posted
The eugenicists/racial reality loons over at GNXP have referenced the study below in support of their thesis (among other things) of a separate and unequal genetic landscape and the reality of the concept of race.
quote: Previously, we observed that without using prior information about individual sampling locations, a clustering algorithm applied to multilocus genotypes from worldwide human populations produced genetic clusters largely coincident with major geographic regions. It has been argued, however, that the degree of clustering is diminished by use of samples with greater uniformity in geographic distribution, and that the clusters we identified were a consequence of uneven sampling along genetic clines. Expanding our earlier dataset from 377 to 993 markers, we systematically examine the influence of several study design variables—sample size, number of loci, number of clusters, assumptions about correlations in allele frequencies across populations, and the geographic dispersion of the sample—on the “clusteredness” of individuals. With all other variables held constant, geographic dispersion is seen to have comparatively little effect on the degree of clustering. Examination of the relationship between genetic and geographic distance supports a view in which the clusters arise not as an artifact of the sampling scheme, but from small discontinuous jumps in genetic distance for most population pairs on opposite sides of geographic barriers, in comparison with genetic distance for pairs on the same side. Thus, analysis of the 993-locus dataset corroborates our earlier results: if enough markers are used with a sufficiently large worldwide sample, individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe, with some individuals from intermediate geographic locations having mixed membership in the clusters that correspond to neighboring regions.
In light of this study does their argument hold any real water?
I think the questions surrounding this study are
a) what are *exactly* the genetic factors being group as such that they are correlated with with geography and hence "race"
b) what is the significance of those factors? i.e. do they invalidate the 15% to 85% out-group in-group differences argument?
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Clusters don't support the idea of sub-species/"races" in humans.
In fact, the *clinal* pattern of clustering in human populations supports a single species, members of which haven't been isolated enough spatially and temporally to develop into distinct sub-species.
It is thus natural, as the clines show, that in many cases neighbouring populations or in close proximity will likely cluster relatively more closely than with those in significantly distant geographical locations. Populations in geographical extremes are likely to show relatively greater genetic distance and relatively less clustering than with nearby populations respective to them, while populations in between -- in a clinal manner with certain genealogical trends at one locale gradually grading into variant genealogical trends -- can attain intermediary positions on cluster maps.
Now, clusters can also be dependent on relatively recent source populations of certain populations under study, and not just geographical proximity.
I recall a study, wherein certain East African populations were found to be intermediate [in clustering] between African and 'non-African' groups primarily because of the derivation of non-African gene pools from a subset of populations in East Africa, and secondarily, due to some level of gene flow between populations in relatively close proximity.
quote:Clusters don't support the idea of sub-species/"races" in humans.
In fact, the *clinal* pattern of clustering in human populations supports a single species, members of which haven't been isolated enough spatially and temporally to develop into distinct sub-species.
^ References?
This is their response:
quote:... [A]ssume time preference has an additive heritability of 25%. Assume that everyone with time preference more than 1 sd above the mean of the distribution has double the fitness of everyone else. About 16% of the population then has twice the number of offspring as everyone else on average.
After a generation of reproduction the new mean time preference will be increased by (0.2 * .25) or 5% of a standard deviation. In 20 generations, 500 years, time preference should go up by a full standard deviation.
They posit that such differences could accure (IQ) could accrue within the span of merely 500 years.
^ But then again their entire thesis rests on the premise that "race" exist, removing their arbitrary definition of race will remove the basis for their claims.
-------------------- Dont be evil - Google Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:[quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... [A]ssume time preference has an additive heritability of 25%. Assume that everyone with time preference more than 1 sd above the mean of the distribution has double the fitness of everyone else. About 16% of the population then has twice the number of offspring as everyone else on average.
After a generation of reproduction the new mean time preference will be increased by (0.2 * .25) or 5% of a standard deviation. In 20 generations, 500 years, time preference should go up by a full standard deviation.[/b]
But there are a lot of assumptions here which they want to asribe some significance to in terms of the neulous trait of "intelligence".
Of course, traits are heritable and in one way or another some groups acquire certain discrete traits such as height. Compare, for example, the Dinka of the Sudan with the Twa of the Congo.
