Drugs and guns and on it goes

[Gary Allan]

No ..hijack away ..this is good stuff.

I had a debate on a Pakistan message board. Actually I was being a real irritant (who, me?

) He was boasting of his superior genetic make up over one or the other (I forget what he was). I asked him if he knew the difference between some Russians and some Chinese. He didn't know. I said "about 5 miles". (there's an eastern European joke in there ..but..

)

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: GMorg
However, it remains true that the HapMap project began by intentionally including racially diverse samples and has been able to associate gene frequencies with race by considering race in the analysis. Three core populations can be described (Caucasian, Asian, and African). All other populations appear to be subsets or mixtures of those three groups.

These are geographic terms, not racial ones.


Originally Posted By: GMorg
As an analogy, gender was originally described by outward appearance. It was then understood to have a genetic basis. Next, many of the biological molecules involved in sex determination were identified. Gender has a fundamental basis in biology.

You seem to be using the words "sex" and "gender" interchangeably. That's not correct. Gender is psychological and social, so I assume you mean sex.

Sex is the biological aspect and its primary characteristics are binary. Egg or seed, female organs or male organs, XX or XY chromosomes. Violations of this distinction, i.e. hermaphrodites, are extremely rare.

Secondary sex characteristics are not binary, but they tend to come in coherent clusters with coherent sets of functional purposes that generally match up with an individual's primary sex characteristics. The male-vs-female distinction here is better represented by a pair of normal distributions with only some overlap, in which the mean of each distribution represents our definition of the sex.

It works that way across the entire human population.

No such relationship has ever been demonstrated for race, despite numerous attempts. If you look at any trait -- skin color, complexion, body mass, etc. -- it's a much cleaner continuum than the distinctly bipolar male-female one. In other words, if you pick two people from different parts of the earth, and they look different, it's a fairly sure bet that someone halfway between them will look like a 50/50 mix. Of course there are biological underpinnings to this. The point is, there's no meaningful place to draw the line.


Originally Posted By: GMorg
I will finish by saying that distortion from a position of political correctness appears a kin to distortion from a position of prejudice.

You said this before. It would be true if political correctness had anything to do with this discussion, but it does not.

I am doing you the courtesy of not even guessing at your motives. I ask the same in return.

 

[ksJoe]

Gender is binary too.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
The point is, there's no meaningful place to draw the line.


5 miles.

 

[GMorg]

Gender and sex have multiple meanings. The definition that you are using for gender is narrow and recent. In your definition, animals or plants could have no gender. We would not have a need for phases like "gender identity" due to redundancy. I have used them interchangeably in the hope that my intended meaning was clear. I think that you actually understood the point. I really don't have any desire to argue over such things.

As for both primary and secondary sex characteristics, they actually are presented as a continuum in biology. Many other organisms have much less sexual dimorphism than us and can even change sex over time. Many vertebrates don't even have a chromosomal sex. And in fact, the term race has historically and currently been used to define populations of many organisms other than humans. Biology extends well beyond humans and your position appears to me to hold to the idea that race has no basis in biology. This too is a distraction from the original point and I apologize if the analogy did not illustrate the point I was trying to make.

I have already granted that there are humans that are mixes of historical populations and that as more migration occurs the term race becomes less applicable. I will also grant that the word race must be used carefully as to avoid conjuring concepts that are not accurately associated with race.

If there are people that cannot see that most social ills are associated with experience as opposed to genetics, they have my sympathy and I hope that most people do not see their positions has factual. On the other hand, someone that supports their position in the name of facts and yet is distorting those facts (intentionally or not) needs to corrected. If you want to argue so that you can feel that you have won something, I'll grant that your position is common and you will find many that agree with you. If you want consider that the term race has utility and is not automatically a baseless, useless term, then consider the what I have written instead of considering it a contest.

In regard to the "geographical vs racial", I intentionally did not use the anthropological terms because they have become considered slurs in common language. I assume that you are aware that there are racial terms and that their use is generally considered politically incorrect by laymen.

This whole conversation reminds me of how language changes. When I learned the word "factoid" it had a long established definition. It referred to something that was incorrect and presented as correct so many times that was assumed to be correct by the masses. In other words it was not factual but thought to be true due to being said enough times. Today the word has become to mean a "trivial fact" or a "little fact". I think that these situations arise each generation as learn new words but only a subset of its uses (or misuses). The language changes.

