First off, that site looks hugely suspect. I'd only trust news from reputable sources, this site looks like the efforts of a random loon, or group of such people.
Secondly, doing a search for that guy's name mainly brings up blog entries, and links to conspiracy theory sites, all very wishy-washy and personal opinion sites, nothing objective.
It seems the guy did actually make statements to that effect, but whether they were ever proven or otherwise is fairly obfuscated... I'd be tempted to call bullshit on it. Anyway, that thing is over 10 months old now, you'd think we'd have heard more about it if it amounted to anything.
I'm pretty sure the elections were rigged but there's not much that can be done about it now, all the evidence (what little of it actually existed) is gone anyway. Rigging an electronic vote with a device that is only checked for input and output, not inner workings, is trivial, any stupid script kiddie can do that. Such a critical part of the democratic process should NEVER be entrusted to what amounts to a black box that we think works right. Every part of it should have been subject to inspection. The code must be formally proven. Exact protocols must be kept and verified (you vote A, you see the machine print a little A on the protocol paper). Without these precautions you won't know if it will work correctly. Just inputting votes and seeing if the result matches is not sufficient testing. Who knows how the thing will react to the same input tomorrow?
I have to believe that if that video was true shit would have hit the fan and Bush would be impeached by now . All the FBI would have to do is have one of there computer experts look at the voting machines . I call BS
[ QUOTE ]
I have to believe that if that video was true shit would have hit the fan and Bush would be impeached by now . All the FBI would have to do is have one of there computer experts look at the voting machines . I call BS
[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that FBI is allowed/wants to do that? I think the war on terror thing earned them a heafty budget increase.
yeah i also saw some websites with evidence that it was in fact these rogue voting machines under direct orders from president bush, flew those planes into the world trade center on 9-11, and then kicked some people
Well, from what I saw this guy is testifying that he was asked to rig the machines but never actually did so himself. So, AFAIK this all amounts to hearsay in a court of law and really <u>proves</u> nothing (although I really find it curious as to why certain people were adamantly opposed to having any kind of paper verification process for the electronic voting machines in the last couple of elections...)
[ QUOTE ]
yeah i also saw some websites with evidence that it was in fact these rogue voting machines under direct orders from president bush, flew those planes into the world trade center on 9-11, and then kicked some people
[/ QUOTE ]
You might like to dismiss this as some sort of wacko conspiracy theory, but this is very serious and very real. Whether or not any elections were rigged, these are the facts: electronic voting machines are owned, designed, and operated by private corporations; electronic voting machines create no "hard copy" or receipt of votes, and voting results are therefore impossible to verify; the code used in electronic voting machines is considered a "trade secret," and is therefore not available for review by independent organizations.
Even if one were to ignore things like the highly suspect statements made by the CEO of Diebold (he guarantied that Bush would win Ohio before the election), it is still very worrying that the integrity of our democracy would be compromised by shrouding the voting process in such secrecy. The voting process in a democratic society is supposed to be as transparent as possible, not kept secret and controlled by private corporations. This situation with the electronic voting machines should be an outrage to anyone who values our democracy, regardless of party affiliation.
IOW, a voting machine is like putting a guy in there that you tell your vote to and he counts who voted for what. In the end he says "Badnarik won" and you can't prove he's lying.
EDIT: By the way, the courts are currently investigating whether a "black box" style machine can be used to convict people of drunk driving (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2144253/florida-court-friday-hear). If a machine cannot be trusted to do THAT, how can we expect another "black box" to handle the fundamentals of the democratic process?
[ QUOTE ]
Ror, is the little r then the --- line and then little r a passive agressive phallic symbol by chance?
[/ QUOTE ]
Ha! It took me a few seconds to get what the hell you were talking about.
Ror, I don't think this is about crooked politicians at all (I'd argue that the adjective is redundant). The real issue is about the validity of our votes. If you don't vote, I can understand why this wouldn't make a difference to you, but for those of us who do bother to vote, this should be a serious concern. I think KDR gave a pretty good analogy: the way these electronic machines work is pretty much as if you were to tell a man named "Bob" who you want to vote for, and then after everyone tells Bob who they voted for, Bob says who one the election. There's no real way to verify that Bob didn't just make up the results.
Frosty: Well I've been told that my art is very phallic.... but then when you paint lots of castles thrusting up into negative space because thats the terrain you grew up in... what do you think is going to happen?
Keyser: I'm sorry, you're mistaking me for someone prepared to debate seriously about politics!
When I had to testify at the US consulate that my 8 month old daughter did not have any training in chemical warfare, I decided right then and there that it was never worth debating politics or government in this country, well, not seriously anyway heh!
[ QUOTE ]
Keyser: I'm sorry, you're mistaking me for someone prepared to debate seriously about politics!
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it has much to do with politics, and there really isn't much to debate. You may think that the voting process isn't important or is insignificant (or maybe you just don't feel like discussing it here), and I can't disagree with that since it is an opinion, but I can and do disagree with the notion that people should just "get over it."
Actually, there were quite a few electronic ballot machines (at least here in Reno) that DID produce paper receipts. From the post I was at, there were about 30% non-receipt and 70% receipt machines.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, there were quite a few electronic ballot machines (at least here in Reno) that DID produce paper receipts. From the post I was at, there were about 30% non-receipt and 70% receipt machines.
A lot of other states had these as well.
As far as the elections being rigged, no.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow... Reno... a real deciding factor in every major election . Well, I definitely feel reassured now that I know only 30% of the biggest little city in the world could have possibly been rigged. All's well that ends well in Reno, I guess... as long as 71.5% of that 70% voted for the non-rigged side.
Ninjas, I have no idea where your post came from or to what it is in response. What does a "belief in science" have to do with what is being discussed? Beyond the first sentence, your entire post seems to be a non sequitur.
[ QUOTE ]
just the same as if I said blacks differ from whites genetically (though statistically they must, no matter how you define the groups).
[/ QUOTE ]
I should just disregard this comment altogether, since I'm sure it will result in some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy of yours proving that I am "brainwashed" and simply "regurgitating dogma," but I can't help but point out that your comment about race and genetics is backwards. In reality, it's the other way around: statistically speaking, the genetic disparity between two races is far less than the genetic disparities between two individuals of the same race. Race is a sociological, economic and cultural construct which has nothing to do with genetics.
[ QUOTE ]
any time there is something that can be turned into a conspiracy theory, some one will
[/ QUOTE ]
The idea that an election may have been rigged is a conspiracy theory; the concern about these voting machines is not. Whether or not they were actually used to rig an election, they still present a problem which should be addressed.
[ QUOTE ]
take some numbers. 0.12, 1.76, 2.23, 3.45, 4.56, 5.24 for example. Devide them into two groups using any method.
a)0.12 + 2.23 + 4.56
b)1.76 + 3.45 + 5.24
Average the two groups
a)2.303
b)3.483
Wow, they are different! I'm sure you were surprised.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I will take those numbers.
You give two groups, (a) and (b). Calculate how different those two groups are (3.48 - 2.30 = <font color="red">1.18</font>). Okay, now take any two people from the same group, and calculate how different they are from each other.
Yes, there are genetic disparities between different racial groups; I acknowledged that. I also mentioned that the difference between two individuals of the same race is greater than the difference between two different racial groups. You could just as easily group people based on eye color, or hair color, or whether or not they wear hats, and you would find genetic differences between each group. But it would have nothing to do with their eye color, or their hair color, or whether or not they wear hats. There is no genetic basis for race, that's just the way it is. Like I said, it's a social, economic and cultural construct that isn't based in genetics in anyway.
