Forman 0895-1, Forman Frank

Lane Singer writes:
In <[email protected]> [email protected]
>
>In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank
>Forman) writes:
>>>I am going to wait a few more months until _Science_ publishes a
>>flock of letters on the May 26 article. It took that long for them
>>to publish a similar flock on the “African Eve” (=mtDNA) studies of
>>a few years ago. Indeed, the African Eve hypothesis went out of
>>favor for a long time, though it seems that the May 26 article
>>is going to bring it back.
>
>Nonsense. It has been holding its own all along. The AAAS annual
>conference was held in January, and the Out of Africa hypothesis was
>reigning supreme, even then. You paint an inaccurate picture. Is this
>intentional?

Not at all. I wasn’t at the annual conference and missed the write-up
on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the “African
Eve” issue, but its interpretation and whether the second Out-of-Africa
wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I think
that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made clear,
there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
that were critical of the “African Eve” article and I want to wait to
see what criticisms of the new “African Adam” article there might be. I
am in no hurry on this subject.

>>>And as for physiognomy – what are the prominent features of the
>>>Neanderthal? Well, a large nose, for one. And, large brow ridges,
>>>which are something you have associated with Asians, have you not?
>>>But just taking the nose: How do you explain the large noses present
>>>in the new world population? The people who ventured into
>>>the Americas
>>>came from Asia, not Europe, or do you dispute that?
>>
>>The big chart in Cavalli-Sforza, et al., _HGHG_, of genetic
>>distances seems to support the idea that the American Indians
>>have both Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Evidently, a
>>group of Caucasoids had migrated to far north-east Asia and
>>mixed with the Mongoloids there and that some of these mixed
>>people crossed the Bering Strait.
>
>This is completely false, Frank. I have looked for this interpretation
>of yours, and it is absent. The trees on page 78 clearly show that
>the Amerind were 100% Asian. It’s the Caucasians who were derived from
>the Asian branch. The Amerind are listed under the Northeast Asian
>branch, and they bear no European influence whatsoever.
>
>If there are genetic similarities between Asians and Europeans, that’s
>because we are all so recently descended from the same stock: out of
>Africa.

I will look at the book again the next time I visit an academic
library. I may have remembered things wrong. If so, I thank you for
correcting me and will strive to be more careful in the future.

>>>Could it be, Frank, that there is a great deal of plasticity in
>>>the very physiognomical and pigmentation areas that are the +only
>>>differences that are manifest between “races”?
>>
>>Yes, up to the word “only” in the sentence: why should I suppose
>>that other things like genes having to do with reasoning ability
>>and hormones affecting temperament cannot also be selected
>>for rapidly? I’d like to some actual evidence that the
>>physiognomy and pigmentation are special.
>
>>Of course, the more rapidly things can evolve, the more likely
>>that there will be racial differences. The issue for these
>>political newsgroups is, again, whether
>>racial differences in brains are real and go a long way to
>>explain the roughly one standard deviation on tests of
>>intelligence.
>
>I offer you, here, a quote from HGHG:
>
>”Ripley was not to blame (Coon 1954) for the psychological taxonomy
>of European ‘races,’ which became very popular at the beginning of
>this century and forms one of the most ludicrous confusions among
>customs, culture, and genetics – in short, a perfect example of
>’scientific’ racism.”

This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. But I do feel that
Cavalli-Sforza is being unfair to Ripley. What he had done may seem
“ludicrous” now but could very well have been intelligent at the time.
He needs a little more Christian charity! Please take a look at Antonio
Damasio’s splendid _Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human
Brain_ (NY: Putnam, 1994) and read his kind words for phrenology, of
all things. You might be interested to know that I attended a meeting
of the AAAS a few years ago and, at a session on dreams, I asked Alan
Hobson (Harvard) whether we should be bashing Freud for not
understanding the neurology of the 1990s. He said that was an excellent
question.

>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, “The total
>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>mutations have occurred in its course.”

But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.

>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs.

>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>effort to derive justice?

You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can’t figure it
out. I do say that if most of the differences in academic and economic
achievement between the races is due to genetic factors, then I cannot
see the warrant for affirmative action programs. But the obverse is not
true, namely it is not true that if there are no genetic reasons for
these differences, then affirmative action programs *are* warranted.
For that we need some additional justification. There are lots of
conservatives and libertarianswho believe the premise but not the
conclusion.

Frank

From [email protected] Tue Aug 1 08:51:22 PDT 1995
Article: 18832 of alt.skinheads
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 31 Jul 1995 23:26:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 120
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc7-23.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:24782 alt.skinheads:18832 alt.politics.white-power:6938
alt.politics.nationalism.white:7135 alt.discrimination:26528

In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Lane Singer)
writes:
>
>In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank
>Forman) writes:
>>>I am going to wait a few more months until _Science_ publishes a
>>flock of letters on the May 26 article. It took that long for them
>>to publish a similar flock on the “African Eve” (=mtDNA) studies of
>>a few years ago. Indeed, the African Eve hypothesis went out of
>>favor for a long time, though it seems that the May 26 article
>>is going to bring it back.
>
>Nonsense. It has been holding its own all along. The AAAS annual
>conference was held in January, and the Out of Africa hypothesis was
>reigning supreme, even then. You paint an inaccurate picture. Is this
>intentional?

Not at all. I wasn’t at the annual conference and missed the write-up
on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the “African
Eve” issue, but its interpretation and whether the second Out-of-Africa
wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I think
that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made clear,
there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
that were critical of the “African Eve” article and I want to wait to
see what criticisms of the new “African Adam” article there might be. I
am in no hurry on this subject.

>>>And as for physiognomy – what are the prominent features of the
>>>Neanderthal? Well, a large nose, for one. And, large brow ridges,
>>>which are something you have associated with Asians, have you not?
>>>But just taking the nose: How do you explain the large noses present
>>>in the new world population? The people who ventured into
>>>the Americas
>>>came from Asia, not Europe, or do you dispute that?
>>
>>The big chart in Cavalli-Sforza, et al., _HGHG_, of genetic
>>distances seems to support the idea that the American Indians
>>have both Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Evidently, a
>>group of Caucasoids had migrated to far north-east Asia and
>>mixed with the Mongoloids there and that some of these mixed
>>people crossed the Bering Strait.
>
>This is completely false, Frank. I have looked for this interpretation
>of yours, and it is absent. The trees on page 78 clearly show that
>the Amerind were 100% Asian. It’s the Caucasians who were derived from
>the Asian branch. The Amerind are listed under the Northeast Asian
>branch, and they bear no European influence whatsoever.
>
>If there are genetic similarities between Asians and Europeans, that’s
>because we are all so recently descended from the same stock: out of
>Africa.

