posted
^ Arwa, there is no reason to address all members of the forum since all members (save a few) are not only able to read but comprehend what is read from all the scientific citations.
A shame there are just a few who would rather take mere snippets of it to distort to what they believe and not what it actually says. Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Which have what to do with molecular genetics and bio-anthropology?
quote:Clyde Winters:
You make it appear that you are an expert on everything. It should be a no brainer for you present a list of some of your presentations, books and articles on genetics, bio-anthropology or anything related to anthropology.
Gibberish.
This is a forum open to anyone who registers. I reserve the right to fully express my observations on any matter brought up; it is not some fascistic outlet whereby my views necessarily have to concord with yours. Anyone can come here and disprove anything I put forth, whether it be a scholar, professional or layman. Those who choose to remain silent while they have something to prove, well then, that is their choice. One can either speak up or forever maintain his/her silence. If you feel that my observations reflect sophisticated thinking, it is because that is how they are projected to you. I choose to not remain silent on matters on which I consider your observations flawed. I hereby demonstrate this, by showing that when the very immaterial questions you pose on others are then imposed on yourself, you are incapable of answering; e.g.
What molecular geneticsANDbio-anthropological papers have you presented at the AAA?
^Clyde's response to the very sort of questions he asks others to deliver on > No answer!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
To all forum members. Does this segment support grouping people into races? http://tinyurl.com/sz9kt
quote:Still, researchers using new technologies have shown that DNA variation measured in humans from across the globe can be used to roughly categorize individuals into clusters based on the similarity of certain sections of their genetic code (Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002; Rosenberg et al., 2002). Those categories—labeled by Risch and his colleagues as Africans, Caucasians, Pacific Islanders, East Asians, and Native Americans—loosely correspond to the social categories of race (Risch et al., 2002; Rosenberg et al., 2002). It should be noted, however, that these findings only result if one starts with individuals whose recent ancestors all derive from one geographic area—and of course that does not apply to an increasing proportion of individuals. It should also be noted that the number of “groups” is subject to the analysis of the data and the geographic areas of the world that are sampled. Human genetic variation is a continuum across the world (Serre & Pääbo, 2004).
Race and ethnicity are complex sociopolitical constructs. They are variable and fluid, changing over time and differing throughout the world (see, e.g., Harris, Consorte, Lang, & Byrne, 1993; Jacobson, 1998; Snowden, 1983). How can researchers reconcile what may at first blush seem contradictory claims?
Of course, none other than the likes of Clyde would mistake this for some sort of a twisted vindication of human 'races'. 'Clusters' are dependent on specific variables under consideration, and as mentioned, dependent on the background of Samples, in terms of population bio-history, sample size and geographical areas combed for sampling, which do not necessarily concord with the "social constructs" of 'race' or 'ethnicity' in one or more regions sampled. As an example, Y chromosome sampling from Greece has shown that there are Greeks who would relatively cluster close to sub-Saharan East and North Africans, than Europeans in the sampling from some region in the northern portions of Europe. Does this mean that Greeks necessarily socially view themselves as the same 'race' as these Africans they 'cluster' with, or vice versa? Likely not; nonetheless genetics would show that they cluster. That is the reality of biology, transcending social constructs. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
You are either a lousy linguist or you just come here to play around.
And stop quoting that article. You have misused it to a certain point that it wants to get help at UNHCHR. Start to search a scientific article, where it claims to have found a gene in only one human group.
You quoted:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ancestral geographic origins, in turn, correlate to some degree with self-identified race or ethnicity, but as noted earlier, this relationship is blurry and context dependent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
blurry context dependent<<< any alarm bell ringing!!
Speaking of context, the segment you quoted is called:
The Series of Weak Correlations In this section the authors were summarizing the weak allegation on connections between genetic and race.
You are the person who can't read. If one vists the article they will see I cited the entire paragraph. It doesn't matter if the person writing the article does not agree with the concept of race in science the authors( who are psychologists and not biologist) clearly says:
quote:
Race and Ethnicity in the Genome Era: The Complexity of the Constructs Vence L. Bonham, Esther Warshauer-Baker, Francis S. Collins, from National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health
American Psychologist, Vol. 60, No. 1, p 9-15 Still, researchers using new technologies have shown that DNA variation measured in humans from across the globe can be used to roughly categorize individuals into clusters based on the similarity of certain sections of their genetic code (Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002; Rosenberg et al., 2002). Those categories—labeled by Risch and his colleagues as Africans, Caucasians, Pacific Islanders, East Asians, and Native Americans—loosely correspond to the social categories of race (Risch et al., 2002; Rosenberg et al., 2002).It should be noted, however, that these findings only result if one starts with individuals whose recent ancestors all derive from one geographic area—and of course that does not apply to an increasing proportion of individuals. It should also be noted that the number of “groups” is subject to the analysis of the data and the geographic areas of the world that are sampled. Human genetic variation is a continuum across the world (Serre & Pääbo, 2004).
The authors continues quote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the present time, most of the specific gene variants involved in particular traits have not yet been discovered (Collins et al., 2003). However, researchers do have the tools with which to study variation across the entire genome in a set of individuals and to try to correlate that with health outcomes. Variation across the genome, in turn, can correlate with ancestral geographic origin, but this correlation is far from perfect. Ancestral geographic origins, in turn, correlate to some degree with self-identified race or ethnicity, but as noted earlier, this relationship is blurry and context dependent. So when it comes to the relationship between self-identified race and the genetic contribution to the likelihood of developing a disease or a given trait, self-identified race is a surrogate for ancestral geographic origin, which is a surrogate for variation across the genome, which is a surrogate for variation in disease-relevant alleles, which is a surrogate for individual disease risk (Collins, 2004).
You show your ignorance of discourse and linguistics. Just because the authors say something is "blurry " and the says "context dependent" is not saying that grouping people into geographical populations is dissimilar to grouping people into races. Use of the term "context dependent" indicates that in specific context race correlates with the double speak "geographical populations".
In otherwords, the authors of this article make it clear that race=geographical population.
You are reading into these papers what you want to read. They al recognize that scientists recognize that races exist, and use genes to correlate self-reported racial identity . This paper only confirms the findings of Tang et al.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you feel that my observations reflect sophisticated thinking, it is because that is how they are projected to you.
I don't think they reflect sophisticated thinking they are the rantings of a bully. This is clearly indicatd by your frequent attacks on anyone that disagrees with you.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Supercar I don't think they reflect sophisticated thinking they are the rantings of a bully. This is clearly indicatd by your frequent attacks on anyone that disagrees with you.
Then why do you think I make myself "appear to be an expert on everything", if that isn't the impression you got from my postings. I never claimed to be 'anything', and you don't know me. It is you, who went off-topic, by getting to my personal affairs, and now that you have been given a dose of your own bitter medicine, you whine like a helpless child, otherwise, we would have already had an answer to my last question. Matter of fact, I think that this very post reflects a whiner, not an adult, much less one capable of the slightest sophisticated thinking. You are a sore loser.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
You are the person who can't read. If one vists the article they will see I cited the entire paragraph. It doesn't matter if the person writing the article does not agree with the concept of race in science the authors( who are psychologists and not biologist) clearly says:
Wrong!!
They are invited guest writers from National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health http://tinyurl.com/sz9kt Try again
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
I quoted the policy of Nature paper. I quoted the leaders of National Human Genome Research Institute.
and I'm selective reader?
The author of this paper was V.J. Bonham, who is a lawyer, not geneticist.
Vence L Bonham, J.D. Career Mr. Bonham completed his J.D. at Ohio State Unviersity. His research interests include health policy and services; race, socioeconomic status, and health services; race ethnicity, and genomics; and interdisciplinary medical and legal education. Mr. Bonham is a reviewer for the Agency and Healthcare and Research Quality, a consultant for the Michigan Law Review Commission, and a consultant for the Secretary of the U.S. Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Contact Information Tower B B212 Clinical Ctr East Lansing, MI 48824-1313 (517) 355-4488
Contact via Email
The face that Mr. Bonham works for this magazine makes it clear that when he claims that geographic origin is the same as race he knows what he's talking about.
quote:
At the present time, most of the specific gene variants involved in particular traits have not yet been discovered (Collins et al., 2003). However, researchers do have the tools with which to study variation across the entire genome in a set of individuals and to try to correlate that with health outcomes. Variation across the genome, in turn, can correlate with ancestral geographic origin, but this correlation is far from perfect. Ancestral geographic origins, in turn, correlate to some degree with self-identified race or ethnicity, but as noted earlier, this relationship is blurry and context dependent. So when it comes to the relationship between self-identified race and the genetic contribution to the likelihood of developing a disease or a given trait, self-identified race is a surrogate for ancestral geographic origin, which is a surrogate for variation across the genome, which is a surrogate for variation in disease-relevant alleles, which is a surrogate for individual disease risk (Collins, 2004).
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
They are invited guest writers from National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health http://tinyurl.com/sz9kt Try again
lol.
RIP Winters 'evidence' of race.
Let move on to the real issue of why he so desparately need to believe in this essentially European invented, and white supremacist ideology (?)
There is a smallish group of older African American intellectuals, mentally dominated by white supremacists, and desparately trying to fight them on their own terms - and so, being very unimaginative about it.
