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

[tomndebb]

@Chen019

Where you fail is that you overlook that human genetic variation consists of clines but also clusters, which is why STRUCTURE produces clusters that are repeatable and robust. Within clusters you might get a linear or clinal increase in genetic distance, but this isn’t the case across the major clusters. For example, genetic distances for population pairs with one population (eg European or South Asia) and the other in East Asia are greater than those for pairs at equivalent geographic distance within Europe/South Asia or within East Asia.

This is smoke and mirrors.

If “STRUCTURE” is so important, then why did your earlier example treat people who were “Italian, Armenian, Egyptian and Greek,” (and, hence, from the same cluster and, frankly, quite geographically close), as though they were vastly different?

Your definitions are so malleable and elastic as to be meaningless.

[Blake]

@Chen019

Apologies, my comment above wasn’t clear. I stated within the European or South Asian cluster, then later in the sentence referred to Europe/South Asia. I meant them as separate populations.

That doesn’t make your claims any bit less ridiculous.

You are now claiming that Andaman Islanders are the same race as Pakistanis, 4000 kilometres away. And because they are both South Asians, Admananese and Pakistanis are much more closely related genetically than Lensk regionSiberians, who are part of the European/South Asian group, are to Han Chinese.

You are also claiming that the European Kyrgistanis are more closely related genetically to the European inhabitants of Moscow, 3000km away, than they are to the inhabitants of East Asian Sichuan province, the same distance away. And of course that Kyrgistanis are morphologically the same as Muscovites, and morphologically distinguishable from Chinese.

That rephrasing doesn’t change anything at all. The claim is still just as ridiculous. And I am still calling you out.

Please provide evidence for your claim that the genetic distances between the European and East Asian population pair “Lensk Siberian” and “Han Chinese” is greater than those the South Asian population pair “Andamanese” and “Pakistani”. Both population pairs are at equivalent geographic distance.

Please provide evidence for your claim that the genetic distances between the European and East Asian population pair “Kyrgistani” and “Han Chinese” is greater than those the European population pair “Kyrgistani” and “Muscovite”. Both population pairs are at equivalent geographic distance.

You made the claim that genetic distances for population pairs with one European population and one East Asian are greater than those for pairs at equivalent geographic distance within South Asia.

I am calling bullshit on that claim.

Let’s see how Chen tries to weasel out of this one.

[MrDibble]

@Chen019

I’ve also provided definitions of race and subspecies that are commonly used in biology (O’Brien & Mayr 1991, Turtle Taxonomy 2007, Coyne etc). Using these, it seems that there are races within the species homo sapiens (humans aren’t special).

Oh, there are races within Homo sapiens, all right.

It’s just that only one of them is still living, the others are extinct.
Unless you can cite one example of a living human being who isn’t classified as species Homo sapiens sapiens in a scientific paper?

Jerry Coyne writes:

I already dealt with Coyne’s cognitive dissonance, thanks.

Coyne refers to morphologically distinguishable populations. As Sesardic notes above, forensic anthropologists can distinguish major groups (for example WW. Howell’s 6 geographic regions) on the basis of morphological features. For example, cranio-facial features.

Already dealt with craniofacial features re: East Africans, and other cites on environmental vs heritable factors in skull morphology.

Perhaps to bring this down to earth a little lets look at some sports teams. [snip]
Are there any patterns? Any morphological differences?

You tell us. Please, name the morphological features you’ve used.

(Note - yes these aren’t pure or fixed categories. No one said they were.

Umm, they aren’t categories at all. Just pictures. Because you haven’t listed the criteria for inclusion.

As with other races/sub-species zones of intergradation with mixed populations don’t invalidate the existence of races, it shows that you aren’t dealing with separate species).

yeah, no. When it’s more “intergradation” than “cluster”, it’s not really a valid subspecies. It’s a clinal continuum.

[Chen019]

@tomndebb

This is smoke and mirrors.

If “STRUCTURE” is so important, then why did your earlier example treat people who were “Italian, Armenian, Egyptian and Greek,” (and, hence, from the same cluster and, frankly, quite geographically close), as though they were vastly different?

Your definitions are so malleable and elastic as to be meaningless.

I would say the same about your claim that Coyne “fails” because there is some degree of gene flow between groups that you describe as clinal. The geographic separation was none theless significant enough for as Coyne puts it “patently obvious” morphological differences amongst the major groups - sufficient for racial categorization in other species.

I mean imagine if we had this kind of hairsplitting with other species? So elastic as to be meaningless? Tell that to the Turtle Taxonomy Group. I suppose there are no races of Turtle given that when identifying the “major patterns of variation”, the word “major” is in their words, “elusive”.

