I believe Tom has done so frequently enough, your hand-waving substance free response to Tracer also speaking volumes.
Translated, “over my head in re what I pretend to comment on.”
Oh now this is rich. Sad and pitiful dodging, but rich.
As a point of fact, the data and analyses by those skilled in the field directly contradict your ad hoc assertions as to the utility and coherency of race. The portions highlighted go directly to that matter - e.g. the non-correspondence between different haplogroups, internal inconsistency of the classic race concept groups (or better poor correspondence to ethnic groups per Wilson et al).
Your scuttling hand-waving non-response in re the problems of simply glomming groups together to form some statistical artefact which will arise from any abitrary collection of populations simply indicates that you do not understand the application of statistical anlaysis to population studies. (Or generally for that matter) The fact you think statistical artefacts “support” your straw men simply highlights the illiteracy of your argument.
I would advise some review of some literature on the problematics of proper research design to eliminate the problem of spurious correlations arising from just this kind of sloppiness. A serious and important area of training.
Specifics when pressed? That’s fairly laughable coming from you.
It’s simply a waste of time.
Because I don’t see much time playing useless lawyer games with language.
That was the two posts on the data above, directly going to the utility of race. To whit, the issue of haplogroups (distributions) indicating contradictory groupings - directly going to your argument about distributions and race. Listen old boy, if you just don’t grasp the data, you might as well say so right out.
Empty lawyer games.
Precisely, you set up a straw man, or set of straw men, in regards to classifying the argument.
Well, I have had quite enough of the language posturing and lawyerly games, the data is what it is. That you are illiterate in genetics, population anlayses, statistical applications and continue to pretend to comment on them is clear enough.
Laugh all you want, but the reality is that you (unsurprisingly) made a general statement which you refused to back up with specifics.
**
I’m not surprised you think it’s a waste of time to actually back up what you say.
**
And perhaps you also know that (in fact) I haven’t misrepresented anyone’s position at all? Or maybe you just have a philisophical objection to backing up your claims?
**
Again, more conclusory statements. And again, if you think that you have data that contradicts anything I’ve said, why not quote exactly what I said, and explain how your data contradicts it?
Oh, that’s right, you prefer not to back up what you say.
**
If by “empty lawyer games,” you mean that I am pointing out that (again and again) you refuse to back up what you say, then yeah I suppose so.
**
If that’s the case, why would I try to “support” my own straw man?
And in any event (again) if you think I’ve misrepresented anyone’s position, why not point out exactly where I’ve done so?
Oh that’s right, conclusory hand-waving is enough for you.
**
I gather you’re tired of being asked to actually back up what you say, eh? Anyway, I hope you come back when you have a better grasp of the relevant issues.
Well, nothing of substance in the response, just some baiting to get us to go down the road of arguing over whether he properly used his professional skills to distort the opposing argument while being able to argue otherwise.
I do not see any point in continuing a conversation with someone who fails to address the science and whose only understanding comes from semantical gaming.
Backing up is hardly the issue, rather as David correctly identified, it is clear enough you prefer to dodge the science to get into a pointless argument on your own semantical posturing.
I note for the record lucwarm continues to fail to address the actual primary literature, preferring hand-waving claims that ‘nothing’ contradicts his statements (despite the clear statements in the primary literature about the non-utility of the concept, going directly to the substance such as there is, of the argument). I suppose that must work in moot court, a fine illustration though of why we don’t allow them to get tangled into substantive business in my firm.
A wrap up then, as our dear boy can not trouble himself with actual data and science:
The primary literature cited above indicates that multiloci comparisions and comparisons of distributions (such as haplogroups) result in inconsistent contradictory groupings that resolve only poorly with continental level populations, that is the classical race concept. The primary cite and the literature overview both cite to the expanding body of evidence which continues to reinforce this observation. For the race concept to have validity, we should not be seeing underlying trait distributions resolving into contradictory groupings. But we do. As the authors note in passing in their review, the data suggest that underlying distributions, e.g. in re drug activation sites may be driven by local environmental conditions, foodstuffs and the other inputs, suggesting a mosiac of complex influences.