Thus the attempt to counter - k-zoid history, with n-groid history.
This is ideological reaction posing as radical.
Reactionaries 'react' to and agenda driven by others.
Radicals completely redefine the rules of the game - forcing others to....react.
Diop was a radical -> in his day. Quoting him and substitute for knowledge of modern science is a reactionary form of discourse.
Someone like SOY Keita - a radical for today.
Keita has been a scholar of tremendous importance and devastating impact on Eurocentrism, because he exposes the internal contradictions of Eurocentric pseudoscience that Winters still exposes and so cannot hope to effectively counter.
Dr. Winters should read SOY Keita.
There are other ways of thinking about human variation than on the terms of Carelton Coon, George Gil, and David Duke,
Nordicist, Medicentrist and Negrocentrist(?) all hate each other because they sling the same..er, excrement. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
There are three authors, and one of them is Bonham , but why did you left out Francis S. Collins?
From the editors of American Psychologist
quote: Bonham, Warshauer-Baker, and Collins (2005, this issue) provide the first article for this special issue. The authors have leadership roles at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) at the National Institutes of Health—one of them (Francis S. Collins) is director of NHGRI—so they are particularly qualified to provide an overview of the advances in genome science.The NHGRI played a lead role in the Human Genome Project. This article provides a glimpse into the future of genomics research and some perspectives on the definitions of race as seen from the field of genomics. Bonham et al. also provide an introduction to some of the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) related to genomic research. ELSI is a field in which psychologists are especially poised to make contributions.
How am I defeated. These men specifically said that:
quote:
At the present time, most of the specific gene variants involved in particular traits have not yet been discovered (Collins et al., 2003). However, researchers do have the tools with which to study variation across the entire genome in a set of individuals and to try to correlate that with health outcomes. Variation across the genome, in turn, can correlate with ancestral geographic origin, but this correlation is far from perfect. Ancestral geographic origins, in turn, correlate to some degree with self-identified race or ethnicity, but as noted earlier, this relationship is blurry and context dependent. So when it comes to the relationship between self-identified race and the genetic contribution to the likelihood of developing a disease or a given trait, self-identified race is a surrogate for ancestral geographic origin, which is a surrogate for variation across the genome, which is a surrogate for variation in disease-relevant alleles, which is a surrogate for individual disease risk (Collins, 2004).
It's in Black and White, ancestral geographic origin is the same as race.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ How does any of what you quoted help you?
This is just like when you quote linguists who disagree with your theories, and pretend that they agree?
The question is - since virtually everyone you correspond with can detect the conflict between your assertions and your miscited sources, how do you manage to delude yourself to the contrary?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ancestral geographic origins, in turn, correlate to some degree with self-identified race or ethnicity, but as noted earlier, this relationship is blurry and context dependent.
According to Winters the above paragraph translates to = Geographic origin is the same thing as race.
This is why your scholarship is suspect. You ignore the *context* of what your miscited sources are saying in order to delude yourself that your position is supported.
The above paragraph is making a distinction between self identified race -> which is really *ethnicity* [not biological race], and geographic origin, and in turn stating that the relationship can correlate depending on context.
Since you are determined to delude yourself via willfully poor reading comprehension, let us break down the distinct concepts mentioned:
and to all, I have a question. Do I need to quote the whole segment?
No the learned authors make it clear that race and geographic origin is the same in the quote I have been publishing.
quote: At the present time, most of the specific gene variants involved in particular traits have not yet been discovered (Collins et al., 2003). However, researchers do have the tools with which to study variation across the entire genome in a set of individuals and to try to correlate that with health outcomes. Variation across the genome, in turn, can correlate with ancestral geographic origin, but this correlation is far from perfect. Ancestral geographic origins, in turn, correlate to some degree with self-identified race or ethnicity, but as noted earlier, this relationship is blurry and context dependent. So when it comes to the relationship between self-identified race and the genetic contribution to the likelihood of developing a disease or a given trait, self-identified race is a surrogate for ancestral geographic origin, which is a surrogate for variation across the genome, which is a surrogate for variation in disease-relevant alleles, which is a surrogate for individual disease risk (Collins, 2004).
Please learn how to read. Surrogate=substitute.
Translation of above phrase: "race is a substitution for ancestral geographic origin".
posted
^ According to Winters - a 'surrogate' mother is essentially the same as a biological mother.
And you wonder why your linguistic works are not taken seriously?
No translation, just a quote from your source.... Ancestral geographic origins, in turn, correlate to some degree with self-identified race or ethnicity
In these studies Hispanics are a self identified race or ethnicity, and can be modeled as a population in population genetics - yet geneticist do not claim that Hispanics are a biological race or sub-species. Such a claim would be ridiculous since Hispanics may 'originate' *by definition* in Latin America, but in fact have a patch quilt of pre-hispanic lineages relating them to population from all over the world.
Keep pretending to not understand the difference between and ethnic group, socially defined, and a sub-species or race as determined by biology.
Pretending to not understand is not effective as a form of debate.
It means your either disingenuous....or really slow.
As those ancestral origins in many cases have a correlation, albeit often imprecise, with self-identified race or ethnicity, it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection. It must be emphasized, however, that the connection is generally quite blurry because of multiple other nongenetic connotations of race, the lack of defined boundaries between populations and the fact that many individuals have ancestors from multiple regions of the world.
Considered in this context, it is apparent why self-identified race or ethnicity might be correlated with health status, through genetic or nongenetic surrogate relationships or a combination of the two. It is also evident that a true understanding of disease risk requires us to go well beyond these weak and imperfect proxy relationships.
Winters translates a weak and imperfect proxy relationship as meaning..... one and the same.
Let move on to the real issue of why he so desparately need to believe in this essentially European invented, and white supremacist ideology (?)
There is a smallish group of older African American intellectuals, mentally dominated by white supremacists, and desparately trying to fight them on their own terms - and so, being very unimaginative about it.
Thus the attempt to counter - k-zoid history, with n-groid history.
This is ideological reaction posing as radical.
Reactionaries 'react' to and agenda driven by others.
Radicals completely redefine the rules of the game - forcing others to....react.
Diop was a radical -> in his day. Quoting him and substitute for knowledge of modern science is a reactionary form of discourse.
Someone like SOY Keita - a radical for today.
Keita has been a scholar of tremendous importance and devastating impact on Eurocentrism, because he exposes the internal contradictions of Eurocentric pseudoscience that Winters still exposes and so cannot hope to effectively counter.
Dr. Winters should read SOY Keita.
There are other ways of thinking about human variation than on the terms of Carelton Coon, George Gil, and David Duke,
Nordicist, Medicentrist and Negrocentrist(?) all hate each other because they sling the same..er, excrement.
quote:Ancestral geographic origins, in turn, correlate to some degree with self-identified race or ethnicity, but as noted earlier, this relationship is blurry and context dependent. According to Winters the above paragraph translates to = Geographic origin is the same thing as race.
This is why your scholarship is suspect. You ignore the *context* of what your miscited sources are saying in order to delude yourself that your position is supported.
The above paragraph is making a distinction between self identified race -> which is really *ethnicity* [not biological race], and geographic origin, and in turn stating that the relationship can correlate depending on context.
Since you are determined to delude yourself via willfully poor reading comprehension, let us break down the distinct concepts mentioned:
Nothing stated with regards to 2 - 6 affirm position 1.
quote:Dr Winters vs. his cited sources.
Dr. Francis Collins.....
As those ancestral origins in many cases have a correlation, albeit often imprecise, with self-identified race or ethnicity, it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection. It must be emphasized, however, that the connection is generally quite blurry because of multiple other nongenetic connotations of race, the lack of defined boundaries between populations and the fact that many individuals have ancestors from multiple regions of the world.
Considered in this context, it is apparent why self-identified race or ethnicity might be correlated with health status, through genetic or nongenetic surrogate relationships or a combination of the two. It is also evident that a true understanding of disease risk requires us to go well beyond these weak and imperfect proxy relationships.
Winters translates a weak and imperfect proxy relationship as meaning..... one and the same.
quote: Is race biologically meaningless? First, it is essential to point out that 'race' and 'ethnicity' are terms without generally agreed-upon definitions. Both terms carry complex connotations that reflect culture, history, socioeconomics and political status, as well as a variably important connection to ancestral geographic origins. Well-intentioned statements over the past few years, some coming from geneticists, might lead one to believe there is no connection whatsoever between self-identified race or ethnicity and the frequency of particular genetic variants1, 2. Increasing scientific evidence, however, indicates that genetic variation can be used to make a reasonably accurate prediction of geographic origins of an individual, at least if that individual's grandparents all came from the same part of the world3.
Note that in this paragraph Dr. Collins use race and geographical origin as synonymous and is related to genetic variations. This view is supported by later statements in the same paragraph.
quote: As those ancestral origins in many cases have a correlation, albeit often imprecise, with self-identified race or ethnicity, it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection. It must be emphasized, however, that the connection is generally quite blurry because of multiple other nongenetic connotations of race, the lack of defined boundaries between populations and the fact that many individuals have ancestors from multiple regions of the world.
This quote does not contradict the reality of race in biology. Because they note that " As those ancestral origins in many cases have a correlation, albeit often imprecise, with self-identified race or ethnicity, it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection.".
