Racism

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4723
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Racism

Postby Tom Palven » Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:38 pm

Daedalus wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:To Maunas
There is no doubt that there are minor genetic differences between different human populations of differing geographic origin. A person from Finland will be a little different genetically from a person who came from Ireland. etc. etc.

The question is not whether genetic differences exist, typical of geographies, but whether those differences are large enough to justify the word 'race'. Since the differences are, in fact, very small (less than 0.1% of the total genome), I am inclined to say no. Most scientists in relevant disciplines also say no.

However, there is no clear cut scientific definition of 'race'. Without that, we are just pissing upwind.


Lance,
In the Wikipedia article I cited titled "race and health" it seems that Wikipedia editors and, apparently, health researchers, are familiar with the term "race" and find it to be a useful word. In post 708 Daedalus suggested that the word be replaced with "phenotype," which seems a little clumsy. Is there another, more appropriate, perhaps a Newspeak term, that you might suggest to Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health


You keep implying that this is a matter of PC or some social issue... it's not. If you want to use the term race casually go for it, who cares? The issue arises when you want to use the word "race" to actually refer to a real genetic difference in the way Maunas is.

As usual, you have it ass backwards.


Phenotype is the best you can do?
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Racism

Postby Daedalus » Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:41 pm

Tom-Palven wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:To Maunas
There is no doubt that there are minor genetic differences between different human populations of differing geographic origin. A person from Finland will be a little different genetically from a person who came from Ireland. etc. etc.

The question is not whether genetic differences exist, typical of geographies, but whether those differences are large enough to justify the word 'race'. Since the differences are, in fact, very small (less than 0.1% of the total genome), I am inclined to say no. Most scientists in relevant disciplines also say no.

However, there is no clear cut scientific definition of 'race'. Without that, we are just pissing upwind.


Lance,
In the Wikipedia article I cited titled "race and health" it seems that Wikipedia editors and, apparently, health researchers, are familiar with the term "race" and find it to be a useful word. In post 708 Daedalus suggested that the word be replaced with "phenotype," which seems a little clumsy. Is there another, more appropriate, perhaps a Newspeak term, that you might suggest to Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health


You keep implying that this is a matter of PC or some social issue... it's not. If you want to use the term race casually go for it, who cares? The issue arises when you want to use the word "race" to actually refer to a real genetic difference in the way Maunas is.

As usual, you have it ass backwards.


Phenotype is the best you can do?


Don't get pissy just because this is the second time I've made you look like an ignorant putz. To be fair, you're the one who does the heavy lifting in that department. :lol:
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4723
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Racism

Postby Tom Palven » Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:41 pm

Daedalus wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:To Maunas
There is no doubt that there are minor genetic differences between different human populations of differing geographic origin. A person from Finland will be a little different genetically from a person who came from Ireland. etc. etc.

The question is not whether genetic differences exist, typical of geographies, but whether those differences are large enough to justify the word 'race'. Since the differences are, in fact, very small (less than 0.1% of the total genome), I am inclined to say no. Most scientists in relevant disciplines also say no.

However, there is no clear cut scientific definition of 'race'. Without that, we are just pissing upwind.


Lance,
In the Wikipedia article I cited titled "race and health" it seems that Wikipedia editors and, apparently, health researchers, are familiar with the term "race" and find it to be a useful word. In post 708 Daedalus suggested that the word be replaced with "phenotype," which seems a little clumsy. Is there another, more appropriate, perhaps a Newspeak term, that you might suggest to Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health


You keep implying that this is a matter of PC or some social issue... it's not. If you want to use the term race casually go for it, who cares? The issue arises when you want to use the word "race" to actually refer to a real genetic difference in the way Maunas is.

As usual, you have it ass backwards.


Phenotype is the best you can do?


