Race is a human/social construct.

[RandFan]

Then where did any given gene that you have come from, if it didn't come from one parent, who got it from one parent, who got it from one parent, et cetera?

Of course a given gene comes from either parent. But reproduction is to basically to shuffle two decks of cards, split both in half and to create a new deck from two of the halves of each deck. During meisos DNA strands from the father join DNA strands from the mother (chromosomal crossover). Every new child is a new combination of DNA. Just because a particular gene comes from either the mother or the father does not mean that it can be traced back through ancestral lines. Unless it's a particularly rare mutation.

You are saying that we could, in effect, work our way back through all of those shuffled and recombined decks. No because there is too much change.

 

[RandFan]

If you really want to argue about whether there's been a tendency for the points I make on this subject to get no response and insist on examples to argue over, I could collect multiple examples from this thread... probably multiple conspicuously significant examples (ignoring the minor/unimportant ones for the sake of brevity) per page, for that matter. I could also collect examples not only of claims being first made and then abandoned, but even denials that a claim was ever made at all, in the very same thread where it originally was (after that original claim gets disproven). But what exactly is the point? Do you actually want to bother with that argument? This was all done quite out in the open. It didn't even occur to me that anybody would bother trying to hide it, since it's clearly just as impossible to hide the silence as it would be to hide a response consisting of words.

I've never intentionally ignored anything in this thread. If you want to rehash stuff I'll consider your points. You may very well get an apology from me as I apologize here with great regularity. I'm human and make mistakes and I'm not above correcting them. But I can assure you that never did I ignore you intentionally. I did leave the thread for awhile and didn't try to catch up when I came back.

So, what's the point? That's up to you. I'm a sincere person that gets that he has an ego. That's why I try to avoid declaring myself having been the victor, or someone else ignoring me on purpose. I can argue passionately but I don't take myself that seriously. Others would do well to consider that. None of us are all that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll reask my question, perhaps it got lost in the post:

So, back the the Zulu vs the Maori, Maoris don't look African, but Australian Aboriginals and Papua New Guineans do. So how do your phylogenic groupings work using those populations?

Why can't you tell a racial group by its cover?

 

[lomiller]

I'll reask my question, perhaps it got lost in the post:

So, back the the Zulu vs the Maori, Maoris don't look African, but Australian Aboriginals and Papua New Guineans do. So how do your phylogenic groupings work using those populations?

Why can't you tell a racial group by its cover?

And how about the Mbenga or Khoisan. Both are from Africa and "look African" but in fact have last common ancestors with East African populations (and each other) that date back 60K - 70K years. In comparison European populations have last common ancestors with those same east African populations that date back barely more than half that far.

If race were really meaningful shouldn't Europeans and East Africans have been grouped as "1 race" instead we get East Africans, Mbenga and Khoisan being grouped together.

 

[Delvo]

Maoris don't look African, but Australian Aboriginals and Papua New Guineans do.

No. Australoids have, among other more subtle differences, looser hair, more-protruding bones above and around the eyes, and larger teeth & jaws. The physical/phenotypic differences are why they've been considered separate from black Africans for about as long as there have been any observers who were familiar with both groups. The idea that someone somewhere should somehow think they're identical is a recently invented straw man.

So how do your phylogenic groupings work using those populations?

Maori are Polynesians, which are a subset of eastern Asians (spreading from Taiwan a few thousand years ago). The others you named are neither eastern Asian, nor African, nor western Eurasian, but a third non-African group, which has been called "australoid", and after whom the island group "Melanesia" was named. In the map I've linked to several times including in this thread, the distinct allele cluster which they turned out to have is represented by the green icons.

 

[lomiller]

Maori are Polynesians, which are a subset of eastern Asians (spreading from Taiwan a few thousand years ago). The others you named are neither eastern Asian, nor African, nor western Eurasian, but a third non-African group, which has been called "australoid", and after whom the island group "Melanesia" was named. In the map I've linked to several times including in this thread, the distinct allele cluster which they turned out to have is represented by the green icons.

So now not only do you need a grouping below the rank of sub-species you even need to break each of these up into further sub-groupings. Now that you have invented 2 new levels of rankings below the recognized ones are you going to try for three? Four? When does it stop?

You still haven't given us a good reason why we should have these infrasubspecific ranks at all, at least your ally in this thread was honest enough to admit that he thinks social problems have a genetic basis and he thinks "race" is the key to understanding what that may be, but why are you so attached to this archaic classification system?

 

[Delvo]

And how about the Mbenga or Khoisan. Both are from Africa and "look African"... we get East Africans, Mbenga and Khoisan being grouped together.

No. It's just another iteration of the "Australian aborigines look African" straw man. The differences have been well known and recognized all along, and "black" has been only one of the established African races all along because of it, which is why "African" (or even just "southern African" or "sub-Saharan African", to avoid including the caucasoid populations of northern Africa) has never been considered to be a single race by any observers who were familiar with the other groups you named.

I actually don't get why the race-deniers keep bringing up Australians and Khoi-San and African pygmies, as if there were some kind of actual point there. It's not as if those of us who acknowledge the fact that human races are human races have never heard of them (in fact I've been the one to bring them up myself in some situations) or have ever claimed they're all supposed to be the same, and even if that were the case, it's not as if they somehow represented some kind of problem for us or our position. It's like being in the middle of some debate with someone at a grocery store who's holding a bag of red apples, and suddenly grabbing a green apple, holding it in front of his/her face, and saying "A-HAH! I've got you now; this is an apple, too!" even though (s)he never said apples all had to be red.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Delvo, people are not denying race exists. We are saying they are not true biological divisions. It is a social construct because one choses where to draw the lines, rather than the lines existing because of natural separation of the groups.

In biology, subspecies need to be genetically isolated. Human groups are not genetically isolated. The so called "races" you refer to are part of a continuum, not separate isolated reproducing populations.

 

[lomiller]

No. It's just another iteration of the "Australian aborigines look African" straw man. The differences have been well known and recognized all along, and "black" has been only one of the established African races all along because of it, .

Do you really think you can completely rewrite history and no one will notice? The proponents of the existence of race have always grouped these populations as a subs-set of other Africans. In fact you are the first I've ever seen to claim otherwise.

The fact that you don't subscribe to these traditional "racial groups" only serves to point out just how vague the concept of race is. The nature of infrasubspecific taxonomic rankings is that you can redefine them at will for whatever purposes you have at hand then throw them away when you are done. Even if you try to redefine race as such a ranking it becomes an entirely disposable definition that gets crated for some one time purpose than and discarded when finished.

Thus far, your only purpose in creating these rankings is to have rankings so you can put a label of "race" on them and the only apparent reason for that has been so you could claim "race" exists as a biological/genetic phenomenon because you are misapplying the term and ignoring all it's established meaning for culture/ethnicity.

 

[lomiller]

Delvo, people are not denying race exists. We are saying they are not true biological divisions. It is a social construct because one choses where to draw the lines, rather than the lines existing because of natural separation of the groups.

In biology, subspecies need to be genetically isolated. Human groups are not genetically isolated. The so called "races" you refer to are part of a continuum, not separate isolated reproducing populations.

It's also a social construct in that people can and do choose what "race" to identify themselves with. IOW while the divisions and groupings do exist they are cultural groupings that do not depend on genetics or biology.

As such, these grouping are very flexible and subject to change. For all practical purposes "Hispanic" is just as much a race in the US as "Black" but there is certainly no biological or genetic basis behind this as Hispanics come from many different ancestries in many different mixes.

 

[bpesta22]

I still think you guys are confusing different levels of classification from superordinate to basic to sub.

Seems like we all reached consensus here, though, on the op!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I still think you guys are confusing different levels of classification from superordinate to basic to sub.

Seems like we all reached consensus here, though, on the op!

I think race should be divided based on blood types and you still can't see the analogy. I don't think we agree.

 

[Delvo]

Of course a given gene comes from either parent. But... Every new child is a new combination of DNA. Just because a particular gene comes from either the mother or the father does not mean that it can be traced back through ancestral lines... You are saying that we could, in effect, work our way back through all of those shuffled and recombined decks.

If you mean determining what combinations of genes which ancestors had so each past individual's entire genome is completely known, of course not, and nobody's taken a position requiring that. If you mean studying one chunk of DNA and its history on its own regardless of what other chunks are also present with it, then of course that can be done, and routinely is. You seem to have no trouble accepting two examples of it yourself: mitochondria and Y chromosomes. But it's precisely the same with a gene on a non-Y nuclear chromosome. Whatever single chunk of DNA you look at, whether it's a Y chromosome or a mitochondrial genome or a gene from some other nuclear chromosome, it always ends up in new combinations with the others in every generation. If the fact that a given Y chromosome ends up together with a different mitochondrial genome and a different set of other nuclear genes in each generation doesn't disrupt Y chromosome studies, and the fact that mitochondrial DNA ends up together with a different nuclear genome in each generation doesn't disrupt mitochondrial studies, then why would the fact that any given gene in a non-Y nuclear chromosome ends up combined with other genes in each generation be a problem for studies of that individual gene? You originally said that recombination would "erase" that line, but how would it do so, and why have the geneticists who have done exactly that kind of work on individual genes not noticed whatever this mysterious problem is?

And most of all, what would that even have to do with the subject here anyway, since the fact that human races are human races does not depend on either of the two things we're talking about here (separate inheritance "lines" for single genes, or knowing the entire exact genome of all of an individual's ancestors)?

So now not only do you need a grouping below the rank of sub-species

I don't, because I don't subscribe to the utter silliness of claiming that an entire living species is all just a subspecies simply because it had ancestors who weren't quite the same. By that standard there could never possibly be any such thing as a living species whose present population isn't "just a subspecies", which is why it's not used for any other species. But it's a pointless, meaningless little trifle which has no effect on the subject here anyway, so I'll play along ...

you even need to break each of these up into further sub-groupings.

Why not? What's wrong with that? If a population splits, and then at least one of the resulting populations splits again, and then at least one of that new set of populations splits again... why would anybody want to dictate how many times it's allowed to happen instead of just acknowledging the fact that it did happen whenever the evidence says it happened?

Delvo, people are not denying race exists. We are saying they are not true biological divisions.

Those two sentences directly contradict each other. And the first one is directly contradicted by a lot of the posts in this thread.

It is a social construct because one choses where to draw the lines, rather than the lines existing because of natural separation of the groups.

You you're back to lying about the nature of the known clusters of traits (both phenotypic and genetic) and what correlation is.

In biology, subspecies need to be genetically isolated.

That's "species" you're talking about there. Who has claimed that the human races are different species?

 

[lomiller]

I don't, because I don't subscribe to the utter silliness of claiming that an entire living species is all just a subspecies simply because it had ancestors who weren't quite the same.

So all the biologists and geneticists who have looked at the evidence and concluded that humans are all one sub-species are wrong and you know better?

Humans are a single sub-species because there is comparatively little genetic variation between them and no clear dividing line between populations. Any statement to the contrary is an extraordinary claim that needs to be backed up by extraordinary evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So all the biologists and geneticists who have looked at the evidence and concluded that humans are all one sub-species are wrong and you know better?
....

Apparently he thinks they are all "lying".

 

[DC]

Apparently he thinks they are all "lying".

yeah scientists must be the most dishonest people there are.
Climatologists claim there is AGW so they keep getting money
Geneticists claim there is no races to keep getting money

 

[RandFan]

If you mean determining what combinations of genes which ancestors had so each past individual's entire genome is completely known, of course not, and nobody's taken a position requiring that.

No. You are entirely off track. You can't take just any single gene and trace the ancestral line.

You seem to have no trouble accepting two examples of it yourself: mitochondria and Y chromosomes.

For the reasons I've stated. Unlike other chromosomes mtDNA is inherited solely from the mother. So of course I accept those two examples.

But it's precisely the same with a gene on a non-Y nuclear chromosome. Whatever single chunk of DNA you look at, whether it's a Y chromosome or a mitochondrial genome or a gene from some other nuclear chromosome, it always ends up in new combinations with the others in every generation.

mtDNA is inherited solely from the mother.

The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables researchers to trace maternal lineage far back in time. ( Y-chromosomal DNA, paternally inherited, is used in an analogous way to trace the agnate lineage.) This is accomplished on human mitochondrial DNA by sequencing one or more of the hypervariable control regions (HVR1 or HVR2) of the mitochondrial DNA, as with a genealogical DNA test. HVR1 consists of about 440 base pairs. These 440 base pairs are then compared to the control regions of other individuals (either specific people or subjects in a database) to determine maternal lineage. Most often, the comparison is made to the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence. Vilà et al. have published studies tracing the matrilineal descent of domestic dogs to wolves.[5] The concept of the Mitochondrial Eve is based on the same type of analysis, attempting to discover the origin of humanity by tracking the lineage back in time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Once again, in case anyone is still reading the thread who isn't clear about the position some of us are taking:

Delvo, people are not denying race exists. We are saying they are not true biological divisions.

