PBS lies in an attempt to prove that race does not exist

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GePap



And if they had a white grandmother so long ago, how could they be black! arent they mixed? And if race mattered, why would one singe mating all of a sudden ruin your whole schema? That is the point!

It only ruins it as far as mitochondrial DNA is concerned. Mitochondrial DNA is only involved in the organization and structure of mitochondria, not of the rest of the body. I suggest you read what I already wrote and think carefully about it.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by elijah
Caligastia: You talk about race, whereas you should be talking about genetic traits. It is the human mind, society and the individual that decides to call and perceive it as race, but scientifically, the traits are merely superficial, like I said, like blondes and brunettes, brown eyes and green.

They are not superficial because with the right genetic information race can be determined through genetic testing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
So, GePap, you don't believe that those adaptions could be significant enough to be labled as a different race as I definded it (a sub-species)?

A gene pool that is not adequatly defined. Thus, we do not have enough information at this time to actually settle this debate.

Yes, i do not believe that the differences are important enough to even call these groups sub-species, specially since the deviding lines are s shallow.

And you are correct, the gene pool is not adequately defined, and this will only get worse as human mobility increases and people mix indescrminately among different populations.

Wrong. And I've already explained why

And you explination is poor, at best. Answer my question Cali: can someone with one grandmother from a "different race" still be some sort of "purebreed"? or are they for ever "mixed"?

[GePap]

"Ruins"? Oh, I am so sorry that biology is so unhelpfull.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia


No. The reason mitochondrial DNA cannot be used to determine an individual's race is because is 100% inherited from your mother. Therefore someone whose racial ancestry is black with the exception of their great, great, great...etc...grandmother who was white will have the same mitchondrial DNA as someone who is all white. Your matrilineal ancestor of only five generations back contributed all of your mitochondrial DNA but only 1/32 of your total genes. If you go back ten generations it is 1/1024 - a miniscule amount - which would have almost no effect on overall racial character. So it is blindingly obvious that mitochondrial DNA markers tell you almost nothing about the overall racial ancestry of any individual.

Which brings me to my original point...

The makers of Race: The Power of an Illusion deliberately misled the audience by using mitochondrial DNA to test the overall racial ancestry of the students on the program.

Got it?

Which is the appropriate method, and in fact the ONLY method. It's nuclear DNA that's useless, not mtDNA. Sorry, but there's no "honky gene" or "colored gene" in nuclear DNA.

You don't understand the issue, because your 1/32 or 1/1024 crap makes one huge fallacious assumption. That if you ancestor ten generations back make a little midnight visit to one of the cotton shacks out back, that that one, plus the other 1,023 in the rest of your nuclear DNA providers, in fact have "pure" DNA which reflects some "pure" racial gene sequence.

If you go back to tenth generation relatives, unless you have a highly unusual mutation (which screws the whole race genome concept right there, because a mutation is a random change in DNA pattern) that was passed down), you can't even give a high probability that two individuals are in any degree related. It can be hard enough even among siblings. Just because my half brother (now dead) got half his DNA from the same source I did, doesn't mean we got the same half, or even close. I couldn't give him blood transfusions, let alone a marrow transplant. But hey, our mitochondrial DNA proves that we're related, and that part of our ancestry traces back to northern Europe, as opposed to eastern Asia, or some of the hundreds of other known mtDNA "origins." (origins wrt where the first samples were identified and where they're commonly associated) That's all you can prove, in the absense of a specific nuclear genome for something you conveniently like to call "race."

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GePap
And you explination is poor, at best.

It is your comprehension that is poor.

Answer my question Cali: can someone with one grandmother from a "different race" still be some sort of "purebreed"? or are they for ever "mixed"?

it's not a matter of being 'purebreed' or 'mixed', it's a matter of determining what their overall racial makeup is. Something mitochondrial DNA is useless in determining.

[Velociryx]

Care to give it a shot, Cal? Please post a listing of all the "races" of man.

-=Vel=-

[Hueij]

Why are people posting in and therefore bumping yet another Cali race thread? Can't we just bump an old one? After all, they are all the same...

[Whaleboy]

They are not superficial because with the right genetic information race can be determined through genetic testing.

But only the attributes can be detected, it is the attributes and combination of them that links to the sociological definition of race. Scientifically, they dont tell if a person is "black", "asian", "chinese" or "jewish" etc, they only show the factors that feed into our discrete concepts thereof.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia


They are not superficial because with the right genetic information race can be determined through genetic testing.

BINGO! There's your fallacy. You're dead wrong.

First, what is the characteristic set you assume constitutes a particular "race?"

Second, how is that characteristic set expressed in the human genome for a member of that "race?"

(Hints: the first one can't be defined, because nobody yet has a concise definition. How many races are there? Aryans and muds is the simplest premise, but are there 2? 10? 1,000? The second one can't be defined either, because there is no single characteristic gene, or no distinct group of genes that determines, for example, skin color.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Which is the appropriate method, and in fact the ONLY method. It's nuclear DNA that's useless, not mtDNA. Sorry, but there's no "honky gene" or "colored gene" in nuclear DNA.

It is not a single gene that is looked at in order to determine determines race, but a combination of genes.

You don't understand the issue, because your 1/32 or 1/1024 crap makes one huge fallacious assumption. That if you ancestor ten generations back make a little midnight visit to one of the cotton shacks out back, that that one, plus the other 1,023 in the rest of your nuclear DNA providers, in fact have "pure" DNA which reflects some "pure" racial gene sequence.

Purity has nothing to do with it. Mitochondrial DNA is 100% inherited from your mother's side. It doesn't make any difference what your mix is on the nuclear side, it won't affect the mitochondrial DNA.

If you go back to tenth generation relatives, unless you have a highly unusual mutation (which screws the whole race genome concept right there, because a mutation is a random change in DNA pattern) that was passed down), you can't even give a high probability that two individuals are in any degree related. It can be hard enough even among siblings. Just because my half brother (now dead) got half his DNA from the same source I did, doesn't mean we got the same half, or even close. I couldn't give him blood transfusions, let alone a marrow transplant. But hey, our mitochondrial DNA proves that we're related, and that part of our ancestry traces back to northern Europe, as opposed to eastern Asia, or some of the hundreds of other known mtDNA "origins." (origins wrt where the first samples were identified and where they're commonly associated) That's all you can prove, in the absense of a specific nuclear genome for something you conveniently like to call "race."

If your half brother had the same mother as you, then your mitochondrial DNA would match completely. If not, then you would see differences. Of course, on the nuclear side, you would inherit 50% from each of your biological parents, and so would he.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Care to give it a shot, Cal? Please post a listing of all the "races" of man.

-=Vel=-

Sorry, I have no interest in trying to come up with a comprehensive list of races.

[Velociryx]

No interest....or can't?

-=Vel=-

[Whaleboy]

Cal: I dont see how genetic differences are a sufficient condition for a different race. Using that hypothesis, people with more body hair, different genders, eye colours, hair colours, height etc would all be different races. That definition is subjective to the point of each individual human belonging to his own unique race, or humanity itself being considered the single race.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Here ya go, Cal:

I'm not calling you a racist by this (I do that in other places), but let's assume for the sake of argument that the Klan, WAR and other white supremacists have the right view - there are Aryans and anyone else is a "mud" - whether they're mixed, different, or what have you, anything that ain't Aryan is a mud.

Now let's forget the muds, what exactly is the set of requirements for being an Aryan?

Place of origin? (Going back how long?)
Color of skin?
Eye or hair color?
Facial features?
Skeletal features?

List out whatever you think would apply, and what range of features?

I'm giving you the easy example, where there's only one distinct group, and everyone else. How do you define it? Then let's see if you can find the specific gene or gene combination that leads to those features, and exclusively leads to those features?

Try it, seriously. It can't be done.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by elijah


But only the attributes can be detected, it is the attributes and combination of them that links to the sociological definition of race. Scientifically, they dont tell if a person is "black", "asian", "chinese" or "jewish" etc, they only show the factors that feed into our discrete concepts thereof.

The fact that attributes can be detected shows that there are groups known as "races" that have combinations of genes in common. That we categorize these groups sociologically is natural.

Originally posted by MTG

BINGO! There's your fallacy. You're dead wrong.

First, what is the characteristic set you assume constitutes a particular "race?"

Second, how is that characteristic set expressed in the human genome for a member of that "race?"

(Hints: the first one can't be defined, because nobody yet has a concise definition. How many races are there? Aryans and muds is the simplest premise, but are there 2? 10? 1,000? The second one can't be defined either, because there is no single characteristic gene, or no distinct group of genes that determines, for example, skin color.

See above.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by elijah
Cal: I dont see how genetic differences are a sufficient condition for a different race. Using that hypothesis, people with more body hair, different genders, eye colours, hair colours, height etc would all be different races. That definition is subjective to the point of each individual human belonging to his own unique race, or humanity itself being considered the single race.

The point is that by looking at the right combination of genes, we can accurately determine "racial" characteristics.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Here ya go, Cal:

I'm not calling you a racist by this (I do that in other places), but let's assume for the sake of argument that the Klan, WAR and other white supremacists have the right view - there are Aryans and anyone else is a "mud" - whether they're mixed, different, or what have you, anything that ain't Aryan is a mud.

But I completely disagree with that. Whites are the most mixed of all the races.

Now let's forget the muds, what exactly is the set of requirements for being an Aryan?

Place of origin? (Going back how long?)
Color of skin?
Eye or hair color?
Facial features?
Skeletal features?

List out whatever you think would apply, and what range of features?

I'm giving you the easy example, where there's only one distinct group, and everyone else. How do you define it? Then let's see if you can find the specific gene or gene combination that leads to those features, and exclusively leads to those features?

Try it, seriously. It can't be done.

I'm not a geneticist, but if I was I could determine those features.

You guys are gonna wear me down to a nub...I have to do something else for a while.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Caligastia
But I completely disagree with that. Whites are the most mixed of all the races.

"Whites" aren't a race. Even the few people with sicentific pretensiosn who believe in race don;t even use that terminology.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by uh Clem
I get the feeling that Caligastia's obsessed with that "Huge Appendage" gene that he thinks all non-whites possess.

Now we're getting somewhere

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia


It is not a single gene that is looked at in order to determine determines race, but a combination of genes.

It doesn't matter. There's no fixed combination of genes that gives racial features.

[Whaleboy]

There's no fixed combination of genes that gives racial features

Agreed, and it is us that defines those features as a race, subjectively I might add. Those features themselves are only part of the human genome that we interpret.

Races are wholly in our minds, in our society, and are NOT INHERENT to the human condition or genome.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
That's very interesting Che, but what I'd really like to focus on are the deliberate deceptions in the TV program I mentioned. Do you care to defend them?

I can neither defend nor debate them. I'm simply not versed enough in the subject of mitochondrial DNA. I know some, but everything's already been posted here in bits and pieces, and MtG seems to have a much better handle on it than I, so why stick my foot in it?

Given, however, that the only field of human study that has yet concluded that there are serperate races is bone studies, I doubt I find it unlikely that PBS is being misleading.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia


The fact that attributes can be detected shows that there are groups known as "races" that have combinations of genes in common. That we categorize these groups sociologically is natural.

Not exactly, though.

Just take skin color as the most commonly (mis)used "attribute"

I've seen full blooded indians (US and Mexican kind) lighter skinned than me. The Ainu are lighter skinned than the vast majority of other Asians, you have "black" or at least very dark brown variants in all sorts of totally distinct genetic populations.

In addition to the basic color without high sun exposure, you then get the response to sun exposure - some "white" people tan very darkly, some like me just turn red and peel (although my base skin tone isn't that fair), and the same with people who've been traditionally classed in many different racial groups.

CC, the calico cat clone and her mother are genetically identical in all respects, but they're marked differently not only with respect to the pattern, but the overall distribution of white, black and orange-brown fur is different. There's no human clones to study, so cat is what we have to work with, but even with two who are genetically identical, there is a significant variation in markings.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
They are not superficial because with the right genetic information race can be determined through genetic testing.

I will, however, dispute this, as a recent National Geographic had a debate about this. The DNA scientists argued that race was a useless concept, as it did not exist genetically. It was the scientists who delt in morphology (bone structure, skin color, hair texture) that argued for the concept of race. In almost all other fields of biology, morphological classification of kingdoms, species, genuses, etc, is now being done genetically. Old catagories are being overthrown and new ones established.

According to cellular DNA, we're all the same.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The Ainu are lighter skinned than the vast majority of other Asians, you have "black" or at least very dark brown variants in all sorts of totally distinct genetic populations.

Aren't the Ainu Causasians?

[Alexander's Horse]

hey Calista - black equipment is bigger - sorry mate.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Aren't the Ainu Causasians?

That was the original idea, IIRC, they're (by mitochondrial DNA) now considered a distinct population group of unknown origin. They're closer to caucasians than they are to nearby Asian population groups, but not enough to conclude they're a migrant population group, or much of anything else.

[Alexander's Horse]

Racism is a terrible thing.

[St Leo]

no no spiffor, it was a joke. if race is a socially constructed concept then i am in fact black and not white as my skin would lead to you to believe.

That is a valid option. If you consider yourself black, you are black. If you consider yourself white, you are white. It's as simple as that.

Look, race exists. On some level, there is some gene acting differently in black people than in white people. Get over it.

If by race you mean a set of genes determining the colour of the skin, it is still a very fuzzy concept. If you factor in body shapes, etc., you might as well throw up your hands and give up trying to place people in artificial categories.

Even species is a rather fuzzy concept, but I won't get into that.