""Dr John E. Anderson"" <jander at unf.edu> skrev i melding
news:000c01c0e248$fa4c4900$0ac23e8b at unf.edu...
> In my haste to get that last message off before giving a brief lecture, I
> forgot to add the most important question, which is, what's your evidence?
The main sorce I have in front of me right now, is 'Race' by John.Baker.
The bibliography for the papers are through 560-605.
Here he traces the various breeds of seagulls from Europe to Iceland through
Russia and Asia.
Salamanders in Eastern Europe, and cracks down on the various main-races and
their sub-divisions.
The table is on 624-625.
Other sources are J.Philippe.Rushton (Race, Evolution and Behavior).
The Bell Curve by Herrenstein and Murray (a heavy read, but easy enough)
about crime, IQ and SES.
'Life:The Science of Biology' by Purves et al, though they avoid certain
topics (a good read though, all 1200 pages).
That was the one I started out with after I checked out MIT's online-book, a
nice but very general collection of various topics.
Primarily I'm interested in genetic groupings (as Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza
would call them), while
I call them racial groupings for ease.
Here you have a review of his "Genes, Peoples, and Languages" at Amazon.com
After reading this review, I'd rather get "The History and Geography of
Human Genes."
Technicalities <shrug>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Enjoyable, once the politically correct boilerplate is thru, May 25, 2000
Reviewer: Steve Sailer (see more about me) from USA
Cavalli-Sforza & The Reality of Race by Steve Sailer (www.iSteve.com)
The New York Times has hailed "Genes, Peoples, and Languages", the new book
by Professor Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, the dean of population geneticists,
for "dismantling the idea of race." In the New York Review of Books, Jared
Diamond salutes Cavalli-Sforza for "demolishing scientists' attempts to
classify human populations into races in the same way that they classify
birds and other species into races".
Cavalli-Sforza himself has written, "The classification into races has
proved to be a futile exercise"; and that "The idea of race in the human
species serves no purpose."
Don't believe any of this. This is merely a politically correct smoke screen
that Cavalli-Sforza regularly pumps out that keeps his life's work --
identifying the myriad races of mankind and compiling their genealogies --
from being defunded by the commissars of acceptable thinking at Stanford.
What's striking is how the press falls for his squid ink, even though
Cavalli-Sforza can't resist proudly putting his genetic map showing the main
races of mankind right on the cover of his 1994 magnum opus, "The History
and Geography of Human Genes."
(Here's also a link to Cavalli-Sforza's map on the website of molecular
anthropologist Jonathan Marks, author of "Human Biodiversity," one of the
few leftists acute enough to notice the spectacular contradiction between
Cavalli-Sforza's boilerplate about the meaninglessness of race and the cover
of his most important book:........)
This is Cavalli-Sforza's own description of this map that is the capstone of
his half century of labor in human genetics: "The color map of the world
shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the
continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids ... (purple),
and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong
Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the
other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia."
Basically, all his number-crunching has produced a map that looks about like
what you'd get if you gave Jesse Helms a paper napkin and a box of crayons
and had him draw a racial map of the world. In fact, at the global level,
Cavalli-Sforza has largely confirmed the prejudices of the more worldly 19th
Century imperialists. Rudyard Kipling and Cecil Rhodes could have hunkered
down together and whipped up something rather like this map in honor of
Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee.
Cavalli-Sforza's new book, "Genes, Peoples, and Languages," is a
surprisingly readable updating of a series of lectures on his work that he's
been giving for years. It's not at all a bad introduction to this hugely
productive scientist. But to find out just how politically unpopular
Cavalli-Sforza's findings really are, you need to crack open his tecnically
intimidating but endlessly fascinating landmark, "The History and Geography
of Human Genes." (The reaonably priced abridged version is all that you'd
ever need; the $195 unabridged volume is for libraries only.) It remains the
best summary of how the early humans of Africa split apart into the
countless racial groups we see today.
Cavalli-Sforza's team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the "genetic
distances" separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For
example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is
equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the
English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the
English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more
distant genetically from the English than the Danish, and the Japanese 59
times greater. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main
group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between
the English and the Danish. (The genetic distance between Japanese and
Bantus is even greater.)
>From these kind of tables, Cavalli-Sforza reached this general conclusion:
"The most important difference in the human gene pool is clearly that
between Africans and non-Africans ..." As you can imagine, this finding
could get him in a bit of hot water if the campus thought police ever found
out about it. So, we should certainly forgive the charade he keeps up to
fool the New York Times. But, we definitely don't have to believe it.
Ultimately, what is a "race"? It is essentially a lineage, a family tree. A
racial group is merely an extremely extended family that inbreeds to some
extent. Thus, race is a fundamental aspect of the human condition because we
are all born into families. Burying our heads in the sand and refusing to
think clearly about this bedrock fact of life only makes the inevitable
problems caused by race harder to overcome. --This text refers to the
Hardcover edition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Link about eye-colours and achievement; though suspect:
http://www.iuniverse.com/marketplace/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=15834856
86
I haven't read any review of it, and have no idea, so it's generally a
'throw-in-the-dark'.
You might avoid it if you wish.
Mvh
Brian.D.Duryee
*Still not an MD, but not stupid enought to wear rose-coloured glasses*
> John
>> John Anderson, Ph.D.
> Department of Natural Sciences
> University of North Florida
> 4567 St Johns Bluff Road, South
> Jacksonville, FL 32224
>>jander at unf.edu>
Ohhh, by the way; here is a response from a reader at soc.history.ancient:
Header: The Curse continues - here with an explanation for those without
knowledge of genetics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
> >The only way to get a homogenous coloration
> >in a population is by ISOLATION! ......
> >Before, when they were HOMOGENOUS they were consistently
> >alike. Now that they are no longer genetically ISOLATED, there is a
> >much greater variation in appearance. The blond, blue Aryans won't
> >disappear, but they may have a mix of children, some blond, blue,
> >others with other colorations.
>> Thanks for the correction.
Bordering on stupidity you people..........
What happens, when you have two groups; one we could call Blue-eyes
and the other Brown-eyes.
The darker genes are dominant, while the lighter genes are recessive.
When you intermingle them (by force), and gives one Blue-eye for one
Brown-eye, what happens is:
The dominant genes will appear, while the lighter genes will be 'dormant'.
If you continue this and intermingle the second generation (at random), the
dominant genes will appear AND occupy the recessive sites on the genomic
map.
So, in JUST two generations, the Blue-eyes went EXTINCT.
Hmmmm, maybe I should consentrate in genetics :)
Mvh
Brian.D..Duryee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
