Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [evol-psych] Report on Race and Genetic Determinism

Expand Messages
  • james kohl
    That s not the way it works, in any medical facility I ve worked in. There are tests for sickle-cell and other hemoglobinopathies that provide clues of
    Message 1 of 137 , Oct 20, 2011
      That's not the way it works, in any medical facility I've worked in. There are tests for sickle-cell and other hemoglobinopathies that provide clues of diseases that correlate with clinical presentations that include correlations with race. You're off into the ivory tower medicine that someone else suggested when they predicted a future where results from genetic testing would be readily available at affordable rates. For those who wish to include their predictions in this discussion, I can only say: "Dream on." As I indicated, I work with this sort of thing every day.
       
      James V. Kohl

      --- On Thu, 10/20/11, Joao Sousa <j.d.sousa@...> wrote:

      From: Joao Sousa <j.d.sousa@...>
      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Report on Race and Genetic Determinism
      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, October 20, 2011, 11:03 AM

       
      Jim,

      Any attempts to cure diseases should be welcome, and the possibility of taking into account "race" (however this is defined) should not be a taboo subject. That said, the approach is likely to be heavily flawed, and even dangerous. Take the example of the sickle cell gene, the most often cited case of a race-related genetic difference, coming in all textbooks. It's very plausible that future treatments against malaria may be dependent on the presence/absence of this gene. And the gene is widely believed "to be in Blacks and not Whites". Yet, looking more closely, the above statement is oversimplistic. In reality, the gene has about 0% frequency in Whites, 18% frequency in the Africans most exposed to malaria (e.g., Congo basin), and 1% in Nilotic Africans (e.g., the Tutsis). These figures are from Motulsky et al. 1966, in his pioneer study. Then, if you are a doctor, and you see an African in front of you, what should you do? Give the treatment, just after looking him/her face, or do a genetic analysis to figure out if the gene is indeed present? Since all treatments are likely to have bad side effects, the latter seems to be the only right option, since the majority of Africans, even in Congo, don't have the so-called "gene typical of Blacks".


      I agree, Artemis. I also continue to wonder how social scientists can deny what is so very obviously important to the study of diseases and disorders. Is my problem in this regard that I am so entrenched in my position as a medical laboratory scientist that I cannot understand why anyone would ask the question: "What's the purpose of your understanding of racial differentiations at the genetic level (no matter how great or small)?" Or is the problem perhaps the lack of understanding by social scientists of biology?
       
      James V. Kohl

      --- On Wed, 10/19/11, artemistroy <artemispub@...> wrote:

      From: artemistroy <artemispub@...>
      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Report on Race and Genetic Determinism
      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2011, 11:35 PM

       
      I believe it's important with respect to the study of diseases and disorders, prescreening for risk, hereditary diseases, etc. For example, studies on anti-social and violent behavior. Most of these studies have been posted here over time. The researchers are not concerned about "social" implications.

      Artemis

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams" <clarencew@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Mark,
      >
      > OK, there are different opinions about the genetics of race. Before
      > pouring over those differences, though, let me ask you this: What's the
      > purpose of your understanding of racial differentiations at the genetic
      > level (no matter how great or small)? That is, so what? So what if
      > your view that races are strongly differentiated along genetic lines is
      > correct? A related question is this: Are you a genetic determinist?
      >
      > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, mark hubey <hubeev@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Here is the explanation. Notice the end, things like " It is not true
      > that
      > > ``racial classification is . . . of virtually no
      > > genetic or taxonomic significance''. It is not true, as Nature
      > > claimed, that ``two random individuals from any one group are
      > > almost as different as any two random individuals from
      > > the entire world'', and it is not true, as the New Scientist
      > > claimed, that ``two individuals are different because they are
      > > individuals, not because they belong to different races'' and
      > > that ``you can't predict someone's race by their
      > genes''. Such
      > > statements might only be true if all the characters studied were
      > > independent, which they are not.
      > > Lewontin used his analysis of variation to mount an unjustified
      > > assault on classification, which he deplored for social
      > > reasons."
      > >
      > > AGain, "social reasons" often translates to PC.
      > >
      > >
      > > http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Don Zimmerman dwzimm@ wrote:
      > >
      > > > **
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, R A Fonda rafonda@
      > > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > > Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, revealed that the vast
      > > > > majority of human genetic variation occurs within, rather than
      > between,
      > > > > groups []. His work and that of others have led to a general
      > consensus
      > > > > among biologists that race is not a scientific concept but a
      > social one
      > > > > and that efforts to include it as a meaningful category in science
      > can
      > > > > be misleading. <
      > > > >
      > > > > He who is known by the term "Lewontin's Fallacy". But perhaps
      > Williams
      > > > > thinks he is an 'authority' on race and genetics?
      > > >
      > > > DWZ:
      > > > Where I come from, Lewontin is highly regarded as an evolutionary
      > > > biologist. Perhaps people interested in the interface of evolution
      > and
      > > > psychology would do well to study his criticisms closely.
      > > >
      > > > Best regards,
      > > >
      > > > Donald W. Zimmerman
      > > > Vancouver, BC, Canada
      > > > dwzimm@
      > > > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --
      > > Regards,
      > > Mark Hubey
      > >
      > > "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is
      > opinion." —
      > > Robert Heinlein--Spoken by character Lazarus Long in Time Enough for
      > Love
      > > (1973). In Leon E. Stover, Heinlein (1987)
      > >
      >


    • JVKohl
      Of course I do, Edgar. Thank you for asking, after weeks of discussion across other threads that include Sonny William s race denial, and my mention of
      Message 137 of 137 , Nov 2 11:06 AM
        Of course I do, Edgar. Thank you for asking, after weeks of discussion across other threads that include Sonny William's race denial, and my mention of interspecies breeding among ancient hominids. How could any medical professional not accept the biological concept of races? Again, you demonstrate your ignorance.