I will look at the book again the next time I visit an academic
library. I may have remembered things wrong. If so, I thank you for
correcting me and will strive to be more careful in the future.

>>>Could it be, Frank, that there is a great deal of plasticity in
>>>the very physiognomical and pigmentation areas that are the +only
>>>differences that are manifest between “races”?
>>
>>Yes, up to the word “only” in the sentence: why should I suppose
>>that other things like genes having to do with reasoning ability
>>and hormones affecting temperament cannot also be selected
>>for rapidly? I’d like to some actual evidence that the
>>physiognomy and pigmentation are special.
>
>>Of course, the more rapidly things can evolve, the more likely
>>that there will be racial differences. The issue for these
>>political newsgroups is, again, whether
>>racial differences in brains are real and go a long way to
>>explain the roughly one standard deviation on tests of
>>intelligence.
>
>I offer you, here, a quote from HGHG:
>
>”Ripley was not to blame (Coon 1954) for the psychological taxonomy
>of European ‘races,’ which became very popular at the beginning of
>this century and forms one of the most ludicrous confusions among
>customs, culture, and genetics – in short, a perfect example of
>’scientific’ racism.”

This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. But I do feel that
Cavalli-Sforza is being unfair to Ripley. What he had done may seem
“ludicrous” now but could very well have been intelligent at the time.
He needs a little more Christian charity! Please take a look at Antonio
Damasio’s splendid _Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human
Brain_ (NY: Putnam, 1994) and read his kind words for phrenology, of
all things. You might be interested to know that I attended a meeting
of the AAAS a few years ago and, at a session on dreams, I asked Alan
Hobson (Harvard) whether we should be bashing Freud for not
understanding the neurology of the 1990s. He said that was an excellent
question.

>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, “The total
>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>mutations have occurred in its course.”

But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.

>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs.

>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>effort to derive justice?

You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can’t figure it
out. I do say that if most of the differences in academic and economic
achievement between the races is due to genetic factors, then I cannot
see the warrant for affirmative action programs. But the obverse is not
true, namely it is not true that if there are no genetic reasons for
these differences, then affirmative action programs *are* warranted.
For that we need some additional justification. There are lots of
conservatives and libertarianswho believe the premise but not the
conclusion.

Frank

From [email protected] Tue Aug 1 09:24:40 PDT 1995
Article: 24782 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 31 Jul 1995 23:26:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 120
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc7-23.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:24782 alt.skinheads:18832 alt.politics.white-power:6938
alt.politics.nationalism.white:7135 alt.discrimination:26528

In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Lane Singer)
writes:
>
>In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank
>Forman) writes:
>>>I am going to wait a few more months until _Science_ publishes a
>>flock of letters on the May 26 article. It took that long for them
>>to publish a similar flock on the “African Eve” (=mtDNA) studies of
>>a few years ago. Indeed, the African Eve hypothesis went out of
>>favor for a long time, though it seems that the May 26 article
>>is going to bring it back.
>
>Nonsense. It has been holding its own all along. The AAAS annual
>conference was held in January, and the Out of Africa hypothesis was
>reigning supreme, even then. You paint an inaccurate picture. Is this
>intentional?

Not at all. I wasn’t at the annual conference and missed the write-up
on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the “African
Eve” issue, but its interpretation and whether the second Out-of-Africa
wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I think
that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made clear,
there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
that were critical of the “African Eve” article and I want to wait to
see what criticisms of the new “African Adam” article there might be. I
am in no hurry on this subject.

>>>And as for physiognomy – what are the prominent features of the
>>>Neanderthal? Well, a large nose, for one. And, large brow ridges,
>>>which are something you have associated with Asians, have you not?
>>>But just taking the nose: How do you explain the large noses present
>>>in the new world population? The people who ventured into
>>>the Americas
>>>came from Asia, not Europe, or do you dispute that?
>>
>>The big chart in Cavalli-Sforza, et al., _HGHG_, of genetic
>>distances seems to support the idea that the American Indians
>>have both Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Evidently, a
>>group of Caucasoids had migrated to far north-east Asia and
>>mixed with the Mongoloids there and that some of these mixed
>>people crossed the Bering Strait.
>
>This is completely false, Frank. I have looked for this interpretation
>of yours, and it is absent. The trees on page 78 clearly show that
>the Amerind were 100% Asian. It’s the Caucasians who were derived from
>the Asian branch. The Amerind are listed under the Northeast Asian
>branch, and they bear no European influence whatsoever.
>
>If there are genetic similarities between Asians and Europeans, that’s
>because we are all so recently descended from the same stock: out of
>Africa.

I will look at the book again the next time I visit an academic
library. I may have remembered things wrong. If so, I thank you for
correcting me and will strive to be more careful in the future.

>>>Could it be, Frank, that there is a great deal of plasticity in
>>>the very physiognomical and pigmentation areas that are the +only
>>>differences that are manifest between “races”?
>>
>>Yes, up to the word “only” in the sentence: why should I suppose
>>that other things like genes having to do with reasoning ability
>>and hormones affecting temperament cannot also be selected
>>for rapidly? I’d like to some actual evidence that the
>>physiognomy and pigmentation are special.
>
>>Of course, the more rapidly things can evolve, the more likely
>>that there will be racial differences. The issue for these
>>political newsgroups is, again, whether
>>racial differences in brains are real and go a long way to
>>explain the roughly one standard deviation on tests of
>>intelligence.
>
>I offer you, here, a quote from HGHG:
>
>”Ripley was not to blame (Coon 1954) for the psychological taxonomy
>of European ‘races,’ which became very popular at the beginning of
>this century and forms one of the most ludicrous confusions among
>customs, culture, and genetics – in short, a perfect example of
>’scientific’ racism.”

This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. But I do feel that
Cavalli-Sforza is being unfair to Ripley. What he had done may seem
“ludicrous” now but could very well have been intelligent at the time.
He needs a little more Christian charity! Please take a look at Antonio
Damasio’s splendid _Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human
Brain_ (NY: Putnam, 1994) and read his kind words for phrenology, of
all things. You might be interested to know that I attended a meeting
of the AAAS a few years ago and, at a session on dreams, I asked Alan
Hobson (Harvard) whether we should be bashing Freud for not
understanding the neurology of the 1990s. He said that was an excellent
question.

>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, “The total
>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>mutations have occurred in its course.”

But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.

>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs.

>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>effort to derive justice?

You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can’t figure it
out. I do say that if most of the differences in academic and economic
achievement between the races is due to genetic factors, then I cannot
see the warrant for affirmative action programs. But the obverse is not
true, namely it is not true that if there are no genetic reasons for
these differences, then affirmative action programs *are* warranted.
For that we need some additional justification. There are lots of
conservatives and libertarianswho believe the premise but not the
conclusion.

Frank

From [email protected] Wed Aug 2 13:45:28 PDT 1995
Article: 24782 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 31 Jul 1995 23:26:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 120
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc7-23.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:24782 alt.skinheads:18832 alt.politics.white-power:6938
alt.politics.nationalism.white:7135 alt.discrimination:26528

In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Lane Singer)
writes:
>
>In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank
>Forman) writes:
>>>I am going to wait a few more months until _Science_ publishes a
>>flock of letters on the May 26 article. It took that long for them
>>to publish a similar flock on the “African Eve” (=mtDNA) studies of
>>a few years ago. Indeed, the African Eve hypothesis went out of
>>favor for a long time, though it seems that the May 26 article
>>is going to bring it back.
>
>Nonsense. It has been holding its own all along. The AAAS annual
>conference was held in January, and the Out of Africa hypothesis was
>reigning supreme, even then. You paint an inaccurate picture. Is this
>intentional?

Not at all. I wasn’t at the annual conference and missed the write-up
on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the “African
Eve” issue, but its interpretation and whether the second Out-of-Africa
wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I think
that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made clear,
there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
that were critical of the “African Eve” article and I want to wait to
see what criticisms of the new “African Adam” article there might be. I
am in no hurry on this subject.

>>>And as for physiognomy – what are the prominent features of the
>>>Neanderthal? Well, a large nose, for one. And, large brow ridges,
>>>which are something you have associated with Asians, have you not?
>>>But just taking the nose: How do you explain the large noses present
>>>in the new world population? The people who ventured into
>>>the Americas
>>>came from Asia, not Europe, or do you dispute that?
>>
>>The big chart in Cavalli-Sforza, et al., _HGHG_, of genetic
>>distances seems to support the idea that the American Indians
>>have both Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Evidently, a
>>group of Caucasoids had migrated to far north-east Asia and
>>mixed with the Mongoloids there and that some of these mixed
>>people crossed the Bering Strait.
>
>This is completely false, Frank. I have looked for this interpretation
>of yours, and it is absent. The trees on page 78 clearly show that
>the Amerind were 100% Asian. It’s the Caucasians who were derived from
>the Asian branch. The Amerind are listed under the Northeast Asian
>branch, and they bear no European influence whatsoever.
>
>If there are genetic similarities between Asians and Europeans, that’s
>because we are all so recently descended from the same stock: out of
>Africa.

I will look at the book again the next time I visit an academic
library. I may have remembered things wrong. If so, I thank you for
correcting me and will strive to be more careful in the future.

>>>Could it be, Frank, that there is a great deal of plasticity in
>>>the very physiognomical and pigmentation areas that are the +only
>>>differences that are manifest between “races”?
>>
>>Yes, up to the word “only” in the sentence: why should I suppose
>>that other things like genes having to do with reasoning ability
>>and hormones affecting temperament cannot also be selected
>>for rapidly? I’d like to some actual evidence that the
>>physiognomy and pigmentation are special.
>
>>Of course, the more rapidly things can evolve, the more likely
>>that there will be racial differences. The issue for these
>>political newsgroups is, again, whether
>>racial differences in brains are real and go a long way to
>>explain the roughly one standard deviation on tests of
>>intelligence.
>
>I offer you, here, a quote from HGHG:
>
>”Ripley was not to blame (Coon 1954) for the psychological taxonomy
>of European ‘races,’ which became very popular at the beginning of
>this century and forms one of the most ludicrous confusions among
>customs, culture, and genetics – in short, a perfect example of
>’scientific’ racism.”

This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. But I do feel that
Cavalli-Sforza is being unfair to Ripley. What he had done may seem
“ludicrous” now but could very well have been intelligent at the time.
He needs a little more Christian charity! Please take a look at Antonio
Damasio’s splendid _Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human
Brain_ (NY: Putnam, 1994) and read his kind words for phrenology, of
all things. You might be interested to know that I attended a meeting
of the AAAS a few years ago and, at a session on dreams, I asked Alan
Hobson (Harvard) whether we should be bashing Freud for not
understanding the neurology of the 1990s. He said that was an excellent
question.

>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, “The total
>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>mutations have occurred in its course.”

But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.

>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs.

>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>effort to derive justice?

You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can’t figure it
out. I do say that if most of the differences in academic and economic
achievement between the races is due to genetic factors, then I cannot
see the warrant for affirmative action programs. But the obverse is not
true, namely it is not true that if there are no genetic reasons for
these differences, then affirmative action programs *are* warranted.
For that we need some additional justification. There are lots of
conservatives and libertarianswho believe the premise but not the
conclusion.

Frank

From [email protected] Wed Aug 2 18:15:35 PDT 1995
Article: 7135 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 31 Jul 1995 23:26:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 120
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc7-23.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:24782 alt.skinheads:18832 alt.politics.white-power:6938
alt.politics.nationalism.white:7135 alt.discrimination:26528

In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Lane Singer)
writes:
>
>In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank
>Forman) writes:
>>>I am going to wait a few more months until _Science_ publishes a
>>flock of letters on the May 26 article. It took that long for them
>>to publish a similar flock on the “African Eve” (=mtDNA) studies of
>>a few years ago. Indeed, the African Eve hypothesis went out of
>>favor for a long time, though it seems that the May 26 article
>>is going to bring it back.
>
>Nonsense. It has been holding its own all along. The AAAS annual
>conference was held in January, and the Out of Africa hypothesis was
>reigning supreme, even then. You paint an inaccurate picture. Is this
>intentional?

Not at all. I wasn’t at the annual conference and missed the write-up
on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the “African
Eve” issue, but its interpretation and whether the second Out-of-Africa
wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I think
that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made clear,
there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
that were critical of the “African Eve” article and I want to wait to
see what criticisms of the new “African Adam” article there might be. I
am in no hurry on this subject.

>>>And as for physiognomy – what are the prominent features of the
>>>Neanderthal? Well, a large nose, for one. And, large brow ridges,
>>>which are something you have associated with Asians, have you not?
>>>But just taking the nose: How do you explain the large noses present
>>>in the new world population? The people who ventured into
>>>the Americas
>>>came from Asia, not Europe, or do you dispute that?
>>
>>The big chart in Cavalli-Sforza, et al., _HGHG_, of genetic
>>distances seems to support the idea that the American Indians
>>have both Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Evidently, a
>>group of Caucasoids had migrated to far north-east Asia and
>>mixed with the Mongoloids there and that some of these mixed
>>people crossed the Bering Strait.
>
>This is completely false, Frank. I have looked for this interpretation
>of yours, and it is absent. The trees on page 78 clearly show that
>the Amerind were 100% Asian. It’s the Caucasians who were derived from
>the Asian branch. The Amerind are listed under the Northeast Asian
>branch, and they bear no European influence whatsoever.
>
>If there are genetic similarities between Asians and Europeans, that’s
>because we are all so recently descended from the same stock: out of
>Africa.

I will look at the book again the next time I visit an academic
library. I may have remembered things wrong. If so, I thank you for
correcting me and will strive to be more careful in the future.

>>>Could it be, Frank, that there is a great deal of plasticity in
>>>the very physiognomical and pigmentation areas that are the +only
>>>differences that are manifest between “races”?
>>
>>Yes, up to the word “only” in the sentence: why should I suppose
>>that other things like genes having to do with reasoning ability
>>and hormones affecting temperament cannot also be selected
>>for rapidly? I’d like to some actual evidence that the
>>physiognomy and pigmentation are special.
>
>>Of course, the more rapidly things can evolve, the more likely
>>that there will be racial differences. The issue for these
>>political newsgroups is, again, whether
>>racial differences in brains are real and go a long way to
>>explain the roughly one standard deviation on tests of
>>intelligence.
>
>I offer you, here, a quote from HGHG:
>
>”Ripley was not to blame (Coon 1954) for the psychological taxonomy
>of European ‘races,’ which became very popular at the beginning of
>this century and forms one of the most ludicrous confusions among
>customs, culture, and genetics – in short, a perfect example of
>’scientific’ racism.”

This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. But I do feel that
Cavalli-Sforza is being unfair to Ripley. What he had done may seem
“ludicrous” now but could very well have been intelligent at the time.
He needs a little more Christian charity! Please take a look at Antonio
Damasio’s splendid _Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human
Brain_ (NY: Putnam, 1994) and read his kind words for phrenology, of
all things. You might be interested to know that I attended a meeting
of the AAAS a few years ago and, at a session on dreams, I asked Alan
Hobson (Harvard) whether we should be bashing Freud for not
understanding the neurology of the 1990s. He said that was an excellent
question.

>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, “The total
>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>mutations have occurred in its course.”

But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.

>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs.

>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>effort to derive justice?

You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can’t figure it
out. I do say that if most of the differences in academic and economic
achievement between the races is due to genetic factors, then I cannot
see the warrant for affirmative action programs. But the obverse is not
true, namely it is not true that if there are no genetic reasons for
these differences, then affirmative action programs *are* warranted.
For that we need some additional justification. There are lots of
conservatives and libertarianswho believe the premise but not the
conclusion.

Frank

From [email protected] Sat Aug 5 08:56:15 PDT 1995
Article: 25033 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:24:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25033 alt.skinheads:19129 alt.politics.white-power:7184
alt.politics.nationalism.white:7326 alt.discrimination:26901

In arish writes:

>
>[email protected] (Frank Forman) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank
>>>Forman) writes:
>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
> Happening on this thread a bit late, I may have missed some
statements.
>However, the following may be relevant.
>While some physiogamy changes may involve one or a few genes (melanin
>e.g.), brain development has been demonstrated to involved
multi-genetic
>factors, all of which contribute to long evolutinary time scales in
>advances. This is not a simple matter of saying “look, there are
>differenced in skin color, therefore there are differences in brain
>size/function etc”. This is exactly the kind of racist science that
>was practiced in the past.

Why can’t selective pressures operate on many genes at the same time?

While differences in apprearance does not imply differences in brains,
I would like to see *positive* evidence that the various races are
equal in intelligence. I ran a thread on this several months ago, but
no one there at the time had any. Since you are new to these
discussions, perhaps you can furnish some.

 

From [email protected] Sat Aug 5 21:11:01 PDT 1995
Article: 7326 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:24:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25033 alt.skinheads:19129 alt.politics.white-power:7184
alt.politics.nationalism.white:7326 alt.discrimination:26901

In arish writes:

>
>[email protected] (Frank Forman) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank
>>>Forman) writes:
>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
> Happening on this thread a bit late, I may have missed some
statements.
>However, the following may be relevant.
>While some physiogamy changes may involve one or a few genes (melanin
>e.g.), brain development has been demonstrated to involved
multi-genetic
>factors, all of which contribute to long evolutinary time scales in
>advances. This is not a simple matter of saying “look, there are
>differenced in skin color, therefore there are differences in brain
>size/function etc”. This is exactly the kind of racist science that
>was practiced in the past.

Why can’t selective pressures operate on many genes at the same time?

While differences in apprearance does not imply differences in brains,
I would like to see *positive* evidence that the various races are
equal in intelligence. I ran a thread on this several months ago, but
no one there at the time had any. Since you are new to these
discussions, perhaps you can furnish some.

 

From [email protected] Sat Aug 5 21:43:00 PDT 1995
Article: 7184 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:24:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25033 alt.skinheads:19129 alt.politics.white-power:7184
alt.politics.nationalism.white:7326 alt.discrimination:26901

In arish writes:

>
>[email protected] (Frank Forman) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank
>>>Forman) writes:
>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
> Happening on this thread a bit late, I may have missed some
statements.
>However, the following may be relevant.
>While some physiogamy changes may involve one or a few genes (melanin
>e.g.), brain development has been demonstrated to involved
multi-genetic
>factors, all of which contribute to long evolutinary time scales in
>advances. This is not a simple matter of saying “look, there are
>differenced in skin color, therefore there are differences in brain
>size/function etc”. This is exactly the kind of racist science that
>was practiced in the past.

