Peace, you are a worthless piece of shit, and a liar to boot.

The BBQ Pit
101

My god - it really is like picking a scab…I just can’t help myself.

Whatever your field of expertise happens to be peace - and I do acknowledge that at least some of the time you come across as a fairly intelligent person - forensic science is not one of your strong points.

So far on this board you have refused to provide any evidence of holding any qualifications whasoever. You think that the scientists/medical practitioners on this board can’t back up their assertions - I’ll guarantee that they can.

Why is it that when you give cites, you never come up with something definitive? Your list of cites consistently reads like something I could come up with given 30 seconds and a search engine.

You refuse to produce evidence to “prove a negative”, yet you ask me to do the same. You have put down Dr Paprika and CollB on this board, and stated as absolute fact that they don’t have enough experience to concur with your opinions.

On things genetic - and I am not totally fucking stupid, I would defer to CollB; he (sorry - didn’t mean to make a sexist assumption here) obviously has a far greater knowledge of the subject than you and I combined possess.

You want me to get a letter/fax/whatever from my O & G stating that a “normal” (whatever the fuck that means) uterus can be palpated??? And if I cannot or will not provide that to you then my credibility on this board is shattered? I don’t think so Tim.

You tell me the wonderful new discovery which allows science to determine race by biological samples (do you actually fucking know that to reach a legally and scientifically valid conclusion you need at least 50 hairs from the head in question and that DNA analysis cannot be conducted on any hair sample which doesn’t include the root? Didn’t think so…).

I have now said this repeatedly. I don’t care if you are the least educated person on this MB : it took a whole lot of message boards and infinite patience from people before I finally “got” the Schrodinger’s Cat concept.

What the hell is your fucking problem that you can’t ask for information? Hell - I do it all the time. I’m not really great on quantum physics and it needs to be explained to me in words of 2 syllables. Strangely enough, on any given message board (including this one) I can always find people who are willing to spend the time explaining concepts which come easily to them, but which I don’t really grasp. They might think that I’m a dumb fuckwit 'cos I don’t understand it, but they are still willing to spend the time and energy on answering my genuine questions.

I have already risked my membership of this board trying to set up a thread where you and JDT can trade opinions all you want and quote anecdotes as date. Go play in the thread about cutting off foreskins - cos the number of views this thread has got is truly not any indication of the majority of SD members supporting your viewpoint…it just means that we are sick puppies who want to watch yourself and JDT hang yourselves.

102

shit, shit, shit…

preview is my friend…“date” in that last line, should haveread “data”…

103

Uhh, peace? Leaving aside your mutual antipathy with Collounsbury, I’m afraid that you are not scoring points with those of us in the peanut gallery.

Your original statement in the earlier discussion regarding the biological reality of race was

I would agree that we can probably find distinct populations that have perfectly matching HLA types. I let your statement pass because with only 6 billion people on the planet, I would expect to find something along the lines of 6 million races using that criteria (just a WAG) and I would think that that would render the concept of biological race irrelevant. Since we had hammered on the point at length, I let the matter drop.

Collounsbury did ask to see your evidence (and has repeated the question on several occasions in different threads since that time).

I am very disappointed in your reponses. You posted three sites that mention a vague relationship in the prevalence of HLA types by ethnic group, that provide no substantive numbers.

The single site you linked that actually has numbers says nothing similar to what you have claimed. The HIV site noted that

Does this support your assertion? In no way. It says that the specific disease-associated markers were found scattered across 10 HLA types in 38 black persons and scattered across 10 HLA types in 24 white persons. Of the 10 HLA types in the two (not very large) groups, four were shared by both groups. There is no indication that each person had disease markers on every named HLA type, only that among the groups, those were the HLA types that turned up (with a 40% overlap between the groups). It also does not say that the HLA types from one group did not appear in the other group–only that (if they appeared) they did not bear a disease marker.

I am not arguing that there are no HLA types that tend to appear within any given ethnic group. HLA types are inherited and, just as skin color, eye color, and hair color, they are going to have a certain prevalence within certain more closely related groups.

However, your statement was that we could identify specific biological populations (races?) by drawing lines around common and between distinct HLA types. The citations you have provided simply do not say any such thing.

If you think that it is useful to identify 6,000,000 (or whatever) races using HLA, I suspect that you will not be joined by many other people in that belief. If you assert that HLA types can be used to distinguish fewer races of larger numbers of people, you have still not provided any evidence that any scientist has supported your assertion.

104

First time looking at this thread, and thought I’d throw in my 2 cents:

I stick by my position stated in another thread, IE I like peace! He amuses me, and sometimes he sounds like he knows what he is talking about… but regardless, anyone who takes medical (or other important) advice from anywhere online, and acts on it without checking with a trusted professional first is setting themselves up for trouble!

Now a question: peace, none of my business, of course, but what is your native language?

105

Probably Lakota.

::: g, d & r :::

106

Peace:

This is fucking bold. First Peace, when I get a substantive response to the extensive and substantive materials I spoon fed you you dumb fuck, then you perhaps can start talking this talk. A web-search of sites you evidently barely read through is not spoon-feeding me anything, go fuck yourself. You’re a hypocritical idiot. Why don’t you stop playing the victim and respond honestly for once. Your web search does not tell us what you purport it to, as Tom as already noted. You’ve made a very specific claim, that specialists can determine “race” with a high, you’vre thrown out numbers of high certitude but we find nothing to confirm your presumed confidence interval. Since Tom has covered the topic I’ll restrain myself, but one last item:

Fuck you asshole, again, when I get a substantive response to the literature I cited for you, including the online articles, then you’ll have something to say to me. But anyone who has read the Eugenics thread here will note that I, and Tom of course, actually addressed your arguments, point by point. You, in turn either ignored or distorted our responses. Or you played the fake martyr… Or you changed positions and then claimed that was your argument all along. In short, the same kind of illogical and nasty idiocy Gaspode complained of. What do we get here, more of your hand waving. Until you address the issue of where you are deriving your confidence from, you’re just playing the same game.

So, again, fuck of you morally and mentally impoverished scum sucking hyprocritical liar.

107

Nope, you got it right. He it is.

108

Qo: Whatever your field of expertise happens to be peace - and I do acknowledge that at least some of the time you come across as a fairly intelligent person
Baloney, I ain’t fucking intelligent, I fake it.
Qo: So far on this board you have refused to provide any evidence of holding any qualifications whasoever. You think that the scientists/medical practitioners on this board can’t back up their assertions - I’ll guarantee that they can.
I can too. I just do not know how. All my stuff is not in Peace name. Tell me how to do it.

Qo: You want me to get a letter/fax/whatever from my O & G stating that a “normal” (whatever the fuck that means) uterus can be palpated??? And if I cannot or will not provide that to you then my credibility on this board is shattered? I don’t think so Tim.
I do not want anything. None of the doctors accredited here backed me up, because they love to have me as the medical clown on this MB: it makes them appear greater. They do not want to say NO because they do not know the answer is and, just in case, do not want to look incompetent if their colleagues happen to see the incorrect answer. You volunteered to get info from your O&G (we call them OB/GYN), I wanted to save you the trip and get the info on the phone/fax. “Normal” was meant as “non-diseased”. I meant it even narrower: non-enlarged (my vague recollection is “enlarged beyond 20 wk. of pregnancy”, but I am rusty).

Qo: You tell me the wonderful new discovery which allows science to determine race by biological samples (do you actually fucking know that to reach a legally and scientifically valid conclusion you need at least 50 hairs from the head in question and that DNA analysis cannot be conducted on any hair sample which doesn’t include the root? Didn’t think so…).
This is not new. In the United States, no legal limits exists, it depends on the sensitivity of the procedure used. I was talking about HLA, not DNA. HLA is done on blood samples. Hair roots are necessary for DNA analysis. Do you know why?

It looks that you got drunk by the time you came to the bottom part of your message. Or that you started to think with your uterus. Come back when you come to.
Tom, I am lost. I gave the refs that proved what I said: that the distribution of
biological markers is different in different populations. You said that you “agree”.

Qo: I would think that that would render the concept of biological race irrelevant. I do not understand why, but do as you wish.

Qo: Collounsbury did ask to see your evidence (and has repeated the question on several occasions in different threads since that time).
I showed “the evidence.” More is below.

Qo: … that mention a vague relationship in the prevalence of HLA types by ethnic group
Why “vague”?Qo: that provide no substantive numbers.
There were numbers, you quote them below.

