Originally Posted by fasailuddin

following the islamic dietary laws is indeed hard but personally i think its a family instilled value. If your family practices it then your more likely too. I find it strange tho, how people think its up for debate. The ritual is mandatory.

I'm no expert in the Qu'ran (I'm not Muslim), but from what I understand there are many verses which are difficult to interpret (as in any religious text)...and for these reasons, people interpret them in a variety of ways. (Not to point the finger, but it's how Jihad and Al-Qaeda and all this stuff have any power in the first place: they claim to be interpreting the Qu'ran) Some other examples I've given include music and dancing...and also the interpretation of the Athan (hope I've spelled that right...no disrespect meant) and whether or not it should be melodic.

So as with any religious idea (in my opinion), a lot of it is personal...a close friend of mine who is Muslim did not follow the dietary restriction***, until as he claims, he was reading the Qu'ran one day and something just hit him as he read some passage.


EDIT: By dietary restriction I specifically mean halal meat...he's always followed the 'no pork' rule.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

I gave the first one a very quick read (I'm rather exhausted tonight from all the quote unquote 'excitement' today paired with doing a difficult assignment) and I'll give them a more thorough examination tomorrow. In particular, I looked at his second remark, regarding 85% variation in (human) genetic code.

This is what I'm not sure I buy...I mean I can't exactly sit down and read a very hefty scientific document in a subject I have no training in (and I certainly don't expect you to sit down with me and explain it all), but from what I understand, a full genome scan is a very costly procedure that takes years to do...and what I'm not sure I grasp is, without doing one, how can he be sure there's 85% variation? There may be variation in something which is deemed "Not" human genetic code, so you can't simply scan what we 'think' is human code, do you know what I mean?

Unfortunately, all he's saying is that 'the scientific community agrees.' But this ("proof by appeal to authority") is not only a trap (ie. at one point, 99% of scientists thought the earth was flat), but I just literally can't see where he's getting his numbers from...and in particular, how does Joe Average scientist get these numbers?

It basically turns into a few scientists who report their findings to other scientists who believe them...and then suddenly, 'most scientists' believe the fact.

---------------

Sorry I'm not trying to be a pain, I just really want to understand because I think it's a neat fact you've pointed out...I'm just having trouble convincing myself. (You know how much I love my numbers...lol)

Both are really bad examples, but Lewontin has several papers published in that disciplinary area. He is actually very well known in the field. The Wikipedia article may actually be a better jumping-off point.

He's actually really into math too.

Remind me about it via PM and if I can't get it to you Monday I should get it to you by Wednesday.

Originally Posted by Jay

;__; People don't know what halal meat is? *facepalms.

Bushra, just to let you know there are lots of gluten free options at Mac. I knew a girl with celiac disease and she talked to Hospitality services for a consulation.

Thanks so much
I just looked up celiac disease and I think my mum and I should get tested. We have the same symptoms, mine have just gotten worse more rapidly.

Originally Posted by fasailuddin

Personally i witnessed/experienced a rather substantial amount of racism during Israeli Apartheid week. From getting strange looks for having a palestinian scarf or being called an anti semite simply because i support the Palestinians.

That is unfortunate. Being accused of antisemitism is unfair if you simply disagree with Israeli policy.

like all religions islam has its extremists. The thing with the music thing, is an interesting one. The reasoning behind it, is that music nowadays is fairly vulgar and usually talks about ideas that are forbidden. The athan is indeed melodic but doesn't constitute of any sort of beat or background music. Im not really sure how critical it is to follow it.

Originally Posted by Jay

;__; People don't know what halal meat is? *facepalms.

Bushra, just to let you know there are lots of gluten free options at Mac. I knew a girl with celiac disease and she talked to Hospitality services for a consulation.

I don't know what halal meat is. Doesn't make me a bad person, sorry to say.

I live with 4 jewish people and I still don't understand why it's blasphemy for my clean dishes to touch her clean dishes.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

I gave the first one a very quick read (I'm rather exhausted tonight from all the quote unquote 'excitement' today paired with doing a difficult assignment) and I'll give them a more thorough examination tomorrow. In particular, I looked at his second remark, regarding 85% variation in (human) genetic code.

This is what I'm not sure I buy...I mean I can't exactly sit down and read a very hefty scientific document in a subject I have no training in (and I certainly don't expect you to sit down with me and explain it all), but from what I understand, a full genome scan is a very costly procedure that takes years to do...and what I'm not sure I grasp is, without doing one, how can he be sure there's 85% variation? There may be variation in something which is deemed "Not" human genetic code, so you can't simply scan what we 'think' is human code, do you know what I mean?

Unfortunately, all he's saying is that 'the scientific community agrees.' But this ("proof by appeal to authority") is not only a trap (ie. at one point, 99% of scientists thought the earth was flat), but I just literally can't see where he's getting his numbers from...and in particular, how does Joe Average scientist get these numbers without being an expert in the field?

It basically turns into a few scientists who report their findings to other scientists who believe them...and then suddenly, 'most scientists' believe the fact.

---------------

Sorry I'm not trying to be a pain, I just really want to understand because I think it's a neat fact you've pointed out...I'm just having trouble convincing myself. (You know how much I love my numbers...lol)

I know of similar claims; I can't state specific research (not really in the mood to go looking for published articles now, but I will later if you want more proof), but, generally speaking older populations have more genetic diversity than newer ones.

