If "there's no such thing as race," is there such a thing as gender?

[Blake]

Has anyone failed to notice that Chen has now three times avoided ansewring a really simple question?

Hey, Chen, how about answering the question?

According to your scheme are Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians are all the same race?

Or are you now going to move the goalposts once again, and tell use that, despite all those nationalities having the exact same continental ancestry, they are not the same race at all?

See, this is what Chen always does. He makes a claim that race = continental ancestry. Then when we point out how ridiculous it is to lump Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden. Mahatma Gandhi and Bruce Lee into the same race, he then squirms away and tells us that race isn’t “about continental ancestry” at all, it’s about some other manner of categorisation.

Or perhaps he will try the old favourite of claiming that only Chinese are “True Asians”, and that the rest don’t put sugar in their porridge. Errr, I mean the rest are transitional groups between “True Asians” and other races. Considering that those others, and people indistinguishable from them, occupy land that makes up ~75% of the continent, such a claim is amusing to say the least. Any scheme that fails to map onto 3/4 of the designated area is hardly reconcilable to the “geographically distinct” group" that Chen claims that these races are.
Reply With Quote

[Semjaazah]

@Chen019

No, they both involve subjective labelling based on “actual biology.” Of course you could say that oceans, mountains and other labels used in nature are subjective.

Also, what about race as used in biology for other species? Is that “pseudo science”?

Quite a nice quote from the first page “Because it’s all grey area. Unless you can point to specific attributes that define someone as one race or another (like if all Caucasians had genes A, B and C, and no non-caucasians had those genes), there’s no real way to prove that two different caucasians are in fact of the same race, and not just members of two similar races.”

I’m not a geneticist or evolutionary biologist so I’m not going to pretend to be, or start talking gene markers, chromosomal differences etc.

One thing I will say. My father is of Carribean descent, at some point african ancestry but with european (scottish) inter-marriage as well also. My mother is apparently of Irish heritage. The mother of my child is of carribean descent and also chinese descent. What race am I? What race is my daughter? I can tell you that I’m certainly male and my daughter is certainly female. Mixed-race chinese-scottish-irish-barbadian-dominiquan sounds a little silly to me. Think I’ll stick with human being instead of arbitrary locational labels.

As for race as applied to the flora and fauna of the world, that is just an arbitrary term used to separate perceptually different populations of the same species, not even necessarily a sub-species. As such it’s a completely unnecessary and superficial differentiation which is only perceptually useful. The social concept of race is so far removed from this meaning that it barely even necessitates serious discussion.

[Chen019]

@Semjaazah

One thing I will say. My father is of Carribean descent, at some point african ancestry but with european (scottish) inter-marriage as well also. My mother is apparently of Irish heritage. The mother of my child is of carribean descent and also chinese descent. What race am I? What race is my daughter? I can tell you that I’m certainly male and my daughter is certainly female. Mixed-race chinese-scottish-irish-barbadian-dominiquan sounds a little silly to me. Think I’ll stick with human being instead of arbitrary locational labels.

Mixed race/ancestry obviously (see the bone marrow exampleI gave above which is a practical example that the labels do roughly reflect underlying biology as does gender). As I pointed out a few pages back (either this thread or the one in the Pit) looking at literature on races in other species the existence of mixed populations isn’t evidence that there are no races. After all you’re not talking about separate species.

[Blake]

Hey, Chen, how about answering the question?

According to your scheme are Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians are all the same race?

Or are you now going to move the goalposts once again, and tell use that, despite all those nationalities having the exact same continental ancestry, they are not the same race at all?

See, this is what Chen always does. He makes a claim that race = continental ancestry. Then when we point out how ridiculous it is to lump Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden. Mahatma Gandhi and Bruce Lee into the same race, he then squirms away and tells us that race isn’t “about continental ancestry” at all, it’s about some other manner of categorisation.

Or perhaps he will try the old favourite of claiming that only Chinese are “True Asians”, and that the rest don’t put sugar in their porridge. Errr, I mean the rest are transitional groups between “True Asians” and other races. Considering that those others, and people indistinguishable from them, occupy land that makes up ~75% of the continent, such a claim is amusing to say the least. Any scheme that fails to map onto 3/4 of the designated area is hardly reconcilable to the “geographically distinct” group" that Chen claims that these races are.

[Chen019]

Have you even read my last post?

btw. How about you explain how I have misrepresented Risch?

[Blake]

@Chen019

Have you even read my last post?

Yes, I did.

Now how about answering the question?

According to your scheme are Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians are all the same race?

Or are you now going to move the goalposts once again, and tell use that, despite all those nationalities having the exact same continental ancestry, they are not the same race at all?

See, this is what Chen always does. He makes a claim that race = continental ancestry. Then when we point out how ridiculous it is to lump Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden. Mahatma Gandhi and Bruce Lee into the same race, he then squirms away and tells us that race isn’t “about continental ancestry” at all, it’s about some other manner of categorisation.

Or perhaps he will try the old favourite of claiming that only Chinese are “True Asians”, and that the rest don’t put sugar in their porridge. Errr, I mean the rest are transitional groups between “True Asians” and other races. Considering that those others, and people indistinguishable from them, occupy land that makes up ~75% of the continent, such a claim is amusing to say the least. Any scheme that fails to map onto 3/4 of the designated area is hardly reconcilable to the “geographically distinct” group" that Chen claims that these races are.
Reply With Quote

[Chen019]

See, this is what Chen always does. He makes a claim that race = continental ancestry. Then when we point out how ridiculous it is to lump Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden. Mahatma Gandhi and Bruce Lee into the same race, he then squirms away and tells us that race isn’t “about continental ancestry” at all, it’s about some other manner of categorisation.

No, I’ve actually provided you with various definitions of race/sub species and asked why these wouldn’t apply to the species homo sapiens. The continental ancestry definition is one used by Risch et al in their paper I linked above. You have claimed I misrepresented Risch, but have cravenly avoided explaining how.

Another definition I’ve provided you with was from the Turtle taxonomy reference.

““We propose that subspecies classification, if used, should describe the major patterns of variation found within a species. A precise definition of “major” is elusive, but the formal subspecific description of small, isolated populations, particularly in low vagility species, should be avoided unless there is strong reason to do otherwise. This could avoid the proliferation of named forms of small, isolated populations such as occurred with pocket gophers in western North America (Smith and Patton (1988). (Bickham (2007). Turtle Taxonomy: Methodology, Recommendations, and Guideline).”

I then suggested to you that such major variations can be seen in the major branches discussed by McEvoy et al 2010:

The tree divides the populations into five broad groups: African, East Asian, West Eurasian (European, Middle Eastern, and Central and South Asian populations), American, and Oceanic.

I also noted that the question of what the major patterns of variation are could be open to endless debate (see the Turtle Taxonomy: Methodology, Recommendations, and Guideline).

These problems aren’t unique to discussions regarding humans and isn’t new. The lumper/splitter issue was noted by Cavalli-Sforza & Walter Bodmer in the 1970’s.

[Blake]

Has anyone failed to notice that Chen has now six times avoided answering a really simple question?

Hey, Chen, how about answering the question?

You told us that races objectively map onto continental ancestry. Well, Asia is a continent, and Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians all have Asian ancestry.

So, according to your scheme are Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians all the same race?

Or are you now going to move the goalposts once again, and tell use that, despite all those nationalities having the exact same continental ancestry, they are not the same race at all?

See, this is what Chen always does. He makes a claim that race = continental ancestry. Then when we point out how ridiculous it is to lump Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden. Mahatma Gandhi and Bruce Lee into the same race, he then squirms away and tells us that race isn’t “about continental ancestry” at all, it’s about some other manner of categorisation.

Or perhaps he will try the old favourite of claiming that only Chinese are “True Asians”, and that the rest don’t put sugar in their porridge. Errr, I mean the rest are transitional groups between “True Asians” and other races. Considering that those others, and people indistinguishable from them, occupy land that makes up ~75% of the continent, such a claim is amusing to say the least. Any scheme that fails to map onto 3/4 of the designated area is hardly reconcilable to the “geographically distinct” group" that Chen claims that these races are.

I really love this behavior Chen. Nothing can possibly discredit your position faster than watching you go through these contortions to avoid answering a simple question.

Please keep it up.

[Chen019]

Has anyone noticed that Blake:makes allegations and then when challenged, cravenly avoids to back them up?

Onto your question:

You told us that races objectively map onto continental ancestry. Well, Asia is a continent, and Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians all have Asian ancestry.

So, according to your scheme are Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians all the same race

No, the continental ancestry term is used by Risch et al below. If you read the paper they explain their position here:

For the purpose of this article, we define racial groups on the basis of the primary continent of origin, as discussed above (with some modifications described below). ..

The continental definitions of race and ancestry need some modification, because it is clear that migrations have blurred the strict continental boundaries. For example, individuals currently living in South Africa, although currently Africans, have very different ancestry, race and ethnicity depending on the ancestry of their forbears (for example from Europe or Asia) and the degree to which they have remained endogamous. For our purposes here, on the basis of numerous population genetic surveys, we categorize Africans as those with primary ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa; this group includes African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans. Caucasians include those with ancestry in Europe and West Asia, including the Indian subcontinent and Middle East; North Africans typically also are included in this group as their ancestry derives largely from the Middle East rather than sub-Saharan Africa. ‘Asians’ are those from eastern Asia including China, Indochina, Japan, the Philippines and Siberia. By contrast, Pacific Islanders are those with indigenous ancestry from Australia, Papua New Guinea, Melanesia and Micronesia, as well as other Pacific Island groups further east. Native Americans are those that have indigenous ancestry in North and South America. Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level.

I would suggest the groups outlined by McEvoy would be consistent with various definitions of sub-species or race as discussed in my post above:

The tree divides the populations into five broad groups: African, East Asian, West Eurasian (European, Middle Eastern, and Central and South Asian populations), American, and Oceanic.

[Chen019]

Sorry, here is the rest of the Risch et al comment in which they explain continental ancestry

With this as background, it is not surprising that numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion - that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis. ..

Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American. …

[Blake]

Has anyone failed to notice that Chen has now seven times avoided answering a really simple question?

Hey, Chen, how about answering the question?

You told us that races objectively map onto continental ancestry. Well, Asia is a continent, and Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians all have Asian ancestry.

So, according to your scheme are Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians all the same race?

Or are you now going to move the goalposts once again, and tell use that, despite all those nationalities having the exact same continental ancestry, they are not the same race at all?

See, this is what Chen always does. He makes a claim that race = continental ancestry. Then when we point out how ridiculous it is to lump Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden. Mahatma Gandhi and Bruce Lee into the same race, he then squirms away and tells us that race isn’t “about continental ancestry” at all, it’s about some other manner of categorisation.

Or perhaps he will try the old favourite of claiming that only Chinese are “True Asians”, and that the rest don’t put sugar in their porridge. Errr, I mean the rest are transitional groups between “True Asians” and other races. Considering that those others, and people indistinguishable from them, occupy land that makes up ~75% of the continent, such a claim is amusing to say the least. Any scheme that fails to map onto 3/4 of the designated area is hardly reconcilable to the “geographically distinct” group" that Chen claims that these races are.

I really love this behavior Chen. Nothing can possibly discredit your position faster than watching you go through these contortions to avoid answering a simple question.

Please keep it up.

[Chen019]

Err, I just pointed to the rest of Risch et al’s comment explaining continental ancestry in the context of their paper. You will see that Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians are not all the same race.

What do you think of my suggestion regarding McEvoy?

[Blake]

This is just ignorant beyond belief.

[QUOTE=Chen019]
If you’re talking about continental ancestry… [races map to human populations].
[/quote]

@Chen019

Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians are not all the same race.

So races are human populations that map to continental ancestry .
And Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians are a human population with the exact same continental ancestry.
But Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians are not all the same race.

Does anybody give this poster any credit at all? He can’t even keep his story straight.

The only reason i even keep bothering with this thread is that the more Chen posts, the more ridiculous his position becomes, and the more apparent itis that he has no idea what the hell he is talking about.

Oh, and it’s funny as hell of course.

He utterly discredits himself by evading simple questions for a dozen posts, then he is finally forced to answer, and the answer proves beyond any doubt that he doesn’t even understand his own references.

Keep up the good work Chen. You are making the argument for our side wonderfully.

[Chen019]

@Blake

This is just ignorant beyond belief.

So races are human populations that map to continental ancestry .

I have explained to you that is how Risch et al put it in their paper.

Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American.

As you have helpfully pointed out the term continental isn’t quite accurate as they group east asians separately from caucasions.

As reasonably people can hopefully see, is they are referring to the evolutionary history of the species and the major groups that have arisen as Lahn & Ebenstein put it here this tends to relate to geographic separation:

Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas9. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees…

Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography5. Indeed, a person’s major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/box/461726a_BX1.html

Again, I would suggest this is consistent with the race or sub species concept put forth by Coyne above, along with that used by O’Brien & Mahr, or set out here.

““We propose that subspecies classification, if used, should describe the major patterns of variation found within a species. A precise definition of “major” is elusive, but the formal subspecific description of small, isolated populations, particularly in low vagility species, should be avoided unless there is strong reason to do otherwise. This could avoid the proliferation of named forms of small, isolated populations such as occurred with pocket gophers in western North America (Smith and Patton (1988). (Bickham (2007). Turtle Taxonomy: Methodology, Recommendations, and Guideline).”

btw. the reference to “our side” is a bit of a giveaway. Ideology probably precludes rational discussion of this subject in relation to humans as opposed to other species.

[tomndebb]

@Chen019

Mixed race/ancestry obviously (see the bone marrow exampleI gave above which is a practical example that the labels do roughly reflect underlying biology as does gender). As I pointed out a few pages back (either this thread or the one in the Pit) looking at literature on races in other species the existence of mixed populations isn’t evidence that there are no races. After all you’re not talking about separate species.

And, once more, you point to cases where funneling has occurred through founder effect in North America rather than actually demonstrating that the “race” notion has any validity. I note, for example, that while your article uses the word “race” a lot, the one clear example provided of someone with a problem based on ancestry lists the ancestors as “Japanese, Italian, Armenian, Egyptian and Greek.” However, that is, by your definition of “race,” a simple two race construct with Japanese/Asian on one side and “Caucasian” on the other. If the issue was actually “race,” (rather than the genuine issue of multiple smaller ethnic populations), there would be no need to mention “Italian, Armenian, Egyptian and Greek” separately.

[tomndebb]

@Blake

Has anyone failed to notice that Chen has now seven times avoided answering a really simple question?

Hey, Chen, how about answering the question?

You told us that races objectively map onto continental ancestry. Well, Asia is a continent, and Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians all have Asian ancestry.

So, according to your scheme are Russians, Chinese, Indians, Kazakhis, Saudis and Indonesians all the same race?

Enough.

You have made your point. Continuing to repeat this begins to look a lot more like stalking than debate.

Move on.

[ /Moderating ]

[Blake]

@Chen019

As you have helpfully pointed out the term continental isn’t quite accurate as they group east asians separately from caucasions.

Neither East Asia nor the Caucasus are continents on any conceivable sense of the word.

So once again, you have blatantly and grossly misrepresented a reference, by claiming that the reference grouped humans according to continental origin when it does nothing of the sort.

As I said earlier, I have no idea whether you do this deliberately or because you have no ability to understand the most fundamental concepts that scientific literature is conveying.

And it doesn’t really matter. This is the third paper that you have been shown to have grossly misrepresented in this thread alone. You have a history of doing so in multiple past threads You simply have no credibility left at all.

Why you misrepresent your references is rather irrelevant. All that matter sis that you can not be trusted in any way to accurately convey the information in the literature without distorting it. You have no credibility, and since your argument hinges upon false interpretations of the literature, your argument is also shown to be incorrect.

But as I say, please keep posting. The more you do, the less chance there is that anybody at all will possibly have any respect for your position.

[Blake]

@tomndebb

Enough.

You have made your point. Continuing to repeat this begins to look a lot more like stalking than debate.

Move on.

[ /Moderating ]

So we now have a new Mod ruling that is someone clearly and plainly refuses to answer a question, and instead makes non-responsive references to what others have said, we are not allowed to ask the same question again.

We just have to pretend that the question has been answered, even though it clearly has not.

Interesting precedent, and one that I look forward to seeing enforced on all posters.

[Semjaazah]

These people who obsess over race evidently have an agenda which is masked by poor science and misrepresentation of any work regarding genetics or social constructions of race which can be manipulated to fit their spin.

I don’t see any attempts to debate with them in a logical and structured manner as being at all effective; their ideological commitment to this pseudo-scientific thinking and their interpretation of it’s effect in the world is probably going to preclude any acceptance of rigid logic or good scientific method which blatantly contradicts their perceptions of the world. No, as long as there are papers that can be misapplied, and spurious circular logic to hide behind, the shadows on the wall of the cave are going to look all too real.

[MrDibble]

@Chen019

See definitions provided above (eg. O’Brien & Mayr 1991). See those used in the thread on a meaningful biological definition of race.

I must be missing something - can you point to where in those cites is a “precise, objective definition for racial categories”? Not seeing it. Lots of stuff on what race is, not so much on what the actual categories are, with the “precise, objective” criteria for inclusion actually listed. Just lots of “well, I know them when I see them wink” bullshit.

**LIST THE CRITERIA. HERE. IN THIS THREAD. IN YOUR OWN WORDS. **

There are also a number of definitions for species too btw. You could look at how the concept is applied generally. Above you tried to assert that these could not apply to humans, but I responded why I think your objections don’t stand up.

And I replied to you.

Again, here’s the definition Jerry Coyne used:

Another from the definition thread:

And has Jerry Coyne ever used a subspecies classification for any modern human besides Homo sapiens sapiens in a paper? Because if not, citing him is irrelevant bullshit. This is, after all, someone who thinks that human subspecies exist, yet in the same fucking cite says “nor do I think there is a finite and easily delimitable number of human races.” :smack: Talk about cognitive dissonance. Biology 101 - if you can’t delimit them or assign a finite number, they’re not distinct enough to be subspecies.

Find me the cite of anyone with the balls to come out and say “race X is a separate subspecies of Homo sapiens” - anything else is just many, many cites on what a subspecies is, how humans could be classified, but **not a single damn cite **that humans races actually qualify as such by particular enumerated taxonomical criteria.