Don't get pissy just because this is the second time I've made you look like an ignorant putz. To be fair, you're the one who does the heavy lifting in that department. :lol:

Yes, I guess "phenotype" is the best you can do. :neener:
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:12 am

To Tom

The word 'race' is in widespread use among non scientists, and has a loose, colloquial meaning. Wiki are free to use the word in this way. However, in taxonomy, it has a much tighter meaning. You can use the word loosely and colloquially if you wish. However, if you wish to talk of differences between human populations in terms of genetics, the word seems inappropriate. Nor will it become appropriate till there is a clear cut, and widely agreed upon scientific definition.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Racism

Postby Daedalus » Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:23 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Tom

The word 'race' is in widespread use among non scientists, and has a loose, colloquial meaning. Wiki are free to use the word in this way. However, in taxonomy, it has a much tighter meaning. You can use the word loosely and colloquially if you wish. However, if you wish to talk of differences between human populations in terms of genetics, the word seems inappropriate. Nor will it become appropriate till there is a clear cut, and widely agreed upon scientific definition.


I don't think Tom has the wit to understand, or the maturity to care if he did.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4723
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Racism

Postby Tom Palven » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:05 am

Daedalus wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:To Tom

The word 'race' is in widespread use among non scientists, and has a loose, colloquial meaning. Wiki are free to use the word in this way. However, in taxonomy, it has a much tighter meaning. You can use the word loosely and colloquially if you wish. However, if you wish to talk of differences between human populations in terms of genetics, the word seems inappropriate. Nor will it become appropriate till there is a clear cut, and widely agreed upon scientific definition.


I don't think Tom has the wit to understand, or the maturity to care if he did.


:neener:
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Racism

Postby Daedalus » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:07 am

Tom-Palven wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:To Tom

The word 'race' is in widespread use among non scientists, and has a loose, colloquial meaning. Wiki are free to use the word in this way. However, in taxonomy, it has a much tighter meaning. You can use the word loosely and colloquially if you wish. However, if you wish to talk of differences between human populations in terms of genetics, the word seems inappropriate. Nor will it become appropriate till there is a clear cut, and widely agreed upon scientific definition.


I don't think Tom has the wit to understand, or the maturity to care if he did.


:neener:


Be nice or I'll sic the AP on you.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:46 am

Just as in current systematic practice, the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence, meganano genetic divergences (amply supplied by medical research) should be used to indicate objectivity for the designation 'race' in current taxonomic practice. If present day humans do not have a living, coexisting subspecies (to which i agree), it does not preclude the existence of races.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 06, 2013 4:43 am

To Maunas

Sure. But since there is no scientifically correct definition of 'race', it is inappropriate to talk of different human populations as different races, except in the unscientific, loose and inaccurate way the word is used colloquially.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4723
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Racism

Postby Tom Palven » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:21 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Maunas

Sure. But since there is no scientifically correct definition of 'race', it is inappropriate to talk of different human populations as different races, except in the unscientific, loose and inaccurate way the word is used colloquially.


Couldn't the same could be said about every word including "appendicitis," "motherhood," "democracy," "intelligence," "liberty," and "hamburger?"

Instead of "Racism," should we call this thread "Phenotypism?" Are you going to mention your word revisionism to Wikipedia?
Last edited by Tom Palven on Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Racism

Postby OutOfBreath » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:26 am

I would think that by now, seeing how tainted the word is, "race" should be avoided when talking of human genetics. Race, colloqually, historically, have been about skin colour, usually accompanied with a ranking of them. Why not just talk about genetic populations and phenotypes? Then noone will misunderstand, take offence or be reminded of centuries of oppression, colonialism and slavery.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4723
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Racism

Postby Tom Palven » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:31 am

OutOfBreath wrote:I would think that by now, seeing how tainted the word is, "race" should be avoided when talking of human genetics. Race, colloqually, historically, have been about skin colour, usually accompanied with a ranking of them. Why not just talk about genetic populations and phenotypes? Then noone will misunderstand, take offence or be reminded of centuries of oppression, colonialism and slavery.

Peace
Dan



What's the Norwegian word for race or phenotype? Maybe we could wage a campaign to outlaw the word "race" and use it instead.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Racism

Postby OutOfBreath » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:39 am

Tom-Palven wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:I would think that by now, seeing how tainted the word is, "race" should be avoided when talking of human genetics. Race, colloqually, historically, have been about skin colour, usually accompanied with a ranking of them. Why not just talk about genetic populations and phenotypes? Then noone will misunderstand, take offence or be reminded of centuries of oppression, colonialism and slavery.

Peace
Dan



What's the Norwegian word for race or phenotype? Maybe we could wage a campaign to outlaw the word "race" and use it instead.

