Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1828 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 09 Dec 2008 17:00 Post subject: DNA thread
Frank why was I suspended? I was posting that before your last message, you can see that they are a minute apart, i was in the middle of the post, I did not see it. I didn't get "two warnings". I got one, because I was posting during the time you were...you posted first. This is pretty unfair.
I was not trying to go against the rules, I was asking you specifically how would you define this [the study] so that I would not be in violation of the rules and I was also asking how a legitimate question. If I can't use "race"...then what type of study is it? I was not referring to the NY Times article any longer. You were. If you bothered to read what I wrote, I referring back to the study at the beginning of the thread.
You obviously didn't read it. I asked specifically about how to define the study in the thread and how I should talk about it in terms of the population groups in the study, not in the NY Times article.
I also asked, how can you define "biological race" in a "hard way" when there is still no concensus what a species is, as the rules state a "race" is a sub grouping of a species, so a "sub species". There have been arguements in biology about species definitions since the 1800's or even before. I then posted several studies by recognized experts that displayed how the argument over "species" is still going on.
This is key, because if we can't resolve species, how can we speak definitively about "subspecies/races" in humans?
You provided neither input.
You simply said I was off topic, still speaking about the NY Times article (which was not accurate) and suspended me.
Is this called "teaching"?
Quote:
Learners ask questions, challenge assumptions, request sources, and compare different interpretations to arrive at new knowledge about U.S. racialism. Teachers answer questions, defend or clarify assumptions, provide sources, and offer different interpretations about U.S. racialism.
So I asked a group of questions directly related to the article I posted in the same thread and instead of answering suspended me because you didn't bother to actually read what I asked you, but assumed.
I requested a "different interpretation" from the one I was using. The answer to that was overreaction and punishment.
DH wrote: "So what, to you Frank, is a more proper way to word this type of study? What do you word the groupings?"
DH now claims that by "this type of study" he was refering to the original PLoS study. The PLoS study was clear in its wording. It studied people who self-identify as African Americans (ethnic identity) in order to determine the genetic traits consequent to their inheriting from different two colonial populations (Euros and Afros). It talks about ethnicity (that is how they chose their subjects) and it talks about descent from colonial populations. It nowhere talks about "races."
I understand that DH may not have seen my second warning. Hence, I am willing to reinstate his privileges outside of the Molecular Anthropology and Genetics forum. He may post within the Molecular Anthropology and Genetics forum only to ask questions. He may not post opinions in Molecular Anthropology and Genetics until he can show that he is familiar with the basic literature. If DH does not agree to these conditions, his privileges will be reinstated December 22.
DH apparently wants to ask about the New York Times article, and also about how "species" is defined. I suggest that, when reinstated, he pick one question or the other and post that question as a thread-starter in Molecular Anthropology and Genetics.
I understand that DH may not have seen my second warning. Hence, I am willing to reinstate his privileges outside of the Molecular Anthropology and Genetics forum. He may post within the Molecular Anthropology and Genetics forum only to ask questions. He may not post opinions in Molecular Anthropology and Genetics until he can show that he is familiar with the basic literature. If DH does not agree to these conditions, his privileges will be reinstated December 22.
Due to this time lag between warnings and recognition that two warnings had been made, shouldn't DH's posting privileges be re-instated in full without agreeing to these conditions?
There should be a tacit understanding that he and others should not post opinions in the Molecular Anthropology and Genetics section until they display familiarity with the basic literature, but how is that to be shown if posting privileges are temporarily suspended or restricted in some way?
There should be a tacit understanding that he and others should not post opinions in the Molecular Anthropology and Genetics section until they display familiarity with the basic literature...
I disagree. It should not be a "tacit understanding." It should be a formal, documented rule within the site's posting rules. Oh wait. It already is.
The important general principle here, in my view, is that everyone who posts here is assumed to agree to abide by the rules. If anyone cannot abide by the rules then they are not welcome here. It makes no difference whether DH refuses to verbally "agree to these conditions." If he violates them in practice then his posting privilege will simply be suspended again, for twice as long each time.
If you would like to discuss DH's specific suspension further, let us retire to the Management Conference Room.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1828 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 10 Dec 2008 11:48 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
DH wrote: "So what, to you Frank, is a more proper way to word this type of study? What do you word the groupings?"
DH now claims that by "this type of study" he was refering to the original PLoS study. The PLoS study was clear in its wording. It studied people who self-identify as African Americans (ethnic identity) in order to determine the genetic traits consequent to their inheriting from different two colonial populations (Euros and Afros). It talks about ethnicity (that is how they chose their subjects) and it talks about descent from colonial populations. It nowhere talks about "races."
I understand that DH may not have seen my second warning. Hence, I am willing to reinstate his privileges outside of the Molecular Anthropology and Genetics forum. He may post within the Molecular Anthropology and Genetics forum only to ask questions. He may not post opinions in Molecular Anthropology and Genetics until he can show that he is familiar with the basic literature. If DH does not agree to these conditions, his privileges will be reinstated December 22.
DH apparently wants to ask about the New York Times article, and also about how "species" is defined. I suggest that, when reinstated, he pick one question or the other and post that question as a thread-starter in Molecular Anthropology and Genetics.
It sounds as if you don't realize that I was not trying to prove "race" as biological discrete group exist. I personally do not believe they exist. That was not my point. The point was very simple.
America has a subjective method of categorizing people by race. I think you would agree with this.
That being said, the majority of the time we can look at genetic data (in studies such as the one I posted) and most of the time we can identify people by American racial standards and be correct. This does not mean humans are subspecies or races in a biological sense. What it means is we know that certain genes have much higher frequencies in certain populations, that overlap with what we call "race" and we can use those alleles to determine, is this guy likely African American? Is this guy likely a "white American", is this guy likely an Asian American?
If you don't believe me I can produce a published study.
10 mis-assigned individuals out of 1,334. That would be a 99% success rate.
You thought I was saying that race, as discrete groupings of people (subspecies) was a biological reality and that I was using the New York Times article to prove this. I was not, as I stated in the thread here: "Tue 09 Dec 2008 10:57 Post subject: Re: Multiracial"
Quote:
Quote:
When I said race, I was not using the term as in "subspecies", this does not exist in any human population..
This is why I did not understand you asking me to prove "race exists" in a biological sense. I was not trying to prove that.
I guess what I should have said was "we can use dna testing match the level of human cline gradation with our American sociological race catagories...or something like that.
As far as "race/ethnicity". I read the rules, and I asked this question because your rules state...
Quote:
Quote:
“A group of people with a common tradition and a sense of identity that functions as a subgroup within the larger society; membership is a matter of self-identification.” [Robert F. McNergney and Joanne M. Herbert, Foundations of Education: The Challenge of Professional Practice, 3rd ed. (Boston, 2001), 549.] Synonym: ethnic self-identity. The two essential elements of ethnicity are its positioning within a hegemony and its voluntary nature. First, ethnicity denotes a group’s self-identity within a larger mainstream culture. It does not refer to mainstream national cultures themselves. For example, the customs, traditions, language, and folklore of Spaniards living in Spain are not an ethnicity; they are a national culture.
Nigerians are not an ethnicity.
It is pretty clear they are using ethnicity in place of "continental grouping"/race/cluster (whatever you want to call it) I can show you several interviews by recognized researches who speak in the same terms (not just NY Times reporters). I can (and have) showed you that "race" is no longer used by the American Anthropological Association but they specifically said they are replacing it with "continental groupings' so "white" no longer exists, they say "European".
You know as I do that ethnicity and race are used interchangeably by people in the United States (something you know I have stated I find "wrong"). For example I do not equate black with African American.
If this study is based in terms of "ethnicity" as you define it in the rules it makes little sense.
Why would they use:
Utah Whites
African Americans
Japanese and Chinese
and Nigerians
How can you use Nigerians to estimate "ethnic admixture" in African Americans (when Nigerians are not an ethnicity according to the definition of the site) and then have the other pole "Utah whites" (typical white population sample they use in almost all of these studies) who are not an ethnicity, unless you are grouping "white Americans" as an ethnicity...?
By the site rules this study literally has no meaning.
Quote:
“A group of people with a common tradition and a sense of identity that functions as a subgroup within the larger society; membership is a matter of self-identification.
How does one track genetically "common traditions of a subgroup" if there is no biological basis at all?
Race is defined as:
Quote:
A sub-division of a species that is identifiable by a cluster of traits that vary together geographically...No cluster of geographically co-varying traits (bio-race) has ever been found in Homo sapiens.
So by this sites rules, studies like this should be banned? Studies like this can obviously not track "culture" by biology. This would mean, culturally I should group more with white Americans than Nigerians.
You can't track African Americans or white Americans by biology because "no cluster of geographically co-varying traits)" exists.
Uhm...so once again....HOW DO I SPEAK ABOUT THIS STUDY and stay in the rules??
In any case I was seeking to find another way to respond to Powell, this is how all this started. It is also interesting how you allowed Powell to post the term "multiracial" in the same thread. How is one "multiracial" in that forum? If race does not exist as a discrete grouping? Wouldn't the proper term in that forum be "multi-ethnic"?
As far as my suspensions from a individual forum, I don't see why I need to be suspended from a forum, where just a few days ago I debunked a specious study about Moorish and Jewish integration into Spain's genepool.
No, that's okay Frank...keep your offer. If I'm going to be punished for nothing then that's fine. That's not a reflection on me. I was trying my best to conform to the rules out of respect, but you don't show any in return.
That being said, the majority of the time we can look at genetic data (in studies such as the one I posted) and most of the time we can identify people by American racial standards and be correct. This does not mean humans are subspecies or races in a biological sense. What it means is we know that certain genes have much higher frequencies in certain populations, that overlap with what we call "race" and we can use those alleles to determine...
The above paragraph violates rule 2.4 five times in rapid succession. Please do not use this forum to deliberately violate the site's posting rules. If you continue to do this, I will be forced to inactivate your membership.
Regarding the Liu study. It showed that if you select a thousand people only in southern California and ask them their "ethnicity," allowing only the choices of "Black," "White," and "Hispanic," then most Southern California Chicanos turn out to have similar Afro-Euro-NA percentages among themselves. This is in contrast to the huge admixture differences between Hispanics in different parts of the U.S. If you would like to discuss this study, which is about the homogeneity of Socal Chicanos and has nothing to do with being able to identify others, please post your question as a thread-starter in Molecular Anthropology and Genetics after your suspension expires.
Dragon Horse wrote:
If this study is based in terms of "ethnicity" as you define it in the rules it makes little sense. Why would they use: Utah Whites, African Americans, Japanese and Chinese and Nigerians
Neither Price study nor the Liu study mentions any of those groups. If you want comments on some other (third) study that you have not yet identified, please identify it when you post your question as a thread-starter in Molecular Anthropology and Genetics after your suspension expires.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1828 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 10 Dec 2008 13:19 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
If this study is based in terms of "ethnicity" as you define it in the rules it makes little sense. Why would they use: Utah Whites, African Americans, Japanese and Chinese and Nigerians
Neither Price study nor the Liu study mentions any of those groups. If you want comments on some other (third) study that you have not yet identified, please identify it when you post your question as a thread-starter in Molecular Anthropology and Genetics after your suspension expires.
I was not talking about the Liu study in that instance.
I was talking about the one I posted in the thread I started:
Quote:
Effects of cis and trans Genetic Ancestry on Gene Expression in African Americans
Alkes L. Price1,2*, Nick Patterson3, Dustin C. Hancks4, Simon Myers5, David Reich3,6, Vivian G. Cheung4,7,8,9, Richard S. Spielman4*
This is why I was trying to find out how to speak about it, when according to the site rule definition of "race" and "ethnicity" the study itself makes no sense to discuss without rule violation as I stated above in detail.