“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).”

What are the major patterns of variation within the human species? According to Risch they occur between the major racial groups:

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…

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.

[Blake]

@Chen019

The geographic separation was none theless significant enough for as Coyne puts it “patently obvious” morphological differences amongst the major groups - sufficient for racial categorization in other species.

If morphological differences are patently obvious, then why can’t you name the morphological features?

[MrDibble]

@Chen019

I would say the same about your claim that Coyne “fails” because there is some degree of gene flow between groups that you describe as clinal. The geographic separation was none theless significant enough for as Coyne puts it “patently obvious” morphological differences amongst the major groups - sufficient for racial categorization in other species.

Really? I was unaware that curly-haired dogs are considered a different subspecies from straight-haired dogs. Or black cats were considered a separate subspecies from gingers.

Since that seems to be the level of morphological difference you’re using in your “I know it when I see it” approach to human subspecies differentiation. But feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, and you’re using an entirely different set of features.

[Chuck11]

@Blake

I have.

Now, some simple questions:

1. Did you claim that the paper delinaeated humans based upon continental origin?

2. Does the paper at any point delineate humans based upon continental origin?

Blake,

Your petty games are tiring. The major populations that we’re referring to (e.g.,Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Australoids, Negroids, and Amerindoids) are frequently referred to as continental races, continental ancestry groups, or continental populations. In this context, the adjective ‘continental’ is being used to modify ‘population clusters’ and to distinguish those major ones (which overlap with continents) from minor subregional ones. Chen is on good standing here. Given that we are stating the populations in reference, and given the common usage of the term ‘continental’ in this context, is it really necessary to qualify the term (e.g., ‘in both Americans,’ ‘below the Sahara’)? I think not.

Can’t come up with a good counterargument can you? I’ve been waiting since I roasted you in that last StraightDope race discussion.

[GIGObuster]

@Chuck11

Blake,

Your petty games are tiring. The major populations that we’re referring to (e.g.,Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Australoids, Negroids, and Amerindoids) are frequently referred to as continental races, continental ancestry groups, or continental populations. In this context, the adjective ‘continental’ is being used to modify ‘population clusters’ and to distinguish those major ones (which overlap with continents) from minor subregional ones. Chen is on good standing here. Given that we are stating the populations in reference, and given the common usage of the term ‘continental’ in this context, is it really necessary to qualify the term (e.g., ‘in both Americans,’ ‘below the Sahara’)? I think not.

Can’t come up with a good counterargument can you? I’ve been waiting since I roasted you in that last StraightDope race discussion.

One could even doubt about your definition of a roast coming from you. **Blake **may be annoying, but he is annoyingly correct here and also in the past when dealing with you.

BTW Google vomit is still a vomit even if it comes from Google scholar, as the first link tell us:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb022863

As a way to categorize humans, race has since come to take on a wide range of meanings, mixing social and biologic ingredients in varied proportions. This plasticity has made it a tool that fits equally well in the hands of demagogues who want to justify genocide and eugenics

So yeah, I do not think that will help your position by reminding all where many of the ones wishing to a return to the old ways are coming from, geneticists drop old definitions of race not just because of PC (although that is a factor) but because old human definitions of race are not very useful.

What Our Genes Tell Us About Race

Racial conflict has long been a part of human societies. Along with that conflict has come frequent speculation (most famously, but not exclusively among whites with European ancestry) that one race is inferior to another. Some have been worried that modern genetics would substantiate that belief, but our best genetic evidence to date shows those worries unfounded. Genetics does play a large role in the diversity we find among human beings. That diversity, in spite of some dramatic but superficial exceptions like skin color, is shared in common among all races.

Feelings and wishful thinking does not make good science as **MrDibble **points out.

[Chuck11]

@GIGObuster

One could even doubt about your definition of a roast coming from you. **Blake **may be annoying, but he is annoyingly correct here and also in the past when dealing with you.

I already mentioned the 5 classical races: Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Australoids, Negroids, and Amerindoids. Could someone explain to me why these groups couldn’t — or couldn’t recently — qualify as subspecies, given how many non-human populations are classified? The geographic race criteria is: (a) share a unique geographical range or habitat, (b) share a group of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, (c) share a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species, and (d) differ taxonomically from other subdivisions of the species (O’Brien and Mayr (1991). Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies). There is no consensus on what (d) means. But one measure is the 75% rule. Which has been interpreted a number of ways. And one interpretation is simply that members of a population can be assigned correctly to their population with greater than 75% accuracy (Bodmer and Cavalli-sforza, 1976; Wright, 1984; Remsen, 2010). So, for example, Sewall Wright noted in his magnum opus: “There is also no question, however, that populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered to be of different subspecies by the usual criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection.” Mayr (2002) noted: “And the geographic races of the human races – established before the voyages of European discovery and subsequent rise of a global economy – agree in most characteristics with the geographic races of animals. (“The biology of race and the concept of equality.”) Humans can obviously be accurately classified into the above mentioned groups, for example, by craniometric and dentition (e.g, Relethford, 2009). And the human populations mentioned obviously meet the other criteria. Hence these 5 races can, consistent with the criteria, rules, and standards applied to many non-human populations, be objectively called races qua subspecies.

