< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Race is not just biological: it is a core of biology

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
18 January 2019 09:38
 
Garret - 18 January 2019 08:51 AM

The problem with relying on outward physical characteristics, is that populations that don’t share DNA can develop the same physical characteristics (phenotypes).  There is a subset of genetics called epigenetics.  Epigenetics are the expression of genes, and can change from individual to individual without altering the underlying genetics.

A recently examined example of epigenetics is obesity correlation with the obesity of the parents.  A male who is obese at the time of procreation is more likely to produce offspring who will also be obese in their life times, but if that male loses weight, subsequent offspring will have lower chances of being obese (and the reverse is also true).  The amount of body fat that a person carries at a specific time does not alter your DNA, but it does alter your hormone regulation, which alters how your genes are expressed.

Another example is sickle-cell anemia.  Often considered a “black” disease, there are white populations that are found outside of Africa that have this disease present genetically as well, and they developed it independently (not through a mixing of populations).  The underlying cause is that the population has been repeatedly exposed to malaria.  People who survive malaria don’t have their genes altered, but how their body expresses those genes changes.  Even if the children are never exposed to malaria, they can retain these changes for generations which result in sickle cell anemia.

This can even affect things like nose shape and skin color.  It can even affect blood vessel formation and distribution.

Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations

A paragraph explaining “distance” between individuals versus populations.

The simplifications introduced by Risch et al. (2002) and Edwards (2003) allow an alternative view, represented in Figure 1C. Here, each individual i is assigned a unidimensional genetic location qi (the individual’s population trait value; see materials and methods). The trait distance between any two individuals x and y is now just the horizontal distance between them, |qx–qy|. This simplification is possible only in the two-population case and requires a population-specific coding of allele states, so the trait distance is not equivalent to the genetic distances represented in Figure 1, A and B. Nonetheless, it is instructive to consider the analogy using Figure 1C as a guide. For example, an African individual x with qx = 0.52 will be more similar to a European y with qy = 0.60 than to another African z with qz = 0.4. Yet that individual x will still be closer to the population mean trait value for Africans (qA ? 0.48, the African centroid) than to the mean value of Europeans (qB ? 0.68). It follows that many individuals like this one will be correctly classified (yielding low CC and CT) even though they are often more similar to individuals of the other population than to members of their own population (yielding high equation M15).

If you want to read a conclusion that doesn’t use mathematical statistical language:

The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.

I thought that the last sentence would be particularly useful for you.

Nice to see posts from somebody who actually knows what they’re talking about. Problem is, this troll will just come back with some sort of passive-aggressive weaseling and ignore anything that doesn’t agree with his pre-established agenda.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  467
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
18 January 2019 09:47
 
GAD - 18 January 2019 09:33 AM
Garret - 17 January 2019 09:56 AM
GAD - 17 January 2019 08:45 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 17 January 2019 04:46 AM

How genetics is changing our understanding of “race”

Makes sense to me. Really everyone accepts that genetics dictate skin color, eyes, hair, height etc and disposition to diseases etc, the issue is when someone asks if it could also dictate intelligence, violence, sexuality etc, that’s when it goes crazy, not because it couldn’t but because of the fear that knowing could be used by one group against another.

Except that the problem is making broad generalizations by creating categories of people who share very little common ancestry.

When examining genetics, “race” is not a useful category, unless we expand “race” into at least 97 groups, at least a dozen of which make up the majority of the population on the African continent.

Take the above example of cystic fibrosis.  You have to realize how much data he left out.  In the whole world, there are roughly 70,000 cases of cystic fibrosis, 30,000 of which are in the US.  Using simplified napkin math, roughly 97.5% of the white population in the US has perfectly normal CTFR genes, which means they aren’t carriers of the mutation which causes the disease.  Using his ratio of cases between “racial” groups, that means that 99.5% of black people are also not carriers.

Cystic fibrosis is not a unique disease though, and by that I mean it isn’t caused by a single genetic mutation.  There are actually 1700 different mutations of the same gene, all of which result in the same disease.  In the entire course of human history, that gene has mutated 1700 times, resulting in different lineages.  That means that each mutation on average represents less than 0.00147% of the white population.

Do you think that something that describes 0.00147% of the white population is a good way to characterize the other 99.99953% of the population?

This is the problem with making genetic claims about large populations.

Also, we can identify which genes modify skin color and eyes, but we don’t know which genes control height (even though we have reason to believe height has genetic correlation r-value of .8)  We understand which genes influence intelligence even less than we know about height.

Seriously, the more you guys talk about race and genetics, the more obvious it becomes you don’t understand anything about genetics.

The point is that we accept genetics except when it gets in the way of identity politics.

I fully agree.  The OP is ignoring genetics where they disagree with his identity politics.

