tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post1929226601656109734..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: 'Ten Commandments' of race and geneticsDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70314101961130031542008-07-27T18:39:00.000+03:002008-07-27T18:39:00.000+03:00To add, I find it quite humorous that Victor would...To add, I find it quite humorous that Victor would use this line...<BR/><BR/><I>It's equally "obvious," isn't it, that the Earth is flat and the Sun, along with the rest of the Universe, revolves around US.</I><BR/><BR/>As some sort of proof how "rational" the race denier's argument is and how irrational the race believer's is. <BR/><BR/>Ummm, to quote Wikipedia...<BR/><BR/><I>"Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo's presentation of heliocentrism as proven fact resulted in the Catholic Church's prohibiting its advocacy as empirically proven fact, because it was not empirically proven at the time and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.[7] Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition."</I><BR/><BR/>Yoohoo, Victor. Some insight for you. The "accepted thought amongst civilized society" in this day and age is to deny the biological basis of race, ergo the Catholic Church's stance. Thereby the stance of the race believers is analogous to Galileo's. So with that, it is you who wants to continue to believe the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth. Get it? LOL<BR/><BR/><BR/>As for Maju, to quote a nutjob I came across...<BR/><BR/>"I know your kind and the medicine to use with them".<BR/><BR/>Civilized discourse is not on the medicine list.Cydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334032603842676523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-52150578165169902202008-07-27T18:07:00.000+03:002008-07-27T18:07:00.000+03:00Victor, my only suggestion to you is being a lapdo...Victor, my only suggestion to you is being a lapdog to an egalitarian nutjob is not very complimentary.<BR/><BR/>It has nothing to do with "liberal" or "conservative", though thank you for those aged strawmen. <BR/><BR/>Tell me, how do criminal investigation labs function if there were no "biological basis" or "definition" of race? Maybe they need your expertise in this matter along with Maju the moron's? It seems as if they are wasting their precious time looking for criminals or identifying decaying bodies out of pure "racism" and witchcraft. Right? <BR/><BR/>LOLCydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334032603842676523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61629256726144794912008-07-27T18:01:00.000+03:002008-07-27T18:01:00.000+03:00Maju the great researcher and open minded one stat...Maju the great researcher and open minded one states...<BR/><BR/><I>The irregularities of human developement certainly have other reasons, be sure of that, <B>and racism is one of them</B>. Have you ever heard of the concept "self-fulfilled profecy"?<BR/><BR/>-----<BR/><BR/>I don't know if you call yourself "nazi" or "white nationalist" or "KKK fellow" or what. I really don't care about such propaganda subtleties: <B>I know your kind</B> and the medicine to use with them.</I><BR/><BR/>Quite the convolution from Maju the moron. No such thing as race though racism deserves its place without any quotations. Akin to no such thing as "alien life" though you are an anti-alien lifer. Clever, these egalitarian morons. Quick to use whatever inconsistencies they have in their arsenal.<BR/><BR/>As to the "I know your kind" line. Shocking, this preconception from someone who does not jump to conclusions, maintains an open mind, critically analyzes a situation before making blanket statements. But then, since he knows so much (utter drivel), we should just listen to his all knowing (demented) "teachings".<BR/><BR/>Well, Maju the moron, you have clearly proven your yourself and your agenda. If we do not listen to your psychotic babblings, we'll magically turn into Nazis. Got it! LOLCydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334032603842676523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83878474255032241952008-07-27T15:55:00.000+03:002008-07-27T15:55:00.000+03:00"If this statement of yours were true, we would no..."If this statement of yours were true, we would not be witness to the tremendous variations of societies that run along strict racial lines."<BR/><BR/>It's obvious isn't it? Any fool can plainly see that race is something real, a scientifically established fact that's simply unacceptable to the deluded liberals who refuse to accept it for ideological reasons.<BR/><BR/>It's equally "obvious," isn't it, that the Earth is flat and the Sun, along with the rest of the Universe, revolves around US. But liberals can't deal with that either, because their egalitarian ideology won't let them accept the privileged position of the Earth in the the Grand Scheme of Things.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line on all this is: if you think you are talking science when you talk "race" then show us the science behind it. Where are the scientific studies that have established the fundamental truth of race, without quotation marks? Where are the scientific studies that have even investigated the issue? What is the scientific basis for your claim?<BR/><BR/>If you can't supply any of the above then you are talking nonsense. Stop wasting our time.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28658561930888414372008-07-27T02:37:00.000+03:002008-07-27T02:37:00.000+03:00If this statement of yours were true, we would not...<I>If this statement of yours were true, we would not be witness to the tremendous variations of societies that run along strict racial lines.</I><BR/><BR/>Do they? This sentence of you again evidences your prejudices and your agenda. Mind you that American Chalcolithic or African Iron Age have nothing to envy the same stages of Western Europe. Maybe the inverse would be more true. The real developement of Europe, specially Western (and much more Northern) Europe is a very recent developement. Would you be speaking some 2 or 3 thousand years ago, you'd notice that Nubia was much more advanced and civilized than Britain, or India... or almost any place on Earth. The irregularities of human developement certainly have other reasons, be sure of that, and racism is one of them. Have you ever heard of the concept "self-fulfilled profecy"?<BR/><BR/><I>Let me also address your Nazi smears. Again, how novel from such a curious mind who delves in research and open thought. Am I to understand that if we do NOT follow your recipe for racial awareness we are doomed to become Nazis?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know if you call yourself "nazi" or "white nationalist" or "KKK fellow" or what. I really don't care about such propaganda subtleties: I know your kind and the medicine to use with them.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-79261601987217825852008-07-27T01:17:00.000+03:002008-07-27T01:17:00.000+03:00I believe you are attributing some great and deep ...I believe you are attributing some great and deep understanding of genetics and the sociopolitical underpinnings of said genetics onto yourself that is painfully lacking to anyone who has done #3 above. I have done #3 for a decade and a half and you have not at all, apparently. For if you actually did you would not blather on with statements such as this...<BR/><BR/><I>I am not interested in discussing what part of the variance is "racial" but what part of humanity (or the human-specific genome) is "racial". And it's tiny.</I><BR/><BR/>If this statement of yours were true, we would not be witness to the tremendous variations of societies that run along strict racial lines. What would be your explanation for such divergence in racial, and in turn, societal variations? Nutrients? Environment? Or perhaps, egad...racism? No answer is truly necessary due to the fact that anyone who uses quotation marks around racial or race is a graduate of Indoctrination U. LOL What is sad is that you are not novel in your ideas or thoughts. They are simply absurd and refuted lies that you've swallowed whole and think you are some messiah of enlightenment. No, not hardly. I, and I am sure others here, have seen this time and time again, including your cute little quotation marks. <BR/><BR/>Let me also address your Nazi smears. Again, how novel from such a curious mind who delves in research and open thought. Am I to understand that if we do NOT follow your recipe for racial awareness we are doomed to become Nazis? Is that what the ingenious and truth seeking Maju would have us believe? It's either A or B according to you? LOL!!!!<BR/><BR/>Pathetic you are. Grow up so you can see it for yourself.Cydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334032603842676523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38778034235301485332008-07-26T21:30:00.000+03:002008-07-26T21:30:00.000+03:00I went via number 3. You are going via number 1 (r...I went via number 3. You are going via number 1 (religious-like faith) on one viewpoint and via number 2 (irrational denial) re. my arguments. <BR/><BR/><I>No one, especially Dienekes, is out to "deceive" you. Your paranoia...