If we adopt this pragmatic approach (which is fine) and ignore the philosophy/ontology, you are still left with explaining how race is useful to science. So far no 'race realist' has ever managed to explain what use race has. Take for example medicine - race has no utility whatsoever: "These big groups that we characterize as races are too heterogeneous to lump together in a scientific way. If you're doing a DNA study to look for markers for a particular disease, you can't use 'Caucasians' as a group. They're too diverse." (Naggert, 2000) Arbitrarily dividing humans into Caucasoids, Negroids and Mongoloids is not useful in medicine - since these groupings are too heterogeneous.
that russian dna is not celtic though, it is from the wave of germanic romans that conquered the celtic tribes of the basque region, it is only in ginger celts, who arent actually celts but scandanavians who raped celt tribes.
Keith Norris............"Groups that self-identify as a given race may share biologic characteristics that originated as a result of shared ancestry. For example, persons of African descent in the United States who self-identify as black or African American are more likely to have certain biologic traits that were ancestrally protective in Africa, such as heterozygosity for sickle cell disease, which helps to protect against malaria, or the newly described APOL1 gene, which protects against trypanosomiasis (Science, 329:841-45, 2010). Of course, the allele that conveys malaria protection in heterozygotes causes sickle cell disease in those carrying two copies, and persons homozygous for the protective form of APOL1 are at increased risk for kidney failure. Thus, in settings where malaria and trypanosomiasis are rare, these biological traits are disadvantageous and may impart adverse health consequences. Other examples of biology correlating with race include the disparity among racial groups in the incidence of adverse effects noted with the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, a class of drugs commonly used to treat hypertension and congestive heart failure. When these drugs are used, there are higher rates of angioedema in blacks than nonblacks, and higher rates of medication discontinuation owing to drug-induced cough in both blacks and Asians. More recently, colleagues and I reported racial and age differences in mortality rates for persons with end-stage renal disease treated with dialysis: most US minorities, especially at the higher end of the age spectrum, paradoxically showed increased longevity (Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 8:953-61, 2013). Further, Cassianne Robinson-Cohen at the University of Washington and colleagues found that lower serum vitamin D concentrations were associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease among white or Chinese participants, but not among black or Hispanic participants (JAMA, 310:179-88, 2013). The role of race in medicine These and related findings clearly support the presence of race-related variations in disease risk, disease progression, treatment response, and treatment-related side effects. As such, there remains an important role for race/ethnicity, as a marker for ancestry and often for culture, as well as other sociodemographic traits, in characterizing patients with respect to medical care. These variables can be helpful in understanding key aspects of health beliefs, health behaviors, access to care, and likely response to therapeutic interventions. At the same time, we must be mindful that generalizations filtered through the lens of race/ethnicity and other sociodemographic factors should not be used indiscriminately. In the setting of increasing admixture within and across racial/ethnic groups in a diversifying United States, there is a lack of concordance between today’s patients and traditional racial stereotypes. Fortunately, genomic data are already beginning to predict disease risk and treatment response, and advances will no doubt continue to improve their accuracy. The ultimate goal is to arrive at a point where medicine becomes so personalized that it is driven from a “fingerprint” of one’s biologic makeup, not from racial typecasting. We are still several steps away from such a reality. For now, the inclusion of race and ethnicity in medical research, like age, gender, and other characteristics, inches us closer to a system of personalized medicine that will truly embrace the multiple dimensions that influence our health and well-being". Keith Norris is a nephrologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. He was the founding principal investigator for the first NIH–funded national translational research network dedicated to reducing health disparities, and he currently serves as the editor in chief of Ethnicity and Disease and as an associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...ved=0ahUKEwiZpZDPiIfMAhWM5SYKHSj6ALkQgQMIGzAA Medicine's Race Problem http://www.hoover.org/research/medicines-race-problem
Could your ethnic background determine the drug treatments you receive? Believe it or not, race is sometimes considered when predicting how patients will respond to different medications. http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/pharmacogenetics-personalized-medicine-and-race-744 The case for race based medicine: http://healthland.time.com/2013/11/01/the-hpv-vaccine-and-the-case-for-race-based-medicine/
I do not have time for political correctness....................http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race What the politically correct do not get................Small changes in genetic code leads to big differences in organisms - See more at: https://www.nasw.org/article/small-...ig-differences-organisms#sthash.4Lm12Yfr.dpuf A good example is there is a very small difference between the dna of a chimpanzee and a human....but what a difference that small difference makes. Yet the devotees of pc try to make a big deal out of the fact there is a very small difference in the dna between negroes and caucasoids.
Me, ginger isn't a Celtic trait, it is found wherever the Scandinavian tribes invaded. That's why it more common in irleland than Wales. Real Celts in Ireland and Wales are called black Celts as they descend from blacks of north Africa and why we allied with them against barbarian hordes of Germany and the Romans. Our biggest enemy is the Romans ( america)
You have it the wrong way around; belief in race is politically correct. Race and Political Correctness. Brace, C. Loring American Psychologist, Vol 50 8, Aug 1995, 725-726. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/50/8/725/
How dna can change your world view>>>> http://www.abroadintheyard.com/ways-dna-test-can-change-your-world-view-rac/ 100 differences between the races.https://europeanmediacentre.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/100-facts-for-differences-between-human-races/ Race is a valid taxonomic construct>>>>https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...KWQHipStuJmNwdebQ&sig2=5POHl2lVn5sN1LF78HcV-w
New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional.In the decade since the decoding of the human genome, a growing wealth of data has made clear that these two positions, never at all likely to begin with, are simply incorrect. There is indeed a biological basis for race. And it is now beyond doubt that human evolution is a continuous process that has proceeded vigorously within the last 30,000 years and almost certainly — though very recent evolution is hard to measure — throughout the historical period and up until the present day. Biologists scanning the genome for evidence of natural selection have detected signals of many genes that have been favored by natural selection in the recent evolutionary past. No less than 14% of the human genome, according to one estimate, has changed under this recent evolutionary pressure. Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. An illustration of the point is the fact that with mixed race populations, such as African Americans, geneticists can now track along an individual’s genome, and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if race did not have some basis in biological reality. http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/
The Genetic Basis of Race Three attacks on my book A Troublesome Inheritance have appeared on The Huffington Post's blog this month. For readers puzzled by the stridency and personal animus of these compositions, I'd like to explain what is going on. The issue is how best to sustain the fight against racism in light of new information from the human genome that bears on race. My belief is that opposition to racism should be based on principle, not on science. If I oppose racism and discrimination as a matter of principle, I don't care what the science may say because I'll never change my position. As it happens, however, the genome gives no support to racism, although it does clearly show that race has a biological basis, just as common sense might suggest. Many social scientists, on the other hand, have long based their opposition to racism on the assertion that there is no biological basis to race. I doubt they personally believe this and suspect that they oppose racism on principle, just as I do. But they believe that other people, less enlightened and intelligent than they, will not abandon racism unless told that everyone is identical beneath the skin. So whenever someone points out that race is obviously biological, defenders of the social science position respond with attacks of whatever vehemence is necessary to get the inconvenient truth-teller to shut up. For many years this tactic has been surprisingly effective. It takes only a few vigilantes to cow the whole campus. Academic researchers won't touch the subject of human race for fear that their careers will be ruined. Only the most courageous will publicly declare that race has a biological basis. I witnessed the effects of this intimidation during the 10 years I was writing about the human genome for The New York Times. The understanding of recent human evolution has been seriously impeded, in my view, because if you can't study the genetics of race (a subject of no special interest in itself), you cannot explore the independent evolutionary histories of Africans, East Asians and Europeans. The attacks on my book come from authors who espouse the social science position that there is no biological basis to race. It is because they are defending an ideological position with a counterfactual scientific basis that their language is so excessive. If you don't have the facts, pound the table. My three Huffington Post critics -- Jennifer Raff,Agustín Fuentes and Jonathan Marks -- are heavy on unsupported condemnations of the book, and less generous with specific evidence. Despite their confident assertions that I have misrepresented the science, which I've been writing about for years in a major newspaper, none of these authors has any standing in statistical genetics, the relevant discipline. Raff is a postdoctoral student in genetics and anthropology. Fuentes and Marks are both anthropologists who, to judge by their webpages, do little primary research. Most of their recent publications are reviews or essays, many of them about race. Their academic reputations, not exactly outsize to begin with, might shrink substantially if their view that race had no biological basis were to be widely repudiated. Both therefore have a strong personal interest (though neither thought it worth declaring to the reader) in attempting to trash my book. It would try the reader's patience to offer a point-by-point rebuttal of the three reviews, so I will address just the principal arguments raised by each. Let's start with Raff, who asserts, "Wade claims that the latest genomic findings actually support dividing humans into discrete races." In fact, I say the exact opposite, that the races are not and cannot be discrete or they would be different species, but it's easier to attack an invented statement. The human genome points to the overriding unity of humankind. Everyone has the same set of genes, so far as is known. Genes come in the alternative versions known as alleles, so one might expect next that races would be demarcated by alleles. But even this is not the case. In fact, the races are not demarcated at all. They differ only in relative allele frequency, meaning that a given allele may be more common in one race than in another. How that translates into the familiar differences in physical appearance between human races is a matter I explain in my book. Because of these characteristic differences in allele frequency, geneticists can analyze the genome of someone of mixed race -- an African American, say -- and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if races did not exist. Also because of differences in allele frequency, researchers analyzing human genetics around the world have found in surveys dating back to 1994 that people cluster in groups that coincide with their continent of origin. Raff and Marks take issue with one of these surveys, Rosenberg et al. 2002, which used a computer program to analyze the clusters of genetic variation. The program doesn't know how many clusters there should be; it just groups its data into whatever target number of clusters it is given. When the assigned number of clusters is either greater or less than five, the results made no genetic or geographical sense. But when asked for five clusters, the program showed that everyone was assigned to their continent of origin. Raff and Marks seem to think that the preference for this result was wholly arbitrary and that any other number of clusters could have been favored just as logically. But the grouping of human genetic variation into five continent-based clusters is the most reasonable and is consistent with previous findings. As the senior author told me at the time, the Rosenberg study essentially confirmed the popular notion of race. The chief point extractable from Fuentes' review is that since I don't say exactly many races there are, races can't exist. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of continuous variation. People may disagree on the number of colors there are, but that doesn't mean colors don't exist. Humans cluster into five continental groups or races, and within each race there are further subclusters. So the number of human races depends on the number of clusters one wishes to recognize. Contrary to Fuentes' belief, this has no bearing on whether or not races exist. The wider issue arising from these three reviews is that the social science position on race that they represent is obscurantist, counterfactual and outdated. As I show in my book, understanding the nature of human racial variation lends no support to racism. But such understanding is essential for the simple reason that there is not one story of recent human evolution but at least five different stories, given that the populations on each continent have evolved largely independently of one another since the dispersal from Africa some 50,000 years ago. By denying the existence of race, social scientists are intimidating biologists from pursuing this path. This is particularly exasperating given the fallacious nature of the belief that race must be denied if racism is to be quelled. The geneticist Theodore Dobzhansky observed, "People need not be identical twins to be equal before God, before the law, and in their rights to equality of opportunity." Unlike identical twins, we are not all clones. We exist as different races by virtue of our evolutionary histories. The recovery of this history is a legitimate subject of scientific inquiry, and from this advance of knowledge unimagined benefits may accrue. http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/155938#sthash.G49RCKtL.dpuf
Hannibal was not black>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/20/o...was-no-more-black-than-king-david-337391.html http://phoenicia.org/hannibal.html
The question is how significant are those dna differences? People with red hair will have different dna than black, or blond haired people But, beyond hair color, what is the significance of that difference? Otoh A baby of any race adopted and raised in japan will likely be a fairly typical japanese person Despite arbitrary dna differences Aisian kids raised in the usa are fairly typical american kids.... Despite their asian dna So in the end, where is the evidence that these racial dna differences are significant of much more than appearance
You are not well read.............twin studies contradict your thesis. http://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html
Gosh, i did not claim that dna was meaningless... Did i But there are lots of other important factors
Despite being well read, you appear unable to digest what you read And use it only for purposes of confirmatory bias if you review the link that you provided You will note significantly less similarity between fraternal, vs identical twins Now, logically speaking , a fraternal twin should be at least similar in dna.... Correct So then the question becomes whether racial dna similarities are more closely approximated by comparisons to identical twins... Or are people of the same race even more diverse than fraternal twins So, if it s unreliable to make generalizations between fraternal twins Wouldnt it be grossly less reliable to assume similarity between unrelated people simply based upon their race?
The most important factor is genes. NOTPOLITICALLY CORRECT HUMAN BIODIVERSITY, IQ AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/
Thank you for linking to my blog. I haven't read through these posts yet, but I will later and refute some things. I see my old adversary EgalitarianJay02 is here as well. This should be fun.
Just because what we call it is a 'construct' doesn't mean that they aren't biologically viable categories,
Yes, but this pragmatic approach requires race to be useful. There is though no field of science race has utility: this is why the race concept was replaced by clines from the 1960s.
