Talk:Racialism

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Round four, yet more polished and gilded "gold" crap: .)
(Round four, yet more polished and gilded "gold" crap)
Line 149: Line 149:
 
*"Racialism was first developed in the 1700s" - Oh, so before there were no racists? The extremely racist Old Testament is a forgery created after 1700? Likely fabricated by Whites, the OH SO EVIL inventors of racialism and racism? [[User:H09o832j3|H09o832j3]] ([[User talk:H09o832j3|talk]]) 21:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 
*"Racialism was first developed in the 1700s" - Oh, so before there were no racists? The extremely racist Old Testament is a forgery created after 1700? Likely fabricated by Whites, the OH SO EVIL inventors of racialism and racism? [[User:H09o832j3|H09o832j3]] ([[User talk:H09o832j3|talk]]) 21:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 
:I'm sure some bored users will refute your points in a minute but may I ask, why do you have headings with "round 3", "round 4" in them. Just wondering. [[User:Christopher|Christopher]] ([[User talk:Christopher|talk]]) 21:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 
:I'm sure some bored users will refute your points in a minute but may I ask, why do you have headings with "round 3", "round 4" in them. Just wondering. [[User:Christopher|Christopher]] ([[User talk:Christopher|talk]]) 21:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 +
::{{DFTT}}
 +
::It's unlikely refuting H03298473289795734905u83294u9328u589423u will get anything anywhere. {{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 01:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:03, 21 March 2017

Icon race.svg

This Race related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Goldenbrain.png
Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>

Contents

Show's over, folks!

  1. Repeating Lewontin's fallacy 20 times does not make it true.
  2. "The strongest predictor of race using phenotypic variation comes from Relethford's 1994 analysis of 57 landmarks and dimensions of the skull. Yet 78.8% of the variation in this strongest predictor occurs within populations, rather than between races. This would suggest that, conversely, race is a poor predictor of these phenotypic variations." Reusing Lewontin's fallacy on phenotypic variation is especially silly. According this argument, forensic anthropologists would not be able to identify race from bone remains (they can) and it would not be possible to identify race from looking at say, say, facial features.
  3. In genetics 5 years old articles are frequently considered outdated. Nowadays studies frequently use millions of genetic markers. Yes this article inexplicably claims that some antique studies using less than a hundred genetic markers are actually "The strongest predictor of race". Really? Silly straw men! Here is one example of what can be done in more recent studies: http://jmg.bmj.com/content/47/12/835
  4. "as little as 1.53% of this variation is unexplained by geographic distance, and can be captured by clustering". Whoever wrote that is either a mathematical moron or a deliberate liar. The cited study actually states "The regression equation is Fst = 0.0032 + 0.0049D + 0.0153B, where D is distance in thousands of kilometers. By dividing the regression coefficients for B and D, it can be observed that crossing one of the barriers adds an equivalent amount of genetic distance as traveling approximately 3,100 km on the same side of the barrier". Considering that the distance between, say, the southernmost part of Africa and the northernmost part of Europe is around 10,000 kilometers, it should be obvious that the 0.0153B coefficient in this equation is NOT EQUAL to 1.53% of geographic distance variation.
  5. the "clinal" argument is trash more generally. It is like arguing that there is no difference between a temperature of 0 and a temperature of 100 just because there are many intermediate temperature values.
  6. Most anthropologists have never researched race. Many study things like linguistics, or archeology, or cultural customs. They are not experts on race and especially not on genetic research on race. And why is this article ignoring non-American anthropologists? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15666627?dopt=Abstract
  7. "Since most human intelligence is in fact social intelligence — the main thing the human mind is built for is networking in human societies — this would require this social evolutionary arms race to have somehow stopped." Really? What is the evidence for that surviving the long cold winters in without easily available food in northern latitudes was not cognitively challenging? H09o832j3 (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
"And why is this article ignoring non-American anthropologists?"
American cultural anthropologists are most likely to parrot Lewontin's fallacy, presumably unaware of usual variation ratios among taxa. Why Americans? I guess it's to do with fraudulent Communist Jews like Boas monopolising American anthropology departments. And the liars on this website parrot the liars doing the survey on cherry picked inappropriate scholars to lie about professional opinion on the question. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Mike, get a life. Get some fresh air or something. You've been doing this for like 5 years here. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

