View Full Version : Confessions of a Racist
People often bring up the fact that there is far more genetic variation between individuals within a race than exists between races* Usually the statistics state that approximately 5-10% of genetic variation between people is accountable on racial grounds, the vast majority is just ordinary variation between individuals. considering we vary so little from each other in the first place, it would appear that the genetic variation is tiny, race must be irrelevent, right?
The problem is that genes contain information in the relative combination of parts and not all genes necessarily play an equal part in the development of an organism. I'll use ordinary language in order to demonstrate the difference, look at the following sentences:
"important people believe in God" or "impotent people believe in God"
"discuss sex with joft" or "discuss sex, with joft"
"For sale. Antique desk with thick legs and large drawers, suitable for lady" or "For sale. Antique desk suitable for lady with thick legs and large drawers"
My point here is that if we were to simply observe the raw difference, there isn't much, a vowel change here, a comma there, or a rearrangement of words. How much difference is there? are the sentences almost as identical as their spelling? the answer is no, because sentences carry their information in the relative combination of the letters, a small change can have a big consequence on what a sentence means.
Using words again, imagine you took all the letters in this post and jumbled them up randomly, the bit by bit content would be exactly the same as what you are reading, but would it be the same? would it be 100% the same? This is the problem with genes, like letters, even one different gene can have radical consequences on how an organism develops, simply stating that genetic variance is very small can be misleading.
To give a more practical example, chimpanzees apparently share about 98% of their genes with humans, but they are not 98% similar. Then we have genetic switches, like the human sex determining chromosome, that have developmental consequences on how many other genes are expressed, they have phenotypic effects beyond the percentage of the genome they represent.
In other words, a 1% difference in DNA, does not mean a 1% difference in how much information the DNA carries, since the information is embedded in the relational properties and combination, there isn't a simple one-to-one correlation.
*while also claiming that the races do not exist at all :huh:
joft
12 Apr 2006, 11:50 PM
* it's a matter of terminology, perhaps some of them forget to do this, but i've seen them say that the variation exists between what people say are different races, or between populations
The problem is that genes contain information in the relative combination of parts and not all genes necessarily play an equal part in the development of an organism. I'll use ordinary language in order to demonstrate the difference, look at the following sentences:
"important people believe in God" or "impotent people believe in God"
"discuss sex with joft" or "discuss sex, with joft"
"For sale. Antique desk with thick legs and large drawers, suitable for lady" or "For sale. Antique desk suitable for lady with thick legs and large drawers"
My point here is that if we were to simply observe the raw difference, there isn't much, a vowel change here, a comma there, or a rearrangement of words. How much difference is there? are the sentences almost as identical as their spelling? the answer is no, because sentences carry their information in the relative combination of the letters, a small change can have a big consequence on what a sentence means.
That's one of the worst analogies for anything I've ever seen.
joft
13 Apr 2006, 12:17 AM
no, it does make the valid point that having a gene in common doesn't mean much, just as two words having the same letters in common, or two sentences having the same words, etc, can be completely different.
no, it does make the valid point that having a gene in common doesn't mean much, just as two words having the same letters in common, or two sentences having the same words, etc, can be completely different.
Genes aren't english sentences.
Kilby
13 Apr 2006, 01:35 AM
Genes aren't english sentences.
That's beautiful. Can I use that sentence as my sig?
That's beautiful. Can I use that sentence as my sig?
Sure.
Genes aren't english sentences.DNA is transcripted onto mRNA, which then travels as a messenger to the ribosomes where it interacts with tRNA to translate the code into proteins. Genetics is riddled with the language of linguistics, and for good reason, the basic quality of both langauge and genes are that they embed the information they carry in the relations between the individual parts, the combination carries the information or meaning, changing the combination, even by a small amount can radically change the meaning of the sentence, the same can be said of the information in DNA.
Of course, "genes aren't english sentences," but they both have a common characteristic that was relevent to the point I was trying to make. Since everyone is more familiar with language than genetic code, I thought it'd be right to use langauge as an example to demonstrate the underlying principle.
DNA is translated onto mRNA, which then travels as a messenger to the ribosomes where it interacts with tRNA to transcript the code into proteins. Genetics is riddled with the language of linguistics, and for good reason, the basic quality of both langauge and genes are that they embed the information they carry in the relations between the individual parts, the combination carries the information or meaning, changing the combination, even by a small amount can radically change the meaning of the sentence, the same can be said of the information in DNA.
Of course, "genes aren't english sentences," but they both have a common characteristic that was relevent to the point I was trying to make. Since everyone is more familiar with language than genetic code, I thought it'd be right to use langauge as an example to demonstrate the underlying principle.
Ok, why the analogy was bad, for starters. In altering those sentences, you were altering them more than 1%. Given a wider spectrum of words (ie a paragraph) your words would have just seemed like a typo and not altered the meaning significantly.
If genes are riddled with the "language of linguistics", which doesn't make any sense when you think about it since linguistics is the study of language, but if they are, it's probably more likely a feeble attempt for us to be able to understand what is going on and put it into a relatable context, which again, is also feeble. You breaking the language of genes down even more just renders your examples totally meaningless since genes already have their own language and certainly don't benefit from your translations.
Basically, your analogies can't work because you are oversimplifying something that's already been made simple (by your own description) and you've rendered your original point moot by doing it.
Ok, why the analogy was bad, for starters. In altering those sentences, you were altering them more than 1%. Given a wider spectrum of words (ie a paragraph) your words would have just seemed like a typo and not altered the meaning significantly.
If genes are riddled with the "language of linguistics", which doesn't make any sense when you think about it since linguistics is the study of language, but if they are, it's probably more likely a feeble attempt for us to be able to understand what is going on and put it into a relatable context, which again, is also feeble. You breaking the language of genes down even more just renders your examples totally meaningless since genes already have their own language and certainly don't benefit from your translations.
Basically, your analogies can't work because you are oversimplifying something that's already been made simple (by your own description) and you've rendered your original point moot by doing it.Are you intentionally trying to be stupid? To say that you spectacularly missed the point would be a massive understatement.
Are you intentionally trying to be stupid? To say that you spectacularly missed the point would be a massive understatement.
No, I got the point. It's why your analogy doesn't work. Linguistics isn't a sentence and you are trying to tell us that you can make us understand it (I really mean genes) by using one or two sentences. People go to university and get degrees in linguistics, and genetics, to understand them fully. You aren't going to be able to by oversimplifying it for everyone.
No, I got the point. It's why your analogy doesn't work. Linguistics isn't a sentence.Wildcat? is that you?
Wildcat? is that you?
Sure is headfonez, sure is.
Xenophon
13 Apr 2006, 03:33 AM
I'm a racist too, I believe that mixed race people are superior to all you inbred single race people! Ever read Dune?
TelecomClone
13 Apr 2006, 05:22 AM
If by 'race' one is referring to nothing but the outwardly visible genetic trends which are the result of climatic variations (specifically the availability of solar nutrients, temperature, altitude, humidity, etc), then while it could be argued that 'race' exists as such, it would also be the case that 'race' is physically irrelevant in any sociocultural or political sense. If however by 'race' one also purports to include behavioral and intellectual traits, then I would challenge that person to empirically illustrate an intrinsic link between the 'racial' biology in question and the aforementioned traits. And unfortunately for a person who dogmatically believes in that kind of link, no one has ever been able to produce anything but sophistry that does not hold to biology with any scientific concrecity. No such link exists outside of the ideological squawking of tribalist primitives who selectively coax and contort statistics.
Furthermore, in reality, even these fudged statistical samples are necessarily tainted by linguistic relativism and, derivatively, cultural relativism - amongst myriad other socio-psychological factors that are not accounted for. None of which are generated by the bioclimatic adaptation ('race') that contemporary society uses to arbitrarily compartmentalize and objectify them. The reason, in case you weren't aware, that we are forced to look at minute genetic subtleties such as repetitive microsatellites (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15625622) when exploring 'race' is that the global expression of human DNA is intensely shallow. So much so, in fact, that one single familial group of chimps - parents, children and first cousins - has more genetic diversity between them than the totality of the billions of humans that are alive today have across their entire cumulative expression. The above lends no legitimacy to the concept of 'race' as distinction that biologically carries intrinsic social or political significance, but only to the concept of 'race' as the superficially observable, wholly impermanent bioclimatic adaptations of a single organism or 'species' (id est humanity).
The topic has no value.
cjs55
13 Apr 2006, 05:51 AM
If by 'race' one is referring to nothing but the outwardly visible genetic trends which are the result of climatic variations (specifically the availability of solar nutrients, temperature, altitude, humidity, etc)
hmm.
http://users.bluecarrots.com/rbisto/BBC/race.html
tinribz
13 Apr 2006, 06:44 AM
There is a lot of that article I agree with and a lot I don't. I reckon most of the answers are indeed down to social factors influencing sexual selection, but the emphasis on parental choice of sexual partners i.e. the father choosing his daughter's husband, be it directly of indirectly through social pressure, rather than infanticide. The choice being based on an innate desire to have our children turn out as close to us as possible, therefore selecting a mate as socially and physically as similar, and probably closely related.
There are also the geographic and population level considerations, tribes are closely related and started with a very small common ancestry, an extended family that decided to move on further in to the wilderness and probably thereafter had little contact, especially young girls, with anyone outside the immediate small hunter-gatherer community.
War / conflict is very resource related, I would be more inclined to believe that isolation played a more important role, although rare events like mini ice ages may have induced some reductions in diversity through conflict. And the effects of disease resistance or lack of it should not be underplayed, look at the native Americans.
If by 'race' one is referring to nothing but the outwardly visible genetic trends which are the result of climatic variations (specifically the availability of solar nutrients, temperature, altitude, humidity, etc), then while it could be argued that 'race' exists as such, it would also be the case that 'race' is physically irrelevant in any sociocultural or political sense. If however by 'race' one also purports to include behavioral and intellectual traits, then I would challenge that person to empirically illustrate an intrinsic link between the 'racial' biology in question and the aforementioned traits. And unfortunately for a person who dogmatically believes in that kind of link, no one has ever been able to produce anything but sophistry that does not hold to biology with any scientific concrecity. No such link exists outside of the ideological squawking of tribalist primitives who selectively coax and contort statistics.That's convenient, anybody who finds statistics or suggests a theory that indicates an average difference in cognitive skills or personality traits amongst races is prejudged as racist?
"If however by 'race' one also purports to include behavioral and intellectual traits, then I would challenge that person to empirically illustrate an intrinsic link between the 'racial' biology in question and the aforementioned traits"
I could challenge you to demonstrate empirically that there is no link between behavioural and intellectual traits. You have assumed there is not, when there are perfectly good reasons why there might be, there is no reason to assume that the brain has been completely exempt from the selective pressures which produced outwardly obvious variation. There is also a lot of evidence which is suggestive, though by no means conclusive, in supporting that claim.
You seem to think that the default position should be that there are no cognitive differences, but considering there are outwardly visible differences and the brain can be acutely sensitive to the presence of absence of even single genes, I actually think that the hypothesis that there is no uneven distribution in gene frequency that have influences on behavioursal or intellectual abilities unlikely.
Furthermore, in reality, even these fudged statistical samples are necessarily tainted by linguistic relativism and, derivatively, cultural relativism - amongst myriad other socio-psychological factors that are not accounted for.The vast majority of the researchers who have found these statistics have remianed inconclusive on what the causes are.
