kesagiri: Ahhh, exactly . Cultural definitions are whole 'nother kettle of fish. And certainly semi-discrete populations can be teased out based on genetic information ( but as you noted, coherency will be a constantly shifting problem, so that exact definitions become impossible unless you start looking at really tiny groups - even then it won’t be 100% ). No argument from me . Rather this whole load of crap started ( to the best of my recollection ) several threads ago with the notion that races, and the term was being used in the overly broad classical sense, i.e. “black”, were ( or could conceivably be defined as ) valid, coherent biological categories. A lot of the shouting since then has been on refinements and variations of that argument. This current “100-yard dash” stuff is just the latest iteration. And of course, a great deal of the frustration seems to stem from people talking past one another or willfully ignoring points. But isn’t that always the case with arguments ?
Well we could use the same suit of alleles in each instance. Yes, deciding where we start to measure is subjective, but once we start to measure the results are objective and reproducible, no?
What use this could have…I dunno. Maybe to the forensic field.
kesagiri: Potentially, yes. But I still submit you would have to reduce your concept of “race” to thousands of smallish populations in order to get any clear, reasonably unambiguous break. And even then you’d almost certainly have a huge “garbage-can” taxon consisting of millions ( probably tens of millions, quite possibly hundreds of millions ) that would be essentially uncategorizable due to the increasingly panmictic nature of human breeding.
sjgouldrocks, I must admit, you have now surpassed every poster I have seen on this board in utter lack of reading comprehension.
Collounsburynever proposed that there was a genetic link to excellence in sports.
He laid out the guidelines that would be necessary to examine whether there was a genetic component to such excellence. It was an exercise in describing methodology.
You have failed, miserably, to understand repeated attempts to explain this to you. At this point, I am really curious who props you up in front of the computer and lets you hit the keys, because you have not demonstrated any basic comprehension to actually read English.
How? If biologists find more diversity, that pretty well kills the whole concept of “race,” since diversity is the opposite of the commonality required to establish a (biological) race.
I am not at all sure what you were trying to say, here.
I will respond to your points. I will not respond to points about your personal battles with Collounsbury except to say one thing: there is a reason that everybody who knows anything about genetics and anthropology is on the same side of this debate.
I challenge you to find any point at which I attributed superlative characteristics on any race. In fact, I challenge you to find any point at which I acknowledge the concept of race. You can’t use points which I use to disprove the concept of an African race to show me that I think that African races are superior. That is poor logic, IMHO.
The stuff which I have read about Entine is about his theories of distance running and East African peoples. If he has another theory of basketball/sprinting and West African peoples, I am not aware of it. It doesn’t matter though – there are no cohesive genetic similarities through any region in Africa that I am aware of. (I will omit the Khoisan as an isolated population for the moment.) Given that there are no genetic similarities which exist amongst regions in Africa which do not exist among the human population in general, what is so unique about East/West African ancestry that it predisposes to superior athletic performace? In short, if the genetics don’t support it, what is the cause? That is what we are asking over and over and over and over.
Nice implication. These people, as in those with implied shared genetic background. You can’t accuse me of being a racist if I don’t accept that races exist. Nyah nyah nyah.
Umm, that’s rather an extreme sentiment. Have you collected the credentials of all involved in order to back it up ? If the subject of race were settled amongst those “in the know” there would be no scientific debate about the utility of collecting classical racial/ethnic descriptions along with other data as the genome project is expanded to examine genetic diversity in the human population. There IS such a debate. Of course if the anti-racialist view prevails there will be no chance that any evidence will ever appear to either prove or refute their claims that races do not exist. That seems like kind of a odd way to do science.
Where to start. How about first addressing the facts behind your whinging about how mean I am to you. While this could be more worthy of the pit, it deserves setting out as part of the factual argument.
First we all know I am an impatient bastard. However your characterization of why I have been unkind to your arguments, attempting to imply that somehow to have a degree of shall we say passion for a subject is unscientific, reflects only your stereotyped thinking.
Science, greeny is not Star Trek’s Spock, exaggerated dispassionate blah blah or whatever similar movie-based stereotypes you have in your head…
Science greeny, is data and rational analysis of the same. A methodology. The data must be verifiable and ** non-subjective **, meaning that is can not be based on the subjective interpretation but on objective, testable criteria. One’s analysis must respond to all available relevant data and one’s hypothesis should attempt to describe a plausible, given known data and whatever scientific laws are known to apply.
I have fruitlessly attempted, and others with greater patience and politeness, why and how your “hypothesis” - based on the writings of a sports journalist who showed (based on what I have seen and brief perusal) no clue as to proper use of statistics, of controlling data nor even a basic literacy in genetics (given his numerous errors). Rather he assembled a bunch of ad hoc incoherent sports statistics, as one would expect of a sport journalist illiterate in science, and derived unsupportable conclusions from them. I shall not repeat the critiques once more, you’ve failed to engage them so many times I understand that you have absolutely no desire to do so.
My evident impatience with your numerous interventions I think has been clearly explained, you have consistently failed to engage either the data or the critiques (not solely by me but many others) as to the failings, both logical and factual, in your so-called hypothesis. Rather you have pursued a mixture of argument by assertion, ad hominem arguments, straw men (although I have come to understand that your straw men reflect your real if insufficient grasp of the issues rather than deliberate distortions), argument from ignorance and other logical fallacies none of which respond to the actual argument. I have positively begged you to engage the critiques, and gone so far as advancing model hypothesis which I don’t even care for simply to give you an example of a scientific approach. And you have the gall to suggest that somehow my evident contempt for you is unscientific or based on a lack on my part?
Your martyr act is yet another red herring, I presume to distract attention from the fact you have failed to address any critique and have simply repeated without the slightest modification your slogans copied en gros from our idiot sports journalist. The pit thread itself was based on the substantive critique of you, not on greeny as a person.
Now I am a bit puzzled by this gem,
Err greeny, I don’t see any obvious anomalies. Lack of data perhaps, although I actually suspect that if one studied the hard science literature on biomechanics one might indeed find this material. If you’re referring to the issue that not all tropical populations reflect the same ratios, that’s not really even relevant t’all. The object of the hypothesis is to use an objectively verified fact to propose a hypothesis.
And then there is this beauty.
Suffice it to say greeny the obtuseness of this is staggering. Entine, or moron boy as I like to refer to him, “hypothesis” has been repeatedly shot to hell here for not being in accord with the data, etc etc. etc. Your ‘presentation’ largely seems to revolve around simply repeating the how ‘extraordinary’ the numbers are. (I always like to read such posts with a monty python voice, along the lines of the parrot shop, ‘but its a norwegian blue.’)
Now, it might occur to someone other than yourself that if two persons — one relatively well versed in genetics the other an actual student thereof — tell you that the hypothesis in question requires ** by the underlying genetic facts which must exist for it to be true ** group based distributions which are ** false on the facts/data** that it is time to revise or repent a failed idea. I have repeatedly tried to explain to you that our characterization is hardly a misrepresentation, rather Edwino and myself have an understanding of what the underlying requirements for your hypothesis are. Your “West Africa” ancestry mumbo jumbo is not structurally or factually different from a more general black race, for the reasons (which is to say data) presented ad nauseum. Hopefully you will someday grasp this.
BTW these people are West Africans or folks having some degree of West African ancestry. Or humans in general. Take your pick.
Now in other items. Observing there is higher variation in Africa is hardly racist nor racial. One is making a geographically based observation and generalization on patterns of genetic variability distribution. If you had paid attention in the beginning you would have noted that this observation goes hand in hand with the fact that the amount of genetic variation in humans tied to regions is tiny compared to inter-individual variation. A non-obvious fact, but an objective, tested fact nonetheless. Now in regards to the higher levels of variation found in Africa, what this means in case this escapes you, is that it is even less sustainable to make all-African or African group level generalizations about traits because their (group) internal variability is higher.
As in the observation in re the tendency for tropical/sub-tropical populations to have longer limb/torso ratios, there is nothing racial about this at all. One is not ascribing any particular characteristic to the group in the case of higher variability, except the factually supported observation that they do not form a coherent group! Surely you can grasp this, no? In the later, of course, there is once more no “racial” implication, simply the objective observation that as a heat losing, climate-based adaptation, hotter climate populations tend to have longer limbs proportional to torso, and vice-versa for colder climate populations. Science.
It strikes me that you’re having trouble with this. Let me elaborate, no doubt fruitlessly but I have an obession with eradicating ignorance. First, let me define racialism and racism. I’ve created the former term to describe what is in effect a non-malign form of racism, that is ascribing unsubstantiated characteristics to a race as inherent, however defined, and/or over-generalizing in regards to the same. Of course, if the characteristic is actually inherent to the group, then it would not be racism. (Say for example brown skin) However, unsupported extrapolations are racist, i.e. brown skin means lower intelligence. There may be a correlation, for example, but as anyone knows correlation is not causation. There may be, and in fact usually is, non-obvious factors governing such observations.
Follow so far? Generalizations are necessary to be able to say something about any given subject, but any generalization contains errors of omission, there’s always outlying data. In order to accurately and effectively use this as a scientific tool one has to choose generalizations which respond to the data, which are not in direct contradiction with the same and which have important explanatory value.
Thus, firstly, a mere description of the data if neutral is not racialist, per se, although of course it is possible the group chosen is not an objective entity by the appropriate criteria and is thus not an appropriate category to use. Drawing a conclusion from the observation may or may not be, based on the supporting information. Example, sub-Saharan Africans are dark skinned (observation) therefore they do not get sunburn (conclusion) because their melanin provides greater protection (causation). While overstated and inelegant, this at least is based on real objective data.
Now in re Knee Jerk Reactions.
What can I say? SGL’s parody of participation is strange. I’m not sure how Tom could have been clearer, or myself for that matter. A hypothesis advanced as an example and as a thought experiment does not pretend to be based on real data (other than in the limited sense that my hypothesis attempted to demonstrate how to construct such a thing in accord with the data). I rather clearly noted if one were to take it seriously one would have to dredge up the research if not undertake original research to support the hypothetical assumptions.
It’s frankly hard to avoid the impression that your participation is, as they say in French déloyale, which is to say you are not what you pretend.
Nope, misunderstanding the data. See comments above.
However ability to define restricted groups by their alleles or at rather by frequencies should prove very useful in medicine for identifying some risk factors (among many), ability to control for possible genetic inputs into environmentally determined diseases (say cancers) on a group basis (although keep in mind as always, the vast majority of variation is inter-individual not inter group). Forensics? Least useful of all.
Lastly Squink this last statement is complete bullshit, I repeat bullshit:
Item one: no geneticist is opposed to studying genetic differences between groups. NONE. To my knowledge everyone versed in the art rejects the classical race concept as fundamentally incomptible with the data. Where one stands on a smaller scale resolution of population differences and how to study the remainder of variation is an open question, of course. A large body of literature as you well know has already been cited. If you can find some serious geneticists who maintain the race concept is viable, I await your proofs.
Pretending, inaccurately and despite having been called on this inaccuracy, that those opposed to the race construct in some way are against genetics research is at best innaccurate. Indeed the folks who have opposed collecting ethnic group data have been certain PCish groups talking about “stealing aboriginal heritage” and largely folks who reify various “blood” based ethnic identities. The obscuring of scientific data has NOT in any way come from “my” corner of the argument, bien au contraire. (Excepting of course folks like our knee jerk reaction boy)
Item Two: Now debating whether the classic races should be coded for in data depends on what we’re looking at, if you’re looking at genetics at attempting to organize your data it’s not terribly instructive. Ifyou’re examining socio-medical issues it could very well be useful, although if the researcher ASSUMES the race concept as an ipso facto inherently valid biological grouping, then there is a real problem. Forcing researchers to properly justify and theorize their cateogories of analysis, to the contrary of your amazing implication, in no way impedes but rather improves the science being done.
So, should you have valid objections (and I do indeed respect your past points raised), let’s hear them, but please no straw men.
Collounsbury,
Damn, that was sloppy. It’s just so much easier to deal with broad labels than with recognizable sub factions in an argument like this. I did not mean to imply that “your” corner was trying to block research, only that some groups were.
