Dear my dear distant cousin Nicolas, Don't you understand that we want all of you here? Please don't leave this forum because of something I said. Nicolas, you have the right to say anything you want to. Get to it! Dan On 6/29/2014 5:51 PM, nicolas.taban wrote: > That's all folks ... this one was the very last post I read. > I am sorry but I can not stay in there reading such offensive words. Opening a debate yes. Directly supporting a racist writter, no. > The list has lost its sense diverging into politics and religion. Too bad the old doctors and other professors emeritus have such a grip on the "Truth". > > Didier, can you please remove me from the list and delete all posts I may have sent to it. > > Takk for meg. > > Nicolas > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Kenneth Nordtvedt <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> > Date:29/06/2014 23:29 (GMT+01:00) > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book > > Debbie, Fortunately you, alone, can't censor the book, so that's not the > issue. The thread began with a one sentence recommendation to read the book > and did not include a review or analysis of the book. > > So your subsequent outburst of miscelaneous slander seems over the top and > rather dark to me at least. But let's hope the brouha will wet the > appetites of some and actually lead to more reading the book. > > I notice that among the folks on the book jacket saying positive things > about their reaction to the book are hard scientists James D Watson and > Edward O Wilson, and even soft scientist Lionel Tiger. > > Author Nicholas Wade was educated at England's Cambridge University in > Natural Science, he was reporter or editor at the well known journals > Science and Nature, and eventually science reporter/editor at the New York > Times. > > So his was a long career of working at the interface of science and the > general wider public with interest in science matters. The book was not > meant to be a "peer reviewed" scientific article, for the little that has > come to mean in today's world. > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debbie Kennett > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 1:54 PM > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book > > John > > I am not in the least trying to censor the book. Note that Ken recommended > the book to the list despite admitting that he hadn't even finished reading > it. > > As I've tried to explain science is advanced by scientists doing research > and writing scientific papers that are published in peer-reviewed scientific > journals. It is a free world and if a reporter manages to get a commisssion > to write on a subject in which he has no academic training or expertise then > so be it. If people choose to read his book then that is their choice. It is > my choice not to read such a book. I prefer to spend my time reading the > original scientific papers rather than someone else's misinterpretation of > those papers. > > Other people have already commented on the shortcomings of the book and its > lack of scientific rigour, and I merely thought it would be helpful for > people to read those reviews if they wanted so that they can perhaps try and > understand the scientific viewpoint if they do choose to read the book. > These authors have explained the problems with the book far more eloquently > than I can. I provided those links for the benefit of all list members and > not just Americans. Nationality should have nothing to do with it. The > author of the book is after all a Brit. > > As you will recall, I also provided a link to a scientific paper by Guido > Barbujani "Human Races: Classifying People vs Understanding Diversity" which > gives a good summary of the current scientific thinking on the subject of > "race". I've provided a TinyURL below as the link got broken up by Rootsweb > so perhaps people had difficulty accessing the paper: > > http://tinyurl.com/mvdt487 > > Perhaps you might like to have a look at this paper with an open mind and > let us know what you think. If you know of any scientific papers that offer > a different view perhaps you can share them with us. > > Can I suggest that we focus our discussions on the science and not on > emotions. > > Debbie > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Poor Dr. Dan. The WHOLE Internet?! Oooops :-( "I once thought I made a mistake but I was mistaken." John M Rhodes On 2014-06-29, at 4:44 PM, Dan Kimel <dankimel@comcast.net> wrote: > On 6/29/2014 3:59 PM, Debbie Kennett wrote: >> Dan >> >> As you think Nicolas has so much trouble with his English perhaps you can >> help him by replying to him in his own language. The sense was perfectly >> clear to me. He can't understand why people are wasting the list's time by >> making spurious accusations rather than focusing on the evidence and the >> science. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Debbie >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Dear Debbie, > > Damn, but the reply I thought went to you, went to the whole internet > universe. > > Sorry, > > Dan > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sorry, I used a homophone . . . meant censure rather than censor. John Beardsley -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Nordtvedt Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 5:27 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book Debbie, Fortunately you, alone, can't censor the book, so that's not the issue. The thread began with a one sentence recommendation to read the book and did not include a review or analysis of the book. So your subsequent outburst of miscelaneous slander seems over the top and rather dark to me at least. But let's hope the brouha will wet the appetites of some and actually lead to more reading the book. I notice that among the folks on the book jacket saying positive things about their reaction to the book are hard scientists James D Watson and Edward O Wilson, and even soft scientist Lionel Tiger. Author Nicholas Wade was educated at England's Cambridge University in Natural Science, he was reporter or editor at the well known journals Science and Nature, and eventually science reporter/editor at the New York Times. So his was a long career of working at the interface of science and the general wider public with interest in science matters. The book was not meant to be a "peer reviewed" scientific article, for the little that has come to mean in today's world. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Debbie Kennett Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 1:54 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book John I am not in the least trying to censor the book. Note that Ken recommended the book to the list despite admitting that he hadn't even finished reading it. As I've tried to explain science is advanced by scientists doing research and writing scientific papers that are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is a free world and if a reporter manages to get a commisssion to write on a subject in which he has no academic training or expertise then so be it. If people choose to read his book then that is their choice. It is my choice not to read such a book. I prefer to spend my time reading the original scientific papers rather than someone else's misinterpretation of those papers. Other people have already commented on the shortcomings of the book and its lack of scientific rigour, and I merely thought it would be helpful for people to read those reviews if they wanted so that they can perhaps try and understand the scientific viewpoint if they do choose to read the book. These authors have explained the problems with the book far more eloquently than I can. I provided those links for the benefit of all list members and not just Americans. Nationality should have nothing to do with it. The author of the book is after all a Brit. As you will recall, I also provided a link to a scientific paper by Guido Barbujani "Human Races: Classifying People vs Understanding Diversity" which gives a good summary of the current scientific thinking on the subject of "race". I've provided a TinyURL below as the link got broken up by Rootsweb so perhaps people had difficulty accessing the paper: http://tinyurl.com/mvdt487 Perhaps you might like to have a look at this paper with an open mind and let us know what you think. If you know of any scientific papers that offer a different view perhaps you can share them with us. Can I suggest that we focus our discussions on the science and not on emotions. Debbie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Nordtvedt Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 3:27 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book I notice that among the folks on the book jacket saying positive things about their reaction to the book are hard scientists James D Watson and Edward O Wilson, and even soft scientist Lionel Tiger. [[Oops. I misread the back of book jacket. Wilson commented on "A Troublesome Inheritance". Watson and Tiger were quoted as commenting on Wade's earlier book "Before the Dawn", another Wade book relevant to our hobby. In the cosmic order of things, I owe Watson and Tiger this clarification.

I'm with Nicolas, I'm the next one to unsubscribe. Good night & good luck ;) ..... On Jun 29, 2014, at 4:51 pm, nicolas.taban wrote: > That's all folks ... this one was the very last post I read. > I am sorry but I can not stay in there reading such offensive words. Opening a debate yes. Directly supporting a racist writter, no. > The list has lost its sense diverging into politics and religion. Too bad the old doctors and other professors emeritus have such a grip on the "Truth". > > Didier, can you please remove me from the list and delete all posts I may have sent to it. > > Takk for meg. > > Nicolas > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Kenneth Nordtvedt <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> > Date:29/06/2014 23:29 (GMT+01:00) > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book > > Debbie, Fortunately you, alone, can't censor the book, so that's not the > issue. The thread began with a one sentence recommendation to read the book > and did not include a review or analysis of the book. > > So your subsequent outburst of miscelaneous slander seems over the top and > rather dark to me at least. But let's hope the brouha will wet the > appetites of some and actually lead to more reading the book. > > I notice that among the folks on the book jacket saying positive things > about their reaction to the book are hard scientists James D Watson and > Edward O Wilson, and even soft scientist Lionel Tiger. > > Author Nicholas Wade was educated at England's Cambridge University in > Natural Science, he was reporter or editor at the well known journals > Science and Nature, and eventually science reporter/editor at the New York > Times. > > So his was a long career of working at the interface of science