[Pants-of-dog]

Science fail.

Eugenics = forced, directed evolution.

Since the whole discussion is about how we do not have the information required to direct it, the difference is important.

Clarify what you mean by this.

...as you digest it...

Source?

http://tinyurl.com/6e7acsd

[Zerogouki]

we do not have the information required to direct it

Nonsense! We have HUGE amounts of information just waiting to be put to good use.

...as you digest it...

Vitamin C that is synthesized in the body does not get digested

[Pants-of-dog]

...

Nonsense! We have HUGE amounts of information just waiting to be put to good use.

...

Vitamin C that is synthesized in the body does not get digested

You really should address the actual points.

[sazerac]

I'm feeling a little nauseous. Could we just let God handle this stuff.

What's it like? My genes that survived tens of millions of years of death disease disasters wars and starvation are better than your genes that survived tens of millions of years of death disease disasters wars and starvation?

I want everybody to start going to church again. Catholic nuns need to hit your knuckles with a ruler if you dis anybody.

[Zerogouki]

You really should address the actual points.

I've already done so. If you have attempted to make new points since then, you did a very poor job of expressing them.

[Pants-of-dog]

I've already done so. If you have attempted to make new points since then, you did a very poor job of expressing them.

Not really. You still have not addressed my central point that the chaotic nature of the environment makes it impossible for humans to predict what directed changes would be most beneficial.

[Figlio di Moros]

You've yet to support your assertion that the environment is too chaotic to predict which changes are positive. For instance, are we to assume that resistance to cancer, alcoholism, or a higher general IQ will plausibly be disadvantageous next generation?

[Tainari88]

It depends on how you interpret what Eugenics is? If you see it as a way of imposing social Darwinism without any sense of the need for variety in nature then Eugenics is bad.

If you see it as a way of helping bring up the quality of people's lives by helping them cope with delibitating or chronic illnesses that bring people's quality of life down then it is a good thing.

[Pants-of-dog]

You've yet to support your assertion that the environment is too chaotic to predict which changes are positive. For instance, are we to assume that resistance to cancer, alcoholism, or a higher general IQ will plausibly be disadvantageous next generation?

You, on the other hand, have yet to show that "Mediteranean whites are less prone towards alcoholism than Northern Europeans, who are far less likely than Indians or Aborigines."

This is the second time I ask for you this evidence.

As soon as you present that evidence, I will look at your other claims.

[Figlio di Moros]

You need proof to know that whites, who've been drinking 10k years, are less likely to be alcoholic than Indians or Aborigines, who had no idea liqour existed 500 years ago?

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa23.htm

Now, what proof do you have "that the chaotic nature of the environment makes it impossible for humans to predict what directed changes would be most beneficial"?

[Pants-of-dog]

You need proof to know that whites, who've been drinking 10k years, are less likely to be alcoholic than Indians or Aborigines, who had no idea liqour existed 500 years ago?

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa23.htm

Now, what proof do you have "that the chaotic nature of the environment makes it impossible for humans to predict what directed changes would be most beneficial"?

Nothing in that link supports your claim that certain minorities are genetically predisposed towards alcoholism.

[Figlio di Moros]

And you've yet to show any support for the idea our environment is too chaotic to support any general characteristic as advantageous. When will you actually defend your own assertions, rather than make autistic challenges to common knowledge?

[Pants-of-dog]

So, are you then conceding that there is no evidence to suggest that certain minority groups are more genetically prone to alcoholism?

And you've yet to show any support for the idea our environment is too chaotic to support any general characteristic as advantageous. When will you actually defend your own assertions, rather than make autistic challenges to common knowledge?

Dave would be flattered that you are copying him.

[Zerogouki]

Pants, you need to accept that naturally high tolerances to alcohol will be selected for in any ethnocultural group that has been drinking alcohol for 10,000 years, whereas ethnocultural groups that never learned of fermentation will never develop this tolerance. The whole thing about native Americans and alcoholism is both common knowledge and common sense. East Asians, who never learned about distillation of fermented beverages, similarly have an abnormally high prevalence of a defective allele of the gene that codes for alcohol dehydrogenase.

If you see it as a way of imposing social Darwinism without any sense of the need for variety in nature then Eugenics is bad.

Any self-proclaimed "eugenicist" who does not understand the importance of genetic diversity is "doin it rong".

[Tainari88]

Zero that is the issue with a lot of these 'Eugenicists' self proclaimed on POFO. They want to justify political fascistic stances on some type of science based really on social Darwinism. Not on actual fact.

The fact is that adaptation is something all human beings do. They adapt to their enivironment. If you take a bunch of Swedes from Sweden and you drop them into the Sub Saharan African Desert environment and they are the only human group there for many thousands of years...who is going to survive? The darkest skinned Swedes over time with the least skin cancer and such will have the best chances of survival. If they survive at all into the tens of thousands of years they will start to be born with higher melanin levels on their skin....so the African sun doesn't kill them off right away...etc. It is all adaptation.

But somehow the adaptation for x or z factor by some of these 'geneticists' on POFO want to think that Blacks are lower intelligence, Whites are higher intelligence, x or z is this or that. It is all BULLSHIT. You got variety within any group. No 5 thousand Finns are gonna all have the same variety of genes. And they will vary a lot. So will the Watusis in Africa or the Nubians and so on....all that blanket the African so and so are inferior in school because the testes are larger. I mean you are dealing with a group who came over on slave ships just 250+ years ago and the survivors of the ships were the hardcore immune system people. Who knows how many Africans died in transit due to lack of toleration to heat, no fresh air, cholera, dreadful living conditions in the hull of those ships and yellow fever, small pox from European sick crews full of germs they never encountered before in Africa? Yet these sweeping statements about the races and how the top race is so and so...and the lowly race is so and so. It is all crap. You find mental retardation in white European stock and in the Asian people, the African people, etc. Genetic defects some are hereditary for a reason. Others are universal human genome variations and so on....but in reality everyone is varied and adapted for a scientific reason that was valid a long time ago in a stable environment.

It doesn't make people inferior or inherently superior....it is just diverse. And diversity is a natural law. Variation is absolutely necessary in nature and in human beings. If it wasn't it would not exist.

[Zerogouki]

Who knows how many Africans died in transit due to lack of toleration to heat, no fresh air, cholera, dreadful living conditions in the hull of those ships and yellow fever, small pox from European sick crews full of germs they never encountered before in Africa?

About a third.

some of these 'geneticists' on POFO want to think that Blacks are lower intelligence, Whites are higher intelligence, x or z is this or that. It is all BULLSHIT. You got variety within any group. No 5 thousand Finns are gonna all have the same variety of genes. And they will vary a lot.... Yet these sweeping statements about the races and how the top race is so and so...and the lowly race is so and so. It is all crap. You find mental retardation in white European stock and in the Asian people, the African people, etc.

This doesn't change the fact that the intelligence of the average black person is lower than the intelligence of the average Hispanic, which is lower than the intelligence of the average Caucasian, which is lower than the intelligence of the average Asian. It doesn't change the fact that Jews account for 0.2% of all humans but 24% of all Nobel Prize-winners. It doesn't change the fact that the past 6 record-setters for "world's fastest human" were all black people.

[Pants-of-dog]

Pants, you need to accept that naturally high tolerances to alcohol will be selected for in any ethnocultural group that has been drinking alcohol for 10,000 years, whereas ethnocultural groups that never learned of fermentation will never develop this tolerance. The whole thing about native Americans and alcoholism is both common knowledge and common sense.

Then it should be easy for you to provide evidence.

Let's look at the relevant text from the link Figlio di Moros gave us:

Genetic Influences

Certain minority groups may possess genetic traits that either predispose them to or protect them from becoming alcoholic. Few such traits have so far been discovered. However, the flushing reaction, found in the highest concentrations among people of Asian ancestry, is one example.

Flushing has been linked to variants of genes for enzymes involved in alcohol metabolism. It involves a reddening of the face and neck due to increased blood flow to those areas and can be accompanied by headaches, nausea, and other symptoms. Flushing can occur when even small amounts of alcohol are consumed (16).

Japanese-Americans living in Los Angeles have been studied. Among those with quick flushing responses (flushing occurs after one drink or less), fewer consumed alcohol than did those with no or with slow flushing responses (flushing occurs after two or more drinks)(17). In another group of Japanese-American students in Los Angeles, flushing was far less correlated with abstention from alcohol than it was in the first group (17). Thus, although flushing appears to deter alcohol use, people with the trait may nevertheless consume alcohol.

Another genetic difference between ethnic groups occurs among other enzymes involved in metabolizing alcohol in the liver. Variations have been observed between the structures and activity levels of the enzymes prevalent among Asians, blacks, and whites (18). One enzyme found in Japanese, for example, has been associated with faster elimination of alcohol from the body when compared with whites (19). Interesting leads relating these varying rates of alcohol metabolism among minorities to medical complications of alcoholism, such as liver disease, are now being followed.

No mention at all of "Indians or Aborigines", as you can see.

East Asians, who never learned about distillation of fermented beverages, similarly have an abnormally high prevalence of a defective allele of the gene that codes for alcohol dehydrogenase.

First of all, East Asians have been drinking distilled beverages since at least 550 AD (look up a type of baijiu called Fen Jiu); this is earlier than the first recorded alcohol distillation of Europeans. Secondly, that gene is responsible for flushing and probably does not influence their chances of being alcoholic.

[Tainari88]

This doesn't change the fact that the intelligence of the average black person is lower than the intelligence of the average Hispanic, which is lower than the intelligence of the average Caucasian, which is lower than the intelligence of the average Asian. It doesn't change the fact that Jews account for 0.2% of all humans but 24% of all Nobel Prize-winners. It doesn't change the fact that the past 6 record-setters for "world's fastest human" were all black people.

Intelligence in what Zero? The average white person you drop them into some urban black ghetto and do they then have the skills to survive for long in that environment? Without getting into some kind of problems due to them not knowing what the rules are for the ghetto environment? Who is measuring the intelligences and who is making the tests? What are the criteria? Why is that criteria the important criteria? Many sociologists have made very interesting studies of why many people don't have social mobility in a given society. One of the really strong reasons is due to what is called 'cultural capital'. And that is something that shapes a human being deeply. To shed that cultural capital and take on a new one is a form of cultural suicide that very few people in this world are willing to make. Yet many of these tests fail to take into account many of these very, very important adaptational and situational and environmental factors when placing people in categories. In terms of athletics it is all about physical characteristics. Some of those belong to a particular racial group for many reasons. Others for cultural reasons. It still doesn't account for all the factors that come into play for any particular individual who is a fast runner, or fast swimmer, etc.

If I dropped you into some Hispanic environment in Latin America you never lived in and say, "The test for intelligence is that you know Spanish, you are good at these skills (that are all developed since babyhood in some Hispanic cultural scene you were never exposed to before) etc. etc." Then I measure your intelligence and say, "This white South Park libertarian Republican guy has failed my test on intelligence. He doesn't understand the environment and the criteria I am judging him on...and as such--INFERIOR." I put a tag on you and off you go.

Piaget did studies on what the nature of intelligence was....it was very interesting. I think you would like to read it if you sincerely interested in the subject. But the summary is that intelligence is all about adapting and understanding how to adapt to a particular environment. And it is malleable and changeable and not permanent. Something the 'labelers' here don't really cope with.

[Born Diplomat]

The presence of vitamin C enhances iron absorption and reduces copper absorption. Radically increasing the amount of vitamin C would affect the rate of absorption of those two nutrients, with possible negative effects.

This is true for vegetable-sourced iron. I didn't know it inhibited copper absorption. I doubt it's significant, though.

[quote="Zerogouki"]

It's true. I minored in science in university with a concentration in nutrition.

Here's a link,

http://www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov/month/spinach.html

Iron and calcium in plant foods are not highly absorbed by the body. Spinach contains a chemical called oxalic acid, which binds with iron and calcium and reduces the absorption of these minerals. To improve iron absorption, spinach should be eaten with vitamin C-rich foods such as orange juice, tomatoes, or citrus fruit.

Hello furrypurpledinosaur,

What exactly do you propose be done towards achieving your eugenic objectives? Are you entertaining the idea of forcing certain persons defined as high-risk not to bear children naturally, or are you recommending putting in place incentives towards dissuading these persons from bearing children naturally?

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of eugenics, unless it's done with technology that helps remove undesirable genes, and not through some form of coercion to prevent certain people from having children. That way, people's desires to have children are negated, and they can correct for severe genetic conditions. We're certainly very far away from that level of technological development, though.

[Figlio di Moros]

So, are you then conceding that there is no evidence to suggest that certain minority groups are more genetically prone to alcoholism?

1) That Indians and Aborigines are more likely to be alcoholic is common sense.
2) I provided a link to show correlation between different races, response to alcohol consumption, and alcoholism. The fact you choose to ignore anything which disagrees with your preconcieved notions doesn't change this. There's a reason that no-one on these forums respects your, to borrow the daveism again, autistic argumention style other than the one person who gets to peg you daily.
3) Are you going to concede that there's no proof that "our environment is too chaotic to support any general characteristic as advantageous"?