Race 'Science'

[bpesta22]

Why would race have featured in our evolution, the vast bulk of which occurred when people didn't mix much across continents? They didn't even mix much outside the group they were born into, and lived their lives amongst.

Distinguishing and bonding with family within the group has obvious survival advantages, and it's something we still feel and expect others to feel.

Given that the group will all appear pretty similar, the mechanism involved will have to be acute - and easily overwhelmed by gross differences, such as between Bantu and Han Chinese.

I wouldn't think there'd be selection pressures for perception of faces by race, but to the extent that recognizing faces is important, race differences would be about as distinct as gender differences.

I mentioned it only in that context.

 

[CFLarsen]

dann, you may want to rethink that answer that approaches "all Asians look alike" racism.

Why is that necessarily racism?

Couldn't it be an unfamiliarity with seeing other faces than the ones you are used to?

 

[Kotatsu]

I pride myself in being able to get my head around most cultures, but the Japanese defeat me. It's not just the racism, there's all sorts of other weirdery, most of it icky.

I do my best, trying to understand it. But every time I feel satisfied that I have understood some part of it, some other part is revealed to me, which is even more bizarre and hard to understand for an outsider. Some things you just have to accept as occurring, because you'll never be able to understand it if you only have one lifetime to do so.

On topic:
Are there any morphologically based cladistical studies of human groupings? If so, what do they show?

I have heard that there are such studies on languages, based on phonology, grammar, vocabulary and so on, but I've never seen any.

 

[DanishDynamite]

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"



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



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?
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

No, the current definition is perfectly fine. The examples you mention above are thus acceptable examples.

 

[DanishDynamite]

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.

The concept of race in humans is as valid as the concept is with any other animal. Or do you feel humans should be exempted?

 

[DanishDynamite]

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.

Uh...I'm not talking about white and black rhinos. I'm talking about the Northern White Rhino and the Southern White Rhino.

They have no DNA differences, just behavioural differences.

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.

And I'm lost as to your counter-point, if any?

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.

Why are you talking about the black rhino?

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.

Which is why I suggest we use the equivalent, but less tainted expression, subspecies.

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

I'm no longer sure whether we agree or not, athon.

 

[DanishDynamite]

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'.

I disagree with b) and c) as well.

Can't quite understand why you would disagree with a).

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

In what sense?

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.

If they are born so different that they are easily distinguishable as different, it would seem to me that no further test is neccessary.

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

I cannot but view your views as PC. How you cannot see this, worries me.

 

[DanishDynamite]

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

I'm not an expert in the area.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I have, several times, in fact. I've spent the last few years working on software to support statistical analysis of breeding projects. Spent some time, prior to that, teaching biology; should I list the graduate courses that go along with that work?

Breeds are not the same as subspecies. For example, rice is actually two subspecies of Oryza sativa - long grain indica and short grain japonica. These subspecies can interbreed but with partial sterility. And, of course, there are multiple breeds (although in plants, the term used is variety).

In cattle, the species is Bos taurus , breeds are Hereford, Angus, Simmental, Charolais, etc. Subspecies is more complex - it seems that zebu and taurine types are considers subspecies of cattle, but get different taxonomic designations - Bos indicus and Bos taurus; but I've also seen Bos taurus indicus and Bos taurus taurus; some prefer Bos primigenius indicus and Bos primigenius taurus (primigenius being the Auroch species).



Obviously not, otherwise you would see that I was talking about true-breeding lines (dog breeds), and not about non-interbreeding human populations.

Breeds are kept separate by artificial means - parental diversity is limited.

Are breeds equal to subspecies or not?

With the Masai vs Pygmy example, though, well, perhaps Masai and Pygmies do not interbreed directly among themselves (because they are geographically isolated from the Masai), but do Pygmies never interbreed with their neighbors? Do the neighbor groups never interbreed with other neighbors, further down the road? And those neighbors, to their neighbors, until you run up against a group that interacts with the Masai.

This is how genes flow between human groups, and why races are a poor grouping.

Of course interbreeding occurs, but it does so in such niggling amounts that the grouping remains.

 

[DanishDynamite]

You're saying race can be defined satisfactorily by a survey of people's opinions, and that's not a social construct?

Certainly. Do you feel otherwise, and if so, why?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Anyone can also see that my family doesn't look like my neighbor's family and we would both be considered Caucasians. So are blondes and brunettes "subspecies" too? How about tall people and short people? Type O blood groups and type A blood groups?

Just those obviously different as a group by simple viewing.

Just because the groups you define as subspecies happen to be rather large families doesn't make them qualitatively different that smaller families. Blood groups are also quite large. It's just that the difference is not overtly visible.

If the difference is not overtly visible, they are probably not subspecies.

The problem is you need to define just how much genetic material must differ between races and how much must be consistent within races in order to avoid using arbitrary features to distinguish these so called "races". If not, you are fitting the evidence to the conclusion rather than seeking the conclusion from the evidence.

Why on Earth would I need to even bring up the topic of DNA?

As for eating habits and behavior, I don't believe any biologists define species by behavior. Those are cultural ethnic differences, not race differences.

Me either, as we aren't talking about defining species, but subspecies.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I'm still waiting for DD to admit all modern humans are the same subspecies and therefore race does not equal subspecies.

We'll work on getting him to admit race is a social construct later on. That'll take a bit more work.

I don't think I'm going to hold my breath though.

Keep working at it. Once you come up with relevant info, let us know.

 

[CapelDodger]

The concept of race in humans is as valid as the concept is with any other animal. Or do you feel humans should be exempted?

The concept of race arose precisely with regard to humans, and has only since been projected onto other animals as being identical to sub-species. Race is not the same as sub-species. It's animals that should be exempted from the concept of race, not the humans it was invented for.

 

[CapelDodger]

I wouldn't think there'd be selection pressures for perception of faces by race, but to the extent that recognizing faces is important, race differences would be about as distinct as gender differences.

I mentioned it only in that context.

Quite. The mixing of genders, and differences in gender roles, has been with us throughout millions of years of HomSap's evolution so we're going to be good at that. Not just as babies recognising gender signals but also as adults sending gender signals to be recognised.

Mixing across continents has been around for the merest sliver of time. And the concept of "race" has existed for even less.

 

[bpesta22]

Quite. The mixing of genders, and differences in gender roles, has been with us throughout millions of years of HomSap's evolution so we're going to be good at that. Not just as babies recognising gender signals but also as adults sending gender signals to be recognised.

Mixing across continents has been around for the merest sliver of time. And the concept of "race" has existed for even less.

Agreed. I wouldn't think the babies would be coding on race per se but just the striking difference / distinctiveness of faces by race.

Incidentally, I spent all week coding data for 2 new IQ projects-- one looking at IQ and ECTs predicting success in an MBA program, they other looking at gender differences on ECTs.

to me, the results are amazing, maybe I'll start a thread so as not to derail.

The relevant point here is that in both studies the race differences are ever-present and need to be controlled for.

Whatever the cause of the difference and whatever the definition of race, that these differences map onto important things like grades is something we should worry about, imo.

 

[DanishDynamite]

The concept of race arose precisely with regard to humans, and has only since been projected onto other animals as being identical to sub-species. Race is not the same as sub-species. It's animals that should be exempted from the concept of race, not the humans it was invented for.

How is race not the same as sub-species?

 

[Ysidro]

Keep working at it. Once you come up with relevant info, let us know.

Right, so you don't accept the currenty taxonomy of Homo sapiens sapiens like the rest of the modern world. Good to know you've come up with your own classification scheme. I'm sure it's not at all racist.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Incidentally, I spent all week coding data for 2 new IQ projects-- one looking at IQ and ECTs predicting success in an MBA program, they other looking at gender differences on ECTs.

Have you yet devised a scientific test for "race" and scientific definition free from subjective judgements, which is the primary source of bias and error in your "work?"

 

[bpesta22]

Have you yet devised a scientific test for "race" and scientific definition free from subjective judgements, which is the primary source of bias and error in your "work?"

I think an eyeball test to classify people into different races would be highly objective. So, too, would be just asking them to indicate their race, which is what I did.

I don't know that "work" in quotes is fair. Debates on IQ in this very group caused me to turn my research away from everything else I was doing and focus my career now on IQ. I got the first of such studies past peer review in probably the best journal in this field.

Show me anyone else here who took the overwhelmingly minority opinion, and at least did the skeptical thing and researched it for himself to the level of passing peer review.

Doesn't mean I am right, but I think it deserves the word work without quotes.

You demanding a top down definition is fine. But from the data up, I can't see any parsimonious or even plausible explanation for the specific data patterns I (and others) got if race weren't at least at some level biological-- even if I personally lack the biological knowledge to define it to your satisfaction.

If I didn't know what gravity was / couldn't define it, what would happen if I jumped off a bridge?

 

[bpesta22]

Edited to add, would you quarrel with how I defined/measured gender (self reports). They show the same effects I got for race, but much smaller in magnitude.