How many human races are there?

Great Debates
141

We may and should cite Darwin and Einstein, if nothing else for historical reasons. But Darwin and Einstein’s respective expertise is irrelevant when examining conflicting scientific claims. We examine the science for that. That’s how science works.

Never mind that both gents screwed up a few things here and there.

If you ever require medical care, I seriously suggest you learn as much about your condition as possible in order to better avoid becoming yet another victim of medical error. If you find a doctor who doesn’t accept being challenged, run. Assuming you’re in a state to do so.
I hope everyone else here who has a PhD shared my hearty chuckle at this exchange:

142

I don’t understand it-- there’s too much Spanish in that first post. Can you translate?

143

Does being a teacher in the ‘friend of wisdom’ branch, by itself and by that very fact, make one a master in their field.

144

Similar things could be said substituting other factors for “race” here, right? Like parents’ income, years of schooling, so forth. If “race” has predictive value here, it’s because, in a given society, it serves as a rough, shorthand matrix of such factors. You do not really think that there is any biological content behind the label that causes such outcomes. Right?

Uh… you are using at least one word here to mean something very different than what I understand it to mean. :confused:

145

The differences in outcomes for SAT scores for race group averages are certainly not due to parental schooling or family income.

SAT has published data showing that when you adjust by income, for example, poverty stricken whites score on par with wealthy blacks. Similar data is available when parental schooling is controlled for.

The idea that either income, opportunity or parental education is responsible for the black-white academic performance difference is based on the observation that, when nurturing is improved, black scores improve. This is true. It’s true for whites and asians as well.

But at any given opportunity tier, the same rank order in academics always remains, in the same general way it remains for success at certain sports such as power-sprinting related sports. In STEM fields, blacks are at the bottom; asians at the top, in a consistent pattern that does not change when income or opportunity is controlled for.

So I (for one) think the evidence is powerful that when groups self-identify by race, they self-identify into aggregates where the prevalence (the “biologic content”) of at least some genes which drive those kinds of outcomes is different.

Unraveling the human genome and the history of human migration has not furthered the idea that aggregate pools for various groupings are similar for the average prevalence of any given gene variant studied across those groupings.

Quite the opposite is true. Average gene variant prevalence differences across race-based pools are the norm and not the exception when any given gene is studied (usually for medicine, but there’s no reason to think evolution only targets some genes and not others; we just don’t study many others).

Examples of gene variants introduced into out of africa populations early enough to be widely penetrated into eurasians and not sub-saharans are plentiful.

The argument for biologic content differences driving outcome differences for race-based groups has nothing to do with how we define “relatedness.” That’s as problematic a biologic definition as is race.

It has instead to do with average prevalence differences for gene variants among self-identified race groups, and we know that definitely happens. In the case of black-white it happens because out of africa divided a branch sharply enough that the diffusion of gene variants acquired early enough in that out of africa population was disproportionately to eurasians and not sub-saharans.

Thus, to the extent that modern self-identification aligns with pre- and post-africa descendant lines, biologic content will have an average difference for at least some genes, and notions such as relatedness have no more bearing on that than do notions that we can define race strictly.

146

Considering the vast disparities in how people are treated in society, this doesn’t tell us anything with regard to the causes of these disparities.

147

Even assuming what Pedant is saying were true, it would still not be enough to support the existence of more than one human race.

148

This is getting tedious so I may not continue.

(from reply #137):

[QUOTE=John Mace]

A group of humans who had truly been reproductively isolated from the rest of humanity for ~150K years, and who had distinct morphological differences from the rest of humanity would properly be described as a sub-species. Anyone who thinks they have discovered a new subspecies of H. sapiens should rush to publish, because it’ll be hailed as the biological paper of the century.
[/quote]

IIRC the concept of the subspecies is of debatable scientific value. It may be that it is kept alive for little or no reason other than to provide the publishing opportunities you allude to.

