PDA

View Full Version : mixed-race children = crooked teeth


Slithy Tove
10-28-2001, 09:55 PM
I've heard this for years. And our daughter, who is a combination of Euorpean/Puerto Rican/Korean does indeed require orthodontia, but then so did I - and I'm just a mix of Irish + German (but in my case that's nurture not nature: as a German, my mother required the house to be spotless, and true to his Irish, Dad would beat the shit out of us if Mom was upset, so in the ensuing stress I sucked my thumb and bent my teeth).

But has anyone else heard this theory, and is there anything to it?

mmmiiikkkeee
10-28-2001, 10:17 PM
No, never heard of it. There's a big chunk of the population that is "mixed race"... or shall I say: not pure-blooded X. Not to start a debate, but just think of where the English (or British... I'm not really up on stereotypes) might fit into your question.

Zyada
10-28-2001, 10:25 PM
I've not heard of it, and just for a data point, I am probably about 90% English/Irish and I had really bad teeth. (Thank god for orthodontists)

Wasn't there some king in Europe who's teeth were so bad that he couldn't chew meat?

Gaspode
10-28-2001, 10:52 PM
by what exact mechanism might 'interracial' offspring have dental problems?

Seeing as how there is no biological basis to race it can't be genetic.

Given the huge cultural diversity of interracial children it can't be cultural.

Given the worldwide geographic distribution of 'imterracial' children it can't be environmental.

If the UL had even suggetsed certain racial groups or in certain nations there might be a possibility, but just interracial children generally? It's obviously BS.

mmmiiikkkeee got it right, although somewhat understated. There is a big chunk of the population that is "mixed race"... or shall I say: not pure-blooded X. The entire species is 'mixed race'.

saudade
10-28-2001, 11:34 PM
In the case of Eurasian people, I know that the presence of the so called "wisdom teeth" varies on average between Asian and European people. I dont know how that would contribute to crooked teeth though.

As for Puerto Ricans, Puerto Rico is officially about 60% Spanish (which is just as European as any "Anglo"), with a large minority of people with mixed African and Spanish ancestry, and some more or less "black" people. And a few Asians, as well as strong traces of Taino Indian in many families. So who can tell whether being part Puerto Rican is a factor or not. Its almost like saying a person is "part American".

I got a bit worked up at first here, but after reading the rest of the post. I am hoping you were being tongue in cheek...or thumb in cheek as it were.

Brynda
10-28-2001, 11:42 PM
IANAD, but I have heard that "bad teeth" can result from a mismatch between jaw size and tooth size, which can occur when people of different backgrounds marry. What I do know from my experience is that the Kenyans I met when I was there had *great* teeth. They did not, by and large, get good dental care, but they did tend to marry within their own ethnic group/tribe within Kenya. When I asked a dentist about it, he gave me the explanation that mismatches more often occur in hybrid cultures like the US.

Slithy Tove
10-28-2001, 11:48 PM
Hmm, there alway WAS the chance that my OP was an open invitation to post-in and pat your back on what an anti-racist you are, but that wasn't my intention. Please excuse me for not being more candid in the reason for my OP:

1. My daugter's teeth are crooked.

2. My wife ascribes this to her mixed race parentage.

3. I called bullshit on that, even though it wasn't the first time I'd heard it myself. Since it's a law of nature that no man can win an argument with his wife, I resolved to consult a resource base of intelligent people dedicated to fighting ignorance.

For the record, I do know that here are a quarter million different bits of geneteic information on a strand of DNA, all of, oh, six, are based on racial differences, so yes, I know were just one human family who just needs a big hug.

But I also know that different races' skulls are shaped diferently (has anyone else been following the Kenewick Man battle, or is it just a story local to us in Washington/Oregon?)

Okay, so the reasoning from those with whom I DISAGREE opine that, after centuries of intermingling a Celt can mate with a Teuton with no misalignment. But, according to your average barstool anthropologist, mix a seven-foot Swede with a four-foot Balinese and you might as well try to drop an air-cooled VW bug engine into a 57 Chevy.

Franky, I don't have a killer argument against this reasoning. Sure, it sounds racist to me too, but I find it harder and harder to simply walk in righteousness without some talking points in my pocket.

saudade
10-28-2001, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Zyada

Wasn't there some king in Europe who's teeth were so bad that he couldn't chew meat?

<<Over the years Carlos (Charles II of Spain) grew steadily worse. He was lame, epileptic and bald at the age of 35. His hair had fallen out, his teeth were nearly gone and his eyesight was failing....>>

From "Mad Monarchs"
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kvenjb/madmonarchs/carlos2/carlos2_bio.htm

This article also describe some of the king's all too linear genealogy. So inbreeding isn't too good for the teeth either.

Bob Scene
10-29-2001, 12:27 AM
Try this. (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:CkPBb05KxWk:www.utmem.edu/dentistry/LenzMalocc.htm+interracial+children+orthodontics&hl=en) I haven't had time to read it all, but it's a discussion of the reasons for malocclusion being so much more common in people with modern lifestyles than it was in the past. It says the racial mixing theories are old and thoroughly invalidated, and it has references you could use to refute them. One of the references is from 1948, so it's been a while since this was taken seriously. The argument seems to have been that you'd get genes for your jaws from one parent and genes for your teeth from the other parent, and such as that. Besides the fact that we know genetics doesn't work that way, they also have an actual study of mixed-race children that invalidates it.

Gaspode
10-29-2001, 01:48 AM
Bob, your link's broken.

I hope I didn't come across too strongly as being vehemently anti-racist. I was trying for vehemently pro-logic. There's no plausible raeson for this, and the term 'mixed race' is so vague as to be meaningless, hence the reason I too called bullshit. Of course Slithey Tove isn't my wife, so I'm safe.

mix a seven-foot Swede with a four-foot Balinese
I hate to inflict them on you Slithey, but if you search theough the dreaded RACE THREADS (http://www.eneubauer.com/) you will find huge amounts of information, evidence, cites and even talking points discrediting any genetic baiss for height differences between Balinese and Europeans. The difference appears to be, as in almost all cases, dietary. There seems to be still some debate as to whether the Khoi-san are gentically short, but due to the fact that this is due to the nature of puberty it wouldn't make any difference. The teeth will grow at the same rate even if you do get the molar gene from your father and your incisors from your mother.

Added to this the suggetsion was tht this was based on mixing races, not skull types or heights. There are four foot and seven foot caucasians too, so if height was a factor thie problem would occur equally amongst children of one 'race'. The same goes for skull shape, which doesn't particularly map onto any race although it may map onto certain groups.(What the hell is a Kenewick Man?)

What I do know from my experience is that the Kenyans I met when I was there had *great* teeth. They did not, by and large, get good dental care, but they did tend to marry within their own ethnic group/tribe within Kenya
All of which tells me that the traditional Kenyan diet and lifestyle are good for one's teeth, not that interracial marriage or the lack thereof plays any role.

Bob Scene
10-29-2001, 02:30 AM
Well, my link works for me, but I'm not surprised it doesn't work for everyone else because it's a long URL pointing to a Google cache of a page that isn't there anymore. I don't know how else to link to it, but anyone who wants to read it can go to Google and enter the phrase Hunt described numerous studies where primitive populations adopted civilized diets. The first thing that pops up says "Increase of malocclusion." Click where it says "cached" and you can read it.

Here is the most relevant passage:

Chung also determined that there was no major consequence of heterosis or recombination of genes in the interracial crosses in Hawaii. The racial effects were additive in the racial crosses, and no significant effect of heterozygosity of child or recombination was found. Chung determined that "human racial crosses present no additional risks for malocclusion" (Chung et al., 1971). This statement was contrary to conventional wisdom of only a decade earlier. While Chung et al. intended to investigate mostly genetic factors in occlusal variation, what they found instead was a preponderance of data supporting environmental influences in this variability.


The reference is to: Chung CS, Niswander JD, Runck DW, Bilben SE, Kau MCW. Genetic and epidemiologic studies or oral characteristics in Hawaii's schoolchildren. II. Malocclusion. Am J Hum Genet 1971;23:471-95.

