• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
The Masked Tulip

How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’

Recommended Posts

Below is a link to a very interesting, thought-provoking article on genetics and race in the NY Times. (No paywall.)

It is a subject matter that increasingly it seems people do not wish to discuss out of political correctness but, due to major advances in genetics, surely means that we should be discussing such things more and more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

Below is a link to a very interesting, thought-provoking article on genetics and race in the NY Times. (No paywall.)

It is a subject matter that increasingly it seems people do not wish to discuss out of political correctness but, due to major advances in genetics, surely means that we should be discussing such things more and more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

Thankyou for that TMT, thank goodness for that, a non-trivial non-pseudoscience well-written article on the subject. I am sure there will still be plenty of lefty idiots trying to claim it's racist though.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swissy_fit said:

Thankyou for that TMT, thank goodness for that, a non-trivial non-pseudoscience well-written article on the subject. I am sure there will still be plenty of lefty idiots trying to claim it's racist though.

 

 

 

Yep, as I was reading it I was imagining myself trying to broach it with some of my luvvie friends and visualising the "OMG - he's a fecking Nazi racist!" look on their faces.

This subject has fascinated me for decades - not just the DNA angle but the whole 'Out of Africa' stuff re Human Evolution and how we got from there to where we are now.

But, boy, it is so politicalised.

As an example, the North American Indian stuff is incredibly politicalised with anyone questioning the established narrative, often promoted by Native American Indians, having the race card shoved at them. It shuts down discussion immediately, so much so that many anthropologists just won't go there anymore.

No one likes to admit that, bearing in mind that North America is a vast area of land and hence there were different varying stages of evolution amongst some of the Native American tribes, that when Europeans first encountered them that most NA tribes were basically stone-age hunter-gatherers. They had not domesticated animals, had no real farming (None really.), had little metal-work, if any, and were effectively living as people in Europe and the Middle East did at least a good 10,000 years earlier.

The Native Americans of North America were no where as near as advanced as the major civilisations of Central and South America were when Columbus arrived - and they were basically thousands of years behind Europeans at that point. 'The noble savage' was basically a myth created by 17th & 18th Century English poets and writers with no basis in any scientific evidence.

Rant over.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right in all that you say TMT but there were several hundred thousand years in which Europeans / Near Easterners could have made the advances in agriculture but didn't.

It only had to happen successfully once and then spread.  It happened to be in the Near East ten thousand years ago (okay, way more complicated than that, especially wrt animal domestication).

Now it was that development that allowed the population and cultural explosion over the next ten thousand years that took it around the world.

It could have happened at the previous interglacial or the one before that, or still not happened.  It's not inevitable.

We think it's inevitable because here we are but there was nothing inevitable about the first take up if agriculture.

Opportunities yes, possibilities yes, maybe even climate change encouraging it.

But a natural product of our genes? Don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frank Hovis said:

It only had to happen successfully once and then spread.  It happened to be in the Near East ten thousand years ago 

Wasn't there a freak mutation in wheat to become triploid, and this enabled  larger yields and the agrarian economy? It could easily have never happened and yet we easily take what we have for granted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

You're right in all that you say TMT but there were several hundred thousand years in which Europeans / Near Easterners could have made the advances in agriculture but didn't.

It only had to happen successfully once and then spread.  It happened to be in the Near East ten thousand years ago (okay, way more complicated than that, especially wrt animal domestication).

Now it was that development that allowed the population and cultural explosion over the next ten thousand years that took it around the world.

It could have happened at the previous interglacial or the one before that, or still not happened.  It's not inevitable.

We think it's inevitable because here we are but there was nothing inevitable about the first take up if agriculture.

Opportunities yes, possibilities yes, maybe even climate change encouraging it.

But a natural product of our genes? Don't think so.

 

True. But that is just one example. What about the sewing needle - arguably the most important and perhaps the earliest human invention? It allowed peoples to cloth themselves, to make implements in which to more easily collect, carry things. To travel in colder and indeed also in hotter climates. Invented in one place at one point or at various places by one group of people? Or by loads of different people at various locales and times?

Whilst farming, tools, implements are not in themselves genetic in their invention what is it that drove certain peoples to invent such things... and end up on a path of invention after invention.. whilst other large parts of the world basically have done little invention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

You're right in all that you say TMT but there were several hundred thousand years in which Europeans / Near Easterners could have made the advances in agriculture but didn't.

It only had to happen successfully once and then spread.  It happened to be in the Near East ten thousand years ago (okay, way more complicated than that, especially wrt animal domestication).

Now it was that development that allowed the population and cultural explosion over the next ten thousand years that took it around the world.

It could have happened at the previous interglacial or the one before that, or still not happened.  It's not inevitable.

We think it's inevitable because here we are but there was nothing inevitable about the first take up if agriculture.

Opportunities yes, possibilities yes, maybe even climate change encouraging it.

But a natural product of our genes? Don't think so.

Well - genetics are increasing being shown to be the driver behind just about anything you can think of.  Whenever people (like you) say naaaa, I point to domestic dogs.  from the experiments turning wild foxes into pets by breeding for behaviour within a few generations, to the innate guard dog traits of some breeds, or the innate tracking traits of others, to the innate differences in intelligence in dog breeds (fact), it shows for me that if selection pressures are strong enough, every BEHAVIOUR can be genetically selected for.  

That means humans are as equally exposed to those selections IF pressures are there.  

Edited by wherebee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

 

True. But that is just one example. What about the sewing needle - arguably the most important and perhaps the earliest human invention? It allowed peoples to cloth themselves, to make implements in which to more easily collect, carry things. To travel in colder and indeed also in hotter climates. Invented in one place at one point or at various places by one group of people? Or by loads of different people at various locales and times?

Whilst farming, tools, implements are not in themselves genetic in their invention what is it that drove certain peoples to invent such things... and end up on a path of invention after invention.. whilst other large parts of the world basically have done little invention?

I assume you know that the only thing we know about the “Denisovans” is that their sewing needles were way more advanced than the “Homo sapiens” of the time.

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0711-worlds-oldest-needle-found-in-siberian-cave-that-stitches-together-human-history/

Quote

Sensational' discovery in Denisova Cave is at least 50,000 years old BUT it wasn't made by Homo sapiens.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hail the Tripod said:

I assume you know that the only thing we know about the “Denisovans” is that their sewing needles were way more advanced than the “Homo sapiens” of the time.

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0711-worlds-oldest-needle-found-in-siberian-cave-that-stitches-together-human-history/

 

 

Yes, people are still trying to figure out how they were able to get youtube and FB on them. We'll probably never know.

Fascinating lot the Denisovans. Wish we knew so much more about them. You could make a good argument that they geographical locale - fecking hard places to live - is, as is often said to be, the mother of invention. Neccessity. Harsh climes drive people to have to adapt and invent or die? Going back to the NA Indians - perhaps things were so fabulous for them... vast ranges of land over which to travel from season to season... loads of easily huntable animals for food... that there was little reason to adapt or invent because they simply had it so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, swissy_fit said:

Haha yes Brown and Blairs benny bonanza has been a stimulus for invention too of a less helpful kind.  Who knew that dog walking could be considered a business?

dog walking is a very worthwhile job if you don't want to come home to a house destroyed by a frustrated dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wherebee said:

Well - genetics are increasing being shown to be the driver behind just about anything you can think of.  Whenever people (like you) say naaaa, I point to domestic dogs.  from the experiments turning wild foxes into pets by breeding for behaviour within a few generations, to the innate guard dog traits of some breeds, or the innate tracking traits of others, to the innate differences in intelligence in dog breeds (fact), it shows for me that if selection pressures are strong enough, every BEHAVIOUR can be genetically selected for.  

That means humans are as equally exposed to those selections IF pressures are there.  

The rise of agriculture and food surpluses were the first drop on natural selection followed by several thousand years later by putting evolution into reverse with the welfare state.

The evolution from agriculture is in culture and knowledge, working hard and planning rather than sitting around all week and then hopefully spearing a deer.

IMO, there may well be eventually found to be a planning gene, a hard work gene etc. I'm not being sarcastic, maybe there will be, but there's no evidence as yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This thread compelled me to write a brief poem to explain things to you all.

Ahem...!!!

 

For the umpteenth time I'll state my case.

There's no such thing as fucking race.

 

Tribes.

That's all.

No more, no less...

 

XYY

Edited by The XYY Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Masked Tulip said:

 

Yep, as I was reading it I was imagining myself trying to broach it with some of my luvvie friends and visualising the "OMG - he's a fecking Nazi racist!" look on their faces.

This subject has fascinated me for decades - not just the DNA angle but the whole 'Out of Africa' stuff re Human Evolution and how we got from there to where we are now.

But, boy, it is so politicalised.

As an example, the North American Indian stuff is incredibly politicalised with anyone questioning the established narrative, often promoted by Native American Indians, having the race card shoved at them. It shuts down discussion immediately, so much so that many anthropologists just won't go there anymore.

No one likes to admit that, bearing in mind that North America is a vast area of land and hence there were different varying stages of evolution amongst some of the Native American tribes, that when Europeans first encountered them that most NA tribes were basically stone-age hunter-gatherers. They had not domesticated animals, had no real farming (None really.), had little metal-work, if any, and were effectively living as people in Europe and the Middle East did at least a good 10,000 years earlier.

The Native Americans of North America were no where as near as advanced as the major civilisations of Central and South America were when Columbus arrived - and they were basically thousands of years behind Europeans at that point. 'The noble savage' was basically a myth created by 17th & 18th Century English poets and writers with no basis in any scientific evidence.

Rant over.

 

 

You can possibly discuss it in reverse. If you look at the times of the Black ships (1540) it is astonishing how much more developed China and Japan were than the west. 

Though given my knowledge of this is mainly James Clavell inspired, I may be wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The XYY Man said:

This thread compelled me to write a brief poem to explain things to you all.

Ahem...!!!

 

For the umpteenth time I'll state my case.

There's no such thing as fucking race.

 

Tribes. That's all.

No more, no less...

 

XYY

Well it rhymes well!

There are as the linked article in TMT's OP explains very real differences between races; the difference is not purely "skin deep".

However to accept that, which looks pretty much factual to me, does not then mean that it requires a response. Facts just are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

You can possibly discuss it in reverse. If you look at the times of the Black ships (1540) it is astonishing how much more developed China and Japan were than the west. 

Though given my knowledge of this is mainly James Clavell inspired, I may be wrong!

 

There is a bit of romanticism re those books. However, in terms of farming, animal husbandry China was much more advanced than Europe. It resulted in plentiful food supply which resulted in a massive population surge over Europe whose affects continue to this day. Ditto India. Science / Medicine was more advanced also but this was mainly due to the Dark Ages and religious intolerance of sciences within Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Well it rhymes well!

There are as the linked article in TMT's OP explains very real differences between races; the difference is not purely "skin deep".

However to accept that, which looks pretty much factual to me, does not then mean that it requires a response. Facts just are.

:)

So have these "races" been given proper scientific names in Latin have they then Frank...?

Homo Whiticus...?

Homo Blackyus...?

Homo Slanty-eyedicus....?

Homo Hartlepudlian - oh wait, that one is simply not possible..!

;)

No, they are all called homo sapiens.

And after that - you are simply talking tribes.

Birds of a feather stick together...

 

XYY

Edited by The XYY Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The XYY Man said:

This thread compelled me to write a brief poem to explain things to you all.

Ahem...!!!

 

For the umpteenth time I'll state my case.

There's no such thing as fucking race.

 

Tribes.

That's all.

No more, no less...

 

XYY

:D I get your drift but this particular article is actually worth a few minutes reading. It expressly tries to avoid the kind of extrapolations that will surely emerge on this thread as it progresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Carl Fimble said:

Let me guess.....

The racists are right?

No.

Your question is meaningless.

There are no such things as racists, because we are all of the same race.

There are nice people, and there are cunts.

The ratio of the above - typically 99% to 1% in my experience - may vary slightly, but they are universally true no matter what tribe you belong to.

Let the cunts fight it out among themselves Carl - and engage more with the nice people around you...!

 

Love and peace from County Durham.

XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The XYY Man said:

:)

So have these "races" been given proper scientific names in Latin have they then Frank...?

Homo Whiticus...?

Homo Blackyus...?

Homo Slanty-eyedicus....?

Homo Hartlepudlian - oh wait, that one is simply not possible..!

;)

No, they are all called homo sapiens.

And after that - you are simply talking tribes.

Birds of a feather stick together...

 

XYY

In biology the term race has a very specific meaning - it's somewhere between a strain and a subspecies and is only really used to categorise fungi these days. Even if different ethnicities were divergent enough to be categorised as races of Homo sapiens they wouldn't require separate species names

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, This Time said:

In biology the term race has a very specific meaning - it's somewhere between a strain and a subspecies and is only really used to categorise fungi these days. Even if different ethnicities were divergent enough to be categorised as races of Homo sapiens they wouldn't require separate species names

I agree with you that the term race has a very specific meaning.

In my opinion, as it is currently used, it simply means skin colour.

And religion too - when it suits the argument.

And by its very nature, this will cause people to form tribes.

Race...?

A nonsense word, a nonsense concept, and a nonsense science.

Tribes I tell ye...!!!

 

XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The XYY Man said:

No.

Your question is meaningless.

There are no such things as racists, because we are all of the same race.

There are nice people, and there are cunts.

The ratio of the above - typically 99% to 1% in my experience - may vary slightly, but they are universally true no matter what tribe you belong to.

Let the cunts fight it out among themselves Carl - and engage more with the nice people around you...!

 

Love and peace from County Durham.

XYY

And a rottweiler is the same species as a pug.  But they are not the same BREED.

 

Agreed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.