The human species can be grouped into different genetic groups, whether we call those races or whatever.

I do agree that "white" and "black" are not races in the strictest sense. As I said before, white people are an ethno-race defined by culture and genetics. That's why Ashkenazi Jews aren't white.
Here's a fun fact for Blacks. Negroids and Australoids are two different genetic races. However, because they both have dark skin, both would just be called "black" by most people. So like white people, black people are not defined purely by genetics.
Click to expand...

The goof-balls don't realize that Race is another word for Sub-Species.

That they just are agreeing with Sub-Species not existing.

That doesn't mean there's no biological differences between the groups.
 
WitoldPilecki said:
The goof-balls don't realize that Race is another word for Sub-Species.

That they just are agreeing with Sub-Species not existing.

That doesn't mean there's no biological differences between the groups.
Click to expand...

And like Dutch Uncle mentioned, scientists accept this. They don't use the word "race" but they believe fully in the concept.
 
StoneByStone said:
And like Dutch Uncle mentioned, scientists accept this. They don't use the word "race" but they believe fully in the concept.
Click to expand...

Some of the most prominent biologists like Dawkins, or prominent geneticists like Watson, sure don't agree with the "Consensus" anyways.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-honors-stripped-reprehensible-race-comments\

DNA scientist James Watson stripped of honors over views on race
This article is more than 1 year old
New York laboratory cuts ties with 90-year-old scientist who helped discover the structure of DNA, revoking all titles and honors

Erin Durkin in New York

Sun 13 Jan 2019 15.26 ESTFirst published on Sun 13 Jan 2019 15.13 EST
Shares
2,581
James Watson has been stripped of several honorary titles over ‘reprehensible’ comments in which he said race and intelligence are connected.
James Watson has been stripped of several honorary titles over ‘reprehensible’ comments in which he said race and intelligence are connected. Photograph: Jose Mendez/EPA
A New York laboratory has cut its ties with James Watson, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who helped discover the structure of DNA, over “reprehensible” comments in which he said race and intelligence are connected.

Double helix trouble
Read more
The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said it was revoking all titles and honors conferred on Watson, 90, who led the lab for many years.

https://www.prindlepost.org/2018/04/the-return-of-the-race-debate/

Another sort of race realism sees races as subspecies of a single species. Richard Dawkins compares races of human beings to subspecies of a single salamander species in his book The Ancestors’ Tale (an excerpt is here). Among the species Ensatina, there are the yellow-spotted croceater sub-species, the red-spotted platensis sub-species, and several others. These superficial differences are adaptations to different environments; racial differences between humans are no more profound. Again, he vehemently rejects racialism.

Whatever you think race is—socially constructed, minimally real, or equivalent to biological subspecies—it’s a further question what differences there are between racial groups. It’s just that on social constructionism, there has to be a relativization to social context. Brazilian blacks and whites may differ in different ways than American blacks and whites, because of the distinctive way race is socially constructed in Brazil.

Now, Hardimon and Dawkins, though race realists, are at pains to say that racial differences are superficial.
 
StoneByStone said:
And like Dutch Uncle mentioned, scientists accept this. They don't use the word "race" but they believe fully in the concept.
Click to expand...

Some of the "Scientists" pushing equality, are faulty, or biased, anyways.

Like Lewontin's fallacy, or the mismeasures of Gould.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12879450

Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy.
Edwards AW1.
Author information
Abstract
In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example.

Copyright 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

https://www.wired.com/2011/06/gould-morton-revisited/

Indeed, it would seem that Gould was guilty of at least one accusation he made against Morton’s methods. He omitted measurement of Native American skulls that would have altered his racial averages in unpalatable ways. As for the charge that Morton, who measured volume by packing skulls with mustard seed or buckshot, packed Caucasian skulls extra-tight, there was no evidence. And once mathematical errors were corrected in Gould’s own cherry-picked dataset, they actually resembled Morton’s supposed racial hierarchy more closely than Morton’s own results.
 
StoneByStone said:
I've already said that Ashkenazi Jews are Caucasoid. I'm not denying that.
Click to expand...

You're denying they are "white". I continue to disagree even if you agree that "white" is a cultural concept, not a genetic one.