Oh wait, you’re trying to use the term “identity politics” as an ideological dog whistle, aren’t you?  Since “identify politics” has nothing to do with the science of genetics, you should keep your ideological bullshit to a different thread.

[ Edited: 18 January 2019 09:51 by Garret]
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
18 January 2019 09:48
 
Garret - 18 January 2019 08:51 AM

The problem with relying on outward physical characteristics, is that populations that don’t share DNA can develop the same physical characteristics (phenotypes).  There is a subset of genetics called epigenetics.  Epigenetics are the expression of genes, and can change from individual to individual without altering the underlying genetics.

A recently examined example of epigenetics is obesity correlation with the obesity of the parents.  A male who is obese at the time of procreation is more likely to produce offspring who will also be obese in their life times, but if that male loses weight, subsequent offspring will have lower chances of being obese (and the reverse is also true).  The amount of body fat that a person carries at a specific time does not alter your DNA, but it does alter your hormone regulation, which alters how your genes are expressed.

Another example is sickle-cell anemia.  Often considered a “black” disease, there are white populations that are found outside of Africa that have this disease present genetically as well, and they developed it independently (not through a mixing of populations).  The underlying cause is that the population has been repeatedly exposed to malaria.  People who survive malaria don’t have their genes altered, but how their body expresses those genes changes.  Even if the children are never exposed to malaria, they can retain these changes for generations which result in sickle cell anemia.

This can even affect things like nose shape and skin color.  It can even affect blood vessel formation and distribution.

Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations

A paragraph explaining “distance” between individuals versus populations.

The simplifications introduced by Risch et al. (2002) and Edwards (2003) allow an alternative view, represented in Figure 1C. Here, each individual i is assigned a unidimensional genetic location qi (the individual’s population trait value; see materials and methods). The trait distance between any two individuals x and y is now just the horizontal distance between them, |qx–qy|. This simplification is possible only in the two-population case and requires a population-specific coding of allele states, so the trait distance is not equivalent to the genetic distances represented in Figure 1, A and B. Nonetheless, it is instructive to consider the analogy using Figure 1C as a guide. For example, an African individual x with qx = 0.52 will be more similar to a European y with qy = 0.60 than to another African z with qz = 0.4. Yet that individual x will still be closer to the population mean trait value for Africans (qA ? 0.48, the African centroid) than to the mean value of Europeans (qB ? 0.68). It follows that many individuals like this one will be correctly classified (yielding low CC and CT) even though they are often more similar to individuals of the other population than to members of their own population (yielding high equation M15).

If you want to read a conclusion that doesn’t use mathematical statistical language:

The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.

I thought that the last sentence would be particularly useful for you.

I fully agree that “caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.” But the claim before that landed as a red mark on my radar: “even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.”

This claim seems to be at odds with both the body of empirical knowledge on the matter and a fundamental of population genetics. I expect it would be correct if they used the word “rarely,” and not, “frequently.” I read some of their paper to see how they justify this claim. I found a more detailed claim with a citation as follows:

“However, in a reanalysis of data from 377 microsatellite loci typed in 1056 individuals, Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time (Bamshad et al. 2004; population definitions and data from Rosenberg et al. 2002).”

Really? I am already familiar with Rosenberg et al and I know they make no such claim, nor does their data indicate such a thing, but maybe it was misinterpreted by Bamshad et al. So I went to Bamshad et al. and found the full text here:

https://user.xmission.com/~wooding/pdfs/bamshad_race04.pdf

I looked up and down that article, and they make no such claim, either. Instead, the article should have served as a pretty good education on the realities of genetics and race, cutting through the bullshit. Here is a relevant excerpt, directly contrary to the claim made by Witherspoon et al. when they cited the article.

How many markers? If people from different continents
— chosen to maximize the level of genetic differentiation
among groups — are stripped of ancestry information,
how many markers are required to distinguish groups
and reliably allocate individuals into these groups? For a
sample of ~200 individuals from sub-Saharan Africa,
Europe and East Asia, correct allocation to the continent
of origin with a mean accuracy of 90% requires ~60
randomly selected Alu insertion polymorphisms or
STRs24. The mean accuracy of allocation improves to
99–100% with the use of a modest ~100–160 markers
(FIG. 1). What if individuals are sampled from broader
geographical regions? Rosenberg et al.studied 52 ethnic
groups distributed worldwide and allocated each of
~1,000 individuals into 1 of 5 different genetic clusters
using 377 randomly selected STRs25. Each cluster repre-
sented people whose ancestors were typically isolated by
large geographical barriers: sub-Saharan Africans;
Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East
Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and
Native Americans. These studies confirmed that there is
a relationship between patterns of genetic variation and
geographical ancestry; with a high degree of accuracy
and reliability using a relatively modest number of mul-
tilocus genotypes, individuals can indeed be allocated to
groups that represent broad geographical regions.

