|
Post by RUGeneticsStudent on Jan 7, 2004 2:57:05 GMT -5
I think I agree more or less with everything that was written here -- minus a few things of course -- but I wholeheartedly agree with Gladstone in the realm of "facts".
Unfortunately it seems parts of this conversation have turned from science into some political agenda! I'm unfortunately not very politically oriented -- and I assure you I am a very active person in the anti-pseudoscience realm of things (a person who is suscribed to Skeptical Inquirer).
And again, the link that Melnorme provided me with seemed to contain a large smattering of charged political statements but little to no science. I believe this is where the major problem lies in this "debate".
It is folly to assume there is no difference between human populations, but at most the differences are physically superficial. No human being codes anything differently (to our current genetic knowledge) than another in the realm of important bodily functions. That there are such and such differences in the face, and in the education, and in the blah and blah is inconsequential. What matters is the microbiological -- the unseen.
Genetics implies the knowledge gathered and gleaned from our genetic database -- not on the comparison of skulls. And interestingly enough, more of a difference occurs within an "ethnicity" than between disparate "racial" populations. That is to say, two Teutons are more likely to be genetically dissimilar than a Teuton and a Mongol (again, these are superficial quantifiers).
Whatever the argument is, the political individuals will have their agenda, and the scientists will do all the real work behind the scenes of the bickering. In the end, I personally believe the issue of race will hinge somewhere between the "race-deniers" and "race-admirers" spectrum of understanding; another "solution" in the grey mirky zone of compromise.
|
|
|
Post by galvez on Jan 7, 2004 3:15:13 GMT -5
And again, the link that Melnorme provided me with seemed to contain a large smattering of charged political statements but little to no science. I believe this is where the major problem lies in this "debate". This shouldn't be much of a surprise: Steve Sailer, who writes so many articles about race and biology, has no scientific background to really back up his claims. What he "cites" are his own VDare.com articles -- hardly scientific material. This doesn't mean I disagree with Mr. Sailer and that he shouldn't write about race at all, but his "Human Biodiversity Institute" tag is misleading and makes him appear more scientifically-oriented than he is. Humans and chimpanzees are 98% genetically similar. Yet humans and chimpanzees are obviously very different. When it comes to genetics minor differences lead to profound differences in physical and mental traits. Additionally, I would expect geneticists and physical anthropologists to have different perspectives on the topic of race because they are looking at it from two different angles. And even among scientists working in these fields political pressures or biases could very well be influencing what they publish. The taboos imposed by the establishment on racial differences certainly do not help to bring a greater understanding of human biodiversity.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Jan 7, 2004 12:08:42 GMT -5
As Galvez says, Steve Sailor isn't a scientist. But what he does do, is present these things for the public.
For example, consider when someone makes a statement like "race does not exist because DNA varies more within a population than outside it". This may sound convincing to the public, and you seem to be convinced by this. But there is a simple logical problem, which Mr Sailor does point out.
This fact does not change wether race exists, because race is based on physical types - and correlation of certain genes still supports the exstence of these seperate types, such as an European and an Australian race. Therefore, genetics has confirmed that there is genetic evidence for race.
Genetics is useful as a tool to test ideas about race. But it doesn't disprove the idea of race itself.
I don't see why genetics matters more. Things like craniometry, are valuable.
|
|
|
Post by RUGeneticsStudent on Jan 7, 2004 18:15:51 GMT -5
Yes, scientists do differ on their opinions, which is both welcome and the natural process of science. And again I agree that certain established taboos try and prevent scientists from achieving their work (medieval paleontology especially comes to mind). This current situation also seems to have the same influence of earlier battles -- however in this case it seems as if this is a battle of modern dogmas as well. Instead of arguing scientific points, most of the conversations boil down to simple dogmatic arguments, wherein one extreme or the other is argued.
My aim was never to disprove the word "race". I personally dislike the word and think it has no immediate scientific value, but I do not devalue its eventual importance in tailoring medicines specific to races in the rapidly growing field of pharmacogenics. IF one were to assign the definition of race as the accumulated physical differences between individuals then one could say that race does exist. My point was to merely illustrate that internally, current studies show absolutely nothing differs. And once an individual understands just how exactly physical traits are acquired (in reality these physical traits are "race-blind" so to speak), the issue of race seems less important, so to speak.
Genetics matters heavily simply because it is the book from which all biological functions are read from. It is what makes humans - human. The studies of craniometry have not been endorsed by most scientists (it still considered pseudoscience by many skeptics) and is never called that by that name by most paleo-anthropologists. Like many things (genetics included), it is still subject to rigorous examination and at this point in time the empirical evidence in favor of such testing is low. Genetics on the other hand, the library of mankind, has been more or less analyzed thanks to the Human Genome Project. Unfortunately genetics is not understood and misrepresented.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Jan 7, 2004 19:12:29 GMT -5
My aim was never to disprove the word "race". I personally dislike the word and think it has no immediate scientific value, but I do not devalue its eventual importance in tailoring medicines specific to races in the rapidly growing field of pharmacogenics. IF one were to assign the definition of race as the accumulated physical differences between individuals then one could say that race does exist. My point was to merely illustrate that internally, current studies show absolutely nothing differs. And once an individual understands just how exactly physical traits are acquired (in reality these physical traits are "race-blind" so to speak), the issue of race seems less important, so to speak. I don't see why you think it "has no immediate scientific value". Forensic anthropologists can tell a persons ethnic ancestry from a bone - surely this shows that it has immediate practical importance. Has anyone said otherwise? All I said was that traditional methods are still important because I don't see a reason why genetics is MORE important at the present time. Genetic differences can obviously be measured indirectly by the physical characters that are encoded in the genes. All I am saying, is that everything has to be considered. Someone who is sceptical of something, by definition, doesn't believe in it. You mignt as well say that it is believed to be the truth by most of its supporters! Why do you say that most anthropologists do not endorse craniometry? It is a standard part of physical anthropology, and its results more or less match genetic evidence.
|
|