Peace
Can anyone spot the difference between these two statements?:
and
First correct answer wins a gold armadillo in a porcelain birdbath.
So Piece by your own admission 89% or less of lactose intolerant people are actually Asian. Yet you can still tell that a given individual is Asian by using this one characteristic.
Your insanity is showing again.
Nitwit, Fucknut, Useless Piece of Shit, and to Psycho Boot!
Man’s going to have the complete set soon.
In order for the groupings to be unbiased, we cannot tell the scientists what features–or genes–to group people by. If there were true, scientifically verifiable biological races, then we would expect the scientists to come up with the same groups independently (i.e. without being told which markers to look for). My point is that without telling them to group the people according to a small set of specific genes which code for specific physical features, the scientists would come up with vastly different results. If you told them what to group by, then the experiment would not be useful. They would just be looking to validate a foregone conclusion.
I think you are misunderstanding what I mean when I say that race is culturally defined. The culture that I refer to is not that of the observed but of the observer. In other words, my culture tells me what defines “Black,” “White,” “Asian,” etc. so that when I look at someone I can place them into a category that has been predefined by my culture. The culture of the observed (i.e. the person I am grouping as “Black,” “White,” etc. is not what I am referring to.)
Peace
Numerical example. Simple numerical example. From the link you posted peace:
Now this is wrong and you seem to be struggling with why, so you’ll excuse me for treating you as extremely stupid, but here goes:
Suppose there are 100 people.
Suppose 10 of these belong to group A(sian). 90% of As are lactose intolerant.
The other 90 of them belong to group E(uropean). 10% of Es (made-up number) are lactose intolerant.
Pick a person. If this person is lactose-intolerant, what is his “race”? There are 9 As and 9 Es who are lactose intolerant. The chances out of ten: five. A conditional probability of 50%.
If on the other hand you were asked “What are the chances out of 10 that this member of group A is lactose intolerant?”, the answer would be nine. A conditional probability of 90%.
Clear?
Picmr, you called (or treated me) as extremely stupid. In fact, I am just plain stupid. You understood the puzzle correctly. You then introduced a new condition - 100 mixed people - and correctly solved it. This condition was not present in MY original example, was not dealt with at all. I said that if ALL people were LI, what are the chances that a person is As? Answer: 90%. This is true by me and by you. Your example is correct as posed. What is your problem today? Cannot read? Or do not want to understand?
Peace
Peace
Thank you, picmr. You deserve a gold sticker on your Fighting Ignorance notebook for that last post.
As for peace, well just check the thread title. :rolleyes:
The traits that people use to organize “races” are based in biological manifestations. (No one has ever denied this.)
Everyone in the whole world is already “multiracial.”
Therefore, humans can establish “races” by grouping people according to perceived characteristics,
but biologists cannot create a profile of any perceived race that will be inclusive of all one group and exclusive of all other groups.
That is the basis of the statement that there are no races in biology, only in culture.
Everyone in the whole world is already "multiracial."
You do not believe it yourself, do you?
I accept the findings of geneticists that humanity is one of the more homogeneous species on earth. I know enough history to realize that are darned few societies who have not suffered repeated invasions or migrations, resulting in a fairly consistent gene pool across the earth.
Obviously, I can see that the people whose ancestors lived south of the Sahara 500 years ago have a different appearance than those whose ancestors lived in Scandinavia.
I have a much harder time understanding how someone can put a Scandinavian and Tamil from Sri Lanka in the same “race.” (Or how someone can put a red-headed Celt and a blonde Nordic in the same “race.” Obviously, the standards for “race” are rather flexible.)
By looking at them, I cannot tell the difference between a native of Kenya and a native of the Andaman islands. Since these last two groups have absolutely no biological connection with each other, I note that the only “racial” connection they have would be one imposed on them purely according to their appearance. At that point, the distinction between them would be limited to any treatment they received based on their appearance. That is certainly real (because behavior is real), but it has nothing to do with biology.
I accept the findings of geneticists that humanity is one of the more homogeneous species on earth.
I accept them too. As a matter of fact, I do not even need no freaking geneticists to tell me that.
Obviously, I can see that the people whose ancestors lived south of the Sahara 500 years ago have a different appearance than those whose ancestors lived in Scandinavia.
They still do. Most of them do even after sub-Saharan folks move to Stockholm and Scandinavian folks move to Harare. So, for the foreseeable future, we can use “races” if needed. Or we can forsake them, if they become PI. I do not have any feelings either way. Sometimes, it can be matter of convenience (garment industry, tanning lotions), sometimes, political issues (college admissions), but either way, the races exist.
I have a much harder time understanding how someone can put a Scandinavian and Tamil from Sri Lanka in the same “race.” (Or how someone can put a red-headed Celt and a blonde Nordic in the same “race.” Obviously, the standards for “race” are rather flexible.)
That is pure convention. The latter are put in one ledger because some invisible markers are common in them. Fewer markers are different (so, Celts and Nordics can be sub-typed), but they are visible. If you looked at the tables instead of beards or loaded the data into your PC, the results would be similar.
By looking at them, I cannot tell the difference between a native of Kenya and a native of the Andaman islands.
That’s why blood tests are used now. They help to discover history, migration roots and other interesting stuff. Let not cancel the races yet, because you have trouble. We can help.
** Since these last two groups have absolutely no biological connection with each other, I note that the only “racial” connection they have would be one imposed on them purely according to their appearance.**
Yes. “On the surface”, they are indistinguishable. Yet, I bet you, their markers are very different. By using them, we can study their histories, etc. In the far-far future, the two peoples may merge. But till then, we can distinguish between the two. There is no need to cancel their races today.
** At that point, the distinction between them would be limited to any treatment they received based on their appearance.**
???What treatment?
Peace
No. You can not help.
You bob your head and say that we are in agreement, then you come back and make this ridiculous claim. The “evidence” that you have presented has never supported this claim. (And who is “we,” Kemosabe?)
There are no “races” that can be objectively identified by biological tests. There are only categories of people that we create using cultural perceptions. It is not biological to say that Celts and Nordics and Tamils are “sub-races.” You are looking at slight variations in form and assigning a(n arbitrary) category. I defy you to find any genetically discernible differences between Celts and Nordics.
You are simply saying whatever you need in order to defend a position for which there is no defense. You’re making it up as you go along.
No. You can not help.
You said that you cannot distinguish between the two peoples. I said that if biological markers are used, the distinction could be made. If this is of no help, nothing I can do. “We” was a figure of speech. I meant modern science.
You bob your head and say that we are in agreement, then you come back and make this ridiculous claim.
What claim? That “we can help”? It was a genuine goof on my part. What is the proverb? That God helps only those who help themselves? So, I am not God, I am even more limited.
** I defy you to find any genetically discernible differences between Celts and Nordics.**
They can be found if there are any. I can only suspect that there are. For instance, if 70% of Celts have gene for red-hair and most Nordics do not have it. If there are several markers with different distributions, these two populations can be, to some extend, distinguished. If not, they cannot be.
You are simply saying whatever you need in order to defend a position for which there is no defense. You’re making it up as you go along.
I was trying to avoid it. You may have that impression because you
Peace
I’ve been following this thread since it started. Peace, so far as I can tell you’re arguing that there are biologically distinct races, and that those races are visually distinguishable because of certain physical characteristics. Right so far? To support this, you’ve been listing collections of traits and saying that people would be able to tell what race a person with those traits belonged to.
There’s two problems with this. First, all your examples are drawn from the most black-and-white collections of racial characteristics that you can apparently think of. Second, when you suggest that “everyone” would know what race that person is, you’re assuming that “everyone” uses the same definitons of race that you do. Go back and reread the explanation of how the descriptor for “orange” developed in Europe to see how cultures can observe physical traits differently. If not everyone observes racial differences identically, doesn’t that imply that there’s a cultural basis to perceiving race? And if there’s a cultural basis, then how can race be a physical difference?
What race is someone with …
… light brown skin, round blue eyes, and naturally blonde kinky hair?
… dark olive skin, green eyes with an epicanthic fold, and kinky black hair?
… very dark skin, wavy black hair, and round eyes?
… very light skin, wavy red hair, green eyes with an epicanthic fold and lactose intolerance?
I’m not making these descriptions up to be difficult; one of these people is me and with one exception the others are all members of my immediate family. Who’s related, and what race are they? One of these people is what some people in the United States call “bi-racial” (that is, her mother was “black” and her father was “white”. Could you take a hair sample and know what race their child was?
I remember the first time I ever saw a Laplander. He had blue eyes, light blond hair, and light skin. He also had a pronounced epicanthic fold and high cheekbones; had his coloring been different I would have thought he was northern Chinese. Which race would he be in: white or Asian? Why?
Not in the least, bub. So everybody (for the sake of argument) in the world is lactose intolerant. Now, upon looking at the genetic profile of a lactose-intolerant person (any random one of the five billion on earth), there is a 90% chance that the person is Asian? Peace, that means 90% of people on Earth are Asian (or, as you say, Asian-American), which is manifestly not true.
If you really believe that humans are very homogenous, then you should not be arguing so vehemently that humanity can be broken up into into discrete heterogenous genetic groups! Remember kids, don’t huff paint fumes. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
Riiiiight, so before anybody had the foggiest notion of a gene, people were able to group individuals based on invisible genetic markers? Is this, perhaps, by way of your handy dandy X-Ray Specs? I’d really like to get my hands on a pair of them, but I guess they’re part of your classified research, Mr. Hawking- er, oops. Sorry dude. Didn’t mean to blow your cover, PEACE. Nudge nudge wink wink.
What the fuck?!?
Peace, look at it this way. Of all the differences between the races you keep pointing out (epicanthic folds, skin color, etc) there is one thing in common- they are all genetically determined. I think this is where you are getting caught up.
