Genetic Racial Identification--Any Deniers Here?

[Toronado3800]

I'll say medical types can run the DNA test to figure out your level susceptibility to sickle cell and the like. Folks can then make their own decisions. Anyone using DNA tests for any 19th century ridiculous racist reasons deserve jail time.

Funny, racists made such jerks of themselves they ended any hope for states rights and a small central government

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies

Abstract
We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.

this is just one of many studies that show racial groups can be identified by genetic testing. do those that deny the existence of race just ignore the evidence or do they actually disbelieve that it can be done?

like any right wing dupester you are unable to distinguish what is before you. traits are not what makes one a separate race.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oprah got her genetic tree done so that she could find out where in africa her ancestors came from. should she believe it or not?

SO are you saying if we all can be traced back to Africa, we are all negroes?

 

[manifold]

I think tribes would be a better name. All humans belong to one race.

Would that satisfy your politically correct sensibilities?

 

[eots]

So one can find out who has red hair or is sensitive to bitter tastes from genetic testing as well.
We are all human with slightly different charistics.

If we were not the same species we could not interbreed very well now could we?

Horses and donkeys can interbreed but the outcome is a sterile mule. Kind of a dead end.

what about the liger...sweeet


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD6vpheUoPE[/ame]

 

[B94]

sweeet???

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKYILLEdy5s[/ame]

 

[IanC]

actually Ravi, perhaps you are right in a way. there is a lot of political baggage involved with the word race. we could use a word to describe the continental genetic clusters that doesn't bring to mind all the other connitations. unfortunately the new word would probably just get intertwined with political correctness in a short time anyways.

Just call a spade a spade and quit worrying about it.

Jeesh!

Determining "race" was originally an attempt to prove dominance and excuse oppression.

The entire subject is pretty retarded.

Humans are all one race...and differences between tribes, while interesting for health reasons, are basically meaningless.

Humans are all one species...and differences between races, while interesting for health reasons, are basically very useful for making predictions about groups but less so for individuals.

I think it is funny that you think any person or group that gave a name to a different race was attempting to prove dominance and oppression.

The whole concept of Western science is to observe, catagorize, and analyze the differences. rinse and repeat. How do you forcibly take race out of allowable observations of human beings without leaving holes in our knowledge and distorting what is permissible to see? I think that putting blinders on is what is retarded, not the act of seeing.

 

[Ravi]

actually Ravi, perhaps you are right in a way. there is a lot of political baggage involved with the word race. we could use a word to describe the continental genetic clusters that doesn't bring to mind all the other connitations. unfortunately the new word would probably just get intertwined with political correctness in a short time anyways.

Just call a spade a spade and quit worrying about it.

Jeesh!

Determining "race" was originally an attempt to prove dominance and excuse oppression.

The entire subject is pretty retarded.

Humans are all one race...and differences between tribes, while interesting for health reasons, are basically meaningless.

Humans are all one species...and differences between races, while interesting for health reasons, are basically very useful for making predictions about groups but less so for individuals.

I think it is funny that you think any person or group that gave a name to a different race was attempting to prove dominance and oppression.

The whole concept of Western science is to observe, catagorize, and analyze the differences. rinse and repeat. How do you forcibly take race out of allowable observations of human beings without leaving holes in our knowledge and distorting what is permissible to see? I think that putting blinders on is what is retarded, not the act of seeing.

That's not what I said but it does give me insight into your repeated misrepresentation of scientific studies. You can't read for comprehension unless you are reading someone that is parroting your beliefs.

 

[Ravi]

Wasn't that what the point of your thread was?

Or did you want to discuss hypertension?

obviously I want to discuss 3631 cases out of 3636 patients that correctly matched self identified racial identity (I wonder if the 5 discordant cases had a problem with the genetic match, or the self identification).

your snide comment about a simplistic, but true, finding hinges on an assumption that genetic markers can indeed identify race. and that race is generated by evolutionary changes in separated continental populations.

I still don't understand the point of your thread.

Are you saying that we have to run a full DNA genomic analysis of an individual to figure out if they are African?

Seriously...blatantly state your point so that we can move on from this cryptic bullshit.

 

[uscitizen]

They really need to test everyone for "The Conservative Gene".

 

[manifold]

Wasn't that what the point of your thread was?

Or did you want to discuss hypertension?

obviously I want to discuss 3631 cases out of 3636 patients that correctly matched self identified racial identity (I wonder if the 5 discordant cases had a problem with the genetic match, or the self identification).

your snide comment about a simplistic, but true, finding hinges on an assumption that genetic markers can indeed identify race. and that race is generated by evolutionary changes in separated continental populations.

I still don't understand the point of your thread.

Are you saying that we have to run a full DNA genomic analysis of an individual to figure out if they are African?

Seriously...blatantly state your point so that we can move on from this cryptic bullshit.

I don't find any of it cryptic at all.

There is a lot you can tell about a person from just their DNA. Looks like we can add race to the list. Sorry if this particular advancement in knowledge pisses you off.

 

[IanC]

after giving it some more thought, I have come to the conclusion that race-deniers can't (or won't) understand that there is a difference between race and racism. race is as obvious as the nose on your face, often literally. appearance, skeletal structure, other physical traits like gestation period and disease susceptibility, intelligence, social traits, etc all point to major groups commonly known as races. and of course the genetically measurable differences that drive all the other attributes mentioned.


what is the proof that race-deniers produce? the most important is that we are all humans, and if we are to get along with each other then we must ignore all the differences, or at least consider them insignificant. all under pain of being called a racist if you don't agree. --hmmm, there sure are an awful lot of differences in a lot of areas that can be reproducibly measured, I guess it matters how you define 'insignificant'

next is the fuzzy boundary issue, there are people of mixed heritage. --so what? how does that negate that there were unmixed races in the first place?

next is the definition of the word race, compared to other animals. lots of room to nitpick there, depending on who's definition you use. --ignores the fact that we are looking at concrete differences between human groups, and one of the definitions is exactly that.

next is the appeal to misleading comparison of numbers. eg humans share 99.8% of there genes in common, that's really close to 100% so we must be all just about alike. -- it takes one base pair transposition out of 3 billion to give someone sickle cell trait, and two to cause sickle cell disease. does it matter that we share 99% with chimpanzees?

lets go on to social reasons. racist old white males from the past 'invented' race, so it must be false. people who notice and measure racial differences in the past present or future are in violation of the first rule above and therefor racist and anything they say can be ignored.

or how about appeal to authority? J Graves Jr has written many articles and a few books that have the sole purpose of denying race while someone like N Risch actually works in the field and finds racial differences in the studies that he does. Graves=rhetoric, Risch=data

I'm tired of writing but I could go on. Race is real, racism is real (but much less than in the past) but the two are not the same. One is a biological reality, the other is a behaviour. Believing in the reality does not mean that you have to condone the behaviour. on the other hand, ignoring the reality and its implications leads to unexplainable disparate outcomes between the various races. which is where the default reason of 'racism' is trotted out over an over again.

 

[Ravi]

Ian,

I doubt that anyone would disagree that ethnic heritage is provable genetically.

Here is the definition of racist:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Your first thread on this forum was an attempt to prove that black people are genetically less intelligent than any other group of people.

This definition fits you to a tee. Why are you ashamed to be called a racist?

 

[IanC]

Ian,

I doubt that anyone would disagree that ethnic heritage is provable genetically.

Here is the definition of racist:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Your first thread on this forum was an attempt to prove that black people are genetically less intelligent than any other group of people.

This definition fits you to a tee. Why are you ashamed to be called a racist?

here we are in that definition no-man's land again. if I point out a difference, and show how it is at least partly controlled by racial genetic differences than I am by definition a 'racist'? even if it is demostrably true? I guess Mother Nature and I are racist then. of course we could debate the term 'superiority', and I have never said whites were superior as a race over blacks. whites have more strength in some areas and less in others. oddly enough white strengths happen to lie in just the social areas that are deemed important in white western culture, although I don't think that was a fluke, I think it was a combination of culture and available natural talent, driven by environment and evolution.

 

[Charles Stucker]

here we are in that definition no-man's land again. if I point out a difference, and show how it is at least partly controlled by racial genetic differences than I am by definition a 'racist'

No, but your insistence on misinterpreting data in a racist fashion lends credence to the hypothesis that you are a racist.
Yes, genetic differences cause differences in appearance.
Yes, the genetic lottery can seem cruel in individual cases.
Yes some genetic traits which were once advantageous (sickle cell susceptibility also give protection against malaria) are far more common in those ethnic groups which were subject to evolutionary forces (like malaria).
Yes, your viewpoints are racist.

 

[Intense]

GENETICS AND HUMAN MIGRATION PATTERNS
(GENETIC ANTHROPOLOGY)

[Last revised December 9, 2006]


Introduction
Much discourse is emerging from scientific circles detailing the results of genetic testing in relation to human migration patterns. These studies attempt to show the distribution of ethnic genetic codes over certain geographic areas in relation to time. This page attempts to grasp at and to explain some of this research.

Scientists have now identified the human lineages of the world descended from 10 sons of a genetic Adam and 18 daughters of Eve. This ancestral human population lived in Africa and started to split up 144,000 years ago. This time period is when both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees first branch out.

You will also notice that the analysis of DNA from many ancient skeletons and mummies (studies mentioned below) is performed on the mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA. This "ancient" DNA is often degraded and present in very small quantities. mtDNA offers the best chance of isolating DNA from ancient samples because it is small and is present in the cell with many copies.

Genetics and Human Migration Patterns

 

[Ravi]

Ian,

I doubt that anyone would disagree that ethnic heritage is provable genetically.

Here is the definition of racist:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Your first thread on this forum was an attempt to prove that black people are genetically less intelligent than any other group of people.

This definition fits you to a tee. Why are you ashamed to be called a racist?

here we are in that definition no-man's land again. if I point out a difference, and show how it is at least partly controlled by racial genetic differences than I am by definition a 'racist'? even if it is demostrably true? I guess Mother Nature and I are racist then. of course we could debate the term 'superiority', and I have never said whites were superior as a race over blacks. whites have more strength in some areas and less in others. oddly enough white strengths happen to lie in just the social areas that are deemed important in white western culture, although I don't think that was a fluke, I think it was a combination of culture and available natural talent, driven by environment and evolution.

Are you trying to say that you do not believe that black people are genetically less intelligent than whites and asians?

 

[Valerie]

This issue goes back the old correlation vs causation question.

 

[Ravi]

This issue goes back the old correlation vs causation question.

Do black people make IanC racist?

 

[uscitizen]

Interesting since geneticists have traced ALL of mankinds roots back to a small group in Africa.