Author Topic: Episode #743  (Read 6663 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2301
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #510 on: November 07, 2019, 05:26:58 PM »
jt,

You don’t know what you’re talking about. 

Homo sapiens has existed in Africa for 200,000 years (perhaps 300,000 years), during which time it separated into 5 ‘races’ (West Africans, East Africans, SAN people, etc).  And as a result, the genetic diversity is greater in Africans than in any other group.

And then about 70,000 years, part of one African group left Africa to populate the rest of the world, and minor genetic mutations affecting mainly the external appearances caused the origin of Europeans, East Asians, Melanesians, etc.

And how the heck do you evolve a separate American Indian ‘race’ from East Asians in less than 14,000 years?


Geographic isolation?  What genetic analysis shows is that, on average, two Africans are more genetically similar than an African and a member of any other racial group.

Well, two Africans selected randomly aren’t on average more genetically similar than an African and a member of any other ‘racial’ group.  You’ve missed the point.  There’s no single African ‘race.’  The African population is genetically diverse.  There are Africans whose ancestors never left Africa who are genetically more similar to Europeans and East Asians (and even Australian Aborigines) than to other Africans whose ancestors also didn’t leave Africa.

As an analogy, ‘fish’ as a taxonomic group doesn’t exist (in the same way that Africans as a ‘race’ doesn’t exist).  Lungfish look like ‘fish,’ but genetically they’re more similar to land vertebrates than to finned fish.  Because lungfish are evolutionary’cousins’ (or perhaps ‘nephews’) of the vertebrate which first moved to the land.

If you’re going to divide the human species into ‘races,’ then it should be into Africans, 5 of them, with one including Europeans, East Asians, South Asians, Melenesians, Australian Aborigines and Native Americans.  And some current day Africans whose ancestors never left Africa.

Of course, geographically distributed population of humans differ genetically.  They’re still subject to natural selection and random events such as the founder effect.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10807
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #511 on: November 07, 2019, 05:53:01 PM »

Of course, geographically distributed population of humans differ genetically.  They’re still subject to natural selection and random events such as the founder effect.

Particularly, I'm interested in seeing how our understanding of human evolution changes with more genetic study. As we have noted, we don't really know to what extent has a consistent rate of evolving, vs random drift.

Are there any good human race trees of life that accounts for modern genetic evidence? Probably not an actual study, but science education effort.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2301
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #512 on: November 07, 2019, 06:27:10 PM »

Of course, geographically distributed population of humans differ genetically.  They’re still subject to natural selection and random events such as the founder effect.

Particularly, I'm interested in seeing how our understanding of human evolution changes with more genetic study. As we have noted, we don't really know to what extent has a consistent rate of evolving, vs random drift.

Are there any good human race trees of life that accounts for modern genetic evidence? Probably not an actual study, but science education effort.

Well, human races don’t exist, unlike common chimpanzee races, which do.  There are much fewer genetic differences between the various human ‘races’ separated by 20,000 kilometres and 40,000 years (such a fair blue-eyed Swedes and Papuan-New Guinean highlanders) than there are between the various common chimpanzee races separated by a few hundred kilometres.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/#!po=77.2727

This is the review paper I’d previously linked to.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2301
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #513 on: November 07, 2019, 06:45:13 PM »
I think we can all agree that dairy is not optimal for most and racist.  It should be removed from the food guidelines.

I remember now how we came to go down this rabbit hole of human ‘races’.  It was this comment from Tim44 claiming that having dairy products in the dietary guidelines is ‘racist,’ and should be removed.  From October 28.  No wonder I’d forgotten it.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10807
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #514 on: November 07, 2019, 08:09:06 PM »
The way we're using "race" in this conversational is more like genetically measurable ethnicity. Maybe ancestry or lineage to be more technical, as ethnicity includes culture that evolves along with people (sort of).

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12294
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #515 on: November 07, 2019, 08:21:46 PM »
The way we're using "race" in this conversational is more like genetically measurable ethnicity. Maybe ancestry or lineage to be more technical, as ethnicity includes culture that evolves along with people (sort of).

That, as related to geographical origin.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10807
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #516 on: November 07, 2019, 08:37:21 PM »
The way we're using "race" in this conversational is more like genetically measurable ethnicity. Maybe ancestry or lineage to be more technical, as ethnicity includes culture that evolves along with people (sort of).

That, as related to geographical origin.

Yes, but see the paper bachfiend posted (Templeton 2013). Using both that criteria and fst, there are no human subsciences, unlike chimps. Presumably, humans live long enough and can travel far enough in a lifetime that geographic barriers do not cause human subspecies to develop. We may find that ancient seafaring was far more common, as people fixate on continents and islands as the supposed dividing lines of race...

