Re: Is Science Colour Blind?

by Invader Zim Sun 28 Oct 2007, 23:42

FFS, she's back again?

by HH_pink Mon 29 Oct 2007, 00:03

tac wrote:
filosofee wrote:
WideWally wrote:
filosofee wrote:
(there's an evening with Nobel Prize winner James Watson, 19 October, at the centre, though I receive email-notification wasn't able to secure a ticket, such is his fame/interest in listening to him).

Did I hear that this was cancelled because of Watson's controversial views on intelligence?

Yes, WW.

London's Science Museum Dana centre was wrong to censor Watson but then Watson was wrong not to continue with his talk at Newcastle's Life centre.
http://www.life.org.uk/about/press/articles/42

Perhaps Watson feared he would not be able to back up, what are, after all, his opinions to robust questioning, on his use of word 'intelligence' when he really meant IQ tests. Watson will be pleased that the BNP - that bastion of British tolerance, have hailed him "The New Galileo".

from here:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1786

Having attended the 'Scientific Racism: A History" talk (and expecting to attend "Is Science Colour Blind?" during this week) did find the slave-constrainment implements of the 19th century sickening, including those 'medical' objects that were first tested on black female slaves, without anaesthetic, before treating white women. This, in that period known in Western history as "the enlightenment".

Amusing how humans were divided on skulls found to 'show' difference and superiority. Funny that today some scientists argue that our nearest primate, with just 1% DNA difference, be treated with more respect, as human, when colourism is still rife everywhere and female infanticide is rampant in some parts of the world.

Our nearest primate has a 5% difference in DNA (though Sreesnath is only 3% different).

I've been misinformed throughout school and college then. It was 2% all the way along. So are we getting closer or further away?

by tac Mon 29 Oct 2007, 04:19

The initial comparison of the genetic sequences only examined a limited number of base pairs, so the difference came back at around 1% (99% homology). A more recent study of a larger sequence showed a 3% difference and the homology of the total sequence is estimated at less than 95%.

by HH_pink Mon 29 Oct 2007, 05:32

How exactly does a 3% difference translate to a 95% homology?

by tac Mon 29 Oct 2007, 05:48

HH_pink wrote:How exactly does a 3% difference translate to a 95% homology?

Because, as expalined above, the 3% difference was found in a testing on a larger portion of the genetic sequence, but not the entire sequence. The estimated difference over the entire sequence is slightly over 5%, which is a less than 95% homology.

by mynah Mon 29 Oct 2007, 06:57

Initial sampling proved unrepresentative because the DNA of Jacob Zuma was included.

by HH_pink Wed 31 Oct 2007, 21:10

tac wrote:
HH_pink wrote:How exactly does a 3% difference translate to a 95% homology?

Because, as expalined above, the 3% difference was found in a testing on a larger portion of the genetic sequence, but not the entire sequence. The estimated difference over the entire sequence is slightly over 5%, which is a less than 95% homology.

Hmm.

by Sponsored content