Rue

Here Lictor are the Professor’s specific responses to your attempt to suggest differences in medical rates of illness in different groups prove biological races exist. "Frequently studies are done that show that there are racial differences in all sorts of diseases. Blacks, for example, have twice the rate of infant mortality in the United States than whites. Native Americans, overall, have higher rates of diabetes. And so the question is, how do you interpret that? First, that may mean to some people - oh, the differences between blacks and whites are really about prenatal nutrition. That's why there are differences in infant mortality. Other individuals may think that that has something to do with medical care. And other individuals may think it has to do with genetics - that there really is something about African-American genes. So until we address that fundamental confusion about what race is, you know, we're going to be open to different actions and interpretations. And clearly, if you think it's genetics, it may lead to one medical intervention or maybe no medical intervention. If you think it's nutritional, it leads to another. If you think it's medical care, it leads to yet another potential medical intervention. "How did sickle cell originate and what does that reveal about the racial world view? Sickle cell is a nice way to think about the difference between a racial world view and a world view in which you look at adaptation, change, adjustment to different environments. To the racial world view, sickle cell was seen as a disease of African-ness, a condition of African-ness, perhaps even a pathology of African-ness. And so to find sickle cell was to find evidence of African-ness by definition. It was typological. If a person from Italy had sickle cell, it must be because they had some African blood - they must be polluted with African blood. And that was the end of the story. If you had sickle cell, you're African; if you're African, you might have sickle cell. And it's a rather pre-Darwinian and perhaps comforting story. But, it's also a very wrong story. The right story - and I think the much more interesting story - emerged in the 1950s. And that was with a couple of discoveries. The first one was a discovery that sickle cell, which is a change in red blood cells that gives it a sickle shape, actually confers an advantage in fighting malaria. An individual who has one sickle cell allele, but not both - what we call sickle cell 'trait' - has a selective advantage in situations in which you have endemic malaria. Individuals who had sickle cell trait seemed to resist malaria better than other individuals. And malaria is, and has been, one of the greatest killers of humanity of all time. If ever there is a selective pressure, malaria is it. And so those individuals might actually survive and prosper, and then the number of subsequent individuals with sickle cell trait would increase in a population because that allele would be selected for. Well, that's one thing. The other thing was to actually take a close look at where malaria actually arose and became endemic and severe. Then also to look at who has sickle cell. Frank Livingston did this, and lo and behold the two maps matched extremely well. Places in which malaria was endemic, and had been endemic for a long time, were exactly the places in which sickle cell was highest. Conversely, places where endemic malaria was rather low were places in which sickle cell was virtually non-existent. He had more than a smoking gun there. He had a nice evolutionary story and a rather tight one about how, perhaps, 5,000 years ago, for instance, in West Africa, endemic malaria became a serious problem when people started cutting down forests in the origins of agriculture. And individuals who had sickle cell were selected for, and it expanded. Sickle cell isn't an African disease. It is true that some Africans have sickle cell, particularly individuals who have ancestry around West Africa. That's one of the highest places of sickle cell. But, it's also true that East Africans hardly have any sickle cell. South Africans don't have any sickle cell. But, it's also a Middle Eastern disease, and it's also a Mediterranean disease. Individuals in Turkey and Greece and Italy, Sicily, have sickle cell; more than individuals do in South Africa, or in East Africa. So, sickle cell is not an African disease; it's a condition that developed in response to malaria. " If the above is confusing to you Lictor, try read one paragraph at a time and take breaks in between.

