Race is a human/social construct.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

There are good reasons to consider race as a cultural/social construct, and indeed this is how anthropologists generally treat it.

Where people get themselves into trouble confusing it with a biological classification. I can assure you there is no evidence for any biological/genetic cause for the disparity of human well-being in different parts of the world.

Thank you because I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.w...haprinderm.pdf

Did you read your citation?

Quote:

This has a significant advantage over studies employing the cruder and also more controversial category of race (Lewontin, 1972; Woodley, 2010b), as races constitute broad categories, whose constituent populations have significantly disparate origins in both time and space...

...It is debated as to whether coloration has a direct or indirect causal association with cognitive ability and behavioral dispositions, although some researchers assume pleiotropic effects (Ducrest, Keller, & Roulin, 2008; Jensen, 2006). We include it as an indicator of evolutionary history, however this variable like race is broad, encompassing the evolutionary histories of many disparate populations (Beaver & Wright, 2011).

You keep replying that because we have family lineages that means there are racial divisions.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Did you read your citation? You keep replying that because we have family lineages that means there are racial divisions.

They have data by nations / national origin. At a one-up level in categorization, the haplogroups would be used to define race. Race here is cruder than national origin in the same way that calling something a dog is cruder than calling it a cocker spaniel.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

They have data by nations / national origin. At a one-up level in categorization, the haplogroups would be used to define race. Race here is cruder than national origin in the same way that calling something a dog is cruder than calling it a cocker spaniel.

There's nothing in that link that says haplogroups define race. You are totally misconstruing what you are reading.

How about quoting something specific and describing what you think it means. Maybe we could go from there.

[Zelenius]

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

I consider myself to be a reasonable person. I am a skeptic and critical thinker. I love learning, and I am open to changing my mind, to correct any false ideas I may have. That said, I find the arguments in favor of "race does not exist" to be rather weak. I've heard them all before, and if they didn't convince me 2 years ago or 5 years ago, they won't convince me now.

As a skeptic, I often question my own beliefs. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the arguments for the non-existence of race are over my head, maybe I am just a fool or lack the education to understand them. Still, to me, the arguments I encounter are usually so poor that they lead me to believe it has everything to do with political correctness and nothing to do with science. The "arguments" lead me to believe the "race-deniers" are dishonest, deluded or a mixture of both.

The challenge is this: It seems this "race does not exist" idea only applies to humans. I've never seen it applied to another species, which makes me suspicious and unconvinced. So I challenge those arguing for it to find another species which once fooled scientists into thinking that it was sub-divided into various races due to discernible morphological differences, but eventually genetic research revealed that these races did not exist.

I am well aware that new genetic evidence(and sometimes from paleontology) has lead to numerous reclassifications of various species of animals, plants, fungi and various micro-organisms. The bonobo for instance was once thought to be a race of chimpanzee; now experts see it as a distinct species separate from chimpanzees. It seems scientists originally erred in favor of bonobos being closer to chimpanzees than is now known, which is the opposite of what I am demanding.

Anyway, so it would be interesting to see the same genetic analysis applied to another species besides humans, to demonstrate that there are no racial divisions, which was previously believed to have different races.

You can take your time or even make it a project if you want. If you find an example, there is no guarantee that I will alter my position in the "race does not exist" debate, but anything that can get me thinking would be appreciated. No more weak arguments, no more sloppiness, let's see you apply the same thinking to another species. I am more than willing to learn new things about biology. I do not believe I am being unreasonable. So give it your best shot.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your "challenge" makes no sense to me. Of course we don't apply 'race' to other species. Race is a concept that was developed when humans for the most part, couldn't imagine they were part of the animal kingdom. The Tower of Babel story is one example but there could be much older myths that 'explain' the differences people saw in humans. The term, race, has never been applied to other animal species that I am aware of.

Originally Posted by Zelenius

Maybe the arguments for the non-existence of race are over my head

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say from the rest of your post that this is very possibly the problem.

[Zelenius]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Your "challenge" makes no sense to me. Of course we don't apply 'race' to other species. Race is a concept that was developed when humans for the most part, couldn't imagine they were part of the animal kingdom. The Tower of Babel story is one example but there could be much older myths that 'explain' the differences people saw in humans. The term, race, has never been applied to other animal species that I am aware of.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say from the rest of your post that this is very possibly the problem.

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.

[Zelenius]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Your "challenge" makes no sense to me. Of course we don't apply 'race' to other species. Race is a concept that was developed when humans for the most part, couldn't imagine they were part of the animal kingdom. The Tower of Babel story is one example but there could be much older myths that 'explain' the differences people saw in humans. The term, race, has never been applied to other animal species that I am aware of.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say from the rest of your post that this is very possibly the problem.

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.

[Kahalachan]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The thing is people class others by race not be detailed examination of genetics, but by cursory examination of things like skin tone.

So you get things like thinking of black or affrican as a race when the continent has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world.

So race as people use it is largely a social construct. Like when the Irish became white.

Is Jewish a race? There certainly are genetic markers that show up in jewish communities. So would the Lemba people be classed as black or jewish?

Or is it that there are too many races for people to keep straight in society?

It's possible to narrow this down to nation. When I lived in Japan I could tell Japanese from Korean or Chinese or other Asians. When populations become somewhat isolated, certain features can become more salient.

With nations, politics and immigration do isolate people to a degree as well.

The question of race is a question of evolution. This population became somewhat isolated and developed certain traits. To what degree has this happened? Is this pronounced enough to warrant some kind of separate classification?

I see no need because humans are highly mobile. An African can immigrate to the UK and interbreed with someone there. Suppose I, as a half white and half Asian, decided to only mix with other half whites and half Asians. And others thought as I did. Would we eventually create a new race? Sub-race? What?

The fact that humans are capable of interbreeding with so many other humans from all over the world today makes classifying humans by various races, that resulted from a time they were less able to travel, nearly pointless aside from the need to trace ancestry.

To put this in perspective, suppose we never bred dogs anymore and just let them all run wild. German Shephard would cease to have any significant value because what the AKC classifies as a German Shephard would be extinct. At best we can only say this dog is 60% German Shephard or something.

At one point in human history, race may have had scientific meaning due to the lack of civilization and mobility, but any race is certainly extinct today.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There's nothing in that link that says haplogroups define race. You are totally misconstruing what you are reading.

How about quoting something specific and describing what you think it means. Maybe we could go from there.

I concede they're using haplogroups for nations in this paper. You're claiming they are relevant / reliable / accurate for classifying nations (Mackintosh apples) but not races (apples)?

In general, we should clarify different levels of categorization:

Superordinate (animal, fruit)
Intermediate / basic (dog, apple)
Subordinate (cocker; mackintosh)

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Kahalachan

It's possible to narrow this down to nation. When I lived in Japan I could tell Japanese from Korean or Chinese or other Asians. When populations become somewhat isolated, certain features can become more salient.

With nations, politics and immigration do isolate people to a degree as well.

The question of race is a question of evolution. This population became somewhat isolated and developed certain traits. To what degree has this happened? Is this pronounced enough to warrant some kind of separate classification?

I see no need because humans are highly mobile. An African can immigrate to the UK and interbreed with someone there. Suppose I, as a half white and half Asian, decided to only mix with other half whites and half Asians. And others thought as I did. Would we eventually create a new race? Sub-race? What?

The fact that humans are capable of interbreeding with so many other humans from all over the world today makes classifying humans by various races, that resulted from a time they were less able to travel, nearly pointless aside from the need to trace ancestry.

To put this in perspective, suppose we never bred dogs anymore and just let them all run wild. German Shephard would cease to have any significant value because what the AKC classifies as a German Shephard would be extinct. At best we can only say this dog is 60% German Shephard or something.

At one point in human history, race may have had scientific meaning due to the lack of civilization and mobility, but any race is certainly extinct today.

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).

[bpesta22]

Despite inter-mixing today, take pictures of 1000 randomly selected individuals and ask me to guess their race. Use the DNA stuff to trace back their ancestry.

I'd bet impressive but non-perfect accuracy on my part.

How can this be if race is purely social?

[DC]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I concede they're using haplogroups for nations in this paper. You're claiming they are relevant / reliable / accurate for classifying nations (Mackintosh apples) but not races (apples)?

In general, we should clarify different levels of categorization:

Superordinate (animal, fruit)
Intermediate / basic (dog, apple)
Subordinate (cocker; mackintosh)

no they don't. They rather use them for regions. which is normal for haplogroups. haplogroups are a scientific construct.

[Pacal]

Be kind if someone else has already mentioned it.

It is my understanding that "race" scientifically speaking when applied to animals is used for different subspecies of a single species. The criteria is that there is greater genetic variability between the subspecies than within each subspecies.

It is my understanding that however you classify human "races" there is always greater genatic variability, (average difference) with the "racial" group than between racial groups. What this means is not only are humans one species we are one subspecies also.

There is literally just one human "race".

It is also my understanding that from a genetic perspective humans are remarkably homogenous. I remember reading someway that a Chimpanzee troop of c. 50 individuals was found to have twice the genetic variability of all c. 7 billion humans!

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

I do see endless use of strawmen, and continuum fallacy...

The continuum fallacy is an especially bad one because it's really two different ones combined: a biological one and a geographic one. The biological continuum fallacy is the pretense that there's a vast number of people in expansive populations over broad areas of the globe possessing various mixtures between the identified groups of traits in all possible ratios, even though what's actually been mapped out is clear distinct clustering of consistent traits within broad regions with only narrow border zones of any mixing at all (and even there, the mixing ratio usually stays pretty lopsided toward one group or the other).

But there's also a geographic continuum fallacy, the pretense that human populations have never been isolated from each other, as if there were simply no such thing as an ocean or a desert hundreds of miles wide, or as if people routinely cross those as casually as a stroll through the woods or prairie. And the strangest thing about that is the fact that human genetic distinctiveness or the lack thereof between two locations tells you pretty well how isolated they were or weren't. In what was once Gaul, for example, there's no way to identify genetic groups descending from the Vandals, Ostragoths, Aedui, or Helvetii, or even to separate Celts from Germanics, and we still can't tell which of those two groups, if either, the original Belgae might have been a part of. In the Middle East, the descendants of the people of Ur and Akkad and Lachish are completely melted into the general Middle Eastern pot. THAT is what happens when there really is no isolation and no genetic grouping but a smooth continuum of mixing. And that's how they're claiming to think the whole world works. They're not just race deniers; they're also geography deniers, their assertions depending entirely on there simply being no such thing as geography.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You keep replying that because we have family lineages that means there are racial divisions.

You keep acting as if those are two separate things instead of the very same phenomenon at different scales. What are you claiming races are, other than rather large families? (Another odd thing about the denialist case: perpetually insisting on using their own private little made-up ad-hoc redefinition of the word "race" that nobody else uses and no dictionary contains, which must call for some additional requirement above and beyond any of the real ones, but never even getting around to specifying exactly what it is, nevermind actually giving any support for it as the definition.)

[DC]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Despite inter-mixing today, take pictures of 1000 randomly selected individuals and ask me to guess their race. Use the DNA stuff to trace back their ancestry.

I'd bet impressive but non-perfect accuracy on my part.

How can this be if race is purely social?

what race would Tiger Woods be?

[DC]

Originally Posted by Delvo

The continuum fallacy is an especially bad one because it's really two different ones combined: a biological one and a geographic one. The biological continuum fallacy is the pretense that there's a vast number of people in expansive populations over broad areas of the globe possessing various mixtures between the identified groups of traits in all possible ratios, even though what's actually been mapped out is clear distinct clustering of consistent traits within broad regions with only narrow border zones of any mixing at all (and even there, the mixing ratio usually stays pretty lopsided toward one group or the other).

But there's also a geographic continuum fallacy, the pretense that human populations have never been isolated from each other, as if there were simply no such thing as an ocean or a desert hundreds of miles wide, or as if people routinely cross those as casually as a stroll through the woods or prairie. And the strangest thing about that is the fact that human genetic distinctiveness or the lack thereof between two locations tells you pretty well how isolated they were or weren't. In what was once Gaul, for example, there's no way to identify genetic groups descending from the Vandals, Ostragoths, Aedui, or Helvetii, or even to separate Celts from Germanics, and we still can't tell which of those two groups, if either, the original Belgae might have been a part of. In the Middle East, the descendants of the people of Ur and Akkad and Lachish are completely melted into the general Middle Eastern pot. THAT is what happens when there really is no isolation and no genetic grouping but a smooth continuum of mixing. And that's how they're claiming to think the whole world works. They're not just race deniers; they're also geography deniers, their assertions depending entirely on there simply being no such thing as geography.

You keep acting as if those are two separate things instead of the very same phenomenon at different scales. What are you claiming races are, other than rather large families? (Another odd thing about the denialist case: perpetually insisting on using their own private little made-up ad-hoc redefinition of the word "race" that nobody else uses and no dictionary contains, which must call for some additional requirement above and beyond any of the real ones, but never even getting around to specifying exactly what it is, nevermind actually giving any support for it as the definition.)

what is your definition of race?
how is it exactly defined?

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by DC

what race would Tiger Woods be?

My cocker spaniel and shih had puppies! What breed were the puppies? Whatever the answer, does their birth mean that neither cockers nor shih's exist?

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Pacal

It is my understanding that however you classify human "races" there is always greater genatic variability, (average difference) with the "racial" group than between racial groups.

OK so far, but then where do you go with that? It's true of a lot of ways that groups of things can be divided into smaller groups. There are more ways to distinguish one car from another car, or one truck from another truck, than to distinguish between cars and trucks. There are more ways to distinguish among canines and among felines than between canines and felines. There's more variation among soft maples and among hard maples than there is between hard and soft maples. There are more traits distinguishing one couch from another or distinguishing one chair from another than there are differences between a couch and a chair.

Now, picture yourself trying to convince someone that there are no such things as cars or trucks because of some long list you made of differences between some trucks and other trucks. Why in the world should they listen to that? Clearly, we all know that the amount of variation within a group has nothing to do with its distinctiveness from some other group. There's no magical threshold amount of between-group difference below which it somehow equals zero even though it's still greater than zero. The idea just doesn't make sense, and nobody really believes such a rule themselves, including those who assert it anyway for humans and conspicuously only humans. They couldn't possibly buy it. It's just too absurd and has not one single other attempted application anywhere else. (And that's why its inventor, Lewontin, is the only person I know of who has his own formal logical fallacy named after him.)

[DC]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

My cocker spaniel and shih had puppies! What breed were the puppies? Whatever the answer, does their birth mean that neither cockers nor shih's exist?

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

Quote:

Dog breeds are not scientifically defined biological classifications, but rather are groupings defined by clubs of hobbyists called breed clubs.

Quote:

Colloquial use of the term dog breed, however, does not conform to scientific standards of taxonomic classification. Breeds do not meet the criteria for subspecies since they are all considered a subspecies of the gray wolf; an interbreeding group of individuals who pass on characteristic traits and would likely merge back into a single homogenous group if external barriers were removed. The recognition of distinct dog breeds is not maintained by a scientific organization; they are maintained by a number of independent kennel clubs that need not apply to scientific standards and are often inconsistent.

[Ferguson]

Originally Posted by DC

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]

Originally Posted by Ferguson

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]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

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]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

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]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by DC

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/conten...nd-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]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

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/conten...nd-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]

Originally Posted by lomiller

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]

Originally Posted by DC

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]

Originally Posted by lomiller

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]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

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]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

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]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

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:

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Ferguson

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]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

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]

Originally Posted by RandFan

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]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

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]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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.