Martin Hutchison (
13 Feb 1995 09:21 MST

In article <>, (Barbara Saunders) writes...
In article <> (Martin Hutchison) writes:
>In article <3gmn4b$>, (S. LaBonne) writes...
> In article <>,
> Martin Hutchison <> wrote:
> >I'm afraid you don't know much yourself. In the example above, you show your
> >ignorance. Try this, I have blue eyes. Is that a race? no, it is a
> >characteristic. Do I have a tendancy towards certain types of cancer? Maybe,
> >and that is not race-definitive. Do i come from a gene pool significantly
> >different from a black man? Yes. This is the basis of how we catigorize race.
> >Live with it or not, but if you cannot, then your denial prevents you from
> >really thinking about race related problems. Which is probably your purpose
> >anyway.
> In addition to Jerrybro's problems, Marty, you have the more serious ones
> of being unable to read or think. Can you even define the concept of
> a gene pool "significantly different" from that of a black man? I
>Yes. Blacks had at least tens of thousands of years of seperate evolution.
>Blacks and whites have significantly different physical features(and social
>customs, matriarch vs patriarch rule).

Human evolution was never that separate. People have traveled back and
forth across the "gene pool" for thousands of years.
How about those who ventured across the alps (on foot, not in BMW's), 10,000
years ago. They went into adverse climates and were then under greater
evolutionary pressure than those who stayed in lush african valleys.

> didn't think so. Not to mention that the concept of "the gene pool"
> of an individual is hilariously nonsensical. (I won't even get into
>Did I ever say an individual gene pool? NO.
>The anglo-saxon gene pool that coughed me up is different from the one that
>coughed up blacks.

Not necessarily. It's been posted here and elsewhere, time and time again,
that you are genetically closer to some blacks than to some whites.
That is not pertenant. And it is also doubtfull.

> the fact that a lot of "white" people in the US, and South Africa too,
> have more "black" ancestors than they know about or perhaps would
> care to know about.)
>Do you have a point?
> Marty, old boy, the problem- as I said- is that different ways of
> trying to classify "races", _using_ various "characteristics" _as
> one must to construct a classification_, give radically incompatible
> ancestors. That means that race is _not_ a reality in a biological
> sense, period. Obviously it is in a sociolgical sense, but sociological
> concepts of race have always had illegitimate sources of support in
> the popular fallacy that "races" have an objective biological meaning.
>Niggers are black. Honkeys are white. Different genes caused different melanin
>levels. Can't there be more differences?

According to most in the scientific community, the genes that cause these
"melanin differences" are an extremely small portion of the total number
of genes.
So what?
IF two groups can have different "melanin genes", then can't they have
different "N genes" as well?