As we are still on the subject of race and genetics can someone
answer the question I asked earlier;
Does aboriginal custom allow cousin marriage ?
Indeed did aborigines in previous generations permit cousin marriage
and do they have a marriage custom as we know it ?
Do they allow uncle niece marriage ?
In view of the discussion here these are important questions.

Errrr, no AJ. Correlation does not always denote causation. But quite often, it does. And that is a simple, provable premise. Rain and dark clouds are co related.

Now you are trying to claim that climate alarmists do not co-relate CO2 emissions with global warming. Our readers must be shaking their collective heads in wonder at that doozy. Thank you for saying something so ridiculous that even your most ardent supporters must be looking askance at you.

I don't know why you would be so stupid as to claim that male and female sex has nothing to do with genetics. But thank you for that one too. Your "reasoning", is that the male and female sex is determined by "chromosomes." Well, last I heard, chromosomes were the nucleic structures that carry genetic information within each cell. Males XX and females XY. Different chromosomes, different genetics. Honestly, AJ, I think you should concede failure now while you are still well behind, before you become the laughing stock of OLO.

Now you are going back to the old ploy of saying that criminal behaviour is primarily a product of environmental factors. Nature means little, nurture is everything. You have the little problem of explaining how in the animal world, where no language, culture, postcodes, bad parenting, and any other red herring you can think up exists, that sub species of mammals exist which differ markedly in intelligence and personality from others within the same species. The only plausible explanation is genetic difference. Some breeds of dogs in NSW are banned because they are so dangerous. Other breeds are required by law to be muzzled in public because of their unpredictable behaviour. Other breeds, "Labradors" are noted for their intelligence, devotion, and placid natures, which make them ideal companions for blind people. The dogs natures are artificially bred into them by breeders.

Human beings are mammals. I now expect you to write a 350 word article explaining how the genetic differences in mammalian animals that plainly determines their intelligence and personality can not possibly work in human mammals.

Not by itself, it doesn't LEGO.

<<Correlation does not always denote causation. But quite often, it does.>>

Which is the mistake you always make and are now desperately trying to avoid conceding.

<<Now you are trying to claim that climate alarmists do not co-relate CO2 emissions with global warming.>>

That's not what I said. I said that they do not rely on the correlation to prove the link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco

<<Well, last I heard, chromosomes were the nucleic structures that carry genetic information within each cell.>>

Yes, with the operative word being “carry”. Sex is still not inherited. Either way, we both agree on the point you were trying to make, but your schtick is so rehearsed that you don't even think anymore, which is why you demand a particular position from me.

<<Honestly, AJ, I think you should concede failure now while you are still well behind, before you become the laughing stock of OLO.>>

Oh, you'd love that, wouldn't you? That way, you get to run around claiming victory like the textbook narcissist that you are. Sorry, I'm not going anywhere. We've been through this before and we both know how it ends: you repeat that same arguments God-knows-how-many times, then claim victory and slink of after accusing me of dirty tricks because you're incapable of admitting when you're wrong.

You're a lot of fun, LEGO. Not very bright, but a lot of fun.

<<Now you are going back to the old ploy of saying that criminal behaviour is primarily a product of environmental factors.>>

Old ploy? No, I've never said that, just as I have never said that all creationists are stupid. You're lying again. Criminal behaviour is the result of a complex interplay between both nature and nurture.

<<Human beings are mammals. I now expect you to write a 350 word article explaining how the genetic differences in mammalian animals that plainly determines their intelligence and personality can not possibly work in human mammals.>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275039

And even within dog breeds, personalities can vary a lot

.

Dear Bazz,

.

You ask :

« Does aboriginal custom allow cousin marriage ?
Indeed did aborigines in previous generations permit cousin marriage and do they have a marriage custom as we know it ?
Do they allow uncle niece marriage ? »
.

As I only had a very vague idea of the subjects you mention, I did some research on the internet. Unfortunately, most of the relevant articles are written in technical language which is difficult for common mortals such as myself to understand. Here is what I’ve been able to glean:

Aboriginal tribes had marriage rules. From what I can gather, these rules were designed to avoid marriages between blood relations. In principle, I don’t see any difference between their system and ours. But, in practice, some tribes seem to have been more flexible in the application of their rules in respect of first cousin marriage depending on the availability or scarcity of potential partners and food. Naturally, the rules were designed to favour marriage outside the tribe.