Now, those illiterate in population analyses can continue to natter on, thinking that the fact, as telemark pointed out so aptly, that two unrelated populations thrown together to create an average as a stastical artefact(*) supports a race concept, well fine in their little world it may very well. But the only question for those not wishing to engage in self-referential ignorance, is does the concept stand up to genetic analysis. Quite clearly, as the entire weight of evidence indicates, it does not.
The rest is just gaming words.
(*: I will note again how this reflects on the fundamental illiteracy of the argument as eliminating artefacts such as that is a prime point in getting valid population data, to think it tells one something or supports a point is only to engage in pure illiteracy.)
You just can’t bear to post specifics, can you? Anyway, I didn’t misrepresent anyone’s position in those threads or anywhere else.
You can wave your hands all day long and point to threads, but I suggest you either point to a specific quote of mine or admit you are wrong.
**
I have failed to address the science you post because it doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. If you disagree, why not point to a specific quote of mine?
**
I disagree. You have steadfastly refused to back up what you say - this suggests that you are simply wrong.
**
I challenge you to find anything I’ve said that contradicts the above.
Again, I request specific quotes.
It’s funny that you should allude to my profession (yes I’m an attorney), since your posts keep making me think of those special creatures in the law - vexatious pro se litigants, who often file pages and pages of gibberish, continually frustrated that people can’t see (what they perceive as) the incredible correctness of their positions, and unable to grasp the issues well enough to realize that they are totally missing the point.
By the way, I should add that it’s possible that I have misreprented somebody’s position unintentionally. Everyone makes mistakes. If anyone points out a quote of mine that they feel misrepresents somebody’s position, I’ll be happy to consider it, and, if I was incorrect, I will be happy to admit it.
Can’t bear the specifics? Not at all, I can’t bear wasting my time. Well, I leave it to the readership to look at the pages and discussions in question to come to a conclusion, quilbling over your dodgery is a waste of time.
Ah yes, “specific quote” – that is more occasions to dodge. However, I do feel some concern that someone may be taken in by your “FAQ” so this bears some responding to, not for your benefit as that is evidently a wasting asset, but the public.
Your argument in grosso modo and in its specifics, such as they are, is directly contradicted by the data above -clear enough one would think to anyone with a modicum of skill in reading, but let us engage in an illustrative response.
Ah, you really should not have said that, it is my pleasure. Let us take your “FAQ” page, although to apply the term to a string of vague ad hoc assertions without supporting data or indeed an understanding of population genetics is rather like gilding a sow.
First, this gem:
The problem with this “analysis” is that there is no specificity. Dodgery and unclear thinking.
Let us take the issue of sickle cell and the supposed general utility in race having predictive value.
Now, in the context of North American populations, where a majority of those ascribed to the “White” race in popular parlance is derived from Europe and especially Northern Europe and the majority of those ascribed to the “Black Race” are from coastal West and Central Africa the hot spot of malaria and thus sickle cell traits, there will be some clinical utility in using race as a rough proxy for risk. Rough. Here of course is where our “FAQ” writer’s thinking, however belabored by lack of informed reflection, stopped.
However, let us examine this more carefully. If we take a look at this PDF http://www.cwu.edu/~biology/faculty/raubeson/evol_sp02/7_selection.pdf (* see below for further sourcing) and turn to page nine (apologies, a quick search of for an easily observed illustrative tool found this, time being short we will make do) wherein we find a somewhat difficult to read but nonetheless useful map of sickle cell distributions by allelic frequency. The prior pages also give a brief but regrettably frequency-absent recap of various traits related to this. Hopefully pictures will prove less daunting than primary literature.
Now, one will note several points: Significant swaths of sub-Saharan Africa have allelic frequency rates no different from those of Mediterranean Europe (presumably ‘White’ in our dear “FAQ” author’s model) as well as Near Eastern-Indic-Central Asian, and in fact several zones in “Black” Africa have rates lower than those found ex-Africa.
