Deinonychus antirrhopus

If one accepts evolution then one is somewhere on this spectrum.

1. Humans, like all animals, have been subject to natural selection pressures.

2. Geographical and reproductive isolation produces intraspecies variation both because of genetic drift and because isolated groups are in different selection environments.

3. There is a long list of physiological traits of genetic origin whose incidence differs by geographical ancestry.

4. The brain is not a special organ which is off-limits to the effects of selection pressure and drift.

I wrote about cellular level differences in populations here.

The HapMap Consortium has just expanded its scope:

To create the HapMap, DNA was taken from blood samples from volunteer donors from the following populations: Han Chinese in Beijing, Japanese in Tokyo, Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria and Utah residents with ancestry from northern and western Europe. No medical or personal identifying information was obtained from the 270 donors. However, the samples are identified by the population from which they were collected.

Although any two people are 99.9 percent identical at the genetic level, understanding the one-tenth of one percent difference is important because it helps explain why one person may be more susceptible to a certain disease than another. For any given disease, such as type II diabetes or coronary artery disease, researchers can use the HapMap to compare the genetic variation patterns of a group of people known to have the disease with a group of people without the disease. Finding a certain pattern more often in people with the disease identifies a genomic region that may contain genes contributing to the condition. Because the Phase II HapMap will be so detailed, researchers will be able to use its SNP signposts to zero in on that particular genomic region and search for specific genes involved in that disorder. This approach can reduce the work and expense of searching the genome for hereditary factors in common disease by a factor of 20 to 40 compared with current, brute force approaches.

For anyone who reads the APA articles in question, note how one author invokes suggestions of "fat races" and "thin races" - these are such howlers that many readers are left teary eyed from laughter.

If people look at the 4 point spectrum above, noting that controversy increases as you go higher in the order, they should ask what forces stop evolutionary pressures at their preferred point.

Now why did I think this post would elicit a respones from Tangoman?

I liked this part:

1. Humans, like all animals, have been subject to natural selection pressures.

2. Geographical and reproductive isolation produces intraspecies variation both because of genetic drift and because isolated groups are in different selection environments.

That strikes me as being obvious. Look at the differences in elephants and tigers. So if it happens in those animals, why not humans?

Seems to me those who want to deny the issue or racial differences might end up looking very much like the Creationists they seem to dislike so much. Now that's some irony.

Either god put us here in present form or he didn't. If he didn't then how to explain a simple thing like races having distinct appearances. If evolution, then why is appearance the only factor that evolved? Well, in fact it wasn't. If people think that there wasn't enough time for evolution to affect other changes, I encourage them to look at this contemporary controlled experiment which documents how selecting for favored behavior leads to physiological changes over about 40 generations.

I think the oppositionists aren't making the distinction between treatment under the law and the reality of biology. The two should be separate but I think what they worry about is that law will be shaped by biology, rather than philosophy, so it is better to pretend the biology away. I'm not quite sure how one can pretend it away though.

So if it happens in those animals, why not humans?

Here’s what Jan Klein, one of the founders of modern immunogenetics, and Naoyuki Takahata, a theoretical population geneticist have to say on the issue:

The more than 200 species of haplochromine fishes in Lake Victoria differ from each other much less than the human races in their neutral genes, although they are presumably distinguished by genes that control differences in their external appearances. The same can be said about at least some of the currently recognized species of Darwin’s finches and about other examples of recent adaptive radiations. In all these cases, reproductively isolated groups are impossible to tell apart by the methods used to measure differences between human races. Obviously, human races are not reproductively isolated (interracial marriages are common and the progenies of such marriages are fully fertile) but the external differences between them are comparable to those between the cichlid fishes and Darwin’s finches. Under these circumstances, to claim that the genetic differences between the human races are trivial is more a political statement than a scientific argument. Trivial by what criterion? How much difference would Lewontin and those who side with him consider nontrivial?

according to john wilkins of evolving thoughts we are still evolving.

For a start, there has been extensive selection against diseases that only get a purchase in urban environments in Europe. Alleles that confer resistance to bubonic plague are widespread - I wonder why? Is there any reason to think that if a disease hit us today, we would not change our allele frequencies so that resistant alleles would become widespread, to the point where the disease was unable to spread, vaccines and antibiotics notwithstanding?

Moreover, there is selection against lactose-intolerance that has been applied in a very brief period, in evolutionary terms. All through Asia now, this selection pressure is being applied.

one key point to note though: the risch paper evaluates clusters by examing over 300 markers. so though this is probably a relatively good analysis of *cladistic* relationships, that his, the genetic relationship of the various groups, the functional signifance is far more muddled. you have to specify a locus before you can talk about "this group differences from that group like so...." that is why the lactose-tolerant vs. lactose-intolerance thought experiments seem persuasive to people, the patterns are not as obvious when you isolate characters.

according to john wilkins of evolving thoughts we are still evolving.

really. who knew.

file this one under N for No shit, sherlock.

Different sexes were certainly under different evolutionary pressures. This is also true, but probably much less true for different races.

Stupid white men think that the white race is better than the black race and the XY flavor is better than the XX flavor. It is unclear whether enough of the limp-lobers will wake up before armageddon, global warming or nuclear war ends this particular adventure in evolution by natural selection.

Steve: If one accepts evolution

Friendofsteve: Either god put us here in present form or he didn't.
---
I see. This blog is a halfway house for recovering Christians who are taking baby steps toward joining the reality-based community.

My favorite christian joke (Bill Hicks):

You know, I've got a feeling that if Jesus comes back, he's not going to want to see crosses everywhere.

df,

I challenge you to find me a blog that is comprised of a more diverse set of people than the one I write for.

We are a collection of individuals interested in exploring the cutting edge of genetics and its intersection with other disciplines and everyday life (or the inverse!). We are liberal, conservative, libertarian, white, brown, Asian, male, female, Jewish, gentile, religious, nonreligious, American, non-American and many other labels. We are united by a reverence for the exploration of the heterodox in an empirical and analytic fashion drained of excessive emotive enthusiasm or revulsion. We are part of the remnant!

It sure would help your writing if you had a clue about matters rather than relying on regurgitated talking points and mouthing them in frothing fury.

I see. This blog is a halfway house for recovering Christians who are taking baby steps toward joining the reality-based community.

Df,

Can you read and assess an argument in paragraph sized bites? For your habit of shooting your guns of ignorance at the end of every sentence means you're firing at targets that you're hallucinating about.

You're quite tiresome.

df's comments are truly bizarre. While I think I understand Steve and Dave's religious beliefs, they are really theirs to explain if they wish. But recovering Christians? There just isn't any basis in anything Steve or Dave have ever written for that comment.

That comment comes straight out of someone's ass. Leading one to naturally conclude that "uhoh" is not a part of any reality at all. Certainly not an adult one.

I've not found anyone who claimed to be "reality-based" to be anything close to it.

Stupid white men think that the white race is better than the black race and the XY flavor is better than the XX flavor.

Fortunately none of them are posting here. Sheesh. What a fool, having to put words in other people's mouths.

Funnily enough, if one were to make the "race is obsolete" argument, then follow it up with the logical conclusion of doing away with those check-boxes people like Deb Frisch would scream bloody murder.

It's time to stop feeding the troll. The only tool she brings to any exchange that I've ever witnessed is invective. Invective unbacked by reason and fact is just annoying, and contributes nothing.

You'll probably get your wishes boys - it's boring duking it out with such lamebrained fellows as you, even if it is cute how you all shoot your wads simultaneously in defense of your less-than-neuronally-optimized leader.

Lemme guess. Stevie boy's next brilliant post is going to begin:

If one accepts gravity.

by the way, slartibart - it was a wise move to discontinue your blog.

Deb, I have some serious advice for you. I really think you need to do some fast growing up. You are making a real idiot of yourself in public. Some of us are in better situations for that than others. But your situation is too open, and too vulnerable for you to be this dumb.

Have it your way, consonant man. I'm not too worried about tarnishing my reputation by duking it out with you boyz here on stevie's bloggo. But if you'd rather I do it anonymously, I'm happy to oblige.

Use your own email, twit.

hi robin,
found your blog that's endorsed by stevie himself! do you guys blow each other literally as well as metaphorically?

Hmmm, a homophobic foul-mouthed fraud. Deb, you are the very model of a leftist academic.

Deb,

Please do not use other people's e-mail while posting here. I will ban you if you do not stop.

Deb's somehow go the impression that just because I'm not posting on my personal blog, that I never post on any others.

She's obviously possessed of either poor research skills or poor observational skills. At this point, either one or both would be no surprise. And she hasn't yet figured out that posting stupid, embarrassing, .45 round in the foot crap is much, much worse than posting nothing.

Okay Steve. Thanks for saying please.

If one accepts evolution then one is somewhere on this spectrum.

1. Humans, like all animals, have been subject to natural selection pressures.

2. Geographical and reproductive isolation produces intraspecies variation both because of genetic drift and because isolated groups are in different selection environments.

3. There is a long list of physiological traits of genetic origin whose incidence differs by geographical ancestry.

4. The brain is not a special organ which is off-limits to the effects of selection pressure and drift.

DF:

1. It's crazy to pretend there is any doubt about evolution. It seems just as ignorant to say "If one accepts evolution" as it does to say "If one accepts gravity."

So right away I see that you are way too far on the creationist-coddling end of the spectrum. I think YIKES.

2. The list you provide is not a "spectrum," it's a list of truisms that suggest there are likely to be racial differences in cognition. It's not a coincidence that the NBA has more black players than you'd expect, given the frequency in the population. Given that there are race differences in physical attributes, it's a good bet there are race differences in mental attributes. It's a good bet that mother nature has customized the software for differences in hardware.

3. My point 2 summarizes items 1-4 above. It's a good bet that race differences in cognition will be many orders of magnitude lower than se differences in cognition. Given the central role that sexual reproduction plays when ma nature does the genetic shuffle, sex trumps race.

So gender differences provide an upper bound on the magnitude of observed racial differences that are due to genetic factors.

4. Historically, studies of group differences have been comically and grotesquely biased. White male scientists tend to "discover" that whites are smarter than blacks and men and smarter than women. Although the bias is not as blatant and severe as it was when scientists started studying this topic, it still is much larger than you'd hope or expect in the scientific study of the mind.

Most people in the upper echelons of this field (e.g., Stephen Pinker) are aware of the insidious sexism and racism. Many people in the lower echelons of this field (e.g., Steve Verdon) are woefully clueless about the fact that their brains are infested with racism and sexism. The fact that TANGOMAN posted a four-point-list that everyone I know would say DUH to suggests the cluelessness is not limited to self-awareness but to understanding of behavioral genetics in general.

betRight here, I've got a problem.

that everyone I know would say DUH to

You don't travel much beyond your own circle do you? Go to many Left and Right blogs and state your position and be prepared to be pilloried.

As for your point 3, pick up a genetics textbook some time, even an intro text would be fine.

1. It's crazy to pretend there is any doubt about evolution. It seems just as ignorant to say "If one accepts evolution" as it does to say "If one accepts gravity."

No kidding Deb, we all agree with you on this, but for some reason you seem to think we don't agree with you. Moron.

As for your point 3, pick up a genetics textbook some time, even an intro text would be fine.

She doesn't need to. Deb already knows the truth and fuck you too.

Tangoman, I have no idea what your criticism (agreement?) with my point 3 is.

Are you guy freshman biology majors?

Steve, thanks for noticing.

Are you guy freshman biology majors?

Ha ha ha...man you are funny, but don't give up your day job (although your current employer would probably be better off if you did).

Yike Steve. It's kind of pathetic to join the anklebiters in the comments section of your blog.

Steve lifts leg and tinkles on deb's sock.

You're a loser, stevie.

Oh please Deb, we already know you are one of those limp-lobers who goes after spelling flames.

Steve - do you think you might post something new one of these days? Am I really important enough in your life to stay at the top of your blog for days?

You must have SOMETHING new and insightful to say about Intelligent Design!

Psssst, deb. The twelfth was yesterday. Don't be so obvious about stalking people.

No kidding, I tend to post less on the weekends. Sheesh.