None of which are generated by the bioclimatic adaptation ('race') that contemporary society uses to arbitrarily compartmentalize and objectify them. The reason, in case you weren't aware, that we are forced to look at minute genetic subtleties such as repetitive microsatellites (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15625622) when exploring 'race' is that the global expression of human DNA is intensely shallow. So much so, in fact, that one single familial group of chimps - parents, children and first cousins - has more genetic diversity between them than the totality of the billions of humans that are alive today have across their entire cumulative expression. The above lends no legitimacy to the concept of 'race' as distinction that biologically carries intrinsic social or political significance, but only to the concept of 'race' as the superficially observable, wholly impermanent bioclimatic adaptations of a single organism or 'species' (id est humanity).I agree, racial grouping, genetic clustering, large inbred extended families, whatever you want to call it, does not carry intrinsic social or political signifcance. Belief that racism is morally abhorrent is a belief that exists independent of any lumpiness in gene frequency distribution. However, there is one exception, if people from different ancestral locations really do have quantative difference in average behavioural and intellectual skills, even when all else is equal, then we cannot use evidence of uneven distribution of the races through social life as irrefutable proof of racist policies. But note, I am not claiming that racial discrimination does not exist and does not need to be tackled, only that the empirical assumption that there is no difference at all, may lead us to wrongly infer that racism is occuring. I am quite convinced that whatever differences may exist, they are likely to be very small quantative variations, nothing more.
The shallow nature of human gene variation and the seemingly tiny differences in DNA that are accountable on race, was exactly why I started this thread, because even small differences, can still have large consequences. The article you linked to seemd to conclude that there is a strong relationship betweeen the standard racial categorisation labels like white, African American, Hispanic, East Asian and genetic markers.
I even stated in my original post, the variation is small, but that doesn't mean the difference in the information which the genes carry is as small. The facts which people produce can be misleading for that reason.
eyebyte_atWork
13 Apr 2006, 12:44 PM
OK - so what is the point to all this banter?
I understand that we all want to understand nature, life, and all kinds of shit... but at the same time aren;t we getting a little ahead of ourselves?
Lee - You posed a good question - and here is what I interpreted : Does even the slightest genetic variance cause larger variances overall (or downstream)? Who the fuck knows, really. But this would not be limited to race... it would also encompass the variance that cause autism, mental disorders, webbed feet, etc.
But I still have to wonder the reason we ask these questions in regards to race. Why not in regards to sickness, desease, deformations, mental disorders and all other kinds of shit that may actually be more useful than figuring out race differences.
Lee - you are a smart guy... do you wonder why you go here (the race card) often? Or is that out of the scope of your curiosity?
OK - so what is the point to all this banter?
Lee - you are a smart guy... do you wonder why you go here (the race card) often? Or is that out of the scope of your curiosity?People reflexively seem to think that one empirical assumption should be taken by default and that all evidence to the contrary is not evidence to the contrary at all, but can be written off as a political agenda.
Despite both I and particularly cjs55, providing a lot of good reason and evidence as to why there is likely to be a difference, people simply write off this evidence as racist or unconvincing, demanding that some very high standard of proof be satsified before they change their minds, yet their own position comes nowhere near that same standard of proof.
More often that not, people commit the naturalistic fallacy, whereby they feel that any acceptance of some average quantative difference between geographically seperated ancestral groups (IOW, the races), somehow would justify racism, you find that many militant feminists make the same mistake when researchers find differences between the sexes.
Instead of realising that hinging your moral beliefs off assumptions about human biology is fundamentally flawed, they move to slander the proponents of such information, suppress the facts, or simply keep claiming that because we cannot be certain that there are differences, we should assume there aren't.
The logical flaw is that I could just as equally say "because we cannot be certain that there aren't any innate differences, we should assume there are." Really I do not even support this position, I do not want to make an assumption about some biological fact, but for now, the evidence and reason suggests that there probably are small differences, people who default to the "aren't any differences" are committing the moralistic fallacy, choosing to believe what is morally preferrable despite of evidence.
Edit: this topic is interesting, largley because it's indicative of how people think about similar topics.
eyebyte_atWork
13 Apr 2006, 01:55 PM
People reflexively seem to think that one empirical assumption should be taken by default and that all evidence to the contrary is not evidence to the contrary at all, but can be written off as a political agenda.
Despite both I and particularly cjs55, providing a lot of good reason and evidence as to why there is likely to be a difference, people simply write off this evidence as racist or unconvincing, demanding that some very high standard of proof be satsified before they change their minds, yet their own position comes nowhere near that same standard of proof.
More often that not, people commit the naturalistic fallacy, whereby they feel that any acceptance of some average quantative difference between geographically seperated ancestral groups (IOW, the races), somehow would justify racism, you find that many militant feminists make the same mistake when researchers find differences between the sexes.
Instead of realising that hinging your moral beliefs off assumptions about human biology is fundamentally flawed, they move to slander the proponents of such information, suppress the facts, or simply keep claiming that because we cannot be certain that there are differences, we should assume there aren't.
The logical flaw is that I could just as equally say "because we cannot be certain that there aren't any innate differences, we should assume there are." Really I do not even support this position, I do not want to make an assumption about some biological fact, but for now, the evidence and reason suggests that there probably are small differences, people who default to the "aren't any differences" are committing the moralistic fallacy, choosing to believe what is morally preferrable despite of evidence.
Edit: this topic is interesting, largley because it's indicative of how people think about similar topics.
Spoken like a true thinker.
Edit: this topic is interesting, largley because it's indicative of how people think about similar topics.
I actually find the topic interesting for that same reason, I however find it completely fruitless for a variety of other reasons.
Those fruitless reasons have to do with the fact that you can't ever look at any of this stuff inside a vacuum, no matter how hard you try. People have a context outside of wikipedia or amazon.
eyebyte_atWork
13 Apr 2006, 02:48 PM
I actually find the topic interesting for that same reason, I however find it completely fruitless for a variety of other reasons.
Those fruitless reasons have to do with the fact that you can't ever look at any of this stuff inside a vacuum, no matter how hard you try. People have a context outside of wikipedia or amazon.
I totally agree... and that has been my point too. We ask questions... why do we ask them??... and there lies more biasing... because we do not live in a vacuum.
Further - we won't change our position easily either.
You are correct - interesting fruitless trees grow here.
Mr. Beef
14 Apr 2006, 12:12 PM
It isn't fruitless to study it objectively, but it's fruitless to try and convince a bunch of people who perceive an objective argument as a bigotted racial attack that is in fact simply an objective argument, nothing more. Quite frankly a lot of the people on here are just as ignorant as the norm. A lot of times I think I could have better discussions with people at the DMV.
Edit: this topic is interesting, largley because it's indicative of how people think about similar topics.
Indeed. Indeed. This is indicative of how people let moral values cloud their judgments in just about any social controversy. The statement "All humans are equal" is a harmonious statement, but it's just an ideal, not a reality. The truth is that there are things we sometimes like to believe because they are soothing to the mind. Are they true? Not most of the time. Since we're analyzing this objectively, our moral values should not cloud our judgments.
kendoiwan
14 Apr 2006, 02:18 PM
Objective arguements huh? Genetics huh? I'm inclined to believe that you guys don't believe the bullshit that your typing yourselves...
The whole construct of race is artificial... who gets to be a white person? How is that decided? A few years back and Italians wouldn't have passed the muster. Go back further, The Polish, back some more the Irish... So on and etc. So what happened that changed their official racial status? Cultural assimilation. Plain and simple. Race is more a function of culture than any other imaginable variable. Plain and simple. :banghead:
eyebyte_atWork
14 Apr 2006, 02:22 PM
Objective arguements huh? Genetics huh? I'm inclined to believe that you guys don't believe the bullshit that your typing yourselves...
The whole construct of race is artificial... who gets to be a white person? How is that decided? A few years back and Italians wouldn't have passed the muster. Go back further, The Polish, back some more the Irish... So on and etc. So what happened that changed their official racial status? Cultural assimilation. Plain and simple. Race is more a function of culture than any other imaginable variable. Plain and simple. :banghead:
My whole point.... ofcourse you said it slightly better.
We are the sum of our fore-fathers experiences. Which is why asking these questions in the first place is born out of this bias. Asking questions is not wrong or out of place - but why we ask the questions in the first place should be considered. Kendo - you said the same thing - but more clear. You are correct - we are now more the subjects of cultural evolution than biological evolution.
xavierd
14 Apr 2006, 03:18 PM
Just my two cents...All humans are not equal in ability but we should all have equal opportunity and I think that is an important distinction that gets lost in these kind of debates. Though it is not totally proven, it makes logical sense that genes affect physical as well as mental ability as Lee has said and it makes logical sense that groups of humans who were exposed to differing environmental pressures will evolve differing physical and mental abilities. Now the only matters that this should affect is an indiviuals ability to accomplish certain tasks, jobs, etc. but it should not affect an indiviuals opportunity to pursue a task, apply for a job, etc.
So to summarize I agree with Lee in that the study of genes in relation to human ability should not automatically be labeled as racist.
kendoiwan
14 Apr 2006, 04:56 PM
Just my two cents...All humans are not equal in ability but we should all have equal opportunity and I think that is an important distinction that gets lost in these kind of debates. Though it is not totally proven, it makes logical sense that genes affect physical as well as mental ability as Lee has said and it makes logical sense that groups of humans who were exposed to differing environmental pressures will evolve differing physical and mental abilities. Now the only matters that this should affect is an indiviuals ability to accomplish certain tasks, jobs, etc. but it should not affect an indiviuals opportunity to pursue a task, apply for a job, etc.
So to summarize I agree with Lee in that the study of genes in relation to human ability should not automatically be labeled as racist.
No not a racist... just extremely misguided with racist potential... It seems you are utterly unaware of the implications... :mellow:
Allow me to entertain your and Lee's foolishness for a moment... Fine genetics must play some role in intellegence... I'll concede that much... but for your theory to be workable you must now prove something that all evidence available currently does not support. The link between the genes that cause skin pigmintation and intellegence. Plain and simple...
What your proposing is that 85% of the planets population is somehow intellectually inferior from the gene pool. What you proposing is that if you took the best and brightest from every "race" and put them in the same room to compete that those of a certain "race" would be disadvantaged, that they couldn't excel past a certain thresehold do to their genetics... :banghead:
xavierd
14 Apr 2006, 05:59 PM
I understand your concern but just because something has the potential to be used for an evil purpose does not mean that it is evil and should be avoided. This is the point Lee is trying to get across. Yes someone could use the information gathered to further a racist agenda, but that is a whole different ball game. It is that person who uses this info for that purpose that is evil not the information itself. It is this racist attitude that should be attacked not the objective search for information.
Besides the information gathered would apply to people in general not individually. And another thing, what is so wrong with being different? I accept that I am not as strong or athletic as my best friend, IOW he has a higher kinetic(sp?) IQ and he accepts that I am more intelligent with abstract concepts then he is...then there is my other friend who is mentally sharper than I am...we all still get along.
kendoiwan
14 Apr 2006, 06:10 PM
I understand your concern but just because something has the potential to be used for an evil purpose does not mean that it is evil and should be avoided. This is the point Lee is trying to get across. Yes someone could use the information gathered to further a racist agenda, but that is a whole different ball game. It is that person who uses this info for that purpose that is evil not the information itself. It is this racist attitude that should be attacked not the objective search for information.
Besides the information gathered would apply to people in general not individually. And another thing, what is so wrong with being different? I accept that I am not as strong or athletic as my best friend, IOW he has a higher kinetic(sp?) IQ and he accepts that I am more intelligent with abstract concepts then he is...then there is my other friend who is mentally sharper than I am...we all still get along.
Evil? This is sloppy thinking plain and simple... Does your friend belong to a race of stronger more athletic people... or can he just thank mom and dad? Does your other friend come from a race of mentally sharper people? Or can he just thank mom and dad, and whatever teachers he had along the way? :banghead:
Master O
14 Apr 2006, 06:10 PM
race is such a tedious subject. just a bunch of people with their minds already made up, rationalizing in futility.
people don't really want to change their mind on this topic, they just want to justify the stance they already have all the while appearing to have an open mind.
coffeezombie
14 Apr 2006, 06:30 PM
race is such a tedious subject. just a bunch of people with their minds already made up, rationalizing in futility.
people don't really want to change their mind on this topic, they just want to justify the stance they already have all the while appearing to have an open mind.
