Race is a human/social construct.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Haplogroups is a manner of tracing racial ancestry, as such it would be expected to be more precise because it is defined by specific markers and... low and behold, for the eleventh time the primary racial classifications of old and haplogroups of today more or less match up and this is no coincidence. Medicinally the term "race", as has been explained earlier, seems particulary die-hard, as it is within forensic science of identifying human bodies. These match up with the given haplogroups as well. Hell, it's as if "race" in the scientific context actually corresponds to the T with haplogroups within the sub-groups of the given species. And... what do you know, it does. This doesn't make the terms interchangable, however we can either way accept that both of the given terms are fundamentally genetic/biological and not social. End of story.

Mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplogroups only very roughly match up. So which of these do you claim match up with race?

Click on "5" and you can toggle back and forth between each tree.

On the Atlas of Human History tab you can zoom in on migration pathways and see that racial groups are so mixed they don't make up distinct groups.

And here scroll down to the third migration map to see significant population mixing by the early Bronze Age.

 

[Delvo]

I think some people have gotten the racial allele clusters and the idea of haplogroups mixed up.

The way races are genetically identified is by checking for groups of alleles which tend to be found together so that a person who has one of the alleles in such a group can normally be expected to also have the rest of the alleles in that group. (A species which had never separated, or had separated but then thoroughly enough mixed back together, would not have such groups of alleles.) The reason why it's noteworthy that they appear together in groups is that they're in nuclear chromosomes other than Y, which are able to freely mix and scramble into new combinations. The recombination process should randomize these genes, so any non-random distribution among them stands out.

A haplogroup is identified by checking for different versions of just one large chunk of DNA which never undergoes that recombination process, so it should just always be copies of copies of copies, not a random assortment of different mixes. For this reason, haplogroup studies don't use the mixing, recombining DNA of the non-Y nuclear chromosomes; they use one of the two big chunks of never-mixing, never-recombining DNA that are available in humans, the Y chromosome or the mitochondrial genome (which is found in mitochondria, not nucleii). In teh non-Y nuclear DNA, the largest single unbroken piece you can get is an individual gene, and although versions of individual genes can be tracked, the scope of that is more limited than when you have a much larger unbroken chunk to work with such as a mitochondrial genome or Y chromosome.

One consequence of that difference is that what haplogroup you're in is only a reference to a single ancestor per generation, whereas the allele clusters refer to all of the ancestors you inherited all of those alleles from, which is sort of like bundling together hundreds of haplogroups whose lines keep intersecting.

Obviously, these two ways of looking at DNA would not be expected to match up, so it's no surprise that they don't. All it takes is one straggler to wander from one population's territory into another's and reproduce there, to result in two otherwise distinct populations having the same haplogroup in them. That straggler's Y chromosome or mitochondria could persist and be easy to recognize ages later, while the rest of his/her genes get split up and dissipate out, making no difference in the area's overall gene pool because anybody in later generations ends up inheriting only a small fraction of them or none. But nobody inherits a small fraction of a mitochondrium or of a Y chromosome; those are all-or-nothing. Also, even without even one single person or his/her descendants moving from one region to another, a single original population can include two or more haplotypes, which don't necessarily have to split evenly if the population splits, so then you'd get two populations with the same combination of more than one haplotype apiece in either the same ratios or different. The same kind of thing is also why the Y and mitochondrial haplogroups don't match each other's distributions either.

 

[Jono]

Mitochondrial and Y chromosome haplogroups only very roughly match up. So which of these do you claim match up with race?

Click on "5" and you can toggle back and forth between each tree.

On the Atlas of Human History tab you can zoom in on migration pathways and see that racial groups are so mixed they don't make up distinct groups.

And here scroll down to the third migration map to see significant population mixing by the early Bronze Age.

Sforza compounded the results of the genome project, noting the migration of, what he termed, 'populations'. These generally match up with past primary racial groups of man rather well. It's not equivalent to racial classification and I never claimed it was, still it does provide a further affirmation for primary human groups based on where the overlaps exist and the extent of genetic distance inbetween them via haplogroups convergently.

It is not a coincidence that a typical zulu tribesman wouldn't be phylogenically indistinguishable with a typical maori. The reason they are not has little to do with socio-economic bias or such.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sforza compounded the results of the genome project, noting the migration of, what he termed, 'populations'. These generally match up with past primary racial groups of man rather well. It's not equivalent to racial classification and I never claimed it was, still it does provide a further affirmation for primary human groups based on where the overlaps exist and the extent of genetic distance inbetween them via haplogroups convergently.

The OP question is not, can one find genetic groupings associated with race?

The OP question is, whether or not race is a human/social construct.

In biology, a subspecies needs to meet different criteria than the criteria typically used to define race.

It is not a coincidence that a typical zulu tribesman wouldn't be phylogenically indistinguishable with a typical maori. The reason they are not has little to do with socio-economic bias or such.

That example should disprove your thesis, not support it. Or am I misreading this? You are claiming the Maori, which are of Polynesian descent are the same race as Zulu which never left Africa because Maori have similar racial features?

 

[Juniversal]

what i just saw was how lousy sourced his stuff is compared to other scientific presentations. very hard to do fact checking on his claims.

That's true as well.

I know I got shot in the gut, but what is it that is aching in my stomache? This is how your question comes across to me, Juniversal. I just don't understand it. Let's say species exist more or less accurately as we depict them, what is the significance of that? If something has medicinal consequences, then it is because it has largely genetical basis for it yes? So, let's find out more. And what do you know, we have and do find out more each year. In its chest it is a scientific process, concerned with what groupings naturally come across through a multitude of ancestral-lineage markers, which in turn provides evolutionary explainations why, for example, polynesians have a notably high frequency of developing diabetes. This isn't the red race/heredity/nature denial era of the 70's and 80's mind you, that's over and done with I hope. Of course, like E.O Wilson said only God can forbid us to rationally look at differences above the neck, and he doesn't exist. As it is we do not have all the answers, and perhaps "race" isn't even an alltogether perfect term. It is however notably a deep, active, genetic reality more than a socio-economic/skin-deep/superficial idea. It doesn't need to be grandly important for everything, it just is. I recognize this, do you?

I don't deny race. It may exist. It may not. Depends on how you define it. If you define it as a shared "common" phenotype and genotype within a population distinct from other populations, then I have no problem calling that race.

My problem (particularly as a black man) is the biological deterministic themes and IQ demagoguery that arises any time race is argued for. There's this idea that once race is accepted the notion that members of different races differ substantially in cognitive ability will be, or should be accepted.

I don't believe for a second there is a sizable difference in cognitive ability (though it may exist to a degree) but it seems many who vehemently promote the notion that race exist also support intelligence theories about substantial differences in cognitive ability between races. Many believe If I accept the notion that race exists i'm supposed to accept the notion that Africans (my primary ancestry group) or black americans are in essence too dumb to succeed. That's why I asked the question out of curiosity.

 

[bpesta22]

That's true as well.

I don't deny race. It may exist. It may not. Depends on how you define it. If you define it as a shared "common" phenotype and genotype within a population distinct from other populations, then I have no problem calling that race.

My problem (particularly as a black man) is the biological deterministic themes and IQ demagoguery that arises any time race is argued for. There's this idea that once race is accepted the notion that members of different races differ substantially in cognitive ability will be, or should be accepted.

I don't believe for a second there is a sizable difference in cognitive ability (though it may exist to a degree) but it seems many who vehemently promote the notion that race exist also support intelligence theories about substantial differences in cognitive ability between races. Many believe If I accept the notion that race exists i'm supposed to accept the notion that Africans (my primary ancestry group) or black americans are in essence too dumb to succeed. That's why I asked the question out of curiosity.

Wouldn't it be a (so far unanswered) empirical question? Would it bother you if athletic ability varied by race after (and if) scientists vetted race as a construct?

