Re: [Vo]:OT: Poetic N Justice
ROFL! Damned black kettle! Shockley shocking! I wonder if Watson knows that, using the same criteria, he would learn that his preferred race would be found lacking when compared to the Asian persuasian? It was actually Crick and the notorious rye fungus which gave us the spiral staircase. After his chemical epiphany he is alleged to have said, Watson, come here, I need you. :-) Terry What hath G-d wrought? On Dec 12, 2007 11:37 PM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah -- the coming age of the molecular full Monty and ingraining of illogic into modern society... This goes far beyond quirky humor. James D. Watson, the discoverer of of DNA and winner of the Nobel prize, is one of several notable, but now disgraced, scientists who have fallen from favor after opining that black Africans are not as intelligent as whites. That kind of opinion is often based on misapplication of statistics, and the illogic of applying the general to the specific, the so-called Dicto Simpliciter fallacy. Underlying any such racist opinion, however, is the more basic question - what constitutes a black American? In one of the stranger cases of poetic justice in recent memory, Watson's own DNA seems to reverse the legal situation to such an extent that Watson himself would have been technically considered to be officially negroid under the antiquated laws (1/16) of many Southern States in the USA, until the modern era. This ironic and hidden role-reversal, is reminiscent of Adolph Hitler's (rumored) Jewish ancestry, which is more doubtful than Watson's undeniable but formerly hidden ethnicity. There is absolutely no doubt, however, that Hitler's real name should have been Schicklgruber. You can take it from there as to whether any Schicklgruber could ever have generated the mass appeal, and pulled-off the same kind of political results, in a once-racist society which was leaning heavily towards Aryan supremacy anyway. Numen est nomen - Heil Schicklgruber ! http://history1900s.about.com/od/hitleradolf/a/hitlerancestry.htm A new analysis of Dr. Watson's genome shows that he has 16 times the number of genes considered to be of African origin, almost exactly the same amount of African DNA which would turns up when one great-grandparent is of African origin. This is according to Kari Stefansson, the chief executive of deCODE Genetics of Iceland, which did the analysis. This came up as a bit of a surprise, Dr. Stefansson said in an interview, especially as a sequel to his utterly inappropriate comments about Africans. The irony is bigger, and broader, than his having made derogatory comments and having an ancestral relationship with the folks he insulted, said Kathy Hudson, the founder and director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington. As people see what happens to Dr. Watson and others as they undergo what she called the molecular Full Monty, the inevitable surprises might help people make the decision about whether they want their information for themselves, and to ask, Who will I share this with? It may turn out in the near future, when genetics can expose more detail than we ever thought or desired - that the whimsical notion and ingrained illogic of don't ask, don't tell becomes a rock-solid doctrine of US jurisprudence, going all the way to the Doctor's office... Jones
RE: [Vo]:OT: Poetic N Justice
I read somewhere a long time ago that the offspring of interracial unions are, in general, bigger healthier and smarter than pure breds. Does any one know the source of that, or if it has been proven. Also, if we all got here via the evolutionary process, then one race will necessarily be further up the evolutionary ladder than the other two. I leave it to others to speculate or prove which race that is while I continue to believe God made us all the same. Jeff -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:38 PM To: vortex Subject: [Vo]:OT: Poetic N Justice Ah -- the coming age of the molecular full Monty and ingraining of illogic into modern society... This goes far beyond quirky humor. James D. Watson, the discoverer of of DNA and winner of the Nobel prize, is one of several notable, but now disgraced, scientists who have fallen from favor after opining that black Africans are not as intelligent as whites. That kind of opinion is often based on misapplication of statistics, and the illogic of applying the general to the specific, the so-called Dicto Simpliciter fallacy. Underlying any such racist opinion, however, is the more basic question - what constitutes a black American? In one of the stranger cases of poetic justice in recent memory, Watson's own DNA seems to reverse the legal situation to such an extent that Watson himself would have been technically considered to be officially negroid under the antiquated laws (1/16) of many Southern States in the USA, until the modern era. This ironic and