Page 5 of 5 [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

05 Apr 2011, 5:17 pm

simon_says wrote:
Sure. Yet they still occur else we wouldnt be here. And the differences don't have to come directly from recent mutation, they can come from a founder effect following the african diaspora as populations fanned out. Some very old genes might be more represented heading east than north. They didnt count them on the way out and make sure everyone had the exact same set.

And if there can be genetic differences between people, there can of course be differences in distribution in populations. They may not add up to much in the larger scheme of things but they are there.


I would never deny that there are genetic differences between people, especially due to genetic bottlenecking. But I just don't think much happened after the groups diverged, given the slow rate of evolution on average. I imagine 90% of the differences are from the period of genetic bottlenecking.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

05 Apr 2011, 5:25 pm

ryan93 wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Sure. Yet they still occur else we wouldnt be here. And the differences don't have to come directly from recent mutation, they can come from a founder effect following the african diaspora as populations fanned out. Some very old genes might be more represented heading east than north. They didnt count them on the way out and make sure everyone had the exact same set.

And if there can be genetic differences between people, there can of course be differences in distribution in populations. They may not add up to much in the larger scheme of things but they are there.


I would never deny that there are genetic differences between people, especially due to genetic bottlenecking. But I just don't think much happened after the groups diverged, given the slow rate of evolution on average. I imagine 90% of the differences are from the period of genetic bottlenecking.


There are going to be subtle differences in genetics in a population of one species. But the last time another, distinct, species of Human walked the Earth was 20,000 years ago


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Telekon
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

05 Apr 2011, 6:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:
codarac wrote:

Ruveyn just copies and pastes the same crap whenever the topic of race crops up in this forum.


I use only original material. In short I copy and paste my own stuff. And for good reason. I am right.

ruveyn


Why did you ignore my rebuttal?



Omerik
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

05 Apr 2011, 7:55 pm

simon_says wrote:
I never said the differences were significant. But they are measurable in some ways, mostly on a statistical level. That's why it's important to place these differences in context. We arent talking laser vision and third arms.

You can train your whole life and a trained Tibetan will beat you to the top of Mount Everest every time. Is that important? No. But it's a difference. West African speed advantages might be established genetically one day. But we are talking 10/ths of a second ahead of the best European times. Not bionic man stuff.

I'm not sure about the Tibetan thing. Sorry for my ignorance, but what qualities make a Tibetan person better for this? And are those really racial features, and don't happen just because he's used to the environment?
And are trained Tibetan better then trained others always? In 100% of the cases?
And even if we take every case of people who trained the same, and it's only genetic, and Tibetans would be better 60% of the time - does it mean that being Tibetan makes you better? Or perhaps it means that there are more Tibetans who are likely to be naturally fit, while still there are lots of Tibetans who don't fit? I mean, in this case, you won't call it a characteristic of Tibetan people, I guess.

Also, I'm not an expert on evolution and genetics, but I know that according to lots of studies, Jews are proven to descend from the same place in the Middle East, despite their different looks, and similarities to local populations at times. So that means that if you trace your lineage, you can perhaps find different races in your family tree... Perhaps it shows that unlike subspecies in the nature, who become extinct in some places, or move, humans can fit themselves. I think that if so, it shows that it's the same species, that just pass on genetic traits to their children, in accordance to the environment. I may be talking some real nonesense, I'm not very sharp right now. But I think that it might make sense.

By the way, I just wonder - a lot of black people in the USA seem to be significantly brighter than modern African people. Is this solely because of mixed heritages, or perhaps just something that happened to some families after 300 years or so?

Oh, and an anecdote:
I'm a Jew of different hertiages - my mother's family is Sephardic, which means mostly Southern European like, regardless of the country of residency. From the Balkan area, where Turkish, Greek and Bulgarian (and other) Jews look closer to each other than to the local population. My father is Ashkenazi, our ancestors have probably moved between countries in Eastern and Central Europe.
My mother can't get a good tan, but my father can, although it's usually likely to be opposite... Now I look mostly like my mother's Sephardic family - but my "tanning ability", which is one of my perhaps "Sephardic traits", is actually closer to my own Ashkenazi side... A bit funny I guess. But shows you something about so-called "racial traits", I think.



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

05 Apr 2011, 8:27 pm

Quote:
I'm not sure about the Tibetan thing. Sorry for my ignorance, but what qualities make a Tibetan person better for this? And are those really racial features, and don't happen just because he's used to the environment?


A gene, that other populations are lacking. It's not an environmental adaptation like building muscle is.

Quote:
And even if we take every case of people who trained the same, and it's only genetic, and Tibetans would be better 60% of the time - does it mean that being Tibetan makes you better? Or perhaps it means that there are more Tibetans who are likely to be naturally fit, while still there are lots of Tibetans who don't fit?


Tibetans are better at survivng in mountains, as deemed by natural selection, and better, if you define better to be a higher than average ability to survive in mountains.

Quote:
By the way, I just wonder - a lot of black people in the USA seem to be significantly brighter than modern African people. Is this solely because of mixed heritages, or perhaps just something that happened to some families after 300 years or so?


Education, diet, and not evolution.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

05 Apr 2011, 8:37 pm

Quote:
I'm not sure about the Tibetan thing. Sorry for my ignorance, but what qualities make a Tibetan person better for this? And are those really racial features, and don't happen just because he's used to the environment?
And are trained Tibetan better then trained others always? In 100% of the cases?
And even if we take every case of people who trained the same, and it's only genetic, and Tibetans would be better 60% of the time - does it mean that being Tibetan makes you better? Or perhaps it means that there are more Tibetans who are likely to be naturally fit, while still there are lots of Tibetans who don't fit? I mean, in this case, you won't call it a characteristic of Tibetan people, I guess.


I linked to a study above which shows that Tibetans are genetically geared to live at higher altitudes and process oxygen better. The current speed records for the South Col of Everest are held by Sherpas from the Nepali side. The current record is 8 hours, smashing another Sherpa's time of 12 hours. It's certainly a combination of many things but given the Tibetan study it seems likely that before they switch to bottled oxygen they have a genetic boost. Natural selection gave people in that region the right genes to live there.

What's interesting about those of west africans descent and sprinting is that they hold ~97% of the top 500 times in the 100 meter dash. And theyve been doing it for decades. They own it. No matter what country they live in now, or the use of different training techniques, they are reliably dominating the field. Is there a genetic element there? Maybe. But it's not all Africans. Just a subset from West Africa and their descendants.



ghostpawn
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 125
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

06 Apr 2011, 1:10 am

Racal groupings like "white" and "black" are social constructs. Genetic differences are more complicated than that - negroids and australoids both have dark skin, but are very different otherwise. That, and many people are mixed anyways. I read somewhere that 1/3 of american "whites" had at 12.5% black ancestry, and a whopping 58% of "black" americans had at least 12.5% white ancestry. So racial lines are very blurry to start with.

An irishman named James Kirkpatrick met an african-american woman and had a son named Michael, but left when he was 2. The boy's mother then met and married a man named Percel Tyson, and that's how little Mike got his last name. So is he "white" or "black"? Most see him as "black", but genetically he's mixed.

What I found really interesting is how Vitamin D deficiency explains much of the "racial IQ gap" (as many as 10 pts of it) between "blacks" and "whites", and even various other groups, directly proportional to how dark their skin is - and how much it blocks Vitamin D production. I'm especially happy at how easily it can be fixed with cod liver oil.

I really want to see some test on kinesthetic intelligence. Empirical evidences suggests that african-americans may be especially good at it, just like asians are best at visuo-spatial and ashkenazi jews at verbal intelligence.


_________________
Free 3D Images


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,498
Location: temperate zone

06 Apr 2011, 4:45 pm

Is race biological?
That is: is it "real"? Is it out there?
Or is "race" just in our heads?

Hard to say.

Human diversity is real.
That diversity is biological and genetic (though environment enhances that variation even more).

But saying that diversity is real is not the same thing as saying that race is real.

Humans classify all living things into species.

And humans often subdivide nonhuman species into smaller units.

In domestic plants and animals the subdivisions are usually called "breeds".
In wild organisms these subdivisions are usually called "subspecies".

"Breeds" of domestic critters are just that-"breeds"- the products of humans deliberately manipulating the reproduction of domestic plants and animals for human ends. So domestic 'breeds' of cattle, dogs, corn, etc are not really analogous to human "races".

However "subspecies" of wild plants and animals occur naturally - usually in different geographic locales within the larger range of the species- much the way variety has arisen in our own far flung species.

So, are "races" just really "subspecies" of humans?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

One problem is that the concept of "subspecies" is falling into disfavor by scientists even when applied to nonhuman organisms. Like humans other species may have variety in traits, but the problem is that this variety rarely has "concordance". Varietiations in traits are rarely linked together in correlatable patterns that suggest that there are real sub-units within a species. Its just random variety out there. Interestingly that same problem exists in human variation as well. Humans have less concordance than you might think.

The other problem is that 'subspecies' and 'races' are "discovered" differently.

"Subspecies" of say, Monarch butterflies are discovered by scientists who pin hundreds of specimens to the wall and study them with magnifying glasses.

"Races" are designated by the specimens themselves.

The specimens (you, me,and society) decree what "race" they themselves and their nieghbors are.

And the specimens do this not by making a detailed analysis of each other's genotype and phenotype, but by snap judgments made from momentary observations of each other of a few physical traits. Traits that happened to be of social importance. These traits tend to be very visual traits.

We dont peg our neighbors into racial categories by the shape of their incisors, by how lactose tolerant they are, nor by their blood type.

We do it using facial and eye features, hair type, and by that most conspicuous of traits: skin color.

So a "race" is really just a group of people lumped together into the same categorey because they happened to share a trivial number of usually trivial traits. But traits that have great social importance.

So though variation in humans is both biological and real- the way we use that variation to classify people is largely dictated by society. So "race" is for the most part a social construct.

To westeners Black Africans look much Australian Aborigines because both groups have extremely dark skin, and both have similar tightly curled hair.

But DNA analysis has shown that the two "races" most far apart are indigineous africans and indigenous australians. So skin color is not a very scientific indicator of a possible human "subspecies".



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 Apr 2011, 9:43 pm

One example of a recently (w/in the last several thousand years) arisen gene that has been wildly successful is adult lactose tolearance. It's acutally a difference in the regulation of our lactase enzyme, rather than a whole new protein, but it spread rapidly along with the social advent of herding cattle and then dairying. IIrc it's evolved independently at least twice, once in Europe and once in Africa.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,498
Location: temperate zone

07 Apr 2011, 4:48 pm

LKL wrote:
One example of a recently (w/in the last several thousand years) arisen gene that has been wildly successful is adult lactose tolearance. It's acutally a difference in the regulation of our lactase enzyme, rather than a whole new protein, but it spread rapidly along with the social advent of herding cattle and then dairying. IIrc it's evolved independently at least twice, once in Europe and once in Africa.


Exactly.
The Upper Paleolithic cavemen, like most mammals, all lost the ability to digest milk before they reached adulthood. Then sometime after the last Ice Age some peoplea began to expirament with herding cattle.
The few odd ball folks in these cattle herding tribes had the the mutation that allowed them to retain the lactose digesting enzyme as adults. Long story short the mutation spread. to much but not all of the world.
It happened idependently in two parts of the world- eurasia- and in east africa.

Oddly- the african gene and the european gene to allow this are not even identical genes.

Anyway west africans and east asians are still mostly lactose intolerent and cant eat ice cream as adults- which is why there is no cheese in Chinese cuisine.
But europeans, and some East Africans, can survive on nothing but diary products if need be.

