Race just another Social construct ?

[George-ananda]

Yet you admit that you don't understand genetics... so how can you hope to make a reasonable "intelligent analysis" let alone unbiased observations?

You don't need a detailed understanding of genetics to do this; modern genetics can't help much on this question. First you note differences and intelligently consider how environment can effect those differences and then form an opinion; true you won't know everything precisely but it's the best method we have for understanding this question.

But your example is flawed because of this. It ignores reality to set up a false dichotomy.
　
It shows your argument is based on a false dichotomy. You can't argue that A and D are significantly different while ignoring B and C between them.

Not true. I didn't ignore B and C; I said they would likely be intermediary. And, even so, what would be invalid about comparing A and D?

Sure it does... and mutations make each of us different from one another. Which is part of why one child can be a great athlete and their sibling can be a couch potato or one can have cancer but the other is healthy as an ox.... but it isn't the whole story and simply ascribing it to genetics is flawed.

Once again I agree. I ascribe things to genetics AND environment.

No but it should make you question which one is more important to the particular trait.

I certainly question these things. Some things have a higher genetic influence while other things may have a higher environmental influence. It's complex as I've been saying.

In terms of athletics all the evidence shows that environment is more important than heredity.

No way is that believable. 'ALL evidence'? Even in sprinting??
I can point out that you are here agreeing with me that genetics is part of the factor and now we would just have to estimate the percentage of each of the two factors.

One of the most important environmental factors is development in the womb. From the mothers diet to the temperature/time of year. (example: winter babies are bigger than summer babies, which in turn has other effects)

Once again, environment is a factor as we both agree.

I'm arguing that in subjective cases like "athletic ability" or "intelligence" that environment is more important than heredity. Athletes and geniuses are essentially made not born.

The very top athletes and geniuses are likely to have both good genetics and good environment on their side.
So, you are here agreeing that both genetics and environment are factors, so how can you also stand by your argument that ethnic group genetic differences are meaningless?

I'm not saying it's meaningless... just that it's all but impossible to tie a subjective measure like "athletic ability" to hereditary factors.
Now can you tie heredity to specific genetic disorders... yes, absolutely. But that is a very different subject.

It's impossible to PRECISELY tie a trait/ability to genetics. But it's still correct to say genetics is definately part of the equation here.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

You don't need a detailed understanding of genetics to do this; modern genetics can't help much on this question. First you note differences and intelligently consider how environment can effect those differences and then form an opinion; true you won't know everything precisely but it's the best method we have for understanding this question.

How can it be the best way if you have no way to know if a trait is actually hereditary or not?

Downs syndrome is not hereditary but for a long time we assumed it was...

And what is "significant" anyway?
Is a single letter difference that turns a gene for fast twitch muscles off or on "significant"?

Not true. I didn't ignore B and C; I said they would likely be intermediary. And, even so, what would be invalid about comparing A and D?

Nothing as long as you are careful about what you are comparing.

Once again I agree. I ascribe things to genetics AND environment.

Yes, but you don't seem to be spending enough critical thought on weighing which one is more important than the other per given trait.

For example with athletic ability we know that environment is more critical than genetics. Humans in general are athletic by our nature, it's how we evolved as a species. It actually takes quite a bit of environmental influence to make us truly unfit.

I certainly question these things. Some things have a higher genetic influence while other things may have a higher environmental influence. It's complex as I've been saying.

Then why are we debating this?

No way is that believable. 'ALL evidence'? Even in sprinting??

Even sprinting... yes, you can have fast twitch muscles that make sprinting easier... but if you an obese, chain smoking slob then you aren't going to run faster than a fit person with slow twitch muscles.

Can you train to sprint easier... yes, but you still need to train. Environment is still primary.

I can point out that you are here agreeing with me that genetics is part of the factor and now we would just have to estimate the percentage of each of the two factors.

Yes... where we disagree is with assigning these genetic traits to whole ethnic groups.

Especially genes linked with athletic ability... the genes are so subtle that they can change off and on from one generation to another.

Once again, environment is a factor as we both agree.

Good to have a place to start building consensus.

The very top athletes and geniuses are likely to have both good genetics and good environment on their side.

Absolutely... however those good genetics are not based on ethnic groupings.