hidden role-reversal, is reminiscent of Adolph Hitler's (rumored) Jewish ancestry, which is more doubtful than Watson's undeniable but formerly hidden ethnicity. There is absolutely no doubt, however, that Hitler's real name should have been Schicklgruber. You can take it from there as to whether any Schicklgruber could ever have generated the mass appeal, and pulled-off the same kind of political results, in a once-racist society which was leaning heavily towards Aryan supremacy anyway. Numen est nomen - Heil Schicklgruber ! http://history1900s.about.com/od/hitleradolf/a/hitlerancestry.htm A new analysis of Dr. Watson’s genome shows that he has 16 times the number of genes considered to be of African origin, almost exactly the same amount of African DNA which would turns up when one great-grandparent is of African origin. This is according to Kari Stefansson, the chief executive of deCODE Genetics of Iceland, which did the analysis. “This came up as a bit of a surprise,” Dr. Stefansson said in an interview, “especially as a sequel to his utterly inappropriate comments about Africans.” “The irony is bigger, and broader, than his having made derogatory comments and having an ancestral relationship with the folks he insulted,” said Kathy Hudson, the founder and director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington. As people see what happens to Dr. Watson and others as they undergo what she called the “molecular Full Monty,” the inevitable surprises might “help people make the decision about whether they want their information for themselves, and to ask, Who will I share this with?” It may turn out in the near future, when genetics can expose more detail than we ever thought or desired - that the whimsical notion and ingrained illogic of don't ask, don't tell becomes a rock-solid doctrine of US jurisprudence, going all the way to the Doctor's office... Jones No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1182 - Release Date: 12/12/2007 11:29 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1182 - Release Date: 12/12/2007 11:29 AM
Re: [Vo]:OT: Poetic N Justice
Jones wrote, Ah -- the coming age of the molecular full Monty and ingraining of illogic into modern society... This goes far beyond quirky humor. Howdy Jones, Bunch o' drunks at the Dime Box wuz havin' a down right good discussion on tha' subject of Red and Yella, Black and Wite , when some racist made a snide remark about sumbuddy's mama. Tha bartender later tried to explain to the pole-iceman what happened but unlike DNA.. most was lost in translation. All of which proves an ill spoken word at the Dime Box can lead to un-expected consequences. If you see ole Watson tell him he accidently left his wallet here. Back in my kid days, a BBQ stand way down Lockwood Drive served Houston's best BBQ without doubt. Kinda run down at the heels lookin place 'bout 3 miles past the end of the pavement near the woods. Sign out front.. white folks aroun' back Pays to advertize cuz business wuz great out back. Richard
[Vo]:Taubes attacks cold fusion; dog bites man
The latest from Taubes: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/70314/ Note my response at the bottom of the page. - Jed
[Vo]:Re:OT: Poetic N Justice
Jeff Fink wrote: I read somewhere a long time ago that the offspring of interracial unions are, in general, bigger healthier and smarter than pure breds. Does any one know the source of that, or if it has been proven. It's called Heterosis or more simply hybrid vigor ... if it were not true in the plant world, most of us would be starving today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vigor There are observers who will come close to repeating Watson's logical error with the premise that the world dominance of the USA is based on intellectual vigor; and that it is in part attributable to a statistically superior hybridized population which benefited from an unplanned influx of new genes over the past 200 years. These new genes were partly African, as in the case of Watson's extra vigor but statistically mostly Asian (American Indian). Long before slavery, the new immigrant population was largely males from Northern Europe, and the available females were, well ... every available female. This claim of interracial superiority based on a mixed gene pool, can easily lead to a thinly disguised, reverse-version of the same kind of racist mentality that got Watson in hot-water to begin with. Better stop now, before going down that road Jones
Re: [Vo]:OT: Poetic N Justice
OrionWorks wrote: I always liked KC. Genetic gifts or not, in the end I suspect we are all just as smart and as dumb as the rest of our brothers and sisters. Cultures with a tradition of scholarship encourage children to study. OTOH, if you don't want to be like whitey, and children are encouraged not to study, then they will be ignorant. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:OT: Poetic N Justice
Jeff Fink wrote: I read somewhere a long time ago that the offspring of interracial unions are, in general, bigger healthier and smarter than pure breds. Does any one know the source of that, or if it has been proven. Crossbreeding, I forget what it's scientific name is, but it works every time it's tried. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: OT: Poetic N Justice
Jones Beene wrote: Jeff Fink wrote: I read somewhere a long time ago that the offspring of interracial unions are, in general, bigger healthier and smarter than pure breds. Does any one know the source of that, or if it has been proven. It's called Heterosis or more simply hybrid vigor ... if it were not true in the plant world, most of us would be starving today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vigor There are observers who will come close to repeating Watson's logical error with the premise that the world dominance of the USA is based on intellectual vigor; Let's not forget that the entire human race has a microscopic fraction of the genetic diversity found in almost every other species (cheetahs being one notable exception). The races may look very different to *us*, as humans (with our powerful evolved-in ability to distinguish between individual humans), but from the point of view of the genome we're all very similar. It's not at all clear that there's enough genetic diversity in humanity to produce any kind of interesting hybrid vigor effect, regardless of what representatives are chosen. There are also very few purebred humans, on any continent, and certainly not anywhere on mainland Europe, where there's been trade with the four corners of the earth for centuries out of mind.
Re: [Vo]:Taubes attacks cold fusion; dog bites man
Taubes can't seem to get anything right. He did a bad job on CF and now he can't even understand the issues about health. When are people going to ignore this idiot? Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: The latest from Taubes: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/70314/ Note my response at the bottom of the page. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: OT: Poetic N Justice
As usual, the debate about which race is smarter misses the important issue. The so called smarts of humans is made of different features. Some people are smart at music, others are good at math, some are poor spellers but can write well. In other words, we each have many ways we are smart and dumb at the same time. Each race was genetically created under different conditions. These conditions generated the obvious characteristics, but they also caused the race, on average, to be smart in different ways from the other races. As a result, each race had the kind of talent needed to survive in its own birthing environment. When a person moves from this environment into a different one, the smarts that were useful may no longer apply. As a result, the person may not look as smart to other people in the new environment. Fortunately, we all can learn and can make up for some of this basic deficiency. The situation says nothing about which race is superior. It means only that all races were superior in the environment that created them. We, as individuals, only have to make the best of this situation when our environment changes. We can see the consequence of this effect in the US at the present time, when a significant number of people support obviously bad policy for really dumb reasons. It would be interesting to know where and why these genes were created. Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Jeff Fink wrote: I read somewhere a long time ago that the offspring of interracial unions are, in general, bigger healthier and smarter than pure breds. Does any one know the source of that, or if it has been proven. It's called Heterosis or more simply hybrid vigor ... if it were not true in the plant world, most of us would be starving today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vigor There are observers who will come close to repeating Watson's logical error with the premise that the world dominance of the USA is based on intellectual vigor; Let's not forget that the entire human race has a microscopic fraction of the genetic diversity found in almost every other species (cheetahs being one notable exception). The races may look very different to *us*, as humans (with our powerful evolved-in ability to distinguish between individual humans), but from the point of view of the genome we're all very similar. It's not at all clear that there's enough genetic diversity in humanity to produce any kind of interesting hybrid vigor effect, regardless of what representatives are chosen. There are also very few purebred humans, on any continent, and certainly not anywhere on mainland Europe, where there's been trade with the four corners of the earth for centuries out of mind.
RE: [Vo]: OT: Poetic N Justice
Agreed. Also salient is the reality that different groups within 'racial' categories seem to exhibit quite different general levels of societal 'intelligence'. Having said that, we are left with the task of developing a metric of societal intelligence, and then assessing the actual performance of different groups against it, to see if 'race' makes a difference. I wonder if I am off the mark in guessing that differences between individuals in terms of primal/DNA intelligence are much greater than the differences among groups, and that probably any individual from any group can easily outshine the average intelligence levels of a large unselected group? -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: OT: Poetic N Justice As usual, the debate about which race is smarter misses the important issue. The so called smarts of humans is made of different features. Some people are smart at music, others are good at math, some are poor spellers but can write well. In other words, we each have many ways we are smart and dumb at the same time. Each race was genetically created under different conditions. These conditions generated the obvious characteristics, but they also caused the race, on average, to be smart in different ways from the other races. As a result, each race had the kind of talent needed to survive in its own birthing environment. When a person moves from this environment into a different one, the smarts that were useful may no longer apply. As a result, the person may not look as smart to other people in the new environment. Fortunately, we all can learn and can make up for some of this basic deficiency. The situation says nothing about which race is superior. It means only that all races were superior in the environment that created them. We, as individuals, only have to make the best of this situation when our environment changes. We can see the consequence of this effect in the US at the present time, when a significant number of people support obviously bad policy for really dumb reasons. It would be interesting to know where and why these genes were created. Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Jeff Fink wrote: I read somewhere a long time ago that the offspring of interracial unions are, in general, bigger healthier and smarter than pure breds. Does any one know the source of that, or if it has been proven. It's called Heterosis or more simply hybrid vigor ... if it were not true in the plant world, most of us would be starving today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vigor There are observers who will come close to repeating Watson's logical error with the premise that the world dominance of the USA is based on intellectual vigor; Let's not forget that the entire human race has a microscopic fraction of the genetic diversity found in almost every other species (cheetahs being one notable exception). The races may look very different to *us*, as humans (with our powerful evolved-in ability to distinguish between individual humans), but from the point of view of the genome we're all very similar. It's not at all clear that there's enough genetic diversity in humanity to produce any kind of interesting hybrid vigor effect, regardless of what representatives are chosen. There are also very few purebred humans, on any continent, and certainly not anywhere on mainland Europe, where there's been trade with the four corners of the earth for centuries out of mind.
Re: [Vo]: OT: Poetic N Justice
-Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: OT: Poetic N Justice As usual, the debate about which race is smarter misses the important issue. The so called smarts of humans is made of different features. Some people are smart at music, others are good at math, some are poor spellers but can write well. In other words, we each have many ways we are smart and dumb at the same time. Each race was genetically created under different conditions. These conditions generated the obvious characteristics, but they also caused the race, on average, to be smart in different ways from the other races. As a result, each race had the kind of talent needed to survive in its own birthing environment. When a person moves from this environment into a different one, the smarts that were useful may no longer apply. As a result, the person may not look as smart to other people in the new environment. Fortunately, we all can learn and can make up for some of this basic deficiency. The situation says nothing about which race is superior. It means only that all races were superior in the environment that created them. We, as individuals, only have to make the best of this situation when our environment changes. We can see the consequence of this effect in the US at the present time, when a significant number of people support obviously bad policy for really dumb reasons. It would be interesting to know where and why these genes were created. Ed Ed wrote: It would be interesting to know where and why these genes were created Capitalism tends to favour genes which are good at making money. Harry
[Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?
Published: 7 hours ago, 17:16 EST, December 10, 2007 http://archive.physorg.com/10/12/2007 Are humans evolving faster? Findings suggest we are becoming more different, not alike Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different. We used a new genomic technology to show that humans are evolving rapidly, and that the pace of change has accelerated a lot in the last 40,000 years, especially since the end of the Ice Age roughly 10,000 years ago, says research team leader Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah. document.write(); Harpending says there are provocative implications from the study, published online Monday, Dec. 10 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: -- We arent the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, he says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants. The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence. -- Human races are evolving away from each other, Harpending says. Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity. He says that is happening because humans dispersed from Africa to other regions 40,000 years ago, and there has not been much flow of genes between the regions since then. Our study denies the widely held assumption or belief that modern humans [those who widely adopted advanced tools and art] appeared 40,000 years ago, have not changed since and that we are all pretty much the same. We show that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental groups. The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last 10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because we were in new environments to which we needed to adapt, Harpending adds. And with a larger population, more mutations occurred. Study co-author Gregory M. Cochran says: History looks more and more like a science fiction novel in which mutants repeatedly arose and displaced normal humans sometimes quietly, by surviving starvation and disease better, sometimes as a conquering horde. And we are those mutants. Harpending conducted the study with Cochran, a New Mexico physicist, self-taught evolutionary biologist and adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Utah; anthropologist John Hawks, a former Utah postdoctoral researcher now at the University of Wisconsin, Madison; geneticist Eric Wang of Affymetrix, Inc. in Santa Clara, Calif.; and biochemist Robert Moyzis of the University of California, Irvine. No Justification for Discrimination The new study comes from two of the same University of Utah scientists Harpending and Cochran who created a stir in 2005 when they published a study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews those of northern European heritage resulted from natural selection in medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors. Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had bigger families to pass on their genes. Yet that intelligence also is linked to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews. That study and others dealing with genetic differences among humans whose DNA is more than 99 percent identical generated fears such research will undermine the principle of human equality and justify racism and discrimination. Other critics question the quality of the science and argue culture plays a bigger role than genetics. Harpending says genetic differences among different human populations cannot be used to justify discrimination. Rights in the Constitution arent predicated on utter equality. People have rights and should have opportunities whatever their group. Analyzing SNPs of Evolutionary Acceleration The study looked for genetic evidence of natural selection the evolution of favorable gene mutations during the past 80,000 years by analyzing DNA from 270 individuals in the International HapMap Project, an effort to identify variations in human genes that cause disease and can serve as targets for new medicines. The new study looked specifically at genetic variations called single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs (pronounced snips) which are single-point mutations in chromosomes that are spreading through a significant proportion of the population. Imagine walking along two chromosomes the same chromosome from two different people. Chromosomes are made of DNA, a twisting, ladder-like
Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?
I might add that not only are more mutations occuring, but, becuase of society, more mutations are surviving and able to breed that normally wouldnt. On 12/13/07, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Published: 7 hours ago, 17:16 EST, December 10, 2007 http://archive.physorg.com/10/12/2007 Are humans evolving faster? Findings suggest we are becoming more different, *not alike* Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up – and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought – indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different. We used a new genomic technology to show that humans are evolving rapidly, and that the pace of change has accelerated a lot in the last 40,000 years, especially since the end of the Ice Age roughly 10,000 years ago, says research team leader Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah. document.write(); Harpending says there are provocative implications from the study, published online Monday, Dec. 10 in the journal *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*: -- We aren't the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, he says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants. The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence. -- Human races are evolving away from each other, Harpending says. Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity. He says that is happening because humans dispersed from Africa to other regions 40,000 years ago, and there has not been much flow of genes between the regions since then. Our study denies the widely held assumption or belief that modern humans [those who widely adopted advanced tools and art] appeared 40,000 years ago, have not changed since and that we are all pretty much the same. We show that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental groups. The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last 10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because we were in new environments to which we needed to adapt, Harpending adds. And with a larger population, more mutations occurred. Study co-author Gregory M. Cochran says: History looks more and more like a science fiction novel in which mutants repeatedly arose and displaced normal humans – sometimes quietly, by surviving starvation and disease better, sometimes as a conquering horde. And we are those mutants. Harpending conducted the study with Cochran, a New Mexico physicist, self-taught evolutionary biologist and adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Utah; anthropologist John Hawks, a former Utah postdoctoral researcher now at the University of Wisconsin, Madison; geneticist Eric Wang of Affymetrix, Inc. in Santa Clara, Calif.; and biochemist Robert Moyzis of the University of California, Irvine. No Justification for Discrimination The new study comes from two of the same University of Utah scientists – Harpending and Cochran – who created a stir in 2005 when they published a study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews – those of northern European heritage – resulted from natural selection in medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors. Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had bigger families to pass on their genes. Yet that intelligence also is linked to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews. That study and others dealing with genetic differences among humans – whose DNA is more than 99 percent identical – generated fears such research will undermine the principle of human equality and justify racism and discrimination. Other critics question the quality of the science and argue culture plays a bigger role than genetics. Harpending says genetic differences among different human populations cannot be used to justify discrimination. Rights in the Constitution aren't predicated on utter equality. People have rights and should have opportunities whatever their group. Analyzing SNPs of Evolutionary Acceleration The study looked for genetic evidence of natural selection – the evolution of favorable gene mutations – during the past 80,000 years by analyzing DNA from 270 individuals in the International HapMap Project, an effort to identify variations in human genes that cause disease and can serve as targets for new medicines. The new study looked specifically at genetic variations called single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs
Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?
There are exquisitely beautiful cave paintings in France, dating back about 15000 years. There are even more exquisite paintings - again in caves in France - dating back 35000 years. Does this indicate that perhaps there were wonderfully cultured people over 35000 years ago, and that that culture was on a downward trend? According to PD Ouspensky - a very unusual thinker - evolution comes in cycles, not in an upwardly trending linear fashion. Where is the evidence? you say. Well, it took only about 3000 years to almost totally bury the pyramids... And evolution - in terms of humans improving - depends on how you measure improving. Just a thought. P. - Original Message From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:10:32 PM Subject: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster? OT: Are humans evolving faster? Published: 7 hours ago, 17:16 EST, December 10, 2007 http://archive.physorg.com/10/12/2007 Are humans evolving faster? Findings suggest we are becoming more different, not alike Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up – and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought – indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different. “We used a new genomic technology to show that humans are evolving rapidly, and that the pace of change has accelerated a lot in the last 40,000 years, especially since the end of the Ice Age roughly 10,000 years ago,” says research team leader Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah. document.write(); Harpending says there are provocative implications from the study, published online Monday, Dec. 10 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: -- “We aren’t the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago,” he says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants. “The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence.” -- “Human races are evolving away from each other,” Harpending says. “Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity.” He says that is happening because humans dispersed from Africa to other regions 40,000 years ago, “and there has not been much flow of genes between the regions since then.” “Our study denies the widely held assumption or belief that modern humans [those who widely adopted advanced tools and art] appeared 40,000 years ago, have not changed since and that we are all pretty much the same. We show that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental groups.” The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last 10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because “we were in new environments to which we needed to adapt,” Harpending adds. “And with a larger population, more mutations occurred.” Study co-author Gregory M. Cochran says: “History looks more and more like a science fiction novel in which mutants repeatedly arose and displaced normal humans – sometimes quietly, by surviving starvation and disease better, sometimes as a conquering horde. And we are those mutants.” Harpending conducted the study with Cochran, a New Mexico physicist, self-taught evolutionary biologist and adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Utah; anthropologist John Hawks, a former Utah postdoctoral researcher now at the University of Wisconsin, Madison; geneticist Eric Wang of Affymetrix, Inc. in Santa Clara, Calif.; and biochemist Robert Moyzis of the University of California, Irvine. No Justification for Discrimination The new study comes from two of the same University of Utah scientists – Harpending and Cochran – who created a stir in 2005 when they published a study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews – those of northern European heritage – resulted from natural selection in medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors. Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had bigger families to pass on their genes. Yet that intelligence also is linked to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews. That study and others dealing with genetic differences among humans – whose DNA is more than 99 percent identical – generated fears such research will undermine the principle of human equality and justify racism and discrimination. Other critics question the quality of the science and argue culture plays a bigger role than
Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster?
Indeed, we are not stating improvement, merely change. On 12/13/07, PHILIP WINESTONE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are exquisitely beautiful cave paintings in France, dating back about 15000 years. There are even more exquisite paintings - again in caves in France - dating back 35000 years. Does this indicate that perhaps there were wonderfully cultured people over 35000 years ago, and that that culture was on a downward trend? According to PD Ouspensky - a very unusual thinker - evolution comes in cycles, not in an upwardly trending linear fashion. Where is the evidence? you say. Well, it took only about 3000 years to almost totally bury the pyramids... And evolution - in terms of humans improving - depends on how you measure improving. Just a thought. P. - Original Message From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:10:32 PM Subject: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster? Published: 7 hours ago, 17:16 EST, December 10, 2007 http://archive.physorg.com/10/12/2007 Are humans evolving faster? Findings suggest we are becoming more different, *not alike* Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up – and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought – indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different. We used a new genomic technology to show that humans are evolving rapidly, and that the pace of change has accelerated a lot in the last 40,000 years, especially since the end of the Ice Age roughly 10,000 years ago, says research team leader Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah. document.write(); Harpending says there are provocative implications from the study, published online Monday, Dec. 10 in the journal *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*: -- We aren't the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, he says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants. The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence. -- Human races are evolving away from each other, Harpending says. Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity. He says that is happening because humans dispersed from Africa to other regions 40,000 years ago, and there has not been much flow of genes between the regions since then. Our study denies the widely held assumption or belief that modern humans [those who widely adopted advanced tools and art] appeared 40,000 years ago, have not changed since and that we are all pretty much the same. We show that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental groups. The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last 10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because we were in new environments to which we needed to adapt, Harpending adds. And with a larger population, more mutations occurred. Study co-author Gregory M. Cochran says: History looks more and more like a science fiction novel in which mutants repeatedly arose and displaced normal humans – sometimes quietly, by surviving starvation and disease better, sometimes as a conquering horde. And we are those mutants. Harpending conducted the study with Cochran, a New Mexico physicist, self-taught evolutionary biologist and adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Utah; anthropologist John Hawks, a former Utah postdoctoral researcher now at the University of Wisconsin, Madison; geneticist Eric Wang of Affymetrix, Inc. in Santa Clara, Calif.; and biochemist Robert Moyzis of the University of California, Irvine. No Justification for Discrimination The new study comes from two of the same University of Utah scientists – Harpending and Cochran – who created a stir in 2005 when they published a study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews – those of northern European heritage – resulted from natural selection in medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors. Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had bigger families to pass on their genes. Yet that intelligence also is linked to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews. That study and others dealing with genetic differences among humans – whose DNA is more than 99 percent identical – generated fears such research will undermine the principle of human equality and justify racism and discrimination. Other critics question the quality of the science and argue culture
[Vo]:Electron Beam Drill
Vorts, A ring shaped field emission needle array driven by a few KV AC facing a moderate conductor should cut cores into the material. A vacuum may not be needed. Aloha, Charlie
[Vo]:The Susslick controversey
Steven Krivit investigated the Taleyarkhan controversy and posted a link to are article he wrote. IMHO this is classic scientific controversy about the LENR issue. I noted with interest that there was no isotopic assay done on the acetone, which IMHO might have given us some insight into the matter. I was wondering if any of you Vortexians, in particular Ed Storms and Jed Rothwell, have any other comments on Professor Susslick had to say? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]:OT: Culture and the evolving human
OT: Are humans evolving faster?Been reading this thread with interest at the views expressed. Anyone care to expound on the impact of another component CULTURE. What role does culture play in the grand scheme of things? Richard
Re: [Vo]:The Susslick controversey
Huh? LENR? At 04:36 PM 12/13/2007, you wrote: Steven Krivit investigated the Taleyarkhan controversy and posted a link to are article he wrote. IMHO this is classic scientific controversy about the LENR issue. I noted with interest that there was no isotopic assay done on the acetone, which IMHO might have given us some insight into the matter. I was wondering if any of you Vortexians, in particular Ed Storms and Jed Rothwell, have any other comments on Professor Susslick had to say? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:The Susslick controversey
The work of Taleyarkhan has no relationship to cold fusion or LENR. He is trying to cause hot fusion in a collapsing bubble and claiming success using neutron detection. LENR occurs in a solid and does not emit neutrons Ed. thomas malloy wrote: Steven Krivit investigated the Taleyarkhan controversy and posted a link to are article he wrote. IMHO this is classic scientific controversy about the LENR issue. I noted with interest that there was no isotopic assay done on the acetone, which IMHO might have given us some insight into the matter. I was wondering if any of you Vortexians, in particular Ed Storms and Jed Rothwell, have any other comments on Professor Susslick had to say? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