Show me where I’m in error.

[GIGObuster]

Simply put, you do not read cites.

By the measure of genes though, humans are amazingly uniform. Humans are genetically less diverse than chimps, and both chimps and humans are much less diverse than a common species of fruit fly. Given our species’ long history of racial conflict, our genetic uniformity may come as a surprise. Not too long ago people in polite company would debate whether different human races really all belonged to one species. Our DNA tells us that our genetic differences don’t even come close to matching the variety found within a single, apparently monotonous fruit fly species.

As pointed out many times before, there is no agreement on what old fashion definition of race should be used, the only thing you are reduced to is to give us quotes with not much of a context and usually the attempt at used the old definitions are not followed by many other researchers, not much traction there regardless of your wishful thoughts.

[Chuck11]

@Chuck11

But one measure is the 75% rule. Which has been interpreted a number of ways.

I should note that frequently no quantitative criteria is set. For example Remsen (2010) notes:

[…]Although the 75% rule has a long history in ornithology, its application has been erratic at best. For example, it is generally not mentioned as a criterion for recognizing subspecies in classifica- tions (e.g., American Ornithologists’ Union 1957, Dickinson 2003) or in any of the Handbook of the World series (del hoyo et al. 1992–2008). It is not possible to tell how many of the subspecies currently recognized in such sources would qualify as subspecies under the 75% rule, but it is certain that many subspecies, especially in North America, would not qualify as valid taxa under this rule, particularly those defined by mensural differences. From personal experience in attempting to use subspecies diagnoses, such as the keys in the Birds of North and Middle America series (ridg way and Friedmann 1901–1950), I predict that more than 75% of North American subspecies taxa delimited by mensural data would not survive application of the 75% rule. (Subspecies as a meaningful taxonomic rank in avian classifications)

This only strengthens my case that by the geographic race concept, the said human populations qualify as races, given the diagnostic criteria and standards applied when it comes to non-human populations. I understand that some of you have a problem with the relative ambiguity and arbitrariness involved in subspecies delineation. But that’s not a problem specific to humans.

[Telemark]

@GIGObuster

Simply put, you do not read cites.

They may, but they hope that others won’t. This pattern has been going on for a long time with several posters. Thank you for taking the bullet and doing all the leg work.

[GIGObuster]

@Chuck11

I should note that frequently no quantitative criteria is set. For example Remsen (2010) notes:

This only strengthens my case that by the geographic race concept, the said human populations qualify as races, given the diagnostic criteria and standards applied when it comes to non-human populations. I understand that some of you have a problem with the relative ambiguity and arbitrariness involved in subspecies delineation. But that’s not a problem specific to humans.

Meh, as pointed before you need to cite a genetic scientific group where all follow that delineation, do you have any?

[Chuck11]

@GIGObuster

Simply put, you do not read cites.

There’s data and there’s interpretations. For example, I’ve cited Relethford (2009) in defense of taxonomic human races. But here is his interpretation of the data, in whole:

Craniometric variation is geographically structured, allowing high levels of classification accuracy when comparing crania from different parts of the world. Nonetheless, the boundaries in global variation are not abrupt and do not fit a strict view of the race concept; the number of races and the cutoffs used to define them are arbitrary. The race concept is at best a crude first-order approximation to the geographically structured phenotypic variation in the human species

.

There is no actual conflict, of course, because we are talking about different things. Relethford finds the application of ‘race’ to specific human populations to be arbitrary – I don’t. In my view, such an application is consistent with the standards used for non-human populations, and therefore not arbitrary. Whether those non-human standards are, themselves, arbitrary is, to my mind, another issue.

So in regards to the Blake-Chen debate concerning the use of ‘continental race/ancestry/population’ to describe ‘the major population clusters which overlap with continents’ as opposed to ‘populations strictly defined by continental origin,’ I cited references which used ‘continental’ in the former sense. My point was simply to show that Chen is in good standing with his usage and that Blake is playing games. I never suggested that the authors of the cited papers agreed with Chen’s position, just usage.
That should have been obvious.

