GreNME defends assertion on genetic similarity to Dennis Leary and Malcolm X

[Clippy]

GreNME made the following statement in another thread:

Originally Posted by GreNME

Don't bother falling for his claptrap. I'm white, blonde-haired and have hazel-blue eyes, and I have as much in common genetically with Malcom X as I do with Dennis Leary.

A claim which he later repeated:

Originally Posted by GreNME

He can't prove it. Like I mentioned earlier, I have as much in common genetically with Malcom X as I do Dennis Leary. His assertions that I'm simply clueless about genetics or phenotypes is based on my not finding the conclusions he seems too timid to state outright-- he has yet to make a positive argument about what the genetic argument means-- to be supported by the actual data available.

When asked for evidence to support this claim, he replied:

Originally Posted by GreNME

Okay:

"The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations. Both findings can be obtained from the same data set, using the same number of polymorphic loci. This article explains why. Our analys is focuses on the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population. We compare to the error rates of several classification methods, using data sets that vary in number of loci, average allele frequency, populations sampled, and polymorphism ascertainment strategy. We demonstrate that classification methods achieve higher discriminatory power than because of their use of aggregate properties of populations. The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with 100 polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but remains sizable, even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race."

You'll have to read the whole article for a full explanation (it's on PubMed as well[/url]), as it provides both the longer explanation and the math. It doesn't argue that distinctions can't be made between ethnic groups, but that even disregarding admixture the similarities are more prevalent that the "ethnic genetic interests" crowd likes to admit. Including obvious admixture-- as more and more communication and fast travel becomes possible, geographic distance and isolation becomes less a factor-- and the fact that both men were born on the same continent as myself, the likelihood of genetic similarities to both Malcom X and Dennis Leary would be increased.

When I provided a quote from the paper that showed his claim was most likely not true (to say nothing of the confused statements in that last paragraph), I was accused of cherry-picking.

The quote:

Quote:

"In the microarray data set , ωˆ drops to zero at 1000 loci if only distinct populations are sampled. With geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, ωˆ reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%, Cc remains well above zero, and even CT does not reach zero."

I don't think that GreNME understands the paper he's referenced, but maybe he can prove me wrong here. Rather than derail the thread in which this debate arose, we agreed to create a new one in which GreNME can defend his claim.

[Clippy]

And here is some more evidence that GreNME has provided:

Originally Posted by GreNME

At this point all you're doing is sticking to your wacky version of genetics as a derail from your spectacularly failed example attempting to refute the OP's definition. If you want a thorough debate on what that paper actually says then feel free to start a thread on it-- I'll be happy to embarrass you over there as well. I pointed out a published paper that basically had the gist of what I said, though I know precisely why I have specific genetic similarities to the two men I mentioned-- we all three have (or had) a touch o' the Irish and have a specific genetic marker that is quite distinct: red hair. Both the other men had(or have) that distinct genetic marker on the tops of their heads, while mine is only evident in my facial hair (I'm dirty blonde up top), but considering the infrequency of that particular phenotype (1% or 2% of the entire human population, slightly higher for Western Europeans) as well as my own study of Malcom X's life (he openly stated he had Irish ancestry more than once). Getting a rise out of you in the thread by saying it seems to have been a fringe benefit.

[Clippy]

I will just add that the number of genes responsible for hair color is a small percentage of the genome. So the fact that GreNME, Dennis Leary, and Malcolm X have/had red hair does not prove that they share the same degree of genetic similarity. Neither does the fact that Malcolm X may have had some Irish ancestry. I wouldn't think that needs pointing out, but apparently it does.

[Dancing David]

Um, first off, what data do you have that 'races' are dis-similar.

As stated before the variation between individuals of a 'racial' group are much broader that the differences between 'races'.

Race is an artificial social contruct based upon surface features.

What evidence do you have to counter GreNMEs statement, what evidence is there that there is such a great disparity between the three?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Clippy

GreNME made the following statement in another thread:



A claim which he later repeated:



When asked for evidence to support this claim, he replied:



When I provided a quote from the paper that showed his claim was most likely not true (to say nothing of the confused statements in that last paragraph), I was accused of cherry-picking.

The quote:



I don't think that GreNME understands the paper he's referenced, but maybe he can prove me wrong here. Rather than derail the thread in which this debate arose, we agreed to create a new one in which GreNME can defend his claim.

I don't think you do either, why shoul a 3.1 % variance be less than that within an alleged racial group.?

yes but the alle traist are not the ones associated with race are they? If you sample 1000 loci you find that, but there is no comparison to marginal zones where there is a history of trade and interbreeding.

If you were able to find set for geographically disparate populatiosn within the same 'race' say Thailand vs. Mongolia, the same would apply.

It is not a racial marker but the geographical seperation of peoples.

[Clippy]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I don't think you do either, why shoul a 3.1 % variance be less than that within an alleged racial group.

ω is not variance. Please read the abstract again. I would also recommend that you read the whole paper.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Clippy

ω is not variance. Please read the abstract again. I would also recommend that you read the whole paper.

I would recommend you do the same. You're so vehement on trying to use the paper to 'prove' some huge variance between races, when the paper itself doesn't even get into such a topic. The paper itself deals with genetic similarities despite genetic drift over geographically segregated populations. That you seem so hell-bent on trying to 'prove' my statement wrong only makes you sloppy in evaluating the paper's data, and has already made you sufficiently sloppy enough in ignoring the biggest piece of information on the example I gave that your weak arguments can't even address: the red hair phenotype. I pointed out that each of the three I mentioned-- Malcom X, Denis Leary, and myself-- share a phenotype that in each of us displayed red hair... but not completely red hair in any of us, which is a clear sign of admixture in all of us (but displays a distinct and irrefutable similarity).

Oh, you seem to have left that out of your quoting of my statements, which makes your vehemence in arguing against what I said seem that much less based on logic and critical thinking, and more on emotional confirmation bias.

Keep on digging your holes, Clippy. All you're doing is showing everyone else here that you're more interested in trying to make a statement on ethnic differences without coming outright and just saying so. You're just making your arguments look that much sillier by avoiding positive arguments and sticking to empty polemics, just like you're failing so spectacularly in the original thread-- which has context and content you also seem to have left out (though not on purpose, I'm sure).

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I don't think you do either, why shoul a 3.1 % variance be less than that within an alleged racial group.?

yes but the alle traist are not the ones associated with race are they? If you sample 1000 loci you find that, but there is no comparison to marginal zones where there is a history of trade and interbreeding.

If you were able to find set for geographically disparate populatiosn within the same 'race' say Thailand vs. Mongolia, the same would apply.

It is not a racial marker but the geographical seperation of peoples.

What Clippy is leaving out of his statements is that not all genetic markers are of the same significance, and unfortunately the paper itself doesn't specify [i]which[i/] of the loci they're using (I'd assume they specify in some documentation somewhere, but not the paper). Clippy is attempting to turn the paper's content into an argument about race, whereas I took an argument where genetics were being brought up regarding race and mentioned a paper that did a more accurate study on what we perceive as race (geographical clustering) and found what would have been thought to be counter-intuitive results based on how we know genetic drift tends to work-- in other words, that there exists an amount of likely similarities that remain constant beyond all of the obvious stuff. Overall, an interesting paper on genetics, but an argument neither for nor against whatever argument Clippy seems to be almost-making-but-never-quite-saying-outright. I'll gladly admit that it only barely makes a point relevant to my original quoted statement, but that's because the only actual way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what I said we'd have to run a check on all three genomes, and that's not a very likely outcome. Instead, the easiest (though less conclusive) way to guess at the accuracy would be to examine different demonstrable characteristics or phenotypes that are similar, and the Irish ancenstry along with the red hair marker becomes the most stark example. Granted, its a marker that would seem pretty innocuous, but its general rarity (about 1% of the world's population) and the known Irish descent in all three makes it significant enough to warrant mention.

Note: of the three, Leary would likely have the most Irish ancestry of us, as mine goes back a few generations, somewhere around as far as Malcom X's did (I believe he was two or three generations removed, I'm about four). Also, unlike Leary and Malcom X, my red hair doesn't appear on my head but in my facial hair (though in my mother it's on her head).

[Clippy]

Originally Posted by GreNME

I would recommend you do the same. You're so vehement on trying to use the paper to 'prove' some huge variance between races, when the paper itself doesn't even get into such a topic. The paper itself deals with genetic similarities despite genetic drift over geographically segregated populations.

Is it only genetic drift? Do you even understand what that means? I think you heard this term mentioned by your life-partner dog breeder and use to give the impression that you have the foggiest clue about genetics, which you do not.

Here's the quote from the paper, again.

Quote:

"In the microarray data set , ωˆ drops to zero at 1000 loci if only distinct populations are sampled. With geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, ωˆ reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%, Cc remains well above zero, and even CT does not reach zero."

How does this support your claim?

Originally Posted by GreNME

That you seem so hell-bent on trying to 'prove' my statement wrong only makes you sloppy in evaluating the paper's data, and has already made you sufficiently sloppy enough in ignoring the biggest piece of information on the example I gave that your weak arguments can't even address: the red hair phenotype. I pointed out that each of the three I mentioned-- Malcom X, Denis Leary, and myself-- share a phenotype that in each of us displayed red hair... but not completely red hair in any of us, which is a clear sign of admixture in all of us (but displays a distinct and irrefutable similarity).

Oh, you seem to have left that out of your quoting of my statements, which makes your vehemence in arguing against what I said seem that much less based on logic and critical thinking, and more on emotional confirmation bias.

I only want you to back up your your claim with evidence. No need to get so emotional.

I quoted your reference to this shared phenotype in post #2. I pointed out how silly your analysis is in post #3.

Originally Posted by GreNME

Keep on digging your holes, Clippy. All you're doing is showing everyone else here that you're more interested in trying to make a statement on ethnic differences without coming outright and just saying so. You're just making your arguments look that much sillier by avoiding positive arguments and sticking to empty polemics, just like you're failing so spectacularly in the original thread-- which has context and content you also seem to have left out (though not on purpose, I'm sure).

'Vehement', 'hell-bent', 'empty polemics', 'digging holes'? Gee, I was just hoping you could back up your claim with some decent evidence.

[Clippy]

Originally Posted by GreNME

What Clippy is leaving out of his statements is that not all genetic markers are of the same significance, and unfortunately the paper itself doesn't specify [i]which[i/] of the loci they're using (I'd assume they specify in some documentation somewhere, but not the paper).

LOL. The paper tells you where to get this information. It's in the 'Materials and Methods' section. You have to make it to the second page to find that out.

Originally Posted by GreNME

Clippy is attempting to turn the paper's content into an argument about race, whereas I took an argument where genetics were being brought up regarding race and mentioned a paper that did a more accurate study on what we perceive as race (geographical clustering) and found what would have been thought to be counter-intuitive results based on how we know genetic drift tends to work-- in other words, that there exists an amount of likely similarities that remain constant beyond all of the obvious stuff. Overall, an interesting paper on genetics, but an argument neither for nor against whatever argument Clippy seems to be almost-making-but-never-quite-saying-outright. I'll gladly admit that it only barely makes a point relevant to my original quoted statement, but that's because the only actual way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what I said we'd have to run a check on all three genomes, and that's not a very likely outcome. Instead, the easiest (though less conclusive) way to guess at the accuracy would be to examine different demonstrable characteristics or phenotypes that are similar, and the Irish ancenstry along with the red hair marker becomes the most stark example. Granted, its a marker that would seem pretty innocuous, but its general rarity (about 1% of the world's population) and the known Irish descent in all three makes it significant enough to warrant mention.

Note: of the three, Leary would likely have the most Irish ancestry of us, as mine goes back a few generations, somewhere around as far as Malcom X's did (I believe he was two or three generations removed, I'm about four). Also, unlike Leary and Malcom X, my red hair doesn't appear on my head but in my facial hair (though in my mother it's on her head).

And again, if you think that red hair suggests that you are as genetically similar to Malcolm X as you are to Dennis Leary, you are only confirming your spectacular ignorance about genetics.

BTW, according to Wikipedia, Malcolm X had a Scottish ancestor (his mother's father- X refers to him as a rapist).

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Clippy

Is it only genetic drift? Do you even understand what that means? I think you heard this term mentioned by your life-partner dog breeder and use to give the impression that you have the foggiest clue about genetics, which you do not.

While I'm sure you'd like to play compartmentalization games and attack me as if I was arguing solely on the basis of drift, all you're doing at this point is showing that you're not actually arguing any positive claim whatsoever and are trying to prove something (though you have yet to say it outright) by trying to take pieces of what's being said and attempt to discredit or demand "evidence" (though I doubt you understand what you're asking for) as if it were for your purposes a complete argument. Not only are your "life-partner dog breeder" comments ad hominem attacks, but for all the "foggiest clue" statements you use to accuse me, you've yet to display a single iota of positive explanatory understanding of any topic on genetics, let alone the paper in the context of this thread or the statement I made in the context of the other thread. Instead of trying to explain anything to you specifically I'm simply going to ask you to present a positive argument for the first time since you've registered here.

Originally Posted by Clippy

Here's the quote from the paper, again.

Quote:

"In the microarray data set , ωˆ drops to zero at 1000 loci if only distinct populations are sampled. With geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, ωˆ reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%, C_c remains well above zero, and even C_T does not reach zero."

How does this support your claim?

The two sentences have a specific part in them that supports my claim, and I've already explained. Now it's your turn to actually make a positive argument in opposition-- something you've continually failed to produce.

Originally Posted by Clippy

I only want you to back up your your claim with evidence. No need to get so emotional.

I quoted your reference to this shared phenotype in post #2. I pointed out how silly your analysis is in post #3.

Yes, you've compartmentalized through quote mining quite clearly. That everything I've said supports my claim in context seems to be lost on you. Now all you have to do is provide a positive argument to the contrary so we can continue.

Originally Posted by Clippy

'Vehement', 'hell-bent', 'empty polemics', 'digging holes'? Gee, I was just hoping you could back up your claim with some decent evidence.

Since I already have and since I've already repeated myself, the onus is on you to display you aren't simply engaging in empty polemics as a debate tactic, and make a single positive argument against what I've been saying. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Clippy

LOL. The paper tells you where to get this information. It's in the 'Materials and Methods' section. You have to make it to the second page to find that out.

The second page gives their methodology and data sets, it doesn't explain all of he loci used. Instead, it begins by generalizing: "Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci." The section you reference does explain the difference you seem to be missing between what ω means and what ωˆ is in the paper, though. However, I'm sure that when you eventually present your positive argument against what I'm saying you'll be able to explain.

Originally Posted by Clippy

And again, if you think that red hair suggests that you are as genetically similar to Malcolm X as you are to Dennis Leary, you are only confirming your spectacular ignorance about genetics.

Nope, the red hair is a trait in and of itself. It's significance is to display an outward confirmation of shared phenotypes, more applying to my original statement than to the paper-- after all, by the paper's criteria, none of the three people in my claim would be from geographically distinct parts of the world (from each other). I'm sure you're aware of this, however-- as soon as you can make an actual argument we can get into more specific information, though.

Originally Posted by Clippy

BTW, according to Wikipedia, Malcolm X had a Scottish ancestor (his mother's father- X refers to him as a rapist).

Continued attempts to use distraction and evasion as a debate tactic have been noted. I await your eventual positive argument against what I've said.

[Clippy]

Originally Posted by GreNME

While I'm sure you'd like to play compartmentalization games and attack me as if I was arguing solely on the basis of drift, all you're doing at this point is showing that you're not actually arguing any positive claim whatsoever and are trying to prove something (though you have yet to say it outright) by trying to take pieces of what's being said and attempt to discredit or demand "evidence" (though I doubt you understand what you're asking for) as if it were for your purposes a complete argument. Not only are your "life-partner dog breeder" comments ad hominem attacks, but for all the "foggiest clue" statements you use to accuse me, you've yet to display a single iota of positive explanatory understanding of any topic on genetics, let alone the paper in the context of this thread or the statement I made in the context of the other thread. Instead of trying to explain anything to you specifically I'm simply going to ask you to present a positive argument for the first time since you've registered here.

Your complaints about people breaking up your posts in replies is bizarre (you were also whining in the other thread about someone doing this).

You're the one who bragged that your life-partner is a dog breeder, it's hardly an ad hominem attack. Unless you meant againt them due to their inability to impart you with a coherent understanding of genetics?

Quote:

The two sentences have a specific part in them that supports my claim, and I've already explained. Now it's your turn to actually make a positive argument in opposition-- something you've continually failed to produce.

Their estimate of ω suggests that there is a 97% chance that your claim is wrong. Just how do you think you've supported your claim? You've shown it's remotely possible? Sorry, that's pretty crappy evidence.

Quote:

The second page gives their methodology and data sets, it doesn't explain all of he loci used. Instead, it begins by generalizing: "Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci." The section you reference does explain the difference you seem to be missing between what ω means and what ωˆ is in the paper, though. However, I'm sure that when you eventually present your positive argument against what I'm saying you'll be able to explain.

