BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 04:33 PM

dogs can interbreed....and sometimes there are characteristics which people work hard to 'select' for...or to get rid of. There are 'breeds' of dogs, not 'races' of dogs. Same general thing goes for humans.

We all know that Cocker Spaniels are different than Dobermans, because of small differences in genetic makeup...but we seem to lose that insight when thinking about people.

If we think about it carefully, and define terms precisely, there can be little confusion....but it is not adventageous to some folks prejudices to adhere to careful definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: greg stephens
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 04:14 PM

The existence,or otherwise of race is rather the same as the existence of God. You can argue about it till you're blue in the face, but the realities of the situation are that a lot of people believe, and act according to their beliefs. It's as well to recognise these basic facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 03:48 PM

The Brasilian researcher is a member of the Human Genome Organization and has good credentials; not all of his work is accepted by all geneticists, and his percentages are based on a very small sample-- but that said, much of the reporting on his work is selective and mis-interpreted, completely mis-representing his research!

Read what he found- "white people have, on average, 33 percent of genes that were ...Amerindian...and 28 percent African. Now how could he say this if there were NO group differences? He went on to say that European men often fathered children with black and Indian women. From this he concluded "...our data indicate that, in Brazil as a whole, color is a weak predictor of African ancestry." (Boston Globe)

True in the States as well- remember the "passing for white" of the gone but not forgotton segregation days? And laws about miscegenation? Bob Jones University is a living fossil from that era.

Greg Stephens is correct in that the great majority of human genes are similar (in fact most, apparently are the same as those of rats and pigs, enabling gene splicing among different animals). The differences are in the miniscule number that do differ.

What is true is that NO differences in basic intelligence have been demonstrated. What is also true is that many of the differences we notice are rather new developments on the family tree, and as such are superficial. What the Frenchman said!

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 03:00 PM

No such thing as race. Yeah, "no shit," and all that.

Sort of on topic, and even though I'm sure someone else has linked to it recently, here is probably the funniest thing I've seen in years.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 02:55 PM

Call me corny, but the way I see it, we're all just little sparks of divinity anyway. The body's just a handy way of getting around in the world. Divisions based on physical considerations don't make very much sense in that context.

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 02:47 PM

That is why when anyone asks me what my ancestry is, I say African - if you go back far enough!

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 12:42 PM

"There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races do not exist"

Old news... this theory (And it's a good 'un) has been around for decades...

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 10:40 AM

The seemingly high percentage of genes that were similar in different races might have been directions to grow 1 nose, 2 eyes, skin, teeth, etc. I think there'd be a whole lot more basics that we take for granted. I DO believe that a lot of our definitions are based on appearance, and just because people have observable traits in common doesn't mean they have other, unobservable traits in common as well. To a large extent, race IS subjective, however -

Race may be, at least to some extent a matter of perception, but the way people are treated because of those perceptions is reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 10:31 AM

We saw a program on I think it was the Discovery Channel, not too long ago, on which an anthropologist opined that skin colour was based more on where groups of people lived than anything else; being darker where it was hotter and more intense sunlight, lighter in the northern parts, etc. Of course it is just her theory at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 10:27 AM

Shucks, I've always thought that, genetically, the only "race" was the human one. (I'll leave the definition of "human" to someone else.)

Although...I *have* met more than a few who must be genetically equal to a pumpkin....

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 10:26 AM

Sickle Cell Anemia?
Tey-Stokes?

I'm certainly willing to believe that there's no difference in human potential among races, but it's going yo take some convincing me that other differences don't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: greg stephens
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 10:20 AM

I'm with Wolfgang, beware of people quoting "science". They may not be as reasonable as they seem. We may all have 99.9999% of the same genes, but it is a fact of life that the average inhabitants of, say, Iceland and Zimbabwe are superficially very different in appearance. And (a) these differences are undoubtedly genetically determined and (b) human beings have a sad and undistinguished history of acting very unpleasantly because of these differences.

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: Pied Piper
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 10:17 AM

Hi Wolfgang
What this guy is saying (I don't doubt that your analysis of his agenda is correct) has been known for some time.
I have trouble with the word "racism" because it implies the reality of race which I think the evidence does not support.
Of cause I don't deny that some people believe in race and use it to discriminate against other people based on some trivial aspect of their appearance.
The truth is that we are all one people with a common ancestor at least 150,000 years ago and probably nearer 70,000 years ago; far to short a time for significant genetic difference to develop.
It's interesting to note that chimpanzees have 10 times the amount of genetic difference amongst them than Humans, which you would expect as chimps have been around for 7,000,000 years.
I don't want to minimise the problems caused by people that believe in race but we cannot suppress the truth because (in the short term) some might seek to use that knowledge to maintain the status quo.
I had chance myself to add a little light to this situation a few weeks ago when I bumped into a demonstration by Greek Cypriots protesting at the continuing occupation by Turkey. I was able to tell one or too of them about the incidence of Beta-thalaseamia (a blood disease). It is more common in both Greek and Turkish Cypriots than in mainland Greeks or Turks. Obviously there is not a "racial" divide between Cypriots but a religious and ethnic one.

All the best PP

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: TIA
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 10:11 AM

Wolfgang - I don't know Brazilian politics, but I do know that good and valid scientific results have often been used by jerks to further jerk agendas, and that is sad. I still find the science itself to be encouraging, and hope that others will use it for good. I hope that if people understand how we really are all the same, we'll treat each other better. In fact, I hope that if people understood how similar we are to other living things we'd treat them better too. How similar are we? Rough numbers -- 99% of our genetic material is identical to a chimp's. 90% is identical to a dog's, 85% is identical to a rattlesnake's, 75% is identical to a tuna's, 70% is identical to a pumpkin's ! I'm hoping that at least some of my 30% difference from a pumpkin is related to cognitive abilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 09:29 AM

Sigh,

perhaps you are interested to know who you acclaim. Professor Sergio Pena is one of the leading fighters against affirmative action in Brazil. The government wants to have more Brazilians of African descent in higher positions (and perhaps even more now, with the new left president).

Pena considers the quote for Blacks/Africans in the 'positive action' of the government as an act of discrimination against white Brazilians (of which he happens to be one). His tactic in attacking the governmental action is to claim that it is impossible to say beyond any doubt who has how many 'African' genes and that therefore, there is no basis for deciding who should pürofit from affirmative action.

You see the idea? If there is no race, then there are no blacks/whites at all and all discrimination of one subgroup (race??) of humans is only imaginary.

You applaud a white supremacists who uses these 'scientific' arguments for purely tactical reasons.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: InOBU
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 08:58 AM

Hi Troll... right you are. This is why in European civil rights law, they look at racialization... the process of separating out, we used to do this before the Bakke case, the white bloke who sued over afirmative action claiming race based descrimination, when in fact, he had not been racialized (he was in fact an older applicant and that was why he was not chosed, and THAT in fact should have been what the court looked at!) But, we see it here, when Sharon claimes that I am a racist when I point out the witness in the shop lifting case against an Irish Traveller, described the robbers as Mexican, when the two Travellers do not look at all Mexican. Sharon points out that some Mexicans are blond and blue eyed... it is using race rather than racialization. Obviously the witess was using the racialized use of the description. In the New York jury pool survey Hispanic, a lingual distinciton is used as a racial grouping. I took over three hundred pages to answer my jury pool survey...
Cheers Troll
Thanks for posting this.
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: Amos
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 08:51 AM

I promise you those who are racists are not going to let a little thing like scientific facts confuse them, Troll. The same response that produced the Scopes trial and more recent similar scandals of barbaric thinking will prevail among those who choose to be closer to the monkeys behaviorally.

A

Subject: BS: Genetic 'Race' Non-existant
From: Troll
Date: 17 Dec 02 - 07:47 AM

Racism, the idea that one "race" is genetically superior to another "race" is based on a false premise; that different genetic "races" exist.
At least, that's what the following article says.
Scientists:Race does not exist
                   December 17, 2002

                   The idea of race is not reflected in a person's genes, Brazilian researchers said yesterday,
                   confirming what scientists have long said - that race has no meaning genetically.

                   The researchers looked at one of the most racially mixed populations in the world for their
                   study, which found there was no way to look at someone's genes and determine his or her race.
                   Brazilians include people of European, African and Indian, or Amerindian, descent.

                   "There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological
                   standpoint, human races do not exist," Sergio Pena and colleagues wrote in the Proceedings of
                   the National Academy of Sciences.

                   "Races exist as social constructs," they said.

                   They found 10 gene variations that could reliably tell people apart genetically, but the
                   differences did not have anything to do with physical characteristics such as skin or hair
                   colour.

                   Maternal DNA suggested that even "white" people had, on average, 33% of genes that were of
                   Amerindian ancestry and 28% African. - Reuters
Boy, what a comedown for all the racists. No more "racial" superiority or inferiority. We's all jes folks.
Except for possibly 'Spaw. ***BG***

troll