Oops, Houston, our “FAQ” writer has a problem. Africaness suddenly looks less like a killer indicator for comparative rates of sickle cell. A goodly number of Caucasians in the traditional schema have sickle cell allelic prevalence at higher rates than populations in the Negroid pops, of the traditional schema. Well ain’t that a piss-poor diagnostic? I can, of course, lump this divergent groups together on some sociological ground, and come up with average rates which do not accurately describe the underlying populations, but why would I want to do that, when I’m lowering my accuracy and creating a statistical fiction, a mirage?
Now, the next issue is how do we define our “races” which our dear “FAQ” writer simply assumes without definition. Nice way to dodge the problem, that, presuming no one notices you’re assuming the conclusion. However, the tautology is clear.
What is “White” then? And what is “Black”? What standard is one using?
Surface traits? Well, this has been done to death – we already know dark skin and ‘Negroid’ features crop up ex-Africa, so this presents a bit of a pickle. So let us say that we define our “black” race as dark skin, curly-kinky hair and … have to have had African descent in the last 500 years. Here we presumably exclude our difficult Asian populations with the dark skin and kinky hair and all that. Justification? Oh lord knows what objective justication can be concocted, but let’s assert that we feel Africans are genetically separate from these other pops. Yes, we’ll assert that.
But wait, we still have a problem. We know from our genetic data that these surface morphological features correspond quite poorly with underlying trait distributions, indeed we can see from our sickle cell map that we might as easily create an East Race and a West Race. We further have the data cited in prior interventions indicating that haplogroups resolve into contradictory categories groupings – telling us that our underlying structure does not resolve well onto large discrete populations. Indeed we can see from our map that if we take Saharan, North East African, select East African populations and lump them in with Italians, Greeks and North Africans, we can achieve a grouping as coherent and more diagnostic of our selected trait than the racial category, which in fact misdiagnoses – that it ** lacks predictive ability ** in any robust sense, for inappropriately lumping say Swedes in with Italians to contrast with North East Africans and East Africans utterly misconstrues the actual trait distributions underlying those discrete populations. Of course, demographic weighted averages will further complicate, but let us abstract away from these issues for the moment. [See notation below for some illustrative cites in re the sub-populations and the differing occurrence rates.]
So, let’s go back to this
Nope, it is not simply incorrect – rather the writer was ignorant. “Race” – and we must presume the writer in question was simply cribbing the standard North American popular template – does not predict very well at all sickle cell anemia traits, in fact it does so very poorly on a global basis, although rather better if one restricts oneself to North America and ignores problematic groups, but only if one ignores them.
Or better, we can say that if one engages in a sort of wholesale fallacy of composition and willy-nilly lump diverse populations with highly divergent means and modes into a single meta-population called race, in the classical sense, and compare it with another such meta-population, one can end up with some fairly meaningless statistical artefact which does not describe any actual underlying population.
Well, of course the lead sentence says it all, that is in the parenthetical. As far as I know might be rather more clearly restated as, very little at all.
A wise writer, unlearned as he is the biology, might be somewhat wary of attempting to characterize biological categories and standards.
Edwino set out some standards in prior postings, but in general we can say that productive categories for organizing biological data should allow a coherent characterization of a discrete group. A discrete group should show clearly differentiated and definable traits from other groups (against which it is defined in contrast, if only implicitly) including coherent distribution and covariation of those traits as compared to other groups.
Human races, the classical race concept, do not in any way meet this standard. The fuzziness, as one might put it, is perhaps better described as utter incoherence, in part due to the biological fact that most variation (85% plus) does not in any way resolve onto groups, in part it appears due to the fact that the underlying structure of groups is inconsistent with the broad vaguely phenotypically based classical races, as the above discussion of sickle cell traits indicates, as other data copiously cited in the past indicates.