Quote:
100 African-American (AA) samples from the Coriell HD100AA panel were genotyped on the Affymetrix SNP 6.0 GeneChip. Genotyping was conducted at the Coriell Genotyping and Microarray Center, and the genotype data was obtained from the NIGMS Human Genetic Cell Repository at Coriell (see Web Resources). In addition, genotype data from 60 European (CEU), 60 African (YRI), 45 Chinese (CHB) and 44 Japanese (JPT) samples was obtained from Phase 2 HapMap [6] (see Web Resources). We restricted all analyses to 595,964 autosomal markers with <5% missing data in AA samples and <5% missing data in Phase 2 HapMap samples, with A/T and C/G markers excluded so as to preclude any ambiguity in strand complementarity. Our analyses were not sensitive to the number of markers used. Two AA samples which we identified as cryptically related to other AA samples were excluded from the set of samples used for principal components analysis.
Those samples...are almost always the same.
CEU I said was Utah whites, that is not the case, that is another commonly used sample. CEU represents five European populations by analyzing nuclear family samples from the Swedish, Finnish, Dutch, British and Australian (European ancestry) populations.
This base set is used in most of these studies because it is easily available and does not require any new sampling.
THe Japanese and Chinese ones were likely also standard, but I don't know. Chinese are usually Northern Chinese from Beijing. Japanese are Eastern Japanese from Tokyo.
The only new sampling in the study appears to be African Americans.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1828 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 10 Dec 2008 13:47 Post subject:
I don't have a question about the Liu study:
It says:
Quote:
In this study of 1334
individuals, who self-identified as either African American, European American or Hispanic, we demonstrated that
when the true underlying genetic structure and the self-defined racial/ethnic groups were roughly in agreement
with each other, the self-defined race/ethnicity information was useful in the control of population structure.
Are you still not getting the point?
I really don't understand what is complicated about this.
If I agree with this site, and I do, that there are no "races" as in "biological sub-species" of humans...
That is a seperate issue from what I was saying.
What I'm saying is social race idenitification is subjective, NOT objective.
I'm sure you agree (and most people on this site).
I can still take genetic samples and randomly (subjectively group) people as I please around a given trait.
"co-varying groups" really depends on what degree of resolution you expect.
As you said, there could be thousands of "races" in Africa.
If I used less resolution, I could say there are 100, 50, 10...
Basically I just use less markers that vary until I arrive at a group that roughly coincides with social-race.
This is not "biological race", as in humans are different "species", "subspecies".
This is picking and choosing alleles that I know conform with certain clines of humans.
So I can take the Chinese take the "East Asian skin color gene" and the "European/North African/Arabian" one that causes the majority of light skin and I can say...
Anyone with Gene A belongs to a "race" anyone with Gene B belongs to a "race".
I'm using one gene for the sake of simplicity, but I can use 150-200.
Then I can tell within a certain confidence interval if someone is "black", "white"...etc.
This is why in the Liu study...when people self identified along U.S. racial lines it matched up the the genetic test. Once again this has nothing to do with "biological race".
10 individuals did not fit. That will always happen and in some areas there will be more than 10 people who don't fit, but this framework they are using will probably match up for the vast majority.
You are also right that Latinos also would vary greatly, but Latinos are not a "race" according to the U.S. census...so socially, at least the government recognizes that Latinos are heavily admixed. This is why we have the term "Nonwhite Hispanic", "Nonblack Hispanic".
To make a long story short...scientist can make scientific data conform to their believe in "social race" by being selective with the data.
How else are they able to do admixture testing at all? There are admixture tests done to show relationship between East Asians, one with 200 SNP just came out.
That is obviously using a high degree of resolution. One could argue that they are all "seperate races". I won't argue that, but I'm saying the difference is only "social belief"...the data has not changed at all. We are super imposing "social race" (and nationality, and ethnicity) on genetic data.
This is what I was trying to say yesterday before your overreaction.
Post your question about the Price study in the appropriate thread when your suspension expires.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I don't have a question about the Liu study...
This is why in the Liu study...when people self identified along U.S. racial lines it matched up the the genetic test.
If you do not have a question about the Liu study, then stop refering to it, since you apparently either have not read it or failed to understand it. The subjects were not asked to self-identify along U.S. racial lines. And they were not matched to genetic tests. If you do want to discuss it, then post it in a new thread when your suspension expires. Either way, stop now. This is not the forum to discuss genetic studies.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1828 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 10 Dec 2008 14:16 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
That being said, the majority of the time we can look at genetic data (in studies such as the one I posted) and most of the time we can identify people by American racial standards and be correct. This does not mean humans are subspecies or races in a biological sense. What it means is we know that certain genes have much higher frequencies in certain populations, that overlap with what we call "race" and we can use those alleles to determine...
The above paragraph violates rule 2.4 five times in rapid succession. Please do not use this forum to deliberately violate the site's posting rules. If you continue to do this, I will be forced to inactivate your membership.
Regarding the Liu study. It showed that if you select a thousand people only in southern California and ask them their "ethnicity," allowing only the choices of "Black," "White," and "Hispanic," then most Southern California Chicanos turn out to have similar Afro-Euro-NA percentages among themselves. This is in contrast to the huge admixture differences between Hispanics in different parts of the U.S. If you would like to discuss this study, which is about the homogeneity of Socal Chicanos and has nothing to do with being able to identify others, please post your question as a thread-starter in Molecular Anthropology and Genetics after your suspension expires.
Dragon Horse wrote:
If this study is based in terms of "ethnicity" as you define it in the rules it makes little sense. Why would they use: Utah Whites, African Americans, Japanese and Chinese and Nigerians
Neither Price study nor the Liu study mentions any of those groups. If you want comments on some other (third) study that you have not yet identified, please identify it when you post your question as a thread-starter in Molecular Anthropology and Genetics after your suspension expires.
Frank what was I suspended for again?
You said I was suspended for going off topic in the thread I created.
Then you said:
Quote:
The important general principle here, in my view, is that everyone who posts here is assumed to agree to abide by the rules. If anyone cannot abide by the rules then they are not welcome here. It makes no difference whether DH refuses to verbally "agree to these conditions." If he violates them in practice then his posting privilege will simply be suspended again, for twice as long each time.
Was I suspended for posting off topic or opinion making?
If it was posting off topic.
In PM you said you did not believe my explanation, when I said:
Quote:
You don't believe me?
Why would I refer to a newspaper article as a study?
It was not a study or even an article summarizing a study, it was an article based on various studies and interviews by researches. I never referred to it as a study in and of itself.
It makes no sense for me to do so.
I have posted a few studies on this site and I have always posted the abstract and the link to that abstract. I know the difference between a newspaper article and a "study". Why would I all the sudden use them interchangeably? Kind of obvious NY Times does not post scientific studies.
It is also obvious I can't get a fair hearing here because your method of teaching is "by rote" and if someone does not agree you always act the same way, it is predictable.
This has nothing to do with rules, if it did you would not allow Powell to post "multiracial" in the thread, it makes nonsense, with no quotes even.
How can one be "multiracial" in a thread and not have to prove race exists?
Your rules don't make any sense in any of this and are selectively enforced.
I'm not interested in spending time posting at a site where such overt bias exists.
It was obvious that you THINKING that I was suggesting "race" exists in the biological sense set you off.
Then you tried to create a strawman
When that bate did not work you made up a lie to suspend me.
Then you tried to go back when you got caught, but you could not admit you were wrong so you want to punish me for "not being familiar with the literature" LOL
The only one who doesn't know the literature is you. The argument I was trying to make went over your head and you reacted based on what you "thought".
In any case, none of the details matter to me. What matters is that you are intellectually dishonest and try to be hide behind your El Franco tendencies by selectively enforcing rules.
As my grandfather would have said..."Spanish Negro Please..."
Despite what machismo tells you, you are not that important and this site is not so important as to castrate myself so an intellectual inferior can get his jollies.
Inacativating my account doesn't bother me. Do it, please. There is no difference in not being able to post here and having to post only what makes Frank happy psychologically. Powell is not the only person in need of psychological help. As the Chinese say "Ming baile" (it is all clear white)...
I'm thinking about starting a site, I will make a section called Debunking Frank Sweet.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
