User talk:Wobble/archive2

Personal attacks
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Proof -- Kf4bdy  talk contribs 07:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Kf4bdy said he reported the IP at WP:PAIN, you can add to the report there if you like. I'm about to go offline for the night and don't have time to go through the edits myself. From what I saw at English people, everyone involved really deserves 3RR and disruption blocks at the least (without even looking at the personal attacks on both sides). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK I have appologised to Epf. It was stupid of me to get so hot under the collar. Alun 11:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize
Look guy, I know I said some real harsh things, and I just wanna say, although you got some really weird and widely unaccepted views (i.e. races as a social construct, descent = race, British as one people, anarchy, same-sex marriage), your probably a nice guy. I am a jackass for saying some of the shit I said and please ignore ALL the insults about the family bro. This is a brand new low for me and I dont know what came over me, but my family heritage is important to me, too important you could say. As much as we disagree on ethnicity, we should never let it comes to this. I am a piece of shit for making insults like I did and none of it made any sense or had any truth to it. I need some serious fucking help. Have a nice one, peace. 69.157.102.196 11:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Epoynme shows me there are worse users on here than you. That guy is a really racist and really dumb fuck.


 * OK, let's just agree to differ. I think these issues are very difficult to discuss without it getting very heated. I don't know how widespread my views are, some of my beliefs are certainly unusual, and I'm very anti-authoritarian. I think that people are people first and foremost, and that a person's race and/or descent is quite unimportant. We both might be looking at a block here, though I am thinking about giving wikipedia up, it's taking too much time, and quite frankly I'm a bit fed up with the constant bickering. I also found today really quite humiliating, and I'm not sure it's worth it. Alun 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked User:69.157.102.196. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do I get one? Alun 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but 65.92.92.170 did. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The comment was directed at Sugaar, he knows my sign-in name is Marsiliano. I never imagined anyone would find my comments intimidating or machist, I just hope I didn't make you faint.--4.245.182.77 23:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Greatest site on the internet
Racialreality - this is a fucking awesome site of anthropological, genetic and historical information. Heres the thing, it explains why what you consider is racist actually is NOT racist. GUess what ? YOU are on the other side of the coin, and you are some far-leftist, anti-racial, assimlationist, nutcase. The gallery on soccer teams is really awesome cause you can actually see how these people/ethnic groups have biological features which they have in common. So, you are WRONG and the presumed descent is in MOST cases actual, hahahaha, suck on that fool ! Bye Bye !4.245.245.64 03:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * you are some far-leftist, anti-racial, assimlationist Yes I am, you know this because it's on my user page, I told you this. How can it be an insult? Alun 13:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No one is claiming that there are not measurable differences between people from different parts of the world. This is obvious. But are these differences important? That is the question. These differences do not ammount to a speciation, so for most biologists they simply represent polymorphism. Humans have very low genetic diversity, with many fixed alleles compared to other species, this in itself indicates that the human population, like that of the Cheetah, probably underwent a population bottleneck quite recently, and that out common origins as a species are therefore recent. What does this mean with regard to race? Well it does mean that all humans are very similar from a genetic point of view, it means that the differences we do see and can measure may be significant, but are probably not important. So human populations are very simmilar to each other, we are a single species, with no genetic barrier and the posibility of viable reproduction between populations. Isolation of certain populations has not ever lasted long enough for a speciation event to occur, and on the large land masses there would have been no barrier to gene flow between populations. The differences that are seen between human populations are mainly thought to be due to a founder effect followed by genetic drift. So in summary we are a relatively recently evolved species that has very low levels of genetic diversity relative to other populations of organisms, and there is no evidence that the differences we can detect represent important biological phenomena. What I take exception to with regard to the likes of Coon is the assumption that just because we can see differences between populations that this somehow is important. The other thing I take exception to is the segregationist stance of people like Coon, for example this

"Genes that form part of a cell nucleus possess an internal equilibrium as a group, just as do the members of social institutions. Genes in a population are in equilibrium if the population is living a healthy life as a corporate entity. Racial intermixture can upset the genetic as well as the social equilibrium of a group, and so, newly introduced genes tend to disappear or be reduced to a minimum percentage unless they possess a selective advantage over their local counterparts" There is a giant leap between saying on the one hand human populations are demonstrably different and saying on the other it is detrimental to populations for them to outbreed. I do not see the link, and do not understand how the latter statement is at all supported by the former. So my position on this is scientific, actually biological, I am a biologist, biology is what I understand, so I am taking a biological viewpoint. From a genetic point of view the statement by Coons is backwards. What makes any population of organisms healthy is the extent of it's gene pool, the larger the gene pool the less likely it is for lethal/disease causing recessive genes to manifest themselves in a homozygous state in an individual. So diversity is actually good for a population. A population that lacks diversity always suffers from hereditary diseases rarely found in other populations. Here in Finland there are specific hereditary diseases that are overrepresented, because the population is so inbred. So my position is not political, it is biological. I'd like to know why you think race is biologically important? You've made a big fuss about trying to prove it, but you have not shown why we should think that it is biologically important. Alun 13:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously you think race and gender and class are important realities as well, otherwise you wouldn't have spent time producing the kind of whiney verbiage you appear to specialize in. You're trapped in the philosophically preposterous position in which all adamant deniers and revisionists of historical verities naturally find themselves, on the one hand you seek to "subvert" the "dominant paradigms"–on the grounds that said concepts are unimportant, useless superstitions–but in order to do so you have to portray them as representing a very real and very grave danger to the well being of (your utopian) society. Admit it: You're as much an idolator as the pope in Rome and the swamis of the maddrazas.--4.245.245.96 User:Marsiliano 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously you think race and gender and class are important realities as well
 * Obviously I do, I am an anarchist, how could I be an anarchist without thinking these things are important? It is important that class be abolished, that men and women are equal, and that racism is put in it's proper place, ie not anything to do with science or biology. You make sweeping generalisations and make comment on my political beliefs, but do not comment on the science. So in effect you are placing race in a political context rather than a scientific one. This actually supports my contention that race is a social construct and not a biological one. I am interested in real science, not in pseudo-scientific bollocks. I think it is important to point it out when people peddle stupid, scientifically unsupported and demonstrably wrong ideas. For example Intelligent design is also a load of unscientific tripe. You can believe what you like, for all I care you can believe that there are pink fairies on Uranus (it makes as much sense as the rest of your rambling), but you cannot present your fantasies as scientific fact. Tell it how it is, these are theories, and what's more they are theories that are not held by the majority of biologists or scientists, and are generally discredited. Alun 05:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * on the one hand you seek to "subvert" the "dominant paradigms"–on the grounds that said concepts are unimportant, useless superstitions–but in order to do so you have to portray them as representing a very real and very grave danger to the well being of (your utopian) society.
 * I don't seek to subvert anything. I am taking the side of scientific orthodoxy, so the dominant paradigms in this sense are what I am expressing. Where exactly have I said that they are unimportant superstitions? What I am saying is that they are unimportant biologically and scientifically, and that they make no selective or evolutionary sense. They are superstitions, but this does not make them unimportant, as the history of the twentieth century shows, from eugenics to nazism to Rwanda to Darfur the idea of race has had devastating effects on millions of people. Did you actually read my response? My response is about biology, and why Coons work makes no sense from a biological point of view. If anyone is doing the subverting it is you. I have not portrayed them as being a very real and grave danger, I have portrayed them as making no biological sense. Your response to this was political. Did you have any point whatsoever, or is all your thought so vacuous? Alun 05:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * producing the kind of whiney verbiage
 * Poor you, do you find it hard to understand long words? do you find it hard to read joined up writing as well? Alun 06:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're as much an idolator as the pope in Rome and the swamis of the maddrazas.
 * Definition of idolator


 * 1) One who worships idols.
 * 2) One who blindly or excessively admires or adores another.
 * So what idols do I worship? I'm an aetheist. Your comment makes no sense, I get the impression you don't even know what am idolator is. Alun 07:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you got a major problem with criticism, ready to crack up any day now huh?--4.245.245.64 User:Marsiliano 03:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like you cannot reply to my observations with reasoned thought, if you do not properly understand the science, then why make a comment in the first place? If you want to criticise my opinions then make them relevant to what I said. I'm all for rational debate. You have provided none, just snide remarks (how mature of you) that are generally obtuse and do not address the point I am making. Looks like it is you who can't take criticism mate, my response to you was specific and directly addressed your post, you seem to have taken it very personally, which is odd because it was you that started the conversation, it's you who keeps trying to personalise this, not me. Alun 05:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Race is as old and as real as human nature; human nature hasn't changed yet, science changes everyday. I advise you to study human nature if you want to learn about man, and science if you want to...well, really confuse yourself and others .--4.245.254.18 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Race is as old and as real as human nature; human nature hasn't changed yet
 * I disagree, I'm not sure there is any such thing as human nature as a static entity. Cultures and societies, and our concepts of morality and social justice are constantly changing. Human nature is as individual as each human being. What constitutes human nature? Is it the philanthropist who gives money to help people less fortunate than themselves like Bill and Melinda Gates (and many more ordinary people who give small sums every month to charities out of humanity)? Is it the person who takes risks or makes personal sacrifices to help others, like Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, Nelson Mandela or Oskar Schindler? You have to define what you mean by human nature there is much to suggest that human nature is in actual fact basically altruistic. The idea of race in a biological context is a modern one, which I think was my point. The idea of race in the sense of different cultures and societies in conflict is real, but it's tribal and/or political, it's about identity and the will of a dominant class to subjugate other peoples to enhance their own position, prestige or power, this is just as true when discussing waring British tribes that are identical biological races as it is when discussing the rampant nationalism of people like Slobadan Milosevic. It is easy to whip up ethnic hatred for sure, just by saying that group is different to us and is getting something we are not, but it's tribalism, it's not biological. But this is not an endemic or human condition, racism or ethnic hatred are learned, and can be unlearned, the concepts of us and them are constantly changing. Alun 06:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Genetic variation

 * Wobble, the genetic variation between humans is very significant and most biologists really do think that races exist as sub-classification of humans. Its funny how you only talk about one side of an argument and there still so much a person can say which destroys what you speak of. Your really reducing human variation (less than 1%) to basic terms and this is stupid, especially for a "biologist" to do. You really need to read the Wikipeda article on race especially the percentage of difference between humans and chimps (only 2%), which under your estimation would be a very small difference. As for inbreeding, you forget to mention the detriments of outbreeding (also see Outbreeding depression) and also the fact that when you bring in too much foreign or diverse elements into a population, you get many recessive or negative features not found in the original native popualtoin. An easy example of this is the preponderenace of Sickle Cell Anemia in Africans, but this is non-existent in northern European populations. When you bring in too much foreign racial/genetic features, you also can lose "recessive" features of the original population and a good example of this is chracteristic red-hair in the populations of the British Isles or very blond hair in Scandianvia. Why would we want to lose these features ? Well we will if we mix too much with other foreign races and ethnic groups Too much mixing is not good because you lose many genetic/racial elements and also infuse newer negative features into a population which previously had no proportion of it at all. Obviously most scientists out there, and most people in general realize there is a large degree of variation in humans (0.1% can actually be alot as I explained with the comparison to the difference with chimps) and its larger than between many species, even if the politics of some like yourself work hard to say it isnt. I recently watched a documentary on how this guy was trying to prove the single-origin hypothesis based on Y-chromosome information. and concluded that we all come from the same population "bottleneck" out of africa that then migrated to different parts of the world from central asia. This doesnt make sense to me at all and actually just re-inforced strongly my belief in the partial multiple-origins of human populations because: according the data, the peoples of Europe and Northern Asia would have inhabited these regions of very cold climates and similar wildlife habitat for roughy the same amount of time. This is REALLY strange when you consider the great amount of of easily identified physical variation between these regions, but also the genetic variation. The variation of populations results from the adaptation to different climates/environments as well as things like absorbiton, inbreeding, outbreeding, etc.. HOW is it that in regions where the climates are real similar and the people have similar diets did such a great differences develop. Look at a Siberian, he has a very different skull in many points to Europeans. Besides the facial features, things like blonde hair, pail skin, light eyes, freckles are all distinctly of a European origin. None of these come from Siberia originally and they have other great differences in stature, frame size, mass, and facial features (eg. they have very flat faces and obviously different eye folds).  How could two populations, one in a much smaller geographic area (Europe), but both under very similar environmental pressures have so much diversity ??? THIS is why MANY believe that Europeans IN SMALL PART have some origins to the old Neanderthals population and Siberians/Asians to some other form of Homo Erectus ("so-called "Chinese" Erectus). The differences are also toosignificant for it simply to be down to founder effect or insignificant and random genetic drift to affect such a large population. these aspects also fail to explain the patterns of regional variation with the racial traits (especially in terms of similar time-frames if we are all fully descended from the same homo sapiens population bottleneck that came out of africa). There must be many founder effect populations in africa (eg. Pgymies, short in stature but still obviously Negroid) but how is it a small regional group (Capoid) has developed SO differently from a vast group of others Negroids ? It is unscientific to ignorantly and automatically associate this simply due to founder effect. The characteristics in Europeans which aren't found in other human races again points to some sort of hybrid vigour, even if in very small part, with a distinct earlier population (this also goes to some sort of hybrid elements for other groups). There are other ways of looking at the differences, I mean look how differently languages and culture developed in these parts of the world. European languages and culture developed in a very different way then that in Siberia or North America, even if there is similar climate/environment. I find it hard to believe that if we came out of a population bottleneck like the Cheetah, how is it our biology has so much more variation and our cultures developed so differently. I could go on all night about the distinctiveness of human races but you need to read the race article and links at the bottom of that page for more info. 69.157.117.116 16:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC) What you know about that ? I Know ALL about that.
 * the genetic variation between humans is very significant
 * Significance is not the same as large. Alun 13:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * also the fact that when you bring in too much foreign or diverse elements into a population, you get many recessive or negative features not found in the original native popualtoin.
 * But also many good ones. Alun 13:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * but also losing many other good ones in the original population. 69.157.120.37 14:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well we will if we mix too much with other foreign races
 * 'foreign races. What planet do you come from? Alun 13:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What planet do YOU come from ? "Foreign race" differs between each race and ethnic group. In Japan, a foreign people or race is anyone who isnt an indigenous Japanese or Ainu. 69.157.120.37 14:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * and its larger than between many species, even if the politics of some like yourself work hard to say it isnt.
 * We are not seperate species, saying that is patetly not true. It is absurrd and goes against all scientific fact. Indeed the variation in human populations is tiny, due to a recent genetic bottleneck. You are disputing something that no one else disputes. Are you claiming that this bottleneck didn't happen? Alun 13:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming the bottleneck didn't happen, but we don't know HOW it happened exactly (what parts of the African population actually migrated) and there were different waves of migrations out of Africa. The variation is not as tiny as you believe as I already have shown you, we only have a 2% difference between us and chimps (between human races is somewhere less than 1 %), does that mean we are only a "tiny" bit different from chimps ??? Also, I did not say that races are separate species, read exactly what you see before responding idiotically.


 * and concluded that we all come from the same population "bottleneck" out of africa that then migrated to different parts of the world from central asia. This doesnt make sense to me at all and actually just re-inforced strongly my belief in the partial multiple-origins of human populations
 * Clearly it wouldn't make sense to you. You obviously have a strange biased and discredited idea of human evolution that is not supported by proper science. As I said earlier you are entitled to believe whatever fantacies you like. The multi-origin hypothesis makes no evolutionary sense (how can the same species arrise five different times independently), and is discredited by genetic work (which shows that humans have a high proportion of fixed genes compared to most species). It's a dead theory, and only brain dead racists believe it. Your comments about outbreeding also display a poor understanding of proper science and biology. Personally I don't care whay gibberish you spout, calling me names doesn't make you right, and spewing out half baked neo-racist ideas of genetic purity will always be treated with the scorn it deserves by anyone who believes in freedom. Indeed even if your claims that outbreeding is detremental were true (and I think they are the product of distorted thinking) I do not see how it is relevant. In a free society people will always be able to marry anyone they like, and have children with them, and neither you nor anyone else will be able to stop them. As for losing such important features as red hair, who gives a toss? I'm not going to reply to any more of your comments, this discussion has become irrelevant. You are not interested in science so much as the distortion of science in order to promote what appear to be supremacist ideologies. In any case we are not going to convince each other, we both have oposite ideological points of view, and we can both cite science to back up our claims, though I think my science has a better foundation than the discredited multi-regionalism of racist segregationists. What you want to believe has little to do with any basis in reality as far as I can see. Alun 13:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Politicaisation of debate by anon

 * I am none of the many accustations here you label me but obviously you ignore many scientific facts yourself or twist them into your own far-left wing, anarchist, assmilationist, anti-racial viewpoint and claimingthat this is widely held by most scientists (LOL). The multi-origin hypothesis is by no means a "dead theory" although there are a small few who still believe humans evolved "5 time", this is not what I said or meant by "multiple origins of humans". I am speaking about the other origins, although small, of human genetic differences which are not traced to the modern humans that migrated out of Africa. Its a contentious issue in the sicentific world at what exactly the level of genetic input is in modern humans that traces to other archaic humans (Neanderthals, Erectus) which lived at the same time as humans in Europe and Asia, look at the talk page on White People, under sub-heading "talk about race is necessary" for more info. on this. Have you ever heard of outbreeding depression ? You claim its the product of my distorted thinking which goes to show me that you have NO validity in this debate. Anyone who believes in freedom will want to maintain many of the features that are part of who they are, especially if they have red-hair or whatever physical and genetic features charactersitic of their respective race or ethnic group they do not wish to lose by being assimilated and amalgamated into some senseless hodgepodge or melting pot where cultural, linguistic and ethno-racial diversity disappear. MOST people beleive in values like multi-culturalism and diversity, whether on the cultural or racial level. It just so happens that many features, such as red and blonde hair, associated with white people/native Europeans are recessive and too much foreign (non-European) admixture will cause these and other things to disappear. You claim to be a biologist but you're not holding a neutral viewpoint on the issues of outbreeding and inbreeding, both with their pros and cons. Outbreeding brings in new, better traits, but also new poorer traits and also causing the loss of many of the traits of the original population. Inbreeding may cause recurrence of poorer traits in a population, but it may also cause a recurrence and maintenance of the better traits which may be lost with too much mating with foreign populations. Most people in the world disagree with your intolerable viewpoints and value human distinctiveness and diversity. There is nothing wrong with some intermingling, but too much of it is something nobody wishes to see. Finland is not the only society where the people are proud of their genetic distinctiveness and most peoples of the world marry primarily within their own group to maintain its cultural or ethnic (ancestral/genetic) homogeneity, some (eg. Italians, Assyrians, Irish, Greeks, Germans, Japanese, Eastern European peoples, Koreans) notoriously more so than others. What I believe and the facts I know, are what most people in the world agree with, and has everything to do with reality, unlike your own ignorant agenda.


 * What I believe and the facts I know, are what most people in the world agree with, and has everything to do with reality, unlike your own ignorant agenda.
 * How can you claim to know what most people agree with? This has nothing to do with reality, you are expressing opinion, and theory. You cannot claim to have a knowledge that proper scientists lack. Furthermore I might suggest that claiming that I have an ignorant agenda is somethat hypocritical. I am agruing from the point of view of scientific orthodoxy. What people believe is irrelevant to science. Most people do not understand the scientific process. Most people believe in God, does this means that science should declare that he exists? Science is not a democratic process. Please keep your offensive and biggoted unproven and unscientific ideas off my talk page. You do not even have the courage to get a proper account. It's the hight of cowardice to hide behind an IP address. At least I am held to account for my posts. I have also never as offensive or insulting as you. I think you need to grow up a bit, get out and see the world, and understand that there is more out there than you appear to understand. I also suggest you read Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould, a proper scientist, and Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, not such a good book, and I disagree with a lot of his analysis, but he makes some excellent points. Alun 14:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How can I claim what most people belive ? Umm, lets see, through research and reading, by travelling to many different places and meeting average everyday people, not to mention fellow scholars and researchers when I was at school. I am not claiming a "knowledge that proper scientists lack" since the issue is highly debated in the academic world and many agree with my comments and facts. I am agruing from the point of view of scientific orthodoxy, haha, guy you are far from it, believe me and you by no means have approached this issue from both sides of the argument and clearly have an assimilationist, anti-diversity and anti-racial agenda on the issue. I am also not associating what most people believe, to science that is based on empirical evidence, but am only stating what most in society value since you brought this element into the debate by labelling false accusatoins towards me and how I will be treated by "anyone who believes in freedom" (well, your twisted version of it). No one of my comments are being associated to science as being a democratic process (you say this far too much in your discussions btw) and science is based on numerous empirical facts ogathered and deeemed reliable from scientists with a neutral perspective (open to all possibilities, even if perfect objectivity is impossible for any human). All opinions on a debate are to be considered when dealing with "facts", so I don't know what you mean by this. I've read Guns, Germs and Steel, but not the other book, but I don't see how those have any real relevance to the issue at hand. Maybe I will get a user account so I can prevent your agenda from making too much of an impact on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the Internet, although there are many more (again, I would say most) who are like me out there who value hard scientific fact without some political ideology or societal pressure affecting the conclusions and truth, whatever it may turn out to be. 69.157.120.37 14:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * through research and reading, by travelling to many different places and meeting average everyday people, not to mention fellow scholars and researchers when I was at school.
 * So what you actually mean is that some people who you happen to have met, and some things that you happen to have read and agreed with. I don't think this can possibly be construed as most people. You admit that you recently watched a documentary, the conclusions of which you rejected out of hand, and yet you claim to be interseted in hard scientific fact and that you support opinions from scientists with a neutral perspective. But what you actually mean is, you reject those scientists with whom you disagree while only accepting those that support your point of view. So you are being somewhat hypocritical because this is exactly what you accuse me of. Your ideas about multiple origins of human race are not supported by current scientific thinking or observation, and are far from any consensus amongst either geneticists, biologists, paleontologists or anthropologists. To claim that this is the settled opinion of the majority of professionals in the field of human evolution is simply not true. There may be some debate about the Origins of modern humans, but it's nowhere near as ballanced as you claim. A small minority may still hold to the multi-regional hypothesis, and these have less and less evidence to support their position. Indeed this is the sort of political posturing you accuse me of. Alun 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A note on my politics. I am open and up front about my political beliefs. I see no reason to defend them to you. You may disagree with them, it is your prerogative, but at least I declare my interest. You hide behind your anonymous IP address, I know nothing about your politics or beliefs. You can attack mine as much as you like, but at least I have been honest and above board. You claim that my supposition about your racialist opinions is incorrect, but this supposition is based on your own posts here. As I have no other way of defining your beliefs I am bound to draw my conclusions based on the racism you have posted here. If you don't like it then why don't you stop continually making comments about my political beliefs, because if you impugn my scientific credentials by claiming that they are politically motivated, then I am bound to think the same of you. And my position seems to be far more benign than the sinister opinions you have expressed. Additionally I have never used any political position to express my scientific position. My views regarding race are both scientific and political, race is a politicised subject, for us all, you as much as me, but if we want to discuss the scientific evidence for race then I will remain in the scientific arena. It is you who has repeatedly tried to bring my politics into this not me. If you want to talk politics I am happy to do so, in a different discussion. Alun 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We seem to have more in common with each other than you appear to appreciate. You seem to have modified your position on outbreeding, as previously you seemed to portray it as exclusively bad, and also seemed to be portraying human races as fundamentally biologically different. With your recent contributions regarding Homo neanderthalensis (which was indeed a seperate species) you seem to be closer to my position, in that you now accept that outbreeding does result in a more robust larger gene pool. Some additional points: Alun 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Species: While the definition of a species is easy, this does not mean that biological systems necessarily conform to the neat pigeonholes that scientists would like to use. Most sexually reproducing species do indeed conform to the biological species concept, but many do not. This is simply because even at the species level categorisation by humans is imperfect. Indeed you made the point earlier that all taxa are artificial, and of course they are, there is much supposition and opionion in classification of all levels of taxonomy. Robert Bakker even argues thet the five vertebrate subdivisions are wrong. And of course the whole world of Bacteria is absent from the biological species concept. Bacterial populations (or colonies) are clonal, there is no sexual reproduction, gene transfer is at best para-sexual, via conjugation for plasmid transfer or transduction. So classifying bacterial species is generally morphological, though I think that more and more Ribosomal RNA is used for species classification. Alun 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Race: Race is much harder to define. This is simply because we do not even have the theoretical possibility of a complete absence of gene transfer. However one defines races there will always be naturally occuring populations that are intermediate and that don't conform to any race. The main thrust of my point about there being no biological basis for race has nothing to do with a claim for homogeneity within the global human population, and I have never made such a claim. The point is that, while species are easy to define (though not perfect), races actually form a continuum of change, the decission about where to deduce where one race ends and another begins will always be arbitrary. This paper highlight some of the problems with thinking of races as discreet entities Genetic variation, classification and ‘race’. Given this fact it is safe to say that races are indeed a social construct, what constitutes a race will depend as much on cultural and social norms than on science, because it will inevitably be arbitrary. And again ther is no accepted biological definition of race, therefore it is acceptable to claim that race is not a biological concept. If and when there is consensus in the biological community as to what deffines a race then it might be true to claim that it is a biological construct. Untill such time it is merely a matter of opinion and not scientifically accepted. These are real scietific issues, they are not my political point of view. Alun 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Homo neanderthalis or Homo sapiens neanderthalis?
The following is connected to my original argument further above:

From the Neanderthal article: By 130,000 years ago, full blown Neanderthal characteristics had appeared and by 50,000 years ago, Neanderthals disappeared from Asia, although they did not reach extinction in Europe until 33,000 to 24,000 years ago, perhaps 15,000 years after Homo sapiens had migrated into Europe.

15,000 years in the area they mainly inhabited since there was few that spread into asia (most in central asia) and your telling me nothing happened for 15,000 years between the first homo sapiens into Europe and the Neaderthals who sought refuge here ? Gimme a break. Inter-species mating (thats those which are real similar) isnt uncommon in nature and this is seen in many cases, including in advanced mammals like Cetaceans.


 * We aren't talking about interspecies mating we are talking about the interspecies mating resulting in viable offspring. Based on body size, dorsal fin scars, frequency of extruded penises, and behavior we conclude that groups of male bottlenose approached and herded female tucuxi in attempts to mate. We have not yet documented evidence of successful hybridization. Sex and the single Tucuxi: Observations of interspecies mating between free-ranging bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus) and tucuxi (Sotalia fluviatilis) dolphins in Costa Rica. How can you claim they produce viable offspring there is a study that reported that hybrid offspring may exist, this does not make any observations regarding the reproductive status of the offspring. Finally, like Forestell et al. (1999) our behavior data and photo-identification work suggest that there may be some genetic exchange between species. The consequences of these exchanges are unknown, but it seems that it may be limited to a few bottlenose dolphins interacting sexually with S. guianensis. Future studies should look into the possible negative effect of hybrids between these two distant species.NSIGHTS ON THE OCCURRENCE, RESIDENCY, AND BEHAVIOR OF TWO COASTAL DOLPHINs FROM GANDOCA-MANZANILLO, COSTA RICA: SOTALIA GUIANENSIS AND TURSIOPS TRUNCATUS (FAMILY DELPHINIDAE). MÓNICA GAMBOA-POVEDA1, AND LAURA J. MAY-COLLADO1, Escuela de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica, Heredia, Costa Rica Alun 08:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

is just one source of many (this the most recent, November 2006) showing how humans (Europeans by far more than any others) most likely have part of their ancestry to Neanderthals, and as is seen at the bottom of the page, especially in areas of glacial refuge like Northwestern Europe (red hair may be traced to the hybrid of humans and neaderthals, again more proof why it is not found anywhere else in the world). 69.157.120.37 13:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a reliable source. The paper is not available for free viewing online. I do not trust what journalists say about science. Journalists do not report science properly, they over simplify and just want a "good story", often considerably distorting what scientists are sctually saying. See here for abstract of said article. Alun 07:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * inter species mating
 * When different species mate they do not produce viable offspring. Like a mule or a liger, these animals are sterile. The last source I read clearly stated that there was no evidence for a neanderthal component in any human population. We would certainly be much more different than we actually are if there had been. Alun 13:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This also seems to contradict your previous post. If inter race breeding is detrimental, then inter-species breeding must be even more detrimental. By your logic Europeans must be a very genetically weak race if we are the result of inter-race species, as per Outbreeding depression. Just a thought. Alun 13:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, more proof that you either do not read what I type correctly or you do not know what you are talking about. I provided a link to a Genus (Cetaceans) that has inter-species mating which provide viable offspring (Fin Whale and/or the Humpback Whale and the Blue Whale), but we are not talking about species, we are talking about much more closely related human subspecies or archaic humans. Did you read the source I provided above which clearly shows there IS proof for a neanderthal component in Europeans (Neanderthals were indigenous to Europe). I provide example of how it is a contentions issue just what little of our genetic cane be traced to neaderthals (in EUrope) and Erectus (in Asia) on the talk apge for "White people". I never said inter-race breeding is detrimental, and inter-race breeding or inter-sub-species breeding could also creats stable or superior hybrids, which is probably what happened with European and Asian Homo Sapiens mixing with Neaderthals and Homo Erectus respectively. I already explained how Inbreeding and Outbreeding both equally have their pros and cons. Since each race has their own distinct features, most do not wish to intermingle even more with other populations and wish to maintain the level of diversity and distinctiveness that already exists. 69.157.120.37 14:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * that has inter-species mating which provide viable offspring
 * Um, these species have interbred due to a near extinction event. They interbreed because it's that or not breed at all. It is true that when species collapse, such as during a mass extinction event or a near extinction event it is common for new species to arise. This is probably what happened to modern humans, one theory is that a super volcano caused an extinction or near extinction event for many hominid species, and our own was the direct result of this. Species arise quite quickly, evolution (as in speciation events) usually occur as the result of environmental change, rather than a gradual process of small changes over a long period of time. This is the basis of punctuated equilibrium. The biological species concept is a well defined concept, but it's not perfect, as I said previously ring species do not conform to it. Indeed you now appear to be agreeing with me, that inter-population reproduction is common and has occured in European human ancestry. Alun 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, those species did not inter-breed because of near-extinction Wobbs, they aren't self-aware of their world and able to realize that extinction may be occurring. If you are speaking in terms of the availability within their own gene pool, they can still easily breed with their own species but happen to occasinonally also breed with other very closely related and compatible species, producing viable offspring. There are many instance in nature where inter-species breeding produce viable offspring (another example is Cattle and the American Bison). Even if there was a "near-extinction event" causing the human population bottleneck, this is would of been more cause for the inter-breeding between the humans and remaining Neanderthals in Europe, and with the remaining Homo Erectus (Pekinensis) in Asia. "Species arise quite quickly" - umm, this in contradiction to phyletic gradualism and even aspects of darwinism stating the gradual evolution of species over time. The "species" concept is not without its contrvoersies in defintions, epsecially when it comesto when a sub-species can or can not be labelled a distinct species. I am not deny that gen-flow between various human populationd has occurred, but even if relying on the population bottleneck and out of Africa theory solely, clearly the popualtions primarily bred with themselves and remained qutie isolated from each other for quite some time in order for the significant genetic and physical variation we see between human races to have occurred. This is why the clines and gradation between human populatoins is irrelevant in classifying human races. Ultimately there is always going to be gene flow between groups of the same species, but this does not negate the unique differences that have developed between them. The clines or clades can't ignore the fairly striking or immediate changes between certain geographic regions: eg. Capoid peoples in SW Africa and the surronungding Negroid populatoins; Papuan, Andamanese, Negrito, Australian Aborigines (Australoid) peoples and the neighbouring Polynesian and Malay (Mongoloid Austronesian) peoples. considering these long migrations happened tens of thousands of years before the Domestication of the horse or any other significant developments increasing the ease of transportation, it is easy to understand why there would be limited contact between these various populatoins and mainly breeding within each population. The genetic drift and sexual selection within these fairly discreet, mainly inbreeding groups combined with adaptation/natural selection and absorbtion of other Homo species are all possible causes in the very noticeable genetic and physical diversity we see between human races or populations. I dont know why you dont get this, see ya. 65.92.92.125 19:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * they aren't self-aware of their world and able to realize that extinction may be occurring.
 * I didn't suggest they are. Alun 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * they can still easily breed with their own species
 * Not if they can't find any because so few are left. Alun 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * this is would of been more cause for the inter-breeding between the humans and remaining Neanderthals in Europe, and with the remaining Homo Erectus (Pekinensis) in Asia.
 * I agree. It was my point actually. Alun 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * in contradiction to phyletic gradualism and even aspects of darwinism stating the gradual evolution of species over time.
 * Yes, see Punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism is only a theory. Species arise in fits and starts, staying the same for long periods. The fossil record clearly shows long periods where species remain unchanged, followed by rapid periods of change, thought to be due to mass extinction events following big environmental change (meaning that organisms well adapted to the original environment become extinct in the new environment). Most organisms are already superbly well adapted to stable environments, selection keeps well adapted organisms the same, if it aint broke don't fix it. Dinosaurs went out with a bang not a whimper. See Extinction event, Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, Burgess Shale and Cambrian explosion. Alun 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * clearly the popualtions primarily bred with themselves and remained qutie isolated from each other for quite some time in order for the significant genetic and physical variation we see between human races to have occurred.
 * Yes I agree. Alun 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * but this does not negate the unique differences that have developed between them.
 * You are quite right. Alun 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * mainly inbreeding groups combined with adaptation/natural selection and absorbtion of other Homo species are all possible causes in the very noticeable genetic and physical diversity we see between human races or populations.
 * I agree, why do you think I wouldn't? Alun 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

69.157.120.37 14:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * here is some more data on partial non-African origins (other sub-species of Homo/archaic humans) in modern humans from research on the X-chromosome and here is the original link with info on influence of neanderthals in Europeans from above (one of many sources):
 * here is some more data on partial non-African origins
 * All hominids derive from Africa. Are you now claiming that some hominids in human genetic history are not derived from Africa? Where do you think they came from? Alun 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Race as biology?
The idea of race in a biological context is clearly by no means a modern one and I find it ridiculous you claim that since the whole idea of race wasn't even challenged as fact till the middle 20th century. Even the Egyptians acknowledged the features of different races of the people they most associated with at the time (Nubians, Berbers/North Africans, Hittites, etc.) and this can be seen in their many pictographs. I dont know what you mean as identical races with the British tribes because even if they were very similar, there are minor genetic differences from tribe to tribe, just as there is from family to family and individual to individual. Race is such a broad term that it could be applied to any group that has a collective genetic difference from others and its only a construct when it most commonly applies to chosen larger magnitudes of difference. Also, much of the difference we identify between our tribes does origninally stem from the biological differences and the social and cultural differences which develop that are associated with the original natural/biological distinctiveness, no matter how great or small it is considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.117.116 (talk • contribs)


 * I find it ridiculous you claim that since the whole idea of race wasn't even challenged as fact till the middle 20th century
 * I am supremely disinterested in what you find ridiculous or not. Your scorn is of no relevance. Alun 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea of race in a biological context is clearly by no means a modern one
 * Indeed it is a modern one, the whole discipline of biology is a modern one, as indeed is the disipline of science. Scientific methodology has been developed over the last few hundred years. You are confusing the idea of biological race with the idea that people have from different parts of the world have discernably different physical characteristics. Having different characteristics does not identify them as racially different, otherwise people with blue eyes would be a different race from people with brown eyes. Alun 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Even the Egyptians acknowledged the features of different races of the people they most associated with at the time
 * No one has disputed that there are discernable physical differences between people from different parts of the world, but this is just polymorphism.


 * Did you even read my much lengthier discourse further above ? You claim that racial differences are just polymorphism" ? Genetic drift (as in random genetic combinations) are minor compared to the effects of natural selection, inbrreeding/outbreeding and absorbition in affecting race. How do you think evolution of different species happens ? The longer (very long, talking in thousands of years) they are separate from the original population in a different habitat, eventually it will evolve into a different species as noted by Darwin. Obviously this takes a very long time but varies with differing factors and its doesn't ignore the fact that before an animal can be seemd a separate species from the original group, it doesnt go through more minor stages/phases of "sub-species" and "race" (eg. dogs).  As you hopefully already know, the following factors  lead to this: breeding (homogeneity within the group), absorbtion (i.e. of different but related species and sub-species, creating hybrid features in the group), genetic drift (random genetic sampling) and most importantly natural selection (eventually adaptation).


