Determine race by DNA? Psuedo science?

[delphi_ote]

Slavery in America was primarily an issue of colour. Nowhere else in the world. At least learn some history before basing eugenic theory on such nonsense.

Isn't eugenics entirely nonsense anyway?

 

[John Bentley]

Isn't eugenics entirely nonsense anyway?

If you mean the elimination of hereditary disease through genetic counseling, then emphatically no.

If you mean the improvement of the human genome through thoughtful selection of mates, or genetic engineering, then maybe not.

If you mean the creation of a "master race" through forced selective breeding, then almost certainly yes.

 

[hammegk]

The problem with the argument from divergent DNA is that it's a red herring. It doesn't matter how much overall variance there is, either within a single breed/race or within the species as a whole. The question is whether or not there are individual markers (or marker sets) within the overall variance that can be mapped onto our externally defined notions of breed/race.

And medical science is answering "Yes" more and more often to the existence of race specific markers. For pets, too, I suppose.

 

[delphi_ote]

If you mean the elimination of hereditary disease through genetic counseling, then emphatically no.

If you mean the improvement of the human genome through thoughtful selection of mates, or genetic engineering, then maybe not.

If you mean the creation of a "master race" through forced selective breeding, then almost certainly yes.

Well, I understood it to mean:

The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

 

[athon]

Isn't eugenics entirely nonsense anyway?

The basic flaw with eugenics is that selectig 'good' genes relies on the perception of what is 'good'.

Ignoring the ethics of selecting who breeds, or even selecting what is bred, what determines the fitness of a given trait? Benefits of certain traits depends on the environment; the commonly referred to 'sickle-cell anaemia / malaria' relationship is a perfect example.

Some conditions might be perfect candidates, such as cystic fibrosis. But as you expand out into other genetically-influenced traits, what determines 'good'?

Athon

 

[athon]

And medical science is answering "Yes" more and more often to the existence of race specific markers. For pets, too, I suppose.

The media has picked up on this, but it is slightly misinterpreted. I assume you're referring to the targeting of certain conditions that are touted as racially specific. Actually, most of the literature refers to population specificity. The argument we've been proposing all along still stands; genetic relationships exist between populations, however 'race' is a construct that relies on defining acutely a range of these genetic characterisics, something that does not exist in nature.

It stands that if you are prone to inheriting a particule medical condition, certain drugs might be of benefit. Hence if you relate to a particular geographical population, there is an increased chance that you will share the targeted genes.

'Race' itself does not exist. There are no boxes. The rainbow analogy used earlier is a perfect (if somewhat hippy) comparison.

Athon

 

[John Bentley]

Well, I understood it to mean:
The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

Then I would agree it's BS, but not because it is physically impossible or improbable. Rather because "controlled selective breeding" is morally repugnant when the "control" part is involuntary on the people being bred.

However, there are many, many genetic diseases that could be a thing of the past if people would only use some common sense when having kids.

 

[hammegk]

The media has picked up on this, but it is slightly misinterpreted.

'Race' itself does not exist. There are no boxes. The rainbow analogy used earlier is a perfect (if somewhat hippy) comparison.

If it makes you happy to pretend so, far be it from me to complain. Misinterpreted, indeed.

Does current reasonably inexpensive mitochondrial dna tests have enough background data to put mom's background as say, more scandinavian, or more germanic, etcetc., given that caucasoid is the major group?

I've read the negroid group studies purport to go down to tribal groups of which many dozens are stated to exist. Do the australian natives rate a group of their own?

And what's going on with the mongoloid bunch?


I find it interesting that the jewish strain was always inherited from mom; smart bunch, huh? (er, not to mention that papa was a rolling stone .. )

 

[delphi_ote]

Race IS essentially a meaningless concept, yes. Now that we have so many new technoligies for travel, there are very few reproductively isolated populations of our species. Even the unique traits we picked up over the millions of years we were apart will disappear eventually if we can avoid becoming isolated again.

But how many times must I say this? No. Mixing. In. Mitochondria. Millions of years in the future (if we're still around) we will be able to trace back our mitochondrial DNA to the same isolated populations.

 

[hammegk]

Race IS essentially a meaningless concept, yes. ...

In a few hundred more years, I'd probably agree with you, although the % negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid, australoid? would still be there.

But how many times must I say this? No. Mixing. In. Mitochondria. Millions of years in the future (if we're still around) we will be able to trace back our mitochondrial DNA to the same isolated populations.

Has someone disagreed with you?

And you seem to be reasonably current; can you offer any thoughts on my questions: hammegk

Does current reasonably inexpensive mitochondrial dna tests have enough background data to put mom's background as say, more scandinavian, or more germanic, etcetc., given that caucasoid is the major group?

I've read the negroid group studies purport to go down to tribal groups of which many dozens are stated to exist. Do the australian natives rate a group of their own?

And what's going on with the mongoloid bunch?

 

[delphi_ote]

Has someone disagreed with you?

I just want to make sure that we keep things clear. Mitochondria doesn't really code for much in the way of obvious traits. If we're talking about race by mitochondria, I'm probably a Native American. That couldn't be more inaccurate in terms of my physical appearance and the vast majority of my genetic traits.

Mitochondria make it easy to classify certain lines of human inheritance to give us a better understanding of our history as a species. Our nuclear DNA is where the differences we can observe come from. These two strains of DNA are strongly correlated only in the event of reproductive isolation. As soon as some religious nuts from England traveled across the ocean and got romantic with the natives, my mitochondrial and nuclear DNA stopped correlating.

And you seem to be reasonably current; can you offer any thoughts on my questions: hammegk

Unfortunately, most of my current reading is on plant mitochondrial DNA. Being that humans move about a lot (especially in your germanic/scandanavian example,) it seems we'd need a group that was isolated for a very very long time to be that accurate. Perhaps that is why these tribes you talk about are so easily identified. Maybe a certain group of them remains very isolated. This is just conjecture on my part, as I don't have the studies in front of me to try and understand.