Race 'Science'

[DanishDynamite]

That there is no categorisation of humans into 'racial' groups if one looks at genetics. I'm not sure if I see that so plainly because I did molecular phylogeny...but it's why your claims of 'because it's obvious' simply aren't valid. It's obvious to me that it's an artificial classification based only on what we find visibly distinct.

Almost no subspecies classification is so classified due to genetics. But you know this, as you said so at the outset, so I don't understand why you keep trying to make this appear as a point of contention.

Look at it another way (yeah, so I'm stubbornly trying here) - you walk into a paddock and see one hundred sheep. Fifty are black, and fifty are white. You state 'obviously there are two races'. I take blood samples from all of them and send them off to a pathologist, who identifies three HLM antigens on the blood cells. 'Obviously there are three races' he says. He sends the blood samples on to an immunologist who finds there are five types of immune responses to a disease in the sheep. 'Obviously there are five races' he says.

What do blood samples have to do with subspecies?

The results are sent back to the farmer, who simply thinks he's got a single race of sheep - the farmer next door has a paddock of sheep with big heads, so his group is a different race (especially as it is geographically isolated in the next paddock).

Blood samples from all sheep are sent to a geneticist, who simply sees a wide variation of genetic combinations. Sure, some combinations seem to correlate with some geographical regions, but that's only obvious when he knows which paddock the given sheep are from, and even then not all the sheep there share that precise combination, so it's too vague to use as a single category.

In other words, the variations of morphologies we describe as race are due to the fact we are biased to weight categorisation heavily on morphology. 'Race' as such is therefore arbitrary.

Yes, as far as I understand the term morphology, that is often a large part of subspecies determination.

You yourself in posts later on feel it's important to distinguish 'pygmies' from other African groups. I've not known 'race' to be used in this fashion, to be honest. I do know some Indigenous people who refer to Torres Straight Islanders as being another race. Then again, I'm sure if I showed you pictures of TSIs and Australian Aborigines, you'd be hard pressed to match them in the right groups (I never used to be able to tell, until recent years).

If the delineation is too hair-fine, I would suggest it be scrapped.

I'm not saying variation doesn't occur. I'm saying that genetically speaking, in isolation of contributing knowledge of geography and culture, there is no category distinct as race.

Genetically, you would be right. Taxidermally, you would be wrong, as the thousands of subspieces accepted as such in science, exist.

Now I'm wondering if you're intentionally playing the fool, DD. I thought better of you.

Likewise, my friend.

I said 'it is only useful in the context of geographical populations'. All along I've been arguing that genetically speaking, the term is baseless. If one is clear about precisely what they mean of the term 'race', as in referring to a distinct genetic population, it is only relevant if one knows that the distinction takes into account geographical separation.

You keep stubbornly holding onto the 'it's obvious' stance, even though it fell apart ages ago.

Athon

It neither fell apart nor is baseless.

It is in fact used every day by taxidermists and for good reason.

 

[DanishDynamite]

No, we're not. We're talking about "race." Check the title of the thread.

As explained previously, they are the same.

The simple fact is that "sub-species," which is a well-defined scientific term, has little or nothing to do with the subject of human "races"; the "races" that everyone recognizes (such as "white," "black", "asian" and so forth) are not subspecies, but socially-defined groupings.

Races are subspecies. If you understand something differently from the word race, than that is most likely a reflection of the political environment you inhabit.

Now, humanity does have subspecies. But they're not "races." No one except you holds that "Masai" is a race distinct from Pygmies -- as the forms I posted illustate, those two groups are placed together in the socially-defined "black" category.

Of course they are distinct. Any taxidermist free of PC would classify them as such. They are afterall clearly distinguishable from each other by any 5-year old.

They're simple illustrations of the fact that the word "race" does not mean "subspecies" when applied to humans, and that the groups defined by "race" are neither subspecies, nor scientifically well-grounded, nor anything other than social constructions.

I love this sentence. "...when applied to humans...". Priceless.

No, of course not. "Race" is a socially-defined categorization of humanity; "Racism" is a politically-based belief that the socially-defined "races" are meaningful in other ways (such as the belief that the social categories reflect scientific groupings).

But the concept of "race" is also not the concept of "subspecies"; the groups geneticists have identified as human subspecies are almost orthogonal to the groups that sociologists have identified as "races."

Wake up and smell the science.

It is neither simple nor science.

It is obviously both. It beggars the mind that anyone as educated as yourself cannot remove the blinders. Let me just repeat again what you said:

"They're simple illustrations of the fact that the word "race" does not mean "subspecies" when applied to humans...."

Unbelievable.

 

[athon]

Almost no subspecies classification is so classified due to genetics. But you know this, as you said so at the outset, so I don't understand why you keep trying to make this appear as a point of contention.

Because you seem bent on arguing it. Are we actually agreeing and just being stubborn? From the outset I've said that race as traditionally described - meaning a small number of large groups across large geographical areas (negro, caucasian, asian...etc) - are arbitrary, have no genetic basis and are based on our bias towards classifying on grounds of only what is grossly visible, such as the morphology.

That's it.

Yes, as far as I understand the term morphology, that is often a large part of subspecies determination.

Great. We agree. Although more often subspecies are accounted for based on distinction of geographical regions more than morphology, yet other phenotypical descriptions can be used as well.

Genetically, you would be right. Taxidermally, you would be wrong, as the thousands of subspieces accepted as such in science, exist.

Small nitpick - it's 'taxonomically'. Taxidermy is the preparation of a dead animal for mounting and display purposes.

As for 'accepted by science', as I said before, this has actually changed quite a bit with the advent of genetics, with shifts in understanding of how populations are related to one another. Taxonomically, subspecies terminology is used by ecologists in reference to populations which are distinct and have limited gene flow between other related populations. Molecular geneticists don't tend to use the term much at all. So this still doesn't apply to large groups of people called 'negro, caucasian etc'.

It neither fell apart nor is baseless.

It is in fact used every day by taxidermists and for good reason.

Taxonomists. And I've gone over the reasons why ecologists and population geneticists use the term subspecies and why it is not quite the same as the traditional usage of race in humans. Geographically speaking, and when looking at limited gene flow, it provides some understanding of population relatedness. It is not a genetic category.

If you can agree with that, I don't think we have a quarrel. If not, please point out which parts you don't agree with.

Athon

 

[DanishDynamite]

I think you go with your gut feeling when you state that of course they're races. And it's not that I don't have the same feeling. We all do, I think. Sometimes it's just obvious that somebody is a black African, isn't it?
But on the other hand I know a guy here in Copenhagen, Martin Jensen, who - in spite of his name - appears to be a South-Saharan African. And when he went to Cuba, nobody expected him to be Danish. They all seemed to think that he was Cuban (until they heard his Spanish!). Most slaves in Cuba were from the Yoruba people in West Africa (which, by the way, is the reason why the Afro-Cuban religion Santeria is often referred to as Yoruba).
Martin, however, as the name implies, is a Dane, adopted from parents in India and thus (probably) genetically more similar to Danes than to (black) Cubans.
I think that Athon’s example (the sheep, but you might have used white, grey, striped and black cats as well) is an eye opener.

I think your self-imposed blindness in this regard is an eye-opener. It is in fact close to incredible.

Would you be in doubt as to whether a given dog you saw in the street was Boxer or a Terrier? If not, then if you were also made aware that a Boxer crossed with a Boxer would likewise give Boxer offspring, just as the Terrier crossed with a Terrier would give Terrier offspring, which were again easily distinguishable from the Boxer offspring, would you still say it made no sense to distinguish?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Sometimes they are easily distinguishable. Certainly not always. But if you believe that the races are easily distinguishable from one another, could you list all of the races and name the unique, defining characteristics of each one?

No, I couldn't. I'm not an expert on how many different subspecies there are. But I could and did provide a method whereby these subspecies could be arrived at.

 

[jimtron]

Still waiting for the scientific definition of "race." So far my mind hasn't been changed--it still appears to be a social construct as far as I can tell. But if anyone can provide a scientific definition, I'd like to look at it.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Because you seem bent on arguing it. Are we actually agreeing and just being stubborn? From the outset I've said that race as traditionally described - meaning a small number of large groups across large geographical areas (negro, caucasian, asian...etc) - are arbitrary, have no genetic basis and are based on our bias towards classifying on grounds of only what is grossly visible, such as the morphology.

That's it.

I seem bent on arguing that subspecies are genetically determined? Where, oh where, have I made this argument here?

Great. We agree. Although more often subspecies are accounted for based on distinction of geographical regions more than morphology, yet other phenotypical descriptions can be used as well.

There you go.

Small nitpick - it's 'taxonomically'. Taxidermy is the preparation of a dead animal for mounting and display purposes.

Small nitpick graciously accepted.

As for 'accepted by science', as I said before, this has actually changed quite a bit with the advent of genetics, with shifts in understanding of how populations are related to one another. Taxonomically, subspecies terminology is used by ecologists in reference to populations which are distinct and have limited gene flow between other related populations. Molecular geneticists don't tend to use the term much at all. So this still doesn't apply to large groups of people called 'negro, caucasian etc'.

If "the advent of genetics" manages to redefine a Boxer as a Great Dane or a Masai as an Eskimo, it is time to head for the hills as the End is Near.

Taxonomists. And I've gone over the reasons why ecologists and population geneticists use the term subspecies and why it is not quite the same as the traditional usage of race in humans. Geographically speaking, and when looking at limited gene flow, it provides some understanding of population relatedness. It is not a genetic category.

If you can agree with that, I don't think we have a quarrel. If not, please point out which parts you don't agree with.

Athon

I agree, with reservations. Saying it is not a genetic category is correct, but dilutes the fact of the morphology.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Still waiting for the scientific definition of "race." So far my mind hasn't been changed--it still appears to be a social construct as far as I can tell. But if anyone can provide a scientific definition, I'd like to look at it.

I seem to recall providing one earlier. Once again, in case you missed it:

plant or animal category: a category used to classify plants and animals whose populations are distinct, e.g. in distribution, appearance, or feeding habits, but can still interbreed

 

[hammegk]

...Saying it is not a genetic category is correct, but dilutes the fact of the morphology.

As I posted earlier:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36...ll/ng1435.html

When 100 Alu insertion polymorphisms and 60 short tandem repeat (STR) polymorphisms were used, all Europeans, East Asians and Africans were correctly placed according to their respective continents of origin.

I agree, "genetic category" doesn't get much use, but the differences are real and in the genotype.

 

[dakotajudo]

Would you be in doubt as to whether a given dog you saw in the street was Boxer or a Terrier? If not, then if you were also made aware that a Boxer crossed with a Boxer would likewise give Boxer offspring, just as the Terrier crossed with a Terrier would give Terrier offspring, which were again easily distinguishable from the Boxer offspring, would you still say it made no sense to distinguish?

Your analogy here is flawed. Terriers and Boxers represent individuals from populations that are largely homogenous and homozygous. These represent breeds, but breeds should not be confused with subspecies.

All Terriers will be genetically identical at certain traits of interest (the traits the uniquely identify the breed), as will all Boxers (that's the homogenous part). Parents of the same breed will have duplicate genes at traits of interest (that's the homozygous part). Obviously, offspring from such parents will be almost indistinquishable from the parents, and easily distinquished from other breeds - that's pretty much the definition of a pure-breeding line.

Human populations, in contrast, are generally quite heterogenous and heterozygous; any analogy to breeds is flawed at the start.

 

[dann]

I think your self-imposed blindness in this regard is an eye-opener. It is in fact close to incredible.

Would you be in doubt as to whether a given dog you saw in the street was Boxer or a Terrier? If not, then if you were also made aware that a Boxer crossed with a Boxer would likewise give Boxer offspring, just as the Terrier crossed with a Terrier would give Terrier offspring, which were again easily distinguishable from the Boxer offspring, would you still say it made no sense to distinguish?

No, I have no problem distinguishing between boxers and terriers. Nor do I have a problem distinguishing between blonde Scandinavians and black (Sub-Saharan) Africans. But sometimes I do have a problem distinguishing between black South Indians (or Australian Aborigines) and black Africans. And so would your hypothetical five-year-old! A five-year-old, by the way, would have no difficulties distinguishing between black and white sheep! (That was the point made by Athon in an earlier post, but I guess you'll continue to ignore the lesson.) Speaking of five-year-olds ...

Of course they are distinct. Any taxidermist free of PC would classify them as such. They are afterall clearly distinguishable from each other by any 5-year old.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Your analogy here is flawed. Terriers and Boxers represent individuals from populations that are largely homogenous and homozygous. These represent breeds, but breeds should not be confused with subspecies.

Breeds = races = subspecies. Look it up.

All Terriers will be genetically identical at certain traits of interest (the traits the uniquely identify the breed), as will all Boxers (that's the homogenous part). Parents of the same breed will have duplicate genes at traits of interest (that's the homozygous part). Obviously, offspring from such parents will be almost indistinquishable from the parents, and easily distinquished from other breeds - that's pretty much the definition of a pure-breeding line.

Human populations, in contrast, are generally quite heterogenous and heterozygous; any analogy to breeds is flawed at the start.

No idea what you mean. Masai did and do not generally interbreed with Pygmies. Neither did or do Eskimoes and Aborigines.

 

[Jeff Corey]

It would help if they simply said humans are declared excempt from subspecies categorization.

You tell them that. They're the scientists who study the topic, not you, not me. This is an example of a nonfallacious appeal to authority.

 

[DanishDynamite]

No, I have no problem distinguishing between boxers and terriers. Nor do I have a problem distinguishing between blonde Scandinavians and black (Sub-Saharan) Africans. But sometimes I do have a problem distinguishing between black South Indians (or Australian Aborigines) and black Africans. And so would your hypothetical five-year-old! A five-year-old, by the way, would have no difficulties distinguishing between black and white sheep! (That was the point made by Athon in an earlier post, but I guess you'll continue to ignore the lesson.) Speaking of five-year-olds ...

Yes, and? As I previously suggested, one way to ascertain how many human subspecies exist would be to do an international survey.

 

[jimtron]

Originally Posted by jimtron
Still waiting for the scientific definition of "race." So far my mind hasn't been changed--it still appears to be a social construct as far as I can tell. But if anyone can provide a scientific definition, I'd like to look at it.

I seem to recall providing one earlier. Once again, in case you missed it:

plant or animal category: a category used to classify plants and animals whose populations are distinct, e.g. in distribution, appearance, or feeding habits, but can still interbreed

Thanks for reposting. Is this a joke? You're saying the scientific definition of race is: "a category used to classify (humans) whose populations are distinct, e.g. in distribution, appearance, or feeding habits, but can still interbreed"?

Tell me more about the feeding habits of different races, please.

I agree that race is a way to categorize or classify. My point is that there is no scientific way (so far anyway) to define humans by their "race."

I guess I was foolish to think I'd get a real answer about science and race here, from the folks who ostensibly believe race is a science.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...Masai did and do not generally interbreed with Pygmies. Neither did or do Eskimoes and Aborigines.

[Claus]Evidence?[/Claus]

 

[DanishDynamite]

You tell them that. They're the scientists who study the topic, not you, not me. This is an example of a nonfallacious appeal to authority.

It is certainly an excellent example of the PC which seems to infiltrate this simple subject.

 

[dann]

No idea what you mean. Masai did and do not generally interbreed with Pygmies. Neither did or do Eskimoes and Aborigines.

Why don't they? Because they are different races or because they live on different continents? (According to Danes working in Greenland in the 1960s and 1970s, Eskimos had no problem whatsoever with 'racial' interbreeding, by the way.)

 

[Jeff Corey]

It is certainly an excellent example of the PC which seems to infiltrate this simple subject.

"Simple" is the operative word here. Simplistic is another.

 

[dann]

Yes, and? As I previously suggested, one way to ascertain how many human subspecies exist would be to do an international survey.

Yes, that's how five-year-olds usually handle the problem.