Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



amyheartssiroc ([info]amyheartssiroc) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2007-01-02 00:03:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
[info]fallingangels doesn't believe that Judaism can be both a religion and an ethnicity. God help anyone who disagrees with him. No quotes because finding a wanky thread in there is like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel. But apparently he's trolling stupid_free because he was recently featured there.

(I put one comment in there, which has gotten no replies, so I don't think this belongs on [info]i_wank. Let me know if I should move it.)

EDIT: The wank continues in another post. Happy New Year!

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]eilan
2007-01-02 07:19 pm UTC (link)
In fact there is more genetic variation between two people of the same race then there is between two people of different races.

In fact, the article you linked to states the following:

However, this does not mean, as is sometimes inferred, that individuals of the same race exhibit greater variation than people of different races.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]jetamors
2007-01-02 09:37 pm UTC (link)
*blinks* Genotype != phenotype, you know. It doesn't invalidate her point.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]eilan
2007-01-02 09:56 pm UTC (link)
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. However, this does not mean, as is sometimes inferred, that individuals of the same race exhibit greater variation than people of different races.

As far as I understand it, the 'variation' in the last sentence does refer to genotype and not phenotype.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]chaos_theory
2007-01-03 12:15 am UTC (link)
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.

This is what I was refering to, serves me right for linking to something I skimmed. 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. The penguin thing is, to the best of my knowledge, true.

The point still stands insofar as race is not related to genetic markers but are merely, as frequentmouse points out, stochastic statistical clustering that we assign significance to. Even racial catagories are highly mutible, and what we define as different races today are a relatively recent conception of race.

Granted, I am not a geneticist, but this is the offical standing on race in anthropology. I highly recommend the American Anthropological Association's Statement On "Race" which has a clear explaination of their reasoning, as well as a nice concise history of the developement of modern racial catagories.

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.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]frequentmouse
2007-01-03 12:33 am UTC (link)
I would like to add, though, that racial groupings have sufficient clustering of some genotypes that it is wrong to say that they are absolutely non-existent; it's just that the populations which get labeled as social races and the clustered genotypes are not congruent.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]chaos_theory
2007-01-03 02:16 am UTC (link)
:( I am not sure I completely understand what you're saying. From what I understand the genetic similarities in what is being referred to as racial groups is a result of some slight regional variation and slight amouts of reproductive isolation (i.e. it's harder for someone in Greenland to reproduce with someone in Nigeria) but the result is not genetically distinct populations but a gradation of genetic traits across bordering populations. Can you give me a "for example"?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]frequentmouse
2007-01-03 05:02 am UTC (link)
but the result is not genetically distinct populations but a gradation of genetic traits across bordering populations.

True, but the distribution is lumpy- genetic traits in the cluster are shared unequally with bordering populations.

The important thing is that for large "racial" populations, like African Americans, there may be statistically significant differences in reactions to drugs, for instance, between the set AA and the set notAA, so that membership in the socially defined group indicates need for evaluation in medical practice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]eilan
2007-01-03 10:14 am UTC (link)
African American as a 'race' is a fucking joke anyway, as they come from so much different regions in Africa, that's like putting 10 people from each European country onto an island and after one generation saying that all the offspring is basically the same. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]queencallipygos
2007-01-03 05:42 pm UTC (link)
I love it when the discussions in here get all educational.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]singe
2007-01-03 06:03 pm UTC (link)
i.e. it's harder for someone in Greenland to reproduce with someone in Nigeria)

I'd say it's hard. One's in Greenland and one's in Nigeria!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]chaos_theory
2007-01-04 01:00 am UTC (link)
It could happen, airmail is a fabulous thing and people will buy anything if they show enough commercials on E! for it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]eilan
2007-01-03 10:12 am UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]chaos_theory
2007-01-03 05:11 pm UTC (link)
Yes, I do realize. I had focused on the first part of that paragraph and not the second. I was looking for a source and was too lazy to find the article I was thinking about and thus gave the one I linked a quick scan and missed the next sentence totally negating the point I was trying to make. I think we're all on the same side arguing details at this point, and a lot of these details, and what they mean, are still being figured out.

Regardless, if one more person tells me I can't be Jewish because "I don't look Jewish" I will start demonstrating some of my favorite principles of natural selection on their asses.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]eilan
2007-01-03 07:30 pm UTC (link)
Hehe, I like that line of thinking :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]dalassa
2007-01-03 08:39 pm UTC (link)
Argh I hate it when that happens.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]thesilentsenshi
2007-01-04 02:14 pm UTC (link)
People have said that to you? D:

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]chaos_theory
2007-01-05 06:08 am UTC (link)
I am really pale with red hair and freckles and don't have a big schonzz, dark hair, a jewish star somewhere on my body, horns, or the body of a dead christian baby in my hands, or whatever the hell else they thought Jewish people looked like in Wisconsin and the South. What's funny is that other Jewish people don't give a crap what I look like and red hair is actually something that a lot of Jews have. All my cousins do. For the rest of the world if you don't look like Jerry Seinfeld you can't possibly be a Jew, I guess.

People have also walked up to me and told me that I am going to hell because I killed Jesus, asked me if Jews really drink the blood of Christian babies, asked me why I hate Jesus, and told me that I couldn't possibly be poor because Jews control all the money in the world blah blah illuminati Jew bankers at the center of the earth blah blah blah. Oh, and have actually used the phrase "trying to Jew me down" in my presence. I have a brief lecture prepared for just such occassions about the origins of anti-semitism in Europe lovingly entitled "Martin Luther was a huge cock and you're an ignorant fuck". It's not very popular but I deliver it passionately.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Anthropology break
[info]amyheartssiroc
2007-01-05 06:10 am UTC (link)
My cello teacher (who is Jewish) was once in the South and asked, in all seriousness, if Jews have horns. She answered with a straight face, "No, it's the twentieth century. We have antenae now."

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map