Well, another myth bites the dust.

From The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1330502,00.html) today...

Gene tests prove that we are all the same under the skin
By Mark Henderson
Racists' central argument and theories linking intelligence to ethnic origin have been destroyed

THE popular notion that skin colour can indicate physical or mental differences between groups of people has been demolished by a new analysis of the human genome, which declares race to be a biologically meaningless concept.

Every human being shares more than 99.9 per cent of their DNA with everybody else, and the tiny variations that remain differ more within ethnic groups than between them, a major review of the evidence says.

It is impossible to look at people’s genetic code and deduce whether they are black, Caucasian or Asian, and there is no human population that fits the biological definition of a race, the study found.

Ethnicity is almost entirely socially and culturally constructed, and even the trait used most commonly to define it — skin colour — varies widely among people of similar ancestry.

The findings destroy the central argument of white supremacists and other racist groups, and refute controversial theories that attempt to link intelligence or criminality to ethnic origin.

I think most sensible people thought that anyway.

Originally posted by Tony
Well, another myth bites the dust.

From The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1330502,00.html) today...



<SNIP>
It is impossible to look at people’s genetic code and deduce whether they are black, Caucasian or Asian, and there is no human population that fits the biological definition of a race, the study found.



Not sure about that - what about genetic traits that ARE dependent upon ethnic origin. The classic one is the availability of Alcohol Dehydrogenase - this is the enzyme responsible for breaking alcohol down and the genes that control it are expressed differently in different racial groupings.

There have also been studies that indicate differences in mitochondrial DNA between different racial groups.

So, it may be difficult (hate that term impossible) to look at a genetic code and say 'Black, White, whatever' but there definitely ARE differences in genes expression between groups of the human family.

The differences are small, but there are differences.

Of course, the differences in no way indicate supremacy or otherwise of any particular grouping - that's just us being pillocks.

Joe

Thanks Tony.:thumbsup:

At least I can now wallow in the knowledge they I may be further removed from Bernard Manning genetically than Nelson Mandela.

There's hope at last:clap:

Not entirely sure either. What about the IQ tests administered by Professor Richard Lynn in the 80s and 90s, which indicated significant racial variations in terms of intelligence? Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein [writing in The Bell Curve] found that the average Mongoloid IQ was 104, the average Caucasoid 100 and the average Black [meaning Afro-Americans, themselves negroid/caucasoid hybrids] IQ was 15 points lower than the white score. Lynn's work shows the average Black African IQ to be around 80. Even if "race" is socially-constructed, there may still be a socially-constructed "reality" out there. Steve Jones, a "celebrity" Geneticist famous for his liberal views on race admits in his book, In the Blood [1997:180], "Distinct the races undeniably are" in relation to blood samples, blood proteins, antigens etc. Tissue-matching computers used in pairing organs for transplants with patients contain a vast body of information on the genetic divergence between races.
Re the popular theory that we are all evolved African apes; this is only one of several competing theories [the originator is Chris Stringer]. For example, Wolpoff's Multi-Regional Variation theory suggests that the races [Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Cappoid and Australoid] evolved in different parts of the globe, and on different timescales. I.e, some races are more evolved than others.
I think people should be careful not to hail every "new" theory that hits the popular press as the absolute, intrinsic truth which lays waste all other theories. No offence here, Tony.

iq is an artificial measure of something that we find incredibly difficult to describe, never mind quantize. The variations probably reflect more on the origins of the test than they do on the intelligence of given populations.

This result is something like 6 months old now, and as the quote says there are greater statistical variation within a population than there are between different populations.
It doesn't mean that specific genes couldn't be used to identify which population an individual came from though.

Originally posted by Cyclone
The variations probably reflect more on the origins of the test than they do on the intelligence of given populations.

precisely right - the tests were specific to the nationalities of their origin... like spot the odd one out..

mickey mouse, pluto, donald duck, bacon.

how many africans have seen western cartoons?

