The baby's sleeping right next to me right now, so I can't watch this, but I'm looking forward to it:
- Recreational genetics and self-identity (09:11)
- Do racial categories have a biological basis? (09:52)
- Will gene sequencing undermine racism? (05:37)
- Ways to make awesome babies (12:39)
- Are most of us crazy or are we both crazy and stupid? (10:34)
- Politicians, scientists, and other nutcases (09:23)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Mothers day, and so like all good fathers I went off rowing, only in this case I went Off a little further than normal, since we were competing in the Hammersmith Head.
First, however, I did my fatherly duty by assisting Miranda (who woke up especially to remind me that it was mothers day and that…
A few months ago a paper came out, The Threat of Appearing Prejudiced and Race-based Attentional Biase, which got a lot of press. Here's the important part:
The research took place over six years at Stanford and Penn State under Eberhardt's supervision. It involved mostly white male undergraduates…
I don't really like end-of-the-year lists. They seem a bit too self-knowing and forced, and there are just so many of them, particularly because we're heralding the end of a decade too. I half-expect someone to create a Top Ten Years of the Decade list (and Time Out would probably put 1977 in there…
So, remember back in December, I wrote a post about a Cantor crank
who had a Knol page supposedly refuting Cantor's diagonalization?
This week, I foolishly let myself get drawn into an extended conversation
with him in comments. Since it's a comment thread on an old post that had been inactive…
So, if you select genes to id race by presumed categories, then test to see if your presumed categories are identifiable using those genes, THEY ARE!!!!11!!
I thought Razib knew a lot more about genetics than he demonstrates here.
Down syndrome is not a mutation, dude, it's a chromosomal disjunction. Lucky for him his thesis on selection reducing DS through eugenics in France derailed before he choked on it.
So, if you select genes to id race by presumed categories, then test to see if your presumed categories are identifiable using those genes, THEY ARE!!!!11!!
Yes. But you don't need to select any genes. Pick genes at random - just pick many of them and the racial categories will be easily identifiable.
@Callie: Razib is a professional blogger. He does not need to know genetics at depth.
i meant mutation in a general broad sense. since i referred to it being a mess up of the smallest chromosome, i thought that was pretty obvious, but fine enough if you want to jump on me about that. i'd rather not get into moronic semantic arguments (e.g., "what is a gene"), but i did just double check and large scale chromosomal rearrangements are classified as types of mutations by some sources. the main issue is that since i was talking about SNPs the whole time i probably should have clarified. but 60 minutes isn't that much time....
dk is right. the main issue of course is that if you select ancestrally informative genes you don't need to type as many. but the structure/frappe plots which have tens of thousands of snps show the same geographic variation.
@Razib:
Although this may sound like splitting hairs, since in overwhelming majority of cases Down syndrome is a simple trisomy (not a "mess up of the smallest chromosome" or large scale chromosomal rearrangements), it is indeed incorrect to refer to it as mutation. Unless mutation is defined to include aneuploidy which I don't think it is in most people minds; or unless a reference is made specifically to a small minority of Down cases.
yeah. i regularly think of ploidy as a form of mutation. i.e., i refer to polyploid apples as "mutants." i do think in most peoples' minds though mutation doesn't refer to such massive genomic events, so i have to be careful in the future. but yes, for the record, i simply referred to trisomy 21 as a mutation. probably has to do with my orientation more toward evolutionary than molecular genetics; the structure of how changes occur are usually less salient to me than the change (also, one of my profs is a developmental geneticist who would talk about ploidy events as mutations).
oh, and i realized a good way to clarify my psychology. i was using "mutation" as if it was a term like "allele" or "locus," an evolutionary genetic abstraction. i wasn't using it like "SNP" or "gene," which are concrete entities (gene can also be abstract).
anyway, in the future i'm going to avoid using mutation broadly unless i make the abstract context explicit.