If you could alter genetic makeup of your baby would you do it?

[b_line]

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...al-dna-may-increase-risk-allergies-depression

I exaggerated that it's scientifically proven. It's a theory.

The race construct as siro points out makes sense, because race is far too broad of a term.

I think colton makes a great point about DNA having traits that point to the probability of where our ancestors are from. That stuff is absolutely traceable. For instance, the dude rhey found frozen in a glacier in the italian alps, they tracked his DNA to match that of modern day Sicilians, pointing to the probability that Sicilians are a genetic holdout from a much broader ranging European people of about 5000 years ago. Either that or this dude built a boat and went to the italian alps to do some climbing and died as an outlier of sicilian heritage.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

I guess I'm just not interested in creating mindless humans for the sole purpose of fulfilling one's emotional needs. To each his own.

Ok.. but I guess you're not really interested in creating ANY kind of humans....No???

 

[Deleted member 848]

This is idiotic. You're trying to apply a scientific definition of race to what the OP--and myself and indeed I'd guess nearly everyone else in America--views as "phenotypical traits and impressions of probable geographic ancestry". You are quibbling over a definition and/or using a definition that we are not. Or are you saying that "phenotypical traits and impressions of probable geographic ancestry" do not exist? Or that changing someone's DNA could not alter those traits?

It's quite weird trying to see you think your way through this one, so let's take it step by step.



--

The incredibly widely accepted notion of race being a pure and total manmade/social construction is commonly accepted, and the directionality is important.


- there is no gene, or combination of genes that delineates any racial group. No racial group has EVER been constructed using genetics *specifically*. What I mean by genetics is genotype-- the actual DNA sequence of the social group in question. The reason this is important is because race having a genetic basis would mean it's very easy to objectively determine who is a fellow member of your race, and who isn't. I have Albanian relatives with blue eyes, green eyes, brown eyes; blonde hair, red hair, brown haired; tall, short; button noses, aquiline noses. Yes, genetic studies all code for these phenotype but do you care to explain which combination of phenotypes determine the Albanian race? And if my sibling doesn't meet those guidelines then is he a member of another race? How does it work? Is there a single race that you feel comfortable describing solely in the language of genetics-- i.e. basement-pair sequence?

Walk us through what gene sequences you would select to make a black man, Colton. What would you choose?


- nappy hair? Plenty of non-black people have this. Does that make them black too?
- high melanin content? So wait people from Fiji are black?
- now u start getting into stereotype territory...HMMM! How intriguing!



--

Join the academic community in coming to the conclusion that race has zero biological foundation. That notion died with the eugenics movement. youre a man of science this shouldn't be difficult

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

I did not trash OL for wanting to be loved. I trashed him for wanting to mind-control his children through genetic engineering.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be loved. What's life without love?!

It's all good.

Now, kindly dismount from your need to be loved....Could it be, a horse?? perhaps??? another MAN????

Or possibly,,,,, a,,,K-9????..hell, even one that forgives your jackassivity????

perhaps

 

[Deleted member 848]

I exaggerated that it's scientifically proven. It's a theory.

The race construct as siro points out makes sense, because race is far too broad of a term.

I think colton makes a great point about DNA having traits that point to the probability of where our ancestors are from. That stuff is absolutely traceable. For instance, the dude rhey found frozen in a glacier in the italian alps, they tracked his DNA to match that of modern day Sicilians, pointing to the probability that Sicilians are a genetic holdout from a much broader ranging European people of about 5000 years ago. Either that or this dude built a boat and went to the italian alps to do some climbing and died as an outlier of sicilian heritage.

Right, your genetics can 100% trace you to geographic regions from EONS ago.


But could you use "genetics" to determine what Sicily was/is? No. You can certainly point out genetic imilarities among people who emerged from Sicily but it ends there. The idea of "Sicily" doesn't have a genetic component. If it does, care to explain what it is?

 

[Siro]

Ok.. but I guess you're not really interested in creating ANY kind of humans....No???

I'd like to have children.

 

[Siro]

It's all good.

Now, kindly dismount from your need to be loved....Could it be, a horse?? perhaps??? another MAN????

Or possibly,,,,, a,,,K-9????..hell, even one that forgives your jackassivity????

perhaps

Too fighty and I don't really wanna fight.

 

[BYE]

Right, your genetics can 100% trace you to geographic regions from EONS ago.


