Race is a human/social construct.

[DC]

Facts are things we can observe about the world. There are some facts associated with this: the living human population has less genetic variation than some (maybe even most, but not all) other living multicellular species, and recent fossils of a predecessor population to the current one have been found. But to get from one of those facts to "the living human population is a subspecies" requires the application of a rule that some human(s) made up, such as "A species with an amount of genetic variation below this quantity computed by this statistical procedure can be called a subspecies of itself" or "A species can be called a subspecies of itself if fossils of a predecessor population are known from this long ago or less".

Of course, people are entitled to make up such rules and get others to follow them; it's pretty much the only way for words to have definitions, for example. The catch in this case, other than the fact that the implications of such rules are choices rather than "facts", is that no such rule has actually been written or applied in this case. If it had been, then other species meeting the same qualifications would also have the same thing (that they're just "subspecies") said about them. The fact that other species do not get this same treatment means that the rule you would need in this case doesn't really exist or get used in biology, which means that a claim that that's the case for humans is an ad-hoc excuse/rationalization, not a scientific conclusion/fact. (And this is consistent with the fact that the just-a-subspecies claim is only brought up in contexts like this one, where somebody has an interest in emphasizing human unity over differences, which, while sociologically benevolent and not even really dishonest, is not scientific either.)

They didn't conclude it. Some of them (even without fighting over whether those represent the whole "community" or not) have simply declared it. You are welcome to change my mind about that: simply show what method was used to legitimately draw it as a conclusion, and establish that it's really a method that's used for drawing conclusions about species/subspecies in general. If it isn't (i.e., if other species aren't also declared to be merely subspecies for the same reasons), then it's just an excuse/rationalization designed to allow people to say about humans what they want to say about humans.

Another way to put it would be "ascientific". Those who call the entire human species just a subspecies of itself aren't going against science in doing so, but aren't using science to get there either. Without a real, actual rule like I described above, there's no evidence that could be for it or against it, and it makes no difference in any way to any scientific theory or procedure or question.

Not meant as an argument at all.

* * *

PS: This kind of thing is why I've responded relatively little to your posts. You're mostly talking about formalities and arbitrarily labeling practices, and I didn't want a discussion of those things to become a sidetrack away from the biological (or statistical) facts in dispute. In a thread where people make false claims about real, actual, solid facts like those, I figure getting those facts straight is a higher priority than debating a naming/classification scheme. (To make an analogy with legal cases, I identify more with forensic scientists, detectives, and expert witnesses than with lawyers.)

Human Races are not real, actual, solid facts

 

[RandFan]

Maybe we're getting somewhere.

Your (a) above: I agree that demanding we divide a continuum into a dichotomy is likely arbitrary, but the division *does not* invalidate the continuum.

Nowhere did I say otherwise.

I disagree that dichotomies are a necessary condition for a valid (i.e., non arbitrary) classification scheme. The fuzzy lines come from people of mixed race, which is precisely what one might expect if the classification scheme were valid.

It's a bit more complicated than simply mixed race but that's fine. So long as you understand the principle.

That said, I don't think ">51%" is an unreasonable division for something like qualifying for a social program (or deciding which race box to check on a census form). We were trying to predict disease, I'd rather go with the continuum for statistical power reasons.

You really are working hard to ignore what SG and I keep saying. We accept that there are good reasons for categorizing people. I don't know how many times I can say that. I said it in the OP. Is there something I can do or say to make you understand that?

Your (b) seems like pure speculation (except for the humanity part-- I agree, equal rights for all. This doesn't mean people / groups of people are blank-slatedly born with equal talents / flaws / predispositions, etc).

No. I'm just repeating what the anthropologists say.

We now have the means to test whether your (b) is true with the experimental rigor of something like identical twin studies.

What are you talking about?

But we can measure where on the continuum each person lies. And differences along the continuum might matter: If your arteries are blocked, you have a heart attack, otherwise, you don't. Fair enough in the absolute, as comparing someone with 0% blockage to someone with 100% blockage is a no-brainer. What about in the relative (i.e., continuum) sense. Would you be comfortable trading my 75% blockage for your 25% blockage?

It's not that simple but, assuming your proposition for arguments sake, so what?

What if we adopt a policy where you are not African unless you are 100% African. That seems non arbitrary. I then scale anyone not meeting this requirement in terms of % African (I won't even call the 99% African). This semantic word shift might make people happy, but it's irrelevant to whether the continuum is non-arbitrary and scientifically useful (i.e., no matter where we draw the line, the continuum still exists).

That the continuum is "non-arbitrary" doesn't demonstrate race.

 

[Moss]

Some questions about the gene clusters: are they based on mtdna and/or haplogroups? Does gene activation play a role?

 

[Earthborn]

What is subjective about saying 87% of Joe's genes came from African ancestors?

100% of Joe's genes came from African ancestors. Mine and yours too, though they may have mutated somewhat along the way.

It would probably be more useful to use a percentage of European ancestry, because while all of us can trace our origin back to Africa, not all of us can trace it back to Europe.

I'm assuming we can put rather accurate %'s on a person's ancestry.

You are assuming an impossibility.

3. Race differences, though, map nicely but imperfectly to geographical differences in where most of our ancestors came from.

This isn't true. The "salient physical differences" tell us very little about where most of our ancestors came from. A person can have all or most of the "salient physical differences" from one "race", while being more closely related to people of another. Heredity doesn't work like neat mixing, and children don't turn into the average of their parents.

 

[bpesta22]

100% of Joe's genes came from African ancestors. Mine and yours too, though they may have mutated somewhat along the way.

It would probably be more useful to use a percentage of European ancestry, because while all of us can trace our origin back to Africa, not all of us can trace it back to Europe.

You are assuming an impossibility.

This isn't true. The "salient physical differences" tell us very little about where most of our ancestors came from. A person can have all or most of the "salient physical differences" from one "race", while being more closely related to people of another. Heredity doesn't work like neat mixing, and children don't turn into the average of their parents.

You might be coming in late here, pages back are links to studies showing that the salient differences map nearly perfectly to markers in the genome.

 

[Delvo]

Some questions about the gene clusters: are they based on mtdna and/or haplogroups?

No. The genes in question are on nuclear chromosomes 1-22 and X, where they are free to recombine. Mitochondrial genomes and Y chromosomes don't undergo recombination. They just get copied. That's crucial because it means they are free to appear in any combination and their distribution can be expected to be random in a single undivided population; one combination should be no more likely or less likely than another. So when you find combinations of genes that are NOT random, but tend to stick together so people generally have (almost) all of the genes in such a group or (almost) none of them, then you are NOT looking at an undivided population; you are looking at a species which has divided into smaller groups, each of which has its own set of genes that the other doesn't.

Does gene activation play a role?

Not in finding whether genes are clustered or not. Activation is about how a gene affects physical traits. A gene can be part of a cluster of genes regardless of when or how it gets activated, or whether it ever even does at all. The activation circumstances of most of the genes in the identified clusters are probably not known.

your offspring will only have a quarter of the genes of each of your parents... With enough generations your genetic line among your descendants could be wiped out entirely.

I think I see what's going on now. You're starting at some point in the past and looking forward. I've been starting at the present and looking back. Part of the reason I didn't catch on before was that the phenomenon you're talking about is not caused by recombination as you said. It's caused by the splitting that happens when a diploid cell becomes two haploid cells. Recombination without a diploid-haploid cycle would produce children in pairs, in which all of the parents' genes would be preserved in at least one child of the pair, just in different combinations. And without recombination, the same diploid-to-haploid loss you're talking about just happens to whole chromosomes instead of genes. In fact, that's exactly what does happen with the sex chromosomes in sperm cell production: each cell gets only a whole X or a whole Y, so if one with an X fertilizes the egg cell, then the father's Y doesn't get reproduced, and if one with a Y fertilizes the egg cell, then the father's X doesn't get reproduced.