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9377
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #517 on: November 07, 2019, 08:40:54 PM »
Geographic isolation?  What genetic analysis shows is that, on average, two Africans are more genetically similar than an African and a member of any other racial group. 

Everything I've read and heard is that there's more diversity within any population (or "race") than there is on average between any two populations (or "races").

That's true, but it's the wrong metric for the purpose, because it fails to take into account that genetic makers are correlated within groups.  Multivariate techniques, such as cluster analysis, that account the correlation structure of the data need to be used.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy for a discussion.

While I don't pretend to fully understand the article, it seems to be suggesting that there's some significance to the fact that one can infer a person's ancestral geography from their genes. While I take it as given that genes can reveal geographic ancestry (I did 23AndMe.com and learned that I'm 92% Ashkenazi and 3% Neanderthal and some miscellaneous) this only speaks to those specific genes that are common to certain geographical locations. It does not mean that "race" as a societal classification is a valid concept.

"Race" originated as an excuse to colonize and plunder other lands, and before the science of genetics existed, "race" was mainly skin color and the shape of the eyelids. "Race" is an artificial construct which can be argued with some scientific evidence (and also argued against with other scientific evidence) but which serves no useful purpose. Even as an indicator of the risk of certain conditions, it's still just probabilities. If it serves no purpose other than as a basis for discrimination, and the scientific evidence is ambiguous (there appears to be no consensus) then what's the point? The only reason for even speaking about "race" is to document and fight against bigotry.

Race is a meaningless concept. Except for people who want to argue that they are better than other people.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2721
    • jt512
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #518 on: November 07, 2019, 08:57:06 PM »
Geographic isolation?  What genetic analysis shows is that, on average, two Africans are more genetically similar than an African and a member of any other racial group. 

Everything I've read and heard is that there's more diversity within any population (or "race") than there is on average between any two populations (or "races").

That's true, but it's the wrong metric for the purpose, because it fails to take into account that genetic makers are correlated within groups.  Multivariate techniques, such as cluster analysis, that account the correlation structure of the data need to be used.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy for a discussion.

While I don't pretend to fully understand the article, it seems to be suggesting that there's some significance to the fact that one can infer a person's ancestral geography from their genes. While I take it as given that genes can reveal geographic ancestry (I did 23AndMe.com and learned that I'm 92% Ashkenazi and 3% Neanderthal and some miscellaneous) this only speaks to those specific genes that are common to certain geographical locations. It does not mean that "race" as a societal classification is a valid concept.


As I have stated repeatedly, I am talking about a set of population groups that are defined by their intra-group genetic similarity being greater than their inter-group genetic similarity.  Not surprisingly, these groups correlate closely with major ancient migration events, ie, ancestry.  Not surprisingly, given our history, this correlates closely with conventional racial labels: Black, White, Asian, Native American.  An interesting exception: many (most?) genetic analyses put Ethiopians in the Caucasian group.

Quote
Race is a meaningless concept. Except for people who want to argue that they are better than other people.

Or unless you want to understand the risk for a plethora of diseases that depend on your "race."
« Last Edit: November 07, 2019, 09:07:58 PM by jt512 »
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2301
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #519 on: November 07, 2019, 10:07:48 PM »
Geographic isolation?  What genetic analysis shows is that, on average, two Africans are more genetically similar than an African and a member of any other racial group. 

Everything I've read and heard is that there's more diversity within any population (or "race") than there is on average between any two populations (or "races").

That's true, but it's the wrong metric for the purpose, because it fails to take into account that genetic makers are correlated within groups.  Multivariate techniques, such as cluster analysis, that account the correlation structure of the data need to be used.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy for a discussion.

While I don't pretend to fully understand the article, it seems to be suggesting that there's some significance to the fact that one can infer a person's ancestral geography from their genes. While I take it as given that genes can reveal geographic ancestry (I did 23AndMe.com and learned that I'm 92% Ashkenazi and 3% Neanderthal and some miscellaneous) this only speaks to those specific genes that are common to certain geographical locations. It does not mean that "race" as a societal classification is a valid concept.


As I have stated repeatedly, I am talking about a set of population groups that are defined by their intra-group genetic similarity being greater than their inter-group genetic similarity.  Not surprisingly, these groups correlate closely with major ancient migration events, ie, ancestry.  Not surprisingly, given our history, this correlates closely with conventional racial labels: Black, White, Asian, Native American.  An interesting exception: many (most?) genetic analyses put Ethiopians in the Caucasian group.

