[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Yes -- you're more likely to find more genetic diversity between two white men than you are between a white man and a black man.

No you aren't.

Genetic clusters have proven the classic tripartite Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid racial divisions.

The only thing that was challenged is that Amerindians who are Mongoloid, appear in their own genetic cluster, but this is to be expected considering they have branched off and lived in the Americas for 15,000 or so years isolated.

Here are the clusters based on 52 population samples:



Rosenberg et al 2002, cited in Excoffier, Laurent. (2003) Human Diversity: Our Genes Tell Where We Live. Curr Biol; 13:R134-R136

Genetic cluster 1 = Caucasoid
Genetic cluster 2 = Negroid
Genetic cluster 3 = Mongoloid

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
You are spouting Lewontin's fallacy, which has been debunked. Race is a biological reality, recent genetic studies that have identified racial clusters. Furthermore outside of genetics, race is valid in forensic anthropology, pharmaceuticals and many other scientific areas.

Nope.

"The myth of major genetic differences across “races” is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence." (Owens & King, 1999).

"Although conventional ‘racial’ categories as typically understood may not be defined by particular genetic markers, ‘pockets of populations’ living in particular geographical locales could be so defined." (McCann-Mortimer et al., 2004).

"We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group." (Lee et al., 2008).

"Because of a history of extensive migration and gene flow, however, human genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous fashion and seldom has marked geographic discontinuities. Thus, populations are never “pure” in a genetic sense, and definite boundaries between individuals or populations (e.g. “races”) will be necessarily somewhat inaccurate and arbitrary." (Jorde & Wooding, 2004).

"In short, while human biological variation certainly seems to be real, the ways that we cut it up, name and describe it are the product of our scientific imagination." (Morning, 2005).

"[...] The number of races observed expanded to the 30s and 50s, and eventually anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races (Marks, 2002). 20th and 21st Century biomedical researchers have discovered this same feature when evaluating human variation at the level of alleles and allele frequencies. Nature has not created four or five distinct, nonoverlapping genetic groups of people." (Ossorio & Duster, 2006).

"Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”" (Serre & Pääbo, 2004).

"To avoid making "race" the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human "races" are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans. A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DN A haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate." (Templeton, 1998).

"Race is an accepted socio-cultural concept that lacks supportive genetic evidence." (Kittles et al., 2007).

"Biologists also disagree about the meaning of ‘race’, and whether it is applicable to human infraspecific (within-species) variation." (Keita et al., 2004).

"It has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics." (Keita et al., 2004).

"Studies of human population genetics and evolution have generated the strongest proof that there is no scientific basis for racism, with the demonstration that human genetic diversity between populations is small, and perhaps entirely the result of climatic adaptation and random drift." (Cavalli-Sforza, 2005).

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
No you aren't.

Genetic clusters have proven the classic tripartite Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid racial divisions.

The only thing that was challenged is that Amerindians who are Mongoloid, appear in their own genetic cluster, but this is to be expected considering they have branched off and lived in the Americas for 15,000 or so years isolated.

Here are the clusters based on 52 population samples:



Rosenberg et al 2002, cited in Excoffier, Laurent. (2003) Human Diversity: Our Genes Tell Where We Live. Curr Biol; 13:R134-R136

Genetic cluster 1 = Caucasoid
Genetic cluster 2 = Negroid
Genetic cluster 3 = Mongoloid

None of this proves that there is more genetic diversity between groups than within groups. This merely shows that certain genetic differences typically occur within these specific groups. Nor does it necessarily support a 'race' ideology.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
No you aren't.

Genetic clusters have proven the classic tripartite Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid racial divisions.

The only thing that was challenged is that Amerindians who are Mongoloid, appear in their own genetic cluster, but this is to be expected considering they have branched off and lived in the Americas for 15,000 or so years isolated.

Here are the clusters based on 52 population samples:



Rosenberg et al 2002, cited in Excoffier, Laurent. (2003) Human Diversity: Our Genes Tell Where We Live. Curr Biol; 13:R134-R136

Genetic cluster 1 = Caucasoid
Genetic cluster 2 = Negroid
Genetic cluster 3 = Mongoloid

Nope.

Rosenburg et al. grouped them into six clusters, but there is no logical reason to stop at six.



(I can't acquire a higher resolution image). You can see a new cluster emerging at K=6. More clusters would emerge at K=7, K=8, etc.

"So why has so much emphasis been placed on the results of the analysis using K = 6? Despite the fact that Rosenberg et al. (2002) presented no evidence that K = 6 represented the most likely number of genetic clusters in their data set, virtually all references to this study in both the scientific literature and the popular press mention the identification of either 5 or 6 genetic clusters. […] I would suggest that these particular results have been emphasized simply because they fit the general notion in our society that continental groupings are biologically significant. This notion is a legacy of traditional racial thought and seems to persist even when not clearly supported by biological data." (Bolnick, 2008: 77).

In other words, people have misrepresented the study. Try again.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Swanbow)
Of course a lot of it is to do with training, but the hard life in Nepal living in the mountains is what conditions them to pass this selection. I was also reading somewhere that the Gurkhas are able to spot a lot more in Afghanistan, like a fake homestead being used by the Taliban because village life in rural Nepal is similar to that in Afghanistan.

Yeah, but again I reference the Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment. P Coy and the Commando test are similarly insane, yet plain old pale British people manage to pass them every year. Regardless, wouldn't that all be down to environment rather than genetics? Like if you raise a Nepalese child in surburban Chelmsford with a bunch of pacifist hippies, he's hardly going to be an awesome ass-kicker like his Gurkha brethren in Nepal, is he?

(Original post by Swanbow)
Plus considering until recently Nepal was in civil war it's fair to say they have their share of seasoned veterans.

Well we Britons might like to think of ourselves as peaceful folk, but in reality we've been in some sort of military operation almost continuously for our entire existance (the Act of Union). Even in the modern era with the empire long gone, the last year in which a British soldier hasn't been killed on active service somewhere in the world was 1968.

[Blutooth]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
You are spouting Lewontin's fallacy, which has been debunked. Race is a biological reality, recent genetic studies that have identified racial clusters. Furthermore outside of genetics, race is valid in forensic anthropology, pharmaceuticals and many other scientific areas.

The only criterion for membership of a species is that interbreeding is possible. Beyond that all differences are rather arbitrary. Why draw the line between Europeans, Asians and Africans? Why not draw a racial line between Egyptians and Spaniards or between Turks and Scots. It all gets very subjective classifying this group and that group, which is uncharacteristic of science, and in truth race is more of a multi-dimension spectrum that blends and meshes into one another. Of course people from a part of the world are gonna be more prone to a certain disease- eg people near the equator are more likely to have a vit d deficiency in cold countries and eskimos less likely to catch cold :P- but this is more to do with physical anatomical differences. The human mind is such a wonderfully varied structure, that depends not only on inherited genes but also on lifes experiences, that I would argue racial differences are unimportant.

As humans we like to categorise things and people, and put them in different boxes- but in reality we share 99.9% of the same genes. However we share much less of the same experiences .

[Pyramidologist]

Anti-racist PC agendas and the American Anthropological Association's recent confirmation of the unity of the human species have led to the belief that race is a socio-political invention that promotes racism. An ironic accusation since the denial of the science behind race is what's politically motivated. Forensic anthropologist and professor of anthropology George W. Gill, whose assessments are supported by modern genetics, explains.

Anthropology

First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations.

"The 'reality of race' therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether 'real' or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.

"Morphological characteristics...like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies [used to deny race] are not shaped by these same climatic factors.

"Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the 'race denial' faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in 'race denial' are in 'reality denial' as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence."

- Gill, George W. Does Race Exist? A Proponent's Perspective. University of Wyoming, 2000
http://racialreality.110mb.com/race.html

[Sternumator]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Why are you conflating the individual intellectual endeavours of unrelated persons on the basis of a non-causal (and non-existent) variable? A professor in theoretical physics has no tangible connection with a truanting imbecile on the other side of the country, so why have their individual achievements been conflated into a single, meaningless figure?

What good is an average when the comprising elements of said average are completely unrelated and are capable of changing their intelligence if they personally choose to do so?

They are of the same race which is the connection between the people and we are discussing the correlation between the variable of race and other factors.

I really don't understand your point, you can say exactly the same thing about anything. If we dont make generalisation we cannot learn anything. I dont think you understand the basic idea of statistics.

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by Blutooth)
The only criterion for membership of a species is that interbreeding is possible. Beyond that all differences are rather arbitrary. Why draw the line between Europeans, Asians and Africans? Why not draw a racial line between Egyptians and Spaniards or between Turks and Scots. It all gets very subjective classifying this group and that group, which is uncharacteristic of science, and in truth race is more of a multi-dimension spectrum that blends and meshes into one another. Of course people from a part of the world are gonna be more prone to a certain disease- eg people near the equator are more likely to have a vit d deficiency in cold countries and eskimos less likely to catch cold :P- but this is more to do with physical anatomical differences. The human mind is such a wonderfully varied structure, that depends not only on inherited genes but also on lifes experiences, that I would argue racial differences are unimportant.

As humans we like to categorise things and people, and put them in different boxes- but in reality we share 99.9% of the same genes. However we share much less of the same experiences .

Race is a reality. See the main morphological differences here -

Skeletal Attribution of Race. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, 1990.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Sternumator)
They are of the same race which is the connection between the people and we are discussing the correlation between the variable of race and other factors.

'Race' doesn't exist. These people have no affinity with each other, at all. Do the actions of somebody else on the other side of the continent have any impact on you whatsoever? You will live and die without ever having acknowledged these people's existences, so why have your intelligences been homogenised into a single figure? You have no connection with these people.

I really don't understand your point, you can say exactly the same thing about anything. If we dont make generalisation we cannot learn anything. I dont think you understand the basic idea of statistics.

I understand the basic idea of statistics perfectly; I don't understand why it is being used to connect unrelated concepts. As I said in a previous post, it's like suggesting people with size 10 feet are on average smarter than people with size 9 feet: you're correlating two unrelated variables of unrelated persons to justify (wrongly) the existence of one that suggests these unrelated persons are connected somehow.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Anti-racist PC agendas and the American Anthropological Association's recent confirmation of the unity of the human species have led to the belief that race is a socio-political invention that promotes racism. An ironic accusation since the denial of the science behind race is what's politically motivated. Forensic anthropologist and professor of anthropology George W. Gill, whose assessments are supported by modern genetics, explains.

Anthropology


- Gill, George W. Does Race Exist? A Proponent's Perspective. University of Wyoming, 2000
http://racialreality.110mb.com/race.html

Nope.

"Current systematic theory emphasizes that taxonomy at all levels should reflect evolutionary relationships. For instance, the term ‘Negro’ was once a racial designation for numerous groups in tropical Africa and Pacific Oceania (Melanesians). These groups share a broadly similar external phenotype; this classification illustrates ‘race’ as type, defined by anatomical complexes. Although the actual relationship between African ‘Negroes’ and Oceanic ‘Negroes’ was sometimes questioned, these groups were placed in the same taxon. Molecular and genetic studies later showed that the Oceanic ‘Negroes’ were more closely related to mainland Asians." (Keita et al., 2004).

"Indeed if one attempts to take multiple physical characteristics to define racial groups, you arrive at categorisations that are not indicative of their evolutionary history." (Graves, 2006).

"[T]he physical features focused on as racial are seen to be distributed not uniformly over the continents, but as a series of gradients. This creates real problems in asserting a qualitative difference between nearby populations (such as Ethiopians and Persians), but no such qualitative difference between distant populations (such as Ghanaians and Ethiopians), when in fact all such differences are quantitative" (Marks, 2006) [emphasis added].

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Race is a reality. See the main morphological differences here -

Skeletal Attribution of Race. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, 1990.

Yeah, there is a uniform distribution of fundamentally qualitative categorisations of someone's appearance across vast geographical expanses.

Traits exist on a gradient, not as coterminous categories.

[KingMessi]

(Original post by Dont Tread On Me)
So are you saying that evolution has had no effect what so ever on the brain?

Of course evolution has had an affect on the brain - how could it not? - but given how subjective the term 'superior' is, it seems silly to imply that there is such a thing as a currently superior race. How would you define superior? There will be huge issues to counter whichever way you choose to define it.

[Sternumator]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
'Race' doesn't exist. These people have no affinity with each other, at all. Do the actions of somebody else on the other side of the continent have any impact on you whatsoever? You will live and die without ever having acknowledged these people's existences, so why have your intelligences been homogenised into a single figure? You have no connection with these people.

I understand the basic idea of statistics perfectly; I don't understand why it is being used to connect unrelated concepts. As I said in a previous post, it's like suggesting people with size 10 feet are on average smarter than people with size 9 feet: you're correlating two unrelated variables of unrelated persons to justify (wrongly) the existence of one that suggests these unrelated persons are connected somehow.

You don't know they are unrelated, we use statistics to test if they are correlated. If they are correlated then there is a reason for that and someone can think up a theory why that might be which could be useful. You cant just decide out of nowhere that they are unrelated and then argue against evidence by simply repeating your belief that they are unrelated. You really dont get the basic idea of statistics.

I'll make up an example to illustrate the point. Imagine this is true: A study has found that on average men in country A earn 10x more than women. You can say what you are saying about this too (although you would be equally wrong in doing so) such as most of the people will never meet, they are unrelated variables, there is no connection between the two. The trouble is there obviously is a connection between the two and it might be of interest to understand why this is the case.

In your feet size example, there might be an association between feet size and intelligence. If someone thinks this they do a test. If the test reveals there is no asscociation then there isnt one, if the test shows an asscoiation then there is a reason for this and people try to explain it. I think there have been studies that show people with bigger feet tend to be more intelligent.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Sternumator)
You don't know they are unrelated, we use statistics to test if they are correlated. If they are correlated then there is a reason for that and someone can think up a theory why that might be which could be useful. You cant just decide out of nowhere that they are unrelated and then argue against evidence by simply repeating your belief that they are unrelated. You really dont get the basic idea of statistics.

I'll make up an example to illustrate the point. Imagine this is true: A study has found that on average men in country A earn 10x more than women. You can say what you are saying about this too (although you would be equally wrong in doing so) such as most of the people will never meet, they are unrelated variables, there is no connection between the two. The trouble is there obviously is a connection between the two and it might be of interest to understand why this is the case.

In your feet size example, there might be an association between feet size and intelligence. If someone thinks this they do a test. If the test reveals there is no asscociation then there isnt one, if the test shows an asscoiation then there is a reason for this and people try to explain it. I think there have been studies that show people with bigger feet tend to be more intelligent.

We are 'them', and I know I am capable of changing my intelligence, irrespective of what other people in my ethnic 'group', or people with size 14 feet living on the other side of the world, can or cannot do—it's as simple as that, really. My intelligence is a culmination of my unique life circumstances and their intelligence and life experiences are in no way related to mine. I don't need statistics to inform you that the actions of somebody living on the other side of the continent have absolutely no bearing on my—or anyone else's—academic attainments. Why am I having to tell you this?

I strongly advise you stop viewing individuals as unthinking groups, and start seeing them in the same way you see yourself: as an individual acting on his individual thought processes. 'Evidence' is not the attempted reification of a fundamentally fallacious system of grouping. Are you telling me you have a psychological bond to anyone other than yourself? How does somebody on the other side of the continent have any bearing on you, personally? How do the highly intelligent physics professors have any bearing on your intelligence, personally? Statistics in this context groups things where they are not grouped in reality. It's amazingly asinine that you seem to believe possessing a different skin tone makes somebody psychologically homogeneous. We are all individuals.

[TheIronist]

(Original post by Left Hand Drive)
Yes but im the only member of it.

Come on that was funny

Dunno why you got negged.

[Left Hand Drive]

(Original post by TheIronist)
Come on that was funny

Dunno why you got negged.

You Sir, are a man who recognises comedy when he sees it.

[Sternumator]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
We are 'them', and I know I am capable of changing my intelligence, irrespective of what other people in my ethnic 'group', or people with size 14 feet living on the other side of the world, can or cannot do—it's as simple as that, really. My intelligence is a culmination of my unique life circumstances and their intelligence and life experiences are in no way related to mine. I don't need statistics to inform you that the actions of somebody living on the other side of the continent have absolutely no bearing on my—or anyone else's—academic attainments. Why am I having to tell you this?

I strongly advise you stop viewing individuals as unthinking groups, and start seeing them in the same way you see yourself: as an individual acting on his individual thought processes. 'Evidence' is not the attempted reification of a fundamentally fallacious system of grouping. Are you telling me you have a psychological bond to anyone other than yourself? How does somebody on the other side of the continent have any bearing on you, personally? How do the highly intelligent physics professors have any bearing on your intelligence, personally? Statistics in this context groups things where they are not grouped in reality. It's amazingly asinine that you seem to believe possessing a different skin tone makes somebody psychologically homogeneous. We are all individuals.

Im not saying if you are a certain race then you should give up on your goals or that there is a phycological link between people of the same race. I am just saying it is possible that there is a correlation between race and intelligence.

Im really suprised my last example didnt convince you so I will apply your arguement to something else to show why it is wrong, please dont take this the wrong way. Humans and chickens are both animals, although we have small genetic diffferences we are of the same kind. The actions of a human on one side of the world don't impact on my intelligence and we are not all phycologically linked, the same is true for chickens. Since chickens and humans are both animals it makes no sense to divide them into to seperate groups. Evidence that chickens are less intelligent than humans is therefore not valid since the grouping system we have used does not make any sense. Humans and chickens must have equal intelligence

Do you agree with the argument above and if not why not?

The fact genetic differences are much smaller and differences in intelligence, if there are any, are much smaller doesnt make your arguement any different from the one above. Hopefully it shows it more clearly.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Sternumator)
Im not saying if you are a certain race then you should give up on your goals or that there is a phycological link between people of the same race. I am just saying it is possible that there is a correlation between race and intelligence.

'Race' doesn't exist. If an individual is capable of modifying their intelligence the process of grouping is redundant. Individuals are not averages, they are individuals.

By comparing 'race' (group) and intelligence (individualised), you are indeed suggesting the group has some sort of psychological affinity that means they are unable to ameliorate their individual circumstances. Do you feel unable to ameliorate your circumstances because somebody on the other side of the continent is stupid, or do you accept your intelligence is only limited to how intelligent you wish to become as an individual, irrespective of what other persons do? I certainly don't feel constrained by the actions of people I have never met or even know exist.

If you accept you are not restrained by a group, why are you still subsuming your individual intelligence into a group and suggesting you are more or less intelligent than another group? As an individual, you are more and less intelligent than other individuals. Your position in a group is inconsequential to your individual intelligence.

Im really suprised my last example didnt convince you so I will apply your arguement to something else to show why it is wrong, please dont take this the wrong way. Humans and chickens are both animals, although we have small genetic diffferences we are of the same kind. The actions of a human on one side of the world don't impact on my intelligence and we are not all phycologically linked, the same is true for chickens. Since chickens and humans are both animals it makes no sense to divide them into to seperate groups. Evidence that chickens are less intelligent than humans is therefore not valid since the grouping system we have used does not make any sense. Humans and chickens must have equal intelligence

Do you agree with the argument above and if not why not?

The fact genetic differences are much smaller and differences in intelligence, if there are any, are much smaller doesnt make your arguement any different from the one above. Hopefully it shows it more clearly.

I'm not sure if you have understood this particular vein of the argument. I'm not discussing genetics, I'm discussing the fact individual intelligence is a product of individual endeavour, and is completely uninfluenced by the individuals with whom one has no tangible contact; hence, it cannot be averaged into a single figure in any meaningful or sensible way. There is no value in averaging individuals when it is already apparent that individuals can improve their own intelligence, and individual intelligence is a product of individual endeavour.

If you accept there is not a psychological link between individuals and it is possible for one to improve their circumstances if they wish to do so personally, why do you still feel it is appropriate to conflate the personal achievements of unrelated persons?

[Steevee]

(Original post by Freier._.lance)
IQ is not an accurate measure of intelligence. So people should stop using it as such.

Not a measure, but a good indicator.