Science is so racist!

[sumskilz]

I was just looking up one of these studies to post in another thread when I noticed the other. Taken together they have some pretty serious implications. The authors of each of the studies can’t possibly not be aware of each other’s work, and yet everyone seems to be quiet about the issue. Not surprising really, since the racist label can ruin a career, but I think it’s more racist to ignore the issue. If there is really a causation happening here, which would make sense, then there may be a way to medically intervene. It doesn’t even have to be a racial issue because it is individuals who have the genetic variants regardless of how they are distributed across populations.

That said, it is an interesting demonstration of how variations between populations that are small at the mean may still lead to large differences in representation at the extremes so we shouldn't assume completely societal causes. Though this is obviously not an issue that is completely deterministic since there are a small number of individuals with very small repeat lengths who have apparently not committed any violent crimes, so then we might ask what environmental factors affected them positively.







I assume you can all see the pattern I saw.

Source Studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18365230

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12202660

[6644kp]

Humanity is not one despite what is being repeated like a broken record by the modern liberal media. The three major 'races' are actually three subspecies. And the only reason they are just sub-species is because they only split up around 35,000 to 70,000 years ago and thus still have the ability to produce fertile offspring. If there was another 100,000 years of isolation then even the ability to breed fertile offspring would be lost. Then at best you would get Ligers.

The anatomical differences are so clear even a child can tell them apart there is just so much politics involved with the issue nowadays its social and professional suicide to speak out about it.

[Makrell]

I doubt it would be ligers or Mules after 100 000 years, it would take longer. But as of now there is no chance of that happening, with globalization and race mixing and stuff.

[Verr]

I doubt it would be ligers or Mules after 100 000 years, it would take longer. But as of now there is no chance of that happening, with globalization and race mixing and stuff.

the real evil thing about this, that you create expectations people cant fulfill.

you tell the black he is just as smart as a withy in science and if they are not it is their fault.
its more fun so suprise others with a performance better then expected then to fail.

being considered stupid and suprise with smartness is fun while the opposite is not.

[6644kp]

I doubt it would be ligers or Mules after 100 000 years, it would take longer. But as of now there is no chance of that happening, with globalization and race mixing and stuff.

Well how long would it take? The lion has so far existed for 800,000 years. Whilst tigers have exited for ~1,700,000 years. Definitively a big gap and both very successful species after all Negroids have existed for only 200,000 years and Caucasoids and Mongoloids for only 35,000 years and Neanderthals managed only what 500,000 years before they outright went extinct.
Its is interesting that the major physical changes that would define a new species happens in bursts however to cut the last links for the new species with its closest relatives can take much longer.

Say species A suffered climate or environmental change and their numbers fell, the new conditions favored some of species A mutated descendants and in typically evolutionary burst fashion these mutated descendants form the new species B. But of course not all of Species A offspring have that mutation and species A survives but the changes have reduced them to a niche role. How long would it take for species B not be able to produce fertile offspring with species A?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

This is how I see it: It's based on bone structure and physiology passed down through DNA that creates Subspecies, as mentioned above.

There are three "Races" of Humanity: Europoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Although Europoid and Mongoloid mixed quite often (Think Central Asia: Khazakstan, the Altai, etc, and Eastern United States where The Europoids provided admixture to the incoming Mongoloid Native Americans). However, Negroid was rather thoroughly separated by the Sahara and Saudi Arabian deserts.

[sumskilz]

Globalization has changed the way admixture takes place, but as we learn more about our genetic past, we’re discovering interesting admixture and migration patterns that might be surprising. For example, until recently I always assumed that the lightest skin tones in Europe evolved among the first hunter-gatherers since they had been in Europe the longest and so would have more time for those alleles to arise and be selected for. However, that’s not the case.

Here’s a simplified version of Europe’s admixture history:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Farming technology allowed people from the Middle East to expand out of the Middle-East and into Europe at the expense of the native hunter-gatherers. Modern Europeans are mostly descended from a mixture of these two groups, but it was actually the farmers from the Middle-East via the Balkans who were lighter-complected. The hunter-gatherers were completely absorbed. There is no living representative population, though their DNA is a big part of the European genome. Sardinians are the best representatives of those early farmers, but of course their DNA is also a major component of the European substrate.