More junk "gold "nuggets

This article is a "gold"mine of amazingly poor junk writing, mathematical garbage, and other idiocy. More examples, in addition to those mentioned earlier:

  • "Moreover, at the point where you are using >10,000 polymorphisms, races like "white" and "black" have utterly ceased to exist and are replaced with innumerable smaller groups." The idiot who wrote this apparently thinks that when using more genetic polymorhpisms for classification, one must be studying smaller population groups.
  • "In short: Icelanders and Ashkenazi Jews might be genetic clusters; "Caucasians", "Mongoloids", or "Negroes" are not." This study (http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/427888.) demonstrates that this is false. H09o832j3 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I think my response to this got lost. Well, here's the article that I linked anyway: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756148/ This (2016) paper cites the above (2005) paper and discusses the larger context of genetics and race. To quote from the abstract:
This paper deals with the theoretical assumptions behind cluster analysis in human population genomics. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, it demonstrates that the hypothesis that attributes the clustering of human populations to “frictional” effects of landform barriers at continental boundaries is empirically incoherent. It then contrasts the scientific status of the “cluster” and “cline” constructs in human population genomics, and shows how cluster may be instrumentally produced. It also shows how statistical values of race vindicate Darwin's argument that race is evolutionarily meaningless. Finally, the paper explains why, due to spatiotemporal parameters, evolutionary forces, and socio-cultural factors influencing population structure, continental ancestry may be pragmatically relevant to global and public health genomics. Overall, this work demonstrates that, from a biological systematic and evolutionary taxonomical perspective, human races/continental groups or clusters have no natural meaning or objective biological reality. In fact, the utility of racial categorizations in research and in clinics can be explained by spatiotemporal parameters, socio-cultural factors, and evolutionary forces affecting disease causation and treatment response.
So uh. Nice science you got there. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a fashion for googling and copy pasting a conclusion one likes which was published in a journal and calling that "science". Since you failed to address your opponent's points we'll have to assume he's correct. Looking at your copy paste there's little argument beyond assertion, and I'm not going to go through the paper since you apparently didn't bother. I will note that Darwin stated race had as much validity as species, which doesn't say much for the author's authority which you rely on. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
It's telling that the article doesn't reference Darwin for what Darwin thought, and relies on the misrepresentation of quacks like Templeton. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

TheApricity.com doesn't like it

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?203245-RationalWiki-on-Race-Realism The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 19:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That site seems to track ISPs and also seems to have unfriendly forced window pop-ups. Visitor beware! Bongolian (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Posted there 5 years ago. They have a race typology sub-forum and think Carleton Coon Races of Europe from 1939 is still science; they're cranks. I noticed its some of the same posters I still remember there after 5 years - still clinging to outdated race typology. When you originally start on anthro forums the Carleton Coon race stuff is what you begin with. Sensible posters then "progress" and get an understanding on population genetics/physical anthropology why this stuff is outdated and pseudo-science. The saddest thing is still seeing people who are at the noob anthro level, these people are complete imbeciles and never change, they basically are unable to learn science. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
We still use Darwinian genealogical classifications in science. It's called phylogenetics. Just because Lewontin came up with his idiotic fallacy after this doesn't make it correct. "Current year" isn't an argument. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Try citing science next time, fella. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
You seriously need a citation for that? What are you ignorant of? That Darwin defined taxa including race genealogically or that we still do? 92.27.173.236 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
No answer here? 92.27.173.236 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Nor does ForumBiodiversity

It looks like they posted elsewhere, too. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Lol @ "Margid/Pueblid" in user-box of the person replying. ForumBiodiversity still does the 19th century race typological classification thing. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent article

Your website is an great satire of SJW nonsense. I especially like how you chose a Negro "beating the Nazis" to show how "race doesn't exist". You totally the nailed the politically motivated delusion of these people. It's good to know there are still people sharp enough to not allow politics to infect science, and mock the idiots accordingly. Great stuff! 92.27.173.236 (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You obviously lack the sense of humor and/or historical knowledge needed to understand the placement of the image and caption. Bongolian (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Nothing I wrote indicates I'm unaware of the history. You're a cheap slanderer with no valid points. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
You don't know what slander is either. Bongolian (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
You could resort to lame nitpicking when called out on your dishonesty. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha, great reply. Topnotch satire of an average alt-right "race realist". The way you brand everything that conflicts with your world view as "SJW" or opposes your politics are being "political"? Perfect! The ad hominum attacks? Genius! I do recommend casually throwing the word "cuck" at anyone who disagrees with you though, to really take your parody to the next level. Cheers and good luck!. Petey Plane (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The human gene pool does not divide neatly into geographical groupings

Nobody ever claimed it divided "neatly". Every race theorist has pointed out blending at boundaries. Strawman lies. It's pretty clear where you divide it if you want to operationalize it.

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html 92.27.173.236 (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Renaming Racism page

I'm proposing a renaming of the Racism page. See Talk:Racism#Page renaming for discussion. Bongolian (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Lewontin's fallacy

Is repeated around ten times in this article.

https://z139.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/fsthe3.png

Hell I think we share most of our variation with bananas. The race concept is about that portion of differential variation and informative for that. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem with having a black/white race classification is there's more genetic difference between many black people than between some white and black people. Christopher (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Data? And I take it you're agreeing "more variation within groups than between" doesn't invalidate taxa, since you're immediately changing the subject. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Eh, maybe I did change the subject. If you were to look at the racialism page you'd find a rebuttal to whatever it is you're saying. There's something about Lewontins fallacy there. Christopher (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If I didn't understand the subject I wouldn't post. 92.27.173.236 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
So far the evidence is pretty clearly against that - David Gerard (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Round 3, two more "gold" nuggets

Yet more "gold" nuggets from this stinking piece of crap article:

  • "Epigenetics studies the way in which factors outside of the DNA itself alter the way in which genes are expressed." - Really, so taking anabolic steroids in order to alter expression of muscles genes is epigenetics?
  • "Africa, for example, would have its own clinal variations, and is not one homgenous group." - Africans have never been considered a homogeneous groups, with Blacks always considered a different race from North Africans. Again, the cline argument is just silly, like arguing that there is no difference between scolding temperature and freezing temperature, because there are many intermediate temperature values. H09o832j3 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow, those are both such rational arguments. Please continue ranting here, Mikemikev. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
To actually address your points:
  1. Yes
  2. News to me. Most racialists seem to lump them into one group. Christopher (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Too lazy too even check a definition of epigenetics before writing nonsense? Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics. With such ignorance of basics, it is not surprising that knowledge of also lacking of racialist "lumping"... H09o832j3 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Lactose intolerance worldwide. Greener = more tolerant, redder = less tolerant. A racial classification system?" - No, no "racialist" has ever used such a stupid system. Actually YET ANOTHER example of Lewontin's fallacy, by looking at a single trait instead of using a combinations traits. Actually, most of this article consists of just endlessly repeating two silly arguments, clines and Lewontin's fallacy. Non-straw man, lactose intolerance or not may actually be part of genetic tests which use hundreds (or thousands or hundreds of thousands) of genetic traits in order to make a very accurate classification. H09o832j3 (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
edit conflict twice now. I can't be bothered to type my full comment again so I'll say this. What falsifiable predictions have been made by racialism (that have been shown to be correct). Christopher (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Just one example would be that races consistently differ on IQ tests, brain size, socioeconomic status, crime, everywhere in the world, both in their original environment and when moving elsewhere. https://www.amazon.com/Global-Bell-Curve-Inequality-Worldwide/dp/1593680287. H09o832j3 (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