I think I was wrong when I said this theory was discredited by 1948. Apparently it was still taken seriously in the sixties. Whoever told Slithy this, rather than being a festering racist, could have just been repeating something they were taught in school. When it was discredited, I'm sure the news never made it to all the people who had ever heard it, or even all of the people who were teaching it. I know at least one person who got an anthropology degree in the early seventies and was taught all kinds of weird and patently false stuff about racial characteristics.

KarlGrenze
10-29-2001, 06:40 AM
saudade, I would tend to think that Puerto Ricans are more mixed than that. Yes, many of the ancestry came from Spain, but I think the percent of people with mixed ancentry is much higher than that.

And about Spain being as European as England, far from it, I will say. For about 8 centuries there were Muslim kingdoms in the area now called Spain. It would be naive to think that both populations didn't mix. Furthermore, the southern area of Spain, were many of the New World immigrants came from, was the area last conquered by the northern monarchs. So Spanish people, when they set out to conquer the world, were already interracial.

Cougarfang
10-29-2001, 06:43 AM
well, most chinese have crooked teeth... most of my friends needed braces when they were young, and their kid sisters mostly have big buck teeth in a "V" shape. I don't know why, though.

grettle
10-29-2001, 07:06 AM
these days, everybody requires orthodontia, americans have an obsession with perfect teeth.

Collounsbury
10-29-2001, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by Slithy Tove
But I also know that different races' skulls are shaped diferently (has anyone else been following the Kenewick Man battle, or is it just a story local to us in Washington/Oregon?)


You know wrong in re diff races skulls. There are regional differences to be sure, but they don't break down by race and there is large variation. Somewhere in those debates I cited to a number of articles on this. Too lazy in this little pre-beddie-by time post to dig that stuff out again.

I beleive some cites to --- oh damn the name escapes me, but in any case 1960s and 1970s French research on neolithic populations in the Sahara, North Africa and West Africa. Usual story of smooth skeletal transitions with around 1/3 of remains in each region being of indeterminate type -- I think the particular author had three "types" based on the theoretical propisition at the time of three races vertically distributed 'white, 'negro' and Saharan. Been a while since I read the article. Well, the meat is at least a third of the skeletons --typing based largely on crania-- could have been anyone.

K-man: yup, he's the perfect example of why cranial typing by race is a crock. Initial ID by Chatham (Chatters? Damn names escape me late at night) was "caucasiodal." That's been discarded. You can check out the science through some of the links in past discussions. If not, there is also the link to genome.org where if I recall you can pull up some articles on K-man. I think, don't hold me to that.

Of course the "sacred lands and origins" arguments by some NativAm is another game entirely.


Franky, I don't have a killer argument against this reasoning. Sure, it sounds racist to me too, but I find it harder and harder to simply walk in righteousness without some talking points in my pocket.

My good comrade Gaspode has provided the links, follow through, have fun. Hopefully the debates are entertaining as well as informative. Of course they're also responsible for my perfectly atrocious reputation, but what can one do?

Gaspode
10-30-2001, 12:04 AM
My God, Collounsbury.

Long time no see.

kanicbird
10-30-2001, 07:54 AM
it is sickening that you can't ask a racial question w/o all the anti-racist jumping on you (who IMHO are racists themselves)- hey it's a fact of life that everyone's different - get over it.

I have heard of the bad teeth theory but it was a long time ago. I would say that there is possible a genetic basis for this. When the races were separated they chose who they found desirable. Those people reproduced more then the 'ugly' ones. those traits were reinforced. When you have interracial unions you have 2 people that were 'genetically tuned to look a certain way, to be a certain height range. Think about it this way if a race that is on average 4.5 ft tall and a race that is on ave. 6ft tall it is not inconceivable that the offspring would be 6 ft tall with size 5 shoes or 4.5 ft tall with size 12. The same can be inferred to the jaw.

Again I don't know if this actually has anything to do w/ it - just a possibility.

Collounsbury
10-30-2001, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by k2dave
it is sickening that you can't ask a racial question w/o all the anti-racist jumping on you (who IMHO are racists themselves)- hey it's a fact of life that everyone's different - get over it.


Racists? Oh that is rich. Rationalists, certainly. Racists? Hard to fathom given the ordinary plain English meaning of the word.