 

[Wuglife]

I stopped paying much attention to this thread since I couldn't really bear arguing against mental gymnastics as ludicrous as reversal-of-cause-and-effect, but I thought this would be an interesting snippet to bring up--differences in the least weasel based on population.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_weasel

The least weasel has a high geographic variation, a fact which has historically led to numerous disagreements among biologists studying its systematics. Least weasel subspecies are divided into 3 categories:[6]

The pygmaea-rixosa group (small weasels): Tiny weasels with short tails and pedomorphic skulls, which turn pure white in winter. They inhabit northern European Russia, Siberia, the Russian Far East, Finland, northern Scandinavian Peninsula, Mongolia, northeastern China, Japan and North America.

The boccamela group (large weasels): Very large weasels with large skulls, relatively long tails and lighter coloured pelts. Locally, they either do not turn white or only partially in winter. They inhabit Transcaucasia, from western Kazakhstan to Semirechye and in the flat deserts of Middle Asia.

The nivalis group (average weasels): Medium-sized weasels, with tails of moderate length, representing a transitional form between the former two groups. They inhabit the middle and southern regions of European Russia, Crimea, Ciscaucasus, western Kazakhstan, southern and middle Urals and montane parts of Middle Asia, save for Koppet Dag.

The races of least weasel, which biologists do not all agree about (because binomial nomenclature is NOT inherently objective, as some seem to misunderstand), are considered distinct because of morphological differences, caused by differences in genetics, and are separated by region. The same situation objectively exists in the human species.

Yes, "races" of least weasel:

Dimensions vary geographically, to an extent rarely found among other mammals. Least weasels of the vulgaris group, for example, may outweigh the smaller races by almost four times.

 

[Wuglife]

My problem (particularly as a black man) is the biological deterministic themes and IQ demagoguery that arises any time race is argued for. There's this idea that once race is accepted the notion that members of different races differ substantially in cognitive ability will be, or should be accepted.

James Rachels wrote about this in The Elements of Moral Philosophy (my ethics text book from a college class I took). His position was basically that even if the intelligence of one group is on average higher than of some other group (and he did not say he believed this actually occurred), there is no logical justification for prejudice owing to the fact that that says nothing about individuals within that group.

Also I don't think IQ demagoguery arises every time race is argued for. I don't think people are on average going to be less intelligent just because they come from a different race--I would be surprised if there is objective evidence proving that.

 

[Wuglife]

In biology, a subspecies needs to meet different criteria than the criteria typically used to define race.

What criteria are those needed to be considered a subspecies?

Even expert biologists don't agree on the answer to that question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
The races of least weasel, which biologists do not all agree about (because binomial nomenclature is NOT inherently objective, as some seem to misunderstand), are considered distinct because of morphological differences, caused by differences in genetics, and are separated by region. The same situation objectively exists in the human species.

Yes, "races" of least weasel:

What criteria are those needed to be considered a subspecies?

Even expert biologists don't agree on the answer to that question.

Sub-groupings in biological taxonomies require separation and isolation. Human groups are not isolated.

I ask the question that keeps being ignored, what makes one family line a race while another family line not one?

The answer is socially defined choices of what to group together. There are no clean edges to any of the groups, something you likely find in your weasel groups. Just having geographically influenced features does not make a subspecies.

Subspecies

Subspecies is the taxonomic rank immediately subordinate to species.

A subspecies has distinct differences from the species it originates from and they are found in biologically isolated populations.

 

[Wuglife]

Sub-groupings in biological taxonomies require separation and isolation.

No, they actually don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffe

A 2007 study on the genetics of six subspecies—the West African, Rothschild, reticulated, Maasai, Angolan and South African giraffe—suggests that they may in fact be separate species. The study deduced from genetic drift in nuclear and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that giraffes from these populations are reproductively isolated and rarely interbreed, even though no natural obstacles block their mutual access.

The giraffes are "isolated" only in the sense that they rarely interbreed, even though they have the ability to do so. Is that the sense of "isolation" you referred to?

Human groups are not isolated.

A lot of them actually are. There are millions of people who will never travel abroad or move to a distant land. There are millions of people who will only produce children with someone from their same geographic area and whose ancestors generations and generations ago were still from the same geographic area.

There are also still uncontacted or mostly uncontacted people who have nothing to do with the rest of the world. The Sentinalese people have actively resisted any contact with other people and have actively chosen to remain isolated.

I ask the question that keeps being ignored, what makes one family line a race while another family line not one?

That is not a question of absolutes. The same question exists when judging whether two organisms are the same species (which is not an exact science and is frequently a point of contention among biologists).

The answer is socially defined choices of what to group together. There are no clean edges to any of the groups, something you likely find in your weasel groups. Just having geographically influenced features does not make a subspecies.

Clean edges? The very thing I pointed out was that the classification of the weasels is a point of contention. The lines between even such a broad category as species is not even clean-edged--if that were the case, according to evolution by natural selection, an animal of one species would have at one point given birth to another animal that was obviously of a different species.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your examples are all isolated populations of animals. The arguments are whether the population groups have been isolated long enough, not whether they are still a subspecies despite interbreeding.

 

[Wuglife]

Your examples are all isolated populations of animals. The arguments are whether the population groups have been isolated long enough, not whether they are still a subspecies despite interbreeding.

What do you mean by "isolated"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seriously? You want me to define isolated populations?

 

[Delvo]

Yes... particularly without insisting on an obviously false all-or-nothing approach to it that nobody in any branch of biology really uses, and without denying the existence of geography.

And while you're at it, try "enough"... particularly the part where that's not "arbitrary", and why you put this magical line in different places for different species.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes... particularly without insisting on an obviously false all-or-nothing approach to it that nobody in any branch of biology really uses, and without denying the existence of geography.

And while you're at it, try "enough"... particularly the part where that's not "arbitrary", and why you put this magical line in different places for different species.

Has anyone posted a link to a biology citation where any kind of subspecies or sub-subspecies is not an isolated population?

Because if someone has, I missed it. Otherwise, why the double standard for humans?

Also, you continue with the straw man, talk about an all or none fallacy. Saying race is a social construct does not mean it has no genetic or geographic basis.

 

[Juniversal]

Wouldn't it be a (so far unanswered) empirical question? Would it bother you if athletic ability varied by race after (and if) scientists vetted race as a construct?

Yes. As I said it may be true that groups differ in intelligence to a degree (not necessarily along racial lines) minute as it may be, but to attempt to explain the differences in social standing in a country like America when the proverbial social playing field has never been equal (not to mention the oppositional culture that developed in the black community) is something I can't support. I have no reason to believe ineducability is the problem (which is the conclusion Rushton and his ilk come to). Also athletic ability doesn't differ by race but by physique so yes, that notion of racial superiority in sports would bother me.

James Rachels wrote about this in The Elements of Moral Philosophy (my ethics text book from a college class I took). His position was basically that even if the intelligence of one group is on average higher than of some other group (and he did not say he believed this actually occurred), there is no logical justification for prejudice owing to the fact that that says nothing about individuals within that group.

Also I don't think IQ demagoguery arises every time race is argued for. I don't think people are on average going to be less intelligent just because they come from a different race--I would be surprised if there is objective evidence proving that.

In and of itself it's not prejudiced if you're simply reciting statistics or that certain groups tend to perform better then others but applying a stamp of inferiority to an entire population is prejudiced. Especially considering the notion of group inferiority is often used to explain away "group failures" or a lack of social progress ala. the bell curve, as opposed to using statistics of individuals to attempt to explain individual failures.

Also from my experience it does seem just about any discussion on whether race exist devolves into a discussion about intelligence (not mutually exclusive).

 

[Limehouse Chappie]

What I learned from this thread: Delvo's responses are so devastating to the opposition that they do not even attempt to respond to most of them. It's pretty funny actually.

 

[DC]

What I learned from this thread: Delvo's responses are so devastating to the opposition that they do not even attempt to respond to most of them. It's pretty funny actually.

in which thread is that happening?

 

[Moss]

What I learned from this thread: Delvo's responses are so devastating to the opposition that they do not even attempt to respond to most of them. It's pretty funny actually.

Ah, the "he is winning! really! totally!!!!" narrative.