Lighter skin a loss-of-function? The mistake of racists.

[MonDie]

The reasoning of racists seems simple enough. If we developed a unique skin tone, perhaps we developed other unique genetics that influence things like intelligence or civility. Nonetheless the concept of race was shown false by genetic analysis, which raises the question of why skin color changed, but nothing else changed. Please criticize my response to this question, or provide your own response.

 

EDIT: Actually, nearly everybody has some melanin in their skin, so the gene is still expressed to some degree. Read post #9.

 

My understanding is that darker skin is due to pigments deposited in the skin. Lighter people have less of these pigments, which means that genes for darker skin aren't being expressed. Albinism being a recessive trait further evidences that white skin is just the non-expression of certain genes. This suggests that lighter skin was merely a loss-of-function mutation, which are far more common than gain-of-function mutations. For more evidence, look at most other non-human animals. Aside from other apes, what non-human animals have non-white skin? White skin wasn't anything new; it was simply a reversion to a prior state. Truly novel traits would have taken longer to appear.

Edited June 25, 2014 by MonDie

[Acme]

... Aside from other apes, what non-human animals have non-white skin? ...

Polar bears have black skin. Tigers have striped skin.

 

The mistakes of racism are the mistakes of prejudice and per se bigotry.

[MonDie]

Polar bears have black skin. Tigers have striped skin.

 

The mistakes of racism are the mistakes of prejudice and per se bigotry.

 

Of course out-group prejudice under-pinned the idea that caucasians were superior, but a bigot doesn't have to attribute those percieved short-comings to biological differences to be a bigot. I'm talking about racism as the idea that we belong to different races.

[dimreepr]

Racism is born of ignorance, fear and the assumption that one’s own culture is the only valid way to live and think. This is compounded when one’s nation/society is dominant; education and tolerance is the key, homogenising skin colour would make little difference IMO.

 

AFAIK skin colour is just an evolutionary response to the strength of sunlight.

Edited June 25, 2014 by dimreepr

[Acme]

Of course out-group prejudice under-pinned the idea that caucasians were superior, but a bigot doesn't have to attribute those percieved short-comings to biological differences to be a bigot. I'm talking about racism as the idea that we belong to different races.

I understand that all humans are one race regardless of color. I also understand that bigotry is not constrained to racism. Bigots don't care about such things however, so thinking that if it's explained to them that will change their bigotry strikes me as misguided.

[MonDie]

Apparently I was using a narrow interpretation of "race" and hence "racist".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race

3b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.

 

5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

 

However, this thread isn't about ethnic prejudice; it is about the idea that skin color or ancestry correspond to other significant genetic differences.

Edited June 25, 2014 by MonDie

[iNow]

However, this thread isn't about ethnic prejudice; it is about the idea that skin color or ancestry correspond to other significant genetic differences.

People often think that since genes influence skin color they can then use skin color as a proxy for other genetically influenced things like intelligence or ability or potential. If we accept this premise, then it would be no different to instead argue that tall people are genetically predisposed to be smarter than short people, or that brown eyed people have greater genetic potential to succeed than green eyed people, or that people with bushy eyebrows are somehow born with more abilities than people with thinner more scant eyebrows.

 

Clearly, those other suggestions are ridiculous, yet they rest on the exact same footing as the suggestion that skin color is in anyway relevant to those things. It seems obvious (to me, anyway) that the key drivers of any differences are socioeconomic and based on societal treatment and/or availability of opportunity.

[dimreepr]

OK, but the idea that skin colour has an influence other than “a response to the strength of sunlight” seems trite.

 

 

Edit/ cross posted.

Edited June 25, 2014 by dimreepr

[MonDie]

People often think that since genes influence skin color they can then use skin color as a proxy for other genetically influenced things like intelligence or ability or potential. If we accept this premise, then it would be no different to instead argue that tall people are genetically predisposed to be smarter than short people, or that brown eyed people have greater genetic potential to succeed than green eyed people, or that people with bushy eyebrows are somehow born with more abilities than people with thinner more scant eyebrows.

 

Clearly, those other suggestions are ridiculous, yet they rest on the exact same footing as the suggestion that skin color is in anyway relevant to those things. It seems obvious (to me, anyway) that the key drivers of any differences are socioeconomic and based on societal treatment and/or availability of opportunity.