According to my main source of information, endogamy (inbreeding) for a reproductively closed small population (such as a tribe) will eventually lead to extinction. However, we know that our indigenous peoples have thrived in Australia for about 60 000 years. Also :

« … static closed populations with prescriptive first-cousin marriage would entail the highest frequency of autosomal recessive disorders outside of strictly incestuous relations, yielding potentially high levels of inbreeding depression and correspondingly elevated mortality rates. We see little or no evidence to support these predictions » (page 37) :

http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/pub/Paradox07b.pdf

As regards a marriage custom, “There was, in most groups, no single marriage ceremony, although particular acts or events (e.g., sharing a campfire) would result in the recognition of the marriage by the community” :

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/12.%20Aboriginal%20Marriages%20and%20Family%20Structures/marriage-traditional-aboriginal-societie

You might like to read “The Last of the Nomads” by W.J. Peasley, published by Freemantle Press. I bought the French translation here in Paris. It contains a detailed description of the marriage rules of the Mandildjara nomad tribes in the Gibson Desert in central Western Australia.

.

The mistake you made, was dismissing an easily understood relationship with the trite phrase "Correlation does not denote causation." Any person with high school level mathematics can understand that graphs and statistics are all about understanding the relationships between two factors. And while they know that there can be relationships which appear linked, but they are not, there are others in which the relationship is real and obvious. In addition, your premise is a two edged sword. If you dismiss easily understood relationships between two factors with a trite phrase, then your opponents can do the same thing to you.

You are still trying to claim that sexual differences are all about chromosomes, and therefore they have nothing to do with genetics. AJ, you are telling me that the sky is green again. Even Rodney Crisp would think you are nuts. Of course, if you want to destroy your own credibility, go right ahead. Any person who is trying to decide which of us is correct will straightaway know that there is something fundamentally wrong with your ability to reason.

It's pretty hard to pin you down on any position, but I know that if I keep you writing long enough, you will eventually write something I can focus on.

OK, you have now made a statement which I can cut and paste in my "AJ positions" file. You are now saying that, "Criminal behaviour is the result of a complex interplay between both nature and nurture." Well, gee whiz AJ, isn't that what I have been trying to bash into your head for ages? Criminal behaviour is a factor of nature and nurture. Nature provides the underlying personality and nurture moulds that personality to either conform to or reject, societal expectations.

A person who is born genetically prone to low intelligence, violent behaviour, impulsiveness, and attention seeking behaviour, may, if given good parenting, and living within a society where pro social values are constantly reinforced, skirt the criminal abyss. Expose such a person to bad parenting, and a culture which glorifies criminal behaviour, and they will become criminal.

Not talking to me Rodney? Oh, well, I guess I am a bit of a handful.

It was common for aboriginal tribes to exchange (or abduct) young females to prevent inbreeding.

But aboriginals did not "marry", nor did they have traditional "families."

The power structure of an aboriginal tribe was in the primacy of the old men. The rest of the tribe were essentially the old men's slaves who did all of the hunting (males), or all of the gathering "females). Old women were just killed off. Ceremonies would be held where an old man would present a very young female to the tribe and announce that all female children born of this young female would belong to a male tribal member. That man may already be in his 20's, 30's of 40's. it was common for the old men to have harems of young females while the young men were kept separate from the females altogether.

At the age of around 11 or 12, young males were taken from their mothers (stolen?) and kept in barracks like conditions where the older boys taught them the skills of hunting and tracking. From that day on, they belonged to whichever "lodge" they were sent to, and they were not allowed to speak to their mothers or sisters again. In some tribes, even speaking to the owner of your sister or mother was forbidden.

This system was enforced through an ongoing system of painful and degrading ceremonies in which various tortures and rapes were committed on the young males, by the old males, to enforce unquestioned obedience.

This was the primary reason why in Australia, frontier wars like those in the USA were not protracted. The young aboriginal males and females, saw in the coming of the white man, a chance of a better life. They walked away from the tribal system in droves. On the frontier, they were needed. They became exceptional stockmen and stockwomen. Young females became cooks and domestic helps on isolated properties. And for some young aboriginal women, the real wives of pioneering Australian men.