For Flint.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

Flint:

I am leaving again for a few days. Bioterrorist Preparedness Act of 2001 stuff. I looked in at your site [TB2K] for the first time in more than a month.

You seem to be having this discussion with someone named Patrick [or some such thing]. Being the factual person that you are, why didn't you ask him for a definition of race. As a molecular bioligist, I could give you one. I don't think Patrick would like it. ;<))) Then I have a reason for not being involved in these things. I am banned from all of the Yourdan sites.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 18, 2002

Answers

Please Z, pass it on to the rest of us. Is it the same definition that you would have given ten years ago? Is it the same definition that you would give ten years from now?

-- (lars@indy.net), June 18, 2002.

Sorry to be a buttinski again but I just had this biological issue arise. My friend abd I were dinking wine on my deck this evening, la dee dah. The fireflies are starting here this week. We watched, amazed and amused as always. For me, fireflies recall memories of youth almost as intensely as the smell of autumn leaves.

The light of the firefly has something to do with mating, right? I wondered out loud "is it the female fireflies that flash their butts, or the males or both?" She figured it was the males because in most species it is the males that have the gaudier display. Made sense to me. Is she right?

Human males certainly have their vanity and do their preening but generally the human female is flashier than the human male. Given that the opposite is true in most (all?) other species, I wonder why humans present in this different way. Or am I misreading something?

Excuse me, I must comb my hair.

-- (lars@indy.net), June 18, 2002.


Z:

I do not think you are banned; your opinion of yourself is excessive in at least this regard.

In any case, Patrick has defined race to his satisfaction -- he has concocted a "race of Israel", the only pure race that ever existed (and which had no females involved for many generations), of which Patrick is a linear descendent (I guess also with no females). He knows this to be true because everyone else is a fool.

If you had read in any detail (I know how very busy you are), you'd have noticed that Patrick "answers" inconvenient questions by ignoring the questions and repeating his claims.

Despite your immense worldly wisdom and experience, you seem unfamiliar with the sort of person for whom evidence either ratifies the Truth, or it is ignored, fabricated, or misrepresented until it behaves properly. The Truth justifies this. To a greater or lesser degree, I'm referring to people generally. Wait til you meet some, you'll be entertained.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 18, 2002.


I'll have to agree with Flint on this one. I hope you finally meet some people Z. It'll change your life.

-- what's Flint trying to say? (may@never.know), June 18, 2002.

Lars, you are right. It is the female fireflies who flash. Among humans, flashers are usually male.

-- (Alfred von Newman PhD @ Bugs R.Us), June 19, 2002.


Based on sequence analysis there are indeed 4 races. Three are in Africa. Those would be the little folks, the Sans [English called them Hottentots or some such thing] and the Black Africans. The other race is everyone else in the world. [analysis is underway, but initial results show possible differences for the ab's in Australia]. Of course there are the chimps. Differences are slight.

The concept of race is a really artifical construct as is the concept of species in many cases. We are looking at the collision of observational biology with molecular biology. I really don't think that race is worth a long term discussion; except for those who feel inferior. ;<)))

Best Wishes,,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 19, 2002.


Flint:

I made a booboo. These are identifiable genetic subgroups. Race is a sociological concept. These are groups that can be identified as different, at the genetic level. They represent groups that have been isolated from the general breeding population over a long period for many reasons. It is unlikely that you could pull a black american off of the street, collect some cells, and differentiate him/her from your Irish neighbor. Whole lot of action has been going on for a long time;. ;<))))

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 19, 2002.


"The only attitude (the only politics--judicial, medical, pedagogical and so forth) I would absolutely condemn is one which, directly or indirectly, cuts off the possibility of an essentially interminable questioning, that is, an effective and thus transforming questioning."

-- (Jacques Derrida @ Points.....Interviews, 1974-1994), June 20, 2002.

There's a simple way of describing our genetic relatedness. Not only do all people have the same set of genes, but all groups of people also share the major variants of those genes. Geneticists have never found a genetic marker that is of one type in all the members of one large group and of a different type in all the members of another large group. That's why ethnically targeted biological weapons would never work. Every group overlaps genetically with every other.