So, you are here agreeing that both genetics and environment are factors, so how can you also stand by your argument that ethnic group genetic differences are meaningless?

Not meaningless... just not significant in the manner you are trying to use them.

When it comes to resistance and susceptibility to diseases... it is pretty meaningful. But again, such things are almost never found across an entire ethnic group but are found in specific family lineages within those ethnic groups.

The more complex a trait is (for example the more genes are involved) the less significant heredity becomes. Skin color is determined by at least nine genes that interact with each other... which is why we have such a variety of skin tones even within families.
Athletic ability is determined by more than 100 genes...

It's impossible to PRECISELY tie a trait/ability to genetics. But it's still correct to say genetics is definately part of the equation here.

Some traits we can definitely tie to specific genes. Blue eyes for example is a single variation in the eye color gene... everyone who has blue eyes share a single ancestor who had the mutation.
Everyone that can digest milk can trace their ancestry to one of three people.

Other traits are not tied to heredity but are still tied to specific genetic mutations... like Downs Syndrome.

And some are a bit of both.

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

How can it be the best way if you have no way to know if a trait is actually hereditary or not?

Downs syndrome is not hereditary but for a long time we assumed it was...

And what is "significant" anyway?
Is a single letter difference that turns a gene for fast twitch muscles off or on "significant"?

Nothing as long as you are careful about what you are comparing.

Yes, but you don't seem to be spending enough critical thought on weighing which one is more important than the other per given trait.

For example with athletic ability we know that environment is more critical than genetics. Humans in general are athletic by our nature, it's how we evolved as a species. It actually takes quite a bit of environmental influence to make us truly unfit.


Then why are we debating this?

Even sprinting... yes, you can have fast twitch muscles that make sprinting easier... but if you an obese, chain smoking slob then you aren't going to run faster than a fit person with slow twitch muscles.

Can you train to sprint easier... yes, but you still need to train. Environment is still primary.

Yes... where we disagree is with assigning these genetic traits to whole ethnic groups.

Especially genes linked with athletic ability... the genes are so subtle that they can change off and on from one generation to another.

Good to have a place to start building consensus.

Absolutely... however those good genetics are not based on ethnic groupings.

Not meaningless... just not significant in the manner you are trying to use them.

When it comes to resistance and susceptibility to diseases... it is pretty meaningful. But again, such things are almost never found across an entire ethnic group but are found in specific family lineages within those ethnic groups.

The more complex a trait is (for example the more genes are involved) the less significant heredity becomes. Skin color is determined by at least nine genes that interact with each other... which is why we have such a variety of skin tones even within families.
Athletic ability is determined by more than 100 genes...

Some traits we can definitely tie to specific genes. Blue eyes for example is a single variation in the eye color gene... everyone who has blue eyes share a single ancestor who had the mutation.
Everyone that can digest milk can trace their ancestry to one of three people.

Other traits are not tied to heredity but are still tied to specific genetic mutations... like Downs Syndrome.

And some are a bit of both.

wa:do

To respond to your questions above, I would have to repeat things I've already said.
I'm going to change my approach here.

Lat's take the overworked example of African Americans in United States professional and college basketball. (Many readers will roll their eyes that I'd discuss such a taboo subject; I don't believe in taboo subjects).

Now everyone is aware of the clear over-representation. Now, what is the cause for the over-representation in numbers...XX % environment and YY% genetics

I'll go first; 90% genetics and 10% environment is my guess. (as this is one of the more extreme examples)

What are your numbers if someone pleaded with you to give two numbers that add up to 100?

Plus I recently read an article about Ashkenazi Jews and genius intelligences. Unfortunately, I can't now find the link but I wanted to hear how people from your school of thought respond to such information.

Do you think the subject of intelligently discussing ethnic group genetic differences is considered taboo, if not almost evil, by our society. Presumably, bringing up the intelligent questions makes people assume you are a hater.

I certainly don't think someone can support the claim that the question has been so thoroughly resolved that no discussion is needed.

I certainly understand the taboo on the subject, as it raises some very 'indelicate' issues. The world just finished with the horrors of the Nazi's in 1945. Very soon after came the Civil Rights Movement in the USA. As a reactionary movement, the intellectual class stomped on any thinking that could give any validity to the evil perpetrators of injustice. And anyone that disputes anything the intellectuals say on the subject must be ostracized as a backwards hater. People are to be ostracized for even questioning the establishment. But nature itself may not be perfectly co-operative with their intent. I feel people can think objectively and still have brotherly love for all.

