Oh come on, do you really think this is a good shot? Well, anyways… see below:
Which gene? But in any case, given 99% of genes, my answer is: I flip a coin and pray.
Or I launch into a lecture about the silliness of the operation, but I guess I probably lose that way.
Either way, if you wanna see why, try cross matching multiple loci, let’s say 20 or so across three different populations. Do the percentages. Now think about trying to apply that to predicting an individual affiliation. The papers I’ve cited – as well as some cites ironically by peace-- give you the raw data.
If the individual subgroups within a population are completely unrelated you are right. My question presupposed that two subgroups in a population have a greater likelihood of being similar to each other than do two subgroups in two different populations. Is this untrue?
I’m unclear as to what you mean by related and unrelated and what you are intending by subgroups. My instinct is to say it is untrue, but I’m not sure I understand your meaning clearly. If you can clarify your meaning, I’ll give it a shot, but its almost bedtime and tomorrow I really have to be productive.
I’m unclear as to what you mean by related and unrelated and what you are intending by subgroups. My instinct is to say it is untrue, but I’m not sure I understand your meaning clearly. If you can clarify your meaning, I’ll give it a shot, but its almost bedtime and tomorrow I really have to be productive.
I’m unclear as to what you mean by related and unrelated and what you are intending by subgroups. My instinct is to say it is untrue, but I’m not sure I understand your meaning clearly. If you can clarify your meaning, I’ll give it a shot, but its almost bedtime and tomorrow I really have to be productive.
Coll, had to track you down over here. Sorry about asking you to kiss my butt. But I will say that you are a fanatic and a zealot. Several post above somebody had an objection to your claims and, again, you just “Whatever”-ed him. This is called proof by assertion. Pious frauds by the religous, exaggerations and scare tactics by environmentalists, lies and mistruths by the political agenda-ed, saying there is no such thing as race by you and your posse, the underlying motivation is that the end justifies the means.
Are there such things as German Shepherds and Poodles in your philosophy or are they Victorian fabrications and fictions also? Is that it? Mankind is unique and racial classifications that are a part of animal taxonomy cannot happen in humans?
I went into a museum in Dallas last year and there was a picture of a man along side a river. From across the room, I recognized him as an Indian from the Amazon. How did I do this? Was I psychic? A lucky racist guess? No, that population, through isolation and/or inbreeding produced a distinct physiologic and physionomic type, recognizable by both Victorians and the Politically Correct.
In your political philosophy, did all of the RACES of mankind: blonde, black, curlied and kinkied haired; white, pink, yellow, brown, and black skinned; aquiline, snub, broad, or mega-nosed; blue, green, brown, round and slant eyed; all walk out of Africa together, arms linked in some Jesse Jackson Rainbow Out of Africa migration?
Not likely. A corollary of the Eve Hypothesis, which has to be true in at least some aspects, is that here had to be a small, homogeneous original group. Later, through isolation and inbreeding and selection by the environment, RACES originated.
No question that we have mongrelized since 2000BC and even more so since 1500AD. But that does not mean that there were not original RACES. They still pop up. Gregor Mendel might have been Victorian but his statistics are still valid. What is the matter with multi dimensional cluster analysis anyway?
I have seen no one claim that there are no ethnic populations. No one denies that people who have more closely allied ancestors will tend to have similar features.
The issue is that when we look at enough traits, we find that the concept of “race” (which presupposes a very large population with very closely allied genetic structures) cannot be supported by the data. This, in turn, leads to such silliness as The Bell Curve. That book is not silly because it is un-PC, it is silly because it attempted to wedge large groups of people with widely varying characteristics into very narrow categories that cannot be supported by genetic evidence, despite the fact that their entire premise was that they were measuring genetic capacities for intelligence.
Throughout the current (multiple) discussions on race and throughout the (multiple) discussions “waged” a few weeks ago with peace, those of us who recognize that race is not valid as a genetic/biological construct have repeatedly noted that it can be used (with qualifications) in a cultural or anthropological setting.
Most people can look at other people and draw generally correct conclusions regarding the geographic region in which the viewed person’s ancestors lived. The problem comes when people make the natural but erroneous assumptions that the characteristics they see indicate some underlying reality of the genetic composition of the person at whom they are looking. When geneticists have investigated these populations, they have discovered that the genetic variation within these groups is too great to allow them to be categorized by genetic description. Similarly, that same variation is found throughout ever-expanding populations until we find that, overall, there is no way to genetically identify any large group within the human race.
This is not a matter of PC or a political agenda. This is the result of the analysis of the genetics of people. Closely related groups do share more common traits. However, the sizes of those groups tend to be so small that labelling any of them as “races” would be an exercise in futility. In order to specify each of the “races” that we can identify genetically, we would need something akin to the NYC phone directory.
Your Amazonian Indian certainly looks a lot like all the people near whom he lives, but at the genetic level, he may easily be closer to you than to members of the next tribe/nation up the river. That is what the actual field studies on genetics has revealed.
With sufficient separation for sufficient time, genetic races certainly could develop. The reality is that they have not.
As to Collounsbury’s "whatever"s, this is the eighth or ninth thread in fewer than two months in which he has provided the exact same information. He has, in every thread that I have seen recently, made reference to the earlier threads, pointing out where the independently discovered information has been cited.
It may not be an act of ultimate patience to dismiss the tenth or twelfth repetition of the exact same objection which has been answered nine or eleven times previously, but it does not qualify as a an argument by assertion. It would certainly be as valid for him to label a person who repeats a frequently answered question as lazy as it is for you to brand him a zealot when it does not appear that you have actually looked at any of the evidence already presented on multiple occasions.
To other readers: I want to note that I’m not going to be polite to Mipsman. I see no reason. I first joined the SDMB at the invitation of another reader who knew me and who was involved in a ‘race’ debate back in June 2000. Mispman was part of that and at least one subsequent debate. I don’t mind that much someone disagreeing with me, but aggressive ignorance, refusal to address the data, and political attacks. Well, they annoy the fuck out of me.
Fanatic? Zealot? How is that?
Perhaps a dedication to data is fanatical?
Hmm, I’ve provided links and citations addressing the very question. I’ve tried explaining to the best of my poor ability. At some point, you just can’t do any more. I never claimed to be terribly patient, a real failing of mine. However, I do follow the data, I do follow the best science I can get my hands on.
Now, argument by assertion would imply that I (a) did not provide any data to support my and/or (b) ignored other matierials. We both know this is not the cae.
Well, brother Mispman, this is what, shall we take a guess and say the third time that you have accused me of putting politics first. Each time I asked you to address the data and tell me where the politics were entering into the science. That is, I have asked, three, four times for a substantive critique, to tell me what’s marxist or whatever about the genetics. I’m sure you can do it, if I can. But you have not.
That leads me to one conclusion: the lies, mistruths, the political agenda is not coming from my court.
Or do you finally have a substantive and science-based response?
Well, since my end is to try to eradicate ignorance in those small areas where I can claim some tiny degree of knowledge and since my means are using the best scientific data and analysis I can get my grubby little paws on, I plead guilty.
But then isn’t that what this board is supposed to be about?
Well, this is one of those asked and answered things. I think Tom has just recently addressed this. I’m not familiar to be frank with dog genetics, but let me note two items (but I’ve noted this for you before haven’t I. I guess I’m mostly making this note for other readers since frankly I don’t think you have an open mind. In fact, I rather suspect you’re far too deeply invested in racial purity ideas to think about this at all, but…):
(a) As my cites, including on-line ones you can easily consult (I am careful to provide freely available data), clearly indicate, Human variation is among the lowest of all mammalian species. Ergo, comparisions with dog breeds is comparing apples and oranges. I.e. argument by false analogy. Dogs have a higher degree of variability, which automatically admits greater differentiation than humanity. How this maps onto breeds is for someone with a knowledge of dog genetics to answer.
(b) but given that, to an extent yes, dog breeds are artificially maintained by human breeding programs. It is my understanding that for most cases, dogs allowed to freely breed will quickly snap back to the ancestral wolf template.
Ergo, to an extent, if this is correct, breeds may be a bit mythical: but this depends on whether there are fixed differences between them etc. I.e. it is an empirical question to be answered through genetics, not eyeballing. I am sure that some supposedly inherent differnces between breeds are human conditioned by human expectations about the breed. Only genetic research will be able to help reduce the problem of selection bias in determining real traits of species versus social expectations. But that’s another topic which I’m not that interested in.
Firstly, as I have already noted, its not a matter of cannot happen, but did not happen. Of course fixed differences and coherently, racially structured populations might have arisen in humanity if our genetic history were a bit different. However, genetic analysis simply shows this did not happen. That’s all, it didn’t happen. I’ve already provided this information to you, how many times? Oh yes, you don’t read cites you don’t agree with, yes?
Secondly, as genetic analysis rapidly improves (and decreases in cost) we are moving to largely discard concepts such as sub-species. It is my understanding that more and more wildlife biologists, for example, are finding the sub-species concept less and less useful to describe actual breeding populations.
Tom has already answered this rather elementary objection so I will not bother. I’ll just confine myself to noting that some horses can be lead to the water, but they won’t fucking drink for the life of them.
Again, I invite you to come up with some substantive, non-political critique. And please, something a little better than eyeballing an indian in a museum. These asked and asnwered questions frankly both annoy and bore me now.
“Jesse Jackson Rainbow Out of Africa migration”? I hate to say it, but this really strikes me as a fairly racist and ignorant statement. Not surprising, I suppose, but terribly disappointing. And disappointingly political. I fail to see any relevance. Nor do I have any remaining respect for you. Not a shred.
As for human origins: genetic evidence fairly clearly supports an Out of Africa origin c. 100k years. The number of specialists supporting a Wolpoffian (Wolpoff is the main proponent) Multiple-Regional-Evolution Hypothesis (MREH) falls every year as the genetic data accumulates and the physical data is re-evaluated. More interesting question is what kind of Out of Africa event occured. Was it a stream, multiple migration with backflow? The detials of Out of Africa, the dynamics. Those are the questions before us.
As for the issue of appearance, which you seem so very attached to: well this again is asked and answered. Tom and I have laboriously explained how appearance does not imply closer relation genetically, globally. How similar surface morphologies have arisen in groups who have not otherwise shared genes since seperation, etc. The links to the peace pit thread linked above (about page 2-3) should prove useful for anyone honestly wishing to read our analysis and citations. I just can’t bring myself to retype the same old same old.
The rationale for your analysis is? Genetic data? Your prejudices and desperate attachment to the idea of racial purity? Do you have any scientific basis for your judgements?
Sigh. It just goes on and on. (1) It is clear that humans went through a constriction event, something which knocked population size down to a small, homogenous population. (2) We subsequently expanded in population, and exited from Africa (3) environmental and perhaps social selection factors clearly put pressure on local groups and created divergent surface morphologies, but this pressure is only relevant to a vanishingly small percent of our total genome and our total variation. That is, humans have remained essentially homogenous, despite some deceptive visually striking phenotypical variation. (4) Genetic analysis clearly shows that no population was ever effectively isolated long enough for anything like homogenization on the sub-population level and fixed differences with other populations to arise.
See my citations to Chamla posted previously. We have been “mongrels” well before 2000 BC. At no time was there any purity to be had. Or you can simply argue by assertion.
Well, no argument there.
Well, I’m afriad it does. The genetics is clear. Like it or lump it. Our randy little species sexual habits never allowed any formal barriers to arise. So, pity.
You have no fucking clue. Mendel studied plants my dear fellow. Plants. Beans. Simple traits. We’re well beyond Mendellian work now in any case. Do you seriously think that a half-assed pseudo-reference to Mendel trumps modern genetic research?
You said earlier that “try cross matching multiple loci, let’s say 20 or so across three different populations. Do the percentages. Now think about trying to apply that to predicting an individual affiliation”. I interpreted that to mean that there are many subgroups in both Africa and Europe, and that some of the subgroups maybe genetically more similar to various subgroups in the other continent than they are to many subgroups in their own. (Furthermore, a group might more closely resemble Group A for a certain gene and Group B for another).
My response to this is that, knowing nothing else about the groups or genes, it would seem to me that the odds are better with the same continent guy. I would think that even if they are from two different subgroups, there is a greater likelihood that his group has intermarried with the other one in the more recent past. Also, they have likely been subjected to more similar environmental pressures, which you’ve acknowledged might influence their genetic makeup.
Regarding the issue of political vs. scientific: I am not questioning anything that you have said from a scientific standpoint (while at it, I want to express my appreciation for the time and effort that you’ve put into answering my questions. This is one of the great things about this MB - you can get complicated questions answered by People Who Actually Know What They Talking About). Nonetheless, I do believe that all these discussions have a political undertone. Everyone knows that the idea of racial differences plays into the hands of bigots, and is widely used by White Supremacists. There is, for this reason, a powerful motivation to deny the idea of racial differences. In your specific case, I am not suggesting that you are presenting the facts any differently than you would if there was no political issue involved. This does not seem to be the case at all. But I do think you are tailoring your language somewhat in order to make the overall emphasis be on the “no racial differences” side. In particular, it seems to me, after much discussion in the Pit thread, that your position (from a scientific, not linguistic, perspective) is closer to that of DITWD than it is to DDG, but that you framed the debate in terms that would allow you to back her (PC) side.
I’m going to try to call it quits with this. Tom and others seem to achieve greater clarity than I do, so perhaps they are better suited:
Partly there but not quite
(1): Many subgroups in all populations, that is clear, depending on the size there might or might not be some higher consistency for some traits.
(2): (a) Other than for that % of variation (see first page for citations) which varies by population, and is subject to environmental selection, i.e. the minority, sub-groups from the same continent will not necessarily be more similar. In fact its unlikely above all in Africa, seat of the highest degree of variation, (b) further individual variation overwhelms inter-group variation, making as Tom said, it as likely or more likley that Brazilian indian X will be more similar, globably genetically speaking, to European Y than Indian Z.
Essentially you’re reimporting the assumption of racial coherence by the back door.
I know this is counter intuitive but that’s how the cookie crumbled. I can’t think of other ways to explain this, so I am going to have to ask you to try to tackle the literature. Or Tom can try reclarifying.
Well, that’s generally incorrect. I don’t have any further ways of explaining this, than asking you to carefully reread Tom and mine explanations. You’re assuming what I’ve told you is not the case, that there is regionally coherent structure to trait distribution (outside of the small phenological variation).
To put it this way: if I knew which package of genes controled skin color and I knew ahead of time two samples were from tropics and one from northern hemisphere, then I can predict something based on shared environment/possibly decent. Outside of such traits, the minority, I can’t really.
True, but again return to what the data tells us, and once again keep in mind that most variation is not by group! This is a non-trivial point. I’m beggining to repeat myself now so perhaps I will leave off.
Absolutely, but again, we’ve already noted what % of variation that makes up. Go back to the data and think about this. Your problem is that despite what you think, you’re still assuming racial coherency although you’re now restructured your terminology.
well, thanks, although one should always question me, and I don’t know that I really know what I am talking about…
Quite true, but on the other hand I am quite aware that without “biology” there will be other motivations. I focus my argument on the biology. I have absolutely no illusions this will do the least damn good for eliminating prejudice.
In any case, the data is the data is the data. Before I got to know this stuff, through the 1990s I assumed there were races just like everyone else. Without it I would make the same arguments I have seen from others opposing the genetic data: sure there are differences (obvious aren’t they?), but that doesn’t me we should discriminate etc.
I’m afraid that you are misunderstanding the issues if you think so – except perhaps if DDG was utterly denying that genetics has an influence on intelligence. I don’t recall.
I’m more or less concerned with the population issue. I think most people will agree the intelligence issue simply can’t be reasonably defined as of yet.
…and I think I see the point here.
I do see the political implications though. No affirmative action, no slave reperations, no set asides…etc…etc…
Ok. I have a couple of more specific questions.
Are you saying that from a genetic level you can’t tell if a person is Asian, Black or European?
Are you saying that the small islands stuck out in the middle of nowhere were not able to isolate themselves long enough to become genetically recognizable?
When you refer to “traits,” what are you talking about? If traits mean a certain combination of visual clues, then I would have to think that visually recognizable populations would share enough traits to recognize them at a genetic level.
Are the visual identifiers nothing more than humans amazing ability to adapt to environmental conditions in ways that are superflous to who we are? (kind of like a chameleon effect)
BTW…
Out of nowhere my SO detoured us to Barnes and Noble last last. I was so pissed that I didn’t have your book list with me. It is now in my wallet for the next trip.
Once again, thanks. I feel like I am in class, not in GD.
See, all kinds of arguments can come from the scientific data, either pro or con for left and right. I dunno if all would derive the same conclusions, but I welcome Freedom’s demonstration that the data in and of itself does not enforce either a left or a right wing conclusion.
It does exclude idiotic conclusions, but then so does knowing the world is round.
Now, further:
Largely yes. Depends on precisely the parameters. If you gave my analysts (who really should be working with rice) three samples from someon id’d as each, but we did not know anything about any single sample… we might not be able to tell. Knowing something about each sample, knowing a bit about distributions, excluding certain populations, limiting the analysis to a set of traits subject to selection pressure, and some luck, we might do okay but I wouldn’t put money on us. (see below for further comments) Then I am risk averse.
Hmm, that’s another matter. I don’t know if we have sufficient data on large numbers of Pacific Islanders. Micro-populations can be distinguished by the rare traits they may carry. I believe Cavalli-Sforza noted that in order to get coherent populations you’d have to get down to a million races.
Scale can be key determinant here.
Traits, I mean alleles. Variations of genes. Any given gene will have a number of variations, flavors.
The answer to the above is no bec.:
(a) similar appearances derive from different packages of alleles on the same continent
(b) similar appearances have arisen independantly from different populations
(c) all too often the similarity is mostly in the perception of people, Tom’s color response is quite useful here. Selection bias in perception.
Otherwise we would say, fine races are not meaningful all in all bec. of variation, but we can define them by allele X,T and Z of genes 1,2,3 for skin color.
However, to date, nothing breaks down that way.
More or less yes. The amount of variation which the visual identifiers represents is trivial. The % and so forth are on the first page.
It would be wonderful if one day this was only a GQ topic.
However, you can always join the sweatshops thread. I might be moved to oppose you for your libertarianism, but there won’t be clear cut answers at least.
Could you further articulate this? On another thread, if need be? Here, I think, is where we need to make a distinction between race as a (fictional) biological construct and ethnicity as a (very real) historical determinant. That is, just because race doesn’t exist biologically doesn’t automatically nullify all programmatic remedies for historical ethnic inequity.
If I may, let me quote myself from a short essay I wrote in an Ethnic Politics class a couple of years ago. The question was, "Assuming that race has no biological justification, how can we explain world-wide practices of racial stratification, exploitation, and racial ‘consciousness?’ Collounsbury and Tom, let me know if my answer is in any way off-base, but I believe it bears directly upon Freedom’s assertion that the nullification of race as biology necessitates the dismissal of “race” as a socio-political actor.
