Notices

View Poll Results: Does race exist? (read article)

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    17 70.83%
  • No

    6 25.00%
  • Undecided

    1 4.17%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 218 of 218
Like Tree43Likes

Thread: Does race exist? Article says it does!

  1. #201  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Oh ok... bit similar to something like indicans? (the people of africa and india) it is a made up word then? as in not in dictionaries?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I'm in a race of my own. Since it's just me i'm in no hurry to get to the finish line.
    Race is simply a concept which implies life is a competition... it just helps with the divide and conquer agenda... it's not rocket science!

    The human race indeed! get a grip you bunch of savage reptillians.
    I keep quoting Bob Marley, "Rat Race" not culture race, This question is bigger than science and smaller than an atom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Oh it's a disgrace, to see the human race, ina this rat raaayaayaace, rat race, rat race! I'm singing: when you think it peace and safety, a sudden disruption, collective security for surity yeah! rat race! rat race, rat rayayace, rat race!

    good shout Mother/father
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    gonzales

    That is not correct.
    Iceaura was correct in talking of greater genetic diversity in Africa. The various tribes of Africa are more genetically diverse than the non African peoples scattered across the globe. The normal explanation for this is that non Africans all came from a small, and not very genetically diverse group of humans who left Africa and colonised the rest of the world. Their initial lack of genetic diversity continues to this day.

    Just a small aside, which might help to straighten out a few misconceptions.

    Re genes for skin colour.

    There are about 20 genes identified which affect skin colour. Most people would suspect that these 20 would be wildly different comparing black Africans with pale Europeans. They would be wrong. In fact, all peoples everywhere have most of the 20. The difference in skin colour is related to gene expression, not gene possession.

    So there is little genetic diversity relating to skin colour between the "races".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    british columbia
    Posts
    6
    you'd have to be a moron to believe your genetic structure is superior to someone elses. the fact that some asshole somewhere down the line categorized us into "races"or groups, only holds us back in a way we cannot even begin to understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    Nice, fascinating read: "Race Reconciled" Re-Debunks Race - Anthropology 1.6

    Perhaps I should reassess my opinion on this matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    gonzales

    That is not correct.
    Iceaura was correct in talking of greater genetic diversity in Africa. The various tribes of Africa are more genetically diverse than the non African peoples scattered across the globe. The normal explanation for this is that non Africans all came from a small, and not very genetically diverse group of humans who left Africa and colonised the rest of the world. Their initial lack of genetic diversity continues to this day.

    Just a small aside, which might help to straighten out a few misconceptions.

    Re genes for skin colour.

    There are about 20 genes identified which affect skin colour. Most people would suspect that these 20 would be wildly different comparing black Africans with pale Europeans. They would be wrong. In fact, all peoples everywhere have most of the 20. The difference in skin colour is related to gene expression, not gene possession.

    So there is little genetic diversity relating to skin colour between the "races".
    Greater genetic variety in africa is due to admixture from eurasians living in parts of africa (past and present), crosses and breeding with archiac hominids.

    The genetic divergence time between europeans and sub sarahan africans is 600,000 years. There is not a single european population that comes within a quarter million years of that genetic divergence time when compared to other european populations.

    India population link
    Good read for those that want to look at how human populations are unique, can be, and are separated by their DNA/genetics from other peoples/populations..

    "Populations from India, and groups from South Asia more generally, form a genetic cluster, so that individuals placed within this cluster are more genetically similar to each other than to individuals outside the cluster. However, the amount of genetic differentiation among Indian populations is relatively small. The authors conclude that genetic variation in India is distinctive with respect to the rest of the world, but that the level of genetic divergence is smaller in Indians than might be expected for such a geographically and linguistically diverse group."

    "We find that populations from India, and populations from South Asia more generally, constitute one of the major human subgroups with increased similarity of genetic ancestry."
    Last edited by gonzales56; August 22nd, 2012 at 12:15 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The genetic divergence time between europeans and sub sarahan africans is 600,000 years.
    Where the hell do you get your numbers from?

    The oldest fossil that seems to be Homo sapiens (though possibly a different sub species) is 200,000 years approximately, from southern Africa. It is absolutely certain that Europeans and Africans diverged at a time much, much less than what you state. Humans did not even exist 600,000 years ago.

    No humans left Africa earlier than 125,000 years ago, and possibly as recently as 60,000 years.
    Recent African origin of modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The genetic divergence time between europeans and sub sarahan africans is 600,000 years.
    Where the hell do you get your numbers from?

    The oldest fossil that seems to be Homo sapiens (though possibly a different sub species) is 200,000 years approximately, from southern Africa. It is absolutely certain that Europeans and Africans diverged at a time much, much less than what you state. Humans did not even exist 600,000 years ago.

    No humans left Africa earlier than 125,000 years ago, and possibly as recently as 60,000 years.
    Recent African origin of modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Go to page 35 (link to genetic divergence times).

    Again... here is the % of AMH specific DNA from roughly 120 kya till today that has been passed down to different populations alive today (pure ancient neandertals are not alive today)

    Europeans/French = 9.8%
    Chinese/Han = 7.8%
    Papuan = 5.9%
    30-50 kya Neandertal = 2.5%
    Sub Saharan African/San = 1.7%

    All of the other genetic material / DNA comes from other hominid ancestors that were not AMHs.

    The other genetic material comes from, derives from, many different sub species and races of humans/hominids. Sub saharan africans have a lot genetic material in their DNA from completely different sub species and races of humans/hominids that the rest of the world does not have, and likewise, so do eurasians. This is why genetic divergence times for different populations/clads/sub groups/races are strung out over 100,000s of years and not 10,000s of years.

    We are not the product of one line nor are we the product of a single direct line of one specific hominid after another one. We are a scrambled up genetic soup that contains many different and differing human/hominid populations from many different periods in time.

    One section of your genome can be from homo erectus while someone else, at the same location, can have neandertal derived genetics. Now, sub saharan africans have up to 13% of their genetic material from at least one archaic hominid (more than likely multiple hominids) that is yet unknown and the rest of the people on the planet do not descend from those hominids and they do not have a drop of their dna. Eurasians and their descendants are the same (minus some of their dna being planted through migrations into sub sarahan africa and breeding with sub saharan africans in africa) but, with different hominids.
    Last edited by gonzales56; August 22nd, 2012 at 02:01 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    gonzales

    At least that tells me where you get your dates from. Sadly, they are wrong, wrong, wrong!

    The thing is that the genetic method used is wildly inaccurate.
    The fossil record, which is much more precise, makes it very clear that the correct dates are closer to 100,000 years. You cannot talk of different human geographic groups separating from each other more than 200,000 years ago, when the species Homo sapiens is younger than 200,000 years. You cannot talk of Africans and Europeans separating so long ago, when the group that led to the Europeans did not leave Africa till 125,000 years ago at the maximum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,631
    I'm partly with skeptic on this one.. though not about genetic innacuracy. It's innacurate depending on how it is used. While their gene expression may not be the same, and their genetic makeup for skin colour is. Though this would make it possible for 2 legit white parents to have a black child. As this has never happened before, even vice versa, opposed to being albino as i'm not counting in this, this would make the gene expression theory invalid. So i doubt there is no way this can be checked in the cell. Though i also think, it's more obvious when you look at mRNA levels, instead of DNA.

    The dates however, are wrong indeed. But also is calling genetics inaccurate, wrong. I'd say that all Non anthropologists would agree with me that checking genes is a lot more valid then checking bones if you want to learn about the creature.. Ofcourse, doing both can be advantageous, but if i have to chose, genetics all the way.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1
    I voted yes for race. However I do not agree with the common use of race. Which assigns people into particular race categories based on a small set of traits, with skin colour being the most important factor.

    Race can be measured, although it is not perfect. I believe it can be measured to 95+% accuracy. The way it is measured is by assessing the level of admixture of the individual and inferring the proportion of his/her genome which has been inherited from particular geographic regions. This is done using maximum liklihood algorithims, which calculates the probability that particular regions of the genome have been inherited from particular geographic regions, which uses SNP/haplotype/genomic data from inidividuals that are used as a reference population for particular geographic regions. This approach essentially allows for race to be quantified. Rather than just judging race based on a very small set of traits.

    I think race is just used as a description in every day life, to describe the geographic location from which someone has come from. When quanitifed in such a way as I described, I think it can be used in a scientific manner to describe the poportion of an individuals genome which has been inherited from particular geographic regions which have differring selection pressures.

    I wouldn't say race = subspecies, as others have said that there is gene flow between these human populations. I think it is just used because the description is useful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    I don't think the dates are wrong in the paper "gonzales" linked to (actually the supplementary material ). Looking at the authors I note that some of them are heavyweights in the field of paleogenomics. I'd like to think that these guys know what they are doing.


    Here's the actual paper: Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia : Nature : Nature Publishing Group


    I don't have time to read it, but it's obvious that those dates mean something else. That is, gonzales has misinterpreted the data on page 35 of the supp. material.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by zwirko
    How can a unique set of markers distinguish Wal-Mart employees from the rest of us? How is that even remotely possible?
    As explicitly stated, in making the point in the first place, anything capable of distinguishing individuals is capable of distinguishing a group of them - you just collect all the individual identifications in a pile, and name the pile. And that's essentially what the people are doing who try to classify the US sociological races by geographical genetic markers. You've got a few hundred geographical origins on file, you throw some of them into one pile and others into another based on sociological criteria (do they work at Walmart? are they "black" in the US), and name the pile a "race".

    The significance is that the genetic classifications you are attempting to correlate with race are based on pre-identified collections of people fully as arbitrary, genetically, as the first one hundred customers at your local grocery yesterday, or a page from your local phone directory. The genetically arbitrary sociological racial classifications -

    - "US black" people from all over the world almost certainly have less in common genetically, and less significantly in common genetically, than the employees of the average local Walmart, eh? That would be one unusual Walmart -

    are only correlated sociologically, and they are based on the very sociology you were trying to genetically classify or support or correlate with in the first place. Circular, in this discussion.

    So your "race" there, based as it is on sociological inference from geographically identified genetic material, is significantly more arbitrary, genetically, than a "race" formed from the members of the US Professional Baseball Players association. They would be very likely have significant genetic features in common (that, for example, enable them to hit major league fastballs).

    If you wanted to classify human beings into genetic races, removal of any sociological bias from your collection of genetic data would be a necessary and standard early step. The genetic features you would choose, after much trial and error and investigation, would be significant from an evolutionary pov -

    - genetics as evolutionarily transient, variable, somatically flexible, easily adapted, easily bred in or out, and mobile between populations, as those governing melanin concentration in the skin might be an unlikely choice for inclusion as one factor, but possible certainly for their biological role - anything's possible -

    and then a Principal Component analysis or some such crunching of data might well give you some biologically significant clusters deserving of labels.

    This has never been done, AFAIK. From what we know already of human genetics, the chances that those clusters would align with the US sociological races are essentially zero. That's all I'm claiming.
    Last edited by iceaura; August 22nd, 2012 at 12:24 PM.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    I don't think the dates are wrong in the paper "gonzales" linked to (actually the supplementary material ). Looking at the authors I note that some of them are heavyweights in the field of paleogenomics. I'd like to think that these guys know what they are doing.


    Here's the actual paper: Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia : Nature : Nature Publishing Group


    I don't have time to read it, but it's obvious that those dates mean something else. That is, gonzales has misinterpreted the data on page 35 of the supp. material.
    I do not misuse or misinterpret data. It is not my fault if some believe that the genetic divergence times for different human populations cannot and does not extend past, or beyond, ideas they hold/believe in.

    If I believed fully anatomical modern humans came from one population and one line of hominid in africa, and thus thought that all genes had to be common and inherited/derived from this one and only amh line from about 120-160 kya, then I would be shocked to know, hear or find out that most of amh dna comes from multiple and different hominids that lived in different regions and existed before amh did.
    Last edited by gonzales56; August 23rd, 2012 at 02:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    In the introdution to the paper the authors write:




    Quote Originally Posted by Reich et al
    Less than 200,000 years ago, anatomically modern humans (that is, humans with skeletons similar to those of present-day humans) appeared in Africa. At that time, as well as later when modern humans appeared in Eurasia, other ‘archaic’ hominins were already present in Eurasia. In Europe and western Asia, hominins defined as Neanderthals on the basis of their skeletal morphology lived from at least 230,000 years ago before disappearing from the fossil record about 30,000 years ago
    Quote Originally Posted by Reich et al
    This revealed that Neanderthal DNA sequences and those of present-day humans share common ancestors on average about 800,000 years ago and that the population split of Neanderthal and modern human ancestors occurred 270,000–440,000 years ago.
    Can you see that the shared common ancestor date does not mean what you thought it meant. The 600,000 year date means something else.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    In the introdution to the paper the authors write:




    Quote Originally Posted by Reich et al
    Less than 200,000 years ago, anatomically modern humans (that is, humans with skeletons similar to those of present-day humans) appeared in Africa. At that time, as well as later when modern humans appeared in Eurasia, other ‘archaic’ hominins were already present in Eurasia. In Europe and western Asia, hominins defined as Neanderthals on the basis of their skeletal morphology lived from at least 230,000 years ago before disappearing from the fossil record about 30,000 years ago
    Quote Originally Posted by Reich et al
    This revealed that Neanderthal DNA sequences and those of present-day humans share common ancestors on average about 800,000 years ago and that the population split of Neanderthal and modern human ancestors occurred 270,000–440,000 years ago.
    Can you see that the shared common ancestor date does not mean what you thought it meant. The 600,000 year date means something else.
    In the context that the term "shared common ancestors date" for humans and neandertals is 800,000 years ago, the "shared common ancestors date" for europeans and sub saharan africans is roughly 600,000 years ago. The dates do not mean something else. That is the average genetic coalescence time between europeans and sub saharan africans, just as the 800,000 year number is the average genetic coalescence time between modern humans and neanderetals.

    Again, this is due to the fact that modern human dna does not come down from one hominid or one population. If we did descend from one line, one hominid, one population, then all of our DNA would come down from, be derived from, a single and small human/hominid population that lived 120-150 kya but, this is not the case..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Do we need a new catagory called "race deniers"?
    If you wish to spend time in purely theoretical pursuits. In this discussion the category would be empty.

    "The difference" does not exist: there is no such thing as an "average black guy", genetically.

    Actually... that's probably not quite exactly true.
    It is most directly and significantly true.
    Most important human traits like IQ, or height, or stuff like that - follow bell curves.
    The curves for different types of "black people" are genetically independent within the category "human".
    So there's a lot of variation over a very narrow range, but getting outside that range becomes less and less likely the further you get. Like with IQ, the range is + or - 30 IQ points (from 100 at the center for caucasian people, lower for black people, higher for asian people.) Any given person has a 95% chance of falling within that range.
    There is no such thing as a comparison between "caucasian people" and "black people" - not onlyu do the categories overlap (especially in India and some other places), but the "black people" category is too genetically and biologically diverse to allow relevant averaging with respect to the far narrower (genetically) "caucasian" category.
    A comparison between any large groups of humans could be argued to have genetic meaning if it violates the bell curve, or leads to two or more separate bell curves. If it were between "people from Western London" and "people from Eastern London", it would still likely be caused by genetics (in this case, perhaps a genetic disposition toward one group choosing to live in "Western London" rather than "Eastern London". )

    The point is, it is pretty much impossible for any basis of classification to be wrong in statistical studies. So long as the two groups are clearly identified, and one can be certain that no members of the first group were also included as members of the second.


    That's a common problem with allowing sociologically established categories to govern genetic classification. You end up trying to do science with a category like "trees", and comparing it with "vegetables".



    That's a common problem with allowing sociologically established categories to govern genetic classification. You end up trying to do science with a category like "trees", and comparing it with "vegetables".
    I'm confused what you mean? Wouldn't it be more like comparing Maple Trees with slightly greener leaves, against Maple Trees with slightly more brownish leaves?

    And yet, there may be meaningful differences.

    However, one cannot easily be certain that the qualities wherein they appear to differ are not the result of other plants or conditions in the separate areas where they grow, like differing amounts of potassium in the soil or competition by other plants forcing the trees to grow in different ways (maybe deeper roots, or taller branches.... etc...)

    The differing environment likely is what caused the differing pigment, but it also might be causing differences that are not fundamentally genetic.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •