PBS lies in an attempt to prove that race does not exist

[GePap]

Actually Cali, what MtG is saying is that if race where a salient human characteristic then mitochondiral DNA would give us racial differences The fact that mitochondrial DNA can not be used to "prove an individuals race" shows that race is not a significant genetic difference.

Oh, and can you list for us the races?

[Whaleboy]

Like I said earlier, scientifically, a race is a species that can mate with members of that species to produce fertile offspring. That is why humanity is one race.

Whether people view themselves as part of a race, that would be better described as a culture. However, all cultures interact with each other, so again, the idea that humanity is a conglomeration of different groups is flawed, we are a continuous mixture of different individuals. Whether an individual tends to draw a line in the sand, is down to him, but doesnt necessarily affect what others view.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


First, the indigenous people of South Africa, the Hottentots, are actually rather light skinned. You would assume that they are mixed to look at them. This is because South Africa is actually rather far from the Equator and has a Mediterranian climate, rather than equatorial. The reason that most Blacks in South Africa are dark skinned is because they are decended from the Bantu, an equatorial group that migrated to the area only recently, about the same time as the Dutch showed up.

Two, South African "race" was legislated. A Black person from the US who went to SA was legally white. Indians were considered Coloreds, even though many Indians are very white looking (generally upper class Aryans who kept their bloodlines relatively free from indigenous Indians).

In fact, race only exists in places where it is legislated into existence. If the old race laws still applied, many white Americans would not be considered white under the law there. If you had one drop of colored blood (Indian, Black, Asian, etc) you were colored, not white. Of course, if you look white, you can pass, no one cares. So, many Black people in the US were legally white.

Asians who live near the Equator are much darker than Mongolians. Dravidians are almost Black in skin color. American Indians even showed some color division. Melaneseans are darker than Polynesians, which is why the Australian aborigines are darker than the New Zealand Maoris.

That's very interesting Che, but what I'd really like to focus on are the deliberate deceptions in the TV program I mentioned. Do you care to defend them?

[Japher]

No, I don't buy any of that.

Race is different than species, at least in the connotation that Cali is talking about it. Genus, Species, Race IMO

We are all homo sapians, there is no defying that, but there could be a sub-species called "race" that is defined by gentic differences. Differences that give people a certain look, a certain energy, a certain trait... Yeah, we could define these races by hair color only, but in general we tend to define them as some one who has their origins in a certain area with certain physical characteristics. Also, a dominant majority of people from those areas (meaning having ancestral origions from that area) tend to be similar in looks, traits, and other characteristics... That is a race.

This is a fact... Ppl keep saying that there is no scientific fact basis for such assumptions. WHAT! Observation is the key to sciences. If there is a line up of three white guys and Jackie Chan you will able to note the differences, significant differences. That is science. Now, if it exists on a cellular level... I don't know? Nobody does. Obviously the difference is genetic on the surface, what is to say it doesn't go deeper. Heck, it could even be possible that people who are pale skinned are more subseptable to skin cancer not because they lack pigment, but because they have the mutant gene active when they are born!!

[Whaleboy]

"Differences that give people a certain look, a certain energy, a certain trait"

That is true, but in that respect, skin colour, place of origin (as a determinent on social race), are as equal as hair and eye colour (blondes, brunettes, redheads etc).

My point is that society will view them differently, but that is only because of the issues of people viewing themselves as a different race because of a trait. Do redheads view themselves as a different race?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: PBS lies in an attempt to prove that race does not exist

Originally posted by Caligastia


Natch. This is of course the case with anyone who challenges the current orthodoxy on race. We're all klansmen out ta git ya!! Boo!

If you were a colored boy, natch, I'd figure you'd be a black nationalist, not a Klucker. Whenever you post one of these threads though, in my mind, I hear the voice of the Homer Stokes character from O Brother, Where Art Thou: "All you boys is miscegenated! These boys is not white. I tell you, these boys is not white."

"Is you is or is you ain't mah constituency?"

Obsessive? I haven't posted a race thread for months. This must be a topic you find challenging.

Not at all. But out of all the people here in OT, you're pretty much the exclusive starter of race threads. Most of the human species just don't give a damn. And a good portion of the threads you do start are about race, in one way or another.

That's just dandy, but it has nothing to do with the fact that mitochondrial DNA is totally useless for determining race at the individual level, or for comparing the racial ancestry of one individual to another. Do you see how this relates to the TV program I mentioned or do I need to simplify things for you?

Of course, any kind of DNA testing is useless for proving a concept that has no genetic validity, but is just a social construct.

For race to have any scientific validity, there would be specific features that would allow an individual to be genetically classed as a member of that race. i.e., you're not comparing an individual to another individual, you're comparing an individual to a distinct gene pool (a population group), to see if you can determine that the individual in question is more closely related to one group or another. If you can't make that determination, then your concept of race as a genetic reality goes down the tubes.

So tell me, how many races do you think there are, and who gets to belong in the "white" one, since I'm sure that's the be all and end all destination?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually Cali, what MtG is saying is that if race where a salient human characteristic then mitochondiral DNA would give us racial differences The fact that mitochondrial DNA can not be used to "prove an individuals race" shows that race is not a significant genetic difference.

No. The reason mitochondrial DNA cannot be used to determine an individual's race is because is 100% inherited from your mother. Therefore someone whose racial ancestry is black with the exception of their great, great, great...etc...grandmother who was white will have the same mitchondrial DNA as someone who is all white. Your matrilineal ancestor of only five generations back contributed all of your mitochondrial DNA but only 1/32 of your total genes. If you go back ten generations it is 1/1024 - a miniscule amount - which would have almost no effect on overall racial character. So it is blindingly obvious that mitochondrial DNA markers tell you almost nothing about the overall racial ancestry of any individual.

Which brings me to my original point...

The makers of Race: The Power of an Illusion deliberately misled the audience by using mitochondrial DNA to test the overall racial ancestry of the students on the program.

Got it?

[GePap]

Japher:

What you observe are adaptations by the human body to best aclimatize itself to a certain region. Over time these adaptations will get better and better, which means that on the surface the populations of two distinct places will change. but the only traits that will change are those that need to change in order to aclimatize oneself, like skin color (to regulate UV intake), body shape (to regulate heat loss) and changes to make on less suseptible to local disease.

Once a human populaltion decides to change location and move to a very diffferent climate, those that survive will being the progress to change to aadpt. No traits will be kept in the end, if they make survival in the new environment difficult. Talke a bunch of scandinavians, ut them in Equatorial africa, and limit how much they mix with local populations, and in 20,000 years they will be black, ahve curly hair, and so forth.

As for mutant genes, that is simply a normal function of genetic drift and having an insular population.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Caligastia


No. The reason mitochondrial DNA cannot be used to determine an individual's race is because is 100% inherited from your mother. Therefore someone whose racial ancestry is black with the exception of their great, great, great...etc...grandmother who was white will have the same mitchondrial DNA as someone who is all white. Your matrilineal ancestor of only five generations back contributed all of your mitochondrial DNA but only 1/32 of your total genes. If you go back ten generations it is 1/1024 - a miniscule amount - which would have almost no effect on overall racial character. So it is blindingly obvious that mitochondrial DNA markers tell you almost nothing about the overall racial ancestry of any individual.

Which brings me to my original point...

The makers of Race: The Power of an Illusion deliberately misled the audience by using mitochondrial DNA to test the overall racial ancestry of the students on the program.

Got it?

And if they had a white grandmother so long ago, how could they be black! arent they mixed? And if race mattered, why would one singe mating all of a sudden ruin your whole schema? That is the point!

DO YOU GET THAT?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia


That's very interesting Che, but what I'd really like to focus on are the deliberate deceptions in the TV program I mentioned. Do you care to defend them?

There are only "deliberate deceptions" because mitochondrial DNA (or any other kind) won't show what you want to believe exists.

If you want to find a biological justification for the notion of race, mitochondrial DNA is essential for proving connection to a specific population group.

A classic example was the ~10,000 year old skeleton found in Columbia river sediments, that was ordered turned over to local natives for reburial, although it had unusual skeletal features (primarily the extra occipital suture associated generally, with so-called caucasians) that made it distinct from native skeletons from the area.

Mitochondrial DNA studies would be the only way to determine if that individual was more closely related to one population group or another.

[Whaleboy]

Caligastia: You talk about race, whereas you should be talking about genetic traits. It is the human mind, society and the individual that decides to call and perceive it as race, but scientifically, the traits are merely superficial, like I said, like blondes and brunettes, brown eyes and green.

[Caligastia]

Re: Re: Re: Re: PBS lies in an attempt to prove that race does not exist

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


If you were a colored boy, natch, I'd figure you'd be a black nationalist, not a Klucker. Whenever you post one of these threads though, in my mind, I hear the voice of the Homer Stokes character from O Brother, Where Art Thou: "All you boys is miscegenated! These boys is not white. I tell you, these boys is not white."

"Is you is or is you ain't mah constituency?"

Don't know that movie. Sorry.

Not at all. But out of all the people here in OT, you're pretty much the exclusive starter of race threads. Most of the human species just don't give a damn. And a good portion of the threads you do start are about race, in one way or another.

If most people don't give a damn, then why to the posts on these kinds of threads always go through the roof??

I reckon I've started more rugby threads than race threads. The race threads just get noticed.

Of course, any kind of DNA testing is useless for proving a concept that has no genetic validity, but is just a social construct.

For race to have any scientific validity, there would be specific features that would allow an individual to be genetically classed as a member of that race. i.e., you're not comparing an individual to another individual, you're comparing an individual to a distinct gene pool (a population group), to see if you can determine that the individual in question is more closely related to one group or another. If you can't make that determination, then your concept of race as a genetic reality goes down the tubes.

You know as well as I do that a person's race, and indeed the proportions of their racial mix can be determined unmistakably with the right genetic information.

So tell me, how many races do you think there are, and who gets to belong in the "white" one, since I'm sure that's the be all and end all destination?

You keep assuming I'm a garden variety white nationalist. My beliefs on human racial origins are in the Urantia book, but I'm sure you would only ridicule them so why should I bother sharing?

[Japher]

So, GePap, you don't believe that those adaptions could be significant enough to be labled as a different race as I definded it (a sub-species)?

you're comparing an individual to a distinct gene pool

A gene pool that is not adequatly defined. Thus, we do not have enough information at this time to actually settle this debate.

As long as we have people taking measurements there is hope, but when they measure the wrong things (as in the makers of this TV show) there is no way of really knowing. It is bad science, that show made a fool of itself, and while the resulting message was one of the greater purpose it was inherently flawed.

It would be like saying that the sun is yellow, and a banana is yellow, so a banana and the sun are the same thing... Looking for simularities does not classify the similarities nor does it even acknowledge the differences...

We all have are beginnings from the same gene pool, yeah that would be nice to here, but making up the facts doesn't prove a thing. And that goes for both sides of the debate.

[Caligastia]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PBS lies in an attempt to prove that race does not exist

Originally posted by Caligastia
You know as well as I do that a person's race, and indeed the proportions of their racial mix can be determined unmistakably with the right genetic information.

In case you really don't know, perhaps you should take a look at this website:

https://www.ancestrybydna.com

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


There are only "deliberate deceptions" because mitochondrial DNA (or any other kind) won't show what you want to believe exists.

If you want to find a biological justification for the notion of race, mitochondrial DNA is essential for proving connection to a specific population group.

A classic example was the ~10,000 year old skeleton found in Columbia river sediments, that was ordered turned over to local natives for reburial, although it had unusual skeletal features (primarily the extra occipital suture associated generally, with so-called caucasians) that made it distinct from native skeletons from the area.

Mitochondrial DNA studies would be the only way to determine if that individual was more closely related to one population group or another.

Wrong. And I've already explained why.