If one leaves behind word play and semantic masturbation and simply looks to the data, it is clear – the classical races simply are biologically incoherent, visual mirages which only the poorest data resolution can render even mildly coherent.
What is in fact misleading is this data and fact free word play. Let us leave aside the word play and these straw men interpretations created by the “FAQ” writer out of thin air and reflect on the data.
The data rules out significant – the word of course is undefined as is the “FAQ” writer’s habit, to allow him to scuttle and shift the goal posts, but I will assign it something approaching a clear meaning – fixed differences (private alleles) or in the alternative substantial co-variation across multiple traits coherent within the meta-populations we can call the classical races. As noted, in fact, the data cited in the past and above (that would be the bit about haplogroups resolving into contradictory groupings, for example) indicate as clear as day that “significant” genetic differences between “the races” are quite impossible, for the races do not resolve into anything resemble usefully coherent genetic groupings. They are ad hoc heterogeneous catch-alls of some vague value in restricted clinical circumstances, e.g. in North America to short cut some medical inquiries.
And this last is yet more nattering nonsense, going on about a straw man.
By the way, for entertainment value this is supposed to be a map of 15th century skin color gradations: http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/ant100/images/human_1.jpg Ii rather question the derivation but… it is funny )
Very well, I think this is enough of trying to get people to engage the data, and the fallaciousness of the “FAQ” is adequately demonstrated.
Honestly, I’m glad that you made the attempt to cite exact language that I used. Unfortunately, the arguments you make simply don’t contradict what I have said.
See below.
(emphasis supplied)
I have no reason to doubt what you say above. However, it simply doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said.
Let me explain:
See, the “strong” position says that race has no predictive value for genetic makeup whatsoever (beyond certain genes relating to surface traits). The “medium” position allows some predictive value, but says that race is to “fuzzy” to have much use.
What you have done is make an argument that supports the “medium” position, not the “strong” position.
Again, it fascinates me that people are drawn to this argument like moths to a flame.
**
Well, we could debate about the degree of fuzziness, but since I’m happy to concede that race might be too fuzzy to be of much use in science, I’m not sure what the point is.
Feel free to ask for a definition of any word or phrase I have used. Really.
As mentioned in a previous thread, I am happy to have my position pinned down; if you point out a bona fide contradiction, I will gladly retract or rephrase as necessary.
It would be nice if you would offer me the same courtesy.
**
I’m not totally sure what you mean by “significant . . . fixed differences (private alleles).” However, I think that it’s different from what I meant by “significant differences”
Can you explain in more detail what you mean by “significant . . . fixed differences (private alleles)”?
(And if you like, I will be happy to explain what I meant by “significant differences”)
I have no idea what your point is. Are you saying that nobody has actually argued that “race should not be used in science because of fuzziness and historical baggage”?
Collounsbury, thank you for the effort you put forth in your lengthy summarization. It was helpful and appreciated by this humble reader.
You were probably wondering if there were any readers left. I was ready to abandon this thread myself due to becoming quite weary of the incessant and somewhat useless bickering.
Algernon, you’re welcome. When it comes right down to it, when someone learned in the subject explains how the unlearned person’s assertions / characterizations are wrong, and said person, lucwarm, simply comes back and asserts “no it ain’t” you just have to call the case hopeless.
It’s unsurprising that you should feel this way, given your failure to grasp the relevant issues here.
For anyone who happens to be reading this, you might keep in mind that I have freely offered to answer questions about my position; to provide definitions for the terms I use; and to be pinned down.
By contrast, Collounsbury has declined to do this. Odd that such a “learned” person would be so reluctant.
Luccy, this is not a legal case to quibble over the language, it’s science. I have alredy explained how your approach is incoherent, does not respond to scientific standards (e.g. statistical artefacts as ‘proof’) etc. So did Edwino, so did others. You recall the part where Edwino retired because of arguing over semantics.
You can whank away over words and unlearned semantics or you can educate yourself on the field. Your fucking choice, I see no point in quibbling over your unlearned, ad hoc terminology.
IMHO, language is important in science, and certainly in debates over science. As I pointed out earlier, it seems that what you mean by “significant . . . fixed differences (private alleles)” is very different from what I mean by “significant differences”
If this is so, then your argument collapses.
Perhaps that’s why you don’t want to quibble over language?
**
The trouble is, you don’t really understand what my approach is. That is why your arguments are so misguided. If you disagree, I invite you to summarize my position and I will tell you if you have done so correctly.
Whatever. Your opinion and what you mean matters for shit, what matters is the opinion of persons “learned in the art” to use a phrase that should be familiar to you.
What you mean by significant differences is fucking meaningless and useless, unless you have something grounded in the science, and provides us with objective standards.
To be clear, in a connection you may grasp, I could advance dumbfuck unlearned opinions about the Law and it would be equally as dumbfuck irrelevant whanking.
Argument collapses indeed.
Why I don’t want to quibble over langauge is clear, and already stated: I consider it worse than useless to quibble of ad hoc made-up terminology with someone who clearly hasn’t a clue about the science or relevant terminology or standards of analysis. It is semantical whanking.
No, I don’t give a flying fuck what your approach is. I have not even a glimmer of respect for your “approach,” any more than I have a glimmer of respect for some half-educated fool who advances pseudo-scientific creation science argumentation using his own made-up ad hoc terms or applications of terminology and science he but, at best, dimly understands.
I am not going to fucking summarize your fucking position for some motherfucking stupid lawyer game over wording. The relevant facts, that is the data and science, are what counts here, not ignorant ad hoc semantics.
The only relevant method of addressing this subject is to look to the primary literature, and address the data, including advancing clear hypotheses with reference to standard methodology, an understanding of the tools used and how to approach problems of comparision. Your frankly ignorant and foolish prattle in response to Telemark’s observation (I repeat in whole:
, to which you simply asserted, a priori w/o addressing in any way shape or form the actual critique and played the rhetorical game of asking if Telemark ‘understood’ your baseless ad hoc argument )
simply shows you are arguing from ignorance. As I said, it is worse than useless to even attempt to go further with you.
It’s funny that you should draw such an anology - perhaps you remember making the following statement a few months ago?
Of course, you were totally missing the point in that thread, and you made a total fool of yourself. But here’s the thing - it wasn’t due to your ignorance of the law so much as the fact that you know a lot less than you think you do.
IMHO, non-lawyers can have a lot of insight into the law, just as non-scientists can make intelligent observations about science.
**
That’s an interesting rationalization, but let’s face reality: You don’t have enough of a grasp of the relevant issues to (accurately) summarize my position.
And by the way, since you’ve made your credentials a part of this debate, would you mind sharing the details? Not that I think you’re a fraud, but I’m curious as to your educational and professional background.
Hmm, response to the substance? Nope. Natter on boy, natter on.
(As to my credentials, I work in pharma-biotech bro, but what counts is the presentation here. I either get the science right, or I do not. If you find something substantive to reply to, in re the science, then do so. Else, posture away.)
BTW, in case you decide to stop posturing and hand-waving, and actually address substance, the outstanding questions on the issue are:
(a) How you define race, on an objective basis, esp. what standards are to be used, again rigorously defined. Oh yes, in a non-circular manner, always helpful not assuming the conclusion after all.
(b) A precise definition of ‘predictive ability’ including a resolution of the issues raised previously in re actual ‘predictive ability’ based on actual data (not assertions).
(d) An actual analytical response to Telemark’s comment in re circular reasoning (not mere assertion that does not in any way address the critique) and the issue of statistical artefacts, including your science-based rational of why your unique dismissal of usual statistical methodology should garner the slightest attention, other than contemptous dismissal.
So, in sum, the problems raised by myself, Telemark and others. All remain to be addressed. Substantively, not by dodging the issue and playing rhetorical games of turning the question around.
I should also expect a correction of the factual errors in your “FAQ” as noted in the prior interventions.
Of course, what I expect is simple assertion that none of the logical errors, factual errors and general impreciseness exist.
I keep an eye on this debate, but I had some exciting results which I am now pushing so that I can get a paper out by the end of the year. So that my boss will let me go to Israel for 2 weeks. So I will be sparse around here.
First of all, this Ashkenazi from Port Elizabeth would like to offer an “hell yeah biatch!” for some hometown props.
Second, a slight nitpick. The HbS (let’s get some nomenclature right here – HbS = Sickle allele of hemoglobin beta, AS or SCT = Sickle cell trait, who are heterozygous carriers, SS or SCD = Sickle Cell Disease or Sickle Cell Anemia). SCA, as I see it, usually stands for spinocerebellar ataxia. SCA in the scientific literature almost never refers to Sickle Cell Anemia. Just the geneticist in me nitpicking.
Third, another slight nitpick/question. The vast majority of blacks in South Africa are there because of a Bantu migration from West Africa a few hundred years ago. In PE, it is mostly Xhosa and in Durban mostly Zulu. So I don’t honestly know about HbS frequency around there. It could very well be similar to West Africa, especially given pockets of malaria around South Africa. The “native” blacks of South Africa are pretty rare, IIRC – they are the San of the Kalahari and Karoo that we talk about around here from time to time. I have not seen HbS allelic frequencies measured in each of these populations, and I would be interested to see this if someone could dig it up for me.
Fifth, as I see it lucwarm’s ideas have not changed since the last debate. As I see it, he does not have any point except for saying “Don’t say that races don’t exist.” Well, as has been pointed out numerous times, we acknowledge that races exist. We just don’t acknowledge that they are useful scientific categorization schemes. And here is where we run into issues. These issues are entirely semantic/epistemilogic (and I turn off real quick) – what do we mean by classification scheme? How do we know identify predictive value? What signifies a useful categorization scheme?
lucwarm kept posing me a scientifically unanswerable question that did not extend from my argument and appeared not to lend anything to his. I got sick of him rephrasing the same question no matter how many ways I attempted to show him that it was ludicrous, so I quit.
In science, we try to break things down along measurable boundaries. We can do this genetically – I saw Francis Collins talk again, and he talked about ethnicity for about 10 minutes and he had some very interesting things to say about haplotype variance across humanity. The way he measured this was based on descent, not on race. And it reflected ancient movements of humanity.
That Slate article linked above put it nicely. For us to say that there is a black race, we have to acknowledge that there is a commonality between an American NBA center, Tiger Woods, a Kenyan running the Boston Marathon, and a Nigerian Olympic sprinter which imparts superior athletic ability. Genetically, it is very easy to tell you that this is almost certainly not the case. Grouping them is done on one trait – skin color, which implies descent from a warm climate. Because descent from a warm climate also implies a few other factors (HbS being one of them), dark skin carries some limited predictive values when it comes to this “set A” which I defined as traits being associated with warm climates. Genital size, athletic ability, intelligence, concert violin, and all other factors appear not to be linked with descent from warm climates. Because of genetics (recombination, independent assortment, you remember that jazz), “set A” does not carry with it other non-warm climate traits.
It is always plausible that isolated African populations would have concentrations of these non-warm climate traits, whether by selection (evolutionary or sexual), founder effect, or genetic drift, and that may skew the average of the whole “black race.” But, our classification is based on warm climates and skin color; non-correlated factors which are due to other selections is total coincidence and lends no merit to the classification scheme. Again, we run into semantic and epistemilogic issues.
This is my argument. Just to have it presented again, for all newcomers and curious. Shoot away.
Two things. Omit the paragraphs in my Second point and where I say “The HbS.” Also, the last board crash reduced my posting count under 1000 again. The big board crash earlier this year did the same. So I am just pointing out the strange coincidence. I hope this post does not cause the board to crash again as it will be #1000 for the third time. See the problem of relating findings (and coincidences) with causation and significance?