It does not matter if the connection is "blurry" this professional biologists is maintains that :" it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection.
It is obvious that you guys can not read, or read into textual material what you want to read.
This doctor like Tang et al, and the researchers at the 13 research institutes mentioned earlier in this thread recognize a biological connection between race and biology.
posted
Mr. Clyde, Please note, the people on this forum can read, and you don't need to be brainy to understand what you have quoted:
quote:Francis S Collins:
Is race biologically meaningless?
First, it is essential to point out that 'race' and 'ethnicity' are terms without generally agreed-upon definitions. Both terms carry complex connotations that reflect culture, history, socioeconomics and political status, as well as a variably important connection to ancestral geographic origins. Well-intentioned statements over the past few years, some coming from geneticists, might lead one to believe there is no connection whatsoever between self-identified race or ethnicity and the frequency of particular genetic variants. Increasing scientific evidence, however, indicates that genetic variation can be used to make a reasonably accurate prediction of geographic origins of an individual, at least if that individual's grandparents all came from the same part of the world3. As those ancestral origins in many cases have a correlation, albeit often imprecise, with self-identified race or ethnicity, it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection. It must be emphasized, however, that the connection is generally quite blurry because of multiple other nongenetic connotations of race, the lack of defined boundaries between populations and the fact that many individuals have ancestors from multiple regions of the world.
If I were you, I would not quote that segment, because it shatters all your belief on race in biology.
Why does the author emphasis the importance of "geographic origins"? Because it is there where you take your samples to analyze (frequencies of genes). There is no indication that any allele frequencies can distinguish the geographic origins. A good example is ABO blood group allelic frequencies.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must admit, I have learned alot on this thread. T. Duster is right, when he said:
"In a parallel fashion, most of those engaged in the search for the genetic basis of criminality are now scrupulously avoiding the issue of race. But this is only because of the current hypersensitivity of the connection in the public domain, termed “politically incorrect” in the now prevailing political winds. That will change as the war on drugs, declining welfare support, a down-sized labor force in the secondary sector of the economy, and the skyrocketing growth of prisons converge. People of color will dominate the population of those incarcerated in state and federal prisons even more than they do now. Just as the attack on welfare and affirmative action were simmering issues in private boardrooms and private golf clubs for decades before the full-scale political attack moved to the public domain, so too the next decade will witness an outburst of behavioral genetics research, buttressed by the molecular reinscription of race tying crime to biological processes, and then correlating those biological processes to race. It is not beyond conjecture that it will be an African-American who will lead the charge, fully supported by the Pioneer Fund or some equivalent wellfunded, conservative think tank or funding source."
I guess, you don't need to be white to believe the superiority of the white "race". This is a big lesson for me personally, and I must thank Dr. Clyde Winters for that.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It does not matter if the connection is "blurry"
Of course it matters to science, where confirmation of theory is based on clear definitions, and clear cause and effect connections.
Unclear relationships, per se, prove little precisely because they are unclear or "blurry", this is Collins point.
*You* are claiming clear support of a specific theory, and trying to use Collins as a source, which is mis-citation at best, and a lie, at worst.
The contradiction between your claims and your sources does not matter *to you* because you are not a scienticist.
You are and erstatz propagandist whose primary agenda is what *you admit is your racial ideology*, which you must/need assert regardless of lack of support/evidence.
About which Collins says....
the use of such concepts is *misleading or counterproductive.*
quote:Checkmate Winters
Winters was checkmated several pages ago. His discourse on race typology and African Dravidians has gone nowhere in nearly a year.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Clyde, I must ask. Are you trying to show the superiority of the black "race"? Yes or no? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. My research is aimed at making it clear that the Ancient Model of civilization popularized by the Classical Writers and the Bible, that the ancient civilizations were founded by Blacks (a race) is correct.
Arwa
quote:
Why does the author emphasis the importance of "geographic origins"? Because it is there where you take your samples to analyze (frequencies of genes). There is no indication that any allele frequencies can distinguish the geographic origins. A good example is ABO blood group allelic frequencies.
[quote]
The point is not the author's emphasis on allele frequencies. Let's examine the statement of Collins: [quote]
Is race biologically meaningless? First, it is essential to point out that 'race' and 'ethnicity' are terms without generally agreed-upon definitions. Both terms carry complex connotations that reflect culture, history, socioeconomics and political status, as well as a variably important connection to ancestral geographic origins. Well-intentioned statements over the past few years, some coming from geneticists, might lead one to believe there is no connection whatsoever between self-identified race or ethnicity and the frequency of particular genetic variants1, 2. Increasing scientific evidence, however, indicates that genetic variation can be used to make a reasonably accurate prediction of geographic origins of an individual, at least if that individual's grandparents all came from the same part of the world3.
The point of the matter is that the author clearly indicates :
1. The term race does not have an agreed upon definition;
2." Well-intentioned statements over the past few years, some coming from geneticists, might lead one to believe there is no connection whatsoever between self-identified race or ethnicity and the frequency of particular genetic variants1."
3. " Increasing scientific evidence, however, indicates that genetic variation can be used to make a reasonably accurate prediction of geographic origins of an individual, at least if that individual's grandparents all came from the same part of the world3. "
This last statement makes it clear that some "well intentioned researchers may "lead one to believe there is no connection between self-identified race" and "frequency of a particular genetic variants", this is false because race correlates with geographic origins of one's parents.
Collins
quote:
As those ancestral origins in many cases have a correlation, albeit often imprecise, with self-identified race or ethnicity, it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection. It must be emphasized, however, that the connection is generally quite blurry because of multiple other nongenetic connotations of race, the lack of defined boundaries between populations and the fact that many individuals have ancestors from multiple regions of the world.
Here he makes it clear that
1. There is an imprecise correlation between self-identified race and ancestral geographical origin;
2. " it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection "; and
3." connection is generally quite blurry because of multiple other nongenetic connotations of race, the lack of defined boundaries between populations and the fact that many individuals have ancestors from multiple regions of the world. "
It is clear from Dr. Collins own words that race exist as a biological phenomena eventhough there is a lack of defined bondaries between populations and that ancestral geographical origins often correlate with the self-identified race of an individual.
I repeat Dr. Collins, Tang et al, and the researchers at 13 genetic research institutions around the world make it clear that race can be determined by genes. Stop trying to be politically correct by spreading this myth that many scientists correlate self-identified race to genes. The writings of even the people you use to support this myth prove you wrong.
Collins makes it clear that some " Well-intentioned statements over the past few years, some coming from geneticists, might lead one to believe there is no connection whatsoever between self-identified race or ethnicity and the frequency of particular genetic variants1." " , the facts prove otherwise. Given this reality you are fabricating a lie in this forum that some scientists don't believe self-identified race correlates with genes and the geographical origin of the individual possessing these genes.
Shame on You! Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Do you get paid for posting your intellectually stunted garabage on this site? I have caught you arguing on both sides of the fence. When you wake up from the wrong side of the bed race exists for you and when you wake up from the other side it ceases to exist.
You are one boring, lieing and fake mal-adjusted cretin, who oozes malice and viciousness like some spoilt fruit. You have no argument. Just some ill-digested, poorly understood patches of information. A little learning can create great dangers for the mind.
Go get some day job! Or go back to college like your little puppy Deadhuti!
The Lord of the Nile
Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lord of the Nile: Rasol
Do you get paid for posting your intellectually stunted garabage on this site?
^ You mean for posting links to the actual studies that Winters mis-cites and lies about?
You mean, for exposing Winters as a weak propagandist, and enraging both you and him in the process?
No, I don't get paid for it.
It's free, and you're welcome.
quote: I have caught you arguing on both sides of the fence.
Really? Then prove it. Quote me and demonstrate -whatever- it is you're trying to say.
If you can't, the it means you've caught yourself not being intelligent enough to understand anything. Or, put it this way...
It means you just *exposed yourself* as being completely unable to intelligently argue *any point*, at all.
quote:When you wake up from the wrong side of the bed race exists for you and when you wake up from the other side it ceases to exist.
If this were true, you would provide specific quotes from me, making the claimed contradictory statements. But you quote nothing. Why is that?
quote: You are one boring, lieing and fake mal-adjusted cretin, who oozes malice and viciousness like some spoilt fruit.
Personal attacks just make me laugh. Especially coming from someone who doesn't even attempt to address the issue or provide evidence.
It's really and admission that you have a low opinion of your own intellect, and can only try to play the class clown and disrupt discussions with cheap insults.
quote:You have no argument.
Sure I do. It comes directly from biologists. You simply can't address it, which is why you prefer insults.
Here I'll give you another chance....
"Race" has little meaning biologically, certainly not genetically. - Geneticist Spencer Wells.
"Populations should be viewed processually as dynamic entities over time and not "static" entities. The prescence of M35/215 lineages and the Benin sickle cell variant in southern Europe illustrates this well." - Shomarka Keita
Classification into race has proven a futile excercise - C Sforza.
Skin color is of little use in determining phylo-genetic relationships - N. Jablonsky.
quote:Just some ill-digested, poorly understood patches of information.
translation: you don't understand, you feel stupid, so you rant and blame others.
quote:A little learning can create great dangers for the mind.
translation: ignorance is bliss.
quote:Go get some day job! Or go back to college like your little puppy Deadhuti!