and the > general wider public with interest in science matters. The book was not > meant to be a "peer reviewed" scientific article, for the little that has > come to mean in today's world. > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debbie Kennett > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 1:54 PM > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book > > John > > I am not in the least trying to censor the book. Note that Ken recommended > the book to the list despite admitting that he hadn't even finished reading > it. > > As I've tried to explain science is advanced by scientists doing research > and writing scientific papers that are published in peer-reviewed scientific > journals. It is a free world and if a reporter manages to get a commisssion > to write on a subject in which he has no academic training or expertise then > so be it. If people choose to read his book then that is their choice. It is > my choice not to read such a book. I prefer to spend my time reading the > original scientific papers rather than someone else's misinterpretation of > those papers. > > Other people have already commented on the shortcomings of the book and its > lack of scientific rigour, and I merely thought it would be helpful for > people to read those reviews if they wanted so that they can perhaps try and > understand the scientific viewpoint if they do choose to read the book. > These authors have explained the problems with the book far more eloquently > than I can. I provided those links for the benefit of all list members and > not just Americans. Nationality should have nothing to do with it. The > author of the book is after all a Brit. > > As you will recall, I also provided a link to a scientific paper by Guido > Barbujani "Human Races: Classifying People vs Understanding Diversity" which > gives a good summary of the current scientific thinking on the subject of > "race". I've provided a TinyURL below as the link got broken up by Rootsweb > so perhaps people had difficulty accessing the paper: > > http://tinyurl.com/mvdt487 > > Perhaps you might like to have a look at this paper with an open mind and > let us know what you think. If you know of any scientific papers that offer > a different view perhaps you can share them with us. > > Can I suggest that we focus our discussions on the science and not on > emotions. > > Debbie > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 6/29/2014 5:07 PM, Debbie Kennett wrote: > Dan > > Hitler is very relevant to the current debate. Surely you must have studied > some European history? Hitler believed that there was such a thing as an > Aryan race and that the Aryan race was a master race. Over six million > people were methodically slaughtered by the Nazis because of their "race". > Is that the world that you would like us to return to? > > Debbie > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Dear Debbie, I don't believe I've used the word "race" in any post I've made. Hitler was a psychopath, whose death marked a end of an era, most of which was fueled by the the same type of European arrogance which we still see in the EU. Peace. Dan

"Can I suggest that we focus our discussions on the science and not on emotions. Debbie" hmmm . . . I thought I had been even toned in my post, but perhaps not. What I was objecting to Debbie are these comments of yours: 1) "Fortunately reviewers on this side of the Atlantic have been able to see through Wade's dangerous outdated, prejudiced and unscientific hogwash." 2) " It's perhaps not surprising that he's ended up in America. He would find much less tolerance of his views over here." The first I let slide, but after the second I called you on it. You are implying, intentionally or not, that on your side of the Atlantic intelligence is in greater supply than on ours. And like I said, by doing so you are acting in a typical stereotypical manner. You have been rather heatedly denouncing Mr. Wade’s book, basing your indignation upon the reviews of others rather than reading the material and forming your own opinion. Not an objective approach, is it? You can make your argument without bringing ANY nationality into it, as you’ve demonstrated. When you fail to do so you are, in a round about manner, doing the very same thing you feel so strongly Mr. Wade has done in his book. John Beardsley -----Original Message----- From: Debbie Kennett Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 3:54 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book John I am not in the least trying to censor the book. Note that Ken recommended the book to the list despite admitting that he hadn't even finished reading it. As I've tried to explain science is advanced by scientists doing research and writing scientific papers that are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is a free world and if a reporter manages to get a commisssion to write on a subject in which he has no academic training or expertise then so be it. If people choose to read his book then that is their choice. It is my choice not to read such a book. I prefer to spend my time reading the original scientific papers rather than someone else's misinterpretation of those papers. Other people have already commented on the shortcomings of the book and its lack of scientific rigour, and I merely thought it would be helpful for people to read those reviews if they wanted so that they can perhaps try and understand the scientific viewpoint if they do choose to read the book. These authors have explained the problems with the book far more eloquently than I can. I provided those links for the benefit of all list members and not just Americans. Nationality should have nothing to do with it. The author of the book is after all a Brit. As you will recall, I also provided a link to a scientific paper by Guido Barbujani "Human Races: Classifying People vs Understanding Diversity" which gives a good summary of the current scientific thinking on the subject of "race". I've provided a TinyURL below as the link got broken up by Rootsweb so perhaps people had difficulty accessing the paper: http://tinyurl.com/mvdt487 Perhaps you might like to have a look at this paper with an open mind and let us know what you think. If you know of any scientific papers that offer a different view perhaps you can share them with us. Can I suggest that we focus our discussions on the science and not on emotions. Debbie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The book is heavily seasoned with references to peoples' works. They are even collected at the end of the book with chapter by chapter lists. But the book is more than a collection of descriptions of research results. He seeks to draw the dots between the individual research results and reach some suggestions and hypotheses for further thought and inquiry on the subject. I suspect your strong reaction over the last couple days is more due to the latter as filtered or paraphrased by your reviewers. Concerning "distinct biological races", are you happier with "biological races with fuzzy edges"? Wade discusses to some length the objections that meaning of a "race" implies sharp edges. That "race" has fuzzy edges must certainly be the case considering that each of us is a biological composite of many, many distant ancestors who themselves need not have been from the same ancient population. Wade certainly concurs in that. Probably best working definition that someone is of a specific race is that the very large majority of his biological ancestors came from the same ancient regional population. People of "mixed race" would be those who have large chunks of their genetic inheritance from people of different regional populations. So who appointed you the definer of Watson's alleged "racist comments"? That he was pressured to resign his post I think is mainly about the power of the PC mafia and the flow of financial contributions and grants to the institution he ran (Cold Springs Harbor Institute?). Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Debbie Kennett Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 4:13 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book Ken I have provided links to critical views of Wade's work. I have yet to receive any sensible response from anyone explaining why they disagree with the technical points raised in those critical reviews. As you seem to be the only person who has even attempted to read the book perhaps you can enlighten me and point me to the scientific papers which are supposed to support Nicholas Wade's view that there are distinct biological races. James Watson, as I'm sure you will know, was forced to retire early after making racist comments: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africa ns-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html It's not surprising that he endorses Wade's book. I'm not familiar with the other two scientists, but population geneticists have uniformaly denounced Wade's book. Wade's education and work history are somewhat irrelevant. The focus should be on the arguments. No one has yet provided any evidence in support of Wade's arguments. Debbie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

FTDNA has recently updated the Y-DNA tree used in their own system. By updating, correcting, etc. the tree, they have altered the mutation definitions for some SNPs as well as adding new SNPs. Does anyone know when these new mutation definitions will be made available to the public domain? (By mutation definitions I mean specifying what is Ancestral and Derived for a given SNP.) I recently tried to find a current version of the old ISOGG SNP-Compendium and was surprised to find that the link to it has been completely removed. This must mean that a new version is now a work-in-process. My interest in this was tweaked just last week when I finally had my Geno2 data transferred to FTDNA. I checked the new SNPs displayed in my FTDNA tree page and found that some didn't match what my previous mutation table suggested they should be. I finally realized that any comparisons between new FTDNA and old 23andMe and old Geno2 and old FTDNA raw data are pointless without the new table. What do I do now? Jim Robeson, kit N20789 robeson.jim.e@gmail.com

unsubscribe

On 6/29/2014 3:59 PM, Debbie Kennett wrote: > Dan > > As you think Nicolas has so much trouble with his English perhaps you can > help him by replying to him in his own language. The sense was perfectly > clear to me. He can't understand why people are wasting the list's time by > making spurious accusations rather than focusing on the evidence and the > science. > > Best wishes > > Debbie > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Dear Debbie, Damn, but the reply I thought went to you, went to the whole internet universe. Sorry, Dan