I am tempted to launch into another sermon about how ideology corrupts every component of science including peer review, but I know I go wrong when i jump to conclusions too quickly. You may be more eagle-eyed than i am, as I am biased are against finding it, so you can do me a favor and try to find the evidence of the claim that Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  467
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
18 January 2019 10:57
 

Looking around, I can get the full text, but the source data from Rosenberg et al 2002 is not available to me with a quick search.  But there is relevant text:

The average proportion of genetic differences between individuals from different human populations only slightly exceeds that between unrelated individuals from a single population (4-9). That is, the within-population component of genetic variation, estimated here as 93 to 95% (Table 1), accounts for most of human genetic diversity. Perhaps as a result of differences in sampling schemes (10), our estimate is higher than previous estimates from studies of comparable geographic coverage (4-6, 9), one of which also used microsatellite markers (6). This overall similarity of human populations is also evident in the geographically widespread nature of most alleles (fig. S1). Of 4199 alleles present more than once in the sample, 46.7% appeared in all major regions represented: Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Central/ South Asia, East Asia, Oceania, and America. Only 7.4% of these 4199 alleles were exclusive to one region; region-specific alleles were usually rare, with a median relative frequency of 1.0% in their region of occurrence (11).

Let’s use Social Security numbers as an example.  It’s semi-random number assigned to each person.  The first 3 digits are determined by the location of the office where you first applied (prior to 1972), or the zip code you were born in (post 1972).  Then the middle two are a group designation, which essentially denotes the order in which people were born, with the last 4 being a serialized set from 0001 to 9999.

The loci being used in DNA are essentially the first three digits of the SSN.  It tells us where your ancestors came from in the early migration of the human species.  But those last 6 digits are highly randomized within the population, so it is possible for two people from different areas to share more numbers in common with each other than they do with a neighbor.

Two people born on the same day in the same hospital will have an extremely high probability of sharing the first 5 numbers identically, but the last 4 might share a digit or two, but can never be identical and often will be in different positions.  Meanwhile, two people born a thousand miles and 4 decades apart can share an identical last 6.

From later in Rosenberg 2002:

Genetic clustering is also more appropriate for some types of population genetic studies, because unrecognized genetic structure can produce false positives in statistical tests for population growth or natural selection (27).

  This is after the section about how self-reporting is often fairly accurate for predicting genetic population.  It’s saying that while self-reporting can be good at predicting certain loci, it will also cause false positives in studying genes not covered in those loci.  Making inferences on genes we don’t understand and haven’t mapped onto the population is a bad idea because… well, we don’t understand them and we haven’t mapped them yet.

Remember, this is patterns of alleles.  If we are looking at alleles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, each will have either be present or not.  If Africans are more likely to have 1, 3, 6-10 and 19, a person isn’t African because they have all of them, but rather by having more of those than they do of the others.  A person who had 1, 6, 8, and 10 would be classified as African, even though they share no alleles in common with a person who has 3, 7, 9 and 19, but who is also classified as African.

AFRICAN GENETIC DIVERSITY: Implications for Human Demographic History, Modern Human Origins, and Complex Disease Mapping

Several studies of nucleotide and haplotype variation have indicated that ancestral African populations were geographically structured prior to the migration of modern humans out of Africa (72, 73, 82, 158, 200, 241). Additionally, a recent study of 800 short tandem repeat polymorphisms (STRPs) and 400 /INDELs genotyped in more than 3000 geographically and ethnically diverse Africans indicates the presence of at least 13 genetically distinct ancestral populations in Africa and high levels of population admixture in many regions (F.A. Reed and S.A Tishkoff unpublished data). Population clusters are correlated with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties (e.g., Pygmies, Khoisan-speaking hunter-gatherers, Bantu speakers, Cushitic speakers). This study reveals extensive admixture between inferred ancestral populations in most African populations. One exception is among West African Niger-Kordofanian (i.e., Bantu) speakers who are more genetically homogeneous compared with other African populations, likely reflecting the recent and rapid spread of Bantu speakers from a common origin in Cameroon/Nigeria (although fine-scale genetic structure can be detected amongst these populations). Thus, the pattern of genetic diversity in Africa indicates that African populations have maintained a large and subdivided population structure throughout much of their evolutionary history (Figure 2). Historic subdivision among African populations is likely due to ethnic and linguistic barriers, as well as a number of geographic, ecological, and climatic factors (including periods of glaciation and warming) that could have contributed to population expansions, contractions, fragmentations, and extinctions during recent human evolution in Africa (172, 206).

