A computer program can sort people into racial groups by analyzing genetic material and these groups have near perfect overlap with the social meaning of race.
For each person in the study, the researchers examined 326 DNA regions that tend to vary between people. These regions are not necessarily within genes, but are simply genetic signposts on chromosomes that come in a variety of different forms at the same location.
Without knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch and his team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up. And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group.
"This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background," Risch said.
Evidence is not absolute proof. There is probable evidence for both sides of this question, as with most other scientific and philosophical questions.
According to one of my Mental Floss magazines, there was a man named James Watson, responsible for the discovery of DNA with a Nobel prize to boot. I know there's some controversy about him so whatever you dredge up about him to make him look bad won't surprise me. A man of science like him, who follows science, should not be punished if he speaks about whatever evidence science has provided.
To make it short, I don't refuse to consider scientific questions that may have scientific proof even if society will be incredibly offended by it. So what if blacks, as an overall average, has less intelligence? So what if the Chinese have slightly more average intellect? If science provides evidence, don't think I'll shut my mouth in hopes of not offending the ignorant.
And what did the program say Obama was?
I am a programmer. Any program I write to sort things is going to sort them based on the definition of the categories I code. Of course, i would use the social meanings of the categories. That does not make the categories real in any way other than within the system that I had devised.
Hispanic isn't a race according to the government so if Hispanic women have a lower risk of developing certain types of diseases than black women it's not a "race-related predisposition".If race had no biologic meaning then the government would be wasting it's money reaching out to these imaginary racial groups with warnings about their biologically race-related predispositions to various diseases.
Black women have a far higher risk of developing ER- types of breast cancer compared to white women and Hispanic women and Asian women. Cancer, the last I heard, doesn't really pay attention to the social definition of race.
Hispanic isn't a race according to the government so if Hispanic women have a lower risk of developing certain types of diseases than black women it's not a "race-related predisposition".
tessaesque said:That is not the same as "there is no biological difference that could be defined as "race"", which is essentially what you said. The passage I quoted clearly states that a specific portion of DNA shows a large enough commonality amongst those we socially classify as belonging to one race or another.
His categorization is simply a function of how fuzzily your define the boundaries on black or on how many intermediate races you want to designate with respect to clines.
He'd be black. He's 50% East African, 50% white. If you want to place him finer, he's 50% Luo, 50% English. African Americans are, broadly speaking, about 80%-90% West African, 10%-20% white.
You haven't thought up some killer question here.
Sure it makes it real. If I put a socially defined black person into a racial category of "black" that person, if they have heart disease, has a far higher probability of having a more favorable response rate to BiDil than if I put a socially defined Cherokee into the "black" group and offer him BiDil to treat his heart disease or put a socially defined Swedish-American into the "black" group and offer him BiDil to treat his heart disease.
If race had no biologic meaning then the government would be wasting it's money reaching out to these imaginary racial groups with warnings about their biologically race-related predispositions to various diseases.
Black women have a far higher risk of developing ER- types of breast cancer compared to white women and Hispanic women and Asian women. Cancer, the last I heard, doesn't really pay attention to the social definition of race.
Just a very illuminating question that shows how arbitrary the whole definition of "race" is.
Apparently it is a scientific rule that if you're 50% black and 50% white, you're automatically black. I'd love to see the science behind that law...
Apparently it is a scientific rule that if you're 50% black and 50% white, you're automatically black. I'd love to see the science behind that law...
In math it would look like: X + Y = X.
Therefore white = 0
What world do you guys live in that "white = 0" or "whiteness is negatively defined"? Are you guys kidding me? Thousands of years of history is laughing at these three comments in a row. I do not think they make a violin small enough for this party.
In math it would look like: X + Y = X.
Therefore white = 0
They were jokes. Why so serious? :2razz:
What world do you guys live in that "white = 0" or "whiteness is negatively defined"? Are you guys kidding me? Thousands of years of history is laughing at these three comments in a row. I do not think they make a violin small enough for this party.
rof It's .5x + .5y = x, where x =/= y rof
Oh come now. It was a pity party for being white. I prefer self-deprecating jokes over "omg my life sucks" jokes.
Hell, I'm of the Louis CK school of thought, when it comes to being white.
all you darkies can keep your affirmative action, minority scholarships, govt cheese, etc. I'm riding out this white thing, see how far it takes me.
Hispanic isn't a race according to the government so if Hispanic women have a lower risk of developing certain types of diseases than black women it's not a "race-related predisposition".
How many races are there? List them, please.
Just a very illuminating question that shows how arbitrary the whole definition of "race" is.
The researcher input the social construct "race" into the model, and out come the correlation. A correct understand of the result is not that black women are more likely to get that type of cancer, but that a woman with a certain genetic mutation is more likely to get that type of cancer, and that what we describe as Black women are more likely to have that genetic mutation. Being White, or Hispanics or Asian, does not make a woman who has this genetic mutation less likely to get the cancer than a Black woman.
Did you notice that in my response to you, I critiqued your argument and your argument only. The only thing you could manage to do was personally attack me through sarcasm. It's never a good sign when the only response you have to another person's point is a personal attack.You're funny. You're also a great scientist - you've discovered the first group of people who exist apart from race. You should publish this finding. For some reason the government doesn't want to categorize Hispanics as Mestizos and Mulattos.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?