Good Scientists Gone Bad -- Dr. Watson and Dr. Pauling

The sickle cell gene, HbS, is important in that it is a predictor of sickle cell anemia.HbS does not predict "race".As Crash has pointed out to you twice now, HbS is prevalent in malarial areas regardless of "race".Protective effects of the sickle cell gene against malaria morbidity and mortality.
The Lancet, Volume 359, Issue 9314, Pages 1311-1312 You have no idea how wrong you are, do you?What on earth does a beneficial mutation have to do with "race"?Yes. HbS is a beneficial mutation.No. HbS is not a predictor of "race". Goliath and Nassau are just different folk names for the same species.Much like "kissing bug" and "masked hunter" are different folk names for Triatoma protracta.Black grouper is Mycteroperca bonaci and Yellowfin grouper is Mycteroperca venenosa. They are entirely separate species.And yes, taxonomic groupings are important.As a general rule, species cannot interbreed.This is not true of different human "races".So. I take it from your answer you haven't a biologically useful definition of "race".That's no surprise.It is an impossible task. Much like a creo definition of kind. It's meaningless. It's really very simple.If an investigator finds DNA at a crime scene, why can't he determine the race of the perp?About Face: Forensic Genetic Testing for Race and Visible Traits
The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
Volume 34 Issue 2 Page 277-292, Summer 2006 You will note, biology is not one of the categories. There are no distinct categories. There are too many exceptions, there is too much overlap. You're starting to get the picture, right?How can one determine "race" if the vast majority of the contributors to the genetic pool are unknown? Small and local populations, Juggs. Get it? Small and local.
And says absolutely NOTHING about morphological traits.I mean, a Zuni or an Italian. Those are 2 different "races" according to people like you.Eventually, tho, we will probably figure out the genes that code for skin color.But that is of no help what so ever in determining "race". Maybe you didn't hear me the first time.There is one one species of human!Race is a human construct, not a biological one. You need to take a long hard look at the OP.The discussion has developed into one of race/IQ causality.There can be no causal link, because "race" cannot be biologically defined!

Then we need a substitute word for what is actually defined. Try telling the NBA that there is no difference between blacks and whites on the basketball court. Why is the NBA disproportionately made up of blacks? Because they have a racial advantage. Why is the NYSE disproportionately made up of whites? Because they have a racial advantage. Why are Washington state gambling casinos disproportionately owned by American Indians? Because they have a racial advantage. Why are the highest SAT scores in America consistently attained by Asians? Because they have a racial advantage. Why do Eskimoes metabolize fats better than other people? Because they have a racial advatage.What is it about race that you don't understand? Are you making some kind of point of political correctness?”HM

Who gives a whit about whether it predicts race. The greater point is to look who is getting it and who isn't. If you want a prediction, I would contract malaria.Secondly, what is your fascination with "predicting" race? What a silly thing to say. If two Asian people procreate, you're about to have a third. If two caucasian people procreate, you're about to have a third. There is your prediction. What am I supposed to glean from it?

quote:

---

From these original foci of the HbS mutation, the gene spread along trading routes to North Africa and the Mediterranean, was transported in large populations to North and South America and the Caribbean during the slave trade, and latterly has spread to Northern Europe by immigration from the Caribbean, directly from Africa to the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, and Holland, and from Turkey to Germany. The relative prevalence of these haplotypes in the Americas reflects the different origins of their African peoples, approximately 70% of HbS associated chromosomes having the Benin haplotype, 10% Senegal and 10% Bantu. Haplotype frequencies in Jamaica are similar to the USA but the Bantu haplotype accounts for the majority of HbS associated chromosomes in Brazil.

​

The Benin haplotype accounts for HbS associated chromosomes in Sicily, Northern Greece, Southern Turkey, and South West Saudi Arabia, suggesting that these genes had their origin in West Africa. The Asian haplotype is rarely encountered outside its geographic origin because there have been few large population movements and Indian emigrants have been predominantly from non HbS containing populations. However, it is of interest that the Asian haplotype was first described among descendants of Indian indentured laborers in Jamaica. The disease now occurs against diverse genetic and environmental backgrounds, which provide experimental models for investigating the mechanisms of the clinical and hematological variability of the disease.

---

Meaning that the expression comes from a single source, and from a single group of people-- Africa(ns). Explain you predictor of race and why it is critical in explaining race. So they're the same specie, but they are noticeably different, each sharing unique characteristics... Explain to me how that is any different from human beings. Why do you think humans are exempt as the sole specie not subject to evolution? I don't know what answer you're looking for, because I'm not sure what "biological useful"ness comprises of in your mind. All I know is that you are alleging that race is just a human construct, all the while saying, "Go say what I just did to that white guy and black girl, standing next to the Asian man who is talking to that east Indian lady... No... I said East Indian. She's a Native American."You smell what I'm stepping in?How is it that these different characteristics very evidently can be seen, and understood by a multiplicity of people, but you dismiss it as being a "social construct?"

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

quote:

---

Meaning that the expression comes from a single source, and from a single group of people-- Africa(ns).

---

It's not clear from the quote you provide that the "Asian haplotype" came from there, so even on that point you're pushing it.But even worse for your case the gene has spread across races. CS was arguing that that couldn't happen. And that is why you can't use the presence of the gene to identify race - the origin isn't relevant. Unless you are going to argue that everyone who has ANY African ancestry belongs to the same race.

Why? Why isn't the social concept of "race" sufficient in these cases?Especially since, in each of the instances you mention, the advantages are all social, not biological? Black people aren't biologically better at basketball; it's simply a more popular game among black communities, so those communities turn out more players than white communities.Similarly, the NYSE draws from heavily white communities - the highly educated and affluent - so most of their personnel are white.We need no biological data to explain your exmaples, just social data. So why would the social construct of "race" be insufficient here? The point is one of biological reality. The borders of race, biologically, are as arbitrary as the border between Colorado and Wyoming. Sure, it's the same on all the maps, but when you actually get there, there's nothing actually there on the ground that makes it obvious that you've crossed from one state to another; states are just legal constructs. They're not physical reality.

The people who are getting it are the people who are homozygous for the allele. The people who aren't getting it are the people who are heterozygous, or don't have the allele at all.Being black or white has nothing to do with that. It's whether or not you have two copies of the SCA allele. North Africans are white people, NJ. ("Caucasoid") The genetics. We've explain this god knows how many times. Why isn't it sinking in? How is any of that inconsistent with race being a social construct? Look, it's like the way you can look at someone and tell whether or not they're rich. Indicators of wealth are socially constructed, right? That's why rich people from black communities feel like they have to get some rims, but rich people from white communities feel like they need a Swiss watch. That's how wealth is indicated in their respective communities.None of that is biological reality. You can't look in someone's genes and see their bank account balance. Similarly, someone's genes don't really indicate their "race."Do you understand the difference, yet? Just because you can see something by looking at it, doesn't mean that it's not socially constructed.Look, you see a person with very dark skin and wiry, curly hair. How do you know to call them "black" and not just "Bob, over there, with the dark skin and the curly hair"? Because you've been told by society to do so based on those characteristics.On the other hand, when you see a person who is tall, you don't say "Bob's of the tall race", because tall-ness isn't constructed as race even though height is as much biological reality - and is associated with its own unique medical trends - as skin color. You just say "Bob is tall."Why is skin color "race" but tallness is not? Because one is socially constructed as part of "race" and the other isn't. It's arbitrary; thus its a social construction.

XY predicts male.
What predicts "race"?Don't like the word predict? How 'bout determine?XY determines male.
What genetically determines "race"?Genetic markers associated with Africans can turn up in people who look entirely white. Indians and Pakistanis may have dark skin, but genetic markers show that they are caucasians. HIV also originated in Africa.
Does HIV determine "race"? Species doesn't mean "a group of clones".
Of course there's phenotypic variation (and genotypic variation) within a species. They're still the same species. You answered your own question.
People "understand" social categories because they are taught social categories. You need to be able to point to a set of genes that determines "race".
How hard can that be?You think there is such a thing as "race".
Fabulous.Instead on repeating yourself ad nauseum, why don't you do a pubmed search and find the evidence?You are on your fourth round of "because I said so".
Produce some evidence.You're an admin, Juggs.
You know you need to produce evidence.
"Because I said so" is not evidence.
"Everybody thinks so" is not evidence. You'll notice that HbS is being used to refute the notion of race. Skin color has no relationship to genetic relatedness. Why don't you come up with some evidence that refutes the above?

Oh, snap!What a perfect analogy!Way to go, Crash.

Oh, come on, you must be blind. You mean to say there's nother at all to "basketball jones." You mean to say that black negro people are not genetically predisposed to be better at playing basketball than other races? One of the biggest problems facing the NBA, according to Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, is that the league is too black. They said it together on TV. I saw it. Try to tell them that the black race is not physically superior in basketball to the white race, on average across every state in the US. Take a look at the black athletes in the NFL and tell me they are not putting their superior athletic genes to good use there too.What is so bad about differentiating racial attributes? I don't see the white race coming out on top of very many inter-racial contests.”HM

Hey, I thought so too. I even said so, here on this very forum. When I made the statement that "more black people are basketball players because black people tend to be taller", it was about 30 seconds before somebody showed me these two charts:Black men are, on average, shorter than white men. Is tallness the determining factor of basketball prowess? I don't know. It's certainly indicative of something how tall basketball players are. Yes, precisely. It has nothing to do with genes. Look, if being black makes you genetically better at basketball, then why is soccer the most popular game in Africa? That has nothing to do with genes and everything to do with the fact that black communities in America stress success in basketball and football as a means to prosperity, more than other communities. Yeah, you're right, HM. I mean it must all be genes. It's not like there's any way for a human being to get any stronger, faster, or have more endurance than they were originally born with, right?Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

You've made the illogical leap of judgement that height is a measure of basketball jones.”HM

Did you even read my post? I said it was an assumption. Based on the difference in height between the average player in the NBA and the average male in America, I think it's a defensible, coarse metric to assess your claim of black genetic athletic ability.Strength, agility, motor control, endurance - these are all highly elastic characteristics that can be improved by exercise, so they're genetically irrelevant. It's fairly difficult to make yourself substantially taller, we know that comes largely through genes and nutrition.But, by all means, HM, let me do all the work. Just sit back and propose absolutely no genetic mechanism or gene locus associated with athletic prowess and known - measured - to be much more prevalent among black people. Wouldn't want anything to get in the way of your cranky sniping.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Well, it's a little hard for me to set up molecular biology laboratory in the 680 sq. ft. condo, but I don't think even the Salk Institute has the methods of equipment just yet to identify the genetic mechanisms and gene loci of basketball jones, or any other jones. But sooner or later they will.My broad assumption, still very much valid, is that all things biological have genetic predispositions. This assumption is more and more validated every day with each newly discovered genetic mechanism.”HM

With only 15,000 or so genes in the entire human genome, I doubt very much that this is the case - there's too many "things biological" for them all to have genes associated with them - and my speculation is that the degree to which biological traits are found to be genetically determined will decrease, steadily, over time. As the rate of discovery of genetic mechanisms continues to decrease, it only validates my assumption.But, you know, whatever. This is one of those things scientists bet about.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Amigo,I think you may be confusing the ecological concept of "race" with the human social concept of "race". When we speak of geographical races, for instance, were talking about incipient allopatry that may lead to a distinct deme, subspecies, or even species. Many of these races have distinct morphologies - and may initially be confused with being separate species or subspecies (the only really biologically significant divisions). One recent example from my own work is our discovery of a distinct geographical morp of the Amazon Earth Snake (Atractus major) that is so bloody different morphologically from the "type" specimen that we originally thought it was a new species. Genetic comparisons, however, showed that there was no substantive difference - or at least not enough to make the species/subspecies distinction. We CAN get away with calling it a separate race in biological terms, however, because of its geographical isolation and (at least theoretical) reproductive isolation. This is quite clearly NOT the case with humans.Humans have even less genetic distinctiveness than our geographic Atractus morphs do. We can't even make the ecological "race" claim. Don't confuse the two concepts: ecological "race", and human socio-cultural "race" are very different things. The point is that humans don't have "races" in any biolgically meaningful context. Atractus major does.