4 ms·

Race is not an accurate biological classifier, it's an antiquated classifier based on physical attributes. Ethnicity is far more accurate, but still has its dra

by tyjen 9y ago

Race is not an accurate biological classifier, it's an antiquated classifier based on physical attributes. Ethnicity is far more accurate, but still has its drawbacks. Yes, people who share similar melanin probably have similar genes providing them that attribute, but there are significant genetic differences between a black Jamaican and a black Ethiopian; or, a white Spaniard and a white Russian (not the drink). Saying they're just black or white dismisses the substantial differences that exist.

swebs 9y ago
Did you read the article? >Uncertain about the science, the police asked Frudakis to take a blind test: They sent him DNA swabs from 20 people to see if he could identify their races. He nailed every one. >On a conference call a few weeks later, Frudakis reported his results on their killer. "Your guy could be African-American or Afro-Caribbean, but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian." So we can see that not only are the classes used more precise than just "black" or "white", but there is empirical evidence that they can be predicted from DNA.
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  There are many people who have both Caucasian and Afro-Caribbean DNA. Is this result claiming that killer could be one of those people, or definitelt isn't? Those are opposite conclusions that both follow from the same statement, because the claim is ambiguous.
  - swebs 9y ago
    >Is this result claiming that killer could be one of those people, or definitelt isn't? The latter. The claim is pretty unambiguous. There are genetic markers that are only found in certain populations. His statements imply that he observed no markers that are only found in Caucasian populations, and several that are only found in African or Afro-Caribbean populations. If a person were mix raced, they would likely have a combination.
- tyjen 9y ago
  Did you read my comment? I read the article and responded to a comment overemphasizing the importance of determining race from DNA. > So we can see that not only are the classes used more precise than just "black" or "white", but there is empirical evidence that they can be predicted from DNA. There is no implication from my comment denying the ability to derive an individual's race from DNA. Nor would I ever suggest that you could not predict race using DNA, I am simply questioning the value of doing so. Information from DNA is extremely precise, so diluting the information to interpret race is degrading its potential. As pointed out by others, the human categorization of race is an inaccurate, archaic taxonomy. Even using the law enforcement aspect of the Wired article, you can clearly demonstrate why race is an antiquated distinction to make when evaluating DNA. If you have more information from DNA, why stop at race? Technology is developing to render facial models from DNA. IMO that is a far superior use of DNA than determining, "Your guy could be African-American or Afro-Caribbean, but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian."

by tyjen 9y ago

swebs 9y ago

Did you read the article? >Uncertain about the science, the police asked Frudakis to take a blind test: They sent him DNA swabs from 20 people to see if he could identify their races. He nailed every one. >On a conference call a few weeks later, Frudakis reported his results on their killer. "Your guy could be African-American or Afro-Caribbean, but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian." So we can see that not only are the classes used more precise than just "black" or "white", but there is empirical evidence that they can be predicted from DNA.

fjsolwmv 9y ago
There are many people who have both Caucasian and Afro-Caribbean DNA. Is this result claiming that killer could be one of those people, or definitelt isn't? Those are opposite conclusions that both follow from the same statement, because the claim is ambiguous.
- swebs 9y ago
  >Is this result claiming that killer could be one of those people, or definitelt isn't? The latter. The claim is pretty unambiguous. There are genetic markers that are only found in certain populations. His statements imply that he observed no markers that are only found in Caucasian populations, and several that are only found in African or Afro-Caribbean populations. If a person were mix raced, they would likely have a combination.
tyjen 9y ago
Did you read my comment? I read the article and responded to a comment overemphasizing the importance of determining race from DNA. > So we can see that not only are the classes used more precise than just "black" or "white", but there is empirical evidence that they can be predicted from DNA. There is no implication from my comment denying the ability to derive an individual's race from DNA. Nor would I ever suggest that you could not predict race using DNA, I am simply questioning the value of doing so. Information from DNA is extremely precise, so diluting the information to interpret race is degrading its potential. As pointed out by others, the human categorization of race is an inaccurate, archaic taxonomy. Even using the law enforcement aspect of the Wired article, you can clearly demonstrate why race is an antiquated distinction to make when evaluating DNA. If you have more information from DNA, why stop at race? Technology is developing to render facial models from DNA. IMO that is a far superior use of DNA than determining, "Your guy could be African-American or Afro-Caribbean, but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian."