Race is a human/social construct.

[Ferguson]

what race would Tiger Woods be?

I'm not sure where I fall in this argument, but can the anti-race side please stop repeating this? It's fallacious on its face and only hurts your argument. That categories can mix or be fuzzy doesn't make race a useless construct any more than it does for species, planets, colors, sex, etc.
What would a mule be? Or a liger? Is species is a worthless concept too?

 

[DC]

I'm not sure where I fall in this argument, but can the anti-race side please stop repeating this? It's fallacious on its face and only hurts your argument. That categories can mix or be fuzzy doesn't make race a useless construct any more than it does for species, planets, colors, sex, etc.
What would a mule be? Or a liger? Is species is a worthless concept too?

doesn't change the fact that race is a social construct and not a scientific construct.

 

[lomiller]

Here is a challenge for Skepticginger and everyone else saying race does not exist: .

Umm what?


Occam's razor applies here we don't create biological categories for the fun of it, you think it exists you prove it exists, otherwise it's just noise.

Bottom line is:

- there are no recognized biological categorization that corresponds to race
- all humans are already in the same sub-species, which is the most granular formally defined biological classification
- no scientific body accepts race as a valid biological categorization
- most anthropologists accept race as a cultural classification rather than a biological one
- genetic differences between humans are minimal
- the most genetically divergent populations apparently don't even qualify for their own race

Now if you have some evidence to bring to the table that is anything more that "I really want to believe race is a meaningful concept in biology" you go ahead but so there is little evidence on the table to support you and what there is is very very weak.

 

[lomiller]

Then, for the sake of this challenge, you can also consider sub-species divisions that have been revealed to be non-existent. "Race" and "sub-species" are sometimes used interchangeably anyway. My challenge still stands.

Then you have provided the proof you require on your own. Humans are ALL part of the same sub-species, homo sapiens sapiens. There are no other sub-species of human

 

[DC]

 

[bpesta22]

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

I call BS here. Why does "breed" have to equate to "sub-species" to have scientific validity? The thrust of your wiki quote is that because breed doesn't mean sub-species, it's invalid.

Not being an expert, I then googled "difference between breed and sub-species". Seems like there is one:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/smaller-than-species-subspecies-races-and-breeds.html

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

Claiming that breed is not-scientific because it does not fit the definition of sub-species is the BS I am calling here.

 

[DC]

I call BS here. Why does "breed" have to equate to "sub-species" to have scientific validity? The thrust of your wiki quote is that because breed doesn't mean sub-species, it's invalid.

Not being an expert, I then googled "difference between breed and sub-species". Seems like there is one:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/smaller-than-species-subspecies-races-and-breeds.html

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

Claiming that breed is not-scientific because it does not fit the definition of sub-species is the BS I am calling here.

the point is, that also breeds are a social construct and not a scientific one. Just like race is.

 

[bpesta22]

Then you have provided the proof you require on your own. Humans are ALL part of the same sub-species, homo sapiens sapiens. There are no other sub-species of human

Ok, but why must groups of life in the same species need to be classified as sub-species before any meaningful genetic variation between the groups can exist?

 

[bpesta22]

the point is, that also breeds are a social construct and not a scientific one. Just like race is.

We're replying in real time-- I modified what you quoted here.

So your default is unless differences reach the level of sub-species, any classification on those differences is a social convenience versus scientific?!

 

[bpesta22]

Umm what?


Occam's razor applies here we don't create biological categories for the fun of it, you think it exists you prove it exists, otherwise it's just noise.

Bottom line is:

- there are no recognized biological categorization that corresponds to race
- all humans are already in the same sub-species, which is the most granular formally defined biological classification
- no scientific body accepts race as a valid biological categorization
- most anthropologists accept race as a cultural classification rather than a biological one
- genetic differences between humans are minimal
- the most genetically divergent populations apparently don't even qualify for their own race

Now if you have some evidence to bring to the table that is anything more that "I really want to believe race is a meaningful concept in biology" you go ahead but so there is little evidence on the table to support you and what there is is very very weak.

Wow, I just re-read Wade's chapter on race and found it compelling with ample citations to scientific literature supporting his claims. What am I missing here to explain your vague reassurances that races don't exist versus his scholarly and well-cited argument for the opposite?

 

[DC]

We're replying in real time-- I modified what you quoted here.

So your default is unless differences reach the level of sub-species, any classification on those differences is a social convenience versus scientific?!

my default is that we have not been separated long enough to form a race. most of us are a mix of all kinds of ancestry. compared to dogs, we are all bastards.

 

[RandFan]

Wow, I just re-read Wade's chapter on race and found it compelling with ample citations to scientific literature supporting his claims. What am I missing here to explain your vague reassurances that races don't exist versus his scholarly and well-cited argument for the opposite?

What about scholarly and well-cited arguments from anthropologists that disagree with Wade?

Does Race Exist? (the article contains both pro and con arguments)

 

[DC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAWrwexw-To

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh and by the way, "race" is sometimes used for describing varieties within other species, honeybees for example. There are many different races among Orcas as well. I could list others. Interesting that you either didn't know this or you chose to ignore it.

Zel, just because someone wrote it on Wiki does not make it a scientific term.

This is from the citation in the Wiki entry on Orca races:

The exact taxonomic relationship of these two forms is unclear. In 1987 Bigg et al. termed these two types of killer whales "races", and this term has been adopted, uncritically, by many investigators. "Races" are usually defined in a geographic sense, implying geographically isolated populations which are typically given subspecific designation (Mayr and Ashlock 1991). Baird et al. (1992) outlined how these two forms may have evolved, and termed them incipient species. Baird (1994) subsequently argued that they should be considered separate species, although no formal description of each species has been presented. Heyning and Dahlheim (1993) have argued that insufficient information is available to determine the level of isolation between them. Hoelzel (personal communication) estimated genetic migration between these two forms at one male per five generations and one female per 20 generations (see Hoelzel et al. 1998).

There is no scientific consensus there, let alone justification for use of a term because one or more scientist coined its use in a paper.

In the honeybee entry there isn't even a scientific citation. It's just some opinion of the subject editor:

an informal taxonomic rank of race, below that of subspecies, on the basis of shared genetic traits.

In the single citation for the entry, the term, "race", is not used.

That doesn't mean scientists don't refer to 'race' of animal species in papers and it would appear they use it more than I was aware.

But it is not an official accepted term and I also see the definition varies form subspecies to something below subspecies. If there is no agreement to what the term even means, its use remains informal.

SYSTEMATICS AND MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS - Classifying Organisms

Taxonomic Classification of Man
Homo sapiens

Superkingdom: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Metazoa
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primata
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens

Taxonomists, scientists who classify living organisms, define a species as any group of closely related organisms that can produce fertile offspring. Two organisms are more closely "related" as they approach the level of species, that is, they have more genes in common. The level of species can be further divided into smaller segments. A population is the smallest unit of a species and is made up of organisms of the same species. Sometimes, a population will physically alter over time to suit the needs of its environment. This is called a cline and can make members of the same species look different.

[snip]

A phylogenetic tree is composed of nodes, each representing a taxonomic unit (species, populations, individuals), and branches, which define the relationship between the taxonomic units in terms of descent and ancestry. Only one branch can connect any two adjacent nodes. The branching pattern of the tree is called the topology, and the branch length usually represents the number of changes that have occurred in the branch. This is called a scaled branch. Scaled trees are often calibrated to represent the passage of time. Such trees have a theoretical basis in the particular gene or genes under analysis. Branches can also be unscaled, which means that the branch length is not proportional to the number of changes that has occurred, although the actual number may be indicated numerically somewhere on the branch. Phylogenetic trees may also be either rooted or unrooted. In rooted trees, there is a particular node, called the root, representing a common ancestor, from which a unique path leads to any other node. An unrooted tree only specifies the relationship among species, without identifying a common ancestor, or evolutionary path.

The following term was not found in Taxonomy: race.


So what does this all mean? Genetics are very useful. There are scientific ways to classify and divide genetic groups.

There's a lot of lay terminology used to divide humans into groups. These are human/social constructs, but most are not useful as genetic divisions. No one is arguing there are not family groups. No one is arguing people don't come from different genetic lines of descent.

But the old way of looking at 'races' is simply crude and inaccurate and no longer useful. It's much more useful to look at genetic family lines than using what the outer shell of a human person looks like to divide up people into groups.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure where I fall in this argument, but can the anti-race side please stop repeating this? It's fallacious on its face and only hurts your argument. That categories can mix or be fuzzy doesn't make race a useless construct any more than it does for species, planets, colors, sex, etc.
What would a mule be? Or a liger? Is species is a worthless concept too?

Mules and Ligers are evolutionary dead ends.


The reason people are having such a hard time with this is because they keep mixing lay concepts and terminology with scientific ones.


Unscientific lay concepts, aka social constructs, include 'race'. Scientific concepts are more specific and race is not the most useful division now that we can directly analyze genetic lines of descent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok, but why must groups of life in the same species need to be classified as sub-species before any meaningful genetic variation between the groups can exist?

Because there are ~3 billion nucleic acid base pairs in the human genome and dividing the population into meaningful genetic groups requires a lot more sophistication than the old category of 'races' allows.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What about scholarly and well-cited arguments from anthropologists that disagree with Wade?

Does Race Exist? (the article contains both pro and con arguments)

It's a very thorough and relevant discussion but it is ~12 years old (Posted 02.15.00).

I maintain the position I noted earlier: biological sciences are in the process of a paradigm shift because of the rapid addition of genetic science evidence. Historically one finds a lot of resistance among the experts when a new body of evidence directly challenges long held beliefs about accepted scientific 'facts'. The old concept of race is in the process of being replaced by much more specific and useful genetic lineage concepts.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Suppose though that having poodle ancestors correlated strongly (now) with all sorts of negative social outcomes, and that the dog kingdom invested lots of money on improving environments for dogs with poodle ancestors, yet they still fared far worse relative to other dogs.

Could it be ancestry's legacy, despite the now unrestricted gene pool, that's holding current dogs with poodle ancestors back? Why does this seem so implausible?

The obvious problem is that oppressed people-->poverty trap has examples throughout the world and history. It definitely implies a sociological dynamic more than a genetic one.

 

[Kahalachan]

Using your hypothetical: After 1000+ years of restricted breeding, dogs are now mating randomly across breeds. How many generations of random breeding would it take before dogs just looked like prototypical dogs (versus poodles or shepherds?). I imagine this would take a long time; perhaps longer than even the conversion into breeds.

Suppose though that having poodle ancestors correlated strongly (now) with all sorts of negative social outcomes, and that the dog kingdom invested lots of money on improving environments for dogs with poodle ancestors, yet they still fared far worse relative to other dogs.

Could it be ancestry's legacy, despite the now unrestricted gene pool, that's holding current dogs with poodle ancestors back? Why does this seem so implausible? Why does lactose intolerance exist today since the sub-population that it evolved in is now inter-breeding?

Worse, scientists in the dog kingdom now have ways to identify the genetics of dog breeds and could use these markers in experiments to perhaps understand and fix the poodle-ancestry problem (by testing whether various traits seem linked to dog ancestry in general).

That's why dog breeds are more pronounced than human races. We as humans restricted dogs. Humans are much less restricted.

Take a black man from an upper middle class neighborhood in France and compare him to an American black man who grew up in the slums of Harlem. Do we really expect the genetics of their African heritage to be a strong factor in determining their success and social mobility?

Racial ancestry is a biological factor at times. Sickle cell anemia. A stronger African ancestry is going to be a higher risk factor. There was some evolutionary factor involved here. And you don't need any pure racial definition to determine risk factors. Someone who is only half black would be at greater risk. The medical science is all there and no one can argue this.

For all other factors associated with race, the scientific evidence has to be this robust to say a specific ancestry is going to be associated with certain qualities. I'll have a respect for any forthcoming scientific evidence so I won't entirely rule anything out unless we've already repeatedly tested and proven a hypothesis wrong.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There are, with some gray area divisions in some species where there is more continuum and less sharp divide. That doesn't mean there isn't some degree of scientific controversy. However, just like in the future no one is going to doubt that Pluto is a Kuiper Belt Object and not a planet, during the scientific paradigm shift you still find a lot of scientists arguing over the change.

Again, the problem is people can't let go of old beliefs in light of new evidence.

Like Lions and Tigers being separate species.