Irish Celtic Purity?

[Tommy317]

correct me if im wrong but would'nt Irish people be one of the purist in the world.

By that I mean it was an island barely touched during and 1900 years after the Roman empire. It is one of the only countries that the celts werent killed off by the romans and despite viking s and normans settling on the isle, the irish language and people remained fairly untouched. Though the english protestants tried to inhabit the country eventually they did not breed with the native "wild" people, english only started becomeing the dominant language after the famine.
and though millions of irish have emigrated through the years it wasnt until about 30 years ago that a notable amount of foriegn people began to inhabit the land.

Are irish peoples genes really special or different from our cosmopolitan travelled european neighbours?

 

[Orleander]

I would think there would be Norse (Viking) blood all thru the isles.

 

[Myles]

I would think there would be Norse (Viking) blood all thru the isles.

You are right and, in addition ,we have Norman and English blood.There are no pure races.

 

[CarpetDiem]

I suspect there might be some pure enclave lines, but the odds are slim tat extrernals aren't part of any family's ancestry. We're all mostly bitzers.

 

[joepistole]

Then what is a race?

 

[Letticia]

Then what is a race?

A social fiction.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Then what is a race?

Race is not a well defined biological term. The genetic basis for "races" has not yet been discovered, but all the traits of the races appear in different African populations, so it is likely more a question of there being different rates of expression of pre-existing African traits in different populations around the world. If a group displays certain noticeable characteristics with a sufficiently high frequency, we dub them a "race" and set them apart from a group where we perceive different traits to be relatively often displayed.

 

[DeepThought]

Then what is a race?

There are three major races: Black, White and Asian, and various sub-races.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

There are three major races: Black, White and Asian, and various sub-races.

Reference?

 

[DeepThought]

Reference?

Ruston's work is a great place to start, for adults and children.

It's filled with voluminous facts and figures in an easy to digest format. Lots of images help illustrate the hypothesis being offered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior

(There's a link to a free, abridged edition of the work at the bottom of the Wiki page. An unabridged version of the work is available for the more scientifically minded)

 

[Pandaemoni]

Ruston's work is a great place to start, for adults and children.

It's filled with voluminous facts and figures in an easy to digest format. Lots of images help illustrate the hypothesis being offered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior

(There's a link to a free, abridged edition of the work at the bottom of the Wiki page. An unabridged version of the work is available for the more scientifically minded)

Though Rushton is so controversial as to be an absurd place to start. It's like wanting to read up on the history of life on Earth, so you start with reading The Bible. There are plenty of people who view The Bible as an accurate rendition of ancient history, from Creation to the death of Jesus, but it's not the mainstream view, and you won't get an inkling of what the mainstream disputes it if you only read that book.

There is not yet a consensus on whether there is a meaningful genetic basis for race, there are just theories. I believe it is agreed that there is more genetic variation between any two individuals tan between any two "races" as a whole. In fact there is more genetic variation between different members within a local population, than there is between the "different" races. If genetic variation were the key, then there is little between whites and Asians, and a great deal between any two groups of blacks, on that basis you'd expect one "Whitasian" race and several African races.

Another theory is that the differences arise because of different ways the genes express themselves in the different populations.

I'd probably read this: http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/ (for the "race is real" side) and then the various rebuttals and other points linked in the left hand column.

 

[DeepThought]

Though Rushton is so controversial as to be an absurd place to start. It's like wanting to read up on the history of life on Earth, so you start with reading The Bible. There are plenty of people who view The Bible as an accurate rendition of ancient history, from Creation to the death of Jesus, but it's not the mainstream view, and you won't get an inkling of what the mainstream disputes it if you only read that book.

Well, that is an absurd comparison, never mind my initial reference. People dismiss Rushton's work because of its forthrightness and honesty. White people are genuinely frightened and disturbed when they read about the physical nature of blacks, and see the pictures and data, then they turn on their television sets and see blacks dominating athletics and competitive sports.

But of course, it's all an illusion.

There is not yet a consensus on whether there is a meaningful genetic basis for race, there are just theories. I believe it is agreed that there is more genetic variation between any two individuals tan between any two "races" as a whole. In fact there is more genetic variation between different members within a local population, than there is between the "different" races. If genetic variation were the key, then there is little between whites and Asians, and a great deal between any two groups of blacks, on that basis you'd expect one "Whitasian" race and several African races.

Genetic validation of race is not required, racial differences manifest themselves openly to the senses. The true nature of humans is not found in lines of coded DNA, that is scientific reductionism and is ultimately little more than a statistical sham. It's a bit like saying different types of star do not exist because there is no atomic basis for such beliefs.

The arguments concerning genetic variation can be manipulated to suit any point of view. It's very hard to argue away, however, the supremacy of blacks in athletics, or whites in science. Your point of view is political, not scientific, although this is understandable in the context of contemporary American history.

Another theory is that the differences arise because of different ways the genes express themselves in the different populations.

I'd probably read this: http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/ (for the "race is

real" side) and then the various rebuttals and other points linked in the left hand column.

This article is typical of the kind of socialist-liberal dogma which dominates scientific inquiry as fresh young minds compete for grants and awards from private bodies only interested in the potential profits that can be made from a mixed race society.

Here's a quote from the article:

A few years later he wrote that the continued popularity of race as an idea was an "indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge." Most scientists are thoughtful, liberal-minded and socially aware people. It was just what they wanted to hear.

Well, of course they are, if they want to earn a living they'd better be.

Anyone who makes a cursory examination of the evolutionary record, and then compares the characteristics found there with those in present day humans, cannot fail to notice that some human groups are less evolved than others.

Genes or no genes.

 

[Oniw17]

Well, that is an absurd comparison, never mind my initial reference. People dismiss Rushton's work because of its forthrightness and honesty. White people are genuinely frightened and disturbed when they read about the physical nature of blacks, and see the pictures and data, then they turn on their television sets and see blacks dominating athletics and competitive sports.

Maybe athletics, but I've been watching the Olympics(I'm not up to date yet though), and I don't think I've seen one black gymnast or swimmer, and they certainly haven't been dominating in these sports if there were one or two black people competing who I missed. However, over the past year, I have noticed that black children tend to develop physically much faster than white children. Unless the only three white toddlers who live near me just all happen to be weaklings, while all the black kids are future star athletes, which is just as possible, but not as likely.

 

[DeepThought]

Maybe athletics, but I've been watching the Olympics(I'm not up to date yet though), and I don't think I've seen one black gymnast or swimmer, and they certainly haven't been dominating in these sports if there were one or two black people competing who I missed.

This is true, although I believe that it is only a matter of time before African nations pour more resources into developing sportsmen and women who will eventually dominate the entire games.

Running can be practiced on a stretch of road or in a field, but for sports like swimming and gymnastics far more complex infrastructure and training is required.

However, over the past year, I have noticed that black children tend to develop physically much faster than white children. Unless the only three white toddlers who live near me just all happen to be weaklings, while all the black kids are future star athletes, which is just as possible, but not as likely.

A cogent observation.

Would it surprise you to learn that black babies spend less time in the womb than whites or Asians yet emerge more physically developed?

Consider some of Darwin's apparently contradictory views on the matter:

"it is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies."

- Charles Darwin

"The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilization, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people..."

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world."

- Charles Darwin

Link.

 

[Oniw17]

This is true, although I believe that it is only a matter of time before African nations pour more resources into developing sportsmen and women who will eventually dominate the entire games.

Running can be practiced on a stretch of road or in a field, but for sports like swimming and gymnastics far more complex infrastructure and training is required.

Perhaps, but there are black people living in America and Australia, which are both known for training great swimmers; why weren't any of the olympic swimmers from these two countries black?

Consider some of Darwin's apparently contradictory views on the matter:

I'm positive that Darwin was wrong twice. The existence of racism proves the first statement wrong, and I believe there are still quite a few tribal 'savages' in Africa, parts of Russia, and elsewhere.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Well, that is an absurd comparison, never mind my initial reference. People dismiss Rushton's work because of its forthrightness and honesty.

No they dismiss it because they think he's wrong.

White people are genuinely frightened and disturbed when they read about the physical nature of blacks, and see the pictures and data, then they turn on their television sets and see blacks dominating athletics and competitive sports.

There are studies that suggest that whites have greater innate upper body strength as compared to Africans, who may have better long term endurance. There are also studies that show that black do not have greater degrees of testosterone and other sex hormones than whites, despite Rushton's belief that it *must* be the case. There again though you cannot really lump all Africans into one group, as I just did, and as Rushton has to for his work to make any sense. As I noted, by genetic diversity, it's easier to define multiple African "races" than it is to separate non-Africans.

