Zone1 What Science Says About Race and Genetics

Hector12

Platinum Member
Feb 28, 2023
7,164
3,352
938
Time Magazine, BY NICHOLAS WADE MAY 9, 2014 6:33 PM EDT

A longstanding orthodoxy among social scientists holds that human races are a social construct and have no biological basis. A related assumption is that human evolution halted in the distant past, so long ago that evolutionary explanations need never be considered by historians or economists.

In the decade since the decoding of the human genome, a growing wealth of data has made clear that these two positions, never at all likely to begin with, are simply incorrect. There is indeed a biological basis for race. And it is now beyond doubt that human evolution is a continuous process that has proceeded vigorously within the last 30,000 years and almost certainly — though very recent evolution is hard to measure — throughout the historical period and up until the present day.

New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional. Biologists scanning the genome for evidence of natural selection have detected signals of many genes that have been favored by natural selection in the recent evolutionary past. No less than 14% of the human genome, according to one estimate, has changed under this recent evolutionary pressure.

Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. An illustration of the point is the fact that with mixed race populations, such as African Americans, geneticists can now track along an individual’s genome, and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if race did not have some basis in biological reality...

Nicholas Wade is a former science editor at The New York Times. This piece is adapted from the new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, published by the Penguin Press.


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

Ten years ago it was still possible for an organ of the mainstream news to run an article like this. For reasons I do not understand, as the scientific evidence for race realism increase, efforts to suppress this evidence also increase.

Scientists looking for genes that effect intelligence and behavior have learned to perform their research as privately as possible.
 
MentalDisorders.jpg
 
Time Magazine, BY NICHOLAS WADE MAY 9, 2014 6:33 PM EDT

A longstanding orthodoxy among social scientists holds that human races are a social construct and have no biological basis. A related assumption is that human evolution halted in the distant past, so long ago that evolutionary explanations need never be considered by historians or economists.

In the decade since the decoding of the human genome, a growing wealth of data has made clear that these two positions, never at all likely to begin with, are simply incorrect. There is indeed a biological basis for race. And it is now beyond doubt that human evolution is a continuous process that has proceeded vigorously within the last 30,000 years and almost certainly — though very recent evolution is hard to measure — throughout the historical period and up until the present day.

New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional. Biologists scanning the genome for evidence of natural selection have detected signals of many genes that have been favored by natural selection in the recent evolutionary past. No less than 14% of the human genome, according to one estimate, has changed under this recent evolutionary pressure.

Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. An illustration of the point is the fact that with mixed race populations, such as African Americans, geneticists can now track along an individual’s genome, and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if race did not have some basis in biological reality...

Nicholas Wade is a former science editor at The New York Times. This piece is adapted from the new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, published by the Penguin Press.


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

Ten years ago it was still possible for an organ of the mainstream news to run an article like this. For reasons I do not understand, as the scientific evidence for race realism increase, efforts to suppress this evidence also increase.

Scientists looking for genes that effect intelligence and behavior have learned to perform their research as privately as possible.
The next couple of paragraphs are also worth an excerpt ~ read;
...
Racism and discrimination are wrong as a matter of principle, not of science. That said, it is hard to see anything in the new understanding of race that gives ammunition to racists. The reverse is the case. Exploration of the genome has shown that all humans, whatever their race, share the same set of genes. Each gene exists in a variety of alternative forms known as alleles, so one might suppose that races have distinguishing alleles, but even this is not the case. A few alleles have highly skewed distributions but these do not suffice to explain the difference between races. The difference between races seems to rest on the subtle matter of relative allele frequencies. The overwhelming verdict of the genome is to declare the basic unity of humankind.

Genetics and Social Behavior​

Human evolution has not only been recent and extensive, it has also been regional. The period of 30,000 to 5,000 years ago, from which signals of recent natural selection can be detected, occurred after the splitting of the three major races, so represents selection that has occurred largely independently within each race. The three principal races are Africans (those who live south of the Sahara), East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans), and Caucasians (Europeans and the peoples of the Near East and the Indian subcontinent). In each of these races, a different set of genes has been changed by natural selection. This is just what would be expected for populations that had to adapt to different challenges on each continent. The genes specially affected by natural selection control not only expected traits like skin color and nutritional metabolism, but also some aspects of brain function. Though the role of these selected brain genes is not yet understood, the obvious truth is that genes affecting the brain are just as much subject to natural selection as any other category of gene.
...
............
Actually the whole article makes for interesting and informative read.

The companion page would be the recent rise of genetics in tracing one's ancestry, such as 'Ancestry.com'. Use of their service has both my sons showing about 25% genetic link to the population of Nigeria. i.e they are 25% Black(African). Expressed another way, half of the genetic half they got from their mother is that Nigerian inheritance. Based on appearance - skin color, facial and body characteristics, etc. my youngest son appears full Caucasian; my oldest son has slight 'non-white' hints that have often been mistaken for Hispanic. BTW, their mother appeared to be either slightly Hispanic or Eurasian.

Now if the boys only had about 1/8th Native American they might be entitled to some sort of tribal benefits.;) As it is, they'd have to show printout of the Ancestry.com research to claim any sort of racial minority status or quota favor since neither looks the slightest bit of Black/African-American.
 
Most people do NOT care what learned journals say or do not say.

They just know that their fellow human beings are dangerous, and that certain human beings are especially dangerous.
 
The next couple of paragraphs are also worth an excerpt ~ read;
...
Racism and discrimination are wrong as a matter of principle, not of science. That said, it is hard to see anything in the new understanding of race that gives ammunition to racists. The reverse is the case.

That kind of reads like an obligatory nod to political correctness. I don’t imagine providing controversial “ammunition to racists” is the best way to secure grant money.

Anyway, I’m not surprised we all share the same genes. But how exactly do genes demonstrate equality? The liberal view of this all, currently being taught in higher education, is that you need to see someone’s skin color to acknowledge their “culture”. The same academics have nothing good to say about the culture of “whiteness”. It’s a silly loop-hole to the same end as racism.
 
Because it's the only option harsher than the thumbs down=disagree.
"Fake News" is another way of saying "False" or "Wrong".
It is not enough to say that something is false; One needs to explain how and why it is false. Expressing dislike for a statement does not do that. One can dislike a statement that is true.
 
That kind of reads like an obligatory nod to political correctness. I don’t imagine providing controversial “ammunition to racists” is the best way to secure grant money.

Anyway, I’m not surprised we all share the same genes. But how exactly do genes demonstrate equality? The liberal view of this all, currently being taught in higher education, is that you need to see someone’s skin color to acknowledge their “culture”. The same academics have nothing good to say about the culture of “whiteness”. It’s a silly loop-hole to the same end as racism.
More correctly we all share the same chromosomes, but their content, the genes, do vary. You likely don't have all the same genes in total that I do, even if we were related and born as identical twins.
 
It is not enough to say that something is false; One needs to explain how and why it is false. Expressing dislike for a statement does not do that. One can dislike a statement that is true.
'Then it is not enough to say something is true/fact; One needs to explain how and why it is true/fact. Expressing a like for a statement does not do that.'

Interesting how the change of a couple words turn your statement into something opposite.
Also note that like or dislike are subjective personal opinions. And we often see that one person's truth is another person's lie/false.

'One can like a statement that is not true.' :rolleyes:
 
It is bizarre to think that with so many cosmetic differences between the races there are no non cosmetic differences that influence different intelligence averages and inclinations. For too long there have been too many taboos and sanctions against looking into these differences.
 

Forum List

Back
Top