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

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GePap



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!

It only ruins it as far as mitochondrial DNA is concerned. Mitochondrial DNA is only involved in the organization and structure of mitochondria, not of the rest of the body. I suggest you read what I already wrote and think carefully about it.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by elijah
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.

They are not superficial because with the right genetic information race can be determined through genetic testing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by 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)?

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

Yes, i do not believe that the differences are important enough to even call these groups sub-species, specially since the deviding lines are s shallow.

And you are correct, the gene pool is not adequately defined, and this will only get worse as human mobility increases and people mix indescrminately among different populations.

Wrong. And I've already explained why

And you explination is poor, at best. Answer my question Cali: can someone with one grandmother from a "different race" still be some sort of "purebreed"? or are they for ever "mixed"?

[GePap]

"Ruins"? Oh, I am so sorry that biology is so unhelpfull.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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?

Which is the appropriate method, and in fact the ONLY method. It's nuclear DNA that's useless, not mtDNA. Sorry, but there's no "honky gene" or "colored gene" in nuclear DNA.

You don't understand the issue, because your 1/32 or 1/1024 crap makes one huge fallacious assumption. That if you ancestor ten generations back make a little midnight visit to one of the cotton shacks out back, that that one, plus the other 1,023 in the rest of your nuclear DNA providers, in fact have "pure" DNA which reflects some "pure" racial gene sequence.

If you go back to tenth generation relatives, unless you have a highly unusual mutation (which screws the whole race genome concept right there, because a mutation is a random change in DNA pattern) that was passed down), you can't even give a high probability that two individuals are in any degree related. It can be hard enough even among siblings. Just because my half brother (now dead) got half his DNA from the same source I did, doesn't mean we got the same half, or even close. I couldn't give him blood transfusions, let alone a marrow transplant. But hey, our mitochondrial DNA proves that we're related, and that part of our ancestry traces back to northern Europe, as opposed to eastern Asia, or some of the hundreds of other known mtDNA "origins." (origins wrt where the first samples were identified and where they're commonly associated) That's all you can prove, in the absense of a specific nuclear genome for something you conveniently like to call "race."

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GePap
And you explination is poor, at best.

It is your comprehension that is poor.

Answer my question Cali: can someone with one grandmother from a "different race" still be some sort of "purebreed"? or are they for ever "mixed"?

it's not a matter of being 'purebreed' or 'mixed', it's a matter of determining what their overall racial makeup is. Something mitochondrial DNA is useless in determining.

[Velociryx]

Care to give it a shot, Cal? Please post a listing of all the "races" of man.

-=Vel=-

[Hueij]

Why are people posting in and therefore bumping yet another Cali race thread? Can't we just bump an old one? After all, they are all the same...

[Whaleboy]

They are not superficial because with the right genetic information race can be determined through genetic testing.

But only the attributes can be detected, it is the attributes and combination of them that links to the sociological definition of race. Scientifically, they dont tell if a person is "black", "asian", "chinese" or "jewish" etc, they only show the factors that feed into our discrete concepts thereof.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia


They are not superficial because with the right genetic information race can be determined through genetic testing.

BINGO! There's your fallacy. You're dead wrong.

First, what is the characteristic set you assume constitutes a particular "race?"

Second, how is that characteristic set expressed in the human genome for a member of that "race?"

(Hints: the first one can't be defined, because nobody yet has a concise definition. How many races are there? Aryans and muds is the simplest premise, but are there 2? 10? 1,000? The second one can't be defined either, because there is no single characteristic gene, or no distinct group of genes that determines, for example, skin color.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Which is the appropriate method, and in fact the ONLY method. It's nuclear DNA that's useless, not mtDNA. Sorry, but there's no "honky gene" or "colored gene" in nuclear DNA.

It is not a single gene that is looked at in order to determine determines race, but a combination of genes.

You don't understand the issue, because your 1/32 or 1/1024 crap makes one huge fallacious assumption. That if you ancestor ten generations back make a little midnight visit to one of the cotton shacks out back, that that one, plus the other 1,023 in the rest of your nuclear DNA providers, in fact have "pure" DNA which reflects some "pure" racial gene sequence.

Purity has nothing to do with it. Mitochondrial DNA is 100% inherited from your mother's side. It doesn't make any difference what your mix is on the nuclear side, it won't affect the mitochondrial DNA.

If you go back to tenth generation relatives, unless you have a highly unusual mutation (which screws the whole race genome concept right there, because a mutation is a random change in DNA pattern) that was passed down), you can't even give a high probability that two individuals are in any degree related. It can be hard enough even among siblings. Just because my half brother (now dead) got half his DNA from the same source I did, doesn't mean we got the same half, or even close. I couldn't give him blood transfusions, let alone a marrow transplant. But hey, our mitochondrial DNA proves that we're related, and that part of our ancestry traces back to northern Europe, as opposed to eastern Asia, or some of the hundreds of other known mtDNA "origins." (origins wrt where the first samples were identified and where they're commonly associated) That's all you can prove, in the absense of a specific nuclear genome for something you conveniently like to call "race."

If your half brother had the same mother as you, then your mitochondrial DNA would match completely. If not, then you would see differences. Of course, on the nuclear side, you would inherit 50% from each of your biological parents, and so would he.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Care to give it a shot, Cal? Please post a listing of all the "races" of man.

-=Vel=-

Sorry, I have no interest in trying to come up with a comprehensive list of races.

[Velociryx]

No interest....or can't?

-=Vel=-

[Whaleboy]

Cal: I dont see how genetic differences are a sufficient condition for a different race. Using that hypothesis, people with more body hair, different genders, eye colours, hair colours, height etc would all be different races. That definition is subjective to the point of each individual human belonging to his own unique race, or humanity itself being considered the single race.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Here ya go, Cal:

I'm not calling you a racist by this (I do that in other places), but let's assume for the sake of argument that the Klan, WAR and other white supremacists have the right view - there are Aryans and anyone else is a "mud" - whether they're mixed, different, or what have you, anything that ain't Aryan is a mud.

Now let's forget the muds, what exactly is the set of requirements for being an Aryan?

Place of origin? (Going back how long?)
Color of skin?
Eye or hair color?
Facial features?
Skeletal features?

List out whatever you think would apply, and what range of features?

I'm giving you the easy example, where there's only one distinct group, and everyone else. How do you define it? Then let's see if you can find the specific gene or gene combination that leads to those features, and exclusively leads to those features?

Try it, seriously. It can't be done.