I agree. Even if people meet one or two people of a different race that they like, they will just say "I dislike most people of such and such race." They usually don't make the connection in their heads at all.
Jasz
14 Apr 2006, 06:36 PM
the whole race discussion shows how we think and feel with our eyes
xavierd
14 Apr 2006, 06:54 PM
Evil? This is sloppy thinking plain and simple... Does your friend belong to a race of stronger more athletic people... or can he just thank mom and dad? Does your other friend come from a race of mentally sharper people? Or can he just thank mom and dad, and whatever teachers he had along the way? :banghead:
I only used evil for lack of a better word. And yes they can thank their parents for the GENE's they supplied them. lol teachers...teachers had nothing to do with my friend being intelligent. He is still one of my most intelligent friends and environment had little to do with it...He dropped out of HS in 9th had an abusive childhood, drunk mom, etc.
Sorry to hurt your feelings but people are different, people have differing abilities...but to treat others as inferior because of this is ridiculous. Just because someone is smarter than me does not make them better or more deserving of special treatment...it makes them different. That's all it means...they're different. I am just trying to make myself clear...Is one race more intelligent or physically stronger than another? Of course I don't know for sure but I do not find it immoral if there are. Do I think genes effect our mental and physical abilities? Yes. Do I think this is proof of one races superiority over another? No. Does this mean I think there are differences among the races? Yes. Of course! Environment as well as genetic history are causes. Why the hell would the Asian languages be so different from ours? Because they had more rice fields? Maybe...but more likely because the makeup of their brains differ slightly causing them to react more strongly toward certain sounds. So I agree that to look down upon someone because of their genetic make up is wrong but I do believe that genetic differences exist.
xavierd
14 Apr 2006, 07:01 PM
race is such a tedious subject. just a bunch of people with their minds already made up, rationalizing in futility.
people don't really want to change their mind on this topic, they just want to justify the stance they already have all the while appearing to have an open mind.
Yes...why have an intelligent discussion on such a tedious subject? Let us just sweep it under the rug and not bother our minds with such a trivial subject because apparently its not that big a deal. Or is it that you would rather us just pick a side and blindly agree? You are either racist or enlightened, correct?
kendoiwan
14 Apr 2006, 07:06 PM
I only used evil for lack of a better word. And yes they can thank their parents for the GENE's they supplied them. lol teachers...teachers had nothing to do with my friend being intelligent. He is still one of my most intelligent friends and environment had little to do with it...He dropped out of HS in 9th had an abusive childhood, drunk mom, etc.
Sorry to hurt your feelings but people are different, people have differing abilities...but to treat others as inferior because of this is ridiculous. Just because someone is smarter than me does not make them better or more deserving of special treatment...it makes them different. That's all it means...they're different. I am just trying to make myself clear...Is one race more intelligent or physically stronger than another? Of course I don't know for sure but I do not find it immoral if there are. Do I think genes effect our mental and physical abilities? Yes. Do I think this is proof of one races superiority over another? No. Does this mean I think there are differences among the races? Yes. Of course! Environment as well as genetic history are causes. Why the hell would the Asian languages be so different from ours? Because they had more rice fields? Maybe...but more likely because the makeup of their brains differ slightly causing them to react more strongly toward certain sounds. So I agree that to look down upon someone because of their genetic make up is wrong but I do believe that genetic differences exist.
<_< there is no genetic marker for race, skin color maybe, but not race... you are more likely to have more in common genetically with someone from another race than you are with someone who shares your racial classification... race is a function of culture and history... I'm sorry you've convinced yourself of this nonsense you're spouting good day sir:banghead:
Master O
14 Apr 2006, 07:22 PM
Yes...why have an intelligent discussion on such a tedious subject? Let us just sweep it under the rug and not bother our minds with such a trivial subject because apparently its not that big a deal. Or is it that you would rather us just pick a side and blindly agree? You are either racist or enlightened, correct?
Don't be so smug cool breeze.
What are we actually accomplishing with this. This subject has been debated so many times on this site. Nothing new other than format is being put forth.
Get over yourself.
Edit: Besides, I wasn't telling anyone not to discuss it. Just stating my opinion. Seems to me you're just waiting for an opportunity to assert some type of superiority. Hmmm... what else do feel "superior" about?
xavierd
14 Apr 2006, 07:29 PM
<_< there is no genetic marker for race, skin color maybe, but not race... you are more likely to have more in common genetically with someone from another race than you are with someone who shares your racial classification... race is a function of culture and history... I'm sorry you've convinced yourself of this nonsense you're spouting good day sir:banghead:
You are right. There is no single genetic marker for race but a collection of markers common to people of a certain genetic background. I guess if you wanted to look at it at an extremely objective point of view and say there are no races only collections of instructions on how to build an indiviual.
I agree that culture is also a big part of racial difference but where did these cultures come from? They were created by each group of humans. These humans were created from a certain line of genetic markers. Genes came first then culture.
But again what does it matter if your genes or culture is different from mine? It only proves that we are different. No big deal. How boring it would be if we were all just perfect copies of each other....
xavierd
14 Apr 2006, 07:38 PM
Don't be so smug cool breeze.
What are we actually accomplishing with this. This subject has been debated so many times on this site. Nothing new other than format is being put forth.
Well the issue has not been resolved, which I doubt it ever will...until they perfect cloning and such. This subject has always been a hot topic on and off this forum. If you want to create change you must interact with others and put forth your ideas and the only way to gain knowledge is to seek it and that is what I think we try to do here.
You are right I did come off as smug which was not my intention. I was just annoyed because I took your comment to mean that you were just writing off the subject as tedious and not worth the effort. I appologize.
Master O
14 Apr 2006, 08:09 PM
Well the issue has not been resolved, which I doubt it ever will...until they perfect cloning and such. This subject has always been a hot topic on and off this forum. If you want to create change you must interact with others and put forth your ideas and the only way to gain knowledge is to seek it and that is what I think we try to do here.
You are right I did come off as smug which was not my intention. I was just annoyed because I took your comment to mean that you were just writing off the subject as tedious and not worth the effort. I appologize.
no problem. the subject does need to be dealt with, but i also know to avoid banging my head against a wall.
personally, I am writing off the subject until whatever time I choose to re-engage (no time soon). I'm just not an activist type and so moving along at a snails pace does not appeal to me, nor does trying to push immovable objects.
jittus rye
14 Apr 2006, 08:28 PM
There's a lot besides skin color that goes into a race. Damn. Wtf... If I wanted to I could create my own race of pet people with whatever characteristics I wanted, and yes, they would be different for better or for worse from the average of the species.
INThoughtPolice
15 Apr 2006, 08:50 AM
That's one of the worst analogies for anything I've ever seen.
Yep, a huge stretch.:wtf:
JBHunt
23 Apr 2006, 09:21 PM
DNA is transcripted onto mRNA, which then travels as a messenger to the ribosomes where it interacts with tRNA to translate the code into proteins.
Nice touch to use transcription and translation to "validate" your puny knowledge of genetics. More points for using mRNA, tRNA, and ribosomes.
Next time talk about DNA polymerases, RNA polymerases, start and stop codons, Introns vs. exons into your mix...maybe you'll be more convincing.
Lee, your first mistake: Assuming you are objective.
charred_heart
23 Apr 2006, 09:54 PM
hmmm, let's see. According to your ordinary language example:
"important people believe in God"
and
"impotent people believe in God"
are two different sentences with a slight change in lettering. The question I have is, can these two sentences be related two each other just because there's a slight difference between them?
If you try joining the two sentences:
"important people believe in God" while "impotent people believe in God"
"important people believe in God" and "impotent people believe in God"
"important people believe in God" but "impotent people believe in God"
You will always find that one sentence negates the other, the two sentences actually contradict each other. If we switch to genetics, we find that a human male and a chimpanzee female cannot produce a child even though their genetic makeup is 'similiar'. What am I saying? That similiarities in the genetic mapping of two species doesn't make them compatible. It's HOW the genes are mapped, not in what order.
songbird36
23 Apr 2006, 09:58 PM
People often bring up the fact that there is far more genetic variation between individuals within a race than exists between races* Usually the statistics state that approximately 5-10% of genetic variation between people is accountable on racial grounds, the vast majority is just ordinary variation between individuals. considering we vary so little from each other in the first place, it would appear that the genetic variation is tiny, race must be irrelevent, right?
*while also claiming that the races do not exist at all :huh:
Irrelevant to what? Accepting that your argument is true, what is your point?
Nice touch to use transcription and translation to "validate" your puny knowledge of genetics. More points for using mRNA, tRNA, and ribosomes.
Next time talk about DNA polymerases, RNA polymerases, start and stop codons, Introns vs. exons into your mix...maybe you'll be more convincing.
Lee, your first mistake: Assuming you are objective.I do not know a great deal about genetics, but I do know that information is held in the relative combination, a single gene can have far reaching consequences on how an organism develops, despite only representing a tiny fraction of the DNA.
Even on the most basic level, it is the combination. The codon ggt codes for the amino acid glycine while tgg codes for tryptopan, taken apart piece for piece, the information is the same, but the arrangement can have very different conseqences for the shape and functioning of the end protein.
Then we have all the self-regulating functions of the genome, genes which act to inhibit or increase the expression of other genes. The language analogy works because even small difference to the arrangement can have very different consequences, the use of words like transcription, translation, libraries, codes etc. were simply to demonstrate that many of the underlying principles transcend the differences between them, because they are both fundamentally about carrying information.
As for "assuming I am objective," I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, it sounds condescending, but since you didn't actually claim that anything I said was incorrect, it sounds unwarranted. Why you thought it necessary to insult me I don't know, I never claimed to have deep knowledge about genetics, and I was careful to not overstep the bounds of what I did know, yet you still feel the need to deride my comments without actually demonstrating that they are false in any way.
are two different sentences with a slight change in lettering. The question I have is, can these two sentences be related two each other just because there's a slight difference between them?
If you try joining the two sentences:
"important people believe in God" while "impotent people believe in God"
"important people believe in God" and "impotent people believe in God"
"important people believe in God" but "impotent people believe in God"
You will always find that one sentence negates the other, the two sentences actually contradict each other. If we switch to genetics, we find that a human male and a chimpanzee female cannot produce a child even though their genetic makeup is 'similiar'. What am I saying? That similiarities in the genetic mapping of two species doesn't make them compatible. It's HOW the genes are mapped, not in what order.I don't know what you are arguing with here, I think you have missed the point.
I do not know a great deal about genetics
Then why are you starting threads explaining race as a function of genetics?
Then why are you starting threads explaining race as a function of genetics?Because the underlying principle here isn't that difficult, it applies to compact discs, human language, genomes, computer processing etc. it's about information.
It's not just speculation, it's well known that many genetic diseases are basically due to single genes, like Huntingdon's, sickle cell or cystic fibrosis. Some of these genes have cascading consequences far greater than the percetage of the genome they occupy, even 0.001% difference in DNA does not imply 0.001% difference in the developed organism, this is because the information is bound up in the relative seuquence of distinct parts, which even a small change can radically alter.
Because the underlying principle here isn't that difficult, it applies to compact discs, human language, genomes, computer processing etc. it's about information.
It's not just speculation, it's well known that many genetic diseases are basically due to single genes, like Huntingdon's, sickle cell or cystic fibrosis. Some of these genes have cascading consequences far greater than the percetage of the genome they occupy, even 0.001% difference in DNA does not imply 0.001% difference in the developed organism, this is because the information is bound up in the relative seuquence of distinct parts, which even a small change can radically alter.
