Race 'Science'

[DanishDynamite]

We agree and it is a matter of terminology. Yes, the two island populations should be considered different races as should similarly genetically different sub-saharan African populations. But "ancestral population group" in this context takes into consideration genetic difference, time/distance spent apart from other populations, and environments they adapted to (most obviously UV radiation).

But none of this counters the data that bpesta22 cited that started the arguement.

For one thing, the racist arguement that needs to be rebutted is that different races have different intelligence and behavioral traits because of the environments they were ancestrally in. Using examples of genetically separated sub-saharan Africans and southern Indians doesn't counter this.

Compared to "whites" and north east Asians most "blacks" included in IQ related data are ancestrally from similar environments even south Indians, Watusis, and Masai. I don't see the racist arguement even trying to be rebutted here but rather ignored, which is a shame because they're rightly or wrongly gaining increasing proponents in academia and that's societally important.

As "whites" and "north east Asians" don't exist as races, isn't the rest of your post uninteresting?

 

[DanishDynamite]

As I suspected, you cannot differentiate between the concepts of race and racism.[/QUOTE
I didn't expect that you English was so poor as to be unable to distinguish between the commonly used term "racism" and the more refined scientific definition that says there are no human races.
Maybe that'swhy I did not use the term racism.

You didn't use the term, but your entire post was full of it.

Please try to avoid it in the future as this is not the topic here. Thanks.

 

[athon]

Morphology is important because it is the basis of taxonomy.

I'm moving on from commenting on the rest of your post because I think I've found the core of the problem; this is not true.

Historically, morphology has been used in taxonomy. It remains somewhat useful for observing relationships where genetic difference is significantly large, such as between species (yet genetic phylogeny is even overturning a number of misconceptions there). Importantly, where there is minimal genetic variation and we need to focus in on greater details, morphology plays a decreasing role in classification. I covered that when I explained how bacteriology no longer uses it at all due to massive taxonomic errors, leading to species of bacteria needing to be reclassified in light of genetic comparison.

Using morphology for analysis of relationships of populations within a species in an effort to classify them taxonomically was left behind in recent decades for genetic analysis.

Athon

 

[DanishDynamite]

I'm moving on from commenting on the rest of your post because I think I've found the core of the problem; this is not true.

Historically, morphology has been used in taxonomy. It remains somewhat useful for observing relationships where genetic difference is significantly large, such as between species (yet genetic phylogeny is even overturning a number of misconceptions there). Importantly, where there is minimal genetic variation and we need to focus in on greater details, morphology plays a decreasing role in classification. I covered that when I explained how bacteriology no longer uses it at all due to massive taxonomic errors, leading to species of bacteria needing to be reclassified in light of genetic comparison.

Using morphology for analysis of relationships of populations within a species in an effort to classify them taxonomically was left behind in recent decades for genetic analysis.

Athon

You are lost, my friend.

Sorry, but I had to say that. Here's why:

I previously mentioned the Northern White Rhino and the Southern White Rhino as examples of subspecies. Now, unlike an Eskimo and a Masai, they are not immediatelly obvious as different subspecies. Even for a 5-year-old.

The reason is that the only difference between the two subspecies is a slight behaviouraly difference!

Ask me what that difference is. Go on!

 

[DanishDynamite]

Athon, I know you are a decent guy. I also know you are a smart guy. But most importantly in this connection, I know you are a skeptic guy.

So, given the above, how is possible for you, deep down inside yourself, to try and not see that there are obviously different subspecies among the human race? I simply don't understand it.

As I said previously, any 5-year old could see the difference between an Eskimo and an Aboriginie. And between any number of obvious subspecies.

You, yourself can do so, of course.

We don't even need to resort to behavioural differences or eating habits or other less obvious stuff. We can simply look and see the difference!

The only conclusion I can draw is that you are arguing against the obvious on the principle that if races are officially recognized then racism might also be so recognized.

Am I wrong?

 

[Ysidro]

So races are sub-species? You sure? You really really sure?

All modern humans belong to the same sub-species. We are all Homo sapiens sapiens.

Don't believe me? Well let's start simple with Wikipedia's article on "Human"

"Modern humans" are defined as the Homo sapiens species, of which the only extant subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens; Homo sapiens idaltu (roughly translated as "elder wise human"), the other known subspecies, is extinc

Wiki too unreliable for you? How about Washington State University? http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modu...ne/h-sapiens-sapiens/h-sapiens-sapiens-a.html

The 130,000 year-old reconstructed skull shown below at left represents the earliest known example of a modern human being, Homo sapiens sapiens.

Damn, I should have never dropped out of Anthropology in favor of Information Technology. Want me to keep going with this?

Want to come up with a different definition of race, DD?

 

[Jeff Corey]

As I suspected, you cannot differentiate between the concepts of race and racism.

You suspect too much. The concept of race in humans is a pseudoscientific concept. Racism is when people employ this pseudoscientific concept to support their agendas of their superiority.

 

[JoeEllison]

You suspect too much. The concept of race in humans is a pseudoscientific concept. Racism is when people employ this pseudoscientific concept to support their agendas of their superiority.

So how do you explain the fact that the people who are most obviously racist often claim that they aren't racist at all, and accuse the rest of the world of making false accusations? Is it just a defensive move, or are they really that self-deluded?

 

[Jeff Corey]

So how do you explain the fact that the people who are most obviously racist often claim that they aren't racist at all, and accuse the rest of the world of making false accusations? Is it just a defensive move, or are they really that self-deluded?

Is that true? Most of the racists I know are proud of it. Maybe you have met a better class of racist aholes.

 

[athon]

I previously mentioned the Northern White Rhino and the Southern White Rhino as examples of subspecies. Now, unlike an Eskimo and a Masai, they are not immediatelly obvious as different subspecies. Even for a 5-year-old.

The reason is that the only difference between the two subspecies is a slight behaviouraly difference!

Ask me what that difference is. Go on!

Um, actually there is a slight morphological difference with white and black rhinos - the shape of their mouths. That aside, there is a behavioural difference in aggression that I've read somewhere. But I'm happy to be tutored on any other differences you know of.

Nonetheless, this contrasts with your statement before of 'Morphology is important because it is the basis of taxonomy.' Now you claim that the taxonomic difference between the rhinos is strictly behavioural? I'm lost as to what point this now proves in light of your previous claim.

As for the contrasts between the two rhino populations, it is again based on geographical populations. The usefulness in making the claim they are distinct subspecies has to do with primarily the parameters of geography - should the two populations become mixed and the wide mouth of the black rhino be a trait intermixed in the general population, the term subspecies would no longer have the same use or relevance. We don't look at other inherited traits within a general population, such as nose shape or blood type, and claim it to be indicative of a race within a wider population.

Thus in its traditional usage, race is not equivalent in humans. It is not restricted to comparisons of geographically isolated populations as you suggest, but extends beyond that.

I can't help but feel on most accounts, we agree. However there is some conflict in that the way you are extending the terminology is not matched by the way I've read it in the literature or in other texts. And without meaning to have a dig at you (I think we're good enough mates for us to agree there's mutual respect here) your misuse of 'taxidermy' for 'taxonomy' seems to indicate that you're not really well read in how taxonomists do use the terms.

Athon

 

[JoeEllison]

Is that true? Most of the racists I know are proud of it. Maybe you have met a better class of racist aholes.

Well, I wouldn't say that. They usually dress it up as "I'm just speaking the truth about those people", or "well, that's what the science says", even if they have no clue about science. Then, they go off about how the real problem is people talking about racism, or making accusations of racism. Usually somewhere in there they'll use the term "poverty pimps", "states' rights" or one of their other racist code words.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Ho, Ho , Ho...

 

[athon]

Athon, I know you are a decent guy. I also know you are a smart guy. But most importantly in this connection, I know you are a skeptic guy.

So, given the above, how is possible for you, deep down inside yourself, to try and not see that there are obviously different subspecies among the human race? I simply don't understand it.

You're stretching what I've said to imply I don't believe in genetic variation correlating with geographically separated populations. Of course I do. I disagree that a) genetically, races are evidently distinct and obvious as categories, b) the terminology of 'sub-species' is as useful for interspersed populations or populations across which there is large gene flow and c) that 'race', as most people use the term in regards to human populations, is equivalent to how ecologists and population geneticists use the term 'sub-species'.

So it's something of a strawman to imply I don't see variations.

We don't even need to resort to behavioural differences or eating habits or other less obvious stuff. We can simply look and see the difference!

Again, highly obvious visual characteristics is not equivalent to an increase in genetic differences. Two populations can look very similar and have quite complex metabolic and immune differences, for example. Conversely, two populations can look very different and yet be comparitively similar genetically speaking, and in fact have much closer ancestry.

The only conclusion I can draw is that you are arguing against the obvious on the principle that if races are officially recognized then racism might also be so recognized.

Am I wrong?

Sorry, but you are. If I was seriously worried about racial connotations, I don't think I would have said I actively support Pesta's line of inquiry. I seriously do think his studies have merit, yet simply feel that following that using one's racial associations as an indicator of possible genetic relationships could present more problems than solutions.

This is not a PC issue, DD. It would be easier to dismiss my views if it were, I concede.


Athon

 

[JoeEllison]

Ho, Ho , Ho...

Stop talking bad about my wimmins!

 

[Smackety]

Can science define beauty? Does beauty not exist, not have relevance, not influence our decisions?

To go back to the OP - I remember reading about someone packing sand into skulls and claiming that observed differences in brain volume were meaningful. The experiment was, of course, highly flawed.

 

[dann]

Stephen Jay Gould had his students check the same skulls in the same manner and discovered the bias of these studies. Sometimes the numbers weren't even taken down correctly. See Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. "Historical bias in biological sociology"

 

[dann]

As I said previously, any 5-year old could see the difference between an Eskimo and an Aboriginie. And between any number of obvious subspecies.

You, yourself can do so, of course.

We don't even need to resort to behavioural differences or eating habits or other less obvious stuff. We can simply look and see the difference!

The only conclusion I can draw is that you are arguing against the obvious on the principle that if races are officially recognized then racism might also be so recognized.

We already had that one! Sometimes we can tell the difference fairly easily, even a five-year-old can. But sometimes we cannot:

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!

You forget about convergence: Adapting to the same environmental niche may make even two different species look very much alike. In the case of melanin the amount of it is obviously related to the adaptation to exposure to ultraviolet radiation - and that may make it difficult for not only five-year-olds to tell 'races', 'sub-species' (whatever) apart.

 

[CFLarsen]

Athon, I know you are a decent guy. I also know you are a smart guy. But most importantly in this connection, I know you are a skeptic guy.

So, given the above, how is possible for you, deep down inside yourself, to try and not see that there are obviously different subspecies among the human race? I simply don't understand it.

As I said previously, any 5-year old could see the difference between an Eskimo and an Aboriginie. And between any number of obvious subspecies.

You, yourself can do so, of course.

We don't even need to resort to behavioural differences or eating habits or other less obvious stuff. We can simply look and see the difference!

The only conclusion I can draw is that you are arguing against the obvious on the principle that if races are officially recognized then racism might also be so recognized.

Am I wrong?

If it is "obvious", then you should be able to list all subspecies and list all characteristics for each subspecies.

 

[Kotatsu]

Again, what is the relevance of this link? It is bordering on science, but a demographer is not a taxidermist.

A taxidermist is one who stuffs animals. A taxonomist is one which divides them into groups and give these groups names. Granted, the animals don't need to be stuffed for a taxonomist to name them.

 

[hammegk]

... Two populations can look very similar and have quite complex metabolic and immune differences, for example.

Evidence that those differences reflect in the parts of genome that could be useful in "race" determination?

Conversely, two populations can look very different and yet be comparitively similar genetically speaking, and in fact have much closer ancestry.
Athon

Not when using the appropriate, partial, genome comparisons, as my earlier citation explained.

As to your comment to me, where have I suggested morphology rather than genome as the useful tool to "scientifically" define "race"?

And your continuing comments on bacterial (or sheep) taxonomic mis-classification based on phenotype are red-herrings. We are discussing homo sapiens, and genome.