Cyclone, I respect your view here. However, re IQ tests, the usual argument is that they have variations or are culturally loaded etc. In the case of Murray and Hernstein, they used a simple mathematical test [digit forward, digit back] which is universal, and cannot possibly be culturally-biased. The results indicate that significant, genetically-based differences exist between the anthropological races. Interestingly, Murray and Hernstein and Richard Lynn both have Mongoloid peoples as slightly higher in terms of intelligence than Caucasoids [average of 104 as compared with 100]. Lynn has attributed this to a higher degree of visio-spatial intelligence on behalf of Mongoloids. As an evolutionary psychologist, Lynn traces this back to Mongoloid origins in the extreme cold of Siberia, where food was not plentiful and visio-spatial intelligence evolved to a very high degree in this racial group. Lynn denies being a "racist. He sees racism as the lumping together of people typologically in order to mistreat them. He has no such desires, and acknowledges a degree of overlap between races.

that partly addresses and partly supports my point though.
the test was made very non-specific so as to elimitate a bias, but then you acknoledge that it is only test a very narrow definition of intelligence. (I assume that there were many other tests - but the fact remains that 'intelligence' is hard to define, and therefore hard to test).

I remember a bit back there was this kind of argument when some guy said that black guys made better sprinters than white guys because they are genetically better at it.
Everyone was up in arms, but the fact is that you do see more black sprinters than white at the Olympics.

Cyclone, I agree in so far as intelligence is hard to define. Re the possibility of bias in IQ tests, yes I would acknowledge a degree of cultural bias in the language-based side of the tests, but I regard the mathematical tests as accurate. After all, [ I am not being sarcastic here, or disrespectful] there is no " White Caucasoid mathematics" or "Black Negroid mathematics", as maths is universal. Murray read out figures to respondents, who were then asked to read them back, i.e, "digit forward, digit back". There cannot possibly be any cultural bias there.

Bah, the fact your discussing the difference between races is bad enough, seriously...

it'd be so amusing if we all woke up in the morning and everyone was a mucky brown, I'm sure half of the world would die when they realised they'd have to find other things to discriminate against :P

seriously... you CAN NOT judge intelligence, there are just too many factors to take into play, and so many things we dont even understand...

lets take a few examples shall we?

IQ test... its based mainly on skills of understand language and mathimatical and logical skills in the most part, correct? Now me being brought up in a western society, having a good education and having all the resources I need open to me to learn easily allows me to perform very well on this kind of test...

pick someone from south africa, for racial sakes its a black native, now this person hasnt had much of an education and has basic reading and writing skills and very little logical and maths skills, they're going to perform much less, even though technically they may be as intelligent or more so than me...

now lets take another example... I've deduced that I can perform logical tasks, but how would I perform in say a test of turning a piece of wood into an orniment?

now when I was in South Africa I met some amazing people in their flea markets, I got talking to two guys that were 14 and 16, they were carving elephants from stone and wood and I personally have NEVER seen such craftmenship from anyone in my life... now they havnt had no education, they havnt spent years being tought this, they just learned themselves...

now personally, I see that as an extreme amount of intelligence, to be able to invision such things and carve them, thats got to be equal to me putting extreme effort into programming a computer program or solving a complex maths equation? :P

bah im done now...

no, no cultural bias, but mathematics is not intelligence, it's a very small subset of intelligence.

afterall, maybe mozart couldn't have counted above 10, but he was considered to be a genius because of his musical ability.
Picaso probably couldn't play a note, but again, considered to be a genius.

Our view of intelligence is narrowly defined by our own cultural background, my own personal view would rate mathematical, spatial and linguistic ability above most other aspects of intelligence, but i recognise that that's just my bias.

anyway, back to the point, it could be more to do with how he defined intelligence that caused some groups to perform better than others. Maybe mongols have better spatial skills, caucasians have better mathematical abilities and some area that wasn't weighted heavily is where ****** have greatest ability...

Originally posted by xafier
Bah, the fact your discussing the difference between races is bad enough, seriously...



Just out of curiosity, why the 'Bah'?

There shouldn't be a problem with discussing anything in a sensible, rational, scientific manner - it's only by discussing and exploring things and coordinating facts that ignorance is dispelled.

There are obvious differences between racial groupings on this planet. We're different colours, there are different shapes to the human hair based on race, there are biochemical differences, differences in the ability to deal with diseases, etc.

This doesn't mean that any race is better or worse, inferior or superior. Just, well, different. A difference between the peoples of this planet is almost inevitable based on the number of different environments that man has adapted to over the last 2 million years. That's evolution and adaptation for you.