Within Africa there is a high level of genetic diversity.  In fact, just examining sub-Saharan Africa we still find the most genetically diverse region on Earth.  Combine this with the fact that we have essentially no understanding of intelligence on a genetic level (we can identify genes responsible for specific diseases, but we don’t know the entire structure of how genetics control the brain), we have a poor understanding of intelligence on a non-genetic level, and then you attempt to combine three areas of discipline which are all poorly defined and make concrete conclusions.

[ Edited: 18 January 2019 11:07 by Garret]
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
18 January 2019 18:56
 

OK, for now I will assume that the claim that “Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time” is just bullshit and put it on the back burner for awhile. It is possible that they have evidence and I missed it, but the possibility is a slim one, as it is at odds with both established theory and fact. The large within-group diversity compared to the between-group diversity means less than you may expect, because the alleles that vary between groups correlate with each other, and the correlation is what creates the many phenotypic differences between groups (search with the keywords “Lewontin’s fallacy” for more information). That correlation is what is left out of your analogy with social-security numbers, so I suggest coming to grips with Lewontin’s fallacy. Academics at large have only recently started to come to grips with it, to their credit. It is likewise not so relevant that black Africans have so much genetic variation. I sometimes see that point presented as though each race must have equal genetic variation to count as a set of races, but that was seemingly never a criterion in biology. I expect within any species the race that’s the source of the species always has the most genetic variation as a matter of evolution.

I am going to deal with your objection that I don’t have a genetic definition of any racial category (I am sorry I was late delivering this sermon). You are correct with your belief that standard widely-accepted genetic definitions for racial categories do not exist. For each genetics laboratory that would study human races (whether or not they call them “races”), I expect they would have their own set of hundreds to thousands of genetic variants that would predict each race for any human genetic specimen among the human races under their jurisdiction (maybe not for Tibetens or Kalash or whoever, as you alluded to). Each genetic variant would have a racial frequency percentage assigned to it, and with a regression analysis that looks at all genetic variants in the same time, it outputs a probability that the sample belongs to the race that matches the sample the most. But, a different lab is likely to have a different set of genetic variants for each race. It is theoretically possible, I suppose, for all of them to have the same list of alleles and allele frequencies for each race, though not socially possible. Supposing they did, would that finally resolve your objection?

I have a more important question. Suppose, in a hypothetical, that my general perspective is correct. You don’t even need to presuppose my claims about racial psychological differences. You can leave that out of it. In short, my perspective is that human races biologically exist because evolution took many different paths for the human species; races emerged as millions of alleles within any given race diverged in frequency from those of other races, and this affected the racial differences of almost any phenotype. I believe this set of claims is already an established and uncontested set of facts, but it is only a hypothetical for you so you don’t have to believe it. Supposing this is so, then what would be an acceptable standard “genetic definition” of the European race? Is it possible or impossible, and does it matter?

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
18 January 2019 21:54
 
Garret - 18 January 2019 09:47 AM
GAD - 18 January 2019 09:33 AM

The point is that we accept genetics except when it gets in the way of identity politics.

I fully agree.  The OP is ignoring genetics where they disagree with his identity politics.

Oh wait, you’re trying to use the term “identity politics” as an ideological dog whistle, aren’t you?  Since “identify politics” has nothing to do with the science of genetics, you should keep your ideological bullshit to a different thread.

Oh wow, your asshole gene has caused my fuck off gene to be expressed as fuck off asshole. Fun! Lets do more!

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  467
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
19 January 2019 01:01
 
GAD - 18 January 2019 09:54 PM
Garret - 18 January 2019 09:47 AM
GAD - 18 January 2019 09:33 AM

The point is that we accept genetics except when it gets in the way of identity politics.

I fully agree.  The OP is ignoring genetics where they disagree with his identity politics.

Oh wait, you’re trying to use the term “identity politics” as an ideological dog whistle, aren’t you?  Since “identify politics” has nothing to do with the science of genetics, you should keep your ideological bullshit to a different thread.

Oh wow, your asshole gene has caused my fuck off gene to be expressed as fuck off asshole. Fun! Lets do more!

Sorry, your dog whistles are too loud for me to hear anything else.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  467
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
19 January 2019 01:03
 
Abel Dean - 18 January 2019 06:56 PM

OK, for now I will assume that the claim that “Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time” is just bullshit and put it on the back burner for awhile. It is possible that they have evidence and I missed it, but the possibility is a slim one, as it is at odds with both established theory and fact. The large within-group diversity compared to the between-group diversity means less than you may expect, because the alleles that vary between groups correlate with each other, and the correlation is what creates the many phenotypic differences between groups (search with the keywords “Lewontin’s fallacy” for more information). That correlation is what is left out of your analogy with social-security numbers, so I suggest coming to grips with Lewontin’s fallacy. Academics at large have only recently started to come to grips with it, to their credit. It is likewise not so relevant that black Africans have so much genetic variation. I sometimes see that point presented as though each race must have equal genetic variation to count as a set of races, but that was seemingly never a criterion in biology. I expect within any species the race that’s the source of the species always has the most genetic variation as a matter of evolution.

I am going to deal with your objection that I don’t have a genetic definition of any racial category (I am sorry I was late delivering this sermon). You are correct with your belief that standard widely-accepted genetic definitions for racial categories do not exist. For each genetics laboratory that would study human races (whether or not they call them “races”), I expect they would have their own set of hundreds to thousands of genetic variants that would predict each race for any human genetic specimen among the human races under their jurisdiction (maybe not for Tibetens or Kalash or whoever, as you alluded to). Each genetic variant would have a racial frequency percentage assigned to it, and with a regression analysis that looks at all genetic variants in the same time, it outputs a probability that the sample belongs to the race that matches the sample the most. But, a different lab is likely to have a different set of genetic variants for each race. It is theoretically possible, I suppose, for all of them to have the same list of alleles and allele frequencies for each race, though not socially possible. Supposing they did, would that finally resolve your objection?

I have a more important question. Suppose, in a hypothetical, that my general perspective is correct. You don’t even need to presuppose my claims about racial psychological differences. You can leave that out of it. In short, my perspective is that human races biologically exist because evolution took many different paths for the human species; races emerged as millions of alleles within any given race diverged in frequency from those of other races, and this affected the racial differences of almost any phenotype. I believe this set of claims is already an established and uncontested set of facts, but it is only a hypothetical for you so you don’t have to believe it. Supposing this is so, then what would be an acceptable standard “genetic definition” of the European race? Is it possible or impossible, and does it matter?

I don’t accept that your hypothesis is correct, so I’m not accepting that it’s true.  Also, you haven’t shown cause for throwing out the 38%, so if you’re going to start throwing scientific data out without cause, you clearly aren’t here for truth.  You don’t get to ignore data because you don’t like it.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
19 January 2019 01:11
 
Garret - 19 January 2019 01:01 AM
GAD - 18 January 2019 09:54 PM
Garret - 18 January 2019 09:47 AM
GAD - 18 January 2019 09:33 AM

The point is that we accept genetics except when it gets in the way of identity politics.

I fully agree.  The OP is ignoring genetics where they disagree with his identity politics.

Oh wait, you’re trying to use the term “identity politics” as an ideological dog whistle, aren’t you?  Since “identify politics” has nothing to do with the science of genetics, you should keep your ideological bullshit to a different thread.

Oh wow, your asshole gene has caused my fuck off gene to be expressed as fuck off asshole. Fun! Lets do more!

Sorry, your dog whistles are too loud for me to hear anything else.

Mine was better, looks like you don’t have the genes to be in this race.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6335
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
19 January 2019 01:22
 
GAD - 19 January 2019 01:11 AM

Mine was better

Let’s not be telling newbies to fuck off, Mr. GAD. Extend the same latitude you expect for yourself or maybe you do not have the genes to be in this thread. As we dish, so shall we be served.

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
19 January 2019 05:54
 
Garret - 19 January 2019 01:03 AM
Abel Dean - 18 January 2019 06:56 PM

OK, for now I will assume that the claim that “Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time” is just bullshit and put it on the back burner for awhile. It is possible that they have evidence and I missed it, but the possibility is a slim one, as it is at odds with both established theory and fact. The large within-group diversity compared to the between-group diversity means less than you may expect, because the alleles that vary between groups correlate with each other, and the correlation is what creates the many phenotypic differences between groups (search with the keywords “Lewontin’s fallacy” for more information). That correlation is what is left out of your analogy with social-security numbers, so I suggest coming to grips with Lewontin’s fallacy. Academics at large have only recently started to come to grips with it, to their credit. It is likewise not so relevant that black Africans have so much genetic variation. I sometimes see that point presented as though each race must have equal genetic variation to count as a set of races, but that was seemingly never a criterion in biology. I expect within any species the race that’s the source of the species always has the most genetic variation as a matter of evolution.

I am going to deal with your objection that I don’t have a genetic definition of any racial category (I am sorry I was late delivering this sermon). You are correct with your belief that standard widely-accepted genetic definitions for racial categories do not exist. For each genetics laboratory that would study human races (whether or not they call them “races”), I expect they would have their own set of hundreds to thousands of genetic variants that would predict each race for any human genetic specimen among the human races under their jurisdiction (maybe not for Tibetens or Kalash or whoever, as you alluded to). Each genetic variant would have a racial frequency percentage assigned to it, and with a regression analysis that looks at all genetic variants in the same time, it outputs a probability that the sample belongs to the race that matches the sample the most. But, a different lab is likely to have a different set of genetic variants for each race. It is theoretically possible, I suppose, for all of them to have the same list of alleles and allele frequencies for each race, though not socially possible. Supposing they did, would that finally resolve your objection?

I have a more important question. Suppose, in a hypothetical, that my general perspective is correct. You don’t even need to presuppose my claims about racial psychological differences. You can leave that out of it. In short, my perspective is that human races biologically exist because evolution took many different paths for the human species; races emerged as millions of alleles within any given race diverged in frequency from those of other races, and this affected the racial differences of almost any phenotype. I believe this set of claims is already an established and uncontested set of facts, but it is only a hypothetical for you so you don’t have to believe it. Supposing this is so, then what would be an acceptable standard “genetic definition” of the European race? Is it possible or impossible, and does it matter?

I don’t accept that your hypothesis is correct, so I’m not accepting that it’s true.  Also, you haven’t shown cause for throwing out the 38%, so if you’re going to start throwing scientific data out without cause, you clearly aren’t here for truth.  You don’t get to ignore data because you don’t like it.

The hypothetical is designed as a thought experiment. Immediately after the thought experiment, all of your beliefs go back to the way they were before. If the reality happens to be that human biological races exist, then such a reality cannot accommodate standard molecular genetic definitions of any racial categories. Given that perspective, I think we would to stick with the fuzzy macroscopic definitions of racial categories, based on regions of origin, mating patterns and admixtures.

I get to ignore a claim (not data) when both it is improbable on the face given the background knowledge and I look up the sources thence finding contrary information. I would still like to get a better idea of how this claim emerged; it is unlikely that they just made it up whole cloth. I will email one of the co-authors. Maybe against the odds they do have the data on their side.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
19 January 2019 09:36
 
Nhoj Morley - 19 January 2019 01:22 AM
GAD - 19 January 2019 01:11 AM

Mine was better

Let’s not be telling newbies to fuck off, Mr. GAD. Extend the same latitude you expect for yourself or maybe you do not have the genes to be in this thread. As we dish, so shall we be served.

I was extending what I received. Guess I forgot that newbies get get out of being an asshole free cards.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  467
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
19 January 2019 09:53
 
Abel Dean - 19 January 2019 05:54 AM
Garret - 19 January 2019 01:03 AM
Abel Dean - 18 January 2019 06:56 PM

OK, for now I will assume that the claim that “Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time” is just bullshit and put it on the back burner for awhile. It is possible that they have evidence and I missed it, but the possibility is a slim one, as it is at odds with both established theory and fact. The large within-group diversity compared to the between-group diversity means less than you may expect, because the alleles that vary between groups correlate with each other, and the correlation is what creates the many phenotypic differences between groups (search with the keywords “Lewontin’s fallacy” for more information). That correlation is what is left out of your analogy with social-security numbers, so I suggest coming to grips with Lewontin’s fallacy. Academics at large have only recently started to come to grips with it, to their credit. It is likewise not so relevant that black Africans have so much genetic variation. I sometimes see that point presented as though each race must have equal genetic variation to count as a set of races, but that was seemingly never a criterion in biology. I expect within any species the race that’s the source of the species always has the most genetic variation as a matter of evolution.

I am going to deal with your objection that I don’t have a genetic definition of any racial category (I am sorry I was late delivering this sermon). You are correct with your belief that standard widely-accepted genetic definitions for racial categories do not exist. For each genetics laboratory that would study human races (whether or not they call them “races”), I expect they would have their own set of hundreds to thousands of genetic variants that would predict each race for any human genetic specimen among the human races under their jurisdiction (maybe not for Tibetens or Kalash or whoever, as you alluded to). Each genetic variant would have a racial frequency percentage assigned to it, and with a regression analysis that looks at all genetic variants in the same time, it outputs a probability that the sample belongs to the race that matches the sample the most. But, a different lab is likely to have a different set of genetic variants for each race. It is theoretically possible, I suppose, for all of them to have the same list of alleles and allele frequencies for each race, though not socially possible. Supposing they did, would that finally resolve your objection?

I have a more important question. Suppose, in a hypothetical, that my general perspective is correct. You don’t even need to presuppose my claims about racial psychological differences. You can leave that out of it. In short, my perspective is that human races biologically exist because evolution took many different paths for the human species; races emerged as millions of alleles within any given race diverged in frequency from those of other races, and this affected the racial differences of almost any phenotype. I believe this set of claims is already an established and uncontested set of facts, but it is only a hypothetical for you so you don’t have to believe it. Supposing this is so, then what would be an acceptable standard “genetic definition” of the European race? Is it possible or impossible, and does it matter?

I don’t accept that your hypothesis is correct, so I’m not accepting that it’s true.  Also, you haven’t shown cause for throwing out the 38%, so if you’re going to start throwing scientific data out without cause, you clearly aren’t here for truth.  You don’t get to ignore data because you don’t like it.

The hypothetical is designed as a thought experiment. Immediately after the thought experiment, all of your beliefs go back to the way they were before. If the reality happens to be that human biological races exist, then such a reality cannot accommodate standard molecular genetic definitions of any racial categories. Given that perspective, I think we would to stick with the fuzzy macroscopic definitions of racial categories, based on regions of origin, mating patterns and admixtures.

I get to ignore a claim (not data) when both it is improbable on the face given the background knowledge and I look up the sources thence finding contrary information. I would still like to get a better idea of how this claim emerged; it is unlikely that they just made it up whole cloth. I will email one of the co-authors. Maybe against the odds they do have the data on their side.

If you want to present a hypothetical as a way of explaining your position, that’s fine, but I’m not going to argue from a position where I already cede what you WANT to be true as being true.  If you want me to acknowledge something as a fact, show it to me.  Don’t ask me to pretend it is true, show me it is true.  Otherwise it isn’t a fact and it is irrelevant to a discussion about science.

Let me restate the issue with this 38%.  If you refuse to accept data from peer reviewed and cited articles, I’m going to have the opinion that you have an agenda and your interest isn’t in the truth.  If you want to be taken seriously, either accept the data, or cite evidence that it is wrong.  Otherwise, you’re just a white supremacist who is trying to hide behind a facade of science.

You keep trying to disentangle ancestry and genetics.  Do you not understand how human sexual reproduction works?  Either genetic data will back up your claim at distinct racial categories, or it wont.  Since genetics is a verifiable method of proving which people are related to which people, your theory of race MUST be concordant with genetic data.  There is no middle ground where race isn’t provable in genetics AND it predicts patterns of genetics.

Here’s my fundamental point that you keep skipping over: there are MULTIPLE genetic groupings that we culturally assign as “black”, but even within and between these groupings the genetic variation is so high that assigning multiple, large traits as a result of genetics is borderline fraudulent, unless you have actual genetic data to back up your claim.  You can’t just presuppose that because there are differences in skin/nose/etc, that this explains any and all differences.  Yes, there is a CHANCE it explains all those differences, but you cannot claim to know the cause or magnitude of the effects by genetics… unless you can actually point to the genes in question.

Analogy: If I gave you data from all the races in NASCAR, but I lumped all cars of a similar color together and averaged their finishing times (ie, multiple cars grouped together and averaged based only on the dominant paint color), would you have sufficient data to know which specific driver should get a raise and which driver should be fired?

We can talk about race, genetics, or intelligence, but lumping all three together and making concrete claims about how we should respond to that grouping is irresponsible.

[ Edited: 19 January 2019 10:11 by Garret]
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
19 January 2019 10:51
 
Garret - 19 January 2019 09:53 AM
Abel Dean - 19 January 2019 05:54 AM
Garret - 19 January 2019 01:03 AM
Abel Dean - 18 January 2019 06:56 PM

OK, for now I will assume that the claim that “Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time” is just bullshit and put it on the back burner for awhile. It is possible that they have evidence and I missed it, but the possibility is a slim one, as it is at odds with both established theory and fact. The large within-group diversity compared to the between-group diversity means less than you may expect, because the alleles that vary between groups correlate with each other, and the correlation is what creates the many phenotypic differences between groups (search with the keywords “Lewontin’s fallacy” for more information). That correlation is what is left out of your analogy with social-security numbers, so I suggest coming to grips with Lewontin’s fallacy. Academics at large have only recently started to come to grips with it, to their credit. It is likewise not so relevant that black Africans have so much genetic variation. I sometimes see that point presented as though each race must have equal genetic variation to count as a set of races, but that was seemingly never a criterion in biology. I expect within any species the race that’s the source of the species always has the most genetic variation as a matter of evolution.

I am going to deal with your objection that I don’t have a genetic definition of any racial category (I am sorry I was late delivering this sermon). You are correct with your belief that standard widely-accepted genetic definitions for racial categories do not exist. For each genetics laboratory that would study human races (whether or not they call them “races”), I expect they would have their own set of hundreds to thousands of genetic variants that would predict each race for any human genetic specimen among the human races under their jurisdiction (maybe not for Tibetens or Kalash or whoever, as you alluded to). Each genetic variant would have a racial frequency percentage assigned to it, and with a regression analysis that looks at all genetic variants in the same time, it outputs a probability that the sample belongs to the race that matches the sample the most. But, a different lab is likely to have a different set of genetic variants for each race. It is theoretically possible, I suppose, for all of them to have the same list of alleles and allele frequencies for each race, though not socially possible. Supposing they did, would that finally resolve your objection?

I have a more important question. Suppose, in a hypothetical, that my general perspective is correct. You don’t even need to presuppose my claims about racial psychological differences. You can leave that out of it. In short, my perspective is that human races biologically exist because evolution took many different paths for the human species; races emerged as millions of alleles within any given race diverged in frequency from those of other races, and this affected the racial differences of almost any phenotype. I believe this set of claims is already an established and uncontested set of facts, but it is only a hypothetical for you so you don’t have to believe it. Supposing this is so, then what would be an acceptable standard “genetic definition” of the European race? Is it possible or impossible, and does it matter?

I don’t accept that your hypothesis is correct, so I’m not accepting that it’s true.  Also, you haven’t shown cause for throwing out the 38%, so if you’re going to start throwing scientific data out without cause, you clearly aren’t here for truth.  You don’t get to ignore data because you don’t like it.

The hypothetical is designed as a thought experiment. Immediately after the thought experiment, all of your beliefs go back to the way they were before. If the reality happens to be that human biological races exist, then such a reality cannot accommodate standard molecular genetic definitions of any racial categories. Given that perspective, I think we would to stick with the fuzzy macroscopic definitions of racial categories, based on regions of origin, mating patterns and admixtures.

I get to ignore a claim (not data) when both it is improbable on the face given the background knowledge and I look up the sources thence finding contrary information. I would still like to get a better idea of how this claim emerged; it is unlikely that they just made it up whole cloth. I will email one of the co-authors. Maybe against the odds they do have the data on their side.

If you want to present a hypothetical as a way of explaining your position, that’s fine, but I’m not going to argue from a position where I already cede what you WANT to be true as being true.  If you want me to acknowledge something as a fact, show it to me.  Don’t ask me to pretend it is true, show me it is true.  Otherwise it isn’t a fact and it is irrelevant to a discussion about science.

Let me restate the issue with this 38%.  If you refuse to accept data from peer reviewed and cited articles, I’m going to have the opinion that you have an agenda and your interest isn’t in the truth.  If you want to be taken seriously, either accept the data, or cite evidence that it is wrong.  Otherwise, you’re just a white supremacist who is trying to hide behind a facade of science.

You keep trying to disentangle ancestry and genetics.  Do you not understand how human sexual reproduction works?  Either genetic data will back up your claim at distinct racial categories, or it wont.  Since genetics is a verifiable method of proving which people are related to which people, your theory of race MUST be concordant with genetic data.  There is no middle ground where race isn’t provable in genetics AND it predicts patterns of genetics.

Here’s my fundamental point that you keep skipping over: there are MULTIPLE genetic groupings that we culturally assign as “black”, but even within and between these groupings the genetic variation is so high that assigning multiple, large traits as a result of genetics is borderline fraudulent, unless you have actual genetic data to back up your claim.  You can’t just presuppose that because there are differences in skin/nose/etc, that this explains any and all differences.  Yes, there is a CHANCE it explains all those differences, but you cannot claim to know the cause or magnitude of the effects by genetics… unless you can actually point to the genes in question.

Analogy: If I gave you data from all the races in NASCAR, but I lumped all cars of a similar color together and averaged their finishing times (ie, multiple cars grouped together and averaged based only on the dominant paint color), would you have sufficient data to know which specific driver should get a raise and which driver should be fired?

We can talk about race, genetics, or intelligence, but lumping all three together and making concrete claims about how we should respond to that grouping is irresponsible.

For about 20 years before I retired I taught a course in scientific reasoning. One of the requirements in the course was writing two essays relating to some aspect of the course material. Over that time, I had perhaps a dozen essays submitted by creationists arguing in favor of some sort of creationism or ID. Because my interest was in seeing how well students argued, and made use of things learned from the course, I didn’t grade on content that much and all of these essays save one got passing grades (with some marginal comments). The one that failed was from a student who also failed the midterm and then started protesting that he was being discriminated against because he was a Christian. What became apparent as this played out (my university had a policy where complaints of discrimination got pretty involved) was that this student had wanted to take the course and pass it so he could say that his Christian beliefs had been approved because he had passed a scientific reasoning course. Some people will try to appropriate science to support anything.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  467
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
19 January 2019 13:39
 
GAD - 19 January 2019 09:36 AM
Nhoj Morley - 19 January 2019 01:22 AM
GAD - 19 January 2019 01:11 AM

Mine was better

Let’s not be telling newbies to fuck off, Mr. GAD. Extend the same latitude you expect for yourself or maybe you do not have the genes to be in this thread. As we dish, so shall we be served.

I was extending what I received. Guess I forgot that newbies get get out of being an asshole free cards.

I apologize for calling out your ideological dog whistle in a thread about science.  I’m new to the forum and incorrectly assumed that in the science forum we should stick to science.

 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›