I lost a bet and had to pay for drinks because of this damn research.

Damn you final Jeopardy...

cwick: Interesting how they say he has some Asian in him, so codeine won't work well, and then dismiss the concept...

No they didn't. There is a gene attributed to Asians. On the other hand, "Asian" is not a skin colour. The point of this article is that "race", as we understand it through skin colour, is not a reliable indicator of genetic makeup.

Click image to bobble his head.

i met this man! he had a really awkward laugh. also he isnt a very good speaker. but still, i met him, he signed his book. i shook his hand, then immediately washed it, because he was old. and smelled funny.


/enough about Roselin franklin. she was a biatch.

So let's ignore statistics because they're icky and don't make people feel good like a Wonder/McCartney tune?

/interesting about that codeine business, though

Obfuscating PC bullshiat, plus some weird attempt at making Watson even more genetically 'diverse' (he was black before).

bimalc: "The latest analysis supports the conclusion that skin colour doesn't convey as much medically useful information as knowledge of individual genomes."

AS MUCH being the operative words. Until I can genotype my patients for a couple of hundred bucks, I'd be practicing irresponsible medicine if I ignored race all together.

And that.

There are genetic differences between the average white man and the average black man, but the difference between two randomly selected white people is not likely to be much less than the difference between a randomly selected black man and a randomly selected white man.

That said, race based medicine, as long as it is not taken too far, makes sense evolutionarily. At least to me.

RemyDuron: That said, race based medicine, as long as it is not taken too far, makes sense evolutionarily. At least to me.

From what I have read there is more genetic diversity within a race than there are between races, meaning that the differences between say a Caucasian person and an Asian person are of lesser extent than say a Japanese person and an Indonesian person.

There are of course somethings like sickle-cell anemia, which you're more at risk of due to your ethnicity, but those are pretty rare.

Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races
This would indicate that 85% of genetic variation occurs within groups while only 15% can be attributed to allele frequency differences among groups.

ninjakirby: There are of course somethings like sickle-cell anemia, which you're more at risk of due to your ethnicity, but those are pretty rare.

Actually, sickle cell trait is a Baldwinian evolutionary mutation that affects people across the "malaria belt", which includes India and the Mediterranean.

So it's not race-specific per se; it's that the largest outbreaks of malaria affected Africans far more than any other group.

GWShenlong05: ninjakirby: There are of course somethings like sickle-cell anemia, which you're more at risk of due to your ethnicity, but those are pretty rare.

Actually, sickle cell trait is a Baldwinian evolutionary mutation that affects people across the "malaria belt", which includes India and the Mediterranean.

So it's not race-specific per se; it's that the largest outbreaks of malaria affected Africans far more than any other group.

Yeah, I ghost-wrote a revision for my Psych professors textbook on that particular trait, but only to discuss how Evolutionary adaptation can be beneficial despite negative side-effects. It's just the only 'racial' disease I'm aware of.

/BLACK PE'PO!

As attractive as the idea that all races are the same, race is just a colour, and recognizing that there are evolutionary differences beyond the obvious skin colour and skull structures in the different races is extremely forbidden, I can't help but feel that maybe, just maybe, political correctness has become slightly more important than fact. Maybe there are differences. Maybe those differences are a good thing.

princebaldric: Maybe there are differences. Maybe those differences are a good thing.

There are, they just aren't race related. See above citation. " 85% of genetic variation occurs within groups." As for good, good evolutionarily and good sociologically are two different concepts. Natural Selection ain't the law in these here parts.

princebaldric: As attractive as the idea that all races are the same, race is just a colour, and recognizing that there are evolutionary differences beyond the obvious skin colour and skull structures in the different races is extremely forbidden, I can't help but feel that maybe, just maybe, political correctness has become slightly more important than fact. Maybe there are differences. Maybe those differences are a good thing.

So, you are arguing that there is valid scientific evidence that refutes the idea that intra-group genetic diversity is more significant than inter-group genetic diversity and that this data is being willfully ignored or suppressed by the scientific community for the sake of political expediency? Really?

emilyek_1: Obfuscating PC bullshiat, plus some weird attempt at making Watson even more genetically 'diverse' (he was black before).

bimalc: "The latest analysis supports the conclusion that skin colour doesn't convey as much medically useful information as knowledge of individual genomes."

AS MUCH being the operative words. Until I can genotype my patients for a couple of hundred bucks, I'd be practicing irresponsible medicine if I ignored race all together.

And that.

That article was horrible. Let's character assassinate Watson, and not even give him the decency of any sort of quote in the article.

From what I've read of the controversy, I don't see anything in there that Watson would take issue with, apart from having words put in his mouth.

That's exactly how Korea was formed. They gave everybody Codeine and they put the border where people didn't react to it.

bugenhagen:
princebaldric: As attractive as the idea that all races are the same, race is just a colour, and recognizing that there are evolutionary differences beyond the obvious skin colour and skull structures in the different races is extremely forbidden, I can't help but feel that maybe, just maybe, political correctness has become slightly more important than fact. Maybe there are differences. Maybe those differences are a good thing.

So, you are arguing that there is valid scientific evidence that refutes the idea that intra-group genetic diversity is more significant than inter-group genetic diversity and that this data is being willfully ignored or suppressed by the scientific community for the sake of political expediency? Really?

I've actually heard quite a few scientists admit there are an abundant amount of differences among the different races that contribute to the survival of each individual race in the climate they've inhabited for thousands of years. We are definitely not different enough to be considered different species, at least not yet. However, when it gets outside of the realm of medicine, it becomes politically incorrect to suggest any other possible differences other than penis size; such as rate of physical growth, nutrition needs, skull variations, the way we react to diseases, the way we respond to stimuli, the average amount of hormones produced, etc. No one's saying these differences are bad, but if you point them out, your fired Mr. Watson.

princebaldric: As attractive as the idea that all races are the same, race is just a colour, and recognizing that there are evolutionary differences beyond the obvious skin colour and skull structures in the different races is extremely forbidden, I can't help but feel that maybe, just maybe, political correctness has become slightly more important than fact. Maybe there are differences. Maybe those differences are a good thing.

And maybe there are faeries living under the toadstools in the bottom of my garden. One thing that's for absolute sure is that there will always be superstitious, bigoted individuals who will give the imprimature of "maybe" to their hateful fantasies. You inherited your privilege, white boy - and you wouldn't be shiat without it. Set aside you dream of superiority. No, little victim, you are not being "censored". You can talk about "it". But there is nothing of any scientific merit to talk about. Except your "maybes".

jso2897
princebaldric: As attractive as the idea that all races are the same, race is just a colour, and recognizing that there are evolutionary differences beyond the obvious skin colour and skull structures in the different races is extremely forbidden, I can't help but feel that maybe, just maybe, political correctness has become slightly more important than fact. Maybe there are differences. Maybe those differences are a good thing.

And maybe there are faeries living under the toadstools in the bottom of my garden. One thing that's for absolute sure is that there will always be superstitious, bigoted individuals who will give the imprimature of "maybe" to their hateful fantasies. You inherited your privilege, white boy - and you wouldn't be shiat without it. Set aside you dream of superiority. No, little victim, you are not being "censored". You can talk about "it". But there is nothing of any scientific merit to talk about. Except your "maybes".

HAHA you assumed i was White! What if I told you I was black! Well...I'm not but, you know. Anyway, I wasn't privileged at all. Who are you, Micheal Moore? I know you want me to feel guilty but I don't. I just don't.

jso2897: princebaldric: As attractive as the idea that all races are the same, race is just a colour, and recognizing that there are evolutionary differences beyond the obvious skin colour and skull structures in the different races is extremely forbidden, I can't help but feel that maybe, just maybe, political correctness has become slightly more important than fact. Maybe there are differences. Maybe those differences are a good thing.

And maybe there are faeries living under the toadstools in the bottom of my garden. One thing that's for absolute sure is that there will always be superstitious, bigoted individuals who will give the imprimature of "maybe" to their hateful fantasies. You inherited your privilege, white boy - and you wouldn't be shiat without it. Set aside you dream of superiority. No, little victim, you are not being "censored". You can talk about "it". But there is nothing of any scientific merit to talk about. Except your "maybes".

Baldric should thank you for proving his point, JSO. Quite the hostile response for what was a relatively measured comment.

The 'there is more variation among so-and-so than between so-and-so' canard is massaged-data PC bullshiat.

Of course there are race differences. It's all about the demands of climate and selection pressures over evolutionary time.

Every breed of dog evolved from a single wild wolf, around 10k years ago.

What would become Caucasoids and Asians left the Levant 40k years ago.

No scientist worth a damn believes that we have the same capacities-- physical, intellectual or otherwise. There's no way that they can understand modern genetics and evolution and think otherwise.

