I think you guys are talking about a GWAS (Genome Wide Association Study). Essentially, you, me and members of every race of humans on the planet have exactly the same genes. In fact, the coding sequence across individuals is generally identical. The differences between you and me lie in Small Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) that exist largely in non-coding regions. My immediate family will have many more identical SNPs than less closely related people. These SNPs, despite being outside of coding regions, are associated with real biological outcomes from disease associate to physical traits. This is the basis behind getting your genome analyzed at 23andme. It is a very common technique to get a large cohort of “affected” individuals (say people with disease X) and “non-affected” individuals (people without disease X) and map them to try to find regions of DNA that might differ between them; there are many examples of identifications of SNPs that correlate with a given disease which often identify an underlying biology.
It’s fairly simple to do a GWAS study and look at racial differences. Well, not simple. There’s a lot of bioinformatics involved. But, routine, might be a better word.
And to some extent there is some data in this field. In figure 1 here, you are looking at a principal component analysis, which essentially maps all of this data (and it is a huge amount of data per individual) into cohorts of overall similarity. You will see this plot as figure 1 in probably every single published GWAS study. In this study self reported African Americans map into a broad continuum between European and African.
This implies nothing about intelligence. I think it’s a much more difficult (by which I mean impossible) task to have some meaningful measure, or even definition, of intelligence. If you ask me personally, I think the vast majority of differences among us is wrapped up in historical/cultural non-biological differences, but that doesn’t mean I have to rely on bad science to make that point.
:rolleyes:
Oh, right, of course the cops aren’t going to stop a Negrito for Driving While Black, they’ll just wave them through. Cops being oh-so-clued up on population genetics.
The fact that people choose superficial characteristics to group people by (even self-group by) doesn’t give those characteristics any scientific validity as a valid grouping factor.
You misunderstand. If someone were to argue that Steelers fans were probably genetically more inclined to high intelligence than Dolphins fans, their argument would be rejected for essentially the same reason that we reject Chief Pedant’s argument. Yet we wouldn’t be saying that there are no such thing as Steelers fans.
I highly recommend reading the iiandyiiii-linked Scarr study if you think the matter of genes and intelligence is studied and settled. And if it convinces you the matter is well studied and settled, enjoy.
I myself enjoy reading it every time he links to it.
You’ve been reading Honesty’s old posts, haven’t you?
I recommend additional reading.
First, read about the difference between a nickname for a gene and gene variants within the nicknamed category.
Then Google “Neandertal introgression of genes” and get back to me about this notion we all have the same genes (if you mean we all start with genes descended from an anatomically modern human 200 kya).
Then go read about the difference between a nickname for a gene and a gene variant.
Look up HMGA2 or HBB if you don’t think a single nucleotide polymorphism can be particularly interesting.
Finally, check out relative MCPH1 haplogroup D frequencies between sub-saharan groups and everyone else if you want an example of how the out of africa splitting point at mtDNA L3/M-N lines creates a broad division.
The thing that gives it scientific validity is the fact that distribution of the human race is well studied, as are gene frequency markers showing that commonly accepted division points are correct.
What you see driving self-grouping because of similar appearance is the consequence of that history.
For me, I couldn’t possibly care less. It’s like boasting about being tall. What…you chose your parents?
Actually, it’s like boasting about coming from a tall family, even if you yourself are a runt. There is plenty of stupidity to go around in every group, and so much variance within every group that for an individual to feel that the group average somehow gives them a personal glow is pretty dumb.
Not to mention that in the my-race-is-better crowd, many of the most vocal proponents seem to be drawn from the far Left.*
Condescension aside, I’m gonna go ahead and not do your homework, and be comfortable in the idea that I’m fairly knowledgeable on genetics, and I have the paperwork and lab and publications to support that. I’m not sure what you’re railing against here though. I never made any of the claims you’re somehow attributing to me here except that all humans have the same set of genes. Which they do. And I’m not sure how you are arguing otherwise. Polymorphisms in a gene do not make it a different gene. We all have the same genes.
Not to mention that I’m largely agreeing with your contention that race has a biological basis.