The story below points out how both the genetics and cultures become blurred and best spoken about in percentages.....unless you believe in the "one drop of blood" theory.

Recent data on Ashkenazi Jews: https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ashkenazi-jews-dna-diseases-20140909-story.html
All of the Ashkenazi Jews alive today can trace their roots to a group of about 330 people who lived 600 to 800 years ago.

So says a new study in the journal Nature Communications. An international team of scientists sequenced the complete genomes of 128 healthy Ashkenazi Jews and compared each of those sequences with the others, as well as with with the DNA of 26 Flemish people from Belgium. Their analysis allowed them to trace the genetic roots of this population to a founding group in the Middle Ages.

“Ashkenaz” in Hebrew refers to Germany, and Ashkenazi Jews are those who originated in Eastern Europe. (Sephardic Jews, by contrast, are from the areas around the Mediterranean Sea, including Portugal, Spain, the Middle East and Northern Africa.) About 80% of modern Jews have Ashkenazi ancestry, according to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Albert Einstein was an Ashkenazi Jew, as were Gertrude Stein and Carl Sagan. Steven Spielberg and Scarlett Johansson are also Ashkenazi Jews, along with three current members of the U.S. Supreme Court (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan).

Despite their close ties with Europe, no more than half of their DNA comes from ancient Europeans, the researchers found. Only 46% to 50% of the DNA in the 128 samples originated with the group of people who were also the ancestors of the Flemish people in the study. Those ancient people split off from the ancestors of today’s Middle Easterners more than 20,000 years ago, with a founding group of about 3,500 to 3,900 people, according to the study.

The rest of the Ashkenazi genome comes from the Middle East, the researchers reported. This founding group “fused” with the European founding group to create a population of 250 to 420 individuals. These people lived 25 to 32 generations ago, and their descendants grew at a rate of 16% to 53% per generation, the researchers calculated.

Today there are more than 10 million Ashkenazi Jews around the world, including 2.8 million in Israel, according to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The authors of the new study come from nearly two dozen research groups in New York City, Belgium and Israel. Many of the co-authors are not Jewish, but they are interested in studying this group because it is genetically isolated (since Jews have historically married within their faith, their gene pool is closed). That makes it easier to identify genes linked to specific diseases, like Parkinson’s and cancer, links that could well apply to non-Jews as well.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, along with several private foundations.

Fascinated by genetics? Follow me on Twitter @LATkarenkaplan and “like” Los Angeles Times Science & Health on Facebook.
 
StoneByStone said:
I think most people in the West would say Jews aren't white. And since whiteness is a social and political label, and since Jews never assimilate to the white majority, it makes more sense to not consider them white.
Click to expand...

Then we are not talking about race if we talking about social and political labels. Jews are genetically Caucasian which is generally considered white even though everybody may not consider themselves white. Europe, Middle East, and North Africa are primarily Caucasian. Race can be determined by DNA and skeletal remains regardless of language, culture, or social identify.
 
Phantasmal said:
Yes, this is true, but if you remove race how are these people going to feel superior from now on. Don’t be a party pooper.
Click to expand...

They can use hockey teams by wearing jerseys to make them easily identifiable. ;)

Now you know why I don't get invited to very many parties. :)
 
StoneByStone said:
Jews are their own ethno-racial group. They are culturally Semitic and genetically Caucasoid, but not white.
Click to expand...

Jews aren't white? Haha hoho! Most are. How, details, are those fckers not white?

While you're showing us what an idiot you are, how about if you explain to us what makes Jews culturally semitic?
 
Flash said:
Then we are not talking about race if we talking about social and political labels. Jews are genetically Caucasian which is generally considered white even though everybody may not consider themselves white. Europe, Middle East, and North Africa are primarily Caucasian. Race can be determined by DNA and skeletal remains regardless of language, culture, or social identify.
Click to expand...

That's the point of using the term "race" since it's a general label and not always correct...unless you believe in the "one drop of blood rule" then all bets are off.

DNA can reveal their ancestor's general origin, but not the culture or social identity of the body. The DNA of an American may identify them to be of Central European descent but not whether they're a kind, Christian father of three or Head Clown of a hate group. A person's religion or politics is not in their DNA.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
You're denying they are "white". I continue to disagree even if you agree that "white" is a cultural concept, not a genetic one.