Similarly, most of your ancestors' mitochondrial genomes don't get reproduced and aren't found in you either, although it's for yet another different reason, neither recombination nor diploid-haploid loss. It's because one of the two types of sex cells we produce normally doesn't pass mitochondria into the zygote upon fusion, and the other does.

The problem with bringing up the loss of half of your ancestors' genes, aside from the fact that the same thing happens to mitochondrial genomes and Y chromosomes anyway, is that it doesn't affect the point you were responding to when you brought it up in post 97:

The basic point that the history of taxonomy and contemporay science tells us that obviously an overlap does not negate 'race, as it's swiftly determinable what, under those terms, biogeographical ancestry a given individual predominantely has.

the ancestry bit is nonsense. Due to recombination we can't get every ancestral line. My mitocondrial DNA might track back to Ireland (and that can be determined) while I also have ancestors from Germany, native America and Sweden right? And how would a geneticist know since recombination erases those lines?

While it is possible for an individual to have such a small fraction of his/her ancestry from any particular source that those ancestors' genes do get "lost"...

• That doesn't have any effect on the scale of populations, because those ancestors whose genes don't make it into one descendant will have other descendants who do have their genes, and because within any population most of them will have a lot of those genes in common anyway.
• Even on the individual scale, genomes still preserve that information better and longer than physical traits or most genealogical records. A genetic test sometimes reveals information about someone's ancestry which was already lost from written or oral history and overwhelmed by the effects of the other genes (the vast majority of them) in the same person's genome. The reason why this works is that there are so many alleles involved in this that even a small fraction of them is still multiple alleles.

 

[RandFan]

I think I see what's going on now. You're starting at some point in the past and looking forward. I've been starting at the present and looking back. Part of the reason I didn't catch on before was that the phenomenon you're talking about is not caused by recombination as you said. It's caused by the splitting that happens when a diploid cell becomes two haploid cells. Recombination without a diploid-haploid cycle would produce children in pairs, in which all of the parents' genes would be preserved in at least one child of the pair, just in different combinations. And without recombination, the same diploid-to-haploid loss you're talking about just happens to whole chromosomes instead of genes. In fact, that's exactly what does happen with the sex chromosomes in sperm cell production: each cell gets only a whole X or a whole Y, so if one with an X fertilizes the egg cell, then the father's Y doesn't get reproduced, and if one with a Y fertilizes the egg cell, then the father's X doesn't get reproduced.

What in the same hell are you talking about? Not sure how you can blithely dismiss recombination. That is not controversial. Please to provide a link that backs up your claims?

Here's mine: Genetic Anthropology, Ancestry, and Ancient Human Migration

When DNA is passed from one generation to the next, most of it is mixed by the processes that make each person unique from his or her parents. Some special pieces of DNA, however, remain virtually unaltered as they pass from parent to child. One of these pieces is carried by the Y chromosome, which is passed only from father to son. Another piece, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), is passed (with few exceptions) only from mother to child. Since the DNA in the Y chromosome does not mix with other DNA, it is like a genetic surname that allows men to trace their paternal lineages. Similarly, mtDNA allows both men and women to trace their maternal lineages

Precisely what I've been saying.

... aside from the fact that the same thing happens to mitochondrial genomes and Y chromosomes anyway...

No, one more time. You get your mitochondrial SOLELY from your mother and she from her mother (see source above). No. Most other DNA must go through recombination. End of story.

Please to provide sources for your claims?

 

[Delvo]

Not sure how you can blithely dismiss recombination.

And I'm not sure how you can claim I did anything even vaguely resembling that. What I said was that recombination is not the same thing as the loss you're talking about from generation to generation. They're two completely separate things. Stating so is not "dismissing" either of them.

Precisely what I've been saying.

The quote you're talking about there also perfectly agrees with what I said. What it does NOT say is that recombination is the same thing as the loss of genes from generation to generation, because they aren't. The loss of half of the nuclear genome is due to the way one cell splits one cell into two (diploid→haploid), not due to recombination.

You get your mitochondrial SOLELY from your mother and she from her mother (see source above).

The repetition is ridiculous. You know perfectly well that I've never said this is not the case. I've only tried to get some idea of what the big deal is supposed to be ABOUT that according to you, and your response has just been to act like I'm arguing that it's not the case at all and keep repeating the fact itself instead of even attempting to explain the importance you attach to it.

What makes this fact any different from the fact that you get EVERY SINGLE GENE in your body "SOLELY" from one parent or the other?

Most other DNA must go through recombination. End of story.

Again, not in dispute. But what's the big deal supposed to be about recombination? It doesn't cause any of those genes to be lost or erased or such, so what are you saying it does? The only thing I'm getting so far is that, whoever you got a particular gene on chromosomes 1-22 or X from at some point in the past, we can't know that person's sex. But what's wrong with not knowing the sex of everybody who's had that gene before you did?

 

[mike3]

Facts are things we can observe about the world. There are some facts associated with this: the living human population has less genetic variation than some (maybe even most, but not all) other living multicellular species, and recent fossils of a predecessor population to the current one have been found. But to get from one of those facts to "the living human population is a subspecies" requires the application of a rule that some human(s) made up, such as "A species with an amount of genetic variation below this quantity computed by this statistical procedure can be called a subspecies of itself" or "A species can be called a subspecies of itself if fossils of a predecessor population are known from this long ago or less".

Of course, people are entitled to make up such rules and get others to follow them; it's pretty much the only way for words to have definitions, for example. The catch in this case, other than the fact that the implications of such rules are choices rather than "facts", is that no such rule has actually been written or applied in this case. If it had been, then other species meeting the same qualifications would also have the same thing (that they're just "subspecies") said about them. The fact that other species do not get this same treatment means that the rule you would need in this case doesn't really exist or get used in biology, which means that a claim that that's the case for humans is an ad-hoc excuse/rationalization, not a scientific conclusion/fact. (And this is consistent with the fact that the just-a-subspecies claim is only brought up in contexts like this one, where somebody has an interest in emphasizing human unity over differences, which, while sociologically benevolent and not even really dishonest, is not scientific either.)

They didn't conclude it. Some of them (even without fighting over whether those represent the whole "community" or not) have simply declared it. You are welcome to change my mind about that: simply show what method was used to legitimately draw it as a conclusion, and establish that it's really a method that's used for drawing conclusions about species/subspecies in general. If it isn't (i.e., if other species aren't also declared to be merely subspecies for the same reasons), then it's just an excuse/rationalization designed to allow people to say about humans what they want to say about humans.

Another way to put it would be "ascientific". Those who call the entire human species just a subspecies of itself aren't going against science in doing so, but aren't using science to get there either. Without a real, actual rule like I described above, there's no evidence that could be for it or against it, and it makes no difference in any way to any scientific theory or procedure or question.

Not meant as an argument at all.

* * *

PS: This kind of thing is why I've responded relatively little to your posts. You're mostly talking about formalities and arbitrarily labeling practices, and I didn't want a discussion of those things to become a sidetrack away from the biological (or statistical) facts in dispute. In a thread where people make false claims about real, actual, solid facts like those, I figure getting those facts straight is a higher priority than debating a naming/classification scheme. (To make an analogy with legal cases, I identify more with forensic scientists, detectives, and expert witnesses than with lawyers.)

So then are you saying that the human "races" are not just "races" but actually subspecies?

 

[RandFan]

And I'm not sure how you can claim I did anything even vaguely resembling that. What I said was that recombination is not the same thing as the loss you're talking about from generation to generation. They're two completely separate things. Stating so is not "dismissing" either of them.

You dismiss recombination as the means of shuffling the deck. It is this reshuffling that makes it difficult to trace lines.

The quote you're talking about there also perfectly agrees with what I said. What it does NOT say is that recombination is the same thing as the loss of genes from generation to generation, because they aren't. The loss of half of the nuclear genome is due to the way one cell splits one cell into two (diploid→haploid), not due to recombination.

Recombination means you get half of your genes from your father and half from your mother. It can ONLY mean that you only get half of each parents genes. I did not use the word "loss".

The repetition is ridiculous. You know perfectly well that I've never said this is not the case. I've only tried to get some idea of what the big deal is supposed to be ABOUT that according to you, and your response has just been to act like I'm arguing that it's not the case at all and keep repeating the fact itself instead of even attempting to explain the importance you attach to it.

Mitochondrial DNA doesn't recombine and therefore doesn't change simply through meiosis.

What makes this fact any different from the fact that you get EVERY SINGLE GENE in your body "SOLELY" from one parent or the other?

You do not inherent an entire DNA molecule solely from either parent.

Again, not in dispute. But what's the big deal supposed to be about recombination? It doesn't cause any of those genes to be lost or erased or such, so what are you saying it does? The only thing I'm getting so far is that, whoever you got a particular gene on chromosomes 1-22 or X from at some point in the past, we can't know that person's sex. But what's wrong with not knowing the sex of everybody who's had that gene before you did?

You do not get an entire DNA molecule solely from either parent therefore the DNA molecules are constantly being reshuffled. The genetic information from any single parent is diluted by 1/2 in the first generation. There is no unbroken line.

 

[Earthborn]

You might be coming in late here, pages back are links to studies showing that the salient differences map nearly perfectly to markers in the genome.

Maybe you should post them again, because I can't find them (not for lack of trying).

Surely this study can't be it, because it does not attempt at all to compare phenotype with genetic heritage markers, but rather compares heritage with self-identification. That's something different entirely, because a person may know something about their family history and identify accordingly, even if they don't particularly look the part.

 

[Delvo]

So then are you saying that the human "races" are not just "races" but actually subspecies?

By the standard used for other species (simply any distinguishable divisions within any species, which means the living population not fossils), we would be, so, yes in a way. But the phrasing of the question with the "not just... but" implies that subspecies are somehow supposed to be something more than what races are in some way, like bigger or up at a higher level, and that's a false premise. And if some want to say races are a level below subspecies instead for whatever emotional reason, that's no big deal either. Inserting an extra level labeled "subspecies" just to have a level between races and species may be pointless, inconsistent with subspecies classification in other species, and redundant to the "species" level, but it's also harmless; it simply makes no biological difference in any way to anything anywhere.

You dismiss recombination as the means of shuffling the deck.

I did not.

It is this reshuffling that makes it difficult to trace lines.

Again with the "tracing lines" thing... the only explanation you've given so far about what gets in the way of doing that (whatever exactly it is) was that half of the genes in a parent don't get passed on to any given child, and that's not caused by recombination, but now you're back to saying recombination is the issue. So which is the culprit here: recombination (by some other explanation you haven't given yet), or the process you've brought up by which only half of a parent's genes get passed on to a child (which isn't recombination)? (Or are you intentionally claiming that they're the same thing? If recombination is shuffling a deck of cards, then what makes only half of a parent's genes get passed on to a child is more like cutting the deck... which is something that you typically do after shuffling.)

And what exactly do you mean by "tracing" that can be done with non-recombining units but not with recombining units, and what would it have to do with the differentiation of human gene pools and the identification of which gene pool someone comes from? What does any single line "traced" through a pool consisting of many genes say about the pool?

 

[RandFan]

By the standard used for other species (simply any distinguishable divisions within any species, which means the living population not fossils), we would be, so, yes in a way. But the phrasing of the question with the "not just... but" implies that subspecies are somehow supposed to be something more than what races are in some way, like bigger or up at a higher level, and that's a false premise. And if some want to say races are a level below subspecies instead for whatever emotional reason, that's no big deal either. Inserting an extra level labeled "subspecies" just to have a level between races and species may be pointless, inconsistent with subspecies classification in other species, and redundant to the "species" level, but it's also harmless; it simply makes no biological difference in any way to anything anywhere.

