Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bluefugue · 12-17-2002, 06:47 AM

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/17/genes.race.reut/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/17/genes.race.reut/index.html</a>

I must confess I find this article puzzling. Is it suggesting there is no correlation between things like hair color, skin color, bone structure, etc., and genes? Are we to suppose that the cosmetic differences between an Irishman and an Australian Aborigine are culturally determined? Or is it asserting that interbreeding has mixed up the genes so much that it's impossible to disentangle them at this point... or what *is* it saying? If the cosmetic differences in race are not reflected in the genome, how on earth are they passed on from one generation to the next?

simian · 12-17-2002, 07:09 AM

I wouldn't mind finding the full article and reading it. Here's what I get out of the news article: Portegese and one African population was tested (and presumably Natives of Brasil). Ten genes were found that could reliably tell the populations apart. None of these genes were for skin color, etc (don't know if that was intentional, or if that was a result of the study). From the general population of Brasil they had a number of people classified by racial appearance, and a second group from metropolitan areas that label themselves as "white". Genetic testing showed that a substantial portion of what we call "race" is not related to the genetic markers used.

I don't find this surprising, as I do view race as a social construct, rather than a meaningful genetic label. If I remember correctly, there is more genetic variability within a given "race" than there is between the "races." Irish have culy hair (if I remember correctly), some Africans have curly hair. Does this mean that Irish are more closely related to those Africans than they are to the English? Dark skin colors occur in a variety of locations around the world - Africa, parts of India, Australia, SE Asia (and, I expect, the Americas). I would expect the dark skinned people of each of those areas to be more closely related to other peoples in their geographic area than to the other dark skinned people. I would guess the same would go for any characteristic you would wish to name as an indicator of "race."

Simian

Ergaster · 12-17-2002, 08:05 AM

Basically, what the article is saying is that there is no specific genotype that corresponds with the traditional racial classifications of "black", Caucasoid", "mongoloid" etc. You cannot find a set of genes that equals "caucasian".

This is something that anthropologists nd biologists have known for a long time (at least the 1970s). Study after study after study has confirmed that about 80% or more of genetic variation occurs within "racial" groups than between them.

The racial classifications that have been used for a century or so are not reflected in biological reality. They are culturally-constructed, artificial categories based on a few trivial, physical characteristics, none of which are actually restricted to the categories they supposedly "define".

Quote:

Originally posted by bluefugue:
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/17/genes.race.reut/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/17/genes.race.reut/index.html</a>

I must confess I find this article puzzling. Is it suggesting there is no correlation between things like hair color, skin color, bone structure, etc., and genes? Are we to suppose that the cosmetic differences between an Irishman and an Australian Aborigine are culturally determined? Or is it asserting that interbreeding has mixed up the genes so much that it's impossible to disentangle them at this point... or what *is* it saying? If the cosmetic differences in race are not reflected in the genome, how on earth are they passed on from one generation to the next?

ps418 · 12-17-2002, 08:47 AM

Here are some other articles on 'race' and genes, the connection between the two, or the lack thereof.

<a href="http://www.psych.umn.edu/psycourses/BouchardT/psy5135/lectures/Risch_2002.pdf" target="_blank">Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race, and disease. Genome Biology 3(7), pp. 1207. 2002</a> PDF file.

<a href="http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/miller-genetic-history?embedded=yes&cumulative_category_title=Rac e+and+Ethnicity&cumulative_category_id=Race" target="_blank">Tracing the Genetic History of Modern Man </a>

This is a review of the book "The History and Geography of Human Genes." Apparently the book under review does not support race realism, while the reviewer does. The reviewer, on the other hand, is an economist and not a geneticist. At any rate, it looks like it has some good information, at least insofar as it summarizes the book under review.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

Ergaster · 12-17-2002, 10:42 AM

Yes, well, that's not surprising, given that the reviewing journal is Mankind Quarterly, which is rather disingenuously described as "A quarterly publication that allows writers and researchers to publish their findings about human heredity, eugenics, race, anthropology and intelligence in a censorship environment."

I've seen some of the article in that journal, and those are weasel words if ever there were any.

It benefits from contributions from the Pioneer Fund, as has J. Phillipe Rushton.

<a href="http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/revs/current/msg00054.html" target="_blank">Info on Mankind Quarterly and the Pioneer Fund</a>

<a href="http://www.mankind.org/" target="_blank">Mankind Quarterly</a>

<a href="http://www.pioneerfund.org/" target="_blank">Pioneer Fund</a>

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418:
...This is a review of the book "The History and Geography of Human Genes." Apparently the book under review does not support race realism, while the reviewer does. The reviewer, on the other hand, is an economist and not a geneticist. At any rate, it looks like it has some good information, at least insofar as it summarizes the book under review.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

pz · 12-17-2002, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418:

<a href="http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/miller-genetic-history?embedded=yes&cumulative_category_title=Rac e+and+Ethnicity&cumulative_category_id=Race" target="_blank">Tracing the Genetic History of Modern Man </a>

I was greatly amused by this paragraph:

Quote:

Most of the data is for genes that are either neutral, or close to neutral. In particular, none of the genes discussed are known to affect such genetically controlled characteristics as skin color, hair color, eye color, nose shape, or size. All of these characteristics are known to differ greatly between populations. Likewise, none of the studied genes are known to directly affect such socially important traits as intelligence, criminality, etc (although many such traits are now known to exhibit genetic variability, see Bouchard, Lykken, McGue, Segal, & Tellegen, 1990; Eaves, Eysenck, & Martin, 1989; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Miller, 1994a,b; Rowe 1994; Rushton, 1994).

So the alleles for differences in "skin color, hair color, eye color, nose shape, or size" are the first thing the author thinks of when he wants to come up with genes that are not neutral? I'd also like to see him tell me where to find the genes for "nose shape" in the human genome, so I know what to compare.

Similarly, he wants data on genes "known to directly affect...intelligence, criminality, etc." Maybe somebody should break the news to him that such genes are not known, so it would be impossible to compare polymorphisms in them. The author clearly is profoundly uninformed about genetics.

And that list of citations...! What a disreputable litany of racists and apologists for racism.

ps418 · 12-17-2002, 11:49 AM

Thanks for the feedback Ergaster and Pz.

Quote:

Ergaster: It benefits from contributions from the Pioneer Fund, as has J. Phillipe Rushton.

Mankind Quarterly? Well, I can't recall ever seeing Mankind Quaterly cited in a scientific paper, so the journal must not be taken very seriously.

ps418 · 12-17-2002, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ergaster:
It benefits from contributions from the Pioneer Fund, as has J. Phillipe Rushton.

<a href="http://www.pioneerfund.org/" target="_blank">Pioneer Fund</a>

I checked out the links you provided. Mankind Quaterly does look a bit shady. However, I do not think that research conducted using money from the Pioneer Fund should be dismissed simply for that reason. According to the article "Pioneer Fund Speaks out Against False Charges," which is on the page you linked to above:

Quote:

In considering grant proposals, the Fund has always sought excellence in the researchers. Two grantees are among the five living psychologists most cited by other scientists. Grantees have been elected as the presidents of the American Psychological Association, the British Psychological Association, the Behavior Genetics Association, the Psychonomic Society, and the Society for Psychophysiological Research. One grantee won a Nobel prize, two were Guggenheim Fellows (one for doing Pioneer-funded work), and two more were selected by the Galton Society of the United Kingdom to give the 1983 and 1995 annual Galton Lectures (also on the basis of Pioneer-funded work). Three are among the eleven living biographees in the Encyclopedia of Human Intelligence, and ten of the articles in that two volume work were written by grantees. Grantees currently serve on the editorial boards of major academic journals, including three on the board of Personality and Individual Differences and three more on the editorial board of the journal Intelligence, and many have published in both journals. One was selected by the latter journal to plan, select authors for, and supervise a special 1996 full issue on "Intelligence and Social Policy." Most of the Pioneer grantees hold Fellow status in one or more of their respective scientific organizations, and many have won academic honors for their research or other distinguished contributions from, among others, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Educational Research Association, Mensa, and the American Psychological Association. In some cases Pioneer had funded the very research for which the academic honors were awarded. Thirty Pioneer grantees of recent times, in psychology and other fields, have together published close to 200 scholarly books and 2,000 scientific articles, most in the leading journals.

Ergaster · 12-17-2002, 12:25 PM

Yes, they *would* say that, wouldn't they?

No, of course the fund should not be summarily dismissed, but it doesn't take a lot of research to make one highly suspicious of its motives. Smart people can hold pernicious ideas just as easily as dumb ones. I think one can draw certain conclusions by the company it keeps.

If you can find it, try perusing Mankind Quarterly. Or anything by Richard Lynn, a font of racial enlightenment if ever there was one. <sarcasm alert>

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ergaster ]

Bettawrekonize · 12-17-2002, 12:32 PM

I’m starting to think that there might be something else (other than DNA) that affects our characteristics. After all, most of the genes among different species are very similar.

12-17-2002, 06:47 AM	#1
bluefugue Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,427	"Race Not Reflected in Genes, Study Says" <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/17/genes.race.reut/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/17/genes.race.reut/index.html</a> I must confess I find this article puzzling. Is it suggesting there is no correlation between things like hair color, skin color, bone structure, etc., and genes? Are we to suppose that the cosmetic differences between an Irishman and an Australian Aborigine are culturally determined? Or is it asserting that interbreeding has mixed up the genes so much that it's impossible to disentangle them at this point... or what is it saying? If the cosmetic differences in race are not reflected in the genome, how on earth are they passed on from one generation to the next?

12-17-2002, 08:47 AM	#4
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	Here are some other articles on 'race' and genes, the connection between the two, or the lack thereof. <a href="http://www.psych.umn.edu/psycourses/BouchardT/psy5135/lectures/Risch_2002.pdf" target="_blank">Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race, and disease. Genome Biology 3(7), pp. 1207. 2002</a> PDF file. <a href="http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/miller-genetic-history?embedded=yes&cumulative_category_title=Rac e+and+Ethnicity&cumulative_category_id=Race" target="_blank">Tracing the Genetic History of Modern Man </a> This is a review of the book "The History and Geography of Human Genes." Apparently the book under review does not support race realism, while the reviewer does. The reviewer, on the other hand, is an economist and not a geneticist. At any rate, it looks like it has some good information, at least insofar as it summarizes the book under review. [ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

12-17-2002, 12:25 PM	#9
Ergaster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 506	Yes, they would say that, wouldn't they? No, of course the fund should not be summarily dismissed, but it doesn't take a lot of research to make one highly suspicious of its motives. Smart people can hold pernicious ideas just as easily as dumb ones. I think one can draw certain conclusions by the company it keeps. If you can find it, try perusing Mankind Quarterly. Or anything by Richard Lynn, a font of racial enlightenment if ever there was one. <sarcasm alert> [ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ergaster ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-17-2002, 07:09 AM	#2
simian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 1,924	I wouldn't mind finding the full article and reading it. Here's what I get out of the news article: Portegese and one African population was tested (and presumably Natives of Brasil). Ten genes were found that could reliably tell the populations apart. None of these genes were for skin color, etc (don't know if that was intentional, or if that was a result of the study). From the general population of Brasil they had a number of people classified by racial appearance, and a second group from metropolitan areas that label themselves as "white". Genetic testing showed that a substantial portion of what we call "race" is not related to the genetic markers used. I don't find this surprising, as I do view race as a social construct, rather than a meaningful genetic label. If I remember correctly, there is more genetic variability within a given "race" than there is between the "races." Irish have culy hair (if I remember correctly), some Africans have curly hair. Does this mean that Irish are more closely related to those Africans than they are to the English? Dark skin colors occur in a variety of locations around the world - Africa, parts of India, Australia, SE Asia (and, I expect, the Americas). I would expect the dark skinned people of each of those areas to be more closely related to other peoples in their geographic area than to the other dark skinned people. I would guess the same would go for any characteristic you would wish to name as an indicator of "race." Simian

12-17-2002, 12:32 PM	#10
Bettawrekonize Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Torrance, California, U.S Posts: 28	I’m starting to think that there might be something else (other than DNA) that affects our characteristics. After all, most of the genes among different species are very similar.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.