Environmental pressures may have been the cause--but not necessarily. How about arbitrary genetic drift as a possibility?
The subtext in all these discussions is that some groups may be more cognitively able than other groups in the same way that some groups are on average taller than others. The question then is this: if a trait has been arbitrarily acquired, does it necessarily confer any advantage over other groups that do not possess the trait?
In the case of cognitive endowments the truth is that once humans acquired language and were able to cogitate in abstractions--as in cave paintings and tool making--the level of cognitive endowment was sufficient for any world environment. The same kind of human brain that could do a cave painting is the same kind that could build a computer.
This is what the GNXP people don't want to accept. The question they have never answered is: what kind of cognitive challenges could have improved fitness in human socities given that the vast majority of humans in Europe and Asia only began reading and writing some 100 years ago. The same for Africa.
But note too that if the idea of "race" can be made real on account of the local preponderance of some genes/traits--then that is no evidence of discrete races.
Think of the fact that the principle--in that there is genetic clustering in Europe too-- applies to Europeans in Europe. Recall that there were once written with the title "The Races of Europe"(Ripley, Coon, et al.)
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the case of cognitive endowments the truth is that once humans acquired language and were able to cogitate in abstractions--as in cave paintings and tool making--the level of cognitive endowment was sufficient for any world environment. The same kind of human brain that could do a cave painting is the same kind that could build a computer.
^ Well said. "Intelligence" might be as much, if not more and issue of socio-cultural context, as it is genetics or any arbitrary racial groupings they associate with it.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is "African" a Genetically Meaningful Entity? Race?
Yes.
Arent Africans distinct in their genetic diversity from all other populations?
Dont they have far more genetic diversity than all other human populations?
Is this not a significant genetic difference?
I dont know how u display that distinction but acting like it aint there to support how we are all the same is nonesense.
I dont know what word for different is best to use.....if people wanna use race then thats fine with me.....another more fancy word works for many also......those other words are often simply a search for another way to say RACE.
All human populations are subsets of the African population....does that eliminate the idea of race/difference? I have no idea.......but lets not behave like it is irrelevant and has no meaning or shouldnt be investigated as to what it may mean one way or another.
Posts: 404 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obenga: Is "African" a Genetically Meaningful Entity? Race?
Yes.
Arent Africans distinct in their genetic diversity from all other populations?
Dont they have far more genetic diversity than all other human populations?
Is this not a significant genetic difference?
I dont know how u display that distinction but acting like it aint there to support how we are all the same is nonesense.
I dont know what word for different is best to use.....if people wanna use race then thats fine with me.....another more fancy word works for many also......those other words are often simply a search for another way to say RACE.
All human populations are subsets of the African population....does that eliminate the idea of race/difference? I have no idea.......but lets not behave like it is irrelevant and has no meaning or shouldnt be investigated as to what it may mean one way or another.
^ The problem is, in arguing that Africans are a distinct genetic entity, and yet the most "genetically diverse", you contradict yourself in the the process.
You cannot be *both*.
Either there is a distinct and arbitrary sub-population known as "African" or there is'nt.
Much evidence points to the latter. That is, Africans are not a monolithic entity and cannot be grouped as the former.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is, in arguing that Africans are a distinct genetic entity, and yet the most "genetically diverse", you contradict yourself in the the process.
Distinct - Readily distinguishable from all others
Their diversity is what makes them distinct....no other group has it and that makes them distinct.
Africans are not a sub population either....they are THE population other populations are subsets of Africans....
Posts: 404 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
so what is your conclusion then mmmkay? pan africanism is outdated? or what do you suggest we call ourselves?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: so what is your conclusion then mmmkay? pan africanism is outdated? or what do you suggest we call ourselves?
This is a discussion on the validity of African as a "genetically meaningful" construct. I don't really see how you got pan-africanism.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ clearly i saw your views on african as a "genetically meaningful entity". however i just wanted to know if you are now calling for us to drop that term for something else.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clusters don't support the idea of sub-species/"races" in humans.
In fact, the *clinal* pattern of clustering in human populations supports a single species, members of which haven't been isolated enough spatially and temporally to develop into distinct sub-species.
^ References?
What for? You either understood what I had said, or you didn't.
Let me put it this way: can you draw precise demarcations on where one genotypic distribution abruptly starts and where it abruptly ends vis-a-vis another within populations and from one population to the next without 'genealogically' and 'geographically' intermediate populations, as opposed to observation of gradual change in extant genealogical patterns!
quote:Mmmkay writes:
This is their response:
quote:... [A]ssume time preference has an additive heritability of 25%. Assume that everyone with time preference more than 1 sd above the mean of the distribution has double the fitness of everyone else. About 16% of the population then has twice the number of offspring as everyone else on average.
After a generation of reproduction the new mean time preference will be increased by (0.2 * .25) or 5% of a standard deviation. In 20 generations, 500 years, time preference should go up by a full standard deviation.
They posit that such differences could accure (IQ) could accrue within the span of merely 500 years.
^ But then again their entire thesis rests on the premise that "race" exist, removing their arbitrary definition of race will remove the basis for their claims.
Has no bearing on my claim about clusters.
Posts: 233 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
* Is "African" a Genetically Meaningful Entity? *
^ I will just address the question, and not the parent post, which itself digresses by tossing in eugenics and race as red herings which have little to do with the supposed question.
African is as meaningful a construct in genetics as it is in language or culture.
If there is African language or African culture representing language and culture that originateds in Africa - then their are African genes and lineages, which reference the same.
This is very straightfoward, and is distinct from any discussion about race, racism and eugenics.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
a) There is significant between-population variation, enough to warrant "race"
b) There is thus a "racial" basis for intelligence differences
c) These differences could accrue within the span of 500 years due to selective forces.
That is their case plain and simple. I then asked for your references refuting their claim, because, as distasteful as their agenda may be, they provided theirs. This has yet to be sufficiently addressed in this thread.
Hope that clears things up.
quote: I will just address the question, and not the parent post, which itself digresses by tossing in eugenics and race as red herings which have little to do with the supposed question.
Hi rasol,
Just to clear things up:
I made this thread going into a recent GNXP posting as to how "race" is a meaningful and valid construct. You can visit here to get a better idea of what they are saying if your lost.
They got onto the topic of Africans. Specifically the james watson fiasco.
This is a racist/eugenicist blog. And they make no qualms about it.
My understanding is that they are "racist" because:
1) they assert firstly, the biological basis of race.
2) they assert physical, behavioral and intellectual differences between races.
3) in the above characteristics they assert, some "races" are "superior" to others.
they are are "eugenicist" because:
1) gathering the above suppositions there are racial elements that are "undesirable"
2) they advocate, in one way or another, selectively excluding those "racial elements" and thus minimizing their "undesirable" traits (in their view) upon future generations.
As they *are* a racist/eugenicist blog, it is *not* a red herring and entirely topical and relevant to the discussion.
Now the central topic of the discussion was not who they were (although relevant) but *what they said*. In short basically:
1) race is real, african is a race 2) there are intellectual differences between africans and other races as backed up by (incomplete) evidence and studies 3)denial of the above assertions is denial of the *truth* and so constitutes 'political correctness' but not science
Hope that clears things up. Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't understand why anyone is replying to this post in a serious manner. If you read the article cited at the beginning of the thread the findings of this study in no way support GNXP .
GNXP is discussing IQ. We have discussed this issue numerous times and found it as an inadequate criterion for assigning racial affiliations. IQs as measured in the West are depended on the academic ability of the test taker. As a result, a person's IQ can increase based on the learning and education of the particular test taker over time--if the test taker is being educated properly.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: [QUOTE]Hi rasol,
Just to clear things up:
I made this thread going into a recent GNXP posting as to how "race" is a meaningful and valid construct. You can visit here to get a better idea of what they are saying if your lost.
They got onto the topic of Africans. Specifically the james watson fiasco.
This is a racist/eugenicist blog. And they make no qualms about it.
My understanding is that they are "racist" because:
1) they assert firstly, the biological basis of race.
2) they assert physical, behavioral and intellectual differences between races.