The point is that Rushton's work is easily assailable by experts, but [to use your snide and logically fallacious argument] some people who want him to be right are genuinely frightened and disturbed when they read about the physical nature of blacks being about the same as that of everyone else.

But of course, it's all an illusion.

I have no doubt something in the biology causes people to look one way or another, but it's not likely to be a difference in their genes, as we all have largely the same genes, and there is more variation within a group than there is across groups, even across traditional "racial" groups. Rushton was once convinced that we would discover the genetic basis of race once the human genome was decoded; it was, we didn't.

Genetic validation of race is not required, racial differences manifest themselves openly to the senses. The true nature of humans is not found in lines of coded DNA, that is scientific reductionism and is ultimately little more than a statistical sham. It's a bit like saying different types of star do not exist because there is no atomic basis for such beliefs.

Except that there is a physical understanding of what makes stars shine and why they look the way the do and often are different from one another. The basis of that understanding is the understanding of of subatomic interactions that tale place in star, bearing in mind the heat and pressured they are under.

DNA is not some mere reductionism that sheds no light on human biology. Why even come to a science forum, if you are so hostile to science that you do not understand that?

The arguments concerning genetic variation can be manipulated to suit any point of view. It's very hard to argue away, however, the supremacy of blacks in athletics, or whites in science. Your point of view is political, not scientific, although this is understandable in the context of contemporary American history.

Nice dodge, but you fail. Where was the "politics" in my post above? Look, it would be just as easy for me to say "Hey, some people like you are racist and reject science to further your own ideology" but I did not because that would be a fallacious argument. Your or my motives for ascribing to a particular view, whatever they might be, do not necessarily undermine the arguments we make or the positions we hold. To ignore the arguments with a "but of course, you are blinded by your unscientific ideology" is just a bad counter-argument.

This article is typical of the kind of socialist-liberal dogma which dominates scientific inquiry as fresh young minds compete for grants and awards from private bodies only interested in the potential profits that can be made from a mixed race society.

Here's a quote from the article:



Well, of course they are, if they want to earn a living they'd better be.

Anyone who makes a cursory examination of the evolutionary record, and then compares the characteristics found there with those in present day humans, cannot fail to notice that some human groups are less evolved than others.

Genes or no genes.

Wow. "Less evolved"? You do recognize that they phrase is meaningless right? It suggests to me that you may be starting with a very different view of what "evolution" is, and it is one that Rushton's critics often accuse him of believing. Evolution is not progressive, it's not "onwards and upwards" from "lesser" beings to "greater" (or smarter, or more sophisticated, more complicated or more moral) ones. Evolution is the process by which species adapt to their environment. That's it. There is no "destination" and no plan to it. A chimpanzee is no "less evolved" than a human, a cyanobacterium is no "less evolved" even though their form is many billions of years older. Our species have all evolved for the same amount of time, about 3.8 billion years. As far as the biology is concerned, humans are not some "pinnacle" of some pyramid of evolution, with the light skinned races at the tippy-top. In fact, it remains to be seen whether humans will prove to be evolutionarily successful to any meaningful degree.

If the environment were to suddenly and radically start restricting the food supply, there is every reason to believe that intelligence would become a disadvantage, and "dumber" species would have a relative advantage over smarter ones (because simpler and smaller brains brains require less protein, less varied diets and consume fewer calories). In that event, the emergence of successively dumber generations of humans would not be "de-evolution" it would be evolution.

Funny that the people why make "cursory" reviews of the evolutionary record draw one conclusion, and the vast majority of scientists involved in the field and doing deep examinations come to a more complicated and view. I am curious, though, what does a cursory review of the evolutionary record show you? The genetic evidence for population migrations is there, but there is almost no evidence of the "racial" characteristics of the early out-of-Africa populations. We do not knwo if the early populations were what we would consider "black" or anythings else. We know that people woulnd up in East Asia pretty early, and went to Europe only later (much later, in fact). Still, there's no evidence of the "race" of these people along their way. There's not much archaeological evidence either, nor is there much fossil evidence for racial distinctions in an "evolutionary" sense.

The evolutionary record tells us almost nothing about the racial development of humans of which I am aware, though perhaps you care to enlighten me.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

correct me if im wrong but would'nt Irish people be one of the purist in the world. By that I mean it was an island barely touched during and 1900 years after the Roman empire.