But, of course, it might be suicide to get the catechism wrong, in public.

princebaldric: bugenhagen:
princebaldric: As attractive as the idea that all races are the same, race is just a colour, and recognizing that there are evolutionary differences beyond the obvious skin colour and skull structures in the different races is extremely forbidden, I can't help but feel that maybe, just maybe, political correctness has become slightly more important than fact. Maybe there are differences. Maybe those differences are a good thing.

So, you are arguing that there is valid scientific evidence that refutes the idea that intra-group genetic diversity is more significant than inter-group genetic diversity and that this data is being willfully ignored or suppressed by the scientific community for the sake of political expediency? Really?

I've actually heard quite a few scientists admit there are an abundant amount of differences among the different races that contribute to the survival of each individual race in the climate they've inhabited for thousands of years. We are definitely not different enough to be considered different species, at least not yet. However, when it gets outside of the realm of medicine, it becomes politically incorrect to suggest any other possible differences other than penis size; such as rate of physical growth, nutrition needs, skull variations, the way we react to diseases, the way we respond to stimuli, the average amount of hormones produced, etc. No one's saying these differences are bad, but if you point them out, your fired Mr. Watson.

Environmental conditions always play a role in the fitness of genetic traits. Thus, as an example, your ancestors could have had green, purple or blue skin, but if they migrated to Scandinavia, white skin proved to be more favorable in that environment over a long period of time. On the surface, the white-skinned descendants of these other skin hues now look the same; but, the underlying genetic differences are significantly greater, just as has been seen in the comparisons between the DNA of Watson and Venter. We define race on incredibly superficial levels that--from a genetic standpoint--are completely arbitrary. Watson's problem is that he didn't even bother to integrate current genetic evidence into his sad comments that suggested an inferiority of black-skinned native Africans. I admire Watson as a scientist, but those remarks sounded like those of an uneducated small-town moron from the USA, circa 1950.

emilyek_1: No scientist worth a damn believes that we have the same capacities-- physical, intellectual or otherwise. There's no way that they can understand modern genetics and evolution and think otherwise.

But, of course, it might be suicide to get the catechism wrong, in public.

Is this a new form of denialism being born?

Just go read this, and look beyond a single quote before you claim the data is massaged and the scientists are just toeing the party line. The other article (which contains the 85% figure) is available earlier in in the thread.

bugenhagen:
princebaldric: bugenhagen:
princebaldric: As attractive as the idea that all races are the same, race is just a colour, and recognizing that there are evolutionary differences beyond the obvious skin colour and skull structures in the different races is extremely forbidden, I can't help but feel that maybe, just maybe, political correctness has become slightly more important than fact. Maybe there are differences. Maybe those differences are a good thing.

So, you are arguing that there is valid scientific evidence that refutes the idea that intra-group genetic diversity is more significant than inter-group genetic diversity and that this data is being willfully ignored or suppressed by the scientific community for the sake of political expediency? Really?

I've actually heard quite a few scientists admit there are an abundant amount of differences among the different races that contribute to the survival of each individual race in the climate they've inhabited for thousands of years. We are definitely not different enough to be considered different species, at least not yet. However, when it gets outside of the realm of medicine, it becomes politically incorrect to suggest any other possible differences other than penis size; such as rate of physical growth, nutrition needs, skull variations, the way we react to diseases, the way we respond to stimuli, the average amount of hormones produced, etc. No one's saying these differences are bad, but if you point them out, your fired Mr. Watson.

Environmental conditions always play a role in the fitness of genetic traits. Thus, as an example, your ancestors could have had green, purple or blue skin, but if they migrated to Scandinavia, white skin proved to be more favorable in that environment over a long period of time. On the surface, the white-skinned descendants of these other skin hues now look the same; but, the underlying genetic differences are significantly greater, just as has been seen in the comparisons between the DNA of Watson and Venter. We define race on incredibly superficial levels that--from a genetic standpoint--are completely arbitrary. Watson's problem is that he didn't even bother to integrate current genetic evidence into his sad comments that suggested an inferiority of black-skinned native Africans. I admire Watson as a scientist, but those remarks sounded like those of an uneducated small-town moron from the USA, circa 1950.

I understand the basic gist of your beliefs, but all people like Watson point out, is how many people grossly oversimplify our evolutionary differences to just skin colour for feel good reasons. When people see an actual scientist admitting this, they immediately say, he's a quack. Don't listen to him. Nothing to see here folks. There were other demands put on Europeans other than skin colour. Humans didn't gradually evolve separately for 100,000 years to the extent of our skull structures, physical and mental capabilities and design, innate social hierarchies, and resistance to different diseases to completely diverge just to help us with the sun's rays. You might have to take into account a few other things, like, I don't know, survival. The indigenous people of the Polynesian islands for instance, originated and evolved from the inhabitants of Taiwan in less than 6,000 years ago. Is there anything evolution can't do?

princebaldric:

I understand the basic gist of your beliefs, but all people like Watson point out, is how many people grossly oversimplify our evolutionary differences to just skin colour for feel good reasons. When people see an actual scientist admitting this, they immediately say, he's a quack. Don't listen to him. Nothing to see here folks. There were other demands put on Europeans other than skin colour. Humans didn't gradually evolve separately for 100,000 years to the extent of our skull structures, physical and mental capabilities and design, innate social hierarchies, and resistance to different diseases to completely diverge just to help us with the sun's rays. You might have to take into account a few other things, like, I don't know, survival. The indigenous people of the Polynesian islands for instance, originated and evolved from the inhabitants of Taiwan in less than 6,000 years ago. Is there anything evolution can't do?

I arrived late to this party....so I'll just say, nicely put. Also, I'm pulling the Huxley quote out of your profile.

ninjakirby: RemyDuron: That said, race based medicine, as long as it is not taken too far, makes sense evolutionarily. At least to me.

From what I have read there is more genetic diversity within a race than there are between races, meaning that the differences between say a Caucasian person and an Asian person are of lesser extent than say a Japanese person and an Indonesian person.

There are of course somethings like sickle-cell anemia, which you're more at risk of due to your ethnicity, but those are pretty rare.

Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races
This would indicate that 85% of genetic variation occurs within groups while only 15% can be attributed to allele frequency differences among groups.

I pretty much said that in my post. But while race may be far from a perfect indicator of certain predispositions, it's an easy (more importantly, cheap) one to detect.

jso2897: princebaldric: As attractive as the idea that all races are the same, race is just a colour, and recognizing that there are evolutionary differences beyond the obvious skin colour and skull structures in the different races is extremely forbidden, I can't help but feel that maybe, just maybe, political correctness has become slightly more important than fact. Maybe there are differences. Maybe those differences are a good thing.

And maybe there are faeries living under the toadstools in the bottom of my garden. One thing that's for absolute sure is that there will always be superstitious, bigoted individuals who will give the imprimature of "maybe" to their hateful fantasies. You inherited your privilege, white boy - and you wouldn't be shiat without it. Set aside you dream of superiority. No, little victim, you are not being "censored". You can talk about "it". But there is nothing of any scientific merit to talk about. Except your "maybes".

Psst, you're not a victim either, black boy.

HAH HAH, The article seems to imply that asians are more resistant to OPIUM.... I wonder why that is.


/Will I be immune to D4THC based medicines?

princebaldric: I understand the basic gist of your beliefs, but all people like Watson point out, is how many people grossly oversimplify our evolutionary differences to just skin colour for feel good reasons.

Watson himself seems most guilty of oversimplifying things, by making ridiculous claims like, "Anyone who has worked with blacks knows that they aren't as intelligent," or that skin color somehow correlates with libido. And claiming that people who disagree with him are doing so for "feel good" reasons is like claiming that people who agree with him are members of some secret Aryan brotherhood of scientists. I personally would rather draw my conclusions from the data.

When people see an actual scientist admitting this, they immediately say, he's a quack. Don't listen to him. Nothing to see here folks.

You might just see Watson as an iconoclast or straight shooter, but he clearly likes to mouth off about things far removed from his area of expertise. Do we really need to give women the option to abort "gay" fetuses? According to Watson, it wouldn't be a bad idea. I could go on, but I'm sure you've heard it all before.

There were other demands put on Europeans other than skin colour. Humans didn't gradually evolve separately for 100,000 years to the extent of our skull structures, physical and mental capabilities and design, innate social hierarchies, and resistance to different diseases to completely diverge just to help us with the sun's rays. You might have to take into account a few other things, like, I don't know, survival. The indigenous people of the Polynesian islands for instance, originated and evolved from the inhabitants of Taiwan in less than 6,000 years ago. Is there anything evolution can't do?

True enough. But how many of the disparities we see today are due to divergent evolution, and how many to vast socioeconomic and political inequities? Which is more important? Please show your work.

Rice_Water: 'Watson has been a doddering tool for years.'

When was the last time you discovered DNA?

Watson is an ass. Some genius there for sure, and a lot of hard work, but he is just one of many examples where a really smart guy can harbor some totally asinine beliefs. There are tons of them in the ranks of the Nobel laureates.