Someone mentioned the Tibetians being immune to altitude sickness.
The Quechua Indians (the Incas) of the Andes Mountains of Peru/Bolivia/Ecudor are also adapted to life at high altitudes and have far more stamina than most humans on mountains.
But whats interesting is that the way they are adpated seems to be completely different from the adaptations of the Tibetians. The Andean Indians have bigger lungs than most of us, but not Tibetians.
Tibetians evolved some other means (maybe its something about their red blood cells). Maybe we should persuade Bolivian Indians to interrmarry with Tibetians so we can breed a race of super mountain climbers.



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

07 Apr 2011, 5:15 pm

Quote:
Tibetians evolved some other means (maybe its something about their red blood cells). Maybe we should persuade Bolivian Indians to interrmarry with Tibetians so we can breed a race of super mountain climbers.


From what I've read, two genes are involved. EGLN1 apparently gives the highland Tibetans a low hemoglobin level, I'm not quite sure how that would help, maybe it lowers the oxygen affinity of the blood cells, so they can release the oxygen they are carrying to the necessary areas easier. I'm not really sure :?


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


RedHanrahan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,204
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand

07 Apr 2011, 5:34 pm

LKL wrote:
One example of a recently (w/in the last several thousand years) arisen gene that has been wildly successful is adult lactose tolearance. It's acutally a difference in the regulation of our lactase enzyme, rather than a whole new protein, but it spread rapidly along with the social advent of herding cattle and then dairying. IIrc it's evolved independently at least twice, once in Europe and once in Africa.


Sorry but this is unlikely. Cattle herding spread to Europe and Africa from the same source point and in all likelihood the genetic adaptation moved with it. The incidence of lactose intolerance in Asiatic groups is becasue their genetic group moved north and east before cattle domestication which once it arrived was interacted with differently [fermentation or food combining precluding the need for the genetic adaptation].

peace j


_________________
Just because we can does not mean we should.

What vision is left? And is anyone asking?

Have a great day!


ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

07 Apr 2011, 5:41 pm

RedHanrahan wrote:
LKL wrote:
One example of a recently (w/in the last several thousand years) arisen gene that has been wildly successful is adult lactose tolearance. It's acutally a difference in the regulation of our lactase enzyme, rather than a whole new protein, but it spread rapidly along with the social advent of herding cattle and then dairying. IIrc it's evolved independently at least twice, once in Europe and once in Africa.


Sorry but this is unlikely. Cattle herding spread to Europe and Africa from the same source point and in all likelihood the genetic adaptation moved with it. The incidence of lactose intolerance in Asiatic groups is becasue their genetic group moved north and east before cattle domestication which once it arrived was interacted with differently [fermentation or food combining precluding the need for the genetic adaptation].

peace j


Unlikely, yet true. The mutation is caused by a SNP in European populations, and by three genetic variants in East African adults. The African variant arised several thousand years after the European one.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

07 Apr 2011, 6:34 pm

Quote:
Tibetians evolved some other means (maybe its something about their red blood cells). Maybe we should persuade Bolivian Indians to interrmarry with Tibetians so we can breed a race of super mountain climbers.


East Africans have an improved lung capacity as well. They dominate long distance running. Mix some East African, Tibetan, and Inca genes and look out. :lol:

Another strange fact about west africans is that in sports history only 74 humans have broken the 10 second 100 meter barrier. 72 are African and of those, 71 are of west african descent. One European has done it (last year) and he didnt even come close to a world record.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

07 Apr 2011, 10:01 pm

In the book I'm reading by the geneticist who proved the Out of Africa theory to be correct,
modern day Europeans are far more closely related to the hunter-gatherers of the Paleolithic,
both in terms of expected mitochondrial DNA mutation, and Y chromosome mutation,
than the farmers found in the east who were presumed to have "overwhelmed" them.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.