It tells you where to find this information. Why did you 'assume they specify in some documentation somewhere, but not the paper'? You obviously hadn't read the paper.

ωˆ is an estimate of ω. What's your point?

Quote:

Nope, the red hair is a trait in and of itself. It's significance is to display an outward confirmation of shared phenotypes, more applying to my original statement than to the paper-- after all, by the paper's criteria, none of the three people in my claim would be from geographically distinct parts of the world (from each other). I'm sure you're aware of this, however-- as soon as you can make an actual argument we can get into more specific information, though.

He's admixed, and it's a single trait controlled by a small number of genes. It is very weak evidence to support your claim.

Quote:

Continued attempts to use distraction and evasion as a debate tactic have been noted. I await your eventual positive argument against what I've said.

I just thought you might be interested to know that the ancestor was reportedly Scottish. Why so defensive, GreNME? Is it because you can't even get that bit correct?

This thread isn't about me, GreNME. It's about you backing up your claim. I realize that makes you uncomfortable, but please stop trying to change the subject.

[GreNME]

Clippy, I made the statement and I provided my argument in favor of the statement, which included at least one related study that approached the subject from its own perspective. To date, you have yet to make a single positive argument, even if it were a positive argument in opposition to my statement. If you want this thread to go anywhere instead of being a rather flamboyant attempt on your part to pretend you have a point (without actually stating it), then I strongly suggest you actually make your point and support it with a positive argument. Personal statements and commentary are not an argument, and even from the beginning of the thread your statements with relation to the actual topic you've posted on amount to a verbose form of "nuh uh!" instead of an argument against.

If you have a point, make it. If you continue to have a personal commentary on the matter, the Science subforum isn't the place for it. I implore you to please make a positive argument for once.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Um, first off, what data do you have that 'races' are dis-similar.

One likes to think they have a list of meaningful (whatever that means) "points of difference" that are considered valuable.

Does one really need a DNA printout to say you don't have black skin or red hair?

And would one select as a "valuable" point of difference a genetic marker that maps to this or that feature, considered of value only insofar as it supports some stereotypical feature of importance to racism, like, say, a wide-ish nose?

[Clippy]

Ok, if that is the extent of the evidence you're going to provide, then I'm happy to end the discussion here.

[GreNME]

Since you have no argument to provide, I think that's a wise choice on your part.

[Clippy]

Originally Posted by GreNME

Since you have no argument to provide, I think that's a wise choice on your part.

There's not much point arguing with someone who considers what you've presented as evidence.

[GreNME]

And yet I'm the only one who has presented an argument with support. You, apparently, are completely unable to do even that. Were you capable of such an argument, surely you'd have done so by now.

"Nuh uh!" is not a sufficient argument, Clippy, and so far that's all you've been able to put forth. Good luck in putting together an actual argument.

[Clippy]

Originally Posted by GreNME

And yet I'm the only one who has presented an argument with support. You, apparently, are completely unable to do even that. Were you capable of such an argument, surely you'd have done so by now.

"Nuh uh!" is not a sufficient argument, Clippy, and so far that's all you've been able to put forth. Good luck in putting together an actual argument.

Well, if someone presents as evidence a paper that estimates a 97% chance that they are wrong, I have to wonder about their ability to even follow an argument. There's no point discussing science or genetics with you. Thanks for wasting my time.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Clippy

Well, if someone presents as evidence a paper that estimates a 97% chance that they are wrong, I have to wonder about their ability to even follow an argument. There's no point discussing science or genetics with you. Thanks for wasting my time.

You really are completely clueless about this subject. Until you can show otherwise, the highlighted part of your quote pretty much displays how little of an actual argument you have.

Again, Clippy, "nuh huh!" is not a sufficient argument. Show some initiative and actually make an argument.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Beerina

One likes to think they have a list of meaningful (whatever that means) "points of difference" that are considered valuable.

Does one really need a DNA printout to say you don't have black skin or red hair?

And would one select as a "valuable" point of difference a genetic marker that maps to this or that feature, considered of value only insofar as it supports some stereotypical feature of importance to racism, like, say, a wide-ish nose?

Um, those specific traits are very narrow, I have darker skin than many 'black' people, and I am european caucasian.

Often there is greater diversity within members of a race than between races.