The human races have different DNA...

In DNA era, New worries about Prejudice

www.nytimes.com

When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.

But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain difference

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 11-11-2007 by j_kalin]

It appears that we are not all alike under the skin. DNA studies have revealed that there are genetic variations that not only account for diseases, but also for traits such as skin color, intelligence, etc. Not surprisingly, these differences are clustered in certain racial groups.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Interesting that working with DNA decoding is bringing a new array of issue that never were a factor before.

Perhaps this will bring the DNA enhancements of the future populations to eliminate genetic traits that will become problematic, specially targeting the ethnic populations that are the most affected ones.

Or. . . this will become a wet dreams for pharmaceuticals to start the production of medications to target different ethnic groups because they know what pre disposition they will have to diseases and ailments.

Well, it may be politically incorrect, but we all know this to be true from our daily encounters with different races. Many blacks seem to be physically/muscularly endowed with perfect teeth, but lower on the type of IQ that creates technology, higher on the type of IQ that crestes oraters, ie, more black preachers and athletes than physicists. Asians seem to be more intelligent in terms of organization, engineering, Caucasians seem to be good at social organizing, scientific creativity but physically on the degenerated side. Obviously there are different blood types and external features, which tend to run within the races. All these traits require DNA differences. We shall have to broaden our idea of what it means to be "normal" and, for that matter, to be human. Chimpanzees are so close to us genetically, that some people think they should be included in the genus homo; if we find that humans vary substantially between races, we have to give this idea more credibility.

Biology Lesson. EVERYBODY has different DNA.

Speculating on the flaws of an individual due to his physical DNA/ethnic origin is misguided and insulting.

The following is taken directly from the article itself.

Nonscientists are already beginning to stitch together highly speculative conclusions about the historically charged subject of race and intelligence from the new biological data. Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans.

No matter that the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed, or that other high I.Q. snippets are more common in Africans, or that hundreds or thousands of others may also affect intelligence, or that their combined influence might be dwarfed by environmental factors.

There is no clear link yet, if I read the above (and the article itself) correctly. I present another quote:

“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.”

One should be careful when spreading information like this. The article was a direct reference to the tendency of "Nonscientists" (another direct quote) to throw together conclusions such as the ones earlier presented in this thread. If you, OP, wish to speculate or conclude that genes account for intelligence differences between races, then you should not have referenced an article which clearly explains that there isn't such a proven difference.

And on a personal note, I will add; Shame on you.

[edit on 11/11/2007 by Mr Jackdaw]

Good find.

Be careful, however, as Earth2 has just recently been terribly berated for proposing a THEORY that different races were spawned from different planets.


You are sure to be called a bigot and racist by some of the more ignorant amongst us before long.


Jasn

I am of the opinion that IQ tests perpetuate 'rascism' and 'intolerance' because they are culturally bound, that is, they are developed within the framework of a particular 'world view'.

While it may be enticing to some to explain their intolerance by way of DNA etc, I think it is far more profitable to celebrate our difference and realise that there are no seperate races, we are all part of the human race, that is, while there may be surfacial differences caused by environment, we are essentially the same (same same but different) and cultural stereotypes are just that, and can be broken.

reply to post by j_kalin

holy cow!! are you gonna get hammered for this one...let me get my popcorn, this is gonna be good.

reply to post by AotearoaSon


I agree with you, and I think this classification of people into "valuable" and "not valuable" based on IQ (because lets face it, thats how its used in todays society) will ultimately lead to a society where we focus more on the differences between people than on the similarities.

Anyone who thinks IQ is the most important thing in the world should consider what qualities they pick their friends on. There are so many other human qualities much more important than IQ in my opinion.



[edit on 11-11-2007 by Copernicus]

Would it be out of line to say humanity is like dogs, cattle, horses, etc.? I mean for instance everything from Pomeranians to Great Danes are dogs. Angus, Buffalo and Holsteins are all cattle. Theyre all different. Some have advantages and weaknesses that others dont have. Humanity unlike livestock and pets domesticates itself and breeds primarily based on identity and community. I dont think that is racist. Besides most people would never be able to be the human equivalent of AKC certified. The vast majority of people are not completely white, black, etc. Is there any single dog, horse or cow that is superior to any other breed? In a sense no single breed of human is superior either. We are all special in our own way.


Now cultural advantages and weaknesses that's a whole other story. Plenty of good and bad cultures out there.

I will begin by apologizing to the OP for the conclusion of my previous post. Chiding you was a matter of personal opinion and should have remained that way. For the record, I am not accusing you of being a bigot, and I will not do so unless you or anyone presents such behavior as is characteristic of bigots (in my experience). In fact, I commend you for bringing up this topic for discussion. I quite enjoyed the article, myself.

My caution remains.
The easiest interpretation to your post is one that portrays you (to some) as a bigot. You should be careful in expressing your opinions concerning 'touchy' subjects like these. Remember too that your comparisons are inaccurate for other reasons: due to known factors, it wasn't uncommon for African Americans to be known as preachers and athletes rather than as scientists until recent times -- 'scientists' being the invisible yardstick used here for measuring intelligence. It may be a matter of personal opinion (I have no physical proof), but African American as orators may be inspired by their ethnic roots, where bellowing songs in unison was part of a communal experience -- such as farming, and other work. As I understand it, such traditions crossed the seas with slavery, and eventually evolved to the Negro Spirituals that some know today. Many African American pastors retain the zeal and, I'm sure, mannerisms of their predecessors -- the earlier converts -- which is why they sometimes (physically) act and sound the same behind the pulpit. That African Americans seem to 'do it best' may be a matter of forced evolution, so to speak; Christianity became the new "hope" when consecutive generations of slaves completely lost touch with their traditional beliefs, and didn't have anything else to believe. Zeal would inevitably arise due to their deplorable conditions; heaven was all that was left to anticipate.
In the same way, strong physique isn't unusual when you consider the origin of African Americans on this continent. They were brought here for labor; from my understanding, work can tone muscles -- especially farm work (see "cowboys"). That there are muscular African Americans now may not necessarily be genetic. For instance, I can make the following arbitrary observation:
Low income neighborhoods were (until recently) predominantly African American. 'Low-income' generally means apartment buildings and public transportation. Both generally mean flights of horrid stairs (if you live in NY -- otherwise, just stairs) and running after the bus. I'll leave you to your conclusions on the effects this may have on one's physique.

Finding 'racial' genetic differences now (thanks to Technology) does not require a radical rethinking of what it means to be 'human' either, I don't think. Whether or not we consider chimpanzees to be 'human' doesn't change anything; we're not going to start hiring them in industries because they won't be applying to any. Besides, I don't see how racial genetic differences suddenly necessitate the involvement of chimpanzees into the 'human family' --

Unless...

No. I won't jump to conclusions.

As a society we should be comfortable with the fact that things exist as they are. Scientists theorize that close to the bottom of existence, where atoms form, there is such unbelievable chaos that it's a wonder that anything stable can come of it. Yet we sit here on perfectly solid chairs, communicating these ideas on solid computers, unable to tell the difference. We can't conclude that genetic differences underscore rare or nonexistent social symptoms that we have made up to label ourselves with.

Besides, who are we to measure intelligence?

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/11/2007 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by Mr Jackdaw


Your response was somewhat hostile and unnecessarily so; I gave a few examples of both positive and negative traits I personally have noticed among many racial groups. I don't propose that those variations make one better than the other. I reported that the DNA is different between races and it is. The NT Times is a notoriously liberal and slanted paper and they are trying to stir the pot with the title of their article; however, the fact remains that there are genes linked to brain development that are present in varying degrees in different racial populations. The thrust of MY statement was that we must take a broader view of what constitutes normality in order to avoid the misguided attempts by some to "fix" the variations that are being discovered between different groups.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by j_kalin]

i'm glad that the advancement in understanding DNA is slowly but surely proving these genetic differences.

it's too bad people get offensive/defensive about this sort of discussion... but really, this article is telling us something that people have already established on their own. at least now with the science of the issue coming out, people will have to start accepting it as a fact. I know this article doesn't cement this as a fact yet, but I believe as we continue to understand these sorts of things, it will soon become fact.

it's obvious to me that different races of people carry down certain traits.
guess what? asians are bad drivers. blacks are loud/physical people.

is anyone surprised? did anyone actually think these things we have all been observing has been a product of nurture time and time again....? what is the problem with recognizing these stereotypes?

Originally posted by bizone
what is the problem with recognizing these stereotypes?

The problem with recognising these stereotypes is that they then become validated by the collective.

It's like saying "Asians' are bad drivers, 'blacks' are loud and physical" and that mindset becomes entrenched and then becomes our REASON for dislike.

I really don't understand the purpose of including intelligence or IQ in this type of debate. There is no proof that any particular race is less intelligent than any other or that DNA plays a role when it comes to this issue.

To the contrary there is many, many examples of how can any human being can learn any particular task if properly educated. That to me is the biggest trait that we as human have, our ability to learn, and all races have that, making all this talk about intelligence, DNA and races completly absurd IMO.

Originally posted by AotearoaSon

Originally posted by bizone
what is the problem with recognizing these stereotypes?

The problem with recognising these stereotypes is that they then become validated by the collective.

It's like saying "Asians' are bad drivers, 'blacks' are loud and physical" and that mindset becomes entrenched and then becomes our REASON for dislike.

in my experience both have been true. hence the conclusion. does it apply to all? no. does it apply enough to merit a conclusion? for me, yes!

ADDING... drawing these conclusions do not make me like or dislike anyone. if anything, it makes me more prepared for or aware of possible situations.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by bizone]

I realize my post came off as hostile, hence my subsequent apology. I generally avoid discussions like these, as I'm aware that heated opinions are more than often inevitable.

Part of my intention of making this final post was to address bizone's post; however, AotearoaSon (thank you) has catered to, as I thought, the most abrasive statement in his post.

On that note, I will vacate this discussion permanently. As before, I was hasty in chiding you for your interpretation of the article, although I still caution you for the sake of your future interactions with other posters of this thread -- particularly, those who might decide to prove either more defensive or hostile than you may have perceived me to be.

Originally posted by Bunch
I really don't understand the purpose of including intelligence or IQ in this type of debate. There is no proof that any particular race is less intelligent than any other or that DNA plays a role when it comes to this issue.

To the contrary there is many, many examples of how can any human being can learn any particular task if properly educated. That to me is the biggest trait that we as human have, our ability to learn, and all races have that, making all this talk about intelligence, DNA and races completly absurd IMO.

yeah, there's no proof about intelligence among races.... except for all of the data collected by school systems worldwide that reflect lower scores on average by african americans. lol.