But the Celts weren't the first tribe of Homo sapiens to inhabit Ireland. There were Mesolithic tribes there at least 9,000 years ago, and the Agricultural Revolution was launched by 4500BCE. By the time the Indo-European diaspora arrived in Ireland a thousand years later it had a thriving Neolithic culture. It's unlikely that the people who became known as the Irish have "pure" Celtic blood.

It is one of the only countries that the celts werent killed off by the romans. . . .

You can't give the Romans all the credit for the fadeout of Celtic culture, which once dominated the entire continent of Europe. They were the first Indo-European tribe to arrive so naturally all the subsequent Indo-European migrations had better technology that they'd picked up along the way. The Greeks and Etruscans muscled them out of the way and the various Germanic tribes were particularly hard on them, taking over about half the continent before the Romans started pushing on them. Wales has also survived as a Celtic nation. Cornwall made it up until very recently and there is still a Cornish language movement. Brittany is not an independent nation but the people are Celts who fled Britannia to escape from the Anglo-Saxons and they still speak Breton, a Celtic language.

Scotland is a peculiar case: Irish immigrants came over in the closing centuries of the first millennium CE, displaced the Picts (and we have almost no clue as to their ethnicity) and turned northern Britannia into a Gaelic-speaking Celtic nation. They even brought their name, since Scoti is what the Romans called the Irish.

. . . . despite viking s and normans settling on the isle, the irish language and people remained fairly untouched. Though the english protestants tried to inhabit the country eventually they did not breed with the native "wild" people, english only started becomeing the dominant language after the famine.

You overlooked the reverse immigration from Scotland, the legacy of which is the still-festering conflict in the Ulster region and the mixed-blood ethnic group known as Scots-Irish (or "Scotch-Irish" in America). I think there's been a lot more intermarriage in Ireland than you give credit for.

Are irish peoples genes really special or different from our cosmopolitan travelled european neighbours?

Due to major advances in technology extensive DNA analyses of human populations worldwide have been performed in just the last couple of years. Anthropologists have been correlating the data and mapping out migratory patterns, for example they found a tribe in Siberia that is incredibly closely related to the aboriginal peoples of the Americas after 13,000 years of separation. They even found a tribe in Africa whose ancestors were clearly the stay-at-home kin of the people who migrated out of Africa 50,000 years ago to populate the rest of the world. Stay tuned and they'll be telling us the history of the Irish, or perhaps they already have.

Then what is a race?

What it is, is an obsolete paradigm. There was a time when humans were not as mobile as they have been for the last few centuries. We used to have relatively well-separated populations that could arguably be called "subspecies," as we call the isolated populations of widely dispersed animals of other species that have identifiable genetic markers. But of course in the era before the discovery of DNA, "race" classifications were based entirely on physical appearance. Europeans didn't know that we're all descended from Africans who walked into Asia Minor, and many of them would have been incensed at the suggestion.

But regardless of the accuracy of the old Caucasoid-Negroid-Mongoloid paradigm, it's broken down beyond repair since the transportation technology of the Industrial Era sent people to mingle in each other's gene pools. Explorers, merchants, fugitives, soldiers, adventurers, refugees, slaves, missionaries, colonists and other travelers have destroyed whatever integrity the "racial" paradigm might have once had.

If populations of cats, sheep, gorillas or any other animal or plant had as much genetic blending as human populations have, biologists would never consider classifying them as distinct subspecies.

People who identify themselves as "African-Americans" turn out to be related to one of our Presidents. Something like one out of every ten people in an enormous swath of the world is a descendant of Genghis Khan. The Hungarians speak a language that appears to be related to Mongolian, while the Georgians speak one that has no known relatives. A skeleton buried in Washington for 9,000 years is clearly that of a European man.

People move around too much to keep their "races" intact.

 

[joepistole]

I agree with you Fraggle.

 

[DeepThought]

There are studies that suggest that whites have greater innate upper body strength as compared to Africans, who may have better long term endurance.

These studies mean little when Africa is so impoverished it cannot afford the infrastructure or training for its athletes. Remember that most of the events requiring upper body strength at the Olympics are traditionally European sports. I have complete confidence that black athletes will dominate every sport of the Olympics in the future.

This will give new impetus to biological determinism.

There are also studies that show that black do not have greater degrees of testosterone and other sex hormones than whites,

Testosterone has also been linked with aggression. This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view, aggressiveness and sexual promiscuity are both strong advantages in survival and propagation of any species - confirmed by studies of primates in the wild. It also helps to explain the high crime rate in black communities (Jamaica has the highest murder rate in the world) and the prevalence of AIDS in Africa.

As to the studies, remember that laboratory work is prompted by experience. If we encounter group X as violent and promiscuous then empirical research is to find the reason why, not to try and find an excuse in the cause of political doctrine to dismiss our experiences.

The point is that Rushton's work is easily assailable by experts, but [to use your snide and logically fallacious argument] some people who want him to be right are genuinely frightened and disturbed when they read about the physical nature of blacks being about the same as that of everyone else.

Surely you would only be frightened if someone was physically more powerful and aggressive than yourself? In the light of that your statement is only a weak attempt to turn the argument on its head. Also, it makes no sense considering the victories of blacks on the athletic track.

You should read Rushton, it's quite an eye opener.

DNA is not some mere reductionism that sheds no light on human biology. Why even come to a science forum, if you are so hostile to science that you do not understand that?

DNA is not a blueprint for the human body, its a recipe. If you wish to insist that physical traits can be mapped one-to-one on the genome you undermine your own argument that there is no genetic basis for race. How many blacks have you met with blue eyes or straight hair?

Wow. "Less evolved"? You do recognize that they phrase is meaningless right? It suggests to me that you may be starting with a very different view of what "evolution" is, and it is one that Rushton's critics often accuse him of believing. Evolution is not progressive, it's not "onwards and upwards" from "lesser" beings to "greater" (or smarter, or more sophisticated, more complicated or more moral) ones. Evolution is the process by which species adapt to their environment. That's it. There is no "destination" and no plan to it. A chimpanzee is no "less evolved" than a human, a cyanobacterium is no "less evolved" even though their form is many billions of years older. Our species have all evolved for the same amount of time, about 3.8 billion years. As far as the biology is concerned, humans are not some "pinnacle" of some pyramid of evolution, with the light skinned races at the tippy-top. In fact, it remains to be seen whether humans will prove to be evolutionarily successful to any meaningful degree.

You cannot be serious.

Evolution is caused by the apparent random mutation of the genome, which, if the mutations result in a successful adaptation to the environment are propagated through the species. In short, as far as your points above are concerned:

No change (mutation) = no evolution.

Primates and bacteria are less evolved than humans. Their lack of evolved self-consciousness and intelligence proves it.

If the environment were to suddenly and radically start restricting the food supply, there is every reason to believe that intelligence would become a disadvantage,

Don't be so absurd. Intelligence would enable some to predict the future, conserve food and plan ahead or, alternatively, destroy competitors. It's the idiots that would starve or be exterminated. Europeans who colonized the Americas used their intelligence to outwit and overcome the indigenous populations, even though they were only a few people with fewer resources to begin with.

Your nihilistic view of nature is due to a terror of making any value judgments about the world which you have learnt from school and the media. This is how white people are kept in a state of animalism unable to express their true nature.

Consciousness and intelligence is the goal of nature.

The evolutionary record tells us almost nothing about the racial development of humans of which I am aware, though perhaps you care to enlighten me.

The evolutionary record is nothing if not the most damning indictment imaginable of those races which possess a prognathic (protruding) jaw and small cranium.

All animals including mammals, fish and insects are prognathic....

The dinosaurs possessed the greatest degree of prognathism - huge jaws and tiny brains.

Amazingly, in the entire 3.7 billion years of life on Earth's history, modern European humans possess none. Not one European scientist or thinker is prognathic.

It's a fact which should, quite rightly, amaze and astound everyone.

 

[DeepThought]

Perhaps, but there are black people living in America and Australia, which are both known for training great swimmers; why weren't any of the olympic swimmers from these two countries black?

Maritza Correia, the first black Puerto Rican in the U.S. Olympic swimming team who won several golds had this to say:

"swimming is an expensive sport and inner city kids don't have access to the facilities."
Link.

If they don't have access in America and Australia, it's unlikely they have in any African nation.

I'm positive that Darwin was wrong twice. The existence of racism proves the first statement wrong, and I believe there are still quite a few tribal 'savages' in Africa, parts of Russia, and elsewhere.

Darwin was being sentimental I think.

Racism is the natural reaction of a higher evolved race when it comes into contact with a lesser race, or, rather, when it is forced into contact with it.