 |
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
I dont know who Albert Jacquard is, or what a distance function between individuals in many-dimension space is, but I do know that I spend a large part of my day thinking about human and bacterial genes in disease. Given how few genes we actually know anything about, I have to wonder just how deep the bullshit is in many-dimension space! |
Everything looks complicated when you don't know about it.
To someone in 1650, genes seemed about as bullshit-full as you could go don't you think?
What about these atoms, LOL!!
Say you graph a distribution of ppl along a characteristic say height.
Wo we have a graph reprensenting how many ppl are of each height, sort of like a bar-graph.
Now do the same thing for 2 characteristics.
Now you would need 3 dimensions. Like you see on TV or computer sometimes, a plane, with bars above it.
Do the same with more characteristics and yeah you got multi dimensional distribution of ppl.
etc..
You dont need to know anything about genes to understand this, which is a point ppl often miss about mathematics.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I asked what the biological definition of race was in class. My teacher told me that race was non-interbreeding members of the same species. Since all of the supposed races of humanity interbreed, it seems that this definition hardly fits us. |
Come on man! That is obviously a false definition of race. Nobody (except crazy people like your teacher) would ever seriously think that to be an accurate definition because practically nobody understands it to mean that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
Though not a mathematician, I was being facetious about not understanding the concept of multi-dimension analysis. We've used principle component analysis to describe some of my work. A mathematical model is only as good as the data used to create it. If you know nothing about genes, how good will the model be? I can easily name 10 genes (or expressions of unknown genes) that would define a huge segment of an african population compared to say a northern european one. Perhaps Albert Jacquard was unaware of them? |
Go ahead.
They would not 'define" im almost certain
yes there propable be a very big statiscal difference between the populations.
But I am certain that there would be thousand of Africans closer to the european average for this gene than thousands of Europeans, which is what weve been saying.
Skin colour an example.
I know there are veryspecific examples, like some proteins in the blood and so and so.
But if we take the populations beforhand, say africans or europeans, or to make it easier for you Tuti and Irish, you would be hard press to find 10 genes that DEFINE Them (as in all tutis are in your boundary, and no danish, no exception).
your claim is basically taht you could declare if someone is african or european based on jsut looking at 10 genes with 100% accuracy.
We both know this to be extreme.
Where we might disagree, is that even if you try to restrict it to something a bit more particular like anything commonly viewed as a race or an ethny (tutis or whatever), this test will still fail to reach 100%.
That you could reach in the high 98-99 I agree.
But then just looking at skin colou might work but we all see where the problem is, that is not a definition, just a statistical difference.
Last edited by on 04-03-2004 at 03:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
I'm certain that race exists. NASCAR is really big around here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LulThyme
Go ahead.
They would not 'define" im almost certain
yes there propable be a very big statiscal difference between the populations.
But I am certain that there would be thousand of Africans closer to the european average for this gene than thousands of Europeans, which is what weve been saying.
Skin colour an example.
I know there are veryspecific examples, like some proteins in the blood and so and so.
But if we take the populations beforhand, say africans or europeans, or to make it easier for you Tuti and Irish, you would be hard press to find 10 genes that DEFINE Them (as in all tutis are in your boundary, and no danish, no exception).
your claim is basically taht you could declare if someone is african or european based on jsut looking at 10 genes with 100% accuracy.
We both know this to be extreme.
Where we might disagree, is that even if you try to restrict it to something a bit more particular like anything commonly viewed as a race or an ethny (tutis or whatever), this test will still fail to reach 100%.
That you could reach in the high 98-99 I agree.
But then just looking at skin colou might work but we all see where the problem is, that is not a definition, just a statistical difference. |
100% accuracy would be impossible based on our limited knowledge of our genes (to date). It's ridiculus to boldly assert though that we could not find such differences. Would it to surprise you that in my own work I was able to identify (blinded) every african american in a small population of 30 or so test subjects based upon some gene products I was studying. Race is a subjective definition, so yes I could easily define a set of genetic characteristics that defines tutsis from gaels.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
And nobody but a crazy person would believe that being born to African parents makes you less intelligent or cultured than if you were born to, say, Faroese or Italian parents.
Or that Jews spread typhus and eat gentile children because they're Jews and that's what the 'Jewish race' does.
People will believe the craziest things. |
I completely agree with everything you said here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
100% accuracy would be impossible based on our limited knowledge of our genes (to date). It's ridiculus to boldly assert though that we could not find such differences. Would it to surprise you that in my own work I was able to identify (blinded) every african american in a small population of 30 or so test subjects based upon some gene products I was studying. Race is a subjective definition, so yes I could easily define a set of genetic characteristics that defines tutsis from gaels. |
You are right, that this is possible.
But recent research shows that the genetic differences between population is not as simple as we once thought.
It has in fact led historians to revise some migration rates upward.
You are talking about a population of 30.
I said that 99% rate and up was doable, and this is what this corresponds to.
And even then you need to use genetical markers that have almost nothing to do with anything that could be used as a street definition of race.
I agreed with you that useful concepts of race were used by making population geneticists....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
And has nothing to do with wealth and poverty, and the distribution of swimming facilities in non-Western white dominated industrialized societies.
Yawn.
Whites must be 'naturally' better at tennis then. |
Apparently it's got something to do with the density and length of muscle tissue, differences in metabolism and the length nerve synapses etc. But hey! Who am I to correct your ignorance of science and evolutionary adaptation.
Here's an interview by an ethicist:
quote:
March 31, 2000
Interview by David W. Miller
In sports that place a premium on leaping, sprinting, or endurance running, writes Jon Entine, a journalist, athletes of African ancestry rule. They hold the world track records at every distance, they have run the 200 fastest times in 100-meter races, and they constitute 90 percent of NBA players and 70 percent Of NFL players. Mr. Entine lays out the scientific evidence that genes give those athletes a physiological edge: People of West African origin tend to have less body fat, longer calves, and more "fast-twitch muscles" than other population groups; East African distance runners have slimmer builds, larger lungs, and more "energy producing" enzymes, Unfortunately, he writes, many people interpret comments about "natural ability" as racist: More brawn must mean less brain.
Q. Is the link between genes and athletic performance controversial among scholars?
A. It's controversial among sociologists and anthropologists. It's not controversial among hard scientists, geneticists, who understand that there is a biological component to almost every aspect of what it means to be human.
Q. What do you make of the idea that, as President Clinton recently suggested, our racial differences are insignificant because human beings have 99.9 percent of DNA in common?
A. What he was attempting to say was that, scientifically, it's not significant, and that's naive. The significant difference between populations and people is not the overall percentage of the human genome, but the regulatory genes that really matter. In fact, we share 98.4 percent of our genome with chimpanzees, and 95 percent with dogs, and 57 percent with microscopic flatworms. It's not really important how many genes make up the difference, but how critical those genes are, and do they affect certain functional parts of being human. In the case of physiology and body type, it's absolutely critical.
Q. You don't seem concerned that pointing to racial differences in physiology opens the door to considering racial differences in intelligence.
A. It's not that I'm not concerned, I just don't think the slope is so slippery. I don't think the science says that you can look at intelligence the way you look at crossing the finish line. We know that when an athlete crosses the finish line first, he's the winner; everyone else is not as good. But intelligence is a far more complex, amorphous subject, and I don't think it necessarily breaks down by population.
Q. Are socioeconomic issues irrelevant to explaining why black people dominate professional sports?
A. No one would suggest that socioeconomic factors don't play a huge role in professional sports. There are very few white Mississippians and Alabamans playing in the National Hockey League. That's a social and a cultural barrier as well. You can only play sports that you have an opportunity to play, that you have the economic wherewithal to play. There is a racist tendency by well-meaning people, black and white, to suggest that black success can be explained largely by a desire to dribble one's way out of the ghetto. Most black athletes, as most athletes, are successful because of who they are, not where they came from. There are a tremendous number of incredibly successful middle- and upper-middle-class black athletes, and white athletes, and Asian athletes.
Copyright Chronicle of Higher Education Mar 31, 2000
|
I think it's ridiculous to ignore scientific differences which contribute to high performance.
Jesse Owens ability to run faster than anyone else punched a big hole in Hitler's racial myths.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The only area I can see race as a real factor is sport. Different races excel at different events because of physical difference.
For example, swimming is dominated by caucasians because of muscular adaption for endurance. |
Also because blacks have denser, and therefore heavier, bones.
*cue boner joke*
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Okay, here's the dichotomy you have. Either race is a scientific concept or not.
If race is a biological fact then we need a biological definition. There is a biological definition of race (which I stated previously) and it clearly does not to apply to humans. This leads to a simple conclusion. Humans are not divided into biologically different races.
"The definition that almost everyone understands," which you offer (but do not define) is not a scientific concept. It is a social concept , i.e., a definition by society. No mater how you twist and squirm, you cannot get around that fundimental fact. Your definition of race is social, not scientific, and thus it is arbitrary, and thus meaningless. |
Your 'biological' definition is meaningless because almost nobody uses the term 'race' defined in this way. You need to ask yourself why your teacher defined it in this way. Do you think it's 'logical' or 'scientific' to exempt human beings from biological classification and the laws of evolution that apply to all other life forms?? Perhaps he was a religious fundamentalist and believes that man was created in the image and likeness of God.