Go get a book, any book and read it. Then you won't have such and obvious sense of intellectual inferiority resulting in a completely mindless hate rant, that manages to not address a single relevant point.
quote:Clyde Winters writes: I agree
I know you do. But agreeing with personal attacks while failing to answer questions or address evidence, amounts to admission of debate bankruptcy.
You've failed again Winters, so let your bitter venting flow, won't help you. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Do you get paid for posting your intellectually stunted garabage on this site? I have caught you arguing on both sides of the fence. When you wake up from the wrong side of the bed race exists for you and when you wake up from the other side it ceases to exist.
You do not know what your talking about! You probably haven't a clue.
quote:You are one boring, lieing and fake mal-adjusted cretin, who oozes malice and viciousness like some spoilt fruit.
Oh please. I saw how ferocious you were in another forum. And there're others like you. If rasol was lax or not presenting himself in an intelligent manner, you would be on him for that.
quote:You have no argument. Just some ill-digested, poorly understood patches of information.
On what basis do you make those on? what? cause you said so?
quote:A little learning can create great dangers for the mind.
Translation: A little learning can create great dangers for a certain status quo I hang on to and MY BIG DUMN A$$! (sorry if i'm not as comical as rasol can be)
quote:Go get some day job! Or go back to college like your little puppy Deadhuti!
quote:My research is aimed at making it clear that the Ancient Model of civilization popularized by the Classical Writers and the Bible, that the ancient civilizations were founded by Blacks (a race) is correct.
If this is true, you should be able to prove this very easily, and right now...
You claim that West African Mandingo and South Indian Dravidans are the same race.
1) Please provide the name of a geneticist who agrees with this claim.
2) Please provide a source genetic study that claims that Dravidians and Mandingo belong to a specific claimed biological race.
My contention is that you will never answer this question: because you are a liar who knowingly makes false claims.
The challenge is clear and specific. Your move....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Winters writes: He makes clear that there is an imprecise correlation between self-identified race and ancestral geographical origin.
Sorry Doctor, but a person who "self identifies as racially Hispanic", and thus allows impercise collelations to their geographic origin which may be ->
* possibly partly Native American,
* and or possible partly African,
* and or possibly partly Southern European,
* and or possibly partly something else....
...does not constitute proof that Hispanic is a race. Nor does any biologist claim otherwise. Indeed the very fact that self identified Hispanic, can be successfully modeled as a population in spite of it's provable heterogeniety is proof that such a concept does not equal biological race.
Everyone in this thread, *including you* understands this.
The redundancy exists only because you are ideologically committed to lying about it.
You keep lying, we'll keep exposing you.
We can do this for as long as you like, and your thread will get nowhere. Either that, or start answering our questions. It's up to you. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I very doubt you will ever going to use Francis S Collins' article as reference to public or any events, and you will lose your credibility if you quote him out of context, which you did on this thread.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'm not trying to be PC. First, my faith tells me there is only one human race. Second, if race exists in science, then we would know the gene that codes the race gene.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find all this confusing. If, as is claimed, "Biological races do not exist" and "Race is a social construct"--then what is there to prevent anyone, for whatever reason, from claiming that "such and such a people constitute a [socially constructed]race. Or anyone could imaginatively combine 2 regionally disparate groups and claim "people A and people B" seem to be related on X, Y, Z grounds so I proclaim them to be a [socially constructed] race.
In the U.S. that is indeed the case when "Hispanics" or "Asians" or "Pacific Islanders", "Caucasians--to include North Africans and West Asians" are proclaimed to be "races" but implicitly in a "socially constructive" way.
Even the logic of the classifications is faulty: U.S. sociologists speak of "Hispanics" but not "Hispanic Americans", "Asians" but not "Asian Americans" yet they use "African American" but not just "African".
What is the explanatory ideological subtext when "races" are socially constructed then imposed on society as a whole?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: I find all this confusing.
I think people are reluctant to let go of ideological baggage.
This is what results in confusion.
quote: If, as is claimed, "Biological races do not exist
and "Race is a social construct"--then what is there to prevent anyone, for whatever reason, from claiming that "such and such a people constitute a [socially constructed]race.
Nothing can prevent anyone from making any claim, other than curtailment of free speech.
You can claim to be from the planet Mars, for instance.
I can choose to believe you. At this point we have a social construct.
A scientist may establish that there is no proof that any human comes from Mars.
At this point the social construct of Martian is scientifically invalid.
quote: Or anyone could imaginatively combine 2 regionally disparate groups and claim "people A and people B" seem to be related on X, Y, Z grounds so I proclaim them to be a [socially constructed] race.
That is exactly what self identified races are.
Hispanics are a perfect example.
The very fact that they can be clustered for -against- "non Hispanics" actually disproves race typology.
Race typology should either confirm that a Hispanic clusters only with other Hispanics, or obversely show that they are a hybrid mixture which can only be clustered in terms of 'other real races.'
But....there are no 'real races'.
Virtually all people have overlapping and variable lineages - usually from multiple parts of the world.
Moreover as this has always been so...there never have been any 'real races.'
quote: In the U.S. that is indeed the case when "Hispanics" or "Asians" or "Pacific Islanders", "Caucasians--to include North Africans and West Asians" are proclaimed to be "races" but implicitly in a "socially constructive" way.
Even the logic of the classifications is faulty: U.S. sociologists speak of "Hispanics" but not "Hispanic Americans", "Asians" but not "Asian Americans" yet they use "African American" but not just "African".
What is the explanatory ideological subtext when "races" are socially constructed then imposed on society as a whole?[
Dr's Keita and Kettles make a profound point:
The social construct that is race, draws its power from its natural science root.
It is the assertion of race as scientific truth that forces sheep-minded acceptance of the social construct.
Liken to 'scientific socialism'.
Scientific socialism and race [scientific racism?], are in fact both non scientific social constructs.
When a non-scientific idea draws it's power from belief that it *is* scientific - you have defined, pseudoscience.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I suggest you both of you save what is left of dignity and admit error or leave quietly. Preferably both. Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went back to first page on this thread, and you will notice how Dr. Clyde mixes the article from Nature and an article from mainstream media. Very amateur, Dr. Clyde.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
I went back to first page on this thread, and you will notice how Dr. Clyde mixes the article from Nature and an article from mainstream media. Very amateur, Dr. Clyde. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. Dr. Collins has made it clear that 1)many well intention people maintain the myth that genes do not correlate with self-identified race and 2) that genes, and self-identified race coorrespond to geographic ancestral origin.
It was clear that the researchers at the 13 research institutes were talking about race in their article. The newspaper article about the research confirmed that these researchers were talking about race(s). Use of the article and citation from the journal was a masterful illustration of the fantasy world you guys live in--a world in which you claim race does not exist--but where scientist hearald their correlation of race and genes.
There are just under 30,000 genes in the human genome, which consists of about 3 billion "letters" of the DNA code. The scientists found that more than 10 per cent of these genes appear to be multiplied in the 270 people who took part in the study. They do not know why some genes are copied and some are not. One gene, called CCL3L1, which is copied many times in people of African descent, appears to confer resistance to HIV. Another gene involved in making a blood protein is copied many times in people from south-east Asia and seems to help against malaria. Other research has shown that variation in the number of copies of some genes is involved in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.
Are there any other practical applications?
The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups - African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect.
Who made the discovery and where can we read more about it?
Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, Nature Genetics and Genome Research.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
It was clear that the researchers at the 13 research institutes were talking about race in their article. The newspaper article about the research confirmed that these researchers were talking about race(s). Use of the article and citation from the journal was a masterful illustration of the fantasy world you guys live in--a world in which you claim race does not exist--but where scientist hearald their correlation of race and genes.
This is false, you still haven't pointed out where the study itself says race exist. I read the entire study from front to back and there's no evidence that supports your claim.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arwa and X-RAS you live in a "Black/ Middle Class" fantasy in which race does not exist. Although this is your fantasy you can not transfer this feeling to the real world or win this argument because you have encased your views into a box which maintains that biologists do not believe genes can determine race.
Arwa, you have presented work by Duster, Bonham and Collins. A cursory reading of these articles pointed out that scientist have been able to correlate self-identified race to specific genes and races. Collins admitted what we all know to be true that self-identified race usually corresponds to geographical ancestry.
You can not win this argument because my claim is that some scientists believe race has a biological signature. You, on the otherhand claim that NO scientist believe in race. No way you can confirm this idea, because there is always two sides to every concept.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde, ^I got the chance read your last post,after I posted .
You wrote:
quote:You, on the otherhand claim that NO scientist believe in race. No way you can confirm this idea, because there is always two sides to every concept.
I never said, scienties don't believe in race, and if you go to first page, I wrote:
quote:You'll find racists in every milieu
And that includes scienties. BTW, why do misquote people? That is very offensive!
You wrote:
quote:My research is aimed at making it clear that the Ancient Model of civilization popularized by the Classical Writers and the Bible, that the ancient civilizations were founded by Blacks [ ]is correct
Well guess what, Doctor. I'm fighting for my people not to get exterminated. Why do you think the western world are funding these researches?
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Arwa, there is no reason to address all members of the forum since all members (save a few) are not only able to read but comprehend what is read from all the scientific citations.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
indeed, clyde, ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
..
Printer-friendly view of this topic