IOW there is no need from a scientific POV to subdivide the species: all human groups, no matter how distantly separated by time and place, produce fertile offspring if given the opportunity to mate.
(from reply #137):

[QUOTE=John Mace]

This, by the way…
[/quote]

Previously addressed
( reply #138):

[QUOTE=John Mace]

Ack… missed the edit window. And before someone comes along and says “but they AREN’T morphological different”, I’d ask you to consider how a group could be genetically isolated for 150K years w/o developing any morphological differences.
[/quote]

This is a classic example of begging the question. Absolutely classic.

149

(reply #139):

[QUOTE=dropzone]

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?

As a credentialed Anthropologist from forty years ago I have plenty of half-assed hypotheses based on poorly-remembered knowledge that was probably thrown out thirty-five years ago. Why, in MY day we didn’t cotton to this new-fangled cladistics shit.

And now everything I know is wrong.

But yeah, offhand the very idea that a group of humans could stay genetically isolated for 150k years AND remain genetically H. sapiens sapiens (do we still call ourselves that? it’s like keeping up with Windows versions sometimes) is ludicrous. So I guess I have some reading to do. And follow this thread better.
[/quote]

What is ludicrous is for a 40-year out of date Anthropologist to assume the role of up-to-date Geneticist/Evolutionary Biologist without doing some of the reading he admits he needs to do.

I took Anthropology 101 Fall Semester 1968, and one thing I recall from the course was that estimates for the age of the Human species was 35,000-50,000 BP. Discoveries and advances since then have moved the anatomically modern species birth date back to around 200,000BP, so Prof. dropzone obviously has his reading requirements cut out for him.

Now, maybe there are some 2015 Genetics and EvoBio girls and boys who tell us that they have zeroed in on 150,000 years BP as the point from which an isolated group could no longer be a member of the anatomically modern human species. If so it would be nice if Prof. dropzone could go ahead and do his reading, and give us a cite from this school of thought. Until then I hope he will forgive me if I say his declarations above do not pass the smell test, since they are contradicted by up to date authority I have cited, namely Penn State Professor Emeritus (yes, I know what the word means. What is does not mean is incapacity for doing useful work) in the Department of Biology and the Department of Computer Science and Engineering.

150

Hey Ruken- I’ll get to the rest of your reply #141 later, and also to #140, but I thought I would first have some fun with the following:

(from reply #141):

[QUOTE=Ruken]

I hope everyone else here who has a PhD shared my hearty chuckle at this exchange:

robert_columbia: Does a PhD automatically, ipso facto make one an expert in their field,

Nelson Pike: Yes
[/quote]

You have a PhD? You??? From where?- Some diploma mill like the State U of Lower Slobovia?

I think I’ll go with Purdue University: Notes On The PhD Degree

(from link):

But then Purdue and reputable places like Purdue may have standards too high for you and your heartily chuckling pals to measure up to.

151

That’s enough with the personal comments. Keep it polite, people.

152

Well to be fair to him, I can’t even read my diploma because it isn’t written in English.

153

It tells us that no nurturing influence has been shown to be the cause of the consistent disproportionate representation we see by self-identified race across the board, across cultures.

It’s pretty hard to show that whites and asians have such lousy nurturing for basketball skills that they give up on their NBA dreams not because they are outperformed, but because they didn’t have the drive/facilities/opportunity/coaching/equipment…

And I don’t think anyone would argue that they don’t have the dreams in the first place. It’s a pretty good gig if you can get it.

A much cleaner conclusion that fits Ockham’s razor is: It’s likely the underpinning genes driving outcomes are disproportionately represented.

If we just have one race, everyone has the same pool.

If we decide we have 5 races and folks can self-identify, then we can look at those race-based aggregate pools and see if gene variants are disproportionately represented. Turns out they are.

So if we can’t fix disproportionate outcomes by better nurturing for the underrepresented within a skillset, gene prevalence difference is the best available scientific conclusion.

In fact, the ONLY reason we hate the idea of races is that the conclusion for disproportionate outcomes by race is socially non-viable for humans. Were it any other animal group, the gene-based conclusion would be the FIRST choice. So we’ve tried to get rid of a biologic underpinning to define race, and make it a social construct. Works well in theory but those damn humans keep self-identifying in concert with patterns that reflect historic migration, and therefore end up being aggregated pools which are easily shown to have gene prevalence frequencies that vary by self-identified race pools.

And arguments about who is related to whom then become no more valuable for conclusions about outcome than would an argument that hyraxes are related to mantees or elephants be valuable for a conclusion about observed functional outcomes between elephants and hyraxes.

It’s about which pool has prevalence for which gene variants. Not races and not relatedness.

So have a thousand–ten thousand–races if you like…

154

Several nurturing influences have been hypothesized, and the disparity is not “consistent” for more than a miniscule fraction of human history. We’ve only had halfway decent testing for a few decades, if that.

Further, no genetic influence has been shown to be the cause of these disparities. You’re just making a hypothesis (one which has been tested, in fact, on at least a few occasions, and disproved).

Considering that specific research has been done to look at this hypothesis, and it was rejected, and considering that disparities in society and culture have been responsible for so many outcome gaps through human history, I’d say the razor would point to the same cause as it was in the 1800s, Jim Crow, and the rest of history (for various groups that were at the societal top or bottom at various times) – human culture and society.

So find the genes, then. Or repeat the Scarr study with modern methods. Until then, it remains a hypothesis at best.

155

But race and subspecies are the same thing, so if we’re talking about one, we’re talking about the other. And we’re talking about race.

If you want to concede that no group of extant humans has been genetically isolated for 150K years, that would be fine. If you don’t want to do so, you need to deal with the consequences, not just hand-wave it away with semantics.

No, it’s asking a question. And the answer is: It would’t be.

156

Sure!

http://www.kennedydna.com/Chromo2_results.pdf

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=9523.0;wap2

In terms of the claim that the O’Neill clan were R-M222, I believe it is based on surveys of modern families/clans that claim paternal descent from Niall. A majority of these claimed descendants are R-M222 (while R-M222 itself is a minority, albeit a significant one, in Ireland and Scotland), leading to a hypothesis that Niall being R-M222 is reasonably plausible. Afaik, his remains have not been tested (if they still exist). Even if Niall wasn’t R-M222, it is still a very interesting topic, and it seems quite clear that R-M222 is a Celtic marker.

157

If you can call that a study. LOL

Here’s a studyshowing about 1,800 gene variants across 3 “race” groups (chinese; blacks; europeans) the prevalence for which is inferred to be driven by natural selection.

Which genes? Well, “Based on overrepresentation analysis, several predominant biological themes are common in these selected alleles, including host–pathogen interactions, reproduction, DNA metabolism/cell cycle, protein metabolism, and neuronal function.”

But hey, mother nature probably made absolutely sure that even though she was letting evolution run its course in general, no human group got disparately advantageous genes to pass to only some descendant lines.

That kind of unfairness is not allowed in the human species; only in all other species on the planet.

But not humans. At least, not for anything except stuff like hair cross section type.

And you can bet your sweet bippy there is no chance in hell Neanderthals had any genes that were advantageous for anything of substance. Or that lineages limited largely to sub-saharan africa got any good genes for anything.

No sirree. One smooth pot is by far the likeliest outcome for evolution’s impact on human groups and their descendant lines.

To say otherwise would be tantamount to…to…to…racism! Case closed. Conversation over. Game, set, match (and probably to the group with the lowest prevalence for R577X homozygosity…not that such a disparity is even possible). :stuck_out_tongue: )

:dubious:

158

This is it for me here, Ruken.

(reply #140):

[QUOTE=Ruken]

I dismissed the impact factor of Nature, not the word of Kim and Schuster et al. So unless by “the opinion of a PhD, speaking about a specialty of his in his field” you are referring to yourself (as you wrote, a “random person on the internet”) your objection is baseless. And even if you are, you’d still be wrong to cite a journal’s impact factor to back a point. That’s not how science works. And for good reason, as demonstrated by your trying to use a journal’s authority to support a point that wasn’t even made in the paper published in that journal.
[/quote]

My position on this issue was clearly and amply covered in reply #93, but I’ll try another tack:

According to your logic a creationist scientific journal possesses as much relevance as Nature. But you know that is ridiculous. And you know there is a hierarchy of reputations in scientific journalism running from least reputable (e.g. creationist journals) to the most reputable (e.g. Nature), and that it is perfectly reasonable, and relevant, to mention that your cite was taken from one of ones with the highest reputation.
(reply #140):

[QUOTE=Ruken]

No need to look for it. You have provided cites. And you provided this cite, too, thanks. But of course you know that, because you read the paper that cites it.

Having now examined it, the main improvement is that the newer model allows the user to assign ancestry to more populations while still maintaining >98% accuracy. Which is pretty good, but obviously not enough to write “that admix was ruled out to a high enough degree of confidence to state as scientifically verified fact in 2/4 Khoisan examined.”

But of course the authors make no such claim, maybe because they’re good scientists. We can all learn from good scientists.
[/quote]

Fine, dial it back to something not quite as strong as I put it above, but only for the Nature article.

I have been referring to two citations which feature Prof. Webb. The second in chronological appearance in this thread is the Nature article, the first is layman-targeting article linked by another member in reply #46, which I first discuss in my reply #63. Here, again, is what Webb says in the cite: “This and previous studies show that the Khoisan peoples and the rest of modern humanity shared their most recent common ancestor approximately 150,000 years ago.” I hope everyone will agree that the quotation is meant to convey scientifically verified fact.
(reply #141):

[QUOTE=Ruken]

We may and should cite Darwin and Einstein, if nothing else for historical reasons. But Darwin and Einstein’s respective expertise is irrelevant when examining conflicting scientific claims. We examine the science for that. That’s how science works.

Never mind that both gents screwed up a few things here and there.
[/quote]

This is how science works:
(1) experts study nature.
(2) the most talented experts, such as Darwin and Einstein, make important new discoveries.
(3) these discoveries are published as articles in scientific literature.
(4) the articles are read and cited in continuing scientific investigation of the discoveries.
(corollary) non-specialists such as Nelson Pike are also permitted to read and cite the scientific literature, any time they please, as in such informal formats as internet discussions boards.
(reply #141):

[QUOTE=Ruken]

If you ever require medical care, I seriously suggest you learn as much about your condition as possible in order to better avoid becoming yet another victim of medical error. If you find a doctor who doesn’t accept being challenged, run. Assuming you’re in a state to do so.

[/quote]

Brilliant idea! I don’t let anyone touch my broken leg until I have read up on the condition myself, and “challenged” the doctors on their plan of treatment. I will make especially sure I decline pain meds and anesthesia if the providing doctors’ answers aren’t good enough for me. Brilliant!

159

I haven’t followed the argument above, but thought I’d try to clarify a couple things related to biology and race.

It’s pretty much impossible–and silly–to try to define a race biologically. We can use biology to trace ancestry, and along with other data, understand migration paths. We can infer accurately, for example, that if we find Neanderthal DNA in the Khoisan (and we do), somebody must have sneaked back into africa from the Levant, and at least someone else made it all the way back to the Khoisan in southern africa.

But arguments about who has what snippets of DNA from which ancestors; who has the most diversity; who can be said to be related to whom…–all of those arguments have little or nothing to contribute into a strict biological definition of race.

In practice, we don’t pay attention to a biologic definition even if it existed. We self-identify with groups of various types, including race (by choice or by fiat).

The biologic differences which then can be quantified are done on the aggregate pool formed by the self-identification.

IOW, “race” comes first as an arbitrary category, and biology comes second; not the other way around.

The historic migration patterns of humans, coupled with the effect of evolution on gene variants, create aggregate average differences because we tend to self-identify within patterns that reflect our historic migration patterns. Part of that sel-identification is driven by the way some gene variants make us look; part is driven by culture and sociopolitical history; part is driven by languages; and so on.

But the biologic differences in the average aggregate result of that self-identification are, in a sense, for arbitrarily chosen gene variants. It is not as if we attach equal weight to every single neucleobase variation. We care about some traits and not others, for whatever reason. We notice some differences and not others.

In the end, average biologic differences among races end up being average prevalence differences for gene variants we’ve decided to care about–or at least, investigate.

Suppose, for example, it turns out that we really care about some particular trait driven by a Neanderthal gene variant introgressed into humans who lived in the Levant 40kya. (Pretend Neanderthal introgression drove homozygosity for R577X alleles…)

We’d then find an average difference for prevalence of the trait driven by that gene variant by “race” if we first self-identify into black/white/asian, and then look at the aggregate group to find average R577X homozygosity prevalence. Other ways to define relatedness biologically would be irrelevant. Common ancestry would be irrelevant. Whether or not black/white/asian are reasonable categories would be irrelevant. We would notice that “blacks” are overrepresented for the 100 meter sprint even if an Mbuti never makes it past the first qualifying round.

At an aggregate group level, the observed difference would indeed be biologically driven because the aggregate groups have disparate prevalence for the gene variants for whichever trait we are studying, but this would not be because we are defining the races biologically. Common ancestry per se would not be very helpful since (as usually used) it does not tell us very much about existing gene variant prevalence in modern groups.

160

Both journals possess as much relevance in that they are both irrelevant. We are capable of examining the science. It either stands on its own merits or it doesn’t; the publication has no bearing on that. And therefore it is neither reasonable nor relevant to attempt to bolster a claim about science by mentioning where it was published.

You have been referring to only one scientific work published by the authors in question. First we’re dialing it back based on the actual scientific publication, then we’re using a claim that Webb Miller did not publish to determine “scientifically verifiable facts”? The data do not support the claim, and good on Nature’s editors and reviewers for keeping that claim out. Assuming he actually made it. Having dealt with enough university press offices and “science journalists”, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

And by the way, we (scientists) are generally not in the business of establishing “scientifically verifiable facts” on the short term. Especially based on measurably imperfect analytical tools.

You’ll notice we’ve skipped the scientific dick-measuring step. Because it’s not Darwin and Einstein’s talent and expertise that makes them right (when they weren’t wrong.) The science (mostly) stands on it’s own and can be verified by others. You might be interested in this article: Scientific method - Wikipedia
I’m not up to speed on the history of scientific pedagogy; maybe this wasn’t something we always taught to children pre-Sputnik.
You’ll note that citing isn’t really part of it either. Citing is housekeeping. Pointing readers to relevant work. Sometimes we assume that the cited work is valid. Sometimes we’re citing it specifically because it is not. Sometimes it’s just history.
We can and should cite relevant work, but we’re not furthering science by doing so. We’re not proving or disproving anything by doing so.

If we are unable to understand the science, then we are reduced to faith. But then we are not dealing with questions of science. I’ve been there myself, unfortunately. But here are some questions to get you started:

Is there a barrier between the bandage and skin?
Is the splint length appropriate?
Did the physician check for pressure points?
Splints are usually in the wrong place, so why is this position better than others?
Are my joints appropriately immobilized?
How will edema be minimized?
What are the side effects of this medicine?
I’m taking X, you’re giving me Y. That’s cool?
What other choices do we have?

But knock yourself out (not literally, please) if you want to go in blind. Just remember we’re dealing with a profession that comprises a large number of individuals who thought low-level science classes like organic chemistry were difficult.

There are any number of books on the topic for curious readers. Authors Wen and Kosowsky, Michelson, and Makary come to mind.

I was hoping you’d want to hear more about my adventures in Slobovia.