Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is race real or is it just a human invention?

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

Previous topic | Next topic

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.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Aug 2012, 5:05 pm

wogaboo wrote:
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.


There is still a problem of selection bias.
even if they solved that.
I think they would find 7 to 28 racial clusters that look nothing anything Carleton_S._Coon ever dreamed of.


_________________
?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/


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Aug 2012, 5:08 pm

wogaboo wrote:
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

FFS, dude, a neutral mutation can take place anywhere in the genome- even within a gene-coding section. 'Neutral mutations' can, for example, substitute one nucleic acid for another that does not change the amino acid that is 'read' by the ribosome, as there is some codon redundancy. This does NOT mean that the DNA at that point is 'neutral' for phenotype or even for genotype.

Please, please, if you want to argue genetics, get yourself a recent (5 years or younger) textbook of basic genetics and then come back to us.



wogaboo
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

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

18 Aug 2012, 5:42 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
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.


There is still a problem of selection bias.
even if they solved that.
I think they would find 7 to 28 racial clusters that look nothing anything Carleton_S._Coon ever dreamed of.


The only selection bias is that they should select the DNA that matters most, based on objective criteria.

Btw is coon the father of the 3 race theory? I thought he proposed 5 races: mongoloid, caucasoid, australoid, congoid and capoid. I can't seem to find if and where the 3 race theory originated but I've always loved it. Maybe it even comes from the bible.



AspieRogue

18 Aug 2012, 6:05 pm

From the article linked in my prior post:


Quote:
. Research into the relationship between cranial morphology and genetic relationships in humans is a crucial step in this process; however, the assumption that the patterns characterizing Homo sapiens will also apply to nonhuman species has not been tested. Future studies investigating similar factors in other catarhine primates can elucidate this question by using phylogenetic bracketing.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Aug 2012, 6:20 pm

wogaboo wrote:
The only selection bias is that they should select the DNA that matters most, based on objective criteria.

'DNA that matters most...'
for what? there is DNA that is highly conserved for every single eukaryotic organism on the planet, and there is DNA that varies from one person to the next; some of it controls outward appearance, some of it controls brain characteristics, and some of it likely influences personality, but we don't know much about that yet. What aspects do you consider most important for 'race,' the shape of the skull? The phylogeny? The brain? All of these things could be found with some degree of objectivity (phylogeny is what current anthropology is based on), depending on what the researchers found most important.



wogaboo
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

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

18 Aug 2012, 6:38 pm

LKL wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
The only selection bias is that they should select the DNA that matters most, based on objective criteria.

'DNA that matters most...'
for what? there is DNA that is highly conserved for every single eukaryotic organism on the planet, and there is DNA that varies from one person to the next; some of it controls outward appearance, some of it controls brain characteristics, and some of it likely influences personality, but we don't know much about that yet. What aspects do you consider most important for 'race,' the shape of the skull? The phylogeny? The brain? All of these things could be found with some degree of objectivity (phylogeny is what current anthropology is based on), depending on what the researchers found most important.


Mattered most for genetic fitness



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Aug 2012, 6:46 pm

^in what environment?



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Aug 2012, 6:47 pm

wogaboo wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
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.


There is still a problem of selection bias.
even if they solved that.
I think they would find 7 to 28 racial clusters that look nothing anything Carleton_S._Coon ever dreamed of.


The only selection bias is that they should select the DNA that matters most, based on objective criteria.

Btw is coon the father of the 3 race theory? I thought he proposed 5 races: mongoloid, caucasoid, australoid, congoid and capoid. I can't seem to find if and where the 3 race theory originated but I've always loved it. Maybe it even comes from the bible.


Coon it turn out ghost wrote pro-segregation propaganda. He was the last major anthropologist to do the cephalic index thing and the last purely racist proponent of race theory working in the field.

3-races prolly goes back to Shem Ham and Japeth so it is biblical like a lot of silly things tend to be. Sorry if that came out ad hom.