Why can’t selective pressures operate on many genes at the same time?

While differences in apprearance does not imply differences in brains,
I would like to see *positive* evidence that the various races are
equal in intelligence. I ran a thread on this several months ago, but
no one there at the time had any. Since you are new to these
discussions, perhaps you can furnish some.

 

From [email protected] Sat Aug 5 22:17:55 PDT 1995
Article: 7203 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news3.mr.net!mr.net!
uunet!in1.uu.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:42:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 121
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25059 alt.skinheads:19146 alt.politics.white-power:7203
alt.politics.nationalism.white:7338 alt.discrimination:26919

In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Lane Singer)
writes:
>
>
>Frank Forman writes:
>
>>I wasn’t at the annual conference and missed the write-up
>>on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the “African
>>Eve” issue, but its interpretation and whether the
>>second Out-of-Africa
>>wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I
think
>>that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made
clear,
>>there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
>>that were critical of the “African Eve” article and I want to wait to
>>see what criticisms of the new “African Adam”
>>article there might be. I
>>am in no hurry on this subject.
>
>The original African Eve study was performed almost 15 years ago.
>Are you talking about that? Since then the findings have been
>duplicated in several studies: Maryellen Ruvolo of Harvard,
>using mtDNA; Tishkoff and Kidd of Yale, using nuclear DNA, to
>name two.
>
>..
>>This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
>>evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. …

The issue, for me at least, is which African Eve theory is true. Is it
one in which her descendants exterminated all other humans, including
those in Africa? Is it one in which her descendants exterminated some
and mated with others? Could it be that her descendants left Africa
much earler and exterminated and/or mixed with homo erectus? The time
estimates have wide variability, and no one really knows that h.sap.
could not interbreed with h.erectus.

>From HGHG:
>
>”Because genetic divergence was subject more to random than
>selective forces, much of the gradient of the human gene pool
>goes from west to east. The first principal component therefore
>extends in this direction and explains 35% of the total human
>variation, showing only moderate, if any, influence of climatic
>factors at the level of the nuclear genes investigated, but a
>greater influence on genetic factors involved in the adaptation <***
>of bodily surface characteristics which notoriously respond to <****
>climate. A dichotemy is thus observed between genetic data, and
>observations based on the physical constitution…”

I don’t know what “first principal component means.” I’d better go
study the book.

>[Singer]
>>>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>>>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, “The total
>>>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>>>mutations have occurred in its course.”
>>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
>From coverage of the 1995 AAAS annual meeting in my local paper:
>—
>Cavalli-Sforza, in a recent book on human genetic diversity that
>synthesizes 50 years of research in population genetics, found
>such a wide range of genetic variation in bothe the African and
>non-African groups that it makes the conventional notion of race
>meaningless.
>
>In short, looks can be deceiving.

I still want to know about non-human animals in which there definitely
are races, those in which there are definitely not, and how humans fit
into the continuum. I did not find any discussion of the concept of
race in the book.

>”There are some superficial traits like skin color and body build,”
>Cavalli-forza said Sunday. “They are striking, and we notice them.
>That is what misleads us.”

Aren’t the differences between man and chimp also superficial? Again,
we really need some bases for comparision.

>[Forman]
>>>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs.
>>
>>>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>>>effort to derive justice?
>>
>>You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can’t figure
it
>>out.
>
>I find it ironic that you would search for a scientific justification
>for discrimination, and state that you are pursuing it in the name
>of “a theory of justice to mandate such things as affirmative
>action programs.” It’s the use of the word “justice” that seems
>out of place here.

I was thinking about the celebrated book by John Rawls, called _A
Theory of Justice_ (1971). This book was an attempt to replace
utilitarianism notions of justice with a Kantian one and, moreover, one
that all rational men would accept behind a “veil of ignorance,” in
which they did not know their future position in society. The books
argued that rational men would chose a two-level concept of justice. At
the first level, men would choose maximum liberty for all. Once chosen,
they would choose, at the second level, that distribution of goods that
would make the least well-off people in society as well-off as
possible. This latter, known as the “maximin criterion,” has gotten the
lion’s share of the mountain of critical attention the book has
received.

But regardless of what I was thinking of, affirmative action programs
should have some sort of rationale in some theory about the nature of
justice.

Frank

From [email protected] Sat Aug 5 22:36:21 PDT 1995
Article: 19129 of alt.skinheads
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:24:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25033 alt.skinheads:19129 alt.politics.white-power:7184
alt.politics.nationalism.white:7326 alt.discrimination:26901

In arish writes:

>
>[email protected] (Frank Forman) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank
>>>Forman) writes:
>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
> Happening on this thread a bit late, I may have missed some
statements.
>However, the following may be relevant.
>While some physiogamy changes may involve one or a few genes (melanin
>e.g.), brain development has been demonstrated to involved
multi-genetic
>factors, all of which contribute to long evolutinary time scales in
>advances. This is not a simple matter of saying “look, there are
>differenced in skin color, therefore there are differences in brain
>size/function etc”. This is exactly the kind of racist science that
>was practiced in the past.

Why can’t selective pressures operate on many genes at the same time?

While differences in apprearance does not imply differences in brains,
I would like to see *positive* evidence that the various races are
equal in intelligence. I ran a thread on this several months ago, but
no one there at the time had any. Since you are new to these
discussions, perhaps you can furnish some.

 

From [email protected] Sat Aug 5 22:36:33 PDT 1995
Article: 19146 of alt.skinheads
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!
news3.mr.net!mr.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:42:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 121
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25059 alt.skinheads:19146 alt.politics.white-power:7203
alt.politics.nationalism.white:7338 alt.discrimination:26919

In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Lane Singer)
writes:
>
>
>Frank Forman writes:
>
>>I wasn’t at the annual conference and missed the write-up
>>on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the “African
>>Eve” issue, but its interpretation and whether the
>>second Out-of-Africa
>>wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I
think
>>that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made
clear,
>>there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
>>that were critical of the “African Eve” article and I want to wait to
>>see what criticisms of the new “African Adam”
>>article there might be. I
>>am in no hurry on this subject.
>
>The original African Eve study was performed almost 15 years ago.
>Are you talking about that? Since then the findings have been
>duplicated in several studies: Maryellen Ruvolo of Harvard,
>using mtDNA; Tishkoff and Kidd of Yale, using nuclear DNA, to
>name two.
>
>..
>>This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
>>evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. …

The issue, for me at least, is which African Eve theory is true. Is it
one in which her descendants exterminated all other humans, including
those in Africa? Is it one in which her descendants exterminated some
and mated with others? Could it be that her descendants left Africa
much earler and exterminated and/or mixed with homo erectus? The time
estimates have wide variability, and no one really knows that h.sap.
could not interbreed with h.erectus.

>From HGHG:
>
>”Because genetic divergence was subject more to random than
>selective forces, much of the gradient of the human gene pool
>goes from west to east. The first principal component therefore
>extends in this direction and explains 35% of the total human
>variation, showing only moderate, if any, influence of climatic
>factors at the level of the nuclear genes investigated, but a
>greater influence on genetic factors involved in the adaptation <***
>of bodily surface characteristics which notoriously respond to <****
>climate. A dichotemy is thus observed between genetic data, and
>observations based on the physical constitution…”

I don’t know what “first principal component means.” I’d better go
study the book.

>[Singer]
>>>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>>>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, “The total
>>>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>>>mutations have occurred in its course.”
>>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
>From coverage of the 1995 AAAS annual meeting in my local paper:
>—
>Cavalli-Sforza, in a recent book on human genetic diversity that
>synthesizes 50 years of research in population genetics, found
>such a wide range of genetic variation in bothe the African and
>non-African groups that it makes the conventional notion of race
>meaningless.
>
>In short, looks can be deceiving.

I still want to know about non-human animals in which there definitely
are races, those in which there are definitely not, and how humans fit
into the continuum. I did not find any discussion of the concept of
race in the book.

>”There are some superficial traits like skin color and body build,”
>Cavalli-forza said Sunday. “They are striking, and we notice them.
>That is what misleads us.”

Aren’t the differences between man and chimp also superficial? Again,
we really need some bases for comparision.

>[Forman]
>>>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs.
>>
>>>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>>>effort to derive justice?
>>
>>You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can’t figure
it
>>out.
>
>I find it ironic that you would search for a scientific justification
>for discrimination, and state that you are pursuing it in the name
>of “a theory of justice to mandate such things as affirmative
>action programs.” It’s the use of the word “justice” that seems
>out of place here.

I was thinking about the celebrated book by John Rawls, called _A
Theory of Justice_ (1971). This book was an attempt to replace
utilitarianism notions of justice with a Kantian one and, moreover, one
that all rational men would accept behind a “veil of ignorance,” in
which they did not know their future position in society. The books
argued that rational men would chose a two-level concept of justice. At
the first level, men would choose maximum liberty for all. Once chosen,
they would choose, at the second level, that distribution of goods that
would make the least well-off people in society as well-off as
possible. This latter, known as the “maximin criterion,” has gotten the
lion’s share of the mountain of critical attention the book has
received.

But regardless of what I was thinking of, affirmative action programs
should have some sort of rationale in some theory about the nature of
justice.

Frank

From [email protected] Sun Aug 6 15:34:44 PDT 1995
Article: 25033 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!
agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:24:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25033 alt.skinheads:19129 alt.politics.white-power:7184
alt.politics.nationalism.white:7326 alt.discrimination:26901

In arish writes:

>
>[email protected] (Frank Forman) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank
>>>Forman) writes:
>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
> Happening on this thread a bit late, I may have missed some
statements.
>However, the following may be relevant.
>While some physiogamy changes may involve one or a few genes (melanin
>e.g.), brain development has been demonstrated to involved
multi-genetic
>factors, all of which contribute to long evolutinary time scales in
>advances. This is not a simple matter of saying “look, there are
>differenced in skin color, therefore there are differences in brain
>size/function etc”. This is exactly the kind of racist science that
>was practiced in the past.

Why can’t selective pressures operate on many genes at the same time?

While differences in apprearance does not imply differences in brains,
I would like to see *positive* evidence that the various races are
equal in intelligence. I ran a thread on this several months ago, but
no one there at the time had any. Since you are new to these
discussions, perhaps you can furnish some.

 

From [email protected] Sun Aug 6 15:35:00 PDT 1995
Article: 25059 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news3.mr.net!mr.net!
uunet!in1.uu.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:42:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 121
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25059 alt.skinheads:19146 alt.politics.white-power:7203
alt.politics.nationalism.white:7338 alt.discrimination:26919

In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Lane Singer)
writes:
>
>
>Frank Forman writes:
>
>>I wasn’t at the annual conference and missed the write-up
>>on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the “African
>>Eve” issue, but its interpretation and whether the
>>second Out-of-Africa
>>wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I
think
>>that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made
clear,
>>there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
>>that were critical of the “African Eve” article and I want to wait to
>>see what criticisms of the new “African Adam”
>>article there might be. I
>>am in no hurry on this subject.
>
>The original African Eve study was performed almost 15 years ago.
>Are you talking about that? Since then the findings have been
>duplicated in several studies: Maryellen Ruvolo of Harvard,
>using mtDNA; Tishkoff and Kidd of Yale, using nuclear DNA, to
>name two.
>
>..
>>This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
>>evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. …

The issue, for me at least, is which African Eve theory is true. Is it
one in which her descendants exterminated all other humans, including
those in Africa? Is it one in which her descendants exterminated some
and mated with others? Could it be that her descendants left Africa
much earler and exterminated and/or mixed with homo erectus? The time
estimates have wide variability, and no one really knows that h.sap.
could not interbreed with h.erectus.

>From HGHG:
>
>”Because genetic divergence was subject more to random than
>selective forces, much of the gradient of the human gene pool
>goes from west to east. The first principal component therefore
>extends in this direction and explains 35% of the total human
>variation, showing only moderate, if any, influence of climatic
>factors at the level of the nuclear genes investigated, but a
>greater influence on genetic factors involved in the adaptation <***
>of bodily surface characteristics which notoriously respond to <****
>climate. A dichotemy is thus observed between genetic data, and
>observations based on the physical constitution…”

I don’t know what “first principal component means.” I’d better go
study the book.

>[Singer]
>>>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>>>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, “The total
>>>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>>>mutations have occurred in its course.”
>>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
>From coverage of the 1995 AAAS annual meeting in my local paper:
>—
>Cavalli-Sforza, in a recent book on human genetic diversity that
>synthesizes 50 years of research in population genetics, found
>such a wide range of genetic variation in bothe the African and
>non-African groups that it makes the conventional notion of race
>meaningless.
>
>In short, looks can be deceiving.

I still want to know about non-human animals in which there definitely
are races, those in which there are definitely not, and how humans fit
into the continuum. I did not find any discussion of the concept of
race in the book.

>”There are some superficial traits like skin color and body build,”
>Cavalli-forza said Sunday. “They are striking, and we notice them.
>That is what misleads us.”

Aren’t the differences between man and chimp also superficial? Again,
we really need some bases for comparision.

>[Forman]
>>>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs.
>>
>>>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>>>effort to derive justice?
>>
>>You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can’t figure
it
>>out.
>
>I find it ironic that you would search for a scientific justification
>for discrimination, and state that you are pursuing it in the name
>of “a theory of justice to mandate such things as affirmative
>action programs.” It’s the use of the word “justice” that seems
>out of place here.

I was thinking about the celebrated book by John Rawls, called _A
Theory of Justice_ (1971). This book was an attempt to replace
utilitarianism notions of justice with a Kantian one and, moreover, one
that all rational men would accept behind a “veil of ignorance,” in
which they did not know their future position in society. The books
argued that rational men would chose a two-level concept of justice. At
the first level, men would choose maximum liberty for all. Once chosen,
they would choose, at the second level, that distribution of goods that
would make the least well-off people in society as well-off as
possible. This latter, known as the “maximin criterion,” has gotten the
lion’s share of the mountain of critical attention the book has
received.

But regardless of what I was thinking of, affirmative action programs
should have some sort of rationale in some theory about the nature of
justice.

Frank

From [email protected] Tue Aug 8 00:30:17 PDT 1995
Article: 30246 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 6 Aug 1995 00:29:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 195
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc9-12.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:30246 alt.skinheads:24713 alt.politics.white-power:11390
alt.politics.nationalism.white:11852 alt.discrimination:32951

Ending this thread is indeed a good
idea, as Lane suggests, for no one
is budging from his and/or her
position. My fundamental position
is that the work of Cavalli-Sforza,
et alia, _History and Geography of
Human Genes_, is not conclusive of
anything that has to do with White
Nationalism or discrimination.
Nevertheless, I thank Lane for
quoting _HGHG_ for us.

I should point out that genetic
studies are only one aspect of
evolution, namely that of micro-
evolution. I’ve been reading a
splendid new book by John Brockman,
_The Third Culture: Beyond the
Scientific Revolution_, which
contains interviews of many
scientists and comments by many of
them on each of the ones
interviewed. Among them are Richard
Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould.
Dawkins is known for his belief
that evolution takes place only at
the level of individual genes,
whereas Gould thinks it takes place
at the level of the organism and
the species as well. This is one of
those debates that look like they
will never end. I know of no essay
or book that lays out the logic of
evolution, using the exact tools of
set theory and with the necessary
semantic assumptions that connect
the theoretical models to the
world, in order to resolve the
problem of units. This is probably
due to the lack of knowledge of
sets by most biologists or vice
versa among mathematicians.
Furthermore, when biologists use
mathematics, they often employ
equations resulting from modelling
equilibrium conditions. This
generates elegant results, but the
real action on the next level up (I
suspect) is where things do not
settle down into equilibrium or
deviate from it by chance.

This reliance on competitive
equilibrium models is certainly
true in my field, economics, and in
effect rules out creativity and
entrepreneurship from economics, as
not a few economists realize, in
fact. But it is very difficult to
mathematize non-equilibrium
conditions, so not very many
professors get tenure if they don’t
publish. Innovation is possible in
the economy, since competition is
not “perfect,” in other words. I
suspect also that *macro*-evolution
happens because biological
competition for genes is not
“perfect.” Gould keeps hammering
that we have no really good theory
of *macro*-evolution, though it is
a major part of his life’s goal to
supply one.

And how the great differences,
genera, order, and still higher up,
manage to take place is a further
great problem. Of course, we will
find correspondingly great
differences at the level of
individual genes, but this does not
explain morphology. Indeed, the
typical genetic distances
separating mere subspecies in some
parts of the animal kingdom is
greater than those between orders
in other parts. A fortiori,
microevolutionists, like C-S, may
not be able to tell, simply from
studies of genetic differences,
that humans and chimps cannot
interbreed! I add that the fossil
record (now this records
*macro*differences) cannot tell
specihood without further ado, for
we cannot bring fossils back to
life and try to interbreed them.
And what is called Anatomically
Modern Man (h.sap.sap.) may be
*genetically* close to early h.sap.
and even h.erectus. Anthropologists
distinguish among them on the basis
of *macro*features. The trick is to
combine genetic studies of living
men, adduce genetic trees from
them, make assumptions about the
rate of genetic divergence, and
come up with conclusions. But our
knowledge of the genetic structure
of fossils is not very good at
present (though this may change
with new technologies), and so
there is considerable room for
controversies.

All of us, of course, hope that
further studies will reduce the
domain of uncertainty, and this
certainly includes me. But, as
witnessed by the continuing debate
between Dawkins and Gould (I
personally like to side with Gould
here–though not with his writings
on the level of intelligence among
the races), a great deal of what is
basically philosophical analysis
needs to be done. And whatever
conclusions are reached by genetic
studies, I still want to know why
it is that we can *apparently*
trace geographic, or racial,
features running from h.erectus to
the present.

None of this has much bearing, so
far, on the discussion of racial
differences in intelligence, or
just observed differences among
human breeding groups in what seems
to be an ability to reason, however
vaguely defined. Those who maintain
that these differences do reflect
evolutionary histories may be
pleased that there were eons for
these differences to arise and so
might champion multi-regional
models, and those who oppose the
idea may champion Out-of-Africa
models *and* go on to maintain that
there was simply not enough time
for evolution to have affected a
one standard deviation difference
in innate intelligence.

Until and unless the opponents can
establish their case, esp. the part
that comes after the “*and*” in the
previous sentence, they will have
to come up with different
arguments. They will have to
explain how it is that black Iqs
have remained one sd behind whites
for eighty years and why it is that
this same one sd gap is present
even before schooling has begun.
(This is all reported by the
article on race in Robert
Sternberg, ed., _Encyclopedia of
Human Intelligence_ (NY: Macmillan,
1994). This article was written by
Arthur Jensen, but Sternberg is a
liberal who has made public attacks
on _The Bell Curve_ and other such
books, while quietly allowing
Jensen his say in a work he has
edited. I’ve had the pleasure of
seeing Jensen and Howard Gardner,
another liberal, give papers at the
same seminar at an A.A.A.S.
convention.)

Of course, even if the differences
in intelligence between blacks and
whites should turn out to be
environmental (evidently *before*
schooling has begun), it is not
obvious why the coercive power of
the state should be employed in
eroding freedom of contract with
anti-discrimination laws, to say
nothing of affirmative action
programs and the like.

Frank

From [email protected] Tue Aug 8 23:15:20 PDT 1995
Article: 30539 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Head Jew Contradicts himself
Date: 8 Aug 1995 23:11:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc11-20.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.politics.nationalism.white:12069 alt.discrimination:33330 alt.revisionism:30539

Derek,
It’s very clear to me that Les is making fun of
the hypocrisy he sees among Jews. They are supposed
to be liberal and yet don’t allow women preachers. But
Roman Catholics and Mahometans don’t pretend to be
liberals, so their not allowing women preachers is
not an act of hypocrisy.
I don’t know what Les’ religion is, or whether
he has one, or whether he thinks women should be
preachers. I would prefer that no one of *either*
sex be preachers, so that there would be no preachers
at all. All religions are false.
Now you could have pointed out that not all Jews
are liberal or pretend to be liberal. But somehow I
think Les knows this. Question for you, Sir, do
Reform Jews regularly urge Orthodox Jews to change
their ways and allow women preachers? Or do they
more or less leave them alone? If the latter, do
have an explanation.

Frank
(Your post below for reference)

In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Derek Bell)
writes:
>
>[email protected] (Les Griswold) writes:
>>Ha ha ha!!! Has anyone ever DENIED the Muslims are gynephobes? Oh,
the
>>stories I could relate about the Koran…
>
> The poster singled out a Rabbi for criticism, yet were that
poster
>to be consistent then Muslims would have been criticised for not
allowing
>women Kadis.
>
>>> BTW, are women allowed to be Catholic priests?
>>But… but didn’t Catholics BURN jews during the Inquisition? Why
defend
>>the practices of your “faith” by comparing it to a faith that
persecuted
>>your ancestors?
>
> The poster who started this thread only criticised a Rabbi for
>opposing a woman rabbi; for some reason the Catholic church escaped
criticism
>whereas the Catholic church has *no* women priests, yet there are
women Rabbis.
>
>>Ah, does their duplicity know no bounds?
>
> Take that bucket off your head, Les; it helps to actually see
what
>you’re following-up to.
>
> Derek Bell
>–
>Derek Bell [email protected] WWW:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html
> Death confronts us not unlike the historical battle scene that hangs
on the
> wall of the classroom. It is our task to obscure or quite
obliterate the
> picture by our deeds while we are still in this world. – Kafka

 

From [email protected] Tue Aug 8 23:15:44 PDT 1995
Article: 30556 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!
howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 8 Aug 1995 23:31:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc11-20.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:30556 alt.skinheads:25028 alt.politics.white-power:11641
alt.politics.nationalism.white:12081 alt.discrimination:33345

In <[email protected]> [email protected] (L B Olson) writes:
>
>arish wrote:
>> But as you state, “You would need both strong selection pressure
and
>>good food supplies to get smarter brains.” Thus other adaptations
which
>>cropped up, may have required less selective pressure, press=
>>ure which, while not enough to start the route to smarter brains,
were
>>enough to start the route to these changes. It may or may not be
more
>>difficult to “evolve” a smarter brain, but it is easier to make
certain=
>>adaptations. (e.g. When the sun caused changes in the survival of
certain
>>groups, they could have a) devised means to block the sun and ensure
their
>>survival (which may equate to smarter brains) or b) change certain
>>metabolic enzymes such that they are now protected.(not necessarily
due to
>>smarter brains)
>
>>Ras Arish
>
>That’s a good description of one process; we were walking long before
we
>got smart. It’s doubtful that ever have without free hands – upright
>gait is not smarts, but it started us on that path, as you say. The
>point I make though: Modern humans already know how to grow large
>cerebrums. That’s the human specialty. To meet the selective pressure
of
>pre-civil society, we developed just as much of that mass as was
>required to do our symbolic logic. That pressure would have to weigh
>hard against other uses for all those calories, such as for making
more
>babies. There is a dynamic equlibrium there. It may not be
particularly
>difficult or time consuming (in evolutionary terms) to increase
>intelligence, given hard environmental pressure and a large caloric
>benefit by doing so.
>
>So there is this supposition: There may not be much coding involved in
>increasing intelligence, or more accurately, a heritable ability to
>learn kinds of skills more easily. That supposition meets the race
>argument. There’s no reason to think that this isn’t the real
situation
>- it would explain the IQ scoring quite well. Not that one race is
>inherently superior, but that they cognitively adapted to somewhat
>different survival requirements. People fear that idea sure enough,
but
>it is only has consequences now in the modern world, in which
>individuals of different races are living and competing together
>directly under the same rules.
>
>If this is crackpot, I’d like to know why.

I see nothing crackpot with what you say, but
I do wonder what you mean when you deny the
superiority of some races over others *in the
present*. I see it get denounced all the time,
but I’m not sure what it is that is being
denounced.

I ran a thread a few months ago (which I saved
but can’t send you, since my hard disk was
destroyed by a power surge) called, “What Are
the Race Deniers Denying?” No one really seemed
to know, that is no one could show examples of
species that everyone agrees are divided into
races, other species where everyone agrees said
division makes no sense, and then show where
humans fall in on this spectrum.

My motive in asking this question, as always, is
to get people to think. There is a lot more of you
than there is of me; so rather than I telling you
what to think, I’ll let you all tell me.

Frank

 

From [email protected] Tue Aug 8 23:15:53 PDT 1995
Article: 30562 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!
howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 8 Aug 1995 23:33:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc11-20.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:30562 alt.skinheads:25032 alt.politics.white-power:11646
alt.politics.nationalism.white:12084 alt.discrimination:33348

I have posted a reply to this, starting a new
thread, “What Does Racial Superiority Mean?”
See you there.

Frank

From [email protected] Tue Aug 1 08:20:58 PDT 1995
Article: 6938 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 31 Jul 1995 23:26:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 120
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc7-23.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:24782 alt.skinheads:18832 alt.politics.white-power:6938
alt.politics.nationalism.white:7135 alt.discrimination:26528