Race is a human/social construct.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Yes, the claim you're arguing against must be totally the same thing as what I'm saying, because they both have the word(s) "allele(s)" in them somewhere! Exactly!

You cannot support the false premise you claimed:

Originally Posted by Delvo

Out of a thousand individuals, with every pair of alleles having a 25% chance, that means the numbers should all hang around 250.

Because that claim ignores selection pressures. In addition it in no way supports any claim of 'race' divisions which relies on a single selection pressure, isolation, which has not occurred with human groups.

Originally Posted by Delvo

This is true, and would be a good counter to someone claiming that races are about skin color alone, nothing else.

This is a straw man.

Originally Posted by Delvo

But in what obscure corner of the world are you claiming to have ever encountered such a bizarre individual? Whoever it is that you're arguing against, (s)he isn't here, so there's no sense in continuing to treat anyone who is here as if we were him/her. He/she is like demons, or the Nazis hiding behind every bush in political debates: I keep seeing them being talked about by people who put themselves in opposition to them, but no evidence of their actual existence.

Whatever this is about, it has little to nothing to do with the issues being argued in the thread.

[Delvo]

OK, now to finish up my illustration of natural clusters of alleles, since those, unlike the single-trait stuff in the last few posts, are the actual subject...

Originally Posted by Delvo

All you have to do is find the ones that don't stick so close to 250 like the rest do....

252	257	252	257	258	248	250	284	246	260	243	244	236	257	A	251	246	251	246	245	255	253	219	257	243	260	259	267	246
	254	256	254	272	244	252	266	257	266	254	241	232	248	B		256	254	256	238	266	258	244	253	244	256	269	278	262
		261	262	251	255	245	268	264	262	258	251	262	248	C			249	248	259	255	265	242	246	248	252	259	248	262
			269	250	497	257	292	253	36	272	497	274	256	D				261	280	33	273	238	277	494	258	33	256	274
				254	263	238	282	235	247	241	263	243	241	E					256	247	272	228	275	263	269	247	267	269
					243	241	274	244	265	264	240	251	239	F						260	262	229	259	238	239	263	252	264
						253	282	243	30	267	488	260	251	G							263	234	273	486	249	28	256	265
							266	236	235	239	244	236	236	H								218	248	249	245	240	248	248
								276	259	277	280	264	262	I									276	278	260	257	273	275
									240	258	246	241	234	J										240	233	245	250	257
										246	26	233	240	K											246	464	257	250
											241	253	245	L												241	252	260
												262	246	M													249	265
													232	N														261
B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	•	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j	k	l	m	n	o
258	253	278	253	245	268	234	253	245	230	262	267	257	226	a	239	244	219	244	252	229	263	244	252	267	235	230	240	271
	256	274	256	231	272	232	271	234	224	251	270	261	235	b		234	216	234	259	218	258	219	256	266	239	220	229	255
		269	248	252	261	239	269	227	228	247	260	231	235	c			221	242	238	229	251	221	263	262	243	230	259	255
			241	253	19	227	245	238	454	233	14	219	227	d				229	217	451	243	225	232	16	237	456	251	243
				249	253	246	255	256	243	264	248	250	242	e					241	237	244	235	234	247	226	242	240	248
					273	243	263	247	225	241	271	242	244	f						224	254	234	250	272	256	226	255	253
						231	255	248	460	238	23	233	232	g							253	229	236	24	246	461	251	252
							271	255	255	266	267	257	247	h								245	261	261	250	249	259	269
								230	231	228	231	229	221	i									233	232	235	232	234	242
									239	247	265	252	249	j										270	262	244	257	260
										261	485	260	243	k											249	25	250	267
											247	240	238	l												248	255	257
												231	237	m													258	252
													251	n														256

So, we've got some alleles that are highly correlated with certain other alleles (and negatively with different ones); if you know that an individual of this species has one of these alleles, it makes the odds that (s)he has another one of those few alleles very different from the overall odds in the whole population/species. For example, although the split between "D" and "d" is about half-&-half overall (530/470), it's nowhere near that among those who have "G" (497/19), or among those who have "g" (33/451). And although the split between "G" and "g" is about half-&-half overall (516/484), it's nowhere near that among those who have "D" (497/33), or among those who have "d" (19/451). In other words, if these two genes' alleles weren't linked in some way, the combinations DG, Dg, dG, and dg would be expected to be about equally common, around 250 of each, but instead two of them are much more common (497 DG; 451 dg) than the other two (33 Dg; 19 dG).

And the same trend holds for several other kinds of pairings as well. The disproportionately common pairs are DG, dg, Dk, dK, DM, dm, Gk, gK, GM, gm, kM, and Km; the disproportionately uncommon ones are Dg, dG, DK, dk, Dm, dM, GK, gk, Gm, gM, KM, and km.

The fact that the same 4 letters/genes show up in all of the disproportionately common or uncommon pairs hints that there might be a mutual connection between all 4, rather than just a handful of unrelated independent connections between pairs. Fortunately, there's a way to check for that using the same spreadsheet again. There are 16 possible combinations of the alleles of these 4 genes, and the spreadsheet can easily be set up to count the occurrences of each of those 16 in the actual population:
DGKM: 16
DGKm: 1
DGkM: 468
DGkm: 12
DgKM: 1
DgKm: 18
DgkM: 12
Dgkm: 2
dGKM: 0
dGKm: 13
dGkM: 4
dGkm: 2
dgKM: 9
dgKm: 432
dgkM: 1
dgkm: 9

Clearly, two of these (DGkM and dgKm) outweigh any of the rest. But it goes another level beyond that. Any individual who doesn't exactly have DGkM or dgKm can be different in either of two ways: (s)he can match one of them on 3 letters and be different on just 1, or (s)he can match on 2 and be different on 2. So let's see what that list looks like when we count how many (of those that aren't perfect 100% matches for either DGkM or dgKm) are 3&1 matches and how many are 2&2:

3&1...
dGkM: 4
DgkM: 12
DGKM: 16
DGkm: 12
DgKm: 18
dGKm: 13
dgkm: 9
dgKM: 9

2&2...
DGKm: 1
dgkM: 1
DgKM: 1
dGkm: 2
Dgkm: 2
dGKM: 0

So the DGkM/dgKm influence is so strong that not only does most of the species have one or the other of those two sets of alleles, but the rest who don't are still much more likely to be closer to one and farther from the other than they are to be halfway between. In other words, not only is a 100% match for one of the two main allele combinations the most common of all possibilities, but even among those that aren't 100%, a 75% match is far more likely/common than a 50% match.

You don't get anything like that by just picking any other set of four alleles and counting up the combinations that those occur in. For example:
CFJN: 65
CFJn: 61
CFjN: 67
CFjn: 58
CfJN: 69
CfJn: 69
CfjN: 61
Cfjn: 60
cFJN: 57
cFJn: 61
cFjN: 62
cFjn: 72
cfJN: 50
cfJn: 59
cfjN: 62
cfjn: 67

For that matter, the only way to get anything else even vaguely resembling a weaker version of the kind of self-division that DGkM/dgKm gives us is to pick a set of alleles that uses part of the DGkM/dgKm set!:
DGJN: 115
DGJn: 120
DGjN: 140
DGjn: 122
DgJN: 10
DgJn: 8
DgjN: 9
Dgjn: 6
dGJN: 3
dGJn: 5
dGjN: 2
dGjn: 9
dgJN: 113
dgJn: 117
dgjN: 101
dgjn: 120

So, we clearly are looking at the genomes of a species that's got a DGkM population and a dgKm population, with a bit of blurring.

Now, back to the question I ended with in my previous post in this series: how did they get like that? All we've been doing is counting what's actually there in the population, not making anything else up about the population that isn't really there or excluding anything that is. On top of that, exactly the same counting method was tried before on the first large set I did, but without the same results. So what was the difference?

There is only one mathematical possibility: it's not in any of the steps that happened after the first and second alphabet-species were generated, so it has to be in how they were generated in the first place. For the second large population, which is the one that had the clusters, the random-generator-based formulas determining whether each letter was uppercase or lowercase were weighted in those four columns. And the fact that I had to do it that way is the point. When all you're doing is counting things, the only way to get disproportionate results is if part of what you're counting is itself inherently disproportionate.

THAT is what a cluster of alleles (or physical traits) is.

This not only demonstrates the falsehood of all of the claims in this thread about trait clusters being just any old group that somebody felt like putting together in order to aim toward an arbitrary socially-constructed goal chosen ahead of time, but also gives an easy way to debunk most of the other bunk that's been tried here. However, due to time again, I'll save that list for later (if ever).

[Zelenius]

Originally Posted by Delvo

So, we clearly are looking at the genomes of a species that's got a DGkM population and a dgKm population, with a bit of blurring.

Now, back to the question I ended with in my previous post in this series: how did they get like that? All we've been doing is counting what's actually there in the population, not making anything else up about the population that isn't really there or excluding anything that is. On top of that, exactly the same counting method was tried before on the first large set I did, but without the same results. So what was the difference?

There is only one mathematical possibility: it's not in any of the steps that happened after the first and second alphabet-species were generated, so it has to be in how they were generated in the first place. For the second large population, which is the one that had the clusters, the random-generator-based formulas determining whether each letter was uppercase or lowercase were weighted in those four columns. And the fact that I had to do it that way is the point. When all you're doing is counting things, the only way to get disproportionate results is if part of what you're counting is itself inherently disproportionate.

THAT is what a cluster of alleles (or physical traits) is.

This not only demonstrates the falsehood of all of the claims in this thread about trait clusters being just any old group that somebody felt like putting together in order to aim toward an arbitrary socially-constructed goal chosen ahead of time, but also gives an easy way to debunk most of the other bunk that's been tried here. However, due to time again, I'll save that list for later (if ever).

(I am not switching sides here, I just want to play Devil's Advocate to get a better idea of what the opposition believes(without resorting to strawmen) and because it's fun. Also, it helps to summarize things.)

To me it looks like all you have really done with these charts and numbers is proven that there are differences in the human gene pool, due to different family lineages(that show up as a mutually correlating group of genes or a cluster of genes) in different parts of the world. So there are no startling revelations in anything you posted. Of course these differences exist, no one is disputing this. So if you are claiming we deny differences exist, and then seek to prove these differences exist, this is all just one big strawman of yours.

What we are saying though is that these differences in ancestral lineages do not rise to a level of taxonomical significance. In other words, race does not exist in any biologically meaningful sense, although very slight regional genetic differences do exist, due to some selection pressures on certain lineages(caused by latitude and a few other factors). To call these "ancestry groups" or "family lineage groups" "races" is unscientific and absurd.

According to your "logic" my family is a "race", since there are a cluster of genetic markers unique to my family. There are also clusters responsible for blood type; why aren't blood groups a "race"? Granted, my genetic make up as determined by my ancestral lineage may even have medical significance in a few situations, but this still does not make it a "race". Perhaps you could show us how to determine the border between the caucasian "race" and black african "race"; where is it, how is this determined?

We are all so mixed today. What "race" you fall into is culturally determined, it is a social construct, so in a cultural sense only, does "race" exist. The traits you choose for determining this are arbitrarily determined. All attempts to disprove this point have been futile.

The bottom line is that there just wasn't enough time or isolation for different human races to evolve, modern humans are all members of one sub-species, homo sapiens sapiens. This is a fact you continue to ignore. Most anthropological and genetics organisations have no use for "race", they have stated it has no scientific validity.

A few tens of thousands of years isn't nearly enough time for races to evolve, and there simply wasn't enough isolation; there are more differences within the different "races" than between them. There is more genetic diversity in the average tribe of chimpanzees than there are in the entire 7 billion strong human race. If we apply your "reasoning" to the chimpanzee gene pool, each individual chimpanzee would be a member of its own "race"! Above all, we are all African.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Delvo

.... THAT is what a cluster of alleles (or physical traits) is.

This not only demonstrates the falsehood of all of the claims in this thread about trait clusters being just any old group that somebody felt like putting together in order to aim toward an arbitrary socially-constructed goal chosen ahead of time, but also gives an easy way to debunk most of the other bunk that's been tried here. However, due to time again, I'll save that list for later (if ever).

The straw man here is the "any old group" because that is not what we're saying. No one denies there are reasons for various groups of people with similar traits including geographical heritage. One could choose different clusters, such as blood types, black hair, blue eyes, freckles, you name it. One could also find 'clusters of related alleles' in groups influenced by selection pressures other than geographical, that's the nature of genomes, many traits are related or more frequently associated with other traits.

You are not supporting an argument that is really being made calling race a social construct and that argument is, in biology races need to be distinct groups. In humans the overlap is considerable enough one has a continuum, not a number of clearly distinct groups.

Using color as an example, (not claiming it is the only trait in the group), if you have dark, light and brown, skin, to which race does light brown belong and why?

Where do you put the dark skinned person with Caucasian facial features like Halle Berry?

In which racial group do you put all the American and South African blacks that have generations of mixing with whites in their ancestry?

Is Obama a black because he looks black even though his mother was white?

This is the actual argument, not the straw one you keep addressing.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Delvo

This is true, and would be a good counter to someone claiming that races are about skin color alone, nothing else..

Race does describe features like skin color, and in fact these are the only type of features it describes. Since it turns out that these are useless divisions in biology and genetics race is also useless.

There is no point in trying to redefine race to mean something else, it's meaning and groupings are already established. Likewise, terminology already exists for the concepts you are trying to map "race" to.

I'm going to be blunt here. I can't see any reason why you would be as desperate to hold onto the existence of separate biological races. IMO you think some human groups are superior to others and you need a concept of biological race to justify this view.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

To me it looks like all you have really done with these charts and numbers is proven that there are differences in the human gene pool, due to different family lineages(that show up as a mutually correlating group of genes or a cluster of genes) in different parts of the world. So there are no startling revelations in anything you posted. Of course these differences exist, no one is disputing this.

Indeed. In fact he has been prompted multiple times and never justifies which of these rise to the level of "race", or what the criteria is ti rise to the level of "race"

Originally Posted by Zelenius

What we are saying though is that these differences in ancestral lineages do not rise to a level of taxonomical significance. In other words, race does not exist in any biologically meaningful sense, although very slight regional genetic differences do exist, due to some selection pressures on certain lineages(caused by latitude and a few other factors). To call these "ancestry groups" or "family lineage groups" "races" is unscientific and absurd.

Agree. As an example of why it's absurd since we all belong to multiple family groupings the number of family groups possible by these groupings is actually greater than the number of living humans. This depends on how you define your family groupings of course but since this definition is essentially arbitrary the point stands.

[Wuglife]

Originally Posted by lomiller

I'm going to be blunt here. I can't see any reason why you would be as desperate to hold onto the existence of separate biological races. IMO you think some human groups are superior to others and you need a concept of biological race to justify this view.

Ad hominem + non sequiter.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Wuglife

Ad hominem + non sequiter.

You may want to find out what those are because you are incorrect on both counts

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The straw man here is the "any old group" because that is not what we're saying.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

One could choose different clusters, such as blood types, black hair, blue eyes, freckles, you name it.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

No one denies there are reasons for various groups of people with similar traits including geographical heritage.

Actually, yes, that has been denied over and over again in this thread and others, both directly & explicitly (such as the "claims of races are absurd" from pretty early in this one) and indirectly (by making claims about biology that, although false, would have meant there are no biological human races if they had been true). It's how this thread got started and how it got its title. There wouldn't be any debate if that weren't the case.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

In humans the overlap is considerable enough one has a continuum, not a number of clearly distinct groups.

To get from the part before the comma to the part after it requires the application of a rule that says the two things are mutually exclusive (or at least that the former is exclusive to the latter). What justification is there for such a rule? (This is similar to Lewontin's fallacy in terms of its "logical" structure: it starts with a true statement and then proceeds to an unsupported conclusion without stating the rule that would need to be at work between them, seemingly to hide the fact that the implied rule is not a rule at all.)

This is one of the fallacies that I mentioned before that the numbers in my examples can be used to easily refute. There is indeed a continuum, including in my own example, of other combinations of the four letters I used. The two most common are not the only two, and some are in fact a perfect 50% split between the two. But the numbers of each make it unmistakably clear, plain, and simple that this does not mean there are "not a number of clearly distinct groups". That's why I've never claimed that there were no such intermediates or mixtures in the human species either, contrary to what you imply by even using this fallacy at all. All it takes for the assertion that races exist to remain true is for the intermediates to be relatively uncommon, so the species predominantly, even if not exclusively, consists of individuals with certain groups of traits.

In fact, not only have I never claimed a lack of intermediates or mixtures, but I've been asserting it myself all along, by linking several times to a map which includes it beyond any doubt or debate or dispute right there in the graphics. It shows two-or-three-color icons in some places. But they not only are few and far between compared to the monochrome icons & the territory they cover, but also still tend to be mostly one color with a second that doesn't get up very far from the bottom. So BOTH the clear predominance of a handful of genetic groups AND the fact that there's mixing along the borders are clearly shown and not at all in opposition to each other. Also, in building a split population of 1000 letter-people, I went out of my way to use a weighted random-number function so there'd be some exceptions to the general rule, when using a function that put absolutely ALL members into one group or the other would have been simpler to do. So a person who's addressing this issue honestly wouldn't have even thought of using a fallacy that inherently pretends I've ever said it was "one and not the other".

Originally Posted by lomiller

Race does describe features like skin color, and in fact these are the only type of features it describes.

Well, they're at least how it started before science started discovering how many more invisble traits are also clustered in the same way, yes. But that's COMPLETELY different from the treatment you gave it earlier, as if it were supposed to be about ONLY skin color.

Originally Posted by lomiller

Since it turns out that these are useless divisions in biology and genetics race is also useless.

Whether they have any use or not is not the issue here. Only the fact that they are biologically real (which the claim that they're merely "social constructs" denies) is.

Originally Posted by lomiller

There is no point in trying to redefine race to mean something else

Then it's a good thing nobody's doing anything like that.

Originally Posted by lomiller

terminology already exists for the concepts you are trying to map "race" to.

What else are you claiming I'm trying to "map" it onto other than itself?

Originally Posted by lomiller

I can't see any reason why you would be as desperate to hold onto the existence of separate biological races.

That's because there isn't one. You made it up this "desperation" all by yourself.

Originally Posted by lomiller

IMO you think some human groups are superior to others and you need a concept of biological race to justify this view.