The statement that “everybody who knows anything” is still grandly inaccurate though. Many people who know something are actually willing to wait until more information becomes available before deciding whether and where it might be useful to draw a line between ethnicity and race.
Actually, given that Cavalli-Sforza, who spear-headed the inquiry that led to the current position of “no biological races” is also the person who is working hardest to establish the genetic diversity project, I’m not sure what scientist is going to actually oppose the genetic diversity project.
As Col mentioned, every opponent (that I have encountered) of the project to identify genetic diversity has been a self-annointed spokesperson for some perceived ethnic group.
Are there actual scientists who have opposed the analysis?
Settle down Edwino. Your point is well taken. It is very difficult to take the position that race does not exist without referring to a group of people. My point is that greater genetic diversity has been ascribed to Africa and in particular by** Loonie** to West Africa. This diversity supports my non- racial position that there is a case that genetics can possibly be the reason that superior sprint athletes in a vast majority of cases can claim some West African ancestry.
The greater genetic diversity seems to make sense from an historical/prehistorical view as well. After all, when human populations were forced out of Africa, they only brought out limited gene pools. Perhaps the genesis of whatever genetic factors click to create the super sprint athlete occurred more recently, but prior to the discovery of the new world.
What is special is the genetic diversity. You agree that Africa is more genetically diverse. Diversity refers to differences.More differences in Africa results in more genetic outcomes. Among these many different genetic outcomes is the superior sprinter. Another genetic outcome in Africa is the superior long distance runner. You can not have both as research in muscle fibre physiology has shown, and therefore there is no attempt here to claim a “cohesive genetic trait” These two types of athletes have the extreme of either fast twitch muscle or slow twitch muscle. The rest of us including most of those who have ancestry from Africa fall in between.
I’m gonna nitpick this. First, the muscle fiber physiology thing. It is “known” that fiber types do not switch in humans. I have yet to see some primary literature demonstrating this – I would be happy to change my mind if it were shown beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, when I was doing my Neurology rotation in medical school, we often saw fiber type grouping and fiber type switching on muscle biopsy in neurodegenerative disorders like ALS. If it can happen as an adaptive change in that case, why can’t it happen in distance or sprint runners?
Secondly, the genetic diversity issue. When we say genetic diversity, we take two populations and compare them. Usually this has been done between a scattering of people in East Africa versus a scattering of people in West Africa versus a population in South Africa (usually the Khoisan as they are considered the most ancient African population that is still integrated). This doesn’t mean that the people in one given town in West Africa have more genetic diversity – we need to make a distinction between individual variability versus population variability.
I will give you that yours is a hard hypothesis to support or disprove, however. Weird things happen with population genetics – founder effects, selection, linkage disequilibrium, random mutations galore. How can we test this adequately?
In flies, it would be easy. We would just take populations and submit them to a selection, preferably a lethal selection. The population with the most survivors presumably has the largest genetic variability. In humans, obviously (except in cases like resistance to epidemics) you can’t do a parallel experiment. Athletic performance as a selection criterion doesn’t come close – we cannot factor out much larger factors like day-to-day performance, training, technique, and of course societal bases. So, therefore concluding that “black by American popular standard” runners in the finals of 100m races supports greater individual genetic variability in peoples of African descent IMHO is a bit of a stretch. But, I will concede that I can’t rule it out.
grienspace: Though I truly fear getting involved in this conversation again ( ), I have to ask a couple of things:
Pretty strong statement, there.
1.) Why do you assume ( you seem to be ) that “greater genetic diversity” necessarily = greater variance in everyday phenotypic expression? To the best of my knowledge, that’s not necessarily the case.
2.) Why do you assume ( again, excuse me if you’re not ) that the most extreme physical traits would be more likely to be present in areas of “greater genetic diversity” ? I don’t think that necessarily follows, either. Extreme traits follow extreme conditions ( geographic adaptation ) and I believe the human genome, regardless of the relative “genetic diversity” of the starting population, is probably plastic enough to encompass them all. Perhaps Edwino or someone can correct me if I’m wrong.
3.) This assertion about relative number of slow and fast-twitch muscle fibers would be interesting, but the fact of the matter is that I don’t think it hasn’t been proven that the conditions you describe exist in West Africa vs. East Africa or vs.anywhere else for that matter. You seem to still be asserting this as fact, when I thought that that was part of this argument .
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
Loonie, loonie loonie.
Where to start. How about first addressing the facts behind your whinging about how taxing I am to you. While this could be more worthy of the pit, it deserves setting out as part of the factual argument.
First we all know I am an patient bastard. However your characterization of why I have been obtuse to your arguments, attempting to imply that somehow to have a degree of lack of comprehension, reflects only your limited thinking.
Genetics, Loonie is not Religion, exaggerated passionate blah blah or whatever .
Genetics Loonie, is data and rational analysis of the same. A methodology. The data must be verifiable and ** non-subjective **, meaning that is can not be based on the subjective interpretation but on objective, testable criteria. One’s analysis must respond to all available relevant data and one’s hypothesis should attempt to describe a plausible, given known data and whatever scientific laws are known to apply.
I I shall not repeat the my position once more, you’ve failed to acknowledge it correctly so many times I understand that you have absolutely no desire to do so.
My evident impatience with your numerous interventions I think has been clearly explained, you have consistently failed to engage either the data or my position. Rather you have pursued a mixture of argument by assertion, ad hominem arguments, straw men (although I have come to understand that your straw men reflect your real if insufficient grasp of the issues rather than deliberate distortions), argument from ignorance and other logical fallacies none of which respond to the actual argument. And you have the gall to suggest that somehow my evident contempt for you is whining or whinging whatever that is.
Your martyr act is yet another red herring, I presume to distract attention from the fact you have failed to address my position and have simply repeated without the slightest modification your slogans copied en gros from your previous posts.
Er Loonie, the forest people?, The bushmen? Try reading the last sentence of your quote!!! Science??? What is the object of your hypothesis again?? Better get some sleep
Shot to hell be your argument by assertion.Show me one reference to where you actually engaged his data.
Of course in order to brand me a “racialist” you must continue to racialize my hypothesis as encompassing the black race. The mere fact that you must continue to assert this incorrect characterization of my hypothesis belies the fact that you really have no facts that oppose my hypothesis
I see nothing here that refutes my hypothesis. No one here is making group level generalizations.
What do you mean by a “longer” ratio?
Sounds like what I’ve been claiming as well!
This is a beauty. After claiming this is only a hypothesis, we now have a claim for objective observation re limb/trunk ratio having been completed with no references. Once again, argument by assertion.
Real objective data??? Subsaharan Africans don’t get sunburns??? Is this what you call real objective data??
Now one more point Loonie. Prior to my including the phenomenon of West African soccer players participating in European soccer as part of the manifestation of sport excellence among those of West African descent, you claimed that the dominance was particularly a North American phenomenon due to the socio-economic limitations of those of black colour in North America.
It has now come to my attention, and you may prove me wrong by the stats if you can that 25% of soccer players in Britain in the premier league are from West Africa. Now blacks as a whole make up 2% of Britain’s population. Now that means 12.5 times as many blacks as non blacks based on population make it into the big league. That is interesting, because when it comes to basketball in America, only 8 times as many blacks as non blacks based on population make it into the NBA. So much for your cultural exlanation.
Hmm. Is it possible to have greater variance in everyday phenotypic expression in a population with a more limited gene pool? If not, what is the significance of genetic diversity?
Perhaps you are correct, and my opponents have already alluded to the highlands of Kenya as opposed to the forests of West africa.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think there is any dispute that there is a higher percentage of slow twitch muscles among East Africans versus West Africans. However my opponents do not believe that this trait has been genetically entrenched and is still just environmentally derived. All I claim is that there is no proof that this trait has not been genetically entrenched among some East Africans.
. Cultural definitions are whole 'nother kettle of fish. And certainly semi-discrete populations can be teased out based on genetic information ( but as you noted, coherency will be a constantly shifting problem, so that exact definitions become impossible unless you start looking at really tiny groups - even then it won’t be 100% ). No argument from me 
?
), I have to ask a couple of things: