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

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Chen019

In terms of who is a caucasion, in terms of your social construct definition presumably you mean people who self identify on that basis.

Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired. Perhaps that’s why so many of your cites contradict your assertions and why you’re often unable to answer basic questions when asked on multiple occasions.

I was asking your opinion of who were caucasians.

So, of the following groups, Italians, Lebanese, Moroccans, Persians, Pakistanis and Mexicans, which are “caucasians” and which aren’t and why?

Thanks

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

Like if China or Russia are paragons of justice, once again, I already posted examples from experts that report that it is not because of PC or pressure that geneticists are dropping the old definitions. Your canard here of saying that I’m not arguing in good faith is silly.
Until the ones that claim to be superior to others drop the issue.

What’s justice got to do with biology? I think you’re confused.

And I’m now confused by your approach to affirmative action - which “ones” are you referring to? Which “others”?

[Blake]

LOL.

Get a load of this folks:

@Chen019

genetic distances for population pairs with one population (eg …South Asia) and the other in East Asia are greater than those for pairs at equivalent geographic distance within …South Asia or within East Asia.

@Blake

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…

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.

@Chen019

Leroi is pointing out that [the Andamanese] are their own particular racial group.

Is this the most schizoid posting style these boards have ever seen?
Chen: All south Asians are the same race, they are all closely related and all share patently obvious morphologies.

Blake: Pakistanis and Andamanese are both South Asians. Care to provide some evidence for this claim that Pakistanis and Andamanese are the same race, are closely related and share patently obvious morphologies?

Chen: Sure here. Leroi is pointing out that the Andamanese are their own particular racial group. He notes that the Andamanese are not at all closely related to Pakistanis, and that they have their a morphology utterly unlike that of Pakistanis. That proves that Pakistanis and Andamanese are the same race, are closely related and share patently obvious morphologies.

This is the funniest thing that I have read in years.

Please keep doing this Chen. The quality of your argument, your inability to accurately represent the references and the total batshit insanity of your position becomes more apparent with each post.

And it has given me the best laugh I have had all week.

Well done. More please.

[Chen019]

@Ibn_Warraq

Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.

Well, I just explained to you why your comment about no one denying race was a social construct still leaves you having to deal with real underlying biological groupings.

You ignored that. The queries about the other groups brings up the acknowledged reality that there are mixed zones in humans just as there are in other sub-species and races . In the context of that Time article they are referring to the UK, Germany & US as being predominantly caucasion. Who do you think they are referring to? People whose ancesters were born in Europe.

If you do a search on Google Scholar you’ll find the term caucasian is commonly used, particularly in relation to health research. The term generally isn’t even defined because it is taken as self evident - for example in NZ caucasian simply refers to those whose ancestry is from Europe.

I’m not sure if this article by Leroi can help clarify the point. Anyway dude, I will be back in a few days (am away with family - so will try to address your queries further then).

The identification of racial origins is not a search for purity. The human species is irredeemably promiscuous. We have always seduced or coerced our neighbors even when they have a foreign look about them and we don’t understand a word. If Hispanics, for example, are composed of a recent and evolving blend of European, American Indian and African genes, then the Uighurs of Central Asia can be seen as a 3,000-year-old mix of West European and East Asian genes. Even homogenous groups like native Swedes bear the genetic imprint of successive nameless migrations.

Some critics believe that these ambiguities render the very notion of race worthless. I disagree. The physical topography of our world cannot be accurately described in words. To navigate it, you need a map with elevations, contour lines and reference grids. But it is hard to talk in numbers, and so we give the world’s more prominent features - the mountain ranges and plateaus and plains - names. We do so despite the inherent ambiguity of words. The Pennines of northern England are about one-tenth as high and long as the Himalayas, yet both are intelligibly described as mountain ranges.

Opinion | A Family Tree in Every Gene (Published 2005)

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

What’s justice got to do with biology? I think you’re confused.

And I’m now confused by your approach to affirmative action - which “ones” are you referring to? Which “others”?

Batting his eyes innocently and fooling no one with that item…

One should realize that for a long time that focusing on race is a property of authoritarian governments, and justice for people that should not be prejudged by the color of their skin or their ethnicity is still an issue, it is an item that can not be ignored.

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.

[Blake]

@Chen019

The term generally isn’t even defined because it is taken as self evident - for example in NZ caucasian simply refers to those whose ancestry is from Europe.

Really?

So all those Indian and Lebanese immigrants living in NZ are not considered to be Caucasian?

Fascinating.

Oh, BTW. Do you have any evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Preferably evidence that directly contradicts it, like your evidence that Andananese are not closely related to Pakistanis, which utterly demolished your own argument which was based on a claim that the two groups are closely related.

Preferably that sort of evidence. But if you can’t help us out that way, evidence that actually supports your position is acceptable.

I look forward to seeing you attempt to weasel out of providing this evidence too.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Chen019

Well, I just explained to you why your comment about no one denying race was a social construct still leaves you having to deal with real underlying biological groupings.

Once again, your reading comprehension skills have failed dramatically.

I’m asking YOUR OPINION of who is and isn’t caucasian.

Now, since either ignorance or unwillingness prevents you from answering the question as to whether or not Italians, Lebanese, Moroccans, Persians, and Pakistanis are caucasian I’ll modify the question to make it easier.

What “race” is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

What “race” is Al Pacino?

What “race” is Andy Garcia?

What “race” is Cameron Diaz?

What “race” is Ben Kingsley?

What “race” is Mahmoud Abbas?

What “race” is Will Smith?

What “race” is Alex Rodriguez?

thanks

[MrDibble]

@Chuck11

Non-human populations are often classified on the basis of “piddly morphological differences.”

Such as?

I’m not sure how classifications work for domesticated animals. Typically the subgroups are called breeds. What’s the difference between subspecies and breeds?

The difference is that “breed” isn’t a meaningful scientific term. All cats are one subspecies (Felis silvestris catus) of a species that has (IIRC) 3 extant subspecies.

Is the latter a sub-subspecies?

No. That is a pretty meaningless taxonomic distinction.

If human races were defined as ‘breeds’ instead of ‘subspecies’ would that makes them ‘not biologically real’?

Yes, pretty much. "In zoology, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th edition, 1999) accepts only one rank below that of species, namely the rank of subspecies " Other infrasubspecific taxa are used, of course, subdivision is often useful, but they have no taxonomic weight. “sub-subspecies” isn’t a valid classification for any non-ad-hoc purpose.

Anyways, the difference between human geographic populations, at least non-continetal ones, can be relatively substantial.

No, they’re really not, as has been pointed out and cited many, many times in this thread and others. Yes, populations vary, but they vary for different metrics differently, there’s no consistency between the clusters that maps to any population group.

[Chuck11]

Blake,

I guess that we’re going to have to go through this point by point.

Do members of the geographic populations ‘share a unique natural history’?

Obviously. As evidenced by the genetic differentiation.

You criticized my statement, that:

Natural history refers to historic population migration patters.

I was in a rush when writing, as evidenced by my misspelling of ‘patterns.’ What I meant was: “Unique natural histories’ refer to the result of historic population migration patterns.” What I wrote though should have conveyed the point. ‘Refer,’ by the way, does not mean ‘mean’.

For example. Take a look at the Leopards. Phylogeographic Subspecies Recognition in Leopards (Panthera pardus): Molecular Genetic Variation. There was migration out of Africa and across Asia. Because of different migration patterns, different populations have unique natural histories. This is
evidenced by genetic differentiation.

In what why do you think that Leopard subspecies have a ‘unique natural history’ that major human populations don’t.

At least you didn’t quibble over my spelling of ‘patterns.’

[Chuck11]

@MrDibble

Such as?The difference is that “breed” isn’t a meaningful scientific term. All cats are one subspecies (Felis silvestris catus) of a species that has (IIRC) 3 extant subspecies.No. That is a pretty meaningless taxonomic distinction. Yes, pretty much. "In zoology, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th edition, 1999) accepts only one rank below that of species, namely the rank of subspecies " Other infrasubspecific taxa are used, of course, subdivision is often useful, but they have no taxonomic weight. “sub-subspecies” isn’t a valid classification for any non-ad-hoc purpose.No, they’re really not, as has been pointed out and cited many, many times in this thread and others. Yes, populations vary, but they vary for different metrics differently, there’s no consistency between the clusters that maps to any population group.

(1) Biological reality.

“Biologically real,” at least as the term is used in the philosophy of science, isn’t the same as “being a valid taxonomic group according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.” A while ago, I pointed to a cladistic defense of the race concept. Here the ‘biological reality’ of race was being defended, not the taxonomic validity, at least by the International Code, of the classification.

Many contemporary race scholars maintain that races are biologically unreal.6 What they usually mean by this is that folk racial categories (such as blacks, whites, and Asians) are biologically uninteresting. They are explanatorily and predictively weak in the natural sciences – especially when it comes to explaining or predicting biologically based socially significant traits. Several arguments have been used in support of this view. Two of the most persuasive are what I call the ‘independent variation argument’ and the ‘genetic argument’.

My point here is only that the concepts “biologically real” and “taxonomically valid” are not equivalent.

(2) Piddly differences.

Come on.

[QUOTE[There are several ways to distinguish one tiger subspecies from another. However, in some cases the differences are very subtle. Even tiger biologists cannot always say for certain to which subspecies a particular tiger belongs simply by looking at its appearance.

The main differences are in size, color, and coat]
(minnesotazoo.org).
[/QUOTE]

[Ibn_Warraq]

Hi Chuck. You called a distinguished well-respected professor of Anthropology at SUNY “a moron”.

For the third time, please give us your credentials and explain why you can make such a strong claim without backing it up.

Thanks

[Chuck11]

@MrDibble

No, they’re really not, as has been pointed out and cited many, many times in this thread and others. Yes, populations vary, but they vary for different metrics differently, there’s no consistency between the clusters that maps to any population group.

Some other comments:

(3) Breed.

You say: “The difference is that “breed” isn’t a meaningful scientific term.”

I think you mean “Isn’t a meaningful taxonomic term.” I don’t know what “Isn’t a meaningful scientific term” means. There surely are scientific studies on breeds.. For example.. Are these studies somehow unscientific because ‘breed’ doesn’t refer to a taxonomic class. This seems like the confusion in (1).

(4) Human differences.

In response to my claim that differences are substantial, you said: “No, they’re really not, as has been pointed out and cited many, many times in this thread and others. Yes, populations vary, but they vary for different metrics differently, there’s no consistency between the clusters that maps to any population group.”

You make two points. As for the former, to judge whether differences between populations are “substantial” [my term] we need a metric. I would suggest just looking at the effect size of differences and using commonly used interpretations of these. For example, typically, a Cohen’s d of 0.5 to 0.8 is said to be medium to large. Well it’s not hard to find morphological differences with that magnitude or above. I already pointed to craniometric differences. But, no doubt, you are using a different metric.

As for your latter point, assuming we can talk about degrees of consistency, there clearly is some. This is shown by phenetic studies which use Mahalanobis D or MMD.

[Chuck11]

@Ibn_Warraq

Hi Chuck. You called a distinguished well-respected professor of Anthropology at SUNY “a moron”.

Get a life.

[Blake]

@Chuck11

Do members of the geographic populations ‘share a unique natural history’?

No, they do not, as I just explained , the term “natural history” can’t even be applied to humans in any way that makes sense.

Obviously. As evidenced by the genetic differentiation.

Since it has been conclusively established that there is greater genetic differentiation between members within these population than between the populations, this is quite clearly not true.

“Unique natural histories’ refer to the result of historic population migration patterns.” What I wrote though should have conveyed the point. ‘Refer,’ by the way, does not mean ‘mean’.

And since humans still don’t have any natural history, the statement is still utterly meaningless as applied to humans.

In what why do you think that Leopard subspecies have a ‘unique natural history’ that major human populations don’t.

In the way that leopards can have a natural history and humans can not.

For the third time, Natural History is neither more nor less than the observation of organisms in their natural environment. Since humans, by definition, can have no natural environment, humans can not have a natural history.

I don’t think you actually understand what “Natural History” is, do you?

Here’s the Wiki page. Read that, then tell us how the fuck Natural History can possibly be applied to humans.

For fuck’s sake, the term was created specifically to differentiate the field from that of human history.

[Marley23]

@Ibn_Warraq

Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.

Tone it down. This is much more of an insult than a comment on the argument or its failings.

@Chuck11

Get a life.

You were just told to stop doing this. I’m giving you a formal warning this time.

[orcenio]

nevermind

[Chuck11]

nevermind

[Blake]

@Chuck11

There surely are scientific studies on breeds.. For example.. Are these studies somehow unscientific because ‘breed’ doesn’t refer to a taxonomic class.

This has been covered at least 6 times already in this thread.

There are biological studies on the wearing of red shirts over blue shirts too.

Guess that makes red shirt wearers a biologically real grouping too. :rolleyes:

You make two points. As for the former, to judge whether differences between populations are “substantial” [my term] we need a metric. I would suggest just looking at the effect size of differences and using commonly used interpretations of these. For example, typically, a Cohen’s d of 0.5 to 0.8 is said to be medium to large. Well it’s not hard to find morphological differences with that magnitude or above. I already pointed to craniometric differences.

And we pointed out that craniometric differences do not map onto your races.

As for your latter point, assuming we can talk about degrees of consistency, there clearly is some. This is shown by phenetic studies which use Mahalanobis D or MMD.

Since that data that you cite here specifically shows that there is less craniometric variation between racial groups than there is within them, it directly refutes your position.
But any time that you want to introduce other evidence that shows that there is no significant physical variation between races, please do so.

[Chuck11]

Blake,

(1) Could you address the issue of ‘unique natural histories.’ I claimed that my populations meet this criteria. Do you still disagree? I’m hoping that we can clarify the subspecies issue point by point.

(2) You said:

There are biological studies on the wearing of red shirts over blue shirts too. Guess that makes red shirt wearers a biologically real grouping too.

I made three distinctions that I thought were pretty clear: a) “Biological reality” b) “taxonomic validity” and c) “scientific meaningfulness.” I would argue that “red-shirt-wearers” is a scientifically meaningful class – and therefore a scientifically meaningful term – even though its not a taxonomic valid class or a biologically real class.

Do you understand the distinctions? Did anyone else here not get my point?

3. You said:

And we pointed out that craniometric differences do not map onto your races.

Usage is important. Craniometric differences do map onto my races. (Whether they map perfectly is another issue – as it is, I never argued that they do map perfectly.) The relevance of this mapping is that these differences can be used to classify individuals into my populations. The relevance of this, in turn, is given by the following excerpt:

Mayr (1942) suggested that if at least 75% of individual within populations can be accurately differentiated from other populations within a species, these intraspecific groups may be described as subspecies. Classification accuracy was highest for p. paniscus, the only taxon not differentiated at the subspecies level, indicating that this taxon is most distinct from the others. Accuracy of classification was lowest or P.t. troglodytes and P.t. schweinfurhiil… (Pilbrow. Patterns of molar variation in great apes and their implication for homin taxonomy. In: Bailey and Hublin (Eds.), 2007. Dental perspectives on Human Evolution: State if the Art Research in Dental Paleoanthropology, 9-32. 2007)

Which refers to criteria (4) in our dispute about subspecies.

4. You said:

Since that data that you cite here specifically shows that… it directly refutes your position.

I have been very clear about my point. Refer back to (3). And, as I noted above, between Gorilla subspecies the craniometric variation is also greater within than between. This between/within issue is not relevant here.

5. You said:

But any time that you want to introduce other evidence that shows that there is no significant physical variation between races, please do so.

What can I say? I guess what I said before. To judge significance we need a metric. When it comes to ‘significant’ for subspecies classification, one metric is correct assignment into populations based on traits. Refer back to (3). One rule used – but often not used – is the 75% rule.

Some species are fairly uniform across their geographic ranges (monotypic). Others have well defined geographic variation and are divided into subspecies (polytypic). (Note that a species either has two or more subspecies or it has none. There is no such thing as a species with on subspecies.) Subspecies, by definition, are geographic segments of a species.; they are populations, and do not inhabit the same region. Well-marked morphs are not subspecies.

Mayr suggested that for populations to qualify as subspecies they must satisfy the 75% rule: 75% of individuals of one population or cluster must differ from all other individuals in the species. This is really a rule of thumb; there is some point along the continuum of geographic variation at which so many individual are recognizable that one can say that a population’s gene pool is significantly different from those of other populations in the species. (Groves, 2001. Why taxonomic stability is a bad idea, or why are there so few species of primates (or are there?)

One interpretation of this is just rate of correct classification. For example,

We performed discriminant analyses on 644 specimens and posed the following questions:

1. Can closely related species be distinguished consistently on the basis of morphology alone? We performed a discriminant analysis on the entire data set excluding the single specimen of Galago matschiei, and a series of separate analyses for each of the putative specific pairs or groups in the sample. We included all 8 characters in the initial analyses and regarded the specific identities of individuals as unknown; i.e., prior probabilities of group membership were equal. In addition, we compared taxa using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) in order to obtain a measure of significance regarding their overall differences from one another.

[…]Mayr (1969, p. 190) coined the 75% rule: for subspecies to be valid, 75% of the individuals of one population should differ from nearly all, i.e., 97% of the individuals of a second population. In most cases—with the notable exception of Galago senegalensis—our discriminations fall slightly short of this level, possibly reflecting the fact that Galago sspp. tend to be recognized by pelage characteristics instead of structural differences.

Individuals from 4 subspecies of Otolemur crassicaudatus could be distinguished with a 72% strike rate using all 8 characters. Dropping the weakest four variables reduced the probability to 68.6%. Significantly, ear length is one of the weakest discriminators (p ������ 0.27). The most informative characters are palatal length and tail length (p ������ 0.001). Hind foot length (p ������ 0.01) and snout width (p ������ 0.09) are somewhat less informative. (Masters and Bragg, 1999. Morphological Correlates of Speciation in Bush Babies)

So, if I’m interpreting this correctly, discriminate analysis is used to classify members into groups and if more than 75% of members can be correctly classified, the groups can be called subspecies. Right? Well, this is where the human craniometric data comes in.

Whatever the case, let’s deal with the “unique natural history” issue first. (I won’t be able to reply for a bit, so no rush.)

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Chuck11

Get a life.

I’m not sure what the personal insult is about.

Anyway, you accused a distinguished Professor of Anthropology speaking on his subject of study of being “a moron”.

That’s a really strong statement and if one is going to dismiss a respected academic speaking on the subject for which he’s a well-regarded expert it’s perfectly legitimate to expect one to provide fairly compelling evidence to back up such an assertion.

So, for the fourth and time, please explain your credentials and why you feel comfortable making such a strong assertion without providing any compelling evidence.

Thanks