< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

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

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
19 January 2019 13:53
 
Garret - 19 January 2019 01:39 PM
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.

And just a guy on a backwaters internet site playing at science, does that make you special somehow?

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6339
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
19 January 2019 14:23
 

You can wait until the newbie coupons run out.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  469
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
19 January 2019 14:31
 
GAD - 19 January 2019 01:53 PM
Garret - 19 January 2019 01:39 PM
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.

And just a guy on a backwaters internet site playing at science, does that make you special somehow?

Sorry, I’m too traumatized to give a good retort.  It’s going to take me at least 24 hours to recover from your comment because you are so much more important than me.  It does console me that you accept my apology though.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3308
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
19 January 2019 15:40
 
Garret - 19 January 2019 02:31 PM
GAD - 19 January 2019 01:53 PM
Garret - 19 January 2019 01:39 PM
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.

And just a guy on a backwaters internet site playing at science, does that make you special somehow?

Sorry, I’m too traumatized to give a good retort.  It’s going to take me at least 24 hours to recover from your comment because you are so much more important than me.  It does console me that you accept my apology though.

The Force meets the Dark Side.  Way to go, Garret.

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
19 January 2019 20:17
 
Garret - 19 January 2019 09:53 AM

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.

You don’t need to believe what I am saying about races, but it helps to have an understanding of my perspective. A standard “genetic definition” of any racial category is simply incompatible with biological races as I understand them. I expect it would be compatible only with a strawman definition of biological races, a sort of race that nobody defends, in which races are non-overlapping categories with sharp boundaries. I don’t know if you acknowledge that the concept of race is commonly accepted in non-human fields of biology; if not, then we can put focus on that disagreement first. On the other hand, if you are so aware, then I am curious to know whether or not you think it makes sense to demand a standard “genetic definition” of any racial categories claimed within the study of fruit flies, or mice, or shrews, or shrubs. Will a non-standard genetic definition of racial categories be good enough? Or a non-genetic definition of racial categories?

I can’t find any of the contact information of the co-authors of that article with the 38%, except for Lynn B. Jorde of the University of Utah, and I can get only his phone number, not his email. I suppose I will give him a call on Monday.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  469
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
19 January 2019 20:57
 

We’re not talking about non-biology fields.  We’re talking about biology.  You literally put that race is a core part of biology in the thread title.  I’m asking you for the biological definition of “black”.  If race is core to biology, this shouldn’t be that hard.  We’re already on page three and all you’ve done is avoid giving a definition.  I’m starting to suspect that you don’t have one.

There are only a couple of possibilities I can think of:
1) You have the definition, but are dragging this out for some reason.
2) You don’t have a definition and lied about having one.
3) You thought you had a definition, and you’ve back yourself into a corner and are digging your heels in now.

[ Edited: 19 January 2019 21:00 by Garret]
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
19 January 2019 21:03
 
Garret - 19 January 2019 08:57 PM

We’re not talking about non-biology fields.  We’re talking about biology.  You literally put that race is a core part of biology in the thread title.  I’m asking you for the biological definition of “black”.  If race is core to biology, this shouldn’t be that hard.

OK, if it is “biological definition of ‘black’” and not genetic definition of black, then that is much easier. Blacks are peoples whose biological ancestors for the last 100,000 years tended to live in Africa south of Sahara. If you meant “genetic” and not merely biological, then a standard definition is not compatible. Genetic definitions can exist, but they would not be standard, as they would follow from at least hundreds of correlated alleles in combination, and the lists are expected to vary.

[ Edited: 19 January 2019 21:08 by Abel Dean]
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  469
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
19 January 2019 23:21
 

And what sort of scientific test would you use to demonstrate that someone actually is black, and doesn’t just randomly present physical features similar to a black person?  Or the reverse, how would you show that a person is black, even if they don’t show all the “normal” physicals features of a black person?

Also, I do a combination sigh/chuckle, every time you reference ancestry, but say that it isn’t genetically definable.  It’s like you don’t understand how genetics work.  You have had “the birds and the bees” talk, right?

[ Edited: 19 January 2019 23:26 by Garret]
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
19 January 2019 23:39
 
Garret - 19 January 2019 11:21 PM

And what sort of scientific test would you use to demonstrate that someone actually is black, and doesn’t just randomly present physical features similar to a black person?

Such tests can be either phenotypic or genotypic. The features in either case are not random, but they are correlated with each other. If it is a phenotypic determination, then an assessment of “black” follows from a combined tendency for features such as a long and narrow skull shape, a low skull height, a broad nose, low nose projection, a dull reduced spine, a concave or straight nasal profile, a medium face breadth, reduced and angled cheek bones, an pronounced mouth projection, a hyperbolic or parabolic palate shape, bladed incisors, rounded orbitals, thin lower jaw, and reduced chin. If it is a genotypic determination, then a highly certain assessment of “black” follows from a regression analysis of at least 300 alleles in a DNA sample compared to their frequencies among self-identified “blacks.” This is standard among forensic geneticists, and it works with about 100% certainty. It would not work if the alleles were truly random with zero or near-zero correlation, such as the alleles associated with each group of Nascar driver fans. A genetic test will not know your favorite Nascar driver, but a genetic test will know you are black.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  469
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
20 January 2019 00:47
 

HOLY SHIT.  You’ve been dancing around this for three pages, nice to see you’re finally on board.

These alleles, I’m not going to hold you to the 300 number, but let’s talk about them some more.  I just want to be clear, because it seems like we’ve had poor communication.

Alleles are variations on a gene.  For example, the CTFR gene is a gene we discussed briefly earlier and controls the movement of liquids and salts through certain parts of the body.  An allele is a specific example of the CTFR gene.  Most people (ie, humans) have the normal CTFR gene, this is called an allele, it is a specific example of the CTFR gene.  If someone had the disease of cystic fibrosis, they would have a different allele.  It’s the same gene, but a different version of it (a different ordering of the ATCG chemicals that make up DNA).

Does all this make sense?  Are we in basic agreement so far?  I want to make sure, because it’s been like pulling teeth to get to this point.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
20 January 2019 06:53
 

Yes, I mostly agree. An allele is more specific than a variant of a gene: it is one of at least two variants of a SNP (a single locus that varies within a species).

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  469
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
20 January 2019 08:36
 

Making sure we avoid as much confusion as possible.  We need to be able to agree on the basic terminology of the subject.

Allele vs Gene

Genes are specific sections of DNA code.  An allele is a specific example of that section of code.  The section of DNA that controls eye color is a gene.  The form of the gene that makes eyes blue is an allele.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
20 January 2019 09:11
 
Garret - 20 January 2019 08:36 AM

Making sure we avoid as much confusion as possible.  We need to be able to agree on the basic terminology of the subject.

Allele vs Gene

Genes are specific sections of DNA code.  An allele is a specific example of that section of code.  The section of DNA that controls eye color is a gene.  The form of the gene that makes eyes blue is an allele.

Yes, no disagreement.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  469
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
20 January 2019 10:16
 

Okay, so I want to confirm.  You have said that the black race can be identified by the presence of specific alleles.  For example, if we have a set of 300 alleles, if a certain number are present, we can say that the person is black.

Again, I’m not going after the number 300, or even trying to set a specific % of those alleles as being the definition.  Just trying to make sure we both are on the same page as to the process.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
20 January 2019 10:23
 
Garret - 20 January 2019 10:16 AM

Okay, so I want to confirm.  You have said that the black race can be identified by the presence of specific alleles.  For example, if we have a set of 300 alleles, if a certain number are present, we can say that the person is black.

Again, I’m not going after the number 300, or even trying to set a specific % of those alleles as being the definition.  Just trying to make sure we both are on the same page as to the process.

Yes, that sounds about right. I don’t know how much these details may matter to you, but it is not merely a matter counting each of a list of alleles in a given sample, but it would also be a matter of the frequencies of each allele among each of the self-identified races. Racial determination would follow from a statistical “cluster analysis” within most laboratories that identify “black” or “sub-Saharan African,” I expect.

 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›