The fact that this baseless accusation has nothing to do with the subject (the validity of the claims that have been made on either side) means that its purpose must be something else outside of the actual subject, such as to put me in a defensive mode, make the thread all about me from now on, or distract from your complete lack of anything resembling a counter to what I'm saying on the actual subject. In any of those cases, it's a bit sad & pitiful, really.

Originally Posted by lomiller

You may want to find out what those are because you are incorrect on both counts

1 & 1. Non sequitur, although misspelled and not even misspelled in the conventional way, fits it perfectly. There simply isn't any possible way to actually have concluded what you're accusing me of from anything I've said. You didn't even draw it as a conclusion from what I've said yourself. It literally doesn't and can't follow, from anything here, in any way. It's not just non sequitur; it's classic textbook example non sequitur.

On "ad hominem", you're right, that wasn't one. In fact, in terms of direction of flow, it's pretty much backward. Ad hominem is "I have something bad to say about you personally, so your arguments are invalid". This was "I can't invalidate your argument, so I'll say something bad about you personally instead". It comes close to well-poisoning, but every definition or explanatory example I've seen of that one involved revealing personal stuff that's actually true, rather than making up lies like that one. I'm not sure there is a name for a dishonest, made-up, ex nihilo counterpart to well-poisoning. In any case, whatever the term might be for your personal attack's "logical" structure/form/whatever, its most likely function is more like the "red herring" stunt.

It's funny, though, with personal attacks in lieu of actually making some kind of a point like that, how often they are called "ad hominem". I suspect I've even seen more non-ad-hominems getting called that than real ones.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not enough population isolation, Delvo. Our genes are too intermingled to create the taxonomic groups that you believe exist.

[Chris L]

I'm a little unsure how "race" is being defined here. It almost sounds like it's being used in place of the word species. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Chris L

I'm a little unsure how "race" is being defined here. It almost sounds like it's being used in place of the word species. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Delvo wants to replace the term sub-species with the term race and he thinks there are multiple sub-species of humans, which he calls “races”.This goes counter to biologists and geneticists who near universally recognise that there is too little genetic variation in humans to warrant more than a single sub-species to which all humans belong. (Homo sapiens sapiens).

He argues they are wrong based on the fact you can find family and regional groupings of genes, but he won’t say which grouping deserve his sub-species ranking and hand waves away the fact that race already has well understood categories than don’t hold up to genetic scrutiny.

[Chris L]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Delvo wants to replace the term sub-species with the term race and he thinks there are multiple sub-species of humans, which he calls “races”.This goes counter to biologists and geneticists who near universally recognise that there is too little genetic variation in humans to warrant more than a single sub-species to which all humans belong. (Homo sapiens sapiens).

He argues they are wrong based on the fact you can find family and regional groupings of genes, but he won’t say which grouping deserve his sub-species ranking and hand waves away the fact that race already has well understood categories than don’t hold up to genetic scrutiny.

Thank you for that clarification. One of problems with trying to put people into groups based on minor geographically and ecologically produced genetic similarities is that you run into the problem of where to draw the line. For instance, are the Portuguese a different race than the Spaniards? Are Greeks a different race tsunhan Italians? In both cases, you have groups of people separate enough to develop their own language, history, and culture. Yet calling them different races sounds rather silly.

There is also the problem of interbreeding. From what I understand, subspecies don't do much of that. We humans on the other hand, are a randy lot. We are also quite prone to doing a lot of traveling. Combine the two, and you've got a whole lot of mixing of genes. Wait long enough, and even the minor genetic differences you are using to define "race" will no longer apply.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Chris L

Thank you for that clarification. One of problems with trying to put people into groups based on minor geographically and ecologically produced genetic similarities is that you run into the problem of where to draw the line. For instance, are the Portuguese a different race than the Spaniards? Are Greeks a different race tsunhan Italians? In both cases, you have groups of people separate enough to develop their own language, history, and culture. Yet calling them different races sounds rather silly.

There is also the problem of interbreeding. From what I understand, subspecies don't do much of that. We humans on the other hand, are a randy lot. We are also quite prone to doing a lot of traveling. Combine the two, and you've got a whole lot of mixing of genes. Wait long enough, and even the minor genetic differences you are using to define "race" will no longer apply.

Yeah but new differences will arise from genetic drift of all sorts. Delvo’s fundamental error is that he thinks a single population needs to be absolutely homogenous to be considered a single population.

The fact that human population isn’t absolutely homogenous just doesn’t mean what he thinks it does. Compared to other species humans have very few genetic differences, the fact that you can find mostly meaningless markers in certain regions don’t alter this fundamental fact.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Chris L

I'm a little unsure how "race" is being defined here. It almost sounds like it's being used in place of the word species.

I can't tell what would have made you think of that. The closest I can get is the deniers' habit of pointing out the fact that the races can and do mix, as if I'd ever claimed that that should be impossible or it were somehow a problem for anything I do say. That is treating the races as if they were supposed to be different species, but they don't put it that way, and it's only what one side acts as if the other side thinks, not a position anybody has actually taken. The only way the word "species" comes up from that is if someone responds to point out the fact that it's a straw man because the concept they're describing is species, not divisions within a single species.

Or were you thinking of something else unconnected to that?

Originally Posted by Chris L

One of problems with trying to put people into groups based on minor geographically and ecologically produced genetic similarities is that you run into the problem of where to draw the line.

This is only a problem for someone who claims that there must be a sharp line (which sounds like the issue I was talking about just above). As far as I can tell, no such people exist, so there's no reason to make an argument against them, particularly one directed at someone else who is obviously not one of them.

Originally Posted by Chris L

For instance, are the Portuguese a different race than the Spaniards? Are Greeks a different race tsunhan Italians? In both cases, you have groups of people separate enough to develop their own language, history, and culture. Yet calling them different races sounds rather silly.

If it sounds silly, that's because that's not what the word means or how it's used. And the fact that you already knew that well enough to base this assessment of silliness on it means that your questions right before that statement were fake: feigning ignorance of the word's actual meaning and use.

Originally Posted by Chris L

There is also the problem of interbreeding.

This is only a problem for someone who claims that there must be none (which sounds like the issue I was talking about in my first paragraph of this post). As far as I can tell, no such people exist, so there's no reason to make an argument against them, particularly one directed at someone else who is obviously not one of them.

Originally Posted by Chris L

From what I understand, subspecies don't do much of that.

What is the source of that impression? Some do, some don't.

Originally Posted by Chris L

Wait long enough, and even the minor genetic differences you are using to define "race" will no longer apply.

Not only could this happen in the future, but it also might have happened at some point in the past. We've been around for a lot of millennia.

Originally Posted by lomiller

Delvo wants to replace the term sub-species with the term race

Now would be a good time to produce a link to a quote where I've said anything to that effect. Failure to do so will equal admission that you made that up.

Originally Posted by lomiller

there is too little genetic variation in humans to warrant more than a single sub-species

Not that it matters because anything that has anything to do with subspecies is irrelevant here, but this is another of the type of fallacy I mentioned two cases of above, where a true fact is followed by an unsupported conclusion, with the rule to get there being left out, like Lewontin's fallacy and the implied false dichotomy between "distinct groups" and "continuum".

A classic logical argument goes this way:
If A, then B.
A is true.
Therefore B.

You're leaving out line one and only doing lines two and three:
A is true.
Therefore B.

Why? Given the fact that the rule you're hiding (that there's some unspecified amount of variation below which some magic line has been drawn) is hopelessly invalid and not in use for other species, leaving it unspoken certainly looks like an attempt to draw attention away from it in the hopes of having it accepted without examination.

Not that it's relevant anyway, since subspecies themselves aren't...

Originally Posted by lomiller

He argues they are wrong based on the fact you can find family and regional groupings of genes

Now would be a good time to produce a link to a quote where I've said anything to that effect. Failure to do so will equal admission that you made that up.

Originally Posted by lomiller

but he won’t say which grouping deserve his sub-species ranking

Wow, it's almost as if you were talking about someone who isn't making any argument about multiple present subspecies at all! Now, how could that be? Maybe you DO (at least momentarily) admit that I've never done anything of the sort!

Originally Posted by lomiller

and hand waves away the fact that race already has well understood categories than don’t hold up to genetic scrutiny.

On the contrary, the genetic groups in the map I've posted (but noticed that the deniers never actually address) just happen to match groups that had already been arrived at by phenotypic/anatomic traits before, which, if races weren't real, would be a gigantic coincidence that the deniers have yet to explain.

I'd ask exactly what groups you think the races were supposed to be before that DON'T match the genetic map, but you've already answered with your previous claims that it was all about just skin color alone and that Australians were somehow supposed to be the same as black Africans. Given the fact that neither of those claims came anywhere near reality, I am not filled with confidence that your third time around would either.

Originally Posted by lomiller

The fact that human population isn’t absolutely homogenous just doesn’t mean what he thinks it does.

Now would be a good time to produce a link to a quote where I've said that I think it means anything other than... the fact that they aren't absolutely homogenous. Failure to do so will equal admission that you made that up.

Originally Posted by lomiller

Compared to other species humans have very few genetic differences, the fact that you can find mostly meaningless markers in certain regions don’t alter this fundamental fact.

Now would be a good time to produce a link to a quote where I've said anything which requires "this fundamental fact" not to be true. Failure to do so will equal admission that you made that up.

[Zelenius]

(In Devil's Advocate Mode)

The Bald Eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is an excellent example of an animal species that used to be divided into subspecies that are no longer recognized:

Quote:

Haliaeetus leucocephalus (literally, sea eagle with a white head) is the only species of sea eagle native to North America. It was first described in 1766 as Falco leucocephalus by Linnaeus. This South Carolina specimen was later renamed as the southern bald eagle, subspecies Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus (Linnaeus) when Townsend identified the northern bald eagle as Haliaeetus leucocephalus alascanus in 1897 (Peters 1979). By the time the bald eagle was listed throughout the lower 48 States under the Endangered Species Act in 1978, the subspecies were no longer recognized by ornithologists (American Ornithologists Union 1983).

Eagle Biological Information

So it's not just in humans that subspecies or race divisions have been done away with by scientists after more research had been conducted, contrary to the claims of "race believers" that scientists only did this to humans.

Also, according to the "Field Guide to the Bald Eagle" by the Audubon Society: (also noteworthy for the word it uses as a synonym for "subspecies")

Quote:

The bald eagle is the only resident sea eagle in the Unites States. Some scientists identify two separate subspecies of this bird: a northern race, Haliaeetus leucocephalus alascanus; and a southern race, Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus. The sole physical difference between the two is size; the southern subspecies is smaller and lighter than the northern one. However, the difference in size is less obvious midway between the two subspecies' territories. The two subspecies' geographic boundaries are also fairly arbitrary, as their migratory routes overlap, making their territories indistinguishable at times. For these reasons, the notion of two subspecies has been disputed by members of the scientific community.

Above all, genetic research on various bald eagle populations failed to find anything corresponding to the traditional, no longer recognized two subspecies of bald eagle, although very minor local variations(basically "family lineages") have been found(just like with homo sapiens). Due to lack of isolation, the differences are clinal, not racial or due to the now disputed existence of two subspecies:

Clinal genetic variation at enzyme loci in bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from the western United States.

Quote:

Abstract

Five polymorphic enzyme loci of about 50 sampled were discovered in blood extracts of bald eagles from Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona, representing the first biochemical genetic variation described for the species. All five loci exhibited trends of north-to-south clinal geographic variation in gene frequencies. Gene frequencies at three loci culminated in fixation in the Arizona population, which consists of 12 known breeding pairs. The Arizona birds were maximally heterozygous at the other two loci, suggesting the possibility of maintenance of some clines by natural selection. No significant discontinuities in gene frequencies were observed which correlated with earlier descriptions of two subspecies (northern and southern races) of bald eagles.

So do you race-believers also dispute what ornithologists did with the two subspecies of bald eagle?

[Chris L]

Originally Posted by Delvo

What is the source of that impression? Some do, some don't.

Logic says that a subspecies that does much interbreeding with other subspecies doesn't remain a subspecies for long. Such things require geographic and genetic isolation to happen.

If subspecies does not equal race here, then what does?

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Chris L

Logic says that a subspecies that does much interbreeding with other subspecies doesn't remain a subspecies for long.

It depends on what you mean by "much" and "long", but ya, it can be a temporary situation either way, with isolation & differentiation increasing until they're separate species or decreasing until the subdivisions merge back together. A species could even have subdivisions separate and merge more than one time.

Or it could linger in limbo indefinitely if whatever is causing the partial separation stays at just the right level somewhere between perfect isolation and perfect unity, although that situation might be rather precarious and prone to easily tipping in one direction or the other.

For that matter, as long as the subspecies or races or whatever are simultaneously imperfectly isolated and imperfectly contiguous, the species could even show signs that it's undergoing both a merging and an increase in differentiation at the same time! New alleles/mutations popping up in one region could fail to spread to others, which is a mark of increasing differentiation, even while in another place where there's more mixing, individuals with mixed ancestry are becoming a larger fraction of the total species population.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Delvo

This not only demonstrates the falsehood of all of the claims in this thread about trait clusters being just any old group that somebody felt like putting together in order to aim toward an arbitrary socially-constructed goal chosen ahead of time, but also gives an easy way to debunk most of the other bunk that's been tried here. However, due to time again, I'll save that list for later (if ever).

I've been up to a few other things since then instead of trying to make a conprehensive list, so I might have skipped a bunk or two, but here's the general idea... different kinds of bunk used by the deniers, exposed by example in the form of the Letter People species:

1. Lewontin's Fallacy: "There's more variation within a race than between races, so that means races aren't real." This equals claiming "both the DGkM population and the dgKm population have plenty of variation in the other 11 letters and the difference between them is only in 4 letters, so that means the general division of the species into a DGkM group and a dgKm group isn't real." We have a species of 1000 in which, without considering the perspective of how much variation is where, we can count that 900 individuals are DGkM or dgKm, 93 are mostly a match for one of those groups and not the other, and 7 are half-&-half. So, let's look at the same raw data again, this time keeping this variation stuff in mind. Now how may of each are there? Well, when you look at it that way, then it becomes 1000 individuals of which 900 are DGkM or dgKm, 93 are mostly a match for one of those groups and not the other, and 7 are half-&-half.

2. "No sharp abrupt boundaries, it's all gradients, so that means the groups don't exist", also known as "where do you draw the line? (You HAVE TO draw a line!)": This one equals claiming that the existence of 13 other combinations aside from DGkM and dgKm makes the DGkM-dgKm split not actually a real phenomenon in the species. We have a species of 1000 in which we can count that 900 individuals are DGkM or dgKm, 93 are mostly a match for one of those groups and not the other, and 7 are half-&-half. So, let's look at the same raw data again, this time watching out for those intermediate states. Now how may of each are there? Well, when you look at it that way, then it becomes 1000 individuals of which 900 are DGkM or dgKm, 93 are mostly a match for one of those groups and not the other, and 7 are half-&-half.

3. "What about blood type?" or "what about height?" equals "what about letter B/b?" or "what about letter H/h?". Well, yes, what about them? The DGkM/dgKm thing still stands at 900+93+7 regardless of whatever you might find out about any other letter.

4. "Everybody's mixed": This equals claiming that none of the 1000 letter-strings actually have DGkM or dgKm; they all only have one of the other 14 possible combinations of those 4 letters. So, what we counted 900 of, there are actually 0 of, and what we counted 100 of, there are actually 1000 of, which means
900=0 and 100=1000, so 900<100. Or, in its more extreme form, it would mean claiming that everybody really has one of the six combinations that are as different as possible from both DGkM and dgKm instead of being closer to one than to the other, in which case,
993=0 and 7=1000, so 993<7.)

5. "You could also put together any other set of traits, like baldness and right/left-handedness and blood type and height": This one equals "You could also put together any other set of uppercase & lowercase letters, like cFjn or CfJN". The difference would be that you're just arbitrarily putting the group together yourself, not finding a group that already naturally defines itself. For example, using the four letters I just named, the two most common case-combinations are the ones I just named. According to this fallacy, they should be the equivalent of DGkM and dgKm, of which there are 900. So why are there only a total of 141? And of the eight combinations that are only off of CfJN/cFjn by 1 letter apiece (CFJN, cfjn, CFjn, cfJN, CfjN, cFJn, cFjN, and CfJn), there are 50-69 of each for a total of 493, instead of 4-18 apiece for a total of 93, as with their DGkM/dgKm counterparts; why? Finally, the remaining six possible combinations that are half-&-half (Cfjn, cFJN, CFjN, cfJn, CFJn, cfjN), which according to this fallacy should be the rarest ones (0-2 apiece for a total of 7): there are 57-67 apiece for a total of 366. How can this be? Simple: the equivalency claimed in this argument is a lie. In fact you can NOT just throw together any combination of traits you want to imagine and get the same results. Some actually disproportionately appear together in the actual data, and others don't. Counting everything can't just create whatever pattern you choose; it can only reveal which ones are and aren't already really there. The numbers don't change based on your behavior about them.

This particular one deserves an extra bit of attention, given the absolutely titanic amount of times that claims like this one were repeated:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

One could choose different clusters, such as blood types, black hair, blue eyes, freckles, you name it.

Those are actually NOT clusters. They're arbitrary, chosen combinations which lack the kind of correlations that make clusters clusters. In a cluster, the odds of an individual possessing one trait are related to possession of the others. In an arbitrarily made-up group, they're not. A cluster is something that's really actually there, or really actually isn't there, whether you admit it or deny it, whether you even know about it or not.

If any of you dispute this fact, then it's long past time to finally start backing that up for a change. Show us your magical ability to conjure up exactly the same kind of clustering phenomenon from of any combination of traits you want even when the actual data says it's not there. I've already given you two separate populations to do it with and made the method for generating more available, and could give you another whole new population or batch of new populations if you prefer. All that's left for you to do is demonstrate your method of picking out some combination of uppercase/lowercase letters, other then DGkM/dgKm in the second population, and making the numbers change from approximately 250 to closer to 0 or 500 just by having been "picked". Here are those population tables again:

Originally Posted by Delvo

257	251	261	252	267	243	272	269	254	277	273	263	236	257	A	257	263	253	262	247	271	242	245	260	237	241	251	278	257
	246	271	259	259	246	260	255	247	270	236	257	238	239	B		256	231	243	243	256	242	247	255	232	266	245	264	263
		263	248	260	246	257	256	244	261	236	256	241	245	C			239	254	242	256	245	246	258	241	266	246	261	257
			260	258	245	262	271	244	281	261	264	260	269	D				259	261	274	257	248	275	238	258	255	259	250
				244	245	245	252	226	281	250	261	236	237	E					252	251	251	244	270	215	246	235	260	259
					249	260	274	243	277	263	278	240	250	F						266	255	241	272	238	252	237	275	265
						250	253	233	259	246	250	241	227	G							236	233	253	227	240	236	245	259
							275	247	273	273	269	249	265	H								247	275	249	249	253	273	257
								268	272	270	268	247	255	I									268	250	252	254	275	267
									234	255	232	226	235	J										234	228	251	257	248
										276	260	255	264	K											276	272	277	268
											237	244	246	L												237	265	263
												247	240	M													265	272
													238	N														244
B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	•	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j	k	l	m	n	o
245	251	258	244	248	243	250	253	229	255	236	249	246	228	a	241	235	228	242	238	243	236	233	257	231	250	237	240	258
	256	248	237	256	240	262	267	236	262	273	255	244	246	b		242	250	261	242	258	236	231	262	236	225	243	254	252
		256	248	255	240	265	266	239	271	273	256	241	240	c			242	250	243	258	233	232	259	227	225	242	257	258
			236	257	241	260	251	239	251	248	248	222	216	d				245	224	240	221	230	242	230	233	233	259	265
				271	241	277	270	257	251	259	251	246	248	e					233	263	227	234	247	253	245	253	258	256
					237	262	248	240	255	246	234	242	235	f						248	223	237	245	230	239	251	243	250
						272	269	250	273	263	262	241	258	g							242	245	264	241	251	252	273	256
							247	236	259	236	243	233	220	h								231	242	219	242	235	245	258
								229	260	239	244	235	230	i									249	218	239	234	243	248
									283	254	280	256	250	j										234	263	237	261	267
										253	252	227	221	k											215	216	241	247
											240	238	239	l												251	253	252
												235	245	m													253	243
													247	n														271

...

252	257	252	257	258	248	250	284	246	260	243	244	236	257	A	251	246	251	246	245	255	253	219	257	243	260	259	267	246
	254	256	254	272	244	252	266	257	266	254	241	232	248	B		256	254	256	238	266	258	244	253	244	256	269	278	262
		261	262	251	255	245	268	264	262	258	251	262	248	C			249	248	259	255	265	242	246	248	252	259	248	262
			269	250	497	257	292	253	36	272	497	274	256	D				261	280	33	273	238	277	494	258	33	256	274
				254	263	238	282	235	247	241	263	243	241	E					256	247	272	228	275	263	269	247	267	269
					243	241	274	244	265	264	240	251	239	F						260	262	229	259	238	239	263	252	264
						253	282	243	30	267	488	260	251	G							263	234	273	486	249	28	256	265
							266	236	235	239	244	236	236	H								218	248	249	245	240	248	248
								276	259	277	280	264	262	I									276	278	260	257	273	275
									240	258	246	241	234	J										240	233	245	250	257
										246	26	233	240	K											246	464	257	250
											241	253	245	L												241	252	260
												262	246	M													249	265
													232	N														261
B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	•	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j	k	l	m	n	o
258	253	278	253	245	268	234	253	245	230	262	267	257	226	a	239	244	219	244	252	229	263	244	252	267	235	230	240	271
	256	274	256	231	272	232	271	234	224	251	270	261	235	b		234	216	234	259	218	258	219	256	266	239	220	229	255
		269	248	252	261	239	269	227	228	247	260	231	235	c			221	242	238	229	251	221	263	262	243	230	259	255
			241	253	19	227	245	238	454	233	14	219	227	d				229	217	451	243	225	232	16	237	456	251	243
				249	253	246	255	256	243	264	248	250	242	e					241	237	244	235	234	247	226	242	240	248
					273	243	263	247	225	241	271	242	244	f						224	254	234	250	272	256	226	255	253
						231	255	248	460	238	23	233	232	g							253	229	236	24	246	461	251	252
							271	255	255	266	267	257	247	h								245	261	261	250	249	259	269
								230	231	228	231	229	221	i									233	232	235	232	234	242
									239	247	265	252	249	j										270	262	244	257	260
										261	485	260	243	k											249	25	250	267
											247	240	238	l												248	255	257
												231	237	m													258	252
													251	n														256

Everything's already set up perfectly for you right there if what you claim can be done really can be done. So go ahead. We're waiting. Failure to do so will equal admission that every claim that this could be done was a lie. Success might get you a million dollars from James Randi.

And before we get another protest that nobody ever claimed that human races don't exist: seriously, I don't know what you think the point could possibly be in bothering with that...

Originally Posted by RandFan

race is largely a human construct with little basis in fact to justify dividing people by race.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Had humans remained isolated in groups there might be an argument for race stronger than there is now... the idea is beyond any redemption

Originally Posted by RandFan

Do Human Races Exist?

The data is too strong. It's like denying evolution. It's a silly justification for prejudice and bigotry.

Originally Posted by RandFan

no trait can be stated about any single group that is excluded by all other groups. The fatal flaw to your argument.

Originally Posted by RandFan

"Race". That's the construct.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Let's just say that the proposition justifies my claim that claims of "race" are silly and absurd. It's a fatal flaw to any argument that there is such a thing as race beyond arbitrary and insignificant difference correlated to geographical groups to justify prejudice and bigotry.

Of the three qualifiers at the end of that one before the gratuitous personal accusation—arbitrariness, insignificance, and geographic correlation—the second is not an issue here. But the first, if it were true, would have meant races aren't real, and the third would, if it were true, would have at the very least meant races weren't what we thought they were.

Originally Posted by Cain

talk of race or ethnicity -- "clusters," "probability" -- that's just ridiculous.

And then there's this nonsense: http://med.stanford.edu/news_release...acial-data.htm

Originally Posted by L.Y.S.

race is a worthless social construct that breaks down in populations with high diversity.

This is just one of a group like it; claiming it's just a "construct" (something we just invented) is indeed saying it doesn't really exist except in our imaginations, because things that really exist are observed, not invented/imagined "constructs". I have to point this simple obvious fact out because it was denied a few times (essentially "it's just a contruct but I'm not saying it's not real"), but, as one of you put it:

Originally Posted by lomiller

Since humans are too genetically similar to each other for social/cultural factors to track with biology it’s an either or question. Either race is cultural social in nature or it’s biological. Since there is no evidence for this being a meaningful biological classification and plenty to show it’s meaningful as a cultural/social classification we can pretty easily conclude the latter makes more sense.

