Prevalence of Race related threads

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by thefountainhed, Jan 16, 2006.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,948
    TheAlphaWolf:

    Everybody's mixed, though. There aren't any "purebreed" people on Earth, in terms of race. Are there?

    Doesn't that tend to confirm that superficial differences don't mirror an underlying genetic truth, then? If you can look black yet have "white mtDNA", are you really black or white, genetically speaking? Or is such as distinction, dare I say it, biologically meaningless?

    Nevertheless, the degree to which the mtDNA is similar must relate to how far back any two people shared a common female ancestor. More commonalities mean a common ancestor less removed. Therefore, the fact that a person from Tanzania may have more in common with a white American than with a fellow Tanzanian shows that, despite superficial differences in skin colour, the closer "deep" relationship is between the people of different "races".

    The point of using mtDNA, I thought, was precisely because there is less variance among different individuals. Geneticists therefore find it a useful tool to estimate how long ago two people who shared a common ancestor split from each other. Generally, I think they look at (and count) single base transpositions as a method for establishing relatedness.

    Yes, provided it doesn't move around. But humans have been moving around more and more, especially over the past 2000 years or so.

    Yes. All superficial features.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    sure there are. Maybe they're much more rare in places like the united states, but there are plenty of "purebreed" people on earth. They live from small little villages with no contact to the outside world, to cultures that frown upon breeding with outsiders.
    in a way, yes, with certain genes. The thing I have a problem with is the kind of genes they used. mtDNA codes for NONE of the things that are used to identify races. it doesn't code for anything except SOME things needed for cellular respiration, something every living thing has to do in order to live. No height genes, no blood type genes (which have nothing to do with race but I'm just giving examples of what they don't code for), no hair genes, no brain genes, no muscle genes, just mitochondrial genes.
    they're mixed. Like I said, there's no reason to assign people one or the other. It simply doesn't work that way. They're mixed, and that's that.
    no, it doesn't. mtDNA is just a ridiculously tiny portion of the DNA in a cell. The vast majority of the DNA in the cell is in the nucleus, so first of all, taking a really tiny portion of a tiny portion (they didn't fully sequence all the mtDNA), of the genome is ridiculous in itself, and the fact that that tiny portion of the tiny portion is (usually) ONLY inherited through the mom just makes it even worse.
    Well, single base transpositions are impossible. Transposons need start sequences and everything...you're talking about single base mutations.
    Ok, it IS used to find a common ancestor. I'm not arguing that (well... actually... it's not as reliable as once thought since SOMETIMES the mtDNA is inherited by the father, but that's another discussion... although... I guess... yeah, the common ancestor part is right. lol... I'm thinking about mitochondrial eve, in which that technique doesn't work because they were trying to specifically find the FEMALE common ancestor.. but anyway...)
    Oh yeah, having a common ancestor a relatively short time ago doesn't mean that OVERALL your DNA in your cell is more similar/different. (blah, that sentence was incredibly incoherent, but I think you know what I mean?)
    True, but the people that move are usually just a very small percentage of the big population. And with some big exceptions (like the spanish coming to NA and breeding with the local population), they usually breed within their race. For example... sure, there are a lot of immigrants in the US, but how often do you really see a white guy with a short chinese girl or something? moving around does nothing if the two populations don't interbreed.
    That's because it's how races are identified. Race IS a superficial feature.
    That's not to say there aren't other similarities we can't see though.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    inbred or purebred.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,948
    TheAlphaWolf:

    I think we must be reaching a consensus, because I'm losing the thread of why our argumentary differences are important in the context of the thread...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So, what you seem to be saying is that although mtDNA can indicate ancestry, it is an unreliable indicator of which "race" is assigned to somebody. Therefore, race is not really related that closely to ancestry, as the racists would like to claim. As I say, race is a fairly superficial label that people assign purely on the basis of outward appearance.

    Ok.

    Any two humans will share well over 99% of their total DNA sequence (mtDNA and nuclear DNA). So, whichever section you look at will be tiny in comparison to the whole. The particular parts which DO affect outward appearance must be a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction. Yet racists claim that those tiny parts mean huge differences between different racial groups. That seems obviously wrong, doesn't it?

    Doesn't it? I thought that, in the ordinary course of events, that would be exactly what it meant. For example, I share 50% of the variation in my DNA with each of my parents, but only 25% with my neice. Obviously, I'm more closely related to my parents, and the DNA confirms that.

    Agreed. But I think the amount of interbreeding has been more than sufficient to effectively destroy any "purity" certain human genepools would have had, even 200 years ago.
     
  8. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    Again:

    http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

    The reason there are so many race topics is that, by opinions of the mods and many others, race is taboo.

    But that's changing.

    My advice is not to fight race, or distinctions between races, but fight bigotry. Nationalism isn't bigotry. Hatin' on people is obvious however, and it serves neither nationalists nor anyone else well, at all!

    :m:
     
  9. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    Yeah, and it's also unreliable to find similarities between two people because it is completely ignoring all the important parts.
    Exactly.
    Well yeah, but my point is that they're completely ignoring the nuclear DNA, what codes for the differences between races.
    Depends how you define huge differences. Racists may think skin color, height, eye/nose shape, etc are huge differences... but I doubt that's what you mean

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ... I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence or any of the important parts.
    In this case no, as the common ancestor may be really far back. The mtDNA may remain relatively intact, but the nuclear DNA would have been "dilluted" time after time.
    Agreed. Science shouldn't be influenced by politics.
    ... although you could use science to disprove the claims of bigots... but you need to do it right.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2006
  10. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    1972...what a recent study. Molecular biology didn't even exist. PCR was non-existent (1983). Sequencing didn't exist (1977).

    haha...

    Thanks for the laugh.
     
  11. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    You failed to read this:

     
  12. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    quote those then. I have never seen a recent biological study showing subspecies in humans.
     
  13. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    Hmm:

    (source)
     
  14. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    It's someone else's book review. I think they expect you to be smart enough to read two sentences ahead.
     
  15. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
  16. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    The other link is a book review. That's a FAQ, but the topic cited is a review of historical evidence, hence it starts with 1972.
     
  17. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    there is only one link.
     
  18. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    In that message, yes - see the message 5 below it (the book review).
     
  19. firecross Scientist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    104
    A scientifically valid, but someone race-obsessed debunking of ideological propaganda on genetics is at http://nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7599. Of most interest is a good chart from The History and Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza that shows clusterings by racial affiliations rather than a tendency towards a middle point.

    There is also a good explanation of the trickery used in the argument that "Differences within races are greater than the differences between races, therefore race is a useless concept."

    If that source wasn't so interested in bashing black people it would be a notable reference for these threads.
     
  20. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    That sure is a nice objective title of that article.

    From an objective website:

     
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
  22. J.B Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,281
    You know what it is about black folks I like?

    Blacks know there a race of people and they act as a race of people, and there not going to let any weak, scared ass liberal honkys tell them different.
     
  23. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    are you black?
     

Share This Page