 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / February 2005Barcoding DAFNz
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=7586011&type=worldNews ************** exZZZZZZZZZerpt *********** Genetic barcodes will identify world's species Wed Feb 9, 2005 LONDON (Reuters) - A team of international scientists launched an ambitious project on Thursday to genetically identify, or provide a barcode for, every plant and *ANIMAL* species on the planet. By taking a snippet of DNA from all the known species on Earth and linking them to photographs, descriptions and scientific information, the researchers plan to build the largest database of its kind. "We have discovered that it is quite possible to have a short DNA sequence that can characterise just about every form of life on the planet," Dr Richard Lane, director of science at the Natural History Museum in London, told a news conference. Less than a fifth of the Earth's estimated 10 million species of plants and animals have been named. Researchers working on the Barcode of Life Initiative hope that genetically identifying all of them in a standardised way on a global scale will speed up the discovery of new ones. Current techniques used to identify minute differences between species are complicated, time consuming and require specialist knowledge. ***************************************** The *TRUTH* will not be denied... >http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=7586011&type=worldNews > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >them to photographs, descriptions and scientific information, the >researchers plan to build the largest database of its kind. Another case where MMD shows zero reading comprehension. Homo sapiens is a single species, and this project therefore has nothing to do with distinguishing among the "races" of humans, though it might provide snippets of the two chimpanzee species which might or might not be reclassified into genus homo. lojbab  Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org > >http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=7586011&type=worldNews > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > snippets of the two chimpanzee species which might or might not be > reclassified into genus homo. Bob, I would withhold judgement on a thing like that until all the factz are in. The nature of DNA, especially for "humans," is still being sorted out. Soundz like you are pre-judging the answerz... Letz wait until the project is completed. >> >http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=7586011&type=worldNews >> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Soundz >like you are pre-judging the answerz... It's a database, not a research project. There are no "answers" to be prejudged. A barcode for each species will give one barcode for the species homo sapiens. That is the *assumption* behind such a project - that there is some set of DNA snippets that can serve as a signature for the species - it isn't a hypothesis to be tested, nor is it a test to determine the validity of existing classifications. Rather, it is just a set of data points, one to an existing defined species. lojbab Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org >>> >http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=7586011&type=worldNews >>> > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > lojbab http://www.lojban.org Of course it will be used to discriminate between the races. Pharmacutical companies will find this to be a priceless tool in determining whose best to benefit from which drugs. They frequently find different races react differently to different drugs. Dont deny the obvious. If it serves a finacial purpose, with as I just explained it does, it WILL be done. Fact. Besides, it would be done for curiousities sake anyways, even if it didnt provide a medical/financial benefit. Rob >>>> >http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=7586011&type=worldNews >>>> > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >companies will find this to be a priceless tool in determining whose best to >benefit from which drugs. If there is a snippet from each "species" then there will be one snippet from homo sapiens. How can this be used to discriminate? >They frequently find different races react >differently to different drugs. Dont deny the obvious. If it serves a >finacial purpose, with as I just explained it does, it WILL be done. Fact. Not this particular data base which is collecting snippets of every *species*, not every race or human ethnic group. lojbab Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org > >>>> >http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=7586011&type=worldNews > >>>> > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Not this particular data base which is collecting snippets of every > *species*, not every race or human ethnic group. Don't bother trying to explain it to them. Some people think that different races are different species. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. >>Of course it will be used to discriminate between the races. >>Pharmacutical [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If there is a snippet from each "species" then there will be one > snippet from homo sapiens. How can this be used to discriminate? Your sentence is semantically meaningless. There will be found easily recognized differences between races in our DNA. In fact, we already are aware of many of them. This is old news. Some orientals react differently to drugs than caucasions, blacks, pacific islanders, etc., and these will be used by pharms to tailor drugs so as to best treat their patients. >>They frequently find different races react >>differently to different drugs. Dont deny the obvious. If it serves a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > lojbab Well, if this particular data base doesnt want to differentiate between race to make their information usefull for modern science and medicine, another will. Maybe I misunderstood the intial point of the discussion. At some point, there will be created a data base containing all the info in regard to the different breeds of man. Breed, race, etc., are all just words for the same thing. Its the emotional content "you" provide to the different words thats concerning. We most certainly are a hoj-poj of different "breeds," as John says. Just because you dont like the word based on PC grounds means nothing. We are indeed different in breed. Go look at a pygmy and compare him to a 6ft 8inch Fijian. (sp?) Different breeds. Same species, different breed... and guess what? Who gives a flying rats a.s? I dont. Being one breed doesnt make you better than another, or more or less worthy. Or anything for that matter, other than this one simple thing... You are a breed thats a product better suited to survive in your environment, and nothing more. You are superior in that one way and nothing more... to surviving in that particular ecological environment. A pygmy always breeds true and births a pygmy. Always. 100% of the time. The same for a Fijian, a Black, an Indian, A Swede, etc., and thats the definition of a breed. You cant argue the point because you find the word distastefull based on PC grounds. There are some who think jewish match-makers programs of selective breeding, which is a very real thing, may have resulted in a brighter breed than some others. I wouldnt call that racist at all, since Im a product of it as well... but, who gives a flying rats a.s? I dont. Hitler learned how to do selective breeding from the jews. But, of course, sinse he was Hitler... he was a racist. LOL. And we arent, because were the best at using that word. British nobility breeds true because they rarely allow one sucker to breed with another outside their line. They go so far as to excommunicate those not following proper breeding protocol. When their interbreeding gave rise to genetic defects, stupidity, mental illness, conjenital bleeding disorders, etc., they are very carefull in their selection of new breeding stock. Dont be an idiot by ignoring whats been going on around you for thousands of years. We (mankind) have been selectively breeding ourselves for millenia, knowingly by the elite, and covertly trying to introduce cross-breeding into enemy camps in order to dilute dangerous (to us) traits that were aquired over time. Personally, I think its all stupid and immoral, but you cant blind your eyes to the fact that its been going on ever sinse the first caveman realized that when you poked blondy you had a fair haired child, and when you poked a brunnete, you had a dark haired child, just as they observed in all the animals around them for tens of thousands of years. Rob PC can shove itself up its own a.s. Lets be open and honest in our discusstions. This, of all places, is not the place to feel pressured to conform to your programming. Take some control over your own thoughts. Learn new things. Expand. Were just animals. Of course we learned how to breed ourselves to enhance or eliminate certain traits thousands of years ago. Enough with the trying to pretend it hasnt/isnt occuring. Towit, note that those who control and shape the behavior and opinions of the liberal left covertly and overtly try to push racial and ethnic diversity, while furiuosly demanding their children only breed with other jews. I think, in ALL MY ENTIRE lifetime Ive seen one movie where a jewish guy breeds with someone of another breed, and tens of thousands where others are encouraged to go at it hodge-podge, willy-nilly. I think it had Neil Diamond. The one where he sings "Coming to America." It showed in convincing fashion how seriously the breeding program is taken. I think his father sh.t himself, tore his shirt to threads, declared his son dead, spat on the floor, and refused to speek to him. I dont recall, they may have slipped in a happy ending. But the message was sent and settled in concrete fashion that it was understandable and okay for his breed to do it. While movies like "Look Whos Coming to Dinner" showed how bad it was for others to behave in the same fashion. For an intersting intelectual exercise discover who wrote, produced, and directed, both those movies. Just because youre presently ignorant of it doesnt mean its not/hasnt been happening, or that youre incapable of discovering the truth. Under the view of a microscope, with bright light, all things are discoverable and understandable. By most people anyway, as long as their able to overcome their programming. Anyway... that ought to be enough to piss off a few brain-washed lefties incapable of engaging the use of simple memory, logic, and reason. After you lefties have pissed yourself in fits of rage, and prior to posting your hysterical response... just think about it for a while. Maybe give it a day or two and read the above several more times. Its pure stupidity to think our Fransiscan Monk, mr. sweetpea expert, was the first to discover the breeding process. Hell, the Chinese knew about this before the first jewish text, author, or person ever existed. How the hell do you think the Egyptians created their cats? Do you think they thought of themselves as something other than an animal, just like all other animals? No, of course they didnt. They fully understood the breeding process as well. The history of the entire world is full of evidence you may be blind to. relax, open your eyes, look around. Allow, what youve been led to believe are coincidences, to form logical reality. And btw, it all leads to naught. The intentional breeding process of man, Im convinced, hasnt really amounted to sh.t. Ooooh, 10 extra IQ points and being a "blue blood" in exchange for hemophelia? No thanks. If I could dock 40 points off my IQ in exchange for normal health Id do it in a heart-beat. >>>Of course it will be used to discriminate between the races. >>>Pharmacutical [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Your sentence is semantically meaningless. There will be found easily >recognized differences between races in our DNA. I keep asking for them, and no one can identify any specific gene that is specific to all members of one race and no members of another. In any event, the project cited by the racist was NOT to build a database of various "races" of humans, but to build a database of signature snippets of DNA from every animal and plant species on the plant. > In fact, we already are >aware of many of them. This is old news. Some orientals but not *all*, and therefore this does not identify "oriental" as a race >react differently to drugs than caucasions, blacks, pacific islanders, etc., >>>They frequently find different races react >>>differently to different drugs. Dont deny the obvious. If it serves a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >to make their information usefull for modern science and medicine, another >will. It differentiates between species to make information useful to modern science. There is more than one kind of data that is useful to science. >Maybe I misunderstood the intial point of the discussion. The racist was trying to take an announcement of a particular scientific project as evidence that his racist wet dream was about to be fulfilled. >At some point, there will be created a data base containing all the info in >regard to the different breeds of man. There are no "breeds" of man. We are all mongrels. >Breed, race, etc., are all just words for the same thing. Yes. A social construct. Human beings are not "bred", so there are no "breeds". There are differences between individual DNA, and some of these correlate statistically with ancestry, but not one correlates anywhere near 100% with ancestry. >We most certainly are a hoj-poj of different "breeds," as John says. No. We are mongrels. There is no evidence of a single human being with a "pure" line of ancestry back many generations. >We are indeed different in breed. No. We are different in ancestry, but by that standards, only members of a nuclear family are distinct. >Go look at a pygmy and compare him to a 6ft 8inch Fijian. (sp?) Go look at a pygmy and compare him to another pygmy. There is as much variation within alleged "races" or "breeds" as there is between "races" or "breeds". Define the traits of a pygmy that will allow you to identify someone as a pygmy and not a member of any other "breed". You can't. Racists claim statistical correlations, but an individual is not a statistic, so you cannot look at an individual and determine that he IS or IS NOT a member of the "breed", because there are nonmembers that match the statistics and members who deviate from the statistics. >Different breeds. Same species, different breed... and >guess what? Biologists say that "breeds" are bullshit? >Who gives a flying rats a.s? I dont. Being one breed doesnt >make you better than another, or more or less worthy. Or anything for that >matter, other than this one simple thing... You are a breed thats a product >better suited to survive in your environment, and nothing more. You are >superior in that one way and nothing more... to surviving in that particular >ecological environment. Define the ecological environment for any "breed". >A pygmy always breeds true and births a pygmy. Always. 100% of the time. Not at all. A pygmy is perfectly able to mate with a non-pygmy, and is quite willing to do so, and the result may or may not bear any particular trait of a "pygmy". Or don't you know what "breeds true" means? Furthermore, there are tall pygmys and short pygmies, and the tall ones, while probably not being 6'8 are tall enough that they might not be considered a "pygmy" when embedded in group of other non-pygmies. >The same for a Fijian, a Black, an Indian, A Swede, etc., and thats the >definition of a breed. Not at all. A "breed" is something that has been controlledly bred to ensure that the offspring's traits are predictable. A "breed" whose breeding is not controlled produces a "mongrel". For all the differences in the dog breeds, they are all one species, and given 3 or 4 generations of uncontrolled breeding, the offspring might be completely undistinguishable whether there was a chihuahua or a Great Dane in the ancestry. >You cant argue the point because you find the word distastefull based on PC grounds. I can and have, because the concept is not scientifically applicable to human beings, who are not solely bred to a specific population. >There are some who think jewish match-makers programs of selective breeding, There are some who think that astrology predicts the future. But not any scientists who work in the relevant field. >which is a very real thing, may have resulted in a brighter breed than some >others. They are wrong. Judaism has a culture that values learning, while fundie Christianity has a culture that denigrates learning. >Hitler learned how to do >selective breeding from the jews. But, of course, sinse he was Hitler... he >was a racist. LOL. And we arent, because were the best at using that word. You sound like a racist to me. >British nobility breeds true because they rarely allow one sucker to breed >with another outside their line. But in fact they DO so allow such breeding. "Rarely" means "not exclusively". There is plenty of evidence that at least one African is in the genes of British royalty, for example, by means of Spanish miscegenation around 400 years ago. Alexander Pushkin, Russian writer, had an African ancestor, and is also related to British royalty (though not in the direct line of descent). >They go so far as to excommunicate those not following proper breeding protocol. Nope. They might deny someone the throne for violating the rules of the church of England, but Prince Charles seems to have thumbed his nose at that one, so even that rule is probably permanently dead. I ahve no heard that the son of a British peer is not denied the benefits of primogeniture because the mother was a commoner. There may be social pressure to not marry a commoner, but in the history of royalty as well as the lesser nobility, there hasn't been all that much fidelity to those rules. Indeed back a few hundred years and far more royal marriages were to commoners. >When their interbreeding gave rise >to genetic defects, stupidity, mental illness, conjenital bleeding >disorders, etc., they are very carefull in their selection of new breeding >stock. You are probably referring to hemophilia, which showed up in ONE mutation probably 3 or 4 hundred years ago, spread because one or two royal carriers had lots of kids, and showed up with regularity until the last 100 years or so. And yet, as far as I know, there are no hemophiliacs or known carriers in all of European nobility at the moment. And European royalty isn't any stupider than the racists. >Dont be an idiot by ignoring whats been going on around you for thousands of years. On the contrary, I am fairly well versed in history, and know that many myths are not true. >We (mankind) have been selectively breeding ourselves for millenia, Nope. >knowingly by the elite, and covertly trying to introduce cross-breeding into >enemy camps in order to dilute dangerous (to us) traits that were aquired >over time. The concept of genetic breeding was discovered by Mendel 150 years ago, so any "breeding" that was done before then was far from systematic or scientific. >Personally, I think its all stupid and immoral, but you cant >blind your eyes to the fact that its been going on ever sinse the first >caveman realized that when you poked blondy you had a fair haired child, Your evidence that cavemen realized this is lacking. If it was so obvious, why was Mendel's discovery ignored and forgotten for a generation? Humans started domesticating animals around 10000 years ago, but there is no evidence that they did so by controlled breeding. >and >when you poked a brunnete, you had a dark haired child, just as they >observed in all the animals around them for tens of thousands of years. They in fact did NOT make such observations, as evidenced by the fact that the principle was discovered only 150 years ago. >PC can shove itself up its own a.s. So can informedness, in your case, apparently. >Lets be open and honest in our >discusstions. This, of all places, is not the place to feel pressured to >conform to your programming. Take some control over your own thoughts. >Learn new things. Expand. Indeed, Try it some time. >Were just animals. Of course we learned how to >breed ourselves to enhance or eliminate certain traits thousands of years >ago. No we didn't. Nor has any other animal. >Towit, note that those who control and shape the behavior and opinions of >the liberal left covertly and overtly try to push racial and ethnic >diversity, while furiuosly demanding their children only breed with other >jews. Really? I know plenty of Jews that intermarried. Religious Jews consider it a commandment, since it is in the Bible, but the commandment itself would not have been necessary if Jews had exclusive instincts. >I think, in ALL MY ENTIRE lifetime Ive seen one movie where a jewish >guy breeds with someone of another breed, You think that movies have something to do with reality? There aren't all that many movies that are explicitly about "Jewish guys". >I think it had Neil Diamond. The one where he sings "Coming to America." >It showed in convincing fashion how seriously the breeding program is taken. >I think his father sh.t himself, tore his shirt to threads, declared his son >dead, spat on the floor, and refused to speek to him. I dont recall, they >may have slipped in a happy ending. But the message was sent and settled in >concrete fashion that it was understandable and okay for his breed to do it. Many cultures have stigmas for marrying outside the culture, and yet people still do it, and have done it, since the beginning of recorded history. > Its pure stupidity to think >our Fransiscan Monk, mr. sweetpea expert, was the first to discover the >breeding process. Until you provide evidence, it is hardly stupid. >How the hell do you think the Egyptians created their cats? They didn't. >And btw, it all leads to naught. The intentional breeding process of man, >Im convinced, hasnt really amounted to sh.t. Ooooh, 10 extra IQ points and >being a "blue blood" in exchange for hemophelia? No thanks. If I could >dock 40 points off my IQ in exchange for normal health Id do it in a >heart-beat. Having a subzero IQ wouldn't be much of a blessing, but then you wouldn't understand. lojbab Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org >>>>Of course it will be used to discriminate between the races. >>>>Pharmacutical [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I keep asking for them, and no one can identify any specific gene that > is specific to all members of one race and no members of another. Why do you think theres going to be a "specific gene" that accounts for race? What leads you to believe that? It could be spread out across our entire DNA structure, in all genes and codons, or only a few, or quite a few. > In any event, the project cited by the racist was NOT to build a > database of various "races" of humans, but to build a database of > signature snippets of DNA from every animal and plant species on the > plant. Okay. >> In fact, we already are >>aware of many of them. This is old news. Some orientals > > but not *all*, and therefore this does not identify "oriental" as a > race Yes, it does. Why do you say it doesnt. LOL, you cling to this, "theres no such thing as race" mantra of yours as if youve been brainwashed. Of course theres such a thing as race. Compare and eskimo to an Amazonian. WTF do you think you are observing? >>react differently to drugs than caucasions, blacks, pacific islanders, >>etc., [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > science. There is more than one kind of data that is useful to > science. It will be of no use for medicine then, so new research on DNA WILL be done for medicines sake. >>Maybe I misunderstood the intial point of the discussion. > > The racist was trying to take an announcement of a particular > scientific project as evidence that his racist wet dream was about to > be fulfilled. Unfortunately, for you, it will be done, and unfortunately for him, it will only prove the obvious, that DNA is responsible for what the body grows up to be. >>At some point, there will be created a data base containing all the info >>in >>regard to the different breeds of man. > > There are no "breeds" of man. We are all mongrels. Pure stupidity. Where the "f" are you getting this sh.t? Do blacks spontaniously give birth to Scottsman? Do Mongolians birth Swedish blondes? Do Pacific Islanders sire Native American Indians? We breed true when we dont cross-breed. We are indeed, "breeds"... you just dont like the word because it upsets you emotionaly. Do you know what breed means? >>Breed, race, etc., are all just words for the same thing. > > Yes. A social construct. No, a scientificaly observable classification within a species. > Human beings are not "bred", so there are no "breeds". You game of semantics is wasted upon those brighter than you. But, just to be argumentative... Man indeed, at times, is bred. What the hell do you think arranged marriages are? Use your head. Lets see.... I played Mendel in a run of Fiddler on the Roof, so Im rather well aquanted with that play, I seem to recall a song... "match maker, match maker, make me a match..." Men and woman are bred. What else would you call it? There are > differences between individual DNA, and some of these correlate > statistically with ancestry, but not one correlates anywhere near 100% > with ancestry. I do. My entire family going back severeal thousand years does. Need I say more? British nobility does. Pygmies do. Eskimos do. American Indians do. yada yada. >>We most certainly are a hoj-poj of different "breeds," as John says. > > No. We are mongrels. There is no evidence of a single human being > with a "pure" line of ancestry back many generations. Pure stupidity. To make such an assinine and moronic assertion I find to be almost insulting. My family breeds true. We have a pure line of ancestry going back thousands of years. You just cant make sh.t up and expect others to take the remainder of you allegations as true. >>We are indeed different in breed. > > No. We are different in ancestry, but by that standards, only members > of a nuclear family are distinct. No, You and I are most certainly of a different breed. Geneticaly. Trust me on this one. >>Go look at a pygmy and compare him to a 6ft 8inch Fijian. (sp?) > > Go look at a pygmy and compare him to another pygmy. There is as much > variation within alleged "races" or "breeds" as there is between > "races" or "breeds". No. Thats simply a lie passed onto idiots for their consumption. There is very little variation within a breed. Theres a much bigger difference between a german-jew and an American Indian that there has ever been between American Indians themselves. Theres never been a person in the entire history of my family that comes close to resembling an American Indian. And there has NEVER been an American Indian born resembling anyone from our family. Simple fact. > Define the traits of a pygmy that will allow you to identify someone > as a pygmy and not a member of any other "breed". > "You can't." What the f.ck? "You cant?" What are you, a complete moron or something? Okay, now, this might strain your brain a little, but lets try this little exercise. Imagine a Swede, a Pygmy, A native South African, an Eskimo, a Central American Indian, and a Chinese. Got them pictured? And youre still convinced youre to stupid to define the traits between them? If you cant, you have severe and irreparable mental defects and should deliver yourself to the Emergancy Room poste haste. So they can see how youve been surviving without a functional brain. > Racists > claim statistical correlations, but an individual is not a statistic, > so you cannot look at an individual and determine that he IS or IS NOT > a member of the "breed", because there are nonmembers that match the > statistics and members who deviate from the statistics. Right. There are hundreds of millions of mongrels, mutts, cross-breeds, etc., and... so what? Good for them. In the long run theyll be the ones to survive. Mans attempts at breeding man has always turned out crappy anyway. Man will ALWAYS evolve to his ecological climate. Even while others are trying to breed him towards other things. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that when you breed two genius's you get a genius. And when you breed two idiots, if they arent cross-bred, and breed true, youll get an idiot nearly 100% of the time. You know, maybe you should read a little about dog breeding. Maybe thats the level at which you need to start in order to understand these simple concepts. You start with the errent notion that man has bred hodge-podge willy-nilly for so long that were all inter-bred. Its just not true. Many "Americans" are because were a melting pot. >>Different breeds. Same species, different breed... and >>guess what? > > Biologists say that "breeds" are bullshit? No. They dont. A jack russell terrior is different than a black lab. Different breeds. Created in less time, by the hands of man, than it took the Brits to self selectively breed for an elite and brilliant ruling class. >>Who gives a flying rats a.s? I dont. Being one breed doesnt >>make you better than another, or more or less worthy. Or anything for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Define the ecological environment for any "breed". The conditions under which it must survive. >>A pygmy always breeds true and births a pygmy. Always. 100% of the time. > > Not at all. A pygmy is perfectly able to mate with a non-pygmy, and > is quite willing to do so, and the result may or may not bear any > particular trait of a "pygmy". Youre a moron. Theres never been a case in world history where a pygmy coupling, between two pygmies you moron, has resulted in anything other than another pygmy. What the hell, you think one day all of a sudden a pygmy couple is going to give birth to a Shaqeal O'Neil or something. Or a Chinese? > Or don't you know what "breeds true" means? Youre an idiot. Youre the one who just demonstrated you dont know what it means. Pygmies breed true. Always. Therefor theyre a breed. Hawaiin islanders, when not cross-bred, breed true. Always. Thats called a breed. When you cross-breed, who knows what youll get? > Furthermore, there are tall pygmys and short pygmies, and the tall > ones, while probably not being 6'8 are tall enough that they might not > be considered a "pygmy" when embedded in group of other non-pygmies. No. There arent. Complete and total bullshit. That youll stoop to lying to make your point is moronic. Pygmies are tiny in stature. If theres ever been a tall one its because some ass-wipe adventurer couldnt keep his dick in his pants and infected them with defective genes. As I said... All people who are left alone are superior over others in one way, in how theyve adapted, evolutionarily, to their ecological environment. Cross-breeding would eliminate pygmies over time. I seriously hope, for their sake, they killed any pygmy so tall he couldnt be immediately recognised as a pygmy. >>The same for a Fijian, a Black, an Indian, A Swede, etc., and thats the >>definition of a breed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > completely undistinguishable whether there was a chihuahua or a Great > Dane in the ancestry. Youre a complete idiot. The definition of breed doesnt rest on whether it was done intentional or not you blithering idiot. Please put an end to this shameful display of pure stupidity and impotence in the arena of challenging discussion. You havent a clue what youre talking about and are making sh.t up as you go in order to escape valid scientific fact. >>You cant argue the point because you find the word distastefull based on >>PC grounds. > > I can and have, because the concept is not scientifically applicable > to human beings, who are not solely bred to a specific population. Who cares if some are and some arent? Who cares if its us doing the breeding, or natural selection through adaption to environment? Who cares? Youre trying to glom the method. Pull your head out, the methods irrelivent. >>There are some who think jewish match-makers programs of selective >>breeding, > > There are some who think that astrology predicts the future. But not > any scientists who work in the relevant field. Look, I know your stupid, so Ill explain this for you. Jewish Match Makers ARE scientists, you idiot. And to piss you liberal cry-babies off even more Ill mention that so were the NAZI scientists in charge of their selective breeding program. Done in exactly the same manner. Through intentional breeding. >>which is a very real thing, may have resulted in a brighter breed than >>some >>others. > > They are wrong. Judaism has a culture that values learning, while > fundie Christianity has a culture that denigrates learning. Think so? Ask some other jewish person. >>Hitler learned how to do >>selective breeding from the jews. But, of course, sinse he was Hitler... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You sound like a racist to me. I could care less about race. Ive been with em all. The tiny Sout Korean was unreal. (Graduate of Columbia and now a broadcaster on Koreas national news.) {name available by request} A pair of black sisters, students at Harvard. A 100% Native American, the best looking woman in the entire state of Oklahoma. Japanese, Italians, Hawaiins, Swedes and Dutch, Austrians, Germans, Mexicans... need I say more? Im not proud... My best freind is French Indo-chinese, anothers dutch, anothers a Catholic Croation, several are black, had a roomate who was the darkest mexican youve ever met, and on and on. So no, Im no racist, but I recognise and dont ignore reality. >>British nobility breeds true because they rarely allow one sucker to breed >>with another outside their line. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > writer, had an African ancestor, and is also related to British > royalty (though not in the direct line of descent). As I said, after interbreeding so often, they add new genes. For healths sake. Just because something isnt done "exlusively" doesnt mean you are no longer a breed. >>They go so far as to excommunicate those not following proper breeding >>protocol. > > Nope. They might deny someone the throne for violating the rules of > the church of England, but Prince Charles seems to have thumbed his > nose at that one, so even that rule is probably permanently dead. What the hell are you talking about? She was chosen as prime breeding stock. And she performed her duty remarkably well. Bright, chipper, defiant offspring, with minds of their own. A perfect selection by all accounts. She whelped some nice suckers and was then set loose. As has always been the Crowns policy if someone gets out of line. Or have you little knowladge of history? > I ahve no heard that the son of a British peer is not denied the > benefits of primogeniture because the mother was a commoner. There > may be social pressure to not marry a commoner, but in the history of > royalty as well as the lesser nobility, there hasn't been all that > much fidelity to those rules. Indeed back a few hundred years and far > more royal marriages were to commoners. Breeding stock only comes from suitable candidates. Who you want for a paramour is entirely irrelivent. In this case, Cammila Paker Bowes. (sp?) There is no social pressure to mount a royal, that pressure only comes from the nobility. Society would love it if a royal married a "true" commoner. But they cant, can they? Or havent you noticed? >>When their interbreeding gave rise >>to genetic defects, stupidity, mental illness, conjenital bleeding [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > hemophiliacs or known carriers in all of European nobility at the > moment. And European royalty isn't any stupider than the racists. No. You, nor anyone, knows anything about the nobilities health status. And I feel its quite the opposite, I think their nobility is far and away much brighter than the commoner. IQ isnt a result of environmental influence. Although poisons and infection can make it go down when they arent pressent, they cant be atributed for a higher IQ by removing what isnt there. They are brighter for a reason. >>Dont be an idiot by ignoring whats been going on around you for thousands >>of years. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Nope. You arent educated in sh.t. Youre a babbling moron. Tribes travelled hundreds of miles to exchange sons and daughters for marriage... only when they found a suitable mate for their child. >>knowingly by the elite, and covertly trying to introduce cross-breeding >>into [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ago, so any "breeding" that was done before then was far from > systematic or scientific. No. Selective breeding was discoverd by the Chinese and Egyptions 3 or 4 thousand years ago. Take your pathetic NEA endorced liberal retard eduation and burn it. Its obviously proved useless. >>Personally, I think its all stupid and immoral, but you cant >>blind your eyes to the fact that its been going on ever sinse the first [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > obvious, why was Mendel's discovery ignored and forgotten for a > generation? It wasnt even a discovery. Its modern propaganda pap. As if people hadnt been selectively breeding dogs, cats, cattle, horses, etc., for thousands of years already? LOL, do you honestly think youre smarter (the actual biological speed and memory of your brain) than a caveman? Trust me, theres virtually no chance in hell of it. You wouldnt have survived two weeks back then. Man has only gotten dumber because of the advent of medicine. But Im pretty sure youll never be able to figure out why. LOL > Humans started domesticating animals around 10000 years ago, but there > is no evidence that they did so by controlled breeding. Oh. I didnt know that. LOL, so I guess all different breeds of domesticated animals must be the result of Mendels secret time machine which he used to go back in time and inform those who created different breeds... how to do it. Thats rich. Use your head. Simply, your stump stupid. Man CREATED different breeds of dogs, cats, horses, cattle, etc., intentionally and knowingly, breeding for desired attributes and eliminating undesired ones. And man, knowing the he TOO is an animal, knowingly, intentionaly, and selectively, sat about in some circumstances to do the same thing for himself knowing it would impart greater survival advantages in the future as a pay-off. That youre incapable of understanding such a simple, simple, simple thing, is truly astonishing. >>and >>when you poked a brunnete, you had a dark haired child, just as they >>observed in all the animals around them for tens of thousands of years. > > They in fact did NOT make such observations, as evidenced by the fact > that the principle was discovered only 150 years ago. Youre an idiot. Just go to Egypt and look at the history of cats you moron. Jeesh. Mendel didnt discover sh.t. His 3rd grade experiments are pathetic. >>PC can shove itself up its own a.s. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Indeed, Try it some time. By ignoring all of science and history and believing modern liberal left NEA retard education that Mendel discovered genetics? Give it a rest. Man was well aware of how selective breeding occured long before he even had the language to express it. It wasnt even a concept needing to be discovered. Hell, even a weiner dog knows its a bad idea to get knocked up by a Great Dane, for more reasons than one. Do you think that little dog "knows" inherently, that big boys going to split her in two during mating, or giving birth? Trust me, little weiner dog doesnt know what a weiner is. But she sure has some concept of what being impregnated may result in. It doesnt even need to be acknowledged on the conscious level. Its inherent. Genetic. >>Were just animals. Of course we learned how to >>breed ourselves to enhance or eliminate certain traits thousands of years >>ago. > > No we didn't. Nor has any other animal. Of course we have. Ask me, ask my father, ask any jewish match maker. Ask these ding-bat racists. Theyre even smarter than you Im beginning to suspect. That you cant understand such a simple concept is stunning. I would think anyone capable of learning how to use a computer keyboard would have at least the basic modicum of intelligence required for it. >>Towit, note that those who control and shape the behavior and opinions of >>the liberal left covertly and overtly try to push racial and ethnic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > commandment itself would not have been necessary if Jews had exclusive > instincts. Who said it was instinctual to want to breed with your own breed? Certainly not I. I loved breeding with all diffent forms of females. I enjoy and celebrate our diversity. But Im not so dumb as to think were all exactly the same except for heigth, skin tone, hair, and facial structure. >>I think, in ALL MY ENTIRE lifetime Ive seen one movie where a jewish >>guy breeds with someone of another breed, > > You think that movies have something to do with reality? There aren't > all that many movies that are explicitly about "Jewish guys". Interesting isnt it? Tons on tv, though? A disparity? We comprise less than 3% yet were everywhere on your television. Ever notice that? Movies are made to shape, form, and mold society. Unless done by a producer who needs to make some money. Most dont. >>I think it had Neil Diamond. The one where he sings "Coming to America." >>It showed in convincing fashion how seriously the breeding program is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > people still do it, and have done it, since the beginning of recorded > history. No, they havent and remained in the royal family, or in an ultra-orthadox jewish household. Ever. One must leave the institution. For good. Permanently. Ever notice jews dont have missionaries? Ever notice they have zero intention of converting people to their beliefs? Even though proper ethics would demand doing so if judaism offered peace and harmony for converts. What kind of morals must a man have if he holds knowledge that improves the quality of his life, and witholds it from others? >> Its pure stupidity to think >>our Fransiscan Monk, mr. sweetpea expert, was the first to discover the >>breeding process. > > Until you provide evidence, it is hardly stupid. Go adopt a greyhound. Ponder its history. Speaking to you is like speaking to a brick wall. A crumbled one. >>How the hell do you think the Egyptians created their cats? > > They didn't. WTF? All their different breed of cats just popped up out of nowhere? >>And btw, it all leads to naught. The intentional breeding process of man, >>Im convinced, hasnt really amounted to sh.t. Ooooh, 10 extra IQ points [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > lojbab Perhaps, but docking it 50 points would make conversing with you, oh so much easier. Do you honestly think that Egypts different breeds of cats, dogs, and horses, just happened, uh, randomly? Get real. You cant really be this stupid. Hell, the Sharpei pre-dates even judaism, and you dont think the Chinese hadnt mastered selective breeding 3 or 4 thousand years ago? Correct me if Im wrong, but you contend that nobody realized that breeding X with X resulted in a baby X? And this was only discovered 150 years ago? By a monk? Using peas? Thats rich. And sad. Rob [snip] > Pure stupidity. Where the "f" are you getting this sh.t? Do blacks > spontaniously give birth to Scottsman? Do Mongolians birth Swedish blondes? > Do Pacific Islanders sire Native American Indians? We breed true when we > dont cross-breed. We are indeed, "breeds"... you just dont like the word > because it upsets you emotionaly. Do you know what breed means? But how are you going to define 'black' for example? Those people of African descent who have darker skin have a broader range of genes within this artificially selected group than the difference between Mongolians and Swedes. [snip] > I do. My entire family going back severeal thousand years does. Need I say > more? British nobility does. Pygmies do. Eskimos do. American Indians > do. yada yada. Actually, no. Most of the examples you have cited cross bred with neighboring or nomadic groups. On the other hand, there are examples of closed communities (some radical Mormon and Christian groups ostracized by society) that, within a few generations, begin to show symptoms of inbreeding such as reduced fertility, increased still births, lower IQ, mongolism, etc. The human race is very sensitive to a lack of genetic diversity and the results become quite evident (and fortunately self correcting) within a few tens of generations. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail. -- Gore Vidal > [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > within this artificially selected group than the difference between > Mongolians and Swedes. Agreed. I mistakenly used that as a broad discriptive term. There are many breeds of Africans, with much variation between them. What the fool Im arguing with fails to understand is that our "breeds" are created by climactic and geographic isolation, as well as knowing and unknowing selection on our parts. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Actually, no. Most of the examples you have cited cross bred with > neighboring or nomadic groups. No. Pacific Islanders rarely, if ever, cross-bred. Same with Eskomos, Mongolians, Japanese, Austrailians, New Zealanders, etc., What actually creates a breed is in-breeding. With, hopefully, an influx of healthy foreign genes on occcasion, or you get things like hip-displasia We need to define what a breed is. I dont think he understands it, and he has a terrible time following logical trains of thought. > On the other hand, there are examples of closed communities (some > radical Mormon and Christian groups ostracized by society) that, within > a few generations, begin to show symptoms of inbreeding such as reduced > fertility, increased still births, lower IQ, mongolism, etc. Yup. > The human race is very sensitive to a lack of genetic diversity and the > results become quite evident (and fortunately self correcting) within a > few tens of generations. Yes. Thus the recognised need for match makers, who pick out spouses based on compatabilities and desired differences in communities where arranged marriages are the custom. Rob >>> Pure stupidity. Where the "f" are you getting this sh.t? Do blacks >>> spontaniously give birth to Scottsman? Do Mongolians birth Swedish [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >climactic and geographic isolation, as well as knowing and unknowing >selection on our parts. Except of course that there really hasn't been much geographic isolation except perhaps for Pacific Islanders. And climatic isolation doesn't really exist at all. You can claim that a Laplander has somewhat different adaptations than an African tribesman, but there is a whole spectrum of climates and associated human beings in between them, and the Lapps aren't so unlike the Finns who aren't so unlike the Russians who aren't so unlike the south Slavs, who aren't so unlike the Macedonians, who aren't so unlike the Greeks etc, who aren't so unlike the Lebanese, who aren't so unlike the Egyptians who aren't so unlike the Sudanese, who aren't so unlike the Ethiopians. Self-selection also exists, but to get a pure "breed", that selection has to be maintained consistently without exception for several generations, and there simply isn't any evidence that this has happened. It's plausible that 50000 years ago when the human population was tiny, different tribes were so scattered that the current diversity of phenotypes emerged, but the different populations did not maintain complete isolation but instead interbred, so there isn't evidence of any of these phenotypes remaining a pure "breed". There is a possibility that the Tasmanians were sufficiently isolated up until a century ago that they could have been considered a separate breed, but in fact when the outsiders came, they intermarried like every other human population has, and lost any purity of strain that might have developed. >>> I do. My entire family going back severeal thousand years does. Need I >>> say [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >No. Pacific Islanders rarely, if ever, cross-bred. >Same with Eskomos, Mongolians, Japanese, Austrailians, New Zealanders, etc. Your cites are lacking and contradict what I have read. > With, hopefully, an influx of healthy >foreign genes on occcasion, or you get things like hip-displasia If you get an influx of foreign genes that is NOT controlled, you no longer have a breed, but a mongrel. Read the definition: >Main Entry: mon·grel >1 : an individual resulting from the interbreeding of diverse breeds or strains; >especially : one of unknown ancestry >2 : a cross between types of persons or things We are all mongrels. If we weren't, we would be inbred to the point of hip-dysplasia. >> On the other hand, there are examples of closed communities (some >> radical Mormon and Christian groups ostracized by society) that, within >> a few generations, begin to show symptoms of inbreeding such as reduced >> fertility, increased still births, lower IQ, mongolism, etc. > >Yup. Begin to show ... Of course these communities don't stay isolated long enough to remain closed to enough outside crossbreeding to make "racial purity" a meaningful claim. Here is a detailed account of the breeding that went into creating a new cat breed. Lots of outbreeding, and the cat breed authorities apparently require 5 generations of pure inbreeding before they recognize a breed as true: http://www.catworld.co.uk/articlecatworld.asp?artid=395&cat=Breed%20profile&pre= and remember that these sorts of breeds start with already recognized pure breeds as the genetic source. Here's another source on just how difficult it is to create cat breeds. The above new breed was an accident taken advantage of by people with the knowledge and skill to do so. Intentional breeding takes far more control and a lot of time. Human beings don't accept that kind of breeding. http://www.messybeast.com/workbreed.htm Outbreeding of dogs to bring in new genetic material is NOT accepted - the result is not considered a true breed: http://www.parkvets.com/petsandvets-damageddogs.html http://www.netpets.com/dogs/reference/genetics/bragg4.html Dogs have a new generation every couple of years. From the latter cite, it takes 3 generations of closed breeding to gain recognition of a breed, but most of the dog breeds that are commonly recognized as distinct are 60-100 years old. That means 30-50 generations of controlled breeding from a small stock of ancestors with NO outsiders. Humans don't control their breeding anywhere near well enough for that kind of breed to exist. In human terms, 30-50 generations is the time since Charlemagne, and no human population, not even the royal families of Europe, come CLOSE to that level of purity. As I showed in another post, the British royal family has unknowns in the tree within 8 generations, an American commoner within 5 generations, and introduces new commoners pretty much every generation. >Yes. Thus the recognised need for match makers, who pick out spouses based >on compatabilities and desired differences in communities where arranged >marriages are the custom. You presume, without any actual evidence, that matchmakers have historically picked spouses based on genetic traits, as opposed to a family's ability to pay, and other social factors. You cited the *fiction* of Fiddler on the Roof, where in fact none of the actual marriages were arranged by a matchmaker, and the one that was proposed was that a rich man of a drastically different age and social class who thought the girl was pretty. Now it turns out that a couple of *present day* Ultra-Orthodox matchmakers may use genetic testing, but this is a development of the last generation. This has led to Tay-Sachs disease, which was once considered a Jewish disease, being almost eradicated from the Jewish population (though it still appears in the non-Jewish population). Even so, 1 in 27 Jews carried the Tay Sachs gene, and it is unlikely that even this ONE *really* unwanted trait caused by only a single gene mutation, will be completely removed from the Jewish genome for hundreds of years to come. http://www.hashkafah.com/lofiversion/index.php/t7110.html And note that even with these fatal diseases, and a significant number of people using the service, this genetic matchmaking is extremely controversial in the Jewish community. Jews, perhaps more than other cultures, are sensitive to the concept of eugenics. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/2/rosen.htm lojbab Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org >>>> Pure stupidity. Where the "f" are you getting this sh.t? Do blacks >>>> spontaniously give birth to Scottsman? Do Mongolians birth Swedish [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Except of course that there really hasn't been much geographic > isolation except perhaps for Pacific Islanders. The mere existence of the obvious differences between different breeds of man speak to the stupidity of your assertion. Native South African, Chinese, Australian, Hawaiin, American Indian, Eskimo, Viking, Italian, Turk, ad nausium... > And climatic isolation doesn't really exist at all. You can claim > that a Laplander has somewhat different adaptations than an African [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the Egyptians who aren't so unlike the Sudanese, who aren't so unlike > the Ethiopians. Note. There all sorts of breeds in dog. Among them are terriers. And among terriers there are a bunch of breeds. Simply because gradations and cross breeding may occur, in no way means "breeds" dont exist. They do. The existence of Muts doesnt exclude the reality of "breeds." But your not bright enough to undertand that, and fixated on giving the most bizzare twisted responces to simple sentences Ive ever seen. That last post of yours had so many non-sequitors, I refused to respond. > Self-selection also exists, but to get a pure "breed", that selection > has to be maintained consistently without exception for several > generations, and there simply isn't any evidence that this has > happened. You poor, poor, poor, fool. sigh... If-n you ever make enough money for a trip to Australia, please go, I have some friends Id like you to meet. I will "PAY," literally, pay, for your living expenses while youre there living with them. Seriously. On my word Ill pay for every penny for it. Youve got my email, everybody on the net knows who I am, you could defame me for decades if I fail to live up to my pledge. They, if they dont convince you of the fact that we do indeed diverge into breeds under geographic and climactic isolation will probably kill you for being so dumb. Your presense would probably drive them nuts. LOL Hint... to avoid being beaten to death for your stupidity you may want to take a big bag of Reeses Peanut Butter Cups. They dont have them there and are enthralled with them. Why some euntreprenuer hasnt introduced them to OZ yet is beyond me. You could use them to bribe your way out of harms way. > It's plausible that 50000 years ago when the human > population was tiny, different tribes were so scattered that the > current diversity of phenotypes emerged, but the different populations > did not maintain complete isolation but instead interbred, so there > isn't evidence of any of these phenotypes remaining a pure "breed". Refer to my aquantences above. In those where cross-breeding hasnt been introduced they always breed true. Always. Always. With no exceptions. They as well have aranged marriages and match makers in some of their societies. For reasons previously mentioned. Just because man is a mobile and ready breeder, doesnt mean breeds never existed, nor that they dont. It just means that theres tons of inbreds. And so what? I think thats a good thing. Your assertion that a Mongolian or Eskimo could survive in their climate (as youll find out) is patent nonsense. As youll find out when you realize that even you are geneticaly illsuited to survive there. If youde been born into their society in the present form youre in, youde be dead by your 30th birthday. Simple, Scientific, Fact. Disputable by nobody. What about evolution/adaption dont you understand? They are as they are, because any form of man unsuitable for that environment... DIES! In no time flat. Long before breeding age occurs, and certainly long before the age at which you could ensure your progeny survived to pass on genes such as yours. > There is a possibility that the Tasmanians were sufficiently isolated > up until a century ago that they could have been considered a separate > breed, but in fact when the outsiders came, they intermarried like > every other human population has, and lost any purity of strain that > might have developed. sigh... so they "were" a breed? sigh... But of course, all of man, all 6 7 or 8 billion of us, are now inbred? I hope you understand, thats both a physicaly and mathematicaly an impossibility. But you wont. >>>> I do. My entire family going back severeal thousand years does. Need >>>> I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Your cites are lacking and contradict what I have read. So? Do I care? >> With, hopefully, an influx of healthy >>foreign genes on occcasion, or you get things like hip-displasia [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>especially : one of unknown ancestry >>2 : a cross between types of persons or things So according to you, theres no such thing as a breed. Is there such a thing as species? Theres a follow up question to this you know... (or hell, maybe you dont. sigh...) > We are all mongrels. If we weren't, we would be inbred to the point > of hip-dysplasia. But many of us are. Ask a jewish person what their disease is. Go ahead. >>> On the other hand, there are examples of closed communities (some >>> radical Mormon and Christian groups ostracized by society) that, within [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > long enough to remain closed to enough outside crossbreeding to make > "racial purity" a meaningful claim. Sure we do. What prevents it? > Here is a detailed account of the breeding that went into creating a > new cat breed. Lots of outbreeding, and the cat breed authorities [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that kind of breeding. > http://www.messybeast.com/workbreed.htm Sure they have. Do. And will. Knowingly and wantingly. > Outbreeding of dogs to bring in new genetic material is NOT accepted - > the result is not considered a true breed: > http://www.parkvets.com/petsandvets-damageddogs.html > http://www.netpets.com/dogs/reference/genetics/bragg4.html But how do you think the breed came into existence? Do you think a "pure-bred" Lab pre-existed man? Or Shitzu's? What did they hunt? Deer-mice? > Dogs have a new generation every couple of years. From the latter > cite, it takes 3 generations of closed breeding to gain recognition of > a breed, but most of the dog breeds that are commonly recognized as > distinct are 60-100 years old. That means 30-50 generations of > controlled breeding from a small stock of ancestors with NO outsiders. No. The Jack Russel Terrior was invented and created by Parson Jack Russel for his Fox hunts. In much less time than that. And its pure, and breeds true. Ask my Jack Russell, Pokey. Or is she not of a different breed than a Greyhound? LOL. (Jack Russels are the toughest damn little dogs in the world. We chose a Jack Russell because we needed something that could handle the rough housing of our 90lb AmStaff. We chose her breed because Id read an account of how one had fallen off a roof {nobody was sure how she got up there oddly enough} and broke her leg, the vet had to put in three pins. Two weeks later she tore her leg open, gnawed the pins out her bones, and that was that. They hystericaly returned her to the vet. After close examinatin he conluded "I guess she didnt like them, if shes tough enough to do that, Im sure shell be okay.") So we got a Jack Russell. > Humans don't control their breeding anywhere near well enough for that > kind of breed to exist. In human terms, 30-50 generations is the time [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > matchmakers may use genetic testing, but this is a development of the > last generation. You dont need genetic testing. Simple observation of desired or unwanted traits is enough. > This has led to Tay-Sachs disease, which was once considered a Jewish > disease, being almost eradicated from the Jewish population (though it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.hashkafah.com/lofiversion/index.php/t7110.html Well have it eliminate in short order. Through proper breeding. > And note that even with these fatal diseases, and a significant number > of people using the service, this genetic matchmaking is extremely > controversial in the Jewish community. Jews, perhaps more than other > cultures, are sensitive to the concept of eugenics. In the Western world were the creators of it, you idiot. Damn, lol. > http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/2/rosen.htm > > lojbab Give it a rest already. Rob Never mind the scientific semantics. To use "breeds" is by convention derogatory when applied to humans. You notice we say "Pure blooded Norwegian Pigmy" not "Pure Bred...". It's all in how it's applied. For example, it is okay to day "Born and bred" for some reason. But when you talk about "breeds" it is generally applied to animal husbandry and identification of the lesser mammals. > Never mind the scientific semantics. To use "breeds" is by convention > derogatory when applied to humans. You notice we say "Pure blooded [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bred" for some reason. But when you talk about "breeds" it is generally > applied to animal husbandry and identification of the lesser mammals. I totally agree. Im exlusively using the word because its his hot button. Breed, race, whatever. Its all the same thing. But he doesnt even believe in race. Im also using "breed" because I think we are deliniated even further within races. Just like sub-classifications of Terriers. Im just arguing the reality of the matter. I dont think its good or bad or make any moral judgements one way or the other about any of it. We who are of a breed are simply that way because of climactic or geographic isolation or witting or unwitting breeding. Unfounded xenophobia in many/most cases. But as you said, its certainly not an acceptable word for those who are PC oriented. Ill stop. Rob >I totally agree. Im exlusively using the word because its his hot button. >Breed, race, whatever. Its all the same thing. But he doesnt even believe >in race. Except as an artificial social construct that has largely if not totally outlived its usefulness. >Im also using "breed" because I think we are deliniated even further within races. Based on no evidence whatsoever. >Just like sub-classifications of Terriers. Which are again purely artificial. If mankind stopped forcing dogs to breed only with certain mates, then within some reasonably small number of generations, all dogs would approximate to wolves in appearance. There would BE no "terriers" since their existence depends on human-controlled breeding. Humans are NOT forced to breed only with certain mates. Even in societies with arranged marriage, there is plenty of out-of-wedlock sex, and cuckold kids that don't have "papered" pedigrees. There are ancestral patterns found in DNA, but those patterns DO NOT correspond to any of the social "races". West African blacks are more similar to Swedes in some genes than they are to Xhosa blacks. Thus, to call blacks a "race" or a "breed" is nonsense. And yet one cannot rely on the mitochondrial or Y chromosome patterns, since those each only trace one single lineage - the all-male one and the all-female one, and all it takes is a single instance of out-breeding and those lines are misleading about the rest of the person's ancestry. If outbreeding occurs only every 3 generations (which is what those dog and cat breeders want allowed), that means that no breed is more than 7/8 pure. lojbab Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org >>I totally agree. Im exlusively using the word because its his hot button. >>Breed, race, whatever. Its all the same thing. But he doesnt even [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Except as an artificial social construct that has largely if not > totally outlived its usefulness. Sorry, pharms are reliant upon race as a factor in testing drugs. But youre unaware of that. >>Im also using "breed" because I think we are deliniated even further >>within races. > > Based on no evidence whatsoever. Refer to past posts for examples and evidence. >>Just like sub-classifications of Terriers. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > appearance. There would BE no "terriers" since their existence > depends on human-controlled breeding. NO sh.t! Youre a genius arent you? > Humans are NOT forced to breed only with certain mates. Even in > societies with arranged marriage, there is plenty of out-of-wedlock > sex, and cuckold kids that don't have "papered" pedigrees. Sorry, many are indeed "forced." Its your promblem, not mine, if you fail to comprehend that. And again, so what if screwing around occurs? Whats that have to do with the legitimacy of race as a verifiable reality? On second thought, dont answer, as itll be just more of the same senceless babbling. > There are ancestral patterns found in DNA, but those patterns DO NOT > correspond to any of the social "races". West African blacks are more [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > lojbab Your babbling is endless in attempts to discredit the reality of race. Really, Im not interested in trying to help you understand this any further. I had thought you might come to your senses. I was wrong. Rob On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:21:41 -0800, "Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message <wdadnZSaF59kJorfRVn-qQ@gbronline.com> >>>I totally agree. Im exlusively using the word because its his hot button. >>>Breed, race, whatever. Its all the same thing. But he doesnt even [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > >Rob An aside into the existence of different races or breeds or whatever of people from a purely medical point of view. If you undergo a transplant in the U.S. from an unrelated donor, you will invariably require an antirejection drug. These drugs, for the most part, are not used in Europe where the population is more homogeneous. Also, another example from the xplant field. Blacks are significantly more likely not to do well with a liver transplant than whites. There are massive numbers of similar examples for those who care to look. Some have been expunged from medical textbooks for PC reasons, but are still well known among practitioners (even the PC types.) The books may be being "burned," but the knowledge will remain. SignatureBoy Toy Toxic Toyz 4 Nasty Boyz > > [snip] > >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > We need to define what a breed is. Why? We are developing the capability to identify specific genes and their effect on the health of their host. What possible good is an artificial classification based on some combination of thousands of genes? SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Due to recent budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel has temporarily been turned off. >> > [snip] >> >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > effect on the health of their host. What possible good is an artificial > classification based on some combination of thousands of genes? Appearently you know nothing of medicine. Different "peoples" react differently to some medicines. This has been known since the dawn of man. Pharms have to take race into consideration on every medicine they study. I think Merck has an immense web-site. Im sure there they must discuss it at length, somewhere. American Indians are especially succeptable to radiator fluid even moreso than most. (it kills you.) As the very same inability to metabolize alcohol in an efficient manner is to blame. Rob >>> We need to define what a breed is. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Appearently you know nothing of medicine. Different "peoples" react >differently to some medicines. This has been known since the dawn of man. He seems to understand that. >Pharms have to take race into consideration on every medicine they study. No they don't. They are using race as an imperfect approximation to knowing the exact genetics of the subjects that they are studying. If, as seems likely in the next decade or so, they can select subjects based on whether they have a specific gene combination, then that will be the screening basis, and not the socially defined racial category that is currently used. >American Indians are especially succeptable to radiator >fluid even moreso than most. No. People with certain genes are especially susceptible to radiator fluid. American Indians apparently are more likely to have those genes. Merck would therefore seek people who have the genes that make them more susceptable to radiator fluid, which is a specific genetic test, and not seek "American Indians" which is a sloppy, socially defined test >As the very same inability to >metabolize alcohol in an efficient manner is to blame. And the ability to metabolize alcohol may be a genetic trait, but it is not a racially specific one. So if they genetically test for susceptibility to alcohol, that is a better selection criterion than selecting based on socially-defined race, and gets them people across all races, since there are alcohol-sensitive people in every racial group. lojbab Signaturelojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org > >> > [snip] > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Appearently you know nothing of medicine. Different "peoples" react > differently to some medicines. This has been known since the dawn of man. We are at the point of identifying the individual genes that affect drug performance. Why do we need to fall back on such a coarse and archaic classification scheme as 'race'? > Pharms have to take race into consideration on every medicine they study. I > think Merck has an immense web-site. Im sure there they must discuss it at > length, somewhere. American Indians are especially succeptable to radiator > fluid even moreso than most. (it kills you.) As the very same inability to > metabolize alcohol in an efficient manner is to blame. So, are you saying that there are races more suited to the consumption of radiator fluid? Who might these people be? The concept of 'race' is really only suitable for people wearing pointy white hats who can't yell, "Lynch all the...(insert the precise genetic profile here)!" SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Time's fun when you're having flies. -- Kermit the Frog >>>>>Of course it will be used to discriminate between the races. >>>>>Pharmacutical [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Why do you think theres going to be a "specific gene" that accounts for >race? I don't. I don't believe that ANYTHING accounts for "race" other than social factors. >What leads you to believe that? It could be spread out across our >entire DNA structure, in all genes and codons, or only a few, or quite a >few. Then there would be several genes. I'll accept a list of several genes, as long as they are ALL shared by ALL members of a race, and NO members of any other race has ALL of them. >>> In fact, we already are >>>aware of many of them. This is old news. Some orientals [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Yes, it does. Why do you say it doesnt. Because "some orientals" do NOT react to the drug, and therefore it is not a trait of the racial category called "orientals", but of the genetic category called "people who have a sensitivity to X drug", some of which people are NOT oriental, and some orientals are NOT in that category. >LOL, you cling to this, "theres no >such thing as race" mantra of yours as if youve been brainwashed. You rant about Jews like someone who has been brainwashed. >Of course theres such a thing as race. Socially, I'm sure. >Compare and eskimo to an Amazonian. WTF do you think you are observing? homo sapiens. Human beings who can and do breed freely with each other, and who have all sorts of genetic and non-genetic variation. >>>Well, if this particular data base doesnt want to differentiate between >>>race [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >It will be of no use for medicine then, so new research on DNA WILL be done >for medicines sake. But it won't prove the genetic existence of the socially constructed race, since they aren't genetically determined. >>>Maybe I misunderstood the intial point of the discussion. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Unfortunately, for you, it will be done, It can't be done, so it won't be. I'm quite sure that there is no set of genes that are shared by ALL blacks, and not shared by some non-blacks. >and unfortunately for him, it will >only prove the obvious, that DNA is responsible for what the body grows up >to be. Since identical twins do not have identical lives, this is false. >>>At some point, there will be created a data base containing all the info >>>in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Pure stupidity. Where the "f" are you getting this sh.t? Do blacks >spontaniously give birth to Scottsman? What's a "Scottsman"? A social category, not a genetic one. Two blacks who are citizens of Scotland who have kids give birth to "Scotsmen". >Do Mongolians birth Swedish blondes? They might give birth to a blonde (albeit rarely), but they would not be "Swedish", because the latter is a national identity and not a genetic one (as is Mongolian). >We breed true when we dont cross-breed. But every so-called race does and has "cross-bred" in its history, in some cases extensively. Thus there is no one who can KNOW that they are of a "pure" strain of any race, even if we could define what such a pure race would be. >>>Breed, race, etc., are all just words for the same thing. >> >> Yes. A social construct. > >No, a scientificaly observable classification within a species. There is no scientifically recognized human "breeds". I'm not sure that there are even any scientifically recognized *dog* breeds. Those are recognized by the American Kennel Club, which is not a scientific organization. >> Human beings are not "bred", so there are no "breeds". > >You game of semantics is wasted upon those brighter than you. I doubt if you are brighter than me. >But, just to be argumentative... Man indeed, at times, is bred. To establish a "breed" there would need to be controlled breeding over several generations, with NO outsiders being allowed to sire offspring within the breed. >What the hell do you think arranged marriages are? Use your head. Lets see.... I played Mendel >in a run of Fiddler on the Roof, so Im rather well aquanted with that play, >I seem to recall a song... "match maker, match maker, make me a match..." > >Men and woman are bred. What else would you call it? 1. People have kids outside of marriage, and bear cuckolds in marriage. 2. It takes more than one generation for "arrangements" to make a "breed". 3. The "breeds" in question are specific ones, called "blacks", "whites", "orientals", and you've included "Jews" in your posts even though they are almost all "white" among the three types listed previously. But each of those "breeds" has NUMEROUS known examples of crossbreeding outside of the "breed" in their ancestry, so they are not in any sense pure strains, but are as I said "mongrels". <Main Entry: mon·grel <1 : an individual resulting from the interbreeding of diverse breeds < or strains; especially : one of unknown ancestry That definition is true for every human being since NO human being has "known ancestry" back to a time when there *could* have been specific genetically isolated races. > There are >> differences between individual DNA, and some of these correlate >> statistically with ancestry, but not one correlates anywhere near 100% >> with ancestry. > >I do. My entire family going back severeal thousand years does. You can prove every single ancestor back for several thousand years? Nonsense. >Need I say more? British nobility does. Absolutely not. I happen to be doing some genealogical research and there are LOTS of unknowns about the ancestry of British nobility, even assuming that there was no instance of unrecorded cuckoldry (which is unlikely). Please remember that William the Conqueror was a bastard, whose mother was a commoner, and whose maternal grandparents are known only by legendary names. And that isn't the only commoner with untraced genealogy in the royal lineages, and lesser British nobility has less-well-traced ancestry. For example: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~pmcbride/james/f028.htm <In the reign of Henry I. there was a William le Despencer, but whether < he had the name from being son of Robert, or succeeded to the post of < steward, cannot be determined. The next person we find holding this < office, and in the same reign was Thurstan Dispencer. and that is in the lines entirely within British history. Of course the current royalty has at least as much German and Spanish ancestry as British, because George I came from Germany, and had only one English ancestral line. William the Conqueror is some 30-35 generations back in history. Prince Charles thus has 2**30 ancestors of that generation, which is somewhat over 1 billion ancestors. We only know a few thousand of those. Even with extensive inbreeding, there are far more that we don't know than those that we do know. Here is a 8 generation ancestry for Prince William, There is one entry in the 8th generation for which no name is known at all (#247), #246 is only "possible", #233 has no surname, and there are more than a dozen for which there is no birth information, which means that we may not know much about their parentage (again assuming that all the documents tell the truth about parentage, which is unlikely). Numbers 254 and 255 are an acknowledged illegitimacy. Close to half of the 128 listed ancestors have no title suggesting that they were commoners. There is even an American born commoner as recently as the 5th generation (#29) And 8 generations only takes us back to around the formation of the US, since George III appears in that generation. http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/william.html >>>We most certainly are a hoj-poj of different "breeds," as John says. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Pure stupidity. To make such an assinine and moronic assertion I find to be >almost insulting. I don't mind insulting racists. >My family breeds true. Unprovable nonsense. >We have a pure line of ancestry going back thousands of years. There are no provable lines of ancestry going back that far. There are legendary ancestries dating back to Adam, but those are myths, and that would only be one line whereas to be "purebred" ALL of your lines have to be "clean". >You just cant make sh.t up and expect others >to take the remainder of you allegations as true. If the English royalty cannot prove all their ancestors back 8 generations, and hasn't controlled their breeding to within nobility to greater than around 50%, yours is the unsupported and unsupportable claim. >>>We are indeed different in breed. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >No, You and I are most certainly of a different breed. Geneticaly. Trust >me on this one. I don't. Not that it is an honor to share ancestors with racists. >>>Go look at a pygmy and compare him to a 6ft 8inch Fijian. (sp?) >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >No. Thats simply a lie passed onto idiots for their consumption. That is what science has found. > There is very little variation within a breed. Wrong. >Theres a much bigger difference >between a german-jew and an American Indian that there has ever been between >American Indians themselves. Which is why on another education forum there is a big debate over whether Wade Churchill really has Indian ancestry. By your claim, there would be no question. > Theres never been a person in the entire >history of my family that comes close to resembling an American Indian. You have photos of every single one of them back several thousand years? >And >there has NEVER been an American Indian born resembling anyone from our >family. Simple fact. Unprovable claim. >> Define the traits of a pygmy that will allow you to identify someone >> as a pygmy and not a member of any other "breed". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >exercise. Imagine a Swede, a Pygmy, A native South African, an Eskimo, a >Central American Indian, and a Chinese. Got them pictured? No. I only have some idea what the stereotypes look like. >> Racists >> claim statistical correlations, but an individual is not a statistic, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Right. There are hundreds of millions of mongrels, mutts, cross-breeds, >etc., and... so what? There are over 6 billion of us. >It doesnt take a genius to figure out that when you breed two genius's you >get a genius. Not always. I know many counterexamples. >And when you breed two idiots, if they arent cross-bred, and >breed true, youll get an idiot nearly 100% of the time. Leonardo da Vinci, the greatest genius of his time, was the illegitimate son of a nondescript lawyer and a peasant girl. William the Conqueror was as noted, an illegitimate son and his father was likewise illegitimate. In point of fact, it is not especially common for geniuses to marry geniuses, so your claim cannot be easily proven. >You know, maybe you should read a little about dog breeding. Dogs have their breeding completely controlled. Humans do not, even when there are arranged marriages. >You start with the errent notion that man has bred hodge-podge willy-nilly >for so long that were all inter-bred. Its just not true. Many "Americans" >are because were a melting pot. Likewise most other countries, because racial purity wasn't a big deal in most societies. Even Jewish ancestry, which you made a big deal about, requires only one line in order to be considered valid. >No. They dont. A jack russell terrior is different than a black lab. >Different breeds. Created in less time, by the hands of man, than it took >the Brits to self selectively breed for an elite and brilliant ruling class. A what???? Yet look at what their ancestry shows - lots of non-royal and even non-noble ancestors with recent times, and certainly even more before then when ancestry was harder to prove. >>>Who gives a flying rats a.s? I dont. Being one breed doesnt >>>make you better than another, or more or less worthy. Or anything for [quoted text clip |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message