But could you use "genetics" to determine what Sicily was/is? No. You can certainly point out genetic imilarities among people who emerged from Sicily but it ends there. The idea of "Sicily" doesn't have a genetic component. If it does, care to explain what it is?

To my knowledge, there are very few scholars in any discipline from literary theory, to history, or to molecular genetics who espouse that race is genetically based. Almost every single scholar/scientist out there holds that race is a cultural construct. I'm with you on this 100%, and if people think that it is any other way, they need to do a lot more research.

 

[Siro]

To my knowledge, there are very few scholars in any discipline from literary theory, to history, or to molecular genetics who espouse that race is genetically based. Almost every single scholar/scientist out there holds that race is a cultural construct. I'm with you on this 100%, and if people think that it is any other way, they need to do a lot more research.

You don't need academic understanding to realize this. It's a matter of simple logic.

 

[BYE]

You don't need academic understanding to realize this. It's a matter of simple logic.

Agreed. Just tryin' to direct those who think otherwise to more scholarly publications if they're still unconvinced.

 

[b_line]

Right, your genetics can 100% trace you to geographic regions from EONS ago.


But could you use "genetics" to determine what Sicily was/is? No. You can certainly point out genetic imilarities among people who emerged from Sicily but it ends there. The idea of "Sicily" doesn't have a genetic component. If it does, care to explain what it is?

So why do black people remain black from generation to generation? It certainly isn't becsusr they are in the sun all day any more (at least bit in the US ).

If being black or yellow or red or white has nothing to do with our genetic heritage, then why are my kids so damn pale?

You are acting like there are no such things as heritable traits that exhibit themselves over a broad pattern.

Sure, melanin content can be random at times, but the extremely overwhelming majority of children are not going to be albinos.

It may not be race, but acting like these things don't exist is extremely odd.

Tell me how you define a genetically similar group of people if not by using the word race?

 

[babe]

Didn't read this thread. . . .Don't wanna play God.

Don't want people blaming me for stuff.

I know people who stop believing in God tend to become the worst conceited go-gooders with all kinds of superior notions nobody has any right to criticize. . . .government bureaucrats, corporate cronies, and such. . . .

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Tell me how you define a genetically similar group of people if not by using the word race?

Population.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

No one is saying heritable traits don't exist.

What we're saying is that the genetic information of two people many of you guys would attribute to be of a singular race can, and often do, have more divergent genetic information from each other than either could have from someone you would attribute to a different race. This has been documented. Thus, race can't exist. When you get into genetic information that is shared among a population that you can attribute to that specific population, you'd have millions of different races, which then doesn't work either since the description would have to be so specific as to lose all meaning in the first place and could still exist in people outside that population, making that distinction impossible.

 

[Siro]

Tell me how you define a genetically similar group of people if not by using the word race?

Genetically similar to what extent? Why not make all red haired people into a race? They're more similar to one another than non-red haired, but fair skinned, people. More importantly, why is the current classification any less silly than my redheads example?

I feel that Dalamon would make his points better understood if he used a simpler style. He is not doubting that phenotypes exist. Like duh!

However, group phenotypes are AVERAGE. For example, Germans are on average lighter skinned than the Chinese. But that's not always the case. I've seen many Chinese who are lighter skinned than many Germans. Similarly, more Irish people have blue eyes than Greek people. But I've met Greeks with blue eyes, and Irish with brown eyes. However, phenotypes can be useful. If I learn than someone is from a Congolese or Norwegian or whatever ethnicity, I'd picture a certain look. I'd likely to get at least some of it right.

But race is a genetically arbitrary GROUPING of phenotypes. It only exists because we said it is so. If everyone's memory is wiped out overnight (and people were scrambled randomly across the planet), the concept of race wouldn't develop the same way it is now, if it developed at all. The historical circumstances behind its development would not exist, and others would take their place. That is not the case with natural distinctions between humans. Even with wiped memories, we would still recognize that some people are shorter, others taller. Some are lighter while others darker. Some have blond hair while others have black hair. But the racial groupings would change. Middle Eastern people might be grouped with Indians or Baltic people or Southern Europeans or Latin Americans. Sri Lankans might be grouped with Sub-Saharan Africans. And so on.

So ya, race is a cultural phenomenon, and one that I find useless and would rather do without.

 

[Hotdog]

Genetically similar to what extent? Why not make all red haired people into a race? They're more similar to one another than non-red haired, but fair skinned, people. More importantly, why is the current classification any less silly than my redheads example?

I feel that Dalamon would make his points better understood if he used a simpler style. He is not doubting that phenotypes exist. Like duh!

However, group phenotypes are AVERAGE. For example, Germans are on average lighter skinned than the Chinese. But that's not always the case. I've seen many Chinese who are lighter skinned than many Germans. Similarly, more Irish people have blue eyes than Greek people. But I've met Greeks with blue eyes, and Irish with brown eyes. However, phenotypes can be useful. If I learn than someone is from a Congolese or Norwegian or whatever ethnicity, I'd picture a certain look. I'd likely to get at least some of it right.

But race is a genetically arbitrary GROUPING of phenotypes. It only exists because we said it is so. If everyone's memory is wiped out overnight (and people were scrambled randomly across the planet), the concept of race wouldn't develop the same way it is now, if it developed at all. The historical circumstances behind its development would not exist, and others would take their place. That is not the case with natural distinctions between humans. Even with wiped memories, we would still recognize that some people are shorter, others taller. Some are lighter while others darker. Some have blond hair while others have black hair. But the racial groupings would change. Middle Eastern people might be grouped with Indians or Baltic people or Southern Europeans or Latin Americans. Sri Lankans might be grouped with Sub-Saharan Africans. And so on.

So ya, race is a cultural phenomenon, and one that I find useless and would rather do without.

When seperating out each trait such as red heads, your explanations make more sense, but people of different race arent just defined by one characteristic. Its a whole assortment of things. Take albino africans for example. They have white skin, but there is no mistaken what race they are. Those traits dont change until you introduce a new race. Why is that?

Red heads should be there own race btw.

 

[Siro]

When seperating out each trait such as red heads, your explanations make more sense, but people of different race arent just defined by one characteristic. Its a whole assortment of things. Take albino africans for example. They have white skin, but there is no mistaken what race they are. Those traits dont change until you introduce a new race. Why is that?

Red heads should be there own race btw.

Like I said in my previous posts, there is no reason for the grouping of those characteristics into one "race".

Here's a fairly typical Italian (white):

or

Why is that phenotype closer to this Irish (white) one:

Than to this Algerian (not white) one:

Now I am sure you can find some average difference that are closer in one group than another to make a point about some characteristic litmus test, but the decision is arbitrary.

Race exists because as Europeans developed closer ties under Christianity and set forth to explore the world, they found non-Europeans who had different looks and cultures. So they designated themselves as "white" based on their average skin color, to differentiate themselves from the "others".

If no such historical fusion happened, something else might have come along. Maybe Islam would have united the Northern Africans with the Spaniards, and they set forth as the Tans to differentiate themselves from the other "races".

 

[Hotdog]

Race is identified by a combination of characteristics isnt it? Why do most those characteristics always show up together, What bonds them together, if its not something like race? How is that a social construct?

 

[Siro]

Race is identified by a combination of characteristics isnt it? Why do most those characteristics always show up together, What bonds them together, if its not something like race? How is that a social construct?

Those characteristics don't always show up together. People just decide which to include and which to ignore. The fact that Greeks have a very different facial structure than Fins doesn't factor into your definition of race. But the fact their average skin color is a lot closer to Fins than to Sudanese is factored in. You could create as many and as few races as you want.

I think you might be too focused on the American whites, who are a mixture of a million different European ethnicities (along with non-Europeans). Think about it in broader terms. I already answered your questions many many times. I don't feel like you've responded, or considered, a single point I've made. So I don't know what else to say.

 

[Siro]

I was thinking about Hack's, and others', attachment to the concept of race (while in bed, smh). I think I get it. Taking a purely American perspective makes race seem a lot more concrete than it really is.

That is because the American situation is unique. A wholesale phenotype homogenization has occurred among the different groups due to the historical forces that shaped the nation. Europeans migrated into the US and merged with one another, while largely avoiding mixture with non-European peoples, morphing into a more homogeneous super-ethnicity. The same applies to Africans who were segregated from white society and ended up with their own super-ethnicity and distinct culture. Looking at the issue through that lens, race appears to be on solid grounds.

But it is more instructive to look at the relatively heterogeneous Old World cultures to see the shaky grounds on which race stands. That's why I avoided focusing on New World examples. The Americas are just too much of a melting pot, with different phenotypes separated within the same country due to their history.

Nonetheless, the Old World illuminates an aspect of the human condition that applies equally to the New World. If one takes time to understand why race is an arbitrary social concept through analysis of the Old World, one can understand why it is equally useless in the New World.

Okay, good night ffs.