Those two sentences directly contradict each other. And the first one is directly contradicted by a lot of the posts in this thread.

There is no contradiction but you are misunderstanding what I mean by "true biological division". Blood groups have a biological basis while you don't think they are 'race' divisions. Dividing a continuum is arbitrary. Isolated biological groups don't fall on a continuum. They are distinct groups.

Not only that, but you are choosing what to call a grouping. For a taxonomic division the groups' divisions would be due to non-intermixing, not due only to specific features, even if those features were impacted by geography.

It is a social construct because one choses where to draw the lines, rather than the lines existing because of natural separation of the groups.

You you're back to lying about the nature of the known clusters of traits (both phenotypic and genetic) and what correlation is.

People who do not view the Universe the same way you do are not lying. That assessment is absurd.

In biology, subspecies need to be genetically isolated.

That's "species" you're talking about there. Who has claimed that the human races are different species?

No, I'm talking about divisions below the division of species. A subspecies is a genetically isolated group that could interbreed but doesn't.

Subspecies

...Organisms that belong to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they often do not interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation or other factors...

...Members of one subspecies differ morphologically or by different coding sequences of DNA from members of other subspecies of the species. Subspecies are defined in relation to species.

If the two groups do not interbreed because of something intrinsic to their genetic make-up (perhaps green frogs do not find red frogs sexually attractive, or they breed at different times of year) then they are different species.

If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier were removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies. Other factors include differences in mating behavior or time and ecological preferences such as soil content.

Note that the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends only on the likelihood that in the absence of external barriers the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. It has nothing to do with 'how different' the two groups appear to be to the human observer.

Race (biology)

This article is about the biological taxonomy term. For the sociological concept, see Social interpretations of race. For the anthropological term, see Race (classification of humans).
In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences. The populations can be described as ecological races if they arise from adaptation to different local habitats or geographic races when they are geographically isolated. If sufficiently different, two or more races can be identified as subspecies, which is an official biological taxonomy unit subordinate to species. If not, they are denoted as races, which means that a formal rank should not be given to the group, or taxonomists are unsure whether or not a formal rank should be given. According to Ernst W. Mayr, "a subspecies is a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name" [1][2]

In other words, race is NOT a formal biological taxonomy.


Compare that, then to Social interpretations of race

Social interpretations of race regard the common categorizations of people into different races, often with biologist tagging of particular "racial" attributes beyond mere anatomy, as more socially and culturally determined than based upon biology. Such interpretations are often deconstructionist and poststructuralist in that they critically analyze the historical construction and development of racial categories.

Race (human classification)

While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used [5] in a naive[6] or simplistic way. Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[7][8] Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies [9] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[10] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[6][11]

It is demonstrated that race has no biological or genetic basis: gross morphological features which traditionally has been defined as races (e.g. skin color) are determined by non-significant and superficial genetic alleles with no link to any characteristics, such as intelligence, talent, athletic ability, etc. Race has been socially and legally constructed despite the lack of any scientific evidence for dividing humanity into racial baskets with any generalized genetic meaning.[12][13][14][15]

 

[RandFan]

Once again, in case anyone is still reading the thread who isn't clear about the position some of us are taking:

Thank you.

Delvo, people are not denying race exists. We are saying they are not true biological divisions. It is a social construct because one choses where to draw the lines, rather than the lines existing because of natural separation of the groups.

Those two sentences directly contradict each other. And the first one is directly contradicted by a lot of the posts in this thread.

No they don't.

• There are observable differences between groups of people.
• The differences between those groups is a cline (gradient).
• There is no objective, a priori basis as to where to delineate when one group starts and the other ends.

 

[bpesta22]

[*]There is no objective, a priori basis as to where to delineate when one group starts and the other ends.
[/LIST]

When does left-handedness start and then end such that one is now right-handed? Is handedness therefore arbitrary?