Earth is the wrong planet because of the Nazis and the Commu

Post Reply New Topic

Peter_Grotticelli, Rdos' test statistics plainly showed that the autism spectrum predates civilization and modern europeans. Its well established that modern euro-jews share common ancestry from about 500 years ago. Autism is far older than that.

Correct 'ye' retoric.

These are the inherited diseases that are common to Ashkenazi Jews(most of the worlds Jews are Ashkenazim).

Bloom syndrome
Breast cancer and ovarian cancer
Canavan disease
Colorectal cancer due to hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia
Crohn's disease
Cystic fibrosis
Familial dysautonomia
Fanconi anemia
Gaucher's disease
Hemophilia C
Mucolipidosis IV
Niemann-Pick disease
Pemphigus vulgaris
Tay-Sachs disease
Torsion dystonia
Von Gierke disease

Autism is not on the list, and as Rdos found, is common enough outside that group that it cannot be said to originate there. Many asians have it, and their common ancestry with Europeans extends back in the tens of thousands of years.

Now, regarding speciation. Speciation is when two populations cannot mate and bring a fetus to term.

For example, if you took an English Mastiff dog(Canis lupus familiaris) and tried to mate(even in-vitro) with a Chihuahua(Canis lupus familiaris)... you cannot bring a fetus to term. But note that they are the same species. What is different is the breed. To put it to a point: their DNA matches. Its not the same, but its fully compatible.

So it is fair if you claim that AS is a new breed(and its not really so new, see above), then you might get away with it. But in no terms is it ever, or will it ever in the next 10 000 years be a new species.

Nor should 'ye' claim it is.

Fuzzy: Thanks for the information about autism. It shall remain my perhaps unsubstantiable impression from experience, including my family and close friends, that AS is one of several things cooking at a much-higher-than-average rate among the Ashkenazi. I thought that this point was useful because Ayn Rand came from such a background. But my correlation remains unproven.

I think it useful to bring up unsubstantiated analyses; I don’t want to limit my ideas to that of which I’m certain, nor to a couple of lengthy expositions on assertions that I find self-evident. I want to get a fire started, and for this end, *$%! others’ emotions. But I shall have to at least throw in a conditional on each of these analyses.

Though I now rationalize, I say, I suspect that (there’s my conditional) Aspies mate less often with non-Aspies than non-Aspies do. Speciation follows from lack of intercourse, due to behavioral or anatomical difference. The behavioral difference is causing speciation, and the absolute reproductive differences in the different breeds of dogs prove that they are different species already. According to Campbell’s Biology, 7th Edition, in the glossary opposite the page with “scrotum” on it, the definition of species is “A group whose members possess similar anatomical characteristics and have the ability to interbreed.” He said “and”: so these “breeds” are species, but they don’t fit into our seven-category taxonomic schema. Well that scheme is being torn apart: not only are the kingdoms rather dissolved, but also, in my class on ecology and evolution, we used phylogenetic trees of whatever length was practically suitable, never regarding or referring to the seven-category schema. So we can add something below the species name to account for the speciation: it sounds radical, but as illustrated, the biologists have been corroborating the reasonable assertion that the use of a genus and species – two macrostructure-based categories – is not the golden number in taxonomy. Even if the differentiations were DNA- or protein-based, the golden number still couldn’t seem reasonable.

Haha, now I think I we will be removed once again, to the sciences forum.

“Ye” is the plural of “you.” It is in most or all of the Romance languages, and it ought to be restored to English, to supplant “yous,” “y’all,” and “you guys.”

Ah, now I get it. The OP is a closet aspie-fascist.

Is it true that Aspiedom is common among Jews? I thought it was just whites in general.

Jewish genetics are generally overly represented in research do to Jewish interest in it and also do to a large number of Jewish people being involved in the sciences. Aspergers own Simon Baron-Cohen would come immediately to mind.

So its really hard to say, but chances are.. no, it isnt more prevailant in Jews. But Jews, because of their common inherited genetic illnesses get watched more carefully for such things.

We benefit greatly from their studiousness.

There was a guy on the singles list, whose post I read for the heck of it, who said that he lives in Scotland and that he'd be surprised if there were another Aspie within 500 miles. A guy from Iowa just posted, and said that he was likewise a lone Aspie. I live on Long Island, NY, and three good friends of mine, two of whom I met randomly, are Aspies. Now consider the demographic differences; this evidence isn't conclusive, but I suspect that others could tell similar stories. Perhaps I, with my few Aspie traits, know more people than the typical Aspie does; but I don't think so. I believe that Aspies have fewer close friends than usual, but with one exception, the Aspies I know seem to know lots of people.

If we assume that there is a concentration on research on the Jews, a trend of faulty comparison of Jewish and other genomes does not follow. Furthermore, I don't think that there is such a concentration of research; rather, the Jews have many more "syndromes," positive and negative, because they have been isolated, and so these "syndromes" and positive quirks are really just the beginnings of speciation. We tend to think of speciation in terms of millions of years, and to smaller periods of isolation we assign the terms "race" and "ethnic group." But the numbers I cited at the beginning of the thread demonstrate that these groups are speciating just a little bit. Speciation is a continuum of accumulated genetic differences: there is naught but an arbitrary point at which a group becomes a separate species.

There are many around here who have a problem with discussions of genetics if anyone suggests that some people might be more fit for life on earth than others. Do ye think that the lazy are as fit as the diligent? The dumb as fit as the smart? (Well if ye are Commies, then perhaps ye do.) Do ye find the principles of natural selection inapplicable to man and to his greatest evolutionary asset, the cerebrum? Look here, ye trolls, I ain't into eugenics.

Last edited by Peter_Grotticelli on 08 Oct 2007, 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ye are still an idiot.

I'm glad to hear that. I personally prefer, I think it is Utilitarianism? Greatest amount of good for greatest amount of people? All sexes, races, creeds, etc?

As for Ashkenazi Jews having a concentration of genetic quirks (I forever associate Ashkenazi Jews with 'Tay-Sach's disease' because of the astounding prevalence in the Ashkenazi population), according to Wikipedia, it was because of effective genetic isolation for nearly a millennium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi

Quatermass:
Objectivism more closely comports with my view of genetics – it isn’t very nice, but it’s better than using force, fraud, or a controlling elite.

Thanks for the info about the Ashkenazi. I maintain that there is no quantitative error, i.e., misjudging the relative percentages of the populations of each ethnic group that have a particular syndrome. I admit that there is very likely a qualitative error, i.e., the assignment of more types of syndromes to the Ashkenazi than to other groups.

Sorry, I can't buy into more than about 30% of the rugged individualism of Rand's objectivism. It is too much like the Horatio Alger myths of rags to riches. Sometimes it does happen and it can be inspiring. But it ignores too much reality to be a complete system. We can't all be doctors and lawyers and leaders of business. There has to be someone that does the tedious but necessary work. Laissez-faire capitalism is not always the best system, and usually leads to just another situation where the strong exploit the weak.

While rational self-interest is a good place for people to start, the self is not the be-all and end-all of civilization. Ultimately, we are all connected. When there is so much money grubbing by one one that there are extreme's of wealth, that is a good path towards inequality, injustice, and crime.

By all means, I take responsibility for taking care of my own health. But Randians take for granted the common good. When the public health system or sewers fail, then tuberculosis and typhoid become rampant. Then what? What Randian alternatives are there for testing people in food services, medicine, etc to identify carriers and force them to get treatment so they don't infect and kill others?

If Ayn Rand had been more influential in spreading that ideology, the internet would never have developed the way it did, and we wouldn't be having this conservation.

"Sorry, I can't buy into more than about 30% of the rugged individualism of Rand's objectivism."

With all due respect, Monty, why should anyone buy about more than 30% of your criticism of Objectivism? I'm asking seriously.

Ah, so you're reading the Cambell-Reece-Mitchell Biology 7th edition. I enjoyed that textbook, that I currently only have access to the 5th edition. Please note that it gives multiple definitions for "species," but the most fundamental defining characteristic of a species is reproductive isolation. As Aspies and NTs can and do interbreed, your point is nonsense. We are not a separate species. Besides, Aspies have NT children sometimes, and NTs have Aspie children on occasion. If we were separate species, this would not happen. When is the last time you heard of an ostrich giving birth to a penguin?

"Eugenics" is defined as the idea that, due to inherited traits, some people or groups of people are superior and thus more fit to live or reproduce than others. So yes, you are into eugenics, as you yourself explicitly stated before denying the fact. You should know what a word means before you try to use it in a debate, it makes you look rather foolish.

Myths? It is a philosophical system, there is no happening or not happening, there is a description of meta-reality and its nature. The areas of reality ignored would have to be outlined as really, objectivism has an epistemology with little controversy(or attention given), but moral characteristics that are very controversial and morality is hard to prove or disprove. I don't think that Ayn Rand argues that all people will be rich, she argues that all people should live for their own ends and such doesn't claim anything about the nature of reality. Within the context and definitions of her system laissez-faire capitalism IS the best system as she upholds the idea of negative rights, anything but laissez-faire capitalism will impose positive rights/infringe negative rights and thus be evil to her.
Can one prove that statement though? Objectivism is the idea that the self is the be-all and end-all of civilization so to take the claim against that as your first premise seems to assume away your opposition. Objectivism doesn't mind extremes of wealth/inequality, and the only justice or ethics it states is property ownership and it doesn't even postulate the ability to force others to protect that property so none of these matters really refute Objectivism's non-empirical beliefs and thus do not address its nature.
They often assume that the common good can be privatized. The Randian alternative would be to prevent the infected from bothering the non-infected by having non-infected people move away from the infected to avoid the problem.

The internet would have developed differently, however, it does not necessarily follow that this conversation would not occur. There are way way way too many variables to assume in order to get this alternate future. You have to recognize that if her theories/the theories of economists in similar circles are correct then it would be possible for us to have this conversation.

Awesomelyglorious:
I came to this site because the Aspies I know are geniuses, and yet aren't tired, old professors. I wanted to find some more, and it looks like I’m in luck. I’ll be at leisure to have a word with you tomorrow evening. You can see it: that philosophy can guide either thought or action, but thought is idle without action, and the right actions are clear.

Now let me sweep clean the rest of the deck.
Orwell:
Dictionary.com defines eugenics as: “the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population,” and that favors you, but the definition continues: “esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).” WordNet and the American Heritage Dictionary, cited on the site, refer only to “selective breeding” and “controlled selective breeding,” respectively.

Also, you haven’t responded to my statement that nullifies your paragraph: “speciation is a continuum.” Before you refute that one, consider the juxtaposed justification.

Well done, i am very lucky person too.

You might only think I see it, I am often simply the critic.