Qo: Disease association markers present in the African American population were A31, B35, Cw6, Cw7, DR5, DR6, DRw11, DRw12, DQw6 and DQw7, whereas in the Caucasian population A28, Aw66, Aw48, Bw65, Bw70, Cw7, DRw10, DRw12, DQw6 and DQw7 were demonstrated.
Does this support your assertion? In no way. It says that the specific disease-associated markers were found scattered across 10 HLA types in 38 black persons and scattered across 10 HLA types in 24 white persons. Of the 10 HLA types in the two (not very large) groups, four were shared by both groups. There is no indication that each person had disease markers on every named HLA type, only that among the groups, those were the HLA types that turned up (with a 40% overlap between the groups).
Your analysis is correct. Some markers are prevalent in one group, some are prevalent in another group. Q.E.D.
Qo:I am not arguing that there are no HLA types that tend to appear within any given ethnic group. HLA types are inherited and, just as skin color, eye color, and hair color, they are going to have a certain prevalence within certain more closely related groups.
What are you arguing, then?

QO:However, your statement was that we could identify specific biological populations (races?) by drawing lines around common and between distinct HLA types. The citations you have provided simply do not say any such thing.
If you did not find the term “identify”, I think it is because authors reserve “to identify” to infallible things, such as fingerprints. My assertion is that biological markers, including HLA phenotypes, can determine (place,assertain, define, limit, resolve, restrict, settle, specify – make your pick) person’s “race”.

If you think that it is useful to identify 6,000,000 (or whatever) races using HLA, I suspect that you will not be joined by many other people in that belief.
I think, that, depending on the number of markers used, much fewer groups can be isolated. As you suggest, isolating groups of about 1,000 persons would be impractical and not necessary.
Qo: If you assert that HLA types can be used to distinguish fewer races of larger numbers of people, you have still not provided any evidence that any scientist has supported your assertion.
Actually, when they talk about “black” and “white” persons above (HLA types), they talk about only two. Fewer is impossible. Tell me, what evidence do you need, specifically?

Determination of Race from Skull
http://www.anthrogirl.com/anthropage/raceskull.htm

http://www.astm.org/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES/707.htm
Abstract: The cranial base can be used to determine the race of fragmentary skulls. An initial study used 8 measurements taken from 100 crania in the Terry Collection. The sample was divided equally by race and sex. Five regression models were formulated that predicted correctly the race of the sample with 70 to 86% accuracy. In a separate test, a control sample of 20 skulls, also drawn from the Terry Collection but not involved with formulating the regression equations, was correctly classified with 75 to 90% accuracy.

http://www.swmed.edu/home_pages/ASHI/prepr/mori_gf.htm
Estimated gene frequencies of HLA-A antigens
http://server.am.ndhu.edu.tw/meeting/SEMINAR/se881008.htm
Distribution of HLA gene and haplotype frequencies in Taiwan
. Differences in HLA gene and antigen frequencies have been observed between various ethnic groups of the Chinese population in Taiwan. Aborigines appeared to be quite distinct in the distribution of a majority of the class I and class II antigens. HLA-A24 is extremely high in Aborigines. The haplotypes with high frequency included A24-B60-DR4, A24-B60-DR14, A24-B48-DR4, and A24-B48-DR14, different from the other ethnic groups. The results in this study are essentially a summary of the observed gene/haplotype frequencies and differences among various ethnic groups in Taiwan

http://histo.chu-stlouis.fr/inserm/stats/statser.htm
ALLELE FREQUENCIES OF SEROLOGICALLY TYPED HLA LOCI : HLA-A,B,C,DR and DQ

109

You don’t understand why identifying over 1,000 races with a complete hodgepodge of intermixed traits makes the concept of race irrelevant? As you wish.

You did not “show the evidence.” You provided four wholly unsatisfactory links that did not “prove” (or even support) your assertions. You may have provided some evidence in this most recent post, but I will have to look it over to be sure that it is not more fluff.

The first three links were vague because they did not assert what you claimed. They talked about the prevalence of HLA types in various ethnic groups without providing any evidence that that prevalence would be so clear as to be adequate to define “race.”