Lictor this is in specific response to your comments to me. When you came on this board the context for which you used the word “superior” was not enunciated in limited reference to suggesting one identified group’s reported lower rates of disease were preferable to another’s with a higher rate of that same disease. In fact it was and remains referenced to suggesting blacks are less intelligent then whites and uglier in physical appearance. Your words and the context in which you used superiority in regards to comparisons between blacks and whites are there for anyone to see. So your attempt now in response to me to try suggest you only meant to refer to superiority in a limited context is about as subtle as an elephant with an erection As you now would have me believe you are confused, i.e., “huh Rue come again”, just for you and to show I care, I have obtained for you the words of Alan Goodman, Professor of Biological Anthropology at Hampshire College who is co-editor of Genetic Nature/Cultural Anthropology and Science Beyond the Cultural Divide and Building a New Bio-Cultural Synthesis and whose words I quote can be found at the following web-site: http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-b...round-01-07.htm. In this post I will provide excerpts that specifically repudiate your attempt to suggest race is a biological entity. In the next post, I will provide excerpts that specifically repudiate your attempt to suggest high or lower medical rates of illness in certain groups proves biological race. In my third post I will provide his excepts that specifically repudiate your suggestions "blacks" are less intelligent than "whites". I will also state this Lictor. Your previous attempt to simply label any view you do not agree with as “sociological” and therefore invalid is nonsensical. First off you did not provide a definition of “sociological”. Therefore that lends to the appearance it is something you fabricated as a device to assign a negative label to anything you disagree with and then to be used to dismiss anything you disagree with, without having to provide a rational basis for your rejection other than to call it “sociological”. No Lictor, you don’t get to fabricate subjective negative lables and get to throw them out to summarily dismiss anyone’s words that you do not agree with-all that does Lictor is show you are unable to respond with an objective basis to establish your grounds for repudiation-that exercise is I would mention about as subtle as Paris Hilton’s cold sores that break out on her mouth. “To understand why the idea of race is a biological myth requires a major paradigm shift - an absolutely paradigm shift, a shift in perspective. And for me, it's like seeing what it must have been like to understand that the world isn't flat. The world looks flat to our eyes. And perhaps I can invite you to a mountaintop or to a plain, and you can look out the window at the horizon, and see, "Oh, what I thought was flat I can see a curve in now." And that race is not based on biology, but race is rather an idea that we ascribe to biology. That's quite shocking to a lot of individuals. When you look and you think you see race, to be told that no, you don't see race, you just think you see race, you know, it's based on your cultural lens - that's extremely challenging. “ “Scientists have actually been saying for quite a while that race, as biology, doesn't exist - that there's no biological basis for race. And that is in the facts of biology, the facts of non-concordance, the facts of continuous variation, the recentness of our evolution, the way that we all commingle and come together, how genes flow, and perhaps especially in the fact that most variation occurs within race versus between races or among races, suggesting that there's no generalizability to race. There is no center there; there is no there there in the center. It's fluid. » “But think about race and its universality or lack thereof. Where is your measurement device? There is no way to measure race first. We sometimes do it by skin color. Other people may do it by hair texture. Other people may have the dividing lines different in terms of skin color. What's black in the United States is not what's black in Brazil or what's black in South Africa. What was black in 1940 is different from what is black in 2000. Certainly, with the evolution of whiteness, what was white in 1920 - as a Jew I was not white then, but I'm white now, so white has changed tremendously.” “For race to have meaning, for race to be more than skin-deep, for race to be more than a typology, one has to have concordance. In other words, skin color needs to reflect things that are deeper in the body, under the skin. But, in fact, human variation is rather non-concordant. I'll give you an example of concordance. Height is actually quite concordant with weight. As we get taller, we gain weight, we have more weight. One aspect of size is concordant with another aspect of size. But most of human variation is non-concordant. Skin color or eye color or hair color is not correlated with height or weight. And they're definitely not correlated with more complex traits like intelligence or athletic performance. Those things evolve and develop in entirely different ways. Just as skin color develops in a different way from size, intelligence, athletic performance, other traits develop in different and independent ways. A map of skin color gradients looks sort of like the map of temperature. It gets lighter, as you go towards the poles and it's darker near the equator. But then take a map of, say, the distribution of blood type A. Looks entirely different. There's no relationship between the two maps. The distributions are non-concordant. Simply, one is not related to the other. When we adopt a racial view, we have to see concordance. And perhaps if we don't see it, we make it up. Because if there's no concordance, there is no race. So, racist scientists, for example, have to see a concordance between skin color and IQ, otherwise there's no meaning there, there is no there there. There's nothing under the skin. Race stops at the color of your skin.” “Richard Lewontin did an amazing piece of work which he published in 1972, in a famous article called "The Apportionment of Human Variation." Literally what he tried to do was see how much genetic variation showed up at three different levels. One level was the variation that showed up among or between purported races. And the conventional idea is that quite a bit of variation would show up at that level. And then he also explored two other levels at the same time. How much variation occurred within a race, but between or among sub-groups within that purported race. So, for instance, in Europe, how much variation would there be between the Germans, the Finns and the Spanish? Or how much variation could we call local variation, occurring within an ethnicity such as the Navaho or Hopi or the Chatua. And the amazing result was that, on average, about 85% of the variation occurred within any given group. The vast majority of that variation was found at a local level. In fact, groups like the Finns are not homogeneous - they actually contain, I guess one could literally say, 85% of the genetic diversity of the world. Secondly, of that remaining 15%, about half of that, seven and a half percent or so, was found to be still within the continent, but just between local populations; between the Germans and the Finns and the Spanish. So, now we're over 90%, something like 93% of variation actually occurs within any given continental group. And only about 6-7% of that variation occurs between "races," leaving one to say that race actually explains very little of human variation.” ‘The idea of race, of course, assumes that there are set boundaries between the races, but we know that to be untrue. You know, there's no racial boundary that's ever been found. Any trait that one looks at, one tends to see gradual variation from one group to another. The facts of human variation are that it's continuous, it's not lumped into three or four or five racial groups.’

To respond directly to your last comment Lictor, No the fact medical studies might conclude for example, that people with darker skin are less likely to get skin cancer, or that for some reason, young girls with blonde hair and blue eyes from Northern climates,i.e., Scandinavia seem to have higher than usual rates of juvenile arthritis, etc., does not suggest superiority or inferiority or biological distinction by race type. When a scientist talks of strength or weakness in an inherited trait they do not do so to suggest superiority as you do. We are in fact both creatures born with genetic traits and predispositions and we are creatures who adapt and acquire traits and characteristics as we grow. The line between what we are born with and is destined to come out and what we learn to develop, i.e., nature v. nurture is impossible to define absolutely. If science has proven anything it is that everything we define depends on the variables we work with. Trying to arbitrarily draw a line which is what you do when you create the construct of a black and white raceand mix and match the wrong genetic theories to try prove your theory is illogical. The feeling that leads you to comment a black child looks like an ape is not based on scientific methodology.

If I knew he was a teenager I would have sicked Serena Williams on him.

Thank you but the only difference between us is I was born yacking and could never shut up. Lol.

Wrong. The reference to most medical geneticists was not ever referenced to only Liberman and your attempt to suggest Liberman is the only geneticist that has ever stated that skin colour and race identifying features poorly coorelate with genetic variations is a deliberate misrepresentation of what this article stated. Your sudden epiphany that skin colour does not connotate race is heart warming Lictor but it is precisely the kind of ccharacteristic you use to define race. The point of mentioning the above article was to repudiate your contention race is defined by skin colour and physical features-quoting the very article to suddenly suggest you never contended skin colour or physical features connotates race is amusing-you use the very article that repudiates your racist contentions as now suddenly being what you agree with? This coming from a man who refers to black children as apes? Right. Lol. You then tell me to beware of academic fraudulence? In your case its not academic fraudulence, but I would suggest simply you once again denying what you contended and pretending you never contended it. Your words Lictor, are left behind for anyone to read. Pretending you have never suggested in your posts that race is defined by skin colour or nose shape or hair texture is hilarious. Your entire thesis is based on your subjective perceptions of blacks and whites. You have yet to provide one scientific standard to establish the race you define as "black" is in fact anything but your own subjectively created construct. I particularily enjoyed your lecture on how certain people with darker skin are not "blacks". It once again proves your use of subjective categorization to define the black race. All the references you used when trying to misrepresent the above article to suggest you have contended all along that skin colour does not define race were subjective constructs. Not one was based on a theory any geneticist has stated. This is why you will not provide any scientific studies to base your contentions and why you are left to repudiating he articles I provided with subjective name calling-i.e., that they are "sociological" as if that establishes a basis for criticism. At best Lictor you have responded by calling the authors of the reports I provided "sociological"-a subjective name. You may as well have simply responded they were poo heads in one short sentence. It would have saved us all a lot of space.

He never suggested blacks were superior to whites. He suggested blacks are genetically better suited to a variety of survival conditions, i.e., malaria. Nice try misquoting him and trying to engage in subjective name calling to smeer his reputation without addressing what he in fact stated.

Damn I understood that. Lol.

Now its interesting Lictor because you came on this thread to: 1-argue there is such a thing as race defined by biology; 2-that blacks are inferior to whites in intelligence. You then attempted to make a biological argument to define race which was shot down. You even made a point to suggest it was unfair to suggest you were suggesting 1 and 2 above. Now you suddenly switch topics unable to provide any scientific prove for the basis of biologically based race to the following and I quote from your own words: "All of you completely FAIL in this debate because you barely dispute my central thesis: the descriptive idea that whites are discriminated against as second class citizens and that humans are naturally racists AND the normative idea that they ought to be able to go their own way. Instead, you spend your time disputing the idea that other races are inferior. That I may or may not think that is not essential to my argument. It's totally superfluous." The above establishes clearly you have now abandon the pretense of suggesting their is scientific proof that races can be defined by biological characteristics and now you engage in subjective social constructs or as you now call them "descriptive ideas". You now share the "descriptive" idea that "whites are discriminated against as second class citizens". You of course provide no objective basis for the above subjective perception you have. You expect "all of you" to simply accept such an unsubstantiated subjective assumption as a given. Then you go on to state "humans are naturally racist". Again you provide no objective basis for this second subjective perception of yours. Then you state the argument you made that blacks are of less intelligence is now suddenly off the table, i.e., "That I may or may not think (blacks are inferior to whites)that, is not essential to my argument". Well hear me loud and clear. Central to your thesis and in fact the essence of your thesis was and remains that blacks are inferior to whites. Your attempt now to try suddenly switch the focus away from the fact you have failed to establish blacks are inferior to whites to the above subjective perceptions, fools no one. All it shows in fact is you are now trying to be switch the focus but Lictor do you really think "all of you" will let you off that easy? Think you can tap dance your way out of this one? No, no, no. I am not finished stomping on your tap dancing feet. Now Lictor, now that you have failed to provide a biological basis for race and have proven you did not understand the difference between hereditary selection and/or genetics and or how and why certain traits can be inherited and how that inheritance does not establish race but simply a pattern of development and now that you have shown you don't know what clusters are and why your attempt to suggest tracking rates of diseases in certain peoples does not establish a biological race-lets deal with your subjective allegations as to white people being discriminated against and all humans being racist as a norm. In regards to your subjective perception that whites are being discriminated against, it is just thata subjective assumption you make. It is not based on anything objective-simply your feelings and perceptions. It is not up to me to disprove it. You contend it, you prove it. No you don't just whip out an allegation and then claim it must be assumed to be true unless anyone can prove it wrong. As you would say, nice try. No this is not about you feeling entitled, i.e., believing everything you say is truth. It is about establishing the basis of your thesis with objective corroborated evidence. Either put up or shut up. Do show "all of you" the basis for your sweeping accusation that whites are being discriminated against. In regards to all humans being racist, while I would personally agree that all of us have biases and discriminate because the human mind arbitrarily generalizes as part of its cognitive processes to organize that which it takes in, I would also suggest some of us are a tad more flexible with our generalizations then you are, i.e., more willing to understand that these generalizations are not absolutes, and because they are generalizations are necessarily imperfect or defective. However all of that Lictor is subjective. Anyone can come on this forum and scream out-life has been unfair to me. Whether it has been unfair to you because you have pale skin or simply because you have been rude to people or are ugly, fat, have body odour, bad breath, criminal tendencies, or are a genius ahead of your time misunderstood by the masses-is all subjective. Sorry Lictor, life is such, that we do not define truth by how you feel, unfair as that may seem to you.

Oh look we are sharing liberal tendencies. Well just so you know I hate all humans. I prefer animals, in particular, dogs, cats, horses, whales, moose, deer, wolves, birds, particularly ospreys, snowy owls, blue herons and vultures, badgers, wolverines, weasels, foxes, bats, guerillas and dolphins, whales and manitees (sea cows). Now get off my lawn before I shoot you*. *I believe in gun control, I will only use a water hose

Firstly if it can be shown a person hates "white" people simply because they are "white" then there would be no difference then if it could be shown a person hates "blacks" simply because they are black, or "gays" simply because they are gays or "Jews" simply because they are Jews, or "women" simply because they are women or conservatives simply because they are conservative. The group targetted is not relevant but what is relevant is: 1-the exercise of engaging and imposing negative generalizations, characteristics and motives onto an entire group of people; 2-the engaging in the above to incite hatred, intolerance,discriminatory treatment against the targetted group. In your case people criticize you because you engage in 1 or 2. The group you target is incidental to why people challenge you. Secondly, if in fact someone else engages in the same exercises delineated in 1 and 2 as you do, they would be criticized for the same thing. The fact that someone else was also engaging in what you do above in 1 and 2 would not make it right. The fact that many might join a mob with you to burn a cross doesn't make them any more credible. While Tango or Charter do not need my defence perhaps you would care to share the words you accuse them of using that indicates they are racist towards caucasians. I would be curious to know. I do not speak for either but I am not aware of either engaging in the kinds of references you have. I know Charter has been sarcastic* in some responses to some comments like all of us but hateful? Lol. We all have. I am a little surprised about your comments about Tango. He may be a dirty commie** but I would love to know how you arrived at the conclusion he was a racist. *I was being sarcastic saying this **I was being sarcastic saying this-of course he showers every day

Lol. All this time I thought it was only my wife I had irrational fear of.

Finally Lictor here is an essay directly repudiating your use of the concept of genetic clusters in medical treatments to suggest they prove distinct races. source: http://stanford.edu/~joelv/teaching/167/lo...ng%20humans.pdf It states among other things: "Interestingly, most medical geneticists and pharmacogeneticists concede that skin colour and other race-identifying features poorly correlate with the genetic variations that shape the risk of disease and the treatment response." "Needless to say, concepts concerning clusters within Homo sapiens evoke a higher attention than those regarding other species, such as Canis familiaris, Melleagris gallopavo, or Felis catus. Centuries of irrational prejudices on how to cluster humans on the basis of skin colours, anthropometrical sizes, and other phenotypic traits have lead the discussion down a slippery road where either vacuous and ideological political correctness or still existing prejudices oblige us to be particularly careful." "But is it possible to face the problem of the human clusters without falling into vacuous and ideological political correctness or irrational prejudices? We think it is. We think also that it is necessary because before clustering something, we should know what a cluster is both from a methodological and from an epistemological point of view." "...determining boundaries and clusters is a methodologically and epistemologically complex procedure involving not only one property, but at least three properties: 1) the property according to which the MC is fixed (the main property); 2) the property according to which the MC is investigated (the investigating property), which sometimes is only hypothesized; 3) the property used heuristically to attribute a significance to the cluster (the catalyzing property)." "...Since the clustering process is property dependent, and the properties are chosen by the geneticist-observer, this process is geneticistobserver dependent. It naturally follows that even the resulting clusters are geneticist-observer dependent. Therefore, varieties, or races, or whatever you like to call these groups, are strictly tied to the way in which we draw boundaries and build clusters on the basis of properties, or correlation of properties." ".....problems arise when clusters are used in a way that obscures or hides the properties by means of which they have been drawn, thereby obscuring or hiding their epistemological status and the methodological steps that have led to them. As a consequence clusters could be wrongly reified, that is, a misleading ontological significance could be attributed to them, in this way supporting an unsafe and extremely perilous racist ideology." "..we need boundaries, since we need clusters both to achieve group-oriented diagnostics and therapeutics, and to grasp the evolution of Homo sapiens. Of course these clusters must be named in some way." Bottom line, its not the word "race" per se I challenge but the method in which Lictor uses it to define the clusters he thinks he has defined. He can call his cluster anything he wants-I will still question its accuracy and credibility if it misrepresents the ontological significance of the differentiations he refers to.

Oh Lictor here is article entitled: Why Genes Don't Count For Racial Differences In Health. Knock yourself out: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/90/11/1699.pdf

Here lictor is a direct rebuttal to your attempt to suggest BiDil is a race specific drug: (source:http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Graves/) "The new drug BiDil has been hailed as a racial pill.16 It reduced the death rate from congestive heart failure in African Americans 43% compared to those given a placebo. BiDil is a combination of a nitric oxide donor isosorbide dinitrate and the anti-oxidant hydrazaline, which also acts as a vasodilator. Nitric oxide is a gas that plays a role in a variety of neurally mediated events including regulating heart processes, programmed cell death, as an anti-microbial agent, and even assisting penile erection in men. Anti-oxidants protect cells against oxidative damage that result from normal cellular respiration and poisons that accumulate over time. In addition, it has been recently shown that oxidative damage to human cells can be heightened by periods of prolonged stress.17 The African American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT) trial was motivated by studies showing that people self-identified as “black” had lower levels of available nitric oxide and greater amounts of oxidative stress than those self-identified as “white.”18 Actually, these results do not indicate that BiDil is a “racial” pill. What we know about the mechanism supports that assertion. Nitric oxide is synthesized by individual cells and this is catalyzed by an enzyme known as endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS). Genetic variation at position G894T in this enzyme influences arterial stiffness (after controlling for sex, age, body mass index, insulin, heart rate, and mean arterial pressure).19 African Americans that had the T allele had less elasticity than those with the G allele. European Americans showed no significant difference between T and G, but the trend was similar. However, they also found that the frequency of T was 0.131 in African Americans v. 0.321 in European Americans, respectively. This of course means, if all other factors were equal, that more “whites” should have less elastic arterioles than “blacks.” If so, BiDil should help whites more than blacks, yet present data do not support this, meaning that other factors must be at play."

http://www.csub.edu/~ctate/Tate&Audette2001.pdf Then provide the argument to me why race should NOT be studied as a purely cognitive concept that influences social perception by showing me where the above writer is wrong.

Then do provide your scientific arguments to contradict this Lictor: http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Goodman/

Knock yourself out Lictor proving the following discussing erroneous I can't wait: source: http://www.drpeterjdadamo.com/wiki/wiki.pl...nomic_construct Discussion Most anthropologists recognize that race is a social concept, not a biological one. That is, it stigmatizes some individuals as different and reinforces the privileges of others. There is no evidence that there are large groups of biologically distinct human beings (i.e. subspecies) that correspond to what people refer to when they talk about "race." Furthermore, to base any kind of biological category on a single physical characteristic, such as skin color (which, in itself is incredibly varied and determined by multiple genes), is clearly nonsense. At the beginning of the 20th century, anthropologists questioned, and subsequently abandoned, the claim that biologically distinct races are isomorphic with (related to) distinct linguistic, cultural, and social groups. Then, the rise of population genetics led some mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon. Those who came to reject the validity of the concept, race, did so for four reasons: empirical, definitional, the availability of alternative concepts, and ethical (Lieberman and Byrne 1993). The validity of human races is a subject of much debate. The American Anthropological Association, drawing on biological research, states that "The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically," and that, "It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of 'race' has no validity . . . in the human species." The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were anthropologists Franz Boas, who demonstrated phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors (Boas 1912) and Ashley Montagu (1941, 1942), who relied on evidence from genetics. Zoologists Edward O. Wilson and W. Brown then challenged the concept from the perspective of general systematics, and further rejected the claim that "races" were equivalent to "subspecies" (Wilson and Brown 1953). Claude Lévi-Strauss's Race and History (UNESCO, 1952) enforced this cultural relativist thesis, by the famous metaphor of cultures as trains crossing each other in different directions, thus each one seeing the others as immobile while they themselves are progressing. One of the crucial innovations in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as they are affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations called "clines" . This point called attention to a problem common to phenotypic-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and difference (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion that, since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279). In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly—for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964). As anthropologists Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda Jackson observe, "Discordant patterns of heterogeneity falsify any description of a population as if it were genotypically or even phenotypically homogeneous" (Lieverman and Jackson 1995). Finally, geneticist Richard Lewontin, observing that 85 percent of human variation occurs within populations, and not between populations, argued that neither "race" nor "subspecies" was an appropriate or useful way to describe populations (Lewontin 1973). This view is described by its opponents as Lewontin's Fallacy. Some researchers report the variation between racial groups (measured by Sewall Wright's population structure statistic FST) accounts for as little as 5% of human genetic variation2. However, because of technical limitations of FST, many geneticists now believe that low FST values do not invalidate the suggestion that there might be different human races (Edwards, 2003). Meanwhile, neo-Marxists such as David Harvey (1982, 1984, 1992) believe that race is a social construct that in reality does not exist, used instead to extenuate class differences. These empirical challenges to the concept of race forced evolutionary sciences to reconsider their definition of race. Mid-century, anthropologist William Boyd defined race as: "A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses. It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant "constellation" (Boyd 1950). In the face of these issues, some evolutionary scientists have simply abandoned the concept of race in favor of "population." What distinguishes population from previous groupings of humans by race is that it refers to a breeding population (essential to genetic calculations) and not to a biological taxon. Other evolutionary scientists have abandoned the concept of race in favor of cline? (meaning, how the frequency of a trait changes along a geographic gradient). The concepts of population and cline are not, however, mutually exclusive and both are used by many evolutionary scientists. Lewontin's Fallacy Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy is an academic paper published in 2003 by A.W.F. Edwards that attacks the conclusion of Richard Lewontin that race is an invalid taxonomic construct. Lewontin, in a 1972 paper, 'The apportionment of human diversity' and again in a 1974 book, The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, argues that because the probability of racial misclassification of an individual based on variation in a single genetic locus is approximately 30% that race is an invalid taxonomic construct. Edwards argues that when one takes into account more loci, the probability of racial misclassification rapidly approaches 0%. Edwards argues that the information which distinguishes races is "hidden in the correlation structure of the data." Edwards argues that both ordination and cluster analyses can reveal the correlation structure of multilocus data. A caricature of Lewontin's argument is that because humans share 50% of their DNA with carrots, we must be 50% the same Links American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" Race, The Power of Illusion -PBS

