DOES RACE EXIST? Not genetically or b...
American

Clayton, NC

#67 Jan 3, 2009
LLL wrote:
<quoted text>
So do you think studies like this show nothing?
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/05012...
Iy is a theory. Anyone can have a theory. You are not necessarily because you present a theory, especailly if the experts concur on the opposing side. C'mon, do you really think that this article proves anything? Look at how its character is to twist and stretch things. I t words claims that leave the author wiggle room. It is not a scholarly source.

“BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO GIVE!”

Level 1

Since: Sep 08

Hergeisa

#68 Jan 3, 2009
You will never find a single allele which is universal amongst all people of a single race. Until that is found, biologically and anthropologically, it doesn't exist. In fact, there are more variations within a racial group then there is between two different races.

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.

That being said, I do accept the notion of different races. It is more to do with our subconscious more then anything.

Well Educated Black Man

“Separating FACT from FICTION”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#69 Jan 3, 2009
Dr Larry Greenspan wrote:
I can't wait to address medicine for the races and diseases like Tay Sachs or Sickle cell.
Fact is that none of you can adress the gene specific issue like I have placed it, as genetics have PROVEN 100% that huge differences exist.
Up to 30,000,000 so far.
And I have a lot more info.
LMAO. I can see that you are still in denial and are getting thoroughly smashed in this thread by others...I saw it coming.

LOL. You should have chosen a subject which was still vague and the facts were not known as thoroughly as the race non-issue. Now, perhaps during your frantic searches for things to debunk the facts, you must have learned by now that race does not exist on a genetic or biological level. So, that makes me correct and you incorrect with regard to this subject. I acknowledge that race exists as a social construct, but nothing more.

DONE.

Now, I will be starting a brand new thread which discusses the recent challenges to the validity of the Simon-Binet IQ test, and its ability to measure intelligence. For the record, it CANT measure intelligence, and no test devised by Man can measure intelligence. FACT. The new thread will address this fact and present FACTS which support it.

Are you game?

Well Educated Black Man

“Separating FACT from FICTION”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#70 Jan 3, 2009
Dr Larry Greenspan wrote:
Comprehensive studies have been done to determine the variation in brain size and weight between different races.
It was found that the race with the largest brains were the Asians followed by the Caucasiods and lastly the blacks.
Now Geneticists have found the gene that determines brain size. The gene Microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size and has evolved under strong positive selection in the human evolutionary lineage.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstrac...
Now this isn't all. Geneticists have found that this gene is more prevalent under the whites when compared to the blacks. This of course makes perfect sense, when you consider that physical measurements have found the whites to have larger skulls that the blacks.
Look at this link. It is written by physics professor Steve Hsu (an Asian) about these genes.
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/09/aspm-and...
WEBM, Are you getting uncomfortable yet?
It is true that the truth is sometimes inconvenient.
Look at how readily the whites accept that the average Asian is smarter. It is because they don't have hang ups in this regard, like the blacks do.
hahaha
LOL. I absolutely love your hardheadedness. Its that which makes my easy victories so satisfying...you and your repeatedly asinine information gleaned from outdated or racist sources having no credibility are laughable.

Brain size has nothing to do with intelligence. All of that pseudo-scientific garbage regarding brain size becomes pretty irrelevant when you know that the brain size to weight ratio of DOLPHINS would mean that they are more intelligent than humans. It would also mean that Neanderthal Man was more intelligent than Modern Man (Homo Sapiens) because his brain was siginificantly larger.

Think of the brain as a hard drive with some pre-installed software. The pre-installed software is that which makes the heart beat regularly, makes you breathe, regulates sleep and waking and hunger cycles, etc. The other part could be considered "blank" space which can be filled with LEARNING and EXPERIENCE.

Having said that, a larger brain is useless if it remains empty. A 20gb hard drive loaded with Linux and tons of sophisticated software is more "intelligent" than a 250gb hard drive which is loaded with only Windows 98 and no programs.

The stuff you have been spouting here about brain size, IQ and your incorrect account of black history and accomplishments comes right out of 1950, Stormfront and the Bell Curve. Its laughable in the fact of KNOWN FACTS which debunk you, and you choose to ignore.

YOURE DONE HERE.

Look for my IQ thread.
Sinajuavi

Hillsboro, WV

#71 Jan 3, 2009
Brains, like computer chips, can be more powerful without being larger. We all know that the same amount of hertz or bytes or whatever the hell it is does more as the technology improves.

That's what happened also to the human brain. It is noticed that all the Homo species erectus, heidelbergensis and neandertalensis all have similarly shaped brains. With sapiens, suddenly the configuration of the brain changes, although its size does not increase.

However, while Homo sapiens with his newly-shaped braincase appeared by 200,000 years ago, again probably around 80,000 years ago something changed again, in which Homo sapiens suddenly began to live in, practice and create Upper Palaeolithic culture, with art, religion, complex social relationships, etc., just like all known modern humans have. This change is such that we would expect it to correlate with some change in the brain, yet none is noted that affects a fossilized cranium. The brain does not change its shape or size when the Upper Palaeolithic begins.

...Just throwing out some facts related to this topic...

Well Educated Black Man

“Separating FACT from FICTION”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#72 Jan 3, 2009
Sinajuavi wrote:
Brains, like computer chips, can be more powerful without being larger. We all know that the same amount of hertz or bytes or whatever the hell it is does more as the technology improves.
That's what happened also to the human brain. It is noticed that all the Homo species erectus, heidelbergensis and neandertalensis all have similarly shaped brains. With sapiens, suddenly the configuration of the brain changes, although its size does not increase.
However, while Homo sapiens with his newly-shaped braincase appeared by 200,000 years ago, again probably around 80,000 years ago something changed again, in which Homo sapiens suddenly began to live in, practice and create Upper Palaeolithic culture, with art, religion, complex social relationships, etc., just like all known modern humans have. This change is such that we would expect it to correlate with some change in the brain, yet none is noted that affects a fossilized cranium. The brain does not change its shape or size when the Upper Palaeolithic begins.
...Just throwing out some facts related to this topic...
Your high level of intelligence and knowledge has not gone unnoticed! You are absolutely correct. The new brain of Homo Sapiens is a smaller, but more effecient brain with a larger frontal cortex than the larger Neanderthal brain. Your facts are totally correct.
LLL
#73 Jan 3, 2009
American wrote:
<quoted text>Iy is a theory. Anyone can have a theory. You are not necessarily because you present a theory, especailly if the experts concur on the opposing side. C'mon, do you really think that this article proves anything? Look at how its character is to twist and stretch things. I t words claims that leave the author wiggle room. It is not a scholarly source.
It is an article about a study done by geneticist Neil Risch of Stanford University.

Here is another article concerning the same study.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-0...

Other studies have been conducted by reputable people and continue.
LLL
#74 Jan 3, 2009
LLL
#75 Jan 3, 2009
Even U.S. President Bill Clinton said, in a 2000 speech:“All human beings, regardless of race, are more than 99.9 percent the same.”
But two new studies suggest that percentage is too high, researchers say – although it's unclear whether the real number is much lower, or just a little.
“The 99.9 percent number is pure nonsense,” wrote Michael Wigler, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York, in a recent email.“I will not say anything more about it.” However, he added,“it is true that humans are more like each other than many other species.”
Wigler is a co-author of one of the two studies, which is published in the July 23 advance online edition of the prestigious research journal Science. In it, the researchers wrote that they were surprised to find large-scale differences in human DNA.“There is considerable structural variation in the human genome [genetic code], most of which was not previously apparent,” they wrote.
Some researchers don't think the new findings should change the 99.9 percent figure that much.“Taking all types of DNA variation into consideration and looking at the entire 'content' of the genome, I would now say we are 99.7-99.8 percent identical,” said Stephen W. Scherer of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Scherer co-authored another study, whose conclusions were similar to those published in Science. His was published in the Aug. 1 advance online issue of the research journal Nature Genetics.
Scherer declined to say whether he thinks the findings mean race is real.
Lander – a researcher who has been quoted in published reports giving the 99.9 percent figure, and who works with the Whitehead Institute in Boston – didn’t respond to phone calls and emails requesting comment for this story. His secretary said he was abroad.
Also unreachable was Craig Venter, chairman of the Institute for Genomics Research in Rockville, Md., U.S.A. He was president of a company whose research produced the 99.9 percent figure in 2001, Celera Genomics. He didn't return phone calls or repeated emails.
In one of the new studies, Wigler’s group sampled DNA from 20 people from around the world. They detected 76 major differences among the people, differences known as copy number polymorphisms. This means that some sections of genetic code are repeated, but the number of repetitions vary among people.
This “could explain why people are different”– although whether it in fact does explain it, is unknown, said Scherer, whose team reached similar findings to those of the Cold Spring Harbor group.
LLL
#76 Jan 3, 2009
“At first we were astonished and didn't believe our results because for years we had been taught that most variation in DNA was limited to very small changes,” Scherer said. But later, he added, he learned Harvard University researchers were making similar observations, so the groups combined their data and reached the same conclusion.

The Cold Spring Harbor team found that these changes affected the code for 70 genes. These included genes involved in Cohen syndrome – a form of mental retardation – as well as brain development, leukemia, drug resistant forms of breast cancer, regulation of eating and body weight.

The “race-isn't real” proponents have other arguments besides the 99.9 percent figure to back up their case. But that figure has become one of the most prominent pieces of their argument since about four years ago, when the number came out from scientists associated with the Human Genome Project, a 13-year program to map the human genetic code.

Another key argument that scientists have made to back up the statement that race isn’t real, is that most of the genetic differences between people are local ones, not differences between "races." In other words, as the U.S. public television channel PBS states on its website:“two random Koreans are likely to be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.”

However, those findings came out before the new genetic variation studies. Some researchers have suggested that the type of genetic variation these studies identified – the copy number differences – could be used as a new test for comparing the relative importance of local and group variation.

“My guess is we will see all types of LCVs [large-scale copy variations], so there will be some population or group 'prevalent'” ones, Scherer said.

Some people disputed whether any percentages, whether 99.9 or otherwise, should be cited as a measure of human differences. The figure is “entirely meaningless as a measure of functional population differences,” said Miami University’s Jon Entine, author of “Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It,” in an email.

“Dogs and wolves are 100 percent identical but functionally different,” Entine added.“Rats are about 95 percent the genetic equivalent of humans. These are ridiculous statements, although technically accurate. The use of the 99.9 percent figure by the popular press and scientists is, frankly scandalous.”

Whether or not race is real, researchers said, it doesn’t mean one race is better than another.“Great abuse has occurred in the past with notions of 'genetic superiority' of one particular group,” Stanford University's Neil Risch wrote in the July 1, 2002 issue of the research journal Genome Biology.“The notion of superiority is not scientific, only political, and can only be used for political purposes.”

Well Educated Black Man

“Separating FACT from FICTION”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#77 Jan 3, 2009
LLL wrote:
<quoted text>
It is an article about a study done by geneticist Neil Risch of Stanford University.
Here is another article concerning the same study.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-0...
Other studies have been conducted by reputable people and continue.
Nice try, but the facts remain. You are citing individuals and single sources. Its not at all on the level of CONSENSUS. I can find articles which "prove" that animals are psychic, that there are captured aliens, and that hairy monsters roam the mountains of the Northwest.

“Not African, we're Orginal!”

Since: Sep 08

The World

#78 Jan 3, 2009
Sinajuavi wrote:
Well, the Khoisan are not Mongoloid, not that I accept the category "Mongoloid" in any case.
Khoisan are the oldest type of humans on earth today. They most resemble the people from whom all the rest evolved, 70,000 years ago, beginning in Ethiopia.
The real "racial" map of humans, which is really a map of relationships but with insignificant variation between them to be real biological "races", is as follows.
I. Khoisan-Twa type (Lo, L1)
II. Saharan (L2)---meaning West African type
III. Ethiopioid (L3)
____A. The various groups remaining in Africa
____B. Eurasians (M, N) who migrated out of Africa, and subsequently evolved and mixed throughout the rest of the world.
Do you realize that what is called ancient 'saharan' is, according to some linguists, also the mother language of all 'fabricated' languages?
American

Clayton, NC

#79 Jan 3, 2009
LLL wrote:
Neil Risch in proper context: Read very carefuly where it says EVOLVED.

Dr. Neil Risch, widely regarded as one of the world's leading geneticists,
has been a key figure in the debate. Risch has argued small genetic
differences have evolved between races because of the geographic isolation
of generations of sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Asians, Pacific
islanders and native Americans.

"There is great validity in racial-ethnic self-categorizations, both from
research and public policy points of view," Risch, now director of the
Centre for Human Genetics at the University of California, concluded in a
2002 paper in Nature Genetics.

The focus of the debate has now shifted to how scientists should properly
categorize their findings about genetic variation.

Those like Risch believe that race is a legitimate method, but others argue
using race is unnecessary and sensational.

The second school of thought holds that differences between people would
more properly be expressed in terms of groups "genetic markers" that
correspond with different parts of the globe.

Most scientists today accept that genetics plays some role in human
variation and that some combination of hereditary and environmental factors
determine intelligence.
LLL
#80 Jan 3, 2009
Well Educated Black Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try, but the facts remain. You are citing individuals and single sources. Its not at all on the level of CONSENSUS. I can find articles which "prove" that animals are psychic, that there are captured aliens, and that hairy monsters roam the mountains of the Northwest.
The individuals are the leaders of the studies, but not single individuals conducting them! The point is there is continuing research which refutes the "race is a social construct theory". It is only a theory and research is ongoing and probably will be for years to come. The studies I provide are not small studies (especially the first one cited) and are done by notable scientists who have done renowned work with genetics and are well published.
LLL
#81 Jan 3, 2009
American wrote:
<quoted text>Neil Risch in proper context: Read very carefuly where it says EVOLVED.
Dr. Neil Risch, widely regarded as one of the world's leading geneticists,
has been a key figure in the debate. Risch has argued small genetic
differences have evolved between races because of the geographic isolation
of generations of sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Asians, Pacific
islanders and native Americans.
"There is great validity in racial-ethnic self-categorizations, both from
research and public policy points of view," Risch, now director of the
Centre for Human Genetics at the University of California, concluded in a
2002 paper in Nature Genetics.
The focus of the debate has now shifted to how scientists should properly
categorize their findings about genetic variation.
Those like Risch believe that race is a legitimate method, but others argue
using race is unnecessary and sensational.
The second school of thought holds that differences between people would
more properly be expressed in terms of groups "genetic markers" that
correspond with different parts of the globe.
Most scientists today accept that genetics plays some role in human
variation and that some combination of hereditary and environmental factors
determine intelligence.
2002 was before the conclusion of his large study?
American

Clayton, NC

#82 Jan 3, 2009
Neil Risch of Stanford University, a leader in the field of genetics, contends that race is helpful for understanding ethnic differences in disease and responses to disease.

His position was prompted by an editorial last year in the New England Journal of Medicine asserting that "'race' is biologically meaningless," and one in Nature Genetics warning of the "confusion and potential harmful effects of using 'race' as a variable in medical research."

1. In large part, the controversy stems from advances in DNA research streaming from the Human Genome Project -- and trying to reconcile the fact that the pattern of DNA data differs among ethnic groups.
2. All humans have the bulk of their genetic heritage in common and possess the same set of genes.
3. But because of mutations -- or changes in DNA -- each gene comes in slightly different versions, and some of them are more common in one ethnic group than another.
4. These genetic differences often have medical significance -- since some occur among genes that affect susceptibility to disease and the response to drugs.
5. For example, a mutation that causes hemochromatosis, a disorder of iron metabolism, is rare or absent among Indians and Chinese, but occurs in 7.5 percent of Swedes. Differences involving susceptibility to sickle cell anemia and lactose intolerance have been noted among ethnic groups and races.

Risch points out that many studies have shown that these differences cluster into five major groups, which are simply the world's major continental areas and the people who once bred in them in isolation -- sub-Saharan Africans; Caucasians, including people from Europe, the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East; Asians; Pacific Islanders and native Americans
American

Clayton, NC

#83 Jan 3, 2009
LLL wrote:
<quoted text>
The individuals are the leaders of the studies, but not single individuals conducting them! The point is there is continuing research which refutes the "race is a social construct theory". It is only a theory and research is ongoing and probably will be for years to come. The studies I provide are not small studies (especially the first one cited) and are done by notable scientists who have done renowned work with genetics and are well published.
Mutyation is an adaptation to particular circumstances in order for a species to survive plain and simple. All humans descend from Mitochondrial Eve. There differences arose from geographical locations. Example......

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; A01

Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.

The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.

Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not.

In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being.

"It's a major finding in a very sensitive area," said Stephen Oppenheimer, an expert in anthropological genetics at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work. "Almost all the differences used to differentiate populations from around the world really are skin deep."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
LLL
#84 Jan 3, 2009
American wrote:
Neil Risch of Stanford University, a leader in the field of genetics, contends that race is helpful for understanding ethnic differences in disease and responses to disease.
His position was prompted by an editorial last year in the New England Journal of Medicine asserting that "'race' is biologically meaningless," and one in Nature Genetics warning of the "confusion and potential harmful effects of using 'race' as a variable in medical research."
1. In large part, the controversy stems from advances in DNA research streaming from the Human Genome Project -- and trying to reconcile the fact that the pattern of DNA data differs among ethnic groups.
2. All humans have the bulk of their genetic heritage in common and possess the same set of genes.
3. But because of mutations -- or changes in DNA -- each gene comes in slightly different versions, and some of them are more common in one ethnic group than another.
4. These genetic differences often have medical significance -- since some occur among genes that affect susceptibility to disease and the response to drugs.
5. For example, a mutation that causes hemochromatosis, a disorder of iron metabolism, is rare or absent among Indians and Chinese, but occurs in 7.5 percent of Swedes. Differences involving susceptibility to sickle cell anemia and lactose intolerance have been noted among ethnic groups and races.
Risch points out that many studies have shown that these differences cluster into five major groups, which are simply the world's major continental areas and the people who once bred in them in isolation -- sub-Saharan Africans; Caucasians, including people from Europe, the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East; Asians; Pacific Islanders and native Americans
Was this before or after the study he conducted? He has said the findings of the study surprised him and changed his opinions.
Two White Crows

AOL

#85 Jan 3, 2009
LLL wrote:
<quoted text>
It is an article about a study done by geneticist Neil Risch of Stanford University.
Here is another article concerning the same study.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-0...
Other studies have been conducted by reputable people and continue.
LLL?

Youre pretty cool and I respect you,however don't try to talk on Topics regarding science or higher learning.There aren't many people on here that have the background nor the intelligence to debate you...

Just think about it.

Well Educated Black Man

“Separating FACT from FICTION”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#86 Jan 3, 2009
LLL wrote:
<quoted text>
The individuals are the leaders of the studies, but not single individuals conducting them! The point is there is continuing research which refutes the "race is a social construct theory".
Perhaps, but none of those individuals or studies will have the scope or international participation from as many scientists as the Human Genome Project. There has been nothing to refute the findings of the HGP presented. My question to you is why you refuse to accept the truth? You WANT there to be a difference so that you can exploit the differences to make yet more unfounded assumptions.
It is only a theory and research is ongoing and probably will be for years to come. The studies I provide are not small studies (especially the first one cited) and are done by notable scientists who have done renowned work with genetics and are well published.
What is a theory? Not the non-existence of race...that is not a theory, it is a known fact supported by empirical evidence. The "studies" you have provided are indeed small compared to the HGP. VERY small, and not mainstream.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Italians are NOT White!!!! (Feb '12) 4 min Obsidian2xxx 6,357
Why don't other Minorities Like Blacks 10 min RebelGnah 162
News Activist: "Abortion Threatens Black America's F... (Sep '12) 18 min Brian_G 5,997
A GREAT Feeling to Watch Whiteys Becoming IRREL... 19 min Ruth 1
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 20 min suppiluliuma 134,206
Does Washington State Have A Lot Of Racism? (Oct '11) 39 min cracker 59
The Moors, Egyptians and Phoenicians were not b... (Jun '14) 51 min Obsidian2xxx 1,573
Police Search for Serial Gang Rapist Described ... 1 hr Obsidian2xxx 25
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 1 hr TranshumanX 44,825
Trump taking about deporting illegal immigrants 7 hr Big Woody 58
Whites Are Not To Blame For Your Problems 9 hr BM Need To Listen... 75
More from around the web