</I><BR/><BR/>What paranoia?! I just think D. is decieving himself, not me. I just meant he (or you or whoever) won't persuade me without good arguments, arguments at least as good as the ones I'm providing. Just remember that yourself is always the easiest person to decieve - it happens even in the best families, you know. <BR/><BR/><I>...along with the egalitarian bilge you have swallowed and now attempt to pass as accepted thought, is what makes further conversations with you worthless. </I><BR/><BR/>Obviously you are talking from an ideological position (not explicit but obvious enough). And that's what I meant when I warned D. and the rest not to play the usefool fool for people like you, who will try to use and abuse any feeble reasoning in favor of racial differences being more meaningful than just some colorful traits for certain political agenda that we know well it's extremely dangerous.<BR/><BR/>The people like you will aggrandize whatever nimious element that favors your racist ideology and try to bury and supress the strong evidence against it. 15th century Indquisition or 20th century Gestapo... I really don't care, they both used the same tactics: propaganda, that, as defined by Goobbels himself, it's just repeating a convenient lie enough times until it becomes a pseudo-truth. And demonizing opponents is also part of that political strategy. Strategy that, by the way, you don't seem to master at all. <BR/><BR/>Against that there is a lot of people, armed with critical thought and the scientific method. Armed with patience and honesty, and the conviction that after all humans are not that stupid as the people like you seem to believe.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43197851916357005712008-07-26T18:56:00.000+03:002008-07-26T18:56:00.000+03:00No Maju, 'tis you who have disqualified yourself w...No Maju, 'tis you who have disqualified yourself with your ever growing paranoid babblings. <BR/><BR/>In the sane world it works like this; point made by person A. Person B has three options: 1) believe it outright. 2) Deny it outright. 3) Attempt to decipher if point is valid or not by critical analysis and research. <BR/><BR/>Unless one knows the validity of a point with absolute certainty (and in this particular case, it is clear you do not) then 1 and 2 above are routes taken by idiots and/or the painfully gullible and malleable. Route 3 is the best approach to most things in life, especially when we deal with things of importance.<BR/><BR/>No one, especially Dienekes, is out to "deceive" you. Your paranoia, along with the egalitarian bilge you have swallowed and now attempt to pass as accepted thought, is what makes further conversations with you worthless.Cydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334032603842676523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58801346850515997582008-07-26T16:38:00.000+03:002008-07-26T16:38:00.000+03:00Dienekes, would you mind telling us exactly what i...Dienekes, would you mind telling us exactly what in your opinion the "empirical basis" of race is? And can you site sources for such evidence in the literature?DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2238192193389020132008-07-26T16:30:00.000+03:002008-07-26T16:30:00.000+03:00Disqualification is not an argument (actually you ...Disqualification is not an argument (actually you only disqualify yourself that way), Cyd. And the arguments are on my side, it seems.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32832558202280079912008-07-26T16:07:00.000+03:002008-07-26T16:07:00.000+03:00Well, Dienekes, I don't see that empirical basis i...<I>Well, Dienekes, <B>I don't see that empirical basis in the discussion we are having here</B>: it appears that race is a very minor issue in the human-specific genome, comprising something like 1% of it. Like 500 or 1000 times less important than the difference betwee us and chimps and like 10 or 20 times less important that the normal differences between individuals of the same ethnic group.<BR/><BR/>There's nothing in all that to sustain that race is "empirically important". Only distorting the meaning of those facts can you make race appear as something of relevance. No serious follower of the scientific method would do that... unless he/she wants to cheat.<BR/><BR/><B>I don't know if you are decieving yourself, I respect you enough to think you are not fully conscious of what you are doing, but you are not decieving me in any case</B>.</I><BR/><BR/>In my humanitarian experience, even morons are allowed a voice. Apparently, more than a few are given the freedom to display it on a blog's comment board.<BR/><BR/>Does said moron fail to understand that he may be perceiving this discussion from a disadvantaged viewpoint due to lack of knowledge of genetics, inborn gullibility to imbibe the PC swill, or even a distorted outlook from years of indoctrination from the egalitarians? <BR/><BR/>Of course not, hence his continued babble and of late, signs of paranoia as others are "out to deceive him". LOL<BR/><BR/>CUKOO!Cydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334032603842676523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88643221373711147962008-07-26T03:36:00.000+03:002008-07-26T03:36:00.000+03:00Well, Dienekes, I don't see that empirical basis i...Well, Dienekes, I don't see that empirical basis in the discussion we are having here: it appears that race is a very minor issue in the human-specific genome, comprising something like 1% of it. Like 500 or 1000 times less important than the difference betwee us and chimps and like 10 or 20 times less important that the normal differences between individuals of the same ethnic group.<BR/><BR/>There's nothing in all that to sustain that race is "empirically important". Only distorting the meaning of those facts can you make race appear as something of relevance. No serious follower of the scientific method would do that... unless he/she wants to cheat. <BR/><BR/>I don't know if you are decieving yourself, I respect you enough to think you are not fully conscious of what you are doing, but you are not decieving me in any case.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42473571944085669452008-07-26T03:17:00.000+03:002008-07-26T03:17:00.000+03:00But I do think you are, consciously or unconscious...<I>But I do think you are, consciously or unconsciously, distorting the facts to support your a priori view of racial differences as something really important.</I><BR/><BR/>The importance of race is not an "a priori" view, but an empirically derived view.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-3479358563104225462008-07-26T03:05:00.000+03:002008-07-26T03:05:00.000+03:00I said: Nope. The useless stuff is the one that is...I said: <I>Nope. The useless stuff is the one that is more likely to be polymorphic, as it doesn't really matter what is written there.</I><BR/><BR/>To which Dienekes replied<BR/><BR/><I>Alleles get fixed either because they confer some great advantage and are positively selected, or because of genetic drift. In the former case they are fixed because they are useful; in the latter because of luck.<BR/><BR/>Conversely a locus can be polymorphic because it doesn't matter what is written there, or because it hasn't had enough time to be fixed, or because of balancing selection.</I><BR/><BR/>Isn't that exactly the same I was saying? Different (more) words, same meaning. <BR/><BR/>Polymorphic alelles are less likely to be essential or nearly so. That's the bottomline.<BR/><BR/><I>I suggest that you learn some basic genetics before you ascribe "racialist prejudices" to me.</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't mean to offend. But I do think you are, consciously or unconsciously, distorting the facts to support your a priori view of racial differences as something really important. The facts do not support it, sorry. <BR/><BR/>"A priori view" = "prejudice", it's the same.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12806287972748594142008-07-25T22:03:00.000+03:002008-07-25T22:03:00.000+03:00Nope. The useless stuff is the one that is more li...<I>Nope. The useless stuff is the one that is more likely to be polymorphic, as it doesn't really matter what is written there. </I><BR/><BR/>Alleles get fixed either because they confer some great advantage and are positively selected, or because of genetic drift. In the former case they are fixed because they are useful; in the latter because of luck.<BR/><BR/>Conversely a locus can be polymorphic because it doesn't matter what is written there, or because it hasn't had enough time to be fixed, or because of balancing selection.<BR/><BR/><I>Nope. The useless stuff is the one that is more likely to be polymorphic, as it doesn't really matter what is written there. </I><BR/><BR/>I suggest that you learn some basic genetics before you ascribe "racialist prejudices" to me.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-91609903906923300142008-07-25T20:50:00.000+03:002008-07-25T20:50:00.000+03:00The _fixed_ stuff is either useless...Nope. The us...<I>The _fixed_ stuff is either useless...</I><BR/><BR/>Nope. The useless stuff is the one that is more likely to be polymorphic, as it doesn't really matter what is written there. The really useful stuff is hard to change, unless it changes in an adaptative direction (or at least one that means no loss of function). <BR/><BR/>You are again freely intrepreting the data in favor of your racialist prejudices - and in this particular case, against the most basic genetic logic.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5583088950595931732008-07-25T19:25:00.000+03:002008-07-25T19:25:00.000+03:00Ok, last attempt to explain:~98.5% of human DNA is...Ok, last attempt to explain:<BR/><BR/>~98.5% of human DNA is the same as chimps. That's the stuff that is either useless or makes tongues, hearts, eyes, etc. i.e all the stuff we share with chimps.<BR/><BR/>The 1.5% of human DNA that isn't shared with chimps includes some stuff that is _fixed_ in humans and some that is polymorphic.<BR/><BR/>The _fixed_ stuff is either useless or the stuff that makes us able to stand upright, talk, make tools, and all the other-human specific things.<BR/><BR/>The polymorphic stuff is the cause of all human variation. Some of it is also useless, but the remaining part is that which causes differences among humans.<BR/><BR/>15% of the variance in the polymorphic stuff is accounted by race, and this may lead to large differences in any given observable trait. In fact, while the 15% is an _average_, there are many loci where the percentage is much higher, and many of these loci show such high differences because of selection.<BR/><BR/>So, if I'm buying a car, I don't care about the common elements between cars and chariots (they all have axles/wheels etc.), nor about the common elements between cars (they all have doors, a steering wheel etc.), but about the differences between them (how fast they are, how economic they are and so on). A lot of this difference is individual specific but a lot of it is because of the make of the car. The make of the car tells us a fair bit about it, and similarly a person's race tells us a fair bit about them. Not everything, as the racists believe, not trivially little as the egalitarians believe, but a hefty sum that may be more important for a particular trait (e.g. a neat new navigation system invented by Honda is found only in its cars).Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7795405963358027082008-07-25T18:36:00.000+03:002008-07-25T18:36:00.000+03:00maju, I think there are special problems associate...<I>maju, I think there are special problems associated with autosomal markers that make them difficult to use in establishing the ancestry of a single person.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, there are. It's just obvious that even if 98% of my ancestry is purely Eruopean (or whatever), the remaining 2% may well be genetically relevant. I could well have a "bad gene" from a Congolese unknown ancestor or whatever. <BR/><BR/>They would do a lot better focusing in direct identification of potentially pernitious genes, regardless of race or ancestry, because you never know who each and everyone of your ancestors was (and you probably still carry some genes from each one of them).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64534972688286236132008-07-25T18:31:00.000+03:002008-07-25T18:31:00.000+03:0015% of the variance is between races...I don't kno...<I>15% of the variance is between races...</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know where you get that figure from. But if 2-20% of the human-specific genome is variable (see my previous posts) and only 15% of it is inter-racial variance, then the reality of races ammounts to 0.3 to 3% (around 1%, as I was saying before) of what makes us humans - not too much, I'd say. <BR/><BR/><I>... so it is indeed a large sea</I><BR/><BR/>So it's like 1%. Maybe a "large" sea of the size of the Dead Sea?<BR/><BR/>I am not interested in discussing what part of the variance is "racial" but what part of humanity (or the human-specific genome) is "racial". And it's tiny. <BR/><BR/>1. Humans are all alike in something between 80-98%<BR/>2. Humans are individually variable in something like 2-20%<BR/>3. Humans are racially variable in just a 15% of that (your figure), what is only 0.3-3%<BR/><BR/>Is that a big deal? Nope. I can perfectly be closer in many many aspects to a Bushman or an Ainu than to my own brother. That's what really matters.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71827077249673691362008-07-25T16:26:00.000+03:002008-07-25T16:26:00.000+03:0015% of the variance is between races, so it is ind...15% of the variance is between races, so it is indeed a large sea. Humans are only variable in part of their genome, and in this part, a hefty part of the variation is explained by race. <BR/><BR/>Re: your crayon example, you might wish to emphasize that all crayons are basically the same and only differ in oolor, but if one is interested in painting a picture, then the differences are quite relevant.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61230593888483645212008-07-25T16:20:00.000+03:002008-07-25T16:20:00.000+03:00"In this review, we focus on the biogeographi..."In this review, we focus on the biogeographical distribution of genetic variation and address whether or not populations cluster according to the popular concept of 'race'. We show that racial classifications are inadequate descriptors of the distribution of genetic variation in our species. Although populations do cluster by broad geographic regions, which generally correspond to socially recognized races, the distribution of genetic variation is quasicontinuous in clinal patterns related to geography. The broad global pattern reflects the accumulation of genetic drift associated with a recent African origin of modern humans, followed by expansion out of Africa and across the rest of the globe. Because disease genes may be geographically restricted due to mutation, genetic drift, migration and natural selection, knowledge of individual ancestry will be important for biomedical studies. Identifiers based on race will often be insufficient."<BR/><BR/>from "Implications of biogeography of human populations for 'race' and medicine," by<BR/>Sarah A Tishkoff & Kenneth K Kidd, Nature Genetics 36, S21 - S27 (2004).<BR/><BR/>maju, I think there are special problems associated with autosomal markers that make them difficult to use in establishing the ancestry of a single person. For one thing a great many markers are needed, which would make a meaningful evaluation very costly. Second, as I understand it, autosomal methods are highly statistical, and oriented more toward the identification of whole populations rather than individuals. This situation could change but at the present time I don't think it's either possible or meaniingful to characterize any individual's lineage on that basis. While some companies are now offering such a service, it's value has been questioned.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26433817364189690512008-07-25T16:17:00.000+03:002008-07-25T16:17:00.000+03:00Are you kidding? Isn't skin color, eye shape, hair...<I>Are you kidding? Isn't skin color, eye shape, hair follicle width quantifiable?</I><BR/><BR/>Did you read what I wrote?<BR/><BR/>I said: "You can maybe measure them in their own terms but that is not comparable to something as DNA nucleotides that can be exactly counted and compared directly."<BR/><BR/>You can "quantify" qualities, sure, but they are not intrinsecally numerical nor they are comparable to genetic quantification. The whole array of variety in, say, eye color, is maybe related to two genes or something like that. They are completely different kinds, even if somewhat related. <BR/><BR/>If you want to focus in phenotype variance, and specifically in intra-human one, you can find "many" differences, but they are like the differences between crayons of different colors: they are all crayons anyhow. <BR/><BR/>That's why it is specially important to emphasize genetic absolute (and not phenotypical relative) figures, because otherwise you are emphasizing the most minor and most visible (not necesarily most important) differences. In contrast genetic numbers give pretty much a realistic overview of the the actual differences: almost nil and mostly across races, not between them. <BR/><BR/>That would also be visble at phenotype level if you are sensible enough. Maybe human skin color varies but all humans are quite non-hairy in comparison with chimps, no humans have prensile feet, all humans have brains that are about three times those of chimps, etc. <BR/><BR/>The identity remains hyper-strong in comparison with the differences even at phenotype level. But it's much easier and more objective to quantify it in genetic figures anyhow. <BR/><BR/><I>If the "ocean" is human-scale variation, then racial variation isn't a drop, it's rather a large sea.</I><BR/><BR/>A "large" sea of less than 1% the size of the ocean? I would settle for a small lagoon, ok?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31412193466328063302008-07-25T15:59:00.000+03:002008-07-25T15:59:00.000+03:00Phenotypes are not quantifiable.Are you kidding? I...<I>Phenotypes are not quantifiable.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you kidding? Isn't skin color, eye shape, hair follicle width quantifiable?<BR/><BR/><I>I can't argue against that but it's still a drop in the ocean.</I><BR/><BR/>If the "ocean" is human-scale variation, then racial variation isn't a drop, it's rather a large sea.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30222688925912230072008-07-25T15:43:00.000+03:002008-07-25T15:43:00.000+03:00The fact that humans are 98.5% the same as chimps....<I>The fact that humans are 98.5% the same as chimps...</I><BR/><BR/>I was using 95%, as that was the figure I could find in a quick Wikipedia search. Guess there's some uncertainty on the exact apportions, right?<BR/><BR/><I>...doesn't mean that their phenotypic differences are 1.5% in any given trait.</I><BR/><BR/>Phenotypes are not quantifiable. You can maybe measure them in their own terms but that is not comparable to something as DNA nucleotides that can be exactly counted and compared directly. <BR/><BR/>In any case we and chimps have a lot of things in common. <BR/><BR/><I>Similarly, if we drop the 98.5% that we share with chimps and look at the 1.5% that makes us uniquely human, we will see that human races differ in a very small fraction of that 1.5%. Yet, that doesn't mean that there very small differences between humans.</I><BR/><BR/>It doesn't only mean that but actually there are very small differences between humans. Whatever aspect you look at is almost the same across humankind. Even something as "racial" as skin color is just variability inside a common basic pattern of naked skin and melanin, you just need one or two genes (probably there are some more but not too many in any case) to regulate that variability. It's not trivial but nearly so. <BR/><BR/>People don't make such a fuzz about cat coat colors. There are white, black, smoke, cream, brown and stripped cats (among others) but all are cats, right? Unless you are into breeding, you will surely judge the cat for its individual personality, not coat color or even breed. That's very logical because surely, among cats too, most of the variability is between individuals and across breeds. <BR/><BR/><I>A sense of scale is indeed needed. We measure the differences between rocks with measuring tapes, but the differences between diamonds with precision instruments. The differences between two diamonds may be insignificant compared to the differences between diamonds and boulders, but that doesn't mean that they are insignificant -- when seen in the proper scale. </I><BR/><BR/>You are again trying to aggrandize the detail. We only do such measures on diamonds because they are very valuable in monetary terms, not because it would matter otherwise. A diamons is a diamond (crystal carbon) and, in what regards to me, I would only care about its market value if at all.<BR/><BR/>This discussion is risking to become circular. I say: it's just a drop in the ocean, you say: the molecular properties of each drop are important. I can't argue against that but it's still a drop in the ocean.<BR/><BR/>And I think that's what this letter is about: about not aggrandizing what is not so relevant after all. And specially not trying to estabilish any sort of racial hierarchy based on minor and still poorly understood findings.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43367836730725364342008-07-25T08:46:00.000+03:002008-07-25T08:46:00.000+03:00"Is it really that easy to identify which 'particu..."Is it really that easy to identify which 'particular region of the earth' an 'African American' came from?" Obviously not. Their ancestors are likely to have come from various regions of Africa, without even considering possible (or even probable) European or Native American admixture. I agree totally with Maju: the term Afro-American is a product of "the very odd way of racial classification that they have in the USA, a heir of slavery and Jim Crow". <BR/><BR/>Now, Victor, you appear to be deliberately clouding the issue by bringing in these Afro-Americans. As far as breeds go they are the equivalent of, say, labrador crossed with spaniel. As you'd know, it's very difficult to judge relative proportions of dog breeds in hybrid individuals. <BR/><BR/>If we confine ourselves just to Africa it is often possible to tell what region within Africa a particular individual is from. Especially if we just need to say 'south', 'northeast', 'west', or 'north'. I was often even able to tell Wolof from Mandinke when I was in Senegal. <BR/><BR/>Victor wrote, "If all the subjects in such photos ... had the same hair style the degree of consensus would probably be a lot less". But hang on. For a start they're unlikely to have the same hair styles without extensive artificial modification. Differing hair patterns are part of the way we can identify, to a large extent, what part of the world an individual comes from (ignoring the side issue of people formed as hybrids of people from many different distant regions). <BR/><BR/>"This doesn't mean that human morphology can't be the subject of scientific analysis -- it certainly can". Hang on again. Wouldn't it be prudent to assume that morphology has some genetic basis?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com