Quote
Race is a meaningless concept. Except for people who want to argue that they are better than other people.

Or unless you want to understand the risk for a plethora of diseases that depend on your "race."

No, the ‘conventional racial labels’ aren’t closely correlated with major ancient migration events.  ‘Blacks’ refer to heavy melanin skin pigmentation, which is under strong natural selection as a protection against the ambient level of solar UV-radiation.  Africans, Australian Aborigines and Sri Lankan’s are all heavily pigmented despite having no common ancient migration events.

And your risk of a disease depending on your ‘race,’ is because ‘race’ is usually defined geographically, and disease is often geographically determined too.  As a result of environment and natural selection.

It has been suggested that Afro-Americans are susceptible to hypertension and resistance to ACE-inhibitor therapy because their ancestors underwent a form of natural selection on the slave ships bringing them across the Atlantic from West Africa.  The slaves genetically prone to retain more salt and water survived better than their fellow slaves because they weren’t dying from dehydration.  And their descendants retained their propensity to retain salt and water, and develop hypertension:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.118.11064

As a further example of genetic diseases being geographically distributed because other diseases being geographically distributed is resistance to malaria and malaria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_resistance_to_malaria

For example, sickle cell trait provides resistance to malaria infection, and is common in populations in Africa with a high incidence of malaria infection (other populations suffering a high incidence of malaria have other genetic mutations providing resistance).  But sickle cell trait and anaemia (if homozygous for the HbS gene) cause disease too, and it has a geographic distribution.  You wouldn’t think of sickle cell trait as a cause of anaemia in a native Swede for example.  But you would if your patient’s ancestors came from a malarial area in Africa.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2019, 10:34:34 PM by bachfiend »
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2721
    • jt512
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #520 on: November 08, 2019, 12:25:09 AM »
Geographic isolation?  What genetic analysis shows is that, on average, two Africans are more genetically similar than an African and a member of any other racial group. 

Everything I've read and heard is that there's more diversity within any population (or "race") than there is on average between any two populations (or "races").

That's true, but it's the wrong metric for the purpose, because it fails to take into account that genetic makers are correlated within groups.  Multivariate techniques, such as cluster analysis, that account the correlation structure of the data need to be used.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy for a discussion.

While I don't pretend to fully understand the article, it seems to be suggesting that there's some significance to the fact that one can infer a person's ancestral geography from their genes. While I take it as given that genes can reveal geographic ancestry (I did 23AndMe.com and learned that I'm 92% Ashkenazi and 3% Neanderthal and some miscellaneous) this only speaks to those specific genes that are common to certain geographical locations. It does not mean that "race" as a societal classification is a valid concept.


As I have stated repeatedly, I am talking about a set of population groups that are defined by their intra-group genetic similarity being greater than their inter-group genetic similarity.  Not surprisingly, these groups correlate closely with major ancient migration events, ie, ancestry.  Not surprisingly, given our history, this correlates closely with conventional racial labels: Black, White, Asian, Native American.  An interesting exception: many (most?) genetic analyses put Ethiopians in the Caucasian group.

Quote
Race is a meaningless concept. Except for people who want to argue that they are better than other people.

Or unless you want to understand the risk for a plethora of diseases that depend on your "race."

No, the ‘conventional racial labels’ aren’t closely correlated with major ancient migration events.  ‘Blacks’ refer to heavy melanin skin pigmentation, which is under strong natural selection as a protection against the ambient level of solar UV-radiation.  Africans, Australian Aborigines and Sri Lankan’s are all heavily pigmented despite having no common ancient migration events.


Yeah, and of those three groups, only Africans would be considered "Blacks" conventionally.  At least here in the US.  In Australia perhaps YMMV.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9297
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #521 on: November 08, 2019, 12:37:27 AM »
Yeah, and of those three groups, only Africans would be considered "Blacks" conventionally.  At least here in the US.  In Australia perhaps YMMV.

You could call an Indigenous Australian a "black", but you'd end up with a punch in the mouth. Probably several.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Tarvek: There's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it.
Agatha: If that's what you think, then you're DOING IT WRONG!

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2301
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #522 on: November 08, 2019, 12:45:16 AM »
Geographic isolation?  What genetic analysis shows is that, on average, two Africans are more genetically similar than an African and a member of any other racial group. 

Everything I've read and heard is that there's more diversity within any population (or "race") than there is on average between any two populations (or "races").

That's true, but it's the wrong metric for the purpose, because it fails to take into account that genetic makers are correlated within groups.  Multivariate techniques, such as cluster analysis, that account the correlation structure of the data need to be used.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy for a discussion.

While I don't pretend to fully understand the article, it seems to be suggesting that there's some significance to the fact that one can infer a person's ancestral geography from their genes. While I take it as given that genes can reveal geographic ancestry (I did 23AndMe.com and learned that I'm 92% Ashkenazi and 3% Neanderthal and some miscellaneous) this only speaks to those specific genes that are common to certain geographical locations. It does not mean that "race" as a societal classification is a valid concept.


As I have stated repeatedly, I am talking about a set of population groups that are defined by their intra-group genetic similarity being greater than their inter-group genetic similarity.  Not surprisingly, these groups correlate closely with major ancient migration events, ie, ancestry.  Not surprisingly, given our history, this correlates closely with conventional racial labels: Black, White, Asian, Native American.  An interesting exception: many (most?) genetic analyses put Ethiopians in the Caucasian group.

Quote
Race is a meaningless concept. Except for people who want to argue that they are better than other people.

Or unless you want to understand the risk for a plethora of diseases that depend on your "race."

No, the ‘conventional racial labels’ aren’t closely correlated with major ancient migration events.  ‘Blacks’ refer to heavy melanin skin pigmentation, which is under strong natural selection as a protection against the ambient level of solar UV-radiation.  Africans, Australian Aborigines and Sri Lankan’s are all heavily pigmented despite having no common ancient migration events.


Yeah, and of those three groups, only Africans would be considered "Blacks" conventionally.  At least here in the US.  In Australia perhaps YMMV.

Well, you’re the person who used the term ‘Black.’  I would never do that.  Melanin pigmentation of the skin is only ‘skin deep,’ and a very poor measure of a person.  In Africans, the degree of skin pigmentation is markedly variable ranging from deep black to coffee coloured.

But anyway.  You’re still trying to shove populations with diverse genetics into a single race ie ‘Africans.’
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9377
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #523 on: November 08, 2019, 10:07:07 AM »
As I have stated repeatedly, I am talking about a set of population groups that are defined by their intra-group genetic similarity being greater than their inter-group genetic similarity.  Not surprisingly, these groups correlate closely with major ancient migration events, ie, ancestry.  Not surprisingly, given our history, this correlates closely with conventional racial labels: Black, White, Asian, Native American.  An interesting exception: many (most?) genetic analyses put Ethiopians in the Caucasian group.

Nobody denies that racist labels correspond to certain genetically-determined traits (mostly skin color and certain facial features) and that if you look only at carefully-selected genes you will find strong similarities within "races" and strong differences between "races." What some of us are arguing is that overall, we have more in common than we have different and that "race" is little more than a way of labeling people according to their skin color.

And I thank you for the reference to Ethiopians, which invalidates your whole hypothesis on race.

There are genetic differences between populations, and there's some small value in knowing one's genetic background for the slight differences in the likelihood of certain illnesses. But these differences are way too small to justify categorizing people into "races."

"Race" originated long before anybody knew there were such things as genes, as a way to justify colonizing other lands, enslaving people, and taking their stuff by violence. The science of genetics has been used to give some veneer of legitimacy to the concept of race, but what genetics has actually shown is that "race" is only skin deep and that the only living "race" of people is the human race. If you draw a Venn diagram of the so-called "races" of people, the overlap is so great and the differences so small that if drawn to scale it would have to be a mile wide before you'd see a hair's breadth outside the overlap for any given "race."

There are huge differences between individuals within any given "race," a thousand times greater than the average differences between "races." All except for skin color, because we classify people according to the differences we can easily see. And skin color is closely associated with geography because of the selective pressure of intense sunlight or its absence.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2721
    • jt512
Re: Episode #743
« Reply #524 on: November 08, 2019, 08:20:28 PM »
As I have stated repeatedly, I am talking about a set of population groups that are defined by their intra-group genetic similarity being greater than their inter-group genetic similarity.  Not surprisingly, these groups correlate closely with major ancient migration events, ie, ancestry.  Not surprisingly, given our history, this correlates closely with conventional racial labels: Black, White, Asian, Native American.  An interesting exception: many (most?) genetic analyses put Ethiopians in the Caucasian group.

Nobody denies that racist labels correspond to certain genetically-determined traits (mostly skin color and certain facial features) and that if you look only at carefully-selected genes you will find strong similarities within "races" and strong differences between "races." What some of us are arguing is that overall, we have more in common than we have different and that "race" is little more than a way of labeling people according to their skin color.

And I thank you for the reference to Ethiopians, which invalidates your whole hypothesis on race.


On the contrary, it demonstrates the importance of defining race by measurement of genetic distance.  I have no idea how you can misunderstand "my" hypothesis so drastically.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

 

personate-rain