Is race real or is it just a human invention?

Page 10 of 13 [ 204 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

17 Aug 2012, 5:25 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
LKL wrote:
discredited by whom?
melanism is one of the easiest traits to change in the course of relatively few generations, and there are direct selective pressures towards more melanin in areas of higher solar radiance.


I'm not just talking about skin tone, I'm talking about facial features like the width of the nasal aperture, the protrusion of the jaw, the projection of the zygomatic arch, and JVs favorite feature: The supra-orbital ridge(presence of absence). My big questions:

1What genes are responsible for the structure and shape of these bones? How about the genes for the thickness of the lips?

2)How are these genes inherited and what is the cause of their variation? A related question is can the genes responsible for the shape of the skull change as a result of environmental change. If so, what is the evidence for this.

You and JV assert that Melanesians have common genetic markers with asians and caucasians. But what do these genes actually code for? In fact, are they coding or non-coding regions? If the latter then are there any other explanations besides common lineage, like the fact that both asians and melanesians interbred with other hominids.


1) I will let you do the spade work on that one. You should be responsible for understanding the basics before joining the conversation.
2) Genes are not responsible for the shape of the skull (Boas 1912). I have cited this several times. (can I ignore the rest of the question.
3) the irony here is if I say have been drinking to much on a given day and decide to adopt your three race theory I would have to say under its rules that both Melanesians and Australian indigenous peoples -collectively called Australoids- have to be call mixed Caucasian and Negroid with some Mongoloid admixture. This may and does ignore their history -but you seem to be okay with that- but it does give a description of the skull.

The question you are asking about which genes is a bit naive the answer is depends on the paper. I suggest you read some of these papers and find out for yourself.

You seem to be tilting at windmills with this Denisova Hominins thing I am conservative and agnostic about 2 bone species. This said no one is actually arguing with you about Denisova Admixture. This also goes to my hypothesis that you have diminished reading skills.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


wogaboo
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 151

17 Aug 2012, 5:44 pm

Oodain wrote:
wogaboo wrote:



using genetic evidence is silly unless we can distinguish between functional and non-functional DNA. For example let's say I took some rats and put them on two different islands, however I made sure that the two islands had identical environments for the next billion years. A billion years from now genetic evidence would proclaim these two rat populations as genetically distant as humans are from trees and by your logic, we would not only have to declare them different races, but different species; indeed different kingdoms! And yet these 2 populations would look, sound and behave identically. The problem with non-functional DNA is it only measures divergence time; you're assuming populations must be very different if they diverged a log time ago, but time means nothing if nothing relevant changes in that time.


The 3 race theory is a brain twister because not all negroid peoples have all the Negroid traits and not all caucasoid and Mongoloid people have all their respective traits, so you have to abstract a prototype for each race.


you just dont lisen do you??

today phenogenetics are the main classifier in taxonomy,

numerical taxonomy is a thing of the past.
in essence that is what you are arguing for.

i know you probably wont answer, just like you ignored all the other posts sayuing and detailing the exact same thing!


please define functional dna and relate it to the fact that even pseudogenes can have an impact on evolution(what you would call non functional).




I am a numerical taxonomist (in both senses); more precisely I'm advocating phenetics as opposed to cladistics.


For the purposes of this discussion, I would define functional DNA as any DNA that is known to code for a known physical or mental trait.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

17 Aug 2012, 5:56 pm

yes but thats just it, that has nothing to do with how genes work.

they are short relatively basic structures, arrangement and interaction is everything, this is partly why modern genetics had to do away with the term junk dna, it simply isnt aplicaple when viewed in any timescale, much less anthropological or geological time.

as said before the now known most inactive type, pseudogenes, can still contain function million of years after having been turned off, they may not actively code for anything but their low level interaction can still shape active procceses.

this however may or may not be a minor effect, i am not knowledgavble enough to know, that said they still carry a relatively high chance of mutating into active or defective variants over time, meaning that in any anthropological sense they are still a variable.


that is why you arent just arguing against cladistics but also the entirety of genetic evidence, genetics can show with rather good precision when and where certain mutations appeared and that can give us a more accurate picture than any phenetic method ever could.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


wogaboo
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 151

17 Aug 2012, 6:01 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
Dear jacobvirgil, you keep asserting that australoids don't look like subsaharan Africans but did you know that forensic artists looking at skulls consider australoid skulls to be Negroid?

Read this article about an ancient skull found in the Americas:

http://www.ipoaa.com/first_americans_we ... alians.htm

They look at the skull and find it has all Negroid features and on that basis they classify it as australoid.

The takeaway is Negroid = australoid, and if austroloids can qualify as Negroid, then khoisans (who actually live in Africa) most certainly can.





I have to admit before my training I did think that native Australasian looked black but after a few month of Jake get me that female Asian skull over there and where did I put that Australasian man's head. I started to see skulls very differently. To me the supra-orbital ridge (if you pardon the pun) stands out way to much for me to mistake a Australoid for a Congoid to me the skulls don't even look alike.

Thank you for not calling Australoids Melanesians that illiteracy pegged your buddy as a moron.
Well, more of his hilarious tenacity in sticking with it.
Image




I don't understand what you are saying with the bbc article.
I will have to go out on a limb and say Richard Neave from the University of Manchester is wrong
the skull did not show all the signs of a negroid skull because one of the signs of a negroid skull especially a female one is near absence of a supra-orbital ridge. The reason we can speculate that Lucia had
an Australasian origin is the presence of those ridges.


1) Just because you can make distinctions between congoids and australoids, and between capoids and congoids does not mean they don't all fall under the umbrella "Negroid"

2) You're arbitrarily choosing to focus on the differences between these groups and ignoring the similarities.

3) It would be like someone arbitrarily deciding that all reptiles must have legs and therefore snakes are not reptiles.

4) I wonder if autistics have trouble grasping the 3 race theory because they hyper-focus on the details and ignore the big picture.






1) does not mean it but the genetic evidence does make classifying Australoid as Negroids a bit silly.

2) A little strange from the guy that wants to throw out phenotype for phenotype. I am arguing that eyeballing it does not give one useful data. That way I like the genetics. What people look like is subjective.

3) It would be more like saying legless lizards are not snakes. I am saying Australoids don't belong to a group that some think they look like they should belong to.

4) I have my doubts about this assertion. The three race theory is not really a brain twister.
Correct me if I make it into a strawman but it goes sumtin like this.

People that look white are white.
People that look black are black.
People that look Asian are Asian.
People that look mixed are mixed?

Not exactly special relativity is it?







using genetic evidence is silly unless we can distinguish between functional and non-functional DNA. For example let's say I took some rats and put them on two different islands, however I made sure that the two islands had identical environments for the next billion years. 1) A billion years from now genetic evidence would proclaim these two rat populations as genetically distant as humans are from trees and by your logic, we would not only have to declare them different races, but different species; indeed different kingdoms! And yet these 2 populations would look, sound and behave identically. The problem with non-functional DNA is it only measures divergence time; you're assuming populations must be very different if they diverged a log time ago, but time means nothing if nothing relevant changes in that time.

The 3 race theory is a brain twister because not all negroid peoples have all the Negroid traits and not all caucasoid and Mongoloid people have all their respective traits, so you have to abstract a prototype for each race.


1) Murinae is only 14 million years old with 519 species 1 billion years ago was the time of the eukaryotic split. If the rats in your story could still interbreed they would still be the same species. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. again with the Junk DNA thing there really is no such thing. Please address that I have brought this up several times since it seems to be the linchpin of your construction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergenic_region

I think the brain twist you are feeling is the twisting of reality to fit a bad theory.

I think what we have here is a conflict of criteria.
Mine is to understand human migration a project for which the 3 race theory is meaningless.
What is your interest?



1.If rats separated for a billion years can still be the same species, than surely you agree (in theory) that humans separated for 100,000 years can still be the same race?


2. If there is no such thing as junk DNA, then how do scientists know how long ago humans left Africa or how long ago humans diverged from monkeys? Only junk DNA is irrelevant enough to be immune to natural selection and thus changes at a predictable rate; if there were no junk DNA, genetic changes would all be a function of natural selection and thus occur unpredictably and thus would be useless as a molecular clock.


3.My interest is knowing how old the races are.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

17 Aug 2012, 6:05 pm

you should read up on genetics and especially non coding dna before continuing this discussion.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


wogaboo
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 151

17 Aug 2012, 6:19 pm

Oodain wrote:
you should read up on genetics and especially non coding dna before continuing this discussion.


Seeing as neither of you can explain how molecular clocks are possible in the absence of junk DNA, I strongly suspect I am correct about the existence of junk DNA and you are the one who is wrong



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

17 Aug 2012, 6:42 pm

wogaboo wrote:
Oodain wrote:
you should read up on genetics and especially non coding dna before continuing this discussion.


Seeing as neither of you can explain how molecular clocks are possible in the absence of junk DNA, I strongly suspect I am correct about the existence of junk DNA and you are the one who is wrong


Another option is to say molecular clocks are impossible or skewed by an overestimate of the amount of junk DNA.

Of course you suspect you are right or you would change your view.
I think the ball is in your court Assertions of the existence of junk DNA is important to you thesis not mine.

It is a huge fallacy to believe our inability to convince you of something you apparently hold deeply means
that you are right.

If that were the case the being stubborn would make any view right as long as the person believed it hard enough.

I will give you one concession though if you just wanted to catalog skulls in a library the three race thing works fine.

I will have in turn steal back your assumption of my agreement with the rat story I was trying to say it was ridiculous it appears I have failed. Species is defined as being able to produce viable offspring race does not have such an easy rubric.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

17 Aug 2012, 7:58 pm

wogaboo wrote:
Oodain wrote:
you should read up on genetics and especially non coding dna before continuing this discussion.


Seeing as neither of you can explain how molecular clocks are possible in the absence of junk DNA, I strongly suspect I am correct about the existence of junk DNA and you are the one who is wrong


first of all what does that even mean?

but here is a little list of what factors influence the molecular clock of any specific species

Quote:
Changing generation times (If the rate of new mutations depends at least partly on the number of generations rather than the number of years)
Population size (Genetic drift is stronger in small populations, and so more mutations are effectively neutral)
Species-specific differences (due to differing metabolism, ecology, evolutionary history,...)
Change in function of the protein studied (can be avoided in closely related species by utilizing non-coding DNA sequences or emphasizing silent mutations)
Changes in the intensity of natural selection.


the molecular clock doesnt simply measure your so wrongly named "junk dna", the model is capable of dealing with any gene or gene structure, within its fairly obvious limitations, esentially its a fancy timing tool to make estimates.

also remark the part in bold, please note the word used for future reference.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


17 Aug 2012, 9:13 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

2) Genes are not responsible for the shape of the skull (Boas 1912).


Wow, you're using a citation that is 100 years old and predates molecular genetics. If you can come up with a more modern citation(21st century) that is dated after the completion of the human genome project, I might find your claim more credible. LKL: There are regulatory genes that control and modulate bone growth(like the growth of the zygoma).



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

17 Aug 2012, 9:30 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:

2) Genes are not responsible for the shape of the skull (Boas 1912).


Wow, you're using a citation that is 100 years old and predates molecular genetics. If you can come up with a more modern citation(21st century) that is dated after the completion of the human genome project, I might find your claim more credible. LKL: There are regulatory genes that control and modulate bone growth(like the growth of the zygoma).


I am using that old of reference to show just how out of date your thinking is.
You might as well be citing phrenology books.

But since you are much to slow to understand this.
Heredity, Environment, and Cranial Form:
A Reanalysis of Boas’s Immigrant Data
(Gravlee et al 2003)
Quote:
ABSTRACT
Franz Boas’s classic study, Changes in bodily form of descendants of
immigrants, is a landmark in the history of anthropology. More than any single study, it
undermined racial typology in physical anthropology and helped turn the tide against
early-20th century scientific racism. In 1928, Boas responded to critics of the immigrant
study by publishing the raw data set as Materials for the Study of Inheritance in Man.
Here we present a reanalysis of that long-neglected data set. Using methods that were
unavailable to Boas, we test his main conclusion that cranial form changed in response to
environmental influences within a single generation of European immigrants to the U.S. In
general, we conclude that Boas got it right. However, we demonstrate that modern
analytical methods provide stronger support for Boas’s conclusion than did the tools at
his disposal.

http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ufruss/documents/boaspaper.pdf
so you are using methods discarded 100 years ago.
Quit it it makes you look dumb. :lol: :lol:

maybe you could change the subject to baseball I know jack-sh!t about baseball.

more sad news for both of us as I am a fan of neanderthal sapiens admixture
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt207073.html

to applies to your buddies the Melanesian and their Australian cousins as well.
You know what this suggests Europeans and dudes in the antipodes got their manly brows
from the same store. :lol: :lol:


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


18 Aug 2012, 12:23 am

JakobVirgil wrote:


I am using that old of reference to show just how out of date your thinking is.
You might as well be citing phrenology books.

But since you are much to slow to understand this.
Heredity, Environment, and Cranial Form:
A Reanalysis of Boas’s Immigrant Data
(Gravlee et al 2003)
Quote:
ABSTRACT
Franz Boas’s classic study, Changes in bodily form of descendants of
immigrants, is a landmark in the history of anthropology. More than any single study, it
undermined racial typology in physical anthropology and helped turn the tide against
early-20th century scientific racism. In 1928, Boas responded to critics of the immigrant
study by publishing the raw data set as Materials for the Study of Inheritance in Man.
Here we present a reanalysis of that long-neglected data set. Using methods that were
unavailable to Boas, we test his main conclusion that cranial form changed in response to
environmental influences within a single generation of European immigrants to the U.S. In
general, we conclude that Boas got it right. However, we demonstrate that modern
analytical methods provide stronger support for Boas’s conclusion than did the tools at
his disposal.

http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ufruss/documents/boaspaper.pdf
so you are using methods discarded 100 years ago.
Quit it it makes you look dumb. :lol: :lol:

maybe you could change the subject to baseball I know jack-sh!t about baseball.

more sad news for both of us as I am a fan of neanderthal sapiens admixture
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt207073.html

to applies to your buddies the Melanesian and their Australian cousins as well.
You know what this suggests Europeans and dudes in the antipodes got their manly brows
from the same store. :lol: :lol:




Oh I see............Them melaneezhins, they be caucayzhuns n shiit! :lmao:







Overall, the shape of the human skull, whether quantified using linear measurements or three-dimensional landmarks, reflects population history to a large degree [1–9]. Much of the microevolutionary history of this region, in particular the temporal bone and upper face, has involved largely neutral mechanisms and therefore reflects population history.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

18 Aug 2012, 1:55 am

wogaboo wrote:
For the purposes of this discussion, I would define functional DNA as any DNA that is known to code for a known physical or mental trait.

You need to do a little background study on DNA: specifically, educate yourself on genes, promoters, and operators, epigentics, and what 'coding' and 'non-coding' mean. You might specifically look into the research of the last 5 years or so on DNA methylation, and the differences between genetically-determined and epigenetically-determined phenotypes.

edit: a couple of widely-publicized papers on the topic recently:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/12/144/abstract
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/inf ... en.1001316

If you're into books, a good popular-press book is Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

18 Aug 2012, 8:05 am

AspieRogue wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:


I am using that old of reference to show just how out of date your thinking is.
You might as well be citing phrenology books.

But since you are much to slow to understand this.
Heredity, Environment, and Cranial Form:
A Reanalysis of Boas’s Immigrant Data
(Gravlee et al 2003)
Quote:
ABSTRACT
Franz Boas’s classic study, Changes in bodily form of descendants of
immigrants, is a landmark in the history of anthropology. More than any single study, it
undermined racial typology in physical anthropology and helped turn the tide against
early-20th century scientific racism. In 1928, Boas responded to critics of the immigrant
study by publishing the raw data set as Materials for the Study of Inheritance in Man.
Here we present a reanalysis of that long-neglected data set. Using methods that were
unavailable to Boas, we test his main conclusion that cranial form changed in response to
environmental influences within a single generation of European immigrants to the U.S. In
general, we conclude that Boas got it right. However, we demonstrate that modern
analytical methods provide stronger support for Boas’s conclusion than did the tools at
his disposal.

http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ufruss/documents/boaspaper.pdf
so you are using methods discarded 100 years ago.
Quit it it makes you look dumb. :lol: :lol:

maybe you could change the subject to baseball I know jack-sh!t about baseball.

more sad news for both of us as I am a fan of neanderthal sapiens admixture
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt207073.html

to applies to your buddies the Melanesian and their Australian cousins as well.
You know what this suggests Europeans and dudes in the antipodes got their manly brows
from the same store. :lol: :lol:




Oh I see............Them melaneezhins, they be caucayzhuns n shiit! :lmao:







Overall, the shape of the human skull, whether quantified using linear measurements or three-dimensional landmarks, reflects population history to a large degree [1–9]. Much of the microevolutionary history of this region, in particular the temporal bone and upper face, has involved largely neutral mechanisms and therefore reflects population history.


cool copy and paste without reading It. I guess you proved me and mainstream anthropology wrong. :lol:

The morphologies they are talking about are not the cephalic index .
That is the bullsh!t you keep saying brachycephalic, dolichocephalic,mesocephalic

the last anthropologist of reputation to use them was Carleton Coon an american who was actively racist and a segregationist. Ghostwriting racist pamphlets.
You are just looking dumber and dumber.

So is that your answer to may assertion that the brow is likely to have the same origin in Caucasians and Astroliods if the Erectus store was closed. But ignore that and call me stupid.
:lol:

If you can't keep up with the conversation maybe you should quit.
If you feel you need your inane arguments to be respected maybe I am not the one to be talking to.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


wogaboo
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 151

18 Aug 2012, 2:33 pm

I think I derailed this discussion by using the term junk DNA. Perhaps my arguments would have been more palatable had I instead spoke of neutral DNA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_mutation



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

18 Aug 2012, 3:19 pm

which is even worse.

the concept itself is valid but, due to our gap of knowledge and the indications of even the most inactive types we know to have an effect over time, means that in the end there are no purely "neutral DNA"

you might in the future find relatively small areas where that is true, at least at any fixed point in time, looked over llarger times it would still be hard to distinguish.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


wogaboo
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 151

18 Aug 2012, 4:57 pm

Oodain wrote:
which is even worse.

the concept itself is valid but, due to our gap of knowledge and the indications of even the most inactive types we know to have an effect over time, means that in the end there are no purely "neutral DNA"

you might in the future find relatively small areas where that is true, at least at any fixed point in time, looked over llarger times it would still be hard to distinguish.


Maybe there's no such thing as purely neutral DNA in the strictest sense, however when scientists calculate the genetic distance between different populations, I suspect they do so with a special effort to sample DNA that is RELATIVELY neutral (as far as they know).

My hypothesis is that if instead scientists intentionally tried to sample only the LEAST neutral DNA they could find, the genetic distance clusters that emerged would confirm much more closely to the 3 race theory of old.