How many human races are there?

[Grim_Render]

@John_Mace

Just to be clear, there is no way the Khosian groups were reproductively isolated for 150,000 years.

We also have genetic modeling studies that show the Identical Ancestor Point to be somewhere at 5K - 15K years ago. That means everyone alive at that point was either an ancestor of everyone alive today or an ancestor of no one alive today. This may seem hard to believe, but since the Age of Discovery (some 500 years ago), there’s been a lot of sexy-time going on all around the world between native and non-native populations. A group that may have had almost no contact with Western Colonization efforts will still have had contact with many groups that did have such contact.

We’ve been over this a few times in GQ, so just search for “Identical Ancestor Point” and you’ll find the threads.

Sadly, the search function does not seem to work for me at the moment, even when trying different browsers. I did however do a general search on models for the IDA. The only thing I found giving an IDP that recent were two papers by Chang, Rhode and Olson. And it is certainly not a genetic model study. The lead author is a statistician. The other two are a software engineer and an MD, which is the only one with any biology background whatsoever. It is a mathematical and computer modelling paper.

It ends up with a startling and counter-intuitive conclusion, which would certainly be sensational if true “No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu.”

As far as I can see, the most recent of the two papers was written in 2004, and assumes both that no isolated populations exists and that there are no-one today with an ancestry composed solely of American Indians, Australian Aboriginees etc. There are figurative mountains of genetic evidence indicating that at least the first assumption is very wrong.

Since 2004, a lot of progress have been made in genetic sequencing, and none of it look good for Changs paper.

On the subject of the Khoisan genetics, I recommend you read the cited paper (link below). I do not think you’ve grasped what it says. And, you know, it was written by actual biochemists sequencing the actual genomes of the people in question, not statisticians making a computer model based on simplifying assumptions.

@John_Mace

The link does not link to the original paper, but I’m calling BS on a so-called scientist who thinks he can extrapolate a human custom back 150K years. As for the genetic data, without seeing the actual paper, I will still call BS on the idea that a group of humans could exist in Africa for 150K years without interbreeding with other groups of humans. I would also doubt our ability to measure that level of detail, at the genetic level and on those timescales.

Frankly, it doesn’t even pass the smell test.
“Little” does not mean “none”.

However, “none” is what they found. I am sorry that does not pass the smell test of a random person on the internet, but it is the most recent results we have from actual research.

@John_Mace

I’m sure you’re right. I think the poster was a bit sloppy in what he’s posted, as no one in their right mind could think there would be a group of humans living in Africa who have been reproductively isolated for 150K years. I’d be shocked if there was such a group that existed for 150 years!

I don’t see why, reproductively isolated human groups are nothing new. The length of isolation is startling yes. But we have 10 000 + years in Eurasia, and maybe 60 000 in the Indian Ocean.

@MrDibble

I think there’s a bit of a misunderstanding to do with Y-chromosome studies and Khoisan matrilineal traditions (see this article) but yes, as a group they were definitely not that isolated. Xhosa Bantu can have quite a high % of Khoisan ancestry (most famously, Nelson Mandela, Haplogroup L0d)

Counterpoint. Proves that Khoisan were not reproductively isolated. Two distinct pulses of outside inputs are evident, much more recently than 150 000 years ago. Plus there’s the migration of distinctly Khoisan genes outwards into the Nguni, like I already cited.

Just pointing out that that is the Daily Mail. Whats more, it is the Daily Mail reporting on the genetic legacy of the Queen of Sheba.

This is the original paper. “Khoisan” is show to have the most varied of human genomes. It indicates that they were at one point the most populous human group and covered a far larger area. “Khoisan” is not a single uniform group, and the paper the Daily Mail takes as evidence of the Queen of Sheba speaks of genetic ingression into one Khoisan group as if it applies to every Khoisan group.

There are a number of Khoisan groups and what the paper I linked to found upon sequencing the genomes of several was that one of these groups, the Ju/’hoansi showed no gene flow from non-Khoisan groups since the Khoisan/non-Khoisan split up to 150 000 years ago.

Other Khoisan groups do show such evidence, such as the one in The Mails paper, and there are evidence of outflow from Khoisan groups to other non-Khoisan ones. That is why I specifically referred to some Khoisan groups.

Reproductive isolation is not an unknown phenomenon in human populations. Groups on the Andaman Islands are believed to have been reproductivly isolated for 50-60 000 years.

And even more interestingly, in Eurasia the Kalash is a population in Pakistan who “experienced no detectable gene flow from their geographic neighbors in Pakistan or from other extant Eurasian populations. The mean time of divergence between the Kalash and other populations currently residing in this region was estimated to be 11,800 (95% confidence interval = 10,600−12,600) years ago”

Current indications are that the IDP in non-Khoisan populations are at least 40 000 years back, probably more. Although this could change with new results.

[septimus]

@Grim_Render

As far as I can see, the most recent of the two papers was written in 2004, and assumes both that no isolated populations exists and that there are no-one today with an ancestry composed solely of American Indians, Australian Aboriginees etc. There are figurative mountains of genetic evidence indicating that at least the first assumption is very wrong.

Since 2004, a lot of progress have been made in genetic sequencing, and none of it look good for Changs paper.

I agree that there may be questionable assumptions in some of the guesstimates that MRCA or IDP are rather recent, but, right or wrong, I don’t think they can be easily disproven. To make a recent IDP plausible, as far as South African Khoisan are involved, it’s only necessary that a Bushman emigrated out a few thousand years ago (certainly not in dispute) and that at least one non-Khoisan joined the Khoisan, say, 1500 years ago. That non-Khoisan might have contributed much less than 0.1% of the present-day Khoisan gene pool, yet still be adequate for a recent IDP. How does the cited paper refute that?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I’ll mention again a paper that reports cluster analyses on human genetic makeup, focusing mostly on microsatellites. To summarize very briefly:

Among Africans PC1 (the most principle component) distinguishes Saharan and Eastern from West, Central and Southern; PC2 distinguishes Hadzabe from everyone else; PC3 distinguishes Pygmies and Southern Khoisan from other Africans. For the global data set, PC1 distinguishes Africans from non-Africans; PC2 distinguishes Amerindians, East Asians, and Oceanians from everyone else; PC3 distinguishes Hadzabe. The Hadzabe are click-language speakers in Tanzania who now number less than 1000 individuals, and are obvious candidate for most isolated ethnic group. (The paper focuses on Africa; Andamanese were not tested.)

[syncrolecyne]

@Latro

Jeez, how tight-arsed we have become about this.

Anyone with eyes can see there are differing and recognisable features among humans, across the planet.
Yeah, it is only external and the lines are blurry and there is a lot of mixing, but put a typical Korean beside a typical Somali and…well, it’s pretty obvious.

Ackowledging that humans form a colourful mosaic, isn’t racism.
Adhering different qualities to these external differences is.

Yes, but that is not the question. The question is, where do you draw lines, and how many lines do you draw? The minute you start making categories, you start to see how slippery and - ultimately - futile creating “race” is.

[Nelson_Pike]

@MrDibble

Counterpoint. Proves that Khoisan were not reproductively isolated. Two distinct pulses of outside inputs are evident, much more recently than 150 000 years ago. Plus there’s the migration of distinctly Khoisan genes outwards into the Nguni, like I already cited.

Thank you for the interesting and well-taken counterpoint. Grim Render’s reply #81 is all the followup needed for now.

I think the general idea at this point is that the Khoisan have been genetically isolated longer than any other comparably-sized group and more completely than all but a few, but do not provide support for a scientifically grounded concept of distinct biological human races.

[Nelson_Pike]

@John_Mace

The link does not link to the original paper, but I’m calling BS on a so-called scientist who thinks he can extrapolate a human custom back 150K years. As for the genetic data, without seeing the actual paper, I will still call BS on the idea that a group of humans could exist in Africa for 150K years without interbreeding with other groups of humans. I would also doubt our ability to measure that level of detail, at the genetic level and on those timescales.

Frankly, it doesn’t even pass the smell test.

Well, it frankly passed the smell test with the august Nature international weekly journal of science:

Nature: Home Page

(Nature issue of 18 February 2010) Webb Miller et al: Complete Khoisan and Bantu genomes from southern Africa
Be sure to check out Webb’s 17 coauthors if you can spare the time.

Nature is the world’s (the world’s, get it?) most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2013 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition, but hey, anyone can make a mistake, including Nature, so why don’t you drop them a line about the one you have identified.

@John_Mace

ETA: From your cite:

“Little” does not mean “none”.

Addressed by Grim Render in reply #81.

[naita]

@Trinopus

Late hit, after the play was blown dead. Five yard penalty. Don’t replay the down.

Debating doesn’t follow the rules of football, and if they did, you wouldn’t get to be both a player and a ref. Or we could play by the rules of football, where I’m fairly certain “We can’t win without starting to play rough, so we’re going home.” counts as a loss.

Only if we’re playing by football rules mind you. I don’t consider letting someone have the last word as conceding defeat.

[MrDibble]

@Grim_Render

Just pointing out that that is the Daily Mail.

What, you can’t follow the link from that article to the New Scientist articleit links to? And from there to theoriginal paper?

That is why I specifically referred to some Khoisan groups.

What you should have said was “ONE group”. In one study. A study that never, itself, actually says the group was reproductively isolated. It only references the time of splitting, but never explicitly says isolation was complete thereafter, just that certain SNPs were exclusive to one !Kung group, AFAICT.

A group that the Pickrell et al. paper specifically addresses, BTW, in the section titled “West Eurasian Ancestry in the Ju’hoan_North”, where they conclude that there’s Eurasian gene flow into the group around 1300a BP.

Reproductive isolation is not an unknown phenomenon in human populations. Groups on the Andaman Islands are believed to have been reproductivly isolated for 50-60 000 years.

I think you miss the most telling part of the original article:

[QUOTE=Webb Miller]
The current Khoisan culture and tradition, where marriage occurs either among Khoisan groups or results in female members leaving their tribes after marrying non-Khoisan men, appears to be long-standing.

[/QUOTE]
This makes it clear that they were not reproductively isolated, just that the gene flow is not bidirectional. Especially when studying only male genealogy. Which is exactly the case we find in South Africa, where Bantu can have relatively high % Khoisan DNA. And this shouldn’t be a surprise - the Andaman Islanders are isolated because they live on islands. Whereas the Khoisan interacted with surrounding groups all the time.

[mascaroni]

@DrCube

It has nothing to do with evolution. East African cultures value marathons and West African cultures value sprinting. Just like Japan and the US value baseball while the UK and India value cricket. Are you going to say there’s a racial or evolutionary factor behind which countries enjoy cricket versus baseball?

Your example also illustrates why race is culturally based. In the US, black people have a distinct and recognizable culture, patterns of speech, history of discrimination, etc. Worldwide, however, there’s little you can say about black people as a whole except that they’re more likely to come from poor countries. Do you really think people from Nigeria and people from Kenya have evolved significant physiological differences?

East African value long distance running because they are good at it. I’ll agree it then becomes a cultural thing in the sense that successful athletes will become young athletes’ heroes and also attract more funding, which will increase the spiral of success. This has been the case with British cycling over the past few years as well.

But take the case of boxing. There have been many Hispanic (if that’s not too broad a description) World Champions in the lower and middle weight divisions, but, as far as I remember, no Heavyweight World Champions. It’s hardly credible to suggest that only the smaller Hispanics are interested in boxing.

And, to address your last point; Do you really think Congolese pygmys and Burundian Watutsis haven’t evolved significant physiological differences?

My original reply was largely agreeing with you that skin colour is a superficial trait, and it’s lazy to lump people together based on that alone.

Rather like thinking a respectable tea drinking Englishman is like one of the skirt wearing savages that are found North of Hadrian’s Wall.

[TokyoBayer]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

Yes, a studied eye can (often) distinguish someone of Japanese extraction from someone from Korea, but that is meaningful only in the presumption that both people self-identify with those linguistic or cultural affiliations. Realistically, the genetic variability between the two groups is so tiny that it can only be measured by sequencing whole genomes to distinguish tiny statistical variations across the population, and the functional difference between the two peoplen within an identified population from a genetic standpoint is, on average, less than the inherent overall variability between one Korean and another, or one Japanese and another. In other words, in nearly all populations, the phenotypical variation between a random group of people (and especially in terms of functional phenotypes like strength or intelligence) are much broader than the variations between populations in aggregate. The racial group metric of “they all look alike,” is just lazy prejudice, not useful categorization.

I will again disagree that “a studied eye can (often) distinguish someone of Japanese extraction from someone from Korea” because in my 27 years over a 35-year period of living in East Asia, I have concluded that it is impossible for any given individual from the two groups to be distinguished by physical
traits alone. People can tell by clothes, mannerisms and often even by makeup, but not by the shape of the face or other proposed criteria.

I agree with the rest of your conclusions, though.

@WhyNot

Would people who deny that humans have “races” be okay if we called them “breeds” instead?

No, because it doesn’t change the futility of defining the groups meaningfully.

@WhyNot

I’m not sure why intent matters. But if you want intent, there’s been a lot of time, energy, religion, and money historically put into controlling who your daughter marries so she breeds true to your race. Breed. Whatever.

But not enough to create purebreds. The vast majority of any group has not been kept “pure” over a long enough period of time to prevent intermixing.

@Chief_Pedant

Any number of studies using self-identified groups (including those for the US categories of “race” ) show quantified differences between, for example, self-identified asians and blacks on, for example, standardized IQ tests and standardized school exams such as the SAT or ACT.

For physical characteristics, a number of standardized measurements also show quantifiable, repeatable differences.

There have also been a number of studies which demonstrate “quantified differences between . . . standardized school exams” for East Asians in their native countries and those in America, for example.

There are also substantial differences between the current average heights of North Koreans and South Koreans as well as Japanese and Japanese-Americans in the past (and possibly now, but I donno).

Are we to conclude that North Koreans are now a separate race from their Southern relatives, if we use physical differences or that East Asians in America have split off from East Asians in Asia?

If this isn’t the case, then how are we to evaluate your proposed criteria in an objective manner?

It’s true that enough variation exists to make an argument that the total variation overlap renders a conclusion for any two individuals imprecise, but the populations in aggregate would have disparate distributions for any number of phenotypic expressions that would be reproducible and quite distinct between groups.

The problem again is how to define the groups in any meaningful manner. How many populations are you proposing? How do handle the gradual variations in any way but arbitrarily?

From wiki

Witherspoon et al. (2007) have argued that even when individuals can be reliably assigned to specific population groups, it may still be possible for two randomly chosen individuals from different populations/clusters to be more similar to each other than to a randomly chosen member of their own cluster. They found that many thousands of genetic markers had to be used in order for the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” to be “never”. This assumed three population groups separated by large geographic ranges (European, African and East Asian). The entire world population is much more complex and studying an increasing number of groups would require an increasing number of markers for the same answer.

. . .

Witherspoon, et al. concluded that, “The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.”

If humans were like M&Ms and could be separated into six colors, then perhaps your argument would hold, although these scientists disagree.

If you hold race to be a meaningful concept, then This still brings us back to the question of how many races are there?

@Trinopus

I must respectfully disagree, but I’m going to drop out now, for two reasons:

1. It puts me on the same side as persons whose other views I hold to be unutterably odious.

Don’t worry, the idea that Japanese and Koreans are separate races is mainstream on this side of the Pond.

What specific differences are there between the groups? How can one objectively know?

[robert_columbia]

@Blake

Because one isn’t the general consensus.

From a biological perspective there is only one race. But race isn’t just a biological concept. In fact today it isn’t generally seen as being a biological subject at all. Race is primarily sociological. And from a sociological perspective, there are indisputably multiple races.

So long as society perceives multiple races, then racism is likely to remain a problem. So long as society accepts that someone can be racially a negro, then there are going to have to be assumptions made about the traits of “Negro race”. And so long as that is the case, some of those assumptions are going to be negative, and thus race will remain a problem…

You’re right. Race is a political and social idea, not a biological one. As a political and social idea, it’s also pretty recent - cultures such as Ancient Greece seem to have had little, if any, concept of race as an inheritable concept. Their thought was that a Greek was anyone who could speak the Greek language. Anyone who couldn’t speak the language was an outsider (“barbarian”, from the Greek onomatopoeia “bar-bar” for incomprehensible gibberish, cf. English “blah blah”).

There’s actually quite a bit of research showing that there is more genetic diversity within Africa than outside of it, meaning that the genetic distance between, say, a Bushman and a Hausa is greater than the distance between an Irishman and an Australian Aborigine.

[Nelson_Pike]

The following is the kind of statement which cries out for citation:

@TokyoBayer

There have also been a number of studies which demonstrate “quantified differences between . . . standardized school exams” for East Asians in their native countries and those in America, for example.

The results claimed are certainly plausible, given the abysmal state of American education.

However, at least one study elsewhere has obtained opposite results:

Why do East Asian children (in Australia) perform so well in PISA? An investigation of Western-born children of East Asian descent

(from link):

A small group of high-performing East Asian economies dominate the top of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings. This has caught the attention of Western policymakers, who want to know why East Asian children obtain such high PISA scores, and what can be done to replicate their success. In this paper I investigate whether children of East Asian descent, who were born and raised in a Western country (Australia), also score highly on the PISA test. I then explore whether their superior performance (relative to children of Australian heritage) can be explained by reasons often given for East Asian students’ extraordinary educational achievements. My results suggest that second generation East Asian immigrants outperform their native Australian peers in mathematics by more than 100 PISA test points – the equivalent of two and a half years of schooling. Moreover, the magnitude of this achievement gap has increased substantially over the last ten years. Yet there is no ‘silver bullet’ that can explain why East Asian children excel academically. Rather a combination of factors, each making their own independent contribution, seem to be at play. Western policymakers should therefore appreciate that it may only be possible to catch the leading East Asian economies in the PISA rankings with widespread cultural change.

[Ruken]

@Nelson_Pike

Well, it frankly passed the smell test with the august Nature international weekly journal of science:

Nature: Home Page

(Nature issue of 18 February 2010) Webb Miller et al: Complete Khoisan and Bantu genomes from southern Africa
Be sure to check out Webb’s 17 coauthors if you can spare the time.

Nature is the world’s (the world’s, get it?) most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2013 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition, but hey, anyone can make a mistake, including Nature, so why don’t you drop them a line about the one you have identified.

This is not a valid argument for assessing the quality of the work or the conclusions. This journal also has one of the highest retraction rates, which is also irrelevant. You are welcome to critique or defend the science. If you understand it.

[Nelson_Pike]

@Ruken

This is not a valid argument for assessing the quality of the work or the conclusions.

It is a valid argument for assessing if the work and conclusions pass a “smell test,” i.e. if they are suitably plausible. I mean, that is what one of the world’s foremost scientific journals is for, right? And I am permitted to prefer a reputable journal’s smell test to that of some anonymous internet discussion board schlub, right?

@Ruken

This journal also has one of the highest retraction rates, which is also irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant then don’t bring it up.

@Ruken

You are welcome to critique or defend the science. If you understand it.

I do not need your permission to do whatever I want.

Now, if you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion then please enlighten us.

[John_Mace]

@Nelson_Pike

Well, it frankly passed the smell test with the august Nature international weekly journal of science:

Nature: Home Page

(Nature issue of 18 February 2010) Webb Miller et al: Complete Khoisan and Bantu genomes from southern Africa
Be sure to check out Webb’s 17 coauthors if you can spare the time.

Nature is the world’s (the world’s, get it?) most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2013 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition, but hey, anyone can make a mistake, including Nature, so why don’t you drop them a line about the one you have identified.

Addressed by Grim Render in reply #81.

You are misreading the paper. The claim is that the genomes of two individuals from one sub-group of Khoisan speakers showed no evidence of admixture from other groups. That is in no way the same as claiming that an entire population has never interbred with other populations. Consider that once you reach the 10 - 12 generation point, it’s quite likely that you would have inherited no genetic material form one of your randomly selected progenitors. That does not mean that the individual in question is NOT one of your ancestors.

[Ruken]

@Nelson_Pike

If it is irrelevant then don’t bring it up.

I was pointing out that appeals to authority are irrelevant. Do you agree?

[John_Mace]

@Ruken

I was pointing out that appeals to authority are irrelevant. Do you agree?

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy unless you are appealing to someone who is an actual authority on the subject:

Einstein stated that Vitamin A is not necessary for good health. Fallacy, since Einstein is not an authority on nutrition.

Einstein stated that objects with mass can to travel at the speed of light. Not a fallacy, since Einstein is an authority on Relativity.

[John_Mace]

@John_Mace

Einstein stated that objects with mass can to travel at the speed of light. Not a fallacy, since Einstein is an authority on Relativity.

Damn this place. As soon as I posted that, I saw the error and tried to edit, but the board went dark for 15 minutes and I couldn’t.

objects with mass cannot travel…

[Nelson_Pike]

@Ruken

I was pointing out that appeals to authority are irrelevant. Do you agree?

No I do not agree, and you need to review your Fallacies 101 text.

Appeal to expert authority is not fallacious. Rebuttable on merits (especially by other expert authority) yes, fallacious, no.

[Some_Call_Me.Tim]

@John_Mace

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy unless you are appealing to someone who is an actual authority on the subject:

Einstein stated that Vitamin A is not necessary for good health. Fallacy, since Einstein is not an authority on nutrition.

Einstein stated that objects with mass cannot travel at the speed of light. Not a fallacy, since Einstein is an authority on Relativity.

‘Person A stated X’ can’t be a fallacy, as phrased that statement is factual or not. A fallacy would be to take their word on a claim based on an appeal to a person who is not actually an authority.

Megadoses of Vitamin C can cure cancer and many other ailments, per Linus Pauling. Fallacy, since Pauling was not an authority on medicine.

Some atoms can bond using hybrids of their valence s and p orbitals, per Linus Pauling. Not a fallacy, as Pauling was an authority on quantum chemistry.

[John_Mace]

@Some_Call_Me.Tim

‘Person A stated X’ can’t be a fallacy, as phrased that statement is factual or not. A fallacy would be to take their word on a claim based on an appeal to a person who is not actually an authority.

Megadoses of Vitamin C can cure cancer and many other ailments, per Linus Pauling. Fallacy, since Pauling was not an authority on medicine.

That would be called a distinction without a difference.