Human (specie) not to be confused with humans

[arthwollipot]

I've heard that there is a greater genetic difference between two people of different African ethnic groups than there is between either of them and the average European. Is this true?

 

[bumlet5]

It's one thing to be descriptive. It's another to pretend that it's a matter of differing species.

This. It's one thing to say "Tom is the black guy in the red shirt and jeans" but it's another to say "I saw this black buy eating french fries". One is a descriptor to help distinguish a specific person (out of 200 people I'm sure many are wearing a red shirt and jeans, it is simply a descriptor), one is completely irrelevant to the intended story and considered offensive (a guy was eating fries, his skin color is irrelevant. Unless the story continues into a racially charged situation where it is a helpful tidbit of info, it doesn't matter).

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I attended the University of Tennessee and trained in forensic science. The characteristics we studied in bones showed ancestry. Race is imaginary.

 

[This is The End]

Here is a link to the most recent time we had this entire discussion:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220669


I believe several of us agreed to just say "ethnicity" instead of "race".


For reference there is also this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7378768#post7378768

And this even older thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175658

Where I quoted a, now infamous, Discover magazine article:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5944352&highlight=discover#post5944352

...DNA studies show we all share a common female ancestor who lived in Africa about 140,000 years ago. In addition, all living men share a common male ancestor who lived in Africa about 60,000 years ago.

Another interesting quote from the main article:

Human races are evolving away from each other. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single mixed humanity.

Who can argue with a conclusion like that? (Apparently many people. Fervently.)

 

[This is The End]

I attended the University of Tennessee and trained in forensic science. The characteristics we studied in bones showed ancestry. Race is imaginary.

The first sentence tells us which definition of race you are using. Exactly. Which makes your 3rd sentence true in that context.

As can be seen in the links I just posted, we have had several threads full of people arguing using 2 different definitions.

 

[This is The End]

Another big problem with this whole issue, also pointed out in the other threads, is that a clear definition of "species" doesn't even exist. So obviously if there is not 1 agreed upon definition of "species" then there cannot be 1 agreed upon definition of "race".

Therefore this, literally, is one of those times where both sides are perfectly correct. If they are abiding by the definitions that they happen to be using, of course.

Coincidentally, the cite here is also from Discover magazine:

I know this has been touched upon before but this is an old post of mine:

A newer Discover magazine (June 2010) has a great article about this very topic (giraffes included), coincidence?

The article is "Unclassified: The Enigma of Species" page 55.

It talks about how there is no agreed upon way to define a species, that there are in fact several methods used. Ranging from sexual activity to dna.

It also makes the case that there really are several species of giraffe, not sub-species.

I challenge anyone to read that article (try your library, I don't think it is online) and then tell me you are still convinced that even a majority of scientists agree on what the word species means.

Here's a related post from Cuddles that is really just a link (arrow by Cuddles's name) for everyone to read a related thread where we went through all this with dogs.

It wouldn't say anything that we don't already know. "Species" is a word that really doesn't have a precise definition, in the same way that "life" doesn't. It's a useful concept for general classifications, but there are plenty of examples of things that just don't quite fit in. Try reading about ring species, for example. As I say, species are a useful concept, but you should never make the mistake of thinking that they actually represent absolute boundaries.

 

[Brian-M]

Race is both useful and useless. It's useful in an ethnographic sense, but not in a phenotypical sense. "Black" tends to describe Bantu and Nihlo-Saharan Africans. The same or similar characteristics manifest in Australian Aboriginals, Papuans, Samoans, and some Indians - but they would only be considered "black" by the most superficial of metrics.

"Black" isn't a race, it's a color. I don't understand why Americans seem to treat it as if it were.

When I look at a Sudanese immigrant, and then at an Aborigine, it's clear to me that they're completely different races. The fact that they both share a single attribute (dark skin) is hardly relevant.

 

[angrysoba]

Another big problem with this whole issue, also pointed out in the other threads, is that a clear definition of "species" doesn't even exist. So obviously if there is not 1 agreed upon definition of "species" then there cannot be 1 agreed upon definition of "race".

No, I don't think that argument is correct.

There may not be a clear definition of species, but there are some necessary criteria with species. One of those is that members of a species are capable of producing fertile offspring.

But there can also be other concepts that are not rigourously defined but do have meaning that most of us can understand. Wittgenstein's famous example is of the word game. It may be impossible to give a rigourous definition of game, but that doesn't mean we don't understand what games are.

When it comes to race, the problem that most people are interested in is whether or not the term has validity as a scientific concept. Most scientists now agree that it does not have any use. Genetic inheritance and certain things such as prevalence of disease within particular population groups, sure. But race itself is of little use. As an example that I read in a book by Kenan Malik's Strange Fruit, the Dutch have a far lower prevalence of Huntingdon's disease than Afrikaners, despite being what some people would have considered the same "race". The reason for the higher prevalance is that a single individual with Huntingdon's disease was in the first boatload of Dutch colonists of South Africa, so the gene for Huntingdon's disease was disproportionately concentrated in the gene pool. It's an example of the founder effect.

Similarly, you cannot simply say that someone is likely to have sickle cell anaemia on the basis that she is black. Nor can you rule out the possibility that she has it because she is not black.

But anyway, that's diverging from the point.

 

[This is The End]

but there are some necessary criteria with species.

Nope, check out the article if you can. Even the necessary criteria are not agreed upon. Sometimes the different definitions even have conflicting criteria.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post BTW. Just pointing that out.

 

[This is The End]

"Black" isn't a race, it's a color.

Oddly enough it's not even the correct color! And neither is "white".