I have already addressed these numbers. They do not provide anything resembling proof of race. The report says that among 38 black individuals, disease markers appear on 10 HLA types and among 24 white individuals disease markers appear on 10 HLA types. It is quite possible, given the wording of the document, that no more than one or two disease marker HLA types were found in any one individual. It simply does not say that all these 10 were found on all the blacks and all these 10 were found on all the whites.
It does not say that the ten HLA types for either black or white individuals were found on all of the individuals in either group, only that those were the disease-marked types.
It does not say that the HLA types were uniform in distribution between the diseased and healthy members of one group and the diseased and healthy members of the other group.
It does say that there is a 40% overlap in the HLA types found in the two groups.
And the two groups of diseased individuals remains too small to extrapolate to the larger society as a whole.

Therefore,
the claim that you have “provided the numbers” that Collounsbury asked for regarding the identification of race by HLA typing is simply false.

Nothing has been demonstrated. A small sample of diseased persons has shown disease markers in 16 HLA types with a 40% overlap between ethnic groups. There is no record of the percentage of HLA types found in all of the individuals (even by group). There is no record of the HLA types found in the control populations. The numbers have neither the context nor the association to demonstrate much of anything, and they absolutely do not identify “race” in any meaningful way.

Nice snippage. Interrupting a paragraph to separate two portions of a complex statement is a pretty childish way to debate something. Are you lobbying for a job on 60 Minutes?

You may feel free to substitute any of your thesaurus entries at any point where I used the word “identify.” I did not look for the word “identify.” In looking over the sites I did not find that they could identify/place/ascertain/define/limit/resolve/restrict/settle/specify “race” in any context that you have described.

Restating my position without your interruption: certainly there are culturally identifiable groups with the human population. Attempting to identify/place/ascertain/define/limit/resolve/restrict/settle/specify those people in biologically distinct groups (based on HLA type frequency or anything else, will only become meaningful (to your 99.9% consistency) if we break the groups down into, essentially, 6,000,000 separate groups of 1,000,000 people each. (The 1,000,0000 figure was plucked from the same place where you seem to have gotten most of your assertions; it may be larger or smaller.) Since those 6,000,000 groups all associate and interbreed, the groups will probably change to some extent at each generation. This renders their identification at the biological level, useless.

Thus:

Exactly. However, you have provided NO evidence (unless your most recent HLA data finally provides it) that we can define fewer than 6,000,000 groups of 1,000,000 people. You have asserted it on multiple occasions, but you have at no time prior to this post provided supporting documentation.

Again (still?) you are being disingenuous. Before you broke up the paragraph to insert your little comments, the fewer clearly referred to the 6,000,000 groups that I had wildly guessed would be the result of an HLA-based racial classification.

These forensics-based anecdotes have been addressed before. The first site is a very clear example. Given a limited population with known ethnic groups, it is not surprising that the core measurements from those groups will give noticeable variations. For the first site to demonstrate “race”, the young lady who produced it should be able to take measurements of American Indians all the way up the Pacific coast, across to Siberia, across the Asian landmass to Europe, then down through Africa to the western tropical coast and show the exact geographic location where the Indian (or Asian) race changes to become European and where the European is clearly demarked from the African. If you can only identify/place/ascertain/define/limit/resolve/restrict/settle/specify the most distant members of groups as belonging to different “races,” then the word becomes meaningless as you get to areas where the “races” blend together.

The Forensics page might have provided clearer “racial” differences, but they are doing the same thing that your anthropology student did: they are placing previously identified skulls into predetermined categories. The Terry Collection is a set of 1,600 skulls gathered by St. Louis researchers in the U.S. Therefore, they represent the limited number of ethnic groups who have actually migrated to the U.S. Within the groups that have come to North America, one can come up with a good guess regarding which (known) group is actually in the U.S. It does nothing to identify race.

Working to identify a crime victim by looking among groups known to live in a region makes sense. Trying to extrapolate that well defined (and limited) data to humanity as a whole requires more proof–and that has not been shown.
The HLA and gene frequency sites I will look over tonight.

110

Finally, some meat. Well I do thank you for that. But one question, do you actually read any of this before posting? Perhaps you could expound on how the echelles here support your point and give us an analysis of which combinations specifically represent the constellations across ethnic groups which you assert give you a 99% confidence? (I don’t think so) Also, please do address how to work in outlying black North African and Khoi populations.

All in all, this data is not so different than the data I provided for you (although I could not find explanations of the samples so its hard to know how comparative they are nor the methadology used) as such it was not really necessary to do the quickie web search, you could have simply pointed me back to the very literature I cited and said they were all wrong, and then expounded your analysis. A quick review does not seem to reflect any startling coherency across “races” on multiple markers. It strikes me that you’re doing more hand waving to distract from your lack of analysis.

In any case, at least there’s something to work with. I won’t have the op to really critique this until Tuesday when I get back from this trip, but I look forward to it.

111

Is this an admission that you actually post under another name?

112

Restating my position without your interruption: certainly there are culturally identifiable groups with the human population. Attempting to identify/place/ascertain/define/limit/resolve/restrict/settle/specify those people in biologically distinct groups (based on HLA type frequency or anything else, will only become meaningful (to your 99.9% consistency) if we break the groups down into, essentially, 6,000,000 separate groups of 1,000,000 people each.
My math is different: if you break 6,000,000,000 people into 6,000,000 separate groups, each group will contain 1,000 individuals. That would bring us to the level of family/clan. We do not need high-tech biology to study small groups. With high-tech biology, this level can be achieved, perhaps, even today. I mean, that even today, they can analyze for a dozen of HLA types, which would provide enouph sensitivity and sensibility. I am very weak in math. I cannot work the numbers. Perhaps, Edwino can. For instance, if we have two populations with the following HLA types frequencies: HLA-A 75% population, B80%, C 60%, D 5%, E15% and F20%, and A5%, B 15%, C 20%, D75%, E80*, F60%, and the XYZ person has only HLA-A, B, and C markers, what is the probability that he belongs to one of them? If I could calculate it, I’d say: “He, probably, belongs to the first one, the probability is 66,7%”. If the number of markers is increased to, say, 20, the probability would be 98%. You seem to agree with this (not the made up numbers, of course, but with the principle).
Am I right?

113

I agree with the principle that if the numbers could be produced showing that every person on earth could be grouped with others to 99% accuracy and that for each person placed in a group, it could be demonstrated that the person was related to the same group through birth, you could, indeed, set up a category of “groups.”

If, further, those groups were sufficiently large that there were, at most, a dozen or a few dozen of such mutually exclusive groups, you might attach the word “race” to those groups.

Nothing in any of the citations provided by Collounsbury (written by biologists who are certainly capable of grasping the same concept) indicates that they have been able to find any such large groups.

From this I deduce that the groups are much more numerous and much smaller than you would like to see for “race” to be a viable concept. Unless the numbers in the links you provided in your post of 12-13-2000 11:40 AM demonstrate much larger groups than I expect to see, I suspect that we will still have no reason to entertain the notion of “race” as a biological reality. (If we take this down to the mitochondrial level, I can guarantee that I could find many groups with 100% matching–but unless you wish to change the word “family” to “race” it does not matter very much.)

The issue has never been that people do not share characteristics based on genetic information. You do not find blue-eyed blondes who trace their entire ancestry for 700 years to the Cape Region of South Africa.

The issue is that there is (and has always been) so much exchange of genetic information among groups for the relatively short period that humans have been a distinct species, that no one has yet found a marker (or series of markers) that can clearly define a group larger than a family, clan, or tribe as a “race.” I am not challenging the concept that, given a few more geological epochs, humans could not create “races” (or even separate species). I am, based on the information we already know, challenging the notion that such “races” have already arisen.

114

No-one here has said that frequency tables and arbitrary concepts like “race” are not useful. We all accept that certain characteristics are more likely to appear in certain sub-groups of a given population.

I am stunned by your statement that maths isn’t one of your strong points. If that is the case then don’t use numbers to justify your arguments; when you start getting into the realm of genetics and the distinctions between “races” and “species”, you are talking some pretty high level maths. No-one is going to think any less of you if you don’t understand that maths - I freely admit that I don’t fully understand all those wonderful things people who have an intuitive feel for maths can do with numbers. Funnily enough, I have found that the people on this board who do know their shit numberwise are more than willing to assist us lesser mortals in finding good cites and references. Humility goes a long way in this place…

I’m adopting the old newsnet policy of “doe snot” where you are concerned - you’ve already consumed too much time and energy on this board and nothing anyone can say and support is going to change your delusional view of the universe. We have all - to date - fed your desire for attention (and you’ve certainly got plenty of that). You’ve even managed to get people who never say anything bad about ANYONE involved in this thread.

