Sunni Man
Diamond Member
And truthful
An Amazing thing happened to the Bass
- Thread starter Bass v 2.0
- Start date
Then why are you linking to political writer rather than a science writer? that guy is really light on research and publications. I encourage everyone to read at least a few paragraphs of Curve's link and compare it to the article I will exerpt and link to in the following post. politics and polemics versus science and information.
Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease
forceful presentation of the second point - that racial differences are merely cosmetic - was given recently in an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine [1]: "Such research mistakenly assumes an inherent biological difference between black-skinned and white-skinned people. It falls into error by attributing a complex physiological or clinical phenomenon to arbitrary aspects of external appearance. It is implausible that the few genes that account for such outward characteristics could be meaningfully linked to multigenic diseases such as diabetes mellitus or to the intricacies of the therapeutic effect of a drug." The logical flaw in this argument is the assumption that the blacks and whites in the referenced study differ only in skin pigment. Racial categorizations have never been based on skin pigment, but on indigenous continent of origin. For example, none of the population genetic studies cited above, including the study of Wilson et al. [2], used skin pigment of the study subjects, or genetic loci related to skin pigment, as predictive variables. Yet the various racial groups were easily distinguishable on the basis of even a modest number of random genetic markers; furthermore, categorization is extremely resistant to variation according to the type of markers used (for example, RFLPs, microsatellites or SNPs).
Genetic differentiation among the races has also led to some variation in pigmentation across races, but considerable variation within races remains, and there is substantial overlap for this feature. For example, it would be difficult to distinguish most Caucasians and Asians on the basis of skin pigment alone, yet they are easily distinguished by genetic markers. The author of the above statement [1] is in error to assume that the only genetic differences between races, which may differ on average in pigmentation, are for the genes that determine pigmentation.
In conjunction with Table 2, we can estimate that about 120 unselected SNPs or 20 highly selected SNPs can distinguish group CA from NA, AA from AS and AA from NA. A few hundred random SNPs are required to separate CA from AA, CA from AS and AS from NA, or about 40 highly selected loci. STRP loci are more powerful and have higher effective δ values because they have multiple alleles. Table 3 reveals that fewer than 100 random STRPs, or about 30 highly selected loci, can distinguish the major racial groups. As expected, differentiating Caucasians and Hispanic Americans, who are admixed but mostly of Caucasian ancestry, is more difficult and requires a few hundred random STRPs or about 50 highly selected loci. These results also indicate that many hundreds of markers or more would be required to accurately differentiate more closely related groups, for example populations within the same racial category.
forceful presentation of the second point - that racial differences are merely cosmetic - was given recently in an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine [1]: "Such research mistakenly assumes an inherent biological difference between black-skinned and white-skinned people. It falls into error by attributing a complex physiological or clinical phenomenon to arbitrary aspects of external appearance. It is implausible that the few genes that account for such outward characteristics could be meaningfully linked to multigenic diseases such as diabetes mellitus or to the intricacies of the therapeutic effect of a drug." The logical flaw in this argument is the assumption that the blacks and whites in the referenced study differ only in skin pigment. Racial categorizations have never been based on skin pigment, but on indigenous continent of origin. For example, none of the population genetic studies cited above, including the study of Wilson et al. [2], used skin pigment of the study subjects, or genetic loci related to skin pigment, as predictive variables. Yet the various racial groups were easily distinguishable on the basis of even a modest number of random genetic markers; furthermore, categorization is extremely resistant to variation according to the type of markers used (for example, RFLPs, microsatellites or SNPs).
Genetic differentiation among the races has also led to some variation in pigmentation across races, but considerable variation within races remains, and there is substantial overlap for this feature. For example, it would be difficult to distinguish most Caucasians and Asians on the basis of skin pigment alone, yet they are easily distinguished by genetic markers. The author of the above statement [1] is in error to assume that the only genetic differences between races, which may differ on average in pigmentation, are for the genes that determine pigmentation.
In conjunction with Table 2, we can estimate that about 120 unselected SNPs or 20 highly selected SNPs can distinguish group CA from NA, AA from AS and AA from NA. A few hundred random SNPs are required to separate CA from AA, CA from AS and AS from NA, or about 40 highly selected loci. STRP loci are more powerful and have higher effective δ values because they have multiple alleles. Table 3 reveals that fewer than 100 random STRPs, or about 30 highly selected loci, can distinguish the major racial groups. As expected, differentiating Caucasians and Hispanic Americans, who are admixed but mostly of Caucasian ancestry, is more difficult and requires a few hundred random STRPs or about 50 highly selected loci. These results also indicate that many hundreds of markers or more would be required to accurately differentiate more closely related groups, for example populations within the same racial category.
as compared to Graves' efforts--
Part I: What is Race?
Historically people have treated culture, genes, genetics and society as if they could be separated and that meaningful intellectual progress could come from that separation. No such program makes any sense. I work with colleagues of African American, Hispanic and American Indian decent. This morning the topic came up of science or scientific technology or scientific ideology being a double-edged sword. Everything is a double-edged sword. The water on your table is a double-edged sword. You can drink it or drown in it. The significant question is, who wields the sword. Science, at least western science, has been inculcated with racist ideology. Were racists doing the science? Did they have a social agenda? Did they have a political program they wanted to run? Does anyone think that science would be immune from the social forces around it? Preachers were not immune. Bankers were not immune. Actors, playwrights were not immune. Why would scientists be immune? Unless we diversify the ranks of the scientific enterprise, we will always be talking about what those scientists are doing.
I also reject the idea that scientists are not community members. In the community that I live in, I go to church on Sunday. I coach my kid's basketball team. I go to PTA meetings. I talk to the local press. I pick up garbage in my neighborhood. The scientists that everyone is talking about here are members of their communities. It was their community interests that constructed the science they did.
Scientists are people; they have the same sets of cultural misconceptions and cultural agendas as any other group of people. Here's an example.
"Eminent scientists are still confused on the issue of the biological meaning or race. Because of this mixing, many anthropologists argue quite reasonably that there is no scientific justification for applying the word "race" to human beings. But the concept itself is unambiguous, and I believe that the word has a clear meaning to most people. The difficulty is not with the concept, but with the realization that major human races are not pure races."
This is James Crow. It is published in Daedalus, one of the publications of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences. Why would an eminent geneticist, a man who wrote one of the major textbooks in population genetics, write this? He contradicts himself by saying that race is an unambiguous concept and that the word has a clear meaning but then says that races are not pure. If it's unambiguous then how come human races are not pure? To say that most people know what it means is not the issue, certainly not in this concern.
So what have people thought about biological race in the human species? A table from my book on 18th century naturalists' views on the racial traits of the Negro shows considerable disagreement about the hierarchy for racial features in the human species. François Bernier believes that traits of the Negro relative to European are neutral and does not know if they are inherited or the result of environment. Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz, of Germany, also thought the traits were neutral. Why did he think that? Because one of the most brilliant students he ever had was a West African mathematician by the name of Wilhelm Antan Amo. So he said, Africans seem to be just as teachable and as brilliant in mathematics as anyone else. He didn't know if this was a result of genes and he was sure the environment played a role.
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, the founder of the Western science of anthropology, thought that there was no objective ranking to human races and that genes and environment both played a role. The 18th century naturalists do not believe that Africans represent a separate species from Europeans.
Part I: What is Race?
Historically people have treated culture, genes, genetics and society as if they could be separated and that meaningful intellectual progress could come from that separation. No such program makes any sense. I work with colleagues of African American, Hispanic and American Indian decent. This morning the topic came up of science or scientific technology or scientific ideology being a double-edged sword. Everything is a double-edged sword. The water on your table is a double-edged sword. You can drink it or drown in it. The significant question is, who wields the sword. Science, at least western science, has been inculcated with racist ideology. Were racists doing the science? Did they have a social agenda? Did they have a political program they wanted to run? Does anyone think that science would be immune from the social forces around it? Preachers were not immune. Bankers were not immune. Actors, playwrights were not immune. Why would scientists be immune? Unless we diversify the ranks of the scientific enterprise, we will always be talking about what those scientists are doing.
I also reject the idea that scientists are not community members. In the community that I live in, I go to church on Sunday. I coach my kid's basketball team. I go to PTA meetings. I talk to the local press. I pick up garbage in my neighborhood. The scientists that everyone is talking about here are members of their communities. It was their community interests that constructed the science they did.
Scientists are people; they have the same sets of cultural misconceptions and cultural agendas as any other group of people. Here's an example.
"Eminent scientists are still confused on the issue of the biological meaning or race. Because of this mixing, many anthropologists argue quite reasonably that there is no scientific justification for applying the word "race" to human beings. But the concept itself is unambiguous, and I believe that the word has a clear meaning to most people. The difficulty is not with the concept, but with the realization that major human races are not pure races."
This is James Crow. It is published in Daedalus, one of the publications of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences. Why would an eminent geneticist, a man who wrote one of the major textbooks in population genetics, write this? He contradicts himself by saying that race is an unambiguous concept and that the word has a clear meaning but then says that races are not pure. If it's unambiguous then how come human races are not pure? To say that most people know what it means is not the issue, certainly not in this concern.
So what have people thought about biological race in the human species? A table from my book on 18th century naturalists' views on the racial traits of the Negro shows considerable disagreement about the hierarchy for racial features in the human species. François Bernier believes that traits of the Negro relative to European are neutral and does not know if they are inherited or the result of environment. Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz, of Germany, also thought the traits were neutral. Why did he think that? Because one of the most brilliant students he ever had was a West African mathematician by the name of Wilhelm Antan Amo. So he said, Africans seem to be just as teachable and as brilliant in mathematics as anyone else. He didn't know if this was a result of genes and he was sure the environment played a role.
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, the founder of the Western science of anthropology, thought that there was no objective ranking to human races and that genes and environment both played a role. The 18th century naturalists do not believe that Africans represent a separate species from Europeans.
Lonestar_logic
Republic of Texas
- May 13, 2009
- 24,539
- 2,233
- 205
Looks like Affirmative Action is alive and well.
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #106
Holy shit you're fucking thick. For the third and last time....homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Rape and molestation are violent crimes. You obviously don't or can't understand the difference between sexual orientations and acts.
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #107
Sunni Man
Diamond Member
Just because you say something and then throw a fit, doesn't make it true.
Homosexuality is also an act. An act of perversion.
Child molestation is also an act of perversion.
The only difference between the two is a legal issue.
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #109
If you don't understand the difference between sexual orientation and acts then you really shouldn't try to discuss this issue.
Damn, and here I thought entering this thread that I thought you'd be saying you hit puberty. Or maybe finally got laid.
LOL, your the undergrad that is wasting his college experience on the web, instead of chasing tail! Yet you have the nallz to bash someone on not getting laid!
That is the essence of hypocrisy, no? 
Sunni Man
Diamond Member
Just because you say there is a difference, dosen't make it true.
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #112
Just because you say there is a difference, dosen't make it true.
I never said it is true simply because I said it.
what do you think that factoid means? there are many genetic diseases that involve the transposition of just a few base pairs. the majority of the genome is filler, not genes, so that number that you quote doesn't mean what you imply it means. chimpanzees share something like 98% of DNA structure with humans.
did you provide evidence that Graves arguments are anything but 'appeal to authority fallacy' and carefully crafted changes of word meanings in different contexts?
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #114
Looks like a long winded way of saying "No." Thanks!
I'm not saying humans don't share 99+% of the genome. I'm saying that small differences in the 3+ BILLION base pairs can make very large differences. is there a difference in gold ore that has one gram of gold per tonne compared to 1000 grams? not according to your logic, but it certainly matters to gold miners
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #116
So what evidence can you yank from Stormfront, the duke report, amren, vdare, or the occidental observer to show races as we label them are biologically verified?
you seem to be the expert on those sites. what did you find? I prefer actual scientific studies.
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #118
So what evidence can you yank from Stormfront, the duke report, amren, vdare, or the occidental observer to show races as we label them are biologically verified?
Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies
as a funny addendum, this study found self identified race was genetically confirmed more often than self identified sex!
as a funny addendum, this study found self identified race was genetically confirmed more often than self identified sex!
originally found in Gene Expression 2007
Gene Expression: Race: the current consensus
haha, ain't that the truth
Gene Expression: Race: the current consensus
haha, ain't that the truth
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Putin's adviser said the Bolshevik empire continues to exist and the war in Ukraine is an "internal process."- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
-
Israeli drones kill week old baby terrorist- Started by Tommy Tainant
- Replies: 10
