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

[Boris Godunov]

Japher, you are aware that the genetic difference between man and chimp is due to a single fused chromosone, yes?

[Japher]

I'm thinking that a chimp has very few differences in their DNA that they want to put it in the "homo" group. Canines are within that group, but they vary less so their species is different. I think all homo sapiens are similar enough to carry that species title (except maybe the cabbies in Lodon), but what if there is another denomination called race? Is there some reason for this at all? Yet, could it explain evolution if such a division was found? Could help in preventative medicine or diagnosies? What if there is such a significant difference that we are able to breed ourselves to sterility? I guess that would be a good way for us to go...

[TCO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


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.

Yes there is a lot of variation among humans and "race" (i.e the traditional 3) is an inexact term. Ethnic grouping is a better term. But there are still signinficatn differences between Ainu as a group and Hawaiians. And those differences are genetic. Not based on the island they are on. And just cause we don't know the specific codon or because there is variation within the groups, doesn't change the fact that the two groups differ genetically in some manner that causes the differences that we see.

[Japher]

Boris: I do now.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


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.

Maybe the patterns come from some effects caused in the womb or from some random aspects of the division of the blastula. Would be interesting to see if some of these differences in skin pattern occur in humans twins as well. Is there a Calico race?

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


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.

Wrong. At least partially wrong or not well expressed. Whether race is a useful concept depends on the problem. But obviously the racial features of hair kink and the like are genetic and differ among populations from different regions.

[TCO]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
while gepap is not being terribly clear this is what i think he means to say.

skin color is heritable.

Skin color, more than most human physical traits, tends to evolve in response to local geography. Which is why geographic areas are more homogeneous for skin color, then say for blood type.

Therefor skin color is not a marker of ultimate origin. the fact that most subsaharan africans are dark is not proof that they share a common ultimate ancestry, which would cause them to share lots of traits.

To which someone might (and in fact did) suggest that skin color DOES NOT evolve in response to local conditions, and so IS a marker of ultimate origin.

To which gepap responded that the 300 years that teh afrikaners have spent in south africa is far too short for the kinds of genetic changes we are talking about.

Am i correct, gepap?

I dont think anyone is denying that skin color is a heritable trait. Or that there are other heritable traits. Or that one may sample different populations and find different distributions of any given trait for that population. What is being asserted is that none of those facts constitutes "race" that when one actually attempts to define races, and to define the traits that constitute them, the definitions inevitably collapse in the face of reality.

This is a very well-expressed post. REally. I would only say that the amount of changeability of other features (size, blood type, intelligence, physique, etc.) as compared to skin color is still up in the air. Is it half as mutable? As mutable? More mutable? one millionth as mutable? (I don't mean mutations by mutable, I mean changeable.)

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


BUZZ No they can't.

I was meaning to put a line asking for a dog pedant to correct me here. I got too lazy though. But wolves can breed with dogs, no? Just out of interest what are the breeds that can't mate? And what is the result of an attempted mating?

[TCO]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


100 nomads wander over from say east africa, and settle nigeria. And their descendants are the nigerians and are a race.

well first of all, what if they had substantial genetic diversity when they came - they might not look particuarly much alike, or have many traits in common.
Thats simply an extended family - or lineage - race implies a degree of similarity that may well not exist.

but for now lets assume that the 100 nomads were all identical twins - clones - whatever

you assume that there was one migration at one point in time. In all likelihood there were numerous migrations, from different places, bringing in diverse people. The "race" of the original hundred is long since lost in the mixture of later nigeria. so who in nigeria belongs to which "race" impossible to say.

You assume that there are places on earth that have lived in isolation for thousands of years. which is not accurate.

or you could just say that theyre all black (natural since all the migrants from wherever would evolve in that direction) ergo theyre all of common origin, and ignore diversity of say blood type, and other traits that dont evolve the same way as pigmentation - and then just assume that traits like "energy" correlate with skin color - since thats what everyone "knows" - and its been a very convenient assumption for many years.

Another nice post.

I would only add that just because there are several different migrations or because there are border regions doesn't mean that there aren't differences based on movements of people (MTG's mito data) as well as the changes that occur over time. Of course both effects occur. A nice analogy might be stratification in an agitated container that has two sperately places input valves and multiple additions.

[TCO]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


breeds of dogs have been created by conscious breeding. didnt happen with humans.

Who cares. There are still several interesting points from the analogy.

1. The changes in dogs were created by changing the natural selectivity (picking certain ones out of the litter) or by exposing them to certain work patterns. This shows that there is significant mutability of the populations based on environment. Are natural pressures comparable by different environments to those created by specific breeding? Maybe they are less, but they still affect the population. After all that's how evolution of the species occurs. Of course the differences among races (ethnic groupings, what have you) may be less than that of dogs, but the time frames may also be different and the differences may be one of extent.

2. (Most) dog breeds can breed with each other and are virtually indistinguishable in terms of the BULK of their DNA, yet they do have different DNA at some level as populations since they have heritable traits that differ among the goups. This is very similar to race, no? Perhaps a difference of extent. But it sure blows the argument about "the bulk of the DNA" out of the water no?*


*I've always found that a silly argument since a single codon change could make a human severely diseased if it is the right one. EVen though the huge majority of the DNA would be untouched.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
GP/Japher:

White parent + Black Parent = ?? Child.

Provide answer. Explain why it isn't arbitrary. Consider ramifications.

Golden retriever + German Sheppard = ?? dog Consider. No difference in GR and GS? Useless concept?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And I really wish GP would address the most relevant current points rather than mindlessly slogging through the thread and responding to every damn post.

Tsorry tsir.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GP


Golden retriever + German Sheppard = ?? dog Consider. No difference in GR and GS? Useless concept?

For humans, a useless concept. Considering the sheer variety that can be created, having "races" is ludicrous. There are, in fact, millions of different "races," in this regard. Most of what defines race is arbitrary, just as it would be arbitrary to say the above child is either white or black.

No one is arguing there aren't differences in appearance, but the question is why does skin color determine what "race" one is? Why not hair color, eye color, or blood type? All are also genetically inherited characteristics. Blood type would actually be far more significant a measure.

[TCO]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


vermonters and alabamians have statistically different DNA. are they races???

you seem to have missed a key point - if just because you can identify a population that has a different statistical distribution of certain genes, that makes it a race, then race doesnt really mean anything. Vermonters are a race. o positive people are a race. For all i know london cabbies are a race. and nobody uses race that way. to use it the way people use it you have to assert something stronger than what you have asserted - you have to assert things more like what japher here has asserted - except that those things seem to be empirically false.

1. So German Sheppards and Golden Retrievers are not useful tags?

2. I think your objection itself has a subtext of agreeing that the tags of race are more useful than arbitrary tags of alabamans or vermonters. But as a fall-back position, I am quite happy to use the groupings as arbitrary classifiers and than see what interesting data falls out.

[Boris Godunov]

GP, what is the primary use of delineating dog breeds, and how is that use relevant to human beings?

[Ecthy]

White parent + black parent = Jewish child

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


For humans, a useless concept. Considering the sheer variety that can be created, having "races" is ludicrous. There are, in fact, millions of different "races," in this regard. Most of what defines race is arbitrary, just as it would be arbitrary to say the above child is either white or black.

No one is arguing there aren't differences in appearance, but the question is why does skin color determine what "race" one is? Why not hair color, eye color, or blood type? All are also genetically inherited characteristics. Blood type would actually be far more significant a measure.

No just for dogs. Is the concept of breed useless?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
GP, what is the primary use of delineating dog breeds, and how is that use relevant to human beings?

Just within dogs, is there any use in the concept of breed?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GP


No just for dogs. Is the concept of breed useless?

For more than a cosmetic purpose? Pretty much. What difference does it really make what breed a dog is?

Likewise, does being a different "race" have any real bearing on what a human is, disregarding societal factors (racism, etc.)?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GP


Just within dogs, is there any use in the concept of breed?

I asked you first. Weasel.

[Japher]

White parent + black parent = Jewish child

ROTFLMAO, you didn't That is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time

I was going to say Grey Kid or Milato...

[Ecthy]

White parent + dog parent = American child

[Japher]

Ain't that a truth... wait, are you calling my mom a beitch?

Breeds are useful to tag because you can plan for behavioral characteristics, social traits, and medical inferiorities/superiorities.

[Ecthy]

Black parent + dog parent = black child?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher
Breeds are useful to tag because you can plan for behavioral characteristics, social traits, and medical inferiorities/superiorities.

For the purposes of...dog owners.

Dogs don't delineate their own breeds, nor do they adhere to them in mating, socializing, etc. To a dog, the concept of breed is meaningless.

Likewise, to humans, so should the concept of "race" be meaningless, because it is, at its root, an artificial delineation based on superficial variations of the human species (keep in mind that humans are far, far less varied in "breed" than dogs are in terms of variety of observable characteristics). "Breed" is an artificial categorization made by humans to help them manage animals for their utilization. "Race" is an artificial categorization made by humans for pretty much the same purpose. On a fundamental level, it is a useless delineation. One's quality or way of life is not going to be dictated by one's "race," but rather by ones socio-economic environment.

[Japher]

Before I go to get another beer (a trait I inherited from father):

Way to dodge the bullet Boris

Something being meaningless to a horny dog should not hold the same to us. I do agree that breeding based on race is a "delineation based on superficial variations of the human species" yet we are wise and knowledgeable enough to be able to question the consiquence of such... Yes, it breaches social norms, and makes me a racist by saying so, yet if it is possibly for a dog breed to breed itself out of existence, could it not very well occur to us? Would it not be something that should be looked into?

Let me just say this: It may be an artificial designation on a social strata, but that does not make it so a scientific strata... It is science we arguing (though rather poorly, at least on my part ), I just think that in understanding and/or identifying the differences between human beings we would be better off in securing the procreation and evolution of the human species...

(man, I really had a hard time avoiding the word "race" there...)

One's quality or way of life is not going to be dictated by one's "race," but rather by ones socio-economic environment.

That is true, to a point... A point which I say we still do not understand enough to properly say that with all honesty... Yet, it will matter to our decendants...

Boris: you should be behind me. Why? What if the whole world was gay and/or sterile, unable to procreate because of "ones socio-economic environment"?

This ain't just about tagging someone or labeling for some racist or bigot to pick on them. This about ensuring a healthier more secure future for all those who will come after us...

---

OK, I need that beer, "rip" away

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


For more than a cosmetic purpose? Pretty much. What difference does it really make what breed a dog is?

Likewise, does being a different "race" have any real bearing on what a human is, disregarding societal factors (racism, etc.)?

1. The usefulness of the concept of race is what is an open question. I would not be sublime about saying that "race"* is an irrelevant concpet given the preponderance of disaeases and the like.

*I agree that the concept is imperfect and loose and all the like. Maybe "ethnic grouping is more precise and maybe we should use some larger number of groups.

2. Dog breeds vary in much more than appearance. usefullness as sled dogs. Hot/cold weather endurance. Even temperment.*

*I would be the first to agree that the differences between breeds are probably lareger than the differences between races. But my point is more to say, "hey, look at the huge differences in German Shepards" and dachsunds" and that the DNA between these groups is VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL and that there is no (at least not yet) conveneint DNA marker for "breed". (But obviously the breeds differ in some consistent way in their DNA or they would not have different heritable traits).

[GePap]

Actually, breed differences in dogs are very important. Terriers and hounds do not act similarly. Different breeds oif dgs can have widely differing levels of intelliegence and very different behaviors. Some breeds are even generally far more aggresive with other dogs than other breeds. A Greyhound and a Scottish Terrier may be able to create viable offspring together, but they are very different, and not only cosmetically.

Also, Dog breeds are not a good example since a very strict amount of breeding control has been done to "keep breeds pure". No humans have undergone the amount of forced breeding man has enflicted upon his domesticate animals.

Short threadjack: yesterday they gave a show about cross breeding species: they showed a liger, which was huge, since it has no genese to regulate its growth (the body has no rpeset shutoff point). They also showed a "chimp" that some though was a humanzee (human-chimp), Very weird, though they never do state whether it was a humanzee, or just a mutant chimp.

[Odin]

The first modern humans resembled the modern Bushmen people of SW Africa. The stereotypical "Black" features are a result of the Bantu people spreading from thier homeland in West Africa 2,500 years ago. Most people in the rest Africa before then were part of the very dark skinned Ethiopian-type people or the lighter-skinned Bushmen people, who untill the Bantu expansion, lived mostly in forested areas. There is 10 times more genetic variety in Africa than in all the other continents combined, so we shouldn't be putting all africans under the stereotypical Bantu label that the current "race" catagories put them in.

BTW: African-Americans are of Bantu decent.

[ranskaldan]

I think everyone's arguing around a different definition of "race"! What is race? Is it:

1) Assigned, exclusive, in-or-out categories within the human species,

or

2) Clusters within the genetic spectrums that extend across the human species?