Prevalence of Race related threads

[James R]

TheAlphaWolf:

Well, first off, using mtDNA on mixed people...

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

mtDNA is mitochondrial DNA, and it is only inherited (well, USUALLY. there are exceptions) though the mom. So let's say the people they tested were black, but their mom's mom's mom's mom's mom's mom's mom's mom was white, the mtDNA would be of a white person, regardless of anything else.

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?

secondly, using the junk DNA part is wrong. That's the part that doesn't code for polypeptides, so as far as I know there's no natural selection on them.

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".

Testing junk DNA only tests for ancestry, not for races per se. Races came about because of natural selection (you need to be dark in the tropics because of the UV, etc). Also, since I'm not sure if they actually only tested junk mtDNA... if they did test for actual genes, mtDNA codes for proteins needed in cellular respiration, something that every organism does, and when something is that important, there is not a lot of variety.

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.

That's why there are different races- different natural pressures. Given enough time, a white population will become darker and darker in the tropics.

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

A race isn't just skin color, it's also eye shape, hair texture, hair color, height, and many other things.

Yes. All superficial features.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

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

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.

Doesn't that tend to confirm that superficial differences don't mirror an underlying genetic truth, then?

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.

If you can look black yet have "white mtDNA", are you really black or white, genetically speaking?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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?)

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

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.

Yes. All superficial features.

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.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

inbred or purebred.

 

[James R]

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...

mtDNA codes for NONE of the things that are used to identify races.

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.

If you can look black yet have "white mtDNA", are you really black or white, genetically speaking?

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.

Ok.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[android]

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.

Again:

Q: Isn’t there actually more genetic distance between populations within the traditional human races than between the major races themselves?

In 1972, Richard Lewontin studied global variation at seventeen protein polymorphisms,[69] and found that about 85% of genetic variation existed between individuals within a given population. The next largest portion, about 8%, was found between populations within continents, with the remaining 6% of variance attributable to differences between the major human races (Fig. 2). The ~85% within-population figure has been affirmed numerous times, while the relative size of the other components of variance probably depends on the specific populations chosen for analysis, and is often the reverse of Lewontin's findings. In any event, many data sets have been assembled since 1972 for classical polymorphisms and all other genetic markers, and as a general rule, populations within continents are more closely related to one another than they are to the populations of other continents. This pattern can be seen in any matrix of global genetic distances, such as those assembled by Cavalli-Sforza et al. in The History and Geography of Human Genes.

Population genetic studies often report AMOVA statistics (Analysis of MOlecular VAriance), which show the hierarchical proportions of variance between aggregates of the individuals sampled. The following is a discussion of worldwide data on autosomal microsatellites and RFLPs, Alu insertions, mtDNA and Y chromosome STRPs:

“The hierarchical AMOVA analysis shows that, with the exception of Y STRPs, all systems show much less differentiation between populations within continents than between continents. This result is expected when there is greater gene flow between populations that are in close geographic proximity to one another. The autosomal values…are especially small, ranging from 1.3% for the RSPs to 1.8% for the Alu polymorphisms. This is in agreement with the small continental GST values shown in table 4…they are highly consistent both with one another and with previous analyses of worldwide variation in autosomal microsatellites and RFLPs, which also show considerably greater differentiation between continents than between populations within continents... The fact that there is little differentiation between populations within continents has important implications in the forensic setting, in that it supports the current practice of grouping reference populations into broad ethnic categories when autosomal STRP data are used...” [73] (Fig. 3)

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:

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

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.

Yeah, and it's also unreliable to find similarities between two people because it is completely ignoring all the important parts.

As I say, race is a fairly superficial label that people assign purely on the basis of outward appearance.

Exactly.

So, whichever section you look at will be tiny in comparison to the whole.

Well yeah, but my point is that they're completely ignoring the nuclear DNA, what codes for the differences between races.

Yet racists claim that those tiny parts mean huge differences between different racial groups. That seems obviously wrong, doesn't it?

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 ... I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence or any of the important parts.

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.

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.

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!

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.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

In 1972, Richard Lewontin studied global variation at seventeen protein polymorphisms,[69]..........

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.

 

[android]

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

You failed to read this:

In any event, many data sets have been assembled since 1972 for classical polymorphisms and all other genetic markers, and as a general rule, populations within continents are more closely related to one another than they are to the populations of other continents.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

quote those then. I have never seen a recent biological study showing subspecies in humans.

 

[android]

I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence or any of the important parts.

Hmm:

References to the subject from the 60s and 70s typically gave Africans an IQ much like African Americans, thus Jensen (1973) wrote: "We do know that studies of the intelligence of Negroes in Africa have found them to average at least one sigma below Europeans on a variety of tests" (p. 66). Lynn (1978) is no exception. It wasn't until 1991, that Lynn had revised this estimate dramatically to minus 2 standard deviations, which has been the source of much anger and controversy ever since. Well, the current volume drops it a little bit lower even, to an IQ of 67 as the median score from 57 studies collected from 18 different African countries. Similarly, the average IQ of black populations from 6 locations in Latin America and the Caribbean is 71. This is virtually the same as the score for Ethiopians in Israel. In developed, predominately white countries, a second cluster of scores emerge for black Africans. African-Americans, of course, score about 85, while the median IQ from 20 studies of blacks in Britain is 86. Similarly, West Africans from the Dutch Antilles living in the Netherlands were found to have an IQ of 85.

(source)

 

[android]

quote those then.

It's someone else's book review. I think they expect you to be smart enough to read two sentences ahead.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

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

this is a bookreview?????

 

[android]

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

this is a bookreview?????

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.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

there is only one link.

 

[android]

In that message, yes - see the message 5 below it (the book review).

 

[firecross]

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.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Multiracialists are Crazy

That sure is a nice objective title of that article.

From an objective website:

National Vanguard is what you've been looking for: an intelligent and responsible organization that stands up for the interests of White people.

 

[leopold]

The biological concept of race . . . has no basis in science.
Dr. Harold Freeman, Celera Genomics Corp., quoted in the SJ Mercury, "Race not seen as factor in variation of genetic code,"
http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/misc/race.html

 

[J.B]

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.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

are you black?