Federico wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Any evidence that certain ethnicities are advanced in any kind of way like you're suggesting? Would you agree that Shrunk has provided evidence that Canadians are genetically built to be hockey players?

But of course. I'm surprised you didn't know that, but it is quite recent news.
Researchers at McGill University in Montreal, led by Professor Harry Bard, chief of the Genetics Department, and funded by the MRC Fund for Excellence, have discovered, after sequencing the genomes of ten Canadian and ten American Hockey players, startling differences in repeated non-coding DNA sequences. This, of course, explains why Canadian players are so much better than Amaricans.

The article linked is about dogs that can detect bowel cancer by smell.

Seems like amazing discoveries on the genetics field are taking place..
Right now we are 6 persons in the room and i am the only one typing on the computer. If differences are spotted between my DNA and theirs, it will be pretty much proven that i am genetically a better typer than them...




Right?

maik wrote:Seems like amazing discoveries on the genetics field are taking place..
Right now we are 6 persons in the room and i am the only one typing on the computer. If differences are spotted between my DNA and theirs, it will be pretty much proven that i am genetically a better typer than them...




Right?

Right.

Shrunk wrote:

Federico wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Any evidence that certain ethnicities are advanced in any kind of way like you're suggesting? Would you agree that Shrunk has provided evidence that Canadians are genetically built to be hockey players?

But of course. I'm surprised you didn't know that, but it is quite recent news.
Researchers at McGill University in Montreal, led by Professor Harry Bard, chief of the Genetics Department, and funded by the MRC Fund for Excellence, have discovered, after sequencing the genomes of ten Canadian and ten American Hockey players, startling differences in repeated non-coding DNA sequences. This, of course, explains why Canadian players are so much better than Amaricans.

The article linked is about dogs that can detect bowel cancer by smell.

Following up further on this, on the assumption that Federico had just used the wrong link by mistake, I'm able to find no evidence of this study anywhere, nor that there is anyone by the the name of Harry Bard at the McGill Dept. of Human Genetics. So what is this, Federico? Some attempt at a joke?

Shrunk wrote:
Following up further on this, on the assumption that Federico had just used the wrong link by mistake, I'm able to find no evidence of this study anywhere, nor that there is anyone by the the name of Harry Bard at the McGill Dept. of Human Genetics. So what is this, Federico? Some attempt at a joke?

No, not a joke but an attempt on my part, made in desperation at not being able to satisfy either you or Mr.Samsa.
You always want proof, always proof. So, I thought, lets give them some proof.

On the other hand, I insist, this time with real proof, Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens sapiens lived for a while (about 15,000 years) in the same region (Southern France) and in the same time frame.

"..Remains of Neanderthals found associated with tools in France and dated at between 31,000 and 34,000 years old, overlap with the earliest remains of modern humans from the same area! The fact that we are the only extant species of our genus has contributed to our distorted opinion of superiority, yet the fossil skeletons of modern man and Neanderthals found in the same vicinity and time at Saint Cezaire suggest a period when two intelligent beings coexisted (Parker, 1992)!

Agrippina wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote: Hmm. I think it may be you that needs genetic classes.

Do you realize that anyone can become a Jew. My point with the photos was to demonstrate that there are Arab Jews, Asian Jews, African Jews, Germanic Jews, Anglo Saxon Jews, Native American Jews. There is no such thing as Jewish genes.

Religion does not determine your genetics. So admit YOU don't know what YOU are talking about, and go away.

Which points out the chief problem that makes this question difficult to discuss: There is no clear cut way to define a "Jew" in either a genetic or cultural sense, making it next to impossible at this point to address the question in any rigorous sense. That's why most of the "evidence" in this thread has been along the lines of "My friend Murray finished third in the state math contest and he doesn't keep kosher, so it must be because of his Jewish genes."

It also smacks of the other side of the argument: Arians (who are more likely to be related to the star sign than an actual genetic group -- ah astrology again) tend to think that they are "pure" and "superior" based on the idea that they have blond hair and blue eyes. At the risk of being accused of having a religious bias, I have to ask the question, would "the Jews" whoever they might be, be superior mathematicians without the religious instruction to not marry shiksas and goys?

I'm reminded of Omar Sharif who is an Egyptian, when he was asked in the late 1960s whether he felt strange about kissing a Jew (Barbra Streisand in Funny Girl) and whether the religious difference wouldn't prevent him from doing that, said "I don't ask a girl about her religion before I kiss her!"

Yes. Aryan and Jewish races are both political constructs, primarily stemming from Nazi Germany, one suposedly being the superior and the other the inferior. It amazes me that people still use these terms having no clue of their racist origins like they actually existed.

If there is any intellectual advantage in being Jewish it would more likely have to do with nurture rather than nature. Judaism is big on intellectual pursuits where as other religions generally are not. There is no smart Jew gene.

Federico wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Following up further on this, on the assumption that Federico had just used the wrong link by mistake, I'm able to find no evidence of this study anywhere, nor that there is anyone by the the name of Harry Bard at the McGill Dept. of Human Genetics. So what is this, Federico? Some attempt at a joke?

No, not a joke but an attempt on my part, made in desperation at not being able to satisfy either you or Mr.Samsa.
You always want proof, always proof. So, I thought, lets give them some proof.

Well it's not proof we're after (or at least I'm not), I'd just like some evidence or logic.

Federico wrote:On the other hand, I insist, this time with real proof, Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens sapiens lived for a while (about 15,000 years) in the same region (Southern France) and in the same time frame.

"..Remains of Neanderthals found associated with tools in France and dated at between 31,000 and 34,000 years old, overlap with the earliest remains of modern humans from the same area! The fact that we are the only extant species of our genus has contributed to our distorted opinion of superiority, yet the fossil skeletons of modern man and Neanderthals found in the same vicinity and time at Saint Cezaire suggest a period when two intelligent beings coexisted (Parker, 1992)!

I don't know enough about this to comment, but I was under the impression that neanderthal and early man lived around the same time as well. I thought the idea was that we were partly responsible for wiping them out of existence through interbreeding and competition.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Federico wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Following up further on this, on the assumption that Federico had just used the wrong link by mistake, I'm able to find no evidence of this study anywhere, nor that there is anyone by the the name of Harry Bard at the McGill Dept. of Human Genetics. So what is this, Federico? Some attempt at a joke?

No, not a joke but an attempt on my part, made in desperation at not being able to satisfy either you or Mr.Samsa.
You always want proof, always proof. So, I thought, lets give them some proof.

Well it's not proof we're after (or at least I'm not), I'd just like some evidence or logic.

Yeah, me, too. And I'm sorry, Federico but if you think, even as a joke, that showing that elite Canadian hockey players have differences in non-coding DNA compared to elite American hockey players somehow shows that Canadians as a whole are genetically predisposed to excel at hockey, then all that does is further confirm that you're just not prepared for this discussion.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Federico wrote:On the other hand, I insist, this time with real proof, Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens sapiens lived for a while (about 15,000 years) in the same region (Southern France) and in the same time frame.

"..Remains of Neanderthals found associated with tools in France and dated at between 31,000 and 34,000 years old, overlap with the earliest remains of modern humans from the same area! The fact that we are the only extant species of our genus has contributed to our distorted opinion of superiority, yet the fossil skeletons of modern man and Neanderthals found in the same vicinity and time at Saint Cezaire suggest a period when two intelligent beings coexisted (Parker, 1992)!

I don't know enough about this to comment, but I was under the impression that neanderthal and early man lived around the same time as well. I thought the idea was that we were partly responsible for wiping them out of existence through interbreeding and competition.

And what this has to do with the argument Federico's trying to make is beyond me. If anything, it suggests that there was little difference between H. sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis in terms of intelligence.

Shrunk wrote:Yeah, me, too. And I'm sorry, Federico but if you think, even as a joke, that showing that elite Canadian hockey players have differences in non-coding DNA compared to elite American hockey players somehow shows that Canadians as a whole are genetically predisposed to excel at hockey, then all that does is further confirm that you're just not prepared for this discussion.

Exactly. It's a weird line of thought.

Shrunk wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Federico wrote:On the other hand, I insist, this time with real proof, Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens sapiens lived for a while (about 15,000 years) in the same region (Southern France) and in the same time frame.

"..Remains of Neanderthals found associated with tools in France and dated at between 31,000 and 34,000 years old, overlap with the earliest remains of modern humans from the same area! The fact that we are the only extant species of our genus has contributed to our distorted opinion of superiority, yet the fossil skeletons of modern man and Neanderthals found in the same vicinity and time at Saint Cezaire suggest a period when two intelligent beings coexisted (Parker, 1992)!

I don't know enough about this to comment, but I was under the impression that neanderthal and early man lived around the same time as well. I thought the idea was that we were partly responsible for wiping them out of existence through interbreeding and competition.

And what this has to do with the argument Federico's trying to make is beyond me. If anything, it suggests that there was little difference between H. sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis in terms of intelligence.

It's based on his misunderstanding of the term "environment". He thinks that a learning environment (and all the other factors that contribute towards "nurture") is simply the physical location that an organism finds itself in. So Frederico would try to argue that, if "environment" was a significant determining factor, two siblings that grow up in the same house, go to the same schools, with the same teachers, (etc) should end up identical (or, in his specific example, if two species occupied the same space then they should end up being equally "intelligent" or "talented" or whatever). Obviously this is an absurdly poor understanding of what an organism's environment is.

I think this is the cause for why most genetic determinists take the uniformed position that they do.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

tribalypredisposed wrote:

Agrippina wrote:


Well said! You forgot to add in a blonde

Wow, I guess someone never took any classes in genetics. Make that two of you. Yeah, Jews have different skin colors from each other! Gasp! Now please explain to us how this means Jews cannot have passed genetic variations for greater intelligence to all of the people in those photos. Or better yet, just finally admit to yourselves that you have not the first clue what we are even talking about and go away.

Hmm. I think it may be you that needs genetic classes.

Do you realize that anyone can become a Jew. My point with the photos was to demonstrate that there are Arab Jews, Asian Jews, African Jews, Germanic Jews, Anglo Saxon Jews, Native American Jews. There is no such thing as Jewish genes.

Religion does not determine your genetics. So admit YOU don't know what YOU are talking about, and go away.

We can go over all of this again for you, if you are somehow unable to figure out how to read through a thread. Should we? If we go through it very slowly, will you listen and try to understand? Just for fun, I quess I will make the absurd assumption that you have a mind that sometimes is affected by logical and factual information, despite the lack of evidence for that.

1)There are these things called genes. They are part of our DNA, it is the stuff that makes you you!
2)There are people called scientists. They study the DNA and genes and stuff to find out what parts of it do what things.
3)Genes and DNA are inherited. That means the genes and DNA that you have come from your parents!
4)Scientists can look at the genes and DNA in a person and know who they are related to. Yes, even if they have a nose job!
5)Scientists have looked at the genes and DNA of Jewish people from all over the world. They discovered that Jews from all over the world are very closely related to each other! In fact, more closely related to each other than any other population numbering in the millions.
6)Lots of tribes allow outsiders to become members. If they did not, they would become something called "inbred." Inbred results in genetic problems. Jews are so inbred that many Jews suffer from genetic problems. But no one has a problem with a Hopi calling themselves ethnicaly Hopi, even if they are less closely related to each other than Jews are to each other.
7)Having a problem with a group that is scientifically verifiably an ethnic group calling itself an ethnic group is called racism.
8)Racism is bad.

I know I covered a lot of ground there. Think about it hard and maybe just maybe you will achieve the understanding of a grade schooler someday soon.

So having pointed out that:

Jews from all over the world are very closely related to each other! In fact, more closely related to each other than any other population numbering in the millions.

and

Jews are so inbred that many Jews suffer from genetic problems. But no one has a problem with a Hopi calling themselves ethnicaly Hopi, even if they are less closely related to each other than Jews are to each other.

You're saying that as long as someone doesn't call themselves 'ethnically" a "Jew" they aren't a racist?

That's total rubbish. A lot of people are "ethnically jewish," the difference between those people, the non-racists, and "ethnic Jews" who are racists, is that the non-racists don't use their ethnicity to declare that their ethnicity somehow makes them superior to other people in some way or another.

Whatever this fight is about, has it been brought up that stresses in Europe on Jews over a thousand-year period was postulated to account for a significantly higher IQ among Ashkenazis than the global norm? I'm not promoting this notion and I'm basing this on very little, and nothing all that recent; I'm just wondering if it's come up here or anyone is more familiar with the research.

tribalypredisposed wrote:Think about it hard and maybe just maybe you will achieve the understanding of a grade schooler someday soon.

Personal attacks unappreciated. Thank you.

Mr.Samsa wrote:It's based on his misunderstanding of the term "environment". He thinks that a learning environment (and all the other factors that contribute towards "nurture") is simply the physical location that an organism finds itself in. So Frederico would try to argue that, if "environment" was a significant determining factor, two siblings that grow up in the same house, go to the same schools, with the same teachers, (etc) should end up identical (or, in his specific example, if two species occupied the same space then they should end up being equally "intelligent" or "talented" or whatever). Obviously this is an absurdly poor understanding of what an organism's environment is.

Federico seems to take things to even a more absurd level than that. He keeps saying the comparison between Mozart and Salieri is one of the best arguments he has. This despite the fact Salieri grew up in Venice and was orphaned in his teens, while Mozart was raised in Salzburg and was outlived by his father, just to point out two salient differnces. I guess working in Vienna in their adulthood constitutes being exposed to the "same environment."

And again to repeat, I have no reason to doubt that genetic factors did contribute to Mozart's accomplishment. The fact that his sister showed an equallly precocious talent (and may well have had an equally prolific career if not genetically burdened by her lack of a Y chomosome and its attendant cultural consequences) is enough to suggest that. But to argue that the differences between two men who have little in common beyond living on the same continent are purely genetic is, as you say, absurd.

If someone's got a nice hammer, he sees all problems as nails.

Shrunk wrote:Federico seems to take things to even a more absurd level than that. He keeps saying the comparison between Mozart and Salieri is one of the best arguments he has. This despite the fact Salieri grew up in Venice and was orphaned in his teens, while Mozart was raised in Salzburg and was outlived by his father, just to point out two salient differnces. I guess working in Vienna in their adulthood constitutes being exposed to the "same environment."

Yeah, I hadn't quite clicked on that. I suppose the same "environment" in that situation means the same time period...

Shrunk wrote:And again to repeat, I have no reason to doubt that genetic factors did contribute to Mozart's accomplishment. The fact that his sister showed an equallly precocious talent (and may well have had an equally prolific career if not genetically burdened by her lack of a Y chomosome and its attendant cultural consequences) is enough to suggest that. But to argue that the differences between two men who have little in common beyond living on the same continent are purely genetic is, as you say, absurd.

I have no problem accepting that genetic factors would probably increase the likelihood of someone being able to become a musical genius (although I'd argue that these things will be general things like hand-eye coordination, good hearing, etc, as opposed to a "music gene"), but the problem with these anecdotes is that there are almost an infinite number of confounds. We can say that it's possible that there were genetic influences that produced Mozart's abilities by pointing to his sister, but we can't ignore the fact that they were exposed to similar environmental factors and so it's difficult to tell whether their similarities were caused by one or the other (or, perhaps more accurately, to what degree the similarity was caused by each). There's also a bit of confirmation bias when looking at these kinds of anecdotes, I think, because I'm sure for every musical genius who you can show to have a similarly talented sibling, I'm sure I could find 10 who had tone deaf siblings.

Not that you're actually trying to make a positive argument using anecdotes like that, I'm more just ranting over the general premise as it's commonly used.

tribalypredisposed wrote:
1)There are these things called genes. They are part of our DNA, it is the stuff that makes you you!
2)There are people called scientists. They study the DNA and genes and stuff to find out what parts of it do what things.
3)Genes and DNA are inherited. That means the genes and DNA that you have come from your parents!
4)Scientists can look at the genes and DNA in a person and know who they are related to. Yes, even if they have a nose job!
5)Scientists have looked at the genes and DNA of Jewish people from all over the world. They discovered that Jews from all over the world are very closely related to each other! In fact, more closely related to each other than any other population numbering in the millions.
6)Lots of tribes allow outsiders to become members. If they did not, they would become something called "inbred." Inbred results in genetic problems. Jews are so inbred that many Jews suffer from genetic problems. But no one has a problem with a Hopi calling themselves ethnicaly Hopi, even if they are less closely related to each other than Jews are to each other.
7)Having a problem with a group that is scientifically verifiably an ethnic group calling itself an ethnic group is called racism.
8)Racism is bad.

I know I covered a lot of ground there. Think about it hard and maybe just maybe you will achieve the understanding of a grade schooler someday soon.

Very good and basic enough for scientifically precluded people to understand.

Federico wrote:

tribalypredisposed wrote:
1)There are these things called genes. They are part of our DNA, it is the stuff that makes you you!
2)There are people called scientists. They study the DNA and genes and stuff to find out what parts of it do what things.
3)Genes and DNA are inherited. That means the genes and DNA that you have come from your parents!
4)Scientists can look at the genes and DNA in a person and know who they are related to. Yes, even if they have a nose job!
5)Scientists have looked at the genes and DNA of Jewish people from all over the world. They discovered that Jews from all over the world are very closely related to each other! In fact, more closely related to each other than any other population numbering in the millions.
6)Lots of tribes allow outsiders to become members. If they did not, they would become something called "inbred." Inbred results in genetic problems. Jews are so inbred that many Jews suffer from genetic problems. But no one has a problem with a Hopi calling themselves ethnicaly Hopi, even if they are less closely related to each other than Jews are to each other.
7)Having a problem with a group that is scientifically verifiably an ethnic group calling itself an ethnic group is called racism.
8)Racism is bad.

I know I covered a lot of ground there. Think about it hard and maybe just maybe you will achieve the understanding of a grade schooler someday soon.

Very good and basic enough for scientifically precluded people to understand.

I agree, his post does make it impossible (preclude) for people to understand the science of genetics.

Mr. samsa,

I reply to your criticism but I'm addressing my answers to shrunk as well, since you have told me yourself he is some kind of spokesperson and general debunker for you who dont have too much time for long discussions.
Unfortunately, your scientifically inadequate but persisting rebuttal of the essential role of genetics in the development and evolution of man's cognitive capacities, impels me to suggest that you both have a dispassionate look at two threads -- The Cognitive Brain and Is Lamarkism back, where two fundamental tenets of the role of genetic in the development of intelligence are discussed with ample scientific support: The obvious role of heredity and the role of genes and epigenetics as mechanisms involved in such development.

Just to summarize: Studies with identical twins have shown the role of heredity, while the environment -- meaning diet, culture, adequate financial support, encouragement by the authorities also through bursaries etc -- exemplifies the role of these factors on the switching on and off of the genes through various epigenetic mechanisms.

Having repeated that for the umpteenth time, I am not retracting what I wrote in previous posts of this thread: The Jewish ethnic groups are genetically different from other Caucasian groups: Not superior, not inferior, just different. In addition, when compared to people living in close proximity to them (e.g., Ashkenazi Jews vs non-Jewish people living in the same central and eastern European regions), they are, for some reasons having probably to do with genes and epigenetic, better musicians, better mathematicians. But that doesn't make them superior.

Genes and epigenetics had probably an important role in the greater cognitive capacities of Homo sapiens sapiens compared to Neanderthal man. This may also explain why the former became extinct earlier and didn't leave any artefact of importance.

Now for the Salieri vs Mozart discussion.

"Antonio Salieri (18 August 1750 – 7 May 1825) was an Italian classical composer, conductor and teacher born in the Republic of Venice, but who spent his adult life and career as a faithful subject of the Habsburg Monarchy.
...As the Austrian imperial Kapellmeister from 1788 to 1824, he was responsible for music at the court chapel and attached school. Even as his works dropped from performance, and he wrote no new operas after 1804, he still remained one of the most important and sought after teachers of his generation and his influence was felt in every aspect of Vienna's musical life. Franz Schubert, Ludwig van Beethoven and Franz Liszt were among the most famous of his pupils. (Wiki)
Naturally, I don't need to tell you who was Mozart. They both lived and made music at the same time in Vienna for a long time, which by definition means they were exposed to very similar epigenetic influences. Nevertheless, most probably due to different genes, one was and remains a talented music teacher and passable composer, now almost forgotten if it weren't for the Milos Forman movie Amadeus, the other was and remains forever a musical Genius.

Now for the joke about Canadian hockey players. My first reaction is that you both don't recognize a good joke whe one is thrown at you.
My second reaction is that both of you forget the neo-Lamarkian influence of having in Québec and Ontario 6 months of winter while the other 6 months make for poor skating conditions, but still better than in Florida or California. And don't forget that hockey is The National Sport in Canada, with young kids dreaming of becoming million $ players in the NHL, with no competition from baseball or American Football or Basketball.
Capisc?

Federico wrote:
Very good and basic enough for scientifically precluded people to understand.

aspire1670 wrote:
I agree, his post does make it impossible (preclude) for people to understand the science of genetics.

Wrong. According to the Merriam-Webster: Simple past tense and past participle of preclude.

"to prevent (someone) from doing something —+ from ▪ The injury precluded her from having an athletic career".

In our case: poor knowledge of science precluded some people from understanding too complex genetics.