REUTERS: Ten Percent Genetic Differences Between Races

I think Grace Kelly Rainier was certainly beautiful, but as i pointed out in the thread in which someone else claimed she was my favorite, she was a little old for me.

I see what you mean, though, she obviously wouldn't want a snout like that seen in a profile shot . . .

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

The aboved-referenced genetic problems probably have to do with miniscule genetive organs.

I was thinking more in terms of a complete lack of a pre-frontal lobe, but then, we both could be right . . .

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

michael1 wrote:
michael1 wrote:
Miller wrote:
Quote:
you'll almost never see side views of blacks

Nonsense! Pulbications such as Jet, Ebony and Essence frequently show side views!

Why wouldn't they?

Cool, I can't find any. Show some please .

Show one at a straight angle from the side, nothing turned or hunched. The cheekbones with the eye straight up, not looking down or up. It will be a miracle if you find one as stated because the snouts are always so prominent that way.

show a similar modeling picture of a white person who is not, "hunched over", whose snout is in perfect profile.
I believe all professional models, regardless of their skin color, are taught to turn their heads the same way.

I didn't say all, I said ratio. Just as you go about life start paying more attention if that's what you're into. I and many European descended people notice that all long ago, it's strange you haven't recognized it. If that's your interest however, suit yourself. If you find it that interesting write a book on it. It was a black girl on Americas next top model who used the phrase snout, so it must not be offensive? It's slang for nose.

0 Replies

michael1 wrote:

I finally found one.

we love you Grandma

and your point being?

Her nose is much smaller than mine, and my heritage is 100% Polish.

Actually, I think she looks rather elegant and regal.

micheal, you're so blind you can't even see what's in front of you. If this elderly womans skin was lighter, oh, nevermind....she must be one of of "1 in a million" you were referring to.

0 Replies

Re: REUTERS: Ten Percent Genetic Differences Between Races

michael1 wrote:

LONDON, Nov 22 (Reuters) - One person's DNA code can be as much as 10 percent different from another's, researchers said on Wednesday in a finding that questions the idea that everyone on Earth is 99.9 percent identical genetically.

This looks much like an embarrassing misunderstanding by the reporter. Previous publications had measured the similarity of human genomes as a percentage of one thing (incidence of different DNA base pairs at specific locations). The new publication measures the similarity of genomes as a percentage of something entirely different (incidence of possible deletions and duplication relative to some benchmark). Comparing percentages is meaningless because their denominators are entirely different.

I would be surprised if it was one of the scientists who called this "a finding that questions the idea that everyone on Earth is 99.9 percent identical genetically."

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
The aboved-referenced genetic problems probably have to do with miniscule genetive organs.

I was thinking more in terms of a complete lack of a pre-frontal lobe, but then, we both could be right . . .

Thus the preoccupation with snouts? Perhaps.

Let us start a rhyming game:

nose:snout::michael1:_________

0 Replies

michael1 wrote:

It's slang for nose.

Then it applies equally to white boys as it does to any blacks. However, in that other idiotic thread you started . . .

michael1 wrote:

Almost all blacks have a snout like that, where have you been?

Which is to say, that you were attempting to suggest that blacks are different because they have "snouts like that." You can't seem to keep your story straight. You're not very good at this sort of thing, are you? Is that because of the severe genetic problems in your family?

One thing which you make perfectly clear, however, is your hateful, racist agenda.

0 Replies

Re: REUTERS: Ten Percent Genetic Differences Between Races

Thomas wrote:

michael1 wrote:
LONDON, Nov 22 (Reuters) - One person's DNA code can be as much as 10 percent different from another's, researchers said on Wednesday in a finding that questions the idea that everyone on Earth is 99.9 percent identical genetically.

This looks much like an embarrassing misunderstanding by the reporter. Previous publications had measured the similarity of human genomes as a percentage of one thing (incidence of different DNA base pairs at specific locations). The new publication measures the similarity of genomes as a percentage of something entirely different (incidence of possible deletions and duplication relative to some benchmark). Comparing percentages is meaningless because their denominators are entirely different.

I would be surprised if it was one of the scientists who called this "a finding that questions the idea that everyone on Earth is 99.9 percent identical genetically."

That's off by two orders of magnitute from what the article claims.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

One thing which you make perfectly clear, however, is your hateful, racist agenda.

Just a common troll, IMO.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Setanta wrote:
One thing which you make perfectly clear, however, is your hateful, racist agenda.

Just a common troll, IMO.

Generally speaking, i agree with that. But i don't think we've ever had such nut-case racist screeds posted here before.

0 Replies

Somebody post a picture of an Afar tribesman, or an Eritrean,. Why are we even wasting time with this little Nazi?

0 Replies

Re: REUTERS: Ten Percent Genetic Differences Between Races

DrewDad wrote:

That's off by two orders of magnitute from what the article claims.

Not necessarily -- and that's my point.

If two percentages are measured against different bases, there's no way of telling a priori if one calls the other into question. For example, if I observe that a Cappucino at Starbucks costs about 0.1% of my monthly salary, and then you observe that it costs about 100% percent of Yaya's monthly pocket money, you would never claim that your observation calls mine into question. Your would never say that your observation is three orders of magnitude off of mine. In fact, you and I would have no reason to think there's anything going on here at all. And because you don't suffer from innumeracy, you would know this full well.

Patricia Reaney, by contrast, does appear to suffer from innumeracy. Her interpretation of the geneticists' publication -- and I'll bet you 10:1 the interpretation is hers -- is an embarrassing misconception of what a percentage is. She writes as if "percent" was a unit of measurement in its own right, when it's really just a fraction of some base value. Consequently, she pretends the two percentages can usefully be compared when they are not -- because they refer to different bases. I think it's as shallow as that.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Somebody post a picture of an Afar tribesman, or an Eritrean,. Why are we even wasting time with this little Nazi?

It wouldn't do any good. In his first thread here, i posted pictures of Indo-Aryans who were as black as the ace of spades, but the nickel didn't drop for him.

0 Replies

99.9 per cent identical? Hardly!

Matt Ridely in "Nature Via Nurture" wrote---"Roy Britten wrote a dramatic paper in 2002 showing that the figure 98.6% was out by a mile. He confirmed that if you count only substitutions--i.e, letters in the text that are different between human and chimpanzee genes--you do indeed get a figure of percent. But if you then add in the textual insertions or deletions, the figure drops of 95 percent"

"The difference between two individual human beings amounts , on average, to 0.1 percent, so there are 3 million different letters between me and my neighbor. The difference between a human being and a chimpanzee is about 15 times as great, or 1.5 percent. That equates to 45 million letters. The book of digital differences between our two species, unannoted would fill 12 feet of bookshelf."

0 Replies

It is a good point, though, FM. Columbus has the largest population of Somalis in the United States, and one of the first things you notice is that they have high-cheek bones, small noses, and really, delicate features are common among these black Africans. Like Mohamed Mukhtar here . . .

http://world.yale.edu/regions/graphics/mohamed_mukhtar.jpg

This lady has a rather delicate "snout":

http://gallery.childofafrika.co.za/data/media/2/somalian_woman.jpg

0 Replies

uh oh....

i think we're in trouble with the hamster.

0 Replies

Somali students

http://www.stjoan.com/er6/immigration/somali.jpg

Ethiopian girl (boy, she's really cute, love the smile)

http://chora.virtualave.net/ethiopian-girl.jpg

Child from Zimbabwe

http://www.robertobazzoni-onlus.com/en/projects/zimbabwe/photos/photo1.jpg

0 Replies

Oooo oooo oooo . . . i know . . .

Whenever Gruppenfeurer Michael starts one of his racist rants, instead of replying, we should just post images of attractive black folks . . .

0 Replies

I am not having a Google image search for "hot black women" on my browser history... again.

0 Replies

You can clean your browser history, or apply a little creativity to your search criterion . . .

0 Replies

REUTERS: Ten Percent Genetic Differences Between Races

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know