I did not.

Again with the "tracing lines" thing... the only explanation you've given so far about what gets in the way of doing that (whatever exactly it is) was that half of the genes in a parent don't get passed on to any given child, and that's not caused by recombination, but now you're back to saying recombination is the issue. So which is the culprit here: recombination (by some other explanation you haven't given yet), or the process you've brought up by which only half of a parent's genes get passed on to a child (which isn't recombination)? (Or are you intentionally claiming that they're the same thing? If recombination is shuffling a deck of cards, then what makes only half of a parent's genes get passed on to a child is more like cutting the deck... which is something that you typically do after shuffling.)

And what exactly do you mean by "tracing" that can be done with non-recombining units but not with recombining units, and what would it have to do with the differentiation of human gene pools and the identification of which gene pool someone comes from? What does any single line "traced" through a pool consisting of many genes say about the pool?

I honestly don't know if you are being intentionally obtuse. Clearly we are not communicating. I make clear statements. I've only repeated what the experts have said and I've posted the links for that and you've ignored them. I don't know what else to do. I'll tell you what, let me give you one more source and statement you can ignore.

source Professor McVean explains: "Genetic recombination has been likened to shuffling a deck of cards, which ensures that children are given a different genetic 'hand' to their parents. We know that in many cases recombination occurs where a particular 13-letter sequence is present - this is like a run of hearts from ace to king determining where we cut the deck of cards.

If you cannot discuss this in good faith and only stick your fingers in your ears and humming then seriously, what's the point?

 

[Delvo]

Holy wow.

Repeating a false accusation (that I somehow "dismiss" recombination or dispute its "shuffling" effect) so many times in a row, right after several posts of mine in which I explicitly said the opposite of what you're pretending I said, so everybody in the thread can easily see what a flagrant lie you're shoveling and how unaffected by reality you are in your determination to keep at it no matter what happens, goes beyond being merely wrong or dishonest, and approaches neuropathy/psychopathy. Go ahead, toss it out there again. You'll be demonstrating my point for me on this.

But when you're done repeating your obsessive made-up attempt at distraction accusation about a made-up dispute between us over recombination being comparable to shuffling, perhaps you could try moving on to the rest of the actual subject here: where were you going with the recombination thing? What's the next step of logic to take from that point?

The only next step I've seen you give so far had to do with only half of a parent's genes (at least on chromosomes 1-22 and X) being passed on instead of all of them. That's not recombination. That's anaphase & telophase. Recombination happens in metaphase, which happens before anaphase & telophase. Logically, you could either:

•stick with the recombination angle but replace this step in your logic with one that's actually based on recombination instead of on anaphase & telophase

or

•stick with this post-recombination splitting phenomenon as the relevant one because it does indeed mean only half of a parent's genes get passed on to a child as you said happens, but use the right label for it instead of calling it "recombination".

(Shuffling a deck of cards doesn't reduce the number of cards present or split it into smaller sets of cards with fewer cards apiece.)

Either way, the point would be to just move along and get to the part where whatever you're talking about has something to do with identification of different human gene pools, or determination of which gene pool an individual comes from, or whatever you mean by "tracing lines". So far, you have chosen neither of the two logical, sensible options, but just gone back over and over again to yelling out keywords from a straw man that everybody here watched you stuff... even though it wouldn't be relevant to whatever your point is even if it were true. That kind of behavior is what would be expected from someone who realizes (s)he's got nothing on the actual subject and is desperate to distract from the nothing by obsessing over something else and trying to drag everyone else around into that obsession too... and is fairly clumsy about trying to do even that.

PS, not about races or genetics:

Clearly we are not communicating. I make clear statements.

A basic principle in communication is that at least two people are involved: the listener and the speaker. If communication fails, that means there are two places to look for the failure, not one. Someone who actually wants to solve a miscommunication would not immediately declare that it must be on one end and not the other. There are several examples in this thread alone of what actually trying to solve an apparent miscommunication would really look like. But they're all in my posts (or other peoples'), not yours. (Hint: it tends to involve questions/requests, rather than just declarations of "I'm clear and you're obtuse".)

 

[RandFan]

PS, not about races or genetics:A basic principle in communication is that at least two people are involved: the listener and the speaker. If communication fails, that means there are two places to look for the failure, not one. Someone who actually wants to solve a miscommunication would not immediately declare that it must be on one end and not the other.

tl:dr Dude, you aren't even trying. What's the point?

 

[Vortigern99]

tl:dr Dude, you aren't even trying. What's the point?

If you "didn't read" it, how do you know whether he's trying or whether he's making a point?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you "didn't read" it, how do you know whether he's trying or whether he's making a point?

Rand pointed out a single thing trying to simplify the dispute: ""Genetic recombination has been likened to shuffling a deck of cards,"

Subtracting the first paragraph and a half, and the last 2 paragraphs of ad homs, Delvo replied:

where were you going with the recombination thing? What's the next step of logic to take from that point?

The only next step I've seen you give so far had to do with only half of a parent's genes (at least on chromosomes 1-22 and X) being passed on instead of all of them. That's not recombination.

It doesn't even make any sense.

Perhaps if Delvo would drop the personal affront and stick to the actual issue we could make sense of his position.

If the gene deck is shuffled again and again, adding new cards and subtracting others, then it is not relevant that the same number of cards remain in play. What matters is the whole interbreeding group the new cards are continually mixing from.

The whole interbreeding group is not the racial subset Delvo claims it is. Rather the gene pool comes from the much larger human group.

If you want to divide up the gene pools into subsets, there needs to be distinct biological reasons for the groupings. Otherwise you can't define the subset in a way that distinguishes it from other subsets. You can identify subsets, yes, but they are no different from other subsets. It's the same problem that was illustrated when Delvo had to subdivide his original racial subsets into smaller subsets to account for black physical features existing in different subsets.

A family lineage is not a race. A race, in the human species, is no more than a family lineage. The gene pools just are not distinct enough to meet the biological taxonomic rules. You can choose any number of ways to group people. The groups are biologically based. But the legitimacy of the grouping is based on choices of what to group (social constructs), and they don't fall naturally into groups based on biological taxonomic rules.

 

[RandFan]

If you "didn't read" it, how do you know whether he's trying or whether he's making a point?

I read the first paragraph and the paragraph I quoted. That was more than adequate. We are not communicating and Delvo isn't even trying.

 

[Vortigern99]

I've been following the thread from its inception, but without the necessary education in genetics I'm reduced to thinking "That makes sense!" with every argument and counter-argument, both for and against the biological basis of race. RandFan and Skeptic Ginger make what I consider to be good points, from my under-educated perspective, then Delvo refutes those and makes good points of his own, and on and on. I'm baffled at this point.

I need to read up on the science and come back and review the discussion. See y'all in a few pages.

 

[This is The End]

I've been following the thread from its inception, but without the necessary education in genetics I'm reduced to thinking "That makes sense!" with every argument and counter-argument, both for and against the biological basis of race. RandFan and Skeptic Ginger make what I consider to be good points, from my under-educated perspective, then Delvo refutes those and makes good points of his own, and on and on. I'm baffled at this point.

I need to read up on the science and come back and review the discussion. See y'all in a few pages.

As I pointed out a couple pages ago:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8512063#post8512063

Scientists don't even agree on what the word "species" means!

If they can't even agree on something like that, then the hope that someone will narrow down a definition for something like race is impossible.

Again, I think we came to the conclusion on page 2 that the only logical thing that can be done is just stop saying "race" and start using the term "ethnicity".

But since you are interested Vortigern99 here, again if you missed it, are the links to both wikis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(humans)