 * You claim that racial differences are just polymorphism" ?
 * What else could they be? Are you claiming that they are something else? Polymorphism just means genetic diversity, are you trying to say that genetic diversity does not explain race? I don't understand the point you are making. Alun 07:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you think evolution of different species happens ? The longer they are separate from the original population in a different habitat, eventually it will evolve into a different species as noted by Darwin.
 * I don't know, and neither does anyone else. There are several theories. I think you need to read about punctuated equilibrium. I don't think that it can be claimed that human populations have been reproductively isolated from each other for very long periods of time. Speciation is a complex subject, but I thought you wanted totalk about race. Are you now claiming that human populations from seperate species? These comments seem to be irrelevant. Alun 07:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Race is such a broad term that it could be applied to any group that has a collective genetic difference from others and its only a construct when it most commonly applies to chosen larger magnitudes of difference.
 * I think you have hit the nail on the head. Race is such a broad term that it can be applied to any difference between groups (genetic or otherwise), including family groups, it is only a construct when someone arbitrarily decides that some features are more important than others, race has never been genetically defined, so your comment about collective genetic differences makes no sense. More importantly the differences between populations of people are as much cultural/social/religious, after all before Gregor Mendel there was no concept of genetics, and so the idea of race could not have been considered genetic anyway. This is the reason why in effect it is a cultural rather than a biological phenomenon, what constitutes a race is in the perception of the person doing the classifying, not in any systematic biological classification. Alun 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * race has never been genetically defined. Have you not been paying attention to numerous genetic studies on different races and ethnic groups? Race obviously always has been in a way "genetically defined", but before the advent of this science in the 20th century, it was more associated with "blood" and physical appearance. Race itself can be seen in these ways, physical appearance being more reliable (prior to genetics) than blood (when a group traces its tribal ancestry and family lines/genealogy). You say "it is more of a cultural than biological phenomenon". What are you basing this on? The cultural (or social construct) part may be choosing what level of difference is "race", but in this respect can go for any human-defined taxonomical definition (genus, family, species, etc.), but it doesnt get rid of the fact that it is based on clearly existant biological differences, at whatever level, that are either measured by tracing ancestry or "blood", physical features or genetics. 69.157.117.116 07:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you not been paying attention to numerous genetic studies on different races and ethnic groups?
 * Yes I have, none defines race. They can tell us which genetic markers occur at high frequencies in which populations. This is a biological observation and not a deffinition.Alun 07:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The cultural (or social construct) part may be choosing what level of difference is "race"
 * Exactly, this is the nub of the thing. You cannot clain two contradictory things. You cannot claim that race is defined by an unbiased scientific convention (like species), and then claim that the level of difference is totally arbitrary. It is the arbitraryness of the difference that makes it impossible to define. There are two seperate issues here. The first is the recognition that there are genetic differences between different human populations on the planet, but then there are genetic differences between brothers, even between identical twins. The second issue is the impoortance of these differences. The importance one places on the differences is arbitrary, it is not defined by biology, it is defined by society and culture. There is no accepted biological classfication of race, there is no taxonomy od race. It is incorrect for you to claim that just because there are genetic differences between populations that this proves there are races, because we don't now what races are, they have not been defined. I can define a species. It is a group of organisms that forms a discreet, inbreeding exclusive population, there is (in theory at least) no genetic transfer between two populations from different species. Now how do we define a race in such a way? Alun 07:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * People have made attempts to place the observable differences between some populations into collective and discreet packages called races and have claimed that these races are discreet exclusive groups, and even that they have evolved seperately. This does not fit with proper modern science, all evidence indicates that populations cannot http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wobble&action=edit&section=3#be neatly and discreetly packaged in this way. There is not even a consensus on how to define a biological species, to claim that there is a consensus in biology on how to classify organisms on the sub-species level is incorrect. Therefore there is no biological context for race. I am merely stating what any biologist or taxonomist will tell you. This is what it says in the race article Many evolutionary and social scientists think common race definitions, or any race definitions pertaining to humans, lack taxonomic rigour and validity. Alun 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * have claimed that these races are discreet exclusive groups, and even that they have evolved seperately. This does not fit with proper modern science. This statement makes no sense since most modern scientific studies do point to biological variation within these groups (0.1%, which again is more than you realize considering there is only a 2.0% difference between humans and chimps). No respected and neutral biologist would make a claim like yours since these groups, although from a common parent population at one time, did evolve separate differences over time (from numerous factors) in different regions and thus did develop certain differences (no matter what level they are). As for your excerpt from the race article, that is only from one side of the argument so don't claim that that is the widely-accepted belief by excluding the (more numerous) arguments from that article which oppose that view. Most of that article speaks of how most biologists and taxonomists agree that if a definition of species and other human-made classifications can me made, then other classifications such as "sub-species" and "race based" on smaller genetic differences can also be made.

The most recent survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

biologists 16% developmental psychologists 36% physical anthropologists 41% cultural anthropologists 53%[10]

69.157.117.116 07:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This statement makes no sense since most modern scientific studies do point to biological variation within these groups (0.1%, which again is more than you realize considering there is only a 2.0% difference between humans and chimps).
 * Of course it makes sense, maybe you just didn't read it properly. I never said that the variation did not exist, so why would you claim that I did? SO we accept that there is variation between human populations. This does not prove that the populations are discreet exclusively inbreeding groups, and you have not shown that it does. Alun 07:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * did evolve separate differences over time (from numerous factors) in different regions
 * I don't know what you mean by evolve. There are very small observable differences between human populations in different parts of the world. Most scientists think these are probably caused by founder effects and genetic drift. We can observe these differences, so what? Do you actually have a point? Alun 07:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * then other classifications such as "sub-species" and "race based" on smaller genetic differences can also be made.
 * No one has said that they can't be made. The point is no whether these classifications can be made, but whether they constitute anything other than the opinions of the people that make them. A species can be easily defined, sub-species taxonomy is fraught with difficulty and I am sceptical that there will ever be an accepted classification Alun 07:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens."''
 * ''The most recent survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition
 * Science is not democratic. We observe and experiment, and draw conclusions based on these. We don't accept a theory because most people like it. We disprove theories by experimentation. The question asked does not appear to have defined what a race is. Indeed it is a major problem with the whole race discussion, no one can really define it. It's a bit like George Bush's deffinition of terrorism we'll know it when we see it. This is not a very scientific way to define a concept. Alun 07:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon argues for assimilationism

 * You neeed to read what I said on archaic human influences in modern Homo Sapiens Talk:White people ("talk about race is necessary") before I answer anymore to your anti-racial, anti-diversity, assimilationist and nihilist comments. You accuse others of being POV pushers but you do exactly the same with your own agenda. Clearly you will deny this but its obvious to everyone who debates with you. You give biologists a bad name, and your views arent in line with genetic evidence of the vast majority in your profession (despite your claims otherwise). Btw, the archaic human species like Neaderthal and Homo Erectus Pekinensis were different SUB-species of Homo Erectus, not completely different species. They did come out of Africa, but long before modern humans did (unless your a supporter of the multi-region hypothesis). You also mention above how "species" is so easy to define, but sub-species and race is so much more difficult as if they have no bearing in the natural world. This is a HUGE redundancy that makes no sense. Different species have genetic differences, but they also have genetic similarities, correct ? The same is about race and sub-species, no matter how the differences developed over time (though from genetic evidence it is becoming increasingly likely that other Homo species in Asia and Europe played a factor), they have become different enough genetically from one another for "race" to exist. Africans have genes that Europeans do not have, and it doesn't matter that there is further sub-classification and clines between the major groupings, this is not universal and the clines are not as gradual as some like to beleive. Cavalli-Sforza has shown there is significant distance between immediate areas such as Europe/North Africa and sub-sharan Africa, or between Bushmen and Khoi (Capoid) peoples of Southwest Africa and the immediately surrounding Negroid Sub-Saharan populations. You are a classic example of a product of the post WW2 socio-cultural movements and how such politics and viewpoints have affected scientific fact. Every taxonomic construction of species has clines and gradients since this is the core of evolutionary theory (all species derived from the same source at one point). Every living thing on the planet shares some degree of genetic code but it doesn't mean we are all the same thing. Race and sub-species is an intermediate point in the classifcation between species and just because there is clines in human variation, it does not mean you ignore the differences that do exist between various groups and claim we're just all the same. If my family continues to marry within the white race for the next 10 generations, we will still never look like or have many physical and genetic features that Black Africans do. Who cares if other populations may be more closely related to them, the fact is I am part of a group of people that is GENETICALLY DISTINCT from another group of humans in certain aspects (even if some consider it "minor"). How is this not viable for race to exist ? This is my point Wobble, your fighting a losing cause here that twists scientific fact just so that we can all look exactly the same. Each individual is genetically different, each family is genetically different, and each race is genetically different, the larger the grouping, the more notable the dinstictiveness. I am more related to you and other white people in terms of my ancestry and genes than I am to a black or asian person. All you are doing in this argument is "playing down" the differences and focusing on what connects all human groups, its that simple. No matter how hard you try, until the days of genetic engineering, there is nothing you can do that removes the FACT that human populations also have genetic differences from each other, and whites, blacks, asians, australoids, capoids have differences not shared with each other. These groups have been largely isolated from each other for long periods of time. The natives of Northern Europe have not had gene flow with subsharan Africans for tens of thousands of years. Where the races meet, there is varying degrees of gene flow, but this does NOT deny the fact that certain features have become unique to each group. You are done and you can take you anti-human diversity BS somewhere else. The more you push this shit the more you are going down. The more you keep this up, the more you fuel the fires of equally ignorant far-right racist and fascist groups. How dumb do you have to be to not realize this ? Are you blind to the rise of the right in Europe ? In my mind you are just as bad as them because assmilationism and anti-diversity is just as bad as complete segrgationism and racism. I value human genetic and racial diversity and by no means did I ever say that outbreeding was more beneficial to a population than it is harmful. I said that both inbreeding and outbreeding have their pros and cons, but our ethnic groups and races are diverse enough thatwe wish to maintain the traits we already have. Too much inbreeding (i.e. a very tiny population) may not be good, but too much outbreeding is definitely not good since it decreases genetic diversity in the whole of the population. Even if human groups all descend from the same population bottleneck (though this has all been but proven to be incorrect, with different waves of migratoin out of Africa, environmental adaptation/natural selection and influence of other closely related and compatible Homo species on humans in Asia and Europe playing factors), that would be even more reason for inbreeding and preserving each groups unique features since each groups differences would have developed solely by mating within the group for long periods of time. White people and our very diverse genetic and physical features especially would then be at a disadvantage by outbreeding (I  really can not stress enough how outbreeding depression can be really negative to our human genetic diversity) with much more numerous foreign influences. I value European physical and gnetic traits and our culture and socio-behavioural aspects. Inter-racial breeding is good, but all races must not have too much of it in order to preserve each of our racial and ethnic identities and distinctiveness. I have nothing more to say to you unless you WAKE UP and stop corrupting empirical fact. Dversity is beautiful, why not embrace it ? Oh, thats right, you are a far-leftist, anarchist, pseudo-scientific, assmilationist, racial and ethnic nihilist lunatic. If fascism and racism caused the biggest atrocities in the 20th century, anarchism, anti-diversity and assimilationism may be the cause of them in this one.  Lol, no offence to you personally, but I mean what world are you living in ? 65.92.92.125 18:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I just can't take you seriously. I mean come on, all this you're pov pushing Wobble and you have an agenda, like you don't? You keep claiming that it is me who is distorting the science, I mean come on. I was talking to two very good friends of mine about our little debate, both have PhDs in Genetics and do biomedical research, and they both laighed out loud with incredulity when I mentionned some of your comments. I also mentioned the multi origin theory to my boss, who is a group leader (a senior scientist who is a fellow of the Accademy of Finland, and actually half Russian and half Korean herself) with numerous publications is high profile high impact factor Journals like Science and Nature and her response was that doesn't make sense or fit any of the genetic evidence, there would be far more genetic diversity in the human gene pool if it were true. You keep going on about me being an assimilationist but I don't have a clue what that's supposed to actually mean. You seem to think I am somehow dogmatic, which shows you clearly know nothing about Anarchism, because one thing it can never be is dogmatic. I mean what is an assimilationist? Do you think I believe that people should be forced to reproduce outside of their own population or something? 'Cos it makes no sense to me. So I'll tell you, Anarchists believe in personal liberty, we believe that the individual should be completelly free to make descisions in their own right, we don't agree with any sort of coercive organisations: Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or a group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government (such as the state)[1] and support its elimination.[2] The term "anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished. So what I believe is that people can do what they want, they can have sex with and have children with any other consenting adult they choose to. I have never stated that there is no such thing as race, this is the third or fourth time you have accused me of this, why you keep doing it is beyond me. And how am I a nihilist? Because I don't agree with racialism? You accuse me of being a classic example of a product of the post WW2 socio-cultural movements, and I am, aren't we all if we were born post 1945? Or did you get into a time capsule and get born before this time? I'll tell you this, ask yourself why we are so against racialism? Could it possibly be because racialism was used for the basis of the most tyranical murderous regimes the planet has ever seen? Could it be because racialism was the direct cause of slavery in the USA, Apartheid in South Africa, Nazism in Europe, Segregationism in the USA? I'll tell you this all racialist humbug has a vested interest, and that vested interest is always to try to prove that one race is superior or somehow better or special, you have done it yourself with we europeans are special and different because we have neanderthal genes and no one else does, aren't we lovely. Ultimately racialism is the badge of the ultimate failiure, because what have you got? I'm special because all I ever achieved of note was being born white, so being white must be important. As for anarchism, anti-diversity and assimilationism may be the cause of them in this one. I'm all for diversity, I think mixed marriages are great, I think same race marriages are great as well, be free, have kids with whoever you like, just don't tell other people who they should or should not have kids with (oh and by the way, I'm in a mixed culture marriage, and my children have a great deal more diversity than others arround them, for one thing they have two languages and cultures instead of one, people don't lose their identities you know). Assimilationism seems to be one of your facourite words, but you've over egged it a bit and it's just lame now. As for your comment about Anarchism, you clearly don't have the foggiest what it means, please go out and come up with a criticism that actually makes sense. It's just pathetic to attack Anarchism just because you don't agree with me and I'm an anarchist. I mean do you really think like this oh that wobble disagrees with me and he's an anarchist so anarchy must be bad. Alun 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just read a review article about genetics and race, it is a review from 2004 and covers all of the relevant scientific dtat and findings up to that point. I assume you actually know what a review article is? Anyway it was published in Nature Genetics, Nature is a very high Impact Factor scientific journal, and ther are people doing PhDs in my lab that would be prepared to do quite a lot to get a publication into Nature Genetics. This is what it says:"We review review the results of genetic analyses that show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift. Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations.....These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations.....Few concepts have as tarnished and contentious a history as 'race'.....Even the definition of race varies considerably......All of these findings, which are in accord with many other studies based on different types of genetic variation assessed in different samples of humans, support an evolutionary scenario in which anatomically modern humans evolved first in Africa, accumilating genetic diversity. A small subset of the African population then left the continent, probably experienced a population bottleneck and founded anatomically modern human populations in the rest of the world. Of special importance to discussions of race, our species has a recent, common origin.''' Genetic variation, classification and ‘race’"

65.92.92.125 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This fails to realize or answer for the great diversity, genetic and especially physical features, between human races or "populations", and especially features which are unique to each group. This also fails to deal with situations where there is a marked physical and genetic difference between neighbouring populations (Capoids of SW Africa, European of North Africa and Sub-Sharahan Africans, Scandinavians and Lapps/Sami, Papuans and Malays, etc.)


 * Obviously your pittyfull understanding is superior to professional scientists who are esteemed enough to be asked to write a review article in a world leading scientific publication. Your high opinion of yourself is unfounded, especially since you do not have the courage to state your own academic credentials, or indeed your political affiliations. The only thing I can say about you is that you seem to be so biased that you ignore real scientific opinion or dismiss it, and you only accept opinion that agrees with you, so obviously you are deluded into thinking that neutral scientists agree with you, but this is only because you think that by definition neutrality is the same as your opinion. Given your cowardice I can only conclude that you have a far right racist agenda. Oh and if you actually read the article (I provided a link to it just for you and it is free to download) the authors cover diversity in detail. "Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'. Approximately 85-90% of the genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10-15% of variation is found between them. In other words, ~90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only ~10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans. The proportion of total genetic variation ascribed to differences between continental populations, called FST is consistent, regardless of the type of autosomal loci examined. FST varies, however, depending on on how the human population id divided. If four Old World populations (European, African, East Asian and Indian Subcontinent) are examined instead of three, FST (estimated for 100 Alu'' element insertion polymorphisms) decreases from 14% to 10%.Genetic variation, classification and ‘race’"


 * To be honest I pitty you, you can't help but get personal with me, your ideas are far right and whatever you say are not supported by science. All you appear to have is hate, and the problem is you are not important enough for me to hate you back, I just think you're a bit pathetic. I hope one day you will learn that it is unhealthy to be so bitter and full of venom. Alun 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon whines about political attacks
that doesn't make sense or fit any of the genetic evidence, there would be far more genetic diversity in the human gene pool if it were true - even if you have colleaugues who said this and even if they actually have a PhD in genetics (I doubt they would say this if they did), there is great diversity in the human genome (I already explained to you there is only a 2% difference between us and chimps, a separate genus). I am not a rightist and am a moderate and the fact you claim that is exactly my point about how your twisted and unsupported views lead actual rightist groups to hate and injustice. I already provided info and studies on the Neaderthal and Erectus partial origins (albeit small) in modern Asian and European populations. There is extensive data to support this and the fact your "colleagues" downplay human genetic variation just goes to show what credibility they have and that they probably have an ignorant, anti-diversity POV in line with your own. You know what I said is the truth and you can't debate impeccable scientific evidence which is probably why you resorted to such a response of little factual basis. We do have significant differences from each other, our races have priamrily bred with themselves for tens of thousands of years and if we continue to do so, we will continue to have some distinctive traits not shared with each other. Heres the thing, I have debated this with you long enough to know when I've struck a chord and I know I have judging by your response. I also know enough on this issue to tell when you are making claims up as you go and the large consensus amongsts especially geneticists and biologists is the existence of races as a valid concept. All you can do now is accuse me of hate and being on the "far-right" because you know I speak the truth about your BS agenda. This time your finished and I won't let your non-sense be found anywhere. Bring up all this data to your friends, all the evidence including the information I've provided. Ask them all what they think about race, about the great genetic and physical diversity between humans. How does it feel to know you've been proven wrong Wobble ? I hope you remember it next time you try to push your BS on Wikipedia. I've been studying this for most of my adult life and have a BSc. in biological anthropology and molecular biology, and an Msc. in the latter. I live for this stuff pal, and I love to put the likes of you down into the ground. Let me know what your peers say IF you honestly ask them about this situation and all its viewpoints from a neutral perspective. Celebrate racial diversity. 65.92.92.125 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * and even if they actually have a PhD in genetics (I doubt they would say this if they did)
 * Of course you doubt it, you doubt all proper science, if you didn't doubt the views of real geneticists you could not hold the ludicrous views that you do hold. Alun 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are such a hypocrite All you can do now is accuse me of hate and being on the "far-right" because you know I speak the truth about your BS agenda. You obviously can't take a dose of your own medicine can you? And your response was bizzare, I have been assuming that you have been accusing me of having an agenda because you are the one who hasn't got a clue what you are talking about, I was responding to your accusations that my agenda is political. What you claim above is even more pathetic given that your proof is about as far from the genetic mainstream as one could possibly get. Your choice of website above as the best site on the internet displays the twisted logic of your claims to be a moderate, it appears to have absolutely no academic credentials whatsoever. These people are so ashamed of their site that they don't even tell us who they are. Your argument about sickle cell was based on at least a facile if not a distorted understanding of genetics and selection. You seem to be hoplessly confused between selection and evolution, which are related but different concepts. You have a very crude understanding of speciation, you seem to be under the impression that a partial isolation of populations will automatically produce a speciation event, I think you need to read some Stephen Jay Gould, and understand that speciation is usually the result of dramatic environmental change rather than simple isolation, most species remain the same for extended periods of time when their environment is stable. Your Neo-Darwinist ideas are somewhat dated, I think Punctuated equilibrium is a better model for evolution. You keep going on about how humans and chimps are only 2% different. This is a relative term, do you have any idea how massive 2% is in genomic terms? How big do you think the human genome is? Shall I tell you? It's about 3x109 bp. Or to you 3,000,000,000 bp (that's three billion). So 2% represents a difference of how much? Can you work it out? Shall I tell you? Ok it's 6x107 or 60,000,000 or 60 million. You claim that human variation is 0.1% and seem to think this is a similar order of magnitude to 2% (a distinct lack of very basic maths ability there, 2 is 20 times bigger than 0.1, so 20 times more diversity between a human and a chimp, twenty times, and you think this is small? Your reasoning is very odd). So what does this mean, well it means that humans on average vary about 3,000,000 bp (three million) from each other compared to 60,000,000 (sixty million). Have you worked out the difference? Oh yes it's a staggering 57,000,000 bp (fifty-seven million bp) difference between average human-human variation and average human-chimp variation. So what actually was your point? Thanks for the laughs. Alun 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alun is actually not using the correct numbers here. If he were his argument would be even stronger. Humans share 95% of their DNA with chimpanzees. This more accurate figure takes into account the deletions and insertions when comparing the two genomes. The 2% difference being used above is for similar sequences that are shared between the two species. David D. (Talk) 09:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As for being proven wrong, what planet are you from? Do you know the slightest little thing about science? This is not about right and wrong, this is about what theories best fit the observed phenomena. This is how science works, we observe the world, postulate theories to explain what we see, and then devise experiments to see how robust our theories are. So far you don't seem to have had much luck comming up with any material from reputable scientific sources for your ideas. You can ridicule what I say as much as you like, but you have nothing as academically sound as a cite from Nature Genetics to support your thesis. Oh and you should look at Inbreeding depression as well. Your point about Outbreeding depression is only valid if one assumes that there is large adaptive veriation between human populations, but of course we know that there isn't, well acording to reputable geneticists anyway. You can delude yourself as much as you like, but please don't try to peedle the tripe you spout as the scientific, anthropological, biological, genetic or molecular biological consensus, because it's not. Alun 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You also seem to be arguing for two different theories. There is no incompatibility between Recent single-origin hypothesis and a subsequent mixing with archaic hominids. I don't know if modern humans mixed with other hominids after leaving Africa or not. Maybe it explains some of the heterogeneity in the human global population. I think the jury is still out, but I am happy to accept that it may have happened. I certainly have not denied that it could have happened. As I understand it modern Europeans are different to Cro-Magnon man, it is possible this is due to a small Neanderthal component to modern humans. Why do you think I reject this theory? I actually think it would be quite cool to think I might have a Neanderthal ancestor. But this is not the same as the multi origin hypothesis, that just doesn't make evolutionary sense. I did say earlier that Neanderthals are a seperate species, this is because thet have the designation Homo neanderthalis on the wikipedia article. I have not edited this article. I have also seen it written Homo sapiens neanderthalis, which would indicate thet are of the same species as modern humans. There may be some dispute here, I don't know. The wiki article says this ''Some scientists, for example Milford Wolpoff, argue that fossil evidence suggests that the two species interbred, and hence were the same biological species. Others, for example Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction".'' Alun 17:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor suggestion
Your talk page is getting a little long. You might consider archiving the older conversations. Just a little advice, user to user.--Vercalos 09:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

constituent country
"What's with the constant constituent country revert for English people? It's not an official term, and has no specific meaning in this context. A country is just a geographical region, the UK is a country, and so is England. I don't see any purpose in using this term. We need to come to some sort of understanding, so I'd like to know your reasons for the constant change. If you feel strongly about it I don't really understand why you haven't given a good reason for making the change. On a slightly different note, it shouldn't be capitalised, Constituent country but should have a lower case letter constituent country, to do this it is best to pipe it thus constituent country this is displayed as constituent country, this avoids using redirects. All the best, Alun 10:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)"
 * Well, I feel semi-strongly aboot it. I understand it's not an official term, but it does reflect England's (as well as the other home nations) special place within the UK. I also think that Wiki be uniform. England is referred to as a constituent country on it's home page. I feel it is more apt to mirror this in the English people's page. I also feel it is a more accurate way of describing my nation (I am English), than referring to England as a country, because it has become quasi-official and I am strongly inclined to go with this because my passport say's British. England is a country in my heart, but technically it's not. I won't change this ad nauseam, but I would like it to stay as constituent country, for the two main reasons that it mirrors the description of England on it's home page, and that it is more technically correct than 'country'. I hope this response helps it to stay.Halbared 12:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

White people dispute
Thulean has initiated and RFI agaisnt me on the White people discussion. You may want to comment on it. --Sugaar 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Were sure sysops will agree, cant say more.--Euskata 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thulean has also initiated an WP:PAIN against LSLM. Thulean has been reported for complex vandalism WP:RFI. You may want to drop by and say what you have to say or provide evidence. --Sugaar 23:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppenheimer
Thank you for your message. It seems that both Sykes and Oppenheimer agree on the basics, but with a difference: both speak of different migrations from Iberia. Oppenheimer thinks that most people in the British Isles can trace their ancestry to the first mesolithic migrations, while Sykes thinks most come rather from later, more recent migrations, more towards the Neolithic. In any case, I do not want to do any contributions about that myself now, though as I have stated these theories should be mentioned in the appropriate pages. If you want to elaborate on that and want to let me know that would be fine. Veritas et Severitas 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

HELLO
Thanks for the lovely note :) Have come back to make a change or two.  I'll pop in now and again, but not to edit.  It's too nasty.  Keep burning the flame!!!! Enzedbrit 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

 * Medation has begun here. | A ndonic O  Talk 19:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Black people
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottoupload (talk • contribs)


 * This warning is anonymous so I am disregarding it. Also any person can see that I did not "vandalise" the article. Please do not accuse good faith editors of being vandals just because you disagree with their edits, this is a very serious offense.Alun 06:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I do actually agree with you more than you know. I think that the mainstream scientific view is that race does not exist. I have claimed this, and been attacked for it, ever since I first started helping with the black people page (for example, see my comments at the top of User talk:Gottoupload). I think that it is a good idea to try to slowly introduce these ideas into the "black people" article. I am waiting to see if you get reverted by angry editors. If not, then we can add more. But the history of this article has been fraught with terrible conflicts. Which is why it is in such a sorry state. I see you live in Europe. Therefore you are a bit unfamiliar with American black racial politics I am sure. I live in a place in the US that is maybe 60 or 70 % African American, and blacks here think nothing of using the "racism" charge to get their way on any issue. I have seen it over and over again on the page. There is a "politically correct" (some might say racist to a certain extent) course of study at American universities called black studies which the article we have is a reflection of in many ways. What is interesting to me is that American blacks frantically want to hold on to the notion of race. It is a source of pride, and power, and it is a weapon to use against others to get their way. So if you claim it does not exist, you are their enemy. I hope your attempt to try to begin to balance the article is successful and we can sneak more of that material in. P0M tried as well and they threatened him with banning. Many others have been banned over the black people article, including blacks who subscribe to different "schools" of black thought. It has all been quite amazing to watch it unfold, actually.--Filll 16:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pax vobiscum
I got a wolf ticket too, and I hadn't even edited for a couple of days since I hate edit wars. I have already mentioned the "wolf tickets" to a couple of administrators who know of my own work from a way long time ago. Filll should also be made aware of this abuse. P0M 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon
You said you did not want to continue this conversation. This was your express wish. So I archived the discussion. Please either stick to your descision or continue with the discussion properly. Alun 06:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are just repeating yourself now. I have read extensively arround the subject, your interpretation of the science is deeply flawed. You clearly have a political rather than a scientific take on this. There is no point in continuion this "discussion", you have your "opinion" and I have mine. There is absolutely no consensus in the fields of either genetics or anthropology, so we are just giving opinions. Maybe one day we will be able to get definitive answers to the issues of human origins and race, untill such time there is little point in blind contradiction of each other. The science supports both points of view. As such wikipedia should reflect this. Alun 07:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How am I repeating myself when I bring in some more evidence, arguments and images to support my point. I have also read extensively around the subject, probably more so than you and my interpretation is not flawed since it is what most respected biologists and anthropologists think, not to mention it is based exactly from the data, not some twisted anti-racial view of it. The facts are what they are, but it is our interpretations that separates us, with me focusing on the differences, you on the similarities between populations (albeit yours with a pre-conceived, anti-racial and political sensitivity to the issue of race). Peace. 69.157.122.195 07:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The facts are what they are,
 * This is just what I mean. There are some facts, that humans eare a single species and appear have limited genetic variation relative to other species. There are two theories about human origins, and several points of view regarding the biological relevance of "race". To conclude, as you seem to have done that certain theories are more accepted than others is incorrect, indeed the majority of biologista and anthropologists support the Recent out of Africa Model, now whereas it is corrct to say that this model is not accepted by all scientists and many scientists and anthropologists have provided much data that seem to contradict this model, at present there is still more evidence in favour of this model than in favour of the assimilationist model. I do not pretend to be an expert in this field, and I do not think you have shown any evidence of being an expert either, but at least I am prepared to accept that the evidence at present is inconclusive for either model to be considered obsolete. The concept of biological "races" is in a similar state, some scientists view the geographical distribution of alleles in the human population as "population based" and define these populations as "races". Other scientists view the distribution of alleles as "geographic" and take the view that defining people in terms of descrete "populations" is a fallacy because these populations are not discrete, but are continuously distributed, they point to the result that in many regions on the borders of "discrete populations" the inhabitants do not fit into any discrete "population/race", but display characteristics of both. They claim that this indicates that there are actually no discrete "races" and that therefore "race" is a biologically arbitrary designaton of no biological/medical value. I am prepared to accept that there are merits in all of these hypotheses. It is incorrect to try to claim, as you have, that "race" is a purely "biological" phenomenon, race is a political, social and cultural phenomenon, and has been for many centuries, one cannot divorce the biology from the social issues, in trying to do so you are being naive in the extreme. "Race" is one of the most politically sensitive issues in the modern world, with good reason, to try and claim that there is a scientific consensus regarding the classification of humans on the subspecific level is incorrect. I find your constant claims to be representing the settled will of the scientific establishment not only disingeneous, but quite frankly ludicrous, evidence exists on both sides of the scientific debate, you cannot claim that it does not, indeed in doing so you undermine your own claims to impartiality and show a distinct bias. Furthermore I freely admit that I hold "racialism" in contempt from a social and moral perspective, it is a repugnant ideology that is best left in the past where it belongs. From a humanist political point of view "race" is totally discredited, it has been used as an excuse for commiting all sorts of crimes, notably by your own government, and as such the sooner we as a species dismiss this flawed idea the better. Alun 09:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC
Shell Kinney has opened an RfC on my behaviour. You can endorse either view or comment at Requests for comment/Sugaar. --Sugaar 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as I predicted
Editingoprah has removed what you wrote. She thinks it is crap and she thinks the article is fine the way it is. She is proud of the fact that it has racist parts because she is proud to be black. And if you try to argue with her, I predict there will be trouble because she will use the race card on you.--Filll 20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if you think she didnt remove anything you wrote, then I do not what to say.--Filll 04:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I will just keep my mouth shut and see what happens. Very interesting.--Filll 18:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dark Lady.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dark Lady.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

NPA
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. . See. To quote, "one of the crazies at Black people." Please make sure that the next time you quote Wiki policies that you are willing to abide by them yourself. --Strothra 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See here. Alun 17:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, just as you said, no problem whatsoever and I am a jerk for just trying to caution you. Yes I am sure a stupid fool, am I not?--Filll 13:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting point of view. I threatened you? I tried to intimidate you? All I tried to do was to get you to tone down your rhetoric and not to edit so aggressively because I knew it was likely to offend some people. That is wrong? Granted, I have not yet seen the response I saw before when the article was locked down for a couple of months. Several people have either left since then in disgust, or been banned. I hope we do not see that transpire and I hope your efforts to try to blunt some of the extreme viewpoints succeed. So far you seem to be winning and I applaud your efforts. I notice when dealing with editingoprah you adopt a far more conciliatory tone than you do with me. I wonder why that is? You seem to want to use some awfully extreme language when you talk to me. Let me point a few things out to you. "I" am not the one who made Coon a centerpiece of the article. "I" am not the one worshipping Rushton. "I" am not the one claiming there is a separate black race that can be identified globally, including Australian Aborigines, Chinese Shan, Phillipine Aeta, Sri Lankan Tamils, Indian Dalits, etc. I am only trying to keep people from ripping each other to shreds. My only contributions to the article have been some grammar changes which were soon reverted because others had edited the article so aggressively that the whole set of edits was reverted. I do not think it is even worth the trouble to try to get the English readable in these circumstances. If people want awkward English, what do I care? And there are plenty of sources that dispute Coon and Rushton's findings that could be used to balance Coon and Rushton that I tracked down, but I would rather avoid upsetting people by trying to introduce them into the article. This would be seen as trying to undermine the cherished notion of a "black race" and be seen as racist towards black people. If you can do it, go ahead. Great. I choose not to get banned over such wasted efforts. As I think I said before, I live in a place that is maybe 70% African American, and I have a pretty good idea about how careful one has to be to avoid upsetting American blacks. But in the meantime, try to refrain from kicking me in the shins. I want the same thing you do; an article with at least some indication that the notion of a "black race" is not current mainstream scientific thinking, or at least is highly controversial.--Filll 13:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok glad we now are on the same page. The problem with written communications on the internet is that some valuable parts of communication are lost in purely written text. I think that the controversies that are clearly evident on the black people, white people and asian people pages is almost more interesting than the material in the articles themselves. The notion of "race" is very poorly defined and something people are really grappling with.--Filll 14:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Some irrelevant "race" stuff
Race is as real as us and our ancestors, it's about family lineages stretching back many hundreds, in some cases, thousands of years. Race is also about settling down and forming immediate and extended families and webs of cousins and marrying within the radii of relations across a span of hundreds or thousands of years. It's about the same faces being "stamped" over and over again on succeeding generations of people and about the formation of "tribes" of eerily similarly faced people inhabiting easily demarkatable spaces over historically lengthy periods of time. The linking of races almost exclusively with skin-color traits demonstrates a terribly unfortunate lack of imagination and a profound ignorance of human as well as familial histories, especially on the part of the most technologically advanced societies. Needless to say, in demographic terms three thousand years ago Europe was radically different from what it is today or even from what it was in the time of the First Crusade or the Thirty Years War; pre-Roman Europe was a land of clans and tribes, many of whom lived sequestered in deep valleys surrounded by unarable hills which were in turn protected by steep mountains, the deeply stamped and strongly featured faces of the peoples that composed these closely knit, highly territorial groups would—if they were to somehow be revived—surely strike the modern European as strangely frightening and for this same reason enthralling, it would be akin to a European revisiting the "discovery" of America and its wonderously "exotic" panoply of peoples.--Cupidon 08:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, it's a social construct. Alun 08:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gene expression
Nobody responded to you on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Regulation_of_gene_expression so perhaps making the edits would be good. The upregulation section needs work, I am not able to do it. would you mind? Thanks and as a NOW anon user don't let idiots waste too much of your time which is best spent improving the project. good luck. 203.220.148.48 14:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

More irrelevant "race" stuff
"You're absolutely wrong to assume that because humans originated in Africa the first group of humans was, in your sense of the word, "black." In fact, most recent research seems to indicate that the first modern humans were born only lightly pigmented, although they may have become significantly darker as a result of sun and element exposure by the time they reached adulthood. Recent research also suggests that these first groups of humans would have, in large part, faciologically (and not just melanistically) resembled modern Europeans much more than they would have modern Subsaharan Africans (i.e. blacks in your use of the term). The qualities that make many Subsaharan Africans "black" or "negroid" (robust facial features, one assumes you mean) are frequent (though not necessarily predominant) in many human populations and in no way imply a recent genetic connection with Africa's modern day "black" inhabitants, nor are they the result of "atavistic" mutations, although they may, roughly speaking, be akin to the foundational mutative processes that eventually led to the formation of durable clusters of typically "black" or "negroid" phenotypes across parts of the African continent. Also of note: light skin color will often have the classic "photogenic" effect of softening facial features, thus masking phenotypical qualities in groups that might otherwise resemble "blacks", the reverse effect appears less common, as the Ethiopian controversy effectively demonstrate. On the other hand, that millions of people across the globe associate Africanicity simply with dark-skin pigmentation is an undeniable fact of opinion (as opposed to a fact of science), and should be carefully reported as such in this article." Do you have an opinion on this matter?--Albinomite 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See here and here. Alun 17:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)