A self-identified “black person,” has a highly unpredictable amount of actually African genes, and the common results of certain traits will depend on genes that may not cause self-reporting, so your conclusions will all be corrupted.
Are you seriously going to argue that self-reported black people are no less likely to have blue eyes and blond hair than the general world population?
Including the fact that genetic-causation of traits is a hopelessly flawed concept in the first place.
What? Do you deny that eye color, hair color, lactase persistence and blood type are genetically caused?
They are self-reported “black people” with significantly different DNA, including in their skin color, which is supposed to be a defining trait in terms of self-reporting.
First, you somehow forget to mention that Charles Barkley also has more European DNA than Snoop Dogg. Snoop Dogg has more Native American DNA. Is the fact that Charles Barkley has lighter skin than Snoop Dogg so surprising given these data?
Second, I think you are attacking a strawman: nobody here is claiming that the precise skin tone can be perfectly predicted by DNA ancestry percentages. Skin color is clearly only one of the various traits that concur in the conventional perception of racial appearance. Indians, for instance, have a range of skin tones overlapping with sub-Saharan Africans, yet Indians are not commonly considered blacks, and they do not self-report as blacks.
If Snoop Dogg’s DNA test found, say, 30% African DNA, you could claim to have at least identified one outlier. It wouldn’t have invalidated the general claim that self-reported race is correlated with ancestry, since you aren’t allowed to generalize from one example, but at least it would have been a data point against it. But your own example didn’t even show that: Snoop Dogg, a self-reported black man, has 71% African DNA. I’m afraid you shot yourself in the foot.
In regards to having “primarily” Sub-Saharan African Ancestry, the cultural “one-drop rule” tendency to self-report as black with an African-American parent will also cause you to have self-reported black people who actually have less than 50% Sub-Saharan African DNA. So even that will be highly unreliable.
There are of course people with less than 50% sub-Saharan DNA that identify as black. Barack Obama is the most famous example. Yet most people who identify as black have more than 50% sub-Saharan DNA.
Are you seriously going to argue that self-reported black people are no less likely to have blue eyes and blond hair than the general world population?
I’m arguing that your data is corrupted and thus so is its predictive power. This is getting very boring, as is your circular voting with Azathoth and his failed red-herring arguments. This is precisely why the voting system here is flawed.
What? Do you deny that eye color, hair color, lactase persistence and blood type are genetically caused?
Genes are caused by environment. If environment shifts, these fuzzy-categories, including racial categories, will become associated with wildly different traits. It’s trivially easy.
First, you somehow forget to mention that Charles Barkley also has more European DNA than Snoop Dogg. Snoop Dogg has more Native American DNA. Is the fact that Charles Barkley has lighter skin than Snoop Dogg so surprising given these data?
You’re talking about who is self-reported as a black person. Which refers traditionally to their Sub-Saharan African DNA. To claim that other DNA has contributed to their skin color, and thus corrupted the causal link between self-reported race and genetic profile, is to shoot yourself in the foot, not vice versa.
I’m arguing that your data is corrupted and thus so is its predictive power.
Yeah, whatever. Answer this question: Are self-reported black people less likely to have blue eyes than the world population? Yes or no.
This is getting very boring, as is your circular voting with Azathoth and his failed red-herring arguments. This is precisely why the voting system here is flawed.
I never voted.
Genes are caused by environment.
For a slow-reproducing species like humans, environmental pressures take at least thousands or tens of thousands years to cause any noticeable evolution.
If environment shifts, these fuzzy-categories, including racial categories, will become associated with wildly different traits. It’s trivially easy.
It doesn’t change the fact that these correlations hold right now.
To claim that other DNA has contributed to their skin color, and thus corrupted the causal link between self-reported race and genetic profile,
Are you seriously going to argue that self-reported black people are no less likely to have blue eyes and blond hair than the general world population?
What? Do you deny that eye color, hair color, lactase persistence and blood type are genetically caused?
I think you are referring to these two segments: Charles Barkley DNA Test, Snoop Dogg’s DNA Test.
First, you somehow forget to mention that Charles Barkley also has more European DNA than Snoop Dogg. Snoop Dogg has more Native American DNA. Is the fact that Charles Barkley has lighter skin than Snoop Dogg so surprising given these data?
Second, I think you are attacking a strawman: nobody here is claiming that the precise skin tone can be perfectly predicted by DNA ancestry percentages.
Skin color is clearly only one of the various traits that concur in the conventional perception of racial appearance.
Indians, for instance, have a range of skin tones overlapping with sub-Saharan Africans, yet Indians are not commonly considered blacks, and they do not self-report as blacks.
If Snoop Dogg’s DNA test found, say, 30% African DNA, you could claim to have at least identified one outlier. It wouldn’t have invalidated the general claim that self-reported race is correlated with ancestry, since you aren’t allowed to generalize from one example, but at least it would have been a data point against it.
But your own example didn’t even show that: Snoop Dogg, a self-reported black man, has 71% African DNA.
I’m afraid you shot yourself in the foot.
There are of course people with less than 50% sub-Saharan DNA that identify as black. Barack Obama is the most famous example.
Yet most people who identify as black have more than 50% sub-Saharan DNA.
I’m arguing that your data is corrupted and thus so is its predictive power. This is getting very boring, as is your circular voting with Azathoth and his failed red-herring arguments. This is precisely why the voting system here is flawed.
Genes are caused by environment. If environment shifts, these fuzzy-categories, including racial categories, will become associated with wildly different traits. It’s trivially easy.
You’re talking about who is self-reported as a black person. Which refers traditionally to their Sub-Saharan African DNA. To claim that other DNA has contributed to their skin color, and thus corrupted the causal link between self-reported race and genetic profile, is to shoot yourself in the foot, not vice versa.
This is very, very boring.
Yeah, whatever. Answer this question: Are self-reported black people less likely to have blue eyes than the world population? Yes or no.
I never voted.
For a slow-reproducing species like humans, environmental pressures take at least thousands or tens of thousands years to cause any noticeable evolution.
It doesn’t change the fact that these correlations hold right now.
Except that it hasn’t.
So why are you doing it?
I’d guess it’d take a while (i.e. longer than Africans have been in America) before the traits end up “wildly different”, though.
Really? I would think that constantly inventing new rationalizations to explain away the evidence would at least be intellectually challenging.