tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post200286263758304730..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: More on 'racial' variation....Anne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-36908636658588706562014-06-03T13:16:49.117-04:002014-06-03T13:16:49.117-04:00Unfortunately, if this represents a truth, then it...Unfortunately, if this represents a truth, then it doesn't put God in a very good light--rather nasty, one might think.<br /><br />All things bright and beautiful,<br />The mass the few enthrall,<br />It's not so wise or wonderful,<br />How many take the fall.<br /><br />The rich ease in their castle,<br />The poor gaze through the gate,<br />Luck made them high and lowly,<br />And God thought that was great?Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-91132730587751038662014-06-03T11:45:06.970-04:002014-06-03T11:45:06.970-04:00All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures gre...All things bright and beautiful,<br />All creatures great and small,<br />All things wise and wonderful,<br />The Lord God made them all.<br /><br />The rich man in his castle,<br />The poor man at his gate,<br />God made them high and lowly,<br />And ordered their estate.<br />W. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11019350102074238654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-42995933994436306962014-05-29T13:53:30.110-04:002014-05-29T13:53:30.110-04:00Sorry, senior moment, CNVs can comprise multiple g...Sorry, senior moment, CNVs can comprise multiple genes (both non-coding and coding sequence) among other things but the actual coding nucleotide sequence is not divergent, there are just different numbers of big chunks of the chromosomes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-88226665853858112752014-05-29T13:43:17.478-04:002014-05-29T13:43:17.478-04:00Important to remember the difference between codin...Important to remember the difference between coding sequence, which is 99.9% or so identical between any two humans, and the vast amount of much more variable non-coding sequence (LINE element, SINE elements, ALU elements, STRs microsats, pseudogenes. etc, etc) with our genome. 23andme essentially uses a forensic DNA methodology that analyses moderately to hypervariable variable regions of non-coding DNA to indirectly determine lineage or degree relatedness. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-7160353203921230092014-05-29T13:26:17.849-04:002014-05-29T13:26:17.849-04:00The 12% divergence figure in that publication refe...The 12% divergence figure in that publication refers to CNVs (copy number variants of large hypervariable non-coding loci), not genes. Actual protein coding sequence and protein sequence itself is 99.9% identical between any two people on average. Citing the 12% figure, or any low estimate of sequence identity between humans based on non-coding sequence is, if context is not made absolutely clear, intended to mislead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-54323322932339534032014-05-29T12:24:31.898-04:002014-05-29T12:24:31.898-04:00OK, good point, and sorry I over-analyzed what you...OK, good point, and sorry I over-analyzed what you had said. There is certainly a lot of loose talk about these subjects which deserve more serious consideration and are just as interesting, if not more so, than folk concepts.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-23993001711024369582014-05-29T12:23:04.340-04:002014-05-29T12:23:04.340-04:00Sorry for confusing you. I was merely trying to he...Sorry for confusing you. I was merely trying to help to illustrate the point that the earlier commenter made. We talk about these percentages of our "genes" or "DNA" or "genomes," but don't include what exactly it is that we're talking about. I'm glad that person pointed that out.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-36794904613702904002014-05-29T12:06:53.742-04:002014-05-29T12:06:53.742-04:00Again I don't quite understand your descriptio...Again I don't quite understand your description but I think the first refers to alleles at variable sites, while the chimp and any person's haploid sequence (one copy considered only) is 99% (I thought it was more like 95%, but that's a detail). <br /><br />If one of your copies was aligned with a single copy from another human, it would be something like 99.9% identical. Again I think this ignores microsatellites and other sorts of repeats (e.g., near telomeres or centromeres). I think 23andMe is only reporting variable sites or something like that....but I've not seen exactly what you're referring to.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-47637446101529620522014-05-29T12:02:57.562-04:002014-05-29T12:02:57.562-04:00I'm sharing with over 50 people on 23andMe and...I'm sharing with over 50 people on 23andMe and also their stock people from various parts of the world and nobody's less than 60something% similar to me. Yet everyone, in terms of how we talk about chimps, should be greater than 99% similar to me. Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-53704856963870975942014-05-29T08:28:52.175-04:002014-05-29T08:28:52.175-04:00This depends on what's being reported. Aligni...This depends on what's being reported. Aligning single copy DNA (not counting various repeat elements like microsatellites), between a set of chromosomes from you (that is, one of each, chr 1, chr2, ...., X) with one from a chimp, the two will be 90-some percent alike (I'm not up to date on the most recent estimate). <br /><br />Unless something strange happened (well, you may be strange enough!), you get exactly half your chromosome compliment from each parent. So, as you surmised at the end, the 85% seems likely to relate to variants that are carried identifiably by one or the other parent. If your mom is Aa and your father AA, and you have one 'a' allele you are 'like' your mother in a sense, but if not (you're AA) are you then 'like' your father or your mom, or both? <br /><br />WIth a finite number of Mendelian draws examined, it's possible that deviation from Mendelian expectations by chance is what happened. So look more carefully at what they said about what they reported. Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-18179551507483347452014-05-28T20:55:40.420-04:002014-05-28T20:55:40.420-04:00I am 99% the same as a chimp (according to present...I am 99% the same as a chimp (according to present accepted fact) yet only about 85% the same as my mother (according to 23andMe) ... And on top of that shared problem with the above comment, there's another one: aren't I supposed to only be 50% the same as my mom? (Not if my parents have the same alleles!!)Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-32458103306360010602014-05-28T18:35:28.725-04:002014-05-28T18:35:28.725-04:00These questions are important, but can't easil...These questions are important, but can't easily be answered in a Reply to a Comment. The word ' gene' refers to protein code traditionally, but there are now countless other functional DNA regions, most of unknown function. <br /><br />How we differ from each other, or from chimps, depends on what you count. The most important single fact is that the amount of difference is roughly correlated with the time since last common ancestor, unless we are very deeply wrong about the evolution process--and even this 'clock' calibration depends on various things like population size and so on.<br /><br />The same process is always going on, so populations within species, such as in indigenous Americans compared to Polynesians, etc., will differ. Natural selection, sexual selection, chance and quirks of history can lead to some of the differences to yield systematic trait differences between distant (or even sometimes adjacent) groups. Skin color and facial appearance are examples that are largely genetic.<br /><br />One nucleotide difference can kill you, and millions of variants can have essentially no effect. It depends on where in the genome they are. Every population has both, the lethal or 'disease' variants, and the benign (or functionless ones). Traits affected by hundreds of genes can vary between populations by a lot, or by a little, and even in the former case each person of a given height can have a different genotype.<br /><br />Environments, especially cultural factors in the case of humans, affect many of our traits, even some that are present at birth, in ways we don't yet generally understand very well.<br /><br />So the percent-change question isn't well-stated related to clear answers. It seems clear on the surface, but it isn't, and that's one reason there is so much work, and so much disagreement, about what genes do and how to understand that.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-88817424079008321302014-05-28T17:48:39.506-04:002014-05-28T17:48:39.506-04:00If somebody would indulge me, sign off on or nix t...If somebody would indulge me, sign off on or nix the following statements:<br /><br />1-)Humans and chimp genomes differ in about 400-500 genes total out of 25,000 (2-3%)<br /><br />2-)-Before the human genome was sequenced most scientists estimated it would contain 100,000 genes or so. We know now that the human genome contains 25,000 genes.<br /><br />3-) Scientists overestimated the gene count and also overestimated the amount of the genome individual humans would scientist thought each human would differ at about .5% of their respective genomes.<br /><br />4) The latest research indicates humans may differ genetically by as much as 12% (Redon R, Ishikawa S, Fitch K, Feuk L,2006) Scientists vastly understated the shared genome of humans, just as they overstated the total number of genes.<br /><br />How can we change a genome 2-3% and get a chimp but change the genome as much as 12% and get another perfectly good human?<br />Is it a paradox, just plain wrong, or something else going on?Tom519https://www.blogger.com/profile/14324807029274380472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-46751402150587873712014-05-27T15:37:56.832-04:002014-05-27T15:37:56.832-04:00It's the same reasoning by which I don't e...It's the same reasoning by which I don't enter into 'discussion' with religious creationists. There's no discussion. There may be intentional ignoring of the actual evidence (on their part, I would say), but no real attempt to come to common ground. Committed postures, solidarity, tribalism, cults, and the like are hard to change.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-28283773558410506472014-05-27T15:33:43.312-04:002014-05-27T15:33:43.312-04:00Well, yes, but they would say the same about the r...Well, yes, but they would say the same about the rest of us. So rather than a battle of words (that is, name calling) that goes nowhere, I think it's more useful to think about the sociology of what's going on here. <br /><br />Science is never done in a vacuum. Scientists always make assumptions, explicitly and implicit, when they plan their experiments, write their statistical analysis programs, and interpret their data. Sometimes the assumptions influence the results as well as whether we choose to believe the results, and sometimes they don't, but we don't always remember that.<br /><br />In the case of 'discussions' of race, we all come to the table fully loaded with preconceptions, prejudices, self-righteousness and so forth, and the fact that the subject is so close to the bone makes it pretty much impossible to discuss these assumptions at all dispassionately. <br /><br />When HBDers see statistical analyses that prove that races exist, I see programs that were built with that assumption in mind. And when they accuse people who think that races are a social construct of being stupid and politically correct (ok, and more), I think about my nephew, whose mother has only European ancestry and whose father has some European and some African. My nephew is blonde and blue-eyed, but he identifies as black. I'm not sure what race is in this case other than a social construct. <br /><br />And when they see genes for all kinds of behaviors, which somehow proves that race is a biological reality, I wonder how it could be so easy to find genes for traits that are even more complex than complex diseases, when we can't even find genes for those. <br /><br />The problem, of course, is that we've been down this road before. I've had enough run-ins with HBDers to know that we can't discuss this, though. But if it weren't potentially dangerous, and if it didn't have deep implications about decisions about allocating society's resources, this disagreement would be unimportant. But it is and it does, and it matters. <br />Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-43112143505347078822014-05-27T15:10:18.556-04:002014-05-27T15:10:18.556-04:00HBDers claim to be honest, brave tellers of object...HBDers claim to be honest, brave tellers of objective truth while they label their critics 'cultural Marxists'. However, they're the ones whose views are evidence-free, unsound speculation and misinterpretation, while it's their opponents who have analytical rigor on their side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-73053992957468210302014-05-27T11:30:55.935-04:002014-05-27T11:30:55.935-04:00Thanks, Eric. I agree with you that these tendenci...Thanks, Eric. I agree with you that these tendencies won't go away, even if science were to prove to everyone's satisfaction that there isn't a biological basis to the kind of classifying we still do. Which is why it's helpful to recognize that the social and scientific issues are distinct, but even that won't fix the conflation of evolutionary theory with politics, I don't think. Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-21507181292506026092014-05-27T11:05:27.051-04:002014-05-27T11:05:27.051-04:00I just recently stumbled upon this blog and I have...I just recently stumbled upon this blog and I have to say: I'm really glad it exists.<br /><br />I live in Germany and let me tell you: Not using the term "race" definately does not stop people from having racist tendencies. So having a bigger argumentative catalogue at my disposal to dismiss these kind of arguments, really helps.<br /><br />Personally I don't think these tendencies will go away, people will always try find some kind of way to categorize others. However I think it's important to get evolutionary theory out the stranglehold those people seem to have over it in public. Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09916401122050648867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-49010517701070820852014-05-27T08:16:51.301-04:002014-05-27T08:16:51.301-04:00Ideologies always need some ultimate truth to just...Ideologies always need some ultimate truth to justify them and make their adherents feel OK about their views. Religion was ultimate 'Nature' (God's views), Marxism was the True course of history, and Evolutionary science a law of Nature. Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-54797190884197560132014-05-27T07:49:03.932-04:002014-05-27T07:49:03.932-04:00Without Nature on their side, they'd be forced...Without Nature on their side, they'd be forced to explain their values and biases that shape their opinions and drive them to actively argue for them. They need Nature. Real bad. Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-57924403292695633262014-05-27T07:29:15.629-04:002014-05-27T07:29:15.629-04:00Yes, like any religious, ethnic, or tribal conflic...Yes, like any religious, ethnic, or tribal conflict, it isn't usually about all the supposed facts, but is selective and motivated often by cultural or material self-interest. It can be called science as religion, perhaps.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-37778089937659637302014-05-27T07:09:24.662-04:002014-05-27T07:09:24.662-04:00Thanks Ken. Yep, separating them feels impossible ...Thanks Ken. Yep, separating them feels impossible when any attempt at discussing whether some of these issues are even scientific is bombarded by so many who aren't willing to even consider that maybe their view of taxonomy and how/why it's done is not the only legitimate one or is incomplete/underinformed/mistaken. Too many enter these discussions assuming that Nature is on their side and that's pretty much always a thought-stopper and a discussion-ender isn't it? Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.com