 

[Brian-M]

Oddly enough it's not even the correct color! And neither is "white".

I don't know. Some people do have incredibly black skin. And a very few people have incredibly pale white skin. But yes, most people we call "black" or "white" are really brown or tan.

 

[casebro]

Anybody got a word processer they can put this whole thread into, and change the word 'race' to 'ethnicity', and see which arguments hold?

 

[angrysoba]

Nope, check out the article if you can. Even the necessary criteria are not agreed upon. Sometimes the different definitions even have conflicting criteria.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post BTW. Just pointing that out.

Thanks. I think we agree mostly then. I like the stuff in Cuddles' post about ring species. I remember reading about the gulls in Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Anybody got a word processer they can put this whole thread into, and change the word 'race' to 'ethnicity', and see which arguments hold?

I made a Word doc in a jiffy for fun and replaced races with ethnicities; and race for ethnicity. The doc is 740 KB (limit 19.5). Won't attach. Sorry. And I'm sure "ethnicities" is not proper, but I'm a rebel... ☻☺☻

 

[triforcharity]

Use something like Dropbox.com It's pretty easy to use. Or, Google Docs

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Use something like Dropbox.com It's pretty easy to use. Or, Google Docs

Okay, I've opened a a dropbox account and the doc is in there. Now what?

 

[Ladewig]

Not sure this is the right place for this, please advise if otherwise.

Was reprimanded this morning for describing someone as oriental. Then pummeled for pointing out the differences between humans around the world.
Supposedly this is not correct anymore.

Of course, we were not there so we do not know the exact words and tone that you used when speaking about humans in different places. Perhaps that is what made those folks upset.

.................

As for oriental, without asking too personal a question: where are you living now and where have you been living for the past 20 years?

 

[Puppycow]

Was reprimanded this morning for describing someone as oriental. Then pummeled for pointing out the differences between humans around the world.
Supposedly this is not correct anymore.

"Oriental" is not considered politically correct anymore, as others have pointed out. But I think Asian is still acceptable.

Just as an aside, I still see the word oriental or its Japanese equivalent used fairly often here in Japan. For example the Japanese company that runs Tokyo Disneyland is called Oriental Land Co., Ltd. because their original idea was to make a theme park called Oriental Land. Instead they scrapped that idea and decided to just buy the rights from Disney to make another Disneyland in Tokyo, pretty much exactly the same as the one in California. Various other companies use "Orient" or "Oriental" in their names.

 

[marplots]

I think "orientable" is still OK. "Head end up" and all.

 

[stevea]

But they are. Suggesting that the difference in human skin color has such significance is like looking at two of the same breed of cat but claiming that their different fur color means they're different animals.

FAIL - OP never suggested skin color was a main factor. There are hundreds of visible phenotypes that tend to group and therefore categorize people by origin. It's clear enough that skeletal remains can often be identified by racial origin. I expect most ppl can make an accurate guess in a large fraction of cases, between (for example) Chinese, Korean and Japanese East Asians after seeing the fully clothed individual.

And I doubt any European would refer to them as "Oriental"...

It's sad when racists can't tell the visual differences between Asians from different regions. Aren't they even trying anymore?

Well thanks for injecting "racism" into the context, but it merely proves you've blinded yourself to reality while seeking some political ideology.

Racism is a matter of unjustly judging (as in prejudice) against some races and/or in favor of others. No one was talking abt or even suggesting that until you ... skunk at a garden party ...

However, there are many differences between the different "races" for lack of a better word. Why someone would claim otherwise, is absurd.

Species is generally defined by distinct groups than can't successfully interbreed, while 'race' is an old but correct term for populations with a species that generally exhibit distinct phenotypes. So Oats and Wheat are distinct species, but all across Europe in the middle ages there were distinct 'land-races' of wheat. More commonly called 'varietals.

Yes it's always absurd when people are so cowed by political thinking that the deny reality, and agree that 2+2=5 for political reasons.

Ethnic groups and country/continent of origin are acceptable references.

No. I once suggested to a small group that Hillary Clinton didn't look particularly Greek, and all the politically blinded Lefty zealots gasped and whined as tho' I had used the N' word toward her. I don't think her features, hair, skin tone are particularly Mediterranean (tho' I'd be the first to admit low accuracy on this categorization). I harbor no negative stereotypes wrt Greek ppl generally.

It's silly, but no - it is not acceptable in this Liberal PC gulag to suggest national/regional origins.

The problem is compounded (and why casebro is wrong) is that more than likely the person you are referencing is of mixed ancestry. Take Obama, his mother was white but he is almost always referred to as black.

Why is this a "problem" ? Yes, we are one species and individuals interbreed across phenotypic boundaries and therefore introduce added genetic variability into sub-populations. "Black" isn't just skin color - for example it isn't used to refer to Hindus with much darker skin color than Obama. The term seems to mean something like "some significant African ancestry" (where African means the more West/Central/South excluding perhaps Berbers and more recent S.African migrants from Euope & India.

The problem is that SOME overly-sensitive people take offense at any sort of categorization, and also in recent decades we entertain the PC nonsense POV that no one should ever be offended. It's sort of a passive-aggressive anger, derail the conversation thing.

Yes ppl should take umbrage at false or over-inclusive generalizations, abt any groups, including ethnic, national or racial groups. I'd argue that false elevation of groups is at least as harmful as false denigration. OTOH there are evidenced generalization that really do need to be discussed and nearly impossible when some of the dishonest participants in the national debate believe that the term "racism" roughly means "doesn't agree with me" and use the accusation of racism to derail discussions of fact.