Perhaps I have been a geneticist too long and somewhere along the way the words have changed meaning and us old guys that actually generated the data that fill the genetic databases just don't know what we are talking about any more. I can't find anything in my dictionaries that contradicts any definition that I have used. But then again, I only trust dictionaries that have professional editors that study the language and that are printed on paper.

I think that we agree in principle, but that I object to notion that race is a useless term. In particular, the idea that you did not know the meaning of "non-caucasian" seemed little overboard to me. And, you stated as fact and with authority that the terms have no biological basis. Perhaps the term was not sufficiently precise for your liking. I can accept that. But, most of us are oil guys expressing opinions. You will often see terms here that are a little less than precise.

 

[edhackett]

I was taught that race was (and still is) genetic variation due to geographic isolation. Race is isolated (non-interbreeding) populations expressing adaptations to their unique environment. Nothing more, nothing less. As GMorg says, the term carries no positive or negative connotations, and is not specific to Homo Sapiens.

Ed

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: GMorg
Gender and sex have multiple meanings. The definition that you are using for gender is narrow and recent. In your definition, animals or plants could have no gender. We would not have a need for phases like "gender identity" due to redundancy. I have used them interchangeably in the hope that my intended meaning was clear. I think that you actually understood the point. I really don't have any desire to argue over such things.

Yes, recent. As in, it reflects a fairly modern understanding. You say it like it's a bad thing.

The distinction is meaningful. I don't understand your point about gender identity because it cannot be understood without distinguishing between the biology and the psychology. I understand that "close enough is good enough" for most people, but I don't see it that way.


Originally Posted By: GMorg
As for both primary and secondary sex characteristics, they actually are presented as a continuum in biology.

Continuous doesn't mean evenly distributed.


Originally Posted By: GMorg
Many other organisms have much less sexual dimorphism than us and can even change sex over time. Many vertebrates don't even have a chromosomal sex. And in fact, the term race has historically and currently been used to define populations of many organisms other than humans. Biology extends well beyond humans and your position appears to me to hold to the idea that race has no basis in biology.

I'm sorry... did I miss the part where we stopped talking about humans in particular and started talking about animals in general?


Originally Posted By: GMorg
I have already granted that there are humans that are mixes of historical populations and that as more migration occurs the term race becomes less applicable. I will also grant that the word race must be used carefully as to avoid conjuring concepts that are not accurately associated with race.

Mixes of historical populations? What populations?


Originally Posted By: GMorg
In regard to the "geographical vs racial", I intentionally did not use the anthropological terms because they have become considered slurs in common language. I assume that you are aware that there are racial terms and that their use is generally considered politically incorrect by laymen.

Then who's the one being politically correct?


Originally Posted By: GMorg
you stated as fact and with authority that the terms have no biological basis. Perhaps the term was not sufficiently precise for your liking. I can accept that. But, most of us are oil guys expressing opinions. You will often see terms here that are a little less than precise.

When I elaborated my position, I said that I have never seen any clear demonstration of how dividing people up into "races" is a good way to describe the human species. Somewhat for other reasons but mainly for that one, I reject the claim you are making. If you have evidence to support that claim, please put it forward. I stand ready to be corrected.

 

[SWSportsman]

LOL! You pseudo-scientists/sociologists are taking yourselves way to seriously and trying to drown the subject in drivel.

As a practical matter, we all make assumptions about others based on appearance. Honest folks admit it...hypocrites go beserk trying to hide it so as to appear "enlightened" to all their wine & cheese friends.

See if you can give an honest answer to this one: You observe a young man walking down the street. He has his cap on sideways, pants down around his knees, tattoos on all exposed skin and 5 or 6 gold teeth. What is your honest first impression? That this is the kid you want your daughter to marry? He's a budding nuclear scientist? He's a good prospect if I need to stop and ask directions?

Unless you are a deluded ivory tower inhabitant, you're going to assume the guy is a pimp, drug dealer, or at least a wannabe thug. That's unfortunate in some ways and could even be inaccurate, but why even give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who voluntarily dons the garb of undesirables.

