Human Genetics

[baldgye]

I'm observing that intelligence, or at least that which can be measured by tests is likely influenced by genes and the environment, and that there are likely to be variations between different ethnic groups.

You're the one singling out black people.

And it's a wonder why "liberal" policies are being trashed around the world.....

Yes it does, you can replace the term 'race' with 'ethnic' and claim its a different point.

It also doesn't "debunks the concept of race as something that can be clearly defined", it flat out states that race is a social construct not a genetic factor.

Numerous studies have shown that as much genetic difference exists within any given population/ethnic grouping as across it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687076/
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
https://rosenberglab.stanford.edu/supplements/popstructSupp.pdf
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

One case study even used Watson to debunk his own claim:

View attachment 792835
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

"It's a concept we think is too crude to provide useful information, it's a concept that has social meaning that interferes in the scientific understanding of human genetic diversity and it's a concept that we are not the first to call upon moving away from," said Michael Yudell, a professor of public health at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

Yudell said that modern genetics research is operating in a paradox, which is that race is understood to be a useful tool to elucidate human genetic diversity, but on the other hand, race is also understood to be a poorly defined marker of that diversity and an imprecise proxy for the relationship between ancestry and genetics.

"Essentially, I could not agree more with the authors," said Svante Pääbo, a biologist and director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, who worked on the Neanderthal genome but was not involved with the new paper.

"What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded," Pääbo told Live Science. "It is all a question of differences in how frequent different variants are on different continents and in different regions."



Ah 'The Bell Curve'

Lets list the inherent issues that exist with it:

• It was never peer reviewed prior to publication
• It was not published in a scientific journal
• Peer review after publication has pointed out the massive flaws and contradictions with it
• The authors themselves never stated race and IQ were singularly linked factors (and have since been shown in peer review to be incorrect in regard to even a partial link

You also seem to have misinterpreted the last part of @Johnnypenso quote from the APA task force report on the book, which clearly rejects the race based link:

"As to the cause of the mean Black–White group difference, however, the Task Force concluded: “There is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation""

That rejection is based on evidence and repeated peer review, now even if it wasn't that doesn't (scientifically) support inserting anything you like into it.

Its also missleading to suggest that science has avoided the area in terms of research and debate, the evidence exists by the boat-load to show that its been discussed and researched massively. Its a line rolled out by the far-right and white supremacists (that has unfortunately gained ground in the mainstream) to try and support the debunked while ignoring the massive body of peer-reviewed evidence and discussion debunking the link.


So, no 'The Bell Curve' isn't evidence to support a link between race and IQ at all, and to interpret as such is to ignore a massive body of evidence that has been presented in peer review, to ignore the inherent flaws in the basic pillars its based upon (the main one being to assume the data is sound to start with and that IQ can be measured accurately via a single test) and to ignore the limitations te work itself put on the link (and have been further refuted - to the point that they are simply not correct).

In short you have to cheery pick from an already massively flawed source, created using flawed data and concepts, and ignore every single piece of peer review in order to draw a conclusion that 'The Bell Curve' supports such a link.

In short, genetic traits and abnormalities can influence intelligence (however how to accurately measure intelligence consistently is itself open to debate) Down's Syndrome is one such example. However genetic variation is so vast, both within population/ethnic groups as well as across them, that it isn't and can't be linked to one of the seven social construct groups described as 'race' in any unique way.

You are a racist. Everything you've pointed to as evidence has either been explained to you by @Scaff or shown to be false. To claim anything else, without the one doing the research yourself is to push racist agendas.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You are a racist. Everything you've pointed to as evidence has either been explained to you by @Scaff or shown to be false. To claim anything else, without the one doing the research yourself is to push racist agendas.

Let's look at the first paper:

DISCUSSIONS of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts: (a) Such differences account for only a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies, but nonetheless (b) multilocus statistics assign most individuals to the correct population. This is widely understood to reflect the increased discriminatory power of multilocus statistics. Yet Bamshad et al. (2004) showed, using multilocus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population. If multilocus statistics are so powerful, then how are we to understand this finding?

Interesting - let's look further:

In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above. These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.

OK....even more interesting. Let's continue and take the next bit from their findings:

This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group.

Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer,

can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is

≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci,

≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

 

[baldgye]

Let's look at the first paper

As a big brained white person, you must remember that time I called you scientifically illiterate?

Why then, do you think I would bother to get into a discussion with you about your racist ideology, especially after the far more patient and knowledgeable @Scaff has been unable to penetrate your genetically superior head over the past few month(s)?

 

[HenrySwanson]

As a big brained white person, you must remember that time I called you scientifically illiterate?

Why then, do you think I would bother to get into a discussion with you about your racist ideology, especially after the far more patient and knowledgeable @Scaff has been unable to penetrate your genetically superior head over the past few month(s)?

Look dude I'm not asking you to explain anything, I'm just showing you how the paper doesn't support the claims (it actually goes against it). 👍

(I'm also not white. As I've said in other posts I'm half black and my mum is mixed and from southern Asia)

* I have to ask, why did you assume I was white. Wouldn't it make more sense if I were racist that I be east Asian?

 

[PocketZeven]

(I'm also not white. As I've said in other posts I'm half black and my mum is mixed and from southern Asia)

You must only hate yourself 50%

Kidding aside. Do you think your 50% black genes have given you a disadvantage?

 

[Scaff]

I'm not sure if it's a colloquialism or there is something more concrete in science now that you've raised this point (I'm not an anthropologist). I'd include those who are black and were brought to the Americas as slaves as descendents of black Africans but wouldn't class white Europeans as such (and, it follows, white Americans). I think in general such classifications are valid but I'd need to do more research as to where the line is drawn when it comes to 100% accurately stating that a person is of black African descent.

Genetics is quite clear, there is no line.

You answered your own question:

"Yet descendants of black Africans many times removed, and from a limited geographic region do dominate"

I.e. descendents of West African slaves.

No, I didn't at all, and neither have you.

If the ability to dominate in the 100m is a genetic trait of black Africans then explain why no black Africans, from sub-Saharan Africa (the largest population centre for black Africans), are within the top 10 and less than 10% make it into the top 100?

No, because:

Do you see what you highlighted there?

I'll point it out:

The gene in question is ADH1B, one varient of which increases the risk of alcoholism without flushing, another reduces the risk of alcoholism and produces flushing (common in East Asia) and another reduces the risk of alcoholism without flushing and is highly common in Africa.

You identified a difference in the average genomes between different ethnic groups. And which of those were genes (or even alleles in this case) specific to a "race"? None. Yet there is still a variation in how likely they are found between the different groups.

As such, that statistic that you continue to cite doesn't hold much water when investigated more thoroughly.

You stated that this was "genes specific to a group", it is not, it a mutation of a shared gene, mutations of which occur across different populations and the most common hypothesis for the cause of the mutation in East Asians is environmental (consumption of rice).

Nor does it undermine the cited paper on overall genetic variation, as picking singular outliers doesn't cover the entire human genome, a fact that I'm sure you are well aware of and ignoring. You are quite literally picking one gene out of between 20 - 25k and using to say that variation confirms genetic race, despite it accounting for only 0.00005% of the total genome (based on the lower estimate from the Human Genome Project).

Let's look at the first paper:



Interesting - let's look further:



OK....even more interesting. Let's continue and take the next bit from their findings:

Let's have a look at the final discussion from the paper in question, rather than cherry-picking from select parts of it as you have clearly been doing.

"The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes."

Yep, once again says you are incorrect.

I'm observing that intelligence, or at least that which can be measured by tests is likely influenced by genes and the environment, and that there are likely to be variations between different ethnic groups.

Lets break this down:

IQ Tests - highly biased towards certain groups in approach, and subject to constant upwards drift, as such not a good measure of 'intelligence' at all.

Influenced by genes - No evidence exists to support this, and its has been widely debunked in numerous peer-reviewed and published papers.

Influenced by environment - Has evidence to support it in numerous peer-reviewed and published papers (examples: https://www.bmj.com/content/317/7171/1481.short, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673688927201)

Variations between different ethnic groups - Perhaps, but it's then a leap to suggest that is down to race/ethnicity/ancestry (in fact it's unproven) and far more likely to differ across populations based on environmental factors (which does have evidence to support it).

 

[baldgye]

* I have to ask, why did you assume I was white. Wouldn't it make more sense if I were racist that I be east Asian?

I don't know that 'being a racist' and 'making sense' need to be linked.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't know that 'being a racist' and 'making sense' need to be linked.

Wouldn't it make more sense if I were racist that I be east Asian?

I agree Racism isnt exclusive to whites or east asian. Being of east asian descent I am kind of offended of being insinuated as being racist.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You must only hate yourself 50%

Kidding aside. Do you think your 50% black genes have given you a disadvantage?

No I don't think it's a disadvantage at all. I graduated from uni with a degree but haven't gone down the career path it set me up for (yet) but wouldn't blame that on genes - rather my own confidence in my abilities, or lack thereof.

I agree Racism isnt exclusive to whites or east asian. Being of east asian descent I am kind of offended of being insinuated as being racist.

That's because I've insinuated that east Asians come out on top over whites (in intelligence testing) - so why would someone assume I was white

 

[PocketZeven]

No I don't think it's a disadvantage at all. I graduated from uni with a degree but haven't gone down the career path it set me up for (yet) but wouldn't blame that on genes - rather my own confidence in my abilities, or lack thereof.

More confused now. You have tried to convince that people of certain "race" have advantages over others. Now you claim that isnt ?

 

[HenrySwanson]

More confused now. You have tried to convince that people of certain "race" have advantages over others. Now you claim that isnt ?

I don't see myself at a disadvantage because I refuse to believe genetics is the sole determinant of success.

Genetics is quite clear, there is no line.

But we're talking about ethnicities....

That isn't purely genetics.

Still, if you want to argue why people of non-west African descent don't feature in the top times of the 100m because of purely non-genetic reasons....go right ahead.

No, I didn't at all, and neither have you.

If the ability to dominate in the 100m is a genetic trait of black Africans then explain why no black Africans, from sub-Saharan Africa (the largest population centre for black Africans), are within the top 10 and less than 10% make it into the top 100?

Because they are black people specifically from west Africa - a geographical region.

You're arguing against yourself here because you're proving that these differences exist at an even smaller level than what I originally stated (the group being black people from west Africa)....

You stated that this was "genes specific to a group", it is not, it a mutation of a shared gene, mutations of which occur across different populations and the most common hypothesis for the cause of the mutation in East Asians is environmental (consumption of rice).

You're talking about two different genes here if you re-read the wiki you got that from....

Nor does it undermine the cited paper on overall genetic variation, as picking singular outliers doesn't cover the entire human genome, a fact that I'm sure you are well aware of and ignoring.

You posted articles, not papers. Also, if you're talking about the statistic I mentioned then the point still stands - unique genes don't mean all that much.

Let's have a look at the final discussion from the paper in question, rather than cherry-picking from select parts of it as you have clearly been doing.

"The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes."

Yep, once again says you are incorrect.

Not quite.

I'm using the actual data so I can hardly be accused of cherry picking

"Frequently" is not very helpful in this instance because it's ambiguous (if you looked at the freqency for "100s of loci", and with their definition of frequency being “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” the answer is still only ~20%). It also becomes less frequent the more genes are analysed (i.e. the more accurate the data input). In addition, the sentence before states that we can reliably assign people to a population of origin based on their genes if we have enough information....

 

[Scaff]

But we're talking about ethnicities....

That isn't purely genetics.

Now you get it, nor is race.

Still, if you want to argue why people of non-west African descent don't feature in the top times of the 100m because of purely non-genetic reasons....go right ahead.

I'm not asking about people of West African descent, I'm asking about people from west Africa directly.

Why are they absent if this is a genetic trait found in black Africans?

Because they are black people specifically from west Africa - a geographical region.

Please list all of them in the top one hundred born in West Africa.

You're arguing against yourself here because you're proving that these differences exist at an even smaller level than what I originally stated (the group being black people from west Africa)....

I'm not, at all. Its quite a clear question. Its a quite clear question.

If it's a black African trait as you claim why are the two largest population centres of black Africans and descendents (sub Saharan Africa and Brazil) so under represented in the top 100?

Statistically if you are correct this should not be the case.

If this is a black African (and descendants) genetic trait the top 100 should be ordered in number of places with Sub Saharan Africans first, Brazilians next and then Americans.

You're talking about two different genes here if you re-read the wiki you got that from....

Wow, it's now 0.0001%.

You posted articles, not papers. Also, if you're talking about the statistic I mentioned then the point still stands - unique genes don't mean all that much.

Oh dear, you are aware that a article can still be peer reviewed? I've used both, you haven't provided a single example of either to support you claim of race being a causal factor in intelegence.

If unique genes don't mean that much why have you just attempted to base an entire point around it?

Not quite.

I'm using the actual data so I can hardly be accused of cherry picking

So you used all if the data?

I will answer that for you, not even close, as such you cherry picked.

"Frequently" is not very helpful in this instance because it's ambiguous (if you looked at the freqency for "100s of loci", and with their definition of frequency being “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” the answer is still only ~20%). It also becomes less frequent the more genes are analysed (i.e. the more accurate the data input). In addition, the sentence before states that we can reliably assign people to a population of origin based on their genes if we have enough information....

And the sentence after it clarifies it with greater context using all of the data from the results, as does the sentence after that.

Tests can give geographic ancestry if you limit the range of the genome, as soon as you expand on it and increase the sample size for comparison they become useless for that as you end up with less in common with your own population that you do with other populations. That's why if your going to quote from the results you need to review all of them, not just cherry pick the bits you want.

It's absurd that you are actually arguing against the conclusion of the authors.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't see myself at a disadvantage because I refuse to believe genetics is the sole determinant of success.

Yet you are convinced it is a factor nonetheless.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not sure if it's a colloquialism or there is something more concrete in science now that you've raised this point (I'm not an anthropologist). I'd include those who are black and were brought to the Americas as slaves as descendents of black Africans but wouldn't class white Europeans as such (and, it follows, white Americans).

That's such an arbitrary and narrow sliver of time. You're interested in the athletic performance of a group of people that descended from people who lived in africa after a group of people migrated to europe but not after the civil war (roughly). And you think that that sliver of time corresponds to what the real "race" represents. Why? You have absolutely zero basis for this.

There are so many genes, and they mix and re-match in so many ways in each person, and within geographical regions. To try to pick a group out as a "race" as you're finding, is fairly absurd. Trying to ascribe meaning to those "races" when it comes to biological potential is even more absurd. That's not to say that "race" doesn't exist as a social and political concept, but it isn't based on actual genetics, and the deeper your understanding of genetics, the more you realize that the superficial picture which might appear to be simplistically organized on the surface, is actually complete chaos underneath.

You of all people should understand this given your own particular slice of genetics, which makes it difficult to pinpoint your own "race".

If we could test IQ accurately, and that has been shown to be dubious at best, and if IQ were linked to genetics, and that's another big ask, what do you think the chances are the it would be linked to skin color? Why do the genes that control your skin pigmentation or the shape of your nose have anything at all to do with how you think? There is no underlying scientific theory that explains why pigmentation controls brain function. It's pure conjecture and it has no scientific basis and is born from ignorant people who are conflating other underlying factors to what they see most easily - which is skin color. That's without getting into how the concept of IQ is such a narrow sliver of what constitutes human intelligence.

Do you not think it is possible that the genetics that underpin your brain can come less from one side of your family and more from the other? Do you not think that it is possible, even incredibly likely, that the genetics that control the pigmentation of your skin can come from one side and the genetics that underpin your brain can come from the other? Because if the answer is yes, you already know and can demonstrate to yourself that there is no real genetic link between race and "intelligence".

The reality is that your "intellect" is honed. You can make yourself smarter, or dumber, through your own choices. What do you expose yourself to, how do you challenge yourself. You have direct control over your own "intellect" and the values and memes that you subscribe to feed back on how you shape your own mind. Any genetic component to that is at most a backdrop to the real show.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Now you get it, nor is race.

So it's a mix, like I've been saying all along....

I'm not asking about people of West African descent, I'm asking about people from west Africa directly.

Why are they absent if this is a genetic trait found in black Africans?

What?!

You do realise this could be a result of genes that were more specific to the population that were transported to other regions via the slave trade, right?

Saying that the same genetic material hasn't manifested in black people from West Africa in the modern age doesn't disprove the fact that almost all of the sprinters originated from there.

Please list all of them in the top one hundred born in West Africa.

That doesn't mean anything!

I'm not sure how else to explain it but that's not how genetics works. What we are looking at is that there was a movement of people who likely had more of a genetic trait predisposing them towards being better at sprinting than the population they left behind. Just because that group originated from that specific place doesn't mean that the original population will have that genetic advantage propogate once they have left.

I'm not, at all. Its quite a clear question. Its a quite clear question.

If it's a black African trait as you claim why are the two largest population centres of black Africans and descendents (sub Saharan Africa and Brazil) so under represented in the top 100?

Statistically if you are correct this should not be the case.

If this is a black African (and descendants) genetic trait the top 100 should be ordered in number of places with Sub Saharan Africans first, Brazilians next and then Americans.

Because that's not how it works. The genes responsible for being a faster sprinter are likely to have been at a higher frequency in those taken away from West Africa than those who remained.

So you used all if the data?

I will answer that for you, not even close, as such you cherry picked.


And the sentence after it clarifies it with greater context using all of the data from the results, as does the sentence after that.

Wait a second....

Tests can give geographic ancestry if you limit the range of the genome, as soon as you expand on it and increase the sample size for comparison they become useless for that as you end up with less in common with your own population that you do with other populations. That's why if your going to quote from the results you need to review all of them, not just cherry pick the bits you want.

It's absurd that you are actually arguing against the conclusion of the authors.

Ahh ok, I see where you are going wrong here:

From the paper's intro:

Our analysis focuses on the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population.

And their results:

Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer,

can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is

≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci,

≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

I.e. as the amount of polymorphisms sampled goes up, the frequency goes down.

Perhaps you were talking about this in support of your argument (although you really didn't make it clear):

On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase

This is illustrated by the fact that

and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms (Table 1, microarray data set; Figure 2D). In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Pääbo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible. However, those studies lacked the statistical power required to answer that question (see Rosenberg et al. 2005).

Still, I'm not sure how you can conclude in the way you have when even the authors haven't done that....

That's such an arbitrary and narrow sliver of time. You're interested in the athletic performance of a group of people that descended from people who lived in africa after a group of people migrated to europe but not after the civil war (roughly). And you think that that sliver of time corresponds to what the real "race" represents. Why? You have absolutely zero basis for this.

There are so many genes, and they mix and re-match in so many ways in each person, and within geographical regions. To try to pick a group out as a "race" as you're finding, is fairly absurd. Trying to ascribe meaning to those "races" when it comes to biological potential is even more absurd. That's not to say that "race" doesn't exist as a social and political concept, but it isn't based on actual genetics, and the deeper your understanding of genetics, the more you realize that the superficial picture which might appear to be simplistically organized on the surface, is actually complete chaos underneath.

You of all people should understand this given your own particular slice of genetics, which makes it difficult to pinpoint your own "race".

I wouldn't class it as arbitrary.

There was a clear period of time when people of West African descent were forced to the Caribbean and eventually the USA and European nations. This was only the beginning of this migration, as others from the region eventually settled in "the West" subsequent to this.

You could argue that the American and Jamaican sprinting programs are providing the best coaching in the world for 100m sprints and the best....ahem...."supplements" for their sprinters (only Bolt and Coleridge have come out with clean records but Coleridge missed 3 tests) but then why wouldn't Russia feature in that list (or even in those breaking 10 seconds) considering the prestige of the 100m and after all the doping scandals they have been involved in? What about China?

If we could test IQ accurately, and that has been shown to be dubious at best, and if IQ were linked to genetics, and that's another big ask, what do you think the chances are the it would be linked to skin color? Why do the genes that control your skin pigmentation or the shape of your nose have anything at all to do with how you think? There is no underlying scientific theory that explains why pigmentation controls brain function. It's pure conjecture and it has no scientific basis and is born from ignorant people who are conflating other underlying factors to what they see most easily - which is skin color. That's without getting into how the concept of IQ is such a narrow sliver of what constitutes human intelligence.

We've seen that differences exist, at least in IQ, between ethnicities.

I've argued that we see differences between groups when we look at averages, but acknowledge that there is considerable variations within groups also.

Do you not think it is possible that the genetics that underpin your brain can come less from one side of your family and more from the other? Do you not think that it is possible, even incredibly likely, that the genetics that control the pigmentation of your skin can come from one side and the genetics that underpin your brain can come from the other? Because if the answer is yes, you already know and can demonstrate to yourself that there is no real genetic link between race and "intelligence".

Surely if that was the case (which it is from skin colour) then there is in fact a genetic link between traits and ethnicities.

The reality is that your "intellect" is honed. You can make yourself smarter, or dumber, through your own choices. What do you expose yourself to, how do you challenge yourself. You have direct control over your own "intellect" and the values and memes that you subscribe to feed back on how you shape your own mind. Any genetic component to that is at most a backdrop to the real show.

No doubt, and I've been made to re-appraise my definition of intelligence from the debate here but I'm not sure that means that the average "intellect" can't vary between groups of people based on genetics.

 

[Scaff]

So it's a mix, like I've been saying all along....

Nope, not like you have been saying at all.

What?!

You do realise this could be a result of genes that were more specific to the population that were transported to other regions via the slave trade, right?

Saying that the same genetic material hasn't manifested in black people from West Africa in the modern age doesn't disprove the fact that almost all of the sprinters originated from there.

So slave traders specifically selected slaves based on who would turn out to be great sprinters in around 100 - 200 years time and then ensured they went to the US and Caribbean (but ensured none made it to South America)!

That's seriously your argument, lets see the peer review on this, because you are quite frankly talking unsubstantiated bollocks.

That doesn't mean anything!

I'm not sure how else to explain it but that's not how genetics works. What we are looking at is that there was a movement of people who likely had more of a genetic trait predisposing them towards being better at sprinting than the population they left behind. Just because that group originated from that specific place doesn't mean that the original population will have that genetic advantage propogate once they have left.

Hold on a second, you're the one who claimed this was a black African gene, not an Afro-American or an Afro-Caribbean gene!

The human genome doesn't replicate fast enough or with enough mutations to reach the kind of effect you're claiming for this, certainly not to bias the figures to the degree you claim.

Populations:
Sub-Saharan Africa: 1.08 billion (56% minus West Africa)
West Africa: 381 million (32%)
Brazil: 88 million (7%)
USA: 46 million (3.8%)
Caribbean: 3.5 million (0.28%)

So your claim is that two regions, with only 4.08% of the population of the above managed via utter fluke to get the magic Black African gene (that you claimed as such) and propagate it within unheard of time period (for humans) for this 4% to utterly dominate, despite the fact that no distinction was made by slave-traders on this criteria, and that slaves from West Africa were sent to both North America, South America and the Caribbean!

Yet it magically grew in the US and Caribbean, but not in Brazil or its place of origin!

Now if you want an example of how genetics doesn't work, you just gave an excellent one.

Because that's not how it works. The genes responsible for being a faster sprinter are likely to have been at a higher frequency in those taken away from West Africa than those who remained.

****ing huge citation required on this, as it is, to be blunt, its ********.

Ahh ok, I see where you are going wrong here:

From the paper's intro:



And their results:


I.e. as the amount of polymorphisms sampled goes up, the frequency goes down.

Perhaps you were talking about this in support of your argument (although you really didn't make it clear):


Still, I'm not sure how you can conclude in the way you have when even the authors haven't done that....

And yet the authors have concluded that populations do have more internal differences that they do with other populations, in the conclusion, you know the bit where they clearly disagree with you, the bit you keep ignoring.

NOw lets look at all of that abstract you are now quote-mining:

"The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations. Both findings can be obtained from the same data set, using the same number of polymorphic loci. This article explains why. Our analysis focuses on the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population. We compare ω to the error rates of several classification methods, using data sets that vary in number of loci, average allele frequency, populations sampled, and polymorphism ascertainment strategy. We demonstrate that classification methods achieve higher discriminatory power than ω because of their use of aggregate properties of populations. The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with 100 polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but ω remains sizable, even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race."

It quite clearly says that in order to show the differences you are claiming as the only real factor you have to limit the number of loci, use too few and you don't get a distinction, use too many and you don't get a distinction. If your argument was to hold up you would expect to keep seeing differences as you increased the number, not less, as the less you see the less the argument for genetics in race holds up. That you don't see that undermines your argument, you will also see (my highlight) that the authors open the abstract with that very fact, and the abstract, the discussion/conclusion and the sum of the results all back that up.

The end of the abstract even goes back to this point, stating that because testing methods can bias the results (and its example of the bias introduced by various testing criteria that you are quote-mining to try and apply to the whole) "This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race". Once again this is backed up in the results of the paper (the sum of them - not just the bits you want) and the discussion/conclusion of it.

No complete reading of that paper, in any way, supports your claim.

 

[Danoff]

Because that's not how it works. The genes responsible for being a faster sprinter are likely to have been at a higher frequency in those taken away from West Africa than those who remained.

Oh wow. You think humans bred a new civilization of athletes by culling the most athletic from Africa, and then only interbreeding them with each other. Citation needed.

You could argue that the American and Jamaican sprinting programs are providing the best coaching in the world for 100m sprints and the best....ahem...."supplements" for their sprinters (only Bolt and Coleridge have come out with clean records but Coleridge missed 3 tests) but then why wouldn't Russia feature in that list (or even in those breaking 10 seconds) considering the prestige of the 100m and after all the doping scandals they have been involved in? What about China?

I have no doubt that there are genetic differences in population that lead to differences in athletic prowess. However, here again I'd question whether this is directly linked with skin color, or if those genes are just generally more prevalent in people that happen to have that skin color. Correlation/Causation. This is what I was trying to explain with intellect a post ago. The genes for certain muscle development/body structure/ etc. can be separable from skin color. They don't necessarily come as a package, that's how genes work.

We've seen that differences exist, at least in IQ, between ethnicities.

We've seen that ethnicities are based on basically nothing. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I've argued that we see differences between groups when we look at averages, but acknowledge that there is considerable variations within groups also.

Fairly arbitrary groups based on a characteristic that is at best loosely or circumstantially linked with the "genes" you're theorizing exist.

Surely if that was the case (which it is from skin colour) then there is in fact a genetic link between traits and ethnicities.

Explain genetically what an ethnicity is. To the extent that you pull it off, you'll find that you're leaving behind the "genes" that you theorize exist and control intelligence.

No doubt, and I've been made to re-appraise my definition of intelligence from the debate here but I'm not sure that means that the average "intellect" can't vary between groups of people based on genetics.

Genetics, maybe. I could certainly see it as a possibility that genes could influence your likelihood of having a particular type of intellectual aptitude. But you'd need to link the genetics you're talking about to skin color. Correlation would not be sufficient here.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Yet you are convinced it is a factor nonetheless.

I don't put much importance on it, I just recognise that when speaking about averages on a population level there is likely a difference, and at the very least we don't know why these differences exist.

Nope, not like you have been saying at all.

What?!

Can you quote where I said "race" was based on genetics alone?

So slave traders specifically selected slaves based on who would turn out to be great sprinters in around 100 - 200 years time and then ensured they went to the US and Caribbean (but ensured none made it to South America)!

That's seriously your argument, lets see the peer review on this, because you are quite frankly talking unsubstantiated bollocks.

What is going on with the comprehension here?!

Again, quote where I said that

Hold on a second, you're the one who claimed this was a black African gene, not an Afro-American or an Afro-Caribbean gene!

Quote please

The human genome doesn't replicate fast enough or with enough mutations to reach the kind of effect you're claiming for this, certainly not to bias the figures to the degree you claim.

Populations:
Sub-Saharan Africa: 1.08 billion (56% minus West Africa)
West Africa: 381 million (32%)
Brazil: 88 million (7%)
USA: 46 million (3.8%)
Caribbean: 3.5 million (0.28%)

So your claim is that two regions, with only 4.08% of the population of the above managed via utter fluke to get the magic Black African gene (that you claimed as such) and propagate it within unheard of time period (for humans) for this 4% to utterly dominate, despite the fact that no distinction was made by slave-traders on this criteria, and that slaves from West Africa were sent to both North America, South America and the Caribbean!

Yet it magically grew in the US and Caribbean, but not in Brazil or its place of origin!

This is....hurting my brain.

There is no magic gene!

Where did this idea come from?!

Also you're indirectly saying that genetic differences in populations have to be down to human's selecting those favourable traits only, or at least insinuating that I said that....

****ing huge citation required on this, as it is, to be blunt, its ********.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2008/08/why-are-jamaicans-so-good-at-sprinting.html
A bit more in-depth analysis from someone who actually was involved in studying a gene thought to be useful for elite sprinting:
https://www.wired.com/2008/10/the-gene-for-jamaican-sprinting-success-no-not-really/

To quote him:

I'm certainly not arguing here that genetics doesn't play any role in Bolt's success - or in the remarkable over-representation of West African descendents in Olympic short-distance track events, or the similarly impressive skew towards East Africans among marathon runners. In fact I think most geneticists would be staggered if this was the case, even though direct evidence for underlying genes is currently very thin on the ground.
Rather, my point is that an excessive emphasis on ACTN3 as a major explanation for Jamaican success does a grave disservice to the complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors required for top-level athletic performance. This suggestion goes against everything we've learnt about the genetics of complex traits from recent genome-wide association studies, which have revealed that quantitative traits (like height and body weight) are frequently influenced by dozens to hundreds of genes, each of small effect; if anything, it's likely that athletic performance will be even more genetically complex than these traits. The ACTN3-centred argument also dismisses the importance of Jamaica's impressive investment in the infrastructure and training system required to identify and nurture elite track athletes, the effects of a culture that idolises local
track heroes, and the powerful desire of young Jamaicans to use athletic success to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.
It is almost certainly true that Usain Bolt carries at least one of the "sprint" variants of the ACTN3 gene, but then so do I (along with around five billion other humans worldwide). Indeed, I'm fortunate enough to be lugging around two "sprint" copies - but that doesn't mean you'll see me in the 100 metre final in London in 2012. Unfortunately for me, it takes a lot more than one lucky gene to create an Olympian

There, in essence, is what I've been trying to say by someone vastly more experienced in the genetics of elite sprinting

Or are you going to call him a racist/scientically illeterate....

And yet the authors have concluded that populations do have more internal differences that they do with other populations, in the conclusion, you know the bit where they clearly disagree with you, the bit you keep ignoring.

Errr....you're kinda getting a bit lost.

That point in the conclusion is saying that most of the variation we see occurs within a group but that it's still possible to differentiate groups (something I didn't argue....)
To use an analogy, there can be many variations of British people - Black, White, Asian etc but there are still differences between many Brits and Americans.

It quite clearly says that in order to show the differences you are claiming as the only real factor you have to limit the number of loci, use too few and you don't get a distinction, use too many and you don't get a distinction. If your argument was to hold up you would expect to keep seeing differences as you increased the number, not less, as the less you see the less the argument for genetics in race holds up. That you don't see that undermines your argument, you will also see (my highlight) that the authors open the abstract with that very fact, and the abstract, the discussion/conclusion and the sum of the results all back that up.

The end of the abstract even goes back to this point, stating that because testing methods can bias the results (and its example of the bias introduced by various testing criteria that you are quote-mining to try and apply to the whole) "This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race". Once again this is backed up in the results of the paper (the sum of them - not just the bits you want) and the discussion/conclusion of it.

No complete reading of that paper, in any way, supports your claim.

OK now you're getting very lost (I'm assuming you meant to say you do get a distinction for one of the extremes unless you actually think there is a "sweet spot" in which case you're even more lost than I thought).

It's actually saying the opposite of what you're thinking.

I.e. the frequency with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population goes down when more loci are analysed.

To be blunt - it's your argument that falters more when we look at the results.

Oh wow. You think humans bred a new civilization of athletes by culling the most athletic from Africa, and then only interbreeding them with each other. Citation needed.

No, I think more favourable genes were found in those who were removed (see sources above). Combine this with better training and you have a winner.

I have no doubt that there are genetic differences in population that lead to differences in athletic prowess. However, here again I'd question whether this is directly linked with skin color, or if those genes are just generally more prevalent in people that happen to have that skin color. Correlation/Causation. This is what I was trying to explain with intellect a post ago. The genes for certain muscle development/body structure/ etc. can be separable from skin color. They don't necessarily come as a package, that's how genes work.

No it doesn't come with skin colour - it's just that people who were removed from West Africa at that time were overwhelmingly (all?) black/mixed black.

Explain genetically what an ethnicity is. To the extent that you pull it off, you'll find that you're leaving behind the "genes" that you theorize exist and control intelligence.

I don't think we can genetically differentiate what an ethnicity is. That doesn't mean however that we can't find certain genetic patterns between groups.

Genetics, maybe. I could certainly see it as a possibility that genes could influence your likelihood of having a particular type of intellectual aptitude. But you'd need to link the genetics you're talking about to skin color. Correlation would not be sufficient here.

Which is where the debate about skin colour and ethnicity rolls on.

 

[Scaff]

What?!

Can you quote where I said "race" was based on genetics alone?

I've not said you have, you have however focused on it being heavily tied to genetics, do remember you are the one firmly wedded to the race = genetic factor in intelligence, despite no evidence being available to support that.

What is going on with the comprehension here?!

Again, quote where I said that

OK...

Nearly all are of Black African descent..

black African descent

Why do people of black African descent dominate the 100m

hey are black people specifically from west Africa

...if you're not saying its a black African gene then why are you so determined to state that it's only found in people of black African descent?

Maybe its because it puts a ****ing massive hole in your argument. If it is a gene found in those of black African descent then why it's it found in its place of origin or in the largest area of the black African diaspora? If its a new mutation found only in the US and Caribbean then it disproves your claim of it being a trait specific to one race. Either way, it screws your argument.

Quote please


This is....hurting my brain.

There is no magic gene!

Where did this idea come from?!

Where did the idea come from? You!

Also you're indirectly saying that genetic differences in populations have to be down to human's selecting those favourable traits only, or at least insinuating that I said that....
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2008/08/why-are-jamaicans-so-good-at-sprinting.html
A bit more in-depth analysis from someone who actually was involved in studying a gene thought to be useful for elite sprinting:
https://www.wired.com/2008/10/the-gene-for-jamaican-sprinting-success-no-not-really/

To quote him:


There, in essence, is what I've been trying to say by someone vastly more experienced in the genetics of elite sprinting

Or are you going to call him a racist/scientically illeterate....[/QUOTE]
You really, really don't read your sources do you, not even the parts you directly quote from.

"The ACTN3-centred argument also dismisses the importance of Jamaica's impressive investment in the infrastructure and training system required to identify and nurture elite track athletes, the effects of a culture that idolises local
track heroes, and the powerful desire of young Jamaicans to use athletic success to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.
It is almost certainly true that Usain Bolt carries at least one of the "sprint" variants of the ACTN3 gene, but then so do I (along with around five billion other humans worldwide). Indeed, I'm fortunate enough to be lugging around two "sprint" copies - but that doesn't mean you'll see me in the 100 metre final in London in 2012. Unfortunately for me, it takes a lot more than one lucky gene to create an Olympian"

Five billion people carry this gene (your source and your quote).

You dismissed (from your source and your quote) the social factors involved in this, focused on only the part that you incorrectly believed supported your position, with the end result being once again that you have misused and misinterpreted a source.

I mean it's not as if this mutation only occurs in the descendants of black Africans, well unless that's now been extended to include Koreans (and a lot of other populations as well).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4322025/

Errr....you're kinda getting a bit lost.

That point in the conclusion is saying that most of the variation we see occurs within a group but that it's still possible to differentiate groups (something I didn't argue....)
To use an analogy, there can be many variations of British people - Black, White, Asian etc but there are still differences between many Brits and Americans.


OK now you're getting very lost (I'm assuming you meant to say you do get a distinction for one of the extremes unless you actually think there is a "sweet spot" in which case you're even more lost than I thought).

It's actually saying the opposite of what you're thinking.

I.e. the frequency with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population goes down when more loci are analysed.

To be blunt - it's your argument that falters more when we look at the results.

It's saying the opposite of what I said....

"This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race"

...but you keep on looking only for the bits that you believe support your claim that race is something other than a social construct.

No, I think more favourable genes were found in those who were removed (see sources above). Combine this with better training and you have a winner.

The ones that don't support your claim you mean.

No it doesn't come with skin colour - it's just that people who were removed from West Africa at that time were overwhelmingly (all?) black/mixed black.

Does that include the Koreans who were removed from West Africa at the same time or not?

I don't think we can genetically differentiate what an ethnicity is. That doesn't mean however that we can't find certain genetic patterns between groups.


Which is where the debate about skin colour and ethnicity rolls on.

That why on earth do you think you can with race?

https://www.livescience.com/difference-between-race-ethnicity.html

"If you take a group of 1,000 people from the recognized 'races' of modern people, you will find a lot of variation within each group," Jablonski told Live Science. But, she explained, "the amount of genetic variation within any of these groups is greater than the average difference between any two [racial] groups." What's more, "there are no genes that are unique to any particular 'race,'"

"As Jablonski described earlier, the racial groupings we have invented are actually genetically more similar to each other than they are different — meaning there's no way to definitively separate people into races according to their biology. "

"Jablonski's own work on skin color demonstrates this. "Our research has revealed that the same or similar skin colors — both light and dark — have evolved multiple times under similar solar conditions in our history," she said. "A classification of people based on skin color would yield an interesting grouping of people based on the exposure of the ancestors to similar levels of solar radiation. In other words, it would be nonsense." What she means is that as a tool for putting people into distinct racial categories, skin color — which evolved along a spectrum — encompasses so much variation within different skin color "groupings" that it's basically useless. "

"It's true that we do routinely identify each other's race as "black," "white" or "Asian," based on visual cues. But crucially, those are values that humans have chosen to ascribe to each other or themselves. The problem occurs when we conflate this social habit with scientific truth — because there is nothing in individuals' genomes that could be used to separate them along such clear racial lines.

In short, variations in human appearance don't equate to genetic difference. "Races were created by naturalists and philosophers of the 18th century. They are not naturally occurring groups," Jablonski emphasized."

 

[baldgye]

..

And it's a wonder why "liberal" policies are being trashed around the world.....

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's saying the opposite of what I said....

"This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race"

...but you keep on looking only for the bits that you believe support your claim that race is something other than a social construct.

I can respond to the rest of the post but I'm confused by this since critical analysis of a paper is more objective than subjective (or at least, should be). I don't understand how this paper can be used as proof that genetic differences don't exist between separate populations/ethnicities?

 

[Scaff]

I can respond to the rest of the post but I'm confused by this since critical analysis of a paper is more objective than subjective (or at least, should be). I don't understand how this paper can be used as proof that genetic differences don't exist between separate populations/ethnicities?

The paper doesn't present itself as that at all, as it states in both its abstract and its discussion. As such you're presenting a strawman.

No one has said that genetic differences don't exist between population either, what has been said is that these differences are not unique to any one population. Your own claim of the 'twitch xx gene' proves that, you attempted to claim it came from two population centres (those of African descent in the US and Caribbean). In doing so you ignored that those population centres are not a race and that the gene mutation isn't even close to being unique to those two populations.

So you're now conflating population with ethnicity, a population can have multiple ethnicities within it, and a population isn't a race.

 

[mustafur]

Pretty much text book White Nationalist genome theory by @HarrySwanson even when the data doesn't back it up at all.

Now don't get triggered, I'm not saying your a White nationalist but I can almost guarantee your getting your information from this subject by them, I got fooled by this garbage before, and I can see it from a million miles away it's pseudo Science twisted to try make a case that races shouldn't intermingle because for some reason even though humans are ever evolving they created master races in this moment in time.

 

[baldgye]

Pretty much text book White Nationalist genome theory by @HarrySwanson even when the data doesn't back it up at all.

Now don't get triggered, I'm not saying your a White nationalist but I can almost guarantee your getting your information from this subject by them, I got fooled by this garbage before, and I can see it from a million miles away it's pseudo Science twisted to try make a case that races shouldn't intermingle because for some reason even though humans are ever evolving they created master races in this moment in time.

I mean, its eugenics. I was waiting for links to Nazi scientists reports... but he never got away from being unable to read actual scientific papers.

 

[Dotini]

If there is such a thing as an hereditary genetic elite, I'd guess that it's only the blood group O negative, the universal blood donor.
I've seen as yet un-peer-reviewed science ("a steaming pile") which finds the general O group disproportionately unaffected by the novel coronavirus.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The paper doesn't present itself as that at all, as it states in both its abstract and its discussion. As such you're presenting a strawman

No one has said that genetic differences don't exist between population either, what has been said is that these differences are not unique to any one population.

Where did I say it was unique?!

This is basic comprehension here....

Your own claim of the 'twitch xx gene' proves that, you attempted to claim it came from two population centres (those of African descent in the US and Caribbean). In doing so you ignored that those population centres are not a race and that the gene mutation isn't even close to being unique to those two populations.

WHAT?!!?

Where did I say that?!



You're still talking about ONE GENE!

WHERE did I talk about one gene?!

Pretty much text book White Nationalist genome theory by @HarrySwanson even when the data doesn't back it up at all.

Now don't get triggered, I'm not saying your a White nationalist but I can almost guarantee your getting your information from this subject by them, I got fooled by this garbage before, and I can see it from a million miles away it's pseudo Science twisted to try make a case that races shouldn't intermingle because for some reason even though humans are ever evolving they created master races in this moment in time.

Where did this come from

Quote me where I'm misunderstanding genome theory. As it stands you're just appealing to emotion.

EDIT: Wait, no I want more of an explanation here.

If you take my arguments at face value and ignore the nuance then I'm saying:

Asian Americans/Ashkenazi Jews are the best when it comes to IQ
Black people descended from West African natives are the best when it comes to sprinting.

Where does the White Nationalist rhetoric fit in?

EDIT 2: Also I'm not "getting my information" from them. I use Google and PubMed.

I mean, its eugenics. I was waiting for links to Nazi scientists reports... but he never got away from being unable to read actual scientific papers.

You're....seriously suggesting I don't know how to appraise or critically evaluate scientific papers when I've pointed out in this thread and others and corrected other people's misunderstanding of the content of papers or statistics?

Seriously?!

 

[Scaff]

Where did I say it was unique?!

This is basic comprehension here....

Oddly enough I've already addressed that.

"OK...

Nearly all are of Black African descent..

black African descent

Why do people of black African descent dominate the 100m

hey are black people specifically from west Africa

...if you're not saying its a black African gene then why are you so determined to state that it's only found in people of black African descent?"

Change the term gene to genes if you want, the point remains.

WHAT?!!?

Where did I say that?!



You're still talking about ONE GENE!

WHERE did I talk about one gene?!

Oddly enough I've already addressed that.

"OK...

Nearly all are of Black African descent..

black African descent

Why do people of black African descent dominate the 100m

hey are black people specifically from west Africa

...if you're not saying its a black African gene then why are you so determined to state that it's only found in people of black African descent?"

Change the term gene to genes if you want, the point remains.

I also notice that you didn't bother addressing this (from your source)...

"The ACTN3-centred argument also dismisses the importance of Jamaica's impressive investment in the infrastructure and training system required to identify and nurture elite track athletes, the effects of a culture that idolises local
track heroes, and the powerful desire of young Jamaicans to use athletic success to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.

It is almost certainly true that Usain Bolt carries at least one of the "sprint" variants of the ACTN3 gene, but then so do I (along with around five billion other humans worldwide). Indeed, I'm fortunate enough to be lugging around two "sprint" copies - but that doesn't mean you'll see me in the 100 metre final in London in 2012. Unfortunately for me, it takes a lot more than one lucky gene to create an Olympian"

You're....seriously suggesting I don't know how to appraise or critically evaluate scientific papers when I've pointed out in this thread and others and corrected other people's misunderstanding of the content of papers or statistics?

Seriously?!

I am.

And no you haven't 'corrected' people, you have quote mined and edited your selection of them to try and prove a point that neither the conclusion or abstract of the papers say, hell I've just pointed out (for the second time) just one example of you doing exactly that.

 

[baldgye]

You're....seriously suggesting I don't know how to appraise or critically evaluate scientific papers when I've pointed out in this thread and others and corrected other people's misunderstanding of the content of papers or statistics?

Seriously?!

The last time you asked this question in a more direct fashion, I responded in a direct fashion and called you scientifically illiterate. A response you ignored.
I'm not sure why, in a thread where you peddle what amounts to eugenics, you'd think you would get a different answer...

 

[HenrySwanson]

Oddly enough I've already addressed that.

"OK...

...if you're not saying its a black African gene then why are you so determined to state that it's only found in people of black African descent?"

I think I see what's going wrong.

You're mixing up frequency/prevalence with exclusivity.

To use an example, we could ask why cystic fibrosis is more prevalent in White European populations. By acknowledging this fact it is not the same as saying it is unique to White Europeans, rather that the disease (and therefore genetic mutation) is found at a higher rate amongst this population than other ethnicities. In fact it may be under-diagnosed in non-white ethnicities, again showing it is not unique to one group.

I also notice that you didn't bother addressing this (from your source)...

"The ACTN3-centred argument also dismisses the importance of Jamaica's impressive investment in the infrastructure and training system required to identify and nurture elite track athletes, the effects of a culture that idolises local
track heroes, and the powerful desire of young Jamaicans to use athletic success to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.

It is almost certainly true that Usain Bolt carries at least one of the "sprint" variants of the ACTN3 gene, but then so do I (along with around five billion other humans worldwide). Indeed, I'm fortunate enough to be lugging around two "sprint" copies - but that doesn't mean you'll see me in the 100 metre final in London in 2012. Unfortunately for me, it takes a lot more than one lucky gene to create an Olympian"

I'm not sure I follow?

I never subscribed to the theory that there is one "sprint gene".

And your quotation is talking about environmental factors - which I never disagreed with - as contributing to success in sprinting.

I am.

And no you haven't 'corrected' people, you have quote mined and edited your selection of them to try and prove a point that neither the conclusion or abstract of the papers say, hell I've just pointed out (for the second time) just one example of you doing exactly that.

I don't really think quoting the results of scientific papers, nor correcting users' (incorrect) interpretations of them can be classified as "quote mining"....

 

[Scaff]

I think I see what's going wrong.

You're mixing up frequency/prevalence with exclusivity.

To use an example, we could ask why cystic fibrosis is more prevalent in White European populations. By acknowledging this fact it is not the same as saying it is unique to White Europeans, rather that the disease (and therefore genetic mutation) is found at a higher rate amongst this population than other ethnicities. In fact it may be under-diagnosed in non-white ethnicities, again showing it is not unique to one group.

I'm not mixing up anything, you were the one banging on about the starting grids for sprint events being majority black, you were the one linking it to being of African origin.

That you are now attempting to back-pedal on that fools utterly no-one.

I'm not sure I follow?

I never subscribed to the theory that there is one "sprint gene".

I'm not mixing up anything, you were the one banging on about the starting grids for sprint events being majority black, you were the one linking it to being of Black African origin.

Nearly all are of Black African descent..

black African descent

Why do people of black African descent dominate the 100m

hey are black people specifically from west Africa

That you are now attempting to back-pedal on that fools utterly no-one.

And your quotation is talking about environmental factors - which I never disagreed with - as contributing to success in sprinting.

Then why did you ignore it utterly when quoting (misleadingly) from your source?

You have repeatedly, over numerous threads, attempted to either remove or downplay environmental factors, instead focusing on the genetic link.

I don't really think quoting the results of scientific papers, nor correcting users' (incorrect) interpretations of them can be classified as "quote mining"....

Then you don't understand what quote mining is.