Interesting post, Tamerlane. Not that I doubt you, but would you mind giving me a cite (ideally a link) for the idea that the trend is to not view sub-species as “biologically significant categories?”
And if something is not a “biologically significant category” is that the same thing as saying that the category does not exist as a “biological reality”?
I also point out that edwino’s position seems to be even more pronounced than I had originally thought.
Based on his recent posts, I gather that he would view the (alleged) distinctions among many dog breeds as not existing as a biological reality. Or the (alleged) distinction between dogs and wolves.
lucwarm: Well I didn’t have time to do an extensive search, but just to give a flavor of this school of thought:
*2.3.2. Subspecies vs. populations
Given the mechanism of natural selection, every fish population can be conceived as being a potential new species. All one needs to imagine is that populations become isolated from others long enough for their members to lose the ability to mate with those of other populations. However, as long as some members of each population continue to mate with members of other populations of the same species, a mating barrier will not emerge (only a small gene flow is required to prevent the emergence of a mating barrier). Thus populations, though they may be easy to define them in terms of attributes such as number of scales or spines or body proportions, should not be given full taxonomic status, because (contrary to species) they usually do not maintain themselves over a long period. Not having taxonomic status also means they should not have formal names, such as the trinomen that are still frequently used today, e.g. Oreochromis niloticus niloticus. The third part of the trinomen refers to a subspecies, which is, in fact, a population, or, to use a term much used in earlier times, a ‘race’.
2.3.3. Within-species diversity
Species differ as to the extent of their diversity. Some species consist of a single population of a few individuals — these are often endangered species. Others have wide ranges and a rich population structure. This situation tempted authors to name subspecies. However, its is usually not objectively defined within-species diversity which has motivated authors to define subspecies, but national or local research traditions, and the resources available for sampling specimens over large areas, and curate them. Thus, Berg (1965) established numerous subspecies and even lower taxa for the fishes of adjacent lakes and rivers of the former Soviet Union, while subspecies are rarely proposed by taxonomists working on the many coral reef species of the Indo-Pacific, although their distribution spans thousands of kilometers, and detailed studies may justify this (at least if one believes in naming subspecies).*
lucwarm: A more thorough answer later ( after I get off work ). But for now a couple of other quick web quotes. Keep in mind that I am not implying this is a settled issue - There is still much debate on this topic.
*I. Polytypic Species
A. Includes allopatric or parapatric populations assumed to be capable of interbreeding
B. Populations may be quite phenotypically different from others
C. Those considered sufficiently distinct are often distinguished nomenclaturally as “subspecies”
this is a recognized taxon by International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
it is written as a trinomial (e.g. Acris crepitans blanchardi)
D. However, it is debatable as to whether or not a subspecies is an “evolutionary unit” or just a taxonomic convenience (refer to your species handout reading for further discussion)
A notable quote by Mayr (1942, p. 106): “The taxonomist is an orderly person whose task it is to assign every specimen to a definite category (or museum drawer!). This necessary process of pigeonholing has led to the erroneous belief among non-taxonomists that subspecies are clear-cut units… Such situations exist occasionally… But subspecies intergrade almost unnoticeably in nearly all cases in which there is distributional continuity.”
The subspecies is probably not a suitable unit for evolutionary discussions according to Mayr and many other more recent workers; however, some disagree.*
Also evidence for where my particular bias comes in ( I have an academic interest in herpetology ):
6. The binomial nomenclature still persists; the ranks Genus and species are still used to describe a species. In herpetology in particular, many “subspecies” have been described as geographic races of species. Whether these subspecies constitute monophyletic lineages is often uncertain. When challenged, if these races are monophyletic, they are typically elevated to species status, if not monophyletic they are often discarded as invalid taxa. Thus, the rank “subspecies,” is being eliminated. This however, is a controversial issue. Keep this in mind as you come across subspecies names described in your field guide.
Well, I suppose it depends how we define our terms, eh ;)? MHO as follows:
1.) Do “subspecies” ( “races” ), where described, exist as some sort of discrete reality? Well, obviously there is some discrete reality or no one would have tried to describe them. Morphological differences exist if nothing else.
2.)Do subspecies have any validity as a formal taxonomic category? IMHO, no. They by definition contain no useful evolutionary information ( IMO ) and are often ( always ) defined by more than usually arbitrary standards, with generally very fuzzy boundaries. Use of the formal trinomen is outdated.
3.)Do subspecies have any validity as an informal taxonomic category? IMHO, yes. They’re a handy shorthand for describing a geographically consistent morph. However the informality of that categorization needs to be recognized.
Sure. What that reality is and how profound its meaning is going to vary from species to species and population to population.
Okay, here’s my difficulty. IMO trying to bring domestic animal breeds into this discussion will just muddy the water. They break all the rules because they are profoundly unnatural in the sense that their breeding is artificially controlled by man to select for specific features. As with a few other organisms ( partheonogenetic species complexes in lizards that likely arose from multiple hybridization events are another example ) they are rather problematic to classify in a philosophically consistent way. At any rate I’ll note that the term “breed” is an even lower infraspecific term that subspecies/race and thus this really isn’t an equivalent example to the issue of humans and race. “Breed” is a term specific to domestic animals and is not used for any wild organism that I am aware of. I understand the perceived utility in that it is an example everyone can visualize, but let’s try to find a better one.
Howabout this one - Here’s a photo of a Yellow Rat Snake ( Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata ) :
Now is the difference between them “real”? Well, obviously the morphological difference is “real” - They’re different colors. But does this have any taxonomic significance? No - They interbreed regularly and indiscriminantly in the zone of contact between their two ranges ( producing the so-called “Greenish Rat Snake”, which no one has seen fit to formally designate as a subspecies ). Does this have an evolutionary significance? No - For the same reason. If one buys into modern phylogentic systematic philosophy ( and I tend to ), they represent members of a single, interbreeding monophyletic lineage and therefore share identical historical fates. They also share the same niche and habits and if one were to transplant a Black Rat Snake from the extreme end of its range to the extreme opposite end of the Yellow Rat Snake’s range, they would get along just fine.
My answer would be that actually I don’t know and that further it would be difficult to predict. From my understanding you could conceivably end up with a variety of different answers depending on the individuals chosen. Which is the whole point. There is no consistency.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - Humans are absolutely unique in the animal world. Even if the subspecies concept does work for some or all other species, it would ultimately break down with humans ( except, perhaps, for certain very isolated areas, for limited periods of time and not in the way that the term has been traditionally used in regards to people ), because we simply do not find ourselves as reproductively isolated as any other species. As a species we colonize every habitat ( in the broadest sense ) and breed across every geographic barrier. No other critter can do this - Not even close. And as the modern age chugs along, these barriers are becoming more and more permeable and “genetic fidelity” rarer and rarer.
My thoughts on race otherwise largely mirror the Edwino et al camp. I think race descriptors like “black” and “white” are perfectly valid terms with real meaning. I just remain unconvinced by the available evidence of any sharp genetic coherence for them. From a biological standpoint, they are very, very fuzzy. And at least a few biologists are trying to jettison such fuzziness in other groups :).
First, I wasted my time looking up the article. Hardly worth the effort. It is not a research article, there is no new data therein. Only an argument – which sadly enough was fairly well reflected in The New York Times. I came away with the sensation of someone trying to shoehorn his old ideas into new shoes.
An example:
It does now, does it? Well, if one willfully excludes problematic categories (E.g. New Guineans, Ethiopians, etc. ) and hand-wave away the problems as per. In other words, we have the same old methodology and the same old problems, but let us take a quick look at the treatment.
“Admixture” –queer word—then excludes upper North East Africans (aka “Ethiopians” – meaning in this sloppy usage Eritreans, Somalis, Djiboutis and related groups) from proper Africaness (Efrem, next time you run into some racist do note that you’re off the hook per our author here). Odd that standard, insofar as African Americans have ‘considerable’ admixture themselves, certainly one then has to consider the idea that the portion of AA pop who do not fit into the profile then must be excluded from the category. One rather has to question a framework driven by subjective current US pop. profiles rather than objective and global standards. The admixture cite is to a paper from 1994 by good old Cavalli Sforza – fairly certain I’ve read it back in the day actually. To my understanding we’ve moved a bit beyond this early – and again as I recall non-gene (blood typing as I recall) based paper. Further, I might add that to my understanding, based on an off-the-top-of-my-head recollection, current theorizing would place ex-African diversity as possibly deriving from these North East African populations – with long histories of back and forth, mutual admixture so to speak, so the simple assertion of “admixture” gets us into a bind as we willfully assume a situation of ‘purity’ contra the data. I may leave aside that as usual we have neglect for the transitional Saharan pops as well. ( I think this link may be what I was thinking of http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/2/799? )
On the other hand, he probably has a point in this regard, although more a point that Wilson’s clusters may be too large for some applications than a point against using objective typing per se. One might not expect one tool to work for all circumstances:
(Mind you, I have not looked up the Wilson paper, I am a bit dubious of our friend’s reading of data so let us just accept it for the same of argument.) Odd criticism all in all, see above, for coherency.
So, what does this paper bring us? Zilch in terms of new data, he simply rehashed some of the very same works cited here, by myself among others, but argues as we have seen against the trend towards using specific genetic based typing in place of old ‘race’ and ethnicity in certain applications. Nothing new in the argument, except perhaps to emphasize that there is or remains a practitioner level utility to a sophisticated and aware usage of ethnicity (in combination I would assert to an awareness of the heterogeneous genetic background of all groups.) in public health matters.
By the way among the cites provided in re ‘race’ being a useful way to describe variation are:
Familiar, many are, because we’ve used them to the opposite reading, as have, per my reading of the evidence to be sure, the majority of scholars.
Now, as to the ‘arguments’ here, we have the same old bloody merry-go-round. We have some folks who keep coming up with the same objections from ignorance. I can’t help but think of the creationists arguing with evolution.
What are then these objections:
Primo: “Part of the argument of the ‘anti-race’ argument is ‘political’”
Well color me red and call me a commie. (That was mipsman’s favorite little tactic back in the day, he brought no data to the table) Wonderful, one can equally make vague accusations that some part of the ‘there is race’ argument is political. Given the general lack of comprehension on the part of those claiming that ‘something’ is being ‘overlooked’it is rather hard to take seriously this objection.
Secundo:
“There might be something to race”
Data should drive the argument. For biologically based generalizations, everything says that abandoning an “old, creaky, fraught with untrue and deceptive concepts framework” is the way to go to reach analytical clarity. Time and time again, assuming race has resulted in bad science – whereas abandoning the concept and starting to build up from scratch on objective data as it comes in leads to insights and better understanding. But we can get back to this.
The objections here, as always are either founded on misunderstandings, ignorance or utter incomprehension or of course their own socio-political attachment to an idea. I have to guess that for those whose only real understanding of the issues involved comes from their politics, that every other argument has to look political.
(a) For the better part of the last ten years the genetic data has consistently pointed away from the old classic races having real utility for scientific inquiry into populations, on a biological basis. Ten years of accumulated science keeps running in the same direction. The old race concept leads to mis-categorization and gets in the way of forming new, better understandings of human population structure. Now some folks seem to be unable to wrap their minds around the nuance of differentiating between populations – defined on objective, biological bases—and the hoary old races. Population differences, however trivial on a macro-basis clearly exist, but they’re not well structured along the old race concept lines.
(b) That leaves race as a sociological concept – which on one level is fine if the researcher or practitioner is aware of the nature of the concept and does not reify it as a coherent biological one. It strikes me that time and time again we’ve seen studies which have pointed again and again to inappropriate treatment, inappropriate categorization of an issue as biological rather than socio-economic/societal (e.g. differing treatments received by black Americans even controlling for economic status.) – in short, generalized bad medicine and bad science caused by the very kind of sloppy thinking that our ‘race is useful’ crowd engages in.
It is very clear to me that the tools and science exists to substantially revamp and improve understanding of human biology and delivery of treatments or health solutions if one discards old 19th century concepts to rebuild a new, more effective and efficient understanding. Of course, as always, as was the case with the penetration of evolutionary thought, our more turgid and conservative – the small c not the capital C as this is less a political issue than one reflecting on the capacity of innovation and critical thought – are disconcerted by the overthrown of comfortable mental compartments and cognitive structures.
Let’s take the hoary old ‘black athletics’ and they just have to be different thing.
What do we see there? Well we see incoherent and irrational ad-hoc arguments for some UR-‘West Africanness’ which expands and contracts around an a priori assertion that the last few decades of New World black sports achievement is ‘extraordinary’ – an undefined term – and ipso facto must be genetically derived. What population basis is there? They share the same phenotype.
Yet our ‘friends’ in all their critical brilliance and analytical clarity, derived the a priori conclusion that blacks – or some ad hoc shifting definition of ‘West African’ which manages to englobe of necessity at least 1/3 to ½ of the very continental population set we know to be the most diverse. Magical thinking, with shifting ad hoc standards.
The counter analysis is very simple:
(a) the balance of the genetic data makes the concept shaky to begin with, it really is just old-fashioned race thinking dressed up in a tatty new dress. (as evidenced that the ‘West African’ argument has cited ‘black’ ‘data’ from North East Africa, from South Africa, etc… In the end, any old darkie will fit into the argument as some ‘proof’ of some kind.
(b) There are simply better means to look at the question. Rigorously, analytically and with due regard to whether the analytical categories are defensible in light of best current data. As has been argued in the past:
i. Phenotype – it may very well be that tropical phenotypes are superior performers for certain kinds of athletic activities. E.g. to my understanding, longer limb to torso ratios may be more efficient in running. Limb – torso ratios are driven by climate, heat really and need to conserve or shed heat. Issue of surface area. No need to imagine a coherent package of alleles for this, multiple packages of the same produce the same result. No a race concept, it is driven by objectively measurable and definable criteria.
ii. Discrete populations – again I and others have consistently pointed to a rather more defensible and coherent focus on discrete populations, e.g. the Kalenjin (if I recall the name) as possible candidates for a package of traits which might lead to ‘genetic’ ‘superiority’ in some sense for some kind of athletic achievement. Reconcilable with the data, and testable. Of course, this is not to be concluded, a priori, as cultural and sociological issues may very well easily explain also. Or both.
iii. Of course simply sociological issues. Somehow Izzy and others ‘just don’t feel’ that this can be the explanation. A position evidently driven by personal ideology and non-rational, if not irrational, gut feeling without any clear rational argumentation. We find time and time again serious macro-level differences in population conditions based on pure socio-cultural differences, diet, habit, etc. so there is no a priori reason to reject the explanation – above all without quantifiable standards. Sorry children, ‘just don’t feel’ without some objective argumentation – not politically driven ad hoc dislike for macro-level differences being driven by group sociological differences
Oh but Izzy old man wants to keep open the “possibility.” Well fine, if one desires to be thorough, we can not the percentages – possibilities which are data based and not based on the politically driven “feeling” of someone who doesn’t like the concept of population differences driven by cultural and socio-economic differences, regardless of data. We have a low percentage possibility given distributions and what is known about populations. However, the probabilities point towards other explanations. When our dear lovers of old 19th century thinking can come up with some robust science on the matter, then my opinion will change.
And here is a * perfect* example of what I am speaking of. Izzy “feels” he knows enough about the nexus of genetics and sociological factors in society to say that sociologically driven differences are “not even remotely possible.” A wonderfully data driven conclusion. Oh wait, I’m sorry – there’s no data in there, there’s only a politically driven a priori presumption.
No, my dear fellow, however incapable one may be in regards to understanding and processing new information, there are ** data driven** reasons to favor one explanation over another. As we have covered ad nauseum in the past. And as I am not inclined to waste my time once more, I shall simply note that the full extent of your argument has been and remains that you simply don’t “think” or “feel” – the latter verb rather more accurately describing the level and depth of understanding and analysis that sociological factors on a group level can drive large group differences. No science behind this, just politics.
My contempt for this magical thinking is no doubt clear, all the more so for the fundamentally intellectually bankrupt and dishonest mode of approach adopted, although I suppose one has to forgive native incapacity.
A few recaps of items neglected:
First:
No the assumption the assumption that you are, as a package of genetic traits, likely to be more like another European, is goddamned incorrect as explained ad nauseum in the past. Indeed I ran through this with you previously and am rather disinclined to waste electrons on this. However being cursed with an excessive degree of optimism that light may penetrate the nether regions: With the exception of certain superficial traits – skin color, and phenotypical things like nose, etc. which are climate driven, there is not regionally coherent co-variation. (One may find some more recent disucussion here http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=123505 wherein I cited the quite recent paper Chiara Romualdi et al “Patterns of Human Diversity, within and among Continents, Inferred from Biallelic DNA Polymorphisms” Genome Vol. 12, Issue 4, 602-612, April 2002 which noted (and this is goddamned primary research not bloody op ed pieces
Fucking PC nonsense, eh what? Motherfucking rot. When I see my dear ‘friends’ drop their goddamned semantical games, their ifs and buts and mumble mumble but I know race when I see it nattering on ignorantly and rather come up to the argument with some actual goddamned factual argumentation, then I’ll start taking my dear ‘friends’ arguments seriously.
Returning to the argument then: Even those traits derive from multiple alleles such that the same, more or less, skin color can not be said to mean that the persons ipso facto even share the same alleles for that phenotype. Different paths to the same surface expression.
Further, as cited in the goddamned article above (both actually), a mere 10-15% of the overall package of our genetic diversity varies by region. 90% varies on an individual basis: what that means Izzy is around 90% of your variation is individual and the remainder is regional such that 90% of the difference in between any two humans does not map unto whatever regional grouping one may want. I rather despair of you understanding this given the number of times you have had the occasion, if one engages in a flight of fanciful optimist to presume it was taken, to ponder this and let it sink in. I suppose this entire conversation is a fine testament to the power of reified ideas, which the uncritical mind is unable to grapple with and engage. I am reminded of the struggles of the untalented in language when they encounter usages in actual language usage outside of the set piece definitions and usages they learn in their basic primer. The smoke and grinding of wheels is depressing as cognitive dissonance kicks in.
Second:
On one further point, perhaps I can alleviate, although this is an exercise in such sheer optimism as to really call into question my judgement on these matters, some ignorance on the matter of % differences in populations and the Chimp to Human comparison.
Apples and goddamned oranges. First, the percentages are not describing the same thing. With the Chimp – Human comparison we have fixed differences, e.g. 23 versus 24 chromos – whole extra in there. Recall, on this basis of comparison we can be said to share 25% of our genome with starfish goddamnit. Human to Human is comparing another scale on inter-human variation – see above if you have not been able to hold that thought – where we have ** no damned private alleles** (excepting some few rare mutations in micro-pops) and no fixed differences between populations (ex-X versus Y chromo of course, nice little species level gender diff.) Apples and goddamned oranges. But I distinctly recall myself, Edwino and others explaining this point [these points actually, and rather better. Too busy now, not doing myself any good wasting electrons on this anyway] ad nausuem in the past, again until I feel like puking, to the very same people.
I see that you have taken it upon yourself to read the article - thank you for this. Your assessment of it is decidedly negative - basically, you seem to be dismissing it as junk science, best as I can tell. The question that I have is how to reconcile this with its author being an (apparently) well respected researcher in the field - "a leading population geneticist " according to the NYT. Also, according to the article, the scientific principles that he uses were agreed to by all involved, including his the deputy editor of the NEJM. I’m wondering if there is some simple explanation that I’m missing. Because frankly, you are beginning to come across as some sort of fanatic with regards to this issue. Which would be a shame, as you would lose significant credibility, at least to me. And I have hitherto tended to rely on your scientific pronouncements and found you useful in this regard, despite your obnoxious manner.
With regards to your additional comments: not much new, I’m afraid. You should disabuse yourself of the notion - which pervades your entire post - and many of your previous posts FTM - that the fact of your having said something makes it an established truth with which no one may disagree - it does not.
It’s odd that you would waste so much time agitating over my use of the term “feel”. As in “I do feel that I am familiar enough” etc. It’s hard to imagine that you are unfamiliar with the usage of this term in common English, and your harping and distortions with regards to its interpretation do not speak well of you. And this quote: “Izzy “feels” he knows enough about the nexus of genetics and sociological factors in society” is also a distortion.
Here you have probably failed to understand my statement. I was noting that no one had - to my knowledge - introduced any actual evidence that there were actual environmental/cultural/sociological factors (as opposed to the theoretical possibility of such factors) which favored AA athletes. Their existence was speculative. Thus those who would dismiss the genetic possibility based on the notion that no specific genetic factors are known to exist might apply this same standard to the sociological factors as well.
I notice that you keep babbling in this regard about data, as if to imply that there is some data which points to these factors. If you have ever pointed this out before I must have missed it - but don’t hold yourself back now.
As for my reasons for being skeptical of sociological factors, I’ve discussed them in prior threads - that has not been the focus of this thread.
Your final paragraph was really the only interesting part of your post. I don’t recall having discussed this issue before, though its possible that I may have forgotten. It’s a shame that you couldn’t elaborate due to the fact that you feel like puking. Sometimes people in your situation feel better after they do puke - perhaps you can return to it then.
Junk science is a term which is beloved of neo-con comic book writers who wish to dismiss materials they don’t like.
My comments indicate I feel Risch has confused two different issues, that his analysis is not a convincing read of the data on his larger point, although – as I noted although this evidently escaped you – he has points in re the issue of public health and a more sophisticated use of ethnicity for practioners in the near-term for on the ground health issues (with the caveats I, Edwino and Dseid already noted, if you can keep track of all this).
Junk science, then is a political term. My assessement was based on his argumentation and logic. It strikes me as faulty and rather too US-centric.
Missing something? Sure, your inability to understand critical approaches to a text outside of the political framework you set up.
And?
Then bring something to the table besides arguments from ignorance.
I’m quite tired of this being a game of people regurgitating the same poorly formed and informed crap.
I am familiar with the usage, I was using it to emphasize that your arguments derive from a priori conclusions in regards to the subject rather than a data driven approach.
What was introduced was evidence – the arguments are linked – that socio-cultural factors have real and large influences, and combined with the overall structure of diversity, the a priori conclusion that there must be a “genetic” explanation (assuming we’re refering to something nice spanky and special about them niggs) is not well supported. See below.
I suppose it might be possible to hope that you may grasp that the argument is
(a) Not that there are not genetic factors involved, period but rather describing AA dominance in terms of a group genetic difference as derived from some Ur-“West African” descent does not match known data and that the hypothesis, as such, fails to reconcile with the data. In prior threads I advanced examples of means to engage phenotype etc. based advantages of the population in a scientific manner, in a manner reconcilable with the data. Evidently this continues to escape the comprehension of folks who like nice simplistic answers. I note my annoyance that none of self-same participants managed to sit back and think about the sample softball I lobbed them and come back to the data with some kind of revamped argument. No, just the same old same old.
(b) The second part of the argument was that the cavalier dismissal – you will note your a priori conclusions above – runs against studies and data cited from analagous situations where group sociological differences have resulted in significant objectively measurable achievement rates etc. As such, the position that AA achievement must be explained by some group genetic difference again
Indeed you must have, review the fucking threads as I’ve already wasted my time pointing out for the umpteenth time your confusion in regards to (a) nature of variation and why two individual from two diff. regional groups are as likely to ressemble eachother more than two from the same on an overall variation basis and (b) the diff. between the Chimp and the Human distance measurement. I don’t feel like holding your damned hand: btw see the damned linked threads if you wish to locate where you had the opp to see the materials before. You did manage to earlier recall I had, what did you say, vigorously argued…
Yes, a priori politically driven conclusions.
I’m quite ready to treat with respect something fact based with due regard to the data. I’ll say it again, when you and your comrades start coming to the table with data, with original science, then I can see taking you seriously. I’ve had enough of hand waving sophistry.
Bother, I have to get this damned project out in any event. I sign off then.
Continually going on and on about how right you are, how dense your opponents are, and how frustrated you are that people won’t see your incredible correctness has not gotten you much to this point, and is not likely to accomplish much in the future. Possibly therapeutic, though that does not seem to be the case here. I would suggest that you pay more attention to what people are actually saying and try to respond in a logical manner. But maybe that’s just not your style.
I am not inclined to try to argue out the details of your various gibberings this time, having no reason to believe that you will pay attention or follow a logical train of thought more now than you have until now. (If anyone else thinks that Col has made any valid points in his preceding post, point them out and I will respond). But I will comment on your newest distortion, i.e. your comment that “describing AA dominance in terms of a group genetic difference as derived from some Ur-“West African” descent does not match known data and that the hypothesis, as such, fails to reconcile with the data”. I have never attempted to do this - you seem to have me confused with someone else.
Regarding your wasting time with my confusion etc. I must disappoint you here - I remember some things that you’ve said and not others, strange as that may seem to you. In this instance, I remember a), not b). I’m not desperate enough to search for it - if you happen to remember where it is I’ll look it up.
If that is what you meant, then i did misunderstand.
How do they not logically account for 100% of the results? are you basing this on actual data or your gut feelings? It is true that more athletic people would have more athletic children, in general, but i fail to see a correlation that it extends to an entire race.
Sounds reasonable. It seems that edwino is taking a more radical position, but we’ll see how (and if) he responds.
I think that the better view is that human races are very rough and fuzzy categories, but that this does not logically exclude the possibility of average group genetic differences (outside of “defining” differences).
**
I agree that breeds of dogs is a special case. (Note that I also mentioned the case of dogs versus wolves.)
But I think my point is valid - that the reasoning of edwino does not seem to apply universally.
**
By using the word “average,” I was trying to imply (perhaps not as clearly as possible) that I was interested in the “expected” genetic distance, i.e. the statistical mean genetic distance if the experiment was done many many times.
So, the question is whether the average genetic distance between many pairs of random Caucasions would be measurably lower than the average genetic distance between many pairs composed of one random Caucasian and one random Black.
Significantly different? Basically the same? Whaddya think?
**
Well, this is much more defensible ground, even if it leaves you open to the charge that your argument applies to one and only one case.
**
I don’t buy it, but I’m open to being convinced. Has anyone quantified “reproductive isolation”? I’d love to see a graph that compares reproductive isolation to time and reproductive isolation of humans to other species.
Also, it seems to me that your argument would require abandonment of the concept of smaller human populations, for example ethnic groups.
**
Well, I’m sure we agree about a lot. I’ll certainly agree that the traditional races are a somewhat fuzzy concept. (perhaps not very, very fuzzy!!)
By “actual data,” do you mean the results of controlled experiments? Or do observations and published analyses of real-world events count too? Does “gut feelings” include common sense and reason?
Applying common sense and reason to the studies, analyses, observations, and arguments I have seen here and elsewhere, the cultural/sociological/etc. explanations I have seen for black dominance in short-distance running are just not credible (insofar as they attempt to explain 100% of the disparity).
**
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Would you care to elaborate?
Depends on what the common sense is. I could define common sense as saying that blacks are inferior because they seem to have less doctors. Can’t be socio-economic-cultural factors, that doesn’t explain 100% of the disparity. (Do i even need a disclaimer that that is not my real beliefs???)
That was simple Mendelian genetics, inherited traits and all that, good runners begot good runners. But the good runners trait isn’t universal to blacks, or even universal in blacks.
And indeed this judgement would be the one to make from your perspective, if this happened to be your considered opinion and no better data/evidence was available. Of course others might arrive at different conclusions, but from an objective standpoint one opinion would be as valid as another.
How else would you define common sense, and how else would you propose drawing a conclusion in such a circumstance? (Don’t get hung up on the technical details of the situation described - I’m just responding to your example).
I really don’t understand you. What do you mean “define” common sense? Certainly some people draw unreasonable conclusions from available information. At times, some people draw reasonable but incorrect conclusions from the available information.
That doesn’t mean that common sense and reason are useless. In fact, scientists use common sense and reason all the time to draw conclusions from data; to decide how and whether to structure studies, etc.
No, you can access the article, and download a pdf file, with a free trial subscription (one month).
If you have trouble accessing it, let me know and I can e-mail you the pdf.
From a very quick scan of the article (I haven’t had time to really read it) I would say that Collounsbury’s assessment of it is probably valid (based on an equally quick scan of his synopsis).
There is a lot interesting here, and I wish I could respond. I have to clone a gene by the end of the week, so unfortunately I do not have time. I will try to catch up next week (I go out of town this weekend). Please do not think I am abandoning you all.
Just a quick word to lucwarm about dog breeds. There are a number of things to be said about dog breeds. I had a professor once tell me that human intervention positively selected certain dominant and codominant alleles at perhaps as few as 20 loci in different dog breeds. No cite. So mutations were brought together and these are what we see as breeds. In this respect, the situation is quite analogous to my feelings on race. The mutations of interest are constantly selected for, and the rest of the genome is allowed to diverge with no restraint. In the dachshund, you would see restricted alleles at the big ear locus, at the short leg locus, the coat color locus, and the long body locus (to be very general). The other loci controlling intelligence, athletic prowess, whatever, would be totally unrestrained.
But, this is not what has happened in dog breeding. As Tamerlane pointed out, there has been active human intervention. Humans learned early on how to fix allelic frequencies to limit genetic variation in a population: interbreeding. This is necessary to create a true breeding dog. All breeds are heavily interbred. This fixes allelic frequency not only at the coat color locus, but throughout the genome. We see by-products of this as deleterious traits found in the most heavily pedigreed dog breeds. Hip dysplasias, gut problems, kidney problems, hell even narcolepsy in some dog breeds, are present because deleterious recessive mutations were homozygosed in consanginous breedings. A champion bitch is bred with her champion father. The offspring are also champions, and most of the breed is descended from this. So you get beautiful Dobermans, but they fall asleep whenever they get too excited.
So, yes, dog breeds are an interesting genetic phenomenon because there are several things going on here. And they have little relevance to the human situation.
My position on subspecies is identical, as far as I can tell, to Tamerlane’s presented opinions. Yes, there is a difference – but the difference is only morphology. If the two subspecies interbreed all the time, there is genetic flow between the two subspecies which makes them genetically indistinguishable. IMHO they are of the same class.
Maybe so, you seem to be qualifying, i.e. limiting the application of, your earlier position.
Before, you seemed to be saying that if two groups of creatures are interfertile, then the distinction between them does not exist as a “biological reality.”
Now, you seem to be saying that that this reasoning does not apply to breeds of dogs. I see why you say that dogs are different from people, but I don’t see why this should exempt them from your blanket statements.
I also notice that you didn’t address the question of the distinction between dogs and wolves. It seems to me that your argument about dog breeds does not apply at all here.
**
If two subspecies are “of the same class,” is that the same thing as saying that the distinction “does not exist as a biological reality”?
):