Race is a human/social construct.

[Delvo]

the A. Aboriginal population comes closest to meeting the criteria of a subspecies. That would give us two human population groups. Does that somehow justify the other population group divisions where isolation has never been complete?

Perhaps you should make up your mind whether to stick with the bogus geographic argument or the bogus amounts-of-variation argument, since they directly contradict each other. There's less difference between Australoids and Eurasians than there is between all of the above and black Africans, so the greatest amount of variation happened where you claim non-isolation, and the place where you admit isolation did not lead to the greatest amount of variation.

 

[lomiller]

The Bengal and Siberian tiger are recognized as different subspecies because of their differences.

This tells us nothing about whether comparable differences exist in humans.

What can tell us if humans have comparable differences is if humans are also broken down into different sub-species, which they are not.

 

[DC]

But didn't you just agree with this comment I highlighted from the Nature article?!

"it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless""

No i don't really agree. i think race is biologically meaningless. it is too inaccurate to be meaningful. While there surely is an overlap of biology and the social construct of race, i don't think it is in a meaningful way. But then , meaningful/less is also a inaccurate word

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And once again, here comes the already-debunked pretense that it's about skin color alone and nothing else. What's the point in repeating a lie that you've already been caught at and know won't fool anybody?

You are taking a posting shortcut and building a straw man. I have been referring to skin color, etc. When I was talking about a single trait among the standard grouping related to race I used "hair color/type" alone.

While I'm at it, I will point out your false framing a typing shortcut is somehow being caught in a lie.

Anyway, about the already-debunked blood-type herring, here's another new way to debunk it. When you divide a species up by different traits, you get different groups. If you're using certain blood proteins & immune factors, you get blood-type groups. If you're using left/right-handedness, you get handedness groups. If you're using height, you get different height groups. If you're using a combination of various traits including skin color which all happen to be linked to each other and to certain regions of the world, you get races.

So every other group was a group but skin color, (etc.) is race. Because it is? Because it's linked to geography? Blood groups have a geographic distribution pattern.

That was a random Google hit looking for blood group prevalence by continent. Far from blood type being a red herring, the article addresses the same topic we are discussing:

These patterns of ABO, Rh, and Diego blood type distributions are not similar to those for skin color or other so-called "racial" traits. The implication is that the specific causes responsible for the distribution of human blood types have been different than those for other traits that have been commonly employed to categorize people into "races." Since it would be possible to divide up humanity into radically different groupings using blood typing instead of other genetically inherited traits such as skin color, we have more conclusive evidence that the commonly used typological model for understanding human variation is scientifically unsound.

The only way your habit of bringing up other kinds of grouping in a "debate" about this particular method of grouping makes any sense is if you're asserting, or hoping we will think, that the existence of one kind of grouping can prevent another one from existing. That's like saying that grouping cars by color disproves the existence of different engine displacements. Clearly that can't be the case, but it has to be how your argument works, because there's no other way non-racial grouping could be relevant here at all.

(Accusatory framing bolded) The whole paragraph is a straw man argument. I'm not saying one grouping disproves another. I'm saying pick one. Without using standard subspecies classifications we use in the rest of biology, picking any category is simply arbitrary, a social construct, not a scientific biological construct in terms of species taxonomy.

You cited 'geographical' as your criteria. But blood groups are also geographically distributed. The common factor is migration patterns not subspecies divisions which rely on true population isolation to develop.

Every genetic trait is still inherited from ancestors whether it happens to code for a visible trait or an invisible one.

Not arguing that.

That's not what the races are, but just something about them. A lack of a superiority/inferiority spectrum to attribute to them does not make them go away.

? Who said that?

That's simply false. Even before genetics, there were at least a couple dozen observable, measurable differences. (Gould mentions this when he says that some of them, such as the height of the navel, seem to be pretty silly trifles, but he doesn't pretend that that means they didn't exist.)

Maybe not, but an argument about whether there are groups at all is entirely different from an argument about their "meaningfulness".

More missing the actual debate point. I'll quote DC here, "the topic is that Race is a social construct rather than a scientific one.
the topic is not that there are no differences between humans."

This is another classic piece of race-denier BS.

And now we see what your issue really is.

You claim to be arguing that races don't exist, but you know they do exist [rant snipped]

This has been addressed. No sense arguing your straw man with you. See DC's words italicized above.

 

[bpesta22]

No i don't really agree. i think race is biologically meaningless. it is too inaccurate to be meaningful. While there surely is an overlap of biology and the social construct of race, i don't think it is in a meaningful way. But then , meaningful/less is also a inaccurate word

Fair again, but you can see my confusion, as you initially said you agreed with it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

SG

If you can cite me a study showing arbitrary traits that cluster in meaningful ways, I'd likely concede, admit I was wrong, and change my world view.

Here's the blood group citation I used above.

Blood groups have a geographic distribution pattern.

These patterns of ABO, Rh, and Diego blood type distributions are not similar to those for skin color or other so-called "racial" traits. The implication is that the specific causes responsible for the distribution of human blood types have been different than those for other traits that have been commonly employed to categorize people into "races." Since it would be possible to divide up humanity into radically different groupings using blood typing instead of other genetically inherited traits such as skin color, we have more conclusive evidence that the commonly used typological model for understanding human variation is scientifically unsound.

I'm going to hold you to your word.

 

[bpesta22]

Here's the blood group citation I used above.

Blood groups have a geographic distribution pattern.
I'm going to hold you to your word.

You may, but blood group is just one trait. Find me traits that co-vary with blood groups where the combination does this?

Here for example is a bundle of traits the correlate with human "race," whatever that means:

 

[Moss]

You may, but blood group is just one trait. Find me traits that co-vary with blood groups where the combination does this?

Here for example is a bundle of traits the correlate with human "race," whatever that means:

That's interesting unsourced vagueness.

 

[lomiller]

the topic is that Race is a social construct rather than a scientific one.
the topic is not that there are no differences between humans. we all know there are and we can see them every day. but are those differences grouped enough and different enough to grant the change of scientific taxonomy where Humans are considered a subspecies and are not further split into other groups.
i don't think those differences are grouped enough, too much mixing, not enough isolation, to grant this change in science.

in genetics we have further groupings of humans into haplogroups, i think they are meaningful and pretty accurate, with a scientific / genetic origin.

Race however is a social construct that has no clear definition nor a genetic origin. its not really meaningful nor accurate.

Pretty much bang on.

The only thing I would add is that while biologists and geneticists have no particular need for a concept of race, anthropologists do accept the existence of racial categories. The caveat is that they build the groupings on social/cultural grounds not genetics. IOW you could have a “Hispanic” group even though the haplogroups who identify as Hispanic can be very different and be shared with other completely different groups.

 

[Delvo]

I'm not saying one grouping disproves another. I'm saying pick one.

Those two sentences contradict each other. There's no reason at all to just "pick one" if they can both coexist. The only possible reason to need to "pick one" is if they are mutually exclusive. Clearly they both do exist, so that makes the "pick one" demand utterly inane. It's identical to saying "I'm not saying left/right-handedness doesn't exist or different levels of long-distance visual acuity don't exist, I'm saying pick one". No, I'm not going to pick one. I have no trouble at all with admitting BOTH that some people see at long distances better than others AND that some people are right-handed or left-handed. What in the world do groups based on completely different unconnected traits (or sets of traits) have to do with each other? An argument based on one such grouping system simply CAN NOT possibly have any relevance to any of the others at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You may, but blood group is just one trait. Find me traits that co-vary with blood groups where the combination does this?

Here for example is a bundle of traits the correlate with human "race," whatever that means:

So you were lying?

Or you lack knowledge about the complexity of blood groups?

Perhaps if you attempted to support your assertion:

Why are the traits you've chosen to call 'racial' any less arbitrary than the traits I'm choosing to provide an example of an alternative potential 'racial' category?

How many racial groups did you refer to? How many blood groups did I refer to? The underlying genetics are fairly complicated for those blood groups.

Analogous to human leukocyte antigens, blood group antigens are surface markers on the erythrocyte cell membrane whose structures differ among individuals and which can be serologically identified. The Blood Group Antigen Gene Mutation Database (BGMUT) is an online repository of allelic variations in genes that determine the antigens of various human blood group systems. The database is manually curated with allelic information collated from scientific literature and from direct submissions from research laboratories. Currently, the database documents sequence variations of a total of 1251 alleles of all 40 gene loci that together are known to affect antigens of 30 human blood group systems.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those two sentences contradict each other. There's no reason at all to just "pick one" if they can both coexist. The only possible reason to need to "pick one" is if they are mutually exclusive. Clearly they both do exist, so that makes the "pick one" demand utterly inane. It's identical to saying "I'm not saying left/right-handedness doesn't exist or different levels of long-distance visual acuity don't exist, I'm saying pick one". No, I'm not going to pick one. I have no trouble at all with admitting BOTH that some people see at long distances better than others AND that some people are right-handed or left-handed. What in the world do groups based on completely different unconnected traits (or sets of traits) have to do with each other? An argument based on one such grouping system simply CAN NOT possibly have any relevance to any of the others at all.

Woosh...

Pick one as in ARBITRARILY pick one. Or support your assertion it is not arbitrary. You hinted at geographical distribution. I showed one could just as easily ARBITRARILY pick blood groups using the same rationale, geographical distribution.

 

[lomiller]

Why are the traits you've chosen to call 'racial' any less arbitrary than the traits I'm choosing to provide an example of an alternative potential 'racial' category?

As I said above, he’s making the mistake of not accounting for degrees of freedom. With all the available human traits and covariance between these traits the possibilities are incredibly vast. With so many to chose from it seems unlikely that he could not find some that confirmed his presupposed notions of race.

 

[bpesta22]

We're really talking past each other; not sure why. Where am I getting either the facts or your position wrong?

1. Assume we first measure “race” just by using self-reported data. Would you agree: race will vary strongly with differences in physical characteristics, and with many psychological and behavioral variables? In some cases, race will be a meaningful variable in epidemiology?

2. Race is most definitely a social construct. The hypothesis here is that it might also have a biological / genetic basis. In other words, perhaps “race” is a useful genetic distinction.

3. To me “a useful genetic distinction” means that knowing one’s self-reported race would allow us to predict things about his or her DNA. That happens? More useful would be if race also predicted things of biological significance (like susceptibility to specific diseases for reasons we can trace to differences in genes). That happens?

The bar here, however, is that unless “race” fits the criteria for “sub-species,” it is biologically meaningless. Is this your position? (If so, my counter is that perhaps other classifications explain more variance than race does. Perhaps we’d be better served to use these classifications instead of race. Neither, however, disproves that race is genetically useful as a classification).

4. Many claim that grouping based on race is arbitrary. Arbitrary seems to mean: no more or less valid than a grouping based on hair color or blood groups.

But now we’ve crossed levels of analysis from a multi-faceted construct (race) to a single variable (hair color). I think this is where the analogy breaks down. What I’d like to see, then, is the list of variables that correlate consistently with hair color (or with blood groups) wherein the constellation of inter-correlated traits can be pointed to in DNA with the precision we now have when grouping people based on race.

p.s. you did use the word “traits” plural in your blood group analysis post.
Which traits correlated with blood groups did you have in mind?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

here's just one paragraph from the chapter...

Here is an article about that study that comes to a much different conclusion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We're really talking past each other; not sure why. Where am I getting either the facts or your position wrong?

1. Assume we first measure “race” just by using self-reported data. Would you agree: race will vary strongly with differences in physical characteristics, ...

If you look in the mirror and you see a black person you'd think you would self identify as a black.

I spent some time in the Dominican Republic. People who look like classic blacks per an American eye consider themselves Hispanic, including talking about blacks as a different race. The reason is, they look down on the Haitians as an inferior 'race'.

and with many psychological and behavioral variables? In some cases, race will be a meaningful variable in epidemiology?

I'm not convinced there's a lot of data suggesting behavioral & psychological correlations to race when one speaks of 'nature'. Without adding in 'nurture' which is going to vary even more across biological lines, I don't agree.

I've already addressed the epidemiology question. Self identified race has some screening value but it's subject to a lot of false negatives and false positives.

2. Race is most definitely a social construct.

Agree

The hypothesis here is that it might also have a biological / genetic basis. In other words, perhaps “race” is a useful genetic distinction.

Not very useful at all in light of the much better refined genome sequencing.

You keep conflating two things.

The fact traditional racial features are genetically based. They are.
And the fact when one is looking at genomes one would see a good reason biologically to group those specific racial features together. There has been no good reason cited here.



Instead of going on in this mulberry bush circle, clear your head and consider this:

Say you only had the genome sequencing and you knew a little about populations but nothing whatsoever about what individuals looked like, and you made groupings of individuals based on the genomic data.

You imagine the groupings would correlate with races because you read that a researcher looking backward from appearance found correlating clusters of genetic sequences.

However, a biologist looking forward would start with the last common ancestors and work forward to create groups. And when you do that you don't get nearly as close in grouping populations. That is called following the evidence.

If you start with the conclusion and work backward, you end up making the evidence fit by ignoring all the evidence that contradicts your conclusion such as the non-correlating to race but correlating to geographic clustering of blood groups.

That's why in the scientific process one follows the evidence and one doesn't look to make the evidence fit the conclusion.


Now if you want to look at the social construct conclusion, you do what people did before we had all this genome mapping, you follow the evidence which we collected using the social construct of race.

I think that answers 3 & 4 as well.

p.s. you did use the word “traits” plural in your blood group analysis post.
Which traits correlated with blood groups did you have in mind?

There are dozens of specific proteins and genetic differences that create blood groupings. I thought you could see that from the link I cited.

 

[bpesta22]

Here is an article about that study that comes to a much different conclusion.

Thanks sincerely, though I am gonna weight the one appearing in Nature a bit more than the California Newsreel one here.

 

[Pup]

"It never occurred to me we were limiting the use of race to biological definitions, because I agree it may not be particularly useful for that."

I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Read the thread title, it’s not a matter of “limiting to” biological meaning it’s about whether there is biological meaning.

By biological, I meant used by biologists in scientific contexts, and I agree that I didn't express that very clearly.

But based on the thread title, I don't see that that's the topic. On the one hand, every category used by biologists is a human/social construct, including "species," "genus" and so forth. On the other hand, "race" can be a biological grouping, irrelevant of social background. In other words, one can't tell by looking at a photo what language a white person speaks because that's a social feature, but one can still tell they're white, because it's a biological feature, not a social one.

So the thread title, itself, covers a lot of ground.

As I said above, infrasubspcific categories like breed are ad-hoc. It doesn’t take any number of animals or traits to qualify, people can use it however they like. Breeders of miniature cattle for example routinely assign their own names to their creations.

Whereas biologists never divide into lumpers and splitters, to argue whether something is a separate species, subspecies, etc.

Also, I get the feeling that not everyone in this thread is even having the same argument.

For those who say there are no races in the human species, is there any way you could be proved wrong? That is, is this a falsifiable position?

Edit: I could also ask the same of others who do believe there are races in the human species.

To me, it would be falsifiable if people with similar racial appearance, whose ancestors also had similar appearances, randomly gave birth to children who resembled other races than their own. This would show that race was not based on heredity.

 

[bpesta22]

I've already addressed the epidemiology question. Self identified race has some screening value but it's subject to a lot of false negatives and false positives.

It's useful, but far less than perfect. I'm ok with that.

You keep conflating two things.

The fact traditional racial features are genetically based. They are.
And the fact when one is looking at genomes one would see a good reason biologically to group those specific racial features together. There has been no good reason cited here.

Epidemiology?

My reason to group is that it affords for an almost perfect experimental design (since randomly assigning babies to race is impossible). I mentioned this above.

I'm guessing that people who self identify as white(black) still vary strongly in %whiteness(%blackness) as revealed by DNA. [I also submit that if this is indeed true, then we've already proven the utility of a genetic definition of race].

If so, it's a simple matter to test whether a race difference is explained more by the societal or genetic definitions.

I want to do this study, but lack the expertise in genetics. Care to collaborate?

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by forward versus backward looking at the evidence (seems to me like the data are the data, no matter whether x was measured first or last relative to y). Will reply later if I have anything to add.

It seems though you're imputing some type of bias to my thought process, and perhaps a motive. I've been interested in this topic for about 25 years. I will not achieve wood if indeed it's proven that race is genetically meaningful. I just find the vast majority of counters I've seen are either illusive or disingenuous.

If you are not convinced by someone else's argument, is that always confirmation bias? We seem to be arguing now over whether the genetic basis is meaningful or arbitrary (versus that it exists). This seems like a much more subjective question (especially since I think the proposed experiment above can settle it).

 

[bpesta22]

I'm your family doctor and you have high blood pressure. I'm trying to decide the best medicine to prescribe you. I note that you appear black, but this is a crude measure. A much more expensive test would better sort you in terms of which drug is best.

Should I:

1. run the expensive test
2. prescribe factoring in your race
3. ignore it entirely?