Racism - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is Racism a mark for a lack of education or intelligence?

Lack of Education
1
3%
Lack of Intelligence
3
8%
Both
11
28%
Neither
14
36%
Other
10
26%
User avatar
By Verv
#15008470
Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that you can see different skin colours does not provide a scientific basis for race.

And it is still vague.


(i) If radically different appearances, different average heights and weights, different congenital afflictions, different average levels of athletic prowess, etc. do not provide a "scientific basis for race," what would?

You are basically making a criteria where we would have to be different species.

(ii) The definition of what constitutes a 'shark' has been vague before, and there are still debates about which species are sharks.

Its vagueness isn't necessarily problematic.

Are you abandoning your old argument that the differences between the races are distinct and clear, and some races are clearly more advantageous to have around and that this is a rational reason for racism?

Yes or no?


I'd not be able to "abandon" the argument that differences exist between races.

The rest of it is largely constituted by you reading into it.
User avatar
By Politics_Observer
#15008474
Some of the Nazis of World War II had doctorate degrees. I think racism is not necessarily a mark of lack of education. Rather it's a lack of BOTH education and critical thinking skills TOGETHER. You get some people who are taught about our white supremacist history here in the United States and the fact that race based slavery was the root cause of the American Civil War for example and they still graduate college just as ignorant as they came in. However, education does help in combating ignorance but by itself it is not the total solution. I think BOTH critical thinking skills and education together is what combats racism. You can have a college education but if you choose to live in denial of facts or don't critically analyze the facts being presented to you very well, then you can still be racist. I think having a solid education and a program to develop critical thinking skills is essential to producing top notch citizens.
By Pants-of-dog
#15008491
Verv wrote:(i) If radically different appearances, different average heights and weights, different congenital afflictions, different average levels of athletic prowess, etc. do not provide a "scientific basis for race," what would?

You are basically making a criteria where we would have to be different species.


If you can provide scientific evidence that humans can be biologically classified into groups with the criteria you have listed here, I would consider you to have won this argument.

(ii) The definition of what constitutes a 'shark' has been vague before, and there are still debates about which species are sharks.

Its vagueness isn't necessarily problematic.


Actually, the vagueness of previous taxonomic paradigms has caused problems in the past that are only now being resolved with genetic information.

I'd not be able to "abandon" the argument that differences exist between races.

The rest of it is largely constituted by you reading into it.


I must have been confused when you were discussing how rational and not racist it was to believe some people were “less of a good choice of neighbors or a less good candidate for immigration”.

Do you think some groups of people are “less of a good choice of neighbors or a less good candidate for immigration”?
User avatar
By Verv
#15008666
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you can provide scientific evidence that humans can be biologically classified into groups with the criteria you have listed here, I would consider you to have won this argument.


It is not about winning or losing, it is about honest discussion.

What you are asking for is kind of interesting, though... The consensus of science has always been that humans can be divided into different groups, but I am guessing you are literally looking for a robust and recent defense of the category of "race" in very obvious terms.

Here are scientists in 2009 talking about how there are three basic races:

There is a simplicity and all-inclusiveness to the number three -- the triangle, the Holy Trinity, three peas in a pod. So it's perhaps not surprising that the Family of Man is divided that way, too.

All of Earth's people, according to a new analysis of the genomes of 53 populations, fall into just three genetic groups. They are the products of the first and most important journey our species made -- the walk out of Africa about 70,000 years ago by a small fraction of ancestral Homo sapiens.

One group is the African. It contains the descendants of the original humans who emerged in East Africa about 200,000 years ago. The second is the Eurasian, encompassing the natives of Europe, the Middle East and Southwest Asia (east to about Pakistan). The third is the East Asian, the inhabitants of Asia, Japan and Southeast Asia, and -- thanks to the Bering Land Bridge and island-hopping in the South Pacific -- of the Americas and Oceania as well.


Washington Post

But we all know that there are pushes to say that races do not exist but these all hinge on the problem of blurred lines between races.


Actually, the vagueness of previous taxonomic paradigms has caused problems in the past that are only now being resolved with genetic information.


How so?

What problems were created..?

Black and white people can be prescribed different medicine for their conditions because they have different reactions; black and white people have different sets of congenital diseases that affect them. Indeed, there are variations among white ethnic groups of congenital diseases that tend to affect them.

I must have been confused when you were discussing how rational and not racist it was to believe some people were “less of a good choice of neighbors or a less good candidate for immigration”.

Do you think some groups of people are “less of a good choice of neighbors or a less good candidate for immigration”?


Yes, of course. How could you not think like that?

How could you think that two population groups would be equal candidates for immigration, even if you did not believe in genetic basis for race?

But, of course, there are individuals within each nation that I am sure would qualify.
By Pants-of-dog
#15008688
Verv wrote:It is not about winning or losing, it is about honest discussion.


Okay.

If you provide scientific evidence for these criteria, then I will consider you to have said the truth. If you do not provide evidence, I will assume you simply parroted racist myths from yore.

What you are asking for is kind of interesting, though... The consensus of science has always been that humans can be divided into different groups, but I am guessing you are literally looking for a robust and recent defense of the category of "race" in very obvious terms.

Here are scientists in 2009 talking about how there are three basic races:

Washington Post

But we all know that there are pushes to say that races do not exist but these all hinge on the problem of blurred lines between races.


I am not sure if you stopped reading that article right after you read the bit above, or if you are being deliberately dishonest.

Here is the article in its entirety:

    Among Many Peoples, Little Genomic Variety

    By David Brown
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, June 22, 2009

    There is a simplicity and all-inclusiveness to the number three -- the triangle, the Holy Trinity, three peas in a pod. So it's perhaps not surprising that the Family of Man is divided that way, too.

    All of Earth's people, according to a new analysis of the genomes of 53 populations, fall into just three genetic groups. They are the products of the first and most important journey our species made -- the walk out of Africa about 70,000 years ago by a small fraction of ancestral Homo sapiens.

    One group is the African. It contains the descendants of the original humans who emerged in East Africa about 200,000 years ago. The second is the Eurasian, encompassing the natives of Europe, the Middle East and Southwest Asia (east to about Pakistan). The third is the East Asian, the inhabitants of Asia, Japan and Southeast Asia, and -- thanks to the Bering Land Bridge and island-hopping in the South Pacific -- of the Americas and Oceania as well.

    The existence of this ancient divergence has long been known.

    What is new is a subtle but important insight into what happened on a genomic level as the human species spilled across the landscape, eventually occupying every habitable part of the planet.

    People adapted to what they encountered the way all living organisms do: through natural selection. A small fraction of the mutations constantly creeping into our genes happened by chance to prove beneficial in the new circumstances outside the African homeland. Those included differences in climate, altitude, latitude, food availability, parasites, infectious diseases and lots of other things.

    A person who carried, by chance, a helpful mutation was more likely to survive and procreate than someone without it. The person's offspring would then probably be endowed with the same beneficial mutation. Over thousands of generations, the new variant (what geneticists call the "derived allele") could go from being rare to being common as its carriers fared better than their brethren and contributed more descendants to the population.

    Scientists have long known that regardless of ancestral home or ethnic group, everyone's genes are pretty much alike. We're all Homo sapiens. Everything else is pretty much details.

    Recent research has produced a surprise, however. Population geneticists expected to find dramatic differences as they got a look at the full genomes -- about 25,000 genes -- of people of widely varying ethnic and geographic backgrounds. Specifically, they expected to find that many ethnic groups would have derived alleles that their members shared but that were uncommon or nonexistent in other groups. Each regional, ethnic group or latitude was thought to have a genomic "signature" -- the record of its recent evolution through natural selection.

    But as analyses of genomes from dozens of distinct populations have rolled in -- French, Bantu, Palestinian, Yakut, Japanese -- that's not what scientists have found. Dramatic genome variation among populations turns out to be extremely rare.

    Instead, it is "random genetic drift" that appears to be more important in sculpting our genes. Drift describes the chance loss of genetic variation that occurred not only in the out-of-Africa migration, but through all of human history as famine, climate change or war caused populations to crash and then recover.

    Despite those calamities, it appears that all contemporary populations ended up largely the same, or only crudely distinguishable from one another, on the genome level.

    Of course, small variations can result in dramatic differences. Skin color is perhaps the most obvious.

    Vitamin D is made in the skin through a chemical reaction requiring ultraviolet light. Mutations in genes that lighten skin pigment -- at least a half-dozen have been found -- swept through populations as they moved away from the Equator and had less-constant sunlight.

    Among West Africans, a chance mutation in the blood protein hemoglobin turned out to partially protect against malaria. It rapidly became common in places where malaria was a huge threat to survival. Similarly, a mutation allowing adults to digest milk became valuable when Middle Easterners and Europeans domesticated cattle. About 90 percent of Scandinavians now carry it.

    Such clear ethnic distinctions are the exception, however, defying the expectations of many researchers. That may have been a product of the way scientists have studied genes over the last century.

    Bacteria, fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing organisms were (and still are) the workhorses of genetic research.

    When experimenters subject populations of them to extreme conditions, mutant genes can become pervasive in just a few generations.

    Not so for people, it appears.

    "When it comes to the question, 'What is the main process by which adaptation is happening?', the answers may be very different for humans and flies," said Jonathan K. Pritchard, a computational biologist at the University of Chicago. He is the senior author of a paper on the subject this month in the online journal PLoS Genetics.

    In human beings, natural selection appears to work most of the time on dozens of genes in small and hard-to-detect ways. In contrast to fruit flies in the lab, useful traits involving body size, immunity, metabolism and behavior do not come about because one or two genes become ascendant.

    The short stature of rain-forest dwellers such as the pygmies of central Africa, for example, appears not to be the product of a single derived allele for shortness carried by virtually everyone in the population. Instead, dozens of gene variants that slightly decrease height have each become slightly more common, and it is their total effect that results in the group's dramatically shorter stature.

    "Adaptations to the environment absolutely do occur," said Joseph K. Pickrell, a graduate student at the University of Chicago who, with Graham Coop of the University of California at Davis, co-authored the recent study. "But they don't occur according to this simple model that we and others have been looking for."

    Which brings us back to the tripartite Family of Man.

    When a small number of people left Africa 70,000 years ago, they carried with them only a sample of the genetic diversity that had evolved on that continent in the preceding 130,000 years.

