I intend to do a search, but still, may I ask who Professor Irwin Corey is? (first time posting to the pit. Only peace could make me do it.)
Prof. Irwin Corey was not a real person. It was a very funny skit, but I don’t remember who did it. This very distinguished looking professor walks up to the podium and delivers a talk that would crack you up: polysyllabic nonsense. That’s the way I recall it. I might remember falsely.
Look under “What is modern OR” in the middle of this page for a capsule description.
OK. Last time. Slowly. I will try to simplify. It is 4 AM and this may make no sense.
Let’s say you have two isolated populations. Population A and Population B.
You find a set of genes in Population A, each with a haplotype that is found with 90% frequency in Population A. If there are 20 of them, you can sequence all of them and show that an individual is in Population A. Same thing for Population B, with a different 20 markers.
Q: Are these populations genetically distinguishable?
A: Of course.
Q: So does this mean that you can tell race genetically?
A: No.
Q: Why? We have just shown that two isolated populations can be separated genetically!
A: Because “race” has no genetic meaning.
Q: But people of different races look different?
A: It doesn’t matter.
Q: Why?
A: Let’s take a Nigerian and an Ethiopian. Can we agree that they are both “black?” How come we say they are of the same race? Typical Ethiopians have a different facial features than Nigerians. Besides skin color, they don’t look much the same. This I would assume would go down to HLA haplotypes and so forth.
Same with Asians. Besides skin colors, Vietnamese, Mongolians, and Japanese all share some features but are highly divergent on others.
Repeat with every “race”. Why is this? Races are not isolated populations. There is extensive drift around the edges. Let’s go back to population A and population B. Let’s say that each of these are a “proto-race” – ancestral African versus ancestral Asian, for example. If A and B mate, we get something exactly halfway. Now, we have to assign a new “race” to the progeny, because they look like neither. They are also genetically distinct – we cannot use our 20 markers for A or for B anymore. (There is now only a 45% chance for each of the A or B markers).
A little bit of population mixing leads to a whole lot of genetic mess.
So do African-Americans with 7/8 African heritage retain some ancestral haplotypes that link them back to Africa?
Of course.
Do they also contain enough in that 1/8 to link them to other ancestries?
Probably so.
What are you gonna do genetically?
You can do nothing. It becomes a god-awful mess.
So how has race been assigned? Not genetically. Morphologically. What is the most visible morphologic thing? Skin color. Ethopians versus Nigerians.
Even this fails, when we deal with highly mixed populations, like the Phillipines, Brazil, Mexico, and the USA. Genetically, it means squat.
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.
I do. But this is different. Instead of a bag of marbles, get one blue marble. I tell you that there is a 90% chance that this marble looks like most marbles in the bag. What is the likely color of most marbles in the bag?
Your exquisite dodging of the facts is almost commendable, if it weren’t so damned stupid. How about you look up “idjit”.
I did. The search returned zero.
pantom**: I intend to do a search, but still, may I ask who Professor Irwin Corey is? (first time posting to the pit. Only peace could make me do it.)**
Ain’t Pit fun?
Peace
Barbie: polysyllabic nonsense.
I wish I could talk in polysyllabic. Whichever language Edwino talk, did you get it?
In the cite Peace gave with the statistics for lactose intolerance, it says this:
Peace then said:
[/quote]
So, if I am asked: “If this person is lactose-intolerant, what is his race?”, I’ll answer: “I do not know. Nine chances out of ten that he is Oriental. But he could be something else. If you give me several more markers, for instance, that he has straight black hair and epicanthal fold, I’ll be more certain.
[/quote]
Now, math is not my strong point; neither is logic. But I do know that “IF this person is Asian-American, THEN he is probably lactose-intolerant” is NOT the same thing as, “IF this person is lactose-intolerant, THEN he is probably Asian-American.” You cannot make that assumption. The lactose intolerant person in question has nearly as great a chance of being either Native American or African-American.
Neither can you say, “IF this person is lactose-intolerant, AND has straight black hair and an epicanthic fold, THEN he is probably Asian-American,” because he could be Native American or a very light-skinned African-American with relaxed hair and a Chinese grandmother.