        James V. Kohl


        On 11/2/2011 7:18 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
         

        So you, not being an idiot, do agree that stepwise evolution did result in the races? And thus you do accept the biological concept of races?


        Edgar



        On Nov 1, 2011, at 11:04 PM, JVKohl wrote:

         

        Edgar,

        Comments like this one continue to demonstrate your ignorance. The authors of the articles I have cited are the molecular biologists saying that novel cell types and de novo human genes for brain development are not likely to be the result of stepwise evolution. Only an idiot would say that stepwise evolution does not result in races. If that's what you're saying in your model, I apologize for calling you an idiot. What's your model for the evolution of races?

        Jim 

        On 10/21/2011 7:35 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:

         

        Perhaps Jim can tell us how and why God created the races because they couldn't be the result of stepwise evolution?


        Edgar


        On Oct 21, 2011, at 7:41 AM, james kohl wrote:

         

        With "racists" it may be just about skin color.
         
        James V. Kohl

        --- On Fri, 10/21/11, artemistroy <artemispub@...> wrote:

        From: artemistroy <artemispub@...>
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Report on Race and Genetic Determinism
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Friday, October 21, 2011, 6:40 AM

         
        It's never just about skin color.

        Artemis

        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams"<clarencew@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Artemis,
        >
        > Of course an individual's genome is important in medicine, and there are
        > similarities among human groups segmented by geographic location. For
        > instance, African-Americans are accurately delimited by geographic place
        > of modern origin, and they share some similarities in genomes that are
        > important to medical applications. Genomes that share some similarities
        > would be expected among humans living in close proximity to one another.
        >
        > What studies have been posted here that discuss genes and anti-social
        > behavior (violence is included) and these genome similarities mentioned
        > above? I don't recall any. I remember a few revealing that more
        > black-skinned than white-skinned people in America engage in anti-social
        > behavior, but...well, but what does that have to do with a causal
        > relationship between the genes for black skin and anti-social behavior?
        >
        >
        > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "artemistroy"
        > <artemispub@> wrote:
        > >
        > > I believe it's important with respect to the study of diseases and
        > disorders, prescreening for risk, hereditary diseases, etc. For example,
        > studies on anti-social and violent behavior. Most of these studies have
        > been posted here over time. The researchers are not concerned about
        > "social" implications.
        > >
        > > Artemis
        > >
        > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com,
        > "clarence_sonny_williams" clarencew@ wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Mark,
        > > >
        > > > OK, there are different opinions about the genetics of race. Before
        > > > pouring over those differences, though, let me ask you this: What's
        > the
        > > > purpose of your understanding of racial differentiations at the
        > genetic
        > > > level (no matter how great or small)? That is, so what? So what if
        > > > your view that races are strongly differentiated along genetic lines
        > is
        > > > correct? A related question is this: Are you a genetic determinist?
        > > >
        > > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, mark hubey <hubeev@>
        > > > wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Here is the explanation. Notice the end, things like " It is not
        > true
        > > > that
        > > > > ``racial classification is . . . of virtually no
        > > > > genetic or taxonomic significance''. It is not true, as Nature
        > > > > claimed, that ``two random individuals from any one group are
        > > > > almost as different as any two random individuals from
        > > > > the entire world'', and it is not true, as the New Scientist
        > > > > claimed, that ``two individuals are different because they are
        > > > > individuals, not because they belong to different races'' and
        > > > > that ``you can't predict someone's race by their
        > > > genes''. Such
        > > > > statements might only be true if all the characters studied were
        > > > > independent, which they are not.
        > > > > Lewontin used his analysis of variation to mount an unjustified
        > > > > assault on classification, which he deplored for social
        > > > > reasons."
        > > > >
        > > > > AGain, "social reasons" often translates to PC.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Don Zimmerman dwzimm@ wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > > **
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, R A Fonda
        > rafonda@
        > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, revealed that the
        > vast
        > > > > > > majority of human genetic variation occurs within, rather than
        > > > between,
        > > > > > > groups []. His work and that of others have led to a general
        > > > consensus
        > > > > > > among biologists that race is not a scientific concept but a
        > > > social one
        > > > > > > and that efforts to include it as a meaningful category in
        > science
        > > > can
        > > > > > > be misleading. <
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > He who is known by the term "Lewontin's Fallacy". But perhaps
        > > > Williams
        > > > > > > thinks he is an 'authority' on race and genetics?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > DWZ:
        > > > > > Where I come from, Lewontin is highly regarded as an
        > evolutionary
        > > > > > biologist. Perhaps people interested in the interface of
        > evolution
        > > > and
        > > > > > psychology would do well to study his criticisms closely.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Best regards,
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Donald W. Zimmerman
        > > > > > Vancouver, BC, Canada
        > > > > > dwzimm@
        > > > > > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --
        > > > > Regards,
        > > > > Mark Hubey
        > > > >
        > > > > "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is
        > > > opinion." —
        > > > > Robert Heinlein--Spoken by character Lazarus Long in Time Enough
        > for
        > > > Love
        > > > > (1973). In Leon E. Stover, Heinlein (1987)
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >






      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.