'Black Lives Matter' Organizer Outed as White?

[PRB]

I doubt that that's true. Most likely you could point to genes that indicate greater likelihood of someone being a Christian. But what you can't do is point to genes that can prove that someone either is or isn't one.

I agree, because Christian is an acquired trait, not a genetic trait. Unless you can find a gene which physically prohibits a person from becoming Christian.

 

[erowe1]

probability is not certainty. at least not in statistics.

Oh. So what probability means in statistics is percentage of genetic markers?

 

[erowe1]

It's not stupid, it's the logical conclusion of you saying Africa is not a gene.

No it isn't the logical conclusion. There's nothing remotely logical about it. It's really weird that you think so.

 

[PRB]

Oh. So what probability means in statistics is percentage of genetic markers?

It can mean a lot of things, depending on context, but I wouldn't equate it to 'certainty'

Example : for geneaology/geographic determination, I cited an article that uses 128 markers. if all 128 markers were matching or not matching, you can say it's 0-99.99% probability that somebody IS or ISN'T born of people who are native to a region, however, that has zero to do with "certainty". Whether 128 or 12 or 2000 markers are used is a subjective standard, but tells us a hell lot more than your denial.

 

[erowe1]

"Not only that, but they even differ genetically from other people who do live in Africa."

Do they differ equally?

Sometimes. It depends on the individual cases.

 

[PRB]

No it isn't the logical conclusion. There's nothing remotely logical about it. It's really weird that you think so.

it only sounds weird because you've realized how absurd your premise is, that African is not a gene when discussing ancestry, then conflating whether a person was located in Africa with whether a person is native to Africa and its majority population.

 

[PRB]

Sometimes. It depends on the individual cases.

Why would it differ? Africa is not a gene.

How would a person be more vs less African or more different vs less different?

 

[erowe1]

It can mean a lot of things, depending on context, but I wouldn't equate it to 'certainty'

A probability of 1 indicates that something is totally certain. A probability of 0.99 is a degree of certainty of 0.99. Right?

Example : for geneaology/geographic determination, I cited an article that uses 128 markers.

I don't believe you did.

if all 128 markers were matching or not matching, you can say it's 0-99.99% probability that somebody IS or ISN'T born of people who are native to a region, however, that has zero to do with "certainty".

Source?

 

[erowe1]

Why would it differ? Africa is not a gene.

Any two Africans may have any degree of genetic similarity. And any African compared with any non-African may have any degree of genetic similarity. Some Africans are genetically more similar to some non-Africans than some Africans are with other Africans.

And yes, this is true because Africa is not a gene.

 

[PRB]

A probability of 1 indicates that something is totally certain. A probability of 0.99 is a degree of certainty of 0.99. Right?

No, it doesn't. Because anybody can set any arbitrary criteria for what counts as probability and certainty. It can be as simple question as "is he black", and there would only be 2 answers, 0% vs 100%.

In statistics, there's null hypothesis, t test, p test, and many other tests of statistical error, none of them come straight from probability in your initial test.

As an example : when you paternity test a child, you look for markers which indicate where he/she got his/her genes from. if you looked at 1000 markers and all of them find a positive match to alleged parent, you'd say "if our assumptions are correct, this person is 100% his/her parent" BUT, this doesn't mean you're certain, because it doesn't dismiss an identical twin of the alleged parent, or as you suggested, somebody could have other markers that are completely overlooked in this test. none of these tests will say they are "certain" short of being there to see it. evidence CAN be faked, or more often mistaken.

 

[PRB]

Any two Africans may have any degree of genetic similarity. And any African compared with any non-African may have any degree of genetic similarity. Some Africans are genetically more similar to some non-Africans than some Africans are with other Africans.

And yes, this is true because Africa is not a gene.

What the hell is a non-African? It's not a gene. Tell me what you mean by that.

Let's play that game, since you love it so much.

 

[timosman]

bump

 

[Origanalist]

Ah, good times. Remember when things seemed simple?

 

[Ender]

Just read this thread and here is what the law was and has never been rescinded:

In the United States, the “one-drop rule” — also known as hypodescent — dates to a 1662 Virginia law on the treatment of mixed-race individuals. The legal notion of hypodescent has been upheld as recently as 1985, when a Louisiana court ruled that a woman with a black great-great-great-great-grandmother could not identify herself as “white” on her passport.

If the "Black Lives Matter" guy has 1 drop of black blood in him, he is legally black.

As far as DNA, I have written before about my Tongva Indian friend (who is considered a full-blooded American Indian) who had his DNA done and it came back with him as 95% Ainu. Blew him out of the water- AND he completely looks Indian.

In my case, I am mostly Cherokee Scot, with a bit of Irish (they weren't considered "white" either), Lumbee Indian and a great, great, great, great grandmother who was black. Legally that makes me black in the good ol' US of A.

AND- I look like my avatar- blonde hair, blue eyes, rather tan skin. Basically Legolas.