egafd.com

warren zevon rip wrote:
> Without being too pedantic....
You WERE being pedantic, and perversely so- I guess you knew exactly
what I meant but chose to pretend otherwise..... I have little idea off the
top of my head precisely how many genes there are in the human genome
but there are millions, and a thousandth of this total is a lot.
Multiply it further by the factors I mentiones and it is A LOT a lot and if
that latter usage is good enough for Douglas Adams, it's good enough
for me].


> As my quote pointed out, human being are special not just
> because we are so intelligent (yes, even our, uh, challenged
> colleagues!) but also because as a species we show so little
> genetic variation despite our hugely spread out population.
There are many other instances of equally-limited variability; mostly
outside the animal kingdom, it is true, but the reasons for the absence
or presence of inherent variability are poorly-understood.
It's been postulated that the relatively sudden selection of the upright/
opposable thumb/neotenic character complex resulted in a corresponding
reduction in variability in other complexes [and thus sort of preventing a
mutative 'melt-down;] but I'm not enough of a geneticist or anthropologist
to assess he theory.



> I think it is important that we just accept the
> evidence that human beings show very little variation.
Why? The sort of people who espouse racism won't suddenly abandon
it when confronted by facts and logic.

I admire your optimism in thinking that knowledge of the small percentage difference in all homo sapiens will perhaps cause the knuckle-trailing fuckwits who equate their skin pigmentation with some kind of superiority to perhaps reconsider, and see it as an accident of birth rather than proof that they are Alpha humans.

You cannot reason with a closed-mind bigot.

I really wish I knew.

At the moment, for the sake of my blood pressure, I'm choosing to ignore them, wankstains on the Y-fronts of humanity that they are. No, that's not fair. Skidmarks on the Y-fronts of humanity.

After repeating myself for the hundredth time, the BP really isn't in a good way. But if you have the time and patience for it (and you became a teacher, so you must have an abundance of both), then go for it.

Excuse me, I have to spend half an hour pummeling several shades of shit out of my punchbag (renamed just in the last couple of days in honour of a forumite).

So Warren answer me this sweetheart if you are such a "bright spark" and socially adept little torn faced cunt (had you fooled into thinking I was going to be nice to you) why do you spend your whole life glued to an o/t porn forum (quoting passages from wikipedia and the like and basking in your alleged superiority over most humans) almost 24/7 ... I mean what happened in your supreme evolution to bring you to this very sad demise??
Were you abused as a child or something because you seem to have that very much at the forefront of your nasty posts to Mr. Magoo.

>
my spellchecker is fukced ... totilly and I mean totilly.

warren zevon rip wrote:
> jj, my point has always been that the PROPORTION of genetic
> variation in humans is very small compared to even comparable
> species like chimpanzees. The ABSOLUTE amount of genes is
> totally irrelevant to my argument, so I don't understand why
> this is even worth discussing.
Because [takes deep breath]... we are only concerned with the
differences [slight or otherwise, ingroup or outgroup ; I'm not going to
waste any more time on semantics and grasp of number] and their
perception as such by humans. It may be that chimps need a higher
'threshold' value of perceived differences before they recognise 'them' or
'us' which would render the whole thing about relative amounts of
inherent variability otiose. Small differences in humans may thus acquire
a correspondingly higher significance in influencing cognitive behaviour.
Anecdote tells us that animals can always tell each other apart [even
when we can't], a view not always supported by the evidence.
Even if there were only two human phenotypes, say blue and green, the
greens would find a reason to differentiate themselves from, and
probably despise, the blues, and vice versa.


> But, surely I mentioned in an earlier post I was talking about
> mammals i.e. animal kingdom.
Missed that- it's relevant at the genetic level where you're essentially
comparing like with like; there's no obvious connection between the
amount of variability in a taxon and its systematic position or the
chromosomal number so no-one's sure quite what to make of it.



> Facts and logic are all we have against fear, superstition and
> ignorance.
True; but straws against clubs.
Until we are inbred enough to be a uniform shade of brown we'll carry
on behaving like Swift's Big- and Little-Endians. The detection of small
physical differences and the formation of exclusive groups [tribalism] is
hard-wired into the human brain. It served [and may still serve] a useful
function but I can't see any survival-value in large-scale racism; perhaps
smallish groups like the BNP will tend to will behave exclusively
endogamously and thus eventually weaken their strain to the point
where they become incapable of adapting and die out*- these bozos
clearly have no truck with the notion of hybrid vigour.
*Speed the day......