He cries about scientific ignorance and then links the sequel to The Bell Curve, a 1994 non-peer-reviewed and widely-considered-pseudoscientific book. It's not as if there have been, you know, scientific studies of the correlates of intelligence. FuzzyCatPotato of the Puzzling Gurus (talk/stalk) 19:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Citing one book on Amazon isn't good evidence when you're arguing how crappy an article is, especially when you don't bother citing the passages and references within the book. And that's not bringing up FuzzyCatPotato's point that the book is pseudoscience. These are the points within the article we expect you to refute adequately, Racialism#Race_and_intelligence. Even if the book is correct and there are IQ differences per race, this can ultimately be spurrious correlation since IQ tests have problems of their own such as being culturally incompatible with whom they are testing. As stated in our own article (bold for emphasis):
"A handful of 21st century racialists including figures such as J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen have continued to argue that certain races are just inherently dumb. While they still like their skull and brain size measurements, their arguments hinge more on pointing to differences in races' average IQ scores and claiming this is the work of genetics. These claims rest on several big assumptions:
  1. That IQ is a measure of some kind of objective intelligence, rather than a measure of the skills needed to excel in 21st century Western society (a controversial claim).
  2. That there are genetic differences between "races" big enough to explain the IQ difference.
  3. That IQ is more dependent on racial genes than environment (or: if environment affects IQ, then the differences in IQ by race should still be significant after controlling for the environment).
Increasingly, evidence has been suggesting that environment plays a large role in IQ. This started with the discovery of the Flynn effect — the realization that national average IQ scores were increasing over time at a rate much faster than could be explained by genetics (and, interestingly, ethnic minorities were often making the biggest leaps)."
Of course, such statements can be questionable or even wrong, but there is nothing meaningful made here that suggests that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Fun fact that, as a Statistician (of sorts) I can tell you; when adjusted for poverty, age, gender, etc, black people are on average smarter/more law abiding/whatever than white people. Simpson's paradox. This is because it's easier for a dumb/crooked/whatever white guy to succeed than for a comparable black guy, so in any particular demographic the black guy will on average be "better". CorruptUser (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The point about clines, is any grouping of demes (local populations) into larger units for analysis is going to be arbitrary as noted by population geneticists like Cavalli-Sforza. A racialist would need to explain why broad (i.e. continental/sub-continental) groupings as mental constructs are useful. These broad groupings are not the ordinary focus of population geneticists who for example study a local village or Basques (the ethnic group), not "Europeans" as a sub-continent.86.14.2.77 (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Weird to dismiss Lynn's book when Rationalwiki cites blogposts as evidence. Regarding the Flynn effects, looked through Rationalwiki's cited "sources" (blogposts etc) and there was nothing on "ethnic minorities were often making the biggest leaps". Furthermore, the Flynn effect has ended and reversed in many developed countries: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616300198. That researchers do not look at "continental" groups is just nonsense, here is a study on genetic differences between races and crime https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912004047. H09o832j3 (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The Flynn effect was highest for minorities due to public health campaigns. The people that can afford decent medicine and a varied diet are the least impacted by food fortification and other health programs. CorruptUser (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Does Ho0o8 read his own sources? The population samples in that study e.g. African-Americans are not continental, for example none of these studies are lumping all populations from west/central/south sub-Saharan Africa into a single group.86.14.2.77 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, RW's sources does not support the claim regarding "ethnic minorities" and the Flynn effect. It is just an invented claim, like so much else in this utterly awful article. African-Americans form a distinct genetic cluster in the US. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/427888. Sure, it not identical to Sub-Saharan Africans in general, but so what? This does not make that genetic distinctiveness of African-Americans from US Whites go away. H09o832j3 (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't trust sources from websites with strange URLs. Maybe try citing google scholar? CorruptUser (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mikemikev: You really need some new sources. That study he linked is the same one that BON linked above. Here's the abstract of the same (2016) study that shows why interpreting that (2005) study as proof of racialism is incorrect: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756148/
This paper deals with the theoretical assumptions behind cluster analysis in human population genomics. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, it demonstrates that the hypothesis that attributes the clustering of human populations to “frictional” effects of landform barriers at continental boundaries is empirically incoherent. It then contrasts the scientific status of the “cluster” and “cline” constructs in human population genomics, and shows how cluster may be instrumentally produced. It also shows how statistical values of race vindicate Darwin's argument that race is evolutionarily meaningless. Finally, the paper explains why, due to spatiotemporal parameters, evolutionary forces, and socio-cultural factors influencing population structure, continental ancestry may be pragmatically relevant to global and public health genomics. Overall, this work demonstrates that, from a biological systematic and evolutionary taxonomical perspective, human races/continental groups or clusters have no natural meaning or objective biological reality. In fact, the utility of racial categorizations in research and in clinics can be explained by spatiotemporal parameters, socio-cultural factors, and evolutionary forces affecting disease causation and treatment response.
@CU: DOI is the digital object identifier system, IIRC the most widely used scientific paper organization system worldwide. Or: URL != sketchy. :P Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, if yo you had bothered to follow the link, you would have been directed a peer-reviewed journal, The American Journal of Human Genetics, which is in its 76th year and is published by Elsevier. Bongolian (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────African-Americans are made into a genetic cluster in many studies, yes. Congrats. The Rationalwiki main article never denied this: "In short Icelanders and Ashkenazi Jews might be genetic clusters; "Caucasians", "Mongoloids", or "Negroes" are not." No one is denying genetic clusters at the more local level. What you don't though find in population genetics, is scientists talking of a "Mongoloid" genetic cluster covering the whole of north east asia and southeast asia. The Rationalwiki has never denied the utility of more local genetic clusters, they're the standard in medicine, population genetics, even Lewontin recognises them. But if you want to call these more local populations "races" you run into a semantic problem as well as the fact there are thousands to count. This is not the normal meaning of race, subspecies in other species are usually very few to count.86.14.2.77 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You make two confused and ignorant arguments. 1) "East Asians do not form a genetic cluster". Incorrect, see this graph, with a cluster labeled "Eastern Asians". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947357/figure/F2/ 2) "One must chose between looking at large or small clusters, one cannot look at both clusters at the same time." Incorrect, one can study both, just as one can study both, say, Mammals and Primates. Your exceedingly silly argument is essentially the same as arguing that if the group Primates exist, then the group Mammals cannot exist! H09o832j3 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
No one argued that "East Asians do not form a genetic cluster" (in fact, they fall right under "local cluster" 86.14.2.77 was talking about) nor can you just construct weird parallels to genetic clusters and species classes based on another nonexistent/distorted argument. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
East Asians can be divided into smaller clusters: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=inline&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029502.g001 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029502. Yes, arguing that one cannot study both small and large human genetic population clusters is exactly the same as arguing that one cannot study groups such as Mammals and Primates at the same time. That one must chose one of these groups, which then somehow "invalidates" the other group! H09o832j3 (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
First source doesn't even show an East Asian cluster, and if you look at a global data set you see a smooth gradient/cline, not discontinuities between continents or sub-continents [this is covered in detail on the main article]. Second source (Tishkoff et al) does use broad geographical labels, but its not using them in any sort of actual analysis. For example it didn't take African populations and pool them into a continental or sub-continental grouping; if you actually read that study it proposed at least 14 regional groups for Africa (how does this help you?): "14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties". Also Tishkoff denies races exist, so you're even quoting scientists that contradict your position:
The continued use of race concepts in genetic research was described recently as “problematic at best and harmful at worst” (Yudell, Roberts, DeSalle, & Tishkoff, 2016, p. 564). Yudell M., Roberts D., DeSalle R., & Tishkoff S. (2016). Taking race out of genetics. Science, 351, 564–565

BOOM! Owned. Look even how Tishkoff in another article repeats exactly what I said above [i.e. use local more specific populations in analysis, not continental/large groups like Mongoloids]:

Although information about ethnicity can be informative for biomedical research, it is imperative to move away from describing populations according to racial classifications such as 'black', 'white' or 'Asian', unless the aims of the study are to distinguish sociocultural and environmental risk factors or to distinguish broad geographic ancestry. Because there can be considerable genetic heterogeneity within a region, it is most useful to be as specific as possible about geographic origins, ethnicity or tribal affiliation. http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1438.html
86.14.2.77 (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
That is an article on race in medicine. Hardly controversial to state that it is better to make a diagnosis of, say, sickle-cell disease by using an exact genetic test for this rather than to make diagnosis simply because of someone's race being Black. Uninteresting and should be obvious. In general, single-gene disorder will not follow race divisions very well. Duh! This is actually STILL YET ANOTHER example of Lewontin's fallacy, looking at single genetic traits, instead of their combinations. But what happen when we look at diseases influenced by MULTIPLE genes instead of a SINGLE gene? Like diabetes? This: "Type 2 Diabetes Risk Alleles Demonstrate Extreme Directional Differentiation among Human Populations". http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002621. Finally, and more generally, diseases are typically rare, abnormal conditions which most most member of a group do not have. They are the exception and not the normal. Thus, they do not usually say much about NORMAL racial averages, like average IQ and so on. Sorry, trying to say something about AVERAGE group IQ from RARE medical diseases which most group members do not have will not work! H09o832j3 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Way to dodge the fact that the very people you authoritatively cite have openly distanced themselves from your nutty ideas. Facepalm.png Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
We tell you that the stuff you cited doesn't say what you think it says and now it's all about "multiple-gene diseases"? From what I'm getting from what you're citing:
The populations examined by this study are distributed broadly around the world, representing a wide range of environmental exposures and lifestyles. Hence, it is challenging to associate the increased prevalence of risk-associated alleles with actual manifestations of T2D, which we know to be heavily influenced by environmental factors. However, studies in England and the United States have consistently shown that individuals with African ancestry have increased diabetes rates relative to their neighbors of European or East Asian ancestry [28]–[31], while those with Chinese ancestry had lower incidence compared to others in a recent 10-year Canadian study [32]. At the same time, citizens in China have higher prevalence of T2D within their own country [33], [34]. Disparities in T2D rates may be attributed to social, cultural, and economic differences or possible genetic confounders such as admixing of ancestral ethnicities, though our results suggest that differential genetics may indeed play some role in these differences in incidence rates.

We also found that African had higher PGR on prostate cancer than other populations. Epidemiology data from Center for Disease Control and Prevention from 1999 to 2007 show that incidence of prostate cancer is 1.56 times higher in the African American than white American. Further investigation on the genetic reasons behind the observed ethnic disparity of disease incidence rates across ethnic/racial groups might identify personalized medicine to improve the health disparity.

What I'm getting is that "it's complicated; what were seeing is observed disparity" rather than "RationalWiki is wrong". In fact, the last sentence is spot on with this section, and it definitely doesn't discount social, cultural, economic differences all while considering differential genetics based on observation. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The actual conclusion was "In conclusion, we found that T2D risk alleles demonstrated extreme differentiation compared to other diseases, with population frequencies decreasing from Sub-Saharan Africa and through Europe to East Asia. These patterns may contribute to the observed disparity of T2D incidence rates across worldwide ethnic populations." H09o832j3 (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, diseases are rare, abnormal conditions, so trying to use diseases to disprove differences regarding, say, racial average IQ is futile. Even if diseases have absolutely nothing to do with genetics and race, then this does not disprove average genetic differences regarding, say, IQ. Looking at single-gene diseases is especially silly as being an example of Lewontin's fallacy. Being less silly, we could look at immune system functioning, which depends many genes. Behold! Race is extremely important: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html?artId=1993074?contType=article?chn=sciHealth H09o832j3 (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

New excellent quote from biological anthropologist John H. Relethford relevant to above discussion about local populations vs. continental/races

Although mapping continuous variation onto a small number of categories is often used for rough description (e.g., discrete categories to describe socioeconomic class or political orientation), information on the range of variation is lost in the process. For example, if we were to analyse allele frequencies using only geographic race as the unit of analysis, we would not see many of thee underlying patterns of clinal change and nested variation. Although it is sometimes useful to take regional aggregates of local populations to illustrate some general patterns (e.g., Relethford, 1994), care must be taken not to confuse a statistical and geographic aggregate with a unit of evolutionary change. Application of much of population genetics works best when considering variation between local populations and not between aggregates. The fine detail of our species' evolutionary history and its impact on patterns of genetic variation are lost when trying to categorize and classify into races.

- Relethford, J. H. (2017). "Biological Anthropology, Population Genetics, and Race" in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Race. Oxford University Press. p. 168. — Unsigned, by: 86.14.2.77 / talk / contribs

Another Jewish-American anthropologist proclaiming that races do not exist. Very strangely, he has no problem with arguing that Jews are genetically distinct. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180699/ Anyhow, these are his personal opinions, but there are many non-US anthropologists who do think races exist. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15666627?dopt=Abstract H09o832j3 (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Round four, yet more polished and gilded "gold" crap

  • "Very few racialists call themselves "racialist". (Racism isn't hip anymore.) Here are their preferred pronouns labels: scientific racism (pre-2000),[note 1] race realism or racial realism (post-2000),[note 2] and human biodiversity or HBD (post-2010).[note 3]"" - This article cannot get even the most simple things right, HBD is a much broader concept racialism/race realism.
  • "Racialism was first developed in the 1700s" - Oh, so before there were no racists? The extremely racist Old Testament is a forgery created after 1700? Likely fabricated by Whites, the OH SO EVIL inventors of racialism and racism? H09o832j3 (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure some bored users will refute your points in a minute but may I ask, why do you have headings with "round 3", "round 4" in them. Just wondering. Christopher (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Troll
It's unlikely refuting H03298473289795734905u83294u9328u589423u will get anything anywhere. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools