My opinion is that the clear majority of the world’s people can be labeled as Caucasian, Oriental, and Negro, and that these three races differ in ways that are persistent enough to indicate genetic causes.
Good- you appear to recognize that your classification “scheme” is your opinion, and that’s it.
Yes we have seen you ignore the genetic evidence that shows that these races make no sense on a genetic basis, with only cultural responses. You like your archaic mythology too much.
Since the beginning of the Age of Discovery homo sapiens has been a species in a process of arrested differentiation. Unless civilization collapses completely, along with transportation - this is always a possibility - the races will have emerged into one in perhaps ten thousand years, or even less. This does not mean that Negroes, Caucasians, and Orientals are not separate races.
If it helps, we’re tired of you repeating yourself, too: you’re not answering the question asked.
Maybe an example would help.
There are genetic marker for an ability to metabolize certain drugs for diabetes.
You claim that race has a genotype. What are the genetic markers for being black? Please be specific; don’t just make another claim that they exist.
And my opinion is that humanity can be defined as two races; Me and Everybody Else. Naturally, the Me race is morally and intellectually superior to the Everybody Else, and should be placed in a position of rulership over humanity in recognition of its superiority.
A theory which is as self serving and has about as much support as your own, I might add.
And a thought experiment:
I have data about 1,000 animals. 500 are dogs, and 500 are cats. The data includes both full gene-sequencing, and photographs of the animals.
I give the gene sequencing data to one trained biologist. I give the photographs to another trained scientist (or maybe to a 5-year-old, I don’t care). Both scientists have fully-equipped labs, and access to all the resources they need. I ask them to categorize the data into one pile called “dogs” and one pile called “cats.”
When they’re done, their piles will agree with one another completely (or almost completely, allowing for a very few errors). Do you agree?
I then ask them to predict the behavior of the animals in the piles: the animals in this pile purr when happy, whereas the animals in that pile purr when angry; the animals in this pile wag their tails when upset, whereas the animals in that pile wag their tails when happy. Here they won’t be at 100% accuracy, but they’ll be very close to accurate. Do you agree?
Now let’s switch the experiment to concern races. I give those same scientists the same data, except instead of being about cats and dogs, it’s about white people and black people.
Do you still think their piles would agree with 100% accuracy? Do you still think they could predict behavior based on their piles (remember, one scientist gets to categorize individuals based only on their genetic sequence) with anything close to accuracy?
The New York Times By AMY HARMON
Published: November 11, 2007
When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.
But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.
Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases.
At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percentage of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. The heart-disease drug BiDil is marketed exclusively to African-Americans, who seem genetically predisposed to respond to it…
Certain superficial traits like skin pigmentation have long been presumed to be genetic. But the ability to pinpoint their DNA source makes the link between genes and race more palpable…
Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans.
These groups do not coincide with those that New Deal Democrat recognizes.
Your opinion is contradicted by the scientific data on the subject.
There is no differentiation of races that relies on genetics that could possibly make “Negroes, Caucasians, and Orientals” separate races. This is because there are populations that you classify as “Negro” that are closer, genetically, to “Caucasians and Orientals” then they are to other “Negro” populations. Also, how could one “race” contain more genetic diversity, and encompass all the genetic diversity (except for a tiny portion contributed by Neanderthals outside of Africa) of the rest of humanity combined?
The only possible differentiation scheme that results in your three “races” is one based on physical appearance.
You left out the next paragraph (bolding mine):
The author of the article made a few concessions to political correctness. Nevertheless, it is clear that is more is learned about the human genome there will be more evidence for the biological reasons for racial differences.
As decades pass more scientific evidence will accumulate to explain the continuing persistence of racial differences in average intelligence and crime rates.
A number of people mentioned in the article find this prospect disturbing. I welcome it. I believe that social policy should be based on assumptions that are scientifically accurate.
Of course. If part of an article supports your assertions at all, it must be good science. But if another part of the same article disputes your assertions, it must be “concessions to political correctness”. How very scientific of you.
Finding some high-IQ related genes more common in African populations must be a “concession to political correctness”. After all, there’s no possible way real science could contradict an opinion (unsupported by genetic evidence) by you, NDD, is there?
Further proof that he doesn’t even read his own cites beyond the headline.
This has nothing to do with my point.
I do not doubt that some Negroes have genes that promote high intelligence. What I believe is that these genes are found less frequently in Negroes than in whites and Orientals.
“No matter that the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed, or that other high I.Q. snippets are more common in Africans, or that hundreds or thousands of others may also affect intelligence, or that their combined influence might be dwarfed by environmental factors.”
If environmental factors were more important than genetic factors in determining intelligence, efforts to raise blacks to white standards would be more successful. As I have pointed out, No Child Left Behind was supposed to bridge the race gap by 2014. I have also pointed out that NCLB has been a failure. So have similar policies in the past.
Wow.
My prediction was wrong because I never expected NDD to actually admit his method is based merely on his opinion.
That’s a new approach. Just flat out admit you have no data but keep forging onward.
This is ridiculous- because one program, or a few programs failed to achieve something (though the gap has shrunk by many measures, including for the one by the NAEP), that means it can never be achieved?
Of course, the NYT article you cited says some high-IQ “snippets” are more common among African populations than others.