Re: Moorad's comment is sound

On 6/23/05, RFaussette@aol.com <RFaussette@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I really don't understand your cryptic comment. NYU's Biomolecular
> Institute is doing work on the Ashkenazi gene pool but the rejection of
> Harpending's paper is not substantive; only as Pinker said - it is not PC.
>
  
 If Jews have been practicing eugenics (as the paper suggests) and that has
> enabled them to rise to positions of power and influence over other peoples
> throughout history what motive exists for the Jewish Forward to agree with
> Harpenindg and disseminate the Jewish secret to success? None. Use some
> critical thought in your choice of references.
>
  Sorry. I won't use any quotes from Montgomery Slatkin. He was only the
primary reference and was personally acknowledged in Cochran's paper for
population genetic simulations. He obviously knows
nothing<http://http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15208782&dopt=Citation>about
the genetic history of sphingolipid disorders.

 Of course this is debated, but is it bad science? No, nor have you
> demonstrated how it is bad science.
>
  No original data. An untested hypothesis. No working model on how this
works genetically. This is good science?

 Would you like a copy of the original paper rather than the critique from
> the Jewish Forward?
>
 Last December you said:
  
> "Ineffable" is the very word rabbinical Judaism uses to describe God. Now,
> I know that my willingness to invoke Jewish theology may be considered a
> faux pas in Christian company but let me give you an example of just how
> enlightening such invocations can be.

  If you can invoke Jewish theology why can't I quote a Jewish newspaper?
Received on Thu Jun 23 15:43:45 2005