Fascinating article on population genetics that references three fascinating studies on population genetics:
White Americans are both genetically weaker and less diverse than their black compatriots, a Cornell University-led study finds.
Analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of European ancestry and 15 African-Americans, researchers found that the former showed much less variation among 10,000 tested genes than did the latter, which was expected.
They also found that Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African, which was a surprise.
Ha, but my harmful gene makes me invulnerable to hantavirus and resistant to plague.
Where’s the link?
Were their subjects Cornell students?
Cornell West sucks.
SarahW, don’t forget Sickle-cell.
But still, studies have also shown that short white guys, while slower and not as good off the dribble, are usually the ones with the silky-sweet jumper from 22 feet.
DETROITIST!
A 35 person sample our of a population of over 300 million? Sorry, but the Lancet’s study of Iraqi civilian casualties had better methodology… The statistical term for drawing conclusions from such a tiny sample is “horse shit!”
This seems every bit as plausible as studies around the 1890s from Princeton and Harvard that showed blacks were genetically less intelligent and had smaller brains.
President Bush is adored by the majority of people in Africa, he transcended tribes and borders showing that neither ‘whiteness’ or ‘blackness’ has some value in the human condition.
What’s Cornell have to offer but a bunch of Ivy League snobs.
Progressives now aren’t much different than progressives then. All that’s changed is who they consider inferior.
Sorry–added the link.
well….this ignores IQ which does have a strong racial component.
median cauc==100
median black==85
median asian==103
askenazai jews == 125!
they have a lot of genetic defects tho.
genetic variabilty just means u can evolve to adapt to environmental changes.
since we homo sapiens sapiens largely control our environment anymore, not that relevent.
blacks – few genetic defects – good at sports – low IQ
Ashkenazi Jews – many genetic defects – really suck at sports – high IQ
Well, you can’t say there isn’t a pattern
well…i think the out-of-africa-argument goes, like, in the benevolent african ecology, physical traits counted for more…….evolutionarily speaking.
but in cold climates homo sapiensapiens had to get smart enuff to control the harsher environment.
hey……wheres feets?
Dunno, nish.
well….this ignores IQ which does have a strong racial component.
Keep that up, you won’t be allowed to vote for Obama.
IQ may measure something, but it doesn’t measure intelligence, which can’t be defined in numerical terms.
You don’t even understand evolution.
The out-of-Africa argument is based on the prevalence of fossils showing primates and transition forms in Africa contrasted with the scarcity of the same elsewhere in the world.
In physical terms, Africa (broadly speaking) is no less challenging an environment than any other part of the globe. They’re just different challenges.
lulz, sry robcrawford, just regurgitating Gene Expression stuff….where I WAS A COBLOGGER!
booyah!
Good for you.
What a pity you got the facts wrong, then attempted to make an argument from authority.
I think some parts of the planet are less challenging than others. Say, Oregon versus Antarctica. Deserts vs river valleys, that kind of thing. It’s a fallacy to say everywhere is equally challenging. The development of civilization around the world tends to follow patterns of easier development and resource availability. Much of the continent of Africa is a pretty hostile environment.
“Progressives now aren’t much different than progressives then.”
Their primary trait seems to be an inability to progress.
“IQ may measure something, but it doesn’t measure intelligence, which can’t be defined in numerical terms.”
Of course it can. Mine goes to 11.
Yet blacks, on average, die younger. Obviously being genetically weaker is good for you.