Lictor you stated to me in your defence that: "I'm asserting that different races have different genes... and that these have real effects and meanings IN REAL LIFE." Yes and I provided just some articles that clearly suggest that races are a social construct not a biological one, that they do not have sufficient genetic differenation to suggest one race is distinct from another but in fact the exact opposite. I then asserted that not only is race as a biological distinction absurd, but that your attempt to suggest you can suggest one race is more intelligent then another is equally as absurd and what you call "real" is simply your subjective feelings, i.e., something is "real" if it conforms to your subjective assumption. You stated: "I brought up the drug BiDil to illustrate how medicine often has to be RACE SPECIFIC in order to have effective treatment!" Your example is erroneous for two reasons. One- it is not race specific because it treats sickle cell anemia in black people or Tay Sachs in Ashkenazi Jews or juvenile arthritis in blue eyed, blonde haired girls of Scandinavian or Northern European ancestry. While it does note how for example, black men are prone to high blood pressure and high cholesterol or the above groups I mentioned to the diseases I mentioned, it does not make them race specific. The genetic factors noted are not race specific and once again you reflect your ignorance of tracking genetic predisposition in population patterns to suggesting they are specific to one race but not another. What patent nonsense. The fact that black men have high rates of high blood pressure does not mean equal amounts of whites suffer from the same infliction. What an absurd thing to state that if blacks were not a distinct race no one could be able to treat their high blood pressure. Not only is your example nonsensical and an insult to what geneticists and pharmacologists do and research but it displays how you see what you want to see. You start off assuming there is a race difference and so you think specific higher rates in people of certain ancestries is race specific when the common ancestral link is not race specific but based on other genetic patterns that have nothing to do with race as you construct it. As I also stated for you to suggest the same genetic tracking that finds high rates of blood pressure in black men is the same manner in which intelligence in blacks can be defined is equally as nonsensical. You stated: " How you jump to that to suggest that by saying that blacks have different ways of responding to heart disease treatment that i'm ACTUALLY saying blacks are inferior intellectually is simply evidence of your emotional unreason towards this subject..." I did not say blacks have different ways of responding to heart disease. I said and I say it again, I used blacks as an example to state, it can be said black men have higher rates of high blood pressure. The fact that this pattern emerges does not prove blacks are a distinct race as you construct it or they all respond the same way to heart disease. You misquoted what I actually stated and the reason I used the example-you misquoted because once again you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear and that is if I say blacks are reported in medical journals to have higher rates of blood pressure it must mean they are a distinct race. No that is not how genetics works. No that is not how tracking rates of inherited diseases work and until you make an effort to find out why, your comments to me are irrelevant to the actual context in which they are properly used. Now your sudden attempt to suggest you are not on this board to suggest blacks are inferior intellectually and claim it is an "emotional unreason" to the subject is a good one. You came on this board to refer to black children as monkeys not me. Do you deny you are a white supremacist whose agenda is to come on this board and denigrate black people? Don't play the role of intellectual with me. You are no Argus. Don't think you can jump into his threads and think you have found a way to insult black people and pretext it as intellectual discourse with me. I don't buy it. If you think I display "emotional unreason" towards your comments, then let me confirm I do. You want to call black children monkeys don't come on this board and attempt to play intellectual with me. I will take the cross you want to burn on my lawn and place it somewhere a geneticist would not study but a proctologist would. You want to take on the role of intellect, go on provide a study that proves blacks are less intelligent then whites. I am still waiting. You stated: " Look at how you lash out in temper tantrums and crazy assumptions! " Yes imagine the audacity of mycalling you out for being a racist and engaging in racial insults against black people by referring to black children as apes. You stated: ".... races... are CLUSTERS OF GENES..." No they are not. The above reflects the comment of someone who can not understand what genes are a reflection of but makes assumptions they cluster let alone when they cluster they form a race. You stated: "..my comments said nothing about the superiority or INFERIORITY of any race..." Play dumb with someone else. Anyone can read back the words you have used including the words that insult black people's physical characteristics. You stated: "In fact by you're logic, one could say that I'm an asian supremacist... since I routinely show data which puts asians at the apogee of IQ and intelligence... so you're assertion not only false but irrelevant." No in fact your comment is illogical. If you routinely show data to claim Asians are a distinct genetic race, I would say you are equally as erroneous as your suggesting blacks or whites are. I would also suggest the statistics you refer to as to i.q. levels are not conclusive and the very nature in which they are determined show they do not prove races are distinct but that the constructs used to define which group's i.q. rate to study as predicated on a subjective assumption not biological one and you would know that had you read the studies. You would also know that the determination of i.q. level is not accurate between different groups particularly because of cultural differences not accounted for in the tests used. I would also call you a racist if you started making fun of the physical characteristics of Asians and suggested their babies look like apes. You stated: :SUPERIOR or INFERIOR... is not what's at issue here... " That is precisely your issue. I am calling you out as a white supremacist with the specific agenda of advising the proposition that blacks are inferior to whites. Do you deny that is what you believe and that you are not a white supremacist? Go on-answer. You want to talk around it in circles? You think your couching what you are doing changes what you are doing? You stated and I have no idea what you meant when you stated your true agenda.. "..is whether we are different genetically as human clines (which EVEN YOUR sources would concede)". What I have stated and provided references for repeatedly is that no what you assume is a genetic difference between races is not and never was . What I have stated is that what aou think is a genetic predisposition for skin colour, hair texture, and that such differences are real, in biological terms are NOT and are irrelevant to determining the genetic commonality between humans. What I have stated is you engage in a subjective assumption that because someone has darker skin colour it makes them different. It may make them different to you because you have been brought up to see skin colour as a subjective construct and assign negative assumptions to dark skin colour but to a geneticist the pigment in skin does not create a distinction between races or even prove a race. Humans are the same species. Race is something you desire to create to justify assuming blacks are different then you. No more, no less. Go on provide one study that proves one's eye colour, hair texture, skin colour, nose shape, defines a distinct race. Go on. I can't wait.

I never said he did. Read what I wrote in response to you. I was giving my own example. Your assumption I claimed he talked about sickle cell anemia is just that.

I am still waiting to have him define what he means by "Liberal". One might assume he does not mean it in the sense you use it, i.e., do describe supporters of the above two political parties. If we follow Hannibal Lictor's stereotype it is a rich white person who lives in a white neighbourhood (as opposed to a poor white person who lives in a white neighbourhood). I have assumed Mr. Canada was using the word to suggest anyone who is white and has no problem living and co-existing with non white people. Now in my case I though I was liberal because I do suffer from waves of guilt. But then that may be because I am Jewish and Italian people tell me their mothers and chuirch do the same thing to them so then I thought no wait, we Jews and Italians are assumed to be Liberals because we were more likely with most immigrants to vote Liberal although that of course has changed over the years as the COnservative party under Mulroney switched from elite WASP to more of a rural v.s. urban vote and deliberately cultivated ethnic andFrench votes which Harper seems to be doing a good job of alienating. Then I said hmmm, maybe by Liberal he means intellect-you know people with corderoy jackets and patche son their elbows and teach or are journalists, social workers, or things with the term ologist in it. Then I said, no not all Liberals are proctologists so I thought, maybe he means people who have sex outside their race but then I said, nah, Mr. Canada surely must know even redknecks think Halle Berry is hot. So you tell me. When you figure out what Liberal means to tell me.

The above is about as absurd a stereotype as suggesting you live in a trailer park, have tatoos, bad teeth, are white, unemployed, unshaven, and resent anyone who has things you do not have.

I will respond to some of Hamibal Lictor's comments I have placed in quotation marks: "Most of these sources approach the subject (which is necessarily SCIENTIFIC) in a very amateur or innapropriate manner..." I am sure they would be pleased to take that into consideration coming from someone who is so professional and appropriate, i.e, no doubt you have the appropriate academic designations and your referring to black children as apes was scientifically professional not to mention appropriate...or the the kettle calling his pot white. YOu stated Graves PRESUMES that racism is some sort of sin... and that race is therefore not real and from that he bases his opinion on many social superstitions...." No you misrepresent what he actually stated. Read it again. He stated race as in the construct you use is a social one not a biological one. The rest you subjectively inferred. Your criticism also is rendered meaningless by this subjective reference; "First, noting only the nuttier notions about race 400 years ago, he disengenuously provides a clumsy example involving greater genetic variation between chimpanzees." What the above demonstrates is you do not counter his comments with scientific facts to repudiate his contentions, you simply engage in subjective name calling with no basis for your opinion. That evidences what all of us can see in your comments-you have nothing to base your comments other then your own subjective assumptions. You stated: "Graves also says that the typical European and African share 99.61 % of their genes in common. Genetic effects tend to be nonlinear; even minute genetic differences can bear large phenotypic consequences. Chimpanzees and humans, for example, have 98.9 to 99.3 percent of their genes in common. " Interestingly you did not provide any scientific studies to repudiate the above why is that? Isn't that the pith and substance of the point he is making and you claim is not true? Why did you not provide scientific evidence to prove the above wrong? Instead you state this: "But one cannot reason a priori that an absolute difference of 0.39 percent is too small to support genetic divergence in IQ." Again you provide no scientific methodology to explain why a less then.55 difference is too small. You simply repudiate it. Then you use this reference: "The American Society for Cell Biology revealed their discovery that the prostate tumour found in black men have more than 20 times the level of a certain cancer-promoting substance as the tumours found in white men." What does this have to do with intelligence? Wait don't tell me, in you believe your testacles are your brains. You then state: "Then there are BiDil and other race specific medicines ... which graves of course ignores outright (because it would obliterate his point).. " No he did not ignore them. Like the substance in tumours of high blood pressure or cholesterol or sickle cell anemia genetic predisposition in blacks, none have anything to do with intelligence. They weren't ignored, they are not germaine to the subject. You then state: "In essence Graves adopts the attitude of a cowardly scientist, being careful to misrepresent the case for racial differences... His book therefore is less then worthless... and anything this man says is suspect... " The above once again is meaningless. You basically name call the author because you do not agree with him. How do you know he is cowardly? Clearly your assumption as to his moral values and level of courage is fabricated-it is a subjective assumption you fabricate. What information did he misrepresent. In fact if one reads your actual criticism you accuse him of omission of unfavourable evidence-so in fact if anything he did not mislead, he did not state facts falsely but you would have us believe he deliberately witheld information-your basis-he did not raise issues that have nothing to do with intelligence. More to the point you fail to understand that the issue of having a predisposition in certain people is not because of race, i.e., their skin colour or hair texture-that one sailed right over your head. As I said earlier Hannibal Lictor you can not understand what it is he stated so you make assumptions as to what he stated. The fact that there may be agenetic predisposition in a group of people does not make that people a race as you define it or a race at all-just a group of people who share a certain set of genetic codes in their dna-any genius can f figure out for example that the fact that black people have high levels of blood pressure does not make them a distinct race-using your theory then all white people with a genetic predisposition to high blood pressure are blacks. You stated: "Most of the "race doesn't exist camp" try to attack the archaic definition of "pure race." Now that's funny coming from a white supremacist and who claims he is a white man more intelligent then a black man. Tell me are you claiming you are not of a pure race? This I want to hear. Here is my favourite comment though: .. most of the speudo intellectuals that claim to attack the concept of race ... argue against old and etiolated notions of purity and other sophisticated pollameré. the arguments of most of your posts Rue are perhaps valid and interesting for 1895. " No Hannibal Lictor, in fact if you read the references they in fact deal with modern race notions from white supremacists such as yourself claiming white people are more intelligent then black people. The debate as to blacks being less intelligent that these authors address in fact arose in the early 1960's as a direct response to the civil rights movement and the move to de-segregate schools. You stated: "You can see the bias written all over the fake talk of the reality of races... " Right. Once again you engage in subjective name calling which in fact evidences your subjective bias and the fact that when someone doesn't agree with your view on the definition of race, they must be fake as only your version is the true one. You then evidence your bias by explaining how you engage in subjective stereotyping and negative assumotions as to what people mean without listrening to the context of their words as you say... "as soon as you hear words such as "racism" "class warfare" "the underprivileged" "hitler" "nazi" or the like..." That is the point Hannibal Lictor. You label and stereotype and assume. Youd on't engage in reason-you engage in classic bigotry-you assume you know-and the above shows how you label people with negative assumptions to justify not listening to them or acknowledging what they have to say. What the above evidences is ignorance, i.e., that you close your mind to any concept other then the ones you feel suit you. An ignorant mind is measured by its lack of flexability and ability to see more then one possibility-not its actual opinion. An ignorant mind is measured not by the opinion it has but the lack of objective methodology it uses to arrive at that opinion. An amateur as you call it, is someone who thinks he knows and so does not take the time to aquire the proper academic training to begin to even attempt to discuss the subject he professes. An ignorant mind is one that lacks humility and speaks in tones as if its author is the only one who possesses truth and confuses his subjective assumptions with objectively proven facts. You stated: " you know that these are only used to cloud reason and to excite the glands of..." Yes I know. I know you engage in what you do to incite anger, hatred and resentment of black people and excite your glands. Your attempt to create a new scapegoat, "the Liberal" who you then engage in negative stereotyping about is noted, i.e., this statement: "liberals who have Political Correctness as a religion and use scholarship to go against the purpose of scholarship". Now that is interesting considering you do not engage in any reference to any scientific studies or statistics as the basis for your opinons. In fact what you project on this mythical stereotype you now call the Liberal is exactly what you do-you use the myth of race and racial superiority as a religion-you don't base the myth on anything but subjective perceptions and what you stated above is a classic example is someone who uses his muth building or his faith beliefs to reject scientific studies-you in fact create the religion of white supremacism complete with uniform, dogma, ceremonies, references to the good (whites) and the infidel (non whites). Do y ou deny engaging in white supremacist meetings replete with ceremonies? Come back when you have some objective scientific studies to repudiate the above and here is a hint, try something that is in fact related to intelligence not athlete's foot or hemmeroids.

Firstly, none of the references I provided were from Marxists. Even if they were it would not in itself mean they are lacking in credibility. Unlike you, some of us define credibility on the contents of one's comments not on labels. Secondly, you will have to expand on what you mean by "sociological" as an adjective, and why an author if "sociological" would automatically lack credibility. Thirdly, there is no such adjective is sociological. Fourthly the 1995 task force report you quote has been updated and made obsolete and that is why I did not mention it but anyone can read it to see why it is and why it is not germaine to your contention that blacks ar einferior in intelligence then whites. Fifthly the references I provided did in fact repudiate the previous studies where persons such as Philip Rushton tried to suggest brain size in whites made them superior in intelligence to the brain size in blacks. All such studies have been repudiated by the very association you ask people to refer to when you raise an obsolete report. You are over your head. Go back to Stormfront. This forum in fact has people who can read and write and do take the time to do both.