Do you be believe any underlying principles are difficult?
I don't remember using the word "speculation". You said you don't know a great deal about genetics. Then you proceeded to provide us with a great deal of information about genetics. I remember we used to have this business book on our bookshelf once, it was called, Beware the Naked Man Who Offers You His Shirt. This thread reminds me of that.
Hustler
24 Apr 2006, 06:58 AM
Some of these genes have cascading consequences far greater than the percetage of the genome they occupy, even 0.001% difference in DNA does not imply 0.001% difference in the developed organism, this is because the information is bound up in the relative seuquence of distinct parts, which even a small change can radically alter.
Eh, it sort of does mean that. I mean, by some interpretations of an organism's identity, that's exactly what it means. That said, the human genome is just that, the human genome. Of course, changing a very small number of genes is going to seem like a big deal sometimes, but that's only because you're investigating this relative to humans. Compare two humans with virtually identical DNA, but maybe one or two differences which seem to have immense repercussions, to something like a frog, and you see that the humans really are virtually identical, in the great scheme of things. None of this is very meaningful to someone looking for a genetic basis for racism, but I just thought I would point out that your analysis of the statistics is a little misleading.
Whatever the case, these are the ideas and concerns of a bygone era. Races, as we know them, are not much longer for the world, and any supposed inherited genetic advantages correlated to any particular race will be eradicated by a continued increase, globally, of race mixing and the inevitable move we will see in the 21st century into transhumanism. I think it's going to be a fun time to be around.
Zero Angel
24 Apr 2006, 08:15 AM
I agree that genetic differences between races are large enough to cause many variations other than skin and eye color. Bone structure, body odour, and tolerance or intolerance for certain adverse conditions (like dehydration, diseases) *do* exist as part of genetics. And so it can also be said that perhaps differences in the brain may also exist.
I have yet to see a study which proves this with absolute certainty, but I can speculate that it does, since the brain is such a delicate organ, and tiny (ie: 1%) variations can count for a lot when it comes to things like cognitive development and thinking styles. Also, given the political climate around such studies, who would really support them? Justify racism? The end result (justifying racial superiority -> ethnic cleansing for people who choose to interpret it a certain way) might be worse than the intended result.
Of course, culture has more to do with intelligence than race does. If you take a chinese or indian kid for example who would otherwise grow up to be a doctor, and put him in a trailer-trash household where all people do all day is watch TV, parents don't care if he does his homework, then he wouldn't have a very good chance of becoming a doctor, would he?
As far as the opening analogy goes, I found it to be accurate enough to get the point. Let's not argue semantics here.
(slowly catching up on this thread)
Zero Angel
24 Apr 2006, 08:55 AM
Whatever the case, these are the ideas and concerns of a bygone era. Races, as we know them, are not much longer for the world, and any supposed inherited genetic advantages correlated to any particular race will be eradicated by a continued increase, globally, of race mixing and the inevitable move we will see in the 21st century into transhumanism. I think it's going to be a fun time to be around.
Now you are talking some sense. Races do not typically devolve when mixed with each other. It just seems logical that as a part of natural selection additional enhancements (ie: one partner has a resistance towards smallpox, while the other has better sun resistance) will stick more often or not. Certainly, certain partners will introduce genetic weaknesses like diabetes *especially* when both partners have this defective gene, but more often not the human race tends towards better immunity and hardiness, otherwise 'evolution' would fail to exist.
Zero Angel
24 Apr 2006, 09:02 AM
Do you be believe any underlying principles are difficult?
I don't remember using the word "speculation". You said you don't know a great deal about genetics. Then you proceeded to provide us with a great deal of information about genetics. I remember we used to have this business book on our bookshelf once, it was called, Beware the Naked Man Who Offers You His Shirt. This thread reminds me of that.
What you are doing:
Attacking Lee's credentials
What you are *not* doing:
Offering any credentials of your own.
Offering any evidence to counter the opening point.
^ That is probably the most objective that this thread is going to get. Do not cite objectivity unless you can introduce objectivity, otherwise you are serving no purpose in the argument.
Do you be believe any underlying principles are difficult?Not really, understanding the consequences of those principles is difficult. Even in physics, the basic rules are usually expressed in simple formula, individually they are not that difficult to understand once discovered. Richard Feymann compared the world to a game of chess, the rules are not that complex, but simply knowing the rules is no guaruntee of winning the game, that's because the complexity emerges from some quite simple principles.
I don't remember using the word "speculation". You said you don't know a great deal about genetics. Then you proceeded to provide us with a great deal of information about genetics. I remember we used to have this business book on our bookshelf once, it was called, Beware the Naked Man Who Offers You His Shirt. This thread reminds me of that.How much do I need to know until you are satisfied? do I need to point out that I have read biology textbooks that covered this subject? that I read up a bit on bioinformatics? that in the process of reading about evolutionary biology, such principles arise regularly? that even without any of that, some rudimentry understanding of genes and a little bit of imagination could reach the answer anyway!?
What else shouldn't I talk about, politics? economics? biology? neuroscience? evolutionary biology? ethics? psychology? philosophy? people spend their whole lives studying these topics, what gives me the right to discuss any of them without this same criticism being applied in every case?
You argument is like saying that because I do not know how to program or understand computers very well, that I am therefore unable to understand the principles involved in how ones and zeros can carry information.
I have yet to see a study which proves this with absolute certainty, but I can speculate that it does, since the brain is such a delicate organ, and tiny (ie: 1%) variations can count for a lot when it comes to things like cognitive development and thinking styles. Also, given the political climate around such studies, who would really support them? Justify racism? The end result (justifying racial superiority -> ethnic cleansing for people who choose to interpret it a certain way) might be worse than the intended result.I am not really atrying to justify racism, the title of the thread is ironic.
Stating that different genotypes and phenotypes clustered around particular racial groups does not justify racism at all, not unless one insists on commiting the naturalistic fallacy.
Zephyrus055
24 Apr 2006, 01:30 PM
I think scientists maintain that there are no races, because the traditional standards for race do not work. They do not work because there is too much genetic similarity between individuals of another race, and dissimiliarity between members of one race.
Scientists, however, do not ignore that there are populations, but these populations are too small to be considered racial groups.
However, traditional standards of race are useful in medical fields, because there are common characteristics within groups of populations sharing similar geographic locations. The traditional standards also have some validity for some obvious phenotypical characteristics.
In short, traditional racial standards have some use and validity, but more precision and better criteria are needed.
The main danger with thinking about race, however, is that we might start categorizing races on standards of superiority/inferiority, and I think this explains some of the resistance toward Lee in this thread.
What you are doing:
Attacking Lee's credentials
What you are *not* doing:
Offering any credentials of your own.
Offering any evidence to counter the opening point.
^ That is probably the most objective that this thread is going to get. Do not cite objectivity unless you can introduce objectivity, otherwise you are serving no purpose in the argument.
Well, I started off commenting on Lee's analogy. The ability to comprehend Lee's post gives me the credentials for that.
You aren't really seeing that this thread is not about genetics per se, but about comparisons, which is something I can easily handle.
Do I know a lot about genetics? Some. I also know enough about them to tell you that I don't know a whole lot relative to a lot of people, even people here. I can also tell you that because I don't know much about genetics relatively, I'm not going to proceed to lecture everyone here about them, or racism, because of it.
If you read the opening post, you'll notice I'm exactly on point and have been the entire time. Lee drew a comparison and I said his comparison was flawed. That's what this thread is about, not genetics itself. So, from that perspective, I have every right to attack the original poster because it's *his* comparison.
Not really, understanding the consequences of those principles is difficult. Even in physics, the basic rules are usually expressed in simple formula, individually they are not that difficult to understand once discovered. Richard Feymann compared the world to a game of chess, the rules are not that complex, but simply knowing the rules is no guaruntee of winning the game, that's because the complexity emerges from some quite simple principles.
That's the whole thing though. See, you understand E=mc2. It's not that hard. But, the mistake that you are making is you think because you read A Brief History of Time you are as smart as Stephen Hawkins and because you know how to calculate velocity the principle behind an event horizon is elementary.
Can you see the mistake there? E=mc2 is actually a very complicated formula. The math behind it requires a pretty expansive knowledge of physics.
Life isn't a game of chess though. If it was, Bobby Fischer would have been king of the world. Life is far more complex. There are more rules and each one is far more complicated. The principles involved are even more complicated than we know about.
I'm sure there is a logical fallacy in there that you are making, I'm too lazy/busy to look it up though.
How much do I need to know until you are satisfied? do I need to point out that I have read biology textbooks that covered this subject? that I read up a bit on bioinformatics? that in the process of reading about evolutionary biology, such principles arise regularly? that even without any of that, some rudimentry understanding of genes and a little bit of imagination could reach the answer anyway!?
What else shouldn't I talk about, politics? economics? biology? neuroscience? evolutionary biology? ethics? psychology? philosophy? people spend their whole lives studying these topics, what gives me the right to discuss any of them without this same criticism being applied in every case?
It's not how much you need to know. It's how you present what you do know. You present it as fact rather than as a possibility. Then you proceed to defend whatever you've said vigorously. So, to be honest, I don't ever have to be right for you to be wrong, I just have to be less wrong than you, which isn't difficult to do with the way you present your arguments.
You can discuss anything you'd like. I'm never going to stop you. But, if you give me an opening as wide as you usually do, I'll probably argue with you.
You argument is like saying that because I do not know how to program or understand computers very well, that I am therefore unable to understand the principles involved in how ones and zeros can carry information.
Knowing binary, and having a detailed knowledge of it, doesn't mean you can program a computer, nor does it mean you'll understand how all the switches on the computer work that make binary an effective language to use in that medium.
You can understand and even talk about computers, but don't proceed to give everyone a lecture on how computers work and how they relate to economics so well because electricity, like the market, looks for the shortest distance between two points. Because a computer just isn't that simple and neither is the market. You are making links that realistically don't exist and only do because the priniciples have been oversimplified.
Dr. Haight
24 Apr 2006, 02:36 PM
--mg,
Are you calling Lee a regurgitater?
Zero Angel
24 Apr 2006, 02:52 PM
race is such a tedious subject. just a bunch of people with their minds already made up, rationalizing in futility.
people don't really want to change their mind on this topic, they just want to justify the stance they already have all the while appearing to have an open mind.
If you haven't noticed, it works a lot of way with debates. One side proposes something, then another side makes their point. They present their worldview and any facts that they might have, then they battle it out till the bloody end.
An opponent may concede their point, but is not required to (an omission generally accepted as an agreement to disagree, but not all the time). And it puts his argument in a weaker position sometimes, for example, when Lee stated that he does not have expert level knowledge in genetics mgb jumped right on him about that. Generally, a person will change their worldview after the argument is over and they've had time to revisit that information.
I do not believe everyone should have a degree in philosophy to argue philosophy, or a degree in biology to argue biology. In debate, a lack of information can get filled in by the other parties and that is the entire point.
Life isn't a game of chess though. If it was, Bobby Fischer would have been king of the world. Life is far more complex. There are more rules and each one is far more complicated. The principles involved are even more complicated than we know about.Do you understand what an analogy is? you seem to be having great difficulty.
I'm sure there is a logical fallacy in there that you are making, I'm too lazy/busy to look it up though.Yeah, that's a good argument.
It's not how much you need to know. It's how you present what you do know. You present it as fact rather than as a possibility. Then you proceed to defend whatever you've said vigorously. So, to be honest, I don't ever have to be right for you to be wrong, I just have to be less wrong than you, which isn't difficult to do with the way you present your arguments.So by your logic, if I present an argument as fact, that means that you are more right than me?
Of course technically, what I am saying here about genes is a possibility, but I am confident enough to state it as fact, weasel words like might, could, possibly etc. serve no useful purpose here, they simply commit us to contentless tautologies. When presenting an argument, unless you are going to actually make a statement which commits you to an actual belief, the argument is pointless.
You can discuss anything you'd like. I'm never going to stop you. But, if you give me an opening as wide as you usually do, I'll probably argue with you.That's laughable, the "openings" you see usually reflect your own misunderstandings. Usually when I read one of your responses my first reponse is "what on earth is he talking about? he's missed the point spectacularly." You never provide any reasoning or evidence to support your positions, while you are likely to accuse me of excessive verbiage because I do try to explain my reasoning and provide evidence.
Knowing binary, and having a detailed knowledge of it, doesn't mean you can program a computer, nor does it mean you'll understand how all the switches on the computer work that make binary an effective language to use in that medium.So? that's my point, I do not need to be able to understand the exact functioning of a cell in all its wonderful detail in order to appreciate some basic principles of how it operates. One of the simplest principles in nature is that of natural selection, I do not need to understand how every single phenotype of every single species evolved, nor do I need to understand the specifics of genetics to understand the principle of natural selection.
You just keep throwing around unjustified accusations, instead of actually suggesting any reason why I am wrong, the most you have done is suggest that I might be wrong, well done.
headfonez
24 Apr 2006, 02:59 PM
These are, by far, the most entertaining threads on any site.
bergenski
24 Apr 2006, 03:05 PM
How come whether Lee is qualified to make his point is taking the place of his point itself?
JBHunt
24 Apr 2006, 03:30 PM
Lee, other than the handful of race linked gene mutations such as Sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, Lactose Intolerance..etc. Any genetic difference between racial lines just accounts for their physical difference. Any other differences between races has more to do with cultural and environmental factors than with whats in your genes. There are more genetic variation between individuals than between races.
A single point mutation or deletion of a gene can have tremendous impact on your health and thats about the only thing you've proved so far. Don't give us a ten page manifesto on genetics by talking about transcription, translation, and amino acids to "validate" your argument. By your own admission, you have no grip on genetics.
Do a peds rotation with me and I will show you the number of kids with autosomal trisomies, x-linked recessive, autosomal recessive, abnormal enzyme metabolism, and enzyme deficiency...
trust me...they come in all shapes, sizes, and colors.
Lee, other than the handful of race linked gene mutations such as Sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, Lactose Intolerance..etc. Any genetic difference between racial lines just accounts for their physical difference. Any other differences between races has more to do with cultural and environmental factors than with whats in your genes. There are more genetic variation between individuals than between races.This isn't a counterargument, since you are simply restating the exact premise which I am arguing against.
This little factoid orginated with Richard Lewontin, notorious for his political motivations and how they shaped his scientific beliefs, just look at his attack of sociobiology, his objections were not on scientific grounds, but ethical and political. His mistake was that he hinged his political beliefs of empirical assumptions.
A single point mutation or deletion of a gene can have tremendous impact on your health and thats about the only thing you've proved so far. Don't give us a ten page manifesto on genetics by talking about transcription, translation, and amino acids to "validate" your argument. By your own admission, you have no grip on genetics.Have any of my statements about genetics so far been incorrect?
This fact, which you have just repeated, is exactly why your previous paragraph is misleading, if small changes in the material can have big consequences on the information then the differences in DNA that Lewontin measured do not translate into the same quantative difference in the information.
The actual amount of difference will never really be understood until further advantages have been made in proteomics.
The title of this thread is supposed to be ironic, I am not a racist. The point is to demonstrate why the so often repeated argument that "There are more genetic variation between individuals than between races, therefore race is biologically meaningless" is itself misleading. I have not stated anywhere that there are big genetic differences between races, but there exists ample evidence of how small changes in DNA can have big consequences, so the conclusion drawn from the argument is not justified.
Edit: Also, I did not use words like transcription, translation etc. in my original post, I did not feel the need, I wished to avoid such words because the underlying principle is what is important. I later used the words in response to objections to the principle involved, and then only to demonstrate the similarities between language and DNA.
floid
24 Apr 2006, 04:32 PM
To give a more practical example, chimpanzees apparently share about 98% of their genes with humans, but they are not 98% similar.
Both humans and chimps are born, suckle, sleep, eat, defecate, grow up, grow old, and die.
Perhaps the two percent difference lies in generally greater areas of body hair for chimps and the general presumptuosness that is symptomatic of larger brain size in humans.
Chimps and humans are pretty much the same except in human fantasies of superiority that occur between the births and deaths of members of the human species.
A very tangled web has been woven.
Fortunately, it is also very fragile.
Both humans and chimps are born, suckle, sleep, eat, defecate, grow up, grow old, and die.
Perhaps the two percent difference lies in generally greater areas of body hair for chimps and the general presumptuosness that is symptomatic of larger brain size in humans.
Chimps and humans are pretty much the same except in human fantasies of superiority that occur between the births and deaths of members of the human species.Yeah, chimps don't build planes, skyscrapers, cars... chimps do not perform neurosurgery, investigate history, perform plays... how exactly you quantify these things into a percentage I don't know.
The basic principle is that genes are not a blueprint, they are a recipe.
How come whether Lee is qualified to make his point is taking the place of his point itself?Because I have been very careful to not overstep the bounds of what I understand, but since nobody can actually explain why I am wrong, they prefer to simply keep pointing out that I could be wrong, utterly meaningless of course and does nothing to support the counterargument.
The problem is that such arguments make people uncomfortable, the real reason for this thread is to show how even intelligent people can make the mistake of hinging moral beliefs on empirical assumptions. This places such a person in a very difficult position, at the mercy of future scientific discoveries, that is the real reason for the objections, that discomfort with the very idea.
The argument I tackled in the original post is a favourite of anti-racists, but not only is it misleading, but it places any anti-racist in a dangerous position, because it means that if it is ever disproven that racism must be ok after all.
JBHunt
24 Apr 2006, 04:49 PM
The point is to demonstrate why the so often repeated argument that "There are more genetic variation between individuals than between races, therefore race is biologically meaningless" is itself misleading.
It's misleading because there are a handful of genetic mutations associated with race. That's all. Otherwise, race is genetically meaningless. Why are you having a tough time with this? Like you've pointed out, there are MORE genetic variations between individuals than races.
Do you understand what an analogy is? you seem to be having great difficulty.
Yes, I know exactly what an analogy is. That's your problem. You think everything is a damn analogy. You think because you understand the sequence of the alphabet that it gives you understanding into nuclear fusion in the sun or how a black hole dissapates heat. You think everything complicated can be made simple with the right analogy and it really can't. Some things are just complicated.
Yeah, that's a good argument. Kind of like how you point out logical fallicies, or your clever avoidance of them, as being a "good argument". I just wasn't pedantic enough to look them up because they are silly and irrelevant, especially for the scope of this discussion.
So by your logic, if I present an argument as fact, that means that you are more right than me?
Of course technically, what I am saying here about genes is a possibility, but I am confident enough to state it as fact, weasel words like might, could, possibly etc. serve no useful purpose here, they simply commit us to contentless tautologies. When presenting an argument, unless you are going to actually make a statement which commits you to an actual belief, the argument is pointless.
Yes. Precisely. I don't have to be right for you to be wrong. I know that sounds complicated, but it really isn't.
You see, a word like might, is much more acceptable to use in an argument. It's not a weasel word, it's a word that gives you a way out which is perfectly acceptable in a debate. Your consistant problem is that you paint yourself into a corner when you use what you consider to be "facts". What you fail to realize is that as smart as you keep telling yourself you are, there is always going to be someone smarter than you and they are going to make you look really silly really easily by proving your "facts" wrong, which in essense means that they aren't truly "facts" but just your opinions, and then the argument becomes about you, not science or economics or anything else. And when it's an argument about you, and that person knows more than you, you always lose.
That's laughable, the "openings" you see usually reflect your own misunderstandings. Usually when I read one of your responses my first reponse is "what on earth is he talking about? he's missed the point spectacularly." You never provide any reasoning or evidence to support your positions, while you are likely to accuse me of excessive verbiage because I do try to explain my reasoning and provide evidence.
I actually haven't missed the point at all. I think you are applying too rigid an understanding of what I am saying. You think because you posted ABC I have to reply, DEF. It's just as applicable to reply with MNO, or FZQ. Maybe try not to be so linear. You see, if I answer DEF, you always win because your are dictating the terms of the discussion, if I change the terms of the discussion, which if you keep missing my point is rather easy to do, I can't lose and you, as always, are left standing in a patch of floor waiting for the paint around you to dry.
So? that's my point, I do not need to be able to understand the exact functioning of a cell in all its wonderful detail in order to appreciate some basic principles of how it operates. One of the simplest principles in nature is that of natural selection, I do not need to understand how every single phenotype of every single species evolved, nor do I need to understand the specifics of genetics to understand the principle of natural selection.
You just keep throwing around unjustified accusations, instead of actually suggesting any reason why I am wrong, the most you have done is suggest that I might be wrong, well done.
You see, you think you have a complete understanding of Natural Selection so therefore you understand how a cell works? You are totally backwards in your thinking. That if you learn the rules of chess, how each piece moves, you'll become a master. But in truth, it takes more than an understanding of how each piece moves to understand how to play chess, and certainly to play chess well. Just like the cell, you assume that it will work a certain way because Natural Selection says it will. But not all cells work the same way and so understanding why that is would give you a truer understanding of how Natural Selection works than the understanding your currently have, which is probably more like the Coles Notes version of Natural Selection than the version a molecular biologist would have.
As far as my accusation go, they are hardly unjustified, you make that clear all over the board.
Mr. Beef
24 Apr 2006, 05:21 PM
But in truth, it takes more than an understanding of how each piece moves to understand how to play chess, and certainly to play chess well.
Hey, why are you talking about chess...physics has nothing to do with chess. I can't see a relationship. chess is a game played with miniatures, physics is a science. They are totally and COMPLETELY unrelated.
:offtopic:
mgbradsh, you talk so much bull.
You insist on telling me what I think and just repeat verbatim the same accusations, but please, actually back up these accusations with evidence.
For example, I do have a complete understanding of the principle of natural selection, it's really very simple and can be summed up in a single paragraph:
"The selection of variations of form by natural laws and local conditions, mutations always add variation, so that natural selection always has something to work with and can build on previous improvements of form."
This is all the basic principle is, you can express as mutation --> variation --> elimination --> mutation --> variation --> elimination --> mutation --> variation --> elimination etc.
Do I understand all of the consequences of natural selection? of course not, I would never claim to. I do not think that a complete understanding of the principle of natural selection can possibly mean that we understanding of how a cell works, you're arguing with something which I never said.
Honestly, when I argue with you I feel like I am arguing with someone with paranoid delusions, you seem to interpret my posts in all kinds of crazy ways, often attributing to me opinions which I explained that I did not hold in the previous post. I can't have a discussion with you because everything I write goes through some bizarre filter which leaves whatever I said mangled and deformed on the other side, you end up arguing with yourself, and I find myself simply responding to try and explain how I did not say or mean x and you have just completely taken it out of context.
JBHunt
24 Apr 2006, 05:35 PM
mgbradsh, you talk so much bull.
Actually Lee, the bull is coming out of YOUR mouth.
It's misleading because there are a handful of genetic mutations associated with race. That's all. Otherwise, race is genetically meaningless. Why are you having a tough time with this? Like you've pointed out, there are MORE genetic variations between individuals than races.But you have already stated yourself that one genetic mutation can have big consequences on how an organism develops! that is my point, the inference made from that fact is not justified.
Race is obviously meaningful, if only because of the obvious physical differences we can see, if only because of the fact that forensic anthropologists and doctors can use it to make useful predictions. This is all biology, the biology of race is meaningful in many circumstances. The assumption that the brain is exempted from such variations is also an assumption, not an empirical finding.