[ QUOTE ]
That wasn't his point. His point was that people suddently want to argue if you say anything about race.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know what his initial point was, but the whole race and genetics thing was a reference to an argument he had with Weiser_Cain in the past. Weiser_Cain and Ninjas (or maybe I'm mistaken and it was someone else) were arguing about whether or not there is a genetic basis for race, and I think Weiser_Cain called Ninjas a racist because he believed that there was a genetic basis for race. I'm not calling Ninjas a racist, I'm just saying that he is simply wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Many people will say that elections aren't rigged, not because they have any proof elections aren't rigged, but that they can't stand the thought of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. Also your point about being raised in public schools, military bases, church, etc. The problem with conspiracy theories is that immediately, those unfamiliar with the thought labels them as being evil and 100% false. Overlooking the term "theory". The problem with THAT is, many who speak these theories spend more effort trying to sway others to believe it's fact...also forgetting the "theory" part. A theory does not convince others, but simply allows them to ask their own questions, if they know how. The problem with our modern society is that fewer individuals or groups are asking questions, while others are hiding the answers. In our military, we're taught to follow orders. In our public schools, we're not taught to ask questions, but to follow directions. We obey the cirriculum and standards set before us. As children, you do as you're told, and believe what you do and do not see. Asking questions does not build the strong workforce that keeps our economy in geat shape. The less questions asked, the more the groups in charge can get away with. So it's very likely corporations and politicans can pull some strings while the nation goes to work and pays the bills. If a company can convince a teenage girl that she needs the newest fashion accessory just because her favorite pop diva wore them in that new trendy music video, imagine what a corporate influenced government body can accomplish when those impressionable teens join the workforce and voting lines. Now add a dash of religion.
I like reading conspiracy theories...that are worth the time to read. Many are silly. I'm not the type of person to watch the Manchurian Candidate, and take it literally, then create a website telling everyone about how this is actually happening. Some of the theories I've mentioned in a past thread, no one seemed to argue with. They'd rather attack the individual with the silly thoughts, than to consider the ones that may have truth. On the flip side, when the President (the leader of our nation) claimed Iraq had WMD based of inaccurate information...most didn't argue. What's the difference?
I don't believe the current method of collecting votes can be trusted. When a member of the company that supplies the machines predicts a party will stay in office, and when one candidate is accidently given 4000 extra votes in an area where only 700 people voted, while another area loses 4000 votes...a change needs to be made. In order to provoke change, you need to start asking lots of questions and speaking up. That is freedom.
[ QUOTE ]
Race is a sociological, economic and cultural construct which has nothing to do with genetics.
[/ QUOTE ]
There are genetic variations between those of European, Chinese, and African ancestry. That's why some diseases can affect one more than the other. But race from an American perspective does have more to do with culture and society, as we are the melting pot. Also has a lot to do with toothless inbred southern bible thumpin white folk. I like black people just as much as the next scared caucasian...except when I'm being mugged.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, it's a social, economic and cultural construct that isn't based in genetics in anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
So are you saying that docters who say, "you're hispanic so you have a greater risk of diabities" or tell blacks "this drug is particularly effective for black people" are wrong? Or maybe these health conditions are caused by "social, economic and cultural" reasons.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not saying they're wrong. Just like when those same doctors say, "you have blue eyes so you have a much higher risk of developing cataracts." They are not wrong, because people with blue eyes (a pysical characteristic that can be traced to a specific gene) have less melanin in their irises and therefore have a much higher chance of developing cataracts. Do you consider blue eyes to be a race? Why or why not? What if you had blue eyes and were to immigrate to a region where all the natives of that region had brown eyes? You would likely be considered "different" and grouped with other immigrants who had blue eyes, but this would only be a social division based on a pysical charactersitic.
Another realization coming from the genome project might have a profound effect on social understanding. "From a scientific perspective," Tilghman said, "there is no such thing as race. You cannot scientifically distinguish a race of people genetically from a different race of people. Now you can find a gene that affects skin color, and you can show that this gene has one form in people of African descent and is different form of people, let's say, of Danish descent. But that's just one little change. That doesn't make them a race. If you look at all the other things in their DNA that determine all the ways in which we're the same, in fact the two DNAs are indistinguishable.
So it seems that there is only one race: the human race. "There are variants," Tilghman said, "and the variants we pay more attention to are the variants that are visible to us. But in fact the variants that probably matter much more than whether your skin is black or your skin is white are variants that predispose you to breast cancer. And those occur in all populations; variants that predispose you to heart disease; variants that predispose you to Alzheimer's disease. And those do not track by race. So the important ones are not the visible ones."
The more closely researchers examine the human genome (the complement of genetic material encased in the heart of almost every cell of the body) the more most of them are convinced that the standard labels used to distinguish people by "race" have little biological meaning.
[...]
"Race is a social concept, not a scientific one," said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corporation in Rockville, Md. "We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world."
[...]
About .01 percent of our genes are reflected in our external appearances and because this tiny percent together with the high percentage of ignorance many humans were relegated to enslavement and genocide.
Our present popular social structure is based on visual cues, and we have been programmed to recognize them, and to recognize individuals that way.
Both of those articles are 5 years old. Just thought I'd point that out. And by now many of us have mixed ancestry. Most African-Americans are 17 percent white. Possibly due to white men raping their maternal ancestors. So the genetic debate can be fuzzy. My ancestors come from England, and Western Native Americans. The Jews and Arabs share a common DNA marker. We do all come from the same handful of tribes in Africa. But as we spread out over centuries, mutations began to help adapt to our environment. Now with modern methods of travel, our DNA is slowly mixing.
At the end of the day there is only one race - the human race (with the notable exception of the teenagers who keep vandalising my car but they dont matter, they are about to become extinct)
Replies
Secondly, doing a search for that guy's name mainly brings up blog entries, and links to conspiracy theory sites, all very wishy-washy and personal opinion sites, nothing objective.
It seems the guy did actually make statements to that effect, but whether they were ever proven or otherwise is fairly obfuscated... I'd be tempted to call bullshit on it. Anyway, that thing is over 10 months old now, you'd think we'd have heard more about it if it amounted to anything.
I have to believe that if that video was true shit would have hit the fan and Bush would be impeached by now . All the FBI would have to do is have one of there computer experts look at the voting machines . I call BS
[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that FBI is allowed/wants to do that? I think the war on terror thing earned them a heafty budget increase.
yeah i also saw some websites with evidence that it was in fact these rogue voting machines under direct orders from president bush, flew those planes into the world trade center on 9-11, and then kicked some people
[/ QUOTE ]
You might like to dismiss this as some sort of wacko conspiracy theory, but this is very serious and very real. Whether or not any elections were rigged, these are the facts: electronic voting machines are owned, designed, and operated by private corporations; electronic voting machines create no "hard copy" or receipt of votes, and voting results are therefore impossible to verify; the code used in electronic voting machines is considered a "trade secret," and is therefore not available for review by independent organizations.
Even if one were to ignore things like the highly suspect statements made by the CEO of Diebold (he guarantied that Bush would win Ohio before the election), it is still very worrying that the integrity of our democracy would be compromised by shrouding the voting process in such secrecy. The voting process in a democratic society is supposed to be as transparent as possible, not kept secret and controlled by private corporations. This situation with the electronic voting machines should be an outrage to anyone who values our democracy, regardless of party affiliation.
EDIT: By the way, the courts are currently investigating whether a "black box" style machine can be used to convict people of drunk driving (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2144253/florida-court-friday-hear). If a machine cannot be trusted to do THAT, how can we expect another "black box" to handle the fundamentals of the democratic process?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo!
What a revelation.
Get over it.
Now get back to work and bend over ok?
r.
Ror, is the little r then the --- line and then little r a passive agressive phallic symbol by chance?
[/ QUOTE ]
Ha! It took me a few seconds to get what the hell you were talking about.
Ror, I don't think this is about crooked politicians at all (I'd argue that the adjective is redundant). The real issue is about the validity of our votes. If you don't vote, I can understand why this wouldn't make a difference to you, but for those of us who do bother to vote, this should be a serious concern. I think KDR gave a pretty good analogy: the way these electronic machines work is pretty much as if you were to tell a man named "Bob" who you want to vote for, and then after everyone tells Bob who they voted for, Bob says who one the election. There's no real way to verify that Bob didn't just make up the results.
Keyser: I'm sorry, you're mistaking me for someone prepared to debate seriously about politics!
When I had to testify at the US consulate that my 8 month old daughter did not have any training in chemical warfare, I decided right then and there that it was never worth debating politics or government in this country, well, not seriously anyway heh!
r.
When I had to testify at the US consulate that my 8 month old daughter did not have any training in chemical warfare...
[/ QUOTE ]
Did you reply with "aye, there's quite the stink bomb in her diaper"
ElysiumGX: Hahah!
r.
Keyser: I'm sorry, you're mistaking me for someone prepared to debate seriously about politics!
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it has much to do with politics, and there really isn't much to debate. You may think that the voting process isn't important or is insignificant (or maybe you just don't feel like discussing it here), and I can't disagree with that since it is an opinion, but I can and do disagree with the notion that people should just "get over it."
yeah, and there were other combat training questions and worse...
[/ QUOTE ]
Damn. I have believed you were kidding.
A lot of other states had these as well.
As far as the elections being rigged, no.
Actually, there were quite a few electronic ballot machines (at least here in Reno) that DID produce paper receipts. From the post I was at, there were about 30% non-receipt and 70% receipt machines.
A lot of other states had these as well.
As far as the elections being rigged, no.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow... Reno... a real deciding factor in every major election
[ QUOTE ]
just the same as if I said blacks differ from whites genetically (though statistically they must, no matter how you define the groups).
[/ QUOTE ]
I should just disregard this comment altogether, since I'm sure it will result in some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy of yours proving that I am "brainwashed" and simply "regurgitating dogma," but I can't help but point out that your comment about race and genetics is backwards. In reality, it's the other way around: statistically speaking, the genetic disparity between two races is far less than the genetic disparities between two individuals of the same race. Race is a sociological, economic and cultural construct which has nothing to do with genetics.
any time politicians think they can get away with something they will atempt it, it goes hand in hand
any time there is something that can be turned into a conspiracy theory, some one will
[/ QUOTE ]
The idea that an election may have been rigged is a conspiracy theory; the concern about these voting machines is not. Whether or not they were actually used to rig an election, they still present a problem which should be addressed.
take some numbers. 0.12, 1.76, 2.23, 3.45, 4.56, 5.24 for example. Devide them into two groups using any method.
a)0.12 + 2.23 + 4.56
b)1.76 + 3.45 + 5.24
Average the two groups
a)2.303
b)3.483
Wow, they are different! I'm sure you were surprised.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I will take those numbers.
You give two groups, (a) and (b). Calculate how different those two groups are (3.48 - 2.30 = <font color="red">1.18</font>). Okay, now take any two people from the same group, and calculate how different they are from each other.
Group A:
2.23 - 0.12 = <font color="red">2.11</font>
4.56 - 2.23 = <font color="red">2.33</font>
4.56 - 0.12 = <font color="red">4.44</font>
Now let's do the same thing for the individuals of Group B:
3.45 - 1.76 = <font color="red">1.69</font>
5.24 - 3.45 = <font color="red">1.79</font>
5.24 - 1.76 = <font color="red">3.48</font>
Yes, there are genetic disparities between different racial groups; I acknowledged that. I also mentioned that the difference between two individuals of the same race is greater than the difference between two different racial groups. You could just as easily group people based on eye color, or hair color, or whether or not they wear hats, and you would find genetic differences between each group. But it would have nothing to do with their eye color, or their hair color, or whether or not they wear hats. There is no genetic basis for race, that's just the way it is. Like I said, it's a social, economic and cultural construct that isn't based in genetics in anyway.
That wasn't his point. His point was that people suddently want to argue if you say anything about race.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know what his initial point was, but the whole race and genetics thing was a reference to an argument he had with Weiser_Cain in the past. Weiser_Cain and Ninjas (or maybe I'm mistaken and it was someone else) were arguing about whether or not there is a genetic basis for race, and I think Weiser_Cain called Ninjas a racist because he believed that there was a genetic basis for race. I'm not calling Ninjas a racist, I'm just saying that he is simply wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Many people will say that elections aren't rigged, not because they have any proof elections aren't rigged, but that they can't stand the thought of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. Also your point about being raised in public schools, military bases, church, etc. The problem with conspiracy theories is that immediately, those unfamiliar with the thought labels them as being evil and 100% false. Overlooking the term "theory". The problem with THAT is, many who speak these theories spend more effort trying to sway others to believe it's fact...also forgetting the "theory" part. A theory does not convince others, but simply allows them to ask their own questions, if they know how. The problem with our modern society is that fewer individuals or groups are asking questions, while others are hiding the answers. In our military, we're taught to follow orders. In our public schools, we're not taught to ask questions, but to follow directions. We obey the cirriculum and standards set before us. As children, you do as you're told, and believe what you do and do not see. Asking questions does not build the strong workforce that keeps our economy in geat shape. The less questions asked, the more the groups in charge can get away with. So it's very likely corporations and politicans can pull some strings while the nation goes to work and pays the bills. If a company can convince a teenage girl that she needs the newest fashion accessory just because her favorite pop diva wore them in that new trendy music video, imagine what a corporate influenced government body can accomplish when those impressionable teens join the workforce and voting lines. Now add a dash of religion.
I like reading conspiracy theories...that are worth the time to read. Many are silly. I'm not the type of person to watch the Manchurian Candidate, and take it literally, then create a website telling everyone about how this is actually happening. Some of the theories I've mentioned in a past thread, no one seemed to argue with. They'd rather attack the individual with the silly thoughts, than to consider the ones that may have truth. On the flip side, when the President (the leader of our nation) claimed Iraq had WMD based of inaccurate information...most didn't argue. What's the difference?
I don't believe the current method of collecting votes can be trusted. When a member of the company that supplies the machines predicts a party will stay in office, and when one candidate is accidently given 4000 extra votes in an area where only 700 people voted, while another area loses 4000 votes...a change needs to be made. In order to provoke change, you need to start asking lots of questions and speaking up. That is freedom.
[ QUOTE ]
Race is a sociological, economic and cultural construct which has nothing to do with genetics.
[/ QUOTE ]
There are genetic variations between those of European, Chinese, and African ancestry. That's why some diseases can affect one more than the other. But race from an American perspective does have more to do with culture and society, as we are the melting pot. Also has a lot to do with toothless inbred southern bible thumpin white folk. I like black people just as much as the next scared caucasian...except when I'm being mugged.
[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, it's a social, economic and cultural construct that isn't based in genetics in anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
So are you saying that docters who say, "you're hispanic so you have a greater risk of diabities" or tell blacks "this drug is particularly effective for black people" are wrong? Or maybe these health conditions are caused by "social, economic and cultural" reasons.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not saying they're wrong. Just like when those same doctors say, "you have blue eyes so you have a much higher risk of developing cataracts." They are not wrong, because people with blue eyes (a pysical characteristic that can be traced to a specific gene) have less melanin in their irises and therefore have a much higher chance of developing cataracts. Do you consider blue eyes to be a race? Why or why not? What if you had blue eyes and were to immigrate to a region where all the natives of that region had brown eyes? You would likely be considered "different" and grouped with other immigrants who had blue eyes, but this would only be a social division based on a pysical charactersitic.
http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/features/features_05.html
[ QUOTE ]
Racial differences on the genetic level
Another realization coming from the genome project might have a profound effect on social understanding. "From a scientific perspective," Tilghman said, "there is no such thing as race. You cannot scientifically distinguish a race of people genetically from a different race of people. Now you can find a gene that affects skin color, and you can show that this gene has one form in people of African descent and is different form of people, let's say, of Danish descent. But that's just one little change. That doesn't make them a race. If you look at all the other things in their DNA that determine all the ways in which we're the same, in fact the two DNAs are indistinguishable.
So it seems that there is only one race: the human race. "There are variants," Tilghman said, "and the variants we pay more attention to are the variants that are visible to us. But in fact the variants that probably matter much more than whether your skin is black or your skin is white are variants that predispose you to breast cancer. And those occur in all populations; variants that predispose you to heart disease; variants that predispose you to Alzheimer's disease. And those do not track by race. So the important ones are not the visible ones."
[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.trinicenter.com/sciencenews/raceandgenetics.htm
[ QUOTE ]
Many indigenous people have always known that the racial categories recognized by society were mostly skin deep and were not the correct way to define people.
The more closely researchers examine the human genome (the complement of genetic material encased in the heart of almost every cell of the body) the more most of them are convinced that the standard labels used to distinguish people by "race" have little biological meaning.
[...]
"Race is a social concept, not a scientific one," said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corporation in Rockville, Md. "We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world."
[...]
About .01 percent of our genes are reflected in our external appearances and because this tiny percent together with the high percentage of ignorance many humans were relegated to enslavement and genocide.
Our present popular social structure is based on visual cues, and we have been programmed to recognize them, and to recognize individuals that way.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, this is a nice little off topic chat.