 

[painted wolf]

To respond to your questions above, I would have to repeat things I've already said.
I'm going to change my approach here.

Lat's take the overworked example of African Americans in United States professional and college basketball. (Many readers will roll their eyes that I'd discuss such a taboo subject; I don't believe in taboo subjects).

Now everyone is aware of the clear over-representation. Now, what is the cause for the over-representation in numbers...XX % environment and YY% genetics

I'll go first; 90% genetics and 10% environment is my guess. (as this is one of the more extreme examples)

Your guess based on what exactly? Television?

Have you tested the 100+ genes that are involved with athletic ability?

What about the percentage of the African American population that isn't involved with sports?

What is the actual percentage of African Americans that are athletes compared to African Americans that are not athletes?

Have you bothered to do any actual research on those questions?

What are your numbers if someone pleaded with you to give two numbers that add up to 100?

Given that out of the 39.9 million African Americans in this nation only a few thousand may be athletes... and that African Americans are between 70 and 80% more likely to be obese than White Americans.

I'd put the genetic at 30% and environment at 70%.

Obesity and African Americans - The Office of Minority Health - OMH

Plus I recently read an article about Ashkenazi Jews and genius intelligences. Unfortunately, I can't now find the link but I wanted to hear how people from your school of thought respond to such information.

There are no genes linked to being a genius... however there are lots of school, environment and family choices that are. Everything from diet to noise levels to parental involvement and peer pressure.

Ashkenazi Jews are known for taking education (at least among males) very seriously. How many Ashkenazi women were featured in your article?

Let's look at the question from another angle... Men are clearly dominant in lists of geniuses. Does this mean that men are genetically more likely to be smart than women are... or could the long term culture of under educating women in favor of keeping them in the house be a factor?

[qutoe] Do you think the subject of intelligently discussing ethnic group genetic differences is considered taboo, if not almost evil, by our society. Presumably, bringing up the intelligent questions makes people assume you are a hater. [/quote]
I have no problem with asking intelligent questions... so long as the asker is actually interested in intelligent answers.

I certainly don't think someone can support the claim that the question has been so thoroughly resolved that no discussion is needed.

I certainly understand the taboo on the subject, as it raises some very 'indelicate' issues. The world just finished with the horrors of the Nazi's in 1945. Very soon after came the Civil Rights Movement in the USA. As a reactionary movement, the intellectual class stomped on any thinking that could give any validity to the evil perpetrators of injustice. And anyone that disputes anything the intellectuals say on the subject must be ostracized as a backwards hater. People are to be ostracized for even questioning the establishment. But nature itself may not be perfectly co-operative with their intent. I feel people can think objectively and still have brotherly love for all.

I honest couldn't give a flying flaming turd about taboo... I'm a biologist who hopes to get a PhD in the study of Evolution.

These questions are not taboo and have been studied quite extensively. What makes one person a top athlete or a genius are among the most researched subjects out there and have been for centuries.

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

Your guess based on what exactly? Television?
ave you tested the 100+ genes that are involved with athletic ability?

　
　
A geneticist is not the right person to answer the question. They can not themselves tell us how the many genes will effect things in the final outcome. As you point out the complexity is too great.
A sports physiologist or professional sports trainer would have a much more relevant opinion on this question than a geneticist. We're not concerned here with the number of genes, combination of genes, etc. We are just concerned with evaluating the final outward expression.
　
　

Given that out of the 39.9 million African Americans in this nation only a few thousand may be athletes... and that African Americans are between 70 and 80% more likely to be obese than White Americans.

I'm lost on why you're bringing up the obesity issue and then presenting a web link.....
This issue would just be another feather in the cap of my argument as I would say the obesity difference between African-American women and Asian-American women is another clear example of ethnic-group heredity issues and environment.

Your side of the argument says that, since there are no ethnic-group hereditary differences that effect final outcomes; the difference between these two groups in obesity must be 100% environmental.
　
　

I'd put the genetic at 30% and environment at 70%.

The question was: Now everyone is aware of the clear over-representation (refering to African-Americans in American college and professional basketball ). Now, what is the cause for the over-representation in numbers...XX % environment and YY% genetics

My answer was:
90% genetics and 10% environment is my guess. (as this is one of the more extreme examples)

Your answer was
30% genetics and 70% environment.
　
If your position is correct (that ethnic group genetic differences do not effect final outcomes) then your answer would have to have been:
0% genetics and 100% environment.

Is it not clear that you have dismissed your original position?

 

[painted wolf]

　
　
A geneticist is not the right person to answer the question. They can not themselves tell us how the many genes will effect things in the final outcome. As you point out the complexity is too great.
A sports physiologist or professional sports trainer would have a much more relevant opinion on this question than a geneticist. We're not concerned here with the number of genes, combination of genes, etc. We are just concerned with evaluating the final outward expression.

You realize the sports trainers and sport physiologists are working with geneticists on this right?

And yes, geneticists are the only ones that can answer if there is a significant genetic difference between ethnic groups. Unless you know some other way to study genes?
　

I'm lost on why you're bringing up the obesity issue and then presenting a web link.....

Because I like to back up my statements with researched facts.

This issue would just be another feather in the cap of my argument as I would say the obesity difference between African-American women and Asian-American women is another clear example of ethnic-group heredity issues and environment.

And again, you need to be careful with assigning the relative importance of environment and ethnicity. Poverty and obesity are highly correlated and African Americans also have higher rates of poverty.

Your side of the argument says that, since there are no ethnic-group hereditary differences that effect final outcomes; the difference between these two groups in obesity must be 100% environmental.

No it doesn't and I would like to stop misstating my position.
My position is that the genetics may be significant between individuals but not necessarily between ethnicities.

If African Americans were genetically predisposed to being athletes then they wouldn't be so over represented in obesity statistics... Now would they?

The question was: Now everyone is aware of the clear over-representation (refering to African-Americans in American college and professional basketball ). Now, what is the cause for the over-representation in numbers...XX % environment and YY% genetics

My answer was:
90% genetics and 10% environment is my guess. (as this is one of the more extreme examples)

Your answer was
30% genetics and 70% environment.
　
If your position is correct (that ethnic group genetic differences do not effect final outcomes) then your answer would have to have been:
0% genetics and 100% environment.

Is it not clear that you have dismissed your original position?

No... I'm showing you that your position is clearly false from the beginning. I never said genetics would have nothing to do with it.

One more time... if African Americans were genetically predisposed to being athletes then why is there a 70-80% obesity rate?
Why isn't this "significant" for you?
Does the 70-80% of the population not count now?

Given that these numbers are not significantly different from the white or hispanic American populations obesity figures how can you say that African Americans are more genetically athletic than the rest of the American population?

wa:do

 

[The Wizard]

Is race another social construct developed by man to bring about diffrence and or seperation between himself to feel superior ? As you all proablly know by now I am a being who is against the concept of there being race since in my belief it would bring about sterotypical ******** from people like oh blacke people are stupid or have sex with apes in Africa or some polsturting bull like that etc. Yes I know that such things are said still in this world and it is not just blacks but other minorites in general that get made fun etc. So I was wondering if there was any scientfic evidence that would seprate us by genitics to the point that any of this stuff could be given creedense too ?

If you think thats disturbing. Imagine what they had in mind when they coined our differences as "RACE"... The problem is even in the very word used...imo.

 

[George-ananda]

You realize the sports trainers and sport physiologists are working with geneticists on this right?

And yes, geneticists are the only ones that can answer if there is a significant genetic difference between ethnic groups. Unless you know some other way to study genes?
　

I'm not studying genes directly. I'm talking about final outcomes observed and measured in the world. The study I'm talking about requires no genetic knowledge. These observations could just as well have been conducted before modern genetic knowledge ever existed and would be just as valid.

Because I like to back up my statements with researched facts.

And again, you need to be careful with assigning the relative importance of environment and ethnicity. Poverty and obesity are highly correlated and African Americans also have higher rates of poverty.

No it doesn't and I would like to stop misstating my position.
My position is that the genetics may be significant between individuals but not necessarily between ethnicities.

If African Americans were genetically predisposed to being athletes then they wouldn't be so over represented in obesity statistics... Now would they?

No... I'm showing you that your position is clearly false from the beginning. I never said genetics would have nothing to do with it.

One more time... if African Americans were genetically predisposed to being athletes then why is there a 70-80% obesity rate?
Why isn't this "significant" for you?
Does the 70-80% of the population not count now?

Given that these numbers are not significantly different from the white or hispanic American populations obesity figures how can you say that African Americans are more genetically athletic than the rest of the American population?

wa:do

Here's the reason I don't see why this obesity rate argument makes any sense. It's perfectly logical that an ethnic group can have above average athletic ability (from muscle mass, physical co-ordination, etc.) AND still also have a greater than average tendency to obesity. It's not true that they are mutually exclusive.

Now I'd like to re-ask the question you never answered clearly:

The question was: Now everyone is aware of the clear over-representation (refering to African-Americans in American college and professional basketball ). Now, what is the cause for the over-representation in numbers...XX % environment and YY% genetics

My answer was:
90% genetics and 10% environment is my guess. (as this is one of the more extreme examples)

Your answer was
30% genetics and 70% environment.
??
If your position is correct (that ethnic group genetic differences do not effect final outcomes) then your answer would have to have been:
0% genetics and 100% environment.

Is it not clear that you have dismissed your original position?

In the above you are saying 30% of the cause of over-representation is genetic. But then you also claim significant ethnic genetic differences don't exist. Don't you see your contradiction?
I'm saying you basically agree with my theory and we're just down to negotiating the difference in numbers.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm not studying genes directly. I'm talking about final outcomes observed and measured in the world. The study I'm talking about requires no genetic knowledge. These observations could just as well have been conducted before modern genetic knowledge ever existed and would be just as valid.

They were... it was the basis of eugenics programs.
Now that we understand genetics we know just how stupid that sort of thinking was.

You need genetics to determine if something is actually hereditary or if it's a result of culture, environment and other factors. Or if it is a mix of those things, what the relative ratio's are.

Here's the reason I don't see why this obesity rate argument makes any sense. It's perfectly logical that an ethnic group can have above average athletic ability (from muscle mass, physical co-ordination, etc.) AND still also have a greater than average tendency to obesity. It's not true that they are mutually exclusive.

Really...?
Isn't that utterly contradictory?
If the genetics make people fitter and better athletes then they shouldn't be on average as unfit as everyone else.

Otherwise the genetics are no match for the environment and the point is moot.

Now I'd like to re-ask the question you never answered clearly:

In the above you are saying 30% of the cause of over-representation is genetic. But then you also claim significant ethnic genetic differences don't exist. Don't you see your contradiction?

NO... because the 30% isn't ethnic variation but individual variation.

The difference isn't between two ethnic groups but between individual humans. If you look at white and hispanic Americans you will find the same degree of variation.

I'm saying you basically agree with my theory and we're just down to negotiating the difference in numbers.

No... I really don't know how many times I can say this...

The genetic difference is between individuals... brothers and sisters, parents and children.... not ethnic groups.

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

NO... because the 30% isn't ethnic variation but individual variation.

Would you please read, re-read and re-re-read the question to which you responded '30% Genetic'

Question: Now, what is the cause for the over-representation in numbers...XX % environment and YY% genetics


The question you wanted to answer, but I never asked, was 'what percentage of athletic ability is genetic and what percent is environment?'

The Facepalm symbol just leaves me insulted. Especially since I've used restraint in not stating, or showing in symbols, my appraisal of your logical and argumentative skills

 

[painted wolf]

Would you please read, re-read and re-re-read the question to which you responded '30% Genetic'

Question: Now, what is the cause for the over-representation in numbers...XX % environment and YY% genetics


The question you wanted to answer, but I never asked, was 'what percentage of athletic ability is genetic and what percent is environment?'

The Facepalm symbol just leaves me insulted. Especially since I've used restraint in not stating, or showing in symbols, my appraisal of your logical and argumentative skills

I don't know why you consider it "over-representation" in the first place. Just because a few popular television sports have a lot of African-American athletes?
What about the rest of the American athletic population? Exactly what percentage is what ethnicity and at what point does one of them become "over-represented"?

I know we've discussed this before... since I mentioned that African-Americans certainly are not over represented on the Olympic teams. If anything they are under represented.

wa:do