[Chuck11]

@GIGObuster

As pointed out many times before, there is no agreement on what old fashion definition of race should be used, the only thing you are reduced to is to give us quotes with not much of a context and usually the attempt at used the old definitions are not followed by many other researchers…

Ok, as pointed out before in previous discussions, I agree that there is no agreement. And I agree that by many race concepts, human populations aren’t meaningfully racinated. And I even agree that by more conservative usages of the geographic race concept, in particular, they aren’t. I’m not treating ‘race’ as an ontological category, like some here. It’s a classification schema. This is why I’ve never understood the statement that ‘There are no human races.’ What does that mean? That there are no human racial classification schemas? That’s silly. The best interpretation of this statement that I could come up with is: “That human populations don’t qualify as races given a commonly used classification schema employed for non-human populations.” I’ve been trying to show that this statement is false. I haven’t been trying to show that ‘There are human races’ in the sense that ‘Human races are ontological categories’ or something else.

[Chuck11]

@GIGObuster

Meh, as pointed before you need to cite a genetic scientific group where all follow that delineation, do you have any?

What are you asking for? I don’t know what “genetic scientific group” means.

[MrDibble]

Once again - if black cats and ginger cats are the same subspecies, and curly-haired dogs and straight-haired dogs are the same subspecies, why would the similar piddly morphological differences between various human geographic populations qualify them for subspecies status?

[iiandyiiii]

If race were to have any meaningful instructive value, mustn’t Africa contain numerous, and probably the majority, of human races, considering that (as many have stated and cited) Africa contains more genetic variation then the rest of the world combined?

[Chuck11]

@MrDibble

Once again - if black cats and ginger cats are the same subspecies, and curly-haired dogs and straight-haired dogs are the same subspecies, why would the similar piddly morphological differences between various human geographic populations qualify them for subspecies status?

Non-human populations are often classified on the basis of “piddly morphological differences.” I’m not sure how classifications work for domesticated animals. Typically the subgroups are called breeds. What’s the difference between subspecies and breeds? Is the latter a sub-subspecies? If human races were defined as ‘breeds’ instead of ‘subspecies’ would that makes them ‘not biologically real’?

Anyways, the difference between human geographic populations, at least non-continetal ones, can be relatively substantial. Sarich discusses this in “Race: The reality of human differences”:

In a debate, I made the flat statement that “racial morphological distances within our species are, on average, about equal to the distances among species within other genera of mammals. I am not aware of another mammalian species whose constitute races are as strongly marked as they are in ours.” …But I left it there for years until I was able to get some ape measurements from Colin Groves of the Australian National University in Canberra. Our data set was the cranial/facial measurements on 29 human populations, 2,500 individuals, 28 measurements, from W.W Howells at Harvard; 17 measurements on 347 chimpanzees (Groves). Chimps are generally divided into two species (the pygmy chimpanzee, or bonobo, Pan paniscus; and the common chimp or P. troglodytes), which has three subspecies (races if one wishes): troglodytes, verus, and schweinfurthii. There is less agreement on gorillas, but there are two distinct groups, probably species, Gorilla gorilla in the west and four closely related groups in the east.

The metric I have used is the percent difference per size corrected measurement (expressed in standard deviation units), and the numbers given are the percent increases in distance going from within-group to between-group comparisons of individuals. Thus, the increase in average distance in going from the paired comparisons of two males to similar comparisons for male and female parings in some human populations is about 1-2.5 percent: for example, for Zulu, 1.15 percent; Australia, 1.87 percent; and Santa Cruz Island (California), 2.16 percent.

For pygmy chimps, the corresponding increase for male-female versus male-male comparison is 4.7 percent; for comparison chimps it is 10.4 percent. These figures are consistent with the general sense that the degree of sexual dimorphism increases as we go from humans to pygmy chimps to common chimps.

Comparing distances among the three common chimp subspecies or race (for male) gives about 6 percent between verus and either schweinfurthii or troglodytes, and 1.6 percent (which is essentially noise level) between the latter two. From bonobo to verus is about 20 percent; to troglodytes, 14.6 percent; and to schweinfurthii, 8.8 percent. These three bonobo morphological distances are correlated with the corresponding geographical distances, and one has to wonder to what extent the smaller paniscus-schweinfurthii number is due to parallel evolution and how much gene flow between the two sometimes after the basic chimp-bonobo split occurred. Neither I nor anyone else as yet presumes to have the answer to that one.

For gorillas the basic split is between the western from (G. gorilla) and four eastern populations (three race of G. graueri and G. berengi, the “mountain gorilla”); those percents are 17.3, 19.8, 22.9, and 24.7, respectively. Between graueri race 1 and the other three eastern forms, the percentages are 7.9, 12.8, and 12.3. Between graueri race 2 and the others, the differences are 4 percent and 11.1 percent. Between graueri race 3 and berrngi, the difference is 8.4 percent.

Those are the ape numbers I’ve calculated to date. What about humans? These data come from comparing three African samples: the Dogon of Mali, the Teita (Kenyan Bantu speakers), and the South African Bushman. The percentages are Dogon to Teita, 9.9, Dogon to Bushman, 13.4, and Teita to Bushman, 14.9. The the Dogon or Teita to Bushman “racial” distance is very much like the 14,6 percent separating two chimpanzee species (using the P. t. troglodytes to bonobo number.) Similar percentages (16.3 and 15.5, respectively) are obtained when comparing a sample from Hokaido (Japanese, not Ainu) and the two Amerindian groups (the Arikara from South Dakota and a sample from Santa Cruz Island). Other comparisons that help put these distances in perspective are South Australian to Tolai (a New Britain group), 10 percent; Dogon to Norse, 19.4 percent; and South Australian to Norse, 26 percent.

The largest distance among chimpanzees or gorillas (the 24.7 percent between G. gorilla and G. berengi) is slightly less than that separating Howells’s Norse and the South Australian sample (26.1 percent), but even this doesn’t begin the exhaust the range of human variation. The largest differences in Howells’s sample are found when comparing Africans with either Asians or Asian-derived (Amerindian) populations. Thus Teita to Tierra del Fuegans is 32,4 percent; Zulu to Tierra del Fuegans or Santa Cruz yields about 36 percent. The largest difference for any of the human data sets is 46 percent, which comes from comparing Teita with Buriat (who live in the Lake Baikal area and speak a Mongolian language).

I will also note here that putting these results on a bell curve would mean that each increase of 15 percent in distance is worth one standard deviation, and that the absolute within-group variation does not vary significantly among the three genera (humans, chimps, gorillas) involved. To my knowledge, these are the first such comparisons to be made (and the first time any such data have been published). The results seem well worth the effort.

Who would have predicted that the racial morphological distance in our species could be much greater than any seen among chimpanzees or gorillas, or, on the average, some tenfold greater than those between the sexes? I think it fair to say no one…
So now we have some useful numbers that help to solve the matter of whether the degree of variation in morphological features is high, low, or just middling. The answer cannot be known without having a standard of comparison available. Here the chimp and gorilla can be the standards. The two chimpanzee species differ from each other by about 15 percent on the morphological distance scale, and, a comparable pair of human populations are the Japanese and Arikara..

I’m not sure what the average phenetic (craniometric) difference is between major populations. The craniometric FST is around .12, as compared to a between Gorilla FST of about .2 (page 1058).

[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
If race were to have any meaningful instructive value, mustn’t Africa contain numerous, and probably the majority, of human races, considering that (as many have stated and cited) Africa contains more genetic variation then the rest of the world combined?
[/QUOTE]

Not sure what “instructive value” means. It would be nice to know how much of the genetic difference within Africans is neutral.

[GIGObuster]

Sarich?

Redirect Notice

(PDF) file

The authors simply postulate without evidence that brain size correlates with intelligence in modern populations, despite common statements to the contrary, on the basis that such a correlation clearly does exist in a very crude way in the sequence of our prehistoric ancestors. But the two points are not comparable. Different contemporary brain sizes reflect variance within a population; prehistoric samples are about changes across populations over very large amounts of time during which almost nothing is known about variance within populations.
The correlation of “race” and measured IQ with individual or international wealth and success that they note is probably correct-- but is hardly indicative of the direction of cause. Given what we know of the effects of poverty and social environments on IQ, the causality they imply is very probably backward.
I picked up the book genuinely interested in what evidence a man of the Sarich’ stature might bring to the debate, and how it might change my own perception of the subject. I was frankly concerned that the authors might provide evidence that would seriously challenge my own beliefs about both race and IQ. But by the end I was laughing at the ineptitude of the argument. I find it astonishing and appalling that such an inherently silly book has gotten the positive attention it has; and I am very bitter that such a poor effort would again raise the racist specter of Black inferiority. And judging by some popular reviews it has done just that.

-Mark Nathan Cohen, SUNY University Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, SUNY Plattsburgh, NY

So yeah, just so you stop playing the “I do not get it card” what I’m saying is that you need to point at scientific groups that agree to use the old fashion definitions because history shows that the ones proposing that are not getting much respect where it counts.