Race is non-existent

Great Debates
161

Well I think that on most college and university campuses, people on his side of the debate never have their views seriously challenged. They are used to just spouting the party line and shouting down anyone who disagrees.

They are not used to having their arguments scrutinized.

This I disagree with. In my opinion, such people don’t actually want the particulars any more than tobacco executives want to know the exact process by which smoking causes lung cancer, including the specific proteins which are created in the process.

I predict what will happen is that hundreds of genes will be found which have an effect on intelligence. For the majority, the alleles which make you smarter will be significantly more common in whites than in blacks. However, for a few, the reverse will hold. There will be enough ambiguity for people on Honesty’s side of the debate to seize upon in order to deny what should be clear even without knowing what DNA is.

162

Lol, the anger you are feeling is the result of “cognitive dissonance.” But please feel free to open up a pit thread. It only underscores that you have no coherent response on the merits of the debate – all you can do is scream “racist!”

Besides which, I have a few of my own accusations which I am very eager to make against you.

So bring it on :slight_smile:

163

When is this discovery to take place? Tomorrow? 90 years? At what future date will your “great vindication” take place?

164

I don’t know. Perhaps in the next 30 years.

I’m not sure what you mean by “great vindication.” There is already overwhelming evidence that racial differences in intelligence are the result in significant part of genetic differences. For people who reject that evidence, there will never be enough evidence to satisfy them.

165

No fair questioning a central tenet of the faith. Just read Revelations and sit tight. :smiley:

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
Science pretty much always wins in the long run.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, if by “winning” you mean demolishing old paradigms and establishing new ones. Hence the reference to Kuhn up thread. You’re clinging desperately to some old paradigms, hoping for vindication at some unknown point in the future.

Just a little more research, and we’ll find the luminous aether. All will be revealed. :smiley:

166

No. There is overwhelming evidence that it isn’t genetic.

http://essays.backintyme.com/item/39

167

Just in case anyone takes this the wrong way, there is in fact no such evidence.

168

Please summarize the 3 strongest pieces of evidence that the racial disparity in intelligence has essentially no genetic component.

169

Thanks for these links. Here’s a snippet from the second (speaking about the test score gap):

170

Family is a social construct. It does not exist. There are no determinate characteristics distinguishing groups of Homo sapiens as separate, whether in discernible genetics or characteristics of brain architecture. Differences among individuals exists, but you cannot cogently pool certain groups of individuals together based off similar genes or brain architecture. Thus, “Brother”, “Son”, “Mother”, and so forth are all inadequate abstractions in describing the unique properties present in a human being. People that do not understand this are lost in cultural trifles.

It is an arbitrary division people drew up for the sake of classifying perceived groups of others. In reality, it is not an adequate means to evaluate the character of another. Your perception of someone’s “family” says absolutely nothing about his or her values or temperament.

I am tired of how human beings are dancing around to non-existent tunes, wasting energy.
Religion is a social construct. It does not exist. There are no determinate characteristics distinguishing groups of Homo sapiens as separate, whether in discernible genetics or characteristics of brain architecture. Differences among individuals exists, but you cannot cogently pool certain groups of individuals together based off similar genes or brain architecture. Thus, “Christian”, “Muslim”, “Budhist”, and so forth are all inadequate abstractions in describing the unique properties present in a human being. People that do not understand this are lost in cultural trifles.

It is an arbitrary division people drew up for the sake of classifying perceived groups of others. In reality, it is not an adequate means to evaluate the character of another. Your perception of someone’s “religion” says absolutely nothing about his or her values or temperament.

I am tired of how human beings are dancing around to non-existent tunes, wasting energy.
Citizenship is a social construct. It does not exist. There are no determinate characteristics distinguishing groups of Homo sapiens as separate, whether in discernible genetics or characteristics of brain architecture. Differences among individuals exists, but you cannot cogently pool certain groups of individuals together based off similar genes or brain architecture. Thus, “Russian”, “Indian”, “American”, and so forth are all inadequate abstractions in describing the unique properties present in a human being. People that do not understand this are lost in cultural trifles.

It is an arbitrary division people drew up for the sake of classifying perceived groups of others. In reality, it is not an adequate means to evaluate the character of another. Your perception of someone’s “nation” says absolutely nothing about his or her values or temperament.

I am tired of how human beings are dancing around to non-existent tunes, wasting energy.

171

Yeah, because we all know that we inhale proteins from cigarettes. :rolleyes: Cigarettes do not and have never created specific proteins, they destroy the activity of existing proteins by introducing mutations into the genome. I’m sure our wise, nicknaming medical doctor can attest to this unless he went to sleep during pathophys. You know nothing of what you speak.

Thank you.

  • Honesty
172

On these three statements, you are correct.

173

  1. Do you agree that (malignant) cancer cells have a tendency to multiply out of control?

  2. If you agree with (1), do you agree that it’s changes in the cell’s DNA which result in cancer cells multiplying out of control?

  3. And if you agree with (1) and (2), then how does the altered DNA have any effect except in terms of changes in proteins which are created?

Lol, I think you need to study up on the central dogma of molecular biology.

Anyway, I take it you have abandoned your ridiculous claim that everyone has essentially the same alleles?

174

Oh, and since Wikipedia is apparently authoritative, here is a quote:

My bolding.

See? Cancer necessarily entails genetic changes in cells.

Ok, but why would proteins get involved?

For that, I will quote a self-proclaimed expert on the subject:

See? Cancer necessarily entails changes in proteins.

Maybe you can write your doctoral dissertation about this stunning revelation.

175

Your views are not supported by any major scientific organization.
[QUOTE=American Anthropological Association Statement on “Race” and Intelligence]
WHEREAS, differentiating species into biologically defined “races” has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits),
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=American Association of Physical Anthropologists]
11. Physical, cultural and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.
[/QUOTE]
Quite frankly the entire idea that present day humans are to be divided into “racial groups” has been abandoned; please read any of the articles issued by the American Journal of Physical Anthropology as a result of their Race Reconciled (good summary is made by Anthropologist Jason Antrosio) or the articles from Nature Genetics supplement: Genetics for the Human Race, or any of the numerous articles commissioned by the SSRC made in reply to Leroi (I

[quote extensively from them]
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12912246&postcount=238)).

If you still don’t believe me (that your racial views are fringe) I can quote many other geneticists from Spencer Wells, Craig Venter, Svante Pääbo, etc, on how genetic variation doesn’t comply with any traditional notion of race. Many consider a lot of the common use of such racial groupings to be unethical.

176

Other constructs: gender, class, species, breed, language, wealth, and politics. And pretty much everything else.

177

There are actually things that can have a genetic basis- gender is certainly one, but I think the OP is arguing that race does not have a useful genetic basis (that is, the social classification of race does not tell you much about someone’s ancestry).

178

Assuming that’s true, so what? How many major scientific organizations have come out and explicitly stated that the racial gap in intelligence is purely the result of non-genetic causes?

I have no idea what it means to assert that humans “are to be divided.” Anyone is free to divide up humans any way they like.

Please summarize the best evidence and argument against my views. Please respond to my actual views and not what you wish or imagine them to be.

Well how do I know whether genetic variation “doesn’t comply” with a particular biological grouping?

And assuming that genetic variation “doesn’t comply” with a grouping, what difference does it make? Does it rule out the possibility that observed differences between groups are the result of genetics?

Unless the use is compliant with left-wing ideology, I expect.

179

Take a deep breath, and focus.

You said this:
“Every human being on this planet has the same set of genes.”

This is an embarrassingly and wildly incorrect statement, even for a non-racist, non-asshole to make. It suggests you don’t know very much about genes.

It’s undermining the integrity of all the other arguments you’ve made, so I’m hoping we can focus the Great Debates thread on this point. If it will make you feel better to use bad language and childish comebacks like calling me a lady (Shouldn’t that be a compliment, by the way?), go ahead. But can we please focus on this statement of yours?

Try to cool off a bit, and pull yourself together, man. Losing your temper and threatening a Pitting is an ineffective way to win a scientific discussion about how genes work. It’s just going to make you look like a sore loser.

Instead, I suggest posting even one citation which supports your contention that “Every human being on this planet has the same set of genes.” That way, we can figure out if you’ve confused “same gene name” with “same gene.” This is an important thing not to confuse, and at this point I’m worried that you not only have confused the two concepts, but might even be teaching it!

This statement is so badly wrong that even I am embarrassed for you, and I’m your opponent (effeminate though I may be), for goodness’ sakes.

180

You flip-flop more than Romney. Geez. This was your quote:

Which specific proteins are “created in the process” of smoking cigarettes, brazil84? This is what you claimed, what I responded to, and is a plain reading of what you’ve written above.

  • Honesty