Are you a troll (sorry mods)? Maybe.

Are you a wanker? Definitely.

115

I am glad that you agreed, Tom. The size of the groups is not important. As long as the probability of belonging to one group is more than belonging to another, and again, if it is greater than 50%, we can group people in biological groups and call them whatever is PC, like “races”, “clans”, “families”, etc. In this country members of the same group may occasionally do not speak each other language, i.e. cultural and biological groups could be different.
If an HLA-haplotype of a person is known, he can be reliably (98-99%) placed into one of the groups. I wish somebody here volunteered to calculate the numbers. As we become more mobile, the borders between the groups will became fuzzier.
As an indirect supportive evidence, I may point to animals, especially mice (living in all continents and well studied) in whom similar phenomena were discovered. It would be very strange if that stopped on humans.
But the fact that a person can be placed in one of the groups is incidental. Nobody does all these tests to determine person’s race or subrace. It is done to facilitate donor selection, for one thing. If the frequency of a certain HLA antigen is 0.1% in one group and 10% in another, they won’t waste time looking for a donor in a wrong place.

116

I apologise to the mods and admins, but this is the pit.

example of doe snot :

The sun did not shine, it was too wet to play…

117

oops, sorry - forgot the attribution.

1957, Dr Seuss, Random House Inc, New York, New York

118

**Are you a troll (sorry mods)? Maybe. **
No, I fake it.
Qo: Are you a wanker? Definitely
Whatever you say. We need diversity here. So, you have to tolerate me here. I can only repeat that math is not one of my strong points, but it does not mean that I can’t use numbers. After all, your better command of English does not preclude my using English letters.
I was a run-of-the-mill wanker, you and your ilk attracted attention to me.

So, do you want to know why the roots are needed for hair DNA analysis?

119

The size of the group is crucial. This long, extended discussion over multiple threads and multiple weeks began with you asserting that race was a biological reality, that it could be determined genetically, and that it was useful in seeking such things as organ donations. If race boils down to me and 50 of my closest relatives because your numbers can’t get any closer than that, then I submit that “race” is an absurd notion biologically.

And if his cousin has a different string because one parent lived on the other side of the mountain (and their ancestors have all lived in proximity for 100 generations), what happens to “race” then? And if it turns out that specific HLA-haplotype person can be matched to other people from the Ainu, the Lapps, and the Ibo, where does your concept of “race” go? Without a sufficiently large population, the concept is silly.

You have argued that we can find these matches within specific groups. I contend that even if we have a better chance of finding matches within certain populations, if we can find sufficiently close matches outside those populations and distant mismatches within those populations, the most that we can say is that a population has a higher percentage of matches.

We cannot then claim that that population can be called a “race” when there are internal mismatches and external matches to your criteria. The whole concept of a race involves shared traits. A high percentage of shared traits *which is not universally shared defeats the concept of race. If you discover that some HLA-haplotype among Scots is 99%, you still cannot use “any” Scot as a donor to another. You must match all the traits as closely as possible. If you find those traits in a Hawiian, that Hawaiian will be a better donor. Where does “race” fit into that scenario?

If you wish to say that you only meant that “race” was a good word for “probable donor pool” then I suggest that you are being disingenous in the extreme. Race has a meaning in English (that I am fairly sure has translations in most modern languages) that cannot be used to mean “probable donor pool” without stating, up front, that you are wrenching the word out of its normal place in the language. You never issued any such prior disclaimer; you simply asserted that race was real.

120

My “pool” of donors has nothing to do with the race. Nor the fact that your donor’s cousin may have HLA markers found also in an Ainu or a Lapp. I have known that people can be groupped by frequencies of the markers they had. These groups coincide with whats was called “races”, with ovelapping and exclusion. For instance, most Andean Indians have a set of markers known as And. But some of them do not have some of the markers very common in the Andes (which may make them less susseptible to some diseases). Yet markers which are common to 70% of Andeans are also common to many Ainus. What in this picture canceles races? Or organ donation? Or is offensive to somebody?