These facts are of course meaningless in an ethical sense.
Actually Lee, the bull is coming out of YOUR mouth.mgbradsh has decided to make this topic about me. In a nutshell, he keeps accusing me of holding beliefs which I do not, so he really is talking bull.
Hey, why are you talking about chess...evolution has nothing to do with chess. I can't see a relationship. chess is a game played with miniatures, evolutions is a scientific theory. They are totally and COMPLETELY unrelated.
:offtopic:it was I that made the analogy between physics and chess, well it wasn't me, it was Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century... but I am sure he just doesn't know what he was talking about :rolleyes:
JBHunt
24 Apr 2006, 05:50 PM
mgbradsh has decided to make this topic about me. In a nutshell, he keeps accusing me of holding beliefs which I do not, so he really is talking bull.
Arguing with you is like talking with my ISTJ gf. You have a thick skull Lee.
charred_heart
24 Apr 2006, 07:47 PM
I don't know what you are arguing with here, I think you have missed the point.
I thought you were smart enough to see what I was saying: That if there really were significant genetic differences between the human 'races' they would be different species altogether.
I thought you were smart enough to see what I was saying: That if there really were significant genetic differences between the human 'races' they would be different species altogether.Obviously, I never would claim otherwise, which is why I said that you missed the point.
charred_heart
24 Apr 2006, 08:36 PM
Obviously, I never would claim otherwise, which is why I said that you missed the point.
considering we vary so little from each other in the first place, it would appear that the genetic variation is tiny, race must be irrelevent, right?
.
.
.
In other words, a 1% difference in DNA, does not mean a 1% difference in how much information the DNA carries, since the information is embedded in the relational properties and combination, there isn't a simple one-to-one correlation.
*while also claiming that the races do not exist at all :huh:
what is you point then?
songbird36
24 Apr 2006, 09:40 PM
It's misleading because there are a handful of genetic mutations associated with race. That's all. Otherwise, race is genetically meaningless. Why are you having a tough time with this? Like you've pointed out, there are MORE genetic variations between individuals than races.
You're right that it probably is *biologically* meaningless. The entire Caucasian race was caused by a single genetic mutation occurring in the African plains way back when, anyway. That this can occur and cause such a visibly profound difference demonstrates the point that a tiny gene variation can lead to enormous visible or structural variation.
Comparing chimps with homo sapiens, a 1.5% chromosome variation causes enormous difference in brain size, speech ability, arm length etc.
But so what? This is a well known fact.
Hustler
24 Apr 2006, 10:30 PM
Yeah, chimps don't build planes, skyscrapers, cars... chimps do not perform neurosurgery, investigate history, perform plays... how exactly you quantify these things into a percentage I don't know.
I don't know, but you're the one who keeps trying to assign some sort of mathematical significance greater than 1% to two organisms whose genetic composition is different by 1%. On the one hand, you imply an impossibility of quantifying differences, but on the other hand, you say a 1% different in genetic composition can lead to a difference greater than 1% in the resulting organisms. You're basically just spouting a bunch of statistical bullshit.
The basic principle is that genes are not a blueprint, they are a recipe.
Sure, you can think of it that way. If you and I use follow a recipe identically for blueberry muffins, they will still come out a little differently. Why? Oh, random things like the humidity here vs. the humidity there, the specific heats of our baking implements, and so on. Environmental influences. You know, like growing up in Mexico vs. growing up in Switzerland would make a big difference on the end result of two identical twins. In the end, though, our blueberry muffins will be mostly the same and clearly vastly different than a tire iron. Sort of like how the twins, despite one growing up in Mexico and the other in Switzerland, will be vastly different from Riftia pachyptila.
You are conflating a lot of concepts and ideas when you examine an organism's genetic makeup and attempt to pass judgment on it. If you want to use genetic makeup as a marker of difference, then it works just fine as a definition of difference. A set of criteria on which we can pass judgment. But, this judgment is only useful in a biological sense. Once you start to assign value (moral, technological, economic, whatever) to the organism and its accomplishments, you have gone beyond the ability of genetic composition to serve as a basis for comparing organisms. So, when you say something like, "Some of these genes have cascading consequences far greater than the percetage of the genome they occupy, even 0.001% difference in DNA does not imply 0.001% difference in the developed organism," you're not really saying anything useful at all. Genetically, you're actually completely wrong, because a 0.001% difference in genetic composition results, by definition, in a 0.001% difference in the developed organism. Metaphysically, you're telling us something useless, because you're attempting to quantify the unquantifiable using a basis which is irrelevant to your system of judgment. A system which is, by the way, also undefined and nebulous and, therefore, equally worthless.
Your original premise in this thread is dated and uninteresting to me but, that said, your misuse of quantization throughout this thread is annoying and smacks of total bullshit.
JBHunt
24 Apr 2006, 10:53 PM
Race is a social construct.
If one gene can distinguish a race then the number of races is as numerous as the number of people reproducing.
Variation between individuals are large and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines between separate groups: they just fade into one another.
Hustler
24 Apr 2006, 10:55 PM
Race is a social construct.
If one gene can distinguish a race then the number of races is as numerous as the number of people reproducing.
Variation between individuals are large and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines between separate groups: they just fade into one another.
Weak arguments like this just give Lee a chance to look less full of it. Why would you want to set him up like that?
I don't know, but you're the one who keeps trying to assign some sort of mathematical significance greater than 1% to two organisms whose genetic composition is different by 1%. On the one hand, you imply an impossibility of quantifying differences, but on the other hand, you say a 1% different in genetic composition can lead to a difference greater than 1% in the resulting organisms. You're basically just spouting a bunch of statistical bullshit.I didn't say it was impossible, I only implied that it was very difficult.
You are conflating a lot of concepts and ideas when you examine an organism's genetic makeup and attempt to pass judgment on it. If you want to use genetic makeup as a marker of difference, then it works just fine as a definition of difference. A set of criteria on which we can pass judgment. But, this judgment is only useful in a biological sense. Once you start to assign value (moral, technological, economic, whatever) to the organism and its accomplishments, you have gone beyond the ability of genetic composition to serve as a basis for comparing organisms. So, when you say something like, "Some of these genes have cascading consequences far greater than the percetage of the genome they occupy, even 0.001% difference in DNA does not imply 0.001% difference in the developed organism," you're not really saying anything useful at all. Genetically, you're actually completely wrong, because a 0.001% difference in genetic composition results, by definition, in a 0.001% difference in the developed organism. Metaphysically, you're telling us something useless, because you're attempting to quantify the unquantifiable using a basis which is irrelevant to your system of judgment. A system which is, by the way, also undefined and nebulous and, therefore, equally worthless.I am not sure what you are trying to say, I believe you have simply misinterpreted me. Anyway, characteristics of genes like epistasis prove my point, that a simple comparison of genes can be misleading, because those genes do not all offer an equal influence on the development of an organism.
Your original premise in this thread is dated and uninteresting to me but, that said, your misuse of quantization throughout this thread is annoying and smacks of total bullshit.I have attempted to avoid quantification, because assigning values is difficult, nonetheless, the principle of my argument still stands.
Most people have not actually challenged my original post, but instead challenge their perceived implications of that post, which is what I expected and part of the reason why I made this thread.
last_caress
24 Apr 2006, 11:05 PM
I buy that organisms manifest differences do not necessarily have a linear relationship to quantitative genetic difference.
On the Implicit and on the Artificial (http://alfa.ist.utl.pt/~cvrm/staff/vramos/architopia2.html)
The phenotype, then, consists of the structures and dynamics that emerge through time in the course of the execution of the parallel, distributed computation controlled by this genetic bag of instructions. Since genes interactions with one another are highly non-linear, the phenotype is a non-linear function of the genotype. As mentioned briefly above, the distinction between linear and non-linear systems is fundamental, and provides excellent insight into why the principles underlying the dynamics of life (or many other natural phenomena) should be so hard to find and understand. The simplest way to state the distinction is to say that linear systems are those for which the behaviour of the whole is just the sum of the behaviour of its parts, while for non-linear systems, the behaviour of the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
JBHunt
24 Apr 2006, 11:06 PM
Weak arguments like this just give Lee a chance to look less full of it. Why would you want to set him up like that?
Why? Lee doesn't believe that races exist.
what is you point then?That the little factoid "the difference between races being smaller than the difference between individuals, therefore race is biologically meaningless" is not a conclusive argument, it's bunk, misleading. Without further information it doesn't prove anything.
Furthermore, that people would prefer to believe it anyway, simply because its comforting and supports their ethical beliefs. Their mistake is allowing their ethical standards to be held hostage to future scientific discoveries. Upon seeing my criticism in the original post, people will perceive ethical implications and assume I am supporting racism, no such ethical implications exists, see - Hume's Guillotine.
Hustler
24 Apr 2006, 11:18 PM
I am not sure what you are trying to say, I believe you have simply misinterpreted me. Anyway, characteristics of genes like epistasis prove my point, that a simple comparison of genes can be misleading, because those genes do not all offer an equal influence on the development of an organism.
It's only misleading when you try to start trying to assign meaning to or draw conclusions from genetic difference.
I have attempted to avoid quantification, because assigning values is difficult, nonetheless, the principle of my argument still stands.
Right, then avoid making statements like, ""Some of these genes have cascading consequences far greater than the percetage of the genome they occupy, even 0.001% difference in DNA does not imply 0.001% difference in the developed organism." Because, by the only metric relevant to discussing genetic difference, a 0.001% difference in DNA means exactly that, a 0.001% difference in the developed organism. I know what you're trying to say, but this post was put in the Science forum, and your statement is not scientific. It is meaningless to discuss measurements when you discard the only scientific unit by which to measure the quantities in question and then supply no new system of units.
Most people have not actually challenged my original post, but instead challenge their perceived implications of that post, which is what I expected and part of the reason why I made this thread.
It's because the notions in your original post are dated and worthless from a scientific perspective. What's more, I don't like to engage in discussions on things which have been incorrectly placed in the Science forum. When your opening post has a gem like, "To give a more practical example, chimpanzees apparently share about 98% of their genes with humans, but they are not 98% similar," I can already tell where this discussion is going. Straight to anthropocentric interpretations of DNA in a wholly unscientific fashion. Not interesting, antiquated, and not worth thinking about anymore here in the early days of the 21st century.
songbird36
24 Apr 2006, 11:20 PM
I don't know, but you're the one who keeps trying to assign some sort of mathematical significance greater than 1% to two organisms whose genetic composition is different by 1%. On the one hand, you imply an impossibility of quantifying differences, but on the other hand, you say a 1% different in genetic composition can lead to a difference greater than 1% in the resulting organisms. You're basically just spouting a bunch of statistical bullshit.
Sure, you can think of it that way. If you and I use follow a recipe identically for blueberry muffins, they will still come out a little differently. Why? Oh, random things like the humidity here vs. the humidity there, the specific heats of our baking implements, and so on. .
The point seems to be that a 1% genetic difference can result in biological/organic differences that seem to represent a higher percentage (in relation to the overall characteristics of the organism). I agree however that it's unhelpful to describe the "organism" differences in terms of percentages, because such differences are largely a matter of perception and classification (e.g. most people will perceive a far greater difference between a black and white skinned person than they will between a blonde or a brunette caucasian person, or a greater difference between Downs and non-Downs than between a person with a hare lip and a person without).
It's only misleading when you try to start trying to assign meaning to or draw conclusions from genetic difference.Which people do. Which is why I made the thread.
Right, then avoid making statements like, ""Some of these genes have cascading consequences far greater than the percetage of the genome they occupy, even 0.001% difference in DNA does not imply 0.001% difference in the developed organism." Because, by the only metric relevant to discussing genetic difference, a 0.001% difference in DNA means exactly that, a 0.001% difference in the developed organism. I know what you're trying to say, but this post was put in the Science forum, and your statement is not scientific. It is meaningless to discuss measurements when you discard the only scientific unit by which to measure the quantities in question and then supply no new system of units.That quantification was just a hypothetical example to make a point, I realise actually making these measurements is very difficult. You understood my point, you likely understood that I was just using those numbers for a hypothetical example, so you really don't have much of a complaint to make.
It's because the notions in your original post are dated and worthless from a scientific perspective. What's more, I don't like to engage in discussions on things which have been incorrectly placed in the Science forum. When your opening post has a gem like, "To give a more practical example, chimpanzees apparently share about 98% of their genes with humans, but they are not 98% similar," I can already tell where this discussion is going. Straight to anthropocentric interpretations of DNA in a wholly unscientific fashion. Not interesting, antiquated, and not worth thinking about anymore here in the early days of the 21st century.Erm... sure... ok, then why are you here? you haven't really argued any of my points, but only picked on a few things about quantification, which I agree with. They were just hypothetical measurements because illustrating my point in other ways seemed to be failing, they were not intended to be accurate, but they could be used in order to try and make a point, explain the principle, which transcends genetics and is just about information storage.
Mr. Beef
24 Apr 2006, 11:43 PM
Whoops!
Dumbass.
funny, because I was lampooning you....:blink:
Hustler
24 Apr 2006, 11:43 PM
Erm... sure... ok, then why are you here? you haven't really argued any of my points, but only picked on a few things about quantification, which I agree with.
You will have to forgive me for being unable to find any actual point in your opening post. All I saw was you say a bunch of non-scientific stuff and then try to draw some sort of anthropocentric value judgments from a hand-wavy misuse of genetics/statistics? If you had an actual scientific point you were trying to make in there somewhere that you could bring to my attention, I would be happy to tell you why you're wrong.
interface
24 Apr 2006, 11:46 PM
Right, then avoid making statements like, ""Some of these genes have cascading consequences far greater than the percetage of the genome they occupy, even 0.001% difference in DNA does not imply 0.001% difference in the developed organism." Because, by the only metric relevant to discussing genetic difference, a 0.001% difference in DNA means exactly that, a 0.001% difference in the developed organism. I know what you're trying to say, but this post was put in the Science forum, and your statement is not scientific. It is meaningless to discuss measurements when you discard the only scientific unit by which to measure the quantities in question and then supply no new system of units.
.
In principle a 0,001% difference in genotype can result in a 100% difference in proteins.the proteindiffernce can be measured objectively, and is really the interesting part...the genome itself is not active in building
You will have to forgive me for being unable to find any actual point in your opening post. All I saw was you say a bunch of non-scientific stuff and then try to draw some sort of anthropocentric value judgments from a hand-wavy misuse of genetics/statistics? If you had an actual scientific point you were trying to make in there somewhere that you could bring to my attention, I would be happy to tell you why you're wrong.You're forgiven.
Mr. Beef
24 Apr 2006, 11:58 PM
it was I that made the analogy between physics and chess, well it wasn't me, it was Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century... but I am sure he just doesn't know what he was talking about
I was being sarcastic. I was making fun of mgbradsh's understanding of the analogy (you can't compare A and B because they are largely different even though they share a similar quality). Oh, and I didn't mean evolution. That just slipped out because I was tired. I meant physics. Doesn't matter....the principle still stands.
JBHunt
25 Apr 2006, 12:57 AM
Considering we vary so little from each other in the first place, it would appear that the genetic variation is tiny, race must be irrelevent, right?
In other words, a 1% difference in DNA, does not mean a 1% difference in how much information the DNA carries, since the information is embedded in the relational properties and combination, there isn't a simple one-to-one correlation.
Lee's point: Race is relevent to genetics.
Bringing up the fact that a small change in nucleotide sequencing can have a huge impact on the organism is not new knowledge Lee. If this is what you were trying to prove, then somebody already beat you to it. Fact remains, there is a GREATER percentage difference between any two random individuals than between races. Therefore, race IS irrelevent in genetics.
So stop making comparisons between genetics and race.
Lee, you don't have a point. You never had one.
Dr. Haight
25 Apr 2006, 01:07 AM
Oh, so you're only a dumbass when you are tired. Well then. Maybe have a nap and come back and we'll try and forget that whole thing ever happened.
Dumbass.
:rofl:
Lee's point: Race is relevent to genetics.
Bringing up the fact that a small change in nucleotide sequencing can have a huge impact on the organism is not new knowledge Lee. If this is what you were trying to prove, then somebody already beat you to it.I never claimed it I was being original.
Fact remains, there is a GREATER percentage difference between any two random individuals than between races. Therefore, race IS irrelevent in genetics.
So stop making comparisons between genetics and race.
Lee, you don't have a point. You never had one.You're begging the question again. I disagree with the statement:
"Fact remains, there is a GREATER percentage difference between any two random individuals than between races. Therefore, race IS irrelevent in genetics."
So you then proceed to argue with:
"Fact remains, there is a GREATER percentage difference between any two random individuals than between races. Therefore, race IS irrelevent in genetics."
So please explain what this means, how does this fact make race irrelevent on a genetic level?
I am beginning to think that you do not actually know, since your other statements admit that the difference in the information a genome carries is not proportional to the difference found when comparing nucleotides.
Besides, of course race is biologically meaningful, genetic markers can be used to determine a suspects racial/ancestral background in criminal investigations, the consistent differences that racial groups have between each other can aid in forensic anthropology, doctors should take the race of a patient into consideration when diagnosing and testing for diseases and peoples of different racial heritage show a marked tendancy to excel in particular kinds of sports. Other average differences may be so small as to render them useless for any practical purpose, but race and genetic diversity in humans generally is biologically relevent.
http://www.writely.com/View.aspx?docid=bbf37xdkbv44b
JBHunt
25 Apr 2006, 04:41 AM
Genetic markers are used in criminal investigations to ID a suspect or a victim for their physical traits, not because they want to know their genetic makeup.
Doctors do consider race in their workup of a patient to rule out certain conditions, but it's only a small part of their overall clinical management. They worry more about their particular patient than about his/her race.
Excelling in a particular sport has more to do with environmental background like proper nutrition and training.
songbird36
25 Apr 2006, 04:52 AM
Lee's point: Race is relevent to genetics.
Bringing up the fact that a small change in nucleotide sequencing can have a huge impact on the organism is not new knowledge Lee. If this is what you were trying to prove, then somebody already beat you to it. Fact remains, there is a GREATER percentage difference between any two random individuals than between races. Therefore, race IS irrelevent in genetics.
So stop making comparisons between genetics and race.
Lee, you don't have a point. You never had one.
Heh. How did you manage to get this across so eloquently? :)
charred_heart
25 Apr 2006, 09:31 AM
That the little factoid "the difference between races being smaller than the difference between individuals, therefore race is biologically meaningless" is not a conclusive argument, it's bunk, misleading. Without further information it doesn't prove anything.
Furthermore, that people would prefer to believe it anyway, simply because its comforting and supports their ethical beliefs. Their mistake is allowing their ethical standards to be held hostage to future scientific discoveries. Upon seeing my criticism in the original post, people will perceive ethical implications and assume I am supporting racism, no such ethical implications exists, see - Hume's Guillotine.
Ofcourse there are genetic differences, but they all stem from adaptation. Immunity to certain bacteria, tolerance of certain climates. I can't see how these would make one race completely different from the other. No race has exclusivity in a particular field or physical ability.
It's very important to learn about the differences between the genetic makeup of the different people in the world for many reasons but we shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that makes one race 'different' from another in abilities or intelligence. Maybe you weren't trying to say this Lee but you were a little vague with that rhetorical question about genetic differences being irrelevant.
Zero Angel
25 Apr 2006, 11:17 AM
I still think that Lee is on to something here. For example, aboriginal people in Canada have a far greater chance of inheriting diabetes than non-aboriginals. This to some extent was because aboriginal people did not need to develop a very good resistance to sugar (or the smallpox epidemic spread by the 'infected blanket' strategy which wiped out vast Native American populations in the 1800's).
Bone studies have proved that the concept of race is more than invented. Look for example at bones, particularly skulls discovered around different parts of the world [ Link: Skull Characteristics (http://www.theoryofuniverse.com/man/races/races-skulls.htm) ]. You will see that skulls from different parts of the world tend to have different shared characteristics. And also just look at people from different parts of the world, look, with your eyes (ie: facial shapes, the eye characteristics of east asians, the greater average height of africans), they're greater than just the amount of melatonin ones skin can put out.
The Rosenburg genetic study (1056 samples, across 5 continents) have proved that a genetic difference between 'race' types accounts for a smaller amount of total variation than individual differences (rosenburg study c. 2001, reads 4 - 5.7% difference between continental types)
Another genome study was done in 2004 (Serre/Pablo, 256 samples, individuals from highly scattered areas) except this one was designed to study the methods and results of other studies and compare them to its own (including the Rosenburg Study and a 1066 sample study conducted by the CEPH panel) and draw further conclusions from them. One of the main point of the studies was analyzing the same samples gathered from the other studies, but also conducted two different sub-studies (for comparison against each other) by picking seemingly random individuals from different points on the map instead of just relying on continental groups.
Individuals were chosen to minimize the extent of missing data at 20 microsatellite loci genotyped in the geography-based data set (see below). In all, 30 individuals came from sub-Saharan Africa, 29 individuals from Southeast Asia, and 30 individuals from Western Europe (see Supplemental Table S1 for more details).
For comparison to this data set, we produced a geography-based data set (Fig. 1B). We analyzed DNA samples from 90 individuals widely distributed across the globe to roughly reflect the distribution of humans. In all, 20 individuals came from Africa, 36 individuals from Asia, 16 individuals from Europe, 13 individuals from Oceania, and five individuals from Native American groups (Supplemental Table S2).
Now the actual fact is, that the Serre/Pablo study states that by using a different method (cline as opposed to the 'less effective' clades method used in Rosenburg study), that "87.6% percent of the total diversity is found among individuals and only 9.2% among continents"
This seems to confirm that the differences are very real (5%-9% difference cannot be discounted as 'artificial').
Sources
Rosenburg Abstract et. al. 2001 (http://nusapiens.blogspot.com/2005/03/map-human-biogeographic-diversity-2.html)
Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents
2006, Serre / Pablo (http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/9/1679#ABS)
[Comment: The Serre/Pablo study is a very grueling read ]
Zero Angel
25 Apr 2006, 11:55 AM
Now for speculation.
Nobody has confirmed that the existence of severely differing brains are common, luckily for racial arguments. However, it seems likely if that a change in a gene here can account for several different things like schizophrenia and other brain disorders, why can't it count for intelligence. Lets assume that there is a 5% difference among human population clusters (relative), who can say for certain that there is absolutely 0 difference in the frequency of mental disorders and even intelligence between different these clusters? (and I speak here as an 'average' not a hard-coded limit).
Certainly we can assume that cultural differences have more of a role to play in this, because its true. But that does not discount the possibility that one of these variant genes can affect brain development in positive or negative ways.
Zero Angel
25 Apr 2006, 12:02 PM
Now for politically correct pussyfooting:
I absolutely agree with JBHunt that culture is the most important (because I really do). If we blithely assume that one 'race' raised in the same culture has a 10% lower IQ, this does not discount them as worthless. Perhaps this race has developed on average a greater amount of physical strength, resistances, or even certain better developed parts of the brain (which cannot be measured by IQ: like parts which control ethics, reflexes, etc.) to compensate for the deficient ones.
