Shirley Tilghman director of Integrative Genomics at Princeton at a part of the Human Genome project:
From a scientific perspective there is no such thing as race. You cannot scientifically distinguish a race of people genetically from a different race of people. Now you can find a gene that affects skin color, and you can show that this gene has one form in people of African descent and is different form of people, let's say , of Danish descent. But that's just one little change.
First, this is a statement, not a research finding. I've given links to articles about studies that show race exists...this is a statement from a geneticist saying it doesn't. There's no comparison.
Second, look at how she parses words, exactly what I was talking about above vis-a-vis squid ink; "people of African descent"? People of "Danish descent"? Uhm, that's race folks!
Then she goes on to spray more squid ink ("fund me! I'm not racist, I swear!") about how "that's one little change"...uhm, yeah, except there are hundreds and hundreds of other "little changes" to go along with skin color).
That doesn't make them a race. If you look at all the other things in their DNA that determine all the ways in which we're the same, in fact the two DNAs are indistinguishable
LOL! This really amusing. First, she's just playing semantics - she sets the bar for race impractically high (tacitly at least - that's the only way her statement (of opinion, not facts or research) can be considered true); "that doesn't make them a race" (but that's what everyone is talking about when they talk about race - continental differences in group ancestry!).
Then comes the kicker; here's what she's saying in English:
If you look at the two sets of DNA (in Africans and Danes) that code for the physiology in each group that is the same, it's...the same!
Wow, thanks Ms. Obi-Wan, that's a real revelation!
The American Anthropological Association statement on race:
With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes.
Race-deniers love to trot out the AAA statement on race, as if it's the final word on race, but it's not. The fact that forensic anthropologists routinely identify the race of corpses on the basis of skeletal morphology alone belies the AAA's statement on race (ten years old, btw):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html
Does Race Exist?
A proponent's perspective
Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."
[...]
First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations.
A good reply to the AAA's obscurantism on race:
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2005/12/aaa-statement-on-race.html
J. Craig Venter, head of Celera Genomics Corporation (and one of the most important figures in the Human Genome project).
In my view one of the most important outcomes from our sequencing of the human genetic code is clear support for the notion that race is a social concept not a scientific one. We sequenced the genomes of 5 individuals, 3 females and 2 males of self-identified ethnicity as Chinese, Hispanic, African-American or Caucasian. Looking at the genetic code we can tell who is male and who is female but we cannot determine who is Chinese, Hispanic, African-American or Caucasian.
Venter's got a real penchant for obscurantism. Judging from the context, he made this statement years ago, around the time the Human Genome Project was wrapping up. It may be true that
at the time he made that statement there was no way to tell from DNA the ancestry of those sampled, but it was still very irresponsible of him to deny race based on any given technical stumbling block around at the time. But, that's the kind of irresponsibility that keeps the research funding pouring in, so no skin off Venter's nose, right? In any case it's academic,
because now we do have tests that can determine ancestry from DNA samples. Welcome to 2007.
Again, this is a statement, not a study; how does ol' Craig respond to all the evidence I've posted? That's the real issue. Same goes for this statement from the NIH:
Separation of the human race into ethnic or population divisions is really not scientifically justifiable
Then the NIH should justify this
statement by showing how the studies (or their interpretations) that show otherwise are flawed.
C'mon guys, SCIENCE, not quotes from people in the past that don't reflect current findings! If I can find quotes from some scientist from the 17th century who didn't believe in race either, does that debunk the idea of race too?
You can't just come up with out-of-date quotes from scientists and expect that to hold up. You've got to show valid criticisms of the data on race. You've got to show where someone
refutes the data (or finds an alternative explanation for it that satisfies Occam's Razor), not people who simply make contradictory statements wearing their "me-scientist-you-dummy" hats!
Like I said. A perfectly civil conversation until someone came along.
I've already made my logical "where the myth of race came from and why it doesn't exist" argument ten times on this thread, so I won't state it again, I'll just leave you with RN's "college essay" argument (AGAIN) since those are the only terms you have deemed that an intellectual debate can be conducted in without "lazy" and "ignorant" disses being thrown around. I told you it was on the very previous page of the thread and you said you couldn't be bothered "digging" for it, and you call whom lazy?
Here's my proof of race, and that one of the most respected members of the board (though we disagree on MOST things) agrees with me 100% and has taken the time to prove it. Morlock, you're so personally vindictive, I won't ever respond to your posts and diatribe at length again. I already knew you wouldn't be honest about what you think the "differences" between your "5 races" are. It's not an insult to call your views or anyone else's racist. Some people have called my views racist. Big deal. We should openly discuss these things. There's nothing to apologize for. Peace to you.
You have your intellectual dishonesty, for which you should apologize. But, you aren't sorry that you smear, lie, and otherwise obfuscate as a matter of course, so why should you apologize? Then you turn around and whine about how I'm vindictive, bla bla bla. Oh yeah, I've been a real Hun in this thread, with all my cursing, name-calling, and general boorish behavior.
Gimme a break already. You've deserved every bit of the criticism I've given you in this thread. You
are intellectually lazy, dishonest, and careless. You
are ignorant of the subject upon which you pontificate. Correct your behavior and I'll correct my characterizations thereof.
May the
truth be upon you.