3) in the above characteristics they assert, some "races" are "superior" to others.
they are are "eugenicist" because:
1) gathering the above suppositions there are racial elements that are "undesirable"
2) they advocate, in one way or another, selectively excluding those "racial elements" and thus minimizing their "undesirable" traits (in their view) upon future generations.
As they *are* a racist/eugenicist blog, it is *not* a red herring and entirely topical and relevant to the discussion.
Now the central topic of the discussion was not who they were (although relevant) but *what they said*. In short basically:
1) race is real, african is a race 2) there are intellectual differences between africans and other races as backed up by (incomplete) evidence and studies 3)denial of the above assertions is denial of the *truth* and so constitutes 'political correctness' but not science
Hope that clears things up.
As expected you never addressed what rasol said, only skirted the issue like you did my question. Let me ask another way, based on what rasol said re African culture etc would you still want us to identify under "African", despite efforts of some negros to forfeit that term?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL this thread has an IQ requirement. It was'nt addressed to you but rasol. You can't even stay on topic.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ LOL this thread has an IQ requirement. It was'nt addressed to you but rasol. You can't even stay on topic.
Are you kidding me? What gave you the impression I thought it was addressed to me? I just observed how you dodged the points he made and my question. Simple. Now what was it you said about IQ and requirement again? lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Nope; that is not it; I don't think you understood the implications of what I had said about clusters. What did you understand from it?
quote:Mmmkay rationalizes:
a) There is significant between-population variation, enough to warrant "race"
Variations across the estimated overall human genome only amounts to .01%. Yes, 0.01% accounts for overall human variation; what does that mean to you?
quote:Mmmkay writes:
b) There is thus a "racial" basis for intelligence differences
c) These differences could accrue within the span of 500 years due to selective forces.
That is their case plain and simple. I then asked for your references refuting their claim, because, as distasteful as their agenda may be, they provided theirs. This has yet to be sufficiently addressed in this thread.
Hope that clears things up.
Answer my questions first, and then see if you've really cleared things up!
Posts: 233 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): African is genetically meaningful period.
^ Does this mean race?
No.
quote:How can you call a population "genetically meaningful" without inevitably falling into the racial construct.
I'm saying that African - the term - is meaningful genetically.
It means that somebody's ancestry is African.
It does not mean that person is -biologically- a different 'race', species, subspecies, or thing from a non-African.
This is because no such biologically differentiable entities exist.
African = having originated in the continant of Africa.
You see, lineages, are markers that can trace your ancestry back to yuh pappy. (Or your mama if your a female).
They can see if "Tyrone", "Big Jim", or "other" is your daddy.
They can trace these genes back to the populations in which they were derived.
They way you phrased it, your thread should have been titled slightly different: Is "African" a Genetically Meaningful term? Is there a biological African entity?
If you didn't know whether there is a biological 'race' as in a species of even sub-species of humans, or don't generally know any of what we're talking about, you need to read up one bology, or take a biology course.
Now, that I and a few others thought you were intended to address is the question, "Does 'African' represent a meaningful and disdinct biological entity, relative to 'non-Africans'".
quote: Nope; that is not it; I don't think you understood the implications of what I had said about clusters. What did you understand from it?
quote: In one of the most extensive of these studies to date, considering 1,056 individuals from 52 human populations, with each individual genotyped for 377 autosomal microsatellite markers, we found that individuals could be partitioned into six main genetic clusters, five of which corresponded to Africa, Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas
^ According to the this study and according to GNXP (not me) these genetic clusters roughly correspond to "race". This is the study you should go after.
They are saying that genetic differences suffiencient to alter IQ significantly as a result of selection pressures can accrue within 500, giving them (argumentatively) space to say "clusters" are irrelevant and whats really important is the populations undergoing selection pressures.
quote:I'm saying that African - the term - is meaningful genetically.
It means that somebody's ancestry is African.
It does not mean that person is -biologically- a different 'race', species, subspecies, or thing from a non-African.
^ This ironically, is basically what GNXP racialists are arguing. That is: african is "genetically meaningful and distint" forming the basis of their IQ argument.
This is how it is interchangeable with race, this genetic can be used to say IQ changes have taken place.
I am using their posting and playing devil advocate.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic