Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I have no reason to believe that Black people behaving violently has anything to do with genetics. A large part of it is cultural. Go read Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals
Alot of bad behavior from Blacks mirrors that from the southern White underclass(keyword is underclass), with similar behaviors such as violence, disregard for education, lack of entrepreneurship,etc. I'm more apt to believe Sowell because he has lived it out. He came from the South, lived in New York City and dealt with certain things himself.
It provides a better explanation that you have given. If this violence is genetic, then how come drunkenness and violence was observed among many in the southern White underclass during the 19th and early 20th century? If genetics had anything to do with it, then you would have to argue the same about Whites. However, since you haven't, then it can be surmised that genetics has nothing to do with it. It has more to do with culture.
Bremerton Washington has a Crips gang, all black. Hazelton being 75% white is not a "white town" and borders Detroit. I'd be willing to bet that, once again, the vast majority of crime and the one murder that happened in Hazel Park was committed by a black person. I'll accept that there are white people in those towns who will commit crime, weak-minded easily influenced by rap whites who have something to prove how "ghetto" they are, coming out unnatural as they do so (morons like Paul Wall). Genetics do play a role but certain traits can be "learned."
The violence of the Prohibiton days was nothing compared to that of today and you don't see drive-bys in white trailer parks down south (and don't quote me one or two instances where some nutcase lost it). If you want to deny genetics role in human nature, then you deny it in the nature of all creatures of this earth, their behavioral patterns. You also deny the fact that black people have a different bone structure by doing this as well, or do you want to nitpick yourself around that fact as well?
Bremerton Washington has a Crips gang, all black. Hazelton being 75% white is not a "white town" and it basically borders Detroit. I'd be willing to bet that, once again, the vast majority of crime and the one murder that happened in Hazel Park was committed by a black person.
The violence of the Prohibiton days was nothing compared to that of today and you don't see drive-bys in white trailer parks down south (and don't quote me one or two instances where some nutcase lost it). If you want to deny genetics role in human nature, then you deny it in the nature of all creatures of this earth, their behavioral patterns. You also deny the fact that black people have a different bone structure by doing this as well, or do you want to nitpick yourself around that fact as well?
Can you prove any of your cases about HP and Bremerton? Bremerton might have crips, but it also has a meth problem. Last time I checked, alot of Whites are involved in meth. And consider this. Bremerton is 6.8% Black and Missouri City is 42% Black. How come Bremerton is having more problems?
And I was not talking about the violence of Prohibition. I was talking about the violence in the Deep South among the White underclass. If you were to believe that genetics were the reason for such violence among blacks, then you would also have to believe the same for Whites.
And as for bone structure, bone structure varies alot WITHIN races. As does genetics itself. There is more genetic variation WITHIN races than between.
Can you prove any of your cases about HP and Bremerton?
And I was not talking about the violence of Prohibition. I was talking about the violence in the Deep South among the White underclass. If you were to believe that genetics were the reason for such violence among blacks, then you would also have to believe the same for Whites.
And you offered no explanation for Everett. And Bremerton has had issues with meth.
And as for bone structure, bone structure varies alot WITHIN races. As does genetics itself. There is more genetic variation WITHIN races than between.
Youtube "Compton Crips" and of the leaders of the gang says they have a hood in Bremerton Washington.
If you really believe that there is more genetic variation within races than between them, then oh my God. No, just no. It's utterly impossible and disproven by autosomal DNA tests. Europe is the most genetically homogenous continent in the world. There is more genetic variation in India than all of Europe. A Scandinavian and a Sicilian are more closely related to each other than any other groups are to each other (see page 2 of http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2008-10-25.pdf).
Youtube "Compton Crips" and of the leaders of the gang says they have a hood in Bremerton Washington.
If you really believe that there is more genetic variation within races than between them, then oh my God. No, just no. It's utterly impossible and disproven by autosomal DNA tests. Europe is the most genetically homogenous continent in the world. There is more genetic variation in India than all of Europe. A Scandinavian and a Sicilian are more closely related to each other than any other groups are to each other (see page 2 of http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2008-10-25.pdf).
I know plenty about crips in the West Coast. How much do YOU know about the meth problem in Kitsap County,WA?
That is total bullcrap! A total misinterpretation. The measure of race is based on frequeny of genes (alleles), not variation.
The bulk of genes cluster by race in identifiable patterns. The variation are caused by the exceptional genes within each individual which do not follow that rule, and this is more so among the racial outliers. In other words, I may share some genes with an Asian that any given European does not, or vice versa; but the likelihood of an Asian being overall more genetically similar to me than I am to that European is almost non-existent. The pattern among genes, even with the presence of some exceptional genes, remains unbroken and recognizable.
Interestingly, if you were to add up all of those exceptional genes into a list that includes our entire race, you would have a pretty significant and lengthy list. That list is what race-deniers are talking about and trying to use as proof. If the reality was that genes just randomly distributed all the time then they might have a case, but genes actually tend to cluster in groups due to selection, competition within groups, isolation from other groups, migration of source groups into one area whom then spread out an populate the entire regions (as happened out of Africa in the distant past), etc.
About the best thing you can do at this time is say that the current definitions of race are wrong and need readjustment. Also, it depends on the purposes. For us, we have well established views of race. The company which read my genes, 23andme, mentions as control variables in studies the ethnic group or three basic races: European, Asian, and African (with groups in between such as the Arabs not falling cleanly into one, but being mixed with a certain percentage from two or more races). They do this because they know genes cluster differently, and because we have different rates of medical issues by race, and because it seems certain genes do not always express the same way in one group as they do in another.
"Stemmed from Lewontin (referred to as 'Lewontin's Fallacy' by geneticist A.W.F Edwards in his paper; "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy") most notably, in the past three decades of contemporary anti-race literature (there are other examples as well, of course).
The Percent Scams
Knowledge from the genome project has already helped put in perspective some previously misunderstood, or intentionally misrepresented, genetic information — what I call the “percent scams.” There have been two main scams, one at one percent, another at six percent.
The one percent scam started from genuine surprise among scientists at the similarity in base sequences between early samples of chimp and human DNA. In some comparisons it appeared that we shared about 99 percent of our genetic material with the chimpanzee, and egalitarian anthropologists immediately exploited this similarity. If there is only one percent of difference between the two species, it must follow that all men are genetically functionally equivalent. By this “proof,” racial differences must be due to historical accident and cultural differentiation — not genetic differentiation — since there is no room for genetic differentiation.
Better understanding of the genome reveals that “percent difference,” is not a relevant comparison. Small differences can matter tremendously. Mice and humans, for example, have many DNA sequences in common, and many mouse genes are very similar to human genes. It takes a lot of the same genetic blueprint to build mammalian bodies with liver, spleen, digestive tract, skeletal systems, and nervous systems. And, in fact, there are many similarities between mouse and man, as any anatomy student can verify by direct examination. There are also important differences.
With apes we share many of our genes. However, we could share 99 percent of our base pair sequences and still differ in 100 percent of our gene products, depending on how the one percent difference were istributed throughout the genome. Since genes and protein products interact in complex ways, often small differences in genes can cascade to enormous differences in final traits.
As an example, consider that among humans the manifold differences between the sexes are, on present evidence, the result of a difference in only one gene. The gene in question is a regulatory gene, that is, its primary product interacts with the DNA to regulate the expression of many other genes. With the tdf gene (testes determining factor, also known as Sry, or the Sex determining Region of the y chromosome) you get a male; without the tdf gene, a female. Sry is only one gene out of 50,000 to 100,000. The argument that the “only one percent difference” between ape and man is evidence for genetic identity among humans can now only be maintained as a deliberate scam.
The six percent scam began in 1972 with Richard Lewontin. He is the brilliant Harvard biologist who co-authored (with Leon Kamin and Steven Rose) the Marxist screed Not in Our Genes, and coined the term “jensenism” to denigrate and demonize both an outstanding scientist and an entire area of investigation. In the early days of population comparisons of allelic patterns, Lewontin catalogued the frequencies across seven racial groups for 29 alleles from 17 gene loci, from which he calculated a statistical genetic diversity index. He reported that 85.4 percent of the genetic diversity was contained within local populations, an additional 8.3 percent of the diversity was between populations within a race, and only 6.3 percent of the genetic diversity differentiated the major races. (These are percentages of Lewontin’s index, and not percentages of genes, so the numbers are not comparable to the percentage of genes shared by humans and chimps.) Other investigators have reported similar results. From the finding that only about six percent of the diversity differentiated the major races, Lewontin ended his 1972 paper with the politically correct non sequitur that:
Quote: “Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.” That paper and its conclusion became a classic in the egalitarian armamentarium but the Lewontin argument is a scam in the same way the Chimpanzee comparison is a scam. The fact that there is much genetic diversity among people within local populations is very important. However, the meaningful question about racial differences is not the percentage of total diversity, but rather how the diversity is distributed among the races, what traits it influences, and how it is patterned. It has indeed been a surprise to many geneticists to discover how much genetic diversity there is in local populations. Two brothers, for example, share fully half their alleles by descent, but differ in countless ways.
According to Lewontin’s statistical formulation they account for much genetic diversity just between the two of them. Nevertheless, to understand how meaningless this approach is as an analysis of racial differences, one might consider the extent to which humans and macaque monkeys share genes and alleles. If the total genetic diversity of humans plus macaques is given an index of 100 percent, more than half of that diversity will be found in a troop of macaques or in the population of Belfast. This does not mean Irishmen differ more from their neighbors than they do from macaques — which is what the Lewontin approach slyly implies.
Pattern Diversity
Since the mid-1980s there have been a number of population surveys looking at genetic diversity, and virtually all the serious ones find the same racial patterning. The thousand-page tome published in 1994 by L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues ( The History and Geography of Human Genes) is one of the better known. They present 491 world populations using data for 128 alleles at 45 polymorphic loci. The populations are grouped in various meaningful ways, aggregated into 42 populations, which are combined into nine clusters.
Cavalli-Sforza et.al. are adamant that they are not studying races, but rather populations of humans.
However, their nine clusters have a familiar ring: “Africans (sub-Saharan), Caucasoids (European) … Northern Mongoloids (excluding Arctic populations) …” (1994, p.79) The figure on this page presents a graphic schematization of their major findings with regard to patterning of genetic diversity. In their words, from their genetic data, “the greatest difference within the human species is between Africans and non-Africans … The cluster formed by Caucasoids, northern Mongoloids, and Amerinds is reasonably compact in all analyses.” (1994, p. 83)
-- G. Whitney; "Race, Genetics & Society", 2002, Scott-Townsend Publishers."
The crime index is lower than the national average but it's not lower than mostly white towns. Murder isn't the only crime nor the only type of violent crime, and compare it to some of the whitest towns and it won't even be close. Missouri City is only about half black but I'd put money on the vast majority of fights, robberies, noise disturbances, and general "loitering" are caused by young black people in that town.
I'm not trying to say all blacks are violent killers. 99.9% of them have never killed anybody. But I do think black people do have traits genetically, which from a biological standpoint is perfectly logical, that influences generally a greater lack of impulse control than their European cousins.
OMG...OMG you cant really believe that crap? That is the worst use of crap science ever. Using terms like genetic traits, bilogical standpoint, perfectly logical, influences, and lack of impluse control is nothing more than psuedo-scientific gobbledygook.
That is total bullcrap! The measure of race is about frequeny of genes (alleles), not variation. Whites can have hair pigmentation whose range exceeds that of blacks but the frequency of black hair in blacks is much, much higher than whites and the frequency of blonds in blacks is almost nothing if not zero.
This argument of "more variation within races than between" is the last gasp of the line of reasoning beginning with Franz Boas and ending with paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. When Gould died a few years ago, this school of thought went extinct. Now, the ideas of Boas and Gould are as dead as the dinosaurs.
"Stemmed from Lewontin (referred to as 'Lewontin's Fallacy' by geneticist A.W.F Edwards in his paper; "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy") most notably, in the past three decades of contemporary anti-race literature (there are other examples as well, of course).
The Percent Scams
Knowledge from the genome project has already helped put in perspective some previously misunderstood, or intentionally misrepresented, genetic information — what I call the “percent scams.” There have been two main scams, one at one percent, another at six percent.
The one percent scam started from genuine surprise among scientists at the similarity in base sequences between early samples of chimp and human DNA. In some comparisons it appeared that we shared about 99 percent of our genetic material with the chimpanzee, and egalitarian anthropologists immediately exploited this similarity. If there is only one percent of difference between the two species, it must follow that all men are genetically functionally equivalent. By this “proof,” racial differences must be due to historical accident and cultural differentiation — not genetic differentiation — since there is no room for genetic differentiation.
Better understanding of the genome reveals that “percent difference,” is not a relevant comparison. Small differences can matter tremendously. Mice and humans, for example, have many DNA sequences in common, and many mouse genes are very similar to human genes. It takes a lot of the same genetic blueprint to build mammalian bodies with liver, spleen, digestive tract, skeletal systems, and nervous systems. And, in fact, there are many similarities between mouse and man, as any anatomy student can verify by direct examination. There are also important differences.
With apes we share many of our genes. However, we could share 99 percent of our base pair sequences and still differ in 100 percent of our gene products, depending on how the one percent difference were istributed throughout the genome. Since genes and protein products interact in complex ways, often small differences in genes can cascade to enormous differences in final traits.
As an example, consider that among humans the manifold differences between the sexes are, on present evidence, the result of a difference in only one gene. The gene in question is a regulatory gene, that is, its primary product interacts with the DNA to regulate the expression of many other genes. With the tdf gene (testes determining factor, also known as Sry, or the Sex determining Region of the y chromosome) you get a male; without the tdf gene, a female. Sry is only one gene out of 50,000 to 100,000. The argument that the “only one percent difference” between ape and man is evidence for genetic identity among humans can now only be maintained as a deliberate scam.
The six percent scam began in 1972 with Richard Lewontin. He is the brilliant Harvard biologist who co-authored (with Leon Kamin and Steven Rose) the Marxist screed Not in Our Genes, and coined the term “jensenism” to denigrate and demonize both an outstanding scientist and an entire area of investigation. In the early days of population comparisons of allelic patterns, Lewontin catalogued the frequencies across seven racial groups for 29 alleles from 17 gene loci, from which he calculated a statistical genetic diversity index. He reported that 85.4 percent of the genetic diversity was contained within local populations, an additional 8.3 percent of the diversity was between populations within a race, and only 6.3 percent of the genetic diversity differentiated the major races. (These are percentages of Lewontin’s index, and not percentages of genes, so the numbers are not comparable to the percentage of genes shared by humans and chimps.) Other investigators have reported similar results. From the finding that only about six percent of the diversity differentiated the major races, Lewontin ended his 1972 paper with the politically correct non sequitur that:
Quote: “Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.” That paper and its conclusion became a classic in the egalitarian armamentarium but the Lewontin argument is a scam in the same way the Chimpanzee comparison is a scam. The fact that there is much genetic diversity among people within local populations is very important. However, the meaningful question about racial differences is not the percentage of total diversity, but rather how the diversity is distributed among the races, what traits it influences, and how it is patterned. It has indeed been a surprise to many geneticists to discover how much genetic diversity there is in local populations. Two brothers, for example, share fully half their alleles by descent, but differ in countless ways.
According to Lewontin’s statistical formulation they account for much genetic diversity just between the two of them. Nevertheless, to understand how meaningless this approach is as an analysis of racial differences, one might consider the extent to which humans and macaque monkeys share genes and alleles. If the total genetic diversity of humans plus macaques is given an index of 100 percent, more than half of that diversity will be found in a troop of macaques or in the population of Belfast. This does not mean Irishmen differ more from their neighbors than they do from macaques — which is what the Lewontin approach slyly implies.
Pattern Diversity
Since the mid-1980s there have been a number of population surveys looking at genetic diversity, and virtually all the serious ones find the same racial patterning. The thousand-page tome published in 1994 by L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues ( The History and Geography of Human Genes) is one of the better known. They present 491 world populations using data for 128 alleles at 45 polymorphic loci. The populations are grouped in various meaningful ways, aggregated into 42 populations, which are combined into nine clusters.
Cavalli-Sforza et.al. are adamant that they are not studying races, but rather populations of humans.
However, their nine clusters have a familiar ring: “Africans (sub-Saharan), Caucasoids (European) … Northern Mongoloids (excluding Arctic populations) …” (1994, p.79) The figure on this page presents a graphic schematization of their major findings with regard to patterning of genetic diversity. In their words, from their genetic data, “the greatest difference within the human species is between Africans and non-Africans … The cluster formed by Caucasoids, northern Mongoloids, and Amerinds is reasonably compact in all analyses.” (1994, p. 83)
-- G. Whitney; "Race, Genetics & Society", 2002, Scott-Townsend Publishers."
The only reason you are calling it crap is because you have an agenda.
OMG...OMG you cant really believe that crap? That is the worst use of crap science ever. Using terms like genetic traits, bilogical standpoint, perfectly logical, influences, and lack of impluse control is nothing more than psuedo-scientific gobbledygook.
True. If lack of impulse control was inherent among Blacks, then it would have to apply to at least 50% of the population. Things like education and family are major factors. Violence among Blacks, this is what I see. Most of it is among those who have low education and come from broken homes. It is sociological and cultural.
The only reason you are calling it crap is because you have an agenda.
Actually, it is and has been easily set straight. All it is is a ridiculous misinterprentation and obviously it is they who have the agenda presenting it in the way that they do. If you truly believe that I am more closely related to a sub-Saharan African than another European then you are completely brainwashed and clearly they succeeded in feeding you their agenda the way they intended.
True. If lack of impulse control was inherent among Blacks, then it would have to apply to at least 50% of the population. Things like education and family are major factors. Violence among Blacks, this is what I see. Most of it is among those who have low education and come from broken homes. It is sociological and cultural.
Point to one study that corroborates your specific contentions...none of the material you cited even are in the same solar system as your claims...NONE.
You have taken behavioral genetics to uncharted waters. Pedal your crap elsewhere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
