When we find something "negative" out about ethnic minorities, why..

[The Mad Viking]

I hereby declare Cali and Japher to be defeated.

[Japher]

Just tired of all you race-sensative yahoos trying to prove that your not racist, or at least prejudice..

This topic will come up again all to soon...

What about PA? If you think you beat us, then you must think you beat him...

---

You are genarilizing about ALL BLACK PEOPLE based on elite athletes. This is a selection set taken from a miniscule fraction of ALL BLACK PEOPLE, an entirely non-random set, known to represent and extreme that is 3 or 4 standard deviations away from the norm.

You have NO EVIDENCE that this represents ALL BLACK PEOPLE, yet, due to racism, people choose to believe that black people are better runners and jumpers.

I, nor Cali, never said ALL BLACK people. Generalizations and Characterizations are key to the fabric of policy, ever hear of a poll?

[Caligastia]

I support ALL BLACKS!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But enough to classify as a race? You could look at it as subsets within the human race, for example, consistent genetic variations related to geographical distribution. Nonetheless, the genetic variation among humans is incredibly low compared to other mammalian species due to a bottleneck about 75'000 years ago that reduced this species to a few thousand individuals.

I know this, I've argued it over and over with several people on this board, m'kay?

The conclusion from it is twofold - one, race does not have any significant biological meaning beyond the rather superficial aspect of skin color, and two, genetics is irrelevant when discussing race. Rather, it is the social and cultural baggage that goes along with race that is important.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kucinich
race does not have any significant biological meaning beyond the rather superficial aspect of skin color

What makes you think so? I know of no research that conclusively backs up this assumption.

[Kuciwalker]

There's tons of it. The average genetic variation between individuals of the same race is LARGER than the genetic variation between the "average" individuals of different races.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kucinich


There's tons of it. The average genetic variation between individuals of the same race is LARGER than the genetic variation between the "average" individuals of different races.

It's not the amount of genes that are different, but which ones are different that matter. Humans are 90-odd percent genetically similar to a fly, yet would you consider a fly 90 percent the same as you? You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Perhaps I should be the one doing the.

[Kuciwalker]

It's not the amount of genes that are different, but which ones are different that matter. Humans are 90-odd percent genetically similar to a fly, yet would you consider a fly 90 percent the same as you? You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.

It was either this thread, or another one, where I argued the exact same thing to a bunch of people who are virtually ignorant of biology (I'm assuming you are, since you've never seen this "evidence").

% correlation of genotype is not equivalent to % correlation of phenotype. The point of the genetic variation thing is that you cannot use DNA testing to determine whether two individuals are of the same race.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kucinich

It was either this thread, or another one, where I argued the exact same thing to a bunch of people who are virtually ignorant of biology (I'm assuming you are, since you've never seen this "evidence").

% correlation of genotype is not equivalent to % correlation of phenotype. The point of the genetic variation thing is that you cannot use DNA testing to determine whether two individuals are of the same race.

Better tell the cops then because they've been using DNA to identify race for years.

[Kuciwalker]

Again, you don't understand what I mean.

Let me explain how you compare two samples of DNA:

First, there is a process called PCR, polymerase chain reaction, that makes fifty gazillion copies of the DNA molecules, enough to work with.

Then proteins called restriction enzymes are released into the two things of DNA. Restriction enzymes cleave DNA at certain base pair sequences. They release the same restriction enzymes into both things of DNA.

The DNA is then compared through gel electrophoresis - there's this gelatin that DNA molecules can move through. The two things of DNA start in different columns. Because DNA is negatively charged, a positive charge at the other end of the gel pulls it through. After a certain amount of time, the charge is stopped. The heavier segments of DNA move more slowly through the gel, and (because they've been pigmented) form dark bands closer to where the DNA started. The smaller segments form bands further towards where the charge was. Because the number and size of the DNA segments is determined by the sequence of DNA (more/fewer/different places for the restriction enzymes to cut it at) you can measure the correlation between the two sources of DNA. However, it is easily possible for their to be higher corellation between individuals of different races than between individuals of the same race, thus % corellation cannot be used to determine if two indivduals are of the same race.

[Caligastia]

Dog breeds vary tremendously but genetically are almost indistinguishable. Do you consider a Bulldog to be the same as a Greyhound in all non-superficial aspects? There goes your genetic theory. NEXT!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Ah, yes. Because, like pedigree dog breeds, humans have been subjected to hundreds of generations of highly selective inbreeding designed to deliberately magnify specifically selected recessive traits, haven't they?

Next.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia




Better tell the cops then because they've been using DNA to identify race for years.

Really?

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00404.htm

........appears to suggest otherwise.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

http://ny.essortment.com/humangenomepro_rcaf.htm

While DNA can prove direct ancestry or linage, it can’t prove race or ethnicity. The reason for this is that human beings are so much alike, and have had genetic mixtures for so long even the most defining racial or ethnic traits are found in almost every human family. Skin color, facial structure, hair and eye color, all things that are use to define race or ethnicity lose definition when traced as part of a DNA analyst. There is no gene that can accurately define an American Indian for instance, because many of the so-called defining characteristics are genetically identical to many Asians and African Americans. Even so-called ethnic diseases don’t do much to identify individuals either. There are always exceptions that prove the rule doesn’t hold up. Sickle Cell Anemia for example, thought to be a disease of Black individuals is found as a genetic trait and disease throughout the Mediterranean

...seems to suggest otherwise too.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Rather than being used "for years", we're looking at a nascent science newly born from the Human Genome project, and though some cases have been brought using it, it needs to be considered that this science is very much in its infancy.