Ashkenazi Jews ID'd by Genes

[William Joyce]

So much for the idea that we're all the same under the skin:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/04/snps-dont-lie.php

There was an interesting paper in BMC Genetics back in in February: "Analysis of genetic variation in Ashkenazi Jews by high density SNP genotyping. " They ran 500K Affy chips on 100 Ashkenazi women and on 60 CEPH-derived HapMap (CEU) individuals. They hoped to find greater levels of linkage disequilibrium and lower haplotype complexity among the Ashkenazim, as a putatively bottlenecked population. This would simply some forms of genetic mapping. Some earlier work had suggested that this might be the case - but that earlier work had either looked at a single chromosome or at a small samples from a number of chromosomes.

 

[Gunny]

Come up with conclusive evidence that identifies which genes specifically indicate superior intelligence, then show with conclusive proof that one race has a significant advantage in regard to that, in an overwhelming majority of that race's population.

Genetic difference itself is indicative of nothing but genetic difference.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Come up with conclusive evidence that identifies which genes specifically indicate superior intelligence, then show with conclusive proof that one race has a significant advantage in regard to that, in an overwhelming majority of that race's population.

Genetic difference itself is indicative of nothing but genetic difference.

Even proof of that would mean nothing, unless the gene is so foreign it does not exist in any form in any other Human.

 

[jillian]

OK...can someone who's adept at genetics kindly explain to me the relevance of the study. Because I'm not seeing it. And I'm tending to agree with Gunny that genetic differences aren't indicative of anything other than genetic differences.

Now, if you want to say ashkenazi jews carry the genes for Tay-Sachs and CF more than other groups, I'd say that's true. So other than that, what's the point other than another WJ race-baiting thread?

 

[CharlestonChad]

OK...can someone who's adept at genetics kindly explain to me the relevance of the study. Because I'm not seeing it. And I'm tending to agree with Gunny that genetic differences aren't indicative of anything other than genetic differences.

Now, if you want to say ashkenazi jews carry the genes for Tay-Sachs and CF more than other groups, I'd say that's true. So other than that, what's the point other than another WJ race-baiting thread?

WJ believes this is evidence that isolation of groups of people, aka the Jews, has led to genetic differences. The problem is that he's not uncovered anything that isn't obvious to a genetics 101 student. Isolation has led to physical differences in all ethnicities. Whites have smaller noses because this was an evolutionary advantage by having a longer nose allows cold air intake to warm slightly, which leads to slightly increased bodily temperatures.

Minor changes is all we are talking about here. The jews in the study are the only group of people who have continued to carry the genetic code for TaySach's, which is a recessive disorder. Evidence of this only adds onto what we already know about how genes determine medical and physical appearances.

I'd like to know what WJ thinks about how if there is intelligence difference between races then what explains the rise of agriculture in independent cultures around the globe at similar times in history? You'd think that if some groups were smarter than others then only the smart groups would evolve fast and the stupid ones would just learn from the smart one's inventions.

 

[AllieBaba]

THere are differences in different groups of people. You can't believe in evolution and not believe that. But it is irrelevant and means nothing. Just because Parson Russell terriers are obsessive compulsive and hyperactive doesn't mean they aren't loveable, and just because Persian cats have had their brains compromised through generations of inbreeding doesn't mean they aren't adorable. It's the same with people. We are all subject to some degree to our breeding, but we're still individuals, with value in the eyes of God. Different does not mean better or worse. Arabs and Fresians (horses) are completely different, but they both have their place.

Well, Arabs are a lot more versatile, and can be used anywhere for anything, but you get my point.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Well, Arabs are a lot more versatile, and can be used anywhere for anything, but you get my point.

You're a racists S.O.B.!!!!!!





just kidding. good post.

 

[William Joyce]

what explains the rise of agriculture in independent cultures around the globe at similar times in history?

"around the globe" is a stretch -- it arose in the Sumer, Egypt and probably parts of Turkey around the same time, and perhaps parts of Asia, as well. It's likely the former three were racially/ethnically similar, as well as geographically similar.

What HASN'T arisen around the globe independently is the generally advanced society. We've seen it in Western Europe and parts of Asia, but not Africa, southern Asia, most of India, South America, and aborigine Australia. Nobody's really challenging that. I'm saying racial differences, and IQ differences, play a major role there.

 

[CharlestonChad]

"around the globe" is a stretch -- it arose in the Sumer, Egypt and probably parts of Turkey around the same time, and perhaps parts of Asia, as well. It's likely the former three were racially/ethnically similar, as well as geographically similar.

What HASN'T arisen around the globe independently is the generally advanced society. We've seen it in Western Europe and parts of Asia, but not Africa, southern Asia, most of India, South America, and aborigine Australia. Nobody's really challenging that. I'm saying racial differences, and IQ differences, play a major role there.

It also arose in Central America, which covers 360 degrees of the globe.

Generally advanced society is a purely subjective term. Social hierarchy has been observed in ALL societies that anthropologists have come across.

If you mean the differentiation between developing and established nation states, then this is partly to do with religion, resources, and luck. Some regions had the excess resources to maintain foraging bands, like in Africa, while some societies had to maintain subsistence farming, which once technology advanced these societies could over produce their resources. Excess leads to monetary systems and the likes, in which coveting of products on a market become more accessible. Competition arose. Then English are the same race as the French, yet they developed capitalism better than the French. If you overgeneralize, then the conclusion can be made that the English are smarter than the French. The actuality of the matter is that differences between societies are far more complex than saying one society is smarter than another.

Simply put, a cultural universal is that the more successful a man, the more likely he is to reproduce. All groups of people around the world do this, which is why we see developments like agriculture arise in multiple places and similar times.

 

[William Joyce]

Generally advanced society is a purely subjective term.

Come on. The difference between Haiti and Sweden isn't "subjective." It's concrete in a thousand different ways, all of them very measurable. Everyone from the U.N. to the Wall Street Journal can give you the figures.

If you mean the differentiation between developing and established nation states, then this is partly to do with religion, resources, and luck.

Luck? Nah. The patterns are too persistent. "Resources" does not explain why white Australians carved a fully-advanced society out of the same barren desert in a few decades that the aboriginal people couldn't over millenia. Whites in Nordic countries are practically atheist, Catholics abound in Italy and Baptists in the U.S., but they all have higher standards of living than the uniformly Muslim Middle Eastern countries. The common denominator isn't religion, but race.

Simply put, a cultural universal is that the more successful a man, the more likely he is to reproduce.

Not in the welfare state. Whites are more economically successful than blacks, but have many fewer children than blacks. India and China are baby factories, but do not have the same standard of living as Germany or Japan.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Come on. The difference between Haiti and Sweden isn't "subjective." It's concrete in a thousand different ways, all of them very measurable. Everyone from the U.N. to the Wall Street Journal can give you the figures.

There are no figures, so what are you talking about? Saying one culture as better or worse than another is purely subjective.

Luck? Nah. The patterns are too persistent. "Resources" does not explain why white Australians carved a fully-advanced society out of the same barren desert in a few decades that the aboriginal people couldn't over millenia. Whites in Nordic countries are practically atheist, Catholics abound in Italy and Baptists in the U.S., but they all have higher standards of living than the uniformly Muslim Middle Eastern countries. The common denominator isn't religion, but race.

1. What is a fully advanced society? You assume that the intention of the Aboriginal people is to succeed in a global economy, which is a subjective assumption because your view of "advanced society" is relative.

Not in the welfare state. Whites are more economically successful than blacks, but have many fewer children than blacks. India and China are baby factories, but do not have the same standard of living as Germany or Japan.

1. Whites will be more economically successful for a long time. Slavery set back the African Americans by centuries.
2. You make a good point about the poor having more kids than the rich. I had not considered that. Give me some time and I might come up with an explanation.

 

[jillian]

2. You make a good point about the poor having more kids than the rich. I had not considered that. Give me some time and I might come up with an explanation.

1. Poor people have less information about birth control.
2. Poor people are less concerned about the economics of children because their thought process isn't "can I afford to send my child to college?"
3. poor people historically live in more rural areas and more hands mean more food.
4. Less goal-directed behavior for poor people, so more early childbirth, leading to the possiblity of having greater numbers of children during one's lifetime (as opposed to wealthier people where you will see more delayed childbirth).

Just some guesses that I'm tossing out there .... I have no clue if any of the hypotheses will hold up.

 

[Ravi]

Haiti has always been a poor country with barely any resources. Good place to keep slaves. Now the place is a barren wasteland. A lot of Hiatians immigrate and they don't seem any stupider than your average white person to me.

 

[manifold]

A lot of Hiatians immigrate and they don't seem any stupider than your average white person to me.

Ummm, but don't you live in Florida?

 

[Ravi]

Ouch