The story below points out how both the genetics and cultures become blurred and best spoken about in percentages.....unless you believe in the "one drop of blood" theory.

Recent data on Ashkenazi Jews: https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ashkenazi-jews-dna-diseases-20140909-story.html
All of the Ashkenazi Jews alive today can trace their roots to a group of about 330 people who lived 600 to 800 years ago.

So says a new study in the journal Nature Communications. An international team of scientists sequenced the complete genomes of 128 healthy Ashkenazi Jews and compared each of those sequences with the others, as well as with with the DNA of 26 Flemish people from Belgium. Their analysis allowed them to trace the genetic roots of this population to a founding group in the Middle Ages.

“Ashkenaz” in Hebrew refers to Germany, and Ashkenazi Jews are those who originated in Eastern Europe. (Sephardic Jews, by contrast, are from the areas around the Mediterranean Sea, including Portugal, Spain, the Middle East and Northern Africa.) About 80% of modern Jews have Ashkenazi ancestry, according to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Albert Einstein was an Ashkenazi Jew, as were Gertrude Stein and Carl Sagan. Steven Spielberg and Scarlett Johansson are also Ashkenazi Jews, along with three current members of the U.S. Supreme Court (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan).

Despite their close ties with Europe, no more than half of their DNA comes from ancient Europeans, the researchers found. Only 46% to 50% of the DNA in the 128 samples originated with the group of people who were also the ancestors of the Flemish people in the study. Those ancient people split off from the ancestors of today’s Middle Easterners more than 20,000 years ago, with a founding group of about 3,500 to 3,900 people, according to the study.

The rest of the Ashkenazi genome comes from the Middle East, the researchers reported. This founding group “fused” with the European founding group to create a population of 250 to 420 individuals. These people lived 25 to 32 generations ago, and their descendants grew at a rate of 16% to 53% per generation, the researchers calculated.

Today there are more than 10 million Ashkenazi Jews around the world, including 2.8 million in Israel, according to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The authors of the new study come from nearly two dozen research groups in New York City, Belgium and Israel. Many of the co-authors are not Jewish, but they are interested in studying this group because it is genetically isolated (since Jews have historically married within their faith, their gene pool is closed). That makes it easier to identify genes linked to specific diseases, like Parkinson’s and cancer, links that could well apply to non-Jews as well.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, along with several private foundations.

Fascinated by genetics? Follow me on Twitter @LATkarenkaplan and “like” Los Angeles Times Science & Health on Facebook.
Click to expand...

Interesting article... thanks.
 
Flash said:
Then we are not talking about race if we talking about social and political labels. Jews are genetically Caucasian which is generally considered white even though everybody may not consider themselves white. Europe, Middle East, and North Africa are primarily Caucasian. Race can be determined by DNA and skeletal remains regardless of language, culture, or social identify.
Click to expand...

Yes, I said that white people are an ethno-racial group because they are defined by both culture and genetics.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Disagreed. There's a reason why religious and both political and non-political groups will lean toward or firmly embrace one of the two major parties. Groups would tend to support those who they themselves support or which is most beneficial for their aims. Obviously what the Republicans represented are not in keeping with any religion except the Mormons and the Evangelicals.
Click to expand...

Mormons, Evangelicals, and large numbers of Protestants (Methodists, Presbyterian). Catholics are only 7% more Democratic than Republican.

I don't disagree with that you said, but you disagreed with something I did not say.

My claim is that showing Democrats have 2 Buddhists, 3 Muslim, and 3 Hindu members of Congress in itself illustrates nothing about religious intolerance. If it did we could equally say the few number of Democratic Mormons and Evangelicals shows an intolerance of Democrats toward those groups.
 
Flash said:
Then we are not talking about race if we talking about social and political labels. Jews are genetically Caucasian which is generally considered white even though everybody may not consider themselves white. Europe, Middle East, and North Africa are primarily Caucasian. Race can be determined by DNA and skeletal remains regardless of language, culture, or social identify.
Click to expand...

Race is not determined by DNA. You're white if you get out the shower to pee and return a missing wallet to its owner. You're black if you love violent criminals and you vote for free stuff without knowing what a Bolshevik is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top