So, the meat, genetics is fact of life, K2dave. Science and all that. Ignorance of genetics is ignorance. Get over ignorance. That is what this board is all about, yes?

I would say that there is possible a genetic basis for this.

Yeah, and we can see from this post how learned in genetics you are. Thanks for the opinion, it's always encouraging to see we still have some closed minds on the board.

Tiburon
10-30-2001, 09:43 AM
My father is French-German and 6 feet 2 inches tall.

My mother is Korean and 5 feet tall.

I am 5 feet, 5 inches tall.

No braces for me or my sister and we have perfectly straight teeth.

caveats: Neither of my parents ever required braces. My mother never had wisdom teeth though my father had all four. I have all four but have not have them removed and they aren't causing damage to my jaw/teeth/mouth.

Tibs.

p.s. I included height only for shits and giggles.

Zyada
10-31-2001, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by k2dave
it is sickening that you can't ask a racial question w/o all the anti-racist jumping on you (who IMHO are racists themselves)- hey it's a fact of life that everyone's different - get over it.


Does this mean you're a pro-racist?

When people ask "Does race affect health/other physical traits/other genetically influenced traits" there are always people who answer (correctly) that "race" does not have enough correlation to genes to be useful. Sadly, there are people who aren't willing to accept this - after all, if they look the same, they must have all the same genes :rolleyes:

Here is an interesting and somewhat to the point article on genes, "race" and medicine: Genes, Not Race, Best Way to Analyze Drug Effect (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011029/hl/genes_4.html) This article uses the more accurate term "ethnic label"
``Ethnic labels do not accurately portray the genetic structure of the population,'' Goldstein told Reuters Health.

I'll agree that in cultural terms there are races. But the only real affect that race has is that it affects the way we interact. What we perceive to be race is in reality only minor but highly visible surface characteristics - to infer deeper differences based on such surface characteristics is simply bad logic.

mmmiiikkkeee
10-31-2001, 01:00 AM
Pretty much right... we just tend to use race as a rough visual basis to assume what genes are probably common among groups of people. I dug this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=53808) up.

Damhna
10-31-2001, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Slithy Tove
has anyone else been following the Kenewick Man battle, or is it just a story local to us in Washington/Oregon

Just an aside but that issue is far from being a local one , that has global implications and I for one am thouroughly disguisted by this ridiculous neaveaux PC attitude that is preventing science from advancing.

Sorry. Carry on.

FTR. European (Irish) with a direct family bloodline that can be traced back 600 years here...with crooked teeth...and 3 sisters and 1 brother with straight teeth and 1 sister with crooked teeth. Make of that what you will.

bibliophage
10-31-2001, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by k2dave
it is sickening that you can't ask a racial question w/o all the anti-racist jumping on you (who IMHO are racists themselves)- hey it's a fact of life that everyone's different - get over it.What sickens you is a topic for The Pit, not for GQ.

bibliphage
moderator GQ

kanicbird
10-31-2001, 09:03 AM
When people ask "Does race affect health/other physical traits/other genetically influenced traits" there are always people who answer (correctly) that "race" does not have enough correlation to genes to be useful

Then tell me why black (African American) men are at greater risk for heart disease, sicil cell anemia and colon cancer please. There are genetic traits that correspond with race - and one of the 3 mentioned above has been proven to be 100% genetic.

If you ignore my misplaced rant and reread my 1st post you will see what I was saying is that I was open minded enought to think it's a possibility and I am not dismissing it closed mindedly. ;)

My apologies bibliophage for the rant.

Collounsbury
10-31-2001, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by k2dave
Then tell me why black (African American) men are at greater risk for heart disease,


Well, take a look at the epidemiology. Higher incidences of diet and general health practices which are high risk in re heart disease. Stress I believe is also a factor but I defer to doctors on this issue.

Really, these questions have been done to death for those with an open mind. (Hint: open mind for science means openness to data and rigor, not believing any old idiotic thing like a fucking coach potato watching "In Search Of.")


sicil cell anemia


Like Lebs (i.e. Med. Basin origin folks) and South Asians, many are descended from populations long resident in endemic malaria zones.


and colon cancer please.


Diet, etc. are the known risk factors as far as I know.


There are genetic traits that correspond with race - and one of the 3 mentioned above has been proven to be 100% genetic.


Argument by assertion. Beauty. Why don't you take yourself over to the links where, horrors of horrors, you might find actual information.

There are no genetic traits which correspond to race. There are some which correspond, imperfectly, with some populations, but past threads have taken this apart --ad nauseum-- in detial in the past. I'm sure you can trouble yourself to read them.

As for our 100% genetic piece, you're ref'ing sickle cell. Indeed, the roots of sickle cell are genetic. But they are not racial. As has been noted, with references, many times in the past, sickle cell is not restricted to African populations and not all African (sub-Saharan) populations are sickle cell carriers. It's all about long-term exposure to malaria, not race.

As for the other items, I note in passing that recent "black" immigrant communities show a different profile than American "black" communities. Anyone who's taken the trouble to get up off their fat butt and look at data rather than presuppositions should thereby understand a racial explanation is nonesensical, on the data.


I was open minded enought to think it's a possibility and I am not dismissing it closed mindedly. ;)


{i]Open-minded[/i]? Oh. (You may imagine me laughing wildly at this gem) Hmm, K2dave has come in with a number of counter-factual assertions which have been repeatedly debunked on this board with reference to original scientific research -- that is objective analysis and he claims there is some kind of close minded dismissal? Same kind of argument we get from the creation-"science" folks being "open-minded."


My apologies

I'd rather see apologies for aggressive and inexcusable ignorance.

Come back when you show the slightest signs of having done the basic homeowork.

Zyada
10-31-2001, 02:23 PM
Well, Collounsbury said nearly everything I wanted to say (and much better), but I wanted to add something.

Nearly every study that correlates "race" and disease is done in the U.S. The distribution of race in America is not even close to the distribution around the globe. The majority of Americans can trace their origins to a few countries in Europe, a (probably limited) number of tribe in Africa, and the native indians. With such a skewed sampling, any American study that looks at race is worthless.

As for the OP, even if I didn't have other good reasons to disagree, it sounds too much like a "blame the victim" scenario. "See, if you hadn't married that furriner, your children's teeth woul be straight."

kanicbird
10-31-2001, 03:24 PM
Nearly every study that correlates "race" and disease is done in the U.S. The distribution of race in America is not even close to the distribution around the globe. The majority of Americans can trace their origins to a few countries in Europe, a (probably limited) number of tribe in Africa, and the native indians. With such a skewed sampling, any American study that looks at race is worthless.


So you just stated that any study in the US is 'worthless' if I read the above correctly?

If so how can you dismiss race genetics / interracial unions might be a factor in crooked teath? - do you have overseas studies that might be worth something?

The Flying Dutchman
10-31-2001, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Gaspode
by what exact mechanism might 'interracial' offspring have dental problems?

Seeing as how there is no biological basis to race it can't be genetic.


I disagree. Considering that all my male siblings and myself had crooked teeth, and that my wife and our daughters had crooked teeth, and that none of us sucked our thumbs beyond infancy, I can only conclude that genetics can play a significant role in maloclusions. In fact I have seen Xrays of our daughters teeth prior to erruption, and was horrified to see the chaos that was about to errupt.

Interestingly though, my five sisters all had perfect teeth.

Gaspode
10-31-2001, 05:22 PM
Greinspace if you don't understand the vast difference between "There is no concievable genetic mechanism by which interracial children will be more prone to orthodontic problems"

and

"There is no concievable genetic mechanism by which children will be prone to orthodontic problems"

then I really can't help you.

If you can understand that fairly basic difference re-read the thread. Re-read everything that has been posted by both myself and others and get back to me if you still have problems, mmmkay?

Zyada
10-31-2001, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by k2dave

So you just stated that any study in the US is 'worthless' if I read the above correctly?



Similar to what Gaspode told grienspace: If you can't tell the difference between a medical study done in the US, and a medical study done in the U.S. that is about the influence of race on disease, there is no help for you.


If so how can you dismiss race genetics / interracial unions might be a factor in crooked teath? - do you have overseas studies that might be worth something?

Yes - I posted a link to it in my first post in this thread: For instance, putting all Ethiopians in a ``black'' cluster would have been inaccurate, according to the researchers, since 62% of Ethiopians fell into the same [genetic] cluster as most Jews, Norwegians and Armenians. In fact, just 24% of Ethiopians were in the same cluster as the Bantu and most Afro-Caribbeans.

And do you have a study that shows it does exist? So far in this thread we have one individual who claims this to be true, and that person's information comes from someone with an agenda.

saudade
10-31-2001, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by KarlGrenze
saudade
And about Spain being as European as England, far from it, I will say. For about 8 centuries there were Muslim kingdoms in the area now called Spain. It would be naive to think that both populations didn't mix. Furthermore, the southern area of Spain, were many of the New World immigrants came from, was the area last conquered by the northern monarchs. So Spanish people, when they set out to conquer the world, were already interracial.


The Spaniards, Portuguese, south Italians, Greeks, and many Balkan peoples often are of mixed Semitic, Turkish, or Berber ancestry. People of non-European origin have come into Europe since the days of Alexander the Great and Hannibal. At some point, Muslim armies reached the Tours, France, the Ancona wall in Italy, and the gates of Vienna. But are southern Europeans any less European than Swedes and Norwegians? European is not a "race" but a geographic expression. And "White" has no precise meaning, as far as I am concerned. To my eyes a blond haired blue eyed Latino or pale skinned Arab may look completely "white". But he may not consider himself white, or he may not be considered white by American society - so it becomes purely subjective.

And I didn't say English, but "Anglo"; which is used by many Americans (erroneously) to mean a "non-Hispanic white" or a non-Hispanic European. Even Polish, Jewish, and Italian people are often called "Anglos" in the United States. I was saying Spanish or Hispanic people are just as European as other European people, not that Spaniards are as white or pale skinned as English people. And a English person can be of any "race" as well, as can an American, a Frenchman, and Australian, or a Brazilian.

And the only reason I brought this up was to point out a potential fallacy of saying someone was mixed "mixed Puerto Rican and European" or "mixed Puerto Rican and Asian"...when, as you said, the Spanish speaking peoples come in many races and colors. There are many fully European Puerto Ricans, and even a few thousand Asian Puerto Ricans.

http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1_geo_id=04000US72.html

Collounsbury
10-31-2001, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by k2dave
If so how can you dismiss race genetics / interracial unions might be a factor in crooked teath? - do you have overseas studies that might be worth something?

Gee, k2dave, I dunno. Maybe, maybe if just for the novelty value if checked out the links and past discussion you just might discover ... the huge set of multinational data on human genetics which was cited to in the past.

Ah, no, perish the thought. Wouldn't want to hurt the eyes looking at genome.org's cluttered old layout now would we?

Bah.

KarlGrenze
10-31-2001, 07:30 PM
Thanks for the clarification saudade. I took your post to mean that Spanish were as "white"(in terms of skin color) as another person whose ancestors where from northern Europe. Sorry for my mistake.

And you are right too that "white" has no definite meaning. What I was thinking is that when you mentioned the percent of Spanish descendant, you counted those as "pure" and "white". Not the case. And because "white" has no definite meaning, many people put that as their only race(thinking as it was only about skin color), even though more of them are "mixed race"(or people whose ancestors had different skin colors, ok?). Why they did it? Racism, probably, better to say that they are white(presently) and deny that they had black ancestors. There has been literature and writing about people "passing for white" to gain entrance into the wealthy society.

Personal case: My parents left that question blank, as a protest of the way the census was made. My dad is white, but his hair is black and curly(i.e., he has an afro). Certainly, his ancestors where not all "white"(he also has genealogical proof), so he can't count himself as having one race only. My mom? She has light tanned skin, green eyes. Yet she also knows her ancestors where not all "white"(her grandfather was mulatto, and someone else had probably taíno blood). Again, she doesn't think that white is her only "race". We are all Puerto Ricans, a mixture of whoever came here.
But her sister, my aunt, put "white" as her race. When asked why, she responded that was her skin color. Good, but she put it as her only race. It isn't, and it is ironic because she is the one who keep tabs on family history that side of my family and she knows pretty well that it is not her only "race". (Or ethnic origin)

In conclusion: I don't trust much the results of the census, and what people say on it, and what I saw every day of my life for 18 years is different. What I saw? Mostly mixed people of all colors and shapes and sizes.

To go back to the discussion: Many Puerto Ricans are mixed, no matter where they are from(Europe, Asia, whatever). So saying one is Puerto Rican is in a way saying one is already a mutt. And no, I did not need orthodontia, nor my parents needed it(well, except for cavities). Those in my family that needed braces were the ones who sucked their thumbs until late in childhood. Nothing genetic there. Same thing for many of my friends.

kanicbird
10-31-2001, 07:49 PM
Similar to what Gaspode told grienspace: If you can't tell the difference between a medical study done in the US, and a medical study done in the U.S. that is about the influence of race on disease, there is no help for you.


Ok I assumed too much here - My mistake I was referring to medical studies in the US that had to do with the OP.

Yes - I posted a link to it in my first post in this thread:

All you have stated is that most Ethiopians are incorrectly called 'blacks'. The study says that genetics are a better predictor then race when it comes to the effects of drugs - which is just common sense - the genetic makeup will define how you react to various chemicals. It doesn't mean that race is a bad indicator just genetics are more accurate and should be used if available - well that's my take on it.

And do you have a study that shows it does exist?
Well I could use your own study - it does hint that race is a factor :
British researchers have found that grouping people according to certain genes--rather than their race--is a more accurate predictor of how they'll respond to prescription drugs....The results demonstrated that genetic analysis is a more accurate classifying system than race or ethnicity,...

It does hint that race is a classification system just less accurate then genetic classification.



So far in this thread we have one individual who claims this to be true,
I nowhere said that interracial couples will have offspring w/ a greater %age of crooked teeth - Just that there is a possibility that I am not willing to dismiss the possibility that it might be true - and I'd like to point out that I have seen nothing here (including links) that changes that view. If you are claiming that I stated that a member of the 'black' race is more likely to have sickle cell anemia then a member of the 'white' race and the sickle cell trait is genetic - I stand behind that statement.

and that person's information comes from someone with an agenda
I see many so called agendas being expressed in this thread - funny thing about agendas is when someone else's agrees with yours there is no agenda.

Collounsbury
10-31-2001, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by k2dave
All you have stated is that most Ethiopians are incorrectly called 'blacks'.


Now, if you actually understood you'd know how wrong you are. Of course it may be more entertaining simply to play the define race, define "blacks" in objective biological terms game.

Not that it hasn't been done to death with far more interesting posters, but what the hell. Everyone's got to have a hobby.


The study says that genetics are a better predictor then race when it comes to the effects of drugs - which is just common sense - the genetic makeup will define how you react to various chemicals. It doesn't mean that race is a bad indicator just genetics are more accurate and should be used if available - well that's my take on it.


Brilliant. Now, the part I love is the italicized part. Your take on it, wonderfully naive and unlearned as it is, proposes that genetics is seperate from race.

This is a delicious little proposition. Nonesensical but delicious.

Sooooo, K2dave, pray tell could you elaborate on how genetics is different from race and what biological data informs your, oh what was your term, ah yes, take on it.

Now when I say elaborate, I mean, explain on objective, biological grounds. Not, "Well demn folks, dey look different from me so, uh, dey must be different" or something along those lines. I mean what biological criteria and perhaps if you could, if it wouldn't prove too troublesome, how genetics is seperate.

(Oh yes, no cheating and looking at the actual science cites. I don't want to be deprived of my entertainment.)


And do you have a study that shows it does exist?
Well I could use your own study - it does hint that race is a factor :
British researchers have found that grouping people according to certain genes--rather than their race--is a more accurate predictor of how they'll respond to prescription drugs....The results demonstrated that genetic analysis is a more accurate classifying system than race or ethnicity,...

It does hint that race is a classification system just less accurate then genetic classification.


I could almost phrame this. I'd like Ben to read this thread too. I think he might get almost as much enjoyment out of it as I.

I'd like to point out that I have seen nothing here (including links) that changes that view.


Oh, you've really demonstrated that you've read and understood the links so far.

If you are claiming that I stated that a member of the 'black' race is more likely to have sickle cell anemia then a member of the 'white' race and the sickle cell trait is genetic - I stand behind that statement.


A meaningless statement on biological grounds. I can equally, and with better results, state that dark skinned folks have a greater chance of having sickle cell than paler skin. Why, there is a correlation of malaria to climate, just about 100% given it needs certain climatic conditions. Skin color also correlates to climate, or rather insolation which helps determine climate. So your statement tells us what? My race of paler skinned Lebanese (e.g. my apartment mate in Cairo) has a family with a high rate of sickle cell. I guess he and his are nigs just like he claimed, although he's about as pale as I. The grouping White tells us jack about the population's real risk or even anything meaningful about the underlying genetics. It tells us that in a subjective and shifting set of cultural standards, some people are "White".

Ah, never mind..... The links are there. Anyone with a real desire can follow through.

and that person's information comes from someone with an agenda
I see many so called agendas being expressed in this thread - funny thing about agendas is when someone else's agrees with yours there is no agenda. [/B][/QUOTE]

The Flying Dutchman
10-31-2001, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Gaspode
by what exact mechanism might 'interracial' offspring have dental problems?

Seeing as how there is no biological basis to race it can't be genetic.


grienspace
I disagree..........

Gaspode
Greinspace if you don't understand the vast difference between "There is no concievable genetic mechanism by which interracial children will be more prone to orthodontic problems"
and

"There is no concievable genetic mechanism by which children will be prone to orthodontic problems"

then I really can't help you.

Obviously Gaspode you missed my point . "interacial" or otherwise, as in my case, genetics plays a major role in crooked teeth. What I found interesting is that no one, including you, bothered to challenge the premise that "interracial people" have a significant increase in the incidence of maloclusions. If the premise has been statistically measured, then perhaps we might have a debate here.

Gaspode
10-31-2001, 11:00 PM
Look greinspace your argument from ignorance is wearing just a little thin. Just about everyone has challenged the initial premise. We have

mmmiiikkkeee : “There's a big chunk of the population that is "mixed race"...
Zyada: “Wasn't there some king in Europe who's teeth were so bad that he couldn't chew meat?
Saudade: “:So who can tell whether being part Puerto Rican is a factor or not. Its almost like saying a person is "part American".
Slithy Tove: “I called bullshit “
Bob Scene: “the racial mixing theories are old and thoroughly invalidated, and it has references “
Cougarfang: “most chinese have crooked teeth”
Tiburon :” Neither of my parents ever required braces.”

For God’s sake greinspace we’ve been through this ad nauseum in your race ‘debates’. Read the link provided by Bob Scene. The stats have been done. The premise has been completely invalidated.

I will try one last time greinspace. Try and understand the MASSIVE difference between “genetics plays a major role in crooked teeth"

and

"genetics plays major a role in a higher incidence of crooked teeth amongst interracial children."

The fact that there are some genetic causes for crooked teeth has never been disputed. This in no way provides a plausible mechanism for an increased incidence of orthodontological problems in interracial children. There is no genetic coherence to race, a point you have long since conceded. As such there can not be any genetic coherence to racial orthodontic problems.

WTF is so had to understand?

The Flying Dutchman
10-31-2001, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by Gaspode
The fact that there are some genetic causes for crooked teeth has never been disputed. This in no way provides a plausible mechanism for an increased incidence of orthodontological problems in interracial children.......................WTF is so had to understand?

It is you that doesn't understand and just like your knee jerk responses to me in the athletic debates you are so wrapped up in the mantra of race protocols that you once again make a completely unsubstantiated assertion .

Now read carefully! Contrary to your above quoted statemnt, I'm stating there is no evidence "for an increased incidence of orthodontological problems in inter-racial children"
Period.

I would like you to back up your assertion for an increased incidence of maloclusions among interracial children.

Collounsbury
11-01-2001, 12:10 AM
Gaspode, sometimes you just gotta laugh. It's laugh fucking Alice in Wonderland.

bibliophage
11-01-2001, 12:34 AM
The General Question has been answered as well as it's going to be (read Bob Scene's posts especially). The rest is fodder for Great Debates. I invite you all to continue the debate there if you wish. This thread is closed.

bibliophage
moderator GQ