Diversity can only improve the human race, if you look at inbreeding as an example of the extreme opposite, where genetic deficiencies increase with each generation. As a general trend, beneficial genes tend stick, bad ones don't unless they are forced to by lack of diversity (two parents which have the same regressive genes) or just drawing a short straw in the genetic lottery. This is not a law, but a pattern that i've noticed which has been confirmed by nearly everything I read about genetic diversity.
The Rosenburg genetic study (1056 samples, across 5 continents) have proved that a genetic difference between 'race' types accounts for a smaller amount of total variation than individual differences (rosenburg study c. 2001, reads 4 - 5.7% difference between continental types)
Isn't the entirety of racist thought based on the principle of continental differences?
Doesn't the above quote kind of kill that idea?
And I say continental differences because places like Africa and Asia and Europe keep getting homogenized in these discussions as if all the people in a continent are more like people 5000 miles away on the other side of the continent than the people in a different continent 10 miles away. At that point, the argument leaves the realm of the scientific and enters the realm of the political.
Architectonic
25 Apr 2006, 04:08 PM
And I say continental differences because places like Africa and Asia and Europe keep getting homogenized in these discussions as if all the people in a continent are more like people 5000 miles away on the other side of the continent than the people in a different continent 10 miles away. At that point, the argument leaves the realm of the scientific and enters the realm of the political.
Thats the problem with all of these studies - they don't disprove race at all, they simply prove that the definition of race was flawed (the definition is shown in the selection of people from each 'race'). Just because two people have the same skin colour, does not mean they are from the same race. There is not one african race, there are many african races. The same goes for people from all of the other continents. If you choose two people from the same tribe, then there will be a much greater correlation between their DNA. Race is simply greater family - and this grouping can occur at many levels, obviously the larger the group, the larger the variablility of DNA.
Thats the problem with all of these studies - they don't disprove race at all, they simply prove that the definition of race was flawed (the definition is shown in the selection of people from each 'race'). Just because two people have the same skin colour, does not mean they are from the same race. There is not one african race, there are many african races. The same goes for people from all of the other continents. If you choose two people from the same tribe, then there will be a much greater correlation between their DNA. Race is simply greater family - and this grouping can occur at many levels, obviously the larger the group, the larger the variablility of DNA.
In essense, what makes us different is what makes us all the same?
Architectonic
25 Apr 2006, 04:37 PM
In essense, what makes us different is what makes us all the same?
What do you mean by that?
I should also explain that there are no 'pure' races, particularly once you get into larger groups - for example, someone from Germany (which historically has many different tribal groups) might have ancestry from a number of different European tribes (I'm using that term to mean sub-subrace), thus their DNA may comprise of a certain % of each group.
Secondly, its quite possible due to the nature of inheritence that you could have an equal number of ancestors from each group, but yet have much more DNA common with one tribe, than another.
You can still divide people into a 'european race' an 'african race' and an 'asian race'. But since there is no such thing as pure race, someone might be 91% european, 7% african and %2 asian based on analysis of their DNA.
But we have to realize that, based on the most logical definition of race, the larger the group, the fuzzier the definition of race.
Since the further away (in terms of generation) an individual is from their common ancestors, the greater the possible variations of DNA.
If you use a very large group (such as the 'african race' and the 'asian race') then it is quite possible that for a particular group individuals, you will find a greater variation in genes within a 'racial group' than between two randomly selected individuals from two different groups.
What do you mean by that?
I should also explain that there are no 'pure' races, particularly once you get into larger groups - for example, someone from Germany (which historically has many different tribal groups) might have ancestry from a number of different European tribes (I'm using that term to mean sub-subrace), thus their DNA may comprise of a certain % of each group.
Secondly, its quite possible due to the nature of inheritence that you could have an equal number of ancestors from each group, but yet have much more DNA common with one tribe, than another.
You can still divide people into a 'european race' an 'african race' and an 'asian race'. But since there is no such thing as pure race, someone might be 91% european, 7% african and %2 asian based on analysis of their DNA.
But we have to realize that, based on the most logical definition of race, the larger the group, the fuzzier the definition of race. If you use a very large group (such as the 'african race' and the 'asian race') then it is quite possible that for a particular group individuals, you will find a greater variation in genes within a 'racial group' than between two randomly selected individuals from two different groups.
The common similarity between all people is that we are different. I realize that Hustler and TelecomClone will have at that statement like a pack of lions on a gazelle, but it seems, more than skin color or nose shape, to be what we share.
Architectonic
25 Apr 2006, 04:50 PM
The common similarity between all people is that we are different. I realize that Hustler and TelecomClone will have at that statement like a pack of lions on a gazelle, but it seems, more than skin color or nose shape, to be what we share.
You mean that for the individual, hereditary isn't totally predictive of DNA composition and vice versa. Individuals of a particular 'race' can still have a great deal of genetic variation.
interface
28 Apr 2006, 12:54 PM
Ofcourse there are genetic differences, but they all stem from adaptation. Immunity to certain bacteria, tolerance of certain climates. I can't see how these would make one race completely different from the other. No race has exclusivity in a particular field or physical ability.
It's very important to learn about the differences between the genetic makeup of the different people in the world for many reasons but we shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that makes one race 'different' from another in abilities or intelligence. Maybe you weren't trying to say this Lee but you were a little vague with that rhetorical question about genetic differences being irrelevant.
now you are talking about a specific trait(intelligence), then all you gotta do is locate those genes controlling intelligence, and then look for variation between "races"...until that happens, nobody knows, simple as that!.
That will take some years..untill then we are better off using common sense, and as you say no "race" has exclusivity in any particular field..so IQ-gene differences are probably small.
Priori
13 May 2006, 02:02 AM
I don't believe that Lee is trying to scientifically prove that his race is superior. In his first post he was trying to explain that the commonly used argument by his fellow anti-racists (it's obvious after his second post that his title was jibe at those would call him racist for not agreeing with the party line) because the genetic variance between races is not any greater than that of persons in the same race, then race does't matter. He is not arguing against the conclusion that race doesn't matter at all, just the facts used in the argument. I personally have very strong feelings against racist and bigots but as an INTP I can't help but try to clarify any commonly held misconceptions, even though they work in my favor. If someone argues against racism then I want their arguments to hold water.
Some physical differences in race that are for a fact include; height, skin color, bone structure and hair color and coarseness. It is possible that there are general mental differences among the races in both cognitive abilities and attitudes. Perhaps a larger group of Asians are suited to setting in a lab for hours designing computer chips than Africans, but a larger group of Africans would be better suited to the quick on the fly thinking in a professional basket ball game (disclaimer: I use these stereo-types because they are stereo-types an I realize many of the people who missed Lee's points will miss this one too).
Human genetics and the differences they cause in us is obviously one of Lee's areas of interest and as an INTP he is driven to seek the truth and the provide clarification to others about it. ITNPs use argument as a tool to further their own understanding which is what Lee is doing here, by writing his thoughts out in the first post he was able to give them more substance and at the same time providing clarification to others, but not just any group of others but INTPs, some of which actually listened. Because it's an area of interest to Lee its no doubt why its seems he post so many "racially motivated" threads.
I think that I should also note that any difference in cognitive abilities like the hypothetical ones I mentioned above could just as likely be cause by social or cultural influences as genetic ones, but social and genetic influences don't seem to be Lee's area of interest and so he made no arguments in their favor, but neither did he discount them.
You have certainly given me food for thought Lee, and I thank you.
MasterMerk
13 May 2006, 03:52 AM
You mean that for the individual, hereditary isn't totally predictive of DNA composition and vice versa. Individuals of a particular 'race' can still have a great deal of genetic variation.
From some of my lecture notes:
"On average, any two randomly chosen humans are 99.8% alike in alphabetic sequence in their genetic code. Only 6% of their .02% difference is racial; 9% represents ethnic differences between races; 85% is individual differences within one's group" Myers (2004) p.662
Architectonic
13 May 2006, 10:15 AM
Only 6% of their .02% difference is racial; 9% represents ethnic differences between races; 85% is individual differences within one's group" Myers (2004) p.662
What do they mean by '6% is racial, 9% represents ethnic differences between races'. How did they define the difference?
kendoiwan
13 May 2006, 03:27 PM
As I understand it, that means that 100% of the .02% difference in people, 6% is racial, 9% goes to differences within race, and the balance goes to what makes us individuals.
JBHunt
13 May 2006, 04:27 PM
And just how many races are there? Where do you draw the line?
Who defines it? The U.S. census?
These are twins that are different as night and day.
Does this genetic difference make one twin a different race from the other?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=377839
jax0m
13 May 2006, 08:06 PM
If however by 'race' one also purports to include behavioral and intellectual traits, then I would challenge that person to empirically illustrate an intrinsic link between the 'racial' biology in question and the aforementioned traits. And unfortunately for a person who dogmatically believes in that kind of link, no one has ever been able to produce anything but sophistry that does not hold to biology with any scientific concrecity. No such link exists outside of the ideological squawking of tribalist primitives who selectively coax and contort statistics.
Go read "The Bell Curve".
charred_heart
13 May 2006, 08:56 PM
And just how many races are there? Where do you draw the line?
Who defines it? The U.S. census?
These are twins that are different as night and day.
Does this genetic difference make one twin a different race from the other?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=377839
wow, England is freaky! :D
charred_heart
13 May 2006, 08:59 PM
Go read "The Bell Curve".
LOL that's exactly what he meant when he mentioned "primitives who selectively coax and contort statistics"
jax0m
13 May 2006, 09:32 PM
LOL that's exactly what he meant when he mentioned "primitives who selectively coax and contort statistics"
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/jensen-gould-fossils
charred_heart
13 May 2006, 09:37 PM
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/jensen-gould-fossils
that's a long article. tell me it's relevancy and I'll read it later
jax0m
13 May 2006, 09:59 PM
The relevancy of that article to this discussion and the reason I brought it up whilst quoting you is to point out the fact that there are intelligent and educated supporters on both sides of this issue, including the "primitives who selectively coax and contort statistics".
Correct me if I'm wrong, yet I'm assuming by the previous context of the last few posts you meant to apply TelecomClone's slur to the writers of The Bell Curve, Which could possibly be interpreted as racist. Oh, dear! :smooch:
Ad hominem attacks have no place in any serious discussion.
Also, if you're not going to bother reading the supporting argument material yourself and drawing your own conclusions, you'd better stick to non-participation in general. You wouldn't want someone to feed you biased information, now, would you? You know. Coaxed and contorted statistics.
charred_heart
14 May 2006, 03:07 PM
The relevancy of that article to this discussion and the reason I brought it up whilst quoting you is to point out the fact that there are intelligent and educated supporters on both sides of this issue, including the "primitives who selectively coax and contort statistics".It's good that you decided to speak for yourself after I asked you to.<_<
Correct me if I'm wrong, yet I'm assuming by the previous context of the last few posts you meant to apply TelecomClone's slur to the writers of The Bell Curve, Which could possibly be interpreted as racist. Oh, dear! :smooch:you'd have to be pretty uptight to start throwing the term 'racist' around at every opportunity ;)
Also, if you're not going to bother reading the supporting argument material yourself and drawing your own conclusions, you'd better stick to non-participation in general. You wouldn't want someone to feed you biased information, now, would you? You know. Coaxed and contorted statistics.
Since you made your position clear, I'll read the article when I have time and come back to this discussion. I've skimmed through it though and it seems to debate one scholar's opinion that science has been morally biased for a long time. Obviously you seem to share th author's point of view so why didn't you mention it? Instead of saying what you think, you posted a link to a 22 page article. Makes me wonder why you were being so ambigious.
Ferrus
14 May 2006, 05:44 PM
The issue is skin colour, which has become for modern Western society (since about the 16th century) an idee fixe for complex social reasons, and of course the human obession with what people look like, hence the discrimination of those with cleft pallets etc.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.