Also: Peace made the statement:
Jeepers, I sure would like to see a cite for that. Where DID you get those numbers, boy? I must be living in one helluva statistical anomaly, 'cause where I live, in Illinois, it’s wall-to-wall whites and blacks, not an Asian-American in sight. There are 250 million people in the U.S. and you’re telling me that 90% of them are Asian-Americans? Somewhere, there are 225 million Asian-Americans. Where are they hiding? They can’t all be out in California.
Or are you talking worldwide? In a world population of 12 billion, 90% are Asian-Americans? That means there are 10.8 billion Asian-Americans somewhere? They sure do keep a low profile.
“Asian-American” is NOT the same thing as “Asian”. Accuracy counts.
Also, I surely do wish you’d do me a big personal favor, Peace, and stop accusing people who disagree with you of being drunk. It’s tacky.
I’ll close by saying that I am struck speechless by the spectacle of someone, anyone, arguing with Tomndebb. And arguing. And arguing. And arguing. Stap my vitals, it’s the end of the world! Stay close to Mommy, now, I see the exit over there…
Elsewhere I said that I always apologize for my mistakes. No exceptions. I saw that one more than once, but did not catch the obvious. Finally, I did, after being pointed to it by my sober friend Duck: I was so eager to make a simple argument, that I ‘forgot’ that Asians are not a single race who is predominantly LI. It was just for the argument, to make a clear example. But, YES, I made this inadvertent mistake. Guilty as charged. I
feel beaten on Christmas day; please do not kill me. The rest of your reproach, Duck, does not hold entirely, because Native Americans are Mongoloids/Asians; they share many markers.
Qt:Now, math is not my strong point; neither is logic.
I noticed. This sentence: **
Nine out of ten people are Asian-Americans.**
was next to another one and was given to illustrate the point. It was used not as a factual statement (it was a piece of nonsense, I know that we are not China. You alone took it literally), but as a member of the pair to be compared.
It was even less significant than this: Duck:** In a world population of 12 billion**
Duck**“Asian-American” is NOT the same thing as “Asian”. Accuracy counts.**
Exactly. 12 billion is twice the world population. Not very accurate, eh, Duck?
Also, I surely do wish you’d do me a big personal favor, Peace, and stop accusing people who disagree with you of being drunk. It’s tacky.
What is tacky? Being drunk or accusing people? I has never accused Tom or anyone who spoke coherently and disagreed with me. Or are you protecting you former clients? 
DUCK:I’ll close by saying that I am struck speechless by the spectacle of someone, anyone, arguing with Tomndebb. And arguing. And arguing. And arguing. Stap my vitals, it’s the end of the world!
Nah, it ain’t. I do not have idols.
Once I placed a remark. Tom answered. I answered back. So it went. I can’t speak for Tom, but I guess that he enjoys discussions. Otherwise, he would have stopped long time ago. The fact that I argue with him means that I respect and value his opinion. Otherwise, I’d quitted a month ago. As you see, I have answered you, and Jb_farlie. Reverence may imply silence. But Tom signs his posts “Tom”, not “Rev. Tom”. Not that it would deter me…
** Stay close to Mommy, now, I see the exit over there…**
Careful, I’ll hold the light for you.
Peace
**
No, Piece, you didn’t. Not at all.
jb
You’ll excuse me as I hijack this thread for a second ( I might add that I see no real point in continuing this argument - It’s going nowhere 
), but this is tangentially related.
Collounsbury, tomndeb: Either of you read Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History by Jonathan Marks? Just got it in the pile of Christmas goodies and immediately thought of this trainwreck of a thread 
. I did a quick run-through of these tangled mess to see if anyone had referenced it, but didn’t notice any mentions. On quick skim it certainly appears interesting and very complementary to the discussions that have been going on here. Any opinions?
- Tamerlane
Uhhh… And of course “these” should be “this” :o .
Jb, I tried my best. In response you have always viciously attacked me, as I was trying to fool you deliberately. I wll try again, if you state, in SIMPLE terms what you do not understand. I said SIMPLE to make it easier for both you and me. I would appreciate if somebody here will explain to you the difference between 90% probability and 90% factual certitude.
I found several references which support my view that biological markers can be used for ethnic studies, etc.
Many Americans, when asked: "What’s you race/ethnicity? answer: “I do not know and I do not care. I am a proud American”. Blood test may reveal that their markers are common in Europe, Africa or Shitland. Or they may reveal that no discernable pattern of markers was found (in 0.1% or 1% or 10% of tested individuals). Regardless of what we call the populations of Europe, Africa and Shitland. Regardless of how much they have traveled. Regardless of how precisely they can be defined.
Here are the refs:
http://www.google.com/search?q=hla+markers&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=10&sa=N
On the surface of many human cells is an inherited set of genetic markers called “human leukocyte antigens” (HLA). Like a fingerprint, no two persons’ set of HLA markers are exactly alike (except for identical twins). The T-cells use these HLA …
A primary goal of the IHWG is to create a searchable HLA database linking multiple interacting genes with function, ethnicity and disease. A more centralized database will make it easier for scientists to find and contribute new data. It also will help clinical investigators use the information as a platform for future research on immune-mediated diseases… (IHWG exists. I am not responsible. - Peace)
http://unisci.com/stories/20003/0907001.htm
diseaseshttp://onhealth.webmd.com/conditions/news/webmd/item%2C103067.asp
People with unusual tissue types have more difficulty in getting a matched kidney. Only 3% of black patients in The New England Journal of Medicine study received a matched kidney, as most donors were white, and black patients tend to be more difficult to match for HLA markers
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/aidsline/1992/jan/M9210743.html
HLA disease association and protection in HIV infection among African Americans and Caucasians.
Pathobiology. 1991;59(5):324-8. Unique Identifier : AIDSLINE MED/92000246
Cruse JM; Brackin MN; Lewis RE; Meeks W; Nolan R; Brackin B; University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
Abstract: In a previous investigation, we demonstrated an increased progression of overt AIDS in the African American population compared to the Caucasian population as reflected
by the significantly lower absolute number of CD4+ lymphocytes detected in the African American population
in an earlier study. The present study elucidates some of the possible genetic factors which may contribute to disease association or protection against HIV infection. The HLA phenotypes expressed as A, B, C, DR and DQw antigens were revealed by the Amos-modified typing procedure. NIH scoring was utilized to designate positive cells taking up trypan blue. A test of proportion equivalent to the chi 2 approximation was used to compare the disease population (n = 62; 38 African Americans, 24 Caucasians) to race-matched normal heterosexual local controls (323 African Americans, 412 Caucasians). Significant p values were corrected for the number of HLA antigens tested. HLA markers associated with possible protection from infection for African Americans were Cw4 and DRw6, whereas Caucasians expressed none.
- Disease association markers present in the African American population were A31, B35, Cw6, Cw7, DR5, DR6, DRw11, DRw12, DQw6 and DQw7, whereas in the Caucasian population A28, Aw66, Aw48, Bw65, Bw70, Cw7, DRw10, DRw12, DQw6 and DQw7 were demonstrated.*
Of course, Tom, we, stupid people, decide which population is called African American and which is called Caucasian, but it looks to me, that by discriminating between the two, we may safe a few lives. I cut the remainder of the abstract in order to comply with C requirements. The interested may read the abstract on the site…We conclude that genetic factors do have a role in HIV infection since only 50-60% of those exposed to the AIDS virus will become infected.
Peace
Peace, you are right. I have viciously attacked you in many of my posts of the past. Why? Well, because it’s the pit, and because it has appeared to me that you ignore other posters and their questions. You have, at times, been obstinate, ignorant, and obtuse.
Then again, other times you have not. I do take back some of the things I have posted. For instance, I said you were uneducated. I don’t believe this is true. And I don’t believe you are an idiot.
And the crack about your children being dead mice, I sincerely apologize for. I have no children of my own, but if I did, I can think of nothing more hurtful than hearing things like that. I truly am sorry. It could very well turn out that you were lying about having kids- however, in the Pascalesque wager of you lying about that and my apology looking foolish, versus you telling the truth and being hurt, I gladly take the former. You’ve got to realize, though, that you have given us little or no reason to believe you, and many reasons not to.
This message board is founded on a mutual trust. It simply won’t work if we blindly assume that most posters are lying. Why assume that? Why assume that a person is lying about his medical credentials? Because there’s no way to verify?
If somebody in the real world gave you a business card, would you automatically accuse him of having had fake cards printed up? Of course not. So why do it here?
Not all my posts have been attacks. I have asked you genuine questions which you have either ignored or forgotten. Some of them could shed light on the discussion.
I’ll copy the most salient one below.
In the future, I may very well attack you again. If you keep up the behaviors which we have all talked about, I most certainly will. But please don’t think I’m trying to run you off this board. I would much rather have you stay here and be a respected older poster (look at your post count!) than have you leave and be able to give nothing to the Straight Dope. The problem is, you are constantly undermining any respect many have for you. Please don’t see this as an attack. Again, sorry for the hyperbole, rhetoric, and plain meanness.
Here’s the question.
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?
jb
Jb, apology accepted. No hard feelings.
I just realized that I made another booboo in the beginning of my previous post, but it is too late. You got it, anyway.
All the examples I gave, like epicanthal fold, were just that – just examples.
I think the epicanthus can be more or less pronounced. I do not know why: because of environmental influence or because it is controlled by more than one gene.
As you know, several genes control height. As a matter of fact, I used it as an example when I was arguing with Collounsbury about nutrition and height. Nilotes and Pygmies live relatively close, their diets are not much different, but they are about one foot apart in average height. And, as you know, it’s hereditary. To understand the following, you have to know some genetics. I know, for instance, that you know less than Tom or Edwino. But I do not know exactly how much. So, I’ll proceed and, if you would not understand, ask again and I will explain. I, OTOH, did not get your term “to conserve”. I guess you meant to pass vertically, from parents to children. Anyway, genes are passed as whole units, one half of them is passed from the mother and one half passed from the father. Let’s say, four genes are necessary for height. If the father (tall Nilote) had four T genes and the short Pygmy mother had four S genes, a child would inherit TT and SS genes. The actual height will depend on the kind of genes inherited, i.e. whether they were dominant or recessive. In other words, if the child inherited ttSS, i.e., two recessive “tall” genes and two dominant “short” genes, he will be short. The height thing is even more complicated because it is possible that no S or s gene exist, i.e. the presence of TTTT gives tallness, with no TTTT or with tttt a person is short.
I realize that that is complicated, I am almost sure that the genetics of height is not known in detail. If it is known, Edwino would be the one to ask. Or somebody else; Edwino is very busy, and it is probably the exam time now.
So, in short: the individual genes are inherited discreetly, but, because many genes are responsible for each trait, the latter are continuos. So, we can reasonably well tell the races/subraces of the parents based on height alone, yet we would not be able to tell much about their children, which may be of any intermideate height.
It’s somewhat easier with HLA inheritance, but I did not get the exact meaning of your question.
Peace
One more crack at correcting this fucking moron Troll.
Or rather correcting the bald-faced hyprocritical misrepresentation he has made below. Our fucking lying moronic asshole, claimed:
Examples? If only I had a two by four to whack this idiot upside the head with. Of course I can refer readers back through the depths of the many threads where Peace’s moronic non-argument has been destroyed again and again, but…
Asshole,
(1) Nilotes are a language group not a fucking phenotype you fucking moron.
(2) Most, but not all Nilotic language speakers are nomadic to semi-nomadic plains herders. As such their diets are largely characterized by (a) high protien and animal milk intake (b) low intake of grains. Unsuprisingly, this tends to have an effect on height.
(3) Pygmies live in the deep forested region of the Congo basin. Actually hundreds of miles at the least from the closest populations we might call 'nilotic herders". (Shall we say in Kenya?) Close? Only to geographically impaired moron who’s making fucking lies up as he goes along.
(4) Their diets differ substantially from nomadic herders, being largely confined to bush hunting and settled agriculture.
(5) The point is immaterial to the issue of race.
Round and round the Peace-Troll. Refute his arguments, show him his illogic, he simply calls you PC and repeats the same old same old. Refuses to read citations provided (he knows his position is correct, doesn’t need to read anything contradictory.)
Bloody moron.
This is rich. Very rich. For someone who’s consistently not been able to understand a single item presented to him, but insists on presenting irrelevant or merely tangential webpages he picked up in quick websearches as refutations…
Fucking idiot. I can’t bring myself to go any further. I can only look forward to the day this creature from under a bridge is no longer with us.
Finally something worthwhile.
Tamerlane you’re the man. I picked it up and read part of it once, but frankly I don’t clearly recall it terribly well. I’ve read some other stuff by Marks and he seems solid.
Comments anyone?
For those who do not want to be confused by ranting Collounsbury:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ni/Nilotes.html
The Columbia Encyclopedia: Sixth Edition. 2000.
Nilotes
(nl´tz) (KEY), people of E Africa who speak Nilotic languages.
The Nilotes are noted for their tall stature
As you understand, they retain their tall stature regardless of the language spoken. I could not find the definition Mr. C. insists upon:
**Nilotes are a language group not a fucking phenotype[/b/
The CE, 6th Ed. mentions Nilotes’ language; it does not define them as “a language group”. Apparently, the latter escaped our smart (as opposed to ‘fucking moron’) fellow SDoper Mr. Collounsbury.
I am aware of the fact that the diets of the Nilotes and the Pygmies are different. When I said that “their diets are not much different”, I implied only that the diets are not much different in caloric intake, which mattered most for the discussed topic; if anything, the Pygmies are hunters and are likely to consume more calories then predominantly vegetarian Nilotes.
you fucking moron.
Our fellow SDoper Collounsbury crafted the above quoted phrase. I suggest he scribbles it on a peace of paper and reads it every morning instead of reading my posts. Just a suggestion.
Peace
This is purely from what I can recall from an anthro class a year and a half ago, but I was under the impression that farming, or even foraging for food (if the Nitloes are vegetarians I would assume they have to do one of the two), was a more reliable source of caloric intake than hunting. Would this not lead to a higher caloric intake of a group of people who consumed mainly vegetables?
peace:
I took my last exam at the end of November. I am quite busy, but it is due to preparations for an EMS mutagenesis and F1 screen.
First. Height is quite a poor example. There could be literally hundreds of genes controlling such a thing. These would range from pituitary control genes, growth hormone receptor genes, downstream targets, appetite genes, etc. etc.
This still does not take away from any argument about genetics and race. Race cannot be determined genetically. In order to determine anything scientifically, we first need a precise definition. The word “race” lacks that. We can define it based on morphological features, but again and again those morphological features boil down to one or two things present in numerous widely separated populations. We could of course test for the genes which underly these few morphologic features directly (like direct sequencing of all skin color loci, for example), but it would turn into an impossible quagmire.
We, for academic purposes, can define a “green” and “blue” race. We could sequence the skin color loci and determine what made greens green and blues blue. We could define a set of polymorphisms which defined each “protorace”. What happens when blues and greens have kids though? What do the skin color loci look like? None of the above. The kids define a new race, for all intents and purposes.
This has happened throughout history. We say that Ethiopians and Nigerians and Kho San are black. They look quite different, though, apart from skin color. This is because our current definition of “black” encompasses thousands of groups, which are all intermingling all the time and have been for thousands of years. We are left with an impossible quagmire. None of these groups probably share more of any segment of DNA (perhaps even in the skin color loci) than between the Kho San and the Norwegians.
Race, scientifically, means nothing. Get over it, peace.
Edwino, I totally agree with you. I have known all this for years, literally before you were born (no insult meant). I never tried to introduce races where they did not belong. Africans, Norwegians and other humans share more genetic info among themselves as well as among other primates. I was just surprised that some people stated that the races had no biological basis. Only cultural. The biological bases could be definedculturally, but they exist as different biological markers, which are different in different races, however defined.
As far as height, I know only two well that it is multifuctorial and polygenic. Jb asked the question and I wanted to help. I do not want to discuss totally irrelevant caloric intake of the Nilotes vs. Pygmies here. Suffice it to say here that it has nothing to do with their statures.
Peace
Nobody said that, Peace. No genetic basis, not no biological basis. You appear to be agreeing now with all those you argued with in this thread.
jb