[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
The concept of race existed long before the definition which you are using existed. Yes there are many definitions, yes some are more useful then others, particularly in specific situations. Yes, I’m quite sure that the one you have in mind from a population genetics perspective is quite useful. The point being people, in general, have a very good if hard to pin down idea of what race is because the concept derived from the visible phenotypic differences between groups which the layman can easily recognize.
[/quote]
It may be convenient for the layman to use phenotypic differences to identify groups/races but the fundamental problem is that this is highly deceptive and not very useful. The purpose of classification in a post-Darwin world is to classify by relatedness, not by phenotypic similarity.
But at the end of the day debates over nomenclature are pointless, especially when we seem to agree about studying “racial” differences. At the end of the day I am an insufferable know-it-all who wants to know everything and I don’t really care if people don’t like the information.
[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
Are you familiar with multilevel selection theory? (Just curious to hear whether or not this is even mentioned in mainstream education yet)been reading DS Wilson’s papers at his website and his Darwin’s Cathedral book lately.
[/quote]
I learned about group selection at Uni but not multilevel selection theory. I only know Wilson’s work as it was discussed in Dawkins “God Delusion”. From what I have read about multilevel selection theory I cant figure out how it differs from kin selection.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Interesting article in the NYT Science section today:
EXCERPT:
[i] At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percentage of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. The heart-disease drug BiDil is marketed exclusively to African-Americans, who seem genetically predisposed to respond to it. Jews are offered prenatal tests for genetic disorders rarely found in other ethnic groups.
Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution. Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion that race is more than skin deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal. [/i]
Is race such a taboo subject that differences should not even be discussed?
If the data is good we could and should make some reasonable assumptions about race and genetics, etc. But to this point the available studies do not demonstrated a solid connection regardless of what people want to believe. Twin studies conducted involving chronic disease demonstrated that only 1/4 of chronic disease was genetic related. The other 3/4 related to lifestyle and environmental factors.
So the take away is that until it can be proven that anything is genetic in nature, it is fairly inaccurate to make assumptions.
[/quote]
But what is evident, if the data is indeed correct, is that there is a genetic component to IQ and that IQ appears to be variable between “races”. What the data is unclear on is the extent of this genetic difference between “races”. Environment plays a dominant role, but how dominant?
[quote]gotaknife wrote:
But at the end of the day debates over nomenclature are pointless, especially when we seem to agree about studying “racial” differences. At the end of the day I am an insufferable know-it-all who wants to know everything and I don’t really care if people don’t like the information.
[/quote]
I agree with you here and was planning on saying something along those lines myself. Arguing can be quite beneficial though, it sharpens the mind and does provide some entertainment.