There are many other observable traits which also have a genetic basis. For instance, height. Both height and hair color will get passed down through the generations in the same way; that is, the mechanisms for transmission are the same.
If human groups were heterogenous enough to conserve different genetic markers among different groups, it follows that other traits would get conserved as well. You should be able to point to someone’s height as evidence for belonging to a particular race. Obviously, that is not the case.
Since height is not conserved among the races, and since there is no difference between height genes and HLA marker genes, how could HLA markers possibly be conserved?
And one more thing- what the hell is up with your constant references to Political Correctness? Nobody here had argued that since putting people into races is antithetical to an evolved mind, that there therefore is no genetic basis for race. In fact, most of the logic on the side opposing you has been based on current scientific theory and some pretty damned good scholarship (Tomndebb, I’m looking in your direction). The only one who has based his argument on a pseudophilosophical outlook is yourself (said outlook being anti-PC, an outlook which (I honestly am not being sarcastic) I subscribe to myself). The problem is that a scientific argument can not be derived from opinion, but rather from observed facts and theory. You have given us your observations, and you’ve spouted some theory, but you haven’t shown
a) how the observations fit into your theory, and
b) any reason to believe your theory is valid.
So anyway, even if you don’t come over to this side of the argument, can you please stop with the bullshit PC references? They only make you look defensive and somewhat doltish.
THERE ARE NO BIOLOGICAL MARKERS THAT CAN DISTINGUISH DISCRETE “RACIAL” GROUPS. All forensic discussions and HLA graphs you have provided prove that we (you, me, biologists, geneticists, whoever), have no way to distinguish biologically discrete races among humans.
a 90% chance that the person is Asian? Peace, that means 90% of people on Earth are Asian (or, as you say, Asian-American), which is manifestly not true.
No, “chance” does not mean “are”. It means that the probability is 90% that the person is As, and it is 10% that he is non-As. You are drunk, or beyond hope, or both. Look up “probability”, “chance”.
Even about testicles, which started it all (no pun intended). What the fuck?!?
The testicles produce sperm, which start new life. Therefore, “the testicles started it all”. The discussion about the testicles started this thread. The allusion escaped you. Sorry.
THERE ARE NO BIOLOGICAL MARKERS THAT CAN DISTINGUISH DISCRETE “RACIAL” GROUPS. All forensic discussions and HLA graphs you have provided prove that we (you, me, biologists, geneticists, whoever), have no way to distinguish biologically discrete races among humans.
Tom, I read it and could not believe my eyes. In some discussed areas, your knowledge exceeds mine. Yet, you seem to fail to grasp the lack of universality of many of my points. Many a time I stated that there are limitations, that not everyone can be placed within a “race”, especially so-called “multiracials”. Perhaps, I have to remind you that biology is not like physics. In physics, we deal with zillions of atoms, or particles, or… which are all alike, and we have ample statistical material (databases). The results obtained with a group of atoms can be safely extrapolated to all other atoms. In biology, we deal with unique individuals, all of whom may function similarly but who are, in fact, different. And we do not deal in zillions. A typical medical article is based on a study of 100 patients (if the authors were lucky enough to find 100 patients). That’s why a new vaccine is tested in several hundred people. Then somebody in population suffers an untoward reaction. This is unavoidable. Malpractice lawyers make their living because of that and because there are people like you who demand human beings to function with 100% efficiency and predictability. Population studies are typically based on greater numbers, but all individuals in population cannot be placed reliably.
Due to a number of factors we discussed here more than once, the frequency of genes (markers) in a given population is never 100%. If it were, we haven’t had this discussion in the first place.
And this is why I cannot place Eft’s relatives into racial pigeonholes, based on his descriptions. With blood tests, better determination is possible, but only to a certain extend, 100% is not achievable.
Let’s pretend that an island is discovered in the middle of Indian Ocean. The question: where the inhabitants came from, Asia or Africa? We cannot test the entire population, down to the last individual. So, we will test representative, average looking group of 100, mountain and shore dwellers (or two or three groups, if we suspect that they are genetically different). Then the results are fed into a computer, along with known frequencies of markers in African and Asian populations. The program will compare the frequencies and say which two look similar (not alike, but similar!). Here is the answer. The plotted distribution frequencies will form a bell-shaped or other form curve, because not 100% of population will have the same markers. I think it is because of things like genetic drift and such, Edwino can explain the details.
Similarly, the origin of real questionable populations can be established like that. Of course, it’s all “cultural”: we decide which population is “primary” and which is “subsequent”. But such studies are possible and should be done out of curiosity, before the races, as we know them, disappear.
Peace
Peace
Peace, I am beyond hope. If I have a bag of ten marbles, and someone tells me that I have a ninety percent chance of picking out a blue marble, that means that there are 9 blue marbles out of the ten. I hope you understand that.
Your exquisite dodging of the facts is almost commendable, if it weren’t so damned stupid. How about you look up “idjit”.
jb
Why do I keep thinking of the name Professor Irwin Corey ? If he ain’t dead yet, he’s gotta be posting here under the name peace.