Once again, you are talking about populations, not races. Please indicate which “races” have a statistically different distribution of particular alleles throughout their global range.
Well, I guess we get to the crux of my point right here. You dont need to have a statistically different distribution of particular alleles throughout a global range for the concept of race to provide SOME kind of useful information, even if it is very limited.
I’m sure you agree that isolated populations (I know, I’m talking about populations, but hear me out) in the world will sometimes have rare alleles that are not found in other populations in the world.
Suppose you take a rare allele found only in the bushmen of south africa. These bushmen would check off “black” if presented with a census form.
Therefore, I can say that it is statistically more likely for a random man who checks off “black” to have this rare “allele” than a random man who checks off “white”. Granted, the chances of a “black” man having this allele are very small, since only a small subset of the “black race” (the population of bushmen) have it with any regularity – but the chances of a “white” man having it are virtually nonexistent.
Thus, the concept of race can be linked in some small way to genes, which is enough to refute the sociology professor who claimed race to have NOTHING to do with genes.
But this really is completely meaningless relative to the relationship of genetics and race. That allele can only be used to identify members of the Bushman population; it has nothing to do with being black or the concept of race.
I don’t see why. Perhaps there is more than 1 way to define “white” as a race. But any reasonable definition would include Brad Pitt.
Did I claim that your practice was to sidetrack discussions? I don’t think so.
Laugh all you want, but it’s my opinion.
It’s not a matter of ability. I just think it would sidetrack the discussion.
If you won’t concede that Brad Pitt is “white,” then attempting to educate you on issues of race and genetics is probably a waste of time.
And my point is that a precise definition is not necessary in order to conclude that “race has nothing to do with genes” is incorrect.
Then why can’t you provide such a definition?
If you don’t want to be called on it, I would suggest that you stop sidetracking discussions, then.
I will. So do many others, I am sure.
Absolute rubbish. You consistently sidetrack discussions. You simply are unable to provide a definition.
Provide the definition according to which he is white, then. It should be quite simple.
Prove it. Show your work.
Who says I can’t?
And I would suggest that you take your personal attacks elsewhere.
Start a thread about an appropriate definition of “race,” and we’ll see.
How about this: I will give you 1 commonly used definition for race under which he is white. Ok?
I already did in this thread.
[Moderator instructions]
Ok, brazil84. I’ve had enough of these games by you. GQ is a place for factual responses to factual questions, not for unsupported opinion and content-free posts as most of yours are. You do this far more than any other single poster in this forum, so I am going to give you some special instructions. Your behavior is not in accord with the purpose of this forum, or of the SDMB in general. It has been remarked on by moderation staff elsewhere as well, in particular GD. You have already prompted me to close one thread in this forum, and send another to GD. I don’t want to have to continue to do that.
I am officially instructing you to restrict yourself to factual posts in this forum. If I or any other poster requests you to back up one of your posts, your next response must contain an authoritative cite or other substantive information to support your statements. Otherwise you must refrain from responding further in the thread. No more of these one-sentence responses. The moderation staff will be the sole judge of whether your responses are appropriate. Failure to comply with this will result in an official warning.
If you wish to complain about how unfair all this is, you may start a thread in the Pit. Do not do so here.
I hope my instructions are clearly understood.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I agree that that particular rare allele has nothing to do with the alleles that determine skin color.
But isnt race simply a collection of expectations that we have? And couldnt those expectations be a collection of statistical probabilities of genes that are carried? ie someone of the “black” race is more likely to have that rare allele from the bushman population than someone from the white race. Obviously most of the time they wont have it, but it IS more likely. And if someone is from the “oriental” race they are statistically more likely to have alleles that result in an epicanthic fold than other races (although we both know that epicanthic folds CAN be found in other races).
If knowing what race someone checks off on a census allows you to make numerous statistical predictions as to alleles that they carry, how can we say that race has nothing to do with genes?
Because it’s like measuring the volume of a liquid with a ruler - too often inaccurate, cumbersome, and prone to error. The expectations set up by skin color are just a silly way to try to measure allele frequency when you can use the actual population those alleles come from instead.
It’s the 21st century, we shouldn’t cling to our cultural notions of race from the 18th and 19th centuries when genetics has shown us a far better way to measure allele frequencies any more than we cling to morse code for our data transmission needs.
Anyone here posting from a Telegraph Key? 
I agree – the concept of race is inaccurate, cumbersome, and prone to error. I am not extolling its virtues; I am simply pointing out that those who say that it has NOTHING to do with genetics (ie OP’s professor) are going too far.
OK. Would you consider it fair enough if I said this:
The concept of race has insufficient basis in genetics to be a useful term in science. 
No, you “self identify” your own race on such forms (the possible exception being Native American for some things). In other words, they are asking you what “race” *you identify yourself *with. This is a perfectly valid sociological question.
As I’ve said earlier, it depends on the context. In the US, where most people come from only a few of the worldwide populations that exist, you can make a pretty good correlation between genetics and what people call race here. But that’s because we’ve interrupted the worldwide genetic continuum in order to populate this country. (Note: You do have to exclude certain groups of the people in the US for this to work well, but it’s probably not too bad.)
But if you look at the entire world, where there is genetic continuum wherever you go, you cannot define race well enough for it to have any meaning in the first place-- you’d have to exclude large numbers of people in order to artificially create genetic islands that you could then try and correlate to to some version of race.