|
|
Eilan (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} eilan) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} otf_wank, |
Re: Anthropology break
Numerous surveys of genetic variation among populations around the world indeed show that about 85 percent of the total genetic variation occurs between individuals within a given population, far more than the 15 percent or so in members of different populations.
You do realise that I quoted the sentence following the one you quoted, right? Which said that the conclusion you drew from the sentence is not right?
Other biologists have made that claim and there is convincing evidence to indicate that there is a significantly larger amount of genetic diversity within what we think of a "racial" catagories then would be expected if race was indeed genetically determined.
Which does not correspond with 'two people from different 'races' will have more genes in common than two people from the same 'race'', but instead that the mean statistic variation in such a group is bigger than the mean statistic variation between such groups. I suppose you are familiar with the concept of analysis of variance? Because that's what it is and in the context of different 'races', an ANOVA would not have 'race' as a significant factor.
The thing is, I am a Biologist myself and I do not deny that such a thing as race is not rooted in genetics, but is in fact a social construct for most parts.
However, I do not think anyone can deny that the propability that have more genetic information in common with - for example - my grandmother than with someone who is related to me only through 50 or more generations back is rather high. This is stochastics, yes, but most of evolution genetics is stochastics.
Look at malaria resistence for example, which is such a 'genetical marker', in that you will not find it in a lot of populations that have not intermixed with any of the populations that come from malaria-typical regions because it's actually disadvantagous to have if you are not from that region. What was later called 'races' are populations of humans that were roughly isolated from each other and started to evolve to fot their environment that for example in Europe, America and Africa. Now that this barrier is down, traveling everywhere is possible for some parts of the populations and humans actually shape their environment to fit their needs, this adaptation has come to a stop and actually started to decline, though.
So you can, just by chance and with a not too low probability find someone with blond hair, light skin and blue eyes from Germany who is more genetically different from me than someone with darker skin, brown hair and eyes from India. That's teh stochastics behind that sentence you quoted.
Just in case, you are wondering, I do not think this is a bad thing or something :) I'm just saying that something similar to race (with race being the wrong term) would have once been a good description of different human populations. It has motly become meaningless now, also because the number of what we call 'races' these days is way too high.
Additionally, since modern racial catagories are based on phenotype (i.e. hair color and texture, skin color, skeletal morphology), individuals who ascribe to the idea that race is biologically real are essentially claiming that phenotype and genotype are actually the same.
No, actually not. They are restricting the genetype to a few phonotypical markers and ignoring the rets.
Gosh, I'm sorry I just wrote a novel.
Numerous surveys of genetic variation among populations around the world indeed show that about 85 percent of the total genetic variation occurs between individuals within a given population, far more than the 15 percent or so in members of different populations.
You do realise that I quoted the sentence following the one you quoted, right? Which said that the conclusion you drew from the sentence is not right?
Other biologists have made that claim and there is convincing evidence to indicate that there is a significantly larger amount of genetic diversity within what we think of a "racial" catagories then would be expected if race was indeed genetically determined.
Which does not correspond with 'two people from different 'races' will have more genes in common than two people from the same 'race'', but instead that the mean statistic variation in such a group is bigger than the mean statistic variation between such groups. I suppose you are familiar with the concept of analysis of variance? Because that's what it is and in the context of different 'races', an ANOVA would not have 'race' as a significant factor.
The thing is, I am a Biologist myself and I do not deny that such a thing as race is not rooted in genetics, but is in fact a social construct for most parts.
However, I do not think anyone can deny that the propability that have more genetic information in common with - for example - my grandmother than with someone who is related to me only through 50 or more generations back is rather high. This is stochastics, yes, but most of evolution genetics is stochastics.
Look at malaria resistence for example, which is such a 'genetical marker', in that you will not find it in a lot of populations that have not intermixed with any of the populations that come from malaria-typical regions because it's actually disadvantagous to have if you are not from that region. What was later called 'races' are populations of humans that were roughly isolated from each other and started to evolve to fot their environment that for example in Europe, America and Africa. Now that this barrier is down, traveling everywhere is possible for some parts of the populations and humans actually shape their environment to fit their needs, this adaptation has come to a stop and actually started to decline, though.
So you can, just by chance and with a not too low probability find someone with blond hair, light skin and blue eyes from Germany who is more genetically different from me than someone with darker skin, brown hair and eyes from India. That's teh stochastics behind that sentence you quoted.
Just in case, you are wondering, I do not think this is a bad thing or something :) I'm just saying that something similar to race (with race being the wrong term) would have once been a good description of different human populations. It has motly become meaningless now, also because the number of what we call 'races' these days is way too high.
Additionally, since modern racial catagories are based on phenotype (i.e. hair color and texture, skin color, skeletal morphology), individuals who ascribe to the idea that race is biologically real are essentially claiming that phenotype and genotype are actually the same.
No, actually not. They are restricting the genetype to a few phonotypical markers and ignoring the rets.
Gosh, I'm sorry I just wrote a novel.
Post a comment in response:
