Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
Considering that Americans from 100 years ago would be border-line mentally deficient, I think there's a big smoking gun showing nurture has a huge effect on intelligence.
The Ferguson thread / additional race discussion
- Thread starter bit_pattern
- Start date
- Status
Considering that Americans from 100 years ago would be border-line mentally deficient, I think there's a big smoking gun showing nurture has a huge effect on intelligence.
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
That is a very interesting discrepancy, between studies. I do know that the scientists involved in the one I mentioned are also, seemingly, very well respected. I wish I had the $40 to spare. That's going to food. Considering nothing outright shouts bias here, I wonder what the reasons for the discrepancy are. When do these things become free? After a year?
There is the coincidence of timing that they apparently showed up correlating roughly with rises of civilizations, agriculture, art, etc. This is still highly interesting. They know they have to do with the brain. Maybe they don't quite know how to test. Yet still, there is the one, most recent study.
It is at best inconclusive what effect these genes have. But it remains evident to me that there is still enough that separates us to take notice, and not just blindly buy into the egalitarian, liberal yada. People are just so desperate for their one world one people unity.
Just to mention: Anything else that man has to say? I posted three different links talking about the genes. The others were not attached to that author, and the only thing they had in common (well... Main big thing, unless we mention that they were all in English, etc), was that they talked about those genes. He was not attached to the study, or the NY Times.
Last edited:
"If your two parents hadn't bonded just when they did - possibly to the nanosecond - you wouldn't be here. And if their parents hadn't bonded in a precisely timely manner, you wouldn't be here either. And if their parents hadn't done likewise, and their parents before them, and so on, obviously and indefinitely, you wouldn't be here.
Push backwards through time and these ancestral debts begin to add up. Go back just eight generations ... and already there are over 250 people on whose timely couplings your existence depends. Continue further, to the time of Shakespeare ... and you have no fewer than 16,384 ancestors ...
At twenty generations ago, the number of people procreating on your behalf has risen to 1,048,576. Five generations before that, and there are no fewer than 33,554,432 men and women on whose devoted couplings our existence depends. By thirty generations ago, your total number of forebears - remember, these aren't cousins and aunts and other incidental relatives, but only parents and parents of parents in a line leading ineluctably to you - is over one billion (1,073,741,824, to be precise). If you go back sixty-four generations, to the time of the Romans, the number of people on whose cooperative efforts your eventual existence depends has risen to approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, which is several thousand times the total number of people who have ever lived.
Clearly something has gone wrong with our math here. The answer, it may interest you to learn, is that your line is not pure. You couldn't be here without a little incest - actually quite a lot of incest - albeit at a genetically discreet remove. With so many millions of ancestors in your background, there will have been many occasions when a relative from your mother's side of the family has procreated with some distant cousin from your father's ... In fact, if you are in a partnership now with someone from your own race and country, the chances are excellent that you are at some level related. Indeed, if you look around you on a bus or in a park or café or any crowded place, most of the people you see are very probably relatives. When someone boasts to you that he is descended from William the Conqueror or the Mayflower Pilgrims, you should answer at once: "Me, too!" In the most literal and fundamental sense we are all family."
-bill bryson
b-i-n-g-oh
Push backwards through time and these ancestral debts begin to add up. Go back just eight generations ... and already there are over 250 people on whose timely couplings your existence depends. Continue further, to the time of Shakespeare ... and you have no fewer than 16,384 ancestors ...
At twenty generations ago, the number of people procreating on your behalf has risen to 1,048,576. Five generations before that, and there are no fewer than 33,554,432 men and women on whose devoted couplings our existence depends. By thirty generations ago, your total number of forebears - remember, these aren't cousins and aunts and other incidental relatives, but only parents and parents of parents in a line leading ineluctably to you - is over one billion (1,073,741,824, to be precise). If you go back sixty-four generations, to the time of the Romans, the number of people on whose cooperative efforts your eventual existence depends has risen to approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, which is several thousand times the total number of people who have ever lived.
Clearly something has gone wrong with our math here. The answer, it may interest you to learn, is that your line is not pure. You couldn't be here without a little incest - actually quite a lot of incest - albeit at a genetically discreet remove. With so many millions of ancestors in your background, there will have been many occasions when a relative from your mother's side of the family has procreated with some distant cousin from your father's ... In fact, if you are in a partnership now with someone from your own race and country, the chances are excellent that you are at some level related. Indeed, if you look around you on a bus or in a park or café or any crowded place, most of the people you see are very probably relatives. When someone boasts to you that he is descended from William the Conqueror or the Mayflower Pilgrims, you should answer at once: "Me, too!" In the most literal and fundamental sense we are all family."
-bill bryson
b-i-n-g-oh
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
You can honestly say that about everything. At that point you're saying that the Earth is round/spherical. Big deal. So are my eyes, and by the same structure, my blood vessels, cells, etc. And I'm eating my relative daily- the chicken. Kumbayah my Lord, Kumbayah.
Also, I'm related to the Sun. And everything else. At some point in the current model we "were" all together as one- As a singularity. Who is to say we are not still? I think we are. But that doesn't mean that certain separation, or the idea of, doesn't exist. Without it, nothing could.
Also, I'm related to the Sun. And everything else. At some point in the current model we "were" all together as one- As a singularity. Who is to say we are not still? I think we are. But that doesn't mean that certain separation, or the idea of, doesn't exist. Without it, nothing could.
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
Oh, well, I believe that one group does not belong with the other in the current form. I believe as long as they remain in any form two 'races', and don't interbreed and become one more or less completely, there will always be issues. And I don't want that to happen at all.
They are expected to act as Europeans (rooted from, they are not). And Europeans are not expected to act as those where ever the Africans were from (well, Africa, but to be specific, around in West Africa). I'd rather they (Blacks) go back to Africa and start-join their own system. Not that that is realistic (is it?).
We can't live together equally. Where one population meets another from far away, it either displaces them some way or destroys it, being general, and simplistic. I don't want their displacement. I don't want to blend. It would be one thing if it were just U.S.A. But it is wherever there is White, increasingly. And the left- the movement gangs up on us and tells us we are no different. Multicultural, multiracial gang-bang on the White gurrrrl.
I forgot the other possibilities. They are held down. Treated differently. Destroyed. Fought off/expelled.
Change happens.
...
They are expected to act as Europeans (rooted from, they are not). And Europeans are not expected to act as those where ever the Africans were from (well, Africa, but to be specific, around in West Africa). I'd rather they (Blacks) go back to Africa and start-join their own system. Not that that is realistic (is it?).
We can't live together equally. Where one population meets another from far away, it either displaces them some way or destroys it, being general, and simplistic. I don't want their displacement. I don't want to blend. It would be one thing if it were just U.S.A. But it is wherever there is White, increasingly. And the left- the movement gangs up on us and tells us we are no different. Multicultural, multiracial gang-bang on the White gurrrrl.
I forgot the other possibilities. They are held down. Treated differently. Destroyed. Fought off/expelled.
Change happens.
...
Last edited:
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
It was to keep order. And 'racial purity'. The idea keeps repeating. I wonder why. Look at all the art that came from that time, ago. That place. And writings. Look at what came from the 'pure' Israelites, or the tribe of Israel. And the Jews who have IQs higher on average than any group, who bred very selectively. The stories that survive such as Noah's (who was described as being White with eyes like the sun- probably an albino) sons who were according to some lore White, Black (cursed son Ham), and Brown, was it? Or yellow. Not that I buy the Black or white color explanations, quite. That would almost seem like a joke. Then again, I can't say I don't entertain it sometimes, sometimes against my wishes. I wonder what the flood is? I'm just wondering.
Tower of Babel. All peoples. One language. One place. God destroys, for whatever reason, scattering us all.
A repeating theme of a need for certain separation, difference/diversity.
I guess in it's favor, blending, the Babel story did say God scattered us because we were getting too close to him (?). Perhaps there are other reasons.
Last edited:
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
If we're going to tread deeper and deeper into biological and sociological/anthropological waters, eventually we're going to have to come to the conclusion that differences in race among homo sapiens do not exist. The word has changed its meaning so many times over its history that it's no longer even valid. It wasn't until the 18th century that race began to focus on genetic variation and taxonomic differentiations. This is becoming more and more of a folk science, going the way of leeching in medicine. It used to describe differences in language, then differences in geographical and cultural attributes.
Regardless of which ethnicity we belonged to.
Biologically speaking, there are no sub-species of homo sapiens. Race is a sociocultural construct to describe different ethnicities of human kind. Keeping everyone neatly separated to prevent "interbreeding" is neither possible nor beneficial to our species.
Why? Is this a genetic issue or is it the racist mentality (perhaps combined with economic exploitation)? A wider genetic pool doesn't destroy populations, in fact its more healthy than homogenization and inbreeding. Racist ideas of superiority and inferiority destroy populations. Culturally, we're constantly changing, and we always have. This is another inevitability. Where did your paternal ancestor live one thousand years ago and what were his cultural practices?
So have a cry about it, then grow the fuck up.
Regardless of which ethnicity we belonged to.
Biologically speaking, there are no sub-species of homo sapiens. Race is a sociocultural construct to describe different ethnicities of human kind. Keeping everyone neatly separated to prevent "interbreeding" is neither possible nor beneficial to our species.
Why? Is this a genetic issue or is it the racist mentality (perhaps combined with economic exploitation)? A wider genetic pool doesn't destroy populations, in fact its more healthy than homogenization and inbreeding. Racist ideas of superiority and inferiority destroy populations. Culturally, we're constantly changing, and we always have. This is another inevitability. Where did your paternal ancestor live one thousand years ago and what were his cultural practices?
So have a cry about it, then grow the fuck up.
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
I've ran my genetic data through multiple filters, and depending on how far back I go, at 500 years I am ~99.7% European, mainly the North West area, with the rest Native American and possibly Ashkenazi. My ancient DNA accurately shows I'm Indo-Aryan, extending into Europe, Siberia, East Asia Americas. I do not have any sub-Saharan African. And, DNA testing is somewhat inaccurate, which is why I've ran the data through probably 30 filters or so, to get an idea. But anyways, I'm aware of my history, and I understand it has been largely gradual... and even if some parts were not, such as maybe the mixing with Neanderthal- of which I'm ~2.4%, I find my heritage worth fighting for.
Though it is a big "duh" that it is not so Black and White or that we have neat little dividers, there is a way with 90% certainty at least to find a person's geographical place of origin, assuming they are where they are native to. Skull forms are different. Bone structure is different. Teeth are different. Though 'race' (as a word in attempt to categorize, place, keep in order) may not be so clearly defined, and the sociocultural may have played a role, you are basically stating some hopeful leftist egalitarian commie yada as fact, and ignoring that there is actually true diversity in the world. If you notice, I rarely use the word 'race' without some kind of extra attention to it- hesitation with it. I prefer "populations". And some populations can blend more or less seamlessly with others, and gracefully, naturally. When the dark skinned Blacks pour into Europe in droves, and others, and if you expect them to be treated as part of the clan and mated with, as your agenda pushes ("we are all the same/it's a sociological construct and that's the end of it racist!!!"), denying reality, Europe will soon lose its heritage- it's own unique diversity- by combination of less births of natives than invaders/migrants, and intermixing with migrants. I'm definitely not hot on that idea, the people I largely came from being represented in such a small amount after time, in the birth of them, into relative obscurity, because of 'altruism'.
You are destructive.
When China does it to Tibet, it is Genocide, and they are like Greeks to the typical image of "Chinese" that people get, to put a general category (no need to nit pick, I know...), as Greeks are to Danes, with a margin of inaccuracy accepted. The only thing missing is a clear indication of who is attempting to commit genocide. Let's say that's you.
A 'White' girl does not sprout up in sub-Saharan Africa, naturally, from Black parents. A Chinese couple will not give birth to a West European child. Please, don't marry a White girl, as if you would even recognize one.
Finally, as I've stated before, there is plenty enough variation in European populations, that there is no known imperative to mix with sub-Saharan Africans. It may in fact weaken them. And at any rate, it is destructive the the uniqueness of the European peoples.
Though it is a big "duh" that it is not so Black and White or that we have neat little dividers, there is a way with 90% certainty at least to find a person's geographical place of origin, assuming they are where they are native to. Skull forms are different. Bone structure is different. Teeth are different. Though 'race' (as a word in attempt to categorize, place, keep in order) may not be so clearly defined, and the sociocultural may have played a role, you are basically stating some hopeful leftist egalitarian commie yada as fact, and ignoring that there is actually true diversity in the world. If you notice, I rarely use the word 'race' without some kind of extra attention to it- hesitation with it. I prefer "populations". And some populations can blend more or less seamlessly with others, and gracefully, naturally. When the dark skinned Blacks pour into Europe in droves, and others, and if you expect them to be treated as part of the clan and mated with, as your agenda pushes ("we are all the same/it's a sociological construct and that's the end of it racist!!!"), denying reality, Europe will soon lose its heritage- it's own unique diversity- by combination of less births of natives than invaders/migrants, and intermixing with migrants. I'm definitely not hot on that idea, the people I largely came from being represented in such a small amount after time, in the birth of them, into relative obscurity, because of 'altruism'.
You are destructive.
When China does it to Tibet, it is Genocide, and they are like Greeks to the typical image of "Chinese" that people get, to put a general category (no need to nit pick, I know...), as Greeks are to Danes, with a margin of inaccuracy accepted. The only thing missing is a clear indication of who is attempting to commit genocide. Let's say that's you.
A 'White' girl does not sprout up in sub-Saharan Africa, naturally, from Black parents. A Chinese couple will not give birth to a West European child. Please, don't marry a White girl, as if you would even recognize one.
Finally, as I've stated before, there is plenty enough variation in European populations, that there is no known imperative to mix with sub-Saharan Africans. It may in fact weaken them. And at any rate, it is destructive the the uniqueness of the European peoples.
Last edited:
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
So then you're aware that you originated in Africa, I presume?
I don't recall saying this. Could you point me to a quote of mine saying there is no such thing as ethnicity or cultural diversity? I remember saying the direct opposite, but marijuana tends to shorten my memory.
And we can stop the leftist/commie bullshit. Do you see me calling you a Nazi fascist?
A population would refer to the geographical inhabitants of an area despite all genetic variables.
Don't you mean Klan?
It has nothing to do with altruism, friend. Humans are migratory creatures, we always have been. I'm more worried about my homeland Germany losing it's heritage with all of these Swedish and French people moving in! There is more ethnic diversity within an ethnic group than between them, so I'm extra terrified.
lol genocide. Melodrama much?
u wot?
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
Maybe you should lay off the pot for a second.
Well, I'm sure populations can be seen in different ways. Surely, an isolated population in South America will not have Europeans in it, let's say... If the last time they met was 45k year ago. I would not consider the odd Black part of the native population of Denmark circa 1850 (under certain filter). There is the key. Native. Who had the most roots. Who has the most saturation, time. You are clever, and like to point things out... You make it somewhat tough, but you know exactly what I mean. Yea, it is hard to define. Again. You know what I mean.
And this folks is how the left works.
They are evil.
White people are not Black people. Black people are not Norse-people. And Norse people definitely have more in common as a population with English and Irish than they do Congolese. Quit making it harder than it has to be.
Well, I'm sure populations can be seen in different ways. Surely, an isolated population in South America will not have Europeans in it, let's say... If the last time they met was 45k year ago. I would not consider the odd Black part of the native population of Denmark circa 1850 (under certain filter). There is the key. Native. Who had the most roots. Who has the most saturation, time. You are clever, and like to point things out... You make it somewhat tough, but you know exactly what I mean. Yea, it is hard to define. Again. You know what I mean.
And this folks is how the left works.
They are evil.
White people are not Black people. Black people are not Norse-people. And Norse people definitely have more in common as a population with English and Irish than they do Congolese. Quit making it harder than it has to be.
Last edited:
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Or you could respond.
And stop the ad homs because you're out of ideas.
And stop the ad homs because you're out of ideas.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
This thread is rapidly becoming a candidate for closure. Could you two please chill out and discuss something substantively relevant to the topic?
ebola
ebola
oh i see, you refuse to answer. kudos.
you also ignore the following inconvenient main points:
- genetically, "races" aren't actually different
- nurture and environmental factors affect behaviour substantially more than genes
do you know how DNA evidence is used to match a sample with a criminal? it is not through their active genetic traits, but through the unique mix of inert junk dna. so, how does this match with your presumptions?
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
98.8%
and we share 60% of the same DNA a a fruit fly
and 50% with bananas
thanks for agreeing with me.
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
Just saw this article on the Reverend Al Sharpton, one of the most outspoken activists on the Ferguson case.
"Reverend Al Sharpton is being paid thousands of dollars to not cry 'racism' at large corporations that are in the spotlight, it has been claimed.For more than 10 years, firms have reportedly handed over enormous donations and consulting fees to the activist preacher's National Action Network (NAN)
In return for their cash, they have received Sharpton's supposed influence in the black community - or more often, his silence on the matter, it is reported.
'Al Sharpton has enriched himself and NAN for years by threatening companies with bad publicity if they didn’t come to terms with him,' said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal & Policy Center, a watchdog group in Virginia that has produced a book on the Harlem minister. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ot-cry-racism-large-corporations-claimed.html
"Reverend Al Sharpton is being paid thousands of dollars to not cry 'racism' at large corporations that are in the spotlight, it has been claimed.For more than 10 years, firms have reportedly handed over enormous donations and consulting fees to the activist preacher's National Action Network (NAN)
In return for their cash, they have received Sharpton's supposed influence in the black community - or more often, his silence on the matter, it is reported.
'Al Sharpton has enriched himself and NAN for years by threatening companies with bad publicity if they didn’t come to terms with him,' said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal & Policy Center, a watchdog group in Virginia that has produced a book on the Harlem minister. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ot-cry-racism-large-corporations-claimed.html
- Status