You see, the thing about stereotyping that drives pseudo-intellectuals nuts is that the results are extremely accurate. You can easily be wrong, but if experienced, your assessment percentage will be spot-on in a huge percentage of cases. It's a valuable survival mechanism that we never should ignore.

 

[GMorg]

I haven't argued that race is good way to describe the human species. The term cannot do that since it refers to subsets. I have argued that race has a biological basis.

I grant that "bad" can come from misuse of the term "race". However, I have also suggested that "good" can come from the use of racial categories. I offered a real world example in medicine. I will add that many of the genetic disorders that are assessed at birth are done so on a racial basis. The assessment of thalassemia, for example, can be misinterpreted without knowledge of racial origins (note the plural). The polymorphisms in globin are distributed by race. A protein that appears as a potential non-functional mutant in one race can actually be a normal and functional state in another race.

As a personaly example, my daughter was misdiagnosed with a beta-thalassemia at birth. We were told that my daughter may die and that she would likely need continuous red blood cell replacement. The issue arose because the doctors did not recognize my racial origins. They even segregated my wife and I so that they could privately ask my wife if there was any chance that someone other than me was the father. When I learned of the question I tried to tell them that I had Mongoloid origins. They didn't see the relevance of my input. I then told them that mother's side of the family was Native American. That didn't seem useful to them either. I finally told them that Native Americans are Asians that migrated to the Americas and that Asians have normal globin proteins that look like mutant Caucasoid globin proteins in their assay. A few days later I learned that they combed their reference material and found confirmation of the connections between Native Americans and Asians for the assay that had been used. They already understood that race had a genetic basis and that knowing racial origins was useful. They were just trained in a time where political correctness prevented open discussions of race - even in the context of population genetics.

I did not attempt to redirect the argument from humans to all of biology. Your position was made with the word biology.

As for continuum, I recognize the meaning of the word. I also recognize the concept of a bimodal distribution. However, it remains true that in biology, the hermaphroditic state is the most common phenotype for organisms that use sexual reproduction.

The start of my rant began when you said that racial terms have no biological basis. I disagree. That is the only "claim" that I intended to make.

Whether you decide to stand corrected or not isn't really important to me. I noted that earlier. I think that it is irresponsible for internet blogs to propagate misconception. I just wanted to make it clear that your authoritative statement was not strickly accurate. As a participant here, I think that I have that obligation. I appreciate the effort that the expert BITOG members make when our discussions become factually incorrect. Notice that the seasoned experts do not attempt to correct what people "feel". I am not an oil expert and can rarely contribute here in a meaningful way. However, I have degrees in biochemistry, genetics, animals science, and biotechnology. I teach graduate and undergraduate courses in embryology, reproductive physiology, molecular genetics, and biotechnology. I have been a researcher for the US government, for industry, and now for an academic institution. None of these things make me correct. I am just a guy on a discussion group that wandered into the wrong thread. However, when people make inaccurate statements about subjects where I can have a meaningful contribution, and they make them as fact and with authoritative confidence, I must speak up.

As for a words changing their meaning, it is neither good nor bad. It is simply how language develops. As a consequence, people use terms that have a different meanings without taking the care to note that it results in an inaccuracy until the newer meaning is ubiquitous. When I was younger, if I described someone as gay, it would be interpreted as a declaration of their happiness. I could be very accurate, and yet some people today would interpret that statement as either a slur or as a comment about sexual orientation. I no longer use the word because it's meaning is still in flux and can conjure unintended meaning. I did not intend to distort an issue through political correctness when I used geographical terms instead of anthropological terms. Instead, I attempted to use politically correct terms as to not introduce unintended definitions and to not offend anyone. I see political correctness as "good" when the goal is to avoid distractions. I see it as "bad" when it distorts the argument.

If you want to argue that meaning of the word "race" is changing and that under the new definition it has no biological basis - I cannot speak to that. I am stuck with the historical usage of the words since the historical definition is the one that is used in science. If you want to argue that social ills that are commonly assigned to biology should not be, I will and already have agreed with you.

 

[PT1]

Originally Posted By: SWSportsman

See if you can give an honest answer to this one: You observe a young man walking down the street. He has his cap on sideways, pants down around his knees, tattoos on all exposed skin and 5 or 6 gold teeth. What is your honest first impression?


He is from Detroit or Cleveland.....and I am so glad I got a 4 Runner instead of that black Escallade.....