Lies that liberals tell

[liberty]

If there’s no such thing as race, how is it that it can be identified by DNA?


https://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/

A New DNA Test Can ID a Suspect's Race, But Police Won't Touch It
In the summer of 2002,

* Illustration: Wilson Hsu * In the summer of 2002, the FBI, the Baton Rouge Police Department, and several other agencies began a massive search for a serial killer suspected of murdering three women. Based on an FBI profile and an eyewitness report, they upended southern Louisiana looking for a white man who drives a white pickup, collecting DNA from more than 1,000 Caucasian males. They found nothing. Meanwhile, the killer struck again.

In March 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the suspect's race by analyzing his DNA. 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." There was a prolonged silence, followed by a flurry of questions. They all came down to this: Would Frudakis bet his life on his results? Absolutely.

Quickly changing course, the authorities soon turned up the file of Derrick Todd Lee, a 34-year-old black man with an extensive rap sheet for domestic violence, assault, stalking, and peeping. The police got a subpoena, took a cheek swab, and a few days later had an answer: Lee's sample matched DNA collected at the crime scenes.

Frudakis' test is called DNAWitness. It examines DNA from 176 locations along the genome. Particular sequences at these points are found primarily in people of African heritage, others mainly in people of Indo-European, Native American, or South Asian descent. No one sequence can perfectly identify a person's origin. But by looking at scores of markers, Frudakis says he can predict ancestry with a tiny margin of error.

Since the Baton Rouge case, DNAWitness has been used nationally in nearly 200 criminal investigations. In several, the science played a crucial role in narrowing the suspect field, ultimately leading to an arrest. But its success hasn't made the technology popular with law enforcement. Frudakis' company, DNAPrint, has yet to turn a profit and may not survive much longer.
Part of the problem is cost — basic tests run more than $1,000. But the real issue? DNAWitness touches on race and racial profiling — a subject with such a tortured history that people can't countenance the existence of the technology, even if they don't understand how it works.

"Once we start talking about predicting racial background from genetics, it's not much of a leap to talking about how people perform based on their DNA — why they committed that rape or stole that car or scored higher on that IQ test," says Troy Duster, former president of the American Sociological Association.

"This is analyzing data derived from a crime scene," Frudakis counters. "It's just a way for police to narrow down their suspect lists." But his position, rational as it may be, is no match for the emotions that surface with any pairing of race and crime.
Tony Clayton, a black man and a prosecutor who tried one of the Baton Rouge murder cases, concedes the benefits of the test: "Had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pickup." Nevertheless, Clayton says he dislikes anything that implies we don't all "bleed the same blood." He adds, "If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would."

[Joe Guy]

Yes, liberals have been lying to you.

You are a genetic honkie but liberals are just too polite to come out and say that to your face.

[ex-khobar Andy]

From lib's post:

A New DNA Test Can ID a Suspect's Race, But Police Won't Touch It

and

DNAWitness has been used nationally in nearly 200 criminal investigations.

Seems to me the police are doing some touching.

And the Henry Louis Gates series 'Finding Your Roots' is now in Series 10. They use DNA testing to determine a person's ancestry including origin populations such as sub-Saharan African, Ashkenazi Jews, Indian subcontinent and more, so the technology isn't new and seems to have wide acceptance. By April there will have been 106 episodes per Wikipedia.

[Burning Petard]

Informed authorities will not touch it because 'race' is a social/political defined category Yes, domestic dogs are all the same specie, but different breeds have recognizable different characteristics but dog and horse breeders have careful records and plan the breeding after much study.and race as used in American politics has no objective, scientific validated meaning. Yet intentionally mixed dogs are now fashionable with no evidence as to which behavior characteristic of the different breeds will be passed on.

But humans have even more limited breeding controls objective reality. What is 'caucasian? It means from the Caucasus Mountains. Look it up on a map and see where those mountains are actually located. A long way from the Anglo-Saxon world. The so-called 'races' have been mixing for millennia. The 'Bronze Age' required tin from the English Isles and copper from North Africa.

I took the 23 and Me DNA test and found I had NO particular geographical origin. My DNA was a through mix of sources from all over the Western world.
No point for me to buy lederhosen or a kilt, in spite of the entertaining tv commercials.

snailgate.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Stephen O'Brien, the National Cancer Institute laboratory chief, said there's plenty to question. He called the test a scam.

Different ethnic groups carry a "proportion" of distinctive genes, but they represent a tiny fraction of the overall variation.

"Put simply, there is 10 to 20 times more genetic differences between any two people within one race, say Caucasian, than there are between the racial groups," O'Brien said.

In theory, he said, it is possible to create such a test, but it would be quite expensive. At DNA Print Genomics' price, he said, it would have to be "woefully inaccurate."

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2004/0 ... es-debate/

[liberty]

Stephen O'Brien, the National Cancer Institute laboratory chief, said there's plenty to question. He called the test a scam.

Different ethnic groups carry a "proportion" of distinctive genes, but they represent a tiny fraction of the overall variation.

"Put simply, there is 10 to 20 times more genetic differences between any two people within one race, say Caucasian, than there are between the racial groups," O'Brien said.

In theory, he said, it is possible to create such a test, but it would be quite expensive. At DNA Print Genomics' price, he said, it would have to be "woefully inaccurate."

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2004/0 ... es-debate/

In science opinions are nearly worthless; the only thing that matters is results, facts, and the facts are the DNA can identify from where your Ancestors came. How do you think that works; is it some magic that radiates from a soil or is it an inheriting difference in the people? liberals like science when it tells them what they want to hear; some still claim that ancient Egypt was a black nation that looked liked a black inner-city community on Saturday night in spite of the DNA evidence to the contrary. if you're going to be a scientist you have to be willing to accept the truth whether you like it or not.

[liberty]

The last sentence says it all; liberals want the truth to be what they wanted to be. That is very dangerous in any position of power such as a general, police officer especially investigators, doctors, and lawyers, and prosecutors. I don't know about you, but I want my general to be an objective thinker. I want the prosecutor in my community to prosecute people based on evidence not feelings. I don't want the police officer on the beat deciding who should be punished and who should not. I want to live in an objective world.

"This is analyzing data derived from a crime scene," Frudakis counters. "It's just a way for police to narrow down their suspect lists." But his position, rational as it may be, is no match for the emotions that surface with any pairing of race and crime.
Tony Clayton, a black man and a prosecutor who tried one of the Baton Rouge murder cases, concedes the benefits of the test: "Had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pickup." Nevertheless, Clayton says he dislikes anything that implies we don't all "bleed the same blood." He adds, "If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would."

[MajGenl.Meade]

DNA can identify from where your Ancestors came

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with "race". (And is besides a notoriously inaccurate statement). Do some research instead of mouthing off about how much you don't want black people around because they are all criminals.

Given that race is a social construct:

In fact any two unrelated human beings on the planet are 99.9% identical in their DNA sequence. Only 0.1% varies, and here’s the most important takeaway message from all this. It also happens to be the most replicated finding in the scientific literature on human variation.

Of this 0.1% that varies, almost all of it (95.7% to be exact) is found between individuals within the same race. Despite what our eyes perceive, there is more genetic diversity within a race than between races

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/healt ... its-me-dna

[liberty]

DNA can identify from where your Ancestors came

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with "race". (And is besides a notoriously inaccurate statement). Do some research instead of mouthing off about how much you don't want black people around because they are all criminals.

Given that race is a social construct:

Sentences one, two, and three are all bullshit and I think you know it. And race is a social construct true, but so is reading, math, and marriage they only have meaning because we give them meaning, but that doesn't make the phenomenon behind those things invalid.

[Joe Guy]

And race is a social construct true...

Are social constructs present in our DNA?

[BoSoxGal]

Science proved that it was black Britons who likely built Stonehenge, but liberty refused to believe it. For some people, science only means something if it tells them what they want to hear.

For some time now law enforcement has been using DNA to solve crime, including the newer techniques of finding perpetrators via familial DNA/genetic genealogy searching - how the Golden State Killer was found, among others.

Law enforcement has also used genetic phenotyping to identify decomposed remains and then solve the murder of those remains from there.

Unfortunately, like liberty, many law enforcement officers are either incapable of grasping the science fully or choose to reject whatever evidence doesn't suit their purposes. The critical factor in using DNA evidence is understanding the limitations of it - many LEOs can't or won't, and are hardly likely to make the effort to explain distinctions to jurors.

[Burning Petard]

The other problem with DNA evidence is that it is still very technique dependent. It is very easy to contaminate the sample or miss identify the source.

Good scientists are hard to find, and a lab tech who will set up the equipment right, exactly the same every time, is even harder to find.

snailgate.

[MajGenl.Meade]

BSG seems to agree with lib. You can tell a criminal is black through DNA, despite the denials of science.

That bastion of liberal journalism (Grauniad) reported in June 2023:

Where Britons are really from is a complicated story. The oldest complete human skeleton found in the British Isles belongs to 10,000-year-old Cheddar Man. When scientists extracted and analysed his DNA a few years ago, they realised that he wasn’t your stereotypical fair-haired, pale-skinned “English rose”. Cheddar Man had dark brown skin, black hair and blue-green eyes. He wasn’t an anomaly: this is how the first Britons looked.

About 6,000 years ago, Cheddar Man’s foraging kinfolk were replaced by an olive-skinned, dark-haired population who originated in modern-day Turkey and migrated slowly across Europe, bringing agriculture with them. They would have looked similar to modern-day southern Europeans, who have inherited a large proportion of their DNA from these Neolithic farmers. . . It was these Anatolian immigrants who constructed that icon of Britishness, Stonehenge, between about 5,000 and 4,500 years ago. But not long afterwards, they vanished and were replaced by another genetically distinct population group who were taller and fairer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -migration

We are all (as far as I know) "out of Africa". But it is rubbish to say that the builders of Stonehenge were "black". Made for a woke children's book though

[liberty]

BSG seems to agree with lib. You can tell a criminal is black through DNA, despite the denials of science.

That bastion of liberal journalism (Grauniad) reported in June 2023:

Where Britons are really from is a complicated story. The oldest complete human skeleton found in the British Isles belongs to 10,000-year-old Cheddar Man. When scientists extracted and analysed his DNA a few years ago, they realised that he wasn’t your stereotypical fair-haired, pale-skinned “English rose”. Cheddar Man had dark brown skin, black hair and blue-green eyes. He wasn’t an anomaly: this is how the first Britons looked.

About 6,000 years ago, Cheddar Man’s foraging kinfolk were replaced by an olive-skinned, dark-haired population who originated in modern-day Turkey and migrated slowly across Europe, bringing agriculture with them. They would have looked similar to modern-day southern Europeans, who have inherited a large proportion of their DNA from these Neolithic farmers. . . It was these Anatolian immigrants who constructed that icon of Britishness, Stonehenge, between about 5,000 and 4,500 years ago. But not long afterwards, they vanished and were replaced by another genetically distinct population group who were taller and fairer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -migration

We are all (as far as I know) "out of Africa". But it is rubbish to say that the builders of Stonehenge were "black". Made for a woke children's book though

There is nothing here with which I disagree. Some people claim that cheddar man was black that is negroid because of his dark skin but Caucasians can be dark skin. I think most likely cheddar man evolved in southern Spain and most likely without any form of shelter and migrated North. That would make more sense considering what we know about the importance of Vitamin D in health. My doctor put me on vitamin D supplements because my medications affected my vitamin D level. lack of vitamin D not only makes your bones weak but also make you more prone to cancer and heart disease it is a crucial vitamin and it's only available through milk, certain cold saltwater fish oils, and sunshine. For that reason, I can't believe that cheddar man involved in northern Europe, and he definitely wasn't negroid.

[Joe Guy]

Some people claim that cheddar man was black that is negroid because of his dark skin but Caucasians can be dark skin.

So, do ya think this computerized image might not be accurate and is a liberal's version of the Cheddar Man?....

[Big RR]

Nah--that guy looks Swiss.

[Sue U]

So, do ya think this computerized image might not be accurate and is a liberal's version of the Cheddar Man?....

Your theory is full of holes.

[Scooter]

Like the village idiot's head.

[Joe Guy]

Darn that liberal Google search engine! I did a search for a 'Cheddar Man' image and it came up with a faulty Swiss replica.

[Scooter]

You would think a cheap replica would have shown a Chinese cheese.