Hehe. Not so different, really: "rase" (pronounced rAHsEH)

But my point is that if you by using a term stir misunderstandings from half the population, perhaps other words can be used to convey the message that bypasses those misunderstandings. Particularly since we still tend to think race=skin colour, while 2 "black" men may be much further removed from eachother genetically than a "white" and a "black" man.

Remember, it's still not more than 50 years ago "race" was used to oppress millions of people in the US, and even more recently in other parts of the world. It's a charged word infused with politics and bad blood, which thus should be shunned like the plague for scientific purposes.

(In my opinion, it's reason enough not to use the word about humans at all, unless we're talking about fossils houndreds of thousands years old.)

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:37 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Maunas
There is no doubt that there are minor genetic differences between different human populations of differing geographic origin. A person from Finland will be a little different genetically from a person who came from Ireland. etc. etc.

The question is not whether genetic differences exist, typical of geographies, but whether those differences are large enough to justify the word 'race'. Since the differences are, in fact, very small (less than 0.1% of the total genome), I am inclined to say no. Most scientists in relevant disciplines also say no.

However, there is no clear cut scientific definition of 'race'. Without that, we are just pissing upwind.


Hi Lance Kennedy,
Mice and men share 99 percent of genes. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/scien ... nome/.Just a difference of 1% of genome makes the mice leap to a difference in taxanomic category of Order: Rodentia from man's Order:primates, bypassing the categories of Suborder, Infraorder, Superfamily, Family, Subfamily, Tribe, Genus, Subgenus, Species, Subspecies. So IMO a difference of less than 0.1% of the total genome is large enough to justify the word 'race'. Hence i still stick to my definition of race, viz: Races of life forms naturally get created before the formation of subspecies under conditions of reproductive and/or climatic isolation's.Race is defined by that genotypic difference which prevents radical change in phenotypic expression potentials, even when conception and development takes place in a radically different climate from the native climate of parents. If present day humans do not have a living, coexisting subspecies (to which i agree), it does not preclude the existence of races.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:22 am

To maunas

I am not sure where the 99% figure is derived, but I am afraid it is incorrect. Humans and chimps share about 95% of our genes, but mice are substantially less than that. Two different human groups you would call 'races' differ by only 0.1%.

The 99% figure would be roughly correct for the difference between modern man and neanderthals. Many anthropologists think neanderthals were, in fact, a different sub species rather than a different species.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:23 am

Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique to either organism. Both even have genes for a tail, even though it's not "switched on" in humans.

"About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts."

The mouse is the only mammal, after the human, whose genome has been sequenced. The rodent's genetic sequence was published in this week's edition of Nature Magazine.http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/scien ... usegenome/. All living things have the same fundamental genes. Plants and animals. From amoeba genes all human tissues can be developed. Peas and beans have genes to make haemoglobin. As i earlier said, only meganano genetic divergences (amply supplied by medical research) can be used to indicate objectivity for the designation 'race' in current taxonomic practice.
Last edited by maunas on Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Racism

Postby Daedalus » Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:25 am

Tom-Palven wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:I would think that by now, seeing how tainted the word is, "race" should be avoided when talking of human genetics. Race, colloqually, historically, have been about skin colour, usually accompanied with a ranking of them. Why not just talk about genetic populations and phenotypes? Then noone will misunderstand, take offence or be reminded of centuries of oppression, colonialism and slavery.

Peace
Dan



What's the Norwegian word for race or phenotype? Maybe we could wage a campaign to outlaw the word "race" and use it instead.


As Lance and I have tried to tell you a couple of times, if you want to be casual about it the word race is fine. The issue arises when someone like Maunas tries to apply the term to matters of genetics and taxonomy.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:03 pm

To Maunas

OK. I understand the 99% now. 99% of human genes have a counterpart in mice. Sure. I agree. But they are not the same genes. 95% of chimp genes are not just counterparts. They are the same, identical, to the equivalent human genes. Much less in mice.

If we compare two humans living in the same street, and of the same gender, they will share 99.9% of their genes. If we compare the average for all Chinese, for example, with the average for all Europeans, same gender, then the same genes are 99.9% of the genome. Not just counterparts. The identical genes. Get the point?

This does not prove they are the same race, of course, since that would depend on the definition, which does not exist. But most anthropologists would deny a biological division called race.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Racism

Postby Daedalus » Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:13 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Maunas

OK. I understand the 99% now. 99% of human genes have a counterpart in mice. Sure. I agree. But they are not the same genes. 95% of chimp genes are not just counterparts. They are the same, identical, to the equivalent human genes. Much less in mice.

If we compare two humans living in the same street, and of the same gender, they will share 99.9% of their genes. If we compare the average for all Chinese, for example, with the average for all Europeans, same gender, then the same genes are 99.9% of the genome. Not just counterparts. The identical genes. Get the point?

This does not prove they are the same race, of course, since that would depend on the definition, which does not exist. But most anthropologists would deny a biological division called race.


Two things... first to your last point, it's worth noting that the AAPA denies a biological division of race in its taxonomic dealings. That's sort of like the AMA stating that "infestation by demons" is not a valid diagnosis. Sure, a doctor can still say it, but he's acting against the vast consensus of his profession and peers.

To the first, it's also worth pointing out that although we deal a lot in the world of the macroscopic... a mouse and a human are a lot alike at a more basic level. Sure, we're shaped differently, but we both have the same internal organs, skin, nails, hair, and eyes. More importantly we both eat food for the same reason, using the same process to glean energy from glucose at the cellular level, where our metabolism is pretty much the same.

Muscle tissue varies, but is still muscle. Adipose tissue in a mouse or person is also more alike than not. Our eyes, while very different in some obvious way, are also made of very similar (often the same) tissues.

MOST of our genetic code deals with matters like how to keep molecules of superoxide in check, an immune system functioning, or mitochondria humming away. It takes relatively little by comparison, to arrange that machinery into a monkey, a mouse, or a person.

It's an interesting bit of trivia, but not really of any significance to a discussion like this as Maunas would prefer to have it. A raw comparison of an Aboriginal Australian's genotype, and a Caucasian's genotype in terms of % difference is generally not something people can contextualize, and is bound to be misleading in some way.

Even people who appear radically different, such as a anchondroplastic Japanese dwarf woman can reproduce with a 7' tall Central African man. What we perceive to be huge differences, simply because we deem them to be, are incredibly superficial from a taxonomic and genetic standpoint.

I don't expect Maunas or Tom to understand this of course, but it's worth pointing out.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:44 pm

Thanks Lance for clarifying."Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts." It means that remaining 29% were less identical,but still it is a very meagre genetic change which makes the mice leap to a difference in taxonomic category of Order: Rodentia from man's Order:primates, bypassing the categories of Suborder, Infraorder, Superfamily, Family, Subfamily, Tribe, Genus, Subgenus, Species, Subspecies. So even if 10% difference between the genome of man and mouse are allowed for a jump of 11 taxonomic categories, it means 0.9% genetic change is required to shift man one taxonomic category.This only means that as per Post #735 Post by Lance Kennedy : Two different human groups you would call 'races' differ by only 0.1%. so 'race' can not be allocated a taxonomic category.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Racism

Postby Daedalus » Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:03 pm

maunas wrote:Thanks Lance for clarifying."Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts." It means that remaining 29% were less identical,but still it is a very meagre genetic change which makes the mice leap to a difference in taxonomic category of Order: Rodentia from man's Order:primates, bypassing the categories of Suborder, Infraorder, Superfamily, Family, Subfamily, Tribe, Genus, Subgenus, Species, Subspecies. So even if 10% difference between the genome of man and mouse are allowed for a jump of 11 taxonomic categories, it means 0.9% genetic change is required to shift man one taxonomic category.This only means that as per tradition 'race' can not be allocated a taxonomic category. So what?


First, it does NOT mean that a .9% genetic change is required; nobody knows what's required because it's yet to happen for humans. You're mistaken on so many levels it's just getting sad.

Second you're using the term in a discussion about taxonomic and genetic matters, but it isn't a valid term in either sense. Find a new word to apply to your religion, or don't complain when people dismiss it for being logically and scientifically unsound on its face.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4723
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Racism

Postby Tom Palven » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:03 am

If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Racism

Postby Daedalus » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:04 am

Tom-Palven wrote:Just to try to help confuse things:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... 11128.html


I think the only person likely to be confused by that, is you. ;)
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:47 am

High tech biological research capabilities of modern science is able to reveal genetic differences between populations of organisms at very miniscule levels.This was not possible till a few decades earlier.So we need to increase the number of taxonomic categories for further advancement and understanding in medicine, genetics and evolution. Historically we have been doing so..i.e increasing the number of taxonomic categories with the advancement of science. Therefore i still stick to my definition of race, viz: Races of life forms naturally get created before the formation of subspecies under conditions of reproductive and/or climatic isolation's.Race is defined by that genotypic difference which prevents radical change in phenotypic expression potentials, even when conception and development takes place in a radically different climate from the native climate of parents. If present day humans do not have a living, coexisting subspecies (to which i agree), it does not preclude the existence of races.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Racism

Postby Daedalus » Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:43 pm

maunas wrote: High tech biological research capabilities of modern science is able to reveal genetic differences between populations of organisms at very miniscule levels.This was not possible till a few decades earlier.So we need to increase the number of taxonomic categories for further advancement and understanding in medicine, genetics and evolution. Historically we have been doing so..i.e increasing the number of taxonomic categories with the advancement of science. Therefore i still stick to my definition of race, viz: Races of life forms naturally get created before the formation of subspecies under conditions of reproductive and/or climatic isolation's.Race is defined by that genotypic difference which prevents radical change in phenotypic expression potentials, even when conception and development takes place in a radically different climate from the native climate of parents. If present day humans do not have a living, coexisting subspecies (to which i agree), it does not preclude the existence of races.


Putting your babble in bold doesn't help.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:03 pm

To Maunas

I understand your argument. The problem, though, is where to draw the line. Until there is a generally agreed scientific definiton, based on strong genetics, this is entirely arbitrary.

It is possible today to detail genetic difference between people descended from Cornish people, from those descended from Yorkshire people. A clear, and quantifiable genetic distinction. Do you want to make this clear cut, but tiny genetic difference into two different 'races'? Very few people would.

Africa contains more genetic differences that any other continent, and more than all other continents put together. The San people (Bushmen) for example, have six distinctly different genotypes. Do you want to have six different San 'races'? If you were to create distinct races everywhere the genetics of different populations were clear cut, you would end up with hundreds, if not thousands of 'races'.

As I said before, the majority of scientists in relevant disciplines, like anthropology, do not subscribe to the idea that we should divide humanity into 'races'.

Until and unless a clear cut scientifc definition based on good genetics is derived, nor do I.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:53 am

To Lance Kennedy
OK fine.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Mon May 11, 2015 12:07 am

The plant Hieracium umbellatum is found growing in two different habitats in Sweden. One habitat is rocky, sea-side cliffs, where the plants are bushy with broad leaves and expanded inflorescences; the other is among sand dunes where the plants grow prostrate with narrow leaves and compact inflorescences. These habitats alternate along the coast of Sweden and the habitat that the seeds of Hieracium umbellatum land in, determine the phenotype that grows.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:10 pm

*The above example shows that the same genome of an organism can produce two different phenotypes which can confuse a person as belonging to two different taxas.*


Singularity! Because, entangled.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:11 pm

Error: "Taxa" is plural.
"Taxon" is noun.
In the post just above that of above.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:12 pm

*I further opine that*
*the above said also implies that, as i said earlier, meganano genetic and heritable irreversible epigenetic diffrences should be taken in to account for distinguishing races &/or their admixtures.*

Singularity! Because, entangled.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:29 pm

AAPA and AMA seem to be Socio-politically motivated to give their crooked opinion against the existence of human races. Maybe the present races will get admixed genetically in near future, and so, no more useful as biomedical tools, but they are a reality at present.
Singularity! Because entangled.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Racism

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:13 am

The error on display is: "either/or thinking." Race is a social construct having its basis in genetics. Best thinking is in terms of overlapping circles or Venn diagrams. What you are discussing may be in, out, or both or neither depending on the issue.

simple.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:40 pm

"Since Darwin's Origin of Species, evolutionary biologists have long debated whether two species can evolve from a common ancestor without being geographically isolated from each other," said Ted Schultz, curator of ants at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and co-author of the study. "With this study, we offer a compelling case for sympatric evolution that will open new conversations in the debate about speciation in these ants, social insects and evolutionary biology more generally." M. castrator is not simply another ant in the colony; it's a parasite that lives with—and off of—its host, Mycocepurus goeldii. The host is a fungus-growing ant that cultivates fungus for its nutritional value, both for itself and, indirectly, for its parasite, which does not participate in the work of growing the fungus garden. That led the researchers to study the genetic relationships of all fungus-growing ants in South America, including all 11 known species of the genus Mycocepurus, to determine whether the parasite did evolve from its presumed host. They found that the parasitic ants were, indeed, genetically very close to M. goeldii, but not to the other ant species.https://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-alterna ... south.html
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:46 pm

lThey also determined that the parasitic ants were no longer reproductively compatible with the host ants—making them a unique species—and had stopped reproducing with their host a mere 37,000 years ago—a very short period on the evolutionary scale.

A big clue for the research team was found by comparing the ants' genes, both in the cell's nucleus as well as in the mitochondria—the energy-producing structures in the cells. Genes are made of units called nucleotides, and Rabeling found that the sequencing of those nucleotides in the mitochondria is beginning to look different from what is found in the host ants, but that the genes in the nucleus still have traces of the relationship between host and parasite, leading him to conclude that M. castrator has begun to evolve away from its host.

Rabeling explained that just comparing some nuclear and mitochondrial genes may not be enough to demonstrate that the parasitic ants are a completely new species. "We are now sequencing the entire mitochondrial and nuclear genomes of these parasitic ants and their host in an effort to confirm speciation."

The parasitic ants need to exercise discretion because taking advantage of the host species is considered taboo in ant society. Offending ants have been known to be killed by worker mobs. As a result, the parasitic queen of the new species has evolved into a smaller size, making them difficult to distinguish from a host worker.

Host queens and males reproduce in an aerial ceremony only during a particular season when it begins to rain. Rabeling found that the parasitic queens and males, needing to be more discreet about their reproductive activities, ignore seasonal cues. By needing to hide their parasitic identity, M. castrator males and females lost their special adaptations that allowed them to reproduce in flight, making it impossible for them to sexually interact with their host species.

Hi Bobo,
Where sympatric formation of species takes place, Venn diagrams will be useless.
So it is not that simple.
Singularity! Because entangled.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Racism

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:39 am

Well.... geographic separation is just one way for gene pools to get separated. Social insects breeding from queens is rather unique...evidently allowing for gene pools to get established by way of some preference?---probably smell?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:51 pm

The genetic similarity between M castrator and M goeldeii is so much that scientists are now sequencing the entire mitochondrial and nuclear genomes of these parasitic ants and their hosts in order to confirm speciation. I think that the gene pools started separating when some mutation or epigenetic factor produced a queen incapable of reproducing in ceremonial flight. So smell of queen does not look like a factor in this case. Both the host and parasite are almost of the same species till now.
I see race formation here which later may have climbed to the level of subspecies and now if large enough genetic diffrences are confirmed by genomic sequencing (which does'nt look plausible from the genetic studies done till now) only then they can be declared as different species.
In my opinion they are just races and race should be accepted as a taxonomic category before the formation of sub species.
Singularity! Because entangled.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Racism

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:20 pm

"Almost." //// Dawkins made the point by noticing that every new species that cannot breed with its earlier ancestor is nonetheless the product of intervening parents that got along quite well. Very small changes add up...... over time. There is a subtle kind of beauty to that.

Could it be that a single random mutation would create a new species? I don't think so. BUT: I think a single random mutation could make a certain queen not associate or be associated with her sisters.....and that would create the separateness that over time would create a new species. That too is beautiful.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
maunas
Poster
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:10 am

Re: Racism

Postby maunas » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:29 pm

bobbo said: BUT: I think a single random mutation could make a certain queen not associate or be associated with her sisters.....and that would create the separateness that over time would create a new species. That too is beautiful.

maunas replies: I said the same when i said: i think the gene pools started separating when some mutation or epigenetic factor produced a queen incapable of reproducing in ceremonial flight.
Singularity! Because entangled.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8104
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Racism

Postby Poodle » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:42 pm

Well hardly, maunas. A queen incapable of reproducing is going to have very few descendants, don't you think?


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests