Race differences

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns


In fact, the Human Genome Project did prove that there is no correlation with any part of our genetic constitution (being that number of genes and it's combination) and "race".

It was proven that people from diferent "races" had more genetic similarities with people from other "races" then with others from their own.

These 2 statements are not equivalent. The question is whether tags were found. Remember the male/female example.

Doesn't it stricke you as odd that no particular gene or combination of genes were consistently found on the people of one "race"?

Yes it does. So show me a source.

What you are proposing is a wild goose chase: try and find something that just isn't there.

huh? I thought you said HGP did this search. Show me the source.

Again, I bet that you are as likelly to get diferent results from the test you propose as of getting if you were to take the fans of different football teams. That is, no statistically relevant diference.

Easy way to find out...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns

An ethnic group is distinguished according to culture, not natural characteristic and in no time did the comon use of the word "race" as ever been related to cultural diferences. The matter was, always, natural ones.

Ok lets stick to the race term.

The human knowledge of our diversity has evolved from dangerous concepts such as "blacks are not human beings" or "indians do not have soul"

I'm staying out of the "he's a racist", "no he's not" discussions. I will discuss the science and ignore ad hominem to me or others.

to the notion brought up by the Genome Project that said much more than we have some comon origin. It really said that none of us have particularly diferenciate genetic characteristics. They could test it because they, in fact collected samples from enough number of people from diferent "races".

showing that there is wide variation within races is not the same as showing that races do not have genetic identifiers. Remember the male/female example. The question is only tags, not amount of variance.

That's why I see no point in talking about "races", any more.
And talking about genetic diferences between diferent ethnic groups is, to me, just as wrong.

Wrong scientifically or wrong because it bothers you?

"There are obvious physical differences between the races"
Unproven fact!
Given the high variance the mean does not inform!
Other posters pointed out that even the examples you gave are proven to be incorrect!
Do you keep that, other than the colour of one's skin there is any noticeable phisical evidence of "racial diference"?
Do you still think that much is an important phisical characteristic?
Why?

Skin color is a physical difference . Other physical differences include skelatal shape (leg bone ratios), hair, facial features, epicanthial fold,

I've noticed you didn't realized some of the implications of the Human Genome Project: the fact that many people, from diferent "races" were sampled and no evidence was found that would allow to genetically pinpoint someone's "race", the concept is no longer valid.

This is what I would like a source for. Where are the published results of looking for racial tags. Did anyone even look? Show me a science paper. Common sense would say that there are genes that code for skin color and for other physical features. Or do you think these are not heriditary.

[Carver]

GP,
Yes there are genes that code for skin color, hair etc. But in degrees. A little melanin, a lot of melanin, and hundreds of settings in between. There is no yes/no, on/off, black/white gene. Every person is a unique composition of hair color, skin color, height, build, intelligence etc. That's why any attempt at racial grouping is false and artificial.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by GP


Agreed that this is a possibile danger in any analysis. The answer is to

1. do multiple regression.
2. look for mechanisms.

The answer is not to "stop doing analysis". That's not scientific.

BTW, one should have the same caution about stratifying by income, nutrition, etc. (what if those are correlated with other factors.)

In economic studies there are plenty of examples were racial dummy variables ended up not being significant when other variables (like income, wealth or education) kicked in. Multiple regression studies, of course (we, economists, actually excel on these litle beasts ).

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by GP
This is what I would like a source for. Where are the published results of looking for racial tags. Did anyone even look? Show me a science paper. Common sense would say that there are genes that code for skin color and for other physical features. Or do you think these are not heriditary.

What a nice game we are playing!
On the lack of scientific evidence to back the notion of race, you begun calling for a written reference about it.

On the references you provided:
We are presented with none the less than twenty "clusters of lineages, defined as haplogroups" said to be linked with continental or ethnic groups.
By reading the article a bit (I'm no specialist so it ends up being pretty boring stuff) I get some impressions:

- The are many factors one has to filter, in orther to identify the haplogroups:
"The phylogenetic network of the 42 mtDNA sequences (Fig. 1) was free of reticulations when mutations [8] 150, 152, 303i and 16519 were omitted in its construction. The tree topology was the same as the bootstrap supporting neighbor joining tree. We detected 35 parallel substitutions from 124 variable positions (28%) in the non-coding region (1,122 bp in length), and 45 from 409 (11%) in the coding region (15,447 bp in length). Shared mutations in basal branches of the tree relate haplogroups, however, parallel mutations should be avoided in their global affiliations."

- Some haplogroups identified with a particular area have also some in common with another:
"Main Asian haplogroups belong to two different major clusters, whereas A and B rooted with Caucasoid haplogroups, C, D, G and M constitute a monophyletic cluster. Likewise, African haplogroup L3 is more related to Eurasian haplogroups than to the most divergent African clusters L1 and L2."

In what way does this point to something that slightly relates to determinant genetic traces, defining a race?
Please look at this and draw your own conclusions.

Other links may be found in here (this link actually was already refered).

Just to help those (like me) usually too lazy to check the links, here is some food for thought:
"Are ethnic groups genetically definable?
As far as scientists know, no particular genes make a person Irish or Chinese or Zulu or Navajo. These are cultural labels, not genetic ones. People in those populations are more likely to have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. (There may be rare variations, however, that are found only in some populations.) This cannot be very surprising, in light of the vast extent of intermarriage among human populations, now and throughout history and prehistory. There is no such thing as a genetically "pure" human population. " (in the first link I provide).

So, if there is no scientific reasoning behind the belief in the existence of diferent human races... you may wish to believe what you chose to believe. Just don't call it scientific belief, please.

[TCO]

ecowitz, you produce your peer-reviewed studies then.

Carver, just becuase multiple genes are concerned doesn't meant that race does not have a genetic basis. I agree with you that it is not a digital distinction. Obviously racial physical characteristics are heriditary. And obviously racial groups are large family groups with interbreeding wrt to the general population. (If not, all racial groups would be geographically dispersed.)

[Ecowiz Returns]

GP

Please, follow the links on my post.

Goodbye, for now.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns


What a nice game we are playing!
On the lack of scientific evidence to back the notion of race, you begun calling for a written reference about it.

On the references you provided:
We are presented with none the less than twenty "clusters of lineages, defined as haplogroups" said to be linked with continental or ethnic groups.
By reading the article a bit (I'm no specialist so it ends up being pretty boring stuff) I get some impressions:

- The are many factors one has to filter, in orther to identify the haplogroups:
"The phylogenetic network of the 42 mtDNA sequences (Fig. 1) was free of reticulations when mutations [8] 150, 152, 303i and 16519 were omitted in its construction. The tree topology was the same as the bootstrap supporting neighbor joining tree. We detected 35 parallel substitutions from 124 variable positions (28%) in the non-coding region (1,122 bp in length), and 45 from 409 (11%) in the coding region (15,447 bp in length). Shared mutations in basal branches of the tree relate haplogroups, however, parallel mutations should be avoided in their global affiliations."

- Some haplogroups identified with a particular area have also some in common with another:
"Main Asian haplogroups belong to two different major clusters, whereas A and B rooted with Caucasoid haplogroups, C, D, G and M constitute a monophyletic cluster. Likewise, African haplogroup L3 is more related to Eurasian haplogroups than to the most divergent African clusters L1 and L2."

In what way does this point to something that slightly relates to determinant genetic traces, defining a race?
Please look at this and draw your own conclusions.

Other links may be found in here (this link actually was already refered).

Just to help those (like me) usually too lazy to check the links, here is some food for thought:
"Are ethnic groups genetically definable?
As far as scientists know, no particular genes make a person Irish or Chinese or Zulu or Navajo. These are cultural labels, not genetic ones. People in those populations are more likely to have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. (There may be rare variations, however, that are found only in some populations.) This cannot be very surprising, in light of the vast extent of intermarriage among human populations, now and throughout history and prehistory. There is no such thing as a genetically "pure" human population. " (in the first link I provide).

So, if there is no scientific reasoning behind the belief in the existence of diferent human races... you may wish to believe what you chose to believe. Just don't call it scientific belief, please.

Just because there is not a single dodon that identifies Irish versus African, does not say that races are not genetically determined. The comment that certain allelles are present in some races more than others shows that there are geneteic differences.

My question to you: if DNA samples are given to a forensic scientist could he determine the race of the donor? I don't know the answer, but since you are so sure, please tell me. (I do know that with mDNA he could make a determination.)

[TCO]

Eco,

I read your links. the Stanford one is relavent. The other one is the big useless omnibus that Ramo already cited and I already looked at.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GP
ecowitz, you produce your peer-reviewed studies then.

To clarify: I am referring to your remarks regarding multiple regression in economic literature.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo


Do you have a good source?

Most IQ studies I've seen have been woefully inadaquete.

Here is a review of the different surveys on IQ differences by race in America:

Loehlin, J.C., Lindzey, G., and Spuhler, N.J. 1975. Race Differences in Intelligence. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.


The Bell Curve (Murray and Herrnstein) also contains good analysis of the NLSY data (which sampled 12000 Americans, was carefully constructed to hit target demographics, and had followup examinations). It also lists several earlier surveys.

You should be able to get these books in your academic library or by ILL.


BTW, if you find the IQ literature inconclusive (weak), that means you should be less definite in your statements (more open).

(You shouldn't say, "I beleive strongly in the opposite of theory A because there is no adequate proof of Theory A.") See...if there is no adequate study of phenomon A, than you can't be so strong in your opinions.

[Ramo]

Ok, I've checked out the "Bell Curve," (and skimmed most of it) as well as a book called the "Bell Curve Debate" edited Russel Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman (which pointed out most of the error I'll mention in this post), and I've got quite a few comments.

The first thing to note is that Murray and Hernstein have a clear political agenda for this book, which takes up several chapters by itself. The anti-welfare, anti-affirmative action, anti-immigration (on a side note, he mentions that US immigrants, based on the tenuous data he has, should have lower IQs, without even mentioning Middle Eastern or South Asian numbers, at all ), etc. rhetoric pervades the book. IMO, this is one of the best indications "The Bell Curve" isn't objective science.

The authors almost completely ignore cultural factors. Their multiple regressions have very little relevance as they don't incorporate such biases (hence my earlier comment of IQ studies being inadaquete).

The authors dismissed the scholarship out of hand (calling one researcher a "radical") that the existence of a "general intelligence" is rather tenous.

They use absurd sources for a lot of their data. First, there's this Lynn fellow, who the authors rely on for much of their data. He happens one of the editors of the "Mankind Journal," a nice little ultra-racist publication that the Southern conservatives dumped their money into to try to preserve segregation, and a staunch supporters of Apartheid.

As bad as his credentials sound, his data is even worse.

I particularly was amused how he used IQ tests mostly from South Africa under Apartheid (there was even one sample from the Belgian Congo) to represent the entire continent! Lynn also looks at a cognitive test, "Progressive Matrices," (supposedly less subject to cultural biases) the creator of which has said that there is no meaningful translatation of these scores into IQ scores, in that the distribution is not normal. But Lynn normalized the data, despite knowing that a standard deviation means absolutely nothing.

Of course, Africa isn't the only continent that he butchers. There was one source where the he took a sample of 58 Japanese kids, and compared those scores to a sample of several thousand American kids taken over a decade earlier. In another East Asian sample of IQ scores, scores were supposedly taken from "typical" students, but were in fact taken from economically well-off students.

Another tenous facet of Hernstein and Murray's book is the part on "reaction times." They were saying that asserting that whites have a faster "reaction time," that is the time it takes to make a decision (i.e. a signal getting to the brain), while blacks have a faster "movement time," or the time it takes to execute the decision. The study they cited which supposedly gave "consistent" results in fact showed that both assertions were true for 2 out of 3 tests. What's more, Jenson, the person who created the study had tried it twice before. Interestingly enough the three studies were inconsistent.

I could go on and on about this kind of thing (check out "The Bell Curve Debate" if you're still interested), but the crux of the matter is that these studies aren't created by scientists, but racists hinding behind a mask of science.

BTW, if you find the IQ literature inconclusive (weak), that means you should be less definite in your statements (more open).

(You shouldn't say, "I beleive strongly in the opposite of theory A because there is no adequate proof of Theory A.") See...if there is no adequate study of phenomon A, than you can't be so strong in your opinions.

IQ studies have only a limited amout of credibility, even given optimal circumstances. You'd have to show me a real reason for a gap in intelligence between various peoples for me to believe it (or genetic evidence). Sociology ain't physics.

It doesn't require complete seperation. Just a gradient. Surely you can see that skin color is heriditary and there was time enough and seperation enough for this development. (If intermixing were so rapid as to eliminate all racial differences...why do color differences exist?). The (unsolved question) is was there enough time/seperation for other differences to develop.

But there's a clear reason why different amounts of melanin would be selected in different climates, while the reason for differences in the supposed smart gene is nonintuitive in the extreme. As far as I can see, if a few simple switches can turn you from stupid to smart, I see no good reason why the "stupid" alleles should be dominant in certain populations.

Real differences (i.e. not statistical anomalies) in intelligence arise from trade-offs. For instance, if I (speaking as a species) want to fly, I have to devote more energy to various muscles. So I either have to start eating more or lose my intelligence.

There's no comparable trade-off in the case of human peoples, so a difference likely does not exist.

In 1900, mechanistic arguments for different mobilities in different metal were nonexistent, but the differences were there and were noted.

You can't seriously be comparing this sociobiological theory, or whatever they're calling it, to QT!

And the differences regarding intellectual differences in peoples may have been "noted," but that's generally due to incorrect data.

But you don't do much to prove your negative point (that all environments have the same evolutionary pressure for intelligence. In fact your comments about the rain forest go the other way.) If different environments favor differnt physicical traits why is it so hard to consider that they would favor intelectual traits or even emotional ones.

First of all, I think just about all hunter-gatherers need the aforementioned skills, not exclusively inhabitants of tropical environments. I mentioned tropical environments only because that's where the vast majority of hunter-gatherers currently reside.

Secondly, again, this boils down to time constraints. It's plausible for significant differences to develop after millions of years, but not 30 or 40000, with substancial sharing of genetic information between the peoples.

I'd like to see some data on South and Southeast Asians, which as I mentioned above, was non-existent in "The Bell Curve." That ought to put the environmental selection theory to a better test.

1. Variation in DNA as a whole is not the issue, variation in DNA associated with intelligence is the issue. Neither side has given any evidence here. But your statements are the more declarative. (therefore not supported.)

But a very small amount of variation in DNA between peoples relative to within peoples gives less credence to a significant variation in intelligence between peoples relative to within peoples.

2. You realize that different breeds of dog have almost identical DNA, yet clear different results in behavior and intelligence. Why is it so hard to consider the same could be true for humans? We are just lumps of protoplasm also.

I don't know much about genetic variability in dogs, but can you point out a comparable piece of information to the one I pointed out regarding humans?

How long?

I can't give you an exact number, but I've been told by bio-types (smart folk) that the number is much longer than 40000 years.

The reservation remains.

No time right now (spent enough tonight writing this post ).

Surely, you realize that some codons are inactive, have different functions, etc. Do you think that all of those thousands affect intelligence equally?

But mutations don't happen all that rapidly. And the vast majority of mutations are either ineffective or disadvantageous. The latter is particularly true when you're dealing with something as complex as the brain. The mutated allele has to get along with all of the other genes, and that isn't a simple task. In fact, I would wager that humans that more rapidly develop mutations in the brain are selected out of the population - the opposite of punctuated equilibrium.

It strikes me as inconcievable that a mutation could develop such that an animal becomes a whole standard deviation smarter within a 40000 years without any discernible selective pressures in the picture.

[TCO]

Ramo, this type of long cut and paste discussion is hard for me to follow. Also it seems like you glide from objection to objection. Let's try to be fair to each other and dissagregate the issues and deal with them individually.

[TCO]

The first thing is to decide what we are discussing here. What are the topics of debate.

1. Does intelligence vary for different races.

2. What is the basis of this difference (genetic, environment, both, what percentages)

You can beleive that there is an IQ gap without beleiveing that the cause is genetic. You can also believe that there is an IQ gap and than not believe that IQ = intelligence.

I would really like to pin you down to specifics...to be honest I'm not sure what you beleive on all these issues.

For instance, would you accept that IQ has a strong genetic component (i.e. runs in families)? Note it is possible to believe this without having to beleive that the B/W IQ gap is genetic.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo
Ok, I've checked out the "Bell Curve," (and skimmed most of it) as well as a book called the "Bell Curve Debate" edited Russel Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman (which pointed out most of the error I'll mention in this post), and I've got quite a few comments.

1. How closely did you look at The Bell Curve? Just glance at in the bookstore? Or check out a copy from the library and read at least some sections of it?

2. I have read one compendium of Bell Curve criticism. Not sure if that was the one. I WILL READ IT THOUGH. In return, I ask that you take a read of The Bell Curve. Ok? I will read it critically, but with an open mind. I ask only the same of you. (Not with a high school debate mood of "looking for support for an argument" but with a skeptical but open mind for interpreting reported science.)