The extreme interpretation of this observation, now popular in academia, is that biological groups do not exist. That's obviously absurd. The ways in which typical Nigerians, Koreans, and Norwegians differ physically belie any claim that all human groups are somehow "socially constructed."

The Genetic Archeology of Race, Atlantic Monthly, April 2001

-- (lars@indy.net), June 20, 2002.


Lars:

The extreme interpretation of this observation, now popular in academia, is that biological groups do not exist. That's obviously absurd. The ways in which typical Nigerians, Koreans, and Norwegians differ physically belie any claim that all human groups are somehow "socially constructed."

I admit that I don't work in this area and haven't been to a seminar discussing this subject in months. But this guy is in left field.

The definition of genetic subgroups is, once again, arbitrary. How much difference defines a subgroup. As I said, it is a collision between traditional, observational biologists and molecular biologists. The traditional biologists are loosing and will continue to loose because they are being judged by their ancestors [in the field]; hence the shrill tone in some of their publications. They are associated with making the field political [perhaps unfairly]. They have also suffered because they look at physical attributes and can't provide distibutions functions for those traits within a population. This is important since, apparently, change occurs on the edges of a distribution function for a trait and not in the middle. That is easily done with molecular genetics. Therefore, this differentiation is considered more reliable.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 20, 2002.



Z:

I'm not sure I follow you here. I suspect the insignificance of the molecular variation is largely an artifact of our current measuring tools. We know perfectly well we can mate a beagle with a spaniel and produce fertile offspring, and I imagine if we gave samples of each dog to our best geneticists, they wouldn't be able to tell one from the other.

Yet the differences are clear not only to breeders, but to small children. The differences among Nigerians, Koreans and Norwegians similarly are instantly recognized by everyone regardless of policies or socialization. These differences breed true, they are not artificial. Whether the genetic or molecular differences are "small" in some arbitrary sense or not, the *expression* of these tiny differences are stonkingly obvious.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 20, 2002.


Flint:

These differences breed true,

Through inbreeding but not through outcrossing. What do you mean by "breed" true? Are you talking about physical appearance or genetic constitution. What you stated isn't true. This isn't a genetics lecture. What is your feeling about transposable elements [I am not going into the complicated stuff]?

We are presently dealing with an important sequence; about 8 kb. Something in there codes for a determining phenotype. It has no known restriction sites so we can't cut it up. It has a wierd G/C ratio. It is surrounded by inverted repeats, so it probably has evolved from some ancient virus, but it lacks a transposase and isn't mobilized by others in the genome, so it stays in one place. It is heavily modified or has a complex secondary structure, so we can't sequence it with techniques available. We can move it by suicide insertion from one strain to a clean strain [with the gene knocked out with something like mini-mu], as long as we include the inverted repeats. This thing is present in all wild types, so it must be ancient.

What is it? Don't know [we know the gene product determining the important phenotype and can express it in related species lacking the sequence], but it has been retained. Point? Things that are retained in the general population are usually important. Differences deal with, usually, less important things in an isolated breeding population. Neutral survival value [in a genetic sense and not what you can see]. By-the-by, you either didn't read or understand what I posted earlier.

Best Wishes,,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 20, 2002.


Z:

I'm not a geneticist, I don't know the jargon you seem to pride yourself on, so you need to expand it into something a layman can relate to.

What I'm trying to say is, for better or worse, what people consider obvious physical differences have been made extremely important for social reasons. Yes, I suppose these are only visible differences without much underlying them, and I suppose they are retained only through inbreeding. But out in the real world, waving these rather striking (and consistent) differences away as nonexistent where it really counts is a one way ticket to political marginalization.

So the author of that article was NOT out in left field with respect to genuine in-your-face physical differences. He perhaps wasn't aware that, since you cannot put your finger on a sequence that selects for those differences, it must therefore be beneath the notice of any reasonable person. But he was aware that people are willing to fight wars over those differences.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 20, 2002.


Flint:

I speak to the general public on a regular basis. That was a non-technical description. Of course when I speak, I can explain the details; but going too far [like the press] introduces garbage.

If you want to restrict yourself to out of date technology, you are correct. Do you still use Word 1.0?

By the way, I could send you some papers which consist of abbreviations and verbs. That is molecular biology. Don't like it; that is where it is. Explaining particle physics is easier. Do you want to discuss why B. japonicum has genes that are not distinguishable from those in its host; or why S. t. has genes which are the same as those in its host. Talk about genetic exchange between races [whatever that means]; lets talk about breeding between kingdoms. ;<))) It appears that genetic exchange doesn't always involve sex. That is why organisms have the enzyme systems to incorporate foreign DNA.

Of course I have little time for this now. I have to develop a contingency plan for response to a bioterrorist attack. When I got the email asking the question, I responded that I would run like hell. I found that, at least, one person in DC has no sense of humor. ;<)))

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 20, 2002.


I'm sorry, I am not a big brain intellectual, but I'm not sure how blue eyes are passed on genetically without there being any genetic difference between blue eyed and brown eyed peoples. Of course, from what I've read here I'm not sure that Z knows either, so I guess I'm in good company.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeeD@yahoo.com), June 20, 2002.


http://www.seps.org/cvoracle/faq/eyecolor.html

-- (look@learn.), June 21, 2002.

That was a great link, Look. I'd always thought eye color was simply the result of the two alleles received by the parents, with two blues creating blue eyes, two browns creating brown eyes, and a blue and a brown creating brown eyes. Green, grey, etc. was considered blue, but I like the explanation of these further findings better. I wonder if blood type has the same sortof determining factors. My kids don't know their blood types yet, but I know I'm A and their father was O. Since O seems to be recessive, if any of my kids has type O blood, it means that my A came from AO alleles.

Genetics is a fascinating subject to me. I just wish I had the brain left to absorb more of it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 21, 2002.


Unk:

I'm sorry, I am not a big brain intellectual Please remember that I didn't say that. ;<))

There is a difference between small genetic differences that control single phenotypes and large differences that lead to classifications of genetic subgroups. About 10% of the population in Northern Africa has blue eyes and curly [flat hair strand] red hair.

Best Wishes,,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 21, 2002.


Sometimes it would be useful to know the race of a stain donor. Any DNA typing provides some evidence, provided that population data of fragment sizes for the races in question is available. Quantitative estimates are given of how good that evidence is likely to be, and ideas discussed for the best calculations to extract the evidence. As a rough conclusion, distinguishing Caucasian from African-American source can usually be done confidently. Distinguishing Caucasian from Hispanic is more problematic.

LINK. According to this study, DNA evidence can identify the probable race of a perp. Caution, 1996 technology.

-- (lars@indy.net), June 21, 2002.


Lars:

In this field, 2001 technology is outdated. What amused me over the Flint discussions with this Patrick person is that Patrick was using data published more than 50 y ago.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 21, 2002.


The original point of this thread was "Z" asking Flint to ask Patrick about "race." As Flint aptly replied, "Z" may know about molecular biology, he/she does not understand the lunatic fringe.

As an aside, I have two lingering feelings. One, the genesis of this thread feels a bit contrived. It reminds me of cocktail party conversation where the physicist creates an opportunity to demonstrate his vast knowledge of physics. Let's talk about "race" so "Z" can take a moment away from a life of international intrigue and mystery to grace us with scientific insights. At this point in the party, I usually look longingly towards the bar.

The second nagging feeling is that "Z" was a Y2K doomer who chastized his economist colleagues. Does anyone remember that exchange?

Let us return to "race." Flint observes a nuclear bomb. "Z" holds forth on the wiring configuration of a Mark 1, Mod 1 thermonuclear device. I'm sure the world has a people who care deeply about the little red wires and the little blue wires. Perhaps these people speak in abbreviations and verbs. Nuts and bolts aside, the issues of "atomic bomb" or "race" have broader implications.

Neither the biology or the sociology of race have any interest for Patrick. Apparently, he is a card-carrying lunatic who has a conclusion and a closed mind. Flint finds it endlessly amusing to poke and prod at the Patrick's of the world... the "kicking" of the proverbial anthill. To me, it feels more like boxing a man with no arms. So it goes.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), June 21, 2002.


I don't disagree with that statement Z. In fact, that's why I asked my first question of this thread in response to your original statement to Flint, ie---"Being the factual person that you are, why didn't you ask him for a definition of race. As a molecular bioligist, I could give you one"

Any definition of race that you or anyone else can make today is likely to be different than what it will be in 10 years and is different than what it was ten years ago.

-- (lars@indy.net), June 21, 2002.


Ken:

The second nagging feeling is that "Z" was a Y2K doomer who chastized his economist colleagues. Does anyone remember that exchange? Ken you are not only a norom your memory has gone. As I recall, you lost the agrument on guns; with me, and everyone else, against you. 270 my ass. ;<)))

Lars:

Yes, I agree with your statement. Keep in mind that race is no longer a biological classification [it has even been dropped for bacteria and fungi since it, generally, can't be demonstratged in a single organism system; a taxonomic requirement]. In humans, it carries too much baggage from the non-biological community. Genetic subgroup.

Of course there will always be people like Ken. They look at someone who is different and say: different race; lets lynch him. See Ken, you lie about me, I can lie about you.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 21, 2002.


Z:

You are becoming increasingly incoherent. Having a bad day?

Of course, the conversation with Patrick had nothing to do with "race" as it might relate to genetics or biology. I can't believe you would even entertain that idea, except (as Ken said) as a vehicle to deploy your expertise, even if inappropriately.

Instead, that conversation was intended to explore the conscious processing of galloping xenophibic insecurity -- how it starts, how it is documented, how it defends itself when the documentation is indefensible, how small a radius circular reasoning must be reduced to before reason itself is rejected in favor of need.

Ken:

You, too, seem not to understand the point of the exercise. Your boxing analogy hinges on *whether* Patrick is wrong. So once the error is clearly demonstrated, you have "won the argument." But this is a conceptual error. The exercise is intended to determine *why* Patrick is wrong.

Remember y2k? That was an essentially similar exercise, because the doomers were not engaged in a battle of evidence, but of belief and outlook. "Winning the argument" did not consist of demonstrating few problems, it consisted of gaining as much insight as possible into the mindset of the True Believer. If such people are beneath your notice or your dignity, that's your choice. Not mine.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 22, 2002.


It seems to me that there are a number of cases where appropriate terminology differs, depending on whether the audience is scientific specialists or not.

It is perfectly OK for me to talk about taking a walk in the woods to observe the birds and animals. Everyone knows what I mean. I am aware that scientifically speaking, birds are animals, i.e. not plants.

It is OK for me to talk about including tomatos and bell peppers as my salad vegetables, because of the way they taste. I am aware that botanically they are fruits.

As Flint points out, there are physical differences in human beings observable by children. No one is going to teach their kid to refer to "genetic subgroups", but it is hoped that the kid will be taught not to make the mental mistakes which have characterized human history regarding race.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), June 23, 2002.


Flint:

You are becoming increasingly incoherent. I am perfectly coherent, you just don't follow the facts [and you are a facts person].

Peter:

What you say is limited by your method of measurement. You are using visual observation, which served us well when we lived in caves [this is an observation, and not meant to be an insult].

You say that you can recognize a plant [a single organism that you can see]. Let us take a cursory look at one plant. Let us pick a single genetic entity like a soybean. Besides the soybean [or soyabean if you prefer] there are other important organisms present. What? Well there are bacteria in special structures called nodules. These provide fixed nitrogen up to the time of flowering. The roots are also infected with a mycorrhizal fungus that, among other things, help make phosphorus available. On the leaves there are colonies of methano-bacteria [ancient organisms] that, among other things, produce plant hormones. Back to the roots. They are covered with a biofilm of non-pathogenic bacteria. Riding herd around them are swarms of predatory nematodes. There is more, but this is enough. You say, it is still the soybean genes that make it a soybean. Don't know, but we do know that an endophytic fungus in one grass that we study can control regulation of at least 14, stress related, plant genes. Remove the fungus and the grass won't survive.

These are communities. Yes, it takes a village to raise a plant. ;<))) A concept that will be taught in coming years as will genetic subgroup. Why, because it is a realistic description.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 23, 2002.


Interesting (to me) takes from VDare--

Cavelli-Sforza I

Cavelli-Sforza II

-- (lars@indy.net), June 23, 2002.


Cavelli Sforza II

-- (lars@indy.net), June 23, 2002.

Know your races/ethnic groups/artificial constructs/genetic profiles/whatevers-----#786 The Guarani

-- (Richard Dawkins @ meme.meme), June 24, 2002.

Oh no………

Z, you’re killing me here!!!!!!!!!!

A ‘Plant Hormone Doctor’?

Who sits around in a small room and watches weeds fuck????

STOP!!! ROTFLMAO

Hey Z, do you know how to make a hormone????? -

-

-

-

-

-

-

Don’t pay her.

-- Jackie (The@Joke.Man), June 24, 2002.


Farenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury.

-- helen (rocking@in.the.corner), June 24, 2002.

Helen, you are too cryptic for me. Whatcha mean?

-- (lars@indy.net), June 24, 2002.

Just read it again, Lars. Find a copy and read it again.

-- helen (tired@eyes.hurt), June 24, 2002.

The whole book? Gimme a break, cryptic momma.

-- (lars@tired eyes.here too), June 24, 2002.

Helen, you little nonconformist you.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), June 25, 2002.

Well, "Z," you clearly have trouble understanding the difference between a "nagging feeling" and a clear recollection. I vaguely remember the "economist" exchange and have no memory of discussing firearms with you. Most of your posts seem variations on the theme of self adulation... quickly read and more quickly forgotten.

And Flint, you readily admitted you enjoyed "kicking anthills" and you suggested I shared your motivation. I disagreed then and think time has proven my point. You have followed the "doomers" from forum to forum. I have not.

I think Y2K was an unusual event where the concerns of the lunatic fringe actual touched the mainstream, however slightly. Otherwise normal people were caught up in the hysteria. Once the event passed, the rational folks donated the canned goods, used the toilet paper and went on with life.

Without some relatively normal, rational people, the Y2K debate would have had little interest for me. You won't find me "debunking" alien abductions on some other forum or arguing against the existence of the mythical New World Order. Why? Because I think the lunacy of the lunatic fringe is self evident... and pretty boring.

"Why" Patrick is wrong is of no interest... at least to me. Without too much reflection, Patrick clearly lacks the ability to analyze data and reach a reasonable conclusion. Nature or nurture, Flint? Is Patrick's lack of reason the product of a biochemical deficiency or rearing in a nonrational environment?

Do you really care? Do you really care about Patrick, the addled person or the origins of his nonrational views? I think it more likely that jousting with the lunatic fringe is simply an entertaining amusement for you. Tormenting the "true believers" seems to please you. I do not suggest this is "beneath" me, but simply not my cup of tea.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), June 26, 2002.


Z,

Sometimes....it just ain't worth the effort. Although there are people who read and learn. There are even people who understand to different degrees.

My Father and I had this theory, both having RH-Neg blood, that we were a step further from up on the evolution ladder, having dropped that one identifiable characteristic with the creatures we are supposed to have evolved from.

As for the blue eyed parents and their offspring, those charts work very well in averaging out the "odds" of certain harmful genetic diseases, but are not set in stone like truth charts in digital electronics are. I had two brown haired, brown eyed parents. My eyes and hair are brown. All three of my brothers had blue eyes and blond hair. It is the luck if the draw when sperm meets egg, but the odds do favor the charts when you take into consideration hundreds or thousands of parents combinations.

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), June 27, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