Human races after all!?! --- What now?

Great Debates
161

lucwarm: Okay, here’s a fun one for you. Just came across this as I was poking around the net for information on the tetraplod Red Viscacha Rat to see if it was the result of a hybridization event or not ( believe it or not these conversations do occasionally stir up my intellectual curiosity a bit :wink: ).

This fellow in the course of discussing changes in chromosome numbers among animals and their relation to speciation, hypothesizes that maybe Homo sapiens were created by a translocation event. In other words, we never had an interfertile connections with any other hominid group, but instead are the result of a mutation - founder effect - sibling inbreeding. Not sure if I buy his argument ( for one thing, I’m not certain if we know when that translocation event occurred in the hominid line ), but if he were right, it would shoot Dawkins argument down and sever your putative human/blue whale connecection right then and there ;).

At the very least it shows how we can’t assume that continuously interfertile line of connections.

Some relevant quotes ( I think this is limited enough to fit under the “Fair Use” wire, but it’s a shortish “mailbag”-type answer, so if a moderator feels otherwise please edit or delete ) :

*Translocation is what happens when two chromosomes that are not part of a pair get stuck together as if they were a pair, and exchange segments. If the segments that get exchanged are large enough, you can have most of both chromosomes moved onto one single chromosome…

This is probably what happened during the evolution of the apes. All three species have very similar chromosomes, but humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have 24 pairs. Each end of human chromosome number 2 (the second largest human chromosome) looks very similar to the long end of a pair of gorilla or chimpanzee chromosomes, suggesting that the common ancestor of these three species had 24 chromosomes and that humans lost one chromosome due to translocation sometime in the six million years that have passed since that ancestral species lived…

What happens when you have a translocated chromosome or an extra non-disjoined chromosome, and most of the hybrid offspring with your non-translocated relatives are sterile, or even completely inviable? In that case, the only candidates you have to mate with are your siblings and your own offspring, and your offspring with their siblings and their offspring. In this case, the only solution, the only way to successfully reproduce, is by inbreeding.

This is probably what happened early in the evolution of our own species. If you look at the estimates of genetic diversity for our own species and compare these values to our closest relatives, the gorillas and chimpanzees, you will see that the entire human population, all six billion of us, have about the same genetic diversity as a population of chimpanzees. Even though it might seem like we are all very different from one another, genetically, we are a very highly inbred species, probably in part because our most distant ancestors had no one to breed with but their close relatives. *

From:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2001/989331026.Ev.r.html

  • Tamerlane
162

Well, if this point applies to the human-blue whale connection, it also applies to the human-chimp connection, right?

Well, I’m not sure why your discussing plants all of a sudden. Here is the question on the table:

And honestly, it would be better to substitute “mammal” for “animal.”

But the bottom line is this: You seem to be saying that the human/chimp connection is qualitatively different than the human/blue whale connection. Besides the fact that the common ancestor is much more remote, what’s the difference?

**

The problem is not incompatibility, since they all reject race. The problem is that they vary a great deal in their breadth; logical consequences; and in what evidence would contradict them.

163

Well, I think it shows that, as Dawkins pointed out, that the lines between species are not as sharp as one might think. That’s why he came up with the example of humans and chimps, no?

**

Well, this is a total hijack but it seems reasonable to me to assume that such chain exists from human to blue whale. Because look: If there’s a group of creatures from species “A,” and then one day a baby is born that belongs to species “B,” and there is no interfertility between A and B, then who the heck is that baby gonna mate with? It seems to me that among creatures that reproduce sexually, there has to be a certain amount of interfertility each step of the way. But feel free to correct me, I’m totally speculating.

164

Ok Tamerlane, I just read your most recent post, and I think I see your point. So the idea is that there are two species - A and B, that are close enough to hybridize, producing creatures in group “C,” who can only reproduce with eachother.

Seems reasonable, but it also seems to me that the lines would be kinda blurry in this situation.

165

I’m not sure why you are talking about a “consistent genetic difference,” since my question had to do with an average genetic advantage.

**

Ok, so your position is that the existence of a genetic advantage does not imply the existence of race. Right?
**

Again, I’m not sure what you mean by “consistent genetic differences,” but as I said before, I imagine what you mean by “no evidence” is is that you haven’t seen any evidence that can’t be explained away culturally/sociologically.
Thus, to the extent that the cultural/sociological explanations fail to account for black dominance in short-distance running (and IMHO, they are pretty lame) there is lots of evidence.

166

I’m not sure what your point is, but it sounds like you are saying that you would still reject the concept of race, even if it were shown that blacks, as a whole, on average, possessed a genetic advantage in short-distance running.

Ok fine.

Now, getting back to the issue:

Earlier, IzzyR said the following:

At this point, you DID NOT say “I agree that even if races aren’t meaningful scientifically, it does not necessarily follow that there is no average genetic advantage in the physical and/or menal abilities of the various (sociologically defined) ‘races.’”

Instead, here’s what you said:

At a minimum, you were saying that the “no race” issue has a bearing on the “genetic advantage” issue.

And by the way, have you yet figured out which of my earlier questions “shift constantly”?

167

I did not see anyone claiming that “Blacks” were a coherent group - the discussion was about why (some) sports were dominated by black athletes. I think the notion that people were claiming there were coherent genetic groups is itself part of a tendency to deliberately interpret any “pro-race” argument as being an argument in favor of coherent genetic groups. And hence, to undermine the possibility of differences by disproving genetic coherency.

Same goes for the Race and Genital Size thread. You will search in vain for a “pro-race” poster claiming there were coherent genetic racial groups. The discussion concerned the possibility of - and evidence for - difference in average size between the (sociologically defined) “races”. But yet the notion of genetic coherency (and later, scientific significance) was the focus of attacks by the “anti-race” posters, first by Collounsbury, and later by Edwino and others. Edwino in particular would not accept denials, persisting in attacking the strawman after it had been specifically disavowed.

Seems to me that we’re going round in a circle here. I (and my worthy colleague lucwarm) object to what we perceive as consistent attempts to downplay the possibility of genetic-based differences by pointing to the fact (agreed upon by all) that there are no genetically coherent races. And we suspect that this is being done (at least in part) to enable the “anti-race” posters to defend a stronger position. You are parrying with the circular argument that this is being done because the possibility of differences (i.e. the “pro-race” position) is being presented in the context of genetic coherency. I don’t think this is true. (Certainly not by me, anyway).

168

I’m not sure what this statement means. I was saying that without a demonstrable genetic connection, you do not have race.

For an analogy:
Picture an intersection with four high schools on the corners: a public school, a Catholic school, a Lutheran school, and a Jewish school. While the parochial schools have only members of their own faith attending, the public school has students of all faiths, including Catholics, Jews, and Lutherans.

In competitions (athletic and scholastic) the public school (drawing on a more diverse population) generally provides the highest scoring individual in any event. The school may not win every meet because other factors come into play and the parochial schools may have the students scoring at various places in the top ten, but the highest scorer is typically from the public school. However, the only thing we can say about any religious categories for the public school students is that they are too diverse to be categorized. We cannot even say that they are not-Jewish, not-Lutheran, or not-Catholic because individuals with those characteristics also attend that school (and Lutherans, Jews, or Catholics attending the public school may happen to be the highest scorers in any event).

This is the analogy to African “race.” The diversity may provide the source of extremes on the bell curve, but it does not allow us to say that the Africans/public school students are a cohesive group.

If it is not biologically or genetically coherent, how do you define it? Who gets to be a member of a group displaying biological attributes (athleticism, size of body parts) if we do not use biological markers?

That may be the crux of the discussions. A question “Why do XXX have YYY?” becomes meaningless the moment that XXX cannot be circumscribed.

A person who is denied housing or a job based on appearances can be described in the context of those appearances. Sociologically, we can look at the features and reactions to those features and draw conclusions.
If we claim that “blacks” are overrepresented in athletic excellence, what have we actually said? Well, we have some really fast sprinters in Nigeria and some really fast marathon runners in Kenya. Are they the same race? Or are they lumped together for different attributes simply because they have dark skin? If I discover that no South African has ever won a marathon or a sprint, does that mean that they are not part of this race? How many races are out there and how do we define them?

I hold that if you are measuring biological phenomena, you need to use biological methods of measurement.

169

What is the relevance of this response? We are discussing whether “anti-race” posters have indeed tried to imply non-existence of genetic advantage from the non-existence (scientifically) of “race”. You previously denied that anyone had done so - now you seem to have shifted to acknowledging but justifying it. Unless I’m misunderstanding you - here’s how I see it:

lucwarm: “No race” seems to mean different things to different people. These differences are important. And if a broad formulation of the concept is used to deny the possibility of a genetic explanation for black dominance in short-distance running; and a weak formulation is what is actually defended in the ensuing debate over whether “race exists,” then there has been a “bait and switch.”
tomndebb:It is not “bait and switch” to note that even finding a genetic component of something does not get us to a race.
lucwarm: That alone is not a “bait and switch.” But if you also argue that the nonexistence of race implies the nonexistence of a genetic advantage, you are guilty guilty guilty.
tomndebb: I have seen no one so argue.
IzzyR: Yes they have, because they keep bringing up “nonexistence of race” in the guise of a response to questions about possible genetic advantage (or difference).
tomndebb: No, they bring it up because of the implied existence of “race” in the genetic advantage argument.
IzzyR: The implied existence of race in these arguments is solely a function of the “anti-race” people insisting that this underlies the “pro-race” argument - which is exactly what the “pro-race” posters are disputing.
tomndebb: But (they are justified in making this assumption because) if you are measuring biological phenomena, you need to use biological methods of measurement.

Are you indeed abandoning your previous position? (If not, what are you arguing - in the context of our discussion - with your previous post?)

170

What are you defining as race?

Are you claiming that there is a race that has no biological component?

Genetic advantage can exist in smaller populations. Races are large populations. Once you have expanded your group beyond the small population that may share a genetic advantage, how do you justify your decision to stop at some arbitrarily larger group? I do not argue that no race carries a genetic advantage because race does not exist. I argue that no race carries a genetic advantage because no genetic advantage permeates any group large enough to justify being called a race.

Your logic would seem to indicate that white people are more susceptible to Tays-Sachs disease. After all, the overwhelming number of Tays-Sachs carriers are white (as much as 100%?). Therefore, whether we are discussing Swedes, Spaniards, Greeks, Armenians, Persians, or Indians, we can pretty much include the information that they are more susceptible to Tays-Sachs because we find most people with the disadvantage of Tays-Sachs among while people.

171

Hmm … a repetition of your previous post, and no answer to my question. Fine, I shall assume that you have indeed retreated from your previous assertion, or at least are unwilling to defend it. As for:

Don’t know why you would ask this - I don’t recall having made any great claims about the existence of race.

The answer is that it is indeed quite obviously true that white people are more susceptible to Tay-Sachs disease. This is a simple factual statement. It is true that this is due to a small subset of this population (i.e. Ashkenazic Jews) being more susceptible. It is also true that within this subset there are those who are susceptible and those who are not. A simple blood test can determine this. An Ashkenazic Jew who has tested negative for the gene that causes Tay-Sachs is no more susceptible to TS than a Swede. However, when looking at the group (AJs) as a whole it is true that the group is more susceptible. And if looking at the larger group (white people) as a whole it is also true that they are more susceptible (than Africans). As a practical matter, an AJ who has not been tested might carry the gene. As a practical matter a white person unsure if he is an AJ or Swede might carry the gene. No difference, from a purely logical standpoint.

172

Well, we have certainly been talking across each other, then.

While technically true, I find the statement “White people are more suscepible to Tays-Sachs” to be utterly meaningless. It does not communicate any actual information and is roughly equivalent to “Americans are more likely to ride horses while herding cattle.” It implies a connection to the larger group that does not exist for well over 99.99% of that group.

We are not having a problem with science or politics; we are using language in utterly different ways.

173

Fine, so we’ve travelled in a full circle, back to your “Truth vs. truth” distinction of the Genital thread. Use language however you wish, as long as it is clear to other people what you mean. You can find such statements to be utterly meaningless, and can point this out at your pleasure. But when you start using the meaningless of things that are “technically true” to imply that they are not in fact technically true (or that they cannot be technically true) I will continue to object.

Examples of things that might be technically true but utterly meaningless include differences in physical or mental characteristics or abilities between (sociologically defined) “races”.

174

I’ve read the recent exchange between IzzyR and tomndebb, and I think that tomndebb’s latest position is a bit of a dodge.

First, I would point out that even if we accept that a genetic advantage is “meaningless,” this does not give rise to an inference that cultural/sociological explanations account for the observed disparity in elite short-distance running.

Second, tomndebb’s most recent position would seem to require misleading answers to simple questions. For example, let’s suppose I asked the following question:

There are several possible answers. You could say “yes.” You could say “yes, but the disparity is the result of the fact that one subgroup of whites is genetically more prone to Tay-Sachs.” You could say “Technically, there may be such a genetic reason, but scientists don’t like to group people in terms of race.” All of these answers would be fine. But if you claimed that the question is meaningless, it obscures the reality of the situation.

Finally, I suspect that “meaningless” is something of an ad hoc label, as I show below.

So is it your position that any generalization which applies to less than 0.01% of the group in question is “utterly meaningless”?

175

Where did I say anything like this?

176

If one says “yes,” s/he is being dishonest by allowing an implication that Tays-Sachs applies to “whites” and not to only the tiny group that is actually affected.

The second answer passes, but still suffers from implying something about “whites” that has nothing to do with"whites" as a group.

The third answer is misleading. It implies that scientists just want to avoid the term without noting that the reason they prefer to avoid it is that it cannot be defined to a useful or meaningful level and that it is, itself, a misleading term.

Give me an example of a generalization that has meaning where the generalization is made of the larger group but that actually applies to less than 0.01% of that group.

177

This does seem to be the crux of the debate now, doesn’t it? I do seem to be in an identical, or nearly so, camp with tomndeb. If you’ll allow me to more or less restate his point…

To me, saying “whites are more likely to get Tay-Sachs disease” isn’t utterly meaningless - It’s just not terribly meaningful ;). As Izzy said, in one sense it is technically correct - But it is also a misleading and information-poor statement. It sets up a false dichotomy by implying there are two groups - all whites and all others. In the context of this disease, that is inaccurate. It is really a tiny number of people who happen to be white and all others, including the vast majority of whites. You are actually obscuring the true situation by using that quotated phrase.

Similarly “blacks may be better at the elite levels of athletics in part because of genetics” has the same problem. The implication is that ALL blacks potentially enjoy this advantage. Which is where the “no race” folks originally came in - Saying that there is no demonstrated genetic coherence ( and all the endless iterations of that argument we have cycled through ) to the huge group of people called blacks would seem to disprove that statement on the face of it. If you instead used a highly qualified statement like, “I believe that the apparent dominance of a few black individuals at the elite level of athletic endeavors, may be due in part to a genetic advantage that those individuals may share.”, you’d be on slightly less challengeable ( but not unchallengeable ) ground. Then if someone asks, “Do you mean you think all blacks have this advantage?”, you can then say “No, I didn’t say that - I said they may enjoy a genetic advantage, I didn’t specify at what level that advantage may have arisen, it could just be a tiny sub-population.” To which they could reply, “what is your evidence?”, to which you can reply, “well it is circumstantial, but here is why I believe it…”. Etc. Grienspace’s later arguments focusing on “West Africans” sort of followed that tack, but here too there seemed to be real evidence arguing against his position and so that one went where it did. I don’t think even the amended statement has a lot going for it at the moment, insomuch as there is no solid evidence for such a position as of yet ( and saying that IYO the sociological argument doesn’t cut it and therefore ipso facto, it must be genetics, is not what I would call solid evidence ). But at least it is a little less easily disproven.

Sematic quibbling? Perhaps. But an important semantic quibble IMO. We may just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Just as a side note lucwarm, I guess I must have been unclear before - But, no, I do not think any discovered “average genetic difference” would necessarily imply the existence of a genetic race. You would need more information than just that one fact alone to convince me. In isolation it is not terribly informative ( IMO ).

  • Tamerlane
178

tomndebb & Tamerlane: What is the fundamental difference between an Ashkenazic Jew who does not carry the TS gene (particularly if they’ve been tested for this) and a non-Jewish White?

179

Izzy: Hmmm…You mean other than the fact that one is Jewish and the other is not?

Well, I dunno - I suppose it depends on what you consider “fundamental”. Maybe nothing at all - Fundamentally, they’re both human beings. On the other hand one could imagine, for example, that since you specifically said the Jewish individual did not carry the Tay-Sachs gene, but said nothing about the non-Jew, the non-Jew might be a carrier. But I don’t know if this is what you are getting at.

  • Tamerlane
180

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. It is widely said and written that Ashkenazic Jews are more subsceptible to TS than others. But if one were to apply the standard that you and Tom are applying to White people as a whole, this statement would also be meaningless, or “misleading and information-poor” & “inaccurate”. Because the AJ population is made up of individuals, some of whom are no more sunsceptible to the disease than non-members of this population. And in some cases this is known information. The acceptance of the validity of the statement “Ashkenazic Jews are more subsceptible to TS than others” is an acceptance of the concept of grouping disparate people into a larger group and making generalizations about the larger group that does not apply to many (the overwhelming majority, in this case) of the members. So I don’t see why you would suddenly, when dealing with the larger group of White People, insist that any grouping that failed to differentiate among the different subgroups is not acceptable.