 

It's plausible that a genetic variation could have multiple phenotypes just as a disease has multiple symptoms, so for example a variation might coincidentally make people both tall and have fast reflexes, but I doubt that this is true of skin color. Suprise surprise, the opening post was misguided. The pigment determining skin color is melanin. Unless you're albino*, your skin should at least produce melanin in response to UV light (tanning).** People with dark skin just have more melanin. Skin color genetics are probably related to the regulation of the enzymes involved in producing melanin. However, it's possible that all the genetics needed for white skin were already present in the African population, they just needed to come together through recombination after some natural selection increased their frequency.

 

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albinism

 

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin

The production of melanin is called melanogenesis. In the skin, melanogenesis occurs after exposure to UV radiation, causing the skin to visibly tan. Melanin is an effective absorber of light; the pigment is able to dissipate over 99.9% of absorbed UV radiation.[1] Because of this property, melanin is thought to protect skin cells from UVB radiation damage, reducing the risk of cancer. Furthermore, though exposure to UV radiation is associated with increased risk of malignant melanoma, a cancer of the melanocytes, studies have shown a lower incidence for skin cancer in individuals with more concentrated melanin, i.e. darker skin tone. Nonetheless, the relationship between skin pigmentation and photoprotection is still being clarified.[2]

 

Edited June 25, 2014 by MonDie

[MonDie]

This thread was so capricious and ill-concieved that I'm just going to leave the forum for a while. My return is set for July 1st.

[chadn737]

There ARE other genetic differences between populations. Enough so that we can trace ancestry and many of these genetic differences have phenotypic consequences of evolutionary importance. Some of the better studied would be lactose persistence, adaptations to altitude, various traits giving malaria tolerance/resistance (think sickle cell), etc.

 

The caveats being that these trait differences do not break down along traditional/historical racial categorizations like asian/black/white and that while some of these traits may be present or more prevalent in one population than another, that does not mean that it is fixed within that population. Human genetic differences tend to exist in gradients spread geographically, so that if you take individuals that have been geographically isolated (like Iceland versus New Guinea) you will find a lot of differences, but there will exist a gradient of these differences over the numerous peoples that live between.

 

Racism is a mindset based on prejudice and an incorrect understanding of biology and genetics, however, in the counter-reaction to racism, there has been a general rejection of the notion of phenotypic and genetic differences between humans that has reached an equally absurd level of "anti-scientism". This has profound implications for the advancement of healthcare. Disease alleles and other differences affecting drug reactions, etc exist in different proportions in different populations. A drug tested primarily in populations of European descent may have very adverse effects in populations of largely African descent or vice versus. Rational individuals can accept this fact without it inducing any prejudice. Unfortunately many cannot accept that such relevant differences do exist without it implying some sort of malice, much to the detriment of us all.

[MonDie]

It goes without saying that some allele frequencies will differ significantly because of different selection pressures. However, doesn't white skin probably involve some variations that are absent in native Africans either because they spawned after the migration or because they were eliminated from the African population at some point? Are there any cases of naturally white native Africans, or any cases of two native Africans producing a white baby? Maybe you can find some naturally brown people among both native Africans and "caucasians", but that's because the trait is polygenic.

Edited July 2, 2014 by MonDie

[John Cuthber]

Racism was commonplace, and wrong, before anyone invented genetics.

It's straightforward distrust of those who are different, and as such , it's irrational.

It seems to me that any discussion of the "science" behind it is redundant, and perhaps dangerous as it might be interpreted as suggesting that there is some sort of scientific support for racism.

Edited July 2, 2014 by John Cuthber

[MonDie]

Who suggested there was science behind racism?

 

Return reset for July 5th.

Edited July 2, 2014 by MonDie

[chadn737]

It goes without saying that some allele frequencies will differ significantly because of different selection pressures. However, doesn't white skin probably involve some variations that are absent in native Africans either because they spawned after the migration or because they were eliminated from the African population at some point? Are there any cases of naturally white native Africans, or any cases of two native Africans producing a white baby? Maybe you can find some naturally brown people among both native Africans and "caucasians", but that's because the trait is polygenic.

 

White skin appears to have evolved after humans left Africa. There are alleles that arose in different human populations after leaving Africa and there is also varying degrees of admixture with other hominids, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, that are present in European and Asian populations and not African ones. However, the biggest difference is that Africa is the center of diversity, with more genetic diversity than in populations outside of Africa. Many, if not most, of the allele changes that occurred are the result of the bottlenecks that occurred when smaller sub-populations migrated out of Africa.

 

Centuries of migration, invasion, etc has created a situation where there has been mixing of populations over regions. Human genetic diversity is complex and does not fit categorizations that are typical of racist ideologies. We can speak of population structure and genetic/phenotypic consequences without supporting or acknowledging racism because reality does not fit racist ideology.

 

Quite frankly, I find talk of racism to be boring and outdated. Sure it still exists, but I think that a vast majority recognize that it is wrong both intellectually and morally and that racists as a group are to be ostracized. Those who cling to it are possess the sort of ignorance that will not be changed so I do not bother arguing with them. Actual genetic diversity and its consequences, along with reconstructing our history through genetics...tracing migrations, admixture, etc are topics I find to be of real interest.

[dimreepr]

The only vast majority would be of those that didn't understand your post; unfortunately.

 

 

 

Edit/ and before anyone suggests, it’s not about the quality of members here, but of the understanding of the potential majority.

Edited July 2, 2014 by dimreepr

[Ophiolite]

Racism was commonplace, and wrong, before anyone invented genetics.

It's straightforward distrust of those who are different, and as such , it's irrational.

It seems to me that any discussion of the "science" behind it is redundant, and perhaps dangerous as it might be interpreted as suggesting that there is some sort of scientific support for racism.

Let me be dangerous then.

 

Humanity would not have got where we are today without racism. It was a valuable concept that protected nascent civilisations, but has wholly outlived its value.

 

Racism is an expression of a highly cautious reaction to strangers. Strangers can be dangerous. They can steal your cattle, murder you in your sleep and poison your wells. Being suspicious of strangers has great survival value. This suspicion was grounded genetically and culturally.

 

How do you recognise a stranger? Perversely, by not recognising him, or her. They are strange. They are different. Cautious reaction to and distrust of such strangers not only protects you from them, but enhances the cooperation within your group. All very positive behaviours.

 

But we no longer live in small tribes of a hundred or so people. The old days are gone and the old ways must go with them. It's just tough for some people to discard a few hundred million years of genetic tendency.

 

So John, I think it is dangerous not to examine the science of racism, for if we do not understand it we shall be much less successful at countering it. It is dangerous to think it is irrational, when it was imminently rational in a different context. It is dangerous to condemn someone for bigotry when they are merely expressing a genetically directed behaviour that is little different from the one that perhaps encouraged you to marry and have children. Let's avoid the dangers by being objective about what is going on, not by making up stories about causes.

[Ten oz]

It goes without saying that some allele frequencies will differ significantly because of different selection pressures. However, doesn't white skin probably involve some variations that are absent in native Africans either because they spawned after the migration or because they were eliminated from the African population at some point? Are there any cases of naturally white native Africans, or any cases of two native Africans producing a white baby? Maybe you can find some naturally brown people among both native Africans and "caucasians", but that's because the trait is polygenic.

Nmachi Ihegboro was born white to two African parents. There are also countless cases of twins being born one black and one white to bi-racial parents.

I think something that is missing from this discussion is chioce breeding. Humans left the food chain a long time ago. Survival became easier once we developed agriculture and large tribes. Reproduction stopped being purely about whom was the most successful or who was still alive and capable. A child born with a mutation giving them blue eyes or fair skin may have been seen as sign of luck or gift from the gods. That child as a result had more children and those children sharing it's unique traits also had more children. We, Humans, intentially cultivated certian traits based purely on vanity and superstition. As a result many variations have no true benifit. We continue to see it today. Studies show that taller men are seen as more attractive and have a better likelihood of reproducing. Is being tall a uniquely beneficial trait? Meanwhile things like poor eye sight, family history of cancer, and etc are ignored. No man ever says "too bad that gorgeous model had lasik eye repair...otherwise I would've mated with her". Humans favor looks over other genetic factors that would have been important earlier in our evolution. Lots of people choose mates because of fashionable hairstyles while things like great eyesight, hearing, sense of smell, etc are completely ignored on the modern dating scene.

Evolution is not a straight line always moving toward perfection. The prevalence of a trait isn't equal to the value of a trait. If you were to sit down and think hard about the best way to ensure your genes continued, if you could remove lust from the process and focus the health of your child alone, would eye color or hair type of your mate matter at all???

[dimreepr]

Humans left the food chain a long time ago.

 

 

That’s absurd on the face of it; we may not be predated, mortally, on daily basis but I know many bugs, bacteria and virus’ that consider us lunch, not to mention hungry polar bears.

 

And in reply to the rest of the post:

[Ten oz]

Let me be dangerous then.

 

Humanity would not have got where we are today without racism. It was a valuable concept that protected nascent civilisations, but has wholly outlived its value.

 

Racism is an expression of a highly cautious reaction to strangers. Strangers can be dangerous. They can steal your cattle, murder you in your sleep and poison your wells. Being suspicious of strangers has great survival value. This suspicion was grounded genetically and culturally.

 

How do you recognise a stranger? Perversely, by not recognising him, or her. They are strange. They are different. Cautious reaction to and distrust of such strangers not only protects you from them, but enhances the cooperation within your group. All very positive behaviours.

 

But we no longer live in small tribes of a hundred or so people. The old days are gone and the old ways must go with them. It's just tough for some people to discard a few hundred million years of genetic tendency.

 

So John, I think it is dangerous not to examine the science of racism, for if we do not understand it we shall be much less successful at countering it. It is dangerous to think it is irrational, when it was imminently rational in a different context. It is dangerous to condemn someone for bigotry when they are merely expressing a genetically directed behaviour that is little different from the one that perhaps encouraged you to marry and have children. Let's avoid the dangers by being objective about what is going on, not by making up stories about causes.

I agree that racism in spawned from genetic tendencies that were once useful but I believe it's hurt human civilization's growth over the last 10,000 years. This conversation reminds me of an ongoing joke between myself and a co-worker, "pacifists always lose". Someone who is willing to kill to get their way will always get it vs someone who isn't. Doesn't matter which way is actually better.

 

Before agriculture various humans across the global dealt with scarcity. They had to compete for resources. Like wolf packs that had a territory to protect and competitors to battle. Humans once benefited from individuals who where quick to fight, kill, and push out anyone and anything different from themselves. Once the necessity to kill and view everyone as a threat had gone those who were prone to violence still dominated for a simple reason, pacifists always lose. Those who were willing to impale people on spikes, mutilate genitals, rape, and so on controlled society. As a results humans went through periods that lacked progression. People were denied resources even when plentiful, kept from being educated, research prohibited, and discoveries were concealed. So while racism served a purpose once upon a time it has long lost it usefulness. It has been the cause of a lot of pain and stunted human civilization's growth.

That’s absurd on the face of it; we may not be predated, mortally, on daily basis but I know many bugs, bacteria and virus’ that consider us lunch, not to mention hungry polar bears.

 

And in reply to the rest of the post:

My food chain comment merely referenced our shift from living in small tribes that struggled with scarcity and predatory attack to more modern civilizations. Clearly a polar bear, shark, crocodile, and so on would still eat a human. We also have bugs and bacteria eating us all the time. : )

 

I think we agree on the rest of the post?

[dimreepr]

This conversation reminds me of an ongoing joke between myself and a co-worker, "pacifists always lose". Someone who is willing to kill to get their way will always get it vs someone who isn't. Doesn't matter which way is actually better.

 

 

Ever heard the phrase “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword”?

 

It also applies to guns, BTW.

 

“pacifists always loose”

 

The pacifist will walk away from trouble, giving the thief whatever s/he wants, alive; and given the above, at some point, the aggressor won’t.

Now, that doesn’t seem like a win too me.

 

 

I think we agree on the rest of the post?

 

 

 

Not entirely.

[Ten oz]

Ever heard the phrase “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword”?

 

It also applies to guns, BTW.

 

“pacifists always loose”

 

The pacifist will walk away from trouble, giving the thief whatever s/he wants, alive; and given the above, at some point, the aggressor won’t.

Now, that doesn’t seem like a win too me.

 

 

 

 

 

Not entirely.

I absolutely believe in self fulfilling prophecies.