It may not be 'PC' to acknowledge that there are differences, but it's factually accurate. Appreciating those differences isn't being racist and it's not bigoted; indeed, appreciating those differences allows you to see the evolutionary miracle that's made the human race the most succesful mammal on the planet.

Joe

Originally posted by xafier
Bah, the fact your discussing the difference between races is bad enough, seriously...

it'd be so amusing if we all woke up in the morning and everyone was a mucky brown, I'm sure half of the world would die when they realised they'd have to find other things to discriminate against :P

seriously... you CAN NOT judge intelligence, there are just too many factors to take into play, and so many things we dont even understand...

lets take a few examples shall we?

IQ test... its based mainly on skills of understand language and mathimatical and logical skills in the most part, correct? Now me being brought up in a western society, having a good education and having all the resources I need open to me to learn easily allows me to perform very well on this kind of test...

pick someone from south africa, for racial sakes its a black native, now this person hasnt had much of an education and has basic reading and writing skills and very little logical and maths skills, they're going to perform much less, even though technically they may be as intelligent or more so than me...

now lets take another example... I've deduced that I can perform logical tasks, but how would I perform in say a test of turning a piece of wood into an orniment?

now when I was in South Africa I met some amazing people in their flea markets, I got talking to two guys that were 14 and 16, they were carving elephants from stone and wood and I personally have NEVER seen such craftmenship from anyone in my life... now they havnt had no education, they havnt spent years being tought this, they just learned themselves...

now personally, I see that as an extreme amount of intelligence, to be able to invision such things and carve them, thats got to be equal to me putting extreme effort into programming a computer program or solving a complex maths equation? :P

bah im done now... correct.it all boils down to the enviroment you live in,put a pigymy in london he would struggle to survive,it would take far to long for him to adapt and educate himself to western ways,put a pc programmer in the jungle the same thing would happen, survival is what seperates people

With regard to intelligence - agree there.

Is it possible that intelligence and the ability to adapt one's behaviour, diet, etc. to the surroundings to maximise your individual survival is the equivalent of evolution that pressures a species to develop in such a way to increase the possibility of the survival of the species?

One short term, one long term?

Joe

I think its generally accepted that IQ tests don't measure intelligence but only measure your ability to do IQ tests - to illustrate this when I was doing an A level in psychology many moons ago I did a section on IQ tests and their construction and suddenly my IQ as measured by tests leapt by about 20-ish points I certainly hadn't got any more intelligent I just knew more about how the tests worked. IQ as measured by tests is essentially a very meaningless number. Now as to genetic traits being associated with race I think it tends to be more a correlation than an association and based in cultural differences, for example the oriental culture has typically not had milk as a componant so the majority of orientals are lactose intollerence, after all why go tot he expense of producing an ezyme you don't need? This doesn't mean that if you are oriental you MUST be lactose intollerent or if you are lactose intollerent you MUST be oriental...

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Just out of curiosity, why the 'Bah'?

Because it actually bugs me that someone has had to genetically prove theres not much difference between races...

y'know maybe its interesting from a scientific point of view, but in my eyes I just dont see it right, and I dont understand people who cant see people for people... everyone should be equal in this world right? but why is it we always have to pick out something from a person to make them different to us?

Its a survival trait to bind us into stong groups - stick with those who are alike and fight those who aren't. Very usefull when you are living in caves and defending your territory or repelling barbarian invaders - unfortunately some people have never evolved beyond this primative tribal state - hell some even try and argue it is a valid basis for a political party!

Originally posted by evildrneil
Now as to genetic traits being associated with race I think it tends to be more a correlation than an association and based in cultural differences, for example the oriental culture has typically not had milk as a componant so the majority of orientals are lactose intollerence, after all why go tot he expense of producing an ezyme you don't need? This doesn't mean that if you are oriental you MUST be lactose intollerent or if you are lactose intollerent you MUST be oriental...

Enzymes aren't cultural; your body doesn't 'know' it doesn't need the enzymes for handling lactose, it's just that some generations ago the majority of the breeding population of a certain group ended up with lower levels of those enzymes being expressed through their genes and so, when they bred, those genes were propagated down through the generations.

But yes - a correlation rather than a definite 'proof' that a particular genetic signature belongs to a particular race.

Hair shape and the distribution of pigment granules within the hair is different between different races, and can be used to identify the race of someone from some head hair. Mixed race can complicate matters, but caucasians, for example, have a distincty different structure to their head hair than people of African origin. And that's controlled by genes.

Joe

Enzymes aren't cultural no - but the need for them (or not) can be - its a genetic trait selected for by cultural predispositions...

Originally posted by timo
I think people should be careful not to hail every "new" theory that hits the popular press as the absolute, intrinsic truth which lays waste all other theories. No offence here, Tony. None taken - I'm merely prodding for opinions! :)

I'm not sure its that new - I certainly remember hearing that intra-racial genetic differences are much greater than inter-racial differences when I was doing my genetics 10 or so years ago. It certainly seems to hold up when you look at phenotypes too.

Well, we'll see how differenent Homo floresiensis is if they manage to extract any meaningful genetic material out of the skulls and bones they have found.

Truly an amazing discovery, boat going hominids, contemporaries of homo sapiens, only 3ft tall. Wow.

I knew umpa-lumpas were real.

Originally posted by evildrneil
I'm not sure its that new - I certainly remember hearing that intra-racial genetic differences are much greater than inter-racial differences when I was doing my genetics 10 or so years ago. It certainly seems to hold up when you look at phenotypes too.
Hang on...intra-racial would mean within a racial group and inter-racial would mean between a group, yes?

If so, there's a problem there. The phenotype is the expression of the gene, I seem to remember (been over 20 years since I last did genetics as part of my biochemistry degree) in terms of observable characteristics.

So...intra-racial would mean the differences between me and Jon Prescott - both Caucasian. Both chunky - him more than me, but both white, same basic 'look and feel'.

So...inter-racial - me and Will Smith. Different colour, bone structure, hair shape. He also is more talented and richer than me but, well, there you go...:)

Inter-racial differences in phenotype are surely much greater than intra-racial phenotype differences. Within a racial group being fat, thin, tall or short are degress of expression of genes, not differences. The differences between races - inter-racial - are issues of the expression of different genes or differently structured genes, I would imagine, to get the differences that we all can see.

Joe

Thats kinda picking single examples which tends not to be that usefull - how about typical middle eastern (still in the caucasian grouping) is more physically similar to a typical Berber (negroid) than a typical Berber is to say a Kalahari bush man or one of the pygmy group of tribes(also negroid)?

Originally posted by evildrneil
Thats kinda picking single examples which tends not to be that usefull - how about typical middle eastern (still in the caucasian grouping) is more physically similar to a typical Berber (negroid) than a typical Berber is to say a Kalahari bush man or one of the pygmy group of tribes(also negroid)?

Fair enough...but surely you're picking on cases that support your viewpoint there, just as I am.

I'm sorry - there are bleeding obvious differences between different racial groupings, which must be down to genetics.

Therefore there are differences between the genetic structure of different racial groups. That's all I was arguing.

Seems to me there's a risk here of not wanting to state something that appears to be obvious because of the risk of being called racist.

Joe

I sure am - but slightly more general cases ;)

But then again as far as I can see race is actually more of a spectrum than discrete groups - immagine it as a line with arbitary markers on it saying caucasian starts here or negroid starts here. The take a set of points along that line which are wide enough apart to be 'different' - it dosen't matter if the point fall in the same arbitary racial class or separate ones - they are still different. Same with two points that are close enough together to be called similar - thay are similar no mater which arbitary racial classifications they happen to fall into.

Xafier, you seem to be arguing from an environmentalist perspective, and allowing emotion to get in the way of your argument too. Whatever the answers are, you seem to be saying that there are some questions that shouldn't be asked. Of course, like you, I " see people as people" in the social situation. However, there is nothing wrong with asking deeper questions about possible racial differences. In my case, I merely drew attention to the work of hereditarians like Lynn and Murray who do ask such questions and arrive at different conclusions than you seem to. Here's one for you; do you really believe that human beings are born "equal" as you seem to be saying? Equality, for me, is the product of someone's beautiful imagination.