_________________
?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: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

18 Aug 2012, 6:59 pm

wogaboo wrote:
LKL wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
The only selection bias is that they should select the DNA that matters most, based on objective criteria.

'DNA that matters most...'
for what? there is DNA that is highly conserved for every single eukaryotic organism on the planet, and there is DNA that varies from one person to the next; some of it controls outward appearance, some of it controls brain characteristics, and some of it likely influences personality, but we don't know much about that yet. What aspects do you consider most important for 'race,' the shape of the skull? The phylogeny? The brain? All of these things could be found with some degree of objectivity (phylogeny is what current anthropology is based on), depending on what the researchers found most important.


Mattered most for genetic fitness


and we are getting even vaguer,

in the sense of modern man there is very few variables we even have a chance of understanding today, much less make even a dodgy guess at what constitutes genetic fitness in that context.


_________________
//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, 7:03 pm

LKL wrote:
^in what environment?


In the environment they lived in



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Aug 2012, 7:08 pm

wogaboo wrote:
LKL wrote:
^in what environment?


In the environment they lived in

"they" being whom?



wogaboo
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

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

18 Aug 2012, 7:13 pm

LKL wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
LKL wrote:
^in what environment?


In the environment they lived in

"they" being whom?


They being the life forms that are being classified



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Aug 2012, 7:14 pm

Oodain wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
LKL wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
The only selection bias is that they should select the DNA that matters most, based on objective criteria.

'DNA that matters most...'
for what? there is DNA that is highly conserved for every single eukaryotic organism on the planet, and there is DNA that varies from one person to the next; some of it controls outward appearance, some of it controls brain characteristics, and some of it likely influences personality, but we don't know much about that yet. What aspects do you consider most important for 'race,' the shape of the skull? The phylogeny? The brain? All of these things could be found with some degree of objectivity (phylogeny is what current anthropology is based on), depending on what the researchers found most important.


Mattered most for genetic fitness


and we are getting even vaguer,

in the sense of modern man there is very few variables we even have a chance of understanding today, much less make even a dodgy guess at what constitutes genetic fitness in that context.


actually and I may be going out on a limb here but natural section is a system for finding which genes are most important for genetic fitness. Unfortunately they would be the genes that are the most conservative. Sonic Hedgehog, NEK1 thing that if they where messed up you would be messed up.


_________________
?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, 7:24 pm

Oodain wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
LKL wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
The only selection bias is that they should select the DNA that matters most, based on objective criteria.

'DNA that matters most...'
for what? there is DNA that is highly conserved for every single eukaryotic organism on the planet, and there is DNA that varies from one person to the next; some of it controls outward appearance, some of it controls brain characteristics, and some of it likely influences personality, but we don't know much about that yet. What aspects do you consider most important for 'race,' the shape of the skull? The phylogeny? The brain? All of these things could be found with some degree of objectivity (phylogeny is what current anthropology is based on), depending on what the researchers found most important.


Mattered most for genetic fitness




and we are getting even vaguer,

in the sense of modern man there is very few variables we even have a chance of understanding today, much less make even a dodgy guess at what constitutes genetic fitness in that context.


Then how do scientists identify relatively neutral alleles (those ignored by natural selection) in modern humans? Skim genetic distance studies of race (sforza) and you'll see they calculate genetic distance based on neutral alleles.

If they can identify alleles that have been ignored by natural selection, why can't they do the opposite?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Aug 2012, 8:21 pm

wogaboo wrote:
LKL wrote:
wogaboo wrote:
LKL wrote:
^in what environment?


In the environment they lived in

"they" being whom?


They being the life forms that are being classified

Classification and determination of fitness are two differnt branches of genetics, which look at very different questions. If you're looking at what makes humans 'fit' overall, as a global population, then you're not going to be looking at any of the alleles or epiegenetic traits that separate one group of humans from another, by definition. If you do want to look at different populations of humans, then you have to look at how they are adapted to their individual environments. In either case, you aren't going to be looking at how different populations are related to each other, because that's a different question.