Since Blogger is sucking right now, and not allowing anyone to upload new layouts while simultaneously refusing to provide technical support on the matter, I haven't been blogging much the past couple of days.
I thoroughly expected the blogosphere to pick up on this story, but I guess they've been too focussed on Obama's fabrications, and Chelsea Clinton. Shockingly enough, the story isn't even a most read on Fox News' website. Why? I don't know, but I am remedying the situation now.
Cornell University has released a controversial study that will accomplish literally nothing more than sowing more discontent among the races, and serve as yet another recruiting tool for white supremacist groups. So let's all pat Cornell on the back, and bask in the racially charged anti-glory that is their latest contribution to useless science.
White Americans are both genetically weaker and less diverse than their black compatriots, a Cornell University-led study finds.
Analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of European ancestry and 15 African-Americans, researchers found that the former showed much less variation among 10,000 tested genes than did the latter, which was expected.
They also found that Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African, which was a surprise.
I know I'm supposed to conduct myself as an adult, but ... WTF!
This is the worst case study I've ever seen. First, the test group is only 35 people. Second, there is not an even number of subjects for each race. Essentially we've just learned that, at best, Cornell has no idea how to conduct an accurate, ethical study. All they've done is embarrassed themselves by releasing these results, and attaching their name to the findings. Which brings up the question: Why did they conduct such a study in the first place?
Apparently the goal of these ongoing studies is to find out where the ancestors of global populations came from, and when they migrated to that area. There have also been other larger studies involving other races. I am again left wondering why Cornell's latest endeavor has such a small sample group when the other studies involved hundreds of subjects.
I doubt Cornell's goal was to inflame anyone, but the content of the study is being used to claim racism. If you need proof ... do a search of this topic and read the comments on the few blogs and forums that have addressed it. Some of the findings are pretty inflammatory towards whites, and other findings are not anything new ... thereby rendering this study utterly useless. I'm pretty sure Nicholas Wade covered a lot of the migratory issues in his book "Before the Dawn".
Here's the part where the study outlines the genetic inferiority of European cultures (i.e. whites):
But the Cornell study, published in the journal Nature Thursday, indicates that Europeans went through a second "population bottleneck," probably about 30,000 years ago, when the ancestral population was again reduced to relatively few in number.
The doubly diluted genetic diversity has allowed "bad" mutations to build up in the European population, something that the more genetically varied African population has had more success in weeding out.
So what exactly are these "bad" mutations? What would be a genetic imperfection in a perfectly healthy person with no ailments? Also, how do we know what perfect genetics are in order to map imperfections? What if those imperfections are actually evolution? If man indeed migrated to Europe from Africa they would have had to mutate in order to adapt. In other words ... they evolved in order to better survive. Since when is evolving a genetic imperfection?
Cornell also neglected to take into account any interracial mating that may have happened in the history of the subject's genetic code. I would assume that if two different races mated 200 years ago, it would affect the current subject's genetic makeup. Perhaps in the form of one of these "imperfections."
With all the discrepancies aside ... we have a study by a university that is saying black people are genetically superior , and more diverse, than white people ... and it got published. That's where you are seeing a very logical complaint from white people about this study. Do you honestly think that this study would have seen the light of day if Cornell's findings showed that white people were genetically superior to blacks? Would Cornell have attached their name to the study if this were the case? It's highly doubtful, and most likely would have led to someone getting fired.
Perhaps you are thinking that I'm just race baiting here, but I have proof that any published study that shows whites are genetically superior to blacks is quickly criticized with charges of racism. Do you remember the story of James Watson, a Nobel Prize winning scientist for his part in the unravelling of DNA, and who once ran one of America's leading scientific research institutions, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He was criticized roundly for saying that Africans were not as smart as westerners.
Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
For those of you who remember the story you will recall the constant mini-quotes about what Dr. Watson said, and calls of racism he endured. Dr. Watson had several speaking engagements canceled, he was criticized by his own institutions, suspended from his job, and ultimately was forced to resign his post as a result of the media firestorm about his findings on genetic studies. Keep in mind that this guy is probably the world's foremost expert on DNA.
Unfortunately the MSM didn't publish Dr. Watson's other statements that are pretty pertinent to the issue. He was quoted as saying that he had "hope" that "everyone is equal." Watson also stated that "there are many people of color who are very talented", but that never made it onto the news. The most important statement that Dr. Watson made in his writings is integral to what we are talking about with Cornell University.
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
In other words ... people who evolved in different geographical areas from one another did not evolve in an equal intellectual capacity.
Cornell University's study says the exact same thing as Dr. Watson's work suggested. There are only two differences between the two findings. One is that one of the studies illustrated the difference in physical genetics throughout man's evolution. While the other illustrates the intellectual evolution of man. The second difference is that the study showing blacks as superior has not been met with negative publicity in the mainstream. The one that showed whites as superior did.
Both studies outlined the theory that once man left Africa, and began its great migration to other parts of the world, humans became isolated from one another geographically. Thus, as a result of that isolation, humans evolved quite differently from one another ... both physically and mentally. Cornell gives the edge physically to blacks, but Dr. Watson gives the edge mentally to whites. Now that's fair and balanced scientific research. Why the same study with similar findings cost one man his job and reputation, but the other has been met with no negativity just illustrates what an ignorant, hypocritical, PC society we live in.