Geneticists reveal evolutionary origins of Cannabis sativa

1 year - 115 posts - Latest - RSS
OP: 3 Goods vs 4 No Goods
Thread: 143 Goods vs 168 No Goods

Sociology Job Market Rumors » Off Topic » Technology

Geneticists reveal evolutionary origins of Cannabis sativa

12…6 Next »

Sociologist
b16f

https://www.inverse.com/science/evolution-cannabis-sativa

The researchers first amassed a dataset of 110 genomes from Cannabis sativa strains from across the world. Then, they used molecular analysis and advanced DNA sequencing to build phylogenetic trees for the strains.

These trees reveal how four genetically distinct groups of cannabis evolved over centuries — one of which had never been detected before in previous research.

Basal cannabis: This includes wild plants. But it also includes traditional cannabis hybrids known as “landraces,” which is a term used to denote a varietal that has been cultivated in a certain place and which has evolved specific adaptations to the environment it grows in.

Hemp cannabis: Hemp is a type of Cannabis sativa distinguished by its lower levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the psychoactive compound in weed. Hemp isn’t typically considered a drug like other forms of cannabis — rather, its fibers have traditionally been used to weave textiles and other materials.

“Drug” cannabis one: This group includes wild strains with psychoactive properties similar to varieties of cannabis found in China, India, and Pakistan.

“Drug” cannabis two: This group includes varieties that have been purposefully cultivated by humans around the globe for their psychoactive properties.

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
b16f

Are these four genetically distinct groups of cannabis socially constructed?

1 year ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 5 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
a5fe

And yet sociologists still believe that people and cannabis are the same species.

1 year ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 5 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
b16f

And yet sociologists still believe that people and cannabis are the same species.

Not really a witty comeback since nobody said that.
Look at the phylogenetic tree of cannabis groups and how they are defining the groups. Sociologists often claim there are no identifiable discrete biological groups of humans. In the same sense as these groups of cannabis are named and identified (even including one non-monophyletic group in their 'basal' category), what would be the opposition to naming biological groups of humans, from the perspective of a typical western sociologist?

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
f6c6

Are these four genetically distinct groups of cannabis socially constructed?

Obviously. Did you not read what you posted in the OP?

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
f6c6

And yet sociologists still believe that people and cannabis are the same species.
Not really a witty comeback since nobody said that.
Look at the phylogenetic tree of cannabis groups and how they are defining the groups. Sociologists often claim there are no identifiable discrete biological groups of humans. In the same sense as these groups of cannabis are named and identified (even including one non-monophyletic group in their 'basal' category), what would be the opposition to naming biological groups of humans, from the perspective of a typical western sociologist?

There is not much of such opposition, is there? I’ve never heard any.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
b16f

There is not much of such opposition, is there? I�ve never heard any.

Read anything Dorothy Roberts has written.

Obviously. Did you not read what you posted in the OP?

So all scientific determinations are socially constructed, is that what you're arguing?

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 5 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
5553

And yet sociologists still believe that people and cannabis are the same species.

And yet sociologists still believe that people and cannabis are the same species.
Not really a witty comeback since nobody said that.
Look at the phylogenetic tree of cannabis groups and how they are defining the groups. Sociologists often claim there are no identifiable discrete biological groups of humans. In the same sense as these groups of cannabis are named and identified (even including one non-monophyletic group in their 'basal' category), what would be the opposition to naming biological groups of humans, from the perspective of a typical western sociologist?

Are you denying that cannabis and people are separate species? You are probably one of the corporate neoliberalling wokesters who think that juggalos and Uighurs are the same race. Name me one scientist who argues that cannabis and Eskimos are not different species. I’ll wait

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 5 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
f6c6

There is not much of such opposition, is there? I?ve never heard any.
Read anything Dorothy Roberts has written.

Obviously. Did you not read what you posted in the OP?

So all scientific determinations are socially constructed, is that what you're arguing?

Why would I read Roberts? She’s use/less.

And yes, all biologically classifications are socially constructed. Usually I get paid for educating the ig/norant; you’re welcome!

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
f378

There is not much of such opposition, is there? I?ve never heard any.
Read anything Dorothy Roberts has written.
Obviously. Did you not read what you posted in the OP?
So all scientific determinations are socially constructed, is that what you're arguing?
Why would I read Roberts? She�s use/less.
And yes, all biologically classifications are socially constructed. Usually I get paid for educating the ig/norant; you�re welcome!

OP unironically thinks that Roberts is the most important sociologist of race and health. Compare citations or ask for the most important journals on the topic and he ugly cries.

1 year ago # QUOTE 5 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
b16f

And yes, all biologically classifications are socially constructed. Usually I get paid for educating the ig/norant; you�re welcome!

Have you read Shiao yet?
What's weird is that you have repeatedly acted as if the notion of race being a social construct is not a subject of major controversy at highest levels of sociology. I'm going to guess you're an undergrad, since you've not been able to read and respond to Shiao on race as as a social construct even after this has been repeatedly assigned to you.
This article by Shiao was published in a leading sociology journal.

If all scientific categories are socially constructed, what is even the point of talking about the notion of 'social constructs' at all? Isn't that just postmodern anti-scientism at that point? The notions of a spherical planet, gravity, and evolution are all social constructs in the same sense as cultivated drug, wild drug, hemp, and basal categories of cannabis being social constructs, according to you dear undergrad?

You're seeming to argue that the highest level argumentation on this subject within sociology, from Roberts on one end and Shiao on the other, is just 'ignorant.' This shows me you're actually entirely unfamiliar with the relevant material on this subject, as you don't even read sociology journals much less scholarly work related to human biological diversity.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
b16f

OP unironically thinks that Roberts is the most important sociologist of race and health. Compare citations or ask for the most important journals on the topic and he ugly cries.

Roberts has far and away the most prominent visibility of any American sociologist discussing race and biology in international media terms. No one is close. She has been repeatedly featured at highest level national American media as representative of the discipline of sociology in discussions on this subject. She is the international public face of sociology's argument that 'race is a social construct' which she construes as meaning there are no biological categories of humans and any effort to classify biological categories of humans is evil and racist.

What names are you suggesting are more prominent?

If you think Shiao and Roberts are both ignorant, and yet these are major names in sociology discussing this subject, what does that say about level of discourse in American sociology in discussing biological race? Certainly both argue at much more advanced level than average sociology professor on twitter.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
f6c6

That’s rich. You’re citing fringe characters that no one doing empirical sociology even reads much less takes seriously, and accusing me of not knowing the literature. Sad to see such in/competent trol/ling!

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
b16f

That�s rich. You�re citing fringe characters that no one doing empirical sociology even reads much less takes seriously, and accusing me of not knowing the literature. Sad to see such in/competent trol/ling!

Whoever you are, you have far fewer citations than Shiao or Roberts on this subject.
It's also funny that you're so unfamiliar with their works (unable to discuss the substance of them at all) while also being unable to name any sociologists of greater importance regarding discussions on problematics of race as a biological category.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
b16f

Have you published any article with 378 or 98 citations dealing with race and genomics and how those relate to problematics of human biological classification?

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
f6c6

Why don’t you submit this very important insight you’ve had for publication, son? Why waste it in sjmr?

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
6bb2

That?s rich. You?re citing fringe characters that no one doing empirical sociology even reads much less takes seriously, and accusing me of not knowing the literature. Sad to see such in/competent trol/ling!
Whoever you are, you have far fewer citations than Shiao or Roberts on this subject.
It's also funny that you're so unfamiliar with their works (unable to discuss the substance of them at all) while also being unable to name any sociologists of greater importance regarding discussions on problematics of race as a biological category.

Have you published any article with 378 or 98 citations dealing with race and genomics and how those relate to problematics of human biological classification?

These are stupid arguments. Classic genetic fallacies that do not guarantee your conclusion. I could have fewer citations than Roberts, while there are still better cited scholars than her on the topic at hand (and there are). How Shiao is cited holding the complete opposite view is even less material. Calm down.

The modal paper in the top journal publishing articles on race and health from a sociological perspective disagrees with Roberts' argument about doing this kind of research. Which journal is that again, since you know the area well enough to be commenting on it?

1 year ago # QUOTE 6 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
f6c6

He’s giving his best effort though. Those brain hamsters of his cannot treadmill any faster!

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
b16f

The modal paper in the top journal publishing articles on race and health from a sociological perspective disagrees with Roberts' argument about doing this kind of research. Which journal is that again, since you know the area well enough to be commenting on it?

It's funny that you're pretending to be all-knowing while being unable to cite even a single paper in response to those that I've discussed, and have displayed lack of awareness about the content of the papers I discussed. But you know all this material, lol...
You've also not responded substantively to a single point I've made. Sociologists very commonly claim "races are not biologically real." How are they "less real" than the clades of cannabis listed above? Instead of responding, you're just arguing, "there is a secret paper that I know about, that you don't know about, that answers all these questions, and I won't mention it because it's super-secret."
White liberals Americans might as well be a separate subspecies bred down into abject stupidity.

Why is Dorothy Roberts frequently featured in national American media as the face of sociology as a discipline on this issue if you imagine her to be such a joke among sociologists? Where did her clout come from?
Am I talking to Phil again, who mass-baleeted threads on SJMR after he was humiliated by being shown to lack an undergrad's understanding of how PCA works?

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !
Sociologist
b16f

Why don�t you submit this very important insight you�ve had for publication, son? Why waste it in sjmr?

See, Shiao already largely covered this and debunked the social construction hypothesis. Now you're responding by issuing banalities like "All science is a social construct" which is absolutely meaningless if intended as a criticism of racial categories, and really a meaningless or tautological statement altogether. Gravity and evolution are socially constructed, just like clades of cannabis, ok... so what's the insight exactly to your statement? It's just subliterate types like you who are unable to access or read Shiao's article.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !

12…6 Next »

Geneticists reveal evolutionary origins of Cannabis sativa

Reply »