Please unsubscribe me. > From: debbiekennett@gmail.com > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 23:33:57 +0100 > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book > > John > > I was responding to this comment: > > "I think the review by the NY Times was somewhat more charitable. There > seems to be no question, though, that Wade's book has hit a raw nerve in > some circles of his fellow Brits." > > The suggestion seemed to be that it was only Brits who had an issue with the > book and I wanted to make clear that that was not the case. Many of the > fiercest critics of Wade's book are in America. > > I was not making any comments about people's intelligence. I was suggesting > that Wade's racist views would not be tolerated and supported here in the > same way that they are in America. In fact his book has been largely ignored > here. The review in The Times is the only I've seen. Perhaps I didn't phrase > my words very carefully and I'm sorry if I've caused offence where none was > intended. > > As Lawrence has argued, it is a perfectly objective and sensible approach to > seek the views of people I trust before deciding whether or not to buy a > book. > > Debbie > > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of John > Sent: 29 June 2014 22:33 > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book > > "Can I suggest that we focus our discussions on the science and not on > emotions. > > Debbie" > > hmmm . . . > > I thought I had been even toned in my post, but perhaps not. What I was > objecting to Debbie are these comments of yours: > 1) "Fortunately reviewers on this side of the Atlantic have been able to see > through Wade's dangerous outdated, prejudiced and unscientific hogwash." > 2) " It's perhaps not surprising that he's ended up in America. He would > find much less tolerance of his views over here." > > The first I let slide, but after the second I called you on it. You are > implying, intentionally or not, that on your side of the Atlantic > intelligence is in greater supply than on ours. And like I said, by doing so > you are acting in a typical stereotypical manner. You have been rather > heatedly denouncing Mr. Wade's book, basing your indignation upon the > reviews of others rather than reading the material and forming your own > opinion. Not an objective approach, is it? > > You can make your argument without bringing ANY nationality into it, as > you've demonstrated. When you fail to do so you are, in a round about > manner, doing the very same thing you feel so strongly Mr. Wade has done in > his book. > > John Beardsley > > -- > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you. If you don't like the book, don't read it. There have been too many posts lately that have absolutely nothing to do with HG I. I actually tried to have myself removed from the list because of this sort of thing, but somehow I am back on the list. Emil > From: okusgold@me.com > Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 23:26:02 +0100 > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book > > For Heaven's sake Debbie - DROP IT - You are coming across as a dictatorial, pompous, know it all and bringing the English into disrepute. 90% of listers here are just not interested. > For the sake of all our sanities let it go. You don't have to have the last word, really. > > Carol Gilbert > foothead@one-name.org > > >

Dear Debbie, I like the fact that you are a fighter. And how spurious could any accusation be than Nicholas' bringing Hitler into the argument? I believe Wade has opened a door to a vast area of research, which will unfold in the future. One of my favorite authors, A. O. Wilson, almost lost his career after writing a treatise on Sociobiology. You may be a wonderful and open minded, but I've known social anthropologists who are the most ideologically rigid of any people I've ever met. Since you have written me, I think you should know something about my background. I'm an Emeritus Professor of Physics at Florida State University. Best Wishes, Dan On 6/29/2014 3:59 PM, Debbie Kennett wrote: > Dan > > As you think Nicolas has so much trouble with his English perhaps you can > help him by replying to him in his own language. The sense was perfectly > clear to me. He can't understand why people are wasting the list's time by > making spurious accusations rather than focusing on the evidence and the > science. > > Best wishes > > Debbie > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Mayka Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 2:51 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book reviews make very clear the author's basic claim: That the differences between human cultures are due primarily to genetic differences between peoples. [[Larry, Based on your apparent dependence on selected reviews, your alleged "author's basic claim" is a gross distortion of the book as I read it. Actually, I believe one can quote the book in a number of places saying pretty much the opposite. Most literate people seem to have their own stable of trusted reviewers and their distrusted ones (trusted to give a slanted hit job). But there is probably a danger in reaching conclusions solely from "reviews", especially on such a flammable subject. I have read no reviews of Wade's book. I just happened to see him live speaking for himself, being interviewed by a slightly hostile TV host; and then buying the book the next morning and reading 50 pages or so and concluding the book would be stimulating to our hobby community, no matter what the book thesis's relationship was to our philosophical or political bents on the (science) subject. KN]]

I am surprised that so many people don't seem to understand the purpose of a review--of a book, movie, restaurant, etc. Prudent people do not want to waste their money and time on a product unworthy of that investment. Even more so, they do not want to enrich a seller whose product they find morally objectionable. Hence, prudent people seek out reviews from others whom they trust to evaluate the product in advance, to get at least some idea of whether the product is worthy of its cost--all the more so because books, movies, and restaurant meals are often not refundable even if the customer is dissatisfied. Indeed, even if a refund of money is possible, refund of time is not. ("That's three hours I will never get back.") Thus: If one person has read several reviews, written by people he trusts, about a product, and decides it is not worthy of his patronage, it is absurd for a second person to say, "Read it first yourself before disagreeing." To buy the product is already to give the seller exactly what he wants, and to support his cause! In regard to this particular book, reviews make very clear the author's basic claim: That the differences between human cultures are due primarily to genetic differences between peoples. The reviews also make clear that the author has absolutely no evidence to support this very extraordinary claim; on the contrary, the author admits that the evidence points in the opposite direction. (For example, the author admits that North and South Korea have constructed very different societies despite almost identical gene pools.) One could certainly devise studies that would attempt to test the author's extraordinary hypothesis. For example, one could study the grandchildren of rural Polish immigrants to America to see whether, on the average, they have adopted American culture or retained the peasant lifestyle of rural Poland. But according to the reviews, the author does not put forth his notion as a hypothesis and suggest experiments to test it, but instead throws out (what we used to call) "just-so stories" as if they were undeniable fact. I certainly encourage everyone to read the reviews for themselves. I strongly discourage anyone from spending time and money on a book, thereby supporting its author's cause, without reading such reviews first. From: John <jgdb@twcny.rr.com> Rather than so inelegantly trying to censor his book, which I believe from your own statement you have not bothered to read, it might be better for your cause to present well reasoned counter-points to the assertions he makes in the book.

My dear distant cousin Nicolas, I address you this way because you are on this forum. But Nicolas, you need some work with your English. I see the quote, "using below waste techniques, " Do you mean waist for waste? So who is using such techniques? Could it be you who totally from out of the blue says that people who are pushing for freedom to read and make independent judgements are pushing Hitler's agenda? Give me a break! Dan On 6/29/2014 3:03 PM, nicolas.taban wrote: > Guys, > > I am sorry to jump in this brito-american debate but I feel from an neutral stand point that this looks like all against Debbie ... becoming all Americans against Debbie ... because she dares going against outrageous affirmations ... which seems to be, her, main stream thinking. > > If you took the time to read her arguments and respond on them instead of using below waste techniques all this would be far more interesting. > > Wake up ... if you want to make historical analogies, more recent in time, this looks pretty much the same arguments than Hitler was pushing forward. Biasing scientifical results to suits own ideology. > Provocation is good to open debates, but it needs to be scientifically argumented. > > I too have been missing the list but I am kind of desapointed, since it came back online: all but 1 (ok may be 2) posts on this thread was more about feelings and suppositions that science and fact. > > So guys stay focused please! > > Mvh/Regards > > Nicolas Taban > > -------- Original message -------- > From: John <jgdb@twcny.rr.com> > Date:29/06/2014 20:18 (GMT+01:00) > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book > > Debbie, > > On behalf of my fellow Americans I'd like to object to your repeated digs at > our ability to read and make intelligent analysis of controversial subject > matter. Intentionally or not, YOU are presenting a very stereotypical image > of your own nationality. > > Mr. Wades book will have followers and detractors over here no different > than on your side of the pond. Rather than so inelegantly trying to censor > his book, which I believe from your own statement you have not bothered to > read, it might be better for your cause to present well reasoned > counter-points to the assertions he makes in the book. > > John Beardsley > an intelligent, open minded American > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debbie Kennett > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 10:17 AM > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book > > In Nicholas Wade's feeble attempt to rebut his critics he says "I don't care > what the science may say because I'll never change my position". I think > just about says it all. If he wishes to ignore the scientific evidence to > advance his own personal beliefs then that's entirely his choice. I hadn't > realised he was British. It's perhaps not surprising that he's ended up in > America. He would find much less tolerance of his views over here. > > There's a very good article here by Kenan Malik on why both sides of the > debate are wrong: > > https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the- > race-debate/ > > Debbie > > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Obed W Odom > Sent: 29 June 2014 14:35 > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book > > I think the review by the NY Times was somewhat more charitable. There seems > to be no question, though, that Wade's book has hit a raw nerve in some > circles of his fellow Brits. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Debbie, Fortunately you, alone, can't censor the book, so that's not the issue. The thread began with a one sentence recommendation to read the book and did not include a review or analysis of the book. So your subsequent outburst of miscelaneous slander seems over the top and rather dark to me at least. But let's hope the brouha will wet the appetites of some and actually lead to more reading the book. I notice that among the folks on the book jacket saying positive things about their reaction to the book are hard scientists James D Watson and Edward O Wilson, and even soft scientist Lionel Tiger. Author Nicholas Wade was educated at England's Cambridge University in Natural Science, he was reporter or editor at the well known journals Science and Nature, and eventually science reporter/editor at the New York Times. So his was a long career of working at the interface of science and the general wider public with interest in science matters. The book was not meant to be a "peer reviewed" scientific article, for the little that has come to mean in today's world. Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Debbie Kennett Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 1:54 PM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book John I am not in the least trying to censor the book. Note that Ken recommended the book to the list despite admitting that he hadn't even finished reading it. As I've tried to explain science is advanced by scientists doing research and writing scientific papers that are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is a free world and if a reporter manages to get a commisssion to write on a subject in which he has no academic training or expertise then so be it. If people choose to read his book then that is their choice. It is my choice not to read such a book. I prefer to spend my time reading the original scientific papers rather than someone else's misinterpretation of those papers. Other people have already commented on the shortcomings of the book and its lack of scientific rigour, and I merely thought it would be helpful for people to read those reviews if they wanted so that they can perhaps try and understand the scientific viewpoint if they do choose to read the book. These authors have explained the problems with the book far more eloquently than I can. I provided those links for the benefit of all list members and not just Americans. Nationality should have nothing to do with it. The author of the book is after all a Brit. As you will recall, I also provided a link to a scientific paper by Guido Barbujani "Human Races: Classifying People vs Understanding Diversity" which gives a good summary of the current scientific thinking on the subject of "race". I've provided a TinyURL below as the link got broken up by Rootsweb so perhaps people had difficulty accessing the paper: http://tinyurl.com/mvdt487 Perhaps you might like to have a look at this paper with an open mind and let us know what you think. If you know of any scientific papers that offer a different view perhaps you can share them with us. Can I suggest that we focus our discussions on the science and not on emotions. Debbie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In Nicholas Wade's feeble attempt to rebut his critics he says "I don't care what the science may say because I'll never change my position". I think just about says it all. If he wishes to ignore the scientific evidence to advance his own personal beliefs then that's entirely his choice. I hadn't realised he was British. It's perhaps not surprising that he's ended up in America. He would find much less tolerance of his views over here. There's a very good article here by Kenan Malik on why both sides of the debate are wrong: https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the- race-debate/ Debbie -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Obed W Odom Sent: 29 June 2014 14:35 To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book I think the review by the NY Times was somewhat more charitable. There seems to be no question, though, that Wade's book has hit a raw nerve in some circles of his fellow Brits.

I usually don't jump into these debates... and I probably should be saying this directly to the list moderator... but some of the insults that get thrown during the arguments that show up on this list all the way from Doctors with double degrees to armchair genealogists (it doesn't really matter what your educational background is in my opinion, just as long as you're interested) is downright ridiculous. You are all adults, please discuss things rationally like an adult. Like some have done in the past, I'm about ready to unsubscribe from this list myself - after having been subscribed since maybe around 2006/2007 (can't remember)? I strongly urge the list moderator to please begin moderating as the last had. Seriously, people, respect one-another!