Originally Posted by RandFan

this is simply an ad hoc rationalization to preserve the notion that races exist.

Originally Posted by RandFan

You've not demonstrated that races exist or even defined it.
Historically race was invented to justify tribalism, subjugation, apartheid, oppression, slavery, etc.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Not only that they don't exist but that they have no real meaning. They are arbitrary

Originally Posted by RandFan

"Race" doesn't exist in any objective meaningful way.

Originally Posted by RandFan

the original definition is anachronistic and what it represents is false.

Originally Posted by RandFan

I have always held that "race" is a social construct (see thread title).

Originally Posted by RandFan

Races don't exist. I stand by that. It's a human invention. A mental classification invented to justify racism.

Originally Posted by slingblade

"Real" meaning, in the sense of an objective, independent, observable, empirical meaning, no. They do not have that meaning.

But they do have the meaning humans have assigned to them over centuries

Originally Posted by RandFan

That there is so much overlap and so little unique variation leaves little room for such groups as race.

Originally Posted by RandFan

I started with the belief that race was an easily defined and easily determined thing. I found it is just a lot of nonsense.

Originally Posted by RandFan

I conceded that had there been no genetic mixing an argument for race could have been more easily made.

Originally Posted by openingmind

I've come to the position that "race" is, yes, largely imaginative.

Originally Posted by RandFan

I can find no meaningful distinction of race... why don't you make a case for race?

Originally Posted by L.Y.S.

As it so happens, race is a useless social construct

(Read the next two together; the first doesn't really belong in this list itself but it's the setup for the one after it.)

Originally Posted by Zelenius

I've never encountered a person who doesn't believe in "race". They just use different words for describing essentially the same thing.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Well that's just not true unless you are claiming you haven't encountered me.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

We're all mutts.

Originally Posted by Robrob

"Race" is a subjective term that only exists in the eye of the beholder.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The thing is race is a social construct

Originally Posted by DC

amazing its 2012 and some people are still trying to make the Social construct of race into a scientific concept. decades of fail in that regard should have been a clear indication that it has nothing to do with science.

Originally Posted by DC

Human races are an irrational construct of society and have nothing to do with science.

Originally Posted by DC

sure there are also people that are mislead into believing that human races has anything to do with science, but are not racist or would not discriminate against others based on that race construct.

Originally Posted by DC

i see nothing rational in it.

Originally Posted by DC

geographical separation would be one of the requirements for a human race.

Originally Posted by lomiller

Were race to exist and a meaningful biological categorization...

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

someone discovered there are clusters of genetic identifiers which can predict race. Yeah, we can do the same with blood type or blondes vs brunettes

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's not a racial division UNLESS you isolate the populations.

Isolation with NO MIXING!!!!!

Ah, the attempt to equate with "species" rears its head again!

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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

Originally Posted by DC

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

Originally Posted by lomiller

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.

Originally Posted by DC

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.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

the distinct group only occurs when you chose arbitrary criteria. That makes race a social grouping.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

No one is denying one can find that cluster of genetic markers that predict previous race categories. It is possible to do the same for blood groups. It is possible to do the same for hair color/type alone. It is possible to do the same for height.

Those distinct groups only occur when you chose arbitrary criteria to group. That makes race a social grouping.

Originally Posted by lomiller

Race is a social/cultural categorization therefore races are social/cultural constructs.

Originally Posted by Croydon Bob

Some people here are determined to carry on using the word "race" despite it having no scientific meaning

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You can choose any different difference or group of differences and call it a race.

Another of those things that are simply, patently, hopelessly, mathematically false (see #5 above), but which, if they had been true, would have meant there weren't races, so it's still a claim that there aren't races.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

yes, you can choose any number of things and find the cluster of correlating genetic sequences. All you've done is identified a cluster of genetic markers that identify an arbitrarily designated group.

Make up anything you want and call it a race.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

someone has taken racial features and found a cluster of genetic markers that consistently predict the person will have those features. That is your evidence! You said so a dozen times.

But I can show you one can do the same thing for ANY cluster of features, no matter how common or rare said clusters actually are, and find the same evidence!
So what else makes your (or Wade's) racial identifiers different from the same thing given any cluster of traits?

I had to include these last few for representation of the type, but holy wow, this particular brand of utter nonsense got repeated so many many many times that I just had to leave most iterations out because it would make this list so horrendously long, so I'm cutting it off here...

...so if you seriously want to try denying that those (and more, of which this was just a sample) ever happened, just remember, everybody else who's reading the denial can also see the rest of the thread, too.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

[sidetrack] I'll accept your corrected intent, but this double negative is as bad as they come:

would not be indistinguishable = would not be not distinguishable [/sidetrack]?

I do not understand what is grammatically awkward with stating "would not be indistinguishable". If someone says is X and Y indistinguishable, is it only grammatically correct to say they would be?

Quote:

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?

Again; It is not a coincidence that a typical zulu tribesman wouldn't be (= IS NOT) phylogenically indistinguishable with a typical maori. This means, they are phylogenically different/distinguishable for typical standard-issue mammalian breed diversion reasons. The maori are clustered closely toward/within the polynesian supra-group, whereas the Australian Aboriginals are notably phylogenically seperated and we have no problem with identifying from whence and which breed a specific dna specimen comes from, especially not inbetween those two. Of course a person could be mixed but... since it is not a social fab designed only to justify irrational bigotry, we can identify a potential recent (or earlier even) cross-breed as well relatively easy with reliable accuracy. The reason we can do this has, once again, nothing to do with socio-economic bias or such despite how much anyone here (not saying you) tries to shoe-horn in the old boasian legacy of "its racist nonsense".

This thread, in part, brings to mind what Austin L Hughes once wrote:

Quote:

the deficiencies of American anthropology as a science of society may be at least partly to blame for the seeming inability of the United States policymakers to understand or predict accurately the effect of their policies will have... If policy-makers in the United States get their ideas of how societies function from undergraduate readings of Mead, Benedikt, and Schneider, it is small wonder they have difficulty in dealing with the rest of the world.