Race is biological because the traits we observe to be common among certain groups of people are inherited and therefore biological. To observe group differences and categorize them is scientific. So in that way race is a social concept, yes, but the differences would still be there even if we didn't observe them. Therefore race is a scientific concept.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caligastia
Your 'biological' definition is meaningless because almost nobody uses the term 'race' defined in this way. |
A scientific definition is not meaningless because it is not a common definition. If anything, the common definition is meaningless because it is not scientific.
quote:
You need to ask yourself why your teacher defined it in this way. |
Probably because this the biological definition of race.
quote:
Do you think it's 'logical' or 'scientific' to exempt human beings from biological classification and the laws of evolution that apply to all other life forms?? |
Certainly not, but if the definition doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. Your problem, however, is that the biological definition of race does account for evolution and it is a biological classification. It is the biological classification of race. According to this biological classification, there is only one race among humans.
quote:
Race is biological because the traits we observe to be common among certain groups of people are inherited and therefore biological. |
Inherited characteristics is biological, yes. The inheritited characteristics which you use to create a classification of race, however, are socially determined, not scientifically. You say, different colored skin makes a race. Skin color is arbitrary, and highly variable, and it changes even within the same individuals. Nor are there distinct demarcations that can be drawn.
Scientists say race is defined by breeding populations. Breeding populations are not arbitrary. Either the animals will breed or they won't. Even dogs don't have seperate races, and there is far more variablity between dogs then between humans.
quote:
To observe group differences and categorize them is scientific. |
Not necessarily. Aristitotle put crocodiles and watermelons in the same catagory of things, because they were both green. That was hardly scientific.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A scientific definition is not meaningless because it is not a common definition. If anything, the common definition is meaningless because it is not scientific. |
This 'scientific' definition simply tries to do away with the term 'race'. It's bogus, so stop acting as if it's legitimate. Within the formal taxonomic nomenclature of biology, races are termed 'subspecies'. Your teacher was trying to apply the species concept to the term 'race'.
quote:
Probably because this the biological definition of race. |
Nope. Race is the term zoologists use to describe a variety or subdivision of a species. Each race (or variety) is characterized by a more or less distinct combination of inherited morphological, behavioral, physiological traits. In flowers, insects, and non-human mammals, zoologists consistently and routinely study the process of racial differentiation. The formation of a new race takes place when, over several generations, individuals in one group reproduce more frequently among themselves than they do with individuals in other groups.
If it makes you feel better we could use the term subspecies instead, but we would still be talking about the same thing.
quote:
Certainly not, but if the definition doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. Your problem, however, is that the biological definition of race does account for evolution and it is a biological classification. It is the biological classification of race. According to this biological classification, there is only one race among humans. |
As I explained above, you are simply lumping the term 'race' in with the concept of species. Races are not species, they are subspecies. Two very different things. Different species cannot reproduce together, but different subspecies can.
quote:
Inherited characteristics is biological, yes. The inheritited characteristics which you use to create a classification of race, however, are socially determined, not scientifically. You say, different colored skin makes a race. Skin color is arbitrary, and highly variable, and it changes even within the same individuals. Nor are there distinct demarcations that can be drawn. |
Asians and Africans consistently aggregate at opposite ends, with Europeans intermediate, on a continuum that includes many anatomical and social variables. These variables include fertility, personality, temperament, speed of maturation, and longevity. If race were an arbitrary, socially-constructed concept, with no biological meaning, these consistent relationships would not exist.
quote:
Scientists say race is defined by breeding populations. Breeding populations are not arbitrary. Either the animals will breed or they won't. Even dogs don't have seperate races |
Wrong. Zoologists have identified two or more races (subspecies) in most mammalian species.
quote:
Not necessarily. Aristitotle put crocodiles and watermelons in the same catagory of things, because they were both green. That was hardly scientific. |
While it reveals the crudeness of the knowledge of the time, the method was still scientific.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, but it shows that such groups are arbitrarily determined, throwing together people sharing superficial charateristics while seperating people with deeper shared characteristics. |
Those with shared superficial charateristics also have shared 'deeper' characteristics.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
I think "race", by the socially accept definition of it, is similar to "sex".... Women behave differently, think differently, and have different medical complication. The same is true for people of different nationality/origon/"race"... That is undenaiable, it is fact, and has nothing to do with social constructs. Intellignece and willpower are not apart of this.
The medication I make, pharmacist dispense, and people recieve all have such indications. Thus, IMO, it is scientific fact that "race" exists.
This makes ppl of other races no less human than those of your own, but then that is a species. It makes them no less inteligent, but then that is a species trait. It makes them no less capable, but then that is a species ability (learned or not).... The only thing we NEED to recognize is that a difference exists, and that that difference has physical and medical differneces.
My spelling suks today.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-03-2004 01:48
|