    When the descendants of those migrants in turn divided into two groups 40,000 years ago, the westward-turning Eurasians and the eastward-turning East Asians each took by chance only some of the genetic diversity of their forebears.

    As a result, African populations today have greater genetic diversity -- more variants in more genes -- than Eurasians or East Asians, and Eurasians somewhat more than East Asians.

    But each had more than enough diversity for the trip.

So, the article actually shows how dividing humanity into three races is scientifically incorrect.

You just provided evidence that you were wrong.

How so?

What problems were created..?


Things like the number of species of dogs, or bears turned out to be wrong.

And of course, it inspired whole generations of racist people into thinking that the traditional races are actually real.

Black and white people can be prescribed different medicine for their conditions because they have different reactions; black and white people have different sets of congenital diseases that affect them. Indeed, there are variations among white ethnic groups of congenital diseases that tend to affect them.


How does this support whatever claim you are making now?

Yes, of course. How could you not think like that?

How could you think that two population groups would be equal candidates for immigration, even if you did not believe in genetic basis for race?

But, of course, there are individuals within each nation that I am sure would qualify.


Why are some population groups better than others? Because you have racist feels about them?
User avatar
By ThirdTerm
#15008698


This is a short summary of David Reich's book "Ancient DNA and Human Past": In human genetics, the old concept of race is replaced with ancestry or population, while we cannot deny the existence of genetic differences across populations. But ancestry is not synonymous with race and the term was born of an urgent need to discuss genetic differences between them with a precise language. The race vocabulary is too ill-defined for scientific discussions, loaded with historical baggage. I hope people will be more educated on genetics in the near future, which eventually solves the race problem. The existence of racial differences does not justify biological races in humans. In biological taxonomy, race is a rank below the level of subspecies. Humans may have evolved into different breeds having homogeneous appearance (phenotype) in the same species Homo in the last 50,000 years but not into human subspecies. Probably phenotypes or haplotypes are more appropriate terms to describe human diversity.

Abstract
Races may exist in humans in a cultural sense, but biological concepts of race are needed to access their reality in a non-species-specific manner and to see if cultural categories correspond to biological categories within humans. Modern biological concepts of race can be implemented objectively with molecular genetic data through hypothesis-testing. Genetic data sets are used to see if biological races exist in humans and in our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not. Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race. As a consequence, adaptive traits do not define races in humans. Much of the recent scientific literature on human evolution portrays human populations as separate branches on an evolutionary tree. A tree-like structure among humans has been falsified whenever tested, so this practice is scientifically indefensible. It is also socially irresponsible as these pictorial representations of human evolution have more impact on the general public than nuanced phrases in the text of a scientific paper. Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness and not race.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 31 May 2019 05:26, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
By Verv
#15008699
This is a short summary of David Reich's book "Ancient DNA and Human Past": In human genetics, the old concept of race is replaced with ancestry or population, while we cannot deny the existence of genetic differences across populations. But ancestry is not synonymous with race and the term was born of an urgent need to discuss genetic differences between them with a precise language. The race vocabulary is too ill-defined for scientific discussions, loaded with historical baggage. I hope people will be more educated on genetics in the near future, which eventually solves the race problem. The existence of racial differences does not justify biological races in humans.


Right! Sure, we can define things into ancestry and shared gene pools.

But this is ultimately what race already crudely corresponds to -- the issue being that some racial groups are so large that shared genetics is not as much as one would anticipate. The last common ancestors of a Filipino and a Korean would be very, very long ways back.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay.

If you provide scientific evidence for these criteria, then I will consider you to have said the truth. If you do not provide evidence, I will assume you simply parroted racist myths from yore.

...

I am not sure if you stopped reading that article right after you read the bit above, or if you are being deliberately dishonest.

Here is the article in its entirety:

    Among Many Peoples, Little Genomic Variety

    By David Brown
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, June 22, 2009

    There is a simplicity and all-inclusiveness to the number three -- the triangle, the Holy Trinity, three peas in a pod. So it's perhaps not surprising that the Family of Man is divided that way, too.

    All of Earth's people, according to a new analysis of the genomes of 53 populations, fall into just three genetic groups. They are the products of the first and most important journey our species made -- the walk out of Africa about 70,000 years ago by a small fraction of ancestral Homo sapiens.

    One group is the African. It contains the descendants of the original humans who emerged in East Africa about 200,000 years ago. The second is the Eurasian, encompassing the natives of Europe, the Middle East and Southwest Asia (east to about Pakistan). The third is the East Asian, the inhabitants of Asia, Japan and Southeast Asia, and -- thanks to the Bering Land Bridge and island-hopping in the South Pacific -- of the Americas and Oceania as well.

    The existence of this ancient divergence has long been known.

    What is new is a subtle but important insight into what happened on a genomic level as the human species spilled across the landscape, eventually occupying every habitable part of the planet.

    People adapted to what they encountered the way all living organisms do: through natural selection. A small fraction of the mutations constantly creeping into our genes happened by chance to prove beneficial in the new circumstances outside the African homeland. Those included differences in climate, altitude, latitude, food availability, parasites, infectious diseases and lots of other things.

    A person who carried, by chance, a helpful mutation was more likely to survive and procreate than someone without it. The person's offspring would then probably be endowed with the same beneficial mutation. Over thousands of generations, the new variant (what geneticists call the "derived allele") could go from being rare to being common as its carriers fared better than their brethren and contributed more descendants to the population.

    Scientists have long known that regardless of ancestral home or ethnic group, everyone's genes are pretty much alike. We're all Homo sapiens. Everything else is pretty much details.

    Recent research has produced a surprise, however. Population geneticists expected to find dramatic differences as they got a look at the full genomes -- about 25,000 genes -- of people of widely varying ethnic and geographic backgrounds. Specifically, they expected to find that many ethnic groups would have derived alleles that their members shared but that were uncommon or nonexistent in other groups. Each regional, ethnic group or latitude was thought to have a genomic "signature" -- the record of its recent evolution through natural selection.

    But as analyses of genomes from dozens of distinct populations have rolled in -- French, Bantu, Palestinian, Yakut, Japanese -- that's not what scientists have found. Dramatic genome variation among populations turns out to be extremely rare.

    Instead, it is "random genetic drift" that appears to be more important in sculpting our genes. Drift describes the chance loss of genetic variation that occurred not only in the out-of-Africa migration, but through all of human history as famine, climate change or war caused populations to crash and then recover.

    Despite those calamities, it appears that all contemporary populations ended up largely the same, or only crudely distinguishable from one another, on the genome level.

    Of course, small variations can result in dramatic differences. Skin color is perhaps the most obvious.

    Vitamin D is made in the skin through a chemical reaction requiring ultraviolet light. Mutations in genes that lighten skin pigment -- at least a half-dozen have been found -- swept through populations as they moved away from the Equator and had less-constant sunlight.

    Among West Africans, a chance mutation in the blood protein hemoglobin turned out to partially protect against malaria. It rapidly became common in places where malaria was a huge threat to survival. Similarly, a mutation allowing adults to digest milk became valuable when Middle Easterners and Europeans domesticated cattle. About 90 percent of Scandinavians now carry it.

    Such clear ethnic distinctions are the exception, however, defying the expectations of many researchers. That may have been a product of the way scientists have studied genes over the last century.

    Bacteria, fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing organisms were (and still are) the workhorses of genetic research.

    When experimenters subject populations of them to extreme conditions, mutant genes can become pervasive in just a few generations.

    Not so for people, it appears.

    "When it comes to the question, 'What is the main process by which adaptation is happening?', the answers may be very different for humans and flies," said Jonathan K. Pritchard, a computational biologist at the University of Chicago. He is the senior author of a paper on the subject this month in the online journal PLoS Genetics.

    In human beings, natural selection appears to work most of the time on dozens of genes in small and hard-to-detect ways. In contrast to fruit flies in the lab, useful traits involving body size, immunity, metabolism and behavior do not come about because one or two genes become ascendant.

    The short stature of rain-forest dwellers such as the pygmies of central Africa, for example, appears not to be the product of a single derived allele for shortness carried by virtually everyone in the population. Instead, dozens of gene variants that slightly decrease height have each become slightly more common, and it is their total effect that results in the group's dramatically shorter stature.

    "Adaptations to the environment absolutely do occur," said Joseph K. Pickrell, a graduate student at the University of Chicago who, with Graham Coop of the University of California at Davis, co-authored the recent study. "But they don't occur according to this simple model that we and others have been looking for."

    Which brings us back to the tripartite Family of Man.

    When a small number of people left Africa 70,000 years ago, they carried with them only a sample of the genetic diversity that had evolved on that continent in the preceding 130,000 years.

    When the descendants of those migrants in turn divided into two groups 40,000 years ago, the westward-turning Eurasians and the eastward-turning East Asians each took by chance only some of the genetic diversity of their forebears.

    As a result, African populations today have greater genetic diversity -- more variants in more genes -- than Eurasians or East Asians, and Eurasians somewhat more than East Asians.

    But each had more than enough diversity for the trip.

So, the article actually shows how dividing humanity into three races is scientifically incorrect.

You just provided evidence that you were wrong.


There is one small point first: I provided a link to a 2009 article that said that we can be scientifically divided into 3 basic races. You have so desperately wanted such a thing -- so I got it.

Now, you want to read in very heavily to the same article which says that the differences are not fundamentally significant.

Sure, OK, it does say that. I read it, and was aware of that, but I was excited to point out that there were scientists as late as 2009 using words like this because, I assume, in 2009 people weren't gaslit enough to gobble down political redefinitions.

But perhaps redefinition is not the right thing to say - I should be more charitable.

Let's take about this in a different way and hopefully get to the crux of the problem:

(2) I think we actually have to talk about how words work.

There are words that have conventional meaning, and then there are words that have specialized meaning, correct?

Conventional meaning is not that disputable. I cannot say that "evil" in an everyday context can mean something far more specific.

Similarly, I cannot say that "House music" refers to a specialized meaning, or some boiled down distortion where "house music" refers to anything that the "house" (club) plays, thus "Drum n Bass" is actually "House music" when you go to the Joker Red club in Hongdae because Joker Red plays DnB... House (as a music genre) has a conventional meaning, and it could have further technical meanings or reductionist meanings.

...

Now, there would be specialized terms.

Specialized terms are generally determined by the specialists using them. However, of course, like all things, they can be subject to abuse and politicized definitions.

Moreover, they are subject to the perceptions of reality that the people bring with them that approach them.

What you are basically doing is taking the politicized definitions of race used by contemporary scientists, but these are things that are actually highly biased. Perhaps just as biased as the previous definitions of what race are.

This is why we get political definitions of transgenderism that imply it is not a disorder, yet it is a medical condition that requires hormone replacement therapy and potentially complex surgeries that fundamentally alter the body.

But, you will find a recent article which suggests that it is absolutely not a disorder in any way in spite of the fact that it can clearly be called a disorder through conventional definitions.

Two clear points come from this:

I. Scientists use politicized definitions -- this is why our conceptions of things can change drastically in a few decades.
II. It is acceptable for us to assert our own definitions and to rely on conventional realities. We can take the same raw data, and we can assert our own definitions, just as much as any vague nebulous word of "scientists" that the media is asserting.

It probably makes more sense that way.

I've actually offered to not refer to these things as races because I think that it can clog discussion, buit you absolutely insist on dragging your feet when having an honest discussion.

What do you think of our semantical issue, now?

Things like the number of species of dogs, or bears turned out to be wrong.

And of course, it inspired whole generations of racist people into thinking that the traditional races are actually real.


The way that breeds, species, etc., are defined can be quite different. I could theoretically say that long-haired chihuahuas and short-haired chihuahuas are two different breeds, and could refine it further. Nothing is to say that I am wrong, nor is there anything to say that I am right, because a word like 'breed' can be arbitrary.

A word like 'race' can be arbitrary.

Species does have more of a basis in the hard, scientific lexicon, but it is irrelevant to what we are saying.

Why are some population groups better than others? Because you have racist feels about them?


This would be arbitrary, too! We could say that populations with greater health are superior to other populations, and then obviouisly the French and the Japanese would be considered elites, but the people in Zimbabwe would be on the bottom.

We could measure these things through income, IQ, prosocial behavior, etc.

How do you think someone contemplating mass migration would like to think about them?

I think that, for immigration into Korea, it would make sense to give preferential treatment to population groups that are (I) Culturally similar, (II) Low crime, (III) higher development or development potential, (IV) educational attainment or educational potential.

I am sure we could tack on other categories as well.

None of this has to be "genetic," while aspects of this would potentially have roots in genetics.
User avatar
By Verv
#15008701
This is a short summary of David Reich's book "Ancient DNA and Human Past": In human genetics, the old concept of race is replaced with ancestry or population, while we cannot deny the existence of genetic differences across populations. But ancestry is not synonymous with race and the term was born of an urgent need to discuss genetic differences between them with a precise language. The race vocabulary is too ill-defined for scientific discussions, loaded with historical baggage. I hope people will be more educated on genetics in the near future, which eventually solves the race problem. The existence of racial differences does not justify biological races in humans.


Right! Sure, we can define things into ancestry and shared gene pools.

But this is ultimately what race already crudely corresponds to -- the issue being that some racial groups are so large that shared genetics is not as much as one would anticipate. The last common ancestors of a Filipino and a Korean would be very, very long ways back.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay.

If you provide scientific evidence for these criteria, then I will consider you to have said the truth. If you do not provide evidence, I will assume you simply parroted racist myths from yore.

...

I am not sure if you stopped reading that article right after you read the bit above, or if you are being deliberately dishonest.

Here is the article in its entirety:

    Among Many Peoples, Little Genomic Variety

    By David Brown
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, June 22, 2009

    There is a simplicity and all-inclusiveness to the number three -- the triangle, the Holy Trinity, three peas in a pod. So it's perhaps not surprising that the Family of Man is divided that way, too.

    All of Earth's people, according to a new analysis of the genomes of 53 populations, fall into just three genetic groups. They are the products of the first and most important journey our species made -- the walk out of Africa about 70,000 years ago by a small fraction of ancestral Homo sapiens.

    One group is the African. It contains the descendants of the original humans who emerged in East Africa about 200,000 years ago. The second is the Eurasian, encompassing the natives of Europe, the Middle East and Southwest Asia (east to about Pakistan). The third is the East Asian, the inhabitants of Asia, Japan and Southeast Asia, and -- thanks to the Bering Land Bridge and island-hopping in the South Pacific -- of the Americas and Oceania as well.

    The existence of this ancient divergence has long been known.

    What is new is a subtle but important insight into what happened on a genomic level as the human species spilled across the landscape, eventually occupying every habitable part of the planet.

    People adapted to what they encountered the way all living organisms do: through natural selection. A small fraction of the mutations constantly creeping into our genes happened by chance to prove beneficial in the new circumstances outside the African homeland. Those included differences in climate, altitude, latitude, food availability, parasites, infectious diseases and lots of other things.

    A person who carried, by chance, a helpful mutation was more likely to survive and procreate than someone without it. The person's offspring would then probably be endowed with the same beneficial mutation. Over thousands of generations, the new variant (what geneticists call the "derived allele") could go from being rare to being common as its carriers fared better than their brethren and contributed more descendants to the population.

    Scientists have long known that regardless of ancestral home or ethnic group, everyone's genes are pretty much alike. We're all Homo sapiens. Everything else is pretty much details.

    Recent research has produced a surprise, however. Population geneticists expected to find dramatic differences as they got a look at the full genomes -- about 25,000 genes -- of people of widely varying ethnic and geographic backgrounds. Specifically, they expected to find that many ethnic groups would have derived alleles that their members shared but that were uncommon or nonexistent in other groups. Each regional, ethnic group or latitude was thought to have a genomic "signature" -- the record of its recent evolution through natural selection.

    But as analyses of genomes from dozens of distinct populations have rolled in -- French, Bantu, Palestinian, Yakut, Japanese -- that's not what scientists have found. Dramatic genome variation among populations turns out to be extremely rare.

    Instead, it is "random genetic drift" that appears to be more important in sculpting our genes. Drift describes the chance loss of genetic variation that occurred not only in the out-of-Africa migration, but through all of human history as famine, climate change or war caused populations to crash and then recover.

    Despite those calamities, it appears that all contemporary populations ended up largely the same, or only crudely distinguishable from one another, on the genome level.

    Of course, small variations can result in dramatic differences. Skin color is perhaps the most obvious.

    Vitamin D is made in the skin through a chemical reaction requiring ultraviolet light. Mutations in genes that lighten skin pigment -- at least a half-dozen have been found -- swept through populations as they moved away from the Equator and had less-constant sunlight.

    Among West Africans, a chance mutation in the blood protein hemoglobin turned out to partially protect against malaria. It rapidly became common in places where malaria was a huge threat to survival. Similarly, a mutation allowing adults to digest milk became valuable when Middle Easterners and Europeans domesticated cattle. About 90 percent of Scandinavians now carry it.

    Such clear ethnic distinctions are the exception, however, defying the expectations of many researchers. That may have been a product of the way scientists have studied genes over the last century.

    Bacteria, fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing organisms were (and still are) the workhorses of genetic research.

    When experimenters subject populations of them to extreme conditions, mutant genes can become pervasive in just a few generations.

    Not so for people, it appears.

    "When it comes to the question, 'What is the main process by which adaptation is happening?', the answers may be very different for humans and flies," said Jonathan K. Pritchard, a computational biologist at the University of Chicago. He is the senior author of a paper on the subject this month in the online journal PLoS Genetics.

    In human beings, natural selection appears to work most of the time on dozens of genes in small and hard-to-detect ways. In contrast to fruit flies in the lab, useful traits involving body size, immunity, metabolism and behavior do not come about because one or two genes become ascendant.

    The short stature of rain-forest dwellers such as the pygmies of central Africa, for example, appears not to be the product of a single derived allele for shortness carried by virtually everyone in the population. Instead, dozens of gene variants that slightly decrease height have each become slightly more common, and it is their total effect that results in the group's dramatically shorter stature.

    "Adaptations to the environment absolutely do occur," said Joseph K. Pickrell, a graduate student at the University of Chicago who, with Graham Coop of the University of California at Davis, co-authored the recent study. "But they don't occur according to this simple model that we and others have been looking for."

    Which brings us back to the tripartite Family of Man.

    When a small number of people left Africa 70,000 years ago, they carried with them only a sample of the genetic diversity that had evolved on that continent in the preceding 130,000 years.

    When the descendants of those migrants in turn divided into two groups 40,000 years ago, the westward-turning Eurasians and the eastward-turning East Asians each took by chance only some of the genetic diversity of their forebears.

    As a result, African populations today have greater genetic diversity -- more variants in more genes -- than Eurasians or East Asians, and Eurasians somewhat more than East Asians.

    But each had more than enough diversity for the trip.

So, the article actually shows how dividing humanity into three races is scientifically incorrect.

You just provided evidence that you were wrong.


There is one small point first: I provided a link to a 2009 article that said that we can be scientifically divided into 3 basic races. You have so desperately wanted such a thing -- so I got it.

Now, you want to read in very heavily to the same article which says that the differences are not fundamentally significant.

Sure, OK, it does say that. I read it, and was aware of that, but I was excited to point out that there were scientists as late as 2009 using words like this because, I assume, in 2009 people weren't gaslit enough to gobble down political redefinitions.

But perhaps redefinition is not the right thing to say - I should be more charitable.

Let's take about this in a different way and hopefully get to the crux of the problem:

(2) I think we actually have to talk about how words work.

There are words that have conventional meaning, and then there are words that have specialized meaning, correct?

Conventional meaning is not that disputable. I cannot say that "evil" in an everyday context can mean something far more specific.

Similarly, I cannot say that "House music" refers to a specialized meaning, or some boiled down distortion where "house music" refers to anything that the "house" (club) plays, thus "Drum n Bass" is actually "House music" when you go to the Joker Red club in Hongdae because Joker Red plays DnB... House (as a music genre) has a conventional meaning, and it could have further technical meanings or reductionist meanings.

...

Now, there would be specialized terms.

Specialized terms are generally determined by the specialists using them. However, of course, like all things, they can be subject to abuse and politicized definitions.

Moreover, they are subject to the perceptions of reality that the people bring with them that approach them.

What you are basically doing is taking the politicized definitions of race used by contemporary scientists, but these are things that are actually highly biased. Perhaps just as biased as the previous definitions of what race are.

This is why we get political definitions of transgenderism that imply it is not a disorder, yet it is a medical condition that requires hormone replacement therapy and potentially complex surgeries that fundamentally alter the body.

But, you will find a recent article which suggests that it is absolutely not a disorder in any way in spite of the fact that it can clearly be called a disorder through conventional definitions.

Two clear points come from this:

I. Scientists use politicized definitions -- this is why our conceptions of things can change drastically in a few decades.
II. It is acceptable for us to assert our own definitions and to rely on conventional realities. We can take the same raw data, and we can assert our own definitions, just as much as any vague nebulous word of "scientists" that the media is asserting.

It probably makes more sense that way.

I've actually offered to not refer to these things as races because I think that it can clog discussion, buit you absolutely insist on dragging your feet when having an honest discussion.

What do you think of our semantical issue, now?

Things like the number of species of dogs, or bears turned out to be wrong.

And of course, it inspired whole generations of racist people into thinking that the traditional races are actually real.


The way that breeds, species, etc., are defined can be quite different. I could theoretically say that long-haired chihuahuas and short-haired chihuahuas are two different breeds, and could refine it further. Nothing is to say that I am wrong, nor is there anything to say that I am right, because a word like 'breed' can be arbitrary.

A word like 'race' can be arbitrary.

Species does have more of a basis in the hard, scientific lexicon, but it is irrelevant to what we are saying.

Why are some population groups better than others? Because you have racist feels about them?


This would be arbitrary, too! We could say that populations with greater health are superior to other populations, and then obviouisly the French and the Japanese would be considered elites, but the people in Zimbabwe would be on the bottom.

We could measure these things through income, IQ, prosocial behavior, etc.

How do you think someone contemplating mass migration would like to think about them?

I think that, for immigration into Korea, it would make sense to give preferential treatment to population groups that are (I) Culturally similar, (II) Low crime, (III) higher development or development potential, (IV) educational attainment or educational potential.

I am sure we could tack on other categories as well.

None of this has to be "genetic," while aspects of this would potentially have roots in genetics.
User avatar
By Verv
#15008702
@Pants-of-dog , this is getting to be too slow and drags out too much, and I feel like you are just foricng me to use a lot of walls of text by acting obtuse.

Would you like to meet on Skype or some other program and have a verbal discussion on it, and then just upload the video to YouTube and post it here to help reach the conclusion faster?

In the name of honest discussion, of course.

If we can't do this, then I need you to discuss things more quickly & honestly & to the point, or I am going to stop replying to your content and just focus on presenting my own opinion.
By Pants-of-dog
#15008706
Verv wrote:There is one small point first: I provided a link to a 2009 article that said that we can be scientifically divided into 3 basic races. You have so desperately wanted such a thing -- so I got it.

Now, you want to read in very heavily to the same article which says that the differences are not fundamentally significant.

Sure, OK, it does say that. I read it, and was aware of that, but I was excited to point out that there were scientists as late as 2009 using words like this because, I assume, in 2009 people weren't gaslit enough to gobble down political redefinitions.

But perhaps redefinition is not the right thing to say - I should be more charitable.


Then you misread the article quite badly.

The author only mentioned the three race division just to show how incorrect it was, and how our new understanding (due to genetics) shows that this traditional view of race is wrong.

Let's take about this in a different way and hopefully get to the crux of the problem:

(2) I think we actually have to talk about how words work.

There are words that have conventional meaning, and then there are words that have specialized meaning, correct?

Conventional meaning is not that disputable. I cannot say that "evil" in an everyday context can mean something far more specific.

Similarly, I cannot say that "House music" refers to a specialized meaning, or some boiled down distortion where "house music" refers to anything that the "house" (club) plays, thus "Drum n Bass" is actually "House music" when you go to the Joker Red club in Hongdae because Joker Red plays DnB... House (as a music genre) has a conventional meaning, and it could have further technical meanings or reductionist meanings.

...

Now, there would be specialized terms.

Specialized terms are generally determined by the specialists using them. However, of course, like all things, they can be subject to abuse and politicized definitions.

Moreover, they are subject to the perceptions of reality that the people bring with them that approach them.

What you are basically doing is taking the politicized definitions of race used by contemporary scientists, but these are things that are actually highly biased. Perhaps just as biased as the previous definitions of what race are.

This is why we get political definitions of transgenderism that imply it is not a disorder, yet it is a medical condition that requires hormone replacement therapy and potentially complex surgeries that fundamentally alter the body.

But, you will find a recent article which suggests that it is absolutely not a disorder in any way in spite of the fact that it can clearly be called a disorder through conventional definitions.

Two clear points come from this:

I. Scientists use politicized definitions -- this is why our conceptions of things can change drastically in a few decades.
II. It is acceptable for us to assert our own definitions and to rely on conventional realities. We can take the same raw data, and we can assert our own definitions, just as much as any vague nebulous word of "scientists" that the media is asserting.

It probably makes more sense that way.


If you are arguing that science is inherently biased and deliberately uses politicised language to avoid discussion of race, please provide evidence.

I've actually offered to not refer to these things as races because I think that it can clog discussion, buit you absolutely insist on dragging your feet when having an honest discussion.

What do you think of our semantical issue, now?


I think these little insults of yours are irrelevant.

The way that breeds, species, etc., are defined can be quite different. I could theoretically say that long-haired chihuahuas and short-haired chihuahuas are two different breeds, and could refine it further. Nothing is to say that I am wrong, nor is there anything to say that I am right, because a word like 'breed' can be arbitrary.

A word like 'race' can be arbitrary.

Species does have more of a basis in the hard, scientific lexicon, but it is irrelevant to what we are saying.


Yes, the concept of race is arbitrary, and has no scientific basis. That is exactly what I am claiming.

So it is entirely relevant to what we are discussing.

This would be arbitrary, too! We could say that populations with greater health are superior to other populations, and then obviouisly the French and the Japanese would be considered elites, but the people in Zimbabwe would be on the bottom.

We could measure these things through income, IQ, prosocial behavior, etc.

How do you think someone contemplating mass migration would like to think about them?


You did not answer the question.

Why are some groups better for immigration than others? Your answer was that it was arbitrary.

If it is arbitrary, then your previous claim that it is rational to prefer one immigrant group over another is wrong.

I think that, for immigration into Korea, it would make sense to give preferential treatment to population groups that are (I) Culturally similar, (II) Low crime, (III) higher development or development potential, (IV) educational attainment or educational potential.

I am sure we could tack on other categories as well.

None of this has to be "genetic," while aspects of this would potentially have roots in genetics.


So you would pick an uneducated and untrained criminal from a group that has a higher average of educated, trained, socially capable people instead of choosing an educated, trained, and socially capable person from a group that has less of these people?
User avatar
By Verv
#15008715
OK, I am curious:

Would you like to have a discussion over Skype or another program and upload it to YouTube and post it in this thread?

I think we won't be able to accomplish anything with this back and forth, and if you would not agree to do the following, I think we will have to cut our interactions here because I am better off just crafting my own posts and not interacting as much with yours.

I'd rather we just discuss this for an hour or so over voice than have me invest hours & hours & hours of my worktime into back and forth here.
By Pants-of-dog
#15008722
Sorry, I forgot to answer that question.

The answer is definitely no.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15008724
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sorry, I forgot to answer that question.

The answer is definitely no.


That makes it seem as though you're afraid of something...
Last edited by BigSteve on 31 May 2019 04:22, edited 1 time in total.
By Pants-of-dog
#15008728
BigSteve wrote:What are you afraid of?


I find the thing that startles me the most often is when I am expecting to be alone and then I am surprised by someone else.

What about you?

Edit: I do have kids, so my biggest actual fears are for them, but I assumed you were asking about what makes me afraid for myself.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15008733
Pants-of-dog wrote:I find the thing that startles me the most often is when I am expecting to be alone and then I am surprised by someone else.

What about you?

Edit: I do have kids, so my biggest actual fears are for them, but I assumed you were asking about what makes me afraid for myself.


No, I was asking about your response to the question you were asked...
By Pants-of-dog
#15008735
Yes, I understood that. I was being polite.

Anyway, why do you want to believe that I am motivated by fear?
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15008737
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, I understood that. I was being polite.

Anyway, why do you want to believe that I am motivated by fear?


I don't "want" to believe anything. I either believe something or I don't.

Your reply was rather emphatic; more than simply declining his invitation...
User avatar
By Verv
#15008739
Alright, PoD, it's fine.

My interest honestly is to just get through this and I feel like you act obtuse with definitions and what I am saying, and while not explicitly ignoring the content, it feels like it is partly ignored.

In the future as well, when we get into other topics and other threads and hit a point where I feel that is happening, I am going to say "Alright, I am disentangling from you here," but the invitation will still stand.

I will still potentially respond to what you have said later, but I just got to start putting my energy into crafting my argument & framing it independently and not constantly rehashing things.

It's just not worth my free time - but I do appreciate that you are generally polite and that you will respond at length with somebody.
By Pants-of-dog
#15008740
BigSteve wrote:I don't "want" to believe anything. I either believe something or I don't.

Your reply was rather emphatic; more than simply declining his invitation...


Yes, I know why you believe what you do, so that is not what I asked. I was more interested in why you decided to confront me about my supposed cowardice.

Do you have anything to say about racism?

——————————

Verv wrote:Alright, PoD, it's fine.

My interest honestly is to just get through this and I feel like you act obtuse with definitions and what I am saying, and while not explicitly ignoring the content, it feels like it is partly ignored.

In the future as well, when we get into other topics and other threads and hit a point where I feel that is happening, I am going to say "Alright, I am disentangling from you here," but the invitation will still stand.

I will still potentially respond to what you have said later, but I just got to start putting my energy into crafting my argument & framing it independently and not constantly rehashing things.

It's just not worth my free time - but I do appreciate that you are generally polite and that you will respond at length with somebody.


Have a pleasant day, Verv.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
Election 2020

And yet again, a racist comment. It is cool thou[…]

The agent sent me several listings. They are ast[…]

Cite your source for 2c since 1800. Even includ[…]

putsch to go cashless Business are becoming very […]