I am railing against this ridiculous and oft-repeated idea that all humans have the same set of genes. No. We do not. Polymorphism in a gene makes it a different gene, and particularly so when the polymorphism drives a phenotypically different outcome. Calling it the same gene because we have the same nickname for the group of variants is wordsmithing.
First, something between 1 and 4% of non-sub-saharans is thought to be from archaic hominid lines that antedate anatomically modern humans arising in africa by hundreds of thousands of years. If this turns out to be correct–and so far research is supporting it–these are not the same genes.
Leaving that aside, do you really think I should attend the bedside of a sickler in crisis and tell him not to bother me because he has the same genes as someone with normal hemoglobin variants? Hint: His problem is that he has…wait for it…different genes.
Any variation in a gene which causes it to create a different outcome makes it a different gene. Hello. The fact that we call different genes by the same nickname does not make them the same gene. The fact that gene variants code for the same category of function does not make them the same gene by any definition if they produce different results. That kind of “same gene” pap is for digestion by the masses so they can leave assured we’re just one giant homogeneous group. We are not.
A gene which has even so small a variation as a single amino acid substitution is not reasonably termed “the same gene” if the variation drives a completely different outcome. It is at least disingenuous, if not an outright falsehood, for an educated person to say an individual with HBB HbS variation does not have a different gene than an individual with normally functioning HBB genes.
This nonsense that “we all have the same genes” is absurd. It confuses the uneducated who take it to mean we all have the same genes.
No. We do not all have the same genes. Nor do we all draw from the same average pool of genes.
No, it does not. And knowing the difference between an allele and a gene is not “wordsmithing”, and someone who uses gene when they mean allele should be laughed out of any discussion about genetics. Hah!
The next time I attend a sickle cell patient in a hemolytic crisis I will assure him that according to Mr Dibble, he has exactly the same genes as everyone else. He just has a different HBB alleles.
I won’t bother him with the detail that “HBB gene” is a nickname for a collection of different alleles, and the HbS alleles he has have unfortunately given him a completely different set of genes coding for his hemoglobin. (And, fwiw, his root problem is a single substitution of thymine for adenosine, causing his genes to make valine instead of glutamic acid. That tiny variant makes his “same” gene do completely different things. But of course, it’s the same gene because we give it the same group nickname. )
This should take care of his pain to the same degree that wordsmithing lets you argue we all have the same genes. Pap for the masses always soothes. That’s why it’s pap.
Right up there, Mr Dibble, with arguing that we all have the same jumping ability because we all have the same “legs.” (No. We all have different legs, even though we put them in a word label grouping of “legs.”)
In short, there is a distinction between saying genes are the same when we are talking about a nickname for a group of alleles, and saying genes are the same when we are talking about gene variants that cause human evolution and drive phenotypic outcomes. And the failure to make that distinction when it’s appropriate to make it as either a failure to understand or wordsmithing handwaving to assuage mass audiences and promote an egalitarianism that nature does not create.
This is clever wordsmithing, and without rehashing all the arguments in other threads, I don’t particularly disagree, except that there is a broad splitting point out of africa that is not controversial. Descendant groups as a whole have average gene pools reflecting that split often enough to create broad average ancestral pools. This is quite a different thing from saying we can define a “race” biologically.
The argument for genes as a cause of average differences among self-identified races does not depend on defining race scientifically. It does not depend on quantity of diversity. It does not depend on numbers of identifiable clusters within arbitrary or historic-migration groups.
It is much, much simpler:
Does self-identification with “race” give me an average different recent ancestral gene pool? Average. Gene pool.
The answer is, “yes.” President Obama notwithstanding, the average frequency of recent genetic makeup for self-identified blacks is much higher for sub-saharan human lines and much lower for out of africa post L3/M-N mtDNA lines wrt recent ancestry. The average frequency of self-identified whites and asians is much lower than self-identified blacks for those sub-saharan lines, and much higher for the out of africa, post L3/M-N split mtDNA lines.
If we took everyone in the world self-identifying as black, white or asian and looked at the frequency of MCPH1 haplogroup D, or Neandertal DNA, or any number of thousands of other gene (or allele ) variants, we’d see completely different clustering.
We can reassure ourselves all we want that race is undefinable scientifically. That’s wordsmithing. If we ask instead whether self-defined race categories create an average difference for recent ancestry, and if the genes within that recent ancestry have average frequency differences, the answer is a resounding, and simple, “Yes.” The human migration history reason for the broad split is out of africa. We can create as many additional clusters as we like, including (for example) backflow of genes into east africa and the Sahel and so on. But this does not erase the broad, average gene pool differences.
Try this NYT article. I think you’ll find some of the typical quotes supporting a position that the differences among us are overwhelmingly “social and educational.” But you will also get a feel for the baseline anxiety among many scientists that DNA research does not suggest we are all homogenized nor does it suggest all groups have equal potential based on their genes.
*“Race, many sociologists and anthropologists have argued for decades, is a social invention historically used to justify prejudice and persecution. But when Samuel M. Richards gave his students at Pennsylvania State University genetic ancestry tests to establish the imprecision of socially constructed racial categories, he found the exercise reinforced them instead.”
"Renata McGriff, 52, a health care consultant who had been encouraging black clients to volunteer genetic information to scientists, said she and other African-Americans have lately been discussing “opting out of genetic research until it’s clear we’re not going to use science to validate prejudices.”
“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.”*
Science always wins. We do ourselves no favors pretending and wordsmithing genetic egalitarianism.
Good to know you’ll use proper terminology with your patients from now on (although I thought you weren’t a practicing doctor anymore, so whence the sudden attempt at argumentum ad authoritariam comes from, I don’t know. It’s not working, though. Meaning no disrespect to the rest of the medical profession, but you’re not geneticists, you’re doctors).
No, it’s the same gene because it’s at the same locus. But double-down on the wrongness, by all means.
I find your bedside manner totally soothing…:rolleyes:
When our legs attach at our scapula rather than our pelvises, then we’ll have different legs. Talk about “wordsmithing”…:smack:
Provable bullshit, as proven the last time I cited the Back-To-Africa content in the African genepool.
You keep persisting with the ridiculous notion that backwards geneflow doesn’t matter, when it very much does matter and gives the lie to any idea of “continental populations” or whatever they’re calling it nowadays. There is no sharp Africa/Non split.
It’s all a continuum that only looks like a sharp split because race realists cherrypick end-members when they tout their “races”
So nice of you to admit your notions of race are inconsistent, hence useless.
Keep saying this, I’m sure it’ll take off any day now.:rolleyes:
I composed a three paragraph explanation of polymorphisms, alleles and genes, but this sums it up better. We are having a scientific discussion here, and we should use words the way they are defined. The word “gene” has a definition, and no one gets to swap the meaning of the word “allele” for it and then rail against the world for not using his new definition. We all have the same set of genes. This is not debatable.
Now if Chief wanted to be truly pedantic he could discuss the 50% of the population who lacks the genes on the Y chromosome to show that this statement isn’t 100% true. It would be a pedantic argument, but at least an honest one.
NO, his argument is more along the lines that football doesn’t exist, or the Steelers don’t exist, or that the concept “fandom” doesn’t exist. And if either of those things don’t exist, then the notion of a Steelers fan is nonsensical.
This is a good question. It gets to the confusion people have with groups and what attributes of the group says about an individual in that group. I wouldn’t be particularly proud or unproved. I guess I’d have to lean towards proud, to be honest. But I would also understand that regardless of how the group rates as a whole, that says nothing about me individually. It’s also not going to change my impression of the dumb white people I know, the dumb black people I know, the really smart white people I know or the really smart black people I know.
Now, while I think it’s an interesting question, I have to ask why you would ask it. Your question goes to the uncomfortable findings that may be revealed, right? But whether studies that would ultimately reveal if there is a genetic component to race that follows racial lines are done or not does not change whatever disbursement nature has ordered.
My only point in all of these discussions is that the people who so quickly discount the possibility of intelligence being correlated with race are doing so out of emotion. They do not want it to be the case so they try to quash the possibility. In doing so they conflate evidence and proof, discounting things like IQ tests and school performance that suggest a correlation and refusing to acknowledge anything that falls short of scientists announcing they have found a gene for intelligence.
His argument is along the lines of “football (and teams) exist, but not as a biologically/genetically discrete group”. Black people exist, but not as a biologically/genetically discrete group. “Black people” is a social construct.
)
) variants, we’d see completely different clustering.