The simplest way to look at this is from an evolutionary point of view. Many new species are formed via the founder effect, so a small group of the original species (Species A) leaves and adapts to a new environment to become a new species (Species B). Species B will only have the genetic variation from a small subset of all the genetic variation possible in the original Species A. A real life example of this would be Polar Bears, which are much more genetically homogeneous than the Brown Bear population they originated from. The same applies to humans, African populations are much less similar to each other than non-African populations.

This might be a much easier read for you than a scientific paper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_e...#Modern_humans

Originally Posted by Mowicz

I gave the first one a very quick read (I'm rather exhausted tonight from all the quote unquote 'excitement' today paired with doing a difficult assignment) and I'll give them a more thorough examination tomorrow. In particular, I looked at his second remark, regarding 85% variation in (human) genetic code.

The concept of genetic diversity within/between races is a confusing concept when you are first trying to understand it. I will try my best but so far I have not been able to explain it very well.

What the study proved is that 85% of genetic variation (as in the individual bases of DNA varying within a gene) of the possible 100% of all variation are present within one similar group (ex. german descendants). When you expand the area that you look at to include all Caucasians. There is an additional 10% (if i remember correctly) of genetic variation present within a larger race. So what is commonly defined as a race contains within it 95% of all possible codings for a gene (which is backwards of the commonly accepted notion of racial constructs 30+ years ago and still shocking to hear today when you know nothing about it.)

When you compare between two different races there will be up to 5% additional variation. When all of this is added together when comparing all races you will have a total of 100% genetic variation present which makes sense because your sample size is as large and diverse as possible.

The key thing to remember is its not the genetic diversity that separates us its rather that it joins us together.

Horribly made diagram
Each line represents the total genetic diversity of a group, I am hoping what I am showing is that the genetic diversity overlaps between groups, and races

Groups within race 1 (85%)
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Which can be summed up as the total genetic diversity of Race 1 (95%)
------------------------------------------------------

When added to race 2, 3, 4...
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
When you sum it all up you get the genetic diversity of the human race (100%)
----------------------------------------------------------

I hope this helps. It is very hard to explain let alone over the internet. It took about a whole lecture and half a tutorial for our class to finally completely understand what was going on. And after we were all like Ahhhhhhhh I get it now.

I apologize to Danielle (so don't get mad at me) and others for using the term race when I shouldn't be but it is the easiest way to explain it as it is concepts people are able to understand even though this paper was the first to without a shadow of doubt disprove the idea.

Yeah, there is a significant amount of genetic variation that exists in African populations, and normally you wouldn't assume so. Of course, this is based on research that suggests that anatomically modern humans arose in Africa first, and then began to migrate (i.e. Europe and Asia). Based on that alone, you can assume that we all originated from the place, and we're all descendants from one group. So hating someone based on their physical appearance is like hating yourself I guess.

Plus everyone's pretty much doing everyone. =D

Originally Posted by goodnews.inc

Pakistan has made brilliant innovations that they want credited to their name, and rightfully so.

What exactly are you talking about here?

On a side note having lived 18 years in Pakistan I really think Partition was inevitable; when religion is involved there is no way both "cultures" could have lived together. Especially with the issue that Muslims(Mughals etc) ruled the subcontinent for centuries against the Hindu majority; When the British left there is absolutely no chance Hindu majority would allow Muslim Minority any serious political power, leading to status quo conflict.

On a random note Bushra you should use the line: There actually are more muslims in India then entire Pakistan!

Originally Posted by lawleypop

I live with 4 jewish people and I still don't understand why it's blasphemy for my clean dishes to touch her clean dishes.

I think that is a bit extreme-ish of them(no offense intended) but they appear to be concerned that since you eat Pork on your plates; if your plates touch their plates then the "contamination" would transfer; or something like that. Its the same deal with Pillers deli staff using the same gloves to make pork wraps and halal meat wraps.

Originally Posted by Roke

That is unfortunate. Being accused of antisemitism is unfair if you simply disagree with Israeli policy.

Yeah lol I have such beef with the whole notion of "antisemitism"; people don't actually know the meaning of the term! Its not even "that" offensive to call yourselves "anti Semitic". Google it!

But on a different note: Beef with Israeli Humanitarian policies =/= Being Anti Jews.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

Yeah lol I have such beef with the whole notion of "antisemitism"; people don't actually know the meaning of the term! Its not even "that" offensive to call yourselves "anti Semitic". Google it!

Its not "that" offensive to call yourself anti-Semitic?

So you don't mind being labeled as someone who is prejudice against Jews?

"Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, or religion."

Originally Posted by sew12

Its not "that" offensive to call yourself anti-Semitic?

So you don't mind being labeled as someone who is prejudice against Jews?

"Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, or religion."

Yes BUT that isn't the actual definition of it! I should have clarified! I DO hope you aren't thinking that I will publicly say something that is against an ethnic background or prejudiced are you?

Edit: Essentially what I meant was that you just need a simple wiki page look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism to see how much controversy and arbitrary definitions there are for the term; People confuse anti-zionism and anti-semitisim and anti-Israelism as one term. That is essentially what I meant! :S

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

Yes BUT that isn't the actual definition of it! I should have clarified! I DO hope you aren't thinking that I will publicly say something that is against an ethnic background or prejudiced are you?

I'm not saying you're prejudiced but that is what anti-semitism is defined as and recognized as and saying that it isn't that bad to be labeled anti-Semitic strikes me as odd.

Care to post what you personally define anti-Semitic as because its pretty clear what it actually has historically been seen as, your personal definition doesn't change the negative connotation it has.

I would agree that being anti-Israeli Humanitarian policies is not anti-Semitic but being anti-Semitic is a bad thing and should be be tolerated.