Here you can see how late Neolithic Scandinavians were descended from earlier Europeans who were unlike any living population, while Neolithic Scandinavian Farmers were more similar to Sardinians while some admixture with the hunter-gatherers has brought them a little closer:

[Ludicus]

but it was actually the farmers from the Middle-East.. who were lighter-complected.

The reason is...
A vitamin D deficiency? (cereal rich diet)
------
Another question: a pre-agriculture coalescence of the light skin allele of SLC24A5 is irrelevant? just asking.

[sumskilz]

The reason is...
A vitamin D deficiency? (cereal rich diet)

That would make sense anyway, but the what is usually easier than the why.

Another question: a pre-agriculture coalescence of the light skin allele of SLC24A5 is irrelevant? just asking.

The hunter gatherers didn't have the light skin variants of SLC24A5 or SLC45A5, but the farmers from the Middle-East had both. I think this might have messed up some of the models which inferred genetic history based on modern samples, but of course actual ancient samples are more reliable than models.

[Copperknickers II]

Its interesting, but it doesn't really mean anything when its only in the context of African-Americans vs White Americans. African Americans are not necessarily representative of all black people, and there are plenty of other populations in the USA which had a similar history and in whom we can see the same problems: i.e. some white populations in the South, and also Native Americans.

[sumskilz]

Its interesting, but it doesn't really mean anything when its only in the context of African-Americans vs White Americans. African Americans are not necessarily representative of all black people, and there are plenty of other populations in the USA which had a similar history and in whom we can see the same problems: i.e. some white populations in the South, and also Native Americans.

The phenomenon of lower AR-CAG repeat lengths being associated with violent crime is not limited to the comparison between White and Black Americans. Figure 1 is taken from a study in which all subjects were Indian.

If it only involved African-Americans and White Americans, one could interpret the data as follows: African-Americans have on average lower AR-CAG repeat rates, African-Americans are more likely to be convicted of violent crimes for societal reasons (racism, poverty, etc.), and thus people who have on average lower AR-CAG repeat rates could just be more likely to be convicted of crimes because of environmental/societal factors, but that’s likely not the case because the evidence from India is independent of those environmental factors whatever they may be.

Then there is this issue:



African Americans are an admixed African/European population. Is the source of the lower repeat counts something that has somehow been selected for in North America during slavery or is it from sub-Saharan Africa (more likely) in which case the prevalence of individuals with this genetic propensity for violence should be even higher there. Add that to the incidence of the 2 repeat “warrior gene” being prevalent in 5.5% of individuals of sub-Saharan African ancestry (compared to 1% of European ancestry and almost non-existence in those of East Asian ancestry) and you've got a real problem that certainly wasn't caused by colonialism.

Again though, seeing that some individuals with very low AR-CAG repeat lengths in Figure 1 didn't commit any violent crimes demonstrates that environment/culture can play a role. Also note that almost 16% of White American men have low repeat lengths.

[Phier]

Again though, seeing that some individuals with very low AR-CAG repeat lengths in Figure 1 didn't commit any violent crimes demonstrates that environment/culture can play a role. Also note that almost 16% of White American men have low repeat lengths.

Or they just weren't caught

But on a serious note, I wonder how long one would retain their position at a university if they published this as a complete paper? If it went viral? Three weeks tops.

[sumskilz]

However, Negroid was rather thoroughly separated by the Sahara and Saudi Arabian deserts.

The Sahara and parts of the Arabian desert were grassland 7,000 years ago. Although at other times the deserts were even more impassable than they are today.

But on a serious note, I wonder how long one would retain their position at a university if they published this as a complete paper? If it went viral? Three weeks tops.

And then be limited to self-publishing.

Depending on your perspective this data could reflect negatively on White males as well. The lower repeat lengths lead to hyper-masculine characteristics, and hyper-masculine characteristics behaviorally lead to more violence and rape. On the other hand there are many White males with considerably higher than typical repeat lengths, which may explain the prevalence of this disorder:

[Phier]

See now THAT is a study you could do without repercussion. I mean what are they going to do? Pout at you and hope you call?

[Copperknickers II]

The phenomenon of lower AR-CAG repeat lengths being associated with violent crime is not limited to the comparison between White and Black Americans. Figure 1 is taken from a study in which all subjects were Indian.

If it only involved African-Americans and White Americans, one could interpret the data as follows: African-Americans have on average lower AR-CAG repeat rates, African-Americans are more likely to be convicted of violent crimes for societal reasons (racism, poverty, etc.), and thus people who have on average lower AR-CAG repeat rates could just be more likely to be convicted of crimes because of environmental/societal factors, but that’s likely not the case because the evidence from India is independent of those environmental factors whatever they may be.

I may be entirely wrong here, but is it not possible that a similar thing could be happening in India to what you just posited? Maybe formerly low caste Indians, who might also have on average lower CAG repeat rates for historical reasons, are more likely to be convicted for similar societal reasons.

Then there is this issue:



African Americans are an admixed African/European population. Is the source of the lower repeat counts something that has somehow been selected for in North America during slavery or is it from sub-Saharan Africa (more likely) in which case the prevalence of individuals with this genetic propensity for violence should be even higher there. Add that to the incidence of the 2 repeat “warrior gene” being prevalent in 5.5% of individuals of sub-Saharan African ancestry (compared to 1% of European ancestry and almost non-existence in those of East Asian ancestry) and you've got a real problem that certainly wasn't caused by colonialism.

Again though, seeing that some individuals with very low AR-CAG repeat lengths in Figure 1 didn't commit any violent crimes demonstrates that environment/culture can play a role. Also note that almost 16% of White American men have low repeat lengths.

All subsaharan Africans, or just West Africans? Because colonialism had just as much of an impact in West Africa as it did in the Americas (indeed, some West Africans are actually descended from Afro-Caribbean slaves that were resettled there.)

[sumskilz]

I may be entirely wrong here, but is it not possible that a similar thing could be happening in India to what you just posited? Maybe formerly low caste Indians, who might also have on average lower CAG repeat rates for historical reasons, are more likely to be convicted for similar societal reasons.

It's an interesting speculation. It seems a long shot, but they didn't include the data that would allow for your idea to be dismissed so it is a possibility. One reason why I call it a long shot is because the connection between hyper-masculinity and violence is supported by other research. The low repeat gene has basically the same affect as injected testosterone - too much is not good with regard to aggression.

All subsaharan Africans, or just West Africans? Because colonialism had just as much of an impact in West Africa as it did in the Americas (indeed, some West Africans are actually descended from Afro-Caribbean slaves that were resettled there.)

West Africans is probably a safer assumption since that is the source of most African ancestry in the Americas (you can see that in the plot I posted). While most Bantu language speakers have a similar genetic profile to West Africans, there are populations that are remarkably different, and people of the Horn of Africa - Somalis, Ethiopians, etc have as much similarity to the Middle Easterners as to West Africans.

[Condottiere 40K]

A lot like pinpointing genetic factors involved in differentiating intelligence.

[Ludicus]

Cheng reported that one amino acid difference in the gene SLC24A5 is a key contributor to the skin color difference between Europeans and West Africans. Is is incorrect to say that SLC24A5 is the mutation that turned Europeans from black to white?

[sumskilz]

Cheng reported that one amino acid difference in the gene SLC24A5 is a key contributor to the skin color difference between Europeans and West Africans. Is is incorrect to say that SLC24A5 is the mutation that turned Europeans from black to white?

The derived version of SLC24A5 is not the only gene responsible for light skin in Europeans, but it's the one that makes the biggest difference.

This is the derived (light skin) version's distribution:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There is also the derived version of SLC45A5. The ancestral (dark skin) version of SLC24A5 is basically non-existent in most European populations. And the ancestral (dark skin) version of SLC45A5 is very rare in most European populations. All the European hunter gatherers tested so far only had the dark skin versions of both genes. Versions of TYR, OCA2, and KITLG also contribute to lighter skin.

Although European hunter gatherers had the genes for blue eyes, their skin and hair color genes were pretty much the same as these people:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

These reconstructions were done before the genetic analysis so light skin and hair was assumed (you have to imagine them dark complected now). The facial shapes are still accurate though:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The most recent reconstruction sketch:

[Ludicus]

Thanks