Originally posted by timo
Here's one for you; do you really believe that human beings are born "equal" as you seem to be saying? Equality, for me, is the product of someone's beautiful imagination.

no where not born equal, and it sucks, but thats life...

equality has the same illusion as freedom, we all believe we have freedom of speech and such in our country, but we don't really, same as we dont all have equality... and thats just on the basis of our own country let alone the world...

and I don't always let my emotions get in the way of asking or seeing obvious things about differences of races and such, but i've gone through my own share of discrimination to see that its a horrible thing even at a basic level...

sure i realise theres differences between races and society's, but theres a difference between recognising it and accepting it, and studying it and discussing it and eventually trying to find as many things as possible that makes it different from whatever race/religion/society your from :P

I just participated in an interview with a 3rd year Physcology student about inter-sex and transvestite people and peoples attitudes/thoughts towards them and how much they understand their situations, it was actually rather difficult and confusing in some aspects as its not something you think of in great depth unless you've been exposed to a friend/relitive/co-worker that inter-sex or such...

anyways, I can deal with facts if I need to, but as I said... y'know, black, white, pink, green, or techni-colour... a person is a person to me, I dont even try to put people in catagories if I can help it... cus the more you see the world the more you realise there aint anybody that fits into any catagory perfectly!

i'm completely at a loss as to how this research in the genetics of different human populations is racist in any way.

Originally posted by Tony
None taken - I'm merely prodding for opinions! :)

If that's the case and you weren't beating your anti-racist drum again, then why did you title the thread "It's True - we're all the same"?

I'm not sure these statistics prove much at all. After all, it's claimed that humans share 98.8% of their DNA with chimpanzees.

Furthermore, studies have revealed a 75% similarity between the DNA of nematode worms and man. (New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p.27). Does this mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms!

Who cares if we're not all the same. Viva la difference, I say!

Originally posted by xafier
no where not born equal, and it sucks, but thats life...

equality has the same illusion as freedom, we all believe we have freedom of speech and such in our country, but we don't really, same as we dont all have equality... and thats just on the basis of our own country let alone the world...

and I don't always let my emotions get in the way of asking or seeing obvious things about differences of races and such, but i've gone through my own share of discrimination to see that its a horrible thing even at a basic level...

sure i realise theres differences between races and society's, but theres a difference between recognising it and accepting it, and studying it and discussing it and eventually trying to find as many things as possible that makes it different from whatever race/religion/society your from :P

I just participated in an interview with a 3rd year Physcology student about inter-sex and transvestite people and peoples attitudes/thoughts towards them and how much they understand their situations, it was actually rather difficult and confusing in some aspects as its not something you think of in great depth unless you've been exposed to a friend/relitive/co-worker that inter-sex or such...

anyways, I can deal with facts if I need to, but as I said... y'know, black, white, pink, green, or techni-colour... a person is a person to me, I dont even try to put people in catagories if I can help it... cus the more you see the world the more you realise there aint anybody that fits into any catagory perfectly!

I'm just not well adjusted enough to avoid categorising people - as the song says, 'I'm only human, born to make mistakes'. :)

However, my behaviour towards people in different pigeonholes is not dictated by the pigeon holes they're in. There isn't a problem with recognising and often celebrating differences, but whether we like it or not we all have our issues with certain groups or categories of people. It's irrational, it's often born of ignorance and part of being a civilised human being is not to ignore such things but to embrace them, wrestle then to the ground and work out WHY you feel the way you feel.

Studying and discussing these differences in a serious manner, taking on board facts and not opinions, doesn't automatically mean you're trying to widen the gap and exploit the difference. It can just mean that you're curious about why the gap is there. To avoid discussing something rationally because it may not seem 'correct' to do so is a form of intellectual cowardice that will ultimately lead to ignorance that CAN be exploited by the bigots.

As mojoworking says 'Vive la difference'!

Joe

Originally posted by mojoworking
Who cares if we're not all the same. Viva la difference, I say! I can only agree with that sentiment - as I always would!

Excellent posting Joe! I agree with you here. There is nothing wrong with the disinterested investigation of phenomena. After all, that was the original idea for Universities before "learning outcomes", "semesters" and "modularisation" were forced upon us.

I always thought that black people had different jeans - Baggier with more space in the crotch area. :rolleyes: Sorry for that on many levels!!!!!!!!:heyhey: Also the gag doesnt work as well in print. I'll get me coat!!:o :o :o :o :o :o